"Apple fans besieged" compared to what Windows machines? Slight exaggeration maybe...?

So it's not actually an iPhone Trojan (that would be newsworthy), but a new way of distributing Windows trojans...

Way to misrepresent a story - do El Reg actually have any editorial standards left nowadays?

Let the iMudslinging begin.

(My money's on Webster for first post here.)

Are you guys feeling okay? "Apple fans besieged by iPhone Trojan..." and then "The malware has no effect when opened on [the] Jesus Phone".

So, erm, they're not besieged at all, because the 'trojen' is a harmless piece of binary attachment, which has no more of an attacking effect than any other legit email.

Come on, El Reg, I know you guys like picking on the iPhone and Apple, but this is really clutching at straws.

Only in your last sentence do you state that the trojan does NOT affect Macs. This is shoddy Red Top journalism.

"mwahahahaha-ha!!!"

"...umm, oh, you mean this is a public forum!? uhem, sorry folks, don't worry we'll fix this one some time, just keep buying our stuff - by the way, have you seen our new nanos..."

"phew! that was close..."

... couldn't happen to a better set of users.

How exactly can 'Apple fans' be 'besiged' by a remote possibility?

"The malware has no effect when opened on either a Mac or Jesus Phone, as explained in a write-up of the attack of a Sophos security blog "

So, actually, this is an attack on WINtards then?

Any chance of a fanboy icon? Perhaps a picture of a geek frothing at the mouth like Cujo.

"APPLE FANS BESIEGED BY IPHONE TROJAN"

Misleading title. It's not an iPhone Trojan - it's one targetting Windoze users (as usual). Your headline implies that the trojan affects iPhones, when in fact only the email subject matter is iPhone/Apple related.

"Apple fans are under attack on multiple fronts."

'multiple' = 'several' = 'more than two' - you only describe 1 issue which affects Apple software users - not necessarily fans.

Also, the Trojan exploit isn't just besieging only "Apple fans", unless spammers are getting very clever with targetting their emails nowadays.

I get trojan-loaded spam about everything from Paris Hilton to Viagra - however, that doesn't make me a fan of either.

"In other Apple-related security news,"

No... "In other Windows gets another trojan news".

OK, admit it, you used the El Reg "feature" of being able to sign up with the same nickname as an existing user (anyone else puzzled by that one?).

Stop posing as Webster, or if you are going to at least vent some spleen!

'nuff said

The iPodService.exe (sp?) service runs as LocalSystem and iTunesHelper.exe runs as the user currently logged on. These things probably communicate with each other.

Can this combination result in a privilege elevation exploit due to this or some other vulnerability? Because this would be a "critical" problem to me, as it could grant admin access to non-admins, and allow all sorts of abuse.

How can Apple Fans be affected? Surely a real fan would be using a Mac.

Perhaps "Windows using iPhone users" didn't sound quite so sensationalist.

Ditto,

but I pre-date you in your use of a Mac. I started in 1987. It's so long ago that I really do not remember the OS release number - might have been 1.x.x. What I DO remember is that when things went wrong (usually extensions) it was an absolute nightmare to fix. There was no equivalent to the DOS prompt, but once a year crashes v once a month with Windoze it was still a no-brainer.

For what it's worth I sat opposite a guy on a train during this week who was using a really cute PC and asked him what it was. It turned out to be one of those really cute PCs that use really cute flash drives that you can buy for really cute silly money. It then turned out that he supports Windoze machines all day long, but uses a Mac at home.

"I got so pissed off with supporting Windows during the day, I just wanted to get home to a system that actually works". I am not making that up.

C'mon Phreaky, bring it on!

iTunes uses services on OSX as well, or hadn't that occurred to you?

Both need to run in a semi-privileged state and so both are in fact susceptible to determined hacking and prodding.

My security recommendations are thus:

Cover all windows with 1" plate steel, not only do windows let people see inside, but employees can see outside. Bad idea.

Remove all batteries from laptops and shut down all electricity. A computer that is off is more secure.

Remove all employees ears, eyes and each individual's larynx. An employee that can hear, see and talk is a potential risk. Consider removing fingertips to avoid Braille use in particularly sensitive areas.

Sequester all employees in house. interaction with family and friends can be dangerous and must be avoided.

As a last resort in highly secure areas inside your company it is recommenced that the deceased be used as they are quite adept and keeping their secrets. You local cemetery will have a large supply of these. It is preferred that you use corpses that have been interred for at least 50 years or more.

Even though I do not care for Apple Macs, iPhone, etc., this article is absolutely misleading and horrible. It had nothing to do with iPhone attacks. It would have been better to put "SEX" on the title to lure readers to the article ... at least the cold shower would be worth it.

"iTunes uses services on OSX as well, or hadn't that occurred to you?"

I wasn't going to say anything. I figured the Mac fan boys would've figured that out.

Anyway, somehow I don't see the need for an MP3 music player to have LocalSystem privileges on a PC. Or root privs on a Mac, for that matter. And my mother wonders why I wouldn't buy an iPod for myself.

Anyone want to trade a generic MP3 player for an overpriced status symbol?

As I read the article there is one vuln in iTunes/Quick Time that COULD be used on any browser and a separate wrapping of a different one that attacks windows.

Not quite what most comments assume.

"By Gordon Fecyk Posted Friday 19th September 2008 15:00 GMT

The iPodService.exe (sp?) service runs as LocalSystem and iTunesHelper.exe runs as the user currently logged on. These things probably communicate with each other.

Can this combination result in a privilege elevation exploit due to this or some other vulnerability? Because this would be a "critical" problem to me, as it could grant admin access to non-admins, and allow all sorts of abuse."

Personally i disable both.

"I pre-date you in your use of a Mac. I started in 1987. It's so long ago that I really do not remember the OS release number"

It was 6.0.4 when I got my first Mac-Plus in 1987. Ran in just 1MB of RAM.

The only attacks are from El Reg. Jesus Phone? Still?

Contemporise, man.