Clever New Windows Worm

freakboy303 sent in linkage to a new worm that will no doubt be cluttering our inboxes soon. Clever bits include running its own SMTP service to increase chance of success, as well as using a bunch of spaces to disguise the true extension of the executable. No doubt countless copycats will soon follow and our inboxes will be cluttered by countless copies of the thing. Not that there's a problem with windows security.

Comments

Without Outlook?

[krony]

"The worm utilises it's own SMTP engine so it does not depend on Outlook for e-mail sending."

Not even a virus can depend on Outlook anymore...

:-P

Re:Am I the only one...?

[Tackhead]

> Are the people I converse with in email just cooler/smarter than everyone else

At the risk of stroking the collective /. ego, yeah, they are.

Canonical example - someone who got Sircammed at work, came to me and said they were having trouble opening up this attachment someone had sent them, and they wondered why someone sent it to them in the first place.

I did my best "All your base!" voice and said "I send you this file to have your advice!"

Cow orker said "Yeah, hey, how did you know that? Are you reading my mail?"

Another admin and I spent the next hour disinfecting 0wn3d box3n from other cow orkers who had done the same thing.

Looks like a hoax

[sphix42]

I didn't see any misspelled words in the sample email at that link...this is an obvious hoax.

Is a 6ft-deep pothole in front of your car "news?"

[Tsar]

For us Windows users, reports of new security issues seem to come as often as potholes on an Arkansas highway. Like the potholes, looking for the next one isn't all that interesting or entertaining, but we still have to try to avoid them or at least minimize their impact.

"Net access: $20/mo. -- Electricity for computer: $20/mo. -- Reaching the 50 Karma cap: Priceless"
I'm at the karma cap, and I've been oscillating between 47 and 50 for some time. Does anyone else in that situation agree with my Modest Karma Proposal?

Slashdot demagoguery, or troll snacks?

[eddy the lip]

I simply assumed that people on Slashdot are above those biases.

and i simply assume most people have a sense of humour, but we don't all get what we want, do we?

sure, i know that windows isn't complete crap - hell, i can admit it's gotten pretty useful in the last couple revisions. i've even been known to use it to play the occasional game. but i don't come to /. for flat, ZDNET style reporting. i come to it for useful links and snide comments.

i also come here to do this once in a while:

is this bugging you? poke poke poke.

Re:problem with the users

[Mike Schiraldi]

I wonder if, say, construction workers, when building a shopping mall, say stuff like, "Man, we have to put railings up? Come on, what kind of idiot would just walk off the edge and plummet to the floor below? Stupid users."

"What? Circuit breakers? What sort of moron would overload a circuit? Who needs circuit breakers? Stupid users."

Re:So

[Tower]

Hmmm, I thought there was already a patent for that. Something like:

Method and Apparatus for delivery of a self-replicating bytestream through use of a square port number and excessive white space.

Couldn't find it on the patent search site, though ;)

Still waiting for the LEGAL virus.

[Restil]

Imagine if you will....

You get an email with an executable attachment.

The attachment executes automatically, because we WANT it to do that.

Upon execution, a EULA pops up, with a "licence agreement" that states the following:
- The program being executed will automatically forward itself to a significant number of people using a variety of means
- Some type of modification will take place to your file system.
- By clicking OK you AUTHORIZE this to happen, and claim full responsibility for any damage that
is caused as a result.

And most importantly, if the cancel button is pressed, the program won't execute.

Chances are good that 90% of the people who would be affected by an illegal virus will just as happily click OK without reading anything. The fact of the matter is, the virus will cause the same amount of damage, but the author could probably plaster his name all over it and not fear any legal repercussions.

Of course, there's always the issue of intent. Bottom line, authorized or not, the INTENT of the program was to cause havok of the same nature as a virus. But in the end, it would sure make an idiot out of anyone who spread it.

And maybe, just maybe, it MIGHT result in people actually READING the EULA's. Yeah.. I know.. I'm dreaming.

-Restil