Slashdot Mirror


Klez, The Virus that Keeps on Giving

kylus writes "Wired is running a story about the continued escapades of the Klez virus, and the damage--both to finances and reputations--that it is leaving behind. Between emails from a dead friend and porno spam appearing to be sent from a priest, I think "Don't Believe the 'From' Line" is the correct lesson." God bless microsoft email viruses. I'm on a modem for a few weeks and downloading countless megs of mail viruses is extremely frusterating. Course I'm still getting sircams.

683 comments

  1. I get to ingratiate myself to future mom-in-law by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

    So I have something to be thankful to MS for.

  2. Virus writers and spammers by Vicegrip · · Score: 4, Funny

    May they spend the rest of eternity having to listen to Oral Roberts sermons

    --
    Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    1. Re:Virus writers and spammers by 56ker · · Score: 2

      Who's Oral Roberts?

    2. Re:Virus writers and spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until the authors of spaming software pick up on this and add self-propigating messages as a feature.

    3. Re:Virus writers and spammers by bmooney28 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or for a touch of irony, may they recieve 1000's of unsolicited telemarketers per week to their unlisted home numbers, and may streams of Mormons forever knock at their doors...

    4. Re:Virus writers and spammers by Sergeant+Beavis · · Score: 1

      Damn man. Now that is cruel and unusual punishment. Yea, they deserve it anyways

      --
      There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
    5. Re:Virus writers and spammers by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      He's a (former? Don't know if he's still going.) television evangelist infamous for once claiming that God would "call him home" unless he raised several million dollars from his dupes^H^H^H^H^Hviewers.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    6. Re:Virus writers and spammers by ErikTheRed · · Score: 2

      Is that anything like Fundamentally Oral Bill? (no, the link doesn't have an actual Fundamentally Oral Bill pic; it's just the only decent pic of good 'ol Bill that I could find...)

      --

      Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    7. Re:Virus writers and spammers by bluethundr · · Score: 1

      Oral Roberts was one of the freakiest, weirdest evangelist preachers of the 80s. He founded "Oral Roberts University" - a Christian college where the mail students walked on one path through campus and the females another - literally! One of his strangest episodes relates to a time when claimed he was secluded in the tower of the University for some days when he was greeted by a vision of a 900 foot Jesus who "looked him in the eye" and proceded to tell him how he should straighten out this f*d up world. This incident inspired the name of one of the more interesting underground/techno artists of the early 90's called "M.C. 900 Foot Jesus"

      --
      Quod scripsi, scripsi.
    8. Re:Virus writers and spammers by Schrodinger's+Mouse · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, he also went on television in tears and told his flock that, if he didn't receive X million dollars within Y hours to build a new arena at his university, God would "call him home". (That's the inspiration for some of the "Fundamentally Oral Bill" stuff.)

      --

      *****

      There are many people in this country who, through no fault of their own, are sane.

    9. Re:Virus writers and spammers by spike+hay · · Score: 1

      I've heard of 0ral Bill of Bloom County fame, but not Oral Roberts.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    10. Re:Virus writers and spammers by soloport · · Score: 1

      He's part of an evangelical family of Bible-thumpers -- along with his sister, Vaginal Roberts and brother, Rectal Roberts.

  3. Just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the first Evolution virus...

    1. Re:Just wait... by Warped-Reality · · Score: 1

      "For the first Evolution virus..."

      And wait for another 2 days for the first patch against the first Evolution virus...

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
  4. Scripts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hrm, I can't think of any practical uses of scripting in emails anyway. Can anyone help me out?

    1. Re:Scripts by grahamsz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So targetted marketing campaigns can track which users look at what and for how long.

    2. Re:Scripts by winwar · · Score: 1

      So, I guess the answer would be no....

    3. Re:Scripts by phyxeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hrm, I can't think of any practical uses of scripting in emails anyway. Can anyone help me out?

      Microsoft hasn't gotten rid of scripting in Outlook because it's required for nasty email viruses like Klez to spread, which in turn allows microsoft to step in and "save the day", which leads to news headlines like "Microsoft releases latest Outlook security patch", "Microsoft patch to block "Love"-like viruses", and, my favorite, "Microsoft to secure e-mail".

      To the average schmoe who doesn't realize these viruses are only possible because of microsoft's stupidity, it would appear that microsoft is valiantly fighting the inevitable battle against nasty virus-writing hackers.

      </conspiracy theory>

      Or maybe they're really just so stupid that they think scripting in emails is such a great feature it's worth putting up with all this bullshit. If you ask me, HTML email isn't even needed. Plain ol' text usually works fine for me; most of the HTML emails I get are spam and the few that aren't usually have a text/plain version as well.

      Notice that the last article I linked to sounds like a pretty solid fix: Users will be suposedly prompted before any emailed scripts do anything, and given a yes/no dialog to stop them from doing anything bad. Seems like a good idea. Unfortunetly, that article is dated June 2000, so clearly it didn't work out... Anyone know what the deal with that is?

      --
      __
      Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
    4. Re:Scripts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about klez?

    5. Re:Scripts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Notice that the last article I linked to sounds like a pretty solid fix: Users will be suposedly prompted before any emailed scripts do anything, and given a yes/no dialog to stop them from doing anything bad. Seems like a good idea. Unfortunetly, that article is dated June 2000, so clearly it didn't work out... Anyone know what the deal with that is?"

      Three things.

      1) Most Outlook users are using Outlook Express that comes with Internet Explorer. The patch in question only covered Outlook that ships with Office.

      2) The patch in question was not manditory or even rolled into a service pack. On a side note look at how ineffective the majority of Windows users are at quickly adopting patches. Nimda and Sircam being good examples.

      3) The behaviour in question has not been made default in future versions of Outlook.

    6. Re:Scripts by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually it's because some very large clients with tens of thousands of seats have built entire middleware on exchange/outlook. Things like a remote salesman gets a PO from a client, they go into a product catalog in their web browser, it creates the order, places it in their outbox, then when they get in the office it fires the email which automatically gets routed based on rules on the exchange side of things (like if over x million skip a few middle managers etc). Nowadays most of this would be done with intranets and java middleware driving the business logic, but for companies that have tens of millions invested in their solutions they don't want outlook to go back to being an email client.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Scripts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chairman Bill thinks that they are "kewl"!

    8. Re:Scripts by phyxeld · · Score: 1

      ok, scripting support in an email client makes some sense in the scenario you describe. Obviously, though, it shouldn't be enabled by default on every consumer pc. And it is.

      --
      __
      Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
    9. Re:Scripts by extra88 · · Score: 2

      Scriptable programs are very useful. The scriptability of Outlook is how you sync Outlook with a PDA. What's bad about Outlook 2000 and earlier is programs can use this automation without the user being aware of it.

      Last year Microsoft released a security patch for Outlook 2000 which makes programmatic access to Outlook's settings and data trigger a pop-up message asking the user if they want to let the action continue. The user can click "No" or can permit the access for some period of time (1 minute, 2 minutes, etc.). It has a separate trigger when a program tries to use Outlook to send an email.

      This means no worm can read the addressbook without a pop-up appearing and it can't send a copy of itself without a different pop-up appearing. When the addressbook reading is legitimate, like syncing a PDA, the user can allow it but "unknown" programs trying to access the data are blocked unless the user is just that stupid.

      This patch is incorporated into Outlook 2002 and is enabled by default.

    10. Re:Scripts by firewrought · · Score: 1
      Tons of uses. For instance, I once had to give ~70
      people access to a little database, so I randomly
      generated passwords and then ran a script to send
      everyone their individual username/password
      combination. It was a good little hack for a freshman
      computer scientist, and the VBA support behind Access
      and Outlook made it pretty easy.


      Similarly, I've written little Perl scripts here and
      again to email out student grades.

      Outlook's scriptability is not fundamentally flawed.
      It fails because of human interface issues, and I'm
      not just talking about cosmetic GUI elements: good
      security may ultimately require educating end users,
      especially those in an office environment. We'll have
      progress when my officemates stop emailing me
      dancing santa exe's.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    11. Re:Scripts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To the average schmoe who doesn't realize these viruses are only possible because of microsoft's stupidity, it would appear that microsoft is valiantly fighting the inevitable battle against nasty virus-writing hackers.


      Seems to me that one could tell the average schmoe anything they wanted to about viruses. I spent 7 hours on a site today, cleaning the damned virus out of their systems and they were happy! "We're glad you're here, straightening this stuff out!" The only one who should be happy I'm on that site for 7 hours is my boss.

      Seriously, though... someone just try to sue Microsoft over their shitty security. The favorite bit of FUD that seems stuck in every person's head that I talk to lately about Linux is that there's no one to sue if something goes wrong. With MS's licensing, there's no one to sue there, either!
    12. Re:Scripts by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      Makes sense, but sounds like a horribly broken security model, kinda like if the bank manager can get into the vault then you gotta let everybody in, at any time.

    13. Re:Scripts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Tons of uses. For instance, I once had to give ~70
      people access to a little database, so I randomly
      generated passwords and then ran a script to send
      everyone their individual username/password
      combination. It was a good little hack for a freshman
      computer scientist, and the VBA support behind Access
      and Outlook made it pretty easy.

      Similarly, I've written little Perl scripts here and again to email out student grades.

      How do either of these examples require that the mail client execute scripts that it receives? Either of these tasks could be better performed with a shell script that pipes the output into the old Berkeley mail program, anyway.

    14. Re:Scripts by rosewood · · Score: 2

      When I sync with my palm - sometimes I get this, sometimes I do not - I can not quite find a rhyme or a reason!

      Personally I would just turn it off, but I can not seem to find said option

      but then again, they took away netfolders in Outlook 2k2 so fuck um anyways

    15. Re:Scripts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can easily do it without scripting (at least the checking who reads what part). Make it a html email (I hate those), add an image where the URL contains some form of encoded info

      http://www.image.com/images/picture.jpg?G34xjd6V jh f

      check your log in a while. *shrugs* I suppose that's too much work for the companies.

    16. Re:Scripts by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 3, Informative

      This can easily be done with a call to a remote image generating script, which passes a unique id as a argument.

    17. Re:Scripts by x0n · · Score: 2, Informative

      Klez isn't based on any embedded java/vb scripts in the email. It's just an executable attachement that may get automatically executed using an old MIME exploit (similar to one at least one *nix mail client had, PINE 3.92 I believe?). If it isn't run automatically on a patched client, the god damn muppet m$ user will run it anyway. you can't win.

      --

      PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
    18. Re:Scripts by sir99 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Notice that the last article I linked to sounds like a pretty solid fix: Users will be suposedly prompted before any emailed scripts do anything, and given a yes/no dialog to stop them from doing anything bad.


      I'm not so sure about that. Some people I know blindly click "OK" on any dialog box that pops up without so much as glancing at it. That's also the reason Gator manages to get installed on computers.

      --
      The ocean parts and the meteors come down
      Laid out in amber, baby.
  5. Not from Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Look in header for RETURN PATH. That's where it came from. Friend at Michigan State was infected...

    1. Re:Not from Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Return path may be null ... empty ... some remailers allow that. Then, return path may be spoofed and the hop history inside the mail (the path it crossed up to your computer) may be conterfeited. One only need to send an email with a false Resent path to a consenting remailer.

      This technique is known as "injection" of email. One of the IP addresses in the middle is the one that sent you the email, but you need to go and check every hop/email ID.

  6. Worse than porn spam from a priest... by brooks_talley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Try operating a legit, non-spamming adult site that's worked hard for years to get a decent reputation, only to have klez emails that appear to come from your customer support email address.

    People are going to believe a priest when it's explained that it was a virus; nobody is going to believe a legit company that's operating in an industry where so much spam originates.

    Argh.
    -b

    1. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, pr0n companies are intrinsically seedy anyway. I really feel no sympathy for you.

    2. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by CDWert · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Uhhhhhh sorry for the question ....

      Isnt "adult site" and "decent reputation" in the same sentence an oxymoron ?

      --
      Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
    3. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try not doing something so against the will of God and things may go better for you...

    4. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you're a puritan trapped in the 16th century.

    5. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by HiThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why are you going to believe the priest was innocent?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by brooks_talley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Um, no. Ever heard of Nerve.com? Janesguide.com? Suicidegirls.com? (I'm not affiliated with any of those)

      While the bulk of adult sites are get-rich-quick operations that either send spam or operate affiliate programs that encourage *other* people to send spam on their behalf, there are decent sites that have good reputations, at least among people who don't substitute stereotypes for individual opinions.

      Cheers
      -b

    7. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1

      God writes email virii? I thought it was s'kiddies.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    8. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Ever heard of Nerve.com? Janesguide.com? Suicidegirls.com? (I'm not affiliated with any of those)

      Janesguide.com? (OK, I admit it, I looked.)

      But for a few shining moments, I had visions of the pr0n vesrion of Jane's Information Group. I mean, imagine naked chicks posing beside every entry in something like All The World's Aircraft.

      (Yeah... hot chix, and the state-of-the-art weapons systems they use to defend their land, sea, air, and space. Rock on. What, your army doesn't have hot chicks? Doesn't even allow your civvie chicks to do air traffic control? Gets cheezed off at us when they find out that our civvy and military chicks not only can, but do? Geez, bub, I dunno what to say, other than it must suck to be in your . Bet they don't even have beer in your officer's mess, either. :-)

    9. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that the original poster is correct, the only place you'll find an adult site's reputation being seen as good is at their colocation (bling bling) and a pedophile convention.

    10. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Tremul · · Score: 2, Funny

      Especially if the priest was catholic and it came from a child porn site.

      I mean no disrespect to honest hard working catholic priest.

      --

      "Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
    11. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by sulli · · Score: 1

      is religious spam from a porn site!

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    12. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's true. The Lord has become very fond of programming. I think it's because all his programs DWIM. Combine that with a fondness for practical jokes (just read Job) and you've got a real problem. This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

    13. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by 56ker · · Score: 2

      Doubt there are many priests reading /. anyway. They probably have more important things to do - like choosing next Sunday's hymns.

    14. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or finding a good lawyer.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    15. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by EverDense · · Score: 1

      legit ... adult site

      While I'm sure you are as pure as the driven snow...
      Isn't that an oxymoron?

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    16. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like eying the alter boys?

    17. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by brooks_talley · · Score: 1

      Someone else said more or less the same thing. You might look here.

      In short, yes, there are legit adult sites, just like there are honest politicians or generous lawyers. We may be in the minority, but that's largely becasue peoples' expectations are so low, it seems almost pointless to have integrity (if people are going to accuse you of all sorts of nasty things, you might as well reap the benefit of doing them, right?).

      Cheers
      -b

    18. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's VIRUSES, you shitguzzling fucktard! Go learn Latin. Failing that, try learning English (or any other language for that matter - "virii" is not a word in any language I know (of)). Failing that, kill yourself.

    19. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A legit porn company.

      Now there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

    20. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      But for a few shining moments, I had visions of the pr0n vesrion of Jane's Information Group [janes.com]. I mean, imagine naked chicks posing beside every entry in something like All The World's Aircraft [janes.com].

      Dude! That's an excellent idea. I'm going to have to work on something like that. I'll make a shitload of money.

      On a slightly related note, has anyone wondered how long it is before Hef negotiates a deal with the Russians to do a pictorial aboard the ISS?

    21. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're really panicky, eh?

      Well, it doesn't really matter. 'viri' has somewhat entered common usage, and it will eventually make it into the language formally.

      Deal with it.

    22. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Netbrian · · Score: 1

      Why do you say this? Because he is offering adult entertainment, he is automatically deserving to be blamed for a virus sending spam-like e-mail to people?

    23. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Netbrian · · Score: 1

      Mind telling us how this is "against the will of God"? Mind telling us how your qualified to make such statements? Mind telling us why he should care in the least about your religious beliefs?

    24. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by xmod2 · · Score: 0

      it seems almost pointless to have integrity (if people are going to accuse you of all sorts of nasty things, you might as well reap the benefit of doing them, right?)

      no

    25. Re:Worse than porn spam from a priest... by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1

      Wow, and I was expecting people to get mad about the God reference, not the sarcastic intentional misspelling of the plural of virus. Virii has a sarcastic sound to me, much like s'kiddies. The word choice was deliberate. In fact, s'kiddies is not a word either, why didn't you complain about that? Better yet, why don't you lighten up, and go back to sucking "penii"!

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
  7. haha. this is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i didn't quite realize it did all this havoc. i just have been getting random crap, but i didn't know it was messing people up this bad. perhaps they'll learn that they aren't using the safest platform. i had been waiting for a virus to come around that did something mildly amusing, not just a proof of concept virus. next we just need one that mails a lot of sensitive data off of computers to people in an address book. especially when a virus scanner is about to be installed

  8. Tip offs for fake preist emails by Mr+Guy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Japanese lass' sexy pictures
    That should have been their FIRST tip off the emails were frauds. If they were really from preists they'd be Japanese virgin sexy pictures.

    1. Re:Tip offs for fake preist emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say it with me:
      "I BEFORE E EXCEPT AFTER C"
      The word is priest.

    2. Re:Tip offs for fake preist emails by rampant+mac · · Score: 0

      If they were really from preists they'd be "Japanese virgin sexy pictures." Actually, wouldn't it be "hot young boys?"

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    3. Re:Tip offs for fake preist emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a weird way to spell weigh. It must be foriegn, or perhaps its just a spelling only sovereign states use.

      Its so strange I think it might be against my conscience to spell your way.

      Perhaps you should ask your neighbour for clarification about the problem, because it seems the rule is neither here nor there.

      Now, do you forfeit your right to the slashdot spelling throne, or do you seize the opportunity to point out any mistakes in my scribblings?

      Not that priest is in there, but hey, no one is omniscient.

      :-P

    4. Re:Tip offs for fake preist emails by darien · · Score: 2

      I before E - except after C - when the sound is "ee."

      When the sound isn't "ee" you're on your own. :)

    5. Re:Tip offs for fake preist emails by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 2
      "I" before "e"
      Except after "c"
      Or when pronounced as "a"
      As in "neighbor" or "weigh"
      They just don't teach kids these days. The rule is still incomplete, but at least it covers a few more cases.
      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

  9. I'd be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    frusterated too if I spelled like that all the time.

  10. f-prot and perl solved my problems by Nos. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After getting infected with sircam (My mcafee wasn't updating or scanning properly for some reason) I decided to say screw it, and start scanning email on my server. Now, anything that comes in, gets scanned firts. If f-prot can't find anything, then it gets delivered, otherwise it never show up in my inbox. If you want a look at what I did, check out my scanner.

    1. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by azadrozny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My company started scaning all incoming email at the fire wall too. It was going fine until some numb-skull decided to download an attachment from his Hotmail account. Once opened inside the network, it did its dirty work.

    2. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Shemp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I tried this solution for a while too, but finally gave up on trusting the anti-virus vendors. After I got burned a few times by Norton coming out with an upgrade 2 hours AFTER I got infected, I stopped relying on it. I'm currently using the Email Sanitizer on my mail gateway. Instead of looking for virii (which will always be a try-to-stay-one-step-ahead-of-the-bad-guys type setup) I just have a list of attachments I don't allow. These happen to include all of the attachments that windows will execute on a double-click. I've gotten probably 400 klez for my domains over the last few weeks, and every one of them has been blocked. Since 99% of the virii that come into my network come through email, this has all but eliminated our problems.

    3. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious why this is necessary. Why do you open .vbs or .exe files in attachements, especially when the body is one or two sentences of broken english?
      Its really not that hard to avoid these viruses.

    4. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Havokmon · · Score: 2
      It was going fine until some numb-skull decided to download an attachment from his Hotmail account. Once opened inside the network, it did its dirty work.

      Use Opera, it doesn't work with Hotmail's download script.

      What a pleasant side-effect. I removed IE to stop Viruses from auto-executing, and also happend to stop another potential source of viruses. :) And of course, desktop scanners are a must.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    5. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by CaseyB · · Score: 2

      No kidding. If you're aware of email viruses at all, especially to the point of configuring a server to defend against them, then you're a damn fool for getting infected with or without a virus scanner / firewall running.

    6. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Nos. · · Score: 2

      Actually that's a hell of an idea, and wouldn't be that hard to implement on my perl scanner. The thing I wanted was no big patches to apply (I had probelms with the qmailqueue patch). Is there a list of attachments somewhere I should look at (obviously .scr .vbs etc.)? Have to admit I did have a problem once with f-prot. I used to be able to ftp to f-prot.com but they changed it so I had to use ftp-f-prot.com but a quick update of my script file and it started auto-updating again.

    7. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      I count myself lucky, I installed (and paid for) The Bat from Ritlabs 3 years ago and haven't had a problem. Heck, I don't even have decent virus scan software on my laptop, I just view everything as ascii and delete anything suspicious. It's worked so far. :)

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    8. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by shades66 · · Score: 1

      [sarcasm]Because people believe their god 'BILLG' will protect them with his 'superior' software.[/sarcasm]

      M.

      --
      ---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
    9. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by shepd · · Score: 1

      ftp.datafellows.com

      It's been good for the past 6 or 7 years...

      HTH!

      And I will have to check out that perl script. F-Prot has always been good. :)

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    10. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      the latest (klez) didnt require you to double click on any attachments. the email itself was an html document, with an tag including the attachment in the document. The iframe'd attachment used the old (already patched) mime bug (claim to be audio, but really be an executable) to run automatically.

      had these people opened the mail at all, the virus is executed.

      of course, had they kept their version of windows/ie current, it wouldnt be a problem

    11. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is from my regexp:

      (vbs|chm|cmd|com|exe|hta|js|jse|pif|scr|shb|vbe| vb s|vbx|wsf|wsh)

    12. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by rgmoore · · Score: 2

      I'm starting to have problems because of server-based virus scanning and Klez. Some server-based scanners will helpfully send a return email to anyone who sent a virus containing email so that they can fix their system. Unfortunately, they apparently haven't figured out yet that Klez is forging the From: field, so I've started receiving emails erroneously informing me that I've sent someone an infected attachment.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    13. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Perhaps a better answer would be to rename all incoming files xxxxxxx.download. This would prevent auto execution, but the file could be recovered by just deleting the .download . OTOH, that wouldn't protect you from intentionally downloaded things that shouldn't have been downloaded. (E.g., "See this great screensaver!"
      "deltree c:\" [though that one wouldn't be very contagious :-)])

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CEO: I only opened it because it wouldn't come in though the regular email and I wanted to see what it is.

      Tech: But it's a virus.

      CEO: But I wanted to see what it is, it could have been important.

    15. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Alan · · Score: 2

      Tech: You really thought she loved you and was going to let you party with her and her hotteenlesbianbisexualhornywetetc friends?

      CEO: Well.....

      Tech: <takes out a gun and shoots CEO>

    16. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by ScoLgo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After I got burned a few times by Norton coming out with an upgrade 2 hours AFTER I got infected, I stopped relying on it.

      This is the whole problem with anti-virus software. Your best defense is your brain, not relying on someone else to write a defense program for you.

      I have a novice friend who recently asked me about viruses. He runs Win98, IE5, OE5. I helped him with security settings and explained the significance of file extensions to him. Even my beginner buddy easily understood that having a secondary extension on an e-mail attachment is a red flag to not open that attachment. That knowledge, along with some logical security settings, (scripting host 'off', please), is your best defense against these viruses. My brother-in-law OTOH, opened a virus recently and is waiting for me to come over and clean it off for him. It's an 80-mile drive so I think I'll let him stew for a couple days. Hopefully, he's learned his lesson.

      Sidebar - One of the biggest complaints I have about the default Windows install is that it hides extensions of known file types. Who was the genius at Microsoft that made that decision?

      --
      "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
    17. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by 4of12 · · Score: 2

      Some server-based scanners will helpfully send a return email to anyone who sent a virus containing email so that they can fix their system.

      Tell me about it.

      I get such "helpful replies" all the time on openssh-unix-dev and from multiple flavors of autoresponding viri checkers. Not to mention the one from my company's scanner indicating that someone sent me a suspicious attachment. I don't run Outlook or Windows, so it's never been a problem even when those things did arrive in my inbox file.

      But I look at it as the latest great annoyance after hoax virus warnings (or hoax alerts to kidnapped kids).

      7337 kiddiez nudge a big list and then cackle while general populace gets sprayed back by dozens of reacting scanners.

      Kind of like planting lit cigarettes under smoke detectors in large public buildings.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    18. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 2

      I won't let anyone inside my firewall run Outlook Express. And I go through, and check, and double check their security settings for all of their apps as well. Granted, I run [Free|Open]BSD, so I don't care about the viruses, but I don't feel like fixing my roommate's computers, when I could be breaking my own....;-)

    19. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucks though, cause no matter what client you use (heck, I use pine :) Klez can still fuck you by spoofing mail from you if a single unpatched Outlook luser has you in their address book. Can anybody be sure they aren't in an unpatched Outlook luser's adress book? I think not. Hence, Klez is the first (afaik) email virus that can potentially fuck anyone regardless of how carefull they are.

      <obvious> and it's all microsoft's fault </obvious>

      grrr..

    20. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      Instead of looking for virii (which will always be a try-to-stay-one-step-ahead-of-the-bad-guys type setup) I just have a list of attachments I don't allow.
      Good idea but probably better to specify a list of extensions you will ACCEPT. Personally, I wouldn't trust any list to be exaustively inclusive of Microsoft virus executers. A few varieties of zips and tarballs should suffice. There's reasons for using zip other than just compression.

    21. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of looking for virii ...
      ... look for viruses. Looking for something that doesn't exist is a waste of time.

    22. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scanning mail is a good start, but for protection, you'll need a) AV on PC, or b) Firewall AV. Not cheap (cos you need a supported firewall too), but can stop a lot more.

    23. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (vbs|chm|cmd|com|exe|hta|js|jse|pif|scr|shb|vbe|vb s|vbx|wsf|wsh)

      bat, shs, lnk

    24. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      I find this sort of attitude strange - surely the easiest way of making yourself immune from these things is to not use Outlook? There are many other email clients out there - you don't NEED Outlook Express, nobody does.

    25. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here (that "creative.exe" one?) - traced the guy(s) with the d/l log - guess what? they're not here anymore.
      Now I'm dealing with major luser Klez attack- the norton "klez killer" killed 2 servers.

      It's so much fun restoring 6yr old servers - not.

    26. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Syberghost · · Score: 2

      I read an estimate once that the moment a new antivirus file is released, it contains perhaps 80% of the currently-existing viruses.

      Several more new ones are written every day.

      Scanning your email but continuing to use an MUA with fundamental design flaws is 20% useless.

      Meanwhile, the number of email viruses that have affected my system is still hovering at zero, and I don't even own an antivirus program. (Or "license" one).

    27. Re:f-prot and perl solved my problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to my own research, it's possible to construct .ico and .fon files that will autorun an executable code segment when placed in the wrong places (a double-click *ought* not to do the trick, but I'd err on the side of caution). Best to block them in case. (Who sends icons and bitmap fonts without zipping them?)

      There are also rumours that DRM-protected Windows Media files can include an executable segment that Windows Media Player will try to run, although there is a digital signature on this that is difficult (but *not* impossible, as the secret key was leaked) to forge. Regular (non-DRM) WMA/WMV/etc files do not seem to be affected.

      Also -- block anything with an extension like the following: .{00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000} where those zeroes can be any hexadecimal digit. Under some circumstances some versions of Explorer have been known to use this as a CLSID, and although this has some useful functions (like magic folders), you really do *not* want this magic applied to your email attachments. It's difficult to launch an attack using this but I've seen a (rather convoluted and unrealistic, admittedly) test exploit demonstrated. (I don't think you could execute code with it very easily, but in combination with a bug in a control, it could be dangerous.)

      OL.

  11. Pornographic attachments from priests? by Macrobat · · Score: 0, Funny

    What were they of, altar boys?

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    1. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by xZAQx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty funny.

      Keep in mind the hundreds of priests now being wrongfully prosecuted due to a stererotype that is spreading like wildfire. Bear in mind how it is ruining their lives.

      I love how on slashdot, insults and slander made about religion are modded as funny, yet if I were to say, "Porn from black people? What was it, pictures of fried chicken?" I'd be modded as a troll. It's all ignorance; it's all slander; it's all hatred. Stop modding self-righteous science-worshipping trolls like the parent up.

      Although, I'm sure that now I'll be modded as a troll. Whatever.

      Dare to think for yourself.

      --

      We dance to all the wrong songs.
      --Refused.
    2. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      The church has a bigger problem since it sat on allegations of criminal wrongdoing. Well-run companies punish employees who abuse their clients; the Catholic Church appears to have protected them, by avoiding publicity through payoffs and moves (without warning the receiving parishes) and not alerting civil authorities.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    3. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bear in mind how it is ruining their lives.

      Bear in mind how many lives were ruined by considering priests above all reproach.

    4. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Spackler · · Score: 2, Offtopic

      Keep in mind the hundreds of priests now being wrongfully prosecuted due to a stererotype that is spreading like wildfire. Bear in mind how it is ruining their lives. blah blah blah...

      These "hundreds of priests" could have kept a good name if they had just policed themselves a little better. Because the Catholic church is not a democracy, they feel they are above laws that govern normal men. They give figures like it is only 1.5% of the priests doing this (figure from Meet The Press last Sunday), but that still means that it is 600 priests guilty of this. Assholes like Cardinal Law, who helped cover this up, and would just move them to a new place to continue molesting kids, deserve a nice span of time in jail as accessories to these crimes. The image of Cardinal Law being buttfucked by some skinhead in the shower would be a fitting punishment.

    5. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny. Laugh.

    6. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by weatherbee · · Score: 4, Funny
      Keep in mind the hundreds of priests now being wrongfully prosecuted due to a stererotype that is spreading like wildfire. Bear in mind how it is ruining their lives.

      OT I guess, but... a headline I saw recently:

      Priests Decry Witch Hunt

      All I could think was "What comes around..."

    7. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Rupert · · Score: 2

      Gosh, we're being accused of ignorance and hatred by someone who appreciates (and may even be a member of) the Catholic Church.

      I think we should appoint some inquisitors to research this.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    8. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between priests and blacks is that
      no one gets to choose their skin colour however
      believing in obscurantist nonsense is a matter of
      free choice. I'd say that in fact religion is
      taken far too seriously; at least in here Britain
      we have a state endorsed religion which gets
      taught in school, a certain percentage of tv
      output has to be about it, etc. In other words
      far from being oppressed, religion is massively
      supported and subsidised.

    9. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll.

    10. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by diesel_jackass · · Score: 2

      Religion is the cause of 90% of all wars.

      How many wars has science caused?

      (cause is the key word)

    11. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2

      The image of Cardinal Law being buttfucked by some skinhead in the shower would be a fitting punishment.

      This is the kind of stuff that gets +1, Insighful nowadays?

      The parent post was talking about those wrongfully accused of these acts, not those who are guilty of it. Or do you think everyone who is accused is guilty? (Would such a post get +5, Insightful, too?)

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    12. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many more people have died in wars due to scientific advancements being applied to weapons technology?

    13. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by binaryDigit · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, science may not have caused many wars, but how many people has science killed in wars?

    14. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention all the priests raping nuns in thrid world countries that are being covered up.

      The Roman Catholic Church has some really warped priorities.

    15. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between the white/black and the religios/non religious relationship is that you don't choose your colour, but you choose whether you want to think yourself or trust some guy who lived 2000 years ago.

    16. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind the hundreds of priests now being wrongfully prosecuted due to a stererotype that is spreading like wildfire. Bear in mind how it is ruining their lives

      Who was it that said, "Ye shall be known by the company you keep"? It's on the tip of my tongue... I think it was that Buddha dude, yeah that Buddha dude.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    17. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Capt.+DrunkenBum · · Score: 0, Troll

      "How many wars has science caused?"

      How many wars has science ended, is probably a much more interesting question.

      --

      Not everyone deserves a 320i

    18. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by beleg777 · · Score: 1

      Insightful my @^&$*

      Cardinal Law does deserve to share in the punishment. Yes, the higher ups screwed up, and deserve to feel the heat. The average priest neither knew anything about what was going on nor could he have done anything about it if he had.

      --

      Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
    19. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by xZAQx · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am Catholic.

      I think we should appoint some inquisitors to research this

      Now I'm guilty of crimes from the past?

      Are you white?
      Then you must be a fucking slave owner, and a racist.

      There is no such thing as guilty by heritage.
      The mixed blood in my veins boils.

      --

      We dance to all the wrong songs.
      --Refused.
    20. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddha was in England during the 1600's? Didn't know that. Fucking moron.

    21. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by jtdubs · · Score: 2

      It has nothing to do with anti-religions slander. It has to do with poking fun at a current news topic.

      If the media for the last few weeks had been full of articles about black people molesting fried chickens, then your post would have been modded up to funny too.

      Besides, it's not ignorance, slander or hatred. It's humor. Just because your sense of humor doesn't include the post you are flaming doesn't make it not funny. It just makes it not funny to you.

      The one thing no one ever seems to realize is that things external to yourself don't have the ability to directly effect your emotions. Only after being processed by your brain/soul, whatever you choose to believe in, do these things have the ability to affect your emotions.

      So, just because this post angers you and you don't find it funny doesn't mean that the post is angering or that the post is not funny. The post has no such properties. It is just words. What it means is that the post angered you and that you don't find it to be funny. This may not be true for all people, or even for most people.

      So, you are a bit pre-mature in your flame of what I thought to be a simple, but effective, joke.

      "But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

      Justin

    22. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "What goes around..", buttmunch.

    23. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind the hundreds of priests now being wrongfully prosecuted due to a stererotype that is

      Don't you need legal action to be prosecuted? I mean some of the child molestors aren't even being fired.

      There is no such thing as science-worshipping. It only makes sense in the most limited of viewpoints.

      It is ignorant to make racist comments. Somehow you seem to equate making racist comments with the frustration of having religious authorities in society being sexual offenders.

    24. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There is no such thing as guilty by heritage.

      But there is original sin?

    25. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Racism isn't tolerated? It is, in fact browse over to CmdrTaco's page and you might find something. In this type of situation there are many, many views which get modded up and down - deal with it.

      But you are a troll: you have little idea what you are speaking about.

      Do you know how many people "The Church" has killed in cold blooded persecution? Shamanism in Europe (the real witch hunts), Jews and Arabs in the Holy Land - people who came to Rome to "find" the Holy Grail... Spain, Spain, Spain... ... ... ...

      You say that these Priests are being wrongfully "prosecuted" although they are not. There are many who won't even be persecuted because the statute has run out; The Church has covered it up and the public will never see the evidence - there won't be a conviction.

      There won't be an Internet site which lists there names with other sex offenders.

      When you belong to such in institution which not only ignores the law of the country you reside in (Render unto Caeser...) but has covered up and not prevented more crimes you should leave that institution or do what you can to clear things up.

      The "Church" is horrible. IMHO (thinking on my own!) it's out of date and now only exists for political reasons. (As it always has)

      We have a right to not just believe them because they are a religious institution. If you don't want to hold them accountable then you deserve your reward.

    26. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dare to think for yourself.

      Think for myself? Great idea! Watch as your post has no effect on me.

    27. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I see... Things before 1600 aren't important then, are they?

    28. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But these priests have worked so hard to bring this on themselves!

      Haven't you ever wondered why there were so many of those priest and choirboy jokes? A Newfoundland comedy group, named Codco, did notorious skits about "Catholic discipline". Just make up your own jokes about what this "discipline" might consist of! Newfoundland is about 99% Catholic. Why do you suppose everybody there finds this kind of humour so funny?

      Do you seriously believe that the "innocent priests" didn't have any idea what was going on??? Do you suppose that they were all laughing so hard at the jokes, along with everybody else, that they didn't notice. Do you suppose that none of the Cardinals knew??? How about the various Popes???

      By the way, this is far from being only an exclusive USA problem.

      There have been similar scandals in Canada and even far worse.

      In the far north, not long ago, there were the Residential Schools for Native Peoples. Here there was not only child abuse, but also a deliberate attempt to kill native culture and languages. Students were not only beaten just for the sadistic delight of it, but also for speaking their own language(s). Granted that here the Catholic Church had lots of co-conspirators. The government set the whole plan up and a number of Protestant Churches jumped right in to help.

      The legal fallout from this mess still is working its way through the courts. The costs of court ordered settlements are already huge.

    29. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by blippo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, science terminated WWII.

      An educated guess is that the shortest conflicts
      where those where one of the participants had
      access to (or developed ) a superior weapon
      (sticks, fire, bows, catapults, atomic bombs etc),

      The antithese would be WWI where the technical
      level was equal.

      No, *the* most interesting quiestion is; How many
      wars has science prevented? How many has religion?

    30. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Do you think hitting people with rocks on the head is an art?

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    31. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Stop modding self-righteous science-worshipping trolls like the parent up.'

      Science-worshiping trolls? Yeah, some of them get out of hand, but you talk about judging people, and in the next virtual breath you go on doing it yourself. So someone believes in science and not god...big deal. These are trolls? Dare to think for yourself you say?

      Hell...let's start modding all posts that don't proclaim the lord all mighty is supreme as trolls!
      That will teach those science-worshiping atheists!

      Have you not considered that some meant it is a joke and nothing more? Yes it can be viewed as hurtful, but ANYTHING can hurt someone's feelings.
      Does that mean we should cut off all communication with other individuals in an effort to not offend them?

      'Keep in mind the hundreds of priests now being wrongfully prosecuted due to a stererotype that is spreading like wildfire. Bear in mind how it is ruining their lives.'

      Now why does this sound fimmilar? It may not be fair, I'll give you that, but it doesn't look like the world is too interested in justice.

      Judge people on a personal level...stereotypes...SCIENCE-WORSHIPING TROLLS?

      Hmm...perpetuating what you are fighting...you will be in business for a long time at this rate.

    32. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Keep in mind the hundreds of priests now being wrongfully prosecuted due to a stererotype that is spreading like wildfire. Bear in mind how it is ruining their lives.

      Ruining their lives? They work for one of the most powerful organizations in the world, The Catholic Church is no less than the Roman Empire under the tapestries of a religion. And the Pope is nothing less than Ceaser. This organization will stop at nothing to maintain and justify its existance.

    33. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Debillitatus · · Score: 2
      Gosh, we're being accused of ignorance and hatred by someone who appreciates (and may even be a member of) the Catholic Church.

      Good call... The guy you're replying to actually had the temerity to defend the Catholic Church instead of knowing that, of course, any freethinking person could safely assume the opposite without having to think about it.

      It's also commendable that you were able to come to the correct answer so quickly, and with so little reflection.

      The speed of your openmindedness is remarkable.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    34. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by diesel_jackass · · Score: 2

      You know that atheism is a religion, right?

    35. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by diesel_jackass · · Score: 2

      Well if the wars were not started to begin with, how many would that leave?

    36. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Debillitatus · · Score: 2
      Religion is the cause of 90% of all wars.

      I'd like to see the raw numbers on that one. Are you counting them one-by-one, or what?

      WWI , WWII , American Civil War, Vietnam, Korea, Gulf War, Hundred Years War, on and on. As a matter of fact, it's kind of hard for me to think of any recent major wars which were caused by religion. You're so wrong it's hard to describe it in words.

      And if you count by number of deaths, then the figure is more like 5%. But thanks for playing.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    37. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by el_chicano · · Score: 2
      Yes, I am Catholic.

      Now I'm guilty of crimes from the past?

      There is no such thing as guilty by heritage.
      So why do Catholics have to get baptized when they are young? Because of "original sin", i.e., the sins of Adam and Eve.

      Since Catholics believe that Adam and Eve are our ancestors, that means original sin is guilt by heritage.

      P.S. don't let the Church hear you speak out against their dogma. You saw what they did to Galileo...
      --
      A man who wants nothing is invincible
    38. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by binaryDigit · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that there are at least three performance artists in NY that do exactly that as 'art' ;)

      Beyond that, I'm a bit confused by your reply, perhaps being bonked on the head with a rock as a boy has caused more brain damage than I had originally thought.

    39. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, we dont need to pay any attention to any of the civil wars engulfing so many countries around the world do we? almost every war in history was caused by religion, or by people wanting land, and not being able to just share it because the people there first were of a different religion, or even a different branch of the same religion than themselves

    40. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Drassk · · Score: 1

      See, I've always thought this was a funny type of religious argument. You people always -love- comparing apples and oranges.

      Being black is something someone cannot change. They were -born- black. Joining a religios organization, on the other hand, is a choice. And, by being a member, you're advocating the actions of the organization. You have a choice, they don't.

      I'm not saying that it's necessarily right to mock religious folk but you're a hell of a lot more responsible for your CHOICE than others are for their SKIN so don't pull this 'mocking Christians is like racism' crap.

      -Drassk

    41. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fsck slashdot read are stoopid.

      "what goes around..." - the original witch hunts
      "..what comes around" - the joke above you.

      buttmunch.

    42. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We knew there were hoary old anti-religion trolls like you under the bridge.

      How nice of you to scuttle out and show your colors.

    43. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry.

      Child abuse has never been officially sanctioned by the religious bodies your rant tries to characterize.

      Some of the other 'crimes', i.e. attempting to save 'native' children from a dying culture, were and are practiced.

      But have fun with your stereotypes and parodies.

    44. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a science-worshipping populace. It consists of the people who believe in the creeds of the 'Scientific Method' with all it's axioms and all the murky beliefs beneath all the scaffolding and grant-proposal forms.

      Every belief system in history is based on the notion that the individual must have faith. Unless you can derive all of Moderm Physics from a very few simple axioms, you're a belivin' dude just like that shaman with his rattle. Just to a different degree and with a different set of given beliefs.

      Deal with it. Even if you deal with it by sputtering, and fuming, and running off to your tenured study to rave.

    45. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Rupert · · Score: 2

      It's your choice to remain a part of the Catholic church.

      The inquisition still exists. I forget its new name, though.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    46. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Anti-religion?

      I was being anti-Catholic Church. My reason for that is as posted above and more! I'm very pro-religion, but I've had too many people tell me that "my people" will be killed by "his people".

      Catholics - IMHO! - are facist by nature. They are the self proclaimed cream of the crop.

      Next to the Co$ it's one thing I just loathe.

      Remember - pro religion, just a little worried about a few.

      [[only my opinion is stated]]

    47. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Rupert · · Score: 2

      Twenty nine minutes, according to the timestamps. That's quite a lot of reflection for around here. Add in the twenty five years or so in which I have observed organised religion, inside and out, and you get quite a well-considered opinion.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    48. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Unless you can differentiate The Catholic Church's, Luther's, and Calvin's stances on this, you are too ignorant about the debate over original sin to even comment on this.

    49. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      religion is the cause of 90% of all wars.

      I think what you mean to say is "Religion is used as a pretext to start 90% of all wars." It's really about selfish ambition. The Crusades were about land and loot, not christianity, and Osama uses islam to further his call. Kind of the same way some humanists use science to bring down hate upon people who are religious. The core texts of every major religion preach peace. Poeple, however, suck.
    50. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by el_chicano · · Score: 2
      Unless you can differentiate The Catholic Church's, Luther's, and Calvin's stances on this...
      All I am doing is spewing out dogma fed to me by the Catholic Church when I was a child. IMO the Catholic Church is as big a cult as Scientology and their childhood programming is very hard to overcome.

      I noticed you did not explain what the hell you are talking about. If you knew you would have let the rest of us in on it raising the level of discussion, but you chose not to...

      Besides, I am an atheist. Why should I care about the who, what, where and when of deluded people quibbling over an imaginary "God"?
      you are too ignorant about the debate over original sin to even comment on this.
      Life is to short to spend it splitting hairs with pointed-headed fools who would rather engage in personal attacks than in an honest exchange of information. I'd rather spend the time doing something productive.

      And F.Y.I., I will comment on what I damn well want to comment on when I damn well want to comment on it. Jesus, give someone a shiny new Slashdot login and they think they are in charge of the joint!
      --
      A man who wants nothing is invincible
    51. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Point being that there is science to it. And something else, I can't find what I replied to. I'm lame or something.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    52. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by xmod2 · · Score: 0

      yeah, it's called close minded 'liberalism'. You have the right to feel however you want, as long as it coincides with what they say. Otherwise you are a bigot, homophobe, racist, etc. If you're not 'PC' you become a pariah. At least the inquisition was straight about their censorship.

    53. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by diesel_jackass · · Score: 2

      ... and I wouldn't have any problem with the many priests, nuns, missionaries doing "good" every day of their lives if they didn't brainwash people into believing that there is some higher power that has control of their lives and the things that happen to them.

    54. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Debillitatus · · Score: 2
      Add in the twenty five years or so in which I have observed organised religion, inside and out, and you get quite a well-considered opinion.

      Of course... your past experiences, objective as they were, give you enough data to dispense with the necessity of reflection in this case. Why consider things on a case-by-case basis, since you already know all there is to know about the subject?

      Again, your ability to analyze this problem in such a straightforward manner, without extraneous details such as the facts, is commendable.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    55. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People, can we please stop modding up anyone who includes a variant of "I'm sure that now I'll be modded as a troll"? Either actually mod them down as a troll, or ignore them, but it's really freaking annoying when every (+n, insightful) comment has this disclaimer.
      Of course, this is such radical, insightful comment, you'll probably mod it down now. Go ahead, I have karma to burn!

    56. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Rupert · · Score: 2

      What problem? What analysis? There was an accusation of hatred and ignorance. I merely pointed out all the pretty stained glass in the house of the person throwing the rock.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    57. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Life is to short to spend it splitting hairs with pointed-headed fools who would rather engage in personal attacks than in an honest exchange of information. Ignorant is not an attack. I did not call you an idiot. Ignorant simply means you don't know the facts about the debate. You are not qualified to rebut the poster as you did. As for the shiny new login... I had read slashdot for two and a half years before I registered (two years ago)

    58. Re:Pornographic attachments from priests? by el_chicano · · Score: 2
      I did not call you an idiot. Ignorant simply means you don't know the facts about the debate.
      A debate implies content. Your post was content free. If you are not adding to the signal you are adding to the noise...
      --
      A man who wants nothing is invincible
  12. Save your bandwidth by shepd · · Score: 5, Informative

    telnet mail.xyz.com 110

    user (username)
    pass (password)
    list
    top (number of message to check) (kb to read)
    dele (message to delete)
    retr (number of message to read entirely)
    quit

    Quicker, cheaper, easier. This was one of the best tips I got from a friendly sysadmin. :)

    Of course, I would ask why CmdrTaco didn't check the RFC, but hey, who am I to question slashdot's leader? ;)

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    1. Re:Save your bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, alot quicker and easier than clicking "send / receive".

    2. Re:Save your bandwidth by shepd · · Score: 1

      Saith CmdrTaco:

      >I'm on a modem for a few weeks and downloading countless megs of mail viruses is extremely frusterating

      Ok, so megs is pluralized. I can assume a minumum of 2 megabytes downloading.

      I will also assume he gets the FCC maximum 53k connection.

      (Assuing a perfect connection, which is never the case):

      2,000,000 / 5300 = 6.3 minutes.

      Time to type in 5-10 lines of text in a telnet session for someone who can type... 30 seconds. Maybe.

      Yup, I would say it is MUCH quicker than clicking a button that causes you to wait over 12x longer. Thank you for asserting my point of view!

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    3. Re:Save your bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to type in 5-10 lines of text in a telnet session for someone who can type... 30 seconds. Maybe.

      This IS CmdrTaco...

    4. Re:Save your bandwidth by peddrenth · · Score: 1

      (Win32)
      - Download "The Bat"
      - Install The Bat
      - Set a rule to delete anything over 100k without a specified password in the subject
      - Pay a $30 license fee (optional but worth it)

      (Linux)
      - Use Kmail
      - Set a rule to delete anything over 100k without a specified password in the subject
      - Mail the password to anyone who has good reason to send you massive files

      OJW "Why the f* is there a shark swimming across this window?"

    5. Re:Save your bandwidth by blogan · · Score: 1

      Actually, the second argument of TOP is the number of lines to read from the body, not KB. Also, make sure no one is looking over your shoulder since you password will appear on the screen.

    6. Re:Save your bandwidth by Tack · · Score: 2

      But you're forgetting that someone like Taco gets hundreds (maybe thousands?) of emails per day. Repeat the top / dele sequence 100-1000 times and suddenly waiting 6 minutes to download your mail takes less time. But it's still damn annoying.

      Jason.

    7. Re:Save your bandwidth by elefantstn · · Score: 5, Funny
      Of course, I would ask why CmdrTaco didn't check the RFC...


      Because it doesn't work if you spell all the commands wrong.
      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    8. Re:Save your bandwidth by rediguana · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you want a pretty windoze gui for doing the same thing, and free as in 'beer' / nagware, try Mailwasher. The ability to bounce spam and delete virii from POP boxs before downloading, not to mention dickheads who send huge emails is very useful. It has saved me numerous times.

    9. Re:Save your bandwidth by turbine216 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Unfortunately, I believe AOL won't let its customers (CmdrTaco) telnet into their mail servers. Damn shame, really. And besides, Malda's not really sure how to call up HyperTerminal just yet...i mean, there's no icon on the desktop!! How are you supposed to open the program without the damn icon??!?!?

    10. Re:Save your bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But even in the case of downloading it all, wouldn't you still have to check out each email manually? If you have to do that you've still wasted 6 minutes...

      Unless, of course, you had an automated script to make your life easier. But then wouldn't you want that running on a machine with a faster internet connection?

    11. Re:Save your bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Also, make sure no one is looking over your shoulder since you password will appear on the screen.

      Its never been a problem for me, but don't I recall there being an option in telnet to turn off the echoing [set echo off doesn't seem to work for me :-(]? You don't need it in this case...

      Any ideas?

    12. Re:Save your bandwidth by danro · · Score: 2

      Repeat the top / dele sequence 100-1000 times...

      That's what shell scripts are for, my friend.
      Strange that cmdrTaco didn't know how to do this... I thought all serious pearl coders (at least the ones I know) were also bash wizards...

      --

      "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    13. Re:Save your bandwidth by Tack · · Score: 1
      But even in the case of downloading it all, wouldn't you still have to check out each email manually? If you have to do that you've still wasted 6 minutes...

      If you downloaded them all, you could at least use mail filters on your client to weed those out. Even if that weren't the case, presumably the interface your MUA provides allows you to delete mails quickly after you see that they're spam/viruses/whatever. At least, one assumes, a lot quicker than using POP3 commands manually.

    14. Re:Save your bandwidth by SysKoll · · Score: 3, Informative

      I totally agree, it's how I check my email from friends' machines when said friend does not want me to mess up with his POP account setup.

      However, it is time consuming to view each message this way.

      Small remark: the TOP command takes as arguments the message number and the number of lines (not the number of kilobytes) to display.
      TOP 1 20
      will display the first twenty lines of message 1.

      --

      --
      Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    15. Re:Save your bandwidth by gammelby · · Score: 1

      If you can pop your mail, you can always telnet to port 110 as described. It is just a manual pop session (see also http://rfc.sunsite.dk/rfc/rfc1939.html).

      Regards,

      /ulrik

    16. Re: Save your bandwidth by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


      > If you want a pretty windoze gui for doing the same thing, and free as in 'beer' / nagware, try Mailwasher [mailwasher.net]. The ability to bounce spam and delete virii from POP boxs before downloading, not to mention dickheads who send huge emails is very useful. It has saved me numerous times.

      Similarly, except free as in {beer,speech}, try Balsa. When I crank it up it connects to my IMAP server and lists my inbox without downloading anything. The list includes the number of lines and and whether or not the message has an attachment. I just ctrl-click all the trash and then ctrl-d to delete it without downloading it to my local trashcan.

      This has saved me a huge amount of annoyance since I started using it. Basically, if a message isn't from a friend and doesn't have a subject line that makes me want to read it, it never gets downloaded. (And no, "MAKE MONEY FAST" doesn't make me want to read it.)

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    17. Re:Save your bandwidth by blogan · · Score: 1

      Use a Perl script that would do this would be better. You could also try running "stty -echo" before you run telnet. But it's a pain when you can't see the commands you typed. Also, with the Perl script you could implement the more secure ways to connect, such as APOP, so your password isn't sent over the network in plain text.

    18. Re:Save your bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      type "set local_echo" at the prompt

    19. Re:Save your bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most email clients (I know Eudora does) allow you to leave messages larger than a certain size on the server. That way you can download all of the reasonably sized email. Then after that you can delete the messages you don't want by header using various programs available, including telnet.

    20. Re:Save your bandwidth by leviramsey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, multiply the 6.3 minutes by 8. You're dividing 2 megabytes by 53 kilobits per second.

    21. Re:Save your bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      53 kbps = 53,000 bits/sec = 5,300 bytes/sec (1-2 bits are dropped due to stop/start bits, making it 9 or 10 bits per byte, so divide by 10).

      2 MBytes = 2,000,000 bytes

      Time = 2,000,000 bytes / 5,300 bytes/sec = 6.289 mins.

      Of course, if you're like me and connect at 21.6 kbps that's 15 mins.

      (Yes, this is inaccurate because I don't feel like using 1024 byte kbytes, and there's a LOT of overhead due to TCP/IP I've missed out on, but I stand by it being between 5-10 minutes, or about 6 mins download time at 53 kbps).

    22. Re:Save your bandwidth by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      well you got the scale right, 5-10 minutues.

      but forget about the (1-2) stop-start bits. That part is used to coummnicate with the modem, and that is happening with 115200 kilobits per seconds even a faster method. Modern V32bis and above protocols don't ues a start and/or stop bit for every byte on the telephone line.

    23. Re:Save your bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oooh. an entire program to do what can be done with
      * ^Subject.*PASSWORD.*

      Hopefully at least the Bat does not retrieve from server messages without the password, or you're still going to be wasting bandwidth.

    24. Re:Save your bandwidth by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      Or just use IMAP instead of POP3. IMAP allows you to view all the headers for your incoming mail before downloading the bodies; if you mark a message for deletion and don't open it then it won't be downloaded.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    25. Re:Save your bandwidth by Dr_Cheeks · · Score: 2
      Oooookay; I've got to this one kinda late (I don't check /. nearly as often as I used to), but whilst it's nice to pick up your email over POP3, you've still gotta fire up a mail client if you want to reply (which I usually do).

      Besides, although the majority of the audience here isn't going to be phased by a command line, can you imagine explaining to your mother (not specifically your mother; just a generic mom) to type telnet mail.xyz.com 110 into the run box from the Start menu? Never mind getting a 3rd party (i.e. not Windows) telnet client up and running.....

      Frankly, I'd prefer to never have to let my parents do anything that they couldn't do by clicking or typing very simple answers into a text box. It's not that they're technically incompetent (far from it - they're now on their 7th home computer having started on a ZX81 back in the day) - it's simply that tasks that we don't even consider tricky can appear obtuse and very unfriendly to most users.

      Um, I'm rambling, aren't I? But I guess I've made my points.

      --

    26. Re:Save your bandwidth by shepd · · Score: 1

      >you've still gotta fire up a mail client if you want to reply (which I usually do).

      If you're desperate try this:

      telnet mail.xyz.com 25

      helo
      mail from: blah@xyz.com
      rcpt to: foo@xyz.com
      data
      This is my test mail!

      Signed,
      George
      .
      quit

      [That might have been a little incorrect, I don't send mail that way too often since you have to type everything perfectly the first time! No backspaces!]

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  13. Klez, Klez.h, Klez.I, over 7.2% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting


    They infect or have infected 7.2% of all computers. (more than any other virii)

    A windows version for cleaning your pc of Klez. (and removes Nimbda, Melissa, etc.)

    1. Re:Klez, Klez.h, Klez.I, over 7.2% by kramer · · Score: 2

      They infect or have infected 7.2% of all computers. (more than any other virii)

      Do you have a source to back up these numbers?

    2. Re:Klez, Klez.h, Klez.I, over 7.2% by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

      You're not as clever as you want to be. There is no Latin plural for 'virus', since virus is a collective noun (meaning something like 'scum'). Now that 'virus' has an singular meaning, it has to be pluralised, and since it doesn't have a plural in its native language, its adoptive language has to give it one.

      Thus, 'viruses' is acceptable, and the original poster is far from a 'dumbass'. Wait, never mind -- you weren't calling names, you were only signing your name. ;-)

      -Billy

    3. Re:Klez, Klez.h, Klez.I, over 7.2% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Check out the original post. He used Virii which is not correct. The AC was simply pointing that out. You must feel real stupid. I think you owe the other AC an apology.

    4. Re:Klez, Klez.h, Klez.I, over 7.2% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're not as clever as you want to be. There is no Latin plural for 'virus' ... Thus, 'viruses' is acceptable

      Except he didn't write "viruses", you ignorant shit eater.

    5. Re:Klez, Klez.h, Klez.I, over 7.2% by dodald · · Score: 3, Informative
      He may not, but I do :), not sure how acurate this stuff is be here goes.

      http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2109354,00. html

      --
      101010b 2Ah 52o
    6. Re:Klez, Klez.h, Klez.I, over 7.2% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, sorry for the original light post.

      I got the 7.2% infected stat from
      Yahoo! Japan headlines, which was quoting ZDNet, which was quoting Panda Software, an anti-virus removal service company.

      And I got this link ftp://ftp.kaspersky.ru/utils/clrav.com from Download.com, which requires you to register to use it's auto-download service. So I'm trusting download.com to be referring me a "safe" program.

      And I guess I'll use the term viruses instead of virii from now on :)

    7. Re:Klez, Klez.h, Klez.I, over 7.2% by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really matter, since "sylabuses" is an accepted plural form of "syllabus" for the Cambridge crowd. You can say viruses, but man it sounds damn wrong.

    8. Re:Klez, Klez.h, Klez.I, over 7.2% by carlos_benj · · Score: 2, Funny

      If seeing people who aren't there makes a "Beautiful Mind," what does not seeing people who really are there make?

      It makes you a sysadmin?

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    9. Re:Klez, Klez.h, Klez.I, over 7.2% by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I'm jumping up and down with excitement because someone finally responded to my sig!

  14. Wow.. . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like we switched to Notes at just the right time.. . :-)

  15. certainly does... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    had 300 emails waiting for me, from NAV for exchange when I got into work ....all of em blocking Klez (all from external :) )...what I want to know is why exim (all internet mail goes through an smtp box) acceppted em in the first place...it's configured to not accept emails wiht .exe's

    hey ho.

    1. Re:certainly does... by hmallett · · Score: 1

      Exim probably accepted them because it comes not as an .exe From Symantec's web site, "The attachment will have one of the following extensions: .bat, .exe, .pif or .scr"

    2. Re:certainly does... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your system filter likely doesn't handle spaces in the filenames.

  16. Number One with a bullet... by gurth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The number of virus alerts I get from my mail gateway has been inundated with Klez for the last week or so. Identifying remote infections was at least possible with Magistr variants, as it only did minor iterative changes to email addresses. Klez lives on an entirely different stratum of nuisance.

  17. The average user? by marekk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the Wired article:
    "Anytime you have a virus that is not easily identifiable visually, it tends to linger," Rod Fewster, Australian representative for antiviral application NOD32, said. "SirCam and Klez both vary the subject lines of the e-mails they send, which makes it hard for the average user to spot."
    Unfortunately, I'm sure the average user can't spot any e-mail viruses, let alone ones that change their subject line. While Outlook/Outlook Express greatly facilitates the spread of these viruses, a large part of the problem lies in the fact that too many people click on attachments and/or don't run proactive AntiVirus software on their system.
    1. Re:The average user? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped using virus scanners when I stopped using BBS's and Floppy disks. I've never been infected by any viruses. I think that most anti-virus software is worthless anyway. The best way not to get infected is to not open ANY attachments unless you have asked for it!!!!! No word documents, no Bill Clinton animations, no tennis stars pictures, nope, NOTHING!!!!!

      If you ask your boss to send you a rpt as an attachment, then fine open that, but only if it is the exact attachment you asked for. 99.99% of the time that will keep you safe. Of course there is the chance that a virus could send you an attachment that you were expecting by sheer randomness, but that is very unlikely.

      --Jah

    2. Re:The average user? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average user shouldn't have to recognize any email viruses because they shouldn't exist.

      There is no excuse for Outlook.

    3. Re:The average user? by marekk · · Score: 1

      And in a perfect world, there would also be no murder, rape, $rand_crime, etc.

      The fact is that we've got to deal with the hand we've been dealt. In this case, it's getting Microsoft to start locking down all of the vulnerabilities in Outlook and implementing as many virus scanners in the mailhubs. While educating the users on not opening mail from unknown people, not opening attachments, etc is also desirable--it's just not feasible.

      In short, we need to make the technology do the work for us--as much as that idea sucks. The reality is that it's easier to do that than educate the entire public.

    4. Re:The average user? by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      Actually, I believe the point of that statement was that normally, the average computer novice or internet user can at least heed virus warnings from their friends, such as "Don't open e-mails with the subject '--specific subject here--'. Just delete them immediately!". However, they cannot heed virus warnings from their friends that read: "Don't open e-mails with the subjects '--list of 120 different subjects and variations, with more appearing daily--'". The average person relies on remembering subjects to find viruses, rather than using safer programs, firewalls, and virus scanners, which is what the more experienced users rely on.

    5. Re:The average user? by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      This is a spoof about people not thinking before clicking, but not very far from the truth

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
  18. Really, how common are these things? by Malc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Course I'm still getting sircams"

    I've been working for 2.5 years for a company that uses Exchange and Outlook. Most of my friends and colleagues use Outlook or Outlook Express at work and home, although I still use Netscape for personal stuff. I've received 2 email viri ever, and neither of them were the "common" ones like Melissa or SirCam. It leaves me wondering if people are making a big fuss out of nothing, and being a bit sensationalist or simply an anti-Microsoft bigot.

    1. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Smallest · · Score: 1

      i'm getting literally dozens of copies of klez every day. luckily, Norton AV is set to screen incoming email, so they're all dead by the time i see them.

      -c

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
    2. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Rascalson · · Score: 1

      There are several email filtering programs out there that when coupled with a good network-wide virus program are pretty effective at keep all the microsoft centric virus out.

      --
      prisoner# msce18xxxxx. Currently planning my escape.
    3. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly what I was thinking!

    4. Re: Really, how common are these things? by ttyp0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quite common. If you just sit and post on slashdot all day, then no, you probably aren't much of a target for virii. However, I run 3 large websites, active on 10 mailing lists and send close to 50 emails a day. My email address is spread all over the Internet like a bad case of herpes. In return I get close to 30 - 40 infected emails a day. That was before I installed a virus scanner on my mail server.

    5. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on the volume of mail you receive. My ISP has had quite a few users with this virus - I haven't received a copy that I know of but I don't use Windows apps to check my mail anymore either.

    6. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Eccles · · Score: 2, Funny

      It leaves me wondering if people are making a big fuss out of nothing [...]

      One of our marketing folks sent Klez to our press-release mailing list.

      My mother-in-law got a message about the "sulfnbk virus", and my wife "cleaned up" our PC. Too bad it's not a virus, just a standard Windows file. (Although in a sense it's a virus, it just infects the users who unsuspectingly do damage to their system!) It's starting to be a good argument for me to switch to Linux...

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    7. Re:Really, how common are these things? by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      I DON'T use Outlook at home and I have been getting 15 KLEZ infected emails a day. At work we use OutLook, but onlt behind some serious anti-virus software. I've seen a lot of disinfected emails reported to me by my users.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    8. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As I work for an AV firm that deals with email protection I'll respond as a Coward to protect my employer.

      I'd have to say that the sheer number of customers who are calling in still dealing with nimda adn magistr are alarming enough, without the numbers that are infected with KLEZ.

      This is not scare mongering, or anti-MS bantering.

      These email viruses are as pervasive as we are being led to believe and given the right payload, as dangerous, I'd have to say that given the number of people who find themselves infected it will 0nly take ONE really evil virii creator to make some form of uber zombie ddos.

      Nimda didn't sustain category 4 for as long as Klez has.

    9. Re:Really, how common are these things? by the_machine · · Score: 2, Funny
      I've been working for 2.5 years for a company that uses Exchange and Outlook...[snip]...I've received 2 email viri ever, and neither of them were the "common" ones like Melissa or SirCam. It leaves me wondering if people are making a big fuss out of nothing, and being a bit sensationalist or simply an anti-Microsoft bigot.


      These virii typically propogate by mailing themselves out to users in the victim's address book. Perhaps no one has you as a contact? :)

    10. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who maintains a server in charge of filtering viruses, I can assure you it's a big deal. If we didn't have this server in place, our members would be sending each other hundreds of viruses a day.

      And this is just the virus traffic we're seeing between the members of our network... I can only imagine what these guys are sending to people outside our network.

    11. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Some statistics:

      • I receive about 10 worm/virus mails per day. There are some SirCams but most are Klez mails.
      • About every other day I receive a message from some mailer daemon that one of "my" mails can't be delivered because it contains a virus. There are probably many recipients which are not protected by filtering mailer daemons, so the real number of mails sent in my name is most likely much higher.
      • When SirCam started to show up, ca. 100 per day ended up in my mailbox, the top 5 "From" TLD-domains were: com, net, ar, mx, kr. The TLD of the target address is "de". There was only 1 in 1000 SirCam mails coming from de.
      • One of my email addresses is listed on many (1000+) webpages all over the world. Many different people have sent email to that address. Browser caches and Outlook address books are the places where current worms get their victims' addresses from (addresses to which mails are sent are automatically added to the address book.)
    12. Re:Really, how common are these things? by ignatzMouse · · Score: 1

      Thus demonstrating the fact that your chances of receiving a virus are reduced immensely if noone wants to have contact with you. :-P

      Thank you everybody! I'm here all week.

      (Please forgive any attempts at being funny by the author.)

      --
      No artist tolerates reality. -- Nietzsche
    13. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When sircam came out I was working for a local ISP (around 12,000 customers) and was on the postmaster list. Every one of those stupid things that bounced and didn't have a valid return address ended up in my mailbox. It usually ran between 100 and 300 a day. One Monday morning I came in to find 1200 sitting there.

      One the other hand, reading some of the Magistr attachments helped to pass the time.

    14. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Barondude · · Score: 1

      My network has received several KLEZ variants a day for a couple of weeks now. They have all been filtered at our SMTP server but they arrive just the same.

      --
      "That's the sort of blinkered, philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage."-Monty Python
    15. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "These email viruses are as pervasive as we are being led to believe and given the right payload, as dangerous, I'd have to say that given the number of people who find themselves infected it will 0nly take ONE really evil virii creator to make some form of uber zombie ddos."

      True true - virus writers almost never unleash the full damage that they could do ...so easily.

      Forget uber-zombie DDoS legions, think millions of DEAD motherboards, millions of randomly wiped &/or shredded drives. It's all waiting for whoever is 'leet enough to claim the prize.
      And it could happen tomorrow or the next day for all we know. When it happens it will be too late and too damn bad for all those who ignored years and years of warnings.

    16. Re: Really, how common are these things? by Demerara · · Score: 1
      It's VERY important to distinguish between "getting" as in receiving an email which your AV software detects and prevents infection of your computer and "getting" as in being infected by the virus in the email.


      I receive email with all the latest viruses all the time. This week it's Klez. But my AV software is up to date and on the ball. So I don't "GET" the virus as in "GET" the flu...

      --
      Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
    17. Re:Really, how common are these things? by kubrick · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As I work for an AV firm that deals with email protection
      ...
      These email viruses are as pervasive as we are being led to believe

      Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? If it weren't true you'd be out of a job!

      I'm still partial to the conspiracy theory that has a large number of these viruses being written inside the walls of the antivirus houses anyway...

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    18. Re:Really, how common are these things? by G-funk · · Score: 2

      No, you're just a very lucky freak of nature. I get 3-6 email viruses EVERY SINGLE DAY mostly delivered as either auto-running (oe prompts me of course and i say nay) .exe files renamed to .pif, and a couple of .exe files titled "this is a good tool, i thought you'd like it".

      I catch most of these with the filters in outlook express, but I'd love it if oe would let ME write a WSH script that would filter my emails, I'd never get another spam or virus again I reckon.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    19. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the industrial espionoge potential. You know that a virus will eventually hit large targeted firm.

      If domain="microsoft.com" Then
      ' Upload all .c files to asian FTP site
      End If

    20. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Malc · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I just thought it was due to a broken mail server! ;)

    21. Re:Really, how common are these things? by emarkp · · Score: 1

      "viri" is not an English word. See What's the Plural of `Virus'?

    22. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      klez is the pain-in-the-ass thats making us lots of money :)) -tech support

    23. Re: Really, how common are these things? by evenstar · · Score: 1


      What software do you run on your email server ? I'm just wondering because we're considering implementing something similar.

    24. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      similar experience here; i have several entire domains deliver to one of my pop accounts:

      of the ~20 or so spam i get a day, i'd estimate 4 days out of 5 they are all to non existant addresses (my pop account is the catch all address) since these are automatically dropped by filters at my isp, all i ever see are the logs

      IMOE spam is an infrequent annoyance

    25. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

      There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

    26. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

      There is no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking foolish...

    27. Re:Really, how common are these things? by WeedMonkey · · Score: 1

      That really reminds me of the Linux business plan.

    28. Re:Really, how common are these things? by ShannaraFan · · Score: 1

      Ditto... I get all mail addressed to our 'webmaster' and 'info' addresses, and since Friday have been getting at least a dozen Klez emails a day.

    29. Re: Really, how common are these things? by ttyp0 · · Score: 2

      We are running Sendmail 8.12, Amavis Milter & McAfee on Linux 2.4.x

    30. Re:Really, how common are these things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, myself, in about eight years of using email, I would say that Klez represents the first time ever that the amount of viruses in my inbox is greater than the amount of legit emails that I get. Which isn't that much. I typically get approximately five legit emails a day, approx five spam mails a day. When Sircam was all the rage, I was getting maybe one every couple of days or so.

      I use Pegasus Mail, so its just a bandwidth/time nuisance really.

    31. Re: Really, how common are these things? by tgl · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I have been receiving 1000-1500 copies of Klez *per day* for the last couple of weeks. Before that it had been running in the low dozens per day for a couple of months. Klez is certainly the most successful virus I've ever seen.

      I finally gave up and shut down the info address that was getting all the load; I couldn't spare the bandwidth to download a couple hundred MB of malware every day. So that's at least one small service that's gone under because of Klez. I hope the loser who wrote it is proud.

  19. Re:Using open relays to boot by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

    Is it using that one guys' relay? Yeah, that dude on PacBell that won't shut it down?

    Anyways, I have nice lists of accounts open everywhere. Mail, news, telnet, ftp, http anonymizer, you name it. I (ahem) collect them. However, I have to rescan them every week cause they tend to be hardened after a bit of free usage.

    Trust me, if I wrote a email virus (which I wont), I'd be using multiple protocols and storing exectutables in dead sectors (ala Pakistani Brain), ftp directories and newsgroups.

    Last thing is that I hate the Corporates assigning a value on a virus. 10 billion done by Melissa. OK. Show me the physical harm done to your computers.

  20. Re:Tip offs for fake priest emails by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

    Details.

  21. Try qmail-scanner by Havokmon · · Score: 4, Informative
    Qmail Scanner uses the qmailqueue patch, supports your favortite virus scanner (FProt free for Linux), MIME decoding, and hacked up MS email.

    Works wonders

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    1. Re:Try qmail-scanner by 56ker · · Score: 2

      I have an interesting problem here - I have a virus (Hybris - don't don't which variant) which no virus scanner seems to detect. Tried f-prot, mcaffee, norton etc to no avail! Does anyone know of one that scans outgoing mail only. All I need to do is remove the extra e-mail it sends and I can stop having to use webmail.

    2. Re:Try qmail-scanner by Havokmon · · Score: 2
      Does anyone know of one that scans outgoing mail only. All I need to do is remove the extra e-mail it sends and I can stop having to use webmail.

      AFAIK, nothing works that way..

      If you use qmail to relay, that email will be scanned (anything received via SMTP is scanned), and the whole email is dumped. I don't know of ANYTHING at this point that will remove a virus from an email, and piece the original back together.. You've got MIME garbage in there, and who knows what else to try and account for..

      Use someone elses PC, and make a clean bootdisk with a virus scanner, and remove Hybris.. Have you checked Symantec, and others for possible removal tools, and detailed info on what gets infected by Hybris?

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    3. Re:Try qmail-scanner by 56ker · · Score: 2

      It's not ingoing mail I'm bothered about - and I don't want to remove a virus from an e-mail. For every e-mail I send the virus sends a second. I want to block that one. I've tried just booting to the MS-DOS prompt and running a virus scanner - but as they don't detect it its a moot point. I have checked Symantec, followed their instructions and it doesn't get removed! I really do not want to go to the bother of formatting the drive and re-installing everything.

    4. Re:Try qmail-scanner by ScoLgo · · Score: 1

      Don't know if this will help you or not. Google returned this link that has detailed info on Hybris and suggestions for cleaning your system.

      Good luck!

      --
      "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
    5. Re:Try qmail-scanner by 56ker · · Score: 2

      Think I've read it before - but I'll bookmark and read it tomorrow. Good Night!

  22. Mailing-lists by chrysalis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The worst thing about that virus is that it has massively hit a lot of mailing-lists.

    Interesting threads on mailing lists died because of this. People got insulted although they didn't send anything. A lot of people unsubscribed from mailing-lists due to this.

    So people installed antivirus software, personal firewalls, etc. The result was that on mailing-list, instead of having tons of viruses, we got tons of "alert: you have sent a virus, it has been removed by our robot", that is as frustrating as the original virus.

    Thanks a lot to Microsoft for being responsible of the most annoying viruses so far.


    --
    {{.sig}}
    1. Re:Mailing-lists by gwernol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks a lot to Microsoft for being responsible of the most annoying viruses so far.

      Isn't that a bit like holding Napster responsible for all theft of music that happens on its systems, or the manufacturers of CD-RW drives for all software piracy done on their machines? That's the argument used by the supporters of DCMA and other nasty bills that outlaw fair use.

      The scum-wad(s) who wrote the virus are responsible for its actions. Microsoft should do a better job of writing secure software, but the primary responsibility lies with the virus writer. Any responsibility born by Microsoft is equalled by the responsibility born by those users who don't apply security updates and don't run up-to-date firewall and virus checking software.

      --
      Sailing over the event horizon
    2. Re:Mailing-lists by peddrenth · · Score: 1

      It is possible to setup a mailing list such that "X-mailer: Outlook*" is prohibited from positing.

    3. Re:Mailing-lists by shades66 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Microsoft should do a better job of writing secure software

      Exactly and that is why everyone makes comments because it is always (well 9 out of 10 at a guess) a microsoft feature/bug that allows the virus's to spread like wildfire.

      Mark.

      --
      ---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
    4. Re:Mailing-lists by cscx · · Score: 2

      Thanks a lot to Microsoft for being responsible of the most annoying viruses so far.

      Someone needs to realize that this only applies to older, unpatched versions of outlook and outlook express. The new versions make it a chore to infect yourself, short of opening, saving, and executing the exe yourself. I think what we need to target here is education. Teach people how to not open attachments. Also, we can place some of the blame on Exchange admins, because they have the power to configure all the Outlook installations to not allow EXE opening, for example. Outlook xp for non-Exchange use comes by default set to not allow opening/saving of ANY executable attachments. There is a little-known registry hack to allow access, but Microsoft's supported solution is "tell the sender to ZIP it." That's what we need ... more "email education."

    5. Re:Mailing-lists by HMC+CS+Major · · Score: 1

      its a bug that was patched months ago.

      blame the users for not updating their systems, just as you'd blame any lazy linux user for not updating theirs.

    6. Re:Mailing-lists by tswinzig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't that a bit like holding Napster responsible for all theft of music that happens on its systems, or the manufacturers of CD-RW drives for all software piracy done on their machines? That's the argument used by the supporters of DCMA and other nasty bills that outlaw fair use.

      If Microsoft hadn't enabled braindead default settings in Outlook/Outlook Express, things wouldn't be as bad as they are. Most of these viruses exploit holes in versions of Outlook/OE that are very popular. Sure, there are patches, but try getting people to install them. Then they have to reinstall Windows for some reason, they put OE or Outlook back on, and leave it unpatched.

      Microsoft will continue to get hammered over this until Outlook XP and subsequent versions reach critical mass, because those versions have some sane defaults (including not allowing any access to executable attachments finally!).

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    7. Re:Mailing-lists by pmz · · Score: 2, Troll

      If a bank manager decided to leave the vault and the office doors wide open for one night, and the following day everything had been stolen, who is to be held responsible? The bank manager or the thieves?

      The answer is all of them.

      Unfortunately, liability has yet to be soundly worked out in the software industry, and Microsoft continues to walk free for what should be considered criminal negligence. "How were they negligent", someone asks? Well, marketing software as an idiot-proof point-and-click haven, when it clearly isn't, is simply negligent.

      Microsoft really should be taken to court by those damaged by these viruses. Microsoft can't claim they didn't know about security holes, when the holes have been so obvious for years, now. This is no different than an auto company putting prices on passenger's lives to improve margins or tobacco companies continuing to sell cigarettes when they are clearly harmful. Microsoft simply cares more about profit than protecting its customers.

    8. Re:Mailing-lists by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1
      Isn't that a bit like holding Napster responsible for all theft of music that happens on its systems, or the manufacturers of CD-RW drives for all software piracy done on their machines?

      The difference is intent.

      While Napster may allow (we could even say encourage) piracy, the designers of Napster did not "breathe life" into Napster, giving it the ability to act of it's own accord. Someone has to tell napster to perform an errant action. This is not true of OutLook.

      Outlook was designed to allow a remote user to cause your computer to take action on it's own.

      In any other industry, this would be termed a product defect (or more likely a product liability) case.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    9. Re:Mailing-lists by Anarchofascist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The scum-wad(s) who wrote the virus are responsible for its actions. Microsoft should do a better job of writing secure software, but the primary responsibility lies with the virus writer.

      Who should bear responsibility, the architect who designs and builds 95% of houses in the world pre-installed with piles of oily rags, kindling and soaked in kerosene, or the pissy little vandal who finally threw one match?

      Shared responsibility between Microsoft and the vandals. Obviously. But Microsoft methodically lies about how secure their products are. At least the vandal's motives are plain and honest.

      --
      Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
    10. Re:Mailing-lists by gwernol · · Score: 2

      The difference is intent.

      While Napster may allow (we could even say encourage) piracy, the designers of Napster did not "breathe life" into Napster, giving it the ability to act of it's own accord. Someone has to tell napster to perform an errant action. This is not true of OutLook.

      Outlook was designed to allow a remote user to cause your computer to take action on it's own.


      IANAL, but that's not my understanding of how intent would legally be assigned here. Microsoft's intent was to allow certain specific functions - I suspect mainly related to the calendar feature of Outlook. I very much doubt that Microsoft's intent was to allow viruses and worms. The mechanism they chose to implement these features was too generic and allowed viruses in, but that was not the intention.

      There might be a case for arguing that Microsoft was negligent in the choosing the mechanism they did, but I doubt you could make a case based on intent stick.

      As I said in my original post, Microsoft should take some responsibility for not writing better software. But the person responsible for the Klez virus is ultimately the idiot who wrote it.

      --
      Sailing over the event horizon
    11. Re:Mailing-lists by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Good point. When my neighbor kid throws a rock through my window, I'll be sure to blame the window company. They market there product as a way to protect me from the elements, but they make them out of glass! glass for gods sake! 1 kid with a rock can totally destroy them!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Mailing-lists by wandernotlost · · Score: 1

      This used to be a HOAX!!! It was impossible to get a virus through email, so people tricked newbies by sending them a message saying "don't open messages with this subject line, they'll eat your brains!" All the while those of us that knew better just chuckled when our friends forwarded another of these to us, and we had to explain that it wasn't possible.

      Then Microsoft decided to get into the Internet business.

      Microsoft made the longtime hoax a reality. That takes either profound stupidity or monumental disregard for customers' best interest. Perhaps it was both.

      As far as I'm concerned, for those that get these virii, serves them right (or their sysadmins, at least)! Microsoft has shown over and over again that the have no regard for security, privacy, or fair or intelligent system design. They refuse to follow standards. It amazes me that administrators and managers still buy their software! And guess what? As long as people continue to buy this crap, they'll keep making it. I say no thanks. Though I never thought windows was any good, I erased all MS software from my computers long ago, and have found (much better) alternatives. I suggest that all intelligent administrators do the same.

    13. Re:Mailing-lists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft can't claim they didn't know about security holes, when the holes have been so obvious for years, now.
      I hate to play devil's advocate (no, really, i do), buuuuut, AFAIK there has been a patch out for a year which would reduce vulnerability...

    14. Re:Mailing-lists by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 2


      The scum-wad(s) who wrote the virus are responsible for its actions. Microsoft should do a better job of writing secure software, but the primary responsibility lies with the virus writer. Any responsibility born by Microsoft is equalled by the responsibility born by those users who don't apply security updates and don't run up-to-date firewall and virus checking software.


      Actalluy the responsibility should be with the virus recievers. They should take responsibility for their own systems, if they set them up using software known to be faulty and compromisable, its not a surprise when they fail due to compromise.


      Calling what virus senders do illegal is treading a very fine line. They are only sending messages, and standards compliant ones at that. What a reciever does with them is their own prerogative.

    15. Re:Mailing-lists by ewhac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't that a bit like holding Napster responsible for all theft of music that happens on its systems, or the manufacturers of CD-RW drives for all software piracy done on their machines?

      No, it's not.

      "Those who do not understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly."
      -- Henry Spencer

      Computer science and computer security experts have been saying for years that Micros~1 hasn't got the first fscking clue when it comes to writing solid, reliable, secure code. This despite the fact that there have been several examples of, if not ideal solutions, good first approaches to the problem. Indeed, to create WinNT, Microsoft snarfed the VMS team from DEC, a bunch of guys who understood those principles.

      And yet, despite the mountains of examples both within and without the company, despite the millions of computers blue-screening every damned day, Microsoft willfully persists in making the same stupid mistakes.

      As is well-known, Word macro viruses were a big problem in years past. This was because Microsoft made a series of impossibly moronic decisions:

      • To incorporate a macro facility into Word directly (rather than as an external engine driven by IPC protocols, where access controls can be applied in a uniform manner),
      • To embed the macros into the Word documents directly, rather than as separate macro files (thus making it impossible for the user to distinguish between a normal document and an "active" one),
      • To set the default condition to run the macros automatically upon document loading, without informing the user,
      • To, by default, not inform the user that any of this idiocy was going on.

      Okay, fine, so Microsoft got bitten by their would-be cleverness, but they cleaned up their act, right? They learned their lesson, right?

      No. Not only did they refuse to acknowledge that they had fscked up royally, they went and deliberately committed the same errors again and again:

      • Not only does IE uncritically implement JavaScript, it also throws in Visual Basic scripting and ActiveX, all of which are turned on by default. This condition is identical to that which propogated the Word macro virus fiasco. Even their "secure" execution environments hasn't prevented hostile Web sites from hijacking the browser.
      • Outlook likewise, without user intervention, will extract and launch embedded content while simultaneously hiding it from the user. The damn thing doesn't even check to make sure the MIME type and the filename extension are consistent.

      There's a term for this kind of behavior: Willful negligence. Oh, you can point out that there are security update downloads. But you can't ignore the fact that, if Microsoft had followed basic security principles, if they had learned from their own history -- hell, if they'd even extended common courtesy to their users -- this sort of thing wouldn't have happened in the first place.

      This isn't an honest mistake. This is a pattern with over twenty years of history behind it.

      Any responsibility born by Microsoft is equalled by the responsibility born by those users who don't apply security updates and don't run up-to-date firewall and virus checking software.

      I agree that uneducated users are a big problem. But, especially with the advent of broadband connectivity, what Microsoft has effectively done is to give a loaded Uzi with the safety off to eight-year-olds, and then fail to train them in its use or even tell them where the safety lock is.

      Microsoft touts its products as turnkey, ready-to-go, fire-and-forget, no setup, no configuration, no need to learn computer-ese, just sit down and become productive immediately. This is misleading in the extreme. Training is required; proper configuration is required (because Microsoft keeps setting the defaults wrong). As such, I feel Microsoft bears a significant burden of responsibility for the havoc their software has wreaked on the Internet.

      Schwab

    16. Re:Mailing-lists by mengel · · Score: 1
      Okay, sure.

      But when the neighbor kid throws a paper airplane through your window, then you complain to the window manufacturer.

      --
      - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
    17. Re:Mailing-lists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Calling what virus senders do illegal is treading a very fine line. They are only sending messages, and standards compliant ones at that. What a reciever does with them is their own prerogative.

      You could make that same argument about a letter bomb or an anthrax letter, and it would be as ludicrous in that case as here.

      YES, the intent of the sender matters when determining blame in such situations.

    18. Re:Mailing-lists by G-funk · · Score: 2

      Who should bear responsibility, the architect who designs and builds 95% of houses in the world pre-installed with piles of oily rags, kindling and soaked in kerosene, or the pissy little vandal who finally threw one match?

      That's the dumbest thing I've ever read on slashdot. Seriously. What the hell does this have to do with viruses? Everything in outlook is there because a paying customer wants to use it. Just because you think it's stupid, doesn't mean other people don't rely on it. 100% of the blame for viruses lies upon people writing viruses, not the people who write outlook, not even idiots who run files they shouldn't.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    19. Re:Mailing-lists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outlook was designed to allow a remote user to cause your computer to take action on it's own.


      And Larry Wall should personally be punished when the first Linux-based email virus hits that relies on a perl script.

      Not that it will ever happen, as the Linux desktop will never be popular enough that regular folks will want to use it.

    20. Re:Mailing-lists by tswinzig · · Score: 2

      Good point. When my neighbor kid throws a rock through my window, I'll be sure to blame the window company. They market there product as a way to protect me from the elements, but they make them out of glass! glass for gods sake! 1 kid with a rock can totally destroy them!

      This is the worst analogy I've read in a long time.

      Here's one that more closely resembles the Microsoft situation:

      Imagine your window company installs windows that are open by default. That is, unless you prop them closed with a stick, they actually slide open, allowing all the elements (rain, snow, birds) right into your house.

      This company then fixes the problem and offers to fix, for free, any windows that exhibit this problem. But you never registered your windows with the company, so they don't know how to contact you and tell you about the problem. And you're too stupid to realize the problem exists with your windows. ("Hey honey, why is there bird shit on the kitchen table?")

      The only difference in this example and Microsoft Outlook/Express is that your window problems only harm you, and these Outlook/Express problems harm everyone!

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    21. Re:Mailing-lists by stevey · · Score: 1
      This company then fixes the problem and offers to fix, for free, any windows that exhibit this problem. But you never registered your windows with the company, so they don't know how to contact you and tell you about the problem.

      Maybe things wouldn't be quite so bad if we did recieve updates from Microsoft, directly. I've installed Windows on lots of machines, registered them properly and everything. Never once has anybody from Microsoft phoned, or emailed to let us know about a security problem.

      Like most other sysadmins the first notification I get about a problem with a particular program is when I read BugTrack, or NTBugTrack.

      Just to keep this on-topic: I'm a sysadmin at a large company. We filter out attatchments as they arrive, via some magic with exim - In the two years that I've been here we've never been hit by a single virus.

    22. Re:Mailing-lists by imroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very well said Schwab. This is what I've been thinking and talking about recently. All these security problems with M$ software aren't simply little "oops, I forgot to check that variable"-level programmer errors. These are BIG design problems. Virus checkers are really a band-aid solution to a problem that needs serious attention.

  23. use a server based scanning service by wvw1 · · Score: 1

    That's what I use, it avoids problems with updating and disabled virusscanners. There are several in existance now:

    MessageLabs, best known, scans domains (SMTP)
    MessageFilter, a new kid on the block also scans domains (SMTP)
    vSweeper scans POP3 boxes, it essentially proxies mails.

  24. Too bad by KingKire64 · · Score: 1

    Im stuck with windows but I use the Mozilla Suite(Browser and Mail) and it makes me feel so much better that i dont have to worry about viruses on windows... A reason for ppl to get Moz?!

    --
    "All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
  25. Just another reason... by Gizzmonic · · Score: 4, Funny

    to use a Mac.

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    1. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, and homosexuality.

    2. Re:Just another reason... by DLWormwood · · Score: 1

      Though this will only prevent you from spreading the virus directly.

      Woe betide to you if you have a PC-using friend with your e-mail address...

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
    3. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting one as well, Yay, iBook! :)

      Poor at the moment as a result, oh well the life of a student... :)

      Least apple's are cheaper if you're in education :) only 8 days more till its finished being built!

      :D

    4. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to use a Mac.

      Or to develop a brain and not get infected with stupid fucking viruses.

      Sorry, I use Windows, I don't use anti-virus software, and I've never been infected. It's called keeping your system patched and using secure software and sane mail settings.

    5. Re:Just another reason... by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 2

      Serious question - I use Mozilla's mail, but I do have Entourage installed (though I don't plan on using it).

      Does the Microsoft Office X run those annoying e-mail visual basic scripts? Since this virus uses the MAPI system, I wouldn't think that OS X systems have anything to worry about.

    6. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dare I say that Mac viruses are less prevalent because Macs are less pervalent than PC's?

    7. Re:Just another reason... by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Using a Mac (or, in my case, Linux) isn't going to help you. The problem isn't that you get infected with the virus, it's that other people who are infected are going to either:

      1. Send you tons of mail with huge attachments

      or

      2. Send other people tons of mail with huge attachments and list you as the return address

    8. Re:Just another reason... by TeamSPAM · · Score: 1

      or you could use pine and procmail. I generally ssh into my ISP to read my email. This way I can generally read it on the go and avoid the bandwidth costs of downloading large emails.

      --
      Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"
    9. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah great, you don't stand as much chance of getting infected (who would waste their time writing a virus for a platform with no market penitration) but you have to worry about your iPod obliterating all your data if you *shock* have multiple partitions. Yah, thats a great trade off.

      Take your fruit flavored, overpriced, underpowered piece of prefabbed plastic and stick it up your ass Elitist.

    10. Re:Just another reason... by k_187 · · Score: 2

      Office X doesn't. They rely on VBscript and ActiveX on Windows. Macs and other non-M$ won't be infected.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    11. Re:Just another reason... by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 2

      Was this moderated as funny because of the text, or because of the signature?

      --
      Say no to software patents.
    12. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooops, I forgot to mention that this is a paid advertisement for new MICROSOFT brand XP. Now YOU TOO can have true cosmic happiness, just give your life, soul, and cash to Bill! You'll never look back, because you can't - or we'll kill you.

      Thanks for listening.

      This has been a paid advertisement for Microsoft.
      Disparaging others for not following the masses since 1978. Think the same, use Windows. And don't forget that Linux mutates!

    13. Re:Just another reason... by tyler6000 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      lol :)

    14. Re:Just another reason... by tb3 · · Score: 2

      The exploit is specific to IE for Windows, and Outlook and Outlook Express use IE as their HTML preview engine. IE on the Mac is immune (supposedly) but I would suspect that Microsoft pulls the same trick on the Mac with Entourage.

      Hopefully, the object model for Entourage is different, and the extensions it uses (bat, pif, exe, cmd) aren't valid on OS X anyway, and you'd have the chmod the files to make them run.

      BTW, if you're using Moz on OS X, you should check out chimera the OS X native port. It's a beautiful browser.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    15. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, Office/Mac is been suceptable to many Word/Excel/Powerpoint macro (VBA) virues. Just that macro viruses are sort of out-of-fashion nowdays.

  26. Typical. by scrytch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The patch that prevents this has been out for over a year now. It's downloadable here. Microsoft included the patch with IE6 and IE5 SP2, so if you have either, you don't need it.

    Good dose of blame goes all around here.

    --
    I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    1. Re:Typical. by feldkamp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Careful... even if you have this patch, you can still get the virus from an exe on your network. This happened to me at work. All because I was a couple weeks behind updating my virus definitions... :(

      All it taks is one doofus down the hall who opens that infected screen-saver file, or exe, com, etc. in his email to cause you a ton of grief.

    2. Re:Typical. by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      A [l]user should not have to download a 15-45 MB compressed browser every time a new virus comes out. Although I connect with nothing less than a T1 (no matter where I go), most of the internet community connects
      On top of that, many do not have unlimited time. Because of this, a 45 mb download (45 min @ 56K, 3 hrs @ 28.8) really isn't feasible.

      This all could have been avoided had the bundled mail program used by millions of people actually been properly tested before it was shipped.

      Of course giving any incoming email direct root [equivalent] access to your client's (the end-user) PC wasn't exactly the brightest idea either...

      Matt

    3. Re:Typical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange, cause I've got IE6, don't use Outlook, and someone claims that I'm sending them klez. I don't open attachments of any kind, but I still might be infected. :(

    4. Re:Typical. by kaisyain · · Score: 1

      The security fix is 500 kilobytes. That's about a minute to download over a modem.

    5. Re:Typical. by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      They don't; it's called a "patch". And if a [l]user doesn't bother to go check Windows Update more than once a year (!) then this is Microsoft's fault? That's akin to never changing the oil in your car and then blaming the manufacturer when the engine siezes.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    6. Re:Typical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey jerk-off - the patch was only 2MB. Also, mb is different than MB - look it up. Why don't your FUD dumbass Troll somewhere else.

    7. Re:Typical. by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      "You" aren't actually infected and sending the virus. The virus is sending itself from another infecting individual using your email address as the from: field. Take a look at the Symantec site linked in the article or read the guys post above.

    8. Re:Typical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do not have to download a new browser. The patch is ~ 500k, which is roughly 2 minutes on a dialup.

    9. Re:Typical. by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 2

      Maybe you could actually READ THE FREAKIN' LINK he posted instead of just spouting off some m$ bashing nonsense. It's 500k or so download. Is it really so hard to do "windows update" occassionally? If you get the "critical update notification" you don't even need to remember. Personally, I think it should be turned on by default.

    10. Re:Typical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just finished fixing a machine a few hours ago that had the MS patch; she got several emails from friends and got infected when it opened in the preview pane (no attachment was involved).

      Another note: Neither Norton AV 2001 nor 2002 seemed to deal properly with the worm - as a matter of fact the worm disabled them - but AVG 6.0 dealt with it perfectly.

      SB (posting from work, not logged on)

    11. Re:Typical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make sense -- she has to run the attachment in order to be infected.

      If the vulnerability patch had been applied she would have received a confirmation dialog box to open the attachment when previewing/opening the email and would have had to click on Open to run it -- as opposed to the .exe attachment being automatically executed without user intervention on preview/open.

      Also, I'm still getting 5-10 of these a day and NAV 2002 is firing off when OE saves the attachment to the hard drive (preparation for prompting me to run it).

    12. Re:Typical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what was happening, but I was starting to get angry phone calls from people bitching that I'd sent them a virus. Whew! At least I'm not infected!

    13. Re:Typical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You're right - it doesn't make sense. Still, it's what happened. I've cleaned hundreds of systems and never seen anything like this.

      I don't know if NAV was updated recently. What I do know is that the MS patch was installed (tried to install it and it told me it was installed).

      I do know this was the newest variant. Is it possible (being that it exploits the mime header) for it to open in the preview pane? (this is what she told me appeared to happen)...

      SB

    14. Re:Typical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patch you refer to fixes only the bug where Outlook/IE automatically open the attachment. It doesn't do anything to stop users opening it manually.

    15. Re:Typical. by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      What if you get the virus through an executable, and it infects your registry and local executables. Can we blame microsoft then, since it's been 20 years, and they still haven't come out with a patch for Windows version whatever that adds filesystem security? (XP doesn't count as a patch, since $100+ is a little steep for a virus preventing patch)

      They should have innovated their way into the future 15 years ago instead of letting their marketing department drive the technology. Every other consumer oriented OS that was produced in that time frame got filesystem security before the home flavors of Windows did. No write access, no infection.

    16. Re:Typical. by smart.id · · Score: 1

      I don't recall when 56k modems could download things at 1 mb/min. The average AOL download is probably lower than 5 kb/sec, but for the sake of argument, say it is 7 kb/sec. That's still 420 kb/min, which is less than half of your prediction. So unless you're using some sort of special phone line that is not FCC regulated, downloads at such speeds would be impossible due to factors such as line interference and line splitting.

      --
      blog & fiction: jd87
    17. Re:Typical. by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      That doesn't make sense -- she has to run the attachment in order to be infected.
      Close, but not quite. The attachment has to be run to be infected. Any setting or lack of setting or wierd whim of Outlook or Windows that causes it to be run is enough. Fat chance of ever figuring out what the settings are or should be, even what's really installed and how that differs from what is claimed to be installed. FUD == running Microsoft software ;)

    18. Re:Typical. by kubrick · · Score: 1

      I run Linux. What can I do about receiving bounced mails which have my email address in the From: field? Or about people I work with who think I'm sending them penis enlargement spam? Why should I, a non-MS user, have to suffer because of Microsoft's wilful disregard of secure programming? And I'm still getting Code Red hammering away on port 80...

      Grrrr.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    19. Re:Typical. by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      Fire yourself, the download to fix the security problem is only 500k, not "15-45 MB".

      This all could have been avoided had the bundled mail program used by millions of people actually been properly tested before it was shipped.

      Oh, and I suppose every piece of software leaves the developer 100% bug free? Fire yourself again.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    20. Re:Typical. by shadowbearer · · Score: 0


      *sigh*....I would just love to know why the patch that is supposed to fix this vulnerability apparently had no effect at all on Klez. If the patch isn't working with the new variants...well, that could be really messy.

      I did confirm it on this customer's machine - the patch was definitely installed, more than six months ago. She didn't even know she had the virus until her ISP cut off her internet access because of spamming (one of the email addy's she had in her address book was the ISP's technical support address - ouch!)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    21. Re:Typical. by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Of course blame is being thrown. It is only natural. After all, Microsoft created e-mail software which is extremely easy to exploit to spread viruses. It looks like they completely disregarded the security aspect.

      And releasing a multi-MB patch is not an optimal solution. For one, the damage has already been done.

      And perhaps more importantly, most users probably won't even download the patch. I know my parents wouldn't, and other novice users I know of couldn't care less about patches. Some don't even know what they are. A vast number of systems out there will remain vulnerable because of the original security breach. No number of patches can fix this, as they will never be downloaded by some people.

      Microsoft have created a system which is extremely easy to exploit for viruses, and try to solve the problems and add security after the damage has been done.

      Of course they are to blame for this.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  27. No worries.... by hoya98 · · Score: 0

    For non M$ windows users: "Klez only affects PCs running Microsoft's Windows operating system." He he.

    1. Re:No worries.... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      As an email administrator with users that use Windows it is definitely big "worries" even thought the server is Slackware and qmail. I really need to get off my lazy ass and install qmail scanner or something or that sort.

  28. huh? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Did corporate cut off the big fat pipe?

  29. We should round up these morons.... by Raistlin99 · · Score: 1

    We should round up the people that wrote this virus and beat them, but we should also gather the people who did not apply the patch last year. Those people should be tought the preventive measures they should do on their systems. A little bit of preventive action on the users part and this would be a non-issue.

    --
    I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
    1. Re:We should round up these morons.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and then beat them too for taking so long

    2. Re:We should round up these morons.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any idea how many patches you would need to download to keep relatively safe, if using Microsoft software? You would have to download a new one at least once a week every week for the past three years. Heres a question for you: SHOULD every single non-technical computer user out there HAVE to be doing this? AND on top of it worry about the enormous holes that Microsoft has known about since last November and still not fixed, such as the Javascript "back button" bug in IE?

  30. Argh... by Cyclopedian · · Score: 1
    ..downloading countless megs of mail viruses is extremely frusterating.

    Yeah, I imagine it must be frusterating. However, I am frustrated with YOUR constant spelling mistakes!

    Please excuse me, I'm too tired from grading tons of English Composition papers at my local University.
    -Cyc

    1. Re:Argh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A wise man once said, "frusteration can be frusterating."

    2. Re:Argh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please excuse me, I'm too tired from grading tons of English Composition papers at my local University.

      Terribly sorry to interrupt, old chum, but while one does capitalize languages, one simply doesn't capitalize the names of courses. That should read "English composition," and for much the same reason, "university."

  31. it's a boon for email farmers by mo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Klez passed through my work a ways back and ever since then we've all been getting all kinds of spam. From what we can figure, the virus replied to all kinds of spam with the From line set to everybody's email address, including mine. So even though I hardly ever give my email away except for work issues, i'm now inundated with spam. Makes me think that someday some spammer out there will write a virus solely to collect email addresses.

    1. Re:it's a boon for email farmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes me think that someday some spammer out there will write a virus solely to collect email addresses.

      This has already happened. That conclusion was my first thought when I read about Klez's From fakes. Either that or some "white hat" is trying to force everyone to use authenticated email.

  32. Even protected systems have deal with the effects by Gooner · · Score: 1

    Klez is a pain even if one's ISP blocks infected messages. My mother has dial-up and even though the ISP blocked the messages it sent a notification meassage to her. The first couple were okay but getting twenty ~100 Kb "warnings" is a waste of time and bandwidth. The sad part is the vulnerability is old. Can't wait for trustworthy computing. ;)

  33. Email worm defense for *nix by kylus · · Score: 1

    While it probably does not bother the majority of *nix users who can simply hit Delete to solve their worm problems, I've found it pretty easy to filter things like Klez out (and protect any Windows boxen you might have behind a *nix gateway) using Sophos Antivirus for UNIX, Sophie, and Virge. They're fairly easy to install and so long as the virus scanner is kept up to date, they catch anything hostile that comes to your SMTP server.

    --
    --Kylus
    Idiot-proof something, and Life will build a better Idiot.
  34. Mailwasher can help... by ari{Dal} · · Score: 2

    www.mailwasher.net
    it's easy to use (imports your mail addresses directly from most popular mail clients), scans the mail server and gives warnings on possible virii and spam. As a bonus, it not only lets you delete messages on the server before you download them to your email program, it also lets you send back fake bounces to spammers.
    the interface isn't quite as nice as i'd like, but it does the job.

    --
    Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
    1. Re:Mailwasher can help... by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 0
      Yep, I have used Mailwasher for about two months now. Easiest anti-spam front end to use yet. I especially like the automatic blacklist lookup feature: "Effective filtering to automatically spot spam, plus it uses a customisable list of blacklisted e-mail senders and/or regular expressions to filter out potential spammer addresses and messages."

      I tried, but then had to disable the Bounce feature; most spammers' return addresses were bogus so my bounces bounced back to my ISP's postmaster, causing him extra work.

      Granted, running a spam filter is an extra step, but it's much better than dealing with or even deleting separate e-mails in the mail client. On occasion, I've forwarded the spam to abuse@{hotmail|aol|msn}.com (or wherever) plus uce@ftc.gov, even if the From: was obviously forged. If the user account existed, that would get it deleted pronto. One less spammer account.

      I wish I could send an electric shock back to spammers. Kind of an electric-eel mail...

  35. This thing is nasty by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Funny

    A week or so I start getting all these emails from different mailbox administrators, etc. informing me that emails I was trying to send had invalid addresses.

    I'm looking at them and it shows my address in the from area and it was mostly spam for beastiality sites. My wife went ballistic.

    I got tons of them back as undeliverable. How many made it through? And now people think I was sending them spam for a porn site.

    They were coming back to my wife's WIN98 machine, so she called MS. The help desk chick tells her "Someone else has a virus and it is sending out emails w/your address" So my wife says "What do I do?" and they tell her to update her virus definitions. My wife said, "But you just told me that the virus is not on my computer, someone else has it. Is there nothing that I can do?" the girl says "Well download new virus definitions and check for service packs"

    The whole thing was rather humorous.

    .

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:This thing is nasty by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

      "I'm looking at them and it shows my address in the from area and it was mostly spam for beastiality sites."
      Don't even TRY to bame this on the virus, you sikko!!! ;)

      --
      All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
    2. Re:This thing is nasty by nagora · · Score: 1
      Thats one less worthwhile comment modded up.I WIN!!

      What did you win?

      I didn't even know there was a competition running!

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    3. Re:This thing is nasty by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 2

      Well there isn't much MS can do other than pull Outlook from production. As a Helpdesker, you would definitely tell anyone who was worried about a virus to update defs on spec. This is a good practice, unlike the use of the vectoring Outlook program. Of course, some M$ shill will claim that its not M$ fault and it is a user issue, but that would just be the monkeys aping their master Bill and his minions.

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    4. Re:This thing is nasty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work as a tech rep. You would NOT believe how many calls I recv. daily about this virus.

      People's mailbox limit is quickly reached with the amount of returned mail this fucking thing creates.

    5. Re:This thing is nasty by Nishi-no-wan · · Score: 1

      I had just gotten a note yesterday from a reader of my site asking me why there's no body to the messages I keep sending her and complaining that the attachments don't open.

      I delicately explained to her that the Win32.Klez worm is most likely responsible and that the return addresses are faked. Oh, and by the way, you probably infected yourself by trying to open the attachments.

      Aw, the pains of running a non-technology oriented web site.

  36. I have to say... by NickRob · · Score: 1

    This is a genius virus attack. It used to be that viruses were altruistic ventures. Now it's DOS attacks for profit.

    What a brave new world.

    Oh and Microsoft... fix the damn holes already! God! I love being a eudora/telnet user.

    1. Re:I have to say... by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      telnet? ouch. all the cool kids are using ssh these days. get with it! ;)

      --
      I do not have a signature
    2. Re:I have to say... by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      They fixed the hole a year ago. This problem isn't happening because of Microsoft, it's happening because of people that don't patch their systems.

  37. Re:Klez virus analysis by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    I usre hope that code wasn't covered under the DMCA..yer screwwed then

  38. What does Catholic church & K-Mart have in com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boys pants half off.

  39. modem's and email - the solution by linuxtuba · · Score: 0
    I'm on a modem for a few weeks and downloading countless megs of mail viruses is extremely frusterating. Course I'm still getting sircams.


    If you use the IMAP protocol and set your client to just download the headers, using email over a modem becomes much faster. And since with IMAP, everything is synchronized, you don't have to worry about having to maintain multiple copies of your inbox, and worry about which message is where. (Come on, haven't we all forgotten to check that "leave copy of message on server" box when we use a new pop client?)

    If you're worried about maintaining an IMAP server, just use sortonce.com. I've been using them and they're pretty cool. They are reliable, and scan for viruses and spam so you don't have to worry about stuff like this anyway. They are in preview mode right now, so if you sign up, I believe you get a free enhanced (SSL and global authenticated SMTP!) account for a year.

    They have a web front end too, at mail.sortonce.com which is pretty nice as well.

    ~Stephen

    1. Re:modem's and email - the solution by reaper20 · · Score: 3, Informative

      hmmm, that web interface look suspiciously like squirrelmail.

      IMAP Rules, plain and simple. Take an old PC, throw Debian on it, and use courier+postfix+squirrelmail+procmail+spamassassin +maildirs and all mail problems tend to disappear.

  40. Virii? What Virii? by kindbud · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ever since we stopped allowing people to receive executable attachments (thanks to MIMEdefang!), the virii have all but disappeared. There is no need to scan for virii on a mail server. Just get rid of executable attachments (there's a big list of them in MIMEdefang's example configuration). All these trojans use stupid Outlook auto-execute tricks/bugs/features to propagate. Executables shouldn't be sent as a direct attachment anyway. Either wrap it up in a zip file (the recipient has no excuse when he infects himself) or put it up on the ftp site and send a URL. This has got to be one of the basic elements of securing a network where Outlook users lurk - no executable attachments (picture Joan Crawford on a rampage).

    MIMEdefang also gives us the ability to call Mail::Spamassassin from a sendmail Milter, something Spamassassin itself does not yet support. The latest version also supports the File::Scan module for writing virus scanners in perl.

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  41. Help For Windows Users by Servo5678 · · Score: 3, Informative
    I use a freeware, non-spyware, small Windows program called Popcorn to check all my e-mail before I download it to Outlook Express. Popcorn does not support attachments at all, it shows received attachments as base64-encoded text. It's great for filtering out junk, I just delete it from the server directly.

    http://www.ultrafunk.com/products/popcorn/ is the website for the program.

    I have nothing to do with the program or its development, I'm just a happy user.

    1. Re:Help For Windows Users by tomlouie · · Score: 1

      I love this program too. It's small, and doesn't need to be installed to run.

      Very happy.

      Tom

    2. Re:Help For Windows Users by huberj · · Score: 1

      ...and doesn't need to be installed to run.

      Really. And how exactly does that work? :)

    3. Re:Help For Windows Users by tomlouie · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the confusion. You just unzip it and run it. It doesn't use any DLLs, it doesn't write to your registry, it doesn't deactivate Ad-Aware...

      Tom

    4. Re:Help For Windows Users by hetairoi · · Score: 1

      just thought i'd throw this in. I'm an exchange 5.5 admin and my users all use outlook2k (not express). I've been using this solution for awhile and it works nicely (it's an outlook security patch)

      The new version of outlook has this built in and it's a little more functional (allows you to easily edit the list of blocked attachments and view the attachment if you really really want to and your the admin).

      Yeah, MS should write better software, but in the end, if the admin isn't paying attention then it won't matter who wrote the software.

      --
      you're all figments of my deranged imagination
    5. Re:Help For Windows Users by tswinzig · · Score: 1

      I have nothing to do with the program or its development, I'm just a happy user.

      I hope it doesn't have any unchecked/overflow buffer problems.

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
  42. that is what by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
    That is what happens when you don't use protection. NOBODY should use something so insecure as Outlook! Try a free portable mail program.

    I use Post Road Mailer for OS/2. I have been infected with 0 viruses (or virii?) since 1990.

    1. Re:that is what by VoiceOfRaisin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I use Post Road Mailer for OS/2. I have been infected with 0 viruses (or virii?) since 1990

      I use Outlook and IE, and have had 0 viruses in a similar timeframe, your point?

    2. Re:that is what by MisterBlister · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You don't need to be infected by Klez to be spoofed. If you're simply in the contact lists of anyone who gets infected, people might get some odd spam that's 'from you'. So not only can you not run outlook but you have to make sure nobody that emails you or might add you to their email contact lists runs outlook...Good luck.

      Unfortunately Microsoft can't take ALL the blame for the problems of Klez... The SMTP itself is inherently insecure to begin with and anyone can send mail that looks like it is from anyone else. Of course you can deduce that the mail is probably not from the source it says it is by tracing the SMTP headers back, but that's esoteric geek knowledge that not many people have relative to the total number of people who use email.

    3. Re:that is what by magister707 · · Score: 0

      heh.. OS/2. my Speak and Spell is pretty virus-resistant, too, but you don't hear me bragging about it.

    4. Re:that is what by damiam · · Score: 5, Funny

      I also use Outlook, and I have had no viruses. I suspect the reason is that neither of us has any friends.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    5. Re:that is what by Surlyboi · · Score: 5, Funny

      That is what happens when you don't use protection

      Yes. Remember. when you have unsafe email with
      someone, you're having email with all the
      other people that person's had unsafe email with...

      or something like that.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    6. Re:that is what by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1
      my Speak and Spell is pretty virus-resistant, too, but you don't hear me bragging about it.

      I dunno... did you ever let that thing get low on batteries? I'd swear there was something in there... something evil. It starts to sound like the girl from the Exorcist.

      mark
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    7. Re:that is what by JordoCrouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unfortunately Microsoft can't take ALL the blame for the problems of Klez... The SMTP itself is inherently insecure to begin with and anyone can send mail that looks like it is from anyone else.

      But only Microsoft provides a hands off and automagic way for somebody to take advantage of the insecurities in SMTP with little trouble.

      Thats what is so bad about these little episodes. SMTP has existed since the early 70's, yet e-mail born viruses that take advantage of the SMTP header spoofing have only existed a few years.

      Hmm.....

      --
      Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
    8. Re:that is what by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 2

      ditto. It requires a brain and the ability to understand a few dialogs in the "security settings". Rules out about 80% of the population.

    9. Re:that is what by sulli · · Score: 1

      You have lots of friends. Fans, too. Maybe your friends and fans just practice safe email?

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    10. Re:that is what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MSIE and Outlook in 1990? Wow.

    11. Re:that is what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, Made The Reader Chuckle

    12. Re:that is what by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      Its really not that hard to use outlook and not be effected by viri.. just some people are stupid..

    13. Re:that is what by damiam · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know, I was joking. I actually use Evolution.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    14. Re:that is what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, for the root 'unsafe sex' bromide your comment is derived from to be true, there would have to be a 100% infection rate.

      The truth is, almost all of the people in the Western culture (as opposed to the third world) who have AIDS worked long and hard to get it.

      This fact is generally obscured and in many cases just plain covered up because the subcultures dying of AIDS tend to be in denial of the fact that their promsicuity brought it down on themselves.

    15. Re:that is what by zerocool^ · · Score: 2
      But only Microsoft provides a hands off and automagic way for somebody to take advantage of the insecurities in SMTP with little trouble.

      Thats what is so bad about these little episodes. SMTP has existed since the early 70's, yet e-mail born viruses that take advantage of the SMTP header spoofing have only existed a few years.


      This isn't only a windows problem. It's relatively easy to write a shell script to set an arbitrary from: line in an email. Heck, you can edit your user-domain= in your ~/.pinerc and send mail "from anywhere". Nevertheless, the fact remains that a great majority of spam comes from sysadmins who don't know how to configure their /etc/sendmail.cf file correctly, creating open mail relays.

      Please, check your /etc/sendmail.cf for this:
      R$* ! $* @ $* $#error $@ 5.7.1 $: "571 Refused (Refusal code 01) - see
      http://somewebsite.com/spam.html for info"
      R$* @ $* @ $* $#error $@ 5.7.1 $: "571 Refused (Refusal code 01) - see
      http://somewebsite.com/spam.html for info"
      R$* < $* @ $* @ $* > $* $#error $@ 5.7.1 $: "571 Refused (Refusal code 01) - see
      http://somewebsite.com/spam.html for info"
      R$* % $* < @ $=w . > $#error $@ 5.7.1 $: "571 Refused (Refusal code 01) - see
      http://somewebsite.com/spam.html for info"
      R"$*@$*" $#error $@ 5.7.1 $: "571 Refused (Refusal code 01) - see
      http://somewebsite.com/spam.html for info"
      R$*<"$*">$* $#error $@ 5.7.1 $: "571 Refused (Refusal code 01) - see
      http://somewebsite.com/spam.html for info"
      R<"$*"> $#error $@ 5.7.1 $: "571 Refused (Refusal code 01) - see
      http://somewebsite.com/spam.html for info"
      ~will
      --
      sig?
  43. uh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm on a modem for a few weeks and downloading countless megs of mail viruses is extremely frusterating.

    Ever hear of IMAP?

  44. Re:Using open relays to boot by trix_e · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Last thing is that I hate the Corporates assigning a value on a virus. 10 billion done by Melissa. OK. Show me the physical harm done to your computers.


    it's not the *physical* harm... it's the freaking man-years of time that is wasted. IT departments are strapped enough as it is, but then lump on top of that all of the time spent chasing crap like this down, and it *is* a strain on resources (bandwidth, server drive space, and the valuable attention it takes to diagnose and resolve a particular problem). The cost is real. Whether it's $10B or not, I have no idea, but it certainly isn't trivial.

    --
    No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
  45. Klez Virus by feldkamp · · Score: 3, Informative

    We got hit by Klez (AMG; allmusic.com). Let me tell you, it SUCKED. This was a really potent virus. It got in through our video department (somebody opened an email...) and from there, it spread through some shared network apps. Within an hour or so, virtually everyone was toasted.

    Since this one spread through exe's, and since it was one strain of like 20 different Klez variants, cleaning was a real bitch. Luckily, I'm in programming, so I didn't have to do much of the visit-everyone's-machine thing. I did have to format my box, tho, as all my applications (including system apps) were hosed.

    mike feldkamp

    1. Re:Klez Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>(somebody opened an email...)

      It's foolish to blame people for reading email. The correct way to phrase this is: "Someone used Outlook."

      Seriously switch to Eudora or something.

      At my college when we first introduced email (this was a long time ago), someone asked a question about viruses and we told them it was impossible to transmit viruses over email. After all email was just text and so it couldn't hurt your computer.

      At that time we never imagined that Microsoft would create Outlook. Even after the fact, I can still barely believe it.

    2. Re:Klez Virus by feldkamp · · Score: 1

      They were using Pegasus. They executed the attachment specifically.

    3. Re:Klez Virus by Error27 · · Score: 1
      Heh...

      That's actually a fairly funny story when you think about someone going to all that work to infect themselves with a virus.

      There's really no way to protect a determined user from hurting himself. :P

  46. shielding emails from cache by rakerman · · Score: 2

    I've been getting lots of Klez.
    It is Yet Another virus that is grabbing email addresses from browser caches, as far as I can tell.
    I have taken new measures to shield my email address from ending up in a browser cache, e.g. setting META no-cache directives.

  47. I've spent the last week cleaning 'house'... by stienman · · Score: 2

    I love KLEZ.G. I had Trend Micro's evaluation corporate scanner installed for the lst month and still got infected by it. I'm now using Sophos which cleans it, but the virus seems to corrupt a DLL upon first use so after installation I go to safe mode and run the scanner with 'DELETE'. KLEZ.G overwrites the exe instead of just 'patching' it so there is no disinfection. Bugger of a virus to deal with, and my office (we're a management company) has infected some of the hotels we manage. Luckily our video stores run DOS and an email program which doesn't allow/use attachments.

    McAffee didn't say anything about this virus either, though I'll admit our virus files are from early this year.

    I've now set all the outlook express clients to run in restricted security mode now, though, so we likely won't have much more of a problem in the future. Didn't infect Outlook, though, and obviously didn't infect other clients.

    -Adam

    1. Re:I've spent the last week cleaning 'house'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mate...

      evaluation software is just that. The download of new updates is crippled on Eval software.

      DO SOMETHING PROACTIVE!

      Scan your internet traffic at the gateway for malicious code and spam. 80% of viruses come in on email (ICSA says so)

      http://www.antivirus.com/products/

      Integrate it in with your firewall!

  48. Frusterating? by FatAssBastard · · Score: 0, Funny

    Webster.com is your friend, Taco.

    The professional journalistic practices and editing of Slashdot always cease to amaze me.

    --
    /.: why the hell am I here?
    1. Re:Frusterating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you think this is some sort of professional site? You think they get paid for this or something?
      Oh wait, you mean they are getting paid and still misspell their simple, uninformed editorializing on the front page? Never mind.

    2. Re:Frusterating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      might you mean "never cease to amaze me"?

    3. Re:Frusterating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The initial part of the sentence is a positive. The "always cease to amaze" then means "never amazes" thus saying that /. has no journalistic integrety. The sentence was correct as written.

  49. Source of the klez found! by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    I bet these people will be raided very soon by the FBI.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
    1. Re:Source of the klez found! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fucking jews are at it again

  50. infection denied.... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    The virus can launch automatically when users click to preview or read e-mails bearing Klez on systems that have not been patched for a year-old vulnerability in Internet Explorer, Outlook and Outlook Express. Klez only affects PCs running Microsoft's Windows operating system.

    They should say it only INFECTS people running Windows. If it's stealing their address books, which may include my email address (mail server and client both linux based) and signs me up for the tattoo artists' youth hostel fish care mailing list, that certainly affects me. Sorry for the rant, just pisses me off that even though I can't get infected by all these M$TDs (Microsoft Transmitted Diseases), they still find a way to clobber me...

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  51. MIMEDefang by dskoll · · Score: 2, Interesting

    MIMEDefang
    stopped Klez cold at my clients' sites.

    1. Re:MIMEDefang by jguthrie · · Score: 1

      When I looked at MIMEDefang for use on the mailing-list computer I'm setting up for a friend, it appeared to be sendmail-only. Is that true?

    2. Re:MIMEDefang by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Yes, MIMEDefang is sendmail-specific, because it uses milter. However, most of it is in Perl and there's a bit of C glue to hook into milter. With a bit of effort, you could probably port it to another MTA.

      Regards,

      David.

  52. we all have this problem... by dmarien · · Score: 1

    "I'm on a modem for a few weeks and downloading countless megs of mail viruses is extremely frusterating"

    ...but to some it's not as bad because on broadband internet connections downloading mail is fairly speedy.

    telnet to the pop3 server directly, delete messages you think to be spam, log off -> send & recieve...

    --
    dmarien
    1. Re:we all have this problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In case someone still doesn't know the protocol, here's a quick all-you-need-to-know-about-pop3-to-delete-incoming -crap:
      telnet mailserver.isp.net 110
      user spamhater@nonspamfiltering.org
      pass passgoeshere
      list
      retr NNN
      dele NNN
      quit

      Use "list" to get a list of message numbers and sizes, which might help you identify which messages might be a problem. "retr NNN" with the message number substituted for the NNN will let you verify that the message is a bad one. ("top NNN" also works). "dele NNN" is the magic that relieves your mailbox of the burden of holding the unwanted message.

      Telnet rules.

    2. Re:we all have this problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I also don't understand why people download email at all. I just use a free web-based email site that allows me to retrieve my POP3 messages. I would never download emails to my computer.

  53. amavis and Klez by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 2

    Just when you thought amavis was the cure for the odd little virus the odd little user would pass along, here comes Klez.H. Our helpdesk account receives 200+ "WARNING VIRUS IN MAIL ADDRESSED TO YOU" from amavisd. Yesterday, as I am on the security bitch list, I get a call from a "Senior Security Admin" for the Naval Intelligence Service (is there such a thing???). He was complaining that their sensitive e-mail accounts were getting hundreds of e-mails from foobar.edu e-mail addresses and that we need to put a stop to it. Take clue-by-four from scabbard. Take aim. Beat. This cat didn't even know what the Klez virus is and claims to be a security maven for the military. WTFE. After he yelled at me for lecturing him on how to read e-mail headers, he asked me what the solution was. Simple: ban the use of Outlook. Huff. Huff. Huff. "We can't do that! We have a contract with Microsoft."

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  54. Attachments should be filtered at mail server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On my mail server I disallow dangerous attachments.
    It's quite simple to do in sendmail. There are several approaches but the one I use was outlined by J. Hardin using procmail. See his page at:

    http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/procmail-secur it y.html

    After I disallowed *.exe, *.pif, *bat, etc at the server problems vanished. No longer do I have to worry did I update the def's in the last 30 seconds and does Norton even have a def for it yet. Yep, THIS is the way to do it.

  55. Re:Virii? What Virii? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html

    The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii, nor even vira nor virora. It is quite simply viruses, irrespective of context. Here's why.

  56. Link to an executable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    An Anonymous Coward sends us a link to an executable (clrav.com) to remove Klez?

    Just wondering why we should trust you...

    (I'm posting anonymously to keep myself out of trouble...)

    1. Re:Link to an executable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You shouldn't!

    2. Re:Link to an executable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Sigh* Do you even know who Kasperski is?

  57. Discipline by norm_z · · Score: 1

    Yes, network admins can protect their network with some brand name antivirus software. But I still believe the main line of defense still lies in educating the users. You can protect your network from email virus, but users can still bring in virus using floppies. I have engineers who love to click on anything they see. Even it has dead give away virus email header. These people don't care. If the network is down, great that's the network admin's problem. They don't realize want the cause is to the company.

    I recommend that companies should setup strong disciplinary actions for those users. Their behavior not only shows their irresponsibilites toward network usage, but also displays traits of bad professionalism in handling other work related projects.

    1. Re:Discipline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the main line of defense still lies in educating the users...

      You give your users too much credit.

  58. (OT) How do you get a priest interested in a nun? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Dress her up like a choir boy!

  59. KLEZ by buss_error · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    My office was hit with 1300 of them yesterday, and over 400 were from the same RR customer. We blocked the RR account, even though we have an e-mail virus scanner, because of the number of connections this virus infected computer was consuming.

    Over all, we've identified over 15,000 virus infected e-mails on an average traffic of 11,500 per day. This doesn't count the 70 or so mutations that our scanner did not catch in a two day period. Turned out the broken mime header prevented effective scanning of the attachment.

    Can I send the bill for 14 techs to MicroCrap for this?

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    1. Re:KLEZ by Master+Bait · · Score: 1
      Can I send the bill for 14 techs to MicroCrap for this?

      Send a bill? No, you're paying for the priviledge.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    2. Re:KLEZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and just *how* is this "flamebait"?..

    3. Re:KLEZ by buss_error · · Score: 2
      ...and just *how* is this "flamebait"?..

      I don't worry about moderation anymore. I post to /. not for karma, but because I wish to join in discussions. Like anything else, someone somewhere is going to misinterpert or just plain disagree with an idea.

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  60. Spam Proof Email by Photar · · Score: 1

    Are there any other internet email protocols out there that solve the spam problem that have any kind of chance of gaining popularity?

    --
    He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
    1. Re:Spam Proof Email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, some protocol extension that prevents random jerks from sending me e-mail in the first place would be nice. Mail with the proper signature is accepted, the rest is discarded, or we send a message back offering a one-time signature for $5; if I find your message helpful you get the money back.

      Wouldn't mind something like that for my phone, either!

    2. Re:Spam Proof Email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately not. Being able to post e-mail to your server via POP3 would be a partial help; at least it would allow the server to authenticate the client. Unfortunately, it does nothing for mail arriving for you, but every little bit helps.

  61. If you hired admins that were worth anything..... by RichMeatyTaste · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We just finished replacing GroupWise 5.5 with Exchange 2000 at work (Fortune 1000 global company) 3 weeks ago. We run Norton AV Corporate (push down new defs the minute they come out). We are running Win2k 75%, Win95 25%. All Win2k machines are SP2 and Feb 2002 security update. We haven't seen *1* instance of this lovely virus as the desktop. Actually, we haven't seen an email virus strike yet (crossing fingers). Hire good people, you get good results. Jason

    --


    Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
  62. The real solution by pmz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is for the World to begin the arduous and expensive task of removing Microsoft software from their computers.

    The first step is to eliminate Outlook for e-mail. There are other options, even Emacs, that really aren't too user unfriendly.

    The second step is to eliminate Office for shared documents. There are other options, perhaps Open Office, that will be less prone to viruses and will be more maintainable over time.

    The third step is to begin evaluating other operating systems besides Windows. This is harder, because it will be difficult to replace all the software that was useful in Windows. Over time, however, a fairly comprehensive list can be developed, and a plan can be made to make the switch to a non-Windows OS.

    The fourth step is to take the plunge and dump Windows entirely. This may be the hardest step, because this is where the most learning needs to take place. But it is just a matter of time before users adapt to the new environment.

    This is what I have been doing at home and know it isn't easy to make a full transition. However, I have found adequate replacements for nearly everything and am pretty satisfied with the results.

    This doesn't have to be an all-Free-all-the-time solution, either, because there really is a way to mix open and closed software to meet your needs. It just takes research, time, and patience to find that Microsoft really doesn't rule the world at all--they just want us to think they do.

    1. Re:The real solution by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      ...and, orthogonally, it would be rather nice if e-mail clients generally had transparent support for public-key cryptography, so messages are signed and signatures are verified without significant marginal (per-message, I mean) effort on the part of the user.

      Forgeries would be much less believable if such messages were detected as such automagically -- retrieve the alleged sender's public key, verify sig, flag or discard.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    2. Re:The real solution by Jeremy+Gray · · Score: 1

      I hate all things MS with a passion, but switching from MS software wholesale to another system will not fix the problem.

      Computer virii are a lot like real life virii, especially in that they both find a hole in the system and exploit it. They also both attack a specific hole in the system, so that different systems cannot usually be damaged by the same virus.

      Switching to another system (linux, for instance) will just changed the set of bugs that virus writers attempt to exploit. What is needed is variety. If there were more variety in the software and OSen people used, we could avoid such widescale abuses.

      Granted, Microsoft could try to eliminate more bugs before shipping software. Users could also try to protect themselves. Neither is likely to happen.

      There may be good reasons to scrap MS software wholesale, but this just isn't it.

    3. Re:The real solution by tswinzig · · Score: 2

      is for the World to begin the arduous and expensive task of removing Microsoft software from their computers.

      The first step is to eliminate Outlook for e-mail.

      (The rest of this fantasy snipped.)


      Outlook XP has not been hit by any of these viruses because it has vastly improved security defaults, including no access to executable attachments.

      The real solution is for every postmaster to implement "executable attachment filtering" at the mail server level. Have people get used to sending executables zipped up or renamed if they really need to send something like that.

      Because the truth is, the masses are asses.

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    4. Re:The real solution by RollingThunder · · Score: 2

      Have people get used to sending executables zipped up or renamed if they really need to send something like that.

      And then virus writers will just start sending the virii encased in zipfiles. Users, trained to just unzip them, will blithely continue as before - and now, your antivirus software works overtime because it has to unzip everything that comes in and look at the contents. Joy!

    5. Re:The real solution by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      And then virus writers will just start sending the virii encased in zipfiles.
      But unzip programs are designed to show what's inside instead of to hide what's inside.
      The only real difference between the Unix honor virus and the current Microsoft wormage is that the Microsoft wormage has so much lovely cover in which to hide and disguise itself.

  63. We've gotten hundreds of this virus... by tshak · · Score: 2

    ...but luckly we aren't affected since our Exchange server has quarentined each email with said virii.

    And for more redundancy, I'm also not affected at home - because I don't use OUTLOOK! I love Win2K, the .NET Framework, C#, WinCE, and my XBox. But who in the world would use such a POORLY DESIGNED email client at home? I've never been convinced about the whole "IE should be removed from Windows" nonsense, but I think that outlook should be considered a TROJAN and removed by virus programs.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    1. Re:We've gotten hundreds of this virus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I FULLY AGREE! That'o right! OUTLOOK is POORLY DESIGNED and should be considered a TROJAN!

  64. It's a shame, but... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2
    Montez now understands the e-mails came from Klez-subscribed news lists. But he said that since his free e-mail account only stores a certain amount of messages, he's lost access to the account twice this week. He believes he's also lost a significant amount of business-related e-mails.

    On one hand it's a shame that the virus flooded his mailboxes... but if he's using a free email account to conduct business then, well, he should know better. It's not like email accounts are all that expensive.

    mark
    --

    If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    1. Re:It's a shame, but... by sdgr800 · · Score: 1

      On one hand it's a shame that the virus flooded his mailboxes... but if he's using a free email account to conduct business then, well, he should know better.

      I once had the pleasure of telling a client who was using a Hotmail address to do business that this was the same as sending his business proposals written in purple crayon.

    2. Re:It's a shame, but... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1

      LOL, that's a great one!

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
  65. Modems - Cable, DSL, Dialup, etc. by Joz · · Score: 1

    I'm on a modem for a few weeks and downloading countless megs of mail viruses is extremely frusterating.

    This is a huge pet peeve of mine that I would not expect slashdot editors to fall victim to. If you are on a modem now for a few weeks, then what are you on normally!? Aren't they called CABLE MODEMS or DSL MODEMS? Chances are that you still use some sort of modem to connect to the Internet, unless you have a special high speed line direct to your house. I hate when people associate "modem" with slow, just say "dial-up" damn it!

    1. Re:Modems - Cable, DSL, Dialup, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate it when people attach the term modem to specialized routers. If it dosen't modulate or demodulate, it's not a modem.

    2. Re:Modems - Cable, DSL, Dialup, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh yourself. If it doesn't "modulate" or "demodulate", then it's not a "modem"...

    3. Re:Modems - Cable, DSL, Dialup, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT'S NOT A FsCKING MODEM!!!

      it's called a "modem" so that the idiots using Windows would feel better about the ominous black/grey box with lights on it..

      After all, if you don't know garbage about some piece of hardware would you rather hear:"POTS modulated digital carrier wave bridge ethernet transceiver device: or DSL modem?

      DSL modems and Cable modems aren't really modems at all! they're technically ethernet to ethernet bridges. they take the digital signal stripped from (1) a piece of coax or (2) a POTS analog line and they translate and route it through the internal router to the ethernet jack or through a USB root hub to the USB jack.

      the only reason people associate "modem" with "slow" here is because most people know that "modem" means analog dial-in but broadband, cable, dsl, adsl, sdsl, Cable Internet, etc... knows that connection is broadband..

      Sheesh!!

    4. Re:Modems - Cable, DSL, Dialup, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But AARGH! Can't you DIALUP with an ISDN? There's no winning this idiot GAME of SEMANTICS! ARRRR! My ADSL box is actually called a ROUTER. GAKKKK! My minor pissoff is people who can't get a grip and understand meanings!? Because the more you SPLIT HAIRS, the more of a total fool you turn out to look. Chances are you set an alarm to tell you when to check the kettle. I hate "modems" because they're "slow," damn it!

    5. Re:Modems - Cable, DSL, Dialup, etc. by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

      Cable 'modems' and DSL 'modems' are actually bridges. I guess DSL still acts as a modem, but anyway...

    6. Re:Modems - Cable, DSL, Dialup, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modem = MOdulator/DEModulator = analogue to digital and back again.

      Cable & DSL "modems" are digital all the way, so aren't really modems.

      Ergo, modem = slow.

  66. I receive 15 or so a day by stego · · Score: 2

    For work I communicate with a large number of Pakistani, Indian, and Middle Eastern students and student wanna-be types. I get flooded with whatever virus is current...

  67. I'm impressed. by EvilNight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The person who wrote this spent some time thinking of the way to do the most damage. This virus nails you to the wall the instant it infects someone who just has your email address. That was some vicious thinking. The problems caused by this virus actually extend into social engineering. Pure genius.

    Makes you wonder what else they'll come up with...

    Maybe someday we'll have security, and patch this sort of thing...

    --
    Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
    1. Re:I'm impressed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someday like... a year ago (when Microsoft released the patch for the exploit Klez uses) ?

    2. Re:I'm impressed. by EvilNight · · Score: 2

      Well, no actually. I was thinking more along the lines of administrators doing their jobs and keeping the patches up to date (not gonna happen), or even Microsoft changing their design philosophy so that these sort of problems never occur in the first place.

      --
      Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
  68. exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    spoofing means that Klez could just as well appear to have come from president@whitehouse.gov (an email address that has never actually sent anything, AFAIK) if one person who installed the virus had that email address in OutLook (LookOut).
    me

  69. Ive never but....... by CDWert · · Score: 2

    Ive never had a virus, I have been clicking away at a console for over 20 years, I have owned a personal computer since 1978. I have never had a virus on my computer, knock on wood. It is I must say proabably a combination of sheer dumb luck and the fact that I dont click on emails that say BRITTANYNAKEDPICS.EXE.....But so be it I am lucky.

    That said my mom was in the same boat, the lan at her store has now 8 nodes and is pretty killer for a rare bookshop. Last saturday I get a call, half afraid to tell me whats going on, the line is slow, this that the other come down and look. Frigging virus variants running amok. I can say my Aunt felt bad it was her and she knew it. Being a family diplomat in the brady bunch land family I live in , all I could say was "No , its my fault for not keeping the AV server updated" then I realized the crap I just said so she wouldnt feel bad was true. They are firewalled to hell and back. They have AV clients on all the systems, and still they got nailed, why ? human error. not hers , mine.

    It was nothing to clean and had just started the night before. but were talking a catalog of 250000 volumes at risk totaling over 4000 man hours of entry to create. Whew.....I lucked out, It wasnt corrupted (the most recent backup was 1 week ago) but they are spending over 150 hours per week cataloging all the volumes they have. Its tediouis work all hand research and grading. Not like a first edition signed copy of "Steal this Book" is something that has an ISBN. (They actually put one on their front shelf, I said, hmm a 500$ book that says steal me on it, they walked over and grabbed it putting it in a safer location)

    All this work could have been EASILY lost, but there was a recent backup and 2 the damage was minimal at the point I snagged it. The potential for disaster here was big. Until last week I would laugh when someone got a virus doing untold damage. I think this one hit a little closer to home, I am the protector and architect f their IT enviroment. Basically if it happens on your systems or systems you take care of its your fault one way or another its your fault.

    --
    Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
    1. Re:Ive never but....... by uspsguy · · Score: 1

      O K, the virus writer is responsible for the damage but if I ran a small business and had a database that would cost $50k to $100k to replace. I'd back that sucker up very regularly. If they're putting in hours of changes/updates every day, I'd burn a CD or something EVERY night. That could easily be the kind of problem that could sink a business.

      --
      Profanity - The sign of a small mind trying to express itself.
  70. f-prot and perl CAN'T SOLVE THE REAL PROBLEM by doja · · Score: 3, Informative

    The real problem is that Klez is emailing itself from an infected machine to a flood of people using your and my email address in the From: line. Not only does this cause a ton of people to respond to you and me saying "you must have a virus" or thinking that we really think that this penis enlargement solution works (or that we need one) -- but, it distributes your email address to others who may potentially get infected themselves, who may in turn infect others. Next thing you know, your email address that you've been so diligent about keeping somewhat private is inundated with spam and viruses.

    1. Re:f-prot and perl CAN'T SOLVE THE REAL PROBLEM by Nos. · · Score: 2

      Of course there's not much that can be done about this. Be default mine does reply to the sender of the message (by returning an error to qmail) but its a simple configuration change, change a 0 to 1, and it no longer replies.

  71. So? by TheVidiot · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've used a ZX81 since 1982 and have never been infected by any virus.

    Use of an obscure OS is not really a legitimate excuse.

    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Use of an obscure OS is not really a legitimate excuse.
      I see. I guess that's why the BSDs and Linuces have so few viruses then.
    2. Re:So? by ethereal · · Score: 1

      So, when did you stop beating your wife?

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume he even stopped? I would phrase it more as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" That question is loaded with the suggestion that he still is beating his wife.

    4. Re:So? by ethereal · · Score: 1

      Thanks - that was what I was aiming for. Although either would be a sufficiently-loaded question, I would think.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

  72. Telnet? Ass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. The hole's been fixed for a long time, you're just another slashdot-kneejerk reaction to something you don't know about and doesn't affect you.
    2. If you're worried about security, don't use telnet like a jackass....
    Thank you.

  73. Another argument for CONFIRMING list subscribe by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Quoth the article:

    People signing up for newsletters and mailing lists that they never subscribed to has been a major source of frustration for both users and the list owners.

    If Klez happens to send an e-mail "from" a user to an e-mail list's automatic subscribe address, the list software assumes the e-mail is a valid subscription request and begins sending mail to the user.

    This is another reason why all lists should confirm subscriptions. I'm seeing the Klem-virus beating on my own mailing list, and I'm very glad I spent the time to get the software to do confirmations of subscriptions.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

    1. Re:Another argument for CONFIRMING list subscribe by almightyjustin · · Score: 1

      In fact, any mailing list that *doesn't* confirm subscriptions *IS* spamming people, viruses notwithstanding. These morons should stop whining about how viruses are "making* them spam people and get real mailing list software.

      --

      Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.

    2. Re:Another argument for CONFIRMING list subscribe by Koschei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Amusingly, the virus is:

      (a) finding list subscription addresses in the inbox
      (b) emailing them
      (c) finding list subscription confirmation address in the inbox
      (d) emailing them.

      So the virus is auto-subscribing people to lists they don't necessarily want to be on, or are already on.

      --
      -- koschei
  74. Klez is a very old infection by jc42 · · Score: 2

    I got infected by the Klez virus at least 15 years ago. I heard tapes of the Klezmer Conservatory Band, the Klezmatics, Brave Old World, and reissues of Dave Tarras recordings from the 20's and 30's. Believe me, it just gets worse. Last Saturday (after sunset), I was at a klez jam, about two dozen people playing clarinets, fiddles, accordions, etc., and it lasted well past midnight.

    Makes it difficult to get up in the morning and go to church, I'll tell ya.

    Haven't confessed it to any priest yet, though. I'm not sure I'd trust the priests here in the Boston area with such information.

    There doesn't seem to be a cure, either. I don't know anyone who caught this one who ever got over it.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    1. Re:Klez is a very old infection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahaha! Very funny!

      Y'see, "klez" is like "klezmer" in that this jackass wants to get karma for being "funny". I hope that you get modded down as a troll, motherfucker.

    2. Re:Klez is a very old infection by jc42 · · Score: 2

      > Y'see, "klez" is like "klezmer" ...

      So what else could it be? And note that if I get modded down, there will probably be some (equally funny) followups accusing the moderators of anti-Semitism.

      > I hope that you get modded down as a troll, motherfucker.

      Y'know, I once heard someone point out that every father is a motherfucker. Since then, I haven't taken the term as an insult.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  75. I don't get e-mail virus' by Com2Kid · · Score: 2

    Call me lucky, but the last time my inbox received an e-mail virus was in 1999 (guess which virus it was. . . . Happy99, heh).

    I believe in stems from not having compleat idiots having me in their address books.

    Smart friends == no virus' in email.

    Hey, just out of question, what plurality of Virus are we supposed to use this week? Last time I was flamed for using virii, and I see flames over viri and virus' as well. This is getting waaay to annoying, it was so that awhile back pretty much everybody had agreed on virii (may not be historically proper but at least it ended the debate) but I want to know what {censored} started the debate back up again?

    1. Re:I don't get e-mail virus' by PigleT · · Score: 2

      Agreed entirely - I don't think I've ever had an email virus, and if I did I wouldn't worry all that much - we have procmail...

      And the plural of "virus" is simply "viruses". It's a perfectly good English word, so you don't have to foul up the language for pretentious bogo-Latin reasons.

      --
      ~Tim
      --
      .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
      Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
    2. Re:I don't get e-mail virus' by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      Just pray that no spammer gets infected with Klez. It's not just friends that keep lists of e-mail addresses...

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    3. Re:I don't get e-mail virus' by Tack · · Score: 2

      The plural of virus is viruses. It has always been this way; it has never been anything else. Anyone who claims the plural is something else is wrong, unless they are speaking a language other than English.

      Many uninformed people say 'virii' because that's what they see people somewhat smarter than them use. AFAIK, even using Latin grammar rules, 'virii' or 'viri' still isn't correct.

      Now you know. Go forth and spread the knowledge: the plural of virus is viruses.

      Jason.

    4. Re:I don't get e-mail virus' by nagora · · Score: 1
      And the plural of "virus" is simply "viruses".

      You mean it's bogo-greek!?

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    5. Re:I don't get e-mail virus' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that there are no findable instances of plurality in latin for the word virus.

      And that because of some reason or other that I'm sure I'd be able to explain to you were I a linguist, it's definitely NOT virii.

      I think I read it's not viri either.

      I say viruses

  76. just imagine the devastiation if... by dmarien · · Score: 1

    worm authors used perfect english! man they would spread like wildfire... mail with malicious attachments is getting so damn easy to spot due to the broken grammar.

    --
    dmarien
  77. Klez by tryfan · · Score: 1

    Although I don't run Windows (and as far as I've found out the virus doesn't infect anything else) I'm sure as hell *affected* by this massive spread.

    I get 10 - 20 infected messages a day, which in fact makes my mail less valuable. It is a big problem for me, and potentially for everyone using email.

    I use the biggest ISP in Sweden (Telia) and if they can't protect their users, I don't know who can. Maybe the ISPs (or some of them, anyway) just don't care?

  78. No excuse. by NetJunkie · · Score: 2

    Klez was very slow to spread at the beginning. Even if for some odd reason someone STILL doesn't block dangerous attachment types, they should have updated their AV software by now. I mean, they all do it automatically. If you aren't blocking attachments and running a GOOD anti-virus software (I recommend Antigen for Exchange) you better get that resume ready.

  79. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was properly tested.

    a bug is in RAID, MS's bug database.

    I put it there myself.

    they didn't seem to think that it was a big issue.

    I no longer work at MS.

    oh well...

    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then the problem is with what MS does about the bugs it finds. Apparently the only bug that is significant enough to be fixed *before* the software ships is a bug that deletes Bill's bank account.

  80. Download Email? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats Odd, Mutt doesn't download email over my connection. What email program is Taco using?

  81. Klez meet Pine by hedley · · Score: 1


    Klez met pine for a little while till pacbell started filtering. I did look at all the jpg's I got sent... sadly nothing good. *sigh*. As outlook becomes more infested with exploitable features, little old pine just motors along completely unaware that active email actually exists...

  82. hrmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uhhh. was that not a brag ? :) *snigger*

  83. procmailrc hints? by smcdow · · Score: 1
    I use a linux box as a email-gateway/pop-server. POP clients are both Unix and Windows machines.

    I use /etc/procmailrc to keep unwanted email from ever being delivered. I usually catch several virii every week, but klez made it past. I thought I had a pretty good procmailrc going on, but it didn't catch this one.

    Anyone care to share a procmailrc entry that catches the Klez worm?

    Thanks in advance.

    --
    In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
    1. Re:procmailrc hints? by cindy · · Score: 1

      I've been using The E-mail Sanitizer whcih is a procmail tool for catching these things. I've found it to be incredibly effective and so much easier than writing a procmailrc entry every time a new worm shows up. Since I put it on my system, not a single worm has made it to my desktop!

  84. Re:MOD THIS UP by S.Lemmon · · Score: 4, Informative
    Yeah right - it's just a cut and paste job from sophos' web site and they didn't even get the right virus!

    It's a description of badtrans not klez.

  85. and you can look at all of the attachments, too! by stego · · Score: 2

    I've been getting the wierdest little pictures from this latest virus. I dunno if they are swiped from someones drive or part of the virus itself.

  86. No Problems Here by blankmange · · Score: 2

    Running 100% MS software, off-the-shelf NAV, and good ol' 56k dial-up. ...No Klez, Nimda, Melissa, or any other damn virus... The trick? Very picky about who gets my email address, don't register for anything online, and am very particular about what software/files I download from the 'net. I am reading about you guys who are getting clobbered with multiples of thousands of hits and don't understand how you can live like that. Sorry to put the damper on the anti-MS guys, but that isn't the problem here; the users who don't update their virus sigs, don't pay attention to their email clients (what do you mean I have sent a bajillion messages?), and don't understand what the hell they are doing online to begin with (don't even get me started on opening attachments). This makes for great sensationalized news (OH MY GOD, ANOTHER VIRUS), but for true users, it is not news. Yeah, I am going to get modded to death here, but sick of the bitchin' and whinin' about viruses -- it is a price you pay to play.

    --
    ...we are from the government - we are here to help...
    1. Re:No Problems Here by vinnythenose · · Score: 2

      You don't always have a choice about your email address.

      I never use my main email to subscribe to things, but it is a well known isp, as a result, the pound it with possible name combinations, the result, I get spam, and lots of it.

      Also, I don't know how many do this anymore, but isps sometimes used to subscribe you to whitepages types of things.

      But yes, people who don't patch have only themselves to blame. That's why updating services are available.

      --
      --- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
    2. Re:No Problems Here by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 2
      don't pay attention to their email clients (what do you mean I have sent a bajillion messages?)

      Klez, IIRC, incorporates an SMTP server of its own, so no, monitoring their client won't help.

      Carry on.

      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

  87. Very cool by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 2

    We've actually chosen to stick with GroupWise 6 for this very reason.

  88. cheap bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Montez now understands the e-mails came from Klez-subscribed news lists. But he said that since his free e-mail account only stores a certain amount of messages, he's lost access to the account twice this week. He believes he's also lost a significant amount of business-related e-mails.

    If he's too cheap to spend $20/month for a real email account for his business, I have little sympathy.

  89. enron by moosesocks · · Score: 2

    Imagine if enron got infected with one of these worms?

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  90. Re:Virii? What Virii? by BobNET · · Score: 1
    The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii

    Perhaps he misspelled the genitive singular of the Latin word "virus". An easy mistake to make, especially for slahsdot users who commonly mispell things.

  91. Re:Even protected systems have deal with the effec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like you need to speak to your mother's ISP and get things straightened out. If the messages are being filtered then they shouldn't be adding to her quota.

  92. Re:Virii? What Virii? by em.a18 · · Score: 2

    >Executables shouldn't be sent as a direct attachment anyway

    Why not? email is a great way to distribute all sorts of binary files; send it off and forget it. No waiting for slow HTTP downloads.

    Email programs that auto-execute received mail are broken! And user's should not execute anything without knowing the sender. (And MS shouldn't disguise that clicking on something that looks like a JPEG is actually going to launch the program!) And why should I have to manually compress files before sending? Computers are supposed to make my life easier.

  93. Strange source of virii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've many viruses sent to me.
    99% of them lately have been from the frees/wan mailing list (and 100% stopped by my mail server with virus scanning).

    You'd think people involved in/interested in Linux ipsec/VPN (and I assume security), would:
    1) Use an appropiate OS/mailer.
    2) If for some reason they had to use windows, use a decent mailer.
    3) If for some reason they had to use Outlook would secure it properly.
    4) Would have antivirus measures installed.

  94. Don't flame MS quite so hard for this one... by ArticulateArne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, I know that many worms have been propagated through MS LookOut, etc, through the years, and I've been on the sysadmin end of shutting them down and cleaning them up. But, you can't blame MS quite so much for this one. For one thing, the vulnerability has been patched for an entire year, so anybody who is still vulnerable isn't really trying at all to stop it. For another thing, the security settings in Outlook XP (and I think 2K, IIRC) are much stricter by default. I've actually opened these klez emails, but Outlook won't display them. It says something about having HTML that it won't display, or something to that effect. It also won't do .exes, .mdbs, etc without a registry modification, which has annoyed me on occasion, but is doubtless much safer than the previous way of doing things.

    Let the flames begin.

    1. Re:Don't flame MS quite so hard for this one... by duffbeer703 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      omputer science and computer security experts have been saying for years that Micros~1 hasn't got the first fscking clue when it comes to writing solid, reliable, secure code. This despite the fact that there have been several examples of, if not ideal solutions, good first approaches to the problem. Indeed, to create WinNT, Microsoft snarfed the VMS team from DEC, a bunch of guys who understood those principles.

      And yet, despite the mountains of examples both within and without the company, despite the millions of computers blue-screening every damned day, Microsoft willfully persists in making the same stupid mistakes.

      As is well-known, Word macro viruses were a big problem in years past. This was because Microsoft made a series of impossibly moronic decisions:

      * To incorporate a macro facility into Word directly (rather than as an external engine driven by IPC protocols, where access controls can be applied in a uniform manner),
      * To embed the macros into the Word documents directly, rather than as separate macro files (thus making it impossible for the user to distinguish between a normal document and an "active" one),
      * To set the default condition to run the macros automatically upon document loading, without informing the user,
      * To, by default, not inform the user that any of this idiocy was going on.

      Okay, fine, so Microsoft got bitten by their would-be cleverness, but they cleaned up their act, right? They learned their lesson, right?

      No. Not only did they refuse to acknowledge that they had fscked up royally, they went and deliberately committed the same errors again and again:

      * Not only does IE uncritically implement JavaScript, it also throws in Visual Basic scripting and ActiveX, all of which are turned on by default. This condition is identical to that which propogated the Word macro virus fiasco. Even their "secure" execution environments hasn't prevented hostile Web sites from hijacking the browser.
      * Outlook likewise, without user intervention, will extract and launch embedded content while simultaneously hiding it from the user. The damn thing doesn't even check to make sure the MIME type and the filename extension are consistent.

      There's a term for this kind of behavior: Willful negligence. Oh, you can point out that there are security update downloads. But you can't ignore the fact that, if Microsoft had followed basic security principles, if they had learned from their own history -- hell, if they'd even extended common courtesy to their users -- this sort of thing wouldn't have happened in the first place.

      This isn't an honest mistake. This is a pattern with over twenty years of history behind it.

      Any responsibility born by Microsoft is equalled by the responsibility born by those users who don't apply security updates and don't run up-to-date firewall and virus checking software.

      I agree that uneducated users are a big problem. But, especially with the advent of broadband connectivity, what Microsoft has effectively done is to give a loaded Uzi with the safety off to eight-year-olds, and then fail to train them in its use or even tell them where the safety lock is.

      Microsoft touts its products as turnkey, ready-to-go, fire-and-forget, no setup, no configuration, no need to learn computer-ese, just sit down and become productive immediately. This is misleading in the extreme. Training is required; proper configuration is required (because Microsoft keeps setting the defaults wrong). As such, I feel Microsoft bears a significant burden of responsibility for the havoc their software has wreaked on the Internet.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  95. Re:Virii? What Virii? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Computers are supposed to make my life easier

    Wrong, my friend. Computers are supposed to make Bill Gates richer. Otherwise, he wouldn't have made Outlook so ad-friendly.

  96. It would have been funny BEFORE the coverup! by Arakonfap · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd find pornographic email coming from a priest funny even if there was no church coverup. In fact, I didn't even -think- of the whole child molestation until the above post mentioning it.

    As far as your analogy goes, comparing it to a bad racial joke is imappropriate. Comparing it to a Democrat sending a "Vote republican!" might be more comparative.

  97. No... by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2

    ...they'd be pictures of 8-year-old boys.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      The 'sex abuse priests' in the Roman Catholic Church prey almost exclusively on post-puberty (or mid-puberty) boys. Not pre-puberty children, which is what 'pedophiles' are into.

      The priests are really engaging in what is termed 'chicken hawk' behavior. You know, like those bearded dudes ('call me Guru Bear') who hang out in the back at LUG gatherings, always ready to help the younger fellahs get their box 'up' and running.

  98. Fool! use IMAP by benploni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IMAP would allow to get all the email, minus the atachments. You can pick which attachments you want. People, read the IMAP spec. It offers so much that ppl dont take advantage of.

    1. Re:Fool! use IMAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it has it's downsides too... My father used to use IMAP. Then, the ISP he uses had some kind of error, and all the messages he was "storing" in folders in IMAP were gone. And the ISP even had no backup. If he had been downloading all the messages, he'd have had them locally. We're both wary about moving him back.

    2. Re:Fool! use IMAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      People, read the IMAP spec. It offers so much that ppl dont take advantage of.

      Uh, no, it offers so much that MAIL CLIENTS don't take advantage of.

    3. Re:Fool! use IMAP by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      Wrong. I have IMAP and let me tell you, it's not always obvious what messages are viruses and what aren't. Often it is, but not always. The easiest solution is - don't use Outlook. Period.

    4. Re:Fool! use IMAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Outlook has lousy IMAP control anyway.. Netscape w.ith IMAP on the other hand really hits the mark.

  99. MS01-027 Superseded by LittleGuy · · Score: 2

    According to M$, if you use
    IE 5.5 Service Pack 2 or IE 6, the MS01-027 patch is included.

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  100. Re:MOD THIS UP by Meowharishi · · Score: 1

    Congrats on your sleuthy detection and exposition of the karma whores in our midst. May Allah grant you eternal bliss and seks with lots of Elle MacPhearson clones.

    --
    mje0w!!!1!
  101. Evolution users out there? by morris57 · · Score: 2

    I'm using evolution as my mail client. I can't seem to come up with a clever filter that will remove the Klez emails I receive.

    I guess it's just more of an annoyance, but if anyone knows of a good regex filter that I could use, it would be great!

  102. Re:Mod up. by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Agreed. I hate to get negative karma, but this guy needs modded up for this reply!

    --
    Murphy was an optimist.
  103. Using IMAP (instead of POP) is the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can do most of this with a nice IMAP client.

  104. Amen by tomblackwell · · Score: 2

    I'll second the recommendation for The Bat. It rocks, and I gladly paid the registration fee.

  105. See ZoneAlarm Pro by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    See ZoneAlarm Pro at ZoneLabs.com. That program (Windows only) has a feature whereby it renames files with extensions executable in Windows. Go to Security settings/Advanced/MailSafe. The executable extensions are listed there. I believe there is a trial version available.

    Question: How did it happen that Microsoft Windows has 33 executable extensions?

  106. Designed for Virus Replication by Superkind · · Score: 1
    http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office/2001/ office_main.asp?embfname=virus_alert.asp

    [...] But most likely other e-mail programs like Eudora are not designed to enable virus replication. [...]

    --
    (In desperate search for a cool /. sig.)
  107. obscure?? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Just because you don't see it in the news does not mean that it is obscure. How many times do you see in the news, "Your electricity will have no problems today?" How many people did you tell, "my car started and ran fine without a problem?"


    Many ATMs and cash registers run OS/2, but you don't hear about it because there is no problem.

    1. Re:obscure?? by CaptainStormfield · · Score: 2, Funny

      Many ATMs and cash registers run OS/2, but you don't hear about it because there is no problem.

      Yeah, I don't suspect that ATMs and cash registers get too many e-mail viruses. I think the orignal poster was making a point about OS/2 being an obscure desktop OS not a ATM/Cash Register OS.

      --
      "The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program." - Niven
  108. Unless... by AntiNorm · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    and porno spam appearing to be sent from a priest, I think "Don't Believe the 'From' Line" is the correct lesson

    Unless he's a Catholic priest, that is.

    --

    I pledge allegiance to the flag...
    of the Corporate States of America...
  109. Unbelievable email by Liora · · Score: 1

    I think there may be a variant on Klez right now floating around and it is hilarious. I got the first this morning and have gotten several since.

    The email said: Attached is the patch to prevent the Klez virus. Because it is a virus patch, it will appear to be a virus to all virus scanners. Go ahead and run the executable to protect yourself forever from the Klez virus. The attachment WAS the Klez virus, or something very close. I didn't poke around to find out; as I am practically a techno-not in that department, but it left me wondering.

    I found myself thinking "My poor mom. She would actually fall for that. Oh my gosh! The guys at the office are going to fall for that." And then I had to race around and make sure nobody was being stupid.

    --
    Liora
  110. Wrong virus, asshole. by Smallest · · Score: 1
    WTF, this isn't even a desription of Klez. but the place you stole this from even has a description of the Klez virus. You couldn't even bother to plagarize the right stuff?

    -c

    --
    I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
  111. Re:MOD THIS UP by Bandito · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Except it was posted by an AC which leads me to believe that maybe it was a Troll.

  112. A confusing infection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am infected with the KLEZ virus and I really don't know how I got it.
    I have a new computer running windows XP and IE 6.0. I use a very old Eudora 3.11 for my e-mail. I received the KLEZ virus as an attachment, and as usual, I didn't open it but rather deleted it right away. And yet somehow, I still got infected (I am also running up to date antivirus software).

    This is the second virus I've ever been infected with (in 5 years of having a PC, 4.5 years with no antivirus software) so I have some clue about what to open and what not to.

    Does anyone have any idea how the virus got on my system? And how to get rid of it? I've downloaded the scanning programs which find nothing, checked the registry and searched for the common virus files but still nothing but I still get e-mail replies about the virus (ie, autoreply I'm on vacation or that the server has detected a virus and did not send the message)(and no, the virus is not attached).

  113. How Many SPAM Operators...... by dracken · · Score: 1

    ....are now going to add half the world to their mailing lists claiming that the klez virus subscribed them on their behalf and the spammers are helpless ?

    Just getting paranoid after all that yahoo-has-a-bug-so-added-everyone-in-every-mailing -list incident. This is an excellent reason to wake up and propose a law that forces the spammers to make sure that somebody really *wants* to get on their mailing list.

  114. You can thank people who don't apply hotfixes. by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

    Considering the hotfix that fixes this problem has been on Windows Update since March of 2001, you can blame the morons who don't check Windows Update often. And can Slashdot turn down the "I hate Microsoft" dial a bit? Having it at 11 all of the time just isn't healthy.

    --
    Not All Who Wander Are Lost
  115. STOP MODERATING THE PARENT UP! by tswinzig · · Score: 1, Redundant

    It's a frigging troll. The information given is not about Klez!

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  116. time for a new email/client system? by HeyBob! · · Score: 1

    Maybe we need a new email server/client system? One that only allows authenticated/verified emails to be sent/received. Maybe we could expand it to ip telephony to get rid of all those telemarketers!

  117. DONT BELIEVE....... by dracken · · Score: 2, Funny

    .....Any of the posts today at slashdot. They are all either from dead slashdot readers or are from priests! I checked them all out!!!!!!

  118. Nobody blames the actions of a few evil preists. by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What they are blaming is that the entire church as an organazion tried to cover this up in a way that perpetuated the problem. The organization deserves all the ridicule and disgust theyre getting for that.

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  119. Yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not to use window$. Linux is faster, smarter, and superior than M$'$ attempt at an OS.

    If we allused linux instead of m$ products like windoze and X-Bucks, there would be no stupid virii like this one. This is just another example of a micro$oft gaping security hole

    Micro$oft $ecurity $ucks. The programmers at micro$oft cant program for beans.

    1. Re:Yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If was all used linux, it would only be a matter of time before linux viruses started appearing. Granted, they would be much less effective, and many prople wouldn't be bothered at all, but there will always be prople who dont update virus defs., use a firewall, etc.
      The vast majority of viruses are windows-based because thats what most of the world uses.

  120. Re:If you hired admins that were worth anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You aren't getting any virii because the Win2k exchange server has crashed. It's not delivering any mail.

  121. 7 am call by wbav · · Score: 1

    So I get this call at 7 this morning (pissed me of becuase I don't have class till 4 pm) guess what. A family member has this virus becuase her company didn't bother updating the Microsoft products and she has auto-preview on, even though I've told them not to do that. They thought they were protected becuase the company scans all e-mails for viruses through out the network.

    What's the lesson to be learned? Even if your company has the best virus software, it's always 2 steps behind the viruses. Update your ie and outlook already, I mean the process takes about 15 minutes and two restarts on a fast connection. And don't call before noon on Tuesdays! I like my sleep!

    --

    =================
    Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
    1. Re:7 am call by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

      No, the lesson is, 'ditch Outlook and IE and Windows for that matter, and run something that has the decency to treat mail and news as freaking text' O_O

  122. procmail? by digitalsushi · · Score: 2

    i am green with the procmail recipies, but from what i understand from looking yesterday, procmail cant look at mime attachments? how come?

    there's really no good way to filter this in the body or headers, due to the randomness, correct?

    --
    slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    1. Re:procmail? by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      Name of attachment: Random attachment with .BAT, .EXE, .PIF or .SCR extension...

      You should be able to use the TRAP keyword with egrep and come up with something. FWIW, here's my regex I use with Communigate's content filter and egrep for filtering based on extensions. The lame-ass filters may mangle this, but here goes

      [Bb]egin[[:space:]]*[0-7]{3}[[:space:]]*.*\.(vbs |v be|js|exe|com|pif|lnk|scr|bat|shs|sh).*
      filename= \"?.*\.(vbs|vbe|js|exe|com|pif|lnk|scr|ba t|shs|sh)\".*

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:procmail? by SailorFrag · · Score: 1
      Well, I don't go to the extreme of not allowing attachments. I find that this filter works pretty well (procmail, of course):
      :0 B
      * ^TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA$
      * ^AAAAAAAA2AAAAA4fug4AtAnNIbgBTM0hVGhpcyBwcm9ncmFtI GNhbm5vdCBiZSBydW4gaW4g$
      * ^RE9TIG1vZGUuDQ0KJAAAAAAAAAAYmX3gXPgTs1z4E7Nc\+BOz J\+Qfs1j4E7Pf5B2zT/gTs7Tn$
      * ^GbNm\+BOzPucAs1X4E7Nc\+BKzJfgTs7TnGLNO\+BOz5P4Vs1 34E7NSaWNoXPgTswAAAAAAAAAA$
      /dev/null

      That's the first 4 lines of the attachment. It hasn't made any false positives that I've seen yet, so I think it's fairly safe.

      One last note... mozilla (which I use) seems to be adding a column of spaces down the middle of that text. If you happen to see that too, then make sure to remove them (or just grab the first 4 lines from the attachment from /var/spool/mail/$USER and properly backslash everything)

  123. Don't rest too easy by dbday · · Score: 1

    I agree that Windows platforms are vulnerable due to the ubiquity of the OS and applications. However, I guarantee there's an exploit or twenty hidden in your Mac configuration.

    Even mutt had a nice exploit a few months back, in the email address parsing! Not much an attachment-blocking scheme can do about that. I must have missed the Slashdot story regarding this :) (and I'm sure someone will followup with a link to the story if I did)

    Just make sure you keep up with patches for whatever computer software you choose to run.

  124. Funny virus warning by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2, Funny
    Well, usually getting virus warnings just annoy me, but this one was really special:

    Klez.E is the most common world-wide spreading worm.It's very dangerous by corrupting your files. Because of its very smart stealth and anti-anti-virus technic,most common AV software can't detect or clean it. We developed this free immunity tool to defeat the malicious virus. You only need to run this tool once,and then Klez will never come into your PC. NOTE: Because this tool acts as a fake Klez to fool the real worm,some AV monitor maybe cry when you run it. If so,Ignore the warning,and select 'continue'. If you have any question,please mail to me.

    No, no questions - lol.

    It had a nice executable with the worm attached, too. :)

  125. Re:malda is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dammit, its true. Im so upset i cant get logged on. Rob was killed in a car crash just minutes ago. I wonder if I should just shut down the site .

    michael

  126. modem? (OT) by ryepup · · Score: 1

    He's on a modem? Jesus. I pity the poor bastard.

  127. Re:Klez virus analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Would you mind telling me how, exactly, an explanation how a virus works involves the circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work? Reverse-engineering is in no way prohibited by the DMCA, and is, in fact, expressly allowed by section 1201(f).

    I know that was supposed to be a joke, but I'm afraid it's not funny.

  128. Re:Klez virus analysis by malevolence · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Um.....No.

    This is the W32/Badtrans-B virus. You can find out about it here.

    We are actually talking about the different variants of the W32.Klez.gen@mm virus.

    If you are really an "engineer" at a small security firm, you might want to try looking at the correct virus next time.

  129. the contest by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

    is to see how many idiots waste their mod points modding me into the darkets pits of hell for vaguely humorous comments, rather than modding UP a worthwile post that people might want to read. I just enjoy watching people act like idiots.

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  130. What I do... by sirgoran · · Score: 1

    To prevent getting hit with a virus I use the web interface my IP offers to check my mail BEFORE I download it. Since the interface doesn't allow me to launch any exe files and barely allows me to see attachments, I can see what is in the mailbox before downloading it to my home PC.

    Since it also allows me to delete mail without opening it, I can 99% of the time kill the spam or suspected mail before any infected mail even gets near me. Because of this, the only thing I have left to do is make sure my anti-viral software is up-to-date, and scan anything I get with an attachment. So far, one virus since 95, and the one I did get was caught before doing any damage by my software. The simple solution is to stay awake and do everything you can think of to scan your mail before "bringing it home."

    -Goran

    --
    Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
  131. My OSS plug... (Not off-topic though) by ryanvm · · Score: 3, Informative

    I got tired of dealing with my users' virus problems a long time ago. So I wrote batemail. It's a Perl script that you slip between your MTA (e.g. Sendmail) and your local mailer (e.g. Procmail) that filters out ALL executable attachments.

    I've been using it in my production environment for over a year now and it works like a charm. And it's open source, too!

    1. Re:My OSS plug... (Not off-topic though) by JoshuaDFranklin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Dude... just use Procmail's built-in capabilities.
      No need to put an interpreted script in between
      your MTA and MDA. Out of the goodness of my heart,
      here's some actual working stuff to put in your /etc/procmailrc that dumps all email with
      executable attachments in /var/virusdump/:
      #/etc/procmailrc
      VIRUSLOG=/var/ virusdump/viruslog

      :0 # Use procmail match feature
      * ^To:\/.*
      {
      HTO = "$MATCH"
      }

      :0 # Use procmail match feature
      * ^From:\/.*
      {
      HFR = "$MATCH"
      }

      NL="
      "

      :0
      *.for virususer;.*
      /var/virusdump/virususer

      :0
      *^Content-type:.*
      {
      :0 HB
      *name=".*\.(vbs|wsf|vbe|wsh|hta|scr|pif|exe|bat|js )"
      {
      :0c
      ! virususer

      :0 fhw
      | (/usr/bin/formail -r; \
      echo -e "This is an auto-generated message on behalf of${HTO}:\n\
      \n\
      The email referenced above, which was sent from your address, \n\
      had a virus-vulnerable attachement (such as .EXE, .VBS, .PIF, etc).\n\n\
      This mail server no longer accepts mail with virus-vulnerable \n\
      attachments and the email has been quarantined.\n\
      Please try resending your attachment in a safe format such as ZIP. \n\
      Contact support@iocc.com if you have any questions")\
      | mail -s "Possible virus deleted" "${HFR}"

      :0
      | echo "VIRUS From:${HFR} To:${HTO}" >> $VIRUSLOG

      :0
      /dev/null
      }
      }

    2. Re:My OSS plug... (Not off-topic though) by wirefarm · · Score: 2

      That's been a great script for me - I've been using it for months. I added a few types to the list of blocked files as well...

      *name=".*\.(vbs|wsf|vbe|wsh|hta|scr|pif|com|exe\
      |bak|rar|bat|lnk|url|dll|hlp|shs|ocx|js|nws)"

      I haven't had any users complain about *wanted* attachments not getting through, either...

      I also silently strip out any IFRAMES:
      :0fW
      |sed 's/IFRAME//gI'
      :0 Afhw
      | formail -I "X-iframe: iframes stripped "
      (I have that as my own ~/.procmailrc )

      Please note that the sed option 'I' makes it case-insensitive, but is a Gnu extension, so it may not work with all versions.

      I just wish procmail syntax was a bit less, um, *impossible to understand*...

      Cheers,
      Jim in Tokyo

      --
      -- My Weblog.
  132. Klez is the devil by netwiz · · Score: 1

    at NiftyGiantISP where I work, it doubled the traffic inbound and outbound during peak. it's pretti nasti...

    filtering all mail traffic thru a set of IDSes seems to be saving the server farms, tho.

  133. What is a virus? by ironfroggy · · Score: 1

    I've been using computers since I was seven (18 now) and I've been online since I was eleven. Even back when I thought typing 'win' at the DOS prompt was a password, I never got a single virus. Where does everyone find them? I want one!

    1. Re:What is a virus? by microchp · · Score: 1

      There will always be people who want to see "Anna Kornikova nude" and who want to "Enlarge their penis" not to mention "Win a free car!" There will never be a time when people know better. Thousands connect to the internet for the first time every day. Just be thankful that you and I are not one of them. --mcp am

      --
      --mcp
  134. Liability and Blame and Car Oil by EXTomar · · Score: 2

    Lets say some engineer at GM thinks "Hey I want to make changing the oil in the car as easy as possible so I'm going to put a button on the dash that opens the valve and dump the oil in a nice neat container".

    Neat idea...except when you are driving down the highway at 80 MPH and someone hits the "OIL" button and dump your oil out of the engine.

    What is boggling is that Microsoft designs in features just like the "Oil" button and then tries to play blameless. "Well obviously you aren't supposed to script e-mail that way". That is interesting logic but that doesn't fly for real world engineering. "Intedend use" and "capabilities" where one is clearly more important than the other. Microsoft can not place "Oil" buttons in their software and think they will only be used as intended.

    The core problem is that Microsoft continues to write applications, and worse, data formats that break a cardnal rule: programs run data not the other way around.

    Another thought to think of: Read the license on the software. Almost any software makes a "No Warrenty" claim on their stuff. If installing the software and using it corrupts data, causes natural disasters, makes your machine blow up, you can not blame nor are MS, Linus, etc. liable for fixing it, replacing it, etc. You use the software and you are on your own. This falls squarely under that.

    Of course this absolves MS of blame but then again, why again do PHB think that MS software is great?

  135. You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All slashdot users should have a huge gathering in New York, so that we can get to know each other better.

  136. Is the vulnerability actually fixed? by Yekrats · · Score: 2

    I'm questioning whether Microsoft fixed this bug at all. I really am.

    Okay, I'm familiar with the bug which Klez and others supposedly exploit, and its fix (supposedly IE 5.5 SP1 or greater) but the fix does not seem to do a darned thing. I've installed every service pack for IE under the sun, and still no good.

    On computers that I've installed IE 5.5 SP2 on plus all the other recommended patches, they still have the vulnerability. I've seen users with 5.5sp2 just click on (not open) an email and it automagically loads the virus du jour. Fortunately, McAfee stops it before doing any damage, but it still irks me.

    I've installed all the fixes suggested by hfnetchk and/or "WindowsUpdate"... and I'm at a loss. This vulnerability seems to be pretty ubiquitous across all of our NT4 and Win2k machines, which all have IE5.5sp2. Is there anyone else out there that is having similar problems?

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
    1. Re:Is the vulnerability actually fixed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still get that as well. I believe the vulnerability has been fixed in that the attachment isn't autoexecuted without the user pressing Open on the subsequent dialog box that pops up when the message is previewed/opened.

      In order to get to that point Outlook must decode the attachment and save it to the hard drive before prompting to run it -- thus your antivirus software is triggered on the attempt to save the infected the file on to the hard drive.

  137. Umm... by virg_mattes · · Score: 4, Funny

    > I'm afraid that the original poster is correct, the only place you'll find an adult site's reputation being seen as good is at their colocation (bling bling) and a pedophile convention.

    Why would pedophiles care about an adult site?

    Virg

  138. Email Virus Common by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2
    Its rather interesting. I, myself, very very rarely see any incoming virus-laden email. And I tend not to worry about it too much since all my email handling tends to happen on a Linux workstation. Anything that IS infected is usually immediately apparent.


    Having said that, I know the problem is common for others. I have worked as an admin/infosec type for a large US Government agency installation and seen email virii (yes, I know its "viruses", but that word is so... ungainly) cause a lot of trouble. And I have seen the same issues hit a major tech company I worked for too. Sure, these organizations are able to control the damage. But there is an initial reaction period that is uncomfortable and a long period where the infected traffic continues to hit the organization (albeit ineffectively).


    But this traffic does not just hit large organizations. I have a small business client who seems to be a magnet for MS email virii and trojans. I suspect it has to do with his clientel who in turn tend to be less computer literate and therefore excellent virus vectors with his email addresses / site URLs waiting in their mail boxes and web cache.

    1. Re:Email Virus Common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      email virii (yes, I know its "viruses", but that word is so... ungainly)

      Fuckwit. (Yes, I know its "illiterate", but that word is so... ungainly)

    2. Re:Email Virus Common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doh.
      I also know that it's "it's". That was just the compulsory spelling flame typo.

      Slow Down Cowboy!

      Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

    3. Re:Email Virus Common by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      There ya go. You've done gone hurt my feelings with your anonymous barb and command of the English language. Sniff.

  139. Re:Virii? What Virii? by kindbud · · Score: 2

    Why not? email is a great way to distribute all sorts of binary files; send it off and forget it. No waiting for slow HTTP downloads.

    No, just a slow POP3 download.

    And why should I have to manually compress files before sending? Computers are supposed to make my life easier.

    No they are not. They are supposed to support the stock price. Silly boy. Go sit in the corner!

    Just think - if computers actually DID make your life easier, you'd never want or need to buy another one. That kind of short-sighted business model may have flown in early 2000, but this is 2002. The bubble has burst, it's time for real business.

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  140. What's a virus? by xtremex · · Score: 1

    Since I haven't used Windows in eons, someone please remind me what a Virus is. From what I remember, a computer virus shoudl REALLY be called A Microsoft virus.

    --
    If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
  141. I got Klez by ruiner13 · · Score: 1

    I got 3 letters on saturday, all appeared to be "Returned Mail: User Unknown" messages, even though I've never sent any mail to any of the supposed people (one was a k-12 institution address.. I know FOR SURE i've never sent to that). I use MacOSX with Apple's Mail program, so I didn't get infected. I did pass on the letters to my ISP's e-mail abuse address (I did not know what Klez was at the time) and they informed me yesterday of what it was. This is the first virus that has been passed to me (AFAIK), and I've never been so happy to be M$ free as I am after seeing all the stories pop-up about this virus on The Register, CNN, and now /.. I've never had a virus on my computer, and with any luck, it'll stay that way!

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  142. Minor mistake by DVega · · Score: 1
    "top (number of message to check) (kb to read)"
    In fact it is:

    top <message_num> <lines_of_body_to_display>

    From RFC1939

    TOP msg n

    Arguments:
    a message-number (required) which may NOT refer to to a
    message marked as deleted, and a non-negative number
    of lines (required)

    --
    MOD THE CHILD UP!
  143. Re:Even protected systems have deal with the effec by Gooner · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm sure calling the ISP could help but it's not *that* big of a deal. She has a bandwidth quota but she never gets near to hitting it, unlike me. The bigger problem is folks who don't know enough to patch their systems and stay du jour with A/V solutions.

  144. Re:MOD THIS UP by Meowharishi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Whats the point of karma whoring with a troll if you do it as an AC? *sigh* What is this world coming to?

    --
    mje0w!!!1!
  145. Thank you, sir by FatAssBastard · · Score: 0

    ...for having a brain. :)

    --
    /.: why the hell am I here?
  146. Wrongfully Prosecuted by virg_mattes · · Score: 2

    Are you sure you don't mean "persecuted"? Still, the parent post was a joke, and jokes often lampoon groups of people for humor. Whether it was tacky or not really depends on the listener.

    Also, where did "science-worshipping" come in? How are you to know that the post wasn't written by a Catholic, or even a priest with a wry sense of humor?

    Because you toss around baseless accusations while decrying baseless accusations in others, you shouldn't be modded as a troll. The problem is that "-1, Hypocrite" is not available, and so that's the best choice in the list.

    Virg

  147. Linux alone solved my problems by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    No Outlook, no MSIE, no scripting vulnerabilities, no problem!

  148. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  149. Re:Using open relays to boot by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2

    We did not get infected, did not see the virus within our system. Yet how many man hours did we waste fighting this virus?

    Couple man hours ensuring virus sigs up to date on all servers, distributed to all desktops.

    Couple hours reasearching the virus. A few hours checking out the sandbox to see what the virus is doing. An hour writing a report and sending a summary to users. Several hours answering users questions.

    Then the virus starts spreading. Yes, we know the virus forges the sender's address, but every bounceback and claim of viruses originating from here were checked (due diligence). Dozens of man hours spent scanning machines we knew were clean. Spent checking email logs to ensure the original message never actually passed through our email server.

    More hours spent answering calls about users who are now getting bombarded with the virus emails, who don't yet understand that "virus stripped" means it's clean and can simply be deleted.

    How many man hours is that? Close to 100 hours by my estimate; $5000 wasted on this... and we weren't even infected. No system downtime. No lost files. No (major) interruption of resources to users. Just me and four other techs taking time out of our regular schedules to do fight this.

    I don't have any idea how much it would cost, in terms of man hours alone, if we were to get infected. I'd hate to find out.

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  150. Been getting tons of 'em, but... by Quietust · · Score: 2

    ...all I get is a little 2KB-3KB email. No attachment, no virus.

    Attempting to view the email just gives me "This message contains script, which Outlook cannot render" and a blank message window.
    Oh, BTW, I'm using Outlook 2002 configured to view all HTML emails as if they were in the "Restricted Sites" zone, so I'm not sure how that would affect things.
    And I know for a fact that I'm not infected (have run NAV Corporate numerous times, and have checked for the 'Klez' registry keys and filenames and found nothing).

    I'm rather curious why I seem to be getting nothing but duds. Could Outlook possibly be protecting me from Klez?

    --
    * Q
    P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.
  151. Re:Virii? What Virii? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's viruses, god damn it! I can't even read your fucking message because you use the non-word "virii" every two sentences and it drives me crazy!

  152. c.taco still getting sircams? wrong fellas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Supreme Commander Taco,

    I believe that you suffer from the "I know the wrong people, or the wrong people know me" syndrome.

    I strongly suggest you hide in a cave.

    Best regards,
    Ugh

  153. The bogus from address is the problem with this by 0xA · · Score: 2
    I am the IT Department for a small company, I run our own email servers and I have done everything I can think of to protect us from viri.

    All in all it works pretty good, we don't have Klez, we get a ton of it but it is all filtered at the server. Personally I think that someone who ends up sending everyone in thier contact list is going to suffer a bit of a hit to thier proffesional reputation. Over the past week or so serveral people in the company have been getting "you sent me a virus" messages. No we didn't! I've been over the whole company with a fine toothed comb, we don't have this thing.

    The fake email headers are really this virus' claim to fame. What a freaking disaster.

    1. Re:The bogus from address is the problem with this by bonezed · · Score: 1

      I have the same problem here...

      I have checked everybodies desktop twice now and I'm still getting warnings in the mail server logs and also getting nasty emails from other companies telling me to stop sending virus'

      grrr, I hate Microsoft crap!

      --
      ---- Put Sig here:
  154. Re:Using open relays to boot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Klez adds the final touch to debunking Microsoft's claim that Windows software boosts office productivity.

    Is it just coincidence that PC sales have slowed dramatically? What is the cost of that?!

  155. scan it on the mail server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McAfee VirusScan for linux...$30
    amavis scanner...............$ 0

    not hearing CmdrTaco whine...priceless

  156. Big Difference by Macrobat · · Score: 2
    The difference between mocking priests and making racial stereotypes is huge. Nobody chooses the color of skin they're born with. People choose to be priests. Moreover, they choose to join an institution that, for at least twenty years, has used hush money and strongarm tactics to cover up what should have been an obvious problem. This is not the first time large numbers of priests have been caught molesting children, nor is it the first time the church heirarchy has been caught trying to cover it up. And even with all the negative publicity it has been getting, the vatican has only pledged itself to chastising "notorious" and "repeat" offenders. (Read: people who got caught, and whom we couldn't shuffle off to another parish.)

    The problem with bad priests is the same as the problem with bad cops: it's very unlikely that one can be abusive without others being aware of it. So perhaps it's only a small percentage of priests who molest children. But the fact that many more knew about it, and kept silent, even when these molesters were put back in the charge of children, is equally damning.

    Also, tell me, where are your statistics for "hundreds" of priests being "wrongfully prosecuted?" I read of people flocking to churches to support those priests who have not been accused. And being the butt of jokes is a small price to pay, and the cost of doing business, when you sign up for an organization as powerful, arrogant, and insular as the Church.

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    1. Re:Big Difference by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      Preach it, brother. (No pun intended)

  157. 'virii' is not a word by Tom7 · · Score: 1

    The plural of 'virus' is 'viruses'. Cut out the pseudo-intellectual shit.

    1. Re:'virii' is not a word by kindbud · · Score: 2

      Wow Tom7, you really told me. On Slashdot even. What ever will I do about my reputation now? You've ruined it. Boo hoo hoo.

      Feel better?

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
  158. I think it's happening already by freeweed · · Score: 2

    I've obsessively watched my parents' email accounts ever since my dad asked me why Teenage Girls Want To Show Him What They Do In Locker Rooms.

    In the past 2 years, I think I've gone through about 30 email accounts for them. Without exception, they receive little to no spam, even if the account is frequently used (so random address generator bots aren't THAT good yet). However, in every instance that they give an address to 2 or 3 specific friends of theirs, within a week their inbox is full of crap. These particular friends are notorious for mass Fwd:'s.

    I've concluded that somehow one of these idiotic spammers has either written an address gathering virus, or is somehow picking up on mass recipient lists. Anyone else see this sort of patten?

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  159. Sendmail Configuration to Reject Klez? by akiy · · Score: 2

    Does anyone have a sendmail configuration to reject Klez?

    --

    --
    http://www.aikiweb.com - AikiWeb Aikido Information

  160. Re:Virii? What Virii? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
    The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii

    I suppose that next you'll tell me that boxen isn't right, either.

  161. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  162. Zip it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these trojans use stupid Outlook auto-execute tricks/bugs/features to propagate. Executables shouldn't be sent as a direct attachment anyway. Either wrap it up in a zip file (the recipient has no excuse when he infects himself)

    Now all we need is a M$ automatically to decompress zips and run the script

  163. Klez brings people together by knodi · · Score: 1

    I have a friend named "Annie" who got an e-mail from an old friend "Johnathan Archer" which was actually sent by my friend "Tiffany"'s Klez-infected computer. Annie and Tiffany are from different towns, and Johnathan doesn't live near either of them. It's just a random example of the six-degrees rule of thumb. Neat, huh? We checked, it really is the same guy.

    --
    Austin is more fun than Dallas.
  164. Oops. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    > Similarly, except free as in {beer,speech}, try Balsa [gnome.org].

    Oops. Now that I've re-read the grandparent post, I see that it was using the "top" command rather than just looking at the basic message info. AFAIK, Balsa does not support "top". It does save a lot of headaches, though.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  165. Obligatory "virii" correction" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do people just like the way two i's in a row look? Even if we were going to use a latin-like plural for this (which we don't), it would be viri, not virii.

    The reason words like "radius" are pluralized "radii" (with two i's) is that there's already one "i" before the "us":

    radi-us
    radi-i

    If we were to use the same pluralization scheme with "virus", it would be:

    vir-us
    vir-i

    One "i".

  166. And that means...what? by br0ken+by+design · · Score: 1

    Many ATMs and cash registers run OS/2, but you don't hear about it because there is no problem.

    The PC and embedded markets are very, very different things.
    Just because a piece of software is ubiquitous on an ATM, doesn't mean
    it's not obscure in the PeeCee world.

    The reason OS/2 doesn't get viruses is because no one writes them
    for it - it's not worth it because hardly any good targets (desktop
    computer users) exist. The spyware situation on linux is similar:
    people crow about how linux apps don't have any spyware, but that's
    not because of some inherent technological superiority, it's simply
    because no one has written any. (Hell, barely anyone has written commercial
    apps for linux at this point, let alone commercial apps with sleazeware.)

    Just because you don't see it in the news does not mean that it is obscure.

    According to webster.com it does:
    3 : relatively unknown: as a : REMOTE, SECLUDED b : not prominent or famous

    :wq

    --
    One ring to rule them all. The (_O_) in Goatse.cx
    1. Re:And that means...what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting that Linux in inherently secure. All a user-level account or a rogue script a user is fooled into running on a Linux box can delete is everything in the user's home directory (in other words, all the original work and content on the system). All the binaries and resources which are easily restored off CD-ROM distribution media are rock solid and safe.

      If you fail to detect the sarcasm in the above comment, please move on.

  167. Re:Using open relays to boot by ewhac · · Score: 2

    it's not the *physical* harm... it's the freaking man-years of time that is wasted. [ ... ]

    Oh, well, then if IT departments working to clean up the mess left by viruses can be counted as a dollar cost, I'd like to see a comparative study done of the dollar cost due to unprovoked Windows crashes.

    It is also probably worth pointing out that these viruses wouldn't be nearly as plentiful had it not been for the 25-years-and-counting history of bloody-minded engineering incompetence freely practiced up in Redmond.

    Schwab

  168. Here's what I did. by jchawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I got sick of all the spam, all the chain letters and all of the virus's. So I decided to run my own small mail server. I changed my email address and only gave it to people that would not open foolish attachment, and would not forward crap on to me.

    Running linux the virus's aren't a problem, but downloading and the wadding through hundreds of emails sucked.

    I then use procmail along with spam assassion. Now when I check my email there is usually one or two messages, and they are relivent.

    Even the mailing lists I'm subsribed to get put in a sepereate folder.

    I can't complain at all anymore.

    What about those less the brillent friends that are still affected? Well I leave icq and aim running so they can just leave me a message that way. :-)

    Hey if my mother can avoid getting infected with these stupid virus's so can you!

  169. A what? by glwtta · · Score: 2

    I keep hearing about these "email viruses", how do I enable support for that in Evolution? Or do I have to wait for the next version? I hate missing out on all the cool features.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  170. Self cleaning worm by 99bottles · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe I should just tweak Klez a bit so it removes me from anyone's address book. Yeah, that's it! Anyone one else wanna add their addr to the cleaning list?

  171. Klez.H, Hardware killer by Artana+Niveus+Corvum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am the network administrator for the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, recently we were assaulted by no less than 5 variants of the klez worm. Klez.C,E,F,G, and H... WATCH OUT FOR Klez.H!!! It is stinking creepy smart! Not only does it play the normal irritating klez crack games with your email system, it also knows how to delete your antivirus software (I've observed it doing this to Norton, McAfee, and InoculateIT), but worst of all, given time it actually knows how to write into motherboard and video card bios space on reboot with win9x! (it does this even if the stupid "boot virus protection" is enabled in the bios and bios flashability is TURNED OFF! This is NOT a joke or a prank, this thing is freaking dangerous. I've already sent emails to Computer Associates, Norton, and McAfee... be careful people, be bloody careful

    --
    -----------------------------------------
    Remove the Greed which plagues mankind.
    1. Re:Klez.H, Hardware killer by Artana+Niveus+Corvum · · Score: 2, Informative

      PLEASE NOTE!!!
      I have just recieved a reply from Computer Associates and this is not, I repeat NOT the same as Win32/Klez.H (klez.h@mm). I have been informed that CA will look into my findings. (I'm mailing them a bios chip wiped by the thing tomorrow afternoon)

      --
      -----------------------------------------
      Remove the Greed which plagues mankind.
  172. Potent Virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a potent virus, it's an EMAIL VIRUS!! The reason it gutted your shop is because YOU CHOOSE TO USE MICROSOFT OUTLOOK AND YOU DIDN'T KEEP IT UP TO DATE.

    It's fools like you that are the cause of this entire mess. "Duh - I left the door open and the security system turned off last night and - duh - someone came and took all our stuff. He must have been a really potent thief - duh-hu-hu-drool."

    If one of you morons could manage to activate a single brain cell amungst your collective you might realize that - GASP - the reason you are in the situation you are in is that you are all complete dimwits.

    I have no sympathy for idiots like you. If I had my way you would all be dragged outside and shot like dogs in the street.

    Take five cents and go buy a clue you fucking idiot.

    1. Re:Potent Virus? by feldkamp · · Score: 1

      Umm... the person executed the attachment explicitly. Their machine was patched completely. They were using Pegasus. They downloaded a "screen-saver" executable, and were infected.

      The only way we could have been invulnerable to this sort of mishap is by using linux; however, we need to use FoxPro quite heavily, and thus another platform is not possible.

      Now, back to your hole please.

  173. Easy way to clean up its mess too... by sailor420 · · Score: 1

    Norton (Symantec) has released a tool that cleans up the infected files. Works pretty well too: I just fixed a friend's computer with it. Her machine was messed to the point that it would barely boot, and I got it running fully in a matter of minutes with it. Grab it from http://www.symantec.com

  174. Re:Virii? What Virii? by smart.id · · Score: 1

    An easy mistake, like you misspelling "misspell."

    --
    blog & fiction: jd87
  175. Use Mozilla mail by ishmalius · · Score: 1
    Relatively virus-proof, and with all of the functionality you need, this is an excellent mail agent for most people. Use this, and laugh at your wretched virus-ridden coworkers!

    Especially nice on Linux!

    The spellchecker it not integrated yet, but it will be added right after the 1.0 release.

  176. The postal system should take blame.. by iserlohn · · Score: 1

    The US/UK/"Insert your country here" postal service is inherently insecure as it allows you to spoof your return address. Let's blame all the problems on them. What good did they do for us in the past few centuries anyway??

  177. Re:Pornographic attachments f {OT re: billg's ssn} by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates' SSN: 539-60-5125

    I found your sig a little hard to beleive, so I did some google research (and its true!).

    You ought to add this link to your sig to add some legitimacy to it.

    Gotta wonder why sec.gov took down Bill's ssn, but left Paul Allen's (536-58-3118) online?
    Oh well, no matter, archive.org is my friend :)

  178. Re:Save your bandwidth: More Options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1) Get a shell account. Use ELM

    2) Use IMAP. Delete what you don't want

    -- angry ac at work (angry at the 0.01 SNR of my mail now-a-days)

  179. klez ? Use Postfix. by little_fluffy_clouds · · Score: 2, Informative

    in main.cf:

    body_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/body_checks

    in body_checks:

    /^begin(-base64)? [0-9]+.*(\.|=2E)exe(\?=)?(\.)?/ REJECT
    /^[^]*(body|filename|name=).*(\.|=2E)exe(\ ? =)?(\.)?/ REJECT

    You have to do the same two lines for bat, pif and scr (put them where the above two lines say exe) I could not paste them all due to the lameness filter telling me to use less junk characters.

    --
    What were the skies like when you were young?
  180. MS *IS* Responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey there Rip Van Winkle, you must have been asleep when Napster *WAS* held responsible for the theft of music. That established the precedent. Napster *did* facilitate music theft.

    Microsloth's junkware *does* facilitate virus writing and propagation, therefore the same punishment should be laid upon them for their misdeeds.

    Also bear in mind that MS facilitated Napster too.

    1. Re:MS *IS* Responsible. by nytmare · · Score: 1

      Blame the users all you want, but education is fleeting and limited. Blame virus writers if you like, but they're never going to disappear. Blame Microsoft, because they are the ones with the ultimate capacity to solve the problem, and they don't. Too busy counting money, I suppose.

  181. HotMail' McAfee scan failed? by Gandalf_007 · · Score: 2

    So much for HotMail's server-side scanning (it uses McAfee AFAIK). I've seen it block attachments with viruses before, but I guess it's not 100% effective (after all, it is a MS product!).

    --

    "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
    1. Re:HotMail' McAfee scan failed? by V_M_Smith · · Score: 1

      So much for HotMail's server-side scanning (it uses McAfee AFAIK). I've seen it block attachments with viruses before, but I guess it's not 100% effective (after all, it is a MS product!).

      My home system became infected with Klez after my wife opened an attachment from her hotmail account (and she knows better!) which the server-side scanning had claimed was okay. What a monster pain in the ass that was! From then on, any attachments get scanned, then opened under Linux!

  182. agree & dissagree by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    it DOES do physical harm : when you work for say, 8 hours... fixing & cleaning a box from a nasty virus, you have lost 8 hours of your life. your dna has lost some length in some places, and you have likely inhaled carcinogens released from some fume from the computer, and theres definitely something not healthy(killing your cells) about the monitor...
    while the physical damage, with one person, may not be large or even noticable, added over thousands of working-hours over dozens of people...perhaps the idea that of those people one of their lives has just been wasted, all for a bug...even if each of them just lost a few hairs from stress : the mass is gone.

    this is the concern here...i dont want to waste some poor collective bastards life because of microsoft deciding that .exe 's make files ugly :P

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  183. Free email services by DaveRobb · · Score: 1

    From the article :

    ====
    Montez now understands the e-mails came from Klez-subscribed news lists. But he said that since his free e-mail account only stores a certain amount of messages, he's lost access to the account twice this week. He believes he's also lost a significant amount of business-related e-mails.
    ====

    Why is it that people continue to rely on free email services for business-related matters? Then, when something goes wrong, they moan and whinge and wonder why no-one has any sympathy.

    Sheesh. You get what you pay for.

  184. Should We Even Bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I finally managed to escape the hell that is a Microsoft Outlook-only office environment ("Eudora? But it doesn't have that calendar thing...!") by quitting. Between the vulnerable software and the uneducatable(?) users, it just wasn't worth the effort.

    Then one day I received the following call from the new IT manager:

    Me: "Hello?"

    Him: "Hey, it's W****n, can you come in here today? Our server is doing weird shit and everybody has that new virus thing."

    Me: "Well, so, fix it!"

    Him: "I can't figure out the server config, and you have the antivirus software!"

    Me: "Christ, I took you through the server setup for almost a month! I printed out the specs and shit! They're in a folder on top of the f**king thing! And what happened to the NAV Corp Ed subscription?"

    Him: "Uh, I can't find it. We thought you must have...taken...it...hello, what's this? Hey, it's from my ex-wife! I wonder what she's sent me..."

    Then he opened it.

    True story.

  185. I am may be a loser by ellem · · Score: 2

    I run OS X, Win98Se, FreeBSD & Solaris 8.

    I don't use Outlook or Outlook Express.

    All the machines are configured to recieve mail.

    I haven't seen one Klez yet.

    I think I might be a total loser. How on Earth is it possible that I haven't ended up on a least one stupid person's email address list? How can it be?

    Have I no friends?

    I am so ashamed....

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  186. procmail to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ################ Klev Check ##################
    :0
    * ^Content-Type: multipart/alternative
    * B ?? ^Content-Type: application/octet-stream
    * ! B ?? ^Content-Type: text/plain
    virus

  187. Instructions for Virus Scanning with Postfix by Nailer · · Score: 2

    I have written instructions on setting up Postfix to work with Sophos Mailmonitor. I like this solution because the API between MailMonitor and Postfix is pure, regular SMTP, not some vendor unsupported addon. I can telnet to the port the Mailmonitor SMTP server runs on and troubleshoot, knowing that any errors in this part of the operation are the responsibility of Sophos, or alternatively that if the SMTP server on this port is fine, my postfix config is at fault.

  188. Klez hit my company.... by usmcpanzer · · Score: 1

    and I got a new computer. Boss was fed up with the outdated anti-viri software and just decided it was best to start over. Thanks Klez!!!!

  189. procmail rules (yes pun pun) by tobi · · Score: 1

    These save me from the worst of sircam and klez

    :0
    * H ?? (X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Mimeole|Outlook_Express_message_boundary)
    * B ?? ^Hi! How are you=3F
    * B ?? ^See you later=2E Thanks
    /dev/null

    :0
    * H ?? (X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Mimeole|Outlook_Express_message_boundary)
    * B ?? ^Hi! How are you\?
    * B ?? ^See you later\. Thanks
    /dev/null

    :0
    * Subject:.+Melt the Heart of your Valentine with this beautiful Screen saver
    /dev/null

    :0
    * Subject: A +(special|very)? +(excite|humour|special|new|funny|powerful|powful| good|IE 6\.0|nice) (game|website|tool|patch)
    * > 50000
    /dev/null

    :0
    * From: postmaster
    * Subject: Returned mail--".+"
    * > 50000
    /dev/null

    :0
    * Subject: .*(klez|elkern).*(removal|immunity)
    * > 50000
    /dev/null

    :0
    * H ?? ^X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Mimeole
    * B ?? ^Hola como estas =3F
    * B ?? ^Nos vemos pronto=2C gracias=2E
    /dev/null

    :0
    * H ?? ^Content-Type: multipart/
    * B ?? ^
    * B ?? ^BODY
    * B ?? ^Content-Type: audio/
    /dev/null

    --
    Tobi
    1. Re:procmail rules (yes pun pun) by WetCat · · Score: 1

      ... and you're effectevely move >/dev/null all mail
      that starts from
      Hi! How are you?
      without thinking that _people_ can write that sort of
      messages.

      It will be fun if there will be a virus that has
      signature of
      "Sincerely"
      or "Dear sir,"

  190. How to avoid any email virus by spudgun · · Score: 1

    1 show extentions of every file type
    open my computer, View Menu , options , view tab tick
    2 Set Outlook express to restricted sites zone
    tools options security

    3 install html-procmailtrap on your email gateway
    http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/procmail-securit y.html

    easy !
    those first 2 should be the DEFAULT from microsoft if they are interested in security !

    --
    Type unto others as you would have them type unto you.
  191. ISPs are shying away from IMAP for regular lusers. by dsandler · · Score: 2, Informative

    Despite its superiority for most applications (including spamfighting), IMAP is still losing to POP and will continue to do so for some time. Why? Because ISPs (and other mailbox providers) don't like providing diskspace for their users' mailboxes. A huge mailspool is bad enough, but the default behavior of most POP clients will is to move a user's incoming messages from her inbox to her PC -- removing the burden from the provider.

    It's a perfect case of service-provider myopia, too: if the technology were better applied, IMAP clients might be able to delete viral attachments (or IMAP servers might strip them out) before they're even downloaded, cutting down on virus retransmission, and eventually reducing the overall storage requirement of those users.

    As with everything else, the best solutions to the spam problem will only be available to those savvy few (hey, that's you!). Unfortunately, just like with a communicable disease, you can't just cure a few people -- you have to cure the whole population.

  192. So why did you call MS again? by JPriest · · Score: 2

    Honestly if someone ELSE has a virus and is sending out your emial address what is MS going to do over the phone with you that is going to stop it??

    MS tech support did not write OE, the OE patch for this has been out over a year and making sure YOU don't get and send the virus is about the only thing they can do for you.

    Don't want a virus? use kmail (*nix) or pocomail (win*).

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  193. This just once again... by Trogre · · Score: 1

    ... makes me glad that me and everyone else in my area run secure (read: not quite as brain-dead) mail clients.

    Friends don't let friends run Outlook/IE

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  194. Only grab the headers by HaggiZ · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course the best way to stop this trash, especially if you are on a modem, is to only grab the headers and delete the stuff you obviously dont want.

    Mailwasher is the best I've found for doing this. Not only will it delete from the server, but if it's a notorious spammer then you can tick the bounce box and it will reply with a user unknown error, hopefully meaning you'll never be hassled by those morons ever again.

    Pretty effective, and made my life a whole lot easier. And best of all, from their page... "It's free. That's right, you can keep on using this program and it won't expire. You are offered the chance to register MailWasher and pay a price you think it is worth. Think of this payment as a tip - so please contribute something."

    Enjoy peoples, and go easy on their server (if I had a decent connection myself, I'd post a mirror, but alas)

  195. Re:Virii? What Virii? by JanusFury · · Score: 1

    Yeah, one of the mailservers my mail goes through recently had MimeDefang installed on it, and I love it. There's nothing I like better than receiving strange messages that say "This email has been cleaned by MimeDefang", etc. I love the service, and I'm glad my ISP decided to use it. It saves me a lot of hassle and worry when it comes to email viruses, and it hasn't bothered my normal e-mail and attachment traffic at all.

    --
    using namespace slashdot;
    troll::post();
  196. They did all of that after the damage was done by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

    Sure they fixed everything after their viruses reached the tv news.

    But seriously if you are the largest software company in the world you should have known that having your email client automaticaly execute anything it receieves is not a good idea.

    1. Re:They did all of that after the damage was done by ArticulateArne · · Score: 1

      This I will grant you, and I'm not accusing M$ of being intelligent regarding security or anything, it just looks like the might finally maybe starting to get a little bit of a clue about not making stuff run automatically.

  197. Atheism != religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You know that atheism is a religion, right?

    Oh, really? That's a mighty interesting way of looking at it.

    Let's go look at what the American Atheists say about it:

    You Have Another Freedom

    Dear friend...

    We often hear that Americans have "freedom of religion." You have another freedom, though -- freedom from religion, and from paying heavy taxes so religious organizations and churchgoers in the United States can benefit from your tax payment!

    Atheism is, according to them, "freedom from religion". Sounds like you're off-base, sir.

    Cheers,

    An AC in Europe

    1. Re:Atheism != religion by diesel_jackass · · Score: 2

      Ah you are right. I confused the definition of "religion", with the definitions of "faith", and "belief".

      I think I am getting confused by your argument. Let me get this straight. Because these horrible people who were atheists... committed horrible acts against people with a religion... How does that mean the war was caused by science? How is it that religion can not be considered a cause when according to you it is the main difference between the agressor and the victim?

  198. This must be a great deal for spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'll bet that anyone who's a spammer is harvesting all these *genuine* e-mail addresses that are floating around on the net because of this virus.

  199. Re:Pornographic attachments f {OT re: billg's ssn} by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1

    I'd add the link, but I think it breaks slashdot's lame, arbitrary 255-character .Sig limit.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  200. Mailing lists NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN. by Harik · · Score: 1
    Any idiot who runs a non-confirming mailinglist should be shut down. If they whine, they should be blocked from their ISP. IF they sue for access, they should be shot.

    Secondly, M$ should be bearing the brunt of this. Klez is once-again using the outlook misfeature that if you click on a message to see who it's from, Outlook opens it and violates your ass without lube.

    Yay.

    Anyway, this dosn't impact me, aside from the occasional mailing list I shutdown. It's amusing to watch the entire winderz world fall off the net. Again. And again.

    Perhaps if some of these dipshits would hit M$ with a class-action suit for gross negligence there'd be changes. As far as I'm concerned, there ARE NO OUTLOOK VIRUSES. They're simply using the system exactly as designed.

    --Dan

  201. Just a note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Telnet will clear text your user and passwords across to the server. You better trust your network. A lot.

    1. Re:Just a note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Telnet will clear text your user and passwords across to the server.

      And so do most pop clients... It seems rare to find any that support the password encryption stuff without heavy configuration, but perhaps I haven't looked hard enough lately.

      But hey, you are right, but then again, its only email. There's so many worse things you could have hacked than an email account. Plus, if you're dialing into the network that your email server is on you needn't worry (anyone with their hands on your password has their hands on root for that box anyways).

    2. Re:Just a note by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 1

      Not to point out the obvious, but so does any non-secure POP3 client. Just because you're not typing your password doesn't mean it isn't getting sent in clear text. Can you spell "packet-sniffer"? Think about all the shlubs on cable Internet, passing their POP box passwords through their neighborhood. Hmmm.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    3. Re:Just a note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but then again, its only email...

      Uh, yeah. And for Mom and Pop, that's ok - as long as Pop isn't swapping naught emails with the secretary at work, and a disgruntled employee doesn't smell a bonus for keeping quiet about it.

      Don't underestimate email. Many a deal is done over email, and many a relationship is broken over it.

      I guess you're happy to have you phone tapped, cos hey, it's only a phone call. Right?

  202. Fucking ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the fuck don't ISPs block infected (pop3 and smtp) email? How simple is that to do!

    It won't stop all of it, but it'll stop Mom and Pop and the kiddies.

    Yeah, yeah, $. I'd pay en extra $5/mnth to halve the junk in my inbox.

  203. Virus resistant address book by Technician · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I finaly printed my address book out on paper. I put the address on it as a barcode. Now I e-mail people and put in addresses in via the free scanner provided by Radio Shack. Now if everyone would delete their electronic address books, much of the MS spread security problems would go away.

    Not many people would drop the convience so I don't see this as working. Too many users just can't be bothered to keep up on security and are way too willing to run an attachment sent to them that is supposed to keep them from getting a virus. It's OK to send me a virus warning. Don't send me an attachment to fix it. I'll check the usual trusted sources for the description and measures to fix it. Too many viruses are spread via social engineering.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
    1. Re:Virus resistant address book by knarf · · Score: 2

      Ugh, that's an *ugly* solution to a problem which should not even exist in the first place. Why not move your email to a platform which is not sensitive to all this (Microsoft-spexific) virus/worm nonsense? That way, you's be able to send email like it was meant to be, without having to worry about the worm-du-jour problems still bothering those who wave not made the switch yet. Quick, cheap, easy!

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    2. Re:Virus resistant address book by Technician · · Score: 2

      Why not move your email to a platform which is not sensitive to all this (Microsoft-spexific) virus/worm nonsense?

      Can you say not my choice. I'm a worker bee in cubicle farm and have no choice of platform on a machine shared by 4 shifts? It's an NT/Office platform.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  204. Virus Payload Also EMails Random Documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    A linked article on the Wired site states:
    "...there was a new and "very interesting" feature included. Anti-viral experts said they'd yet to identify anything particularly interesting."
    What it does is email random documents on the infected machine or on mapped drives(!) as attachments to go along with the attached virus code. In a business environment where you have customers in your address book, it can be very embarassing to be sending internal mail, spreadsheets etc. to them. What makes it all the worst is that unless the email receiver clues you in to what was received, you have no idea what was sent.."

    I just spent the last two days fighting this virus in a 125 seat company. Although in the end only a half dozen boxes were infected, the impression end users got was that the virus was on everybodys computer.

    It was easy to find the infected computers once I realized that the "REPLY-TO" address in the header reflected the actual sender.

  205. This begs the question -- what more can be done? by DJDaveET · · Score: 1
    So what is the best course of action? I'll admit, I'm an Outlook user. However, I keep my machines patched to the latest and greatest, I have a virus scanner on every terminal which I make sure has the latest definitions, and I scan every incoming message for virii.

    Am I doing everything? Am I being as good a netizen as I can be? Or is there something else I haven't been doing I should?

    I ask, because I too have been receiving messages from people I don't know accusing me of adding them to mailing lists or spamming. I get enough spam as it is, and I certainly don't want to get any more -- but now my email address is sent around by those I may have emailed with -- as the from!

    So do I just kick back and not think about it, or am I missing something I should be doing as a user and system admin?

  206. Re:Virii? What Virii? by Tony-A · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, the plural of virus is Microsoft.

  207. ObMungedSimpsonsQuote by kubrick · · Score: 1

    Oh my God...the dead have risen and they're posting to Slashdot!

    --
    deus does not exist but if he does
  208. SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's the only reason for this crap?

    I believe in the MS/Norton/McAffee Conspiracy to sell software.

  209. suckers !!! by kalamashaka · · Score: 1

    You should have a scanner on your mail server. I've got mcafee groupshield on my exchange boxen. I just love opening my email every morning to see how many emails were nuked the previous day.

    --
    import kenyan.geek.* ;
  210. The cost of viruses, worms, and spam by gujo-odori · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a sysadmin at an ISP, and we have been filtering Klez inbound and outbound for 13 days, and the load basically hasn't tapered off at all. Since we started the Klez filter (thank you, Exim!) the number of bounces in our postmaster box doubled and show no real signs of slowing up.

    That is a lot of bounces because we also filter on SirCam (still see some of those everyday), use several RBLs, and have extensive local spam filters and reject lists, as well as optional spam filters for Korean-encoded and Chinese-encoded mail (just rolled them out and over 800 customers have started using them already).

    The cost of this is a lot of wasted bandwidth consumed by spam, worms, and viruses, in hardware (we run 4 MXes where two would otherwise suffice, because of the filtering load), and the countless hours we spend each week on defending our mail system and our customers from all this crap.

    Besides the usual suspects (MS for their security holes, users for their laxness on applying updates, and the virus writers themselves), I also have to blame a lot of adminstrators for this. Mail admins, listen up! You KNOW Klez is out there and you KNOW it's going through your systems. You probably have a ton of captive specimens of it. Start filtering it inbound and outbound. You're not only helping other admins to control this problem, you're helping yourself.

    And let's all be thankful that virus writers and spamware writers come from two camps that aren't likely to like each other, because if they got together and wrote a worm that silently propagated itself and turned Windows boxes into selectively open relays for use by the spammer/authors, that would be a real problem. The scary part is that it wouldn't be all that hard. The worms already have their own SMTP engines these days. The leap is small. Let's hope they don't make it, but let's think about how we're going to control it when they do.

    Line of defense number 1: ISPs - if you don't already block port 25 in/out from your dial pools (requiring your dial users to smarthost through your outbound SMTP or send through it directly), start NOW. The ass you save will be your own. If we all do this (my employer has done this for years) we will cut off spam.

  211. Re:Using open relays to boot by linuxbert · · Score: 1

    Well i question numbers like that, lets look at a recent case i had.
    I did something stupid. i left my home machine with an unpatched IIS server exposed to the internet. i was careless, and nimda bit me. it traveled through non password protected shares, and also infected 2 other machines.

    Clean up and repair took 4 hours to make sure it was gone. if this was me doing this for a client, that would be 85$/h * 4h thats a 340$ expenditure to clean up. if its an email virus, and a few people get infected, a few diferent times the cost adds up quickly

  212. MODERATORS! MOD PARENT UP! by himi · · Score: 1

    Damn good point there - MS has been criminally negligent, and they've hidden behind the lack of liability clauses they put in their EULAs for too long. It's the same with other software companies, but MS's screwups are writ extra large because of their dominance.

    Someone needs to take MS to court charged with negligence, and put an end to their arrogant assumption that they can do whatever the fuck they please, because they say they can.

    himi

    --

    My very own DeCSS mirror.
  213. Remember the WTC? by Macrobat · · Score: 3, Insightful
    As a matter of fact, it's kind of hard for me to think of any recent major wars which were caused by religion.
    Ummm...remember that gaping hole where the World Trade Center used to be? It was caused by men who thought they were on a mission from God. We're at war because of them.

    And you don't remember any religious persecution going on during World War II? None? I dare say, without his anti-Semitic rhetoric, Hitler might never have come to power. And the Japanese believed in the divinity of their emperor, too--the word "kamikaze" means "divine wind."

    At least part of the Arab-Israeli conflict is religious in nature. You just don't see a lot of atheist suicide bombers. A lot of "ethnic cleansing" is done along religious lines as well.

    The expansion of European nations into the Americas was often justified under the aegis of "divine right."

    That's not to mention the religious rhetoric that's used to get men to go to war. Ever hear the song "Onward Christian Soldiers?"

    So the original poster might be a little bold about his statistics...but don't fool yourself into thinking religions have their hands clean, even today.

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    1. Re:Remember the WTC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you don't remember any religious persecution going on during World War II? None? I dare say, without his anti-Semitic rhetoric, Hitler might never have come to power. And the Japanese believed in the divinity of their emperor, too--the word "kamikaze" means "divine wind."

      The Nazis were officially atheist and/or quasi-pagan. They did not do the Holocaust in the name of religion, but in a sense against it, and in the name of race above all (they viewed the Jews as a racial group, not as a religious group). The Nazis also systematically tried to destroy religious groups' influence in Germany (especially the Catholic church), going so far as to create secular "prayers" to Hitler that children were supposed to recite instead of normal prayers. Hardly a "religious" way of acting.

      In the case of the Japanese in World War II, they used race much more than religion as an excuse to try and take over Asia. There is no single Japanese religion -- the Japanese have practised Shinto, Buddhism and Christianity for a long time, along with others, so it's hard to say they fought in the name of a religion. The "kamikaze" reference was just one from Japanese legend and had nothing to do with a particular religion -- it's not unlike the Germans calling a type of fighter the "Valkyries".

      In any case, that is beside the point. The point is that, while people may claim to fight in the name of religion, that is not the fault of religion any more than it is the weapon's fault in a murder.

      At least part of the Arab-Israeli conflict is religious in nature. You just don't see a lot of atheist suicide bombers. A lot of "ethnic cleansing" is done along religious lines as well.

      The expansion of European nations into the Americas was often justified under the aegis of "divine right."

      Yes, they claimed to be righteous and therefore worthy of having control of that land. But think about it. They were after the land, right? And they were willing to use any means to get it, right? If they had "scientific evidence" that they were superior (like the Nazis claimed to have vis-a-vis the Jews), they would perfectly well have used that instead. Religion was a convenient way to say "us versus them". Nothing more.

      So the original poster might be a little bold about his statistics...but don't fool yourself into thinking religions have their hands clean, even today.

      Humanity does not have its hands clean. You can't isolate religious belief and claim it is the cause of wars (or even most of them). Just about any idea or institution can be perverted to justify a war. Human beings will do whatever it takes to get their hands on a bigger slice of the pie, and have found a multitude of ways of manipulating other people into doing just that. As I said in another post:

      Who is at fault when a war breaks out? It is, quite simply, the fault of people unwilling to share resources fairly and live peacefully with those who are different from us. Look at any war in history, and you will see that while the slogans and propaganda of each side use certain words and ideas as justification, it always boils down to two or more groups of people fighting to gain power and control at the expense of another group. Everything beyond that just masks the real issue -- who gets the largest share of influence, money, political control or whatever. Religion and science end up merely being useful tools to prosecute the war.

      'Nuff said.

      Cheers,

      An AC in Europe

  214. Yahoo! by Kris_J · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'm so glad that I dumped my old Yahoo email address a week or so ago. That old address was in so many places. If it wasn't spam it was a virus. And when I started using the vacation system a few weeks before I turned the account off what wasn't spam or a virus was an "message undeliverable" message.

    I wonder how many responses to Klez emails bounce back with an "address unknown" error?

  215. You missed a point about the bug sets. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2
    I hate all things MS with a passion, but switching from MS software wholesale to another system will not fix the problem. ...

    Switching to another system (linux, for instance) will just changed the set of bugs that virus writers attempt to exploit.


    But it would make things a LOT better, for two reasons:

    The existing set of Microsoft-only viruses (virtually all of 'em) would die off.

    The other system (unix, linux, etc.) has, not just a different set of vulnerabilities, but a MUCH SMALLER set.

    What is needed is variety. If there were more variety in the software and OSen people used, we could avoid such widescale abuses.

    Unfortunately, that's not enough by itself. Yes a variety of systems makes it harder to write a virus to attack them all, so some will survive unscathed. But an infected computer can cause a lot of trouble even for other computers that AREN'T subject to the infection. (For instance: By flooding it with infection attempts or by ganging up with other infected machines to DOS-attack it.)

    So it only takes ONE widely-deployed OS with a vulnerability to make trouble for the rest of the Net. Thus more variety means more pools of machines able to be converted into troublemakers.

    The solution is a few, secure, operating systems.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:You missed a point about the bug sets. by thewalledcity · · Score: 1

      I think everyone is falling into the false thinking that something is "secure". An operating system is not ever "secure period". Security is an ongoing process. People need to learn how to check for security updates, and need to learn to keep up to date. (This alseo does require that vendors provide prompt patches, but for the most part, all of them do).

    2. Re:You missed a point about the bug sets. by Jeremy+Gray · · Score: 1

      I agree that dropping MS would destroy many possibilities for virus exploitation. That much is obvious. What isn't as obvious is whether the MS bugset is necessarily smaller than the unix-like bugsets. That doesn't matter as much since I think the unix-like OSen have better security models that could allow some bugs to be exploited without serious trouble for the infected system or other computers on the net.

      So it only takes ONE widely-deployed OS with a vulnerability to make trouble for the rest of the Net. Thus more variety means more pools of machines able to be converted into troublemakers.

      Not sure I follow here. I think the convolution of virus and DOS attacks is somewhat misleading. Virus infections are less widespread if there are fewer machines to infect. If the virus is used to launch a DDOS without regard to target OS, that's a different story, but it's scale is still limited by the number of infectable systems. There may be more pools of computers to use, but the pools would be smaller that the current MS pool.

    3. Re:You missed a point about the bug sets. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      I think everyone is falling into the false thinking that something is "secure". An operating system is not ever "secure period".

      I could argue that it's possible for an OS to be secure. But I doubt there are any of them in existence at the moment. B-)

      But it's a lot harder to penetrate a cube of steel than a cube of swiss cheese. Unfortunately, most of the world's desktops are running a cheesy OS.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    4. Re:You missed a point about the bug sets. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      ... it only takes ONE widely-deployed OS with a vulnerability to make trouble for the rest of the Net. Thus more variety means more pools of machines able to be converted into troublemakers.

      Not sure I follow here. I think the convolution of virus and DOS attacks is somewhat misleading.

      First: A mail virus makes trouble for unpenetrated (and uninfectable) machines by flooding them with email.

      Second: A mail virus can be the initial penetration vector to recruit the infected machine into a DoS attack tribe, or can carry an infection payload that IS a DoS attack.

      Third: There are other attacks. Example: The nimda worm, which infected Microsoft web servers and caused trouble for lots of devices that were NOT running Microsoft web servers (including crashing Cisco routers) by TRYING to infect them.

      Fourth: I'm not limiting this to viruses, worms, and DoS attacks. The general case is an operating system with ANY security vulnerability, combined with ANY attack that exploits the vulnerability to cause trouble for other machines on the net which are not running the vulnerable OS.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  216. Re:Using open relays to boot by DavidJA · · Score: 2

    ... it's the freaking man-years of time that is wasted. IT departments are strapped enough as it is

    This is not a troll but... Maybe said IT departments should GET A FUCKING GRIP ON REALITY!

    ALL you need to do is block .vbs, .exe, .scr, .com from entering your exchange (sendmail, postfix, whatever) and 100% of these problem disappear.

  217. Re:Virii? What Virii? by BobNET · · Score: 1
    An easy mistake, like you misspelling "misspell."

    You missed "slahsdot"...

  218. Flame bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you use Windows, you get what you deserve...
    ;)

  219. Re: OutOfLuck as a Trojan by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1
    I think that outlook should be considered a TROJAN and removed by virus programs.

    The thing of it is, Outlook isn't the vulnerable software here... The vulnerability is in Internet Explorer. Any program that uses IE, therefore, has the vulnerability.

    Outlook just happens to be the way most people EXPERIENCE the vulnerability. But even something like Quicken could trip over it.

    This sort of crap is why I edit my Windows registry to treat things like .HTA and .HTX as "text" files (handing them over to UltraEdit), and an email program that does NOT use IE for displaying HTML and doesn't know how to script (The Bat! from ritlabs.com)...

  220. freaked me out by mattr · · Score: 2

    I don't get viruses (knock on wood) since I read in pine but I got something from the National Funeral Association and wierd content that didn't look like an obvious virus at first. I guess I was the first of many to ask their sysadmin what was up..

  221. If only the subjects were random insults. by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1
    So, does this worm use one of those Random Sentence Generators for its subject lines? If so, let's hack it! I want my subjects to use Insult Grammar to attack all those people who send me chain mail!

    Ha!

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  222. Legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate the idea, but maybe the time has come when to run a mail-server, you must, by law, run virus scannning software.

  223. Klez can't Get You if you run Mozilla by SailorBob · · Score: 2, Informative
    I use either Netscape 4.x or Mozilla on all machines I'm responsible for. Apparently Klez doesn't build RFC compliant emails, such that the attachments don't show up in Mozilla. My girlfriend kept complaining that she was getting blank mails from all kinds of people. So I checked a few of the emails out via view source and what do you know? Klez! By the way, it's about 49k. No machine that I run has ever had a virus.

    Simple rule: No Outlook, no Virii

    --

    Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!

  224. Too many people *send* attachments by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    There's really not any excuse to send an attachment theses days, except to propagate e-pathogens (virii, worms, trojans) or to mail bomb someone. Neither are legitimate uses of mail.

    Great cross-platform file sharing systems exist for file sharing. Netware, DCE and OpenAFS are examples. These can easily handle any internal file sharing need, and some external needs. For sharing files outside, many easy solutions or work arounds can be made that don't require attachments. Some people even say that MS-Exchange could do this.

    Regardless of how it is set up, once you have platform independent file sharing in place, all attachments can be filtered out. Then there's no doubt -- your shop could not be spreading Klez or other pathogens.

    Note that keeping files on the server also simplifies concurrent editing and version control.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  225. linux? Re:Potent Virus? by leuk_he · · Score: 2

    The only way we could have been invulnerable to this sort of mishap is by using linux;

    Because:
    -There are very few linux enabled viruses.
    -Wine does not support enough win32 to let most viruses work. (and wine still must be run as root)
    -ACL's could have controlled the spearding of the viri.

    not:
    -Any platform can get infected. No platform is protected against users executing anything they get send. If linux gets popular it will get viruses AND anti virus software.
    -Linux might excute some win32 code.
    -NT /novell might be setup in a way excutables don't get modified. (Until a admin gets infected)

    AND
    -The best way to protect against virusu is to reinstal your machine from scratch every now and then. (Real programmers don't need viruses to format ther hard disk.)
    AND ...if you did not get it yet 8-)
    -The best way to protect against a DOS attack is shut down your system. Ask the pointy haired manager about this.

    (did i just get trolled?)

    1. Re:linux? Re:Potent Virus? by feldkamp · · Score: 1

      Yes, I realize any platform could be infected by a virus. I merely meant that in this instance, another platform was the only defense that would have worked.

      Real programmers don't need viruses to format ther hard disk

      Actually, this doesn't really help much. A newly built machine is just as easy to infect as an older machine, unless the user of the older machine hasn't kept up with updates.

    2. Re:linux? Re:Potent Virus? by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      Real programmers don't need viruses to format their hard disk.

      You did not get it:

      Formatting your hard disk is doing the thing a virus did not establish (..) yet: clear all data from the system. By formatting the HD you just gave up removing the virus. I hate the "oops, let's do a fresh install of the machine". It does not solve the problem.

      In other words, is was meant as "-1 funny". (you did not get the funny part....).

    3. Re:linux? Re:Potent Virus? by feldkamp · · Score: 1

      Err.. then you didn't read my original post... I *had* to do a fresh install... all of my system dlls and exe's were toasted... I couldn't even log in, the few times I got it to boot without crashing.

      Since I still had all of my data in tact (and it was on backups anyways), I could have attempted to repair the system by placing the disk in another machine and replacing the executables, but that's a huge pain in the ass, and I can't afford the time it would take to do that.

      I guess I should have been more clear in my original post... I think that this was a particularly potent virus because it's the first virus to ever make me reformat my box. Past viruses on our network didn't really affect me, but this one toasted all of my executables.

      I (and the rest of my company) didn't lose any real data, just exe's. It was just a real pain in the ass to clean up, because many machines were inoperable after we got done cleaning.

  226. heres some cheese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heres some cheese for that whine.
    stfu and deal with it.

    Just run your dam AV scanner.(windows)
    Or Set up filtering.(*nix)
    Unless your on 14.4 I really cant see the big deal about downloading anyway.
    What your paying by the minute? Those days have been gone for a while now.
    I can not believe this story even made it here.
    What you editors can not find anything more newsworthy?

  227. I like email virii by wdnspoon · · Score: 2, Funny

    They make me feel wanted. Never before have I had so many people send me files in order to have my advice.

  228. Not that simple by pdh11 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I have IE6 on Windows 2000 (i.e. Microsoft thinks I'm safe) but Outlook Express still attempts to auto-run Klez in my preview pane, and it's only a third-party virus scanner that stops it running.

    Peter

  229. My Klez boilerplate by timothy · · Score: 1
    With every big virus outbreak, I end up modifying my boilerplate response. Sure, I filter and then simply delete most of the incoming dreck, but especially for businesses, I like to point out that they don't have to take part in the semi-monthly beatings.

    Here's the current one:

    Dear Sir: The virus known as Klez32 has generated mail to me labeled as coming from your address (address).

    This doesn't necessarily mean that your computer or even your email account was directly involved, but it does mean that someone with a computer running Microsoft Windows (and probably Microsoft Outlook) has a virus-infected computer which makes it look like *you* are spamming people.

    Virus writers' intent (in my estimation) is to cause conflicts by frustrating people into anger with each other. These people deserve to be fed their own teeth, led barefoot through a hallway of snakes, and forced to watch Waterworld over and over. They usually do this by taking advantage of long-known security holes in Microsoft Windows and / or Microsoft Outlook. These aren't the only vectors for viruses to spread, but because they're so widespread, they make easy targets. By attaching your name to their malicious, intrusive mail, it's as if they hung a "Kick Me" sign on your back.

    If you are running any version of Microsoft Windows, please make sure your anti-virus files are up to date. Check the web sites of McAffee, Norton, or for whichever antivirus maker you've settled on for updates.

    And if you want to avoid (or at least greatly minimize) the dangers to your data securty and reputation that computer viruses cause, I hope you consider switching to one of the several excellent alternatives to Microsoft Windows, or more urgently to any alternative to the security-challenged Microsoft Outlook.) There's excellent free software which is much less vulnerable to these attacks, and in my experience is more robust in other ways as well.

    Just because the government says Microsoft has a monopoly doesn't mean you have to act like it's true :)

    Thanks for checking up on the state of your system --

    Cheers,

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  230. Bugfix: delete Outlook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use Calypso instead. Great program. But at least don't use Outlook.

  231. Re:Virii? What Virii? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and yours of "your"

  232. Confirmtation dialog boxes (was Re:Scripts) by imroy · · Score: 1

    The problem with this supposed fix is that I'm sure a lot of users already have a pavlovian response to always clicking "yes" on those confirmation dialog boxes. I know I do, whenever I have the misfortune to be on a windows machine. I mean, almost every significant action seems to have an annoyingly condescending confirmation dialog box. Which is why you'll often hear me talking back to the computer whenever I have to use windows. Something along the lines of:

    Yes, I want to f***ing delete the f***ing file, that's why I f***ing hit the f***ing delete key! You stupid, pathetic piece of...

    Anyway, you get the idea.

    Also, I'm sure the confirmation dialog boxes are just to back-up M$'s long-standing PR spin policy whenever a new virus comes out: "We can't be held responsible for everything the user clicks on! Hey, our software even warns them before it opens the attachment!".

  233. Re:Pornographic attachments f {OT re: billg's ssn} by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    uh, no it doesn't:
    --<br>Bill Gates' SSN: <a href="http://web1.archive.org/web/19990129074734/h ttp://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/00008 91020-96-000072.txt">539-60-5125</a>
    That weighs in at a light 'n' lean 163 characters (after you remove the two spaces slashdcode insists on munging my post up with).
  234. fix by hyperstation · · Score: 1

    qmail + qmail-scanner + H+BEDV AntiVir (free for nonprofits) = no klez (or sircam, etc)

    that's my solution

  235. War and anti-war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I think I am getting confused by your argument. Let me get this straight. Because these horrible people who were atheists... committed horrible acts against people with a religion... How does that mean the war was caused by science? How is it that religion can not be considered a cause when according to you it is the main difference between the agressor and the victim?

    I didn't say it had anything to do with science per se. What I *am* saying is that wars are not a monopoly of religious zealots -- actually quite the opposite. Atheists have been responsible for some of the most heinous crimes in history -- the Holocaust, the Soviet pogroms and the Gulag, among other things.

    In the case of the Nazis, they abused science and claimed that it justified their aims of exterminating the Jews, Gypsies and other supposedly subhuman groups, while creating a master race. But to say "science" as a concept is responsible for war is just as ridiculous as saying religion is the cause of war. In the end, both can be misused as an excuse to slaughter people. The *real* cause of war is most often competition for limited resources and a lack or failure of negotiation and diplomacy.

    Of course, you can argue that religious zealots have caused great suffering -- 9-11, the Mideast crisis, near-wars between India and Pakistan, the Thirty Years War, the Crusades and so on. But that is not the fault of religion itself, or of religious belief -- in somewhat the same way that it is not the gun's fault that someone used it to kill.

    Your beginning premise of science versus religion is also off-base, in my opinion. The two are often portrayed as being in conflict, when there really is none. Religion is a system of belief centered on a deity or group of deities. Science is a method of gathering information and proving theories. Sometimes there is overlap, and sometimes people try to force a conflict when that overlap occurs. But again, that is the fault of people trying to gain influence and authority, not the fault of religion or science.

    Who is at fault when a war breaks out? It is, quite simply, the fault of people unwilling to share resources fairly and live peacefully with those who are different from us. Look at any war in history, and you will see that while the slogans and propaganda of each side use certain words and ideas as justification, it always boils down to two or more groups of people fighting to gain power and control at the expense of another group. Everything beyond that just masks the real issue -- who gets the largest share of influence, money, political control or whatever. Religion and science end up merely being useful tools to prosecute the war.

    Many words, but I hope you see my point.

    Cheers,

    An AC in Europe

  236. Admin's fault ... not user's by JT123 · · Score: 1

    For years the entire IT community has been saying that the problem is that users don't know any better. "Those damn users keep on opening up their Outlook attachments." This is simply not true.

    The problem is Admins who don't block .exe, .com, .bat, etc. AT THE EXCHANGE LEVEL.

    There is absolutely no reason any user needs to receive these types of files. Anyone who would be dealing with these types of files would have the foresight to tell the sender to clip the extension and simply add it back later.

  237. A Game Called Provocation by smallduck · · Score: 1
    allows microsoft to step in and "save the day", which leads to news headlines..

    Positive PR from security updates is probably not it. The plan is surely far more insideous, perhaps as described in Cringely's article from last year: The Death of TCP/IP

    According to these programmers, Microsoft wants to replace TCP/IP with a proprietary protocol -- a protocol owned by Microsoft -- that it will tout as being more secure. Actually, the new protocol would likely be TCP/IP with some of the reserved fields used as pointers to proprietary extensions, quite similar to Vines IP, if you remember that product from Banyan Systems. I'll call it TCP/MS.

    How do you push for the acceptance of a new protocol? First, make the old one unworkable by placing millions of exploitable TCP/IP stacks out on the Net, ready-to-use by any teenage sociopath. When the Net slows or crashes, the blame would not be assigned to Microsoft. Then ship the new protocol with every new copy of Windows, and install it with every Windows Update over the Internet. Zero to 100 million copies could happen in less than a year, and that year could be prior to the new protocol even being announced. It could be shipping right now.

    It's an old game called Provocation, perfected by dirty-tricks gang who now control your planet. Have a nice day.
    --
    no sig, no plan, no clue
  238. Pegasus Mail .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. has a feature that allows you to preview headers and delete selectively.

    I use this as my email client, its pretty decent, and its free (as in beer).

  239. If you deny your own sensual nature, sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isabella @ home, Bad Kitty, there are many more; adult sites that do not spam, that cater to the preferences of their clientele in entirely legal and moral (if you're not a screamingly amoral bigot or fanatic religious zealot yourself) manner.

    It's true that among the lunatic fringe of religions (and particularly among mainstream christian sects for some reason) anything associated with sex if disreputable. And even in the most tolerant of religious quarters (Unitarian Universalists being a notable exception) anything even vaguely associated with homosexuality is usually considered tainted with sin, despite the prevalence of homosexuality among many mammal species presumably created in accordance with divine will.

    But! To be considered disreputable by people with basically insane and hurtful beliefs (yes I am talking to you Southern Baptists, among others) is a good way to get a fair evaluation from those who think clearly and independently.

    --Rev. Cheswollen