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.

237 of 683 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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...

    3. 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
  2. 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 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
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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.
  3. 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 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.
    2. 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

    3. 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. :-)

    4. 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"
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
  4. 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 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)
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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>

    10. 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."
    11. 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."
    12. 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....;-)

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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).

  5. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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."
    5. 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/

    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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)
    9. 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.

      --

  6. 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 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
    3. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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 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.

  9. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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? :)

    5. 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!
    6. 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

  10. 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 56ker · · Score: 2

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

  11. 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 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
    3. 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."

    4. 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."
    5. 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.

    6. 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!
    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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

    11. 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!
    12. 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."
    13. 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.

  12. 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 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.

    2. 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

    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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

  13. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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 ;)

  14. 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.

  15. 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
  16. 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 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.

  19. 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.
  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. 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

  23. 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!
  24. MIMEDefang by dskoll · · Score: 2, Interesting

    MIMEDefang
    stopped Klez cold at my clients' sites.

  25. 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.
  26. 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.

  27. 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.
  28. 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.

  29. 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?
  30. 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 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."
    3. 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!

    4. 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.

  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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...

  34. 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.

  35. 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 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.
  36. 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........
  37. 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.

  38. 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.
  39. 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.

  40. 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...
  41. 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 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
  42. 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 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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!
  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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

  51. Very cool by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 2

    We've actually chosen to stick with GroupWise 6 for this very reason.

  52. 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
  53. 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..."

  54. 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.

  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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?"
  58. 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 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.

  59. 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.
  60. 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!

  61. Amen by tomblackwell · · Score: 2

    I'll second the recommendation for The Bat. It rocks, and I gladly paid the registration fee.

  62. 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.

  63. 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)

  64. 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
  65. 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. :)

  66. 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?"
  67. 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!!!!!!

  68. 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.
  69. 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

  70. 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.
  71. 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. :)

  72. 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.
  73. 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?

  74. 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.
  75. 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

  76. 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.

  77. 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
  78. 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

  79. 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.
  80. 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

  81. 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.
  82. 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.

  83. 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)

  84. 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.
  85. 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

  86. 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

  87. 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!

  88. 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
  89. 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?

  90. 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.
  91. 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?
  92. 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."
  93. 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?

  94. 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.

  95. 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.
  96. 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.

  97. 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.

  98. 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

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

    You know that atheism is a religion, right?

  100. 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?

  101. 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

  102. 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
  103. 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

  104. 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.

  105. 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.
  106. 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..

  107. 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)

  108. 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...

  109. 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.

  110. 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!
  111. 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?
  112. Re:Virii? What Virii? by Tony-A · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, the plural of virus is Microsoft.

  113. 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
  114. 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
  115. 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.

  116. 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.
  117. 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?

  118. 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.
  119. 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 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
    2. 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
  120. 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.

  121. 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..

  122. 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
  123. 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?!

  124. 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?)

  125. 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.

  126. 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

  127. 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.

  128. 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?

  129. 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

  130. 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
  131. 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
  132. 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.
  133. 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