Slashdot Mirror
Linux and the Smile.D Virus keeps us Smiling
pstreck writes "News Forge is running a humor filled satire on the the recent Smile.D cross platform virus. It's a good read and just another reminder of why that other operating system needs to figure out a new security policy."
There is a whole privelage system there, unfortunately, it can't be used by many people right now because of some brain dead applications. Quite a few programs won't run as anything other than administrator. Over time, once the apps get replaced, Windows will have a more viable security system, which will hopefully prevent many of these types of problems.
- YOUR HAVE NOW RECEIVED THE UNIX VIRUS -
This virus works on the honor system:
If you're running a variant of unix or linux, please forward
this message to everyone you know and delete a bunch of your
files at random.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Linux and the Smile.D Virus keeps us Smiling
That pun would work better if it was actually called the Smile.D Virus.
Symantec and ZDNet appear to call it Simile.D.
He Who Is Without Sin Should Cast The First Stone
I personally felt the article was childish. Windows has a lot of malware that take advantage of gullible users by sending them deceptive emails with enticing attachments. Linux on the other hand typically has more savvy users. However pointing and giggling is what I'd expect from teenage high schoolers flush from teh rush of their first kernel compilation and not a supposed journalist like Roblimo.
PS: Yes, I work for MSFT. Yes, I run both Windows and Linux at home. Yes, I've been hit by a Windows virus once (CodeRed off of a web page) and had my RedHat box r00ted twice before I learned the hard way.
That's "more advanced" in the sense of "so complicated no one can really be bothered to figure it out and use it as intended". [Ambiguity intentional.]
But that doesn't mean that the Linux security model is perfect - it just means that the Smile.D virus writer was too lazy to actually try to get root on the Linux boxes the virus gets exposed to. Consider the following facts:
- Local root holes are everywhere on a Linux box. Most
distributions, especially Red Hat and SuSE, install literally dozens of
setuid-root applications. Most of these applications are completely
useless to the average person, and serve only to open up holes in system
security.
- Setuid root applications are a necessary evil because the UNIX
security model is outdated. Need to change the system time? How about
binding to a low-numbered port (hello Apache and fingerd)? Or making files
immutable? Or mounting a floppy disc? Every single one of these
operations requires root privilege, either by the user or by the command a
non-root user invokes. The more paths to root there are on the system, the
more potential holes exist.
- Remote root holes are everywhere. Ever run wu-ftpd? Or sshd?
Or BIND? Or rpc.statd? You probably do, but the average Linux luser
doesn't even realize it, and doesn't waste their time playing sysadmin and
keeping up with patches constantly. So she will have no idea why her
system was 0wned and is being used to run an eggdrop bot on dalnet. At
least Microsoft has the sense to ship systems with unnecessary services
disabled.
I once saw source code for a worm written by several Polish nationals. This worm was able to exploit weaknesses in Linux systems to gain root access and spread. Don't think it can't happen just because the Smile.D author was an idiot - or else you will be rudely awakened when it strikes./fug
Throw off the shackles of copyright law.
$ rm -f -r / /: Permission denied
rm:
I can't even get the unix virus! I'm such a luser.
Ya know, for the longest time, I really thought that they only thing the /. editors could do was post links to other articles (they sure as heck can't be bothered to run ispell). Every once in a while, though, I see something like this. I'm not saying that this was a brilliant piece of journalism or even satire, but at least roblimo can write a real article (where "real article" is being very generously applied to something that only has 23 sentences in it). Why doesn't this happen on /.? It happens on newsforge....
Just wondering.
1) Any of the Windows viruses/worms that are of the "double click the attachment" variety would work just as well on Linux as they would on Windows, were there more "Windows users" using Linux. They modify/damage user files and replicate themselves though email... who needs root to do that? I think the main reason you don't see as many of these is 1) the ratio of Windows desktops to Linux desktops is very large, and 2) Linux users usually know not to touch attachments like this. So if you're a virus/worm writer, why bother with Linux at all when your code can spread 100 times as fast though the Windows systems?
2) That comment about a Linux virus being easier to clean up is a bunch of crap. I've seen plenty of novice Windows users try to remove viruses from thier system using instructions and fail, and it's not because "there are no hidden files." It's because manual removal of viruses on Windows usually involves using system utilities and commands that most Windows computer users have never used before (regedit, command prompt.) Sure, the instructions are easy to follow for Linux... it's because you're a Linux user, and have to use the equivalents of these Windows utilities in every day tasks anyway.
3) "So it looks like the old dream of Linux eventually overtaking Windows and becoming the world's most popular operating system will never come to pass..." Well, if Linux was to become easier to use for the users who suffer from attachment-clicking syndrome, and who don't have the skills/balls to follow clean-up instructions, suddenly Linux will be alot more popular, will see alot more viruses, and virus scan software will still be business as usual.
I don't even know where to begin. Should I begin by saying that calling people "morons" because these people don't immediately reformat their computer and install Linux is a bit of a stretch? Or should I point out that Lindows automatically logs users in as root on their Linux boxen? Or should I wonder aloud how Roblimo would like programmers to make money if not by making useful utilities like virus scanners?
This whole article takes the disgusting tone of insulting people who obviously aren't as "smart" as the article's author. I find this elitism disgusting, and frankly, embarrassing to the greater geek community.
How many of us are quick to insult people who don't know the difference between root and another user? How many of us call the repair guy because we don't know how to repair the air conditioner, refrigerator, or our car? Would you like it if your mechanic said, "I can't believe you don't know the difference between 10W30 and 10W40. You're obviously a moron."?
Face it, folks, not everyone wants to be a computer expert. Not everyone wants to get involved in flamewars like vi vs. emacs or Linux vs. Windows. They just want to turn on their computer and have it work. And with any operating system, those same people will have to learn how to maintain it by applying patches (just like you have to maintain your car by taking it in for maintenance every so often.)
The fact that this article is categorized as "humor" doesn't make the elitism any less inherent. We should be educating people about the importance of software maintenance, not bashing them for being "morons" because they don't want to know the technical stuff. To most people, computers are a tool to get a job done, not a religion. Windows makes it easy to do most jobs. Therefore, most people are pretty happy with Windows.
Mod me down if you wish. I have 50 karma and I don't care much about karma ratings anyway. But I think this is important for a lot of geeks to understand -- just becuase we may have more technical knowledge does not give us the right to call people with less technical knowledge "morons" -- humor category or not.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Blah blah blah Windows bad.
Blah blah blah Linux good.
Blah blah blah idiots use Windows.
CmdrTaco posted this? I'm so shocked!
This article is not satire, is not it original, nor is it well written.
I wish I could moderate CmdrTaco down for being a troll just once.
SetupWeasel
Here we go again! Let's laugh at people who think "that Bill Gates deserves their money", let's laugh at people who buy anti-viruses, let's laugh at Windows while we're at it, and of course, let's praise our wonderful unbreakable operating system. Ah! This virus fails to infect me, viruses are so uneffective against l33t linux! Nobody can root me, nobody can root me!
Am I the only one not laughing? Am I the only one watching with, not fear, but interest and attention, the great innovations being done in the field of the Linux viruses?
We have a virus that can infect both Linux and Windows binaries. A virus that can try to infect a Linux box from a Windows box. A virus that is extremely hard to detect and destroy on Windows. Sure, it doesn't work well enough, yet. It's, after all, only the third generation virus. But it is nevertheless a great technical achievement, a new milestone release, a step towards havoc.
When these viruses will be able to infect a Linux partition from a Windows partition, or a Windows partition from a Linux partition, each time bypassing the security and anti-virus of the operating system it is infecting - hey, the OS is not even running! - will you laugh that much? Nobody can root you? And what about a virus that has ext2-level access to your root partition? Yes, from Windows? Who is 100% Windows-free? Who never has two OSes on the same machine?
Virus authors are showing are growing interest to Linux, and as more and more viruses are able to spread on Linux, more and more anti-viruses Linux will need. You might not like it, but it seems unavoidable to me. And if you really hate the anti-virus companies, start an open-source project. Now.
Let's come back to this discussion in a couple of years. And we'll see if you were right to laugh. I hope so. I don't believe it.
We've seen a lot of it over the years from Microsoft and other major companies, but the people who once used to rally it no longer carry it on their news sites, but they actually have become a source of FUD as well.
OK. So this was posted as humor. But somehow it didn't read as humor. It read as an article that claims you need to spend money to prevent viruses on Windows while you could run a virus free linux system by just pumping an 80 IQ.
On Windows you're likely to get a virus from one of two places, either installing software or running software that allows scripts in it's data files.
Both of these are easy enough to defend against, however, it's seems like it's not in the best interest of the Linux community to let that be known. A little Fear, a little Uncertainty, a little Doubt is a much better weapon.
And when it's over, the truth is that had this been presented as a factual article on how simple it is to remain Virus Free on a Linux system, it wouldn't have even been read by many, nevermind submitted to Slashdot.
After all, FUD sells. It just doesn't make me proud to belong to the community selling it.
No Zen is good zen
1. The steady transition of Linux from a "geeks only" OS to a corporate mainstay. This will make Linux a more appealing target.
2. The arrogance of those who think that Linux isn't vulnerable.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"How many people do you know who habitually run their Linux systems as root?
In my case, the answer is 'zero.'
So that's the end of that."
Woah, not so fast there, buddy.
Lots of the newer "user friendly" Linux distributions like Mandrake and Lycoris allow Linux newbies to install the operating system without creating a separate user account. Worse yet, some of them allow the root user to have NO password at all! As these Linux distributions get more popular and easier to use, you can expect more and more computer newbies who don't understand computer security to leave their systems logged in with administrative accounts with no passwords to protect them.
One of the main reasons that Windows is venerable to virus attacks is that it's users often aren't as security savvy as *NIX users are. All it would take is a few thousand home users running Linux logged on as root without any passwords or security patches for a Linux virus outbreak to become a reality.
You would be correct, but only if security was an absolute. It is not.
What does it mean to "be secure?" It is easy to spew common *ix security logic when that is all you know and think about when security is the topic. You have to take a step back to understand the nature of security.
I'm rusty on *ix history, but I'm fairly certain security was never a top priority of the original Unix, until later. If you check up I'm sure you will find that security actually _was_ added to *ix on a as-needed basis.
As an example consider this: until fairly recently (mid to late '90s) denial-of-service was not a threat. *ix admins everywhere had to rush to turn off common "safe" services such as ping, finger, etc. as a result of what they believed was security.
The _biggest_ threat will always come unannounced and from a never suspected "location." What *ix has for security is simply barriers for the patterned attacks. Security has been a buzzword of sorts long before Microsoft--and will continue to be a "buzzword" as long as people foolishly believe that security is an absolute.
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Yes, it's just so complicated. Here is an example of a few of the available group policies:
"Access the computer from the network"
"Allow logon through Terminal Services"
"Change the system time"
"Create a pagefile"
"Deny access from the network"
"Deny local logons"
"Deny logon through Terminal Services"
"Force shutdown from a remote system"
"Load/unload device drivers"
"Logon as a service"
"Logon locally"
"Perform disk volume maintenance"
"Shut down the system (locally)"
"Take ownership of files and other objects"
Wow, if those aren't in plain English I don't know who can't figure them out. NT's security model is very complex, yes, but very capable as well. It just so happens that the crack dealer under the Longfellow Bridge is selling MCSE certifications for $5 a pop as well, so MCSE's are a dime a dozen. If you're looking for a good NT admin, you need to look hard. Just the same reason you won't hire that 17 year old who "has 12 years UNIX experience."