Slashdot Mirror


The Origin Of Sobig (And Its Next Phase)

MrZeebo writes "According to this story at Canada.com, the FBI, along with other authorities, have traced the origin of the Sobig worm. The quick timeline: Apparently, an earlier version of the worm installed a backdoor on a home computer in British Columbia. The creator of the worm used this compromised computer to create a Usenet account with Easynews.com in Phoenix, using a stolen credit card. The worm spread from Usenet, and contained the IP addresses of 20 computers to contact on Friday, and to download an unknown program from those computers. Officials were able to take 19 of these computers offline before the mass-download. However, the 20th computer stayed online, and many copies of the worm were able to get the rogue program. Those that did were merely redirected to a porn site, no damage done. However, now infected computers will continue to try and connect to the other 19 every Friday and Sunday until the worm expires on Sept. 10th." Reader muldoonaz points out this brief Reuters story about the investigation, too.

500 comments

  1. Re: Wicked screensaver by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 4, Funny

    Please see the attached file for details.

  2. Next time by xijix · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Well....next time it will do something really bad, I swear!

  3. Re: Wicked screensaver by mjmalone · · Score: 4, Funny
    WARNING!!! (from zidane.cc.vt.edu)

    The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus scanner:

    Attachment [2.2] application.pif, virus infected: W32/Sobig-F. Action taken: deleted
    PWN'D
  4. Linux by brokencomputer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now if the computers hadn't been running windows and they would have crashed anyway and wouldnt have been able to execute it. Oh wait they were running windows. I guess windows(and any crashable OS) only crashes during important data writing.

    1. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Up your nose with a rubber hose, moron.

    2. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Up your ass with broken glass, jackass.

  5. What a nice guy though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An expiration date was actually coded into the worm? Seems pretty ironic.

    1. Re:What a nice guy though by EpsCylonB · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anyone else think this sounds like a bad hollywood plot ?

      We only have 48 hours to shut down 20 randomn computers or the internet is brought to it's knees.

    2. Re:What a nice guy though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Speed meets The Net. Three cheers for Sandra Bullock!

    3. Re: What a nice guy though by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


      > Anyone else think this sounds like a bad hollywood plot? We only have 48 hours to shut down 20 randomn computers or the internet is brought to it's knees.

      Worm author sells movie rights to pay legal fees...

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:What a nice guy though by s88 · · Score: 1

      uh yea... just about as ironic as rain on your wedding day, alanis.

    5. Re:What a nice guy though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're being redundant. All you have to say is "sounds like a hollywood plot." "Bad" is inferred.

    6. Re:What a nice guy though by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 1

      1. Write virulent Internet worm.
      2. Write screen play based on worm.
      3. Profit!

    7. Re:What a nice guy though by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      The SoBig-F email virus is the latest in a series of SoBig email viruses.

      They are probably timed to self destruct for a few reasons, I'll speculate at them :

      1. infected machines stop acting crazy without being patched
      2. people relax again once "it's all over" and in a few months re: Your Application becomes "safe to open"
      3. if the code doesn't quite work then it will only be for a fixed term
      4. ???
      5. nooooooo

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    8. Re:What a nice guy though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, but what you're missing is that F expires on September 10th, 2003.

      Which means G, the one with the yet more freakin' evil payload, is probably set to go live... ooh, sometime around the 11th... uh-oh.

      Expiring the worm is deliberate, so that different versions of the worm don't interfere with each other much.

      We got lucky, or maybe not: the author realised what was happening, reads the right lists (or spies on them, heh), and decided that he'd rather leave it to the backup payload - the update url was simply a random porn site, one of the decoys, rather than a compromised webpage containing the latest version of his second-stage rootkit/trojan/proxy, Lala.

      So we don't know what his latest surprise would have been. There's been too much attention - he's not going to spring it. He - let's be honest here, they - want a low-profile proxy network, quietly removing the worm after deployment, to anonymise his compromises, do some identity theft, mail some spam (they're EVIL, remember).

      Now, this stolen credit card was almost certainly stolen with the keylogger in the previous trojan cascade of Sobig.E, so... well, that pretty much fucks things up as far as traceability goes, same for the proxy servers that the authors will have been using to cover their tracks.

      Disclaimer: I don't *know* this, but based on what disassembly I've done, what I've read, and previous versions, it seems very, very likely. He might have been planning something else, but I suspect all this publicity derailed his plans for quiet world domination.

    9. Re:What a nice guy though by Kwil · · Score: 1

      To me, the reason is a lot simpler than that..

      So that it doesn't interfere with the next generation of SoBig.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    10. Re:What a nice guy though by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1

      Anyone else think this sounds like a bad hollywood plot ?

      BAD??? You gotta be kidding... That would beat the snot out of most 'good' hollywood plots... ;)

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    11. Re:What a nice guy though by ewen · · Score: 3, Insightful
      An expiration date was actually coded into the worm? Seems pretty ironic.

      Uh, no.

      The expiration date is there because if you're an evil software writer you don't want people running last month's version of your evil software and competing with the All New and Improved version.

      Just basic economics, really.

      Ewen

    12. Re:What a nice guy though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm imagining a phonecall to the helpdesk : Hello, my virus stopped working. Can you fix it?

    13. Re:What a nice guy though by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      yeah, i forgot that one, i got bored of concentrating for so long

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    14. Re:What a nice guy though by bowdog · · Score: 1

      I guess to keep it from getting in the way of the next one he deals out.

    15. Re:What a nice guy though by bowdog · · Score: 1

      day late and dollar short

    16. Re:What a nice guy though by BetterThanCaesar · · Score: 1

      Just connect Skynet.

      --
      "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
    17. Re:What a nice guy though by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      nah, there have been actually good hollywood plots, i think most current hollywood plots is a better qualification

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    18. Re:What a nice guy though by varj · · Score: 1

      aaargh! You forgot the most important step!
      It should read
      3. ...
      4. Profit!

      --


      -sig- It's not stupid, it's advanced -sig-
    19. Re:What a nice guy though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RESPONSE: Don't worry - if you're using M$ Windoze another one will be along real soon (and please don't update your system).

    20. Re:What a nice guy though by wheany · · Score: 1

      But nothing beats having 10000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

    21. Re:What a nice guy though by wheany · · Score: 1

      Ignoring of course, that Sobig.F didn't exploit any security holes, just the stupidity of the user.

    22. Re:What a nice guy though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      damn it.. if only we could stuff The Matrix in here we might be able to see Sandra Bullock in a cat suit...

    23. Re:What a nice guy though by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Informative

      If anyone is intersted, here's a "release history" :-P

      SoBig.A

      - Copies itself over network shares to shared start up folders on other computers.
      - Sends a message to an address on pagers.icq.com.
      - Uses a separate thread to download contents from a specific web site to %windir%\dwn.dat, and later executing it. (later reported to be "Backdoor.Lala")
      - Looks for e-mail addresses to send mails to in the files with these extensions txt, eml, html, htm, dbx, wab.
      - Stores sent messages in the file %Windir%\Sntmls.dat.
      - Uses 4 random subject lines.
      - Uses 4 random attachemenet names.
      - Always uses big@boss.com in the "From" field in the mails sent.
      - Size: 65,536 bytes

      SoBig.B

      Changes from SoBig.A:

      - Always uses support@microsoft.com in the "From" field in the mails sent.
      - Uses 9 random subject lines.
      - Uses 9 random attachemenet names.
      - Uses a deactivation date.
      - Attempts to download data from four different GeoCities Web pages. The addresses of these Web pages are stored in various .ini files.
      - Size: 52,898 bytes

      SoBig.C

      Changes from SoBig.B:

      - Always uses bill@microsoft.com in the "From" field in the mails sent.
      - Uses 7 random subject lines.
      - Uses 8 random attachemenet names.
      - Size: ~ 59 KB

      SoBig.D

      Changes from SoBig.C:

      - Very few infections noticed (0-49 listed at Symantec). Changes unknown due to low infection rate.

      SoBig.E

      Changes from SoBig.D:

      - Always uses support@yahoo.com in the "From" field in the mails sent.
      - Uses 18 random subject lines.
      - Uses 5 random attachemenet names.
      - Size: 82,195 bytes (zip file), 86,528 bytes (executable)
      - Sobig.E can download arbitrary files to infected computers and execute them. The author of the worm has used this functionality to steal confidential system information and to set up spam relay servers on infected computers. This functionality may also be used as a worm self-update feature. Under the correct conditions, Sobig.E attempts to contact one of the list of master servers, which the author of the worm controls. Then, the worm retrieves a URL that it uses to determine where to get the Trojan file, downloads the Trojan file to the local computer, and then executes it. The day of the week must be Monday or Friday. The time of the day must be between 19:00:00 UTC and 23:59:59 UTC. Sobig.E obtains the UTC time through the NTP protocol, by contacting one of several possible servers on port 123/udp (the NTP port). The worm starts the download attempt by sending a probe to port 8998/udp of the master server. Then, the server replies with a URL, where the worm can download the file to execute.
      - Sobig.E opens the following ports: 995/udp, 996/udp, 997/udp, 998/udp, 999/udp, and it listens for any incoming UDP datagrams on these ports. Incoming datagrams are parsed, and upon receiving a datagram with the proper signature, the master server list of the worm may be updated.

      SoBig.F

      Changes from SoBig.E:

      - Size: about 72,000 bytes
      - Spoofed address (which means that the sender in the "From" field is most likely not the real sender). The worm may also use the address admin@internet.com as the sender.
      - The spoofed addresses and the Send To addresses are both taken from the files found on the computer. Also, the worm may use the settings of the infected computer's settings to check for an SMTP server

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    24. Re:What a nice guy though by lightsaber1 · · Score: 1

      Easy solution...they shut down half the eastern seaboard and Ontario...oh wait, they were calling that a blackout...

    25. Re: What a nice guy though by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      I just rented the dvd of a movie called 'Takedown! (the Kevin Mitnick story)' or some such ... parts of it really weren't plausible, but I don't remember enough of the actual details to be absolutely sure.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    26. Re:What a nice guy though by evel+aka+matt · · Score: 1

      THe thing is, the Underpants Gnome bit goes:

      Phase 1: Collect Underpants
      Phase 2: ...
      Phase 3: PROFIT

      So these extra fucking phases come from nowhere.

  6. Methods used to obfuscate worm code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How can the operation of code like this be so uncertain when its relatively small and known? I assume the worm doesn't download keys as it runs to unlock further sections of code... How difficult is it to know what exactly these things do when they have a complete binary copy disassembled?

    1. Re:Methods used to obfuscate worm code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The unknown part is that this virus was set to download and run more code from 20 specific compromised computers mentioned at 3pm yesterday. No one knew what would be in that code until it was actually downloaded. Presumably there was no known remote method to get that code until the deadline either.

      So figuring out what the virus that spread initially did was easy. The only way to figure out what it was going to do next ahead of time was to gain access to one of those 20 computers, and there wasn't a lot of time for that. By blocking 19 of the 20 at their ISPs, at least the next phase was mostly stopped, and turned out to be harmless. But whoever wrote this virus will no doubt learn from this, which was likely the whole point of the exercise, and do something even sneakier, or just bigger (more than 20 hosts), next time. Then eventually when they're confident they can successfully launch an attack of this sort without being blocked, they will launch the REAL attack they've got planned, whatever that is.

    2. Re:Methods used to obfuscate worm code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, the IP addresses were in the code. They were just encrypted/encoded. The encryption wasn't the best, but because of the amount of un-optimized code, it was difficult to get through the code. There was just so much code to go through.

      I work for an antivirus vendor, and it took me a total of almost 5 hours to decrypt the IP addresses. Once I figured out what the worm needed to decrypt the IP addresses, I ran it in a debugger and changed the registers at the right locations. Then I just ran the worm and got the IP addresses from a network sniffer (if the first IP doesn't respond in X many seconds, the worm tries the next one and so on).

      Sorry for posting anon, but I felt it was better for this post.

    3. Re:Methods used to obfuscate worm code by Albinoman · · Score: 1

      I would assume that the new code was a separate executable. Or was it merely un unlock code of sorts? If it was an executable they couldve just put a patch on those address using the same name. The worm would then download its own death.

    4. Re:Methods used to obfuscate worm code by GiMP · · Score: 1

      There is certainly something sneakier one could do.. how about posting the content onto various free forums around the net and then pulling them from the google-cache?

    5. Re:Methods used to obfuscate worm code by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 0, Redundant
      "But whoever wrote this virus will no doubt learn from this, which was likely the whole point of the exercise, and do something even sneakier, or just bigger (more than 20 hosts), next time."

      According to the Symantec write-up, the worm had at least one more trick up its sleeve with regard to the 20 hosts. It seems that if an infected machine receives a properly signed packet on UDP ports 995-999, it'll update the list of 20 hosts.

      Of course the trick is finding a way to get that update out to all the infected machines. But really, all the virus writer has to do is update one machine (say by spamming a few IP ranges with likely victims *cough*homeDSLusers*cough*). The updated IP list will point to hosts that refer the infected machine to download an executable that cause the infected machine to start spamming out the master list update to random IP addresses. After that, the update should spread similar to a typical non-email network worm.

  7. Another day, another worm by KingDaveRa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These worms amaze and worry me all at once. They amaze because of the massive power they have over networks, PCs and most importantly the people they affect. Worm viruses are up there with Cancer or AIDs as far as some people are concerned. Its major shock-horror time when one happens. That's not to say people should take them lightly though.

    They worry me because of the fact they do all the above. These things are just a little power trip for all concerned. Microsoft's latest idea of forcing Windows Update could stop this - but only with the new versions of windows. We're going to have older versions kicking around for years to come.

    Ultimately, could Microsoft be blamed for these viruses? After all, if they didn't miss these bugs, the viruses wouldn't have a mechanism to run on. But should we blame the guys producing Apache when a flaw is found in that? Personally, I think its unfair to blame MS for all of this.

    1. Re:Another day, another worm by brokencomputer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      most people dont update even when its forced. they click wait 1 minute every minute and never do. anyway by the time the virus spreads it is too late. I think it is totally fair to blame MS. They wrote bad code that allowed itself to be exploited.

    2. Re:Another day, another worm by Brad+Mace · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, could Microsoft be blamed for these viruses? After all, if they didn't miss these bugs, the viruses wouldn't have a mechanism to run on. But should we blame the guys producing Apache when a flaw is found in that? Personally, I think its unfair to blame MS for all of this. Whether it's fair to blame them depends on how hard they tried to find and fix the holes. If someone could show that microsoft made only a token effort, they'd probably have grounds to sue for damages. (IANALBIPOOSD)

    3. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This worm does not exploit any vulnerabilities in Windows. It just sends an evil attachment.

      The only thing being exploited here is stupidity. Not even windows update can fix that.

    4. Re:Another day, another worm by KingDaveRa · · Score: 1

      Having seen people at work cancel automatic backups because 'its too slow', I don't have a lot of sympathy for some users. People need educating on these things though - keep things patched and we'll all be happy, rather than 'don't patch and the devil will take your children and infect your computer'

    5. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ultimately, could Microsoft be blamed for these viruses?

      Of course not you tool. This worm spread VIA USENET AND E-MAIL. Christ, RTFA before spouting your anti-MS BS.

    6. Re:Another day, another worm by wasabii · · Score: 1, Troll

      I think MS is to blaim. But not because they left a hole, in fact, they didn't with SoBig. SoBig is a simple executable attachment. What they did however was put no effort into making it hard for these programs to be launched! Look at any unix mailer, does it have an "Open" button to launch a downloaded program? Mozilla? No. You have to go out of your way to save a file to disk, mark it executable, and run it. Windows was designed to make it easy to spread virus, until MS fixes that, yes, they are at fault.

    7. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, perhaps people could actually start blaming those people who actually write the virii or worms. Wouldn't that be a novel concept.
      "But M$ is baaaaaaaad! If they wrote better programming, it wouldn't happen! *fume fume*"
      Right. And if people built better houses/cars, we'd never have break-ins. There will always be overlooked security holes. No matter what you do to lock them, people will find more and use them in a destructive manner. Lock your front door and a burglar will pick the lock. Build a better lock and whoops! You forgot to lock the window.
      Lock the window and the burglar breaks it instead. Get unbreakable glass and the burglar finds more devious ways in. Is it foolish to leave your house unlocked while on vacation? Most certainly. But anyone taking something from your house is still a thief and is ultimately responsible for stealing.

    8. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Worm viruses are up there with Cancer or AIDs as far as some people are concerned.

      Stupidest comparision in the known universe; the people who think this don't know anyone they care about who has cancer or AIDS.

    9. Re:Another day, another worm by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Ultimately, could Microsoft be blamed for these viruses?

      Read the MS EULA. Microsoft may be indemnifying people against possible IP problems (for hidden software). On the other hand, damned if they're going to indemnify their users against real problems.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    10. Re:Another day, another worm by hetta · · Score: 1

      That's why you schedule your backups for after hours, surely. If you don't, don't blame the user, blame yourself for not understanding how people work.

    11. Re:Another day, another worm by justinburt · · Score: 0, Redundant



      Ultimately, could Microsoft be blamed for these viruses?

      I have an idea I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere: perhaps the virus writers should be blamed for these viruses.

      Justin

    12. Re:Another day, another worm by dhwebb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree with you that SoBig isn't a security hole in MS's code, but I like the "Open from here" features. You said that you should have to save to disk, mark executable, then run it. Guess what, if that's how it was then people would do that and still get the worm/virus. For some reason, end-users have to look at everything that comes through their inbox. How many people do you know that run linux as root because it's easier, and even though they know they shouldn't. Seriously, I know some very smart people, and they are guilty of it and say, "You just gotta be a little more careful."

      That's they whole prevention of this kind of thing, have updated antivirus defs, know what your opening (NOT what the email says either), and just because it came from your mom doesn't mean:
      a. she's not immune from worms
      b. it actually came from her

      But amazingly, you tell an EU this and they just keep doing it and acting such the victim when they actually get infected. I actually had an EU call me over to ask me about an e-mail that actually had SoBig on Thursday. I told her not to open it because it was a virus, well she looks at me and says, "Oh don't worry, it doesn't do anything watch." And believe it or not, she sat their and opened the email and double-clicked the attachment to show me it didn't do anything. Just amazing.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
    13. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, if you're just interested in who to blame, then blame the virus/worm writers. They wrote the darn things. But there will always be plenty of virus writers.

      But if you're interested in how to have this kind of thing NOT HAPPEN, which I think is the more important issue for us in the IT field, then the blame falls squarely on microsoft's shoulders.

      Sure, all software has bugs. But Microsoft's software is a little different. It's in 95%+ of the world's computers. They know this, that's their business. Governments use it. Nuclear plants use it. The electric company uses it. Your personal information is stored in it. Your medical history is stored in it. Microsoft has their fingers so deep into businesses around the world.

      Yet they don't do anything particularly special to prevent these worms. They put in the same (or less) effort that the open source folks to find bugs. They sit idly buy when they could easily afford *thousands* of independent code audits. They leave ports open when they could easily ship them closed. They ship a mail client that runs foreign executables. Not off completely, or in a sandbox, or whatever. It is inexcusable that attachments can run as code. This is a bug in the design of the operating system (ANY operating system).

      Microsoft needs to get their head out of the bank vault for about two seconds and realize this is something they *must* do, even if it doesn't mean any new revenue. They have a responsibility to every business out there. Even if you are a FreeBSD + Mac shop you are effected by this.

      It's downright embarassing that a simple bit of code like these worms/viruses can even get out the ethernet port.

      Microsoft, how about innovating a real *solution* to this that *isn't* Palladium? I know it's possible. Have you ever seen qmail or other programs by DJB? Everything is partitioned with simple interfaces between code modules, even if there are bugs, they are ineffective. Do the same in Windows. People will put up with the extra effort eventually, because they are SICK of this shit.

      What really amazes me, is how many people seem to think Microsoft is "doing everything they can". They can do more, a lot more, and they must!

    14. Re:Another day, another worm by k12linux · · Score: 5, Insightful
      start blaming those people who actually write the virii or worms. ... There will always be overlooked security holes. No matter what you do to lock them, people will find more and use them in a destructive manner.

      I just love this type of explanation of why MS is at absolutely ZERO fault for it's security problems. Compare the number of Apache worms/viruses with the number found in IIS. Why are there more in a single year for IIS than for Apache over several years? Why haven't appache worms/viruses brought the Internet to a crawl and hit the newspaper headlines big time?

      Oh yeah.. because MS has such a huge market share making more targets. BZZZ.. Apache holds almost 2 times the market share for active web servers! Could it be that MS's IIS isn't as secure? No.. noo... it's because of hackers. It's all their fault.. Poor MS!

      Lock your front door and a burglar will pick the lock. Build a better lock and whoops! You forgot to lock the window.

      If you are going to use an analogy, try making it fit the facts:

      Builder A builds a LOT of houses. To cut costs and because they truley believe they know best... they use locks from RustyLocks.com. They also use an alarm system from AlarmsAreUs.com. The lock experts and alarm system experts say, "Hey, don't use those.. they have a high risk of being compromised!"

      Builder A argues that they haven't been compromised yet and that they are good enough for the home-buying public. They continue building tons of houses with these parts in place. They sell the homes with a HUGE profit margin and bill them as secure, safe and full of extras your family will love.

      Builder B lets the lock experts design a good lock they think is hard to break. They let the alarm system experts design a good alarm which is hard to bypass. They use these in their houses and find that they don't actually run up costs, but instead lower them. They also put the design of the systems up for public review in case they missed something themselves. They sell the homes for a reasonable price and offer the blueprints and all other design materials to the public in case someone wants to build their own.

      Soon building A's homes start getting broken into. They find a fix for the lock's current problem and offer it for free.. they even offer to install the fix. What they don't do is replace the locks with a better designed one because it's too expensive to. Of course this doesn't fix the security system problems or other problems with the locks. In the mean time they blame the crooks and also everyone who is broken into for not fixing their locks.

      Because the lock and alarm system guidlines from Builder B are availble to any lock or alarm system expert, they are repeatedly reviewed by those who want. There are enough people willing to review because they live in these homes and want to be safe. Maybe they find problems with the locks, maybe they don't. But if they do, the locks are improved and everyone is told.

      Eventually a few of builder B's locks get picked. The lock experts start tearing apart the locks and figure out if fixing them is good enough or if a whole new lock is warranted. Regardless of the answer, they make the new locks available for free with simple instructions on how to replace them.

      In the mean time several more break-ins occur in builder A homes.

      Builder A's reactive actions result in repeated security incidents. The Builder B community team's proactive actions result in occasional but rare security incidents.

      Blame the crooks! Sure, they hold some of the blame, but both builders KNEW the crooks were out there. They both knew the crooks wanted into the houses to get the goodies inside. So, does builder A share any responsibliity? Hmmm... According to your post.. NO.

    15. Re:Another day, another worm by B'Trey · · Score: 1

      Certainly, no system is foolproof. All software more complicated than "Hello world!" has bugs (and half the "Hello world!" programs do!) However, there's a reason that doors and windows are manufactured with locks. MS manufactured their software with no locks.

      In this particular case, the problem isn't an unlocked door. SoBig.F really isn't MS's fault. But ILoveYou and similar are a direct result of the way MS designed their software. They deserve to shoulder a significant share of the blame.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    16. Re:Another day, another worm by drewpt · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Blame the crooks! Sure, they hold some of the blame, but both builders KNEW the crooks were out there.

      Some of the blame? IMO, the virii writers should shoulder most of the blame.

      One of the problems with America, is nobody takes responsibility for their own actions these days. It's really very sad.

    17. Re:Another day, another worm by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Stupidest comparision in the known universe; the people who think this don't know anyone they care about who has cancer or AIDS.

      People who think that like should have no say about anything medical. If my doctor got all upset everytime he had to do surgery on a patient, he'd be sued weekly for malpractice.

      In short, time to take a breather. I'm sorry someone in your family is hurt, but making the world a sadder, more depressing place isn't the answer to your problems.

      --
      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
    18. Re:Another day, another worm by drik00 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, but I must disagree here. Althought it probably wasnt a coding error within the product, it was a error in design. They work so hard to throw as many bells and whistles into the application that they overlook the idea that the bells and whistles are the media that malicious individuals will use to cause havoc. If Microsoft wasn't trying to make Outlook do so much needless crap (email scripting), then we wouldnt have these problems. Its along the same lines as giving a car a "feature" that turns out to be deadly in a collision.

      I do hold Microsoft accountable because they tout their own products for being so "user-friendly" while they add no security into the products...if you're going to design an application that a child could use, for God's sakes, don't stop half-way, make sure the user is safe from the very ignorance your product feeds.

      To use the car analogy again, its as if Microsoft has built super-easy to drive cars for all of our parents, grandparents, and kids, but the car explodes upon even the slightest collision.

      Seriously, how can you not blame Microsoft? The "vulnerability" isnt in the code, its in the coders.

      J

      --
      Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
    19. Re:Another day, another worm by NanoGator · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Ultimately, could Microsoft be blamed for these viruses? After all, if they didn't miss these bugs..."

      You do realize that the people who program for Microsoft are normal everyday mistake making humans, right? You also realize that somebody spent a great deal of time trying to find that exploit, right?

      MS could be held responsible, but what would that really accomplish? MS can run around trying to do everything it can to make itself 'exploit-free', and somebody'll find a way to be obnoxious anyway. Chain letters come to mind. Socially engineered obnoxiousness.

      Here's the problem, though. The same types of humans that write MS code also write Linux code. If a worm hits Windows and causes damage, and MS gets penalized for it, that sounds all great and cool and stuff because everybody hates Microsoft. Now, treating everybody fair and equal here, what happens when a defect in Linux allows for a worm to be just as mischevious? Worse, Linux is more commonly used in life or death situations, as opposed to a desktop intended to entertain. Tons of money could be on the line here. How would Linux be penalized? Given its decentralized nature, that could be unenforcable. However, if it was enforced, the community would have a nasty problem on their hands. If not, then the corps that use these OS's would be wondering if it's more valuable to have somebody accountable for the code they write. Boom, back to MS.

      Think about what I've said. That's a can of worms you don't want to have opened.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    20. Re:Another day, another worm by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Truely it is tragic, and no, if the coders do their best what more can you ask? But Microsoft has continued to produce the most insecure and bug ridden software. If there is a flaw in apache, they are on it in a heartbeat... everything possible is done to prevent security holes.

      The number minor and serious holes in microsoft software which are actively exploited makes it pretty clear. Microsoft basically seems to release software first, and then look for security holes second. Apparently what they are looking for in beta testing is usability bugs that would prevent them from releasing. They are in a hurry to get software to market and leave the looking for holes part for later.

      Apache and other open source software on the other hand tends to run the other way (although anybody can make a project and develop however they please). Look for bugs that cause security problems and system instability first... minor graphic update glitches and such come second.

      In a perfect world both would be ironed out before ever being seen by the public... in the real world I think it's obvious that the open source way is better.

    21. Re:Another day, another worm by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I 100% agree. If a "feature"'s function is a security hole, that feature should never be implemented. No matter how useful, no matter how many people want it.

      That is the difference between corporate design and that of open source projects. Open source has no motive to put things like mail scripting into an email app... they aren't subject to the demand of the market. A commercial entity only cares about it's bottom line.

    22. Re:Another day, another worm by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "No matter what you do to lock them, people will find more and use them in a destructive manner."

      I wonder if this is the logic microsoft uses when they don't bother looking for them at all?

      We aren't talking about a couple human oversights here. We are talking about tens of thousands of viruses, worms, trojans, exploits, etc. This isn't "oops missed a couple" this is a case of them not bothering to look or not caring. The market wants something, they put it out whether it's good or not and they do their best to put it out before anyone else (something they usually fail at since 90% of their ideas are stolen and the rest are BAD ideas like mail scripting!) even if the only way to do that is skip the part where they look for security holes, or design schemes.

      The idiots put ease of use before functionality, stability and security and THIS is the result.

    23. Re:Another day, another worm by shaitand · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the people who program for "Microsoft are normal everyday mistake making humans, right? You also realize that somebody spent a great deal of time trying to find that exploit, right?

      MS could be held responsible, but what would that really accomplish? MS can run around trying to do everything it can to make itself 'exploit-free', and somebody'll find a way to be obnoxious anyway. Chain letters come to mind. Socially engineered obnoxiousness."

      I suppose leaving literally tens of thousands of security holes which are exploited by viruses worms, etc over the years could be looked at as the side of "mistake making human beings" but these things aren't really even mistakes. If you are intentionally not looking for security holes because you consider it more important to get the product to market or because the market demands the bad design, then it's not missing anything at all when security holes get through, is it?

    24. Re:Another day, another worm by dtfinch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft security has always been implemented as an afterthought. They write code as quickly as possible, test it under normal use, and release it. Internet Explorer is a good example. Most of the exploits people find are just variations on past exploits, and Microsoft just patches each specific exploit rather than fixing the design flaw that responsible for the whole class of exploits.

      As for all those buffer overflow exploits, most are the result of a conscious decision to use fixed, unchecked buffers in order to save work. You usually see the glaring potential for exploit as you write it but decide not to worry.

      It's understandable that in many projects, it's worth it to allow such vulnerabilities to exist to reduce development time and project complexity, but Microsoft software runs on something like 95% of the desktops in the world, and they repeatedly enable rarely used internet accessible services by default in every version of Windows and generally ignore good safety practices.

      On the bright side, they added stack buffer overflow protection to Visual C++ 7.0, so it's just a matter of them getting most of their code to compile under it, and remembering to enable that feature.

      Security is not as impossible as Microsoft claims. They just never designed their software with it in mind, and occasionally it comes back and hits them in the face. Windows is like a one room house with 16 back doors and only the front door has a lock. If you look at say, OpenBSD, which is completely free and developed on a shoestring budget, it has an almost perfect security record.

    25. Re:Another day, another worm by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "If you are intentionally not looking for security holes because you consider it more important to get the product to market... "

      The OSS community is different how?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    26. Re:Another day, another worm by shaitand · · Score: 2, Informative

      The OSS community has exactly ZERO motivation to "get the product to market". In case you don't know it nobody is paying them millions or even buying them a bear for producing a release. In most projects MASSIVE amounts of time are spent looking for bugs and security holes. Want to help? You can go look for security holes in ANY project under development... turn in patches for legit holes and guess what, they'll be accepted.

    27. Re:Another day, another worm by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
      I do hold Microsoft accountable because they tout their own products for being so "user-friendly" while they add no security into the products...if you're going to design an application that a child could use, for God's sakes, don't stop half-way, make sure the user is safe from the very ignorance your product feeds.

      Mod parent up!

      If only they would create an update that would stop Gator from working... without stopping everything else...

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    28. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4 of my users (for various reasons our email anti-virus scanner wasn't functioning) got it last week. When I tracked them down from bounced emails, what did they tell me? "But it didn't do anything when I ran it." morons.

    29. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Great points.

      The Microsoft "O/S" has certainly bloated over the years, and is probably the main problem. As with any code shop, the biggest goal is just to get it to work!! Millions of lines of code, thousands of programmers, just organizing it sounds scary. And we always hear about the dates slipping -- and that's just to get it working in a non buggish sorta way. I doubt this leaves much time to try and figure out ways it can be exploited!


      I could go on, but I really wanted to respond about your Palladium comment. Usually when I read stories about viruses, hacks, etc, I smile. Not maliciously, but just in the spirit of the hack. But lately, this kind of shit just makes me concerned that this will slide us into DRM. And that's bad.


      By the way, isn't this an Outlook Explorer problem, and not really an OS problem? I was just wondering because I run Win98 on two main machines, without a virus checker. And have never been hit with these bad viruses. But I also sit behind a Linksys firewall, Zonealarm, use web-base email only, and don't click on EXE & SCR's.

    30. Re:Another day, another worm by cpeterso · · Score: 2, Insightful


      What surprises me is that these worms or viruses are not more than nuisances. It would be so easy for the authors to add a lil' code to "format c:" after propagating itself. That would do more damage and cover its tracks.

    31. Re:Another day, another worm by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
      You do realize that the people who program for Microsoft are normal everyday mistake making humans, right? You also realize that somebody spent a great deal of time trying to find that exploit, right?

      No, people who program for Microsoft are 1337 mistake making humans. =p

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    32. Re:Another day, another worm by dirk · · Score: 1

      Except the feature simply makes what the user wants to do easier. The user wants to open the attachment. If they had to go through three steps to open the attachment, they would, because that is what they are trying to do. Three steps versus one ot two steps doesn't matter, because they are the steps the user will take to do what he wants to do.

      A better car analogy is that car companies are at fault for drunk drivers because it is too easy to operate a car. They made it as easy as putting the key in the car to start it. It they made 5 additional steps before the car would start, it would stop drunk drivers. In fact it wouldn't stop them (unless one of the steps was a breathalizer). They want to start the car and will, no matter how many steps there are. Users want to open these attachements and will, regardless of whether there is 1 step or 10.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    33. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, installing a patch, or working a couple of hours overtime if you didn't is certainly comparable to having AIDS or cancer. Moron

    34. Re:Another day, another worm by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Sure, installing a patch, or working a couple of hours overtime if you didn't is certainly comparable to having AIDS or cancer. Moron

      LOL.

      Like I said, take a pill. You gotta chill out, and fast, before you have a heart attack.

      --
      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
    35. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't MS go to great lengths to prove that their Explorer browser and their OS are the same thing?

    36. Re:Another day, another worm by drik00 · · Score: 1

      Your modified analogy misses the point. You countered your own argument by saying that the user's judgement is the problem. When you're drunk,your judgement is impaired. I was referring to ignorance, not a judgement call. EVERYONE knows they shouldn't drive after drinking any alcohol, however, people justify it and do it anyhow.

      The whole point is that Microsoft is making a product that they marketing to people as "EASY TO USE," ...to use your analogy, it would be like auto manufacturers marketing a car specifically as "EASIER TO DRIVE WHEN INTOXICATED!!".

      I am in NO way saying that people are not responsible for their own actions, but seriously, (to make a Slashdot appropriate statement) there was a reason that the Federation has a Prime Directive for all of its ships and officers on Star Trek. The same reason you don't give guns to children because they simply do not understand the possible ramifications of misuse. If you have a child that needs some sort of self-proctection, you give them mace or a whistle or self-defense classes, you dont hand them a damned .357 and tell them simply to point and pull the trigger.

      In the same way, MS has given our grandparents/parents/kids an email application that by default runs whatever scripts or executables may be in an email message.

      J

      --
      Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
    37. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1: America != World

      2: There are bad people, and there's nothing you can do about it, so you need to learn to deal with it.

      3: The reason MS is being accused is not just because their software is insecure, but because they shipped it KNOWING it was insecure.

    38. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    39. Re:Another day, another worm by Czmyt · · Score: 1

      Microsoft could probably produce an update for all versions of Windows, that people would need to install, that would make all future updates automatic.

    40. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In case you don't know it nobody is paying them millions or even buying them a bear for producing a release.
      If M$ were to buy OSS developers a bear for each release, both OSS developers and bears would end up as the most endangered species on the face on the planet. Not to mention that M$ would lose a whole lot of money since OSS projects release new versions so often!
    41. Re:Another day, another worm by clintp · · Score: 1

      The OSS community has exactly ZERO motivation to "get the product to market".

      That's not entirely true. Failure to bring a usable OSS product to market in a timely manner (Mozilla, Perl 6, Wine, Hurd) will result in ridicule for the development team and the product becomes a target for scorn even within the pro-OSS community.

      There's no sales droids or PHB's waiting for the product, but droves of expectant users. When and if the product is delivered the programmers get their rewards (attaboys, good press, professional recognition, jobs).

      So the OSS community has very strong motivations for success and against failure. They're just not directly monetary.

      --
      Get off my lawn.
    42. Re:Another day, another worm by magores · · Score: 3, Funny

      I blame the the EU that clicks on the virus.

      (Go ahead and make fun of the following thought process...)

      ---Gunsmiths make Guns = MS makes OS
      ---Bulletsmiths make Bullets = Virus writers make viruses
      ---Dumb people look at the bullet through the barrel and pull the trigger = Dumb people click on *.pif, *.scr ...

    43. Re:Another day, another worm by NewsWatcher · · Score: 1

      In your example, would it be more accurate if the thieves got in repeatedly through the Windows?

      --
      If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
    44. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is really a Dumb User Opened the Executable problem, not a software implementation flaw, and nothing specific to your mailer.

      Now maybe one could argue that Windows and Unix needs to be radically redesigned to protect themselves from console users. But FWIW, my Outlook at least blocks EXEs and SCRs.

    45. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at any unix mailer, does it have an "Open" button to launch a downloaded program? Mozilla? No.

      Mozilla for Windows sure the hell does.
      Meanwhile Outlook blocks the damn thing.

      How's MS going to fix Mozilla again?

    46. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do we know that the patch isn't worse than the worm itself (e.g. new license terms agreed to simply by downloading, new DRM features, ...)? And how do we know that the 'bug' wasn't there to ensure an opportunity for Microsoft to force people to accept these?
      There are sound reasons why one might not want to upgrade.

    47. Re:Another day, another worm by conteXXt · · Score: 1

      Ok...fine...What kind of BEAR will that be? Kodiak? Grizzly?

      --
      The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
    48. Re:Another day, another worm by L1ttl3p1gg3 · · Score: 1

      Perfect analogy!

      Guns are also actively promoted as being EXTREMELY dangerous.. Where are the tv comercials, radio spots and newpaper clippings about how dangerous a computer can be - about how a single click on a .pif file could ultimately bring a nuclear plant to it's knees or create havoc for the local 911 system...

      EU's are ignorant and stupid morons, but that is no excuse for the people who actually do know what they are doing, and can prevent the morons from doing stupid shit in the first place..

      --
      I've pissed someone off somewhere...
    49. Re:Another day, another worm by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      The reason MS is being accused is not just because their software is insecure, but because they shipped it KNOWING it was insecure.

      Would you care to prove that?

    50. Re:Another day, another worm by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's called faster development.

      Just because open source can do in a couple months what takes a commercial entity a year doesn't mean those releases aren't higher quality.

      Incremental releases aren't "new versions" however. They are primarily to fix bugs and round out loose ends. 1.0 is a release. 1.1 is NOT a release, it's an incremental release that is just an update for various reasons on 1.0.

    51. Re:Another day, another worm by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Just because open source can do in a couple months what takes a commercial entity a year doesn't mean those releases aren't higher quality."

      You must use different OSS software than I do. It's a common and justifiable complaint that OSS software rarely has a good UI tied to it. It's easy to get software out when you skip UI design.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    52. Re:Another day, another worm by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I'll take software released with UI flaws over software released with security and stability flaws anytime ;) Security and stability should be taken care of first, UI bugs come in second.

      Although to be honest I haven't really had any UI problems with open source software. Not following one single scheme is a strength in my book. This is what has made the video game generation good at adapting to different applications and schemes... not two video games have UI's designed to be similar. Yet players still pick up a new game and don't even have to think about the UI 90% of the time.

      I look at uniform UI scheme's as a way of getting people tied into your mindshare scheme. Once they get used to the box you present it's hard for them to adapt to something else. If however the users are not acustomed to a single scheme, but learn in a world where the UI differs from one application to the next, their minds learn to quickly adapt to new and different interfaces as a matter of course.

      Surely this is what you mean? Most open source apps don't have buggy UI's, they just aren't uniform. The UI's are typically more intuitive and powerful. It's also my belief that the UI should be designed for the power users, not the bottom denominator... the bottom denominator is not a level users should be staying at... so software design should not stay there either. Using a linux system, an average user ends up a power user naturally within a couple years. In the windows world this is not true, the user has to go out of their way to learn anything about the system. As far as I'm concerned, it's the windows way that contitutes bad UI design when one looks at the big picture... not the linux way.

    53. Re:Another day, another worm by joto · · Score: 1
      I 100% agree. If a "feature"'s function is a security hole, that feature should never be implemented. No matter how useful, no matter how many people want it.

      So, tell me which planet do you live on? Here are some easily exploitable features:

      • Removable media
      • Networks
      • Internet
      • Programmable firmware
      • Compilers and interpreters
      • Knives and scissors
      That is the difference between corporate design and that of open source projects. Open source has no motive to put things like mail scripting into an email app... they aren't subject to the demand of the market. A commercial entity only cares about it's bottom line.

      So you think we should never give the user anything useful, right? While I understand what you are trying to say, I think you should think things through a little bit more. Software should emphasize security, and probably more than it does now, but that doesn't mean at all costs.

    54. Re:Another day, another worm by stanwirth · · Score: 1

      Microsoft security has always been implemented as an afterthought. They write code as quickly as possible, test it under normal use, and release it. Internet Explorer is a good example. Most of the exploits people find are just variations on past exploits, and Microsoft just patches each specific exploit rather than fixing the design flaw that responsible for the whole class of exploits.

      Amen. I formed my opinion of Microsoft coders when I got a student at a prestigious national lab to supervise in one of our summer-schools nearly a decade ago now. His claim to fame was that he was a double major in math and CS and worked for Microsoft.

      His first task, which I thought should have taken a couple days at most, was to write a table lookup function in C. First he insisted on using C++, and after a week, he had something: hundreds of lines of cases and ifs hand-tailored to the specific table at hand. And the lookup just took forever. And crashed for half the cases. Oh, he presorted the table first--with a hand-coded neither bubble nor shell sort, extremely inefficient. WTF? Didn't they cover hash tables and sort algorithms in any of his CS courses? Hadn't he used anything covered in 4 years of undergraduate training in his work at MS? I was shocked.

      But I haven't been surprised by any of the utter crap we've seen come out of Redmond since that time.

      More recently MS sent one of these blowhard .NET advocates to a company I was doing some work for a couple years ago. The guy thought we should actually fall for their claims of having invented mixed language programming, mixed language IDE's and cross platform development. The MSCE's in IT actually did.

      I told him we used to call C functions from Fortran and vice versa on the VAX 11/780 running 4.2 BSD back in '83 -- simple, because the compilers used a common object format, and all you had to do was understand how the linker worked, and the differences in how both languages indexed arrays. And the MPW -- Mac Programmers' workbench did the same for mixed-language programming in Pascal, C and Fortran with a pointy-clicky IDE. Again, in the 80's. It's not rocket science. In fact, it's easier to have a single object format no matter what the higher-level language is--why bother coming up with a different object format for every language you build a compiler for when you can just keep re-using the same one. This is something new? NOT! And cross-platform development? UCSD Pascal accomplished that in the 70's for crissake, and Sun borrowed the idea for Java.

      Microsoft try to paint themselves as "at the forefront" and "implementing new ideas" and "doing research" and "innovating" and use this to excuse their crap releases to the public.

      But in fact, everything Microsoft has evern done have been re-implementations of very old ideas (and often bad ports of old code), where, in many cases, the open source community has already redeveloped and reimplemented the code several times over, over several decades and already identified a lot of pitfalls, security problems, and run across a wider variety of use case scenarios.

      But Microsoft is doing it for the very first time, and very publically stumble into known pitfall after known pitfall (in the case of viruses, they stumbled in years ago and still haven't figured out how to get out!), and seem to be completely ignorant of basic concepts that have been very well-understood -- and discussed in the literature, if not undergraduate textbooks -- for decades. Microsoft's apparent fundamental inability to design an operating system or have fundamental security measures in place is consistent with something that a small army of Mr. .NET and that CS/Math double major would come up with. I used to concede that possibly those two guys were just MS' cast-offs, sent out a-marketing and to summer school precisely because they obviously did not know jack shit. However, after seeing MS poor technical performance go on for year after year after year after year I really do think that they might actually representative of the quality of the people MS hire.

      It certainly would explain a lot.

    55. Re:Another day, another worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      --Here's some free software to b0rk all the spyware on your computer:
      http://spybot.eon.net.au/

    56. Re:Another day, another worm by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I'll take software released with UI flaws over software released with security and stability flaws anytime ;)"

      Not me, I like using my computer.

      "Surely this is what you mean? Most open source apps don't have buggy UI's, they just aren't uniform."

      Uniformity is not the problem. The problem is that the UI isn't designed. It does the job that suits the programmer. Virtual Dub comes to mind. Gimp is another. Funny thing is that Gimp has something to copy off of.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  8. Damn... by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Flamebait

    Am I the only one who's a little bummed that this virus may have been stopped dead in it's tracks here? I mean, my inbox got slammed with crap just like everyone else's, but because nearly all of my systems are running relatively secure operating systems, I've just kinda chuckle each time another dozen mesages shows up automatically routed to my "Junk/virii" folder.

    It is pure, gleeful schadenfeude for me to think of all the hapless PHBs and MSCSE CIOs who are finally being given a little hint as to just how vulnerable they've left their companies. In the short term yes, many people will be inconvenienced and possibly some critical systems knocked out. But these hapless companies and also the public sector will eventually be forced to learn, and that's ultimately a good thing for all of us.

    1. Re: Damn... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting


      > But these hapless companies and also the public sector will eventually be forced to learn, and that's ultimately a good thing for all of us.

      Essentially these have been serving as vaccinations rather than infections, because they're provoking an antibody response that will (should) reduce the impact of a genuinely hostile worm when it finally comes out.

      The vaccination isn't completely effective, since so many people obviously aren't hardening their systems, but some are, and the experts are getting a lot of practice at trapping, analyzing, and defusing the worms on a tight schedule. If this had come out a couple of years ago the response might not have been quick enough to shut the 19 sites down.

      Still waitin' for the big one, though.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent post was submitted by Nick Burns.

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

      What I find ironic is that these worms do these MS guys a favor. What these worms do on a widespread and generic fasion a decent cracker can do on a narrowly-focused and tenasous manner much more effectively.

      This means that if you got hit by a worm, you computer systems were laying wide open for any hacker to attack and take control of.

      This worm mearly wanted you to go to a porn site, not take all your trade secrets/steal your finacial data/create fake identities/steal money electronicly/steal credit card # and other customer information etc etc etc etc etc.

      This worm is a crackers way of saying "wake up and smell the f***ing coffee before you get hacked like the b***h you are."

    4. Re:Damn... by bobbozzo · · Score: 1
      It is pure, gleeful schadenfeude for me to think of all the hapless PHBs and MSCSE CIOs who are finally being given a little hint as to just how vulnerable they've left their companies.

      I'll be gleeful when someone hijacks some of those 20 computers and replaces the download with a disk formatter that finishes with a message, in every language, that says "Secure your damn systems".

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    5. Re: Damn... by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      The vaccination isn't completely effective, since so many people obviously aren't hardening their systems [Emphasis added]
      Thanks. That's a critical point.
      Yesterday's anti-virus software is effective against yesterday's viruses.
      Yesterday's hardening is effective against tomorrow's viruses.
      The occasional booby that clicks on a booby trap is excusable.
      Hiding file extensions so that booby traps look safe is not excusable.
      Hmmmmm, maybe it's all the hiding that Microsoft likes to do that's really the problem.

      Still waitin' for the big one, though.
      Yep. Seems like there is some sort of progression starting with Melissa.
      Backup early, backup often, backup to as different a system as possible.

    6. Re:Damn... by carsont · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I realize you're probably not entirely serious, but this is definitely the wrong attitude. The flood of virus warnings and bounces caused by Sobig, not to mention all the machines knocked off the Internet by Blaster, shows that a horde of hopelessly insecure machines on the Internet are dangerous to everyone, including those of us with some common sense about security. If one acknowledges that spam costs time and money to deal with, then Sobig is damaging even people who have gone completely uninfected - the virus messages and bounces are every bit as annoying and numerous as spam, albeit easier to filter.

      At any rate, although it would be nice to see businesses move away from Windows after this or the next MS "trustworthy computing" fiasco, I doubt it will happen. In my experience, anyway, the MCSE types will probably be more likely to shell out big bucks for a mail filter on their Exchange server (you know, the ones generating all the "YOUR MESSAGE CONTAINS A VIRUS" warnings sent to addresses that Sobig spoofed) than to switch from Windows or even patch it more often. One can always hope, though...

      Anyway, even if everyone switched to real OSes, most of them have their share of security problems, too. These types of virus epidemics will probably still be a danger until either the majority of people get a clue about security, or until the majority of OS vendors get a clue about designing systems that are secure by default so the users don't have to work quite as hard to make and keep them safe.

      --

      Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
    7. Re:Damn... by Ksatriya · · Score: 1

      Even the so-called "MSCSE CIOs" aren't vulnerable unless they've thrown caution to the wind. Even Microsoft shops running 2003 Server and Exchange have excellent (third-party) anti-virus solutions and protection. An Exchange server (or better, SMTP gateway) running an anti-virus e-mail filter solves any problem you might have with SoBig infection. (Note: this is addressing only the aspect of a computer getting infected; there is still the issue of major network traffic congestion caused by such a fast spreading virus.) Most large organizations have some sort of system in place to prevent virii from hitting the user's desktop. There are products from all of the major anti-virus vendors, not to mention organizations like MessageLabs that specialize in stripping messages of spam and virii. My company's mail filter is catching a few hundred SoBig.F hits a day and keeping them off the desktop level and away from users who don't know any better.

      In honesty, this problem has nothing do with Windows usage or lack thereof (though this is happens to be, like most, a Windows-specific virus) - it has to do with taking basic precautions to avoid catastrophic consequences. If every home computer ran anti-virus, this would not be a problem - but they don't. If every corporate network had virus filtering on their mail server or desktops this wouldn't be a problem - but people don't take these basic precautions.

      The problem is not Windows - the problem is user and administrator education on basic steps required to prevent dangerous code and malware from getting to desktop computers.

    8. Re:Damn... by kir · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ummm... don't you mean schadenfreude (with an "r")?

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    9. Re:Damn... by seanadams.com · · Score: 1
      Ummm... don't you mean schadenfreude (with an "r")?

      Yes, herr spelling nazi, but you missed all of these:
      • its instead of it's
      • chuckled instead of chuckle
      • MCSE instead of MSCSE


      Better luck next time!
    10. Re:Damn... by dirk · · Score: 1

      That's funny, at my job we are running relatively secure software as well. It must be just as secure, since we didn't get hit either. Sure, we got lots of junk email, but since Outlook automatically blocked all the attachments (since they were known, insecure filetypes) we had no problems at all.

      I find it amazing these viruses are called Outlook viruses when Outlook is immune to them. They are stupid user viruses, not Outlook viruses.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    11. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Viiriiii!!!

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

      Viiiriiiii!

    13. Re:Damn... by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      It is pure, gleeful schadenfeude for me to think of all the hapless PHBs and MSCSE CIOs who are finally being given a little hint as to just how vulnerable they've left their companies.

      Look, you don't have to be a pretentious dick about it. Worms can hit any platform including your relatively secure operating systems. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and frankly, major Linux distributions have more than their fair share of major security vulnerabilities. The only saving grace of Linux is that it's relatively obscure OS compared to other major operating systems like Windows or MacOS. I count 41 security vulnerabilities in Red Hat 9 alone since late March. Many of those could've been exploited by a worm or malicious trojan and spread if as many people used Linux as they do Windows.

      So get off your high horse and realize that every one of those operating systems you're pointing out was affected by major security vulnerabilities in the last year. Even OpenBSD, that bastion of secure operating systems, had a MAJOR remote root exploit in the default install (OpenSSH). Nobody is immune to bad programming and just bad luck. Shit happens, that's why there are patches. The problem is lazy incompetent system administration and not patching systems when they become available.

      *rant* And for Christ's sake people, SHUT OFF DAEMONS YOU DON'T USE! Does your Solaris box REALLY need to be running ANY of that shit in /etc/inetd.conf that comes enabled by default? The answer is NO. Solaris works just peachy with everything in inetd.conf disabled, RPC disabled, and practically every other daemon started in the init scripts disabled. I'm sick of coming upon workstations with all this shit turned on and trying to figure out why they're running it on a desktop. */rant*

    14. Re:Damn... by topham · · Score: 1

      Outlook isn't immune to it.

      Some installations and configurations are immune.

      Not everyone runs the latest version of Outlook (in some cases other applications are not compatible with the latest Outlook.).

      And as for the immune Outlook, they have other problems, including HIDING attachments from the users in certain environments.

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

      I mean, my inbox got slammed with crap just like everyone else's, but because nearly all of my systems are running relatively secure operating systems, I've just kinda chuckle each time another dozen mesages shows up automatically routed to my "Junk/virii" folder.

      Windows 2000 SP2. No problems.

      Of course, I'm behind an OpenBSD firewall, running ZoneAlarm, and never use Microsoft Internet Products. (not to mention that I'm not stupid enough to open random attachments)

      Windows is perfectly safe so long as you take proper precautions. (and I can run more software than you, neener neener! ;)

    16. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "Junk/what's that word" folder?

    17. Re:Damn... by kir · · Score: 1

      Actually... I'm not a speling nazi. It was a new word for me. I went and looked it up to get the... well, let's just say... the "official" meaning from a dictionary. Saw that you speled it wrong, so I figured I'd mention it.

      I did notice all your other speling mistakes, but I'm not the kind to point out "it's" instead of "its", etc. But now that you've called me a speling nazi... oh yeah... I'll remember next time!

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    18. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the systems mentioned in the parent (FreeBSD, MacOS X, Linux) all are pretty good about avoiding remote security holes and patching problems.

      FreeBSD only enables SSH by default.

      MacOS X doesn't enable any remote services by default, and Apple produces security updates very quickly and even makes them easy for people to install (via the software upgrade feature).

      Linux, depending on the distribution, has similar defaults.

      So even if there are advisories, they only affect machines that are either running the specific service that has a bug (often 3rd party software) or have compromised accounts (local root exploits).

      I haven't looked at the most recent distributions of most proprietary systems, but even if we've "only" got *BSD, most Linux distros and Apple, that's a pretty decent portion of non-Microsoft OS vendors.

    19. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn... (Score:5, Flamebait)
      by seanadams.com (463190) * on Saturday August 23, @05:14PM (#6774501)
      (http://www.seanadams.com/)


      Woah! A 5, Flamebait! You pwn.

    20. Re:Damn... by TomV · · Score: 1

      That's a revolting atitude. I don't think of all the hapless PHBs and MSCSE CIOs, i think of all the millions of ordinary hard-working people who put in the hours at work, sacrificed buying something else so they could spend a grand on a home PC and software (which frequently drives them nuts and makes them feel like idiots because it's STILL not ready for the public, incidentally), to keep in touch with their friends, their families, their loved ones, and found themselves unable to do so, and worried about their ability to do so in future, because of the stupid, childish, expoitative, vandalistic, selfish behaviour of some pus-ridden shitheaded twat who may or may not have felt they had a political point to prove.

      TomV

    21. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schadenfreude - Happiness at the expense of others

    22. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but because nearly all of my systems are running relatively secure operating systems, I've just kinda chuckle each time another dozen mesages shows up automatically routed to my "Junk/virii" folder.


      And here I am, running XP Pro with Office XP and not a single instance of the virus in my inbox.

      So, you're not running the Wintel platform? How does this have ANYTHING to do with your spam filter?

      Dumbass.

  9. Movie by msgmonkey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The whole summary sounds like some Matricesque (sp?) movie with little plot twists thrown in there for good measure.

  10. Instructions to cure worm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Right click the clock on your taskbar,
    2) click adjust date and time,
    3) set date to 11/09/2003, click OK
    4) ???
    5) No more worm! (Just have to use an external clock to keep track of the time until the REAL 11/09/2003 comes around)

    1. Re:Instructions to cure worm. by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually the worm included its own NTP client which it would use to verify the date by querying NTP servers on the Internet.

      Hence this doesn't work. I thought this was a nice touch on the part of the worm author. As well as including NTP, they author had their own SMTP server for sending the messages and used a regular expression engine to search for email addresses on the machine.

      This was not written by a script kiddie.

      John.

    2. Re:Instructions to cure worm. by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What happens if I block outbound NTP requests?

    3. Re:Instructions to cure worm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then you have to unhook from the internet also.

    4. Re:Instructions to cure worm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't use ntpdate to set the time on your PC, that's what.

    5. Re:Instructions to cure worm. by Alakaboo · · Score: 1

      I also heard that one "features" of Sobig is that it will copy itself to any visible network shares. Fortunately, due to some bug(s) in the programming, this does not work.

      Ah, I read it here.

    6. Re:Instructions to cure worm. by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2, Insightful


      This was not written by a script kiddie.

      I'm inclined to agree. It seems like a lot of effort to go to, including the use of a stolen credit card. However, why simply download a pron-link in the second stage, and not something more harmful? Why only 20 computers, and not 1000? This seems more like a proof-of-concept--I think SoBig.G is going to be that much worse. Maybe it'll be released the day after this one expires--9/11.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    7. Re:Instructions to cure worm. by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 1

      However, why simply download a pron-link in the second stage, and not something more harmful?

      Perhaps that was a smoke screen. Since the author had 20 computers under his control he could change what they did at will. Initially you get computers jumping to porn sites, while that's happening you do something else.

      Why only 20 computers, and not 1000?

      Well the author needed to control those computers personally so that they could change what the worm would get from them. It was probably difficult to know the 1,000 computers that were controlled and put that information into the worm.

      [BEGIN EVIL THOUGHTS]
      I don't really understand why they bothered with 20 fixed host computers. Why not have the worm/virus read Usenet through Google or other Usenet gateways looking for a specific message. When the message appears it could contain the worm instructions, if the message was cryptographically embedded in a porn image on the alt.binaries groups it would be very hard for the gateways to filter it out.
      [END EVIL THOUGHTS]

      This seems more like a proof-of-concept--I think SoBig.G is going to be that much worse. Maybe it'll be released the day after this one expires--9/11.

      The expiration on 10 September is interesting and no doubt done to fit into the "post 9/11 world". Whether it really has any significance is unknown, perhaps the author wanted to jump on a bandwagon, perhaps the author actually has some sympathy for 9/11, perhaps it was chosen to make people spend their brain cells wondering why 9/10.

      John.

    8. Re:Instructions to cure worm. by mslinux · · Score: 1

      This was not written by a script kiddie.

      Probably a dumb question, but I'll ask it anyway:

      What programming language was this written in?

    9. Re:Instructions to cure worm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why not have the worm/virus read Usenet through Google or other Usenet gateways looking for a specific message.

      Why stop there? These things already sniff the web cache on the local machine for e-mail addresses. Why not scour the web cache to look for instructions? Then they can come from any page. If the user visits a web site where random visitors can post comments (ahem...) then there you go.

      0xdeadbeef 1.2.3.4 66.35.250.150 1061685195

    10. Re:Instructions to cure worm. by httptech · · Score: 1
      Actually the worm included its own NTP client which it would use to verify the date by querying NTP servers on the Internet.

      Actually only the download function was synchronized using NTP. The function to determine "expiration" is based off of the machine's localtime. However, setting the clock forward wouldn't remove the worm, it would just cause it to exit. It would be back after the system time was set back and a reboot occured.

    11. Re:Instructions to cure worm. by bumby · · Score: 1

      quick basic...

      Probably C and ASM. But who knows, it's compiled, and not open source.

      --
      Hey! That's my sig you're smoking there!
  11. Correction by idiotnot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, "officials" were only able to take down thirteen of the twenty hosts targed. Six were already down due to MS Blaster.

    1. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 3r337 worm and virii wars begin...

    2. Re:Correction by nordicfrost · · Score: 1

      Cool! Source?

    3. Re:Correction by bobbozzo · · Score: 1
      Six were already down due to MS Blaster.

      Electronic Darwinism... sweet!

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    4. Re:Correction by guile*fr · · Score: 1

      u dont want survival of the fitest computer... we all know it will lead to SkyNet

    5. Re:Correction by TimFreeman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The 3r337 worm and virii wars begin...
      3r337 is hacker-speak for "ereet". Maybe it was a Chinese worm and they couldn't tell the l's from the r's?
    6. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Viiiiii-iiiirriiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiii!!!!!

    7. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, "officials" were only able to take down thirteen of the twenty hosts targed. Six were already down due to MS Blaster.

      Cool! Source?


      I think it was a guy named I. P. Freely...

      (BTW, this sort of question is what you get when jokes are moderated "Interesting")

    8. Re:Correction by MegaFur · · Score: 3, Funny

      Newsman: Next up on our program--when l33t sp33k meets Engrish

      Example: !4ANG3R! A d@n93r0u5 +0y. +h15 +0y 15 b31n9 m@d3 4 +h3 x+r3m3 pr10r1+y +h3 900d luk5. The l1++l3 p@rt wh1ch 5uph0c@+35 when the sharp p@r+ which 93+5 hurt 15 5w@ll0w3d is c0n+@1n3d 93n3r0u5ly. 0n1y the p3r50n wh0 c@n +@k3 r35p0n51b1l1+y by 1+53lph 15 +0 p1@y.

      You may now gibber.

      --
      Furry cows moo and decompress.
    9. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (BTW, this sort of question is what you get when jokes are moderated "Interesting")

      Yeah, exactly. And moderations like that are what you get when you have moderators that don't know their asshole from a crack in the wall.

      You'd think, on this site, that most people would realise Blaster rarely brings machines down at all.

  12. The porn site moneymaking scheme? by Rkane · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I want to know what 'officials' are doing about this alleged porn site that the computers are being aimed at. It may very well be just a random site that the author chose, but I would definitely look into the possibility of the site owners being in on this.

    Furthermore, what is the address of this porn site? I think we net admins have a valid right to "research" this threat using the company broadband!

    1. Re:The porn site moneymaking scheme? by Openadvocate · · Score: 1

      If the writer of the worm had gone through all the steps he had to hide the origins, I doubt that that he is the owner of that site.
      The reasons for him linking to it could range from a random site to a paid job, but I doubt the latter. Everyone with half a brain know what they have to face if they get caught and the efforts that have gone into find people in earlier cases. But then again, there are stupid people out there.

      --
      my sig
    2. Re:The porn site moneymaking scheme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure they are way ahead of you! =) The 1st priority is to shut down the worm. Nowhere have they said they found the author of it which you KNOW they are looking for.

    3. Re:The porn site moneymaking scheme? by nfg05 · · Score: 1

      I'd heard talk before of it pointing to sex.com. Or was that blaster? I can't keep them straight anymore...

  13. Porn webmasters are always ahead of the curve by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How long till the straight marketeers catch on with worms to move hits over their sites?

  14. the perfect solution was missed. not too late! by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    why not put the virus fixing script on the 19 computers, plus some choice words about MS security and the need to patch.

    IN fact why not have the virus download a patch that installs a daemon that periodically installs all MS patches. anyone who is too dumb to deactivate it needs to have it installed. its a self -selecting fix

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:the perfect solution was missed. not too late! by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's one of the perpetual fights going on. The two sides are the administrators who are tired of the fact that there are all too many systems with poor adminstration being done which happen to also be on the internet, vs. the administrators who think that if someone did this to them that they would be out of a job for happening to have poor security. (I happen to believe that those adminstrators who do have this happen to them should be out of a job for poor security, but that's a different matter.)

      I think that the worst case situation would be that a security engineer finds a flaw and uses an exploit of that flaw to patch all systems against the flaw, then announces to Microsoft that the flaw existed, here is the exploit, here is the fix, and oh, by the way, the fix has been applied to nearly every Windows SV on the Net, as well as a few others. The problem then is that Microsoft would have the problem of deciding whether they should sue the security engineer or applaud him.

      I think the concern of Microsoft would be whether the fix is worse than the flaw. Since they did not provide it, their own licences do not apply to the patch, which means that nearly every computer with the code installed would effectively be running unlicenced code which Microsoft might find themselves liable for. Especially if there is a flaw in it.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    2. Re:the perfect solution was missed. not too late! by Tomji · · Score: 1

      IN fact why not have the virus download a patch that installs a daemon that periodically installs all MS patches. anyone who is too dumb to deactivate it needs to have it installed. its a self -selecting fix
      Funny that Microsoft will prolly make this daemon mandatory soon. But if a virus would install it every antivirus suite would kill it.

  15. Forced Grid Computing? by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They amaze because of the massive power they have over networks, PCs and most importantly the people they affect. Worm viruses are up there with Cancer or AIDs as far as some people are concerned.

    How long until we see more organized worms that communicate with each other to achieve a goal (such as cracking an RSA key)? It seems that stealthy worms could already be out there, slowly infultrating and lodging themselves into message handlers or whatnot...

    BTW: Yes, I do think we can blame MS... Their software does make this stuff possible.

    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
  16. Who does their reporting?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The "Sobig" worm, which fizzled yesterday when the 'trojan horse'-type program did nothing more than direct users to an Internet porn site, has bombarded computers with almost 100 million junk messages since Tuesday.

    Direct users to an internet porn site? What? Tell that to our IT department and our DDoS'd network.

  17. Stupid, Offtopic, Newbie, Question by CGP314 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But willing to risk the flames for an answer that is not ten pages long.

    What's the difference between a worm and a virus?

    1. Re:Stupid, Offtopic, Newbie, Question by NetJunkie · · Score: 1

      Worms self-propogate. A virus only propogates when run by a user.

    2. Re:Stupid, Offtopic, Newbie, Question by FyreFiend · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong here but I always saw a virus as needing a human to help spread; sharing floppies, opening infected files, etc while a worm is self propagating. Once it starts it will try and spead itself without human stupidity (other then running unpatched systems).

      --
      - Apple Computer......proudly going out of business for over twenty years.
    3. Re:Stupid, Offtopic, Newbie, Question by hankwang · · Score: 2, Informative
      >Worms self-propogate. A virus only propogates when run by a user.

      No, if the thing attaches to legitimate Word documents and executables and whatever, it is a virus. If it is a standalone program, it is a worm. See here..

    4. Re:Stupid, Offtopic, Newbie, Question by MyHair · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's the difference between a worm and a virus?

      You see, a virus is what we doctors call
      very very small. So small it could not possibly have made off with a
      whole leg.

    5. Re:Stupid, Offtopic, Newbie, Question by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      "so it will just grow back again then doctor?"

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    6. Re:Stupid, Offtopic, Newbie, Question by RPoet · · Score: 1

      You should read Wikipedia's Entry for "Computer virus".

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  18. CNET Mistake by brokencomputer · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/sobig_virus_graphic .gif is a really stupid diagram that isnt correct and is ambiguos probably causing many misconceptions in cnet readers and reuters readers.

  19. Already exists by Ciderx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Its called "W32/SitePostedOnSlashdot"

  20. To Clarify... by NetJunkie · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's been a busy week. I see a lot of people confusing the different worms/viruses running around.

    SoBig.F - A virus. Exploits no vulnerability in the OS. It only executes when a user runs the attachment. It sends out emails to everyone in your address book and makes the source another address from your book. It runs its own mail server, so filter port 25 outbound.

    Blaster - A worm. This exploits the Windows RPC bug and self propogates to any unpatched system.

    Welchia/Nachi - A worm. Also exploits the Windows RPC bug and attempts to clean machines infected by Blaster. Unfortunately, it tries to find other systems by doing random pings which can saturate a network.

    1. Re:To Clarify... by vondo · · Score: 1

      SoBig.F is actually a trojan (horse) since it doesn't attach itself to any other file. It just convinces you to run a malicious program. *Any* operating system could fall victim to such a program.

    2. Re:To Clarify... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Running outside code that came in an email should be considered an operating system bug.

      There will come a day when allowing untainted code to run outside of a sandbox will be considered a quaint relic of another era.

    3. Re:To Clarify... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welchia sucks bad. I just got it after I reformatted and installed XP. This sucks bad.

    4. Re:To Clarify... by NetJunkie · · Score: 1

      Correct. It's just up to the user.

    5. Re:To Clarify... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not OS. but WOS - Windows Operating System.
      RPC exploits are what - 10 years old - old hat indeed.
      Any way of just ticking a box in the registry and saying no to all remote.. nope.
      Did that patch actually REMOVE remote .. nope
      Can the module still be called from outside the security reference model - dont know.
      Can future worms, use an undocumented jump vector, past some rudimentary checking just added, or via another trusted call - fair question.
      Somehow, I don't think the problem has gone away.
      The common determinant is that thet all start with, and affect .. windows.

  21. Idiots. by cperciva · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on, if you're going to write a worm, do it right.

    Don't use 20 predetermined machines from which to fetch updates; generate an unstructured network while you're spreading (remember who infected you, and trade connections randomly).

    Don't fetch and install any updates provided to you; use RSA signatures to verify that they are legitimate.

    Don't use canned, easy to filter, subject lines in your email messages; borrow subject lines from your host's mail spool (optionally, do so with only a small probability -- let evolution determine which subject lines are the most effective).

    In short: If you're going to release some software which you want to see on millions of machines around the world, try not to embarrass yourself.

    1. Re:Idiots. by MyHair · · Score: 3, Funny

      Edit that slightly and send it to Microsoft:
      -----
      Come on, if you're going to write an OS, do it right.

      Don't use 20 predetermined machines from which to fetch updates; generate an unstructured network while you're spreading (remember who sued you, and trade alliances randomly).

      Don't fetch and install any updates provided to you; use RSA signatures to verify that they are legitimate.

      Don't use canned, easy to filter, subject lines in your email messages; borrow subject lines from your host's mail spool (optionally, do so with only a small probability -- let evolution determine which subject lines are the most effective).

      In short: If you're going to release some software which you want to see on millions of machines around the world, try not to embarrass yourself.

    2. Re:Idiots. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      maybe they'll get it 'right' next time, maybe they didn't count on the list of those 20 computers to be fetched before friday (that were encrypted.. and chosen around the globe, probably also didn't count on the 'virus' to be so succesful.. after all it was just an attachment type of scam rather than something that exploited some unknown bug or anything, so it relied only on user stupidity, which is greater than you can possible guess beforehand it seems). since it had a deactivation timer it would be highly possible that they got another version up their sleeve(and hey, it's a real simple prog anyways and quite impossible to fight against as long as the email client of choice stays, so that it is easy to execute attachments by the user, the same and the users stay as stupid).

      -

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when you are going to attack Windows Update, use the correct URL.

    4. Re:Idiots. by oni · · Score: 1

      borrow subject lines from your host's mail spool (optionally, do so with only a small probability -- let evolution determine which subject lines are the most effective).

      Can you elaborate on that? Are you talking about some master list of effective subjects?

    5. Re:Idiots. by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If anyone is smart enough to write a good virus, chances are they are also smart enough NOT to use it at all and instead prove their worth by doing useful stuff.

    6. Re:Idiots. by cperciva · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Certain subject lines are going to be more effective at spreading the worm; and which lines are most effective will vary depending upon the people involved (eg, in France, subject lines which are in French will probably be more effective).

      Consider a mailing worm which has a 99% chance of re-using its "parent's" subject line, and a 1% chance of using a new subject line, randomly chosen from the host's mail spool. The "bad" subject lines will rapidly die out, since nobody will be fooled by them, while the "good" subject lines will spread (at 99% of the normal rate). Survival of the fittest, applied to subject lines of email worms.

      Even better, when the virus "mutates" (the 1% chance of picking a new subject line), it will pick a new subject line which is appropriate to the culture in which it finds itself.

    7. Re:Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget one thing: Criminals are stupid. That's why they get almost always get caught.

      If you are so skilled to figure all this out, you are probably not sitting in trailer somewhere writing stupid viruses in VB.

    8. Re:Idiots. by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Subject lines that work will spread. Subject lines that don't will not. If there's only a small probability of using a new subject line (rather than using the one you used to infect this host), then, over generations, the most effective subjects will be used the most.

    9. Re:Idiots. by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      This isn't the first SoBig.
      The people making them are experimenting.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    10. Re:Idiots. by dgp · · Score: 1

      I agree. The subject line idea and the signed updates are a great idea.

      The unstructured network is a good idea except for one flaw: previously infected machines dont have part 2 of the virus. Part 2 is not part of the sobig.f virus. Part 2 was kept hidden on the 20 machines, or at least the 20 machines knew what other machine kept part 2.

    11. Re:Idiots. by grondu · · Score: 1

      If anyone is smart enough to write a good virus, chances are they are also smart enough NOT to use it at all and instead prove their worth by doing useful stuff.

      Dear Mr. Alien,

      You haven't been around humans before, have you?

      --

      I'm the urban spaceman babe, but here comes the twist... I don't exist

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

      You forget one thing: Criminals are stupid. That's why they get almost always get caught.

      Ever consider that the people who get caught over-represent the stupidity of criminals?

      Ever consider that the police that testify in trial lie and like to present the supposed criminal as making a stupid mistake because the jury will believe that over lie that supposes an complicated scheme?

    13. Re:Idiots. by cperciva · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The unstructured network is a good idea except for one flaw: previously infected machines dont have part 2 of the virus.

      That's not necessary. Have an unstructured network, capable of broadcasts, build itself and wait (while still exchanging connections, of course). Listen. If the worm becomes widespread, you'll be able to hear it. Now, when you want to do something, contact one of the nodes which tried to infect you.

      This way, you not only don't need those 20 fixed machines, but you don't need to have part 2 written in advance. As long as the worm is widespread, you can insert your (signed) payload whenever you want.

    14. Re:Idiots. by ewen · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Come on, if you're going to write a worm, do it right.

      I think it's pretty obvious that this was a test of a few things:

      • It was a test of the encryption of the virus executable to see how hard it would be for anti-virus vendors and law enforcement to decipher it (conclusion: they've nearly got it hard enough; law enforcement still don't know exactly what it does).
      • It was test of how many next-stage sites would be needed in order to ensure that they didn't all get shut down before they were needed (conclusion: 20 is enough (they only shut down 19), 30 would be plenty it seems)
      • It was a test of how quickly it could spread just relying on user gulliability to get it in the door (conclusion: real quick, I've been seeing 1000+ copies (well, attempts) per day from some IPs, and more than 3000 copies (well, attempts) per day in total)

      So next time (and the speculation seems to be next time will be the day after SoBig.F expires on 10 September) will presumably have learnt from the results of these tests.

      Oh, and it wouldn't surprise me if next time is a Warhol Worm. I'm guessing they've collected up millions of zombies this time around.

      So, yes, this time around it's easy to filter, and it's really only the useless virus notification and other bounce backs which are annoying.

      Please do not send virus notifications for any worm or virus which is known to forge email addresses.

      But don't expect it to be so easy next time.

      Ewen

    15. Re:Idiots. by WoTG · · Score: 1

      Or go black hat and get reimbursed for their nefarious efforts... It's scary to think about how much damage one could do to individuals and companies using these same, well-publicized bugs. And, no, I haven't tried.

    16. Re:Idiots. by misterpies · · Score: 2, Insightful


      You don't know one thing. The great majority of crimes are never solved. How many burglaries/car thefts/pickpocketings/muggings etc that you or your friends and family reported ever results in a conviction?

      That's why increasing jail sentences has almost no impact on crime rates -- they only affect a criminal's behaviour if he thinks he's going to get caught. (Plus in my view it's subject to the law of diminishing returns. If someone's ready to risk 15 years in jail for a crime, are they really going to think again just because you put it up to 25?)

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    17. Re:Idiots. by mabu · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is yet more evidence that the virus originates from the spam tech community as opposed to the P2P or computer programmer/utility community. It's main level of sophistication primarily involves rapid distribution, and has a very SPAM-like pathology of directing traffic to fixed points on the Internet. This is exactly what UCE does.

    18. Re:Idiots. by dgp · · Score: 1

      hey thats good. as the virus spreads, it builds a network of linked nodes. its up to the author to watch the spread of the virus throught maybe the news media. Then cryptographically sign part 2 and feed it to any known infected machine. that machine distributes it to all the others.

      not only is the insertion point completely unknown, but the insertion time is completely up to the author.

    19. Re:Idiots. by hacker · · Score: 1
      "Don't use canned, easy to filter, subject lines in your email messages; borrow subject lines from your host's mail spool (optionally, do so with only a small probability -- let evolution determine which subject lines are the most effective)."

      I have a better idea.. since they're already spoofing the "From:" lines and can make up any subject they want, why not just scan the user's Inbox and take an existing (non-reply) subject, prepend a "Re: $SUBJECT" to it, and send it to the user. They'll see it as a reply to an existing Inbox thread, and mindlessly open it..

      If it appears to come from someone they trust, perhaps even someone who would normally respond in a thread of that subject material, why wouldn't they just open the attachment? (thinking mom & pop Windows users here)

    20. Re:Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doing "good" isn't a function of intellect There are plenty of smart sociopaths, take Henry Kissinger or Dick Cheney. It's the intelligent sociopaths we should be very, very worried about.

    21. Re:Idiots. by skookum · · Score: 1

      True, there always seem to be things that could have been done better.

      But, in the case of SoBig, there were several variants, accounting for more than the original 20 addresses which some people overlooked.

    22. Re:Idiots. by flamingantichimp · · Score: 1

      That's a great idea. You should write a virus for a living.

    23. Re:Idiots. by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      Why are you confusing morality and intelligence? Does the term "evil genius" ring a bell?

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    24. Re:Idiots. by Montag2k · · Score: 1

      See - that is the thing... Why would part 2 need to be hidden on another machine? Why not have a client that connects to freenet or something like that? I'm thinking that the big one will do more damage to free speech and information sharing than it will to networks in general. If they made one that linked to freenet, would there be any way of stopping it other than to somehow shut down freenet?

    25. Re:Idiots. by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 1

      Consider a mailing worm which has a 99% chance of re-using its "parent's" subject line, and a 1% chance of using a new subject line, randomly chosen from the host's mail spool.

      Unfortunately for the virus, there is a 99% chance that a randomly chosen subject from the mail spool will read something like "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS!"

    26. Re:Idiots. by cperciva · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for the virus, there is a 99% chance that a randomly chosen subject from the mail spool will read something like "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS!"

      If that's really a concern, pick a random subject line from the *outgoing* mail spool.

    27. Re:Idiots. by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      I have this picture of the worm writer sitting at home reading slashdot.

      Keep working on it. We'll get a really good design for him before too long.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    28. Re:Idiots. by cperciva · · Score: 1

      That picture probably isn't inaccurate. I recall a worm from some time ago (maybe it was CodeRed?) which had a bug in the random number generator; everyone here laughed about it, and then a day later a new version surfaced in which that bug had been fixed.

    29. Re:Idiots. by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      It can't be a Warhol worm. That name only applies to worms which use a remote vulnerability, and hence can infect a vulnerable computer immediately.

      A mail worm is different. Sure, it can be more or less efficient, but it can't be a Warhol worm. It can't ever spread across the internet in 15 minutes (or even less, like the Flash worm).

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
  22. No Problems Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't have any friends so I don't really get any e-mail.

    1. Re:No Problems Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I dont have any friends either, but i have a website to sell a shareware program i wrote.. and it happens to be popular so lots of people have my page in their IE cache, which sobig uses to harvest addresses.. so i get about 200 sobigs every few hours (well was, it seems to have died down now)

    2. Re:No Problems Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about those 'friends' that want you to enlarge your penis, get you a mortgage, etc etc etc?

    3. Re:No Problems Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the rich friends in Africa, coming to America?

    4. Re:No Problems Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the friends that want to enlarge his penis probably dont exsist as they are called "girls" in the meatspace

      and we all know how ppl on /. do in the womens dept.. bitches aint shit but hoes and tricks...

      Sugar Baby, get on down the road
      You ain't got no brains no how
      You went years without me
      Might as well keep going now

  23. Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I am so glad this topic came up, because it gives me a chance to propose my pet theory.

    As i understand it, SoBig was written by some spammers (this according to something I read a few days ago). If this is true, it only reinforces my belief that the Sobig worm was written for the purpose of weakening Bayesian filtering schemes for spam email, thus making it easier for spammers to send spam mail in the future.

    How?

    Simple. you are getting sobig emails apparently (but probably not really) from people who you may ordinaly receive ham from. If you (as many of you will) flag the SoBig messages as spam, your bayesian filter will remember that spam comes from trustedfriend@ham.com and lo and behond false positives increase.

    Think this is ridiculous? I began out of habit flagging my sobig emails as spam before it dawned on my what i was doing. Yes, my filtes caught the sobig, but i did some tests soon to find exactly the behaviour that i described.

    This further underscores the FACT that spam is a SOCIAL, not a technological problem. No bullshit, just good legislation.

    I am a small businessperson with a legitimate web based business on the web now for 8 years. Three acounts now receive 4500 spam per day, or roughly the equivalent of one 56k modem whose full time job is to receive spam. While we have followed best practices with email addresses, over 8 years and thouands of customers, these things get around.

    1. Re:Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm pretty sure that Bayesian filters -- at least like the one in SpamAssassin -- treat the From: address as merely one token among many, many others that can act as an indicator of {spam|ham}miness. And anyhow, I think attempting to discredit bayesian filters as a way of advancing a spammer's agenda is...um, a little indirect.

      If a spammer was going to use a virus like this to do spammy things that would benefit him, I think he would use it to turn Joe User's computer into an open relay that would get around the many, many blacklists out there.

    2. Re:Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not sure this makes sense to me. I am running POPFile and it has been capturing SOBIG from the first reclassification I did and I haven't needed to do any more after that (POPFile seems to think the phrase "program cannot run DOS mode" and PIF attachments are spammy). So even if I did poison the corpus with that person's email address it has had little effect.

      Secondly, because SOBIG includes its own SMTP server the header information in each of the mails will not be the same as the genuine header information from your regular correspondents. So POPFile (and other filters) would still see them as different.

      John.

    3. Re:Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by joepa · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am a small businessperson[...]

      I received an email a few days ago from someone who says that they can help you with this problem...

    4. Re:Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by vondo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, SoBig mails appear to come from people with one degree of separation from me. People who people I know, know. Even with something like SpamAssassin which has "auto" white/black listing this is unlikely to be a problem since the penalty for sending one bad mail among many is low and very few of the mails I get are coming from addresses I recognize, let alone correspond with.

    5. Re:Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by mabu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's no coincedence that spammers are the most technologically advanced when it comes to propagating unwanted data across the Internet.

      I figure some time around 2014 the authorities will identify this connection.

    6. Re:Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by mindriot · · Score: 1

      True. Also, I think there is no real reason to defeat Bayesian filters... I don't think they are in such wide-spread use as some of us geeks might think. I would expect that those people using such mail filters are also generally less susceptible to viruses. So, I would estimate that the amount of cases where SoBig could successfully make a Spam filter work worse is maybe one percent of all Internet users.

      Then again, I don't know how many corporate networks have Bayesian filters installed for all their employees that might be affected by this. But I don't think this was the point of SoBig, or any other such virus, for that matter.

    7. Re:Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      It's both a social and a technological problem. Right now, the technology makes spam very easy, and makes address forgery simple. It should make both of those things hard.

      If it made those things hard, the legislation could be more effective. Especially if address forgery were made much more difficult.

    8. Re:Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by skookum · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty tenuous theory. Most Bayesian filters operate on the complete body of the message... Any spam-filter that gives ANY significant weight to the contents of the From: line is broken. Anything can be placed there by the spammer, it's useless and naive to use it for filtering.

    9. Re:Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by FrenZon · · Score: 1

      I think you're onto something - I've not been training my Bayesian filter (spambayes) on any of the SoBig emails, because I do get a LOT of legitimate mail with 'See attached file for details' as the main message body, and I don't want those filtered in future. I'm quite glad that they didn't use body-text from other emails on the infected machines for this reason.

      I've been noticing that more spam these days either has no words (just an image) or is worded extremely carefully; they are grammatically correct and very colloquial or very formal - it's starting to increase the number of false positives to an unacceptable level.

    10. Re:Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      but it doesnt work.
      the filters I use dont care about the sender's address.. it cares about the message content.

      stan@theman.com sends me a normal email about a topic and has an attachment.

      Now the virri sends me it's self looking like it came from stan...

      the virii doesnt get through.

      same as when stan CC's me on a foreward of some stupid net chain email... that Email deoes not get through...

      yet real emails from stan do get through.

      if your filter even cares about the sender's address, you need to ditch it right away and get a real one.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      I don't think you know how Bayesian filters work - they use a weighted list of words or word pairs that tips the balance towards spam, or not-spam.

      When you click on a "trust/non-spam" classification button, it reads the entire header and body of the message and adds that to the "weighted good" corpus. The opposite if you classify it as spam.

      Simply having one valid "from" line with a friend's email address won't do much if anything to tip the balance towards the "not-spam" bin.

      POPFile (Bayesian) is over 98% accurate for me and climbing - none of this spam has even come close to misclassifying as legit.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    12. Re:Sobig was created to defeat Bayesian Filters. by ParamonKreel · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if your friends actually like each other also, then you have a problem again. All of my occourances of Sobig have come from friends of mine because my friends are on other friend's email lists. The only ones that I got from people I didn't know were from a large car rental agency, and from a small engineering sales firm. The car rental emails stopped quickly because the admins were on the job. I don't think the engineering firm even knows what's going on yet.

  24. Nobody seems to care. by Meat+Blaster · · Score: 1
    We all share the Internet, and worms such as this muddy the waters for even those of us who use properly secured systems. Events like this make it plain that best security practices are no longer optional for a stable Internet, and we'd all be better off if some degree of diligence was mandated legally or as a term of service by each ISP before it became possible to connect a system to everybody else's.

    Antiviral software is virtually a must to avoid the myriad of malware that circulates the WWW. People who don't keep upgrading to the most recent version of Windows/related applications leave us all open via their vulnerability. A closer look is necessary at providing services like P2P and binary downloads via e-mail or Usenet, which are responsible for nine out of ten infections (the rest being worms that automatically exploit bugs in networked computers without user intervention).

    At some point, all software should be vetted for buffer overflows and certified by a trusted entity before being permitted for use on an open network. Only then can we stem the tide of attacks on our greatest electronic resource from these malcontents.

    1. Re:Nobody seems to care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      At some point, all software should be vetted for buffer overflows and certified by a trusted entity before being permitted for use on an open network. Only then can we stem the tide of attacks on our greatest electronic resource from these malcontents.

      Are you trolling, or do you not realize that you've just advocated the elimination of free software, both as in beer and in speech?

    2. Re:Nobody seems to care. by Babbster · · Score: 1
      I hate to do it, but a comment with the words "Soviet Russia" seems not only inevitable but appropriate in response to your concepts.

      One of the drawbacks of living in a free society is that crime tends to be more common. Because there aren't cameras on every street, people can (for example) steal cars without being seen. Because we don't send people to life terms, or subject them to death/dismemberment, for stealing said cars some people feel that it's worth the risk to do so. Because we don't implant everyone with LoJack systems, criminals can evade the police after they're believed to be stealing cars.

      The same extends to the Internet. Because we don't clamp down on people's use of their computers, they're free to do stupid things with them, like downloading viruses (as an aside to those who are confused, this is indeed the correct plural of virus). Since anyone is free to learn how to program a computer and there isn't an automatic system restricting their use of said programming, people are free to write malicious programs.

      To make this long post shorter, there's no way to clamp down on this kind of thing without taking away too much of the freedom we all enjoy on the Internet.

      For those who are terribly worried about being infected with malicious software, I recommend either a) disconnecting from the Internet entirely or b) getting a separate computer whose only purpose is to connect to the Internet. This solution seems much more satisfactory than inflicting orwellian-type controls on every user.

    3. Re:Nobody seems to care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Are you trolling, or do you not realize that you've just advocated the elimination of free software, both as in beer and in speech?

      The two are not mutually exclusive.

    4. Re:Nobody seems to care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, true!

    5. Re:Nobody seems to care. by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      I hear you, but I'd take the opposite stance.
      The system you patch today is secure yesterday and insecure tomorrow. You can try to keep up, but consider that the malware writers also have access to the latest anti-virus software. You will never catch up. The only question is how far behind you are.

      Antiviral software is virtually a must to avoid the myriad of malware that circulates the WWW
      Rubbish. This is from NT4 Workstation, running IE and Outlook. Unpatched for last 3 years or so, and from what I've seen lately, unlikely to ever be patched in the future. Secure? Best Practices? Don't be ridiculous! A few tweaks so that viruses don't run so good on it and I'm in better shape to face tomorrows worms than your "properly secured" system.

    6. Re:Nobody seems to care. by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2, Funny
      Because we don't send people to life terms, or subject them to death/dismemberment, for stealing said cars some people feel that it's worth the risk to do so.
      If that were the case, then Texas would have zero homicides, since it is the hangingest state in the union.
      --
      Yeah, right.
    7. Re:Nobody seems to care. by WhiteKnight07 · · Score: 1

      People don't commit crimes because they think its worth it. They commit crimes because they don't think they'll ever be caught. If you knew for certain you were going to get caught and executed if you killed somebody you wouldn't do it. If you were pretty sure you wouldn't get caught at all, you might go and do it. By the way, Texas, or at least Harris County, (where I live) doesn't hang anyone, its all done with lethal injection.

      --


      We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
    8. Re:Nobody seems to care. by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1
      They commit crimes because they don't think they'll ever be caught.
      So, how does that explain suicide bombers?

      ~ Harris County, (where I live) ~.
      So, how's that train working out for you? :)
      --
      Yeah, right.
    9. Re:Nobody seems to care. by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      > They commit crimes because they don't think they'll ever be caught.

      So, how does that explain suicide bombers?

      How exactly does one catch a suicide bomber?

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    10. Re:Nobody seems to care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much as one catches a high fly ball...

    11. Re:Nobody seems to care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, your computer updates you!

  25. effective virus by dd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They may eventually catch the morons(s) - it isn't clear from this article, since their _really_ isn't much info, except the interesting stolen creditcard item.

    But one of the lessons to be learned by people with all colours of hats from the sobig.* family is that the interface design of the virus is very effective.

    It is subtle, in that the subject lines of the emails are rather muted. It has no other message than to tell people that the info is in the file, and it may appear to come from someone you know (and might trust). In short, it isn't very 'spam-like'. and of course it has a very effective mail engine.

    I work in a university setting, and I can tell you that having a PHd will not save you from accidentally opening this virus. Email programs should make it _hard_ to open any file that is executable. How many times does it have to be said? Thanks to the internet gods that my users are on linux, and that the secretariat is staffed by savy people.

    I watched this puppy rise from category 'low' to 'high' in a space of 6 hours on nai.com on tuesday. I am more than a bit surprised that it
    started at level 'low'; anybody else remember the eariler incarnation when the email appeared to come from 'support@microsoft.com'?

    1. Re:effective virus by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      That's what I don't get. How many people ever put their message in an attachment and say "please see the attachment for details".

      How many people really send mails with subject lines like "wicked screensaver".

      In other words, how can smart people be fooled by such crude social engineering?

    2. Re: effective virus by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Email programs should make it _hard_ to open any file that is executable.

      The problem is that Microsoft saw fit to implement an EDI system without any of the safeguards required for EDI.

      That's why I ultimately blame Microsoft for these things. You simply can't train this kind of problem out of a broad userbase, so you have to account for the human element in your software design.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:effective virus by dd · · Score: 1

      > That's what I don't get. How many people ever put their message in an attachment and say "please see the attachment for details".

      Hey, I've seen some pretty bad, lazy email that would fit your description :-}

      > How many people really send mails with subject lines like "wicked screensaver".

      Good point, but then again, many of the other subject lines were less 'eloquent'.. Imagine what kind of subject lines you would use in their place. Don't forget, to be effective you have to be short, to the point, and probably confuse/convince someone who is NOT a native english speaker that this email should at least be previewed..

      > In other words, how can smart people be fooled by such crude social engineering?

      Easy, because the message 'appeared' to come from someone they know (and possibly trust). That is the catcher, that is the root of the problem here, at least from what I have observed. Really, in some years of watching this sort of thing happen, I really have to say that this virus was effective.

    4. Re: effective virus by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      But what use are the safeguards when the virus doesnt even try to disguise the attachment?
      Anyone who wants to run a screensaver will of couse klick yes if he is told that it is a executable programm.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    5. Re:effective virus by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > > That's what I don't get. How many people ever put their message in an attachment and say "please see the attachment for details".

      > Hey, I've seen some pretty bad, lazy email that would fit your description :-}

      s/seen/sent/, and within the past 24 hours IIRC.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re: effective virus by dd · · Score: 1

      > ... You simply can't train this kind of problem out of a broad userbase, so you have to account for the human element in your software design.

      amen. Just the fact that I have to save most attachments, and then switch to another window and examine them stops me dead in my tracks for most attachments (hey, I'm a pine user). I simply can't be bothered with extraneous stuff in email. It has to __really_ interest me to make me look at it.

      At that point, if I am interested (virii are always interesting), I usually put on my surgical gloves, and pull out 'file', 'strings', 'od', and company and go to work on the 'attachment'.

    7. Re:effective virus by dd · · Score: 1

      > s/seen/sent/, and within the past 24 hours IIRC

      umm, no, not me. You? What's your point?

    8. Re:effective virus by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      How many people ever put their message in an attachment and say "please see the attachment for details".

      You don't know many people who use Word as their email composer.

      File .. Send .. and a new mail pops up with the Word Document as an attachment and a blank e-mail body.

      I had to train my people away from that one.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    9. Re:effective virus by bluGill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just did that in fact. I sent an email that contained only attachments, no text. I have one of those camera phones, and I took an interesting picture that I sent to some people I know who would be interested. Since writing text is hard on a cell phone I put in a subject that didn't say much, with some attachments. I'm hoping that it is enough for those who care to open the attachments. Since they are .jpg pictures that shouldn't be a problem to view them, and because they are from me, they might be looked at.

      Unfortunatly I know for a fact that some spammers have used my email address as the from address (without my permission of course), so I can no longer be sure that attachments from me that look so much like spam will really be seen.

    10. Re:effective virus by mabu · · Score: 1

      Knowing the feds and the media, "stolen credit card" translates to 4444444444444448.

    11. Re:effective virus by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      You think that's bad? At my last company, we had a QA tech who would take a screen shot of a 404 error, embed it in a Word document, and email it to us asking if there was a problem. Since most of us (code monkeys) used Linux...yeah.

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    12. Re:effective virus by sholden · · Score: 1

      I work in a university setting, and I can tell you that having a PHd will not save you from accidentally opening this virus.

      Having a PhD is a sure sign of a lack of common sense, so that really isn't surprising.

  26. Warning: your computer has a virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WARNING!!! (from zidane.cc.vt.edu)

    The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus scanner:

    Attachment [2.2] application.pif, virus infected: W32/Sobig-F. Action taken: deleted

  27. It's NOT too late. by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The viruses will be 'calling home' every Friday and Sunday for the next few weeks. There's still lots of time to install such scripts.

    If nothing else, put together a script that will log the IPs of machines that connect for further instructions and send a message to their responsible ISP asking them to have the users clean up their system.

    I"ve already got a prototype set of scripts if anybody's intersted.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:It's NOT too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much longer until the virii/worms build their own p2p network and mirror/distribute updates, bugfixes, etc.. over it? This is an ongoing security threat to the Internet as a whole.

    2. Re:It's NOT too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah distribute the updates through p2p and have the worms only install signed patches only the author has the private key so the worm can't be disabled by comprimiseing the net

    3. Re:It's NOT too late. by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      How much longer until the virii/worms build their own p2p network and mirror/distribute updates, bugfixes, etc.. over it?

      Shades of Colossus.... and, yeah, This is gonna happen sooner or later.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    4. Re:It's NOT too late. by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      yeah distribute the updates through p2p and have the worms only install signed patches only the author has the private key so the worm can't be disabled by comprimiseing the net

      On the other hand, posession of the private key would pretty much prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who's the "owner" of that worm.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    5. Re:It's NOT too late. by homebru · · Score: 1
      ...send a message to their responsible ISP asking them to have the users clean up their system

      My email was spoofed into the "reply-to" on more than a few viral emissions which were bounced back to me for "unknown addressee". Consequently, I have a nice list of IP addresses of infected boxes. But they're mostly dsl users in Houston TX off of swbell.net. Who at swbell.net would be in a position to actually do anything about their problem?

    6. Re:It's NOT too late. by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I ignore the 'reply-to' field, and track the email via the Recieved lines from my box, or my ISP's Mailserver (whomever got the message first).

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    7. Re:It's NOT too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      yeah distribute the updates through p2p and have the worms only install signed patches

      I can see it now... When run, the worm scans until it finds 10 other infected systems and forms connections with them. The message could be sent to each of the 10 'upstream' partners via UDP with forged source addy. They only accept and forward signed messages so without breaking the signature, there is no way to easily kill the net or cause it to DDoS itself.

      In theory the virus author could then send instructions via UDP to virtually ANY infected system and have it propagate across the virus-net. To make things worse, he could provide a new signature each update. (New signigure signed by the old one of course.)

      Then authorities would have to not only crack the key, but they would only have until the next command was sent to do it. The virus could even be told to replicate itself in a new way. That woul d keep the virus-net alive and growing as new exploits are found. Even the port used to receive the command could be changed at whim.

      Each IP would be sending only 10 command packets out each send attempt, But as they propogated out it'd be a heck of a DDoS on the Internet. It'd happen every time a new command went out.

      Shudder... I just thought of the front page story a year from now: "The first P2P virus continues to wreck havoc. Authorities still have no leads, and have been unable to prevent it's estimated size from doubling again this week. Experts say its design appears to have originated in a slashdot thread. It is believed that this is also the first community-designed virus.

      In a related story, the virus-net appears to have been ordered to steal credit card numbers from infected servers and post them web pages which were still not protected from the Code Red virus."

  28. this is why by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is why worms need to be open source. Proprietary worms do a disservice to the worm community!

    1. Re:this is why by Fresnik · · Score: 0

      That's really not far from what the first worms were - just plain Javascript code or some other kind of ActiveX embedded script. If you saved the attachment you could simply open it in a text editor and check out what would happen if you executed it.

    2. Re:this is why by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the first worms had nothing to do with javascript or ActiveX, and existed long before them.

    3. Re:this is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to have "support shared source -- virii in vbscript!" as my e-mail sig.

    4. Re:this is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sig makes no sense, then. Virii is not a word.

  29. Who cares about the virus.... by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 2, Funny

    Which porn site was affected? I need to find out for er... damage control, yeah!

  30. Worm vs. Virus by jaaron · · Score: 5, Informative

    A worm is usually a standalone program (runs on it's own) and is self-propagating. A virus is a much more general term. In fact, some might argue that a worm is a type of a virus. But in general, a virus infects other software (so it isn't necessarily standalone) and often requires some other application (or human) to transfer it from one location to another.

    There's a good answer on Broadband Report Forum, or you could try Google.

    --
    Who said Freedom was Fair?
    1. Re:Worm vs. Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that all these email trojans are generally called viruses, I'd say that the current trend seems to be the use of virus as a purely general term.

      So it would be reasonable to say, that according to current usage, a worm is a type of virus, and a trojan is a different type of virus.

    2. Re:Worm vs. Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, I'm still green to this, so could you confirm my understanding of the situation please..

      linux=virus
      microsoft=worm

      everyone else = the inventors?

      ! these mushrooms is guaranteed to come with no warranty

  31. At least one positive thing.... by rakaz · · Score: 1

    Compared to all the 'Thank you!', 'Wicked screensaver' and 'My details' messages I hardly notice the SPAM I get. Since I get a new virus e-mail about every 2 minutes at 100 kb a piece, I only how I won't go over the monthly 5 Gigabyte transfer limit of my internet connection :-/

    What I don't understand is all the 'Disallowed attachment', 'Mail delivery failed' and 'Failure notice' mails I get. Almost every virus spoofs the sender. Why would anti-virus software even bother to try to send a message back?

    1. Re:At least one positive thing.... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      the register explains the lack of spam is being caused by clogged networks so it's not there to notice

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:At least one positive thing.... by mindriot · · Score: 1
      What I don't understand is all the 'Disallowed attachment', 'Mail delivery failed' and 'Failure notice' mails I get. Almost every virus spoofs the sender. Why would anti-virus software even bother to try to send a message back?

      Not necessarily the anti-virus software; for instance if you use the system_filter.exim script included with Exim, it will filter risky attachments and Exim will generate a standard failure notice. If a virus scanner is run by the MTA, the MTA might also generate its default failure notices in case the scanner finds a virus. And lastly, "Mail delivery failed" mails can reach you because someone spoofed your address as his From address, and the To address was simply non-existant.

      So, in short, it's most likely not the anti-virus software sending the bounces, but the standard mail server software.

    3. Re:At least one positive thing.... by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 1

      I got a lot of this stuff to on my inbox (running OS X and Mail.app, thanks god ;). My theory is that Sobig not only spoofs the sender's adress, but also the reply-to adress, choosing from the infected PC's adressbook. Your adress and mine were probably chosen like that.

      Bah... At least virii like that create job opportunities for unemployed mailer daemons...

      --
      Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
  32. It's a virus, not a worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worms are programs that make new copies of themselves and then destroy the originals. In essence, they move from place to place rather than spreading the way a virus would.

    Of course, a lot of people have been confused over the last decade or so because of the Morris worm, which was intended to function like a virus 5% of the time (although it actually did so 95% of the time, due to a one character bug).

    But we're SlashDot readers, and we aim to be tech-savvy, so let's get our terminology right, even if C|Net doesn't.

  33. Question by duck+'o+death · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OK, I have a quick question. These worms and virii are hitting a ton of Microsoft vulnerabilities, and that's why they *exist*, but to me it seems like they only succeed because office workers, mom (my mom's comp was hit by Blaster), guy down the street, etc. *don't harden their computers*, or because they can't seem to stop clicking on attachments.

    So if this gets worse and worse, and hypothetically more people start running linux or mac or whatever as their desktop OS (which I think could happen in dribs and drabs now -- a shitload of folks I know HATE microsoft right now), what's to stop them from ignoring system security all over again? You have the whole Lindows run-as-root thing still, for example. I know there aren't nearly as many worms and shit written to exploit non-MS OS's, but that doesn't mean folks won't start, and I'd just like to know what would/could happen, and what exploits would then be available, if they do.

    I'm tired, and cranky, and I love Linux. But I just don't know if I'd trust my mom to run a secure Mandrake box if she can't even do Windows fucking Update.

    --
    Don't put salt in your eyes.
    1. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virii is not a word!!!!! VIRUSES is the correct term you fuckwit.

    2. Re:Question by Bin-tec · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, when will us Mac users going to get some excitement with some viruses? I'm kinda bored about clicking on those links that won't do anything.

    3. Re:Question by tomatobasil · · Score: 0

      >> a shitload of folks I know HATE microsoft ..

      One easy way to just opt out of the whole worm/virus/update set of problems if you are forced to stay on a M$/Win peecee is to switch (back) to Netscape or Mozilla. Mail attachments can be turned off so its harder to catch problems, and the address book stuff is structured differently so you won't spread the infection. Its much easier than training your grandma or boss on a linux thats for sure.

      Note the word 'forced' above..

    4. Re:Question by Dilaudid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think the problem with Windows is that MS ran away with the idea of adding features, without following up on the security. There are *so many* holes in Windows, Outlook, OE etc. that users (and IT departments...) don't have time to patch them all... Linux is "pre-hardened" by the fact it is designed with security in mind.

      On a different track - as Linux gets bigger, I reckon you'll start to see more viruses written for it - I don't think virus writers care who they attack, provided they get to see their babies' names in print.

    5. Re:Question by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      FWIW, Lindows 2 no longer runs everything as root, if you setup a user during install (as it recommends).

      Of course, Win2000 and XP suggest something like that too, but I don't know if any privledges are removed.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    6. Re:Question by snake_dad · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't give mom the root password...

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    7. Re:Question by tinypillar · · Score: 0

      I love it when users at my work insist on trying to click on attachments, even after you tell them not to, and they usually enjoy doing this right in front of me (while I'm telling them no). It seems like unless users become more computer smart and understand that not all attachments are good, things like this are not going to go away.

    8. Re:Question by mindriot · · Score: 1
      but to me it seems like they only succeed because office workers, mom (my mom's comp was hit by Blaster), guy down the street, etc. *don't harden their computers*, or because they can't seem to stop clicking on attachments.

      Maybe someone should write such an attachment that not only spreads, but also pops up a bunch of messages informing Joe User what he just did, something like "You shouldn't have done this... NEVER deliberately open any attachments unless you know what they are and why you received them. Your ignorance has just infected 1000 other computers with this Worm."

      Not exactly a white-hat attempt, but considering the amount of worms lately popping up, why not...

    9. Re:Question by k12linux · · Score: 1
      Of course, Win2000 and XP suggest something like that too, but I don't know if any privledges are removed.

      I fired up a new laptop with Windows XP Pro and was happy to see it wanted me to set up an account right away. I thought, "well, there is a step the the right directions." I was a bit disappointed to find out aftwards that the account had admin rights AND the default was to log me in automatically on boot.

    10. Re:Question by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      You used to get plenty (the first AV app was on the Mac... and boy was it necessary...).

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    11. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe someone should write such an attachment that not only spreads, but also pops up a bunch of messages informing Joe User what he just did.

      Or even better... wait two or three days and then:
      a) Send a 2nd e-mail to same addys as the infection e-mail but this time telling them WHO spread it. And this time the From address isn't forged.
      b) Send a broadcast message to the local LAN doing the same.
      c) Pop up a message congratulating them for infecting their own computer and every computer on this list: (followed by all the e-mails addys sent to from that their PC.)

      Unfortunately most of the users who are guilty won't be utterly embarrassed or humiliated and won't be more careful next time. Instead they'll say "oops was that me?" and forget all about it until it happens again.

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

      The user XP creates at install time is in the Admin group. There is no option to reduce priviledges. Any subsequent users you add also belong to the Admin group by default.

    13. Re:Question by hacker · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "But I just don't know if I'd trust my mom to run a secure Mandrake box if she can't even do Windows fucking Update."

      The difference is (in most cases) that she doesn't HAVE to learn how to secure it. Linux distributions come with almost everything disabled, including the MTA and other unnecessary daemons. You have to explicitly turn them on, or enable their insecure modes to open your system to attack from outside parties.

      How long has Microsoft had the Messenger service enabled by default? What about the "Remote Registry" service? How many times have you needed to use regedit.exe on a remote registry? I can count that as being NONE, but Microsoft still enables it by default. Dozens of other services and ports are left blindly open.. and that isn't even counting the applications which have exploitable holes themselves.

    14. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    15. Re:Question by Cyno · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if any OSS Linux distribution, like Debian or Gentoo, got a worm half as big as Blaster they'd have the entire system auto-updating all security related services off the 'net by default.

    16. Re:Question by dr00g911 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But I just don't know if I'd trust my mom to run a secure Mandrake box if she can't even do Windows fucking Update.

      That's the problem at hand. In order for a computer system to be easy enough for the general populous to use, you HAVE to be able to double-click an attachment to figure out what it is and use it.

      If you think it's hard for your Mom to run windows update, wait until she has to:
      $: chmod 755 ~/downloads/afunscreensaver.pif
      cd downloads
      $: ./afunscreensaver.pif

      in order to see what the hell an attachment is?

      It's at once on the *nix and Mac side a blessing and a curse. You realize that my father asked me to install Virtual PC on his G4 so he could see .exe and .scr attachments?!?!?!?

      The point:

      Lack of Windows Update (MCSE know it alls) first, bad MS security second is responsible for the RPC worms that have been wreaking havok / making us 'computer guys' money off of RPCs and slammers.

      SoBig is a bit of another beast. Part just idiotic users (HOW many times have we told you...), Part social engineering (mostly associates of people in your associates' address books), part piss-poor framework for user privileges, another part misinformed, idiotic users.

      If the Mac or Linux were as popular today as Win was, we'd be seeing the similar problems, I'd wager. You can only protect the average user from themselves so far before the system isn't easy enough to use. Have you ever tried to get a casual user to understand that it's a good thing that you have revoked their win privileges and their limited logon can't even install that cool santa's workshop screensaver? If that screensaver was the same draw to Linux or Mac converts (and the payload would execute), you'd still have the same problem, I'd wager. Only then the users would be used to typing in their root passwords before installing anything -- which could then be keylogged and sent back to the source so they could REALLY compromise the system.

      It's a scary thought. Yeah, MS security is piss-poor. Yeah, windows is a secure as your average sieve.

      But even if it isn't -- we're fighting human nature here. It's not holes in MS security that's the inherent problem. It's the users launching the payload in this case. So what if you've conditioned them that they have to enter an admin/root password to install it first.

      Make no mistake, though. The last several scares have converted a LOT of MS-only shops to Mac or *nix only in my experience. I'm gutting 48 PIII boxes on Monday, and replacing them with shiny G5s with Simple Finders.

    17. Re:Question by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      I thought that it was a step in the right direction also until I saw the same things you did. There's also the problem that the majority of software installations *require* administrator rights. This is probably the reason for 'normal' user accounts to have admin rights - backwards compatibility with softare installations assuming the user has access to the entire system.

    18. Re:Question by k12linux · · Score: 1
      There's also the problem that the majority of software installations *require* administrator rights.

      I can live with the admin rights to install thing. In fact I preffer it. At a school district, you regularly run into software that absolutely will not even run on NT/2000/XP unless the user has full admin rights on the PC. Who in their right mind is going to give full admin rights to 800 Jr. High kids?

      No program should require admin access to run unless it is some type of installer or other system admin tool. As long as the computer isn't really usable without admin rights, most home users are always going to run as admin. So in most home user cases, trojans and viruses have free reign of the computer no matter how secure "user mode" may be.

    19. Re:Question by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      Actually, if users were allowed to install software in 'user mode' that only has the same non-administrator privilages as the user that installed the software, then the computer *is* usable without admin rights.

    20. Re:Question by k12linux · · Score: 1
      Actually, if users were allowed to install software... then the computer *is* usable without admin rights.

      Unfortunately, quite a few programs want to do things which require admin privs. So, even running these programs is not possible unless you are an admin. It seems fairly reasonable to require admin rights for installations on anything but home PCs. It doesn't seem reasonable for user-space type programs to require admin rights to even run though.

      Especially not educational programs. I would expect the authors of educational programs to realize that normally students aren't going to be allowed admin rights on school PCs.

  34. The nice thing about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    why not have the virus download a patch that installs a daemon that periodically installs all MS patches. anyone who is too dumb to deactivate it needs to have it installed. its a self -selecting fix the really cool thing about this is that unlike the so-called good virus that tried to patch exploitable computers this one is ethical. after all the patching web site is not actually trying to break into your computer. your computer is going to it and asking for a file which is not a hostile act. It does not chew up bandwidth either. and it should be 100% effective.

    I wonder who owns these sites. if they are privately owned then someone, maybe a slashdot person, could actually implement this by talking to the site owner.

    of course an even more humourous outcome would be to have the downloaded patch simply install Lindows :-). again perfectly legal and ethical.

    since the virus will keep going back for the rest of the month its not too late to implement this.

    1. Re:The nice thing about this by jaredmauch · · Score: 1

      Best thing (in my mind) is to set the registry keys so windows downloads and has prepared (or just installs) all the patches necessary. Might slow down a few dialup users but then again i'd rather have their bw be used patching their systems than DoS'ing my mailbox and network.

  35. Re:Warning: your computer has a virus by mjmalone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, actually the mailservers at vt.edu scan for virii, they flagged it and deleted the attachment. I ran FixSobig-F.exe just to make sure, virus free.

  36. Re:PUTTING USA TO IT'S KNEES!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous... Government agencies should get rid of Windows.

  37. My anti-virus kicks in before SpamAssassin. by Population · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At work, the mail is scanned for viruses first, then it is handed off for classification as ham or spam.

    Anyone who bothers to send a virus through a spam filter deserves whatever he gets.

    1. Re: My anti-virus kicks in before SpamAssassin. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > At work, the mail is scanned for viruses first, then it is handed off for classification as ham or spam.

      Don't those insensitive clods have any regard for your vegetarian employees?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  38. Re:YOU FAIL IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, baby: YEAH!

  39. Re:PUTTING USA TO IT'S KNEES!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    It's time to wake up to a reality!!!

    It's time to wake up to English grammar!!!

  40. Re:PUTTING USA TO IT'S KNEES!! by mjmalone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nice spam, but I would argue that those Boeing 747s did not in fact bring the nation to it's knees. It just pissed off some drunken rednecks and gave them an excuse to steal the rest of the worlds oil and call anyone against their plot of world domination an unpatriotic yankee.

  41. Re:PUTTING USA TO IT'S KNEES!! by justinburt · · Score: 1



    Whew! Aren't trolls usually posted anonymously?

    Justin

  42. Don't be so smug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Run properly, WinXP is just as secure as any of the OS's you mentioned. Like everyone else, I've been bombarded by virus-infected e-mails and attempts by worms to infiltrate my systems, but thanks to a hardware firewall, anti-virus software, and an appropriately cautious approach to file attachments, I got off without a scratch. In fact, I've NEVER had a virus or worm on any system I've controlled, going back to 1979.

    1. Re:Don't be so smug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Run properly, WinXP is just as secure as any of the OS's you mentioned.

      HahhahahaHAHAHAHahhaahAHHAHAHAHAHA. Oh sorry.. let me catch my breath... AHhaahhhaahahahahaAHAHAHA.

      Oh wait.. by "Run properly" you mean disconnected from the Internet with no interaction at all with others via e-mail, web pages, etc. right?

      I've NEVER had a virus or worm on any system I've controlled, going back to 1979.

      I guess you were lucky enough to never use the wrong site or e-mail exploiting an ActiveX hole in IE or in Outlook before it was patched patched. If you are using MS-Office, you must have either never received documents with one of their macro viri or just got lucky.

      Don't get me wrong.. I applaud that you've obviously practiced safe computing diligently to keep your windows system clear for 23 years... which version of Windows were you running back then??? lol I'm just saying that with MS software and OS luck plays a big part in staying uninfected. Or did you run Windows but use non MS software for browser, e-mail, office suite, etc. all these years?

    2. Re:Don't be so smug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a macro viri? Actually, what is a viri?

  43. Re:Movie - dear god, it's the plot of Hackers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Next stage will be when the sobig virus targets the stability software on oil tankers... and Angelina Jolie will rescue us with her superfast laptop running a huge *28.8 modem*...

    Ahh... nostalgia for things that have only just happened - that's what I love about being a science fiction fan!

  44. y'know what I'm wondering... by fuckfuck101 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is why any virus writers ever get caught.

    Unless they're messing with the virus and accidently release it (either completely accidentally or just prematurely, whatever) then they simply have to go down to their local library and/or cyber cafe wearing a wig and makeup, stick the floppy in, click, then leave, what's the problem?

    --
    Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
    1. Re: y'know what I'm wondering... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


      > Is why any virus writers ever get caught. [...] they simply have to go down to their local library and/or cyber cafe wearing a wig and makeup, stick the floppy in, click, then leave, what's the problem?

      I used to do that, but I got tired of having all the geeks try to pick me up while I was there.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  45. Re:PUTTING USA TO IT'S KNEES!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Justin baby. Are you the one who is trolling?

  46. Interesting! by Cock+Cockwood · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Could that expiration date (Sept. 10) have been chosen out of sheer respect for the incident that happened on September 11, 2001?

    --


    Touché!
    1. Re:Interesting! by Moth7 · · Score: 1

      That has been discussed before in various media and the general concensus seems to be that it may in fact be switching itself off to make way for a bigger virus with a bigger payload which in a sick way justifies the term "cyber terrorism". Of course, the chance is that this is just a date of significance chosen to make people forget about it quickly (using the UK government's idea that Sept11 was a good day to hide bad news).

  47. YEAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep your Latin out of my American!

  48. Potential DoS... by Moth7 · · Score: 1

    Is the address of the NTP server hardcoded? ^_^

  49. Shouldn't this burden be on the ISPs? by nlinecomputers · · Score: 1

    Internet, and we'd all be better off if some degree of diligence was mandated legally or as a term of service by each ISP before it became possible to connect a system to everybody else's.

    Why should this burden be on the indivual users? A person can't get on the internet without the aid of an ISP so why doesn't ISPs work to filter out obvious viruses from all email and block unneeded port to the end user. Many viruses and other hack/cracks would be halted by this practice. If you have need for a port you can request that it be allowed.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
    1. Re:Shouldn't this burden be on the ISPs? by jaredmauch · · Score: 1

      You are overestimating the power of the routing equipment that ISPs have deployed. Filtering is not as easy as you might think. There is *significant* performance impacts depending on platform, vendor and even software release. If you're too dumb to operate your machine securely, don't connect it to the network. Period. I work for an ISP that operates an international network, the only network-wide filters that have lived for more than a few hours are the ms-sql slammer ones, and we had zero customer complaints. There is a *lot* of legit tcp/135 and tcp/445 activity out there, so we can't do this for you all. Plus the vendors don't provide good ways to put filtering on all the interfaces or automatically push these things out to hundreds (or thousands) of routers with ease. This is one reason I (and others have looked at) some automated protocol to push out such filters and updates. If you're interested and so inclined, please check this out.

    2. Re:Shouldn't this burden be on the ISPs? by Syre · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      The ISPs are negligent in failing to filter out the viruses.

      Virus filtering software for email servers has been available for years. The fact that they don't implement these is clearly just because they don't feel like spending the money.

      I think this is a false economy for them, and certainly for the world in general.

      For the ISPs, getting rid of the viruses would mean:

      - a reduced amount of mail traffic hitting their servers (since they wouldn't have thousands of infected users sending millions of messages).
      - reduced number of tech support calls from users trying to figure out what to do.

      For the world in general it would mean:
      - less lost time
      - less time taken in eradicating viruses
      - less lost data
      etc.

      A few successful lawsuits or some legislation would force the ISPs to install this software, and that would basically be the end of the Email virus.

  50. War always does the economy good by TyrranzzX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was hoping there'd be a few more good viruses laying about prepairing to nail other windows systems. Give CEO's a month or two of grief and they'll begin to see it the linux way.

    We'll never know what the hackers true intent was, however. It's suspicious that blaster and the sobig virus were thrown out almost one right after the other. It all may be a distraction. For all we know there could be another virus lurking around infecting machines slowly, 1 by 1 until a doomsday date at which they deliver their payload.

    1. Re:War always does the economy good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who's writing these viruses, worms and other nasty forms of software? Linux bigots trying to show that Microsoft is bad? Virus software companies trying to prove how necessary their products are? The terrorists who want to bring down the (pseudo) democratic economies? Smart kiddies who just like causing chaos?

      Your guess and prejudice is as bad as mine!

    2. Re:War always does the economy good by option8 · · Score: 1

      here's my post in reply to a story about "strange data"
      (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/2 2/04322 39&tid=)

      worm #1 works quietly, propagating slowly and with little fanfare, works its way around hiding its signal in the network noise of a popular operating system that's fraught with security holes. if discovered, considered harmless, no payload, no harm done. low priority.

      waits. listens.

      worm #2 barges around making lots of noise, none of it intelligible. targets servers running a particular server OS, routers, places where network traffic converges, is distributed. propagates to only a few choice locations, distribution points. sends out floods of gibberish to nobody in particular, not necessarily needing a reply.

      considered buggy, bothersome but harmless.

      worm #1 picks up on the gibber, each of the messages from different distribution points somehow encoded with their point of origin, instructions, parts of a payload. when enough of the message has been reassembled, enough of the network space mapped, worm #1 rebuilds itself. takes action.

      a worm with no payload, and a payload with no worm. collaboration. cross-pollenation.

      fantasy?

      something brought this to mind last week....

    3. Re:War always does the economy good by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      Linux isn't probably any more secure than most windows systems. But it's a step in the right direction. It's not something linux lubbers like to admit, but a lot of sysadmins have just as many problems with windows machines getting broken into as with linux boxes getting attacked. Developers working with application makers, and all the while their working on fixing every bug they can lay their hands on; this is the direction we need to go in. Fix all the bugs, even the minor ones because all it takes is 1 bug to screw over thousands of machines. It's also the machine owners job to secure their own part of the internet as well. A patch that isn't downloaded is useless.

  51. Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by garyebickford · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Folks blame Microsoft for their failures to prevent the bugs that allow these virii and worms, and I don't disagree. However, there is a deeper root cause. C and C++ are poor tools for any programming above the level of device driver (and perhaps compiler construction). "Programming without a Net", indeed!! (sorry, couldn't find the original of that quote.)

    Programming in C/C++ is directly equivalent to having to get out of your car to check the lugnuts at every red light. I mean - buffer overflows? Segfaults? Library conflicts? This is the stuff of the Dark Ages!! (with the possible exception of the libraries...) If Microsoft (along with everyone else) worked in an actually productive environment, these types of errors would be impossible in nearly all cases. (Of course, I'm not saying bugs in general would be impossible...)

    I was fortunately able to work entirely without C for the last 10 years or so, and managed to go the entire time without a segfault, and was easily 10 times as productive as I ever have been in C. (Using myself as an example removes any programmer skill issue - one can presume same level, both cases.) This included some large projects, including a complete web-enabled GIS system with live maps and integration with corporate inventory & personnel databases.

    Recently I had to return to the C++ environment, and was astonished at how painful, and inefficient the process is. And, of course, code written for one linux platform had to be modified for another, and then again for Solaris. In a simple 300 line program there is no common version that works on all three platforms, even though all used GCC. So I'm now faced with the prospect of building and testing three versions simultaneously or going through the meta-agony of setting up an autoconf build (tho I admire autoconf greatly - autoconf is arguably a key factor in the success of open source.)

    And the various IDEs (for pretty much any language) are just glorified outliners, not engineering tools and certainly not CAD in any useful sense of the word. It is time for software to become engineering. Imagine designing a nuclear plant entirely using text - no drawings, no CAD, no piping analysis, no dynamic stress analysis. A large programming project has a similar complexity, yet we are still stuck writing prose - this is software literature, not software engineering! CAD has transformed every engineering discipline except one. Why do we insist on remaining stuck in the Dark Ages?

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    1. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      buffer overflows? Segfaults? Library conflicts?

      I've seen all these things in many other languages. Some languages have there own unique way of messing up on ya!

      The reason they all have these problems is simple! Programmers make errors. No language will ever prevent that. No matter how simplified it gets, there will still be conflicts, buffer overruns .. etc.

      btw, you never mentioned what programming language you now use?

    2. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by mabu · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I was fortunately able to work entirely without C for the last 10 years or so


      Please note that some of us do not consider getting your VCR to reliably capture every episode of Star Trek to be "programming."

      Yes, let's program in a higher level language so we can inherent all the crappy code libraries of the OS. Let's spend half our lives doing tech support for erroneous systems that we're dependent upon.

      C/C++ can be more portable than any other language. If you're having trouble making it portable, don't blame the language.

      If you haven't had a need to use C before, that's good for you. You're probably not developing applications that need this low level language so don't compare apples to oranges and go back to diddling your non-normalized corporate database.
    3. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by grigori · · Score: 1
      ALl true. C/C++ let the programmer blow his own head off too easy due to dumb ideas like no array subscript checking, pointers used all the time (made necessary because there's only call-by-value), and because the type system is so lame. Even PLI did this better and safer. Too bad, but the safer languages lost. Now we at least have the choice of Java, but it's not ideal for all uses.

      Before people flame about why C/C++ are great, proof being how popular they are, just think how COBOL and RPG were the most popular languages of their days. Just 'cos its the one everybody uses doesn't make it good.

      Yeah, I program in C for many years, plus another bunch of languages, so it's something I know about.

    4. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      just think how COBOL and RPG were the most popular languages of their days

      *thinks*

      No .. can't do it .. I just can't imagine COBOL being popular.

    5. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by grigori · · Score: 1

      OK, OK, OK - wrong word, sorry. How about 'used a whole lot'.

    6. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by garyebickford · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, let's program in a higher level language so we can inherent all the crappy code libraries of the OS. Let's spend half our lives doing tech support for erroneous systems that we're dependent upon.

      My point exactly - All those 'crappy code libraries' are written in C, which means (effectively) that every other language has to support the C libraries - all 4,321 versions. And, surprise!! - we're spending half our lives doing tech support for systems whose errors are Largely due to the problems of C!

      C/C++ can be more portable than any other language. If you're having trouble making it portable, don't blame the language.


      Compiler portability via bootstrapping was, in 1972, C's really big new innovation. Other languages were more portable than C once the compiler was ported, but they were generally not good languages for building compilers (LISP, APL, ALGOL, maybe even FORTRAN come to mind.) That was then, this is now. IIRC it was Dennis Ritchie who described C as a "structure PDP-11 Macro Assembler". Some argue that C's major advantage is its stupidity - almost all the functionality is in the libraries.

      If you haven't had a need to use C before, that's good for you. You're probably not developing applications that need this low level language so don't compare apples to oranges and go back to diddling your non-normalized corporate database.

      (Ad hominem attacks are boring.) As I pointed out, C may have a purpose writing device drivers, although even that is arguable - Burroughs was writing hardware descriptions in (IIRC) Pascal as far back as 1980, and you'll note that Intel doesn't use C to describe the Pentium logic - arguably low level programming. And again, you make my point. Anything higher level than device drivers (kernels? maybe, maybe not) is out of C's problem domain.

      At present the typical labor cost to build and maintain nearly any system is two orders of magnitude larger than the cost of the hardware it runs on. If the loaded cost of a programmer is $100/hour then a program that takes one day to write is more expensive than the processor it will run on, and every minute chasing down a fencepost error costs $1.67 (Pascal and Algol for just two examples, prevented fenceposts as early as 1968. Spending an hour trying to decipher stupid compiler-library mismatches borders on unethical abuse of resources.

      The real question is, why do we still think of programming in terms of language? This shows a presupposition that literature is programming. It may be, but it's certainly not engineering. As long as we're writing prose, we're not doing engineering.

      It is fairly obvious to me that the entire worldview of the software community is presently broken. Grace Hopper et al developed COBOL to allow 'nonprogrammers' to write programs. That was in the late 1950's. What progress has occurred since then? Why aren't we drawing our programs? Why don't we run the graphic model through a dynamic dataflow, bandwidth and timing analysis? Why is it up to us to manually tune the literature to support multiple processors?

      The plain fact is that I've watched the nonprogress of software over the last 20+ years, and it's nearly all a rehash of old stuff. The latest, greatest software engineering discipline as taught at the local university is unchanged from the method I used in 1978. We're designing jets for Boeing, using the software equivalent of a Model T.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    7. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by makapuf · · Score: 2, Funny
      I was fortunately able to work entirely without C for the last 10 years or so


      Whoah ! Where people able to understand what you told them ? Like, " 'mon ! hek that web page and ut n' paste the ommon errors !" But that's nothing ! I gave up with all vowels ! (ppl tnd t thnk spk lk n nsct, thgh).
    8. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      2Hee!!

      Somebody once reportedly wrote an entire novel with no "e".

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    9. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by mabu · · Score: 2, Informative

      We agree there are problems, but this IMO has little to do with the development language. C was designed to be low-level. If you don't like it, don't use it, but there have always been alternatives for programmers who aren't obsessive about quality and control...

      You can write crappy programs in any language, and there are crappy libraries in every OS. At least with C if you want to re-invent the wheel you're doing in on a level that affords you the minimal performance and flexibility penalty.

    10. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by thynk · · Score: 1

      You're right, we should all stick to VB6 or VB.NET. Much safer that way really. //ducks//

      The plus side of seeing distruction loom, loosing entire sites to these guys, is the head of our local IT department is pushing for people to move away from Windows. In fact, we've already got one Certified RH geek on staff and I'm sure plenty more lurking around the corner.

      Not that I'm looking forward to porting all my bosses code from VB6 to something a little more, um... better. But it will be nice when/if we get there.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    11. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Hee!!

      I've only had to muck with VB once. A truly horrific goulash it is.

      Bruce McKinney said it best. Unfortunately the original article seems to be among the lost. This is as close as I could get: Slashdot, 1999:
      'Bruce McKinney, author of of Hardcore Visual Basic has announced that he's fed up with VB and won't be writing a 3rd edition of his book. The best quote is at the end: "I don't need a language designed by a focus group".
      See also VB or not VB.

      Truth in rant: I can't say I like any existing OS, nor any language, though I have a certain perverse fondness for APL, probably 'cause I'm not smart enough. (Where else can you invert an 8 dimensional matrix in three characters?) Back in the day, I used to say "NextStep is the OS I dislike the least."

      I hope the conversion goes well. PHP by some accounts is a fairly easy language to convert VB into. Biggest problem you'll have is the different mindset.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    12. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by snillfisk · · Score: 1
      Folks blame Microsoft for their failures to prevent the bugs that allow these virii and worms, and I don't disagree. However, there is a deeper root cause. C and C++ are poor tools for any programming above the level of device driver (and perhaps compiler construction). "Programming without a Net", indeed!! (sorry, couldn't find the original of that quote.)

      This thing has nothing to do with the selected programming language; you may possibly want to use that argument in the ongoing blaster discussion. Sobig.F is dependent on a user actually clicking on an attachment (at least the versions I've read about, running mutt myself, no problem here :>) .. and i can honestly say that i really don't think what language the program is written in matters at all. Any program that executes in the context of the logged in user and his or hers privileges, automagically gains the possibility of doing something like this. It's not a buffer *run, it's just the matter of simply getting someone to execute a file.
      --
      mats
      One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
    13. Re:Quit using C/C++, lose the buffer overflows by Roguelazer · · Score: 1

      Um. You want to "draw programs" and make graphic models? I think you're looking for VISUAL BASIC. :D

  52. You just like saying schadenfeude by simetra · · Score: 2, Funny

    Admit it.

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    1. Re:You just like saying schadenfeude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is spelled 'Schadenfreude'

    2. Re:You just like saying schadenfeude by seanadams.com · · Score: 1

      Admit it.

      I do. Not only does it make me feel really smart to use some of those words that I learned on the SAT-preparation flash cards, but I also saved several characters by not having to type out "that feeling you get when the assmunches who just stuffed your mail server full of .pif files get their just deserts."

      Not "desserts" - that would be like ice cream. I don't want the vir0rs to get any ice cream. Only their just deserts. So there's another great word for you! Acutally two words - I just coined vir0rs as well.

    3. Re:You just like saying schadenfeude by sporktoast · · Score: 1

      Ahem.

      Perhaps you might want to check those SAT-preparation flash cards a little more closely.

      --
      In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
    4. Re:You just like saying schadenfeude by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      And it's not schadenfeude, it's "schadenfreude". Freuden=joy, schaden=sadness, thus joy about sadness or schadenfreude. Although the orginal is probably a typo, anyway. And I do admit, it's an ueber-cool (although a bit 80's in a pre- post-modern way) term to use.

      --
      That is all.
    5. Re:You just like saying schadenfeude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, yeah, except you misspelt it. Don't you feel like an idiot now?

    6. Re:You just like saying schadenfeude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      assmunches

      Hey, given the opportunity to say "assmunches", why bother with petty stuff like "schadenfreude"? Is Assmunch some new, really nasty kind of Dessert?

      Top, top neologism mate!

      Your Affectionate Cousin,

      AC

  53. Re: Wicked screensaver by ChilyWily · · Score: 5, Funny

    hehe- Couldn't resist: Today's userfriendly strip is perfect :)

  54. Hooray, you didn't spread it. by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

    But the remaining 95% of the computing world that had their desktops connected to the internet proceeded to geenrate millions of messages sent to their friends & family who were dumb enough to continue to read things sent to them even when they've been warned hundreds if not thousands of times....

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  55. 48 Sobig.F virii since last night by thedogcow · · Score: 0

    I set up a rule filtering out .scr and .pif files last night at 10pm. Since then, under a 24 hour period, I have recieved 48 emails.
    I have a mac so it is not really a problem but just annoying

    --
    Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
  56. Saw the b'stard launched by advocate_one · · Score: 5, Informative
    some t0sser called Misiko posted a "DSC-00465.jpeg" file into some binary newsgroups on Monday 18th... it was really a *.jpeg.pif, and would have automatically infected any user browsing those groups using outlook express and image preview set on.

    Unfortunately I've since deleted it (It's an offence to knowingly possess viruses in the UK)

    The message reference that it was in is [MPG.19ab40b72e8ed720989682@news.easynews.com] but google doesn't archive those groups.

    Perhaps that was it???

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:Saw the b'stard launched by Misiko · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is in fact the worst choice for a user name.

  57. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  58. Redirect to a porn site? Yeah, right. by Stormbringer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My guess is that the virus-writer, realizing from the online news that his/her precious 20 IP numbers were being decoded and chased down, went around to all of those machines that were still online and switched in that porn-site target, to avoid disclosing further strategy.

    With a lot of luck, maybe forensics on the first few machines taken offline will yield the real download address, and we can see what that clown was really up to.

    1. Re:Redirect to a porn site? Yeah, right. by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      I've been thinking along those lines too. I wonder if someone set up a "compromised" system, set the system clock ahead to PayDay, and did a little packet dump of whatever the Mysterious Download was?

      It's been really hard to find good in-depth and knowledgeable coverage of this event, so I'm glad to see it on SlashDot (ahem. eventually. like days after the fact. ahem.) But at least it's here now!

      I was also somewhat relieved when a search for DSCN 0465 on my comptuer revealed a picture of a rock I took in a cave. Not that I've ever downloaded anything from alt.binaries.schoolgirls :O

      Hmmm.... new virus... Microsoft systems affected... delivered via Usenet... Wasn't there some story on Slashdot just recently about Microsoft's interest in Usenet? ;)

  59. Re:MOD DOWN!!!! FLAMEBAIT!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who cares? You got the point. It's not like we are writing the great american novel, it's slashdot. Do you check your post-it notes for grammar and spelling errors too?

  60. Re:PUTTING USA TO IT'S KNEES!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh dear Jesus, who cares? You got the point. It's not like we are writing the great american novel, it's slashdot. Do you check your post-it notes for grammar and spelling errors too?

  61. you don't get it by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    A sends mail to B
    B gets SoBig
    B send virus mail to C from A

    In your scheme A is seen as the virus sender, subsequently deserving whatever he gets.

    The only headers you can trust in SMTP mail are the ones your MX adds. These are usually the IP address of the machine making the SMTP connection to your MX. This IP won't necessarily be the IP address of the originator as mail, like other traffic, is routed.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  62. Re:PUTTING USA TO IT'S KNEES!! by mjmalone · · Score: 1
  63. The burden is on the developers by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    > OK, I have a quick question. These worms and virii are hitting a ton of Microsoft vulnerabilities, and that's why they *exist*, but to me it seems like they only succeed because office workers, mom (my mom's comp was hit by Blaster), guy down the street, etc. *don't harden their computers*, or because they can't seem to stop clicking on attachments. [...] I'm tired, and cranky, and I love Linux. But I just don't know if I'd trust my mom to run a secure Mandrake box if she can't even do Windows fucking Update.

    At some point someone with a misguided sense of "ease of use" will write a *n*x e-mail client that executes attachments at a click, and then the fun will begin.

    This is an engineering problem - a failure to account for the human element in the process. The whole point of engineering, in any discipline, is to take precautions against the predictable stuff that will fux0r your system. The relevant behavior here is fully predictable, ergo it is an engineering error.

    I plead with FOSS developers not to make the same mistake.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:The burden is on the developers by duck+'o+death · · Score: 1

      Thanks for replying. I guess I just have this feeling that if non-MS OS's become more mainstream, maybe people will use them with about the same concern for security they take on their windows boxes; and not only that, but folks will start writing easier, more convenient programs (like your example) for the sake of popularity or demand, and before you know it we'll have the same type of security hell on Linux as in Windows.

      Ehhhhh. Scary/frustrating.

      --
      Don't put salt in your eyes.
  64. how did they obtain this info? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i am curious how they figure out the sources of viruses WITHOUT VIOLATING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT...

    1. Re:how did they obtain this info? by CmdrTacoBannedMe · · Score: 1

      the fourth amendment isn't a right to unlimited privacy.

      it simply requires the government to justify its intentions before searching or confiscating someone's property (i.e. a search warrant signed by a judge)

    2. Re:how did they obtain this info? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      It's called investigation... the same way they would find out who murdered someone, or who broke into a house, or who kidnapped some kid. There IS plenty that can be done without running afoul of the search and seizure clause...

      Besides, that is void anyway with an appropriate warrant; who's to say they don't have one?

  65. These haxors are terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only a matter of time before this butthead is detained indefinitely without trial

  66. Re:Viruses - fucktard by mutende · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ah, refreshing! :-)

    --
    Unselfish actions pay back better
  67. Quite legitimately by Moth7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok, I may be falling into a trolling trap, but take a look at the 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures How is it unreasonable to search the computer/network of an individual who is suspected it of nearly bringing the windows community to its knees? If you didn't write any malware then you have nothing to hide - its not unreasonable to eliminate someone from a case by proving that they had no part in it is it?

  68. This is what the writer should have done. by codepunk · · Score: 3, Funny

    He should have had this virus download a copy of the linux kernel from the SCO web site and save it to the system. SCO would have loved this as they could have then sold a Unix Ware license to the entire world. Oh hell we could have even shown that SCO infact distributed the linux kernel to every PC in the world.

    --


    Got Code?
  69. Awwe... by Cable_Monkey · · Score: 1

    Awwe...I was kinda hoping the smiley face would walk across the screen. :-/

    Anyway...our mail server at this small public school system has blocked 7,998 copies of the virus since 10:43am Tuesday morning. I had updated the signature files at about 9:45am...so talk about a close call.

    I don't know who created this virus (or any other evil virus for that matter), but I hope they are at least caught, tarred, and feathered.

  70. What's next? by KingRob · · Score: 1

    The best thing we can do now is attempt to anticipant the next breed of mass-transfer virus.

    From boot sectors, to exe files, to e-mail, to internet worm.

    What's next?

    I'm thinking nasty viruses/worms:

    Examining ACLs for more privileged users to transfer to (mail, worm).

    Navigate ExchangeServer's Organisation chart to target top 20 execs and send nasty e-mail on their behalf.

    Break through the firewall! A lot of companies only secure the site perimeter using a firewall. With the growth of VPNs, Remote dial-ins, portable computers, it seems there might be more than just a firewall to secure. A virus could sit dormant until it detects a private network connection (192.168.x.x, 172.16-31.x.x etc..) and then activates. I really do wonder how many MS computers living in private subnets are patched further than standard SP on the CD.. It could be blaster all over again!

    I think forced updates and WindowsUpdate Proxy server might be a good thing

    1. Re:What's next? by Animats · · Score: 1

      What's next is probably someone cracking the Windows Update mechanism and using it to install a trojan.

  71. Virus author's other post by indole · · Score: 4, Informative

    Although google doesnt archive those groups, they did archive this message posted by the virus author in alt.alt.test 9 minutes before the virus was posted elsewhere.

    (You can compare to the message included here from easynews)

    --
    (2,3-Benzopyrrole)
    1. Re:Virus author's other post by advocate_one · · Score: 3, Informative
      yup... that was him.

      I actually posted a warning reply to the original post but was obviously too late.


      WARNING - that's a virus. Don't download it... - was Re: Great, who's got more?? DSC-00465.jpeg

      On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:55:13 +0000, Misiko wrote:

      > DSC-00465.jpeg
      > MZP

      contained the following item:

      DSC00465.jpeg.pif

      do not in any circumstances open the OP if you're using ms-windows and OE
      etc... I'm safe.


      he was relying on people browsing usenet binaries with insecure newsclients... looks like fertile soil then.
      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  72. Classic image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how the caricature of the worm in that graphic is smiling and bug-eyed. Reminds me a bit of Clippy...

  73. I got burnt by this as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You neglected to mention the newsgroup was alt.binaries.erotica.fetish.wetandmessy.cary.colem an and the picture isn't even of gary coleman!

  74. Re:Viruses - fucktard by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    hehe none of the others were me

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  75. No damage by Arandir · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those that did were merely redirected to a porn site, no damage done.

    No damage done! My dear poor mother got redirected to goatse.cx! The psychiatry bills alone will cost a quarter of a million dollars.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  76. "Spread from Usenet" by stecker · · Score: 1

    The article mentions that the worm "spread from usenet", and was uploaded to usenet from an account obtained with a stolen credit card.

    Here's what I don't get:

    1. How does a worm "spread from usenet"? Are there really people who are saavy enough to use usenet and are willing to click on a .pif file in some random post?

    2. Why bother with the stolen credit card thing? Can't you use Google News to make postings for free?

    1. Re:"Spread from Usenet" by nachholomachiavelli · · Score: 1

      Google news cannot post attachments, AFAIK. Maybe my sarcasm detector was down.

    2. Re:"Spread from Usenet" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. How does a worm "spread from usenet"? Are there really people who are saavy enough to use usenet and are willing to click on a .pif file in some random post?

      How could you possibly forget that AOLers have access to Usenet, and will click on anything you happen to slide under their mouse cursor?

    3. Re:"Spread from Usenet" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's easy to spread malware via Usenet: modern GUI newsreaders usually automatically decode and display attachments in binaries groups, treating postings somewhat like webpages.

      In Windoze the "display" process often involves passing the decoded file through some (possibly vulnerable) component of the Exploder. So almost any of its many holes can be exploited.

  77. I don't get it by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does Microsoft security and Windows Update keep coming up in this? This is an e-mail worm. People keep running the damned attachment like morons. It's their fault. Hell, my ISP doesn't even let .scr or any other sorts of files get through without specific permission from the user. Outlook won't run executables unless I tell it to.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:I don't get it by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " Why does Microsoft security and Windows Update keep coming up in this? This is an e-mail worm. People keep running the damned attachment like morons. It's their fault. Hell, my ISP doesn't even let .scr or any other sorts of files get through without specific permission from the user. Outlook won't run executables unless I tell it to."

      Your ISP is likely not even running windows or uses a seperate "box" which filters the mail. Alot of people running windows sit behind a linksys router with a built in firewall and laugh about these vulnerabilities. They don't realize they are sitting behind a layer of the simpliest and weakest form a linux security living in that router.

      Outlook won't run executables unless you tell it to... yeah we already had worms that executed automatically in outlook. But wait that fixed that hole.. you sure there aren't any others? All you have to do is click the attachment and that is "telling it to". Me on the other hand, I have to save the file and then change the filesystem permission on the file to executable and THEN and only then AFTER I have explicitly gone out of my way to make the system recognize the file as being executable may I execute the file. Sure I can set my mask so that EVERY file has execute permission by default but why would I? Or I could do it another way, make up a system where I put 3 letter codes at the end of files and the ones with the rights codes are executable... but hey, couldn't anyone name the file that way? oops.

      This boils down to a fundemental flaw in the way the system was designed back in the DOS days. Any change would completely annihilate the existing windows structure and all the code surrounding it. Course they could have... I dunno. Designed the system using ANY of the concepts implemented in ANY OTHER operating system in existance and we wouldn't see this kind of thing today.

      If a user is too stupid to right click on the file and check the box by the execute permission. He's too stupid to be trusted to execute files.

    2. Re:I don't get it by Alien+Being · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "People keep running the damned attachment like morons."

      Why do windows techies insist on packaging things as executables?

      For example, I downloaded an addon track for a Windows racing game I like. It's a single .trk file. But instead of just telling me to put the file in my "tracks" folder, they package it as a damned .exe install "wizard" that's so stupid, it has to ask the user where to install the file.

      Not only that, but they add another layer of bs to the mix by putting the .exe in a zip file. So naturally, some people have to go install winzip, probably break someone's eula, run yet another POS installer.

      Of course users click anything that says OK. That's what you do with windows. Click, click, crash, reboot, click, click, reinstall. It's just the way windows is done, sucky.

    3. Re:I don't get it by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      yeah we already had worms that executed automatically in outlook.

      Only if the PREVIEW PANE was active. Who in their right mind keeps the preview pane active? I don't. In fact, whenever reading suspicious e-mail, I don't open it at all. Not even in the preview pain, er pane (which is the same as opening the e-mail).

      I always view properties, then source. Do I wish viewing the e-mail as pure ascii was easier in Outlook? Well, of course I do. But Outlook can do it, and it is safe.

      Most of the time, though, I don't even bother to go that far. I mass-delete all of my e-mail for a day at one time ussually. If someone really wants to contact me, they'll send me an Online Message with some kind of messenger. E-mail is so obsolete....

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    4. Re:I don't get it by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Outlook won't run executables unless I tell it to.

      you can easily set outlook to use WORD as the email viewing and it will then AUTOMATICALLY run the script when opened. and from what I remember... did so from the preview pane of outlook just a short time ago.

      Sorry, your email client should be REQUIRED for you to download ther attachment to a folder/desktop before allowing it to open.

      and the asshat at microsoft that thought that hiding the file extension was a good idea needa to be beaten to death with a sack of doorknobs. while the dip-weed that though that it STILL needs to be on by deafault needa to be kicked in the groin over and over again for months.

      Microsoft set in place a string of stupidity that causes the general public to do stupid things.

      Yes it's the stupid users, but Microsft made them think it was ok to do it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:I don't get it by MegaFur · · Score: 1

      but MS doesn't have to let the attachments be "runnable" in the first place does it?

      --
      Furry cows moo and decompress.
    6. Re:I don't get it by shaitand · · Score: 1

      The average user, the average user doesn't know how to hide and reopen the folder list. Their lucky if they know how to view mail in different folders.

      Aye I find email a bit easier to deal with since I filter out spam on my mail server and I don't have to examine the source of any mail I read.

  78. "Traced the Origin" ? Not Really. by murr · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Unfortunately, the headlines seem to vastly overstate the success of the investigation so far. "Tracing" the virus to a hacked computer and a stolen credit card does not really establish the real "Origin" of that virus.

    I'll be satisfied with the investigation when I see a picture of the person who wrote it (preferably in a body bag, with the fingernails ripped out & a broom handle sticking from his/her ass).

    1. Re:"Traced the Origin" ? Not Really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be satisfied with the investigation when I see a picture of the person who wrote it (preferably in a body bag, with the fingernails ripped out & a broom handle sticking from his/her ass).

      Kinky.

    2. Re:"Traced the Origin" ? Not Really. by Firefly1 · · Score: 1
      I'll be satisfied with the investigation when I see a picture of the person who wrote it (preferably in a body bag, with the fingernails ripped out & a broom handle sticking from his/her ass).
      Excessive and completely unjustified. Even Frank Castle shows some restraint.
      --
      - White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
  79. Like in the movie Brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me of the movie brazil where the "terrorists" broke into government systems and fixed them to work better, causing all sorts of confusion.

  80. MOD UP by Adam9 · · Score: 1

    Makes perfect sense. Everyone (including myself) forgot that the web site wasn't in any of the 20 machines until the last moment. I expect SoBig.g to not make the same mistake.

  81. Why install proxies and not mail servers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So some of these infected machines have had proxies installed so that the people running the show can whore them out to spammers. They essentially gain the ability to resell access to computers that are infected. Cute.

    Open proxies let a spammer connect in and use it as a puppet to create a TCP connection that's essentially anonymous. They connect to it, it connects to the victim's machine, and they pull the strings to make it deliver mail for them. That's simple enough.

    My question is: why is it installing a proxy and not something more like a mail server? I'm sure the spammer would much rather connect to the compromised box, spew out the recipients and data, then disconnect. Let the infected system worry about connecting to the mail exchangers of the recipients. That leaves the spammers free to do other things rather than babysitting all those proxied TCP connections.

    I guess these guys only know one thing: "we want more proxies!", and they never actually stop to think about what they're really doing. Duh.

    1. Re:Why install proxies and not mail servers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be pretty easy for a mail server administrator to block dynamically allocated IP addresses. So if that became common practice, spam wouldn't be very effective from boxes with dynamic IPs. (Some mail servers will not accept mail from a host without a matching DNS PTR record, etc)

      Proxies can be used for more than just mail, as well.

  82. I Have To Rant Here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work in a (non-IT) dept of a satellite campus of a large Australasian university. That varsity's ITSS dept is currently being invaded and overrun by hordes of new, low-paid, low-skilled, all-but-no-experience Indian staff, most of whom are about to begin, or are actually in the midst of, MCSE courses.

    They do almost nothing, and know even less, and it shows in the state of the systems and networks, e.g. we are running unpatched versions of IE 5.0 on most of the University's PCs. Naturally the network got hammered by the latest round of worms. None of these guys had bothered to patch any of the machines, including their own. Maybe they didn't even know how to. They did manage to issue one of my coworkers with a new M$ Outhouse password. It was the same as her login. No paranoia about security issues around here, dude, nyuh-uh.

    Two of them came out to my dept to install SP4 on the win2k computers. We are off-campus, and connected via the World's Worst 2Mb WLAN link. We have been complaining about it to IT for a year. It falls over every 5-15 minutes and is down for an hour or so. Even when it's functioning, it crawls. So what do these two clowns do? They crash every machine by trying to upgrade them all simultaneously with the 132 MB patch over this shitty connection.

    Earlier in the week another guy had been out to install a scanner driver. He spent two hours trying to do it. Apparently staring at a monitor with a 'duh!' expression for a long time will accomplish this. In the end he installed a scanner driver for Win98, then NT, then installed a Win 3.1 (!) version, before even trying the win2k driver. By then he'd made such a mess, he felt obliged to reformat and reinstall the OS. For some reason, he then decided he needed to do this on ALL our dept's PCs. So, in order to get a scanner working we are left with tons of lost data and no-longer-functioning apps.

    Not too long after, another guy came out to install some extra RAM in our slowest machines. Why he needed to pull-apart ALL the PCs in the building has still to be answered, but he mixed up the mouse and keyboard plugs/sockets on EVERY SINGLE PC. Of course, he never thought to check all was well -- or even finished -- before departing, so we had to do it for him. One result was that the only decent monitor in the place was damaged when it was dropped by a middle-aged female librarian when it slipped from her grasp.

    Later this guy's boss (also Indian) called trying to locate him, as he was ignoring his pager and cellphone. We couldn't assist there, but we did hear later that the guy had left early to have a meeting with some other Indian IT cronies to discuss yet another of the get-rich-quick "eBusiness" ventures they were plotting.

    I miss the days when IT was a geek calling, and not just a "good career move" for people with no talent for the work.

    1. Re:I Have To Rant Here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 troll???????????? some guy does a racist jack ass blather about Indian and South African born techs and doesnt get modded but when i complain about the nazi *I* get modded down??? U people suck.

  83. Bitching about /. by snkmoorthy · · Score: 0

    Well I reported this > 24hrs ago.

    SCO, simply bitching

    1. Re:Bitching about /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you are not a Cowboy Neal or Commander Taco suck boy so you didn't get credit for it.
      Such is /. now if the /. server would respond more than 2% time when you try to access it even with the IP address writen to /ect/hosts. Slashdot has some pretty fucked up issues with accessability than need fixed. Either that or just pack it in.

  84. Wrong. Stupid crimminals is a stereo type by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    the fact is that the only crimminals that get caught are the stupid ones. hence if you try to infer that crimminals are stupid based on only the sample that were caught you will come to the wrong conclusion. It's like proving that birds cant actually fly by counting only the ones you find on the ground. the smart crimminals dont get caught so you dont know they exist.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  85. SoBig on steroids by segment · · Score: 1

    I ranted on about SoBig being on steroids with a down and dirty analysis on what having Windows is costing someone along with concepts of SoBig disconnecting a backbone along with a program to test that concept

  86. Bah, you're one small step from licensing.... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    I totally disagree with your conclusions, although I agree with your initial statement.

    The very idea of legally mandating some sort of level of Internet security is unworkable, and just a bad idea all around. For starters, you bring govt. dangerously close to taking the next logical step that comes after it - issuing Internet licenses. (Only a govt. licensed individual could run any type of Internet server, perhaps?) Scary thought....

    But besides that, what sort of improvements would you visualize coming about from it? ISP's already have terms of service agreements that pretty well cover this. If you spam people or use their service to promote any sort of illegal activity, they can terminate your account. It doesn't mean they can magically stop these behaviors before they happen, a la "Minority Report". Same problem if you mandate some sort of degree of due diligence. People writing virii generally try to do so anonymously. They already know their actions break laws - but they're planning on not getting caught.

    1. Re:Bah, you're one small step from licensing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Viiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii!!!!

  87. How about a Virus to cure a Virus! by gnugnugnu · · Score: 1


    Forced Grid computing, hrrm.

    What would be pretty cool would be if they used a virus to run the Protein Folding at Home project and use a Virus to help cure a Virus!

    la la la.

    still waiting for a genuinely destructive virus, randomly mailing out microsoft office files was probably one of the more interesting and malicious viruses of recent years.

  88. The Origin of SoBig: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the beginning, it was barely detectable... ...then it became SoTiny... ...then SoDammSmall... ...then SoLittle... ...then SoAverage... ...then So-So... ...then SoUnusuallyGreat... ...then SoBig.

  89. Re: Wicked screensaver by eponymous+flower · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wicked?? Is this virus writer from Boston or 1986?

    --
    You say self-important egomaniac like it's a bad thing. - Peter Dragon
  90. Class action perhaps? by axxackall · · Score: 1
    I think it's a right moment to go for a class action.

    Microsoft finally must return all license fee back to owners of all infected computers. The must be written in a way that it is not possible to be infected. Period. If OS is written differently, than the OS vendor must return money back to customers - Microsoft did not earn that money.

    Another punishment would be good if all Microsoft products being sold in their cartoon boxes would have half of the box's (and CD's as well) face busy by yellow-red color warning: "The usage of this product may lose all your data, hurt other people, bring you to the jail and even fail all our national economy!". Exactly in a same way as many goverments forced tobaco manufacturers to print on cigaret packs. I think that many people will think twice before buying such boxes. Unless they are physically addicted to Microsoft products...

    --

    Less is more !
  91. Re: Wicked screensaver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    There's really only one User Friendly comic

  92. Re:DON'T PUSH IT FUCKER!!! by dipipanone · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Heh. I love this. I can just imagine it. Two acne'd basement dwellers are waiting for an interview at the sign of the Golden Arches...

    AC1: Of course, this isn't my real job. I'm just waiting for a gig as a sys admin to come along.
    AC2: Hmm. I don't suppose you read Slashdot, do you?
    AC1: Why yes, from time to time.
    AC2: What account name do you post under?
    AC2: Oh, I don't bother logging in...
    AC1: Aieeeee! Die, motherfucker...

  93. LOL THAT WAS FUCKING FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AS USUAL THE FUNNIEST FUCKING SHIT THAT IS HILARIOUS AS A MOFO IS NOT MODDED +5 FUNNY BUT IS SOME BIZARRE POST AT THE TOP IN THE TROLL ZONE OF THE COMMENTS.

    FUNNIEST SHIT ON SLASHDOT IN A MINUTE WORD SON.

    # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
    # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
    # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
    # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
    # If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

    Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

  94. Easynews privacy policy... by sweet+'n+sour · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How did the FBI get the ip address of the computer that uploaded the virus when the privacy policy for easynews specifically states that is should be impossible for such a thing to happen:

    We do not keep HTTP access logs
    We do not keep NNTP access logs
    We do not use IP addresses to link to personally identifiable information. IP addresses are used for administrative purposes only to ensure the Web site is running smoothly.

    Here's a link to the complete policy: Privacy Policy

    1. Re:Easynews privacy policy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would assume that what they really mean is that they eventually get rid of those logs, not that they aren't generated at all.

      It's just stupid not to generate logs for at least a week. If you're an ISP, I think you have a reponsibility to help the FBI and whoever.

      In short, don't believe anything any tells you, or that you see written or posted on the 'Net.

    2. Re:Easynews privacy policy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did the FBI get the ip address of the computer that uploaded the virus when the privacy policy for easynews specifically states that is should be impossible for such a thing to happen:

      Because they are the F-B-fucking-I and they can do whatever the hell they want!

  95. RPG & COBOL - still popular by garyebickford · · Score: 1

    Hee!!

    However, as recently as the late 1980's COBOL was by an order of magnitude the most popular language in terms of lines written each year. And RPG, according to an article (somewhere) I read a month or so ago, is still the standard language for the small IBM hardware - evidently it's quite powerful and easy to use. I don't really know, for myself - I've avoided that world.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    1. Re:RPG & COBOL - still popular by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      To be honest I had never heard of RPG until yesterday!

      Then again, in the late 80's I was using a Commodore 64 ;)

  96. To-do for microsoft by t_allardyce · · Score: 0, Troll
    To Microsoft:
    Subject: To-do list for your products:

    • Out of the box, warn users when they attempt to execute an attachment, especially if its an executable. Turn of vb scripting in all products, it can only be turned on manually, or through an "are you sure" dialog box. Advanced scriptable functions - eg access to the address book and the ability to send mail need additional user activation.
    • NetBIOS: loose it. They can enable it themselves.
    • Other ports/network access requests: Your OS does not need to access the internet by default, it does not need to automatically update, dllhost&svchost do not need to access the internet, turn it all off, if the user wants it they can turn it on.
    • Fire everyone in the marketing department. They must all go, they all serve no purpose, footballers are more useful to society than Microsoft marketing department staff.
    • slashes go forward, adjust your products accordingly
    • Please extend and embrace the following technologies and free support with your major OS's: firewalls, anti-virus, tetris. In exchange you can take out these technologies to save money: paint-brush, freecell
    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:To-do for microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nooo, need my freecell

  97. I Love You runs on RH 7.3/KDE by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now if the computers hadn't been running windows and they would have crashed anyway and wouldnt have been able to execute it. Oh wait they were running windows. I guess windows(and any crashable OS) only crashes during important data writing.

    Linux X applications by and large aren't as stable as Windows shareware (ie. KMail silently dies when the disk is full, etc.). The Linux kernel *is* crashable - try hot-swapping an ISA card in an old clunker. [grin]

    As for worms, well, once on my KDE box, I clicked on a virus while I was showing off Linux to a friend. "Look at how immune I am to e-mail virii... [click-click]... Oh shit... Look at how well Windows applications are supported!"

    Red Hat 7.3, shipping with Windows binaries associated to Wine. Yup, I got my Linux box infected with a Windows e-mail virus. Dangerous default file associations are not a problem exclusive to Windows, and it's only a matter of popularity before e-mail virii are being written to exploit bugs in Linux apps.

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
    1. Re:I Love You runs on RH 7.3/KDE by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      One time on a laptop, I hot swapped an IDE CD-ROM drive. that was funny. The screen went to color static. As far as running out of space, that is what "watch df" is for...

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  98. Already been there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For starters, you bring govt. dangerously close to taking the next logical step that comes after it - issuing Internet licenses. (Only a govt. licensed individual could run any type of Internet server, perhaps?) Scary thought....

    While I agree with you, it's ironic to point out that prior to 1991, this was exactly the case. The NSF's acceptable use policy mandated that the then "Internet" (NSFNET) could only be used for academic and research purposes. Many people pine longingly for those days...

  99. Then again... by violet16 · · Score: 1

    My Bayesian spam filter has caught every SoBig.F virus after the first one -- but it's not catching the 100-and-counting "Your email contained a virus!" autoresponses. I can't classify them as spam because bounces are usually important.

  100. Are we better off now? by seibed · · Score: 1

    Since everyone is updating their computers will there now be either one of two realities?:
    -A long lag before another 'big' virus/worm
    -Will the Internet now run more effeciently? there must be quite a few fixes that would improve network performance, and I'm sure that these virii/worms have been a low level hit for some time now. Since word is getting out, and everyone is fixing what has needed to be fixed for a while, shouldn't we eventually be better off than we were?

    1. Re:Are we better off now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  101. another problem that didnt need to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hear of spread of virus. Emergency stage: bounce all mails with the offending subject lines, protecting number #1 (your own clients). Meanwhile, install MIMEDefang and ClamAV and set to quarantine all mails with attachments containing this virus. Switch to this.

    That's what I did. 100-200 viruses/hour now sit harmlessly in a directory, where they can be wiped every few days if no-one screams about recent lost mail. If every admin had done this, the problem would be gone hours after it appeared.

    All this "brought down to its knees" bullshit => excuses from poor sysadmins, or from their CIO's not giving them room to do their job.

  102. Another Probe. by Niet3sche · · Score: 1

    October 24 of last year ... now this ... I think this is probe #2 of a 2-3 year viability study on Information Warfare. Just imagine *WHEN* the worms are coded to do lookups on ARIN so that everything in a select region/industry/state/country alone gets nailed. WE NEED TO WAKE UP. These are probes. And we're on the losing side of 'em.

  103. Viri launching through Wardrive by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Why not just wardrive around town, find an open network, then launch the virus. There is NO WAY you can get cought. Just wipe your drives with 0s five or more times, and nuke the wireless NIC you used (because of the traceable MAC address as evidence. It's not that hard. And if you do get cought, it's because you opened up your big fat flapping jaw for bragging rights.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Viri launching through Wardrive by liquidsin · · Score: 1
      No need to waste that expensive wireless NIC. Just use your handy friend 'ifconfig'. Try something like:
      [root@localhost root]# ifconfig eth0 down<br>
      [root@localhost root]# ifconfig eth0 HW ether 00:00:AA:AA:AA:AA<br>
      [root@localhost root]# ifconfig eth0 up
      Then feel free to unleash your pet over someone's unsecured WLAN (provided your NIC supports changing the MAC address).
      --
      do not read this line twice.
  104. You didn't read my post. by Population · · Score: 1

    Person A is not an employee of my company.

    Person B is not an employee of my company.

    Person C is an employee of my company.

    A sends mail to B.
    B sends mail to A.

    B sends mail to C.
    C sends mail to B.

    B becomes infected.
    The virus sends mail from B's machine to C that appears to be from A.

    That message is checked for viruses.

    The virus is found.
    The virus is removed.

    Simple and proven effective in a real world environment (the office I work at).

    Now, if I were to go back and grab all of those infected messages and then run them through SpamAssassin's learning function as spam, then I would deserve whatever I got. That is because I would have knowingly polluted my SpamAssassin system with non-spam.

    The spam filtering system is not the same as the anti-virus system. Even though they run on the same box.

    The suspected spam messages are not handled in the same fashion as the suspected virus messages. Even though they are handled on the same box.

    Spam is not a virus.

    A virus is not spam.

    Do not confuse the two.

    1. Re:You didn't read my post. by Yorkshire · · Score: 1

      If it comes by email, unsolicited, and bulk, then how is it not spam?

      Maybe your definition of spam is just viagra and porn ads, but to me and a lot of other people it's Unsolicited Bulk Email, which is exactly what this virus is doing.

  105. outlook express and image preview by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1

    You mean to tell me that outlook express will open filename.jpg.exe and run it with image preview set on?? Not even realizing that it's not an image?

    Sheesh..

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  106. Deserves a "+N, Funny" Re:The Origin of SoBig: by Ricin · · Score: 1

    Mods?

  107. "format c:" is not the most damaging thing by mec · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A formatted computer is a dead computer (and an un-infected computer when it comes back to service, probably with current anti-virus software). An infected computer is a cracker proxy, a spam relay, a DDOS slave.

    Also, for a lot of users, it's more damaging to leak information than to destroy the computer. Think of all the bank, credit card, and brokerage passwords that are available by logging the keystream. And, more relevantly, it's far more profitable to the virus writer to receive leaked information than to know that someone's drive was formatted.

  108. Forcing updates cannot cure this. by Tangurena · · Score: 2
    Perhaps you ought to read about Curious Yellow and Curious Blue. The windows update service need only be co-opted once to spread viruses and worms like this. Or, someone need only fool a few DNS servers to defeat the the purpose of compelling updates. Can you guarantee that cache poisoning and DNS spoofing cannot happen? If you compel everyone to get updates without their consent, and cannot guarantee the safety of those compelled updates, you have merely opened a new backdoor into their systems. The person who controls what software is installed on your computer owns it.

    Microsoft is producing defective products. The fantasy that the EULA prevents them from being taken to court is all that keeps them from being held responsible for the faulty products they sell. They will stop making defective products when they start having to pay up in legal actions from the bugs and crashes that people endure. Why do people think that an EULA is some magical spell that protects the vendor from the consequences of their actions?

    Microsoft also has a history of producing service packs which install more bugs than they fixed. Remember the rule of thumb about even numbered service packs suck? That rule of thumb came from NT4. It holds so strongly that MS won't produce SP2, just things like SP1a.

    The real issue is that all these viruses and worms are caused by the operating system monoculture we are stuck with.

  109. Not only the users who click have problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My cable modem has been too slow to use for the last two days, i'm running linux, have no viruses and never have.

    Everybody else on this segment of cable seems to have something, as i've called Time Warner telling them about it, they said sobig is saturating their network causing slow internet.

    Its to the point that i can no longer access any site from my modem. I get lost packets to the closest router. Thankfully some friendly fellow left their wireless up on a different cable segment so i can beam this message directly to you.

  110. Mod parent up! by Magic+Thread · · Score: 1

    Very insightful and interesting theory.

  111. G-Men by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 1

    The government should be knocking at your door soon... hehehe ;-)

  112. Re:PUTTING USA TO IT'S KNEES!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nazi Germany killed over 50 million. 20+ million perished in the Soviet Union itself.

  113. Double Whammy by Tony-A · · Score: 1

    Operating System, Browser, Mail client all desperately want to hide the gory details from the EU.
    End Users who dutifully believe that if they aren't seeing it it isn't happening.

    Maybe I've just got better trained users. No anti-virus software. (Well, some that's rather old and unupdated that nobody bothers to run) I have to clean up something maybe once or twice a year. I mean seriously, look at them. They are booby traps designed to catch boobies.

  114. On Ham radio vs the Internet by Gherald · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If Internet did not exist, or if I lived in a country w/o internet, then I would have a ham license.

    But as it stands, isn't ham radio kind of pointless?

  115. marketing slogans by sargen · · Score: 0

    What virus do you want today?

  116. Good point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Don't believe the parent.

  117. freenet by vlad_petric · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering how long 'til such viruses use content-anonymizer networks like freenet to download malicious code (20 hardcoded IP addresses is hardly effective)

    --

    The Raven

  118. Control of servers... by bobthemuse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If we know the 20 IPs, why not just put a version of the uninstall virus on each one? Modifed to mitigate the other problems it's caused...

  119. With... by Mistlefoot · · Score: 1

    With a baseball mitt.

    1. Re:With... by Babbster · · Score: 1

      I would have said a strainer, but yours is probably less prone to induce vomiting.

  120. uh ... apache is not an operating system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I just love this type of explanation of why MS is at absolutely ZERO fault for it's security problems. Compare the number of Apache worms/viruses with the number found in IIS. Why are there more in a single year for IIS than for Apache over several years? [...] Oh yeah.. because MS has such a huge market share making more targets. BZZZ.. Apache holds almost 2 times the market share for active web servers! Could it be that MS's IIS isn't as secure? No.. noo... it's because of hackers. It's all their fault.. Poor MS!
    Um. MSBlast was big because it affected all versions of XP/2000, not just those with IIS installed. Compare the total number of Windows installations to the number of apache machines, not just the number of servers, and you begin to see why a worm like MSBlast is having such a big effect.
    1. Re:uh ... apache is not an operating system by k12linux · · Score: 1
      Um. MSBlast was big because it affected all versions of XP/2000, not just those with IIS installed.

      I was actually referring to MS security in general and in the case of IIS: Code Red, Code Blue, and the other worms/virusus which have taken advantage of IIS holes. Whenever somebody says MS has a bad security record, the reply is always "There are more viruses/worms for Windows only because it has a 93% market share... there are just more targets."

      My argument is that if that were true, and it wasn't the quality of the programming, we should expect to see the same with other software... ie the one with more maket share has more exploits. So Apache with nearly two times the market share should have two times more exploits, worms, viruses and other bugs.

  121. Stupid Canadians you would think they know better! by ratfynk · · Score: 0, Troll

    First they don't even care if they leave Windows vulnerable, then they screw up our power grid. What next they might even stop buying our junky software anymore. Time to invade, this time they won't have enough Iroquios to stop us like in 1812! Take no prisoners.

    --
    OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
  122. Stupid worms... by coene · · Score: 1

    I'm amazed that someone doesn't take the time to create a virus that would really go gung-ho. You know its possible.

    Ya know, something that exploits as many vulnerabilities in as many operating systems as possible, manifests itself in hundreds of ways (replacing real data with itself), deletes important files, does everything it can to prevent its removal (overwriting a/v software,
    blocking fix provider websites, disabling ways people get knowledge about it), spread itself like crazy (via every means possible), and then launch huge and frequent DDoS against as many targets as you can fit in a little black book. Not to mention, systematically downloading more UPDATED AND MORE DANGEROUS copies of itself via an unstoppable self-created P2P network using local, seed, and broadcast hosts.

    These virus makers aint' shit! So far...

    1. Re:Stupid worms... by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      I agree - IIRC, viruses used to be malicious.

      We've seen many, many viruses in the last 5 years that have wreaked havoc, and not many of them have had a malicious payload. Most of the trouble seems to have been caused by the network congestion.

      One day, people are going to find that clicking mindlessly on that "Hey, check this out!" email is going to fuck their home and corporate PC big time. Clicking on it two or three times wont help either.

  123. A question comes to mind by kjj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Why does a mosquito bite your ear? And who cares. The answer is simple, call an exterminator."

    In other words delete the damned thing and be done with it.

  124. Re:Stupid Canadians you would think they know bett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zoombies. Some IPS's could'nt be bother'd.

  125. Re:Stupid Canadians you would think they know bett by Attaturk · · Score: 1

    Time to invade, this time they won't have enough Iroquios to stop us like in 1812!

    Well they might not have any Iroquois but they can sure as hell find some willing Iraqis. =P

    Ooh I know but I couldn't resist it.

  126. because it's in the article header by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What they mean by not keeping logs is logs of who READ an article, not who wrote it.

    Most articles posted to usenet have the complete chain of every machine that forwarded the message on its path to you right there in the headers.

  127. Re:Stupid Canadians you would think they know bett by ratfynk · · Score: 1

    You will find that the zombies are mostly of the dot kind! And will defend Inet servers to the death with band-aid patches and ductape. Just like anywhere else that there are MS servers, with pimple faced newly certified sysadmins, running the show.

    --
    OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
  128. Scared the carp out of me... by scowling · · Score: 1

    I read the article, and it really startled me. I live in BC and have an Easynews account, and I've been getting Sobig in the mail constantly for the last couple of weeks.

    I never open those messages, natch, never use the preview pane, and have an active firewall, but I still had to check my Visa account to make sure.

    I suspect that I'm not the only one who was scared by this, and that, in the final analysis, is a Good Thing.

    --
    www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
  129. informing swbell by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    Consequently, I have a nice list of IP addresses of infected boxes. But they're mostly dsl users in Houston TX off of swbell.net. Who at swbell.net would be in a position to actually do anything about their problem?

    Send a message to test.net@abuse.net and follow the instructions to sign up for the abuse.net service.

    You can then send a message to swbell.net@abuse.net and they'll do a lookup of the best address to send spam complaints to (this would more or less qualify).

    If you're not willing to do that, then you can always use the default of : abuse@swbell.net. Most sane domains will have some sort of respnse from abuse@thatdomain.com (it's specified in a couple of RFCs).

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  130. HA! by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft writing their own software. Most of the software they put on the market is purchased. The only commercial code is "glue" to the various pieces of technology they've bought.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

    1. Re:HA! by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      Somehow I completely forgot about that when writing my post. I've commented on it in the past.

      So I guess they just buy software that wasn't written with the expectation that 95% of desktops will run it.

  131. My antivirus notification system. -Go to Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont use antivirus software I just go to work to find out whats out there, and what's roaming around the net. If there is a worm or a virus someone with in our company will open it, or it will get through what ever crap they use for a firewall.(I am a low level employee of a major tech company that is a spin off of another major tech company--think big merger within in the last year for a clue). We have lost production a couple of times this year -Slammer, Blaster. If I can open my E-mail, my mail box is usually full of the nets lastest and greatest. See its fun to go to work for $11.00/hr. I am just glad we have 80k+ engineers at our company that can offset my antivirus costs.

  132. hehe I didn't get it - I do now by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    I'm glad I didn't use slashdot tradition and use it as an excuse to insult you as well

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  133. Re:We all know what happens then... by Ibn+al+Arabi · · Score: 0

    Well said, but perhaps this isn't about making a high quality lock, how would the anti-virus folks make any money if everyone had really good "locks"?
    A massive outbreak of nasty worms and virii every couple months gives them tons of free advertising and must help out sales by a nice amount. Hell, it probably doesn't cost much to have a 'good' virus written, especially if your quarterly reports need a nice boost...

  134. Got you beat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I don't even get any spam.

  135. Re:PUTTING USA TO IT'S KNEES!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radiation isn't a problem with current nukes...

  136. Post-mortem by JohnyDog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the past, there was a spammer which used our domain's name as fake From: header to send some ammounts of spam - he was shutted down, but that fake mailadres remained in thousands computers. Then came the Sobig.F, digged for adresses, and now we're getting about 2000 hits per hour from various MXs trying to deliver Sobig to this adress. Few days ago i thought that spamfilters could be definitive solution to spam. Well, not really.

    --
    People who like this sort of sig will find this the sort of sig they like.
  137. Re:PUTTING USA TO IT'S KNEES!! by JudicatorX · · Score: 1
    It's time to wake up to a reality!!!

    Is this the next "all your base" ?

    --
    "It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
  138. Congradulations SoBig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, I'll say it, I'm proud of Sobig...well not really, really I'm pissed but I am impressed. This is the first one to get to my no spam secret mailbox. I never get email from virus, spammers, etc. because I've been very carefull to to hand out my mail to anyone but friends and to only use it for personal correspondence. I then have a spam trap address that gets everything else. Sobig defiled me though and I now get 100 emails a day. NOt only that but I get bounced from emails of SoBig that neither me nor any of my computers sent (I checked my poor work and games computer (only wintel machines I've got thoroughly after receiving them). So although I hate you whomever you are and think your license to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines ought to be revoked even if you are Canadian, I am impressed by the shere evilness of this bitch.

  139. Does ANYONE think that these worms are TOO good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FLAG THIS as CONSPIRACY THEORY, but these worms are written so well, and do so many behind the scenes things, and the ANTIVIRUS programs stop them SO WELL....

    Has anyone actually stopped and thought that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the antivirus software companies are WRITING, or playing a part in creating (i.e. hiring people willing to write the virus if they release the source code to the ANTIVIRUS sofrware company beforehand) these worms, viruses, etc?

    It occurs to me every time one comes out. Otherwise, what do people get out of this?

    JIM: HAH! I brought the internet to it's knees and caused countless IT people HOURS Of work! THAT will teach my IT GUY to not let me have AIM installed on my WS!

    MIKE: THAT'S NOTHING! I wrote a virus that sends itself to everyone in your address book! It should keep sending itself to infinity! THAT will teach little-girls.net to cancel my account!

    I mean, unless the antivirus software companies are involved, it has to be SOMETHING pathetic like the conversation above....what do you get out of it?

  140. +5, Flamebait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, you just scored +5 Flamebait, forget Darl, you're my new hero!

  141. Late Binding Virus: Instruction Outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why not have the worm/virus read Usenet through Google or other Usenet gateways looking for a specific message. When the message appears it could contain the worm instructions... What you describe here is a lazy virus, a virus that doesn't replicate to do something specific (usually evil), but but rather whose purpose is self-propagation so as to receive instructions what to do from outside. This class of viral code is nasty as no programming is needed to utilize it for evil purposes--you just have to know where it gets the instructions from and in what format. Its "outsourced" action makes it difficult to handle, especially as the agent (legally speaking) who plants the instructions can be different from the agent who developed the self-replication aspects of it.

    It's a bit like this URL, which represents a Google query returning 0 hits today, but after posting this message, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=%2B%22Late+Binding+Virus%22&btnI=I%27m+Feelin g+Lucky">The author of this message can dynamically change the action.

  142. The Author [corrected URL] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  143. improvements in next generation by Zurgutt · · Score: 1

    My thoughts about possible "improvements", from my yesterdays post:

    Too bad for the virus that it depended on this list of servers to update. However, there are reports that it also contains a backdoor enabling updating it. Here is my worst case scenario what could happen further:

    1. The authors of worm quickly release new worm, which uses same methods to propagate and which main purpose would be to scan IP's for already infected computers and update them to new version.

    2. New versions of worm contain a strong encryption key to recognize next updates. They also contain a block of "secret", encrypted payload code, key to which is contained in update. This way this block can be instantly run right after getting key in update, without waiting to download whole update, speeding things up.

    3. New versions do not depend on fixed port numbers for communications, which can be easily blocked in routers. Instead they listen on number of random ports and/or intercept commonly used ports which cannot well be blocked globally.

    4. IP of previous computer in infection chain is kept by infected computer, also it actively scans ports for other infected hosts and keeps a list of found IP's. This list is also encrypted, with key coming in next update. When next update comes, list is decrypted and update quickly forwarder to all computers in it with previous version. This distributed network is similar to current p2p networks and makes global updates very, very fast and impossible to track beforehand.

    5. New versions will continue to use email scams and windows security holes to continue spreading.

    So now we have global network of infected computers that can be quickly updated by its controllers to stay ahead of any countermeasures that security people may think of, all continuing to spread and containing a secret payload which could be triggered even faster than update.

    (cue final scenes from Terminator 3)

    1. Re:improvements in next generation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the update is big enough or you invision somthing like that, use a bittorrent style scheme for downloading the update package to keep the network load down. That is if you want to, if it's critical to the bug spreading. otherwise a bogged network is part of what you want. Just depends if you wanna break the net or just control a large portion of it anonymously.

  144. this is very serious by Zurgutt · · Score: 1

    I dont think even most of the posters really get the GRAVE SERIOUSNESS of the current situation.

    Because of unexistant security in most widespread OS used on computers, general cluelessness of its users and poor design of the Internet protocols themselves, we have a situation where very large percentage of hosts on Internet, essentially THE Internet, could be TOTALLY CONTROLLED by one person, and nothing to be done about it.

    Im saying it again, and Im not a alarmist type of person - but these could be the LAST DAYS OF INTERNET as we know it.

    Most dangerous attitude Ive seen on the forums here is "I run Linux/BSD/Whatever and it does not affect me". Cant you realize, that once this kind of control is gained on the net, IT DOES NOT MATTER which OS you run when the Internet itself will not run anymore?

    This is the time for all of us who understand the problem, to go and explain it to everyone we can, before propaganda from Microsoft inreversible dooms the net, by making automatic updates(read: obligatory security hole) a requirement in its OS.

    Also strong pressure should be put on abandoning current email protocol and converting to some saner, more efficient and more secure system. There are several proposed.

    1. Re:this is very serious by ParamonKreel · · Score: 1

      what part of obligatory automatic updates will doom the net?

    2. Re:this is very serious by ball-lightning · · Score: 1

      This is not true, because most computers on the internet are just clients. If my computer vanished right now, anything I do on the 'net would be gone, but the internet wouldn't be affected at all. Most computers that were infected by the Sobig virus were "last mile" they didn't actually serve any purpose to the internet infrastructure. That being said, you're right, it is a very serious problem. The amount of computers infected by this virus scare me, and it seems to me that most viruses that spread quickly don't do much, (thankfully). As for people thinking that running Linux (etc) makes them safe, I agree that it is a dangerous attidude, although not for the same reason you do (I beleive that viruses for other OSes are just as possible, just hasn't happened yet)

  145. Re:Depressing thoughts by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    That would make the virus writer much easiler to track down, becuase he has to recieve that data somehow. And with the hefty jail sentences being threatened, I think covering your trail is the #1 priority for any virus writer.
    I would say the most damaging thing a virus can do is destroying the user's documents

  146. Don't Hear Much about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the frustration of working for a company whose IS department refuses to do a good job. Once in awhile I send them an e-mail about security concerns and the like...and I'm pretty much ignored... They don't even let us change the date/time on our computers...and they always miss daylight savings...

  147. Just received 3 more (one from CERT!) by herrvinny · · Score: 0

    I just logged on and saw that I received three SOBIG viruses. The funny part was, one email didn't have the .PIF attachment, but was the SOBIG virus in every other way. One email was allegedly from major-domo@cert.org!

  148. Re:MOD DOWN!!!! FLAMEBAIT!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't make grammatical or spelling mistakes on my post-it notes, because I'm not an illiterate fuckwit. I do make typos on keyboards every so often, and so I check for them, because I take pride in what I write. My opinion is worth something, so I make it look like it's worth something.

  149. Fine, treat it as spam if you want to. by Population · · Score: 1

    The problem is that that you'll be running the virus junk through the spam system and polluting your corpus.

    If that's what you want to do, then you'll get what you deserve.

  150. Bought? Stolen more like. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, considering the antitrust trials, backstabbing of partners etc., they have probably stolen most of it, not bought it.

  151. Re: Just try it... by jo42 · · Score: 1


    First geek to start on "Blame Canada" gets bitch slapped with an CAT5 patch cable...

  152. Re:Stupid Canadians you would think they know bett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    im glad im not an American

  153. hollywood moment by mr_urchin · · Score: 1

    i had a hollywood moment the other day.

    at home i run a couple of apple machines, so i normally don't pay much attention when there's another "virus will end the world" news article, but i did read an article about blaster.

    i was on a client site last week, sat with a customer working at her laptop when the "shutting down in 60 seconds" box popped up!

    immediately, i started thinking about the article. "you've got blaster" i said, and tried to remember what the article said about stopping the shutdown. it was like one of those movies where the guy has to cut the right coloured wire against the clock! with about 10 seconds to go, i remembered what to do and popped up the command prompt and entered "shutdown /a" to abort the shutdown. i then googled for more info, found the critter and removed it from her machine.

    of course, their admin guy blamed my (patched) laptop for infecting their network (which was totally beside the point that she'd had 4 viruses in the past 3 months and a guy in the next room had 2 in the week that i was there!)