Slashdot Mirror


"Witty" Worm Wrecks Computers

An anonymous reader writes "A new Internet worm wriggled across the entire Internet in the span of a few hours Saturday morning to all computers running several recent versions of firewall software from Internet Security Systems, including BlackICE and RealSecure, according to this story at Washingtonpost.com. The flaw that Witty exploited was discovered Wednesday by eEye Digital Security. The worm overwrites data on the first few sectors of the victim's hard drive, making the machine virtually ubootable and potentially destroying much - if not all - of the victim's data." Update: 03/21 02:18 GMT by T : Reader Jeff Horning points out that eEye actually disovered the worm on the 8th of March, and came up with a fix the next day.

587 comments

  1. Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by berniecase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although they ain't perfect, at least they're not running on your computer. Yikes.

    1. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by U.I.D+754625 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Windows software firewalls have a shoddy history anyway. I remember BlackICE exploits from years ago. I don't see anything wrong with Linux' Netfilter or Open BSD's packet filter. This is code that the security experts use to secure their own machines, and is probably running on hardware firewalls anyways (like cisco).

      --


      //Blessed are they that run around in circles, for they shall be known as wheels.
    2. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Frambooz · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Although they ain't perfect, at least they're not running on your computer. Yikes."

      People would be much better off with hardware versions of Internet Explorer and Outlook (Express) in that respect. Yikes.

      --
      No encryption can withstand the power of the Lucky Guess.
    3. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by slash-tard · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree, except in some colo/hosted environments its not practical or cost effective to have each customer on its own isolated firewall interface. In this environment a local firewall is better than nothing. Security should be applied in layers.

    4. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by JPriest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They call it security software and have services in listening state? Nobody seems to get it.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    5. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by berniecase · · Score: 1, Funny

      I should get to work on that. Yikes! ;-)

    6. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Etcetera · · Score: 1


      People would be much better off with hardware versions of Internet Explorer and Outlook (Express) in that respect. Yikes.

      Wouldn't that basically be an embedded system, running on non-volatile or read-only memory?

    7. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by hendridm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ehh, customers of BlackICE are probably used to annoying software being installed on their computers anyway. The loss of data is probably on par with the annoyances BlackICE's notifications create for both the user and the poor soul(s) at the call center of his/her choice.

      luser: "It says someone might be trying to break into my computer! How can I stop them?"
      Me: "Um, it's just a port scan. You probably get scanned hundreds of times a day. It's normal."
      luser: "But BlackICE says it might be an attack!"
      Me: "Try clearing your Internet Explorer cache and rebooting. Call back if problems persist."

      For the love of GOD, please don't install BlackICE or similarly annoying firewalls on your parent's or novice friends computers! Spend the $30 and get them a hardware solution, or at least use something that is less of a PITA.

    8. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Stick to hardware routers and firewalls

      And when the hardware box has a 0-day exploit and a worm gets loose before the patch, what then? All of your boxes are potentially vulnerable instead, that's what. Trusting your security to a single product, hardware or software, is a disaster waiting to happen, and for some of ISS's customers its probably happening right now.

      Pretty much all SOHO routers have a firewall capabilty these days, and there are free "personal" firewall systems for all majors OSs. If you are connected to the net and have a clue about security, you'll be using both and monitoring both white and blackhat security sites daily. That all patches are applied as soon as prudent goes without saying of course...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    9. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, blackice should probably default to logging, but not alerting about the most common scans and such, but it's certainly useful for detecting a large number of attacks coming from specific addresses or blocks.

      I think it's a pretty good piece of software myself as far as protection for novices goes, but I don't work in ISP tech support, and have no desire to :)

      I've used it in combination with a hardware firewall for years. The hardware firewall catches 99% of the crap as far as scans and such, and blackice catches server-attacks such as badly formatted HTTP requests, DNS hacks, FTP exploit attempts, and such.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    10. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by berniecase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And when the hardware box has a 0-day exploit and a worm gets loose before the patch, what then?

      I'd rather my hardware firewall be exploited and/or DoS'd because it doesn't have GB upon GB of data on it that could potentitally be lost. And yes, I back up my data. A lot of users don't, though.

    11. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have a clue about security.

      Yet it is still not worth my time to monitor both white and blackhat security sites daily.

    12. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You must have a hell of a lot more time in your day than I do if you are monitoring both black and white security sites on a daily basis. Get real, some of us have work to do and yet still retain "a clue" about security.

      Try relaxing some time, you will get more work done than cruising security sites all day. I used to do security for a living and I managed to ignore them both equaly with great success. If you have to feed your paranoia and or curiosity, check your vendor sites and leave it at that.

    13. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      If your firewall is compromised then it's a sure bet your entire system is.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    14. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by fishbot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "People would be much better off with hardware versions of Internet Explorer and Outlook (Express) in that respect. Yikes."

      Like this?

    15. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Autonomous+Coword · · Score: 1
      Spend the $30 and get them a hardware solution, or at least use something that is less of a PITA

      I'm sure I'm not the only cheapskate here that hates to pay for something when a free (as in beer) solution is available. Obviously plenty out there for (or based on) *nix, but there's also good stuff for Windows (like Kerio for home/personal use).

      As for the PITA factor... like so many things, it's a trade off. More PITA = more flexibility. Less PITA = less flexibility, which your friend may curse at when he can't connect to an online game server that his firewall is silently blocking.

    16. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      not if it's by a worm.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    17. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your "firewall" is a program on your computer, sure.

      If it's an external box, no.

    18. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      What about iptables?

      I haven't heard of any exploits for

      iptables -P FORWARD DROP
      iptables -P INPUT DROP
      iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT

      forever now.... and I spent $0.00

    19. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by peragrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I ran blackice for a while until I bought a hardware firewall. Instead of uninstalling it I just stopped it from loading at boat, but it still works as a fire wall.

      Why do I know this??? because my roommates win XP laptop got infected while he was updating to prevent infections off of my network. we started noticing massive slow downs of the network. When I started blackice back up I notice it had been running the entire time and log every attempt his machine did to try and infect my windows desktop.

      Of course the Linux box never gave a shit, she just kept humming along.(read that any way you want)

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    20. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you have, all of the remote root linux exploits.

      Yes, iptables doesn't run on bare chips, it has to be running on an OS, and that OS counts.

    21. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      And hardware firewalls are SOOO practical when you're on a laptop with dialup.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    22. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ehhhhh?

      Do we still get to actually *use* the damned computers, or do we just have them so we can spend hours each day making sure they are 'safe'?

    23. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by mcocke · · Score: 0

      Especially since the hardware "firewalls" that most consumers purchase are buggy NAT layers, not firewalls at all. What you need to do is get real security configured properly - not trash. As long as people try to do security without a clue or the right equipment, you're going to see this crap.

      Stories about problems in BlackIce have been circulating for months - Another case of the "Microsoft syndrome"... if we ignore it, it will go away. Pay no attention to that bug behind the curtain...

      Yikes!

    24. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How long do you think it takes to click on a bookmark and scan a "Latest updates" section for today's date? I have four sites on my list; one vendor site and three "independents". Click, scan... Click, scan...

      It takes maybe 5 minutes to check all four, in which time I know about all the new exploits, worms and so on discovered since my last check, any updates to security related tools like NMAP, McAfee and so on. Anything of specific interest is opened in a a new browser tab or window for reading while I drink the coffee that was brewing while I did the check.

    25. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I cannot begin to imagine the pleasure and joy of having to program/burn/flash/install the latest versions of the Internet Explorer/Outlook Express BIOS ROMS every time a new security update came out. Having my mortal flesh torn apart by hooks would be less painful. Although, having PC's go back to the days of ROM cartridges wouldn't be too bad. Maybe this could happen when 1 Gigabyte ROM's become commoditized.

    26. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by m3j00 · · Score: 2

      I'd prefer to just sit behind my well-configured NAT firewall and know that I'm 99.9% safe

    27. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give this guy the +5 insightful. Amen, AC. Its sad when someone with a life has to post as an AC to speak for the majority of the 'clued' on the 'net.

    28. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Imperator · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well, blackice should probably default to logging, but not alerting about the most common scans and such

      The problem with someone that claims to protect you from something is that they will make a lot of noise about all the things they're supposedly protecting you from, so that you think they're making you safe. Those crappy Windows firewalls do that, as well as AV software. For a non-software example, look at how US prosecutors love to bring cases for "terrorism" and make lots of noise about it, even if those cases all get thrown out of court.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    29. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >And when the hardware box has a 0-day exploit and a worm gets loose before the patch, what then?

      The real problem here isnt soft vs. hard (although runnig a firewall on different machine is always smarter) its that firewall vendors are suffering from feature-creep and creating more exploitable situations. Man, have you seen a modern win firewall? Its not just port-blocking, its everything they can toss in there - spam blocking, remote admin, ad blocking, 'smart' triggering, report generator, gives your daily horoscope, etc.

      The nice thing about plain-jane hardware firewalls like the commodity stuff you can get at best buy is that they don't really do much other than block and forward ports. Less complexity is better when it comes to security.

    30. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrongo -- The cost of electricity makes the $30 LInksys cheaper than a Linux/BSD firewall running on a desktop computer. Unless you have some special needs, get the little firewall box.

    31. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1
      If you are connected to the net and have a clue about security, you'll be using both and monitoring both white and blackhat security sites daily.

      It was totally awesome when computers were about being able to sit down and get some work done. Sometimes even more efficiently than the old way!

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    32. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Drawkcab · · Score: 1

      If you are connected to the net and have a clue about security, you'll be using both and monitoring both white and blackhat security sites daily.
      If you are a sysadmin or your life otherwise revolves around computer security, sure. But if you are an average user, even one with "a clue about security", this just isn't a reasonable level of precaution. For most people, computers are just appliances to enhance and simplify their lives, not something they want to spend countless hours maintaining just so they can check their email and use ebay. Suppose your TV, furnace, lights, microwave, plumbing, and toaster each required just a few extra minutes of maintenance each day for optimal safety?
      Even if it just takes 5 minutes a day to stay on top of every possible security threat (and on days when there is a threat, it would be more than 5 minutes to deal with it), thats 30 hours of your life per year. While a handful of people might tolerate those 30 hours, for most it would be a tedious chore. Most people would rather take the rather small risk and in the rare, worst case scenario, buying a new computer would cost less than all their wasted time avoiding problems.
      Think of all the things that you could avoid with just a little time each day. You could check the oil, brakes, etc daily on your car in just a few minutes. You could thoroughly brush and floss after any meal or snack and it would only cost an extra 10 minutes or so. You could check the traffic and weather reports and scan police dispatch for possible trouble before going anywhere. You could double check and second guess everything you do. Or you could live your life and accept the usually minor consequences of imperfect precaution. Take precautions that are proportional to the potential risk. For most people the risk of computer troubles simply isn't worth 5 minutes daily.

    33. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Flingles · · Score: 0

      I wonder what the results of a certain study would find, that study being, "Time taken removing a virus vs Time spent monitoring patch sites like crazy"

      Personally, I have a SOHO hardware firewall (+router). My HDD has a 7gb partition especially for the OS and my most used programs and I have a copy of ALL my programs install files + drivers hardware on another HDD partition and CD . I can do a regular format reinstall in an hour. All my files are on the other partition. If anything ultra-bad happens I can always do a full format and my whole computer is exactly the same. Works quite well vs. constant paranoia patching, I think. I don't think this method is destined for use with several computers though.

      --
      Karma: -2^0.5 . Mainly due to the imbibing of dihydrogen monoxide
    34. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont know . it hasn't happened yet to decent cablemodem router/firewalls lik SMC barricades...

      stick to one that doesnt have exploits and make it a pain in the ass to turn on the hack me from outside functions and you are golden.

      I think the devices should use a differnt subnet inside the house based on the mac address of the first machine connected to it for the first time. that way you cant even assume an ip scheme for a worm to try and backdoor the thing.

      sorry but software firewalls have always been a really bad idea. this is why a good linux firewall is CD,floppy or flash based with only a read only filesystem and must be configured from a host machine and then rebooted. no hacker on this planet can hack my firewall.

    35. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Big_Al_B · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yet, you're on /.

    36. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · · Score: 1

      I tried making everyone use a hardware firewall, but my laptop users bitched like crazy. Sometimes you don't get to do what you want, or what is best. Sometimes you have to do what's mostly good enough.

    37. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by kayen_telva · · Score: 1

      bit of a broad stroke there. tinypf, kerio and sygate have good reputations, and have for awhile.

      Kerio4 even added popup blocking and application execution policing (one app spawned by another).

    38. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Googo · · Score: 1

      If it was an hardware implementation, the initial implementation will still have all of the overflow bugs and what not that will still allow the attacker to exploit the system, and you would not be able change the program unless you swapped out the chip, or worse yet, you whole system since it was integrated onto one chip. Hardware has bugs, just less noticable because it usually goes through a more rigorous check than software since they tend to only have one shot at it unlike the constant patching that can go on for software.

    39. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Wrongo -- The cost of electricity makes the $30 LInksys cheaper than a Linux/BSD firewall running on a desktop computer. Unless you have some special needs, get the little firewall box.

      Yes and no.

      Assuming the Linksys uses 1 Amp @ 12 Volts (depends on the model), it uses 12 watts. An old crap computer uses 50 watts in sleep mode (if you have it set up right, the only spinning items will be the fans). At 38 watts, the cost difference per year is:

      Lowest (AFAIK... this is what I paid in Ontario, Canada until the liberals screwed it up):

      4.3 cents per kWh * 38 * 24 * 365 / 100000 = $14.31 yearly ($CDN), or $10.79 ($US)

      If you were to simply turn off the hard drive in the computer (not necessary for a router), you could shave about another 12 watts from that. Underclock it, maybe save another 5 watts.

      Basically, in four years (taxes, remember) you can save enough to buy the linksys. And, if you're unlucky enough to live somewhere with disposal fees for old computers, count on this number hovering around 10 years.

      Insert your own numbers for your local area. I hear if you are unlucky enough to live in California, you could pay over 15 cents per kWh, which would mean the Linksys could pay off in as little as 1 - 2 years.

      --
      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
    40. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? And what if the hardware firewall that is hit by the worm starts re-directing the shit from the outside world to your "firewalled" computers?

      What then, eh smart guy?

      Your boxes will be filled with various multiple worms/viruses, and it'll be used as a zombie for porno spam. That's what.

    41. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I wouldn't touch IE with a 10 foot piece of ethernet cable.

    42. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few pointers:

      1) IE doesn't block popups (without a toolbar like Google Toolbar)

      2) IE doesn't have checkboxes to block malicious javascript (like status bar changes to hide links, or moving/resizing your browser window, etc.)

      3) IE tries to auto-install just about anything you run into. While most of us visiting slashdot go into convulsions when things try to install themselves, most people just click "yes, yes, yes, yes" on web pages. They just want to see the page, and don't understand that the 10-page EULA they click "OK" on is asking to install malicious software. Go to any average computer users house and check out their computer. Unless they've had intervention such as Mozilla or Ad-Aware installed by a friendly geek, you should be able to easily find Comet Cursor, Gator, and many more spyware and adware programs running in the background. Every time I sit down at a computer at a friend or relative's house I end up cleaning all kinds of shit off of it.

      4) Running viruses automatically in Word Documents not good enough? With most people's installations, Word documents open up in IE. So if someone links to a malicious .doc file in IE, bam, auto-loaded virus. So patching your web browser isn't even good enough, because it auto-opens so many other virus-plagued programs.

      And btw, tearing apart IE for being an unusable web browser isn't the same as tearing apart Windows.

    43. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, there's an idea. Built in hardware firewalls on laptops. Start it up from the BIOS, configure it via a browser.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    44. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then run an *bsd/linux firewall in a vmware and use it to dial up :).

      Even if your firewall gets rooted, you can just click "revert" and it'll be back to normal. Or you can pause it and make a copy for forensic analysis, and switch to a different firewall vm.

      Of course you'd need to buy more RAM, and make sure you have enough HDD space. Still a firewall vm doesn't need very much RAM or disk, 32-64MB RAM, 1GB space should be more than enough if you stick to text configs and basic stuff.

      --
    45. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Tiny personal Firewall and have to admit the firewall part is excellent, the IDS is shoddy however and I often get false Shellcode attacks appear when downloading .iso images.

    46. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      But if it was in read-only memory, then at least it couldn't be modified without deliberate manual intervention ..... whether that be setting a jumper to allow writes temporarily, or physically swapping out the chip.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    47. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Instead of uninstalling it I just stopped it from loading at boat, but it still works as a fire wall.

      It's probably loading as a hidden kernel driver. I'm running Norton Personal Firewall, and it loads several kernel drivers. Download sc (Service Controller) from Microsoft to see which services are loading at boot time. Use this command to find BlackIce's:

      sc query type= driver
      Disable any you find with this command:
      sc config service_name start= disabled
      Believe it or not, MS's GUI service tools don't show all of the services. Take a look at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Servic es in Regedit to see the true list.
    48. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've used IE for years and years. I've probably logged around 10 thousand hours browsing the net with IE. (Many hours a day, probably too many hours most days, everyday, for many years.)

      I've run the gammbit too, I'm not just talking about reading slashdot, there's not many corners of the net I haven't explored.

      In all the hours I've spent browsing, all the places I've been, I've never once [NO CARRIER]

    49. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Too true.

      I tried installing Kerio Personal Firewall 4.0 and it crashed repeatedly on Windows 98 (of course, it WAS Windows 98) and was very obtrusive with it's "a program just launched another program - what do I do?" prompts.

      Kerio 2.15 is nice and quiet. Configure your outgoing stuff, and rarely hear from it again.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    50. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      This statement: no hacker on this planet can hack my firewall.

      That's overconfidence. How do you know your firewall doesn't have some exploit buried in it waiting to be discovered? Just because it's not writable doesn't mean it's logic can't be fooled or tricked into doing something bad.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    51. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

      most windows firewall progs just block icmp packets and do trivial crap.

      packet filtering and iptables allows a lot more to be done.. since it's on the kernel level.

      in windows.. even though the firewall blocks ports... the system it's on is still vunerable to crap, and since the windows API is vulnerable to many things.. so is most software for windows.

    52. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only issue with Kerio is that it runs in user space; as such it is started a while after boot, so there's actually a window of time during which the system is vulnerable to anything the 'net throws at the machine. Not a big deal, but in this respect, a hardware or dedicated firewall box running IPtables would probably be a lot nicer. Having said that, I've had great success with Kerio personally, and from an ease-of-use standpoint it's even alot easier to use than IPtables for Joe User. I don't know how the built-in Windows ICF runs, though, and whether that might be a better solution....

    53. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      So how do you mark a service as being hidden from the gui tool ?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    54. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look at how US prosecutors love to bring cases for "terrorism" and make lots of noise about it, even if those cases all get thrown out of court.

      Those of us who oppose things like Guantanamo Bay would say that it's a good thing whenever a US prosecutor brings a terrorism case before a court - it makes a pleasant change from just locking the suspect up without trial, charge, access to lawyers, any guarantee of any rights whatsoever, or any suggestion as to what conditions might need to be fulfilled for them to be released.

      We need more terrorism prosecutions, not fewer. The suspects are going to get screwed either way - it's vastly better that they be screwed by a democratic court than a military tribunal.

    55. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Use device manager to see the hidden services. Here's a list to get there:
      1. Open System Properties

      2. Hardware tab

      3. Device Manager

      4. View menu

      5. Show hidden devices

      6. View menu

      7. Devices by connection
      Then you can click each of the service's/driver's properties. The services you can configure have a Startup section in their "Driver" tab. For example if you wanted to disable the TCP/IP Protocol Driver, open its Properties, go to the Driver tab and click Disabled in the Startup section list box. Be extremely careful what you click, because you can change some core Windows functionality.
    56. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1
      You get what you pay for. Being a security analyst at a rather large global company, I was indirectly involved in a "broadband user" rollout. We use client VPN software to get into our networks, but we mandated that all broadband users have a hardware firewall. I actually tested some of these at home on my own. Nothing but problems. And our end users have had problems as well. In the end, I went back to linux and iptables. I wish it were economical to do the same for all of our users. Then again, I guess we could make the business units pay the cost of a sonicwall at each location...

      The easiest robust solution that I have found that I would recommend building for family and friends (not sure if it is quite easy enough for them to install themselves yet) is an old computer running smoothwall

    57. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Imperator · · Score: 1

      I agree in principle. It's just that there are some prosecutors who bring case after case that gets thrown out, and it just gets old. They obviously don't have real cases; they just want to stay in the papers and they're willing to drag people through the mud to do it.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    58. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      The hardware firewall catches 99% of the crap as far as scans and such, and blackice catches server-attacks such as badly formatted HTTP requests, DNS hacks, FTP exploit attempts, and such.

      I'd like to point out that the HTTP server that you're running is much more likely to be able to effectively and without false positives or negatives shrug off someone poking at it than a flaky general-purpose IDS.

      I've seen studies that claim that IDSes aren't all that great even in corporate settings, where you might have an on-site security team. A home user is unlikely to do much of anything with the software. Plus, personal firewalls slow down their computer, have a tendancy to break other software, get users worked up over nothing to try to justify their existence, and generally make a pain of an ass of themselves.

    59. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      With most people's installations, Word documents open up in IE. So if someone links to a malicious .doc file in IE, bam, auto-loaded virus. So patching your web browser isn't even good enough, because it auto-opens so many other virus-plagued programs.

      Firefox automatically opens Word when it encounters a .doc link. Your point?

    60. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Morrigu · · Score: 1

      Have you ever even *looked* at Cisco PIX firewall rules or ACLs on a Cisco router? They don't use iptables, pf, or ipfilter.

      Some links as examples (took <1 minute on Google):

      ACLs - http://www.pasadena.net/cisco/secure.html

      PIX command reference - http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/ia abu/pix/pix_sw/v_63/cmdref/index.htm

      --
      "We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - Major Mike Shearer, UK
    61. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although, having PC's go back to the days of ROM cartridges wouldn't be too bad. Maybe this could happen when 1 Gigabyte ROM's become commoditized.

      Eh? This would only work if the software on the ROMS was not network enabled or was of near perfect quality.

      Otherwise that huge security hole in Outlook would go unfixed (you know, being in ROM and all) and worms would have a field day. Somewhere you have to keep transient data like the actual e-mails and your important source code so you are still ripe to lose data.

    62. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one has written a mutliplatform worm that will infect both my specific hardware router and then go on to somehow exploit my Linux box running iptables with no ports open. It can be done, but I'm a lot safer than running a Windows box without a hardware router.

    63. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you spell FLASH ROM? I bet you can.
      It's fast and big. Ever see those 512M or 2G flash memory card?

    64. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by U.I.D+754625 · · Score: 1

      I should have said Linksys, which is now owned by Cisco systems. If you remember, a little while back they were found to be violating the GPL.

      Linux-Kernel Archive: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
      Linksys GPL issues raise embedded concerns

      So, some Cisco/Linksys products do use Linux and probably Netfilter. These products are more relevant to the discussion at hand (home, small business users).

      --


      //Blessed are they that run around in circles, for they shall be known as wheels.
    65. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by U.I.D+754625 · · Score: 1

      I would not trust any third party firewall on top of the Windows OS. I wouldn't trust the Windows XP's firewall either (SP2 might be decent though). But why should I bother when there are much more tested and trusted *free* solutions out there?

      --


      //Blessed are they that run around in circles, for they shall be known as wheels.
    66. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      And what good is a hardware firewall if it doesn't work properly? Might as well bend over and spread your LAN like the goatse guy if that's the case.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    67. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Being a soldier means as much about loving war as being a firefighter does about loving fire."

      Indeed. And you'd be frightened to know that there's a significant positive correlation between firefighters and arsonists.

      Without you intending it, I think you made a very good analogy.

    68. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by tengwar · · Score: 1

      Hardware is good, but you also need a sw fw running on your computer unless you can be sure that no other computer behind the hardware fw could possibly have been corrupted. Unless it's your personal LAN, it's pretty unlikely that you can guarantee that. Even then it's useful to look for outbound traffic from unexpected applications (particularly spyware) - a hardware fw will not help with that.

    69. Re:Stick to hardware routers and firewalls... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      Well, I have a couple layers of security on the webserver as well.

      First off, the IDS - which just keeps tabs on what's going on. It'll auto-block requests that it knows are problematic, but let everything else through.

      Secondly, the webserver itself is set to reject all direct IP-connections (ie: http://123.123.123.12). Anyone who tries a direct connect by IP gets an error message, and apache has that configured to have no access to anything - no CGI, no directories, nada. Just a single index.html file.

      This catches almost everything else that gets through - No automated script-kiddy hack attempts use a real domain name when trying to break into a webserver with a regular HTTP request overflow, etc.

      To actually get a webpage, you need to use a browser that supports HTTP/1.1 and includes the HTTP Host header with the request. This isn't really much of a problem these days - all modern browsers support it.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
  2. One question by slash-tard · · Score: 4, Funny

    How can we blame M$ for this?

    1. Re:One question by FireBird615 · · Score: 1

      Don't think we can, since it's only affecting (or appears to be - I'm sure it'll mutate soon) users of certain software - that's not made by M$..

    2. Re:One question by dicepackage · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or better yet blame SCO.

    3. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to blame M$ because they designed the breeding grounds for worms. The worms are merely thriving in their natural habitat: Microsoft Windows.

    4. Re:One question by CodeMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about: by generating the need to create a patchwork of protections on your OS...

      For crying out loud - it's supposed to _protect_ your computer - not be a target for an attack... And an ISS product of all... yikes.

      I think I'm going to stick to my debian / iptables. Never had a problem (3 years same install and still counting), and it does not thrash my HD ;-)

    5. Re:One question by Luigi30 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We can blame SCO for making people afraid to use Linux, causing them to stay on Windows using crappy firewalls.

      --
      503 Sig Unavailable

      The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    6. Re:One question by niittyniemi · · Score: 2, Informative


      Easy :)

      "The Witty worm....only infects Win32 systems."

      To be fair (and it pains me to be so) but it seems to be a problem with the application rather than system softs.

      --
      The Machine stops.
    7. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I per$onaly believe that $CO is behind thi$, and that M$ funded it a$ well. Just trolling, I know, Linux is ready for the desktop, it has not infringe on others' copyright, kernel hackers do not help multi-corps make more and GPL protects your source (they way it did for emacs).

    8. Re:One question by Epistax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They wrote the infectable software... they provide windows as a kill-all solution but don't package a real firewall... How can we not blame them?

    9. Re:One question by neko9 · · Score: 1

      ...me too. to my mandrake / iptables :-)

    10. Re:One question by Epistax · · Score: 1

      Oops my bad. Took "ISS" for something else. Well, reason #2 still applies :) (not that I want them to do it)

    11. Re:One question by Blackbrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be fair if the system softs allow a firewall app to write to the boot block of the disk, I would blame the system softs.

      --
      Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
    12. Re:One question by Fritz_the_Cat · · Score: 1

      What, you mean you didn't read the article?

    13. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet yet, blame Bill Clinton.

    14. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not, not at all. They could have written the application differently, splitting the parts that needed to run as 'system' to get direct access to the network interfaces away from the rest. All the parsing algorithms could quite easily have been running as a separate user, but ISS didn't design their products to run like that.

      Read up a bit about Windows security features, you are obviously lacking in knowledge.

    15. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not going to 'mutate' as it exploited an ISS-specific vulnerability. That is to say, the author of the worm program used flaws in the code of ISS's products to be able to run code of his choice on systems running this software, using data arriving into the system via the network interface.

      PS. Worms and viruses aren't really like their corresponding biological entities, despite the name.

    16. Re:One question by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      Giving any and everyone who wants access to root level things that can hose your box that access.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    17. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can blame M$ because port monitoring software for Windows has to run as Administrator, and their entire handling of port-based services is a deeply woven-into-the-OS-inseparably piece of insecure crap running services that should *NEVER* be exposed to the Internet at large. And controlling the privileges of a program in order to do something that requires serious privileges, like monitoring portscans, cannot be gracefully separated from other operations, like writing logfiles, due to the extremely poor security models.

      BlackIce is just a particularly embarassing victim of working in this environment.

    18. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're actually trying to blame that on microsoft? God moderators are on crack tonight.

    19. Re:One question by mlyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Such would be true of most firewall software, because it likely runs with privilege (oftimes in kernel, yeek!).

      Nearly any vulnerability in ipfw or the Linux ipchains implementation that resulted in execution of arbitrary code would allow the attacker to write to the boot block of the disk, among other nasty things.

    20. Re:One question by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      Well, according to Microsoft.. software isn't exploited until a security advisory is released.

      I'm glad the people making the OS for the US military understands causality.

    21. Re:One question by FireBird615 · · Score: 1
      PS. Worms and viruses aren't really like their corresponding biological entities, despite the name.

      They can be, if someone happens to reverse-engineer the worm, decipher the code, rewrite it, and then re-release it into the world. Bam - mutation has occured.
  3. fp by itallushrt · · Score: 2, Funny

    Insert "witty" first post comment

    1. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Worms? *rubs ass on carpet*

      Ahhhh~

  4. Patch by xijix · · Score: 0

    At least a patch was available before the worm hit.

  5. Liability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ouch. Is the company liable for the backdoor used?

    1. Re:Liability? by wo1verin3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was just thinking about this, can the company be held liable for their software allowing others to basically destroy all data on the computer?

      Then I got to thinking, what about Microsoft whose os's and products who have cost millions and millions of dollars.... while some of them require user interaction, others have effectively shutdown the internet for wide areas for short periods of the time.. remember the sql one? :)

    2. Re:Liability? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      I would say not, especially in this case. According to Internet Security Software:

      certain ISS products were targeted with a malicious worm based on a known vulnerability. All ISS products have had protection in place prior to the vulnerability being publicly disclosed and prior to a worm being developed in the wild.

      So in other words, the ones that are being hit by this worm didn't patch their software. Of course this still reflects very poorly on ISS for a number of reasons, which would almost certainly hurt their sales.

      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    3. Re:Liability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They still wrote and subsequently sold the flawed code to tens of thousands of users. I don't see how you can blame the users for ISS's inadequacies at programming.

    4. Re:Liability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The software was flawed in the first place. If consumers bought CD's from vendors, then vendors should have to provide CD of patches pronto. So the patch has been out a month. Do the consumers know about the patch? What if the consumer was away from the pc for a month, goes back online and bam!

      The product is designed to protect from such attacks. It has clearly failed its job. Time to invoke consumer law in your country.

  6. where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    glad to see virus's doing some real damage now, im tired of these stupid virus that just send out emails.. how weak, if we had more virus's that would wipe out entire systems then there would be some more pressure on software companys to fix things

    1. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by aenea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And more pressure on users to keep their systems patched up. It's a rare virus/worm that comes in through an unknown exploit.

      If someone wrote a destructive netsky/bagle variant the email traffic on the Internet would probalby drop in half overnight as infected machines got taken out.

    2. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by JPriest · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Why is this modded troll, it is a good point. If they wipe the disk clean they force the USER to police their own system, rather than forcing admins to try an police the mess of traffic caused by users that don't give a shit.

      Users are not going to remove all the worms from their PCs, maybe it is a good thing to have a worm that cleans the PC for them every 6 months or so.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    3. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by draziw · · Score: 1

      Yup - and if that happened people would have no choice but to patch. Now a bunch of non computer people with computers have no idea they are screwing everyone else..

      --
      +1 for low user ID and love for SCO

    4. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people have been on the same windows install of windows for 3 or 4 years and the machines are infested with virii, worms, and spyware. Starting from scratch might be good for them and the people they share the internet with.

    5. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      theres tons of people out there who dont know theyre infected, if there computers would just not boot maybe they would figure out that theres a problem, or how about a virus that tells people "look, i just infected your computer, please get an antivirus from www.symantec.com, you should be happy im a friendly virus wirrten by symantec"

    6. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded troll, it is a good point.

      I concur it's a good point, however... do you honestly believe that joe user who gets all their data wiped by a virus/worm is actually going to know it was a virus / worm that did it? It's my belief that your typical user, no offence intended, will just think that it is broken. Why should they think otherwise if it just doesn't work anymore.

      Heck, I have a family member's 486 here that was taken out of service circa 1999 because it would stall at the config.sys level, at by that point you could get an e-machine in exchange for a contract with compu$erve.

      While I don't disagree with their action, this illistrates the mentality of the typical home user, they'll just by a new PC, these days, with winxp unpached unfirewalled and end up getting blaster.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    7. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1, Informative

      It might be "real damage" in some cases, but it seems to be quite stupid. According to Symantec's bulliten -

      "Attempts to overwrite 128 sectors in a random location of one of the first eight physical hard drives with data from memory. If the randomly picked physical hard disk does not exist, the worm simply continues."

      Given the amount of sectors on a hard-drive, how long will it take for the worm to randomly choose the boot sectors on the boot disk?

    8. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Mesaeus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't forget there are actually lusers out there who know their windows box is infected but refuse to do something about it because they aren't hindered by the virusses and doing something would cost money/time/energy (take your pick). I've encountered some of these and I wish their computer a slow, painful death.

    9. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by GutBomb · · Score: 1

      it would make the regular 10 o'clock news that there is a virus going around that actually destroys everything. Their computer may get screwed up before the news comes on so they will think it's broken, UNTIL they see it on the news, hear someone talking about it at work, etc... When the mydoom virus hit even the most computer illiterate people i know were taking their computers offline (albeit only until it became overly inconvenient). What I am saying is, a few MAJOR viruses that wipe out people's hard drives will make the news and maybe JUST maybe wake people up enough to get their geek friends and family to install norton antivirus for them and set up automatic updates and scans.

    10. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by XO · · Score: 1

      I have to admit, I'm kind of glad too. So far, all these huge virus outbreaks have been to apparently test how fast one can infect a million machines, or what not.. or as spam gateways.

      If people's machines start dying, hell, there goes some serious IT expenditures.. that means I have the opportunity to start making serious cash again.. :D

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    11. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by zakezuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      JUST maybe wake people up enough to get their geek friends and family to install norton antivirus for them and set up automatic updates and scans.

      Doesn't seem to help. In theory you are correct, a person who runs a virus scanner with an automatic update autoscan should be pretty damn secure. This only works in enviroments where the end user either keeps their PC on 24/7, or doesn't shut off the damn scanner evertime they turn on their PC to use it.

      From what I've observed, the people who are not familar with PCs who own them see a scanner popup just close it down as it slowes down their computer when they want to use it... and never take the time to reschedual the scan. Worse they yell at you if they catch a virus / worm / spy ware without taking into account that they are the ones who told their computer to stop scanning for viruses.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    12. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Talez · · Score: 1

      About as long as it takes me to load the recovery console from my Windows 2K/XP CDs and type "FIXMBR" "FIXBOOT" and "COPY D:\I386\NTLDR"?

    13. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Fritz_the_Cat · · Score: 2, Funny


      Obviously you didn't read the article very well.
      It says that you need to rebuild your machine from scratch or buy a whole new computer.

    14. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What the article says and what is in reality, posible can easily be 2 different things.

      Windows keeps a second copy of the boot sector and or partition/fat tables when it creates a drive. This is with fat32 or ntfs even when doing it from dos (ntsf is more or less stored in a file that can be recovered and aplied).

      Most often even when the boot sector has been wiped (repartitioned/formated/destroyed by another program like a boot loader) this copy can be used to recreate it. The cherynoble virus varients proved this. Even if you cannot find the backup there are several free/comercial utilities that scan the format and can rebuild the drive savign most if not all the data on it. I'm not sure how well this works with ntfs drives because i have been successfull most of the time by using proceedure described previously. (fixboot and fixmbr from recovery console)

      Any ways, just don't give up hope because one set of people are short sighted enough to say it can't be done. The average user won't be able to fix this, as might be the same with some MCSEs or the whatever makes you a windows expert nowadays but there are remedies availible. I'm temped to try to get infected with it just to play around with it.

      good luck

    15. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no way I'd install that Norton piece of shit. Trend Micro, yes. Grisoft, yes. Kapersky, yes. Norton -- no fucking way.

    16. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Pfhor · · Score: 1

      Why would I have to buy a whole new computer if the HD just got borked? I think its the reporter generalizing the article. If its bad data on the drive, you can just scan disk and fix it. If it eats your MBR, your machine won't boot until you fix the MBR it. I doubt it physically destroys the drive.

    17. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by ameoba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it directly hosed the boot sectors, that'd be an easy fix. The real damage comes from the gradual corruption of all the data on the drive.

      With that said, there are -plenty- of places on a windows machine where randomly writing 64KB of data would 'destroy the machine', but even that it recoverable. Data is harder to bring back, especially if you've made backups between getting infected and noticing the infection.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    18. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      about an hour and a half ;-)

      Mostly with the loading of the recovery console. Fuck is that thing slow or what?

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    19. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aye tis a manly virus but your girlfriends infected too.

    20. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I feel dirty for agreeing, but I do hope that t he next one that spreads like fricking wildfire delete's the hell out of xls,ppt and doc files as well as send flaming profanity to every email in the outlook global addressbook.

      CTO's CIO's and IT management need to have their asses bitten really fricking hard so they will tell accounting to screw themselves and actually start running corperate IT like it is supposed to be. the last 2 that ran rampant in the company were because of the morons have everyone set as administrator in the domain security policies, they also refuse to block yahoo.com hotmail.com and other we email sites at the proxy or use any common sense or other real solutions to keep us running secure and smoothly.

      on the other hand, it will take only one guy who just finished the Cure For MS or Cancer to lose all his reasearch because of it for me to feel really sick for even thinking or suggesting it.

      Damned two edged swords... cant we just get a good mace and start smashing?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    21. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Fritz_the_Cat · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was trying to be funny and point out how ridiculous certain elements of that article were.
      I promise not do it again :)

    22. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Talez · · Score: 1

      Yeah its quite slow booting it off the CD. You can install it to the hard drive and put it on the boot screen but thats kinda useless if your boot sector is borked :D

    23. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Talez · · Score: 1

      An MCSE doesn't know how to fix a Windows NT install that won't boot?

      Shit. The standard must be dropping. I'm haven't touched any sort of official MS training but I still know how the recovery console is and how to fix blue screen STOP errors.

    24. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by steveargonman · · Score: 1

      ... or pressure on the customer to get a fucking clue and quit opening stupid shit and/or maybe investing some money in a hardware solution!

    25. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      ahh.. I see.

      Sorry for my dry sence of humor. I guess after re-reading it I should have seen it.

    26. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, you would be surprised at what they do and don't know.

      Usually the most common action i have seen is were they just reload everything. if you don't have a backup, it your fault.

      but please remeber i said some.. there might be plenty of them that know how. i just havn't met them yet.. and yes i do see alot of MS certified techs.

    27. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      If they wipe the disk clean they force the USER to police their own system

      And with all those hospital records wiped it might clean the slate for a new master race??? Sheesh. scary attitude dude.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    28. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by jfmiller · · Score: 1

      And just how many users will reinstall from the 2 year old recovery CD, reintroduction all of the known vulnerabilities that it took so much effort to get them to patch?

      --
      Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
    29. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Bob+Davis,+Retired · · Score: 1

      I think that AV software is a weak crutch that people lean upon in place of real security. Think about it - with many worms and viruses these days, the rate of infection is so fast that AV companies simply can't get a definition out before the worst damage is done. Nimda scanned the whole net in approximately 15 minutes (infecting tens of thousands of machines in that time and perhaps millions overall). With a strong security policy there is really no need to even have AV software.

    30. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by RogueProtoKol · · Score: 1

      Any why do we have hospital records on computers attached to the internet? I bet you're the kind of guy who believes that you can ssh into nuke1.usaf.gov, login as root:h4xx0r and ./nuke pakistan right?

    31. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      You know what's the problem with all that "pressure"?

      Some bright spark is going to say "hey we can't do anything about virus writers in Philippines, Uzbekistan - we need a world gov so that we can bring these perps to justice".

      Next thing you know, you have a bunch of unelected people controlling your country, people not democratically elected by anyone in your country.

      Then again, US citizens should be used to that already, judging from the various voting fiascos in the US. They've also got Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, MPAA, RIAA doing the real running of their country...

      --
    32. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that

    33. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Nimda scanned the whole net in approximately 15 minutes (infecting tens of thousands of machines in that time and perhaps millions overall). With a strong security policy there is really no need to even have AV software.

      Yes, but who's going to actually incorperate this strong secuirty policy? Your ISP, your software vender, your PC vender, your support staff / your end user?

      Win2k / XP out of the box is exploitable unless you pop up a firewall and run patches. It's really a double edged sword, you have to hit the net in order to get the stuff you need to protect your self, but at the same time putting your self on the net to get the stuff to prevent your machine from being expoilted puts you in a position to be exploited.

      In the case of win2k, I managed to get blaster for example... new machine, fresh install, hitting the net to download firewall / service packs. The only way to do this safely is to have a 2nd machine with a CD burner and have these ready to go before you hit the net.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    34. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by maximilln · · Score: 1

      One of the largest problems in American society today is that people accumulate too much clutter. Americans have been taught to become pack rats by their government. Homework papers, tests, report cards, gradebooks, all useless stuff that gets handed back in gradeschools. Some students learn how to create a proper and effective filing system. As they grow older they should learn that the most important part of the filing system is the vertical file (/dev/null).

      Most people never make it to the vertical file stage, though, because the leaders of American society are obsessed with excuses on why they get to keep the majority of the benefits and why we, the common citizen, have to deal with the shizzat. The easiest way to say,"Oh, we're sorry, you don't qualify for that rebate/credit/refund/etc. because you didn't save that stub/number/receipt/whatever/etc." It's a perfect pyramid scheme.

      This mentality gets transferred over to people's computers. They live in a world where they're frantically saving nearly everything they can. As such, Americans just plain flat out accumulate way too much *CRAP* that they just can't let go of.

      So... yes... it's a good thing that a virus comes along and wipes their boot sectors every once in a while. Perhaps it will begin to teach them to effectively prioritize what's _really_ important. And it's _NOT_ the junk they store on their computer.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    35. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by o0zi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As biologists know, a worm or virus can't spread to nearly as many machines if it destroys its host. Take the common cold virus for instance - look at its prevalence, and it kills very few of the hosts it infects. However, a truly effective yet destructive virus would spread as much as possible, and then destroy all its hosts.

    36. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Well, my experience with virus checkers is that they are horribly annoying and slow. The one they make me run at work gets hung in one of the windows directories and never finishes. It's pathetic.

      Fortunately I receive all of my e-mail on UNIX machines (and have so for some years =), so I'm way past the 'clicking on attachments' phase of acquiring viruses.

      I would definitely suggest a hardware firewall. For the geeks, fine, roll your own. But if you have friends on broadband, recomend one. I bought one with Canuck money for under $100, so I bet in US dollars they're cheap. Think of it as a condom for your network adapter. =)

      Hell, I didn't even *buy* a windows box until I had a dedicated firewall in front of it. Once I bought the firewall I felt comfortable having one in the house. (OK, I had one back in my dialup days too, but exposed onto broadband, no bloody way.)

      From what I read lately, some of these viruses don't even need e-mail as an entry mechanism or rely on open sockets created by other viruses.

      Of course, if you get a virus in e-mail that makes outbound connections not even a firewall will stop that.

      Don't expect a point, I just realized one wasn't forthcoming. Just some crap I was thinkin' of. =)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    37. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Any why do we have hospital records on computers attached to the internet? I bet you're the kind of guy who believes that you can ssh into nuke1.usaf.gov, login as root:h4xx0r and ./nuke pakistan right?

      I gather you havent worked in government.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    38. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by gwait · · Score: 0

      Doesn't help. Spent a day last week reinstalling windoze on my Wife's laptop after a virus got it. The very first thing the virus did was disable the up-to-date Norton antivirus while Norton was running.
      Then it disabled IE6 etc etc.
      So much for that defence.

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
    39. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind there are generally two solutions to a botched up windows system:

      1. Sit down, analyze the PC, do some filesystem checks, check the registry to see if some virus is set to run on boot, do a scan for viruses, etc.

      2. Put a CD in the drive and hook it up to the corporate network and come back in 45 minutes, read off the randomly-generate machine ID to the domain controllers, and tick off the user's name on the to-do list.

      Sure, #1 is the more elegant solution and might yield a fully working computer with all data intact with generally only an hour or two of time investment, or it might lead nowhere and cause you to do #2 anyway. On the other hand, the tech support guy gets paid to make computers work, not to get data off a drive when the employee should have saved their docs to the network share...

      In any large company the entire OS install and configuration process is completely automated. It takes less hands-on time to completely redo the entire machine than it takes to just do a virus scan. And once the machine is cookie-cutter identical to the rest of the network it should behave just like everybody else's.

      Oh yeah, and the huge inconvenience to the user having to re-tweak their preferences teaches them not to do whatever it was that caused the problem in the first place.

      I'm not saying it is the prettiest solution, but it is the one with the most bang for the buck...

    40. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I guess I can agree with that to a degree. The exception being were it is a hardware failure or some simple service that shouldn't be running. We happen to be talking about a virus that destroys boot code and loose the format/partition info so I guess they would think the drive was bad?

      To me fixing a computer is fixing it. Trying to see what went wrong then corecting it is a fundemental tool for not having repeate situations. This maybe something big corperations want or not, I never worked for a large corperation. I have however seen several people that don't have backups and want thier information back. I would say that at least once a month i have to find pictures of someones dead grandma (or somethign simular)

      I do have remote restore and backup solution that i offer to my local clients. they entailt doing a complete image of the drive and then a series of backups. When somethign goes wrong they can boot the machine to a floppy that logs in onto my server across town and then rewrites the hardrive with a known good copy of the operating system then it restores the backups. This process takes about 2 hours because of being over the internet. it is verryn frustrating when after this is done I still have to make a trip over and replace a drive or sound card or video card that went haywire causing the problem in the firstplace. Sometimes it would take a couple of hours before it remanifests itself too.

    41. Re:where are all the virus's that do real damage? by Bob+Davis,+Retired · · Score: 1

      Actually, after I wiped my system to reinstall after I got Blaster, BEFORE I plugged the ethernet cable in, I turned on XP's built-in firewall. I would recommend getting some FW software off the net with a different machine and installing it on the PC that needs upgrading BEFORE you let it touch the Internet.

  7. Nasty flaw by BlueLightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a shame when the very piece of software you set up to protect your system turns out to be your system's destruction :(

    1. Re:Nasty flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like stupid admins who set up ISA firewalls but poke holes through it to let lots of ports through. Oh, and then having the false sense of security that because there's a firewall, an insecure install of IIS magically becomes perfectly safe.

      I'd take the vigilance associated with known danger over the false sense of security given by a faulty defense system. Of course the best option would've been a functional defense system. :)

    2. Re:Nasty flaw by tswann01 · · Score: 1

      Am I to understand that only computers with a particular firewall installed are vulnerable? Is the virus written to ignore boxes without BlackICE? That sounds mighty vindictive, and makes me think they probably have a [bad] relationship with the person responsible, even if they don't know who [yet]. How am I to reconcile this with advice seen here that all Windows users should have a firewall installed (ICF, ZoneAlarm, or what have you)? If my firewall makes me *more* vulnerable than some shmo without a firewall, that is a HUGE problem for the firewall industry.

  8. Wow, a new worm by Trigun · · Score: 1

    That's not bill gates fault.

    I'm waiting for the plague of locusts...

    1. Re:Wow, a new worm by iansmith · · Score: 1
      Not his fault, eh?

      Read my earlier post on the subject.

    2. Re:Wow, a new worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm.. look at austrailia. there is a plague of locust there somwere down there.

      life is too real untill you realize it is just a dream

  9. Back in my day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Worms and Viruses caused DATA LOSS!

    It's nice to see a worm that actually damages your disk once again. Perhaps people will begin to see them as more than a nuiscance.

    1. Re:Back in my day... by VAXGeek · · Score: 1

      boooooring. then you don't have an open SMTP/HTTP/TCP proxy open for the taking, or a 1,000 user botnet on IRC. if you destroy the computer, then the owner immediately notices and your program will not spread as far. most worms are non-obvious so they go undetected for longer.

      --
      this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
    2. Re:Back in my day... by THE+ROCK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      boooooring. then you don't have an open SMTP/HTTP/TCP proxy open for the taking, or a 1,000 user botnet on IRC. if you destroy the computer, then the owner immediately notices and your program will not spread as far. most worms are non-obvious so they go undetected for longer.

      When (not if) somebody REALLY wants to destabilize things in the United States, or anywhere in the world for that matter, they will unleash one or several worms that affect systems similarly to this one. I have heard theories from a few people that the root cause of last summer's blackout was the result of something like this. It is easy to dismiss these claims as the wack job rants of conspiracy theorists, but it certainly IS possible, and if this was the real cause there were a lot of people who had a vested interest in keeping it quiet. Remember there is usually some element of truth in what the "nuts" have to say.

      A group with enough talent and financial support (even small-to-mid level drug dealer types can generate millions of dollars every month) would have no trouble performing audits on and locating holes in all kinds of systems, and could write worms that could shut down a very large portion of the computers on the internet, including many military and governmnent installations. Google for "warhol worm" too get an idea of how quickly this could be done.

      Our main concern shouldn't be the spammers who write viruses, it should be the first REAL cyberterrorist out there that decides to actually do something.

      For the record, I know I am not any safer (well, not much safer anyway) because I run ipfilter for my firewall and apache for my web server, and update my virus patterns every day. IPV6 might help a little, at least in a 128 bit address space, my system won't be found by anybody's random scans.

    3. Re:Back in my day... by scruffyMark · · Score: 1
      in a 128 bit address space, my system won't be found by anybody's random scans.

      Only if the addresses are distributed at random, and the scans are really simple-minded.

      Consider a scanner that would go through a dozen or so consecutive addresses; if it doesn't manage to infect anyone, check only every second address, then every fourth, eighth, and so on. As soon as it finds a vulnerable system, it drops back to trying every address.

      This way, it could rapidly traverse large blocks of address space that contain no vulnerable systems, but still have a pretty good chance of finding many of the vulnerable ones. Of course, you would have a slight amount of protection if your computer was vulnerable to a different set of exploits than all its "neighbours" in the address space...

      --

      What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht

    4. Re:Back in my day... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "IPV6 might help a little, at least in a 128 bit address space, my system won't be found by anybody's random scans."

      True, but then scanners will just sniff for traffic on infected machines and scan related network ranges. So if someone in your ISP just talks to an infected machine, your IP range gets scanned.

      There will be contiguous ranges of addresses in the forseeable future because that keeps the routing tables at a manageable size, and I doubt the ISP admins are going to scatter their used IPs randomly either.

      --
    5. Re:Back in my day... by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

      Heh. I can't wait until spam causes data loss instead of being a mere nuisance. *That* problem is 10 times worse.

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  10. Thats what you get by MajorDick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean seriously who ever thought it was a good idea to run a firewall on the actual computer connected to the net ? I mean you can buy an applicance router/firewall that is GOOD for what 29 Bucks , thats what I just paid for my netgear wireless router. I have never understood why you would want to run the firewall on the actual connected system. Guess they cant say its better than running nothing anymore.

    1. Re:Thats what you get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I mean seriously who ever thought it was a good idea to run a firewall on the actual computer connected to the net ? I mean you can buy an applicance router/firewall that is GOOD for what 29 Bucks , thats what I just paid for my netgear wireless router.

      Three words: application access privileges.
    2. Re:Thats what you get by jhoger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well the disconnect is that most people think of firewalls as what protects them from the Internet. You are more interested in protecting your network from your users. That is a worthy goal.

      You should still have a separate box to run the firewall on the edge of the network. But if you have stupid users or strict policies for use, you could run local software firewalls.

      They are independent issues...

    3. Re:Thats what you get by Stinking+Pig · · Score: 1

      Reasons:

      a) you know what you're doing and want a lot of control. Of course, since you're running *nix of some sort, it's fairly safe.

      b) You don't want a lot of boxes on your desktop.

      c) It's just another thing to buy, and my nephew got me this software thing for free.

      --
      "Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
    4. Re:Thats what you get by tuckericj · · Score: 1

      Most studies show that a pretty good percent of 'systems intrusion' happens from within a network. The firewall between the intranet and internet is not enough. Personal or server-level firewalls can be considered a supplement to hardening and patch management as ways to keep them secure. Unfortunately this does introduce yet another service running on a box, and the security of a system is a function relative to the number if distinct and unique processes running on it.

    5. Re:Thats what you get by AVryhof · · Score: 1

      Go to Computer Surplus Outlet Buy one of the cheap Pentium II systems they are offering. Get Smoothwall, and install it on the cheap P-II (be sure to read the User's Manual included on the CD) you just bought. Sit it between your PC and cable modem. Got ghetto Broadband? Run Squid on it. You will have all the security of a Linux based Router/Firewall, and the speed advantage of a Squid Caching Proxy Server.

    6. Re:Thats what you get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean seriously who ever thought it was a good idea to run a firewall on the actual computer connected to the net ?

      Yep, run it on a commputer not connected to the net. Much safer.

    7. Re:Thats what you get by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Of course, a resident or external firewall program won't do much if sendmail (or any other app that listens at ports) has an exploitable flaw. After all, it's supposed to be running, and the firewall is supposed to let packets through on that port.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    8. Re:Thats what you get by neoThoth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well to be honest I run blackice on some of my windows laptops *plus* the hw firewall at my perimeter. One can never be too careful. For laptops that travel and connect to random networks (borders wifi, client networks, etc) I like having the extra layer of protection. Plus if someone finds a 0day on my hw firewall I'd rather have at least some form of protection on each of the machines. Granted I'm thinking about finding some other sw fw to run on those machines now.

    9. Re:Thats what you get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why you have a DMZ off your firewall and keep internet-facing devices in here, along with an IDS sensor (such as Snort) in-line to monitor the traffic to and from this zone. This keeps your internal network isolated from the DMZ servers should they be compromised, while the IDS allows you to detect any compromises (hopefully - keep your Snort rules updated!).

      Overkill for a home network perhaps, but vital for small businesses and upwards.

    10. Re:Thats what you get by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yea but, isn't a DMZ running from the same firewall apliance just as bad as a software firewall? I mean once I can control the computers in the DMZ, I can use them to enter the router an open access.

      Most if not all router/firwalls allow the computers in the DMZ or even one that has been port forwarded to enter the router/firewalls setup and control utility. chances are that the username/password is stored on the DMZ machine somewere from the user setting it up. Now I have access to everythign on the network and with luck i'm the only one that knows about it.

      of course this all assumes your using an over the counter firewall/router and not some iptables *nix flavor router or even a cisco or somethign comperable. but then again most consumers that would use a software firewall would use the router/firewall option inplace of it. the better firewalls (*nix or cisco nd the like) probally wouldn't be considered by most users.

    11. Re:Thats what you get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Three words: application access privileges.

      Two words: Port Forwarding

      Also, if port forwarding isn't enough for you, my Dlink router has a section that allows you to specify certain trigger ports for applications, which open up a range of ports for that app. I have never even needed to use it, but it's available (i.e. battle.net connections, etc.).

      Most routers have something similar. Do you really need a software firewall?

    12. Re:Thats what you get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "charon" is an OpenBSD box running nothing but packet filter and DHCP (with rules in place, DHCP does not EVER see the outside interface).

      "charon" is a Pentium 120mhz with 32mb RAM and serves 'net 10% faster than a Win* box directly connected (and that was even with the Win box still running ZoneAlarm behind the real firewall).

      My ISP suggests a minimum 300mhz PC, but
      I have no problem drawing full speed through the firewall.

      Whether it is an appliance (router) or dedicated machine, a stand-alone firewall is the best way to go.

      BTW, for my next trick... I am working on one box to provide 2 'net connections (DSL and Cable) to the LAN. Currently one box shares Cable to the LAN while another has the DSL all to itself (and damn, I can push a whole lotta bittorent that way).

    13. Re:Thats what you get by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      the better firewalls (*nix or cisco nd the like) probally wouldn't be considered by most users.

      most users also won't be playing with DMZs or port forwarding either.

      i'd imagine that most who use these features have a remote grasp of computer security.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    14. Re:Thats what you get by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      most users also won't be playing with DMZs or port forwarding either.

      i'd imagine that most who use these features have a remote grasp of computer security.


      i'm not so sure about that. i have seen on several ocasions were users (usually on irc) try to set up a server or file sharing of some sort and have no clue. they end up in a DMZ with thier firwall turned off. also i have seen it mentioned on some gaming sites that to "host games on the internet" you need to be in the DMZ or turen the firewall off. this is usually in the forums were peerrs give the support and not neccesarily the game manufacturers.

      what happens is they read the routers manual enough to do it and thats the end. anyways to the parent post, it is still basically the same as running a software firewall. i guess idealy you would want to run a software firewall in conjunction with the router/firewall.

      one more step in the process is always better when you trying to make it hard for someone to do something. but without both then itis basically the same for the most part.
    15. Re:Thats what you get by jhoger · · Score: 1

      Most low end hardware firewalls are actually just NAT boxes that give a firewall "effect." Basically the firewall doesn't know how to route a packet to a machine inside the network unless some routing context has already been created by an outbound connection.

      The "DMZ" (it ain't really a DMZ because there is no additional port/interface with its own firewall rules) feature typically in these firewalls is actually just a forward-all inbound to a given machine. So any inbound connection that doesn't have any specific port forward associated with it now has a place to go. This makes many NAT unfriendly applications work, so it is often turned on for gaming, the badly designed ICQ protocol and other purposes.

      Just mentioning that to avoid confusion. I happen to have come up with concept for one of the first of these low end consumer firewalls (though I obviously didn't invent NAT... just the idea of a low-end consumer firewall appliance) and it was our marketing at Beadlenet that muddied the waters by calling the feature "DMZ."

  11. Come on.... by karlm · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do you really expect us to believe more than ten people worldwide run Windows on their firewalls? ;-)

    --
    Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    1. Re:Come on.... by dbirchall · · Score: 1
      Le sigh!

      I am reminded of a particularly accursed box... a 266MHz Dell (which was right around the time that Dells started to not suck completely) running Windows 9x (which seems to have been one of those nice OSes that thought Intel's "idle cycle" processor cooling idea was silly) and WinProxy. It worked well, for a little while at a time. The box frequently overheated and crashed. Once Linux and ipchains were installed, it just sat there and worked.

    2. Re:Come on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid they do. For many home users, they at best run a firewall on their laptop because they don't know where they're plugging into next and can't guess about the firewall there. In other locations, they're lucky if they can dedicate a single machine to firewall/website/FTP site/mail server support, because that's the one machine not on someone's desktip that is on 24x7.

      Of course, they should be running a much muore secure OS for that, but many small sites don't have a local competent person to convince them of that in the first place. They *tell* the visiting support staff or consultant to do, and that person does what they are paid to do, so they wind up with Windows and an inferior, random alert spewing software package like BlackIce.

    3. Re:Come on.... by karlm · · Score: 1
      Heh... I still use my Dell Dimension XPS D266 that I purchased in 1997. Of course, it helps that I started bual booting in early 1998 (Linux 2.0.35 !) and got rid of MS Windows all together in the Summer of 2000. How easy is it to prune down MS Windows to run on old hardware?

      Would XP even install on such a machine? With 288 MB (256 + 32) of RAM and a 7,200 RPM HD, Linux runs great as long as I don't use a heavyweight window manager.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    4. Re:Come on.... by dbirchall · · Score: 1

      I run Windows XP Pro on an *emulated* 266MHz PC, 384MB of RAM. (That's in Virtual PC on an iBook G3-500). It... works.

    5. Re:Come on.... by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      Pfft. Slashdot weenies! I just got done installing my main network firewall ON a Window's platform.

      I for one find it easy to use and i@#$## Carrier LOST

      --
      Sig it.
    6. Re:Come on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've done this twice actually, the first time was years ago when the gateway was running a satellite connection and drivers were only available for windows (when linux drivers were available I moved it to redhat).

      The second time was when I first got broadband and wanted to run emule and I couldn't find a linux (command line) equivalent. If anyones interested mldonkey is a great emule replacement which works on the commandline and has a web interface. I used to re-image the machine weekly and ran Zone-Alarm on it. Now I use debian and don't fileshare anymore, it works better, although I still periodically re-image my laptop.

  12. Say it With Me Now, Folks... by shadowcabbit · · Score: 0, Funny

    FUCK!

    I just now (10 min ago) plugged my laptop into my brand new DSL modem... Now I have to install the antivirus program before rebooting... Shit shit shit...

    I propose we introduce the death penalty on the sick motherfucker who wrote this fucking piece of shit virus. FUCK!

    (And no, I haven't watched any Tarantino films lately)

    --
    "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
    1. Re:Say it With Me Now, Folks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Homer: Kids, would you step outside for a second?
      [the kids run out]
      [standing up] F --
      [a church organ plays a chord; birds fly away; everything stops]
      Ned: Dear Lord! That's the loudest profanity I've ever heard.

    2. Re:Say it With Me Now, Folks... by JPriest · · Score: 1

      Actually the answer here would be to REMOVE norton before rebooting.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    3. Re:Say it With Me Now, Folks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Stay right where you are.

      You have committed multiple violations of the FCC perversion code.

      A white van with antenna will be along shortly to re-program your speach patterns

    4. Re:Say it With Me Now, Folks... by CodeMaster · · Score: 1

      Or maybe to the developers who created such a piece of shit of an OS that you can't even connect to the internet without a days worth of patching and proyecting.

      (or use the quick n' dirty protection - put a condom on your RJ45 ethernet plug before ya' stick it in ;-)

    5. Re:Say it With Me Now, Folks... by shadowcabbit · · Score: 1

      I lucked out. Got BlackIce patched right away, removed Norton and installed McAfee. Rebooted and I'm still here. All is well.

      I still want to gut the motherfucker like a fish, but I'm calm enough now that I can take my time.

      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
    6. Re:Say it With Me Now, Folks... by oldwarez · · Score: 1

      who said this is os related? read: BlackICE IS AN APPLICATION, you fucking linux monger. linux needs to be patched just as often as windows does.

      --
      username:oldwarez password:oldwarez
    7. Re:Say it With Me Now, Folks... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1
      read: BlackICE IS AN APPLICATION, you fucking linux monger. linux needs to be patched just as often as windows does.

      Who said anything about Linux, you fucking anti-Linux prick? All he said was that Windows was a piece of shit OS that needs a days worth of patching before you connect it to the internet. Which is true.
      Actually, he didn't even mention Windows, though, but you can assume that this:

      the developers who created such a piece of shit of an OS that you can't even connect to the internet without a days worth of patching and proyecting.

      is referring to Windows, since the worm in question attacks a firewall on a Windows-based machine. And yes, I realize that the firewall software in question isn't Windows, and the security hole isn't even Microsoft's fault, this time. It is, however, a final result of a chain of poor decisions, practices, and other events that led to the need of a third-party firewall on Windows-based machines, which in turn led to the possibility of this hole being there in the first place.
      Linux (since you brought it up) has a good built-in firewall, not a third-party add-on hack. Also, even though Linux does need patching also, I wouldn't be scared to connect it to the internet unpatched in order to download the patches it needs.
      I've had Windows machines where I did a fresh install, rebooted, installed anti-virus software, rebooted, updated the virus definitions, rebooted, and found the Welchia worm. Even if you do have a security update needed on Linux, this kind of situation never happens.
      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  13. Imprecise! by Knights+who+say+'INT · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "All computers", you sure?

    Don'tcha mean "Windows computers"?

    Me and my Quantian box are browsing safely and recklessly.

    On a less triumphant note, I'll eventually get called to fix Windows machines that suffer from that worm. How can you recover someone's data from an unbootable HD?

    1. Re:Imprecise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Presumably by sticking it into a machine that has a different boot disk. Or using a boot CD.

    2. Re:Imprecise! by djupedal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How can you recover someone's data from an unbootable HD?

      Bolt it into a G4 Mac tower and pull files to your heart's delight.

    3. Re:Imprecise! by anthonyrcalgary · · Score: 1

      Depends on how much damage is done to the filesystem. You might be able to read it in another computer, or maybe repair then read it.

      --
      When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
    4. Re:Imprecise! by orkysoft · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it destroys just the first sector, and the disk had just one big partition, you can use fdisk to fix the mess.

      If it had more partitions, use gpart to find the partitions. It's not perfect, so watch what you're doing.

      If it destroys more than just the first sector, it'll (on FAT filesystems) destroy the partition boot sector, the directory, and the FATs. Which means you have to recover the data from backups.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    5. Re:Imprecise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "How can you recover someone's data from an unbootable HD?"

      what a luser

    6. Re:Imprecise! by Stinking+Pig · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sorry that you read so poorly. Here, let me help by quoting the relevant sentence for you:

      "all computers running several recent versions of firewall software from Internet Security Systems, including BlackICE and RealSecure,"

      Google tells me Quantian is Knoppix/Debian.

      http://www.iss.net/products_services/blackice.ph p

      While there are RealSecure sensor nodes for Linux, the desktop software being referred to here is also a Windows product.

      In other words, BZZZT! Thanks for playing the troll today.

      --
      "Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
    7. Re:Imprecise! by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in other news, stocks of OnTrack went up :)

    8. Re:Imprecise! by secolactico · · Score: 1

      How can you recover someone's data from an unbootable HD?

      I dunno what gets erased, but, can't it be fixed with a boot floppy and "fdisk /mbr"?

      Or if NTFS, you can try to boot with Win2k or WinXP in recovery console and FIXBOOT/FIXMBR.

      --
      No sig
    9. Re:Imprecise! by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Informative

      Two ways to recover data from an 'Unbootable Drive'.

      #1 Install it as a secondary drive on a computer that has a bootable drive. Asuming the File Alocation Tables have not been overwriten, you can read the data as usuall. Also assuming that the windows permisions let you do this. I have known some NTFS drives that won't let you, but that is fixable with a software program I think.

      #2 Same way you recover information after a hard drive crash. Take it to the people that do the pro recovery.

      Since it has been said that it only overwrites the first few sectors, sounds like only the boot sector is affected. If the it is running a FAT file system, the FAT tables may get overwritten, bu the data is still recoverable (try using the 'scandisk /F' command I think it is for recovery). From what I understand of NTFS, the FAT table is spread over the drive, so it shouldn't be affected by it as much. Still, everything should be recoverable easily (relatively speaking). It's not as if the data was overwritten.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    10. Re:Imprecise! by Knights+who+say+'INT · · Score: 0

      Flamebait?

      FLAMEBAIT?

      But, but, I bashed Windows and promoted Linux!

      Hell, do you have to know stochastic partial differential equations to karma-whore now??

    11. Re:Imprecise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      such ignorance of security is why the internet is in such a mess. research before you post, ISS is not just a windows product and your OS will not make you secure from the vulnerability, being on Quantain don't mean shit.

    12. Re:Imprecise! by dont_think_twice · · Score: 1

      Hell, do you have to know stochastic partial differential equations to karma-whore now??

      Only Markov processes. Commander Taco will forget what happened previously, and repost this article, making Slashdot itself a Markov process.

    13. Re:Imprecise! by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      Or if NTFS, you can try to boot with Win2k or WinXP in recovery console and FIXBOOT/FIXMBR.

      Strange, the last time I used them it was the equivalent to FUCKBOOT/FUCKMBR.

    14. Re:Imprecise! by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      "All computers", you sure?

      I was thinking the same thing - the worm sends itself to 20,000 randomly generated IP addresses (each cycle).

    15. Re:Imprecise! by Xugumad · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try running Testdisk: http://www.cgsecurity.org/index.html?testdisk.html

      It comes as part of Knoppix I believe, and was a great help last time someone lost their partition table. After that, just fsck as normal.

    16. Re:Imprecise! by inode_buddha · · Score: 1
      fdisk /mbr

      which restores the mbr to a new condition without touching actual data. Tho I imagine there'd still be a bunch of cleaning up to do.

      --
      C|N>K
    17. Re:Imprecise! by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Boot Knoppix too and pull anything you desire from ANY M$ formatted drive.
      NTFS, FAT, whatever...

      I NEVER make a service call without a Knoppix CD with me..

    18. Re:Imprecise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and you have to solve them while thinking in Russian.

    19. Re:Imprecise! by sparkane · · Score: 1

      Try R-Studio, if you need to read "lost" partitions. Saved my ass when I deleted my parents' system (yes -- the whole system).

    20. Re:Imprecise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's assuming that you don't have one of the first XP cd's like I do, they won't even let you into the recovery console, won't accept any password known to man or administrator.

    21. Re:Imprecise! by karlm · · Score: 1
      In the standard x86 DOS partitioning scheme, the boot sector also contains the partition table for the non-extended partitions (maximum of 4 partitions). (I'm not sure where Macintosh partioning schemes, BSD slices, Solaris partitioning, etc. store the partition information) You will need to repair the partition table before you can find the FAT in the first sector of the partition. (Of course, many tools can guess where your partitions are located and reconstruct broken partition tables.)

      I once used a hex editor to edit my bootloader and misaligned the partition information. This had the same effect as this worm. Luckily, I had a spare Linux install on my backup drive and had a bootloader on the second drive as well. The repair wasn't that bad using gpart, but 90% of the poeple out there would freak out and reinstall MS Windows (overwriting their data) if their partioning information was lost.

      After that, I decided to keep a "hard copy" of my partition information.

      FYI, "FAT tables" is a redundant phrase.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    22. Re:Imprecise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bolt it into a G4 Mac tower and pull files to your heart's delight.

      or probably any other machine which is not running windows.

    23. Re:Imprecise! by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      Well, you could just pop in a Windows 2000 CD and bypass that.

      Also, I've got an XP cd (early one) and it works just fine to boot into the recovery console. In fact, I used it to delete my registry a couple of days ago.

  14. What's the problem by tgraupmann · · Score: 1

    So who is responsible. Is it the MSFT developers for making the exploit, or is it the harddrive manufactures for making those sectors readable?

    1. Re:What's the problem by tgraupmann · · Score: 1

      Yeah I meant writable. We should get MSFT involved in the MFG process so that the boot sectors are readonly allow Windows Only. What do you say? Put an end to hackers and save the world, uhem...

    2. Re:What's the problem by secolactico · · Score: 1

      if they arn't readable, well, what good are they?

      Dang... Mod: "-1 Didn't get it" (insert wooshing noises)

      --
      No sig
    3. Re:What's the problem by throwaway18 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it overwrites the first few sectrs of the harddrive, as opposed to the first few sectors of the partiton, then it will take out the MBR which contains the partition table. You can have a physical disk broken up into several partitions eg a 60Gb disk that is partitoned as a 10GB C: drive and a 50GB d: drive.

      Who knows who windows will interpreit a partition table containg random data, it might boot far enough to write to the drive using a mistaken idea of how big the partitions are reducing the chance of data recovery.

      We are just guessing based on these first reports. Someone will analyse the worm properly in a day or two and give a better idea of how to deal with it.

    4. Re:What's the problem by Peaker · · Score: 1

      Windows will interpret such as: "Cannot find MBR" (It has a magic signature at the end), or if it contains the signature, it will still fail to find an active partition to boot from because the active bit needs to be on and the partition type needs to be correct.

      Except all that, Windows/others only write to the disk in much later stages, when its pretty sure partitions/etc aren't just random blobs of data...

  15. Now that's powerful by CGP314 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Most infected computers will have to be rebuilt from scratch unless their owners instead decide to buy new ones

    I didn't know worms were so powerful now that they could melt a computer into a pile of toxic sludge. : /


    -Colin

    1. Re:Now that's powerful by TheLinuxWarrior · · Score: 1

      That's a fate generally reserved for web servers containing articles which get posted on /. :)

    2. Re:Now that's powerful by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      Now, if there was only a worm that found a way to turn off processor fans.
      Although, that wouldn't be sludge, it'd be ash.

    3. Re:Now that's powerful by HaveBlue34 · · Score: 1

      of course the inexperienced user who paid 400 bucks for his computer may not be able to fix it himself. He could hire a tech to fix the machine which would probably cost 100 bucks just to reload the os and some apps. if he wants data recovery add a few hundred more bucks, then add some firewall software and antivirus. All that adds up when they could just say "oh, its broken. Lets get a NEW computer for another $400." I know lots of people who have this kind of thought process.

    4. Re:Now that's powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Jebus! Please! I await that day... it'll be horrible to deal with.. but the stories will be funny. Hopefully by then we'll have robots running around the streets regularly too. I can't wait till I get hit on by some HoBot in a dark alley and I can yell, "Get awake from me you skanky robot!"

      If things go right, it will be legal to also throw bricks at them.

    5. Re:Now that's powerful by ameoba · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could introduce me to them. I could hack their machines and then buy the 'dead' machines for pennies on the dollar, fixing them up and turning around and selling them at a profit.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    6. Re:Now that's powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an experimental payload out there that tries to overclock various components of various common motherboard chipsets and graphics cards, and does what it can to disable or hinder thermal protection.

      Of course, it never really got off the ground; who'd test it?

    7. Re:Now that's powerful by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      Woohoo! Time to go dumpster diving... If anyone takes this article seriously, there should be some sweet hard-wares lying around in the trash!

    8. Re:Now that's powerful by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      I didn't know worms were so powerful now that they could melt a computer into a pile of toxic sludge. : /
      I gather you never came across the bios flasher horrors of about ten years ago. *THEY* where evil viruses. Not that this is one of em.:)

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    9. Re:Now that's powerful by rastos1 · · Score: 1
      Virus of these days come in e-mail with suggestion to unzip the attachment and run the resulting .pif.

      In my days, virus could set video card frequencies out of range of monitor - causing some cheap monitors to break. Or moving the disk head back and forth until it finds an resonance frequency and the disk breaks. The idea of turning the fans off is also interesting.

  16. Worst of the worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OS bugs are bad enough, but this flaw is totally confined to the very code that was purposely added to protect you. I had a few customers on this product, but got all of them behind cheapo linksys routers long ago. Someone is surely going to get sued over this.

  17. This is crazy by Stevyn · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Seriously, I was working on removing blaster from my friends computer less than an hour ago.

    I don't get this shit on my computer because I use a firewall and PC-Cillin updates daily. It's a shame because as linux becomes popular, viruses will exist for it too. True, they may not exploit holes known publicly for months, but they'll still exist.

    1. Re:This is crazy by blcknight · · Score: 2, Informative

      HEY SMARTY!

      This virus was because of people running firewall software.

    2. Re:This is crazy by Autonomous+Coword · · Score: 1
      I don't get this shit on my computer because I use a firewall...

      Uhh, so did this guys.

    3. Re:This is crazy by lazy_arabica · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I don't get this shit on my computer because I use a firewall and PC-Cillin updates daily. It's a shame because as linux becomes popular, viruses will exist for it too.


      Virus for Linux are not likely to be very damageable. For doing such kind of things (ie. the first blocks of a hard disk), the virus should be based on a remote root exploit, which happens, but is *very* rare. Most exploits are local, so you can't use them if you don't have a ssh account on this computer.

      It's easier in a windows environment to make big remote damages because many programs and servers run at administrator rights ; which is the case of this firewall software. In linux, all the firewalling stuff is based on netfilter/iptables, netfilter in kernel space, and iptables as the super-user interface. The benefit of having firewalling facilities in kernel space, integrated with the TCP/IP stuff, are that the size of the potentially unsecure code is quite small, when in windows all the security stuff is a user space developers responsability.

      I know this may look like a troll. But windows security design is a disaster ; and I don't think this will really change soon.
    4. Re:This is crazy by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "Virus for Linux are not likely to be very damageable"

      I wouldn't bet on that. OpenSSH and OpenSSL haven't had a good track record, heck tcpdump was exploitable too. BIND is still written by the same jokers. Look hard enough and there'll be enough 0-days you can use.

      If enough people switched to Linux, the worm spammers will target Linux as well. And the last I checked, most Linux distro's security architectures aren't very much better than W2K. John Doe cannot easily run a program and give it less privileges than his own account - johndoe. Plus John Doe probably won't understand the various nuances of such a system either.

      --
    5. Re:This is crazy by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      I don't run a software firewall, it's in the router, SMART ASS!

  18. This is a perfect time to promote the expression by Eudial · · Score: 5, Funny

    "FGTRGDI" (Feels good to run gnu/linux doesent it?)

    More cryptic acronyms to the people!

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  19. Avoiding Viruses and Trojans by RGautier · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now that you've got yourself a computer system at home, you'll want to protect it from the evils of the Internet. Because Operating Systems are chock full of holes just waiting to be exploited, you should, at a minimum, take the following steps... Step 1. Go out and buy a firewall product for your machine. Also pick up some virus protection software. Step 2. Ok, now install the firewall software... Oh......Damn It!

  20. two striking things... by psycho_tinman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First, the speed at which the exploit was translated from advisory to a malicious worm.. Second, this is one of the few old-school "do as much damage as you can" worms. At least it makes a change from the monotony of the mass mailing attachment exploit variety of viruses..Not a welcome change for the people who got hit by it of course :(

    By the way, in case you get prompted for registration and your principles don't allow you to give out your email address, use Bugme Not to find a login. Click here

    1. Re:two striking things... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Well, the other worms are to create zombies to send spam, DDoS stuff etc.

      This worm is probably to discourage users from using "security software" which get in the way of what they want to do.

      --
  21. how do you lose the data? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How would overwriting the first few sectors result in loss of all data? Wouldn't that just overwrite the boot sector only? Can't you still retrieve your data?

    Sivaram Velauthapillai

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    1. Re:how do you lose the data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It writes 72 bytes (iirc) to random sectors.

    2. Re:how do you lose the data? by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can. I can. 99.9% of Windows users can't.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:how do you lose the data? by Stinking+Pig · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it's a FAT16 or FAT32 partition, the primary FAT table will be wiped. While there is a second copy at the end of the partition, finding and restoring it will not be trivial.

      --
      "Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
    4. Re:how do you lose the data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just curious, how od I retrieve my data if the partition table is gone? I've got ntfs and extfs3 partitions, but no clue how to restore things without reformatting and recalling a backup.

    5. Re:how do you lose the data? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I don't recall how windows stores data but many filesystems (including must unixes I believe) use page tables. Basically at the start of the hard disk there is a segment which stores the page tables for the files on the system. Each file gets its own page table which tells the system where all the different pieces of the file are on the hard drive. If the page tables get overwritten then there's nothing to tell you what bit of data belongs to what file and for any data recovery you pretty much have to rely on heuristics to guess what bits of file go together.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:how do you lose the data? by Peyna · · Score: 1, Insightful

      'fdisk /mbr' should restore it.

      MS Support article

      --
      What?
    7. Re:how do you lose the data? by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Well, here's a trick I use, but you have to be cognizant of exactly what you are doing, or it is all over for your data.

      First go and write down the partition data you have. If you don't know it, and your shit gets erased, you have to hand edit the table.

      Next, using Linux's fdisk (do not use the Windows fdisk as it overwrites the first n bytes of the first sector of each partition it creates, I believe n=512, but I'm probably wrong). Put all that partition data back in. If you don't know how, fdisk has a man page. w then q. (w)rite and (q)uit.

      You now should have a working disk again. If the virus is smart enough to wipe off the file records, it will be more difficult to repair, but it can STILL be done with a hell of a lot of hard work. Keep backups.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    8. Re:how do you lose the data? by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      Or if the worm decides to go after those as well.
      Sorta like how windows stores a 'fresh' registry in %WINDIR%\repair, which would be useful until virus writers decided to infect that too.

    9. Re:how do you lose the data? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Really?

      It always seemed pretty trivial to do with Norton Disk Doctor. And that has always pretty trivial buy, and increasingly trivial to steal.

      I mean. FAT isn't exactly new, or undocumented. It has operated that way since the beginning of time, give or take. Programs exist which trivially fix most trivial problems, like fixing a fucked up FAT table using the second copy.

    10. Re:how do you lose the data? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      In theory you can scan through the disk looking for superblock magic numbers and figure out the old partition table from there. I don't know if that's actually possible, though.

    11. Re:how do you lose the data? by bobbozzo · · Score: 1
      'fdisk /mbr' should restore it.

      NO, that will not restore the FAT.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    12. Re:how do you lose the data? by toast0 · · Score: 1

      fdisk /mbr will not magically resurrect your partition table.

    13. Re:how do you lose the data? by XO · · Score: 1

      Somewhere else, I read that it overwrites a RANDOM 128 bytes of a randomly selected drive, every so often.

      So it could take out your entire pr0no collection before you notice, then wipe your boot sectors.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    14. Re:how do you lose the data? by ameoba · · Score: 1

      Even simpler would be using DD to copy the boot sector and partition table and storing it in a safe place (if nothing else, mailing it to yourself and leaving it on the mail server would work).

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    15. Re:how do you lose the data? by ameoba · · Score: 1

      RTFA. It overwrites random bits of the HDD until it finally cripples the system. This not only leaves you with an unbootable system (and it might not be the boot sector, it could be any key OS files getting overwritten) but also a chance that any piece of data on the drive might possibly be corrupt. By the time you're trying to recover data, it might not be worth saving anymore.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    16. Re:how do you lose the data? by davisk · · Score: 1

      I did something similar to this for a customer the other day, they brought in a computer that would no longer boot, the first 8kb of their 20gig hdd was physically broken, couldn't be read from or written to. i partitioned an indentical drive in the same way, and used dd to transfer the still readable parts of the first hdd onto it: dd if=/dev/hdb of=/dev/hdc bs=512 skip=8 seek=8 /dev/hdc then had all the data from hdb, customer happy, boss in awe, all in all, a good end to first day of work at a new job.

    17. Re:how do you lose the data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it also eliminates your partition table and some random other files at the start of your disk. In many cases, the partition can be recovered by a competent recovery tool because the disk has a single Windows partition and the tool or a competent geek can guess at the locations of the spare superblocks, But it's an extremely fast way to make a machine fail to boot and require competent help to recover. And it doesn't even fail until the machine is rebooted, which makes it particularly delightful!

    18. Re:how do you lose the data? by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      That's a real good idea.... I always forget about DD (stupid DOS, making me always think about shit the long way...)

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    19. Re:how do you lose the data? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      The second FAT is actually right after the first copy. This is even worse, because if the first part of the disk is physically damaged, you're screwed.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    20. Re:how do you lose the data? by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because "fdisk /mbr" isn't something Haji and his Dell support pals can do. But they can "return the system to factory defaults" which undoes all other updates... Hey look, blaster's back!

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    21. Re:how do you lose the data? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I use knoppix and dd to backup my drives regularly. That way I get to surf the internet and do other stuff whilst backing up the entire hdd.

      knoppix dma noswap
      start console
      mount the backup drive.
      dd if=/dev/hda bs=131072 | lzop -c > 20040321-hostname.lzo

      I switched to lzop for compression coz gzip is too slow on my PC. CPUs aren't fast enough - if they were much faster there's always bzip ;).

      --
    22. Re:how do you lose the data? by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      Yes it will be. Burn a live Linux CD on another PC, open up parted, and redo your partition table from backup.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    23. Re:how do you lose the data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is simple. Steve Gibsom's FIX CIH will clean up after that damage. If the machine has NTFS, too bad for you.

  22. Very sad. by lazy_arabica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, every windows user aware of this will believe a firewall is a great danger for his computer.

    Oh... After all, what will it change ?

    1. Re:Very sad. by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      exactly.

      One major point of the hardware router is that its running a different operating system and is susceptible to different attacks.

      I find these windows firewalls expecially good at letting you know when something is already on your computer phoning home. nothing more.

    2. Re:Very sad. by screwballicus · · Score: 1

      Now, every windows user aware of this will believe a firewall is a great danger for his computer.

      Oh... After all, what will it change ?


      Or to abandon sweeping cynical generalisations and take the optomistic point of view:

      Now, perhaps, windows users aware of this will continue to in increasingly greater number recognise that a cheap consumer software firewall is not sufficient to protect the most exploited operating system on the planet from the worm-of-the-week and perhaps they should be looking at other options.

      You can't generalise everyone. People will respond to this differently. But not everyone who gets the Windows-specific worm-of-the-week as a result of a cheap firewall app exploit will conclude that...getting rid of their firewall is the final solution! Then they'll be safe!

    3. Re:Very sad. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      A seperate firewall has to fail such that it's still functional enough to pass information to/from the target system. And even inside a firewall, it's still a good idea to keep systems buttoned up tight with nothing unneeded talking to ports. So an attacker has to carefully exploit your firewall, and then have a way to get into the target--adds an order or two of difficulty to causing damage, especially with different software in firewall/target. Most exploits will just crash the firewall.

      Some sort of resident* firewall running inside an external firewall can be good for out-going application-level security--so long as apps can't trivially bypass the resident firewall.

      * I prefer to say resident/external over software/hardware, because it's not completely wrong like the latter.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Very sad. by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      No, they'll take 5 minutes to download and install the fix for the vulnerable product they're running, and be fine afterwards.

      Too many damn trolls around here...You probably think Linux apps never have any holes, right?

    5. Re:Very sad. by kayen_telva · · Score: 1

      nitpicking: blackice is not a firewall, never was.
      Google

      on a side note, I disabled TinyPersonal Firewall on my mother-in-laws
      computer while on the phone with ISP tech support.
      Within 10 seconds of disabling it, I had a windows popup.

      Renabled the firewall immediately and disabled messenger service.

      kinda like waking up on a cold morning and diving back under the covers. its nasty out there !

    6. Re:Very sad. by kasperd · · Score: 1

      nitpicking: blackice is not a firewall, never was.

      Then what is blackice? I asked google and found this. Pick your favourite, mine is: "blackice is a powerful new way to defend the computers on your network from hackers".

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  23. How does this thing spread? by cmacb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the only thing this does is wipe out the hard drive, how does it spread to other systems? Is there a dormant version of this, or does it postpone doing the damage for a certain number of hours? The articles didn't explain.

    1. Re:How does this thing spread? by voxel · · Score: 1

      It only wipes the hard disk out if you have a specific firewall software package installed. So, this means the whole world helps spread it, and those with the firewall software get to stop booting their computer...

      --
      Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
    2. Re:How does this thing spread? by greenreaper · · Score: 1

      Assumably it a) does the damage and b) starts sending itself out. Nothing appears wrong until they reboot, and then . . . boom, their computer turns into a pile of radioactive sludge.

    3. Re:How does this thing spread? by greenreaper · · Score: 2, Informative

      In fact, it's the other way around:

      The worm will attempt to propagate immediately by sending copies of itself out across the wire to random targets. After sending a predefined number of packets, Witty attempts to open a randomly determined physical drive and write 64k of data to a random location. This cycle repeats for every 20,000 packets sent.

    4. Re:How does this thing spread? by JPriest · · Score: 1
      Witty attempts to open a randomly determined physical drive and write 64k of data to a random location. This cycle repeats for every 20,000 packets sent.

      Please tell me I am not the only person that read this and laughed.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    5. Re:How does this thing spread? by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      Only the people with the firewall help to spread it, since they have the only machines that are receptive to the worm.

  24. Infection by CGP314 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    "With all these hard drive problems, the infection rates are going to shrink pretty quickly as all these affected machines grind themselves to a halt," Stewart said.

    Well thanks Stewart. I'm glad to know I won't have to worry about the infection rate of AIDS once most people have AIDS.


    -Colin

    1. Re:Infection by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      I think a better anaology would be once all the people with AIDS die, no one will be left to spread aids.

      This worm results in a fairly quickdeath, once it's peaked and the machines infected stop booting, there is nothing left to spread it.

      That being said, if this happened to you and you didn't see the advisory, would you blame your firewall software? No, you'd call tech support who would have you reinstall Windows and all your applications from scratch, including your firewall software. A worm which kills its hosts quickly, will soon have no hosts to infect.

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

      Actually, you do, since there are several nice combinations of drugs which enable infected persons to live (and spread the disease) indefinitely.

      Incredibly insensitive? Or just realistic? You decide.

    3. Re:Infection by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Colin,
      I'm generally a fan of every post of yours I've read, but I find this to be a poor analogy. This would only be correctly analogous if once someone contracted AIDS (HIV, but I digress), they died immediately. This is the type of situation Stewart is referring to. Once affected, a machine can't propagate. (As per his quote, I don't know the details of this worm) When a person is HIV positive, they can still propagate HIV->AIDS.

    4. Re:Infection by The+Man · · Score: 1
      Well thanks Stewart. I'm glad to know I won't have to worry about the infection rate of AIDS once most people have AIDS.

      The virus only kills computers running Windows. Likewise, AIDS only kills people who have sex and/or shoot up. So if you don't meet the infection criteria, you're right, you won't have to worry. Once every computer/person who can be infected is, all you need to worry about is what to do with the lost data/bodies.

      Not being glib, really, but a worm that kills its host is preferable to one that just lets the box be taken over. Imagine if AIDS never killed anyone but instead turned its victims into immortal zombies under the total control of $EVIL_ORGANIZATION_OF_YOUR_CHOICE.

    5. Re:Infection by toast0 · · Score: 1

      Imagine if AIDS never killed anyone but instead turned its victims into immortal zombies under the total control of $EVIL_ORGANIZATION_OF_YOUR_CHOICE.

      wow, AIDS would be like TV

    6. Re:Infection by elgaard · · Score: 1

      So it is more like Ebola.

    7. Re:Infection by CGP314 · · Score: 1

      Wow,

      I've never been addressed by name on slashdot. Very arresting.

      Anyway, you are right. I didn't really think how this was a situation that would burn itself out because it was too deadly. Should have picked an illness with a little more oomph.


      -Colin

  25. This is an interesting one, almost biological by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Informative

    From LURHQ

    "This worm has been found to be highly malicious, slowly destroying the systems it infects. Because of this activity, at some point this worm will cease to exist - unfortunately it will take all the affected systems with it. Rather than simply executing a "format C:" or similar destructive command, the worm slowly corrupts the filesystem while it continues to spread."

    Like many biological viruses it slowly erodes the health of its host, permitting the host to go on infecting new hosts for some time. How long exactly appears to be unpredictable.

    It doesn't kill its host outright immediately and it doesn't allow its host to continue indefinitely. Its like a true disease, a terminal illness for computers (pun not intended).

    I think this will be with us for a while, particularly when mutations start showing up.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    1. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by rugger · · Score: 1

      Hardly all that interesting.

      Back in DOS and Win3.1 days, many viruses operated with the intent of eventually destroying the user's data.

    2. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by 99Percent · · Score: 1

      This worm cannot mutate, it targets a specific software combination of which there is patch already and quickly locates and kills any system that is not patched.

    3. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      But back in those days, the only way to get a virus was through action. Now you can be infected for inaction.

    4. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "Back in DOS and Win3.1 days, many viruses"

      and spread via infected floppies or binaries.
      The vector makes all the difference; it required human intervention to get a virus onto a computer
      (For the pedants: Mostly).

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by rugger · · Score: 1

      Most biological viruses also require human intervention to spread. A cough, sneeze, blood transfer, sex, ect are required to transfer it. Diseases caused by virus and infection rarely just appear. They are transmitted between people as they go about their normal lives

      Most computer viruses live this way. In DOS/Win3.1 days, this meant hitching a ride on floppy disks as users moved data between machines. In modern days, its either hitching a ride on an email attachment or (like this one), by direct contact.

      There is nothing really unusual about these infection vectors. The virus simply uses whatever vector is avaliable in everyday computer use.

      I still think old viruses are more interesting, they contain features that are non-existant on most modern viruses.

      Some interesting features of old viruses:
      * They often worked hard to hide themselves from detection. They replaced DOS/BIOS interrupt vectors and supplied the uninfected file information so their presence was completely undetectable while the virus was running.
      * They encrypted themselves so that anti-virus software could not easily detect their signatures.
      * They mutated themselves for the same purpose, by reassembling themselves in a different bytestream that was still functionally the same as the original, but different in the eyes of a virus scanner.
      * I remember that one virus even encrypted a portion of a systems fixed disk, then unencrypted it for system requests. Trying to remove this virus is diffcult because the system becomes dependant on it for normal operation. Once it's payload is triggered, the virus discontinues decrypting your hard drive contents, leaving the user high and dry.

    6. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by rugger · · Score: 1

      No, its still an action.

      That action is to be directly accessable on a very large network, which is virtually the same as sharing disks between untrusted computers on a constant basis.

    7. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will cause computers to evolve. We have just invented random computer genetic mutations.

    8. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats preposterous. If you buy a new windows laptop and your neighbor has a wireless net, you could be online without knowing it.

      Granted you might not have this "black ice" thing installed, but it appears to be pretty easy for IE users to get tricked into installing crap like this.

    9. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by rugger · · Score: 1

      So... Someone could infect one of your floppy disks without knowing it. You can then put that floppy into your computer thinking it was uninfected and actually infect your computer.

      The user doesn't have to explicitly know they are sharing data with other users to become infected by a virus.

    10. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by cms108 · · Score: 1

      "I remember that one virus even encrypted a portion of a systems fixed disk, then unencrypted it for system requests. Trying to remove this virus is diffcult because the system becomes dependant on it for normal operation. Once it's payload is triggered, the virus discontinues decrypting your hard drive contents, leaving the user high and dry."

      IIRC, this was the monkey virus. I think it did something along the lines of encrypt part of your file alocation table - and hide in the boot sector. When you booted from the hard drive, the virus was loaded into memory and decrypted your file allocation table - and eveything was seemingly normal.
      Once in memory it'd slowly corrupt bits of data and copy itself to the boot sector of any disk it saw...
      If you booted from a clean floppy disk to try and remove the virus or backup data before it got nobbled, you couldn't access the hard drive because the file allocation table was mangled.
      I think i've still got a copy of it on an infected floppy disk somewhere... i hope it's clearly labled...

    11. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 3, Funny

      There were some really evil viruses back in the day. Fumble: This virus will generate typing errors, every now and then. That is, if you press the "R" key for example, it will occasionally insert another letter like "E" in the text instead. dBASE: The dBase virus is very rare, but rather curious. It is clearly intended to garble dBase files, or rather any file with a name that ends in .DBF.

      If the virus is active in memory when a program writes to a .DBF file, it will garble all the outgoing data. However, when the data is read back later, the virus will correct the garbled data.

      There is just one problem. If the virus is detected and removed, the data will be useless because the virus will not be present to "de-garble" it when it is read back.

      There is a more harmful side to this virus. If an attempt is made to write to a .DBF file that is more that three months old, the virus will try to destroy the FAT and root directory on drives D:, E: .... Z: There is a bug in the code, however, so the destruction will be rather unpredictable. I have no idea why someone hasn't put an imaginatively evil payload in a modern virus.

    12. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wired Magazine called, they want their hyped editorializing back.

    13. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by Czmyt · · Score: 1

      Most of the recent viruses are thought to have a specific purpose: to create zombie machines that can be sold to spammers for them to exploit.

    14. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I was completely wrong in another respect as well; it depends on a very specific vulnerability in a specific software package. I can't see it lasting.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    15. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      >I have no idea why someone hasn't put an imaginatively evil payload in a modern virus.

      That is because the intent of modern viruses is not to destroy the machine (as with the early ones) but to make them available as spam relays, hacking outposts, etc.

      Destroying data would make the owner aware of the situation, and he/she would remove the infection.

    16. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      blackice or norton internet security...

      Flaw stymies Norton Internet Security

    17. Re:This is an interesting one, almost biological by dasunt · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why someone hasn't put an imaginatively evil payload in a modern virus.

      About 5 years ago, I thought of the 51-cards + 1 dupe virus for solitaire. :)

      Modern day virus writers don't seem to be implimenting either cutting edge or distructive techniques. Perhaps, with MS Windows, virus writing is so easy that there is no more challenge in it. Why write a warhol worm and become the next Morris when a simple "I Love You" with an executable attachment will work?

      The other hypothesis is that computer viruses have evolved to a point where they gain more by not killing the host. How many machines would remain unpatched if the next worm overwrote every .doc file with the text from Alice in Wonderland? How many servers would still be running unprotected if the next worm disabled every listening service and removed the binary? How many spam and trojaned boxes would we have if the next worm actively de-rootkitted its own host, then randomly checked for trojans and open relays on other machines, and either disabled or spammed the hell out of admin/root until the machine died?

      Then again, perhaps we are in a nice, harmless-virus phase that won't last. The ideas written above are not new, and by searching, its easy to find ways to optimize virus transmittion rates and models on how to time the destructive phase of the virus in order not to hinder the transmittion. When some misguided soul finally writes the 'fuzzy-bunny-worm' worm using an unpatched recent exploit that spreads around the world in 15 minutes and destroys machines in the next hours, the 'fuzzy-bunny-worm' worm will get a ton of media coverage. [They will also be hunted down and killed by Microsoft's elite anti-virus ninja squad, but...] That media coverage will encourage more destructive worms.

      Which is why I always tell people not to run unnecessary services and to keep themselves patched. Viruses may not always be as benign as they are now.

  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Re:Ughhhhh by rco3 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Stanford's week just got a bit tougher, I'm afraid.

    --

    Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  28. "all computers" by cgenman · · Score: 1

    "All computers", you sure?

    Well, any computer running BlackICE under Linux is screwed too, though for different reasons.

  29. Worthless govt agency by EvilStein · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a weekend, why should they care about putting out their timely alerts, eh?

    "Officials at the Department of Homeland Security, which is in charge of the government's cybersecurity efforts, were unavailable for comment."

    1. Re:Worthless govt agency by ljavelin · · Score: 1

      It's a weekend, why should they care about putting out their timely alerts, eh?

      Hey, you know it does take some time to put together a statement. After all, there isn't an urgent rush at this point, and any statements have to be approved by the corporations involved.

      Heck, it isn't the "Department of Homeland Security That Makes US-based Technology Companies Look Incompetent". In fact, it might make sense to put together a statement on corporate indemnification legislation before any announcements are made.

  30. Re:Oh no by delta407 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Blaster disabled a system, but it was fixable. This one can make a total mess.
    Oh, whatever.

    Several months ago, Microsoft CHKDSK effectively destroyed one of my NTFS partitions -- it managed to screw up $MFT (which points to the location of the Master File Table) and the copy of $MFT within $MFTMirr (which is supposed to be used if $MFT is broken). Anyway, long story short, I spent a couple weeks staring at hex dumps and printouts of the Linux-NTFS project's NTFS documentation. After consuming inordinate amounts of caffeine, I came up with SalvageNTFS, an open-source NTFS data recovery tool that got back all the data I wanted. Assuming the physical media is intact (as in, all read requests to the disk are successful), SalvageNTFS can retrieve data if there is even a single record of the MFT intact.

    If the first few sectors of the disk are overwritten, you'll lose the MBR, the partition table, and maybe the boot sector of your first partition. However, the filesystem of that partition is likely to be largely or completely intact. Think: in a few weeks with no prior knowledge of NTFS internals, I created a tool that can continue to operate in this environment. I'd hardly call that a "total mess".
  31. Or if you prefer... by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 4, Funny

    Newspapers, magazines, letters, and stamps.

    How 1980s. Yikes.

    --
    My father is a blogger.
  32. Start time of the infection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This infection started as early as 9:00pm central time.

  33. So close, and yet so far by CGP314 · · Score: 1

    Allow me to alliterate:

    Witty Worm Wrecks Windows


    -Colin

  34. How... by }InFuZeD{ · · Score: 1

    Why does Windows allow writing to a part of the hard drive that would permanantly corrupt it?

    Or are they just blowing the whole story out of proporting when it in fact just erases your boot sector?

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

      Why does Linux allow writing to a part of the hard drive that would permanantly corrupt it?

    2. Re:How... by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Boot sector+ (possibly) File Allocation Tables

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:How... by Detritus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Code running with Administrator privileges is assumed to be trustworthy and know what it is doing. The problem is that there is way too much code running as Administrator.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:How... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that there is way too much code running as Administrator.

      Yeah, but it does make sense for a firewall to have that level of privilege, right? (barring a really good privilege separation system, that is)

  35. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by VargrX · · Score: 1
    More cryptic acronyms to the people!

    well, you did ask....:

    'FRTBRaBDI'
    =Feels Rightous to be running a BSD, Doesn't it=

    'FRGTBUABMSDI'
    =Feels real good to be using anything but MS, doesn't it= (ok, this one's a bit much, I think...)

    'IARGFTNHTWAVAWSMIT'
    =It's a real good feeling to not have to worry about virus's and worm's so much, Isn't it?=

    'NIKWIUU!'
    =Now I know why I use Unix!=

    'W!IHTIUAM!'
    =Wow! I'm happy that I use a MAC!=

    --- ok, that's enough, need more beer.

    have fun!
    --
    Sometimes people just have to learn and adapt to change, it is one of the requirements of being a living thing.
  36. This is why I use double firewalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IPCop for a router/firewall, then Kerio Personal Firewall on each Windows machine.

  37. Hardware FireWalls by Bruha · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd advise anyone who depends on any kind of software firewall to go out and buy some sort of hardware firewall.

    I reccomend Linksys

    Those who depend on Windows Firewalling should beware also.. in fact I'm surprised it wasnt that firewall that was exploited in the first place.

    1. Re:Hardware FireWalls by jhoger · · Score: 2

      It's not necessarily even an issue of buying something. I used an old pentium II box running a customized Linux firewall distro to protect my network.

      Much more customizable than a Linksys box. And you can add edge VPN at no cost.

      With an extra card and some configuration you have a DMZ port.

      You would have to spend >$300 for a low end Cisco router and VPN is probably extra...

    2. Re:Hardware FireWalls by gnuzip · · Score: 1

      I used a Linksys BEFSR41 for a while, and I have to say, it wasn't that great. Maybe it's only that particular model, or just my own opinion, but I noticed a couple annoyances:
      * It seemed to frequently become completely unresponsive to network activity (even ping/config), making it unusable for up to 30 minutes at a time (usually around 10 minutes). Unplugging it and plugging it back in after a few minutes sometimes seemed to speed up its recovery. This was very irritating, and I think it may not be a unique case.
      * Its configuration interface requires a web browser (no telnet, no ssh), and also depends on Javascript for full functionality.

      I am now using a spare FreeBSD box instead, and it works great. Of course, the Linksys is nice and small, and consumes less electricity, so it might be more appropriate in many cases.

    3. Re:Hardware FireWalls by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      What's this about Windows Fireballing?

      Oh! FireWALLing...

      Never mind...

    4. Re:Hardware FireWalls by rthille · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...customized Linux firewall distro...Much more customizable than a Linksys box.

      Well, this site seems to disagree that your old pentium II box is more flexible than at least some linksys routers.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    5. Re:Hardware FireWalls by jhoger · · Score: 1

      Uh, no...

      Say I want to add a hardware DMZ port.

      Where do I shove the ethernet card into that little blue box?

      And I boot my firewall from CD, and there's no hard drive. How do I make this Linksys box boot from a write-only medium?

      Not so customizable it seems as my beige box...

      QED

    6. Re:Hardware FireWalls by jhoger · · Score: 1

      Damn these fingers!

      Err... read-only not write-only.

    7. Re:Hardware FireWalls by pe1chl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >buy some sort of hardware firewall.

      >I reccomend Linksys

      I hate to disappoint you, but your linksys box is not a hardware firewall.
      It is a dedicated microcomputer that runs a SOFTWARE firewall.

      The potential for an exploit that pierces this firewall or erases all its program memory is not less than with the product currently under attack.

      All firewalls can have bugs. This is determined by the quality of the software, and the fact that it runs in a small plastic box is not automatically going to improve that.
      Calling it "hardware" isn't going to do that either.

    8. Re:Hardware FireWalls by platipusrc · · Score: 1

      So you slipped and admitted that you are a BOFH by telling us that you use WORN (Write Once Read Never) technology for your users?

      --
      And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
    9. Re:Hardware FireWalls by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >The potential for an exploit that pierces this firewall or erases all its program memory is not less than with the product currently under attack.

      Yes, it is less, because it's a single-purpose system exposing fewer services, and running on a less fragile OS. Further, the user isn't constantly installing new untrusted software on it.

      >It is a dedicated microcomputer that runs a SOFTWARE firewall.
      True, important, and
      >All firewalls can have bugs. This is determined by the quality of the software
      insightful. I've been worrying about this for a while. All these firewall appliances are built for a price-competitve fast-moving market. That's a terrible set of incentives. The sort of code quality required for high-security software is expensive and time-consuming, and you notice that firewall appliance vendors even have trouble getting things right at the design level. For example, look at the "DMZ" scandal from a couple of years ago.

    10. Re:Hardware FireWalls by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Well, it is often not known what type of OS is running on these boxes. I would not presume it is less fragile. Sure there is no user-installed software on it, but I doubt that is the primary reason why packetfilters fail at some point. More likely this results from design failures.

      Some boxes run Linux, and some have taken the firewall functionality from other open source systems (like BSD) and put them in their image as an add-on.
      There certainly is room for an exploitable bug in there. And worse: once this is found, it is often considerably more difficult to update the firmware than it is to update a PC-resident piece of software. (at least for the non-tech-savvy user)

      Let's at least keep attention on this, not assume "nothing can happen because I have this hardware firewall"...

    11. Re:Hardware FireWalls by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      I had that exact same problem with my old Linksys router. I'd have to power cycle it once a week or so after it would stop working for no readily apparent reason. That's what ultimately drove me to replacing it with something decent, in my case a Cisco SOHO 91.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
  38. Serves 'em right. by ljavelin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey, serves these folks right! I mean who'd be stupid enough to have a Windows machine on the internet without any kind of firewa...

    err, never mind.

  39. Snort Detection by Leme · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Installed a snort rule this morning using:

    alert udp any 4000:5000 -> any any (msg:"Witty Initial Traffic";
    content:"|29202020202020696e73657274207 76974747920 6d6573736167652068657265|";re\v:1;)

    Found via http://isc.incidents.org/diary.html?date=2004-03-2 0.

    After running it for about 10 minutes and seeing 1,000's of matches, I decided it was better to delete the rule since it was logging to a MySQL database for fear of overloading the disk, and go back to bed.

    1. Re:Snort Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This rule is ineffective in the long run.
      It merely matches the string "insert.witty.message.here", with spaces.
      Now, anyone with a hex editor can write
      over that. Instead, pipe protect
      this, and stuff into a snort rule:

      6a02 ffd0 89c6 31c9 5168 6269 6e64 5453 3eff 1598 400d 5e31 c951 5151 81e9 fef

      That's from the wretched guts of this beast,
      and can't easily be changed.

  40. One answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful
    The Witty worm only infects specific builds of PAM listed below, and can only infect Win32 systems.

    You could say this was Microsoft's fault for making a crappy, userless don't-manage-memory-well kernel, for having inadequate file systems that lack permision bits, and the list goes on and on. Why else did the poor suckers have to BUY a third party firewall? Because Microsoft is a toy OS that has no place on the internet, that's why. There are many other good reasons this is Microsoft's fault, I'll leave them to others. That would be funny if it were not true.

    1. Re:One answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense, it is nothing to do with that. The fault lies with ISS and *their* buggy products. You really can't blame Microsoft for this one!

    2. Re:One answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could say this was Microsoft's fault for making a crappy, userless don't-manage-memory-well kernel, for having inadequate file systems that lack permision bits, and the list goes on and on.

      You haven't used Windows recently, have you?

  41. More Steps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you forgot Step 1.5 "buy another Firewall/AV product" and Step 1.75 "Follow 'Scotty's guide to backup systems' "

  42. First Hand Experience by tuckericj · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is indeed a particularly nasty worm. Several other divisions of my company are battling infections. The master boot record on an infected host is almost certainly destroyed by this little dandy and any host which might have been rebooted before an infection is detected is inoperable. Thankfully it is only the relatively recent versions of the software packages that are effected. The divine combination of wisdom and laziness has found this systems administrator blessedly behind the times. The decision to stop upgrading out ISS tools in favor of a push towards OSS now seems all the more prescient. For those in the community who expect big businesses to flop over to OSS immediately, don't hold your breath. Nothing happens over night because big business is slow, no matter how fast the company's advert department declares them to be. We've been actively switching systems over to Linux and OSS for two years now, but the average depreciation cycle means that it takes a minimum of 5 years to switch over an environment, and that only if you put a stake in the ground. Realistically it takes 7 to 10 years to switch over and IT environment in a company which judges IT investment solely on Cost Benefit Analysis.

    1. Re:First Hand Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The decision to stop upgrading out ISS tools in favor of a push towards OSS now seems all the more prescient.

      The problem is people who don't upgrade their software. If you don't have automatic updating enabled in your software (Microsoft, ISS, etc), you are part of the problem.

      Not updating your security software puts you on the same level as my grandma not updating her copy of Windows XP and getting nailed with a worm.

    2. Re:First Hand Experience by tuckericj · · Score: 1

      No, you fool, upgrading to something because its new is the worst reason to upgrade. We didn't upgrade because the version we were using was stable, bug free and exploit free. The new version, while having more bells and whistles, didn't appreciably improve our ability to protect our laptops. Upgrades for no reason is bad business, its consumerism at its worst, and businesses fail when they act as consumers.

  43. Recovery Tool by soloport · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah. Knoppix to the rescue! (Again)

    1. Re:Recovery Tool by soloport · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah. Knoppix to the rescue! (Again)

      Wow. How is this 'offtopic'?

      Am I the only one who, nearly every week, recovers a client's "valuable data" using Knoppix when something has eaten Windows alive? (And sometimes Windows eats itself alive, unfortunately.)

    2. Re:Recovery Tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you recover with Knoppix

      please email me rob@gibsondunn.com thanks very much

    3. Re:Recovery Tool by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Umm, are you just plain retarded? Having your OS and browser running from a CD (ala knoppix) is just as good as running it off any other ROM. Knoppix is VERY on topic.

    4. Re:Recovery Tool by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      I haven't used knoppix personally, but I imagine it's as simple as booting into knoppix and mounting your windows partitions. you could try to fix windows from the knoppix mount, copy the data to a backup before reformatting, or access data urgently without waiting for windows to reinstall.

      In any case that knoppix works it seems to me that reinstalling windows without reformatting would also work. But I don't really trust windows to work properly if I install it overtop of an existing installation.

    5. Re:Recovery Tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've personally seen some windows problems that don't get solved by a reinstall but get solved by a reformat. Like one machine suddenly unable to connect out to the internet when it gets its IP via DHCP and no proxies are set in any web browser's settings. Reinstalling windows still has the problem. Boot knoppix and knoppix can connect out on the internet without any problems, boot windows, and it can't. The machine had no software firewalls installed, I reinstalled the network driver for it in windows at least 3 or 4 times and it still couldn't connect out. Format c: then reinstlal windows and voila, internet connectivity again!

  44. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elitist Mac-Using Fuck, And Proud Of It...
    Did I Mention I Never Get Windows Viruses

    EMUFAPOIDIMINGWV

    It's the catch phrase that's sweeping the nation! Okay, okay, that's "You're Fired" but this one is gonna be hot next year!

  45. RealSecure by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 1

    RealSecure, indeed.

  46. Release information process by KingJoshi · · Score: 1

    eEye Digital Security supposedly found the flaw last wednesday. Did they publish the information last wednesday after giving Internet Security Systems plenty of time to fix it? Or did they release it without ample time? If the former, how much more liable would ISS be? If the latter, wouldn't that be irresponsible?

    wait, nevermind.. The ISS download site says they released the patch on the 9th. So I guess people had about a week to update the firewall?

    --
    In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
    1. Re:Release information process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was using Black Ice server and my whole server was anhailated by this worm. ISS are lying scum! They did NOT release a patch for this worm for Black Ice Server and/or PC more than 2 hours before the outbreak and they probably only released it after the outbreak! Their website cliams it was released on the 19th March. I got hit at 0450 UTC 20th March which is 1150pm Atlanta time (ISS HQ). The have been aware of the danger for the last 2 weeks and did NOTHING! Not only is my data destroyed but my hard drive has also been rendered unusable due to disk action. ISS must face a mass civil action for their failure to address a known catastrophic weakness to their software. As for the author of this worm, if I could identify and face him, I would gladly cut his throat!

  47. Read the User agreement Re:Liability? by Bruha · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most if not all user agreements for any software, anti-virii, Windows and it's related software usually contain:

    In no way can you hold us responsible for loss of data, damange to your system bla bla bla.. basically use at your own risk.

  48. My personal theory by PacoTaco · · Score: 3, Funny

    I bet this worm was written by a disgruntled network administrator sick of those "I'm being attacked" emails.

  49. not crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's a shame because as linux becomes popular, viruses will exist for it too. True, they may not exploit holes known publicly for months, but they'll still exist.

    Bill Gates will pay you good money if you can write such a thing. Gooooooood Luck. Ha.

  50. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


    > More cryptic acronyms to the people!

    That's MCATTP around here, chum.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  51. Call me a troll if you will... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Interesting

    but this is inherently why the idea of a firewall LOCAL to the system it is protecting is a ... shall I say "retarded" idea.

    A firewall is best a physical device between your network and the "great big intarweb". That way if your firewall IS comprimised, you arent immediatly toast.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:Call me a troll if you will... by tuckericj · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most of the systems that we have running this tool are those that regularly leave our facility. In this global age it is not unusual for a company of 1300 people to have 200-300 systems outside their network at any given time. A mixture of traveling employees, demonstration products and a variety of rogue systems demands the personal firewall be a part of the concentric rings of security.

    2. Re:Call me a troll if you will... by prshaw · · Score: 1

      I am sure that most home users would agree that they should buy another box that connects them to the internet. And have another box to watch for updates and exploits for.

    3. Re:Call me a troll if you will... by kayen_telva · · Score: 1

      as a poster above stated, security is best in layers. I run an IPCop box AND kerio4 on windows machines.
      Application level privileges is a good thing(tm)

    4. Re:Call me a troll if you will... by zbrimhall · · Score: 0

      Troll.

  52. The Master Plan by Caedar · · Score: 0

    1. Insert 'Witty' Joke here 2. ??? 3. +5 Funny!

  53. IT WAS YOU!!! by gbrayut · · Score: 5, Interesting
    from washington post article:
    The Witty worm gets its moniker from a message buried within its code that says: "insert witty message here." That comes just before the code that overwrites the infected hard drives.
  54. Re:Ughhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stanford's week just got a bit tougher, I'm afraid.

    What are you talking about? Stanford just had their first NCAA Division I wrestling champion in history. (Watch it live on ESPN2, right now.) So what if their basketball team lost? There's more to the world than silly round-ball sports :)

  55. Witty worm not just a computer parasite by mattbee · · Score: 1

    A computer virus isn't what Google thinks a Witty Worm is (not at all work safe :-) ).

    --
    Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
    1. Re:Witty worm not just a computer parasite by neoThoth · · Score: 2, Informative

      I saw this one too! I have that as a non sequitor in the blog I run. Pretty funny that google didn't update on that one fast enough. I wonder how many extra hits they will get because of the worms name. Also I think it's ironic it's an "anal device" and the worm pretty much f'sck you there when it writes to disk.

    2. Re:Witty worm not just a computer parasite by kasperd · · Score: 1

      A computer virus isn't what Google thinks a Witty Worm is

      Yes more links on the list sugest this toy is the real Witty Worm. I think the text under one of the images was more fun though: "Click To Enlarge".

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  56. talked with an ISS guy by jeramybsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I was on a scuba cruise and there was a guy from ISS onboard. He was bragging to me about how ISS had all these 18 year old uber-crackers with fast cares and no college degree making their products.

    I told him I would never buy any of their products since I figured they were just as likely to insert their own backdoors in the products due to maturity reasons.

    This is just priceless though, I wish that guy a hardy Nelson "har har".

    --
    Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
    1. Re:talked with an ISS guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah...no college degrees...they should be a MacDonald's frycook or in jail, right? Hell, everybody knows that CS students are the most mature and responsible people on the planet.

    2. Re:talked with an ISS guy by svallarian · · Score: 1

      You ought to see their "headquarters".

      Located in beau-tiful downtown atlanta, i was driving around one day on vacation, and I see a large ISS sign, so I take a look, small non-descript brick building, in a bad neighboorhood, with some very expensive BMW and Lexus's parked along side.

      The best part? Someone must have leased out the side of the same building...there was a very large Ludicris "Chicken n Beer" ad on the building!

      Very professional guys!!

      Steven V.

      --
      I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
    3. Re:talked with an ISS guy by jeramybsmith · · Score: 1

      The point is, the bragged about their youth and lack of education as if it was a boon and not a caution point. How would you like to know your firewall was designed by teenage hax0rs with no training in methodology or business ethics (or even kissed a girl for the first time for that matter)?

      --
      Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
    4. Re:talked with an ISS guy by confusion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work for ISS in Atlanta. ISS' headquarters are not downtown near that sign. We happen to own that sign and use it as advertising. We have a strong tie to Georgia Tech, which is near where that sign is located.

      Our HQ is in Dunwoody on Barfield Rd.. It is a truely impressive campus and a really nice place to work.

      I very frequently hear the people refer to the location of that sign as our HQ. It's almost worth it to take that thing down.

  57. Maybe they were infected too by Prof.+Pi · · Score: 1

    They can't respond to their email, because their machines won't boot?

    After all, they're all using Windows, right?

  58. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by seldolivaw · · Score: 1

    This would also be a perfect time to come up with an expression you could actually pronounce...

  59. Knoppix by amembleton · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The worm overwrites data on the first few sectors of the victim's hard drive, making the machine virtually ubootable and potentially destroying much - if not all - of the victim's data.

    Surelly you could still access the data and copy it onto another Hard disk, burn it to CD or copy it to a USB pen by running Knoppix.

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

      I'm running Mozilla Foxfire on Luit Linux 0.2 now, a remaster of Damn Small Linux , a cut-down version of Knoppix. Since I am running off the cd, I doubt any virus could get into my box and do damage. Correct me if I am wrong.

    2. Re:Knoppix by omicronish · · Score: 1

      Judging from other comments in this story, it appears that FAT file system tables are stored in the first few sectors, so overwriting them essentially means you lose information regarding files themselves. A partition damaged in such a manner would be unmountable, so running Knoppix won't help any unless you're dumping raw hard drive data.

    3. Re:Knoppix by DarkZero · · Score: 1

      Surelly you could still access the data and copy it onto another Hard disk, burn it to CD or copy it to a USB pen by running Knoppix.

      The "first few sectors --- making the machine unbootable" part appears to be an error. According to most of the virus reports, it actually detects a random physical disk and writes 64k of data to a random location every time it finishes sending a set of 20,000 packets. Eventually, its random target ends up being the boot sector, but by that time the machine is fubar anyway.

    4. Re:Knoppix by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1
      it actually detects a random physical disk and writes 64k of data to a random location every time it finishes sending a set of 20,000 packets.

      It would seem that Knoppix could still come to the rescue. It wouldn't take long before the random errors make the system unbootable, so at this point, the majority of the user's data might be accessible (depending on how bad the filesystem is borked). With Knoppix (or any full featured boot cd) you could scp or samba the data to another computer or disk.

  60. Trivial Damage by Takara · · Score: 1

    The first few sectors of a hard drive (read MBR Boot loaders) aren't very hard to recover. Even if it damaged super important filesystem data a chkdsk -r will fix it up no problem. Where on the hard drive though could you erase to totally scrap a Windows OS?

    1. Re:Trivial Damage by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Well on pre-NT stuff (95/98/ME) removing "io.sys" will yak it up pretty good. That tiny little file does something important. Which is funny, because its very similar to "LO.sys" (in caps so you can see the letter difference) which is one of the windows start/shut graphics. Cool guys liked to change that around.... too bad they couldnt see exactly what was there. :(

    2. Re:Trivial Damage by gbrayut · · Score: 1

      Start changing random registry keys.... That can cause lots of trouble and is near impossible to fix!

    3. Re:Trivial Damage by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... IO, what could that acronym possibly stand for?

      I think it removes any superiority-complex that windows has, resulting in the loss of any self-worth as it realises how crap it really is.

    4. Re:Trivial Damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Start changing random registry keys.... That can cause lots of trouble and is near impossible to fix!

      Unless you load a registry backup.

  61. In comparison... by zCyl · · Score: 1

    Now, every windows user aware of this will believe a firewall is a great danger for his computer.

    This would provide a nice counter to the current view that having a firewall makes you immune to viruses and worms.

  62. Re:Oh no by JasonStiletto · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's good, in the darwinian sense. nondestructive viruses aren't instructive.. People won't change their behaviors if the virus does nothing more than slow them down.

  63. Software offers other features too... by WoTG · · Score: 1

    Besides application specific rules which another poster has mentioned, software firewalls also better REMOTE address filtering - I've recently been researching this, and few, if any, of the "29 bucks" routers will provide anywhere near the level of control that a software firewall provides. For example, if I wanted to run a development web/database server and I want to restrict access to a handful of IP address (yeah, I know, VPN, blah blah blah) there are no other "cheap" options.

    Why? The hardware router guys want to push customers requiring this stuff to their professional $200+ lineup.

    1. Re:Software offers other features too... by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IMHO, there's a GOOD reason why the hardware router guys are pushing you to the "professional $200+ lineup" for these needs. They're "professional level" uses of the firewall product.

      If you're so cheap, you can't see spending $200-250 or so for a hardware firewall/router product to protect your developmental web/database server - then the product you're developing must not be of much value to you?

      Honestly, if money is really too tight and $200 is too much to spend on security, I'd look at Linux-based solutions running on an older, dedicated PC. I've seen several really nice firewall products you can download free ISO images of and burn to a CDR install disc, for non-commercial use. I'd feel much safer having my firewall on a seperate, dedicated box than running as a service on my desktop (where it's impacting my CPU and RAM usage, too).

    2. Re:Software offers other features too... by jbplou · · Score: 1

      You could setup a 486 FreeBSD box to do what he wants in an hour or two. He wouldn't even need to download anything special besides the stable branch iso's. I imagine the same is true for any Linux distro, I just never tried using one as a router.

    3. Re:Software offers other features too... by pantherace · · Score: 1

      Not true, my Dlink DI-514 can do this (look at the web config Advanced->Filters->IP Filters) and it was $30 (after rebate). Look beyond the basics and many will have features like this. (You do go through and check the settings of what you connect to the internet don't you?)

    4. Re:Software offers other features too... by WoTG · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected! I did some cursory research on this short while ago - the Linksys box I was trying to configure for a client definitely did NOT have this feature, neither did the home line of NetGear (at least from what I could tell from the online manual). In fact, the fellow at the store claimed that no "cheap" router would provide this level of filtering. I didn't really have the time to look any further, so I left it at that. That said, I'll keep D-link in mind for future recommendations, though personally I'm happy behind a Linux box...

  64. Should read: Destroying little, if any by dameron · · Score: 1

    of the user's data.

    -dameron

  65. This is not new, it happened in winter 1980 too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back then I think it was called virus dos, a self copying apple dos 3.3 system image that would also slowly eat the file system it copied itself to over time and I think it is one of the original computer worms or viruses. We got it at Devry where I think at the time they also had the black (poison) apple ]['s so I guess it made sense.

  66. Norton Antivirus / BlackICE patches by djace · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to Symantec's Witty information page, Norton Antivirus can't detect it because it is memory resident only, and never written to disk.

    As the story summary states, it "attempts to overwrite 128 sectors in a random location of one of the first eight physical hard drives with data from memory. If the randomly picked physical hard disk does not exist, the worm simply continues." Devastating.

    BlackICE patches are available.

  67. Poor Windows users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I tell people who insist on running windows that they need to get a hardware firewall, or a non-windows machine as a firewall, not a software firewall on windows.

    When I hear about these new exploits and the massive chaos that follows, I just smile. I have told all of my friends and family about the price of using windows, so if they get burned they should have known it was coming. Also since all of my Windows machines are on my internal network shielded by a Slackware box, and the only onther machine that connects to the outside directly is a OSX machine.

  68. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by geighaus · · Score: 1

    RTFA. This is not a Windows flaw, but an exploit in those firewalls. Blaming Microsoft for a 3rd party software vendor's fault is rather irrational. And besides how many exploits have been found in let's say bind/sendmail in the past? Personally I've never come across any of those firewalls, and I doubt any of them represents a major part of the personal firewall market.

  69. Be realistic by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The average joe isnt going to be monitoring any lists.. they will just ( hopefully ) plug in whatever box that came with their pc.. or at worst, accept defaults on software, which normally is useless..

    Thast the reality of 90% of the 'home users'.. so a 'free' hardware firewall is the best solution. Since they give away printers, they shoudld be giving away firewalls too.. they are just as cheap. ( though, yes i realize that they make their money via ink carts.. but you get my point )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Be realistic by whydna · · Score: 1

      They aren't giving away the printers to be nice, they're giving away the printers because they make all their money on the ink.

      They'll give out free firewalls as soon as they figure out a way to charge you for disposables. So, unless the firewall is going to start holding peoples internet connections hostage until they pay a ransom, I don't think that hardware firewalls will be given away without some gimmick.

    2. Re:Be realistic by LinuxHam · · Score: 1

      An interesting tidbit: SBC/Yahoo! DSL distributes DSL modems in Los Angeles that are secretly also access points with a minimal WEP firewall/NAT router and run a much lower power xmitter than normal. 2wire.com devices.

      Saw two of them on a trip and both got sent back.. neither could get link on the provider side. Two different people, different sections of town, same excuses from SBC.. "the signal levels are really low in your part of town".

      My point? The time has come where firewalls are automatically being shipped out to new broadband customers. Thank God, too. Even better, their service is so shitty the boxes are staying off the net! Can't get root if there's no path to the box, right?! :-D

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
  70. We all asked for this by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Just a few days ago people were commenting, 'its not like the old days where most virus outbreaks caused damage. Now they just set up spam-bots.. bla bla '

    Welp, heres a 'evil' virus/worm for ya.. Hope everyone is feeling better now. ( and its not attacking an OS but 'security software'.. how lovely.. )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  71. This is why... by .@. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is why having a firewall running on the machine(s) it's supposed to protect is idiotic.

    When will the Windows world (and, to a lesser extent, the *nix world) wake up and realize that putting all services on a single box is just asking for trouble?

    A firewall should be a dedicated, hardened host that is easily rebuilt if compromised. A firewall should not be the only layer of security.

    --
    .@.
    1. Re:This is why... by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be the only layer of security if people didn't run as administrator all the time. And Microsoft totally wastes the benefits of NTFS in XP home because administrator is the default user! There's also EFS which seems to go unnoticed in the Windows world.

  72. Re:One question, and one answer. by iansmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, pretty easy.

    If you could actually turn off unwanted and insecure services you wouldn't NEED a firewall.

    My FreeBSD/Linux based routers serve as firewalls for my Windows boxes. Very easy to turn off everything but ssh.

    In Windows you can't even tell whats running let alone shut it off. There are many ports that get attached to every interface and no way to fix it.

    The first and only firewall most people need is an OS that doesn't open itself up to the world like a cheap two-bit, umm, door. Or something. :-)

  73. Re:Ughhhhh by rco3 · · Score: 0

    Hey, it's cool, man. I share your pain. But it'll be easier if you just let it out, ya know? :-)

    Congrats on the wrestling thing, though.

    Oh, yeah - Roll Tide.

    --

    Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  74. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by Eudial · · Score: 1

    OTOH, if Windows were to ship with a functional firewall (such as IPTables), nobody would ever need the 3rd-party software in the first place.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  75. first few sectors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From looking at the disassembly it looks more like it sends 20000 copies of itself to random destinations, then tries to open one of HD0-7, if the open fails it goes back to sending, if it succeeds it overwrites a random 64kB-aligned 64kB chunk of the first 2 GiB with some data, reseeds the prng and goes back to sending, if the open fails it simply loops back to sending another 20k copies.

    I'd hardly call 2GiB a few sectors...

  76. Application specific exploit by gbrayut · · Score: 1
    This only affects you if you are using an Internet Security Systems software firewall:
    Systems Affected:
    RealSecure Network 7.0, XPU 22.11 and before
    RealSecure Server Sensor 7.0 XPU 22.11 and before
    RealSecure Server Sensor 6.5 for Windows SR 3.10 and before
    Proventia A Series XPU 22.11 and before
    Proventia G Series XPU 22.11 and before
    Proventia M Series XPU 1.9 and before
    RealSecure Desktop 7.0 ebl and before
    RealSecure Desktop 3.6 ecf and before
    RealSecure Guard 3.6 ecf and before
    RealSecure Sentry 3.6 ecf and before
    BlackICE Agent for Server 3.6 ecf and before
    BlackICE PC Protection 3.6 ccf and before
    BlackICE Server Protection 3.6 ccf and before

    Description:
    eEye Digital Security has discovered a critical vulnerability in the PAM (Protocol Analysis Module) component used in all current ISS host, server, and network device solutions. A routine within the Protocol Analysis Module (PAM) that monitors ICQ server responses contains a series of stack based buffer overflow vulnerabilities. If the source port of an incoming UDP packet is 4000, it is assumed to be an ICQ v5 server response.
  77. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by MurphyZero · · Score: 1

    True, but then all the companies making firewalls would get the government(s) to declare Microsoft a monopoly preventing them from selling their products. Probably because even if Microsoft were to create an effective firewall, they probably would depend on monopolistic activities to sell their product rather than depend on a superior product--all hypothetical of course.

    --
    Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
  78. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by halftrack · · Score: 1

    More cryptic acronyms to the people!

    I don't really think that's an acronym. Google defines it (or rather; finds it defined as:) (n) A word formed by joining the initial letters of a series of words. (Emphasis mine.) Now FGTRGDI doesn't feel or sound like a word to me. It's just an abbreviation. A word should have no more than two consonants in a row, three only as an exception. Anything more than that and it'll only pass as an acronym in the Welsh language. However ... maybe ... VABULI could work (Viruses Are Bad, Use LInux.)

    --
    Look a monkey!
  79. Re:Oh no by runderwo · · Score: 1
    Suit yourself. It's your data you won't be recovering, after all. That'll show that pompous braggart!

  80. Re:Oh no by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

    Strongbad is truly awesome ok.
    Just finished his 100th e-mail reply in WIDE-O-VISION

    http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemailahundred.ht ml

    But on-topic on "the achievement": I'm impressed and hope that he will make a nice bootable floppy for that tool so that I can use it if I need it.

    I'm impressed, you just sound jealous :P

    --
    This is the sig that says NI (again)
  81. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OTOH, if Windows were to ship with a functional firewall (such as IPTables), nobody would ever need the 3rd-party software in the first place.

    And if MS did that, someone would've sued them for monopolising the personal firewall market.

  82. Re:Oh no by stef0x77 · · Score: 1

    Seems like everyone's written one of these. Here's one a friend of mine wrote.

    http://memberwebs.com/nielsen/windows/scrounge/

  83. Is ZoneAlarm Vulnerable too? by frank249 · · Score: 1

    I am running win xp pro with zone alarm firewall. Twice today I have had a blue screen come up and say that there is a system stop due to a program trying to write to a read only portion of memory. It then says that it is dumping physical memory to disk. After about a minute it reboots and runs fine. Does this sound like the worm in question?

    --

    Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

    1. Re:Is ZoneAlarm Vulnerable too? by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      Nope, that's probably something else since you can reboot fine and this worm doesn't try to do any dodgy things with the memory.

      I'd get an AV checker in there though.

    2. Re:Is ZoneAlarm Vulnerable too? by WreckDiver · · Score: 3, Funny

      Blue screens and memory dumps are normal Windows behavior. Nothing to be worried about.

    3. Re:Is ZoneAlarm Vulnerable too? by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 2, Informative

      A memory dump is a blue screen. And most memory dumps in an NT/NT based environment are due to hardware or driver problems. Programs run at ring 3 in their own memory spaces. Windows 9x blue screens could also be caused by hardware or drivers but were usually due to bad memory management, direct access to hardware and everything running at ring 0.

    4. Re:Is ZoneAlarm Vulnerable too? by kasperd · · Score: 1

      I am running win xp pro with zone alarm firewall. Twice today I have had a blue screen come up and say that there is a system stop due to a program trying to write to a read only portion of memory.

      It is not completely unlikely that the worm could be causing this. I don't know the details about this flaw, so I cannot say how likely it is, that a second firewall vendor made the same mistake. But even if ZoneAlarm has a similar flaw, it is very unlikely that it can be infected by a worm aimed at BlackICE. Crashing ZoneAlarm is however very likely. This is of course all guessing, there could just as well be a completely different explanation to the symptoms you are seeing. What exactly the write to a read only area means is not clear. It could indicate ZoneAlarm or the kernel is using fencing as an extra layer of security. If this is the case it could slow down the creation of an exploit against ZoneAlarm or maybe even make it unexploitable in which case it will only be a DoS attack. If there really is a flaw in ZoneAlarm I'd expect more people to be seeing the same symptoms.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  84. Sucks to be a Windows user by HangingChad · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The worm may attack firewalls, but it's still a Windows problem. I hate to sound unsympathetic (which is usually a clue someone is about to sound that way) but how many times do people have to get virus-smacked before they wise up and move off Windows? There are some really simple Linux distros out there.

    It was a great feeling the other day when the wife was checking Email on her Linux workstation and asked me about a funny attachment she got from one of her girlfriends.

    As shitty as MSFT has acted, it's not a bit sad to watch them slide.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Sucks to be a Windows user by rugger · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Watch me take a karma hit for this, but:

      How many times do you Linux lusers have to be told that we don't want to use linux. (Note, this argument is based mostly towards linux lusers who think everyone should switch to linux. Macs are ok, but still suffer these problems to a lesser degree)

      There are many GOOD reasons to run windows, including:

      1) Good computer game support. Not only are most games windows based, but the API's for games in windows are well defined and provide good performance.

      2) Good software support. Many windows programs are just faster, smoother, and better then their linux counterparts. Linux is about as good (sometimes better too) in terms of web browers/email programs, and other net software, but almost always falls flat in other areas.

      3) It just works. I don't need to fuck around with shit too often to get windows to work with most of my programs. There is the occasional stupid program/setting, but that occurs on linux much more regularly. With linux too, I have found the supposedly easy to setup linux distributions are fragile and far too easy to break. The auto-config tools ussually only barely work, are ussually slow as snot, and are annoying.

      4) Eventually, if everyone moves to linux, we will have the same problems as windows users wrt worms and viruses. There have been many many holes and exploits found in linux software, and with viruses only coming out days after an exploit is announced, no-one is really that safe that they can be smug about it.

      A lot of programs/routines in linux will have to be refined if there is any chance of linux become a usable desktop operating system.

    2. Re:Sucks to be a Windows user by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "How many times do you Linux lusers have to be told that we don't want to use linux."

      That's ok, we enjoy being GODS among men...

    3. Re:Sucks to be a Windows user by neko9 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Eventually, if everyone moves to linux, we will have the same problems as windows users wrt worms and viruses.

      wrong. that's why.

      A lot of programs/routines in linux will have to be refined if there is any chance of linux become a usable desktop operating system.

      in that sentence word "linux" should be changed to "windows". and that's why.

    4. Re:Sucks to be a Windows user by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 0

      Woa! Parent should be "+5 omnipresent"..

    5. Re:Sucks to be a Windows user by oGMo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, well, I've got karma to burn, too:
      How many times do you Linux lusers have to be told that we don't want to use linux.

      Actually, we don't really give a crap about what you want. You're mostly cluebies who shouldn't have a say in the matter, and the cause of most of these problems. You're the ones who use the vulnerable software, and click on things because they tell you to. (Remember, one of the last worms was purely a trojan---the user had to do all the work.)

      You should use Linux (or OSX, or whatever), because we tell you to, and we know what we're talking about. You're causing problems that affect a lot of people (the networks get saturated), and you need to stop.

      Let's look at your points:

      1. Games. Get a Nintendo/PS2/XBOX/whatever. It's more plug-and-play than Windows. (Don't think I don't know about all the driver and compatibility issues PC games run into.)
      2. Good software support. Hah. Most Windows programs are monolithic, clunky, closed systems (i.e. you can't extend them, script them, etc.). They may or may not conform to a UI model, and they may or may not even get along with each other. If you think what you're using is good, try OSX or KDE 3.1. You'll be amazed.
      3. It just works. Well, if you're lucky, it does. At least for now. It might not the next time you boot though, or when you install that next piece of software. I've had better luck with Linux "just working" lately (Fedora and other modern distros do an awesome job of having all the drivers there for most things you'd need... even installing nvidia drivers these days is trivial or automatic) than trying to haggle with Windows. OSX is far better than both in this regard, though.
      4. Eventually, Linux will have the same problems. As others have pointed out... no, it won't. Unprivileged users cannot compromise the system, have low-level access (like writing to the drive), and are subject to other restrictions which severely limit the impact a worm can have.

      Anyway, your last (unnumbered) point about programs needing refinement is probably the only accurate one. Most do need refinement; however, the beautiful thing about the Linux and Free Software community is that they constantly are being refined. And if there's something you don't like, I suggest you help out, or quit complaining about it.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    6. Re:Sucks to be a Windows user by Microlith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, we don't really give a crap about what you want. You're mostly cluebies who shouldn't have a say in the matter, and the cause of most of these problems. You're the ones who use the vulnerable software, and click on things because they tell you to. (Remember, one of the last worms was purely a trojan---the user had to do all the work.)

      You should use Linux (or OSX, or whatever), because we tell you to, and we know what we're talking about. You're causing problems that affect a lot of people (the networks get saturated), and you need to stop.


      Oh god shut up, shut up, shut the FUCK UP.

      *cough*

      Excuse me, but you can shove that condescending know-it-all attitude straight up your ass.

      I use Windows because the overall experience, at least for Desktop use, has been better. Stuff actually works the way I expect it to. I plug in a firewire hard disk, it installs and loads drivers, and the partitions, if any, appear. Instantly. No going to linux1394.org, downloading a shell script, and hoping it works. I click a torrent in mozilla, or Explorer, or whatever, and it loads my Bittorrent client automatically. More recent distros are better, but you won't win anyone over with that attitude.

      Last time I had reliability problems with windows, the hard disk was failing. But since I fixed that problem (which not even Linux is immune to) I've had ZERO problems booting. And to be honest, I haven't had any security problems.

      Whoa, you think I'm lying, right?

      No, I'm not. In the time I've been running 2K and XP, not once have I had:

      A Trojan
      A Worm
      Spyware
      Malware

      of any sort have any sort of presence on my machine.

      Granted, I run Mozilla, Apache (with a secured user-account of its own,) instead of the usual windows implements. Sometimes the opensource community does create stuff that truly JUST WORKS. At least they're smart enough to not get arrogant about it.

      But for kicks I run without a firewall and as an administrator 100% of the time. Still waiting for all the problems you describe.

      So, kindly, pull that stick out of your ass. Thank you.

    7. Re:Sucks to be a Windows user by Nebu · · Score: 1

      1. Get a Nintendo/PS2/XBOX/whatever I have these AND a windows machine, 'cause sometimes they release a game only for Windows.

      2. Good software support. Hah. Most Windows programs are monolithic, clunky, closed systems (i.e. you can't extend them, script them, etc.). They may or may not conform to a UI model, and they may or may not even get along with each other. If you think what you're using is good, try OSX or KDE 3.1. You'll be amazed. I like eMule, Office, WinAmp, CloneCD, ICQ, MSN Messenger, Paint Shop Pro, L&H Japanese Translator, Visual Studio, Encarta, DiscJuggler, Reason, RPGMaker and Tag&Rename just ot name a few. I've never really encountered a situaiton where I'd want to script or extend them. You can name me the alternatives (lMule, OpenOffice, XMMS, etc.); I've tried them, and I don't like them as much as the originals. I may have had one or two instances of software not working together on a Windows machine (say Adobe doing some funky script thing in Office), but they tend to be merely annoyances; certainly nothing that would keep me from doing any work. But try installing an mp3 tagger in Debian which depends on something which depends on something which depends on something which depends on a version of libstdc++5 from the unstable branch, and you've pretty much killed a dozen or two of your apps.

      3. I've never had Windows not just work (i.e. always, Windows just works), and I've installed it on 5 home systems, 2 systems for friends, and 10 systems in a LAN at work. Networking always worked, and video always worked, so for the few instances that the more obscure hardware didn't, I could just hop onto Windowsupdate.com and get the drivers. With every system I've installed Linux on but one, I found out the hardware was not supported. Things as basic as video, sound and networking would not work. Downloading a driver from a windows machine, splitting it into 1.4 meg chunks using WinRar, floppy-disking it onto the linux box, and downloading a linux unrar program, trying to get the driver to compile using the 20+ command line arguments the README file tells me to input, and being told that a certain option has been deprecated and not being told what the option replaces it is not fun.

      Linux is a fine OS, but there are still plenty of reasons to use Windows. I run both.

    8. Re:Sucks to be a Windows user by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      "How many times do you Linux lusers have to be told that we don't want to use linux."

      That's ok, we enjoy being GODS among men...


      Just a pity you don't get to enjoy women.

    9. Re:Sucks to be a Windows user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Winamp can be easily "scripted" with Win32 API calls. Read this document for more info.

    10. Re:Sucks to be a Windows user by maduro55 · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I couldn't agree more. I get so freaking tired of u$oft bashing just for the sake of doing it. Everyone is already aware of it's flaws, faults and inefficiencies. Unfortunately there are those of us that are required to run\support Windoze. I think the poster really needs to pull his head out of his ass.

  85. Get a life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you'll be using both and monitoring both white and blackhat security sites daily

    Are you serious? I have a hardware firewall, local firewall and an anti-virus program.

    They local progs check for updates. I have better things to do with my life than worry about computer security, unless a virus learns how to overwrite the write-once CDR backups in my fire-safe!

    1. Re:Get a life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CDR media dies on the shelf.

      Got tape?

    2. Re:Get a life... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Tape needs retensioning (if reused) and also dies on the shelf (perhaps more slowly than CD's, perhaps not.)

      Got a hard disk offsite to backup to?

      The only solid solution.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    3. Re:Get a life... by trs998 · · Score: 1

      hard drives crash...

      Seriously, ive lost more backups data than the data that it was supposed to be gaurding. At work, the server dumps important directorys and network shares to cds once a week, plus whenever requested... and ive lost more cds and the server's raid-1 has never crashed.
      If the server catches fire the situation might be different i suppose. Backups are less reliable than the backed up data usually anyway.

      what about putting all the users on a email client that doesn't support javascript/external image loading/evil VBscript etc.. and just shows the html/text?

      BTW, i use a linux firewall (dedicated distro) and internal computers run linux. an internal computer running windows is not allowed access to the net (its there for games). I havent had a virus problem yet.

    4. Re:Get a life... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Re CD's: I just had to restore a backup made eighteen months ago on one of my machines (I needed an image backup, which I don't usually do, and that was the last one I did on this machine I haven't used in months). The four-disk image backup restored fine. A data file set of two CDs made on the same date would not restore properly, however - major sector errors. These were silk-screened CompUSA CDs (yeah, I know, cheap crap). I've read that if you put any kind of label on a CD, the glue will destroy your data within a year or so. Much safer to write on the CD with a marker made for that purpose.

      I'm planning to make PAR files of my backups from now on so I can recover data on them. The Linux DAr (Disk Archive) program does that as part of its backup system.

      As for hard disks crashing, well, the point of my post was that two disks separated by a network in different buildings are unlikely to crash at the same time. So if your backup server crashes, you back up again. If your main server crashes, the backup restores. And hard disks are VASTLY more reliable (and faster) than ANY other media when you consider how often they are accessed versus how often they crash. If the backup server is ONLY used for backups, it won't be accessed except when doing backups or restores and should be more reliable and last longer than any production server. And of course you can RAID that server.

      All in all, compared to tape, CD, etc., hard disks are the best backup media in terms of reliability, speed, ease of use, etc.

      But they have to be offsite to be used for corporate backups. Home users can take their chances with onsite backup. Of course, a home user can use a removable and stick a second one in a safe deposit box.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  86. This is why I dont believe in personal firewalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    better to turn off services and shut all your ports down. on fedora, that is just about a cinch. assuming you shut down your ntp daemon. just run ntpdate once in a while. and use startx --nolisten tcp. firewall code is just more code running as root that can be exploited!

    and guess what windows is doing. yes, rather than turn off the crapware they're putting in a 'personal firewall' in xp. yippppeee.

  87. Overwrites 64k of data at random location,NOT MBR! by gbrayut · · Score: 3, Informative
    From the ISS X-Force alert:
    Description:

    The Witty worm exploits a stack-based overflow in ICQ response parsing
    in the Protocol Analysis Module (PAM) of ISS products. It is a memory-
    resident worm only, and contains no file payload. Witty propagates via
    UDP, sending UDP packets with a random destination and destination port.
    The source port of Witty traffic is 4000, and the source address is not
    spoofed.

    The worm will attempt to propagate immediately by sending copies of
    itself out across the wire to random targets. After sending a predefined
    number of packets, Witty attempts to open a randomly determined physical
    drive and write 64k of data to a random location. This cycle repeats for
    every 20,000 packets sent.
    Ouch....
  88. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Till you have to actually get some work done!

    Trawling and posting on /. does not constitute work.

  89. Re:Thats why I don't use Windows! by Punchinello · · Score: 1

    Thou dost protest too much, sir troll.

    --

    Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

  90. Not any more... by akeyes · · Score: 0

    About Internet Security Systems, Inc. Internet Security Systems, Inc. (ISS) is the trusted expert to global enterprises and world governments, providing products and services that protect against Internet threats.

  91. Erm... remote root indicates a vulnerable service. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can't remote root a system with no open ports unless the firewall code itself is compromised.

    And _that_ I've never heard of (except in the case of BlackICE and ZoneAlarm)

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  92. Not so trivial... by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Informative

    It doesn't just write the the MBR. It pushes 64k of data to RANDOM locations on a randomly selected hard-disk. At some point it bombs the MBR, but it bombs other portions of the disks on a machine.

    NASTY worm. Definitely old-school in nature- I wondered when someone would get around to making something along these lines.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  93. The cure? by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    Linux..

    I grew weary of this bullshit about 2 years ago and totally abandoned the norm.

    I've had ZERO concern over any of the last two years worth of viruses, worms, trojans, spyware, malware, 1984ware, hackers, crackers, etc, etc..

    When someone starts beating on you, you have to be pretty dumb to stand there and let them continue to beat on you. A wise man strikes back.
    Fsck that "turn the other cheek" shit..

    1. Re:The cure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a worm, a virus, do they wreck computers? Oh yeah, that's right I'm using a Mac ....

  94. Incorrect analysis? by James_G · · Score: 5, Informative
    According to this analysys, it does a lot more than corrupt the first few sectors of the drive:

    The worm's functionality is as follows:

    1) Generates a random IP address
    2) Sends the worm payload
    3) Repeats steps 1-2 20,000 times
    4) Opens a random PHYSICALDRIVE from 0-7, which allows raw hard disk access
    5) Seeks to a random point on the disk
    6) Writes 65K of data from the beginning of the vulnerable DLL to the disk

    7) Closes the disk
    8) Starts the process over from step 1

    (emphasis mine)

  95. points for speed and damage by neoThoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well i'm glad this was posted on slashdot even though I had submitted this *hours* before.
    I've also updated my blog with all the relevent links and data . The speed of the worm creation is frightening, less then 5 days from the vulnerability announcement to the time that the worm hit the internet. No one can claim this is a spamming effort either since, as noted in other posts here, it is destroying the disks on the machine as well. It's actually like a game of russion roulette, it targets one of the first 8 disks and if the disk doesn't exist it simply continues it's routine of attacking 20,000 random addresses. This is the first worm I can remember that is actually malicious.
    Listed on the above blog are the following links:
    eEye advisory
    ISS advisory
    lurhq analysis
    SANS diary report
    F-Secure writeup
    Symantec writeup
    Witty Worm Capture 1 and 2 (from dslreports.com)
    and the text from SANS capture of the worm.

    I've been capturing UDP traffic all day and hope to compile some more interesting information later on.

    1. Re:points for speed and damage by neoThoth · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Just for fun and giggles, my submission

      Blackice worm released Saturday March 20, @04:25PM Rejected
      Maybe I didn't spice it up enough?

    2. Re:points for speed and damage by ameoba · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, the speed isn't all that suprising. If I were a worm developer, I'd spend a few weeks working on a good payload and then, at the last minute, strap an exploit onto the front of it and put it into the wild before anyone gets their boxes fixed. It makes a lot more sense than figuring out the exploit & then trying to craft the rest of the worm around it, which would give sytems time to patch themselves and the effectiveness of your worm would suffer.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  96. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget words like "strength" that have four consonants in a row.

  97. not only is it trivial to find it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you don't even need to. You don't need your FAT table to access your files. It keeps track of used sectors, but it doesn't keep track of the files.

    You can reconstruct the entire FAT table from the directory structures, which are easily found.

    So it'll be some hassle to the user, but your data won't be lost if you are willing to go get the right recovery utilities.

    Also, you should be running NTFS.

    1. Re:not only is it trivial to find it... by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      You don't need your FAT table to access your files. It keeps track of used sectors, but it doesn't keep track of the files.

      You can reconstruct the entire FAT table from the directory structures, which are easily found.


      This claim is just as wrong as the grandparent's claim about the location of the backup FAT.

      Both copies of the FAT are located near the start of the disk, between the boot sector and the data.

      Directories record the starting cluster of a file, and its size. The FAT is the only record of the location of the rest of the clusters. It's often possible to guess their location (clusters are normally allocated sequentially), but not always. Fragmented files are generally pretty hard to recover without having the FAT around to help.

    2. Re:not only is it trivial to find it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      forgive me for being a clueless windows luser, what recovery utilities are those?

      i'm running NTFS and one of the drives is completely hosed... i.e., MFT is gone, EasyRecovery is not finding anything of use... suggestions?

  98. One wonders what else got in this way by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Every time there's some high-profile attack that exploits a huge hole like this, there are probably other attacks using the same hole. Ones that quietly break in, look for interesting data like credit card numbers, transmit to a remote system, and exit.

    This is a huge hole. It requires no end-user action whatsoever to exploit. The "security" program it attacks is probably running with administrator privileges, even on locked down systems. There's no reason a packet filter should be able to write raw disks. In fact, if it still runs with those privileges, you want to get this "security" product off your system now. This might not be the only hole.

  99. Repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't we all get together and write a
    'wittless worm' that repairs the MBR.

  100. fdisk /mbr by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    Should do it unless the worm does more damage not listed in the article.

  101. Shouldnt it be: by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Witty" Worm Wrecks Workstations!

  102. Incorrect on point 4. by khasim · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    1, 2 and 3 are okay. Subject to each person's experience.

    4 is not. Worms and viruses and (to a lesser extent) trojans are NOT distributed equally based upon marketshare.

    They propagate because of FLAWS in the SECURITY of the system. And Linux has a better security model than Windows.

    Windows has the problems it does because:
    #1. Microsoft puts software on the system that was not selected. Microsoft does this for a "user friendly" point. But "user friendly" does not equate to "good security".

    #2. Microsoft enable services, by default, that are NOT needed. Again, this is for "user friendly" points. But it is bad for security.

    #3. Microsoft made it easy to execute apps, even via email. They're finally learning on this one after wave after wave after wave of email trojans have hit their products. Again, this is from a "user friendly" point.

    In order for Linux to have the same problems that Microsoft has, Linux would have to have 51% of the desktop, come installed with the same apps on 90% of those desktops AND have security holes in those apps AND be setup to run as root.

    This is NOT just about who has more desktops.

    1. Re:Incorrect on point 4. by prshaw · · Score: 1

      >> #3. Microsoft made it easy to execute apps, even via email.

      Like requiring them to save a zip file, enter a password, and then execute the program?

      Sorry. When Linux is as popular as Windows these USERS will be doing this on Linix. Save attachment, run config in the directory, chmod it, and then execute.

      The recent crop of NetSky/Bagle/MyDoom show the future.

    2. Re:Incorrect on point 4. by PopCulture · · Score: 1

      4 is not. Worms and viruses and (to a lesser extent) trojans are NOT distributed equally based upon marketshare.

      I totally disagree. If you are a tiny software comapany interested in selling a desktop product, are you going to target NetBSD or OS/2 as your deployment environment? No. You target MS Windows, with a crazy majority on the desktop. Likewise, if you are a shit eating virus writer with limited resources looking to maximize damage, your mark will be the same- the leader in market share. Add open availability of the souce code to the mix, and then try to defend your position.

      They propagate because of FLAWS in the SECURITY of the system. And Linux has a better security model than Windows.

      Used to be the case, and to much less of an extent, still so. But the fact of the matter is that many win programmers still deploy and run as administrator. Up till win2k most programmers didn't have a choice; now its just out of lack of skill and general laziness. With MS's latest stance of putting out security patches that will break unsecure code, this behaviors' days are numbered...

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
    3. Re:Incorrect on point 4. by PopCulture · · Score: 1

      haha. Can you even imagine a PHB chmod-ing anything???

      A secretary "running config in the directory"

      a 60 year old retiree writing his or her own startup/shutdown shell scripts for an open source compiled binary?

      what the hell are you thinking man???

      This is not a troll at all- just pointing out that MS windows made security sacrifices to gain the simplicity that granted it market dominance. And given MS's warchest and capabilities, making windows more secure will be realized faster than making linux easier to use, in the same secure manner.

      maybe you just adore chmodding things, but the business execs DON'T.

      And then, just think of the collective BILLIONS of dollars companies already have invested in MS products, and the costs of retraining a workforce...

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
  103. Knoppix by mousse-man · · Score: 1

    The Knoppix CD will happily boot with a usable Linux and it reads NTFS harddisks.

  104. As a Linux user.. by msimm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd like to apologise for the poster your responding to and I'd like to point that the 99.9% of OTHER Linux users are not starry eyed PFB's trying to cram their particular religion down everyone's throats.

    We know Linux needs work before its ready for prime time, just like we know that there are certain trade-offs between convenance and security.

    I do believe that Windows users have gotten a bit of a drop here by Microsoft, but that would be more of a monopoly issue and bad planning (if we had the lead all this time WE would certainly have made some mistakes too).

    So keep using your Windows PC in peace. Its got a lot of useful functionality and as a Gnome developer once suggested, the most secure operating system is the one your comfortable with and can keep updated. As Linux gains marketshare you can bet some vunerabilities will be found, some we'll expect and some we wont. Maybe you'll find it more appealing after its had more time to mature. Don't let zealots color your opinions too much, they speak for themselves.

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:As a Linux user.. by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >the most secure operating system is the one your comfortable with and can keep updated.

      Amen! I won't even recommend OpenBSD if it's to a client who doesn't have a workable procedure for catching problems like the OpenSSH exploit last summer and installing the patch.

      Windows Update and OS X Software Update are both straightforward and relatively painless.

      Given the record of Windows, though, I'll insist that any of my clients run it only behind an external firewall. That's even before the host hardening and patch management. I'll never endorse exposing a Windows box to raw Internet traffic.

      >WE would certainly have made some mistakes too

      If "WE" includes pre-Linux Unix, those mistakes have already happened. Unix systems have been dealing with self-reproducing network attacks since the 1988 Morris worm. Part of the difference between Unix-inspired systems and Windows systems is that there's been a longer debugging and hardening cycle in the Unix family tree. Yes, it's not the only difference.

  105. It's a vulnerability that... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    ...is only possible on a platform that has insecurities in the FIRST place. An OS shouldn't allow the vector, let alone the actual processing of the attack.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:It's a vulnerability that... by prshaw · · Score: 1

      An OS shouldn't allow a firewall? Or not allow a system service to write to the hard disk? Or not allow a third party application to be installed? Or not allow a third party service be install?

      Then what should an OS allow? How do we get another OS installed on a harddisk if the OS won't let anything write to the boot sectors or hard disk?

  106. Appropiate use of this worm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would have been to target every single lawyer's network/pc.

    Litigate this BITCH!

    At least somebody remembers what virii used to be like...say wait a worm mutating gawt damn minute!!!!!!

  107. Re:Bear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave me alone you nerdy freak!

    -- Jennifer

  108. Unbootable by Megane · · Score: 1
    The worm overwrites data on the first few sectors of the victim's hard drive, making the machine virtually u[n]bootable . . .

    This is a bad thing? It seems to me this is the best way to get all those spam-proxy infected machines off the net. I'm sure any box hit by this probably also has at least one or two other infections already active.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  109. Re:Oh no by ameoba · · Score: 1

    The 'total' mess is that, by the time the boot sector is overwritten, countless other sections of the drive have had random data written to them. The chances of the virus doing other things to cripple a system before it overwrites the boot sector and partition table is pretty high.

    Even if you considre that he size of the MBR/PT is a small fraction of a percent of the size of the critical files that the OS can't live without (loader, kernel, device drivers, registry, etc...) so the worm is 2-3 orders of magnitude more likely to cripple the machine on any given write, there's still a lot of data that can get corrupted without forcing you to do a recovery.

    What good is recovering data from a system if you can't be sure if any of the data is any good in the first place?

    This isn't quite as bad as a suggestion I remember reading about a while back here on /. where the virus actually understands common document formats (like spreadsheets and DBs) and over time slowly alters the data in them without destroying the structure of the file so that, by the time the virus is known and people find out they have it, all of their data (and if it's been any length of time, their backups) are completely untrustworthy.

    --
    my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  110. Yeah, I'm Sure My Mother Will Get Right On That. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like all the other Windows users out there.

  111. Huh.... by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Why didn't you just disable, and then uninstall BlackIce?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Huh.... by shadowcabbit · · Score: 1

      Two reasons: First, my hardware firewall is a hundred miles away packed in a box, and I don't want to leave my computer unprotected for a week till I go and get it; and second, I didn't think of it.

      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
  112. Au Contraire by MyHair · · Score: 1

    A computer virus isn't what Google thinks a Witty Worm is (not at all work safe :-) ).

    I disagree. Any user that uses either involuntarily feels the same way.

  113. end result of latest worms by stikk · · Score: 1

    Now I am one for dismissing most things, but really.. someone tell me if its not alittle fishy that the latest worms have been "cleaning up" systems.. welchi.. fixes vulnerabilities.. now this worm basically crashes vulnerable systems forcing the owner to reinstall possible a "newer" version of OS..

    As for as a long term solution, the latest worms actually haven't "compromised" anyone's data.. and the worst they've done is create downtime causing the importance of patching/upgrading to be visible on the executive's agenda.

    I've used blackice before, among other personal firewalls.. they all have one thing in common, the simple product is designed with "bells and whistles" that increase the amount of attackable points in the software.. keep it simple..

  114. Wow by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    macs can read hard drives without file alocation tables?! That is impressive.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Wow by Bob+Davis,+Retired · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in an amazing place called the /dev directory, all your hard disks exist as raw devices! It's only been like that since the '70s.

  115. Finally a worm that kills the vulnerable by brainchill · · Score: 1

    I am tired of all of this worm crap ... I am just happy to see that someone wrote a worm that is killing infected computers and putting them out of their misery instead of quietly using them to spread their junk forever.

    That's one thing I miss about old dos viruses ... they weren't as complex but more of them were fatal.

  116. Data Recovery Options by Alien54 · · Score: 1
    The worm overwrites data on the first few sectors of the victim's hard drive, making the machine virtually unbootable and potentially destroying much - if not all - of the victim's data."

    If there is no physical damage to the hard drive, then there a number of inexpensive and very useful data recovery tools out there for recovering data from a hard drive. Even if the partitions are blown.

    The file system does matter, of course, And I am not up to speed for the various similar tools for *nix file systems (anyone care to jump in on this?)

    There is a nice market for people who can do data recovery without needing to open a drive in a clean room, without charging 2000 bucks just to look at it.

    Once you have everything recovered to another disk, then you can have fun rebuilding the Partition.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  117. for the virus experts... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    For those that know a bit about viruses...

    Are there viruses that can run on multiple operating systems? I'm talking about ONE virus that can infect a Windows machine, then propagate onto a linux machine and infect that, and so on. I'm also not talking about Internet Explorer exploits, or user exploit/trojan horse (eg. user clicks on some attached file),etc. I'm talking about an old school virus that can detect what OS is running and then infect it.

    Anyone know of such viruses?

    Sivaram Velauthapillai

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    1. Re:for the virus experts... by prshaw · · Score: 1

      Basicly no.

      This would be the same as any application running on more then one OS. You can buy different versions of programs to run on different OS's, but in general one file runs on one OS.

      There might be a way to build a file that had multiple seperate programs in it, one for each OS that it will run on. I don't know enough about how each OS loads files to know if this is possible, but I don't think it is.

    2. Re:for the virus experts... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Yeah... the virus would be the same thing as an application (it's a software program after all)...

      Does any comp sci guys know if you can theoretically create a program (however trivial) that can run on arbitrarily differing operating systems?

      I'm thinking it would have to be a low level program, possibly written in assembly or machine language (if that's even possible), and it has to circumvent the operating system calls... I don't know... Seems interesting...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    3. Re:for the virus experts... by prshaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Technically what you are asking, yes it could be written. But it couldn't really do anything usefull.

      You could write an x86 asm routine that did not make an OS call. So it would not care what OS it is running on. I used to write my own string copy routines that would work on any OS.

      But, if you take out all access to OS related functions you don't have much you can do. No reading or writing files. Unless you want to try and write a file system into it that would interface with the hardware to read any file system. No access to network interfaces, unless you wrote and added drivers for any hardware the machine might have. And so on.

      So basicly you can write an OS that did not talk to a host OS, that is what Linux, Windows, BeOS, and all of those do. But it would not be a very small thing if you wanted to read the users files and send them somewhere.

    4. Re:for the virus experts... by Alex_Ionescu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually you basically can't for a simple reason.

      Yes, you can write x86 *CODE* that will run on any OS, by using BIOS interrupts, or even making different calls/checks to see what OS this is, and then using the appropriate system calls. But how to run this code?

      Windows uses PE files, Linux uses ELF files, MacOS 9 uses data+ressource forks...etc. It would take a hell of a lot of hacking the formats to somehow make the PE offsets correspond to the ELF offsets or somehow put both kinds of headers in the executable program so it can run on both OSs.

      So while your code might be multi-platform compatible, the cointainer itself will end up being OS-specific.

    5. Re:for the virus experts... by prshaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I pretty much agree with you.

      The only gotcha I see in the answer would be that the original question was asking if you could write a virus that would run on any (or multiple) OS's. That takes the requirement of a executable file out of it.

      If somehow you could get a buffer overflow or something that jumped to your code (which would be OS specific I guess) you could then execute any "pure" x86 code you wanted. I just don't see it being able to do a whole lot. Best/Worst case would be directly talk to an IDE interface and corupt drive 0. That would probably take the original exploit to be in the kernal of the infected OS otherwise I think pretty much all OS block user code from that low level access.

      But you are right, there is probably going to have to be some OS dependant code in there somewhere to get it started. And it would be some pretty nasty code.

    6. Re:for the virus experts... by kasperd · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about ONE virus that can infect a Windows machine, then propagate onto a linux machine and infect that, and so on.

      It would be possible to do. But it would of course take at least twice as much work to make it. And I haven't heard of any. Even if the two OSes run on the same hardware, it would be hard to take advantage of, as system calls are different. If you want to attack a large range of different systems a virtual machine layer would make the task simpler. I think even with just two systems you might find that the virtual machine aproach is simpler. It is possible to target three or more systems without a virtual machine, but it gets complicated. Basically the complexity of a native virus would be quadratic in the number of target systems where the virtual machine version would be linear.

      Two different systems means you must attack in two different ways. This also opens the possibility for a worm/virus hybrid. It could act as a worm on Linux systems and a virus on Windows systems. But you could go even further, you wouldn't have to limit yourself to one attack against each system. You could include ten different attacks against Windows, two different attacks against Linux, and one attack agains MacOS if you wanted to.

      The attack is performed in the usual way through either a vulnurable network serive or by modifying the executable. The code to do this would be running on top of the virtual machine. You'd have to try the different attacks against systems, and each time you perform an attack, you transfer the apropriate virtual machine implementation for the target, and afterwards the program for the virtual machine.

      Of course this wouldn't be as efficient as the worms we are seeing today. I mean you don't transfer such a pice of malware in a single UDP packet. Talk about bloatware worms anyone? It is not like todays worms need to transfer a MB of code to perform an infection, which I think you could easilly end up with if you want a single worm to target every vulnurability out there.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    7. Re:for the virus experts... by Alex_Ionescu · · Score: 1

      Heh, exactly...because you'll be running at Ring 3 (user-mode) and not in the Kernel, all those x86 interrupts you could use become useless, since you're only allowed executing user-code. And user-code is 99% OS-dependent, rendering the whole thing useless.

      Basically you'd need a kernel buffer overflow on all the OSs you want to infect...good luck!

  118. Uh, no by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Virus for Linux are not likely to be very damageable. For doing such kind of things (ie. the first blocks of a hard disk), the virus should be based on a remote root exploit, which happens, but is *very* rare. Most exploits are local, so you can't use them if you don't have a ssh account on this computer.

    If you have a local root exploit, and a remote user exploit, then you have a remote root exploit.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  119. You mean virus? by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I wasn't aware that a worm could do that. I know a virus could, but a worm? Nope.

    Worms flood, use up resources, crash computer systems, etc. They don't overwrite files. So I believe "Witty" is just another script-kiddie virus. After all... it doesn't take that much knowledge to make Windows unbootable. Just Deltree it with a batch file... =/

    --
    "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    1. Re:You mean virus? by kasperd · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that a worm could do that. I know a virus could, but a worm? Nope.

      Viruses and worms are distinguished by the way they spread, not the payload. The overwritting performed by Witty is the payload, it could have spread just the same without this payload, it just wouldn't be so destructive.

      A virus spread by infecting disks or files. A worm spread through insecure network services. Finally there are those spreading through emails and stupid users. Since they didn't match neither the virus nor the worm caracteristica, they ended up being called both. I guess at least 90% of todays computer users belive in only those things they can see, they think only those emails exists. Without the knowledge of real worms and viruses, these people think a virus and a worm is the same, and that it is an email with an attached file. I'm sure a lot of people will actually think a worm that can spread without manual actions is actually a new trend. But it is not, the first great worm was released Nov 2, 1988. Witty might however be the first worm with such a destructive payload.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  120. Gee, could it have been ISS's competitor??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee do ya think? Huh, what do ya think?

    You guys are fukcing bozos.

  121. Your mom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  122. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, and you have to solve them while thinking in Russian.

    In Soviet Russia, Russian thinks in YOU!

  123. greaaat by fosco · · Score: 1

    All a saturday mornigng, afternoon, evening and night for isolating and patching that crap. Only one things good: swithing to pktfilter next week

  124. reads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Knoppix CD will happily boot with a usable Linux and it reads NTFS harddisks.

    Reads. READS.

    Yeah, THAT'LL come in REAL FUCKING HANDY.

    P.S. - Stop anthropomorphizing operating systems, assclown.

  125. More like ebola by YeOldeGnurd · · Score: 1
    Ebola is a far nastier disease than HIV infection, but it kills its hosts so quickly that it hardly ever spreads. Ebola is a far better analogy than HIV, which a person can have (and spread) for decades without dying.


    But Witty apparently tries to spread itself 20,000 times, then takes out a hard drive sector, then tries to spread 20,000 more times, in a relatively quick death spiral.

    --
    ...Nothing interesting here. Just move along...
  126. Mozilla Foxfire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure you mean Firefox.

  127. Speak for yourself by HangingChad · · Score: 1
    Who are you to apologize for anyone else? I use Linux because I like it and it works, the same reason everyone else here uses it. You can take your starry eyed reference and stick it right up your starry back end. Personally, I think the starry eyed people are the ones thinking Longhorn is going to fix anything.

    A bit of a drop from Microsoft. Ha! If that's how you describe the porking a big chunk of the computing public has been taking lately, then I want some of the medication you're taking. Pass the bong, dude.

    But, yeah, if you want to keep using Windows, have at it. Some people have to use it for work. Just don't try to connect it to my network.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Speak for yourself by msimm · · Score: 1

      Nice, same old shit PFB's have been spouting since the begining. Your type used to be in the majority. We call that the bad old days. But your take-it or shove-it attitude just doesn't fly. I apologise for you because like every Windows moron and every Mac snob your espousing nothing be zeal. As if everyone who doesn't know/think/do exactly what you think they should is somehow less then you. But if you truely weren't trying to put your foot in your own ass you be using OpenBSD or applying the NSA patches, I mean you'd look like a total idiot if *your* OS ever got comprimised, right?

      Windows has it faults, sure, but so does Linux and if you can't see that then your simply a bigger asshole then I thought. I use it every day *and* I love it, but if Linux is going to continue to grow beyond a hobbiests OS we are going to have to see its imperfections, not yell at other people for not using it.

      --
      Quack, quack.
  128. Re:Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bless your black flabby little heart. I can slip this onto a Linux rescue CD along with the ntfsresize repartitioning tools and the chntpw Administrator password changer, and have a much more useful tool for saving Windows users machines.

    And ye ghods, these freeware tools are better than the huge honking Symantec pieces of spew-ware that want to install hundreds of Megs of worthless manual spew and tools no one ever uses, *on the affected machine before you can use the tools*, rather than allowing you to run basic operations from the CD.

    Folks? Let's send this guy something nice for creating this.

  129. Why does this worm look familiar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now where have I seen this before? Let me think. What are the distinctive points about Witty's design?

    • Creatively written in very compact assembly language, it's small but perfectly formed.
    • Shows a dry sense of humour, and old-school stylings/techniques to the code.
    • Single-UDP-packet infection, a function of the choice of vulnerability and the size/efficiency (and therefore minimalism) of the code.
    • Memory-resident only.
    • PRNG design looks ... sort of ... familiar.

    Now where have I seen this before? Oh yes - SQL Slammer/Sapphire.

    Witty roots a firewall, it spreads rapidly, it's extremely small and minimalistic (sort of bootsector size) yet still carries a destructive payload... this is not your average 16-year-old, this is one of the old school. Probably in his 30s, it's very probably the same author who wrote Sapphire, and he's probably a pro by now (white-hat? av company? competing firewall?).

  130. Re:Oh no by doorbot.com · · Score: 1

    Assuming the physical media is intact (as in, all read requests to the disk are successful), SalvageNTFS can retrieve data if there is even a single record of the MFT intact.

    My company purchased a product a while back called GetDataBack NTFS and it has worked perfectly. It worked great when I (accidentally) deleted a volume from the W2K Disk Management MMC (whoops). Recovered all the data (since only the partition map was changed). Yes, I did something stupid, but this software saved me hours of recovering from backups.

  131. Re:Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks. I just forwarded a copy of your post on to a few of my less tech-savvy friends with the title "Witty: Instructions For Manual Removal".

    I'm sure they'll be very greatful.

  132. The REAL way to cause serious economic damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make a virus which fudges the least significant digits of currancy formatted columns in spreadsheets and databases at random. Not often enough to be noticed right away and just a few cents at a time. It will take a while for the errors to be found, they will make it into backup tapes, and before we know it none of the worlds accounts add up and it must all be gone over by hand.

    Done right, serious economic damage would ensue, maybe even a recession with some luck, and the world just might learn its lesson.

    I think this might even be the Right Thing to do in an ends-justifies-the-means sort of way. How much time and money is wasted on MS licenses and dealing with all of the trouble they cause? MS is worth $265B as of today and probably at least that much has been spent dealing with the problems. If the world lost trillions due to this virus it would be regained in savings from getting away from MS in the coming years.

  133. GRC.com was right about BlackICE being lame! (nt) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GRC.com was right about BlackICE being lame! (nt)

  134. I opened Windows and Influenza! by uxo · · Score: 1

    Yep, just like in nature, a virus that kills its host can't spread as widely.

  135. Where are all the clever viruses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the virus that syncs up every system clock it encounters to the atomic clock, and then has them all scream bloody murder at the same time at 3am one day?

  136. Yeah right, and I wish burglars were more violent by serutan · · Score: 1

    Instead of just stealing your stuff, they should wait in your house and hack you up with your own kitchen knives when you get home. That would put more pressure on the police to catch them.

    Is it stupid in here or is it just me?

  137. Microsoft Addons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Isn't it amazing that that according to MS it is absolutely essential to add a browser and a mutimedia player to their OS, and these items cannot be removed without damaging the OS. However, truly essential OS addons like a firewall and virus detection somehow never find there way into the OS.

    Linux needs to take a lesson here -- before it is too late. The major opensource distros need to get together and back an open source virus detection program and all distros should provide disk space for the distribution of updates. The opensource firewall is already there but it needs to be "dumbed down" and gui'ed.

    1. Re:Microsoft Addons... by pedicabo · · Score: 1

      Microsoft included windows and msdos av progs ( based on Dr Solomon) in Win 3.1. There is a firewall included in XP. Black Ice used to be heavily pirated. This worm would mainly hit users who did not have the patches in place.

  138. If you can read this message by Chatmag · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Witty" Worm did not destroy your system.

    --
    Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
  139. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  140. Uh, you're an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those Linksyses RUN LINUX.

    How would that be any better?

    1. Re:Uh, you're an idiot by rthille · · Score: 1

      You didn't read my post. I didn't say the linksys was better, I said his P2 box wasn't _more_ flexible. That was stretching it, since I assume he had empty slots, but the Linksys is ~$80, has 6 interfaces (one wireless), is silent, consumes 10watts, is smaller and simpler. And it runs linux. That was my point. It runs linux, so how is it worse than the P2? It's just as flexible. (Well, up to the 5 ethernet and 1 wireless interfaces). The only point that I would take to heart is that the P2 can boot directly of CDROM, where as you'd have to make a hardware mod to make it impossible for a hacker to reflash the boot code on your linksys. Then again, for the truely paranoid, you'd better make sure you can't reflash your P2's bios just using software...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    2. Re:Uh, you're an idiot by jhoger · · Score: 1

      Point of clarification:

      A Linksys router doesn't have five ethernet interfaces.

      It has 1 switch (with some number of ports) a WAN port, and in some models, a wireless interface.

      I agree that the Linksys has advantages over my P2, namely power consumption and physical size. However, it is by no stretch of the imagination as flexible, as you seem to agree with, on the hardware side of things.

      On the software side, since both run Linux they are essentially of equal capability, so there is no differentiator there (of course I can cram more RAM into my P2, but a firewall doesn't need much RAM).

  141. This is just a disk issue... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    The old viruses that could actually destroy a computer were a whole nother beast entirely. A sibling or nephew post mentioned one that would overclock everything from the bios and disable thermal protection, i think that would have to be tailored to a specific motherboard however. How about the ones that would change your display refresh rate to a non supported speed and actually fry your CRT. Not that hardware destruction is a good thing, but maybe it'll get peoples attention and make them patch their systems instead of this merely annoying pussy mass mailer crap we have nowadays that people just tend to ignore.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  142. HEHEHE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes ISS look like idiots, the smug bastards. They act like they created the idea of computer security on the website.

    Isn't this the same bunch that pre-release some apache flaws a while back (funded by ms ?)

    LOLOLOLOL

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

      and they make the scanner that the network lamers at work use to "verify" that a computer is secure (by scanning for very very old vulnerabilities)

      idiots

  143. Norton has updates by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 1

    I just checked, Norton Pro has a virus definition for this one. Why should norton worry about a worm that only affects the competition??

    Isn't the virus just bounced when you are not running any of this ISS software, (making the buffer overflow exploit impossible)???

    Anyway, what the hell is "ICQ parsing?"

    --
    Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
  144. Remember the monkey? by kbs · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the Monkey virus...

    It would take the first copy of your file allocation table and store it somewhere else on the disk, and insert its own code there. As long as you booted from there, you got your files. Otherwise...

    --
    yours,
    kbs
  145. What about VMware windowsXP systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I RUN VMware with XP on my Mandrake box. Should I be worried?

  146. Windows == Unix in 1988 by puzzled · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I'm sure those who were around will remember the whole darned internet grinding to a halt when the Morris worm came out in 1988.

    Can someone tell me why open systems basically learned their collective lesson on one big event and it never happened again, while Microsoft products get the beatdown at least once every ninety days and nothing changes?

    The picture someone else makes to represent what they think is the best method to communicate to someone else what the computer is doing is a pretty sad thing when compared to the results that come from having your very own picture in your head.

    You point and click types can whine, but vi /etc/ipf.rules ; ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules hasn't done me wrong yet ...

    --
    I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
    1. Re:Windows == Unix in 1988 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... to all computers running several recent versions of firewall software from Internet Security Systems, including BlackICE and RealSecure

      These are MS products? They are bigger than I thought. I thought these were products were made by other companies, such as BlackICE and RealSecure...

      You see all these letters that are on the screen. They are words. When you put the words together in a certain order based on several rules, you get sentences... You should read these sentences before posting.

      Dumbass...

  147. Re:One question, and one answer. by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    I don't know about these specific products, but what Windows users call a firewall usually also prevents outgoing connections, unless permission for those is granted. This is a sensible thing to do if you install and run software that you don't trust completely. For example, quite a few programs for Windows (including Explorer) have been reported to contain spyware that sends some data to some server. Firewalling outgoing connections helps prevent that.

    Of course, security is out of the window[s] when you run software you don't trust - or cannot trust. Unfortunately, this is the common case; no access to the source, inability to comprehend the source, reliance on services (libraries, ...) you can't trust. At the end of the day, even if you have audited each and every piece of code on your system and found them clean, a new vulnerability migh arise that you didn't know about (e.g. the implementation is good, but the design has weaknesses). Security is always a matter of more or less, rather than yes or no.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  148. More on the same lines by scruffyMark · · Score: 1
    I like your idea for really sneaky, damaging payloads...

    Here's an idea I read a little while ago - how about a payload that finds any number followed by a dollar sign in outgoing emails, and doubles it; in incoming emails, it divides it by two. Anyone that got the virus would suddenly lose all kinds of business, as their customers would see them submitting huge estimates. And, communications between two infected computers would seem normal, so it could be really slow to detect if everyone in a company got it. Just imagine the chaos...

    Lots of similar ideas

    • Payload introduces random spelling and grammar mistakes into outgoing emails, subtly making the victim look ignorant.
    • Payload randomly drops one recipient from a third of all emails with more than three recipients, or adds a bcc recipient, drawn at random from the address book. ("meeting re: coming layoffs" - alright, who leaked that one?)
    • Payload checks Word docs for revision tracking, and rolls them back by one version before emailing, printing, or converting to pdf.
    • Payload alters spreadsheet programs, CAD programs, or similar, and introduces calculation errors directly into the code.
    • Payload periodically (say, once an hour) checks how many application windows are currently open. If it exceeds a certain number, causes a BSOD with 10% probability. Nothing too conspicuous, but enough to cause regular losses of work, which would just happen to be when the user has the most on the go. If it notices the user restricting the number of apps they use, it could gradually sneak the threshold down.

    You could also create a virus that would have an immediately beneficial impact on the economy - it would just delete any copies of MS powerpoint it finds. Just think, managers would have to start doing work!

    --

    What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht

    1. Re:More on the same lines by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah: Payload changes autocorrect dictionary in MS apps.

      --
    2. Re:More on the same lines by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      Payload introduces random spelling and grammar mistakes into outgoing emails, subtly making the victim look ignorant.

      One of the legendary stories at the college I work at was that of a cocky professor who talked down to the wrong admin. His outgoing email (this was in the early-to-mid 90s, so everyone did their mail on the same box using shell clients) was hooked into a custom filter that translated everything he send out with the Jive filter. If he CCed himself on it, the mail process sent a copy back to him before the filter had been run.

      From: Asshole Professor
      Title: Research Grant.

      How 'bout that money, foo'? Slap mah 'fro!

      --saint

  149. Re:One question, and one answer. by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

    "If you could actually turn off unwanted and insecure services you wouldn't NEED a firewall."

    Who says you can't?

    Start > Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Services

    You can disable just about everything.

    "In Windows you can't even tell whats running let alone shut it off. There are many ports that get attached to every interface and no way to fix it."

    This is FUD. You *can* tell what's running. You *can* disable everything.

  150. Re:One question, and one answer. by sleezly · · Score: 3, Informative
    In Windows you can't even tell whats running let alone shut it off. There are many ports that get attached to every interface and no way to fix it.

    You can't tell whats running? This is very easy, actually. Try this:

    To see what ports are currently listening:
    netstat -an

    To see what services are attached to what process:
    tasklist /svc

    To stop a process (until next boot):
    sc stop _service_name_

    To query a state of a process:
    sc query _service_name_

  151. Re:One question, and one answer. by Bob+Davis,+Retired · · Score: 1

    No, you can't. With a lot of services on a modern MS OS, there is a web of complex interdependencies that are difficult to analyze. Maybe for a home environment, turning everything off is OK, but in a networked environment, things that should be separate from each other are entangled. Sometimes there is no immediate adverse effect when you turn off a service, but the system degrades to the point that certain services must be restarted. Microsoft operating systems are one of the finest examples of the second law of thermodynamics the world has ever seen, aside from Kia automobiles perhaps.

  152. Re:One question, and one answer. by TheLink · · Score: 1

    "This is a sensible thing to do if you install and run software that you don't trust completely"

    Uh, don't. Or use a separate machine for that.

    But if you don't have a separate machine, I recommend using vmware for that (a separate virtual machine). Make sure you remove connection to the vmware "network card" so that the machine is isolated. After you're done using the stuff and saved the test results to a shared folder, you can rollback to the pristine test system you had.

    Risk: there might still be ways for a hacker to get to the host system from the guest o/s - maybe there are some machine code/bugs etc.

    --
  153. Welcome back... by fluxrad · · Score: 1

    "FGTRGDI" (Feels good to run gnu/linux doesent it?)

    Mr. Stallman...welcome back to slashdot ;-)

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
  154. Re:Yeah right, and I wish burglars were more viole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, comparing worms and data to burglars and home owners, what a brightspark, I think we either need worms that have the ability to kill users or intruders who trash the house (and shit, that actually happens)

  155. Anyone remember.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone remember the virus that would run at bootup, and it was blackjack, and you had a 1 in 3 chance of keeping the contents of your hdd?

  156. Thats WINDOWS Computers: please be accurate. by openmtl · · Score: 1
    Sh*t when I see a thing about a worm wrecking a computer I immediately thing my locked down Linux boxen are in for a hammering.

    Can editors be clear in titles of stories; if its Windows then say its Windows....or have the Microsoft lawyers got some editorial influence on the postings ?

    --

  157. Recovering from overwritten first sectors by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    Apparently the witty virus doesn't really overwrite the first sectors , but this could have value in general:

    I once recovered a system from attack of the CIH virus. One thing the virus does is overwrite your harddisk starting from the first sector. It continues until your system crashes. So you lose partition table, MBR and FAT. I used the tool 'cleancih' to reconstruct the data. That machine has been functional since, though it displays a first partition of 1 GB instead of 2GB :)

    That suggests two things:

    1. whatever the cause of the destruction, it should be possible to recover the first sectors. I think , the fact that there was more than 1 partition helped.

    2. There are some things on my todolist that I never get around to.

  158. Re:Oh no by mkro · · Score: 1

    Thank you. Most appreciated.

    --
    I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
  159. BlackIce is like applying a band-aid... by Phil+John · · Score: 1

    ...to a fresh amputation. It is possibly worse than no defense at all. Avoid at all costs. Either Kerio Personal Firewall, ZoneAlarm (at a push, works for me, some users find it doesn't) or Tiny Personal Firewall.

    --
    I am NaN
  160. Obligatory Business Plan by ajs318 · · Score: 1
    1. Write worm that attacks MBR, encouraging people to scrap serviceable computers
    2. Pose as garbage collector and retrieve infected computers from kerbside
    3. ???
    4. Profit!
    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  161. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "FGTRGDI" (Feels good to run gnu/linux doesent it?)

    Geeze, dude, isn't it hard to type with RMS's penis that far into your mouth?

  162. Re:One question, and one answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Who says you can't?
    > Start > Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Services
    > You can disable just about everything.

    What happens if you turn off RPC?

  163. My WinXP box got hit with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After running BlackICE for less than a week, curious to see for myself what it was capable of, I was unlucky enough to get hit with this and lucky enough to kill it after it ran for an hour and half (blackd.exe opened port 4000 locally at 5:17 gmt, Mar.19.) It doesn't appear to have done any damage though, certainlly not to my MBR (though if it randomly writes to any sector I don't think there was a chance of this,) but I'm certain it sent more than the 20,000 needed to trigger the junk data being written in the 90 minutes it ran. With no record of the packets it sent, I do have a record of nearly 10,000 angry ICMP responses, the bulk of which are from a single address which first caused me to believe my IP was being spoofed, but I suspect this represents a fraction of the addresses it successfully sent to (locally it attempted to send ~6GB at 10Mb/s.) Up until now I've never felt the need for a hardware router.

    1. Re:My WinXP box got hit with this by maximilln · · Score: 1

      I used to think one hardware router was enough until I noticed that my DI-604 with the original BIOS was sending out UPnP packets. The upgraded DI-604 BIOS is UPnP enabled, but the original version that shipped with the router wasn't. So this led me to believe that someone rather knowledgeable had made use of hardware exploits in my cable modem and router to reflash the BIOS.

      Now I sit behind 2 hardware routers and tcpdump -vvv eth0 rarely shows any packet other than those I requested.

      It sure lets me play around with LFS more and read netfilter HOWTOs less. :)

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    2. Re:My WinXP box got hit with this by Axisted · · Score: 2, Funny

      It must be nice having benevolent cracker reflash your BIOS for you.

    3. Re:My WinXP box got hit with this by spiderfarmer · · Score: 1

      I just bought BI a month ago, and I got hit with Witty too...except I had no idea what was going on...I walked away from my system, and when I came back, it was virtually locked up, with 98% system resources allocated to blackd.exe.

      I thought that was pretty weird, but didn't really think about it...and rebooted the machine. It booted back up, I restarted the processes I had going before the freeze, and walked away again...when I returned, same thing...system was virtually locked, and Blackd.exe was hogging all the resources.

      I couldn't turn BI off at the task manager, or from the system tray...so, I rebooted. (I swear, my poor Alienware has been rebooted more times in the last 24 hours than it has in it's entire life.)

      This time, it wouldn't boot. Well, wouldn't boot past the bios and hardware screen...then it would just reboot itself again...over and over.

      I was able to boot from an Alienware recovery CD...and it appears that my files are all still intact...but somehow, I seem to have XP installed twice now. When I boot, I have a list of Windows installations to choose from.

      If I choose the first one, it goes to a vanilla xp install...but you can still browse to the files and applications that were installed prior to the worm. If I choose the second option on the list, it boots to the windows install I had before...I have no idea what the heck I've done, to be completely honest. :)

      I've mirrored all my data, on the assumption that I may have to fdisk and start again...but I'm just going to avoid doing that for as long as possible.

      --
      ----I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying.--
    4. Re:My WinXP box got hit with this by maximilln · · Score: 1

      I doubt they were benevolent. I certainly didn't (still don't) have the skill to save the suspect BIOS and then analyze it to ensure there's nothing fishy inside of it. I don't even know what processor the DI-604 runs on.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  164. My WinXP box got hit with this by Axisted · · Score: 3, Informative

    [accidently posted this in the hardware router anonymously] After running BlackICE for less than a week, curious to see for myself what it was capable of, I was unlucky enough to get hit with this and lucky enough to kill it after it ran for an hour and half (blackd.exe opened port 4000 locally at 5:17 gmt, Mar.19.) It doesn't appear to have done any damage though, certainlly not to my MBR (though if it randomly writes to any sector I don't think there was a chance of this,) but I'm certain it sent more than the 20,000 needed to trigger the junk data being written in the 90 minutes it ran. With no record of the packets it sent, I do have a record of nearly 10,000 angry ICMP responses, the bulk of which are from a single address which first caused me to believe my IP was being spoofed, but I suspect this represents a fraction of the addresses it successfully sent to (locally it attempted to send ~6GB at 10Mb/s.) Up until now I've never felt the need for a hardware router.

  165. One vulnerability seen in several firewalls. Why? by labradort · · Score: 2, Informative
    The list of firewalls vulnerable:
    RealSecure Network 7.0, XPU 22.11 and before
    RealSecure Server Sensor 7.0 XPU 22.11 and before
    RealSecure Server Sensor 6.5 for Windows SR 3.10 and before
    Proventia A Series XPU 22.11 and before
    Proventia G Series XPU 22.11 and before
    Proventia M Series XPU 1.9 and before
    RealSecure Desktop 7.0 ebl and before
    RealSecure Desktop 3.6 ecf and before
    RealSecure Guard 3.6 ecf and before
    RealSecure Sentry 3.6 ecf and before
    BlackICE Agent for Server 3.6 ecf and before
    BlackICE PC Protection 3.6 ccf and before
    BlackICE Server Protection 3.6 ccf and before

    Assuming this is one vulnerability, I'd have to also assume that these products share some common code or at least a common library with the vulnerability.

    I don't see any discussion as to why several different products share the same vulnerability!

    That in itself is a discredit to the value of choosing such products. It looks like they rely on some black box code that these companies do not develop themselves and thus doesn't get the type of code review required in a security product.

    I did briefly run Black ICE on a machine designated for firewall/gateway several years ago when routers were more expensive than reusing an old PC. I'd likely not do that again, and I'd certainly never recommend using software firewall for protecting the machine running the firewall software.

  166. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by Fizzl · · Score: 1

    Pronounced figetrygidigy...
    That has to mean something dirty.

  167. Rhythm? by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

    Hymn?
    Syzygy?
    Myth?
    Slyly?
    Crypts?
    Nymphs? (My personal favourite ;o)
    Spry?

    Lots of perfectly lovely words have no vowels at all, you insensitive clod.

  168. Re:One question, and one answer. by otprof · · Score: 1

    But wasn't one of the problems with the recent RPC exploits that XP needed to have RPC running for some reason? Sure you can turn stuff off, but will the system continue to function normally otherwise?

  169. Re(don't):Stick to hardware routers and firewalls by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    I don't see anything wrong with Linux' Netfilter or Open BSD's packet filter.

    It is, in theory possible that you could find a similar exploit for them -- but they do have the advantage of many of the best eyes in the industry looking at them.

    In my case, I have a hardware (OK: BSD) firewall, and my Linux boxes behind them run IPTables. My theory is that some people may be able to breach one of the two, but it's unlikely that both will be exploitable at the same time (layered security). I'd suggest the same thing for Windows users... put stuff like BlackICE behind a firewall. Don't trust it as your only security.

    Software firewalls will, if nothing else, help you when your roommate's computer(s) swallow a web or email virus which gets past the outside perimiter, while the hardware unit will protect you from most externally sourced issues that don't subvert the firewall.
    ____

    .As for the destroyed disks, depending on how much was overwritten, you might be able to recover the secondary FAT table... Just stomp on the trashed data with enough info for dosfsck to not reject the drive as fat32 and then have it recover the secondary FAT data (( I've used this trick to recover a friend's disk that had seen similar breakage about a year ago)).

    This does, however presume that you have a Linux boot CD floating around (Knoppix, or a Fedora/RH8 boot disk or any other recent Linux distribution with DOS recovery tools will probably help for people with FAT32 filesystems (( repairing NT is going to be a good bit more work, since the FS is nowhere near as well defined)).

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  170. How to firewall dialup? by whoami-ky · · Score: 1

    OK.. The common response here is to install a hardware firewall. Most people spout a cost of $29-49 for such a device. That MUST be a cable/DSL router. Some statistics I read recently (sorry, I don't remember source) said that 40-50% of all US households are now on broadband. That means 50-60% are still on dialup. While Cable/DSL routers/firewalls are cheap and easy to come by, what is one supposed to do for clients on dialup? Software firewalls are generally the only option in this case from what I can see. If anyone has a better option, I'd like to know what it is. Hardware dialup firewalls are expensive. Software firewalls are vulnerable and problematic (I've had problems removing some before without trashing the system).

    --
    See my blog at Who's Who
    1. Re:How to firewall dialup? by maximilln · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ummmm... dialup users are screwed because PPP filtering is a completely different beast?

      I'm not a kernel hacker but I would like to try and keep things straight in my head. In PCI ethernet networks, the ethernet card gets attached to kernel mem locations and a firewall attaches itself between kernel mem locations and the userspace programs that they serve. PPP, from my limited knowledge, gets attached to completely different kernel mem locations and dialup networking userspace programs are allowed to pass PPP mem locations to IP mem locations such that most userspace programs have no trouble getting the info they need from the TCP/IP environment.

      So this brings up the interesting question: are there bugs in the PPP components of modern kernels which can be exploited before any commonly available firewalls can filter the packets from the IP stack?

      I don't know. Feel free to correct me on the diagram.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  171. correction by Axisted · · Score: 1

    Sorry, blackd.exe opened port 4000 at 5:17 gmt Mar.20, not Mar.19.

  172. Re:Yeah right, and I wish burglars were more viole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You jest, but the police won't do shit UNLESS the burglars do the hack + slash routine. Don't ask me how I know that.

  173. Re:One question, and one answer. by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

    "In Windows you can't even tell whats running let alone shut it off. There are many ports that get attached to every interface and no way to fix it."

    This is FUD. You *can* tell what's running.

    Very true. You can run nmap from a Linux box to find out what's running on the Windows machines ;-) Doesn't necessarily mean you can switch it off though...

  174. Firewalls *are* the problem by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    The problem is that firewalls have become *massively* oversold to idiots, and the "personal firewall" has seen a surge in interest.

    Firewalls have a good, legitimate (if annoying) purpose. They provide a single point to deploy emergency protection -- you can't patch every box in a company in a production environment in a day, with the current state of computers, but you can get at the firewall quickly.

    The problem is that, because firewalls are (a) cheap, (b) require only a minimal amount of technical competence to operate, and (c) sound sexy ("*firewall*"), they've become incredibly oversold.

    The personal firewall is a terrible example of this. The term "firewall" went around, and in order for people to feel secure and safe, now they have to have a "personal firewall". If you want to secure your own box, the answer is to yank off everything that's sitting there *listening* and waiting for crap to come in and screw it over. Unlike most vendors, Microsoft ships a system that keeps ports open by default and daemons running. And not only did they do that, but they leave gateways into the incredibly complex and undoubtedly difficult-for-developers-to-secure Windows filesharing and IPC mechanisms. Simple things like SSH have had masses of their own problems, but they pale compared to having a Windows box sitting and listening for data out of box. Sure enough, users, unaware of how to disable Microsoft's filesharing system WRT remote access (especially how to do so without breaking functionality) started buying these damned personal firewalls.

    Personal firewalls bog down a machine, and make a complex, frequently-modified (and often not frequently updated, since Joe User isn't a rabid security admin) daemon sit and make itself available to exploits.

    There's a great, free, high-performance, *almost* foolproof way to secure a system. Turn off the stuff that you don't want being accessed. Barring bugs in TCP stacks (and given the degree of pounding they get, I trust TCP stack code more than most code), you now have a nice, secure system.

    I had to deal with someone not long ago who *very* much wanted to set up a firewall in front of a Linux box -- a single machine. It was a server of some importance, but I couldn't help but ask -- why? What possible benefit do you hope to derive from it? On such a server, you *have* to allow in inbound connections (or else you cannot communicate with the outside world) -- and on this box, it was connections to all listening ports. The only thing you can block is things that the TCP stack is going to ignore anyway. And, for that matter, the firewall was running an embedded Linux system. If there was a bug in the Linux TCP stack, that same bug is likely to affect both the firewall and the server.

    I've been watching the rise of "personal firewalls" with some irritation, and I hope that the growing number of attacks on firewalls will help bring an end to them. Network-wide firewalls have *some* point -- personal firewalls do not.

  175. Sorta by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    This isn't strictly true.

    You *can* shut off, I believe, every service that listens on a port in a vanilla Windows box.

    However, Windows' netstat lacks the -p flag, for mapping a port to a process.

    Windows does provide, out of box, an extremely complex couple of daemons running with full privileges, and listening on ports. While it's not as if these has never been done before (*cough* sendmail *cough*) this is a pretty bad idea. Nasty if a worm slips into your LAN and then spreads around like wildfire.

    These services, like filesharing and RPC and whatnot, are important to many users. The problem is that on a secure system, any daemons should provide an absolutely minimal functionality set to any system that has not authenticated itself unless that daemon is specifically designed for anonymous access (like a web server). The more functionality you expose, the more potential vulnerabilities you expose to the world. Microsoft does not provide an easy way (I believe you can pull it off with, say, IPSec, though) to ensure that a connection is from a trusted computer. Compare this to, say, the configuration of a secure modern X11 system. One generally listens only on UNIX-domain sockets (rather than IP) and then tunnels everything through an simple authentication system that doesn't run as root -- ssh. Even that isn't perfect -- openssh has had a security history -- but it's a lot better than letting arbitrary people poke and prod at a vanilla system in all sorts of ways. IP-based blocking (Oh, *that* guy's on the Internet -- I'll ignore packets from him) may not be sufficient with the spread of Mobile IP (and the subsequent inability of people to block spoofed packets).

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

      Windows XP on up does have the -o option (owning process) for netstat. It doesn't show the name of the process like Linux netstat -p, but if you open Task Manager and look for the process ID under the processes tab, you'll see the name.

  176. you know who the ISS twats are, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chris Rouland was the ringleader of the L.O.D (Leigon of Doom) crackers back in the day.

  177. On what Windows platform is this? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    I just switched over to my XP box and typed in "tasklist/svc" and got told it was an unknown command.

    So how is the average user to know how to use commands which might not even be present?

    Besides, the average user would need someone to kindly explain what a service is and why they would want to look for them. (Or yell at them for not being l337 and call them clueless depending on your inclinations.)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:On what Windows platform is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I just switched over to my XP box and typed in "tasklist/svc" and got told it was an unknown command.

      I think he means tlist -s. You can get tlist as a part of the free Debugging Tools kit.

    2. Re:On what Windows platform is this? by JoeZeppy · · Score: 1
      C'mon. It's tasklist (space)/svc. You've never used an optional parameter on a command line before?

      So how is the average user to know how to use commands which might not even be present?

      Besides, the average user would need someone to kindly explain what a service is and why they would want to look for them. (Or yell at them for not being l337 and call them clueless depending on your inclinations.)

      but strangely enough, the answer is Linux. Which apparently doesn't use services, or have any pesky commands to type at the command line.

    3. Re:On what Windows platform is this? by sleezly · · Score: 1

      You are correct. tlist -s is essentially the same command, included with the debugging tools kit...

    4. Re:On what Windows platform is this? by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --In case *you* didn't know, command syntax such as ' mem/c ' _without_ the space, was perfectly acceptable in DOS. Still works in Win98, in fact, at a command.com prompt.

      --But if he's typing that from Start\Run, it could be an issue. Personally, for any kind of dos command, I always start command.com (or cmd.exe) 1st so I can see the error msgs (if any.)

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  178. Ebola not AIDS by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Dumb to kill the host quickly when you could be spreading silently for years.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  179. Hi, I'm an idiot and I don't know any end users. by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

    Probably because a good, oh, 80% of the people that use computers don't know enough to know how to patch the system, or to even know that it should be? About 50%-60% of users have a virus scanner on their system, but the process is pretty arcane to most of them.

    These numbers are precisely the reason why viruses and worms exist, you know?

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  180. Re:One question, and one answer. by iansmith · · Score: 1

    Everyone tells me it can be done, but show me where on 2000 you can turn off...

    445/tcp open microsoft-ds

    That gets bound to every interface. With multiple network adapters, you can not tell it to stop binding to one.

  181. Re:This is a perfect time to promote the expressio by SamSim · · Score: 1
  182. Aptly named products... by griffinn · · Score: 1
  183. Re:One question, and one answer. by JoeZeppy · · Score: 1
    Everyone tells me it can be done, but show me where on 2000 you can turn off...

    445/tcp open microsoft-ds

    That gets bound to every interface. With multiple network adapters, you can not tell it to stop binding to one

    I don't have 2k up right now, but I'm pretty sure its' under TCP/IP properties advanced, you can allow or deny access by port, I don't remember if it's by adapter, though.

  184. PIO, DMA, Linux LiveCDs, and WinXP by Dave_bsr · · Score: 1

    I had a laptop I was working on for a buddy. The hard drive was not reading, and I was replacing it with a new one. However, before I did the deed, I figured I would see how well Mepis (another Live-CD a la Knoppix) worked on his Dell.

    Not only did it boot, detect everything (including batter status and level), but it could read the drive! Apparently, it was defaulting to DMA mode when it booted, but Linux could read it in PIO (fallback from DMA).

    So, I (slowly) recovered his data, and then swapped in the right drive. I considered making this my .sig: "Linux, it saves dead hardware!" ...

    --


    Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
    1. Re:PIO, DMA, Linux LiveCDs, and WinXP by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Well, shoot. If you had a registry editor, you could have set the drive to work in PIO mode. (Assuming you could find the registry setting.)

      But the fact that DMA didn't work suggets that the drive was dying anyway, so, yeah, replacement was a good idea.

  185. warm fuzzies by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    I don't know about the rest of you, but reading about this worm has given me the warm fuzzies (eg, a nice warm, happy feeling). I'm not condoning the behavior or writing viruses in the least, but I do think that it is a natural and expected thing, and an obvious result of MS monoculture.

    Hopefully it will bring about change - that's why this makes me happy. Being able to tell someone that a virus was able to destroy their system -because- of their windows software firewall will be pleasureable.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  186. recovery from "witty" worm by jward52 · · Score: 1

    The worm must have a brother that attacks ZoneAlarm & Norton-protected PCs. My college-student daughter's laptop was bugged by something that rendered it unbootable. Using xp's Recovery Console, I used the fixmbr command, but then couldn't run any software. It also would not boot to any drive other than the HDD. Luckily, it defaulted to the usb floppy when that was hooked up, so I was able to start xp with the boot floppy set, format the drive with the xp cd, then run the system-restore CDs. What fun!

  187. Re:Hi, I'm an idiot and I don't know any end users by JPriest · · Score: 1

    They can defrag but they can't click the windows update Icon. They don't know becasue they never bothered to learn, why do you suppose that is?

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  188. i was wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i was wondering what happened to my computer, i was hit with this virus! it sucks my computer shut down then it never came back up i had to reformat my harddrive... what can i do to keep it from happening again?