Slashdot Mirror


Netsky Worm Variant Attacks P2P Services

ee_moss points out this Washington Post article (via Yahoo!), excerpting "The latest variant of the Netsky worm directing infected computers to launch Web-based attacks against music- and file-trading Web services such as Kazaa, taking down at least one company's Web sites in the process. The worm, the 19th version of a bug that made its debut in February, is also targeting some Web sites that offer computer programs designed to illegally break or bypass copyright controls on software programs."

117 of 472 comments (clear)

  1. It's not that surprising . . . by erick99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I am not so surprised that a virus writer would go after P2P networks. There are so many viruses there anyway...why not just go after the whole enchilada? And, of course, spreading a virus must be easy with so many unprotected machines out there.

    Anyway, I know this sounds painfully obvious, but why don't folks take the simple step of running an antivirus program? I have McAfee VirusScan and I also have AdWatch running full time. Between the two, I feel fairly well protected from viruses and adware/spyware.

    And then you have folks that click on just about any attachment - from the article:

    The experts advised people not to click on strange attachments in e-mail, which can activate the worm, and to update their antivirus software frequently to ward off new threats.

    I have an agreement with family and friends to embedd a codeword in any document that contains a file attachment. It is usually a fairly esoteric work not likely to come up in casual conversation. However, I have damn near been fooled by a few emails because they seemd very legitimate. Oh, well.

    Anyway, I am preaching to the choir....and ranting a bit.

    Happy Trails!

    Erick

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by upt1me · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyway, I know this sounds painfully obvious, but why don't folks take the simple step of running an antivirus program? I have McAfee VirusScan and I also have AdWatch running full time. Between the two, I feel fairly well protected from viruses and adware/spyware.

      Why don't folks just run linux. Antivirus software has become so beloated these days. I run Norton Antivirus on my Windows machine and it turns it into a lag terminal.

    2. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is a term for this tye of thing: PEBCAK

      Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard

    3. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by Bz3rk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK put on your tin foil hats... the conspiracy theory is that these worms that target P2P are produced by or for the RIAA. They already flood the networks with fake or corrupt files, why wouldn't they take this next step? They have already shown they have no respect for the law anyway.

    4. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by ltbarcly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have taken the simple step of not running Windows at any time. I installed Debian unstable on one computer and Testing on the other, about 2 months ago, and I haven't looked back. Once I got VLC to play itunes DRM'd files my wife was on board as well. Now if only Juk could play itunes music we would be in business.

      In fact, the only microsoft products I'm using now are my MS Intellimouse w/ IntelliEye 1.0 (discontinued) and my Microsoft Internet Keyboard. Oh, and Word 97 in wine, just because my job sends me emails with RTF files attached, and they save those files with word. Leave it to microsoft to save files in an open format that can't be opened by any other product!

    5. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by Marvelicious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have been wondering this for years myself! Why don't more people run antivirus programs? www.grisoft.com has a free version of avg antivirus. Free! I figure, if you use the internet, you have no good excuse not to use one! Did I mention its free. Granted, its a little clumsy and short on features, but it seems to work!

      --
      Send whiskey and fresh horses!
    6. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by The+Third+Goat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anyway, I know this sounds painfully obvious, but why don't folks take the simple step of running an antivirus program?

      Waste of money, IMHO. I've been using Windows for years without a virus scanner, and not once have I found a virus infecting my computer.

    7. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by archonit.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have an agreement with family and friends to embedd a codeword in any document that contains a file attachment. It is usually a fairly esoteric work not likely to come up in casual conversation. However, I have damn near been fooled by a few emails because they seemd very legitimate. Oh, well.


      That sounds like a wonderfully good idea. I have converted most of my folks to mozilla to bypass most of the problems embedded within the e-mail but obviously if they click an dodgy attachment it is still an issue. I know this sounds like flamebait material but Microsoft's idea about digitally signing all applications does sound like the best way to avoid these potential problems. Acknowledging, however, that developers like myself will find this tedious and annoying.

      So, there is no currently better and more viable solution to virus-propogation other than having an up-to-date antivirus at this point in time - which in turn is it's own problem as virii seem to be targeting anti-virus software more frequently - shutting them down and allowing mass-distribution to continue.

    8. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by Metzli · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's also known as PIBKAS, Problem Is Between Keyboard And Seat. I believe the non-technical term is "loose nut behind the keyboard."

      --
      "It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
    9. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by the+sabster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Windows with no virus scanner works okay, but only in certain environments. I'm a college student residing in a dorm. My subscription for Norton updates expires every year - last year I didn't want to pay the $30 for a new one, so I didn't have any updated virus definitions over the summer, while I was living at home with my parents, living on a 56K modem. In the fall, when I came back to school, I had no choice but to pay the $... too many people on the network to propagate viruses and worms and other badness.

    10. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by Arctic+Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My security unaware friends continuously have their PCs infected with viruses because they refuse to install virus scanners. The most common excuse is "too expensive" (which I disagree with; the minimal price is worth it).

      I give them a link to AVG Free Edition, and they still have virus problems afterwards when they refuse to install AVG. They'res no excuse for that. I guess people are just (very, very) stubborn.

    11. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by wo1verin3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just uninstall Norton (follow the steps here) and reinstall to get another year!

    12. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      run a free scanner once in a while like security.symantec.com or stinger. I have run windows for over ten years with no virus scanner and no viruses either. all it takes is a little computer savy and some common sense.

    13. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or you could get AVG Anti-Virus from www.grisoft.com for free, and you'd have a greater measure of protection than you do now.

      As careful as you may be, it's still possible that you can slip up. Anyone can, sooner or later. And if you allow someone else to use your system, just for a few minutes, you could get hit.

      I wouldn't risk it, especially when you can get better protection for free.

      And consider this. If other, less experienced computer users see you using antivirus software, they're more likely to do the same, since they'll see you as a person to look to in such matters. And these are the people who really need to be running AV software.

    14. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by ameoba · · Score: 4, Funny

      Another variant is PICNIC; Problem In Chair, Not In Computer.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    15. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by void* · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, viruses do install themselves.

      These 'email viruses' that require a user to click on them aren't really viruses, they're trojans. They don't have a means to copy themselves into another program, they just send off a bunch of mails and hope somebody activates them. They have a propogation mechanism that depends on human stupidity. I would call them 'self replicating' but they have a rather uninteresting replication mechanism.

      A real virus ... you run an infected program (note: not the virus itself, an otherwise useful program that happens to be infected) and it installs itself in other program or you boot off an infected floppy, it infects your hard disk boot sector, and then starts infecting more floppys. These actions (running a program, or booting your machine) are entirely normal things to do, you do them because you can't get anything done with a computer without doing them.

      Which brings us to worms, which are self replicating, but actively break into other machines and directly cause copies of themselves to start executing.

      As far as viruses go, people install and run infected programs because they want the functionality of an uninfected program and do not know the infection (the 'undesired behavior') is there. Hence the need to scan for viruses before you install any program.

      --


      Code or be coded.
    16. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by Casshan-Robot+Hunter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Clumsy, no. Short on features, who cares. It uses waaaaaaaay less resources than either McAfee or Norton AV, and seems to catch more. Updated nearly every day, and has never broken a software install for me (when I was in tech support, you would not believe how many software installs were broken by Norton or McAfee sticking their noses into the process and screwing up the file writing or settings). Nice context menu option, easy integration to CLI. AVG is getting pretty close on to perfect... if it was not free, I would probably buy it. (Highest praise I can think of)

      --
      Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
    17. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well usually it's just laziness, cluelesness, or a false sense of invulnerability but not always.
      I only started regularly running one after upgradeing a windows box to xp which came down with a msblaster within 5 minutes of going online, this when the crappy lines out here barely support 28.8. This was only the second time I've ever gotten a virus, the first I got off of a 5.25" floppy back in the early 90's.
      I would rather not run one. Why? because I'm sick of programs that take over the system, lock thier processes into bootup in 5 different ways, and when you 'turn it off' all your really doing is hiding the controlls, not turning it off.
      I'm running McAfee pro, and it tries to connect to home EVERY 5 MINUTES! on win9x systems it will dial out to do so if it can. If not it will pop up the connect dialog. EVERY 5 MINUES!. this is insane. And in parts of the world where you pay per minute on all phone calls can be costly. Some people have gotten huge phone bills because of this. They know it doese this but will not fix it.
      And thats just one companies product. Symantec advertises 'product activation' right on the box. and others do simular things.
      I'm really sick of this sort of thing. McAfee pro comes with a 2 computer license so I also installed it on My brother's computer and the wanting to dial out every 5 minutes was creating serious issues and couldn't be turned off so he had to uninstall it.
      This is why some people don't install a.v. software, the software often behaves so much like a virus(that you PAID for) that they wonder what the point is.
      Sorry for the rant, but AV software just isn't an unmitigated good anymore.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    18. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do yourself a favour, and use webmail instead of your own pop client. Let M$/Yahoo pay Norton and keep their virus clients up to date. I have never felt the need to use Outlook, Outlook Express. At home, I've never needed to store many e-mails, plus Yahoo has 6MB, and Hotmail has 2.

      I've got 10MB on my ISP's mail server, and if I don't delete messages off the server I run out of room in two weeks. I get very little spam. I also don't delete any email from my mail client. Never know when I'll need to grep for something sent in an email. So those webmail services aren't for me.

      I've just upgraded from Win98 to XP Prof. Now also using ZoneAlarm in conjunction with XP's built-in firewall, and also the multiple users feature which *nix users have been able to use forever(i.e. browsing the web from an account which has 'limited' access and not Admin. And that means that for the last 10 yrs at least, I've been totally virus free...

      I found ZoneAlarm to be quite a hit on my machine's performance. I also didn't like having to deal with 10 prompts everytime I opened a net-using program. Not to mention that it seems like you're jumping through quite a few hoops just to make sure you don't get anything.

      See, I run behind a NAT router and that stops 90% of all net-based attacks. The only reason it doesn't stop more is because I have a few ports open. After that, Linux does the rest for me. Just by not being compatible with the viruses themselves, I stop 99% of the attacks that get through NAT. What about the other 1%? Well, haven't been infected yet. Last virus I got infected by was the old SCA virus on the Amiga...

      What's a good solution for you isn't a good solution for everybody. I get lots of email with valuable information in it, and I can't even begin to count the hours saved by being able to grep my email for information stored in it. My mail folders currently take up 100MB of my home directory and store about 3 years worth of email, incoming and outgoing. It's probably less than 1% spam and other commercial emails that I *did* ask for. I use browsers that aren't normally targetted by any viruses, and the ones that do target Mozilla from time to time still don't affect Linux boxes. So I'm pretty safe, in general. If I feel the need to implement a firewall, well I've got machines laying around doing nothing that could run a great firewall for me, just stick it between the NAT router and the cable box. Nothing to it. Virus scanning? When viruses on Linux can't be dealt with just by running as a normal user and keeping permissions under control, then I'll think about it. Until then, no reason to waste a moment thinking about it...

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    19. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by guiscard · · Score: 2, Informative


      I use Avast, it works just as well and is free. I switched from Norton after not wanting to pay every year. It catches all the virii my girlfriend manages to get into the computer (about 2 a week lately).

      Another useful program is Mailwasher (there is also a non-pro version). Shows all your mail on the server, including the virii (which it labels) so you can delete them without downloading them into your inbox (it is also great for spam, but turn off the 'bounce' function).

    20. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Antivirus software has become so beloated these days. I run Norton Antivirus on my Windows machine and it turns it into a lag terminal.

      If you are allowed to, turn off some of the checking. I think Norton by default scans every file you open, every app you run. Just set it scan stuff coming via email or web, and manually scan anything else. Set it on a complete scan when you go for lunch. If I just want to get work done I often disconnect from the network until I actually need to use it.

    21. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Because of the massive slowdown induced by constantly having programs open scanning your machine? You can't do that if you play games, the lag it causes makes it unplayable.

      Funny, my old 1 GHz Duron with 512 MB of memory doesn't experience any noticeable slowdown when F-Prot is running... Heck, my old k6-2 300 MHz didn't experience any noticeable slowdown !

      Just what kind of sneeze pump are you running your games on ?-)

      What needs to happen is your computer to have certain 'modes', such as gaming, development, afk, whatever else. Each mode should have appropriate actions, like putting up away messages on your chat clients, stopping the visuals in your media player, changing the rate limiting on your bandwidth, pausing the execution of programs, etc.

      I think you could achieve this with Unix/Linux runlevels. They already start/stop programs, so you'd just need to copy around config files to make those programs behave as desired.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    22. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If I just want to get work done I often disconnect from the network until I actually need to use it.

      In most companies you can't even log in on a box if it's not connected to the network; logging in and pulling the cable is a sure way to stir up the sysops. Even if you succeed in bypassing the network login, your documents still are probably stored somewhere on the network, not on your local harddisk. This might be an option at home, but it's not an option at work most of the time.

    23. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by airjrdn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Symantec products became increasingly good at hogging system resources a few years ago. Prior to that, I was a big fan of theirs. Give AVG (www.grisoft.com) a shot. I've been running it for awhile and haven't experienced any noticeable slowdowns whatsoever.

    24. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by cmacb · · Score: 2, Informative

      You haven't heard about the new Intellimouse worm? Does the scroll wheel sometimes act up a bit? Thought so.

      (j/k)

      Seriously though, I haven't had any trouble opening RTF files with Open Office. In fact, Open Office opens Word files that Word won't even open. I've never needed to resort to Wine for things like that. (although I suspect if there are macros in those documents they won't run in Open Office....on the other hand do you really WANT macros to run in a document when you open it?)

    25. Re:It's not that surprising . . . by ThisIsFred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyway, I know this sounds painfully obvious, but why don't folks take the simple step of running an antivirus program? I have McAfee VirusScan and I also have AdWatch running full time. Between the two, I feel fairly well protected from viruses and adware/spyware.

      I think the answer is this: Because of maintenance costs, there are very few companies with virus detection tools that don't charge a subscription fee of some sort in order to get updates. That means Joe Aol is going to have a non-functional virus scanner within 3 months to one year. He'll probably never run an update to the sig database, but that may be changing now, because the programs are getting better at nagging. Also, some programs request that the virus software be disabled while an installer runs. Some folks can't figure out how to do this, and end up temporarily uninstalling the virus scanner to install software (those miniature system tray icons on Windows are a pretty bad interface design choice). I also wouldn't feel so comfy with McAfee or Symantec: They aren't catching many of the newer (or rare) variants. My own experience on the job suggests that Grisoft AVG is better, and that Clam AV works nicely on servers (CAV's detection abilities improved by leaps and bounds these past couple of months). AVG is a subscription-based scanner, but CAV is too involved to be useful to the Joe Aols of the world.

      I like Ad Aware, but it doesn't catch all the malware programs, some of which now behave like viruses (planting spyware payloads, but remaining hidden inside the operating system).

      Unfortunately, no matter how many times I tell my users about clicking on attachments, they still do it. I've come to realize this is partly my fault: I have to figure out a way to explain how I tell the difference. But my method is mostly this: Context. People I know rarely send me executables, compressed archives, program info files or PCM data files.

      I think I'm going to author and test a trusted-sender e-mail client pretty soon. That seems to be the only way to minimize the effects of "spam" and viruses.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
  2. Oh hum. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Another virus. Run in circle. Shout. Panic.

    1. Re:Oh hum. by Brandybuck · · Score: 5, Funny

      I always know when another virus or worm has been found "out in the wild". All of the MCSE's at my company start running around with flailing arms bemoaning the inhumanity of it all. I'm not running Windows at work, so I just sit back and enjoy the panic. Just like Ricky in "The Burbs".

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    2. Re:Oh hum. by Emperor+Tiberius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ya, but what do you do when all of the Windows machines they've failed to keep virus free start clogging your core routers with virus traffic?

    3. Re:Oh hum. by puddpunk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Call me paranoid but I swear I saw a classified in the paper:

      NEEDED: l33t h4x0r. High knowledge of computer security and ties to the computer underground a must. Report to the back door of the RIAA complex or send an email to staff@riaa.org. Come alone.

      Would explain a fair few facts about this virus ;)

    4. Re:Oh hum. by jrockway · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Turn off their port. Seriously, that's what my school does.

      --
      My other car is first.
  3. Human stupidity by mindless4210 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The experts advised people not to click on strange attachments in e-mail, which can activate the worm...

    Of course, until you can teach people to be intelligent, these types of viruses will continue to circulate through the net.

    --
    Wireless News www.DailyWireless
    1. Re:Human stupidity by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's not always a matter of intelligence, but apathy. People get a virus and... ...so what? I've cleaned relatives machines with dozens of viruses. They kept working for the most part, they worked before and they worked afterwards. A few resources were consumed, but consumer machines now are in the multi GHz speed range. Most viruses just don't affect the user enough for them to really give a shit about them. For an example, when mydoom hit so massively earlier this year it... made their machine one of hundreds of thousands targeting sco.com.

      Again, apathetic users, they don't notice and don't care. Until a virus comes along with the spreading power of mydoom, but sits and waits for a couple of weeks until it throws up gay porn onscreen and shouts out "HEY EVERYONE I'M WATCHING GAY PORN" while proceeding to delete EVERY SINGLE DAMNED FILE USERS HAVE... they're going to keep on not giving a damn about viruses.

      The general public sees viruses as something computers just get, and is as innocuous as a sniffle. If a few viruses came along and did the equivalent of schizophrenia, lung cancer and whole body pus filled sores to their computer, THEN they will take notice.

    2. Re:Human stupidity by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nitpick: Worm != Virus(though I don't deny that a given virmen can be both. Worms just make dropping the viral payload easier these days).

      Most of what you describe can be attributed to worms. Viruses infect exsisting binaries. The big one when I was in high school was "Nov 17." When you got THAT virus, you knew it, especially if you were running Win 3.1[1]. It would infect EMM386.EXE and all of a sudden you were back to 640k of memory again. :) It wasn't the computer equivalent of Ebola, but it kept us from playing Wolfenstein. :)

  4. Bad reputation by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a couple relatives who are extremely nontechnical. Their windows installation has already been plagued by 2 worm viruses this year. When they think virus in windows, they think virus in computers. Basically these viruses are giving computers in general a bad reputation.

    I have suggested they try linux. But they are nearly at the point of no return. They fear computer, they fear the hassle, virus scans, repair etc. What's the world coming to.

    1. Re:Bad reputation by 00420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have suggested they try linux. But they are nearly at the point of no return. They fear computer, they fear the hassle, virus scans, repair etc. What's the world coming to.

      If they are not dependant on any Windows-only software (that won't run in Wine) then why not offer to set up Linux for them. Give them Gnome or KDE with icons for everything they need on their desktop and in their "start menu." (And no other icons)

      And tell them that you will set it up so the only things they have to look at are the things they need.

      Then ssh into their computers anytime an update is necessary.

      I would imagine they would be pretty happy with a computer that was less prone to virus attacks.

    2. Re:Bad reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If they MUST run windows, this is all you have to do:

      * Install Mozilla (Firefox and Thunderbird).
      * Install Ad-Aware. Pay for the pro version that also has Ad-Watch.
      * Install Spybot Destroyer.
      * Install a cheap linksys router.
      * Install Grisoft/AVG antivirus - or somethign equally as good.

      Now, nothing is going to get IN that shouldn't and probably won't get OUT. Even if they're wreckless and download/install everything they ever run across, Spybot Destroyer lets you prevent the installation of *hundreds* of known activex applications and other troublesome installers, lock your hosts file, prevent changing the MSIE start page, etc. And if they're stupid enough to install something after Ad-Watch/Ad-Aware and/or their antivirus software warns them about it, then they deserve what they get.

      Additionally:

      * Don't give them administrator accounts!
      * Set them up with a DynDNS address. This way you can connect to them remotely using VNC when necessary to do administrative tasks.
      * Setup regular user accounts for them. Or better - setup limited user accounts so they can't even install any software themselves. Tell them to come up with lists of things they need installed and to call you. Then you can VNC in, fire up the admin account and install them in a few minutes.

      It will lock them down, but shouldn't prevent them from doing most things they want to do and will save you a shitload of headache. And if they don't like it, then it should hopefully be enough reason for them to start actually LEARNING about the machine they're using rather than treating it like a god damn TV and then they can assume the responsibility.

    3. Re:Bad reputation by petabyte · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have suggested they try linux. But they are nearly at the point of no return. They fear computer, they fear the hassle, virus scans, repair etc.

      Yes, I find a lot of people like that around here as well. However, their conclusion is that "this machine is too slow". Well, its too slow because its email Klez 5: The final spamteer to a million people an hour (including me). So they buy a new computer and I as the resident computer type fellow get the task of setting it up and moving their documents over. I try to secure the machine as best I can and try and convince them to update but this group knows how it is.

      Then I leave the "slow" computer. I currently have 4 of them in my room as a giant distcc cluster. Sadly what I really want is an iMac to run yellow dog on here at home but noo ...

      Curse you MacOS!!!

      Yeah, lets see how many people don't read the whole thing and just mod me down for that line ;).

    4. Re:Bad reputation by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have moved 4 families over to Mandrake from Windows in the last year. For the first month, it is a hassle, but it gets much better. Linux is still missing many things that make life easier, but it is also not infected. All have said that you could not pay them to go back to Windows just due to this issue.

      If you use a KDE front-end, then consider giving them the "kiss the BSOD good bye" book. I gave it to the last 2 families and it made life much easier for me.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Bad reputation by Brandybuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Public Linux servers have been hacked, to be sure. But this is a much different thing from discovering a new worm every week floating around the Windows world.

      To hack into the Gentoo, Gnome, Debian and GNU servers, the crackers had to sit down and work at it. It didn't come for free. But write a new worm variant and several million p2p and outlook users will deliver it to your victims for free.

      Think of your home's security. Anyone with a sledgehammer can break into your home, regardless of the quality of your deadbolts. That's what happened to those servers. But in the windows world we get a bunch of houses with hollow veneer front door with a brass flip latch for a lock, and no back door at all, just a wide open portal.

      Even with a steel door and twenty deadbolts, eardrum destroying alarm, and a pair of Rottweilers, you could still get broken into. But that's no reason to encourage the burglars with cardboard doors and a lawn sign that says "if it's not too much trouble, could you please not break into my home tonight".

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    6. Re:Bad reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then ssh into their computers anytime an update is necessary.

      I'm sure your solution would work well for the relatives ... especially since they would be getting ongoing technical support for free.

      Now, I'm not suggesting that one should be a prick and never help out others, but there is a limit to what one can do. What if you have 5 sets of relatives who need this help? Would you offer to help all of them in the same way? What about throwing in a few friends as well?

      At some point you have to cut them loose to fend for themselves. Realize that if they are unwilling to learn to maintain a computer system sufficiently well or to pay to have it done for them, then perhaps they would be better off without it.

  5. What we are supposed to do by ObviousGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The post doesn't say it, but it definitely insinuates that the nefarious RIAA and possibly the BSA is behind this latest worm. Unfortunately, that kind of knee-jerk reaction is counterproductive to finding the real virus spreaders.

    Someone is obviously trying to implicate the content monopolists in this by targetting the sharing networks. It is highly unlikely that the monopolists are doing this themselves because they have too much to lose by carrying out such an attack.

    Someone in the computer community is doing this and is hurting everyone in the process. Sometimes the geek community is its own worst enemy.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:What we are supposed to do by Lochin+Rabbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The post doesn't say it, but it definitely insinuates that the nefarious RIAA and possibly the BSA is behind this latest worm.

      The post insinuates nothing of the sort, it just states what the trojan does. You jumped to that conclusion all by yourself.

      Unfortunately, that kind of knee-jerk reaction is counterproductive to finding the real virus spreaders.

      As is assuming that respectable business organisations are beyond suspicion. Especially when one of these organisations is on record as wanting immunity from prosecution if it does use such tactics. But then again you were just trolling weren't you.

    2. Re:What we are supposed to do by elohim · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think it's more likely to be the mp3 scene itself. And by mp3 scene I mean the releasing groups, couriers, and ftp site ops. They don't like their work getting to P2P networks; they rip music to have something to offer to sites they upload to, in exchange for whatever they want, be it wares or porn or whatever. If their product is not exclusive (e.g. available on P2P), they lose leverage. Ask any "scener" and they'll tell you they think P2P is bad for business.

    3. Re:What we are supposed to do by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is highly unlikely that the monopolists are doing this themselves because they have too much to lose by carrying out such an attack.

      Like what? Money? They're already making cash hand over fist; a fine by the FTC or a lawsuit would hardly dent their income. Reputation? I think that was trashed when they sued the 12 (?) year old girl... and didn't drop the case.

      So what do they have to lose that they haven't already lost?

      ~UP

      --
      Eat the Path.
    4. Re:What we are supposed to do by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I actually wouldn't put it past the RIAA and BSA to do something like this. These days with outsourcing, its pretty gray concerning what an overseas company does. And givin the inherent scumminess that lies at the top of the music industry labels, I really wouldn't be surprised if a friend of a top exec called in a favor, etc.

      I know, tin foil hat.....but still....of all the people that could possibly be doing this.....I REALLY would look twice to see if its them.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    5. Re:What we are supposed to do by PacoTaco · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Don't forget to factor in reverse psychology.

      Maybe someone wrote this virus so we'd think the RIAA did it. Or maybe the RIAA wrote it so we'd think that someone wrote it to pin the blame on the RIAA. Or maybe someone wrote it so we'd think RIAA wrote it to make us think that someone wrote it to pin the blame on the RIAA. Or maybe the RIAA wrote it so we'd think that someone wrote it to make us think the RIAA wrote it so we'd think that someone wrote it to pin the blame on the RIAA. Or maybe...

    6. Re:What we are supposed to do by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      I want you to find out whether Iraq did this. P2P worm! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.

    7. Re:What we are supposed to do by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And one of whose Congressional proteges', Orrin Hatch, is now on record stating that remotely destroying a copyright infringer's computer system should be a legitimate tactic for a respectable business organization. Huh. And I used to think he was okay as Congressrodents go. In any event, I think the key word here is respectable.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:What we are supposed to do by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then why would a virus writer code something to shutdown websites dealing with anti-piracy schemes? Sounds like these are *paid* viri-writers! If there is a money trail to be found, then follow it. Chances are that it will lead to the truth of this matter.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  6. What get's me... by wobedraggled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've noticed more and more windows users, have to install nearly 1/2 a dozen or so programs th protect thier pc's. Between Ad-aware, Spybot S&D, Norton/AVG/McAfee and a host of others, I ask... Why Bother? It's the reason I went 100% linux at home, no worries about such crap.

    --
    Ubuntu- Linux for human beings.
    1. Re:What get's me... by HillBilly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For now...

      --
      "Go into the hall of mirrors and have a bloody hard look at yourself" - HG Nelson
    2. Re:What get's me... by Microlith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because they're paranoid.

      I've run XP for over a year and every once in a while, just for kicks, I install AVG and AdAware.

      Last time I ran AdAware 6 with the latest definitions, out of 90000+ items scanned, it found ONE registry key.

      And AVG has not once turned up an infection of any kind.

      So I ask the other windows users, what the hell are you doing to require this. And I ask all the self-righteous linux users to kindly keep your smart-ass comments to yourselves :)

    3. Re:What get's me... by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I've noticed more and more windows users, have to install

      Oh you have, noticed that have you?

      I ask... Why Bother? It's the reason I went 100% linux at home, no worries about such crap.

      The fact that you don't worry about that is going to be your downfall.

      Linux viri exist, and there doesn't seem to be anything in any Unix system that makes it inherently immune to viri. It wasn't long ago that the first Linux bugs came out, and I expect to see more and more. Plus you have to worry about script kiddies, and they're more numerous than viri and worms these days.

      Unix isn't immune, and we need something to come along that will actually solve that problem, lest we have to switch operating systems every 5 years to stay ahead of the malicious programs. Systrace is a great start, but it's not ideal, and not automatic. A little improvement could make it a great wall against all unknown viri/worms/kiddies, but it's important that somebody actually works on that, instead of assuming there's nothing to worry about.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:What get's me... by naelurec · · Score: 4, Informative

      So I ask the other windows users, what the hell are you doing to require this. And I ask all the self-righteous linux users to kindly keep your smart-ass comments to yourselves :)

      Well here are some of the answers I received after cleaning up systems that were infected:

      1. I just wanted to install a game (about 18 spyware programs found)

      2. I thought the email was from the IT department (bagle ZIP encrypted virus)

      3. Internet Explorer prompted me to install something, I said yes (spyware, again..)

      4. I don't know (spyware, viruses, you name it..)

      5. Someone else used the computer..

      Needless to say, spyware and viruses are such a large problem that for most people, they are unable to determine where it comes from or how to prevent it from getting on their systems without something protecting them (antivirus, antispyware programs).

      Annoying, definitely, preventable with a little bit of knowledge? definitely.

    5. Re:What get's me... by LMCBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Linux viri exist

      Can you name one? One that had a non-negigible infection rate on Linux machines?

      I'm not saying it's impossible, but Linux users mostly don't run as root, and they don't generally use mail programs that open attachements without asking, so I really don't see how script-kiddie level virii can propagate on Linux.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    6. Re:What get's me... by bm_luethke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I realise that you didn't say this (more of a response to the grandparent with your comment being important), in this case linux is getting "security through obscurity".

      If most people ran XP in the multi-user environemnt and only ran as a lowly user things would work much better. I can't say that i do (but then I run Linux in superuser mode mostly since I write sysadmin code - every window open is SU anyway). But then I am quite careful about what I run - I've never gotten a virus since the early 90's (knock on wood) on any computer I have ran - nor have I been hacked as I try and apply/test the most current patches to the best of my abilities. Any of my families computers that I run, they run as plain users without the ability to be stupid, only OS problems creep in.

      Should Linux hit the mainstream desktop you will see millions of root users on the net, each downloading and installing crap and hitting "yes", running attachments they shouldn't, and a myriad other things. The main problem here is users mostly. That is not to say that Microsoft doesn't share blame (or even shoulder it entirely in some cases) but in this case it is purely a stupid user and is OS independant.

      I probably hate microsoft as much as the next person here (but since my home machine is mainly gaming I still use it - now emulators work well enough yet for every game I want to play) I do not see that false accusations help anything. If it is a Stupid User (TM) that is responsible, not the OS, then Linux, windows, BeOS, anything isn't going to solve it.

      The first place anyone *must* hit to get adoption is at the workplace as people HAVE to learn work and home follows. While MSCE's may not be the greatest (or they may - I know some who are brilliant but want the jobs) they know enough to reconise FUD. Linux FUD isn't any tastier than Windows FUD. If you propose adoption to solve issues, and it doesn't solve them, you loose credibility. Linux has *many* *many* winning points - no reason to add ones that do not exist.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
  7. Spin the wheel of motivations... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Funny

    Was the worm written by...

    A: The RIAA, to try to take down the P2P services.
    B: A disgruntled artist, who blames the P2P apps for why they can't get paid.
    C: The owner of unaffected P2P app trying to take down the competition.
    D: A random hacker, who doesn't have any interest in the music industry, but just wants to ruin people's fun.
    E: SCO. Because they're associated with anything Slashdot hates.
    F: Microsoft. Because they're associated with anything Slashdot hates.
    G: CowboyNeal, because he's a suspect on all Slashdot polls.

    1. Re:Spin the wheel of motivations... by Ieshan · · Score: 3, Funny

      You forgot spammers.

      They're behind this somehow.

    2. Re:Spin the wheel of motivations... by zbuffered · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This would make a great Poll. It would fairly accurately state what flavor of tin-hatter is in the majority here:

      A: Conspiracy Theorists (Communist)
      B: General Wackos (this one isn't realistic as I understand it--musician/script kiddie? That's too outlandish a secret identity)
      C: Conspiracy Theorists (Capitalist)
      D: ?
      E: SCO Bashers
      F: Microsoft Bashers (Apple and Linux)
      G: Didn't read this article/loves the CowboyNeal option

      --
      Synergy is your friend
  8. Netsky by The_Mystic_For_Real · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't really understand this virus, or more precisely, the people who wrote it. Although I can not speak from experience, I would have to imagine that spreading virii over P2P networks is like shooting fish in a barrel (hotpr0n.mpg.exe would probably take down half the computers on kazaa). So why are they trying to spread it through e-mail? I would think that since there is no challenge involved in spreading it that they would be moralists (like the people who disguise a program that reports people's ip address as warez) but they are not doing it over the networks themselves so they would have a potential for "collateral damage". Is the writer just a random skript kiddie or am I missing something?

    --

    _____

    Thank you.

  9. Wider than just Kazaa and Edonkey, methinks by jwlidtnet · · Score: 5, Informative

    Soulseek's been down all day, for example, even though I haven't seen any information specifically saying that this new Netsky targets said network (Kazaa and Edonkey are the two that I frequently see cited, as in the linked article). It's an odd choice of target--it's far smaller than Kazaa/FastTrack--but then again, Edonkey's not too high on the usual radar, either. Some bittorrent sites are also especially wobbly today, but that could be coincidence.

    Fascinatingly, I've also been getting absolute tons of emails infected with this variant of Netsky, many of which pretend to have been scanned for viruses and are "clean." This seems particularly lame as an "innovative" get-the-dupes-to-click-on-"document.doc .pif" strategy, but someone must be clicking on these things (verizon seems particularly affected, as every other Netsky spam I get seems to be from that domain).

    Ahh well. Hopefully, this particularly-obnoxious variant will be short lived (so we can, of course, begin the cycle anew in a few weeks' time with a new SoBig or...heck, I dunno, Klez? What letter are they up to there?)

  10. New Virus Avenues by MrNonchalant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It can't be long before e-mail becomes so suspect that self-mailing viruses simply won't spread because everybody is so afraid of their inbox. It will be interesting to see where viruses go then. IM would be my first bet, as well as P2P networks, vulnerabilities in certain *cough* OSes we've already seen, and network shares but there has got to be other methods I'm not thinking of. This could be really interesting to watch. I've never taken the hard line view towards viruses that I see here, I see them as massive experiments with data and as kind of a spectator sport. Of course that could be because I've never really had a problem with them...

  11. Dispatch by Emperor+Tiberius · · Score: 2, Informative
    The latest variant of the Netsky worm directing infected computers to launch Web-based attacks against music- and file-trading Web services such as Kazaa

    This one was probably sent out by the RIAA, or Orin Hatch himself.

  12. Kazaa?? by dj245 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Does anyone actually use kazaa anymore? Seriously, after the RIAA, the viruses, (not just this latest one either) the fake files, the silly repeating songs, the cursed songs with phone tones in them, and the overall spyware nature of Kazaa (and don't mention kazaa lite please), Who actually uses Kazaa anymore?

    I switched P2P networks long ago. I have no silly business of fake files, or dial tones in my songs. There are viruses, but they are fairly obvious as they are often disguised as keymakers. The only thing I have to worry about is french movies not being labeled properly. At least they are the right movie. If only I could translate french on the fly...

    Only grandmothers and 10-year olds use KazAA. The unkempt geeks switched networks a while back.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:Kazaa?? by the+sabster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The geeks may have jumped ship - High schoolers & students at humanities schools still use it... it has an easy to use interface, and there's a lot of files available on it. My sister, a freshmen in college, made a comment to me yesterday [talking about the chances of getting caught d/l music and movies] - "Well I downloaded a movie, but I deleted it afterwards so they couldn't catch me or know I downloaded it". Most of her friends have similar logic... It's not just grandmothers :)

    2. Re:Kazaa?? by xandroid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Real geeks who dislike the RIAA and/or want to stick it to The Man use Mute, a free and anonymous filesharing program.

      --
      $ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
    3. Re:Kazaa?? by BillyBlaze · · Score: 4, Interesting
      If they were the ones who uploaded it, they would know her IP address, which, with the DMCA, is sufficient to finger her. (Then the courts would have to decide whether it's illegal if the plaintiff did the uploading.) Alternately, they could find some way to spy on a known uploader, or perhaps sue an uploader and get his logs as a settlement, and use the logs to discover her. Or easiest by far, it's possible that for some period of time, she was uploading, or at least advertising that she had the file.

      If it reached court and took her computer, it would be easy. Deleting the file only clobbers metadata, most of the file is still on the disk. Even when data is overwritten by normal use of the disk, it is possible to extract. (It's recoverable until about 7 overwrites.) If they found even one block of the movie on her disk, they could tell the court there was only a 1 in 1.318x10^1204 chance she didn't do it.

    4. Re:Kazaa?? by msim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Learn to get things right, not all software/innovation/ideas come from America[1].

      1) Kazaa was made and designed in Australia. the RIAA can't do shit here
      2) ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association) *IS* in Australia and they have their teeth on this bone.

      [1] This is just a point, i'm quite aware it could have been a slip of the mind or you just didn't know. :-)

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    5. Re:Kazaa?? by danila · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Even when data is overwritten by normal use of the disk, it is possible to extract. (It's recoverable until about 7 overwrites.

      You know, I just happened to read a FAQ written by techs from the data recovery company (in Nizhny Novgorod, Russia) and they say it's bullshit. They quote Gordon Hughes, the director of Magnetic Recording Research at the University of California:

      "Beyond these data recovery techniques which use drive hardware, other exotic techniques can be proposed such as putting recorded discs into scanning magnetic force microscopes. It is easy to obtain pictures that appear to show unerased track edge data. But no one has shown complete recovery of a data sector, including the data synchronization preamble, bit de-randomizer, partial response and modulation codes, and error correction code."


      So until I see some better evidence, I am tempted to believe that even wiping the file contents with zeros once should be enough.
      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    6. Re:Kazaa?? by UpnAtom · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does anyone actually use kazaa anymore? Seriously, after the RIAA, the viruses, (not just this latest one either) the fake files, the silly repeating songs, the cursed songs with phone tones in them, and the overall spyware nature of Kazaa (and don't mention kazaa lite please)

      Why don't you want me to mention Kazaa Lite? As far as RIAA & fake files, the Bad IP Updater takes care of them, MP3 Shield for those who've already been tricked.

      Who actually uses Kazaa anymore?

      2.8 million people today. That's the clincher for me. The software may have problems (lack of error checking being a big one), but what's the point of a fancy network if you're the only person on it?

  13. antivirus programs are of limited value by JoeBuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An antivirus program only finds known viruses, or variants of known viruses that trigger some common rule. They are useless against new viruses, particularly rapidly spreading new viruses.

    1. Re:antivirus programs are of limited value by nyseal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, however most AV software companies are very quick to respond once a virus is identified. If you keep your definitions up to date frequently, it potentially can only affect 100 users rather than a million. I might be overshooting it a bit here but statistically you're safer.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  14. Equal Time? by Can · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, when the virus attacked SCO, all the reporters gleefully reported that it was probably an attack from "the Linux Community." What are the odds that those reporters will automatically jump to the conclusion that the RIAA wrote this virus, and then publish that opinion.

    My guess, is that these writers won't be quite so eager to jump to conclusions this time. But it might be worthwhile for those of us who were annoyed by those writers to point that fact out to them.

  15. Stop the presses by shaitand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember how quick the media was to turn on the linux community when a worm appeared to be targeted at SCO.

    Let's show we are a couple notches above the media here and give this some time, maybe we can take this thing apart and make sure of it's TRUE intended victim. Not to say I'd put it past the RIAA, but we should make sure before flinging accusations.

  16. Wasn't it the RIAA? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Wasn't it the RIAA who wanted to be legally enabled to attack computers they thought had copyrighted material on them? Or was it the MPAA. Regardless, I wouldn't be surprised if they just did it whatever the consequences were. Its not like M$ or any other big company hasn't done that before.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  17. Re:**AA Cartels by Jason+Straight · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Probably why it was setup as such, whoever wrote it was hoping the **AA cartels would be blamed.

  18. Re:The one bad thing about OSS.... by kryptkpr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OSS has nothing to do with this...

    Little programs, like worms, can be analyzed at the most basic level (asm code) by a competent programmer with some common tools. What they do can then be changed by adding or replacing code.

    This doesn't work for huge, complicated programs, but it certainly does for things like viruses and worms.

    --
    DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  19. When will it end? by mtnharo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The thing that has been getting to me lately is the non-stop barrage of new viruses and worms these past few months. Come on the 19th variant of Netsky? How many is it going to take before people get a clue and protect their computers responsibly, or demand software and operating systems that don't leave the barn doors wide open?

    My feeling is that this won't stop until the virus creators actually start causing damage to individual user's computers, not just the bandwidth hogging and (D)DOS variety of the current crop. When getting hit with one of these bugs means that Joe Luser's stuff gets deleted and his system won't let him logon, you can be sure he will raise a ruckus wherever he can. Turning his box into a spam relay or a DDOS zombie doesn't cause nearly as much visible damage to the computer, other than it being a bit slower to use, another condition with which the average computer user has become too comfortable.

    The nagging question in my mind isn't "When will this happen?", it's "Why hasn't it happened yet?" Or possibly, "Will it ever happen?" And that last one makes me very sad.

    1. Re:When will it end? by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's because most virus writers don't have criminal inclinations. More like pranksters.

      Oh, and if a virus does `real' damage, then they can forget about getting off the hook if they're caught. Someone will throw a book at'em if they're really nasty (and aren't just kidding).

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    2. Re:When will it end? by mtnharo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The "prankster" angle is true. Although based on the number of trojans and worms used to create spam relays, it would seem that some of the virus creators out there do intend to be more than a minor nuisance, and would probably be prosecuted if caught. I seem to remember some of the recent spam relay worms were somehow linked to Organized Crime.

    3. Re:When will it end? by skifreak87 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A comment I often see here on /. is vote with your wallet. Don't buy the product if it sucks. The problem is, what if you want/need the product and there's no viable alternative (and don't even start the linux is a viable alternative to windows argument, for the average person it's not in my experience). Regardless of difficulty to use, my parents want a computer that if something goes wrong, they can easily get help and that their digital camera/printer/sound card/can connect to my dad's office vpn server where he can read his EXCHANGE email will work for w/out any hassle.

      Voting with your wallet only works for you when you actually have a market w/ products that easily substitute. For instance coke and pepsi. It has been decided that Microsoft has a monopoly. You cannot vote with your wallet against a Monopoly if you want their product. The only solution I see is for there to be other viable alternatives that are shown to the average person to be viable.

      Furthermore, when I was younger and I used to play a lot of computer games (not MMOG's) but things by myself or w/ a friend like NHL 94, or whatever, these games did not/still mainly don't work for any non-Windows OS. So if that's what I use a computer for, I need to run windows (I used to dual-boot w/ Linux but then again, I'm a computer geek and dealt w/ the hassle to get sound/printing working.)

      Stop please telling people to vote w/ their wallet when there is no direct substitute. Indie labels are not a substitute for RIAA-music, it's DIFFERENT music. I'm not saying don't buy it or that it isn't better, it's still different. Most people don't want to have to deal w/ the hassles of learning a new OS that everyone else can't help them with.

  20. RIAA by Tensor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it sooo improbable that this was somehow sponsored by the RIAA ? (or similar)

    On one hand i dont see it as too likely, on the other, lately my capacity for surprise has been worn down by strange lawsuits and laws (Can-Spam).

    and RIAA was, after all, seeking to make their hacking P2P-ers legal ...

  21. People just don't seem to learn. by enosys · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Oh come on, they've been around long enough and they're still spreading like wildfire. E-mail is just too important and I can't imagine that it would be abandoned. Also people don't seem to even fear attachments. These sort of viruses have been around for a while and there are still lots of people who run the attachments and install viruses on their computers.

    I think things would only change if default setups of Windows were secure against this sort of thing.

  22. Part of something larger? by snStarter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I keep wondering if there's more to all of this than merely a set of isolated viruses released into the wild.

    If you want to destabilize an economy, say the West, then go after the computer networks that bind it together and which make it both different, free, and vulnerable.

    There are lots of bits and pieces being assembled. What if this is part of something larger and we're only seeing the perfection of the pieces and a bit of guiding of the immune system toward another goal?

    Yeah, maybe I'm not wearing my tin hat, but some things seem to be acting too well...or too badly.

  23. NetSky already did this? by pantycrickets · · Score: 4, Informative

    Previous versions of NetSky copies itself to any folder containing the word "shared" in it. As in "My Shared Folder." To spread itself via Kazaa and other file sharing programs.

  24. article text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Worm Triggers Attacks on File-Trading Services
    Sat Apr 10,10:23 AM ET

    By Mike Musgrove, Washington Post Staff Writer

    The latest variant of the Netsky worm is directing infected computers to launch Web-based attacks against music- and file-trading Web services such as Kazaa, taking down at least one company's Web sites in the process.

    The worm, the 19th version of a bug that made its debut in February, is also targeting some Web sites that offer computer programs designed to illegally break or bypass copyright controls on software programs.

    Sharman Networks, owner and distributor of Kazaa software, said in a statement that the attack had "no disruptive effect" on its site.

    But Jed McCaleb, lead programmer for eDonkey file-sharing software, said the worm temporarily knocked out the company's two main Web sites. A third site run by the company remained up and all were working late yesterday.

    McCaleb said does not know why his sites were attacked. "It's strange to me that these people are virus writers and pointing their fingers at others," he said in a phone interview yesterday. "Obviously they don't have the highest morals if they are hurting people's computers."

    McCaleb said that the three-year-old service has 5 million users worldwide.

    Antivirus experts said they were unsure whether the author of the 19th version of the Netsky worm is the same as the author of previous versions. A 20th version of the worm that has been circulating on the Web is scheduled to attack a similar group of file-sharing sites between April 14 and April 23.

    The experts advised people not to click on strange attachments in e-mail, which can activate the worm, and to update their antivirus software frequently to ward off new threats.

  25. PIF - PDF by nevek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I cant tell you how many computers I've cleaned when people get PIF email attachments and open them thinking they were PDF's.

    They will pay me to remove the virus, but they wont buy a email scanning antivirus program, or even figure out that if the icon is the windows logo (double meaning here) Its probably not a good thing!!

    Back to the article, With all of the spyware, IE plugins, and other memory hogging garbage associated with these P2P programs, alot of users wont even notice a few extra viri thrown into the mix, they'll just run to techies faster.

    MOVE!!! (shameless Nick Burns Reference)

  26. Re:Worms VS. Viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Easy:
    Worm = Requires security vunerability in the computer's OS or some running software program to infect said computer.
    Virus = Requires security vunerability between the chair and keyboard to infect said computer.

  27. IF McAfee || Norton THEN circumvent by qualico · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...probably a line in most virus payloads.

    Funny thing is, McAfee and Norton on Windows is a bad stack.
    After install you have a broken OS.
    Expect your computer to crawl like a baby and/or crash often.

    Actually, it would be better to do without said crapware and enjoy better performance with your spyware/virus.

  28. I think you nailed it... by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... to just millions of people, a computer is just a TV set with a lot of on demand "channels". That is exactly how they treat it, and why security isn't anything they should do, the "computer" should do it.. and really, it mostly SHOULD "do that".

    And there's no reason anymore for new computers to go out the door in any shop without those types of programs installed if they are going to use MS.

    shame on MS and shame on the box vendors

    And there's even less reason to let MS skate on this issue. They should have been class actioned all the way to the supreme court long ago on useability and security and internet interoperability issues.

    That EULA is an abomination. Maybe 20 years ago when desktop computing was really getting going they needed some time to get up to speed on coding, but not today, nope, EULAs that absolve the *seller* of all normal consumer warranty and protection should be stricken down. once and for all.

    If ACME front door and lock company made a product that consistantly over the years was shown to A not open or shut correctly and could be counted on to fall off the hinges and needed to be re hung every 6 months, B-which had no credible locking mechanism, and C-caused the purchasers to be invaded in their homes and robbed and inconvenienced for years and years because of A and B, they would have been put out of business.

    It's time to REALLY consider this EULA get out of any responsibility card they are allowed to use and profit from. It's absurd.

    Methinks a lot more proactive coding on their part over the years might have cost them X-billions more, but they got 50 bill in the bank now, they could have most likely made it a lot more secure and functional and still had many many billions in the bank. There's no excuse anymore beyond pure GREED on their part. I would agree with the assessment nothing can be coded perfect, but really.. there's ways to go about this, they just never did it,not near enough, they were AWARE of the issues just they didn't CARE about the issues enough because it would have cut into "profits". Not eliminate them, it just would have reduced them some. Big deal. they profit, everyone else has to jump through hoops and suffer over their inaction.

    They could have had BOTH, profitability plus more secure and functional design, they chose NOT TO. It was high level executive decision making that caused that, it was done on purpose. It wasn't that important to them as long as they could bully their way into mass acceptance and get away with it.

    Class action suit, I am surprised it has never happened yet.

    1. Re:I think you nailed it... by windside · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That EULA is an abomination.

      I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment and tell you that although the EULA may be terrible, it's not Microsoft's responsibility to sign a good contract. If I wrote up a contract stipulating that you are required to give me 90% of your disposable income in exchange for me enlightening you, it certainly wouldn't be a fair contract. But if I were able to get you to sign, it would still be a binding contract, albeit a bad one.

      I am not a lawyer but I know that Microsoft does not engage in any sort of coersion to force its users to agree to their EULA. I usually try to block Windows Installations out of my memory with binge drinking, but I'm pretty sure you are actually forced to "read" the entire EULA before the "Accept" button becomes available.

      At the end of the day, bad contracts are legal. The problem is stupid assholes who don't read them before signing or agreeing to them. If you walked into the bank and your teller said "Sign this contract" wouldn't you want to read it first?

      It all comes down to that great axiom of libertarianism: If you don't want to [agree to Microsoft's EULA], you don't have to. The onus is on the non-MS community to get the word out and inform people that it might be time to start reading and understanding those EULAs before clicking "Accept".
      --

      --
      ...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
      Churchill
    2. Re:I think you nailed it... by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am not a lawyer but I know that Microsoft does not engage in any sort of coersion to force its users to agree to their EULA.

      Sure they do.

      I go into Best Buy. I pay cash for a copy of Windows XP. I walk out of the store.
      (At this point I have all the legal rights necessary to run Windows XP.)

      I take the software home, go to install it and it tells me that I must agree to (XXX, YYY, and ZZZ) BEFORE I can acutally use my legally purchased RIGHT to run that software.

      They're bullying you because you already have the right to run Windows XP, but they're forcing you to give up some of those rights that you had when you walked out of Best Buy in order to run software that you legally already have the right to run.

      The box in Best Buy said "Windows XP" not "Windows XP installer program with supplemental EULA for windows XP". When I hand the clerk in Best Buy money, I've just bought the right to use that copy of Windows XP. If Microsoft wants me to agree to some sort of restricted license, they need to present that license at the time of sale, not afterwards.


      The key thing it that you're not legally required to agree to somebody's EULA (assuming you bought their software as a box in a store), and they're "coercing" you into agreeing by writing the software in such a way that you cannot use it (which you legally already have the right to do) unless you check "I agree".

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
  29. Virus Hoax !!! by kaykay_2k1 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You know,i still receive this two year old virus hoax. And people who send it to me, actually fall for it and delete a harmless file from their winodws system. And everytime i have to send them a webpage saying that the mail is a hoax and the file is harmless.

    The Hoax:-

    Dear Sirs:

    It is possible that a VIRUS could be sent to you because you were registered in our Outlook's directory.

    This VIRUS sends itself to all addresses registered in your Outlook's Address Book (happens also with other e-mailing programs). If you find it please resend this email to all your email addresses.

    How to erase it:

    This virus is not found neither by Mc Afee, Norton, or any other AntiVirus programs.

    How to erase it:

    1) In the Start Menu go to "Search Files", then search for jdbgmgr.exe or j*.exe

    2) the Virus programs has a Teddy Bear as the Icon.

    3) Once you found it, erase it.

    4) go to the windows' trash can and empty it or at least open it and then erase the file with the teddy bear icon.

    5) resend this email to everybody on your mailing lists.

    BYE, AND SHAME ON THE VIRUS DEVELOPERS! THEY HURT ALL BUSINESS, PEOPLE, AND OTHERS.

  30. Rethinking intellectual property by r.future · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm all for a resistance to things like the RIAA, companys that abuse copyright law, and absurd notions of what constitutes intellectual property.

    However I feel that when people use P2P networks as the only way to fight back, but don't use things like creative commons or the the GNU than they are really hurting the resistance movement that people have created to fight back aginst abuse copyright laws, and absurd notions of intellecutal property.

    IMO There has to be more reason to use P2P than "I don't have to pay for it," there has to be the desire to make a political or philosophical statement.

    Anyway, I'm just preaching to the converted here...

    --
    Note: this has been posted by r.future (a person who spends way to much time on the internet!)
  31. Re:The most likely culprit by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, there are uses for running a virtual machine ala Virtual PC or VMWare.

    You can take your downloaded keygen or whatever and run it completely seperated "in a bottle" so to speak, so you can use it without any fear that it will wreak havok on you. Disable networking support, COM ports, and any shared access to harddisks and you're safe.

    Very handy.

    N.

    --
    "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
  32. Sadly... by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Informative

    I spent a 24 hour block at work on Thursday fighting an undetectable to McAfee/Norton/Trend version of Polybot/Gaobot/SDBot.

    The *bot line of worms spreads two ways. It uses both the RPC exploit (patched last year) and by using a laundry list of username/password combinations. While I'll be the first to admit that a STRONG local administrative password and 100% patched boxes would have evaded *this* worm, it won't be a defense against the next one that targets RPC-like-flaw-v2.0 or that includes our "strong" local administrative password in its list of passwords to try.

    The *bot series of worms is also pretty "neat" in that it immediately updates the HOSTS. file of infected machines to redirect all major AV update sites to 127.0.0.1, and it spawns a double-process that each iteration of itself checks constantly to ensure that the other instance of itself is still running, and that all of its restart values are still in place. Tricky indeed.

    Sure, lock the HOSTS. file too you say, but we've got more than one VPN solution in-house that changes HOSTS. when executing.

    Use VNC on our desktops? As soon as it includes domain authentication instead of weak passwords stored plaintext in the registry. (Yes, there are updated versions, yes the source is available, but "use VNC" isn't as simple as it sounds. -- From a security standpoint, VNC just isn't "secure.")

    Up-to-date AV? Useless against new threats.

    Turn off the SERVER service you say! That'll fix 'em... ...it'll also stop you from fixing anything remotely too.

    Anyway, rambling aside, we deployed a fix (with a tool that, ironicly would be caught by many AV programs as "dangerous" and blocked -- since our fix included a copy of PSKILL) to our machines through our automated software deployment agent, and we'll be cleaning up HOSTS. files later this week.

    There is no "do this and you will be protected" blanket statement. If there was, I'd be out of a job.

  33. can't help but wonder by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    how many people have jobs because of spammers and computer infections?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  34. The "computer community"? by heironymouscoward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You consider virus writers to be part of the "computer community"? Like rapist are part of the "dating community" and burglars are part of the "domestic community"?

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  35. It's a pain in the ass, by NeuroManson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because someone who didn't know better opened the attachment.

    I've been getting delivery failure e-mails over the last few days because my e-mail addy is in their address book. And believe you me, I checked every conceivable virus scanner on the web.

    The specific worm in question is Worm.SomeFool.Gen-2 , according to the last dozen or so messages.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  36. Mods? by mr+i+want+to+go+home · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm not sure why this is modded as troll - I've noticed exactly the same thing with the cad workstations at work that have Nortons on it. It's so much of a problem that we're testing others now.

    AV is essential on a Winbox - but that doesn't mean that it should make the machine run like a dog! And these are pretty damn fast machines we're talking here. The difference (with/without) is pronounced.

    1. Re:Mods? by imkonen · · Score: 2, Informative

      This may be getting off-topic a little, but I learned this tip when I was in charge of my lab's PCs. One huge difference I noticed in Norton AV is under the advanced settings for real time file protection, there are two options: "Scan on modify (create)" and "Scan on Accessed or modify (create, open, move, copy or run)". For a while when I would install a new copy of Norton the second was the default setting, and it made a world of difference switching to the first. I have no benchmark numbers to back it up, but qualitatively I would say I couldn't tell the difference in performance between the first option and not having Norton installed at all, while checking the second option it was pretty easy to see the effect. It just kills any program that accesses data files and settings files as it goes because it interupts and scans the files every time they are needed. I assume the first option is sufficient to protect against downloading a new virus, while the second may actually help with damage control if you're already infected, but at some point you do have to decide the performance hit just isn't worth it.

  37. Norton sucks! by JPriest · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hate Norton and Mcafee because they each run like 6 different processes when the system boots up. Who needs a virus when they have an anti-virus utility that causes more load and overhead than everything else combined. Not to mention their scare tactics to get people to spend more money. I think AVG and AVPE are fine solutions, just most people don't know they exist.

    --
    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.
    1. Re:Norton sucks! by JPriest · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fixed link

      --
      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.
    2. Re:Norton sucks! by colk99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I use Pc-Cillin it is subscription based but it doesnt take up as much memory or processor as mcafee or norton

    3. Re:Norton sucks! by mattgreen · · Score: 2, Informative

      What are you smoking? This is FUD. I am a gamer. I don't even notice the impact of running Norton. I did a quick 3DMark test way back and there was no difference between running it with NAV and without. Well, less than 30 marks on 3DMark 2000, but this easily falls within the standard deviation of repeated runs of 3DMark.

      Furthermore, I'll pull the CPU time figures from task manager. This is NAV Corp. edition 8.0 on XP:
      Cumulative uptime: 201:53:00 (system idle process)
      rtvscan.exe: 00:00:04 (real time scanning service)
      vptray.exe: 00:00:01 (virus protection tray applet)

      For reference:
      aim.exe: 00:00:47 (been running less than a day)

    4. Re:Norton sucks! by mattgreen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I ran the 3DMark test on an 800mhz Athlon in Win2k. It didn't show up.

      Really, 4 seconds of CPU time given that I've been up for over 8 days is completely unnoticeable. Ever checked how much Winamp uses by comparison for 'simple' MP3 decoding?

    5. Re:Norton sucks! by RESPAWN · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hate Norton and Mcafee because they each run like 6 different processes when the system boots up. Who needs a virus when they have an anti-virus utility that causes more load and overhead than everything else combined.

      I totally agree with you on that one. I was having issues with McAfee at one point, so I uninstalled it for a while. I couldn't believe how much faster my computer was starting up. Now, I'm sure that some of the slowdown had to do with McAfee doing some scanning on bootup, but it was amazing nevertheless. ...And the reason that I uninstalled McAfee? Version 8.0 for home users appears to have a slight bug in it where for some reason it appears to go into some kind of infinite loop or something and basically keeps eating up system resources and slowing your system to a crawl until you kill the process. I've actually got one screenshot showing McAfee has consumed ~380MB physical memory and ~720MB virtual memory. I've seen it higher, but the system was so slow to respond at that point that I was unable to get a screencap.

      As you said, who needs viruses when you have virus software that harms your computer worse than a virus.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

  38. Mr. and Mrs. Blow by Vexware · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What truely surprises me is the fact that this is the 19th incarnation of the Netsky virus, and the can be really quite revealing about how much "Joe and Jane Blow" really try to protect their computer, even after all the repeated assaults from multiple virii in recent times. I am sure some blinded, elitist geeks out there will point out that 'Joe and Jane Blow are too stupid so they get loads of virii instead of moving to Linux' before moving to the next discussion whih can sprout a pro-Linux, anti-Microsoft thread. Believe me, I do know a lot of Joe and Jane Blows, and if you do not then simply forget about your elitist argument, because for the most part they are not simple or stupid. They want to surf the Internet, check their e-mail, play some games and perhaps download music -- they do not want to program a database engine, do not own a Linux box for a hobby, do not start counting lists from '0' and think anyone who thinks learning Pi should perhaps see a doctor.

    So, they ask you for help because they think they have a virus or are feeling a slowdown. You do everything they should have done, that is install Ad-Aware, update it, scan for spyware -- and find some truckload of the bloatware eating up disk and registry space (and I'm not going to start on the RAM). That done, you download AVG Grisoft, update it, scan for virii -- and find several hundred files contaminated by virii, and that is quite a lot to clean up. Finally, you install a firewall -- preferably ZoneAlarm or Kerio Personal Firewall -- and set it up for them, so no more Blasters et al sneaking through some obscure system ports. The best option, on the long term at least, is to be sure to install a firewall with preconfigured program access rights (and I think Kerio Personal Firewall has this feature), and I shall tell you why: it may seem simple for any of us to simply check a checkbox for the firewall to remember to allow Half-Life Launcher to attack the Internet, and I truely thought this was the case for anybody -- after all, all the firewall does is ask a simple question, at least what seems like a simple question for most of us. Then, my grandma, who has barely touched a computer all her life, tried the new one she had bought to have a pastime during her six weeks' inability to walk. And the result was pretty surprising, to say the least. A new icon on the desktop, or even a pop-up, can get her panicking. So can you imagine this kind of non-techie, new user getting a firewall pop-up every minute for every program this user launches? This is why a preconfigured program access rights list is something good to have.

    Of course, anyone can go without an antivirus by simply installing a firewall and knowing what comes in their e-mail -- or, for those who grasp the technology a bit more, just block the ports manually; but Joe and Jane Blow have much more simple needs and don't want to have to learn loads of techniques simply to avoid virii and spyware, malware which they do not notice most of the time. In my opinion, the best way to prepare Mr. and Mrs. Blow against all this malware is to set up their software so at best, they can surf around and write emails totally unconscious of this protection, since in this case the software updates itself and does its job automatically. You can also give the user further tools against malware, such as replacing their browser and e-mail clients with Mozilla/Firefox and Eudora or Thunderbird. You should also set them simple guidelines, such as to always refuse anything whatsoever from a source they do not trust. Try and get them to buy commercial software (Norton Internet Security or McAfee Internet Security) as in general it offers better protection and a bit more tools that shall make everyone a happy bunny. Joe and Jane Blow want to know that they are protected against virii and spyware, but do not want to know how, and you'd be rather stubborn to get, what in their opinion is an extra worry, on the

    --
    "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect" -- Linus Torval
  39. Whats the target oudience of windows? by miffo.swe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That is my question and one have to answer that before one start bashing clueless users. In my opinion every OS out there should be as secure as possible out of the box. I dont like how windows has every feature known to man on by default as little as i like how linux dists keep having deamons started by default. The OS should be locked down and demand user intervention to be opened up. Not that it should be difficult to start things, thats not the goal. The goal should be that the user is not supposed to secure the machine they use, it should be secure by default and then opened up by the user if that is demanded.

    As linux becomes more used by newbs who hasnd any interest in locking it down it should be as secure as possible by default. That way if the box get hacked because of bad settings you can atleast put the blame on the one unsecuring it. Blaming a user who just installed it and never secured it is impossible and doesnt fly, thats why i dont listen to the people who say "they should have installed whatnot". Thats what the OS should do, provide basic services like security etc. If an OS demand an antivirus addon and adaware and things, maybe something is wrong in the OS?

    I hope linux gets proactive and riddens itself of the same bad decisions as MS have done. Dont trust the user to secure things bacause we have seen in the case of MS Windows that thats not going to happen.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  40. Re:Or just snobbish "h4x0rz" by theunforgiv3n · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And there is damned good reason they are hated. People in site rings and higher up in the food chain do not want their releases spread. This is especially true from the groups them selves. They legitimately do it for the hell of it to see who can get what out first.
    99% of the people in the scene rarely watch the movies they download. Most people actually view them in the theater. I mean be honest here. Who seriously wants to watch a shitty cam that has a 20degree angle and has people coughing and standing up during it? The same defiantly goes for cracks/hacks. 99% of them are programs no one in their right mind would ever use.
    The active hating is because they bring attention to things that no one wants attention brought to. It would be like someone publicizing a gas station that sold cocaine to those who asked. It is unneeded and unwarranted. Before P2P your average Joe bought every movie they wanted to see and every game they wanted to play. No more now they are starting to download them.
    Granted these are not the only reasons. Some people hate them for no reason at all. Theres also that small group that hates them because they cant, and wont ever put back into the scene. The hating is not unwarranted. Mood me down in to oblivion but this is the truth.

  41. Vaccine by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Currently there isn't enough awareness of viruses because they don't do that much harm to the people who get infected. The network admins know about it, of course, and they go around lecturing and threatening people, but it's all way too abstract.

    In order to show people the problem, I propose a vaccine virus:

    It would spread using many different methods, but in the quietest way possible. Use e-mail attachments, buffer overflow exploits, everything that's being done, but keep it quiet. Don't scan a thousand machines a minute, or send out millions of e-mails. Make the e-mails look like other virus e-mails, scan slowly, etc. The idea is to get onto as many machines as possible before triggering. Once it triggers, wreak as much havoc as possible on the infected machines. Delete files, overwrite them to be sure. Target document files before OS files. Hit network shares. Wipe out partition maps. Trash the BIOS if you can.

    It would be a pretty terrible virus, but I bet people would get serious about prevention after the dust settled. But is the cure worse than the disease?

    (Disclaimer: I'm not actually advocating this! Please don't take me to jail. It's just some food for thought.)

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  42. Try AntiVir XP by Quizo69 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Antivirus software has become so beloated these days. I run Norton Antivirus on my Windows machine and it turns it into a lag terminal."

    Norton certainly behaves this way. when I visit a client that has Norton on their machine, I recommend that to speed up their machine, they uninstall Norton and install the freeware antivirus checker called AntiVir:

    www.free-av.com

    They are always amazed at how getting rid of Norton Antivirus suddenly speeds up their system about 200%.

    NAV used to be really good back in '99 or so, but recent versions have been bloatware hogs like nothing else I've ever seen!

    Give AntiVir a try - you may be similarly amazed!! ....and no, I have no affiliation with AntiVir, I just think it's the best and least bloated antivirus app out there (and it happens to be free which is a great bonus!)

    1. Re:Try AntiVir XP by nolife · · Score: 2, Informative

      The free version of AntiVir will not scan or protect from files opened or accessed from a network share. A fair compromise by them for an other wise very good free product but something you should be aware of if you have a home network with shared resources.

      You can test and verify this operation on any vendors antivirus product with the eicar test virus.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
  43. He's right: A reply to your replies by theLOUDroom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Great explanation of just how irresponsible certain software manfacturers are being.

    Are lot of the reply's you're getting are in the vein of:
    "But you don't have to agree to the EULA"
    and "What about OSS"

    Okay guys, here's the difference:
    A MS EULA is like me going out, buying a house, and after closing on the house I come home to find a big sticker on the door that says,
    "by breaking this seal you agree to the following terms:

    -You do not really own this house, you're actually leasing it from us.
    -We are not responsible if this house turns out to have numerous major problems that we didn't tell you about.
    -You may only use this house for purposes X, Y and Z, any other use is strictly prohibited.
    -etc, etc, etc

    It's clearly stupid and not a legally binding contract. I can rip that sticker of my door without a worry in the world. The same needs to be true for software.
    A good example is disclaiming any and all warranty:
    This needs to be done BEFORE I give you my money.
    It's like a car manufacturer trying to sell a new car with absolutely no warranty by sticking a note in the glovebox when you're driving it off the lot.
    The deal is already done. The note means nothing. The manufacturer is still responsible for all normal, implied warranties.


    Now what about OSS?

    First off, I'm going to talk only about the GPL. (Other liscenses are typically very similar.)
    Now the key thing is that there are some very big differences with GPL'ed software:
    1) It's free. Free things are typically not legally required or assumed to carry warranties. There also don't seem to be many laws about disclaiming liability when I give you something for free. There's nothing that says the item must be provided in any form other than "as-is", unlike commercial/retail sales. I can give you a car with rusted out brakes for free and not have to fix them for you. If I was a car dealer, charging you money, I might have to fix those brakes (unless there was some agreement made about them at time of sale).
    2) The GPL is not a EULA. You do not have to agree to the GPL to use a GPL'ed program. A lot of people have trouble understanding this one. There are even programmers who make the GPL pop up when you run their program and force you the check "I agree". These people are all wrong. The GPL only governs redistribution. As such, it's not trying to get rid of any rights that you would normally have. In order to gain a right that you wouldn't normally have (redistribution of someone else's copyrighted work), you must agree that this new right is subject to a set of conditions. If you do not agree, you do not get those rights, not because to GPL says you don't, but because copyright law says you may not redistribute other's work without their permission.

    --
    Life is too short to proofread.
  44. BBC...... by budword · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where is the BBC story about how RIAA is dangerous and obviously behind this "new" attack ? The mainstream media is a joke, they mostly just repeat each other, except when the BBC gets creative. Don't know if I should approve or not, but it does spice things up a little when they out and out make stuff up.

  45. You left out the part by wurp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    where if I buy a house from anyone else, all of the major retailers won't sell me plumbing, fixtures, or even dishes and none of the handymen know how to fix anything.

    Yeah, sure, the EULA is a contract I chose to sign. As opposed to all of the other choices I have out there.

    In fact, this is getting fixed. For many advanced users, Linux is perfectly capable of providing anything they need. But someone shouldn't be forced to "sign" a crazy contract because they're not a computer expert.

    That's ignoring the fact that there are legal restrictions on what rights you can sign away in a contract.

    And also ignoring the fact that a EULA ISN'T A CONTRACT. I didn't sign anything - I clicked a button after I already bought a non-refundable item. Some choice.