64-Bit Rugrat Virus Emerges

weekendwarrior1980 writes "The first computer virus to target 64-bit Windows systems has been detected by security authorities. Dubbed "W64.Rugrat.3344," the virus is a fairly benign, proof-of-concept infection agent, according to a report issued on the Symantec Web site. This threat does not infect 32-bit systems and will not run on 32-bit Windows platforms. It is a direct-action infector, typically exiting memory after execution, and is written in IA64 (Intel Architecture) assembly code." Update: 05/29 19:26 GMT by T : Yes, this is the same "non-event" virus already mentioned.

Comments

Hey, kids!

[Rick Zeman]

It's time for the summer reruns!!!

Re:Hey, kids!

[leerpm]

So does this mean when the first 128-bit based virus debuts we can expect 4 posts about it? :)

Repost

[Markaci]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/27/158244

64 bit eh?

[2MuchC0ffeeMan]

since it has twice the bits it gets twice the postings... yay!

People please!

[chrisgeleven]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do a search on Slashdot for previous articles before posting and/or approving articles!

Going to the Search page, typing "Rugrat", and clicking the "Search" button already brings up a story about the first 64-bit Windows virus from Thursday, May 27th, 2004.

Unbelievable. Took me 2 seconds to do the search and would save a dupe.

Slashdot's habit of duplicating stories is getting pretty rediculous.

Proof of Concept?

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

proof of concept? PROOF OF CONCEPT you say!

I couldve proven that a virus was possible

• 64 bit Windows

There, I proved it's posible

The title of the article should be

[slyxter]

"First duplicate article on the 64 bit windows virus found!" more at eleven.

Well now that dident take too long did it.

[Coolmoe]

That has got to be comforting to people making 64 bit OS's. There is code waiting!

Now finally a way to make your 64bit computer feel more like your 32bit ones.

Rugrat

[LGagnon]

"W64.Rugrat.3344", soon to be followed by "W64.Reptar.3344".

What's interesting...

[Lars Clausen]

We have here a virus for IA64, a system that's out there in a minimal amount of machines, all high-end (presumably well-protected) servers. Now one of the standard explanations for the lack of viruses for Linux is that Linux is not as widespread. It is, however, much more widespread than IA64. Thus the amount of Linuxen out there is certainly not the only reason we're not seeing virues for Linux. Who knows, maybe Linux *is* actually more secure than Windows?

-Lars

Re:What's interesting...

[Chester K]

We have here a virus for IA64, a system that's out there in a minimal amount of machines, all high-end (presumably well-protected) servers. Now one of the standard explanations for the lack of viruses for Linux is that Linux is not as widespread. It is, however, much more widespread than IA64. Thus the amount of Linuxen out there is certainly not the only reason we're not seeing virues for Linux. Who knows, maybe Linux *is* actually more secure than Windows?

You act as if there've never been any worms or viruses for Linux...

In other news...

[networkGhettoWhore]

The SD.DupeStory.2004 virus has been running rampant. Although, experts claim it is simply an operator error.

The payload

[blowdart]

This threat does not infect 32-bit systems and will not run on 32-bit Windows platforms. It is a direct-action infector, typically exiting memory after execution, and is written in IA64 (Intel Architecture) assembly code

The payload causes infected windows machines to resubmit the same story to slashdot every day, in the hope that a duplicate story will arise.

Richard Stallman was quoted as saying the virus was sourced at Microsoft in an attempt to make linux news sites look silly, then requested that the source for the virus be published openly under a FSF license. SCO then claimed that they had the first 64 bit virus, and were now going to sue the author and every owner of an infected machine. Larry Elison was rumoured to say that the Oracle 64bit virus ran faster and cheaper than an MS 64 bit virus and stood grinning until someone pointed out that Bill Gates can buy him 10 times over.

Lower TCO.

[rice_burners_suck]

For immediate release: M5FT today announced that by using Windows, enterprises cut their TCO and increase the time employees have for coffee breaks. By leveraging innovative technologies, content providers streamline compelling enterprise solutions.

Gill Bates, the Architect of Windows and the Matrix, was pleased to say, "Our studies have proven that an eMachines costing $500 and running Windows XP has a lower TCO for opening a 2kb email than does a cluster of 1000 IBM z360 mainframes running Linux performing the same task. The cost, using Windows, was about 1 cents per bit, while the cost of the Linux setup was about $88,281,813.25 per byte. Clearly, Windows is much less expensive than Linux.

"Further," said Gill Bates, "employees get more coffee breaks while Windows is reinstalling after a virus breakout. With a Linux environment, the employees of your enterprise might have to work all day long, because the operating system simply isn't considerate enough to offer a coffee break or two every ten minutes."

I say..

[modifried]

.. we all head over to the previously posted article and post other users' +5, Informative/Interesting/Insightful responses as our own, on here.

Hypocrites!!

[KarmaPolice]

If you are going to complain about dupes, why not take a look at the current comments before creating another "Yep, it's a dupe"-comment.

Dupes are bad, but dupe comments about dupes...why, that's just silly!!

Stop the argument before it starts...

[rice_burners_suck]

And for those of you who think that once Linux takes over the world, the new viruses will target Linux, I think you are not taking the following factors into consideration:

1. Windows is an inherent security risk because nobody can see the source code and identify security problems. This might be touted as an advantage, because in the eyes of IT CIOs who don't know anything about computers, it is supposed to prevent security problems from becoming known. However, this does not take into consideration the 1337 h4x0rz who have a deep knowledge of computers, networks, and programming, and who have the time to find the bugs without seeing the source code. Thus, bugs that would be found and fixed quickly through access to the source code are not found and fixed until it's too late. In Linux, these bugs are usually fixed in the same day as they are found.
2. Many viruses are created to target Windows because many people hate Windows, Microsoft, and the political, social, and economic ideas they represent. These same individuals would not feel the same animosity towards Linux, because it does not represent the enrichment of a single entity at the expense of the entire world.
3. Windows contains a tremendous amount of code and features that not every business or individual needs. These customers cannot remove that code, and therefore, there are that many more potential bugs and vulnerabilities present in their installations that would not otherwise be there. Linux can be modified, and usually is, so that each system is different. Unneeded features are not installed.
4. All installations of Windows are effectively identical because, as I just said, you cannot modify anything. This means that all the zillions of people who are running the same version of Windows are vulnerable to the same bugs and viruses. Which means that a virus created for any version of Windows has a much larger "market" than one created for Linux, in which there are almost as many variations as there are installations.

Parent plagarizes

[EZmagz]

This is stolen straight from prostoalex's comment on Thursday, verbatim:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=109094&cid=9 268404.

Honestly, I would have modded this as redundant, but felt that the original author should at least get credit for coming up with a witty post (instead of another unoriginal AC bastard).

Ok kiddies, troll away...