Proof of Concept PocketPC Virus Created

SpooForBrains writes "The Register has reported that "Ratter" of the virus writing group 29A has created the world's first PocketPC virus as a proof of concept. This one has no payload and is polite enough to ask if it can spread, so the dangers are minimal, but it occurs that the possibility of PocketPC and Symbian virii suddenly makes the concept of bluejacking somewhat more sinister."

Comments

Reminds me of that windows virus...

[nmoog]

Do you accept the microsoft EULA?

Re:Reminds me of that windows virus...

[strictnein]

29A in hex = 666 in dec

CRAZY!

Re:Reminds me of that windows virus...

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh. Why do you think they picked that name for the group?

E-Darwin

[Cavio]

Just like biological ecosystems, our information infrastructure has niches, and viral "life" will thrive in any niche it can find for itself. Same with spammers, they are exploiting a niche which exists to make money. Virus writers are exploiting computing niches which allow for this kind of attack.

It is inevitable that any networked system will suffer from these attacks. See the recent Mozilla shell exploits. We have Linux security issues, and as the OS gains popularity, we will start to see virii for it. It will happen.

We have basically created electronic primordial soup. Three cheers for compu-evolution!

Re:E-Darwin

[Ieshan]

Comparison:

a) There are sadistic people who like to cause people harm by investing time and money into writing virii that inconvenience, destroy data, and render devices useless - meaning to do ALL of these things ON PURPOSE.
b) Viruses evolve.

The fact is, there's no little Virus overlord someplace up in the sky that's trying to cause damage and harm to humans. There *are* lots of other humans who love causing that same damage by writing malicious code.

If everyone decided tomorrow to stop trying to break the machines that others have worked so hard to build, voila - they'd not be broken anymore.

Sadism / Sociopathy has little to do with the Biological Evolution of Viruses. What gives? Why are people so quick to assume that it's okay for people to break things and hurt people just because it's possible to do so?

Re:E-Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the plural of virus (a collective noun, like milk) is virii, do you think the plural of Karmann Ghia is Karmannen Giaeae ?

Re:E-Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

i really cant wait to start seeing viruses for linux maybe then all you zealots will shut the hell up about MS. As Cavio stated "Linux has security issues" and with security issues and an expanded user base you are bound to get viruses running around, sooner or later it will happen, and it wont matter if there is a patch out within 24 hours of a virus release most people won't patch there computers, most of the problems with computers come from there users. But keeping bitching and moaning about MS one day you'll see, because every OS sucks.

Re:E-Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

a) There are sadistic people who like to cause people harm by investing time and money into writing virii that inconvenience, destroy data, and render devices useless - meaning to do ALL of these things ON PURPOSE.

True, but since a) you'll never be able to stop this kind of person in general, and 2) those kind of people will always show up when there are technological niches to be exploited, then it simply makes sense to take thier presence as a constant. Sure, it sucks that people do this sort of thing, but it's always going to happen.

Taking this kind of behaviour as a constant, then the "virus evolution" idea has more merit. Instead of random genetic (algorithmic?) mutation, you instead have the constant effect of assholes working on the virus code.


If everyone decided tomorrow to stop trying to break the machines that others have worked so hard to build, voila - they'd not be broken anymore.


If random genetic mutations never happened, there wouldn't have ever been evolution. But they do, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.


Sadism / Sociopathy has little to do with the Biological Evolution of Viruses. What gives? Why are people so quick to assume that it's okay for people to break things and hurt people just because it's possible to do so?


It's not okay, but it's always going to happen. So talking about the phenomenon of virus writing like it will or could ever stop is pointless -- it won't.

Re:E-Darwin

[BigBir3d]

And if people were not writing the viruses for various computer and related platforms, I think the evolution of these platforms would be at a slower pace. It is of no suprise to most people that there are other people out there wanting to test the limits of what can be done.

Re:E-Darwin

[cduffy]

So? Yes, the growth medium is humans motivated by challenge, or maliciousness, or *whatever* -- but if you take it as a given that somesuch growth medium exists, computer virii behave in several biological ways.

They combine their "genes" as folks splice the new, most effective payloads and mechanisms together; they mutate whenever someone comes up with a new and previously nonexistant technique... etc.

In short -- just because they're made by folks whom society would, generally speaking, be better without doesn't mean that they can't have biological charactristics.

(That said, I'd hesitate to call the folks who made this one "sadistic" -- not only is there no harmful payload, they *ASK THE USER* if it's allowed to spread!)

Re:E-Darwin

[pandrijeczko]

See the recent Mozilla shell exploits.

...which were on the Windows version of Mozilla only. Yes, it was a Mozilla problem but the architecture of Windows allowed the hole to be exploited.

We have Linux security issues, and as the OS gains popularity, we will start to see virii for it. It will happen.

Yes, we have Linux security issues, no denying that because Linux is software and software is insecure.

No, we will definitely not see widespread Linux viruses. Here's the reasons:

1. Viruses attack very specific security holes in very specific product versions. The fact that 90% of Internet PC users run Windows, IE & Outlook (Express) creates a perfect community for viruses to spread. In Linux, certain applications (like, say, Mozilla) are very common but spread those over the myriads of different distro versions and the number of common platforms (down to specific library & application version levels) decreases dramatically very quickly.

2. Windows is built with a major security flaw in as much as certain core system applications always have full access to the system. Therefore, if a virus attacks via an application, it can get system-wide permissions. On a poorly administered Linux system, this can also happen but the tendency now is to run applications at a user account level, rather than at root level. Most users are also educated enough not to run constantly as root. Therefore, assuming that you are running a common application version (in 1. above), the effect will be limited by permissions if everything is running as a normal user account.

3. Linux is so customisable that it is relatively straightforward to create a very tightly secure distribution "out of the box". There is in-built kernel-based firewalling, for example and unneeded services are left turned off very easily.

4. The average Linux user is far more Internet-savvy than the average Windows user - and that's not, in any way, devaluing some of the very knowledgeable Windows people that I do work with, for example - but average Joe Bloke at home runs Windows & only tries Linux when he starts to feel like he knows a little more about how PCs and networks actually work.

To put things in perspective a little, UNIX-type systems are susceptible to directed buffer-overflow type attacks where the intruder has done some homework, scanned a particular server, worked out what daemons it runs and then what versions of daemons he/she can attack. That's why good UNIX sysadmining is knowing what daemons to run and keeping them patched to the latest versions.

But please be under no illusions - the architecture of Linux is simply not designed to allow transmission of viruses. The only time this could ever happen is if a high proportion of Linux users ran the same distro version and very common applications.

Re:E-Darwin

[FooAtWFU]

I thought the major point of a virus wasn't to cause damage and harm to humans and evil stuff like that... the point of viruses is to make the machine your zombie and send spam.

Oh, wait. Yeah, I guess you're right. Never mind.

Re:E-Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, there's no little Virus overlord someplace up in the sky that's trying to cause damage and harm to humans.

Just because we don't know of one doesn't mean it's not possible.

Re:E-Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the singular of virii would be virius.

But you're basically right, "virus" in Latin is a stuff-word, which only became a thing-word when it moved into English. It should follow English pluralisation rules, which would indicate "viruses" or -- since it did come from Latin -- "viri" (note: one i).

Re:E-Darwin

[Dr. Evil]

It's not o.k., it's inevitable.

It's also inevitable that somebody is going to try to stop them.

But it is foolish for those people who're trying to stop them to think that they can actually succeed.

You can greatly reduce the likelyhood of somebody authoring viruses with strong detection and deterrants, but that generally has side effects which are worse than the problem.

Viruses are a technical problem, I think they can be solved, they might take a new philosophy in software design, but wrapping up software development and research in laws is a bad idea.

Re:E-Darwin

[GlassUser]

2. Windows is built with a major security flaw in as much as certain core system applications always have full access to the system. Therefore, if a virus attacks via an application, it can get system-wide permissions. On a poorly administered Linux system, this can also happen but the tendency now is to run applications at a user account level, rather than at root level. Most users are also educated enough not to run constantly as root. Therefore, assuming that you are running a common application version (in 1. above), the effect will be limited by permissions if everything is running as a normal user account.

This is blatant FUD. This can only happen on a poorly-configured windows system. It works just like you describe as how linux works.

Re:E-Darwin

[16K Ram Pack]

There's some other reasons...

Open source code allows for more scrutiny. Not just in the exact details of the code, but in terms of overall approach.

It's not a monoculture. If an approach by one app or service seems to give security issues, maybe people will approach it from another route. Also, because it's not a monoculture, people can come up with alternative solutions, and let the market evolve to choose the best one.

"Binding" does not occur, so applications work as applications, not as part of the operating systems. This should provide more checks and balances.

Because things are not added to be "flavour of the month"/forced upgrades/more revenue channels, there is more chance of long-term stability. People will add the things they need to do their job.

Re:E-Darwin

[meringuoid]

The fact is, there's no little Virus overlord someplace up in the sky that's trying to cause damage and harm to humans.

Another Slashdot evolutionist... there is a Virus Overlord up in the sky trying to cause damage and harm to humans! And he does it because he LOVES you! Why do you keep making him have to hurt you?

Re:E-Darwin

[pandrijeczko]

This can only happen on a poorly-configured windows system.

I accept that but would argue that a Windows system comes "out of the box" poorly configured for security.

Also, take a script on UNIX/Linux and it's permissions are determined purely by the user who ran it, hopefully not root - therefore its effect on the system must be limited.

On Windows, you can disable ActiveX and VB scripts from running, for example, but I do not know of a way of running them safely with limited permissions. (I possibly bow to your greater knowledge of Windows security here.)

Finally, I'd ask you to consider Windows user general mentality anyway. Most home user types are going to be running their systems at home with Admministrator accounts or with themselves set as Administrators for everything they do. On the otherhand, UNIX people do what they can at their own user levels while only resorting to root to do what they need to at that time.

All of these facts illustrate how a virus/trojan program has more (potentially) devastating effects on a Windows system than a UNIX one.

Re:E-Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

and with security issues and an expanded user base you are bound to get viruses running around,

You know I keep hearing this..."The only reason that Linux doesn't have as many exploits ...bla bla bla It does not work that way. If that were true shouldn't the worlds most common web server (Apache) have the most vulnerabilities?

Re:E-Darwin

[GlassUser]

I accept that but would argue that a Windows system comes "out of the box" poorly configured for security.
Only has poor as you make it. Of course there's going to be a single default admin account on a fresh system. Just like root on *nix. When you need a user, just add them. There are all sorts of flashy wizards for users that can't grasp "net user username password /add".

Also, take a script on UNIX/Linux and it's permissions are determined purely by the user who ran it, hopefully not root - therefore its effect on the system must be limited.
I don't see how this is different from windows?

On Windows, you can disable ActiveX and VB scripts from running, for example, but I do not know of a way of running them safely with limited permissions. (I possibly bow to your greater knowledge of Windows security here.)
I don't see why you're picking on one class of program or one scripting language. ActiveX in web pages is bad, and I'm sure you'll agree - there's no need to install binaries from random web pages, ever. But why single out vbscript? As far as permissions or system access, it's no different from ECMAscript, Perl, or PHP, on windows. They all go through the same script host and have the same system interfaces exposed. And they're all limited by the permissions of the account ultimate running them.

Finally, I'd ask you to consider Windows user general mentality anyway. Most home user types are going to be running their systems at home with Admministrator accounts or with themselves set as Administrators for everything they do. On the otherhand, UNIX people do what they can at their own user levels while only resorting to root to do what they need to at that time.

All of these facts illustrate how a virus/trojan program has more (potentially) devastating effects on a Windows system than a UNIX one.,/i>
I really don't think it's one mentality vs the other (at least at this level). I think it's more an absolute measure of skill. Some people know how to use a computer, some don't. Simple education will fix that.

Re:E-Darwin

[Sepper]

This is blatant FUD.

It is, but there is an once of truth in it. The default behavior.

By default, Windows Xp Home runs me as admin, and I had remove permissions for it the be secure...

By default, Mandrake runs me as user. I had to learn to change to root.

But I think the best behavior is with OS X (which I don't own). It prompt you with a password windows each time you need admin access. To me the says: 'STOP! think about what you are doing! Are you sure, you know what you are doing?'

Kinda like the way my sister caught Sircam.exe but when the thing poped-up in ZoneAlarm, she got the reflex to click 'No': "I don't know this application, And everything seems to work OK without it, so there...". She was infested all right, but it didn't spread... (and didn't clog her dial-up line). And off, I did have the "AAAHH! VIRUS!" Reaction when I saw the same pop-up on her computer... Now she google for the file when she don't know... I'm soo proud of my sister, growing up before my very eyes *snif*

Education, can go a long way, but if people can't know they have problems, we can't help them... Default install would go even further... If would force so people to think...

Windows isn't the problem, Ignorance is the problem. Education is the solution.

Re:E-Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

This is blatant FUD. This can only happen on a poorly-configured windows system. It works just like you describe as how linux works.

No. Their are STILL windows apps that are running as "root" or even worse running as the machiene itself. Both Microsoft and other 3rd party vendors set up software to run as "root"

Re:E-Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

"If everyone decided tomorrow to stop trying to break the machines that others have worked so hard to build, voila - they'd not be broken anymore."

And if my aunt had a d**k she'd be my uncle.

Re:E-Darwin

[danielpavel]

4. The average Linux user is far more Internet-savvy than the average Windows user - and that's not, in any way, devaluing some of the very knowledgeable Windows people that I do work with, for example - but average Joe Bloke at home runs Windows & only tries Linux when he starts to feel like he knows a little more about how PCs and networks actually work.

True -- Linux's current barrier-of-entry is rather high. But for Joe Bloke to run Linux at home, Linux will have to lower at Joe's level. That must be done carefully, because it obviously can be done very wrong.

The only time this could ever happen is if a high proportion of Linux users ran the same distro version and very common applications.

I think that doesn't sound that much far-fetched when millions of Joe Blokes run the Linux they bought at Wal-Mart's (assuming that's where we're heading).

-silent

Re:E-Darwin

[_14k4]

Your bullet item "A" up there is no different from what the parent poster mentions.

The evolution of this primordial soup is moved along by humans.

Humans like to destroy other humans too. So we've developed to combat that... war, militaries, technology... all because humans fight humans.

So humans like to create virii.. Big deal. What it *does* to is attack other humans, in the end.

(Via their wallet or physically)

So the evolution of computer systems to combat this attack method is in fact a good thing and a *real* thing.

If everyone decided tomorrow to stop trying to break the machines that others have worked so hard to build, voila, we'd no longer have technological advancement.

I'm sure you'd not have a problem driving a Model-T these days no?

Or maybe that battle-born Jeep? It *was* used, after all, in war.. against... *humans*. And after it's weaknesses were found, it... evolved...

Re:E-Darwin

[drinkypoo]

I accept that but would argue that a Windows system comes "out of the box" poorly configured for security.

But this is true of most Unix systems as well. They have services running which have had vulnerabilities in the past (like Sun's RPC server, for example, it's only only Microsoft that's been hit with that one) and they do not typically firewall by default.

Re:E-Darwin

[SpooForBrains]

But I think the best behavior is with OS X (which I don't own). It prompt you with a password windows each time you need admin access.

KDE also does this.

Re:E-Darwin

[pandrijeczko]

I don't think it's fair to compare a traditional UNIX system to a Windows one because you're simply not going to see, say, Solaris or HP-UX used much outside of the corporate Intranet or ISP-level servers.

As for Linux (a fair comparison at this level), I've not used boxed distros for years (Gentoo user) but I don't recall many of the recent distros having much in the way of networking daemons installed by default - sure, you can select to install them from the start but they do require direct selection.

Again, I could be wrong here because of not using boxed distros, but I know Red Hat allows high, medium or low security settings at initial installation which I *thought* just started up an appropriately configured ipchains/iptables firewall at that point.

It's an interesting argument but I think if Linux gets to the point where it's a real target for virus propagation then it will be a completely different "animal" to what it is today with only one or two "fixed" distros in use - unlikely, IMHO.

Re:E-Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have missed the point.

"We have Linux security issues, and as the OS gains popularity, we will start to see virii for it. It will happen."

at this point Linux is used by more PC savy people that understand how to secure their system better. As Linux increases it's popularity you will see more viri and security problems. This is not necessarily caused by issues in the Linux Kernel but users that want easy ability use the PC. I think you will see it quicker in OS X than Linux. The userbase for OS X includes more people that just want to use the computer than spend time securing it. That is the larger problem. How many Viri propigate because people do not patch their systems? Don't get me wrong M$ has alot of security problems, but the end users need to take some of the resposibilty for securing their system. If you want a completely secure system, that you don't want to update Anti-Virus and security patches; buy an etch-a-sketch.

Re:E-Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new Virus Overlord!

Re:E-Darwin

[Sloppy]

See the recent Mozilla shell exploits.

...which were on the Windows version of Mozilla only. Yes, it was a Mozilla problem but the architecture of Windows allowed the hole to be exploited.

Don't kid yourself. This was very much an error in the Mozilla team's way of thinking. The insecure interface that Windows had, never should have been exposed to the Internet. Normally, it wouldn't be exposed. That Mozilla exposed this interface, shows, IMHO, some carelessness and low standards of paranoia, on their part.

Linux also has APIs for use by local users, that probably should not be callable by just anyone on the internet. The recent exploit on Windows Mozilla has reduced my confidence that Linux Mozilla is not exposing internal APIs.

Mozilla is a big complex app, and I'm not sure I trust it anymore. (I sure as hell haven't audited it. Have you?) I'm starting to think I need to either stop using it, or somehow sandbox it.

Re:E-Darwin

[linuxci]

Don't kid yourself. This was very much an error in the Mozilla team's way of thinking. The insecure interface that Windows had, never should have been exposed to the Internet.

Wrong! It was a protocol, and the way an application is meant to handle unknown protocol schemes is to pass them to windows. That's why mms:// links open media player under windows.

Therefore it was upto Microsoft to ensure any protocol accessible to applications was safe to use on the internet. Why else would it have been implemented as a protocol handler?

Re:E-Darwin

[mobby_6kl]

By default, Lindows runs you as root.

Re:E-Darwin

[kd5ujz]

People that write notable viruses usualy get wanted attention. Hell, look at mitnick. Did anyone know who the hell he was before he got caught? Im sure emmanuel goldstein, and a few other 2600 guys might have heard of him, but realy, He was just a two bit cracker. Now look at him.

Re:E-Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

And if people were not writing the viruses for various computer and related platforms, I think the evolution of these platforms would be at a slower pace. It is of no suprise to most people that there are other people out there wanting to test the limits of what can be done.

What a load of crap. This virus is so far from pushing any limits it's not even funny. Not only is it pathetically simplistic, it's buggy as hell. This bunch of dorks do this because they couldn't survive at a real coding gig.

Re:E-Darwin

[severoon]

I disagree with you wholeheartedly. While I have better things to do than write viruses, I think the people that do it contribute to software in an unignorable, public way. They exercise complex systems in ways that companies themselves would otherwise refuse. As we become more and more advanced as a society, our software systems take control over more and more elements of our daily lives.

The catchword for this discussion is: robustness. We absolutely need our systems to be robust if we're going to depend on them. Let's say for a time we were somehow able to figure out a way to get people to stop writing viruses and probing security in general. Companies would undoubtedly get lazy, and the whole thing would get saved up for one big cataclysmic event per major software system once some foreign company/government/organized crime/terrorist group had something big to gain.

Think about banking software...a foreign group figures out how to exploit bank software, and because we're so naive we've never written any code that prevents it into our banking software. Think about the economy...a terrorist organization could strike us from wherever they are simply by probing for years and years, and then unleashing hell on earth with major coordinated attacks. Think about governments--these are less for the big-style public attacks, but they could tease out information about their own citizens or those of other countries and have information they shouldn't.

The fact is, we shouldn't be scared of the guy hacking in his basement...we should welcome his attacks and take responsibility for thwarting them, because if a guy with an 486 running Linux in his basement can hack a corporate server that contains sensitive data, or infect everyone's desktop machines at home with some viral code, what could a big company or country do with millions of dollars in resources? Your approach needlessly puts us at the whim of those who are able and have better reasons for hacking into our personal affairs.

Also, consider the fact that advances in one area (security) often contribute to advances in other areas--someday we may advanced methods of brute force security when we move to an AI model...not to protect systems from people necessarily, but from the probes and attacks of an evolving and not always controllable computer system. This is a contrived point, but we need to make sure we've evolved in all areas to the point of being able to control our future when any one area gets advanced enough.

sev

Re:E-Darwin

[severoon]

The problem for would-be virus-writers on the Linux platform is that there is more ego-weight on the side of fixing and protecting Linux than on the side of embarrassing that platform and bringing it down. Besides, Linux users are by definition more intimately knowledgable about their computers and more likely to keep up with news, patches, updates, etc.

Viruses are an ego-based affair. There is more interest in protecting Linux than harming it, so any virus that comes out would probably find that the security hole closed long before it achieved penetration worth bragging rights.

Of all the socially challenged hackers out there, there are at least a few that hate Linux and would like to bring it down. It hasn't happened though for more reasons than Microsofties would like to admit.

sev

Re:E-Darwin

[BigBir3d]

i was talking in generalities, not specific to this particular event. i am not a coder... so i have a hard time recognizing good or bad code. i just know that it is code. ;)

Re:E-Darwin

[severoon]

Part of what makes this discussion so difficult is that these two OSes are undoubtedly aimed at (or at least enjoyed by) different target audiences. Linux/UNIX users can justifiably argue that these OSes come "out of the box" poorly configured for security, but that's fine. Windows users can hardly make the same argument given the type of user that OS is aimed at (this is not a slam, it's just a simple statement of fact that my Grammy-maw isn't going to use Linux anytime soon).

What if iMacs were delivered with poor security? Is this more or less of a problem than delivering a corporate UNIX server that has a staff of administrators to configure it?

sev

Re:E-Darwin

[Sunda666]

windows 9x

'nuff said.

Re:E-Darwin

[GlassUser]

And you can whine about usability issues with any older version of linux. We're talking current versions here. Enough FUD.

Re:E-Darwin

[Sunda666]

oh really?
with linux at least you can upgrade for free. well, same goes for windoze, but it is not exactly legal;

peace.

Re:E-Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious - does this affect the linux runnning Zaurus pds'a?

I'm guessing, probably not.

Anyone stupid enough to run anything with microsoft software on it deserves what they get. That includes businesses that run that garbage.

Re:E-Darwin

[nzhavok]

severoon, what you have done, whether you know it or not, is present a classic straw-man argument.

Ieshan argues "If everyone decided tomorrow to stop trying to break the machines that others have worked so hard to build, voila - they'd not be broken anymore." This is mostly correct (except for software bugs that break the machines), you do not address that in your post. Ieshan also says "Why are people so quick to assume that it's okay for people to break things and hurt people just because it's possible to do so?" which I assume was the question you were answering when you constructed your straw-man argument.

You go on to discuss that we need robustness in our systems, and say if there are no viruses companies will become lazy. This is your first straw-man argument, you should have more correctly stated "It's ok for virus writers to break things and hurt people because it keeps companies from being lazy", except that the statement would be bordering on the absurd. You go on to discuss banking software, without any proof to back up your assertions that it has been made more secure by people hurting others.

From what I can distill your argument seems to be "It is alright for one person to hurt another, as long as the greater whole becomes stronger". This is a common abuse of Darwins theory of evolution, what you fail to take into account is that we are not evolving, and haven't been for a long time. We live in societies where the basic rule is "protect everyone and the greater whole becomes stronger". Just because we are talking about "computer viruses" it doesn't mean we are not still part of society, don't let the terminology distort your view of things. There is no evolution here, it is simple reasoned attack and response anything that becomes stronger or weaker does so purely because of decisions made by human minds.

No danger yet.

[vi (editor)]

For spreading viruses need a sufficiently high density of potential victims. So your PoketPC is safe. The story is completely different if someone get this done on cell phones.

Re:No danger yet.

[mischalla]

Quote from the article: "...The same group created a virus capable of infecting mobile phones running the Symbian OS, called Cabir, in June. Cabir - like Duts - was a proof-of-concept exercise..."

Can it really spread?

[yohanes]

Unless there is a flaw on the implementation of the phone can this kind of virus really spreads?

Re:Can it really spread?

[antin]

Don't most virii just exploit flaws in something or other? I suppose it depends on your definition of virus - but these days it seems all the internet worms spread through security holes. So yeah, perhaps a perfect phone would be immune, but it is desinged by humans afterall... and a large team at that no doubt.

It *asks* if it can spread?

[Ieshan]

Proof of Concept Amish Virus!

You have been infected. This virus works on the honor system. Please delete all files on your computer. Thank you.

Re:It *asks* if it can spread?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to add "and send this virus to all of your friends".

Re:It *asks* if it can spread?

[ssbljk]

well, that concept has bug
it should be written "enemies" instead of "friends"

Re:It *asks* if it can spread?

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget to empty your recycle bin after that!

How many times?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times does it need to be said that the plural of "virus" is "viruses", not "virii"??

Re:How many times?

[Anonymous Coward]

manyii.

Re:How many times?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times does it need to be said that no one realy cares?

Re:How many times?

[Anonymous Coward]

About as many times as it needs saying that multiple punctuation marks are unnecessary!

Re:How many times?

[Huring]

Shouldn't that be Manii?

Re:How many times?

[phatlipmojo]

Sounds like someone has never suffered through a nasty virius.

Re:How many times?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the plural of "man", you insensitive clod! :p

Re:How many times?

[Samuel Nitzberg]

Groups of unrelated viruses :

Viriis ?
Viriiii ?
viriiiiis?

Viruseses ?

I give up

Re:How many times?

[Carrot007]

I'll pluralise how I like thnk you, get back under your log.

Re:How many times?

[dasnake]

That depends on the language you use.
I don't really care about english, but in the common jargon the plural is 'virii' and in my mother language (italian) is just 'virus'.
A more complete article could be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus/
For the people who will reply that english is the language in use on slashdot I would like to point that probably it's the english+jargon the language actually in use :P

Re:How many times?

[chegosaurus]

And that the plural of box is boxes?

And that the plural of pizza is not pizza's?

And don't even get me *started* on "Unixen"!

Re:How many times?

[chegosaurus]

(Note for those with a tendancy to take everything literally: the "you" in this post is general - it doesn't refer specifically to the parent poster. It is also meant for those who speak English as their first language.)

You call yourselves geeks, you chew people out for the smallest technical error in a linux thread, you go apeshit if someone refers to "Hans Solo" or says Python has cleaner syntax than perl, but you don't take the time to learn the rudiments of the English language.

English is a geek's dream. So much more rich and complicated than anything computing has to offer. Full of curiosities, paradoxes and rules, and incredibly elegant and powerful. Dig in. Enjoy. You can read some pretty amazing books while you're at it.

You confuse "you're" and "your", "they're" and "their", "loose" and "lose", and when someone takes a moment of their time to try and teach you a little something, you call them a "Nazi".

When your C compiler chokes on "maloc" do you whine that "it's obvious what I meant and anyway, languages evolve"?

If you present the linguistic skills and maturity of a nine year old, you might find it's hard to get people to listen to your opinions, however valid they might be.

I'm not nitpicking for the sake of it, I really want people to go out and enjoy learning a valuable skill. Language is wonderful. Make the most of it.

Re:How many times?

[DMUTPeregrine]

I agree fully with you. On a more humorous note, learn SolReSol, the best language ever.

Re:How many times?

[jpmkm]

What the fuck is common jargon? Are you talking about ignorant 13-year-olds? They are the only people who possibly have an excuse to say virii. It is just so completely stupid. By the way, your complete wikipedia article looks somewhat barren.

Re:How many times?

[severoon]

English is so rich a language, in fact, that we naturally learn it as a meta-language instead of directly as a language. This is how we are able to decode the meaning of slang phrases that we've never heard before...these phrases strike a chord with us because they evoke imagery that is indirectly or obliquely referred to by phrasology with which we're already intimate. Even when expressing ourselves to audiences of unsurpassed erudition, we ought always sedulously eschew unmitigated hyperverbosity, obfuscatory redundancy, and munificent prolixity.

Sure, you may have understood the last half of that increasingly dense paragraph, but it took a lot of work on your part didn't it? So what are we after: communication or correct but unnatural verbiage? You must remember that language evolves...though I will concede that it does not evolve as well if we do not participate in it.

I go for a middle-of-the-road approach. I expect that people should know the common, everyday words because these words lend themselves to actually enhancing your clarity of thought. It's true--you actually become smarter in immeasurable ways by knowing the difference between "their" and "there", "loose" and "lose", "your" and "you're". People who misuse these kinds of words send a valuable message to their readers: I'm an idiot, I can't handle the simplest aspects of my native tongue (foreigners are forgiven their trespasses in this regard), don't pay attention to what I say but instead feel sad for me. I'm more forgiving with things like "octopuses" vs "octopi" (both are valid), "viruses" and "virii" (only the former--not all words ending in "-us" are created equal), mainly because these people are cute and they amuse me in their quest to impress us with their creative applications of Latin etymology.

Less amusing to me is when dictionaries disagree. It turns out that Merriam-Webster has decided that "noo-kyuh-ler" is valid...though they note that it is a pronunciation (pronOunciation? ha! homework for you) "disapproved of by many", it still made it in as a secondary (and yes, this was M-W's policy at least as far back as 1997, long before Bush Jr.). Dictionary.com notes the usage without elevating it to the status of the proper. Many people don't realize this, but these linguistic decisions are taken by an annual meeting of professors and language experts at Oxford University. Occasionally the results of these meetings can be very surprising--the last one of these meetings was about six weeks ago, and they removed a word (due to underuse) which I had always considered untouchable: "gullible". So give the on-line dictionaries a chance to catch up, but searches for this word will go unresolved in few months' time.

sev

Re:How many times?

[severoon]

I would posit that it's nearly impossible for any group of intelligent folks to converse about a shared topic of interest without jargon.

sev

Re:How many times?

[multipartmixed]

> When your C compiler chokes on "maloc" do you
> whine that "it's obvious what I meant and
> anyway, languages evolve"?

Oh, ho - but the C compiler will never choke on malloc -- the linker will!

Otherwise, excellent points. ;) It's nice to see another geek express these sentiments; I thought for a while that I was the only one who felt that way.

This is news?

[tobechar]

I mean, c'mon people, the pocket pc is running windows. This virus isn't exactly revolutionary.

At least now I can justify the Zaurus over the 'other guys'!

Re:This is news?

[NanoGator]

"At least now I can justify the Zaurus over the 'other guys'!"

You'd jump to the $700 'distant 3rd' palm device that's nearly twice as big just to get around the potential of getting a virus that would be hard pressed to get to your system by simply adjusting your bluetooth settings? Pardon me, but the worst case scenario is you reset the PDA and re-sync it.

Yet another reason to run Linux on your PDA

[jerith]

We've come to expect decent security on desktops and servers, why not PDAs as well? At least it may make manufacturers think twice before jumping on the MS bandwagon.

Re:Yet another reason to run Linux on your PDA

[NanoGator]

"We've come to expect decent security on desktops and servers, why not PDAs as well? At least it may make manufacturers think twice before jumping on the MS bandwagon."

Seeing as how niether the PocketPC nor the PalmOS was built from the ground up with the idea of getting on the net right away, I'm not sure why you'd put any more faith in any PDA short of the Zaurus with its Linux based roots. (Yes, I realize you basically stated this in your subject line, but I don't see how you could ignore Palm in this case given their large market.)

I will say this, though: PDA's aren't like computers, at least not today. Your PDA is chained to your computer. It is, for all intents and purposes, a peripheral. You can't, for example, get on the net with either a Palm or a PocketPC and download/install an app. You have to go through the syncing operation. Because of this very nature of these devices, you can rather easily switch to a brand new unit or get back up to speed on one that's been completely reset. (Doubly useful if your PDA is damaged/stolen, which they are far more prone to than virus damage.) In short, virus security is not that high of priority. It is 'a reaason' to be using Linux on your PDA, but it's so low on the totem pole compared to usability that I wouldn't expect a lot of people to give it that serious of thought. Sad? Maybe. Whoopee, download a patch.

I'm not trying to completely poo poo your point. It's valid. I'm just trying to put it in the proper perspective. The lesson I learned from this story isn't that I should ignore the idea of getting a Palm or a PocketPC, but rather that I should turn lock down the Bluetooth feature on whatever PDA I end up getting. The nice thing about BT is that it does have a trust based relationship doohicky going on with it. I know that's true for PocketPC, and I cannot imagine that the Palm or Zaurus wouldn't respect it either. That's just plain good sense whether the OS is secure or not.

Re:Yet another reason to run Linux on your PDA

[Pantheraleo2k3]

-1, Outdated

To take a recent example, the Sony Clie UX50. It has built in WiFi and Bluetooth. You can use the builtin web browser to go to a Web site and download the .zip file with the things you need. You save it on an expansion card or the internal virtual card. You use the included software to unzip the files, then move them to main memory and they're installed.

Yes, it's only one PDA. Yes it is somewhat involved. Yes it only works on programs that aren't distributed in .exe Windows Setup program format. But it can be done

Re:Yet another reason to run Linux on your PDA

[SpinyManiac]

That's just not true.
This is one application that can be installed on the device. The default download is to install through Activesync, but you can download the .CAB.
For those of you with no WinCE experience, launching the CAB will install the program.

Re:Yet another reason to run Linux on your PDA

[TheLogster]

Come on guys ... Linux is no more secure than windows, the only reason that it doesn't suffer as many attacks as windows platfors, is due to the fact that is at the bottom of the use OSes list (Windows = most used, mac = second, linux = third).

When I saw the news about the proof on concept, I knew people would be bitching about the fact that it was a MS product...

However, I am sure all you linux zelots out there know that the _first_ smartphone virus was written targeting the sybiam 60 OS.. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/15/symbian_vi rus/

Just a few facts of the real world:
1) The idea of bug free software is a myth
2) All software deveopement is commerically driven in one form or another (even OpenSurce software, just the reward for writting the software is different)
and finally
3) Linux is just another operating system, it is not going to save the world, cure cancer, topple the Bush administration (or Blair depending on who you like), or get rid of Microsoft.

Re:Yet another reason to run Linux on your PDA

[Anonvmous Coward]

"That's just not true."

Did you really need the "that's just not true" bit? Besides being argumentative, your own post conflicts with it. "That is just not true, in the rare circumstance that one has installed this app."

I just ask because you could have phrased that more informatively without begging for a needless rebuttal.

Re:Yet another reason to run Linux on your PDA

[SphericalCrusher]

This is why I'd like to have Lycoris on my PDA. Or, well, just any form of Linux. Slackware would be nice. =)

Re:Yet another reason to run Linux on your PDA

[Sunda666]

Well, I use familiar linux on mine and wife's pocketPC (ipaq), and installing applications is a matter of issuing 'ipkg install ';
Of course the PDA needs to be connected to the internet, but since it runs linux, it's fairly trivial;

cheers;

Re:Yet another reason to run Linux on your PDA

[SpinyManiac]

You've missed the point. You don't need that application installed. It's an example of an application which can be installed without using Activesync.

Of the applications I have available, only 5 out of 14 have to be installed through Activesync.
2 must be unzipped.
7 are CABs.
5 need Activesync.

If applications can be installed this way, so can viruses. This supports the grandparent's argument, but I'm sticking with my Jornada until someone makes a virus which can install itself into backup files.

Re:Yet another reason to run Linux on your PDA

[bakeacake]

" will say this, though: PDA's aren't like computers, at least not today. Your PDA is chained to your computer. It is, for all intents and purposes, a peripheral. You can't, for example, get on the net with either a Palm or a PocketPC and download/install an app." Wrong. I can get on the net on my PPC with out syncing --> bluetooth Or as my mate can do, 802.11b vioa browsing lan.

Famous last words

[visgoth]

"We don't expect a major outbreak," said Eugene Kaspersky, head of anti-virus Research at Kaspersky Labs. "Duts is unable to spread independently, only infects a limited number of files, and signals its presence in the system when attempting to propagate."

Duts may not be able to spread, but take out the bits that make it "benign" and you've got the makings of a real annoyance. Even if the source for this particular virus is kept safely out of the hands of malicious individuals, the fact that its now been proven do-able means others will try.

Like the typical outlook virus

[Gopal.V]

Outlook Express: "do you want to open this file ?"
Joe Blow: "Yes"
** pc crashes ...

Ok, so how's this virus different ?.
Anyway Pocket PC viruses are going to be rarer than one for Macs ...

Reminds of Donut , the .NET virus ... but there hasn't been a real one in the wild yet ?.

bash$ alias kill='chmod -R 0666 /'

Re:Like the typical outlook virus

[poot_rootbeer]

Anyway Pocket PC viruses are going to be rarer than one for Macs ...

And Apple Newton viruses are going to be even rarer than THAT!

(and now, someone will reply with an obligatory Newton handwriting-recognition joke.)

bluejacking

[mpost4]

The user to my understanding still has to accept the incomming file. so just make it a polocy (like email) don't open a file unless you are expecting it. Better yet turn of bluetooth discoverbility.

Re:bluejacking

[b06r011]

The user to my understanding still has to accept the incomming file

as far as i know, it is possible to display a message on someone's phone without them giving consent. the trick is to create a bogus name in your phone book, and then send that. alot of phones will display a message like

"Buisness card recieved from Jon Smith - save y/n?"

however, to spook someone out (which is really the ultimate goal of bluejacking) you create a 'name' like

"is that a nokia?"

or when the beeps and bemused looks let you work out which poor sucker you have snagged something like

"Nice t-shirt - blue is your colour :D"

i guess it would be possible to get something nasty into someone's phone, but even with the vcards, it's only the name that gets displayed. although i admit it's mean to tease people with impunity from the other side of the tube train; it could be very useful on a long journey with one of those people that we all love - you know the ones who have a long conversation with a friend for a few hours. of course, when i say conversation, i mean monologue...

Oh No!

[Anonymous Coward]

A virus! It'll format the PocketPC's harddrive and install spyware!

Trustworthy computing...a myth?

[bogaboga]

What happened to the Trustworthy Computing paradigm? I guess if you now mention that to [Sir] Bill G., you might not get all that much! On the other hand, I ask myself why these coders (or virus authors) do not direct their energy to coding for OSS. So many projects need a hand. My help goes in submitting bug reports and cash whenever possible. [But] I could be wrong here, may be some already do something for OSS.

Re:Trustworthy computing...a myth?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, I ask myself why these coders (or virus authors) do not direct their energy to coding for OSS.

test

obligatory

[Ari_Haviv]

Can your Palm do this?

Re:obligatory

[Sepper]

I know the parent post was meant to be funny, but if you could make a palm virus, it could potentially be devastating. Don't know of any phone that runs PocketPC OS (Although i'm sure there are some...),but I know PalmOS runs on Phones (Like the Treo 600...). Any virus that could spread by calling could cause A LOT of trouble... like long-distance calls at random...

But unlike the Pocket PC OS, Palm OS is mutli-threaded, single-task OS. You would have to trick the OS into making the virus a new Thread of the current process... Not impossible but a bit harder to do...

I see to remember a article that compared the Pocket PC OS with PalmOS, stating that, while PalmOS was inferior, It was better designed for the job (it did not try to do everything)... I don't have the link (I'm at work)

Any Palm dev/coder out there that could comment?

Pocket Antivirus

[Caniffe]

"Is that a virus in your Pocket or are you just happy to see me?"

Bluetooth viruses...

[Audigy]

It would be interesting if the affected Bluetooth-enabled Nokia phones mentioned in a previous article a few weeks ago were somehow able to transfer their goods to PocketPCs ... ...come on now, how many people do YOU know with a Bluetooth-enabled PocketPC, who leave Bluetooth discovery on? (I have an iPaq 2215, but Bluetooth is off to save battery life)

This is a neat proof-of-concept, but I think these virus creators should go back to hacking cell phones if they want to make waves. :)

Re:Bluetooth viruses...

[S3D]

So called "Nokia virus" was a more a sham then a real threat. To spread it would require three time answer "yes" on different security warnings: "Recieve message via Bluetooth...?" Yes "Install Caribe ?" Yes "Application is not signed , identity can not be veryfied install on your own risk..." Yes. There is no way to bypass thouse messages.
It would be interesting if the affected Bluetooth-enabled Nokia phones mentioned in a previous article a few weeks ago were somehow able to transfer their goods to PocketPCs No it's not possible, Symbian and PocetPC are not binary compatible.

Dear tobechar

[Letter]

Dear tobechar,

I'll turn this around and say "at least now I can justify the PalmOne Tungsten C. Why not use an OS actually designed for handhelds?

Love,
Letter

No Worries...

[wbav]

if you have an ipaq 1940/45. It seems if something writes to the "filestore" the rom becomes corrupt and it has to be sent back to hp. As my main memory is basically full, I'll know when a virus hits; my ipaq's rom will need to be reflashed.

Speading viruses via Sybian?

[Gothmolly]

The idea of spreading viruses via Sybian seems far more sinister, and far nastier. All things considered, it was only a matter of time before the Sybian was used as an infection vector.

Re:Speading viruses via Sybian?

[Anonymous Coward]

*cringe*

It's SyMbian! With an M!
Sybian is something else completely... and while you could concievably catch a virus off one you... hey... wait... you're just pulling my cord ain't ya?!

Re:Speading viruses via Sybian?

[mrklin]

I am sure the above poster's comment was a tongue-in -cheek statement but for those that do not know:

Symbian is an OS.

Sybianb is anything but an OS.

Look it up!

What this really proves...

[agraupe]

This proves that every networked computer device can be infected with a virus. This makes it stupid and illogical to assume that there will be no security holes on any given OS. What matters is how severe those security holes are, and how quickly they are patched. It is in that area that linux is firmly ahead of Microsoft (and perhaps OS X, I'm not sure).

Re:What this really proves...

[Dan East]

The article doesn't mention anything about exploiting security holes. I get the impression that the virus spreads using any standard file transfer method. Obviously it could also spread over IrDA file transfer, but that doesn't mean it somehow exploits a weakness in that connectivity.

Also, why bother looking for and exploiting security holes when you've got ActiveSync? It allows the host PC full access to the Pocket PC filesystem, including the ability to execute programs. I would be far more afraid of a standard Windows virus / worm that decides to wipe out all the data on my Pocket PC when I ActiveSync than an actual Pocket PC virus.

Dan East

How many devices are vulnerable to bluejacking?

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is here in this report 21kb PDF.

I'm surprised we haven't seen Palm viruses.

[MtViewGuy]

Given how many PDA's and combo PDA/cellphones out there run PalmOS, I'm surprised that someone malevolent "cracker" hasn't created a virus that will cause problem with PalmOS-based units already.

And when that happens and it spreads in the wild, the results will be ugly. =(

Re:I'm surprised we haven't seen Palm viruses.

[brandorf]

There already are PalmOS viruses. See here for an example. The key difference is that PalmOS has had only recently gotten any sort of wireless connectivity. So these virus all spread via human intraction (i.e. Hotsync of an infected file, or IR beam of an infected file).

Give it time and there will be ones that spread via bluetooth or WiFi.

You did not get Latin. get over it.

[stud9920]

You did not get Latin classes. Get over it. There is nothing to be ashamed of. That language is only useful to scholars, and even a Romance language speaker will get a better grasp at his own language by learning a near (foreign romance) or far (German) cousin language. So don't try to make up a plural form for Latin words. the plural form of virus is not virii, that would be the plural form of virius. "Virus" is apparently one of the few neuter words of the second declination, and has no plural. more info

Pocket PC issues

[Dan East]

Creating a Pocket PC virus is a trivial matter. It uses the PE format, so I'm sure it would be very simple to adapt virii to infect Windows CE files - basically just a recompile of the virus source to XScale / ARM (assumming it is not in x86 ASM).

Windows CE is actually more secure than Windows XP because the majority of the OS is in ROM. Those files are protected at the file system level - it is not even possible to read or copy the files, let along modify them.

After an infection one could always do a hard reset to quickly have a clean device that is at least usable.

Also, the amount of damage that could be inflicted would be moderate because most PDAs are synchronized with a host PC. So the information on the PDA is essentially backed up multiple times a day.

The real concern would be a virus that could propogate over multiple platforms running different processors. This is one reason to be afraid of .NET / C# bytecode.

Dan East

Re:Pocket PC issues

[djeaux]

Also, the amount of damage that could be inflicted would be moderate because most PDAs are synchronized with a host PC. So the information on the PDA is essentially backed up multiple times a day.

For PDAs that are regularly synch'ed to a desktop, couldn't the desktop antivirus be tuned to scan files destined for the handheld (or the handheld itself, for that matter)?

I know this option wouldn't be viable for the increasing number of folks who are fetching content wirelessly... But for folks using their PDAs in "plain vanilla" situations, the desktop is a gateway of sorts & could be the logical place for virus checking.

Oh great...

[Steve Cox]

If memory space for running programs on my PDA was not limited enough. Now I'll have to waste more of it running a virus checker.

Steve.

Re:Oh great...

[Oddly_Drac]

"If memory space for running programs on my PDA was not limited enough. Now I'll have to waste more of it running a virus checker."

Run the virus checker on your sync platform and stop whining.

Re:Oh great...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Run the virus checker on your sync platform and
> stop whining.

The thought of running it on the desktop hadn't escaped me. It would be able to scan all of the software I install via ActiveSync.

Then I realised it was a pretty crap idea

If I have a WiFi card in my PDA I access the mail server and the web directly. If (or when based on other Outlook products) someone finds an Pocket Outlook exploit, what use is your desktop then?

If someone finds an exploit for bluetooth or irda, what use is your desktop then?

Hell, with my WiFi card my PDA is always visible on the network. No firewall either!

Great idea. I can use the desktop to attempt to clean up the mess of my PDA after it has got a virus.

Steve.

Re:Oh great...

[Steve Cox]

Sorry. I made my reply to your post from another machine and went in as AC(0).

The general idea was:

CRAP IDEA.

If the PDA has bluetooth/irda you can get it that way (should an exploit be found). More importantly, if it has WiFi it will probably go into the mail server directly. Additionally, if you have WiFi, then you have an IP address which can also be attacked.

The desktop cannot help you at all in these cases.

Steve.

Re:Oh great...

[Oddly_Drac]

"If I have a WiFi card in my PDA I access the mail server and the web directly. If (or when based on other Outlook products) someone finds an Pocket Outlook exploit, what use is your desktop then?"

Absolutely none, however, 'if' someone steals your keys and makes a copy of them, what use is your front door? As people have pointed out, PocketPC is extremely heavily sandboxed and the last few worms/viruses haven't exactly stretched the imagination too much.

Security isn't about stapling a wrist to a forehead and complaining that someone else isn't being responsible for you, it's about taking a bit of responsibility for yourself and taking a hit in the convinience gland...and not downloading viral attachments onto a vulnerable platform. If that means blocking all attachments, then you should consider it. I personally keep attachments out of my PDA because most of the time I'd want to be checking them on a much larger screen anyway.

"Hell, with my WiFi card my PDA is always visible on the network."

That's a pretty bad PDA, then. Battery life sucky and prone to the wifi DoS, is it?

"I can use the desktop to attempt to clean up the mess of my PDA after it has got a virus."

You do know that the word 'backup' has special relevance here? It's also handy when some thieving chav steals the PDA.

I did a six year stint as a librarian sysop on Compuserve, (pre-AOL and that horrible binary format) and as a matter of course we had to run four, yes, four virus checkers across each file. That's for security. It was inconvinient, and some might say anal, but the number of transmitted viruses in that time was zero.

Re:E-Darwin - Optimist?

[lcsjk]

I take it you're not and optimist!

Re:E-Darwin - Optimist?

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a difference between being an optimist and seeing reality. i am all for open source, i am also all for companys making a living off of there products like MS. I have a feeling that open source projects will contuine to catch on, especially projects such as firefox. but the problem will always remain that there will be stupid people using computers, and as long as there are stupid people to open attachments and not install the proper patches we are going to have the same damn problem over and over again.

personally i think there should be some sort of punishment system, if you open an email attachment and get a virus someone should come to your house or place of work and hit in you the head with a baseball bat (first time offender). if that doesnt convince you to watch out then on the second time you get an email virus and open it some should just drag your sorry ass out to the street and beat you to death. i think this would encourage a whole new age of computer fluency.

Mr Billy G is NOT a Sir

[NeonSpirit]

I know it's being predantic, but Bill G has an honorary knighthood. Only citizens of countries which reconise the queen as head of state can have full or substantive awards.

The rules are explained a little better here

Not phones, not big news (but here's a link anway)

[LondonLawyer]

Unless there is a flaw on the implementation of the phone can this kind of virus really spreads?

It's not a phone virus, it's a Pocket PC virus.

From the article:

The first computer virus to infect handheld devices running Microsoft's PocketPC OS was discovered over the weekend... Cabir - like Duts - was a proof-of-concept exercise. In both instances, 29A sent its malicious code straight to anti-virus firms.

To my mind, the word "discovered" doesn't really apply here.

Previous attempts have been made to monkey around with handhelds. Google is now overflowing with this latest 'news' but I am pretty sure this is not a first. Palms have had their IR connections compromised. Pocket PCs were never going to be bulletproof in the first place.

This threat assessment might be useful to someone.

As Uncle Cecil

[ewn]

As usual, The Straight Dope has an exhaustive entry on the issue:

The one inescapable fact is that in classical Latin, there was no plural of the word. In English, the only correct plural is viruses.

Also mentioned

[floydman]

on CNET news

Amish computer ??

[Fred_A]

Shouldn't that be "please shred all files in your desk drawer" ?

Re:Amish computer ??

[_14k4]

Actually, it should read, "Please shave your wife."

Re:Amish computer ??

[doublem]

No, it should be "Please feed all the files in your desk drawer to your sheep."

Re:Pocket PC issues (ROM isn't magic)

[jetmarc]

> Windows CE is actually more secure than Windows XP because the majority of the OS
> is in ROM. Those files are protected at the file system level - it is not even
> possible to read or copy the files, let along modify them.

Keeping files in ROM does not inherently constitute a better virus protection.
Of course, altering a ROM file is (usually) impossible. However, any complex
operating system has a lot of options for RAM or FLASH based files to "hook-in",
and RAM and FLASH are certainly not impossible to alter.

A virus that hooks into the startup sequence of a pocket device is as effective
as a hypothetical one that managed to alter the ROM of that device. Sure, a
ROM device might have a "wipe-all" reset button that gets rid of the virus,
but it would get rid of all personalization data as well - files, installed
software, addresses etc.

So, how does that make the ROM device less vulnerable to virus attacks? It
can't be rendered completely unusable. Ok. But all the other threats continue
to exist. You can loose your data, you can spread the virus to other devices,
you could even sync a multiplatform virus to your desktop PC, etc.

Marc

You don't need viruses

[gilesjuk]

Windows Mobile is easy enough to mess up without viruses. It implements the registry like on desktop Windows, only it's harder to backup.

Quite a few people on the E800 forum I read have had problems where their Bluetooth stops working.

Re:E-Darwin - Optimist?

[B.Hoover]

Boy I sure am glad that you're so kind and loving that you think being a superior computer-user is the most important thing ever to happen to earth. Some of the most computer illiterate people I know are mostly wealthy business owner people... ya know, like the ones who give YOU a job. So beat your paycheck to death, that'd be funny.

Satanic?

[Anonymous Coward]

This virus was written by a satanic cult that listens to heavy metal music!

Do not use virii

[robnauta]

The word 'virii' never existed in Latin. The plural for 'virus' can be 'viri', but since the plural of 'vir' is also 'viri' even the old Romans avoided 'viri' as plural for 'virus'. Ending a word with 'ii' is not Latin, it's not common in any language. It's as obnoxious as writing Micro$oft.

Re:Do not use virii

[hugesmile]

Ending a word with 'ii' is not Latin, it's not common in any language. It's as obnoxious as writing Micro$oft.

You mean like aalii, genii, medii, modii, radii, torii, congii, bacchii, denarii, dochmii, nauplii, senarii, splenii, dupondii, perradii, retiarii, sartorii, sextarii, stapedii, trapezii, octonarii, interradii, septenarii, gastrocnemii.

Above list, courtesy of Jumble and Crossword Solver.

Not saying that they're "common", but they do exi$t.

Re:Do not use virii

[James Turpin]

The difference here is that the first 'i' of the double 'i' is in the root word, so only one 'i' is added. The first 'i' in 'radii' is also in 'radius'. The first 'i' of the double 'i' in 'virii' is not in the word 'virus'. There is no double 'i' in any Latin declention suffixes (well, at least not 1st, 2nd, or 3rd declentions, which are the only ones I remember), so unless the root ends in an 'i' it's probably not proper Latin. But there are exceptions to most rules.

Or, to make it simpler, look-up 'virus' in the dictionary to find its plural form in Enlgish.

Re:Do not use virii

[Anonymous Coward]

'torii' is not the plural of torus. It's 'tori', of course. The parent poster means that 'ii' is not the proper substitution for 'us'. 'i' is the correct substitution. Note that all of your examples also follow this convention: radi-us->radi-i, sartori-us->sartori-i. I don't know why the tech community has such a hard time with this; you'd think most of them would have taken a course or two on formal languages and automata. These are required courses for CS degrees everywhere, right?

Re:Do not use virii

[/dev/trash]

Funny thing is, we speak English, not Latin. As a nation we can make up words as we like.

Re:Do not use virii

[hugesmile]

I was just responding to the issue that "Ending a word in ii... is not common in any language".

I agree that you can just look it up.

...find its plural form in Enlgish
Not sure where I get an Enlgish dictionary, though! ;)

Re:Do not use virii

[robnauta]

You are right I should have said there is no 'ii' plural. If the 'i' is before the 'us' like radius it becomes radii but that is then radi-i, the i's are together by coincidence, they do not belong together.

comparative endemics

[Doc Ruby]

PalmOS viruses have already been reported. PalmOS has a larger market share than PocketPC. Can these numbers be used to understand the relative importance of availability versus vulnerability in the incidence of info viruses?

Oh Boy, economic boost!

[DarKnyht]

Just think of all those Symantec Anti-Virus for Pocket PC software packages Symantec is going to sell to the stupid masses.

This isn't new...

[joeblackattack]

A grad student did this at ISU over 2 years ago when the iPaq was new. His virus didn't do anything harmful but it did propogate itself over wireless newtworks and was an interesting demo for the computer engineering ugrads.

Re:Pocket PC issues (ROM isn't magic)

[AnyoneEB]

I do not own a Windows CE machine, but Palm OS has a special reset mode where no OS add-ons are loaded in order to allow the user to troubleshoot problems with them (hold the up button while pushing the reset pin). In this mode it would be possible to delete any virus that has been installed and then reset regularly. I assume Windows CE has a similar option.

One would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

One would think that those basions of error free programming, Linux and PalmOS, were immune to viruses. Such does not appear to be the case, however.

Can a lawsuit drive a change?

[Anonymous Coward]

1)I buy a PDA/phone thingy from my cell phone provider.
2)I load it up with all my personal and business contacts, schedule, etc.
3)Someone 'bluejacks' me, or otherwise steals my information, and uses that information to contact everyone I know and annoy them.
4)I sue my cell phone provider and the PDA manfacturer for selling me an insecure device that allowed this to happen.

Has this scenario been played out yet for real?

Could a lawsuit like this cause service providers and thier vendors to take security a little more seriously?

I feel that alot of the stuff we buy goes untested in this regard because the providers have no big reason to take enough time to test it properly.

As an analogy, if masterlock sells a padlock that has a master combination published on the web, would they be liable for losses?

developer stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

once again leads to a system lousy with overflows and lacking any real security. Amazing how a 14 year old with a less than a high school education can out-smart an entire team of PHD level engineer's, and of course the fault lies with the 'kid' not with the incompentent developers who are being outcoded by children...
If you have the nerve to claim to be a professional and you can't keep up with the joe-kid on the block, who is to blame for this ? The kid using the exploit or the developers who claim to know what they are doing ?