Slashdot Mirror


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."

50 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Reminds me of that windows virus... by nmoog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you accept the microsoft EULA?

    1. Re:Reminds me of that windows virus... by strictnein · · Score: 2, Interesting

      29A in hex = 666 in dec

      CRAZY!

  2. E-Darwin by Cavio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --

    Please bid on this Karmann Ghia! Please pleas

    1. Re:E-Darwin by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:E-Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:E-Darwin by BigBir3d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:E-Darwin by pandrijeczko · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    5. Re:E-Darwin by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Funny
      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.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    6. Re:E-Darwin by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Funny
      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?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    7. Re:E-Darwin by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    8. Re:E-Darwin by Sepper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
    9. Re:E-Darwin by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    10. Re:E-Darwin by linuxci · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

    11. Re:E-Darwin by severoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
  3. No danger yet. by vi+(editor) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No danger yet. by mischalla · · Score: 2, Informative

      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..."

  4. Can it really spread? by yohanes · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  5. It *asks* if it can spread? by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:It *asks* if it can spread? by ssbljk · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      /ss
  6. How many times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:How many times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      manyii.

    2. Re:How many times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    3. Re:How many times? by phatlipmojo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like someone has never suffered through a nasty virius.

      --

      Nice things are nicer than nasty ones.
    4. Re:How many times? by dasnake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

    5. Re:How many times? by chegosaurus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (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.

  7. This is news? by tobechar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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'!

    --
    -
  8. Yet another reason to run Linux on your PDA by jerith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Yet another reason to run Linux on your PDA by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  9. Famous last words by visgoth · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "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.

    --
    My patience is infinite, my time is not.
  10. Like the typical outlook virus by Gopal.V · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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 /'

  11. bluejacking by mpost4 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:bluejacking by b06r011 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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...

  12. Trustworthy computing...a myth? by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. Pocket Antivirus by Caniffe · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    -C.
  14. Bluetooth viruses... by Audigy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. :)

    --
    [an error occured while processing this directive]
    1. Re:Bluetooth viruses... by S3D · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  15. No Worries... by wbav · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --

    =================
    Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
  16. What this really proves... by agraupe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

  17. Pocket PC issues by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  18. Oh great... by Steve+Cox · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  19. Mr Billy G is NOT a Sir by NeonSpirit · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered.....my life is my own.
  20. Re:I'm surprised we haven't seen Palm viruses. by brandorf · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --


    Bork Bork Bork!!
  21. Not phones, not big news (but here's a link anway) by LondonLawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  22. Amish computer ?? by Fred_A · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  23. Re:Pocket PC issues (ROM isn't magic) by jetmarc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > 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

  24. You don't need viruses by gilesjuk · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  25. Re:obligatory by Sepper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
  26. Do not use virii by robnauta · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  27. comparative endemics by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  28. This isn't new... by joeblackattack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.