Slashdot Mirror


Latest MyDoom Variant Gives Google Problems

Devil's BSD writes "It seems like the latest MyDoom worm variant has caused a bit of an Internet storm. Google, at this time (12:28 EDT), is returning 503 errors on all queries submitted from certain locations. The MyDoom variant searches the user's address book for email domains (i.e. @yahoo.com) and searches various engines (such as Google) for email addresses in that domain."

607 comments

  1. Alright, this means war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Virus writers want to attack Microsoft or SCO, fine... but this... this is war! YOU DO NOT ATTACK THE GOOGLE!!!

    1. Re:Alright, this means war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, right. i mean google dont just return 500 irrelevant entries for product "search" services before 1 relevant entry.

      oh, wait a minute... they do.

    2. Re:Alright, this means war by aardwolf204 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ahem, its TEH GOOGLE! get it right

      --
      Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
    3. Re:Alright, this means war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen! At least wait until they go public and become an evil multinational corporation!

    4. Re:Alright, this means war by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heh. This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Google Bombing"

      Doesn't seem like it would be all that efficient to google for email addresses. You'd have to do some parsing on the other end to dig them out of the rest of the page content, maybe a little work to make sure they weren't spam armored. Of course, I guess if you've hijacked some poor slobs computer, CPU cycles aren't really your problem anymore.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    5. Re:Alright, this means war by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Best damn first post I've ever seen.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    6. Re:Alright, this means war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acutally a lot of that is a result of spyware. Download spybot search and destroy, and it should clean up some of that junk.

    7. Re:Alright, this means war by Bob+McCown · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Its war? Guess so, cause google.fr just surrendered...

    8. Re:Alright, this means war by caino59 · · Score: 1

      since when do spammers really care about effieciency?

      A simple script will parse the addresses; spam-proofed or not. They certainly aren't going to be dealing with bounced traffic.

    9. Re:Alright, this means war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was playing with Google and found that Google Local still works for me.

    10. Re:Alright, this means war by Bilestoad · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately not true. Try " review" and see if you can dig a real review out of the flood of amazon redirects and link farms. Google used to be great like that, but the scum have found a way around it as always. Just like they did when DARPA policy was supposed to keep the whole net non-commercial and useful.

      (Are Canter & Siegel dead of flesh-eating cancer yet? Cause I've been wishing for it.)

    11. Re:Alright, this means war by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hate to give them ideas, but- search the cached response, and goodle colors the words. Then just look for the font color tags. That shows exactly where the address is. Wouldn't be that difficult.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    12. Re:Alright, this means war by didde · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is the 403 Forbidden I get when submiting a gmail address... The most thourough 403 I've ever seen.

      Forbidden
      Your client does not have permission to get URL /search?q=anything@gmail.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 from this server. (Client IP address: [xx.xx.xx.xx])

      Please see Google's Terms of Service posted at http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html

      If you believe that you have received this response in error, please send email to forbidden@google.com. Before sending this email, however, please make sure to take a look at our Terms of Service (http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html). In your email, please send us the entire code displayed below. Please also send us any information you may know about how you are performing your Google searches-- for example, "I'm using the Opera browser on Linux to do searches from home. My Internet access is through a dial-up account I have with the FooCorp ISP." or "I'm using the Konqueror browser on Linux to search from my job at myFoo.com. My machine's IP address is 10.20.30.40, but all of myFoo's web traffic goes through some kind of proxy server whose IP address is 10.11.12.13." (If you don't know any information like this, that's OK. But this kind of information can help us track down problems, so please tell us what you can.)

      We will use all this information to diagnose the problem, and we'll hopefully have you back up and searching with Google again quickly!

      Please note that although we read all the email we receive, we are not always able to send a personal response to each and every email. So don't despair if you don't hear back from us!

      Also note that if you do not send us the entire code below, we will not be able to help you.

      [long-ass-code removed]


      ... Otherwise the service works as usual here in Scandinavia.

    13. Re:Alright, this means war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol i see what you did there

    14. Re:Alright, this means war by XO · · Score: 1

      actually, the non-commercial ban was lifted several months before the first real known commerce happened.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    15. Re:Alright, this means war by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      I admire your ability to stubbornly repeat a joke that wasn't funny the first eighty two million times some upity, nationalistic yutz used it either.

      Now, if you want to pick on CANADA....

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    16. Re:Alright, this means war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Siegel died last year.

    17. Re:Alright, this means war by dangerburger · · Score: 0

      Its not just hitting google. its hitting all other search engines. according to sans.org internet storm center

      --
      Non-System foot or foot error. remove from mouth and strike any key when ready
    18. Re:Alright, this means war by zygote · · Score: 1

      Speaking of attacking The Google...if you're myDoom14 writer, then why not make this a more low-key "attack?"
      Instead of pulling your pants down and virtually (get it Internet, virtual...) announcing "We're screwing with search engines!", make your virus work more slowly and less obviously?
      First, you get your stinking email addresses with which you will spam bomb me and everyone else. Secondly, we get Google uninterupted. Google Interupted?

      --
      the future is here, it is just not evenly distributed - w. gibson
    19. Re:Alright, this means war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The format of an email address is pretty simple and they should be easy to find. Most software are color blind anyway :)

    20. Re:Alright, this means war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, lighthen up you frog.

      Eh.

    21. Re:Alright, this means war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jokes aboot Canada aren't funny, either, eh?

    22. Re:Alright, this means war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90% Funny
      10% Overrated

      Alright, own up. Who's the git with no sense of humour?

  2. Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now my hotmail account will start getting spammed :(

    1. Re:Oh no by mikehoskins · · Score: 1

      Now I'm thinking that the posters should have cached those links using Google. Oh wait!

  3. i was wondering by The+Other+White+Boy · · Score: 2, Informative

    i was getting errors when trying to search, but people i was talkin to online elsewhere in the country were fine. my whole office was screwin up.

    gmail still works tho, hrm.

    1. Re:i was wondering by jlechem · · Score: 1

      This would explain the error 27 I was getting while trying to search. And I just got an email to not even open webmail from my work. Guess this thing is pretty bad.

      --
      Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
    2. Re:i was wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      i was getting errors when trying to search, but people i was talkin to online elsewhere in the country were fine. my whole office was screwin up
      gmail still works tho, hrm.

      You work in corporate communications, don't you?

    3. Re:i was wondering by mobiGeek · · Score: 1

      It's not a problem if you are using a secure browser (and not opening attachments).

      --

      ...Beware the IDEs of Microsoft...

    4. Re:i was wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That won't save you from the secondary effects.

    5. Re:i was wondering by jlechem · · Score: 1

      Hey I know that, but the PHB's sent out the mass email.

      --
      Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
    6. Re:i was wondering by poptix_work · · Score: 5, Funny

      They sent out the email to.. not open your email

      How amazingly typical.

      --
      Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.
    7. Re:i was wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I received about 20 worm mails over the last 60 minutes, up from about 5 per day before. This doesn't look good at all.

    8. Re:i was wondering by maddskillz · · Score: 1

      Good point. They should have used Carrier Pigeons

    9. Re:i was wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My boss sent out an email to everyone with the subject of.... you guessed it:

      "Do no open this email"

      very effective.

    10. Re:i was wondering by lpret · · Score: 1

      Using the google search built-in to Opera or Firefox works just fine.

      --
      This is my digital signature. 10011011001
    11. Re:i was wondering by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.

      Nope, it makes it -1 Overrated :D

      Wouldn't want to get hit in M2 for that, ya know.

      --
      My other car is first.
  4. Ah hah by suso · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought I was going nuts, I've never had google give me problems.

    I found it hard to remember the names of other search engines that I could use though.

    1. Re:Ah hah by boredMDer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Other....search engines?

      Do explain such a foreign concept as this.

      Google is the one, the almighty.

    2. Re:Ah hah by Jim+Hall · · Score: 5, Funny

      I found it hard to remember the names of other search engines that I could use though.

      You could do a Google search for them, I suppose... :-)

    3. Re:Ah hah by abcxyz · · Score: 1

      I had exactly the same problem, but had a couple bookmarked:

      Ended up using All the Web.

      There's also HotBot

    4. Re:Ah hah by suso · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I ended up going to hotbot, which was the search engine I used before google came along. But that was like 4 years ago. Before that I think I used altavista and then yahoo before that and then before that there was lynx and goofer.

    5. Re:Ah hah by AngryScot · · Score: 1

      I was looking for some asp tutorials and google didnt work. Rather than go use another engine I just started guessing at urls. It never occured to me to use another Search Engine :).

      --

      All spelling mistakes are due to solar flares...honest

    6. Re:Ah hah by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1
      I found it hard to remember the names of other search engines that I could use though.

      well, don't forget that altavista, known primarily around here for The Fish actually has a pretty good search engine as well.
      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    7. Re:Ah hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other search engines? You have gone nuts, my friend! :)

    8. Re:Ah hah by OglinTatas · · Score: 1

      Amen, brother! I couldn't do a search on Google, and I couldn't remember any other search engines.

    9. Re:Ah hah by suwain_2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just do a search for related:www.google.com, and Google will tell you.

      Oh, wait...

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    10. Re:Ah hah by ehiris · · Score: 3, Funny

      I misspelled yahoo 3 times before I got it right.

    11. Re:Ah hah by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1
      I had this problem too. Actually, I panicked when Google returned the following error:

      Server Error
      The service you requested is not available at this time.
      Service error -27.

      I was racking my brains for which search engine to use to find a particular site, considered using Dogpile, Altavista, but ended up using Yahoo. As it happened, I wasn't able to locate the site I was after despite using various boolean terms, but I'm positive I would have hunted it down via Google.

      Today's "outage" I think just shows how reliant much of the internet population is on the top search engines such as Google.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    12. Re:Ah hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Here's a mirrior in case Google goes down completley.

      Oh wait.

    13. Re:Ah hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always Google for "search engines".
      (I know, using Google as a verb is so 2001.)

    14. Re:Ah hah by javcrapa · · Score: 1

      yo can look for "search engines" on google!

    15. Re:Ah hah by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Informative
      AllTheWeb and Teoma are good alternatives, as far I remember, and do some things in a smarter way than Google. MSN search is supposed to be improved in a beta URL (there was an history here about it some weeks ago)

      And you have also metasearchers, that not only search google, but also others. If you want almost the opposite of google in simplicity, you can try Kartoo, where you can have graphs with aggrupations on search results, flash animations and things like that.

      Last, but not least, there are a search engine that you can use to find search engines very close to you. If its good enough, probably there is a Slashdot article on it, so slashdot search is a good first step if all the other search engines you know are down but you still can access slashdot.

    16. Re:Ah hah by Secrity · · Score: 1

      I think that Mozilla amd Firefox have the ability to use search engines other than Google. Change the option: Navigator Internet Search

    17. Re:Ah hah by travdaddy · · Score: 1

      You could do a Google search for them, I suppose... :-)

      Yes you can. Surprisingly, Google is not at the top of the list.

      ...of course, the trick is to remember them when Google is down!

      --
      Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
    18. Re:Ah hah by iLEZ · · Score: 1

      Surprisingly, Google is 5th in the list when you search for "Search engine" on google.com. After Altavista and Lycos even! :)

      --
      You cant fight in here, its a war room!
    19. Re:Ah hah by prescot6 · · Score: 1

      I found it hard to remember the names of other search engines that I could use though.

      Search engine? What are you talking about? Anyway... is there someplace else I can go to google for stuff??

    20. Re:Ah hah by slash-tard · · Score: 1

      I just did this to see what it would show and google comes up 5th. Dogpile, AltaVista and Lycos beat it somehow.

    21. Re:Ah hah by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      What was that search engine featured here a while back that would show a graphical relationship between different websites? For example, querying Slashdot would pop up SourceForge, OSDN and Freshmeat, among other sites, in a large image.

      It was really neat, but I can't remember the URL.

    22. Re:Ah hah by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Funny
      Yes you can. Surprisingly, Google is not at the top of the list.

      Well, you could IF Google wasn't returning:

      Server Error
      The service you requested is not available at this time.
      Service error -27.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    23. Re:Ah hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't really any point in that search engine placing itself at the top of the list of search engines. If you are looking at the results on that search engine, you probably aren't going to find a link to that search engine very useful.

    24. Re:Ah hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about using SETS at Google LABS to find those other search engines you speak of.

    25. Re:Ah hah by abrinton · · Score: 1

      Jeez, this is terrible. What's next? A virus that slashdots Slashdot? How would we ever find out about it if Slashdot was down?

    26. Re:Ah hah by SageMusings · · Score: 1

      About your Sig, Didn't Pournelle co-author that book?

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    27. Re:Ah hah by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Kartoo, its mentioned in my parent comment. Anyway, searching for Slashdot only gives me meetup.com as the only result :( Searching for OSDN gives a better example on how it should work.

    28. Re:Ah hah by skinfitz · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's a search engine?

      I tried googling for it but it just took me to the home page. I think it's broken.

    29. Re:Ah hah by real_smiff · · Score: 1
      you'd be surprised, one of the commonest searches is people looking for a search engine.. and most of the rest are people looking for www.foo.bar.

      i dunno, that's probably crap, seems right though.

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

    30. Re:Ah hah by TimeZone · · Score: 4, Funny
      I tried to google "Service Error -27" to find out what the problem was.

      It took about 10 seconds for me to realize I was a dumbass.

      TZ

    31. Re:Ah hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but try "BEST search engine"

    32. Re:Ah hah by cout · · Score: 1

      Some search engines:
      www.lycos.com
      www.altavista.com
      www.infoseek.com
      www.hotbot.com
      www.excite.com
      www.webcrawler.com
      www.askjeeves.com
      www.searchengines.net
      www.metacrawler.com

      BTW, inference find (www.infind.com) used to be my favorite engine of all, but alas, they are no more.

    33. Re:Ah hah by afidel · · Score: 1

      Altavista still has a feature that Google lacks, the NEAR keyword. This allows you to search for two terms only when they apear withing about two paragraphs of each other. This can be extremely usefull for searching for two semi-popular terms that would not normally be found in the same article but where such occourances might be of interest. Unfortunatly they have so little of the net indexed these days that their results suck. Add to that the placed rankings and the meta tag bombs and I generally don't bother, I just wish Google would add the same structure to their queries.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    34. Re:Ah hah by donutz · · Score: 1

      AllTheWeb and Teoma are good alternatives, as far I remember, and do some things in a smarter way than Google.

      Which are those things that these two do better than Google? Does it make up for the fact that those two search engines are pay-to-play if you want to get listed, otherwise take your chances that they're not indexing stale data (My old Geocities site still comes up on a search for my name on those two search engines; my new site appears to be only partially indexed)?

    35. Re:Ah hah by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

      Interestingly this virus isn't attacking MSN, and IS coming at a bad time for Google (their IPO just priced).

      I wouldn't put it past 'ole Billy to hire some guerilla coders to help his cause.

      (I would've spell checked the word guerilla, but Google is down right now, so I can't).

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    36. Re:Ah hah by brianvan · · Score: 1

      well at least I know where to look for things for the remainder of the day.

    37. Re:Ah hah by Winkhorst · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you considered buying a dictionary? You can get them at Amazon or your local bookstore. That's the place where they sell those old-fashioned paper thingies that have words printed on paper.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    38. Re:Ah hah by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 1

      Just use a bang path: www!yahoo!com!

      --

      This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

    39. Re:Ah hah by pi+radians · · Score: 1

      Have you considered buying a dictionary?
      Why?

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    40. Re:Ah hah by mincus · · Score: 1

      It would probably be easier to just get a set of them - Google Sets

    41. Re:Ah hah by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

      Beekawzz dey bee havvin maw wurdz in dem dan dose awnlyin thingeez.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    42. Re:Ah hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I used one of those once. I tried to look up the word I didn't know how to spell. But guess what, they're in alphabetical order and since I didn't know how to spell it, I didn't know how to look it up. BRILLIANT! I think dictionaries are used more for finding out the meaning of words, not how they are spelled.

    43. Re:Ah hah by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't put it past 'ole Billy to hire some guerilla coders to help his cause.

      For a moment, let's ignore the liability and ethics issues.

      You're proposing that Gates would promote infection of machines running his own OS during a year when security of such machines is a hot topic and a major wedge being used against him to randomly attack Google for a short period of time? C'mon, let's get real.

    44. Re:Ah hah by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      AllTheWeb is mostly good for media results.

      The aging, aging HotBot is still occasionally useful, as it allows one to search for pages containing links to files with a given extension, which is functionality that even Google lacks.

      I just looked up the even more ancient WebCrawler -- turns out that they've since become a metaengine for Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, About, Overture, and Teoma.

    45. Re:Ah hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to admit it but without Google, my IQ drops by 25+ points; you'd be surprised how slow I type without that extra 20 IQ points.

    46. Re:Ah hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I was going nuts, I've never had google give me problems.


      I ALMOST used msn.com....
      I had it in my address window and remembered my old favorite metacrawler only milliseconds before hitting the 'go' button.

      It was a close one.

    47. Re:Ah hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean com!yahoo!www

    48. Re:Ah hah by fatphil · · Score: 1

      My bet is that the virus coder is a lameass linux wanabee.

      Why do I say this? Because he reads his own mail as root@wherever, i.e. hasn't worked out what user accounts are for.

      He also contributes to open source projects.

      How do I know all this - just look at the list of usernames he won't spam. root is excluded and so is *sf.net and *sourceforge*.

      Just a guess.

      Of course, doing everything as root is the mentality of a WinDoze luser, of course, so maybe you're right after all...

      FP.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    49. Re:Ah hah by DShard · · Score: 1

      Grandparent says:
      ...of course, the trick is to remember them when Google is down!

      Way to read before replying.

    50. Re:Ah hah by yuting · · Score: 1

      Tried putting "open source" in Kartoo: Open source on ebay, find open source items at low prices...

      Well if someone wants the latest Linux kernel I could put it on ebay for them...

    51. Re:Ah hah by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 0

      14th

      --
      Sig
    52. Re:Ah hah by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      How is that surprising?

      A) how many times do you see "Search Engine" written on google's website?

      B) Does the title "Google" contain the words "search engine"?

      C) How often do you see a link to google.com labelled "search engine"?

      I suppose if you really wanted, you could organize a googlebomb to have google ranked higher for search engine, but I don't really see the point.

    53. Re:Ah hah by mvpll · · Score: 1

      "He" also blocks the address anybody@microsoft.com ... so I guess they are all guilty too.

      P.S. I like the 403 error page on your website, but I felt the links at the bottom were a waste. It isn't exactly hard to find articles on the topic. Of course the selections you made, like those in your comment here, exudes a certian bias.

    54. Re:Ah hah by tacocat · · Score: 1

      You forgot the classic www.wwww.com

    55. Re:Ah hah by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      No. At least not according to isbn.nu or amazon but strangely enough, ISFDB does show Pournelle as an author. Well, lets check a more authoritative source... Library of Congress and you are definitely correct, Pournelle is also listed. Thanks for the info!

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    56. Re:Ah hah by sffubs · · Score: 1
      --
      ݼ)s$æúßðíÊ'öX'îò5^àûßQç£
    57. Re:Ah hah by alain1234 · · Score: 1

      Funny that google is only at the 5th position when searching for "search engine"

    58. Re:Ah hah by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Somehow I missed the microsoft address, I don't know how!?!? I'm sure they're all guilty of _something_, yes!

      Thanks for the 403 feedback. Initially there were only a few links, but the list just kept growing. As you say, it's not hard to find articles, so I kind of gave up adding new links a while ago, and only every now and then do I add a new one.

      Glad you spotted the bias ;-)

      Phil

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  5. Only Google web search down? by sup191 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Everything else seems to be ticking ok (news, images, Froogle, etc...)

    1. Re:Only Google web search down? by erinacht · · Score: 1
      Google is only the web search really, the other stuff is good and all, but without the search engine we all rely on, google is ghastly!

      Think I'll be using All The Web for a while, you know you lose trust in something...

    2. Re:Only Google web search down? by Jon_E · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      seems to be pretty slow .. slashdotted? ;P

    3. Re:Only Google web search down? by sup191 · · Score: 1

      I use Google Groups and News quite a bit actually. The news search is especially helpful when trying to pinpoint information on a subject when a reputible source is required. That sounded more professional than it was supposed to. :)

    4. Re:Only Google web search down? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      ...google is ghastly!

      Dear God, I hope not!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    5. Re:Only Google web search down? by DCheesi · · Score: 1

      News doesn't work for me. I can get the home page, but that's it.

  6. Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm getting "
    Server Error
    The service you requested is not available at this time.
    Service error -27
    "
    for all of my search attempts.

  7. An Example by nofx_3 · · Score: 1

    Can someone give an example showing this error? I am unable to reproduce it.

    -kaplanfx

    --
    Visualize Whirled Peas
    1. Re:An Example by savagedome · · Score: 1

      Search for any term on google and I get the following:

      Google Error
      Server Error
      The service you requested is not available at this time.
      Service error -27.

    2. Re:An Example by AngryScot · · Score: 1

      Server Error The service you requested is not available at this time. Service error -27. I cant use google.com or .co.uk :( I saw this earlier today and came to /. to see what the problem was :)

      --

      All spelling mistakes are due to solar flares...honest

    3. Re:An Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I just got the same thing.


      Freaked me out too....never had google fail me before. :(

    4. Re:An Example by slthytove · · Score: 1

      I've taken a screenshot, for those who for some reason are unable to duplicate the error.

      http://jtype.us/index.php/archives/2004/07/26/goog le-succumbs/

    5. Re:An Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I uploaded a snapshot here.

      Jerome

    6. Re:An Example by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No problem, what's your e-mail address? I can forward you ten examples of the results of this error...

    7. Re:An Example by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 2, Informative

      also, doing whois google.com, returns:

      Whois Server Version 1.3

      Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
      with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
      for detailed information.

      Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.SUCKS.FIND.CRACKZ.WITH.SEARCH.GULLI.COM
      IP Address: 80.190.192.24
      Registrar: GANDI
      Whois Server: whois.gandi.net
      Referral URL: http://www.gandi.net

      Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.HAS.LESS.FREE.PORN.IN.ITS.SEARCH.ENGINE .THAN.SECZY.COM
      IP Address: 209.187.114.130
      Registrar: INNERWISE, INC. D/B/A ITSYOURDOMAIN.COM
      Whois Server: whois.itsyourdomain.com
      Referral URL: http://www.itsyourdomain.com

      Domain Name: GOOGLE.COM
      Registrar: ALLDOMAINS.COM INC.
      Whois Server: whois.alldomains.com
      Referral URL: http://www.alldomains.com
      Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM
      Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM
      Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM
      Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM
      Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
      Updated Date: 03-oct-2002
      Creation Date: 15-sep-1997
      Expiration Date: 14-sep-2011

      >>> Last update of whois database: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:37:55 EDT

      --

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

    8. Re:An Example by AngryScot · · Score: 1

      I saw that and went to find a site to search the whoIs database, not knowing any sites off hand I actualy began typing google :(
      My world is all messed up now :(

      --

      All spelling mistakes are due to solar flares...honest

    9. Re:An Example by coolfrood · · Score: 1

      Note that they use text for the Google logo instead of the image for the error page. Smart!

    10. Re:An Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh... not interesting

      It's because you left the "." off of the end when you used the whois command.

      Which means that it matches any domain that happens to start with "google.com", including the two domains that you listed.

  8. just now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just when i needed it to search 234324093 of things!!!

    (radiosoo) rlz.

  9. Service error -27. by drcannaba · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I get:
    Server Error
    The service you requested is not available at this time.

    Service error -27.

    1. Re:Service error -27. by Felipe+Hoffa · · Score: 1

      User error, please replace user.
  10. fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    google slashdotted???

    or more preciesly google [my] doomed!!!

  11. I can get in by DarkMavis · · Score: 1

    As of 11:52 am CST I can get to Google.

    1. Re:I can get in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong, I believe you meant CDT, unless of course you meant 12:52pm CDT, which it aint for another 44 minutes.

  12. mydoom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google was probably just confused with the upcoming release of Doom3. Google is just used to reporting 503 errors to any doom3 query sinc eit was vaporware until just recently.

  13. Shouldn't that be easy to fix? by ggvaidya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If MyDoom uses certain search strings, you just dump all such searches? Worse case, just dump any search for anything which looks like an e-mail account?

    1. Re:Shouldn't that be easy to fix? by Roguelazer · · Score: 1

      That is in fact what they did. :D Try searching for any e-mail address (yours, mine, example@example.com)

    2. Re:Shouldn't that be easy to fix? by jred · · Score: 1

      Worked for my email address...

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    3. Re:Shouldn't that be easy to fix? by typobox43 · · Score: 1

      It gives me a Forbidden error when I try to search for any @gmail.com address, but it allows @yahoo.com address searches... interesting.

    4. Re:Shouldn't that be easy to fix? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does it have a UA string like "MyDoom-O (1.0 final)" or anything?

    5. Re:Shouldn't that be easy to fix? by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      I was getting an error looking for *anything*. I also work at Lockheed Martin, so I'm not all that certain why we would have been one of the targeted blocks. They have a pretty strict/global antivirus policy.

    6. Re:Shouldn't that be easy to fix? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Earlier they were dumping anything matching *mail*. We discovered this, this morning by searching for qmail sites. (this explains why you can't search for gmail, but you could search for yahoo)

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    7. Re:Shouldn't that be easy to fix? by follower-fillet · · Score: 1

      > Earlier they were dumping anything matching *mail*.
      > We discovered this, this morning by searching for qmail sites.

      Funnily enough, I was searching for `libgmail` (my Python binding for Gmail access) when it stopped working. But it only forbid it when I tried searching for a specific version number "0.0.6", which I eventually generalised to "..." being banned.

      Initially I was like "Crap, they could've just asked me to stop working on it..!". :-)

    8. Re:Shouldn't that be easy to fix? by thogard · · Score: 1

      What else does this virus do?

      I ask because I fired up the lame box that runs windows XP yesterday and its its saying that I need to activate and won't let me log in most of the time. Thats odd, it was activated before and as far as I know the MS activation stuff always locks you out everytime, not most of the time. Ok, start up the activate windows with the intent of yelling at MS for breaking something stupid... no such luck as it just terminates. Thats odd. How about an update...slap in the CD and tell it to update... nope... doesn't like the original key anymore.

      Give up on the box but 1st do a quick dir to see if there is anything useful on it and what do I find? A bunch of *.exe's that all have titles of popular programs and the kind of thing that would get shared and they happen to be in a dir that had a few mp3's (not stuff anyone would want to share anyway).

      I think the box got owned real fast after it just woke up and it trashed the auth system. Damn isn't windows fun?

    9. Re:Shouldn't that be easy to fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Windows is fun, but you still should have your box behind a firewall, either software (shudder) or hardware.

  14. What a day to have problems! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    CNN is on behind me, and they've been talking about nothing but Google's IPO. Seems like really bad timing for Google. :-(

    1. Re:What a day to have problems! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oddly enough it only seems to be affecting the East Coast ..

      [sarcasm]
      must be those crazy cyberterrorists again attacking american ingenuity in the financial capital of the world - must raise the alert level and petition congress to pass more anti-privacy legislation so the masses feel safer again ..
      [/sarcasm]

    2. Re:What a day to have problems! by NiceAndEasy · · Score: 1
      Google email, gmail, is in BETA.

      OTOH, I've using gmail in last 15hrs and didn't get any error message.

      google = the perfection ;)

    3. Re:What a day to have problems! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was probably intentional.

    4. Re:What a day to have problems! by ehiris · · Score: 1

      They can now reason why they need to raise more money.

    5. Re:What a day to have problems! by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Google email, gmail, is in BETA.

      This is about Google Search, not Gmail.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:What a day to have problems! by hta · · Score: 1

      perhaps the virus writer thought he could collect IPO shares on the cheap?????

    7. Re:What a day to have problems! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's intentional. Someone looking to get rich off of the Google IPO?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    8. Re:What a day to have problems! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      East coast of where? The world isn't just the US!!!

      I obviously know what you are refering to, I just need to take this opportunity to look like whiney bitch.

  15. The end of the world! by Jamori · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google is down ... the world is ending! The beginning of the apocalypse! (I can't even check if I spelled that right without google)

    1. Re:The end of the world! by ongeboren · · Score: 1

      nah.. get a girlfriend!

      --
      First I wanted to be a chef. Then I wanted to be Napoleon. My ambitions have continued to grow ever since.
    2. Re:The end of the world! by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Its scarey -- its the real world equivalent of going into *everyones* home/business and moving things around so they can't find them.... on a global scale! Scarey scarey!!!

  16. That tears it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody call Homelnd Security - it's time to track down and eradicate Windows machines once and for all. The government has already issued a statement advising that IE is inherently unsafe, so it's time to take the next step.

  17. Nostradomus predicted this right? by craenor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google going down is the first sign of the apocalypse. Now if my wife asks me for sex (the second sign), I'll know the world is going to end...

    1. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      she asked me for sex - does that count? :)

    2. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burn!

    3. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by craenor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sadly, that's not a sign of the Apocalypse, that's the sign that it's Monday.

    4. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Xcruciate · · Score: 0

      Brilliant...absolutely fucking brilliant!

      --
      It's like "looking busy" at your employment - it's actually easier to do real work than to fake it. - bmo
    5. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Astadar · · Score: 0

      It's either the apocolypse or she's trying to get pregnant... then the asking never stops. :-)

      --
      --Coming up with something clever... please wait...
    6. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Funny

      craenor's wife has never asked me for sex on Monday...

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    7. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Homology · · Score: 1
      Google going down is the first sign of the apocalypse. Now if my wife asks me for sex (the second sign), I'll know the world is going to end...

      My wife bought a pregnancy test, and that's even more scary ;-)

    8. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by xutopia · · Score: 1

      the third sign is the neighboor asking if he can mow your lawn.

    9. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Atario · · Score: 4, Funny
      Google going down is the first sign of the apocalypse. Now if my wife asks me for sex (the second sign), I'll know the world is going to end...
      I can't believe you didn't make the obvious joke there. I mean, c'mon. Think about it. "Going down"..."my wife"...Jebus! It fairly slaps you in the face! And you call yourself a Slashdotter...
      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    10. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by smittyman · · Score: 1

      a case of the mooondays no doubt.....

      --
      Message from god, Please logoff, rebooting the Universe
    11. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lucky you... /sigh

    12. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny. I heard she goes a LOT more often than Google does.

    13. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who does she usually ask?

    14. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by archen · · Score: 1

      Apperently half of slashdot. Possibly farm animals - but that's just a rumor I'm starting.

    15. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have not had Sex but I will be open on Tuesday

    16. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you didn't make the obvious joke there. I mean, c'mon. Think about it. "Going down"..."my wife"...Jebus! It fairly slaps you in the face! And you call yourself a Slashdotter...

      Well you couldn't even connect up the "slaps you in the face" double entendre... must be the apocalypse :(

    17. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by XO · · Score: 1

      it's my turn for Tuesday, your turn is Wednesday.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    18. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Evidently, she's never asked him for sex on Monday, either. *Rimshot*

      Thanks, folks! I'm here all week. . .

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    19. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by daniel_yokomiso · · Score: 1

      Ahah, the elusive second sign to the apocalypse unfolds:

      1. Goggle Going Down.
      2. Craenor's wife asking him for sex.
      3. Prof^H^H^H^H Apocalypse!!!

      --
      Disclaimer: If I disagree with you I'm probably trolling...
    20. Re:Nostradomus predicted this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do not attempt sexual relations, as years of computer screen radiation have left your genitals withered and useless."

  18. Looks like their already dealing with it by lofi-rev · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Just got this reply: Your client does not have permission to get URL /search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=e-mail+example.com&btnG=G oogle+Search from this server.

  19. Google key by xenostar · · Score: 2, Informative

    To use the Google API you need a key generated by Google, which requires a small registration, so, while of course, if the perpetrator did fill it out, he probably put in fake information, it would still be a good place to start looking.

    1. Re:Google key by hrieke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why not (since it's windows programming), create an IE object and have it return the results, this it would appear to Google to be nothing more than just normal traffic?

      --
      III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    2. Re:Google key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It doesn't use the google API. The virus just connects to www.google.com and sends something like:

      Host: www.google.com
      GET /search?q=email+example.com&start=0&start=0&ie=utf -8&oe=utf-8 HTTP/1.0

      Then parses the result. Just like a human using a browser would.

  20. Good Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Let's post a story on slashdot so that we can help. :-P

  21. Time for a new error by Quasar1999 · · Score: 5, Funny

    503? screw that... why not have a new error number designated specifically for MS infected systems... error 999: The operating system you are using is insecure and has been exploited... you are partially responsible for bringing this server to its knees... Now go in the corner and think about what you've done.

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:Time for a new error by drmellow · · Score: 4, Funny

      999? No, make it 666. That'll be more fun.

    2. Re:Time for a new error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's not a bad idea. ISPs could set up their HTTP proxies to notify their abuse department when a client gets more than a few of these types of responses in a single day. Illegitimate traffic still has to be paid for by the ISP.

      Sure, ISPs could set things up to watch for specific traffic already, but this way the detection burden is placed upon the people being attacked, who are in a better position to flag things like this.

    3. Re:Time for a new error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for:
      MS WINDOWS systems
      (infected or not)

      Error Code: 666

    4. Re:Time for a new error by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Except that I'm suffering the effects of this attack, using Linux, Firefox and Thunderbird. When I boot into Windows, I pull out my router cable!
      If that won't stop them, I don't know what will...

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    5. Re:Time for a new error by Paladine97 · · Score: 1

      They could assign a new error code, but according to the HTTP RFC, server errors are always the 5xx branch.

      So maybe 569?

    6. Re:Time for a new error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      999, 666, all the same really. Obviously you've never been to 'Hell of the Upside-Down Sinner'.

    7. Re:Time for a new error by Echnin · · Score: 1
      Error 666: Your modem (or other connecting device) is not functioning.

      Already taken.

      --
      Lalala
    8. Re:Time for a new error by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Actually, if Microsoft were to try to use 666 as an error message, it would come out 999. That is because Microsoft cannot get anything right.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Time for a new error by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Error 666: Your modem (or other connecting device) is not functioning (properly and has been possessed). That should be the whole error for that number. ;)

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    10. Re:Time for a new error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Error 666: Infernal server error.

    11. Re:Time for a new error by Karth · · Score: 1

      working for an ISP, I find that error #666 is virtually unfixable without a complete reinstall of the operating system. Microsoft's Q articles on it basically say "We don't know, go away." In this context, that error # is strangely appropriate.

    12. Re:Time for a new error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry, 666 is already reserved by SCO...

    13. Re:Time for a new error by sparkz · · Score: 1

      According to RFC2068, it looks like 412 could be appropriate - "Precondition Failed", (where the precondition is one of "server can can take the load", or "your OS is secure" - take your pick). Personally, I like 303 - "See Other" (where "Other" could be "geek friend", "support admin", "out of the window - there's a whole world out there beyond your computer screen")

      --
      Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
  22. Curiously MSN is unaffected by nsingapu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    1: Write crap software
    2: Allow said software to DDOS all MSN competition
    3: $$$

    1. Re:Curiously MSN is unaffected by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

      Any other company in the world (except maybe ATT) and I'd think you were just paranoid--but yeah, I wouldn't put anything past L'il Bill. Unfortunately, I suspect it's just MS's old habit of being at the right place at the right time. Remember how these bozos got into the OS business? Because IBM didn't want to screw with it? This is, like, "LUCK" in character stats in video games.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    2. Re:Curiously MSN is unaffected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fool. Microsoft got into the OS business by being in the right place at the right time, as you said. But it wasn't cos IBM didn't want to screw with it, it's because Gary Kildall of Digital Research was out of the office on both of the occasions IBM were meant to have meetings with him. Apparently he was skiing. So, rather than wait around for someone who clearly didn't want their business, IBM chose to go with Microsoft, who clearly did.

      I know that Slashdotters in general tend to have an axe to grind against Microsoft, but you could all at least do a little more research before you blame them for every little thing that goes wrong. If anything, these days MS are being whiter than white because they know that people like you guys are watching them closer than ever.

  23. Smart by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Get google hammered with a big ol DOS, then post it to Slashdot where they are sure to get hammered some more!!

    1. Re:Smart by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the slashdot effect isn't _that_ great. there's only so many nerds vs. people doing searches for boobs on google.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Smart by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A quick look at google zeitgeist tells us that breasts are not the most popular things to look for on google right now, not even in pairs. Martha Stewart is the top ascending query, and Keira Knightley is the top descending query. Anyone looking for boobie shots of MS as opposed to KK needs an eye exam.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Smart by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

      leave Martha alone! Go pick on Ken Lay.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
  24. Google is that big by frankthechicken · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The fact that Google went down appears to have affected the BBC, given that it was given headline news on the radio. Proof that Google has become a world wide institution(or maybe just where the BBC does some of it's "research" :) )

    1. Re:Google is that big by isorox · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it's pathetic when News24 beats slashdot to the punch.

  25. What locations? by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 4, Informative

    is returning 503 errors on all queries submitted from certain locations

    Is that geographic locations, IP blocks, or what? I can use Google just fine at the moment, but have heard of trouble in California (I am in Colorado). TFA gives no details. Anyone have answers?

    --
    bash: rtfm: command not found
    1. Re:What locations? by gambitt · · Score: 1

      I was having problems accessing google through my ISP (ntl.com) but when I vpn'd to my uni (shef.ac.uk) everything worked fine.

    2. Re:What locations? by LearnToSpell · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can search from home (SSH), but not from work (~15 miles away), in NY.

    3. Re:What locations? by eddy · · Score: 1

      I've heard multiple reports of 5xx from users in the UK

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    4. Re:What locations? by jhiza · · Score: 1

      i'm in CO, and it's down from work, but not from home (~1 mile away)

      hmmmmm

    5. Re:What locations? by TarlCabbot · · Score: 0

      San Antonio, TX, did a search on car parts, gotta 27 error.

    6. Re:What locations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impossible to access from Spain also

    7. Re:What locations? by javcrapa · · Score: 1

      In cincinatti we are having trouble with google

    8. Re:What locations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Is that geographic locations, IP blocks, or what?
      It's almost certainly IP blocks from which offending queries have been coming. A lot of people have been posting that they can search Google fine from home, but not from work, this is probably because some idiot in the office is infected.
    9. Re:What locations? by VoiceOfRaisin · · Score: 1

      very good question. i am having no problems but a friend on the same isp down the street in the same town as me is having problems.

    10. Re:What locations? by jx100 · · Score: 1

      I don't seem to be having trouble, and i'm in California (near Sacramento).

    11. Re:What locations? by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that it would be more likely that someone on a residential ISP's netblock would be infected. Which also leads me to believe that it's not netblocks, but individual IP addresses. If someone on the office network is infected, and you all are NATed, then it would be blocking your individual IP.

      I hate to say this, but I almost hope my office IP gets banned. We have a /27 block from our ISP, and I can easily change our NAT IP address. That would be a fantastic way to test the theory!

      --
      bash: rtfm: command not found
    12. Re:What locations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were hit by mydoom here this morning.. a few pcs out of 1000 or so.. cannot access google get the error#

    13. Re:What locations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No can Google here in San Francisco...

    14. Re:What locations? by br0ck · · Score: 1

      You might be right. We can't search from inside our corporate NAT, but it's working fine for machines outside the NAT that have IP addresses within the same netblock as the NAT.

    15. Re:What locations? by nule.org · · Score: 1

      My work in Cleveland can't hit google (i.e. gets the 503), but my home in Cleveland Heights (2 mi away) can. I know both end up connecting over SBC/Ameritech's network, but are on considerably different netblocks. So you are not any closer to an answer to your question. :)

    16. Re:What locations? by Pembers · · Score: 1

      Which also leads me to believe that it's not netblocks, but individual IP addresses.

      I wish... I'm on a broadband connection at home, and Google doesn't want to talk to me. I've had my current IP address for at least 10 days, and it's been more than 24 hours since I searched Google for anything. This is a Linux box, so I very much doubt that MyDoom has sent any queries from my IP.

      It might just be because I'm with ntlworld.com, strong contenders for Most Clueless ISP 2004.

    17. Re:What locations? by eyeye · · Score: 1

      NTL use "transparent" web caches so maybe thats why, assuming they are indeed blocking IPs.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    18. Re:What locations? by Pembers · · Score: 1

      NTL use "transparent" web caches so maybe thats why

      I'd forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me. Google let me in again a couple of hours after my post above.

  26. I don't know how to cope! by Zaphod+B · · Score: 1

    D'OH! I went to go search for the cause on Google News.

    My world is crumbling...

    --
    Zaphod B
    When duplication is outlawed, only outlaws will have /bin/cp
  27. Queries blocked by GoRK · · Score: 3, Informative

    The query that google seems to block in order to work around this problem is a query for "mailer-daemon@domain.com" where "domain.com" is pretty much anything.

    1. Re:Queries blocked by tlay · · Score: 1

      If that's the case I'm happy they did it. I bet the virus is harvesting unsuspecting user email addresses to send links to the Bin Laden suicide videos. My domain would be under duress shortly thereafter.

      -Tony

    2. Re:Queries blocked by nkh · · Score: 1

      Funny, I tried it and Google told me it was forbidden by their TOS!

  28. Search sites ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone knows any good search site to use ?
    Google/Altavista not working here ...

  29. What are they trying to accomplish I wonder? by tekiegreg · · Score: 1

    I would think they're planning on spreading a virus payload around by searching Google/Yahoo out, however Virus writers apparently don't think ahead very well. After the search engines implode from a Massive Ddos attack, A) The bots will essentially be dead when they can no longer search for emails and B) With Google and Yahoo dead,the entire Internet will let slip the dogs of war, if I were this virus writer I'd be deeeeeeep underground right about now (preferably six feet under). Maybe the Ddos attack was their aim? uggggh....

    --
    ...in bed
    1. Re:What are they trying to accomplish I wonder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virus writers apparently don't think ahead very well.
      If they did the frickers would have found their way out of their mom's basement by now.

    2. Re:What are they trying to accomplish I wonder? by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      > however Virus writers apparently don't think ahead very well.

      I would disagree - they thought it out very well - leverage the power of great search engines.

      It's the search engines that failed.

      ====
      Forbidden
      Your client does not have permission to get URL /search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=account%40gmail.com&btnG= Google+Search from this server. (Client IP address: 41.22.75.21)

      Please see Google's Terms of Service posted at http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html

      If you believe that you have received this response in error, please send email to forbidden@google.com. Before sending this email, however, please make sure to take a look at our Terms of Service (http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html). In your email, please send us the entire code displayed below. Please also send us any information you may know about how you are performing your Google searches-- for example, "I'm using the Opera browser on Linux to do searches from home. My Internet access is through a dial-up account I have with the FooCorp ISP." or "I'm using the Konqueror browser on Linux to search from my job at myFoo.com. My machine's IP address is 10.20.30.40, but all of myFoo's web traffic goes through some kind of proxy server whose IP address is 10.11.12.13." (If you don't know any information like this, that's OK. But this kind of information can help us track down problems, so please tell us what you can.)

      We will use all this information to diagnose the problem, and we'll hopefully have you back up and searching with Google again quickly!

      Please note that although we read all the email we receive, we are not always able to send a personal response to each and every email. So don't despair if you don't hear back from us!

      Also note that if you do not send us the entire code below, we will not be able to help you.

      Best wishes,
      The Google Team

  30. HOLY FUCKING SHIT! by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1

    Google did a search that took longer than 1 second! Good-bye cruel world!

    *jumps out window*

    1. Re:HOLY FUCKING SHIT! by hamlet2600 · · Score: 2, Funny

      How dare this amazingly useful -- cant live without -- service i pay nothing for go down?!?!

      --
      Sometimes I wish computers were less friendly.
    2. Re:HOLY FUCKING SHIT! by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Road Pizza, anyone? :)

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  31. No Problem... by Pirogoeth · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...just use Google's alternate search form...

    --
    Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
    1. Re:No Problem... by akeyes · · Score: 1

      Then we would /. their snailmailbox.

  32. Re:Hrm by slthytove · · Score: 2, Funny

    I would normally use Google to figure out the answer to your question, but, uh...

  33. Listserves... by redragon · · Score: 1

    The wxWidget list serve has been hard hit, and I suspect the same is true for other listserves that also post to newsgroups or other generally accessible format (and don't diguise the email addresses).

    Pretty nasty though so far, just a lot of garbage in the in-box. I suspect that anyone with an email address up on a web-site that recieves a reasonable amount of traffic (so probably ranked reasonably well by google) will also see some mail from this approach.

    --
    - Sighuh?
  34. My one permitted tin-foil hat question for today. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OK, so if Microsoft comes out with an antivirus product, what incentive do they have to immunize Windows-based computers against worms that attack their competitors? (i.e. Google vs MSN Search).

  35. So, MyDoom can bring down Google... by GerbilSoft · · Score: 1

    ...but posting a Google story on Slashdot can't? What is this world coming to?

  36. My Doom? Oh My by Yo+Grark · · Score: 3, Funny

    All Hail My Doom.

    For doing the very thing we always failed at doing.

    OH MY GOD, YOU SLASHDOTTED GOOGLE, YOU BASTARDS!

    Yo Grark

    --
    Canadian Bred with American Buttering
    1. Re:My Doom? Oh My by polyp2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's difficult to imagine that there are more instances of MyDoom querying google than actual people. That would indicate that this thing is riddled an absurdly enormous number of windows machines.

      Nick

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    2. Re:My Doom? Oh My by bawb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The virus can do searches far faster than a human, it also doesn't get tired, bored, or scurry off to another part of the web when it's found what it's looking for.

    3. Re:My Doom? Oh My by mangu · · Score: 3, Insightful
      this thing is riddled an absurdly enormous number of windows machines.


      Or maybe just that the infected machines are generating thousands of queries each. In these days of multi-GHz CPU's and broadband, it wouldn't take as many millions of machines to /. Google.

    4. Re:My Doom? Oh My by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Its more likely all the people in the world saying:

      "omg googles gone down.....look see *clicky* i cant search for anything"

      I mentioned this effect the other day in another of my postings.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115270&cid=976 7977

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    5. Re:My Doom? Oh My by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Google isn't slashdotted. I can use it fine. It must be selective filters Google are applying.

    6. Re:My Doom? Oh My by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, Google get 200 million hits per day, that 2300 a second, spread over how may sites (30?). Doesn't take too many infections constantly making requests to overload.

    7. Re:My Doom? Oh My by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      You forgot:

      "And it will absolutely NOT STOP until you are dead!"

      (T1)

    8. Re:My Doom? Oh My by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Doesn't surprise me in the least. Perhaps the spammers and MyDoom authors are really pissed off that I hosed more then 200,000 of their infected hosts over the past month, so they are taking it out on Google.

      When is M$ going to be part of the solution instead of always being part of the problem. We just GOT to get more people into using UNIX based platforms.

    9. Re:My Doom? Oh My by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      My east coast web proxy can do google searches fine. My west coast web proxy is giving error 27's.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
  37. Google is doing fine for regular searches... by stienman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Perhaps I'm simply 'located' better, but I can do regular google searches just fine.

    But when I ask for "email slashdot.org" it returns a forbidden search page.

    So it looks like Google is primarily stopping searches that are typical of this virus, but they may also have automated filtering that stops searches which are too many from IPs and netblocks. This part is probably something they implemented long ago.

    But google is going slower for me today, and sometimes it stalls (some of the frontend machines dropping out a bit more frequently than usual?)

    -Adam

    1. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      That search works fine for me. (Mediacom in Iowa)

    2. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Interesting
      But when I ask for "email slashdot.org" it returns a forbidden search page.

      I got the "forbidden search" error as well. I'm curious what the apparently encrypted string at the bottom of the page contains? The page says to include it in any correspondence to the Head Googlers. If another person runs the search, will they get a different string? I'd think so -- it probably includes referrer-ID and IP address.

      It starts and ends with a string of "/+" characters that give the Slashdot Lameness Filter fits.
      2r0A6dsI7ZSqFcXMcZGaqVp9OyBGpRpEx8zC0r2-fDqTp9VRX
      Oa5KPnpeHBfPq5nCWFmRKN0EGLyQNyT_Jpi2w_Gph5Lmj8QTC
      I2ARob9EUpW81ypiueUArxRWXxACzVAiOlt4-1b-k4fXoLYu6
      hgf9EwNsXjUpPHOy7iTskkZaA8BvJjCPZIo70EWJtQ5FEGtIO
      ao9GoeUBxkRmSkIPqlxvhdGEkOx_YYAK2FgokfoRJtqZlutIr
      NFHKoo6EF0wTy4dfsHMPmsLbK49OLE5m_kM-FQw0q7LyFhAnj
      e4leVjmnj0cWa_PQeUJ8aO4MRUb2C2fY0_v77HgHDY9xlor-A
      Ql-39IKKfb8HbhFAhq0E4SZnnSCg04auFL9mEwFZgvxWqp5by
      lCpv5si-pNNiqJQP9su0iWzbo7yJbMVTbJz_ybYBhZH3JS457
      yYrCD6UChKOOjrQIrjl7Eg0kAUX2ccg0ltL4r_S8q_qBwJ0J_
      iHzYhTqqMvEns0j4t36BT1JflAsS9oi4woy-fMDNTDsudkOhC
      THiBBVCdmOGK9_HiQxD0Fi24U-TpBKMdTFpHb_XOAniaZ-NYe
      7zqPtGbeNdI29RoS-05tacoKoQTf35KCDmFta02ScliFdsAlL
      fdnzvKvUexgaESG1ftpW1jO9PxuTGzx1xX5pe0Gr8V4XDRSzm
      wKpdcCiYqGYB78liF3QQkWzcw-WV-yVWXHHYLyehLEtPVyGq_
      -SArq48RQPekPgDhdlf6Rm1DxHJax5O_yxWppP8jrBnxtmgW9
      r2gCjxljRXnvTtE2iASBXPiMQMJzKcBOPYHdVccEy-Y55NFhe
      AFgJ-8-2FY-m3xk8tEejD6b1nKgrRcY34XcA4Lo0uZnAJuSeE
      SZROpKsEjO8zK9h2heG8hc5T5q-ahPtD1SAjjnllE=
      Notice the text string "taco" about 2/3 of the way through the file. Coincidence?
      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    3. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SHIT NO!!!

      Here doesn't works anything. Not any search. Not any mirror. Not NOTHING..... works..

    4. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by javabsp · · Score: 1

      I don't get the same string.

    5. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by duffster · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've tried several tests and Google seems to be filtering out any query that contains the phrase "mail" and a ".", hence catching "email slashdot.org", "mailer-daemon@domain.com", "mailman frontdoor.org" etc.

    6. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like some kind of Base 64 encoding.

    7. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by kbahey · · Score: 1
      The search is geographically sensitive in the sense that searching from work gets me the 503 error, but from home (Ontario, Canada), I get good results (albeit using w3m as a browser).

      At work we are on a corporate network that makes the connection to the internet at large for tens of thousands of employees all from one IP address out of somewhere in the midwest in the USA.

    8. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by barcodez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is a base64 encoding. Running it though decode-base64 and piping it to the file utility just says it's data. Running strings on the decoded output doesn't yield anything interesting either. $ decode-base64 google.txt | file -

      --

      ----
    9. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by A.Gideon · · Score: 1

      As can I. I suspect that Google is taking an intelligent approach: Blocking IP blocks that are the sources of attacks. These would be networks infected with infected MSFT machines...and it is about time they suffer for their choices rather than forcing those costs upon the rest of us.

    10. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by ezzzD55J · · Score: 1
      it looks base64-encoded to me (because of the trailing "="). I think the 'taco' string is a total coincedence, even though the probability of it appearing in random base64 stuff of 924 characters (as this is) is very low (it would happen once in every 18000 samples, on average, according to my estimate).

      whether it's base64 encoding or not, it's obviously some type of encoding, so no 'plain' meaning should be assigned to characters in it, IMO.

    11. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by mla_anderson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's base64 encoding but using a non-standard alphabet. Standard base64 doesn't have "-" or "_" IIRC.

      --
      Sig is on vacation
    12. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by mla_anderson · · Score: 1

      It also appears to be binary data rather than base64 encoded text. From what I can tell the first six bytes of the code I get are:

      94 F2 37 A1 FC 02

      Of that only the 37 is considered to be a printable character (the number 7).

      Based on the same alphabet the first six bytes of the above are:

      0F 70 4B 1E 9E 13

      --
      Sig is on vacation
    13. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by helfen · · Score: 1

      "email slashdot.org" seems working now.
      But it's still very slow.

    14. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what are the odds of ANY 4-letter word appearing? Certainly much higher than 1/18000.

    15. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches... by m50d · · Score: 1

      The "web-safe" variant uses them in place of some other characters that certain OSes don't like, iirc.

      --
      I am trolling
  38. Relating back to an earlier Google story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will this affect Google's IPO?

  39. Browser Specific by nsingapu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Webmasterworld has an interesting thread which details the problems are user agent and locality specific (for me in SoCal IE and Firefox are borked, Konqueror is working, but others report no problem with Mozilla or no problems in certain locals).

    1. Re:Browser Specific by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1

      Here in Toronto Canada it is dead for everything - IE, Firefox, Mozilla and Konqueror. Hell I haven't tried Opera yet I better go back to my Linux box where I've got a copy and check it.

    2. Re:Browser Specific by voxra · · Score: 1

      Opera works for me (Mozilla, Firefox and IE gives error messages).

    3. Re:Browser Specific by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1

      Yes I just tried the Opera on my Linux box and it is working while Firefox isn't

    4. Re:Browser Specific by jesser · · Score: 1

      The most likely explanation is that some Google datacenters are horked and others are not. I think each browser picks a datacenter at random and sticks with that datacenter until you close the browser.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    5. Re:Browser Specific by nsingapu · · Score: 1

      All datacenters return consistant results (either the service error or not)

      By chance I was using this tool when google went down and there was no more then a ~30 sec period as the individual datacenters went to service error (ie some datacenters did not error and others did). Note that this is EXTREMELY strange - the idea of a (now defunct in favor of rolling updates) 48 hour google dance reflects just how long it takes to update across the various datacenters and machines, so either their infastructure has significantly changed or I witnessed some emergency contingency proceedure that was used for the first time. I am (very roughly) guessing what I saw amounted to the implementation of some useragent / ip based rewrite rules on a very massive scale. For working browsers the datacenters reflect (as they should) slightly inconsistant results so traffic is indeed going to the datacenters and not rerouted on the backend, but as stated above the service error is consistant with given user agents and acroos datacenters and has been for some hours now.

  40. Down in the Atlanta Area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Atlanta seems to be down as I'm getting that message and within the atlanta area. Anywhere in the US not having problems? Anywhere else having problems?

  41. Apparently by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 1

    Apparently it only throws an error when trying to search for an e-mail address (it also looks like they are using at least some degree of intelligence to determine if you are or not)

    The following queries generate the error:
    email example.com
    email@example.com

    HOWEVER, the following does *not* generate an error:
    name@example.com

    My guess is that they are filtering queries based upon what the virus searches for. Good for them!

    --
    bash: rtfm: command not found
    1. Re:Apparently by Ranger+Rick · · Score: 1

      not true, I'm getting it when I search for "kinesis ergo keyboard"

      --

      WWJD? JWRTFM!!!

    2. Re:Apparently by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 1

      Drag. I can use Google just fine, save for the strings I mention in the OP.

      --
      bash: rtfm: command not found
    3. Re:Apparently by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      i have one i'll sell ya. brand new, used twice. dvorak subscript.

  42. Not Geographic Locations by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 1

    I'm in Northern Utah.

    From work, I was getting the Google errors. (I tried refreshing to get on a different machine, but no luck.)

    I could VNC (2 blocks away) to home and search just fine though.

    Funny thing is, I got the same type error on Yahoo.com. MSN.com didn't seem to be affected.

    --
    --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    1. Re:Not Geographic Locations by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, I got the same type error on Yahoo.com.

      Yahoo is still using Google as a backend although they're going to be transitioning away from it

    2. Re:Not Geographic Locations by Darth+Beto · · Score: 1

      At least here in Mexico Yahoo is working perfectly

      --
      Free iPods, no trick, no steal, (almost) no pain:
  43. Off with their hands by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Virus writers, when caught, should have their hands cut off -- or at least a mouse finger. The world just doesn't need this kind of crap going on.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  44. not for me by jonhuang · · Score: 1

    I've been unable to access any of the google search services since before 9:30 AM this morning. (austin TX)

    1. Re:not for me by nukeindia.com · · Score: 1

      Wasn't working for me for an hour. But right now (Mon 17:30 UTC) it seems to be up again.

      A site backed by 10k to 100k servers going down due to a virus attach sounds... umm intersting.

  45. The HTML of the error, for the history books ;) by Dave21212 · · Score: 1



    Here's he HTML of the error page, for the history books ;) It's such a rare thing and many folks may have never seen it and never will...

    <html><head><title>503 Server Error</title><style><!--body {font-family: arial,sans-serif}div.nav {margin-top: 1ex}div.nav A {font-size: 10pt; font-family: arial,sans-serif}span.nav {font-size: 10pt; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-weight: bold}div.nav A,span.big {font-size: 12pt; color: #0000cc}div.nav A {font-size: 10pt; color: black}A.l:link {color: #6f6f6f}A.u:link {color: green}//--></style></head><body text=#000000 bgcolor=#ffffff><table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 width=100%><tr><td rowspan=3 width=1% nowrap><b><font face=times color=#0039b6 size=10>G</font><font face=times color=#c41200 size=10>o</font><font face=times color=#f3c518 size=10>o</font><font face=times color=#0039b6 size=10>g</font><font face=times color=#30a72f size=10>l</font><font face=times color=#c41200 size=10>e</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;</b><td>&nbsp;</td></t r><tr><td bgcolor=#3366cc><font face=arial,sans-serif color=#ffffff><b>Error</b></td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp; </td></tr></table><blockquote><H1>Serv er Error</H1>The service you requested is not available at this time.<p>Service error -27.<p></blockquote><table width=100% cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td bgcolor=#3366cc><img alt="" width=1 height=4></td></tr></table></body></html>

    --
    "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
  46. Re:Hrm by The-Bus · · Score: 1

    I was referring to the very high number of 503s that /. was giving out last week, which seemed to have gone unexplained.

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  47. Good! by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
    This has the effect of punishing people who keep insecure systems by stopping them from using google. Maybe now, some of these people will pay attention.
    You are never too poor to pay attention. -- Dan Rather, 1984, Boston University Commencement.

    1. Re:Good! by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Oh no! - you mean my Mac OS X box has been hacked?

      I think you'll find that Google isn't being that discriminating at the moment

    2. Re:Good! by christo+van+gemert · · Score: 1

      'This has the effect of punishing people who keep insecure systems by stopping them from using google. Maybe now, some of these people will pay attention.'

      And where's the first place they're gonna go look, to wisen up?
      Oh wait...

  48. A good day to be obscure by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 1

    What a great day for the first- and second-runner up search engines. At least for today, I'm running all of my queries through AllTheWeb.com. I guess being less popular proves strangely helpful at a time like this.

    --
    Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
    1. Re:A good day to be obscure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds good to me... Too bad it's so swamped that I can't even get the page to load!

  49. well. com(mercial) is bad anyways by Keruo · · Score: 4, Informative

    use mirrors instead:

    http://www.google.co.jp/
    http://www.google.fr/
    http://www.google.se/
    http://www.google.fi/
    http://www.google.ca/

    all above seem to be responsive atleast to me

    --
    There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    1. Re:well. com(mercial) is bad anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the japanese link works for me, from the UK

    2. Re:well. com(mercial) is bad anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being in Canada, I use google.ca and it is affected in the same way. I can get to the search page but I get the same error when I submit.

      The weirdes thing for me is that I get the error, the girl in the cubicle to the right of me gets the error, but the guy in the cubicle to the left of me does not get the error! We're on the same IP block behind the same firewall...

      I'm so lost and alone without it.
      *curls into shivering ball under desk*

    3. Re:well. com(mercial) is bad anyways by AngryScot · · Score: 1

      Nope, it depends on where you are from
      I guess that google have banned IP ranges from ISP's that effected or something

      --

      All spelling mistakes are due to solar flares...honest

    4. Re:well. com(mercial) is bad anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI,

      My office in Boston has been affected by the 503 Server Error issue for at least the past two hours. I submitted a "news tip" to CNET News.com an hour-and-a-half ago, and it only took them that long to respond :-)

      http://news.com.com/Visitors+can't+reach+Google+se arch/2100-1023_3-5283750.html?tag=nefd.top

      -Mike

    5. Re:well. com(mercial) is bad anyways by GammaTau · · Score: 1

      All the addresses you mentioned point at the same IP addresses so I don't think it makes any difference.

      $ for name in www.google.{com,co.jp,fr,se,fi,ca}; do host -t CNAME "$name"; done
      www.google.com CNAME www.google.akadns.net
      www.google.co.jp CNAME www.google.com
      www.google.fr CNAME www.google.com
      www.google.se CNAME www.google.akadns.net
      www.google.fi CNAME www.google.com
      www.google.ca CNAME www.google.com
    6. Re:well. com(mercial) is bad anyways by amaiman · · Score: 1

      Mirrors aren't working for me, getting the same:

      Server Error

      The service you requested is not available at this time.

      Service error -27.


      that I get on the regular Google servers.

    7. Re:well. com(mercial) is bad anyways by qwertyphobia · · Score: 1

      You'll probably find most, if not all of those resolve to the same IP.

      From where I am (UK), co.uk, fr, de, co.jp, fi and ca all resolve to 216.239.57.104, 216.239.59.104, 216.239.39.104

      google.com and .se are both 216.239.37.99, 216.239.39.99, 216.239.57.99

      Tracerouting any of these points to Palo Alto (PaloAlto.Teleglobe.net is the last hop with a name available).

      In the past when I've traced Google, they all pointed to somewhere in Germany. They appear to do global load-balancing and point all the Google domains at your local (or most efficient) host. Therefore, using google.com is probably no slower, it just doesn't have the localised UI.

  50. I'm useless now by llamashoes · · Score: 1

    ..And anyone else feel like they just don't quite trust other search engines after using Google for so long?

  51. Last weeks upgrade by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    No it wasnt a DoS, it was an upgrade.. And it was announced beforehand..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Last weeks upgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'bear arms' part. WTF does that mean exactly?

  52. Google Workaround by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Google is failing for you, you can work around the issue by using:

    http://labs.google.com/personalized

    Just don't bother with the personalization settings and you can get regular google searching from that URL and it still works. It's the labs site of course, their beta-test area for new ideas, and it seems to not be affected.

  53. Strange WHOIS result though by klagermkii · · Score: 1

    What I thought was a bit odd was that (as a poster on another thread mentioned) the WHOIS entry for google.com is strange:

    Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.SUCKS.FIND.CRACKZ.WITH.SEARCH.GULLI.COM

    That doesn't seem just like MyDoom.

    1. Re:Strange WHOIS result though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try a whois for Microsoft.

      This is a well-known feature of whois. In your case, the owner of "GULLI.COM" has an entry including the string "GOOGLE.COM", so searches for "GOOGLE.COM" return this extra entry as well.

    2. Re:Strange WHOIS result though by Roguelazer · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actaully, that's not the whois on google.com, that's the whois on google.com.sucks.find.crackz.with.search.gulli.com . Here's the full story:
      $ whois google.com

      Whois Server Version 1.3

      Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
      with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
      for detailed information.

      Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.SUCKS.FIND.CRACKZ.WITH.SEARCH.GULLI.COM
      IP Address: 80.190.192.24
      Registrar: GANDI
      Whois Server: whois.gandi.net
      Referral URL: http://www.gandi.net

      Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.HAS.LESS.FREE.PORN.IN.ITS.SEARCH.ENGINE .THAN.SECZY.COM
      IP Address: 209.187.114.130
      Registrar: INNERWISE, INC. D/B/A ITSYOURDOMAIN.COM
      Whois Server: whois.itsyourdomain.com
      Referral URL: http://www.itsyourdomain.com

      Domain Name: GOOGLE.COM
      Registrar: ALLDOMAINS.COM INC.
      Whois Server: whois.alldomains.com
      Referral URL: http://www.alldomains.com
      Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM
      Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM
      Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM
      Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM
      Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
      Updated Date: 03-oct-2002
      Creation Date: 15-sep-1997
      Expiration Date: 14-sep-2011

      >>> Last update of whois database: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:37:55 EDT <<<

      Registrant:
      Google Inc. (DOM-258879)
      2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View CA 94043 US

      Domain Name: google.com

      Registrar Name: Alldomains.com
      Registrar Whois: whois.alldomains.com
      Registrar Homepage: http://www.alldomains.com

      Administrative Contact:
      DNS Admin (NIC-1340142) Google Inc.
      2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View CA 94043 US
      dns-admin@google.com +1.6503300100 Fax- +1.6506181499
      Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
      DNS Admin (NIC-1340144) Google Inc.
      2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View CA 94043 US
      dns-admin@google.com +1.6503300100 Fax- +1.6506181499

      Created on..............: 1997-Sep-15.
      Expires on..............: 2011-Sep-14.
      Record last updated on..: 2003-Apr-07 10:42:46.

      Domain servers in listed order:

      NS3.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.36.10
      NS4.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.38.10
      NS1.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.32.10
      NS2.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.34.10
      Sorry for having to delete all the notices, but this lameness filter is very lame. It decided that lal the legal notices were "junk characters". Likewise, it's now decided that I have too few characters per line, so I need to write this little explainatory paragraph.
    3. Re:Strange WHOIS result though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try doing it through www.whois.net I don't get the same results you claimed. I get what should be there.

    4. Re:Strange WHOIS result though by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 1

      What version of whois are you using? With v. 3.2.2 I get the following:

      [erich@erich erich]$ whois google.com
      [Querying whois.internic.net]
      [Redirected to whois.alldomains.com]
      [Querying whois.alldomains.com]
      [whois.alldomains.com]
      All domains.com - The Leader in Corporate Domain Management

      For Global Domain Consolidation, Research & Intelligence,
      and Enterprise DNS, go to: www.alldomains.com/corp/

      The Data in Alldomains.com's WHOIS database is provided by Alldomains.com
      for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining information
      about or related to a domain name registration record. Alldomains.com
      does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree
      that you will use this Data only for lawful purposes and that, under no
      circumstances will you use this Data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise
      support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or
      solicitations via e-mail (spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated,
      electronic processes that apply to Alldomains.com (or its systems).
      Alldomains.com reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.
      By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.

      Registrant:
      Google Inc. (DOM-258879)
      2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View CA 94043 US

      Domain Name: google.com

      Registrar Name: Alldomains.com
      Registrar Whois: whois.alldomains.com
      Registrar Homepage: http://www.alldomains.com

      Administrative Contact:
      DNS Admin (NIC-1340142) Google Inc.
      2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View CA 94043 US
      dns-admin@google.com +1.6503300100 Fax- +1.6506181499
      Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
      DNS Admin (NIC-1340144) Google Inc.
      2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View CA 94043 US
      dns-admin@google.com +1.6503300100 Fax- +1.6506181499

      Created on..............: 1997-Sep-15.
      Expires on..............: 2011-Sep-14.
      Record last updated on..: 2003-Apr-07 10:42:46.

      Domain servers in listed order:

      NS3.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.36.10
      NS4.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.38.10
      NS1.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.32.10
      NS2.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.34.10

      Alldomains.com - The Leader in Corporate Domain Management

      For Global Domain Consolidation, Research & Intelligence,
      and Enterprise DNS, go to: www.alldomains.com/corp/

      --
      bash: rtfm: command not found
    5. Re:Strange WHOIS result though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sqa@killer:~$ whois --version
      Version 4.5.21.

      I think your using a different client pal.

    6. Re:Strange WHOIS result though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think you've got a broken whois tool... the following is from demon.net's network tools page. That or you should have put a "." at the end of your whois command (e.g. "whois google.com.").

      Registrant:
      Google Inc.
      (DOM-258879)
      2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View
      CA
      94043 US

      Domain Name: google.com

      Registrar Name: Alldomains.com
      Registrar Whois: whois.alldomains.com
      Registrar Homepage: http://www.alldomains.com

      Administrative Contact:
      DNS Admin
      (NIC-1340142)
      Google Inc.
      2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View
      CA
      94043 US
      dns-admin@google.com +1.6503300100 Fax- +1.6506181499
      Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
      DNS Admin
      (NIC-1340144)
      Google Inc.
      2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View
      CA
      94043 US
      dns-admin@google.com +1.6503300100 Fax- +1.6506181499

      Created on..............: 1997-Sep-15.
      Expires on..............: 2011-Sep-14.
      Record last updated on..: 2003-Apr-07 10:42:46.

      Domain servers in listed order:

      NS3.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.36.10
      NS4.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.38.10
      NS1.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.32.10
      NS2.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.34.10


      Nothing funky there at all. Here are the SOA and MX record information:

      google.com SOA ns1.google.com dns-admin.google.com(
      2004072500 ;serial (version)
      7200 ;refresh period
      1800 ;retry refresh this often
      1038800 ;expiration period
      60 ;minimum TTL
      )


      google.com mail is handled (pri=40) by smtp3.google.com
      google.com mail is handled (pri=40) by smtp4.google.com
      google.com mail is handled (pri=10) by smtp1.google.com
      google.com mail is handled (pri=10) by smtp2.google.com


      And some random text goes here to confuse the lameness filter: Call me Ishmael. Some years ago -- never mind how long precisely -- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off -- then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.
  54. Re:P0$t by Fizzog · · Score: 1

    If you think that an Ace is necessary for a full house, then I want to play poker with you for money!

  55. In the latest news... by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

    The worker productivity in the U.S. jumps as workers unable to search for things in Google start to do actual work. Tune in at six for the rest of the story.

    On the other news, both BSD and Apple died earlier this morning when cars driven by each collided each other on the freeway.

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  56. I propose these worms be classified as DOGs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    For Denial of Google.

  57. Why the unevenness? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

    Google is BIG. VERY VERY BIG. They have server farms all over. What's more, they have different DNS entries depending on which server you look them up from- this helps spread the load out geographically. So, someone Googling on the east coast doesn't get the same server as Google on the west coast. Therefore, though part of Google is down, the rest may yet be up.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:Why the unevenness? by scambaiter · · Score: 1

      Actually i believe they try to slow down the worm but not feeding it with new email addresses. I could search just like always, just getting the 403 when searching for "email example.com". I might be wron though.

      --
      sick of sigs... *sigh*
    2. Re:Why the unevenness? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Funny

      I tried google.fr and I saw that it had surrendered to the virus.

    3. Re:Why the unevenness? by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > Google is BIG. VERY VERY BIG.

      "You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the OC-3 to boobies.chemist.com, but that's just peanuts to Google. Listen...", and so on.

      (After a while the style settles down a bit and it begins to tell you things you really need to know, like the fact that Google has different DNS entries depending on which server you look them up from, which is only a partial solution to the bandwidth problem -- so that despite the DNS tricks, any net imbalance between the packets you send to Google and the packets Google sends back to you, must be surgically removed from your pipe: so every time you type "natalie portman hot grits" into images.google.com, it is vitally important to get a receipt.)

    4. Re:Why the unevenness? by phsdv · · Score: 1

      No it has not, i just searched googel.fr for "mydoom google" and found a link to this page....

    5. Re:Why the unevenness? by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      Absolutly classic!

      Thank you.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    6. Re:Why the unevenness? by EddWo · · Score: 1

      Thanks man,
      Just the DNA fix I needed.

      Flollops off happily to be hip with the froods.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    7. Re:Why the unevenness? by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Nope, you're right. The same thing is happening here.

      Search yahoo.com, it's ok. Search email yahoo.com, it's an error. Good job, Google :)

      --
      My other car is first.
    8. Re:Why the unevenness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Excellent post. Just absolutely great. You are one hoopy frood.

      --SNS

    9. Re:Why the unevenness? by vinlud · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah and google.us is currently invading the penguins of Antarctica for their weapons of mass searches

      --
      Repeat after me: We are all individuals
    10. Re:Why the unevenness? by Ctrl-Alt-Del · · Score: 1

      Shame we can't mod this one up any higher, it's not every day someone posts something as good as this on Slashdot...

      --
      "Life is like a sewer - what you get out of it depends on what you put into it" - Tom Lehrer
  58. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches...No! by Warpedcow · · Score: 3, Informative

    I can't do any searches, and I tried both of the ones you referred to, and they both give this error message.

    --
    moo
  59. Amazing by deacon · · Score: 1
    You know, it's pretty sad state of affairs when exploit stories get written with such a matter of fact attitude.

    Now, I don't use any Windows machine which is allowed to connect to an outside network, so I've never been personally subject to all these problems.

    But it seems that these exploits are so common that no one even gets excited about it anymore, it seems to be taken for granted. Sort of like a weather forcast: Rain Tomorrow.

    Where is the outrage? The anger at time and money wasted on dealing with these seemingly constant problems?

    Or do the IT people who deal with Windows boxes view the frequent patching, virus upgrading, cleanup, rebuilding, and whatever else, as a benefit which provides job security?

    To make one of those feeble car analogies, would you be outraged if the car you drove broke down every time an insect smacked into the windshield?

    I am just amazed at what people are putting up with.

  60. I get a different error by jonhuang · · Score: 1

    Strangely, I get a "Service error -27" on any search except froogle. (austin)

  61. Teoma.com -- Great Google Alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.teoma.com/Teoma.com is a great Google alternative. Many haven't heard of it, but it's great!

  62. The influence of Google in the world by Darth+Beto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm in Mexico and Google is still not working! It is amazing that we're so tied to Google that we forget the others search engines (in fact when I couldn't search into Google I thought "well I'll wait a couple of minutes" instead of using another search engine like Yahoo!)

    --
    Free iPods, no trick, no steal, (almost) no pain:
  63. Up in arms? by Suriel · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately there is very little we can do to retaliate when one of our favorite systems is being attacked. IMO the problem is not the viruses themselves, the problem is that we still don't have a solution to DDoS attacks. If we can solve the DDoS problem, there will be no point in writing DDoS viruses anymore.

  64. alltheweb.com is down too?? by Epyon70 · · Score: 1

    It was donwn for few mins as well... I wonder if it's related..

    1. Re:alltheweb.com is down too?? by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably not the virus directly but the extra load of google refugees.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    2. Re:alltheweb.com is down too?? by weffey · · Score: 1

      ... add Lycos to that list too.

  65. I fear for zeitgeist by ILikeRed · · Score: 5, Funny
    Talk about a boring upcoming Zietgeist...

    Top query in US:
    joejob@yahoo.com

    Top query in UK:
    joejob@yahoo.com.uk

    Browsers used to access Google:
    Internet Explorer ... 41%
    MyDoom ... 54%
    Other ... 05%

    I think they are just trying to keep Mozilla's percentage down.
    --
    I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
  66. Ummmm ... by Ssbe · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or are their other people out there frantically searching their websites for email addresses, so they can remove them. I can almost feel the spam coming. Oh no!!!!

    1. Re:Ummmm ... by bcmm · · Score: 1

      That won't work. It will take several days to disappear from google's cache.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  67. There are other search engines? by Argyle · · Score: 1

    I mean really...

    Didn't they all give up?

    --
    nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
  68. it's like the oracle of delphi going down; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    big news for our culture.

  69. depends on search string by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

    From my location, any search string containing the string 'mail' (like mailman, mailbox, email, etc) would fail. But after about 10 minutes, all was well again.

    --
    sudo eat my shorts
  70. 15 mile blackout! by robbkidd · · Score: 1

    The same for me! I can search from my co-lo'ed webserver, but not from work (~15 miles away) in VA.

    It must be a distance thing.

  71. Can't get to main page by DuckWing · · Score: 1

    All I get is

    "Server Error
    The service you requested is not available at this time.

    Service error -27."

    --
    -- DuckWing
  72. firefox is not effected by google bug by romulet · · Score: 1

    google works fine on Firefox 0.92 doesnt work on IE 3.0,4.0,5.0,5.5,6.0 or netscape 7.1 all tested. Just though you should know. Rock on firefox

    1. Re:firefox is not effected by google bug by Epyon70 · · Score: 1

      Using Firefox here right now get error -27...the problem is not with the browser.

    2. Re:firefox is not effected by google bug by foofie · · Score: 2, Funny

      People, its a server-side problem, you can have the problem running lynx on your toaster

  73. My productivity... by Junta · · Score: 4, Funny

    has gone to hell.

    My coworkers may realize I really don't know anything if I can't google up answers real soon now...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:My productivity... by boy_afraid · · Score: 0

      SO TRUE! Every time someone asks me a question I come up with an answer in 1 second. Now I'm dumbfounded! It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine!

  74. Situtation in Dallas by lou2ser · · Score: 1

    Here in Dallas, I can't search from work, but can search fine from home (VNC). I have tried several different user agents (Thanks user agent switcher in Firefox!), but no difference.

    BTW, I am in a midsized office building with over 100 users surfing the web.

    If anyone wants to see a screenshot of the error, check this blog entry from 2003. Found via yahoo.

    Blog

  75. It seems to be not google itself by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    It seems to be that google with their huge cluster from my point of the world is fast as ever (europe that is) I think personally the problems are caused by the lines of certain providers which seem to give in. Google works as fast as ever.

  76. google IPO by OglinTatas · · Score: 1

    could this be an effort to influence google's IPO, by showing that google is not an invulnerable giant?

    1. Re:google IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose it is microsoft commisioning this attack? They will have a competing search engine soon, and they already have an army of mydoom zombies out there, why not put them to good use?

  77. unrelated. by radon28 · · Score: 1

    That's been going on for at least 2 years.. I once emailed the administrative contact about it, more out of curiosity than anything. His response, 20 minutes later, was that it was somehow auto-generated and that there wasn't anything they could really do about it.

  78. Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by shrubya · · Score: 5, Funny
    I can accept ordinary computer illiteracy. People who don't know their mouse has multiple buttons, or who don't know how to quit a program, it's okay. I'm sure they're good at something else. But as long as they aren't complete intentional morons, EVEN ILLITERATES CAN BE TRAINED TO USE COMPUTERS PROPERLY.

    But here we are at MyDoom.N, which is the 14th virus in a series that requires the user to:

    1. receive an infected email
    2. read the email and believe its contents
    3. download the attachment
    4. unzip the attachment, often password protected
    5. run the resulting executable

    After ignoring 13 previous warnings, I must move from sympathy to malice. For the sake of all humanity, I beg the author(s) of the MyDoom series and other viruses, in your next version, please include the following instructions:

    1. locate a nearby table lamp with the light on
    2. remove pants
    3. break the bulb while it is glowing
    4. insert testicles into bulb socket
    If they're dumb enough to get fooled by MyDoom again, they're dumb enough to get themselves out of the gene pool.
    1. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given your user ID, surely you know the correct quote is "...fool me, you can't get fooled again".

    2. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by Maul · · Score: 4, Funny

      Insert the following (since I've seen it before many times):

      3a. User is told by their AV software that the attachment has a virus.

      3b. User disables AV software in order to open the attachment.

      --

      "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

    3. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      ... but it's so *exciting* to execute virus attachements!

      ^--- Actually, that's one of the reasons they do it according to a research I've seen. Sort of like "mmm... what happens if I lick this metal bar when it's freezing cold outside? oops, tongue stuck!" even if they knew it before.

      Really strange, and probably a documented psychological behavior. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by mangu · · Score: 1

      Well, the only mistake those people did was installing a broken OS. What if Outlook Express comes installed by default, and automagically downloads, unzips, and executes the attachment? OTOH, I'm sure those same users had no trouble to get their sound cards working...

    5. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But by that description, 4 out of 5 Iraqi peasants can't use a computer properly. ...Oh, wait. That explains the whole Abu Ghraib thing. It wasn't a war crime, it was computer literacy training.

      The funny thing is I wouldn't be surprised if the administration actually used this as an excuse. Over 90 soldiers being investigated for prison-abuse related war crimes and counting. Just a few bad apples though, really. Love your sig.

    6. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by QEDog · · Score: 1
      4. insert testicles into bulb socket

      5. ???

      6. Profit!

      --
      "There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
    7. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 4. insert testicles into bulb socket

      What about the female population, such as say, your 70 year old grandmother?

    8. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by Pragmatix · · Score: 1
      4 insert testicles into bulb socket
      NUH-UHH! I am not falling for that p3n1s enlargement scam again!
    9. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by The+Bungi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Still, it's all Microsoft's fault. It's also their fault that users are not running AV software (or simply disable it to open the exciting attachment) or a firewall (especially if they're on a 24/7 broadband connection.

      Never mind the RPC vulnerabilities or the SQL Server exploit. Nah. This is the real shit. Millions of computers being operated by people who have no clue whatsoever.

      When Leenucks actually makes it to the desktop someone will release a MyDoom equivalent that will turn thousands of boxes into spam-spewing zombies. Here Is teh info for yuo my friend!!!! teh tar file must be extract to ~/mydocuments ... Except this time it will be the user's fault, not the distro's. Or open source. Or Leenucks. Remember that LimeWire worm that was supposedly the new version of MS Office for Mac? How many clueless Mac owners fell for that? And whose fault was it? Apple? Noooo, it was the stupid users. Apparently Microsoft is saddled with intelligent users who can't help but be infected, and everyone else has retarded ones who should be shot because they opened an email attachment.

      It's uncanny. But what's actually fucking frightening that people pushing Linux et. al. actually think they can engineer this problem away. Holy crap.

    10. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by jon787 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thats why corporate anti-virus software requires a password to disable it, even temporarily.

      --
      X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
    11. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I totally agree. If the user is provided with instructions on how to execute the attachment, then they can execute it. If it's the right executable for their architecture. And it can't install itself as a service or anything like the Windows viruses, so logging out would fix it. But other than that you're dead right on.

      You seem to forget that using Linux means you are no longer married to Intel. You can run Apple hardware, SPARC workstations, whatever works best for you. And in spite of your clueless rambling, a diverse target IS less susceptible than a target running the exact same software on the exact same archtecture. Your comparison to Macs is not valid, as Macs are now married to the PowerPC architecture. Choice is good, for a lot of reasons.

    12. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by The+Bungi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And it can't install itself as a service or anything like the Windows viruses

      There are no viruses that run as services. Unless you care to show me one. They're all userspace processes. And it ultimately doesn't matter that the user is running under the equivalent of root on Windows - you can delete ~/ just as easily or turn the box into a spam zombie. What you can't do is render the box unusable, but that's not the problem here.

      You seem to forget that using Linux means you are no longer married to Intel.

      You seem to forget that if the day comes when Linux is actually a viable desktop OS that the unwashed masses can use your claim of "monoculture is teh badd" will be immediately invalidated. There is simply no chance in hell that 5 million people (to use a number) will be using a slightly different version of Mandrake or RedHat. They'll be using whatever came preinstalled with the eMachines they bought from Wal-Mart or BestBuy. There is no chance in hell 23% of them will be running a SPARC and the rest an Intel box. Or perhaps you think 5 million people will suddenly decide to just download Linux and install themselves it on their Windows partition? Or over their Solaris one? They can do that now and Linux is nowhere on the desktop, so that little theory just doesn't pan out.

      Oh, and a bash script on a tar file with the execute bit set is pretty much platform independent.

      Other than that, your clueless rambling is right on spot.

    13. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by jjholt1213 · · Score: 1

      mod parent as funny

    14. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather topically, http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/w32.mydoom.m@mm.html. See where it sets itself to run as a service when Windows starts. A userspace service, yes. I didn't say a kernel service. Rebooting Windows will not fix the problem. Rebooting the Linux box will.

      5 million people can run whatever they like. It can LOOK exactly the same. Why does a SPARC OS have to function differently than an Intel OS? No reason at all. To the user, it's exactly the same. To the OEMs and IT departments, they choose the right tool for the job. So you can have it both ways: a "Linux monoculture" as far as the unwashed masses are concerned and diversity on a technical level. Home users can't even tell if they're running XP or 95. Do you think Mandrake or SuSE will be such a noticeable difference to them. They click the "E-mail" icon. They get e-mail. They don't care about anything else.

      Bash scripts function but require other apps to do anything useful. postfix or sendmail or neither for SMTP? wget or lynx or neither for HTTP? perl? cpp? not on a home user machine, sorry. I'm afraid you are very much mistaken, and simply denying the obvious for the sake of arguing.

    15. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      See where it sets itself to run as a service when Windows starts.

      You don't know jack shit about how Windows works. But then again that doesn't surprise me.

      Home users can't even tell if they're running XP or 95. Do you think Mandrake or SuSE will be such a noticeable difference to them.

      So what you're saying is that there will be 3,000 Linux vendors in the future, each with a slightly modified version of the OS. That corporations will move away from the Intel platform. And so on. That's interesting. Stupid, but interesting. Who knows, maybe it will even happen.

      wget or lynx or neither for HTTP? perl? cpp? not on a home user machine, sorry.

      Make sure you send a memo to all 3,000 Linux vendors (and all the hardware ones) to remember to exclude wget and Perl from their distros. We don't want a debacle of this proportion to give open source a bad name, now do we.

      I'm afraid you are very much mistaken, and simply denying the obvious for the sake of arguing

      Coming from someone who lives in what appears to be an alternate reality centered around three "boxen" on a basement in Wisconsin, that must be a compliment. Try to get out more, see how the real world works. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

    16. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew this would devolve into a pissing match eventually. I'm glad I can rely on you.

      Don't know about Windows security? Oh yeah? Well, you don't know jack shit! Neener neener. The fact that I'm right must be infuriating.

      Stupid idea? Oh yeah? You're the big stupid head! There's no precedent for Linux distributors to focus on one particular hardware platform or language/localization. No, not at all. I never said 5000, dipwad. 12 or so big players worldwide would make sense though.

      Memo? Don't have to. No wget or Perl on SuSE's personal edition. Why would home users need that?

      You're living in an alternate reality where all Linux users live in basements in Wisconsin. I live in the real world, where if a piece of software does the job well, I use it. Oh yeah, and I manage 1200 machines--mostly Windows machines, for now.

    17. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the false positive rate is high enough that users learn to ignore their AV software.

    18. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      You're the big stupid head!

      Grow the fuck up, kthx.

    19. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes!
      yes!
      how do YOU think they make (y)our job worthless?
      accepting is ... well nevermind

    20. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Well, I've been using some form of AV software for 3+ years now, and have had exactly zero false positives. In fact, this is the first I've heard of the rate being high - I don't doubt that there *ar* false positives, but the idea that it might occur often enough to be a problem is a new one on me.

    21. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by burns210 · · Score: 1

      Computer users shouldn't be given admin rights to computers... atleast not corporate machines they shouldn't... On a business machien, a worker should be given the right to run exactly what software is needed, and nothing more, with the exception of complimentary applications (notepad). Besides which, ANY competant IT department should be able to filter all passworded .zips, block all MS script attachments, and scan all incoming and (please, be kind) outgoing email.

      Now home users? Well, solutions are numerous:
      1. Their ISP should grow a pair and buy server AV software, with controls (set on by default) to adjust(users may actually want passworded .zip files on occasion)... this includes spam filtering.
      2. They shouldn't be allowed to own a computer.
      3. They should only be allowed a dumb terminal that remote desktops(choose your technology) into an ISP/Univeristy's server with an extremely locked down system.
      4. They shouldn't be allowed to own a computer.
      5. The OEM's should put safe settings on by default, including turning OFF services (RPC) that shouldn't be on.
      6. The local Tech should get payed out the nose for fixing every last computer. He should then be thanked, given food, and blessed by the local clergyman for good luck in thanks for his kindness.

      See, I like 6; 2/4 make sense to me, but wouldn't pan out in the long run.

    22. Re:Fool me once ... fool me 14 times??? by nusratt · · Score: 1
  79. Jaffa say this is IMPOSSIBLE by fleener · · Score: 1
    Shol'vah! This story is a lie. Google is a God. Gods cannot succumb to worms.

    Oh wait, the worms *are* Gods.

  80. I was going to... by scaaven · · Score: 1
    I was going to google search this error -27 i keep getting... but i couldn't get google to search for me ARG.

    > $100 per share my ass

    --
    I know I'm going to be modded up on this
  81. This is not the case by TheLetterPsy · · Score: 1

    I am using Firefox 0.9.2 right now and am continuing to get 503 errors on google. I believe that this is an ISP-to-ISP issue, for whatever reason.

  82. 503/service error -27 by grey1 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm getting this every time, nothing to do with the search string:

    Server Error

    The service you requested is not available at this time.

    Service error -27

    --
    "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
    1. Re:503/service error -27 by monique · · Score: 2, Informative

      try adding "&num=0" to the search url.

      --
      -monique
  83. Doesn't Have to Be by stevemm81 · · Score: 1

    There probably aren't more infected machines than legitimate Googlers, but think how many more queries each machine is submitting than any normal person could ever type in.

  84. Typical slashdotter's reaction.. by spludge · · Score: 1

    Google is down! Quick, must post to slashdot.

    1. I'll Google search for articles about it... wait.. damn!
    2. Maybe someone on usenet has posted, I'll just sear.. damn!
    3. Crap someone else has already posted to slashdot, well at least I can post the google cach.. damn!
    4. How do you spell cache anyway? I'll just goog.. damn!
    5. Fine I'll just go image search for some pr0n.. damn!

    A small taste of life without google...

  85. Re:Let's try to figure this out by area by sup191 · · Score: 1

    Milwaukee, WI. Everything works except the web search - get a server error -27.

  86. ...yes it is by CowsAnonymous · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't believe it's a local browser issue... might've just been a coincidence, kind of like what might have had happened if I spelled coincidence correctly.

    --
    CowsAnonymous: We're here to help moo.
  87. New Terror??? by firstposter161 · · Score: 1

    503? screw that.... why not have a new error number designated specifically for MS infected systems... error 999: The operating system you are using is insecure and has been exploited... you are partially responsible for bringing this server to its knees... Now go in the corner and think about what you've done.

  88. It's is SORTA geographic... by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

    Canada seems unaffected, but much of google's service to the US *is* affected. If you work for a larger organisation then your connection is through a corporate WAN or VPN most likely. In that case, the gateway and/or proxy may be geographically distant. I did the same thing as you (almost--I SSHed to my home server and used Lynx to browse to www.google.ca and managed to see it working).

    With my employer's internet connection, however, it appears to pretty much every website that I am connecting from Ohio. I could be in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, or any branch office and websites always log me with an Ohio internet address. Even if I try to visit google.ca instead of google.com at work it still falls over right now. Glad I have the option to connect through my home server and thus have two very different points of presence on the 'net.

  89. Some official coverage... by TopherTG · · Score: 1

    CNN Money is now reporting the Google outage.

  90. I'm getting Gmail problems also by Seoulstriker · · Score: 1

    Gmail's interface is now screwing up on me. It says I have email in my inbox, but the actual inbox shows no messages. The inbox also has the same colors as the Spam box.

    Orkut is still working fantastically, though.

    --
    I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
  91. My mailserver gets attacked all day by these by TheNarrator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have a domain that I host mail for, let's call it thedomain.net. Every day 24 hours a day I get connections from thousands of different computers all sending mail to bernard@thedomain.net, ashley@thedomain.net, and any one of a hundred thousand other possible names at @thedomain.net that don't exist. These machines that connect to my machine are using the user unknown bounces to send spam to forged return addresses.

    Naturally I put in a script to watch for this, drop the mails and ban the ips but I've been running the thing for a few days and I have 5000 banned ip addresses in my ipchains firewall!!! I am beginning to think that the number of compromised windows machines out there has led to an absolute security CATASTROPHE of science fiction proportions. The machines attacking me, according to ARIN, are located all over the world.

    I'm not really that important or interesting a target, having a measily DSL line but yes I get constant connections from many different computers all over the world all day trying to use me to bounce mail.

    I really think, if people knew how huge the number of compromised windows machines there were out there, people would be embarassed to recommend Microsoft products.

    1. Re:My mailserver gets attacked all day by these by Zen+Punk · · Score: 0
      I am beginning to think that the number of compromised windows machines out there has led to an absolute security CATASTROPHE of science fiction proportions.

      Abso-friggin-lutely.

      I'm not really that important or interesting a target...I get constant connections from many different computers all over the world...

      I recently put up a small webserver for serving files from my PC through my cable modem...I have told perhaps three of my friends of it's existance. And yet, when I look at my access logs, what do I see? Page after page of various IP's trying to root me with obvious scripts/bots(all have been exploits for Microsoft servers which I do not even run.)

      ....in a f#$king handbasket, I swear....

      --
      Sleep is futile.
    2. Re:My mailserver gets attacked all day by these by devphil · · Score: 1


      I have qmail run ClamAV while still the remote host is still connected, so if a virus is detected, the mail never makes it into the regular mail delivery chain. And ClamAV's freshclam program keeps the database up to date.

      But I don't have anything in place to ipfilter the systems attacking me. (Had something at one point, long ago, but lost it.) Do you get that many repeated attempts from the same IP to make the increased filtering worth it? If you do, could you post your script somewhere?

      You might also consider having that script also add an at(1) job to remove the IP ban automatically after a few days, so you don't get a zillion stale DHCP address piling up. (Off the top of my head, that. Dunno whether that actually makes sense.)

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    3. Re:My mailserver gets attacked all day by these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you use postfix, just tell it terminate the connection after two errors. puts and end to most of this.

    4. Re:My mailserver gets attacked all day by these by burns210 · · Score: 1

      Time to append the script...

      Take the ip, do an arin query and have it return what ISP/Group has that range. Then, email the admin/support desk with a nice little note saying:

      "To Whom It May Concern,
      A machine under your control with an IP of x.x.x.x has been pounding the crap out of my mail server and I would appreciate it if you could inform your customer or employee of this. Thank you.'

      Maybe add in a link to your favorite firewall and anti-virus(AVG) software for windows. The free-est, simplest versions would be nice.

  92. orkut up by Knights+who+say+'INT · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Google-owned Orkut is okay.

    Oh, by the way, join my Orkut community "Geek Pride" :)

  93. stupid free search engine by rrlozano · · Score: 1

    be more reliable.

  94. Computers are faster by 3770 · · Score: 1

    A computer can query Google a whole lot faster than a human does on average over a day. 100 thousand times faster sounds reasonable. That shouldn't be a problem with 10 concurrent queries.

    If everyone on the planet has a computer and is a Google user. That is 6 billion users.

    The math comes out to 60 000 infected computers will create the same amount of traffic as the human userbase will.

    This is of course grossly inaccurate, but still.

    --
    The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
  95. a cache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can somebody post a google cache of google? I need to search for something... thanks.

  96. NOOOOOOOO!!!! Goodbye Cruel World... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

    Google
    Error

    Server Error
    The service you requested is not available at this time.
    Service error -27.

    --
  97. In other Mydoom news by fullmetal55 · · Score: 1

    The mydoom authors announced today that knowing id software's penchant for releasing a patch the day the game is released they will be attacking their patch servers next, on August 3rd.

  98. AltaVista = dead by Smallest · · Score: 1

    for me, anyway. the site never comes up and instead, IE pops me into a google search for www.altavista.com . hooray for IE.

    --
    I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
  99. Seppuku for Cable News Weenies. by gelfling · · Score: 1

    The entire media universe runs from the premise that some underpaid assistant can probably google up a reasonable facsimile of a piece of useful information-like attributes from Google rather quickly in order to satisfy the 200 dollar haircut in front of the camera. Should the font of knowledge fail then all the pundits must immediately take themselves to the nearest laser chamber for molecular disassembly.

    I swear sometimes Futurama is a documentary.

  100. Ask not what /. can do for you, but what you... by TheScogg · · Score: 1

    Fellow /.ers, Google has been attacked with an uncontested callousness in an attempt to rid the internet of freedom of search. In a time of great crises such as this, it is the individual which must stand up amidst the plague which has befallen us and strive to rectify the situation. Therefore, for the duration of the Google outages in certain parts of the world, I will be running a non-profit "Google via Proxy" charity. Simply email with the desired search string. In turn, I will search for the string, save the page in the standard format of the world wide interweb ("html") and email it to you. Google Via Proxy can be reached via the aptly named email address thescogg@hotmail.com. Please limit your search queries to one search term per hour. Thank you, and godspeed Americans and quaint foreigners.

  101. MSN Conspiracy by Knights+who+say+'INT · · Score: 1

    1. Sell OS
    2. ALlow OS to ddos competitor search engine
    3. ???

  102. Re:Let's try to figure this out by area by amaiman · · Score: 1

    I'm (at work) in Newark, New Jersey. Getting the -27 on everything, including all searches and Google News. Same result if I use one of the international Google mirrors.

  103. Everything2 by dacarr · · Score: 1

    Everything2 has also been suffering since about 12:30 PDT yesterday. I wonder if this is related or merely coincidence.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  104. Timing is a little too close to be coincidence by Thagg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There have been many reports recently of virus writers attempting to blackmail companies. Having this virus, an obvious DDoS attack on Google, happen the same day that Google announced the price of its IPO shares is just what you would expect if the Google didn't pay the blackmail.

    I don't know how we'll ever be able to test this hypothesis, but I think that something stinks here.

    thad

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:Timing is a little too close to be coincidence by stienman · · Score: 1

      If it was simply trying to bring google down, it would randomize the search requests so it wasn't so easy to filter searches containing "email" and a period.

      -Adam

    2. Re:Timing is a little too close to be coincidence by Stevyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nice theory. Google investors aren't necessarily tech savy people (like on slashdot). They see a problem with a company and they get worried about buying shares in them. But I still can't figure out a way to make money off this. If you were going to short the stock and then pull this off, then you could make some money. Or pull this off and go long and hope things get better.

      I think your idea of blackmail makes more sense though.

    3. Re:Timing is a little too close to be coincidence by zsau · · Score: 1

      'Hey everyone and most especially the police, we've been blackmailed? We Googled for "google blackmailer" (w/out quotes) and turned up Thagg/Thad from Hammerhead, so go off and arrest him'?

      --
      Look out!
    4. Re:Timing is a little too close to be coincidence by subsentio · · Score: 1

      Was it public knowledge that Google would be announcing its IPO price today? If not, that would mean it had to have been launched (or helped) by a Google insider. In any case, your conspiracy theory would seem more plossible if the same thing hadn't happened to a lot of the other search engines too. Most likely just some retard spammer trying to collect more email addresses by searching the web.

  105. For those that can't get Google at the moment... by gdav · · Score: 1

    The BBC do a reasonably good Google-based search (page down for the search field) which is still up and smiling at the moment.

    I can confim the IP-based blocking behaviour noted by others below. It looks like Google is trying to protect itself by failing queries from certain locations. I can't get results from my home cable, but from work (in .ac.uk) it's OK.

  106. Re:Let's try to figure this out by area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in midtown manhattan and nothing works for me.

  107. IPO by BenHall · · Score: 1

    The negative image of Google being vulnerable to attack is balanced by the realization that Google is indispensible to many people's experience of the internet.

  108. Isn't this a good thing? by zippity8 · · Score: 1

    I mean, why are people saying "Oh, look at their IPO! People will never buy it for $108 now!"

    Wouldn't this just prove how many people use google? Honestly, who out there didn't notice see the effects on google before they checked yahoo search or whatever?

  109. Conspiracy Theory ? by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft wrote the virus, and timed it to coincide with the Google IPO. As payback for googles refusal to co-operate with their new search engine proposals.

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    1. Re:Conspiracy Theory ? by Darth+Beto · · Score: 1

      Well in the topic of conspiracies... maybe Google itself allowed this blackout just to demonstrate that the e-world almost ends without it. Six hours is enough, so the service will be operational by the 16:00 CDT.

      --
      Free iPods, no trick, no steal, (almost) no pain:
    2. Re:Conspiracy Theory ? by meme_vector · · Score: 1
      No, it's the Republican vast right-wing conspiracy that did it. They are trying to distract the American people from the 9/11 Commission report, the war in Iraq, the Democratic National Convention and the economy.

      Or maybe it's Sandy Berger, Bill and Hillary Clinton, the nation media and the vast left-wing conspiracy trying to distract the American people from the 9/11 Commision report, the freeing of Iraq, the "not Hillary" Democratic National Convention, and the improving economy.

      I not sure which it is, but it must be working cause I don't give a rat's butt about any of those things...

    3. Re:Conspiracy Theory ? by Darth+Beto · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure,Google is now more than USA stuff, there should be something more global, maybe Bush will blast UN for not supporting his war.

      --
      Free iPods, no trick, no steal, (almost) no pain:
    4. Re:Conspiracy Theory ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, its the spanish equivalent of USA republicans (Aznars party) trying to o distract the Spanish people from the 3/11 Commission report (we are supposed to be investigating what happened in Madrid on 3/11/04), the war in Iraq, the Socialist National Convention and the economy...
      Where have I heard this before...;-)

    5. Re:Conspiracy Theory ? by sjf · · Score: 1

      NPR just raised this very point. Their expert countered it by noting that several other search engines were also targetted. For some reason Google has been the worst hit.

  110. Where is service Down? by LabRat007 · · Score: 1

    I'm trying to get an idea of how wide spread the outage is.

    My area is down; error recieved: "Service error -27."

    Location: Southwestern Michigan, USA

    Whats your area? Are You down? Whats Your Error?

    --
    "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
    1. Re:Where is service Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in
      Southeast Michigan
      One of the major car companies.
      We got hit pretty early, our systems are still up but slowed a bit (nothing bad) and we can not query google.

    2. Re:Where is service Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in SE Minnesota, and same error

  111. F*ing Google it by Noksagt · · Score: 1

    Now what will people reply to dumb questions with if FGI won't work?

  112. STOP IT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're all Slashdotting Google, dang it.

  113. Jeeves by GordoSlasher · · Score: 1

    Google is down and the world is in a panic. All clues indicate the butler did it. Don't believe me? Ask Jeeves.

  114. Forbidden by mini+me · · Score: 1
    Here's what I get:

    Forbidden

    Your client does not have permission to get URL /search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&c2coff=1& q=what%40mail.com&btnG=Search from this server. (Client IP address: $MY_IP)

    Please see Google's Terms of Service posted at http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html

    If you believe that you have received this response in error, please send email to forbidden@google.com. Before sending this email, however, please make sure to take a look at our Terms of Service (http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html). In your email, please send us the entire code displayed below. Please also send us any information you may know about how you are performing your Google searches-- for example, "I'm using the Opera browser on Linux to do searches from home. My Internet access is through a dial-up account I have with the FooCorp ISP." or "I'm using the Konqueror browser on Linux to search from my job at myFoo.com. My machine's IP address is 10.20.30.40, but all of myFoo's web traffic goes through some kind of proxy server whose IP address is 10.11.12.13." (If you don't know any information like this, that's OK. But this kind of information can help us track down problems, so please tell us what you can.)

    We will use all this information to diagnose the problem, and we'll hopefully have you back up and searching with Google again quickly!

    Please note that although we read all the email we receive, we are not always able to send a personal response to each and every email. So don't despair if you don't hear back from us!

    Also note that if you do not send us the entire code below, we will not be able to help you.

    Best wishes,
    The Google Team
  115. workaround found using Opera by googolplexian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All of my queries that are sent directly through google's website return "Service error -27.", however, all queries sent through the Opera web browser have no problem. Once I've succeeded in a search I cannot do anything else through google (next, cache, etc), because it does not contain a "sourceid=opera" in the query. By copying the address created by Opera, I was able to successfully search using IE. The address I used was "http://www.google.com/search?q=test&sourceid=oper a&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8", where "test" was what I was searching for.

    1. Re:workaround found using Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good find. Specifically, add these parameters to any search URL (from Google homepage) to make it work:

      &sourceid=opera&num=0

    2. Re:workaround found using Opera by lurker412 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...I just tried that in Firefox. Got a response, but it said that it didn't match any documents. Tried other search terms but no match either. Searches from the Google box in the browser are still returning Service error -27.

    3. Re:workaround found using Opera by googolplexian · · Score: 1

      For some odd reason slashdot added a space in that unlinked URL. Remove the space in "sourceid=oper a"

    4. Re:workaround found using Opera by lurker412 · · Score: 1

      Nice catch. It worked this time. Still, I think I'll just wait till Google is fixed. Mucking with URL query strings is not my cup of gin.

  116. Google runs Mac OS 9 ?? by sjf · · Score: 2, Funny

    I get a -27 error:

    Clearly Google is running on pre OS X Macs:

    -27 abortEr IO call aborted by KillIO

    -S

  117. You may be a lousy search engine if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the virus writers ignore you. search.msn.crap is working fine.

  118. MOD PARENT FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just got shushed by the computer lab manager.

  119. From Belgium by rimsky · · Score: 1

    Google appears to block Safari and Camino, but not Firefox.

  120. My PAGER? by Piquan · · Score: 1
    All I want to know is...

    How on Earth did it get my pager's email address?

  121. Virus Text by kevman42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    We've received a copy of the virus (stopped at the gateway, of course), but here's the text of it for those who are curious:

    Dear user xxxxx@domain.com, administration of domain.com would like to inform you

    Your email account has been used to send a large amount of junk e-mail during the recent week. We suspect that your computer was compromised and now runs a hidden proxy server.

    We recommend that you follow instruction in the attachment in order to keep your computer safe.

    Best regards, The domain.com team.


    The virus is then attached at the bottom of the message.

  122. www.yahoo.com searches are also busted by mrkitty · · Score: 1

    I'm in atlanta and yahoo isn't working either.

    --
    Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
  123. Dependence on Google by Audigy · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...isn't really realized until it goes down. We were researching Linear PCM formats over here when it went down.

    I got the error message... "Service Error -27" and immediately though "hm... I wonder what that is," and opened up a new browser window, absentmindedly typing in my query to the Google toolbar...

    !@#$!@#$

    I laughed for a while, scratched my head, and decided to discuss with my co-workers what the decent "second place" search engine was... Dogpile seemed to be the most common answer. No relevant results, though. Geez, Dogpile is ugly.

    --
    [an error occured while processing this directive]
  124. Some users in the UK by @madeus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some of the systems, both Windows and Linux are having this problem, while others are not, dispite being on the same subnet (on our NOC lan here in the UK).

    Go figure. Session handling switches deciding which IP's go where and some end servers of Google's being borked is my best guess.

  125. Spooky by @madeus · · Score: 1

    Spooky, Slashdot just gave me a "500 Internal Server Error" while trying to submit that the first time (and then again, with this post!)

    This is not a good sign, eep.

    1. Re:Spooky by afidel · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has been 500 and 530'ing all over itself ever since the code "upgrade" last week. I think it's mostly the DB backend blowing up (go MySQL) but it might be bad code causing the Apache/Pearl process to blow up.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  126. google shmoogle by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Seriously, I remember when I used to use Infoseek (or is it GO.com now lol) most of the time, or even the netscape search (pre google default). Then it was on to bigger and better like HotBot, or Webcrawler. Did I ever use Yahoo or AltaVista, or Excite (yeah i used that one). Magellan, remember that one?

    Oh the days of Mozilla, Navigator Gold & Mortal Kombat (the first one) - [gets teary eyed]

  127. You keep using that word.. by aziraphale · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

    i.e. is an abbreviation for the Latin id est, "that is". It's a synonym for "in other words", "that is to say", or (sort of) "specifically". It does NOT mean "for example", or "such as". For those expressions, you're looking for the Latin abbreviation e.g. - exempli gratia, which means "for example".

    Saying this virus "searches your machine for email domains, i.e. yahoo.com", you're actually saying that it "searches for email domains, in other words yahoo.com". This implies that yahoo.com is the only email domain it searches for (or that you are an idiot, and honestly believe that 'email domains' is synonymous with 'yahoo.com'), which makes it seem like a rather pointless search, to say the least.

    I.e./e.g. confusion seems to be increasingly common, which surprises me, because it doesn't seem to me that their meanings are at all similar. It seems rather like confusing the phrases 'In spite of which' and 'since Thursday'. Since Thursday, people still seem to do it.

    If you really can't remember whether you mean i.e. or e.g., then just write out 'for example' or 'in other words' in full... it doesn't take that much longer.

    1. Re:You keep using that word.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This begs the question, if I use the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly, will you blow a gasket?

    2. Re:You keep using that word.. by sugarmotor · · Score: 1

      Doesn't id est directly translate to that is, which is much simpler, more direct and shorter than in other words. So I don't think of it as meaning in other words.

      --
      http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
    3. Re:You keep using that word.. by RPoet · · Score: 1

      A friend taught me to remember which is which by thinking that "i.e." stands for "in example". This is a great way of remembering that "i.e." means "for example".

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    4. Re:You keep using that word.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either way you end up looking like a twit, so why misuse the phrase to your heart's content.

    5. Re:You keep using that word.. by catdevnull · · Score: 1

      i.e., slashdot users are horrible grammarians?

      --

      I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
    6. Re:You keep using that word.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very useful, except that "i.e." does not mean "for example", it means "that is to say" or "in other words". "e.g." means "for example". This was the whole point of the original post.

      Perhaps you could remember it like this: "e.g. sounds like 'egg' hence 'egg-sample'"?

    7. Re:You keep using that word.. by random_culchie · · Score: 0

      Oh no Ahhh! its an English language nazi!

      Save us!

      We don't care what i.e. means leave us alone!

      We don't care that we use "begs the question" incorrectly!

      Please don't taint us with your knowlege of the queens english!

    8. Re:You keep using that word.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I use a Latin derived as "mother language" and dont undestand why the hell you anglo-sajons use that abreviations, if we latins do not...

      "Hey teacher !!...Leave the kids alone!"

    9. Re:You keep using that word.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      You are *surprised* that people confuse i.e. and e.g.??? How's are people supposed to remember obscure latin abbreviation's, when they can't even learn to use apostrophe's correctly?

      Any answer's?

    10. Re:You keep using that word.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With people like you in the world, hope is diminished...

    11. Re:You keep using that word.. by b374 · · Score: 1

      What do yu have agains Internet Explorer???

    12. Re:You keep using that word.. by basso · · Score: 1

      LOL! Somebody mod that one up, please?

    13. Re:You keep using that word.. by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      It is informative in that I didn't know that but it isn't in that most people use them as synonyms. Hence, I.E.?, they are the same. What they meant in Latin is irrelevant. How people use them is important. Anytime a grammarian "complains" about incorrect usage they should first see if a large enough, perhaps a millions people, use it wrongly. If they do then wrong becomes right. If ironic originally dealt with unexpectedness but people don't know that then it really does mean unluckelyness. In a living language words can come and go within a few years even.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
    14. Re:You keep using that word.. by zsau · · Score: 1

      Or use English abbrevs like 'frex.' and 'IOW', which would probably freak out some people (*argh!!!!!* someone knows English and isn't afraid to use it! The world's going to end!), but will make you look less like an idiot because it looks like you're doing something reasonable on purpose.

      --
      Look out!
    15. Re:You keep using that word.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is informative in that I didn't know that but it isn't in that most people use them as synonyms. Hence, I.E.?, they are the same.

      The fact that most of the people you know are idiots does not make you any less of one.

    16. Re:You keep using that word.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E.g., i.e., fuck you! The point is this: When I say "jump", you say "OK", okay? ...of course, you are correct.

    17. Re:You keep using that word.. by aziraphale · · Score: 1

      Indeed, languages do evolve. This is an important, natural process, as human experience changes over time and we need new ways to express our thoughts and ideas about the world. But this has traditionally been a constructive kind of evolution - a process of creating new terms for new phenomena, or co-opting existing terms to do the job. This is all good.

      But when we conflate the meanings of two distinct, established terms and use them interchangeably where there used to be a distinction, then we actively reduce the ability of the language to help us communicate our thoughts with clarity and precision. The migration in meaning of a word like 'ironic' to be interchangeable with another such as 'unfortunate' is sad, because it means that humanity's capacity to express the concept to which it originally referred is diminished. If there is no distinction in meaning between the words 'ensure' and 'insure', then the language is poorer for it, because it has lost the ability to reliably refer to two different concepts.

      But notice I don't say that one usage is 'correct' and another 'wrong'. In language there is only 'common' usage, not 'correct' and 'incorrect'. If, as you say, millions of people use e.g. and i.e. as synonyms for 'such as', then millions of people are, indeed, by their own terms 'right'. But at the same time, those millions of people are going to have trouble communicating with the millions of us who don't agree with them. Which presents us with a problem.

      This is why people like me get upset when we see vocabulary so casually narrowed. We know that these two words mean two different things, but we also know that the fact that others are no longer aware of the distinction means that even if we use the words distinctly (note that I don't say 'correctly'), they may not be understood the way we intend, and they simply lose their distinct meaning. For example, if the world has decided that e.g. and i.e. are synonyms, then I can no longer use them at all, because some other people have been too lazy to notice the (quite clear) distinction between them, and used the wrong word. In other words, the English language just lost two shorthand ways of expressing a pair of common, useful concepts. So forgive people like me for occasionally trying to draw a line in the sand and say, "you shall not take that word." The version of the language that I speak is richer than that that you speak. I want to continue to enjoy that richness. And you're spoiling it. (not specifically 'you - slothman', a more general, rhetorical 'you - the people who do this sort of thing', by the way)

      Irony has nothing to do with unexpectedness, incidentally, and everything to do with tangential coincidences contributing often grim humour to otherwise unfortunate circumstances, but then I wouldn't expect that to be of concern to you. A sad loss to the language, this word, because an ability to perceive irony is intrinsic to being able to find humour in misfortune and loss, and while an inability to express the feeling of irony correctly with a single word doesn't preclude you from experiencing it, I tend to think that being able to categorise a set of circumstances in your brain as 'ironic' is an important part of coping with difficult times. A sense of irony can keep you sane. God knows it's the only thing we British have left...

    18. Re:You keep using that word.. by RPoet · · Score: 1

      Yes, my post was merely a thank you to my friend for the disinformation ;) I like your eggsample rule.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  128. Google commented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spokesman David Krane made a comment in an interview says probing whether virus is among causes of "malfunctions"

  129. Spain slowly losing Internet connection by mansoft · · Score: 1

    Spain's most popular DSL provider (or at least with the majority of users), Telefonica holds us behind a transparent proxy.

    Thanks to the proxy, we are being banned from a plethora of sites, including slashdot, and now google.

    If a whole country cannot access google, it is missing one of the most important services of the Internet today.

    Asking slashdot or google to remove the bans seems useless. Asking the ISP is even more painful.

    The only alternative seems to let the international community know about our problem. Since the very precise moment Telefonica stock value begins to sink, maybe they will rethink using these techniques.

    FYI, the user agreement talks about complete internet access, and nowhere states it is behind a proxy.

    Anyway, if you are interested you can get more information by using google. We can't.

    --

    Engage!

    1. Re:Spain slowly losing Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im in Spain AFAIK, and my problem is restricted to google, for now...

    2. Re:Spain slowly losing Internet connection by lurker412 · · Score: 1
      Telefonica is my ISP. I used to have problems with some of the Slashdot subdomains (yro.slashdot, science.slashdot...etc) which were banned by Slashdot for abuse, but are now accessible. Perhaps you are on a nastier subdomain than I am.

      I have never had any problem accessing Google until today, and I assume that this is just a part of a much larger problem that will be fixed shortly.

    3. Re:Spain slowly losing Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about letting them know that you want your contractually promised internet connection. Then, assuming they don't deliver, demand a refund and cancel your subscription (tell them again why). If you don't even try to solve your own problems, nobody else will either.

    4. Re:Spain slowly losing Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calla de una puta vez, estúpido comechorizo de los cojones.

    5. Re:Spain slowly losing Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me cagun cony, els feixistes sou tots iguals...

  130. No real need for a new error by zen+parse · · Score: 2, Funny

    400 Bad Request

    Bad Request. Bad! Go sit in the corner. Go on. Corner! Sit!

    ("400" errors are invalid request errors. See RFC2616)br>
    409 Conflicting Request

    An attack is a form of conflict...

    412 Precondition Failed

    There are conditions of use for Google. One says something to the effect of:

    "You can't use automated request things which make an excessive number of requests."

    A precondition of using this service is YOU ARE NOT A WORM.

    There could, however, be a new one... br>
    411 Problem exists between keyboard and chair

    Catch all for human caused errors.

    Ok... so it's not exactly accurate use for these codes, but close enough?

  131. black shirt day coming up by smittyman · · Score: 1

    Seeing and hearing it all day at work, they never learn.

    Send them warning mails from there own freaking IT department, they never learn.

    Losing all data for the zillionth time, they never learn.

    Asking me to fix there computer 'cause it's broken, They never learn.

    I am going to wear my shirt tomorow: NO, I WILL NOT FIX YOUR COMPUTER. (black, longsleave :-)

    --
    Message from god, Please logoff, rebooting the Universe
  132. I Googled You by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

    I believe that would make you THISloveable character

  133. Re:Let's try to figure this out by area by Darth+Beto · · Score: 1

    I'm in Mexico and only Google web searches is not working (images, froogle, news are fine); google.com.mx is not working in the same way.

    --
    Free iPods, no trick, no steal, (almost) no pain:
  134. How-to bypass the block by CHICK543 · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you still want to use google, but are getting blocked (like me), try using Google Personalized

    Works like a charm. (but a little bit slow)

  135. Withdrawals? by Gatton · · Score: 1
    Interesting how dependent we become on our tools. I am in tech support working at an IBM location and no one here can search Google. The page comes up but search results come back with a -27 service error and 503.

    It wouldn't be so bad if I wasn't so used to searching Google Web and Google Groups when working on a perplexing problem. I actually thought to go and do a search to see if others were reporting this problem in their blogs. Of course I caught myself only after I typed my search in my Google toolbar. Doh!

  136. Google goin' down: The beginning of the END! by ATMB · · Score: 1

    ^.^ I submitted a short article to /. thinking google was down, but I now know about this... ...It's really like Nostradamus said: The big searcher will be denied and after the big angel with the gates will come down, asking to open windows: The End will be near, with judgement and everyone will have to repent themselves.

    --
    Alì Salam Alè Palem Colà Ulim Dalam
  137. For anyone having trouble accessing Google... by aziraphale · · Score: 1

    Here's the cached version.

    1. Re:For anyone having trouble accessing Google... by bluemagoo · · Score: 1

      Still NG with the cache link from Brooklyn, NY USA

    2. Re:For anyone having trouble accessing Google... by Qutec · · Score: 0
  138. Mmm, google... by wildeep · · Score: 1

    I get the 503 error on the main page, but I can still search through http://labs.google.com/personalized. Thank god.

  139. Encrypted String by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

    The string changes every time, even for the same search. I tried email microsoft.com, same thing, but if you do the search over and over the string changes. Perhaps it is so they can tie it to unique searches.

  140. Re:For those that can't get Google at the moment.. by Tazzy531 · · Score: 1

    a9.com which is run by Amazon using google still seems to be running.

    --


    _______________________________
    "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  141. Alternative Google Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those still getting 503 responses from google, you can do your search via the "personalized search" option within google labs.

  142. I don't know how but somehow this is Microsoft's by paradox79 · · Score: 1

    I don't know how but I'm pretty sure Microsoft is responsible for this. ...or at least i'm pretty sure that's the conclusion /.ers will come to

  143. Re:TAKE ACTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Go for it. There are a little over two years to go before he's up again, which is enough time to get a website up and advertised and maybe find some other grassroots supporters in Utah.

    A website is a good starting point, so long as the interface is simple, you get your message across quickly, and provide a lot of information to back it up. Be prepared with other facts to address people who are anti-Democrat or pro-Hatch that are shifting the argument away from digital rights -- most will be unconvertable but some may have a different problem with him that they're not aware of.

    You'll be doing a favor for all of us if you do this, and probably build up meaningful connections with like-minded individuals in the process. Enough people are upset that you'd have an array of talent to choose from (more if you can break each task into tiny easy-to-complete pieces) but money will as always be a consideration.

  144. Re:Let's try to figure this out by area by bluemagoo · · Score: 1

    Howdy from Brookyn, NY USA.

    Everything but Froogle get the below error message since at least ~10:00 EDT this morning.
    -----
    Server Error
    The service you requested is not available at this time.

    Service error -27.

  145. Revenge of the SCO by gmac63 · · Score: 1

    Caught in the clutches of the Dark Lord Darl

    McBride: "Google, I am your Father. Join me in the Dark Side."

    Google: "You're NOT my Father...."

    McBride: "Search your feelings. You know I am your Father. I own your code."

    Google: "That's impossible. I CAN'T Search....";

    McBride: "Then you will Die."

    Lightning bolts. Cries for mercy. Millions of netziens unable to look up the answers to life as we know it as SCO sets forth its menions of MyDoom onto poor Google Arraywalker.

    Yoda: "A terrible feeling I have. The net crting I hear. Pain. Suffering. Unanswered, go queries. The Dark Side is upon is."

    --

    INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
  146. Google Personalized Search search still works by jesser · · Score: 1

    Google Personalized Search still works.

    Don't let "Personalized" in the name worry you; it won't personalize your results unless you go through the process of telling it your interests. The only difference I see between Google Personalized Search and normal Google Search is that the second result from a site is not indented.

    --
    The shareholder is always right.
  147. DOWN WITH GOOGLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha

  148. Recap of todays events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Google announce IPO price, giving market capitalisation up to USD 36.25bn

    1 hour later, 15 year old nerd with copy of Visual Basic brings their entire service down...

    ...to be continued...

  149. Slashdot too by Lispy · · Score: 1

    Here is what I got just a reload ago.

  150. 503 errors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a lot of errors to return for a single search. Maybe if they only gave 1 error for every search they wouldn't be so bogged down. Oh wait...

  151. Not only GOOGLE, Slashdot too! by wamatt · · Score: 1
    Well at least for me I was getting:
    503 Service Unavailable
    The service is not available. Please try again later.
    When browsing to none other than www.slashdot.org, coincidence?
    1. Re:Not only GOOGLE, Slashdot too! by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      yea, some bozo submitter at Fark.com linked to this slashdot thread...

      now if slashdot were to post a submission with a direct link to fark, it would probably break the internet from Los Angeles to Abu Dhabi.

  152. Do you hear that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the sound of the joke flying right over your head.

    1. Re:Do you hear that? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      doesnt change the fact that I'm still getting an error from google.fr :P

    2. Re:Do you hear that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      j'ai pas compris

  153. didnt read whole thread but... by Oracle · · Score: 1

    do we know which locations are affected and which aren't?

  154. Youngsters... by KZigurs · · Score: 1

    You know - there was once a time when I had to manually list trought my fidonet archives and there was no such thing as google yet.

    And then there was the great and the powerfull - the altavista. And then there was hotBot.

    Ahh. the history...

    1. Re:Youngsters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, you might be old, but you can't spell :

      throught = through
      powerfull = powerful

      --
      Your friendly slashdot grammar nazi.

    2. Re:Youngsters... by KZigurs · · Score: 1

      look at the grammar too ;P

  155. My... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Productiviy just went down about 80%

    FYI I'm a programmer

  156. IPO lowered to $5 per share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's more in the neighborhood of what this shitbag is worth.

  157. Slashdot as Well? by abcxyz · · Score: 1

    I've been getting 503 errors for Slasdot as well for the last 15 or 20 minutes. It just came back but rather sluggish. Tried it both at home and at work and saw the same problem. Google from home (bellsouth.net) works OK.

  158. not to start an argument or anything, but... by Al+Dimond · · Score: 0

    I think the vast majority of people in this topic are blaming the users.

    It's pretty easy to keep a Windows machine going without viruses.

    As far as engineering it away goes, no project can engineer away viruses. They'll always go to the weakest link in the system: dumbass users.

  159. I was going to comment on this story... by Chatmag · · Score: 1

    But I'm having problems accessing Slashdot. When I can connect, I'll post a reply.

    --
    Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
  160. Should've changed the post title... by LeiraHoward · · Score: 1

    Hmm... "Don't Panic" seems to be a good response... either that, or 42. ;-)

    Do you know where your towel is?

  161. Re:Google is doing fine for regular searches...No! by Fishstick · · Score: 1

    interesting -- I've been googling right along this morning without any apparent interruption since about 6am central. I had no idea this was going on.

    When I try to do a search with the term 'email' and something that looks like a domain, I get the 403:

    Your client does not have permission to get URL /search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=email+domain.com&btnG =Search from this server. (Client IP address: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx

    but any other search works just fine and has all morning.

    --

    There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
    Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  162. Re:Let's try to figure this out by area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Atlanta, GA here - server -27 error on web searches. image/groups works fine.

    However, it shoudl be noted that there are others here in Atlanta who can search just fine. Everyone at my company, and my friend @ IBM cannot search. Everyone else I've spoken to here in ATL can.

  163. This thread brings back memories by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I remember that old David Letterman tv joke ad that went something like Dave saying:
    "Imagine what the world would be like without television?"
    [TV static for 5 seconds then Dave comes back on]
    "Scary, wasn't it?"

    Now imagine the world without the Internet... +++NO CARRIER

    1. Re:This thread brings back memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nice thing about the internet is that I (and many of you) would know how to rebuild it to a usable state with commodity hard- and software. Depending on the geek density, most communities would be back up in no time and these networks would gradually become more interconnected to form the internet how it should be: meshed, not hierarchical.

    2. Re:This thread brings back memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are your own demise!
      i'm wondering why certain people just seems to own
      half the world you (and me?) live in ...
      including the world you are trying to make
      money/job from. soo ... money is bored.

      keyboard is the future .. admit!

  164. G-mail at high risk in years by ongeboren · · Score: 1

    When gmail will be wide-spread.. imagine a virus, digging all your 1GB e-mails to get addresses..

    This could be a real disaster..

    --
    First I wanted to be a chef. Then I wanted to be Napoleon. My ambitions have continued to grow ever since.
  165. a9 appears to be working by iridium · · Score: 1

    And it just uses Google behind the scenes.

  166. Slashdotted by yellowstuff · · Score: 1

    Can anyone post a google cache of the story?

  167. Mamma: anther metasearch engine by kbahey · · Score: 1

    Try Mamma, The Mother of all Search Engines.

  168. Gotta credit Microsoft for their ingenuity... by fzammett · · Score: 0

    Step 1. Create new MyDoom variant with some "specific" things that will "target" Google
    Step 2. Release virus
    Step 3. Watch as Google searches fall off into the bit-bucket for many users
    Step 4. Watch IPO tank
    Step 5. Release your own search engine that doesn't suck but is certainly no Google
    Step 6. Exclaim proudly: "See, we TOLD you Linux was no good! Not even Google, probably the biggest Linux success story ever, could keep it running!"
    Step 7. Garned even MORE hate from all of humanity

    (As a nice side-effect: "Watch as Slasdot slows to a crawl for a couple of hours as every geek on the planet tries to find out what happened to their beloved Google")

    --
    If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
  169. Indeed! (Re:Ah hah) by DeVilla · · Score: 1
    AllTheWeb and Teoma are good alternatives, as far I remember, and do some things in a smarter way than Google. MSN search is supposed to be improved in a beta URL (there was an history here about it some weeks ago)

    So, a virus on an MS's os is attaching MS's main competition in their new battle field, the search engine. Just as MS is claiming they've improved they enginee and just as the competitor under attach is in the process of an IPO. I think that would get us all thinking harder about getting a tinfoil beanie. Of course, that will be your downfall since THEY will know what you're thinking.

    HA! You fools!

  170. Feeling Lucky Works by benw1979 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Works fine for me... just search for "Google Server Error" and click "I'm Feeling Lucky" =)

    1. Re:Feeling Lucky Works by Kredal · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, you would get them. Although I don't know if it would be informative, or funny. (:

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  171. Not so funny by twitter · · Score: 1
    That's the way a lot of M$ users are going to be thinking of email. Thanks to the billion dollar FUD machine in Redmond, few users are thinking about alternate software and are likely to give up on email. I'd noticed the web was a little slow, now I'm pissed at those morons at M$ for making it possible, AGAIN.

    Yeah, I've already gotten one of these messages from GEmail, claiming I'm a Penske user. Spam bombardment is also up dramatically. I'm sure I'll get plenty more. This kind of robot generated crap flood is just not funny.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Not so funny by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      now I'm pissed at those morons at M$ for making it possible, AGAIN

      How do you figure opening an email attachment in a badly-written email that requires a password to unpack and then actually executing it is Microsoft's (or "M$") fault again?

      There have been 14 variants of this worm, and all of them require significant user intervention to infect the machine. So enlighten us. How would you have handled this in your hypothetical email client that engineers user stupidity away. I'll even let you pick the OS you'll be running it on so you don't have to be saddled by the deficiencies of "Windoze".

    2. Re:Not so funny by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      If it happens on a Microsoft system, even if it would work just as well on any other system because the entire problem is that the user has the overall cognitive capability of a shriveled prune (as is the case here), it's Microsoft's fault. Microsoft filled the world with idiots, after all. Everyone was above average intelligence before them. See? SEE how evil Microsoft is? BEFORE THEM EVERYONE WAS ABOVE THE AVERAGE!

      I'll make sure you get another copy of that memo.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    3. Re:Not so funny by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      I'll make sure you get another copy of that memo.

      Yeah, thanks. I've must have missed it =)

  172. News is down too. Now it's up! by wift · · Score: 1

    In NJ, US

    News goes right to the error as did the search, but as I was done typing this comment it started working again and fast I might ad. Right before the IPO too... hmmm.

    --
    ....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
  173. Re:Let's try to figure this out by area - back !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in Detroit, MI. All but Froogle giving a -27...
    Wait it's back

  174. Channel9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    channel9.msdn.com also downed. Is it related

  175. Its working now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It works now in spain.

    1. Re:Its working now by Darth+Beto · · Score: 1

      I can confirm that Google is working at full power in Mexico

      --
      Free iPods, no trick, no steal, (almost) no pain:
  176. Symantec just upgraded it to a category 4... by Bubba · · Score: 0

    Apparently everyone's email box is filling up quicker than they did during the nimda outbreak. One of the best suggestions is to block all compressed attachments that do not meet a specific naming convention (like PXF_file.zip). We started doing this recently and it takes care of all 0-day attachment virii... unless they happen to use our naming scheme..

  177. Re: Email stopped? and slmail.cpl by markwelch · · Score: 1

    For reasons I can't comprehend, there appears to be a total stop on all my email. My own mail server is receiving nothing -- strange, since normally I get about 50 spam emails per hour. Likewise, email is not coming into my yahoo mailbox, nor my ISP mailbox. I triggered some third party sites to send email to various accounts, and it does not come in, to any of my three different email servers (of course, my own mail server and my ISP's are just a couple hops apart, and mail.yahoo.com is notoriously slow at times, so I dunno what's up). Is anyone else seeing a "total stop" in internet email activity? I was worried that this was a virus on my mail server, so I ran a different virus check -- and it reports a "possible" infection of the file slmail.cpl. And of course, Google blocks my attempts to search for references to that file name, although when I search for "slmail cpl" I was able to find a reference to a "hack" for SLmail. I've uninstalled and re-installed SLmail but the same alert comes up, which makes me think it may be a false alarm, but of course I can't tell, and the slmail.com web site is not responding. (I chose to use SLmail because it's not often targetted by virus and trojan writers -- was I wrong?) Any advice on the slmail.cpl issue would certainly be appreciated.

    --
    -- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
  178. Latest MyDoom Variant Gives SANS.ORG problems! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like the latest MyDoom worm variant has caused a bit of an Internet storm.
    The server for http://isc.sans.org/ is no longer accessable, due to this.

  179. Ah but it told me it was safe.... by hughk · · Score: 1

    Isn't there some variant that even warns you to disable AV protection because it will raise a 'false' alarm? Sometimes they even masquerade as a message from support@mycompany.com so the (l)user even thinks they are being helpful.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  180. mailinator by gimpboy · · Score: 1

    i got this when i simply searched for 'mailinator', but it doenst seem to be giving the error any longer.

    --
    -- john
  181. Ass end of the world by mbottrell · · Score: 1

    Thank god I live in the ass-end of the world (Australia) and we're still Googling away.. (google.com.au)

    Seems we're forgotten by viruses DoS as well. :)

  182. EXACT 6 months later ... by mytho · · Score: 1

    The first mydoom.A striked the Web on 26 JAN... guess what?? Today is 26 JULY wow, it has a huge impact..

  183. The reason MS doesn't patch security holes by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    The reason MS doesn't patch security holes is because they can launch DDOS attacks on competitors that refuse to be bought out, like Google...

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  184. is this related to.... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ... this past weeks osma bin ladin and the governator viruses?

  185. Thanks! by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 1

    Not speaking/writing English natively, together with most of the world confusing those two as you point out, I've never *exactly* figured out what those two really meant. I better make a note of this somewhere...

    1. Re:Thanks! by starling · · Score: 1

      Well, being as "e.g" and "i.e" are both Latin abbreviations knowledge of English is hardly a prerequisite for understanding them...

      E.g. = for example
      I.e. = that is

  186. take out the responsible party, please. by twitter · · Score: 1
    Admin, heal thyself. It would be much easier to fix your software than your users. How many years do you have to wait before your realize that M$ is not going to fix it's problems? Pull your head out of Bill Gates' little propaganda bubble, please, and breath the free air.

    Witness the marvel of the Windoze desktop. First, there's the plethora of technical BS admins try to cram into their user's heads via ... popup messages that must be clicked "OK" for the user to do even simple tasks. The average corporate user also suffers a veritable flood of "communist propaganda" to their inboxes, which must be read for fear of missing something important, much of it attachments. The company and M$ has trained them to click without reading, so you are surprised how? Then there's double extensions, extension hiding and all the dozens of "executable" extensions to keep up with! Even users with a clue have a hard time. Between that environment and the stupid way Outlook runs as root and can write to system folders, you get MyDoom internet storms. You don't have to be an idiot to get viruses on Windoze, you have to be a fucking genius to avoid them.

    Fsecure is still up and has a reasonable description of how this M$ carried dissease gets around. It's a little dated and for this one menace there dozens of versions that have gone full auto by taking advantage of other holes, like download.ject did. Oh well.

    The real idiots are administrators who still recommend the same platform for their place of work that's caused them all of these problems. How many times are YOU going to be fooled? It's not convincing your users.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:take out the responsible party, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What yo are advocating is that people not be allowed to install or run software other than what comes preinstalled on a machine period. (Note that in a managed Windows environment this can easily be done).

      But fo r the average home user, you are advocating the complete end to the computing era as we know it. No software and no hardware other than what came with or comes from a single manufacturer. NO THANK YOU!

  187. Another blocked search by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    I just tried searching for "site:ii.com mailsnare", and got alternating forbidden and "server error" results.

    "site:gov mailsnare" works fine. Go figure.

  188. I saw this! by slasher999 · · Score: 1

    If I searched on the word "mail" or anything with the word "mail" in it, I got a "Forbidden" error from Google telling me I was unauthorized to see the results. I sent in two reports of it to Google - hope they don't mind!

  189. MyDoom a Microsoft problem? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    Why is MyDoom a Microsoft problem?

    I mean, I'm more than happy to blame Microsoft when Microsoft screws up, but I can't see how there was any technical error that Microsoft made that resulted in MyDoom where the Linux world does better.

  190. Re:My one permitted tin-foil hat question for toda by DA-MAN · · Score: 1

    OK, so if Microsoft comes out with an antivirus product, what incentive do they have to immunize Windows-based computers against worms that attack their competitors? (i.e. Google vs MSN Search).

    Because MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN and the Department of Homeland Security are always spouting about Internet Explorer and security exploits. Not having an active approach against those would be suicide for Microsoft.

    I doubt a great many large organizations or governments (IE Customers) would appreciate Microsoft altogether ignoring major explotis and viruses because they affect the competition.

    I know this for a fact, and already our site is mostly Linux (my hostname ends with .gov).

    --
    Can I get an eye poke?
    Dog House Forum
  191. Google can probably take this in stride by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google has a lot of computer scientists and techies, and all they need to do is write a quick regex to match these "banned" searches, slap a 72-hour ban on any IP that's the source of more than, say, 1000 "banned" searches in a day, reply with a static page that says "SOL, your request came from an infected computer, contact your sysadmin" and then start looking for a more fundamental and elegant solution for a long-term fix.

    They'll have this patched over in less than 24 hours, for certain.

    1. Re:Google can probably take this in stride by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Nice solution but would suck for those infected. First thing i do when somethign acts up on my system or i suspect somethign is hit google to see what everyone else thinks about it. Getting this error message would definatly need somethign about how to remove the infection or a link to someplace. unfortunatly, it would also Stop us from searching anythign about how bad the damage was too.

      I guess it sucks when google is so good at what it does, it is probably the only place i know i can find real answers.

    2. Re:Google can probably take this in stride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, now that google is soon to be worth $36 billion, they should sue Microsoft for making a vulnerable operating system which when exploited f**ked their search engine.

      Heck, if you really want to go all out, claim it was a conspiracy because MS is pushing their new search engine now.

      However you go about it, google is _the_ company to sue Microsoft for an insecure operating system.

    3. Re:Google can probably take this in stride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like he'd be any better running unpatched versions of Linux.

      Listen, it's very simple. If:

      1) The person auto-runs an executable that was _emailed_ to them
      2) The person is not running up-to-date antivirus software

      Then switching OSes is not going to fix the problem. They'll just get a whole different plethora of badness - because they're exploiting the user's ignorance, not his platform.

      It's one thing if a virus exploits a buffer overrun in IIS on port 80. Can't do anything except NOT run IIS to avoid that stuff. But email worms that require the user to run the executable (or, better yet, an ENCRYPTED zip that contains the executable, which they must extract, with password, in order to run the executable), no platform is going to save them from their ignorance.

      I wish my taunting of the individuals who launched "ILoveYou" had resulted in some effect (in fairness, the taunts were after long streams of knowledge that they glazed over on - like don't run executables that are emailed to you. Hence the "Oooo! Look! Someone loves me!" taunt). However, they're still doing the same stupid things...

    4. Re:Google can probably take this in stride by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Thats easy for me and you to say but the reality is that hundreds of people don't know of any alternatives. Thier computers came preinstaled when some stoner surfer dude sayed dude your getting a dell.

      I spend quite a bit of time helping out others that run into problems like this. Thier comprehension past turning the computer on and off, maybe running thier favorite program or surfing the web and checking email is usually somethign that simply amazes me. I seen one guy who constantly told me his drives were bad because he couldn't browse the D: drive (with no cd in it). I'm not sure what alternative would be close to working for him.

      The truth is that some people really have no right using a computer but do because we are free to do so. These same people are the ones opening email attachments from people they don't know or because some guuy in nigeria (insert popular stugling country here) is going to pay them tons of cash to funnel money out of thier corupt governments bank accounts. These are probably the same type of people that would answer a chain letter or fall prey to some other scam. The point is they either don't care or can't be bothered by learning something to be secure in thier computing enviroment. chances are they won't even be able to use another kind of operating system so "stop using windows" is the same as stop using computers. I don't think it will happen

  192. Sure thing, fungi. by twitter · · Score: 1
    You don't have to be an idiot to get viruses on Windoze, you have to be a fucking genius to avoid them.

    Here's a post with a little thought in it. It's not the user, it's M$'s crappy software. The long and complicated steps you talk about are not found in fsecure's description, so I have no idea what user intervention you are talking about. I'm also used to the variants boing full auto more than I'm used to them depending on some poor hapless user pulling ROT13.

    So enlighten us. How would you have handled this in your hypothetical email client that engineers user stupidity away. I'll even let you pick the OS you'll be running it on so you don't have to be saddled by the deficiencies of "Windoze".

    Users trained to click things all day are not stupid, their software is. Kmail on any OS only hands files to clients for viewing. The long chain of exploits are missing there and you don't know what client my users have for a given file type. Files are never saved with executable permission turned on. There is no system wide registry for you to hide in. The list of dumb stuff M$ did to make this possible goes on. The most important thing is that my users are not conditioned to click things without reading them. Free software users don't see many "I submit" buttons and stupid workarounds to Windoze's core inability to easily share work.

    Hows that for a ray of sunshine? You need to get out more.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Sure thing, fungi. by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Here's a post with a little thought in it.

      That's not "thought", it's just another one of your pointless adolescent ramblings. The same as the last time I ran into you.

      The long and complicated steps you talk about are not found in fsecure's description, so I have no idea what user intervention you are talking about

      Your link points to what is (I think) the original version, which arrives as an EXE, I believe. Other variants arrive as a password-protected ZIP file with an executable inside. Regardless, the EXE will not just run itself. Hopefully this will clear things up a bit for you, because you sure as heck don't know what you're talking about. I'm surprised you can even work up the nerve to shower us with your insightful prose given you don't know squat.

      Kmail on any OS only hands files to clients for viewing

      Last I looked (and I use Evolution really) KMail lets me save attached files just fine, regardless of what they contain. And then I can open them by double-clicking on them in Nautilus. Maybe you're mistaken twitter - this is not an automatic "the executable runs when I read the message" deal. But maybe you missed that.

      The long chain of exploits are missing there

      No, you just haven't found them yet.

      Files are never saved with executable permission turned on.

      Really? Wow, I could have sworn opening a tar file with FileRoller and extracting something inside preserves the execute bit. You must be special!

      There is no system wide registry for you to hide in.

      No, just a jumbled mess of little files under amazingly obscure paths that only an elite few know how to find and edit without borking their machines.

      The most important thing is that my users are not conditioned to click things without reading them.

      That's too damn funny. So let's see - you're going to educate all "your users". All the millions that will switch to free software to run from evil "M$". You'll educate - nay, condition them - to always read a message before clicking OK? You? Well let me know when you're done, k?

      Windoze's core inability to easily share work.

      "Share work"?

      Now, discounting your attempt at controlling the minds of "your users" and using a mail client that doesn't let me open my attachments, you were about to tell us how your stupid-proof mail client works. Still waiting.

    2. Re:Sure thing, fungi. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Last I looked (and I use Evolution really) KMail lets me save attached files just fine, regardless of what they contain. And then I can open them by double-clicking on them in Nautilus. Maybe you're mistaken twitter - this is not an automatic "the executable runs when I read the message" deal. But maybe you missed that.

      Attachments that are saved from a unix e-mail client are saved with the execute permission bit turned on by default, unless the user went out of his way to set his umask differently than the default. Therefore executable content requires an additional step (and some degree of understanding of the OS) to run - a step that is NOT required for a file which is just data for an application to read (and therefore does not need its execute bit set on). Save a PDF file from kmail and then it's double-clickable but what you are actually running is acrobat reader, and the filename is just passed as a parameter for acrobat reader to open. Save an ELF exceutable and double-click on it and you get permission denied errors until you change the permissions on the file.

      This distinction between "I am using some application to view this file" and "This file is an executable program" is a distinction that is hidden (deliberately, becuase they think it makes things easier) from the user in Windows. And this lack of differentiation is precisely the cause of so many e-mail trojans (you're right that they are not viruses) in Windows. Even the terminology supports this - people say "To prevent viruses, don't open attachments that you don't know what they are." - Notice that it doesn't say "don't run" - it says "don't open". In reality, opening attachments is quite a bit safer than running them - but in Windows that distinction was deliberately removed from the user's experience - so now you've got people just as afraid of opening a PDF as they are of opening an EXE. The fact that Windows' use of filename extensions is rather weird just makes the problem worse (naming files with two extensions like "blah.exe.pdf" is a way to trick the user into thinking it's a different kind of file than it is - because some tools read the extension one way and some read it the other way - so it looks like a PDF to some tools and looks like an EXE to others.)

      This sloppy design is not the fault of dumb end-users.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    3. Re:Sure thing, fungi. by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Making email clients block executables is not problematic - Outlook and it's crippled little brother Outlook Express already do that by default. That will prevent you from simply running them (vs. as you say "opening").

      Worm writers figured this out long ago, and now you get a ZIP file, which, again, is sometimes password protected. Would you write an email client that blocks ZIP and TAR.GZ files? Or look inside them and block if the're an executable inside? Of course not. Yet people get infected by these all the time. I simply cannot see how you would get around a user that is determined enough to open "SecretDocuments.zip" and run the executable or script inside. I don't care what OS you're using.

      The distinction between a document and an executable in Windows is a good idea turned bad, as is the fact that extensions are hidden by default. Applications don't have a problem seeing the extension; it's just a display setting. So yes, "document.doc.exe" looks to the user like a Word document. Still, the point is that people should not have to be aware of that distinction. Theory vs. practice. Now we get into ease of use and "OOB experience" vs. something that needs to be fought to the death to work as expected. I sure as heck don't have a solution to these problems because I don't write and sell operating systems. Or give them away. Still, people deride Microsoft's design choices as if they were made on whims - they made a call in the name of usability and now they're paying for it. Tough shit. Good intentions, bad results. It doesn't mean it won't happen to another OS, especially when you start feeling the pressure to make it easier to use.

    4. Re:Sure thing, fungi. by mangu · · Score: 1
      just a jumbled mess of little files under amazingly obscure paths that only an elite few know how to find


      I'll tell you something: they are in /etc. Welcome to the elite few!

    5. Re:Sure thing, fungi. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Making email clients block executables is not problematic

      It is when the mail program doesn't make use of permission bits (because the mail program was written to run on a mix of Windows versions, some of which don't even have execute permission bits). Outlook blocks based on filetype guessing, meaning it can be fooled by mucking with the extensions using the double-extension trick.

      The problem of making stupid users extract an archive and run what's inside it would still be a problem either way, though. On that you are correct.


      The distinction between a document and an executable in Windows is a good idea turned bad,

      The problem is the exact opposite - the LACK of a distinction between them in Windows. And, No - they are not good ideas turned bad. They are bad ideas that stayed bad. Nothing about them was ever a good idea in the first place.


      they made a call in the name of usability and now they're paying for it.

      No. They made a call in the name of ignorantability. There is a difference between easy to use and easy to learn. What Microsoft did was push for ease of learning being more important than ease of use - saving a few extra minutes of learning up-front but creating a usability problem later on by doing so.

      And, no they aren't paying for it - their users are.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    6. Re:Sure thing, fungi. by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Outlook blocks based on filetype guessing

      No, it does not. It follows the user's display preferences. If you turn off extension display then Outlook will show them to you.

      The problem is the exact opposite - the LACK of a distinction between them in Windows. [...] Nothing about them was ever a good idea in the first place.

      Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Most inexperienced Windows users benefited from this 'feature', regardless of whether you and everyone else who knows how a computer works thinks thats the case or not. OTOH, of course in retrospect it was probably a bad idea from a security standpoint, though one could argue that perhaps the mail client(s) should have been made safer to begin with regardless of a shell setting. This is the same as the Office paperclip mascot - a good idea that the technical community dismissed as stupid but many users found helpful. Normal users don't think in terms of "OMFG how many lines of code did M$ put into this stupid cartoon, they should have fixed mail merge instead LOLOLOL!!!!!"

      What Microsoft did was push for ease of learning being more important than ease of use

      That's dumb. Anything is easy to use once you've climbed the learning curve. People use Emacs every day, right? Microsoft simply flattened the learning curve, that's all.

      And, no they aren't paying for it - their users are.

      Actually we all are; I get about 50 worm emails per day, every day.

    7. Re:Sure thing, fungi. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      No, it does not. It follows the user's display preferences.

      You have *got* to be kidding, or misunderstanding what I said. If it really works like this then that is even dumber than I thought. Are you trying to tell me that whether it blocks execution of executables depends on whether the user wanted to see file extensions, and not on what the filename really is behind the scenes? That's *really* brain damaged if that's how it works.


      Normal users don't think in terms of "OMFG how many lines of code did M$ put into this stupid cartoon, they should have fixed mail merge instead LOLOLOL!!!!!"

      You're implication that this is the kind of complaint the technical community has, then you are mistaken. It's annoying not because of code bloat (if that was the concern there are bigger examples of that in Word) - it's annoying because it's annoying. Plain and simple - just like popups on web pages - it's annoying to have a window pop up and start demanding your attention and get in your way when you're trying to do something else entirely. And yes, normal users hate this too.


      That's dumb. Anything is easy to use once you've climbed the learning curve.


      False. "Carry these 12 bags of groceries home from the store, by walking back and forth to the store several times" is a very easy task to learn, in comparasin to "Carry these 12 bags of groceries home from the store by driving them in this car."

      "Till this field using this garden trowel" is a very easy task to learn in comparasin to "till this field using this complex piece of equipment from John Deere."

      "Type this essay by hunting and pecking at the keyboard" is very easy to learn in comparasin to "Type this essay by learning to touch-type first", but it is a much harder technique to use.

      Just three examples of the difference between "easy to learn" and "easy to use".

      And your Emacs example is a good one - extremely hard to learn, but easy to use once you do so.

      Things that are hard to learn are usually hard to learn because you are preloading the difficulties inherent in the task into a do-once thing that you do up front, in exchange for not having to do them later.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    8. Re:Sure thing, fungi. by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      If it really works like this then that is even dumber than I thought.

      No, sorry. I wasn't clear enough. If you have extensions turned off it will show you "info.doc.exe" as "info.doc" but it will still block it if it's set up to to that.

      And yes, normal users hate this too.

      No in my experience, they don't. They like it. Now I personally couldn't care less for the things, but I don't need them in any way. Of course I can't generalize that; it's only my personal experience.

      Things that are hard to learn are usually hard to learn because you are preloading the difficulties inherent in the task into a do-once thing that you do up front, in exchange for not having to do them later.

      Well, yes. And that's why people like Windows. Are you saying that's actually bad?? I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not - for an average user it's significantly more difficult to scan a picture in Windows 2000 than in XP, because the former does not have a wizard that does that. That doesn't mean you cannot do it; it's just more "complicated". There are hundreds of examples of that in Windows. Find and install a printer, use your digital camera, set up a domain, create a dial-up connection, etc. In many ways this is what Microsoft uses as an example of why an extra $49 bucks on a new box is nothing compared to what you get, as opposed to Linux. I tend to agree.

      But to get back to topic, yes, when you turn off extensions and do things like that you're sacrificing security for ease of use and expanding your attack surfaces. Again, good enough idea and intentions, bad results.

    9. Re:Sure thing, fungi. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Things that are hard to learn are usually hard to learn because you are preloading the difficulties inherent in the task into a do-once thing that you do up front, in exchange for not having to do them later.

      Well, yes. And that's why people like Windows. Are you saying that's actually bad?? I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not


      I'm not. You appear to be operating under the false impression that "hard to learn but easy to use" describes the Windows philosophy. It doesn't. I was talking about the unix way things are done. A commandline is hard to learn, but easy to use. Emacs or Vi are harder to learn than Windows editors, but far easier to use for complex tasks.

      Using Windows, to me, always feels like trying to plow a field with a garden trowel - yeah, it's easier to learn, and everybody understands the interface and how to use it, but it's still painful to use that when you know that taking the time to learn to drive some John Deere monstrosity is the better way in the long run.

      The Windows design philosophy is "since most people only use a program a little bit from time to time, you can sell more stuff to more people by making it easy to learn and not caring if it is harder to use that way."
      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    10. Re:Sure thing, fungi. by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      The Windows design philosophy is "since most people only use a program a little bit from time to time, you can sell more stuff to more people by making it easy to learn and not caring if it is harder to use that way."

      I do a lot of things with Windows; it occasionally gets in my way but then Linux does as well.

      Surely you don't suggest that "the Unix way" is the One True Way to use a computer. Microsoft has given consumers what they want using the design philosophy you mention, and it has largely worked for them and everyone else.

      Windows is not Unix, it's not a "hackers" or hobbyist OS. Nor is it a server OS turned into a desktop environment in spite of itself. It's just different. That doesn't necessarily mean it is better or worse.

    11. Re:Sure thing, fungi. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Microsoft has given consumers what they want

      No. Consumers have gotten Microsoft as baggage along with what they wanted, which was the (accidentally) open and cheap archetecture of IBM PC-compatable computers. The OS was not the main selling point back when Microsoft got themselves established into their unassaible position.


      It's just different. That doesn't necessarily mean it is better or worse.

      In theory, yes. In practice, no - because Microsoft's goal is the elimination of everyone else, that puts people who want something else into a postion where they *must* be anti-Microsoft. Microsoft started it.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  193. It's not a virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google simply can't do a search for something with a period in it. It's because of the way that internet addresses work. Notice the URL in your address bar when you search for "slashdot.org" in Google. If you search for just plain old "slashdot" there are no problems.

    If you ask me, this is more like a fail-safe in Google so that the virus won't use Google to harm you. Because this variant of MyDoom uses search engines to hurt other people by searching for e-mail domains like "@yahoo.com" to find e-mails.

    Oh, and to keep this variant of MyDoom from screwing with your computer, you could always NOT use your computer's address book and try writing stuff down on paper, or putting it into NotePad instead.

    Don't believe everything you read online. Google still works fine. I've run all sorts of searches, and they all worked. You people are all too paranoid.

  194. some details from sans.org by dangerburger · · Score: 0

    Latest MyDoom search engine use (initial analysis. more details, and eventual corrections, will be posted as they become available) The latest version of MyDoom, which started arriving in peoples mail boxes in force today, uses search eninges to find more recipients for its message. Once the virus is started, it searched the users files for domain names. Once it spotted a domain name (e.g. '@example.com', or in 'www.example.com'), it will search various search engines for valid e-mail addresses within these domains. These search engines include Lycos, Google, Altavista, Yahoo and possibly others. Some of the search strings used: http://search.lycos.com/default.asp?lpv=1&loc=sear chhp&tab=web&query=%s &nbq=%d http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=%s&kgs=0&kl s=0 &n=%d http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%s&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp -tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab= &num=%d http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=%s Google and Lycos appear to have problems responding to queries as a result. Antivirus vendors are currently publishing updated signature files. Please update ASAP. Infected machines can be identified by looking for excessive traffic to search engines and smtp traffic. The virus is UPX packed, after unpacking, the following strings are evident: (a) Strings that suggest that the virus attempts to decode obfuscated e-mail addresses .dot. _dot_ (dot) at _at_ (at) .at. (b) Mail headers for outbound mail X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="%s" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Subject: %s To: %s From: %s (c) Strings that are appreantly used to avoid certain e-mail addresses: mailer-d spam abuse master sample accoun privacycertific bugs listserv submit ntivi support admin page the.bat gold-certs feste help soft site rating your someone anyone nothing nobody noone info winrar winzip rarsoft sf.net sourceforge ripe. arin. google gnu. gmail seclist secur bar. foo.com trend update uslis domain example sophos yahoo spersk panda hotmail msn. msdn. microsoft sarc. syma Anti Virus Vendor Links: http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/defau lt5.asp?VName=WORM_MYDOOM.M http://us.mcafee.com/virusInfo/default.asp?id=desc ription&virus_k=127033 http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32mydoom o.html http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/w32.mydoom.m@mm.html http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/mydoom_m.shtml http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/virus .aspx?id=39711 http://www.pandasoftware.com/virus_info/encycloped ia/overview.aspx?IdVirus=49861&sind=0 http://www.viruslist.com/eng/alert.html?id=1927068 http://www.grisoft.com/virbase/virbase.php?lng=us& type=web&action=view&qvirus=086fda5c5c9e70 00

    --
    Non-System foot or foot error. remove from mouth and strike any key when ready
  195. who profits? by spoonyfork · · Score: 1
    Google announces pricing details of IPO this morning.
    http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/26/technology/google/ index.htm

    Fake DNS registration for google.com by gandi.net.
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115798&cid=980 3037

    Email worm Mydoom.o breaks out infecting Windows boxes across the planet. Part of the payload are searches against Google, Lycos, Yahoo, and Altavista (but not Microsoft) for email addresses from an infected domain.
    http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_127033.htm

    Internet users report google.com hit hard by virus activity. Google starts blocking searches from infected domains/regions. Users also report that other search engines like Yahoo have significantly degraded performance.
    http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/25010.htm

    Mainstream press picks up the news of Google's issues.
    http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/26/technology/google_ site/index.htm?cnn=yes

    You can't buy this kind of competitor slamming and market cornering on Internet searching in one day... or can you?

    --
    Speak truth to power.
  196. Careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What makes you think it's "she" ? ;-)

  197. What I've seen first hand. by twitter · · Score: 1
    Your link points to what is (I think) the original version, which arrives as an EXE, I believe. Other variants arrive as a password-protected ZIP file with an executable inside. Regardless, the EXE will not just run itself. Hopefully this will clear things up a bit for you, because you sure as heck don't know what you're talking about. I'm surprised you can even work up the nerve to shower us with your insightful prose given you don't know squat.

    Look, ass, I've seen the environment I'm talking about first hand. Yes, I've also seen Outlook auto rooted, with no action on my part. The stupid exchange "admin" did not believe what I said and had to do it for herself. After seeing it, she still did not understand the magnitude of what she had witnessed, saying "I get those all the time, it's part of normal advertising." Yep, she had remote access to everyone in the company's desktop and had her own machine rooted out already. The only thing dumber than Outlook was the person who recommended and oversaw it. I don't have those problems.

    Last I looked (and I use Evolution really) KMail lets me save attached files just fine, regardless of what they contain. And then I can open them by double-clicking on them in Nautilus.

    But they are not executables and they won't run. You might have an exploit for a particular program, but there's no such thing as MyDumb for Linux.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:What I've seen first hand. by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Look, ass, I've seen the environment I'm talking about first hand.

      Interesting. You seem to dismiss offhand as "trolling" and "astroturfing" any experience that does not condemn Microsoft software as hopelessly insecure, yet I must take yours as prima facie evidence of the very same thing. I suppose you expect everyone to extrapolate your run-in with a dumb admin at a company who can't get their shit together and apply it to the hundreds of thousands of people who happily run Exchange, and all the millions who use Windows (or "Windoze"), Office, etc. How telling.

      Well, in fact, I must not exist as far as you're concerned, because I run just about any piece of Microsoft software you can think of and I've never in 12 or so years been infected, 0wn3d, rooted, hacked or otherwise screwed against my will. Heck, I think the last time I saw a virus in one of my machines it was called "Pong" and came on a floppy. Surely this is impossible; therefore I must be lying. And you must be right, because you run software that is perfect and has no vulnerabilities whatsoever. It never needs patching. It has no errors. It also, apparently, magically make its users more intelligent and alert and raises their IQ to three-digit levels. Users of "free software" actually read dialogs before clicking OK. Why? Because they're running KDE, that's why! Yay!

      But they are not executables and they won't run.

      A bash or Python script coming out of a tar file with the execute bit set seems plenty runnable to me. Which is the gist of this particular worm. Stay on topic and try again.

    2. Re:What I've seen first hand. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Give it a rest you penguin-humping retard. The virus spreads through user action. Stupid users spread the virus. What the fuck is so complicated about that? Virus writers have started sending zipped viruses with attached installation instructions and these dipshits are STILL getting infected. You think if someone wrote a virus and instructed the stupid users to set the execution bit they wouldn't do it? History says you're wrong. History shows that people will follow even more complex instructions than that in order to run a virus.

      Maybe if you religious rejects would spend a little more time fixing user space threats like the crufty old X system or finishing up your little game of desktop catch up that Microsoft has so sorely outpaced you in, you'd actually have a desktop system now instead of a kludged together ball of shit that wants to pretend it's UNIX while it tries to play with Windows. Pick a fucking goal and stop spending so much time and wasted breath bashing Microsoft. Christ. You little Linux and Windows zealots have got to be the stupidest subsets of all of the computer holy wars... you get on my fucking nerves. At least the BSD people have the decency to keep it to infighting that I can just ignore.

      Yea yea, whatever. I'm a troll because I'm not felating your stupid little penguin. Give it a rest and just use your fucking system. You sound like a total dumbass when you sit there and blame "micro$oft" (please, spare me the droll attempt at witicism that wasn't even witty the first time someone used the dollar sign) for a problem that's clearly perpetuated by explicit user action.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    3. Re:What I've seen first hand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling nerd. I'm amazed at the pathetic tenacity with which you simultaneously masturbate the FOSS movement and snidely dismiss Microsoft anything. Zealots such as yourself are useless. You're unable to look at any issue without tainting it with your preconceived notions of Microsoft's abominable evil. Your anger has so consumed you that you sit there in your parents basement, banging away on your semen-encrusted Linux box, incessantly whining about the latest, most egregious "M$" violation.

      If I ever had someone as rude, petty, and thickheaded as you working for me, I'd fire the both of us. I'd fire you for, well, sucking as much as you do. And I'd fire myself for not recognizing your brand of offensive bullshit zealotry the second it came steaming down the hall into my office. Listen to me dick: Zealots like you are FUCKING USELESS.

    4. Re:What I've seen first hand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think twitter is just mad that he got a few of Stallman's pubes stuck in between his teeth.

  198. Well, yeah by mcc · · Score: 1

    CNN is on behind me, and they've been talking about nothing but Google's IPO. Seems like really bad timing for Google. :-(

    I'd go so far as to say it was intentionally "bad" timing, on the part of the virus author...

  199. Nice sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But an invalid one. Roman notation cannot be used for representing digits, only numbers.

  200. Thanks for the heads-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    "...That's the sound of the joke flying right over your head..."

    Yeah, way too subtle. Good thing that /.'s resident genius (that would be you, Enos) is here to explain all the lame old jokes to the grandkids.

  201. the scoop on google's 403/503 errors by Habbie · · Score: 1

    The scoop: google returned 403 on mail-related queries, putting frequent abusers on a banlist. IP's on the banlist receive 503. From what I can gather, Google had no performance/scalability issues. The only negative side-effect was innocent IP's being put on the banlist, for example some webproxy's.

  202. Google gets a virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just switch to linux? Then they don't have to worry.

  203. so, give them email addresses by ILikeRed · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Google could get in trouble by redoing the search engine to respond to MyDoom queries with random, valid email addresses from the microsoft.com domain... I mean, why not let the machines write home? I suppose they could occasionally list abuse@ftc.gov and a few other choice ones as well.

    --
    I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
  204. It is likely a phishing attack by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Doesn't seem like it would be all that efficient to google for email addresses

    It is efficient enough to spread fast and wide. By the time Google had a chance to respond to this the virus had probably attacked 90% of the targets at least once. All Google could do is to reduce followon attacks somewhat. I was hit 450 times, that is not counting the attacks that the spam filter just disconnected on.

    I don't think the real target was Google. MyDoom has been launched several times and 2 out of 3 times there has been an uptick in phishing fraud attacks just afterwards. I don't think that the target was really SCO or Microsoft. Attacking them was just a way to throw investigators off the trail and also to work out which machines would make reliable zombies.

    These guys use zombie machines for several purposes. they use them to send spam, to capture credit card numbers and to hide their tracks.

    I think it is time to admit defeat with the anti-virus scanning software. We should simply block all executable attachments and zip files containing executable code. Fortunately most encrypted zip file formats do not encrypt the manifest so encrypted files can be blocked.

    This type of technology can be written once and is then pretty much maintenance free. Maybe an occasional tweak but nothing like the constant need to work out the signatures of new viruses.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    1. Re:It is likely a phishing attack by name773 · · Score: 1

      I think it is time to admit defeat with the anti-virus scanning software. We should simply block all executable attachments and zip files containing executable code. Fortunately most encrypted zip file formats do not encrypt the manifest so encrypted files can be blocked.

      yes, but then they'll just link to the website with "screensaver" downloads...
      like they say, there is no patch for human stupidity.

      and you know what? i like being able to send and recieve zip files and executables.

    2. Re:It is likely a phishing attack by allism · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather block all stupid people who open executable attachments and zip files containing executable code...

    3. Re:It is likely a phishing attack by BugZRevengE · · Score: 1

      My System (only 300 users) - i call it mine - cause i admin it, now blocks executable files, video & audio, and encrypted zip files. No real compaints. The video is to stop users emailing 20Mb videos and 5Mg mp3's which fill the system and cause headaches. I let those file in for IT addresses, and put them straight into quaranteen, open with caution!

      --
      Why me? Why not!
      BACKUP YOUR PARTITIONS
  205. Finance.yahoo message board not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stock message boards at finance.yahoo.com don't deliver any new postings after 1:13pm. I wonder whether this is Yahoo's reaction to Google's IPO pricing? (just joking)

  206. Try Google's own "mirror sites" by celerityfm · · Score: 1

    Hey, has anyone who can't get to www.google.com or re having problems with search tried any of Google's other data centers?

    http://www2.google.com
    http://www3.google.com


    Or select from an even bigger list of "Google mirrors".

    Hope this helps!

    --
    ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
  207. Yahoo finance boards - no new posts for 5 hours by Jayfar · · Score: 1

    I've noticed several high traffic Yahoo finance boards haven't seen any new posts since 1:13pm EDT. That's 5 hours now - no posts on msft, ibm, scox, to name a few (where normally there would be at least several dozens of posts on each of those boards in that span).

  208. Ditto by phorm · · Score: 1

    The same for procmail, but oddly also "postfix" at the time.

  209. You sound like a total dumbass ... etc. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I have no further comments....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:You sound like a total dumbass ... etc. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Oh, please.... someone remove this knife from my heart. I.... I.... I don't know how I can go on after that biting retort.

      Oh, wait. You thought you thought you were being sarcastic by turning my own words on me? No, sorry. Just dull and imaginative since the words weren't even directed at you in the first place. Please, do try again, however. I'm always game for a challenge, though I doubt you can provide it.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  210. Kartoo a bit dodge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Search on Kartoo (worldwide) for "google", and it somehow seems to miss google.com as one of the sites related to "google". Pretty impressive.

  211. Definately by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 1
    What, you're going to try to smarten up 700,000 Slashdot morons now? Rediculous.

    Cool that you're comment made it to +5 though.

  212. You must be kidding by nusratt · · Score: 1

    We share a world where lose == loose, accept == except, people "aks" questions about "nu-cue-lar" weapons, and write "seperate".
    And you're in the least bit surprised by -- or hopeful that you can influence any improvement in -- the misuse of "e.g." & "i.e."?

    You think YOU have problems?
    *I* live in the hell of knowing the proper use of unsplit infinitives, subjunctive mood, and "decimate"!

  213. Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yahoo has grown into a great search engine lately. Get over your google favoritism and try other search engines. Google used to be way ahead of the competition, now other search engines match it in relevancy.

  214. Re:Alright, this means war..But alas.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isnt everything else other than Microsoft immune to viruses and attacks. Oh gee you mean its all a lie!

  215. Please learn how to make links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please learn how to make links.
    <a href="http://www.lycos.com">Lycos</a>
    <a href="http://www.altavista.com">Altavista</a>
    etc .
    (without any spaces put there by Slashdot) yields:
    Lycos
    Altavista
    etc.
  216. Copernic by LondonLawyer · · Score: 1

    I use Copernic - cross-searches several and saves search results to disk. Can also automatically weed out dead links. More recent versions with more features available but I haven't bothered as Copernic does everything I need.

  217. Duh.... by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 1

    Well, since they are only used in English and not in other languages, yes I'd say so.

    Unless you count knowledge of the dead language Latin as a prerequisite.

    You might even say that those are now English abbreviations with the origin from Latin, since that is what the reality is (languages evolve, you know?)

    1. Re:Duh.... by starling · · Score: 1

      Well, since they are only used in English and not in other languages, yes I'd say so.

      I believe they're used in American as well.

    2. Re:Duh.... by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 1

      I believe they're used in American as well.

      Heh, point taken, although - as you may or may not be surprised to learn - that is also called "English". There is no separate language "American" (or "Australian"), just American English, Brittish English etc. And they are considered the same language, just with (pretty small) variations. ;-)

  218. Executables and Emails by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    I'd beg to differ. Here at work, executable attachments are screened out going in or out of the company. *wry grin* Problem is, we're in the business of software, and this policy has a nasty tendency to strip off patches we send to customers. We're slowly getting them used to connecting to an FTP site, but sending the programs in an email makes it more likely that they'llget to it immediately. Sending FTP addresses, they'll often just bookmark it. *wry grin* And how long will it take before the virus writers figure to switch back to clickable links, making them look like ZIP files as attachments? Honestly, I think that as long as there are people who'll open their door to strangers showing up at 3 AM, there will be people who click on virus attachments in email.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  219. Interesting juxtaposition on google news by Warpedcow · · Score: 1

    A rather funny coincidence that these stories should appear next to each other on google news.

    --
    moo
  220. Uh, duh. by RomulusNR · · Score: 1

    I'm betting Google has already had mechanisms in place to deny service to networks and hosts that flood it with connections or requests for a long time.

    So any network which had a high rate of MyDoom infection would quickly be denied service.

    Which probably means every single major news organizations' networks. Sigh...

    --
    Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
  221. industrial sabotage by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Who wants to bet on whether or not this is industrial sabotage done by a competing company, conveniently timed to coincide with Google's IPO?

    I can't imagine anyone having a bone to pick with Google. That is, unless they're a direct competitor. Even kiddies seem to think Google is the best thing since automated root kits.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  222. Google is run by Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google openly celebrates how their search engine is totally run by a Linux system.

    I love this so much!

    whether or not google was directly attacked by the virus, or just as a DDOS ...

    the virus brought down the Linux system.

    bwaaaaahahahahahahaha

    dumbass Linux fools.