Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Destructive Mobile Phone Virus In The Wild

Posted by timothy on from the radio-silence dept.

gbjbaanb writes "eek! the BBC is reporting the first mobile phone virus that causes damage is out and about. The virus only works with the Symbian Series 60's OS (no, not the Smartphone) and spreads through an adapted copy of the legitimate Mosquitos game. Once installed, a hidden program sends SMS texts to premium rate numbers. That's not so bad, no doubt the premium rate numbers will be switched off soon but the worst is yet to come - "typically we see them in the wild then copycat ones come along soon after," said Sal Viveros, director of wireless security at McAfee."

10 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. Great.... by MP3Chuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yet another reason I'm glad I have my cell phone that ... OH YEA! Just makes calls. Who'd have thunk it?

    --
    Who doesn't like free music?
    1. Re:Great.... by nlawalker · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I wish I had a phone that just made calls. It seems that mobile phone companies still have yet to make a phone that can even do that well. I'd love to see a push forward in a more usable interface too... obviously, it's tough to change things such as the stanard telephone key layout, but my newer Nokia phone, for example, has basically the same look and feel as one of the first phones I ever had years ago. Also, the power button is a pain in the ass, the battery cover is very flimsy, and the color screen (of which I really wouldn't care if it was black and white) is difficult to read even in mild sunlight.

      Once they make a phone that fixes problems like these and works with the service in a way that I can make and receive good quality calls, THEN I'll be interested in what they have to say about other uses of mobile phones.

  2. Not quite as I'd have thought. by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to The Register, the malware was built into Mosquitos to begin with as a copy protection mechanism. I don't know whether to believe it or not -- if it's true, it's a really clever way of recouping development costs, and puts a new twist on "software that calls home".

    Of course, worm writers will still catch on quickly anyway, I'll bet.

    1. Re:Not quite as I'd have thought. by garcia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For most people SMS' will show up on their bill as most people don't do much FREE sending of SMS' (at least here in the states). I think that these people would see their bill go up and find out the reason for it.

      Personally, if I were charged for SMS' without my consent I would want to recoup those costs myself as well.

  3. Not a virus by nmg196 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is not a virus. It doesn't spread itself. It's simply a trojan that you have to manually download and install by bypassing two security warnings after first having found it on an irreputable site or P2P network. Hardly a threat.

    I'm also not sure it deserves to to be called destructive either. It doesn't destruct anything or in any way modify any other services on your phone - it simply sends SMS messages. It would be better classed as "expensive" :)

  4. Re:bandwith is not necessary to be annoying by wwest4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The quote seems in line with intuition at least... how would it go - as the bandwidth increases, practical usage will increase, the number of active nodes will increase, and voila a petri dish for more sophisticated viruses. Sure, it's not the only catalyst, but bandwidth seems to have something to do with it.

  5. Re:so who do i sue ? by mkeroppi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The thing is the victim is not the one spreading the trojan. Receivers of SMS are those that pay for it. The Trojan is inside the sender's phone.

  6. Remember the Pakistani Brain? by billsf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How history repeats. The Pakistani Brain is said to be the first virus 'in the wild' and it is a true virus. Another form of illegal copy protection was tried by a rather respected engineering software company. If you forgot the dongle, the whole LAN (except for the Unix machines) slowed down to a snail's pace. The solution was to re-install Windows95. Even for a small company this was very expensive. The vendor offered a non-protected version to make up for this. They hopefully removed what was probably the first true Windows virus. (True viruses are _extremely_ rare.)

    Is there any question who to sue? Any use of malware for copy protection is unjustified and clearly in violation of the law in most places. This kind of crap has been tried before and it never benefits anyone.

  7. Fingers pointing - wrong direction by t_allardyce · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of course all fingers will be pointing at the authors, and even though they are assholes, the real problem is not in this 'virus' its in the the phone or the OS - it simply should not be letting add-on software have access to the sms functions! its just like the whole outlook crap. Lets say you give your plane passengers a network they can plug their laptops into to use the net, you dont then connect that network to the planes' own bloody computers and let anyone have access to the "flying the plane" functionaliy, its just stupid and if you did that and someone plugged in their laptop and said "hey look at this, i think ill fly this plane and crash it" as much of an asshole as they are it would still be your fault. This sort of stupidity has to stop - sue the people responsible.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  8. Re:Wow! Where'd'ya find that? by sfm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All these added features in a cell phone.....it makes sense from a manufacturers point of view.

    They are all asking their R&D departments to come up with features that give the most bang for the $'s spent. While there are serious cost limitations on how the communications portion of the system can be improved, extra games are simply added software and attract customers attention.

    Cameras can be explained in a similar (but more complicated) way. Camera hardware is an added expense, BUT the phone service providers can charge a premium for data (picture) transfers on top of the voice connection.

    Improvements in the telephone portion of the system are usually subtle and go unnoticed by the general public. If there were some source of information comparing a cell phones basic features (Sound Quality, Battery Life, Larger possible service area....) and this was EASILY available to the public, you may start seeing the phone manufacturers start giving us features we really care about.

    Personally, I could give two hoots about pictures and mp3's coming through my phone. I would be quite satisfied with good voice service and SMS. Maybe if more people expressed this idea, there would be a reaction in the market.