Slashdot Mirror


Virus Writers Look Ahead: Target 64-bit Windows

Ashcrow writes "A new virus, named W64.Shruggle.1318 by Symantec, is being 'tested' on AMD64 machines running 64-bit Windows. While it is not currently a danger to 64-bit Windows users, it does show that virus writers are looking toward the future. The exploitable software in questions is currently unreleased outside of beta. News.com has the full article."

205 comments

  1. Interesting. by London+Bus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hadn't realised that there were sufficiently many fundamental changes to a 64-bit system as compared to a 32-bit system that meant that a virus written for one wouldn't work on the other. What's so different? How does a different integer or word size affect the functioning of a virus so greatly, when interoperability is such a priority?

    1. Re:Interesting. by random_culchie · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well I'm sure its a concern when they are trying to cause stack overflows and the like.
      Since the memory is shifted around in bigger chuncks they will have to readadjust their code to pump more useless data to reach the memory address they want.
      Many exploits / worms are made with specific memory locations in mind inorder to inject malicious code into them.

    2. Re:Interesting. by dagoalieman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As I understand it, and I hope if I'm wrong someone does so and gets a +5 mod... I'm going to be very general and semantic, I'm sure you'll see the point, but details as always are better. :)

      While software is made to be compatible, and Windows has code written into it to help with compatibility, as well as the processors have extensions. Windows also has code in order to take advantage of the 64 bit processor abilities to their fullest. While there's compatibility options available, most of the code that Windows executes was made for 64bit CPU (I should say most of the *compiled* code... I'm not sure how much of a rewrite was needed for porting, as opposed to compiler changes.)

      With new code comes new holes, obviously. And the same can be said for third party softwares- that new code which takes advantage of the processors to its fullest will have some new code (extending through compilation, of course).

      I would say, though, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the programs themselves are really quite incompatible, but the files themselves are written for maximum compatibility. Pop one in an email, and it works on a 32 bit based machine I mean.

      As an aside, I wonder if this is an attack on AMD's compatibility, or 64 bit code in general.. I note that the article mentions AMD with specitivity, not Intel.

      --
      We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
    3. Re:Interesting. by vi+(editor) · · Score: 5, Informative

      A virus doesn't need any stack overflow as it spreads by the user executing infected programs.
      The techniques you describe are usually used by worms.

    4. Re:Interesting. by billywiggins · · Score: 1

      basically, the virus runs faster thus allowing Window$ to crash sooner.

    5. Re:Interesting. by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know that, and you know that, but the general public doesn't. Therefore anti-virus companies (whose products include firewalls and e-mail filters to protect against some worms) just use the word virus indiscriminantly. Meh.

    6. Re:Interesting. by Zeever · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, those kind of attacks are precisely what the new NX bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX) tries to defeat. In IA32 pages in memory can be read and written, if they can be read, the can be executed (making possible the classic buffer overflow attack).
      In AMD64 (and some other architectures) pages have one more permission: they can be read, written AND executed.. and pages in the data section of a program (where you store all dynamic data, variables, arrays, etc. and buffer overflow exploits) have the NX (not execute) bit set by default.

      --
      -- Who, you?
    7. Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I know that, and you know that, but the general public doesn't. Therefore anti-virus companies (whose products include firewalls and e-mail filters to protect against some worms) just use the word virus indiscriminantly. Meh.

      That's a bogus response. It's true that anti-virus companies indisciminantly use the word virus to refer to viruses, worms, and trojans. But you, not the anti-virus companies, attempted to answer the question.

    8. Re:Interesting. by gibson_81 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IIRC, this has been present in MMUs since the 486 (maybe 386 too) ... Don't know why it was never used ... mem pages there had the classic "RWX" permissions ... I can understand why that couldn't be used in Linux (since other CPUs might not support it), but why Windows ignores those bits is beyond me ...

    9. Re:Interesting. by ultranova · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can understand why that couldn't be used in Linux (since other CPUs might not support it)

      Um, you do realize that Linux contains quite a bit of architechture-specific stuff, which can be enabled or disabled at configure time ? Such as support for SMP or NUMA, for example...

      Coming to think about it, I don't think a 32-bit processor would be much amused being treated like 64-bit one, and yet Linux supports both...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:Interesting. by tabrisnet · · Score: 1

      From what I remember on the Linux-Kernel lists, on i386 the execute permission is set per segment, not per page. Yes, despite 32-bit addressing, we still use segments. They just don't act quite the same way they did in 16bit realmode, where you could find multiple ways to access the same address by playing with the segment and offset registers. Tho that's not quite true either. You can... but memory protection comes into effect here.

      Often, DS=SS, so this causes problems with self-modifying code if you set DS to be non-executable. Thus some interpreters and emulators will barf if you do this. Because of this, various workarounds (actually, the ability to set legacy behaviour) have been implemented for the x86 platform, as well as the x86-64 x86-32 compatibility-mode/personality.

      Feel free to check my facts. This is just what I remember from having read some of the threads on this subject.

    11. Re:Interesting. by dagoalieman · · Score: 1

      For the record, I didn't mean to write that sounding like an AYB post. Jeesh. Let me repost with grammatical and sensical corrections: (DO NOT MOD THIS COMMENT!)
      =================
      As I understand it, and I hope if I'm wrong someone corrects me and gets a +5 mod... I'm going to be very general and semantic, I'm sure you'll see the point, but details as always are better. :)

      While software is made to be compatible, Windows has code written into it to help with compatibility, as well as the processors have extensions. Windows also has code in order to take advantage of the 64 bit processor abilities to their fullest. While there's compatibility options available, most of the code that Windows executes was made for 64bit CPU (I should say most of the *compiled* code... I'm not sure how much of a rewrite was needed for porting, as opposed to compiler changes.)

      With new code comes new holes, obviously. And the same can be said for third party softwares- that new code which takes advantage of the processors to its fullest will have some new holes (extending through compilation, of course).

      I would say, though, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the programs themselves are really quite incompatible, but the files themselves are written for maximum compatibility. Pop one in an email, and it works on a 32 bit based machine I mean.

      As an aside, I wonder if this is an attack on AMD's compatibility, or 64 bit code in general.. I note that the article mentions AMD with specitivity, not Intel.

      --
      We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
  2. well thats great by twenty-exty-six · · Score: 1, Funny

    It sucks to be Microsoft knowing you are the #1 target for these people. I wish they didn't make it so easy...

  3. Beta testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where can I sign up for beta testing!?

    1. Re:Beta testing by Johnny+O · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just install windoze - nuff said...

    2. Re:Beta testing by Riktov · · Score: 5, Funny

      With viruses, beta testing signs up for YOU!

    3. Re:Beta testing by x-caiver · · Score: 1

      You're at "+4, Funny", but I'll answer you anyway in case you were being serious & really do have a 64-bit box to play on.

      You can get pre-release versions of both the 64-bit Win XP and Server 2003 from Microsoft.com. These builds are much more current than the last preview that was posted, which was last year.

      Windows Server 2003, Enterprise x64 Edition is available for ordering a CD, but the ISO download option won't be available for another day or so.
      Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is available for both CD ordering, and ISO downloading now.

  4. I always suspected by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Funny

    but now I know. It IS those damn virus protectors making the viruses. I always said if there weren't any viruses the virus protectors would be out of business and they wouldn't allow it. This is the proof.

    1. Re:I always suspected by Joff_NZ · · Score: 1, Funny

      well, I, for one read the first part of the summary, as A new virus named W64.Shruggle.1318, by Symantec

      --
      The revolution will not be televised. It won't be on a friggin blog either
    2. Re:I always suspected by zr-rifle · · Score: 1

      Now that's just silly. It's like blaming firemen for setting peoples houses on purpose.

      --
      Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
    3. Re:I always suspected by trentblase · · Score: 1

      That's how I read the summary too. It looks like it's just an unfortunate choice of words to hyperlink. The virus was "named by Symantec" not "developed by Symantec". Unless that was supposed to be funny. In which case I'll recalibrate my sensors.

    4. Re:I always suspected by tonyr60 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but....

      Maybe I am too much into conspicy stuff, but I have the idea that it is in Symantec's best interests that their clients believe that even the new, upgraded OSes need virus protection.

      So they are going to look VERY hard to find reasons why 64 bit XP needs new anti-virus tools.

    5. Re:I always suspected by polecat_redux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's like blaming firemen for setting peoples houses on purpose.

      ...or like blaming cops for unjustified assault and/or murder... that's just silly.

    6. Re:I always suspected by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 1

      That explains a lot...

    7. Re:I always suspected by Doppleganger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, no.. firemen set fire to books, not houses.

    8. Re:I always suspected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying that "old viruses" do not work on Win XP 64 bit?

    9. Re:I always suspected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A new virus named W64.Shruggle.1318, by Symantec"

      Nope, you're wrong, there's no comma. Its

      A new virus named W64.Shruggle.1318 by Symantec

      which indicates Symantec wrote it.

    10. Re:I always suspected by bit01 · · Score: 1

      It's like blaming firemen for setting peoples houses on purpose.

      Except that firemen don't have a multi-million dollar incentive to light fires and can't light them without risking being seen.

      What is the value of the anti-virus industry these days?

      ---

      It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
      It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
      Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

  5. This just in... by AnimeFreak · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...a virus has been created for the 68000! Virus writers are thinking in the past! It's called W32@Lame.

    1. Re:This just in... by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, what was the lowest common denominator architecture for the old-school Michelangelo and Monkey B viruses? My guess would be the 286, but I have to imagine that there were still some even older 8-bit PCs in use around in the early 90s.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    2. Re:This just in... by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Windows running on a 68K proc?

      How about A32@Lamer_Exterminator or something more plausable instead.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    3. Re:This just in... by BarryNorton · · Score: 1

      Well, Michelangelo's strictly a PC-style DOS virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Michelangelo'_compu ter_virus) and Monkey B (Simian B) a real virus (perhaps I'm missing something ;) but there were floppy disk (bootsector)-based viruses on Z80B-based machines...

    4. Re:This just in... by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Monkey B turned up nothing but organic virii (it is spelled "virii" for the actual thing, right?) on Google, but I had a couple people mention the virus on different occasions. The first was some guy in high school trying to say that the disks I gave him that had a NES emulator and roms had the Monkey B virus on it (although the files were clean before writing to the disks). The second time was about a month ago when I was talking to a guy at work who said, "It's all about the old computer viruses that actually messed stuff up, like Monkey B."

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    5. Re:This just in... by MasterSLATE · · Score: 1
      --

      [sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
  6. Re:It makes me wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    what?

    1. You're an idiot.
    2. It's Viruses, not Virii.
    3. You're an idiot.

  7. Re:It makes me wonder.... by MoonFog · · Score: 4, Informative

    The same CPU also gives AV software the same increase in speed etc. So it's just business as usual for AV, the war between the virus makes and the Anti-virus makes continues no matter what architecture the underlying structure has.

  8. Re:It's a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Burn them at stake! Lynch'em! Make them watch Liza Minelli!

    Your humanitarian side is showing through. Please make them watch Liza Minelli first, not last.

  9. Re:It's a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "contribute to the downfall of the (computing) society"

    Bzzt!!

    The computing society as a whole is doing just fine, thx.

    The retards still running MS software connected to any sort of network are the only ones doing any 'falling down.'

  10. Phew! by MisterLawyer · · Score: 4, Funny
    While it is not currently a danger to 64-bit Windows users, it does show that virus writers are looking toward the future.

    Phew! I was worried that all those hordes of current 64-bit Windows users would be at danger.

    1. Re:Phew! by mkosmul · · Score: 3, Funny

      While it is not currently a danger to 64-bit Windows users, it does show that virus writers are looking toward the future.
      Maybe the virus is also a beta, so it still lacks some functionality the retail version is going to have.

    2. Re:Phew! by zonker · · Score: 0

      yes, but we will only know for sure when sp2 of the virus emerges...

  11. This shows once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that Windows is just targeted because it is so popular, not because of inherent security problems.

    After all Windows 64-bit is allready installed on millions and millions of machines so it is only natural that hackers attack it instead of those few machines that run 64-bit Linux.

    Oh, wait...

    Nevermind.

    1. Re:This shows once again by Johnny+O · · Score: 1

      yup - how LONG has 64 bit systems been around? ;-)

    2. Re:This shows once again by richie2000 · · Score: 2, Funny
      yup - how LONG has 64 bit systems been around?

      Well, apparently 20 minutes is all it takes.

      (Yes, I noticed the pun and for the record it did make me smile. Come back when you've defined a LONGBOOLEAN in Modula-2 and we'll talk. :-)

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    3. Re:This shows once again by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I know you're being sarcastic, but consider the fact that while there aren't that many people using 64 bit Windows now, it will be adopted widely a few years down the road, and *totally* outnumber the user base of 64 bit Linux users. If the perception was different, people would be at work targetting present and future Linux distros right now.

    4. Re:This shows once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so now it's not only the market share that is responsible for something being targeted but the projected future market share.

      Interesting.

    5. Re:This shows once again by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Yes. Does this surprise you? I don't remember anyone saying that wasn't a factor - it just hasn't been particularly important until lately, since there were no operating systems that fell under the category of "not popular now, but obviously popular in the future".

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    6. Re:This shows once again by RALE007 · · Score: 1

      Here's a straw, I think it's just within your grasp.

      --
      Beware blue cats moving at .99c
    7. Re:This shows once again by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 2, Interesting

      User base is not as significant as people would think. The main reasons for attacks against an OS are reputation and design.

      Throughout the years, Microsoft has been very lax and carefree about security. Since the 90's, security experts have warned Microsoft about security issues and Microsoft blatantly ignored them. As a result of this negligence, Microsoft had earned a bad reputation.

      Then you get into design and you see unnecessary services running, browser integration, ActiveX/COM with unrestricted access to the system, services listening to anything that speaks including WAN traffic, NetBIOS going over TCP/IP over a WAN by default, file and printer sharing binding to all adapters including those that haven't been selected, Microsoft insisting that personal firewalls are the answer to unnecessary Windows services, etc. The list goes on and on.

      Had Microsoft been more serious about security in the 90's, it would have been a whole different story.

    8. Re:This shows once again by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I believe Microsoft thought it was serious about security with the Windows NT line. While it did have vulnerabilities, it wasn't targeted like 2K/XP is now.

    9. Re:This shows once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2k and XP are the NT line.

      just goes to show.

    10. Re:This shows once again by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

      Several of the vulnerabilities that have been found in 2000 and XP were common to NT 4.0. And the security in NT was more local than anything.

    11. Re:This shows once again by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      The security model on 2k/XP is as good as it is in NT4, and it's better (more fine grained) in several aread than UNIX. The thing is:

      a) 99% of Windows users don't care and run as Admin,
      b) There's still a shitload of Windows software that won't run without Admin privileges, and hence...
      c) ... of the remaining 1%, 99% is forced to run as Admin just to play their favourite games.

      Given, Windows has security holes elsewhere, but if most users had access like they should you'd see a dramatic drop in virus and spyware proliferation, IMHO.

  12. Re:It makes me wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    um... wtf are you on about?

  13. conspiracy? by rixdaffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sometimes it is almost as if antivirus companies hire people to write all those "proof of concept" virusses, just to make sure that they don't loose any marketshare and they have another good reason to have their spread through press releases...

    Ricardo.

    1. Re:conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "almost"?

      I have seen several virus warnings in computer mags that go "This virus has currenly not been spotted outside of $ANTIVIRUSCOMPANY's labs".

      Well, how did it get in there, if not from the outside? It was made in there.

    2. Re:conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unless it somehow infected their computers or their systems were targeted maybe??? I know of a few virus authors who turned from black-hat to white-hat instead of spend time in jail, that isn't a bad thing. Where will you find the really great, if misguided geniuses? John Carmack wanted to be a phreak in the early bbs days.

    3. Re:conspiracy? by flonker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Virus writers will frequently submit their own virus to the AV companies, to get it listed in the AV software. They don't release it into the wild, out of ethics, but they get some ego gratification and acknowledgement. When AV companies claim they detect a huge number of viruses, most of the viruses they detect have never been seen in the wild. It's a good thing too, as most viruses in the wild are very simple things. Some proof of concept viruses can be extremely hard to detect and remove.

    4. Re:conspiracy? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Isn't this akin/similar to "digi-turfing" or "astroturfing", the writing of viruses and such knowing they'll be listed, read, and feared, and artificially protected against?

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  14. What is the parent smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you said make no sense and bairly brushes on reality!

  15. Maybe this is a good thing. by qualico · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The virus supports vectored exception handling to avoid crashing during infections."

    Maybe this is a good thing.
    Those viruses will show developers how to write better code. :->

    Seriously though, vulnerabilities will grow in proportion to the complexity of our systems.

    1. Re:Maybe this is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Seriously though, vulnerabilities will grow in proportion to the complexity of our systems.

      For every complexity, there is an abstraction. Do you shuffle bits talking to NIC, or use a nice socket abstraction?
      My personal belief, complexity is limited by programmer's intelligence. Big systems happen because programmers work on small part and have a good abstraction to work with.
  16. Re:so what? by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 3, Funny

    A new virus, named W64.Shruggle.1318 by Symantec, is being 'tested' on AMD64 machines running 64-bit Windows. While it is not currently a danger to 64-bit Windows users, it does show that virus writers are looking toward the future. The exploitable software in questions is currently unreleased outside of beta

    So... not only did SP2 suffer delay upon delay until its release, we now have to put up with the same delays for our windows viruses?

  17. oldschool by prockcore · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is an oldschool virus, it works by appending itself to the end of an .EXE, the Linux "proof-of-concept" viruses worked this same way.

    MS actually has some safeguards to prevent this thing, but it could use some minor tweaks to make it even better.

    I propose that XP should require you to create a user account by default.

    I propose that all software should be distributed as .MSI files instead of .exe installers. (They work the same, double click the .MSI and it runs MS's Installer, but the MSI can't run arbitrary code.. it works like an RPM in this regard).

    The installer should prompt for the Admin password and install the .exe so that only admin can write to it.

    Any .exe not installed by the MS Installer should be marked as "dirty", and windows should refuse to run it.

    This would prevent this type of virus. Coupled with XP64s support for NX, you'd actually have some semblance of security.

    1. Re:oldschool by Dogers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ..causing Jonny Public and his family endless grief, making them stick to windows 2000 or 98.

      The general public are stupid and would not even be able to handle that level of security! They'd want to know why their new mouse cursors can't be installed, why their IE search bar needs a password, etc, etc

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    2. Re:oldschool by prockcore · · Score: 4, Insightful


      The general public are stupid and would not even be able to handle that level of security! They'd want to know why their new mouse cursors can't be installed, why their IE search bar needs a password, etc, etc


      Good. It's time for the general public to suck it up.

      If the general public can handle OSX (and presumably they can), then they can handle this. OSX installers require the admin password.

    3. Re:oldschool by iainl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was almost with you, right up to the "Any .exe not installed by the MS Installer should be marked as "dirty", and windows should refuse to run it" comment.

      I understand your concern, but this would break compatibility with absolutely everything, which would be enough to make people avoid upgrading. I agree that it would make virus-writers lives more difficult, but its at too high a price on the user's experience.

      Maybe an alternative would be an Admin-controlled "install mode" - drop into that, and for the duration of the session anything can be installed, and will automatically marked as 'good'. Disconnecting from the network while that is running would obviously be handy, too.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    4. Re:oldschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, starting with XP SP2, all heap and stack memory are marked NX by default.

    5. Re:oldschool by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you impliment everything exactly as you say, then viruses and trojans will just get packaged inside msi files.

      As long as there are executable entry points, malicious code will unfortunately always find a way to run.

      The best we can do is limit the damage they can cause, and requiring users to run in user space has been proven to be a good defence. Granted, its not foolproof at the moment, but we have to build on what works.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    6. Re:oldschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      An MSI file can't run arbitary code? You're kidding; the Microsoft Installer Engine has an entire scripting language and full access to the registry and filesystem. MSI files created with installer creation tools such as Install Shield have their own, even more powerful scripting capabilities; you could write a complete application with it if you were perverse enough.

    7. Re:oldschool by samael · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's time for the general public to suck it up.

      Nobody ever made money with that kind of attitude...

    8. Re:oldschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, in the good old days, when the general public contracted a virus they just had to sit on it. Nobody else'd be bothered.

      Now with everyone having megabits connections, everyone gets fucked in the ass when the general public, the fuckers, don't take care of their trojan infested wankboxes.

      Sorry 'bout the language. But the general public consists entirely of fuckwads.

    9. Re:oldschool by mlock · · Score: 5, Informative

      > I propose that all software should be distributed
      > as .MSI files instead of .exe installers. (They
      > work the same, double click the .MSI and it runs
      > MS's Installer, but the MSI can't run arbitrary
      > code.. it works like an RPM in this regard).
      Sorry, doesn't work.

      MSI files can embed DLL's, and these can be called during setup.
      http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/ms i/setup/ adding_launch_to_the_customaction_and_binary_table s.asp

      Like the post-conf scripts in RPM and DEB :-)

    10. Re:oldschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't a solution to a lot of virus damage be to ensure that the OS never actually deletes any files - instead it would work like a source version control system? Aren't hard drives big and fast enough for this nowadays? Perhaps require you to be admin to actually delete files should you need to?

    11. Re:oldschool by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Any .exe not installed by the MS Installer should be marked as "dirty", and windows should refuse to run it.

      I guess not EVERYONE does development work...
      You couldn't use anything compiled from source, though...

    12. Re:oldschool by dj245 · · Score: 1

      What about programs that need no installation to run, such as the wonderful Popcorn and other such 1-exe no-registry crap programs?

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    13. Re:oldschool by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1


      >Like the post-conf scripts in RPM and DEB :-)

      I always thought this was a bad idea and should be replaced by various triggers.

    14. Re:oldschool by Bazer · · Score: 1

      I'm stating the obvious but what you said just means...

      It should mimic KDE.

      (Can't tell if Gnome does it the same way - didn't seen the critter in action)

    15. Re:oldschool by Epistax · · Score: 1

      I propose that XP should require you to create a user account by default.

      Woah, woah slow down sparky! I know what you're getting at but last I checked there's no graceful way to switch users back and forth while the system is running. That being said there are not-so-graceful ways (perhaps one of Microsoft's many mascots would be willing to help), but switching back and forth isn't as simple as a shortcut with an F key. This isn't Linux. One computer, One user, One operating system. Microsoft.

    16. Re:oldschool by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      I always thought this was a bad idea and should be replaced by various triggers.

      So they invent a new trigger technique, think "hmm, looks like this is a bit stupid, painful and extremely limited way, let's make it more powerful", then they tune it... and before you know, they have reinvented shell scripts once again!

      I think it would be better to have a mix of these - the package manager would have a framework that would have bunch of scripts that have Common Things To Do, which would let the package do certain things more or less securely, and also a script support - installer would then warn stuff like "This installer wants to use this installation script, are you sure?" and show the script, with hopefully helpful comments added to the top by packager. This could be bypassed only if the script is signed by a trusted party.

      But right now, I'm fairly confident in trusting the Debian package maintainers anyway =)

    17. Re:oldschool by TCM · · Score: 1

      Huh? You make it sound like 1-exe no-registry is a bad thing. This kind of programs is actually better than the ones you bury deep into your system by installing them.

      Programs with just one .exe and some data files in one directory and a config file in the same or the user's directory are perfect to keep on a Samba share for example. Multiple computers can access them and run them directly from the share. There's no need to reinstall and wonder where the goddamn thing spread all of its config bits.

      Really, the perfect Windows program comes as a .zip so I can extract/virus-check it right on the file server and then run it from a read-only share with only the config file kept writable. That's much more control and transparency.

      Of course, for the average Joe... never mind what I said.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    18. Re:oldschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you re-read his post. He completely agrees with you -- Popcorn is referred to as "wonderful." The "crap" goes with the "registry," as in "registry crap", not "1-exe crap."

    19. Re:oldschool by Electroly · · Score: 1

      Fast User Switching by Win+L seems pretty graceful to me.

    20. Re:oldschool by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      I think that statement is missing a hyphen, i.e.:

      1-exe no-registry-crap programs

    21. Re:oldschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You couldn't use anything compiled from source, though...

      Sure you could; just have the "make install" build an MSI installer and run it.

    22. Re:oldschool by kasperd · · Score: 1

      MSI can't run arbitrary code.. it works like an RPM in this regard

      A .rpm file certainly can execute arbitrary code on installation and uninstallation. The postinstall script can call an arbitrary executable from the package you just installed. You can even have triggers, such that one package gets to execute some code when another package is installed.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    23. Re:oldschool by x-caiver · · Score: 1

      When you launch an .MSI file it uses the Windows installer goo, assuming you have it. When you make an MSI for an unknown target audience, you ship a small "bootstrap" executable with it. This .exe checks to see if the users computer has the correct version of the installer goo - if it does then the MSI is launched, if it does not then it downloads the correct version. I can't remember what versions of the OS it would need to get updated bits for... XP already has it.

      This does nothing to make installations any safer though. Check out the documentation on Windows installer packages (for example this msdn page). You can have the MSI install DLLs and launch EXEs as part of the "installation". There is nothing preventing those files from being malicious.

      If you don't know where an application comes from, you need to be careful when you install it. The latest "PhotoshopCSFullNoKey.exe" is probably going to be dangerous

    24. Re:oldschool by TCM · · Score: 1

      Alright, I was really thinking it was "1-exe no-registry"-crap instead of 1-exe no-"registry-crap". The "wonderful" seemed sarcastic there.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    25. Re:oldschool by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Slightly overkill for programs of "Hello World" proportions, though,

  18. a little naive by HBI · · Score: 2

    This has happened before.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:a little naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're telling me. Just a few weeks ago a french antivirus vendor wrote a trojan horse for OS X to take advantage of the default extension hiding function (which is turned off on my box, but, hey, it is default behavior), then claimed that only their software would protect against this dangerous, dangerous trojan. Like... duh.

      Bonjourrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, you cheese eating surrender monkeys...

  19. Re:It makes me wonder.... by goonies · · Score: 1

    I don't think 64bit will bring up a new era of hyperintelligent virii. There is still the limitation of size. Small virii spread easier and hide better. Huge hyperintelligent virii would need like whole rootkits to hide themselfs

    --
    .sigh
  20. Wow! Beta Viruses! by ArbiterOne · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Speaking of proof-of-concept (RTFA), could this be the first virus to attack a product that's still in beta?

    Actually, this doesn't really make a lot of sense. If the entire point of a virus is to cause widespread destruction, then doesn't it make more sense to write a virus for 32bit computers?

    1. Re:Wow! Beta Viruses! by random_culchie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ìf you did RTFA you would see that the virus was a proof of concept released on an antivirus newsgroup.
      In other words these people have discovered the problem and given it some publicity by making a basicly useless virus. Their intent is not malicious
      Its like the first virus for the .NET platform. It existed just because it could.

  21. Viruses by Un0r1g1nal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although I thoroughly disagree with these malicious programs, and any virus of any discription, they do encourage people to create neater code and to develop better code that is invulnerable to these kinds of exploits. One could always hypothesise about how much we may or may not have developed programming code without having to spend money on prevention of these exploits.

    --
    If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!
    1. Re:Viruses by DrSkwid · · Score: 3, Informative

      and any virus of any discription[sic]

      If you had any sense you'd notice that the "virus" in question was written by anti-virus people as a way to demonstrate a vulnerability of the w64 platform.

      Do you find road car crash tests equally repugnant?

      One could always hypothesise about how much we may or may not have developed programming code without having to spend money on prevention of these exploits.

      As long as there are systems there will be exploits; be it computers, social security, passports, education - such is the way of the dragon.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:Viruses by morzel · · Score: 2, Informative
      Although I thoroughly disagree with these malicious programs, and any virus of any discription, they do encourage people to create neater code and to develop better code that is invulnerable to these kinds of exploits.
      Dude... It's a virus, not a worm.
      You can write your code as secure and neat and clean as you want, that doesn't protect you from a virus that injects some code into your compiled executable.

      Operating systems may be part of the solution, but IIRC we are weary of proposed solutions (ie: TPC).

      --
      Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
      [Zappa]
    3. Re:Viruses by who'd-da-thought · · Score: 1
      If you had any sense you'd notice that the "virus" in question was written by anti-virus people as a way to demonstrate a vulnerability of the w64 platform.
      This is somewhat of a slippery slope for anti-virus companies. On one hand, they need these viruses to exist. It doesn't matter that these are released into the wild or not, as they can claim that their product protects you against *ALL* these dangerous viruses; using this to scare customers to protect their sorry, unprotected PCs. On the other hand, in order to protect their customers from these dangersous vermin, they need to understand how viruses work, so they are able to create viri in their labs. Kinda like the argument that a good security admin needs to be a good hacker, in order to fully understand how systems can be compromised, and take measures to ensure it doesn't happen (or make it damn tough to happen). But do you trust them enough?
      Now, with this being a company, its in their best interest (to aviod a legal backlash) to *not* release these viri. But that's not to say that some employee with a mission, isn't going to take that lab virus and decide to set it loose. But either hand you look at, they have a a nice little money circle: they protect against viruses that others create, they create viruses in order to understand them so they can protect against more in the future, they proctect against the viruses that they create, and the circle continues.
      Do you find road car crash tests equally repugnant?
      Bad analogy there. In this case -- unless you're a real comspiracy theorist -- the crash test companies don't have the capacity to release a horde of cars, trucks, vans, and SUVs on the road, that are hell-bent on crashing into unsuspecting motorists. And that they are only crash testing the vechicles in order to better protect the other motorists that could be hit by their wild lab cars by urging the car manufacturers to build better cars.
  22. The more complex the plumbing by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    the easier it is to gum up all the works.

    I think Mr. Scott said that in one of the Star Trek movies?

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  23. Re:Mod parent up by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2, Informative

    though AC'd, probably in anticipation of moderation by people who dont get the refrence, parent is not a troll. It's actually a refrence to an early (not /too/ early, I wasnt around back then) virus which I managed to get infected with on Windows 3.1 (no, I dont use antivirus software to this day, I just dont trust every floppy I find in a computer lab anymore... and no, I dont really still use floppies)
    deserves at least a 0, funny. I mean, it's not that funny, but it's not a troll.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  24. Yay! by unixmaster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yay for portability!

    --
    Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
  25. You sir have a pet peeve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you didn't comment on "caluculations", "sofisticated" and "sealth".

  26. Beta tester not need to apply by freitasm · · Score: 2, Funny

    This mal"ware" will probably have a better beta test cycle than most of the soft"ware" released these days. It'll be idiot proof, so anyone can get infected...

    - No need to call us, we'll infect you.

    1. Re:Beta tester not need to apply by ModMeFlamebait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It'll be idiot proof, so anyone can get infected...

      It won't be idiot proof, it will be idiot dependent

      --
      Pavlov. Does this name ring a bell?
  27. Re:It's a good thing by MvD_Moscow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who modded this insightful? I am on windows, I have no problems whatsoever, I don't even have tracking cookies and I haven't been hit by a virus since 1999 or something like that. So quit calling people retards just because they are using windows in a network environment! P.S. I have nothing against linux, I would love to switch but there are no drivers for my USB PPPoE modem for linux. I am not even talking about driver problems on BeOS (which I consider better than linux).

  28. Re:It makes me wonder.... by black+mariah · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    what?

    1. Yeah, he probably is.
    2. It's a fucking slang term. Get off your fucking pedantic dumbass high horse.
    3. You're an idiot.

    --
    'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  29. la cosa nostra by polecat_redux · · Score: 4, Funny

    Symantec: The internet is a dangerous place these days - overrun with all sorts of viruses, worms, and malware. But, for only $79, we can see to it that your computer is safe. Without us, who knows what might happen to you...

    1. Re:la cosa nostra by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Symantec: The internet is a dangerous place these days - overrun with all sorts of viruses, worms, and malware. But, for only $79, we can see to it that your computer is safe. Without us, who knows what might happen to you...

      It would be funny - if it wasn't almost verbatim from their ad campaigns. "Boooh! Protect your PC from EVIL HACKERS that will SET YOUR PC ON FIRE!" (cue to picture of Peter Norton, stuffed in position with his arms crossed).

      Nah, on second though, it IS funny :)

  30. typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As usual, there are few calls to shoot the damn writers of the viruses ... the true problem.

    If it wasn't for the criminals, most windows 'problems' wouldn't be an issue at all.

    before you whine at me, and incorrectly call me flamebait for disagreeing with your somehow more enlightened views about the great good those virus writers do with their vandalism ...

    what do you think of grafitti? do you like it when you look outside in the morning and see some bastard's tag painted on your building?

    You fools treat viruses the same way that most cities (and those fools that call it 'art') treat grafitti ... leave it to the owner of the building to take care of the vandalism instead of tracking down and cutting the hands off the criminals that did the damage.

    1. Re:typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you please explain how you are going to completely eradicate all current virus writers and prevent any new ones from popping up in the future?

      No, you can't. So I'm not going to call you flamebait. I'm going to call you a retard, since it seems so much more appropriate .

    2. Re:typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      How are you going to completely eradicate all current rapist and prevent any new ones from popping up in the future?

      No, you can't. So I'm not going to call you flamebait. I'm going to call you a retard since it seems much more appropriate .

    3. Re:typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vote for public execution of virus writers!

  31. Re:so what? by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Insightful


    It's great, isn't it? We set up 3 AMD64 servers before I bought one for myself at home.

    I can't imagine anyone wanting to criple themselves with Windows on such a great platform.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  32. I agree, forget Joe (L)user by panurge · · Score: 5, Interesting
    W64 is an opportunity to move away from the whole "the system has to be insecure because Joe Sixpack is stupid" syndrome. If OS X can drop down a window asking for an admin password before installing updates, so can W64. W64 will be supposed to be a professional OS, for Turing's sake. Why can't MS simply use a few $$ of the billions to produce a nice "read this first" poster to explain to newbies how their nice new security system works, and how it will make using the computer so much more pleasant?

    Tinfoil hat time: perhaps all the FUD about SP2 problems, users unwilling to update etc. is just being put out by spammers and malware merchants.

    I agree there is a problem, especially with people who think they are creative. I'm afraid I was positively delighted when the author Louis de Bernieres lost the first 60 pages of his new novel becaue he had failed to make a backup, and complained that he didn't expect to have to make backups, he wasn't a computer expert (or words to that effect). People need to understand that failure to learn the basics can result in pain and distress.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:I agree, forget Joe (L)user by slittle · · Score: 1
      If OS X can drop down a window asking for an admin password before installing updates, so can W64.
      That's stupid. Users will just get into the habbit of typing the password on command, just like they click OK without reading the messages.

      Far better to have an installer system that allows signed packages to be installed without the password. At least for the currently logged in user; it's scary how few applications actually give you the option to install for everyone, or just you.
      --
      Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
    2. Re:I agree, forget Joe (L)user by Zebbers · · Score: 1

      Ummm...
      His laptop was stolen. That has nothing to do with computer failure. I don't think he expected to have his laptop stolen.

  33. Re:It makes me wonder.... by essreenim · · Score: 1

    Yes, I use an Athlon64 currently running a standard 32bit OS. The article is trying to say in a round about way that virus writers want to get in on the 64 bit game. Yes, I do think the backwards compatible proc's like mine and the Opteron and Intels new proc are going to be more susceptible by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% more than a normal x86 processor. Big swing...
    Nothing to see here. Besides I won't be running XP 64 bit edition ever anyweay, so I dont care. Im not even going to use my extra 32 bits until Slackware bring out a 64 bit OS of there own, and I hope they are in no hurry, and do it the Slackware way - properly.

  34. Re:It makes me wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Virii again :)

    I wonder what the current stati of the virii are?

  35. I believe you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    just to make sure that they don't loose any marketshare

    Upon whom will they loose market share? Or did you mean that they will lose market share?

    You, sir, have been served.

    Regards,
    Anonymous Coward, Esq.

  36. Re:It's a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahhh, as opposed to people to think they know everything because they have Maya on Windows (as used in... ZERO VFX production pipelines) and yet still manage to spend a large part of their day posting pro-MS flamebait on slashdot. Whatever mental problems you are experiencing that could lead to subconcious links between masterbation and linus, help is availiable and it really is nothing to be ashamed of; please seek professional advice.

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. Damn! by Linwood · · Score: 0

    And I thought 64bits was the god sent answer to virii, script kiddies, and 'Please Insert Disk' errors I keep getting! *grumble*

  39. In unrelated news... by MickyJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...anti-virus company profits are down.

  40. Sourcecode by MikeDX · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet the code is something like this:

    while(windows) {
    infect();
    }

  41. Re:It makes me wonder.... by MikeDX · · Score: 1

    The start of that comment remided me of the old "microsoft bashing poem" of old..

    64 bit virus on 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.

  42. Virus made by Symantec ? by thrill12 · · Score: 1

    ..oh no, I missed the "named by" bit.
    Makes you wonder though...

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  43. Re:It's a good thing by black+mariah · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Umm... I don't have Maya. I fucking hate Maya. Whatever the case, there are tons of places that use Maya on Windows. Mostly game companies and small VFX houses (not all VFX are in movies. Have you watced TV lately?).

    Anyway, it's a joke. Laugh.

    --
    'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  44. Nintendo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I Hack and port Windows 64, to my N64, will
    I have to worry about a virus wiping my Zelda and
    Mario saves?

  45. Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://cryptome.org/ncs-cryptome.htm

    I feel safer already!

  46. Re:It's a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're so certain of the infallability of your Windows box why not post it's IP? Yeah, thought so.

  47. Re:It's a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Actually I don't watch TV and the people I know in games still use 3DS MAX. Anyway, I was dead "serious", subconcious links between Linus and masterbation are manifestations of serious mental problems. seek help ;-)

    Now I can get back to fapping over linux on AMD64

  48. They will get used to enter the admin password... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...and there we go again.

    'How should I know when to enter and when not to enter the admin password?'

    So, the user will just be fooled into installing a needed plugin (whatever) and enters the required password...

  49. 32 - 64 bit by sucker_muts · · Score: 0

    Can somebody please benchmark these new kind of virusses?

    I for one would love to see some real-life performance improvements from this baby. Finally 64 bit gets used for its real goal!

    (Imagine a beowulf of Athlon 64's/Opterons/... being hit with this new speedmonster...)

    --
    Dependency hell? => /bin/there/done/that
  50. Yay! by kg_o.O · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hardware stack protection, finally, after all these years! All praise AMD! ;]

  51. Re:It's a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    127.0.0.1
  52. Re:It makes me wonder.... by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 3, Funny

    64 bit virii are more dangerous

    Don't forget that they can access your computer over the power line and get through the tin foil on your windows. Yep.

  53. Re:It makes me wonder.... by Jackdaw+Rookery · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't point the finger of idiocy so fast.

    The plural for computer virus is virus. Not viruses or virii.

    So put the finger down and walk away.

  54. 64 bit code? by jrest · · Score: 0

    And? Is it faster?

    --
    (Score:5, Not Funny)
  55. here's the grain of salt by maxpublic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some years ago I contracted with Symantec for about five months and worked closely with several of their departments, including the folks who did tech support for their anti-virus software. During that time Symantec offered a cash bounty to any techie who brought in a virus 'from the wild' that wasn't covered by the their antivirus software.

    It was common knowledge that many of these 'wild' viruses were actually, in fact, written by the support staff themselves in order to collect on the bounty. But Symantec didn't care because this just allowed them to enlarge their virus definition file and show their customers why it was important to subscribe to their update service. From my point of view it was a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" sort of thing.

    This was one of just many things about Symantec which disgusted me so much that after that contract I refused to work with them ever again. I don't know if they still have an update service for their anti-virus software, but it wouldn't surprise me if many of our future 64-bit viruses came directly from employees of Symantec itself.

    It's a great business model: release the viruses, then sell the software that combats those viruses. Unethical and illegal, but a solid money-maker for those who don't care about such trivial things.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    1. Re:here's the grain of salt by jjohnson · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you have any proof of this, it's a huge story that the media would go ape-shit over. Seriously, it would be a public service, too.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    2. Re:here's the grain of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      But Symantec didn't care because this just allowed them to enlarge their virus definition file and show their customers why it was important to subscribe to their update service

      This common accusation is a hoax. All major virus detection houses signed a mutual agreement to share their virus research. At one point, all these compagnies decided they would compete on features, ease of use and so forth, but not on virus coverage.

      They did so in part to better protect their consumer, but also to dodge the baseless accusation made above.

    3. Re:here's the grain of salt by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      They did so in part to better protect their consumer, but also to dodge the baseless accusation made above.

      I don't know how they do business nowadays, but this was the way things were done when I contracted for them. I know, I was there. You can say whatever you want about this being a "hoax" or a "baseless accusation", but it doesn't change what I know to be true.

      The only thing I'll say further on the matter is that this occurred over seven years ago. It's possible that the company changed it's modus operandi since then. I don't know if they have, and I don't really care; Symantec was such a corrupt little shit-hole of a company I pledged I'd never work for them again no matter how lucrative the contract, and I haven't.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    4. Re:here's the grain of salt by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      So are you saying they're all doing it?

      --

      Question everything

    5. Re:here's the grain of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For many years, Symantec's policies have forbidden employees to write viruses. I expect other AV companies operate the same way. Even if it were not the right thing to do, there are far too many genuine viruses to deal with on a daily basis to make a strategy of releasing contrived ones worth bothering with.

  56. Lol the general public can't handle OSX by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The average Apple user I have met isn't a computer whizkid. However there is a huge difference with the unwashed windows hords. The Apple user KNOWS he is a computer moron. Most of them therefore do little things like read the goddamn fucking manual. They are also less likely to be upset about safeguards. (just check with your local emergcency crew, it isn't the 2 left hands doctor who decides to do a bit of DIY who cuts of his thumb. It is the DIYer who think he knows it all and thinks safety catches are for wimps)

    The problem with windows isn't that its users are stupid and don't know shit. The problem is that MS has chosen to encourage these computer morons to feel like they know what they are doing and has given them enough rope to hang themselves with.

    It makes people feel good and gives helpdesk monkeys around the world fulltime employment.

    Remember, virusses, trojans, spyware ARE GOOD for the local economy.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Lol the general public can't handle OSX by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I don't know much about Mac, but you're right about who causes the problems. I've helped several "morons" with Windows, but the worst were the "morons" who thought they knew what they were doing - and didn't!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:Lol the general public can't handle OSX by valdezjuan · · Score: 1

      Maybe its just been my experience but most if not all of the mac users I know would be labled computer experts. For the majority of them, we used Mac's in high school when creating the school newspaper and have continued to use them since then (yup, even through the dark years). The others are all Unix Admins who have recently gone over to using OS X as their main desktops (though using things like the gimp and mutt instead of there OS X counterparts). Mac's are super easy to run and maintain but when tools like netcat, snort, nessus and nmap all complie cleanly from source, they are extremely powerful as well.

      As for Windows users, they are clueless (obviously not all but most), even with their MCSE's. Having done security for a corporate customer while having a primary focus on securing the companies that came to us for outsourcing (we were a large supposed to be the next best thing hosting company - and NO not exedus, we handled it soup to nuts). I have seem users do some of the stupidest things.

      "I clicked on the pictures from some party and now my machine isn't working."

      "Did you know the user that sent you the email?" I ask.

      "No, I didn't even look, just clicked away"

      "But don't you remember when we told you just earlier this week not to open up attatchments that come from unknown users and when in doubt call us. This is our job and we don't mind responding to questions, its what we do."

      "Yup." I her response.

      Sheesh. How can these people function? I just don't get it.

    3. Re:Lol the general public can't handle OSX by Yaztromo · · Score: 1
      The average Apple user I have met isn't a computer whizkid. However there is a huge difference with the unwashed windows hords. The Apple user KNOWS he is a computer moron. Most of them therefore do little things like read the goddamn fucking manual.

      It probably helps that Apple has some of the best manuals in the industry.

      I'd add a huge caveat to your generalization. OS X has attracted a whole lot of really intelligent people with its *BSD-based underpinnings. Their hardware and software is exceedingly advanced, and their development tools are the same as you'll find on Linux.

      All of my desktop machines are Intel-based, but my laptop (only a few months old now) is a PowerBook G4. And the "Power" portion isn't a misnomer -- it's a power laptop for a power user/developer (me :) ).

      Brad BARCLAY

  57. To make things easier by Throtex · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm going to write a library that I can port around to different operating systems and have all users install. Then the virus makers can just write against that library and have their viruses run against all platforms. Of course, this means distributing the virus in source code form and compiling it on the target computer, but I'm sure users would be more than happy to take that step for you. ;)

    1. Re:To make things easier by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course, this means distributing the virus in source code form and compiling it on the target computer, but I'm sure users would be more than happy to take that step for you.

      I can hear that conversation now: "I can't run this Anna Kornokova Simulator"
      "Call Bob he is a linux user, he can help you"
      "Hey Bob, I got the Anna K sim and..."
      "You know that will be a virus"
      "No, it's different THIS time. Tell me again the magic words, I am sure it'll be okay"
      "SIGH, dot slash config...MAKE....MAKE INSTALL"

    2. Re:To make things easier by TheApocalypse · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't you have to su root before the make install? If the readme file says that you need to install as root, then the end user will think the program is legit. If he/she doesn't even know how to install it, they probably won't even know that you need to have root privileges.

    3. Re:To make things easier by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Any true unix user will tell him to rm -rf / at that point

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  58. Re:It's a good thing by MvD_Moscow · · Score: 1

    What's my IP got to do with this? Any system can compromised by direct attack (including Linux). I was talking about vulnerability to things like spam/spyware/viruses. And why the hell are you posting as AC?

  59. AMD's compatibility by dpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AMD has the NX bit, and ISTR that Intel doesn't have it on their IA32e, or whatever the heck they call it, and that they reserved NX for IA-64. The NX bit makes the job more demanding for virus and worm writers, so I would expect AMD to give them additional concerns.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:AMD's compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the virus/worm writers need to do is set the evil bit on all the tcp packets that are to be transported. That takes care of any bit problems.

    2. Re:AMD's compatibility by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      This was only true for a very short period of time on paper, and is no longer true on the consumer market. The first IA-32e/EM64T enabled Pentium 4 Intel is shipping is the P4 "Prescott" Model F, which is based off of the E-0 core. The E-0 core not only supports EM64T(which was added in the D-0 core for Xeons), but eXecute Disable(XD) support, Intel's version of NX, was added in the latest core(AnandTech has the full details). We should see the first P4F's this September.

  60. 3 reasons.... by DrYak · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. First most important technology :
    AMD64 processors have NX extension.
    Which [quoting wikipedia] : "stands for "no execute", a technology used in CPUs such as Sun's Sparc, Transmeta's Efficeon, and newer 64-bit x86 processors to prevent code from being executed on areas of memory flagged with an NX bit. This feature signifigantly lowers the probability of crackers exploiting buffer overflows and increases overall system security.".
    This technology is only supported in newer OSes like Windows XP 64 and Windows XP SP2. It wasn't supported before (exemple in Windows XP SP1 or in Windows 2000).
    So before all, a new AMD64-compatible virus, has to cope with new forms of protection.

    2. Binary compatibility.
    This is going to be more technical.
    AMD64 (and Intel's clone "EMT64") are an extension over the standart 32bits inscruction set (IA-32).
    So yes, AMD64 could run any 32bit code natively, unlike Itanium (which can only emulate it, with some hardware assistance).

    BUT : A worm isn't your average spread-sheet application. It doesn't always run stand-alone.
    In order to perform some operation, like infecting a computer without user attention, or gaining administrator privileges, or hacking some kernel stuff to help its replication, the worm must inject code inside OTHER application.

    And even if the virus is 32bit, if it infects a 64-bits OS, odds are the applications in which the virus must inject code (e-mail client, kernel, etc...) will be 64bits application.

    64bit bit binary code isn't necessary exactly the same as 32bit. Some binary code may be interpreted as different instruction depending on whether the memory segment (the application) was tagged as "16bit code", "32bit code" or "64bit code".
    The processor can run all of this "dialects" natively in hardware, but may be expecting a different dialect because the application is tagged as 64bits and the injected code was intended for 32bits systems.

    Denpending on the implementation (i don't know AMD64 well enough), when loading data into pointer register, the 32bit code running in 64bit application could either :
    - only override the lower 32 bits of the pointer, keeping intect the upper 32 bits.
    i.e.: load 0x00001234 into a register whose value is 0x0012345601234567, will give you 0x0012345600001234) a different location than expected by the virus, and the machine would crash instead of being infected.

    - read pas the lenght of the instruction in code memory.
    simplified exemple :
    if code is "LOAD into pointer 0x00001234, then ADD 500 to register B".
    the pointer will be loaded with garbage data "0x0001234, then ADD", and the processor will try to execute code form "500 to register B" which doesn't mean anything, and the machine would crash instead of being infected.

    (some useful link about 64bit architecture).

    3. Memory model :

    Last but not least, memory organisation is different between a 32bits and a 64bits OS.
    So worm should use different exploits to inject code into different places.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  61. Poorpoint and Weapons of mass destruction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We already knew that Powerpoint caused the space shuttle disaster. But did you also know that Powerpoint was at the origin of the WMD embarassment?

    [PP's involvment in space-shuttle catastrophe]

    Microsoft officials, of course, beg to differ. Simon Marks, the product manager for PowerPoint, counters that Tufte is a fan of ''information density,'' shoving tons of data at an audience. You could do that with PowerPoint, he says, but it's a matter of choice. ''If people were told they were going to have to sit through an incredibly dense presentation,'' he adds, ''they wouldn't want it.'' And PowerPoint still has fans in the highest corridors of power: Colin Powell used a slideware presentation in February when he made his case to the United Nations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

  62. Re:so what? by MikeXpop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah. It's really crippling being able to run a variety of commercial software including all the latest games.

    Sheesh, what's with all the OS hate around here? Linux, Windows, BSD, Mac OS, Mac OS X, etc are just tools. Tools that can help you get jobs done. Use the best tool for the job. I wouldn't imagine editing video on anything but OS X, just like I wouldn't imagine playing games on anything but Windows, just like I wouldn't imagine running a dedicated server on anything but Linux.

    No one OS is crippling. Limiting yourself due to fanaticism is.

    --
    Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
  63. Mod down parent, apologist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 64-bit version of Windows is, for business and dev uses, crippled afaic. Unless you like using software which the vendor admits is a flawed beta (this from the co. that claimed Win95 wasn't!) and for which the source is closed and for which the vendor offers explicitly offers no support at all. Oh yes, finally, the vendor has no timetable for delivering an actual finished version, nor is it clear whether it will actually support your processor at that time.

    This basically takes it out of any reasonable professional environment, hopefully. Which leaves the hobbyist; in this realm, unless you are concerned about all of your 37337 sk1nZ going obsolete, you are probably using or considering linux anyway. What is the point of playing with a development OS if the source is closed?

    Couple this with the fact that very few tools right now actually use 64-bit "power" (but those which can, really do use it), and your post is quickly revealed as a mindless kneejerk.

    1. Re:Mod down parent, apologist. by opposume · · Score: 0

      In this mans humble opinion, I think that this person was not specifying the beta o/s from MS, but a broader aspect of operating systems in general. I agree with him in that you have to use the right tool for the job. 64-bit windows not withstanding.

      --
      I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on disk somewhere.
  64. Viruses written by anti-virus software companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as soon as the anti-virus companies understand how to write the viruses, then they
    can warn us to buy their new software.

  65. Captian Obvious, to the RESCUE! by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

    "it does show that virus writers are looking toward the future"

    Not to insult the journalistic talent that is Timothy, but seriously guy, you need to come up with a better introduction to an article that isn't full of utter stupidity. Nothing pisses me off, or makes me reel in laughter more than a muckraker introducing an article in the wrong manner.

  66. Re:It's a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're so smug about your non-MS box, let's see your IP. Put up or shut up.

  67. Dictionary disagrees. by SlightlyPointy · · Score: 1

    Actually viruses is recognised by the dictionary as the plural of virus.

    --
    ~Craig
    1. Re:Dictionary disagrees. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks but I'll go with the 'Oxford Guide to Style' (Oxford Press) rather than 'reference.com'.

      BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE NET, DO NOT THINK

  68. Virus developers should be hunted down and SHOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You pond scum out there! We know lots of you troll /.

    We should hunt you down, put on you live, national TV and shoot you in the head as an example.

    You're simply terrorists who seek to destroy society.

    You are simply replicating your own life form...Virii.

    Write a virus----> BOOM! Bye bye pond scum!Then you won't be able to sit at home playing Counterstrike all day!

  69. So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who is really writing those viruses nowadays? (No pun intended. Unless it's Big Pun)

  70. Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. You're an idiot.
    2. ???
    3. Profit !!

    Works for me.

  71. Scare Mongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here we are even before 64 bit Windows is even available to the general public and Symantec is already on the go publishing it's fear mongering to ensure their market for the future. Why is Slashdot participating?

  72. that is the worst feature about OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It pops up that "need your password" window so often that you don't even think twice about entering your password. All a program needs to do then is put up a fake window asking for the password, capture it, and have at it on your system.

    Windows does allow you to tighten down the machine so you need a password to install, or cannot at all. This is the right level of security.

    Now all you have to do is convince people to start making limited user accounts instead of admin accounts.

  73. Re:so what? by Polira · · Score: 1

    Go with Mandrake 10, its a great distro with an AMD64 version.

  74. This is 64 Bit Computing by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

    Well, if you look here, these computers all go to 32. You see? And ours go to 64. . .all across the board. 64. . .64. . .64. . .64.

    And does that make it faster?

    Well, it's twice as fast, isn't it?

    Well, why don't you just make a faster 32 bit computer instead of a 64 bit?
    . . .
    . . .
    These go to 64.

  75. Re:well thats great.(Whadd'r we s'pose to do now?) by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then, from a biology perspective, when a cell is cancerous (growing without an off switch) some chemotherapy is in order, right? Whether it's chips or software, someone is going to pursue or craft a knee-capping piece of code. Maybe not many attacks are going specifically after Intel's wares, since it seems the code running in their chips is not (from what I gather) crippling Linux running on the same CPUs that ms windows (lower-casing/deprecation intentional) -based computers.

    Maybe this cracking and hacking response is just normal. Let it work. SOMEthing has to keep ms in check, right? After all, if a corporation has a status of "entity" or "person", and then it runs amok, trying to be all for everyone and control or destroy all it doesn't like to compete with then it also should have a lifespan, and be subject to human "murderers" or "kneecappers", but it seems ms is morphing itself into a cancer by being:

    -voracious (computing, real estate, banking, entertainment...)
    -omnivorous (buy up real or file fake patents)
    -belligerent (FUD, pre-empt moms & pops)
    -bellicose- (funding BSA, (no, not the Boy Scouts))
    -obtuse (pricing)
    -sprially spawning into numerous markets (see item above... let us hope they don't end up in airline cockpits)
    -prevaricators (faked video testimony, ROI, etc...)

    Other companies do similar, but it doesn't seem anyone is hell-bent on attacking:

    -IBM
    -Sony
    -Fujitsu
    -Kroger
    -Marshalls
    -SCO ...

    Wait, SCO is busy juggling the efforts of cutting it's own jugular...

    David Syes

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  76. The ROWED Road Ahead by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Probably gates didn't like THIS road ahead in "The Road Ahead", so he must be inclined to create a "Swervy Road Ahead" to offset virus attacks.

    Apparently, "The Helix Ahead" is the torturous path ms must be forced along...

    Linux has "Tux", but maybe now, with all the viral activity, ms has:

    http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/5960/manatee. ht ml

    or

    http://www.manateeworld.net

    (Does anyone know if Tux can outswim a manatee?)

    (for running that snouted Tux ad in Germany a bit back, ms deserves this barb...)

    Maybe the book could have been "The Troll Road Ahead", for it elicited much ridicule, and maybe windows itself is not just a purported operating system, and not just a viral black hole, but it is also "troll for virus activity", a billboard for digitial attackers.

    For possibly interesting reading, see the "Toll Road Ahead" (some of which you may have already seen):

    http://www.economist.co.uk/science/tq/

    http://www.timpatrick.com/articles/crosl/

    http://www.netaction.org/monitor/mon28.html

    http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5386

    http://www.osnews.com/article.php?kind=Editorial &o ffset=0&rows=70

    David Syes

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  77. Re:so what? by prockcore · · Score: 1

    It's really crippling being able to run a variety of commercial software including all the latest games.

    Not true. I happen to have XP64 installed, and you cannot run all the latest games and commercial software. A lot of software doesn't work. Even firefox refuses to run on XP64 without turning off NX protection.

    And Doom3 won't run at all.. there is no way to run Doom3 on XP64.

  78. Sorry but, by clovis · · Score: 1

    I do not understand this.
    What's the "proof of concept"?
    So someone wrote a program that looks for files that are executables and adds some code to the end that does the same thing?
    Does it promote itself to run with system permissions, or only user-level perms?
    As near as I can tell, the writer went to some trouble to limit his program so that it can only propagate on a particular machine and OS, and called it a '64 bit virus'.
    On the other hand, maybe I just don't get it.

  79. Re:It makes me wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you receive an email entitled "Badtimes," delete it immediately. Do not open it. Apparently this one is pretty nasty. It will not only erase everything on your hard drive, but it will also delete anything on disks within 20 feet of your computer.
    It demagnetizes the stripes on ALL of your credit cards. It reprograms your ATM access code, screws up the tracking on your VCR and uses subspace field harmonics to scratch any CD's you attempt to play. It will re-calibrate your refrigerator's coolness settings so all your ice cream melts and your milk curdles. It will program your phone autodial to call only your ex-spouses' number. This virus will mix antifreeze into your fish tank. It will drink all your beer. It will leave dirty socks on the coffee table when you are expecting company. Its radioactive emissions will cause your bellybutton fuzz (be honest, you have some) to migrate behind your ears. It will replace your shampoo with Nair and your Nair with Rogaine, all while dating your current boy/girlfriend behind your back and billing their hotel rendezvous to your Visa card. It will cause you to run with scissors and throw things in a way that is only fun until someone loses an eye. It will give you Dutch Elm Disease and Psitticosis. It will rewrite yo
    ur backup files, changing all your active verbs to passive tense and incorporating undetectable misspellings which grossly change the interpretations of key sentences. It will leave the toilet seat up and leave your hair dryer plugged in dangerously close to a full bathtub. It will not only remove the forbidden tags from your mattresses and pillows, but it will also refill your skim milk with whole milk. It will replace all your luncheon meat with Spam. It will molecularly rearrange your cologne or perfume, causing it to smell like dill pickles. It is insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve. These are just a few signs of infection.

  80. Re:They will get used to enter the admin password. by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

    Very simple. Only do on the computer what you want to do, not what the computer asks you to.

    If you don't know, it's time to get a simpler/safer OS, like UNIX. (unix almost never asks you anything, it's all your fault).