Slashdot Mirror


New Worm Installs Sniffer

fmorgan writes "Netcraft just posted a note saying that a new worm installs a network sniffer in the infected computers." When I read these things it kind of makes me wonder why it took this long. Update: 09/13 22:47 GMT by T : More innovation: Ant writes "The Register has a story about a piece of malware that 'talks' to victims. The Amus email worm uses Windows Speech Engine (which is built-in to Windows XP) to deliver a curious message to infected users. The message reads: "How are you. I am back. My name is mister hamsi. I am seeing you. Haaaaaaaa. You must come to turkiye. I am cleaning your computer. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 0. Gule. Gule." ("Gule. Gule" is Turkish for "Bye. Bye". "Hamsi" is a small fish, like an anchovy, found in the Black Sea). F-Secure has a copy of the sound file generated by the message."

491 comments

  1. If only the worm installed a Swiffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Then dust free computers for all!

    1. Re:If only the worm installed a Swiffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to install updates on other people's computers, with or without consent.

    2. Re:If only the worm installed a Swiffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I... Dont.. Get.. It..

    3. Re:If only the worm installed a Swiffer by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is it "Amus" e-mail or "Anus" e-mail worm. Give a whole new flexible dimension to being rooted, cracked, backdoored, sniffed, packeted...

      Back orifice is trying hard to live up to it's namesake, or is windoze trying hard to reciprocate (that *9 number) with back orifice?

      David Syes

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    4. Re:If only the worm installed a Swiffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might help.

    5. Re:If only the worm installed a Swiffer by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      And, it sounds like ms needs not just AnBEsol, but AnUsol... Or, would that be AMusol?

      While they're (ms're) at it, how about Blue Star Ointment:"Blue Star Ointment: Stops ringworm, tether, psoriasis. Stops itching FAST! Blue Star Ointment." (When I grew up in Tx, in that was the default, fastest, and easiest-to-memorize commercial-- for me in the 70's at least....)

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  2. More technical details by Lord+Grey · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here is propagation information on the worm WORM_SDBOT.UH from Trend Micro (link pulled from the article):

    Network Propagation and Exploits

    This worm takes advantage of the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) vulnerability present on Windows XP systems, which allows an attacker to gain full access and execute any code on a target machine, leaving it compromised. Read more on this vulnerability from the following link:

    Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-026

    It also takes advantage of the Buffer Overflow in SQL Server 2000 vulnerability. Read more on this vulnerability from the following link:

    Microsoft Security Bulletin MS02-061

    This worm also exploits the IIS5/WEBDAV buffer overrun vulnerability affecting Windows NT platforms, which enables arbitrary codes to execute on the server. The following link offers more information from Microsoft about this vulnerability:

    Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-007

    It also exploits the Windows LSASS vulnerability. This is a buffer overrun vulnerability that allows remote code execution. Once successfully exploited, a remote attacker is able to gain full control of the affected system. For more information about this vulnerability, refer to the following Microsoft Web site:

    Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-011
    This worm spreads via network shares, using NetBEUI functions to get available lists of user names and passwords. It then searches for and lists down the following shared folders, where it drops a copy of itself using the gathered information:
    • Admin$\system32
    • C$\windows\system32
    • C$\winnt\system32
    • Ipc$
    Trend Micro reports that the worm runs on Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, and XP. But notice that they report that the worm as not in the wild. So... where is it? Did they get a prerelease?
    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
    1. Re:More technical details by terraformer · · Score: 2, Funny
      But notice that they report that the worm as not in the wild. So... where is it? Did they get a prerelease?
      At least the crackers won't be getting a vaporware award this year. How long have people been waiting for DNF??? Maybe 3dRealms can hire some of these coders and put them to marginally better use...
      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    2. Re:More technical details by fitten · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How does Windows XP SP2 Data Execution Prevention handle this? or does it? (sounds like all those buffer overrun/overflow exploits should be stopped)

    3. Re:More technical details by baadfood · · Score: 4, Funny

      Duh! They made it themselves of course!

    4. Re:More technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      All the holes exploited were patched before XP SP2: SP2 already contains fixes for them.

    5. Re:More technical details by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Wow, scary.

      "This virus takes advatage of this exploit, but it also takes advantage of this other one; not to forget this other one aswell. Wait, unless it runs on NT, then it specifically targets this one!"

      I hope SP2 adresses most of those issues, atleast on XP, but still, Microsoft code feels too much like swiss cheese.

    6. Re:More technical details by Manitcor · · Score: 2

      all of the listed sploits being used by this worm have patches that have been realesed. As with most MS platform worms, virii and trojans they take advatange of the fact that the average windows user/net admin does not know or care to take the time to make sure thier systems are properly patched and secured.

      --
      "Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
    7. Re:More technical details by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      or that they are on dialup and can't keep up (home users, a little under half anyway).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    8. Re:More technical details by bot24 · · Score: 1

      Well that's good. The RPC on my Windows installation has been broken for several months, atleast that is what the data/time sync program says. I don't have IIS on my server, and I don't have any of those $ share thingeys in Samba. No MSSql garbage either. I don't know what this LSASS stuff is(possibly YALATIDNU(yet another long abbreviation that I do no understand)), but I doubt that it will bother me if my machine is behind a NAT firewall and running Linux most of the time.

    9. Re:More technical details by AC-x · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Still I'd be interested to know if SP2's Data Execution Prevention would have stopped this if the holes hadn't been patched.

      Doing proactive fixes like this should be better the reatively fixing holes as they appear so it would be interesting to know how well this latest feature works.

      Also I never really understood why there are always so many buffer overrun problems in software, I know it's a bit more complex then
      while(readdata() && bufferlimit--){}
      but still...

    10. Re:More technical details by RMH101 · · Score: 0

      um, the holes the sploit uses were patched prior to SP2: hence are rolled up within SP2. so SP2 cures it, just as prior patches do. hence your question makes no sense...

    11. Re:More technical details by numark · · Score: 2, Informative

      The comment was more along the lines of, had those patches never been created in the first place, would SP2's Data Execution Prevention still prevent the problem? After all, "Prevention" implies a proactive system, so it should be able to prevent the problem even if a patch doesn't even exist.

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    12. Re:More technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What is a virii? Is that like a fuckuu?

    13. Re:More technical details by Atrax · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    14. Re:More technical details by rkrabath · · Score: 2, Funny

      EVERY ONE GET THEIR FREE COPY OF SP2!!!!


      Do your part to bleed the evil empire dry!

      --
      Who do I have to blackmail to get some representation around here!?!?!?!?
    15. Re:More technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is this 'sploit' term people are using?

      Sounds like 1337 h4x02 speak to me, cut it out!

    16. Re:More technical details by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Duh! They made it themselves of course!

      I know that was probably meant to be funny but really it's a little disturbing because it seems like it's actually the case.

      Very frequently the major players in the Antivirus market are either having the viruses "before they show up in the wild" or less than "hours" before people start reporting initial infection.

      It doesn't take a paranoid individual to conclude the obvious.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    17. Re:More technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a license. Will they send it to me?

    18. Re:More technical details by baadfood · · Score: 1

      At the very least... Without going so far as to claim that AV companies actually release the viruses they write - it would be difficult to think that their researchers (and other security industry people) do NOT write / develop proof of concept viruses themselves. And then the AV companies add the signature of their own internal R&D viruses to their product - which Marketing thinks is great as they can now put a big *Over 10,000 viruses found and Removed* sticker on the box.

    19. Re:More technical details by Atrax · · Score: 1

      How will they find out?

      If you're pathologically paranoid, get it sent to a friend's place, or a PO box (or whatever) and wear your tinfoil hat when you pick it up - just patch your machine so it doesn't end up sending me Vi@Gr4 spam when it's 0wn3d

      Not that Slashdot readers are ever 0wn3d, right?

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    20. Re:More technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Tried it, they do.

    21. Re:More technical details by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The SP2 CD came out long after those exploits were first used, you need to apply the patches the day they come out to prevent an infection. Supplying less critical patches via an SP CD is acceptable, but these exploits will get you if you patch too late.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    22. Re:More technical details by Net_Wakker · · Score: 2, Informative
      Microsoft will ship the [XP SP2] CD to you free of charge.
      true, but for a lot of languages the cdreleasedate is september 14 or later (check your own link), besides which MS states on that same page "Please allow approximately 4-6 weeks for shipping." So were I running XP, and on dial-up, I could'nt install SP2 before mid-october.
    23. Re:More technical details by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm never owned. i have a pattened system at fighting hackers. Of course if i told ya about it, then it wouldn't be so effective but it works right now.

  3. How much longer? by cbrocious · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How much longer before worms use their own TCP/IP stack? Wouldn't much suprise me, and might be beneficial for getting around firewalls. Might be a cool little project to make a zoo virus that does it.

    --
    Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
    1. Re:How much longer? by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it took this long because it took this long for viruses to become a tool of organized computer crime. Stay tuned for more.....

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:How much longer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would be the point of that? How the hell would it allow them to get around firewalls? Even if you mean XP's own internal software firewall, the virus still has to talk to the network card. As soon as it does that XP will tell it to fuck right off.

    3. Re:How much longer? by archivis · · Score: 1

      You mean as soon as the sniffer runs the code to happily open whatever holes in the XP firewall it wants...the firewall will happily let it.

      --
      In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
    4. Re:How much longer? by returnoftheyeti · · Score: 1

      Its called New Dot Net. If you don't remove that properly, your TCP/IP stack is fucked

    5. Re:How much longer? by i23098 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand... If worms use their own TCP/IP stack how would they sniff anything?
      And about getting around firewalls, if firewall is in another machine it will handle those packets... Don't know if it can bypass a local firewall but maybe it can...

  4. New worms... by Nos. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The newest MyDoom variant has the author asking for a job...
    http://www.vnunet.com/news/1158043
    The arnus worm speaks to infected users.
    I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I just know I'm getting calls in the next few days because someone's computer says "How are you...".

    1. Re:New worms... by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      The arnus worm speaks to infected users.

      For a second I thought that said "anus worm", which would be really gross if it were talking to its hosts.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    2. Re:New worms... by nettdata · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This userFriendly strip says it all. :)

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    3. Re:New worms... by DissidentHere · · Score: 1

      Seems like that would be the only voice most people could hear.....

      --
      "None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
    4. Re:New worms... by tkg · · Score: 1

      Yeah. It kinda gives new meaning to the phrase "talking out of your ass".

    5. Re:New worms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're a fucking moron.

  5. Encrypt! by WD_40 · · Score: 5, Informative

    As demonstrated at DEFCON with "The Wall of Sheep" (stupid name, cool idea) it seems that a lot of people who should know better still don't encrypt their password transmissions.

    If you haven't already, it's time to get serious about encryption.

    --

    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

    1. Re:Encrypt! by koreth · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That won't help you if you're infected by this worm, which does keystroke logging. You can encrypt your password six ways from Sunday and it will still have been intercepted before it ever reaches your encryption software.

      Not that I'm against encryption or anything. But it won't necessarily stop your passwords from being stolen.

    2. Re:Encrypt! by Tower · · Score: 1

      Like everyone who uses POP3... especially since most ISPs don't provide APOP or other options.

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    3. Re:Encrypt! by jabber-admin · · Score: 0

      Ah ha! Then we simply need encryption between the keyboard and software! Genius!

    4. Re:Encrypt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, if you're running Windows you can get infected with this or any of the myriad other worms, some of which install keyloggers. The unique thing about this is that it installs a NETWORK SNIFFER and not a keylogger on the box, meaning that other machines on the same network can get "sniffed" even if they're not infected.

      The upshot is that all of those people who normally ignore virus alerts because they run Linux [Slashdot audience] need to confirm they encrypt everything and then go about ignoring these alerts again. ...either that or convert that one last "compatibility" machine from Windows to Linux.

    5. Re:Encrypt! by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I used to use an encryption program that attempted to get around keystroke loggers...by remapping your keyboard when you were in the password box. A keystroke logger would see gobbeltygook...granted, it was a simple cipher, but since there isn't enough information in a single 16 character password to generate a key for such a cipher, it was still pretty secure.

      I stopped using it when I got my mac, because built in AES-128 is just easier than mucking about with encrypted disk drivers and suchlike. I don't have that much to keep secure anyway...just some receipts, beer recipes and incriminating photos

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    6. Re:Encrypt! by SKPhoton · · Score: 1

      Screenshot of the Wall of Sheep

    7. Re:Encrypt! by rainer_d · · Score: 4, Informative

      > You can encrypt your password six ways from
      > Sunday and it will still have been intercepted
      > before it ever reaches your encryption software.

      Indeed. But there's that nice Squirrelmail plugin that lets you use a virtual keyboard to enter your password ;-)

      Rainer

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    8. Re:Encrypt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my ISPs pop3 server supports md5-cram you insensitive clod!

    9. Re:Encrypt! by rodgerd · · Score: 1

      Of course, no logger writer would think to hook into IE JScript or Windows GDI events.

    10. Re:Encrypt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 16 character password? A remapped keyboard? Man, you are paranoid. Its not like youre protecting much of value. Are you frequently targeted by computer criminals or something?

    11. Re:Encrypt! by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      > Of course, no logger writer would think to hook
      > into IE JScript or Windows GDI events.

      In the latest version of the plugin, you don't have to click anything anymore.
      You just hover over the virtual key 2s and voila it gets pressed.

      cheers,
      Rainer

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    12. Re:Encrypt! by robotbrain · · Score: 1

      What program was that? That sounds like a very interesting one that I'd love to try out.

  6. A few points by Meostro · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. A Link to Trend Micro's SDBot.UH analysis

    2. I love the fact that this worm drops itself as BLING.EXE

    3. This worm uses carnivore network sniffer and checks for the following strings
    As Taco said, I'm surprised it's taken this long. Considering it uses 5 patched vulnerabilities I'd say you deserve what you get in this case.

    4. This is particularly... clever? It does all kinds of things that I would put in as feature requests for the perfect worm
    • It has 6 paths of infection: 5 vulnerabilities (as above) plus open shares
    • It attempts to steal CD keys for some games.
    • It installs a network sniffer
    • It has an interface with 26 commands that the bad guys can use on an 0wned box
    • It can log keystrokes
    It doesn't destory anything all by itself, although it probably crashes some boxen through the exploits (was that just Sasser, or is that part of the LSASS flaw?) It still sucks, but it's just an expected evolution.

    I'm still waiting for the really bad one...
    1. Re:A few points by savagedome · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm still waiting for the really bad one...

      A really bad one would look for Excel/Word files and modify a couple of data entries in a huge list of numbers.

      Kind of like someone breaking into the house, leaving something obnoxious under the fridge that starts smelling bad really gradually over a period of few months.

      Imagine the look on the PHB's face when 6 months down the line he realizes while doing some entires in the sheet that the p/e ratio is negative!

    2. Re:A few points by ricotest · · Score: 5, Funny

      As soon as your comment was posted, a dozen hackers got to work on a virus that does exactly what you describe. Thanks for helping fuck up my reports, asshole.

    3. Re:A few points by gmuslera · · Score: 1
      One that in some way makes the machine inusable, even after reinstalling?

      Probably there are very few ways of damaging hardware (at least that be unnoticed till is too late, giving high load to disk/monitor/etc needs time to work if it does), but damaging flash memory, upgradable bios or setting hardware programmable defaults to something nasty maybe can be done.

      Maybe if some of that kind of virus becomes very sucessful people (ok, the remaining ones) will start to take care and worms will not be a so big problem in a future.

    4. Re:A few points by randomiam · · Score: 4, Funny
      "inusable"?

      That's unpossible, isn't it?

    5. Re:A few points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still waiting for the really bad one...

      The really bad one would be a variant of this that instead of sending out the network traffic/keylogs to just the virus creator, it sends it to every e-mail address it found on your computer. Wouldn't that suck?

    6. Re:A few points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A really bad one would look for Excel/Word files and modify a couple of data entries in a huge list of numbers.

      A subtle virus would pick some random entries, subtract 2 from the value, and re-insert it. So $2134.12 becomes $2132.12, and -$140,154 becomes -$140,156. This would be really insidious as you get a few months down the line, and realize all your numbers are totally fucked up. Eeevil!

    7. Re:A few points by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The really bad ones are already out in the wild, and they do not damage your data.

      They wait 'till you go to an HTTPS site and then they log your keystrokes. It's about cash money for the villains, and not doing anything to get caught.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    8. Re:A few points by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It attempts to steal CD keys for some games.

      This was part of my argument for the ridiculousness of a developer making an app delete a user's home directory when a pirated key is found.

      1. user buys shareware. one of the honest 1%, if statistics can be believed.
      2. user loses unique use of the shareware key to worm/keygen
      3. shareware key spreads, and is labelled a pirate version
      4. original user updates their shareware app, shareware app nukes their home folder.

    9. Re:A few points by riscthis · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that deployment of that type of copy-protection system would actually result in criminal prosecution and/or jail time in many countries.

    10. Re:A few points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're aware that your own hypothesis hinges on the concept that an innocent person buys the shareware program, and then is hit by a worm that just happens to take that CD key, or a keygen just happens to generate the key required for this to happen, and the odds are astronomically stacked against that.

      The only people this will hit are people using pirated keys. As for it affecting innocents, not gonna happen.

    11. Re:A few points by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      The thing is, most virus /worm authors aren't into it for the joy of destruction. Adding a payload that erases stuff is not at all challenging, or in any way beneficial to anyone, even the author.

      From a technical point of view, I can respect a worm that is technically advanced... sort of how we might respect some kind of bank robber who never actually hurts or threatens to hurt anyone, and doesn't use a weapon. He's still a bad guy, disrupting the economy... but he's not a murderer.. so we respect him on a certain level.

      A worm author adding deliberately destructive payloads that have no technical purpose, but are there simply to fuck ME over... that puts them in a class with the bank robber who walks in, shoots random people, threatens to kill the rest, etc....

      Worms are bad.. stealing computer resources is bad, but on a technical level a good worm is interesting.

    12. Re:A few points by dfn_deux · · Score: 1

      I had a buddy back in Highschool who wrote some code for older macintoshes that would tweak the video settings just enough to fry the CRT after a few days.

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
    13. Re:A few points by Meostro · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking something purely evil, like cycling display modes or monitor power status once every two seconds. Not ten times a second, the monitor wouldn't keep up, it would always be in flux, but if you let it sleep, then wake it up, then let it sleep, then wake it up....... probably wouldn't take a lot to get a nice loud *ZAP*

      Another option is setting display modes to something insane, a 500Hz refresh rate would be a sight to see, assuming it's possible... I know you can set it to something your monitor doesn't like (Window$ will even tell you which ones it doesn't like), but I don't remember how far rates can be tweaked beyond 60/70/72/75Hz.

      Even just overclocking your video card, which can be done in software could be suitably evil. Nothing obvious, but every once in a while your computer just straight freezes up. If you (evil you) get lucky, you might even manage to fry something when the boss installs that ridiculous "3D multimedia presentation software" he just bought!

      Otherwise, as someone said above, change a couple numbers on a spreadsheet by four, don't ruin anything, just screw with it. If it changed different cells by 10% everytime you opened/saved it, you'd never track it down, 'cause "I saw cell A2 change last time, but I fixed it and the #s STILL don't add up right dammit!"

    14. Re:A few points by rgmoore · · Score: 1
      I'm still waiting for the really bad one...

      A really bad one could be almost unbelieveably nasty. Try reading about Warhol Worms, and then think about one with a destructive payload that targeted a zero day Windows vulnerability. A worm like that could take down a substantial fraction of the world's computers before anyone realized that there was a problem. A more subtle threat- like a slow worm that caused subtle data corruption- might be able to mess things up pretty badly before being wiped out, too.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    15. Re:A few points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As soon as your comment was posted, a dozen hackers got to work on a virus that does exactly what you describe.

      No they didn't, but don't tell your boss. You should thank "savagedome"... that excuse might just work now!

      "Gee, no boss, that's not my porn on there. Must be a virus!"

    16. Re:A few points by legirons · · Score: 1
      "As soon as your comment was posted, a dozen hackers got to work on a virus that does exactly what you describe. Thanks for helping fuck up my reports, asshole."
      su -c ooffice username1
      su -c mozilla username2
      Now if mozilla gets exploited, your reports are safe. If you want to work on a document you downloaded from the browser, you can copy and chgrp it.

      Best of all, if someone sits down at your computer and runs "mozilla", it won't have any of the browse-history or cookies from your "username2" account. Nor can they read your letters in OOo.

    17. Re:A few points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about just post to some usenet news group? Those things seem to get archived/googled pretty well.

    18. Re:A few points by dasmegabyte · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I saw a few nasty viruses back in college...Empire Monkey was one, wrecked your MBR and just enough data to mean a reinstall was inevitable. One that manipulated the MBR and the lock-up bug on the Pentium processor. Finally, there was a notorious Word virus called Meat Grinder. Did nothing for the first few dozen saves, then overwrote your file on disk with complete gibberish.

      Saw a graduate student reduced to sobbing over that last one...her teacher was a real prick and wouldn't take anything late for any reason and she had not been educated on the importance of multiple backups. It was 2 am the day before it was due and no amount of Norton Disk Doctor was going to save her (luckily, she'd been on a machine the day before and just shut it down, we had 13 of 20 pages autosaved). I had to call him the next day, and he didn't believe me. I wound up refering him to the head of academic computing, who essentially told the guy that this was the worst virus he'd ever seen and it would be utterly heartless not to give the girl an extension. Dr. Wolf was the MAN.

      All of these spread via diskettes and public terminals. Be glad nobody's applied these concepts to an internet worm. We'd be fucked.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    19. Re:A few points by pclminion · · Score: 1
      she had not been educated on the importance of multiple backups.

      How would multiple backups have saved her? She'd be backing up an infected file.

      Of course, she could export to RTF to cleanse the virus, but how do you convince somebody to do that regularly? It's ridiculously inconvenient.

    20. Re:A few points by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      A backup would have been of an older infected file which, in this case, would not have released the timed payload. I could also CLEAN the file without running the script.

      Exporting to RTF is a ridiculous non-solution which doesn't preserve stylesheets or many of the other important features in MS Word. In the time it took to teach her to export to RTF, import back to word, and clean the file, you could just as easily taught her how to strip macros from a word file.

      It doesn't matter anyway...the point is, she received no training and that wasn't her fault. She was dropped into a "do it yourself" environment and she did it poorly. Many people do, that's why it's so important to be trained or mentored.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    21. Re:A few points by bobbozzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There was a destructive internet worm recently.
      It attacked PC's via a hole in BlackICE firewall.

      After reproducing for a little while, it began randomly overwriting sectors on the HD. Eventually your OS (and probably a lot of data) would be fubar.

      URL: http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/witty.shtml

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    22. Re:A few points by EngMedic · · Score: 4, Funny

      I still think the best (worst?) virus would delete one card at random from solitare....

      --
      filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
    23. Re:A few points by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I have a friend who just got her M.A. My advice to her was to print her thesis (or the new portions of it) at least once a week until she was done with it.

      Yeah, it would have been hell to type it all over again, but it would have beat having to rewrite it from scratch.

    24. Re:A few points by Atrax · · Score: 1

      > 1. user buys shareware

      You lost me right about there. you mean people actually pay? Wow.

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    25. Re:A few points by M.+Silver · · Score: 1

      Kind of like someone breaking into the house, leaving something obnoxious under the fridge that starts smelling bad really gradually over a period of few months.

      You mean inside the curtain rods, so when they finally give up and move out of the house the smell goes with them.

      (And it's supposed to be a vengeful, soon-to-be-ex wife, not a break-in. But you get the idea.)

      --

      Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
    26. Re:A few points by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Given the frequency that this kind of thing happens, I'm surprised that post-grad courses don't get serious with educating their students about these problems. Even the IT dept could help with large BACK UP YOUR FILES signs in the labs.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    27. Re:A few points by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I've already got that one.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    28. Re:A few points by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Signs don't help. For many people, it takes an accident to realize how stupid it is to keep the only copy of their 40 page doctoral thesis folded at the bottom of a purse. After that, they get a little nuts. This is where stories are useful. People come in, ask for some help, and while you're helping them out, tell them the Meat Grinder story. Or the story about the lady who lost her disc and closed without saving, meaning the only remaining copy of her thesis was currently printing on a dot matrix printer (which began to come out of alignment at page 5).

      We used to (try) to train people to use their email account and their mainframe storage (which most people didn't even know they had) to save files to. Even set up Samba so users could mount their mainframe space as a drive and save directly to it. The Mainframe, we explained, was backed up incrementally throughout the day and periodically virus scanned. It couldn't be wrecked or stolen. It couldn't be read by other students unless you set it that way. It was like sealing your files in a sterile vault (which, indeed, was where the server was stored) and it was no harder than using a disk.

      But most people just ignored us. After all, what could happen to the disk? It was inside of a little red plastic case with a metal shutter! Never mind that it was stuffed into crummy pockets or inside a backpack along with a collection of rare earth magnets...it was in a PLASTIC CASE!

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    29. Re:A few points by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      A really bad one would look for Excel/Word files and modify a couple of data entries in a huge list of numbers.

      If I recall correctly, years ago there was an Excel macro virus (or at least a proof-of-concept demo) that did that out there. I saw it in the television back in the day... The Security Expert Guy hit recalc and the bar graph on the screen went crazier each time he did that =)

      There was also this urban legend of a CAD program that had an interesting copy protection: If it noted it was cracked, it started quietly messing around with the measurements. They say some construction company used a cracked copy once and the building was more than a bit odd one when it was finished =)

    30. Re:A few points by riptide_dot · · Score: 1

      Be glad nobody's applied these concepts to an internet worm. We'd be fucked.

      Well, sort of. Anyone that gets a virus like you speak about that does actual damage to the computer (and therefore prompts a reinstall/reboot/etc), will be screwed. But that same worm that destroys and/or damages the host computer won't make it far because it will be destroying its sole distribution mechanism in the process...

      --
      I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
    31. Re:A few points by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      This is particularly... clever? It does all kinds of things that I would put in as feature requests for the perfect worm

      If you think that's clever I guess you never heard of Phatbot.

      Not that there's anything clever about writing these sorts of viruses, though.

    32. Re:A few points by martingunnarsson · · Score: 1

      I think i have that one already...grrrr...

      [New game]

      --
      Martin
    33. Re:A few points by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      Not Dr Hienz Wolf of Brunel, is it?

      Being an ex-brunel student, I haev great admiration for Dr Hienz Wolf, and i woudl be very surprised if he took such a harsh stance.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    34. Re:A few points by pclminion · · Score: 1
      [...] it was no harder than using a disk. But most people just ignored us.

      Why not simply remove the floppy drives from the workstations in the labs? If you don't want them using floppies, make it impossible for them to do so.

      If they really, really want something on disk, you could have a special workstation with a floppy drive for that purpose.

    35. Re:A few points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not an urban legend. That was AutoCAD.

      Some oldschool versions of popular music software used to do it too - I recall Cubase screwed around with the timings on a boobytrap, and because the dongles used to break it happened to a lot of people on the quiet - you can tell from analysis, for example, that Right Said Fred probably had a Cubase dongle break on them.

      Some copy protection vendors are nastier and more thoughtless than you'd think.

    36. Re:A few points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I have written and analysed several keygens where the output space was so narrow it actually encompassed only actually issued or potentially issued keys.

      Half-Life, for example, or Quake 3 now someone actually sat down and cracked the crypto, not to mention several generations of Windows Product Keys, including the most recent; fallout from this has been small due to Microsoft's product key support actually having some customer service, I assume, and the pirates not bothering to use crappy versions with activation anyway.

      It depends on the key system, too. Sometimes, they are single-instance and irrevocable. That's a bad design decision... seen it happen though.

      What about if the underlying serials are the part that gets checked, and there are only, say, 10,000 of these? Seems fairly likely that a collision will occur? Again, another real example.

    37. Re:A few points by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Most people in my lab in college used email for file storage, transfer, and backup. It's an interface that everyone understands. And it's as reliable as any university computing resource.

      Every time, no matter how clueless the user:
      "I'm sorry, but this floppy isn't repairable."

      "That's ok. I emailed it to myself last night."

      And, if they really did need something off the floppy, the PowerMac G3s with superdrives & MacOS 9 were way better at recovery than any of the PCs. Even with PC formatted disks. They certainly weren't useful for anything else...

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    38. Re:A few points by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Heh. That's how things went down in our iMac lab (being that iMacs didn't come with floppy drives, anyway), but those users were generally smarter than your average graduate student anyway. ("Let's see...shorter wait to get a machine plus newer machines plus more software minus the second mouse button minus a little extra time to learn the OS equals an enhanced public computing experience...GOAL!")

      Otherwise, we couldn't restrict floppy use...because acadmic computing, just like other IT departments, exists to serve its userbase. If the userbase wants to use floppies, it's up to us to educate and assist them in this process, not prevent them from doing it. That'd be like hiring a bodyguard who forced you to stay home all the time.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    39. Re:A few points by pclminion · · Score: 1
      If the userbase wants to use floppies, it's up to us to educate and assist them in this process, not prevent them from doing it.

      What if they wanted to use 5 1/4" disks? At some point, you draw a line between somewhat inconvenient requests and outright ridiculousness.

      I haven't used a floppy disk in nearly four years. At least to me, the idea of using such a fragile, obsolete medium to store information is ridiculous. Yes, you exist to serve the userbase, but in this age of USB keychain storage, CD-RW, and network shares, are you really doing them a service by perpetuating the use of floppy disks?

    40. Re:A few points by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      This was 5 years ago that I worked in the labs, man. I would not let them use floppy disks with such options available; but many of these were not at the time. Even samba-on-unix was sort of a new idea at the time.

      Either way, it's a matter of percentages. If 90% of your user base wants to use floppies, you use floppies. If 20% want floppies, and the rest don't care...you start restricting them.

      Oh, and I did have to allow 5 1/4 discs. Which I didn't mind...5 1/4 discs rock. They have lesser magnetic density, meaning they were a lot more resistant to the sort of problems that plagued 3 1/5s. Stick one in an envelope in the back of your testbook and you didn't have to worry about it.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  7. I'm still waiting... by 00Sovereign · · Score: 3, Interesting

    for the "INDUCEd PATRIOT" worm that detects P2P traffic and then promptly shuts down the computer.

    --
    "Me fail English, that's unpossible." --Ralphie
    1. Re:I'm still waiting... by Foolhardy · · Score: 0

      But first it would:
      call home after spying on everything installed,
      use your printer to print a threatining letter,
      steal your credit card numbers to charge the maximum retail value of the items shared (even on items that can be distributed freely) to go directly to the *AA cartels,
      force you to watch a propaganda video about piracy,
      search all files (binaries too) for 'unauthorized' use of copyrighted strings and trademarks, creating spam printouts as necessary,
      and delete all copyrighted content (everything).

      It will be written by Microsoft, be 100MB, use Flash copiously, take 5 minutes to startup and only run on Windows XP. If you have a previous version, it will nicely tell you to install XP first.
      If you aren't using P2P, it will just make your computer slow by 'monitoring' your activities for 'your protection'.

  8. Oh no by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Funny

    my password to asianthumbs.org may have been jepeordized!
    Oh no, I have said too much!
    Damn you autopr0n, why, why did you have to die!!!

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

      Damn you autopr0n, why, why did you have to die!!!

      Try The Hun's Yellow Pages.

    2. Re:Oh no by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Finally! I've been looking everywhere for a thumbs-fetish site!

      Thank you antifoidulus! I no longer feel so alone!

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    3. Re:Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psst! Wanna.... wrestle? *wink wink*

  9. Easily avoided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    .. if your network smells bad.

  10. Squawker by swordboy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    1. Re:Squawker by PlantPerson · · Score: 1

      This is creepy. I'm afraid it will keep me up all nighe! My skin will crawl and I'll feel icy the day my computer speaks to me now.

  11. Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by Jailbrekr · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you have a proper switch, then sniffing should not be a problem, as the traffic on the network will not reach the infected computer (unless it is also a server). Sadly, I fear that alot of the consumer "switches" on the market do not do proper routing, and have insufficient mac routing tables.

    --
    Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    1. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I don't really see how this is a big deal. Yes, obviously someone could still be using a hub, and in a poorly switched environment it might be an issure. However, by and large I don't see this as being a great new development. Maybe if it poisoned the arp cache, I'd be impressed.

    2. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 words: "broadcast address"

    3. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by khrtt · · Score: 2, Informative

      I fear that alot of the consumer "switches" on the market do not do proper routing

      All home routers I've seen (dlink, linksys, smc, belkin) do route, but only between the outside and the inside. On the inside, the 4 ports are on a regular hub, so no routing. This is appropriate for the normal usage pattern, 4 computers connected through the router to the evel internet. The sniffer would work fine. If the thing can sniff bank-account passwords from victims' home computers, it should give the author more than enough money to steal.

    4. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by steve6534 · · Score: 1

      Whether "Consumer" or "Professional" switch, the definition of a switch is that it performs layer 2 filtering decisions based on mac address. As long as the device is the only one on that segment (as many home setups would be), it could only sniff local traffic.

    5. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by IcEMaN252 · · Score: 1
      I fear that alot of the consumer "switches" on the market do not do proper routing
      I'd be more afraid if my switch started routing!

      As a side note, even my really old switches have a 2K MAC table, which should be more than enough for a home/SOHO LAN. That doesn't mean it can't be ARP flooded, however.
      --
      CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
    6. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by dtperik · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If you have a proper switch, then sniffing should not be a problem, as the traffic on the network will not reach the infected computer...
      And then the next version uses technology like ettercap which can sniff on switched networks.
    7. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by hazem · · Score: 1

      All home routers I've seen (dlink, linksys, smc, belkin) do route, but only between the outside and the inside.

      That's why I have my wireless router connected to my DSL modem, and behind that is another router that my wired computers connec to.

      Sure, there is some overhead from the extra NAT going on, but it keeps the wired computers safe from anyone who might connect to the wireless router, trying to get in.

    8. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hubs, switches and routers are three different pieces of network equipment.

      Hubs are collapsed ethernet busses: Every attached device can see every ethernet frame sent by any other attached device.

      Switches work on a higher layer: They inspect the frames and send only broadcast frames to all devices. For the rest of the frames, they maintain a table of MAC-layer addresses of all devices attached to the switch ports. Targeted frames only get sent to the port to which the target device is connected.

      Routers work on an even higher level: They inspect IP packets and do with them about the same as what switches do with ethernet frames. Routers are generally more flexible about the rules regarding the packet flow than switches. It is not uncommon for routers to have the ability to perform switch-like ethernet level functions as well, but conceptually routing and switching are two different beasts.

      At least cheap home switches can be tricked into passing frames to the "wrong" ports in several ways. One method is to flood the MAC-address-to-port table. Most switches then fall back into hub mode. Generally speaking, non-manageable switches and switches without clearly-defined reactions to MAC flooding are not security devices. You should assume that an attacker can read your packets on a switched network.

    9. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      So remind me again why I feel compelled to use ssh and https for all of my "secure" communications?

    10. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by scosol · · Score: 1

      eh?

      certainly every "home" device I've owned that was advertized as a switch, actually did switching.

      routing!=switching btw...

      go look at your router, does it have individual traffic lights for each port? guess what, it's switching...

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    11. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by Perky_Goth · · Score: 1

      guess what, it's commuting.

    12. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by BenFranske · · Score: 1

      >>certainly every "home" device I've owned that was advertized as a switch, actually did switching.>routing!=switching btw...>go look at your router, does it have individual traffic lights for each port? guess what, it's switching... Well, not quite. I've got hubs with individual traffic light on ports. You really need to check the technical specs out to find out if it's a hub or a switch, the lights won't tell you. But hey, 2 out of 3 isn't so bad for a /. post.

    13. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. However, possibly the easiest way to find out whether it's a hub or a switch is to send data from one computer to the other. If all other unaffected computers's recv/send light doesn't go on during that time, then more likely it's a switch.

    14. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by stor · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you flood the arp cache of most switches they will failover to behaving like a hub. There are other tricks as well.

      Switches don't route, they switch: they're a layer 2 device.

      I have a AU$25 switch that *is* a switch. I've tested it (not hard to test: I used tcpdump). Noone seems to be building hubs anymore because it's become so damn cheap to build a switch.

      Also the "switching" nature of a switch is more for performance reasons rather than security. A switch can store the packets in a small buffer then forward them to the relevant port for full duplex operation and collision-prevention. A hub is a half-duplex device.

      Don't guess, test, read, learn.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    15. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      Which is why you should build your own router. And if you have to have Windows machines around, put them on their own lan, keeping your Linux machines separate. Look to defend with iptables against inside attackers as well as outside attackers.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    16. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by khrtt · · Score: 1

      go look at your router, does it have individual traffic lights for each port? guess what, it's switching...

      Go look at your hub. I bet it also has individual traffic lights, and it's not switching either:-)

    17. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by afidel · · Score: 1

      Depends on the kind of switch, a Cisco Layer-3 switch both switches and routes. And on something like a 6509 there is no way you are going to overflow the ARP cache, people run real world networks with ARP tables over 70K entries on a 6509 with no problems. Now a little Linksys switch is easy to overflow, they generally can't learn more than 254 devices before overflowing.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    18. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by skids · · Score: 1

      Umm... No... Look up the little program "hunt" and tremble in fear if you've been relying on collision domains for security. Switches might defeat this lame worm, but offer very little protection against a serious attack.

      All a sniffer has to do is wait for a Windows Networking broadcast packet, or initiate contact if an layer 3 address is known, or just send a broadcast ping if you lack patience. Then copy the mac address, and spoof away. 99.9% of networks are not configured to properly lock down MAC addresses, and most of them don't even have hardware that's even capable of doing so.

      The above works even on most "major league" vendors' equipment out-of-the-box, you have to explicitly configure security measures or you are wide open to MAC spoofing.

    19. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by stor · · Score: 1

      Depends on the kind of switch, a Cisco Layer-3 switch both switches and routes.

      Sure, I wasn't going to bring that up because it muddies the issue a bit but yes you're right. Hardly just a switch now though, eh?

      I'm sure the distance between switches and routers will become much shorter in the future though. We're dangerously close to a definition debate here though...

      And on something like a 6509 there is no way you are going to overflow the ARP cache, people run real world networks with ARP tables over 70K entries on a 6509 with no problems.

      I wouldn't expect it to be impossible to inject over 70K bogus entries but if you're using a 6509 you'd probably be trying various strategies such as programming the allowed MAC addresses in rather than letting it learn automatically.

      Most places I've worked haven't gone beyond the 2900 Series. Who has a 6509 at home? And what's his/her address ;)

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  12. Non-malicious worms by MisterP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "When I read these things it kind of makes me wonder why it took this long."

    I often wonder the same thing. With all the different worms that infect unpatced Windows machines, why hasn't someone wrote one that effectively deletes everything on the machine just short of rendering itself unable to propogate?

    1. Re:Non-malicious worms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like any good natural virus, it wants to remain as long as possible so that it may continue spreading. If it deletes noticeable things, people will take action to remove it. If it stays mostly hidden, just spamming/monitoring/etc and spreading, it will be far more successful.

    2. Re:Non-malicious worms by newend · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you delete everything on the machine, then the virus can't propagate. What would have to happen is the virus would have to have a delay, and then there is a risk that it will be discovered before the payload (deletion) takes place. Futher, I think most of the virus writers think of it more as a game, and don't really want to destroy data so much as see what they can accomplish. Would you rather destroy Rome or own it?

    3. Re:Non-malicious worms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What it should do is try to propagate itself for a week then delete everything. One figures that after a week it won't be able to infect too many more boxes so it might as well die.

    4. Re:Non-malicious worms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you rather destroy Rome or own it?

      Probably depends on how pissed off the Romans get. Would you rather destroy Baghdad or own it?

    5. Re:Non-malicious worms by ESqVIP · · Score: 0

      I think Bush would say "both".

    6. Re:Non-malicious worms by BalDown · · Score: 1

      The virus writers now are wanting to get actual use out of infected systems, hence all the backdoors left as a result of all the newest viruses in the last year or two. Whether they scan for them and put bots on them later, make them part of botnets already, using them for spamming or for denial of service botnets, or whatever, they want to infect a machine and keep in on the internet and running unnoticed, and blowing the machine away isn't going to do it. They get nothing out of this kind of infection, except maybe a few laughs, and a lot of the virus writers now want actual gain, and not just laughs.

      --
      You wasted packets to get this lousy sig.
    7. Re:Non-malicious worms by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      Would you rather destroy Rome or own it?

      It won't fit in my basement, so I'm going to go ahead and say 'destroy'.

    8. Re:Non-malicious worms by rthille · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean your mom's basement?
      This is slashdot, after all...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  13. Is it just me.... by grolschie · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...or does the term "packet sniffer" remind anyone of someones pet dog?

    1. Re:Is it just me.... by Oxy+the+moron · · Score: 5, Funny

      I believe that would be "package sniffer" if I'm not mistaken. ;)

      --

      Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.

    2. Re:Is it just me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would mod your signature as flamebait.

  14. Hackers Vs RIAA by Skedoozy · · Score: 3, Funny

    We need someone to go after these people with the intensity that the RIAA goes after 13 year old girls who don't want to pay for Hoobastank songs. If only the hackers would start going after people like the RIAA instead of trying to screw the everyday person out of their information so they can buy more mods for their Xbox. Then we could air it on MTV as Celebrity Geek Match!

    1. Re:Hackers Vs RIAA by dmanny · · Score: 1
      Do you mean a virus that starts a silent P2P sharing of certain file types?

      I find that very interesting, the flaws in the OS, i.e. Microsoft product for most folk, would lead them to unknowingly commit alleged crimes. Then we could put two sets of lawyers in a round pit and see who is left.

      --
      All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used. :-(
    2. Re:Hackers Vs RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same reason why the tough kids, (bullies), didn't protect the nerds from other bullies; just isn't as much fun for them?
      Anyway, wouldn't it be better if the 'hackers' (hackers/virus writers etc) went after illegal organisations (read organised crime / child pornography) rather than attacking a company which is just trying to enforce copyright on it's products, even if they go about it a really crap way?

    3. Re:Hackers Vs RIAA by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The RIAA is doing the only thing that copyright owners CAN do to protect their copyrights: they're pursuing legal damages for material copied without permission. They don't know whether it's 13 year old girls or the fucking mafia...all they have is a list of IP addresses of people serving one or more copyrighted songs. What are they supposed to do when it turns out that some of these file sharers are young kids or grand parents or the handicapped? Say, "oops, sorry, you're allowed to infringe however you like, it's only infringement if you're a healthy white male aged 18-35?"

      The RIAA is doing what I'd do if I saw a threat to my business: they're trying to curb the threat with the only means available to them by law. Complain about the cost if you like, or the tactics, or the copyright laws themselves, but you can't complain about them trying to protect their business in a legal way. That's ridiculous.

      Just about as ridiculous as wishing for them to be inconvenienced by hackers, really. I mean, what you're talking about is called a protection racket in the Real World(tm), and it's fucking illegal.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  15. I don't know about you.... by soulsteal · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..but I, for one, don't care about our network-sniffing overlords.

    1. Re:I don't know about you.... by soulsteal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Me neither.

  16. Poor virus-writer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At some point he's going to sniff the homes of some of us slashdotters... boy will he be sorry!

  17. Scary by StevenHenderson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Personally, I find this scary as shit. I think virii like this are going to be the reasons to compel a lot of middle-ability users to switch to Linux. Hell, I might cast off Windows now once and for all...

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

      There is no such word as "virii"

    2. Re:Scary by agm · · Score: 2, Informative

      That would be a good thing, IMO.

      The problem with a sniffer virus like this is that it can sniff network data that comes from any OS, not just the infected one. So in this case this Windows only virus is a bad thing for Linux users as well (assuming the Linux users are sending plain-text passwords and the like).

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

      Hell, if you get infected by this worm on your windows system you probably wouldn't know how to install a linux distro. Seriously, every exploit it makes use of has been patched, most of them have been patched for many months. Download critical updates and you won't have this problem. And please, quit with the mindless Windows bashing, it does nothing but make you look bad.

    4. Re:Scary by PeteyG · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-1abd9ea223-e4fb999 fe0-a00d264841

      --
      no thanks
    5. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. He made it up just now.

    6. Re:Scary by DogDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I find this scary as shit. I think virii like this are going to be the reasons to compel a lot of middle-ability users to switch to Linux.

      The only thing that Linux has got going for itself right now is security through obscurity. If Linux ever becomes popular as a desktop platform, I'm willing to bet my life that we'll start seeing worms targeting it, too.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    7. Re:Scary by archivis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Make up a word, if in your using it you transfer the idea you wanted to convey...congratulations!

      You just participated in a living language. Screw the pedants and their rules.

      --
      In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
    8. Re:Scary by euxneks · · Score: 1

      make the leap dude! You'll be glad you did. The only thing I regret is not being able to play games, but my system is slow as molasses for running new games anyway, and I have a PS2, so that doesn't bother me much. I also have VMware in case I actually need windows for some sort of strange reason...

      If you're really scared of moving to linux, I recommend Xandros : http://www.xandros.com/ It makes it relatively painless and you can still have a windows network up if you want (ie your parents refuse to switch to linux)

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    9. Re:Scary by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yeah, but the average user doesn't care about security. If they did, they'd have actually run Windows update and patched their systems against the vulnerabilities that this worm exploits. Same said users would move over to Linux, never patch their systems and have their systems taken over the next time a remote exploit is found.

      In fact, the average user either got a copy of Windows with their computer and never upgraded it, or they pirated a version of Windows and are not able to download updates. They always say the same thing too. "Oh, I'm just one computer out on the net! They'd never notice my computer out there!"

      That's why I think Internet usage should require a license. If you connect to it without knowing what you're doing, you're putting everyone in danger. Potentially at least as much danger as broadcasting on a ham radio without knowing what you're doing.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    10. Re:Scary by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. I'm a middle-ability user (for example), and i've had zero problems from this or any of the other nasty Windows worms/virii. If you've kept your box properly updated, it seems like this one is pretty much a non-issue, considering some(all?) of the holes it uses have been patched already.

      And besides, do you really want people switching to Linux out of fear, or do you want them switching after making an informed choice? You're basically approving of scare-tactics to get people to switch - doesn't seem like a good thing.

    11. Re:Scary by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah it's flonrky and sometimes kjimpul to mnaku the skroojules for all the walliwallis in the tumbputu.

      Don't you agree?

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    12. Re:Scary by StevenHenderson · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip - I am thinking as soon as I reformat, I am going to make the change. Where do I find drivers for my devices? Just need to make sure my sound card, etc will work fine. Toms Hardware ran a good feature on this a while back.

    13. Re:Scary by StevenHenderson · · Score: 1

      If you drove a Ford Taurus and you found out there was an excellent chance your engine would explode while you drove, would you not go and find another car to drive ASAP?

    14. Re:Scary by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Not if there was a relatively easy to apply, free fix that I could get from Ford to keep the engine from exploding.

      I must live in an alternate dimension from the rest of you or something - i've been using Windows in various forms since Win95 came out, and yet i've never had a single problem with any sort of worm or virus. It's not that hard to stay safe, really.

    15. Re:Scary by StevenHenderson · · Score: 1
      Consider yourself lucky. I have been using Windows since 3.1 and have never had a problem until this past summer. I got hit with Blaster even though I run Norton. I never opened an email attachment, etc, and dont know how I got it.

      The point is, viruses often precede their fixes/patches/etc, and there is always a window of opportunity for infection. You are lucky to have been passed over thus far.

    16. Re:Scary by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2, Insightful
      nowadays, most linux distros ship with most services disabled by default, with the option of enabling iptables as part of the install. True, there could be a daemon that could propagate a worm, but it is not as likely to be running on an end user workstation.

      Compare this to windows, which has no easy way to disable dcom, rpc, and such.

    17. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got hit with Blaster even though I run Norton.

      You think Norton is going to solve all your problems? You gotta keep your system patched and up-to-date bud, no matter what OS you are running.

    18. Re:Scary by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      The result? Dinglish!

    19. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think virii like this are going to be the reasons to compel a lot of middle-ability users to switch to Linux.

      Yeah, they'll switch from an operating system they can't use because it's overrun with viruses and spyware, to an operating system they can't use because it's too complicated for them.

    20. Re:Scary by DataCannibal · · Score: 1

      ...and if in making up a word you give the impression that you don't care about language and are too ignorant to not know how to form new words from exsiting words (burglarize anyone ?)... then congratulations, you're American :-)

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    21. Re:Scary by StevenHenderson · · Score: 1

      MS issued the Blaster fix after the worm came out...

    22. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you weren't an idiot with your cable modem plugged directly into your pc ethernet card this wouldn't happen.

      it would be a simple matter for cable/dsl companies to include a hardware broadband router with or built into the modem device, it would eliminate all the worms that propigate simply from open services. we would be back to just having viruses/worms which require the user to run a binary or visit some website which exploits their browser.

    23. Re:Scary by StevenHenderson · · Score: 1

      See, that's funny. I could have sworn I had my PC plugged into a router. I wonder why I think that? Oh yeah, that's cause I FUCKING DID. Next time, try asking, know-it-all...

    24. Re:Scary by euxneks · · Score: 1

      Generally most big name Linux distros will already have the drivers included in it! I would be _very_ surprised if there weren't any suitable drivers.. I found, even about a year ago, that linux driver support was really good. I suppose if you have some _extremely_ obscure hardware you might have a problem, but even then I doubt it.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    25. Re:Scary by StevenHenderson · · Score: 1

      Excellent. Thanks a lot! No, my hardware is not obscure at all - SB Live 5.1, GeForce4 Ti4200, Linksys NIC, etc. I should think I will be fine, and if for some reason something wouldnt work, then I guess I could always reformat again. Thanks for the tip, and if you have any recommended sites to check out, please reply to this or email them to me at steveBIGMAChenderson@gmFRIESail.com_minusMCDONALDS

  18. And they'll sniff... by Power+Everywhere · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Each other, like dogs at one another's butts. Inside of a week that's all that's going to be out there, and the worms will just be bumping into one another.

    1. Re:And they'll sniff... by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

      except that sniffers cannot collide - they just listen and never post, so they cannot bump into each other...

      Except for trying to exploit each other, I suppose...

  19. I dont even get the purpose.... by stickystyle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most networks are switched these days, making this pointless. Why not install a keylogger???
    Then the evil person doesnt have to deal with all the encryption mumbo-jumbo.

    --
    Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
    1. Re:I dont even get the purpose.... by aelbric · · Score: 2, Informative

      The idea is to sniff the infected computer, not it's connected network. Works wonders even on switched LANS. Once you're running local, the net infrastructure is meaningless.

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    2. Re:I dont even get the purpose.... by Ptraci · · Score: 1

      The Trend Micro report says it also installs a keylogger.

  20. What if someone made a worm that just........ by ARRRLovin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ......ran windows update on all infected machines? Would people get pissed?

    --
    -Randy
    1. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      ......ran windows update on all infected machines? Would people get pissed?


      Just the ones that have their software/hardware stop functioning due to the updates screwing around with system settings.
    2. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by eander315 · · Score: 1

      They would when they saw the progress indicator on their Windows XP Service Pack 2 download.

    3. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by wiggles · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's been done. See this writeup for the Welchia virus.

      This thing actually caused more problems at my site in the form of network saturation than the blaster worm it was written to eradicate!

    4. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, if their system is setup in such a way that it can get infected by a virus, they have bigger problems than having their stuff not working.

    5. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by JeffTL · · Score: 1

      I would -- I'm boycotting SP2.

    6. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by ARRRLovin · · Score: 1

      I remember that one, but I didn't take time to readup on it as Symantec did a good job of cleaning it from all the infected machines before it had a chance to wreak havoc on my network. Good show!

      --
      -Randy
    7. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by hab136 · · Score: 1
      I would -- I'm boycotting SP2.

      Any particular reason?

    8. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Why boycott SP2?

    9. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if he doesn't have one, then I do. 1: I have a feeling that it would have certain incompatibilities with my win2k installation. 2: my other machines run linux. and 3: the machines at work function well enough at the moment, that installing a service pack which we know ill break several applications seems like a bad idea.

    10. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by still_sick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ......ran windows update on all infected machines? Would people get pissed?

      Would people get pissed? HELL YES.

      I recall one particularly annoying weekend when my computer DVD player stopped working. Something screwed up or something - whatever it was, the damn video was not being decoded properly.

      Tried everything I could think of. New Drive, New Drivers, endless newsgroup searching, blah blah blah to no avail.

      Then it occured to me that between the time that my DVD player last worked and then did not, I had installed Win2k SP4.

      So just as a test I went and uninstalled the bastard, everything worked FINE after that - with the original HW/SW configuration.

      So now I'm not installing SP4 because it BREAKS MY SYSTEM - not because I'm unaware of it, or too stupid to install it.

      I don't need nor want some dumbass "I'm smarter than you, and doing this for your own good" 1337 prick trying to install SP4 for me.

      --
      ...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
    11. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by Telastyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And no offense, but if your machine is exploitable enough for someone to remotely patch it, a broken dvd player is the least of your worries.

    12. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by still_sick · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's true.

      If my system is so wide-open that a well-meaning moron can get in through traditional virus means - I deserve a borked DVD player.

      I guess I was imagining some ideal "magic" virus that will keep EVERY machine (Even the non-vulnerable ones) 100% up to date.

      All I'm saying is that even if that were possible (yes, I'm aware that it's not), it would still be a retarded idea.

      --
      ...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
    13. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by mikeg22 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I don't need nor want some dumbass "I'm smarter than you, and doing this for your own good" 1337 prick trying to install SP4 for me
      A worm like this would only be able to get into computers that are unprotected, so assuming you're a security concious fellow, you wouldn't have to worry about it. Now, if your computer was vulnerable, wouldn't it be better that your computer gets patched (and possibly screws up your dvd player) than having an unprotected machine waiting to get hosed by some hacker?

      I'm actually sypathetic to the belief that a vulnerable computer connected to the internet is a hazard to the internet as a whole, as it can easily become a DDOS/Spam zombie, and therefore somebody is in the right to patch the hole, through nefarious means if necessary.
    14. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by theCoder · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of the time I decided to upgrade DirectX one evening. Imagine my surprise when I rebooted and stared at a black screen because something in the new DirectX wasn't compatible with my video card. And then, I got that sinking feeling knowing that there isn't any console mode to fall back on when the GUI breaks so bad. Fortunately, the next reboot caused it to come up in VGA mode (a safety feature?), and I could try to fix it.

      Did you know there's no (or at least there wasn't, this was a couple years ago) an official way to uninstall DirectX? Installing the older version doesn't work (it's older, so nothing installs, even though it says it's installing). I only recovered by using some ghetto DirectX remover I found online and then installing the working DirectX version. Though I was incredibly close to admitting defeat and just reinstalling.

      So yes, there are some updates that could really piss people off. It's a nice idea, but you can't guarentee that updating won't cause more harm than good, especially if the Windows box is (more or less) protected behind a hardware firewall.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    15. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      All I'm saying is that even if that were possible (yes, I'm aware that it's not), it would still be a retarded idea.
      ... and you want us to be aware that you had it first?

      ok. point noted.
      thanks.

    16. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by ConcreteClam · · Score: 1

      Just a note, SP4 didn't "break your system". It made it so DVD's were not being decoded properly.

    17. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      All it would need to do is turn on automatic updates. The machine will do the rest.

    18. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      The thing about that is, it's no guarantee that the user's experience with Windows will be MORE positive as a result; A lot of software fixes break other things, and Microsoft has its share of those.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    19. Re:What if someone made a worm that just........ by JeffTL · · Score: 1

      My sister runs some software that isn't SP2 compatible, and there's all the rumors about it nuking people's installations and whatnot. I'm waiting a month or two at least.

  21. I installed my sniffer on a computer once... by rwven · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Afterwards it took me over an hour to unscrew the side of my case to get my nose out...

  22. Use of switches? by chrispyman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since its pretty rare these days to see either a computer attached to a hub (vs a switch) and its also unlikely to see a Windows based router, wouldn't this make the worms payload only applicable in most cases to the computer that gets infects. Also, I note it spreads through several other well known exploits, and you'd think people would have realized to patch and cleanup against these after MSBlast and Nimda.

    1. Re:Use of switches? by newend · · Score: 1

      Unfortunatly, most users are stupid. They don't know enough to patch their system. Many of the rest don't care. I think that individuals should start being held liable for damage done from unmaintained systems.

    2. Re:Use of switches? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      You can still sniff broadcast traffic to see what other machines are on the network to try to access. Some windows machines are also used as routers (windows internet sharing, etc). Lots of home routers have only route to the internet as well, some of them have a hub with 4 jacks or so for the home network to plug into rather than a real switch. Heck, even our Netopia T1 router at work has a 4 port internal hub.

    3. Re:Use of switches? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Switches are all well and good, but you forget about cable modems. While downstream traffic is only sent to the modem, all upstream traffic using QAM encoding techniques is a shared medium, so a sniffer on that wire could get some interesting traffic.

      Packet sniffers are not a good thing to have just running, but an auto-propogating one is even worse, and should not be taken lightly.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    4. Re:Use of switches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Switches are all well and good, but you forget about cable modems. While downstream traffic is only sent to the modem, all upstream traffic using QAM encoding techniques is a shared medium, so a sniffer on that wire could get some interesting traffic.

      ...unless, of course, that upstream traffic were encrypted between the cable modem and the headend, like any reasonable ISP does these days.

    5. Re:Use of switches? by BenFranske · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you got it on a server that had an 802.1Q copatible NIC in it you could watch the data flow EVEN ACCROSS VLANs. Of course we know sysadmins, always keep their server fully patched so that shouldn't be a problem.

    6. Re:Use of switches? by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      I've tried sniffing on my Motorola cable modem several years ago, and only saw DHCP broadcasts.

      Maybe there's a way to put it in promiscous mode, but it's not the default.
      (Yes, I did put my NIC in promiscous mode)

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
  23. Why so long? Probably because its nearly useless. by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    A typical office machine and many (most?) home networks today involve switches. The brilliance of a switch (as opposed to a hub) is that collisions are avoided by isolating packets away from unrelated interfaces. This means the only traffic the sniffer is likely to see is traffic destined to arrive at the infected host anyhow.

    On the other hand, sniffing traffic is likely to be a better (or at leave alternative) means of snarfing up sensitive info than, say, scanning a harddrive...

    Still, it would have been far more effective in the early to mid nineties when "broadcast segment" really was a shared medium (for typical LANs) with packets slamming headlong into each other and entirely visible from almost any drop.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  24. funny quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You don't have to be a genius to write a virus

    Only for a windows operating system.
  25. New twist on job application... by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1

    I guess I would consider MyDoom to be an application. If so, then this version is a job application. What are the odds that the real virus write went to the top of is enemy list rather than putting his own name on the app? If the person on the application can face extradition, I'm betting that the name is phony.

    --
    Think global, act loco
  26. Passwords!?! by vijaya_chandra · · Score: 2, Funny

    The article says

    "This in turn enables the attacker to capture unencrypted usernames and passwords, which can be used to compromise additional machines on the network. "

    What would one gain looking at unencrypted passwords!?!
    They would anyway be strings of *s only. right!?!?

    Or can someone look through these *s as they look through the matrix code!!

    1. Re:Passwords!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please review the interactive tutorial about passwords on bash.org.

    2. Re:Passwords!?! by revscat · · Score: 0

      They would anyway be strings of *s only. right!?!?

      You're kidding, right? I mean, no one can be that dumb and manage to operate a computer. Seriously. Tell me you're kidding. In fact, I hope someone mods you "funny" simply because if you *weren't* kidding I'd have to hunt you down and give you a flushie. Repeatedly.

    3. Re:Passwords!?! by Soko · · Score: 1

      They would anyway be strings of *s only. right!?!?

      You're kidding, right? I mean, no one can be that dumb and manage to operate a computer. Seriously. Tell me you're kidding.

      Perhaps he's not kidding. It could be this guy: http://www.bash.org/?244321.

      In fact, I hope someone mods you "funny" simply because if you *weren't* kidding I'd have to hunt you down and give you a flushie. Repeatedly.

      A flushie as a LART? To each thier own, I guess. Happy luser hunting!

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    4. Re:Passwords!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That bash.org quote is an absolute classic. I burst out into guilty laughter every time someone posts that link.

    5. Re:Passwords!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me that you were kidding that there was even a slight chance you thought that he wasn't. Please? Give me my faith in humanity back.

  27. Wow, you may be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But that's just a stupid analogy. Heh.

  28. One reason I quit fixing Windows by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    is that it's a never-ending job, when the user is at the keyboard, doing things that I would never do.

    I've been telling my old 'customers' that I'm retired. I then tell them that I will give them support for free for life if they buy a Mac.

    This is usually met with, 'Wha? Really?"

    Yup. I'm enjoying the stories of crazy Windows happenings, virus mystery, and constant crashing (Yeah, XP is ok, but not when you have 127 viruses, trojans, spyware and keyloggers all vying for a clock cycle and outgoing port.)

    And I'm especially loving not working on Windows boxes.

    1. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by SilentChris · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "is that it's a never-ending job, when the user is at the keyboard, doing things that I would never do.
      I've been telling my old 'customers' that I'm retired. I then tell them that I will give them support for free for life if they buy a Mac."

      That's funny, because remember that exploit Apple had a few months back: the one where you click a disk image and it automatically ran?

      We have only 4 Mac users, and 2 of them clicked disk images on the net. *2 of them*. Half of the staff. Both got weird variants of a program that basically hosed their Applications directory.

      Now, if my PC users had that batting average (.500), I'd be pulling my hair out. Fortunately, we only have 1 or 2 people do stupid things monthly.

      Mac is really no better, and I think if virus writers actually targetted the thing we'd see an "anti-resurgance". Personally, no OS is secure unless I can see the code.

    2. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by zaffir · · Score: 1

      Why not make them actual customers?

      I don't do free tech support anymore. $35/hour (which is MORE than fair) or no help for you.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    3. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by selderrr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, no OS is secure. Period.

      Your argument against OSX hold against linux/BSD/whatever open source OS. As soon as the number of users reaches critical mass, it becomes "profitable" for virus writes. More so as zombie macines are being used as bulk mailers. And you can bet the farm that in a few years, those zombies will be used for much more stuff than simple spamming. How about al-qaeda brute-forcing entry to a big bank by using 100.000 PCs to crack the password, and then simply start transfering tiny amounts of cash around. It would take days before someone noticed, and by then practically impossible to restore from backup.

      IMHO, the real evil on the net still has to rise. The virii and script kddies you see today are just the scouts of the first reconaissance divisions of the army of the black lord.

    4. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by baur · · Score: 1

      That's funny, because remember that exploit Apple had a few months back: the one where you click a disk image and it automatically ran?

      We have only 4 Mac users, and 2 of them clicked disk images on the net. *2 of them*. Half of the staff. Both got weird variants of a program that basically hosed their Applications directory.


      Wow... I'm impressed. I went looking for versions of that exploit and couldn't find anything except a test version that proved the existance of the hole but didn't do anything.

    5. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's because no one actually uses macs.

    6. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by neutralstone · · Score: 1
      Your argument against OSX hold against linux/BSD/whatever open source OS. As soon as the number of users reaches critical mass, it becomes "profitable" for virus writes.
      Yeah, whatever.

      You don't really expect the unix market share to reach the so-called "critical mass" anytime soon, do you? So even if you're right, the open Unixes are still more secure. Make your argument again when OS X hits that "critical mass".
    7. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As soon as the number of users reaches critical mass, it becomes "profitable" for virus writes.

      Market saturation is only one element toward attracting malware. Another is security. If a system is popular enough, no doubt malware will be created for it, at least as a proof of concept. However, malware will never spread in the wild unless the system has insufficient security (by definition). I'm not claiming that any of today's operating systems has perfect security, but some are better than others.

    8. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm pretty full he was full of shit. I had the same experience. Even if he's not full of shit, I still am the computer geek of the family - so I fix everyone's PC all the time. Of the mac users, the worst I had to do was replace the hard drive. I pretty much remove a virus every time I encounter a PC. Is the Mac more secure? Naw. Are there more vulnerabilities out there for the PC? Yup. Does that make me recommend Macs? Yup. I would like to recommend Linux, if only to save my family $$$. However fun it is for me to play with at home, it still doesn't measure up in the ease-of-use department.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    9. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      You think you'll have less of a job, supporting lifetime windows users as they switch to a totally different OS? ;p Good luck.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    10. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      yes, but fixing the problems on anything but windows is so much easier.

    11. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by MacDork · · Score: 1
      That's funny, because remember that exploit Apple had a few months back: the one where you click a disk image and it automatically ran?

      That's funny, I don't remember an exploit. I remember a hole. I remember example exploits, but I don't recall a live exploit that did damage to any system being reported anywhere. Feel free to link me to one if you can prove me wrong here.

      We have only 4 Mac users, and 2 of them clicked disk images on the net. *2 of them*. Half of the staff. Both got weird variants of a program that basically hosed their Applications directory.

      The exploit did not require clicking 'disk images on the net.' It did not require any kind of carelessness or stupidity on the user's part. That's why it was considered such a serious hole. Besides Mr. Admin, what were your Mac users doing running with admin privileges? That's the only way they could fuck up /Applications.

      ls -l / | grep "Applications"
      drwxrwxr-x 65 root admin 2210 7 Sep 23:57 Applications
      drwxrwxr-x 16 root admin 544 2 Dec 2003 Applications (Mac OS 9)

      Now, if my PC users had that batting average (.500), I'd be pulling my hair out. Fortunately, we only have 1 or 2 people do stupid things monthly.

      About that 1 or 2 stupid things monthly... Does giving administrator accounts to the graphics department qualify?

      Mac is really no better, and I think if virus writers actually targetted the thing we'd see an "anti-resurgance". Personally, no OS is secure unless I can see the code.

      You can see the code. As for better, I'm not going to turn this into a Mac v. PC pissing contest. I know which is better, and you don't understand the Mac OS well enough to argue the point.

    12. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I don't remember an exploit. I remember a hole. I remember example exploits, but I don't recall a live exploit that did damage to any system being reported anywhere. Feel free to link me to one if you can prove me wrong here.

      Look harder. Some of the proof of concepts were altered to do really malacious stuff. My Mac users go to primarily art/design sites, and that's where they found the fubared disk images (things that said stuff like "download this until Apple fixes it"). Target the audience.

      The exploit did not require clicking 'disk images on the net.' It did not require any kind of carelessness or stupidity on the user's part. That's why it was considered such a serious hole.

      Actually, it required going to a page that hosted a .dmg. Not many are out there.

      Besides Mr. Admin, what were your Mac users doing running with admin privileges? That's the only way they could fuck up /Applications

      Ah, the grand old question. My users refuse to run as anything but root. The first time I set up OS X, they were frustrated that they were being asked for their passwords. "OS 9 never did this". They never grew out of it.

      About that 1 or 2 stupid things monthly... Does giving administrator accounts to the graphics department qualify?

      I personally blame the Mac mindset. These staff members flat out believe their computing experience should be different than anyone else's. Everyone else in the company has a login, they don't. I figure as long as they're only fucking up their own machines and have no real access to the domain, let them play.

      You can see the code. [apple.com] As for better, I'm not going to turn this into a Mac v. PC pissing contest. I know which is better, and you don't understand the Mac OS well enough to argue the point.

      Actually, you see the Darwin code. You don't see anything from the GUI, which is where much of this problem lie. I understand Macs as well as most people: I own one. My primary machine is an iBook and my secondary machines at home are Windows XP and FreeBSD. It's a great desktop, but I don't think for a second it's any more secure than my FreeBSD box. And I keep my iBook locked up tighter than most people (I require special permissions to even go into "Applications", for example).

    13. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by fafalone · · Score: 1

      If a password is required to be 4-8 characters (a-z, 0-9) in length, there are 3,760,620,109,731,072 possible passwords, even noting that this is not case sensitive. 100,000 computers attempting to brute force a password each making 10000 attempts per second would still take 45.3 days. Throw in case sensitivity and longer password lengths, and it's no longer even possible to accomplish with todays technology in a reasonable amount of time.
      A case sensitive password (a-z, A-Z, 0-9) of 4-16 characters in length creates 62,574,537,913,733,490,154,880,900,481 passwords, I don't think I need to explain how long it would take 100,000 (or even 1million) computers to brute force that.

    14. Re:One reason I quit fixing Windows by MacDork · · Score: 1

      Look harder. Some of the proof of concepts were altered to do really malacious stuff. My Mac users go to primarily art/design sites, and that's where they found the fubared disk images (things that said stuff like "download this until Apple fixes it"). Target the audience.

      I looked when the exploit was an issue. I saw plenty of bad advice to 'fix' the problem, which could have in turn borked things, but I not once saw a live malicious exploit. There are no incident notes at CERT on the subject, and to my knowledge, none of the anti-virus companies have reported seeing a malicious exploit either. Like I said before, feel free to post a link and correct me here.

      Actually, it required going to a page that hosted a .dmg. Not many are out there.

      No, it didn't. It could have been hosted through webdav, samba, afp, or anything else. A disk:, disks:, or help: URI was not a requirement, nor was a .dmg file. All that was required was the mounting of a volume (remote or local), and a redirect link to execute the code. Linking could even be done through an <img> tag allowing the exploit to fire on a message board that allowed images. Cross site scripting could have pushed the exploit through trusted domains. Nothing short of disconnecting from the internet would have allowed for perfect safety.

      Ah, the grand old question. My users refuse to run as anything but root. The first time I set up OS X, they were frustrated that they were being asked for their passwords. "OS 9 never did this". They never grew out of it.

      You can auto-login with a regular user account just as easily as you can with an admin account.

      I personally blame the Mac mindset.

      Maybe you should have a look at the mindset that computing must be a hassle to be secure.

      You don't see anything from the GUI, which is where much of this problem lie.

      The runscript AppleScript, which was the start of the whole mess, was indeed editable/open source. The exploit discovered in relation to it was a problem with LaunchServices, not the GUI. Having the source would not have prevented the flaw in either case. It was well documented behavior, not a bug in the source, that allowed for the existence of this exploit. You can argue that the fix could have been made available sooner had the entire OS been open source, but your argument that the OS would have been more secure had it been entirely open source does not stand up to scrutiny.

  29. uIP already exists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seems like the uIP embedded TCP/IP stack would be ideal for this, as it is very small and portable. Also, it apparently already has been ported to and run on laptop keyboard microcontrollers. How about that kind of sniffer virus!

    1. Re:uIP already exists... by botrunner · · Score: 0, Redundant

      http://www.sics.se/~adam/uip/

  30. What's new about that? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... a new worm installs a network sniffer ... it kind of makes me wonder why it took this long.

    What's new about that?

    Network sniffers installed on compromised machines is the ENTIRE REASON DMZs were invented - so the network sniffer can only sniff the DMZ, not the LAN behind the second packet-filtering router/bridge.

    DMZs have been standard practice for over a decade. If there's anything new about this, it's just that it's the first time a worm in the wild has been identified as installing a sniffer.

    But that's hardly surprising. The explosion of professionally-engineered worms is quite recent, as is consumer-level deployment of multi-machine LANs behind firewall+NAT appliances. (I'd expect packet-sniffing cracks aimed at businesses to be more targeted rather than worm-style scatterguns, if only to reduce their chances of discovery.) Seems to me the time became ripe JUST NOW for general deployment of a sniffer-installing Microsoft-exploiting worm.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:What's new about that? by justasecond · · Score: 0

      Do you have any idea what the hell it is that you're talking about? Aside from the IIS bug, wtf would a DMZ matter? Seriously, we're talking about a worm that spreads via freaking network shares. What are you thinking...that each Windows machine live in its own DMZ? Or maybe you're just talking out of your ass...

    2. Re:What's new about that? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aside from the IIS bug, wtf would a DMZ matter? Seriously, we're talking about a worm that spreads via freaking network shares. What are you thinking...that each Windows machine live in its own DMZ? Or maybe you're just talking out of your ass...

      Servers on the DMZ provide services to the rest of the net, and thus are hosts that can be attacked through vulnerabilities in their service-providing protocols. This made such servers the likely points of compromise. Putting them on a DMZ that is isolated from the corporate LAN kept such compromises from sniffing the LAN - where inside-the-firewall desktop machines would be exchnging valuable data without further layers of protection. Exploits of compromised servers (and the use of a DMZ to isolate them) have been a problem (and solution) for a LONG time.

      Note the past tense.

      Attacks on workstations behind the firewalls by email viruses (i.e. trojan-horse attachments to emails including a self-remailing action) have also been with us for a while. Potentially these could (and occasionally did) install keyboard sniffers. But a LAN sniffer payload does not seem to have been common. Perhaps this is because LAN sniffer payloads would typically be directed at a particular target, and so be attached to NON-replicating trojan email directed toward users on the target LAN.

      Very recently, worms (propagating software modules that do NOT require human interaction to spread) graduated from a theoretical possibilty to a common scourge. And they have even more recently been adopted by profit-making criminal enterprises - first spammers, then other scammers (such as phishers). So there is plenty of money available to engineer them for more function.

      Some recent worms have included keyboard sniffers and filters to reduce the data, detecting and extracting the items of interest (i.e. account numbers and passwords of users of major banking institutions). This represents a breakthrough: Data reduction on the compromised machine, to limit the traffic on the collection sites to a pre-screened pithy dribble.

      At that point, general distribution of LAN packet sniffers in worm payloads (rather than directed infection as non-reproducing trojans) becomes a practical matter. The sniffer can use the infected machine to sort out the traffic of interest, rather than flooding the collector with junk (just as the viral keyboard sniffers with filtering can).

      But it also becomes desirable to do LAN rather than keyboard sniffing - because with LAN sniffing the traffic of NON-compromised machines can also be sniffed. A Windows machine on a corporate LAN or a personal LAN behind a firewall+NAT appliance becomes a threat to the traffic of Macs, Linux boxes, BSD boxes, and other tougher targets.

      So the appearance of a LAN-sniffing worm shortly after the worm explosion and the appearance of keyboard-sniffing, data-reducing viruses is right on the expected evolutionary timetable.

      As for having "each Windows machine live in its own DMZ", putting all the windows machines on another DMZ separated from the other internal servers might be a good idea about now.

      Further, some of the security solutions currently being deployed amount to monitoring the Windows machines' (or their individual applications') behavior to identify infection, and cutting off the machines (or killing the affected applications) if they appear compromised. This may not amount to putting each one on its own DMZ, but it's getting closer.

      And the use of switches, rather than hubs, to connect the machines in a *-base-T LAN, amounts to EXACTLY "each machine [on] its own DMZ", at least as far as sniffing unicast LAN traffic is concerned. It doesn't block active probing - but that's what those other solutions I mentioned are about.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:What's new about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... a new worm installs a network sniffer ... it kind of makes me wonder
      why it took this long.

      What's new about that?... If there's anything new about this, it's
      just that it's the first time a worm in the wild has been identified as
      installing a sniffer.

      bingo, sir.

  31. Why it hasn't been implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People have always been asking "why haven't you put X feature into the software?" It's because the lazy virus writers, who get paid for some ungodly reason, kept on saying "hey, it's open source, someone else implement it." Geez, I thought if anyone could explain why development doesn't get done, it would be you CmdrTaco.

  32. No, a really really bad one would modify your MBR by Cybersonic · · Score: 1

    Im suprised noone has written a virus that uses unused sectors on the hard drive, and makes modifications to the MBR and partition table.

    I know there are programs out there that do this now, but they are not widespread... hopefully they will never be

    --
    Cybie! aka Ralph Bonnell
  33. oh no by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Funny
    Please don't forward this link to any virus authors!

    We could all be doooooooomed!

  34. Umm by nizo · · Score: 1

    So where are these worms sticking all this great data they are sniffing? Wouldn't that tend to leave a trail right to the naughty people who made it?

    1. Re:Umm by celeritas_2 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a sniffer mean a drasticly larger worm, and thus a less sucessful [in getting it installed in millions of XP lusers] than a smaller one? Maybe the prevalance of high speed internet and CPU's have finally allowed for larger and more complex worms. [yay]

      --
      -- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
  35. SSL for everything by Matt+Perry · · Score: 4, Interesting
    from the hope-you're-using-ssl-for-everything dept.
    Why aren't we using SSL for everything? Why aren't we building strong encryption into everything? I started wondering this several months ago when I had to run VNC on a windows box and had no way to secure it. Sure, under linux you can tunnel it over SSH, but that wasn't an option on a windows machine.

    And regarding another thing, how come so many services require a certificate (such as SSL with email, imap, pop, etc) rather than auto-negotiating it like SSH does?

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:SSL for everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I started wondering this several months ago when I had to run VNC on a windows box and had no way to secure it. Sure, under linux you can tunnel it over SSH, but that wasn't an option on a windows machine.

      Sure it is. There are ssh servers for windows (from ssh.com and others) that will do exactly what you want with port forwarding.

      And regarding another thing, how come so many services require a certificate (such as SSL with email, imap, pop, etc) rather than auto-negotiating it like SSH does?

      SSH keys and SSL certs are functionally equivalent. They use a public/private keypair (rsa or dsa) to negotiate a session key with a conventional cipher.

      SSH keys are normally not signed. A client has no way to verify if the SSH key presented by the server is genuine. This means you are vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. SSL certificates are normally signed by a trusted CA. The signing means that MITM attacks won't work.

      Nothing requires SSL certificates to be signed, but a signed certificate authenticates the server. It's only for the signing that you pay verisign, thawte, or other CAs.

    2. Re:SSL for everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SSH on Windows is an option. Behold.

    3. Re:SSL for everything by bluewee · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you are forgetting OpenSSH and Cygwin.

      --
      [blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
    4. Re:SSL for everything by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Why can't you tunnel SSH on windows? There are tons of ssh apps. My personal favorite is from www.ssh.com, but then there's F-secure, Teraterm, and the perennial favorite--putty.

    5. Re:SSL for everything by hab136 · · Score: 2, Informative
      how come so many services require a certificate (such as SSL with email, imap, pop, etc) rather than auto-negotiating it like SSH does?

      The idea is that you can verify the certificate belongs to who it says it belongs to (like www.yourbank.com), without exchanging any other communication (such as SSH's fingerprints) - you just verify the site's signature from Verisign (or whomever). SSH relies on you confirming the fingerprint the first time you connect.

      You can generate your own SSL certs if you don't care about proving them to anyone. Check out the apache docs for examples. Then, once you've accepted it the first time, you'll have no more prompts on further connects - exactly like SSH.

      See, for example, http://www.apache-ssl.org/#FAQ, "Now I've got my server installed, how do I create a test certificate?"

    6. Re:SSL for everything by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1

      Right, but my point was why aren't there any VNC clients that secure the connection automatically? Why install and configure yet another application that will have to run all the time? For that matter can any of the SSH apps that you listed be set up to tunnel to another service on the same machine and run as a windows service?

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    7. Re:SSL for everything by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe UltraVnc (what I use, mostly) has an ecryption plugin?

      as for services--I don't believe any of the SSH clients can run as a service.. I'd be very surprised if there isn't some software out there that could do that though--would be a good project :-p

    8. Re:SSL for everything by iguana · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's an easy one.

      Because our idiot government (USA) has spent the better part of the last decade doing their damnedest to stomp out encryption.

      When the huge boom in software and the Internet hit 10 years ago, if we had been able to integrate decent encryption into software *maybe* some of these dumb-ass password sniffing problems wouldn't be an issue.

      Of course we'd still have a) buffer overflows b) bad passwords c) bad coding even though encrypted d) non-nerd users doing insecure things (sticky notes) and so on and so forth.

    9. Re:SSL for everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.winton.org.uk/zebedee/

    10. Re:SSL for everything by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1
      I believe UltraVnc (what I use, mostly) has an ecryption plugin?
      You're right. I didn't know about UltraVNC. Thanks!
      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    11. Re:SSL for everything by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hey! I'm a pretty solidly geeky dork, and all my passwords for work are on a sticky. Why?

      • At last count, I have at least 7 passwords: email and network, customer page, unix login, bugs database, data modeler, applications database, code review process. I'm probably missing some, I'd have to check the sticky.
      • The passwords are not changed at the same time, so they are all different. They may have abandoned trying to make us change them periodically - I'm not sure, the schedule was so erratic.
      • All the systems have different rules about what format the password must take. They definitely don't do a dictionary check, because sometimes I use things like "fuckyou" or "screwit". Juvenile, I know.
      • Even though they do not seem to care what your password is, they DO check to make sure that it is different than the last six times. This leads to passwords like: kilroy, kilroy1, kilroy2, killroy3, etc.
      • My IT department actually had a file on the server with everyone's plain text password for at least two of the systems. It was in Excel and was accessible to anyone with a login. Morons - why does such a file even exist??? Apparently they were doing something to everyone's PC and so they put it on the server so their support guys could reference it while they went from PC to PC, then forgot to take it back down. The list was very enlightening. Many people simply used their first name as the password, appending a 1 or 2 whenever they had to change it.

      Anyway, I'm using a sticky because it really doesn't matter.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:SSL for everything by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
      And regarding another thing, how come so many services require a certificate (such as SSL with email, imap, pop, etc) rather than auto-negotiating it like SSH does?
      The reason SSH gets away with this is you have a list of public keys for hosts you talk to. This is assumed to be correct. You're supposed to verify these as necessary, but in fact everyone (okay, me) just says okay when asked if a new unrecognized server key should be accepted. Certificates serve the same function, but there's a trusted third party that vouches for their authenticity.

      All the real crypto guys and gals may now feel free to dogpile on my undoubtedly-incorrect simplification . . . .

  36. Question by prostoalex · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cannot check this right now, but wouldn't it be possible to write a Windows executable that writes to the HOSTS file? The file is at a known location, and couldn't you add a line to redirect msn.com and yahoo.com to your own site?

    Seems like a fairly simple exploit.

    1. Re:Question by bwindle2 · · Score: 1

      I have seen spyware that did this at least a year ago.

    2. Re:Question by blowdart · · Score: 1

      There was spy/scumware that did that, editing the hosts files to redirect google.com and other search engines to themselves (hiding at http://64.191.95.139 - now offline) instead.

    3. Re:Question by malakai · · Score: 1

      This has been done. There was an exploit that came in via an IE vulnerability and redirected all search engines to an IP address. As I recall, it worked so well they overloaded that IP (slashdot'd themselves). Most people infected saw 'Page cannot be displayed' type messages.

    4. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean redirect windows update, verisign, symantec etc?

      Trivial

    5. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why is the parent modded interesting? Spyware has been editing hosts files for years. e.g.
      127.0.0.1 www.spywareinfo.com
      127.0.0.1 www.adaware.com

      WinPatrol and SpyBot's teatimer can tell you if the hosts file has been changed.

    6. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      duh, make the hosts read only and login as a regular user. In fact ALWAYS log in as a regular user and NOT as root, and you will be damn close to linux type of protection. Run a good virus program, mozilla instead of IE and you should never see a virus as a threat ~(compared to many, many , many other windows users)

    7. Re:Question by leperkuhn · · Score: 1

      yes, and then by creating a fake windows update site one could deliver hundreds of viruses.

      --
      http://www.rustyrazorblade.com
    8. Re:Question by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      I noticed that Zonealarm had an option to lock your hosts file last time I was playing with a Windows machine. Not that I'd expect the kind of people who are getting infected with these worms to be running Zonealarm...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    9. Re:Question by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I forget the worm in question (There were a small army on the computer I was servicing) but one of the pieces of spyware on it did in fact add a sizable block to the hosts file including AVG, Norton, McAfee and Windowsupdate as well as security related sites like bugtraq

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    10. Re:Question by k3v0 · · Score: 1

      I don't work for them, but....
      Spy search and destroy has protection against this type of attack. I've had some experiences where the connections to adaware and the antivirus update page were changed in the hosts file so I was unable to download the new virus/trojan info.

  37. A machine on one of our networks.... by caluml · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is strange - I found a bling.exe on a Windows machine at work a while ago, as it was spewwing out 445 if I remember rightly - several weeks. I searched for info on it, and I didn't find anything, which I thought was strange.
    I think I must have got hit by an early-adopter version.

    1. Re:A machine on one of our networks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I do believe I had one machine compromised here with it back in the day, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out what the damn thing was.

    2. Re:A machine on one of our networks.... by ESqVIP · · Score: 1, Funny

      Looks like you've found where the author was working on it!

    3. Re:A machine on one of our networks.... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Did you report it?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    4. Re:A machine on one of our networks.... by Mathness · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think I must have got hit by an early-adopter version.

      *envy*

      You got selected to be a beta tester of a virus! That is so 1337 man :)

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
  38. BURN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I think you're giving grolschie too much credit.

    He was probably accurate using "packet".

  39. Re:No, a really really bad one would modify your M by DupyMcCopy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yeah, I think it is called linux.

    --
    WARNING: Viewing This Sig May Cause Blindness.
  40. Worms are just like any other software by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Remember back to the days of MS-DOS? Everything was very minimal and non-bloated, but still, things were slow. As computers got faster, software didn't get faster. It just got more bloated to take advantage of all that new speed and memory available. Today I have dozens of windows open, a media player, and IDE, mail reader, etc, and you need 256mb to run Linux or Windows XP. That's bloat. But, they do a lot more than they used to. Much much more.

    And it's the same with worms. Rather than hand-coding them in assembly to get them in under 1000 bytes (or whatever) they can now be developed with good tools, useful libraries, and they can have all kinds of extra functionality built in. So expect worms with more features as we go along.

    It's time to really start thinking about security-by-design. VM systems like Java, or capability-based systems like EROS are the way we are going to finally squish these worms. I'm so tired of helping relatives with anti-virus software. There shouldn't be anti-virus software. Operating systems shouldn't allow viruses and worms to exist. Security problems like this are not an inherent part of software.

    1. Re:Worms are just like any other software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Operating systems shouldn't allow viruses and worms to exist.

      How does an OS distinguish between a viral program and a non-viral program? How can you prevent one from executing (or downloading) and not the other?

      The biggest security hole on any system is the user. How do you fix that?

    2. Re:Worms are just like any other software by megaversal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to be incredibly pro-MS, but the reason it's so easy to write all these viruses is because MS tried to make it easy to do all sorts of things with your system. VBScript can be and is used for automating administration tasks all the time, yet someone can use it to write some pretty complex worm in very few lines. Not elegant, but easy.

      I see the problem being Windows, by default, letting you run as an administrator, instead of a normal-level user, so that when a virus hits, the damage is far less if it can't change certain files, and run with a certain level of power.

      It's still not as easy to run as an everyday user, switching to Administrator whenever you need to perform an admin task, as it is on *nix to switch back and forth, at least in my experience. And I admin a primarily Windows network everyday, but use *nix only on a personal level.

      So I like the idea that MS gives you all this ability to create and play using technologies that aren't as hard to master as assembly (in the practical sense.. it's harder to write a simple Windows app in assembly than it is in VB), but they're still working on (in my opinion) getting users away from running as admin/root the whole time.

      --
      Sig!
    3. Re:Worms are just like any other software by evn · · Score: 3, Funny

      drip-drip-drip method of torture

      So all I have to do is wait a couple more years! Then I will buy a naked machine, connect it to the internet, and in minutes a full OS will be installed by a worm! The best part is that it will probably be more up to date than the Windows machines spreading this garbage.

      Maybe I should patch emacs to propagate itself and get the jump on the script kiddies ;)

    4. Re:Worms are just like any other software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other issue with real viruses is the small file size is s complete tipoff of nefarious intentions. People have grown suspect of 2kb exes. It's almost camoflauge to make sure your PE is at least 30k or so.

    5. Re:Worms are just like any other software by k4rm4_p0l7c3 · · Score: 1

      RANU: Smarter CPL and MSC check that out.. you can put those in batch files or what have you to launch processes w/privs, using the secondary logon service.

    6. Re:Worms are just like any other software by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Today I have dozens of windows open, a media player, and IDE, mail reader, etc, and you need 256mb to run Linux or Windows XP. That's bloat.

      No, that's a lot of applications running simultaneously. Unless you're saying that you would have similar apps open simultaneously back in the old days, and yet need only 32MB of RAM...

  41. A question... by here4fun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where does the sniffer send its data to? For someone to benifit from the data, they need to access it. So why don't people follow the data and find out who wrote it?

    1. Re:A question... by NetNifty · · Score: 1

      Probably doesnt actually send it anywhere, but instead has a simple telnet interface listening on a random port for anyone to connect and collect the data.

    2. Re:A question... by cosmol · · Score: 2, Informative

      the trend micro link kindly provided in this comment says that it connects to an irc server.

  42. Need one that does some damage by bdigit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Worm Writers,

    Please create a worm that will actually destroy the users harddrive that way at work when they call up I can tell them its a hardware problem and we do not support that. Also it will teach everyone a valuable lesson in running windows update and enabling their firewalls.

    Thank you
    Student worker @ University Helpdesk

    1. Re:Need one that does some damage by bluewee · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Although this is marked funny, I have considered doing this to a lesser extent. My plan would be to write a virus that used the back doors of other worms, virus(virii) and get onto the system and break the TCP/IP stack, and change the Background image to a link that would have all the information on how to clean up their computer.

      Even though this has legal implication, I think that people would be happy to know that their computer has been infected, and how to fix it.

      --
      [blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
    2. Re:Need one that does some damage by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heck, I'm still waiting for the one that uses the infected PC's existing saved emails to attach itself to and forward itself with. It'll be "funny" when major corporate executives start having their private, confidential, Microsoft(r) Outlook(tm) corporate emails spewed out to random people on the internet along with the virus...corporate budget planning emails, deal negotiations...it's all there...

    3. Re:Need one that does some damage by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      Better yet, why not simply have college/universities filter viruses/worms/trojans before they reach the students/teachers? A number of schools now have packet shapers or purposely limit bandwidth on students who use a large amount, so the money to build this kind of system should be pennies.

      You cannot honestly expect thousands of different teenage kids and hundreds of professors and staff to have the computer knowledge or patience necessary to constantly update and patch and activate every security measure the moment its released. Thats like expecting insurgents to stop attacking just because you suddenly pull troops out of Iraq. Ideal but not realistic.

    4. Re:Need one that does some damage by scosol · · Score: 1

      hahahah oh right- just "enable the firewall"...

      *shakes head*

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    5. Re:Need one that does some damage by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      There was a virus a fwe years back that searched My Documents for files and emailed them out wasnt there?

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    6. Re:Need one that does some damage by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      Is flashing the bios damaging enough for you?

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  43. Webpages by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    At least how I would do it would be to create all sorts of webpages on free servers. Or maybe trade the data on P2P networks. www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

  44. yep! by Zilfondel2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yea, actually, a lot of the time the virus writers DO email them to the different antivirus companies. Having your virus added to the weekly virus definition files is part of their bragging rights.

    Do you really think there are 55,000 viruses in the wild?

    Yea yea, I worked for symantec for a couple of years.

    1. Re:yep! by f8free · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've always wondered about that kind of thing... most especially, what's to stop the antivirus companies from writing their own virii?

      Not that they'd need to do it at this point, but talk about your perpetual business model...

    2. Re:yep! by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had the same thought about spam-control companies. They have no interest in actually stopping spam because that would put them out of business.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    3. Re:yep! by returnoftheyeti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cure for Cancer - Nope reseachers out of jobs
      Electric cars - Nope, oli companies go bust
      Cigarettes outlawed - Nope, that would kill the Cancer industry, the ashtray industry, the fire estinguisher industry, and the government would lose a lot of tax income.
      Peace in the Middle East, Nope -Bush would be out of a job

    4. Re:yep! by funk49 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There was a lot rumors floating around the BH and anti-viral community abou CodeRed being written by the Chief Hacking Officer at eEye, Marc Maiffret. I've always suspected that is what the companies do. That's how ISS justifies it's subscription model for sigs...X-Force creates craploads of major 0days.

    5. Re:yep! by One+Louder · · Score: 5, Interesting
      ...what's to stop the antivirus companies from writing their own virii?
      The competition.

      Imagine the publicity if an anti-virus software vendor were able to prove that a virus was produced by one of its competitors.

    6. Re:yep! by f8free · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That would be the biggest risk, to be sure. But tracking down the source of a virus is quite difficult, and that's when it's the work of a single (or just a few) hacker(s). Imagine if some corporate muscle were applied in burying the source. I'd worry about whistleblowers, too. Were I an ethically challenged antivirus company CEO, that is.

    7. Re:yep! by numark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think researchers would be less worried about losing their jobs over a cancer cure (which isn't even guaranteed...there's always something else to research) and more worried about protecting their own health and the health of their families. Doesn't help you in the end if you have a job and die of cancer before you even have a chance to retire. They have as vested an interest in finding a cancer cure as any one of us.

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    8. Re:yep! by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's virusen, not virii.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    9. Re:yep! by OblvnDrgn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention being part of the research team that found the Cure for Cancer (capital letters, it's a Wonder of the World) would probably be enough renown to live on for the rest of your life. Think Watson and Crick touring the university circuit for decades.

    10. Re:yep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's viruses not virii. Only people who smell like hot garbage say virii.

    11. Re:yep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that I would think twice about buying the other companies stuff. They don't have the sigs for the viruses yet!

      (But I run Linux, but the above would be try if I used Windoze.)

    12. Re:yep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure that isn't 'viruxen'?

    13. Re:yep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine the publicity if an anti-virus software vendor were able to prove that a virus was produced by one of its competitors.

      LoL which is why snake oil vendors never turn on one another. Something like honour amongst thieves.

    14. Re:yep! by msi · · Score: 1

      ...what's to stop the antivirus companies from writing their own virii?

      The competition.

      I read this as the competition from all the established virus writers.

    15. Re:yep! by CountBrass · · Score: 0

      The plural of virus is viruses you fuckwit.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    16. Re:yep! by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      > Cure for Cancer - Nope reseachers out of jobs

      I am aware the parent may have intended this is a Satrical way....

      I think its better a few "researchers" losing their jobs, than many losing their life. Plus the researchers have another job to go to. People dont have another "live" if they loose their current one....

      My girlfriend died of Luekemia due to her being unable to cope with Chemo.

      Since her death, I have met many researchers in the field, espeically those looking at research on Taxine from the English Yew. All those researchers are extremely dedicated to their jobs, and if anythign, they are also eager to stike gold on the cure.

      I agree on some of the other points you made.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    17. Re:yep! by AgentSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Will all you shitbats stop arguing about what the plural of virus is?!!!!

      Every fucking time a virus story comes up, the same (if not similar) group of pedantic twits posts about this. If the world didn't get it the first fucking time you posted it, they aren't going to understand it now!!!

      I declare now once and for all time this will be the word for the plural of virus: Viruses

      There. Is everyone fucking happy now? Can we now get back to discussing the topic and living our lives in a new blissful age now that the plural is definitively known?

      It's a new world people!

    18. Re:yep! by indiechild · · Score: 1

      Or alternatively, what's to stop antivirus companies from helping to spread and propagate viruses? :)

    19. Re:yep! by hplasm · · Score: 0

      So it's not 'virus' then..?

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    20. Re:yep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it.

    21. Re:yep! by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      "You have a collect call from: your shitty sense of humor. To accept charges, smash your head against the phone....now."

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    22. Re:yep! by parnasus · · Score: 2, Funny
      it's a Wonder of the World

      And a nice one at that. +1 Happiness in every city, IIRC! :)

      --
      --If you code for the exceptions, the rules fall into place
    23. Re:yep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing quite like calling someone a fuckwit for making a joke that you didn't get. Maybe he should have used the sarcasm tag or a winkie for the lead paint chip crowd.

    24. Re:yep! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      you forgot, stoping povery or the need for welfare? nope, too many government worker would loose thier jobs

    25. Re:yep! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      as interesting as this is, what to stop the anti viri companies (or thier workers) from droping hints about exploits in the right comunities so someone else does create a virus?

      It could be possible they have more to do with it then we can imagine.

    26. Re:yep! by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      I see it as the other way around. If I'm running Norton and McAfee "seems" to have a more up to date definition because they released a virus and then offered protection quickly, I might be inclined to switch to them. They would have to be very careful about it because if it ever got out they'd be ruined.

      But I'm running linux so I don't have to worry about those viruses.

  45. Best AntiVirus? Help... by Iscariot_ · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This reminds me, I'm in the process of building a new pc and want to get the opinion of the shack collective on what is the best antivirus software.

    I've looked everywhere, and TrendMicro's PC-Cillin, McAfee AV, and Norton AV all seem to rank high. Is any one of these really better than the others? Have I left the best one off my list?

    Obviously finding virii is paramount, but a low footprint is also welcome.

    Thanks!

  46. Re:No, a really really bad one would modify your M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, that would be really easy with NTFS. And of course there's shitloads of space around the MBR.

  47. SSL wouldn't help with a key stroke logger by caluml · · Score: 2, Insightful
    hope-you're-using-ssl-for-everything

    Mmmm, cos that would prevent the key stroke logger from working. It's probably more dangerous if you are using SSL, as you will have that warm fuzzy feeling that all is well, and you'll tap away all your privatest things.

    Bad encryption is worse than no encryption.

  48. Many unswitched networks still exist by loqi · · Score: 3, Informative

    A lot of /.'ers have pointed out that most networks are switched nowadays; however, there are still plenty of networks out there that aren't.

    Every mid-level enthusiast home network I've known was just running a dumb hub, and I'm also familiar with a university that ran hubs per floor in the dorms (you couldn't get floor 8's data on floor 9, but as for everyone on floor 9...). This worm still has a plenty big playground.

    --
    If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
    1. Re:Many unswitched networks still exist by mediocubano · · Score: 1

      and Wi-Fi is a shared network, so we're going back to the days of being able to see everything on that segment.

    2. Re:Many unswitched networks still exist by QuasiEvil · · Score: 1

      Like many have pointed out, switches aren't a universal panacea to cure sniffing evils. They're much more effective when you look to them to segment and maximize network capacity, not provide security.

      Besides, really, the average home user has no idea what's going on in their home network. While installing a new wireless card in my laptop the other night, I discovered (by accident) that my neighbor's completely unsecured wireless (no WEP, no MAC restrictions, and the SSID was linksys...) network actually has better signal strength in my living room than does my own.

      A great many people I know don't even have software firewalls (which I've always considered mostly a joke), let alone hardware-based ones, between them and their cable modem. My own father proudly called me up to let me know he'd gotten a cable modem and hooked up his computer - so I demonstrated the problem by connecting to his machine and reading his email to him over the phone. Needless to say, the cable modem got turned off until he could run out and grab a consumer-grade NAT device the next day.

      People are just not going to wake up and smell the coffee until it hits them. They seem to come with this mentality of "why would anybody attack me?" or that their computer should be secure because Dell/Gateway/etc. set it up for them three years ago and they wouldn't make it insecure...

    3. Re:Many unswitched networks still exist by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      It's rather depressing how many people equate "NAT" (i.e. major functionality limitation) with "security".

    4. Re:Many unswitched networks still exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My own father proudly called me up to let me know he'd gotten a cable modem and hooked up his computer - so I demonstrated the problem by connecting to his machine and reading his email to him over the phone.

      How does one do this?

  49. Re:HACKED BY CHINESE by timts · · Score: 1

    why do you hope so?

    it can be hacked by anybody and chinese hackers are not better or worse than anybody. :D

  50. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

    This reminds me, I'm in the process of building a new pc and want to get the opinion of the shack collective on what is the best antivirus software.

    Take your pick: *BSD, SuSE, Red Hat...

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  51. FYI - Boxen isn't a word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fact - People who refer to computers as "boxen" are idiots.

    1. Re:FYI - Boxen isn't a word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statement of fact begs the question of whether people who refer to viruses as 'virii' are idiots as well.

  52. A sniffer would still be helpful... by raehl · · Score: 4, Funny

    Especially if it gives warning messages, like:

    "It is time to empty the litter box."

    or

    "Please do your laundry."

    or

    "Are you really sure you want to eat that leftover pizza?"

    or

    "For the love of god, please try deodorant. Any deodorant."

    Of course, there are also downsides, like your stash of coke always vanishing.

    1. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by YetAnotherDave · · Score: 4, Funny

      >> "For the love of god, please try deodorant. Any deodorant."

      we could use this one at my work... :(

    2. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by 0racle · · Score: 2, Funny

      net send ....
      The tools are there, use them.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    3. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by YetAnotherDave · · Score: 1

      1) messenger service is generally off on our PCs

      2) automation of repetitive tasks is good

      3) my comment was a %#@%# joke! :)

    4. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Informative

      "It is time to empty the litter box."

      If I forget, Mrs. Underfoot lets me know by leaving a present in the middle of the floor. Believe me, I rarely forget.

      "Please do your laundry."

      Done on an as-needed basis. I'll run out, and live off the least-wrinkled shirts until the weekend.

      "Are you really sure you want to eat that leftover pizza?"

      Of-fricken-course! Pizza is the only food I've ever had that's even better microwaved than fresh.

      "For the love of god, please try deodorant. Any deodorant."

      Why? It's not like anyone comes near me...

    5. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Yet you can't see humour in other posts.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    6. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by cfuse · · Score: 1
      Of course, there are also downsides, like your stash of coke always vanishing.

      Think of the Doom III fps though!

    7. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      One year at my old school, a computer renowned for his odour received six cans of deoderant in his in-tray at Christmas time. I'm pretty sure he got the point...

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    8. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1

      Without an i/o device, i'm pretty sure the computer *didn't* get the message.

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    9. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by sdo1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      --"For the love of god, please try deodorant. Any deodorant."

      we could use this one at my work... :(

      Time to move out of France, dude.

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    10. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      computer teacher. You know, I always thought they put the preview button there for a reason

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    11. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Enjoy your freedom fries. You miserable fat fuck.

      The English don't have "freedom fries".

    12. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by zonker · · Score: 0

      or

      "do you want to play a game?"

    13. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      "Insightful"?

      Come on, people. It was a joke!

    14. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1
      • "Insightful"?

        Come on, people. It was a joke!

      The Post was a joke, And the Moderation was its punchline. Amen.
      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  53. the bad one by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm waiting for a virus that greps all your documents for each name in your address book.

    If a document contains a person's name, email it to them.

    I can see it now, salary spreadsheets and confidential memos flying around to the very people who are not allowed to see them...

    1. Re:the bad one by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well if it's using "grep", then this has to be a unix virus.

    2. Re:the bad one by omnisync · · Score: 2, Informative

      Grep has been ported to Windows. (And most GNU command-line tools too) Omni

    3. Re:the bad one by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Oooo! Oooo! And it could spread itself by making itself the last attachement, and giving it the same name as one of the other attachments. For instance, it installs itself on your boss's machine and sends out salary.xls to you, and also attaches itself as salary.exe. Hell, even I'd click on salary.exe if salary.xls was legit.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:the bad one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well if it's using "grep", then this has to be a unix virus.

      Really?

    5. Re:the bad one by calculadoru · · Score: 2

      a virus that greps all your documents for each name in your address book.
      If a document contains a person's name, email it to them.


      you, sir, have a vicious dirty mind.
      hats off to you.

      --
      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
    6. Re:the bad one by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      /me takes bow

      Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

    7. Re:the bad one by calculadoru · · Score: 1

      I'll be here all week

      Er...not working on said virus, I hope?
      Because some of us have to make a living as well, you know.

      --
      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
    8. Re:the bad one by skids · · Score: 1

      Man, in a very perverse way I am glad you said that, because I've had to resist the temptation to spread that idea around every day. Now I don't have to worry about it anymore because every kiddie just got the clue from you so it isn't my fault.

      That said, worm writers, thank God, seem to be some of the most unimaginative cretins ever blessed with the ability to code, though "code" is perhaps being generous. You would think by now they would have figured out the amazing chaos forwarding docs and emails like that would cause -- instant headline material if ever there was.

      And, unlike the one referenced in the article, you would think they would have figured out how a worm could put a sniffer to much more dastardly use (must... not... go... into... detail!) than what they did.

      Not that I would ever wish that on the world. Maybe those smart enough to think of the more malevolent ideas are smart enough to realize that the damage they could do would ripple through the economy and they'd end up hurting themselves in the long run.

      I will give these lamers one small bit of credit though -- stealing CD keys was a new idea to me at least.

    9. Re:the bad one by g07h_g33k · · Score: 1

      I would just like to say that you rock my world. That is all.

  54. Re:i dunno which is worse by jcr · · Score: 1

    your sickening cavalier arrogance

    Dude, it's a joke. Lighten up.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  55. It didn't take "this long" by EvilAlien · · Score: 1
    Back in tha day, there was a nasty piece of malware^H^H^H^H^H^H^H remote admin software that promised an integrated packet sniffer and the ability to add plugins.

    Good times, good times...

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
  56. Evolving worms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still looking forwarding to a mutanting evolutionary worm
    With the current number of interconnected computers we would be handling a very large population, that could be almost unstopable if evolving correctly

  57. As usual these useless virus alerts lack info. by zaqattack911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How does it Normally spread?
    What windows vulnerabilities is it using?
    is it an email attachment? what is the attachement called .. or its variants??

    For christ sake...

    Love, Zaq

    1. Re:As usual these useless virus alerts lack info. by kryptkpr · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  58. Still waiting for /. to post it! by antdude · · Score: 1

    2004-09-13 18:56:06 Virus 'talks' to victims (Index,Security) (pending) :)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Still waiting for /. to post it! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Funny "2004-09-13 18:56:06 Virus 'talks' to victims (Index,Security) (rejected)"

      And my story is embedded in the posted story. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  59. Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Banking info is going to be using SSL. Sniffing SSL traffic isn't going to get you any interesting data. It would be better to use an old fashion key logger.

    The most interesting part of this virus is the ability to easily intercept IM and e-mail conversations. I think it's killer app would be identity theft rather than credit card or banking fraud.

  60. Re:Why so long? Probably because its nearly useles by megarich · · Score: 0

    Now we established the worm sniffs out sensitive data, but does it leave a trace of the ip this said data goes to?. I mean it has to get to the worm owner somehow to be useful. If it does leave a trace, I say we find the fuxxor and cause a scene worse than being in a turkish prison!

  61. Why did it take this long? by rjamestaylor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps it took this long because the bad guys were busy installing keystroke recorders so that they could defeat encrypted network traffic. Also, switched networks help keep the impact of the sniffing to the infected computer -- unless the network terminates at an infected computer -- thus making this less as threat to large organization using 100% switched networks...

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    1. Re:Why did it take this long? by Roguelazer · · Score: 1

      Except for sniffers like ettercap that work on switched networks...

  62. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by IcEMaN252 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I vote for Norton, but that's probably because its what I've used for a long time. McAfee tends to run background scans (at least in implentations I've seen) while Norton runs in the foreground. Obviously, both do realtime protection as well, but I prefer foreground virus scans that I can schedule when I'm not using my computer, like at 3:37 am.

    --
    CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
  63. Re:Why so long? Probably because its nearly useles by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

    I expect version 2.0 will do ARP poisoning.

  64. don't misunderestimate sniffers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Un-encrypted as in NOT encrypted

    The wording should have been more clear.

  65. Re:No, a really really bad one would modify your M by jgrahn · · Score: 1
    Im suprised noone has written a virus that uses unused sectors on the hard drive, and makes modifications to the MBR and partition table.

    Like boot sector viruses? You know, back in the days when everybody booted from floppies, all viruses were of that kind. I have a few of those lying around somewhere ... for the Commodore-Amiga.

  66. Re:Why so long? Probably because its nearly useles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This means the only traffic the sniffer is likely to see is traffic destined to arrive at the infected host anyhow.

    Yes, but it is possible to trick a switch with arp & mac spoofing into sending you traffic that should go somewhere else.

    Most unmanaged switches can be fooled. Many (most?) managed switches can prevent this.

  67. Re:No, a really really bad one would modify your M by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 1

    Parent isn't flamebait. Ever try removing the GRUB bootloader? It's impossible.

    --
    Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
  68. Re:i dunno which is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Caviller dude, not cavalier. Very different meaning.

  69. Proper switches cannot always defeat a sniffer by thanasakis · · Score: 4, Informative
  70. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >but a low footprint is also welcome.

    NOD32

  71. Re:No, a really really bad one would modify your M by flink · · Score: 1

    I imagine pretty much every virus scanner watches the MBR like a hawk and warns you if something tries to modify it. It's even built into the BIOS on some machines.

  72. Re:No, a really really bad one would modify your M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still waiting for a virus that installs Linux on the target machine. It could import the user's settings from Windows and install the equivalent software. In fact the user probably wouldn't even know anything had happened.

  73. It didn't "take so long" by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    Back orifice was always a sniffer trojan. There have been many others. Attacks that install sniffers and attacks that install keyboard loggers have both been going on for years.

    I don't remember the particular worm, but there were a bunch that looked for telnet and ftp sessions and then watched for the username/password transactions.

    It's old hat.

    That bigger trojans are now practical across larger bandwidth allows for more fully-featured exploits is evolutionary not revolutionary.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  74. Re:HACKED BY CHINESE by Cheffo+Jeffo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Um ... I THINK that was an attempt at humour ... HACKED BY CHINESE was the tagline appearing on web servers infected with Code Red ... IIRC, that is.

  75. Uh, SSL? by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    If the thing can sniff bank-account passwords from victims' home computers, it should give the author more than enough money to steal.

    And it would do this how, considering that any bank in the world using online account stuff also uses SSL?

  76. Re:No, a really really bad one would modify your M by |<amikaze · · Score: 1


    What are you trying to replace it with?

    Windows 95/98: fdisk /mbr
    Windows XP: from a recovery console, use fixmbr
    Linux: if you want to completely remove it: dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda bs=512 count=1

  77. It's already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are some viruses that already exploit the HOSTS file and blocks anti-malware websites, among others. Google for it.

  78. An even more practical use by syrrys · · Score: 0

    would be if, say, after 8 straight hours of SOF2, (I've done it too) the sniffer would send a desktop message like, "I am your sniffer. Jon, you stink. Put the game down and take a shower. Oh, ok, just one more game." That would be great.

    --
    "Patience is not a virtue, it's a waste of time."
  79. Re:No, a really really bad one would modify your M by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
    Parent isn't flamebait. Ever try removing the GRUB bootloader? It's impossible.

    You did remember to save your MBR before you overwrote it, right?

    dd if=/dev/hda of=mymbr bs=512 count=1
    Set the blocksize to 446 if you don't want the partition table.

    Now you can restore the MBR with:

    dd if=mymbr of=/dev/hda bs=512 count=1
    Again, set bs to 446 if you didn't save the partition table.

    If you want to create a new Windows MBR, try one of the following:

    On Windows 95/98/ME use a boot disk, and then type:

    FDISK /MBR
    On Windows 2000/XP boot the OS CD, select, "recovery console", and type:
    FIXMBR C:
    FIXBOOT C:
    bootcfg /rebuild
    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  80. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by saskboy · · Score: 1

    While background scans appear useful, any good virus in the future is going to disable the antivirus software as it is installed, or otherwise evade detection indefinately. I mean, if it wasn't caught initially, what's going to catch it later after it has control of the computer?

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  81. Switched Lans STILL vulnerable by AcidFnTonic · · Score: 1

    Switched lans still dont prevent overall network sniffing. Arp poisoning still works like a charm. Heres how it works:

    1) Send the computer you wish to sniff's MAC Address as your own to the switch.

    2) Now route all traffic you recieve with spoofed source addresses to the target machine. so it thinks the data came from the switch....

    3) Enjoy sniffing on a switched lan.

    There's programs to do this... I'll let the kiddies find them themselves.

    --
    Sometimes the majority just means all the morons are on the same side.
  82. Introducing MS Virus COM by krbvroc1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    We need a MS platform for interoperable virii. What if a machine is infected with multiple competing virii - there needs to be a middleware to arbitrate the flood requests, the MAPI calls, and the registry accesses. And what if the virii authors try to use the same registry locations to get their exploits to run at bootup.

    I think a new Virus API - VAPI32 is required. Maybe introduced into the .IOWNYOUR.NET technologies.

    1. Re:Introducing MS Virus COM by AcidFnTonic · · Score: 1

      Nice idea, but I doubt it would work... Afterall, all the bugs M$ would leave in the VAPI32.dll would cause viruses to just overtake it, instead of competing for resources......

      --
      Sometimes the majority just means all the morons are on the same side.
  83. Shall we play a game? by HikeFanatic · · Score: 1

    Virus: "Shall we play a game?" User: Yes, let's play global thermo-nuclear war

    1. Re:Shall we play a game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      virus: Confirm activation of SkyNet [Y|N]?
      User: Yes

  84. Color scheme that actually has contrast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  85. Re:i dunno which is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  86. Re:No, a really really bad one would modify your M by Phillup · · Score: 1

    Linux: if you want to completely remove it: dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda bs=512 count=1


    Please don't do that. You'll nuke your partition table.

    Reference

    --

    --Phillip

    Can you say BIRTH TAX
  87. A talking worm, huh? by Southpaw018 · · Score: 1

    I'm'a make one that says "Hello, Dave. Shall we continue our game?" and then shuts the computer down.

    --
    ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
  88. "This worm uses carnivore network..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...and counts how many times you type the word "Playboy", "Osama", and sends the info off to the illuminated ones.

    Haven't they had this for a few years now?

  89. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'd have to recommend AVG. It's free for home use, and so are the (daily) virus definitions. You can set it up to download the latest definitions and do a full scan at any time of day. It comes with some more advanced stuff, like inbound/outbound email scanning, which I've disabled but some folks might like.

  90. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by IcEMaN252 · · Score: 1

    You're right. The latest and greatest virus are going to disable just about any useful AV once the virus gets loaded into memory. However, file system scans are still useful for detecting virii that may be dormant on your system. Have you ever copied a file and not immediately opened it?

    --
    CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
  91. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My vote is for Sophos. Small footprint. Aren't pissed they aren't MS (ala Norton), don't add a lot of crap to their program (ala McCaffe).

    Saved my ass more times than I can count.

  92. Beating keystroke loggers by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can beat keystroke loggers by entering your password a few letters at a time in random order, using the mouse to place the cursor at the correct location in the half-finished password. I don't think there's a keystroke logger that is able to work out where you clicked in the password entry box.

    Cumbersome, but it's something I do on untrusted computers like the ones in web cafés.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Beating keystroke loggers by xedx · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I don't think there's a keystroke logger that is able to work out where you clicked in the password entry box."
      I'm sure keylogger/virus writers are scrambling to add that particular feature after reading your very informative comment. thanks

    2. Re:Beating keystroke loggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Any input manipulation like that (using keyboard and mouse) that your OS can interpret, a worm could be coded to interpret.

    3. Re:Beating keystroke loggers by anti-trojan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once you know the characters that the password consists of, the possible combinations are very limited. You can try every combination in a few seconds.

    4. Re:Beating keystroke loggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Another way is to open up a notepad.exe window or two and alternate focus between the password dialog and the notepad windows, typing a random number of characters into each window in turn. A pure keystroke logger wouldn't be able to tell which keystrokes were entered into notepad and which ones were used for your password. It can be layered on top of your method as well.

      This can be defeated by a sophisticated enough software keystroke logger that has OS level hooks, but so far very few of them are designed to handle this attack. Hardware loggers are stopped cold by this technique, since they have no way to tell the OS state.

    5. Re:Beating keystroke loggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a bad idea but anyone wanting your password would simply try all permutations of the characters you've entered.

    6. Re:Beating keystroke loggers by danila · · Score: 1

      How about a virtual onscreen keyboard operated with a mouse where the layout is random and (optionally) requires a transparent screen overlay? In fact, it's quite easy to implement and should be a relatively strong impediment to keyloggers. You just place a custom overlay on the screen (unique one for each user), the application reads the coordinates and sends them to secure intermidiary proxy that converts them into passwords and sends them to the server that required them in the first place.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    7. Re:Beating keystroke loggers by tkw954 · · Score: 1
      Once you know the characters that the password consists of, the possible combinations are very limited. You can try every combination in a few seconds.

      But if you include a "delete" keystroke, you can include an arbitrarily large number of characters that don't appear in your password.

    8. Re:Beating keystroke loggers by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1
      • it's something I do on untrusted computers like the ones in web cafés.
      Did you know the most common place for a person's hands is (order, and owner, varies) the mouth, nose and butt? For this reason alone I would never use a foreign keyboard. Instead, I bring a laptop when I think I'll need a laptop (which is, um, always). Log these keystrokes, Vlad! Hey, if I'm going to press a booger, it's gotta be mine...
      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  93. Request for virus writers: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I'm still waiting for a worm that installs Linux on the infected computer.

    Propogation:
    Scan random IP addresses, use multiple Windows exploits, etc. This part has been done a thousand times before, no need to reinvent the wheel.

    Payload:
    1. The worm itself
    2. Grub for Dos
    3. The contents of a network install disk

    Behavior:
    1. Upon infection, the worm will install Grub for Dos, and copy the contents of the network boot disk into c:\boot, but will not modify the boot.ini file.
    2. The worm process will run in the background, and attempt to propogate itself.
    3. At a predefined interval, the worm will pop up a window that says: "Your computer has been infected by the so-and-so worm. To install Linux and prevent this from ever happening again, click OK." (This worm should be socially responsible. We don't want to force Linux on the masses, just gently persuade them using Windows lack of security as a tool.)
    4. Continue to propogate as long as the user clicks "Cancel".
    5. When the user clicks "OK":
    5a. ping a mirror list to find the fastest mirror
    5b. write a kickstart to the boot directory to use that mirror.
    5c. modify the boot.ini file to boot Grub.
    5d. reboot the machine, and it shall be cleansed!

    1. Re:Request for virus writers: by daemonc · · Score: 1

      Accidentally posted as AC.

      --
      All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
    2. Re:Request for virus writers: by st3v · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bad Idea: A person might think they would be able to keep their old documents and programs and install Linux. After they have no idea where their documents went and how to use their "cleaned" system, the reputation of Linux would be tarnished in their eyes as a virus.

    3. Re:Request for virus writers: by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      So call it Windows VFE (Virus Free Edition)

      --
      Not a sentence!
  94. MOD PARENT DOWN! by BenFranske · · Score: 1

    This is incorrect information. Yes, they only route between the inside and outside, that's normal behavior. However, the four ports on the inside could be a hub, but are more likely an unmanaged switch. All the manufacturers advertising switches in their routers (dlink, linksys, smc, belkin, etc.) DO SWITCH. As others have mentioned switch!=hub!=router.

    Mod the parent down and find something really informative to mod up.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! by Jailbrekr · · Score: 1

      Switches route the information from port to port based not on IP address, but MAC address.

      Routing can and does occur at several levels. It is obvious that your understanding of routing does not encompass all those levels.

      --
      Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    2. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! by Jailbrekr · · Score: 1

      well shit, my terminology is crap. I always thought it was mac address level routing, but it seems that all the tech sites call it it mac filtering. I must've gotten a few memories merged together over the last 8 years.

      I am mistaken, it is not routing, it is mac filtering.

      --
      Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
  95. Yay! by stealth.c · · Score: 1

    I don't use Windows!

  96. I'm still wondering when by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    The MP3 downloading virus is going to come out.. er .. I mean "I think I have an MP3 downloading virus"

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  97. MOD PARENT UP! by BenFranske · · Score: 1

    This is correct information, the GRANDPARENT is INCORRRECT.

  98. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    AVG if you're cheap, or NOD32 for some dollars. Both are very low on footprint, and NOD32 has one of the best detection rates around. NOD also has one of the only interfaces that doesn't suck. *cough* kaspersky *cough*

    McAfee is slow, and Norton is equally as bad unless you get the corporate edition. Of course, most of the AV companies provide trial versions, so be sure to give a bunch of them a try (NOT all at once) and pick whichever YOU believe is the best one. :-)

  99. Request for virus writers: by daemonc · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm still waiting for a worm that installs Linux on the infected computer.

    Propogation:
    Scan random IP addresses, use multiple Windows exploits, etc. This part has been done a thousand times before, no need to reinvent the wheel.

    Payload:
    1. The worm itself
    2. Grub for Dos
    3. The contents of a network install disk

    Behavior:
    1. Upon infection, the worm will install Grub for Dos, and copy the contents of the network boot disk into c:\boot, but will not modify the boot.ini file.
    2. The worm process will run in the background, and attempt to propogate itself.
    3. At a predefined interval, the worm will pop up a window that says: "Your computer has been infected by the so-and-so worm. To install Linux and prevent this from ever happening again, click OK." (This worm should be socially responsible. We don't want to force Linux on the masses, just gently persuade them using Windows lack of security as a tool.)
    4. Continue to propogate as long as the user clicks "Cancel".
    5. When the user clicks "OK":
    5a. ping a mirror list to find the fastest mirror
    5b. write a kickstart to the boot directory to use that mirror.
    5c. modify the boot.ini file to boot Grub.
    5d. Reboot the machine, and it shall be cleansed!

    --
    All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
  100. Not the first talking virus by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    nVIR on the early Macintoshes would use the Macintalk speech engine to say "Don't Panic". One source says nVIR got discovered in January 1987.

    1. Re:Not the first talking virus by BeerAndLoathing · · Score: 1

      Yes well apple did everything first.. but maybe you shouldn't mention how advanced and years-before-their-time apple virii were!

  101. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by Zapdos · · Score: 1

    Avast is very good. You may like the cost. Other than that Panda is the best. Mcafee/Norton are getting worse as they expand their product line.


    would you like to

  102. _Best_Encryption_Ever_ by iamatlas · · Score: 1
    a lot of people who should know better still don't encrypt their password

    [secure@root ~]$figlet dont_peak.txt | figlet

    symetric figlet encryption... never defeated.

    Oh, and sure, I use tcsh- wanna make somethin' of it?

  103. One Reason I Fixed Windows Permanently by gfecyk · · Score: 1

    At least in the eyes of my clients.

    Two words: Limited Users.
    Two more words: Hardware Firewall.

    I know, -1 redundant, -1 overrated, -1 troll. Guess what, folks? They work.

    These things combined stop every virus, worm, trojan, spy ware, key logger, etc etc etc on company networks. Add to that attachment blocking in Outlook and macro blocking in Word and Excel, all included since MS Office 2000, and I don't waste client time dealing with garbage from the net.

    --
    Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
  104. I know software like that. ;-) by syousef · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You need Girlfriend 1.0. A word of warning though. Upgrading to Wife 1.0 is a very expensive decision.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:I know software like that. ;-) by funkdancer · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I thought it was the Wife 2.0 upgrade that was the expensive one...

      --
      ISO certified == THX certified
  105. Laziest Men on Mars by TheRoachMan · · Score: 1

    I expect they will make a hell of a techno song using samples from that .wav soundbyte soon :)

    Previous work from LMOM includes the famous All Your Base song, and The Terrible Secret of Space. Here is the ICQ prank that started it.

  106. Excuse for PHB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That probably helps PHBs a lot now that they have an excuse for making bonehead decisions.

    PHB's boss: What were you thinking! Do you know that it's not possible for the mass to be a complex number!

    PHB: Ummm... virus??!?

    PHB's boss: OK. How about a raise?

  107. Self notifying Infections by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Never did see the point in announcing that you have just infected a pc.

    That gives the victim a chance to clean ..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  108. The Lobotomy Virus! by Mulletproof · · Score: 3, Funny

    "How are you. I am back. My name is mister hamsi. I am seeing you. Haaaaaaaa. You must come to turkiye. I am cleaning your computer. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 0. Gule. Gule." ("Gule. Gule" is Turkish for "Bye. Bye"

    AMAZING. The first virus that has the capacity to destroy not only the victim's computer, but his BRAIN as well. I swear, these guys need to start hiring professional comedians to do their dirty work, or we're all screwed.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:The Lobotomy Virus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh well.. As long as it doesn't play O-Zone's latest "hit" in loop....

    2. Re:The Lobotomy Virus! by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Man you should live in home of that fish (Black sea region) for 1 week...

      They rock! Near all of our jokes are based on them. Do they get mad? Well, as THEY write those jokes about themselves, NOT...

      Oh btw, that virus is obviously not from that region.

      Besides, we gave up trying to change our country name in english long time ago... Coder is turkish even?

  109. PromiscDetect by rsteele19 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Netcraft article noted that checking to see if your network adapter is in promiscuous mode is a good way to tell if your machine has a sniffer running on it. Unfortunately, they did not mention how one can go about doing this.

    If you're using Linux, just run
    ifconfig -a
    and look for the string "PROMISC".

    If, however, you're using Windows, you need to get a utility called PromicDetect. Run it from a command prompt. If it indicates the Directed, Multicast and Broadcast filters are active, then you're probably OK.

    Source: Computerworld
    --

    This sig is umop apisdn.

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

      Thats nice as far as it goes, but not seeing the PROMISC doesn't mean you're ok.

      Most of the current common rootkits muck with the kernel structures so the kernel itself fails to report the PROMISC to the userspace. End result, the interface is still in promiscuous mode and the utilities won't tell you.

      There are a number of theories/methods for detecting promiscuous mode remotely so that you don't have to rely on anything native to the machine (If you suspect the machine has been rooted, EVERYTHING it tells you is suspect). Unfortunately, none of theses methods work worth a darn on Linux given the way its network stack works.

      All that aside, I have no idea if the same thing is possible on Windows or not...

  110. Nostalgia by Alien54 · · Score: 1
    Ahh, for the good old days when a virus would make an ambulance drive across the screen ...

    Those were the days. The kids these days, they have no style, no artistry, no sense of the absurd.....

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  111. DEP info by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Informative

    From MS:

    By default, software-enforced DEP only protects limited system binaries, regardless of the hardware-enforced DEP capabilities of the processor.

    --

    I'm guessing MS runs its own software NX because it knows what memory these system binaries should and shouldnt be using. So even if it worked for DCOM/RPC it probably wouldn't work with the SQL server hole.

    Hardware DEP is a whole different story.

    Short and sweet thread on DEP here.

    Actually, you can enable software DEP for all programs. There's a button you can click on in system properties under advanced. Might be fun playing with to see if it breaks anything. Might be good to leave on if it doesnt.

    1. Re:DEP info by fitten · · Score: 1

      I have DEP turned on for everything except those that I explicitly allow to run without DEP (not the default setting). I also have an Athlon64 processor so it should be doing hardware NX as well. I haven't had any problems yet and have only found one program (a game) that I regularly use that was shut down by DEP, at which time it asked me if I wanted to allow it to run without DEP, which I opted to do.

  112. At last! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone wants to talk to me!

  113. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

    can you set it up to auto-update these days? that was my biggest gripe with it last time I tried it out, I always had to manually tell the software to update its definitions.

  114. Hi! How are you? by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

    I sent you this file to have your advice.

    Nuff said.

    --
    --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
  115. Hamsi/Hamsa -- Comme Si Comme Sa by tmjva · · Score: 1

    If you're liberal on the pronunciation of the last syllable, 'hamsi' is also a transliteration for Arabic numeral 5 (which most Turks also know via Islam.) Also the countdown starts with 5. No big significance there either, might as well be a fish.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  116. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by stor · · Score: 1

    If you want something for free:

    http://www.clamwin.com/

    It's not the fastest scanner on the market but it seems comprehensive and in this day and age not requiring registration, etc is a godsend. It downloads new virus definitions periodically and all that.

    Mad props to the clamav/clamwin developers. I'd like to very humbly state "Keep up the *great* work... you guys rock"

    Cheers
    Stor

    --
    "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  117. amd's nx bit aka "noexecute" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dose this affect athlon 64 systems with no execute enabled?

  118. Mac user's point of view by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

    Macintosh user since 1997. Not one virus problem, ever. Bad RAM, flaky CD drive, broken floppy drive, half-dead monitor, blasted speaker, toasted modem, yeah - but no virus problem at all! Now, come to think about it, that old 6500/225 lasted quite a bit...

    1. Re:Mac user's point of view by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      In 7 years on the web, no anti-virus, I have had one virus. It was CIH and destroyed image files. Woopee.

      Common sense would stop this stuff.
      Also there should be a competency test, like a driving test in order to use a computer.
      If you can't use the computer proficiently without a mouse, you shouldn't be allowed to use one.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  119. Microsoft Personal Firewall by peeon · · Score: 1

    On several computers, I have noticed this worm starts as "Microsoft Personal Firewalls = bling.exe". How obvious is that?

  120. Re:No, a really really bad one would modify your M by J+Nny · · Score: 1

    delpart completely cleans off GRUB. After writing the partition table, I'd run delpart again to make sure it's clear.

  121. Virus to kill other viruses by Junkstyle · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't someone write a virus to destroy other viruses? Maybe hackers could have wars with each others viruses instead of deleting my important data(porn).

  122. Organized Crime no, misguided activism yes by Oriumpor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps organized crime could benefit from this, but in most cases electronic abuses when it comes to fraud/extortion etc seem to face a harsher penalty. I'm not too worried about criminals as much as I am a more driven and dedicated set of humanity.

    I would fear fanatics. Punishment is not necessarily even considered by a driven individual. If there was a file corruption worm on the scale of Codered/Blaster the cost could escalate from the tens of Millions to the Billions quickly. Anarchists, extremists, and environmentalists often try to destroy property to equate a cash cost for organizations for their wrongdoings.

    Heh, picture the credit agencies all exploding at the end of fight club.

  123. and then came the Spiffer worm... by tommywho70x · · Score: 1

    Can I wash your Windows for you? Would you like me to wipe your screen for you? Do you want me to clean out your cache register? Let me dust your disk drives today? Would you like me to clean up your s&g checker?

  124. I find it hard to believe.... by aapold · · Score: 1

    ""Hamsi" is a small fish, like an anchovy, found in the Black Sea)"

    Fish still live in the Black Sea?

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  125. It's here ... sort of. by zonix · · Score: 1

    Well, there are some that already mail local documents/mails to whoever is in your address book. The documents are taken from the Windows "My Documents" folder for example.

    I've always regarded the ones that do this as the most dangerous, as your personal privacy is at risk. Consider how this can be an easy and sure way to get out of the closet if you're gay? How about sensitive company data?

    Getting your machine hosed by a virus is one thing (you probably have a backup?), but having your data made public? How do you restore that?

    Something to keep in mind when weighing the risks and estimating the potential damages.

    z
    --
    What would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
    1. Re:It's here ... sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless, of course, you live in the USA where you have no personal privacy, or right thereto, anyway.

  126. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

    What I'm waiting for is a virus that replicates the front end of major scanners. Everything looks fine, no viruses found, etc.

    Or an implementation of the Curious Yellow whitepaper.

    --
    Not a sentence!
  127. Cable Modems or ADSL connections? by JumperCable · · Score: 1

    Would cable modems or ADSL connections be vulnerable to the sniffing at the local connection?

  128. Reminder by mabu · · Score: 1

    Please take this opportunity to call your local District Attorney and request that his office begin prosecuting computer tampering cases. In most states, each instance of the installation of a worm on a machine carries a criminal sentence of 1-3 years in prison. These are serious felony crimes that can be prosecuted in state and federal court.

    One spammer, caught with a list of zombie PCs and evidence he has been using these PCs could be sent to jail for a long time IF the authorities would get off their asses and start prosecuting these cases.

    Anyone in law enforcement needs to do nothing more than set up an unpatched copy of Windows and wait 30 minutes to catch someone, then start documenting who exploits their systems and nail them.

    The first time someone goes to jail for this, we'll see a major drop in the propagation of these worms.

    We all know this activity is mainly being perpetrated in the US by US citizens. They may be contracting with Indians and foreigners for design work, but their tracks can be traced. We all know it - explain this to the DA and the Federal Attorneys we want these cases prosecuted. Right now they blow off these cases.

    Call your District Attorney and let him know that you will not tolerate the apathy they've exhibited towards bringing these criminals to justice.

    1. Re:Reminder by andrewweb · · Score: 1

      "They may be contracting with Indians and foreigners for design work"

      A pity you dragged your post down to that level. I suspect no amount of modding up will save it from that...

    2. Re:Reminder by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Interesting theory, but won't work.
      Drugs are illegal, people still buy, sell, use them.
      Murder is illegal, people still kill. Despite a hefty death penalty in some states.
      What makes you think this would deter these people?

      It is also a matter of jurisdiction. If the worm came from Walla Walla, New Zealand. What can a San Fransico cop do about it? Does his jurisdiction extend below the Equator?

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    3. Re:Reminder by mabu · · Score: 1

      Then why have any laws at all?

      Your logic is flawed.

  129. Why is it not a worm... by yourruinreverse · · Score: 1

    ...but a caterpillar?

    --
    JeR
  130. Horrible pronunciation.... by N+Monkey · · Score: 1

    "How are you. I am back. My name is mister hamsi. I am seeing you. Haaaaaaaa. You must come to turkiye. I am cleaning your computer. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 0. Gule. Gule." ("Gule. Gule" is Turkish for "Bye. Bye". "Hamsi" is a small fish, like an anchovy, found in the Black Sea). F-Secure has a copy of the sound file generated by the message."

    I know my Turkish isn't great, but I've been there on holidays enough to know that the pronunciation of "Gule Gule" was hysterically awful. Come to think of it, the English was pretty poor too :-)

    It reminds me when, at Uni', we used to try to put "The Hunting of the Snark" through an early voice synthesiser. It made an absolute mess of the job.

  131. the truth will set you free...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Open Source Software

  132. Worm or Caterpillar by _cantFindAFreeNickNa · · Score: 1

    Just a slight nitpick, the icon/image that's used for the "Worm" stories is in fact a caterpillar and not a worm.

    I guess this might lead to new types of security threats. You get infected by a caterpillar (like some parasitic wasps) and it eats your PC from inside until it cocoons (or not) and emerges out of your PC into the rest of the world as a wasp/butterfly (e.g. screen saver?).

    Hmmm...

  133. Thanks (!) worm lamer by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Its a real good way to advertise our country. Even while we break tourism records...

    Ilgaz
    Istanbul

  134. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by loraksus · · Score: 1

    yeah, does it by default every 15 days or so. I've been using it for a couple years (3?) and don't recall ever having to do it automatically.
    The freeware files are damn near impossible to find on their site though - google for "avg freeware". Their latest version is a bit bloated too, the older ones tend to be better.

    --
    1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  135. "Gule gule", eh? by SoulSkorpion · · Score: 1
  136. ob burroughs quote by Net_Wakker · · Score: 1

    Did I ever tell you about the man who taught his asshole how to talk?

  137. Text to Speech fun! by Benanov · · Score: 1

    Type the phrase into a text-to-speech encoder. "turkiye" is pronounced "turkey." If you use Text-to-Speech for any length of time (especially in ambiguous english) you end up having to do a LOT of substitutions so that things sound correctly.

    1. Re:Text to Speech fun! by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Offtopic, but I thought it relevant for those of you who have never messed with one.
      Doctalk is a Text to Speech program, you can have hours of laughs with these.
      http://rksa.no-ip.com:8008/files/DocTalk/

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  138. responsibility by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1
    This idea has been floating around for years, I saw it discussed online during the first wave of .DOC viruses.

    I guess the motivation for writing these things has changed or something. I don't understand the mentality, but apparently it's not about being destructive these days. There were some truly evil old-school MSDOS viruses, i.e. fumble and dbase.

    Maybe all the "talented" guys are actually making money from their spambots, and don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg or something. Still, it would only take one anarchist, I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.

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

      " I don't understand the mentality, but apparently it's not about being destructive these days."

      These days? It's always been like that. I remember a guy being kicked out of our hackers/crackers/scriptkiddie group because he panicked when he couldn't modify the logs and hosed the machine intead.

      Hacked servers are too valuable to do damage to. I remember we used to have a group of machines that we would patch and keep up to date :) We didn't want the owners having to fix them after all and wiping our backdoors.

      This was about 6 years ago. Ah, such fond memories. (btw this was only a small group, but there was still 40 to 50 of us)

    2. Re:responsibility by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      I'm a grouchy old dinosaur.

      My mental picture of the virus "olden days" is boot sector viruses, or viruses that spread by appending 867 bytes of hand-hacked ASM to .COM files.

      The vast majority of the target machines weren't networked, and would never be exploitable. It was a different mindset- mischief, not building an army of zombies.

  139. Re: It made it so DVD's were not being decoded.... by fallen1 · · Score: 1

    which is also known as "breaking the system".

    If something works fine and you install Service Pack X and it doesn't work anymore then Service Pack X BROKE the system. It fucked something up that was working fine and I believe even Merriam Webster defines that as broken.

    --

    Dream as if you'll live forever.
    Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
    ~Anonymous~

  140. Re:No, a really really bad one would modify your M by |<amikaze · · Score: 1


    Completely remove.... means... COMPLETELY REMOVE. :)

    99% of the time when you're trying to get rid of Grub, you've already decided that you don't want to use Linux. This would make your drive perfectly suitable to run Windows again.

    Every time I've heard someone complain about Grub not disappearing was after removing their linux installs and try to re-install Windows, while finding that Grub still wants to load.

  141. Re:No, a really really bad one would modify your M by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

    Parent was a joke, not flamebait. I know "funny" and "flamebait" both start with "f", but please moderators, look closely at the mod you're chosing from the drop down box.

    --
    You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
  142. I made spam/malware 'almost impossible'. Seriously by iamcf13 · · Score: 1

    While Slashdot continues to posts more and more stories about malware outbreaks, why not stop said outbreaks 'for good.'

    Once this is done, something can be done about malware sent via TCP/IP connections and not by email. Properly configured and resilient firewalls will stop these attacks leaving only unprotected computer systems to be compromised. In the past, it has been suggested that internet users who have their 'b0xen 0wned' like this are placed in a 'sandbox' when they go online after their system is compromised. All that would be available to them would be a tiny sandbox version of the internet containing webpages, email messages, and usenet posts that alert the user that their system has been compromised and tell them to fix the problem before they go online for real again.