Slashdot Mirror


Lycos Anti-Spam Screensaver Inspires Trojan

Even though it's been withdrawn, the Lycos anti-spam screensaver is not forgotten. Rollie Hawk writes "And with this, the 'What's Good for the Goose...' award goes to all those people trying to install that notorious spam-attacking Lycos screen saver but ended up with a Trojan horse instead. This trojan is spreading via email with the subject line 'Be the first to fight spam with Lycos screen saver,' tucked in an innocent-looking file called 'Lycos screensaver to fight spam.zip.' According to F-Secure, this trojan contains keylogger elements but little more has been specified. The only question I have is how long until the 'I promise to clean that trojan disguised as a DDoSing Lycos screen saver.exe' virus gets released."

23 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. tojans... by utopianfiat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well isn't that the basis of most trojans?
    "I promise to clean your room, do your homework, give you neck rubs, check for typos, and build a perpetual motion machine!"
    If they really wanted to, they could have tacked on a trojan that had absolutely nothing to do with the screensaver and call it that anyway.
    I'm actually surprised the trojan doesn't DDoS Lycos.

    --
    +5, Truth
  2. Futility by Lonesome+Squash · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Every formal system has its Goedel sentence; every immune system has its HIV. It's the price of complexity.

    Of course, that doesn't make formal systems, immune systems, or anti-spam screen savers useless.

    --
    Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
    1. Re:Futility by Himring · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's the price of complexity.

      I whole-heartedly disagree. This shit we deal with on a daily basis that threatens our network, kills our switches and routers, makes management scramble and IT constantly try to fix/patch/protect against is not due to complexity alone. It is due to the POS OS called Windows that suffers from MSTD (Microsoft Transmitted/Terminal -- take your pick -- disease). Other OSes are complex, but they do not suffer the same horrific fate. I am constantly boggled at work as I try to sell Linux to be given the Microsoft-created line, "no OS is free -- there's cost involved." It took months for me convince management that we could use Linux without paying for licensing, but then they started using the new line (surely invented by MS) which is based off of the fact that you gotta pay for consultants/labor/research, blah, blah to use an OS (oh brother duh! let's forget the millions we dish out to the "Microsoft Tax"). Now, I'm trying to push Firefox over IE and I get the tried and true line, "well, as soon as Firefox becomes as proliferated as IE then it'll be just as bad." But, that's not proven yet, and there have been OSes, web browsers, that have been proliferated that have not suffered the same fate.

      I'm saying stuff we all know in a forum that will appreciate it, but come on guy. You call yourself a /.er?

      /endrant

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    2. Re:Futility by B'Trey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your first sentence is true but irrelevant. Just because you can't make a system completely foolproof doesn't mean you can't make it highly fool-resistant. The common security issues that are causing so much trouble have nothing to do with Goedel or complexity. The danger can be greatly reduced in the OS design phase if security is given any priority. Of course, security wasn't a priority in the design phase of the most popular OS, and now they're scrambling to attach it peice meal after the fact.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    3. Re:Futility by Lonesome+Squash · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I can't believe I forgot to bash Microsoft. Okay, here it goes: Vulnerability is inevitable. As the sophistication of your defence grows, so does its complexity (generally) and therefore (generally) it creates new opportunities for attack.

      But that level of vulnerability is in this case completely swamped by the utterly inexcusable inattention that MS has paid to basic security at the design and feature packaging phase.

      To extend the analogy, it didn't take HIV to jeopardize the health of those who share needles or who have numerous, unprotected, anonymous, sexual contacts. Nonetheless, HIV like the spam-sending trojan anti-spam screensaver.

      --
      Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
  3. Not Surprising by iBod · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder though, just how many people are going to want to fight spam using an attachemnt that arrives in a spam email?

    1. Re:Not Surprising by oiarbovnb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolutely no one can get free porn by sending cash to a mailbox...because then it is not free, duh!

      :)

  4. Well, that's what you get by millwall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fighting back with the same measure is not always the solution.

    Fighting violence with violence doesn't work. Why should fighting spam with spam work any better?

    1. Re:Well, that's what you get by GoodNicsTken · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Fighting violence with violence doesn't work."

      Really? I think history has shown otherwise. Hitler comes to mind.

      Spammers know what they are doing is wrong. They are simply modivated by money. This app will cost them money and eventually make Spam unprofitable.

      The only concern I have is for innocent people that get misakenly tagged as Spammers and end up with a 10K bandwidth bill.

    2. Re:Well, that's what you get by KrancHammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fighting violence with violence doesn't work.
      Yeah. Right. This is manifestly not true, and proven by history to be untrue: see: World War II, American Civil War for starters.So why shouldn't fighting spam with ugly tactics not work?
      Not that I am advocating such tactics, or that such tactics are best in this case; its just I don't like cliched generalities like that.

      --
      Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
    3. Re:Well, that's what you get by HermanAB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fighting spam with email, is like fucking for virginity, but fighting violence with violence does work - you just have to kill everybody.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  5. Philosophical Question... by rdc_uk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does it still count as news, to be told something that you KNEW was going to happen, has happened?

  6. OK, for the last time children... by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Funny


    1) Don't take candy from strangers.

    2) Don't open email attachments from strangers.

    -Mom and Dad

    1. Re:OK, for the last time children... by musikit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      2) Don't open email attachments from strangers.

      that should be modified

      2) don't open email attachments you weren't expecting from anyone

    2. Re:OK, for the last time children... by ceeam · · Score: 4, Funny

      Given the reality it should be rather like this:

      "OK, for the last time, Mom and Dad

      1) Don't take candy from strangers.

      2) Don't open email attachments from strangers.

      -children"

      I'm not sure about 1 though.

  7. News? by Renraku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How many of you didn't see this coming?

    Shady programs attract shady characters and shady tactics.

    Doesn't matter if its by a major corporation or John Q. Crackdealer.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  8. Semantics by Meostro · · Score: 5, Informative

    Will everyone please use the proper terms for these objects? "Misnaming Viruses" would've been my choice for the peeve poll:

    A virus is a self-replicating program that spreads by inserting copies of itself into other executable code or documents.

    A Trojan is a malicious program that is disguised as legitimate software.

    A computer worm is self-replicating, but is self-contained and does not need to be part of another program to propagate itself.

    So most of the so-called viruses that are out there are really Trojans - they claim to be one thing, but are actually something else. Once you delete the original(s), you're finished; they don't generally infect your other files to propagate, they just make several copies of themselves independent of your programs. Other than macro viruses, there are very few true viruses in the wild these days.

  9. Wine? by raistphrk · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does the "screen saver" work in Wine? I want the benefits of the trojan without the overhead of an antivirus program.

  10. Obligatory File Extension Hiding Reminder by prandal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When the Windows user has file extension hiding turned on (Microsoft's default), the attachment yohavewon.txt.exe appears to them as youhavewon.txt. It doesn't take much for the malware writer to use the standard windows "text file" icon as the application's icon, and the social engineering attack is complete.

    I will not believe that Microsoft takes security seriously until they they issue updates for all their operating systems to disable this misfeature permanently.

    1. Re:Obligatory File Extension Hiding Reminder by mog007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Microsoft thought it would be a really keen idea to have the messenger service enabled by default for Windows XP HOME edition. That's HOME edition. I'm fully aware of the usefulness of the messenger service in a business environment, but in a HOUSEHOLD?! WHAT THE FUCK? That doesn't make ANY sense to me at all. Nevermind all the other useless shit that's enabled by default on a standard install of XP Home, such as FTP servers and various other services that were easily exploited.

    2. Re:Obligatory File Extension Hiding Reminder by wx327 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, if you wanted to think one level deeper, a real file named youhavewon.txt would just appear as youhavewon, if file extension hiding is turned on.

      Not that the average user thinks that deep...

    3. Re:Obligatory File Extension Hiding Reminder by ad0gg · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Apple has the same feature, you can change the icon of an application to mp3 file icon and add a .mp3 extension. Oh wait, this is slashdot, so double standards are allowed.

      Btw attachments in outlook or any other email program(that I know of) never cut off the extension. And outlook has stopped recieving .exe,.bat,.scr.,.vbs or any other executable attachment since 2002. Nice try though.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

  11. In other news... by claussenvenable · · Score: 2, Funny

    >> tucked in an innocent-looking file called
    >>'Lycos screensaver to fight spam.zip.'

    In other news, a man in Reseda, CA, was shocked to discover that he'd been fleeced by a fraudulent business who's innocent-looking byline was:
    "US Grreen CarrRd L0ttery 2005"

    Seriously -- doesn't this seem like further proof that the people writing these lame-ass virii are really only interested in duping the dumbest of the dumb? I mean, they could've given it the exact same name as the real executable and caught some *vaguely* savvy people... Why not?