Slashdot Mirror


Invisible Malware Install 65MB Large

Paperghost writes "Words fail me with this one - don't have the .NET framework on your PC to utilise the adware maker's technology? No problem, they'll download it for you without you knowing. The problem is that it's a sixty-five megabyte install." From the article: "...the size of the .NET framework to download can vary drastically depending on what extras you have - don't forget the service packs, SP1 is an extra 10 or so MB in size. But I'm actually understating the amount of space used when installed, as .NET can total up to 100MB."

79 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. The bright side... by Avyakata · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if it comes with 24-hour tech support?

  2. Aaagh! by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's bad enough installing spyware, but now they have to go and install Microsoft software!?!?!?!

    You slimy bastards!

    1. Re:Aaagh! by aarthi_r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is it possible to download it *without knowing*?

    2. Re:Aaagh! by jd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Easy. It exploits buffer overruns in the brain.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Aaagh! by tehshen · · Score: 4, Funny

      And I thought C# and .NET are less susceptible to buffer overruns... so in the end, this download makes you safer!

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
    4. Re:Aaagh! by JamesTRexx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, not now, but how long before it downloads and installs Windows on your unsuspecting pc?

      --
      home
    5. Re:Aaagh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      How is it possible to download it *without knowing*?

      I see you've never worked in tech support.

    6. Re:Aaagh! by koreaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually .NET is pretty sweet. It's a rare gem of Microsoft success.

  3. 65 MB without the user knowing? by kkassing · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope they're using bittorrent...

    1. Re:65 MB without the user knowing? by traskjd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Keeping in mind that the article is trying to do two things:

      1. Point out that spyware is getting worse

      2. Show that the .net framework is huge

      The latter point is simply trying to get people (especially anti-Microsoft people) fired up over nothing. The .net framework is ~23MB, and the service pack is ~10MB. There aren't any "optional extras" to the .net framework as such however they could be talking about components that AREN'T part of the .net framework. You get the framework in several flavours and the standard install is the largest. I'm willing to bet that the total size is how much harddisk space is actually consumed after install - and not the volume downloaded. I'm sure you could say that the Java Runtime is 100MB - it doesn't mean you download 100MB however.

      Call me cynical (been on slashdot for many a year now) but parts of this article seem designed to enduce high emotion with a slashdot type crowd.

      - JD

    2. Re:65 MB without the user knowing? by someone1234 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ok, so this invisible spyware installs ONLY 23MB. I'm really relieved!

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    3. Re:65 MB without the user knowing? by Omega1045 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would not say that the .Net framework is huge in comparison to, say, Java. The Java 1.4.2 runtime (no SDK) core is 15 MB. The core .NET 1.1 runtime my company distribute with our software (the clients know they are getting it) is 19 MB.

      --

      Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

    4. Re:65 MB without the user knowing? by shawb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a difference in semantics. You are saying that the Installer is 23MB, while the article is saying the hard drive had 65 Megs less on it afterwards, which makes sense as the installer program would be uncompressed and likely not even automatically deleted from the hard drive after the install completes, using up disk space. In fact the article even states that the download is 23 megs.

      But the slashdot post was worded poorly, IMO. Install is often mistaken for Installer. I read it that way at first and then wondered why the article said that 23 Meg was downloaded. Gave me a moment of confusion.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    5. Re:65 MB without the user knowing? by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdot editor skims... lame sysadmin's blog

      That bit's a joke, right? The editors RTFA before posting?

      slaps incredibly misleading title on top

      The title is submitted along with the summary by the user. It may be that the editor has changed it, of course, but there's a good chance that it is as the submitter intended it to be.

  4. Are we sure... by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... that it's not Microsoft-sponsored? They have done just about everything else to push .NET down our throats...

    --
    bash: rtfm: command not found
    1. Re:Are we sure... by k4_pacific · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe it would get wider acceptance if MS named it differently. I first heard about it a few years back, and wanting to know more, I typed .NET into Google. I got back every www.*.net website on the web, but little about Microsoft. I knew C# had something to do with this, so I typed that in. Google dropped the # and returned every page with the letter C. Then I heard about ASP.NET, and decided to look that up on Google. I got back every www.*.net/*.asp page in the world, again no useful info. Finally, I gave up and installed Linux instead. I heard that mono got me .NET on Linux, and so I looked up mono. I learned alot about being careful about who I kiss, but little else.

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    2. Re:Are we sure... by avalys · · Score: 2, Informative

      It seems that C# as a search term works fine now, and searching for "Microsoft .Net" works as expected as well.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    3. Re:Are we sure... by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I worked for a company and we had several clients that we built asp.net sites for, and I haven't found it to be 'buggy' at all. You sure you weren't coding it wrong somehow?

      You shouldn't need to call the CG..thats the point..it will figure it out. It doesn't release objects right away b/c it might need them later..

  5. Public service by nhnfreespirit · · Score: 4, Funny

    And the makers will of course claim that they are providing a valuable public service by keeping peoples pc's updated! Bvah!

    nhnFreespirit

  6. Better Browser by OverlordQ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like somebody needs a better browser.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  7. Ok, but... by AndyBassTbn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any word on which browsers are vulnerable? Is this the sort of thing to be, once again, filed under "Switch to FireFox"? The author leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

    Or is this the child of something that must be user-run first?

    --
    I hope the land around you yields, a crop like all the other fields, and then your waiting might make sense...
    1. Re:Ok, but... by WalterGR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Excellent question. Is this a browser vulnerability? Or is the installer in question the one you get by going to the BroadcastPC download page and clicking the big "Download BroadcastPC" link?

      While it seems that the installer downloads the .net Framework redistributable without informing the user, I see nothing to suggest that *BroadcastPC* is installed without the user being aware.

  8. Mono by _ZorKa_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    They could have at least installed the open source version of .Net, aka Mono. What were they thinking!

    --
    "With enough memory and hard drive space, anything in life is possible!"
    1. Re:Mono by nuggetman · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hear you can get in a lot of trouble giving mono to random people, especially people you don't know.

      --
      ...and that's all there is to it.
  9. A Different Worm by prichardson · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm still waiting for the worm that will monitor someone's usage habits so it can stealthily download and install Linux.

    I bet some people started working on it, but got into a religious argument over what distro to use and gave up.

    I could also see a worm that would harvest someone's credit card number and use it to order a Mac Mini.

    --
    Help I'm a rock.
    1. Re:A Different Worm by 808140 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Although, one has to wonder. Your argument certainly holds true for worms and viruses, but trojans are a different sort of beast. They are, in a sense, socilally engineered rather than technologically engineered. Most even tell you (in fine print) exactly what they're going to install and how, but people don't bother reading it.

      Now, for most GNU/Linux distros, there is a centralized packaging system which, by virtue of being centralized, cannot be added to by someone without root access. Therefore, a newbie GNU/Linux user (assuming he hasn't been convinced by Lindows or some other stupid company to run as root all the time) will know at least that in order to install software he wants, he must be root.

      So when he downloads Bonzi Buddy for GNU/Linux, do you think he'll think it odd if he needs to su before he can install the conveniently packaged rpm or deb? Hardly. He'll just click through the EULA without reading it, just as he does with Windows, provide his root password, and bume, he's owned.

      As a result, unless he's using GNU/Linux in a corporate environment where he doesn't have the root password (and in many companies -- for example mine -- that use Windows, it's standard for people not to have Admin rights to their own computers either) he's going to be vulnerable to the same sorts of social attacks as he would on Windows.

      Furthermore, he will be vulnerable on pretty much any platform with as simple a security model as GNU/Linux, OS X, and even Windows (ie, admin/user two-tier security levels). Because he'll just be coerced by the pretty purple ape and/or animated cursor to provide his root password. Voila!

      The truth is, there are two reasons there's not much malware for non-Windows systems. One is because of market share, and the other is because the users of minority operating systems tend to be a little more technically savvy than the soccer moms and nascar dads that make up the Windows world. This is even true for Mac users, simply because you are more aware of your computer when most of the world's software isn't compatible with it.

      I mean, the thing to recognize here is that security isn't just having secure programs, but also having a security minded admin. My impression of most GNU/Linux users today is that they aren't all that security minded, but because most people aren't leveling attacks at them, it doesn't much matter. If on top of that you had a whole legion of computer illiterate folks clicking on the pretty GNU/Linux widgets, well... let's just say it doesn't bode well.

      For me, I'll never have any of this crap because I'm committed to software freedom, and no malware author is going to provide the source code of his program under a license I'm comfortable with.

      When Windows users say, "There aren't as many viruses/worms/exploits for GNU/Linux/BSD/MacOS X because there are more Windows machines," flame the shit out of them, because they're ignorant as all get out about the architectural differences between these systems.

      But when we're talking about trojans, I'm afraid GNU/Linux, on its own, will not save you.

    2. Re:A Different Worm by 808140 · · Score: 2, Informative

      At first I really wasn't going to bother responding to this, because it sounds to me as though you care about this much more than I do. But no matter how much you care, you're wrong. Here's why.

      First of all, security features that exist on Windows that are never used by anyone don't contribute to Windows being architecturally more secure than anything else, because if you start making those arguments, we can start talking about capabilities and SELinux and all sorts of security features that exist for the Linux kernel that people don't often use; and if we do that, you essentially immediately lose. You can't say, "Windows, when people use all sorts of exotic security features, is more secure than Linux, presuming that none of Linux's exotic security features are in use, and therefore, Windows is more secure than Linux." I mean, I hope you can see the holes in your own argument. They're big enough to drive a truck through.

      Plus, I'm not a zealot, bub. You picked the wrong guy to flame. I'm quite aware that the NT kernel's low level ACL structure is superior in design to the UNIX root/normal user paradigm. You're talking to an old VMS hand.

      However, as you yourself pointed out, basically no operating systems limited by such a simple security model anymore, and this includes Linux. ACLs are part of the POSIX spec and SELinux style policies are supported out of the box in the 2.6 kernel series.

      The difference is habit; UNIX has always been multi-user (well, except for the very early research versions) and so UNIX utilities have been designed to work with as few permissions as possible, for security reasons. Security is a much bigger deal on a multi-user system, for obvious reasons. This philosophy persists to this day in the UNIX world, and application designers generally don't make GUIs that run as root -- hell, lots will refuse to run as root.

      On the Windows side of things, we're coming from Win95 and earlier, DOS. It doesn't matter that Microsoft ripped out the DOS crap and put in the vastly improved NT kernel with all its security features. Software vendors developing for MS platforms were used to being able to mess with anything on the system, and they continued to do so. Worse, most installs of Windows default to a user with Admin access (that logs in automatically, no less). It's a matter of culture. Convincing Windows users to run as non-administrator is hard because a) they aren't used to it and b) almost nothing runs, because in the old days, there was no Admin user, and most modern Windows apps share code with their Win95 ancestors. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

      Windows is far less secure than GNU/Linux, for lots of reasons. Very few people that know what they're talking about doubt the quality of the NT kernel (although putting the GDI in ring 0 was stupid, and a major reason NT 3.5 was so much more stable than 4). But unfortunately, as RMS is always trying to point out, there's much more to an OS than just the kernel. Windows, as a whole, suffers from a history of not caring about security. Its users are only now starting to care; its application developers don't seem to care; no one seems to care.

      This is not true in GNU/Linux.

      And as for GNU/Linux being a fort, who said that? UNIX-like OSs have always been caught with their pants down when compared to systems like VMS, MVS, and EROS. Within the UNIX world, pretty much any one of the BSDs blows the pants of Linux (except perhaps Mac OS X, if you can call it a BSD).

      But it remains far, far more secure than Windows.

      And as for the whole "Why isn't Apache more vulnerable than IIS" line, I wouldn't have brought it up, because I think it's a bit silly. But your attempt at refuting it is even more ridiculous. You're comparing Apache2 to IIS 6? I believe the reason people always bring up the Apache vs. IIS argument is because Apache has more marketshare than IIS, but is attacked less.

      Most Apache ins

  10. awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's like apt-get for Windows, except you don't even have to ask for the software. Further proof Linux isn't ready for the desktop, I guess.

    1. Re:awesome by spektr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OMG, y0 n00b, just include affiliates.microsoft.com in sources.list and do aptitude update && yes y to hell with it|aptitude distupgrade.

    2. Re:awesome by spektr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heh, "Troll", nice. I guess the gentoo user was offended, because I didn't do an "emerge crap" and used too few USE flags. Give mod points to a gentoo user and you increase the stupidity level of earth by 0.01%. In the meanwhile he does a stage 1 compile and gains a speed increase of 0.005%. After that he mods a second time, and I'm at -2, Troll. He races away on his ricer and earth loses again.

      The only thing I'm trying to accomplish today is to make a single slashdot moderator recognize that his life is without any meaning, and that it is completely irrelevant if he mods me -1 insightful of +1 troll. Get over it. Grab a tit or write a device driver. Do something useful with our life. Don't waste it with drivel on slashdot. Anyone who has modpoints right now and is able to ignore this post can gain something precious. Even if you don't have modpoints, just imagine you had some, and then imagine you ignore this posting and live a happy live. It's so easy. (Oh boy, I'm only trying to help)

  11. NewDotNet by Zorilla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This reminds me of a couple years ago when many piece of software came bundled with spyware called NewDotNet that claimed to be "needed for next generation internet applications" - just around the same time MS started pushing .NET

    I remember uninstalling it from a bunch of machines because people asked, "Do I need this?" Yes....

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    1. Re:NewDotNet by BCW2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You might be true;y disgusted to know how many machines are still coming in with it on them today. At least half the ones I clean up every week have NewDotNet on them. You would think some would learn over the years, but it sure doesn't seem that way.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    2. Re:NewDotNet by ceejayoz · · Score: 2, Informative

      NewDotNet enabled non-ICANN domain names like .xxx, .family, etc.

      http://new.net/

      You can take your tinfoil hat off, now.

    3. Re:NewDotNet by rs79 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Just what is running on most websites that use those, anyway, I wonder?"

      Do you always criticize things you don't know anything about? Although I can't say new.net was a shining example of alt.tld-ness.

      But, to answer your question, no spam, for one thing. No malware, no viruses. Just people cooperating. And yes there is content that you can't see using the legacy root.

      With djbdns and Bind-PE/Treewalk offering alt.dns optins there's now enough people using them that I'm seriously thinking about rejecting all mail not from alt.tlds. It'e been a slice, but I'm sick of the crap. You want to talk to me? Here's how you do that. Your choice.

      At one point 2 of the ICANN board members used alternate roots. Now they're all lawyers and other slime, the techies didn't last.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  12. Darn virtual machines ..... by alanbs · · Score: 5, Funny

    I remember the good old days when we would statically compile in our 100 Mb of needed libraries when propagating some malware. Technology just bites you in the ass sometimes.

  13. Re:Is it just me.. by duckpoopy · · Score: 4, Funny

    It installs WINE.

    --
    word.
  14. Re:Is it just me.. by lintux · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess it'll download Mono. Hurray, malware is finally getting portable. Now if they finish Mono we can have malware on Linux too! ;-)

  15. Just think... by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What happens when Longhorn-specific malware packages decide to upgrade those Win95/98 boxes still out there...

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  16. Good! by mwa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now I know how to install it without clicking "I agree". So we'll be seeing some benchmark results on .NET real soon now, right?

  17. Re:dialup by Zorilla · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is true for pretty much all spyware because of the lack of an always-on connection. Plus, you tend to notice things going wrong on a slow connection.

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  18. Re:Are we sure... (completely offtopic) by clintp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For those of us that occasionally program in C# with .NET this is a bigger pain that you know. The two most descriptive keywords of the programming environment really are meaningless nothing-words in the Web's (normally) best search engine.

    --
    Get off my lawn.
  19. Re:a lot of space by zhiwenchong · · Score: 3, Insightful

    YOu know, a lot of people complain about the size of the .NET framework, but 65-100MB isn't really a lot of space considering what it does. The upfront size is off-putting, but the savings you get for it more than make up for it.

    Ever notice how small most .NET programs are? .NET is the Win32 API done right (not least because of Anders Heijsberg).

    Back in the day, we had to distribute Paradox runtimes with our applications, and it was a whopping 2MB file. But that also meant Paradox applications were absolutely tiny, which made it easy to deploy updates and stuff. This can translate to a lot of savings for enterprises running on Paradox.

  20. Great news! by phatbuddy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm glad the adware developers have started to use managed code. Wouldn't want their software to be able to do anything "unsafe" on my system. Thanks, guys!

  21. Marc Lucovsky! by Jacco+de+Leeuw · · Score: 4, Informative
    Hey, at least somebody has been listening to Marc Lucovsky!

    Consider the .NET framework for a second. Suppose you wrote something innocent like a screen saver, written in C# based on the .NET framework. How would you as an ISV "ship your software"? You can't. Not unless you sign up to ship Microsoft's software as well. You see, the .NET Framework isn't widely deployed. It is present on a small fraction of machines in the world. Microsoft built the software, tested it, released it to manufacturing. They "shipped it", but it will take years for it to be deployed widely enough for you, the ISV to be able to take advantage of it. If you want to use .NET, you need to ship Microsoft's software for them.

    Who said Microsoft does not know how to ship software anymore?! Let the trojan authors take care of that!

    --
    -------
    Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
  22. Re:Are we sure... (completely offtopic) by Digital11 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Search for dotnet instead. It works.

    --
    I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
  23. Mod parent down... -1: Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    The problem is that MS have never forced the .NET framework down anyone's throats:
    • It's an optional install from the XP SP1 and SP2 CDs
    • It isn't included with any version of XP Home.
    • It isn't listed as a critical update on Windows Update
    Taking those major flaws of your arguement into account, and how Microsoft have behaved in the past with products, how you'd consider that they're 'forcing .NET down our throats' is beyond human comprehension...
  24. Re:a lot of space by tehshen · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a 65MB install, but only a 24MB download. From TFA:

    the actual size of the .NET framework to download is around 23MB, though this is still a lot of bandwidth to use up without asking. In addition, the size of the .NET framework to download can vary drastically depending on what extras you have - don't forget the service packs, SP1 is an extra 10 or so MB in size.

    So once it's done its thing and installed .NET, it takes up 65MB.

    --
    Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
  25. Re:Are we sure... (completely offtopic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google now recognizes "C#" as a search term, and you ususally can get hits with "ASP.NET" or some class name.

  26. Re:Is it just me.. by flynns · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, if the spyware can get WINE working, more power to it.

    I sure as hell can't.

    --
    'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
  27. Analogies by northcat · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is like a fat dude with a bucher's kife sneaking up on a sheep from the front. And hoping the sheep won't notice.

    1. Re:Analogies by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's why it's such a good analogy for the behavior of computer users.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  28. 65MB is nothing! by kaleco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    BT Internet recently doubled the downstream rate on most of their broadband accounts, and after looking at the spyware penetration on some friends' Windows machines, 65MB malware seems completely plausible.

    --
    Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
  29. Re:omfg by mike5904 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, to be honest I'm not sure I would. I actually downloaded the .NET SDK the other day, and although it did make my web browsing a little (not unusably) slower, it only took about 3 minutes. Also, a lot of people this is targeting probably are used to having a bunch of malware on their computers, so the disk activity from the installer or the slowdown of their internet connection might seem normal to them. If the viru^H^H^H^Hmalware authors really wanted to be covert about it, they could just have it wait for the mouse and keyboard to be idle for a few minutes, and start then, and if activity resumed, just throttle the download.

  30. Re:zerg by defishguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The long and short of it is probably yes. The Windows Installer runs in the system context and not the user context when the client is a part of an AD domain.

    Running the Windows Installer in the system context is the only way that the directory can manage software on the client.

    Kudos to MS for another brilliant design!

  31. Oops... by David+Horn · · Score: 5, Funny

    You appear to be using Linux. Please wait while we download and install Windows XP.

    Progress 1% (2/690MB downloaded)

    --
    PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
  32. Unprecedented.... by Net+Spinner · · Score: 5, Funny

    Security is one of the core goals of .NET.

    That's why 9 out of 10 Malware authors now choose .NET as their preferred language of choice.

    A testamonial:
    "I finally switched after being pwned by other Malware authors. All my other hack buddies laughed at me!" said 1337HaxX0r, author of AllYURComp.exe, "But now that I'm using .NET, my malicious software is sure to be undeniably secure! Thanks Microsoft!"

    --
    Karma: The only way to win is not to play.
  33. the problem is the malware by idlake · · Score: 4, Informative

    The .NET download is just part of Windows now; sooner or later, you will need it, whether you want it or not. 65M is not all that large compared to other runtimes and libraries (C/C++ is much larger).

    The real problem here is that somehow these machines installed malware. The problem could be that they are running IE, it could be that the malware is exploiting a bug, etc.

    There is a simple solution: run Linux instead. That will protect you from both malware and .NET.

  34. Re:Tell your DSL company you want a bandwidth cap by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have a 28K modem, you insensitive clod.

  35. Not necessarily by jesterzog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now I know how to install it without clicking "I agree". So we'll be seeing some benchmark results on .NET real soon now, right?

    Just make sure you read every line of the agreement for whatever application installs the spyware. If they're being cautious, they probably have a line similar to "We might install the .NET framework on your behalf, and therefore you must read and agree with all of the Microsoft .NET framework terms of service outlined at [url]", right next to the statement about how they're going to install spyware on your PC.

    This isn't to say that any of it would necessarily hold up if tested in court, and it doesn't mean that Microsoft wouldn't have "issues" with the spyware distributor for bypassing the display of their license to the user installing the software. But if you're the sort of person who cares about clicking 'I agree' at all, then you should probably consider this, too.

  36. Re:Are we sure... (completely offtopic) by ameoba · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are other ways to find stuff on the net. This is a perfect example of where a directory, such as DMOZ or Yahoo, is going to get you better results than a search engine.

    --
    my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  37. whoever wrote this article by dogfull · · Score: 2, Interesting

    sure left some questions unanswered.

    1.
    In what way does the malware use the VM? Can it collect data from within the VM (thus making it a security hole in .NET), or does it run as a normal process and use the VM for displaying data?

    2.
    Is this possible to happen behind a firewall, of say, SP2? I've heard of malware that slips through it, though I haven't encountered it (I run slack 10 :)). But I'm concerned since my family runs windows, and I'll be the one to clean it. I'm sure I'm not the only /.'er who feels this way.

    Cheers

    1. Re:whoever wrote this article by marat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't write this article, however you might need to learn some things:

      1. Managed environment (like Sun JRE or MS CRT) has nothing to do with access security in your system. If you think Java programs can do you no harm you're in big trouble - standalone Java programs have as much access to your system as any other programs you may run (it's browser applets that live in sandboxes and more or less safe).

      Managed code programs written by novice programmers are presumably harder to be break themselves than say C programs written by same-level programmers. But it doesn't do anything to prevent them being malicious by design.

      2. All firewall does is it closes external network ports you might have left open, optionally it can replace part of your operating system's network functionality in a hope it's own code has less bugs than one of your OS. That's why to some point personal firewall is something shouldn't have existed should everything were done right. Firewall should not prevent you from browsing any sites, downloading and installing any programs - from your side it must be transparent.

      Resume: Nothing will stop you from shooting yourself in the foot if you really want to.

      > I'm sure I'm not the only /.'er who feels this way.
      I hope not, these were "News for nerds" some day.

  38. Re:does anyone understand the original story? by keraneuology · · Score: 3, Insightful
    reports had come back to me at my workplace that someone, somewhere was downloading gigabytes of data onto their PCs

    My take was that he works in an office with a quantity of computers Q where Q is large and that the bandwidth reports showed a huge spike in traffic. 65Mb * Q = gigabytes of data, easily possible if you have 30-50 machines inhouse and they all picked up the malware.

    --
    If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
  39. This is how Clustering Edition is being tested by Jumpin'+Jon · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... .NET bot-net

  40. Re:Are we sure... (even more outrageously off top) by Matt+The+Sheep · · Score: 5, Funny

    No kidding, one time I was doing some painting with some latex paint, right? And I was painting an oak table (oak is a wood with a hard core), so I wanted to make absolutely sure that the paint would bond to it. So I hopped on to google and type in "hard core latex bondage". I think it must be a bug with the parsing engine or something.

  41. At least the next version... by mousse-man · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...of this malware will be much smaller as it doesn't have to download the whole .NET package and the Servicepack ontop of it.

  42. Symbiotic viruses by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The course of virulent biological viruses tends to be the early ones are bad and tend to kill their hosts quickly. Over time they adapt to become less deadly to the host. A good example of the is the Bubonic Plague which is believes to have mellowed itself since the black plague. Stealthy viruses like AIDS are a good example of why longevity of the host helps in some modes of transmission.

    Infact some models have shown its even in a species interest to play host to a disease causing entity that is more lethal to a competitor or predator. E.g. mice that carry diseases fatal to predetors.

    In rare cases tolerance gives way ot full symbiosis where each helps the other. Perhaps a bacteria that helps deal with some more dread disease or an enteric digestive aid. Something that fixes nitrogen in your roots.

    So anyhow maybe the course of virsuses are indeed ones that tune up your system, protect you from other viruses and make sure your computer is working optimally. Perhaps they will get out of your way when you are actually using it and just steal cylces and bandwidth when you wont miss it.

    In that case 24 hour tech support is indeed on the way.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Symbiotic viruses by BlueFashoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't forget the endosymbiotic bacteria. How amazing is it that we have the descendents of some proteobacteria (mitochondira) living within our cells. They're built just like a eubacteria, have their own DNA, and 16s RNA analysis places them very close to a similar free living bactera. The same can be said about the chloroplasts in plants, except they are similar to the oxygenic photoautotrophic cyanobacteria. A few simple eukaryotic organisms do exist without mitochondria, but the vast of eukaryotic organsisms do have them. We don't merely share a common ancestor with microbial life, we are dependant upon them for our very existence.

      --
      Nice Marmot
    2. Re:Symbiotic viruses by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your point is accurate, but I'm afraid your first example is less so: bubonic plague is not a virus, it is (believed to be) a bacteriological infection of Yersinia pestis.

  43. This just in! by beerman2k · · Score: 2

    FYI: 100 MB is not "HUGE". It's less then 1/2000th of the last HD I bought. What are you, living in 1999?

    1. Re:This just in! by the+pickle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tell that to the poor shlubs who try to use their dialup connections whilst they're unknowingly downloading this in the background.

      p

  44. Re:A simple solution by shrewtamer · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've spent most of my computing life (20 years since I was 12) working on CP/M, macos, and linux. 2 years ago I became a Window developer.

    I've found that I need administrative access to do a lot of the things that I need to as a developer. I do these things many times a day. On linux I would just sudo when I needed it. I think you can run commands as a different user on windows too, I did try it once but kept hitting problems. There's no 'man' command! DOS documentation sucks. I haven't found the equivalent of a sticky bit that I can use for my build scripts that need admin access. A lot of Windows apps are built from visual studio which doesn't have a GUI to switch to admin access for parts of the build. The philosophy is just not there - yes we should push for it. When I was developing for macos in a much bigger company the windows team used to be more sorted in this respect - but then there was a big IT department to support them - developers can't afford to spend too much of their time on system admin. Some developer's are into it and some aren't. The lead programmer on my current team is so not into it (but he is a brilliant programmer) - to make things easy for him he has domain admin - everyone knows his password! No I won't say where I work! We don't have an IT department. I think big companies that can afford IT staff do tend to be better over stuff like this.

    I don't think many people would start an X session as root in linux. A lot of people will only switch to root as needed. Some are better than others about being fussy about what they do as root. (I bet a lot of people compile their kernels as root) On Windows on the other hand it is very common to login to the graphical environment as admin. A lot of the admin tools have GUI. I think both Windows and linux could be made better by making it very awkward (impossible out of the box) to start an X session / login to Windows as an admin user. I have seen new linux users start X sessions as root....normally to get things set up (often being used to Windows)....but then sometimes things don't work for them as normal users and they just give up and always login as root!

    I suppose I might be guilty of the same laziness when it comes to being a new Windows user - but I'm not being paid to admin my machine....In fact I use a linux box to mail and surf so as to lower risks a bit - we were asked to find ways of avoiding Outlook - so I found an old PII and blatted gentoo on it. There is a big difference between Windows and Linux though...a lot of install stuff is done on the command line on linux. Most big distro's make it clear you're being an idiot for running X as root. I haven't seen a linux distro that doesn't make you, or strongly advise you to create a normal user account as well as a root account. Having groups as well as users makes things a lot more flexible. Unix has always been a multi-user environment. Windows just hasn't been designed that way. You've got to laugh.

  45. Lol by carl0ski · · Score: 2, Informative

    This isn't .net's fault or Microsoft sadly. It is plain the fact Adware writers have upgraded to VB .Net to write their software. It is definetly the first case of it downloading 3rd party requirements to run the malware. (3rd party = microsoft)

  46. Re:Are we sure... (completely offtopic) by WalterGR · · Score: 2, Informative

    For those of us that occasionally program in C# with .NET this is a bigger pain that you know. The two most descriptive keywords of the programming environment really are meaningless nothing-words in the Web's (normally) best search engine.

    Hmmm... have you tried searching Google for C# lately? ".net" and "net" do indeed return the same results, but the results for "C#" and "C" are very, very different.

    Google search for C#
    Google search for C

  47. Re:zerg by badriram · · Score: 3, Informative

    Look at what the ACs pointed out... An admin still needs to start the process... however in AD with a Computer install, software is installed in the system context because no admin in logged in. And considering that an admin assigns the software to be installed i do not think that is security issue in the design.

    Any normal user account in windows cannot write into the Windows folder where .Net resides, and therefore a normal user will be not be able install .Net unless they increase their previledges...

  48. Re:Still complaints about Java JRE size? by Valafar · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm guessing that you didn't read the article or are unfamiliar with .NET. The .NET Framework is a 23 meg download, not 65. The article states that the TOTAL download of the framework + malware + spyware was 65 megs.

    Your point does remain that the JRE is smaller than the .Net Framework, however.

  49. Re:A simple solution by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ---I'm assuming you mean you want documentation for developers - i.e. APIs, library documentation, etc. Have you never used MSDN? In my opinion, this is the one thing MS does well. My main complaint when working with non-MS stuff is that documentation is often scarce, out-dated, or non-existent. But if I want to do anything in Windows, I know that not only will each API call be fully documented, there's often sample code showing you how to do things with it as well.

    Ill give you that. MSDN rocks if you need general API's or ABI's. Instead, we good documentation for DOS commands and techniques to manipulate files through the command line.

    For example, I'd like to run a shell script (using bash for Windows and Linux), autodetect OS, and then execute a routine script. With Linux, I can, on user login, eject the CDROM, play a movie, reformat a hard drive and repartition it, have it blink red lights.. all sorts of things.. ok, maybe you need a driver for the red light thing.

    On Windows, you cant eject a drive easily through commandprompt, reformat the drive (using the newer tools, no commandline access at all), or other interesting things.

    Or even better yet, whats all the possible switches for Win98 FORMAT ? Yeah, it leaves out on the range of 5-6 different switches. /U /AUTOTEST are my favorites on speed-formats. There's soo many ill-documented or non-documented programs and swicthes that dont do as they say.

    Why exactly did MS port SFU to Windows? Cause Windows doesnt provide command (or easy to remote) line tools to common jobs.

    --
  50. Re:Are we sure... (completely offtopic) by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

    So MS now has COM and NET covered. I wonder when Microsoft ORG is due?

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  51. Re:How is this happening? by smash · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Seems like an awful lot of work to stay secure.

    I thought windows was supposed to be LOWER TCO?

    :D

    smash.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.