Slashdot Mirror


First Symbian OS virus to replicate over MMS

Shachaf writes "A new virus, CommWarrior.a, is the first to replicate over MMS (Multimedia Message Service). From the article: 'Multimedia Message Service (MMS) is a more advanced version of the Short Message Service (SMS) familiar to users of GSM based handsets around the world, and allows rich content such as pictures, sounds, video, and applications to be sent as well as text.', and '"With MMS messages typically costing between $0.25 and $1.00 CommWarrior could prove expensive to anyone unlucky enough to be infected by it. As the virus runs silently in the background it could be quite some time before the user becomes aware of the potentially hundreds of MMS messages that have been sent," said Aaron Davidson, CEO of SimWorks.'"

179 comments

  1. That sucks, yeah, but look at the bright side! by Cooler1011 · · Score: 0

    At least it costs you money!

    --
    I hate Halo and GTA. Sue me.
    1. Re:That sucks, yeah, but look at the bright side! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can someone clue me in as to what this SMS and messaging is all for?? If you have a phone...why send text messages over it? It's a phone...call and talk to them....??

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:That sucks, yeah, but look at the bright side! by British · · Score: 1

      I'm really curious why anyone would want to send applications to someone else's phone.

      I can understand pictures, sure. I can understand sound, er. okay, we have voicemail for that. I simply cannot comprehend sending someone an application. A program, something executable. It is pure overkill. Why not just refer him/her to where you got the app from? That will centralize things a bit.

      Applications are the new scapegoat for "things you can send to friends". Don't want to do it in email, now you don't want to do it on your phone. Viruses have ruined the fun for everyone.

    3. Re:That sucks, yeah, but look at the bright side! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't understand what email is for when "you already have a phone", then sorry, I can't clue you in on what SMS is for, either.

    4. Re:That sucks, yeah, but look at the bright side! by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With most providers, voice calls are a lot more expensive than SMS. In many countries, this price difference is significant enough to suffer the relative inconvenience. Messaging also has the somewhat unintended feature of being quiet to send, so it's more polite to use in public.

    5. Re:That sucks, yeah, but look at the bright side! by ambrosen · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why send texts? Because it doesn't require all the "Hi, how are you?, How's the weather"..."Bye, nice talking to you, see you soon" effort, and it doesn't interrupt the flow of what either of you were doing.

      But you knew that anyway.

    6. Re:That sucks, yeah, but look at the bright side! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about no long distance charges for one. How about it's way cheaper than making a call. How about you can send one message to a number of people all at once. How about using mostly text messages and a prepaid plan I always spend less than CDN$20 per month for my phone and I'm still available whenever someone NEEDS to talk to me.

    7. Re:That sucks, yeah, but look at the bright side! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "With most providers, voice calls are a lot more expensive than SMS. In many countries, this price difference is significant enough to suffer the relative inconvenience. Messaging also has the somewhat unintended feature of being quiet to send, so it's more polite to use in public."

      Hmmm...where do you live? I pay a flat fee monthly...for unlimited nights and weekends...free long distance...and like 500 or so minutes during peak hours. I rarely talk on it during the weekdays..as that I'm at a desk with a landline. And if I want to send text...I use email on the computers at my desk...again, most everyone I know is at a desk working with a computer at the same times during the day.

      Is pricing different in other countries?

      I send pictures via my phone...but, mostly to peoples email addresses...not their phones. I guess it is just something I'd never think of....possibly that I'm in a bit older set (I know, in Korea only old people...hehehe). But, I use a phone to talk...and computers to email....and usually these messages are just to plan to meet somewhere so we can interact face to face.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:That sucks, yeah, but look at the bright side! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words: asynchronous communication

    9. Re:That sucks, yeah, but look at the bright side! by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Hmmm...where do you live? I pay a flat fee monthly...for unlimited nights and weekends...free long distance...and like 500 or so minutes during peak hours.

      Price is a major factor in third world countries, where your ~$30 flat rate plan is generally unaffordable by even white collar professionals. If the person you call also needs to pay for airtime, then calling them is even a form of imposition. (Many things are cheaper in the third world, but a lot of the equipment has to be imported, and telecoms carriers are greedy.)

      Where price is less of a concern, there are many people who use public transportation outside the US. This means they have more time to use their phones, but also are constrained by politeness to remain quiet.

  2. First AV As well... by RobertTaylor · · Score: 3, Informative

    The first virus... but lucky there is already anti virus software out there for your p910 :)

    1. Re:First AV As well... by tabkey12 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Please no...

      Why is Symbian so insecure - surely an embedded OS is not difficult to harden? It is not as if the phone will be running lots of insecure services by default.

      Another reason to stick with my simple phone!

    2. Re:First AV As well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to hear about actual users reporting that they've been affected.

      Last time this company made an announcement, it was a "virus" that spread by bluetooth, only if the user accepted to download it.

    3. Re:First AV As well... by m50d · · Score: 1

      This isn't really their insecurity, it's the ages-old "dumb user opens executables from random stranges" problem. There's not much you can do at the OS level to stop that, at least without impeding functionality (people want to be able to send games to each other)

      --
      I am trolling
    4. Re:First AV As well... by ThosLives · · Score: 1
      I think the point the GP was making was "why does a phone have the capability to EXECUTE APPLICATION CODE instead of just being a phone!?!?!"

      (at least, that's my response to this whole debacle...)

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    5. Re:First AV As well... by Mojojojo+Monkey+Inc. · · Score: 1

      Although like usual, it's not the "dumb user opens executables from random strangers" problem, but the "dumb user opens executables from trusted friend" problem. From the old days of infected-floppy-sharing to modern viruses that pull email addresses from users' address books, this goes after the type of people who think "I'm curious what Uncle Fred is trying to send me, so I'll just click "OK" repeatedly to open it!"

    6. Re:First AV As well... by natrius · · Score: 1

      It is not as if the phone will be running lots of insecure services by default.

      Uh... all communication coming into the phone requires a service to receive it. Bluetooth, MMS, and the calls themselves all need something to receive them. A communications device is going to be insecure by nature unless great effort is taken to secure it. The reason this hasn't been a problem until now is because people couldn't remotely control or transfer data (other than plain text and the calls themselves) to and from their phones like they can now. Every new remote feature brings the possibility of a remote vulnerability. With great power comes great responsibility... or something like that.

    7. Re:First AV As well... by Tassach · · Score: 1

      Why does a frelling PHONE need to be able to EXECUTE attached files in the first place?

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    8. Re:First AV As well... by ecki · · Score: 1

      Here you go.

    9. Re:First AV As well... by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      Same reason a PC can, because people want to run applications on them.

    10. Re:First AV As well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most 'viruses' (actually they're 'worms') require the user to accept download/execution of them, irrespective of the platform (Symbian, Mac, Windows, Unix, Linux, et al.). The problem is most people trust innocent-looking files from their friends, so it only takes one weak link (i.e. one person who opens something from an untrusted person) to get the ball rolling.

      Most experienced technical users (like me) are wary of any executable, even from friends. I always analyse them pretty thoroughly, so I've never been infected. At the same time, I have had friends send applications to me that I really would like to use, so giving up the ability to execute those would be quite inconvenient.

  3. Why are people still using Symbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cars getting infected, cell phones via bluetooth now this.

    1. Re:Why are people still using Symbian by emidln · · Score: 1

      It is very close to impossible to infect a car via a virus like this. In fact, it would be very unlikely to break into a car through a virus in the first place. To communicate with anything vital you're going to have to find something vunerable that has bluetooth or some other means of communication that is also hooked into a CAN bus. Then you have to hope the vulnerability allows you to transmit arbitrary messages over the CAN bus. Then you have to craft the CAN frames in just the right way to exploit a theoretical hole in the CAN implementation. This just might get you access to an ECU that can communicate with the WCM (in Chrysler's case) or another security unit on the vehicle. If you're really lucky, you'll have broken an ECU that is either critical (very difficult to even communicate with) or find an exploit in an ECU that normaly communicates with a critical ECU.

      All of this is highly, highly theoretical and unlikely. Especially since most ECUs don't have a generalized CAN software stack, only specifically coded transmit functionality for their specific messages. Of course, if you could port something like NeoVI or CANoe to the symbian and get a CAN card and plug in that way...you might have slightly higher chances. At least the chance of a D.o.S.

      Anyway, please stop perpetuating this retarded myth of anything remotely valuable in a car's network being infected by a virus.

    2. Re:Why are people still using Symbian by emidln · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you could port something like NeoVI or CANoe to the symbian and get a CAN card and plug in that way...you might have slightly higher chances. At least the chance of a D.o.S.

      Actually, on second thought, that is slightly less likely. How many users would take apart their car, buy a CAN card (around $1000 US), find drivers for their symbian, in fact find a CAN card that works with a PDA, get a company to port their diagnostic software to the PDA, construct or buy a CAN cable (only 4 wires, not too difficult if you have a crimping tool), construct a CAN break-out box, connect the break-out box to the car, make sure all the cabling is right? All of this on the request of a program they didn't even know they had?

      Only extreme geeks would do so, if only because of the pain in the ass of following directions. I don't doubt the users are stupid enough, I doubt they are motivated enough.

  4. Who developed it? by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1

    I'm willing to bet that wireless telco's created it to increase revenues... ;)

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:Who developed it? by Cooler1011 · · Score: 0

      Holy crap! Wireless tacos, you say? Brilliant! BRILLIANT!

      --
      I hate Halo and GTA. Sue me.
    2. Re:Who developed it? by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

      Why bother with a virus when they already spam you with ads? I had a rather unpleasant experience with verizon not too long ago

      I started recieving text messages to upgrade my service to another plan, almost on a daily basis. After awhile I responded to one of them stating that the attorney general of my state would be notified if any more unsolicited messages arrived. Within 10 seconds of sending the reply, my phone rang. It was verizon telling me that in my agreement was a clause allowing them to send 'account-related mesasges' and that I would have to opt-out of it. After ranting for awhile about the fact that I was actually being charged .10 for these texts, I made sure to get a credit on my bill for the messages. The guy sounded a bit taken back that I would ask for a refund of around a buck. However, the whole time I was getting more and more upset with the realization that when you have millions of customers, that can add up quickly. And since Id say only 10-20% would complain about it, thats still a healthy bottom line...

    3. Re:Who developed it? by Xoder · · Score: 1

      That's weird. All of T-Mobile's messages to me are free. And I get about two ads from them a year. (It may be because the voicemail notifications are over txt, I dunno).

      --
      The previous sig has been removed due to /. protecting your best interests
  5. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's a good thing I have no friends then.

  6. another good reason to have a simple cellphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of my coworkers laugh at me for using such a simple phone with only basic features and services. Guess there are some benefits afterall.

    1. Re:another good reason to have a simple cellphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, we laugh at you for OTHER reasons, but if you want to believe it's your crappy phone, go ahead.

    2. Re:another good reason to have a simple cellphone by dapsie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize that you have to accept the file and confirm that you wish to install the application? It doesn't spread without actually being installed. The same with the BlueTooth "viruses", first you have to accept the Bluetooth connection - then you have to accept to install the file that was sent to you. No different than eMail viruses nowadays, if you get one - you're an idiot, sorry :p

    3. Re:another good reason to have a simple cellphone by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1: you can keep the mms settings off - there by being immune from this.
      2: you need go through the installing of the application yourself.
      3: when installing it warns you that it is not signed and potentially unsafe.
      4: you could get one of the antivirus solutions which mostly are snakeoil(because if you are smart enough to install one.. wouldn't you be smart enough to NOT click through the install?).

      the way this is most probable to spread is by intentional spreding by some kids, like other symbian 'viruses'(they're all programs that you have to click through the install by yourself) it's almost impossible to bump into this by total accident in the wild.

      what's to note is that these symbian phones are open in the same sense a pc is - ANYONE can develope anything they want for them(and they're STILL more secure than a pc with the modem plugged to the wall). including you! if you're a nerd you should appreciate that possibility, if you're not wtf you're doing on slashdot anyways?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:another good reason to have a simple cellphone by kamileon · · Score: 2, Funny

      A lot of people laugh at me for using a manual typewriter and correction fluid, and sending letters via snail mail, but I've never gotten a virus. Except when my aunt Chloe sneezed on that postcard.... Guess there are some benefits after all. ^_^

      (Sure, you're safer, but most people prefer functionality over safety. I'll keep my WAP browser and Bluetooth contact synchronization, thank you very much, even with the gaping hole in Bluetooth.)

      --
      To truly understand recursion, you must first truly understand recursion.
    5. Re:another good reason to have a simple cellphone by Quila467 · · Score: 1

      Not long ago, I would have been one of the ones laughing at you. I had this 'wonderful' phone based on Windows Mobile that I could use to surf the net, send and receive e-mail, and it had a nice big colour screen. And that flip out keyboard looked so cool too. The problem was that I spent a lot of time rebooting the phone. Sometimes all I wanted to do was make a phone call, but it would complain it was low on memory and I've have to reboot. One day, it told me I was trying to install unsigned software even though I wasn't. I had to do a factory reset on the phone, which of course erased all of the contacts. That was the last time I used that phone. Now I have a plain ol' cell phone. It's really cool, because when I dial a number, it actually makes a voice connection to that number. And when it rings and I open the phone (it's a flip phone), it's like I'm actually answering the phone. It's a cell phone that works remarkably well as a phone. Not only that, but I'm not getting work e-mails 24 hours a day any more. And since I'm not getting the e-mails any more, I'm also not paying an additional $60 per month for the privilege of getting my e-mail from work when I'm out with friends.

    6. Re:another good reason to have a simple cellphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I had similar problems with a Symbian-based 'smart phone', so almost went back to a basic one. However, after reading some very positive reviews about the Orange SPV C500, I decided to buy one. It runs Windows Mobile (some recent version), and is actually just as reliable as the simple phones I used to use. It's also nice and small, with good battery life. Having used it, I don't think I'll ever go back to a basic phone.

      At the end of the day, it just takes a while for technologies like this to mature. The next generation of Symbian phones probably lack all the bugs that caused mine to crash, etc.

  7. First Mod! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys were so slow! I was about to do FP myself and mod myself out of existance.

  8. Liability by Thnikkaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if this falls under the protection of the service provider. It seems to me that they shouldn't be able to charge the user for a vulnerability on their part, but what companies should do and what they actually do are very different things.

    1. Re:Liability by hikerhat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I was thinking the same thing. It should be like a credit card, where you aren't liable for more than $50 or so of fraudulant charges if you card is stolen.

      But my cell phone is about 5 years old now, so I don't have to worry about these things.

    2. Re:Liability by un1xl0ser · · Score: 1

      I was getting e-mail from a virus, to my 10 digits at vtext dot com and Verizon said that they stop allowing me to recieve text messages, or I can pay for the ones sent by a virus.

      AFAIK, they were running postfix, and I know they could easily setup ClamAV and amavisd to scan the messages.

      I did trace down which one of my friends was infected, but I'm supprised that no virus has tried to spam vtex.com, or any other SMS e-mail gateway.

      --
      v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
    3. Re:Liability by remmelt · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this falls under the protection of the service provider.

      Same as with regular computers (hahaha) sending out viruses and emails. The responsibility is NOT with the provider. The vulnerability is with the OS, not with the provider of the service that makes the phones or computers talk to eachother.
      Before you start making the provider responsible for the content of the sent messages, think of what repurcussions that will have on privacy and freedom of speech.

      You know. Websites getting pulled because the provider thinks the content is not mature enough or it will get them in trouble. Same with phones.
      I say: make the OS secure. (Am I preaching to the choir here at all? :)

    4. Re:Liability by da_matta · · Score: 1

      How is it the vulnerability of the service provider? User receives a MMS, with an application as an attachment and chooses to run it. AFAIK no vulnerabilities are involved. It's no different from email attachments, and your ISP filtering them. If you request that service, sure, otherwise it's probably illegal in most countries..

    5. Re:Liability by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      I once got spammed at my phone number @messaging.sprintpcs.com, and it never showed up on my bill as a recieved text message (and my phone didn't have any text message packages on it).

      FWIW, it got sent from "miriam at hotmail dot com", and was advertising some update at some background check service. (I spamproofed it because it was almost certainly spoofed, and don't want to hurt innocent people.)

  9. Symbian by ickleberry · · Score: 0

    I used to have a symbian phone, I must say I like the OS. But this virus extorting money from people with symbian phones & giving it to the likes of vodafone is just evil. I bet the guy who wrote it works for & supports the operators. Probably some 21 year old conservative stuck up guy named Rupert who gets beat up a lot. Are there any virusses for M$ Dumbphone 2004 OS phones?

  10. It's a bit offtopic, but.. by lordsilence · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd like to know why those MMS and SMS are priced the way they are?
    Why wont anyone allow a flat-rate service? I mean.. it's data, but Im sure the cost of building the cellular networks should be paid off by now (excluding 3G).. at least here in sweden. (dont know how it's worldwide)

    1. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by hsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? Because it is PURE profit right now, if everyone is charging the same, they all can milk users while they can. One day it will be competitive, right now they all "agree" to keep prices high to rip off users. Do you really think SMS messages cost the $.20 they do to send? of course not. $.01 would be expensive still.

    2. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by ickleberry · · Score: 0

      A decentralised phone network would be nice, where people just run their own .8 to 2 watt bases and share their DSL-Bases. where if someone else uses your base you get "points" which can eventually be turned into money. It must be completely decentralised and encrypted so there is no big company on top getting fat from it. That should end the rip-off

    3. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the current price is what 12 year old girls find acceptable... they are happy to pay it so why reduce profits?

      --
      I like muppets.
    4. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by Cooler1011 · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the ignorant masses ruin everything for us smart folk once again.

      --
      I hate Halo and GTA. Sue me.
    5. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by Humorously_Inept · · Score: 1

      MMS is priced the same way data is on most packages: by the KB. You can buy data packages and be covered by a flat rate up until you exceed your package's quota. SMS messages are charged a flat rate per message (they are not packet data, but they can be on some modern networks depending on your phone and what else you're doing on the phone at the time -- in this case you'd pay per KB), or similarly you can buy a package of messages and be covered until you exceed your quota.

      It's the same for long distance telephone calls, internet hosting services, your car's warranty, what have you, yatta and etc. This is not a new business model.

      --

      ~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
    6. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then all the radiation from the numerous base stations would not be healthy.

    7. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First... their is NOTHING in common between MMS and SMS. SMS is a nessesary part of the GSM network it is used for sending network info from the base stations to the phone. MMS is developed specifically for transmitting multimedia content and the phone companys are just telling the customers that it is a new and better SMS.

      Second... SMS should have been free (if life was fair)... it does not consume any significant bandwitch. I don't pay extra for ICMP on a IP network (and ICMP on IP is allmost exactly what SMS is in a GSM net).

      Third... 3G phones are flat rate (at least here)...

    8. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little explanation to "Second... SMS should be free"

      SMS is sent and recived thru the channel used for identification of the phone on the network (it is NOT your phone number, it is the phone's IMEI number, a base will see a phone without a SIM)... SMS are only sent and recived when the base updates it's info about the phone... which happens several times every minute. There are no extra load on the network when you send or recive a SMS...

    9. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when the cell networks were first designed the channels for sending data, originally just SMS, were only intended for status updating, troubleshooting, etc. They didn't anticipate text messaging would be so incredibly popular. Now that people are used to paying .10 or so per message (because at the start the system wasn't designed for so much use) they can get away with charging people more for pictures when it should be trivial to send that information.

    10. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, does anyone have a plan where you pay the flat rate and when you hit the quota of free transfers, no more transfers are allowed? Not exactly a prepaid plan, but a plan that simply doesn't allow substantial overages.

    11. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by ickleberry · · Score: 0

      actually not, if there are a lot of base stations then the handset will not have to use as much power to transmit to the nearest one. and if there are enough base stations some will operate on lower power to make room for the others

    12. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by leprechaun92 · · Score: 1

      Last time i checked 12 year old dont pay bills...
      12 year olds don't have a concept of what $.10/msg x 10000000 messages computes out to...

    13. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by dido · · Score: 1

      Which is why competition is a good thing. Up until recently, here in my country (which is said to be the SMS capital of the world...), there were only two GSM mobile providers (Globe and Smart). They both had nearly the same rates and pricing, and your only reason for choosing one over the other was if all of your contacts were generally concentrated on one network or the other (because non-interconnect rates were slightly lower) And then came along a third (Sun Cellular), and they introduced a flat-rate pricing model for both SMS and voice within their own network. The previous oligopoly at first attempted to sue them for "predatory business practices" but were laughed out of court because this third provider accounts for (as of this writing) only about 5% of the GSM mobile market in this country. Now, there have been announcements and rumbles from the two giants (who both have more subscribers than the entire population of Sweden, in the case of Smart they have twice as many) that they too will begin offering a similar flat-rate service.

      Given that PhP 250 (roughly US$5) is enough to provide 30 days of unlimited SMS and voice, it is very cheap indeed, even in this country where the cost of living is quite low. Previous voice call rates from the oligopoly were at PhP 8 (US$0.16) per minute, and each SMS message at PhP 1 (quite literally your 2 cents worth) each.

      It seems that not only was Sun using it as a marketing tactic, but it seems that they are making money selling their services so cheaply. Of course, their service is not as good as it could be (there are times, in the early evening especially, when the lines are congested and it is very difficult to connect a call), but that's to be expected with a provider barely two years out, and whose infrastructure isn't fully developed yet.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    14. Re:It's a bit offtopic, but.. by Da+Web+Guru · · Score: 1

      Why would a cell phone company be silly enough to offer you a plan that could possibly prevent them from charging you more money?

      --

      --guru

  11. cost of text/data messaging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cell phone carriers should have some way of distinguishing from messages that are the result of virii/spam and not charge the affected cell customers for those activities. If they don't, I see hordes of cell phone customers suing carriers chanting "Can you hear us now???"

  12. they deserve it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i mean, like, these dumb kids who spend
    2$ for a simple 150x100 pr0n pic..

    i want to get rich that way, too.

  13. Eh.. by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, the question is...

    Are the customers reponsible for all the charges incurred from this virus? Being that it probably uses a flaw in the phone's OS itself.. how is this going to work?

    Nobody is going to want fancy new fangled smart-phones if they get infected with viruses and run up your phone bill monthly..

    --
    Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
    1. Re:Eh.. by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If I had a phone like this and it was infected, and it ran up a huge bill, I'd first talk to my service provider. If they refused to waive the charges, I'd then talk to the cell phone manufacturer.

      Seems like the cell providers could kill this quickly. Can't they recognize the virus signature in the messages that are transmitted? And can't they trace them back through the links to find out where it originated? Are there really holes that big allowing people to upload crap like this anonymously?

      --
      John
    2. Re:Eh.. by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      Are there really holes that big allowing people to upload crap like this anonymously?

      Though I haven't checked lately, my cell provider's webpage had an interface to send text messaging to cellphone subscribers...

      So if you took your war-messaging script to a cybercafe, you'd have some measure of anonymity...

    3. Re:Eh.. by plover · · Score: 1

      Good point. My understanding is this is an MMS virus, though. Can you inject an MMS anonymously via the web, too? Given the price they charge for the damn things, I'd sure hate to be spammed by web-generated MMSes.

      --
      John
    4. Re:Eh.. by Cooler1011 · · Score: 0

      If they charged you for that, than it wouldn't be fair. Its not your fault there are gaping holes in the security of the OS they're using.

      --
      I hate Halo and GTA. Sue me.
    5. Re:Eh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm... good thought, but then again, if they were peaking in the messages that you send and receive, wouldn't you be bitching about how the phone companies do not respect your privacy ?
      Just a thought that came and left....

    6. Re:Eh.. by plover · · Score: 1
      wouldn't you be bitching about how the phone companies do not respect your privacy ?

      I guess I don't bitch now if my email provider strips out both viruses AND spam, although that's just me. Some people probably have a problem with giving them that much power.

      --
      John
  14. If the virus sends a relatively uniform... by HaloZero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...message, on an already well known-format, shouldn't it be possible for service providers to block the messages through the MMS MX handlers? And/or simply not bill the customer for the sum of messages sent with that format. Of course, isolate them from the network if possible (remove their permission to emit MMS messages at the MX) until the malware can be removed from their device. Just a thought. Doesn't really seem right to charge users for something like that, espicially the less savvy who might not know-any-better.

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
    1. Re:If the virus sends a relatively uniform... by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 4, Funny
      "Doesn't really seem right to charge users for something like that, espicially the less savvy who might not know-any-better."

      Yeah, god forbid a cellphone company take advantage of unsavvy customers....

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    2. Re:If the virus sends a relatively uniform... by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's not in the short-term best interests of the cellular providers to block the virus. First, it involves acknowledging the virus exists, which tends to scare people. Next, and here's the cynical greedy part, people who blindly pay their cell phone bills every month without complaint make up a large part of their customer base. If they can make a few million dollars off the virus, where's the incentive to shut it down? Willingly give out reimbursements to anyone who complains, but let the rest of them just continue to fork over cash.

      Sorry to be so cynical, but I just see these "services" (and all cell phone costs) as tremendously overpriced. It's just data. The bandwidth has a fixed cost (it's just the sum of maintenance, capital investments, marketing, etc.) Throw in 10% or 20% over cost for a profit margin, and call it done. But no, they have to have "minutes" and "plans" and "packages", all of which are expressly designed to mislead the buyers into spending as much money as possible, regardless of the amount of "service" they "consume." And we, the sheeple, consume it readily.

      --
      John
    3. Re:If the virus sends a relatively uniform... by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Are you joking? do you know how much profit phone companies make from MMS!? for them this is malware heaven "whats that sir? you say your phone has a virus and now your phone bill has gone through the roof? oh dear, we can send you the anti-virus patch over the network.. for a one time fee, but we can't cancel the charge from messages the virus sent.. company policy"

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    4. Re:If the virus sends a relatively uniform... by KhaZ · · Score: 1

      For Khaz Modan!

      Thank you, thank you. I'd like to thank all the talented nominees, and of course, God, above all.

      One love.

      (-1: Offtopic)

      --
      - - - -

      KickingDragon

    5. Re:If the virus sends a relatively uniform... by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Shut up and stop questioning the fairness of the capitalist system or i will report you to the FBI for communism.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    6. Re:If the virus sends a relatively uniform... by swb · · Score: 1

      It reminds me of a girlfriend I once had. We had to have "dates" and "birthdays" and "presents", all of which were expressly designed to mislead me into spending as much money as possible, regardless of how much "service" I actually consumed.

    7. Re:If the virus sends a relatively uniform... by MasterOfUniverse · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you and almost every post which are along these lines. However, I have never heard a solution for this problem, other then not owning a cell phone. In OS market, if you are fedup with windows, you have Mac or linux. But with Cell phones, all the service providers are crooked! Does anyone have any idea on how to tackle this issue? Seriously, we do not have any 'alternative' or 'open source'ish kinda thing going in cell phones world...

      --
      "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."--Howard Zinn
    8. Re:If the virus sends a relatively uniform... by krunk4ever · · Score: 0

      Who is to say that the cellphone companies weren't the ones who designed this virus to catch unsuspective victims who pay their bill w/o looking over it?

    9. Re:If the virus sends a relatively uniform... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "MX" (actually called an MMSC) where MMSs are stored for retrieval by phones would technically be a feasible point to filter for viruses, but considering how klunky many of the current implementations are, I wouldn't count on such features becoming reality very fast...

  15. I hate the name of that OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep misreading it as sybian every time I see it.

    1. Re:I hate the name of that OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If what you're talking about is what I think you're talking about, presumably you could set your phone to vibrate and sit on it....

  16. Wow! by FreeLinux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What a remarkable "coincidence".

    I never put any credence into the ativirus companies writing viruses conspiracy theories but, that one's just too fishy.

    1. Re:Wow! by oGMo · · Score: 1

      Eh, look at it this way, does Microsoft write viruses? After all, it's really suspicious that you hear about vulnerabilities and there are already viruses that take advantage!

      Well, not really. It's just there are a lot of people in the world; some of them strike quickly to write viruses, some of them strike quickly to write antivirus software.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    2. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that F-Secure, Macafee, and Norton all reported it as well, do you think they all conspired to write it together?

    3. Re:Wow! by yorgasor · · Score: 1

      Not really. The AV companies have already developed the application. They're just waiting for the market to want it. If no one has ever heard of a virus for a phone, how many people are going to buy the product?

      I've read interviews by some AV companies that say they have already developed an AV program for linux, but they won't release it until there's an actual virus to create the demand.

      Besides, do you really think an AV company is going to risk the whole business by covertly developing a virus? If word got out they tried something like that, no one would ever trust them again and would quickly go out of business.

      --
      Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    4. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windoze is a virus in a way - unwanted code that mess up your system.

  17. Trojan not virus by lxdbxr · · Score: 5, Informative
    I know the nomenclature is largely ignored nowadays, but I would call this a trojan not a virus since it requires the user to run it to start spreading: Quote from the ZDNet version of the story:
    A recipient also has to accept and download CommWarrior in order for the Trojan to launch itself.
    It's not like it starts running as soon as you open the MMS message; you actually have to take steps to run the application contained in the message. Of course some people will run anything...
    --
    -- Nothing unusual happened today
    1. Re:Trojan not virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A trojan IS a virus. It's like calling a Lion a cat. It's true, but it's a subclass of cat. There are also Tigers, housecats and any number of other cats.

      What this is NOT is a Worm... Which is also a virus, but is not a trojan.

    2. Re:Trojan not virus by ms139us · · Score: 2, Informative

      Parent is correct. Has anyone on slashdot ever tried to install unsigned software on a Symbian device?

      It is littered with warnings and confirmation screens. Anyone who got this virus had to endure the installation process confirmations. It is worse than a EULA.

      I find that I lack sympathy for a user who repeatedly selected "ok" and "continue" after being warned that this software cannot be verified -- software that arrived unsolicited.

      It takes a whole new kind of inattention to allow this virus to spread.

    3. Re:Trojan not virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A trojan IS a virus.

      I thought my Trojans were supposed to protect me from viruses! Better switch to LifeStyles.

    4. Re:Trojan not virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A trojan is NOT necessarily a virus. Here's the difference:

      A trojan is a piece of software that contains malicious code, which COULD be a virus or worm, but it is not necessary. It could simply do something nasty without spreading.

      A virus is a piece of malicious code that attaches itself to another program. Just like biological viruses infect cells to reproduce.

      A worm is a piece of malicious code that simply replicates. For example the original Internet worm broke into other systems and executed itself from the new host to spread further. It did not attach itself to other programs.

  18. Conspiracy Theories.. by PopeAlien · · Score: 1

    Too much tinfoil can cause interference with your cell-phone reception..

    besides, it couldnt be the phone companies thats to direct. its obviously the anti-virus companies..

    They're in it with the martians.

    1. Re:Conspiracy Theories.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm. I heard that tinfoil actually enhances interplanetary communication.

  19. Viruses by zecg · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anti-virus software is a sign of platform's maturity... a sort of an OS Bar Mitzvah. There are probably Nokia engineers working on new worms, tightly collaborating with their anti-virus engineers.

    --
    .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
  20. Re:LOL by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here's an old school idea that doesn't get viruses and doesn't cost nearly as much.

    Ha! When I was your age, "old school" meant using a rotary dial, pulse landline.

  21. Well at least there's one alternative by PsychicX · · Score: 4, Funny

    Get a Windows CE phone :)

    1. Re:Well at least there's one alternative by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      I think this idea falls into the "Ow! Ow! Ow! Stop hitting yourself!" category.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  22. Should this cost consumers? by junkcannibal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems to me that since most people get their phones for free when they sign up for a plan, the cell phone companies should bear the cost of this virus. This cost will inevitably be passed on the the concumers. My point is that it should be the responsibility of the cell phone companies to keep their products and their networks free of viruses. Dwight Yokel BEEP BEEPING his neighbor in the next trailer over, should not be expected to pay and money or attention to this sort of concern or worry about extra charges on his bill because his cell phone company runs a flawed service.

    1. Re:Should this cost consumers? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      yeah Dweight Yokel should expect me, and the other whatever percentage of the users that don't get this or don't even buy a new enough phone to be vulnerable to pay for him.

      Maybe Dweight Yokel got a computer training lesson he won't forget, and for less money then a computer school.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:Should this cost consumers? by jms1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the phones which are capable of being infected by this virus are NOT the ones they give away free. These are all running SymbianOS, which means for the most part they are high-end phones which have PDA and/or computer capabilities.

      My own telephone is one which could be infected. I have already contacted T-Mobile to find out if they plan on filtering this as it passes through their servers. In the meantime, I just won't accept MMS messages from people I know without verifying that the sender actually meant to send them... and of course I wouldn't accept an MMS message from somebody I don't know in the first place, so unless the virus writers find a way around the "user must accept the message" requirement, I don't feel myself to be in any danger.

    3. Re:Should this cost consumers? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      If they pass the cost on to consumers, consumers will respond by dropping subscribing to the most expensive services.

      telco's will have to respond by lowering costs of those services.

      I predict the ultimate result of this will be flat-rate MMS.

    4. Re:Should this cost consumers? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

      Should SBC, Verizon, or Sprint pay for the international calls that the dialer that snuck onto your PC when you downloaded that "download this program for the best XXX" thingy made? NO!

      Should Cingular or T-Mobile pay for the MMS messages that this Trojan/worm uses to replicate, especially after you told it "Yes, I KNOW this thing is unsigned and may be dangerous, but I want to install it anyway"? NO!

    5. Re:Should this cost consumers? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Actually, on Sprint, they've already got flat-rate MMS (actually, I'm not sure whether it's true MMS, but it has the same effect). $15/mo with $10/mo free downloads for the regular Vision plan, $15/mo with $5/mo free downloads and unlimited Picture Mail (MMS-like service) for the Vision Picture plan.

  23. great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So will this get MMS to work on my phone?

  24. Just don't install stuff you got over mms from.. by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    someone you didn't expect to get it from.

    this needs manual installation by the 'victim'!

    not very likely to spread too far either - a lot of people don't have even the mms settings in place.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  25. Time to rob the rich and give to the...rich by CDOS_CDOS+run · · Score: 2, Funny

    What was Paris's #, I need to send her a mms message.

    1. Re:Time to rob the rich and give to the...rich by coolcold · · Score: 1

      dont think it would rob her riches by much since her phonebook could possibly be emptied by now

      --
      I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs :)
    2. Re:Time to rob the rich and give to the...rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno, but you can call the people in her phone book and ask!

  26. Sure would like a link... by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    ....to the article mentioned in the /. blurb.

    1. Re:Sure would like a link... by gardyloo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      christ, I'm a dumbass.

    2. Re:Sure would like a link... by Shachaf · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a link. It's at the top: CommWarrior.a.

  27. Symbian AntiVirus... by larrypatrickmaloney · · Score: 1

    Not to toot my own horn, but I worked for a company last year, where we made an AntiVirus product for Symbian, which can handle SMS message viruses. website: http://www.fb-4.com

  28. Why the panic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As other posters have mentioned this is a trojan, not a virus. It requires the user to actively choose "Yes I wish to install" and following that it requires them to choose "Yes, I know it's from an untrusted source but install it anyway".

    This is hardly going to take over the world. What we should really be worrying about is the possibility of a real virus/worm - something that spreads without user interaction.

  29. Looks like a trojan, not a virus by bojanb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From TFA:
    CommWarrior periodically sends MMS messages to randomly selected contacts, including a copy of itself and one of several predefined text messages designed to encourage the recipient to install the application.

    Doesn't really seem this is Symbian's fault, CommWarrior just behaves like a malicious application. The user obviously has to install it and then run it to get 0wned.

    Of course, some sort of sandbox environment like in Microedition Java would have been a better design, but I guess Symbian simply wasn't built with something like this in mind. I know Nokia is pushing a model where only certified developers will be allowed to write applications that access sensitive functionality (dialing numbers, sending messages, etc.), but this is not a great solution. It will drive the cost of applications way up, and shaft all the small app developers, because only the big guys will have their apps signed by Nokia.

    1. Re:Looks like a trojan, not a virus by enjo13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That effort is actually being driven by Symbian. Accessing sensitive information on both future UIQ and Series 60 (And any other Symbian derivative that pops up) will require priviliges via signing.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    2. Re:Looks like a trojan, not a virus by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      This is true, but it's going to be just another level of OK's for the user to click through. I presume some operators will have the sense to disable the user override feature on their subsidised phones, (to loud complaints no doubt).

    3. Re:Looks like a trojan, not a virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee. And I'll just bet you are somehow affiliated with that microjava dealy aren't you? Oh, sorry, Microedition Java.

  30. hehe by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Informative

    When will people learn the more features something has the more holes it has in it. My cellphone can take calls and text, doesn't even display colour but if I have a car accident or I get injured it'll do the job just as well as any "3G super mega hyper magical edition" phone.

    Maybe people need to learn that the home phone is better for calling friends and mobiles are mostly for emergencies and when someone needs to urgently contact you..

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:hehe by Danimoth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you had the magical g3 mega edition you could use it to teleport you to the hospital, hell, you wouldn't even get into the car accident cause you could just use your magical phone!

      --
      No smoking sigs indoors.
    2. Re:hehe by Obsidian+Dagger · · Score: 1

      Turn-X Alphonse wrote: Maybe people need to learn that the home phone is better for calling friends and mobiles are mostly for emergencies and when someone needs to urgently contact you.. Your comment may be true for most people but I would pay at least $10 more per month to have a home phone instead of a cell phone. Why would I even consider giving up the freedom of mobility AND pay more money. I admit I am in a very small minority because I am grandfathered on an Employee Rate Plan that expires when my contract expires...btw, I don't have a contract.

      --
      "It is not my intent to offend, but if offense is taken, the fault lies with the audience." attributed to Patrick Henry
  31. Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't buy MMS capable cellphones. They're pricey to operate even if they're cheap ("give away razors, sell blades" sounds familiar?). Service fees from cellphone companies are 21st. century #1 ripoff, there's no reason to help them making more money.

  32. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ha! When I was your age, "old school" meant using a rotary dial, pulse landline"

    whippersnapper! Back in my day we used smoke signals and drums. And thats how we liked it. /now git off my lawn!

  33. Gotta luv a biz model that rewards this, don't you by gelfling · · Score: 1

    I just love vendors who shrug and say "This is gonna hurt you a lot more than it's gonna hurt me. Sucks to be you."

    What's the name of this company, 'Lumburg'?

  34. Re:LOL by DevolvingSpud · · Score: 1

    Luxury.

    We had a telegraph, and it suited us just fine (spits).

    Of course, every now and then a herd o' buffalo would knock down a pole, and we'd have to go ridin' out there to fix it in a blizzard. But, then, I guess you youngsters are used to havin' it easy.

    (Eagerly awaits even-more-outlandish response)

    --
    Keep your friends close.
    Keep your enemies in a little jar on your desk.
  35. CommWarrior on Symantec by Evil+W1zard · · Score: 1

    Per Symantec - SymbOS.Commwarrior.A is a worm that replicates on Series 60 phones. It attempts to spread using Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) and Bluetooth as a randomly named .sis file. -- So how many Lexus's are affected? (OK I dont like Lexus's so from now on multiple Lexus vehicles are referred to as LEXEN!)

    --
    News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
    1. Re:CommWarrior on Symantec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Toyota Australia in the early to mid 90s sold rebadged Holden Commodores as Toyota Lexens (part of a deal that had Holden sell rebadged Camrys as Holden Apollos).

      (Holden is an Australian GM company - Commodores are exported as Lumina to other contries under a different GM brand)

  36. No! That would be very bad. by xtrvd · · Score: 1

    This begs the question though, that in the same circumstances of having a MMS provider being responsible for their traffic, shouldn't ISP's be responsible for the traffic being issued over their lines too? But wait a moment, aren't they released of all liability due to their title as a 'common carrier'?

    Before you start pointing the finger at the ISP's, you have to think deeper into the repercussions of moderation of their networks. More moderation simply means more people to control what is being passed through; this means more salaries to pay. It wont be like Slashdot where everybody volunteer's, but rather just like any other business where people are paid to do their work. These additional salaries will be paid for by your MMS messages which already cost a hefty amount.

    Suddenly somebody is sending child porn over their cell phone. Will the MMS provider be responsible for this content now? I don't believe it is fair to put all of this weight on the shoulders of the ISP, primarily because it's the users of the service who will be hit the hardest in times of moderation.

    I don't know about you, but I would rather have a 'free' internet where I can do what ever I want (within a legal boundary) instead of having a MMS provider or ISP monitor and decide what I can and cannot do.

    Sometimes people simply have to take their own responsibility for being on these networks.

    1. Re:No! That would be very bad. by junkcannibal · · Score: 1

      This might be true if the cell phone companies did not control the broadcast network and the devices that run on that network. This situation is closer to if my cable box suddenly started buying pay-per-view shows I never watch. ISPs aren't liable because they have no control over the hardware and software configurations a consumer might use to connect to their network. I would argue that cell phone companies have a substantially higher degree of control. Viruses like this are an indication that they are losing this control. My cell phone or any other device I carry around with me in my pocket should be and act as an appliance not the house of cards that todays PCs have become. This has nothing to do with traffic, and everything to do with taking responsibility for the code written to be invulnerable to bad traffic. This also has nothing to do with monitoring traffic. Should customers be responsible for that creep exposing himself in the restroom of a restaurant or do you think that maybe, just maybe, the restaurant should take responsibility by kicking him out. Responsibility is not only about who's "fault" something is, it's about knowing when to do the right thing instead of the easy thing.

  37. News like this by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    News like this makes me happy that I have a very simple phone with simple features. All a phone really needs is to be able to store numbers and make phone calls. That's it. Anything else that could in any way compromise security should not be included.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  38. At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... we can really measure the cost this virus wrecks - instead of those ungodly amounts that everyone and their grandmother panders about when a PC virus spread...

  39. Um...it's transmitting by SamMichaels · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps I mis-RTFA or just don't understand MMS, but whenever my mobile is active it causes amplifier noise (talk or send/receive SMS). CDMA or GSM. Computer speakers, car stereo, whatever. Wouldn't a constant transmission be noticable?

  40. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well at least with a pulse line, and with them fancy acoustic modems, we could connect to teh local BBS.

    Try doing that with your telegraph.

  41. WTF? by CPgrower · · Score: 1

    Why isn't the cell phone's embedded code not written and executed in read-only memory? I understand there *may* be a need for volatile memory to read/write data to a stack/heap; however, why should data written to such memory *ever* be executed as code! I'd really like to know from someone who writes embedded systems for cell phones.

    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because real users like to develop custom applications on they mobile phones like instant messaging or games

      hey, I even have a coworker who is developing a custom application for his digital camera

    2. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      however, why should data written to such memory *ever* be executed as code

      It isn't. There is no exploit here. The user has to install and run the "virus" that is sent to them. The user is choosing to run a program that can do anything the program author wants.

  42. getting a virus on a Symbian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it a big deal to get a virus on a symbian, I've seen what they use those for in the industry, and those girls can't be that clean...
    (oblig syb-symb reference)

  43. Kind of depressing isn't it? by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean, the RFCs for MIME came out, what twelve years ago? Injudicious MIME implementations have been vectoring trojans ever since.

    So, you'd think they'd have taken a lesson from a decade of history and limited the power of multimedia attachments.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  44. and they just keep coming! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't want one of those with a virus!

  45. Re:Just don't install stuff you got over mms from. by d95adam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...but the text in the MMS says: "Your cell phone clock may be wrong. Would you like to keep it accurate?"

  46. T-Mobile offers unlimited data/SMS by supersat · · Score: 1

    T-Mobile offers unlimited data and SMS on their Sidekick plan. I'm pretty sure they offer unlimited SMS to encourage people to use it instead of email/IM, which take up more air time/bandwidth. As an added plus, the Sidekick stores SMS messages on your SIM, so they can't be retrieved should someone discover your password. ;)

  47. All YOUR phone needs, asshole. [nt] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  48. This issue is easily solved by harshaw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Modern phone operating systems have security features built in where the application installer will only allow *signed* applications to be installed. A virus / trojan wouldn't get signed because it has to go through an acceptance program.

    The first Microsoft smartphone product had this feature turned on - normal joe's couldn't install software that hadn't been signed (the signing process usually costs $$ although recent efforts have reduced the cost).

    Symbian *has* the same functionality. In fact, most commercial symbian software should now be signed, see Symbian Signed Symbian also has the functionality to disallow users to install unsigned programs. It is just that this feature is turned off by default (at least on the phones that I have seen).

    Theoretically, all an operator needs to due is send an OTA message to turn on signing verification. This is easily done on a windows mobile and presumable via WAP push on Symbian. We probably will see operators start to turn on signing requirements by default on symbian phones (hopefully with the capability for users to turn it off so they can install freeware if they so choose).

    1. Re:This issue is easily solved by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Why stop with cell phones?

      Why shouldn't _ALL_ operating systems do this?

      (The above questions are intended to be highly tongue in cheek, actually)

    2. Re:This issue is easily solved by NetNifty · · Score: 1

      On my Nokia N-Gage (runs Symbian OS), it warns me if apps I'm installing aren't signed, but lets me continue or abort at that point.

  49. Actually, it may be a good thing. by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All too often, a virus costs somebody time. They are willing to accept it as just a lost of that. Instead, society needs to start accepting that all virus represent lost money. Once they do that, they will start looking for alternatives to where 99.999 % of the virus occur at.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Actually, it may be a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most 'viruses' people complain about are actually 'worms', and depend on tricking the user, not any sort of technical flaws, for propagation. The problem is a social one (i.e. anti-social script kiddies), not a technical one; it's just like vandalism, graffiti and other such low-level crime.

      Given the social nature of the problem, the solution must also be social. That's why when relatively well-known Linux advocates, for example, defend things like MyDoom because SCO are scum, they're sending a very bad signal to society and making the problem significantly worse. It will never go away through technical solutions, any more than graffiti will go away by somehow changing writing/painting tools.

  50. Re:LOL by CDOS_CDOS+run · · Score: 1

    YOu were lucky why in my time, we didn't have those newfangled telegraph. We didn't have Smoke signals. We couldn't even yell. All that HAD been invented was a binary grunt language. arrg agh arrg arrg agh agh

  51. Customers pay, and they should. by huge · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Doesn't really seem right to charge users for something like that, espicially the less savvy who might not know-any-better.
    I think this should be considered to be no different to internet connection. In this context I'd like to say "PC /w internet connection" == "Mobile".

    If you have a internet connection for which you pay per used bandwidth and you get a virus, do you get refund? You get 0wned and someone uses you as a spam relay, you get black-listed. Should you get refunded?

    No. You should make sure that you have up to date AV running and you have firewall installed and configured. Even if the terminal is more widely spreaded than the internet connections are, and to even more clueless users, it's up to users to make sure that their system is secured.

    Yes, there are ISPs which disconnect infected clients from their network and will not forward virus infected emails, but some of them don't care.

    Of course there will be companies to provide AV and FW applications. Of course they wont be free. But then again, who can blame them. If you want to get it for free do it your self, GPL it and make sure that everyone can enjoy it.
    --
    -- Reality checks don't bounce.
  52. Hard Reset by d3matt · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I know this would totally suck because the user would lose his contacts and all his information, but isn't it possible to do a hard reset on these devices which cause all the original software to be reloaded thus wiping out the vir(us/ii)?

    --
    I am d3matt
  53. hasn't worked... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ...with computers and operating systems yet. No OS vendor so far is accepting any liability for all the various viruses and trojans and whatnot that infest the internet and get on peoples machines running that OS. No ISP is accepting liability claims or paying out either as far as I know anyway. So there ya go. It's in the EULAs and various other contracts consumers "voluntarily agree" to. Why should the small computers in phones with their OSes and apps and the vendors there be any different? Until we can force by law that software makers/sellers/leasers/licensers have to offer some minimum normal consumer warranties, it will continue to happen. As it is now, it's almost pure "caveat emptor".

    1. Re:hasn't worked... by plover · · Score: 1
      Oh, I agree it hasn't happened yet. But I'm hopeful that the consumers wronged by scams like this are able to bring a suit and bring an end to this dodging of responsibility.

      I think something like this needs to be aired in a courtroom. While the phone manufacturers may not be found culpable, the cell providers might have demonstrated a willingness to drag their feet in order to maximise profits. And that would be a good start.

      --
      John
    2. Re:hasn't worked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OS and internet service providers don't stand to profit from malicious software. With the cost of MMSes, it could easily be argued that some executive somewhere simply called a few people and told them to do nothing, and watch the profits roll in.

  54. Apples to oranges. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Eh, look at it this way, does Microsoft write viruses? After all, it's really suspicious that you hear about vulnerabilities and there are already viruses that take advantage!

    Except that Microsoft doesn't charge you for its service packs, whereas anti-virus companies charge you for their products. Microsoft says, "A flaw has been discovered, here is the patch to download." Norton/Symantec/etc say, "Here is a new virus. You can download the latest signature files if you have purchased $PRODUCT, or you can purchase $PRODUCT now for only $AMOUNT to protect yourself."

    Of course, that's ignoring the fact that Microsoft generally does not acknowledge a flaw until they have a working patch, even if it is months after the flaw has been publically exposed.

    Apples to oranges.

    1. Re:Apples to oranges. by StrongAxe · · Score: 1

      Except that Microsoft doesn't charge you for its service packs, whereas anti-virus companies charge you for their products. Microsoft says, "A flaw has been discovered, here is the patch to download." Norton/Symantec/etc say, "Here is a new virus. You can download the latest signature files if you have purchased $PRODUCT, or you can purchase $PRODUCT now for only $AMOUNT to protect yourself."

      This because Microsoft service packe fix flaws in the product from the get-go. That is, they keep fixing things that you paid for and are still broken, so it's like warranty repair.

      On the other hand, anti-virus updates aren't fixes to bugs in the antivirus code, but additional new functionality ("Look! In addition to the 1,000,000 viruses we protected you from last year, we now protect you from 50,000 more!"). Microsoft should be obliged to provide free repairs of their own bugs, but Norton should be under no obligation to provide free repairs of flaws caused by Microsoft's bugs.

      If you want additional functionality from Microsoft (like an pgrade from Windows 98 to Windows XP), you can be sure that Microsoft WILL charge you.

  55. Re:Just don't install stuff you got over mms from. by xnode · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unfortunately I had to review my opinions about people having to be stupid to accept unknown software.

    Well, anyways there is times when people except messages from certain providers. Like when people are arrive to a new country they are quite accustomed to a welcome to a new country messages.

    As an example I know a case where one of our customers did accept Cabir over bluetooth because it was send with a sender name of a local operator. Unfortunatily I can't see a difference in a MMS case. User that thinks that he's getting updates/welcome message for his current country propably will accept the message.

    And for the last part.... at least in Finland most new user will have MMS settings in place (i.e. they may get them automatically depending on the operator).

    --
    .... it's coming ...
  56. Already being filtered by Jacco+de+Leeuw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The telecom operators are already filtering these infected MMS messages.

    The only problem is indeed the cost of sending these messages. I do hope that operators are not charging customers for these undelivered messages.

    --
    -------
    Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
  57. Europe by grahamsz · · Score: 2, Informative

    In most of europe cellphones are essentially premuim rate numbers. Unlike the US where the cellphone holder pays for every minute, europeans place the cost burden on the person making the call.

    Typically these rates aren't too bad, but when you start calling from one network to another they can get VERY high. In the UK I would pay close to 1$US/minute to call from orange -> tmobile.

    Text messages are generally very cheap and practical. Plus they are better for communicating certain types of information since you have a record of it. Not to mention the privacy issue of being able to text when you are in a meeting at work or in a resturant.

    On top of that you can IM with people on their computers.

    1. Re:Europe by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "In most of europe cellphones are essentially premuim rate numbers. Unlike the US where the cellphone holder pays for every minute, europeans place the cost burden on the person making the call."

      Interesting. I'll do some research into this...do US cell phones have this SMS system...or is it only available to other places in the world. Honestly, I've never heard any of my friends mention text messaging before. My phone is internet connected...I can send email, etc...but, is so damned slow, and having to type with a numeric keypad (y == pushing the 9 button 3 times)...it just doesn't seem very convienient.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Europe by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      All the phones my wife and I have had with t-mobile in the last 3 years have had it.

      However i had a verizon phone before that which could only text message on certain networks.

      It's been a feature of GSM networks since they were created in the early 90s (iirc) but some US networks were pretty slow to catch on. Perhaps there's something cultural about europe where people don't like to talk in lots of places... resturants in the US certainly don't seem out of bounds :(

    3. Re:Europe by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      SMS == text messaging. Almost any phone made in the last 5 years supports it, even in the US.

      Old AT&T (TDMA, GSM), Cingular (GSM), T-Mobile (GSM), Sprint (CDMA), Verizon (CDMA), Tracfone (CDMA), Alltel (CDMA), and Nextel (iDEN) all support text messaging.

    4. Re:Europe by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I've got a Sprint phone...is this SMS the same thing as sending email through the phone? I've never seen SMS on any of the menus...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Europe by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      On my Nokia 6225 (Sprint), I can press the left arrow, and get a menu that says the following:

      Create text message this is SMS
      Create Picture Mail IIRC, this is MMS
      Messages folders for SMS and MMS
      Voicemail msgs. self-explanatory
      E-mail Link to PCS Vision mail

      I can get to the same menu by entering the main menu, and going down to "Messaging".

      FWIW, my old Nokia 3588i (also Sprint) was the same way, except it didn't have the picture mail (no camera), and it didn't have the E-mail (no WAP support).

      Something kinda interesting: You can send/recieve e-mail from the SMS/MMS system. Your normal e-mail address for the phone is (your Vision user name)@sprintpcs.com. However, if I want to send it as a text message, I can send it to (phone number (no dashes, IIRC))@messaging.sprintpcs.com. I can also put an e-mail address in as a recipient on a text message.

    6. Re:Europe by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      Just a slight correction, unless your area's different than mine, TracFone is a Cingular reseller, and therefore GSM.

      I think the only real requirement is a digital connection (and carrier support, which might cost extra. I know Cricket, a CDMA carrier, charges an extra $4/month for SMS).

    7. Re:Europe by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      In my area, the phones are labelled "TracFone (phone - either a Nokia something or a Motorola V120) CDMA".

  58. Google SMS is so handy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Getting motel numbers while traveling, restaurant phone numbers, weather. It's just great, it works with CDMA, even with Tracfone/Alltel.


    BTW, what the hell is Yahoo (not) doing with their SMS? What's with the limited carriers? And it doesn't work half the time anyway. They need to fire people and get it working.

  59. Good thing.. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Im a borderline luddite :)

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  60. world's first GOOD virus? by happymedium · · Score: 1

    Here's hoping it infects those poor braindead souls who do nothing but send text messages during class... Seriously, as anyone in high school knows, this is an epidemic. It may soon cause our school's administration to ban cell phones despite their legitimate uses.

    1. Re:world's first GOOD virus? by Travy.b · · Score: 0




      Here's hoping it infects those poor braindead souls who do nothing but send text messages during class...

      These are also the morons (school age kids) that started the whole 'pay for sms' to begin with. For years they were free - then it became 'the done thing' and telco's started charging.

  61. Never? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the PHC suggests ideas like that, well, that's preposterous. What would they know of security or viruses?

    p62-0x02.txt

  62. Oh! MMS not Windows Media... by dooglio · · Score: 1

    ...man I thought they had found a way to deliver a virus via video stream. :-)

  63. Yeah, me too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My gaydar readings say it's a pain in teh bumm.

  64. phone is an appliance by wotevah · · Score: 1

    The phone is an appliance. I didn't install, nor do I manage its software. The phone company does. Same with the software in my car's ECU, or in the microwave, or any other embedded system.

    The provider, or failing that, the company who made the phone should clearly be responsible.

  65. Re:Just don't install stuff you got over mms from. by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

    STUPID, STUPID, STUPID PEOPLE (although PrecisionTime seems to be popular on Windows XP, and Windows XP has a (semi-neutered) NTP client built-in, not needing PrecisionTime or any other time app)...

    On my Nokia 6225 (not a Symbian phone), I can change that setting from Menu>Settings>Time settings>Auto-update of date & time. Grabs it from the network, auto time zone compensation.