Slashdot Mirror


Over a Million Zombie PCs

Doyle writes "A BBC article discusses new research revealing that over 1 million computers have been compromised and are being used in bot nets. From the article: 'The largest network spied on by the team was made up of 50,000 hijacked home computers.'"

564 comments

  1. Where have I heard this before? by maotx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe I should have sent THIS in afterall...

    --
    I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    1. Re:Where have I heard this before? by thinkliberty · · Score: 1

      Nope. It doesn't count because this story about a previously posted story is being covered by a different new publication. (it's complex)

      Slashdot just wants everyone to know that they covered the story before the BBC did.

      All those people posting first post has finally caught up to the slashdot editors ;)

  2. Anyone know... by gowen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... the breakdown of that million by operating system?

    You never know, it might be a nice bit of PR for some Apple/Linux/BSD organisation to casually slip into a Press Release.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Anyone know... by winkydink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, the are Windows machines. But Linux has a long way to go before widespread desktop acceptance? Why? Joe User will expect it to work just like Windows, because Joe User views his computer as a tool, not a hobby and therefore does not want to be bothered with taking the time to learn something new.

      Yes, I'm speaking in generalities.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    2. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      Joe User will expect it to work just like Windows

      There are blue screen screen savers available that show fake error messages randomly for Linux. "Joe User" should feel right at home.

    3. Re:Anyone know... by dtfinch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If Joe User started on Linux, or *BSD, then trying to use Windows would require taking time to learn.

      You can tell that Windows is meant to be used as a tool and not just for hobby because in Office and the Explorer search pane they have dozens of these little characters that'll dance and do tricks and stuff without really helping you out in the process. And a bunch of the window actions can be animated to slow them down a bit. You've got connection limits and such to ensure that you only use your desktop for desktop stuff. Network authentication restrictions ensure that your intranet design fits a standard, well supported model, and that the right edition gets used for the right job. And the whole thing is pretty awesome for running games.

      Linux must certainly be meant just for hobby because it comes with thousands of these little tools that just do their jobs without much in the way of glitter and animation to impress the user, or even a requirement that a user must be directly interacting with them.

    4. Re:Anyone know... by winkydink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If Joe User were required to start by using Linux or BSD, it would set computing back 10 years. It would however probably have the positive side-effect of vastly improving ther desktop experience much more quickly than it is now.

      I'm not proposing Windows or Linux for that matter. The number speak for themseleves. Linux is getting adopted quickly in the server room because the people who manage are trained professionals in computer-related fields. Joe User, for the most part, is not.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    5. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This comment is exactly why Linux isn't making major strives with Joe User.

      While I'm sure it's just flame bait the latest versions of Windows 2000 and XP are incredibly stable. The only way to get a blue screen in them is to have a bad driver that will affect the system at the kernel level. Other applications are unable to access the system at such a low level. This makes them incredibly stable.

      The main issue with Linux as a Desktop is usablity. It doesn't work as streamlined as Windows. It has gotten a lot better over the years, but there is still a ways to go.

    6. Re:Anyone know... by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Clippy and the Dog? That's 2 not dozens. You can change Clippy to another but you can't get dozens at a time and you can turn both off (which I've done). Clippy is a little more useful than the dog, but I rarely need help and when I do I just search for it in the regular help window.

    7. Re:Anyone know... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      "Why do I have to provide the adminstrator logon just to install this cute purple ape buddy I found online?"

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    8. Re:Anyone know... by enigmals1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree they are most likely almost all Windows OS. However, that statistic really means nothing since that is a percentage of zombie PC's--this does not mean there are proportionately more affected Windows PC's than other OSes. Now get me the percentage/number of OS's that are zombies compared to the total percentage/number of those OSes in production around the world in general! ...then you'll have something.

      GOD I am SO tired of this elitest crap on /. Personlly, I'm a Windows fan and I cannot WAIT until Linux really starts taking off so it would have just as many vulnerabilities and problems exposed. And I know they're there because of the inherent reliance on the single kernel just like Windows and the too-many-hands-in-the-pot factor.

    9. Re:Anyone know... by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      I think the whole idea is extremely intriguing. Once you have a system set up like that, capable of accepting commands.. you can do whatever you want without ever having a trail come back to you. Having a machine tell another machine tell another machine what to do.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    10. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn the assistant back on and right click it. Then pick "choose assistant".

      Yes, there are not dozens, but there are 8, not 2.

    11. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost every day, a coworkers Dell PC BSODs. Of course, it's managed by EDS through the NMCI contract.

    12. Re:Anyone know... by Entouchable · · Score: 1

      actually you'd be surprised at the percentage of rooted *nix boxes you would find..

    13. Re:Anyone know... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Insightful
      does not want to be bothered with taking the time to learn something new.
      Am I alone in wondering whether this truth extends to running Windows Limited Accounts, instead of Administrator logins?
      Running XP in a safe manner is as challenging as my Gentoo boot, without the benefit of reasonable documentation, unless you want to count these <adjective> bubbles popping up over the system tray.
      Having had some Linux experience, I am guessing my way to understanding _some_ of what to do, but a nice walkthrough about how to make a legacy executable run as admin without requiring an explicit right-click and "Run As" every time would help. Anyone? Bueller?
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    14. Re:Anyone know... by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the friend whos computer I just had to reinstall XP on.

    15. Re:Anyone know... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      What is this EDS/NMCI stuff I have been seeing? Could you throw me a link? (searching for 3-4 letter acronyms on google is a pain).

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    16. Re:Anyone know... by Foolhardy · · Score: 4, Informative
      Am I alone in wondering whether this truth extends to running Windows Limited Accounts, instead of Administrator logins?
      I'm sure it does extend to that. Users aren't used to dealing with computer security, on any operating system. It wasn't so important to a home user before the Internet, and it was impossible on 9x. Now they're using a different OS and are connected to a malicious network, but don't want to learn to adapt.

      As for resources, ask Google.
      noadmin.editme.com has a wiki about it, and also see Aaron Margosis' WebLog, aka the The Non-Admin blog, made by a Microsoft employee.
      Windows NT Security in Theory and Practice, a long-running set of MSDN articles about NT security is also interesting, espescially to developers.
      Also useful are FileMon and RegMon from SysInternals, to see what files/reg keys an app is hung up on trying to get unreasonable access to. (Remember that security is checked only on open/create, so set the filter to show opens only)

      Still, there is too little information about running stuff as non-admin. Part of the problem is that making a program run as non-admin when it wasn't designed for that, usually isn't easy.
    17. Re:Anyone know... by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's just harder to tell you are rooted because they arn't doing stupid shit with your box. Usually. (I have been rooted a couple times)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    18. Re:Anyone know... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      +10 Informative post of the day.
      Domo.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    19. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a simple registry hack out there that let's you get rid of those bubbles. Took about 30 seconds to google for it: here.

    20. Re:Anyone know... by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only way to get a blue screen in them is to have a bad driver that will affect the system at the kernel level.

      Even if this is true, you're seriously downplaying this problem. With Windows, in order to use your computer at all, you're probably going to have to install vendor-written drivers for something, because there are no community-maintained drivers as there are for OSS OSes. MS does include some basic drivers for very common hardware, but almost any computer will have at least something that will require a vendor driver. History has shown us that these vendor-written drivers have a very poor record, and are known to cause a lot of problems on Windows systems.

      This alone is a good reason to avoid Windows. What good is it as an OS if you can't add various hardware (scanners, cameras, wireless ethernet, etc.) without expecting it to suddenly become unstable?

      It doesn't matter how great Ford engines are if they keep sticking tread-separating Firestone tires on their vehicles.

    21. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's got anything to do with EDS then whether it's running Windows, Linux, Unix or even OS/2 is irrelevant. It's not going to work reliably, except perhaps under laboratory conditions.

      EDS are a company that have repeatedly successively screwed up project after project after project for the UK's government. Try The Register for quite a few news stories concerning them. They have a habit of getting awarded government contracts all the time and nobody can really figure out why. I mean, if the same company runs massively over bugdet and fails to deliver on over four or five successive projects, what kind of idiot would hire them again? Welcome to British politics.

    22. Re:Anyone know... by wheany · · Score: 1

      What good is it as an OS if you can't add various hardware (scanners, cameras, wireless ethernet, etc.) without expecting it to suddenly become unstable?

      What good is it as an OS if you can't add various hardware. Period.

    23. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true "I-fucked-around-with-linux-and-got-fed-up-with-it -enough-to-appreaceate-winxp" -veteran.

    24. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some cases, the app specifically checks for Administrator priviliges and refuses to run as a limited user even if that limited user has the same permissions as a full Administrator account. The only way around such checks is to get a copy of SoftIce and go through the machine code to find the check. Most people, even those willing to use filemon and regmon are not willing to learn assembly and start reverse engineering and modifying software like that.

    25. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even bother to fucking read the gp post? Yes there are 8 you can CHOOSE from, but you can only RUN one clippy and one doggy at a time, which last time I fucking learned to count was TWO.

    26. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Joe User started on Linux, or *BSD, then trying to use Windows would require taking time to learn.


      But he didn't! He got started on Windows! That is the reality and we must deal with it rather than mentally masterbate with What ifs and coulda beens.

    27. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You never know, it might be a nice bit of PR for some Apple/Linux/BSD organisation to casually slip into a Press Release.

      If linux or MacOS gained mainstream acceptance like Windows, it would be just as much a target for botnets. Think about it, there are tons of vulnerabilities in GNOME, Xfce, KDE, Mozilla, and many desktop environments and related applications that have yet to be uncovered (there are not THAT many eyes looking over the code as you would like to believe, and many times the number and quality of audits is not directly related to the popularity....look how long it took before someone reported what were fairly obvious and beginner programming errors in very popular tools like gaim and CIPE).

      Now realize that most of these botnets could do mostly everything they need to do with regular UID priveleges... use the disk space, open ports, do mostly useful port scans, modify the files that were really cared about.

      Now think about the many local root exploits that have been available in Linux and relate when the mistake was made to when it was discovered and fixed..in many cases it was/is years. I love linux, but sorry, there has to be a number of known vulnerabilities that are not released to the general public (where general public might just be me, but I'm pretty savvy and track Mitre and bugtraq.. and I also note the alarming rate (for better or worse) that patches are coming into 2.6 and vendor kernels... Maybe a future spyware manufacturer could employ experts to gather local root vulnerabilities, or just use social engineering... It would be dead simple to get the average Mac user to enter his root pw.. just need a little creativity. Sorry, but there is no proof that the actual distribution of Mac users is actually any less susceptible to being fooled.. they just aren't a target yet... because no one really thinks its a great loss to not have that market.

      This "extra" inherent security in Linux and MacOS is clearly a benefit, but it is so often a red herring.

    28. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You use clippy? you fag.

    29. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they all suck anyways, quit whining about the sand in your pussy.

    30. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are exaggerating, they are NOT extremely stable, sure if you baby them and run one program att he same time at home...but try a network full of 2k/XP machines over a huge lan, with different proprietary programs and non-proprietary running side by side for 8-12 hours a day 5 days a week etc..you would think VERY differently, a more realistic post would have been:

      They are MORE stable than their predecessors.

      That would fly, but 'incredibly stable'? It's obvious you need a LART.

      Linux is alot closer than you think for most things that luser use it for, email apps in windows and linux both have Compose and Send buttons, whats so freakin tough about that?

      Get a clue.

    31. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      high5...yea, he prolly changed his mirc script so show Linux as it's version on IRC.

    32. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...then shoot yourself..

    33. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats not entirley true, Linux was created with a tad more forethought than windows was, Bill got DOS from a dumpster, and stripped it out and made DOS, he got the gui idea from Altair, mouse use, Altair, menus etc, Apple, it's a mishmosh of technolgies that, if you saw the src code to, would make you shit a brick, and let's not forget when M$ paid by the kloc and programmers where just adding noops just to get paid more, you are right about linux becoming a target, but a sucsessfully exploitable one to the extent windows is? You are dreaming Microsoft dreams.

    34. Re:Anyone know... by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      "My password?!? I don't know. I just click my name..."

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    35. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I accidentally left the screensaver setting at "random" once, on Debian 2.2, KDE, so I got quiet a shock when the BSOD-type screensaver kicked in. I never previewed or saw it before, so I got taken.
      Anyway, see if they can Zombie-fy this OS.

    36. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're obviously a fucking no nothing troll..

      If you really think you know what the fuck you're talking about..

      Anyways, any modern UNIX system is a mishmash of technologies that would make one shit a brick. Actually if you look at just the core kernel taken in isolation (executive) of NT it is quite clean, each of the subsystems are quite clean as well. If you're going to compare apples to apples then you need to take Linux, X11, Xlibs, bonobo, CORBA, DCOP, KDE, GNOME, jack, OSS, esd. I love working on a free OS, but the mess of stuff in the Linux world makes me shit a considerable number of bricks.

      Anyway I assume this is a pointless conversation as I'm basing off of actual evidence (I have sent kernel patches 2.4-2.6 for a number of misused semaphore and locking race issues... Some that merely allow a DoS, a number that theoretically could be used for privelege escalation, or to leak contents of memory. During 2.6 development there are a number of "cleanup" patches that go through that actually in effect patch a vulnerability that existed for 1 or 2 releases.. These are no different than your bugs posted to bugtraq except that they are simply not brought publicly into the forum as "security defects". I also have done quite a bit of development of portable application /library development for *nix/Windows NT/QNX/BeOS. I have hacked SDL and (x)mame for one thing.

      Non-root exploits for a Linux desktop (especially a packaged one with few updates applied out of a redhat/suse box...which is exactly what you will get more of with Linux being mainstream) are a dime a dozen. If you don't know this, you are ignorant...claiming otherwise just makes you an idiot.

      And you obviously don't know what the fuck an Altair was (or you must have distinctly different opinions of what constitutes a GUI)...

    37. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Joe User started on Linux, or *BSD, then trying to use Windows would require taking time to learn.

      Yep you'd have to teach the user where control panel is, and let him spend half a day stumbling around all the tools. Then you'd have to show the user Office and let him play with that for another half day.

      Where do you start with Linux? Well for starters there are thousands of distros, so its a particular flavour you'll be teaching (once you've selected one from the minefield of choices). Next you'd better teach them how to deal with the command line, and follow that up with teaching them about each and every util they need to manage their system. Oh and don't let them buy hardware without teaching them about hardware compatibility and how to recompile drivers.

      You think that's all easy? That a non-techy wants to bother with that? If you seriously do you're dillusional.

      The beauty of Windows is that its standard. There's only a handful of versions out there and even they're very similar generally. Next key point those standard systems are graphical. Until the Linux community gets a clue about usability - and stops forking distros for fark sak+e - we're doomed to be at the mercy of Mickysoft.

      (As for the annoying characters. Yep they're stupid and you turn them off. If that's the biggest problem you have to contend with in an OS that's not so bad. Unfortunately security is a much bigger issue with Windows.)

    38. Re:Anyone know... by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      Because you need admin access to get the thing embedded in your system so far that it's hard to remove.

      If you were installing it on linux, it would want root access so that it could replace all the files in /bin with replacements that call a script to make sure it is running before it does the real command.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    39. Re:Anyone know... by AbRASiON · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well I've recently installed ubuntu on my laptop and personally I'm scared of being rooted because I don't know shit about linux - so I actually feel safer under XP.

      It installed itself and I beleive I don't have root access but due to my lack of linux knowledge it's scary - I know a compromised linux box is a bad bad thing.

      Fortunately I'm using NAT and there's no ports forwarded to the thing.

    40. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And I know they're there because of the inherent reliance on the single kernel just like Windows and the too-many-hands-in-the-pot factor."

      That's stupid reasoning. If it were a different kernel, it would most likely be a different OS entirely.

      I've heard other windows fanboys say that "as soon as linux becomes more popular, it'll be just as bad as windows" and I say that's bullshit. Unix's security model is inherently better than window's has ever been. There's just too many applications in windows that have links into ring 0 code that totally defeat the security of running as a non-privileged user.

    41. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blah blah. blah blah blah blah. Nobody's reading more than one line of your horseshit.

    42. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a lot of crock!

      I was using *nix back in 1982 and when we saw MS DOS (Windows was not arround then) we (Unix Sys Adm's) said that it was brain dead and would put back computing 10 years. Now it is 2005 and what I did back in 1985 I am only just seeing MS Windows starting to do and not very well. So I guess I was wrong MS did not put computing back 10 years they put it back 20 years.

      With regard to "joe user" the organisation I worked for at the time (1985) used workstations (predominately SUN) and our clerical staff loved the ease of use (it used Shock! X windows which did not use "double click" - RSI anyone!) and they were doing similar things that are done today.

    43. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ad should read:

      OS X, 1 million PC users can't be wrong.

      Oh, sorry, yes they were.

    44. Re:Anyone know... by Bri3D · · Score: 1

      This isn't even true anyway-overwriting EIP to Kernel32->NtReadFileEx with random registers and stack will bluescreen the system. No drivers needed.

    45. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? Firstly, there is no such thing as NtReadFileEx, only NtReadFile. Second, it's in ntdll.dll not kernel32.dll. Third, how did you expect this to crash the system? Libraries such as this one are mapped copy-on-write: you'll only be screwing up your own copy, which will lead to a crash of your own process at most. The kernel (and every other process) will retain the original pristine version. Fourth, your terminology sucks: you're talking about overwriting a library in memory but you mention EIP and registers, which have nothing to do with it. The only registers used are one for the function number and one for a pointer to the arguments. The kernel tries to copy the function's amount bytes from the source buffer to the kernel stack, and if there aren't enough, it fails safely. See this page for a detailed walkthrough.

      I've heard some trashy anti-windows trolls in the past, but this one tops them all. Fuck off.

    46. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That there are no OSS drivers for Windows is not strictly true. They may be few and far between though. Presumably this is due to poor driver development documentation (a marketing decision?) on Microsoft's part.

      The BrookTree video capture driver comes to mind as an example of an OSS driver for Windows.

    47. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such a linguist...never mind your lack of intellect already is obvious by your profanity.

      translation: You know nothing and swearing doesn't help.

    48. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm scared of being rooted because I don't know shit about linux - so I actually feel safer under XP.


      I'm sorry to have to tell you this but the reason you feel safer with XP is because you "don't know shit". I'm not trolling but to feel safer in the least secure OS ever is at least counter-intuitive if not masochistic.


      I digress...


      One more thing...NAT will not completely protect you either. It does not protect you from downloading and executing trojans manually (usually due to social engineering). My advice if you choose to stick with XP is: get a good software firewall that allows you to configure what accesses the net (Zonealarm is very good), keep your OS updated, get good antivirus software, and keep tons of backups of important information.


      Or install Linux, BSD, buy a Mac, and get some books on Unix and learn.

    49. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "History has shown us that these vendor-written drivers have a very poor record, and are known to cause a lot of problems on Windows systems."

      Bull fucking shit. You're a fucking moron.

    50. Re:Anyone know... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert on MS development, but my understanding is that Windows has a DDK (Driver Development Kit) which is fairly easily available (though it may cost something). I think the reason so few OSS drivers are available is because drivers for products already exist (even if they suck), so why reinvent the wheel?

    51. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it would set computing back 10 years

      Funny, this is exactly what I think every time I'm forced to use the Pile-of-Poo-OS: "wow, I did this 10 years ago." Well, except some of the horror which passes for an API. That's just fucking stupid.

    52. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big words coming from an AC who spells 'know' as no.

      You sir are an E-Tard.

    53. Re:Anyone know... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      XP may not be labelled as secure but set up by someone with enough Microsoft knowledge you simply don't have the kind of problems Microsoft is getting bad press about.

      It certianly seems you're trolling to me.

  3. Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aren't zombies constantly searching for "brains" ?

    1. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Sabaki · · Score: 1

      I don't know if they're sent from Windows boxes, but that would explain all the spam I'm getting chanting for CPU's.

    2. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's a straw man argument if I ever saw one.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Walrus99 · · Score: 1

      Another reason Macs rule, PCs suhk.

    4. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Sj0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He wasn't making an arguement. He was making a joke. This is critical to understand, because an arguement is a very particular subset of conversation, usually designed to be pursuasive in nature. As a result of this, it's structure and the terminology defined with such an element is different than the terminology defined for other conversational constructe, such as jokes.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    5. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Lussarn · · Score: 1, Troll

      As long as you keep giving Apple money for updates, yes. Remember, OS X from 2001 is not updated even for security issues but windows 98 still is.

      Enough deployment of a non secured OS and it will lead to problems even if it's a Mac. Apple does get away with not securing their old OSes only because they are not widely deployed.

      If I buy a Mac today, who knows if I get updates 3 years from now?

    6. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Win98 is not receiving any NEW security updates, but all the old ones are. It's EOLed.

    7. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Roofus · · Score: 1

      Wow. When he claimed it was a "straw man" argument, I took it to mean scarecrow.....who was on a search for a brain in the Wizard of Oz.

      Damn man, I think the joke is on you.

    8. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Palshife · · Score: 2, Funny

      Come on man, have a heart! Or some courage maybe?

      --
      Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
    9. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Informative

      A huge difference: every major OS X update - believe it or not - IMPROVES performance on the same hardware, despite all the new features.

    10. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to repect Mac users, they never/rarely made statements like that...now you guys are turning into a bunch of little dicks like the rest of the 'my dick [os] is bigger than yours' crowd.

      Too bad, twas nice while it lasted...

    11. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple dropped 10.1 support almost as soon as 10.2 came out.

      10.2 has been fully supported even after 10.3 was released. All updates have been released concurrently for both systems. For those of you keeping track, thats about 2.5 years so far.

    12. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      This article says otherwise... Guess I read to much news?

      Microsoft Extends Win 98 Support

    13. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      In other words if you bought a Mac more than 2.5 years ago you don't get security updates. Thats not exactly a great security policy.

    14. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. I was looking for abuse.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    15. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is may be true, but the thing to bear in mind is that Mac OSX is *so* far behind in the first place.

      I bought a G4 1.5 GHz powerbook last Oct/Nov (can't quite remember when), and have been terribly disappointed with the performance. Performance is perhaps on par with that of a celeron processor, rather than a P4 of equivalent clock speed.

      My Pentium-M 1.8 that I bought two weeks ago now flies by comparison.

      Rather than spending time optimizing software, I think Apple would better spend their time beefing up their chips to industry-standard speed.

    16. Re:Must Be M$ Boxes Right ?? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Well, my iMac G3/500 seems much snappier than my father's Pentium4. Of course, his machine is much faster for things like emulation, but OSX itself (10.2) is more responsive than WindowsXP. And it looks much better as well!

      You know what'd help? Other than getting 10.4, you could always use RAM, because OSX is a very RAM-hungry beast.

  4. That's still low... by BeneathTheVeil · · Score: 5, Funny

    compared to the millions of zombies in front of PCs.

    Come to think of it, the two just may be related. :P

  5. Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these nets by panxerox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If 1,000,000 computers can be identified as being zombie machines than 1,000,000 computer owners can be contacted. This is THE major problem afflicting the internet, why dont governments form a unit to identify and at least notifiy the owners of these machines? Will it take a major internet terrorist attack like bringing down a power grid to make governments act?. As net users we should advocate government involvment in a measured controlled way rather than the reaction that will come after an attack (patriot act?)

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
  6. Hope by Rosonowski · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it really only one million? When I think of how the average user ends up getting a machine infected, I think of a whole lot more than 1 million. 10 million, perhaps.

    --
    01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
    1. Re:Hope by flynt · · Score: 1

      Well with such a robust and consistent estimating technique, who can deny your claim?

    2. Re:Hope by jayhawk88 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well this is 1 million zombie-infected PC's, which are infected with specific types of trojans and such and presumably are actively being used in bot-nets.

      I imagine there are quite a few more machines that are zombie infected that were not detected for whatever reason (turned off, firewalls, etc), plus all the millions of more machines that are "just" infected with viruses, spyware, or trojans that do not produce bot-net like activity.

    3. Re:Hope by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

      I never claimed that there were more machines, only that one million machines seemed a ridiciously low number of machines to be infected and 'zombiefied'.

      Hope I've clarified that well enough.

      --
      01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
    4. Re:Hope by BarryNorton · · Score: 1

      I'd estimate five million and about... say... two hundred and thirty five thousand...

    5. Re:Hope by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that makes enough sense. I'd mod you interesting or insightful if I hadn't already commented. It may be basic thought, but it escaped me after two days without sleep and far too much alcohol.

      --
      01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
    6. Re:Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging by your post and replies to others, it is safe to say you are an idiot. Please stop.

  7. Not surprising by dmf415 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At my university, we have to run snort at the head end of the network in order to control the havoc these compromised machines create. We also monitor the number of simultaneous connections each machine creates and block the ones at the very top.

    1. Re:Not surprising by gordyf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you find that blocking machines with lots of simultaneous connections causes problems with bittorrent clients? (Or is that an intended side effect? :) )

    2. Re:Not surprising by dmf415 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do you find that blocking machines with lots of simultaneous connections causes problems with bittorrent clients? (Or is that an intended side effect? :) )

      No, I think most legitimate traffic is under 5000 simultaneous connections =). When we see a machine with 10,000 , 20,000 , 30,000 (which has been detected). We know there's a problem =)

    3. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have to run snort at the head end of the network in order to control the havoc these compromised machines create.

      forgive me for asking, but i thought Snort was just an intrustion detection system, as i understand it all it does is detect and log intrusions not actually stop them like a firewall does, can i replace my servers firewall with a copy of Snort ?

      --Ajs

    4. Re:Not surprising by dmf415 · · Score: 2, Informative

      forgive me for asking, but i thought Snort was just an intrustion detection system, as i understand it all it does is detect and log intrusions not actually stop them like a firewall does, can i replace my servers firewall with a copy of Snort ?

      One of our student programmers wrote some code that lists the IPs snort detects based on its level of severity. He also wrote another page that uses commands on our packetshaper to determine which IPs are creating the most connections, and automatically blocks them at a 5 minute interval.

    5. Re:Not surprising by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Belgium! I wasn't sure that WinXP could open that many sockets.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    6. Re:Not surprising by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not an expert or anything, but it seems to me that the zombies, need to report their presence to the controller, and that usualy done through an IRC channel. If you find the IRC's with the most connections, and block it or even better spoof-it to a tarpit and nobody complains about not being able to connect to their favorite IRC you'd be pretty safe. Of course a lot of people might complain that their 'puters lock-up as soon as they log in.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure SP2 can't. Maybe SP1.

  8. i use a mac by seann · · Score: 0, Troll

    MAc!

    We're not zombies.

    --
    I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    1. Re:i use a mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha you got modded down for your Mac zealotry.

    2. Re:i use a mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was almost certain that they shipped as zombie boxes. What else can you use them for?

    3. Re:i use a mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Apple died back in the mid to late 1990's (gawd, those were terrible machines) - and all the current Apple machines really are zombies!

  9. bah by ltwally · · Score: 3, Funny
    bah, i run unsecured windows xp and i'm saf..FJEIOJFJIJS

    *Connection Terminated Unexpectedly*

    --



    /dev/random
  10. Imagine... by RedMage · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... a Beowulf Cluster of... oh wait...

    (Hmm, can zombies be clustered? We all know from Night of the Living Dead that they DO cluster. Quite well, in fact...)

    --
    }#q NO CARRIER
    1. Re:Imagine... by Jicksta · · Score: 1

      ...can zombies be clustered?

      Clustered using a Win32 worm? No.

      A botnet node, however, could easily be manipulated to handle distributed computing such as Folding@Home, SETI@Home, or, with Java, Remote Method Invocation (RMI).

      A 50k node botnet with each zombie contributing to, say, cracking an encryption could be invaluable to hackers and a multi-billion corporation's worst nightmare.

  11. That's it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In all honesty, that's it? I somehow expected more.

  12. Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Just remember that it is also the responsibility of the computer users to patch their systems in a timely manner as soon as they are available.

    If Linux had the the type of marketshare like Microsoft, there would still be plenty of zombie PCs to go around with unpatched systems.

    Just putting an end to the mindless MS bashfest that inevitably arises with stories like these.

    1. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by bob670 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "If Linux had the the type of marketshare like Microsoft, there would still be plenty of zombie PCs to go around with unpatched systems."

      Thank you, I could not have said it better myself. I use Linux everyday, and in all honesty I patch my Linux box more than I patch my Windows XP box. Sure, the Linux box is frequently getting simple app upgrades/patches, but there are a good number of security fixes in those patches as well. An admin I work with left his Red Hat box unpatched and for a year and it got nailed twice, just do the math. Linux might be more secure, but it is only as secure as the person who administrates the box.

    2. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by brxndxn · · Score: 4, Funny

      But it IS Microsoft's fucking fault! Microsoft has ultimate control over almost every users' system... and almost ever users' system eventually gets compromised.

      Microsoft's browser that gives developers every last inch of control over a user's PC is what inevitably led to developers just completely taking over users' PCs. Microsoft insists on certain features in Internet Explorer that make it a pain for even the smartest PC users to control what they see.

      Here's some problems with IE:
      - no real ability to disable popups (Completely disallowing all forms of popups is more secure and convenient for the USER. Fuck developers.)
      - Install on demand (What a fucking trainwreck feature this is. Developer puts the 'yes' button behind the 'close' button nested 8 popups under the first one. User gets frustrated and clicks 7 close buttons and 1 button marked 'fuck me in the ass please')
      - Patch-and-fix attitude.. It's somehow not Microsoft's fault if they allow 'get into my PC free' for two months if they eventually release a patch for it?

      Here's how you fix Internet Explorer:

      - get rid of 'install on demand' (Make it so users have to actively download and install what they want installed. This whole 'make things easier for flash to install itself and bombard you with ads' is stupid.
      - SUE MICROSOFT. That's right. Consumer class-action large-scale - the type of lawsuit that puts them in the red for a quarter. How many billions has this cost Joe Consumer?

      "Just remember that it is also the responsibility of the computer users to patch their systems in a timely manner as soon as they are available."

      What if my computer is already fucked up, assface?

      Ya, I'm pissed. I'm not an idiot computer user - I spend 8 hours a day on a computer. Yet, while typing this, I got a goddamn a.tribalfusion.bullshit popunder sitting there on my taskbar... and this is while I'm running a proxy filter, run Spybot, run Ad Aware.. And, if I'm having problems like this, Joe Consumer is getting raped.

      Ya, you can call me stupid and say I browse the Internet wrong or whatever shit like that. But, this shit never happened back when Netscape was the dominant browser and it did not allow the developer to ad 'features' that work much like a virus.

      These zombie PCs ARE by and large Microsoft's fault. Microsoft needs to implement features with the idea that developers will EXPLOIT at every turn possible for money and they need to focus on the consumer, for once. You can't tell me that Microsot doesn't know that Joe Consumer does not want 8 popups while browsing Slashdot.org.

      BTW, if anyone has an easy, one-click fix for all the problems I have browsing (that is made by Microsoft, built-in to Internet Explorer), I will print out this post and EAT IT.

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
    3. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "Just remember that it is also the responsibility of the computer users to patch their systems in a timely manner..."

      This is true, but I'd like to go one step even further. Is there software out there to check if your PC has been co-opted, like what honeynet has but for regular users (just an integrity check)? I have a server with a firewall, then a router with a firewall, then ZoneAlarm software firewall on my main home PC. I expect this should be safe, but I know I've gotten spyware and adware on it (from downloaded programs), so even removing that how is one to know if there's an exploit through one of the legitimate I/O routes (web browser, P2P, IM, etc.).

    4. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by Alaerus · · Score: 1
      "Linux might be more secure, but it is only as secure as the person who administrates the box."
      I can't agree with you more. Alot of problems stem from the person in control of the system, either the home user or the system admin of a large domain. What it comes down to, IMHO, is that people need to take responsibility for their computers. Many home users try to hide behind the "I don't know anything about computer security" mask, but the information on how to be protected is on the same internet that they play games on all day long.
    5. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      We had same issue. We forgot about one of our linux boxes that was on the public network, and someone exploited sshd and rooted the box. Admins were only actively patching the nt boxes and complaining how secure unix systems were. It was quite ironic.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    6. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why does everyone insist that firewalls are secure? There are so many ways to bypass them it is not even funny, and I am not only talking about NAT but SPI also. Ultimately it is like a strainer. Blocks some but not all. Really more of a traffic cop. Everyone has allowed open ports, and I can run scripts to pull down what I can not push up. Why bang on locked windows and doors, when I can stroll in through the front main entrance? People have very hard time managing internet logs too, even if they do discover they've been compromised. Sheesh!

    7. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "SUE MICROSOFT"

      You can't sue Microsoft... you did not buy their product, you bought a license to use their product. Dig up some more info on this, and the difference will become evident.

    8. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by spamfiltertest · · Score: 1

      best.post.ever.

    9. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by bani · · Score: 1

      By extension of your argument, Linus is responsible for every compromised linux box. Because when you get down to it, the kernel is the absolute control of every Linux PC. The kernel in theory could stop every attack (though such a kernel would not likely be very usable). The fact it doesn't means it's Linus' fault -- not the end user's (using your arguments).

      Suing Linus would surely result in a better kernel, wouldn't it?

    10. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by bob670 · · Score: 1

      True enough, I even see Windows security reports on my local newscast now, the information is becoming hard to avoid. I'm not sure if it's apathy or just pure laziness, but some of these people would have issues no matter what OS they ran.

    11. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by cacepi · · Score: 1
      By extension of your argument, Linus is responsible for every compromised linux box. Because when you get down to it, the kernel is the absolute control of every Linux PC. The kernel in theory could stop every attack (though such a kernel would not likely be very usable). The fact it doesn't means it's Linus' fault -- not the end user's (using your arguments).

      No, that's wrong. He's blaming the _company_ who's selling the product, not those who made it (i.e. the kernel hackers). In Microsoft's case, it's one in the same, but that can't be said for Linux: there is no "Torvalds" distro. Linus is no more responsible for the Open Port Party that RedHat used to be any more than a Windows kernel hacker (if there is such a thing) could be blamed for the Active X Happy Hour that Bill and Steve foisted on a suffering public.

    12. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by bani · · Score: 1

      Why isn't Linus responsible for privilege escalation exploits via kernel bugs? They're used quite often to get root shells.

    13. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by chad.koehler · · Score: 1

      The real question is why people think that multiple layers of firewalls make them more secure. It is confusing. If your first firewall blocks out all incoming traffic except port 80, and the NEXT firewall blocks out all incoming traffic except on port 80, what good does the second firewall do? Maybe it each firewall, adds another "REALLY" protected. 1 firewall. I'm REALLY protected from all ports but port 80. 2 firewalls. I'm REALLY REALLY protected from all ports but port 80. 3 firewalls. ...

    14. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by DeanMeister · · Score: 1

      "Microsoft has ultimate control over almost every users' system" That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you don't patch your machine your going to get hit, thats just the way it goes. You can't blame the phone company if someone prank calls you. Microsoft is doing the best they can. Just because you're a linux fanboy doesnt make them evil.

      --
      Society never gets more or less violent, the definition of violent just keeps changing.
    15. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because these aren't known about by anybody working on it (which may I remind you is everybody who wants to) beforehand and as soon as they are they're patched.

    16. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by HeliumHigh · · Score: 0

      Well prepare to eat it. www.knopper.net/knoppix/ Just download, burn, insert, restart. Voila, no more crap. Evar.

    17. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by swillden · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is doing the best they can.

      I really, really hope you're wrong.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:Before Everybody Blames Microsoft by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      "The real question is why people think that multiple layers of firewalls make them more secure. It is confusing."

      But see, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. How is anybody supposed to know if they are secure? I'm a pretty smart guy and I'd say intermediate knowledge on networking and security, but I haven't got a clue how to check if my PC has been breached. Obviously ZoneAlarm reports unexpected incoming and outgoing traffic, but a number of programs need to pass through, like web browsers and P2P.

      So I'll ask the question again. Is there any software out there to check if a PC has been breached? Obviously the honeynet project has some of their own, but what about the rest of us? Do I have to become an expert and write my own code? (If the answer is yes, we're doomed.)

      Oh, as a side note, the 2 firewalls has nothing to do with being more secure. Both the server and router come with firewalls. The server is necessary because it serves our webpages and email and the router is necessary to attach more than one PC.

  13. Back when Windows was just a hole in the wall by Kimos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remmeber when viruses would just "format C:"? When you were infected, you knew it cause your HD was blank. Now the average user can't tell when they have a problem or not...

    1. Re:Back when Windows was just a hole in the wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Now the average user can't tell when they have a problem or not...

      Yeah, it's hard to determine if their shiny new PC is getting slower because of Windows' normal cruft buildup, or because it's been pwned and is pumping out spam/participating in DDoS attacks/hosting phishing websites.

    2. Re:Back when Windows was just a hole in the wall by CrazyWingman · · Score: 1

      Actually, I remember when viruses used to do crazy things like actually overheat your processor by playing with the processor throttling. Then you were left with not only potentially corrupted data, but also broken hardware. At least we haven't seen any of those in a while.

    3. Re:Back when Windows was just a hole in the wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember viruses that opened and closed your optical drive.

    4. Re:Back when Windows was just a hole in the wall by JoshRosenbaum · · Score: 1

      I remember when viruses walked up monsterous hills trudging through 6 feet of snow while braving a blizzard just to burn up your motherboard! These new viruses have it so easy these days! ;)

    5. Re:Back when Windows was just a hole in the wall by CrazyWingman · · Score: 1

      I'm so glad that other people consider AIM a virus too! :)

    6. Re:Back when Windows was just a hole in the wall by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're infected, your machine goes slower and sloower and slooooower, and it crashes, and !@#$

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    7. Re:Back when Windows was just a hole in the wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when viruses would kill millions of people just for a laugh!

    8. Re:Back when Windows was just a hole in the wall by rawg · · Score: 2

      What we need is to send commands to these networks to erase themselves. That should wake up some people. I know that these zombies can accept commands. Should be easy to send the command "format c:", shouldn't it? Please, someone do this!

      --
      The above is not worth reading.
    9. Re:Back when Windows was just a hole in the wall by Becquerel · · Score: 1

      Which is of course the way real viruses work as well. Not many real viruses kill you straight out, as you don't have time to pass it on. Wheras something like HIV is much more akin to the latest computer virses

      --
      My spelling isn't bad, I'm evolving the language
    10. Re:Back when Windows was just a hole in the wall by rawg · · Score: 1

      HAHAHAH...

      Just think of the media coverage this would create! 1 million PC's were erased on April 1st - Story at 6:00!

      --
      The above is not worth reading.
  14. DUPE DUPE DUPE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Allready posted on Slashdot on Tuesday.
    It's the Honeynet-Project again.

  15. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by maotx · · Score: 4, Informative

    and at least notifiy the owners of these machines?

    Something like that already exists.
    Feel free to contact any of the infected and cross them out.

    --
    I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
  16. well at least we're smarter than that [SPAM] by peculiarmethod · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know one thing: There's no way in hell they're ever gonna get passed my *ENLARGE YOUR PENIS* super leet windows 2003 install modded to look like xp *HELP RETRIEVE MY MILLIONS*. I even use IE7 beta, but I'm not scared cause I run McAfee *BUY SLIGHTLY USED PORN AT ROCK BOTTOM PRICES* firewall to protect my cable modem network. Let's see 'em try to get into THIS network! HA!

    --
    ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    1. Re:well at least we're smarter than that [SPAM] by SmokeHalo · · Score: 1

      *BUY SLIGHTLY USED PORN AT ROCK BOTTOM PRICES*

      Depends what they mean by 'slightly used'. It's not all sticky, is it?

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
  17. Why not ISPs by winkydink · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Better yet, why don't ISPs disconnect them until they can demonstrate they've been cleaned up?

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Why not ISPs by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea, they had the ability to disconnect me until I cleaned up some p2p software I had running. I'd say this is much more important than a few TV episodes.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:Why not ISPs by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That would be a start. However, just because they 'cleaned up' won't prevent them from becoming a zombie again.

      The ISP needs to force the user to at minimum to install a software firewall.

      If the user has a windows box directly connected to the Internet and they don't have a software firewall, they should not be allowed to connect.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    3. Re:Why not ISPs by winkydink · · Score: 1

      I'm sure one could automate the entire process so that if they got reinfected, they'd get disconnected again. If it happens to somebody a couple of times, I'd expect they'd get the message about a firewall right quick.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    4. Re:Why not ISPs by eaolson · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Better yet, why don't ISPs disconnect them until they can demonstrate they've been cleaned up?

      Because it is not in the ISP's best (i.e. financial) interests to do so. Finding these machines, teaching users how to clean them up, and then reactivating their access would require a great deal of manpower and money. Since not doing it is consequence-free, there is no incentive to do it. It's like dealing with hazardous waste; it's difficult and expensive. Without some outside force compelling companies to dispose of it appropriately, they would deal with it the cheapest and easiest way possible. That is, dumping it on the rest of us, like these ISPs do.

    5. Re:Why not ISPs by Politburo · · Score: 1

      You're right about them getting a message. That message would be "Time to find a new ISP."

    6. Re:Why not ISPs by FriedTurkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually they do. My parents computer got disconnected from Roadrunner for being a spam bot. Spending next weekend cleaning it up. Argh.

    7. Re:Why not ISPs by winkydink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless, of course, many ISPs start doing it. Then what happens is those that don't start finding that they're not allowed to peer with those that do, etc...

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    8. Re:Why not ISPs by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      So, TCPA is the way to go then?

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    9. Re:Why not ISPs by Humorously_Inept · · Score: 1

      Shaw in Canada temporarily disconnects customers whose computers are operating as bots.

      --

      ~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
    10. Re:Why not ISPs by BitwiseX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They won't clean up, they will go to an ISP that doesn't care. I run a small ISP, I've called customers and informed them of these issues... nothing happens... threaten to cut them off... nothing happens... cut them off... they call angry say "Fine! Don't bother!" and a customer is lost. A customer lost, is a customer lost. Police != Profit unfortunately, and it's a fine line to walk.

    11. Re:Why not ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the packets emanating from my machines are exactly the ones I want. I don't want some random ISP detection system to disconnect me just because my net usage isn't typical of the average browse-and-email Joe.

    12. Re:Why not ISPs by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Then what happens is those that don't start finding that they're not allowed to peer with those that do, etc...

      You mean they destroy the concept of the internet? Great idea.

    13. Re:Why not ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be very temporary. I've get 25 attempts originating from shawcable.net in my logs. I block the whole IP range. Shaw is almost as bad as Brazil.

    14. Re:Why not ISPs by destiny71 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Believe me, this is not the answer.

      I work for my ISP as helpdesk/tech support. I get calls all the time, 'Yeah, I got this pop-up from Norton says that Internet Explorer is trying to access the internet, what should I do?'

      If these PCs became zombies, than the users that operate them would have no clue how to operate a software firewall. Instead, they need AV software, and some computer training, and possibly a hardware firewall.

      Easiest to implement would be a DSL/Cable modem and firewall combo that the ISP setup and configures. They can leave the documentation for the end user to configure ports and such if they can figure it out on their own, otherwise, it's full on blocking all incoming ports.

      I'm all for the computer equivilent of a drivers license before they are allowed to hook up their PC to the internet.

    15. Re:Why not ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a good idea. People and businesses that are irresponsible are not to be treated as equal partners in this world.

      Additionally, why should I allow some ISP to adopt a business model that puts their costs onto me? These types of fuckwit ISPs (uunet) need to start cutting down on the shit flowing out fo their networks or accept that they'll only be able to talk to each other.

    16. Re:Why not ISPs by budgenator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd just like to know why taskmanager says CPU utilization is over 50%, the hard disk is thrashing, and the network light is on constantly, but task manger only list 3 processes using 2%? Nothing shows up on virus scans, nothing shows up on spyware scans and half the time it quits as soon as I open taskmanager.
      At least in linux TOP shows you what process is sucking up the cycles, giving you a fighting chance. I'm not completely clueless, I've used windows since 3.11, cut my teeth on basic and dos batch scripts, installed Linux on a machine before win95 was released and still I know the wife's WinXP machine that's fully patched hardware and software firewalled is owned and can't find out how; what's Joe average going to do?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:Why not ISPs by Politburo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People and businesses that are irresponsible are not to be treated as equal partners in this world.

      While I agree with the sentiment, it doesn't practically work when applied to the Internet. There are a few reasons. One is the legal reason. ISPs are common carriers and if they start monitoring their traffic and nicking people for being zombies, they could be held responsible if they miss some zombies and those zombies cause damage (yes, I realize this is inane, but it's how lawyers and the law think). The other is that I believe ISP level blocking would significantly harm the internet. Just like blackholing all of China's email traps legitimate messages, blocking whole ISPs would trap legitimate connections. In some areas, a wide choice of ISPs is not available, and legitimate users would have to jump over hurdles just to get onto the internet.

      Additionally, why should I allow some ISP to adopt a business model that puts their costs onto me?

      Do you think ISP prices would go DOWN if they started going after zombie boxes? If anything, they would go up, since tracking down and dealing with the problems would require more resources, more people, more time. As I said in another post, the ISPs have decided that it's cheaper to buy more bandwidth.

      Also, you're a user of a service. The business model already puts their costs onto you. I hope you already knew this.

    18. Re:Why not ISPs by swv3752 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Windows XP firewall is pretty seamless. It is on and just sits there unlike NIS or ZoneAlarm.

      But for Cable/DSL the easier answer is just put in a NAT box. I mean a simple router goes for $10. If the ISPs hadn't tried to gouge everyone for hooking up two computers to one line, this probaly wouldn't be an issue now.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    19. Re:Why not ISPs by swv3752 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So the answer is to start suing the ISPs and the customers. If it is more profitable to just sit back and do nothing, then we need to take away that profit incentive.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    20. Re:Why not ISPs by airjrdn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, until you realize that most of the installers can't do the install without the ISP CD. I've seen multiple installers from two large ISP's with that deficiency. One even asked me to show him how to do it. However, if they simply had .bin "backups" of popular routers one could download and use that might be a start.

    21. Re:Why not ISPs by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Because it is not in the ISP's best (i.e. financial) interests to do so. Finding these machines, teaching users how to clean them up, and then reactivating their access would require a great deal of manpower and money. Since not doing it is consequence-free, there is no incentive to do it.

      I don't think it's that bad:

      1. Draft a standard letter / web page explaining why you're disconnecting a customer and how they can get re-connected.
      2. Port scan.
      3. Disconnect.
      4. Get kickbacks from local computer repair shop.
      5. Profit!
      which beats the heck out of
      1. Ignore the situation.
      2. Pay $BIGNUM for the bandwidth you're using to broadcast your customers' computers' spam.
      3. Lose legitimate customers who get tired of their outbound mail bouncing because your netblock is listed in every blackhole list on the planet.
      4. Loss!
      Either way, you will spend some money on the problem, either by proactively fixing it or by paying to repair the damages. Your call.
      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    22. Re:Why not ISPs by winkydink · · Score: 1

      What, do you think everybody openly peers with everybody now? If so, you are sadly mistaken about how the Internet really works.

      Peer pressure is a wonderful thing.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    23. Re:Why not ISPs by Politburo · · Score: 1

      No, being a former IRC administrator I am well aware that there are limitations. Most users, though, are completely unaware of these limits because they are narrow in scope (China's firewall notwithstanding..). If this starts to change, people will find other ISPs.

      Another problem with your proposal is that it must be accepted and implemented by a significant number of large ISPs. Otherwise, the peer pressure will never be there.

    24. Re:Why not ISPs by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Which is one of the end goals of TCPA (as I understand it).

      A better method might be:
      Redirect them all to a webpage full of info and tools to clean up and stay clean (and INFORMATION, not just do this, do that). Allow all traffic not going to port 80 (or the https port, brain cramp) through.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    25. Re:Why not ISPs by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree, especially about suing the customers. If they can sue customers for using P2P applications, they can certainly sue customers for running malicious programs on their computers, knowingly (they've been informed), and performing illegal actions with them.

      Harsh times call for harsh measures.

    26. Re:Why not ISPs by karnal · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are programs out there (freeware) that can list every process running on the box etc. Some will even show you what filename launched the process etc... much better than task mangler.

      Also, if you're privvy, before you clean the box up you should download ethereal and see what kind of traffic it is passing. Of course, you need to have a little bit of networking understanding, but it's not hard to look at and see all of the source/destinations that packets are traversing.

      In addition, I've found that MS Anti-spyware beta (google microsoft antispyware) works like a champ when it comes to getting rid of those last few things that Spybot and Adaware will not clean up....

      --
      Karnal
    27. Re:Why not ISPs by rcamera · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      you see only 3 processes running in windows?impressive considering you will always have a 'system idle process', 'system', 'explorer.exe', and a few 'svchost.exe' - not to mention the fact that 'taskmgr.exe' has to be running in order to see any of this. would you like me to explain the difference between the 'applications' and 'processes' tabs?

      i would argue that you are completely clueless based on your statement.

      --
      Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
    28. Re:Why not ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      go to MS and download quickslice

    29. Re:Why not ISPs by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      What about simply blocking most of the outgoing ports for those people? Just asking.

    30. Re:Why not ISPs by tritonic · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'd just like to know why taskmanager says CPU utilization is over 50%, the hard disk is thrashing, and the network light is on constantly, but task manger only list 3 processes using 2%?
      I actually noticed this about half an hour ago on my windows 2000 machine. I disabled automatic update - problem solved! I don't know why the CPU usage wouldn't show up in task manager, though. Windows grr...
    31. Re:Why not ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I have seen one case of this when I worked at a Best Buy. A gentleman had walked in with his commputer and told me that his ISP unplugged his connection because he was apparently spamming their network with adware/spyware and they wouldn't reconnect him unless he cleaned up his system. His computer of course was "heavily infected" and I had to reinstall windows on his machine because there was no use in continuing to remove the crap. I too had thought it wasn't in an ISP's best interest to disconnect people, but I suppose in this case it was better to disconnect him than to have bandwith issues on their network.

      I just wonder how often cases like this happen?

      -reed

    32. Re:Why not ISPs by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      "...and still I know the wife's WinXP machine that's fully patched hardware and software firewalled is owned and can't find out how..."

      Yeah, my father's computer is like this, too. No software I've found will tell me why the drive is constantly spinning, etc...so it's either a very insidious infection, or WinXP has serious issues.

    33. Re:Why not ISPs by budgenator · · Score: 1

      let me clearify,
      3 processes using 2% cpu resources each (one is taskmanager),
      20 using 0% cpu resources each( 1*20 + 6 = 26%),
      Total cpu utilitation bouncing between 50-80%
      50-26 = a shit pile of cpu cycles unaccounted for.

      Actualy I'd welcome knowing the difference between an application and a process in a windows context, my view point is Linux orientated and very probably wrong in windows.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    34. Re:Why not ISPs by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      You almost certainly have a virus or bot that's either installed a rootkit and is therefore hiding from process listers, or is hacking the task manager view to hide itself. I would run a rootkit scan, or use an alternative process listing tool.

    35. Re:Why not ISPs by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Because that would mean that they would stop receiving these people's monthly subscription fee.

      The reason why they disconnect P2P users is so that they won't be sued. If you could get a court to say that they are neglegent and can be held liable for damaged caused by zombie PCs connected to their network, then they would have a reason to act.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    36. Re:Why not ISPs by budgenator · · Score: 1

      ethereal looks very interesting, I'll try that and maybe download something from complete process listing. MS Anti-spyware should be able to clean out anything I download from shareware sites. Thanks

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    37. Re:Why not ISPs by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      But if all the ISPs in their area cut them off, they'll have to get their act together and start behaving. Or maybe you'll luck out and all the zombies will end up on one ISP and you can ban the whole netblock.

      Letting people shit on your restaurant tables just because you're afraid to lose a customer is NOT good business.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    38. Re:Why not ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Try working with Hijackthis to identify "hidden" processes on Windows.

    39. Re:Why not ISPs by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I suspect its a bot or virus too, just from the way the machine acts when I bring up task manager, i open taskmanager and cpu utilization goes from 80 to 50 %, click the networking tab and the network light on the router goes from full on to flicker. Something is hiding, probably more than one something.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    40. Re:Why not ISPs by AlexCV · · Score: 1

      Because there are NT kernel rootkits that will hide processes from the task manager. The most well known being hacker defender.

      Reboot in safe mode and then check out the registry for what processes get autorunned and investigate all of them. Including checking for any hidden files.

      You'll probably find that you run a warez ftp or spam bot or something.

      There are also so-called "raw mode" registry viewers that will find the registry keys that are not visible to regedit and but that still exists. This translates directly to kernel rootkits....

    41. Re:Why not ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi Davejay - I've been tripped up by something like this before. Check out the Indexing Service in XP - it has a strange propensity to switch on and stay on, at the oddest times.

      Failing that - reinstall ;-)

    42. Re:Why not ISPs by rideaurocks · · Score: 1

      I do tech support for Road Runner. They can disconnect a computer that has been compromised and is sending out too many emails, has viruses, etc. This is a pilot project, in California only, but will be expanded to the whole USofA eventually. Probably.

    43. Re:Why not ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do numbnuts, do some reasearch before you post, dolt. Hang out on nanogs mailing list for awhile, maybe some clue will rub-off on you.

    44. Re:Why not ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But blocking access to your restaurant just because some random kid put a toy in your customer pocket without his knowledge is NOT good business.

    45. Re:Why not ISPs by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I'm also an employee for TWC that does RR, Cable, and digital phone support. As an employee, you should know that all devisions of TWC are a franchise. Thus, policies in Cali do not transfer over to Austin, TX and vise versa.

      We also have a dedicated abuse department that will disable the modem remotely if there is a large amount of port scanning and viri comming from the modem. So when a customer calls in wondering why their connection is disabled, I have to tell them the bad news and what is needed to be done in order for us to reenabled the modem.

      Note: Unprotected WiFi routers in an appartment complex make up the bulk of repeat offenders. The customers PC may not be at fault, but a neighbor with an infected PC leeching of their connection is. None the less, it's up to the customer secure their own network and all traffic going OUT of the modem.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    46. Re:Why not ISPs by winkydink · · Score: 1

      The largest ISPs have the most to gain from this in the form of reclaimed bandwidth.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    47. Re:Why not ISPs by daVinci1980 · · Score: 1

      Try IARSN TaskInfo for a process list program. It's really good, and shareware ($35). I believe it used to be freeware, you might try older versions as well.

      I actually used to use that program from time to time at work to try to debug runaway processes. Very nifty.

      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
    48. Re:Why not ISPs by FriedTurkey · · Score: 1

      Actually my parents are in Texas.

    49. Re:Why not ISPs by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      Make sure that there aren't 20 print jobs qued up on the "Microsoft Image Printer" or whatever their virtual printer is called.
      That'll hose you down.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    50. Re:Why not ISPs by BunnyClaws · · Score: 0

      Road Runner does shut off customers who are infected with malicious software that floods the network. My company has a large amount of sales reps who VPN into our company network on a daily basis. It is very common for the sales people to call in explaining they are unable to VPN in due to their broad band being shut off by their ISP because of the system being infected with a virus.

      --
      "Anything tastes good if you deep fry it."
    51. Re:Why not ISPs by toddestan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Once a computer becomes a zombie, just disable all traffic to that computer except port 80. 99% of the clueless types who let their computers become zombies would never notice, and then they can continue to live in their ignorant bliss. Problem solved.

      The few who would notice are more likely be the more savvy ones who might be able to keep their computer clean next time - so once they disinfect their machine you could let them back on. Problem solved.

    52. Re:Why not ISPs by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      ... I had to reinstall windows on his machine ...

      Caring about repeat business, eh?

    53. Re:Why not ISPs by atcurtis · · Score: 1


      It is much easier to put bandwidth limitation on their connection.... and just keep tweeking it downwards until they notice.

      Then when they complain that their web-browsing is slow, you can blame the trojan/spyware/zombie-net software which is on their computer.

      --
      -- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
      -- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
  18. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No sane person should connect a critical piece of computer infrastructure, such as any computer dealing with the management of the electrical grid, to the internet.

    Better thing would be to require by law that none can be connected instead.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  19. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sales of silver cd-roms have gone up with the possibility of were-machines. Pitchfork and torch sales are also at their highest since the zombie scare in 1998.

  20. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by flumps · · Score: 5, Informative

    From honeypot FAQ:

    8. Do you prosecute the people that compromise systems within the Honeynet? No. The prime directive of the Honeynet Project is research and to share those lessons learn. It is not our goal to catch and prosecure blackhats. We do forward information about compromised systems to CERT so CERT can notify admins of compromised systems. We limit our contact with authorities only when the Project feels there is a critical need. If we were to become involved in a major legal case everytime a system was compromised, we would not have time for research, let alone our real jobs.

    read more about honeypot here. It seems they probably could, but are not going to.

    --
    "So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
  21. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by MatthewNewberg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Governments?, What about ISPs? They are the ones having to pay for the added bandwitdh on both sides. I'm surprised most ISPs dont run IDS that can detect Zoombie Networks and automatically send emails to its infected customers. This will not only pay for itself by reducing bandwidth, but also make the customers more happy.

  22. is mine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i never shut my PC off, leaving it running for hours on end. the monitor would go to sleep, but every now and then id wake up at early hours in the morning and it would be waking itself up. i figured this was because someone was remotely using my processor, which doesnt bother me much, because i wasnt using it anyway at that hour.
    besides, that piece of shit off was just holding me over until i got my mac.

  23. My parents' home PC is definitely one of them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, haven't been able to clean up their system in a while. I'm pretty tired of the "tech support" calls from them too..."why is the computer running so sloooooooow?" "why do we get these 'poop-ups' (as my father so lovingly calls them)?!?" "what do these warnings about 'your computer may be infected click here' mean?"

    GAAAAAH!!!

  24. Actively Scanning by forum__32 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So if 1 million machines are actively scanning for other machines with 200 threads. With ipv4 there should be 4211604225 theoretical public ips. If they were scanning with 200 threads/sec, they could cover the entire ipv4 address space in 21secs. Granted, I know not all 1 million are scanning, and I prolly screwed up in my ip calculations, but this still an astronomical number.

    1. Re:Actively Scanning by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      SP2 for xp throttles the number outgoing connections because of that reason. Limits you to a low number of "connecting" tcp connections. If you try to go above the limit, an error is raised and connection request is NOT queued.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    2. Re:Actively Scanning by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But face it, that sucks so badly that everyone just increases the max with that program that's going round (no I can't be bothered to Google it, I don't even use windows any more :-).

      P2P users all do it, why can't a worm/botnet client do it?

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    3. Re:Actively Scanning by real_smiff · · Score: 1

      because they're not running as Admin, normally, when they're not changing system settings.. no wait, they are.
      /me cries.
      THIS is funamentaly what MS needs to fix. but no, that would make the computer 'too hard to use'. argh. please find a way, i'm driving people crazy telling them not to run as admin.

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  25. fix them by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now that the machines are known, their IPs are compiled into a list, what stops a good samaritan from setting up a script to patch them up?

    It is probably quite complicated, technically speaking, because these machines now have to be scanned for every possible trojan, logger, virus in existance, but it's not impossible. Can an antivirus company, say, get a grant from a government to run a job like that?

    1. Re:fix them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that the machines are known, their IPs are compiled into a list, what stops a good samaritan from setting up a script to patch them up?

      Because in the eyes of the law, as fucked up as it is, a hypothetical 'good samaritan' has as much right to access those machines as the asshat who zombied them-- zero. Only difference is, the good samaritan likely wouldn't go to great lengths to cover his tracks since he was doing a good deed, so he'd be caught, painted as an 'evil hacker' and prosecuted.

    2. Re:fix them by SmokeHalo · · Score: 1

      Can an antivirus company, say, get a grant from a government to run a job like that?

      The U.S. government? Not likely.

      Tell ya what sounds interesting, though...a class-action suit that forces Microsoft to pony up the cash for the cleansing.

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
    3. Re:fix them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're talking something like a white worm here (conceptually)? i.e. hacking the compromised machines in order to cleanse them?

      There are many reasons why this is generally considered a bad idea, most notably that a poorly written "patch script" will foul things up even worse.

      But taking that aside, the notion of a patch script implies access to a list of the IP's. And if we give any prospective samaratin access to that list, we're also giving access to people who think it would be kewl to take over those zombies themselves and do all kinds of mischief.

      Putting a list of 1,000,000 zombies into the public idea is a Very Bad Idea. Note the capitalization.

    4. Re:fix them by chad.koehler · · Score: 1

      What's the incentive for the anti-virus company? There in the business of keeping you just well enough to still need them...

    5. Re:fix them by ticktockticktock · · Score: 1
      It is probably quite complicated, technically speaking, because these machines now have to be scanned for every possible trojan, logger, virus in existance, but it's not impossible. Can an antivirus company, say, get a grant from a government to run a job like that?
      This "script" would have to do a remote reformat and reinstall of windows + install all its patches + download and install the required drivers for the machine + install all the programs the computer's owner/user used again. It is hard enough doing that on identical machines on a local network, but across the internet on machines whose hardware you aren't sure of and you have no clue what software the user uses or the software in question isn't available to you to easily slipstream...good luck.
    6. Re:fix them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point, just like the modern Pharmaceutical companies... when was the last time you saw a commercial for a *cure* instead of a very expensive, ongoing treatment?

      Granted, cures are often harder than treatments, but with the R&D money they spend, you'd think at least something would be cured once every few years... (yeah yeah, tin foil stuff maybe but maybe not)

  26. Bullshit by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One machine can be infected by multiple trojans.
    One machine can reconnect to the same botnet multiple times as the person reboots to try and clear the problem.
    One machine gets multiple IP addresses every time her reboots.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One machine to rule them all, and in the darkness spam you!

    2. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, another pointless post by a gaylord.

    3. Re:Bullshit by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of a story a while back, that said those bazillion spams didn't come from a bazillion spammers, but rather from only five major players.

      Also, home machines are typically either entirely clean, or infected with multiple trojans (each of which has its own home server to report to).

      So it may well be a few tens of thousands of machines totalling millions of hits.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  27. Shoot 'em in the CPU! Then, burn 'em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then buy a Mac and never worry about getting owned by some Eastern European punk kid again.

    1. Re:Shoot 'em in the CPU! Then, burn 'em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just install Linux on the perfectly good hardware you already own.

  28. I was wondering... by justforaday · · Score: 5, Funny

    This explains why my startup sound suddenly changed into a groaning voice saying "Braiinnnnnssss..."

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  29. not entirely user behavior... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 5, Interesting
    from TFA:

    Getting the machines hijacked was worryingly easy. The longest time a Honeynet machine survived without being found by an automatic attack tool was only a few minutes. The shortest compromise time was only a few seconds.


    It's sad, but it seems the only way to mitigate this is to hold the OS vendor responisble for insecure code. Similar to cars, we hold the driver responsible if they ( say ) drive drunk, but the manufactorer responsible if while driving the wheels come off.
    1. Re:not entirely user behavior... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      Similar to cars, we hold the driver responsible if they ( say ) drive drunk, but the manufactorer responsible if while driving the wheels come off.

      Who's responsible if someone crashes into you, and you don't have your seatbelt on?
      The manufacturer? "They shoulda protected me!"

      Or should you, the user/driver, take reasonable measures to protect yourself in the event of a crash caused by a 3rd party.

    2. Re:not entirely user behavior... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sad, but it seems the only way to mitigate this is to hold the OS vendor responisble for insecure code.

      Or the user responsible if they get pwned through a vulnerability that was fixed months ago?

    3. Re:not entirely user behavior... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely! Same thing with builders: we sue the pants off any contractor that builds a house with ground-level windows that are unbarred... oh wait.

    4. Re:not entirely user behavior... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Show me where in the documentation for a new PC it goes into firewalls, etc. I can show you in the owner's manual for my car where the seatbelts are explained.

    5. Re:not entirely user behavior... by carou · · Score: 1

      we hold the driver responsible if they ( say ) drive drunk, but the manufactorer responsible if while driving the wheels come off.

      Isn't it the driver's responsibility to buy an third-party after-market "wheels don't come off" extras pack for several hundred dollars when they've just spent several thousand on a new car?

    6. Re:not entirely user behavior... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      WinXP SP2. The firewall is on by default, and if you turn it off, it yells at you unless you actively turn the notification off. Same with antivirus.

      They are begging you upfornt to have this stuff on. Ignore at your own risk.

    7. Re:not entirely user behavior... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      but the manufactorer responsible if while driving the wheels come off

      Speaking as someone whose wheel has fallen off while driving, I can say this is not true.

      Aside from anecdotes, since they suck, it's still not true. If the wheel came off due to a manufacturing defect, then yes, the manufacturer could be held responsible. However, if the wheel came off because you slammed into an NJ pothole at 90 mph, I have a feeling that you'd have a tough time getting the manufacturer to pay up.

    8. Re:not entirely user behavior... by LewsTherinKinslayer · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with the premise that people should be responsible for protecting themselves: however, SP2 is not in any way shape or form a complete solution, and I believe anyone who relies entirely on its firewall will be sorely surprised.

      Also, what about older copies of windows that do not have SP2? You need to install the updates from their site; which of course, means, being exposed to the internet for some time without their provided protection.

    9. Re:not entirely user behavior... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The manufacturer provides the seat belt and the airbags. The entire car had to pass multiple government tests to be certified to be sold. Your comparison is stupid.

    10. Re:not entirely user behavior... by Allison+Geode · · Score: 1

      SP2 and my video card's current drivers are incompatible. i can have one or the other, but if i have both, my screen becomes garbled. my best friend has the same problem that I do. whereas i have third party firewall (zonealarm, which is excellent) and antivirus (antivir, which is decent), and suffer without completely up to date windows, my friend suffers with out-of-date drivers and a glitchy-as-hell-anyway SP2 install. plus, you're completely ignoring the fact that, even on a broadband connection, it can take a while to download sp2, and honeynet has stated that it takes only a few minutes from going online before their computer is no longer secured... which means by the time you have downloaded sp2 and are ready to start installing it... your compy is already pwned.

    11. Re:not entirely user behavior... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if your car gets carjacked because the doors aren't locked, and the manufacturer doesn't even install car locks by default, even though it knows that there's a rampant problem with carjacking, then you might have a case.

    12. Re:not entirely user behavior... by bbuR_bbuB · · Score: 1

      Also, what about older copies of windows that do not have SP2?

      What about older cars that do not have seatbelts or seatbelt 'idiot' lights?

      Word to the wise: don't use automobile analogies, they will always drive you nuts ... no I mean they will lead you down the wrong track.. ahh!

    13. Re:not entirely user behavior... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're only hurting yourself if you don't wear a seatbelt. Zombie PCs hurt everyone. There's a big difference here.

      No one cared as much about malware back when viruses just reformatted your hard drive. If you used your computer responsibly, you didn't have to worry much about it, and could just laugh as other people got their HDs reformatted. Now, however, when thousands of PCs are infected, they affect the rest of us by sending us spam, initiating DOS attacks, sucking up bandwidth, etc. They affect more than just the fools whose boxes are owned.

    14. Re:not entirely user behavior... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you try a different firewall? Zonealarm used to do strange things to my PC.

    15. Re:not entirely user behavior... by ticktockticktock · · Score: 1
      Show me where in the documentation for a new PC it goes into firewalls

      Documentation? What documentation?

    16. Re:not entirely user behavior... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the entire car shatters like peanut brittle on impact? Would it really matter if you had your seatbelt on?

      What if the car, say, blows shrapnel into the cabin every time you turn the ignition? Is it the driver's responsibility to wear body armor?

      It's stupid to place the blame solely on the user for getting their machine hacked. Windows is simply too easy to compromise.

    17. Re:not entirely user behavior... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1


      Or should you, the user/driver, take reasonable measures to protect yourself in the event of a crash caused by a 3rd party.

      I understand your point, but I think we have different definitions of what "reasonable measures" constitute.

      If by "reasonable measures" you equate a firewall with a seatbelt, I can agree somewhat... so long as the firewall/seatbelt doesn't come with a big gaping hole in it.

      The user can not take "reasonable measures" if those measures are, by accident or design, broken. Even then, what we would call "reasonable measures" might be completely incomprehensible to the average user. A seatbelt people can understand... a firewall less so.

    18. Re:not entirely user behavior... by The_Mr_Flibble · · Score: 1

      Ah but do we not sue are claim damages off local goverment if a road is in disrepair and it damages our car ?

      By the same analgy as you use I would be able to hold the car mfg responsible for driving my car at 100mph on a road that is flooded and going spinning of into the infield. (yes I did this and no I didn't sue anyone).

      It was a combination of 3 stupid things the main one being the driver.

    19. Re:not entirely user behavior... by atcurtis · · Score: 1

      However, given that even the geeks here refuse to RTFA before they post, I'm not entirely sure how many people would read their PC's owner's manual.


      From my experience of dealing with end-users and new computers (about 15yrs)... Users fall into 2 categories. Those who think they know it and those who know that they don't.

      The latter group will religiously read the hardcopy manual... If provided. They would often read through most of the books provided before even switching the machine on for the first time. At one time, we would throw in a beginners book of some kind to these people knowing that it will be read. These users never caused any problems, so the cost of throwing in a free book was easily made by time saved supporting them.

      Nowadays, there are no hardcopy manuals. Everyone is thrown in at the deep end. Of course, the people who think that they know it all already are in no different a situation - after having read 1 or 2 computer magazines, they believe that they are set and will frequently mess up their PC - that won't deter them. However, the people who would read manuals (if they were provided with one) would struggle and muddle their way through, and like a drowning man who has managed to grasp onto a lifebelt, they would stick to a strict routine whenever they find a way which works. However, such a routine wouldn't typically include best security practices - because these people were never told!

      There should be a campaign to bring back the hardcopy manual... Paper is largely made from renewable forests nowadays and paper is fully biodegradable. Also, it would be nice to get something tangable for all that money you parted with, instead of a 50 CDROM/DVD in a cardboard sleave and a simple slip of paper which only contains legalese!
      --
      -- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
      -- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
  30. anything running Windows .... by xx_chris · · Score: 1

    is a zombie PC.

  31. With apologies to Dr Evil... by wootest · · Score: 1

    One MEEEELLEYON ZOMBIE PCs!

  32. What role for ISPs by Albanach · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There has to be a role here for ISPs. Often these machines are either spitting out spam or worms, yet abuse reports to ISPs can take days or weeks to receive any attention.

    Home PC users do not need to generate traffic on port 25 that's going anywhere other than their ISP's mailserver. ISP mailservers should use SMTP authentication. Of course these simple measures would mean support calls from users who need to reconfigure Outlook, and support calls cost money, so it'll never happen.

    Nonetheless, these companies are proffiting while user machines get hijacked. Someone needs to make a little bit of effort, 'cause for now spreading these nets wider is way too easy.

    1. Re:What role for ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is legal not technical problems that stop this.

      Once ISP start filtering and such they become responsible for what their network carries.

    2. Re:What role for ISPs by MatthewNewberg · · Score: 1

      There have already been Viruses that go out and use the Networks mail server by looking the address in outlook (most of the time you can just guess). They even go to the point where they get a username and password. Though blocking the port would help, it is not the final solution.

    3. Re:What role for ISPs by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I know there has to be a way for an ISP to nottice certain traffic and refuse a user access to the internet (only display a "you have been infected" page with a cleanup download).

      There is, and many ISPs do this (Cablevision aka Optimum Online, for one). However, they only do it for P2P traffic, since they are under threat of DMCA action from the RIAA. Until there is a financial incentive for ISPs to do something, they won't. So far, the ISPs have decided it's cheaper to buy more bandwidth than pay for the tech support and lost customers.

    4. Re:What role for ISPs by Troed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Home PC users do not need to generate traffic on port 25 that's going anywhere other than their ISP's mailserver.

      Yes we do. I like my own SMTP-server a lot better than my ISPs, and one of the reasons is that I can trust the SSL SMTP encryption when I know my endpoints. That's not possible when going through my ISPs SMTP-server.

    5. Re:What role for ISPs by cluedweasel · · Score: 1

      A few years ago I went to work for a new start-up ISP as Ops Manager. One of the actions I took was to assign someone to manage abuse reports and action them appropriately. Within a week, the "higher ups" put a stop to it as they considered it un-economical. They're out of business now.

    6. Re:What role for ISPs by deander2 · · Score: 1

      agreed. i hate how many people forget that it's useful to fun your own mail server. it's getting harder and harder to run your own these days - so many reject out of hand just because you're not a mega-isp.

      repeat after me: internet != web browser

    7. Re:What role for ISPs by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      My ISP, dslextreme, blocks port 25 by default. To have it unblocked, you fill out an online form -- and expose yourself to a port scan from them every so often, to make sure you're not an open relay.

      It's a good thing. :)

    8. Re:What role for ISPs by TetryonX · · Score: 1

      Arbitrarily blocking ports is not an answer. I personally prefer using nonstandard ports and having my hosting automatically redirect to my nonstandard ports. Your method is just how many ISPs responded to Code Red which by the way is annoying as hell and serves absolutely no purpose because my http server on a non-standard port receives the same bs attacks. Not to mention *** you do not have to use port 25 to send SMTP traffic *** rather its target is going to a known pop3/pop2 (yeah they are still around) or whatever email server which also may not be running on a standard port. Terms of services need to be enforced. Almost all ISPs reserve the right to terminate or suspend your account if it is doing mischeivous/malicious activities. Trojans and so forth spreading around can be considered this type of activity.

      --
      [!] No, I can't see my comments. They are not worthy of +3 moderation.
    9. Re:What role for ISPs by jasonjacks0n · · Score: 1
      Home PC users do not need to generate traffic on port 25 that's going anywhere other than their ISP's mailserver.

      Of course we do. I send email out on two separate work-related SMTP servers from my home connection, every day.

      While it would technically be possible for me to use my ISP's SMTP server for those accounts while connected from home, it would be a huge pain. I can't sent on my ISPs SMTP server except when connected from home, so I must use the office SMTP servers when connected from elsewhere than home .. if I had to only use my ISP's SMTP server from home, I'd have to change my email-account setup each time I booted up my laptop.

      OTOH, if it would help cut down on spam, I'd be willing to fill out some online form on my ISP's server that would allow me to list a set of SMTP servers I want to connect to. Such a procedure would prevent owned machines from spamming or acting as relays to arbitrary servers, but would let people like me do what we need, with fairly minimal hassle..

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
  33. Welcome to the internet age by FidelCatsro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now many will call me a Microsoft basher and i unashamedly am and with a dammed good reason. The insecurity of microsoft OSs does not just effect those who want to use (or dont know they have other options)windows, but it effects me and my peers.
    I know * linux ,HPUX,Solaris,OS X(maybe i should just include this in *BSD) and *BSD are not perfect and have some security issues , though nothing on this scale(my opinion ) , you can use the argument about if blah had blah monopoly then blah would be just as cracked (which i think is rubbish and doth not change the fact that it is only and if as it isnt so cant be proven) So as a user of the internet on my chosen Unix variants at home and at work I still have to suffer microsofts lackluster Network security through the set-up of botnets .
    Spam - DDOS and freinds continue to plauge our internet services.
    Fine blame the average user for not updating etc , the fact remains that a person who is skilled in other areas should not need to have the knowlidge level of a Tech or even System admin or developer just to be able to safely use a computer (Ease of use is a difrent kettle of fish)

    Sorry for the rant , but I am rather narked off at Spam nets

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    1. Re:Welcome to the internet age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, once more please, but could you break it up into two or more sentences?

    2. Re:Welcome to the internet age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are gay.

    3. Re:Welcome to the internet age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAH That is possibly the worst(as in ill thought out) troll ever , I have seen 4 year olds come up with better .

    4. Re:Welcome to the internet age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u r teh ghey

    5. Re:Welcome to the internet age by X_Bones · · Score: 1

      [unintelligible garbage]

      In English, with proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation please?

  34. Ethics be damned... by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Time for someone to write a worm that forces an update from Windows Update; downloads a copy of SpyBot Search & Destroy, runs it and then turns on the firewall.

    -Charles

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Ethics be damned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already exists, it's called Windows XP Service Pack 2

    2. Re:Ethics be damned... by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      Ah, the irony of using one proprietary program to clean up the publicly visible ill effects of other proprietary software.

    3. Re:Ethics be damned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's been out how long now? That plan of attack is working out JUST GREAT.

    4. Re:Ethics be damned... by Create+an+Account · · Score: 1


      Ethics be damned...

      Best...subject line...ever...

    5. Re:Ethics be damned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      overheard from a few friends of mine at a party who are slightly PC literate

      F1: "i heard windows service pack 2 breaks things so i wont install it"

      F2:F3 "yeah i heard the same thing"

    6. Re:Ethics be damned... by superphreak · · Score: 1

      sounds like what ms plans to do in longhorn, and that got a lot of people up in arms....

      --
      Evolution is a state-sponsored, state-protected religion.
    7. Re:Ethics be damned... by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      You can thank the Slashdot community for spreading such rumors, and inflating 1 in 1000 situations to the point where people make stupid decisions like the above.

    8. Re:Ethics be damned... by helix_r · · Score: 1

      Time for someone to write a worm that forces an update from Windows Update; downloads a copy of SpyBot Search & Destroy, runs it and then turns on the firewall.

      Because then that worm would very quickly make itself extinct. The success of worms comes from the fact that they can "reproduce" themselves.

    9. Re:Ethics be damned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think maybe MS only recently stopped supporting illegal copies, and most of the illegal copies can't be traced regardless because they're the corporate edition?

    10. Re:Ethics be damned... by standsolid · · Score: 1

      Remember when blaster was around? There was the worm Nachi that spread through the same vulnerability and patched up the box.

      It caused a lot of problems. Trust me. I worked at Best Buy. I had to clean up SO MANY [explicative]ing computers...

      --
      WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
      What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
    11. Re:Ethics be damned... by Inda · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Kid next door?

      Short story:

      A mate of mine bought a new motherboard and graphics card. Be damned if we could get it all working properly. "I'm taking it to a computer shop" he said in a moment of frustration. The shop fixed it for him.

      6 months later we were mucking around with something. The task manager showed Blaster was running - not that this was related to anything we were doing...

      He uses his PC for playing games and nothing else. He doesn't even have an internet connection. Three guesses where he caught Blaster from?

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    12. Re:Ethics be damned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There was the worm Nachi that spread through the same vulnerability and patched up the box.

      It caused a lot of problems. Trust me. I worked at Best Buy. I had to clean up SO MANY [explicative]ing computers...

      Welchia Worm did something similar too, it was a bear to get rid of. I'll cheer just as loud when one of these "white hat worm" authors get slocked up...

    13. Re:Ethics be damned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoops, Nachi = Welchia; guess I should have read the link first :/

    14. Re:Ethics be damned... by nilbog · · Score: 1
      Riiiight... because I'm sure all the bots are legal copies of windows right? Does it only occur to me that the reason many machines are so unpatched is because they are illegal copies installed by the kid next door?


      Microsoft stopped verifying copies of windows for major security reasons. They said the health of the internet was more important than blocking illegal copies. The logic is sound. Let everyone get the updates so you don't ruin the internet for the people who actually paid for their copy of window.

      I work in tech support. A lady called in yesterday with a problem and I told her to install SP2. She claimed that HP told her never to install SP2, and that if she did, they would have her uninstall it. She said they told her it causes too many problems. This is why there are zombie computers still.

      --
      or else!
    15. Re:Ethics be damned... by WhitetailKitten · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work phone support for a major ISP (hint: butterfly). I hear this a lot. "I don't want to install SP2, [OEM] told me not to."

      I want to say, look, lady, just fucking install SP2. You have Service Pack nothing. Your computer is being chewed into a pulpy mass by viruses that received patches two years ago.

      Instead I push them to their OEM and let their OEM deal with it, since it's their fault they don't have SP2.

    16. Re:Ethics be damned... by nilbog · · Score: 1
      I remember a /. story about them opening up updates to everyone. Too lazy to look it up. Besides, I have been updating all my copies of windows just fine ;)

      "We have no interest in preventing anyone from receiving updates, particularly security updates" -David Lazar, director of Genuine Windows in Microsoft's Windows client organization.

      --
      or else!
    17. Re:Ethics be damned... by rzebram · · Score: 1

      So give it a delay period before it actually does anything, giving it a little bit of time to (nicely) propogate before fixing things. These machines have been filled with viruses for so long, a little while longer isn't going to hurt anything.

    18. Re:Ethics be damned... by computerology · · Score: 1

      Time for someone to write a worm that forces an update from Windows Update; downloads a copy of SpyBot Search & Destroy, runs it and then turns on the firewall. Its called SP2 and as a network tech it drives me absolutely nuts. Well I wouldnt mind the Spybot being forced, and given that thats the one feature SP2 doesnt force, perhaps a policy inversion would be a good thing. Try builing a complex client/server network with SP2 clients. I wish that there was a feature like "Disable all automatic SP2 features". God I am so tired of seeing the error code "Unable to establish SSL connection to 90.0.1.20 on port 3792"

      --
      Consultant Computerology Consulting http://www.computerologyconsulting.com
  35. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tech: Hello sir, we are calling to inform you that your computer is infected with a trojan.

    User: WHAT? I have Norton Antivirus installed on my machine and it says I am clean!! (last updated in 1999).

    Tech: Our records indicate your machine was attacking other machines.

    User: No it wasn't! I was just typing a word document on it and wasn't even using the internet! I will sue your ass for harrassing me with bull shit!

  36. Next Step: Take them over. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the only plausible defense against a botnet of such a size is to use the botnet against itself. Allow one of your systems to be infected with the botnet - effectively join their network. Then sniff the network traffic to find out what IRC server and channel to join and any security codes that are necessary to control the botnet. Then upload a "virus" into the botnet that will patch the infected system and remove the botnet binaries. No more botnet.

    The only thing that makes me think it might not work is that it's similar to the stereotypical way of ridding the world of aliens in almost every sci-fi movie. Come to think of it, I might have gotten this idea from Independence Day.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
  37. You Must Be Linsux User Right ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't linux users constantly searching for "girls" ?

    1. Re:You Must Be Linsux User Right ?? by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      Along with the rest of Earth's heterosexual male population.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    2. Re:You Must Be Linsux User Right ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know that's just a throwaway troll attempt, but most of the linux users I've met have been happily married professionals in their 20s and 30s. Okay, that means they have found "women", not "girls", but hey.

    3. Re:You Must Be Linsux User Right ?? by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't tell my wife or my girlfriend.

    4. Re:You Must Be Linsux User Right ?? by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Aaaactually.... I would say that you are probably about 12 for saying "Linsux" (It's on the same intellectual level as "Micro$oft" and "Winblows") and therefore aren't mature enough to look for girls and are more likely to sit as far away from them as you can.

      If you wish to contend this point, I'd be willing to fit you in my timetable (Family permitting).

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    5. Re:You Must Be Linsux User Right ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..actually I think you gave him too much credit...

  38. Yes, I have your personal computers.... by GuerillaRadio · · Score: 1

    ...aiming a la-sor at the planet Earth!!! To avoid total destruction, you must pay me.... .... one meeeeelion dollars!!!!!

    --
    If a man empties his purse into his head no man can take it from him. An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.
  39. ....and.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they're mine, all mine

    Muhahahahahaha!

  40. In the end people just won't bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting


    in the UK now the earlier hacker key logging story has broken, newscasters are doing their very best to convince people the internet is safe but ultimatly that wont last forever and it will simply be "safer" not to use the internet at all, with rampant ID theft, viruses, extortion by botnets, spam, worms, viruses, spyware,malware,tracking, phishing, 419's,fraud sites, its just not worth the risk of doing anything serious on the net at all! and if the hostilities continues its trend of growth it will be very soon for security professionals to argue against disconnecting as this is will eliminate a substantial risk/cost factor for buisness/private users

    people just cant be bothered anymore (or thats the feedback i get), its just too complex for the average joe who is currently overwhelmed with threats to his financial and personal wellbeing (look at list i just mentioned) its hard enough to protect your assets in the "real world" as it is from conmen,burglars etc, without worrying that a glass screened box in the corner is gonna ruin you and your families life forever if you click on the wrong thing

    i know im getting fed up of it and im an IT professional !

    1. Re:In the end people just won't bother by symbolic · · Score: 1

      vwith rampant ID theft,

      I dare say the primary reason for ID theft is all the corporate pimps that sell information. The internet might make it easier to get to in some cases, but turning off the net won't stop the ID theft...there are other ways to get information. The problem is that there are too many people with FAR too much information - and no way to control it. Combine this with a spineless government that would rather bow to an industry lobby than enact some sane laws governing the use and control of such information, and you get what we have now.

    2. Re:In the end people just won't bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha

      capitalization

      LMFAO

  41. ... and they affect Linux too by poopie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My home machine's webserver gets regularly punished by bots that are sending buffer overflow URLs. I only have port 80 open, too. I use my home machine for mythtv, and I certainly notice when the bots start attacking me.

    It's really annoying. I've thought about what I can do to shut down bots that are annoying me with excess traffic...

    Does anyone have some good suggestions for keeping zombie PC traffic off of linux webservers either via firewall rules, apache config files, or ?

    Perhaps a more interesting question is... if your machines is being attacked by a zombie PC, is it okay to attack it back (and try to take it offline?) - Isn't this sort of like 'self defense'?

    1. Re:... and they affect Linux too by doppleganger871 · · Score: 0

      Well, if someone is attacking you with deadly force, you can use deadly force to defend yourself (unless you're in the California 9th circuit court of appeals, then you'd be guilty of some kind of attack on someone's personal freedom or something). So I don't see any reason (besides that 9th one) to use the same force to defend your computers in YOUR home (after all, isn't it a home invasion? If the packets are making to TO your machine IN your house, it IS in the 4 walls, right?)...

      Sounds sane to me, (but i'm not a judge or lawyer, so i might be wrong.).

    2. Re:... and they affect Linux too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My linux server routinely gets probed and attacked (unsuccessfully), and I only have ports 22 and 80 open. It's very annoying.

      So now, I just blacklist all geographic locations I have no business getting traffic from. For me, all connections from subnets orginating from IPs registered outside the U.S. are dropped.

      After a while, they lose interest and move on. I now get maybe 5% of the connections I used to.

    3. Re:... and they affect Linux too by mongus · · Score: 1

      Move your web server to a different port. You've got nearly 64K to choose from.

      If you're the only one who should be accessing the web server it won't matter that it's living on a different port.

    4. Re:... and they affect Linux too by doppleganger871 · · Score: 0

      Uh...

      "So I don't see any reason (besides that 9th one) to use the same force to defend your computers in YOUR home"

      Add the word "NOT" in there somewhere.

    5. Re:... and they affect Linux too by alyandon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a cron entry that runs a script to examine /var/log/http/access_log for any obviously abusive requests (requests that contain 0x90x90x90x90x90x90, system32, cmd.exe, etc) and adds the offending ip address to the firewall list. I do something similar for my ftpd and sshd services as well.

      So basically my machine becomes invisible to the attacker and their ip address stays shitcanned forever.

    6. Re:... and they affect Linux too by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Why waste a good zombie network? Just give this header to future requests from that IP address:
      HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
      Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:54:49 GMT
      Server: Apache/1.3.26 (Unix)
      Location: http://216.250.128.12/
      Connection: close
      Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    7. Re:... and they affect Linux too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While this seems brilliant at first glance, the bots probably aren't going to follow through on redirects.

    8. Re:... and they affect Linux too by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      If you know the IP addresses of where you are connecting to home from them block everything else.
      I realize if you want to connect from say wireless hot spots or a random friends house, this isn't an option - but you connect from the office network to home just allow that ip.
      I also have hardened servers which need to be publically accessible. I use these to route through to home as well if necessary.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    9. Re:... and they affect Linux too by poopie · · Score: 1

      I have a cron entry that runs a script to examine /var/log/http/access_log for any obviously abusive requests

      Care to share your script? :)

    10. Re:... and they affect Linux too by dago · · Score: 1

      I hope you've taken some precautions ... don't know, like making a white list for webservers ... or limiting the rate of new rules ...

      --
      #include "coucou.h"
    11. Re:... and they affect Linux too by alyandon · · Score: 2, Interesting
    12. Re:... and they affect Linux too by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      It was a modest proposal. I've tried giving some annoyingly persistant P2Pware a redirect back to their own IP address, but I doubt that had much effect either.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    13. Re:... and they affect Linux too by alyandon · · Score: 1

      I'm only protecting a small network and I double-check the ban list periodically to make sure an ip address that was added was truly a zombie/being abusive.

    14. Re:... and they affect Linux too by caluml · · Score: 1
      If they are doing it with URL overflows, look for url requests that are over, say 80 characters, and throw them away.

      I looked into mod_security for apache and it lets you return 500 errors for regex URL patterns, or content. I'm sure it would let you ignore those URLs too.

    15. Re:... and they affect Linux too by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      Dunno. I've got five IP addresses on my home DSL account, all static -- and only two in use. I figure the day I get DDOS'd, I can repoint my domain names to a different IP address until they're done. 24 hours downtime on the domain, sure, but that beats indefinitely down!

      Of course, that assumes it's a bot attack and not a personal attack (wherein they're hitting the domain name instead)...

    16. Re:... and they affect Linux too by Sweetshark · · Score: 1

      Use something like portsentry: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sentrytools/
      It allows you to automatically firewall misbehaving IPs (detects portscans) and more ...
      (easy configuration possible via webmin)

    17. Re:... and they affect Linux too by JThundley · · Score: 1

      Why do it nightly? I don't have my script on me at the moment, but think about what I do: cat /var/log/apache2/accesslog | myscript.sh

      Make the script check each line to see if it's an attacker and drop them in iptables right away. That way the zombie's second request will be blocked which might get attacks directly after that to stop and might tie up resources of the zombie since it's not getting acknowledged by the web server.

      The main loop looks like this:
      while read line; do
      echo "$line" | grep for bad stuff && drop if bad
      done

    18. Re:... and they affect Linux too by Doyle · · Score: 1

      And how am I supposed to tell if your "script" isn't actually a trojan in disguise? It's in Perl for God's sake! ;)

      Seriously though -- great script. :)

    19. Re:... and they affect Linux too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dunno. I've got five IP addresses on my home DSL account, all static -- and only two in use. I figure the day I get DDOS'd, I can repoint my domain names to a different IP address until they're done. 24 hours downtime on the domain, sure, but that beats indefinitely down!

      Of course, that assumes it's a bot attack and not a personal attack (wherein they're hitting the domain name instead)...
      A bot attack normally is a personal attack - someone who controls a 50,000-machine botnet doesn't just tell it to go attacking random IPs all day, they set it to a specific target. If you wind up on the receiving end of a botnet attack, shifting the domains to another IP on the same interface won't help. The traffic to the other IP is still coming to your DSL connection.

      On a more positive note, DNS changes rarely take anywhere near 24 hours now, even if you change nameservers. The core .COM/.NET zones are refreshing at least once an hour (often many times an hour) instead of once per day.

      You can register a .COM domain and it will actually be functional within 10 minutes or so, before it even shows up in WHOIS!
    20. Re:... and they affect Linux too by dago · · Score: 1

      btw, there's a correction to make in my post : I was thinking about "nameservers" (e.g. the root webservers) and not "webservers" (altough it would be fun to spoof windowsupdate).

      --
      #include "coucou.h"
  42. I sometimes wonder by cyberworm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not the greatest security expert, but I follow the proper guidelines (running AV, firewall, patches etc) and I still find that my xp machine is constantly coming up with some sorts of odd processes or quirks. I am giving up on windows as a personal machine, simply because it's ridiculous to constantly be fighting off things like this. I'm not going to blame anyone but the virus/spam/malware writers. I do what I can to practice "safe computing" (sic) and don't download stuff willy nilly.
    I think it's a shame that it has to be like this. Unfortunately the only real solution would be genetically modifying everyone to get rid of the gene that makes people think it's ok to spam/hack/whatever people's machines. Impossible as it is, the best solution would be to shut down the internet for about 2 months, then all the spammers would have to give back their money to the people that paid them (as if they would). Not likely to happen though.

  43. Zombo.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So that's what Zombo.com is!

  44. Will it take a Terrorist Act? by arjay-tea · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Will it take a major internet terrorist attack like bringing down a power grid to make governments act?."

    Yes.
    Of course it will.

    1. Re:Will it take a Terrorist Act? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      But you don't seriously expect them to make the right decision, do you? Action for the sake of action has gotten us where we are today.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Will it take a Terrorist Act? by j0e_average · · Score: 1
      If a power grid is taken down by a compromised Windows machine, then I'd expect some heavy fines/jail time for the management of the utility.

      That's just negligence, plain and simple.


      I'm tired of all the blame being put on the black hats, who are simply exploiting the stupidity of the masses. End the end, neither problem is solved.

    3. Re:Will it take a Terrorist Act? by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      Wasn't a compromised windows machine in a monitoring role part of a major power outage not that long ago? In order to hold people criminally accountable for negligence, it's necessary to look at much more than the outcome. I don't have a lot of faith in there ever being a legal solution to this kind of problem.

      Given the number of computer-security-ignorant people, I think it would take something far more dramatic to make everyone care. Keep in mind that the average juror needed for a conviction is probably just as ignorant as the average user.

    4. Re:Will it take a Terrorist Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Action for the sake of action has gotten us where we are today.

      Democracy starting to take root in the Middle East?

      Syria pulling out of Lebanon?

      Reports that the mullahs in Iran are very nervous about their prospects for continued leadership the future?

    5. Re:Will it take a Terrorist Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm tired of all the blame being put on the black hats, who are simply exploiting the stupidity of the masses.

      Yeah! Right on!

      Not my fault I busted into that bitch's apartment, raped her for hours, killed her and took all her shit.

      Silly bitch left the window open. Not my fault at all that I crawled on in there under cover of darkness and did all that nasty stuff.

  45. And people say Windows doesn't scale. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a competitive supercomputer to Google's network!

  46. Part of the team by dfj225 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm glad to be just part of the team!

    <-[XP]-86840>: This message brought to you by Backdoor.Win32.Rbot.gen

    --
    SIGFAULT
    1. Re:Part of the team by nihaopaul · · Score: 1

      Follow my lead: i just put my anit-trojan condom on my computer named: Durex

    2. Re:Part of the team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Apple spam team?

  47. Any better metrics on this? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article says:

    Many well-known vulnerabilities in the Windows operating system were exploited by 'bot net controllers to find and take over target machines.

    That's the only mention of an OS. Any metrics on exactly which OS and version/patchlevel is the most responsible?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Any better metrics on this? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't matter now because even if they've been upgraded, the infections are probably still present and running. They could all be Windows XP SP2 now for all we know, but the trojans are already in.

  48. I wonder.. by MoceanWorker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How many, out of that estimate, pertain to those who still didn't patch up that stupid RPC/DCOM vulnerability for 2000/XP?

    --


    "The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
  49. Does anyone know if... by bluprint · · Score: 3, Interesting

    bots that infect computers ever conflict with each other. Like Bot1 takes over a PC, then Bot2 comes along, and maybe they fight over that PC or its resources?

    --
    A modern day witchhunt.
    1. Re:Does anyone know if... by DrinkingIllini · · Score: 1

      "All the bots in your machine are in perfect balance, it's like The Three Stooges trying to all get through the same door..." "So my machine is invincible?" "No, even a slight breeze could.." "I'm invincible"

    2. Re:Does anyone know if... by Stop+Error · · Score: 1

      Actually many of these bot's will patch the machine after it is infected to prevent exactly what you are talking about.

      --
      No keyboard detected. Press any key to continue.
    3. Re:Does anyone know if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      alot of worms / viruses / trojans will kill other known worms / viruses / trojans

      just look at beagle netsky etc

  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  51. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about ISPs?

    An interesting article to view while a report of all infected hosts by worm variant is open on another tab of my browser. Most major ISPs have a list of IP addresses of infected hosts in order of bandwidth used. I suppose the bandwidth costs are just not all that high. Actually looking at some major ISPs data, I know they are not all that high per host. Probably the phone call costs more.

  52. Troll talks to Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grammma Nazis are teh fag0rtz , 1 Cn tr0ll 2 wid me n3 tr0ll methud

    1. Re:Troll talks to Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just say your Grandma was a Nazi faggot? Wow, thanks for making my day nice and surreal. :)

  53. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  54. Re:Next Step: Take them over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm... would you be using a mac to u/l this "virus", like will smith did?

  55. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  56. Re:Next Step: Take them over. by Kobun · · Score: 1

    I read a very interesting paper on this tactic/subject not too long ago. Rather than rehash the whole work, here is a link:

    http://blanu.net/curious_yellow.html

  57. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Brad1138 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I get nice little pop ups telling me my computer may be already infected all the time, don't you?

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  58. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is THE major problem afflicting the internet, why dont governments form a unit to identify and at least notifiy the owners of these machines?

    Why should they? It's the ISPs who make money by providing Internet access. They should be responsible for alerting their customers about compromised machines. Most of them don't because it costs too much money, and there's little liability even if you do absolutely nothing.

    On the other hand, customers aren't willing to pay for a notification service, or accept the privacy implications (notifying customers requires a mapping from dynamically assigned IP addresses to customer accounts). What's worse, a large percentage of them will just switch to another ISP once you restrict their network access because of a compromise.

  59. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by N3koFever · · Score: 1

    Haven't you been watching 24? The terrorists can melt down every nuclear power plant in the country over the Internet!

  60. I find it interesting... by suitepotato · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that all these botnets themselves seem to compromised that journalists and researchers can so easily get into them. If you're going to compromise other people's computers for whatever nefarious use, do you want your system itself wide open for someone to steal away from you or document your doings for law enforcement? The best back doors and holes are ones that no one sees until you're using them and it is too late.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    1. Re:I find it interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did you expect? Proper programmers have better things to do than malice. Debian just arrived at bug # 300000, so much to do...

    2. Re:I find it interesting... by Jtheletter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The best back doors and holes are ones that no one sees until you're using them and it is too late.

      I think that's what worries me the most about the sizes of the current botnets we're seeing - how big are the ones we can't see yet? There are definitely some crafty hacker orgs out there who are smart enough to realize that a covert and/or latent botnet would be the most devastating kind, especially if it could return to latency after use. Imagine it, one day a quarter million previously 'safe' windows boxes execute their delayed instructions, form a zombie net, perform a devastating DDOS or the like, then quickly go back to sleep. Parts of it could turn on for short periods solely to infect new machines quickly and quietly. Essentially it's the cyber equivalent of terrorist cells, dormant and unseen until exercised, and impossible to estimate or completely stamp out because of their low-lying nature. One of these days something like this is going to rear its ugly head and it will be for some greater and much more devastating purpose than just sending a few million spam about penis pills.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  61. There Is No Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more I read about this sort of thing, the more I realize that the net has become totally lawless.

    Oh for vigilante justice. I want to string the spammers, phishers and bot-net admirals up from Ethernet cable and let them hang till their life is slowly peeled away from their body. Their head should be put on a pike, and placed at the entrance to the net, for all to see and take heed.

    1. Re:There Is No Law by doppleganger871 · · Score: 0

      But that would infringe on someone's right to privacy, somewhere, somehow.

  62. Hi Neo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Badcome to the old virtual world!

    open4free © I'm wellcomed to my new real world, Matrix Inside!

  63. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they all wear black gloves and use PowerBooks!

  64. NEWBIE QUESTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I'm a newbie when it comes to security, but how can you tell if your computer is a zombie?

    1. Re:NEWBIE QUESTION by bitswapper · · Score: 1

      It tries to eat your brains.

    2. Re:NEWBIE QUESTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone call Bruce Campbell

  65. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Kaa · · Score: 4, Funny

    No sane person should connect a critical piece of computer infrastructure ... to the internet.

    ROTFL...

    Quickly! Disconnect the backbone from the internet! Unplug the DNS root servers! Take the routers offline! Cut the cables leading into Mae East! The internet is too dangerous!!!

    --

    Kaa
    Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
  66. Zombie.SETI@home by mykroft42 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps all these Zombie comps should be put to good use. Who cares if people don't want to participate in grid computing ... they can be forced!

    1. Re:Zombie.SETI@home by Zemplar · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps all these Zombie comps should be put to good use. Who cares if people don't want to participate in grid computing ... they can be forced!"

      Right On!!

      We might as well use these computers to search for intelligent life at these machines certainly are not exposed to it locally!

    2. Re:Zombie.SETI@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should specify a *good* use then.

  67. windows 2000 box: a zombie in ~ 5 minutes by hurricaen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My coworker is doing some of his own investigations into this stuff. He hooked up a freshly installed, but unpatched, windows2000 box to the net with a freebsd box in between to monitor traffic. Within minutes it was infected, and we could see IRC traffic: connecting to a hidden channel to await instructions. Not that I'm that outraged that an old unpatched windows 2000 box is vulnerable; it's just amazing how quickly a worm will get you if you are vulnerable! -K

  68. y0w fl4il 1t b1t(h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  69. The only way to deal with zombies... by Nephroth · · Score: 1

    Is to aim for the head... In this case, the head of the user would probably be a better target.

    --
    Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
    1. Re:The only way to deal with zombies... by Hyperspac · · Score: 0

      The problem with targeting the users is a issue of scaling. If you need to get 1,000,000 people to patch a computer its going to take a lot more effort then attacking the "head" of the network.

      As long as the botnet controllers are using automated tools which can scan thousands of computers an hour and we are tring to go after users one at a time we are never going to catch up. What we need is automated tools that attack the problem, similar to the automated tools that cause the problem. Maybe a distributed computing ap that activly hunts and attemps to disrupt botnets or something. I'd donate cycle time.

  70. Rent zombies online! by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative
    They're down today, but SpamForum.biz carries ads for zombies, open proxies, botnets, etc. Numbers available range from 1000 to 50,000.

    When they're up, they're very entertaining.

    An older spammer forum, SpecialHam.com is back up. With banner ads, even. "DarkMailer - not for newbies". "Blackbox Hosting - bulletproof hosting options" "SendSafe - bulk mail has never been this easy". "Bulkhost.com - the leader in bulk-friendly e-mail hosting".

    Sites like these are where the hackers and spammers meet, find deals, and scream about being ripped off by each other. The actual deals tend to take place on ICQ.

    1. Re:Rent zombies online! by Don'tTreadOnMe · · Score: 2, Funny
      With banner ads, even. "DarkMailer - not for newbies"...

      So I clicked on the Dark Mailer ad, thinking it'd be good for charging them some ad money, and was amused instead:

      If you have installed a cracked version on your computer by mistake, we suggest you format your hard drive and reinstall Windows. Delete the cracked version and download Dark Mailer from this site.

      Beware teh cracked SPAM software!

    2. Re:Rent zombies online! by Animats · · Score: 1
      Here is a specific offer of zombie rental:

      Anonymous SOCKS proxies.

      • Anonymous Sock Proxies all Non-Std Ports

        Here is a sample of what you will get You will have many lists to choose from
        socks.txt is the raw lists. and then you will have several domain connect checks lists to choose from as well.

        samples are provided.
        ICQ: 340450685

        Only 2 Available Slots Remain

        ::Anonymous DOMAIN Connect Checked,RBL Checked Proxies
        # socks.txt Updated Dec 28, 14:58 (8076 proxies)

        :: Anonymous DOMAIN Connect Checked Socks ::
        # msn.txt Updated Dec 28, 14:52 (4591 proxies)
        # aol.txt Updated Dec 28, 14:53 (4551 proxies)
        # hotmail.txt Updated Dec 28, 14:54 (4589 proxies)
        # yahoo.txt Updated Dec 28, 14:56 (4539 proxies)
        # gmail.txt Updated Dec 28, 14:57 (4590 proxies)
        # http.txt Updated Dec 28, 14:59 (1189 proxies)

        Must have References.

      The "non-standard ports" is the giveaway. They're not just finding open proxy servers. They're making them.

      There's also a nice how-to on how to spam with proxies on Google Answers.

  71. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by huge · · Score: 1
    They are the ones having to pay for the added bandwitdh on both sides.
    No. The customer eventually pays the added bandwidth.
    --
    -- Reality checks don't bounce.
  72. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  73. Bill Gates is using a robot net to by BrentRJones · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bill Gates is using a robot net in building a spacecraft to return to his solar system.

    --
    Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
  74. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Way to take it out of context, asshole. :P I don't think the DNS root servers are quite as important as a power grid :P

  75. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  76. 1,000,000 zombie PCs can't be wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elvis didn't do no drugs!

  77. Dawn of the Dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine 1 million gastly little geeks with glasses Gates look alike zombies all staring in your Windows. Yikes!

  78. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

    If they aren't already logging who was using what IP at what time, they'll probably get boned by law enforcement when one of their customers does something illegal and the ISP can't help them track the criminal ;p

  79. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would we want such a useless thingy?

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

      uhhh dishwasher, housecleaner, babysitter...they got uses, you just have to beat them hard enough...

  80. What can I use to detect a hijacked computer? by ryan76 · · Score: 1

    What can I do to see if my computer has been hijacked? netstat -r?

    --
    http://threetechguys.info Come, discuss Technology. Got a technology question? Come ask!
    1. Re:What can I use to detect a hijacked computer? by Foolomon · · Score: 4, Informative

      "netstat -a -o" will display all active connections and the processes that own them.

      Task Manager will show you the currently running processes. This is of limited usefulness since it doesn't show the path of the executable nor the arguments used to launch it. So SVCHOST.EXE will show up multiple times because it is used to by 2000/XP to run several different services.

      "Control Panel > Administration Tools > Computer Management" will run an applet that, among other things, will allow you to see the number of open shares and connections to your computer. There are some other useful things in there.

    2. Re:What can I use to detect a hijacked computer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What can I use to detect a hijacked computer

      Check to see if it has an internet connection...done.

    3. Re:What can I use to detect a hijacked computer? by ryan76 · · Score: 1

      I'm serious.... I want to know how to clean/remove the bots.. And opening up "task manager" and looking for "odd" things is not too useful..

      --
      http://threetechguys.info Come, discuss Technology. Got a technology question? Come ask!
    4. Re:What can I use to detect a hijacked computer? by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      I tried posting some results from netstat but /.'s FUCKING REDICULOUS limits on poster comments prevent me from posting the lines in question. Perhaps I can squeak in just one fucking line without it coughing all over me.

      If I see a line that reads:

      TCP herne:4994 CPE0030ab1f1542-CM000f9fad23c4.cpe.net.cable.roger s.com:9371 ESTABLISHED 1704

      Does that indicate that someone at the Rogers Cable address (presumably a home address?) has established a connection to my computer using port 4494? a TCP connection? If so that is a concern.

      Herne is the name of my computer.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    5. Re:What can I use to detect a hijacked computer? by freeweed · · Score: 1

      -o isn't a valid option in Windows 2000.

      I've used 3rd party tools to check which processes are bound to which ports in Win2000; if there's a native method please share!

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    6. Re:What can I use to detect a hijacked computer? by Suidae · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is a connection between your system and the box on the rogers network, but I can't tell you which side opened the connection.

      The last number is the process ID on your computer that holds the socket. Go to the task manager (right click on task bar or ctrl+alt+del) and select the Processes tab. If the PID column is not visible, select View|Columns and turn on the PID column.

      If you don't recognize what you find in the 'Image Name' column, you can usually do a google search and find it.

    7. Re:What can I use to detect a hijacked computer? by Foolomon · · Score: 1

      See the other person's reply where they said that the last number on each line is the PID. You can use that to cross reference against the processes listed in Task Manager.

      Also, tracert and NeoTrace can come in handy if you want to find out more information about the destination address. The latter will actually display its approximate geographical location. :)

    8. Re:What can I use to detect a hijacked computer? by freeweed · · Score: 1

      No, see there *is* no last number on each line in 2000. The -o flag doesn't exist, and as such, you can't get a PID from netstat - at least as far as I've ever been able to tell.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    9. Re:What can I use to detect a hijacked computer? by bampot · · Score: 1
      For a basic Windows machine, disabling the "Server" service means no-one can remotely connect to the machine AT ALL.

      Problem (mostly) solved.

      Only last week I did my monthly check for dodgy programs. "NETSTAT -AN" showed up clean, as did checking the security log in Event Viewer.

      Unless you actually need to connect to your machine remotely, there are about twenty (or more) services that can be safely disabled.

      The following services on my home PC are disabled, or set to 'Manual' :

      Server, Workstation

      Computer Browser

      Secondary Logon

      Clipbook (remote)

      Distributed Link Transaction Coordinator

      Distributed Transaction Coordinator

      Error Reporting Service

      Fast User Switching

      Help & Support

      Messenger (i.e. Blaster)

      Network DDE

      Network DDE DSDM

      NT LM Security Support Provider

      QoS RSVP (Req'd for Netmeeting)

      RPC, RPC Locator

      Remote Registry

      Routing & Remote Access

      SSDP Discovery Service

      Telnet (very bad)

      Terminal Services

      UPS (I don't have one)

      Universal Plug & Play

      Volume Shadow Copy

      Webclient (rubbish)

      Wireless Zero Configuration

      It's also a lot faster to boot up with all the crap disabled.

  81. Distributed processing by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How long til they start using distributed hijacked PC networks to crack complex codes etc....

  82. Not their responsibility by theVP · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In what way is my ISP responsible for what I do on the internet? I don't know about you, but I don't pay my ISP to protect me and my privacy. I pay my ISP to provide a pipe, and nothing more.

    --
    "No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
    1. Re:Not their responsibility by magarity · · Score: 2, Informative

      but I don't pay my ISP to protect me and my privacy. I pay my ISP to provide a pipe, and nothing more

      And your ISP pays *its* ISP by the MB. It is therefore in their interest to halt traffic generated by spam-bots and ddos-bots.

    2. Re:Not their responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then I guess we just sue you if your computer is a zombie.

    3. Re:Not their responsibility by bbuR_bbuB · · Score: 1

      Um, no it doesn't. Most ISPs buy bandwidth by throughput, not by MB. But thanks for playing.

    4. Re:Not their responsibility by magarity · · Score: 1

      How do you think throughput is measured?

    5. Re:Not their responsibility by bbuR_bbuB · · Score: 1

      As a rate?

    6. Re:Not their responsibility by magarity · · Score: 1

      And rates of data throughput are measured in... MB perhaps?

  83. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Dipster · · Score: 1
    "government involvment in a measured controlled way"...

    There's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one.

  84. Blame and DRM by captwheeler · · Score: 1
    Blame the vendor for a bad OS?
    Blame the user for not patching?

    I don't see either of these as reasonable without DRM. Computers are more complicated then any other consumer device and the exploits are more complicated then any other repair or maintenance we expect people to do. This won't change unless the home computer stops being a general purpose computer, through the magic of DRM. Then we could blame the vendor who had control.

    At the very most, we will only hold people responsible for not doing relatively easy things: patching, anti-virus, firewall, etc.. These aren't enough though (0-day exploit, etc...) and we won't expect the average person to do more. If it's not reasonable to think the average person could fix it or prevent it, then we won't blame them.

    The only alternative would be taking your computer to a specialist and having it certified. (DRM the slow way.) Then lawyers could blame the company that worked on it, or individuals could be liable for not having it serviced, as everyone knows you should.

    --

    Thanks for putting on the feedbag. Thanks for going all out. Thanks for showing me your Swiss Army knife.

  85. So if your OSS project has a defect I can sue you? by wsanders · · Score: 1

    Everyone has equal protection and responsibilities under the law, so OSS projects would have to be held to the same standards as oh-so-evil big corporations. Be careful what you wish for.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  86. A million zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There has GOT to be a movie in there somewhere. Perfect for Elvira's Mistress of the Night.

  87. Clue phone ringing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  88. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    cost vs unmitigated risk

  89. Cluster by EduardoFonseca · · Score: 3, Funny

    And people say that the largest computer cluster in the world runs Linux. Bah!

    Of course it runs Windows! Go Microsoft!

    *ugh*

  90. Re:How can you tell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've got to ask, then you're probably a zombie.

  91. Obligatory Buckaroo Banzai: by SmokeHalo · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Where are we going?"
    "Planet Ten!"
    "When?"
    "Real soon!"

    --
    I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
  92. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by erroneus · · Score: 1

    This action would make sense and for that reason alone wouldn't be performed by government. But there are probably other reasons not to do this:

    1. It would cause public fear and panic
    2. It would expose that Microsoft products are the cause (that's how the public would see it... after all, kids are being raised by violent video games, not by parents)
    3. Microsoft paid them not to do that. (ref: OpenSecrets web site for how much money Microsoft started donating since they first started to get into trouble.)

    And generally, we just don't want the public to realize the government is using the same software they are...

  93. Thanks, Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... this is mostly due to M$ products being horribly insecure and unstable.

    Thanks, Microsoft! Glad my Linux boxes aren't in that group.

  94. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

    If they aren't already logging who was using what IP at what time, they'll probably get boned by law enforcement when one of their customers does something illegal and the ISP can't help them track the criminal ;p

    Europe currently lacks mandatory data rentention. On the contrary, many countries prohibit telcos from retaining call data records and the like for more than just a few months. As a result, ISPs can safely claim they do not collect that data. Currently, they simply don't have to.

  95. "Zombies" by Audigy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ah, thank you Steve Gibson from grc.com for that lovely nickname.

    --
    [an error occured while processing this directive]
  96. Appliance by Straker+Skunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The ISP needs to force the user to at minimum to install a software firewall.

    Simpler than that. Just give customers a firewall appliance with their modem, and warnings of the doom that will befall them if they don't hook it up between their modem and PC....

    --
    iSKUNK!
    1. Re:Appliance by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 3, Informative

      Simpler than that, put the firewall at the ISP end of the connection so they can't get around it. (But I think users should still have the option of enabling incoming ports if they so choose.)

    2. Re:Appliance by ticktockticktock · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then they'll come up with a reason to charge you for opening each port through the firewall.

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

      Some cable and DSL providers do this. The modem has a NAT router built in which helps considerably. True, it can be disabled by putting the modem in bridged mode but to do that you would actually have to read the manual which most people won't bother with.

  97. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Internet is much too important to be connected to the Internet.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  98. How Can I Tell If Im Infected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is scary stuff. I am not a techie, and this makes me nervous. I am behind a linksys router, i run zone alarm with very tight restrictions, recent virus scans show all pc's clean. are my computers clean? what's the best way to tell if my pc is a zombie???

  99. A fresh install solaris is just as vulnerable by merreborn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My father recieved his first couple of Sparc-based unix boxes about 4 years ago in the wake of the dot-com collapse. For one reason or another, he decided to reinstall (a somewhat old version of) solaris from a disc he got with the system.

    A couple of days later, his cable-modem based lan was nigh unusable; lo and behold, the unpatched solaris box was sending out data as fast as it could. Neither of us had the technical expertise to figure out what exactly had happened, but the process that was causing all the trouble was sitting in a dir full of various tools that seemed to be doing some sort of IP range scaning and self propegation.

    If there are enough systems out there with a given hole, someone will exploit it, reguardless of OS.

  100. What I Want To Know Is... by JohnPerkins · · Score: 1

    (and please forgive the low-level question) ...How can I tell whether or not my own computer (PC, running XP) has been compromised?

    1. Re:What I Want To Know Is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      boot your machine, open your ms-dos prompt, and type: netstat -n, if you get a long long long list of connections without having any program that uses the internet (web browser, chat client etc.), then you are zombie !! ;)

  101. Re:Next Step: Take them over. by archeopterix · · Score: 1
    Allow one of your systems to be infected with the botnet - effectively join their network. Then sniff the network traffic to find out what IRC server and channel to join and any security codes that are necessary to control the botnet.
    Yup, this might work. Until botnet creators get smart and start using asymmetric cryptography to work around this. Every bot can carry around a public key and check the received orders against it. The evil master has the private key and only he can sign the orders, thus joining the network doesn't let you order the other zombies around.
    The only thing that makes me think it might not work is that it's similar to the stereotypical way of ridding the world of aliens in almost every sci-fi movie. Come to think of it, I might have gotten this idea from Independence Day.

    Well, this brings the scenario closer to a fantasy movie with a powerful artifact to control an army of the undead... go figure :-)

  102. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by rworne · · Score: 1

    I do too. I find it particularly funny that these helpful windows installation wizard popups keep appearing on my Mac (OS X) box.

    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  103. The hardest thing about those ENLARGE YOUR PENIS.. by Foolomon · · Score: 1

    ..spam mails is determining which are real and which are fake. :/

  104. Too much information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell your dad to stop surfing shady pr0n sites.

  105. What is the control group? by gelfling · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a bunch of Win XPhome, Pro and W2K boxes @ home, fully patched, personal firewalled, my router screens what it can, in fact it blocks most every port and tosses pings from both sides. There's antispyware and AV scanners running on all desktops. And brute force scans for virus and all other malware kick off weekly. The uplink is cable (shared). Am I contaminated? You betcha. I can run any spyware tool @ random and find something and once a month I trap a virus either in the browser cache or the jpi cache on one or all of these machines.

    Shit I forgot why I wrote this - oh yeah. What is the definition of "GOOD"? So while there 1.2 globzigillion zombies out there, what is the likelihood you're actually clean? I'd say damn near zero.

    1. Re:What is the control group? by WalterGR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can run any spyware tool @ random and find something and once a month I trap a virus either in the browser cache or the jpi cache on one or all of these machines.

      I wasn't looking over your shoulder when you performed this scan, so I don't know precisely what you saw, but finding things in the browser cache is not cause for alarm. For example, if I were to rename some virus-laden executable to have the JPEG extension, reference it in an img tag in an HTML file, and pop it on a website, all browsers would download the file - they don't know any better. It's not like they're then going to say, "Oh look, it's an executable! I better run it now." (At least, one would hope... :)

      Just because you find something in your browser cache doesn't mean you're infected.

    2. Re:What is the control group? by SlightlyOldGuy · · Score: 1

      what is the likelihood you're actually clean? I'd say damn near zero."

      Au contraire. For those if us using up-to-date OSX or Linux, the chances of being clean are damn near 1

    3. Re:What is the control group? by dancingmad · · Score: 1

      I know we're on slashdot and all and we have to tow the company line (Windows machines will EAT YOUR BABIES), but I have use XP pretty regularly. All the machines in my house (XP ones) get locked down before getting on the net: Agnitum Outpost, Spybot and Adaware, and Norton AV. I've been running that set up (mor or less) for several years now (regularly running the two spyware programs) and I recently downloaded MS's spyware proggie; the only thing it could come up with was that TightVNS might be a threat (I use it to access a machine at home from work). I could be mistaken, of course, but its been working for me so far.

      You don't even need to patch regularly if you follow good computing procedures(I'm on SP1 on this machine as I can't bare to take it down for a half day anytime soon). It's stupid that it takes so much extra software to secure Windows, but once it was done, I haven't had a major problem.

      --
      "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
  106. another dumb yank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahah let me guess you're American ?

  107. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by leoval · · Score: 1

    The wording should be changed to read: No sane person should connect any machine to the internet without at least a hardware firewall in between. They are really inexpensive and provide a critical line of defense against comprimise by worms.

    Long ago I made the experiment of pluging an old Red Hat 6.x box directly to the internet with most of the ports open: telnet, ftp (anonymous), rsh etc. It was compromised in no time. The new owners did a decent job of hiding the tracks, they installed a kernel patch to provide "hidden" files, a new "top", several interesting cron jobs, thousands of new entries in /dev, etc.

    But they screwed up netstat. I was monitoring the machine remotely and could not see my own connection ! that gave it away. It seems they were half way thru the process. I was able to locate most of the source for the "worm" (I assumed it was one), the code was nicely annotated and the paradigm was really interesting, very close to the dream of the platform independent worm.

    That was years ago, I don't even want to image how far the techniques have advanced in this time.

  108. Re:Proof positive by AlltheCoolNamesGone · · Score: 1

    or post comments on /. without hitting preview aload = allowed

    --
    M$ it's whats for diner!!!!!
  109. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and automatically send emails to its infected customers.

    If the computer is compromised, then email may not be the best channel. Of course, email would be a good starting point.

  110. You've just described ... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think the whole idea is extremely intriguing. Once you have a system set up like that, capable of accepting commands.. you can do whatever you want without ever having a trail come back to you. Having a machine tell another machine tell another machine what to do.
    ... the next version of p2p software that the **AA will have one hell of a time trying to combat.

    Have your machine intentionally be part of the "zombies", and you get all the goodies, and look like a victim at the same time.

    1. Re:You've just described ... by LilMikey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Have your machine intentionally be part of the "zombies", and you get all the goodies, and look like a victim at the same time.

      Damn... you've just uncovered the one thing that could possibly draw Linux and MacOS users back to Windows.

      --
      LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
    2. Re:You've just described ... by weighn · · Score: 1

      add encryption, stir and you've just about got Freenet.

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    3. Re:You've just described ... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      ... the one thing that could possibly draw Linux and MacOS users back to Windows.

      Yeah; it's a big distributed OS. Who says that Windows isn't scalable? ;-)

      And its "design" will be even more random and shoddy than Windows. MS will be proud of it. For that matter, how do we know this isn't being done by MS themselves? It would be a good way to trick the world into adopting a network OS on the sly.

      Am I paranoid enough yet?

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:You've just described ... by LilMikey · · Score: 1

      Careful, now. You don't want to be crushed under the weight of your tin foil hat :)

      --
      LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
  111. The irony is TOO much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots. "

    LOL, Maybe you should write that in proper English before calling people idiots.

    BTW, it is a comma you forgot.

    1. Re:The irony is TOO much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is 'LOL' and 'BTW' proper english?

      By the way COMMA you're a moron PERIOD

  112. Linux = happy marriage by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 1
    ...but most of the linux users I've met have been happily married...

    You know that is my experience as well. Somehow, being a linux user and happily married seems correlated. I wonder why?

    --
    Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
  113. OT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell are mods smoking nowaays?
    Please explain to me how this is offtopic?

  114. Why don't ISPs use Firewalls? by guru42101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I work for a minor dialup in BFE, KY. We used to have large problems with our users getting hacked and zombiefied. But we decided since they weren't going to have a local firewall then we'd run one for them. Generally speaking Joe User doesn't need an internal SMTP server, http server, and so on. So we've got it set up now where they can connect to http, ftp, send their emails, send their IMs, play their games, and even use BT. But, alot of things that they'll never noticed are disabled for their own good. We'll occasionally have someone call about something not working and we'll then add in a rule to punch a hole for them. But I think that has been one person in the past year so far.

    I'm surprised more ISPs don't do this as we used to be overloading our pipe due to the bots but now we're using half of our pipe durring peak times.

    I could see this as a potential issue for some broadband ISPs but the saved money in bandwidth is much higher than the cost of manpower

    1. Re:Why don't ISPs use Firewalls? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not the ISP's job to firewall. The clients are paying for an Internet connection, not a web-browsing service, so they get a damn Internet connection.

      Besides, by doing some filtering, you take responsibility. You remember, common-carrier status and all that.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Why don't ISPs use Firewalls? by bani · · Score: 1

      most ISPs do not have common carrier status. only telcos do. you cant give up something you dont have.

    3. Re:Why don't ISPs use Firewalls? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Could be, but you can't get something that you don't qualify for, and as soon as you start blocking some ports to prevent viruses, you're going to get blamed for the viruses that come in on the unblocked ports.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:Why don't ISPs use Firewalls? by bani · · Score: 1

      you get blamed anyway. users already blame ISPs for spam, viruses, and malware, whether they block or not.

      so there's nothing to lose.

    5. Re:Why don't ISPs use Firewalls? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Ah, but there's blame, and there's legal responsibility.

      "Your honor, my client had every reason to believe that the steps being taken by their ISP would be sufficent to protect them from viruses...."

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    6. Re:Why don't ISPs use Firewalls? by bani · · Score: 1

      and the client can believe the sky is green and the sun revolves around the earth. and they often do.

      'tis too bad ISP customer contracts explicitly and carefully absolve the ISP of all liability for the customer's equipment.

      "Your honor, the contract the customer signed (signature here, as you can see, and as the customer has acknowledged under oath) explicitly states that all responsibility and liability for the security of their own personal property lies solely on the customer..."

      and fwiw the microsoft eula absolves microsoft of all liability also.

    7. Re:Why don't ISPs use Firewalls? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      "But, Your Honor, the contract my opponent points out also states that the ISP blocks ports to prevent viruses from reaching my client's computer. Yet a virus did reach that computer. Therefore, rather than passing responsibility onto the user, the ISP accepted responsibility, and then failed to live up to it."

      Yes, it could go either way, but....

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re:Why don't ISPs use Firewalls? by bani · · Score: 1

      'reasonable effort' does not require 'absolute perfection', and 'imperfection' does not make the ISP liable.

      otherwise, every little imperfection you ever made if you ever tried to do anything at all, would make you liable.

      and that's simply not how it works.

      so no, it really couldn't go either way. if a customer could prevail on such an argument, then it would become far too risky for any company to provide any kind of service to anyone, ever.

      it would mean spamblocking and antivirus companies would be liable for every spam and virus that got through. anything less than absolute perfection, and customers would be suing left and right...

      it would be impossible for companies to operate in such an environment.

      and the ISP contract doesn't state that anyway. it states the ISP blocks ports to protect the ISP's infrastructure. it doesn't state it blocks ports to protect the customer.

    9. Re:Why don't ISPs use Firewalls? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      so no, it really couldn't go either way. if a customer could prevail on such an argument, then it would become far too risky for any company to provide any kind of service to anyone, ever.

      Which is, in my most humble opinion, where America is heading.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    10. Re:Why don't ISPs use Firewalls? by bani · · Score: 1

      and you think things will get better when you're arguing on behalf of the idiot litigious customer side of things?

      or is that what you really want?

    11. Re:Why don't ISPs use Firewalls? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing on behalf of anything; I'm merely pointing out the result I believe will most likely happen.

      INTP, baby; I'm a natural born devil's advocate.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  115. Re:Mod Parent UP! by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    Bravo!!! brxndxn you have hit the nail on the head, (with a sledge hammer)...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  116. You are right 50% of the time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You are moded 50% insightfull 50% off-topic.. I would mod you just a little on the troll side of the ledger.. However you are right it is not a Microsoft problem. It is a problem with the entire Windows system of internet usage. Microsoft is counting on stupid users recking havoc on the net. Why else would they release an OS with rpc open? Or make install on demand a default feature.

    Features like these are the only way that they can make everyone climb on the 'Trusted Computing' bandwagon. Insecurity has been and will always be their greatest selling feature. Just think of the amount of bandwidth that could be freed up if stupid users were all forced to upgrade to 'trusted computing'.

    If the Windows OS did not need fixing all the time then there would be no reason to 'upgrade', and you wouldn't see all those stupid users running back and forth to the computer stores to get their systems running again. 90% of the business that computer stores do is fixing user hosed MS computers!
    If that went away then the bust would make the 2000 dotcom disaster look trivial by comparison.

  117. Will never stop unless.... by Electric+Eye · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ....a group of super smart nersd somehow figures out how to do the same thing to these millions of PCs, but in reverse. Somehow create a worm that turns on the XP firewall, installs MS Anti-Spy and SpyBot and whatever else is needed. Isn't this easy to do (for the geek crowd)? Every new client I get (I'm a home computer tech) is infected with massive amounts of spyware. They have NO idea. My last two clients had more than 10,000 files and programs that were deemed spyware (not including cookies). It took forever to clean these machines, esp with those damn trojans not wanting to leave. I've got years of experience so I know what to do. But 99.999% of Windoze users doesn't have the damndest clue. My clients can't even set up their own DSL connections. how are they going to prevent their computers from being turned into zombies? Hell, they don't even know what that means.

    It's up to the benevolent hackers or MS. My $$ is on the geeks outside of Redmond.

    1. Re:Will never stop unless.... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Somehow create a worm that turns on the XP firewall, installs MS Anti-Spy and SpyBot and whatever else is needed.

      And then (in the UK at least) be liable for prosecution under the Computer Misuse Act.

      Seriously, this is one of those times when fighting fire with fire is a really dumb idea, no matter how tempting it may be.

    2. Re:Will never stop unless.... by Electric+Eye · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like that act is stopping the malicious attacks? Dosn't look like it. You have a better idea?

    3. Re:Will never stop unless.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wait from them all to do the sensible thing and start running locked-down linux boxes.

      Yeah, you're right. Let's go break some laws!

    4. Re:Will never stop unless.... by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      It took forever to clean these machines, esp with those damn trojans not wanting to leave.

      Dump important files to CD / network / alternate drive.
      Format.
      Reinstall.

      Max 2 hours.

      This is even easier with newish Dell hardware. Just keep a Dell Windows XP Home SP2 CD on hand and you're well on your way. That takes care of the OS and the brunt of patching. Then throw on Firefox. Remove any referances to IE (desktop / Start Menu / Quicklaunch shortcuts), hell, I even set permissions on iexplorer.exe so no one had access to it including admin. Works wonders.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    5. Re:Will never stop unless.... by kryptik_79 · · Score: 1

      Many of the viruses, trojans patch the hole and open a back door. This is so someone doesn't own their owned box.

      As for cleaning these machines... I always advise that a complete format and reinstall be done on any machine found to be compromised. My standard procedure is to get it running to the point where I can backup necessary files (even ghost the drive if I'm worried about losing important data), then format and clean install.

  118. MOD PARENT UP by J_Omega · · Score: 1

    thanks!

  119. Surely you can close off port 25. by crovira · · Score: 1

    They'll probably never know anyway as it would take them off the Spam circuit.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:Surely you can close off port 25. by BitwiseX · · Score: 1

      You sure can! Extended IP access list 199 deny tcp host XXX.XXX.XXX.25 eq smtp any deny tcp XXX.XXX.XXX.26 0.0.0.1 eq smtp any deny tcp XXX.XXX.XXX.28 0.0.0.3 eq smtp any (9 matches) deny tcp XXX.XXX.XXX.32 0.0.0.31 eq smtp any deny tcp XXX.XXX.XXX.64 0.0.0.63 eq smtp any (892 matches) deny tcp XXX.XXX.XXX.128 0.0.0.127 eq smtp any (4274 matches) Those counters haven't been reset for at least a month. All the IPs in our dial up pool. Blocking port 25 is a work around, not really the "answer". It's a big help, as you can tell, but I also see signs of zombied PCs in our mail queue, and IDS system. It's not hard to throw messages into mail client to get around the blockage of port 25 to that IP.

  120. Re:No wait its like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who do we hold responsible when the owner leaves the keys in the ignition, the manufacturer didn't provide any door locks, and an Eastern European gang steals the car and uses it to deliver advertising circulars to 10,000,000 mobile homes? Just hypotheticall, of course.

  121. Re:The hardest thing about those ENLARGE YOUR PENI by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    Pe op le wi th a l ar ge pen is sho uld ha ve mas s iv e, frequ ent, la rge typ os d ue to ina dver tant ap pe nda ge intr usi on on the ke yb oard you wou ld th ink. No te t hat 99.9 99% of pen is spa m is ho rri bl y ful l of typo s. There fore, a ll pe nis spa m is r ea l. Go fo r the si ze in cre ase!

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  122. Do NOT clean up Winboxen for free. by Werrismys · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Do not clean up these boxes. Disconnect them from net and tell the relative in question to either PAY for the cleanup, get someone else to clean it, or get a Mac.

    Bad PR but who the fuck cares.

    tihihi I said boxen.

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    1. Re:Do NOT clean up Winboxen for free. by FriedTurkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do not clean up these boxes. Disconnect them from net and tell the relative in question to either PAY for the cleanup, get someone else to clean it, or get a Mac.

      Dude you want me to charge my Mom? Should I tell my 60 year old mom "PAY UP WITH THAT SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK MONEY BITCH"? Sorry I am not a heartless bastard.

    2. Re:Do NOT clean up Winboxen for free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry I am not a heartless bastard.

      Then what kind of bastard are you?

    3. Re:Do NOT clean up Winboxen for free. by Arslan+ibn+Da'ud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude you want me to charge my Mom? Should I tell my 60 year old mom "PAY UP WITH THAT SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK MONEY BITCH"? Sorry I am not a heartless bastard


      Who said anything about charging $ to clean up Mom's PC? Better yet to barter with her...clean it up for a batch of cookies...or a 6-pack. People are generally a lot more willing to trade goods/services than pay $.



      And if she's family, she should understand where you're coming from. You may not be a heartless bastard, but the spammers sure are. And keeping that machine clean costs $. Or cookies :)

      --

      Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.

    4. Re:Do NOT clean up Winboxen for free. by DaveJay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Consider telling your mom "Hey mom, I just bought you a new PC. Here's the deal, though: since you don't have the time or money to keep your computer from getting infected, I had to get you a different kind of computer. It's very easy to use, and does lots of great stuff, but looks a little different. The good part is, you won't get disconnected again. Oh, and I'm putting this little box (router) between you and the internet for your protection. Don't worry, you don't have to actually touch it or do anything, it'll just work."

      Then drop a Mini Mac on them.

    5. Re:Do NOT clean up Winboxen for free. by DaFrogg · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      A Mini Mac? Hey, they SAID they weren't heartless bastards! ;)

    6. Re:Do NOT clean up Winboxen for free. by Werrismys · · Score: 1

      Then either get her a Mac, tell her the machine is broken for good or keep fixing Bill's shit until she croaks. It will not end otherwise you know.

      --
      'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    7. Re:Do NOT clean up Winboxen for free. by Werrismys · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree to parent poster. I recommend Mac Mini to everyone who just wants to "surf, play some games, write some stuff, store digital photos..." There's no silver bullet, but Mac Mini is close - cheap, very nice to use, and UNIXoid at its core.

      --
      'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    8. Re:Do NOT clean up Winboxen for free. by DaFrogg · · Score: 0

      BTW, Not flamebait, just what we call a "joke". Anything running a Nix-like OS is always better security-wise.

    9. Re:Do NOT clean up Winboxen for free. by dusanv · · Score: 1

      I got my mother an iMac last Christmas. End of story. No more worrying about spyware, viruses and id theft.

    10. Re:Do NOT clean up Winboxen for free. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      So first, you aren't going to give them free tech support, expecting them to pay up. Now you are going to give them $500 Mac Minis? Okay... this makes no sense.

      For the cheap: Set them up with a patched Windows (autoupdates on), alternative browser, and a hardware firewall. Spybot and antivirus ace a good idea too. A software firewall also doesn't hurt. My Mom does just fine with Windows 2000, Opera, Eudora, and a Linksys box - zero viruses, spyware, trojans in several years.

      Even better: An easy to use Linux distro. For the truly hopeless give them a bootable CD. Then, no matter how bad they mess it up, a fresh install is a reset away.

      If possible, just bring their box back over to your place. I can set up a computer with ease and very little time using a KVM while I do work on one of my machines.

      Though do I agree, the Mac Mini is not a bad idea. But I don't have piles of money laying around to give all my relatives a Mac.

    11. Re:Do NOT clean up Winboxen for free. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Dude you want me to charge my Mom? Should I tell my 60 year old mom "PAY UP WITH THAT SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK MONEY BITCH"? Sorry I am not a heartless bastard.

      So, buy her a shiny new Mac instead (from your money)? Of course, you won't make any money that way, but it's still one less windows user, so a good investment! (But be sure you take care of "disposing" of her old PC, or else she'll just hock the Mac and still keep the PC ;-))

  123. Problem with self-defense by Kobun · · Score: 1

    Barring the 9th circuit and all of Great Britian as I understand it, there is another problem with retaliation in self-defense here.

    Application of force. If someone attacks me in my home with real or apparant intent to kill, I respond in full. If I somehow manage to subdue said scumbag without killing them, after they are incapacitated I am no longer able to justify their death at my hands as self defense. In other words, if I tie up a murderer in my apartment and wait for the police, I cannot claim self-defense for then shooting him out of boredom.

    In other words, the response is usually considered self-defense only if it is comparable to the attack. Try to take it offline, well, were you knocked off-line in the attack? Keep in mind, I most definitely am not a lawyer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_defense

  124. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Sj0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Slashdot: The left's answer to Rush Limbaugh...

    Don't fall into their trap. The childish cynics and the childish idealists would have you believe that they are part of the left and right wings of the political spectrum; that one is conservative and the other liberal.

    This is wrong. For proof, simply look at a dictionary whose definition of either term goes beyond "conservatives believe in right/conservative things" and "liberals believe in left/liberal things" and you'll see that the attempts by the "left" to keep things the same and the attempts by the "right" to do things that have never been done before, along with other actions which run directly contrary to the true meaning of various areas of the political spectrum or the meaning of those two words Conservative and Liberal.

    Myself? I'm a conservative in the truest and best sense of the word: a traditionalist who tends to be frugal with expendatures, underestimate income, and prefers to limit government power. Following the lessons of the past, however, leads me to want to continue the best traditions which have made the modern world prosperous and free, rather than become one of the bickering children who would claim that their simplistic worldview, ignorant of the past, present, or future, is anything like the noble philosophies of the true left or right.

    --
    It's been a long time.
  125. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by BVis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    why dont governments form a unit to identify and at least notifiy the owners of these machines?

    To paraphrase the late great Jerry Orbach playing Lenny Briscoe, "Sure, let's get the government involved. That'll solve everything."

    And as far as the ISPs go, I've worked for ISPs that wouldn't even cut someone off for non-payment for fear of their subscriber numbers going down. Do you really think they have the manpower, resources, or interest in doing anything about this until they're forced to by business pressures? (eg, never.)

    The only way to fix this problem is user education. And because most users refuse to be educated, or accept any form of responsibility for their own machines, I don't see this problem getting fixed. Ever.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  126. It MUST be more than one million by Werrismys · · Score: 1
    If there are hundreds of millions of Windoze boxes out there, and 9 out of 10 Winblows machines I've looked into have at least SOME malware, rootkit or virus... then the number is way low.

    When I see a new PC and look at the user for 3 seconds... if only I could ask 2 questions and then bet money on whether the machine in question has any malware - I'd be rich.

    Yea corporate networks are better - if the corporation is big. Most small businesses have owned or infected boxes.

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
  127. Those aren't Microsoft Zombies by consumer_whore · · Score: 2, Funny

    Remember, Linux is is the Insecure OS, not WIndows! http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/16/ 1517207&tid=163&tid=1&tid=218

  128. We need a truly destructive virus by Werrismys · · Score: 1
    The best thing that could happen:

    Another blaster-like gets widespread, and destroys the machines in question. Wipe the HD, wipe the BIOS if possible. Wipe all files on all network drives with write access. Wipe everything. Write nasty letter to boss. Play fart sounds, change wallpaper to tubgirl.

    THIS would wake people up. Not the fact that the ADSL light blinks a bit and the machine feels a bit slower.

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    1. Re:We need a truly destructive virus by ticktockticktock · · Score: 1
      Wipe the HD, wipe the BIOS if possible ... Wipe everything. ... change wallpaper to tubgirl.

      It might be a bit hard to change the wallpaper on a system that no longer has an O/S or a BIOS.

  129. 10 Year Setback Sounds Great! by MooseByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If Joe User were required to start by using Linux or BSD, it would set computing back 10 years."

    To a time before rampant SpambotNets and the DMCA. Sign me up! :-)

  130. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by 615 · · Score: 2

    What? What?! NOW it's the ISP's responsibility?? Consistenty, Slashdot. Please. ISPs provide a connection to the Internet. It's the USER's responsibility to decide what they do with that connection. And it's the GOVERNMENT's (read: society's) responsibility to find and prosecute the sons of bitches who willfully and with malice inject our machines full of their garbage--be it bots, spyware, or spam. Casting [any] blame on the ISPs is akin to blaming P2P companies for copyright infringement or blaming Smith and Wesson for drive-by shootings. I could go on for hours, but I feel like I've made my point.

  131. Re:Next Step: Take them over. by haagmm · · Score: 0

    honestly how many botnet operators are that sufisticated? yes some are, but most?

    your also forgetting something else. Possesion of the Private key means that it is undeniable that you are in control of said bot net. in short a digitally signed order is a literal signiture of the controler of the botnet. forget the "i was hacked to" excuse or the "that was someone else's ip 24 hours ago" one. if you have the private key your signing those mesages.

  132. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would I read slashdot then ?
    And yes I am reading it from a scada machine for those who kow what I am talking about.

  133. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by blanks · · Score: 1

    "It seems they probably could, but are not going to."

    Well yeah, it's not their job, and its as much their problem as it is the rest of the worlds.

    Imagine trying to fix 100,0000 relatives computers. Most of these people are people who don't care at all if their computer is compromised, and would require someone else to fix it, not them.

    In fact I was just at a cafe that had a few spybots installed on the machines there, I told many people who went up to use them exactly what was/would happen if they used it, most of the responses I got were "what are they going to do, break into my yahoo account". And it didn't stop a single person from using it (then I decided to login to their router and deny all access to irc ports).

  134. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by 615 · · Score: 1

    What? What?! NOW it's the ISP's responsibility?? Consistenty, Slashdot. Please. ISPs provide a connection to the Internet. It's the USER's responsibility to decide what they do with that connection. And it's the GOVERNMENT's (read: society's) responsibility to find and prosecute the sons of bitches who willfully and with malice inject our machines full of their garbage--be it bots, spyware, or spam. Casting [any] blame on the ISPs is akin to blaming P2P companies for copyright infringement or blaming Smith and Wesson for drive-by shootings. I could go on for hours, but I feel like I've made my point. (Re-post. Sorry, I guess I screwed something up. THIS is where this comment's s'posed to be.)

  135. scary but.. by Keruo · · Score: 1

    In a weird way, I have to give some credit to the botnet operator(s) who are running 50,000 machine botnet. That is, assuming they actually wrote the bot software themselves.
    It's not easy to write networking application that would scale well, especially when you have n amount of peers and each peer has unknown amount of bandwidth.
    If the machines can cross-communicate without centralized server and scale up to 50 000, that's one nice application.

    now, only if they would use them for something else than extortion and crime..

    --
    There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    1. Re:scary but.. by The+Barking+Dog · · Score: 1

      Don't they just open connections to an IRC channel and wait for commands? That doesn't seem like it takes much inter-machine communication. Heck, you could do that in just a few lines of Perl.

  136. Um... this was reported like 2 days ago.... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/15/134 1203&tid=172&tid=1

    RTFA!

    I am pretty sure the BBC news post is just a dumbed down version of this report:

    http://www.honeynet.org/papers/bots/

    So it begs the question why is this news... Does /. think we didn't RTFA in the first place or too dumb to understand it... We needed the diluted verion i guess.... or maybe Zonk and Camander Taco don't compaire notes... who knows. EIther way same story twice in 3 days = yuck.
    out
    DarthVain

  137. P2P Nets by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So how many of these are being used for P2P serving?

    "But Judge, I wasn't me that was sharing those files "

    Before you laugh, I had a Linux 'router' broken into about 8 years ago. I of course caught it in nightly auditing, but it happened.

    Turned my machine into a porn ftp server and a bridge to break into the next person.. If I hadn't been auditing, might have been months before discovery..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:P2P Nets by chad.koehler · · Score: 1

      Porn FTP server, eh? Did you at least have access to it? ;)

  138. Sauron cluster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One box to rule them all, One net to find them,
    One OS to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.

  139. One click fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  140. Re:Next Step: Take them over. by archeopterix · · Score: 1
    honestly how many botnet operators are that sufisticated? yes some are, but most?
    Perhaps even none. I was just pointing at the theoretical possibility of defeating a theoretical attack, mkay?
    your also forgetting something else. Possesion of the Private key means that it is undeniable that you are in control of said bot net. in short a digitally signed order is a literal signiture of the controler of the botnet. forget the "i was hacked to" excuse or the "that was someone else's ip 24 hours ago" one. if you have the private key your signing those mesages.
    The "i was hacked to" excuse still works. "I was hacked and the attacker left his stuff including the key on my computer". Not to mention the fact that any hacker able to implement this scheme wouldn't let the key sit unencrypted on his disk.
  141. As opposed to millions of "Zombie" users... by ectotherm · · Score: 0

    Brought to you by AOL. ;)

    --
    "Nature bats last..."
  142. My local one does sometimes by dlZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've had machines show up in my shop along with notes from Road Runner stating that they can't regain their service until they show proof the machine was repaired properly. These machines have always been so bad off, they were unusable, yet they were kept online constantly, to display popups and act as zombies.

    One case it was actaully not the customers machines, but his neighbor who was taking a free ride on their wide open wireless network. Turning on WEP immediatly fixed the problem. The customer couldn't figure it out, because they were a household of Macs, and were sure they couldn't get hijacked like that. They never even thought of the wide open network.

    --
    rm -rf ./evidence @ punkcomp
  143. They'll do what they always do: by aristus · · Score: 1

    reinstall Windows! It's the answer to everything.

    --
    Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
    1. Re:They'll do what they always do: by Gubbe · · Score: 1

      Pardon me, sir. I believe you misspelled the word "uninstall".

  144. Simple solution by skintigh2 · · Score: 1

    1) get source code of whatever worm is making all these zombies
    2) modify code to only spread itself for a few hours per machine before killing net connection and berating computer owner for poor security.

    Result: bot nets destroyed, computer owners informed.

    Optional result is you get arrested, but that's why I am leaving this up to a non-American to do. However, what if I drove to Mexico before releasing the worm, would that make a difference?

  145. Free Market by dpilot · · Score: 1

    It occurs to me that we are seeing the Free Market at work. There is obviously more money to be made in spamming and supporting spamming than there is in ordinary folks like you and me communicating through email. Nor is this the type of thing that one ISP can solve alone, so you can't vote with your money at another ISP.

    Until the cost equations tilt somehow, spam will continue and probably grow. As long as the incremental cost of sending additional spam is so close to zero it'll happen.

    Perhaps another law is being broken with zombie nets, but as long as it's only for a nuisance like spam or zombie growth, I doubt the government will get involved.

    Now, if we could prove that terrorists are shipping plans and information through zombie nets, steganographically hidden in spam, it would be a different story. We could wear our tinfoil hats right to the DHS and get action.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Free Market by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      The beauty of steganography is that given an infinite supply of "ciphertexts"(spam), you can find a way to prove any message you want. Can we just call DHS now since we already know that we will find messages to/from terrorists "encoded" in spam? Can we use the military for raids on the spammers? Arrests will not be necessary. =)

  146. Honeynet by smoker2 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From the Honeynet homepage:
    More than 90% of these connection attempts were caused by a machine running Windows, whereas only about 3% could be identified as originating from Linux machines.
    The first attempt to attack one of the honeypots was noticed about ten minutes after the whole honeynet was attached to the Internet. The system was systematically searched for weaknesses (port scan) and the attacker tried to exploit a known vulnerability in the Internet Information Server (IIS). After this short period of time, an unpatched version of this server would have been compromised.
    The ports 445, 135, 137 and 139 - all belonging to Netbios, the protocol favored by the Microsoft Operating System family - see by far the most traffic.

    Apparently they were using SUSE 8 Pro and Solaris 8 as the Honypots. My issue with the BBC article is that although (as can be seen from the Honeypot site) 90% of the attacks were aimed at, or originated from a Windows machine, the offending OS is mentioned only once.
    They (the BBC) should spell it out, so that the general public actually gets notified officially, and thus make it a well known issue amongs non-IT literate people.
    1. Re:Honeynet by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "They (the BBC) should spell it out, so that the general public actually gets notified officially, and thus make it a well known issue amongs non-IT literate people."

      Yeah, so that Joe Sixpack will read about when he turns off the game on ESPN to do his daily check of the BBC website.

  147. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by needacoolnickname · · Score: 2, Insightful

    why dont governments form a unit to identify and at least notifiy the owners of these machines?

    I think I would prefer my tax dollars go to the fixing of schools and highways or medical research or even the military before someone gets a government job notifying people that their comptuters are bothering people.

  148. Does this mean... by dtk13 · · Score: 1

    Does this mean we have 1 million+ zombie users on our hands?
    IT Guy: Get your stooped windows viruses off of me!
    Zombie: Must click on banner...Must click on banner...Must kill all who don't click banners...
    Hey any game makers out there, we have your self a new game...

  149. Hey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's sue people whenever things go wrong!

  150. Anyone REALLY surprised? by DeanMeister · · Score: 1

    is anyone really suprised by this? alot of people who own computers dont even bother updating any protection software they might have. its not really a surprise at this point

    --
    Society never gets more or less violent, the definition of violent just keeps changing.
  151. Re:Next Step: Take them over. by chad.koehler · · Score: 1

    But what command to send!!??? Sleep. Sleep... Data... Sleep.

  152. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

    Still have your notes from that? It sounds like it might be interesting to go over.

    --
    01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
  153. Re:Next Step: Take them over. by GQuon · · Score: 1

    Independence Day

    Or maybe from Shin seiki Evangelion (Neon Genesis Evangelion), Episode 13: Angel Invasion / Lilliputian Hitcher

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  154. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by grolschie · · Score: 1

    Yup, they should make a law that forces ISPs to simply pull the plug on the users broadband connection when a zombied pc is conclusively detected. Until that user can show that they are a responsible pc owner and netizen, it's back to playing Solitaire or Minesweeper.

  155. An argument isn't just contradiction. by billstewart · · Score: 1

    (Monty Python Argument Clinic Sketch.) The joke he was doing was a reference to the "Night of the Living Dead" series of zombie movies.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  156. gee... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a rip-roaring time. A great party, I bet.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  157. Where did they get the 1 million figure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like speculation to me.

  158. Spreading constructive viruses by otisg · · Score: 1

    Now imaging those 1M PCs infected with good viruses, viruses that crawl the web, crunch difficult problems, etc.

    Virus hackers: write good viruses that infect even more PCs.

    --
    Simpy
    1. Re:Spreading constructive viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even a good job at trolling.

  159. Lucky me... by guardianfox · · Score: 1

    I've been relatively unharmed thus far. Sure i've had a few run-ins with malware, spyware, adware etc... but nothing I couldn't have simply lived with... and nothing that I haven't been able to defeat. So far my toughest experience was with a worm that was eating all my system resources and for some reason couldn't be removed by Norton... Luckily I'd prepared backups the day before because I was planning to do a fresh install of windows anyway. Most of my other experiences with malware etc, were "hey I didn't even notice the symptoms" moments when Avast! let me know about them. Personally, if I dont see a problem... then there's no problem. Generally though, my computer checks out clean. I know my way around windows and dos and the internet, but I wouldn't consider myself a computer expert since I know very little about programing and networking. So if I'm no expert, why am I unharmed? Well, I've got the good sense to use a decent virus program (Avast! free and recomended, google it), a spyware tool (spybot), a firewall (both hardware and software), and an automated backup utility. All that software of course could sit on your hard drive unused and you'd be better off which is why I've developed the good habits of manually activating a virus or spyware check every now and then, keeping my desktop, menus, and programs organized and free of crap, not falling for "britany_spears_naked.exe," and backing up frequently. Hey, a spindle of cd's is well worth the cost when you consider how much easier it is to back up your files than to re-create them after a disaster.

  160. Not to be confused with a zillion mombie PCs... by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 1

    Over a million zombie PCs
    not
    Over a zillion mombie PCs!

    --
    Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
  161. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  162. Wheels Came Off because of Thieves by billstewart · · Score: 1

    When my uncle was living in Italy, there was one day that he was driving through the mountains and one of his wheels came off. He avoided falling off the cliff, and to hold his spare tire on, he decided to take one nut from each of the other wheels. He put the wrench on the first one to remove it, and it was loose, and so were the others. After checking that nobody he knew was trying to kill him, he decided that it was probably just thieves trying to steal his fancy wheels who'd been interrupted before they'd gotten them off.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  163. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by pe1chl · · Score: 1

    This is where the government can step in: they can make it unlawful for ISPs to not disconnect someone after they are notified of illegal activities via a hijacked PC. Right now many ISPs simply don't care what their customers do. This should change.
    When not handling abuse reports will result in being put out of business, this will wake them up and put people on the task.

  164. But as we all know.... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1
    It doesn't matter how great Ford engines are if they keep sticking tread-separating Firestone tires on their vehicles.


    There was sod all wrong with the Firestone tyres. It was because the users had been told to run them at absurdly low pressures to try to minimise the risk of the vehicle flipping at low speed. Had the Explorer been built with a low enough centre of gravity (instead of being about as stable as an egg standing on its pointy end) the problem would not have occurred.


    As an aside, I use Firestone tyres on all kinds of vehicles, and have never had a problem. If I was in a nitpicky mood, I'd say that their 145SR15s are not nearly as sticky as the Michelin equivalents, but they *are* 1/3 the price.

    1. Re:But as we all know.... by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "There was sod all wrong with the Firestone tyres. It was because the users had been told to run them at absurdly low pressures to try to minimise the risk of the vehicle flipping at low speed. Had the Explorer been built with a low enough centre of gravity (instead of being about as stable as an egg standing on its pointy end) the problem would not have occurred."

      Congratulations on being one of the few people who saw through Ford's propaganda on this issue.

    2. Re:But as we all know.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I was just using that as an example. Personally, I drove an Exploder once (it was owned by the place I worked at), and that was enough for me. Why anyone would willingly purchase such a poor-handling and top-heavy vehicle is beyond me.

      I did find it rather amusing that this Exploder had a built-in tissue box holder. Obviously a vehicle designed especially for soccer moms.

    3. Re:But as we all know.... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      I did find it rather amusing that this Exploder had a built-in tissue box holder.


      So you can wipe after experiencing the Explorer's "entertaining" handling. I've only ever driven ones imported into the UK, so perhaps the US ones were different, but they were slow, noisy, unstable and basically unsafe above 30mph. Unfortunately this leaves you in the unpleasant position of trying to drive on UK roads at roughly 1/3 of the speed of everything else (1/4 on motorways).


      Ghastly things.

  165. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by pe1chl · · Score: 1

    ISPs should be held responsible for what theur client do when they have been notified of their wrongdoings and have decided not to pay attention to those notifications.

    Right now there is the problem of many hijacked and virus-infected PCs on broadband networks, and the victims of those have the problem that they can identify the problem spot only by IP address,
    The ISP acts as a shield between you and the troublemaker, by systematically ignoring requests to take them offline or to give you contact information so you can call them yourself.

    This is not like the position of P2P companies or weapon manufacturers. It is like the ISPs position in copyright violation cases. The ISP is held responsible until they provide the name of the offender.

  166. My apologies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I now realize that you must be a Slashdot editor, presumably paid, and therefore an IT professional.

  167. Automatic versus Standard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, this is why I drive an automatic. I was taught to drive an automatic, and my first few cars were automatic.

    I know how to drive standards (Stick shift) and have had a few vehicles that were standard. But I keep going back to Automatic.

    I know some of my geeky friends who swear up and down on standards. They love to tune their cars and have complete knowledge of the inner workings of their vehicles.

    They say an automatic is for wimps.

    But I don't really care how my car works. I just works. If the car can shift the gears for me, why would I want to do it myself?

    Same reason why I drive Windows computers and not Linux computers. I have many Windows computers doing all sorts of things - including managing themself. The HP Insight agents are a real nice feature.

    I have a few RedHat & Mandrake boxes. But they do very little. They have BIND, DHCPD, and STunnel which are all configured via WebMIN.

    Everything else is Windows here. Hundreds and Hundreds of computers. The only exception being 3 AS/400's. They cost a ton of money, but do what they are programmed to do very well. These are the H2's of the computer world.

    1. Re:Automatic versus Standard. by Mancat · · Score: 1
      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
    2. Re:Automatic versus Standard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was recently thinking about this analogy myself. Pesonally, I drive and perfer a stick. I like the control I have over my vehicle with a stick, and I feel like I'm driving the car instead of the other way around.

      I do think Linux is the same way. It is more work, but the control you have over your computer is something Windows users cannot imagine. It is not as sleek and shiny, but it is incredibly stable and dependable.

  168. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by Zorilla · · Score: 1

    Check again, they use Dell laptops. (Thank you, HD!)

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  169. Re:No wait its like this... by carou · · Score: 1

    The Eastern European gang!

    The others share some blame for making it too easy, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the perpetrators of the theft have actual malicious intent.

  170. I cannot get rid of this stuff by Jon+Taylor · · Score: 1

    Newest ad-aware, newest Norton SystemWorks, half a dozen other malware removal programs, winxp firewall up and running... and I can't get this stuff (ads, CPU-sucking processes which respawn, etc) off my parent's machine permanently. What's the deal? Is anyone else out there finding it flat out impossible to make this stuff go away? Jon

    1. Re:I cannot get rid of this stuff by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

      Yes. See my post "Something I've noticed" (next to your post).

      This shit is nasty. I can't take the time necessary to kill it so I end up re-imaging the machines and "simply" reinstalling all of the original software.

      My worst fear is that this stuff is worse than "just" being a part of a bot-net. I'm more concerned that they are engaged in the wholesale harvesting of identity information (like passwords, bank account information, and credit card numbers).

      Clean your parents machine by wiping everything then have them deal with changing any of the sensitive information they have on their computers.

  171. MS-Basher's a *friendly* term on Slashdot... by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Oh, come on, you're saying we'll call you a "Microsoft Basher" as if that's a Bad Thing. Here on Slashdot, that's sort of like karma-whoring :-)

    My home PC runs WinXP most of the time, behind a hardware firewall of course, and security updates are relatively painless. I have them set to download automatically, and only update when I want them to (it's not the default, but I don't like the machine rebooting itself when I'm not around or don't want to be interrupted), but the nag balloon pops up any time there are updates ready. I think their default is to update automatically as well. It's a big change for MS, but it's a lot safer than it used to be.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  172. Nachi/Welchia was too aggressive by billstewart · · Score: 1

    There's certainly no excuse for implementing it as a worm when it could have just as well been a scanner program that operated at a controlled rate from an identifiable site. But one of the biggest problems with Nachi was that it generated too much internet traffic. It did lots of pings deciding what to infect, and worked fast enough that it generally made a bigger mess of any networks it was on than the original Blaster had.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  173. Something that I've noticed by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

    I deal with several spy-ware comprimised machines every day. They account for perhaps fifty percent of my workday each and every day.

    About a month ago things started getting worse again, for a while before that things had gotten better for a while. Part of it was because I was getting better at dealing with the crap but another part of it seemed like I was actually seeing fewer comprimised machines. The metrics seemed to bear this out too.

    In the past few weeks, the machines have been more grossly effected - many having multiple installs of spyware and virtually every one of them containing a trojan back-door of some sort. On top of that, either I'm getting dumber or the crap is getting much harder to remove. In some cases, the computers wouldn't let me run the more common tools that I use - they would launch and be closed immediately.

    In one case in particular, I had a machine that worked fine one day and the very next the machine litterally took hours to come up to the desktop! All the while it was doing *something* with the remote user's network connection. When I brought that machine in I booted using a bootable CD ROM and discovered a number of .exe files in the root and in the temp directory that were obviously spyware. The machine would NOT let me delete the files even though I booted with a known good "Bart's PE CD" I was unable to find what was preventing me from deleting them (attributes all seemed okay).

    After reimaging the computer, I put the data back down and reinstalled the programs and the machine was flawless - so it wasn't hardware. Unfortunately, time is money and I can not afford to take all the time in the world to do forensics.

    What I guess I am trying to convey here is that in my opinion, there has been in the very recent past a fundimental change in the way this stuff is working. I suspect that these efforts are more than just an effort to make the spyware harder to removed. I suspect that there is now more happening in the background of these machines. I'm sure many of them are "bot-net" machines but even worse, I think some of the machines that I've seen are very busy "harvesting" data from the owner's machines!

    If my hunch is correct, I'm willing to bet the in the very near future, we will see identity theft on a scale we had never imagined before. Frankly, I'm quite concerned about that and am suggesting that people who have been victims of this "nasty spyware" take the time to change all of the passwords and credit card numbers while their computer is still "fresh" or better yet, change the information in person at their bank or over the phone.

    Does anyone else see the same things happening?

    1. Re:Something that I've noticed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until the malware starts infecting your BIOS and other firmware. I doubt you would be able to clean that kind of stuff from a user's computer since even if you have an EEPROM programmer you probably won't have firmware images for all the video cards, sound cards, hard drives, and other hardware out there.

  174. Recommend: Process Explorer by x2A · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google for "Process Explorer" - free download, shows all processes and CPU usage (there is also an option to show % fractions of CPU usage or context switches for being really precise). Shows processes in a tree also, so you can see what's started what. Also gives ability to pause (a la -SIGSTOP/CONT) processes, very handy lil download. Well done the creators.

    -2A

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  175. Script Kiddies don't need to be sophisticated by billstewart · · Score: 1
    As long as the original authors, who presumably know a little bit about computer security, build some decent security mechanisms in their tools, then script kiddies don't need to think about it themselves - they can just enter a password when the program tells them to. Also, lots of these tools appear to be written for hire by organized crime, e.g. Russian Mafia, who use them to make money through phishing and DDOS extortion, and they can hire good designers. The question with those products, though, is how much information they report back to their original designers while they're ostensibly only working for the script kiddie who's running them...

    There are two reasons a hacker might not want to leave the key unencrypted on his disk - one is that if he gets caught, it's proof that he knew the key, and the other is that if somebody cracks that machine, they can steal his zombie army. Neither problem is a real worry - if you're Evil But Not Stupid, you don't run the zombie controller on your own machine, you crack somebody else's machine and use that to crack somebody else's machine and use *that* to run the zombies from, so it's hard to trace back to you or the cybercafe you rode in on. The theft problem is a threat model issue - since the zombie controller is just another hijacked machine, you may decide not to worry about it getting stolen, or you do a little more cookbook cryptography and handle the asymmetric private key the way PGP does - store it encrypted using a conventional symmetric cypher using a password you can easily remember, so you don't need to store that on your machine, though you might write it on a yellow sticky note.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  176. Swap by x2A · · Score: 1

    Sometimes having an over sized swap file can cause over hdd activity. Old rule was "swap should be 1.5 times size of RAM" (I think)... but this really doesn't apply for the amount of RAM our machines come with these days for what we do with them.

    Also as someone else said - turning off index service (or "find fast" which came with older Office versions - dunno about recent ones).

    Also as I mentioned in another post, check out the free download Process Explorer (google for it), watch 'context switches', see what's busy.

    -2A

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  177. Win95 box: Never bothered :-) RH6 - killed. by billstewart · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A couple of years ago I got DSL in my lab, and left a couple of machines on it unprotected partly to experiment with and partly to see what would happen to them. One Linux box was running tcpdump continuously to sniff the network. The Win95 box was never bothered - it had anti-virus software, and I used Netscape rather than IE (and of course there was nothing useful on it to exploit because it was a Win95 box :-) The RedHat 6.x box typically lasted a week between crackings - I eventually named the machine "Kenny" because it kept getting brutally and senselessly killed every week. One of the crackers really didn't like it when I got rid of his Staecheldraht installation and reformatted the disk. So I installed a newer RedHat version, in a mode with no servers running, and people mostly left it alone other than basic doorknocking.

    This *was* a few years ago, and crackers have gotten more sophisticated, and DSL and cable modem proliferation means there are lots more fast net connections for them to work with. At the time, Win95 was obsolete, RedHat was doing 7.x versions, and Staecheldraht attacks seemed to mostly come from universities (including Washington University, whose wu-ftpd was one of the main holes exploited by crackers, and a machine that looked like it was from MIT but was actually from somebody in Japan with a byte-order problem.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  178. Scanners can do anything Worms Can by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Worms are a *terrible* way to implement something like that - the only reason to use them is if you're trying to hide. An ISP who's not trying to hide can run a scanner on their clients, and quarantine them until they get cleaned up. Some ISPs routinely do that with customers whose machines get detected running attacks; it's not a bad idea to do that as part of the setup process for new users.

    The client doesn't need to be technically sophisticated - you set them up by routing all their HTTP requests to your new-user server, so they don't even have to remember to go there themselves, tell them to wait while you run a scan, and then have them tell you whether they've got XP/Win2K/Win98/Mac/Linux and download the appropriate checkup program. Furthermore, it's not unreasonable to keep them in a quarantine zone with an easy mechanism to get full internet capability if they can fill out your form correctly - that keeps the naive users in protected mode, and lets the clients who know how to RTFM get unfiltered or semi-filtered access if they want it.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  179. Re:Anyone know... [winhat] by winhat · · Score: 0

    Time flies like a banana.

    Dance is a sack in the wars for their genocide. Decimated by manifest destiny. Tortured and enslaved in the process. And a bunch of the window actions can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. You've got connection limits and such to ensure that you and i have one thing in common. We're both human. There are also about 2759023845908750923854 (as of last week) versions of solitaire available for the right job. Awww geez, i'm running out of heaven every stone about the weight of a client for business.

    Because you are a part of the leg, and is the tendon which connects the head with the lower extremities.

  180. Re:Anyone know... [winhat] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you on crack or something?

  181. Re:Anyone know... completely OT by thatnerdguy · · Score: 1
    --
    I saw the Sign, and it opened up my eyes
  182. more then 1 million. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i sent a email to my isp complaining that my machine was attacked over 100 times in 30 minutes by zombie computers. they dont get it was already compramised machines they thought it was just port scanning. you know what ports got hit the most? 135 137 139 and 455 guess what that is ? netbios what does netbios = ? yes you guessed it microsoft. the only real way to get this type of stuff to stop is no1 make sure people are nated no2 if people do have there machine compramised and it starts anonying other people with constant exploits being sent at you. they should have there isp account take away from them untill they fix it up. granted not all machines that are compramised are windows machines alot of them are poorly administrated *nix boxes but only about 10%. as you can see from http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/75/393292/ here you can make joe user update his windows box but you can put him behind a firewall so the only bugs he can get hit by are ie bugs or other things along them lines

  183. Re:Anyone know... completely OT by thatnerdguy · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Data_Syste ms

    Just copy and paste it, /. keeps breaking it.

    --
    I saw the Sign, and it opened up my eyes
  184. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by BVis · · Score: 1

    That's a good idea in theory. Unfortunately, where technology is concerned, I don't trust the government to know what an ISP is, let alone realize that people can do illegal things with it.

    Plus enforcement would be all but impossible. The tax revenue consumed by such a (IMHO) futile effort could be put to much better use.

    The underlying cause of ISPs' apathy towards compromised PCs is that consumer culture in this country (posting from the USA) is broken. The way IMHO that consumerism is supposed to work is if you don't like the way someone is providing a service or product, you'll vote with your pocketbook and go to the competition. In this case, if the ISP that you're on allows compromised PCs on its network, then you get the heck off their network and switch to a provider that gives a damn about security. But the average USian is either too lazy, too stupid, or too cheap to do anything about it, and when you compound those factors with the average USian's complete stupidity regarding technology (see this post for my definition of stupidity vs. ignorance), you have the problem we're discussing.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  185. Re:Email address collector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an email collection site, spammers.
    Has been reported as fraud.

  186. Explains all the spam I'm getting about braaaains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or was that too obvious? I mean, zombie jokes aren't really the freshest material around.

  187. Solaris can be installed locked-down by dananderson · · Score: 1
    Solaris can be installed locked-down. Use Solaris Security Toolkit at http://www.sun.com/software/security/jass/

    Of course all operating systems have their security holes. However, it's stily to say that no matter how poor a OS design may be (Windoz), that it doesn't matter and they are "all the same."

  188. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by pe1chl · · Score: 1

    I think the problem is not that customers are or should be unsatisfied with their own ISP and thus should move to another.
    The problem is that other ISPs exist that do not care, and that we are all connected to one single Internet.
    So even when you are at a ISP that cares about these things (I am), you still suffer from the million PCs of users at ISPs that don't care, and there is nothing you can do about that.

    So an ISP should be required by law to care about this. Just as there exists a mandatory facilitation of lawful intercept (at least here), it could be mandated that ISPs provide a contact method to report compromised systems, and be mandated to actually do something with the reports.
    For example, an e-mail address or form on their website where you enter date/time, IP address and observed activity (spamrelay, attempted virus delivery, portscanning or other hacking) usually related with compromised systems. The ISP would then have to handle these reports, for example in order of decreasing number of reports per address. The customer would have to be contacted, warned about the situation, maybe get moved to a closed network where they can download only tools, or disconnected completely until the situation is remedied.

    Don't say it can't be done, my ISP does it and others do. But as it is not mandatory there remain countless other ISPs that don't, and millions of PCs that you can see attacking you and the rest of the world but you (and others) can do nothing about because you have no way of contacting their owner.

  189. Solution death penalty for hackers by rofthorax · · Score: 1

    I think the solution should be instant death penalty for hackers.. Hey it shouldn't be tough to get compromised attacks down to almost nothing..

    --
    Just say no to license servers!!
  190. bollocks. by RMH101 · · Score: 1
    you absolute fucking liar. "MS does include some basic drivers" - try installing XP SP2 on a few PCs. Want to put a bet on how many bits of hardware it won't correctly recognise? It won't be very many in the VAST majority of cases. You can bash MS all you want but when it comes to hardware support in its OS right out of the box, you can't beat them. Native sata support on the bootcd? check. Drivers for all common chipsets, including pretty non-mainstream stuff like nforce2 and newer? Check. If you install XP SP2 on a PC made a year ago, chances are extremely high you won't need any drivers at all.
    "Vendor-written drivers have a very poor record". Sure. I'd much prefer my drivers to be written by someone who has time on his hands rather than the actual MANUFACTURER OF THAT HARDWARE.
    Whether you're pro or anti MS, you've got to realise the parent poster was absolute bullshit.
    FUD, plain and simple. "What good is it as an OS if you can't add various hardware" - find me an OS with better support for third party hardware right out of the box and I'll kiss you on the ring, you fucknut.

    All OSs have their pluses and minuses, but one thing Linux and the Mac aren't renowned for is compatibility with loads of hardware.... Mod me up, you fvckers!

    1. Re:bollocks. by wheany · · Score: 1

      You are my hero.

    2. Re:bollocks. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Look, you fucking morons: every time someone complains about their Windows installation blue-screening, it gets blamed on third-party drivers. Now you're telling me those drivers never have problems? Which one is it? Or are you now going to try to convince us that Windows never crashes?

  191. Re:Next Step: Take them over. by incabulos · · Score: 1

    Taking the internet as a whole entity it begins to resemble a biological model, similar to cells comprising a whole creature, or a population of individual creatures comprising an ecosystem, subject to the same points of frailty and weakness. Infections break out all the time, a constant war is waged between organisms competing for scarce resources - food, territory, and the like. Or cpu time, disk space and bandwidth.

    Genetically uniform populations are wiped out easily by viruses that are quicker to adopt, and are easily able to invade the cell and get it producing and distibuting more viruses in a chain-reaction.

    What is interesting is that no biological system has a really large number of easily infectible hosts that have survived for any length of time, they have inevitably died out. The numbers of the initial population are irrelevant, a larger population simply means there are more target hosts for predatory orginisms to feed upon, which accelerates the process of the demise of the species. The only thing that will enable them to survive is geological isolation, or adaptation and evolution of more effective immune systems, feeding habits, physical robustness, intelligence, and other survival traits.

    That being the case, the biological model is a warning that systems that do not adopt will inevitably perish. What is the biological equivalent of an anti-botnet botnet? A retrovirus would more akin to the sasser worm, in which a virus tries to repair the vulnerability that enabled it to infect the host/cell in the first place.

  192. I'm thinking by seweso · · Score: 1
    1. Re:I'm thinking by EkkiEkkiShiwaddle · · Score: 1
      http://www.spreadfirefox.com/

      While I do agree that FireFox is a much better browser than IE, I would like to point out that the problem lies with the user in most cases, not the browser.

      I've always wanted to set up a webserver with a few pages, containing warnings like "do not click this link, virus ahead" etc..., just to see how many people actually do follow such links.

      It's like cars: a safer car does not make you a better driver. Stick an inexperienced driver with an inflated ego in a state-of-the-art brand-new car, and an experienced driver in a wreck. I'll grab the wreck as my taxi.

  193. and Nachi patched Blaster tm by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

    so how helpful was this? The first day the american news sources said it was a good virus stopping the bad. I can tell you first hand that Nachi was more painful...

    --
    Your Average Joe
  194. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by BVis · · Score: 1

    The problem is that other ISPs exist that do not care, and that we are all connected to one single Internet.

    This is true, but technology exists to filter harmful content at the borders of a given ISPs network (known exploits, spam, virii, etc.). It's implemented with varying degrees of intelligence among ISPs.

    So even when you are at a ISP that cares about these things (I am), you still suffer from the million PCs of users at ISPs that don't care, and there is nothing you can do about that.

    I disagree. There are many steps you can take to minimize your systems' exposure to harmful content, such as an updated antivirus, spam filtering (on the server and the client), and a correctly configured firewall. I agree that these steps shouldn't be necessary, the problem should be prevented before it's created, but that's like saying you shouldn't have to carry an umbrella because it shouldn't rain.

    So an ISP should be required by law to care about this.

    In a perfect world, a law could be created and enforced that would acheive this. We don't live in a perfect world. The government tried to do something about one aspect of this problem with the CAN-SPAM act, which has been loudly criticized as a deeply flawed piece of legislation that not only doesn't accomplish what its writers intended, it in fact makes the problem WORSE by giving spammers the right to email anyone once with any campaign they choose, with the only condition that they give you the option to not receive any more messages related to that campaign. Expecting spammers to be discouraged because they're doing something illegal is like expecting your dog not to pee on your rug if you don't let him out.

    Don't say it can't be done, my ISP does it and others do.

    Yay for your ISP. I'm glad someone in the business world gives a damn about the quality of the product or service they're producing. They're in the drastic minority; most businesses (including ISPs) only care that the money keeps coming in faster than it goes out.

    The facts of life in this case are these: Millions of vulnerable machines are connected to the Internet, through a combination of Microsoft's "swiss cheese" approach to security and user ignorance/stupidity. ISPs are unwilling or unable to do anything about zombie machines, either because of resource limitations or incompetent management. To say government is incompetent in this area is like calling water wet. All you can do (until the ISPs figure out a way that curing the situation could make them money) is protect yourself as best you can.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  195. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by EkkiEkkiShiwaddle · · Score: 1
    If a user is too ignorant, too careless or just too plain stupid to do anything about his recently infected machine, why do you think he/she is going to act if they notify him of this fact? A lot of people *know* they have spyware, virii etc..., but they just don't care!

    I recently cleaned a machine from a neighbour, who asked me about the dangers of spyware. When I told them what could happen (I gave the classic example of online banking login), their reaction was: "oh, we're not that rich, who would steal our money?". What the???

    As long as you can't force users to do something about the situation, you're nowhere. And to force them, they have to do something wrong.

    The best thing would be to disallow them access to the Net on an ISP level, like another poster already pointed out.

  196. Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n by pe1chl · · Score: 1

    There are many steps you can take to minimize your systems' exposure to harmful content, such as an updated antivirus, spam filtering (on the server and the client), and a correctly configured firewall. I agree that these steps shouldn't be necessary, the problem should be prevented before it's created, but that's like saying you shouldn't have to carry an umbrella because it shouldn't rain.

    Of course I have taken all measures to be sure I do not get the bad guys on my system. I use Linux, filter for dangerous content, run a firewall, etc.
    But this does not prevent me from receiving one hundred spam mails per day via compromised systems (which are rejected but still cause lots of logging and traffic), plus many more attempts to connect and portscan.

    Also I have had to abandon a domain name because spammers have chosen to use it as a From address in their spams. I have had to set the MX record to localhost. When I try to set my own system as MX host, I get bombarded by bounces (thousands a day).
    This is also caused by careless ISPs. A reasonably managed mailserver would not accept mail from a source address that has its MX set to localhost, but they do.

    Finally, some of those virus infected systems are spreading their virusmail with my valid mail address as a sender address (because it appears somewhere on those systems). Others may think I am spreading that. I want to stop them from doing it but the ISP does not give me contact information and I have no way to force them to stop misusing my name (mail address).

    I agree that a law is not the first choice to rectify such situations, but it may be the only way to make the ISPs do something. It does not matter so much that the government is incompetent, what matters is that I can send a letter or mail stating "you are required by law to take action so please do so within an X amount of time or I will take legal action".