Slashdot Mirror


Schneier on Attack Trends: More Complex Worms

Gary W. Longsine writes "Bruce Schneier has posted an interesting entry on expected attack trends to his blog. Of particular interest is the increasing sophistication of automated worm-based attacks. He cites the developing W32.spybot.KEG worm -- once inside a network it scans for several vulnerabilities and reports its findings via IRC. Trend Micro also has information on a scanning-capable version of this worm, which they call: WORM_SPYBOT.ID"

189 comments

  1. work work work... by rd4tech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We expect to see more blended threats: exploit code that combines malicious code with vulnerabilities in order to launch an attack.
    This mixed with irc connectiviy, LAN port scanning, update downloads...
    Sounds like a full time job to create one. What are these people gaining anyway?

    1. Re:work work work... by satanami69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They turn your machine into a zombie and then sell it to spammers.

      --
      I really hate Dan Patrick.
    2. Re:work work work... by PrivateDonut · · Score: 1

      I personally think that many of these worms were made as an experiment then got out of hand. I heard a quote somewhere "Hack to learn, don't learn to hack" (probably off someone on /.). Imagine you create a virus, then put in a friends pc as a joke, but then it spreads although you thought your friend didn't connect to the net, he did this one time. There could also be a revenge element... "I'll teach those damn bullies to pick on me! *releases worm*"

    3. Re:work work work... by pschmied · · Score: 5, Insightful
      What are these people gaining, anyway?


      Automated access to large numbers of systems inside big corporations and government, where they collect passwords, account names, scan for vulnerabilities and gather information from PC disk drives for evaluation and sale (corporate espionage). Use of thousands of home systems for spambots and DDoS attack fleets. It's all about organized crime and money to be made these days.



      No, it ain't just kiddies seeing who they can 0wn anymore. They are playing for keeps now.

    4. Re:work work work... by xiando · · Score: 1

      It is, like very much else, all about the money. If you have enough zomibe computers then you can use them to make money. You can sell your network to spammers or someone who wants to lauch a major ddos attack against their competition, or simply use them yourselves to market what ever you have to offer.

      1. Create a botnet
      2. ???
      3. PROFIT !!!

    5. Re:work work work... by songofthephoenix · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "What are these people gaining anyway?"

      Depends on who "these people" are.

      Anti viral company: Creating a greater need for their product.

      Support desk: More support calls to them.

      Someone with a grudge against a particular o.s: They can say that their o.s isn't as vunerable.

      Script kiddie: They do it for their ego after watching hackers and getting all hot and sweaty by the site of the davinci code

      Admin: Do it to get the Product Manager to allow upgrades on their networks and more staff and $$$

      I would like to see a worm that goes around and patches servers for a change. It can be done.

    6. Re:work work work... by mek2600 · · Score: 3, Funny

      What are these people gaining anyway?

      Chicks.

    7. Re:work work work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bigger e-penis.

    8. Re:work work work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its surprisingly painless to create such a beast if you know how. The reason we're seeing more blended threats is because someone had the idea to give a worm irc connectivity, took time out of there day(s) and created the implementation. Everyone else simply copied it. Although it may take hours/days/weeks to be the first to write it, it only takes minutes to copy and paste source of other worms.

      That and I assume maybe they don't 'waste' as much time reading slashdot and use all the extra time on their hands to do their dirty work. ;)

    9. Re:work work work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting ideas, but (no offense intended) i think they are more paranoid than realistic. For instance, there are plenty of viruses and worms in the wild that anti-viral companies don't really need to create their own. Incidentally, i believe there already exists worm(s) that try to do beneficial things like apply patches, or atleast toy prototypes have been created in academia. But one of the damaging side effects of worms is the huge amount of network traffic they incur, and "good" worms can clog up network resources just as much as "bad" worms.

    10. Re:work work work... by bersl2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, it ain't just kiddies seeing who they can 0wn anymore. They are playing for keeps now.

      Wouldn't this be a successful argument for platform diversity? They have the motivation to write complex malware, but do they have the motivation to write complex and cross-platform malware?

      Can one then conclude that because the common wisdom seems to favor a uniform system, this is those people's just deserts?

    11. Re:work work work... by boisepunk · · Score: 1

      Those same worms developed in academia that implement homebrew decentralized p2p create significantly less traffic. P2p isn't the best solution for data propagation, but does solve many problems, like how to get mp3s or distributed patches in a faster way.

      --
      main(0)
    12. Re:work work work... by kaens · · Score: 1

      Most physical bully types that I have met already have their computers infested anyhow.

      Just saying.....

    13. Re:work work work... by pschmied · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Wouldn't this be a successful argument for platform diversity? They have the motivation to write complex malware, but do they have the motivation to write complex and cross-platform malware?


      Excellent point. However, in practice it can be a tricky balance. For example, a company that runs AIX on the Power architecture is less likely to be vulnerable to the buffer overflow exploit of the week than say Linux on Intel.

      The trade off becomes "patch early, and patch often" versus "maintain an expensive development/build environment for a relatively obscure platform that sucks to build software on." As a person who has witnessed this phenomenon first hand and has felt the full pain of building all the standard OSS on AIX, I can tell you that Linux/Intel starts looking pretty good at times.

      As always, it's never black and white. Platform diversity == good. Too much platform diversity == major pain in the ass.

      -Peter
    14. Re:work work work... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Call my cynical, but I think the public perception of corporate espionage is even more ignorant than that of regular espionage. I mean, if corporate espionage was as rife as people think it is then surely I, or one of the many other geeks here who work in highly "secure" environments, would have been approached to engage in it. I never have, have you? What are you gunna steal? Trade secrets? Release dates for products? Customer lists? Is this stuff even remotely valuable anymore?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    15. Re:work work work... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't every corporation in the world install something to prevent worms from propagating? Do they not care or do they think they are already protected because they have a firewall?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    16. Re:work work work... by killjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's valuable to somebody. In any collection of documents you harvest from a company there will be mentions of their major competitiors and to those people any and all information about the competition is valuable. If I offered a company details about their competition you can bet your ass they would pay me lots of money and would not even blink at buying it.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    17. Re:work work work... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they would, cause it would be illegal and people in business generally don't do things that are illegal. But hey, don't take my word for it. Go make contact with someone in a rival company and try selling them information, you'll quickly discover I'm right. Consider it a gentleman's wager, if I'm wrong you get $$$, if I'm right you get a jail sentence.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    18. Re:work work work... by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, at the single network level, moderation is good. I also meant at the level of the entire Internet, diversity is good.

      Everyone makes the "Oh, but if enough of us switch, then they'll start attacking [name of OS] too!" and commercial developers don't want to write cross-platform because it's not profitable.

      I propose that this offloads much of the cost onto the user setups, who pay in lost productivity, lost or stolen data, and sometimes directly financially, because they represent a large target. I argue that there is enough of this happening that "complex" malware is being written, increasing the damage done, then perhaps the hidden costs equal or exceed that of developers' time and salary to make software work on diverse systems, something that can be recouped by raising prices slightly across the board.

      It's the same supporting argument as for diversity in biological systems, except that in this case, the selection is more effective than random.

    19. Re:work work work... by Flendon · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would like to see a worm that goes around and patches servers for a change. It can be done.

      Welchia attempted to patch the DCOM RPC vulnerability that Blaster feed on and remove Blaster if present. It was called the "good samaritan worm". The problem was, as the AC pointed out, the network traffic Welchia generated DoSed any network that it "aided". Other "helpful" viruses have existed, but usually had the same unfriendly welcome for the same reason.

      --
      chown -R us ./base
    20. Re:work work work... by ockegheim · · Score: 1

      If there was somehow real money to be made legally by reporting security flaws (and without becoming a criminal and dealing with criminals), there would be much less incentive for hackers to go to the dark side.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    21. Re:work work work... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      " Yeah, they would, cause it would be illegal and people in business generally don't do things that are illegal."

      ROLFLMAO. Thanks for the humor dude. I haven't laughed that hard in days. That's hilarious!

      But hey, while I got you let me ask you a question. All those hackers, spammers, people who control zombies, etc are they doing it for profit or fun?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    22. Re:work work work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * from the same Anonymous Coward as before *

      If the patches are large enough (and they often are), then you'll create significant amounts of additional traffic no matter how your worm propagates, IMHO. Also, there're other ways that even "good" worms can cause damage. Most patch processes involve a reboot process. Well, what if the good worm affects a system providing a crucial service, a system that shouldn't be rebooted willy-nilly? I'm thinking of systems such as those governing power grids, financial transactions, or medical services. Also, many sysadmins deliberately hold off on patch application because patches often break things or introduce new vulnerabilities, and they want to wait to see if a patch is safe to apply. I don't think anyone is really justified in taking the decision away from sysadmins.

      Incidentally, according to wikipedia, there exist genuine worms that try to do patching:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachi_worm

    23. Re:work work work... by Petersson · · Score: 3, Informative
      and then sell it to spammers

      Is this the New Economics, the lost dream of IT visioneers?

      BTW this Monday my company network was badly infected with yet unknown worm. It created about 15 registry values named 'Microsoft System Backup' to make itself start at lot of occasions. Still can't find anything about it on the internet.

      Despite our admins, I've installed personal firewall...

      --
      I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
    24. Re:work work work... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Look! I'm the cynical one ok? We can't both be cynical. So go fuckin' sell some information to a competitor, preferably with a hidden camera on your person, or STFU.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    25. Re:work work work... by cassidyc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And this "Something" would be what exactly?? Some mythical piece of software that has not and could never be created.

      The only way to ensure that a PC never propogates anything is to never turn the damn thing on.

      CJC

    26. Re:work work work... by jaseuk · · Score: 1

      You're in the wrong department, this usually happens in sales rather than IT. Typically a sales guy gets poached on the basis that they'll bring their wealth of contacts with them (ie. walk out with their contact database and any anything else they can carry with them).

      Jason.

    27. Re:work work work... by dan+the+person · · Score: 1
    28. Re:work work work... by dan+the+person · · Score: 1
    29. Re:work work work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its more likely to be the cleaners than the "geeks". Cleaning tends to be outsourced, and the companies should be reasonably easy to infiltrate. The cleaners are working after hours, often with no supervision.

    30. Re:work work work... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Exactly! And yet I guarentee you that the only cleaner who has tried this has earned nothing more than a jail term. If corporate espionage exists it's not a financial thing.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    31. Re:work work work... by Various+Assortments · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're so silly. What are you gonna do when your mom lets you leave the house?

    32. Re:work work work... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      They have the motivation to write complex malware, but do they have the motivation to write complex and cross-platform malware?

      The simple answer is "Yes, if needs be".

      Do you really think that in the event that heterogenous environments become commonplace, they'll all just say "oh well, it's too hard now, better forget the years of practice and honing my skills and do something else instead"?

      It'll slow them down, sure, and it'll likely defeat the lessor malcontents, but there will always be people willing and able to accept the challenge.

    33. Re:work work work... by binner1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The fact that you were able to install a personal firewall on your machine indicates to me that it may be quite a while before your admins figure out what nailed them...

      -Ben

    34. Re:work work work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      than say Linux on Intel.

      Or, in the not too distant future, OS X on Intel.

      If Apple will be using EMT64 then they'll also support the NX bit (following OpenBSD's example).

    35. Re:work work work... by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Yes, trade secrets, release dates, and customers lists are valuable.

      I suspsect the more common situation is someone obtains the data then shops it around to competitors, rather than competitors saying up front they want the data stolen.

    36. Re:work work work... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Erase the hard drive. The computer will be repeatedly decommissioned until the owner gets a clue. Infected computers are a hazard.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    37. Re:work work work... by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      I would like to see a worm that goes around and patches servers for a change. It can be done.

      Something like this?
      http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/w32.welchia.worm.html

    38. Re:work work work... by glwtta · · Score: 2, Funny
      What are these people gaining anyway?

      About 9 pounds a week, on their staple diet of cheetos and Moutain Dew?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    39. Re:work work work... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      " And this "Something" would be what exactly?? Some mythical piece of software that has not and could never be created."

      A little googling turns this amongst others.

      So yes there are products out there to prevent this kind of thing.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    40. Re:work work work... by smimi10 · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer...I work in the CI (competitive intelligence) field.

      Incorrect. Most legitimate companies will run screaming the other way at the suggestion of buying competitive intelligence that was illegally obtained. There is such a thing as the Economic Espionage Act of 1996: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1831NEW.h tm

      Compaines take this seriously. So do people who work in this field.

    41. Re:work work work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem you're talking about is not platform diversity; it is what we in the genius industry refer to as "autoconf sucking". Seriously. If autoconf made it easier to configure and build for platforms the developers did not foresee, instead of making people *ugh* modify configure files by hand, life would be easier for everyone.

    42. Re:work work work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... what we need is an agressive worm that does something more substantial than chugging up the machine. Erased hard drives after propagating a couple times would get people's attention.

    43. Re:work work work... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Let me put this to you.. if people actually do this then surely there is some element of risk. If there's some element of risk then surely some people have been caught. If people have been caught then surely others would have heard about it. If you heard such a thing wouldn't you tell other people? So why is it that none of us can actually name a single corporate spy who has been caught? Surely it should be a regular occurance in all the papers, but the fact remains that we never hear about people being caught for corporate espionage. Does "urban myth" mean anything to you?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    44. Re:work work work... by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Well, I can vouch that I've seen several occasions where company data was stolen and sold to competitors, by employees, ex-employees, and hackers.

      We don't hear about "Corporate espionage" because it's not like catching a spy.. real spies are a threat to national security. A corporate spy is just a real-life employee who violates their confidentiality agreements.. such things do happen, and are usually settled in civil court. You don't hear about them because they aren't newsworthy. We aren't talking about selling nuclear secrets to the North Koreans here... we're talking about customer demographics, policy changes, roadmaps, etc.

  2. Dopey coder by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

    This worm will certainly fail. It doesn't even try to gain access to network shares using the 'elusive' password:

    "trustno1"

    My idiot former roommate was a paranoid wannabe computer geek and he cherished his "cool password that I would never get because it uses numbers too".

    Dolt.

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    1. Re:Dopey coder by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      "Roommate, meet my friend, Mister Keylogger. Mister Keylogger, this is my dopey roommate."

  3. Dumb sysadmins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why are the outgoing ports for IRC not firewalled in the first place?

    1. Re:Dumb sysadmins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I know only a bit about viruses and worms, but i think blocking specific ports won't solve the problem by itself, because the authors can just code their programs to use other ports. Could probably do things like sneak their traffic through port 80 (HTTP), or be even trickier and use things like SSH port-forwarding to do their evil deeds. Just my cowardly two cents.

    2. Re:Dumb sysadmins by pschmied · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Worms typically don't use the "standard" IRC ports. Most organizations don't have tough egress filtering in place, but folks should start considering, "block all outbound ports except port 80". Even so, it's still possible for nasty traffic to go out on port 80, then, isn't it?

      -Peter

    3. Re:Dumb sysadmins by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      How can they block the outgoing ports? This isn't the incoming ports of the IRC server (usually 6667). The worm probably use a random outgoing port to connect to the IRC server, so I don't see how this would work without blocking other valid services.

    4. Re:Dumb sysadmins by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      Egress filtering is evil. The first thing I do upon encountering it is erect a tunnel.

    5. Re:Dumb sysadmins by The+Jonas · · Score: 3, Informative
      How can they block the outgoing ports? This isn't the incoming ports of the IRC server (usually 6667)

      Without going into a long explanation, destination ports for outgoing connection attempts, such as port 6667, can be blocked from leaving the originating network. Even this method can be fine-tuned as to protocol/s, and so forth.

      The worm probably use a random outgoing port to connect to the IRC server, so I don't see how this would work without blocking other valid services.

      That random port is the port of the machine attempting the outgoing connection to a port such as 6667, to put it simply. The random outgoing port is irrelevant to blocking destination ports.

      A quick Google search returned these code examples from a Redhat firewall how-to page using iptables:
      iptables -A OUTPUT -p TCP --sport 6699 -j REJECT

      and
      iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --dport 31337 --sport 31337 -j DROP


      I hope this helps. Here is a Google search to get you started.
    6. Re:Dumb sysadmins by sr180 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Why even have port 80 open? Just force all web traffic to go through a proxy if you want it to be secure.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    7. Re:Dumb sysadmins by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      but folks should start considering, "block all outbound ports except port 80"


      Right, and what will happen with people running services that are blocked? That's right, they'll just start using the "magical" port 80 that lets people connect to it.

      I think some port blocking makes sense. It certainly makes sense for large, tightly controlled organizations to block port 25. No one but legit mail servers should be trying to connect to port 25. That would at least protect against spreading viruses and spam.

      --
      AccountKiller
    8. Re:Dumb sysadmins by interiot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yup, that's what my Fortune 100 company does. Only three egresses, and all of them have a username and password so viruses can't get out unless they keylog or ethersniff. It's actually quite a huge PITA for normal users.

    9. Re:Dumb sysadmins by Alioth · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's what we do here. In fact, we don't actually route anything onto the Internet, and our internal DNS servers do not resolve names outside of our network.

      The only outside access is via a web proxy.

      But unless you have a very restrictive 'deny,allow' rule set (which we don't, because it simply wouldn't fly here), a worm can simply look up your proxy settings and use the web proxy instead. Or it can use port 443, and use HTTP CONNECT with the proxy to a remote system listening on port 443, then encrypt the traffic. To the proxy, it'll look like normal HTTPS traffic in transit. (This is the way we get SSH access to outside systems, despite not having any routing to the Internet - our SSH client uses the proxy, and connects to a remote SSH server that is set to listen on 443).

    10. Re:Dumb sysadmins by ObitMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      so you're saying you change jobs a lot due to being fired for security violations?

      --
      Who run Barter Town?
    11. Re:Dumb sysadmins by m50d · · Score: 1

      Because my admin knows the second he did this I'd find him and strangle him.

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:Dumb sysadmins by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      Egress filtering is evil. The first thing I do upon encountering it is erect a tunnel.

      The first thing I do upon encountering people bypassing corporate security is to email their manager (cc'ing Human Resources).

      Don't bother to unpack your stuff, you won't be here very long.

    13. Re:Dumb sysadmins by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      Say "Hello" to my little friend WCCP.

      http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk122/tk717/tsd_te chnology_support_protocol_home.html>

    14. Re:Dumb sysadmins by scottv67 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right, and what will happen with people running services that are blocked? That's right, they'll just start using the "magical" port 80 that lets people connect to it.

      This actually makes it easier to detect the "rogue apps" trying to exit the corporate network. If everyone tries to use port 80, then I have to redirect only port 80 with WCCP. I run the port 80 traffic through various Layer 7 scrubbing appliances to pick off the stuff that we don't want to leave our network.

      It's like shooting fish in a very small barrel.

    15. Re:Dumb sysadmins by scottv67 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I like the SSH work-around to connect to the proxy that is your egress from the corporate network. Very elegant.

      You mentioned worms that encrypt their traffic. This traffic would be difficult to detect and block using Layer 7-aware appliances.

      There is a similar trick to your SSH-workaround to get the Citrix client to work over port 80. Part of Citrix (nfuse?) can use port 80 and the traffic *looks* like HTTP. But it's really not HTTP and a proxy can break the Citrix connection. The solution is to tell Citrix to use a "secure" connection so that it sends the "HTTP CONNECT" command to the proxy. Then the proxy doesn't monkey with the Citrix traffic passing through. It's an ugly work-around but is needed because of the HTTP proxies at our perimeter. (You also need to tell your HTTP proxy that port 80 is okay for HTTPS traffic so that it will accept the HTTP CONNECT command on port 80).

    16. Re:Dumb sysadmins by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      How can they block the outgoing ports?

      This is *extremely* easy to do. If I don't want you to connect to a certain site on TCP port 6667, I add a rule that denies connections that have a dst port of 6667. It's a piece of cake.

      An easy way to do this for quite a lot of ports is to just block everything (every outbound port) and then open the holes that you need.

      If your "worm" uses a totally random port (let's say 44332), it will be blocked. If the worm tries 44333, that is blocked too. If the worm tries 44334, that is also blocked. And so on.

      If your response is "Oh yeah?!? I'll make my worm use port 80!", I'll find you there too. We have appliances filtering inbound and outbound port 80 traffic (at Layer 7) to find stuff like this. Also, connecting outbound on port 80 would subject you to our URL filtering policy. It would be funny (to me) if your worm tried to connect to a site that was banned by Websense. :^)

    17. Re:Dumb sysadmins by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      Because my admin knows the second he did this I'd find him and strangle him.

      That's okay. We'll mail your last paycheck to the home address you have on-record in Human Resources.

    18. Re:Dumb sysadmins by plover · · Score: 1
      All I could think of when I read that was this great quote by Darth Vader in SW IV: "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed."

      There are ways, and more ways, and more ways around each and every roadblock you describe. Data can be encrypted, Base64 encoded and marked JPG or GIF. It can use full HTTP as its transport protocol, or possibly even HTTPS. It can be masked in dozens of ways.

      What you've done is raised the bar "high enough" so that a "typical worm" doesn't have the smarts to launch an attack from your network. And that's a good thing, and a good idea. But as more and more people and companies adopt the same set of rules, the worm writers will adapt to their changing environment. Pretty soon they'll have worms modified to work around the roadblocks that "everyone" is using, just as we've seen the more sophisticated worms move beyond using IRC and start using other protocols.

      I'm not saying you're doing the wrong thing. What I am saying is that you shouldn't rest on your past achievements, smug and certain that no worm can ever find its way around on your network. Please keep vigilant.

      --
      John
    19. Re:Dumb sysadmins by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      Plover, thank you for the kind words.

      I/we never think that we are "impenetrable". We know that we can never be totally secure. We try to make it difficult for the most common worms and viruses (and malicious users) to do damage on our network.

      Yes, there are ways to encrypt data to bypass detection by network-based security appliances. Thankfully there aren't many attacks that are that "elegant". The majority of the worms today are "dumb" in that they search willy-nilly for machines with port 135 or 445 exposed.

      By securing the "low hanging fruit", we are reducing the liklihood that we will have a major virus outbreak. But we we have not eliminated that risk.

      -s

    20. Re:Dumb sysadmins by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like you'll even notice. DNS tunneling, HTTP tunneling, SMTP tunneling, the choices are manifold. And you can even use all of them at once. Once you cover one loophole, another will be thought of. I wrote my own piece of tunneling software in a matter of a few hours once. Not one of you obnoxious control freaks is going to prevent me from ssh'ing home.

      Egress filtering is evil and pointlessly stupid. Any sysadmin who engages in it is covering their own incompetence.

    21. Re:Dumb sysadmins by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      Nope, never been fired over it yet. In smaller places, I end being de-facto in charge of security even though I'm mostly a developer. And I would generally not work in a place where the sysadmin was so incompetent that they felt the need to egress filter anyway.

    22. Re:Dumb sysadmins by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      You are insane. Why not just completely disconnect from the Internet? That's what you'll have to do eventually as the war between your insane egress filtering and the virus writers escalates.

    23. Re:Dumb sysadmins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How come you aren't slamming this guy for "working around corporate security"? Oh right, your standards are entirely arbitrary.

      Hey, why don't you tell us all where you work so we'll know not to apply?

  4. Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole problem is twofold. The first is stupid users. How can you possibly secure a network against attacks if your users are constantly undermining your lockdown efforts? The second is privilege escalation at the binary level. System-level software with any sort of hole will allow an attacking program the ability to do whatever it wants, even if the user isn't running as root (the daemon is running at that level).

    We had a guy who was constantly downloading and running every attachment he ever received. We finally set him up with an ePod terminal and some crayons and haven't had a significant virus problem since. As a bonus, we get some interesting artwork to hang in the lobby.

    This goes to show the benefits of Open Source software. Being able to see the code gives attackers a practically clear window into the guts of any network relying on that software. More eyes means more vulnerabilities found, so the network is actually safer because all these holes are known, if not by the security companies themselves, by the attackers who attempt to exploit the bugs.

    We can't take the drastic step of eliminating Windows on our networks because it is so entrenched, but the slow migration away from it one desktop at a time is giving us a whole new outlook on viruses.

    1. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Indy+Media+Watch · · Score: 5, Funny

      The first is stupid users.

      Sorry BOFH wannabe, they're not stupid users, they're just users.

      If they aren't doing what you would like, you obviously have a training deficiency which might be your fault, not theirs.

      How can you possibly secure a network against attacks if your users are constantly undermining your lockdown efforts?

      By undermining their efforts. And if they try to undermine your undermining of their undermining, simply undermine their undermining of your undermining of their undermining. It's really quite simple.

      --

      Indy Media Watch-Proctologist of the Internet

    2. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by pschmied · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The whole problem is twofold. The first is stupid users... The second is privilege escalation at the binary level.


      Human stupidity is greatly amplified by weak architectures. If one lucky user gets a malicious email and executes the attachment (after unlocking the password protected zip and clicking on "Natalie_Portman_Naked.zip") that's bad enough. But cleaning up dozens or hundreds of PC systems clobbered by the resulting worm infestation is catastrophic. The industry is only starting to realize that we need better tools to fix stupid.



      -Peter



    3. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Sledgehammer of intelligence!

      (Even if it doesn't work, the effect is still about the same.)

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    4. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Coolpup · · Score: 2, Informative

      Being able to see the code gives attackers a practically clear window into the guts of any network relying on that software. More eyes means more vulnerabilities found, so the network is actually safer because all these holes are known, if not by the security companies themselves, by the attackers who attempt to exploit the bugs.

      While I agree that open source is good stuff, your logic is retarded. You basically state that if the vulnerability is known by the attacker and not security companies that there is nothing to worry about. What you meant to say is that there are enough freelance coders out there that check the code and are responsible enough to report exploits to the proper distribution channels.

    5. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      if you had RTFA you might have had a chance to understand that security companies don't need good hearted coders to tell them about exploits, they monitor networks and see the attackers breaking in. From this information security companies can easily expose zero-day exploits.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by killjoe · · Score: 4, Funny

      "By undermining their efforts. And if they try to undermine your undermining of their undermining, simply undermine their undermining of your undermining of their undermining. It's really quite simple."

      I don't know where I heard this but...

      "You can never make anything idiot proof because idiots are so damned ingenious"

      --
      evil is as evil does
    7. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Minwee · · Score: 1

      If that fails there's always the Chainsaw of Natural Selection.

    8. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, i think coolpup had it right. In your scenario, a security company spots the exploit because an attacker has already used the exploit to mount a successful attack. Isn't it much better if freelance coders spot and report an exploit BEFORE any attackers use that exploit for any attacks?

    9. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      no, it's not, because you spend a lot of time chasing non-issues instead of chasing real issues. Obviously a massive preventive effort like that performed by the OpenBSD team is a fantastic thing, but it also happens to result in a massive reduction in productivity.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    10. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're not stupid users, they're just users.

      Yes, let's not be redundant.

      If they aren't doing what you would like, you obviously have a training deficiency which might be your fault, not theirs.

      Indeed, you clearly haven't instilled the proper mortal fear into them.

      How can you possibly secure a network against attacks if your users are constantly undermining your lockdown efforts?

      Well, the obvious solution would be blackmail. Chances are good that they're too dull for immediate blackmail, so you may have to plant incriminating evidence first, but that shouldn't be a problem.

      Or you could attach electrodes to their keyboard, mouse, coffee mug, etc. and try shock therapy. This may be less effort and more satisfying to boot.

      I'd say to use your imaginiation, but that seems to be a bit lacking. Maybe when you've had more experience.

    11. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure i understand what you mean by a non-issue; if a vulnerability exists, it's an issue regardless of whether someone has mounted an attack using that vulnerability. Also, when you say a a reduction in productivity could result, i assume you mean that productivity is decreased if people spend more time reviewing rather than coding. But less code produced per some unit of time doesn't necessarily translate to less productivity; making existing code more secure is every bit as productive as hammering out new code that may or may not be safe, in my opinion.

    12. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Ok, well to put it another way, as long as security companies respond to and fix any of the vulnerabilities they witness being exploited that is more than an adequate service.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    13. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me get this straight... your network is more secure when people who are not security companies find exploits and use them against you?

      Yeah that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard..
      I suppose now you or someone else will retort with " Oh but it's fixed faster" or some crap.. It's not fixed if you don't know about it.. the fact remains is if someone is pwning you and knows what they are doing, you might never detect it for quite some time... Just because someone is using an exploit that is not known by the public does *NOT* automatically mean that said exploit is going to make said exploit come out into the open any faster..

      And don't worry, people who believe that open source is the end all, be all for security are just fooling themselves. Users will ALWAYS find a way to screw shit up, regardless of OS.. Requiring a root password or SU to root WILL NOT STOP THEM. They won't even think about it.. "But I want this cool screensaver program.!!!"

    14. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Da+Web+Guru · · Score: 1

      "As soon as you make something idiot-proof, the world builds a better idiot."

      --

      --guru

    15. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah so your point? The worst worms ALREADY HAD FIXES AVAILABLE from MICROSOFT before they were ever introduced into the wild.. The problem was UNPATCHED MACHINES (which is usually the problem)..

      But don't let facts get in the way of your tirade against weak architectures

    16. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To coin what the parent said, your logic is retarded too: what guarantee do you have that a security company IS GOING TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT IN A TIMELY FASHION? How much damage will be done in the interim until they "detect it" as you say.. You forget it doesn't even have to be a spreading virus that attacks a lot of machines to do major damage.. the blackhat just has to hit the *right* targets.

      Whether that means bringing a machine to it's knees or gaining access to sensitive data (you know like your bank? ) Identity Theft ring a bell? But yeah your right.. it's much better to focus on only the exploits that are currently being DETECTED rather than being proactive..

    17. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by nachtzeit · · Score: 0

      By undermining their efforts. And if they try to undermine your undermining of their undermining, simply undermine their undermining of your undermining of their undermining. It's really quite simple. amen to that. as SysAd - it's YOUR JOB to do that.

    18. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... How about... VIRUS SCANNING YOUR INCOMING EMAIL and BLOCKING UNNECESSARY EXECUTABLE ATTACHMENTS?

    19. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Shawn+Parr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      How can you possibly secure a network against attacks if your users are constantly undermining your lockdown efforts?
      This really isn't that hard. I run 8 university computer labs, and in the last 2 years I have had 1 machine get infected. That machine was in a faculty member's office, and he had formatted it and reinstalled windows in order to undo my lockdown.

      Between good imaging tools (ghost, etc.), setting policies, using industry lock down tools (deep freeze, driveshield, etc.), and creative use of license management software along with partitioning schemes and well set up network drive management keeping users under control is not that too much of a challenge.

      My departments are all underfunded to boot, and we can still pull this stuff off. We have the added detriment of using some software (Discreet products mostly) that require admin access by all users, or they just don't work.

      We even have a set of machines running XP that we don't use driveshield on so that we can experiment with configurations. Number of worms/virus's: 0. Spyware, well more than 0, but not much considering that 18-20 year olds use them every day.

      The first step is deploying infrastructure that is appropriate. When I first started working on our campus, one of my departments wanted to set up a Win2003 server. I finally convinced them that deploying a Mac OS X server was better. And for our needs it certainly is. We also use a number of Linux machines to get other background work done (interestingly enough to make Windows network browsing actually work across subnets).

      I by no means am a Microsoft fan. The more I work with their products, the more they annoy me. But even I concede that you can lock them down in a business/educational setting very well if you do the research and take the time.

    20. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      after unlocking the password protected zip and clicking on "Natalie_Portman_Naked.zip"

      Oooo. Can you send me that file?

    21. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the real question is where the fuck is the natalie portman naked pics man? Don't be a tease.

    22. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      "The first is stupid users"

      Nope, they are just users, get used to that concept.

      Buy full armor or another third party lockdown software (or learn how to do it via the registry yourself).

      No not allow installation of ANYTHING. Problem solved. User's shouldn't have the option of installing a new screen saver at work.

      As soon as YOU, as the Admin, start setting up computers to be as narrowly focused in use as other office supplies (staplers, printers, etc..), the sooner you'll realize that the stupidity isn't on the computer user's end of the equation, but rather on the SysAdmin's end of the equation.

    23. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Tom · · Score: 1

      Sorry BOFH wannabe, they're not stupid users, they're just users.

      Sorry, wannabe nice guy, but the #1 sign of stupidity is that stupid people never know that they are stupid.
      If you are not stupid, but just unknowing about something, you know that listening to people who know about it is a smart idea. So you'll listen to what the admin or IT dude has to say and follow it.
      If you're stupid, you think you aren't, and you disregard it all. So you turn off the firewall, forget about that antivirus thingy and choose a simple password. You get owned. And you are a stupid user.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    24. Re:Modern viruses attack from 2 directions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is a circle of need. computers must have threats to demonstrate tro managers that IT costs r large enough to have to pay a lot for a productive IT. there is a pressure to cut costs in management and without counter pressure IT r actually laid off first because bean counters don't see a return on this cost but then there is a rebound after crisis. watched it several times.
      my 2 cents

  5. IIS == Thumper by hedley · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nice to see the industries stock thumper is still #1 for attracting worms and looks to be still #1 in the future. Upon sighting wormsign one only need look closeby for a compromised IIS box.

    Hedley

    1. Re:IIS == Thumper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As more and more companies migrate to Windows 2003 and IIS 6, however, we expect attacks against IIS to decrease."

    2. Re:IIS == Thumper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bollocks. IIS6+ are finally good enough to use in production on untrusted networks (the Internet.) Dave 'CANVAS' Aitel helped with the pre-release security audit of IIS6. Not to say there aren't still vulns to be found, just that there's very little low-hanging fruit left. BTW I am a professional pen-tester.

  6. Yet another reason.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    To upgrade to Lornhorn, so your spyware, viri, and worms are more secure and stable!

    Upgrade today... Oh wait.

    1. Re:Yet another reason.... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a great way to market an excuse to buy a dual core CPU. Why bother cleaning it when you can just offload it to the other core? Ahhh, the bliss of a dedicated spyware processing!

      Yes I know, spyware should be removed for security reasons. I'm just trying to make a point about users sweeping dirt under the rug rather then removing it from the home.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  7. Botnets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They make the money off selling the power of botnets.

  8. TFA in a nutshell by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Uh, things are going to continue the way they have been going, probably.

    I found this essay most unimpressive.

    --
    Stasis is death. Embrace change.
  9. Re:SWEET by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your time cube is stupid.

  10. Lures and jigs by UnAmericanPunk · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is all I could think of when reading this.

    "...we've got a KEG... of worms... and phytoplankton"

    --
    Question everything that you've accepted without thinking.
  11. Schneier by pHatidic · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you haven't already read his book Beyond Fear I would highly recommend it. For those of us who don't read books, he covers a good chunk of the material in 34 minutes in this interview. Also very fascinating, I even played it for my grandparents and they both enjoyed it, and have since told me that they have seen him talking on CSPAN or something like that.

  12. Now if we could only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Bruce Schneier has posted an interesting entry on expected attack trends to his blog."

    ...develop a worm that attacks trendy blogs.

  13. Anatomy of the Web Application Worm by mrkitty · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those wondering about other advances/predictions in worms check out this paper I wrote a few years ago.
    http://www.cgisecurity.com/articles/worms.shtml

    --
    Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
  14. actually, yes. Chicks. by SethJohnson · · Score: 1



    It was a network intrusion like these worms create that resulted in Paris Hilton's private Sidekick data to be comprimised. That's how the net got a hold of her private nude photos.

  15. Re:SWEET by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grakkar thanks for provinding 30 seconds of entertainment on a very boring tuesday night.

  16. that would be illegal in New South Wales Australia by Amakiell · · Score: 2, Informative

    New South Wales Australia has just passed a law that prevents bosses spying on email. Even big ones with attachments.

  17. Are We Glad.... by Ecko7889 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Aren't we so glad Microsoft is getting into the Anti-Virus Business.....oh wait...don't they make the OS?

    What happened to fixing the OS, so an AV isn't needed?

    Why do I even bother?

    --
    $sig$
    1. Re:Are We Glad.... by unleashedgamers · · Score: 1

      Aren't we so glad Microsoft is getting into the Anti-Virus Business.....oh wait...don't they make the OS?
      What happened to fixing the OS, so an AV isn't needed?


      Money (More)

    2. Re:Are We Glad.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because social engineering can be fixed in the OS.

  18. Re:that would be illegal in New South Wales Austra by general_re · · Score: 1
    New South Wales Australia has just passed a law that prevents bosses spying on email. Even big ones with attachments.

    What about my situation? I mean, my boss is pretty big, but I don't know if he has any attachments...

    --
    ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  19. One day there'll be a worm so complex by salparadyse · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... that to all itents and purposes it looks like an Operating System. It will give the use a limited amount of funciontality in order to maintain it's cover. Secretly it will report back to its maker about what you do on your computer and... Oh, wait a minute...

  20. obligatory by IEBEYEBALL · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    and we have microsoft to thank for all of this.

    --
    -- SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
  21. Wanted by boisepunk · · Score: 1

    Wanted:
    One massive botnet able to DDoS a
    major corporate site. Heavy comp-
    ensation availible.
    Email: revenge_on_corps@gmail.com

    --
    main(0)
  22. Schneier and the SF Public Library by IO+ERROR · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Bruce Schneier is my hero. His blog has been in my feed reader for quite a while.

    Some comments: I haven't read Beyond Fear yet, but I have read Applied Cryptography. The San Francisco Public Library kept it in a back room and asked me to surrender my ID to look at it. I have no idea why. Maybe it's a terrorism manual.

    --
    How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    1. Re:Schneier and the SF Public Library by pHatidic · · Score: 1

      Cool. I have Practical Cryptography and I'd say that it is worth checking out of the library to read the first few chapters but not worth buying. He gives some good practical advice, but then he tries to give overviews of the algorithms by giving the math equations without explaining how they work. I guess this might be ok if you are a math major, but for the rest of us I'd say Applied Cryptography would be a better bet because supposedly (meaning I haven't read it) he actually explains the maths. Now I hate math as much as the next guy, but I gave up with Practical Cryptography because it just didn't make enough sense without the math.

    2. Re:Schneier and the SF Public Library by Confuzzled · · Score: 1

      Stop spreading FUD. The SF Public Library keeps several of the reference books in the back, those are just the ones they don't lend out. In my case most of the ones I've taken out from there have been illustration/painting books (some oversized and quite nice).

      They neither record your details nor do they care, usually it's some 20 somethings manning the desk.

  23. Engrish by hereschenes · · Score: 1
    LOL ... love the Engrish in the Trend Micro page (near the bottom):
    Search a new malware
    --
    More like... nerdular nerdence!
  24. He's pretty cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I loved him in Jaws.

    1. Re:He's pretty cool by robfoo · · Score: 1

      No, that was his dad. Bruce Schneier is that annoying guy from those Adam Sandler movies.

      "You can do eet!"

  25. Crime that targets the shady by tloh · · Score: 4, Funny

    from the article:"We have started seeing criminal extortion over the Internet: hackers with networks of hacked machines threatening to launch DoS attacks against companies. Most of these attacks are against fringe industries -- online gambling, online computer gaming, online pornography -- and against offshore networks."

    While mainstream web services are cringing in anticipation of becoming targets, it is quit amusing to watch what seems to be one kind of filth devouring another.

    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    1. Re:Crime that targets the shady by rev_g33k_101 · · Score: 1

      So is it real crime? Or is it more of a vigilante justice?

      The question boils down to why the attacks are happening; money, greed, power, or is it to right wrongs?

      I think it's a little from column A, a little from column B

      It started off as way to right wrongs, but then it went corporate

      And like many things when it goes corporate it goes sour

      --
      "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
    2. Re:Crime that targets the shady by thouth · · Score: 1

      "Most of these attacks are against fringe industries -- online gambling, online computer gaming, online pornography -- and against offshore networks." "it is quit amusing to watch what seems to be one kind of filth devouring another." Gamer's arn't filth! Well, maybe there are a little filthy from not showering *every*week, but not actual filth!

    3. Re:Crime that targets the shady by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Online games and pornography are "fringe" industries? Yeah, right.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:Crime that targets the shady by chawly · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that "Sic transit gloria mundi" was pornographic ? I was sure that when "Gloria was sick in the train on Monday" she had her cloths on. Thought I knew about this - had Latin classes at school and all. Ah well ..... live and learn, I suppose.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  26. Blocking "non-standard" ports by jefftp · · Score: 1

    Get a Packeteer Packetshaper. Block all Peer-to-Peer application protocols and definately IRC protocols. The Packetshaper works at layer 7 instead of layer 4.

    1. Re:Blocking "non-standard" ports by scottv67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *Everything* is working at Layer 7 these days: Juniper/Netscreen IDPs, Websense's Network Agent, Blue Coat and so on.

      There are many good tools which can do "deep inspection" and take action.

      Hell, you could do it with Snort if you wanted to invest the time.

  27. Hopefully... by game+kid · · Score: 1

    ...we can easily though malware into the floor have fun too.

    Let's decompose and enjoy kicking worm ass.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    1. Re:Hopefully... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  28. the 4 steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.- install windows
    2.- use internet explorer to surf the internet (infecting the machine the moment you use it)
    3.- A zombie is born
    4.- profit!

  29. Summary by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    "It's going to get worse".

    Hopefully, that'll save time before you go RTFA...

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  30. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not a flaming liberal, but that story might be fake:

    In his Navy application, Kerry made clear that he spent much of his college time on extracurricular activities, including the Yale Political Union, the Debating Association, soccer, hockey, fencing, and membership in the elite Skull and Bones Society.

    Um, no. Skull and Bones is like Fight Club. The first rule of Skull and Bones is do not talk about Skull and Bones. The second rule of Skull and Bones is DO NOT TALK ABOUT SKULL AND BONES. To this day, neither Kerry or Bush has confirmed or denied their involvement or non-involvement in the alleged secret society Skull and Bones.

  31. Re:that would be illegal in New South Wales Austra by shadow0_0 · · Score: 1

    The trick is to figure out if you are being monitored or not. Has that law been passed? Last I heard, it was only a proposal.

  32. Spybot by sankyuu · · Score: 1

    Why did they name the worm WORM SPYBOT.ID? Won't they run into copyright trouble with Spybot the Anti-Spyware company?
    What if a worm was named Windows XP or Longhorn, or even Linux?

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

      The guys behind Spybot S&D are not a company, and they're not in the USA. It's mostly one german guy who makes it in his spare time, not an evil corporation that sues people just for fun.

      Besides, I think the word spybot existed before 'spybot - search & destroy' was offered.

    2. Re:Spybot by DeltaQH · · Score: 0

      Thats a good idea...

    3. Re:Spybot by beetlefeet · · Score: 5, Funny

      Besides they make viruses?
      What do they care about infringing on a trademark?!

      Z3r0C001: Hey what do you think about the name "I Be Malicious" for the name of our new virus?

      |<rash0v3rr|d3: Hmm, the initials of that spell I.B.M., we could be in for a lengthy legal battle.

      Z3r0C001: You're right, legalities aside, it would at least be unethical to use a name that shortens to another companies name, especially seeing as both of our products are in the computing realm.

      |<rash0v3rr|d3: Indeed, lets forget the virus and forget our troubles with a big bowl of strawberry icecream.

      Z3r0C001: w00t

    4. Re:Spybot by beetlefeet · · Score: 1

      I mean "company's"!

      No! Please! Have mercy apostrophy police!

      Im too young to die. Oops!

      *BLAM*

    5. Re:Spybot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  33. Worm? by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

    Hey what's with the slashdot "worm" image? Its a caterpillar, not a worm. Look, it has legs!

    --
    You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    1. Re:Worm? by Don'tTreadOnMe · · Score: 1
      Like the article says, they're evolving.

      Thanks! I'll be here all night.

      Try the veal.

  34. Why can't companies guard against this crap? by ZosX · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    First of all shouldn't most IDS systems pick up on this worm if it has been announced enough to be named and is obviously now a known exploit? I don't know if Kerio picks up on this worm, but I'd imagine they would have some sort of security update in the near future, and I'm sure it has to be in some signature databases. Secondly, what exactly does this affect? Unpatched windows systems? I'm sure anyone running a network that knows what they are doing (tm) would have clear safeguards for this kind of thing. Hell, even Kerio personal firewall will not let anything execute that I know of, and for the rare times that websites try to pass on some sort of java virus, Norton usually detects it before it hits the cache.

    Secondly is there any excuse anymore other than incompetence and companies that are operating on a small budget? Someone needs to make a firewall device that the windows network can be plugged into (think small company lan /w web and e-mail) that offers relatively little configuration and just basically works right out of the box. Even my cheap ass linksys router does some basic port forwarding and such.

    Oh, it needs to be cheap and update itself with new security rules (IDS, firmware, etc) on a fairly constant basis, for a relatively low fee you could have it send security logs to the manufacturing company, which could say add rules or manipulate the box. Honestly, I think a well thought out firewall running on a fairly secure NOS would go an awfully long way in protecting their assets.

    I think we are going to see some clever attacks in the future. I can think of so many ways that a network could be easily compromised and a trusted connection could be made. Think of all the business travelers that head out with their Cen-f'in-trino and connect to the nearest open hotspot then proceed to log right into a VPN session. Think of company wireless hotspot spoofing and imagine sending the visitor directly to the real network with their intercepted log in. How easy would something like that be? Hell you could even throw something like that in a backpack. How would they find *that*? I don't think that many companies have realized the gaping holes that they have left in their networks. Any company that thinks FedEx is secure enough to send unencrypted tapes is likely going to have a few more suprises along the way. I predict that the future is going to get worse for a lot of companies *cough*banks*cough before it gets better.

    BTW, if this post is incoherent, my apologies. It *is* rather late. And to the FBI agent who may come across this message: Go find some real criminals. The last I heard, there are still plenty of real crimes still being committed on a daily basis. Murder, rape, child exploitation, etc. Why not devote some time on the big stuff?

    1. Re:Why can't companies guard against this crap? by ZosX · · Score: 1


      W32.Spybot.KEG is a worm that has distributed denial of service and back door capabilities. The worm spreads to network shares protected by weak passwords and by exploiting vulnerabilities.

      technical details

      When W32.Spybot.KEG is executed, it performs the following actions:

      1. Creates the following copy of itself:

      %System%\p6.exe


      Sounds pretty sophisticated if you read all the details. Notice the line about how when it "is executed." Maybe we need to figure out how we can give everyone virus protection for free. Seriously. This kind of thing is far too easily prevented, especially at the corp level.

      There are even freeware opensourced scanners these days that I hear are pretty good even if they do miss a few trojans here and there.

    2. Re:Why can't companies guard against this crap? by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      there any excuse anymore other than incompetence and companies that are operating on a small budget?

      But small businesses are the fastest growing section of the economy, and the only way they can remain productive and competitive is to leverage cheap IT. Translate that to: not paying consultants. That means that the person who is supposed to be worrying about what the small company actually produces is instead worrying about being a home-grown IT person. I can't tell you the number of small businesses I've seen in this mode, and the lack of just-add-water total security systems leaves them pretty vulnerable. But even if there were such magic bullet products out there, any small network open enough to be actually useful to a small business is going to be vulnerable to attacks that have been crafted by a large team of highly skilled, motivated Russian techno-mobsters. That's a tough enemy to fight when you're just, say, a 5-man gardenening retailer, or a mom and pop sign making company.

      I think the real solution is thin clients and hosted apps. That way the ASP can use some economy of scale to deal with the threats. I know, thin clients don't work for everyone, but even if you use a fat machine as a thin client, at least your core business apps and data would be safe at Acme Hosting, and the worst thing you'd have to do is burn down your local network and start over.

      BTW:

      And to the FBI agent who may come across this message: Go find some real criminals. The last I heard, there are still plenty of real crimes still being committed on a daily basis. Murder, rape, child exploitation, etc. Why not devote some time on the big stuff?

      Come on, don't fall for the "we can't do two things at once" concept. That's BS. I would imagine that a small company being extorted by Russian DDoS attackers would be "big stuff" to everyone who depends on that small business for their families' income. Dealing with that stuff, and dealing with murderers and rapists (usually local law enforcement, anyway) aren't mutually exclusive. I think what you're really lobbying for is a larger budget for the FBI so that they can deal with sophisticated info-criminals and deal with the more traditional crimes in a large and growing population. Stealing a company's trade secrets, or knocking their business offline, or running off with banking info and using it - the guys who do that for a living sure as hell are "real criminals." Just because they happen to be geeks doesn't make them any less criminal. Don't give them any sympathy just because they have an interest in code or know what NAT stands for.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  35. Hmm, Note to self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Change password.

  36. Cue all the Liberals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that "your guy" has been found out, you must keenly point out that grades do not necessarily reflect one's intellect (even though you used the reverse argument on Bush).

  37. Re:that would be illegal in New South Wales Austra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you meant to comment that other article...
    http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/06/07/233201.shtml

  38. Re:work work work... Anti-malware tips.... by iamcf13 · · Score: 2, Informative

    They turn your machine into a zombie and then sell it to spammers.

    But first they have to infect it.

    The easy way to avoid a zombied computer:

    Pretty much use any OS other than one made by Microsoft. Since the market share for a non-Microsoft OS is so small, it isn't worth the malware author's time to attack them. A successful attack (if possible) would yeild little or no damage in a collective sense.

    On a Microsoft OS? More work is involved in order to stay malware free.

    Go into IE and turn off ActiveX, and scripting or (religiously) use the Off By One browser or Lynx which both doesn't understand ActiveX and scripting.

    Treat your email and email attachments like 'text files' like I do. I only use Outlook to send email--not receive it.

    Use a software firewall and antivirus. I use Agnitum's Outpost and Grisoft's AVG. I also recommended Trend Micro's Sysclean.

    A great help would be to surf the internet from behind a hardware router that drops ALL incoming unsolicited connections. The other tips mentioned above should minimize the risk of system compromise from all other user initiated connections.

  39. a successful argument for platform diversity? by infonography · · Score: 3, Insightful

    not quite, while platform diversity is in many levels a good thing, it's a lot more then just a defense against transient viral/worm attacks. Microsoft rules the not-too-complex-but-works world because it's just that. You don't need to be an Otaku to get a DVD to play. Some people would be victims no matter what OS they run. I run both UNIX and Windows, I have taken precautions on both sides and have not seen any serious breaches in several years. System security is part of my routine, because I am a serious user. AOL users have been the traditional food for hackers and virii in the past but AOL has seen the logic in taking that out of the hands of a incompetent userbase.

    Say what you want about Microsoft, and while much of it's true, the users are to a degree at fault as well. If I leave my keys in my car and the doors unlocked, I can't very well blame the manufacturer for it being stolen.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    1. Re:a successful argument for platform diversity? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      you sounded quite sensible until you said "virii"

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:a successful argument for platform diversity? by infonography · · Score: 1

      A spelling flame? tsk tsk ;) on the whole virii seems to be a jargon term in a lot of places. 200k hits on google.

      'Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.' -unknown.

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    3. Re:a successful argument for platform diversity? by shadow255 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Say what you want about Microsoft, and while much of it's true, the users are to a degree at fault as well. If I leave my keys in my car and the doors unlocked, I can't very well blame the manufacturer for it being stolen.

      The problem with this analogy is that you are implying that Microsoft actually provides the door locks which the users are neglecting to use. While things have gotten better with respect to default services and firewalling, it is still de riguer to add on third-party software to any Microsoft Windows OS in order to get it to an acceptable level of security.

      Say what you want about Ford, GM, Daimler-Chrysler, etc., but they do always provide the door security mechanisms!

      --

      Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought. -Terry Pratchett

    4. Re:a successful argument for platform diversity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's rather interesting to hear, on the one hand, microsoft doesn't provide the tools necessary, while on the other hand microsoft provides too many tools, making it difficult to gain a foothold into a particular niche.

      seems to be lose-lose.

    5. Re:a successful argument for platform diversity? by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1
      you sounded quite sensible until you said "virii"

      What's wrong with virii? - Did you not know what he meant? This is English, not French. We have a right to bastardize our language any d--n way we want!

  40. NOT an argument for platform diversity by muzzmac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would argue that the case for platform diversity is VERY difficult to make. PARTICULARLY in corporations.

    The argument goes. In nature, species survival depends on diversity to maintain some portion of the population who can survive the onslought of some new contagion. SO in computers we should mimic nature and have a heterogeneous mix of software so our computer networks can survive worm/virus contagion.

    BZZZT!

    Networks and corps are different to species. Computers don't multiply and diversify as a natural result of that. The only thing diversity in computers gives you is a CRAPPY understanding of your network and the risks therein. Oh and a fairly good likelihood that SOME computers in your environment are vulnerable to EVERY exploit for EVERY platform released.

    Corporates or networks don't need SOME computers to survive. They need ALL to survive. Data is sacred not computers. Data is located in far flung pockets of the network. The loss of even small amounts of data can be disastrous. Telling someone "it's ok cos' some of our computers survived" will get you fired.

    As far as I am concerned for corps the solution is to have a well understood build that is well protected from likely contagions and strong procedures, processes and technologies to rapidly detect and limit any outbreaks.

    Computer security is about building strong immune systems and rapid innoculation to new contagions. It probably will be for a long time. Survival of the fittest does not work.

    Oh Contagions in computer terms are different to the real world as well. Real world contagions are mutations. Good ones are flukes. In computing they are intelligent in that the developer is motivated, malicious and works hard to defeat your defences. They test their software against common innoculations such as Anti-virus software and ensure it is resistant to them.

    Aaahhh. Rant over.

    1. Re:NOT an argument for platform diversity by plover · · Score: 1
      I know you're on a rant here :-) but I'd like to point out that if a worm finds one single hole in a perfectly homogeneous environment, then that worm is going to spread without limit.

      I'd also like to point out that even corporations don't have perfectly homogenous environments. Servers, desktops, workstations for various tasks such as artists, marketers, developers, etc., all have different needs and usually have different OS and application configurations.

      However, you're right in that commonality in equipment and infrastructure is a good thing in the corporate environment -- I couldn't imagine trying to keep 40,000 individual machines managed remotely unless most of them were identical. So I have 40,000 identical machines. My point is that if a worm finds its way onto any one of those 40,000 machines, the other 39,999 are fated to almost guaranteed infection should the worm find a way to discover them. It's not a case of "computers multiplying" but rather one of attack on the clones. Having those machines not running a very stripped-down, very well-understood version of an old OS (rather than the newest well-attacked version of a popular OS) helps provide some amount of immunity.

      Also, I'd like to point out that a failure of 1, 100, or even 1,000 of the 40,000 machines I mentioned above will not only not cause our company distress, it definitely won't portend corporate collapse. Failure of equipment is both expected and planned-for. Data backup is continuous and highly redundant. With 40,000 machines in a network that each have hard drives rated for 30,000 hours MTBF, we're statistically assured that at least a dozen hard drives will fail every single day, and they do. We haven't filed chapter 11 as a result :-)

      --
      John
  41. Didn't Joshua/WOPR* say that? by infonography · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Strange game, the only way to win is not to play. - Wargames 1983

    *WOPR (War Operation Planned Response) computer system A.K.A Joshua

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  42. Re:NOT an argument for platform diversity - My 2c by iamcf13 · · Score: 1

    Corporates or networks don't need SOME computers to survive. They need ALL to survive. Data is sacred not computers. Data is located in far flung pockets of the network. The loss of even small amounts of data can be disastrous. Telling someone "it's ok cos' some of our computers survived" will get you fired.

    For the Apollo 13 astronauts, ground control computer failure of any sort (including system compromise by hostile users) would have been all but a guaranteed death sentence for the 3 men aboard the crippled, barely-working spaceship.

    Gene Krantz was right. In mission-critical situations: Failure is *not* an option!

    As for the data being 'sacred', I agree about that. Data collected, created, or processed (including the software itself as a form of 'data') is eminently more valuable than the hardware itself that contains it which can be replaced/upgraded. The same can't be said of data -- it may be irreplaceable or be too time consuming to reconstruct after experiencing catastrophic data loss.

    Case in point: Before 2001-09-11, some WTC tennant's idea of off-site backup was somewhere in the 'other' tower.

    Look what happend that day....

    Devastating, catastrophic loss of life, property, and data.

    2001-09-11 should have served as a wakeup call to the IT industry: Handle your information resources with care, your livelyhood (and maybe your life) depends on it.

  43. Re:work work work... Anti-malware tips.... by xtracto · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Go into IE and turn off ActiveX, and scripting or (religiously) use the Off By One browser or Lynx which both doesn't understand ActiveX and scripting.

    Treat your email and email attachments like 'text files' like I do. I only use Outlook to send email--not receive it.

    Use a software firewall and antivirus. I use Agnitum's Outpost and Grisoft's AVG. I also recommended Trend Micro's Sysclean.

    A great help would be to surf the internet from behind a hardware router that drops ALL incoming unsolicited connections.


    Do you see how cumbersome is to keep the Windows machine free of *ware and viruseseses?

    Why bother doing all that when you could just spend 40 minutes installing one of the already user friendly enough Linux distros on the market (Linspire, Xandros, Mandrake, Suse...)???

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  44. Yet another. by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 0, Troll

    This article, and all articles on the same topic, can all be summarized by 'You rtypical consumer Windows system is utter swiss cheese, and is and will become more utterly vulnerable to variius exploitative 'software' which will take over the machine and use it for any number of nefarious purposes. If you are stupid enough to still think you *have* to be using Windows, at least have the sense to ensure that no Windows machine is ever connected directly to the Internet (only thru a *seperate* physical firewall/router *device* which performs NAT and does not permit connections initiated inbound from the Internet to even reach the Windows machine's NIC - software firewalls arent, dont, and cant), and that you immediately deinstall/deactivate MSIE and MSOE, and substitute less swiss-cheesy applications if you need the corresponding function. If you persist in using Windows on a directly connected Internet machine, then anyone who isnt a complete moron will label you as one'..

    There. No further articles concerning Windows trojans/viruses/exploits are required. If attention is called to some new "news" regarding this, just refer to this summary.

    1. Re:Yet another. by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      Certainly, mod me as a troll. My point stands, and just because you disagree with it doesnt change the fact that a story about 'yet another' Windows virus/exploit/trojan/whatever are met entirely with a 'ho hum, what else is new' from anyone with even the slightest bit of a clue. It is not news, it is not interesting, and quite frankly it isnt 'stuff that matters'. (At least not until it reaches the threshold where even people who are *not* clued realize that using Windows is a stupid idea)

  45. German Dresden spam by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1
    Shame the article doesn't mention the 50-100 items of anti-British/neo-Nazi spam many people received last month, which was believed to have been sent out by zombie PCs. I wouldn't be surprised if that was some kind of test of a new mass-mailing network; that many messages on one subject within a single day was unprecendented.

    Oh yeah, and that worm icon - come on, timothy, it's a caterpillar, surely.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    1. Re:German Dresden spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an inchworm. InchWORM!

  46. Have to agree, as a virus/worm removal writer by jayloden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I spend my spare time making a virus/worm removal tool for viruses and worms that affect AOL Instant Messenger, and I definitely agree, they've gotten a LOT more sophisticated. I'm no antivirus expert, I've just been working with this particular area of viruses since 2003, so I've seen them progress over time. It used to be a simple executable in the root of the drive, or in the system directory, and a "Run" entry in the registry.

    Now these things screw with the shell setting for Windows, add themselves to the win.ini and system.ini registry entries and run themselves as services, drivers, etc. Even more annoying, they're copying the names of real windows files now, but dropping into different directories - like find.exe but in the Windows directory instead of System32. They create multiple copies of executables that run from every autorun entry they can find, and recreate each other. They communicate with IRC, they steal passwords and usernames to AIM accounts, and in at least a few cases I've found WinPCap and other sniffing or trojan tools installed as well.

    For many months, updating the AIM virus removal tool I maintain was a matter of a few seconds of updates. Then one weekend it turned into several hours of creating new functions and sections of code to handle all these new variants.

    The best I can figure, it's script kiddies or zombie botnet operators just running canned and packaged code, because after the first variant appears, a hundred more follow within a few weeks, using the same techniques or filenames. Generally, the purpose of these worms tends to be to download and install spyware - bringing in income through referral programs - and then leave the system open as part of a botnet.

    Lately, these techniques are being combined with common exploits on vulnerable websites, especially ones with some of the recent PHP vulnerabilities. Again, it's like botnet-in-a-can, grab some scripts and some code, change a few filenames or urls, and let 'er rip. It's certainly not getting any easier to put in the time to update the removal tool, that's for sure.

    -Jay
    http://jayloden.com/aimfix.htm

  47. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  48. Re:that would be illegal in New South Wales Austra by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · · Score: 1

    Write comments about the boss's attachments. Then see if there is any reaction. If so, then you know your e-mail is being monitored.

    --
    The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
  49. SF Public Library is Protecting Their Books... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    from thieves. If they speak to you and have your ID, at least there's some chance that you'll return the book instead of stealing it.

    Thieves cherry-pick the most valuable books from libraries and sell them on eBay & Amazon. That's why libraries are increasingly going to the Internet and moving away from paper media.

  50. Why don't computer viruses evolve? by Free_Trial_Thinking · · Score: 1

    I've tried searching for this answer before put I haven't seen a conclusive answer. It seems to me that the ingriedients are there, reproduction, and perhaps mutation from network errors, data corruption, etc?
    And a follow-up question is if not now, then will viruses evolve in the future when they get more complex?

    These papers are the closest thing to an answer I've found but still not conclusive to me:
    http://www.pcvirus.org/links

  51. Niche products don't help (was: Anti-malware tips) by jhamcorp · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Since the market share for a non-Microsoft OS is so small, it isn't worth the malware author's time to attack them. A successful attack (if possible) would yeild little or no damage in a collective sense.

    You could also use a non-Microsoft, niche product like the ISS personal firewall to help protect yourself if you must use Windows.

    And then you can get nailed with something like Witty.

    There were only about 12,000 Black Ice systems out there. There are over 10 million OS X systems deployed in the world, and no telling how many others (Linux, *BSD, etc.). Each is probably a big enough "niche" to get attention when the opportunity arises (which will happen sooner or later).

    There is really no longer anywhere safe to hide.

    /jonathan

  52. Re:work work work... Anti-malware tips.... by suitepotato · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why bother doing all that when you could just spend 40 minutes installing one of the already user friendly enough Linux distros on the market

    I'll repeat this again. The same people who confound desktop support on Windows, easily the single easiest to use desktop OS ever made, are the yardstick by which you judge "user friendly". People who can't install and run AOL 9.0 are the yardstick. Your mother who can't make the VCR stop flashing 12:00 is the yardstick. NOT GEEKS WHO THINK IN SHORTHAND AND BINARY.

    Can we please stop this nonsense about using "user friendly" and "Linux" in the same sentence already? The only people who believe it are defining user==technowizard. If you don't believe me, then try moving a user from Windows XP Home to DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 and then support them for a month. If they can't make DOS work right then they aren't going to work Linux right either. Simple as that. It was funny at first, a veritable lolacaust, but it's getting tired and inane now.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  53. Truly ground breaking news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worms will get more complicated!

    [sarcasm]I never would have guessed because up until now they have been getting simpler and simpler![/sarcasm]

    If there's anyone here who didn't know worms have been getting more complicated since they were first invented, then you you have no right to call yourself a computer geek.

  54. Re:NOT an argument for platform diversity - My 2c by pyrrhonist · · Score: 2, Funny
    Failure is *not* an option!

    The failure option will be available in the next release as a standard feature.

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  55. Hogwash. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1

    There was a FUD article on one of the PHB-style IT news sites a year or two ago. This article said that new, more complex worms, were emerging, and that these worms could target systems across any processor architecture, any operating system, and with any software running therein, and that the worm could morph itself to get from one system to the next. What a bunch of hogwash. You would need a program that has the ability to search for and take advantages of vulnerabilities unknown at the time of writing (which, in itself, is a task for a very skilled human and outside the realm of computer software), and this program would need to be able to translate itself from one processor architecture instruction set to another as it moves from system to system. Even if it could be done, no 1337 h4x0rz is going to do it, because that much time and effort could be used more wisely. Most worms are written in a matter of hours, not based on years of research into the unknown.

  56. Second Law of Thermodynamics by Anti-Trend · · Score: 1
    ...as applied to evolution, brings things into an interesting light. We're a bit off topic here, but basically things left to their own devices tend to wind down, they don't build up. Software virii or worms in the wild will become corrupted if anything and cease to function as well, or perhaps not at all. Case in point: If you leave a tin can out in the wilderness exposed to the elements, will it somehow become something more noble given enough time? Doubtful, unless you consider a pile of rust a step up in the life cycle of the can. My point here is that it takes effort to maintain, let alone improve. If there's no incentive for virus/worm writers to improve, since MS's security is lax enough to let them breeze through, then small is beautiful. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

    -AT

    --
    Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
  57. Neither the ID4 Aliens nor the ones from 3001 A Space Odysse stand a chance.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  58. Witty (Re:Niche products don't help) by NaDrew · · Score: 1
    (from the linked article)
    On Friday March 19, 2004 at approximately 8:45pm PST, an Internet worm began to spread, targeting a buffer overflow vulnerability in several Internet Security Systems (ISS) products, including ISS RealSecure Network, RealSecure Server Sensor, RealSecure Desktop, and BlackICE.

    Two months later, ISS closed the Mountain View office--formerly independant company Network ICE, the original developer of BlackICE--and laid off the entire staff. At the time, I didn't connect the dots; we had "Level Zero" alerts on a weekly basis, usually requiring me to work through the night, and I didn't realize the seriousness of Witty in particular.

    Based on that article, I'm guessing Witty was a major factor in ISS shutting down the RealSecure Desktop (BlackICE) team. Nevermind that iss-pam1.dll was developed by X-Force and foisted upon us, and was the actual source of the vulnerability.
    --
    Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE