Slashdot Mirror


Windows Vista Tool Targeted By Virus Writers

An anonymous reader writes "Five proof-of-concept viruses that target Monad, the next version of Vista's command prompt, have been published on the web. Monad is a command line interface and scripting language that is similar to Unix shells such as bash, but is based on object-oriented programming and the .Net framework. The viruses' only action is to infect other shell scripts on the host's operating system. They would cause little harm in the wild, but would be relatively easy to modify using the information from the article, said Mikko Hyppönen, the director of antivirus research at F-Secure."

20 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Comments from a Monad developer by Leeji · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The fact that MSH is used as the execution vehicle is really a side-note, as it does not exploit any vulnerabilities in Monad. The guidance on shell script viruses is the same as the guidance on all viruses and malware: protect yourself against the point of entry, and limit the amount of damage that the malicious code can do.

    That's not to belittle the dangers of script viruses, though.

    I wrote a blog entry about it here, in relation to Monad.

    --
    It all goes downhill from first post ...
    1. Re:Comments from a Monad developer by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They've stated that they dont care if legacy apps break, and they proved it (somewhat) with XP SP2, and an anti-spyware tool which kicks the crap out of a lot of old code.

      I'm sure I'm not the only developer out there who's had to rewrite some stuff to keep XP happy. And, despite the extra work, I see it as a good thing.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Comments from a Monad developer by jest3r · · Score: 4, Funny

      Believe it or not but "Monad" wasn't their first choice. Other names which were seriously considered include: Mesticle, Menis, Magina and Mitoris ...

    3. Re:Comments from a Monad developer by Osty · · Score: 4, Informative

      The real question is why the heck they decided to call it "Monad"?!

      The short answer: It's a codename. It won't ship with that name. Most likely it'll go with the less interesting "Microsoft Shell" or "msh".

      The long answer: Monad and Monads in functional programming (long answer has been diverted to Wikipedia, because I'm lazy).

      The non-answer: Get your mind of the gutter, you pervert. Not everything ending in "-nad" refers to genitalia.

    4. Re:Comments from a Monad developer by starling · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yabbut if they'd chosen one of those other names the GNU version wouldn't end up being called Gonad.

      Sneaky, huh?

    5. Re:Comments from a Monad developer by shmlco · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I don't see why they can't lock it down firewall-style. When XYZ application runs and tries to hit a reserved directory or section of the registry, popup a window saying so and ask if you want to allow it.

      You might not even need the popup. My firewall on a couple of machines has a database it can go out to search and see if this application is "known" and should have access.

      It might be less secure than a total limited-account-lockdown, but it would be better than nothing. In fact, I think the latest version of ZoneAlarm already has this sort of "inner firewall".

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    6. Re:Comments from a Monad developer by NickFortune · · Score: 4, Funny
      Yabbut if they'd chosen one of those other names the GNU version wouldn't end up being called Gonad.

      Looking at the syntax, I think the GPL version is called Perl 6

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  2. Re:Short on Details by Leeji · · Score: 5, Informative

    You got it right when you said "it might as well be a batch script." These are just Monad scripts running on the system, just like batch files, perl scripts, Cygwin bash scripts, Ruby scripts, etc.

    There is nothing intrinsic in Monad that enables these attacks, aside from it being a new language. In fact, Monad implements several features that help mitigate the dangers of traditional script viruses, as I outline here.

    --
    It all goes downhill from first post ...
  3. Nothing serious i must say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Something which requires you to execute a script on the computer is not a virus. Think if you execute a bash script in Linux and it goes on and put itself in all your bash scripts, would you call it a virus?

    This is actually nothing, it simply prepends/appends or put itself in the middle of existing MSH scripts. It is equivalent to, if you run a binary on your machine, it can attach itself to all the binaries on your machine.

    On top of that, MSH by default on let digitally signed scripts to execute hence once infected scripts on execute. This is not really a threat at all.

  4. How is this different from *NIX shell scripts? by MagikSlinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this different than writing a ksh or bash script virus? Ksh and bash script viruses can be just as bad. Heck, remember the Morris worm?

    I like bashing M$ just as much as the next ./er, but this might not be their bad just yet.

    --
    The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
  5. Re:Short on Details by Owndapan · · Score: 4, Informative
    I believe Monad/MSH is no longer even a part of the Longhorn release, so it is a bit unfair have everyone jump on it as a Windows Vista exploit. From Wikipedia:
    MSH was originally slated to be shipped with Windows Vista, but has since assumed its own release schedule. Microsoft sources have confirmed MSH's first public release will most likely precede the release of Vista and be part of the next edition of Microsoft Exchange, due in the second half of 2006.
  6. Re:Oopsie! by jmking1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    That's exactly the reasoning people used in support of Firefox before 1.0 was released. I don't see why it can't be used for any beta software.

    Oh, and just for completeness, vulnerabilities have been found in Firefox since 1.0, so the argument that only Microsoft releases "beta" (read: vulnerable/insecure) code as production-level software doesn't work either.

  7. So what? by IchBinEinPenguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All this proves is that Monad can find and modify text files (and that there are idiots out there who will misuse tools).
    About the only way around this is code-signing to prevent modification (yeah, like I'm gonna sign every single perl script I ever wrote.....)

    It's not like you can't do this in bash, awk, sed, perl, python, REXX etc. etc.

  8. Re:Short on Details by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You got it right when you said "it might as well be a batch script." These are just Monad scripts running on the system, just like batch files, perl scripts, Cygwin bash scripts, Ruby scripts, etc.

    Yes but you must remember that F-Secure are a bunch of alarmist gits who will jump at any opportunity to seed panic with regard to threats of viruses, hackers, "cyberterrorists" (if such a thing even exists), and whatever else they can dream up. Read through a decent sampling of their past press releases and you'll get the idea.

    Certainly there are potential issues, but I don't think there's really anything to panic about yet.

    Jedidiah.

  9. Re:Not a vulnerability by dedazo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Slashdot has a history of reporting user-executed attachments as "vulnerabilities", to the never ending delight of the peanut gallery, who consider that it's Microsoft's fault if I run something I shouldn't have on my computer, but if I do the same thing on any other OS, it's my fault.

    Plus, Hakko Mipponen (or whatever his name is) has to make a living scaring the bejezus out of everyone - what better way to get started than with something that's not even really out of alpha?

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  10. More Windows viruses? by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Funny

    Awwww, crap guys. Let it go already. It's a bit like kicking a crippled at this point.

  11. Re:What's the motivation by dedazo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Maybe it's because they pound their chests and declare they're the most secure, cheapest, bestest, fastest, etc, etc, even when there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Yeah, it sucks when that happens.

    Of course you can always "embargo" all your vulnerability details (see for example bug #294795) - and feel comfortable in your superior position!

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  12. An Example of One of the So-Called Viruses by AdamBa · · Score: 4, Informative
    This is the verbatim text of one of the five viruses:

    $name_array=get-childitem *.msh
    foreach ($name in $name_array)
    {
    if ($name.Length -eq 249)
    $my_file=$name.Name
    }
    }

    foreach ($victim in $name_array)
    {
    if ($name.Length -ne 249)
    {
    copy-item $my_file $name.Name
    }
    }

    All it does is find every .msh file and replace its contents with itself. That's it. You could do it with a .CMD file in any version of Windows (and of course in any other scripting language).

    The other scripts get a bit more complicated (insert at a random spot in the file, etc) but that's basically it. There's no new vulnerability exposed by Monad.

    - adam

  13. Re:What? Say it isn't so! by patio11 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This just in! Running arbitrary code from an untrusted source not a security best-practice!

  14. i dont see why this is news.... by Madd+Scientist · · Score: 4, Informative
    1) it's a scripting language
    2) assume you already have command line access

    a "virus" at this point is trivial... just append the code to append itself at the end of every file it assumes is a script for this command line.

    this is like batch file viruses that format the drive... it isn't anything special, it's just a matter of getting the mark to run the file. nothing to see here.