Slashdot Mirror


ZOTOB Not Quite as Bad as Expected?

GuitarNeophyte writes "Although the worm hasn't been in the wild for very long, ZOTOB and its variants have already propagated on the internet. Many people have been giving reports that it poses risks of infection to almost all Windows Operating systems, but accorning to this article, the claims are a tad overzealous. FTA, 'The worm only spreads to systems running on Windows 2000, XP and Server 2003, and even then, the possibility of the worm affecting Windows XP and Server 2003 are minimal.' "

92 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. not minimal by plarsen · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is not a minimal risk for a Windows XP system to get infected. Not after Microsoft have changed their Windows Update program. I have alot of friends struggling with properly secureing their pirated version of XP.

    1. Re:not minimal by op12 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear plarsen,

      Send me a list of your friends names and addresses, and I will get the problem resolved immediately.

      -Bill G.

    2. Re:not minimal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe you can borrow your friend's dictionary and learn that ALOT is NOT A WORD????!???

    3. Re:not minimal by b0r1s · · Score: 4, Informative

      For the record:

      The reason the risk to XP and 2k3 are minimal is that they require authentication for the particular vulnerability to be exploited, where Win2k can be exploited using a NULL session.

      Setting RestrictAnonymous=2 in the registry will disable null sessions and prevent infection on Win2k systems.

      --
      Mooniacs for iOS and Android
    4. Re:not minimal by Stone+Cold+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

      But only through automatic updates. If you go to Windows Update manually, it tells you that you have to download the WGA verification utility in order to proceed. I was pretty pissed until I read a post on /. explaining it; I never would have thought to use automatic updates otherwise.

    5. Re:not minimal by damiangerous · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sheesh, cut the guy alittle slack.

    6. Re:not minimal by blincoln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Security updates are still downloaded to pirated copies.

      Actually, they're not, although my understanding was that MS claimed they were.

      One of my neighbours asked for help with her PC a few days ago. One of the problems turned out to be that she was running the original version of XP. I tried to service pack it, and it said the license key used was invalid, and therefore the service pack wouldn't apply.

      Unless you have at least SP1, you can't get security updates anymore.

      I'm sure there are tons of people in a similar situation.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    7. Re:not minimal by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course all your WinXP machines are screwed if you're using a Win2k domain controller... or whatever it is called now.

      The worm has been a serious pain, but yeah, not catastrophic where I sit.

    8. Re:not minimal by Keeper · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you want to download and apply updates manually, go here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current. aspx

  2. "propigated the internet" by Gothmolly · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is that like h4cking teh gibson?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:"propigated the internet" by sabernet · · Score: 4, Funny

      "We're being attacked by a rabbit virus!"
      "Feed it a carrot!"
      C-A-R-R-O-T

  3. Aren't all media reports of internet viruses by Trigun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    overblown? I think it all started at the Michaelangelo virus, where the media was telling everyone to turn their computer off on Mikey's birthday? It's gotten worse since then.

    1. Re:Aren't all media reports of internet viruses by plarsen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find it good that media is reporting virus-incidents as topnews, since then common non-computer interested people will read it, and get some ideas that their systems at home needs protection. To many have no clue about AV and Firewalls and asume a system should run safe connected to the internet aslong as they don't download files from suspicious websites.

    2. Re:Aren't all media reports of internet viruses by Trigun · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ahh, another old-skooler. I got stoned in the eighties, and I've seen Jerusalem.

      In fact, Jerusalem-b was my favourite virus. Sheer genius what a measly few hundred bytes of code can do. Virus writers don't know how good they have it today!

    3. Re:Aren't all media reports of internet viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just because she supports you doesn't give you the right to call your mom a server.

    4. Re:Aren't all media reports of internet viruses by peculiarmethod · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nothing compared to the Turkey Virus.. did a report on it in the early 90s. In the eighties it showed a pretty picture of of a turkey while focusing most of the cathode rays at a central point, causing the tube to burn out, and in several instances, catch fire. There was even a deadly house fire attributed to it. Deadly computer virus in the 80s.. beat that.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    5. Re:Aren't all media reports of internet viruses by nmb3000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Call me a n00b, but this sounds like crap. I don't think software had such specific control over something like a monitor, even in the 80's. Even if it did have more control than today, isn't the CRT physically designed to spread the electron beams evenly as to display a picture? What possible reason would there be to allow manual focusing of the beams?

      I'm trying to find information about this but not having much success. Any links to validate this "Turkey Virus"?

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    6. Re:Aren't all media reports of internet viruses by peculiarmethod · · Score: 4, Informative

      hsync and vsync value hack in the early days of heculese and cga cards, initiated with ASM code. and all those moderators who modded overrated need to learn more about hardware.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    7. Re:Aren't all media reports of internet viruses by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Upgraded from 128 MB HDD to 1.3GB, spent all summer cutting grass for that sucker and less than a week after installing I started hearing this god-awful screeching, only to have it fail totally in a few minutes"

      somehow I doubt that as all drives > 1g and many > 200 meg did not support the park command because they auto parked at powerdown. They would accept the park command and silently ignore it.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    8. Re:Aren't all media reports of internet viruses by hoxford · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's true that you can't really "focus" the electron beam on the monitor from the video card. And even if you could the worst that would happen is to create a small spot of burn in on the phosphor. However, as other posters have pointed out it is possible to do damage to an older monitor by running the video timing out of spec. I personally experienced this when setting up my very first X Server configuration on my very first Linux installation back in 93. It didn't cause a fire but it did blow one of the power transistors in the monitor (after making a helluva squealing noise). Depending on how the monitor was designed it's plausible that running the monitor sufficiently out of spec could cause it to catch on fire.

  4. I have yet to experience Zotob... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anybody got a torrent?

    1. Re:I have yet to experience Zotob... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Me too, will it work under WINE?

    2. Re:I have yet to experience Zotob... by utopianfiat · · Score: 2, Informative

      already up on metasploit

      --
      +5, Truth
  5. propigated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Our language is a wonderful thing. Please stop using it.

  6. Warzone by databyss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From all that I've read on the news lately, it looks like the various variants are battle each other... so they may be keeping their own numbers down.

    --
    Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    1. Re:Warzone by Avohir · · Score: 3, Funny

      yep. Some of them will target each other. if you open them up, they write insults to each other in their binaries too (half the time it's in russian though so translations come out pretty comical)

      --
      To err is human, to really foul up requires a computer
    2. Re:Warzone by hattig · · Score: 2, Funny

      One day virii will sign up for Everquest or WoW accounts automatically, and fight each other there. One day you will be marvelling at your +10 Sword Of Damocles and a horde of frickin' Win32 virii will come along and kill you for it.

      Worse, though, is that normal people will notice the EQ or WoW icon on their desktop, and also get trapped in the game.

  7. really... by Megor1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was just hyped big time by a few big media outlets. And really the patch was out, and you know Windows 2000 needs a firewall. I blame it more on crappy IT administration.

    --
    Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
    1. Re:really... by Patoski · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was just hyped big time by a few big media outlets. And really the patch was out, and you know Windows 2000 needs a firewall. I blame it more on crappy IT administration.

      Actually Windows 2000 does have a firewall. It just doesn't have a purdy gui.
      http://online.securityfocus.com/infocus/1559

      Anyhow, how does a firewall help one when an infected machine gets in the building (like a laptop)? You cannot block port 445 (which zotob uses) since that is what is used in part for file and print sharing.

      While we didn't get hit where I work I can sympathize with companies that did. When you're working in a large environment it can take some time to test patches to make sure they work as advertised (esp. on mission ciritcal servers). One week lead time is really intense.

      --
      G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    2. Re:really... by devilsadvoc8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because its part of their job, that's why.

      --
      B O R I N G
    3. Re:really... by jwgoerlich · · Score: 4, Informative

      I blame it more on crappy IT administration.

      And how! Almost all of my clients' machines are immune to this (though we patched anyways). Why? Because we disable anonymous connections (RestrictAnonymous registry key), which has been a recommended practice for YEARS.

      See the tech advisory: "Windows 2000 systems are primarily at risk from this vulnerability. Windows 2000 customers who have installed the MS05-039 security update are not affected by this vulnerability. If an administrator has disabled anonymous connections by changing the default setting of the RestrictAnonymous registry key to a value of 2, Windows 2000 systems would not be vulnerable remotely from anonymous users."

      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q246261/

      http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory /899588.mspx

      The same thing happened with Slammer. The MSSQL servers we setup were immune out of the gate because they were setup properly from the get-go.

    4. Re:really... by dkf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You cannot block port 445 (which zotob uses) since that is what is used in part for file and print sharing.

      Whyever not? Or are you claiming that file and printer sharing (as opposed to using one of the stronger client-server protocols for these things) is a good idea?

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    5. Re:really... by Patoski · · Score: 2, Insightful


                You cannot block port 445 (which zotob uses) since that is what is used in part for file and print sharing.


      Whyever not? Or are you claiming that file and printer sharing (as opposed to using one of the stronger client-server protocols for these things) is a good idea?

      Because you'll break Active Directory.

      --
      G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
  8. not large penetration by jaypaulw · · Score: 3, Funny

    'The worm only spreads to systems running on Windows 2000, XP and Server 2003'

    this seemed funny to me. as if somehow not a significant portion of computers run those OSes

    1. Re:not large penetration by dioscaido · · Score: 4, Informative

      The code used in the Zotob worm to exploit the Microsoft PnP vulnerability addresses in MS05-039 relies on NULL sessions to exploit the target system. Default installations of Windows XP SP2 and Windows 2003 do not have NULL sessions enabled, and thus are not affected by the worm.

    2. Re:not large penetration by jim_v2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not that they aren't affected, it's just that they can't be infected by the way it spreads...however, the worm will still run on XP/2003 machines.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  9. August: Season of the crashes by Destoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would like to name August the official Worm month.

    August 2003: Sobig
    August 2004: Sasser
    August 2005: Zotob

    What's next?

    --
    Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
    1. Re:August: Season of the crashes by cperciva · · Score: 5, Funny

      August 2003: Sobig
      August 2004: Sasser
      August 2005: Zotob

      What's next?


      I'm just guessing here, but... could "August 2006" be next?

    2. Re:August: Season of the crashes by oberondarksoul · · Score: 4, Funny

      August 2003: Sobig
      August 2004: Sasser
      August 2005: Zotob

      What's next?

      4. ???
      5. Profit?

      --
      And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
    3. Re:August: Season of the crashes by Mille+Mots · · Score: 5, Funny
      What's next?

      August 2006: Longhorn

    4. Re:August: Season of the crashes by DynamicBits · · Score: 2, Informative

      Guess what happens every year in August.. Thousands of students return to school. A majority of them just had the summer off, which provided ample time to work on the next big worm. School starts and the creator has a new semi-anonymous internet connection to start propogation from.

    5. Re:August: Season of the crashes by utopianfiat · · Score: 2, Funny

      SECURITY ADVISORY
      A newly discovered worm in August 2006 has made an enoromous impact on the world wide web. W32.Profit, aptly named by the developer who openly identifies himself as a slashdot troll...

      --
      +5, Truth
    6. Re:August: Season of the crashes by 0110011001110101 · · Score: 3, Funny
      August 2003: Sobig
      August 2004: Sasser
      August 2005: Zotob
      What's next?

      Judging from the pattern...

      August 2006: Zakksq

      first letter repeats twice, second letter o to a, third letter repeatted twice with applied interval, fourth letter interval, fifth letter interval

      --
      Don't anthropomorphize computers: they hate that.
    7. Re:August: Season of the crashes by Optic7 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, or better know as Windows VISTA (Virus Infection, Spyware, Trojans, Adware)*

      *I didn't come up with this - I read it on some message board, but thought it was funny.

  10. Perhaps not as bad, but it still is a problem. by marbike · · Score: 4, Informative

    This worm, while not as bad as some we've dealt with in the past (slammer/sapphire, code red, msblaster) is still a pain. It is still likely to cause huge spikes in network traffic for infected networks. I've already seen an intstance where hundreds of machines seemed to be infected and only the mitigation in place at the edge routing devices was able to stem the flow of traffic outbound.

    This type of traffic has the potential to knock over routers/firewalls. I've seen it before and I have seen it this time as well.

    --
    it is better to light a flame thrower than curse the darkness. -Terry Pratchett Men at Arms
  11. no big deal by ingo23 · · Score: 3, Funny
    The worm only spreads to systems running on Windows 2000, XP and Server 2003

    Lucky Windows 3.0 users can be at ease.

  12. Actually... by TimTheFoolMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's been pretty hairy here, inside the walls of a Fortune 500 company. Probably because we have so many variations of Windows in our lab, it was all over the place. People who had kept up to date and patched weren't hit bad (I'm on XP SP1), but we were creating ad-hoc teams all afternoon yesterday trying to get things clean.

    In some ways, this was a bigger deal than Sobig.

    Tim

    1. Re:Actually... by perdu · · Score: 2, Informative
      So you're saying you don't REQUIRE updates and patches at a fortune 500?
      We had trouble at my companies site because nearly all of our 5,000 users are on Windows 2000 SP3. The patch was only for SP4, so I guess it was decided not to risk upgrade to SP4 with the patch. But then we got shutdown for the whole day!

      Let's see: 5,000 people x 1 day: wonder if our TCO is still lower with Windows?
      --
      You only use 2% of your DNA
    2. Re:Actually... by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This was my thought.

      Whomever was asleep at the wheel should be fired. Of course they won't be, because they'll blame it on software breaking or MS or aliens for all I know. but the hard truth of the matter is, they should be.

      Yes, I understand what's required before patches go live. I understand you have a lot of software you need to test before you can approve a patch. I also know how long that takes and how long it takes to make things work. A week, at most, is all you should ever be behind in patches.

      Now granted, there are staff shortages and the like. However, there just simply aren't that many software packages. And if you truly are a fortune 500 company, you should be leaning on any software vendor heavily to make them work to keep their software working.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    3. Re:Actually... by TimTheFoolMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem we have is not someone "asleep at the wheel." It's an issue of "this is my PC, and you are NOT going to push service packs and updates down to me whenever you like. I'll apply them when I'm good and ready."

      Our IT Admin's response was patient, up to a point. Then she started shutting off their VLANs, and people got serious about it.

      Yeah, I know. The idea of programmers and computer geeks thinking they're smarter than the IT Admin is hard to believe. Right?

      Tim

  13. Re:Flaw was patched days before the outbreak. by Trigun · · Score: 5, Informative

    Patch caused errors in 3rd party software. Not enough lead time to do proper regression testing. News at 11, if they get their computers fixed.

  14. Affects more than just windows machines by thedogcow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Zotob is affecting more than Windows machines. Case and point, the network is really slow (via the Windows garbage) which is making Slashdot load slow for me and I am running Solaris. Grr.

    --
    Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
  15. Patch available? by Kelson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When was the last time a big Windows-based worm went around that didn't already have a patch available? Some of the biggest (say, Blaster) had been patched months before!

    What's happened is that the bad guys have gotten faster at exploiting the vulnerabilities once they're disclosed. Meanwhile, the vendors have been trying to convince everyone to update as quickly as possible. That's why it's hard to argue against automatic updates (or at least semi-automatic, as in timing it so that an admin is on hand to fix any problems that pop up).

    The story here is that a worm zoomed across the next less than a week after the hole it uses was patched. It's not the extent (which the media overstated) but the speed.

    1. Re:Patch available? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'll install the next service patch as soon as Microsoft let's me decide which browser to do it with. Where's the network install (aka downloadable) patch?

      Right here:

      http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=E39A3D96-1C37-47D2-82EF-0AC89905C88F&displa ylang=en

    2. Re:Patch available? by Epistax · · Score: 2

      I run windows on one of my computers because of hardware issues. I have two other computers, both run gentoo. At any rate I think your argument is silly. Nice chatting with you.

      Oh, and I do keep my system clean. I don't get infections because I make sure I don't. Funny that you jump to that conclusion. No, what I said is that I want to be able to install a patch without playing by someone else's rules. Gee, I hope you don't explode like that when someone says they want ketchup but the place only has mustard.

  16. Windows XP and Server 2003? by mranime · · Score: 4, Informative

    Both Symantec link and F-Secure link

    States that only Windows 2000 machines were affected.

    F-Secure Writes: "The exploit uses fixed offsets inside Windows 2000 version of umpnpmgr.dll. This means that only Windows 2000 systems (SP0-4) are affected."

  17. Surprisingly slow spread by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Witty worm spread much faster despite the very small base of susceptible hosts (only about 12,000 total that had some old version of some firewall software). Witty had a doubling time of only a couple minutes and nearly saturated (infected all susceptible hosts) in less than one hour.

    A modern worm should be able to spread extremely quickly -- sending out hundreds of infectious packets per second if the payload is small (Witty's was only 637 bytes). If only 1 in 10,000 machine is susceptible, then a worm spewing 100 randomly addressed packets per second should double the number of infected machines every 100 seconds. I'd wager that the number of zotob-susceptible machines was much greater than only 1 in 10,000, so zotob should have spread faster. If anyone ever creates a worm that can infect even 1% of IP addys, it would double every second and saturate the net within the first minute or so.

    Why didn't zotob spread faster?

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Surprisingly slow spread by Forseti · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Why didn't zotob spread faster?
      I'll tell you why: NAT and RFC1918.

      The worm (reportedly) only tries to spread to adresses with the same first 2 octets as the current machine. Even if it hit a machine through a static NATed public IP, once infected, it would detect only the private address of that host, and spread only within the company. It was poorly written to be able to spread quickly. It almost needs to be moved to another network manually! Witty went random, that's much smarter.

      In fact, we're generally lucky that most virus writers are inept. Otherwise, we would have seen some MUCH WORSE infections already.

      --
      Delay is preferable to error. (Thomas Jefferson)
  18. it's okay, guys by kwoff · · Score: 5, Funny

    Once we control the spice, we control the worm.

  19. This may not be an accident by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Makes you wonder if Microsoft had a role in encouraging its release, doesn't it?

    It's striking how nice the virus writers are to the antivirus companies. Most viruses do just enough damage to require ongoing spending for antivirus tools and upgrades, but not enough to make users switch to, say, Linux. There are exceptions, like the virus that encrypts data on the hard drive and demands payment in E-gold, but those are very rare. Few viruses erase data. Few do things that would make removal impossible without physically opening the computer, like modifying the BIOS so it can only boot from the hard drive. The mainstream viruses seem to be carefully tuned to optimize the revenue stream of antivirus and upgrade vendors.

    Somewhere there's a reason for this.

    1. Re:This may not be an accident by DaHat · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reason that viruses are not as damaging today as they were long ago is because virus writers have learned, propagation is the goal, not destruction.

      Compare computer viruses to real world viruses and you'll see.

      Ebola, smallpox take your pick from the fast acting, horrific and deadly viruses, very contagious and extremely deadly. With such a rap, why they it killed off everyone on earth yet. The answer why they haven't is simple, they kill their hosts before they have much of a chance to spread.

      That is why HIV is such an evil bug, it takes it's time before killing its host, as well as taking plenty of time before an infection is apparent.

      Computer viruses are the same, one that destroys a PC or locks down files isn't going to get very far, while one whose sole job is reproduction will spread far and wide and cause havoc only because of it's level of penetration and infection.

    2. Re:This may not be an accident by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But it would be truly easy to combine a fast propogation worm with a time delay and a format C: command. Infect, propogate, wait 30 min, format. It's all out there already, but it seems that no one has (or wants to?) put them all together...yet.

      That should make a lot of people tremble but, for some reason, people keep using an OS that allows this.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  20. This outbreak hit media outlets by ewg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This malware outbreak received disproportionate media coverage, because it hit media outlets first and hardest.

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
  21. Re:Choose a side and get Protection by FLAGGR · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow, you've been reading to much sci-fi. Lay off the crack.

    If there are factions, its just a bunch of 14year windows users that prefix their IRC nick with their clan name , e.g. [VWF]h4x0r is a member of [V]irus [W]riters [F]orever. They can't offer you an "expert protectionism", whatever the fuck that is, because they're too dumb. Have you seen the code to some of these things? Crap.

    Again, there isn't any "viral factions", you need to unsubscribe to the space channel, any MMORPG's or other online games you own, burn your scifi books and get some fresh air.

    Cheers :)

  22. Re:Did you see that ridiculous CNN coverage? by mhollis · · Score: 3, Informative

    The CNN coverage was probably due to CNN still using Windoze 2000, which we use here at NBC for all of our desktop computers.

    Mind you, we also have high end workstations running Avid Newscutters and the DS that are based on XP but for desktop use, it's strictly 2000.

    It is quite possible that news ops software, like Avid's iNews (a very necessary script-writing, show organizing and newswire access tool that almost every news organization uses) does not work or is not supported on XP. It may also be an issue that XP requires better hardware (highly likely) than 2000 and large, worldwide organizations like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC and so on are highly dependent on that version of Microsoft's OS.

    So, at least in their case, the hysteria at CNN may have been warranted.

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  23. Re:Irony by Knara · · Score: 2, Informative
    It's amazing that businesses rely on an OS that continues to do what they need it to do? Win2k is only half-way through it's support life-cycle, you realize (scheduled to be EOL in 2010 if I recall).

    This was a problem with IT admins not maintaining secure environments through patching and firewall administration. Where I work has 400+ machines in a mix of 2000 and XP, and I'd be surprised if half a dozen of them got infected (I didn't hear about even one, personally).

  24. Not minimal here by Stanistani · · Score: 2, Interesting

    San Diego County Government had 12,000 workstations crash.
    People couldn't do ANYTHING connected to the county.
    They had 3,000 systems up today.
    Wonder if I can apply for the sysadmin job?

  25. Son of Jor-El... by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Kneel before ZOTOB!

    --
    "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
  26. Pretty Bad Here by GizmoToy · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know if it was "minimal" elsewhere, but it hit GE Transportation really hard. We had two sites go down completely (no network, no computers), including HQ in Cincinnati. The sites went completely offline around 3pm, and I can only assume the poor techies had to stay all night to patch each computer on campus manually (because they won't stay on, always rebooting). When I got to work the next day, we all had a specific set of instructions to do to complete the patching process. They really lost a fortune on this one.

  27. Ofcourse it's not as bad... by GillBates0 · · Score: 3, Informative
    It even removes your spyware for you, as several /. comments noted in the last Zotob story: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/w32.zotob.d.html It could be that problems (reboots, etc) that people experienced were caused by inadequate testing than purely malicious intent...but then it's a worm, so it is implicitly malicious.

    Deletes the following registry values:
    "MyWebSearch"
    "WINDOWS SYSTEM"
    "Zotob"
    "MyWay"
    "WeatherOnTray"
    "Apropos"
    "IBIS TB"
    "TBPS"
    "Toolbar"
    "Hotbar"
    "CMESys"
    "NavExcel"
    "ViewMgr"
    "eZula"
    "EbatesMoeMoneyMaker"
    "Ebates"
    "AutoUpdater"
    "Gator"
    "Trickler"
    "QuickTime"
    "GatorDownloader"
    "eZmmod"
    "Viewpoint"
    "TkBellExe"
    "180"
    "WinTools"
    "Real"
    "QuickTime Task"
    .
    .
    .

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  28. Re:unpatched machines? by sriram_2001 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry - not true. Windows Genuine Advantage has nothing to do with security patches. All users will get security patches, without going through any checks

  29. article is wrong. by Suppafly · · Score: 2, Informative

    but accorning to this article, the claims are a tad overzealous. FTA, 'The worm only spreads to systems running on Windows 2000, XP and Server 2003, and even then, the possibility of the worm affecting Windows XP and Server 2003 are minimal.' "

    The article is wrong, zotob has variants that infect 9x thru 2003. You can look at the summaries on symantec. As a pc support person at a very large company (one of the ones mentioned on cnn when they talked about zotob), this is certainly the worse virus I've had to deal with.

  30. Well at least its not all versions of Windows... by idiotism · · Score: 3, Funny

    just the ones that 90% of people that use windows, use. dont worry your computers running DOS, Windows 3.1, 95, 98 and the wonderful ME, cannot be infected.

  31. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    You must work at some little mom and pop shop.

    Any idea how many millions of $$ it takes to upgrade an entire company full of desktops, laptops, lab devices, servers, etc, when you have tens of thousands of people working for you all around the globe?

    Making sure that all your (hundreds of) applications function as expected on the new platform. Don't forget to test it on each and every language locale that will be in use for the company around the globe.

    Beginning to get the picture? This takes a HUGE amount of money, people, time and planning to pull off. It's a hell of a lot more than 1. Order CD, 2. Reboot, 3. Upgrade

  32. Early Bird Gets the Worm by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How odd that this worm should attack W2K so severely, and W2K3/WXP not so severely, just as Microsoft is dropping sales of W2K, and urging W2K users to upgrade, including draconian herding techniques like discontinuing W2K automatic update support.

    Now, even if MS hasn't created this worm, or released it into the wild, or deprioritized fixing bugs in W2K for it to exploit, or overhyped its danger to create "relief" that its favored W2K3/WXP products aren't at as much risk... don't you think the people over at the "W2K extinction department" in Redmond are very happy about this bad news? That's an incentive to neglect security. Like the sheepdog carpooling with the wolf.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  33. Re:Am I being stupid here? by Spad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Take a big company with several thousand Win 2000 machines.

    Take an idiot user with a laptop and Win 2000.

    Idiot user gets infected off their home internet connection, takes laptop into work, connects it to the network and infects every other machine within minutes.

  34. Dr. It hurts when I do this by wardk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    hard to feel sorry for the people still running windows, how many times does the car have to break down on the freeway before you trade the SOB in for something reliable?

    what is it called when you continue the same behavior and expect different results?

  35. Depends a lot on your point of view by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Myself I ended up at work 20 hours on Monday this week patching servers. Given that we have about 500 servers in our environment with one person doing the patching this wasn't so bad.

    We ended up with a lot of problem because of this worm... less because it actually caused problems with the machines but more because we could see machines constantly trying to infect one another. It wasn't pretty. Our workstations were most at risk, being the largest installed base but also running Windows 2000 SP3 (not SP4 unfortunately). No patch has been generally released for SP3 WS's, but a custom patch IS available from Microsoft if you request it. Due to other factors in play, we have elected to upgrade to SP4 and install the appropriate hotfixes. This is not going to be pretty over about 10,000 workstations.

    See, what some people miss when they say that any infection may be due to bad administration is simply that we're dealing with huge numbers of machines, both servers and workstations that are potentially vulnerable. Due to application compatibility and tested standardized platforms we often don't even get the option to keep stuff up to date. The only reason we even have Windows 2003 servers in place today is because we forced the issue with our Corporate guys when we implemented Active Directory; we informed them that we had a need for functionality not provided by Windows 2000 AD (which was true). There is a project currently under way to test Windows XP for rollout, but honestly chances are that Vista will be shipping by the time we even reach 50% rollout mark.

    So, why the rant? Well, it must be understood that jumping on the latest patches is not always an option in the corporate environment. Also, jumping on the operating system bandwagon is rarely an option because there's a lot of regression testing that has to be done. Hell, there are some instances where we're having to push the application vendors to support Windows 2003 Servers in our Citrix environment because they've never tested it. Welcome to the realities of Corporate IT.

    Are there solutions? Sure! However, none of them are acceptable to most corporations. Linux is not an option, neither is OSX. In both cases we come back to the legacy support issue. Citrix to share the applications? Great... but you're only redirecting the problem to the server farms, not eliminating it. Real world Corporate IT is not as black and white as people would like it to be, myself included.

    This virus gained traction because most corporations work this way. It wasn't helped by the fact that McAfee and Symantec both waited two days after the virus was discovered to release a signature update that recognized it.

    One positive thing though; this virus is forcing the management to finally listen to my department's complaints that we need to be more proactive about patch management, and this time stuff might get done. We've got a long way to go, but this should be the start of something better.

    1. Re:Depends a lot on your point of view by HyTronix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with your assessment of the tribulations of large network administration.

      You might have 500 servers and thousands of workstations to manage, but how many gateways to public networks do you have? Substantially less, I'd wager. Would not proper firewalling have prevented this worm from entering the network in the first place? What about DHCP configuration that moves mobile/unknown hosts to an untrusted network, perhaps with carefully filtered VPN only access?

      Simple to manage steps can certainly be taken to reduce incidences like this, and provide excellent protection, even on unpatched networks.

    2. Re:Depends a lot on your point of view by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 2, Informative

      In this case, no. Although we can't pinpoint it, it looks as though this worm actually came in on an infected laptop. There's almost nothing that can realistically be done to prevent this unless we also want to force everyone to use desktops. I know a lot of managers (and IT people... myself included) who often work from coffee shops on wireless connections when we need to. It people like myself can be expected to be conscientious about using at least a software firewall; managers and project managers? Well, I'll leave that to you to fill in that blank :)

    3. Re:Depends a lot on your point of view by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh no, the actual patching method was pretty simple, automated and realistically only ate up a total of about 4 or 5 of those hours. The problems came when it came to controlled reboots, reboot schedules, application and server interdependencies and so forth. Also, the politics of dealing with servers in remote locations and having to call on-call staff in the middle of the night to power-cycle a box because McAfee hung the server on shutdown. That's what causes time... and is common across platforms.

    4. Re:Depends a lot on your point of view by HyTronix · · Score: 2

      I can relate to your situation. A company I used to work for had a similar climate.

      These days, I get to be idealistic because the current administration values security over functionality, so to speak.

    5. Re:Depends a lot on your point of view by bitslinger_42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Software firewalls can work. A company I work with has over 10k laptops in use, and nearly all of them run a standard firewall package. It has centralized logging, so we can tell when someone disables it and/or uninstalls it. Those users are warned once and then walked out the door if it happens again, even managers. Patch management is handled automatically, so when a user logs on, the patch is pushed to them. If the firewalls are configured intelligently (i.e. absolutely NO MS networking allowed when in an untrusted network), patches are maintained, and antivirus software is in place, the virus problem gets much more managable. Add to that an IDS that has provisions to automatically identify propegating worms inside the company, interfaces with the trouble-ticketing system, and a process through which access control lists are applied to the appropriate routers within 15 minutes, and you have a method for dealing with viruses quickly and without a bunch of manpower. These days, a bad virus outbreak for me is 2-3 computers, and we've got well over 40k end users.

    6. Re:Depends a lot on your point of view by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which then brings up the problem of application compatibility. As I mentioned in one of my other posts (though not specifically), many of our "custom" or at least "not-off-the-shelf" applications are only certified for Windows 2000 SP3, and have either never been tested or never certified on anything newer. This leads to the problem of the vendor leading the customer down a dark and dangerous path, but unfortunately corporate politics plays too much into this.

      We aren't allowed to run un-certified applications due to business requirements (we're governed by worldwide and federal regulations which are sometimes contradictory), and thus to upgrade the operating system would be to essentially "un-certify" these applications. It isn't really as cut and dried as even I like.

      Personally, I run XP SP2 on my laptop (with permission). The only reason I get away with that is because I'm in IT and therefore don't have to run the business applications that are not certified for this platform. If I do... well that's what VM's are for

  36. Re:Actually... - it's the Microsoft Spin Machine by NatteringNabob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is part of the first wave of "it's not so bad and it is the victim's fauly anyway" press releases which will be followed shortly with the 'any operating system is vulnerable to viruses' wave of press releases, followed by the 'Windows Vista is much more secure and everybody should upgrade' press releases. The only amazing part is that Windows users never seem to catch on. Somebody who bought three Ford Pintos and somehow manage to survive when they all burst into flames would probably think long and hard before buying a fourth one. Windows users? Not a chance.

  37. Re:unpatched machines? by arkhan_jg · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry - not true. Windows Genuine Advantage has nothing to do with security patches. All users will get security patches, without going through any checks

    That used to be the case. Now with the latest version of Windows Update, you must pass genuine advantage in order to download patches. I know this as I've one machine that fails to get past the check on windows update despite the valid licence number on it. I believe autoupdate is still working, but for how long?

    --
    Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  38. Non-issue for any competent admin by Mortimer82 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Granted, I deal only with about 150 users, over about 6 companies, however, I haven't even had a reported case of this worm.

    The only excuse for an administrator having a problem with this, is if the patch is incompatible with some or other software.

    Any competent administrator knows:

    • When microsoft is releasing their patches.
    • Uses either Software Update Services, or more recently they may be using Windows Server Update Services (WSUS).

    WSUS works like a charm, you can tell it to check for updates every day, and then all clients on the network can be forced to apply the patches.

    There are instances where WSUS cannot really help much:

    • Laptop users: These users may get infected from their home connection before they get to the office, however, this should not really be able to happen if they are running a personal firewall (such as Windows XP SP2's firewall), and even if they do get infected, the worst possible collateral should be a couple of other, as yet, unpatched laptops on the network.
    • 0 day worms: I would say that, reasonably, you are looking at about 24 hours for all desktop machines to get autopatched. Worms that get made in this time window may be able to sneak in.
    • Worms which target an unknown vulnerability: Short of ultra-strict firewall policies, as well as no laptop users, a worm like this is more than likely going to cause havoc.

    It's called preventative maintenance, you can replace your brakes after they fail, but if you do it before they fail, it saves you having to repair the rest of your car as well.

    In summary, all administrators from companies that that run a domain controller, and have a reasonable amount of resources should NOT have experienced any major outbreak. So stop whining, clean up your mess, do your job properly now and avoid future problems.

  39. 'tis the season (of crashes) by kernel_dan · · Score: 3, Funny

    What's next?

    August 2006: Longhorn


    Well, it will propagate itself through the internet.

    --

    Illegal? Samir, This is America.
  40. Roasted several Government of Alberta servers by darkCanuck · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's been like firemen at an oilfire at a few GoA servers. My ministry hasn't been hit though, yet.

    A couple days ago our IT director sent out an email saying: "Would you please refrain from using the Internet immediately until we have taken the appropriate actions to prevent the virus."

    And today we've been asked not to download anything, don't use Messenger and to bring any laptops to them for worm inspection prior to connecting to the network.

    So I took my iBook back to them and asked them to check for worms. :D

  41. "Turkey Virus" by alexhs · · Score: 5, Informative

    > Any links to validate this "Turkey Virus"?

    I've found that...

    > isn't the CRT physically designed to spread the electron beams evenly as to display a picture?

    No, it isn't a TV set. The VGA cable is really controlling the electron beam. Well, it was... now there is some embedded electronic to do some adjustments and avoid to damage the tube (for example, using too high refresh rates).

    Try xvidtune under X,
    check the modeline doc in linux/Documentation/fb,
    read that link.

    (Now assuming you've read the last link and understand porch times)
    Your VGA cable basically sends five signals : red green and blue controlling the energy of the three beams, and two sync signals controlling "next line" and "next screen". Usually porch times are constant, so you're drawing in a rectangle somewhere.
    Changing horizontal porch times will move the image to the left or right, or modify the image width.
    Changing vertical porch times will move the image to the top or bottom, or modify the image height.
    Constantly changing porch times result in waving effects (as reported in the first link).

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  42. WAZZUP by mary_will_grow · · Score: 4, Funny

    anyone remember the Wazzup virus? It attacked MS Word and would randomly place the word "wazzup" in your document when you saved it or printed it. God it was beautiful. So many book reports with "wazzups" circled in red ink....

    People wazzup arent creative like that anymore.

    --
    Why stick up for big business?
  43. Re:Actually... - it's the Microsoft Spin Machine by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Informative

    Windows users? Not a chance.

    Y'know, there's a fair few of us Windows users who have yet to catch a virus, or be infected with spyware, or get rooted.

    Sure, I see others crashing and burning, but then I've known people knocked down and killed crossing the road; yet I still cross. I just take sensible precautions, and take my chances.