Slashdot Mirror


Korean Mozilla Binaries Infected

Magnus writes "Korean distributions of Mozilla and Thunderbird for Linux were infected with Virus.Linux.RST.b. This virus searches for executable ELF files in the current and /bin directories and infects them. It also contains a backdoor, which downloads scripts from another site, and executes them, using a standard shell."

15 of 592 comments (clear)

  1. And so it begins... by eno2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...expect to see more of this as the popularity of OSS continues. Of course, unlike Windows it won't get far since MOST users are smart enough to not be running as root.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:And so it begins... by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      User-friendly distros (like Ubuntu), borrow a page from OSX and don't even expose the root account. You create a user account in setup, you're prompted for your admin password when you need to install stuff, and when you use the CLI you use sudo. Therefore, without taking proactive steps, it's not even possible run programs at root, and you have to go well out of your way to log in as root.

  2. Re:Virus data by _bug_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's odd... I learned here that Mozilla is clearly more responsive to security bugs than Microsoft. What gives?

    You mean besides the fact that the binaries were removed as soon as they found out?

  3. Um... by Noksagt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Of course, unlike Windows it won't get far since MOST users are smart enough to not be running as root.
    Most users still install software as root & even if they don't, the user usually has access to /bin & would be able to run scripts.
    1. Re:Um... by Lussarn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of all programs in Linux, about 99.99% is distribution supplied and isn't likely to have virus/trojan/spyware in them.

  4. Infecting /bin? by Danathar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm assuming this can only occur if you installed the virus infected material as root?

    Nothing new here....if you install software as root from a compromised source and don't check the md5sums along with other precautions you put yourself at risk

  5. Tinfoil shoes? by bitslinger_42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OK, really paranoid, conspiracy-theory thought here... Yesterday, Symantec, a vendor with an AV product, releases a report claiming that Mozilla is not as secure as IE. Today, a news story comes out that a download of Mozilla from some website in Korea has been trojaned. Anyone else wondering if Symantec placed the infected files in Korea to boost sales of either their Linux AV product (haven't checked to see if there is one yet) or their security consluting services?

    My late-night googling skills are failing to find a reference, but I remember some stories from a couple years back about AV companies writing and releasing new viruses to pad their list of known viruses. If that was true, then I wouldn't put a stunt like this past them.

  6. Re:Virus data by boaworm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you've read TFA, you'd know that this has virtually nothing to do with mozilla or OSS.

    A third party, a mozilla fan site in korea, distributed infected binaries.

    If you find an infected version of Winzip on an internet site, would you blame Winzip.com ?

    --
    Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
    Aristotele
  7. Alan Cox was right by Saunalainen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yet another example of the lamentable state of modern computer security. This wouldn't be a problem if operating systems required a trusted signature for software to be installed.

    I use a lot of OS software (e.g. Firefox, NeoOffice/J, LyX, R), but the standard installation process on my platform (OS X) does not allow checking for an authentic signature. Why is this not built in? It doesn't have to be this way: for instance, Red Hat signs its own RPMs (though Debian's APT didn't support this last time I looked).

    We already have to trust the developers. We shouldn't have to trust every FTP server too.

  8. If Microsoft did it, it would be Microsoft. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I believe the point is if MS did this, it wouldn't matter how fast they removed the infected binaries, there would be a string of posts pontificating on how this clearly demonstrates linux/firefox as superior. And they'd all be modded +5.
    If Microsoft distributed infected binaries, then it would be Microsoft distributing infected binaries.
    Of course saying the reverse here will quickly get you troll/flamebait/overated down to -1.
    You do realize that you're completely wrong.

    This is not about Mozilla distributing infected binaries. Mozilla did not. If they had, your analogy would be correct.

    This is about a 3rd party site distributing binaries of compiled Mozilla code that were infected.

    The only Microsoft comparision that can be made would be if HP (or some OEM) shipped WinXP computers with a virus.

    The real question is how did that virus get there in the first place. It's been around for a while but it doesn't spread.
  9. You don't understand "vulnerable". by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Writing a virus for Linux is easy.

    Getting that virus onto someone else's box is very difficult.

    Getting that virus to spread from that box is even more difficult.

    Linux viruses have an infection rate that is lower than their removal rate so they die in the wild.

    The real question is how did that virus get into that code? Linux viruses tend to have total infection numbers of less than 100 machines.

  10. Re:Virus data by GreyPoopon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I believe the point is if MS did this, it wouldn't matter how fast they removed the infected binaries, there would be a string of posts pontificating on how this clearly demonstrates linux/firefox as superior.

    Let's compare apples to apples here. If MS was offering infected binaries form one of THEIR sites, yes, we'd be jumping down their throat. On the other hand, if MS decided to let Download.com distribute versions of a "freeware" application (like Messenger), and the binaries on Download.com were infected, most of us would just be avoiding Download.com like the plague. Sure, some people would still blame Microsoft, just as some people are going to blame Mozilla here.

    Now, having said all of that, I'll bring up the question of accountability. Since Mozilla is being distributed by public mirrors, it's probably a REALLY good idea to have some sort of guidelines that need to be met by the administrators to make sure this doesn't happen on a "Mozilla-certified" mirror. Maybe this is already in place.

    --

    GreyPoopon
    --
    Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

  11. Re:So let me get this straight... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That's because viruses on Linux are so rarely reported due to their limited scope of effectiveness.

    That's a falacy. Linux is just as vunerable to trojaned installers as any other OS. You install mozilla as root, right? Debian apt runs as root, so you'd better be trusting those apt repositories, and all of the contributers.

    OS security does help against worms and other methods of infection, but dealling with trojans is a 90% user function. This improved security, along with market share (as you point out) is what makes Linux "safer". To get a virus on Linux, you essentially have to do something wrong yourself. Which is no consolation to the gran and grandpa users, "Download Weather Bar (linux version) popups" are only a few years away...

  12. Re:Virus data by SimGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And sadly, Linux administrators have been unable to suitably protect their systems in all this time, so it continues to be a pain in the ass, never really going away. I work for a hosting company, and I've dug Linux.RST.b out of too many servers.

    I think too many Linux admins don't believe there's such a thing as a Linux virus. Usually the easiest way to recognize the infection is if a large number of common programs in /bin like "grep" start crashing. Tends to make boot up and shutdown clumsily fail.

    --
    I don't care, but don't let that stop you from trying to tell me anyway.
  13. Apples to Apples? by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ok, to get infected on Linux you have to download and install binaries from untrusted third parties and run as root all the time.

    To get infected on Windows you... have to turn the system on. As far as I can tell.

    Sure a lot of Windows infections are because the user downloaded and installed binaries from untrusted third parties, but equally as many just turned their computers on.

    If you ran untrusted binaries on your Apple you'd be exposing yourself to similar risk. Hell, we used to have the same problem on IBM mainframes back in the '80's -- every year around chistmas time all the freshmen would run those greeting card programs in their in-boxes and bring the network down as the trojan spread itself to everyone in their address book. Windows just eliminates a lot of the work for you.

    As the Linux userbase expands into increasingly less clueful segments of the population compromised systems are going to be more of a problem, but I predict that even if the installed Linux base ever grows to the size that Windowss is, the problem won't be as severe as it is on Windows. Unless everyone's running Lindows...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?