Slashdot Mirror


Ambidextrous Linux/Windows Virus

Lam1969 writes "Kaspersky Labs has reported a new proof-of-concept virus that can infect both Windows and Linux systems. It's called Virus.Linux.Bi.a/Virus.Win32.Bi.a and affects ELF binaries and .exe's from windows. SANS has a brief item on the cross-platform virus as well, but no information about a patch or signature yet."

22 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. How is it POC? by liliafan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I guess it is time for me to double check clamav is still updating without any problems on my systems.

    In 2001, the sadmind/ISS worm exploited a hole in Sun Microsystems Inc.'s Solaris to infect systems running vulnerable versions of the operating system. Infected systems then scanned for and attacked servers running Microsoft Corp.'s IIS Web server software. That same year, another proof-of-concept virus named Winux infected both Windows and Linux systems.


    I am curious about how this is a proof of concept virus if it has been done before surely the concept has already been proven?
    --
    GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
    1. Re:How is it POC? by JordanL · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am curious about how this is a proof of concept virus if it has been done before surely the concept has already been proven?

      It wasn't slashdotted last time?

    2. Re:How is it POC? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 5, Informative

      It seems that the reason it's considered a POC at this point is because it has no real payload. All it does is spread, and not nearly as heinously as Blaster/Welchia/Sasser.

      As soon as it gets backdoor or downloader functionality... then it becomes a more serious threat. And really you, me, and the guys at Secunia/SARC/SANS/ISC/etc all know that's where this is headed.

      So yes... in the sense of where this particular piece of malware is headed, this is a proof-of-concept. It's a live test of the progagation mechanism. The payload will be dropped into place soon... probably in the next version since this one looks like it's working fine.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  2. Netcraft confirms... by Syberghost · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...BSD just coughed up water and started breathing again.

  3. I'll beat you to it.. by JavaLord · · Score: 4, Funny

    100 bi jokes to follow

    1. Re:I'll beat you to it.. by zpeterz63 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not so sure...it could go either way.

  4. Whatever by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "For those thinking their "pet" computer is invulnerable to the virus threat -- it's not," SANS said.

    Cue ominous thunder. (rolls eyes)

    All this means is that data communications and storage has reached a point in time where no one (in theory) is going to notice that infected files get 3 or 4 megs chunkier. The virus writers still have to find vectors into these systems. If they can't find convenient vectors, then the ability to produce a fat binary is useless.

    What is this need that security researchers have to claim that all systems are equally vulnerable? Are they worried they're going to be out of a job if everyone moves to more secure computing platforms? I mean, really. They should be encouraging mass migrations to other systems, as it diversifies the playing field and theoretically helps everyone remain safer. But I guess that's not their bread and butter.

    1. Re:Whatever by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Funny

      If they can't find convenient vectors, then the ability to produce a fat binary is useless.

      Unfortunately, there's a very convenient vector indeed sat at the keyboard of the vast majority of PCs.

  5. Does this mean.... by da · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... linux is ready for the desktop? [ducks]

    --
    I reserve the right to be wrong.
  6. Re:Not to worry by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 5, Funny

    Windows users are prepared for viruses...

    What bizarro Earth are you from?

  7. I, for one by sprag · · Score: 4, Funny

    welcome our new cross-platform proof-of-concept viral overlords.

    Its almost like playing buzzword bingo.

  8. Reactions: by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    1. Linux and Win32? W00t, my WfW3.11 box is invincible!
    2. So... why can't application developers do this?
  9. Re:Not to worry by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Informative

    Windows users are prepared for viruses and the reason Linux users do not sweat them much is not because linux viruses do not exist; it is because system design makes their impact minimal.

    Actually, you're quite wrong. Linux flaws have existed and are still found today that can be (and have been) taken advantage of. The reason Linux users don't sweat is because flaws are spotted quickly by many people who read the code, and fixed quickly too. That and people who code open-source tend to produce good code, as a matter of pride.

    Oh and by the way, Windows has a "safe"(well, safer) operating mode in the form of a user account, but nobody uses it because it's a PITA, so everybody stays in supervisor mode and bad things happen.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  10. Took long enough... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well it's about time! Finally inter-platform operability.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  11. Symantec by rmsmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find it interesting that this 'virus' appears shortly after Symantec reportedly gets cushy with the Linux press

  12. Re:How is it distributed? by adnonsense · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have reverse-engineered the virus and discovered an insiduous distribution mechanism:

    root# wget http://warez.example.com/Virus.Linux.Bi.a.tgz
    root# tar xzf Virus.Linux.Bi.a.tgz
    root# cd Virus.Linux.Bi.a
    root# ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/virii --with-natalie-portman=hot-grits --with-beowulf-cluster=yes
    root# make && make install
    root# PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/virii/bin
    root# rehash
    root# pwn3d &
  13. Re:Not to worry by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it is because system design makes their impact minimal

    Deleting everything in my home directory is anything but minimal.

    Potentially exploting local privilage elevation exploits to get root is anything but minimal.

    Infecting software after it has been compiled is anything but minimal.

    Using social engineering to get root is anything but minimal. How many users do you know who would enter their superuser password to "get free screensavers"? Too many.

    Pretending that you're protected by design to the problem indicates that you don't understand how viruses really work. Guess what? You can run as a non-root user in Windows, too. But you can still do a ton of damage as a normal user. Spam relays and DDOs botnets don't need root access, just the ability to send data over the network. How about modifying your GNOME or KDE menu to point to a fake terminal entry or fake admin tools? How do you know that the "gnome-terminal-emulator" you're now typing your password into (through sudo) isn't actually stealing it?

    This is the real world. Attackers are smart, they are motivated by profit (because of the spambot racket), and they have plenty of time to find the next buffer overrun.

  14. Re:Limited to ASM? by x2A · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not the first, I recall one before. And you don't even need detection code, you just write a different entry point address into the elf header as you would the exe header. You can have two different payloads, and two different copy mechanisms, as long as both copy both, not just themselves. In fact, there's no reason to stick to just 2. You can have a single virus that spreads across platforms/architectures, it just makes it bigger and easier to spot.

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  15. Is this another do-it-yourself? by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do you get this "virus"? You have to run infected code, right?

    Meh. Sounds like a non-issue to me. Especially considering the rarity of cross-platform Win32/Linux binaries.

    Just how does this badboy get on to my system in the first place?

    People need to understand that any system that permits a user to run unsigned executable code is susceptible to some kind of "malware", if you can call it that. I place these "viruses" in the same category of rm -r -f / wrapped into a shell script.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  16. Linux Infection Instructions by rossz · · Score: 5, Funny

    To Infect your Linux box with Virus.Linux.Bi.a, please follow these instructions.

    1. If gcc is not installed, install it.
    2. Unpack the archive: tar xvzf Virus.Linux.Bi.a.tar.gz
    3. Switch to the directory: cd Virus.Linux.Bi.a
    4. ./configure
    5. make
    6. su root
    7. make install

    Enjoy

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  17. More Linux advantages...; protecting low value by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Windows users are prepared for viruses and the reason Linux users do not sweat them much is not because linux viruses do not exist; it is because system design makes their impact minimal.


    There are lots of reasons why it's harder to infect 'NIX systems.

    1. Since on many LiNuX distros, the single source of binaries is usually the distributions' package system, it is usually very easy to detect anything out of the ordinary. The trusted channel is a GOOD thing in these cases.

    2. Add in a tool like AIDE (or Tripwire) and you can immediately see everything that is off with your system.

    3. How about Linux (and most UNIX) not allowing ctime changes to anything but the current time? The ctime (often said as creation time, but wrongly so- it's the CHANGE time) on any update will always be the current time. The _only_ way around this is to change the system time before you modify files

    4. Priv seperation is a big thing. Daemons aren't run as root (or if they do, they drop privs right away). There is no svchost.exe running your services at NT_AUTHORITY or SYSTEM like there is in Windows. Then of course there's no need to run your Web browser as a user with any rights at all. IE7/Vista will fix this of course. Personally I like making, even FireFox, setuid to some untrusted user with no access to files

    5. Embedding scripting in every tool isn't as popular in the UNIX worlds, as the core tools work so well. There's no need for office software to have scripting capabilities to change all the files on teh system. There's no need for it!

    Actually, you're quite wrong. Linux flaws have existed

    So do cars, toasters, appliances, and pretty much every item. Welcome to the age where quality means nothing.

    The reason Linux users don't sweat is because flaws are spotted quickly by many people who read the code, and fixed quickly too. That and people who code open-source tend to produce good code, as a matter of pride.

    They produce good code because they do it for themselves. Most open-source developers are developing for themselves. Every project starts up as "this IMAP server doesn't suit my needs. I'll make a better one". Of course the people who do that are normally the technically able. People make projects for themselves because there's a need that hasn't been met or they're unhappy how it's being met by someone else. Otherwise there's lots of people wasting their time. DJB was unhappy with sendmail/BIND and made alternates. BincIMAP, COurier, and Dovecat folks make them because the others and UW-IMAP didn't do what they want. Patches are submitted to fix something that's affecting them, may affect them, or to add an enhancement they want. Time is money, and people ultimately want to contribute their time for their own benefit somewhere down the road.

    Oh and by the way, Windows has a "safe"(well, safer) operating mode in the form of a user account, but nobody uses it because it's a PITA

    Even then, you'd be surprised what you can accomplish to destroy the system. Keep in mind, if you're running a SINGLE USER system as a user in order to add security, you're protecting your LEAST valuable asset. I can blow away a system and install Windows/Office/Adobe and all the tools I need in a few hours and have it configured perfectly. I'm sure most people here can. Now replacing the data would take years! Replacing the productivity lost to viruses/spyware/virii can't be measured. Assessing the impact of leaked administrator and bank passwords could be huge!

    -M
    --

    when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
  18. Re:RunAs by E-Rock · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, just think harder.

    Run the Add/Remove Programs control panel applet as your admin account. Then use add new programs to run the installer. The other benefit is that the installer is running as admin, so you can browse to installs out on the network that live in places users can't reach.