Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Creates Patch for Cross-Platform Virus
Newsforge is reporting that Linus Torvalds took a few minutes to review the cross-platform proof of concept virus covered yesterday and has proven that the virus does indeed not work with latest kernel version 2.6.16 and even released a patch in order to fix this "problem." From the article: "The reason that the virus is not propagating itself in the latest kernel versions is due to a bug in how GCC handles specific registers in a particular system call. [...] So the virus did a number of strange things to make this show up, but on the other hand the kernel does try to avoid touching user registers, even if we've never really _guaranteed_ that. So the 2.6.16 effect is a mis-feature, even if a _normal_ app would never care. It just happened to bite the infection logic of your virus thing."
Gotta admire how Linus calls a spade a spade even when that spade is a Good Thing. Imagine how MS would spin this if it happened to them.
Not only the 'one' person, but a clean code base that makes a small fix. I expect the others would need a few hundred MB patch and lots of breakage/bundled/undocumented updates to fix it (as normal).
I think you misunderstand. He fixed a flaw in the kernel that kept the virus from *working*. The patched systems should be vulnerable.
You say
...that linux was patched so that the virus would now function as expected? I'd hate to think we left any program behind.
as a patch or a bug or a buggy patch?
Next week: "Torvalds Patches Kernel Against Cross-Platform Virus"
what prevents each member of a programming group from having "complete mastery" of the kernel?
2 words:
middle management
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Who says this bug didn't mess up with WINE libs, preventing OTHER programs from working correctly?
:)
Of course, we'll need a sandbox patch or something BEFORE windows viruses start affecting WINE+linux
Ok... now lets see Bill Gates issue his own patch. The clocks ticking Bill. :)
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Linus did not create a patch for the virus. Linus created a patch for the Linux kernel, to fix a bug which happened to have been discovered by looking at the virus.
Of course, if the story had been submitted with the correct title of "Linus fixes bug in Linux", it probably would never have been posted.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I don't want to get enfected with any of them Windows viruses, Mac Worms, or Linux Diseases.
So I run NetBSD
On a VAX
I'm slow, but I'm not infected.
(that's what I tell my girl also)
I know it was a proof of concept but... does the virus perform better on Windows or Linux?
Some of the "fanboys" are applying the new patch, and the rest are looking at the contents of your hard drive right now.
Are you an idiot? Linus patched the kernel so that the virus WOULD work. Why would he lie about it not working in the first place if he went ahead and fixed the problem?
I think the viruses cause damage only if the person uses his machine logged in as root. If he is logged in as an ordinary user, I wonder how it is going to make a difference? At the most, some of his personal files may be modified or his keystrokes logged or the virus may use his machine to propagate to other machines. So what is the hoopla about this proof of concept virus which was created in a lab in some anti-virus company? I suspect this is a conspiracy of these anti-virus companies to stay afloat by creating a buzz about a virus in Linux.
Linux Help
for all things on Linux
from TFA:
This lends support to the speculation that this virus is not new code at all, in spite of how Kaspersky Lab is trying to use it to drum up new business. [...] And shame on the anti-viral industry, Kaspersky Lab in particular, for its attempts to deceive the public by passing off old code as something new.
Newsforge is reporting that Linus Torvalds took a few minutes to review the cross-platform proof of concept virus covered yesterday and has proven that the virus does indeed not work with latest kernel version 2.6.16 and even released a patch in order to fix this "problem."
Oh, um... Well, hmmm.
Thanks, Linus. I guess.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Today, we fix Linux to support a cross-platform virus, tommorow: support for Windows viruses.
This is a really good insight, I think. While the rest of us are thinking about the "virus" and wondering what it means for the future, Linus identifies all these ignored technical aspects.
The power of a mind untouched by Slashdot?
A patch to make sure a virus runs gives a whole new meaning to the term "bug compatible".
Performance is only a small part of the issue. You have to look at the TCO of running viruses to appreciate Windows properly. With Linux it is far harder to run a virus and you've got to train all your users to chmod etc. With Windows it's much eaiser, just double click or drag and drop. Now that saves you a bundle in IT tech support when people ask "how do I install virus X on my PC. Further, with Windows you get a lot more choice. You can get a wide selection of popular viruses from easy to download sources. Linux is pretty short on choice, so if you switch to Linux you're limiting choice which is UnAmerican.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
AFIAK, there is no actual exploit in the code provided. The virus only does things that a regular program should be able to do, given the correct permissions.
The virus, written in assembly, calls the kernel via a depreciated interface (int 0x80 instead of syscall). It happens to have a value in the ebx register that it needs after the (buggy) system call.
The bug in the kernel is due to the fact that gcc assumes the system call doesn't change user registers (which the kernel isn't suppossed to as a policy) so gcc forms code to make the system call in less time (less instructions, less overhead) by not caring about user registers. The fix for the bug simply restores the value of the ebx register to what it was before the system call, hence the bug now works (as it has the correct value in the ebx register).
In fact, it would bite any program doing direct syscalls rather then using libc, so it might break linux handwritten asm code as well.
Basically, if I'm reading this correctly, the virus' correct operation depended on system calls to the Linux kernel keeping values of registers unchanged, which is the correct behavior. 2.6.16 broke this behavior, but since very little other code actually assumes this as well, we didn't get serious lossage, but we *might* for other code, and were the virus rewritten to not assume that register values were preserved by system calls, it might also work properly. At any rate, this virus would still have far less teeth on GNU/Linux than it would on Windows, unless someone was stupid enough to execute it as root. And well, if you're actually foolish enough to do something like that on GNU/Linux, then you're probably also foolish enough to enter rm -rf / or something equivalent as root at some point.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.