Slashdot Mirror
New IM Worm Installs Own Web Browser
Aquafinality writes "A new IM worm discovered recently takes the novel step of installing its own web browser onto the victims PC. Ironically titled "The Safety Browser", its default settings actually make your PC less secure - switching on pop-ups, changing your home page and hijacking your desktop with a looped music track that plays every time you switch your computer on.
It's clear people cannot resist clicking "yes" to anything they're presented with via IM - with this in mind, what on Earth can we do so stop the spread of garbage like the above? To put it another way, will reducing the amount of potential "suckers" out there dissuade the bad guys from coming up with ever-more elaborate ideas such as this latest scam? Or is IM safety a lost cause?"
I think safety is always going to be hard to push on people who don't seem to understand the importance of what you are telling them. I'm sure you'll know from your own experience how hard it is to get even your own parents to take adequate security steps. I don't understand what this virus is doing though surely you would notice a new browser and remove it? certainly not use it...
As for removing the incentive for people to do this I think it will be hard; there will always be a few "suckers" and even 1 in a million can be profitable; so it'll be hard to stop it.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
As others have said, and no doubt will continue to say, you will not change the masses' behavior. The problem is not that people will click on things that look interesting, the problem is that the program will execute something presented to it.
There is no reason that *any* instant message client should ever execute other code, privileged or not. That is not the purpose of IM- IM is not a program launcher, it is a tool for communication.
It's funny 'cause it's true.
I'd like to do a social experiment and write a virus that pops up a window asking the question: "Install Virus?". The options are "No Thanks" and "yeah sure, pwn me". Now, I'm usually an optimist, but I think the results of this study would be depressing.
Maybe we can't put the genie back into the bottle, but I think the real problem is that every Internet-enabled application these days is bastardized into a file transfer mechanism. IM programs should be for typing messages back and forth between two or more people. Why should IM even have the ability to transfer files?
Maybe so, but the rest of us don't deserve what we get. Even if I'm a careful computer user and never get compromised, I still have to deal with the resulting spam, DDOS attacks, increased IT costs, etc, caused by people who do. Therefore it's in everybody's best interest to make security more idiot-proof -- we can't just say "to hell with the n00bs", because we still have to live on the same Internet as them.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Disclaimer: My experience is with VAX and Unix boxes in the eighties, my first Linux kernel was 0.9something but I have used Windows only since 98SE. I never really got to "learn" windows and am much less clear on the internals. On the "how is this supposed to work".
With more than two decades of serious computing behind me, I still do not understand what "Administrative privileges" really means in Windows. Or what it is good for. In U*X everything is a file and thus those magical "privileges" simply boil down to what you can do with a file (including files in /dev, /proc, directories in general, etc). There's a layer of abstraction where I understand that access to this 644 means that I can only read it, but the owner can write to it as well. That's easy.
In windows, it has never been terribly clear to me -- there appears to be some nod in the direction of file permissions, but all I've ever seen of them is that sometimes I have trouble messing with something the wife has been working on -- that kind of thing. Sometimes there's no problem. Sometimes logging in as admin solves some problem that I have but I hesitate to do so since I nevere really know what Windows does behind the scenes that might become a problem if I were to be logged in as Admin.
In the end, the preferred way to do something that I can't do as user is to fire up cygwin and do it from the linux prompt.
And ours is the rare enlightened case where someone took the trouble of setting up user accounts at install time. It was certainly not in the least obvious when and where to set up this kind of thing. I cannot fathom why I would've bothered with it if I hadn't had a Linux backgroud. It's not like XP pops up a screen during install explaining what an Admin is and how he is distinguished from a normal user.
I still see people on older machines where they haven't even bothered to configure users for their older Windows machines... and don't have the slightest concept of partitioned separate logins for distinct different users.
Of course not - why would they? This is my computer, I'm the only one using it, if the kid gets old enough to want to diddle with it I'll buy him his own computer. Why would I be setting up different "users"? I doesn't make sense in the Windows model.
U*X (and VMS and ...) was developed in a networked multi-user context of universities and research labls. Windows was developed to make one computer do one thing for one user. "Multi-user" is an afterthought. Network security is an afterthought. The entire computer-as-an-appliance model of how a computer should behave in Windows just doesn't lend itself to the notion of a "privileged account". You don't have a privileged account in your toaster or your microwave, do you?
Now it gets hairy: If I grant for a moment that there's no such thing as absolute computer security, then all these unsecured windows boxes out there are just the low-hanging fruit. Viruses and worms are only as smart as they need to be to pick those. This is fine with me as it means I merely have to have my fruit hanging higher than everybody else's. My house doesn't have to be absolutely burglar-proof -- just harder to break into than my neighbors. I'll never be perfectly termite-safe, but as long as I'm more termite-safe than my neighbors, they will attract all the termites. You get the picture.
If geeks succeede in training the masses in making their machines "more secure" it only means that the malwa
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
I'm no Micro$oft fanboi, but don't blame Bill the Gates for this. Blame lazy deveopers who can't be bothered to Do It Right. They run their bleeding edge machines as Admin and never test to see if their bloatware will run any other way. Not only that, they write programs that need every bit of RAM, every CPU cycle and every possible bit of graphics they have so that when they're finished, you have a program that can only be run on a maxed-out machine as Admin. Last, they look down their noses at you if you complain because you're "too cheap" to buy the hardware needed for their precious program. They don't understand that saying, "It works on my machine!" doesn't cut it if the average user can't afford to match their hardware or wants to keep their copmuter safe by not running as Admin.
My advice is, just say NO to programs requiring Admin and never, under any circumstances, upgrade your hardware just to play the newest game. I'm not a Libratarian, but if enough people follow my advice, the market will, indeed, take care of it.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Why? Because it becomes just another hoop to jump through. They don't consider the implications behind their action. The computer wants something, they give it what it wants to it'll shut up and let them get back to doing what they want to do.
Admin passwords are useful for knowledgable users because if you do something that shouldn't require admiin, but asks for it you can step back and think why it's asking, and approve or deny it based on more information. However clueless users won't do that, they won't know what should and shouldn't need it, so they'll just blanketly issue the admin password.
I've already witnessed this on other platforms (MacOS) that ask for admin. I was chatting with a guy while he was tinkering with his Mac, it popped up and asked for admin and he said "Huh, that shouldn't need admin"... as he was typing in his admin password (3 letters long). He even recognised that this might be a situation where it wasn't needed (it was actually, nothing harmful) but just gave it the password anyhow.
So while I think the privledge escalation is Vista is a nice try, and certianly something I'll use personally, I think it will ultimately make no difference for normal users. They'll just make it go away whenever it pops up, and they'll do that by giving it the password it wants.
Not only that, but:
4) Malware can install a keylogger so that when the user legitimately needs super-user access, the malware steals the password
5) Prompt user for Admin password directly (or in the case of Ubuntu for example, the user's own password to run sudo)
6) Even if the malware can't create its own password prompt, but must use a system default prompt:
"Warning! A program is attempting to gain Administrator level access. This should only be necessary to install programs or perform other maintenance. Click Cancel otherwise."
1 -Malware prompts user for password with message above
2 -Naive user reads message, clicks cancel
3 -Malware prompts user again for password
4 -Ad nauseum
5 -User gives up and enters password
Privilege seperation can be useful for preventing automated system takovers, but where a user is involved (and that user can get super-user access) becomes moot.
Let me be the first to point out something..... YOU are a user. Yep So if all users and dumb, and you are a user, then you too are dumb. If you are dumb then your statement looses validity.
In my mind we need to drop the Microsoft/Apple attitude that users = idiot. If you build systems for idiots only idiots will use your system. Generally I've found that the #1 reason users I work with generally do stupid things because I've either, Improperly documented or explained what something did or how it worked, or because I created something that blocked their ability to do their job.
Very often users tend to view the people at help desks as idiots because regardless of problem the reaction and lack of willingness to care are obvious from the start. Even cultural attitudes are ignored in the move to "cater to the idiot who uses our product" In one contry clucking your tounge may be a sign of rapt attention. But in the country the user is in it may be a sign of a smug and condiscending attitude.
In one of the first lessons taught in management classes you will learn that a team of idiots is lead by an idiot. I claim that the same is true here as well. If you have idiots for users it's because you have idiots for techs.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.