Slashdot Mirror


Worm Wriggles Through Yahoo! Mail Flaw

Jasen Bell writes to mention a ZDNet article about a clever new worm affecting users of Yahoo!'s email service. The virus uses a flaw in JavaScript to infect a computer when an email is opened from the user's web-based mail. From the article: "The worm, which was spotted in the wild early this morning, has hit the remote server more than 100,000 times, forwarding Yahoo e-mail addresses harvested from unsuspecting users, Turner said. Although the worm is spreading quickly, and no patch has been issued, Symantec is rating the threat a '2.' The security vendor uses a 1-to-5 rating system, with '5' as its most severe category."

186 comments

  1. Copies available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I have a copy of this. I can forward it to anyone with a Yahoo! Mail account for further inspection. Isn't Open Source wonderful?

    1. Re:Copies available by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1

      Great! Could you send it to me at symantic@yahoo.com?

    2. Re:Copies available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yamanner+worm &btnG=Google+Search

      A conspiracy by Google to keep us in the dark?

    3. Re:Copies available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      could u send it to me ichikara001@yahoo.com?

      hahaha,,

  2. Fell for this yestereday by neonprimetime · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yamanner arrives in a Yahoo mailbox bearing the subject header "New Graphic Site."

    Damn ... I opened an email like this yesterday ... the reason being was because it was "from" one of my friends (they were marked as the sender). As soon as it opened I knew I f!cked up ... per a Javascript popup window shooting up ... grrr ...

    1. Re:Fell for this yestereday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I opened the message with Firefox, but didn't get the Javascript window. I don't know if that means the worm failed or not. I don't recall ever disabling Javascript. What browser were you using?

  3. "This worm is a 2." by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What does that mean? Does that mean that the amount of damage caused by the worm is a 2 out of 5? Or that the chance of infection is 40%? Or that the worm did very poorly in the olympics?

    A little more description is needed here.

    1. Re:"This worm is a 2." by BobVH · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just copy-pasted this off symantec:

      Category 5 - Very Severe
      Highly dangerous threat type, very difficult to contain. All machines should download the latest virus definitions immediately and execute a scan. Email servers may need to come down. All three threat metrics must be High.

              * Wild: High
              * Damage: High
              * Distribution: High

      Category 4 - Severe
      Dangerous threat type, difficult to contain. The latest virus definitions should be downloaded immediately and deployed.

              * Wild: High
              * Damage or Distribution: High

      Category 3 - Moderate
      Threat type characterized either as highly wild (but reasonably harmless and containable) or potentially dangerous (and uncontainable) if released into the wild.

              * Wild: High
                  or
              * Damage: High and Distribution: High

      Category 2 - Low
      Threat type characterized either as low or moderate wild threat (but reasonably harmless and containable) or non-wild threat characterized by an unusual damage or spread routine, or perhaps by some feature of the virus that makes headlines in the news.

              * Damage: High
                  or
              * Distribution: High
                  or
              * Wild: Low or Moderate

      Category 1 - Very Low
      Poses little threat to users. Rarely even makes headlines. No reports in the wild.

              * Wild: Low
              * Damage or Distribution: Low

    2. Re:"This worm is a 2." by format1337 · · Score: 2, Funny

      we're at terror alert orange! Which means something might go down somewhere in some way at some point in time. So look sharp!

    3. Re:"This worm is a 2." by AnFraX · · Score: 1

      Or that the worm did very poorly in the olympics?

      No, all it means is that the Candian judges were coerced into giving the Russian virus a better score.

  4. Symantec's rate "2" seems ok to me. by palmer_eldridge · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Anyway, i don't think anyone is using yahoo or other webmails for prefessional activities. So IMHO symantec was right to rate it "2"

    1. Re:Symantec's rate "2" seems ok to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a joke, right? Even if what you said was true (it's not), a vulnerability that "only" affects personal mail is still a vulnerability and doesn't deserve a lower rating.

    2. Re:Symantec's rate "2" seems ok to me. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Anyway, i don't think anyone is using yahoo or other webmails for prefessional activities.

      Oh, really? As a contractor, I used Yahoo! email to communicate with the outfit that cuts my paycheck and to send in my hours to the manager at the job site. Why? Because I don't have access to my regular email account from the job site due to the firewall configuration. Go figure.

    3. Re:Symantec's rate "2" seems ok to me. by Shadow+Of+The+Sun · · Score: 1

      Yahoo does provide web hosting services. For $12 a month, you get 5GB of disk space, and 200GB of data transfer. If you don't want to actually bother administrating your own server, that's a pretty good deal.

      I am betting a fair number of small to medium businesses actually do use Yahoo! web hosting. But, since their paid services allow pop3 access, I am wondering how vulnerable those users are.

    4. Re:Symantec's rate "2" seems ok to me. by Arctic+Fox · · Score: 1
      Not true.
      People think Yahoo/Hotmail are viable email services.

      Look at this guy... He's running for Pa Senate, with a yahoo account. http://www.threesources.com/archives/002949.html

    5. Re:Symantec's rate "2" seems ok to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, well done - so Joe Blow who wants to check his email at work won't infect the corporate infrastructure?

  5. Not everyone affected... by s31523 · · Score: 1

    With respect to:
    Although the worm is spreading quickly, and no patch has been issued, Symantec is rating the threat a '2.'
    According to Symantec, "The worm cannot run on the newest version of Yahoo Mail Beta." so I would use that if you are nervous, then again, you could also not open werid emails from people you don't know.

    1. Re:Not everyone affected... by neonprimetime · · Score: 3, Informative

      you could also not open werid emails from people you don't know

      Yeah, but this spreads via your Yahoo! contact list ... and thus I received this worm email "from" one of my friends ... so it's not just coming from random accounts, it's coming from people who have you in their contact list.

    2. Re:Not everyone affected... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      "I received this worm email "from" one of my friends ... so it's not just coming from random accounts, it's coming from people who have you in their contact list."

      Ditto. I got hit by this because it came from someone I know and had a reasonably plausible subject line.

    3. Re:Not everyone affected... by s31523 · · Score: 1

      It had to start somewhere!

    4. Re:Not everyone affected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Unfortunately, users who have not already switched to the Yahoo Beta can not do it on the fly. You have to 'apply' for the program, and it can take weeks before you are admitted.

    5. Re:Not everyone affected... by jamshid · · Score: 1

      I started seeing those "New Graphic Site" emails a few days ago. They were sent to _lesbianpics@yahoogroups.com or something like that. Nice to see being gay actually protected me from getting a virus. Well, I guess being on the Yahoo Mail Beta did it.

      Btw, Yahoo Mail Beta is slow as hell, especially to open, and it makes firefox.exe chew CPU. Don't know why they are trying to mimic the Outlook ui.

      Did Yahoo Mail developers really not escape javascript in HTML email? We keep making the same stupid mistakes in software. Is security ever going to improve, or is it inevitable that every new technology is going to have exploits like this?

      Does gmail do better with HTML email/javascript security? Gmail is a faster more usable mail client.

    6. Re:Not everyone affected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where are the conspiracy theorists when you need them?

      "not enough people using the yahoo beta..."

      "Well, I've got this idea for that problem..."

      well, you know. Sounds more fun.

      Ever tried getting out of anything "yahoo" short of deleting the entire account?

  6. Fixed. by Se7enLC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fixed: At the time of the advisory, there was no patch for the vulnerability. But by later on Monday, Yahoo said it had come up with a fix for the flaw, which it said had affected very few of its customers.

    I have to say I agree with the low threat level. All the virus does is propogate and collect email addresses, and only on yahoo. If you have a yahoo email address, you're getting spam anyway, so how will you even know the difference?

    1. Re:Fixed. by cygnusx · · Score: 1

      > If you have a yahoo email address, you're getting spam anyway, so how will you even know the difference?

      Great point. Is it only me or has Yahoo Mail hit the bottom of the barrel? My hotmail account (and it's used for domain registrations) gets 2-3 spam emails a day (and these go to the junk mail folder 99% of the time). My gmail account gets about 2 a week. Yahoo gets over 50 a day and I don't even use it that much.

    2. Re:Fixed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      My gmail spam folder receives between 50-75 a day. My yahoo about 50-75 a week. My hotmail account is by far the lowest at about 10 a week.

    3. Re:Fixed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh?

      I've been using Yahoo temporarily because my domain's mail has been hijacked by spammers, the "real" mail address (that I stopped using) was getting hundreds of "bounce" messages.

      I have yet to get a single spam from Yahoo, except the spam Yahoo itself sends out.

      It even put a response from a newspaper editor I had written to, asking my city for when they printed the letter, was put in the "bulk" folder.

      So I guess with everything, YMMV.

    4. Re:Fixed. by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      You may just be unlucky with your Yahoo account.

      I have a yahoo mail address that I have used actively for years, and only receive a few spam a week.

    5. Re:Fixed. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      My gmail account recieves about 25-40 a week. of course the filter catches them all. It even smetimes catches mail that it isn't supposed to.

      My juno account however recieves 20-30 a day and it's filter catches 3-5.

      It's a good thing I just use juno for junk mail filtering.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:Fixed. by tehwebguy · · Score: 2, Funny
      yes, actually i was the one who came up with the fix for it.
      it went something like this:
      $body = strip_tags($body);
      --
      -- lol pwned
    7. Re:Fixed. by bitflip · · Score: 1

      It collects the addresses from the users' contact lists. So, if somebody you know sends you email from Yahoo, then they now have your address, too.

    8. Re:Fixed. by electronerdz · · Score: 0

      Actually, my Yahoo account has the least amount of spam. It is my backup incase all hell breaks loose. I get stuff in the spam folder, but usually only 1 or 2 a day. In the actual Inbox, I'd say about 1 a week if even that. From what I can tell, Yahoo has some pretty good spam blocking. Now if only they'd let me use the new Yahoo mail... but I guess since I am not using IE or Windows for that matter, I don't get to try it.

      --
      Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
    9. Re:Fixed. by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      I have a Yahoo Mail account that I haven't actively used for almost 5 years, signed up for back in (I think) 1996 or 1997 when it was still under Geocities. When I checked the account back in November of this year, I had 4,630 bulk mails, and 1,829 mails in the inbox, 99.99% of which was also useless junk.

      Just since reactivating the account about 20 minutes ago, I already have 5 bulk mails.

    10. Re:Fixed. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I have a yahoo mail address that I have used actively for years, and only receive a few spam a week.

      Mine was the same, till about three months ago, when I started getting Japanese spam promoting porn sites. Now I get about 20 a day like that, and recently Pakistani stock market "tips" and Nigerian 419s. Occasionally I get a blank message; presumably some bastard has bought my address and is testing it before sending more spam. So I activated Yahoo's spam filters, which gets most of it. But it occasionally there are false positive so I have to review them before deleting (pretty quick, the subjects are blatant ads or gibberish).

    11. Re:Fixed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the virus does is propogate and collect email addresses, and only on yahoo. If you have a yahoo email address, you're getting spam anyway, so how will you even know the difference?

      Oh, so you seem to think it's the "good" kind of worm, is it?

      Remind me to never hire you as a software developer. Because:

      (1) You're lazy,
      (2) you don't care about users,
      (3) ..and you appear to have no pride in the software you build.

      Tell me - why wouldn't Yahoo want to fix this as soon as they possibly can?

    12. Re:Fixed. by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > I have to say I agree with the low threat level. All the virus does is propogate and collect email addresses, and only on yahoo.

      Also it seems to only apply to *the latest version* of their *beta* service.

      And I assume (hope) that Yahoo have fixed the bug, and as soon as users refresh their web page they will get the fixed version ?

    13. Re:Fixed. by ncstockguy · · Score: 1

      We don't really know what the worm will ultimately do. Perhaps it is collecting email addresses for a purpose, and I'll wager that purpose is not a particularly constructive one...

  7. First reported by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yesterday by The Register

    My question is: who thought it was a good idea to enable JavaScript in emails? Someone at Yahoo! wasn't paying attention to basic security.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:First reported by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Funny
      My question is: who thought it was a good idea to enable JavaScript in emails?

      My question is: who thought it was a good idea to enable Javascript in web browsers?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:First reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello!!! Yahoo is a web mail service. You can turn of JavaScript in Mozilla Mail, but you're using Mozilla Navigator to access your Yahoo mail. Wanna turn off JavaScript *everywhere*?

    3. Re:First reported by ch-chuck · · Score: 2, Funny

      Somewhere, there's an advertising executive with big bucks who thinks it would be a great idea to enable ring-0 kernel mode privilidged assembly code in email so they can not only install a new graphics driver, but also set the screen resolution and audio level to appropriate levels for optimum customer experience of their special purchasing opportunity announcements.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    4. Re:First reported by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article is wrong when it claims that it's "a flaw in JavaScript", it's a flaw in Yahoo's webmail. So the answer to your question is almost certainly: nobody thought it was a good idea to enable JavaScript in emails, the developers working on Yahoo's webmail didn't escape things properly and nobody was doing decent QA to catch the mistake the developers made. So basically, it's a management error.

      There doesn't seem to be detailed technical information available anywhere, but it sounds very much like it's just a specialised form of an XSS attack, where you sneak code into the application in such a way that the application doesn't encode it properly for output to another user.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    5. Re:First reported by tbmcmullen · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thats all true. However, I'd bet that its an IE-only flaw, due to IE's over-willingness to run Javascript wherever it finds it.

      Escaping things for IE sucks. It sucks hard.

  8. Javascript == web security problem number 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Users: disable javascript
    Devs: Make sure your site is functional without javascript

    What's so difficult to grasp here?

    1. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BUT YOU CANT USE AJAX WITHOUT JAVASCRIPT!

      WEB 2.0!!!! TWO POINT Oooh!!!

      Savages... Webpages without asynchronous callbacks, without rounded corners and moving layers...

    2. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the worst websites for people who value their browser's and computer's security is BBC News with its Javascript-required to play videos. Sure, you can enable Javascript only for the BBC News website, but how many ordinary people do that, and more to the point, why should on earth does the BBC require people to enable Javascript to view a video?

    3. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by GabboFlabbo · · Score: 2, Funny
      Users: disable javascript Devs: Make sure your site is functional without javascript What's so difficult to grasp here?
      I agree 99%. I'd also recommend turning off your computer and hiding under your desk.
    4. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by GabboFlabbo · · Score: 1
      why should on earth does the BBC require people to enable Javascript to view a video?

      More importantly: Why would the BBC require you to use a Browser to view a video?
    5. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      More importantly: Why would the BBC require you to use a Browser to view a video?
      Even more importantly, let's return to the security issue which was that the simple action of clicking on a link to watch a video ludicrously requires everybody to accept poor security by using browsers with Javascript turned on.
    6. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > people with disabilities may not be able to use your website if it relies too much on Javascript.

      Not to sound like a jerk or anything, but I really don't care. Sometimes things happen in life -- including those over which you have no control -- that cause you to not be able to do everything as easily as you once could -- or at all. Sure it sucks, but it's not my fault; it's not my problem either.

      It's like that girl who sued her school because they wouldn't let her run track... and she was in a wheelchair. That's some arrogant $#!t. Yeah, it sucks that she's in a wheelchair, but it's not the school's fault and it should not be their responsibility to make sure she can participate in every single thing they offer, so long as it's reasonable. Keeping her off of the debate team because she can't reach the podium would be unreasonable. Telling a person with no legs they can't run is not an insult, it's reality.

      Completely redesigning my website (of the millions that exist) for blind people is not reasonable, unless I had a specific desire to do so. JavaScript is the least of their worries.

    8. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Not to sound like a jerk or anything, but I really don't care.

      [...]

      It's like that girl who sued her school because they wouldn't let her run track... and she was in a wheelchair. That's some arrogant $#!t."

      Would you so happily say that sort of thing to her face? I think not...

      Nobody's forcing you to change your private website to make it more usable by people with disabilities. If just thinking about doing it makes you so angry, chill out because it's not an obligation, just a possibility. However, people who are considerate towards the reasonable needs of disabled people can choose to make their private websites accessible. Also, there are many websites, such as those of federal agencies and their contractors, which are required by law, at least in the States, to be accessible by people with disabilities. This is covered by the Rehabilitation Act 1973

    9. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what you get when you try to access your yahoo mail with javascript disabled:

      "Your browser may not support JavaScript

                  If your browser does not support JavaScript, you must upgrade to a newer version. We recommend using Internet Explorer 5 or higher or Netscape 6.

      JavaScript may be disabled

              If JavaScript is disabled in your browser, you must enable it in order to continue.

              To enable JavaScript, follow the instructions below for your browser "

    10. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Would you so happily say that sort of thing to her face? I think not...

      If she got all high and mighty in my face, sure I would. If she tried to defend her actions and didn't do a very good job of it, yes. If she explained herself in a way that was not explained in the articles I read and I found out the story wasn't right and she WASN'T suing her school to do something physically impossible, then I would apologize.

    11. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "If she explained herself in a way that was not explained in the articles I read and I found out the story wasn't right and she WASN'T suing her school to do something physically impossible, then I would apologize."
      I think you owe her an apology. It took me only a few seconds to check the story and see your recollection of it is wrong. All the poor girl wanted to do is to enjoy the social pleasure of racing alongside her peers on the racetrack, which the court and her team mates agreed is certainly physically possible for her to do. It is against common sense to believe she would have sued to do something that is physically impossible.
    12. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by hesiod · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's the same thing I'm referring to, but let's assume for a second that it is. Do they allow other noncompeting students to run alongside? What if they are on the Freshman team but all their friends were on varsity? Should they have the right to run/roll alongside their friends? Why is this ONE person allowed to do something that others are not? Because she is in a wheelchair and the school wanted to avoid a disability discrimination lawsuit: not because she was right. It's still bullshit.

      "That's all I wanted, to be a part of everything."

      No one gets to be a part of "everything" and using the courts to force others to include you into things in which you are not qualified to participate is dirty, dirty, dirty. At the moment, I can't even think of the appropriate words to express that feeling. Using the courts for personal gain, as opposed to real justice, is total scumbaggery.

      I want to be able to participate in the Olympics, yet I am not qualified. I should sue the IOC to -- at the very least -- let me walk onto the playing field to be with my "friends," the American atheletes. And I suppose by heritage, the Welsh too, but the Americans seem to win a few more gold medals...

    13. Re:Javascript == web security problem number 1 by spx · · Score: 1

      If you put a towel or a blanket over it, it is hidden from everyone.

  9. Temp Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How about disabling the java-script ?

    I remember few months ago there was another security threat on Mac OS X where if you allowed automatic execution of the downloaded dashboard widgets, it could compromise your syste. Well then don't don't blindly run it. Ok I admit, it is not the same.

  10. Re:Very interesting by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    My ISP is Rogers (I live in Toronto, Canada,) they are a fast cable ISP but they outsorced their email handling to Yahoo. So I have an email account @rogers.com and I have to type my full email address to log into Yahoo. So I guess all Rogers customers maybe affected by this worm.

  11. Re:Very interesting by o'reor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article only mentions the systems affected (only Windows systems apparently) but not the browsers. However, it is the browser that executes the Javascript code, which steals the e-mail addresses from the Yahoo! address book. So, are they sure that a Linux-based system with Mozilla (such as mine) would not be affected by the worm ?

    --
    In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
  12. Re:Very interesting by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

    Any that will execute JS, from the look of it.

    FireFox + NoScript for the win.

    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
  13. Medireview virus attacks yahoo. by leuk_he · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought the security of yahoo would have captured a old javascript virus by now. Bu i do not understand: how can this javascript break out the browsers? isn't yahoo just a webmail website? then how would the local pc be affected? why would you have to scan your pc as symantic tells you?

    Ok, the virus can send a lot of e-mails and break the yahoo mail system. or si there something about yahoo mail i do not understand?

    1. Re:Medireview virus attacks yahoo. by 42Penguins · · Score: 1

      A JavaScript ..erm...script should be treated as an executable. Sure, it's based on Yahoo's servers, but when you open it, it's run on YOUR PC and will do whatever good/evil deeds it's written to do.

      I think that a bigger detriment to your system comes with running modern Symantec products! AVG, ZA, and S&D make my day.

    2. Re:Medireview virus attacks yahoo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A JavaScript ..erm...script should be treated as an executable. Sure, it's based on Yahoo's servers, but when you open it, it's run on YOUR PC and will do whatever good/evil deeds it's written to do.


      Right. However, if it can screw up your PC, that's called a browser vulnerability, and gets its own story. This seems to be just a pest which executes stuff that a web page's javascript should be able to do (i.e. submit a form, load another page, etc.). However, what makes this concern-worthy is that it harvest e-mail addresses.

      So yes, javascript is executable, but with a decent browser, this shouldn't harm a local PC.

      p.s. the captcha is getting to be a bit too hard
    3. Re:Medireview virus attacks yahoo. by larkost · · Score: 4, Informative

      The poster's question is valid. He/she is asking if the JavaScript worm can actually do anything other that work within the browser, as in how can the worm "infect" the computer. The answer is that it can't. It only harvests the email addresses that are on your Yahoo addressbook, and emails itself to them, once again though Yahoo. So everything is done within the browser, and there is no compromise outside the browser's sandbox.

      With a little creativity, this could be extended to grab a file off the HD, and send the data to any site it chose, but it does not sound like that is the case here.

    4. Re:Medireview virus attacks yahoo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      p.s. the captcha is getting to be a bit too hard

      no capacha on slahsdot if you are not lazy to sign in. Sign in and then they "post as ac"

    5. Re:Medireview virus attacks yahoo. by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Where antivirus fits into this is the module that sniffs incoming HTML for nasty payloads. Anyone who talks about scanning the PD is simply confused and trying to spread their confusion. You're not missing anything.

    6. Re:Medireview virus attacks yahoo. by zobier · · Score: 1

      Unless something goes wrong with the browser security model you shouldn't be able to script a file form control or load a local file in an (i)frame in that way.

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
  14. JavaScript and CSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Redesign CSS now so it does not depend on enabling JavaScript. Enabling downloadable executable content in browsers has always been bad for security.

    1. Re:JavaScript and CSS by fputs(shit,+slashdot · · Score: 2, Funny
      Redesign CSS now so it does not depend on enabling JavaScript.
      Try:
      crack-cocaine { smoke: false; }
      --
      I am the bastard of base minus 12! Turing was the ejaculate of my complete machine!
    2. Re:JavaScript and CSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Talking of crack, try:
      I am not addicted to Javascript
      I am not even slightly addicted to Javascript
      I have never been and will never be addicted to Javascript
      Ok, darn it, I admit I am hopelessly addicted to Javascript, always have been and that's the way I like it.
    3. Re:JavaScript and CSS by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm aware, the only browser which tied JavaScript and CSS support together was the craptacular Netscape 4.x. Modern browsers let you enable/disable them independently.

  15. Rating system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The security vendor uses a 1-to-5 rating system, with '5' as its most severe category."

    1: It is a worm
    2: barely severe
    3: lesser severe
    4: less severe
    5: most severe

    The solution has been automatically distributed to all Yahoo Mail customers, and requires no additional action on the part of the user," a Yahoo representative said.... It takes advantage of a JavaScript vulnerability.

    means: they fixed some javascript code and validation and such on their server.

    Both Yahoo and Symantec are encouraging people to update the antivirus definitions on their PCs

    soon to expect: "Yahoo! Antivirus, a symantec product".

    The worm, which was spotted in the wild early this morning

    Ofcourse, it was sunny out...

    Although the worm is spreading quickly, and no patch has been issued

    It was too hyper and running too fast in the wild to be successfully captured and patched with a yahoologo.

  16. Infecting the computer? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    As I understand it, this doesn't infect the computer it runs on, it just uses the evils of Javascript to grap addresses from your contacts list and forward a copy to everyone in there while passing them on to a spammer site. There should be nothing left behind to 'infect' the computer it runs on, and it will run on anything that supports Javascript... which is needed to use Yahoo mail in the first place.

    Just another reason why Javascript is evil.

    1. Re:Infecting the computer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can still use the old version of yahoo which doesn't require javascript (just click on the 'old version' link when you get the "no javascript" error page)

  17. Symantec by omeomi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Symantec is rating the threat a '2.'

    The lowball number is interesting, especially given the fact that Symantec is the company charged with the task of keeping an outbreak like this from happening:

    Symantec to scan Yahoo Mail for viruses

    1. Re:Symantec by Justin+Shreve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article you linked to mentions that it is Symantec's job to scan Yahoo attachments for viruses.

      This Worm that we are talking about though is not even passed via attachments so there is no way (with the agreement mentioned in that article) that Symantec can actually clean it for Yahoo.

      "Unlike its predecessors, which would require the user to open an attachment in order to launch and propagate, JS-Yamanner makes use of a security hole in the Yahoo! web mail program in order to spread to other Yahoo! users."

      This bug will have to be fixed server side by cleaning out the Javascript that is still being allowed in email messages. This is something I doubt Yahoo gave Symantec access to do.

    2. Re:Symantec by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      On the Symantec site, they estimate the number of infections as "50". Sounds like a pretty low threat to me. Also, Yahoo prescans emails for spamminess and moves suspect ones to a bulk folder automatically, so they'll likely be able to handle this "threat" pretty easily.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    3. Re:Symantec by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I have a good theory why :) Like norton antivirus wasn't running at all?

      http://img155.imageshack.us/my.php?image=norton2cn .png

      Yep, I took that screenshot and sent to Kaspersky.ru saying they should donate AV to Yahoo. I hope it reached Mr. Kaspersky somehow and they didn't ban me from mail servers.

  18. Exploits a javascript bug? by NynexNinja · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article is lacking many details, like specifically which browsers seem to be vulnerable to this problem, or even if this is a browser bug that it is exploiting.... It could be a server side problem they are exploiting, or a client side browser bug. It says the vulnerable systems are every Windows OS, so it appears to be a client side problem with Internet Exploder, although from the article it is impossible to determine this.

    1. Re:Exploits a javascript bug? by danskal · · Score: 1

      My guess is that it's a bug in the yahoo webmail application itself, rather than a bug in javascript per se - therefore it is not limited by which browser you have, as you need javascript enabled to use yahoo mail.

      The bug probably lies in the ability to access yahoo's own webmail javascripts to obtain addresses and send mails from a script within the mail itself. Presumably they have tried to block scripts from doing this, but not successfully.

      Their webmail beta rocks, by the way - it kicks hotmail's equivalent beta into touch.

    2. Re:Exploits a javascript bug? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Funny

      The article is lacking many details, like specifically which browsers seem to be vulnerable to this problem, or even if this is a browser bug that it is exploiting.... It could be a server side problem they are exploiting, or a client side browser bug.

      It is a server side bug. They allow javascript to run in mail messages.

      It says the vulnerable systems are every Windows OS, so it appears to be a client side problem with Internet Exploder

      I saw it work under OS X 10.4 and Safari in my GF's account. For slightly more info check out this link.

    3. Re:Exploits a javascript bug? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      It says the vulnerable systems are every Windows OS, so it appears to be a client side problem with Internet Exploder, although from the article it is impossible to determine this.

      I was wondering this, too. Why aren't users of Firefox/Linux affected?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:Exploits a javascript bug? by fatboy · · Score: 1

      From what I can see, it checks window.XMLHttpRequest and if that fails, it uses ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP').

      I checked it and it does work in Firefox.

      --
      --fatboy
    5. Re:Exploits a javascript bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It "worked" (propagated) from my wife's account using Firefox on Fedora Core 3.

  19. Can't we all just leave each other alone? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ironically, those of us with no contacts in our yahoo mail make for the best of friends!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  20. Spread? by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just got a wave of mails in my gmail box that are from random senders, with multiple small 1-4k attachements.

    Anyone have any idea if this works on/through gmail too?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Spread? by dtsazza · · Score: 1

      If you're curious, you can presumably use Gmail's POP service to read your messages in a client that doesn't support JavaScript (most, if not all, standalone email clients). That way you can inspect the headers, read the email and even assess the attachment without having to worry about any embedded JS.

      While I have a Gmail account, I haven't checked it via the web interface for months now - checking it in Evolution gives me more power over sorting, filtering, etc. And while being able to access your mail from anywhere is handy, I find it just doesn't matter for personal mail - I can't really be expected to read and respond to it during the day anyway (no matter how horny those lesbo vixens get)...

      --
      My, that was a yummy potato!
    2. Re:Spread? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      I just got a wave of mails in my gmail box that are from random senders, with multiple small 1-4k attachements.

      Anyone have any idea if this works on/through gmail too?

       
      Nah, that was just me, fooling with ya...sorry.

    3. Re:Spread? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      This would not surprise me since many parts of Gmail require Javascript.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Spread? by wannabgeek · · Score: 1

      That is interesting point of view.

      I have been advising my family and relatives (who are not computer savvy) to use only the webmail accounts (in their browser and not a POP client or any such thing) and do not use a local client because I used to believe the webmail companies will do a better job of keeping up-to-date with virii scans etc rather than these non-computer-savvy users. AFAIK, this is the FIRST exploit that exploits a webmail running in the browser, where as lot of trojans have been in circulation and one is more vulnerable if they use a native client.

      --
      I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
    5. Re:Spread? by dancingyel · · Score: 1

      Haven't gotten anything in gmail, nor have any of my friends who use it. Maybe it's just a coincidence?

  21. Here ya go by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 2, Informative

    from Learn about threat levels.
    ThreatCon Level 1
    Low : Basic network posture This condition applies when there is no discernible network incident activity and no malicious code activity with a moderate or severe risk rating. Under these conditions, only a routine security posture, designed to defeat normal network threats, is warranted. Automated systems and alerting mechanisms should be used.
    Threatcon Level 2
    Medium : Increased alertness
    This condition applies when knowledge or the expectation of attack activity is present, without specific events occurring or when malicious code reaches a moderate risk rating. Under this condition, a careful examination of vulnerable and exposed systems is appropriate, security applications should be updated with new signatures and/or rules as soon as they become available and careful monitoring of logs is recommended. Changes to the security infrastructure are not required.
    Threatcon Level 3
    High : Known threat
    This condition applies when an isolated threat to the computing infrastructure is currently underway or when malicious code reaches a severe risk rating. Under this condition, increased monitoring is necessary, security applications should be updated with new signatures and/or rules as soon as they become available and redeployment and reconfiguration of security systems is recommended. People should be able to maintain this posture for a few weeks at a time, as threats come and go.
    Threatcon Level 4
    Extreme : Full alert
    This condition applies when extreme global network incident activity is in progress. Implementation of measures in this Threat Condition for more than a short period probably will create hardship and affect the normal operations of network infrastructure.

    1. Re:Here ya go by naer_dinsul · · Score: 1
      Threatcon Level 4
      Extreme : Full alert
      This condition applies when extreme global network incident activity is in progress. Implementation of measures in this Threat Condition for more than a short period probably will create hardship and affect the normal operations of network infrastructure.


      Heh heh heh... Why didn't they just say "pull the incoming network cable and pray you aren't already infected"?
  22. Behavior by kevin_conaway · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article doesn't really mention the behavior of the worm and is actually slightly misleading. It doesn't "infect" your computer per se, it harvests your address book contacts and then spams them. From a different article:

    Once executed, the worm forwards itself to an infected users' contacts on Yahoo! Mail. It also harvests these address and sends them to a remote internet server. Only contacts with an email address of either @yahoo.com or @yahoogroups.com are hit by this behaviour.

  23. As The Worm Turns... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I just tried to compose an email in my Yahoo! email account and was informed that my contact list failed to load. So did the worm eat my contact list?

    1. Re:As The Worm Turns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is that Yahoo has shut this down temporarilly until they have it under control.

  24. BETA version not effected by Like2Byte · · Score: 1

    I've seen lots of complaints about people using javascript and Yahoo!'s use of it. Yahoo!'s beta version is not effected by this worm.



    FTFA, "The Yamanner worm targets all versions of Yahoo Web-based mail except the latest beta version, Symantec said in an advisory released Monday." (Emphisis mine)

  25. Here is the Source, Luke. by fatboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Lameness filter got me. Here is a link.

    --
    --fatboy
  26. This is Cross Site Scripting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  27. Re:Very interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only bad part about this is the new Yahoo Mail client makes extensive use of javascript for all the new ajax.

  28. Re:Very interesting by Rytis · · Score: 1

    But seriously, Yahoo Mail is nothing but a piece of crap. I wouldn't use it if it weren't for the groups which don't accept non Yahoo e-mail addresses. Reasons:
    1) slow while browsing and full of annoying ads;
    2) impossible to categorize my e-mails;
    3) but the worse is that Yahoo messes up my e-mails with non-latin symbols.
    GMail is far more convenient and just better.

  29. YOU PRIMITIVE FUCKING MONKEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GO BACK TO THE JURRASIC ERA OF WEB CODING

    Important Stuff
    Please try to keep posts on topic.
    Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
    Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
    Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
    Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
    If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account
    Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

  30. Didn't get to my wife via her hotmail . . . by mmell · · Score: 1
    but this doesn't actually infect the user's computer; it harvests e-mails from the user's machine, but it uses Yahoo's server to perpetrate its evil.

    I'm pretty sure gMail is safe from this particular exploit.

  31. Makes you wonder. by AltGrendel · · Score: 0, Troll

    Exactly what did yahoo do to make Symantec angry?

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  32. Re:Very interesting by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    The article only mentions the systems affected (only Windows systems apparently) but not the browsers.

    The list was copied from McAffee's standard bug report. It works on any browser that runs javascripts (properly) by default and opens the message within yahoo mail.

    So, are they sure that a Linux-based system with Mozilla (such as mine) would not be affected by the worm ?

    I believe it will execute under Linux+Mozilla by default. Enable the "NoScript" plugin to stop it from executing without your permission, or just don't open suspicious messages in Yahoo mail for a few days.

  33. Crime and punishment by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In short, I believe there should be some very stiff penalties to pay if it is proven that someone has written and deployed malware of this sort. There should be prison time and forfeiture of any money and assets acquired as a result of gains from this activity.

    People often complain that punishment is too severe for this otherwise 'harmless' activity (and often compared to more heinous crimes such as assault, robbery, murder sex/child related crimes) and that damages are quite often exaggerated beyond reason. I can't say much about exaggerated damages, but I can say that in addition to other classifications of crimes, I also consider the following:

    Planned/premeditated or not. Many aspects of the more heinous crimes where punishment is often less than these "white collar" crimes are not planned or premeditated. They are driven by little more than emotional or other motives. There is something more cold, more dark and indeed more arrogant when it comes to crimes such as the act of creating and deploying an internet worm. There is no question that what they are doing is immoral and illegal. They perform the act believing they will not be caught, that they will profit from the act and seemingly that it is somehow their right to take advantages of weaknesses in security simply because they are 'superior' in some way.

    I see a noticable decline in the amount of spam in my inboxes of late. People claimed that the current federal legislation regarding spam wasn't enough and yet I see stories of people being prosecuted under these law successfully and when these people are put out of business, most all see a difference -- an improvement. It's working.

    We don't need more legislation, but we do need to up the level of aggression in persuing these people and up the amount of punishment they are given when they are caught. While they are thinking about their planned attacks, they need to have cause to consider the potential cost to their lives as well.

    1. Re:Crime and punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is something more cold, more dark and indeed more arrogant when it comes to crimes such as the act of creating and deploying an internet worm"

      Oh get lost you ridiculous nerd

    2. Re:Crime and punishment by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      In short, I believe there should be some very stiff penalties to pay if it is proven that someone has written and deployed malware of this sort. There should be prison time and forfeiture of any money and assets acquired as a result of gains from this activity.

      Why prison time? Is it that you believe this will work as a deterrent (even though in your post you write "They perform the act believing they will not be caught...") or is it that you believe that prison will reform them, or is it that you believe in hurting those you feel have hurt you even more than they hurt you? In the first case, most don't think they will be caught and most are willing to take the risk since in Yugoslavia it is akin to years worth of living expenses.

      If you think prison is likely to reform a person and make them less likely to commit a crime or even become involved in violent crime later on, well you just haven't bothered to do any research. Prison is like an abusive higher education. A person might go in as a spammer, but they might come out a rapist, murderer, and career criminal having suffered severe emotional and physical abuse and no longer caring about who they hurt.

      If it is the final possibility, I think you are being an unethical fool.

      Many aspects of the more heinous crimes where punishment is often less than these "white collar" crimes are not planned or premeditated.

      So what? Many are and many aren't. You feel someone who wastes a few minutes of your time by sending a self propagating message to yahoo mail accounts should be punished by anal rape and physical abuse and being locked in a small cage? Make no mistake, that is what we're taking about here. You objectively think that punishment fits that crime?

      There is something more cold, more dark and indeed more arrogant when it comes to crimes such as the act of creating and deploying an internet worm. There is no question that what they are doing is immoral and illegal.

      There is indeed a lot of question about the ethics (morality is wholly subjective and should be no part of a discussion about law) of what they are doing. Also, I don't consider writing a worm to be particularly dark. It is along distance fraud that annoys people. There is no suffering or pain or risk that another will die. There is no cruelty and no delight in the suffering of others. I'd say a poor person in the third world writing a worm is about as "dark" as when a person in the US invests in Union Carbide and says "it is just business." Except in the former case no one gets really hurt while in the latter a lot of people may suffer and die.

      ...seemingly that it is somehow their right to take advantages of weaknesses in security simply because they are 'superior' in some way.

      Or they just want money and feel a sense of entitlement from the wealthy in other nations that have used that wealth to oppress them? I think most Americans can understand the concept of entitlement, since it so permeates our culture.

      I see a noticable decline in the amount of spam in my inboxes of late. People claimed that the current federal legislation regarding spam wasn't enough and yet I see stories of people being prosecuted under these law successfully and when these people are put out of business, most all see a difference -- an improvement. It's working.

      What?!? Have you seen the numbers? Your anecdote is not an objective study, it is an anecdote. It is not working, what is working is better filtering technologies, more widely deployed. Jeez, at least do a little research.

      We don't need more legislation, but we do need to up the level of aggression in persuing these people and up the amount of punishment they are given when they are caught.

      Yeah, because locking up more of the population will really help matters. Increased punishment is not a significant deterrent and is provably not helping. Draconian punishments don't work and cause more pain and suffering than

    3. Re:Crime and punishment by ripcrd · · Score: 1

      We don't need more legislation, but we do need to up the level of aggression in persuing these people and up the amount of punishment they are given when they are caught. While they are thinking about their planned attacks, they need to have cause to consider the potential cost to their lives as well.

      We all need to use our spam filters, pop-up and flash blockers and we need to just beat the crap out of any of these guys we catch. Would you rather have a hefty fine for a crime or an awful ass beating by random strangers.

      Judge: Now that we've traced the spam to computers under the defendents control and proved that he wrote or caused to be wrote said malicious software we will carry on with the sentencing phase. You will be subject to an ass-whooping by a group of your peers, in this case, any and all users of the Internet. Let the beating begin!

      --
      --Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
  34. The subject field is important by trifish · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you did not open a mail whose subject was "New Graphic Site", you are not infected.

    Reference: Symantec advisory at http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/js.yamanner@m.html

  35. Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I opened this email yesterday with Firefox, but didn't get the Javascript popup that people have reported. My anti-virus also didn't complain (I use AntiVir), but then if it didn't install anything and just harvested addresses it wouldn't have set off any anti virus. I'll have to check my computer when I get home, but I'm wondering if Firefox saved me from this one.

  36. Re:Makes you wonder. by Tim+C · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Eh? The worm itself (at least from the description here) sounds relatively serious; the 2 would seem rather low, until you factor in that the company doing the rating is the same company that's currently failing to stop it.

  37. This is an example of webmail's suckiness by Sloppy · · Score: 1
    Yet another lesson in why webmail is a such a bad idea. By using the wrong tool (web browser) for the job (email), the user suffers twofold:
    1. Using cryptographic signatures to verify that an email is really from your friend, before you trust its contents, simply isn't an option.
    2. stuff is rendered in too powerful of an environment. Normally, Javascript inside an email would not be a threat, because there wouldn't be any way to execute it -- accidently or even deliberately.
    Webmail sucks. Death to webmail.
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:This is an example of webmail's suckiness by oni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Using cryptographic signatures to verify that an email is really from your friend, before you trust its contents, simply isn't an option.

      well, the email *was* from his friend. His friend was infected. If his friend was using a standalone email client and using cryptographic signatures, then most likely, his friend would have entered his password for PGP or whatever, and that password would be stored in memory, and then when the virus took over his account and started sending mail, the virus would sign the mail.

      So in this particular instance, I don't see how a standalone client would help things.

    2. Re:This is an example of webmail's suckiness by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      This is in theory possible. But PGP and similar signing mechanisms are SO rare that, so far, few viruses or worms bothered to implement a routine to actually sign your mails properly.

      It will be a problem as soon as it becomes common practice, that's a given.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:This is an example of webmail's suckiness by bobcat7677 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with the parent on the bullet points, but I think the conclusion "death to webmail" is barking up the wrong tree. The real issue goes back to point number two: rendered in too powerful an environment. If e-mail was ALWAYS treated as text, instead of trying to support HTML and mime types blah blah then having a safe webmail interface would simply mean a control that shows the text as text only with no possible execution. Simple and what e-mail was always meant to be. If you need to send "pretty" stuff then send it as an attachment and let that be what it is.

    4. Re:This is an example of webmail's suckiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't have a problem with rendering HTML in webmail or any other mail. Javascript is not HTML, however, and should NEVER be activated with webmail. A proper webmail client needs to filter out all script tags before display. They are not needed.

    5. Re:This is an example of webmail's suckiness by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      How about just not saving your password?

    6. Re:This is an example of webmail's suckiness by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Isn't necessarily doing much good in the presence of a keylogger.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:This is an example of webmail's suckiness by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      If his friend was using a standalone email client ...then when the virus took over his account and started sending mail, the virus would sign the mail.

      This virus uses Javascript. So unless your email clinet automatically runs Javascript, you're safe. I don't think even OE does that any more.

    8. Re:This is an example of webmail's suckiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, but even stupid things like freaking IMG tags in pure HTML can be used to exploit you.

      Just today I saw a couple advisories for Windows flaws in rendering PNGs and AOL ART files...

      Like the man said, JUST THE TEXT! Keep It Simple, Stupid.

    9. Re:This is an example of webmail's suckiness by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      True... so: #sudo killall keylogger&&sudo apt-get remove keylogger

      simple enough ;)

    10. Re:This is an example of webmail's suckiness by Yer+Mom · · Score: 1

      Given that it only affects Yahoo Mail users reading through the web interface, I'd say their clients probably do run Javascript :)

      Yahoo sanitises emails to disable Javascript, but the worm exploits a bug in their code in order to get around this restriction.

      The sane option, of course, would be for webmail clients to just operate in plain text mode - convert any text/html parts to text/plain (lynx -dump, perhaps) before the user sees them. I suspect a large number of people would complain that they couldn't see the pretty colours, though...

      --
      Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
  38. I thought... by Salk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... 2 was hand on bosom outside shirt

    1. Re:I thought... by devjoe · · Score: 1

      That's second base.

    2. Re:I thought... by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      So goatse girl is, like, a 5?

  39. "a flaw in JavaScript"? by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A flaw in whose JS implementation then?

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:"a flaw in JavaScript"? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > A flaw in whose JS implementation then?

      It's not a JS implementation flaw, it's a programming flaw. The programming was done in JavaScript, which is why they said "a flaw in JavaScript." It's Yahoo's programmers who are at fault.

    2. Re:"a flaw in JavaScript"? by bcmm · · Score: 1

      How does the virus "infect" a computer then? That would imply local code execution.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    3. Re:"a flaw in JavaScript"? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > How does the virus "infect" a computer then?

      It doesn't "infect" anyone, although it does execute the code on your PC.

    4. Re:"a flaw in JavaScript"? by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Retarded summery. Sorry.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    5. Re:"a flaw in JavaScript"? by rs232 · · Score: 1

      "cuillamartin 1356/tcp CuillaMartin Company" What does this mean?

      Will this 'flaw` work on Firefox/SuSE10/nonroot user?

      --
      davecb5620@gmail.com
  40. The warm may not be as "innocent" by trifish · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some people tend to think that this worm is harmless (just "spreading itself"). But the worm actually sends the harvested email adresses to an external site - www.av3.net [which I wouldn't dare to browse to].

    Here are the technical details of the worm:

    1) Arrives on the compromised computer as an HTML email containing Javascript. The email may have the following characteristics:

    From: Varies
    Subject: New Graphic Site
    Message body: Note: forwarded message attached.

    2) Once the email is opened the worm exploits a vulnerability in the Yahoo email service to run a script.

    3) Sends a copy of itself to certain email addresses gathered from the Yahoo email folders.

    4) Targets email addresses from the @yahoo.com and @yahoogroups.com domains.

    5) Contacts the following URL:

    [http://]www.av3.net/index.htm

    6) Sends a list of email addresses gathered to the above URL.

    1. Re:The warm may not be as "innocent" by mamer-retrogamer · · Score: 2, Informative

      If not a full-fledged email harvester, it may well be a simple proof of concept. I went to the above site from a sandboxed browser on an obscure platform and other than an innocent enough looking graphics site, I found it was hosting a webstats4u counter. If not after the (relatively spam-laden) Yahoo email addresses, this may well be what the originator of the virus was targeting--just a test to see what kind of traffic this virus could achieve. Looking at the following graph: Page views per day, it appears the site had virtually no traffic on or before June 10th. All of a sudden (when the virus was released, I assume), it got 34,925 hits on June 11th and then an incredible 149,438 hits on June 12th. Not surprisingly, the majority of this traffic originated from the United States (that is where Yahoo's servers are, right?). Interestingly, 5% of the total hits came from Iran.

      --
      Schrödinger's cat is not amused—maybe.
    2. Re:The warm may not be as "innocent" by houghi · · Score: 2, Informative
      www.av3.net [which I wouldn't dare to browse


      I did.
      1) whois info:
      Domain name: av3.net
      Registrant Contact:
            Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
            Whois Agent (skxbmllxtv@whoisprivacyprotect.com)
            +1.4252740657
            Fax: +1.4256960234
            PMB 368, 14150 NE 20th St - F1
            C/O av3.net
            Bellevue, WA 98007
            US

      2) houghi@penne : curl -I www.av3.net
      HTTP/1.1 302 Object moved
      Cache-Control: private
      Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:59:04 GMT
      Content-Length: 130
      Content-Type: text/html
      Location: index.htm
      Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
      X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
      Set-Cookie: ASPSESSIONIDSAQBADAB=KMGNFCDDPDDGAMKAALGJLHNP; path=/

      3) MX record for av3.net:
      av3.net. 3600 IN MX 10 mail.av3.net.
      4) houghi@penne : geoiplookup 66.226.21.250
      GeoIP Country Edition: US, United States

      5) The page itself is about graphics and animations.
      Google cache

      6) From the frontpage:

      So perhaps that site is hacked in itself to forward the emails.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:The warm may not be as "innocent" by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      http://www.webstats4u.com/s?tab=1&link=1&id=401539 3 ->Its stats. Look at explosion like hit.

      Busiest day so far 12 June 2006 (Worm time?)

      Also interesting thing on site, says:

      "Tracker Deleted For SPAM Violation", whatever "tracker" is.

      It does NOT look like a site who would code such thing. It is just GIF animations etc offered there for forums. I think it was diversion for FBI etc. to send hits to that site.

  41. Re:Very interesting by eln · · Score: 1

    I agree with you that yahoo has way too many ads, however they're all served from the same few hosts. So, a few simple entries in Adblocker, and no more ads on Yahoo.

    I use Yahoo mail because I've used Yahoo mail for 10 years, and with Adblocker I find its interface is actually superior to the other free webmail clients I've used, including gmail. That's obviously a matter of personal preference, of course.

  42. Your "JavaScript"? by Elixon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "flaw in JavaScript" - you really mean "flaw in JavaScript" or flaw in the implementation of the so-called "JavaScript"? I mean - all browsers with "JavaScript" are affected? Including mobile devices, linuxes, unixes...?

    --
    Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
    1. Re:Your "JavaScript"? by se7en11 · · Score: 1
      I mean - all browsers with "JavaScript" are affected? Including mobile devices, linuxes, unixes...?
      You just don't say that on /.
  43. Lacks information by darkheavy · · Score: 1

    It would be nice to know if the worm affects any Web Browser or only the usual suspect (it seems so, for the platforms affected are only Windows 95-2003)

    1. Re:Lacks information by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > It would be nice to know if the worm affects any Web Browser or only the usual suspect

      It doesn't affect any web browser, per se, as it's not a browser exploit. It uses Yahoo's javascript code. It _should_ work on any browser with JavaScript enabled that can view a regular Yahoo! mail account.

  44. Why isn't Yahoo saying anything about this? by shotgunefx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't see anything on the home page, my.yahoo, or even the login page of yahoo mail.

    That's pretty shitty. How hard would it be to add a warning and some helpful directions to the template of the login page?

    --

    -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
    1. Re:Why isn't Yahoo saying anything about this? by dancingyel · · Score: 1

      See, adding a warning where users could see it and follow it would be too logical and infused with common sense, and we can't have that, now can we?

  45. Using IE in Windows by any chance? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Oh well, you pays your money and you takes your choice....

  46. the creators website is still up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


    and still collecting all those addresses

    http://www.av3.net/

    and the whois is of course using that American whois "privacy" service, perhaps the FBI would like to sift through their computers, iam sure a lot of online crime could be cleared up quite quickly

  47. Same Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ditto

  48. I used wget to grab the site. by doublem · · Score: 1

    Looking at the source, it's a Frontpage generated monstrosity covered with animated GIFs and links to Animated GIFs

    meta name="GENERATOR"
    content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0"

    And they're using a free counter from webstats4u.com for their site statistics.

    I don't think I'll be loading it in a web browser anytime soon. Anyone care to comment on what the site looks like when you open it with something other than VIM?

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:I used wget to grab the site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See here Note that in addition to creating sites in Front Page, this individual is loading the js for his free counter from the web archive. Craptacular.

  49. Re:Makes you wonder. by hesiod · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > The worm itself (at least from the description here) sounds relatively serious

    Huh? All the descriptions I've seen say it just forwards itself to people in your Yahoo! contact list. I've seen nothing about it doing any damage to your PC, browser, or even your Yahoo! mail account. How is that worthy of a rating more than two? Unless I'm missing something, 2 sounds too high. Is there some other evil effect that was discovered and not posted in the messages I've seen so far?

  50. Don't open unknown emails by yetanothertechie · · Score: 1

    It should be standard practice not to even open emails if you're not certain the sender is legitimate, just delete them. Even if it's from someone you know, if you have any reason to be suspicious, (as in, perhaps their system was compromised and a virus is propagating itself by emailing everyone in their address book), don't open it. Check with the person first.

    We who are "in the know" about this sort of thing should make sure our less technical family and friends follow this practice.

    --
    Facts are stubborn things.
    1. Re:Don't open unknown emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mom, I just received an email from you -- just wanted to know it was actually from you."
      "Yes, dear, I just wanted to wish you happy birthday."

  51. Re:Very interesting by dinsdale3 · · Score: 1

    While I love FireFox and NoScript, they may not help you in this case. By default, NoScript allows yahoo.com and yimg.com to execute scripts, as they are required to actually read your email. So, even if you are using FireFox and NoScript you might still be vulnerable.

    (Thankfully, I never received/opened that mail in my Yahoo account, so I don't know for sure).

  52. Re:Very interesting by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

    but Gmail is all scripted so you can't simply open messages,etc in seperate tabs with a click. And their pop access is very buggy (at least for me since I use multiple clients during the day) and you can't use it to download other imap/pop emails on other servers.

    Yahoo may not provide pop, but the java script html scrappers work much better than the gmail pop server. And it is really handy to create a backup of my work emails with a simple click at yahoo.

    since yahoo improved their email search, no need (to me) to creat categories. but you can create folders, and they actually come across with the pop scrapers, unlike gmail.

  53. Re:Mac users aren't directly affected by this by hesiod · · Score: 1

    > Mac users aren't directly affected by this

    Correct: in exactly the same way that PC users aren't directly affected by this... Or Linux users...

    The platform doesn't matter, you tool: the flaw is in Yahoo! Mail, not in the browser. It should spread in exactly the same way on any browser that has JavaScript turned on. You mentioned turning off HTML... Did you think about that a second? There is no EMail client involved in this.

    You DO know that Yahoo! Mail options work the same on all platforms, right?

  54. Re:Mac users aren't directly affected by this by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

    Mac users ARE affected. I have seen it running on a MacOSX box running safari.

    --
    Have a nice day!
  55. Re:Mac users aren't directly affected by this by scooteristi · · Score: 1

    Actually Mac are affected by this (unless you keep Java Script disabled). I noticed the virus when I receive a Mail from one of my Mac using friends.

  56. In The Meantime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all should add the following line to our hosts file.

    127.0.0.1 av3.net

    Doesn't keep you from being infected but will stop spread of the virus.

  57. Re:Very interesting by ems2004 · · Score: 1

    And on top of that gmail is NOT available to everyone.

    --
    ..... best things in life are not so free..........
  58. Re:Makes you wonder. by Jobe_br · · Score: 1

    The individual effect is minimal, e.g. it doesn't maliciously do anything on your system. However, the cumulative effect on Yahoo's webmail, especially yahoo! groups, is tremendous. My wife participates in & manages yahoo groups and she was saying yesterday/today that they've taken all the groups off line, from what she can see. I'd say that's a serious DoS, right?

    I am humored that Symantec is in charge of virus scanning and they're the ones telling people to scan their systems when they should know that this is a XSS attack that isn't affecting the local system.

  59. What about Yahoo Groups? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't receive the message as an email, but I did open a message yesterday on a Yahoo Group I'm a member of. I basically just saw a message full of text, so would that trigger anything? I got no Java windows, pop-ups, etc.

  60. You should try Yahoo! POPS by Friar_MJK · · Score: 2, Informative

    Do a search on Sourceforge for it. Let's you download all your Yahoo mail with any POP3 compatable client. There are others for hotmail and other services, but of course Yahoo POPS is the relevant one to this issue. As you can see, there is already an incentive to start using it instead - keeps away those nasty web-based worms. You can always still disable images/javascript in your e-mail client just the same as your browser. Think how many times do you need javascript on to read an e-mail versus make a website work? Problem solved.

  61. No by Scorchio · · Score: 1

    I received a couple of infected messages through a Yahoo groups subscription, which comes to my gmail account. The javascript was displayed as plain text, and I could see it was issuing requests to the Yahoo webmail system to extract user IDs and contacts. As far as I could tell, if you're not reading the email from within Yahoo's webmail reader, the script is not going to achieve anything.

  62. Yay for NoScript! by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bless Firefox and the NoScript (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/722/) extension.

    1. Re:Yay for NoScript! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen brother. I surfed here to see if I have the damned thing, but I'm thinking I dodged a bullet. I have my HTML turned off, I read my Yahoo mail with a Thunderbird extension that serves it to me like a STMP or POP3 whatever...HTML is OFF....Scripts are Forbidden....

      I am not so good at PC's, but I do listen to those that are. :)

  63. Does it affect limited user accounts? by QCompson · · Score: 1

    Anyone know if the worm is able to wiggle into users with limited accounts?

  64. Re:Makes you wonder. by hesiod · · Score: 1

    > However, the cumulative effect on Yahoo's webmail, especially yahoo! groups, is tremendous.

    Good point. So it rates high for some people using Yahoo (but certainly not all) which, admittedly, is quite a large group. Low rating for everyone else.

  65. Can you tell if you've been hit? by atari8 · · Score: 1

    Does it leave traces behind? Do the outbound emails sent by the worm to propogate itself show up in the Sent folder? I know that I accidently opened one of those "New Graphic Site" emails the day before this hit the headlines; nothing strange happened at the time (e.g., no popups as some users have been mentioning).

    I was using webmail on Mozilla on Linux, which usually makes me feel safe from things like this. There goes another false sense of security.

  66. Crap by cabd · · Score: 1

    Sigh... I put myself on my own adress book... Man I'm screwed!

    --
    When mad at one, try running a mile in their shoes. That way, not only do you have their shoes, but you are a mile away.
  67. Here's the flaw that's exploited by fizbin · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's fixed on yahoo's servers now, but according to the source link posted earlier, the flaw that's being exploited seems to be a bug in how yahoo parses html attributes. The bug sends itself as:

    <img src='http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nt/ma/ ma_mail_1.gif'
    target=""onload="whole bunch of crappy javascript here that uses only
    single quotes and just goes on and on">

    Note the lack of a space between the 'target' bit and the 'onload' bit. Now, apparently "target" is one of the HTML attributes that yahoo allows through on an IMG tag (why?). Anyway, it appears that yahoo's servers see both the target and the onload bit as one big long target attribute and let it through, whereas most browsers see that as a separate "target" and "onload" attribute and execute the javascript as soon as the image (one of the standard yahoo mail images, so it'll likely already be in the browser cache) is loaded.

    The lesson here? I'm not really sure, beyond "double- and triple-check your parsing routines, since they will be used in security-sensitive code".

  68. Re:Very interesting by paving-slab · · Score: 1
    ...Yahoo may not provide pop...

    Or maybe they do. I have a Yahoo account and use a mail client on my pc to read my mail.

  69. They did try by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Yahoo! has been fighting a bitter battle with much collateral damage for years to keep Javascript out of email bodies. In 2002, they're the ones who got hit by the discovery that legacy code in browsers would recognize every single obsolete code name that Javascript ever had as a script tag. Yahoo! attracted some criticism when people discovered that the word "mocha" was getting rewritten. See Wikipedia for details.

  70. Re:Very interesting by Rytis · · Score: 1

    Come on... If you live in the US, you can send an SMS to get an invite. I'm not sure about other countries however. Besides, in each web forum you can find someone who has loads of invites. You could even try your luck by sending an e-mail to johnny, john.smith or whoever to ask an invite. That is really not a valuable argument.

  71. Ethical discussion by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    >They perform the act believing they will not be caught, that they will profit from the act

    That describes botnet builders and those like them.

    What's appropriate for a case like this one, where there's no visible profit motive? [Bad car analogy]The crime here is sort of like joyriding, a clear infringement of the rights of others but (by default) not doing permanent damage (though certainly risking it) and not profiting the perpetrators.[/Bad car analogy]

  72. Re:Very interesting by MLease · · Score: 1
    If you want a gmail account, it's trivial to find someone to invite you in. I got one that way months ago (someone on a message board I frequent was offering invitations), and within days, I had 50 invitations to distribute. I like FastMail better, though, so I never use my gmail account; I got it just to see what the fuss was about, and stopped using it after a little tire-kicking.

    -Mike

    --
    I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  73. Never mind by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    It turns out to be a spam harvester. This was done for profit.

  74. Re:Very interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You state that JAVA and javascript are required to open and read your email at Yahoo. This is not true, if you go to Yahoo with JAVA and javascript disabled it will give you the option of loading their old client/web access. Do it once and you will not have to repeat it again, although you will see a notice re: JAVA and javascript required to use their current set up, this is unless of course you go there with JAVA and javascript enabled once, in which case it will start loading of their normal email viewer pages and will default to this until you go there with JAVA disabled again. Feel free to test this, I as a general rule keep JAVA and javascript disabled, though it is less of a security problem then activex it is still a gaping security hole any time you allow web sites to download and execute their code on your machine.

    Flash isn't even installed, nor will it ever be. Flash required translates as: we are extremely rude, conceited, selfish and generally thoughtless web developers/company/corporation who neither care about you, your computer, your network connection or your interest/business, leave now and never return. I'm always happy to oblige.

    Yeah, I know, just condemned my AC behind to -1, pfft {:P)~~~~

  75. Re:Very interesting by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1
    Or maybe they do. I have a Yahoo account and use a mail client on my pc to read my mail.

    didn't know they brought back pop as a premium service. 6 years ago I paid like $5 a year for pop access, before they canned all premium services. now it's $30 a year for everything, worth considering.
  76. Re:Very interesting by paving-slab · · Score: 1
    I don't know if it's just yahoo.co.uk, but it doesn't cost me anything to use their pop and smtp servers. I just have to accept a few ads.

    As a Yahoo! Delivers member (you asked to receive special offers via [email] when you registered with us), you can take advantage of email forwarding and POP access. Each one is free, exclusively for Yahoo! Delivers members.

    I only get one or two emails from them each week so it seems a good deal to me.

  77. I guess that... by jagossel · · Score: 1

    I guess that I'll be ok. Not too sure though. I got the "NoScript" extension for FireFox. Hopefully, I can say, "How can it infect me when the script is blocked in the beginning?"

    --
    jagossel
  78. Yay for Thunderbird by trigggl · · Score: 1

    Why use a browser in the first place? I use pop mail and an email client. Of course, that comes with my DSL with AT&T.

    --
    Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.