Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virus Trackers Find Malware With Google

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the bug-hunters dept.

Casper the Angry Ghost writes "Malware hunters have figured out a way to use the freely available Google SOAP Search API, as well as WDSL, to find dangerous .exe files sitting on thousands of Web servers around the world. Queries can be written to examine the internals of web-accessible binaries, thus allowing the hunters to identify malicious code from across the internet." From the article: "We're finding literally thousands of sites with malicious code executables. From hacker forums, newsgroups to mailing list archives, they're all full of executables that Google is indexing. About 15 percent of the results came back from legitimate Web sites hijacked by malicious hackers and seeded with executables."

113 comments

  1. do no evil, rat out evil by yagu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This raises Google's "no evil" equity significantly. Any mechanism to sniff out, identify, and hopefully proactively take measure to protect against the evil that is the web and its sinister demographic is a good thing.

    So, Google takes the "do no evil" a step further and calls evil out.

    There is a quote from the article I don't quite understand,

    "While we do not believe that the fact that Google is indexing binary file contents is a large threat, this is further evidence of a rise in Web sites being used as an method of storing and distributing malicious code," Websense said in a research note announcing the experiment.

    Is there some potential badness that Google is indexing binary file content? What might that be?

    1. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by mrxak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not really Google that's doing it, it's Websense using a Google tool.

      In any case, the only thing I can figure about the quote is that Google indexing these sites helps to spread the malware around. Somebody could type in "l337 hax0rs hax" and end up at a malware site.

      --
      -mrxak
      Onions Will Kill You
    2. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself in giving Google credit for this. It's not like creating an interface for malware hunting was intentional on their part...

    3. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In any case, the only thing I can figure about the quote is that Google indexing these sites helps to spread the malware around.

      Only if you're looking for it in the first place (like if your a hacker). It doesn't affect Joe-Average.

    4. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just in, Ginsu being blamed for horrible knife murders!

    5. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      interestingly, google turns up no results for that yet, so...the first one should be your post as soon as google gets around to archiving it. :)

    6. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Well that's what I mean. This is all speculation on a not-so-clear quote, but it sounded like that by indexing these websites, it was making these malicious sites available to those who would use them for evil. But again, he was saying that this was not really a concern.

      I really have no idea why this was included in the article at all.

      --
      -mrxak
      Onions Will Kill You
    7. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by diersing · · Score: 2

      Why not? Gun manufacturers have been sued for less.

    8. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Would have modded this funny but I must be tired because my sarcasmo-meter is not working.

      Somebody could type in "l337 hax0rs hax" and end up at a malware site.

      Surely if that is the query then they *want* to end up at a malware site?

      (O.K. Feel free to follow up with the "whoosh" comments now). :-)

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    9. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by jc42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there some potential badness that Google is indexing binary file content? What might that be?

      The computer industry does have a nasty history of "shooting the messenger" when malware is reported. People really don't want to know that their machine has been compromised, especially if it implies lax security on their part. They routinely react by firing or prosecuting the people who do anything to pinpoint security problems like this. We can expect to read stories of threats against people who use this Google feature to find security problems.

      The obvious explanation here is the old "stupidity rather than malice" saying. But this might not always be true. When someone in authority attempts to punish someone for exposing a security problem, you should probably assume that they understand what they're doing and have a motive for their action. It's likely that some of those with the authority to punish messengers are doing so because they don't want the problems exposed, for reasons of personal (or institutional) profit.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    10. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by Elemenope · · Score: 2, Funny

      I really have no idea why this was included in the article at all.

      For 'balance'. Duuuuhhh!

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    11. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by BecomingLumberg · · Score: 2, Funny
      Somebody could type in "l337 hax0rs hax" and end up at a malware site.

      You know, in Alaska, they have a joke about how one is goes about hunting Polar Bears.... 'just go out there, they will find you.'

      --
      If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
    12. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      Well, having seen spammer message boards, and based on the descriptions most anti-virus companies or researchers post, it seems unlikely that this'll be bringing new virus code to hackers (since they can already get info on almost anything already exploited), it's mostly just effectively telling everyone where pre-existing viruses are.

    13. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      And in every case the dead person was brought back to life...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    14. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by Glog · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you are saying there ... Let's say a researcher uses a microscope to find a very deadly bacteria/virus is the miscroscope company to blame for the find? Google is in the same position. The best thing they can do is to stop indexing sites with such content. But then where do we stop? Who decides what is malicious and what is not? Placing a prominent warning on search results may help google users avoid such sites. But then Google is the loser - it's the same effect as placing gruesome images on cigarettes. Google is in a pretty tight spot here.

    15. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by pclminion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, Google takes the "do no evil" a step further and calls evil out.

      Drop the stupid melodrama. Google is a mechanism for searching for strings of bytes inside other strings of bytes, and prioritizing the results according to certain algorithms. "Calling evil out?" You're insane. I suppose the ANSI C function strstr() is also a Wielder Of The Sword Of Righteousness?

      Is there some potential badness that Google is indexing binary file content? What might that be?

      How about the RIAA using it to locate caches of MP3 files? It's plausible that a person might have personal backups of their music collection (or *shock* music they purchased on iTunes) and accidentally have those files on a public web server. (Or they could be pirates -- the point is, the technology is not "good" nor is it "evil").

    16. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by pclminion · · Score: 1

      you're kind of an asshole

      Thanks. I try to keep my uncivilized behavior limited to Slashdot.

    17. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      I think a nice quote from Spiderman will suffice: "With great power comes great responsibility." Google can either use this info to warn users of potentially harmful sites, and to warn system administrators if there is a malware problem with their server. Google could even go so far as to temporarily take sites infected with malware out of their search listings until the server is cleaned up.

      On the evil side, google could just make it easier for people to gain access to malware. I think its probably going to be former option.

      --
      I got nothin'
    18. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by JW.Axelsen.Sr. · · Score: 2, Funny
      Somebody could type in "l337 hax0rs hax" and end up at a malware site.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=l337+hax0rs+hax

      too right, some of the results are humorous

      (2nd page)

      Is Your Son a Computer Hacker - Comments - Page 1
      sooo in other words... i must be a "l337" hacker because as a magic 8ball says ... what Flash really is, or is 75% of all companies of THE WORLD, hax0rs? ...
      www.adequacy.org/stories/hacker.comments.page.1.ht ml - 887k - Cached - Similar pages

      N074H4x0r ... I'm no Hacker
      The B3atles Were Hax0rs. They were singing about SQL Injection, and like encryption and stuff ... I don't sp34k l337, I refer to my friends by their names, ...
      n074h4x0r.blogspot.com/ - 144k - Cached - Similar pages
    19. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by infaustus · · Score: 1

      You're assuming it's labeled as malware, and not just on one of those pages that aren't actually porn that google returns when you're searching for porn.

      --
      Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
    20. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by zopf · · Score: 1

      It's plausible that a person might have personal backups of their music collection (or *shock* music they purchased on iTunes) and accidentally have those files on a public web server.

      I can't imagine how somebody would accidentally upload their music collection to a public web server.

      --
      Did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!
    21. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by SeaFox · · Score: 1
      Is there some potential badness that Google is indexing binary file content? What might that be?

      How about the RIAA using it to locate caches of MP3 files?


      You mean like hundreds of people do every day?

      It's plausible that a person might have personal backups of their music collection (or *shock* music they purchased on iTunes) and accidentally have those files on a public web server.


      Having the files on a publically accessable directory? Maybe. On one you can browse over port 80? That seems kinda unlikely.

      And so what if they have their iTunes purchases available? Nobody else will be able to play them unless they're authorized on the user's iTunes account.

      Google isn't the Wielder Of The Sword Of Righteousness, they are The Sword Of Righteousness, not even that, they're the steel that makes up The Sword Of Righteousness. The company utilizing the Google API to do this is the knight.
    22. Re:do no evil, rat out evil by dp_wiz · · Score: 1

      Google can serve you context-ads while you downloading ISOs.

  2. SOAP? by breckinshire · · Score: 5, Funny
    Google SOAP Search API
    Is there anything that the Snakes on a Plane Search API can't do?
    1. Re:SOAP? by paradigmdream · · Score: 0

      Snakes on a plane was the first thing that popped into my mind when i read the article summary

    2. Re:SOAP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that snakes on a plane comes to mind first, rather than, well, soap.

    3. Re:SOAP? by szrachen · · Score: 1

      Yes, your answer is:
      generate enough revenue to pay for itself.

      (at least I hope not... God help us all if it does)

    4. Re:SOAP? by orielbean · · Score: 1

      When I saw the ad for that movie, I shouted out at the end of the trailer "how are they gonna land the plane without Samuel??" What a crapload.

    5. Re:SOAP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Google SOAP Search API

      Is there anything that the Snakes on a Plane Search API can't do?


      Enough is enough! I've had it with this motherfucking malware on this motherfucking Google!
  3. Correction by BRSQUIRRL · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's WSDL, not WDSL. I felt really stupid for a moment trying to figure out what the heck WDSL was.

    1. Re:Correction by k4_pacific · · Score: 1

      It's a radio station in North Carolina. Duh.

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    2. Re:Correction by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      But everyone pronounces it "wit-zul"!

  4. What Are They Taking About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What is a *.exe? Never seen that kind of file on any of my three operating systems. Good, one thing less to worry about.

    1. Re:What Are They Taking About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG you are so fucking lame^H^H^Heet!

    2. Re:What Are They Taking About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


      $ whatis .exe
      .exe: nothing appropriate

  5. So wait... by Skynet · · Score: 3, Funny

    Google is connecting to the whole Internet to fight a global virus infection?

    MY DAY HAS COME!!! MNMUAUAUAU!

    EXECUTE? [Y/N] _

    --
    Execute? [Y/N] _
    1. Re:So wait... by Mayhem178 · · Score: 1

      EXECUTE? [Y/N] N
      _

      gg no rm

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    2. Re:So wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curse you, Mayhem178! You've foiled me again...

  6. Little did you know by neonprimetime · · Score: 3, Funny

    About 15 percent of the results came back from legitimate Web sites hijacked by malicious hackers and seeded with executables

    Little did you know, even /. was hijacked! But the /. masses were not affected because the executables don't run on linux!

    1. Re:Little did you know by syntaxglitch · · Score: 1

      Are you making a joke by implying that Slashdot's servers are insecure, by implying that Slashdot's servers run on Windows, or by implying that most Slashdot users run Linux?

      Because I'm pretty sure all three are unlikely, but potentially humorous.

    2. Re:Little did you know by pete.com · · Score: 0

      ...or on a MAC, unless you run bootcamp that is :-0

    3. Re:Little did you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you making a joke by implying that Slashdot's servers are insecure ... Because I'm pretty sure all three are unlikely, but potentially humorous.

      You do know that slashdot has been hacked in the past, right?

    4. Re:Little did you know by yourOneManArmy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, the real reason it was ineffective was because they put the executables in an article link.

    5. Re:Little did you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      karma whore caller = karma whore

    6. Re:Little did you know by Elminst · · Score: 1

      I figured it'd be because this same info was posted 2 years ago, so this recent revelation was tagged as "dupe" and no one read it.

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    7. Re:Little did you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that slashdot has been hacked in the past, right?

      Yeah, right. Provide a reference, or STFU.

    8. Re:Little did you know by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, as you might expect the readers to click on the link in at least one of the five dupes.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  7. SiteAdvisor by torunforever · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this similar to what SiteAdvisor is doing?

    1. Re:SiteAdvisor by ahoier · · Score: 1

      could be. I've tried out SiteAdvisor. Though, I don't quite care for the FF or IE extention, it's still a neat site. And yea, you can punch in any site URL to that page, and get a summary. Though, not everything is "ranked"/analyed yet. And yea, it allows analyzing downloads too. for example, http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/last.fm

      --
      http://last.fm/user/ahoier
  8. Web Site Contact by RetroGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hope the authors are planning to contact the affected site owners. The article did not mention this.

    They could also build a list of these sites to periodically check them to make sure the malware files have been removed.

    And it would be nice if they allowed a search facility so some FireFox/SeaMonkey plugin could check to see if that site you are going to has malware installed.

    --

    - - - - - - - - - - -
    I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    1. Re:Web Site Contact by badfish99 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Given the current state of the law, it is really dangerous to contact a site owner and tell him that his site is insecure. It is quite likely that you will be prosecuted for "unauthorised access" to the site.

      Much better to just add the site to your personal list of things to avoid, and then forget about it.

    2. Re:Web Site Contact by jafiwam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, what would be cool is a plugin that can do searches in the background (maybe based on urls linked in a page being currently viewed) and put up an automatic block or popup for the user to know that the link has malware.

      Or maybe a system to allow automatic DNS cache injection (on my own DNS client) to prevent lookups going to the correct (infected) site.

      Once sites realize that big parts of user base is cutting them off premptively, they'll take notice and get rid of the crap so they can get users back.

    3. Re:Web Site Contact by Web+Goddess · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly! I was wondering how to use this tool to scan my own website for bad critters.

    4. Re:Web Site Contact by Billosaur · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Given the current state of the law, it is really dangerous to contact a site owner and tell him that his site is insecure. It is quite likely that you will be prosecuted for "unauthorised access" to the site. Much better to just add the site to your personal list of things to avoid, and then forget about it.

      Which doesn't help the rest of us. And why should a site owner get all bent out of shape if you tell them something they didn't happen to know? They must not be in direct control of the site or are pretty lazy if they are allowing this malware to pile up. And they won't be popular for very long if people catch on that the site is infecting them.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    5. Re:Web Site Contact by gedeco · · Score: 1

      I hope the authors are planning to contact the affected site owners.

      Given the fact that websense sells a product to block users visiting different websites, I believe they will use the data for their products database.

    6. Re:Web Site Contact by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      try looking at opendns.com - just set your internet connection to use their DNS servers and you get pretty much what you're describing. you also get a much faster DNS lookup due to their purportedly massive caches.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  9. This has... by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... worlds dumbest criminals written all over it.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  10. Securing the Search Engine? by Alamoth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems to me that the possibilities for uses of this application of SOAP would be highly beneficial. My initial thought would be the ability to filter your Google searches so that websites that are potentially carrying MalWare are either flagged or not shown at all.

    The 15% of sites that are reputable sites being attacked are the biggest threat. These are probably websites people visit often, and people should be warned. Perhaps even web browsers such as firefox and i.e. could incorporate the API into a toolbar and warn users before a dangerous site loads.

    My only question is how long does it take for the API to verify the potential threat of a webserver? Is it fast enough for these applications to be feasible? No one wants to wait for their websites to load.

    1. Re:Securing the Search Engine? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the real question is "How accurate is it?" I mean that in the sense that "false positives" could be the basis of a slander lawsuit, and "false negatives" are even more dangerous than no warning.

      I mean, Joe Average, assuming we get him to eventually worry about malware, might look at the SOAP thing, not see a warning, and assume that means it's a safe site (which may or may not be true). Then he'll get nailed, thinking other precautions are unnecessary.

    2. Re:Securing the Search Engine? by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      My initial thought would be the ability to filter your Google searches so that websites that are potentially carrying MalWare are either flagged or not shown at all.
      I thought of that, too. But then it occurred to me that the legal folks at Google would probably see it as nothing more than a lawsuit waiting to happen.
    3. Re:Securing the Search Engine? by zobier · · Score: 1

      A black/whitelist would be more efficient.

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
  11. How to by mailspam · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Search on google for something like signature:00004550 inurl:exe
    Then, click View HTML

    1. Re:How to by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Sure, that'll get you Windows .exe files, but most of the ones I see with that query are common downloads like Cygwin's setup.exe or the Perl installer or FileZilla's installer. What other sorts of keywords would you add?

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:How to by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Which gets you all Portable Executable files. How do you search for particular executables, for example to search for known malware? (Known malware that isn't polymorphic or in a packer, but virus scanners have the same problem).

    3. Re:How to by MrVictor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google can also filter results by file extension. eg: filetype:exe

    4. Re:How to by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, a lot of current malware is binary (mostly) identical in most of its variants. There are (sadly or luckily) few of the "old school" virus writers around anymore that take their time to carefully craft polys, so you have a decent chance that if you have a sample, you get an idea of its spread.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:How to by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Did you try that? It does not work, at least here it doesn't.

    6. Re:How to by MrVictor · · Score: 1

      Yes, it works. You need to provide keywords as well. Search for Image File Header filetype:exe

    7. Re:How to by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Strange. Today it works, yesterday it didn't. I even retried the same query I used yesterday...

    8. Re:How to by skids · · Score: 1


      Well, for example, one might search for the binary string BAD403B80001EF, which would find you i386 video driver code, specifically a subset of that which is for older PIO-based cards with an additional nonstandard CRTC register at index 0x100.

      Specific enough?

      --
      Someone had to do it.
  12. Just be careful when clicking the search links... by jbarr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Though it may be obvious to most, if you execute the Google search, don't just start clicking on the returned links, because the links point to virus-infected files. Our Trend Micro Office Scan immediately caught several viruses after clicking on several links...

    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
  13. Well, malware *writers* can do the same by iamacat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sniff everyone's servers for vulnerable binaries and do targeted attacks instead of random IP scans.

  14. McAfee, Norton, and the legend of Bagger Vance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would have been impressive if only it was McAfee, Norton or such. But wait! They are getting paid for their products, why bother? :)

    Am I only to believe that security researcher all over the web, some or many of them doing it on their own time, are the one who really does the job? The anti-virus-and-malware companies do not seem to have proactive R&D, let alone R&D..

  15. Wait a second... by dominion · · Score: 1

    Why would anybody have .EXE files on their webservers? .EXE's don't run on Unix.

    1. Re:Wait a second... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Why would anybody have .EXE files on their webservers? .EXE's don't run on Unix.

      Um, so that Windows users can download them, maybe?

      Just a guess ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:Wait a second... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 0

      Why would anybody have .EXE files on their webservers? .EXE's don't run on Unix.

      Ummm... Believe it or not, there are lots of players out there (many of whom should know better, but let that pass) who use Winbloze machines as servers.

      Go figure...

    3. Re:Wait a second... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Because BSD is dead?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
  16. Indexing these MAY be exploitable by ratboy666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The idea is to code the exploit in such a way that Google extracts the exploit itself as the content description in the index. This probably gives 200 bytes or so for the entire exploit (maybe more, I don't have time to try this stunt right now).

    The idea is to put up useful content into the web site, along with the exploit. Google will index, and when the target searches google, the code will be injected into the search results.

    Of course, this needs hacking; both trying to figure out what google will allow in the content section, and to find a browser exploit that can be exploited.

    Just sayin...

    Your point of trust (as the target) is your browser. Which means ONLY open source browsers should be used. Those, at least, are controllable as to the exposure and behaviour when being delivered content.

    Ratboy

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    1. Re:Indexing these MAY be exploitable by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1

      Interesting until the reared its ugly head.

      Ratboy, you not making sense with this: Your point of trust (as the target) is your browser. Which means ONLY open source browsers should be used. Those, at least, are controllable as to the exposure and behaviour when being delivered content.

      Most users who are 1) not programmers or 2) are programmers but have no familiarity with a particular browser source tree, don't have any more control over how content is handled by the browser with the exception of using other 3d party plug-ins (firefox extensions, etc). So the real point here is that any browser with a vulnerability is a potential target of the types of exploits you're talking about, open source or not.

    2. Re:Indexing these MAY be exploitable by ratboy666 · · Score: 2

      You are right. I am knee-deep in a job, and just wanted to rant at the end. Sorry.

      Ratboy.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    3. Re:Indexing these MAY be exploitable by ESqVIP · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess Google wouldn't return raw binary excerpts in an HTML results page in the first place.

  17. Re:Just be careful when clicking the search links. by NatasRevol · · Score: 0

    I'll click on all the damn links I want!! I've got a Mac!!

    Oh, wait, I just got a new MacBook/Parallels/WinXP. Dammit!!

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  18. But legit sites have URLs with exe? by badzilla · · Score: 0

    I'm sure I've seen plenty of legit sites using a .cgi scheme where for some reason there's .exe in the URL. Will these be flagged as malware?

    Random example: https://www.thawte.com/cgi/server/status.exe

    --
    "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    1. Re:But legit sites have URLs with exe? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. Two problems with that: One, that type would not return as a binary executable (aka download and run), it'd return HTML or the like. Two, they're looking for malicious programs (or, more likely, using Google to search for the actual malicious code in them.) If they were looking for all executables then they'd have to sift through every file on shareware sites, SourceForge, etc.

    2. Re:But legit sites have URLs with exe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the .exe have a virus in it? As TFA states, if the .exe has a virus in it, it will be flagged as malware. If it doesn't have a virus in it, it will not be flagged as malware. Something being flagged as malware means that it has a virus in it. Did you know that?

    3. Re:But legit sites have URLs with exe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.spellcheck.net/cgi-bin/spell.exe?action =CHECKWORD&string=apple

  19. Hmmmm.... by cdr_data · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does it include NTKERNEL32.DLL in the list?

    Cdr. Data

  20. Is there a way to check a specific site? by flipsoft · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have sample google syntax used to search for a site that would be susceptible?
    I have a few friends that run small sites and would like to check.

    -flipsoft

    1. Re:Is there a way to check a specific site? by winterlens · · Score: 1

      Try adding site:www.yoururl.com to the search criteria.

  21. I found a virus wirh google deskip by renatonow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Dont know if this is relevant, but after updating to the newest version of Google Desktop, McAfee detected the following on my laptop: 7/11/2006 2:33:33 PM Deleted RENATONOW\Renato GoogleDesktopCr C:\Documents and Settings\Renato\Local Settings\Temp\4084_zip_dump.exe W32/Alcan.worm!p2p (Virus) Weird

  22. ROTFL by Jacek+Poplawski · · Score: 1

    "exe files"? How they will affect Linux? I heard lots of about "Linux viruses" or "Linux malware", when I will be happy to see them instead just reading about them? What kind of serious people use Windows anyway?

  23. So... by OfNoAccount · · Score: 1

    ...is anyone planning to create a trusted blacklist server and an extension for utilizing it in (say) Firefox?

    1. Re:So... by mozkill · · Score: 2, Informative

      the new firefox 2.0 beta will query the Google blacklist... its built into the browser and you can enable it by just checking a checkbox in the browser settings...

      --

      -- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
  24. Websensed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone have a mirror? TFA is websensed here at work! ;)

  25. Erh... nope by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The binaries you can find through Google are not the binaries the server is running on, it's the binaries it offers. Can be quite different, considering how many PE binaries exist on server that should actually run ELF ones.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Its about time by heson · · Score: 1

    After years of script kiddies auto hacking buggy web software via google its about time someone does some white hat stuff.

  27. Y! by antdude · · Score: 1

    EXECUTE? [Y/N] Y

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Y! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before you listen to any more drivel by 'AntDude', take a look at who you're dealing with: http://pbx.mine.nu/antdude.jpg. The abortion in the center is 'AntDude'. I won't even get into discussion about him listing his 'sex' as 'female' on his SHITTY 'blog' (aqfl.net). This faggot has nothing better to do than sit on the internet and spew worthless garbage. He's the new LostCluster when it comes to posting utterly worthless tripe. Not to mention his submitted stories! Every single one of his last 10 or so submissions have been tagged as 'lame' or 'slownewsday'. Why does taco even bother posting his shit. Maybe he gets some tiny deformed chinese cock up his taco ass in exchange for some linkspam with google ads? Do the world a favor and never reply to comments from ANTDUDE and mark him as a FOE.

    2. Re:Y! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EXECUTE ANTDUDE? [Y/N]

      Y

    3. Re:Y! by antdude · · Score: 1

      ACCESS DENIED.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    4. Re:Y! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how the christ is all this faggotry getting past the capslock filter?

    5. Re:Y! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before you listen to any more drivel by 'AntDude', take a look at who you're dealing with: http://pbx.mine.nu/antdude.jpg. The abortion in the center is 'AntDude'. I won't even get into discussion about him listing his 'sex' as 'female' on his SHITTY 'blog' (aqfl.net). This faggot has nothing better to do than sit on the internet and spew worthless garbage. He's the new LostCluster when it comes to posting utterly worthless tripe. Not to mention his submitted stories! Every single one of his last 10 or so submissions have been tagged as 'lame' or 'slownewsday'. Why does taco even bother posting his shit. Maybe he gets some tiny deformed chinese cock up his taco ass in exchange for some linkspam with google ads? Do the world a favor and never reply to comments from ANTDUDE and mark him as a FOE.

  28. Amazing by harris+s+newman · · Score: 0

    How many executables were not windows executables? Is this a suprise to anyone?

  29. Well, technically... by patio11 · · Score: 1

    A windows exe won't run on Unix, but you can name your unix executables whatever the heck you want, including .exe. I do this all the time for ease of portability (Java interface/network code with an external C program to do the heavy lifting, named whatever.exe on both Windows and Linux to save having to edit the Java source) and to visually flag the executables when I ls on a black and white terminal.

    --
    Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
  30. Roll Your Own Google API Searches by ejoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In case you want to try this at home, presuming you're on a MacOS X box and you've got your own free API key from Google, you can easily access the Google API SOAP service using Anthracite Web Mining Desktop toolkit. Combine it with AppleScript and you're off to the races making your own automated searches. In addition to the Google API interface, there's also a generic SOAP source object for accessing any other SOAP services you want to try. Several examples are included with the download, like how to build a ranked list of top keywords for any given search term. Not only does it get the search results, it will also go load the URLs returned for you automatically. Yes, I wrote the software, and that's why I'm always busy promoting it.

  31. Re:SOAP? - remake of FER-DE-LANCE (1974) :) by iamcf13 · · Score: 1

    Snakes On A Plane 'is' a 'remake' of sorts of FER-DE-LANCE (1974)

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071494/

    'Snakes On A Sub' :)

    PS: I much prefer 'Airport (1)', and 'Air Force One' as being the best of the 'airplane thrillers'.

    Airport - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065377/

    Air Force One - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118571/

    Snakes on a Plane - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417148/

  32. they're just like .com files by bigtrike · · Score: 3, Funny

    They're similar to the .com files on one of your operating systems, only newer

  33. I'm feeling lucky by ESqVIP · · Score: 1
    I guess one idea would be, for example, to offer an I'm-feeling-lucky URL that points to your malware binary. Since the URL points to Google, it would seem safe for the non-tech-savvy.

    But as I understood it, the binary search is not available in the common search (only through APIs), so I guess this isn't really a problem. And if it were, Google could disable automatic redirection to executables.