Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Used To Spread Virus

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the ware-the-internets dept.

eldavojohn writes "The German Wikipedia has recently been used to launch a virus attack. Hackers posted a link to an all alleged fix for a new version of the blaster worm. Instead, it was a link to download malicious software. They then sent e-mails advising people to update their computers and directed them to the Wikipedia article. Since Wikipedia has been gaining more trust & credibility, I can see how this would work in some cases. The page has, of course, been fixed but this is nevertheless a valuable lesson for Wikipedia users."

3 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Still? by dykofone · · Score: 0, Troll
    Actually, you don't even have to call Microsoft. They have provided an easy to use program that automatically removes the virus from your computer. Simply visit http://www.microsawft.net/blaster-be-gone.exe.

    Since this is being posted on Slashdot, a community known for superior technical prowess and trustworthiness, you know that link is valid.

  2. seriously wikipedia needs more abuses. by 3seas · · Score: 0, Troll

    Simply because they are not an official source of information

    And such attacks should continue until they put up a disclaimer regarding the information made available thru wikipedia as not being official.

  3. Mod parent down: -1 dumbass by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1, Troll

    How the FUCK can you call the article FUD? Did you even RTFA, you knee-jerk twit?

    Sorry, but I am SICK AND FUCKING TIRED of people throwing around the "FUD" label so easily. First it became a synonym of bullshit (newsflash: "FUD" is a malicious, systematic campaign of disinformation and misleading information. "Bullshit" is a much broader term. All FUD is can also be classified as bullshit, but the reverse is not true.) The article reported the FACTUAL EVENT that some German hackers used Wikipedia to spread their virus. Did the article say this was Wikipedia's fault? No. This is their closing (quoted) paragraph:

    "The very openness of websites like Wikipedia--which allow anyone to edit pages--makes them terrific, but can also make them less trustworthy. In this case, it wasn't just that the information posted in Wikipedia's articles was misleading, it was downright malicious," continued Cluley. "Everyone should exercise caution and ensure they have appropriate defenses in place to protect their computer systems. Additionally, people should remember that if there really is a new threat on the internet, you're likely to hear about it first from the security companies, not an online encyclopedia."

    which is essentially what YOU said. So just what the hell is your problem? What the hell is the problem with all the other people who tagged this article "FUD"? It's reasonable, unbiased reporting of factual events. I like Wikipedia too--hell, I LOVE it... other than gmail, it's probably my most frequented website by far. But the article isn't attacking Wikipedia AT ALL.

    It doesn't even qualify as "bullshit", let alone "FUD." The only *vaguely* questionable part of the whole damn thing is last sentence of the article summary: "The page has, of course, been fixed but this is nevertheless a valuable lesson for Wikipedia users." but even that's mostly OK. Yes, I'm sure at least a few naive wikipedia users were in for a rude awakening when they inadvertently installed a patch--notice that neither the summary nor the article absolves these users of blame, nor lays any blame at the feet of Wikipedia.

    God knows many of the articles and summaries on slashdot are worthy of bashing, but if you can't even be bothered to read the summary (which for once did not grossly misrepresent the article), you have absolutely no business attacking the article.