Slashdot Mirror


Storm Hits Blogger Network

ancientribe writes "Researchers have discovered the Storm Trojan nestled in hundreds of blog sites in Google's Blogger network, according to an article in Dark Reading. And this isn't simple comment spam, but actual blogs that post spam, and now, Storm executable files. A researcher who's been tracking the Storm-infested blog sites says he's working with Google to clean up this latest appearance of Storm."

89 comments

  1. They have no idea? by deftcoder · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "I have no idea how they are doing this."

    Sounds like somebody should be out of a job. Incompetence of this magnitude should not be tolerated.
    --
    Peace sells, but who's buying?
    1. Re:They have no idea? by saxoholic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. I don't think that's incompetence. It's an honest admission that more investigating is needed to determine the way these blogs are being infected. Would you prefer them to make up an incorrect hypothesis as to how they're doing this?

    2. Re:They have no idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The guy saying "I have no idea" isn't an employee of Google/Blogger, he's just the guy on the outside saying he doesn't know how.

      I'm on the outside also, but can tell you how. Blogger has a mail2 feature where you can post to an email address that you make up, and keep secret. Like a password. With users who makeup easy mail2 addresses (then don't monitor or abandon their blogs), and millions of emails being sent by the Storm BotNet, not hard to figure out how they are getting posted. Eventually the botnet hits them, just like they do with regular email addresses, and they get posted to the blog.

      And also note, the summary is misleading somewhat. The actual files that do the "infection" aren't hosted on Blogger at all. The same thing that is getting sent to peoples emails are being posted to blogs that leave their mail2 address open and easy. So you still have to fall for the click here to get infected...

      This has been going on for awhile. I first saw it at least 2 months ago. It may be increasing, but not new.

  2. Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, and I was just reading that blogosphere has hit the mainstream. Hope this doesn't keep more women from blogging!

  3. Passing Fad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Two articles about 'blogging' in a row. I really hope this isn't what my generation will be known for.

    1. Re:Passing Fad by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Relax. You can't be worse off than the Disco generation.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Passing Fad by phobos13013 · · Score: 1
      --
      ...and it should be known by now
    3. Re:Passing Fad by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? What has more eye-blinding potential, an epileptic-unfriendly room full of coked up disco dancers, or the average blog?

      Tough Call.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    4. Re:Passing Fad by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      I really hope this isn't what my generation will be known for.

      The sound of the word aside, I can't understand this elitist mentality I see here and other places with a computer-oriented crowd when it comes to blogging. Whenever you hear "blogging", think "allowing everyone to write on the web easily" - that's all it is. It's what we were promised in the early 90s, before most people even had computers - the ability to have our voices heard and self-publish.

      For the first time in history, almost anyone can get their ideas out to the entire world from the safety of their own home. Unpopular ideas can heard and spread. There are rightfully concerns about factuality and objectivity, but that should have been true for all media. Regardless, 15 years after the internet came to the masses, anyone can still publish to world and be as easy to reach as any mass media organization.

      I hope that this is what my generation is known for.

    5. Re:Passing Fad by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      "But they're letting anyone in!" -- Slashdotters wanting the Tubes for themselves

  4. No surprise by Tribbin · · Score: 3, Funny

    That storm is initiated by the hot damping humid air invading from the female bloggers.

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  5. Link please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    A researcher who's been tracking the ... sites
    Does he have a blog that we can link to about this?
  6. Figures... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 3, Funny

    Direct correlation between more women bloggers and more infected blogs :)

    1. Re:Figures... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy smokes! Looks like some kind of a guest/host relationship to me.

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

      Malware? In my vagina?

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

      It's more likely than you think!

    4. Re:Figures... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Women with infected blogs, OMG I bet that leaves a stain.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  7. Skynet by courtarro · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did anyone else see Terminator 3? They predicted this "Storm" virus. It was only a matter of time before it became self-aware and began making emo blog posts without human intervention.

  8. Sad... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The sad part is, from what I've seen and heard, this Storm "virus" does need human intervention.

    It doesn't do anything technically new. The only thing new here is the particular brand of social engineering used, and it bothers me that this still works.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:Sad... by DaSilva_XiaoPuTao · · Score: 4, Informative

      While the email's did contain a link that you needed to follow, I believe the site tried to exploit browser vulnerabilities to try infect your computer. In fact I think it generates different pages based on your user agent string to try and exploit the different browsers.

      With regards to the link, they were also masked well to show up as a youtube url.

      All in all I think this means that you don't have to be a total idiot to get infected, maybe just a little naive.

    2. Re:Sad... by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      *double checks user agent*

      Yup, mine is still 'Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U)', thanks to Proxomitron. No reason to make it easy for people to exploit my browser.

    3. Re:Sad... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Informative

      With regards to the link, they were also masked well to show up as a youtube url.

      If by "masked well", you mean:

      <a href="http://136.159.166.125/">http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=BmcXqxdPoP6</a>

      Yeah, I'd say that's more than "just a little naive" -- it's downright stupid. I don't know how Outlook does it, but Kontact/Kmail does two things: First, it defaults to displaying everything as text if it can, with a big red box at the top that says:

      Note: This is an HTML message. For security reasons, only the raw HTML code is shown. If you trust the sender of this message then you can activate formatted HTML display for this message by clicking here.

      (Link goes nowhere, as this is Slashdot, not actually Kmail.)

      After clicking that link, the HTML is shown, but without images. A similar box will be there if there are external images, allowing you to turn them on. But even with everything enabled, it's still easy as hell -- mouseover the youtube link, and the nappy IP address link shows up in the status bar.

      Ok, fine, let's assume that someone can be "just a little naive" at that point -- which I think is a stretch, in this day and age; someone who doesn't know that much should take a course before touching a computer.

      In that case, the last time I tried to do that, it opened up Konqueror, which popped up a window asking me what I wanted to do with this file. HINT, HINT, HUGE FUCKING HINT -- the file ends in .exe, which again, every computer user should know, means "executable". But even if they don't, every computer user should at least know not to download/open random files from the Internet, unless it's a format they recognize.

      How long did it take us to convince computer users to not open attachments? And now this takes the world by storm...

      In IE, if I remember, this is going to give you one prompt to download it or "open" it, and after you click "open", it will download, and then give you at least one, if not two more prompts about the program being unsigned. If you're running Vista, it will give you yet another prompt, telling you that this program needs your permission to continue fucking with your computer.

      That's -- let me count -- about five separate clues that you don't even have to go out of your way to run into -- realistically, probably three or four. Not to mention the fact that my spamfilter caught most of these before I even started seeing them and training on them, and that example I just pasted to you contains the email address "jerk2werk@nehp.net" -- yet another obvious clue; I don't know anyone with an email address like that.

      And there are yet more clues if you start digging -- turning on "all headers", you can see two "Received:" headers and one "Sender:" header, neither of which matches, in any way, the "From:" header.

      I'm not saying that everyone should know how to dig through email headers, until they have to -- but those are just the technical "duh" factors. There's also the nontechnical one -- I didn't make a video, and I didn't upload it to Youtube. I might click that link out of curiosity, but clicking a normal Youtube link doesn't ask me if I want to download or open anything.

      So what's sad to me is not only that this kind of shit still happens, but that you, like many others, consider it to be "not stupid, just a little naive." We require Driver's Education in my state to operate a car, which is significantly easier than a computer -- if you don't know how to use a computer, it absolutely IS your fault. Go educate yourself.

      As for the browser vulnerability, nope, sorry, read TFA. It's the exact same thing as the email "virus" -- it just has Youtube links to an exe file. Another one is even more obvious -- the link includes the nappy IP address right there, links to a file calle

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    4. Re:Sad... by arivanov · · Score: 3, Informative

      One comment: The webpage is dynamic. The .exe you see when clicking on the link is the final choice after exploits failed (and they did). If you we Joe Average who did not bother to pay for AV and did not update his machine since he bought it from Best Buy you would have been infected straight away long before that. No prompts.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:Sad... by DaSilva_XiaoPuTao · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As for the browser vulnerability, nope, sorry, read TFA. It's the exact same thing as the email "virus" -- it just has Youtube links to an exe file. Are you sure about that? I just downloaded one of the said pages that the emails link too, and looking at the source its got a massive javascript script, with what looked like to me as some exploit code. If this is the case and it is indeed an exploit allowing auto execution, then really I can't call someone stupid for falling for it, just ignorant.

      With regards to the forced computer training, much like driving training people must get to drive a car, I agree, I think it would be a great idea. However, honestly I don't think its ever going to happen, so I cba to discuss it as a solution.

      And I really have to say, I hate the belittling of PC ignorant people. Sure its frustrating, but generally its not because of stupidity but lack of knowledge, and an anxiety around computers.
      I can relate slightly, my first day working on a till a few years back I got scammed by a couple who confused the hell out of me swapping cash & change around. They made off with roughly $10. I felt stupid at the time, but I wasn't. They had deliberately set out to swindle me, and I wasn't prepared. Most people are aware they shouldn't open .exe or weird attachments, but most people I know who aren't tech savy are constantly forwarding around links to funny videos/pictures. Very few consider following links to be a big no no.

      Eh, this has turned into a rant, but all I'm saying is, people who get infected with malware, are not always idiots, just ignorant.
    6. Re:Sad... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The situation here isn't like getting scammed your first time behind a till. It's like you were scammed on a regular basis, and failed to learn anything no matter how many times they did the same thing. Likewise, I'd forgive someone for getting infected if it was the first time they were using email or on the Internet. But if your machine regularly needs to have accumulating malware removed despite years of experience, then yes you are an idiot, because one of the defining characteristics of idiots is that they don't learn from their mistakes.

      Frankly, the solution to this is simple: You fuck your computer up, I WILL NOT fix it for you no matter how you whine or scream at me. If you want a computer that works correctly, educate yourself. The war against malware will be won when doing stupid things online is made to carry consequences for the person being stupid.

    7. Re:Sad... by LordSnooty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Note: This is an HTML message. For security reasons, only the raw HTML code is shown. If you trust the sender of this message then you can activate formatted HTML display for this message by clicking here.
      And I'm afraid there's your problem right there - the kind of error message which 80% of computer users, ie the naive ones, pay no attention to whatsoever. They either ignore it completely or try and understand what it means but give up. Average people don't know what HTML is, nor what effect an HTML message could have. It's this barrier of misunderstanding which good software needs to negotiate. I'm afraid that's a poor error message.
    8. Re:Sad... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      the kind of error message which 80% of computer users, ie the naive ones, pay no attention to whatsoever.

      It's not an error message.

      They either ignore it completely or try and understand what it means but give up.

      Which is truly pathetic. Wikipedia has a good definition, and it's the second result from a Google search. I have another: HTML in an email makes it more than just plain text -- that means it can have bold and italic. It also means it can have viruses and spyware.

      That's right -- I just explained it in terms that any newbie can understand in two sentences. Oh, they don't know what spyware is? It's software that does bad things, like taking your credit card number and sending it to a hacker over the Internet.

      We need to start forcing this kind of basic education on that 80% of computer users. That "error" message is one way to do that -- if they ignore it completely, they can't read their mail properly. It's a lot harder for them to completely click through it without at least halfway-reading -- there's no big OK button for them to reflexively click.

      At the very least, "computer skills" should include the kind of basic instinct to understand the difference between safe experimenting -- just click around on all the various options you see, and when you're done, right-click on everything, see what happens -- and complete stupidity -- don't just reflexively click "ok" without reading and understanding the message, and if you're not sure what it's asking, find out. Unless you are on Vista, in which case, the solution is to install XP or Linux. (Trust me, if you're not computer savvy enough to understand "Are you sure you want to run this DANGEROUS SHIT FROM THE INTERNET?", you're not going to get yourself into any more trouble if I put you on Linux.)

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    9. Re:Sad... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Very few consider following links to be a big no no.
      and honestly it shouldn't be. We follow links to sites we don't know on the web in search of information all the time if browsers can't handle that safely they are not fit for purpose. If browser authors can't write high enough quality code then other measures (such as running the browser in a sandbox) need to be considered.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    10. Re:Sad... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And even if all those auto infections run into the ground, how many will click "allow" when you promise them some pr0n?

      People are dumb and horny. Not necessarily in this order.

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

      Which is truly pathetic. Wikipedia has a good definition, and it's the second result from a Google search.

      You mean, like, going out yourself to get information? Instead of expecting to be spoon fed?

      C'mon, what planet are you living on?

      We need to start forcing this kind of basic education on that 80% of computer users.

      No. We just have to hold people liable for their own stupidity. You got infected and now your life savings are gone? Sucks to be you. No, your bank won't cover that. A fool and his money are easily parted has never been more true than in the times of the internet.

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

      What you're saying is right, but it's still not basic enough. Have you dealt with many clueless users? Even the idea that a message can be plain text, and then with bold & italic, will be beyond many people, never mind what the implications for malware are. And, as someone below points out, you expect people to look this information up? No, they just ignore it and click Yes or Agree or OK, anything to get rid of that message which is stopping me working. How else do you think malware in the form of BHOs gets to infect so namy copies of IE? Sure, it flashes up a box with a long, dull message inside... I don't have time to read that... if I did read it I wouldn't know what it meant... Just Click Yes. The problem with uneducated users goes way beyond explaining the difference between a virus and a trojan. People are hardened to error messages and other such alerts now. They don't understand the link between blindly clicking an option one week and being infected with crap the next.

      Compulsory training is a nice idea, but of course completely unrealistic, besides the difficulty of enforcing it you'd have ISPs, auction sites, hardware manufacturers up in arms because their business depends on having people use their services. They'd take a long time to return if you forced them to train first. As it stands, no-one's died from malware yet, thus trying to draw any car analogy is moot. (not that I'm saying you were, but it's the closest comparison I can think of)

    13. Re:Sad... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      HINT, HINT, HUGE FUCKING HINT -- the file ends in .exe, which again, every computer user should know, means "executable".
      Why should they?
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:Sad... by Pope · · Score: 1

      Eh, this has turned into a rant, but all I'm saying is, people who get infected with malware, are not always idiots, just ignorant.

      That's the whole point: stop letting people BE ignorant, and force some schooling on them to cure them of that terrible infliction.
      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    15. Re:Sad... by Grismar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What users "should" know is completely irrelevant. (not even touching on the fact that it's only what you happen to think they should know, no exactly popular opinion, but that's not the issue here)

      If they "should" know, but don't, the shit is still going to hit the fan. Sadly, we software engineers have to consider what a user is likely to know and build from there. Which is exactly what these Storm authors have done and what these blogging software designers should have done.

      And yes, I think the designers -should- have and I feel justified in saying so, since the responsibility lies with the designers here. Just writing a nice little bit in the license agreement is not enough to wave that responsibility in my book. Maybe legally so, but not morally.

    16. Re:Sad... by Sancho · · Score: 1

      You hit the nail on the head. The reason that so many people don't learn is because there is no pain involved in cleaning up an infected computer. They don't pay anything--they get their nephew or children or grandchildren to do it for them, and everything's peachy. There were almost zero negative effects for the person who clicked on the attachment.

      Lots of people have grown into thinking that computers just get infected, and that there's nothing you can do about it. It's very sad, really.

    17. Re:Sad... by Sancho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's what IE7 on Vista does. But it's hard to sandbox "download and run this EXE for me, please" after the user has requested it, clicked ok, clicked "Yes I'm sure", and clicked "I trust this executable, now run it already!"

      It's social engineering, and it will always work until/unless we remove control of computers from the users. That's not a solution I'm personally willing to endorse. How about you?

    18. Re:Sad... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that this worm only resorted to the "tell the user to download the exe" tactic if the exploits failed.

      but yes unfortunately humans are very often the weak point in many systems :(

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    19. Re:Sad... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I just downloaded one of the said pages that the emails link too, and looking at the source its got a massive javascript script, with what looked like to me as some exploit code.
      I saw something like that on a page described as a comcast one-click-fix page, made me glad that I scouted out the link in Firefox running in Linux; the sent by address email whois'ed to comcast, and the page address whois'ed back to comcast, but it still looked freaky to me. I suppose it could be legit, but I also suppose comast's .asp page could be p0wned too, that would be just too funny, comcast's p0wned sever spewing emails to entice users to an infected server by warnning them they have a trojan on their machine! OBTW Clamwin did find 3 trojans on the machine this morning.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    20. Re:Sad... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      My boss was able to click "OK" before the alert box had completely rendered!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    21. Re:Sad... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      For the same reason that I know the big pedal in my car is the brake, and the little one is the accelerator, and I know what "brake" and "accelerator" means.

      For the same reason that I know red means stop, and green means go.

      Because if they don't know what a program (executable) is, they won't know the difference between a harmless webpage and a harmful exe.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    22. Re:Sad... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      you'd have ISPs, auction sites, hardware manufacturers up in arms

      Let's think about that.

      ISPs benefit, because no one's running botnets that waste their bandwidth and send tons of spam, thus marking them on blacklists.

      Auction sites benefit, because no one can develop a botnet to infect others, and cause them to create fallacious auctions. And eBay in particular benefits, because PayPal now has less fraud to deal with, because no one's going to enter their paypal information on a phishing site anymore.

      Hardware manufacturers are the only ones without an immediate, obvious benefit. The advantage is, people would know enough to easily be able to adapt to a new computer, and move all their stuff over, so there'd be less fear of upgrading, just a financial concern. The downside is, no one would upgrade simply because their old computer was infested with spyware.

      They'd take a long time to return if you forced them to train first.

      Not likely. How many people refuse to drive because they're forced to take Driver's Education, or at least a little test?

      No one. Driving is a necessity for many people, and such an attractive luxury for everyone else that even in a small town where everything's within walking distance, everyone who can afford a car has one, and a license.

      I'd like to think that computers are at least that necessary (or perceived as necessary) to most people that they would take a test, if they had to.

      As it stands, no-one's died from malware yet, thus trying to draw any car analogy is moot.

      People have died from bad software, though. Stupid things like rounding errors... I would imagine that geek terrorists could find a way to do the same thing.

      In any case, it doesn't always require people dying. It could be a financial loss, like that caused by random spam, or extortion from DoS attacks. And we do have things like the SEC, for that.

      But my point with the car analogy is: I would imagine that most adults in the US have a driver's license. And I'm fairly sure that every state at least requires you to take an exam, if not the entire Driver's Education course. So it would be hell to try and get that legislation passed in the first place, given congressmen would likely fail it right away, but if it were passed, people would bitch, but they would do it, and "viruses" like this would die a well-deserved death.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    23. Re:Sad... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      What users "should" know is completely irrelevant. (not even touching on the fact that it's only what you happen to think they should know, no exactly popular opinion, but that's not the issue here)

      I don't think so.

      If I buy a knife, and I should know not to stab myself in the face, and I do it anyway, whose fault is it?

      Sadly, we software engineers have to consider what a user is likely to know and build from there. Which is exactly what these Storm authors have done and what these blogging software designers should have done.

      Erm... what?

      It is impossible to build an idiot-proof system. It's an arms race -- someone will always build a better idiot.

      The only way to make it impossible for something like this to happen is to completely remove the control that people currently enjoy over their own computers. For example: Consider a game console. It takes a certain amount of technical expertise to use one for anything other than playing officially signed and licensed games. Therefore, it's actually physically impossible for you to do something stupid online with one, unless you're also savvy enough to have a modchip.

      Are you honestly saying that it was possible, in any way, for the blogging software to do anything more than it already did? They've already done the most obvious thing -- CAPTCHAS. They've also now begun shutting down blogs which have become infested. The only way I can see of completely preventing it is heuristics -- blocking things that look like that particular spam -- and then, that software would become unusable for anyone technically savvy, because they'd be unable to show an example of what it looks like, without taking a screenshot (which shouldn't be necessary).

      And yes, I think the designers -should- have and I feel justified in saying so, since the responsibility lies with the designers here.

      Bullshit. You stabbed yourself in the face, it is your own fucking fault. You do not get to go sue the knife manufacturer. If they are guilty of anything, it's for selling it to a moron like you -- but how could they know you were a moron?

      The solution to this is really simple -- personal responsibility. If you spill coffee on your lap, guess what? COFFEE IS HOT!!! You do not then get to sue McDonald's for not putting a warning on the coffee cup, saying "Warning! Beverage is hot!" And yet, this kind of shit happens all the time. I didn't even make up the story about the coffee; someone did actually sue McDonald's for that.

      Just writing a nice little bit in the license agreement is not enough to wave that responsibility in my book. Maybe legally so, but not morally.

      Well, in the above situation with the coffee, all too often, it's legally possible to sue people. Is it morally right?

      You tell me.

      Oh, I should mention -- Colorado is the only state to have gotten this right. In Colorado, it is state law that no ski resort is responsible for your medical expenses, should you hurt yourself on the mountain.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    24. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFS, bad example. Most drivers have similar-sized pedals, and three or even four of them.

    25. Re:Sad... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Even better example, then. Drivers are expected to be able to navigate all kinds of different interfaces, and not crash the car. Accelerator on the right, brake on the left, clutch (if you have one) to the left of that, parking brake maybe left of that, and maybe in the center console...

      Whereas most computer users, if they adapt at all, just learn to click "OK" or "Continue" or whatever will make the bad box go away. These people deserve to be selected out.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  9. Don't forget the nematodes by MarkRose · · Score: 3, Funny

    The blogosphere has hit the mainstream, according to a new survey, which reveals that 80% of Americans know what a blog is, 50% regularly visit blogs, and 8% publish their own blog. The survey also reveals that more women than men are bloggers, with 20% of American women who have visited blogs having their own versus 14% of men.

    And 2% of worms!

    And I thought Trojans were supposed to prevent infections. Hah.

    --
    Be relentless!
  10. Re:I like turtles! by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Really? I like badgers!

    --
    Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
  11. Shortcomings of Monoculture by Victor+Tramp · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I'd like to take this moment to revisit the question; why doesn't Microsoft get sued for promoting that everybody use their crappy software that nobody's allowed to peek under the hood at and fix? Now we have a whole internet of these massively compromised machines. Because there's very little variation in their "genetic" makeup, and apparently the "genome" isn't all that robust; they're all susceptible to these horrible, contagious diseases, and it's ALL JUST ONE COMPANY'S FAULT!

    I demand to see the rampant Linux viruses now.. This is ridiculous.. The smartest, brightest, hackers in the whole world write an OS from scratch that nobody can claim they solely own, it runs on more machines than there are macintoshes [assuming you also count the macintoshes running linux], been touted as Microsoft's largest competitor, eating up oodles of server marketshare, and nobody's been able to write a decent worm???

    puhleez

    On the other hand, one company can write one OS, and sell it for top dollar and everybody and their grandmother gets a copy, everybody and their grandkid can write a massively distributable exploit for it, and a WHOLE INDUSTRY of anti-virus software companies spring up (which live comfortably and profitably for decades) to battle the weaknesses in it, a whole industry of botnet admins can wield ridiculous amounts of cycles for whatever purpose they can get paid for....

    But still; everybody swears by it, sticks to it, rubs it on their tummies, tosses up all kinds of the heartfelt loyalty to a COMPANY they don't even WORK FOR, a company that doesn't pay them CRAP, and treats their rights like crap????

    I do NOT get it.

    --
    US$0.02++
    1. Re:Shortcomings of Monoculture by weicco · · Score: 1

      Yes, you obviously don't get it. From TFA:

      Storm is often referred to as a worm, but it's technically a Trojan. It relies on social engineering, with a tempting message and link, and it's all about expanding spam and the underlying botnet behind it, notes Joe Stewart, senior security researcher for SecureWorks.

      Now tell me how MS or any other software vendor should fix their stupid users.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    2. Re:Shortcomings of Monoculture by Victor+Tramp · · Score: 1

      meh.. it was more of a general rant.. I readily admit there is no cure for stupid users..

      It wouldn't even be a stretch for the trojan executable to be made some ELF and slipped into !windows machines..

      I do still wonder how much easier it'd be to counter if the target OS(es) were more open.

      --
      US$0.02++
    3. Re:Shortcomings of Monoculture by fyoder · · Score: 1

      ...and it's ALL JUST ONE COMPANY'S FAULT!

      "We could blame Microsoft for creating crappy operating systems, but if people wanted to pay us billions for our shit, which of us would not rejoice in every bowel movement?"

      Damn the nephews for all spam

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    4. Re:Shortcomings of Monoculture by ManifestAmbiguity · · Score: 1

      like, d00d!
      yer, linux boxen are part of the botnets too.
      total bummer.

      /., a monoculture of a different /

    5. Re:Shortcomings of Monoculture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole problem could be solved by the ISPs of the world with not too much effort. Unfortunately, they don't care. So that won't happen.

      Block outgoing traffic from customers to port 25 of any address except the address of the ISP's own outgoing mailserver.
      Gone is the problem of the botnets sending spam.

      This can probably be done in a day. More advanced features to implement, that could be more work:

      - rate limiting and/or spam filtering on the outgoing mailservers, to avoid the botnets switching to using the SMTP server setup in Outlook Express.
      - user control of the port 25 block via some control panel or other facility accessible to the customer who knows what he/she is doing and wants to deliver mail directly. this will be used by such a vast minority of customers that even abuse of those very few misconfigured systems will not be an issue.

    6. Re:Shortcomings of Monoculture by mgblst · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now tell me how MS or any other software vendor should fix their stupid users.


      Some sort of electric shock, sent through the keyboard or mouse, should do the trick!!
    7. Re:Shortcomings of Monoculture by fortyonejb · · Score: 0

      Why do you feel the need to infect a post NOT about any specific technology with your anti MS rhetoric. This wasn't "Outlook allows trojans to get through easily". Some of us like to read a story without having to hear the linux/microsoft war cry every time.

    8. Re:Shortcomings of Monoculture by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Your subject was on-topic, but your rant wasn't, and it didn't really belong here. The days of Windows insecurity are really coming to an end. Microsoft screwed up a few years ago, and they learned from it. Kudos to them.

      But the monoculture is still an issue, because Windows still has something like 90% market penetration. Although Microsoft caused this (to a degree), I can't say that it's something to blame on them. Without requiring the user to read some documents (and take a quiz after), there's not much that Microsoft can do about the ignorance of its users, and no business should really be expected to curb their own growth in a way that would mean that a competitor could gain ground.

    9. Re:Shortcomings of Monoculture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your wrong. Windows is broken by design and as long as MS and others are making BILLIONS from it being broken it will remain broken.

  12. lol by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    You say "asshats making worms". I say "people creating job security for us IT guys". Sad that its come to this.

    --
    The game.
  13. Re:I like turtles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Travis? Is that you?

  14. Re:I like turtles! by wordsnyc · · Score: 2, Funny

    we don't need no stinking badgers.

    --
    Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
  15. I just got attacked myself by Orthuberra · · Score: 1

    No joke I was perusing a couple blogs and some pop-ups attempted to install programs on my computer. I ended said system processes and nothing got messed up, but still annoying nevertheless (especially considering that you can't completely get rid of IE on windows machines) so it still attempts to pop-up IE even though I never touch that program. May have been a different piece of malware though (damn the person who posted the idea of hot chicks blogging in the previous thread and damn me for looking). Damn you slashdot.

    1. Re:I just got attacked myself by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Consider sandboxing your browser. This has been out for a while:

      http://www.sandboxie.com/

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  16. Google does not terminate spammers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    72.14.207.191 (blogger.com) is listed in the Spamhaus SBL for their inability or unwillingness to terminate spamvertised blogspot sites. This has been an issue for months.

    "Thousands upon thousands of *.blogspot.com pages, all spammed and used to re-direct to other spammer landing pages"

  17. Oh come on by igre · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Come on today there's a virus for EVERYTHING... How can that be?
    ________________________________
    igre

  18. Re:Ballmer's Revenge? by dedazo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh, they know it's a M$ born disease

    That's quite the glib statement, considering that worm requires so much user action (or inaction, depending on how you look at it) to infect a Windows box, it's not even funny.

    How many years do you think it will take before some court proves this was intentional?

    Are you serious?

    Oh, wait a minute... *slaps head* "Erris" is twitter's sockpuppet account, which he uses to shill his own posts.

    I thought this looked familar.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  19. Re:Ballmer's Revenge? by ManifestAmbiguity · · Score: 1

    He is serious, which says the most, no? To those of you who attempting valiantly to inject logic and thoughtful contemplation to /., why? You know it's a waste of keystrokes. The mono culture this place has devolved into is just as mind numbing as what people bitch about MS for.

  20. What "so much user action"? by khasim · · Score: 1, Interesting

    That's quite the glib statement, considering that worm requires so much user action (or inaction, depending on how you look at it) to infect a Windows box, it's not even funny.

    Here are the steps to infect a Windows box.

    #1. Receive email with link to infection site.
    #2. Click on link to infection site.
    #3. There is no step #3. You're probably infected already.

    Sure, in some circumstances they'll have to download a .exe to actually get infected. If they've maintained their patches. But the people who would be doing that probably wouldn't run an unknown .exe, would they?

    This is EXACTLY the kind of exploit that was brought up back during the Netscape trial where Microsoft claimed it was a good idea to merge the browser with the OS.
  21. I blocked .blogspot.com referrers a few days ago by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 3, Informative

    A couple of days ago, I got tired of the formmail spam that my users were receiving from their "contact me here" webpages. After reviewing my logs, I made .htaccess files on my webserver:
     
    order allow,deny
    deny from 206.51.229.
    deny from 206.51.233.
    allow from all
      RewriteEngine on
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} blogspot\.com [NC]
    RewriteRule .* - [F]
     

    This has cut the formmail spam that I receive down to zero ever since I set it up.
     
    The deny from lines take care of some guy who downloads the html submit form and posts spam from "Darksites.com", and the Rewrite denies access from all .blogspot.com referrers. I still see a few dozen hits every day from all of these, but they are all 403 now so I'm happy.
     
    Here is a single example from a few minutes ago:
     
    72.47.89.233 --[30/Aug/2007:22:28:22 -0600] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 403 3931 "http://hydrocodone--4t1.blogspot.com" "Opera/9.0 (Macintosh; PPC Mac OS X; U; en)"

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  22. OT: tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always wondered how the tags shown below the story get picked (yes, I've read the FAQ).. They certainly don't seem to be based on popularity alone. At the moment one of the tags for this story is youderservewhatyouget -- notice the typo. Are thousands of Slashdot readers so illiterate, or is there some other logical explanation for this?

    1. Re:OT: tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe someone uses a botnet to automatically submit the same tag from many different addresses?

  23. Er, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're missing (at least with Storm):

    #4. Download and execute trojan .exe file, ignoring several warnings in the process.

    Storm, like the vast majority of Windows 'viruses', is nothing more than a trojan that requires user initiation. Sadly, there are enough ignorant (in the true sense of the word) users out there who'll happily ignore all the warnings that the malware coders continue to write them.

  24. Re:I like turtles! by Nullav · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mushroom.

    --
    I just read Slashdot for the articles.
  25. Re:Ballmer's Revenge? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't be discouraged. You have every opportunity to promote Microsoft here, my friend. Every community seems like a mono culture when they're not buying what you're selling.

    When people realize how user-friendly and fast and efficient and shiny Vista is, they'll come around and realize that it really is such an improvement over Windows XP and certainly reflects the quality improvement you'd expect from the biggest company in the world spending seven years working on it, just to make those of us who use computers every single day happy.

    Be brave.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  26. Re:do you remember? by Goaway · · Score: 2, Funny

    +1, As Poetic As Slashdot Will Ever Get

  27. Re:I like turtles! by owlnation · · Score: 2, Funny

    A snake!!!

  28. class action by v1 · · Score: 1

    too bad it's not possible to file a class action suit against all the retarts that keep getting their machines infected ("but I just, well you know, HAD to click it to see what it was..") making the other 30% of the internet suffer.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  29. Dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks to you, I've got September by Earth Wind and Fire playing in my head. BAH-DEE-AAH! Thanks a lot troll-boy.

  30. Re:I like turtles! by Doctor-Optimal · · Score: 1

    Yes yes, that's all well and good. The real issue is: where can I find lions?

    --
    New punctuation update "~" (no quotes) at the end of a line to indicate sarcasm. ~
  31. Re:I like turtles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only in Kenya!

  32. chainletter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    15

  33. Re:I like turtles! by Doctor-Optimal · · Score: 1

    Shit! I've been looking in Norway.

    --
    New punctuation update "~" (no quotes) at the end of a line to indicate sarcasm. ~
  34. Re:Ballmer's Revenge? by ManifestAmbiguity · · Score: 1

    Thank You. Validation, though not needed and expected, was a plus.
    It is odd to see so many folk who are tech savvy or would like to be, so oblivious to the fact that software and operating systems just fail to meet basic needs of users much of the time. Usability, security, stability, cost, etc. are all missing to some degree on everything. "Written by coders for coders" is often correct. It does not matter who makes it, it still sucks. Will it get better, we hope. Are most of the vendors and open source improving, somewhat, but you won't know that if you read /. comments. Is failure to meet expectations, misleading users with marketing, obfuscating defects or design flaws, failure to be ethical in business practice or other flaws unique to MS? Please feel free to validate my comment again and say YES! Or mock me for not being part of your monoculture, it is a complement to point out that I can think for myself, thank you.
    I hear incorrect/ignorant statements or out right lies concerning just about every OS available almost on a daily basis. It is a rather constant stream of amusement. From executives, "Unhackable". To users, "Unhackable" To salesmen, "Perfect". To coders, "Perfect".

  35. Re:Ballmer's Revenge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    realize that it really is such an improvement over Windows XP and certainly reflects the quality improvement you'd expect from the biggest company in the world spending seven years working on it
    Biggest company? Quality improvement? ... Which world are you talking about? This one? No, I'm afraid you're wrong.
  36. Re:do you remember? by xIcemanx · · Score: 1

    Roses are #FF0000
    Violets are #0000FF
    chown -R you ~/base

  37. Re:do you remember? by Goaway · · Score: 1

    Like I said.