Slashdot Mirror


Digital Picture Frames Infected by Trojan Viruses

CR0WTR0B0T writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is running a story on viruses loaded into digital picture frames, similar to the ones we discussed at the end of last year. The difference is in the virus used: 'The authors of the new Trojan Horse are well-funded professionals whose malware has 'specific designs to capture something and not leave traces ... This would be a nuclear bomb of malware.' Apparently, a number of regular folks have hooked them up to their home computer and loaded the virus. And if you think you're too smart to be fooled, apparently the Anti-Virus software makers have not caught up to the threat quite yet."

174 comments

  1. MOD PARENT DOWN: Shock site by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

    The parent post links to GNAA's admirable "Last Measure" shock site.

  2. WARNING: GNAA by SirBudgington · · Score: 1, Troll

    Don't click the link, it's a malicious site.

    --
    this is my sig
    1. Re:WARNING: GNAA by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Don't click the link, it's a malicious site.
      Lucky I wasn't browsing as root, I could have been in *real* trouble.
      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:WARNING: GNAA by dohzer · · Score: 1

      Does it install viruses or anything?

    3. Re:WARNING: GNAA by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 2, Funny

      *click*

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    4. Re:WARNING: GNAA by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I clicked the link, and Avast! Antivirus automatically broke the connection because it found malware.

      Good enough for you?

    5. Re:WARNING: GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's just fun to look at.

    6. Re:WARNING: GNAA by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

      Lucky I wasn't browsing as root, I could have been in *real* trouble.


      *face palm*
      --
      +5, Truth
    7. Re:WARNING: GNAA by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

      I clicked the link, and Avast! Antivirus automatically broke the connection because it found malware.

      *double facepalm*
      --
      +5, Truth
    8. Re:WARNING: GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      > *click*

      *grippinghand facepalm*

  3. Well... by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    - Run an OS that does not automatically try to mount devices, without user interaction.
    - Run an OS that does not execute programs on devices once mounted, without user interaction but preferably not at all. (Autorun, I'm looking at you)

    Although what doesn't seem to mentioned specifically is if the viruses are contained on the memory of the frames themselves (i.e. just like any other removeable drive) or whether they are on some sort of driver/bundle CD. It does seem to hint that it means the device itself, which begs the question how is it getting executed? Is there a setup.exe that autoruns like on certain brands of USB drive (DUMB IDEA OF THE CENTURY)? Are there infected data files like JPEG's that just so happen to allow execution of their code on certain OS's? Is there an actual executable that isn't supposed to be on there at all that autoruns or waits for the user to double-click it?

    Either way, it's hardly a brilliant way to spread and only a dozen or so people seem to have been affected out of whichever country it's talking about (presumably the US). That sounds more like they had the virus already and it made its way onto their digital photo frames when they first connected them. Yes, it's a worry that malicious code could make its way onto a consumer device at the factory, but more at fault here are the OS and the user practices - we had all this back in the 80's/90's... don't take floppies off people you don't trust without scanning them first. Have we seriously come full-circle to the same dumb, preventable "problem"?

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      - Run an OS that does not automatically try to mount devices, without user interaction.

      And this would help HOW? Maybe it'd allow certain wiseguys to point at and blame the user for mounting the volumne in question - but ordinary users who just want to put pictures on their frame would *have* to mount it it, and it doesn't matter whether you have to click or whether it happens automatically. In fact, given that you'll likely only ever plug in the frame when you actually do want to access it, automounting seems like a good idea that does save you work in this case.

      Automatically running code without the user asking for it is another issue, of course - that is a colossally stupid idea indeed, yes.

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The picture itself in not a virus, rather it becomes one when the malformed image causes some type of overflow /exploit to the program that renders that picture
      , so not having something run auomatioally doesn't really matter, when you do open the picture it Runs by exploiting a flaw in the program that renders it. whether it starts automatically or not is of less relevance.

      This fact isn't being made very clear in this forum or the document.
        Pictures are not viruses they ar caused to become one on very specific software that render them .
      EX: The same image when viewed or if even viewable on different rendering software will have no effect .

    3. Re:Well... by CR0WTR0B0T · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The article is saying that these were found to be infected at the point of purchase. These picture frames are designed to be user friendly and will hook up via USB cable and scan your PC for your digital media. They have software loaded on them to play pictures, AVI, and for some odd reason MP3s. The real issue here is the Ma and Pa who bought their new PC at BestBuy to look at pictures of their grandkids and surf the web are at risk. Even the PC already loaded with anti-virus software isn't protected. As soon as they hook up the frame to start downloading the pictures, the virus is activated. Good thing is this round steals someone's online gaming passwords (WOW?), which likely won't affect many since hardcore gamers aren't likely to use digital picture frames. Next round could be mining for TurboTax information or passwords to play Global Thermonuclear War with WOPR.

      --
      "Nothing to see here. Move along."
    4. Re:Well... by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > hardcore gamers aren't likely to use digital picture frames

      you plucked this assertion out of your ass

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    5. Re:Well... by CR0WTR0B0T · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes. I wondered why my chair was so lumpy.

      --
      "Nothing to see here. Move along."
    6. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Run an OS that does not automatically try to mount devices, without user interaction.

      Most people dont like running Slackware Linux or BSD or BeOS.

      Ubuntu - automatically mounts USB memory devices.
      OSX - automatically mounts USB memory devices.
      Fedora, redhat, debian, etc....

      because most users are incredibly stupid so the operating systems out there make it easy for the stupid people by auto mounting the memory devices.

      I think making it hard for the stupid people to use a computer would solve most of these virus problems.

    7. Re:Well... by John3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > hardcore gamers aren't likely to use digital picture frames

      you plucked this assertion out of your ass Since there are somewhere over 8 million WoW players (as an example) then I'd have to agree with your comment about the source of the assertion. Many, many of the WoW gamers I chat with online have difficulty upgrading video drivers and managing their PC. If they want to proudly display their WoW toons to their friends of course they will buy a digital picture frame at Best Buy.

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    8. Re:Well... by maxume · · Score: 1

      and for some odd reason MP3s

      Hi Grandma!

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Well... by rah1420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about 'don't log in as administrator?' Another helpful tip to prevent issues. I wonder if this virus would be able to infect a PC if a "lowly" user plugged in the USB?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    10. Re:Well... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >Is there a setup.exe that autoruns like on certain brands of USB drive (DUMB IDEA OF THE CENTURY)?

      Is this true? windows autoruns on CDs and fixed disks. You need to go out of your way to enable autorun on a usb drive. The drive needs to support auto-assist notification. These usb drives dont. Ive handled many a digital frame and have not seen them do anything like this. I know this is slashdot which is the source for MS FUD, but does anyone have some proof that these infected frames actually do run code on insertaion. Or are we just going to accept being another source of FUD on the internet?

      its actually common to see trojans or viruses on a consumer product. Its happened on mp3 players quite a few times. Most likely what is happening is that the machine they are using to copy the drives was actually infected. That doesnt mean you also can get infected via insertion.

    11. Re:Well... by gallwapa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Autorun functions on most (any?) usb device with autorun.inf. You don't have to enable it.
      Run procmon when you plug in a usb storage device, watch and see.

    12. Re:Well... by Jerry+Beasters · · Score: 1

      How exactly is this NOT true? The only people who buy these in the first place are generally computer idiots. All you need to do is live in reality to see this. There's not fucking facts or figures needed.

    13. Re:Well... by ledow · · Score: 1

      Er... well... I've personally come across several brands of USB drive that automatically ran programs on stock Windows installs from manufacturers (maybe Dell or somebody turned the options on, I don't know, the point it is shouldn't even be an option). If I remember, you can even specify "actions" for USB drives to present in the "what do you want to do" dialog that appears when you pop it into a slot, quite easily. Usually USB drives have a setup.exe for encryption etc. but a lot of them are also bootable disks with a boot partition, or have a hidden partition to run setup programs from. I'm not saying that you're not right, that's it not the default, but I've seen it happen on "new" machines.

      Additionally, I was only positing a theory... the fact is that to catch a "virus" you have to execute it. This means either these users double-clicked an unknown executable (not inconceivable for stupid people) or it somehow executed itself on insertion. Maybe they were pre-SP2 installs of XP, I don't know.

    14. Re:Well... by CR0WTR0B0T · · Score: 1

      I would say some percentage of those 8 million would not be classified as "hardcore gamers". I was at my cousin's house over Thanksgiving a few years ago and his 11 year old was playing WoW. He did not really fit the definition of what is described here by GameSpy. That being said, I have no idea how many "hardcore gamers" would buy a digital picture frame, but based on the comments posted on Slashdot, I get the feeling most self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" scoff at the idea of a Digital Picture frame as beneath them. If I were marketing digital picture frames, "hardcore gamer" demographics would not be my target market but rather those who enjoy a cruise on Crystal cruise lines.

      --
      "Nothing to see here. Move along."
    15. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never read Snow Crash.

    16. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes. I'm a 'computer idiot' because I want to provide my parents with an easy way to appreciate photos of their only grandchild who they get to see but once or twice a year.

    17. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just not practical to downgrade the user experience because of minor malware problems.

      The reality is malware infections have dropped of significantly since MS has improved XP security. They are not even remotely the problem they used to be for the average user.

      Automated services and such are without a doubt the wave of the future for all OS. Like the ease of use of the GUI, and the hardcore users who saw no reason for it, the trend is clear. Linux is no different and will adopt one click installers and auto mounting and all this Mac/MS ease of use.

      It's not about the OS, it's about the user. You're not the average user and maybe that makes it hard for you to understand, but it's VASTLY more advantageous to everyone if computers are easier to use and draw more users than if they are highly secure, but the average user cannot access many features.

      We are just moving away from this trend of having to configure everything as with the DOS, Win 3.1 days. Moving back because your scared of malware isn't going to happen and doesn't make much sense in a world of mass production and mass consumption.

      Don't worry, even if they do steal your personal data, chances are you'll still be lost in the masses.

      If you think Linux is immune from malware, your disillusioned. Just let Ubuntu keep growing and drawling in dumb Windows users and you'll see the biggest security advantage Linux has over MS is their users, not their OS. It takes, but one user with admin rights to take out any OS. With Mac and Linux and now Vista, your ALWAYS entering the admin password to configure things which is clearly a security risk.

      All these OS's are SO far from a graceful security model it's pathetic. Linux and Mac's greatest advantage are having so little market share and therefore being undesirable targets. How far can your virus really go Linux with some 1% market share. Exploits are out for every OS, usually major ones at least every year.

      You're just going to have to suck it up and let the PC security model continue to mature, auto mounting is not the problem. MS is not the problem. The problem is that these highly complex platforms we've written aren't mature and tested and need updates at a rate far too often to claim they are secure.

      Something like a desktop will probably never really be secure because it's always going to trying to run the latest software and running new software will NEVER be secure. Desktop's will never be secure, like driving is not really safe, like we are tiny rock falling around the outside of the solar systems biggest fireball.

      Don't be such a pussy, malware is the driving force behind increased security.

      It would be 10 times more effective to reduce malware via laws than technology. Increase the punishments and liabilities for all types of virus and spyware and the associations made between cyber criminals and organized crime.

      We know a lot about the system, but there is little global effort to stop organized crime and cyber fraud which is making malware for profit.

      When you come down to it, it's not the OS, it's the fact that stealing if profitable. It's not as if a desktop can EVER be as secure as an appliance like an ATM or even a server which can use highly tested software and not need the latest greatest upgrades. For servers the minimalistic approach is perfect and helps, but a lot of times a desktop is the best target for exploits. Chances are you can get in, get out, plant a trojan, use their resources and they'll have only the faintest clue anything is wrong. Servers of course tend to have administrators, intrusion detection, honey pots, ECT.

      Desktop's need all those fancy BS features so people feel like they are getting something for their money, but when you stop to think about it. The average software of today is hardly any more productive and certainly has more bugs. We are failing at making new software more productive. 3D Modeling tools have improved along with a handful of other fields, but most are the sa

    18. Re:Well... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      hardcore gamers aren't likely to use digital picture frames you plucked this assertion out of your ass I'd hazard a guess that he's right. Aren't the photos people display in frames usually of friends, lovers, or spouses?
      --
      #DeleteChrome
    19. Re:Well... by killmofasta · · Score: 1

      I wrote comments on sfgate's site. Its basically a follow up article to one which a 'secruity expert' got infected, and spent 12 hours restoring his computer. Excuuuus me?

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/26/MNE7UHOOQ.DTL&hw=infected+frames&sn=002&sc=519

      Its easy to modify Windows 2000/XP to not AutoRun. Mark Russinovich shows it in his blog. I got a frame that was infected, but found it out, wihtout getting infected. AutoRun was off, and it had some mightly suspicious software in there. I scanned it before it ran, and found a trojan horse, simliar to the one that came on Maxtor Hard disks. A nasty one none the less...

      But as a Security expert, I didnt get infected, and if I did. ( I got infected by a trojan about three years ago, it took me about 20 mins to restore my system. TWENTY MINUTES!

      I have the OS ( Windows XP ) on a seperate partition from all my applications and documents. I only back it up completely, after a run of 30 patches ( Dirty or "update teusday' ) give me about 5 or 6, so I only have to back up 2 or 3 times a year. When I did get infected, I restored the backup, applied the patches. 20 mins. Duh!

      What about missing DLLs? I can find those online, and have made a list, and put those with those patches I download from Microsoft. ( I never run patches from microsoft. I let others test that feature. ::)) I have all the patches on a CD, ready to install ( except 1 ), and can go from a fresh re-install to completely patched without ever going online ( The three is now down to 1, and its not an executable. )

    20. Re:Well... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, this is what happens when you config an autorun.inf and use the open command to start a program:

      http://dailycupoftech.com/usb-drive-autoruninf-tweaking/

      Right a big GUI prompt, not a stealth start.

      Straight from microsoft:

      Q: What must I do to trigger Autorun on my USB storage device?
      The Autorun capabilities are restricted to CD-ROM drives and fixed disk drives. If you need to make a USB storage device perform Autorun, the device must not be marked as a removable media device and the device must contain an Autorun.inf file and a startup application.

      The removable media device setting is a flag contained within the SCSI Inquiry Data response to the SCSI Inquiry command. Bit 7 of byte 1 (indexed from 0) is the Removable Media Bit (RMB). A RMB set to zero indicates that the device is not a removable media device. A RMB of one indicates that the device is a removable media device. Drivers obtain this information by using the StorageDeviceProperty request.

      -----

      In other words a typical removable device will not do autorun. The manufacterer must set it to NOT BE A REMOVABLE DEVICE/DRIVE for this to work. This is not typical.

      Again, more slashdot FUD.

    21. Re:Well... by jagdish · · Score: 1

      You are trying to criticize Windows. Cancel or Allow?

    22. Re:Well... by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      How exactly is this NOT true? The only people who buy these in the first place are generally computer idiots. You just explained exactly how it's not true.
      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    23. Re:Well... by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Please think and educate yourself before spreading meta-FUD.

      Read up on U3 and see also this posting above.
      Today's SoC's with USB controllers are so versatile that they can pretend to be almost any device that can possibly be connected to an USB port. Heck, there are even WiFi dongles that pretend to be hard drives with drivers on them until those drivers are installed.

      Never underestimate the power of the Microsoft Side.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    24. Re:Well... by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Heck, there are even WiFi dongles that pretend to be hard drives with drivers on them until those drivers are installed. Actually, they pretend to be CD-ROM drives, so they are kind of U3 devices, too. My bad.
      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    25. Re:Well... by lazarusdishwasher · · Score: 1

      - Run an OS that does not automatically try to mount devices, without user interaction.

      Most people dont like running Slackware Linux or BSD or BeOS.

      Ubuntu - automatically mounts USB memory devices.
      OSX - automatically mounts USB memory devices.
      Fedora, redhat, debian, etc....
      Slackware 12.0 will automount usb drives.
      http://l0k1.free.fr/aolsfaq.html#XX104
    26. Re:Well... by WNight · · Score: 1

      Rare, are they?

      And obviously, it'd be impossible to tinker with the firmware such that 'normal' USB drives self-reported as CDs...

      You're obviously the one tossing around FUD. Shame on you.

    27. Re:Well... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      These drives exist, yes, no one is denying that. Like I wrote above its not typical. Has the person who is making all these claims proven that the USB memory on these picture frames have this bit set? Yeah, I'm not holding my breath.

      >You're obviously the one tossing around FUD. Shame on you.

      Oh piss off, if youre unwilling to read my posts and think about what is being claimed then youre just another "me too" guy towing the slashdot line.

    28. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well.....I picked up a birthday present for my wife this last week (2/13). One of the Digital Decor 8" frames from Target. Plugged it into the USB, and was surprised when my Norton AV detected and deleted the autorun.inf.
      Name: Autorun.inf
      Detected as: Generic!atr
      Type: Trojan
      Status: Deleted

      This was definitely not on my system before I plugged in the Picture Frame.
      So, lesson 1) turn off autorun, 2) keep your AV up to date

    29. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The picture frame is a device like this:
      http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-picture-frame.htm

    30. Re:Well... by saskboy · · Score: 1

      This gets around quickly in a computer lab with USB autorun:

      [autorun]
      open=rundll.exe
      shell\open=??(&O)
      shell\open\Command=rundll.exe
      shell\open\Default=1
      shell\explore=?????(&X)
      shell\explore\Command=rundll.exe

      http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=WORM_VB.ERN&VSect=T

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    31. Re:Well... by WNight · · Score: 1

      Those flash drives are easily available, that autorun things. If an attacker wanted that feature, they'd buy that brand. As for picture frames, it seems easy to imagine the same process that puts the trojan on, at the factory, also flipping that bit.

      Windows autoruns things that want to be autorun. You are right that there's a small roadblock in there, but obviously not much of one.

      And most definitely you cannot tell by physically looking at the media, if it contains an autorun script.

      Honestly, think about it. You aren't saying Windows doesn't have a gaping security flaw. You're merely saying that the attacker would need to find the right brand/model of drive. You're trying to imply that Windows is safer because of this. Really it's less secure because people have a false sense of security - most USB drives won't autorun, only the ones picked to contain trojans will.

      You told people USB drives can't contain autorun scripts. You're wrong. You told people they're safe. They aren't.

      Perhaps if you hadn't opened your message with "Bullshit" and closed with "more Slashdot FUD", and of course, been wrong in between, you wouldn't look so silly right now.

      If you're unwilling to consider the actual security implications of trusting the foreign device to honestly self-report, you're just another "me too" guy towing the Microsoft line.

  4. Where is the question ... by moseman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where these virii are being placed on the devices is the big question. It must be someone who has access to the code or software installation process. Look at the manufacturer.

    Oh, and run a *nix-based desktop.

    --
    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling is worse than the slaughter of innocent people..."
    1. Re:Where is the question ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      -noun, plural -ruses. virii is not a word, and you are an idiot

  5. Nuclear bomb of malware? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How many people does the author think use those silly picture frames?

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    1. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by mrxak · · Score: 2, Funny

      I saw a huge stack of these things in Best Buy a few weeks ago near the registers. The people in front of me were talking about getting one, but then they pretty much decided they were worthless. I have to admit I largely agree, but then again I don't own any picture frames digital or otherwise.

    2. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by CR0WTR0B0T · · Score: 3, Informative

      There were 1.7 million sold in the United States in 2006. These are bought by people that just want to show some pictures they took with their digital camera without having to dedicate a computer to the job. Black Friday was loaded with ads for picture frames for around $70. Given the price point, it was an attractive Christmas gift to give to anyone who may not be computer savvy. PC Magazine is predicting that these digital frames will become smarter to give non-computer users more capability like Video streams and tablet PC functionality. The virus problem could become much larger as we get more and more devices that are preloaded with "easy to use" software.

      --
      "Nothing to see here. Move along."
    3. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by Guinness2702 · · Score: 1

      It's the sort of thing that my mum would use. My parents have had a digital camera for ages, but when it comes time to get them off the camera, guess who they call. As far as I know, they hardly ever look at or display their pictures 'cus it would involve huddling around a PC, which they barely know how to use (or want to). I always though that digital picture frames would be good for them and people like them.

      I could say more, but my parents have just got back from Antigua, and I have some photos to burn!

      --
      This space is intentionally left blank
    4. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Can't see it - digital picture frame: £130 ($260) (btw. that's cheap - the ones in stores are double that.. I saw one for over £500 just the other day).
      Normal picture frame: £5 ($10)

      Cost of devloping photo from a camera? About £2.50 a memory stick in lots of stores. You can do it at the same place you buy a cheap frame from.

      In addition the 'digital' frame uses power, can fail (especially if it gets dropped), is only viewable from certain angles, etc.

      There's a reason you rarely see them in stores except novelty shops and amazon. They're the classic example of a solution begging for an actual problem.

    5. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by SkyDude · · Score: 1

      There's a reason you rarely see them in stores except novelty shops and amazon. They're the classic example of a solution begging for an actual problem.

      Could be but I like to think they are purchased by gadget lovers who probably gave birth to current Slashdot readers........

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    6. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by M-RES · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is : you develop all your photos. You put them in an album perhaps. You most likely then put that album on a shelf where you promptly forget about it. You never look through those pictures again. Digital picture frame solution : display all your photos on a rotational basis so you see different pictures all the time - even those you'd forgotten about, bringing back memories of the event/place/people. It makes taking all those pictures in the first place have a point... for a lot of people. I don't have one myself as I use a screensaver on the machine hooked up to the TV to do the same thing, so I don't necessarily need one, but many people can see the benefit. And for those people (probably less tech-savvy than an original luddite) the autorun idea means it's one less thing to do (when they don't even know what all that 'install' and 'driver' nonsense really means/does anyway). You have to remember, most people FEAR their computer - it's alien to them, and they refuse to attempt anything until someone's shown them how to do it first. It's sad, but it's true.

    7. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, I can think of at least one shop near me that sells "Sumvision" (dirt-cheap Chinese distributor's brand) photo frames (5" or so) for around UK £50, and that's including 17.5% VAT (sales tax).

      Personally, I think the borders are oversized, the picture resolution is pretty poor, and I have other reasons for not liking them (not least because I think having a fugly glowing photo frame that needs constant powering and takes up a wall socket is more hassle than it's worth). But they're available, and they're cheap.

    8. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      I got one for my parents, and they like it (they've had digital cameras for ages). You're right in that they're very expensive which is why I chose it as a gift: they're a nice thing to have, but hard to justify spending your own money on.

      Almost your entire argument is that they're worthless because they're expensive. New tech is always expensive. When they become more affordable I think they'll grow in popularity a lot. The viewing angle is pretty good on the one I got, and LCDs are always improving.

      The main benefit is convenience. Take photos, put the memory card in the frame, and you're instantly viewing them. No need to go to a store to get them developed. Also they can show lots (as in, lots) of different photos so there's always something different to look at which is something a regular frame can't do, and also means you have a use for those "less than perfect" photos which you wouldn't want developed as actual prints.

      Now personally I wouldn't have any use for one, but I wouldn't have any use for a regular photo frame, either.

    9. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by Peet42 · · Score: 1

      Can't see it - digital picture frame: £130 ($260) (btw. that's cheap - the ones in stores are double that.. I saw one for over £500 just the other day).


      £62 from Saverstore: http://www.saverstore.com/productinfo/Product.aspx?product_id=20016610&rstrat=1

      Of course, all these backlit LCD devices are, at best, less than optimal. But when cheap colour e-Paper comes out, these'll be the forst "killer application". As long as the viruses haven't wiped out all technology first... :-/
    10. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by Atraxen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's a real-world example of why it might be 'useful'. Dental hygienists often work part time for a single dentist (full-time over multiple offices) and their patient room is used by someone else when they're not there. So, they usually take their pictures/diplomas off the wall when they leave for the last day of the week, and the other person puts theirs up. Also, consider that many of these patients have been going to the same dentist for >20 years - they know the employees, and want to see the new pictures. That frame allows a few hundred pictures to be in the same spot, and come down easily at the end of your mini-week.

      At least, my mom thinks so. In the end, that's the key thing to remember about specialized technology - there is/should always be a niche it fills, and it's most profitable when niche > 1. Nearly nothing is too esoteric to be useful to someone - ask me to show you some of the glassware in my chem lab!

      --
      Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words at any minute...
    11. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Dunno, but I do and think they are great. I started out by using my laptop screensaver to display my digital photos and kept staring at the pics going "Awwwww". Basically every digital pic goes on it. Frankly it keeps me in touch with the fun times so last year's vacation in Edinburgh doesn't already seem like a distant memory.

      Take one to work and place it where you can see it. It actually surprised me how much I love it.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    12. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by uncoveror · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know about the author, but the Chinese are convinced a lot of us use them. This is all part of China's war on us without firing a shot!.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    13. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by Guinness2702 · · Score: 1

      Can't see it - digital picture frame: £130 ($260) (btw. that's cheap - the ones in stores are double that.. I saw one for over £500 just the other day). You're shopping in the wrong places (£55) then, because they are definitely cheaper than that elsewhere. Even this lot (£40) can do better!

      Actually, on closer inspection, you didn't even search amazon properly (£42.50 +)

      It's true that you can get prints for a good price, but I disagree that they are entirely worthless.
      --
      This space is intentionally left blank
    14. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      Could be but I like to think they are purchased by gadget lovers who probably gave birth to current Slashdot readers........

      Hey, I resemble that remark. I actually bought a couple for Christmas gifts. They were quite well received - folks that have digital cameras (or have family that have digital cameras) that want something quick and easy to view pics with. They work admirably.

      The quality isn't all that good, the ones I got where 13" 1024 x 768 with a early generation TFT. With some fiddling with Photoshop I was able to get some nice results but that requires an understanding of the limitations of said device. Just sticking $random_picture in the machine gives only fair results. But that's what people want and expect - they aren't viewing National Geographic on these things.

      I still have one squirrled away. I'll have to pull it out and see if it does something silly.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by animusCollards · · Score: 1

      Lots of people have them. Their number tripled in my office after the holidays.

    16. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you're an orphan.

    17. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by das3cr · · Score: 1

      I see dig pic framed everywhere anymore. I go to my Doc's office, he has two displaying hat he did with the money I paid on my last visit. My sister is a Realtor, she keeps two at her office too. My mom & dad gave one to all 5 of us for Christmas and they keep one running 24/7 in the kitchen. Mine is still in the box ... shhhh don't tell mom. Great Grandma (two out of three) LOVE the thing.

      The OP mentions plugging in the frame with a USB cable. I wonder about the ones that run off an SD chip. Does the SD chip become infected after it's placed in the frame? What about the ones that run off the wireless?

      --
      Hurricane Island Outward Bound
      OB
    18. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      Where to start with that paranoid fantasy? Well, apart from the fact that the claims you make of China could apply to any nation on the planet, your assertions are so ridiculous I just seriously hope that is a bad copy of the Onion.

    19. Re:Nuclear bomb of malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So some poor old grandmother gets a Digital Picture Frame of her children and grandchildren that don't ever come to visit her in her old age.
      Now, the damn thing is infected by a Trojan Virus. What would you suppose would then appear on the display instead of her darling grandchildren?
      A picture of Clark Gable, whom she thought was the handsomest man alive back when she was a pretty young thing?
      Or perhaps goatse.cx? After all, this is Slashdot.

  6. Put the pieces together by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. The authors of the new Trojan Horse are well-funded professionals whose malware has "specific designs to capture something and not leave traces,"

    2. Computer Associates has traced the Trojan to a specific group in China

    3. It spreads by USB drives

    4. "It is a nasty worm that has a great deal of intelligence,"

    Follow the money. My money's on an espionage tool from the Chinese government or its affiliated corporations. Let the flaming begin...I said "China" and "espionage" in the same sentence, I'm sure folks out there would like to lynch me just for even suggesting that there is such a laughable concept as espionage, or bash me for so-called China-bashing (which includes any criticism of China except those for human rights, that's OK).

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Put the pieces together by sinai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since we're all for China bashing, have a look at the U.S. - China Economic and Security Review Commission's 2007 report to congress, which states, "Chinese espionage activities in the United States are so extensive that they comprise the single greatest risk to the security of American technologies". Add to that the MI5's recent warning that big EU firms were being targetted for web-based espionage, and the lynch mob might have to drop their pitchforks and go think this thing over. I might sound a little redundant because I've made mention of this before, but as an information assurance tech working in the field (Operation Iraqi Freedom to be exact), the whole bash-the-China-basher thing resonates. Make no mistake about it--China is using the web to actively target the US military-industrial complex, as well as key commercial and civil interests. There are numerous statements from the Pentagon which allude to this, although the often classified nature of threat-specific information demands ambiguity. Lots (and I mean lots) of recent activity might change that though.

    2. Re:Put the pieces together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Touchy much?

    3. Re:Put the pieces together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's RED China, you politically correct sensitive clod!

    4. Re:Put the pieces together by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      OK, fine and I don't disagree with you're general argument. But.

      If you're trying to covertly undermine the US military industrial complex AND your vector is low end commercial electronic junk then you aren't going to do much damage. GWB (or even a flunky in the Pentagon) is not likely to have one of these on the desk.

      And by doing this sort of low end annoyance, you've raised yet another flag that so security and supervision is heightened further. If you are responsible for securing a serious private or governmental computer network and these types of devices were below your radar screen, now they aren't. Even if this is a "proof of concept" type attack, it's pretty stupid.

      It's quite a bit more likely to be a bunch of low level bright-but-not-really-smart criminal types hoping to get a quick buck.

      If Chinese ICE exists, we're not hearing much about it yet. No more reading William Gibson before bedtime.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Put the pieces together by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Have you disassembled the firmware in your MP3 player lately? Your hard drives? The BIOS on your mainboard?
      For all I care that pimped-up multimedia keyboard you bought at El Cheapo the other day could have a keylogger built-in and ready, waiting to be triggered by you typing that innocent-looking CAPTCHA on the cuckoo-watching forum. Ready to phone home when the number of keystrokes has died down in the middle of the night.

      The fact that something seems unlikely doesn't mean it is impossible, and so it merits some serious discussion.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    6. Re:Put the pieces together by dpastern · · Score: 1

      And the US is innocent? I think NOT. I put money on it that every install of Microsoft Windows has a nasty backdoor for the US government...and I think that I'm more highly likely to be right than you are.

      Dave

      --
      Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
  7. Easy Solution by BlueStrat · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just make sure nobody cares about or likes you enough to ever send you something so sappy.

    And before anyone says it, yes, yes, I'm in no danger...right. :P

    Cheers!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  8. Be Safe: Roll Your Own DPF by wehe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Do you want to be on the safe side and have some fun, too? Just make your custom DPF and install Linux on it. Here are some DIY instructions to make a digital picture frame from an old laptop or notebook. And here is a survey of Linux used on selfmade digital photo frames

    1. Re:Be Safe: Roll Your Own DPF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah! Ain't nothin' like using 60-75 Watts to power a digital picture frame!

    2. Re:Be Safe: Roll Your Own DPF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great find! I'll be sure to pass along those instructions to my grandmother.

    3. Re:Be Safe: Roll Your Own DPF by plague*star · · Score: 0
      Yeah! Ain't nothin' like using 60-75 Watts to power a digital picture frame

      So it's a *heater* also!

      P*S

  9. ALERT: People at SANS, incoming CHAIRS! by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Deborah Hale at SANS suggested that PC users find friends with Macintosh or Linux machines and have them check for malware before plugging any device into a PC.

    Oh boy, you gotta love that bit. Amusing as the suggestion that Mac's and Linux "machines" are not PC's may be, do you realize just how damning of MS software this is? SANS, a security organisations basically says that if you don't trust a piece of hardware, then it is okay to plug it into a mac or linux machine, to test wether it is safe to plug it into a windows pc.

    Is this like those warnings on tv, kids do not try this, if you want to do this experiment, get an adult to help you. Kids do not use windows blindly, if you do wish to add a new device, get someone with a real OS to help you out.

    Oh well, to all the windows using women out there, remember, the standard rate for getting a guy to help you out is ONE blowjob. Please form an orderly cue.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:ALERT: People at SANS, incoming CHAIRS! by kunwon1 · · Score: 1

      Best comment of the week, if not longer. Be my friend.

      --
      Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
    2. Re:ALERT: People at SANS, incoming CHAIRS! by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 1

      On the other hand she is implying that people may have friends running Linux. Considering that the Linux using croud is still composed mostly of geeks, and that geeks being dorks and all don't really have friends, she could have limited the options to finding someone with a Mac.

      (Disclaimer: I'm a Linux user and I have no friends.... Will you be my friend?)

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    3. Re:ALERT: People at SANS, incoming CHAIRS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know Windows used women. I thought they loved and respected them.
      OH! You probably meant "windows-using women", not "windows using women"; just like you probably meant "queue", not "cue", since you were discussing standing in line, not theatre or moviemaking, or shooting pool. Must be those thoughts of finally getting sex by utilizing your vast computer knowledge that numbed your mind. Now you have two parts of your anatomy that are numb.

    4. Re:ALERT: People at SANS, incoming CHAIRS! by the_humeister · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh well, to all the windows using women out there, remember, the standard rate for getting a guy to help you out is ONE blowjob. Please form an orderly cue.

      Do those sores on your mouth mean anything? No? Carry on then...
    5. Re:ALERT: People at SANS, incoming CHAIRS! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      If they're open sores, then I'd do the malware test for free (as in beer).
      Ah, I never get tired of open source jokes.

    6. Re:ALERT: People at SANS, incoming CHAIRS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny you twits won't post my reply,but you post his perverted drivel

    7. Re:ALERT: People at SANS, incoming CHAIRS! by nthwaver · · Score: 1

      that the Linux using croud is still composed mostly of geeks, and that geeks being dorks and all don't really have friends

      I'm offended by the ignorant and insulting generalization that geeks = dorks.

    8. Re:ALERT: People at SANS, incoming CHAIRS! by mrogers · · Score: 1

      I'm offended by the ignorant and insulting generalization that geeks = dorks.

      Only a nerd would object to that.

    9. Re:ALERT: People at SANS, incoming CHAIRS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Seeing as how you can't seem choose the right word (hint: the word is "queue", not "cue"), and as one of the few women who even use this site, who is quite competant at fixing/using a computer, who has to use Windows every now and again, I'd like to extend a heart-felt FUCK YOU, preferrably using the very cue you mentioned.


      How the hell you made it up above -1,Troll with a comment at the end like that, really makes me wonder about the quality of the editors/moderators on this site. And to think, you men wonder why women don't generally care to get into IT, let alone use sites like this.

      Honestly, I'd have expected better. Save that shit for digg.

    10. Re:ALERT: People at SANS, incoming CHAIRS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please form an orderly cue. The word you're looking for is queue. Pucker up and drop to your knees, sir.
    11. Re:ALERT: People at SANS, incoming CHAIRS! by BillX · · Score: 1

      So wait, how is the Mac supposed to know and warn the user that one of the .jpegs on their USB device will trigger a Windows-specific buffer overflow expliot? FTFS, even Windows antivirus products don't yet pick this one up.

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  10. The chicken or the egg by Joebert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Updated antivirus software works unless the malware writers get ahead of the antivirus vendors,

    Malware writers are always ahead of antivirus writers. Antivirus was invented in response to malware & antivirus updates are dependant on new types of malware.
    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:The chicken or the egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antivirus [...] dependant on new types of malware.

      Conclusion will be drawn in 3... 2... 1...

    2. Re:The chicken or the egg by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      OH MY GOD. You mean NORTON isn't just PROTECTING me from the viruses, but they're CREATING them?

      I see a joint venture between Symantec and Network Solutions in the near future. In fact, I can feel the converged business synergies fast-tracking NorSol to the top already. I'm getting in on the ground floor of this dynamic enterprise partnership!

    3. Re:The chicken or the egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A merger between Norton & Symantec would be a great idea. Instead of having to tell people "Use anything but Norton or Symantec" you can simplify it to "Use anything but NorSol". Much better!

    4. Re:The chicken or the egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hm yes but this is probably one of the few scenarios where AVS developers should be ahead of virus writers. simply put, the virus writer can't update his creation in already sold picture frames, the code has a tiny reality in which to operate making it easier to find, the virii can be investigated without infection by attaching to an OS That Is Not Windows (tm), and last but not least because it requires that a USB device be attached to a Windows machine the AVS has the chance to hijack the attachment before it occurs and determine if the jpg/mp3/wmv/etc is exploited before loading it (also its a single vector of infection so it isn't as complicated to discern its intended arrival).

      i suspect this thing exploits gdi vulnerabilities, so if you have every single gdi dll on your machine patched, which no one does... you're boned. yes, MS released a patch for their own software, but not apps that they don't own. you have to specifically patch each of the gdi dlls yourself, and people have forgotten about this. there are ancient patching tools for doing this that some security experts created laying about the web which determine which gdi dlls are unpatched on the machine. why MS never got around to writing a mass patcher i do know. unless they did and i didn't notice it.

  11. Three R's again!!! by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Funny
    Well four now, since Vista was released,,

    If you're attacked and your PC fails, you'll have to reformat and reload all of the programs.
    and it triggers two of the 4 r's of Microsoft

    reboot the machine

    reload the applications *

    reformat/reinstall the OS *

    revert to the previous version

    but it must be fun cause we do it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Three R's again!!! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The usual:

      Retry (it might work the second try)
      Restart (the program)
      Reboot (the O/S)
      Reinstall (the program, and various versions)
      Reformat
      Reinstall (the O/S + application)
      Reinstall (another O/S + application)
      Retry (who knows...)
      Resign
      Resume (rhymes with cafe)
      Resume (rhymes with consume)

      Then there was: plug and pray and plug and pay and plug and pray and plug and play and plug and pray and plug and yay... finally it works :).

      --
    2. Re:Three R's again!!! by laejoh · · Score: 0

      Five actually:

      Reinvent the wheel...

    3. Re:Three R's again!!! by doombringerltx · · Score: 1

      and Linux is different? If I have a problem with my Linux machine I will follow the same path. A while back I had a xserver problem and rather than digging through conf files for a whole weekend to fix the problem I just copied my home folder and reformated/reinstalled the OS. There are lot of legit reasons to rag on MS, but thats just a computer problem in general

    4. Re:Three R's again!!! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      and Linux is different?
      Yes.

      If I have a problem with my Linux machine I will follow the same path.
      Well, thats because it will work if you do it that way - but you don't *need* to do it that way. About the only time I reboot a linux box is if I'm upgrading the kernel or a process is so I/O bound that it becomes unkillable, that's a rarity, and at home the boxes go down cause I'm going to sleep and I'm doing all I can to minimise my power consumption. As for re-install (I'm using fedora) most of the apps are upgraded as a newer version comes out through the software updater and re-install of the OS happens at a convenient time after a new core version has been released, and sometimes I skip a core.

      A while back I had a xserver problem and rather than digging through conf files for a whole weekend to fix the problem I just copied my home folder and reformated/reinstalled the OS.
      Owwwwwch. I share your anguish though, X can be painful when you're learning but it's not that bad. You could just do a Xorg -configure and I find making copies of my xorg.conf file helps when I need to make changes to X. I think however where you had problems is where most new Linux users have problems, stick with it young padawan, you will master it and complete your transition from the dark side ;-)

      There are lot of legit reasons to rag on MS, but thats just a computer problem in general
      Yeah but since I've owned every MS offering since DOS version 2.0 I get to rag on M$ for any reason I want to. And sure I've gone through the phases of I rag MS for this and that technical reasons, or ethical reason, or legal reason or financial reason but now I just see my time as too valuable to waste on MS, people want me to fix it - they pay extra - simple. If anything these sorts of viruses (I believe that is the correct plural for a computer virus) just prove how poorly the product is designed and resolving some of the architectural issues will mean that windows is basically a different product, so bring on more viruses. oh and Ha Ha.

      If I think Steve Balmer should really consider changing shirts mid-conference, thats a reason to rag MS, If someone points out that BILL GATES III adds up to 666 when you add the ascii codes, then dammit, thats a reason to rag MS. I see it much as 'why climb that mountain...' because it's there!!! Besides I can't pay for entertainment that good. I mean if someone told you twenty years ago that the computing landscape would be dominated by a operating system product so unreliable that drivers written for it would crash the *whole* operating system, and be prone to malicious software because of it faulty design and run by a CEO that throws chairs around you'd laugh,

      or cry.

      now get of my lawn!!!! ;-)

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  12. Words of Advice by terom · · Score: 2, Funny

    Deborah Hale at SANS suggested that PC users find friends with Macintosh or Linux machines and have them check for malware before plugging any device into a PC.
  13. You really just got to wonder what they were .... by 3seas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ....thinking.

    Don't virus writers have better thens to do?

    Unless they are vested in anti-virus software, whats teh point other than just causing countless people problems.

  14. Re:You really just got to wonder what they were .. by mlts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is a solid revenue stream. If malware succeeds in installing, there is profit to be made from identity theft, theft of CD keys from games, grabbing virtual assets like MMO accounts and selling them (or using the account for EULA-breaking items until the account is permanently banned), blackmail, extortion, botnet making, spam zombies, and many other nasty things

    Virus writing is highly profitable, each second a piece of malware goes unstopped on a machine is a second that the machine can continue to spew spam, spy on an internal network, or be a part of a DDoS attack.

  15. Professionals, you say? by coolhaus · · Score: 0

    Professionals, you say? I wonder what it costs to hire them. Let's ask the Chinese government, shall we?

  16. Goatse frames? by ivoras · · Score: 1

    I can't be the only one who thought of this: what if a virus took over the frames just to display the well known image on them, for amusement value? :)

    --
    -- Sig down
    1. Re:Goatse frames? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No question, there'd be a sudden sharp spike in sales of anti-nausea medication.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Goatse frames? by takeya · · Score: 1

      You were not alone.

  17. Network Virus Innoculation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since there are now so many network devices in the wild without an admin user interface, and without even an admin user (except maybe some $5 an hour warranty phone tech support dweeb), the wild needs an easy way to innoculate entire network domains against viruses. We should learn from nature how to keep viruses under control. In 5-10 years, practically every human will have 1-100 infectable devices, many of them in the critical path for their convenience, work, and even human health, so we've got to get this under wraps with that deployment explosion on the horizon.

    I should be able to subscribe to an antivirus site that distributes inoculation viruses, just like in nature. Install it on my home/office server, and it gets updates which attack my own hosts the same way as the enemy virus does in the wild. But its attack payload is removed, replaced with a payload that patches the infected host against the attack virus. The home server should also scan the network's devices for other signs that they're already infected, including emailing me with instructions how to inspect each device for UI signs that it's infected with the attack vir And periodic (daily/weekly/etc) reports of "health status". When it detects a host, like a networked picture frame, that seems to be already infected but can't be autopatched, it can recommend further manual steps if possible, including wiping the host's storage if that will work. Or just recommend unplugging and throwing away a doomed host, perhaps with a mail-in "thorough treatment" by the antivirus vendor experts, if there's a chance to recover data and the device. Or just throw away a hopeless device.

    There's a lot of talk lately about "good worms" which would cruise the Net just like "bad worms", but patch instead of infect. Since "patch vs infect" is in the eye of the human operator, that unsupervised release into the wild can easily go wrong. But this kind of managed release in each LAN, rather than just over the entire WAN (Internet), leaves the "doctor virus" compartmentalized - don't let it route between LAN segments. And more importantly, it leaves the vendor and the home user who started it each responsible, and accountable, for using it right. If it's made extremely simple to operate, with the most minimal user intervention required, this kind of product could really improve security without a lot of hassle. And make antivirus vendors a new ton of money.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      Sounds nice until a malware author manages to make their real virus look like an "anti-virus virus" and it walks right through the anti-virus defense.

    2. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      For one, malware authors can already do that, regardless of whether the antivirus makers do this.

      For another, that's the cat/mouse game they're already playing. So the antivirus I'm describing has to be able to protect from that attack, too. Again, regardless of whether the antivirus is deployed as I describe, or not.

      The only change I make is that the software the user is already installing now will also cruise their network patching their own hosts without an admin UI or admin user (probably eventually all hosts, for the mass market, since their users won't be qualified to do any admin at all other than installing the antivirus, if it doesn't come bundled with their home server). So there's no actual change to the security protocol, except now the security SW can also do what the attackers can do. And users are paying some attention to the results, then escalating if something shows up (or something good fails to show up).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Sounds resource intensive.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    4. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What is resource intensive?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      What is resource intensive? Having 'good' viruses propagating, looking to outsmart the 'bad' viruses, in addition to the anti-[virus||spyware||adware||rootkit||$otherMalware] running on the system. It would make more sense to me to scan files as they are [downloaded||copiedFromDisk], and a nightly system scan or five (when nobody is using the GUI).
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    6. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about devices which don't run any antivirus systems, like the digital picture frames we're discussing in this story. And even the ones that do already run antivirus, if they get compromised by this system, then they need its augmentation. It's not the only way, exclusive of scanning content, but it is more comprehensive whether it's complementing onboard antivirus or compensating for its absence.

      As for its resource intensity, that's required only from the separate LAN server that operates its updates and distribution. Compare that resource consumption with the effects on the LAN from viruses that manage to infect these devices. The external resources required are cheap, especially considering the benefit, and in fact are much cheaper than installing them on each host (especially small ones like digital picture frames), even if those hosts can accept them.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I already have this- It's called software update. I can check manually for fixes, or else the system checks weekly. It asks me if I want to install the updates, and usually I wait for a while, since I'm usually in the middle of something. Many software updates, especially the ones that are security updates, require a reboot. Some updates change the functionality of the OS in subtle ways.

      I would NOT be happy to have my computer restart in the middle of typing a thesis, or have my oven restart in the middle of baking a roast, etc. How about a 'security' update to your TV that now prevents it from displaying content without certain DRM? Your hot water heater reboots and then gives a "press any key to continue" error while you're at work, and your pipes freeze?

      I don't see automation taking over the role of all software updates. These tools exist to make MY life easier, and thus I ought to dictate how and when they are used.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    8. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Does your digital picture frame already have what I described?

      Also, why wouldn't the "good virus" payload operate gracefully, rather than just restart your device without warning?

      Automation like I described (external) doesn't take over the role of all software updates. But it does augment existing support, in a way that existing support doesn't offer.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about devices which don't run any antivirus systems, like the digital picture frames we're discussing in this story. And even the ones that do already run antivirus, if they get compromised by this system, then they need its augmentation. That is actually a good argument. In this case, I agree completely.
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    10. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      Think it through a little more carefully: you're proposing that trusted (well, supposed to be trusted anyway) AV software include penetration code. How will vendor A's heuristic scanner know that vendor B's "anti-virus worm/virus" is benign, yet still be effective at detecting a destructive new variant of an existing worm/virus?

      "Penetration + patch" looks identical to "penetration + destroy" at the high level. Both have malicious code in the penetration portion and both require access to disk/network to work. Also, there is zero economic incentive in vendor A giving vendor B's virus/worm a pass, especially since giving ANY virus/worm a pass opens a new hole for malware.

      The idea was thought of before back in the DOS days. It didn't catch on then for good reasons.

    11. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      So what happens when the simple antivirus SW detects the new "good virus" attack? It will just stop the attack, and report that the attack failed (unless it doesn't, because the new attack is successful, in which case it was necessary). No harm done, except some "false alarm" messages. But the other hosts that don't defend from the good virus attack will just get patched like I described.

      This doesn't seem to do any harm, but can do a lot of good. Especially when it sometimes succeeds in attacking hosts which have "reliable" antivirus SW.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I guess the big loophole that I missed earlier is the issue of trust. A 'white hat' worm or virus is basically autonomous, originating from no fixed host, and handed executive power over the system. You know how quickly every DRM scheme has been cracked. The encryption matters little, for reasons similar to the security problems of RFID chips. You need to have a central, trusted source of data. The difference is between asking update.apple.com for update info, and getting an email from 'update@apple.com' with an executable payload. I know which one I would trust more. If you add in checksums and private keys and all that stuff, you are basically looking at a centrally-administered update anyways.

      It's not a bad idea in a perfect world (where we wouldn't need it anyways...), but there is a reason it has not been adopted.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    13. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I didn't say this would virus would originate from no fixed host, or that it would use the infected machine to infect others on the LAN. I said it would be installed by a user, who should trust themself, and who of course trusts their antivirus vendor (they install it on their machines to execute locally with full control, including deleting/modifying arbitrary files etc).

      It is centrally administered.

      It's interesting how so many people replying in this thread have projected their own fears onto my proposition that it doesn't include by itself.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    14. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by huckamania · · Score: 1

      I like this idea in theory, however I'm not sure the tubes is the right place to use it. It could, in theory, work well in a private subnet where propagation is not increasing bandwidth and you can control the spread. Still, like tfa mentions, you'd have to have a lot of knowledge about what you are patching.

      I just don't see much coming down the line that is going to solve anything: Spam, Spoofing, Virii, Worms, etc. Some things give me hope, like the spread of Linux, but even then, how is it really going to help? The spammers and scammers aren't going to give up. They're going to hire Linux experts and port their code, cause some of the people are going to click ok, and install whatever it is they got. If you put some popup that warns them, most of the people who clicked ok are going to ignore the popup.

    15. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I didn't say "the tubes", I said over and again "the user's LAN".

      And I said that the user doesn't need any knowledge of anything. The "good virus" vendor knows what virus wrapper it's inoculating against, and what patches to put in the wrapper.

      And if these devices are patched against the original bad version of a virus, clicking an infected email with it isn't going to do any harm.

      And I pointed out that the devices these are primarily designed to fix, like digital picture frames, are not the kind where you click on them, so they need an external system for testing and patching them.

      And I didn't mention any popups.

      And I didn't mention spam at all.

      Really, I don't know what you're talking about. Do you?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    16. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by huckamania · · Score: 1

      I didn't say "the tubes", I said over and again "the user's LAN". And I said that the user doesn't need any knowledge of anything. I see that now. However, if it's safe for a LAN, why wouldn't it be safe for the tubes? Maybe because it isn't?

      The "good virus" vendor knows what virus wrapper it's inoculating against, and what patches to put in the wrapper. There's a huge leap from writing a signature for some AV software to catch a virus and writing a "good virus" that patches the bug that the virus is exploiting, if it even is a bug and not some deeper problem. Not to mention, different versions of the same software/hardware requiring a completely different patch.

      You can't just add 'Doesn't allow ...' and 'Will do ...' verbiage to your specs and say 'Problem solved'. That would just be too easy. "The 'good virus' will know what version of software X is in use and patch accordingly". Addint that clause doesn't make the problem go away, does it.

      And if these devices are patched against the original bad version of a virus, clicking an infected email with it isn't going to do any harm. Only if it is exploiting a bug, not if it is say, an executable that installs a backdoor and starts inviting over all of its friends.

      I changed my mind. Even in theory and even on private subnets, this idea is a bad idea. It would be easier and safer for the admin of the lan to push an updated AV signature file out then to release a 'good virus'.

      Really, I don't know what you're talking about. Do you? Yes, I do. I could name drop some past employers, but that would be telling.
    17. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The difference between the Internet and a LAN is that a LAN has a supervisor who can start this and get its messages, then intervene in the various ways I mentioned. And if something does go wrong, it's confined to the LAN. You might have also noticed that I never said this was a worm, but just a virus, but you're not getting the basic points I said. There's no point discussing this with you if you're going to discuss something else that I didn't describe.

      Don't bother telling me some past employers. Not only is that some fallacious appeal to authority, but it would make them look bad.

      Goodbye.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    18. Re:Network Virus Innoculation by huckamania · · Score: 1

      So instead of spreading a patch or a signature file, you're going to release a 'good virus'. Sounds like marketing talk to me. How does your virus spread? By floppy or picture frame? Most LANs are connected to the Internet. The ones that aren't won't buy into your virii in the sky scheme.

      Take your ball er bad idea a go home for all I care...

  18. Switch off autorun already, huh? by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's the first thing I do when installed fresh copy of windows. I do this with TweakUI XP - it's download at MS site. Very handy little tool to make initial tuning.

    --
    - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
    - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
    1. Re:Switch off autorun already, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do that. Unfortunately I think it is a single-user setting, so if I set up an account for someone else they get the same, stupid default autorun setting.

      Does anybody know if there is an easy way to force "no autorun" to apply for all users or to disable it permanently (i.e. in a way that a virus/worm couldn't easily re-enable by flipping a few registry settings)?

    2. Re:Switch off autorun already, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the first thing you do when you've installed a fresh copy of windows is you go online.
      Hope you're wearing a rubber!

  19. They could infect the driver by emj · · Score: 1

    You can try to prevent all the attack vectors, but it has nothing to do with "the OS" or "the user", but it's more todays design of security. You can't guard yourself against malware in anyway, the only way to make it harder is not using a computer like normal people do, not allowing the normal vectors to be exploitable.

    But if everyone used the computer this way, the attackers would just adapt.

    The problem is homogenity, there is no one solution.

  20. Strange virus by edwardpickman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why did I get this image of the picture frame displaying Condom ads?

  21. In short by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

    Don't think like a robot.

    Someone mod this guy Mega-insightful.

  22. From China you say? by M-RES · · Score: 1

    Oh the HORROR (MOVIE)!!! ;) They should be banned...

    1. Re:From China you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really sorry, but you fail it ;)

  23. Re:You really just got to wonder what they were .. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    Fun?

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  24. Fire the metaphor writer by brusk · · Score: 4, Funny

    'specific designs to capture something and not leave traces ... This would be a nuclear bomb of malware.'

    Say what? Whenever I want to sneak in somewhere and get away all quiet-and-subtle-like, my first thoughts are of atomic weaponry. Want to steal sensitive documents? Just detonate a small thermonuclear device and no one will even realize you were there, and you'll leave no traces (unless you count a loud bang, bright light, mushroom cloud, charred corpses, fallout and a spike in cancer rates and radiation levels).

    Ninjas. Men in Black-style mindwiping. Cat burglar. Evil hypnotist. Lots of available analogies. Nuclear bomb ain't one of them.

    --
    .sig withheld by request
  25. No traces, huh? by WK2 · · Score: 1

    specific designs to capture something and not leave traces ...

    Clearly, this isn't true. It's on slashdot. Everything leaves traces.

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
  26. not leave traces? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Nuclear bomb? Last i heard they left a trace.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  27. Is this virus VIsta capable? by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Protecting against these new computer viruses, which so far are aimed at PCs running Windows, is hard - and sometimes impossible.

    Windows XP or Vista? Are the infection rates similar for the two operating systems? I just hate it when a virus or trojan is treated like a uniform infectious agent. There can be big differences in the infection rates even among Windows machines, depending on configuration.

    Autorun is from the devil. Right up there with ActiveX in my book. I think it does point up how difficult it is to secure Windows in a connected environment. I have a token Windows box on the network but don't surf with it. And I don't connect outside devices to it...especially not now. Seems like the added storage and capability of connected devices gives the virus writers a sweetheart platform to launch an attack.

    I wonder how many of those picture frames managed to make their way on to corporate networks? Some exec that wants his kids pictures on his desk. I've got a customer with one of them in his office, an older one. Probably not a problem but that's today. The future is rife with potential for this to turn into a really bad problem.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  28. oblig. by Xogede · · Score: 1, Insightful

    - Run an OS that does not automatically try to mount devices, without user interaction.
    - Run an OS that does not execute programs on devices once mounted, without user interaction but preferably not at all. (Autorun, I'm looking at you) Windows Server 2003?
  29. Worst analogy ever? by dotancohen · · Score: 0

    ...specific designs to capture something and not leave traces ... This would be a nuclear bomb of malware... Since when do nuclear bombs not leave traces? This might be the Ely Cohen of malware, but it's certainly not a nuclear bomb.
    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  30. i don't trust china at all by m2bord · · Score: 1

    this reinforces why i don't believe we should be doing business with china. there is so much corruption in the government and workplace

    --
    Is it 5:30 yet?
  31. Best protection against a virus/trojan/worm by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    I've found the best protection is software that tells you when other software is trying to dial home or send out anything.... on my Mac I use Little Snitch, on PCs I believe the best is Zone Alarm.

    It doesn't rely on virus definitions or anything else. It only requires that you take a minute to think about whether the software which wants to connect is doing so at your request or has gone renegade. Now of course once you find that you've got something trying to get out you need to clean it, which is where an anti-virus app comes into play. You run it and if it does the job you're good to go.. if not, at least you know there is something wrong and can:

    a) use a Deep Freeze type strategy to rollback to a known good version of your system
    b) hunt it down or let a pro hunt it down for you or
    c) reinstall or reimage

    This also avoids the worst aspect of AV software.... the fact that it bogs your system down making it much less useful in general.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  32. It is not "professional", but gov. by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thing is that China is doing to the world, what America did to USSR (and still doing to the world); putting hidden viruses and back doors in our products. Who should be blamed for it? American companies who are building their products in China. After all, you can blame the individual who is working to help their father or mother land.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:It is not "professional", but gov. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      Well,if "China" thinks they're going to make great strides reducing the strategic preparedness of the United States by getting game passwords and what not from low-end consumer grade electronic junk, more power to 'em.

      Keep up the good work, gentleman. Let me know when you get somewhere.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:It is not "professional", but gov. by Cosmic+AC · · Score: 1

      The thing is that China is doing to the world, what America did to USSR (and still doing to the world); putting hidden viruses and back doors in our products. [citation needed]
    3. Re:It is not "professional", but gov. by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Of course they're not going to target nuclear missile silos on their first attempt. I bet they are just gauging the response time to an innocent pinprick. If (and when) they think the time is right, Kuang Grade Mark 11 will be ready.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
  33. NoDriveTypeAutorun by WD · · Score: 2, Informative

    You'll want to set the NoDriveTypeAutorun registry value in HKLM to 0xFF. This will disable Autorun/Autoplay for all device types. What's interesting, though, is that according to that article, the default configuration for Windows is to disable Autorun for removable disks that aren't "CD" devices. What's not clear is whether this digital picture frame actually does automatically run, or whether it requires the user to double-click on the device icon in Windows explorer. (The latter of which will run software on the frame, regardless of AutoRun settings).

    However, if your goal is to make a change that is malware-resistant, forget it! If you've already got malicious code on your system, it's game over. It can make any software changes that it likes.

  34. Best picture frame is a Nokia N770 or N800 by Sleepy · · Score: 1

    I got a picture frame as a gift, but honestly... how many of us would BUY one?
    These picture frames typically have built in memory or require USB synching... what about 802.11 or bluetooth instead? Batteries?

    Which brings me to my point.... the Nokia N800 is $200 and runs to 400 MHz, and can do all this and more. The Nokia N770 closed out at $125 (if you can still find one) and has the same relevant features.

  35. Computer, heal thyself. by grumling · · Score: 1

    Doesn't nature dynamically develop cures? Sure, we have learned to manipulate our immune system through deactivated viruses and bacteria, but our bodies produce the antibodies in most cases. As and example, many people get a minor cold via the standard flu shot. They do this because their body is developing an antibody.

    For your idea to work, we would need an OS capable of detecting and eliminating the bad stuff, something that biological systems still have a hard time with. For example, a body's solution to common cold control involves physical evacuation (messy, uses lots of resources), heat generation (useless against most invaders), and finally, creation of a new T-cell(?) to fight the invader. Now, if you're willing to have greatly reduced functionality of you shiny new PC for a few months while it develops anti-bodies, and devote a large amount of storage to all the anti-bodies, it would be a great way to keep PCs safe.

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    1. Re:Computer, heal thyself. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Nature dynamically develops reactions to infection. The reactions that are "healing" are stabilized in a species by natural selection of those individuals that more often survive to reproduce, for which healing can be an advantage. But natural selection requires the ones that aren't as fit to survive to die off. That seems like a waste of computers, even if we accept it in nature.

      For my idea to work, the treated devices don't need anything they don't have now. The point is that the healing viruses attack exactly like the viruses they patch against, so any old device that's vulnerable will get attacked and infected just like if the harmful virus were attacking, but the payload is a patch against exactly those attacks, not harm. It's a more sophisticated "inoculation" than immune systems in nature (as far as we've discovered so far), to compensate for the less sophisticated "immune" systems in our synthetic devices. In nature we just have to introduce a weakened virus, which existing immune systems can recognize without being overwhelmed, and then the natural immune system takes over by "patching itself" (creating a larger/quicker reserve of counteragents that won't be overwhelmed by a nonweakened virus if it arrives). Our synthetic devices often have no such immune system, nor the resources to host one (like digital picture frames, and even smaller devices that will be increasingly popular in increasingly essential systems, like eg. networked lightswitches). So we have to deliver not just a weakened virus, with its harmful payload removed, but a weakened virus that can still infect (just as the harmful virus would without this intervention), but which also carries the patch and patching SW that the device itself does not carry.

      This approach lets a network include lots of devices that can't defend themselves against the general case of an arbitrary virus. Either because they don't have the resources, or because they just don't have the immune system installed for any other reason. It avoids needing a standard "antivirus API" for all devices, which would have constrained their design, and which requires trusting the device maker to do it right - and which standard API would itself become a target for harmful viruses. Instead it just acts like something the harmful viruses can't exploit any more than they already do: their own operation.

      This approach learns from nature, but adapts it to the different ecosystem that our (synthetically and guided) evolving devices actually live in.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  36. Believe it or not; Goatse as seen from inside by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    This picture is safe for work. You just have to have a dirty mind to appreciate it.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  37. Dare I defend Vista? by eXonyte · · Score: 1

    Yes, I think I will for a moment.

    When you insert a disc/plug in a device that includes an autorun app, Vista will ask you with a dialog if you would prefer to run the autorun, browse the device's files, or do nothing.

    Granted, this won't protect from a true virus (as opposed to today's typical spyware/trojan apps) nor a user's own "clik da buttun" ignorance, but it's still much better than blindly running anything you throw at it.

  38. McAfee Virus Profile by dabert · · Score: 1
  39. Stop Trading With China by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Is there truthfully anything that comes from China that makes trade with them worth it.
    So what if Wal~Mart goes belly up. Small business will thrive again.
    The environment(at least wherever people quit trading with them) will be safer from discarded plastic goods with a life expectancy of hours.
    If the world quits trading with China,yes,there will be a collapse.It will also be a chance for the Chinese to overthrow their government oppressive to the world in general and become functional world citizens with a chance at a REAL future.
    Quit buying Chinese! Quit selling to the Chinese.Quit trading with those who hold out.
    I don't starving them out as trade with the rest of the world would depend on their own choice.They can starve themselves but I don't believe they would.
    Hear that ,pathetic U.N.! A real solution to a real problem.

    As far as virus and trojan writers and phishers in the real world go... Send 'em to a cold,technology free place forever.
    script kiddies can be sent with the parents that didn't control their behaviour.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  40. U3 flash drives can be useful (sometimes) by Christophotron · · Score: 1
    I agree that running code automatically from a USB drive is stupid but these things do have their uses in a twisted Microsoftie world.

    At my college library, the computers are locked down in such a way that you cannot open an explorer window or command console and you do not have administrative rights. (That's a good thing). However, there are many programs lacking from their installations such that it limits the computers' usefulness. If you want to run a program off your flash drive because that software hasn't been installed on the computer, you can't even open explorer to find it.

    When I plug in my U3 drive, the U3 menu autoruns and allows me to execute all of the applications I have installed on it. This includes PuTTY, Firefox, Pidgin, GIMP, VLC, QEMU, VNC, etc. etc. Sure, it's a security risk to these computers, but it's incredibly nice for me to be able to do it. And it's not like I am breaking the rules: they even issue these things to their student employees.

    What do you slashdotters think about this? What would be a better solution? (besides asking teh library to install all of these applications on their computers)

    1. Re:U3 flash drives can be useful (sometimes) by mikiN · · Score: 1

      For a lockdown policy, disabling explorer and command prompt and then allowing autorun is about as stupid as locking down your house with the greatest and latest in security tech, then leaving the master key on the doorstep outside.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
  41. Re:Of course I'm safe! by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

    Flamebait? Okay, tell me how I can inject trojan or viruses into my Mac only by attaching devices to it? There's no Goatse-like opening "as soon as something is inserted, check for an autorun script and run it".

    Buy Intel, install OSX. Flamebait, really.

    --
    Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
  42. Re:Of course I'm safe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just because something is true doesn't mean you're not picking a fight. For instance, if someone were to call you a jackass it would be true, but would also likely lead to flames.

  43. Too smart to be fooled? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2, Informative

    And if you think you're too smart to be fooled, apparently the Anti-Virus software makers have not caught up to the threat quite yet.
    That doesn't bother me in the least, as I haven't run any antivirus software for going on 5 years, now. That includes on my Windows machines (and yes, I run as administrator). I've never been infected with anything, either.

    There's a few simple rules that you can follow to do this yourself:

    1. Hardware router. I personally use pfSense, due to the necessary complexity of my home network, considering that I run my computer service business out of my home. Any consumer router will work, though, as long as it's got UPnP turned off, and the password's been changed.
    2. Never, ever, ever plug an untrusted computer into your trusted network. See my point number 1. Customer machines are plugged into a completely separate subnet that is firewalled off from my trusted network.
    3. Turn off everything like autorun, automatically find network shares, etc.
    4. Secure your wireless. Mine's open, but it's even firewalled from my untrusted network. Use WPA-PSK, with a password that looks like this: awdfvA@#F54q2a3A#% Don't even think about using WEP. I've broken it in less than 30 minutes, and the longest it's ever taken me is 45. If you're wireless devices won't support WPA, replace them, or upgrade the wireless. A Startech PCMCIA card that supports WPA is only about $55 retail, so there's really no excuse.
    5. Don't be a moron, and click on anything someone sends you. Even if you think they're really computer savvy. Even if you know they have functional antivirus software.
    6. Anything that's of even remotely questionable trustworthiness, scan with an online scanner. But don't do it right away. Wait a week or two, then scan it, then run it. This is what I do with things like program cracks that people seem to get hosed with all the time. Download it from P2P, then let it sit for a week or so. Then scan it. If it's fine then, you're probably OK.

    Some people tell me I'm paranoid, and they're probably right. But there are two people in the world that I know of that have never had a virus. Myself, and Bill Gates. And I'm sure Bill Gates probably runs antivirus software to prevent it.
    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    1. Re:Too smart to be fooled? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Funny

      7.Never run any antivirus software so there is nothing to report an infection.

    2. Re:Too smart to be fooled? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Antivirus software isn't magic. It doesn't just figure out by itself whether any software is malicious or not. It's got a blacklist of anything that shouldn't run. Yes, there's heuristics as well, but according to recent reports, heuristics is 20% effective or less.

      Now, how do you think that blacklist is generated? By people. So, if antivirus software doesn't report an infection for a new virus, because it's not in the blacklist, how do you think it ends up in the blacklist? People discover it and put it there.
      People. Like me.
      Somebody highly skilled notices something running on their computer that shouldn't be, and analyzes what it does.

      Well, if you run antivirus for years and it never catches anything because you always catch it yourself first (email viruses, and the like), and your security practices are such that network worms and other similar threats don't have a hope of getting through, then what's the point? All it does is slow down my computer, and never catches anything, anyway.

      Trust me. I'm not infected.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  44. Re:Of course I'm safe! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    And I'm assuming they are using a variation of the old "autorun" trick to infect the pc when it is plugged in.For those that have XP or Vista and wish to remove the risk of this trick,here is how.The nice thing about this is you can save it as a .reg file which you can send to clueless relatives and friends.Simply turning off autorun in the GUI doesn't work as bugs like this will turn it back on when connected.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  45. Are you really that f&^king lazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will lead you to this one on the first go.

    As to today, then look at the 3rd one down. Also, look up CIA, USSR, and oil pipeline. Taking this a step further, then go visit at the CIA muesum.

    1. Re:Are you really that f&^king lazy? by Cosmic+AC · · Score: 1
      Okay, first two links: A specific xerox photocopier in the Soviet embassy in Washington was bugged. Hardly an example of "putting hidden viruses and back doors in our products" sold to ordinary consumers, which is what the article is talking about.

      Third link: What? Printer dots? You mean the codes used to trace printers, for fighting counterfeiting?

      Also, look up CIA, USSR, and oil pipeline Again, not analogous to the picture frame story at all. The pipeline software was stolen by Soviet spies, and was not a consumer product.
  46. Re:Of course I'm safe! by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

    What do you mean? Of couse AutoPlay and autorun are separate features! One is an annoying screen that tells me "I've noticed that you inserted a CD with no autorun, let me nag you about what to do" (maybe let me use it as I would?) and the other is a Goatse-like security black hole that would not be worse if it had been inserted just to execute arbitrary code without notice.

    --
    Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
  47. Does Vista still use Autorun? by cavebison · · Score: 1

    IANAVU so I'm wondering if, after all this hoo-ha about Vista being more secure, does it _still_ have Autorun enabled on drives by default? It's one thing to add a security feature of debatable effect (UAC) but quite another to leave a gaping hole that everyone's been complaining about for years.

  48. Insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..."to all the windows using women out there, remember, the standard rate for getting a guy to help you out is ONE blowjob"

    WTF!!

    Idiots! Grow up.

  49. put the frames engine in a rom chip by buck19 · · Score: 1

    The picture frame's mistake is that it is just a usb drive with most of the frame raster code/rules on the drive itself. So all a virus program would have to do is right over those programs. Maybe if the main engine to show raster files could also control write access to the usb drive thus allowing only say Jpg and other picture file types-- and this engine could be locked away in a non-writable ROM chip. That would make the frames even less of a virus threat than a normal usb drive, possibly.

  50. We can be more secure by buck19 · · Score: 1

    I don't thing it would be as great a threat that China is spying if we simply have a government that knows how to put together computer networks. Years ago my firewall detected attempts by Commerce dept to enter my computer. I did research and determined that their Solarus servers were contaminated and trying to spread their contamination to other computers. I called around and got nothing but people on the phone... heads of computer operations... counter terrorism and other things none of whom knew a thing about the underlying technology in question. All they had to do was rebuild the contaminated servers in question and harden them for the threat. I mean it is literally insanely ridiculous how much the US government spends on computer systems per department and then we hear a story about some halfwit in England that breaks into a "major US military security system posing a grave threat to some of our most vital military systems" when virtually non of them should be web exposed and those that are should have competent Linux/Unix people running them. Trust me not one of the people I talked to running these systems was even remotely competent. Most of these vital systems on the web exposed end are put together so poorly it might as well be an open door with a neon sign saying "All Welcome". It's so bad one could literally accidentally invade a sensitive US government computer system. They really need to stop prosecuting teenager hackers who expose these horrible breeches in security. The major crime really is in the people that are administrating the agencies computer networks and security policies therein. That and we have a system of bribes to get government contracts etc--oh and Politicians well loads of problems we have ... My point is we could be much more secure.

  51. Follow the bullshit too by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    A "nuclear bomb" virus that does not leave traces.

    What flavor of crap is that? Most nuclear bombs leave plenty of traces.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  52. Disappointing story :( by Downside · · Score: 1

    I thought the headline meant that a digital picture frame sitting on grandmas mantle or in a shop window would be infected with malware that causes it to suddenly and unexpectedly show pornography or something.

  53. no no No NO! by spun · · Score: 1

    There's no Goatse-like opening "as soon as something is inserted, You Mac people and your weird obsessions with inserting things into goatse like openings. Is every Mac user some kind of closeted homosexual?
    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  54. Re:For more information by ITSecurityGuy · · Score: 1

    The "interesting article" link is not detected by LinkScanner as being malicious, but Finjan SecureBrowsing has analyzed the above web address as it currently exists on the web. The analysis indicates that: Potential virus behavior was detected on this page Detected virus name is Exploit.HTML.DialogArg McAfee SiteAdvisor reports: Browser exploit: Breached browser security When we browsed this site, it made unauthorized changes to our test PC. and the following user reports: User Review Summary for nimp.org This site is good (0) This site spams (0) Adware, spyware, or viruses (2) Excessive popups (3) Phishing or other scams (0) Bad shopping experience (0) Browser exploit (26) (NSFW) Example: avoid this site at all costs. when you first go on it, it shows a disgusting photo like pillowfight.jpg, and your computer won't respond to anything at all! not even the 3-finger salute! anyway, then it'll show at least 100 popups then it'll play in a quicktime audio thingee "HEY EVERYBODY I'M LOOKING AT GAY PORNO!!!" in rounds (kinda like when you sing in rounds, if you know what i mean).