Slashdot Mirror


Malware Found Hidden In Screensaver On Gnome-Look

AndGodSed writes "OMG! UBUNTU! Reports the following: 'Malware has been found hidden inside an innocuous 'waterfall' screensaver .deb file made available on popular artwork sharing site Gnome-Look.org. The .deb file installs a script with elevated privileges designed to perform a DDoS attack as well as keep itself updated via downloads. The dodgy screensaver in question has since been removed from gnome-look, and this incident was a very basic, if potentially successful, attempt.'" A similar report at Digitizor.com says that similar malware was also found in a theme called Ninja Black. For those affected, both sites also provide instruction on cleansing your system.

56 of 611 comments (clear)

  1. Not more safe by sopssa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's been told to all the linux zealots so many times that Linux itself isn't really more secure against malware than Windows. It's only so because it's marketshare is like 0.5%, if even that, and it makes much more sense to make malware where the (non-geeky) users are.

    This just shows that if ever linux did gain marketshare with casual people enough, the malware problem will be there too. Repositories won't help with that, because people want 3rd party programs and games.

    The funny thing about this is the same that as with Mac OS X users. All of the zealots yelling that Linux/Mac OSX are secure about malware, which results in normal people thinking they can run whatever downloaded "because my OS is secure!".

    And before everyone jumps on the "but you can't get infected by just browsing on porn sites on linux!", why not? What was the last time you got infected by Windows vulnerability? Those attacks are usually against 3rd party programs like PDF or Flash. And guess what, those apps are on Linux too and are just as well exploitable.

    The only reason malware problems are smaller on Linux than Windows is because of the almost-non-existing desktop marketshare and that those who use it on desktop are usually more tech savvy.

    This just shows that if Linux had 95% marketshare on desktop, and Windows 0.5%, it would be the same thing but just turned around.

    1. Re:Not more safe by nschubach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea behind it is so that someone will put out a patch for said vulnerability without having to wait for parent company to do so...

      It's not more secure because of it's market share, it's more secure because anyone can fix it.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:Not more safe by phantomcircuit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This just shows that if ever linux did gain marketshare with casual people enough, the malware problem will be there too. Repositories won't help with that, because people want 3rd party programs and games.

      Well that's why the goal is to get as much of the third party software into the repository as possible.

    3. Re:Not more safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All it shows is that Linux is vulnerable to trojan horses. ALL operating systems are vulnerable to trojan horses. When you show me a Linux or OS X computer that's vulnerable to something like the slammer worm, get back to me.

    4. Re:Not more safe by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that still requires distros to inspect and validate the patches before they go live to repositories. The big part isn't really fixing the code, it's to test that it surely works and doesn't cause problems for users.

      And even so, if the vulnerability is in lets say flash, just anyone or distros can't fix that closed source application.

    5. Re:Not more safe by _merlin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It looks like it's following the same pattern as Windows malware, too: make a cool screensaver, post it to sharing sites, hope people tell their friends about it. That was a common malware vector for Windows in the early part of this decade. Next there'll be dodgy "codecs" on pr0n sites, and once people start using malware scanners for Linux, they'll make dodgy fake antivirus software to con gullible users. Netbooks may be great for attracting attention to Linux, but we have to remember that this will include the kind of attention that no-one wants.

    6. Re:Not more safe by sbeckstead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wrong, anyone can not fix it. Any one MAY fix it.

      Only the tech savvy programmer types that care enough to fix can fix it.

    7. Re:Not more safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You kind of have a point, but the fact is, you need root privileges to install a .deb, and I have quite successfully installed gtk/gtk2 themes/icons/etc without admin privileges. If I downloaded a .deb from a random site and then installed it, it would be just like running a .exe on windows, but for most things I need to do on linux, I don't actually have to take that risk, while on Windows it seems everything is a .exe. Not sure about screensavers, but it seems this was, like 90% of viruses for any platform, a hack relying on stupid users elevating the virus to root authority themselves.

      Repositories are getting a lot better too, I don't use ubuntu any more but when I left the PPA was in ascendancy, which seemed to allow a much better enforcement of security while still letting 3rd party stuff in.

    8. Re:Not more safe by _merlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Malware doesn't need to exploit vulnerabilities in the software: it only needs vulnerable users. There is no way to patch that.

    9. Re:Not more safe by amasiancrasian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've been telling many the same thing, but with one exception; Mac and *nix have started out with a better permissions system and therefore users who have downloaded an app from the Internet have been trained to be doubly sure about whatever it is that requires sudo power (e.g, the Mac sudo GUI prompt). Microsoft UAC, on the other hand, has had to deal with transitioning software developers to not write in "Program Files" and other public areas and to save data to personal home folders.

      While I'll agree with you that Mac/*nix are not any more secure than Windows, the Mac/*nix users have been taught to take a sudo prompt seriously, while in the early stages and growing pains of UAC, Windows users were easily annoyed by UAC prompts and therefore took the UAC prompts less seriously, because UAC prompted were being triggered by transitioning software developers that did not save data in the user's home folder.

      In the end, the security of any system relies on the ability for the user to authenticate and verify software downloaded. But making it more difficult, such as requiring an administrator password to be entered for elevated privileges, makes users more cautious of software requiring a sudo prompt. And while that's not inherently any more secure, at least users think twice before entering their password.

    10. Re:Not more safe by nschubach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Flash player isn't open source. The Compiler is, the player is not. As I said, the idea behind open source being more secure is that you could have potentially thousands of different solutions to prevent this thing in the future. The best one is chosen and patched into the main tree. If you have the source, you can do this in a few minutes (or put in your own temporary patch) with the proper skill and be back up and more secure than someone waiting for "Patch Tuesday." Even if a patch comes in that resolves that problem, it could have been the first solution to said problem and might have problems itself that will need to be fixed later.

      It's really the potential quantity of solutions to the problem.

      I could argue with you that this vulnerability might have been fixed sooner with more market share.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    11. Re:Not more safe by kai_hiwatari · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This particular malware is not because of a security problem with the OS. It is more of a social engineering thing - trying to trick unsuspecting users to install a malicious script by hiding it as a theme or screensaver.

    12. Re:Not more safe by sopssa · · Score: 4, Informative

      But this is not really about vulnerabilities. This is a screensaver that user downloads from a website. Open source or not, you can't fix that unless the whole system is totally locked down like iPhone. And that doesn't really sound good.

    13. Re:Not more safe by sopssa · · Score: 4, Informative

      But so what if it only gets access to one user? Malware doesn't really need root access. Stealing user data and sending spam is just as possible from user base. In history malware tried to just fuck over the computer which would had required root access, but now its just about sending spam or stealing data.

    14. Re:Not more safe by NoobixCube · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up. I know he's AC, but the point he makes is still good: There is no amount of security that can protect your machine from a clueless user.

      When you install a theme the normal way, you just drag the archive file - that is to say, no executeable parts, or any way to make the parts executeable - into the theme manager, and presto, it's installed and it asks if you want to apply it. This doesn't require root privilages because it installs to the user's personal themes folder within their home folder. When they do this, there's no way to sneak in a cron job (that's a scheduled task) or any other nasty automatically executing files. Installing from a .deb is usually unneccessary, and as this story proves, exposes your install to risk if you don't pay attention to what you're installing. In my opinion, Ubuntu, being the most newbie-visible Linux distro at the moment, has a responsibility to educate users on things like this. A PDF in their home folder, or a slide show that takes like ten minutes to go through, telling new users how Linux is different to Windows would work wonders, and take up virtually no space on the install disc. There's no excuse for there not being one.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    15. Re:Not more safe by at_slashdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have a poor understanding of what "malware" is or what Linux/Mac zealots claim.

      Malware is piece of code, all OSes run code, therefore all OSes are vulnerable to malware. What Mac and Linux "zealots" claim is that it's not likely to get malware in Linux/Mac just by browsing a site, opening an e-mail, or just by keeping the computer on and connected to the network -- that hasn't changed.

      "Repositories won't help with that, because people want 3rd party programs and games."

      I am happy with 25,000+ programs available in Debian repository, I never install random package from the Internet. At least the basic packages should be available from the repos so the risk is at least reduced if not eliminated (depending on the behavior of the user)

      In my experience people who use the word "zealot" lack arguments.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    16. Re:Not more safe by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except one would hope that you could trust what you get from a site like this. Not everyone can scour the source/binary of every app they get from a 'trusted' site.

      And if you cant trust the 'trusted' sites for the free stuff, then the entire FreeOS movement is dead in its tracks.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    17. Re:Not more safe by nschubach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are arguing about ignorance of users, not the security of the OS...

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    18. Re:Not more safe by soundguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong. They may have multiple user ACCOUNTS but most of them are only going to have one actual meat sack (i.e. USER) at the keyboard.

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    19. Re:Not more safe by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, this line of argument is stupid.

      You're basically arguing that you can't be more secure than Windows -- Windows' security is as good as things will ever get, and everything else only gets less viruses because it has less marketshare.

      But if so, why all the security advancements in the latests Windows versions? Why isn't it still using Win95 era security? Why did MS bother coding support for NX, UAC and so on? Well, because turns out, it's possible to do better. Current Windows versions are vastly more locked down than Win95, because some design choices turned out to be stupid and vulnerable.

      Linux doesn't follow some common Windows security pitfalls, like having ActiveX and having the browser execute binaries from the net. It also doesn't have autorun. Just that closes several ways of compromising the system, therefore at least in that respect it's more secure. Of course it's not 100% impenetrable, but evidently there exist features and implementation details which make it easier or harder to compromise the system, so not all OSes are equally [in]secure, it depends on how they're implemented.

    20. Re:Not more safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This particular malware is not because of a security problem with the OS.

      Except that if this was a Windows screensaver you can bet it would be blamed on the OS and not on the fact that it was a social engineering attack.

    21. Re:Not more safe by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's an idea. Feel free to agree, disagree, tear it apart, whatever...

      Why not have a kernel network access logging module with a userland process that periodically reports to users which programs are accessing the TCP/IP network? Say once a week or once a month or something. The number of programs that do this for many users is quite low. Probably Firefox, Thunderbird, Opera, uTorrent, a short list of other programs. Users then have an opportunity to ignore those programs on future reports. Users now have a good idea if there are changes to their system that might affect security.

      There would still be opportunity for malware to access the internet, but users would either 1) notice it or 2) it would make the malware work in very complicated, noticeable ways(like uploading data to a website using a URL).

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    22. Re:Not more safe by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sudo is not an implicit privilege gain. You have to manually request elevation. The reason it looks implicit is because all of the applications that ever need elevated privileges come with launchers that do the work for you. Sudo can also be configured to function the same as su (OpenSUSE) ships it that way I believe. The same is true of the new policykit. Similarly, Vista is not an implicit elevation either. The continue prompt only occurs for administrator accounts because they are flagged with a token on login that mark them as administrators. They are required to manually take action. Furthermore, this function can be disable in group policy in order to force a password entry in the same way that non-admin users have to authenticate to perform system changes. The only reason it occurs automatically is through application manifests and heuristics. Both of these cases are explicit elevations at the behest of the application author that the user can approve or cancel.

    23. Re:Not more safe by isorox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually it would really suck if Windows had just one Microsoft verified "app store" where everything is controlled like with iPhone.

      Yes it would, and in this would I would add the google repository, and perhaps the apple repository. Anyone could set up a repository (same as you can with debian), and sign their packages, but if they got compromised, or let crap in, then I'd be wary of using them in the future.

      The problem with the iphone appstore is there's only one. You cant add a competitors.

    24. Re:Not more safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason most Windows-based PCs are infected is also due to the ignorance of users. I haven't had a virus or malware attack in years because I keep my antivirus program up to date, I don't visit sites that are prone to malware, and I use safe searching habits. The people who are constantly asking me to fix their computers are the ones who don't follow these strategies.

    25. Re:Not more safe by Voulnet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you have the source, you can do this in a few minutes (or put in your own temporary patch) with the proper skill and be back up and more secure than someone waiting for "Patch Tuesday."

      If you want Linux to grow and reach more people, as opposed to being a geek niche, then you should forget about requiring people to have the skills necessary to patch the source. Emergence of malware means only one thing: Linux is growing in popularity. Now, if we wish for its popularity to prosper then we should use the normal user's perspective a little bit; you know, people who can't patch the source and compile it by themselves.

    26. Re:Not more safe by nschubach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a Windows machine which has been running just fine for years, but that doesn't mean that it's just as secure. If I do get a virus on that machine, there's a greater chance I will be rebuilding it opposed to my Linux machine.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    27. Re:Not more safe by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not by anyone intelligent. The difference between Windows and Linux is how easy it is to remove stuff like this on Linux. It's easy on Linux. Sometimes practically impossible on windows.

      --
      Qxe4
    28. Re:Not more safe by thejynxed · · Score: 3, Informative

      In this day and age, if your machine gets compromised by a virus, trojan, or rootkit, the only sensible thing to do is wipe and reinstall from a known clean backup. It doesn't matter what OS it is. There's no telling what other little friends they brought along that your chosen methods of detection didn't find. It's not really an option anymore to keep on going with a system that was compromised.

      There's also been some evidence of malware that triggers AV software on purpose, and acts as a distraction while the real dirty payload gets delivered silently elsewhere in your system. You are now fooled into thinking your system is clean because your AV caught the distraction virus, completely missing the real one that was also installed.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    29. Re:Not more safe by Jon.Laslow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "...or a slide show that takes like ten minutes to go through..."

      Did you just seriously suggest that Ubuntu include a ten minute presentation for users to watch? As in, no sarcasm there? Do you honestly expect anyone to actually sit through that? Most people don't have the attention span to sit through the multilingual Welcome video OS X shows on first-boot without trying to skip it, let alone something that talks about security for ten minutes. Remember, if you can't make the user care enough to look in the address bar to see if the 'PayPal' link sent to them in an email is actually legit, you aren't going to make them care enough to sit through ten minutes of tedium after their install is done.

    30. Re:Not more safe by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If gnome-look is hosting .debs and not reviewing them, it seems to me like theyre inviting disaster.

    31. Re:Not more safe by Goaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We are not. The whole point is that there is one actual human user, and thus there is zero difference if the malware can spread to other users or not, since it has already infected 100% of the available users.

    32. Re:Not more safe by Thinboy00 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My mother managed to get some nearly-impossible-to-remove scareware on her (Windows) netbook. She swears up and down that she never visited any sketchy sites, had AV (but no anti-malware), etc. She was basically using it for several things:
      1) Visiting various newspapers' websites
      2) Webmail (a dedicated server for her business)
      3) Word processing (OpenOffice.org)
      4) Spider Solitaire
      5) A few online games (jigsaw puzzles, sudoku, presumably flash-based) she found on Google. I think this is the most likely vector, but she uses the same websites all the time.
      6) Visiting certain reputable, ad-free (AFAIK) sites.
      She is smart enough to never download/run/open suspicious programs/files/etc and she was using Firefox 3.5. This thing was able to prevent itself from being uninstalled easily. On Linux, she could have simply killed any offending processes (O.K. that's nontrivial, but no root permissions needed in theory) and check the (graphical, so-easy-to-use-a-caveman^H^Hgrandma-could-do-it) Gnome startup programs tool for suspicious entries. On Windows, we eventually had to use "System restore" (an OS feature) -- which the program could potentially have disabled had the malware author thought to do so (it was totally rooted -- the malware was preventing the installation of some anti-malware programs) and then download the anti-malware program that had previously failed to install. Windows Vista/7 are probably more secure than XP which she has, but I'm still reluctant to blame all Windows security issues on user stupidity. Now I have her running Firefox+NoScript so that it (hopefully) won't happen again, but that's mostly because she refuses to switch to Linux. Most users would be running IE7 or so... not Firefox+NoScript. This is clearly not just "user stupidity" -- it's a windows genuine advantage^H^Hbug.

      --
      $ make available
    33. Re:Not more safe by Thinboy00 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's also been some evidence of malware that triggers AV software on purpose, and acts as a distraction while the real dirty payload gets delivered silently elsewhere in your system. You are now fooled into thinking your system is clean because your AV caught the distraction virus, completely missing the real one that was also installed.

      AVs don't get "distracted" -- either the real payload is detectable by the AV, in which case the distraction won't be successful since both will be found and removed, or else the real payload is undetectable, in which case you don't need the distraction at all, and as a matter of fact it hurts you by making user more security-conscious.

      --
      $ make available
    34. Re:Not more safe by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was going to comment on your post, but I've set my system to allow the browser to send only 100 cha

    35. Re:Not more safe by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not the lesson I see. To me it says that a user-based security model are insufficient - apps are too free to call/use each other - the threat has moved from "rooting a box" but rather to "rooting a user". OSes (and users) need to start looking at the user as a system administrator of many threads of personal data.

      Web browsers have already discovered much of this - different tabs on your web browser are like different apps and just as a sysadmin cannot trust all the users to play nice with each others' data, users can't trust different apps with full access to all other apps.

    36. Re:Not more safe by Intron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea behind it is so that someone will put out a patch for said vulnerability without having to wait for parent company to do so....

      It turns out that I have patched a serious vulnerability in Linux. Please download and install my patch as root on your system.

      Sincerely,
      Someone

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    37. Re:Not more safe by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want Linux to grow and reach more people, as opposed to being a geek niche,

      I don't.

      For me, Linux is the perfect operating system for a programmer. I'd like it to stay that way. If it becomes popular, that's fine; but if it becomes something other than a programmer's operating system, I will switch to BSD or something.

      --
      Qxe4
    38. Re:Not more safe by mjwx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Open source or not, you can't fix that unless the whole system is totally locked down like iPhone

      No, even the iphone has vulnerabilities. Locking down a system does not fix vulnerabilities, it only hides them from public view. An open system is more secure as everyone know when a vulnerability is discovered and syadmin's can make work arounds (or even pull the system down) until a patch is developed. With a closed system there is less chance of an exploited vulnerability being discovered by the people who want to fix it or are affected by it.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    39. Re:Not more safe by StuartHankins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally I don't care if Linux is ever employed by the "average person". I'm not one of those people and the work I do requires people who know what's going on. Linux gives me the fine control to get in there and tweak things that Windows will probably never have.

      You can make a machine smarter, but people keep getting dumber all the time. At some point you just have to say to those people forget it, you're not going to learn, you're not worth trying to explain it to. Here's your Etch-a-Sketch.

    40. Re:Not more safe by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The registry alone makes Windows impossible to clean. Who knows what is in there? It's a bunch of gibberish. Please nobody claim it's the same as /etc, because it isn't. At best the registry is /etc's evil twin.

  2. YES! Finally! by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the YEAR OF THE LINUX desktop! It's official! /Happy Ubuntu User

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  3. auto-update by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, this scares me.

    1. What happens when a publisher includes auto-updating code, but not specific attack code, like the DDoS software in the mentioned examples? If discovered it will appear to be a security risk, but not specifically malicious...

    2. What happens when a software developer produces some completely innocuous software, gets into the repositories - and then months down the road, produces an update with DDoS capability, and has the update pushed into the repositories and automatically distributed?

  4. Re:Removal instructions from the site by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This makes me wonder how long it will be before some warning about a fake virus/trojan/worm succeeds in convincing a few Linux newbies to run some command to get rid of the fake malware which inevitably causes damage or actually downloads actual malware. Something along the lines of: "if you've been infected with virus.deb just run the following command: sudo rm -rf / usr/bin/virus" The only cure is education.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  5. Re:Repositories! by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why? Because it's a sane method of delivering software, which is becoming widely used (i.e. Steam, iTunes Store, etc) vs the traditional "Herpes" model used by Windows?

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  6. What the summary didn't mention... by AlgorithMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    What the summary didn't mention: the screensaver has been there less than 24 hours.
    see pro-linux.de (german)

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  7. Re:Repositories! by sopssa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well do you really want the iPhone like only-approved-software app store for your computer? With no way to download software from anywhere else than that said approved app store.

  8. Re:At least it was fixable. by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Before trolls start yelling about how "OMGZ LINUX ISN'T SECURE HAHAHA" and things like that, let me tell you something: because GNU/Linux is so open and configurable, malware like this can be very easily removed. All you have to do is run a few commands in a terminal to remove this.

    Before trolls start yelling about how "OMGZ WINDOZE AV SOFTWARE IS COMPLICATED HAHAHA" and things like that, let me tell you something: because Windows is so accessible, AV software like this can be very easily deployed. All you have to do is click a few icons in the Start Menu to remove this. Blah, blah, blah

    On Linux and the like, everything is simple if you already know what you want to do. Otherwise, you have to trust unaccountable internet entities to provide you abstruse commands to run and hope they aren't trying to trick you into doing even more damage to your system. It should be obvious why that is a no way to combat malware.

  9. Re:Repositories! by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Informative

    No one is being locked into the repositories. If they want they can go elsewhere to get their software. The repositories merely provide a reasonably safe set of software available for the user.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  10. Re:Removal instructions from the site by selven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A confusing command line instruction which most people would Ctrl-C and Ctrl-Shift-V into their terminal is actually a pretty good way to get a virus onto a Linux newbie's computer.

  11. Re:The Elegance of Programming by sexconker · · Score: 3, Funny

    There is an easier (read: more elegant) way to get rid of this Linux malware:

    sudo rm -rf /

    Pussies.
    rm -rf /
    works fine for me!

  12. Re:At least it was fixable. by Drakin020 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah but here is the problem.

    To you, removing a virus from Linux is easy, because you are obviously an intelligent Linux user.

    (Someone posted above the removal instructions)

    For you to write out: sudo rm -f /usr/bin/Auto.bash /usr/bin/run.bash /etc/profile.d/gnome.sh index.php run.bash && sudo dpkg -r app5552

    seems like nothing at all, but what about the average computer user? Do you think they know what sudo is? Hell I don't use Linux and I have no idea what the shit any of that stuff means. So no, that would only work with someone who really knows what they are doing with Linux.

    Now on the flip side, you say...

    "On Windows and the like, things are so complicated that Anti-virus software is almost required to remove some of their malware"

    Ah, but this is going off the assumption that we are dealing with an average Windows user, not an expert user (Such as your self with Linux)

    An expert Windows user like myself would say "Removing Malware is easy, just go into the registry's run section, remove what looks suspicious, delete temp files, prefetch, and search for the malware running process (Example: virus.exe) in the registry, and delete it"

    Ah see that to me is easy, I've done things like that all the time, and it's just cake.

    So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that...To you, removing a virus like this from Linux can be really simple...to someone who knows Linux, but the same can be said to a Windows user...who knows about Windows.

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
  13. Re:At least it was fixable. by philipgar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ah yes, because linux applications have never had holes allowing someone to get a shell on a system, and users are always running the most up to date kernel that has no root exploits available for it. The main difference between windows and linux is that the linux kernel has so many different versions, and not all distros are using the same one, so that it's hard to choose which kernel vulnerability to exploit. if 99% of people used linux, and were using the same distribution (with mostly the same kernel), believe me, these exploits would exist, and we would see viruses hitting linux machines over the network. Already, there exist worms that have targeted linux machines.

    And saying the problem is not in the kernel but the software applications doesn't cut it either. The same could be said for many of the windows issues, it's just that the software applications in question are in every install and part of the windows user environment. It's no different than applications that might be part of the ubuntu user environment (gnome, samba, etc) etc.

    Phil

  14. Security is like sex by argent · · Score: 3, Funny

    Security is like sex. Once you're penetrated you're ****ed.

    When you install software, you're having unsafe sex.

    Don't do it lightly.

  15. Re:Removal instructions from the site by visualight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, dude. When I'm forced to use a Windows machine my #2 pet peeve is the paste buffer. You don't realize how much middle clicking you do until you don't have it anymore.

    --
    Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
  16. Re:At least it was fixable. by FreelanceWizard · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm afraid not. The reason this malware is easy to remove is because it doesn't do anything truly wretched, like patch libc and other applications, install a rootkit kernel module, and the like.

    Having dealt with Linux boxes that have been hit by automatic exploitation tools that go well out of their way to hide their presence, I can tell you that no matter what the operating system, the standard advice holds: once the machine is infected, the only sure way to get it back to a known state is to restore from a backup made prior to the exploitation or to wipe it completely and start over. I should also point out that these machines were rooted through the exploitation of previously-patched vulnerabilities in setuid services -- which is the exact same vector many Windows worms use, including Slammer and Conficker.

    The only difference between the tools I've run into and a full-on worm is that they run at the command of a cracker and scan IP address ranges of his choice. With a bare amount of automation, they could become very successful Linux worms, breaking into all those machines that, say, have old OpenSSH binaries that haven't been patched against its known remotely exploitable vulnerabilities.

    --
    The Freelance Wizard