New Email Worm Squirming Through Windows Users' Inboxes

Trailrunner7 writes "There appears to be an actual email worm in circulation right now, using the tried-and-true infection method of sending emails containing malicious executables to all of the names in a user's email address book. The worm arrives via emails with the subject line 'Here You Have' or something similar, and the messages contain a link to a site that will download a malicious file to the victim's PC. The malware then drops itself into the Windows directory with a file name of CSRSS.EXE, which is identical to a legitimate Windows file. From there, it's 2001 all over again, as the worm attempts to mail itself to all of the contacts in the victim's Outlook address book."

Comments

Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down

[MichaelSmith]

Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical windows user should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to write to? Maybe the ipod/ipad approach is better for most people.

Re:The hell?

[drcheap]

Stupid question from a Linux / Mac user:

Are there really operating systems in use in 2010 that let you write files to a system directory without entering an administrator password?

Yes, because people will give a computer anything it asks for, especially if it asks in an ambiguous manner.

What's this? A UAC prompt asking for permission to "perform the action I requested"? Wait, what was I just doing? Oh yeah, reading email. Yes I want to do that. ]click[

Same thing would happen if you gave them a Linux/OSX box that asked for admin password. Granted M$ made it easier by not requiring one to actually type in any actual password to elevate privileges.

Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down

[causality]

Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical windows user should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to write to? Maybe the ipod/ipad approach is better for most people.

I have no idea why you were modded "Troll" except that some people have an irrational oversensitivity to any mention of the iPod or iPad. They should get the fuck over it, to be direct about it.

Back on topic, what you mention is a very good idea. It's also not new to Apple products at all. That's the approach Unix has used for a long, long time now. Installed programs on a Unix system are generally root-owned and sit in directories that are also root-owned. For a normal user, both the executable and the directory in which it is located is read-only.

The problem with Windows is the vast amount of software that is poorly designed and wants Admin privileges even though it could be designed to carry out its task without them. This has trained the more point-and-drool type of user (the majority who gravitate to this platform) to just click away any dialogs without seriously questioning why a program is requesting extra access. That is, of course, assuming they are running as a non-privileged user in the first place.

The iPhone (I assume you don't intentionally refer to an mp3 player) approach is more like "you don't need root for anything, let us manage that". The Unix approach is more like "programs don't expect to have root privileges without a very good reason, like your package manager for example". In both cases an e-mail client would be run as a normal user. I'm not so familiar with the inner workings of an iPhone but at least on Unix and Unix-like OSs, the binary executable file would also reside in a root-owned directory not writable to any normal user. Combine that with the generally more clueful user base and it's easy to understand why Unix/Unix-like users just don't have these problems.