Slashdot Mirror
Financial Malware Hijacks Online Banking Sessions
Orome1 writes "A new type of financial malware has the ability to hijack customers' online banking sessions in real time using their session ID tokens. The OddJob Trojan keeps sessions open after customers think they have 'logged off,' enabling criminals to extract money and commit fraud unnoticed. This is a completely new piece of malware that pushes the hacking envelope through the evolution of existing attack methodologies. It shows how hacker ingenuity can side-step many commercial IT security applications traditionally used to defend users' digital — and online monetary — assets."
... why you require your customers to use Windows when doing online banking?
Trusteer's research team has reverse engineered and dissected OddJob's code methodology, right down to the banks it targets and its attack methods.
No one thought it important enough to list the banks being targeted? Or is this "professional courtesy" on the part of whatever law enforcement agency is conducting the investigation to leave all of the banks' customers in the dark, lest the banks get a bad rep?
The bank I use (in Mexico) forces you to get a different number from the security token every time you login or make a transaction (they are generated once a minute). If you try to make a transaction using the same token number that was used to login to the bank, the system forces you to get a different number from the token. In theory, this would stop this kind of attack. Why are no other banks doing the same?
Which is why I always close my browser after a banking session. I only have one browser open, and only a single tab on that browser. All sessions, cookies, history, cache is deleted when I close my browser. This helps, but may not stop these kinds of attacks.
Hence the suggestion that after using online banking, you close the browser not just log out of the session. Or would this not help with this malware?
From the source site (the blog at http://www.trusteer.com/
"The good news is that Trusteer's Rapport secure web access software- which is now in use by millions of online banking customers - can prevent OddJob from executing."
Now, I don't know Trusteer's rep, but when I see a story like this that originates from what appears to be a source that's in the business of selling security software, I want a second opinion from another source. A quick "google" for OddJob finds stories that all seem to tie back to Trusteer's blog entry. This story also doesn't say much about platform sensitivity. Is this an issue on any OS platform that uses Firefox, for example?
there's plenty of evidence that's true, however you spell it. whois is benefiting by selling all that weaponry being used against the creators' innocents? almost nothing else of a proprietorial nature can occur until all of the uncomfortable babies are comforted. better days ahead? see you there?
They hijack the session and keep it alive on the server. An internet banking application should implement absolute session timeout which should expire regardless of keepalive requests from a users after 24 hours, for example.
http://www.computing.net/answers/security/rapport-security-software-avoid-using-it/28295.html
This product is to be avoided at all costs...if anyone is still having problems, I have managed to switch it off and uninstall it, altho' the Rapport/Trusteer team clearly did not want to help, and many believe it's not intended to be uninstalled.
Time for unified, single Linux distro perhaps?
AFAIK, session hijacking has been an issue since - well - since Al Gore invented the intraweb.
No matter what browser you're using - unless it is Lynx - you probably can be involved in a session hijack issue. UNLESS you forcibly close that session by closing your browser.
I saw a post about using Wintendo. I don't think that Windows or Linux or OSX are any more or less vunerable. Just the fact that people don't forcibly close sessions.
Now, where did I put that copy of Firesheep?
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
A http protocol that, instead of (connect, download, disconnect), allows for a sustained connection throughout the session and then a final disconnect when the session concludes. A persistent connection could mean that your credentials would be valid only for a single connection and logging out would sever that connection and invalidate the credentials. I am sure the idea has been tossed around and thrown out already, but I am curious.
Safest way to bank online is to use a Linux LiveCD.
No need to learn Linux, nor even install Linux. Simply boot to a Linux live cd. Nothing is written or saved to anywhere on the computer, so nothing for anyone to copy. It's not booting into windows, so no trojan/virus is there to affect it.
Better explanations here, and a simple howto:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/10/e-banking_on_a_locked_down_non.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/10/avoid_windows_malware_bank_on.html
.
"A new type of financial malware has the ability to hijack customers’ online banking sessions in real time using their session ID tokens"
What ever you do don't mention Microsoft Windows .. :)
"OddJob's most obvious characteristic is that it is designed to intercept user communications through the browser. It uses this ability to steal/inject information and terminate user sessions inside Internet Explorer and Firefox"
How does the OddJob 'financial malware' get on the computer in the first place. What Desktop Operating Systems are not vulnerable?
I was about to reply "use a (non-windows) live cd and a non-IE browser and you are safe". If the session is kept alive on the server, that's an entirely different problem. But wouldn't a session be usually "identified" by the presence of a client-side cookie (or another client-side authentication token)? I mean, if the client shuts down isn't the session automatically terminated?
Mostly harmless.
Chances are they might be the one that engineered OddJob. That is how most AV vendors generated their income.
Na as soon as such a project gets started, a team will start fighting and a fork will appear.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
Some banks in Sweden signs the online-transaction with a key generated by a standalone card reader where you enter a security token + date + amount + pin. The key generated is unique for your specific transaction and cannot be hijacked.
The downside is that there's a bunch of numbers to input on the card reader but I would say it's almost foolproof security-wise.
--- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
Do you remember FireSheep, a firefox addon that went public late last year? slashdot thread firesheep homepage
They ride your session, basically that means that once the malware authors have access to your session cookie, they're logged in as you, and can perform any operation you could do. I also expect that the malware will log your username and password anyway, so you're screwed anyway even in case that you could really log out of your banking session.
Self-slap: I hadn't RTFA. "The code is capable of logging GET and POST requests"... "By tapping the session ID token"... .sh version".
OK. I'll have to turn back to "use an OS that cannot run EXEs and hope it takes very long to deploy a
Mostly harmless.
...@ the teller window.
I appreciate online banking for those who NEED it, but I don't and don't want to worry about the 4 electronic devices I carry being hijacked someway to get at a bank account.
I was about to reply "use a (non-windows) live cd and a non-IE browser and you are safe". If the session is kept alive on the server, that's an entirely different problem. But wouldn't a session be usually "identified" by the presence of a client-side cookie (or another client-side authentication token)? I mean, if the client shuts down isn't the session automatically terminated?
No. The browser doesn't automatically send a "logoff" request when you close it, so the session is still open.
The bad guy has a copy of your client-side cookie, so he can pretend he's you, still logged in after you've closed your browser.
If you use a live cd, then you're not booting to your [presumably] windows hard drive, so you are therefore avoiding any malware/trojan/virus therein. There are no cookies or session id's or anything else saved from a live cd. All it takes is a reboot to a Live cd, do your online banking, remove cd, reboot to windoze. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/10/e-banking_on_a_locked_down_non.html
But you could use a non windows live cd and non ie browser. Simply unplug/disable the HD and load from the cd and use the browser on it to do the one transaction. No virus would be able to intercept the traffic as you've never actually used an infected system. It's the height of paranoia to be fair.
It is transmitting the session information to a server.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
How I try to reduce my risk banking online:
1. Never ever log in from work.
2. Use a virtual machine w/ Minimal install of non Windows OS
3. Only use the VM for banking. Close it when done.
These days, attacks are becoming increasingly sophisticated and the level of security required by banks has not really increased as the level of sophistication and tech savvy of their customers has not increased.
If the banks were to team up with an established and/or hungry VM software vendor such as VMWare or Oracle (current VirtualBox owner), perhaps a "program" which is actually a carefully created VM host application which contains a securely locked down VM running within, could better serve the needs of the banks and its customers.
From a user standpoint, this would seem like an ordinary application. But since it would be a VM, it could get locked down more tightly than anything in the past since it wouldn't need to do anything more than run its single application. This would make it infinitely more stable and secure when compared against the way things are today.
Trojan.PWS.Egold has been around for at least 5+ years that does effectively the same thing.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Oh god, you again.
Are you telling me you see zero difference between the Linux codebase and the Win7 codebase in terms of finding publicly-disclosed bugs? None whatsoever?
Excellent, so next time I perform monetary operations, the computer's going to start asking me trivia questions? I like the idea of requiring anyone who handles money to actually have a brain... oh wait, now we have Watson. Wait til the hackers link trivia captcha with Watson. We're all screwed, unless... we filter all answers that begin with "what/who/where is".
It would make no difference. When you logout from your online banking session the bank's web server invalidates your session cookie so that transactions can't happen after you've logged out. This trojan is blocking the logout message to the server so that you're still actually logged in. The trojan would block the logout equally well if the session used a single connection.
Anyway, https does usually run over a single persistent connection because of the overhead of secure connection setup.
"Are you telling me you see zero difference between the Linux codebase and the Win7 codebase in terms of finding publicly-disclosed bugs? None whatsoever?" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 22, @11:28AM (#35280356)
NO: Linux in its CORE ALONE has 2x as many bugs as Windows 7 IN ITS ENTIRETY does... Or, can't you read (or do math)?
Here, let me post the stats again for you:
---
KNOWN Windows 7 security vulnerabilities, IN ITS ENTIRETY Gui shell & all (02/22/2011) = 11% (6 of 57 Secunia advisories)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/
---
KNOWN Linux 2.6 security vulnerabilities, kernel ALONE, & not counting GUI shells ones too (02/22/2011) = 5% (13 of 247 Secunia advisories)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/?task=advisories
---
Let's see:
---
1.) That's TWICE as many bugs still present in Linux' kernel ALONE, vs. Windows 7 in its ENTIRETY (lmao, it's hilarious)..
AND
2.) There were 2-3x++ as many bugs in Windows 7 patched as there were in Linux kernel 2.6 (which is a LOT older than Windows 7 & technically, due to that age, should have LESS known bugs).
---
The rest of my first reply here:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2007096&cid=35279780
Does the rest for me, vs. your off topic ad hominem attack attempt on myself (because it's PACKED with known issues surrounding Linux, and its HUGE FAILS recently!)
APK
P.S.=> Above ALL else - if the best you have is off topic replies or ad hominem attacks, along with your already "spent" down-moderations of my init. post here (which contains nothing but facts cited mind you)? You've lost/YOU FAIL..
( & if you're indicative of what makes up the "linux community", it's no SMALL WONDER WHY you have lost)... apk
umadbro?
My main question is "Does it run on Linux or Mac?". I suspect not from reading between the lines but it would be useful to know.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Hmm, good thoughts. Thanks.
A http protocol that, instead of (connect, download, disconnect), allows for a sustained connection throughout the session and then a final disconnect when the session concludes. A persistent connection could mean that your credentials would be valid only for a single connection and logging out would sever that connection and invalidate the credentials. I am sure the idea has been tossed around and thrown out already, but I am curious.
No, that would not solve this.
This is client-side malware that has full control over internet traffic.
The malware already intercepts the user's "logout" action, and serves up a bogus "You have logged out" page.
reads like a FUD based infomercial. No mention of the banks targeted, how to detect an infection, vulnerable OSs... just the alarm sounding of a problem they appear to be in unique position to solve. how conveeeenient.
P.S.=> Which, in the end, speaks MORE FOR ME, than against me... because, when ALL YOU HAVE IS EFFETE MOD DOWNS, that have NO TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION BEHIND THEM? You're shown as "helpless henrys"... and you ALL know it! apk
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls.
I'll play along for a moment and keep pretending like the number of vulnerabilities are a valid measure of a system's security. Let's take a closer look at your secunia links: the number for the Linux kernel includes all vulnerabilities from 2003-2011. Windows 7 was released in October 2009. The most severe unpatched vulnerability in the Linux kernel is rated "Less critical," or 2/5. The most severe unpatched Windows vulnerability is rated "Highly critical," or 4/5. The actual numbers are pretty even: both had 47 in 2010, Win7 has had 6 and Linux has had 4 so far this year. And hey, I don't even need to cite this info, you've already done it for me.
Now let's find some more of these facts that you love so much. There were at least 1,017,208 malware programs *created* in the first half of 2010...99.4% of them for Windows. Now consider that, by far, the primary entry point of malware is social engineering, not actual system vulnerabilities. I know this is Slashdot and all, but once you have less tech-savvy family and friends on your computers and networks, it doesn't matter how careful or knowledgeable you are.
You didn't read further...
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Linux Kernel 2.6.x, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows 7, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical
Don't even get me started on Microsoft applying patches on patches without reporting it to users.
Here's where you are wrong: By Microsoft's own admission, Windows 7 kernel is the same as Windows Vista kernel only adding new features. That means all of Vista's problems are 7's problems. You were comparing it to the entire 2.6.x series kernel right? In reality you should really only be comparing kernel 2.6.27 and newer as all older versions have reached end of life.
So even counting the end of life versions of the kernel we have 2.6.x - Unpatched 5% (13 of 249 Secunia advisories) = 13 unpatched
and Vista 7% (9 of 138 Secunia advisories) + 7(same kernel) 11% (6 of 57 Secunia advisories) = 9+6 = 15 unpatched
So the kernel found in both Vista and 7 has 2 more unpatched advisories and some of them are rated highly critical none in the Linux kernel are. How many super secret microsoft patches never caught prior to patching and/or acknowledged? Who knows. You fail.
This isn't new, I've seen this in the wild a few times already, I've even seen a variant that rewrites transactions for accounts liked to an authentication token by performing a local MITM attack.
Counting Vulnerability doesn’t cut It Which OS is more successfully Exploited ? Linux the big list or windows The smaller ? What an egg head expert can find and report, has no direct relation to what hackers have successfully exploited in practice The egg head expert isn’t dong the hacking . such a may have a heart attack worrying about that cop that put eyes on him too long
And I'm sure the bank will get on that Linux version of the application right away.
Companies like Intuit seem to have no problem connecting to various major banks and performing online financial transactions. What makes you think that the banks have to write the application?
KNOWN Windows 7 security vulnerabilities, IN ITS ENTIRETY Gui shell & all (02/22/2011) = 11% (6 of 57 Secunia advisories)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/
---
KNOWN Linux 2.6 security vulnerabilities, kernel ALONE, & not counting GUI shells ones too (02/22/2011) = 5% (13 of 247 Secunia advisories)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/?task=advisories
---
From these sites, "Statistics for 2011", Criticality: Windows 33% Highly 67% Less; Linux 33% Less 67% Not; Where: Windows 67% From remote; 17% from local network; 17% Local system; Linux 100% Local System.
Looks like Windows is much more vulnerable to remote, critical attacks than Linux. The impact graph also makes Windows look bad. Going back to 2010 doesn't help Windows case either.
Just don't bank on line. I don't. Doesn't bother me in the least.
This article has been syndicated pretty widely, and is likely the result of a release or post that originated at Trusteer, or from a source that interviewed Trusteer. Regardless, OddJob is real malware, and is a legitimate threat that deserves some attention. Because it is new, the details of its functionality and technical implementation are likely still only openly available in the realm of researchers and private groups, but these details will be shared more widely as these groups become comfortable with the threat themselves. As far as targets are concerned, the list is likely changing every day, possibly every hour, and thus is less important than the threat itself. These new commercial-grade malwares are modular in nature and if a customer wants a bank targeted, it can most likely be added to a config file remotely that the malware will pick up when dialing home.
It's important to note that Trusteer has been adopted by a number of financial institutions who claim tangible proof of its usefulness, but also that Trusteer is a very new product and is likely to have some bugs to still work out. The quote above from computing.net warning to avoid installation "at all cost" doesn't provide any background or information regarding the assumed claim that it is harmful. If a major financial institution is willing to publicly recommend (and in some cases require) that users install the software to use their online portal, I'd say that recommendation represents a reasonable amount of third-party consideration as to the software's effectiveness and compatibility with end user systems. Large companies are putting Trusteer's logo and download links on their front page, not casually giving it a thumbs up.
The methods that Trusteer employs to protect the session and user input require that it runs at a pretty deep level, thus the difficulty in uninstalling and most likely the problems that a very small number of users face. Though I've never seen first-hand problems that it can cause, I can see that it might wreak havoc on a system with a unique set of software prior to installation, or a system that is already infected with certain forms of malware. Pure assumption, but I'd guess that the problems Trusteer might cause are similar to a new driver release - most people will not encounter problems, but the small minority that do will see significant issues.
Lemme guess:
Without JavaScript enabled...
...this exploit won't work at all, right?
When I started using online banking thing were safer by default: in order to create a new "bill" or a new money transfer recipient, I had to get to the bank and record the new account in person. If my online account was hijacked, the only thing the hacker could do was look at my money and pay my bills. That's it.
Now with "automated bill recording", automated "email" money transfer, banks are removing that layer of protection. And banks are NOT at the cutting edge of IT security. It's actually the other way around, they have decades old systems.
So where do you think the real problem is? The fact that thieves exist? Or the fact that banks are drilling new holes in the safes so you can have "better access" to its content?
And buy from the corner grocery. Locally produced stuff. On foot. You just cut out a half dozen international corporate middlemen.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
This is why the only foolproof way is to hand over to bank's clients a device responding to cryptographic challenges involving the recipient's bank account number, which has to be entered in an area labelled :
"BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER TO SEND MONEY TO"
What some banks are doing in Europe is already quite good :
- you're not signing in without responding to a challenge
- you're not sending money to an unknown bank account without responding to a challenge involving the unknown bank account number.
This becomes very hard to bypass.
"I know, I know, don't feed the trolls." - by butalearner (1235200) on Tuesday February 22, @12:23PM (#35280966)
Then, why bother try? You'd only be feeding yourself, by eating your OWN WORDS... & here we go!
---
"I'll play along for a moment and keep pretending like the number of vulnerabilities are a valid measure of a system's security." - by butalearner (1235200) on Tuesday February 22, @12:23PM (#35280966)
LMAO: Per my subject line above, In "Linux Bizarro World", the more bugs you are known to have, the more secure you are", apparently!
(In the REAL world, it's the other way around, mind you!)
---
"Let's take a closer look at your secunia links: the number for the Linux kernel includes all vulnerabilities from 2003-2011. Windows 7 was released in October 2009." - by butalearner (1235200) on Tuesday February 22, @12:23PM (#35280966)
Which means LINUX HAS HAD MORE TIME TO FIX THEM... &, it hasn't, & STILL HAS MORE BUGS THAN WINDOWS 7 DOES & in its KERNEL ALONE, mind you: That's NOT COUNTING WHAT YOU'D HAVE IN A FULL LINUX DISTRO, such as the KDE/Gnome/xfce shells etc.
---
So, whatever happened to "LINUX IS MORE SECURE"? How's ANDROID doing on that note??
(LMAO! Android alone's REALLY "PROVING YOUR POINT", eh?)
APK
P.S.=> "All the Penguin's 'Spin-CON-TROLL horses, and all the Penguin's FUD men, couldn't put TUX together again"... even with spin-CON-troll bullshit like you tried... lmao! apk
What is ironic is that IBM Zurich was predicting this exact type of attack.
This is why they made the ZTIC prototype, and is why UBS is using it under their name of the UBS Access Key.
Why is the ZTIC so unique that IBM made it? Couple reasons:
1: Simplicity. Plug it in a USB port, it makes a secure connection through the computer to the bank, and no matter how trashed the host computer is, the worst it can do is stop the connection. It confirms access and transactions on the device, so even if the web browser is saying that a transaction was successful, the ZTIC will show if it got modified and turned into a large bank withdrawal heading to Elbonia in reality.
2: Low attack surface. Almost anything can be hacked, but it only does one task. If the device is constructed right, reflashing the device without taking it apart and finding the JTAG parts on a chip would be almost impossible.
3: Even Joe Sixpack might wake up and not let a transaction through if the $100 that was going to his bookie for a Superbowl game showed up as a $10,000 transfer to an offshore bank. So, it does contribute to slowing down even PEBKAC issues.
"The most important difference from conventional hacking is that the fraudsters do not need to log into the online banking computers - they simply ride on the existing and authenticated session, much as a child might slip in unnoticed through a turnstile at a sports event, train station, etc."
Like putting too much air in a balloon!
... why you choose to bank with a bank that doesn't support your choice of OS & doesn't take security seriously?
Bank issues you with a little calculator like device containing a keypad and an internal secret number known to the bank.
When you make a transfer, you key the account number and the amount into the calculator and it prints a code that you key into the bank form.
If the code doesn't match what the bank calculated based on the submitted account number and amount, the transaction is rejected.
"Looks like Windows is much more vulnerable to remote, critical attacks than Linux." - by lwriemen (763666) on Tuesday February 22, @12:37PM (#35281134)
LOL, ok - YOU DON'T READ, do you? At the bottom of my 1st post, I asked you all if Javascript runs on Linux... & you KNOW it does. Thus, any "local exploit" can be taken advantage of by malicious javascript an unknowing user hauls in on Linux, turning a "local exploit" into one a malicious script can use, & thus, turn into a REMOTE exploit.
I noted that at the end of my posting you replied to... I asked anyone to disprove that much... this also proves you do NOT READ and that you "skim"
APK
P.S.=> The ones Windows 7 does have (less than 1/2 of the bugs in Linux mind you, again)? Don't affect me... I don't use the features in question, or I don't use a class of this OS that is affected either... so, so much for your "retort", it was easily shot down in flames! apk
See subject-line above. Hacker/crackers, today, aren't just "playing games" & knocking your system offline or blowing your bootsector... they're AFTER YOUR MONEY!
Since practically NOBODY uses LINUX? They don't target it as much... however, this throws your "argument" right into the toilet:
"Counting Vulnerability doesnâ(TM)t cut It Which OS is more successfully Exploited ? Linux the big list or windows The smaller ? What an egg head expert can find and report, has no direct relation to what hackers have successfully exploited in practice " - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 22, @12:35PM (#35281116)
Google ANDROID is a Linux variant. It is now the top dog on smartphones. It is being attacked, weekly, now. This shows you that the "most used" gets the MOST ATTACKED, for starters... but, more importantly, it shows you that LINUX IS NOT "INVULNERABLE"!
Period!
APK
P.S.=> Linux is being exposed for what it really is: A lie, and an inferior lie. Germany dumped it, it failed its 2nd DAY ON THE JOB @ London Stock Exchange, & it's being RAMPANTLY EXPLOITED ON ANDROID OS BASED SMARTPHONES... nuff said! apk
Since Windows 7 in its entirety, GUI shell & all, was tested for its errors list also, that includes its GUI shell... errors in GNOME, KDE, & xfce (just SOME of its shells) ADDED ONTO THE LINUX 2.6 KERNEL too? THAT MAKES THE 13 ERRORS IN LINUX (which is more than 2x as many in Windows 7) GROW A LOT MORE!
(I also have noticed that even IF I said something in my initial/1st reply? Yourself & others "conveniently skim" over it... I suggest you ALL LEARN TO READ, first! I state that, because that FACT above? Was noted in my 1st reply here...)
Also:
ANDROID is a Linux, right? It's being exploited WEEKLY, so add on those attacks & weaknesses onto the list for Linux too!
(Wanna "play that game" you're trying? I can too, & as usual, I'll win...)
APK
P.S.=> Your attempts @ adding VISTA errors onto WIndows 7? Poor, because they are the same, so the errors are the same... not different, mind you, also, AND, now, I can also go to older versions of Linux, pre 2.6 kernel and its GUI shells & toss them on also. 2.6 kernel WAS built up off its predecessors in 2.5 & below, so don't try to pull that bullshit on us all also... ok? apk
"Me:
1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?)" - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)
First of all, Kevin B. Pease = AMERICANO from Merrimack New Hampshire - kbpease@hotmail.com - YOU DID NOT GET A DOUBLE MAJOR!
AMERICANO = Kevin B. Pease has a MINOR only in CSC, for starters:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kbpease
PERTINENT EXCERPT:
Kevin Pease's Education
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
B.S., Biotechnology
1993 Ã" 1998
Minor: Computer Science
---
LMAO - it took you 6 YEARS to get a CSC MINOR? Rotflmao...
---
(Want more people? Ok!)
---
Kevin B. Pease steals the code of others from books:
http://www.justskins.com/forums/looking-for-inspiration-cascading-16594.html [justskins.com]
PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:
"Hi Garry, I think I have a script that will do exactly what you want, based on and I hope, improved...) a program in Lincoln Stein's "CGI.pm" book. The most notable change from his version is that I wrote in"
---
Kevin B. Pease has others do his work for him:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iH45r7p9xV8J:www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/modperl/89045+kbpease&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
---
Kevin B. Pease/AMERICANO NEEDS TO LOSE WEIGHT (fatboy, lol!):
http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/26720893.jpg
(There's NO WAY you'll EVER get a date looking that way, pal, unless you PAY the woman!)
---
(That "takes the cake" - Not only did you LIE about "dual majors", but, lol, it TOOK YOU 6 YEARS TO GET A MINOR IN CSC as well... you're a JOKE! )
APK
Vulnerability Report: KDE 4.x:
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/18496/
Unpatched 20% (2 of 10 Secunia advisories)
---
xfce adds more, & probably Gnome too... now, since older GUI shells & their display managers add more to Linux also? That 13 errors in Linux is a LOT more! PERIOD...
(Want to play that game of tying in VISTA too? I will tie on ALL THE PARTS OF LINUX THAT ARE NOT TESTED FOR ERRORS IN THE COUNT I USED, which is 2x that of Windows, as is, from the Linux KERNEL ALONE, vs. the ENTIRETY OF WINDOWS 7!)
APK
P.S.=> You little Linux freaks... you *THINK* you're smart, & that you can "play games" with me... guess what? I will just outsmart the HELL out of you, as I have now, & come back over the top of you & annihilate you, just as I have... & without twisting things as you tried to, using an older version of Windows!
(Guess I ought to pull the kernel errors from Linux 2.5 & below too & add them onto those in kernel 2.6, alongside all the other security vulnerable portions of Linux such as GUI shells, display managers, & more too, eh?)... apk
I set up a VM for Banking only. Then go to the banks logon. Bookmark that web page. Take a snapshot of the virtual hard drive. When I'm done banking I close the browser, close the VM, then restore the snapshot of the virtual hard drive. When I install the OS on the VM I encrypt the virtual hard drive. I do this for each bank.
I wasn't trying to draw a distinction in merit between registered users and AC's. But when the AC starts yelling, typing in bold, calling people names "lusers, etc," and starts trying to get into a pissing match about who's accomplished more than who, they're living up to the "coward" part of the AC handle.
If you're gonna come on here and fling insults, and jockey about acting as though you're better than everyone else, at least have the guts to register a name so that you have to face the consequences of your words. And no, by consequences, I don't mean getting modded up or down - my signature should have given you the hint as to what I think of that system - but consequences in that if you wish to be heard, you will have to take at least a few marginal steps not to alienate everyone by being a jerk.
Also, you might try getting your facts straight. I never said you were wrong about Linux being less secure than Windows. I said it doesn't matter, because Linux doesn't have even a fraction of the market share that Windows enjoys. In short, regarding the straight facts, I was on your side and in fact adding to your argument in my point about security through obscurity.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
See subject and get your head straight, or quit your lies. From reading what he put up to defend himself it does appear he was better at computers than his detractors. I don't see them putting up superior accomplishments so its not an act on his part. It's merely fact he could cite.
And you can't disprove that, can you? Hahahaha, you FAIL.
"Try reading the definitions for the classifications. You CAN'T turn a "from local" into a "from remote" - by lwriemen (763666) on Thursday February 24, @12:59PM (#35302334)
Ok, & this ISN'T JUST HYPOTHETICAL either (I have 2 proofs of it happening & recently in fact):
E.G.-> A user gets infested by a malware/virus/trojan (whatever you want to call these)... & then, that malware, once inside your system, can do pretty much what it wants to!
See example thereof, below:
---
E.G. #1: Koobface on MacOS X &/or Linux (yes, it's been ported to them also):
FROM -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/27/koobface_for_mac/
---
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"It was designed to use Oracle's Java framework to infect not just Macs, but Linux and Windows machines as well, according to Mac antivirus provider Intego. Once installed, the malware gives attackers complete control over the computer."
---
That is, indeed, a REMOTELY taken in malware, that has FULL ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM... period!
I.E.-> Thus, at that point, it can "take advantage of" LOCAL exploits to aid in its "dirty work" @ that point... period!
APK
P.S.=> Thus endeth the lesson... "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"... apk
Read 'em & weep Penguins:
---
London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:
http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware
---
Let's see - so far, Linux has fallen onto its FACE only 2 days into the job, & now they're serving malwares too?
APK
An installed malware is considered "from local", even if it is running from a remote system. A user had to grant the application access.
"An installed malware is considered "from local", even if it is running from a remote system. A user had to grant the application access." - by lwriemen (763666) on Thursday March 03, @08:43AM (#35367740)
UNTRUE: See this exploit on ANDROID (a Linux variant) & becase of its JAVA interface nature, a malware can be put onto it WITHOUT THE USER GRANTING PERMISSION:
---
Android bugs let attackers install malware without warning
Alert - No permissions necessary:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/10/android_malware_attacks/
---
AND, thus? Your "definitions" are not relevant.
Once you "suck in" such a malware (and yes, it can be done w/ out the users' permissions on Linux variants - see above example on ANDROID , which IS a form of Linux), it can do whatever it wishes!
(Including taking advantage of exploits classified as LOCAL SYSTEM/LOCAL NETWORK, from a remote location (aka the hacker/cracker's system).
Period.
APK
P.S.=> So much for that from you, & if you weren't aware of this being possible before? NOW YOU ARE! However, posting "days later", when you think I am not watching, to try to "get the last word", or sneak it past me before this thread closes? Please... apk