Slashdot Mirror
Malicious QR Code Use On the Rise
New submitter EliSowash writes "Malware developers are increasingly using QR Codes as an attack vector. 'The big problem is that the QR code to a human being is nothing more than "that little square with a bunch of strange blocks in it." There's no way to tell what is behind that QR code.' The advice we've always given to the computer user community is 'don't click a link in an email if you don't know who it's from or where it goes' — so how do we protect unsuspecting users from QR codes, where you can't see the destination at all?"
Use a service that will decode it for you. With TinyURL you are really in a bind as you must trust TinyURL itself to discover where the link goes. At least with QR the code can be decoded locally, with software that you trust.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Does anyone have a QR code to a Rick Roll?
The QR scanner app that I use has an option to show the URL before going to it which seems like a good approach, though it's not on by default. Seems like having the a such an option be the default would be a good first step, perhaps with a straight through exception for sites already visited.
Provide a preview of what is behind it before actually sending off to the url.
When a QR code is scanned, display the link with an option to follow or cancel? Now we're in the same situation as any other link presented to someone.
Google goggles and QR scanner on Android both show the destination.
This just in:
Clicking a hyperlink may result in being directed to a malicious site.
Considering 99% of uses don't check the URL of hyperlinks, I'm not sure how QR codes are any different... they're just physical hyperlinks for camera phones.
Simple - We make the standard expected behavior for any legitimate QR code reading app, that it show the contents of the barcode (and preferably certify it as kosher via Google or some AV vendor) BEFORE automatically sending you off to goatse.
Your app doesn't do that? MALWARE. The address doesn't verify as safe? Enter at your own risk.
http://bit.ly/rCBPp7 You don't know where that link goes until you click it. So, what do you do?
This is quite a question. A savvy person could just stick on a malicious QR code on any display in a mall or shopping center. How do you fight this, like the poster says, when you can't see where the link redirects. Perhaps a mandatory coding implimentation for QR scanners that shows you the link and asks the user to confirm that it is where they want to go?
Didn't we talk about this before?
So I guess my point is. Who cares?
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Well, this would be the single most obvious thing in the world if you ask me. If i was designing an app to scan those codes i woudln't just act on whatever content that the user might encounter but instead present him with whatever it is the QR code is saying.
So instead of scan->immediately open goatse, how hard can it be to go:
scan->Show user that the QR code contains a link to goatse and then they can decide whether to go there or not.
Likewise with all other kinds of content (usually it's just pointers though, like links to market, web sites, etc
You can do a lot with QR codes that have no destination at all, they are not restricted to web links.
They can be simple text messages, address book entries, phone numbers, wifi network set up instructions, calendar events, etc.
But every implementation I've seen of a QR code reader in Android and IOS also gives you the option to inspect
the content visually before acting on it. They ask if you want to proceed.
Of course one could argue the click-thru generation does not know enough to evaluate the content, but then
these are the same people that no amount of malware/antivirus software can protect. They do the same with
links in email links.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
so how do we protect unsuspecting users from QR codes, where you can't see the destination at all
The QR code app that I use on my phone shows the URL and asks me if I want to go there. Isn't this display and prompt common for QR code apps?
If your app does not do so, get a different one. Seems like a non issue, par for slashdot these days.
I could just see it now: this gets exploited by some guy with a sharpie, some whiteout and patience...
I don't get it.
Both QR readers I've tried (Google Goggles and Microsoft Tag) show you the URL of a QR code and give you the option to go there or not.
Do other readers not do this? Do people just click on these links without thinking about it?
don't most people not know how to use QR codes, anyway?
This won't deter people, look at the popularity of URL shortening services for a reference. It's a tool and it has a potential for misuse. People are assholes, story at 11.
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
I mean, it was just another way to exploit the trust of unsuspecting and most of the time, non-internet-savvy public, armed with the gizmo of the day, called smartphones. What could possibly go wrong ? It is just like giving a loaded gun to the hands of a adolescent child with raging hormones and telling him or her just shoot people who are really-really bad and nobody else. You are just trusting the judgment of totally untrustable person. If you expect a better outcome than this, good luck to you. :)
The problem I see with these QR codes, most of them direct you to a bit.ly or tinyurl.com link. What is it so hard to put the full URL into it ? when I see that bit.ly link on the scanned QR code, first thing I do is to hit back/exit/escape key and run like hell. But give the phone to my 80+ years old mom ar 10 years old child and see where they hit.
I was wondering when this was going to be a headline, until today that is
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
A while back, a friend of mine at a university printed up several dozen flyers with a QR code pointing to LemonParty and posted them around campus. Hilarity ensued as he took pictures of people's reactions as they scanned them.
"liberty and justice for all those who can afford it"
That seems like the most sensible implementation.
How hard is it to sandbox a visit to a URL? Malicious or not, nothing is going to get out if the sandbox is properly designed... and it's not like it's hard to do, it just requires a bit of forethought and planning.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Submitter EliSowash, editor Soulskill; please, when you folks put together summaries in the future...
i see no use for qr codes anyhow, so it makes no difference where they go.
All QR tags go to goatse anyways.
... tell people not to scan them.
Wow, took you guys this long to figure out that QR codes aren't human readable and therefore make a great attack vector for malware developers.
They're extremely useful though. Given that QR codes are ultimately text, there really should be a preview of what you're about to execute. Just a simple text preview of the information embedded in the code.
If visiting a "malicious site" can harm your phone, switch to a secure browser. Unless you are locked into Safari, then you are screwed.
Nothing gets thru my impenetrable "100,000 megavolt forcefield + neutronium armor & adamantium skeleton" here:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&qs=ns&form=QBLH
It just works... & it's FASTER than std. setups too!
APK
P.S.=> I'm setup secured enough to be able to say that & mean it + running Windows 7 64-bit here... apk
Amazing! Those folks over at Microsoft sure do get it done! Windows 7 64 bit on a camera phone? Outstanding! APK for President!
Secure Windows. Thanks, I needed a laugh.
How... about.... using... an other QR reader that shows the destination first???
Still you don't know if you can trust the link, but at least you know where you're going.
Privacy is terrorism.
Why is there no online site which will decode an uploaded QR code? Why is there no browser plugin that you can activate by right-clicking on a QR image to decode it?
Display the expanded url in whatever software you use to scan the code. Lots of QR handlers already display the url and give you the choice to visit it or not; just combine that with an expander and you're set.
For the people too lazy to look (like those too lazy to check a links destination), just get them to install internet security on their phone. Just about every AV product has a phone version these days. It'll work as well as well as it does with a computer.
Hey, another Slashdot summary ended with a forecast of impending doom disguised as a handwringing question, written by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
QR codes are a method for encoding text. If your decoder does stupid stuff (like visit links automatically) with that decoded text then get a different decoder.
Forget QR codes, most links on the web are quadruple encoded! They're sent to you in binary (of all things). When you turn that back into decimal you end up with ASCII code (!) and when you sort that out you're left with HTML! Finally, once you get rid of the HTML you're left with a URL! What are we to do?! How are ordinary users supposed to understand this binary-ASCII-HTML-URL witch's brew?
Users don't want protection, they want simplicity. As soon as you try to secure something it makes things "hard" and they go back to doing insecure things for the sake of simplicity, or, they just don't use it at all.
The simple login/pass texfield on a webpage is a great example. It used to be easy and simple but now every one of them has some form of a super-secure captcha that is so secure the human eye cannot even discern it. A simple thing has been bastardized to the point it's to frustrating to use.
Maybe QR codes have simply had their day. Let's not "extend" them.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
If the summaries include descriptions of all possible acronyms or phrases included in the discussion, it's not really a summary is it?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=QR+Code
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Something's fundamentally wrong, though, if you can't click on a random link. OK, maybe there's a browser vulnerability from time to time, and given how many there have been, clicking on random links (especially on the seedier side of the web) might not be the smartest thing you can do - but if end users are supposed to have to worry about clicking on a link, then we (the techies) are letting them down big time.
I stick to PC's online & because of security on them vs. smartphones. Smartphones are still too immature in security, & too many breaches occur on them, in terms of security for my tastes.
Not saying that smartphones aren't cool though - They're "getting there", & like most computing systems, better all the time on THAT front... but security? Not there yet.
(They are just a new technology I'll wait on until they get better @ security & not being taken advantage of as much as they have been the past few years now).
* That time'll come eventually though...
APK
P.S.=> There you go... apk
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/40582
I use this Greasemonkey script for similar reasons.
It works on shorteners in addition to bit.ly and displays the real URL automatically
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
QR obfuscates where there's actually a strong desire to know it all.
I have the ATT code scanner on my phone. When you scan a code a dialogue box pops up and says "Do you want to visit...?" and it gives the actual URL. This article is like saying "malicious URLs can be hidden behind seemingly valid URLs by means of redirects so therefore you should be concerned about clicking on links on the internet."
if your life is such a big joke then why should I care?
I don't understand why QR codes are needed. Why can't the camera use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) instead? Maybe a standard font that's easy for OCR to read, like that MICR font they invented for check numbering in the 1960s. Maybe at first the phone just sends the image up to a server, for 3D->2D reformation and reading. But it would eliminate this problem.
And also the IDN homograph attack that will surely become more widespread with the increase in Unicode in the Web and gradually in URLs. Your phone would be set to decode the URLs as your home character set, that you recognize, for opening as a URL - not the arbitrary URL composed of the similar looking but different valued Unicode characters.
WYSIWYG URLs. An idea whose time has come.
--
make install -not war
You saying that tells me you don't know it's possible & you haven't achieved it yourself - If you had? You wouldn't say that.
* Folks've done what's in the guide I posted, even websites, & it works... really well too! Takes about 1-2 hours of your time, for years of uptime (going strong here since late 2009 in fact on Windows 7 64-bit when it released from the same installation as the day it came out).
(It uses a multiplatform security test/benchmark tool (CIS Tool) you can use on Linux, & other UNIX variants too that makes it almost fun to do (based on "best practices" in security from said OS platforms as an audit tool)).
APK
P.S.=> No Operating System out there's "bulletproof & bugfree", especially as it ships from the oem's (with good enough reasons I think - so "everything is open, but works", especially in network mass installs), but they can be made to be far more secure than default as well as faster (with a little user education in the mix with system "tuning" for speed & security)... apk
Are you sure? Wanna try some Snow Crash?
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
Is it possible to actually produce a malformed QR code that takes advantage of the QR-reading software or its error correction in a phone itself?
And given how many exploits are propgated by ads and server hacks of well trusted sites (facebook, drudge, etc, have all been sources of ad-viruses), it gives a false sense of security. Ive had many a user convinced that they could never get a virus because of the sites they visited; they got one, and browser history showed facebook, and I had to explain how virus distribution works to them.
Best way to set your users free from having to think about such things: uninstall Java JRE, uninstall Acrobat reader (and install Foxit), update flash, get them using Chrome. Their browser will autoupdate, and there wont be any plugin 0-days to exploit.
I can encode a nfc card with a url and my nexus s will happily scan it, and open the browser instantly...
more of a risk in my oppinion, no qr code reader i've ever seen just opens the url...
Something's fundamentally wrong, though, if you can't click on a random link. OK, maybe there's a browser vulnerability from time to time, and given how many there have been, clicking on random links (especially on the seedier side of the web) might not be the smartest thing you can do - but if end users are supposed to have to worry about clicking on a link, then we (the techies) are letting them down big time.
It isn't always a browser vulnerability being exploited. For instance, meatspin.com is perfectly safe to browse as it only corrupts your brain.
"Who the FUCK are you and why do I care?" - by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, @02:38PM (#38541454)
I'm the guy that authored the guides that showed up in the search link from bing on how to secure modern varieties of Windows. I've been doing security guides like them since 1997 online since the Windows NT 3.5x days, & ones that only got better & better + more "up-to-date modernized" for Windows as it evolved!
(Go easy on the profanity... it's not doing you a favor!)
APK
P.S.=> Those Security Guides for Windows did well over time too on the sites they're on ratings-wise, views-wise, & "feedback from users-wise" who fully applied its points in full/to-the-letter too - the latter parties' results being the most important part
(I even got paid for the guide too, which was cool & unexpected. I didn't do them for money, I did them because I considered it almost a civic duty really. It was nice getting paid though, for doing "the right thing"!)
Lastly - Sorry if some terms I use seem like "buzzwords" to you, but, they're "std. fare" pretty much in computing's all (& if you don't "get them", then either look them up, ask a question, or whatever, but don't "flip out" over it like you have with the profanity - makes you seem less intelligent imo!)...
... apk
are for ID10Ts
erm ... so you think if your browser is safe, its totally okay to visit goatse?
Duh. The QR codes aren't the problem. Software that decodes QR codes should treat them as hostile, outside data, and act accordingly (ask the user to confirm any actions the device might have available based on the contents of the QR code, e.g. in the case of QR-encoded URL, display the decoded URL in a confirmation box).
Only hipsters and "connected" douchebags feel the need to scan a QR code with their smartphone. Who cares if they get some malware because of it?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Something's fundamentally wrong, though, if you can't click on a random link. OK, maybe there's a browser vulnerability from time to time, and given how many there have been, clicking on random links (especially on the seedier side of the web) might not be the smartest thing you can do - but if end users are supposed to have to worry about clicking on a link, then we (the techies) are letting them down big time.
Imagine being at the book store with your children, family, friends, etc. and thumbing though magazines to pass away the time. Now I know a streaker could AT ANY TIME run through the place and just wreck the friendly atmosphere, but he would be kicked out, and aside from that you wouldn't expect to randomly turn a magazine page to child porn, a rick roll, snuff film, man's stretched asshole, or other obscenity, unless you went to a place that sold those things.
Is it wrong to want little sanctuaries like that? I could go to another bookstore if I wanted, but I don't like sipping coffee with a book next to a rack of dildos. A little discretion, that's what people want. You can call it censorship or whatever if you want, but people want a little of that in public places, and that's what the Internet is.
I can appreciate the Internet for what it is, a weird private-public place, I do, but it's not being treated by most like the seedy underground cesspool it really is, and that bugs me. You SHOULD worry about clicking on a link - it was designed that way. It is analogous to the kind of physical places that make you want to take a bath after visiting. An AWESOME place for grey/black markets and all sorts of counter-culture memes. Places where you watch your back constantly, and most people rather not go.
Something IS fundamentally wrong with advocating it as a safe place for the public to do business and socialize. And we should stop laughing at people who get ripped off and abused by it. Nobody is "asking for" the kind of abuse you find on this network, and there is no safe alternative provided.
As far as I've been able to make out, while QR codes have different possible applications, the only application for which I've ever seen them used is for encoding URLs in posted advertisements. And in every case, the URL was printed adjacent to the QR code block, and usually was short and obvious, e.g., on a poster for www.example.com, there's the URL, http://www.example.com/ and a QR code, that when scanned and translated, presents the URL, http://www.example.com/. Since I'd have to take a photo of the QR code block, let it analyze the image, and accept the presented URL and open a Web browser from that link, I've ended up taking more time and going through more steps than I would have by just typing in the damned URL to begin with.
In practice, the only reason to bother with QR codes at all is for the sake of novelty, and that wears thin very quickly. If QR codes as a malware vector becomes common, I think everyone will just stop using them entirely.
I've wondered if would be possible to create an app that would tell you which squares to colour in so it redirects a QIR somewhere else
If you can't read the link to know where it leads, how can you possibly avoid phishing attacks with a QR code? This technology is a wet dream for spammers and malware authors! They can send you anywhere, and you can't even see where they're sending you.
URL shortening services are bad enough. I disagree with posting shortened URLs except in a twitter feed.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
erm ... so you think if your browser is safe, its totally okay to visit goatse?
OK, yes, I think there should be some reasonable expectation of "decency" (however one defines it), much as changing channels on TV might expose you to ideas you don't like but generally won't inflict goatse upon you.
But TFA isn't talking about that - it's talking about using QR codes as an ATTACK vector for malware - essentially tricking people into (virtually) clicking on links which will then perform drive-by-downloads or whatnot upon their PCs.
My point is that the very existence of drive-by-downloads is a damning indictment of browsers, email programs, and the like. It's as if certain TV channels caused your TV to explode, or to become a camera instead of a TV and start watching your every move. Even if I did accidentally click over to the goatse channel, I could click away without the image having changed the basic functioning of my TV set.
"We"? How the fuck are "we" responsible for what security vulnerabilities the browser developers - which most of "us" aren't - leave open? Should I complain to Micheal Schumacher that my Renault is running hot? After all, he's one of the "car people".
Dilbert RSS feed
I recommend branding the QR code. If the QR code is unique in design, with a familiar logo imbedded, it would create trust to scan the code, and click on a short link. There are services like QRlicious out there that do this. http://qrlicious.com Placement is also key, people shouldn't scan random, black and white QR codes on stickers placed in odd places. Sometimes infected codes will be on stickers covering up the actual code. Just use common sense.
What the blinkety blank is a QR code? The description in the summary makes it sound like one of those obscure two-dimensional barcode formats, none of which ever caught on to any meaningful extent, but then it starts talking about clicking on it, like it's a link in a web page or something. Wait, what? Who the heck clicks on barcodes? I'm missing something.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg
By having clicking links never be dangerous or risky.
I don't know about you, but when I load a web page, I expect my browser to display a web page, not download and execute foreign code, nor run that code as with my permissions.
The old advice of "don't click a link if you don't know where it goes" was stupid. Not stupid in the sense that it shouldn't be heeded, but that it was an acknowledgement that peoples' browsers were totally broken and the advice should have been withdrawn a week later after people got the hole fixed. Of course the joke is that the holes don't ever get fixed.
What really sucks is that QR codes are primarily used by mobile users, and they tend to run recent browsers rather than legacy shit. (Seriously, mobile Safari and the Android equivalent are pretty damn good browsers and perversely better than what most people use on their desktops.) Their browsers really ought to not be so broken that loading a page could be risky. Apparently that's not the case? *sigh*
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If you use Microsoft's Windows then you may be afraid of clicking on liks and surfing web. But read it again: isn't it pathetic to have such buggy software that you cannot use it?
with tinurl, you can ALWAYS change the url so if someone gives you a link of
http://tinyurl.com/6qq9399
instead, change it to
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6qq9399
and you'll get this
Preview of TinyURL.com/6qq9399
This TinyURL redirects to:
http://www.youporn.com/search?query=bukkake&a
mp;type=straight
Proceed to this site.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Depending on how your phone scanner app is configured, QR code URL content may be shown on the screen as a link you can choose whether or not to open. But the links are often shortened so as to make for a smaller or less dense QR code box. And that puts this "risk" in the same category and amount as following any other bit.ly "mystery meat" link that resolves on the redirect service in a redirect to the real destination.
If your browser is built like shit and visiting a "maliciously constructed" webpage can cause code execution on your system, well that's still not a problem with the QR code technology.
QR is vulnerable to "spoofing" in the sense that for example a printed advert with a link on it to download an endorsed phone app - could with a cheaply produced sticker placed over the legitimate code become corrupted so the new code points to some other app. With Android's allowance for un-regulated third-party app installations, there is some concern there that this could lead to unwitting users downloading and installing a malicious app that masquerades as the endorsed, legitimate one.
The solution here could be to extend the established Android app signing system to have an "advisory" service that ranks the credibility of the individual app signing developers and publishers and as part of the app installation process can give you a heads-up hey wait a minute this app publisher has a strongly negative trust ranking maybe you shouldn't install it.
I want nothing like Apple's walled garden, but a voluntary model where you can get a "green seal" as a trustworthy app publisher and specifically trusted apps, might go a long way.
Saw that one coming...
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
The Norton Snap QR Code reader for iPhone and Android will show you the expanded URL and give you the site's rating before navigating to it.
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.symantec.norton.snap
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/norton-snap-qr-code-reader/id471928808?mt=8
You and the GP are talking about different things. If someone tricks you into looking at goatse, you're disgusted, but not seriously inconvenienced. But if someone tricks you into visiting a malware-laden site that exploits some vulnerability in your browser to root your box, that's a serious problem. End users have to worry that, if they click on a link, Something Scary Involving Computers may occur - and that's because browser programmers have failed them.
Vector all QR calls through a registry of valid links.
What, no Snow Crash references?
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
Unknown email link = danger
QR Code = Unknown Link
Duh... dont click it?
Exactly! And it's not even difficult to make the chain of links explicit or to give people the environment they want. There's software for the first one, which should just be standard and automatic everywhere. And there's also a solution for the second issue. Slashdot has been using it for years. Give people the option to see different levels of grossness. If I want my world squeaky clean, I have my settings at "5." Or, at the other end, at "0." No censorship involved, and yet people can control at least that part of their own world.
Of course, that would require the big 4 browsers and the big search engines to cooperate in open source, transparent rating/moderation schemes, and everyone who puts anything on the web to be at least vaguely honest in their initial self-rating for where they fit in the scheme of things. And, yeah, I know, what are the chances of that?
Calling me "anonymous troll" & yet YOU are harassing me that way posting as AC while you troll? Please, lol:
Talk about "the pot calling the kettle black", lmao!
---
"he's also an asshole threatening anyone not agreeing with him and an homophobic mysogin." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31, @07:19AM (#38547144)
tomhudson, is that you? LMAO, I'd bet it is... you're one of a VERY SELECT FEW that uses the term "mysoginist" & I am far, Far, FAR from that here by the by... & I am not homophobic (but I am not a homosexual either by the same token).
(The profanity usage on your part doesn't "help your case" either, mind you...)
---
"btw whatever he claims about himself, he's never able to prove it, so don't trust his word for anything he says.." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31, @07:19AM (#38547144)
Ask any questions you like, I can supply information easily enough from reputable sources about myself (I have on demand from yourself the 'ac stalker/harasser troll' as I call you) on my education, successes & achievements in the computer sciences field I have had, & more. I can do that, unlike yourself, trolling/stalking/harassing as AC posts as you do with no indicator of who you really are at all, whatsoever...
---
"the guy (guys ?) is a very well known troll and almost no one but morons use the so-called guide the google research result probably shows (yes because he doesn't have a blog or a reference website for this so he relies on google ranking of a post made on some forums" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31, @07:19AM (#38547144)
Speaking for "everyone", eh? Are YOU the "great authority" here?? No. Here's contrary data from some testimonials I've gotten regarding that security guide of mine for Windows:
---
SOME QUOTED TESTIMONIALS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SAID LAYERED SECURITY GUIDE I AUTHORED:
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=2
"I recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual." - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral
AND
"APK, thanks for such a great guide. This would, and should, be an inspiration to such security measures. Also, the pc that has "tweaks": IS STILL GOING! NO PROBLEMS!" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral
AND
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=3
"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updat
the whole article is about the problem, that tinyurls hide the link target, while good urls speak for themself. Something like domain.tld/messages/inbox ist quite obvious, something like sho.rt/bla is not.
KERNEL.ORG COMPROMISED - The Cracking of Kernel.org: (very bad - do you trust it now?)
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/08/31/2321232/Kernelorg-Compromised
---
Linux.com pwned in fresh round of cyber break-ins: (lol)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/12/more_linux_sites_down/
---
Mysql.com Hacked, Made To Serve Malware:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/09/26/2218238/mysqlcom-hacked-made-to-serve-malware
What's that site running? You guessed it - Linux -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=mysql.com
---
London Stock Exchange serving malware:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1484548/London-Stock-Exchange-Web-Site-Serving-Malware
(I mean hey - NOT ONLY DID LINUX FALL FLAT ON ITS FACE less than a few minutes into the job http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/02/19/0147232/London-Stock-Exchange-Price-Errors-Emerged-At-Linux-Launch, & crash not only ONCE, but TWICE there? You see "Linux 'fine security'" in motion @ the LSE too!)
---
DUQU ROOTKIT/BOTNET BEING SERVED FROM LINUX SERVERS: (very recent):
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/30/1610228/duqu-attackers-managed-to-wipe-cc-servers
---
Linux Foundation, Linux.com Sites Down To Fix Security Breach: (lol)
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/09/11/1325212/linux-foundation-linuxcom-sites-down-to-fix-security-breach
---
Linux's showing in CA's breached recently too? Ok: (very, Very, VERY BAD for ecommerce, online shopping, banking, etc./et al)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=StartCom.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=GlobalSign.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=Comodo.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=DigiCert.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.gemnet.nl
The list of CA Servers BREACHED that RUN LINUX (StartCom, GlobalSign, DigiCert, Comodo, GemNet)... per these articles verifying that:
http://itproafrica.com/technology/security/cas-hacked/
&
http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/site-dutch-ca-gemnet-offline-after-web-server-attack-120811
---
The Stratfor SECURITY hack: (can't blame it on poor setup, this IS a security firm that uses Linux)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/28/1743201/data-exposed-in-stratfor-compromise-analyzed
What's that domain run? Yes kids - you guessed it: LINUX -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.stratfor.com
---
Phishers/Spammers FAVOR attacking LAMP: