The Storm worm has been an increasing problem in the last few months, but a change in tactics may mean something big is going to happen. The article discusses a bit of back story about the worm, including the somewhat frightening numbers about the millions of spam emails carrying the worm payload. They estimate between a quarter and a million infected systems usable for spam or DDOS attacks.
They estimate between a quarter and a million infected systems usable for spam or DDOS attacks.
0.25 to 1,000,000 is a pretty large range.
Seriously though, how does one go about estimating these numbers? Is it something as simple as an estimate of what proportion of infected e-mails are expected to result in an infected desktop? I doubt that would give a very accurate figure.
Speaking of typos, I find it funny that the crack editorial staff of Network World managed to let a typo slip through in the *2nd word* of the article. All fear "the swifly spiking onslaught of the Storm Worm!"
"Joe Stewart, senior security researcher at managed security company SecureWorks, at the Black Hat conference......
From the number of infected machines he's found, Stewart estimates that the Storm botnet could comprise anywhere from 250,000 to 1 million infected computers. And that raises questions, along with eyebrows. "
The estimate is based on the number of unique IPs we've seen attacking networks we monitor, coupled with our knowledge of how the Storm botnet works. We've seen up to 100,000 bots sending the attack (the ecard spam) in a single day. Storm is a multi-tiered botnet, meaning that not all the bots are tasked with sending the emails. Some are supernodes (first-tier), designed to serve up the ecard executables via HTTP and facilitate communication between the regular (second-tier) nodes. Another factor is that some second-tier nodes will never be seen attacking, since they may be behind firewalls that block port 25 outbound or at an ISP that is doing SMTP blocking, so they may be part of the botnet but difficult to count.
In reality, the only source that can give you a precise count for the Storm botnet is the Storm controller - and he/she's not talking. So we do the best we can at estimating its size given the data available.
I've seen numerous Apple users blindly type in the administrator username/password when prompted to by a program without having any idea why they needed to. If Apple's market share ever gets high enough to make it a juicy target, there are going to be Apple botnets as well.
If they can't find a way to reach customers and get them fixes for the rampant insecurity of these machines that are compromised. The silent majority of customers are getting frustrated with this sham of a performance [chron.com], and while saner heads recognize that Redmond does a lot right and some wrong, the emotional response is going to shove them out of dominance in operating systems. Maybe that's why they're better on spacy Web3.x "cloud" and "distributed OS" technologies instead of what made them big, which was getting things done the hard way consistently.
No. "The silent majority" believe that this is the way computers just "work".
They've been shown that in countless movies and TV shows and by "experts" on the news.
They're the ones you see claiming that Linux and Mac's will have the "same problems" as their market share increases.
With all the past outbreaks on Windows machines, anyone who wanted to migrate has already started their migration. This won't change anything for anyone else.
No. "The silent majority" believe that this is the way computers just "work".
More accurate, perhaps, to say that they think this is just the way computers don't work.
There was a program on last week where they had a collection of self proclaimed grumpy old women
listing things they hated about computers - and you know what? Every single complaint was not
about computers per se, but about Microsoft software.
There's got to be an opportunity in there somewhere for the FOSS movement. Imagine if we could convince the
"I hate computers" brigade that what they mainly hate is Microsoft...
With all the past outbreaks on Windows machines, anyone who wanted to migrate has already started their migration. This won't change anything for anyone else.
That's just silly. People have different convincer strategies. If nothing else, there are people out there who still
haven't heard that there's an alternative. There's a lot of meat left on that bone.
The usual stuff. Clippy, Outlook, "you appear to be writing a letter", Word's grammar checker... that sort of thing. Nip over to annoyances.org and you'll find a hundred or so examples.
And alternatives that don't run the software people want won't function as alternatives.
Oh do behave. That argument might fly for specialist drafting or accountancy software, but not here. For the market segment
under discussion, all people want is a browser, a word processor, something to check their em
All of the Linux distros I've seen pack in much more than that, which seems like overkill to me. I'd also have to think that the group would find a whole new slew of anoyances with Linux as well. Especially if they can't playback music or watch videos (does YouTube work w/Linux?).
Why wouldn't YouTube work with Linux? YouTube runs on Linux. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=youtube.c om [netcraft.com]
There is a Linux version of flash, it was behind for a while but YouTube still worked even then. I have no probl
None of those things are with Windows itself though.
No, but they are Microsoft though - which is what I said in the first place.
Annoyances.org isn't the collection of old ladies you discussed
You're right, I just used it as a loose example. I'd be more specific about the complaints,
but I wasn't expecting a test, and I forgot to make notes. All I can do is report what I remember
from the show.
I'm willing to be quite a bit of/.ers post over there, so I doubt its unbiased.
meh. It's a support forum, not an advocacy site. It's not so much "Microsoft sucks" as
"what do I do when when the registry fills up?". You don't get a lot of penguin heads there because...
well, because we all use Linux and it's a windows support forum.
Annoying things are hardly a reason to HATE MS though.
Hatred isn't a rational act, though, is it? I mean, most people don't
wake up in the morning and say "now who shall I hate today? Who is the most
rational target for my hatred?". It's not like that. On the other hand, there's no shortage of people who think "if that computer
crashes and loses my document one more time today, it's going through that window..."
My point is that a lot of the things I heard cited as inspiring this hatred were
typical MS grumbling points.
And if it's a good enough reason to hate computers, it's good enough to hate Microsoft.
It's just a question of education;)
I'd also have to think that the group would find a whole new slew of anoyances with Linux as well.
Oh quite possibly, although the latest Ubuntu is getting very good in that respect.
But they'd be spared the malware, and the viruses and the worms... which is the
starting point for this discussion.
(does YouTube work w/Linux?).
Yes, perfectly. At least since flash 9 was released for Linux.
Those "grumpy, old ladies" could be running their knitting/sewing machines hooked up to their computer.
They could indeed. Probably not those particular ones however. The show is callled
Grumpy Old Women [bbc.co.uk] and takes a handful of the BBC's more curmudgeonly female celebs and gives them free rein to gripe about
the things that wind them up. Not as good as Grumpy Old Men (IMHO) but that could be down to gender bias on my part.
The "silent majority" however (and no, it's not my choice of phrase, either) don'
Convincer strategies was something they told us about on a training
course I went on a while back. A convincer strategy is what has to
happen inside someone's head before they accept a given proposition
as being true.
So, one person's convincer strategy might be that he needs to hear
it a certain number of times (and all you need to do is keep on at them)
while someone else might need to try it for themselves. Some
With all the past outbreaks on Windows machines, anyone who wanted to migrate has already started their migration. This won't change anything for anyone else.
Well, it is changing it for me! I got an ecard from "friend" and I downloaded the exe on my iMac, and it won't work. I could not see the card. I tried again on my Red Hat Enterprise 4 server, and even after chmod +x *AND* running as root with X windows going, the card would not open.
That is the last straw for me! I can't get cards from my "friend". I a
That is the last straw for me! I can't get cards from my "friend". I am going back to Windows where I can open cards. -- Try to hack my 31337 firewall! [127.0.0.1]
Yeah, you really should do; you clearly need a more secure OS than the one you're running now. I just hacked your firewall, and man have you got a lot of weird stuff on there.:-) You're lucky I'm not a black-hat.
They're the ones you see claiming that Linux and Mac's will have the "same problems" as their market share increases.
Out of curiosity, what aspects of the OSX/BSD and Linux architectures are going to stop:
An uneducated user from executing a binary file they download from a URL they are given
A process that user is running from executing further code with that user's privileges
That user's processes from making outbound TCP/UDP connections
That user's processes from accessing an SMTP server to send emails
A user from configuring a process to run on logging in
By my thinking, that's really all that's needed for a botnet to work on a given platform. I am certainly ignorant of many details regarding the BSD/Linux kernels and I stand ready to be corrected, but I believe I've seen all those things happening individually as part of day to day user life on my linux box.
If they can't find a way to reach customers and get them fixes for the rampant insecurity of these machines that are compromised.
WTF are you talking about? RTFA, please. If you actually did that before funboying around, you'd notice that the program in question is not a worm at all, but a trojan. User has to manually run the attachment, probably clicking through a couple of dialogs practically begging him not to. But, since the user really, really _wants_ to see the cute kittens, or a naked celebrity, or whatever the trojan claims to be, trojan will be run. No OS can defend against the user being a sucker.
So, move along, please. Your tirade is totally off topic here.
I remember freaking out 10 years ago every time I saw someone running that cutesy little "fireworks display" email attachment. Despite my best efforts, I couldn't get the users to stop unzipping and opening it*. Glad to see that things haven't changed much.
SNAFU (Situation Normal: All F***ed Up)
* Before I get 10 million suggestions for a decade-past issue, yes we did find more effective ways of blocking it.
I'm interested in something from that wikipedia article; it mentions that the source code to storm specifically avoids infecting Windows Server 2003 boxes. Anyone know why the author would go out of his way to not hit 2K3 boxes?
Perhaps to avoid infecting government servers (and upping the ante, if he got caught)? That's the only thing I could think of. I'm sure there's a very logical reason, but I have no idea what it might be.
My best guess is related to the way security companies work (the pay-per-problem model). The companies that care enough about their security issues are those with critical servers, and many of these use win 2K3.
Storm affecting these boxes would mean quicker detection of the virus, and lesser migration. Without these (and with users who dont update anti-virus signatures very regularly), the virus has a greater potential of spreading. Of course, the author didn't imagine Storm would be this popular, and that t
As the publisher of two fairly popular websites, this is something to worry about. Recently all our sites spread across a few dedicated servers in one data center were down. Not because of a direct DDOS attack, but because of a peripheral attack which swamped the network infrastructure at the center.
Really, if these guys decided to do more frequent DDOS attacks, anyone could be a target and calling the FBI is cold comfort since in the meantime your sites are down and out.
#1. Spoofed IP addresses - not that common anymore. It used to be that you'd tie up a machine by having it send replies to machines that did not initiate the connection. There is a simple solution to this. Anyone assigned a block of IP addresses has to make sure that all outbound traffic references IP addresses on that block.
#2. Thousands of machines eating up your bandwidth - the most common type now. This is where the zombie army each makes continued requests of your machine. For webservers, they can request a page over and over and over until they use up all your bandwidth and legitimate visitors cannot get through. This is more difficult to fix. It can partially be handled by blocking the range of addresses that host the zombies. Such as Comcast and Verizon and so forth. There are more complicated attacks. Such has sending half a request.
There's not much that can be done with #2 until a law gets passed saying that the person paying for the Internet connection is responsible for $X of clean-up charges. Then people will have a financial incentive to look at more secure systems.
I wonder how grandma and grandpa will feel when get a letter in the mail to discover that there internet they use to only check mails from the kids/grandkids has been hijacked by a worm that they never heard about and now have to pay fines to cover damages. I mean other then the whole aww factor this plan will work.
Why wait?
Why not take a few pro-active measures? Such as emailing all your clients with the new rules and offering to assist them in evaluating their systems... automatically?
Shouldn't everyone be blocking.exe attackments at the MTA?
NO! It's annoying enough that Google rapes through my.zip files looking for.exe's.
If I'm working on a c++ program at work and zip it up and gmail it home (lock the computer while it uploads) and forget to 'make clean'... I don't get my code. I know its nitpicky and a make clean or a thumb drive will cure my problems but I'm forgetful which tend to preclude both.
It makes no difference if you password protect them or not as to list the zip file content no password is needed. You only need the password to correct extract the files.
I've just switched to using RAR and as for now Google is leaving my attachments alone...
Actually, if they are clever enough to scan the zips, maybe they could be clever enough to just filter the exes out leaving the rest. It annoys me as well, the number of zips I have called.aaa.abc.bmp around because of this is stupid.
Maybe - just maybe - google could consider allowing zips to account users who have specified it as a preference (default block as currently occurs).
The examples I've seen of this don't have an attachment. It's a "click here! to view your postcard!" link in the email. Clikcing the link takes you to a site that says something like "We're trying a new feature on our site, please click here if you do not see your postcard". This link is then to an executable which of course prompts you to download or run. It seems to me you'd have to be pretty naive or just plain stupid to click through to the point of infection but I'm guessing a lot of people do...
For me the biggest problem with these is that there is no attachment for AV to pick off and there is hardly any text and no real advertising in the email so our spam filters don't block it either.
"Why do you need a botnet that big?" he asks. "You don't need a million [infected computers] to send spam."
For spam, a million-strong botnet might be overkill. But botnets can do much more - like launching denial-of-service attacks. These attacks aim to overwhelm a Web site or Internet server by sending it a constant stream of garbage data at a particular Web site or Internet server.
So the question is, who is controlling these botnets and why? DDoS attacks can be pretty useful if someone wants to get a point across or to extort money from someone or some company. It will be interesting to see if they can trace it back to the source.
"Why do you need a botnet that big?" he asks. "You don't need a million [infected computers] to send spam."
For spam, a million-strong botnet might be overkill. But botnets can do much more - like launching denial-of-service attacks.
So the question is, who is controlling these botnets and why?
It is possible that the creators of this worm did not have any idea how successful they would be. They may have figured they'd get 5,000 PC's, not 500,000. Now suddenly they have a monster by the tail and are not sure what to do with it.
I dunno - maybe this is what we need ~ a botnet big enough to do some real damage could actually catalyze some public awareness. Imagine if they DDoS'd MS, or Amazon, heck, Google? Maybe these guys (esp. Google) could handle this kind of slamming, but they've got lobbyists now. I really wouldn't mind seeing a well-funded FBI task force with the express purpose of rooting out botnets and going after their creators.
Yeah, yeah, most of them are not on US soil. I know.
However, imagine legislation that actually required the disconnection of infected bots from an ISP until it was cleaned, and a public awareness campaign that painted users who allow this to happen as idiots, and the ISPs as protectors of the rest of the internet users. Most people are concerned that there would be a backlash against the ISPs and they would stop complying for fear of loss of business, but that's where the legislation comes in. It's a quarantine situation - just like IRL, if you've got something nasty and contagious, the CDC can legally quarantine (forcibly, if you're an idiot like the TB guy) you because you're endangering the lives of others by going out and exposing them.
Same thing here - don't give the botnets a chance to expand, cut them off, force a windows-cleaning (ISPs could offer a cleanup disk, $5.95 plus tax, or something, to help make it worth it for them - don't want to hurt the small ISPs, even though I think TW and the rest are bastards), and let them reconnect afterwards. Simple, painless, and will definitely make sure people learn their lesson for next time.
I work for a small ISP in Tacoma, WA. We tried selling a cleanup disk. It didn't work because a $9.95 disk cost us 1 hour of phone support per computer on average. The reality is that most of our customers who get infected aren't technically savvy enough to install and run anti-malware software. We now have a flat-rate tech bench fee of $89 to clean up the computer. We still lose money on the deal, but not as much. What technically minded people in general forget is that most users want their security soluti
From the article:
> For spam, a million-strong botnet might be overkill.
> But botnets can do much more - like launching denial-of-service attacks.
> These attacks aim to overwhelm a Web site or Internet server by sending
> it a constant stream of garbage data at a particular Web site or Internet server.
A few years back there was a spate of DDOS attacks on root servers, for example:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=197004237 [informationweek.com]
which were described at the time as "
Yesterday, a non-expert computer user I know sent me an email warning about emails with "postcard for you" in the subject being a carrier for the "worst virus ever". It could erase your entire hard drive!!! The histrionics convinced me it was bogus, so I blew it off. But seems there is something going on after all? That email now looks like it was deliberately timed and edited to ride the next wave of panic.
It's well-known that the Chinese government has an active computer warfare department. A botnet on this scale is way beyond anything needed for mere industrial blackmail. But if you wanted to bring down large chunks of some nation's Internet quickly, without the attack coming from an obvious (and blockable) source, this would be a great weapon. Let's say you wanted to disable the Internet in Taiwan, or South Korea, or Japan, or all three, just prior to military action. Or let's say you wanted to disrupt financial markets to be sure that your intentional crashing of the dollar [telegraph.co.uk] had maximal effects.
Do you realize the kind of productivity spike we could get if the 'net was down for, say, a week? One day would be lost to people trying to get back up, admittedly, but then we'd all just start doing work, checking the 'net connection more and more infrequently. After a week, we'd probably run out of work on our desks that didn't need internet lookups, though most of us still have paper catalogs around so it wouldn't be a total loss. Faxing would get popular again, as would phones and voicemail...but no outside IM and email to deal with.
I'm going to call it a net win for productivity and busniess in general. Which means that it's most likely that big business is behind the internet shutdown...and the Storm worm.
How are these numbers calculated? (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously though, how does one go about estimating these numbers? Is it something as simple as an estimate of what proportion of infected e-mails are expected to result in an infected desktop? I doubt that would give a very accurate figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How are these numbers calculated? (Score:4, Informative)
"Joe Stewart, senior security researcher at managed security company SecureWorks, at the Black Hat conference.
From the number of infected machines he's found, Stewart estimates that the Storm botnet could comprise anywhere from 250,000 to 1 million infected computers. And that raises questions, along with eyebrows. "
Parent
Re:How are these numbers calculated? (Score:5, Informative)
In reality, the only source that can give you a precise count for the Storm botnet is the Storm controller - and he/she's not talking. So we do the best we can at estimating its size given the data available.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How are these numbers calculated? (Score:5, Funny)
- 1. Roll 2D6
- 2. Take the number rolled, and multiply it times the number of worm messages that have arrived in your inbox.
- 3. If your computer is actually infected, square the result.
- 4. Play a game of Solitare
- 5. Add your final score to the result
- 6. Divide the result by your Boss's vigilance.
- 7. Make a saving throw against discovery, and multiply the result by 1000
- 8. Round up to the nearest 100,000
- 9. Publish
- 10. Profit!
Lower bounds are trickier as they will require you to actually care about what you're doing.Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft is going to lose big (Score:3, Insightful)
"The silent majority" is uninformed. (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been shown that in countless movies and TV shows and by "experts" on the news.
They're the ones you see claiming that Linux and Mac's will have the "same problems" as their market share increases.
With all the past outbreaks on Windows machines, anyone who wanted to migrate has already started their migration. This won't change anything for anyone else.
Parent
Re:"The silent majority" is uninformed. (Score:5, Interesting)
More accurate, perhaps, to say that they think this is just the way computers don't work.
There was a program on last week where they had a collection of self proclaimed grumpy old women listing things they hated about computers - and you know what? Every single complaint was not about computers per se, but about Microsoft software.
There's got to be an opportunity in there somewhere for the FOSS movement. Imagine if we could convince the "I hate computers" brigade that what they mainly hate is Microsoft ...
That's just silly. People have different convincer strategies. If nothing else, there are people out there who still haven't heard that there's an alternative. There's a lot of meat left on that bone.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The usual stuff. Clippy, Outlook, "you appear to be writing a letter", Word's grammar checker... that sort of thing. Nip over to annoyances.org and you'll find a hundred or so examples.
Oh do behave. That argument might fly for specialist drafting or accountancy software, but not here. For the market segment under discussion, all people want is a browser, a word processor, something to check their em
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why wouldn't YouTube work with Linux? YouTube runs on Linux. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=youtube.c om [netcraft.com]
There is a Linux version of flash, it was behind for a while but YouTube still worked even then. I have no probl
Re:"The silent majority" is uninformed. (Score:5, Informative)
No, but they are Microsoft though - which is what I said in the first place.
You're right, I just used it as a loose example. I'd be more specific about the complaints, but I wasn't expecting a test, and I forgot to make notes. All I can do is report what I remember from the show.
meh. It's a support forum, not an advocacy site. It's not so much "Microsoft sucks" as "what do I do when when the registry fills up?". You don't get a lot of penguin heads there because... well, because we all use Linux and it's a windows support forum.
Hatred isn't a rational act, though, is it? I mean, most people don't wake up in the morning and say "now who shall I hate today? Who is the most rational target for my hatred?". It's not like that. On the other hand, there's no shortage of people who think "if that computer crashes and loses my document one more time today, it's going through that window..." My point is that a lot of the things I heard cited as inspiring this hatred were typical MS grumbling points.
And if it's a good enough reason to hate computers, it's good enough to hate Microsoft. It's just a question of education ;)
Oh quite possibly, although the latest Ubuntu is getting very good in that respect. But they'd be spared the malware, and the viruses and the worms... which is the starting point for this discussion.
Yes, perfectly. At least since flash 9 was released for Linux.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They could indeed. Probably not those particular ones however. The show is callled Grumpy Old Women [bbc.co.uk] and takes a handful of the BBC's more curmudgeonly female celebs and gives them free rein to gripe about the things that wind them up. Not as good as Grumpy Old Men (IMHO) but that could be down to gender bias on my part.
The "silent majority" however (and no, it's not my choice of phrase, either) don'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And all of them so very tast^Wdifferent, too! :)
Convincer strategies was something they told us about on a training course I went on a while back. A convincer strategy is what has to happen inside someone's head before they accept a given proposition as being true.
So, one person's convincer strategy might be that he needs to hear it a certain number of times (and all you need to do is keep on at them) while someone else might need to try it for themselves. Some
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, it is changing it for me! I got an ecard from "friend" and I downloaded the exe on my iMac, and it won't work. I could not see the card. I tried again on my Red Hat Enterprise 4 server, and even after chmod +x *AND* running as root with X windows going, the card would not open.
That is the last straw for me! I can't get cards from my "friend". I a
Re:"The silent majority" is uninformed. (Score:5, Funny)
--
Try to hack my 31337 firewall! [127.0.0.1]
Yeah, you really should do; you clearly need a more secure OS than the one you're running now. I just hacked your firewall, and man have you got a lot of weird stuff on there.
Parent
Re:"The silent majority" is uninformed. (Score:4, Insightful)
- An uneducated user from executing a binary file they download from a URL they are given
- A process that user is running from executing further code with that user's privileges
- That user's processes from making outbound TCP/UDP connections
- That user's processes from accessing an SMTP server to send emails
- A user from configuring a process to run on logging in
By my thinking, that's really all that's needed for a botnet to work on a given platform. I am certainly ignorant of many details regarding the BSD/Linux kernels and I stand ready to be corrected, but I believe I've seen all those things happening individually as part of day to day user life on my linux box.Parent
Re:Microsoft is going to lose big (Score:5, Informative)
WTF are you talking about? RTFA, please. If you actually did that before funboying around, you'd notice that the program in question is not a worm at all, but a trojan. User has to manually run the attachment, probably clicking through a couple of dialogs practically begging him not to. But, since the user really, really _wants_ to see the cute kittens, or a naked celebrity, or whatever the trojan claims to be, trojan will be run. No OS can defend against the user being a sucker.
So, move along, please. Your tirade is totally off topic here.
Parent
Love the tag "situationnormal" (Score:3, Informative)
SNAFU (Situation Normal: All F***ed Up)
* Before I get 10 million suggestions for a decade-past issue, yes we did find more effective ways of blocking it.
Naked teens attack home director (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Worm [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Question on that article (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Worm [wikipedia.org]
Perhaps to avoid infecting government servers (and upping the ante, if he got caught)? That's the only thing I could think of. I'm sure there's a very logical reason, but I have no idea what it might be.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The companies that care enough about their security issues are those with critical servers, and many of these use win 2K3.
Storm affecting these boxes would mean quicker detection of the virus, and lesser migration. Without these (and with users who dont update anti-virus signatures very regularly), the virus has a greater potential of spreading. Of course, the author didn't imagine Storm would be this popular, and that t
worth worrying about (Score:4, Interesting)
Catalyst for change? (Score:4, Interesting)
#1. Spoofed IP addresses - not that common anymore. It used to be that you'd tie up a machine by having it send replies to machines that did not initiate the connection. There is a simple solution to this. Anyone assigned a block of IP addresses has to make sure that all outbound traffic references IP addresses on that block.
#2. Thousands of machines eating up your bandwidth - the most common type now. This is where the zombie army each makes continued requests of your machine. For webservers, they can request a page over and over and over until they use up all your bandwidth and legitimate visitors cannot get through. This is more difficult to fix. It can partially be handled by blocking the range of addresses that host the zombies. Such as Comcast and Verizon and so forth. There are more complicated attacks. Such has sending half a request.
There's not much that can be done with #2 until a law gets passed saying that the person paying for the Internet connection is responsible for $X of clean-up charges. Then people will have a financial incentive to look at more secure systems.
Parent
Why not offer to swap them ahead of time? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why wait?
... automatically?
Why not take a few pro-active measures? Such as emailing all your clients with the new rules and offering to assist them in evaluating their systems
More information (Score:5, Informative)
Shouldn't everyone be blocking
NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
NO! It's annoying enough that Google rapes through my
If I'm working on a c++ program at work and zip it up and gmail it home (lock the computer while it uploads) and forget to 'make clean'
Parent
Re:NO! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:NO! (Score:4, Informative)
I've just switched to using RAR and as for now Google is leaving my attachments alone...
M Addario
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It annoys me as well, the number of zips I have called
Maybe - just maybe - google could consider allowing zips to account users who have specified it as a preference (default block as currently occurs).
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when a user is sending it to himself
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More information (Score:4, Insightful)
For me the biggest problem with these is that there is no attachment for AV to pick off and there is hardly any text and no real advertising in the email so our spam filters don't block it either.
Parent
What does God need with a starship? (Score:2, Redundant)
"Why do you need a botnet that big?" he asks. "You don't need a million [infected computers] to send spam."
For spam, a million-strong botnet might be overkill. But botnets can do much more - like launching denial-of-service attacks. These attacks aim to overwhelm a Web site or Internet server by sending it a constant stream of garbage data at a particular Web site or Internet server.
So the question is, who is controlling these botnets and why? DDoS attacks can be pretty useful if someone wants to get a point across or to extort money from someone or some company. It will be interesting to see if they can trace it back to the source.
Re:What does God need with a starship? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Removal Tool (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Removal Tool (Score:5, Funny)
The goggle really might do nothing.
Parent
Re:Removal Tool (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
that is why (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe there's a silver lining here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What technically minded people in general forget is that most users want their security soluti
Beyond the slashdot effect... (Score:2, Informative)
A few years back there was a spate of DDOS attacks on root servers, for example: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=197004237 [informationweek.com] which were described at the time as "
An email warning I got yesterday (Score:3, Interesting)
Military? (Score:5, Interesting)
Had this show up (Score:3, Interesting)
Hi. Worshipper has sent you a greeting card.
See your card as often as you wish during the next 15 days.
SEEING YOUR CARD
If your email software creates links to Web pages, click on your card's direct www address below while you are connected to the Internet:
http://682.81.0.23/?9907cd64e28cae3d7703a3b01bda de (Poster's note: This URL has been altered to protect the rampant mad clickers amongst us)
Or copy and paste it into your browser's "Location" box (where Internet addresses go).
We hope you enjoy your awesome card.
Wishing you the best, Administrator, americangreetings.comMandatory Disconnect of Infected Computers (Score:3, Insightful)
Then if a botnet attack comes, turn off the overseas pipes as needed. Yeah I am a dreamer, but I am at least half way practical.
Re:Cool (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going to call it a net win for productivity and busniess in general. Which means that it's most likely that big business is behind the internet shutdown...and the Storm worm.
Shit, where'd I put that damned tinfoil hat...
Parent