New Email Worm Squirming Through Windows Users' Inboxes 473
Trailrunner7 writes "There appears to be an actual email worm in circulation right now, using the tried-and-true infection method of sending emails containing malicious executables to all of the names in a user's email address book. The worm arrives via emails with the subject line 'Here You Have' or something similar, and the messages contain a link to a site that will download a malicious file to the victim's PC. The malware then drops itself into the Windows directory with a file name of CSRSS.EXE, which is identical to a legitimate Windows file. From there, it's 2001 all over again, as the worm attempts to mail itself to all of the contacts in the victim's Outlook address book."
The hell? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid question from a Linux / Mac user:
Are there really operating systems in use in 2010 that let you write files to a system directory without entering an administrator password?
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire UW mail system died yesterday morning.
Maybe this is why ...
It's an instance of the reason why. The actual reason is that the users still haven't learned from the last 9 years of experience. The only bad thing is that their stupidity is not self-contained and can affect the networks and computers of others. I say that because this time, it isn't really a technical flaw in Windows since I don't see any reports of the e-mail attachments being automatically executed. This is more like a social engineering attack. It's one that is not remotely new and has provided numerous examples that the even slightly clueful have already learned from.
U R teh winnar! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sigh. We need licenses to operate computers, that way we can revoke them when people click on the shiny red buttons.
--
Click to read more great comments: ILoveSlashdot.exe [slashdot.org]
Probing (Score:2, Insightful)
*removes tinfoil hat
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:5, Insightful)
Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical windows user should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to write to? Maybe the ipod/ipad approach is better for most people.
Re:The hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid question from a Linux / Mac user:
Are there really operating systems in use in 2010 that let you write files to a system directory without entering an administrator password?
Yes, because people will give a computer anything it asks for, especially if it asks in an ambiguous manner.
What's this? A UAC prompt asking for permission to "perform the action I requested"? Wait, what was I just doing? Oh yeah, reading email. Yes I want to do that. ]click[
Same thing would happen if you gave them a Linux/OSX box that asked for admin password. Granted M$ made it easier by not requiring one to actually type in any actual password to elevate privileges.
Re:U R teh winnar! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because there is no way for a virus to spread on a Linux machine.
Even assuming that Linux does not have security bugs and the user runs as user and not root, the virus can still: /home/username )
1. Access all of the users files.
2. delete them (rm -rf
3. Send itself to every email address it could find in the users files.
For a single user machine, rm -rf / and rm -rf /home/username is about the same in the damage.
Yes, most of Linux users now are the ones that know what they are doing and would be able to stay clean even using Windows. If, say, everyone goes to Linux, the "oh, look, my friend sent me a screensaver " users and virus creators will go too and Linux will have the same problem as Windows do now.
For now, the number of Linux users, not to mention the number of stupid Linux users is too low for the virus writers to care (why spend time to create a virus that works for 5% of people, 90% of whom know how to protect themselves, when he can create a virus that works for 90% of people a lot of whom will run it).
I use both Linux and Windows, my opinion is that both operating systems have their own advantages and disadvantages, but both are good at what they do, especially Linux for servers or work computers that need a browser and OpenOffice.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Windows is super! (Score:4, Insightful)
Turn in your low slashdot ID immediately.
Re:The hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this has been said before, but if your operating system is asking for an admin password often enough that replacing it with a mouseclick significantly improves the user experience, you're solving the wrong problem.
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:5, Insightful)
Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical windows user should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to write to? Maybe the ipod/ipad approach is better for most people.
I have no idea why you were modded "Troll" except that some people have an irrational oversensitivity to any mention of the iPod or iPad. They should get the fuck over it, to be direct about it.
Back on topic, what you mention is a very good idea. It's also not new to Apple products at all. That's the approach Unix has used for a long, long time now. Installed programs on a Unix system are generally root-owned and sit in directories that are also root-owned. For a normal user, both the executable and the directory in which it is located is read-only.
The problem with Windows is the vast amount of software that is poorly designed and wants Admin privileges even though it could be designed to carry out its task without them. This has trained the more point-and-drool type of user (the majority who gravitate to this platform) to just click away any dialogs without seriously questioning why a program is requesting extra access. That is, of course, assuming they are running as a non-privileged user in the first place.
The iPhone (I assume you don't intentionally refer to an mp3 player) approach is more like "you don't need root for anything, let us manage that". The Unix approach is more like "programs don't expect to have root privileges without a very good reason, like your package manager for example". In both cases an e-mail client would be run as a normal user. I'm not so familiar with the inner workings of an iPhone but at least on Unix and Unix-like OSs, the binary executable file would also reside in a root-owned directory not writable to any normal user. Combine that with the generally more clueful user base and it's easy to understand why Unix/Unix-like users just don't have these problems.
Three things (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Yes, older ones. Unlike Apple, other companies don't force you to stop using an OS after a couple years. MS supports their OSes for a minimum of 10 years, and XP is scheduled to be supported until 2014. On XP most users run as an administrator, and thus need no privilege escalation to do anything. This is not required, they could run as a normal user, however they don't.
2) Who says you need system access? Most spyware we encounter these days doesn't bother, it just infects the user directory. No admin needed. Also, some detection tools have trouble noticing it when you log in as an admin and run them, since it is inactive at that point.
3) We are talking about people who will run executables from e-mail, something they've been told not to do about 1,000,000 times. You REALLY think an admin prompt will stop them? Hell no, they'll just grant permission.
If you think having to escalate privilege protects an OS, you are deluding yourself. Don't get me wrong, I like the feature and in the hands of a technical user it is a useful defense. However it does shit for the clueless users. You cannot protect someone against themselves and still give them control over their own system.
Re:What do you mean 2001? (Score:3, Insightful)
[on OWA] It even degrades nicely for older browsers.
I wish it downgraded nicely for newer browsers, too.
Re:The hell? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:4, Insightful)
Normal, non-technical windows users often own their own machines; consequently, yes, they should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to right to.
It's not so much about whether you should be allowed to do with your own property what you wish. Of course you should. It's more like the security model of capabilities. If there is no good reason to allow something to happen then it is better security not to allow it.
This breaks down in Windows because Windows does not have a centralized package manager that handles both the installation and the uninstallation of all new software. The proprietary nature of most Windows software would preclude such a thing. A Linux user can have the full use of their system without ever having to directly download a binary executable and then run that executable just to install or use a piece of software. Instead, they have package managers and repositories which have all but eliminated the issues of third-party malware.
By contrast, on Windows it is far more common to directly download an "Installer.exe" file and then run that installer in the directory into which it was downloaded and with the elevated privileges needed to install software. That introduces problems when such executables come from untrustworthy sources. Introducing undetected malware into a Linux repository is much more difficult and thus has occurred far less frequently than the much easier task of conducting a social engineering attack against a user of an e-mail client.
The way things are done on Windows makes it far more prone to these attacks. The fact that the average Windows user is much less knowledgable than the average *nix user compounds the problem. That's why you have attacks that are about nine years old that are still successful, which is really quite pathetic.
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:1, Insightful)
I think a better route would be make that the default method/policy and make it hard for the average user to it.
That would sit better with me than the Apple "We fucking own you" approach that requires you to physical hack the product you just "bought."
Re:The hell? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to use a decade old operating system to play your little games or whatever, then by all means go for it.
But don't check your goddamn email with it! Use a separate install with a secure operating system for that. Doing anything else is damned near criminal negligence.
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:4, Insightful)
I am aware of the basis of your questions; what I am saying is that fact that normal, non-technical Windows users often don't have someone else to administer their machines means that they have to be able to run executables from directories that they can write to.
Now, distinct security roles for the same user can mitigate some of this is risk, and it might make sense to not allow a normal Windows user to run code that they have "casual" write access to (e.g., without escalating to an administrative role temporarily), but the problem with that without is finding a way to make the security model simple and comprehensible enough that users don't simply get into the habit of escalating to an administrative role to do things without understanding what they are doing.
This is not a particular easy problem, because for a general purpose computer, you have to have a fairly fine grained security model to allow software to do what the user wants it to but not other things, and non-technical users aren't going to want to learn the details of a fine-grained security model.
I don't think that's really all that true; if Linux becomes popular enough with casual users that the kind of malware that is directed at them becomes worth targeting at the platform, third party repositories will be setup and emailed invitations distributed to add them and download screen savers and other seemingly-innocuous software from them. Which will, of course, be malware that the users are being tricked into installing with elevated privileges. (Of course, you can install packages on Linux straight from files -- even files in email -- since, e.g., Ubuntu, IIRC, runs the graphical package manager by default if you click on a .deb; while many Linux systems have security models that are somewhat better than Windows, I don't think they are all that much more secure against social engineering directed at non-technical users with administrative rights on their own boxes.)
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:5, Insightful)
A repository wouldn't change anything in this situation. It's incredible, but I guarantee you most people who installed this probably have heard that malware can come in e-mail attachments. My direct family is all aware of this, and how many times have I been called over to fix something because they thought it was "okay?" Another poster here related how his friend downloaded this very worm, despite the fact he thought it was shady.
So we have a situation where users are happy to install programs not just from an unknown source, but from a very likely unsafe source! Why? Who knows? They need to see that latests celeb sex tape or are waiting for an attachment and didn't pay close attention what they're clicking on.
So yeah, let's give these users a repo and tell them it's safe and they can only install programs from there. Oh but wait, now they want a piece of software that isn't in the repo, and again we're in a situation where users have to judge for themselves how legitimate a piece of software is; I've already demonstrated how that usually turns out.
"Download"? (Score:3, Insightful)
...the messages contain a link to a site that will download a malicious file to the victim's PC.
Shouldn't it be that the site uploads a file to the PC, while the PC (or the worm itself) downloads it? I know the distinction is lost on the vast majority of users these days—which is a shame, since the concepts of "sending" and "receiving" are important enough to distinguish—but c'mon, this is Slashdot.
It's not (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that Mac/Linux users loved to bang on about this as a reason their OSes were more secure. "Oh asking for an admin password protects us." Of course it doesn't, you still have to know what you are doing but there you go. So then Windows got it too. Well now this is a problem, you can't claim it as an advantage anymore. What's more, Windows does it right, it is true privilege separation, and it doesn't cache it like a number of Linuxes do (you sudo in the GUI and it stays that way for 10 minutes). So what to do? Oh, well attack it from asking too often, of course! Never mind it only asks for, you know, things that actually require access. It is still too often!
Some people just have a mindset that their OS is Superior and Windows is Inferior. Thus they'll come up with whatever justifications it takes to convince themselves of that. It isn't about facts, it is about a belief they are trying to justify.
Also to the people who think admin gets asked for too much: Please remember that anything that doesn't need admin to do, a virus/spyware can do without that admin. So if a program can be installed without admin (and it can actually, just only to that user's account, not system wide) then a virus can be installed without admin. There is no half way, you can't have something that only a legit program can do that a virus needs admin for. Something either does or does not require admin. Period.
Re:Umm.. nope. (Score:2, Insightful)
he did say,
In the original account set up on your Mac ...
I think that can be translated as, "While logged in as Administrator..."
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah but that's a direct refusal to utilize the software repos as a trusted source. Just because a user refuses to get their software from a trusted source does not constitute a flaw in the trusted source. To give a car analogy, sure you can drive your car without a seatbelt, but it won't surprise anyone if you are seriously injured in an accident that you could have walked away from. That doesn't mean that seatbelts don't work or aren't a good idea.
Re:Sandboxie: 29 EUR (Score:3, Insightful)
The people who fall prey to a virus like that won't be technical enough to do that (even with an easy point and click tool)
If something like Sandboxie were bundled with the operating system, mail clients would by default run mail attachments in a sandbox. But you're right that it wouldn't stop "This application wants to break out of jail: Cancel or Allow?" from getting a click on Allow. The only thing that can stop that is mandatory verification of the hardware maker's digital signature on everything from the bootloader on up, as seen in iPhone and other consoles.
An iPhone may or may not be an appliance, but general-purpose computers and the operating systems designed for them are certainly not appliances.
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:3, Insightful)
Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical windows user should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to write to? Maybe the ipod/ipad approach is better for most people.
Back on topic, what you mention is a very good idea. It's also not new to Apple products at all. That's the approach Unix has used for a long, long time now. Installed programs on a Unix system are generally root-owned and sit in directories that are also root-owned. For a normal user, both the executable and the directory in which it is located is read-only.
It's certainly possible for a Linux user to download an executable to his/her home directory and run it. That was GP's point.
Sure. For that matter, it's possible for you to deliberately chew on broken glass. So what? The point is, Linux users have little or no need to get their software that way. So they overwhelmingly tend not to do so. I don't know how to make this any simpler. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see and you very well may be one of those.
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:1, Insightful)
By that logic, why implement any security measures at all? They can always be circumvented by an idiot user.
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:3, Insightful)
"it isn't really a technical flaw in Windows since I don't see any reports of the e-mail attachments being automatically executed. This is more like a social engineering attack."
In a single word: PEBKAC
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:4, Insightful)
This breaks down in Windows because Windows does not have a centralized package manager that handles both the installation and the uninstallation of all new software. The proprietary nature of most Windows software would preclude such a thing.
No, it does not. The only real barrier to something like that on Windows is the usual cries of "monopoly", which tend to be louder on Slashdot than anywhere else.
If Microsoft released Windows with a default configuration that could only install applications they approved of, Slashdot would be in a state of apoplectic outrage, even if it was trivially simple (say, a checkbox in a control panel) to turn that feature off (that is to say, defeat the purpose of having it at all).
I think you fail to appreicate the proprietary nature of most Windows software. Even the freeware is closed-sourced and copyrighted in such a way that you are not authorized to redistribute it. That means you cannot legally operate a repository containing a library of Windows software from a single source, because you'd have to get written permission from the authors of each individual piece of software allowing you to redistribute their software from your single source. It'd be an absolute nightmare and one mistake would make you end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit.
That is, of course, not beginning to address the issues surrounding the redistribution of commercial for-pay software. Redistributing that without the express blessing of the creator is usually called "piracy" and may be severely punished by the civil courts.
The only way around this would be for Microsoft to create a walled-garden type of environment sort of like Apple's App Store. Then they could dictate what licenses and/or terms of copyright are and are not acceptable. But you better believe that this would raise monopoly issues when that single vendor controls over 90% of the marketshare. Want your software to reach 90% of all desktop users? Then you play by their rules, or else. At that point the software license is no longer between the vendor and the user who is their customer; Microsoft is now the referee whether or not this is against the will of the vendor or user.
You may characterize concerns about monopoly power as categorically illegitimate and overblown in all possible cases. I do not. It is not desirable for anyone to give Microsoft that kind of power over that many users. Centralized package managers just aren't compatible with monopolies and proprietary licenses for a wide variety of good reasons that aren't just going to go away.
A centralized package manager for Windows is such a great idea that it would have been implemented by now except that there are some damned good reasons why such a thing is destined to fail miserably.
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:3, Insightful)
FYI, the iPod Touch models do just about everything the iPhone does, except take pictures and make phone calls.
You're a week out of date. The new touch has front and rear cameras similar to the new iphone.
On topic, 150+ of these landed in my email box today. If my company had any sense of fairness, they would harvest the names of everyone infected's email account, and force them to sit through a 4 hour learning module. We already take a yearly 1/2 hour session where they very explicitly explain not to click on links in things like this.
Re:Dealing with this mess... (Score:5, Insightful)
"We had to deal with this mess today, running around to PCs and flat-out shutting them off."
Somehow this doesn't happen to appear on the Windows vs Linux TCO studies from Microsoft.
Re:Three things (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Linux is a multi-user system, it's specifically designed to allow you to run pretty much any kind of software as a user that you might possible want.
True you can't write to the system directories, but you can sure as hell write to anywhere in the users home directory and cause anything you like to auto run when that user logs in. The only thing you can't do is open a port below 1024, but you don't need to use any of those ports unless you want to use default ports.
Want a zombie SMTP server, file server, web server, all fine and dandy, you just use non default ports, hell 8080 doesn't even require root access to start. You want to access someone's files, exploit their web browser, all fine.
Re:Three things (Score:3, Insightful)
For the purposes of most home PC's THE USERS FILES ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT MATTER Very few home pc's have multiple isolated users.
Desktop windows is not a truly multi-user system, but it isn't supposed to be because that's not how it's used.
Re:So that's why the UW mail system went down (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the difference between official repos endorsed and maintained by your distribution and unofficial third-party repos. It certainly doesn't make it impossible, nor is this the intent of the design, but it does ensure that a user who selects third-party repos is doing so at their own risk and has to take the intiative to make them available. That's still a damn sight better than the way things work on Windows.
Except the official repos don't contain every piece of software out there. I recently tried out the new beta of Ubuntu, and the very first piece of software I wanted to install wasn't in the repo (Opera).
So say I set a user up with Ubuntu, and tell him to only install software from the package manager. Well, he doesn't care about 99% of the packages in there anyway; he wants software_X which isn't part of the repo, so he searches on how to find it. He stumbles upon some instructions, enters his password happily when prompted, and is saddled with the same worm we're talking about today.
How has the package manager played any part in saving this user from himself? A package manager is only a form of security if it is the ONLY way to load software onto the machine, and as Apple is finding out it starts getting awful hard approving what software gets admitted
There's a significant difference there. Not the least of which is that a user has to go out of their way (often editing config files) to enable a third-party repo.
So the system is more secure because it's a pain in the ass to install new software outside of the distribution's repo, malicious or otherwise. Of course as I've stated above, it really isn't all that hard to install third party software outside of the distro's repo.
Re:User & Admin Retards (Score:4, Insightful)
User retards:
- What retard still uses Outlook?
You use what the company tells you to.
- What retard still opens exe files it receives in e-mail?
This wasn't an .exe file. It was a .scr file that was encapsulated in HTML to make it look like a .pdf. If you had HTML enabled, you'd only see a .pdf.
- What retard still opens links it receives in e-mail?
If I wasn't a paranoid security-nut, I would have. It came from inside the company, from a legitimate user I'd been in contact with in the past. But because I'm paranoid and have HTML disabled in Outlook, I could see the REAL link going to someplace in the UK.
Admin retards:
- What retard still deploys Outlook/Exchange
Have you got something better that can support 150,000 unique email addresses in the United States alone???? Do you wanna add 100 additional countries to that, with all the additional email addresses? No, please! Amuse us. Tell us how wonderful your particular flavor of *nix is for taking care of such a big system.
- What retard still allows exe files to pass through e-mail?
See above.
- What retard still doesn't classify links in e-mails that point to shoddy domains as spam?
See above.
- What retard mounts a corporate home directory without the noexec flag?
That's what a zero-day exploit does. It finds a way around that.
- What retard still allows their users to run as root/admin?
See above.
- What retard allows a client computer to send more than 1 mail per second?
They're called "distribution lists". When the bad guys get inside, they work just as well for them as they do the user.
Re:Three things (Score:3, Insightful)
"Really? So in Linux/Unix, I can download a file and it autoruns and runs amok?"
Of course yes. Do you think is there any magic forbidding a browser from downloading an openoffice document and gladly open it or, say, a firefox extension from downloading a shell script mime-typed as text/x-script and executing it?
"I open a folder containing a bad shortcut and my computer gets owned?"
Owned? maybe not. But if you use a KDE desktop environment please put into ~/.kde/Autostart a script (or a symlink to a script) with something like `rm -rf ~` or `nc -l -p 23456` and see what happens (other desktop environments have different directories to same effect). Oh, and if you don't want to put the script, how do you think your filesystem browser is able to produce thumbs for common applications (hint: have a look at those directories with `ls -la`).
"In Linux/Unix the user's files might be affected not the system files"
And what the heck do you think your standard home user thinks is of more value? /bin/ls or his foreignly studing son's e-mails?
"Windows was never designed with security from the beginning."
Quite true. And what the heck has that to do with the fact that Linux is wide open to both PEBCAK and "marketing pushed for the good of joe sixpack usability" application design malpractices?
Re:Dealing with this mess... (Score:4, Insightful)
"What, you think replacing Windows with Linux is magically going to grant its user 20 IQ points?"
I think that, at the very least, the grandparent wouldn't need to "run around to PCs and flat-out shutting them off": he could have done the same from the comfortability of his chair and the aid of ssh.
Re:Depends on Who Patient Zero Is... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, all that due diligence makes perfect sense right up until you get to the fact that the "document" or "picture" you were sent isn't actually a PDF or image, but a .SCR - a PE-format executable binary. Windows will bitch at you about 3 different ways if you try and run one of those off the web, and the simple fact that it didn't just open in Adobe Reader should be more than enough of a tip to click no.
Personally, I suspect the people at your office are simply lying about checking the headers and all to try and look less retarded. It seems to have worked on you.
Re:User & Admin Retards (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you got something better that can support 150,000 unique email addresses in the United States alone???? Do you wanna add 100 additional countries to that, with all the additional email addresses? No, please! Amuse us. Tell us how wonderful your particular flavor of *nix is for taking care of such a big system.
I wonder why you got modded so high. Do you have any clues about email systems?
1) Support for 150,000 unique email addresses: There is no need to use unique in that sentence. Also support for what? Even my texteditor can hold that many email addresses (unlike notepad) and since it is unicode based there is no difficulty adding other countries usernames. So what the hell do you mean by support for 150k email addresses?
And why should it be a problem at all for any system? MTAs and MDAs are limited by the amount of traffic and not by user accounts. IMAP takes care of the mailbox access for the individual user. Every part of the system can be split over multiple server if you need more performance. The mail storage is database driven and scales depending on your choice of database. LDAP can store many more than 150k addresses.
2) What has the operating system to do with the programs running on it?
I can run the un'x flavour services as you call it on any system I like (Even windows). There is no real tie between os and services. They compile on every flavour of un*x and some mad people always take it and port it to windows, too.
3) Distribution lists?
I guess you mean mailing lists with restricted access. Maybe you should restrict the access harder. I can't see any reason for normal people to have access to lists like just because they are a member of the university for example.