Latest WinWorm Spreads Via ICQ And Outlook 598
mgooderum was among the many to write in about yet another snippet of malice making the Windows desktop rounds: "The latest email virus -- 'Goner' -- is apparently running around this morning (AP news story on Iwon here - no login needed). The virus is a typical worm that spreads via attachments and user's address books. It appears as a message with an attachment that starts: 'How are you ? When I saw this screen saver I immediately thought about you...' Goner is apparently non-destructive other than the normal DoS issues with the load from it forwarding itself everywhere. What's moderately unique are two features. One is its ability to replicate via ICQ as well as the usual Outlook and Outlook Express. Two is its small size -- it has a packed form that is only 159 bytes. Symantec has details here; McAfee has details here." Update: 12/04 21:57 GMT by T : That should read 159 kilobytes. And as many posters have pointed out, "destructive" is in the eye of the beholder.
NOT! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OT: "moderately unique"?? (Score:3, Funny)
I consider myself moderately unique in that my shirt size is an extra medium. I don't know many other people who take an extra medium, but if the shirt companies make 'em then I can't be fully unique.
Either something is unique or it's not, by crikey! Soon we'll have things described as "marginally special"
Well, at the local food store the manager often has things that are getting old on special... oh, you were talking about marginally...
or "slightly dead."
Ever see the Princess Bride? Wesley was not all dead when they took him to Miracle Max's....
unique (Score:3, Funny)
Just got goner here (Score:3, Interesting)
Same here (Score:2)
Now that I think about it, it's spreading amazingly slow in my office (we have approx. 20 international offices). This is sort of a good load test of our servers. Seems my company's setup of Exchange servers suck when hit with that many e-mails in a short period of time. But then again, I don't really know how another comparative e-mail server setup would fare.
Re:Not an outlook worm, an outlook express worm (Score:4, Informative)
Au contraire, mon frere! Just go to http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/esecup/getexe.htm #ol2002 [slipstick.com] and get the registry-editing instructions or downloadable tools to let you determine the Outlook 2000/2002 (XP) security settings on any type of file you want. I recommend the "Attachment Security Options" tool, myself.
Maybe @Home's demise is okay... (Score:2, Funny)
Started here at 16:30ish GMT (Score:2, Informative)
Got the first attachment at around 16:30 GMT - suspected by the wording of the email that it was a virus.
Mailed tech support and didn't get a response. Great.
It seems some people even ran the attachment more than once - probably trying to get the screensaver to work :-)
It only seems to have copied to the first entry in our network wide address book, unfortunately it begins "#All" - ah well, my Macs are safe at least
That's Why We Get Paid... (Score:2)
Yes, I know user education and antivirus software would help stop this, but I'm in no position to get those kinds of things done here.
Re:That's Why We Get Paid... (Score:2, Informative)
*sigh*
Re:That's Why We Get Paid... (Score:2)
Anyone know if this one attacks Tiny Personal Firewall? That's my standard installation when I set people up in the dorms.
I'm not even on the IT staff - just a student with a reputation for knowing how to fix computers. People knock on my door at 4:00 AM to fix their printer. Lord help me with this one.
Re:That's Why We Get Paid... (Score:2)
Why, what's your beef? Don't have a cow -- you're in gravy, man! Just put up a little sign that says "GONER REPAIR: $10". It only takes five minutes to fix. Script it, put it on a floppy and carry it with you, and you can clean it up in two minutes flat.
Re:That's Why We Get Paid... (Score:3)
Well, and ironically exactly that might "educate" them enough to remember being cautious about attachments in the long run. If it burns a hole into their pockets they might start thinking before clicking sooner or later.
The CEO of my technology company (Score:5, Funny)
It's been going on for over two hours now. I can't help but wonder if he's still over there trying to run that damn
Thanks, boss.
Re:The CEO of my technology company (Score:2, Insightful)
The PHBs running our school district's networks wiped Netscape off all school computers and is forcing Windows/Outlook/IE down everyone's throats. Last Friday, a similar worm hit the high school and took out **everything**. I've told my wife (a teacher) to bring nothing home or disk and to remove our home e-mail from her school PC.
IDEA: Why don't UNIX/Linux sys admins start suing networks running IIS and IE for DoS when they send crap from Windows to Linux? Kill the use of Windows by punishing those stupid enough to use if for enterprise computing!
True to some extent (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, that doesn't mean it's impossible to make an email client or desktop environment that would launch an attachment with "/usr/bin/sh" but hopefully that is so blindingly stupid that no-one would do it.
Re:The CEO of my technology company (Score:2)
Time to find a new job.
Re:The CEO of my technology company (Score:2, Insightful)
As evidence, I'd like to direct your attention to this little company [microsoft.com]. It's former CEO is a proven master -- probably one of the best in the world -- at making a business successful. However, I don't believe that any code he has ever produced has ever been labeled as well-written. For that matter, I'm not sure he has ever written any code. Instead, the CEO in question bought the rights to an existing product and found a way to sell it to the masses. Later "innovations" and "improvements" to the product were not his, but the ideas of people he hired. Heck, he probably can't even set up user accounts in Windows XP (one of the most basic administrative tasks, in his company's flagship product no less). He doesn't need to, he can pay someone to do that!
The point? To make a company a success, the leaders of it must be able to sell the product, regardless of its quality. Management is what makes a company successful, and that is the realm of the CEO. Not technical prowess.
No matter the quality, no matter the technical merits, no matter the price of the product, if the company is poorly managed it will fail.
--
Re:The CEO of my technology company (Score:3, Insightful)
BUT...they should have at least a marginal understanding of what goes on around them, and if you're in a tech-driven company, I'd hope that would include knowing how to print from IE or logging into an email client.
I've worked for PHB's that couldn't. It's one thing to surround yourself with great minds. It's another entirely when they serve as a replacement, not an augmentation!
GTRacer
- This has "long day" written all over it
Re:The CEO of my technology company (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't that be, "I send you this bill to ask your repair"?
story is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The story had a few errors:
a real "Trojan horse" (Score:3, Funny)
Next thing we know they'll be rewriting Microsoft's system auto-updater to download even more viral code into your system. Won't that be nice?
Re:a real "Trojan horse" (Score:2)
Re:a real "Trojan horse" (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe I've just answered my own question, but it seems to me as much practice as they've had at it in the Windows world, virus scanners ought to be a little more bullet-proof.
Re:a real "Trojan horse" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:story is wrong (Score:2, Informative)
nope, sorry. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the attachment is 38KB, and the virus itself is 159 KILObytes, not 159 bytes, UNPACKED.
The unique thing about it is it disables some anti-virus software, and things like ZoneAlarm.
As soon as virus writers learn how to spell correctly and learn proper grammar, I think we're going to be in some serious trouble.
Re:nope, sorry. (Score:2)
Yeah, the
Re:nope, sorry. (Score:2)
Clever attempt? Huh?
The "error" message displayed by this virus is also grammatically incorrect:
"Error While Analyze DirectX!"
I seriously doubt the mis-spelling in the email was done on purpose. By the way, if you really think the rest of the message was "grammatically correct," then I'd suggest an investment in a book on grammar is in order.
What? Still? (Score:5, Funny)
<Attachment: Don't_Open_Attachments.eml.vbs>
Pure Wisdom (Score:5, Funny)
"The Bearcat Online email system is now blocking all messages with "Hi" as the subject."
A note to virus writers: (Score:2)
In addition, it would similarly help to rename the attachment at every iteration too.
Re:Pure Wisdom (better) (Score:3, Funny)
The problem? The steps outlined how to check the subject line for the word "hi" and permanently delete it and the message flag.
I tested this out, and Outlook isn't case sensitive, nor does it recognize if the target word is embedded. So any email with the word 'hi' anywhere in the subject would get deleted. (e.g. this, Chicago, chickenpoop, etc) It was also suggested that the exception be if your name was in the To or CC, but we use so many distribution lists, that wouldn't matter too much.
*sigh*
Re:Pure Wisdom (Score:3, Informative)
If Item.Attachments.Count > 0 Then
blsure = MsgBox("A message is being sent with attachments. Do you want to send this message?", vbOKCancel)
If blsure = vbCancel Then
For i = 0 To Item.Attachments.Count
Item.Attachments.Remove (i)
Next
Item.Delete
Cancel = True
MsgBox "The message has not been sent."
End If
End If
What makes virus writing so easy for Windows is the ability to churn through the Outlook address book with a convenient object model. Of course, you could switch to another client, but then you wouldn't be able to write your own code to customize the behavior of the sending of attachments. Kind of a double-edged sword.
Once you've gotten your Outlook installation "patched", read this article [microsoft.com] to learn how to deploy the fix to other users. Of course, if they get infected, they may have to click "Cancel" 1500 times, but that's what they get for double-clicking an untrusted
Social Engineering (Score:4, Interesting)
More information here (Score:2)
F-Secure have a page describing the W32.Goner.A@mm [f-secure.com] as well.
This is a sad statement on security (Score:5, Insightful)
It strikes me as extremely sad that a virus like this can still work. How many times does it take?
What can we do to save the unknowing?
Symantec's writeup is wrong.. (Score:5, Informative)
It says you have to remove the registry entry then reboot. Actually, if you remove the registry entry, the app reinstalls itself, then reboot doesn't do shit.
Shutdown to DOS, then del windows\system\gone.scr
(It's hidden attrib -s-r-h first), then reboot.
You can't delete it before you shutdown, it's 'in-use'.
If you're running NTFS, AND you've been hit, *sigh*..
Re:Symantec's writeup is wrong.. (Score:2)
If you're in a german-speaking country you might want to fetch the most recent issue of c't. They got an article about Virus-Cleaning on NTFS-Platforms (from DOS and Win9x). Take a look at The download Links [heise.de] for the article. I don't think the article itself is available on the net. It's german but I'm sure even those of you, who don't speak this language will find a way through ("NTFS", "DOS" and "Download" are the same ;-)
Re:Symantec's writeup is wrong.. (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Windows allows you to rename an open file. If the worm isn't smart enough to check for this, you should be able to reboot and start cleaning up.
NTFS (programmers perspective) (Score:5, Interesting)
MoveFileEx("C:\\WINNT\\System32\\Gone.scr", NULL, MOVEFILE_DELAY_UNTIL_REBOOT);
The combination of MOVEFILE_DELAY_UNTIL_REBOOT and a NULL lpNewFileName creates a special condition where Windows deletes the file at startup. This is commonly used by installers, for example, when a file is in use and DeleteFile fails. For anyone going through the trouble of putting this into an executable, you might want to grab the Windows system directory from Windows itself.. this can be done using GetSystemDirectory (prototyped as--
UINT GetSystemDirectory(
LPTSTR lpBuffer,
UINT uSize
);
) or you could be clever and use ExpandEnvironmentStrings, prototyped as--
DWORD ExpandEnvironmentStrings(
LPCTSTR lpSrc,
LPTSTR lpDst,
DWORD nSize
);
Shrug. =) Just thought this might help, for those unable to figure out how to delete a file in NTFS (but that do have a C/C++ or other compatible compiler).
Re:NTFS (programmers perspective) (Score:3, Funny)
What about Badtrans? (Score:2, Interesting)
Badtrans is hitting my mailbox multiple times harder than Sircam, MTX and CodeRainbow combined. And it's only around since 24th November. Quite "every" Outlook user I know of got infected with it.
But then maybe this virus is hitting only Europe, so US-citizens haven't noticed it, yet.
Needless to say, I'm happy to read my e-mail on a *nix box. :-)
ms
Our office just got em' (Score:2)
I peeked inside and found that it links to the VB runtime DLL. Unfortantly I can't tell anymore then that at this point.
-Jon
Re:Our office just got em' (Score:2)
Using a clawhammer, apply filter briskly to the foreheads of those who cannot understand simple commands, such as DO NOT OPEN.
Already received it (Score:2)
Is Outlook to blame? Sure, partially. But is stupid users who open attachments at random without verifying it also to blame? Absolutely.
Finding the culprit (Score:5, Funny)
Quite Obvious (Score:2)
An interesting question arose out of all this... I have had more then a few emails from people here at work that I don't know. I have to wonder how my email address ends up in so many address books.
Unfortunately most people won't have the benefit of strangers sending this message.
Oh beautiful corporate america, may your mail servers be forever fruitful.
An interesting quote (Score:2)
NEWS.COM has an interesting quote from David Perry of Trend Micro. He says, "Every time enough time goes by that people forget to be wary of these things, it pops up again. Apparently, we have to resign ourselves to the fact that education doesn't work."
How sad...but true. It's almost like that quote on the (I believe) CDW commercial, where the woman tells the IT manager something to the effect of, "I opened that virus just like you told us not to."
All it takes is a little dilligence, and these things would be far less of a problem. Not even real dilligence, just less stupidity on the part of users. I mean, a person would have to be living in a cave not to have heard about Melissa, I Love You, Code Red, SirCam, etc. When is it going to sink in that you shouldn't open unexpected e-mail attachments?
Oh, BTW, the original post stated that this thing is mostly non-destructive. I'm not so sure I'd agree with that assessment. If this thing is stripping out virus scanners and firewalls, it's opening up a machine for other types of attacks. I'd be a little concerned about that.
Re:An interesting quote (Score:2)
To add insult to injury, she does not do anything but email. You think she knows about the mess that is out there or the little things called patches on the www thing? I use my Mom as a bar for the unwashed masses - these viri are never going to stop from user education...
Now I have some extra ammo... (Score:2, Redundant)
And speaking of antivirus software...everyone at my company received a warning email about this virus today from the admin. I took the opportunity to reply back to his email with the following:
*****
On the topic of virii, Mcafee and Symantec's Norton AV may be leaving a "backdoor" open in its future product updates to accomodate the FBI's Magic Lantern virus for Outlook. I doubt the government really wants to spy on us, but think of this:
As soon as someone figures out how to mimmick Magic Lantern's signature/fingerprint/code/etc., crackers everywhere will have an easy way into any computer protected by Mcafee or Norton AV. Wave good-bye to confidentialty. This is rather alarming. Here's a link to an article from Wired:
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,48648
Here is a link to an article on the topic from the Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/21.77.html
This is just a junior analyst's opinion, but I would begin seeking virus protection alternatives.
*****
installs takeover script (Score:3, Informative)
DDoS (Score:2)
"If IRC is installed, this worm can also insert mIRC scripts that will enable the computer to be used in Denial of Service (DOS) attacks."
This is nothing. Wait a few days (Score:4, Insightful)
1 -- Proagate
2 -- Disable Anti Virus
This worm is a setup. So in a few days the 31337 h4x0rs will release the REAL virus that does the REAL damage to the people whose defenses have been compromised.
I love being a Win Sys Admin
Anyone need a an OSX admin?
Not just DoS from e-mail forwarding... (Score:2)
Per the Symantec virus warning, it will also use IRC bots to commit DoS attacks.
Submitter did not read own references... (Score:2, Informative)
Poster says: Goner is apparently non-destructive other than the normal DoS issues with the load from it forwarding itself everywhere.
According to Symantec: Deletes files: Attemps to delete several files, including NAV
Poster says: Two is its small size -- it has a packed form that is only 159 bytes.
According to Symantec: The size of the worm unpacked is approximately 159 KB and Size of attachment: 38,912 bytes.
So, when are we going to do some checking first? Deleting files is pretty damn harsh for a "non destructive" virus, and a "packed form that is approximately 159 bytes" is NOT the same as an unpacked form of "159 KB", packed to 38,192 bytes.
Re:Submitter did not read own references... (Score:2)
You can lead a horse to water... (Score:2)
Funny, though: both computers were infected but only one had gotten around to adding itself to the registry, and neither one deleted McAfee. I wonder if these things are on a timer where they don't do their bad shit right away upon infection? Probably a bug...
pretty crafty (Score:2, Interesting)
As one user put it here, these guys are pretty dumb, they need to learn to be more creative. When they come out with one that says free beer click here then I'll be scared.
Watched this happen (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is there's *nothing* Microsoft can do to stop this sort of virus, as long as they allow execution of files direct from their email client, and honestly I can't see that stopping (and neither can the people where I work, which they're quite happy about :-)
I do worry for apps like this on Linux though, as email clients become able to execute attachments. But the benefit is that Linux doesn't assume things based on file suffix, but on their actual mime type. However, that still leaves a possible vulnerability to mime type spoofing, perhaps.
Re:Watched this happen (Score:2)
That's not even a root cause, it just makes things a little easier for the virus to propagate. If they made it completely impossible to execute attachements in the client, users would simply do what they then learn they're "supposed" to do with attachments -- save them to a file, and then run/view them from the shell. Boom, same result.
There is no sure-fire fix to prevent this sort of virus. It's not, at it's core, a problem with either the basic functionality of the email software (well written software can only slow down the propagation, not stop it), nor the scope of the user's permissions (it's well within the user's scope to read his own mail, execute software, read his own address book, and send mail). It's a problem with the behaviour of the user.
As long as it's possible to attach arbitrary files to emails, and run arbitrary code on a machine, they'll propagate. Making it technically impossible to do either of those things a) is difficult, and b) makes the system far less useful.
Re:Watched this happen (Score:2)
Re:Watched this happen (Score:5, Informative)
Apparantly your people need to do some research. Microsoft has had a patch out for about a year now that can be installed to prevent Outlook from giving access to any executable file, AND this is the default behavior in Outlook XP/2002.
Re:exactly... (Score:2)
If you worked at a support desk for even one week, you'd soon realize that no one ever saves their email, or any attachments within. They leave it in their inbox, until it reaches their quota limit of 500 megs or so. By this time, 95% of the stuff is so old it's useless, and they delete it all. The rest of it, instead of saving the humongious attachments, what do they do??? They create outlook folder son their HD, and move the emails there! Then they wonder what happened when their files get corrupted, maybe has something to do with the fact you have this one .pst file that is 1.5 GB.
McAfee really dropped the ball (Score:2)
So, thinking I needed an update, this afternoon, I downloaded the most recent version of their
I'm pretty disappointed with McAfee for this. An update should have been made immediately available as in, this morning. I imagine a lot of people were stung because the virus definitions weren't updated quickly enough.
Thankfully, I never use Outlook, so no damage was done.
bah, put the blame where it belongs (Score:2, Insightful)
My shop NEVER gets these things. When you IT geeks are bitching to your bosses about how much MS sucks and begging to be able to switch the whole shop over to *nix, do you tell him/her that there has been a patch available for well over a year that would have stopped this?
I bet you guys all leave that part out, don't you?
I have uses for both Windows and various *nix's, so I use them both. But I at least attempt to keep the windows environment in tip top shape.
How many of you "IT professionals" are sacrificing your shops systems by not applying obvious security updates, like the one I mentioned, just because you resent having to use Windows?
I just happened to bump into some upper management of one of my companies associates, he was complaining about his shop getting destroyed by this virus today. His ears really perked up when I told him about the MS security patch that had been around since June of 2000. I think he will be looking for a new "IT professional" to run his place of business soon. I hate to get a guy fired, but such is life.
The blame for this mess is on 1. Lazy/Ignorant IT people or 2. Linux loving geeks who want to use *nix at work, so they want to see MS fail, so they don't bother taking care of windows security.
I don't know which category the guy I probably got fired fell under. How about the rest of you guys who said your shops were hit? Which one are you?
No support here! (Score:5, Funny)
I am ashamed that anyone would intentionally use my Slashdot account name to bolster the popularity and reputation of their sick virus. I'm sure the hackers [adequacy.org] who created this monstrosity were well versed in such hacker tools as Bonzi Buddy [bonzi.com] and Lunix [lunix.org]. If they think I would come out and support such a destructive screen saver they are very, very wrong. If God wanted toasters to fly [macworld.com], he would have given them wings.
So, you hackers, where ever you are, Goner (of Slashdot lore) does not approve!
In defense of Microsoft...... (Score:3, Interesting)
#!/bin/sh
rm -rf
and say "Hey, run this!". Thing is, most Linux users are geekier than the average windows user, and will think twice before doing so! See, the problem here is not Outlook itself, but the incompetence of the people using it. Yay MS for disabling exes by default... just reminds me of all those Flash animations that make the e-mail rounds that could be virus laden.....
Re:In defense of Microsoft...... (Score:3, Flamebait)
Anyone else out there got some email viruses they want me to try out on my Linux box? They probably won't work either.
Warning to Linux non-experts: if you want to try this yourself, note that running rm -rf
Before you run anything off the network, you should switch your user (using the su command) to a "test" user that doesn't own any important files. You can set up a test user account by doing an "su root", "adduser test", and then "passwd test" to set the test user's password.
Carry on mocking Windows at your leisure... Or maybe the Microsoft apologists could write a little explanation of how to set up a safe testing account on Windows? Oh, that's right you can't, too bad about that.
(snicker)
Re:In defense of Microsoft...... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In defense of Microsoft...... (Score:4, Troll)
Mmmkay, let's give this a try shall we?
1. Set up NTFS ACLs properly - this includes giving SYSTEM rights to what needs to have it, along with the Administrators group, etc. Users should only have read access. (Most experienced NT end-users should already have done this a long time ago; if you're on a properly set-up network, it should have been done already!)
2. Open up the MMC, go to users and groups, and add a user. Make it a member of the Users group, which you have already set up as to only have read access (heck, you can set it up to everything BUT delete access... NTFS ACLs are so specific and expansive it beats rwxrwxrwx hands down :-/) and also give it full access to its home directory under "Documents and Settings\user"
3. Log in as that user.
4. Open up a command prompt.
C:\>del /F/Q *.*
C:\New Text Document (2).txt
Access is denied.
C:\New Text Document.txt
Access is denied.
etc...
Oh wait, I didn't ever have to log in! Ever seen 2000's oh-so-cool "Run as different user" option on the property sheets? Guess not.
I think it's about time the zealots pull their heads out of their asses before they go and flame someone on a topic they know nothing about.
Re:In defense of Microsoft...... (Score:3, Troll)
1. That doesn't work on Windows 95, 98, or ME. Those systems just don't have security. Period.
2. It doesn't work if you aren't using NTFS. A LOT of NT, 2K, and XP systems don't.
3. You don't have a short, simple description of how to "Set up NTFS ACLs properly". But I don't blame you - a short, simple explanation of that subject is impossible.
Compare that to Linux. The instructions I gave for setting up a throwaway test account are very simple, can be executed in seconds, and will work on any Linux distribution from the last five years at least.
That's impossible on Windows, and your post basically proved the point. Thanks!
If you run Windows, get AVG (Score:2, Informative)
1. It's free (with no ads or other annoyances)
2. It scans both incoming *and* outgoing e-mails for virii if you so choose. (It will even tag them as certified virus free by Grisoft if you want.)
3. Just because it's free (although they do sell commercial versions) doesn't mean you don't get updates or anything. They already have an updated database (out today) for Goner.
Anyway, just something for the Windows people who don't have one of the commercial virus apps already, I've loved AVG since I put it on.
Also, doesn't look like AVG was targetted for deletion by this virus, course that just means AVG isn't very well known, but nice to know for me anyway....
Is this really so hard to fix? (Score:2)
I would also like to know how the worm was labeled as non-destructive if it, "will try to delete files of common anti-virus and firewall products. If the files are in use and cannot be deleted, the worm will create the file %SYSTEM%\Wininit.ini, which causes the files to be deleted when the computer restarts." Granted it doesn't try to fry your BIOS chip, but I last time I checked anything that deleted files was destructive.
Where are the *really* destructive viruses? (Score:2)
Ready for the desktop? (Score:3, Troll)
I know, I know, other email clients, etc.
However there is one thing I don't understand, why are flaws which convert your office network into a disaster area, somehow acceptable, whereas some esoteric calendar tool is so vitally necessary that people straight-faced claim that Linux isn't ready for the desktop?
It's not just Outlook either - every damn document format that MS produces is an attack waiting to happen. Apart from being susceptible to bit-rott and bloated.
The average user does simply not have the competence to operate a Windows system safely in an office environment. It's not enough to consider training costs when switching to Linux, you also need to consider TCO. That means your downtime, additional maintenance to repair user machines and lost or corrupted data, when using Windows systems.
Apropos Icon (Score:2, Funny)
Filtering SMTP forwarder? (Score:3, Informative)
We use exchange at work too, and I just set up a linux box running postfix in front of it. With a simple oneline regular expression, every dangerous attachment gets blocked. (hint: use the body_checks parameter) We haven't been hit by a single worm or virus since then.
We haven't even touched the surface.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank god the people that write this kind of code are completely incapable of writing evil IDE command sequences that can fry hard drive firmware.
Imagine the destruction you could cause if after every infection and replication to everyone in your address book, it wrecked your hard drive and required it to be sent back to the manufacturer for repair?
Hmm, interesting sales pitch you could offer to Maxtor, Seagate, etc if you want to make a quick buck at the expense of the global economy. (unless the 90-day warranty covers "act of hacker").
Procmail can easily fix this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:159 Bytes? Not! (Score:2)
Of course I've seen the missing "Bytes" in the split second between pressing submit in the Preview-Page and the loading of the newly posted comment ... Sigh ...
Re:159 Bytes? Not! (Score:2)
Wow! almost ...
A quick search on vil.nai.com [nai.com] for "Tiny" turns up sever small Virii. The smallest beeing Tiny Di [nai.com] with 94-110 Bytes.
But I think that is only possible because .com (the only files those virii infect) are much simpler in design than .exe (not to speak of .exe-files running in win32) and those virii had no way of spreading over a network on themselfes (they depended on some person to distribute the infected file in some way).
Aliz [nai.com] has the ability to distribute via the network and is much smaller than Goner (just 4098 Bytes).
All those Virii definitley don't come out of a Virus-Construction-Set (yet).
Sorry about the double-post... (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, non-destructive (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, destructive (Score:2, Informative)
The parent didn't mention that it deletes the entire directory and all subdirectories of that file as well. I wouldn't call that non-destructive.
Re:non-destructive? (Score:2)
Re:*LOL*.. virus.. outlook.. *yawn* (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:*LOL*.. virus.. outlook.. *yawn* (Score:2)
No.. I remember them.. but it still seems that Microsofts very design and failure to treat VB as something security-wise risky has contributed a lot too the spread of this stuff. Not to mention the ease of use of "autoreply" and "autoforward" and all manner of other things that just about any monkey can use now. (Thanks Bill!)
Hell.. my wife got notified that she is "propagating" it because her work account (corporate) is tryign to autoforward it to our home account (which is a setup that has been in effect for three years, at least).
She hasnt even read the work account in a month.
Unix has fewer exploitable aspects that it used to, and the main difference is when we find em, we find and publish fixes for em. Windows first says "ignore the man behind the curtain" and then says "here.. run this patchall, and life will be grand."
Maeryk
Re:*LOL*.. virus.. outlook.. *yawn* (Score:2)
Re:*LOL*.. virus.. outlook.. *yawn* (Score:3, Informative)
Re:*LOL*.. virus.. outlook.. *yawn* (Score:4, Funny)
That's why the LART was invented. If you can't get sense into 'em, beat it into 'em.
Yes, I actually kicked a user off the network one time because he already gotten _three_ warnings from me. And yet he still opened untrusted attachements.
*clicketyclick* no more DHCP lease, blocked by MAC address. His e-mail was directed to a temporary mailbox (so he couldn't get it from someone else's machine)
He never did it again. Good luser. After a few days I couldn't stand his whimpering and copied his mail back and reactivated his lease. Now he listened and behaved. Actually, it had a more positive effect: that story went around the office, and they now think twice before opening something they get from someone they don't know. Heck, some even switched from OutLook to something else (I've seen copies of Eudora and filled up Netscape Mail folders appearing on the workstations all of a sudden).
Sometimes you have to make it smart a little before they listen.
Re:Gartner Group (Score:2, Funny)
Fired-fighting (Score:2)
Actually, that's quite easy. Leak the fact that the CEO did this, and that it cost a buttload of money to clean it up. The shareholders will take it from there.
Virg
Worminess (Score:2)
Then it's probably a trojan.
Virg
Re:who uses scripting in outlook? (Score:3, Interesting)
Those ARE all Microsoft competitors, are they not?
Microsoft DOES have an inferior product bundled with XP that they wish to prevail against this technically superior (and two-way: no spyware-friendliness like with MS's version) competition, do they not?
Let me say that I don't know whether Microsoft has spread this worm themselves to take out their competitors, because I don't know where it came from in the first place and I won't have to deal with it except shoveling it out of my Mac/Eudora Light inbox. But you have to ask, 'who benefits?'. And you can't seriously expect Microsoft to get rid of their scripting, when they can use it in so many ways to damage their competitors- and their competitors are not only 'any other software company' but the fundamental technologies of the Internet itself, which they don't own. They _want_ this to happen.
Re:who uses scripting in outlook? (Score:2)
But how many people need macros embedded in documents? And the real problem is that VBScript has may too much power. The macro language needs no access to the system beyond Office files.
Re:Smart SMTP (Score:2, Insightful)
What happens if I have to send out a document to 50 people via e-mail?
Re:Why do we put up with this... (Score:3, Funny)
Ever wonder why your hair-dryer has a warning that you shouldn't use it in the shower? It's very likely because some evolutionary dead-end once actually did use it in the shower, and a lawsuit came of it.
Hell, it even happens in Canada: some dumbshit teenager pulled a Coke machine onto himself, and his parents are trying to sue Coke for his abuse of the property!
Obviously, it's quite acceptable to find companies liable for the carelessness, incompetence, stupidity, or maliciousness of their products' users.
I fail to see why Microsoft isn't held accountable.
Disclaimer of liability for loss of profit (Score:3, Interesting)
Have somebody heard of anyone that have tried to sue Microsoft for loss of profit (or whatever) due to faulty products? Do Microsoft have some kind of protection from this?
The EULA distributed with Office 2000 specifically disclaims liability for "loss of profit":
Under the USA's Uniform Commercial Code, there is by default an implied warranty that any product sold is "merchantable", meaning fit for the customary use that the product is put to. Unless the terms of sale change that implied warranty, a buyer could sue over dysfunctional software.
Software licenses generally disclaim those implied warranties, an innovation that began with VisiCalc's "as is" license. If you read the fine print of Microsoft EULAs, you will find a capitalized sentence like "TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL OTHER WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT, WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT, AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES."
Whether the EULA has any legal weight is questionable. Software licenses are rarely presented at the time of sale. Installation programs try to impose them after the fact by demanding your agreement before installing the program on your computer.
Like many click-wrap agreements, Microsoft's EULAs are very one-sided, offering you nothing in return for restricting you from installing the software more than one computer, from making more than one backup copy, from lending the software to anyone else, from reverse-engineering the software, and sometimes even from reselling the software or from criticizing the product. Such "agreements" may not constitute valid contracts, and even if they were, may be invalid as "contracts of adhesion".
So, Microsoft and other software corporations lobby for UCITA [4cite.org] (Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act) laws giving software the special ability to impose terms and restrictions after purchase. UCITA has already passed in Maryland and Virginia and has been introduced in the legislatures of many other states.
About the fourth last straw? (Score:3, Informative)
This will reduce the problem but not fix it.
Migrate your clients to Linux on PPC (iMacs are nice for this, StarOffice on LinuxPPC is just about happy enough to use) and never fear an attachment again. Plan ahead to include some Alpha and MIPS boxes as well (you can do that on the server end now), so when some meathead eventually produces the first serious LinuxPPC virus it doesn't get everyone in your office.