Fears of a Conficker Meltdown Greatly Exaggerated 143
BobB-nw writes "Many have been worrying that the Conficker worm will somehow rise up and devastate the Internet on April 1. These fears are misplaced, security experts say. April 1 is what Conficker researchers are calling a trigger date, when the worm will switch the way it looks for software updates. A 60 Minutes episode about the worm on Sunday will stoke concerns. But the worm has already had several such trigger dates, including Jan. 1, none of which had any direct impact on IT operations, according to Phil Porras, a program director with SRI International who has studied the worm. 'Technically, we will see a new capability, but it complements a capability that already exists,' Porras said."
Never happens. (Score:5, Funny)
that never happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Never happens. (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, that was a sham job.
Script: Leslie's Virus Story
Software Guy's office:
Leslie: "There's this thing called a worm out there that's going to steal all your money and destroy the world, you know, it'll be bad. Cats and dogs lying down together and all that."
Software guy: "Buy our software or your bank account will be emptied. Please watch this sham demo."
Leslie: "Wow, I got a Facebook from Andy, let me just go ahead and delete that..."
Software Guy: "No no no no no!! You have to pay attention to Andy or your money won't be stolen."
Leslie: "I see. So that's why nobody's had their money stolen yet. You're not just on the show to sell your software, are you?"
Software Guy: "Nah, you can trust me. I'm a software guy, not a banker. But if you don't buy it, some Russian kids will get all your money."
Leslie: "Is there any other way to protect your computer, like installing the latest Windows patch?"
Software Guy: "You're really not good at playing along, are you."
Cut to interview with woman who's money was stolen because she didn't have Software Guy's latest product:
Woman: "I saw it transfer money from my account to my son's account right before my eyes."
Leslie: "Really? Right before your eyes."
Woman: "Yeah."
Woman's password is clearly visible on Post-it note on monitor. It's "password".
Leslie: "So you have virus software?"
Woman: "Yeah, it came with the computer. But after 30 days it started asking me to renew the subscription for $30, sooo..."
Leslie: "I see. Did you consider a Mac?"
Woman: "I'm not cool enough for a Mac. If that hot, skinny redhead isn't cool enough for a Mac, what chance do I have?"
Virus Expert's office:
Leslie: "What does this cornflucker thing do anyway?"
Virus Expert: "Well, nothing so far, but that could change. One day it's going to take all your money and destroy the world. It's going to be bad. You won't believe what the cats and dogs will be doing."
Don't place bets... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger April Fools joke will be if it *does* do something. I forget the name of the virus, but it was wide spread, that sent a copy of files in the "My Documents" folder out to everyone in your address book. That wasn't a well thought out plan, as there's a lot of crap in most people's "My Documents" folder, that even the original author doesn't care about. It also consumed a lot of bandwidth and server time.
My guess would be that they'll simply pop up a "April Fools, yo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You just don't know... (Score:2, Interesting)
You just don't know what payload will be downloaded on April 1st.
It could be your standard 'DDoS and Spam Run' package, but imagine what would happen if all these drones were used to start exploiting an unknown vulnerability, think SQL Slammer...
Updates (Score:5, Interesting)
April 1st is when the worm will *start* looking for updates. It will continue looking from that date on, with a different set of domains each day. So there is no reason why the authors would register one of the domains and put out an update on the first day. If anything, they would wait a while to increase the number of domains security researchers have to watch out for. Also, the authors may not have any reason to update it just yet - it seems to be quite successful in its current iteration. They may be waiting for a buyer to purchase a block of the botnet for example.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Also, the authors may not have any reason to update it just yet - it seems to be quite successful in its current iteration. They may be waiting for a buyer to purchase a block of the botnet for example.
No, it's because the authors slipped the deadline again.
Re: (Score:2)
"the namespace as every day has a different unique namespace of 50,000 domains"
Yes I am aware of that. But it still increases the number of domains watched over time. i.e If the update was guaranteed to be on the first day, then they would just have to register those 50,000 domains to prevent the author from doing it, or put watches on those domains and investigate everyone who registers them. But if it's unknown what day it will occur, then they have to watch a different set of 50,000 for every potential f
Re-possitioning is a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm wrong here, but doesn't it make more sense to get everyone trying to fight this virus/bot/whatever early rather than wait?
After April 1st, this thing will be drawing from more domains than can be blocked for future updates. It sounds like it'll be much more entrenched and difficult to combat if that happens. So this advise sounds a lot like 'Well, the gangrene has spread from your foot up to your knee, but it's not a problem'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
The worm tries against 50.000 new domains every day. That is quite a big number to match against - also the ISP needs some incentive to throw money at keeping this database up to date, there are no money in blocking the worm.
Also the algorithm might hit innocent domains once in a while causing you to threaten innocent users.
At least it's not Lupus. (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I'm wrong here, but doesn't it make more sense to get everyone trying to fight this virus/bot/whatever early rather than wait?
They're trying. Microsoft has released a patch that supposedly blocks the primary vector [microsoft.com] (a vulnerability in the Server service affecting all Microsoft operating systems since Windows 98), and updated their repair tool MSRT [microsoft.com] to detect and remove it (download it from a machine that's not infested). It has probably removed it from several million of the estimated 15 million infested machines. Microsoft is working with ICANN [icann.org] to block registration of the generated domain names in the case where they're not yet registered and the owners of the domains that were previously registered to mitigate downtime. Every managed service provider and major IT shop I know of has pushed out all of this stuff. Unfortunately, this is not even close to enough. The secondary vector, autorun, is pernicious. This thing is now on the root thousands of major shares and every time they remove it one of the thousands of Conficker clients puts it back. It's on millions of pen drives, millions of backups. It's been burned to millions of CDs. It's on iPods and mp3 players, Blackberries and iPhones and Windows Mobile phones, picture frames and DVDs. It's probably now in the root of DVD ISOs distributed via all the popular media distribution sites. Tertiary vectors include compromising network neighbors. Your grandchildren are going to be installing this thing if they don't figure out the whole "autorun is stupid" thing.
This thing is really very well engineered. The next one will be even better. And the next one better still. If you're in a Microsoft shop you're going to be working half your holiday weekends for the rest of your career, and a lot of planned vacations too. Remember that this is not the only Windows malware currently making the rounds. There are at least three major development groups and all of them have active botnets and a release schedule for new exploits.
We've been playing this game for a long time and the black hats are getting more proficient than the white hats. The problem is that the target platform - Windows - cannot be made invulnerable to these threats without defeating its main selling point: application compatibility. Most of the people who work with this toxic stuff do their development on BSD, OS-X or Linux and refer to Windows boxes as "targets". If Microsoft makes Windows so secure that this junk won't spread, most of the apps for it won't run. You might as well run an OS that's not a target now as wait for that to happen.
But TFA is right. April Fools is the day the botmaster begins to harvest his crop of bots. May 22 is more likely the beginning of operations. I could be wrong about this because I previously guessed January 16.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it does make more sense, but will never happen. Until you can get more than a handful of Windows users to actually know and care about these issues, it will stay in this same state of sorry affairs. Just three things are keeping this crap going:
1. MS market share guarantees a large fat market for malware authors
2. Typical Windows user does not want bothered with hassles an
Conficker and friends are great. (Score:3, Funny)
Get off my lawn :) (Score:2)
Teaching people how to use their computers and fixing hardware problems when they come up is a helluva lot better than repetitive malware removal.
More fun, anyway.
Frak. I'm getting old.
SB
Re: (Score:2)
Well then do us all a favor and quit posting to slashdot and get back to work!
Windows Update? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I doubt Microsoft could agree to the license terms.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
My favorite is how it's an "unknown error".
Bullshit! There's no such thing as a fucking unknown error. If it's unknown then how do you know there's an error? Tell me THAT!
Hoping for no meltdown. (Score:1)
Here's hoping for no such meltdown.
This thing going stupid on April 1st would just add to my birthday present.
"Happy birthday, Orb. Now get back on the phones, we're all hands on deck for lusers calling in with that Conficker crap."
Now, of course, I'm wondering just where can someone stick the cork to stem the possible flow that this little barstard is going to cause to divert the most damage?
Also, just how big does the cork have to be?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not register one of the conficker domains yourself, before the actual owner can do it, and then load you own windows-by-linux-replacer into it. Oh, and add a conficker remover too. Done right, it should result in an "epic pwn" as they say.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It uses 4096 bit RSA to sign the binaries.
I don't know any group that could crack that(yes, not even you, FBI/CIA/NSA super computer).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
See, digital signatures WORK! Proof that they'll solve all of our software update and malware pro...
Wait, conficker was written by the bad guys?
Dammit.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Now get back on the phones, we're all hands on deck for lusers calling in with that Conficker crap."
Of course, with all the media hype over Conficker, combined with the fact that it is April Fool's Day, and it seems likely you're going to be getting a lot of calls from people who think they're Confickered just because they finally started paying attention to how slow their malware (non-Conficker) infested computer is. Along with potential pranksters calling in...I don't envy you...
At least Slashdot's April Fools jokes may bring you a smile...
I wish the creators had something useful in mind (Score:4, Interesting)
I would like this thing to actually shut down all those computers that are infected. It would save quite a bit on energy and actually be quite useful. If there would be a way to permanently disable a computer (flash it's BIOS with a bad image) then maybe it could stimulate the economy. Another thing would be to simulate a 56k connection on all those machines. Finally the intertubes would be cleared of a lot of clutter by people trying to get to awful flash 'movies' of random people on Facebook or MySpace. Another thing would be to register every IP that the computers are connected to as potential spam hosts to well-known spam registries.
Of course if some host is infected and some life or death situation is dependent on it, the blame should be placed on the IT administrator or the vendor, not the creator.
It will be interesting to see what will happen.
Re:I wish the creators had something useful in min (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
If some fuckwit walked up my street with a hammer smashing car windows every day, then destroying the hammer would certainly help the economy.
Destruction of property is helpful for the economy if the property is doing more harm than good.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Destruction of property is not helpful for the economy.
How that be? I've been watching Congress and the President and clearly they think destruction of economy is helpful for the economy...
Re: (Score:2)
Most ironic would be that after update they would patch Windows up to lastest update, clean themselves and leave informational message on screen about computer security. That would rock :)
How to prevent/detect/remove these? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikipedia has info on how to detect [wikipedia.org] and remove using most major antivirus running the latest update. [wikipedia.org] But why don't the news-writers seem to recognize this? Why must every infection be a death sentence to support some nefarious plot with your unwitting computer?
Re: (Score:2)
Is Outlook more secure than Thunderbird? I've been under the impression that the opposite was true.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(*not using outlook)
Re: (Score:2)
Is Outlook more secure than Thunderbird?
No.
SB
My best answer (Score:2, Funny)
Don't be a target. [distrowatch.com] Use some system that doesn't have these problems.
Hot to prevent Conficker from conquering your net (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you sure? (Score:2)
too bad... (Score:1)
I was looking for some cheap schadenfreude...
I am AC, and I say... (Score:1, Interesting)
Why are we discussing Windows/Linux/OS X preference at all? Does anyone have even the slightest clue how ignorant these statements sound? Replies like "My custom compiled super secure xxxxxx install is impervious to all attacks from anyone..." are inflammatory and pose no useful, relevant, or even accurate account of how things work in the real world. Don't be dumb. That's the best advise anyone can give. Someone please drop a comment that has useful information regarding the subject. It may actually
You are SO correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are we discussing Windows/Linux/OS X preference at all?
If you want a system that's not vulnerable to Conficker, Koobface, Torpig, Storm, Antivirus 2009, Bitfrost, Sasser, MyDoom, Sober, Sobig, Welchia, Blaster, Nimda and Code Red, you need look no farther than "anything that's not Windows".
Re: (Score:1)
-Disable autorun
-Use Firefox
-Keep MalwareBytes update
-Scan regularly
-Unplug your router at night
-Check msconfig regularly for new entries
-Use Process Explorer instead of Task Manager (much more informative)
Then there's Deep Freeze.
Using those precautions, I've only been infected twice. Once by a flash drive infector (I immediately obliterated it and turned off autorun) and the other by a wannabe Trojan that got picked up by MalwareBytes in seconds.
I'm not terri
hilarious (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Following is much too long. I'm worried about tl;dr but I haven't had sufficient coffee to figure out how to condense this.
I don't know whether it was parent post's intention, but a sudden insight flashed through my head that government could require a safety recall on operating systems that <strike>have defective security by design</strike> are hosts to huge botnets.
It could be a tiered recall, where IT departments of hospital networks and similar high risk environments are required to par
Crashing the 'net (Score:2)
Would be counter productive. Cant make any money off the botnet that way.
Really, even crashing the infected PC is the same. The days of 'dangerous' viruses have long since past.
Re: (Score:2)
Cant make any money off the botnet that way. Really, even crashing the infected PC is the same. The days of 'dangerous' viruses have long since past.
"Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." --Alfred Pennyworth
Some clarifications .... (Score:3, Informative)
Linux worm. (Score:1)
Generally linux users are more computer savvy and don't go opening every email attachment they get.
In other news... (Score:2)
Clueless person in need of help (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok... so here's what I don't get:
Security experts are well aware of this botnet client and are keeping a close eye on it. They've picked the client bot apart line by line. They know exactly how it is supposed to behave on the client side, but they of course don't have a clue about the server side. So why can't they hijack the hijacker?
For example, say this client bot is programmed to go to IP address on April 1st and DL some update. Ok..., block that IP address on the internet or trace the IP address back to the owners and stop it there. Those don't seem hard. (ok... and before someone calls me an idiot for saying "block the ip address on the internet", what i mean is that you can get the major service providers, certainly here in the US, and potentially abroad to "lose" anything sent to a specific address.)
Ok... so let's say that the client bot is programmed to go to IP address to and ping each one to ask for an appropriate update, verifying each update against a specific hash key. Ok... then grab IP address and put in something that DLs a file that neutralizes the bot. There can be no hash key that the researchers can't figure out because they can pick through the entire client bot's code bit by bit.
I'm clearly not getting something crucial here, but it just seems that in all the moaning about how bad this is that it wouldn't be that hard for someone person to write some kill code for it as long as enough time and effort had already gone into understanding the client side code.
Someone please help out a clueless non-security, non-software engineer understand why this is so hard.
d
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your reply. Yeah, i kept reading after i posted this and someone else posted that there was an RC4 encrypeted and RSA signed. However the way RSA encription works requires a private key to be hidden from the people who are trying to break the encrypted message. If you have the private key, then you can decript the message as well. AND if you can pull apart conflicker code, then it must contain the private key within.
That same other (very informative) person also wrote that the program woul
Re: (Score:2)
If I understand correctly, to do an RSA signature, the person sending the file holds the private key, not the person receiving it. That's what wikipedia says as well.
It's the opposite of RSA encryption in this regard.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
If everyone were using something else. Lets say linux or OSX Then whe worms would be tailored for those environments. As those environments are not in the majority, they are a poor choice for a botnet.
Re: (Score:2)
But the problem would be substantially reduced.
Re:If only... (Score:4, Insightful)
If everyone were using something else. Lets say linux or OSX Then whe worms would be tailored for those environments.
I'd like to see a worm tailored to my custom-compiled hardened 64bit gentoo. Linux is not a monoculture, only in source code form. You cannot target it the way you do windows.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd like to see a worm tailored to my custom-compiled hardened 64bit gentoo.
If you would read, once more, the post that you quoted, you might notice that it says "If everyone were using something else, such as Linux or OS X." Allow me to define "everyone" for you.... "everyone" is a pronoun meaning "Every person; everybody." "Everyone" cannot custom-compile their own Linux kernel with security in mind. "Everyone" cannot even custom compile their own kernel, period.
The grandparent said that Linux and OS X are a poor choice for a botnet because they are in the extreme minority, but i
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
I can assure you that if Linux were to become the majority of the OS market, there would only be a small handful of different compile configs used for 99% of those computers
You mean having 10x users would reduce the number of different configurations? I don't know what you're smoking, but give me some.
Most likely every user would ask the nearest geek they can find, who would advocate their favorite.
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean having 10x users would reduce the number of different configurations? I don't know what you're smoking, but give me some.
Actually, it would probably be safe to assume that it would. Mass take-up of Linux would either require or force standardisation, and with that would come a form of 'same-ness' that would be open to attack.
Re:If only... (Score:4, Interesting)
That brings to mind exploits for very common distributions that I've seen in the past.
But, in reality there have been some nasty ones. How many versions of OpenSSH were exploitable? I remember having the exploit, and running it against our own equipment to see what it would break. I love trying to break my own equipment. If I use the same script kiddie code, and I can't get in, neither can they.
Of course, it helps to have many things protected. I prefer to have SSH on a different port, with the firewall rules disallowing anyone to connect from anything but an authorized network (I love default DROP rules). Most exploitable things have only been available to my authorized networks, and only if they knew our port scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it helps to have many things protected. I prefer to have SSH on a different port, with the firewall rules disallowing anyone to connect from anything but an authorized network (I love default DROP rules).
Simple precautions like that can go a long way. I used to get thousands of brute force login attempts every day on port 22. I moved ssh to a different port two years ago, and have not had even one since then.
Re: (Score:2)
You can still have fun with those though. Give them a special purpose built SSH connection. :) I used to monitor the logs, and when I saw too many denied connections to port 22 (which no one should have been using anyways), I'd just set a default DROP from them everywhere. Ok so you beat on port 22, well, you won't find the real port either. :) More importantly, it looks like they crashed my server. Well, at least to their IP. To everyone else, its still alive and happy.
Re: (Score:2)
To move the SSH port: /etc/rc.d/sshd_config uncomment and modify the Port line.
# in
Port 1222
To block traffic:
I have mine in a big script that does a lot of automated things, like looping through friendly networks, enemy networks, etc, and building a full ruleset based on just a few arrays. You could use the following to do it manually. Just replace any variable (things that start with $) with the real value.
$int = your local interface
$ip = your l
Re: (Score:2)
It took me a little while to understand how it works. I migrated from ipchains, so it was a world of difference, but I appreciated the larger feature set once I got the hang of it.
Ya, most of the guides are huge and complex, when you can do a lot of things very easily. I've been asked a few times, "How can I block this IP from attacking our SSH port". That's a one liner. You'll be able to derive it from what I posted earlier. :)
Re: (Score:2)
So, what does it say? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Mass take-up of Linux would either require or force standardisation
Yes. Protocols and user file formats, but not binaries. On some level, we already have even that with ELF.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean having 10x users would reduce the number of different configurations?
Precisely. And that's because the only way that Linux will EVER have that kind of market share is if it becomes a standardized very easy-to-use OS, supplied by all OEMs, that won't require any sort of customization to get it working whatsoever. Sure, each hardware vendor might have their own flavor, but they would still have mostly the same features and functionality. Seriously, the general public is too stupid to make proper use of Linux. I don't know why you people even try to force its adoption.
Re: (Score:1)
Hardly.
What about all of those people who bought those Wal-Mart Everex boxes last year, or the people buying those MySpace PCs, or the people who buy the Dell inspiron mini 9s, for example?
Those are mass installs that are basically cookie-cutter installs of Linux right down the line. Most likely, these machines never get swapped to a distro that has balls, so a number of them exist in the wild, old security vulnerabilities and all.
Granted, they're in the extreme minority, but they too should be ownable, esp
Re: (Score:2)
a0) Hardened Gentoo does run on a couple of exotic arches. Check out their homepage.
a1) I'm not sure that the underlying architecture is *really* going to make that much difference WRT a system's susceptibility to malware attack. We have software replacements for hardware DEP. We have ASLR and other exploit foiling schemes.
b0) GJ @ making an allusion to Ken Thompson's theoretical trojaning of GCC. You lose points for either: making your allusion extremely obtuse, or not mentioning Thompson to your student.
b
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is, assuming that EVERY last computer user is running the exact same distro and the default programs on it...
If you create a worm that targets Pidgin, well then the Kopete users are safe (so long as Kopete doesn't share that very same flaw). That's the thing about Linux, each environment is too different. This makes mass-scale infections like this a bit more difficult to accomplish. Not to mention Open Source tends to have fewer exploits overall.
Security by Obscurity is a myth. If it wasn't, then why a
Re: (Score:2)
Does make & autoconf work on your custom-compiled, hardened 64bit gentoo?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Exactly! That's why Apache installations are the most-compromised servers on the net!
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed.
The same year that is the "Year of Linux on the Desktop", will also be the "Year of Malware on Linux". Computer crime is profitable, and if Linux were to dominate the market, then it would definitely be targeted.
Maybe malware will be _slightly_ less prevalent than currently (and profits slightly diminished). But Linux (and OS-X) aren't so much more secure than Windows that they would be invulnerable to the hordes of clueless users/admins that "Year of the Linux Desktop" implies. The huge majority of
Re:If only... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They might try to tailor their junk for these environments, but it's like the difference between a normal car (windows) and a car coated with teflon with a motion sensing machine gun on top (OSX/Linux), with the worms/viruses/malware being a type of graffiti paint.
Graffiti will stick pretty well to a normal car (and if you tend to stop in the more seedy parts of town than others, you have more of a chance of having your car "tagged" too), but it's not going to be very effective on the teflon coated ones and
Re: (Score:2)
I like your point regarding inversion of causality. It's a nice way of addressing the reoccurring claims that Windows is attacked not because it's conveniently vulnerable to attack but because it's ubiquitous. Well, hey, water is a ubiquitous source of hydrogen so by the same logic I would expect to see the energy industry all over it. No? Oh dear, now I'm really confused.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't like windows just as much as the next guy, but this is a pretty dumb statement. Users are targets, the OS is just a medium.
*sigh* I really shouldn't feed the Trolls, but one that uses the word "dumb" in almost every sentence in their post, obviously has an affinity for the word and needs some help.
In some instances, users are the "audience" (e.g. adware, phishing, etc) but that's only secondary, their systems are still the target. Unless the malware/virus writers start programming in AminoAcid++, they can't "target" a user, only their systems. And when someone's system is infected by a botnet and that botnet then launches a DDo
You might have a point... (Score:4, Informative)
If there were only one Linux. There's not. There are thousands [distrowatch.com]. The kernel itself doesn't require services that need open ports and application level security is a per-distribution thing so no two are going to have the same set of vulnerabilities. Linux is not a "monoculture".
We live in the world as it is, not as it might be. What-ifs really aren't worth spit. You can choose to run an OS that was vulnerable to Conficker, Koobface, Torpig, Storm, Antivirus 2009, Bitfrost, Sasser, MyDoom, Sober, Sobig, Welchia, Blaster, Nimda and Code Red and will be the target of the next six. Or not. It's up to you. Don't try to pretend that there's no functional security difference between the two because that's absurd. Add up the amount of data that was and will be compromised by that list of malware and you have enough to bring the world economy to a screaming halt. Between them those computers probably had access to financial or personal data on a majority of people who've had a digital record and more corporate secrets than should be in a hundred data pools.
What the other guy does shouldn't matter. It should be about being responsible with the data entrusted to you, about being a good steward of your own gear. If you are in IT then your customers are counting on your professional expertise to save them from inadvertently disclosing information via system compromise, and that's a solemn duty. From that perspective the choice is clear. If you can choose to not be a target why would you not leap at that option?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Knock the last 4 words off of that, and you are right, keep the last 4, and you are a troll.
Windows is generally ill equipped by default, and because of its population density is a larger target, but a huge part of the blame is the ignorance of it's users.
The last virus I had that did any damage to my personal files, or necessitated a reformat, was 7 years ago, the last one that did any sort of "hostile" act was Blaster, which took about 3 minutes to fix.
Pay attention to where you are going, and you wont fa
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
Current Windows inherited most of its security problems from DOS and Win16. In fact Windows XP was the first "home desktop" Windows (given 2000 was marketed for office use) to use memory protection at all. Prior to that a process could read/write anywhere, which effectively meant there was no security of any kind.
And since most applications require administrator access to run at all, including most server applications, even having memory protection is reduced to the effectiveness of chewing gum. With administrator access, any application can insert itself as a shim into any other application.
Then even when you do narrow down to the few applications that run with pure user access, and run that way all the time, there are plenty of privilege escalation holes to get that administrator access back.
It's swiss cheese from the ground up. Users cannot be expected to be tech geeks just to be basically secure. Certainly if they run an untrusted binary, their personal files are forfeit, but by no means should that be allowed to spread to the whole system (of potentially thousands of users) nor the whole network via server software running as administrator.
Re: (Score:2)
And since most applications require administrator access to run at all...
Cite?
100% of the applications that my employer creates require only regular User privs. Also, 100% of the userland code running on my Windows (Server 2k3 , BTW) machine at home runs w/ regular User privs.
Hell. Even Process Explorer runs as an unprivileged process.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "current Windows"? Windows XP?
Even Windows 3.1 had memory protection because 80386 had memory protection (segmentation) and virtualization. So no, applications could not just write anywhere in the memory space.
And no, most Windows applications to NOT require admin privileges. Welcome to 2009.
One of the biggest misconceptions about the current Windows (XP, Vista, Windows 7) security is you only have two kinds of users. This is simply not true although Windows only gives you basic access t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:If only... (Score:5, Interesting)
Posts like this make me think that you've never done any tech support for the average home user in the real world.
Sure, those of who know what we're doing can avoid problems.
That doesn't hold true for the vast majority of windows users. If it did, it wouldn't be a problem.
It's the same kind of thinking that led to the problem being existent in the first place.
Don't get me wrong - I make a fairly nice side income doing tech support for home users on the side.
But I'd much rather go back to teaching people *how* to use their computers - actually making a difference - than fixing broken windows installations and removing viruses, even if it is much more profitable.
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but that's what I'd prefer.
I'm not necessarily bitching at you in particular. I just remember what it was like, a long time ago, to spend my computer support time solving problems that didn't involve malware infestations. *Teaching* people how to use their computers. I miss it. It was fun. This isn't.
So anyone who says "Oh, I can keep my machine virus free" - whoopdefuckingdoo, so what, so can I. Most people can't, and it's because Microsoft can't write a decent *secure* fucking operating system to save their stock options.
Oh, and get off my damned lawn ;)
(Irritable? You bet. I'm a curmudge-only middle aged bastard...)
I can vent, can't I? *grin*
SB
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, if what you say is true (Microsoft can't write a secure OS) then how is it that you *are* able to keep your machine safe? I keep my machine clean too, and I don't even take exceptional levels of paranoia... with one exception, I won't run anything downloaded without vetting it very carefully first. Since downloaded malware - trojans, usually - aren't really the OS's fault, and since it's Windows' fault that there's so much malware on the platform, there must be something else...
You could t
Re: (Score:2)
I run linux. :)
The windows box only gets booted up once in a while, and I always have a ghosted copy of the install handy. Oh, and Avast! and SuperAntiSpyware, HijackThis, etc...
SB
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should know better than to believe what you hear.
SB
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So anyone who says "Oh, I can keep my machine virus free" - whoopdefuckingdoo, so what, so can I. Most people can't, and it's because Microsoft can't write a decent *secure* fucking operating system to save their stock options.
Most people can't because keeping something secure requires a security mindset that most people can't/don't/won't adopt. These are the same people that hold a security door open for a waiting "delivery man", leave their spare house key in the obvious fake rock, answer telephone surveys with all of their personal info, etc. It has nothing to do with the OS. I've had to teach some _smart_ people running Linux why downloading random .rpms/.debs/binaries is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had to teach some _smart_ people running Linux why downloading random .rpms/.debs/binaries is a bad thing.
Versus the "screensavers", browser exploits, and other malware that are SO MUCH MORE COMMONLY used as malware entry points for windows?
Point out to me just ONE of those types of social attacks that are used against linux and Mac OS systems, that have been successful in infecting more than a very tiny - if any - percentage of machines running those operating systems. Or that COULD BE
Re: (Score:2)
Point out to me just ONE of those types of social attacks that are used against linux and Mac OS systems, that have been successful in infecting more than a very tiny - if any - percentage of machines running those operating systems. Or that COULD BE. You can't just download a screensaver or some other executable on any unix-based system, and have it execute automagically without specifically making it capable of doing so.
Execute automagically? Installing the binaries with root privs was implied. Just because a higher proportion of Linux users are clueful doesn't mean that social attacks stop working.
Jesus, man. Are you really trying to tell me it's just as easy to insert a userland executable into a unix-based OS that can frak the operating system to the root level as it is to insert one into a windows OS?
Yes
Are you out of your mind? Or just ignorant?
I am neither. I am annoyed with "admins" like yourself who think that Linux is magically safe. They blindly type in the commands to wget a pre-compiled rpm for "betterer th@n decss" from some .ru or .cn, and install it, because some guy on a forum somewhere said it was the best way to watch video XYZ or to compute FOO to
Re: (Score:2)
Klez. Remember Klez? That was the tip of the iceberg when it came to automagic load-on-click viruses. Lots worse, now.
And I don't know what the ssh port has to do with what we are talking about. No desktop dist that I'm aware of has ssh servers even installed, much less enabled by default.
Although I'd agree with you if you are dealing with people who are trying to install distros and doing shit like what you describe. Beat them upside the head. But don't blame it on linux or the othe
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So what is exaggerated? How much people are afraid of Cornficker or its potential to cause damage?
Neither. The fear is warranted because the potential damage will almost certainly be realized to a significant degree. It's already proven its capacity to cause damage or we wouldn't be talking about it. What's exaggerated may be the April First date. April 1 might just be a mode shift day planned by the programmer where the thing goes into a "less stealthy" mode in order to improve a node's chances of catching a control.
For each 1% of infected systems that attach with a successful domain hit, the botma