Hillis' virus solution: Limit OS Usage 158
robobabe writes "The NY Times today (free login) has a front page article on viruses. The article has a history of the origins of the terms in science fiction, and ends with an interview of Danny Hillis (Connection Machine founder). Hillis argues that the current vulnerability to attacks is due to running a single OS and that a solution is "no government agency should be allowed to run more than 34% of its personal computers on one proprietary operating system."
Errata (Score:1)
Re:WORD macro viruses? (Score:1)
BTW, if you opened this user's document on your computer, you might want to virus-scan your own machine now...
Re:*multi-user* is the right solution (Score:2)
Really, the problem with UNIX-style OSes are DOS (denial of service) attacks, which generally don't harm the box -- they just render it useless to the outside world. Which isn't to say this can't be done to any other OS, of course.
34 %of a proprietary operating system (Score:1)
>to run more than 34 percent of its personal computers
>on one proprietary operating system by a date certain," he said.
So then if the government was using any open OS then they could be running 100% of one OS? With an open OS this makes much more sense... all the bugs found are quickly patched... Might this mean that the government might start leaning towards open OSes?
Re:security on unix (Score:1)
And don't tell me there aren't security holes. Ever taken a look at rootshell.org? Every time one is fixed, 5 more pop up.
security on unix (Score:1)
Also, if virus writers only attack systems with large market shares, why didn't they write virii to disable sendmail, which handles most of the e-mail on the internet (maybe they did, I don't know)? How about a virus to disable apache web servers. You could disable more than half the internet's web sites (estimate depending on the quality of the sampling done by netcraft).
Maybe I don't know the mind of the typical script kiddie, but I wonder what the real reason for virii is. Is it just the recognition factor (like the egoboo of Linux development), or the knowledge that you crashed machines (because I'm sure the writers would not want to be recognized and caught)?
Imagine if you will (Score:1)
First of all, there is the old problem of keeping all your eggs in one basket; Sure, splitting to 3 different os's will reduce the impact of a single type of attack, but it will triple the chances of a smaller attack, and in the gov't, that's not a good thing.
Not to mention the administrative headache that would be. Between having to integrate different OS's, to getting 3 licences for each piece of software you want to run company-wide, to people changing OS's all the time, because some new guy comes in that only knows 95, it's just not worth the hastle... --A good thought, and if this guy wants to do it for his company, that's fine, but let's not push the issue on others.
Re:It's a flawed argument (Score:1)
I think you miss the point. OS diversity in and of itself is a form of protection. Worms/Virii/Trojans that affect win/32 will not hamper un*x. Ones that target un*x can't hurt a Mac. Malicious code that targets Mac will leave a Be system unscathed. This is the point.
No one piece of code can disable an entire network when there is diversity. Maybe 34% of your machines will go down and as bad as that is, it's still better than 95%+ of your machines going down.
Here, where I work, for example I have a Mac on my desk, but in the back room I have Linux and NT servers that I administrate. I can remain (fairly) confident that nothing short of an environmental disaster (be it large or small) will take down all of the machines that I am responsible for.
LK
Re:Wrong - easier solution is cross-platform. (Score:1)
Who determines what is "business related"? Even if it is deemed by the priests in the Ivory Tower to be "business related" things can still slip through by accident. I recieved an e-mail mack in march from one of my suppliers that was infected with a MacroVirus. It was a Pricelist, most definately business related. Fortunately, I was procrastinating and never opened the file. But then again I have a Mac, so only MS Office apps would have been effected.
LK
Re:Educating users is not total solution (Score:1)
I disagree with the various comments about how the virus problem would be solved if those "stupid lazy" users would just do as they're told.
One great truth about human civilization: Every existing problem would be solved if people would just do what they're "supposed" to do. But they don't. For various perfectly good reasons. Just because people don't behave the way you think they should, doesn't make them dumber than you.
Human (incl tech) systems need to be designed with the expectation that people will NOT do what they're "supposed" to do. That's reality.
So, yes, education is good, but you can't shrug off the problem as being totally the fault of "those dummies." People don't like this when their government, bosses, or teachers say it to them -- why should they like it any better when IT guys say it to them?
Re:Wrong - easier solution is cross-platform. (Score:1)
Blame M$. VBA being incorporated into office apps is a gaping security hole. I need excel macros for doing the math on orders. If I were using a Windoze box I'd be screwed. I can handle a macro virus on the Mac because in my situation it would be confined to excel documents. If I were using win9x I'd have to be concerned with everything from my word processor to Outlook...
LK
Re:the problem with concrete OS ... (Score:1)
Re:Stop, please (Score:1)
Latin day is dies (accusative case diem), so your neologism mean something more like
Re:Yes, an intelligent solution at last (Score:2)
First, I think that the frequent problems with viruses are due to places that rely strongly on WinNT/9x, rather than Unixes. (I know there are Unix viruses, but if you are a script kiddie, who are you going to have more fun putting out of commission - a thousand or a billion users?) Worksites that, in general, are unix-run tend to be more secure to virus and other hacks than NT places, only because that unix admin are that much more diligent.
You wonder how people can run unauthorized code without having the source. Again, we're talking Windows-run shops, not unix. Additionally, when I buy Office or Quake from the vendor, I don't have the source, can I trust this code? There *is* a certain degree of trust that vendor-supplied software is virus-free, but....
About pgp-trusted mail: I'm only speaking when it comes to the attachments. Additionally, I'd expect, *especially* in the gov't, that the email is for work-purposes only (even though I know this is naive), and thus, I should only be trusting of attachments that come from my PGP-identified coworkers. The key thing is that unless you've stupidly enabled such an option, the end user *HAS* to initiate the program that launches the virus; just getting does nothing.
About the sysadmin: Yes, more than likely, a virus will go unnoticed until it's too late. However, with both Melissa and Zip.Explorer, *BOTH* were warned about on news.com, here, and other sites that specilize in such info. Yet, the *NEXT* day, the problems got worse. Understandable, there is some lag in the news, but this can be measured in hours with a diligent sysop. If this was truely the case, these problems would not have been as severe. If 100% realiablity and functionality of your systems are required, and your sysadmins are pushed to the bone above and beyond such that virus warnings cannot be monitored, then it would make sense to just hire another sysop for this security, and spend the extra $100k a year compared to the millions lost by the system failure.
About backups: Yes, the backup might be infected, but who doesn't, when restoring from a wipe or crash, doesn't rerun a virus scan on just recovered backup files ? (Again, a virus cannot launch itself by itself). Then, of course, backup again with the clean system.
However, I strongly stand by education at the key way to defeat these viruses. Neither Melissa or Zip.Explorer would have done as much harm if the users were smart enough not to initialize them.
Yes, what an intelligent solution (NOT) (Score:4)
strong slam here today, so instead, let's actually
look at the *REAL* solutions:
- Teach users what email is (including basics of email, including POP, IMAP, MIME, and sendmail & friends at a very basic level so they known how their mail gets routed. Teach users that opening an attachment on an insecure OS is asking for trouble, and should never be done unless the source is absolutely trustworthy... which leads to...
- Using PGP/GPG or other secure identification methods to be able to trust the validity of the mail. Just because it's from a co-worker doesn't necessarily mean it's legit.
(These two stand out only because the latest big virii have been email ones, not that this is the only route)...
- Make sure all installations that require it have a quality and up-to-date virus program.
- Have the sysadmin be diligent about reading the various virii advisory lists and visiting the web sites of the makers of the virii programs on a daily basis. I've yet to see any major virii come out (at least in the states) and not have a virus eliminator or such within a 24hr day.
- Um, backup frequently and often. A virus may just eventually get through, but a virii can't do damage to tape backup, only possibly reside on there.
The situation with virii today is that we have a bunch of lusers running around thinking they know everything but end up in these situations, *and* because we have lazy sysops in many places. Fixing both these problems would cost *much* less than reequipping gov't offices with up to 66% in new computers, as opposed to just simple training and effective sysopping.
Which is why advertising is using PCs, not Macs. (Score:1)
Woops, got that wrong. :)
Yabbut the POINT is that... (Score:2)
If X percent of your users have a given system, than only X percent of your whole system can go down.
Now, this would necessitate the use of open standard or at least multiplatform systems (e.g. StarOffice or *god forbid* pure HTML for word processing).
I don't see too much difficulty sharing documents with that type of issue in place.
Re:Imagine if you will (Score:1)
Say there are 900 viruses in the world, 300 for Windows, 300 for Mac, 300 for Unix.
If you're an all Windows shop, you are vulnerable to only 300 viruses. If you're a fully hetero shop, you're subject to all 900.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
Re:All of this, articles and comments, is wrong!!! (Score:1)
While backing up everything can insure that you get your data back, you're still going to take a productivity hit from a successful virus infection.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
"Homogenous" vs. "Homogenized" vs. "Homogeneous" (Score:2)
"Homogenized" means "blended into a uniform mixture". Milk that has been homogenized will not separate into milk and cream.
"Homogeneous" means "all of one kind".
"Heterogeneous" is the opposite of "homogeneous" and means "consisting of dissimilar or diverse ingredients or constituents".
Hence, for operating systems at a site to be homogenized would mean that regardless of their different origin, they were indistinguishably and inseparably mixed together. This might be accomplished by having a common user interface. A site with Windows and Linux systems, where both were running Netscape Navigator and StarOffice and the Linux systems were running fvwm95, might be the beginning of a homogenized site.
For operating systems to be homogeneous would mean for them to all be the same in origin and appearance. An all-Windows site is homogeneous.
And a heterogeneous site would be one which had diverse, clearly distinct, yet intermixed systems -- for instance, one where Linux, Windows, Unix, and MacOS systems all shared data over common protocols.
IMHO, a heterogeneous site is a much better approach than a homogenized or a homogeneous one.
Re:It's NOT a flawed argument (Score:1)
Not entirely true. On mixdown [mixdown.org] we've had many attempts from outside but nothing has gotten through. So much for rootshell. What they read there I also do and patch it up if necessary. Rootshell sells to both sides of the war.
As far as internal security, I was tempted to set up a test/test account on the system and let you guys have at it but I want to do a double-check on our permissions first. From the outside, it has no known exploits. From the inside, I've set up fairly tight ulimit regulations, including CPU time of 5 seconds and and data size of (I think) 8 megs. That keeps any rootshell surfing script kiddies from keeping it bogged down for long. I get paged if the number of users grows above a set limit and also if the box 15min load goes above 5. Internal security is much harder to imlement than external security.
Anyway that's my take on it. Unix-style security may not be infalliable but it is a lot better than the WinDOS "a root for every user" methodology.
There is another thread around here about how these virii would exist in a Unix environment as well since they're spread through email. This is true, but you would not achieve the same level of destruction unless you read your mail as root. I also don't know of any hooks in Pine which would cause it to automagically run my email attachments.
Why Virus Writers Do It (one opinion) (Score:1)
Actually it's neither... at least not for me. I used to be one (back when I was a teeny-bopper) and I did it just to see if I could manipulate DOS on the level that DOS manipulated itself. I directly played with MCBs to grow the last allocated block of memory to hide in. I discovered that if you followed the last MCB (theoretically the end of memory) you were in high memory. In fact, that's exactly what LH did: it changed the last MCB to a link rather than an end and you suddenly found yourself a chunk of memory in HMA. I intercepted int13h and int21h calls. I intercepted DOS calls to change interrupt vectors to link myself in and then set up timer interrupts to make sure I didn't get taken out of the loop by direct access to 0:0. I intercepted int03h and wrote code that would detect debugger activity. I wrote virii that occupied memory but couldn't be found through normal means. I wrote a stupid little TSR that caused the drive to do a complete end-to-end seek before it wrote any block of data. I wrote virii that attempted to go out and intecept other virii. Christ, it was the thrill of manipulating a machine without the user knowing what I was doing because I could do it quickly and unnoticeably (well, except for the seek thing
From my studies I wrote a few little utilities. One told DOS to allocate according to "best fit" or "last fit" instead of the default "first fit" algorithm. I wrote a little MCB follower that told you what was where and whether it was a device driver or other program. Another was a program that allowed access to HMA regardless of LH being called before.
I did it because it was fun and becuase I learned more about how DOS worked than I could ever learn from any book or class or other means.
Our current approach (Score:1)
Our approach goes something like this.
PCs - general on Ghost or BootP so they are instant cleaned.
Email - using twig - and planning to write simple virus blocking software to it - so we can ban known virus before they get in.
Web Proxy with known virus files blocked.
User education - it helps but dont rely on it!
Moving away from MS - this is an aim, but not a reality yet, when all the core apps are ready on Linux, we will have a very strong case - eg. graphics, 3d, midi(compose). We are close but not quite ready to say rm
Hillis, Dawkins (Score:1)
The article also mentions Dawkins. I've been doing some alife reading lately and they're both in there.
Of course virii/worms have great alife analogies.
Bring on the Lawyers! (Score:1)
Absolutely. If there is a bug that was due to clear negligence on the part of the programming/QA team then they should be held responsible. At very least you should have to obtain a signed disclaimer of warranty if you want to sell software without the legal protection.
If the industry worked like this, nobody would program anything out of fear of being sued by some litigous clown.
While I agree that some limits (Perhaps only actual damages etc.) would be in order, the system now is terrible since it shifts the cost for bad software to the user. If the cost of bad software were on the hands of the programmer, then less software would be written, but the software that was written would be of far greater quality. I'm tired of the notion that software is impossible to get right since there are so many variables. Civil Engineering in Los Angeles is difficult too, but an engineer that negligently designed a bridge that collapsed in an earthquake would be sued. Engineers have malpractice insurance, perhaps programmers should get it too.
You seem to have support in the legislative system. UCITA [slashdot.org] threatens to make it trivially easy for a company to produce software that does not work even as claimed in advertising or documentation, and as long as he disclaims the warranty on shrinkwrap, the user has no legal recourse.
--
Re:Yes, what an intelligent solution (NOT) (Score:1)
You'll have to find a better metaphor than that. People sign things they didn't read all the time
--
Plural of "virus" (offtopic) (Score:1)
OK, I'll bite. Why is virii not a proper plural of virus.
--
A user proof OS (Score:1)
These all are valid and have their place. I think that most users have no need to run any executable that is not provided by their network adminstrator. Those that do are probably intelligent enough to take reasonable precautions.
Hence the following precautions would be reasonable:
Clearly, well designed OSes and programs are essential for any solution to work and infinite undo is great for other reasons, but it is important to change our view of the OS and realize that most users in a business setting do not need, nor should they have, full access to a general use OS.
--
Nevermind (Score:1)
--
Re:Broken all the time?! (Score:2)
Unix and its clones are very powerful, stable operating systems. This is a Good Thing. However, the stability itself tends to create a problem: the sysadmins get too cocky and never think about possible problems, simply because "they'll never happen; this is Unix."
Well, the thing is, they do happen. The law of averages (to say nothing of Murphy's Law) demands it; eventually something is going to happen. The fact that it happens with Windows and especially MacOS so often has led to one thing: they tend to recover from crashed in a relatively graceful manner; seldom in more than fifteen minutes for MacOS and a day or two for Windoze. No Unix-related problem I've ever seen has ever taken fewer than four days to fix, due to various combination of user-hostility on the OS's part, a lack of tools to help get the system back up (particularly in the Open-Source OS's but in all Unix-like systems to some degree), and other factors.
You can understand the reasoning behind this: if errors never happen, why plan for them? But the fact is, errors do happen. The worst-case scenario is that everything is always broken, and this scenario must be planned for, because at some future point it will pop up. It's like the proverb goes: "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."
Re:It's NOT a flawed argument (Score:2)
I'm not knocking Linux or other unix, I use them at home and work, but anybody who thinks migrating the world to a unix quality system would stop these attacks needs to think it through a bit more carefully.
It's easier to grab control of a Windows box because of its lack of security, but bored malcontents would quickly adapt. It's more attractive to attack these because there are a buttload of them out there, but as the status quo changes so will the targets. The recent increase of the MacOS is a case in point as was pointed out by somebody else. MacOS users used to brag about the lack of virii when in reality it was just a result of the lack of market share.
Re:Yabbut the POINT is that... (Score:2)
Open standard software is a great idea, but it defeats part of the purpose of going to a multi-system approach. Once you've got a common file format it becomes easy to do damage. The guys argument was a bit like the security by obscurity argument. Yeah, you're secure in the short term, but once a determined thug works at it you're still compromised.
It's a flawed argument (Score:5)
In order to really use diversity to hamper the spread of worms and virii you'd have to go to much wider extremes anyway. Not only would you have to have different operating systems, but users would have to use a variety of different packages for storing information complete with different file formats. Of course that would diminish the benefits of having a shared network: interchange of information would now be much more difficult.
In reality until software is developed which can detect and respond to software threats autonomously people will always be susceptible to the whims of worm and virii coders. You can minimize the risk somewhat by using a robust OS or a non-mainstream OS. Once that OS becomes mainstream you've lost the 'protection'.
Serendipity (Score:1)
Communication systems exist to communicate (Score:3)
Communication systems exist so that people ("users", or in other words the people who pay the bills) can communicate. Solutions which destroy the capability of the system to communicate, for the convenience of the system administrator, will be rejected by the user (that is, customer) base.
Yes, I know the pain-in-the-ass consequences of the above statement: I have been doing this kind of work for 12 years. But (IMHO) that's reality and we have to deal with it.
sPh
Re:The Ultimate Virus (Score:1)
The Real Issue - 95/98 Sucks. (Score:1)
Virii will really be solved when everyone moves to an OS (be it WinNT Consumer 2010, linux, etc..) that actually has some internal permissions-type safeguards against, say, random writes to the HD.
Re:It's a flawed argument (Score:1)
that's why if mentioned 34% limit applies you can get to knees only those 34% with one code base (if counting only native binary code)
Of course that would diminish the benefits of having a shared network: interchange of information would now be much more difficult.
you're kidding. if we both use mail clients which implements e-mail standards correctly, than we have no problem to send e-mails to each other.
your statement clearly talks about MS-like systems, which introduces incompatibilities also called "features" (by manufacturer).
i'm repeating: intechange of information is no problem in heterogenous environments IF your tools conform standards!
without real AI you can't do that; because such a system have to be more inteligent and educated as (almost) all hackers/crackers in the world; otherwise it is limiting users abilities
so i think the only way out of this is education: tell the users basic rules! (like if you are applying for driver licence)
all this "heterogenou environment" argument is based on same principles as nature itself: if all people are same than one desease is enought to kill us all. but while we are all slightly diferent, there's still somebody who survive.
why is nature avoiding monocultures?
throw away windows (Score:1)
like repeatedly lost work because of error in system? (not necessarily virus :)
education - YES! (Score:1)
people have to know that running untrusted code is like signing something they did not read!!!
Re:Yes, what an intelligent solution (NOT) (Score:1)
that's not enought. outlook and co. is asking whether to run or not so definite solution is ONLY education.
people have to know that running untrusted code is like signing something they did not read!!!
the problem with concrete OS ... (Score:1)
Re:the problem with concrete OS ... (Score:1)
Re:education - YES! (Score:1)
then maybe we have to give arms and legs to those AIs so they can work for us.
and then, we shall silently die, we are not necessary anymore.
:)
"virii": there's no such word (Score:1)
--
*multi-user* is the right solution (Score:3)
The key to defeating viruses is not in limiting the percentage of machines running a particular OS, but in limiting user's permissions. Not only is it an excelent way to get rid of any virus problem, but also a great way to prevent stupid users from doing stupid thing, subsequently cutting on support costs.
This is guaranteed to solve 90% of the problems, and frequent backup will solve the remaining 10%.
I haven't heard of any Linux viruses, btw... I know there are troyans, but they are harmless unless ran by root.
Re:education - YES! (Score:1)
Re:The Ultimate Virus (Score:1)
This isn't a matter of virus writers being dumb. It's a matter of the problem being nigh impossible. After all, how many apps do you know which can use the _same binary_ on all the different platforms around? And people actually want to run them....
Re:Yabbut the POINT is that... (Score:1)
Ok, how do you propose to damage my Amiga with a JPEG JFIF?
Re:Wrong - easier solution is cross-platform. (Score:1)
I could be wrong here, but I was under the impression that PocketWord that comes with WinCE is more akin to WordPad with a spell-checker, and doesn't have any of the more "advanced" "features" of Word, such as macros and what-not.
I've no first-hand experience with WinCE (I've got a Psion 5), but everything I've read has bemoaned the dearth of features in all the WinCE "Pocket" applications.
Re:Imagine if you will (Score:1)
That reasoning is flawed. You still have the same number of computer systems in place. The problem is that currently the most common OS is the least secure. Increase the mix and you can't help but to increase the security. That argument would hold only if all OSes had the same level of security.
*multi-user* wouldn't have helped here :-( (Score:1)
- It comes in an attachment. Well, I also use attachments under linux, and have done that for years.
- Clicking on that attachment automatically performs an action based on file type. Hmmm, most advanced graphical mail programs do that under linux (xfmail, kmail, netscape mail,
- It goes through the users hard disk drives and wipes out all productivity related files. Well, while most of my file system under linux can not be hit by a normal user, most of a user's productivity related files do indeed sit in his/her home directory, which is writable by that user. Or at least I can't remember the last time when I put a Starwriter document in
- It catches all incoming mails and automatically replies to every one with a delayed response. This is no problem whatsoever under UNIX and linux. Everyone with basic knowledge in system programming could hack such a thing within a few days (or probably less).
I fail to see one action in this list that requires root privileges. Ok, you could wipe out only your own files and not everybody elses, but since this worm/virus spreads around via email and I get emails from my friends and coworkers all the time, it would barely make a difference
And I hope you do not suggest that people run a process viewer at all times and check every minute whether there is a daemon running that shouldn't be there. As linux installations get easier to install and more and more people with very little computer knowledge use linux regularly, you simply can't expect that (it would even be a pain for experienced users).
I do agree that well written multi user OSs can prevent a lot of trouble and stop a large number of really lame virii from spreading around. But they are definitely not a siver bullet. Combine that with the fact, that many users hate the multi user concept and circumvent it where possible (I know lots of people who run NT always as admins to avoid lame permission problems. And look in the average linux news group and count the newbee posts with sender root@localhost
Cheers
Rudi
PS: The reason why there have been so few linux virii in the past is because linux is not on everybody's sh*t list. Most people with more than average computer knowledge despise Microsoft and their products (although they might use them at work and thereby gain programming knowledge under Windows) and I could assume that it is considered cool in certain misguided communities to write virii that trash a Windows box. I can hardly believe anyone would get peer recognition for writing a virus/worm that shreds a linux lab and takes down www.linux.org.
Re:It's NOT a flawed argument (Score:1)
Any system where you implicitly trust unknown users on the internet to send you non-malicious programs is inherently flawed. The reason I will never be hit by an email virus is that my email reader can't spawn other processes on behalf of my email messages. Imagine if each user got to include an X-pager line to tell me to use emacs, or less, or more (or rm -fr ~) to read the email!!
Even if such a virus were to attack and delete all my files, it would be a short walk down the hall to ask our sysadmin to restore my directory from backup files. I'd be bitter about the few day's work I'd lost, but otherwise OK. I realize this doesn't translate to home users that well.
Re:All viruses should cause Micros~1 to get sued (Score:1)
It's hard to get people to understand that perhaps a word processing macro should not be able to modify your system registry. It seems common sense to me.
Re:34%?? (Score:1)
BTW: NT SP3 and NT SP4 are different and why would microsoft imply there was a difference if there wasn't, not like they sell the 30 some odd meg service pack that you use their bandwidth to download for free.
matguy
Net. Admin.
Re:Yabbut the POINT is that... (Score:1)
matguy
Net. Admin.
34%?? (Score:2)
matguy
Net. Admin.
Educating (Score:1)
One of the main education issues I can see is the same faith that some people put in the government they put into Microsoft (microsoft.gov? who knows). Microsoft is in the media the same way the white house is. They can spin stories just as well as the Clintons can. Trying to tell your average user that GUIDs and sending personal data through the Windows 98 Update Wizard is bad is like trying to tell media zombies that the internet and quake do not make kids go bonkers with weapons.
Basically, I think all of us who admin Windows machines have a massive challenge as far as this goes. I can rant about it until I lose my voice around here, but heh, I'm just the long haired weirdo geek in the back room with the servers that run that other OS. What does he know.
Why just one OS? (Score:1)
Re:It's a flawed argument (Score:3)
Another Login requuired web site. (Score:1)
Re:Login: (Score:1)
Re:Totally unrealistic (Score:1)
Some good AV resources.... (Score:1)
http://www.sarc.com/
http://www.av.ibm.com/current/FrontPage/
http://www.cert.org/
http://www.avertlabs.com/
all of these are commercial with the exception of CERT, who I recomend as a good resouces to watch. Usually, when they say somethings up, it is, though they are abit slower than the vendors. Have fun.
Re:It's a flawed argument (Score:2)
Right now writting MS viruses is too easy. I have the source code for melissa hanging on my cube, its less than two pages. I'm a noncoder and its basic enought that I think I could effectivly modify it. Thats frightening.
Re:Yes, what an intelligent solution (NOT) (Score:3)
1. I've done tech support, I have no faith in the idea of eductation of users. It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.
2. Some viruses are spreading fast than the AV vendors and sysadmins can catch up. This worm had hit millions of computers before the AV software had a fix. The same applies for sysadmins, and most are overloaded as is.
3. PGP and backups, definetly, now, no excuses.
I dont think that anyone is recomending the 34% thing seriously (I could be wrong), but it is a good point. Greater OS diversity would slow these puppies down, but I dont think windows users should go throw out their OS for viral reasons....after all there are enough other reasons.
Re:It's NOT a flawed argument (Score:1)
The only thing that would keep this from spreading like wildfire is that the Linux community isn't in the habit of sending binaries around to each other, and so would probably be suspicious of such an attachment. But, as Linux becomes more mainstream you can expect this to change. It's only a matter of time before the newer Linux users start emailing around little gnome applets for their toolbars, etc. And when that happens, you can expect that the worms and trojan horses will soon follow. Expect some nasty back-doors too, as it's trivial to have a little program listen on an unsecure port and spawn off a shell for anyone who connects. Or when certain IP addresses connect. But I digress.
I'm not really sure what the solution is. Security will probably have to become much more fine-grained. Users should be able to have much more control over what a program is allowed to do. For example, I might not worry too much about running some binary that was emailed to me if I could keep it from performing file operations outside of a given directory, and from opening any sockets. Such a system should allow one to specify a wide variety of permissions for each individual binary that you might have. However, trying to make such a system usable by average-joe users would be very hard. Hell, it would be hard to make it easy to use even for savvy users. I can imagine what such a system would look like underneath the hood, but I don't know what you would use for a decent user interface. If it wasn't easy to use, most users would end up just giving everything all permissions, and we would be right back where we are now.
In conclusion, I think it's important for us to think about ways to deal with this type of problem before it actually becomes a problem. Just saying that "worms can't destroy my whole system, so I'm safe" is pretty naive. Everyone who thinks that should run the following command, and tell me how they feel afterword: "rm -rf ~", and don't forget to pretend that your user account isn't allowed to run "/bin/mail".
Re:34%?? (Score:1)
I think the author meant that MS would claim that NT SP3 and SP4 should qualify as two different operating systems under the rule, and therefore be considered for two segments.
Re:*multi-user* is the right solution (Score:1)
Throw tens of thousands of casual users into this mix, and we'll see how long it is before Linux virii start appearing in force.
Sounds good (Score:1)
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=99/06/10/2319242&cid=242 [slashdot.org]
Not just OSes (Score:1)
Each of these should use well documented open protocols to communicate with each other, so they all do the same things, but in different ways.
Diversity, it's how nature does it.
Re:Not just OSes (Score:1)
(As things stand) I would have a company with different platforms on each desktop, eg an intel based WinXX machine on one desktop, a Sparc based Linux machine on the next, an Alpha based FreeBSD on the next, etc. (PS my examples are fairly bogus). So even a single department / office would be fairly resistant to any single point of failure / attack. Too bad that currently no-one would support anything like this, but hey, its something to aim for.
The map is not the territory (Score:2)
Consider a live, naturally-evolved plant. It can't be too picky about the kind of soil it's planted in, the temperature of its surroundings, the amount of sunlight it gets each day, the amount of rain that falls on it, the chemical content of the rain, etc. It has to convert whatever resources it has available into forms of matter and energy that it can use for growth, reproduction, and defense against predators.
Since it's competing with other plants for survival, it has to make engineering trade-offs. For example, a plant may secrete a bad-tasting chemical, protecting it from predators -- but the raw materials for that chemical may restrict the plant to certain soil chemistries, or the extra energy necessary to produce it may restrict it to environments with a certain minimal level of sunlight.
By contrast, our computers are designed to "live" in a tightly controlled environment. If a CPU is running a binary program, and comes across an instruction that makes no sense, it doesn't have to try "digesting" the program into a more sensible form. If a network router gets a packet with a syntactically incorrect header, it doesn't have to send the packet any farther.
Security-related protocols add to the level of control; they are filters between sensitive and untrusted parts of a computer system. Since our computers "live" off of electricity, not programs, they can be as picky as we want them to be about what programs they execute and what permissions they execute under. Since our operating systems are designed by (occasionally) intelligent humans, not evolved by natural selection, humans can design better operating systems, in which security against untrusted code is a fundamental part of the architecture.
Re:Yes, what an intelligent solution (NOT) (Score:1)
The solution to this problem is to not solve it. It sucks when it happens, but it's always going to happen so deal with it. Some sort of "invisible" backup system (like "GoBack") might mitigate the damages, but that's the best you can do.
Not spread by executables? (Score:1)
Yeah right! (Score:1)
---
Proprietary OSes [Was: 34%??] (Score:1)
I would hardly call Linux a proprietary OS, it being OpenSource(TM) Software. So I'd guess you'd be pretty safe with 100% Linux.
---
Ilmari
Remove the capital letters from the e-mail-address
Re:WORD macro viruses? (Score:1)
(And the only reason I know is because my school got hit with it today too
By the way, most of the actual code for it is stored in c:\class.sys if you want to take a look at it.
-Gabe
Re:Proprietary OSes [Was: 34%??] (Score:1)
Except that 100% Linux and uneducated users wouldn't be safer.
The diversity in flavors of Unix (and other O/S-sen) is a Good Thing.
Re:The Ultimate Virus (Score:1)
Almost nothing upsets me as much as some ubercrackwhore that thinks mixing a stew or adding crackers to it, automatically makes it soup.
Re:It's NOT a flawed argument (Score:1)
Any system where you implicitly trust unknown users on the internet to send you non-malicious programs is inherently flawed.
Ah! But that's the thing, these macro virii that have been doing the rounds lately send themselves to people in your address book (and I believe the Melissa chose the people on the basis of how often you correspond with them). Therefore, you are hardly receiving the email from an 'unknown user', and it makes it quite a bit harder to discern whether what you've received is a virus or truly a legitimate file. (Remember that you might often get attached files from these people normally, so it's not unusual to be receiving one in this case).
It's a sort of 'social engineering' that the virii writers are using to get their malicious little programs run.
Remember that it's people's ignorance that is getting these files spread around, more than anything else. If the average user was educated about the issue enough to not blindly open attached files without virus scanning them, then the problem would be greatly reduced.
Re:Yes, what an intelligent solution (NOT) (Score:1)
Re:Another Login requuired web site. (Score:1)
Re:Limit email to plain ASCII text (Score:1)
Re:Definitions reversed? (Score:1)
And then... (Score:1)
I'm sure it wouldn't be too much more of a headache for the people who write them one in the first place, and anyway, one third of the computers going down would still be a bit of a bitch.
Re:Wrong - easier solution is cross-platform. (Score:1)
The only suggestion that has viable merit is to disable the ease at which a user can destroy and propagate malicious code.
Implementing that is a whole other arena.
Diversity bad for support (Score:1)
I'm not saying standardizing is a good thing (I run my own stuff anyways), but with clueless users, it's about the only way.
Re:Yes, what an intelligent solution (NOT) (Score:2)
The current crop of 'macro-virii' isn't just a problem of a monoculture computing environment. It's a problem of a daffy, head-in-the-sand, bare-butt-stuck-in-the-air-for-script-kiddies-to-
A culture that has a better immune system, and is designed to weather a variety of environments would not wither and die nearly as quickly as what people are using now.
True Accuracy (Score:2)
Yeah, and I'm sure some computer scientists believe that JFK was a space alien.
Here's a handy rule:
#ifdef REPORTER_SPEAK
#define SOME_PEOPLE ALMOST_NO_ONE_CREDIBLE
#endif
Remember the handy guide to thesis paper jargon? ("It is generally acknowledged that...." means "I think that....")
The comparisons between a real-life virus and a malicious computer program are quaint and romantic. It's just too bad they're not real accurate.
/* Sorry I'm so grumpy. I forgot BOTH my St. John's Wort AND my coffee this morning. */
Stop, please (Score:2)
sharpei diem -- seize the wrinkled dog
sharpie diem -- seize the felt-tip marker
Limits aren't the solution (Score:3)
I see 3 reasonable solutions to this issue:
1 - Don't use any combination of programs that can facilitate the uncontrolled spread of any program, worm, virus, word macro virus, trojan, etc without direct authorization by the user. In this case, don't use Word and outlook express together if the two can be used together for the uncontrolled replication of viruses and other nasties.
2 - Limit the damage a single user can do. If a user receives a virus, fine. That's done. However, if that user doesn't share write permission on executable directories, then the virus won't be able to spread over a network without copying files. If the user is not able to forward
And 3, the most effective, yet most difficult:
EDUCATE THE USERS! Users have no business whatsoever sending executables to others which is traditionally how viruses spread. Teach them how to turn off those options which facilitate this madness. If you're going to stick an idiot in front of a computer, you had better damned well make sure that computer is idiot proof, or these problems will continue to happen.
Will switching a corporation over to all linux prevent this problem? Sure, or it will at least slow it down. But even on *nix boxes there have been worms in the past. Script kiddies enjoy easy access to well written exploit code, and while it is simple to patch this code up, most corporations are probably so mired down in procedure that these patches would take a great deal of time to get implemented, and any user that can gain root access, or any virus/worm for that matter, can do just as much damage regardless. And there will always be the users that only use the root account on their private systems, and one day will download a malicious program and wipe out their system. It happens, and it will continue to do so. Until computer users take proper care of their systems, viruses will continue to spread. Use a bit of intelligence, or in appropriate situations a raincoat, and viruses will become far less prevalant.
-Restil
Re:Limits aren't the solution (Score:1)
Re:Wrong - easier solution is cross-platform. (Score:1)
It isn't a bad idea to have binaries stripped from external e-mail, and put into a directory where expected binaries could be picked up. With a policy of allowing only business-related binaries to be picked up, many of the social engineering worms would be filtered out without the loss of the usefulness attachments.
Re:Wrong - easier solution is cross-platform. (Score:1)
Thus the heavy use of such things as "much" and "cut down on" in my post. There is no really good solution if your business requires the exchange of executables. (I refuse to believe that VisiBasic macros are really necessary entities)
Private key, anyone? (Score:1)
Private key, anyone?
Or maybe they'll just corrupt it for you. Wouldn't that be just great...
Limit email to plain ASCII text (Score:1)
The tiny minority of computer users who need anything more sophisticated are capable of making their own decisions about how to handle files.
Microsoft should be sued for the irresponsible actions of promoting highly complex formats that perform automatic actions that the majority of computer users cannot understand or control.
A thought... (Score:1)
In a national radio broadcast of the Commonwealth Club, circa 1993 or so, Scott McNeally (president/CEO Sun Microsystems) suggested that the government shouldn't be able to buy closed operating systems at all.
Quite a few more tidbits on open systems and the "future" of the Internet which are interesting when looking back. I've got this on tape and could produce a transcript if there were sufficient interest.
The Ultimate Virus (Score:1)
[btw: Did you ever wonder [sf.org.nz] what happened in The Matrix after the credits rolled?]
Definitions reversed? (Score:3)
Biologically, a worm is a macroscopic organism that crawls slowly along the ground, eating any food it happens to smell nearby--at a much slower rate.
In the computer world, a worm, as the author correctly surmises, is self-propelling, that is, a program sent within the attachment can then send itself along without any action by the person who receives it.
In the computer world, virii have been (as the author again correctly surmises), software codes that infect computers by attaching themselves to documents or programs that are passed along.
It seems to me we have our definitions reversed. A computer worm is much closer to a "self-propelling" object than a computer virus, and a computer virus is much slower (with a geometric, not exponential expansion rate) than it's worm counterpart.