Re: thoughts on how to write a linux virus in 5 easy steps
--- On Sun, 4/5/09, Les hlhow...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Les hlhow...@pacbell.net Subject: Re: thoughts on how to write a linux virus in 5 easy steps To: itsme_...@yahoo.com, Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora. fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 5:16 AM On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 18:49 -0700, Globe Trotter wrote: Hi, The following article has created quite some discussion, so I wanted to hear what all the real experts (here) thought about it. http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229 The article raises quite a few good points. Whether they have merit, and whether remedies are in-built is what I am wondering. This is just about the lamest article on any form of programming that I have ever read. His code is not self replicating (but it might be able to load something that is), it requires misdirection and operator action, and is a Trojan. In addition, he wrote it apparently to a standing challenge that requires writing a file to /etc, which he did not do, nor did he show even high level pseudo code for that operation. I won't add further flames here, but come on, this is just flame bait, and I bit... but don't expect further discussion from me. Regards, Les H Hi, Thanks for yours! I certainly did not post the article expecting a flamewar. I just wanted some thoughts on it: I am a cent percent linux (read Fedora) user and I certainly would not want linux to get a bad name. However, my thinking is that if deficiencies creep in or if anything can be done which can only improve linux, we should at least be aware and if possible address it. I thank the other respondents who have also commented. There is however, merit in something that he does not explicitly say: the incorporation of GUI in a big way has swept away many of the warnings/error messages that used to happen when we started applications by running the binary (%firefox, eg) on a terminal. I believe that was useful information, even though the argument can be made that it was too much! Perhaps we can have these notices flying back in the bg of the desktop: I certainly would use it as an option. Best wishes, T -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: thoughts on how to write a linux virus in 5 easy steps
On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 18:49 -0700, Globe Trotter wrote: Hi, The following article has created quite some discussion, so I wanted to hear what all the real experts (here) thought about it. http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229 The article raises quite a few good points. Whether they have merit, and whether remedies are in-built is what I am wondering. This is just about the lamest article on any form of programming that I have ever read. His code is not self replicating (but it might be able to load something that is), it requires misdirection and operator action, and is a Trojan. In addition, he wrote it apparently to a standing challenge that requires writing a file to /etc, which he did not do, nor did he show even high level pseudo code for that operation. I won't add further flames here, but come on, this is just flame bait, and I bit... but don't expect further discussion from me. Regards, Les H -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: thoughts on how to write a linux virus in 5 easy steps
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 18:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Globe Trotter itsme_...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, The following article has created quite some discussion, so I wanted to hear what all the real experts (here) thought about it. http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229 The article raises quite a few good points. Whether they have merit, and whether remedies are in-built is what I am wondering. Firstly a properly written desktop environment shouldn't be trying to run saved files not marked as executable (and Unix has had the execute bit for good reason since the 1970s). Secondly you can use SELinux labelling to control the execution of stuff saved on disk. In a business environment stopping people downloading and running stuff they downloaded is of course a very important and powerful tool. So it was basically a problem created by poorly written desktop software not using even basic security models. There are nastier variants of this problem too. Some file formats people think of as just data contain instructions and these can do stuff like create files. Postscript is one example. Postscript supports a safe mode but people are forever creating apps that don't run in safe mode when you view a file on your desktop (because it is trusted right) despite the fact that todays world is the other way up. Another example needing care is handling of saved web pages containing javascript etc. Historically your filestore consisted of *your* content and a few carefully saved files obtained by other means. In todays internet world your filestore usually consists of vast amounts of material shared between users, mixed from bits of other users and the like. And at that point the desktop defaults of local content should be trusted are just plain wrong. Alan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: thoughts on how to write a linux virus in 5 easy steps
And issues that I've not liked with Linux, in general: That /home and /tmp are generally mounted, by default, in a manner that allows execution. I'd suggest that only a programmer may need to allow file execution from their homespace. Most users, who don't write scripts, won't need it. There is some truth in this, but you can do the job far better using SELinux and relabelling. If a user has to select a file on their desktop and right click Make into a launcher (aka 'SELinux relabel' behind the scenes) it would be a good deal more robust. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
thoughts on how to write a linux virus in 5 easy steps
Hi, The following article has created quite some discussion, so I wanted to hear what all the real experts (here) thought about it. http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229 The article raises quite a few good points. Whether they have merit, and whether remedies are in-built is what I am wondering. Best wishes, Trotter -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: thoughts on how to write a linux virus in 5 easy steps
On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 18:49 -0700, Globe Trotter wrote: The following article has created quite some discussion, so I wanted to hear what all the real experts (here) thought about it. http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229 The article raises quite a few good points. Whether they have merit, and whether remedies are in-built is what I am wondering. Firstly, it's not a virus. The author acknowledges this, then carries on as if it is. So minus ten points for talking about an elephant to explain the engineering behind how the Apollo 11 spacecraft works. For it to be a virus is *HAS* to be able to do its trick without any human assistance by the victim. All systems are vulnerable to users deliberately doing stupid things, so it's *NO* revelation that Linux is, too. Likewise for any other software flaws. The author is trying redefine virus just so they can claim its vulnerable to viruses. The author is just attention seeking. Plonkers who do that sort of thing should be made to read The boy who cried wolf, and Chicken Little, until they get the point. Part way through I find one thing that I (also) see wrong with the Linux desktops: Those launcher files *should* require an executable bit to be executable. And it'd probably be a good idea if launchers could only be set up in some known locations. SELinux, and its ilk, could go some way towards disallowing the creation of runnable scripts. And issues that I've not liked with Linux, in general: That /home and /tmp are generally mounted, by default, in a manner that allows execution. I'd suggest that only a programmer may need to allow file execution from their homespace. Most users, who don't write scripts, won't need it. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.21-78.2.41.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
