James Milligan wrote: > On 09/12/2009 18:25, Johnathon Tinsley wrote: >> Matthew Wild wrote: >> >>> 2009/12/9 Andrew Drapper<and...@drapper.com>: >>> >>>> It may not be the same as a sandbox, but what about installing software >>>> that >>>> you are not sure about in a virtual ubuntu inside you main ubuntu say >>>> using virtualbox? >>>> >>>> >>> This particular malware did nothing (so far) to the host machine, it >>> simply used it (and collectively all the other machines it was >>> installed on) to flood another server. Basically a primitive (yet >>> effective) botnet. In this respect, if the virtual machine had network >>> access, the malware would work still, it just wouldn't have the >>> potential to harm *your* computer. >>> >>> >> It wouldn't be hard to make this more effective either. The really scary >> trojan *(whose name eludes me right now)*, managed to use effective >> algorithmically generated domain names for its update download location. >> And you can hide the packages files, even corrupt the debian packaging >> system to stop it from knowing about all the files you've installed... >> >> > Are you referring to the Windows one, Conficker? >
Yes, that's the beasty. Also, storm had a command-and-control/update method :) -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
