Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

IRC Networks Unite in Fight Against Fizzer Worm

Posted by michael on Wed May 14, 2003 09:38 AM
from the why-cliff-got-klined dept.
Dave writes "Over the past few days, IRC Networks across the internet have felt the brunt of the Fizzer worm. In an unusual display of geek solidarity, representatives from dozens of IRC Networks, including EFNet, IRCNet and DALnet, have gathered to create a Fizzer Task Force. Interesting, and mostly productive results have occurred so far from such a meeting of the IRC minds."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • IRC Networks across the internet have felt the brunt of the Fizzer worm.

    Now, miniscule web servers, you will feel the brunt of the Slashdot behemoth!

    Interesting, and mostly productive results have occurred so far from such a meeting of the IRC minds.

    And, once this story is published, we'll observe the various effects of futile desperation!
  • As Well They Should ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AlabamaMike (657318) * on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:41AM (#5954582)
    (Last Journal: Wednesday October 22 2003, @02:14PM)
    Not to point fingers, but as we all know IRC networks are a major conduit for the distribution of warez. I'm not living in a glass house here, so I'll admit that I've gotten viruses from "packs" downloaded through IRC networks. It's good to see that these guys are coming together and helping to stem the spread of this virus. Unfortunately, I've heard nothing from the KaZaA guys in this line, and they are probably much worse than the IRC people (all their clients are Windows platforms, most of their users are completely clueless, etc.) It takes some skills (not much, but some) to get stuff off IRC. Any jackass can download from KaZaA. That's where the real work needs to be done in order to stop this virus cold.
    -A.M.
  • mIRC (Score:1)

    by SPaReK (320677) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:41AM (#5954583)
    Does this only affect mIRC? Why not just switch to a different IRC client?
    • Re:mIRC by pecosdave (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:45AM
      • Re:mIRC by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:04AM
        • Re:mIRC by AlexMax2742 (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:11AM
        • Re:mIRC by pecosdave (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:11AM
          • Re:mIRC by Tarpan (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:11AM
            • Re:mIRC by pecosdave (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:39AM
      • Re:mIRC by hkmwbz (Score:2) Friday May 16 2003, @03:58PM
      • Re:mIRC (Score:4, Insightful)

        by pecosdave (536896) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:06AM (#5954829)
        (http://profiles.yahoo.com/pecosdave | Last Journal: Thursday June 26 2003, @01:09PM)
        I would say better products actually pre-exsisted all the examples. The difference it marketing, cost, and positioning. Mac OS and maybe the Amiga I would say were better than Windows and pre-dated it for the most part (yes I know how far back Win 1.1 went, but I mean when people actually cared it exsisted). Netscape was definately better than IE up until at least 4, I would argue 5. As for email, Eudoras not newcomer. People are lazy and/or uneducated for the most part. They had no desire to expand beyond what their computers came with or didn't know how. The way Windows had it integrated it certainly looked(s) like that was the proper/only way to do it. Bribing/strong arming the ISPs didn't hurt eaither.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:mIRC by sheldon (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:35AM
          • Re:mIRC by pecosdave (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:44AM
          • Re:mIRC by Grishnakh (Score:3) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:49AM
        • Netscape vs IE by Ungrounded Lightning (Score:3) Wednesday May 14 2003, @02:20PM
        • Netscape vs IE by NeoChichiri (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @02:28PM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:mIRC (Score:5, Informative)

      by shadowjk (654432) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:49AM (#5954659)
      This does not affect mIRC or any other IRC Client, at all.

      The fizzer worm that's currently spreading, spreads through outlook and Kazaa. It also has a IRC backdoor, through which presumably the virus author can access infected computers. This IRC backdoor connects to a list of several irc servers, and sit in a channel.

      As the number of infected computers (Please people, update your Anti Virus software!) is growing, this puts a higher load on the irc servers. This is what it's all about, to find a way to get rid of the trojans from the servers, so that nobody can abuse them for DDoS or looking for CC numbers or other private info on infected machines, in a way that doesn't put too much stress on the IRC servers.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:mIRC (Score:4, Interesting)

        by alien88 (218348) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:52AM (#5954688)
        As it stands right now, the worm was poorly coded or released into public early. The IRC client is pretty much useless - it doesnt have any commands and you can't do anything with it.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:mIRC by shadowjk (Score:3) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:04AM
        • Re:mIRC (Score:5, Funny)

          by bongoras (632709) * on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:15AM (#5954913)
          (http://bostonbeerguy.com/)
          AH HA!

          That is compelling evidence, of course... the virus was written by Microsoft. Next week they plan to release Fizzer XP Service Pack 1 which will fix those issues.
          [ Parent ]
      • Re:mIRC by parksie (Score:3) Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:54AM
      • Re:mIRC by Cyno (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:52AM
        • Re:mIRC by tomstdenis (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:26AM
          • Re:mIRC by drunk_as_in_beer (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @08:17PM
      • AntiVirus software by ucblockhead (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:53PM
    • Re:mIRC by Moonshadow (Score:3) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:21AM
    • Re:Affects anyone with an e-mail account... by reezle (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @04:16PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Yeah! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Farley Mullet (604326) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:42AM (#5954596)

    Let's help these guys out by /.'ing their co-ordinating page!

  • d00dz n07 1337 570P (Score:1, Funny)

    by pecosdave (536896) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:42AM (#5954599)
    (http://profiles.yahoo.com/pecosdave | Last Journal: Thursday June 26 2003, @01:09PM)
    I can just see it now, messages telling people to stop pushing their viri.
  • *Ahem* (Score:5, Funny)

    From Symantec:

    Systems Not Affected: Macintosh, OS/2, UNIX, Linux

    Heh. Clearly the work of an evil genius.

    GF.
    • Re:*Ahem* by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:26AM
    • Re:*Ahem* (Score:4, Informative)

      by fred666 (597170) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:35AM (#5955659)
      (http://www.askarel.be/)
      *NIX/Linux systems can be at risk if you're using a misconfigured wine.

      Seriously, wine is getting better every month and can run a wider lot of window$ software, it is not surprising that it will (could?) run windows worms/viruses (which are software written by human after all) and put our supposed-virus-free-OS [insert your preferred flavour of unix here] at the same level of risk than windoze users.

      Please think about it if you install such a software...
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:*Ahem* by Cruciform (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @05:50PM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Wtf? by Eudial (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @04:20PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • possible perps (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zogger (617870) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:44AM (#5954612)
    (http://technocrat.net/ | Last Journal: Friday November 30, @09:27PM)
    --anyone else get the impression this is a pro active anti "piracy" move by the music and movie monopolists? That's what I thought of when I first read about this a couple of days ago. Looks like an attempt to shutdown channels of P2P-ish nets.

    Anyway, that's how I think with crimes, use flatfoot 101, "who profits?".
  • death of irc? (Score:2, Redundant)

    by AbdullahHaydar (147260) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:45AM (#5954627)
    (http://abdullah.net/)
    All of this is contributing, unfortunately, to the Death of IRC [topica.com]

    From the official Undernet note in the link:

    "At this point, the future of the Undernet and IRC remains uncertain."
  • interesting (Score:1)

    by squarefish (561836) * on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:46AM (#5954629)
    it's sort of like an virtual version of the 'Amber Alert' for viruses instead of lost children.

    I hope it works!
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by newsdee (629448) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:47AM (#5954646)
    (http://newsdee.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday April 22 2007, @03:01AM)
    can somebody recommend a good free antivirus for Win machines?

    if there is such thing...

    Mainstream media seems to report that the virus comes out of Outlook attachments ONLY, which shows how ignorance can be dangerous if this worm is effectively spread through filesharing networks... :-/
  • PEBCAK (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:48AM (#5954650)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard. To the very best of my knowledge I haven't been infected by any virus or trojan since the early 90s when I didn't have Internet access and fast virus updates.

    But even running around nekkid, I don't think I'd have caught more than a handful of viruses to begin with. Why the hell is it that people open up all the crap executable stuff they get? I think the best hope is a new generation that has grown up with SPAM, viruses etc. and don't fall for that kind of bullshit. Teaching old dogs new tricks doesn't work, but they will die eventually...

    Kjella
    • user = id10t by rock_climbing_guy (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:09AM
      • Re:user = id10t by the_real_tigga (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:04PM
      • Re:user = id10t by Bert64 (Score:2) Thursday May 15 2003, @04:21AM
      • Re:user = id10t by rock_climbing_guy (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:23AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:PEBCAK by Schezar (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:13AM
      • Re:PEBCAK by Lt Razak (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:26AM
      • Re:PEBCAK by maxume (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:37AM
    • Re:PEBCAK by gpinzone (Score:3) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:14AM
    • Re:PEBCAK by fafaforza (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:20AM
      • You've missed something - (Score:4, Insightful)

        by moogla (118134) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:45PM (#5956320)
        (http://nervalhi.net:8080/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 26 2003, @03:16PM)
        I've never ran any sort of anti-virus... Ever. And I've never had a virus... ...that I noticed.

        Just because you don't think you have a virus doesn't mean you don't have one that's good at hiding. Try loading an AV and seeing what it finds. It might do you some good.

        Personally, I have an updated one that I keep disabled most of the time except when I get up and leave it on; then I tell it to scan. Hasn't turned up anything. Good sign...
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:PEBCAK (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ed Avis (5917) <ed@membled.com> on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:24AM (#5954978)
      (http://membled.com/)
      The best hope is a user interface that clearly distinguishes between *running a program* and *opening a document*. Windows over the years has deliberately blurred this - even in Win3.x Program Manager the command to run an application was called 'Open'. Cute, but it doesn't help people learn the difference between documents, which are just data that can be viewed, and programs, which are instructions for your machine to perform.

      You may object that things like Word macros (and their associated viruses) blur the line between files and executables. But that is another instance of the same problem: 'opening' such a document should be split into the two questions it implies: do you want to *view* the file contents? do you want to *execute* the instructions in the file?

      If user interfaces and especially mail clients bothered to present this distinction to the user then a lot of the worm problems would go away. Some people would still have virus checkers, mostly companies who don't trust their employees not to execute dancing_elephants.exe. But even in those cases, it would be simple to lock down mail clients to not allow execution, as long as they bother to make a clear distinction between viewing and executing to start with. (And as long as the applications they launch, such as Word, do the same.)

      One way of explaining this in non-technical language is: 'If I sent you a letter and it said "please jump off the nearest cliff" and you read it, would it do any harm to you? Why should the equivalent message sent to a computer be any different?'
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:PEBCAK by tomgilder (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:29AM
      • Re:PEBCAK (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ummagumma (137757) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:45AM (#5955194)
        (Last Journal: Saturday October 26 2002, @11:28PM)
        Replace the word 'computer' with the word 'automobile' in the following sentance:

        "Users should *not* have to be scared of using their computer. The computer should simply stop them from doing anything wrong."

        Now how do you feel about that?

        I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you here - just food for though.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:PEBCAK by tomgilder (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:58AM
          • Re:PEBCAK by Ummagumma (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:07AM
            • Re:PEBCAK by tomgilder (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:12AM
        • Re:PEBCAK by StarFace (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:44AM
        • Re:PEBCAK by Zebbers (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:53PM
          • Re:PEBCAK by parksie (Score:1) Thursday May 15 2003, @08:05AM
      • Re:PEBCAK by FrenZon (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @04:52PM
      • Re:PEBCAK by Bert64 (Score:2) Thursday May 15 2003, @04:29AM
    • Re:PEBCAK by yanestra (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:57AM
    • Re:PEBCAK by jareth780 (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:38AM
      • Re:PEBCAK by br0ck (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @01:19PM
    • Re:PEBCAK by JSmooth (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @01:48PM
    • Re:PEBCAK by FrenZon (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @05:04PM
      • Re:PEBCAK by ryanwright (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @05:55PM
        • Re:PEBCAK by FrenZon (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @06:53PM
          • Re:PEBCAK by ryanwright (Score:2) Thursday May 15 2003, @01:38PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Not your usual "task force" (Score:5, Funny)

    by mao che minh (611166) * on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:48AM (#5954653)
    (Last Journal: Sunday April 11 2004, @07:41PM)
    No, there are no physically adept and good looking individuals complemeted with the obligatory "tough guy". No Tommy Lee Jones-like leader, bravely charging into danger. No electronics laden vans and phone taps. Just a bunch of pasty guys that are experts on Star Trek lore and like to debate the power of Perl.

    "task force"

    Heh

    • Re:Not your usual "task force" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CharlieO (572028) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:12AM (#5954880)
      Yeah but those pasty guys that are experts on Star Trek lore and know wierd backwaters of Perl can also remove your systems/isp/country from the net without breaking into a sweat.

      And trust me you can cause more pain to more people by dumping thier net connection than you ever could with a swat team.

      First there's the pain for lusers that find thier mail IM and file swappers don't work, then there's the pain in the call centre when harrased techs try to explain to consumers what's going on, then there's the pain felt by the BOFH's with management hovering over thier shoulder, then there is further pain caused by the many minor bumps and niggles and repeats as the systems cope (or not) with the backlog built up in the down time. And after all that, if it was a good one, there are the recriminations on support boards, the calls for compensation, customers leaving, no end of replanning from the management team.

      Ahhhh

      The beauty is that a good DDOS is a gift that just keeps on giving.

      Truly Cthulhu is amongst us :)
      [ Parent ]
  • Lock em down (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mattygfunk1 (596840) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:49AM (#5954661)
    (http://www.servergrade.com.au/)
    The worm attempts to terminate the process of various antivirus programs if they are found to be active.

    Are there any programs that allow processes to be "locked on"? It would be useful to restrict attempts to kill certain processes, to people that can provide the root password.

    There are probably heaps of this kind of thing, and another layer of security is always welcome.

    cheap web site hosting [cheap-web-...ing.com.au] from 3 semi-mongrels a month

  • Missing from the discussion so far: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by burgburgburg (574866) <splisken06@e[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:52AM (#5954685)
    How exactly can we blame Microsoft for this? While we know that Fizzer only operates on the Windows platform and uses the Windows address book to mail itself, it also tries to use Kazaa to spread itself further.

    So, what did Microsoft do wrong that allowed this to happen? 200 words or less. 5 points off each for use of either "dancing monkeyboy" or "Borg".

  • DMCA protects the virus data (Score:4, Insightful)

    by emptybody (12341) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:17AM (#5954927)
    (http://townlines.com/blog | Last Journal: Tuesday January 24 2006, @09:49AM)
    from symentac 'Keylogs all keystrokes to an encrypted file %windir%\iservc.klg.'

    It stores encrypted data on your PC. You cannot use any method to decrypt this data to determine what keystrokes were collected and potentially transmitted.

    Gotta love stupid laws.

  • IRCnews (Score:1)

    by DannyiMac (216056) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:40AM (#5955725)
    (http://www.anti-dolphin.org/)
    Hah, this reminded me of the days of ircnews.com... when it was a BS news site like the onion because this /. post sounds like an IRCnews.com story. Now ircnews.com is actual IRC news...
  • I... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Telent (567982) <telent&mordac,info> on Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:49AM (#5955790)
    ... am a technical administrator on a fairly small (100-200 users), Klingon-themed network that plays host to a fairly large Star Trek simming organization.

    This worm was hitting us badly. I personally spent at least six or seven hours slamming the fuck out of the clients (they connect with a very distinctive hostmask/realname/nick) since they started hitting us on Sunday, and we have ~1500 akills for distinctive IP's set up now.

    As you may imagine, manual akills just wasn't cutting it after a while. We all have actual jobs, and sitting on IRC whamming worms is something we don't get paid for. We've fixed our problem with a small Perl script one of our server admins wrote. I don't have the link where he placed it online right now, but I'm sure he'd be okay with sharing if anyone's interested. At the very least, it'll give you some heuristics to work from (the fundamental pattern is a nick with one, two, or three numbers on the end, a real name consisting of two capitalized words, and an identd response made of those two words reversed and conglomerated).

    If there's any other admins of networks out there, pop onto irc.kdfs.net and join #helpdesk. Mention that you're looking for Puffy (me) or Danzak (script writer) and you're interested in our virus client killing bot.

    No false positives so far. :)

  • mIRC != IRC (Score:3, Informative)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:59AM (#5955912)
    (http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
    Just a pet peeve when people refer to it that way.., one is a client of many, the other is a network ( also many )...

    And just sounds like people need to use some common sence, and update signatures.. None of these things should be a huge deal..

  • Symantec tool (Score:3, Informative)

    by BigBir3d (454486) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:04PM (#5955964)
    (Last Journal: Sunday October 09 2005, @12:15AM)
    main page [symantec.com]

    Removal tool [symantec.com]

    Cleaned up my office yesterday very nicely.
  • Info (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:12PM (#5956045)
    For those unaware of what the Fizzer worm does and stuff. You can find most stuff here [trendmicro.com].
  • I've found this utility [nai.com] really helpful in ridding computers of all known variants of W32/Fizzer@MM, W32/Lovgate@M, BackDoor-AQJ, W32/SQLSlammer, W32/Lirva, W32/Yaha@MM, W32/Bugbear@MM, W32/Elkern, W32/Klez, W32/Nimda@MM, W32/Sircam@MM, and W32/Funlove@MM.

  • Impact . . (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geniusj (140174) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:48PM (#5956349)
    (http://www.ods.org/)
    I run a large dynamic dns provider [ods.org] and have had many many abuse reports lately of people using worms like this. Generally, they will register a host with ODS that is round-robin and points to multiple IRC servers which they point their drones at. The effect with these trojans are huge and I'm surprised they're not covered more. Ones like this one have been around for a while, and are generally used (after infection) for DDoS attacks. Many of these botnets (that I have seen anyway) exceed 10,000 infected clients (in one IRC channel). They place an enormous burden on the IRC Networks (that have to accept all of these clients, a lot of the time, all at once when the command is issued to change servers) and also are fairly visible from our DNS servers (some causing about 10 queries/sec alone to the DNS servers).

    The point is that I've seen these botnets around for months and months now. Almost a year at this point with almost no coverage. I believe the days of smurf attacks are numbered, this is the new way to conduct DoS attacks. They're very effective as well, having seen the attacks targeting servers of mine.
    • Re:Impact . . by spacefrog (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @05:50PM
      • Re:Impact . . by geniusj (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @08:30PM
  • by oaf357 (661305) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @01:01PM (#5956470)
    (http://www.shortconsulting.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 09 2003, @04:28PM)
    This is a very effective effort being displayed here. It also proves that the Internet can defend itself when needed. It's nice to see that when there truly is a problem in cyberspace geeks, nerds, gurus, and good people can unite and fix the issue.

    I also think that posting how to crash the FIZZER's was posted along with what channels they were in. That's like saying, here you go... have fun, don't put anyone's eye out.

  • Block it! (Score:1)

    by SgtClueLs (54026) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (sleulctgs)> on Wednesday May 14 2003, @01:22PM (#5956648)
    Why again aren't people blocking .scr, .pif, .com and .exe files? I don't know about you, but at work, we block all of these files at the internet mail gateway. If you want to send us an exe, zip it first.
    • PIF?! by pclminion (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @02:04PM
  • By using GECOS checking, (called something else in that bloatware called UnrealIRCd), people can deny connections from users using certain realname patterns. From what I have seen, Fizzer uses certain gecos information that can be used to identify itself.

    Also, By ctcp pinging them, a lot of them will crash, from what I have heard. The website also states this.

    nenolod, OpenIRC Network administrator.
  • by Plissken (666719) <thewhiteknight2k@NOsPAm.hotmail.com> on Wednesday May 14 2003, @02:47PM (#5957402)
    From my understanding at the symantec site, this lil file can get rid of it.

    *********START FILE remove.bat*********
    @echo off
    cd \
    cd %Windir%
    echo . Uninstall.pky
    echo Please wait 30 seconds
    pause
    if ProgOp.exe exists echo You didn't wait long enough.
    *********END OF FILE remove.bat********
  • It's funny how the death of IRC has been talked about for years now. Yet IRC keeps growing. My server on Undernet (which was the largest for almost 4 years in a row) was removed due to ISP backing being removed -- yet if you read about it online, it's removal was attributed to DoS attacks. Much of IRC's background is clouded in myth or just outright lies. Check out http://searchirc.com [searchirc.com] -- IRC networks are MUCH bigger [searchirc.com] than they ever used to be, and there are much MORE IRC networks than ever before. SearchIRC currently has close to 700, and the list isn't close to being completed.
  • Why do most companies spend lots of money on virus scanners, but not on mailer software. If a virus/worm hits just one user in a company before the scanner is updated, the whole company gets infected in no-time.

    If companies would trade Outlook Express for another lesser known mail client, for instance The Bat [the-bat.nl], 99% of modern 'viruses' would have no chance.

    Well, at least until it becomes main stream, and viruses are developed for this client's address book.
  • My perspective (Score:2)

    by Adam9 (93947) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @04:22PM (#5958423)
    (Last Journal: Tuesday September 24 2002, @02:32AM)
    I haven't seen many other net admins post their experiences, so I'll give mine. We run DarkFire (which averages around 400-500 a night) and within about 2 hours our global client count tripled to about 1200.

    The bots tend to join "random" channels (not really random because ~40 or so will collect in each channel) and they sit there. Now get this.. they spit out random English/German gibberish. No joke. Things like "Money is a diabolical power" and "Religion is an oppressive force"; things of that nature. Some of it is in German also.

    As an admin previously posted, they use random "real" sounding nicknames, usernames, etc. Their host addresses span across the world. At first, we had no idea what they were until one of our opers broke into one of the random Win2k servers the bot ran on and went through the registry and process list. From there, after some google search, we found out about Fizzer.

    We let them collect for awhile to look for any threats they might pose. We also checked their reconnect delay. None; they don't reconnect to the same network. In other words, banning them is a waste of time. I try to avoid placing thousands of network bans, and in this case, it would certainly be wasteful. After a few masskills to wipe the channels clean most of the bots disappeared as quickly as they came. Now, on to my IRC rant. I've been waiting for a soapbox. If you're from DarkFire, get ready to cringe because you've heard this before..

    IRC's future is one that a *BSD is Dying troll might say. Over the years networks have had to put up with an increasing thread of DDoS attacks that are provoked by the slightest change in breeze. DALnet went through hell and back; the aggregate bandwidth they had to absorb from the attacks is insane. IRC was turnd into a warez and botnet haven within a few years, and the future looks bleak.

    Whenever I mention IRC to someone that's never really used it but keeps up with tech news almost always gets the impression that it's just a ubnch of warez and botnet networks. At one point when I was getting DoS'd, I spoke to someone at MFN to get a filter in place and he asked me if I had any idea why I was beign attacked. I mentioned that I run an IRC network and he immediately reminded me that it's a massive DDoS magnet. I had to agree.

    I'm getting sick of the whole situation. About a month ago, we decided to shut off the network to public access and require registration with confirmation of a code being placed on an image (Yahoo reg style). The decision doesn't mean it was an overngiht process. We'll probably be done coding it in June, and that's when we'll go in.

    We prove a public service, and we volunteer hours. That alone will not convince our upstream provider of why it's worth it for them to lose service along with us because of a DDoS that is almost always related to IRC. Over the years, we've tried in every way not to provoke attacks, and we've really only been hit about 5 or 6 times since we opened in April of '98. However, enough is enough. If someone doesn't want to take the 10 seconds to copy a code from an image on our webpage to verify registration, then they can find a different network to use.

    Excuse the typos, I tend to typo more in rants ;)
  • The Good Old Days (Score:2)

    by Sentry21 (8183) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @05:19PM (#5959001)
    (Last Journal: Friday February 13 2004, @10:23PM)
    I remember the good old days of IRC opering. It was the wild west, there were no rules back then. Or, well, there were, but I never followed them.

    I remember one time, we had a channel that filled itself up with gibberish bots, several hundred of them. All they did was sit there though. Didn't talk, not even to each other. Didn't join other channels. Rejoined if you /killed them, they were all from random hosts. We couldn't figure it out. Someone had just parked a few hundred bots on our network for no apparant reason. IRC kiddies are sure some strange lot.

    The one thing they did do is spit out text into channel if you /msg'ed them. The text was encoded somehow, I never did figure out how. A mexican friend brought one of his friends into the channel once, though, and when I came back a few hours later, he had one of the bots talking. Problem was, they all encoded the text differently, so once he lost that one (when it disconnected and reconnected with a different name), he had to start over again.

    Anyway, the netadmin, myself, and every other competant oper sat around for a while, experimenting, trying to figure out what they were about, but in the end, we just gave up. We used services to rename some of them into furniture, and the opers used the rest for target practice (kill, masskill, whatever we could think of), and just sort of hung out in the channel until they dwindled off and stopped coming altogether.

    Those really were good old days.

    --Dan
  • by ratfynk (456467) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:39PM (#5961245)
    (Last Journal: Thursday October 23 2003, @11:50PM)
    Why the heck is Windows address book still accessable through scripting. You would think those clowns over in Redmond would get the picture. STOP ALOWING STUPID NON USER INTIATED SCRIPTS FROM ACCESSING MY ADDRESS BOOK! I have read the worm description and find that one of it's key components is the use of MS Address book entries. I just guess if they do ever block non user intiated access to address lists then Symantec etc will go out of buisiness! What a pile of crap. Why can I not have total control over the use of my own computer. Like those lucky Linux geeks.
  • Re:method (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:44AM (#5954616)
    Most IRC worms exploit the scripting engines in the IRC clients, not an OS bug.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:method (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lxy (80823) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:46AM (#5954635)
    (Last Journal: Tuesday November 02 2004, @12:06PM)
    It's YAOW (Outlook Worm). Same drill, you open an infected attachment, it copies itself to the address book as well as installs its payload.

    Dammit, when are worms going to get interesting again? This "exploit the hell out of Outlook" routine is getting old.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:method by DNS-and-BIND (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:22AM
      • Re:method by operagost (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:31AM
        • Re:method by Trolling4Dollars (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @02:03PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:method by SailorFrag (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:49PM
  • Re:method (Score:2, Informative)

    by shadowjk (654432) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:51AM (#5954675)

    Through outlook, and by the user downloading warez from Kazaa.

    See this f-secure article [f-secure.com]

    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Microlith (54737) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:01AM (#5954780)
    Right.

    And IRC would have died where it stood, full of elitist assholes and those with hacked clients lying about their OS.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Simple solution. (Score:2, Informative)

    by alien88 (218348) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:01AM (#5954786)
    mIRC has nothing to do with this virus... so this is totally off topic. There is no mIRC inside of it, all the irc functions are homebrewed.
    [ Parent ]
  • by fredrikj (629833) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:03AM (#5954804)
    (http://fredrikj.net/)
    Back before IRC was the 50,000+ user behemoth that it's become

    There are way over one million IRC users today.

    /me refrains from Dr. Evil joke
    [ Parent ]
  • Can I use the cygwin version of BitchX?
    [ Parent ]
  • by SnAzBaZ (572456) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:05AM (#5954822)
    (http://riazon.fireclaw.org/)
    You obviously chose to hang out on the wrong IRC servers.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by NeoSkandranon (515696) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:05AM (#5954824)
    So wait, when a website caters to only one browser, you bitch and moan, and get open source browsers that lie about what they are. Now, you demand that an entire operating system be cut off from IRC....what makes you think that the next day there won't be myriad IRC clients that can lie about their OS...?
    [ Parent ]
  • don't you mean identd?

    identd is a bit past its time since the explosion of unix boxen that are administered by the very same end users. The age of trust(how silly) in the admins who run servers is long over.
    [ Parent ]
  • by stratjakt (596332) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:16AM (#5954919)
    (Last Journal: Sunday November 11, @09:31AM)
    Go to any script kiddy channel, and see what they're running. It ain't windows.

    Name some good H4X0R t00lZ for windows. Not so easy, is it?

    All the portscanners, eggdrops, warbots, and other bullshit is linux based.

    I guarantee the fellow/group behind fizzer connects with his linux box to control all of his 7337 bots.

    The windows users are the leghumpers who keep asking you "a/s/l".

    So why ban the victims? Ban the jerks.

    You should really ban any scriptable client to 'save IRC'. There are enough stupid linux users to download "megascript for IRC-II" and have no idea what it's exposing to the mega h4x0rs of DALNet.

    Your OSism is pretty much, like all prejudices, ignorant of the real issues. Just like the poor white hillbilly who thinks blacks are the cause of his problems, you sit pointing fingers at windows.

    The thing to do is to simply realize that IRC is simply an insecure telnet hack. It always will be.

    Recreate is based on ssh or something.

    The windows users have all moved on to AIM and ICQ anyhow. IRC is old news.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Sure (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by the-dude-man (629634) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:18AM (#5954942)
    Stuff like this never happens on Linux or any other OS is because those don't offer the useability of windows in terms of managing your data. Yeah I can see all of you who raise their hand, snicker, and then say, "Oh but I can grep my contact out of my 1G .txt file in a heartbeat."... ..But you know what, for every one person who loves to type lengthy commands or use an extremely stone-age looking GUI (bevelled by 3 inches), there's 10,000 who'd rather work with a nice GUI.

    Obviously you are not a linux user, or if you are, your not a very good one. There are many data managemnet tools for linux that dont work from the command line, and you do more typing to login than i do to grep my address book.

    ..But you know what, for every one person who loves to type lengthy commands or use an extremely stone-age looking GUI (bevelled by 3 inches), there's 10,000 who'd rather work with a nice GUI.

    Agian, clearly you dont actually use linux.Or know antyhing about it. Otherwsie you would know of the existance of KDE 3.1.1, whos GUI rivals that of windows xp.

    Fizzer is nothing more than downloading format.com from somewhere and running it and ruining yourself. It's a program for crying out loud, and any idiot who downloads it and runs it deserves to be hit with a lot more than having an email sent out to all his/her contacts. It's not windows. It's mIRC at best and even then only because it has an "Open" button for files downloaded.

    Ok, apperntly you dont know much about windows ethier. Ever wonder why that jpeg will display in the email? Its because there is a MIME type in the email that windows/outlook uses to see if it can display the file in your email message, if i change the mime type to the appropriate value, I can attach "format c: /y /s " and change the mime value so that outlook will execute that the first time you try to view the message.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Sure by Dasaan (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:09AM
      • hehe by the-dude-man (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:15AM
      • Re:Sure by Moonshadow (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:53AM
        • Re:Sure by Dasaan (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @01:40PM
      • Re:Sure by 42forty-two42 (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:30PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Sure (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stratjakt (596332) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:20AM (#5954953)
    (Last Journal: Sunday November 11, @09:31AM)
    Stuff like this could easily happen in linux, if linux was prolific enough on the desktop to make it worthwhile.

    I mean, it propogates by dorks who download the exe and run it. If every Joe Dipshit ran linux, then it wouldn't change.

    You'd just get a message box saying "you must install this hot sex program as root for the ultimate hot action!" and they'd happily comply.

    Or people compiling or installing binaries without knowing what they are.

    It's an exploit of the users, not so much the OS.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by fafaforza (248976) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:29AM (#5955031)
    So what you are saying is that mIRC sucks and there isn't anything else out worth using, so people should abstain from IRC until you maybe or maybe not give it a go at writing a (probably less feature rich) client some time in the future?
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Simple solution. (Score:1, Offtopic)

    xchat is available on windoze. Of course, it came from linux first :)

    Wish they'd use the windoze "Documents and Settings" for the config file by default though.

    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Sure (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:40AM (#5955141)
    But you know what, for every one person who loves to type lengthy commands or use an extremely stone-age looking GUI (bevelled by 3 inches), there's 10,000 who'd rather work with a nice GUI.

    havent touched linux cince the early 80's have you?

    This is what really get's me... every one of you that bitches about linux and it's difficulty and ugliness dont even have a clue as to what you are talking about and are worse than technical writers.. Making crap up as you go.

    Linux todays is as easy to use as your beloved OS. Get off your lazy butt and look at it, touch it, use it. if you are deeply in love with the windows style of operating use KDE... if you adore Mac use Gnome (Yes Gnome is more mac like when properly configured... not like how redhat set's it)

    I have taken the attitude at work to publically humiliate people who say something is difficult when they really dont know what they are talking about. I suggest that other do the same.

    You sir know absolutely nothing... so you have ZERO credibility... please come back when you can talk without making things up or lying.

    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:16AM
  • by xchino (591175) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:44AM (#5955172)
    This is the dumbest, most wannabe "I use an alternative OS" post I have ever seen. What an idiotic, short sighted idea. Do you have some misguided notion that IRC was created for people running Linux or BSD? I myself use mIRC under wine, becase regardless of what know nothing wannabe elitists think of it, it is one of the best clients out there. So I'm running mIRC under Linux.. does that count in your stupid Windows ban? Hey, let's turn this around. Linux clients shouldn't be able to connect to Windows' servers. At least that would keep your dumbass off of slashdot, and half the internet.

    Windows bashing is fine in my book, but making ridiculous suggestions is exactly that.. ridiculous.
    [ Parent ]
  • by xchino (591175) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:47AM (#5955208)
    An idiot responds to an idiot. The second idiot however, was a scared little bitch ass and posted as AC.
    [ Parent ]
  • by dasunt (249686) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:31PM (#5956218)

    It could be worse. At least linux IRC clients tend to filter out mIRC colours, and there are decent win32 IRC clients. You should see what those Outlook and Outlook Express users do to Usenet posts. *shudder*

    The best part of it is that Outlook and Outlook Express demangles its own creation, so that the post is only broken in every other news client on earth, which leads to "dude, your client is broken", "looks fine to me" threads.

    [ Parent ]
    • So true by the-dude-man (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:46PM
  • 22 replies beneath your current threshold.