• On TV.com: TOP 10 Shows CANCELED Too Soon
February 12, 2009 12:48 PM PST

Microsoft offers $250,000 reward for Conficker arrest

by Elinor Mills

Correction, 1:08 p.m. PST: This story initially misstated the amount of the reward. It is $250,000.

Microsoft on Thursday said it is offering a $250,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of whoever is responsible for creating the Conficker Internet worm that has infected millions of PCs.

Microsoft said it is offering the reward because the worm constitutes a "criminal attack" and offering compensation should hasten prosecution. Residents of any country are eligible for the reward and should contact their international law enforcement authorities, the company said in a statement.

Microsoft also announced that it has partnered with security companies, domain name providers, and others on a coordinated global response to the worm, also known as Downadup. Participating are: the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), VeriSign, NeuStar, CNNIC, Afilias, Public Internet Registry, Global Domains International, M1D Global, AOL, Symantec, F-Secure, ISC, Georgia Tech, the Shadowserver Foundation, Arbor Networks, and Support Intelligence.

The worm, which has been around since last year, spreads through a hole in Windows systems, exploiting a vulnerability that Microsoft patched in October.

It also spreads via removable storage devices like USB drives, and network shares by guessing passwords and usernames, which is "causing it to spread like wild fire in the enterprise," Jose Nazario, manager of security research for Arbor Networks, wrote on a company blog.

Coalition members have been trying to thwart the efforts of Conficker by pre-registering and locking up the domain names being used by the worm to distribute updates.

"The worm seeks to update itself by using a long list of pseudo-randomly generated domain names to contact over HTTP and then grab new code," Nazario wrote. "The algorithm for this domain name generation scheme has been cracked (by F-Secure and others) and has been used to pre-compute the names for pre-registration to prevent hostile parties from using this update feature. This has been facilitated - greatly facilitated - by ICANN, TLD operators, and various registrars working together with Microsoft and others to identify the names and grab the ones they need to. These records can then be pointed at sinkholes to discover Conficker-infected hosts checking in."

Over the past five days, Symantec has observed an average of 453,436 IP addresses infected per day with W32.Downadup.A and 1.7 million IP addresses infected per day with W32.Downadup.B, the company said in a blog posting.

"W32.Downadup is the first successful worm to target a vulnerability in a remote service since W32.Sasser in 2004, and in doing so it has shown that the Internet is still a successful breeding ground for worms," Symantec said.

Infected machines, of which there could be as many as 12 million according to a guesstimate by Arbor Networks, could be used to launch distributed denial-of-service attacks on Web sites or seed a new worm, according to Symantec.

Elinor Mills covers Internet security and privacy. She joined CNET News in 2005 after working as a foreign correspondent for Reuters in Portugal and writing for The Industry Standard, the IDG News Service, and the Associated Press. E-mail Elinor.
advertisement
Click here!
Recent posts from Security
Eastern Europeans charged in payment processor hack
A child porn-planting virus: Threat or bad defense?
Microsoft patches critical hole in Windows kernel
Panda's Cloud Antivirus leaves beta behind
Apple plugs holes for domain spoofing, other attacks
Microsoft launches Forefront Protection 2010
'60 Minutes'--Cyberwar: Sabotaging the system
Microsoft to fix holes in Windows, Office
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (74 Comments)
by manualfunky February 12, 2009 1:19 PM PST
ha ha ha ha ha..... MAC baby, Yeah!!
Reply to this comment
by xcal78 February 12, 2009 1:22 PM PST
Did I miss something? Is Mac going to make someone $250,000 richer?
by uhpl508 February 12, 2009 1:34 PM PST
People write worms like this for Windows because most of the machines in the world run Windows. If most of the machines ran Linux, Mac or whatever, they would be attacked more often. These kind of attacks are really not funny, they cause people a lot of frustration.
by Penguinisto February 12, 2009 2:25 PM PST
"because most of the machines in the world run Windows."

Then maybe you can explain this: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/01/16/january_2009_web_server_survey.html

Seems that the vast majority of servers on the Internet run... well, obviously not Windows. A 24/7/365 connected box on the public Internet seems a much more tempting target... yet the last Linux virus died sometime in 2001. Maybe you can help clear things up a bit?
by scammarata February 12, 2009 2:26 PM PST
If MAC is so secure, then explain this:

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/mac_hack/
Mac is the first to fall in Pwn2Own hack contest - Safari's bad-hair week

A brand-new MacBook Air running a fully patched version of Leopard was the first to fall in a contest that pitted the security of machines running OS X, Vista and Linux. The exploit took less than two minutes to pull off.

Under contest rules, Miller was forbidden from providing specifics of his hack. He said he chose Apple over the other machines because "I thought of the three it was the easiest".
================

This proves that no operating system / browser / software is bullet-proof. The majority of hackers aim for the OS with the biggest market share because worms spread more quickly with more potential host machines.
by Penguinisto February 12, 2009 2:40 PM PST
"If MAC is so secure, then explain this:"

Explain how a Mac security researcher with a pre-discovered flaw managed to take over a machine that he had local access to? You're kidding, right? If I have local access to any x86 machine, it can be popped. Hint: you may want to read your own cite: If Miller (the researcher) had a working remote access crack, he could've won $20k and used it the first day, not by waiting for day two and losing half of the prize money.

Incidentally, the Vista box fell at the same time, and the only reason that guy took so long was that he hadn't expected SP1 (then in beta) to be installed.

Funny enough, Ubuntu held out untouched the whole time.

So maybe you might want to provide something other than a semi-contrived contest?
by scammarata February 12, 2009 2:40 PM PST
Dear Penguinisto,

You said: "Seems that the vast majority of servers on the Internet run... well, obviously not Windows."

You make the assumption that just because Apache is the HTTP server most folks run that it must be hosted on a non-Windows OS. The Netcraft.com article you referenced says absolutely nothing about operating systems. It only discusses web server market share. Apache runs on Windows, Linux, Unix, Mac OSes, etc.

So despite the fact that Apache is the dominant HTTP server, that article does not prove that most machines are not running Windows.
by Penguinisto February 12, 2009 2:48 PM PST
"You make the assumption that just because Apache is the HTTP server most folks run that it must be hosted on a non-Windows OS."

Are you asserting that the majority (or even a quorum) of Apache installs are on Windows? This should be interesting.

(let's just say that the number of Apache/Windows installs wouldn't be enough to even count, let alone make a dent ;) ).
by scammarata February 12, 2009 3:01 PM PST
"Are you asserting that the majority (or even a quorum) of Apache installs are on Windows?"

No - just that the article you referenced does not discuss operating system market share.

Back to the original CNET article: the key question is are these millions of infected PC's desktop machines or servers? I'll bet most of them are Windows desktops in offices and homes.

The Wikipedia article on Linux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux has a section on market share that states:

"Estimates for the desktop market share of Linux range from less than one percent to almost two percent. In comparison, Microsoft operating systems hold more than 90%."

So if we're talking about desktop PC's, then Microsoft is the easiest target just by sheer numbers of machines out there.
by Penguinisto February 12, 2009 3:07 PM PST
Problem is, the target for any malware author is more often than not, and quite literally, any networked computer - no matter what purpose it serves.

The funny thing about the marketshare argument is that it commits two fallacies:

1) it ignores servers, and the dynamics of part-time connection on desktops vs. full-time connection of servers.

2) it relies on proportion - if that proportion existed, then one would think that 10% of all viruses out there targeted OSX, when in reality that figure is a statistical zero... let alone Linux, which hasn't seen a working virus in eight years.
by pentest February 12, 2009 4:02 PM PST
If I wanted to steal personal information I would attack web servers. That is the gateway to massive amounts of credit card and other juicy information. Those servers by a large margin run on Linux or Unix.

Windows gets attacked because it is the low hanging fruit. The easiest. Script kiddies make mincemeat out of any Windows OS.

Yes, Penguin is correct. There is a huge difference between remotely exploiting a box and breaking into a box you have physical access to. It is not even close to the same thing.
See more comment replies
by JCPayne February 12, 2009 1:33 PM PST
Wait til they up it to a million... M$ is good for it.
Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto February 12, 2009 1:34 PM PST
Damn... now that's desperation.

I'm gonna have to start showing this article to every MSFT sales-critter who tries to spread FUD about Linux and OSX with regards to security... it'll be a laugh riot watching 'em try to avoid eating their own words. :)
Reply to this comment
by ckurowic February 12, 2009 1:50 PM PST
I agree. The whole security through obscurity argument that Windows users try to cite is ridiculous. Almost 100% of the web server out there run Unix....
by The_happy_switcher February 12, 2009 1:56 PM PST
Because they've run out of excuses and ideas and have to try the usual pointless arguments.
by ncalishome February 12, 2009 2:42 PM PST
I personally don't think server market share is very relevant to this discussion. Desktop and server installations are two very different things, and with web servers most of the time you're dealing with a firewall and very strict rules of what traffic on what ports can come in and out.

From the people I know that get infected with crap like this, most seem to come from downloading applications off p2p. Some people never learn, if you give a program keys to the kingdom you better be sure of your choice, no matter the platform. I know a guy that must reinstall Windows XP every few months but he invariably installs Limewire and gets pwned again shortly after.
by Penguinisto February 12, 2009 2:45 PM PST
"I personally don't think server market share is very relevant to this discussion"

When it comes to selling server software... it certainly is. ;)
by Vegaman_Dan February 12, 2009 6:04 PM PST
What a sad, sad, little man you must be.

Should we also print out and show every single person who uses Linux about how Walmart has tried TWICE to sell Linux equipped dektops as the cheapest computer available at their stores and FAILED twice in a row? THey offered Linux- the consumers didn't want it. That failed entirely.

Nah, I don't think I would. Nobody would be so petty and simple minded as to do soemthing like that. Well, I suppose I should take that back as you just said you might have to do that very thing.

It'll be a laugh watching you to try to cover up the truth.

Really dude, get a life. You need one.
by tm_anon February 15, 2009 4:10 PM PST
@Vegaman_Dan

That's really funny. I've been frequenting Wal-Mart for the past 26 years and never saw an advertisement for Linux desktops nor did I see a Linux desktop in the stores. I've looked over the information for their computers everytime I've been in the market to replace mine and never saw any mention of Linux.

If they tried, they didn't do a very good job at advertising it. What were the other specs for those machines? Were they comparable to the Windows machines? If there was a Windows machine with the same specs, did it sell better than the Linux variety?

This article actually has merit, proving that MS just can't handle some things on its own, which it tries to do quite often. It's a good place to point to and prove that, simply because Linux users get the idea of banding together and working together for a common goal, we're more secure and more capable of adapting.

The article is also a good warning for those Windows users who think that just because they might get away with not running antivirus and not keeping up with the updates for several months and not see a problem, that doesn't mean there isn't one.

Although I disagree with his reasons for doing so, I do agree that every Windows troll and in fact every Windows user needs to read this article and realize just what's at stake.
by Orion Blastar February 12, 2009 1:49 PM PST
Let me see, the choices are:

#1 Fix Windows so viruses and worms don't infect it.

#2 Offer rewards for the arrest and conviction of the people writing the viruses and worms that infect Windows?
Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto February 12, 2009 2:18 PM PST
To be fair, the issue is patched... but patches do have a hard time against legit concerns (compatibility with existing software) and folks who don't ever bother patching in the first place.
by viper396 February 12, 2009 2:27 PM PST
Do you think that if the whole world switched to Linux or OSX that the malicious people who write viruses and worms would suddenly stop? Are you that narrow-minded? The fact is nothing is 100% secure. Not a Mac, not Linux, and certainly not Windows.

Car have locks and alarms, yet they still get stolen.
Homes have locks and alarms, yet they still get robbed.
Banks have security and safes, yet they still get robbed.
..... If a guy robs your house do you blame the manufacturer of the doorlocks or the guy who robbed you? Should the thief be allowed to get away because he has the excuse that doorlocks are not 100% secure? That's not much different then blaming Windows for the criminal acts of the hacker.
by Penguinisto February 12, 2009 2:44 PM PST
"Do you think that if the whole world switched to Linux or OSX that the malicious people who write viruses and worms would suddenly stop?"

'course not, but it would raise the barriers high enough to make it a far tougher job, thereby reducing the number of attacks, and putting the skill levels required way out of script-kiddie reach.

The trick isn't perfection, but to make the risks and effort required far larger than the benefit. Since neither Linux or OSX have seen an actual virus since, oh, 2001 or so (for Linux) and never (for OSX)? Guess who has the best record?
by pentest February 12, 2009 4:03 PM PST
The patch is worthless if the infection comes via USB drive.
by ncalishome February 12, 2009 5:05 PM PST
@pentest "The patch is worthless if the infection comes via USB drive." Huh?.. there is something about patching an exploit that lost you here I think

@penguisto The folks who don't ever bother patching in the first place are the biggest part of the problem. I'm sure there are a sizable number of business users who have some really industry related software that pretty much ******* every time they want to change their clock but by and large I wish people would be proactive about keeping up to date. I get just as many updates for OS X as I do for Windows and same deal, I go with it, you put your nickle down on an OS you might as well take it the extra step and do your best to keep it safe.
by Lerianis February 12, 2009 5:52 PM PST
You cannot 'fix windows so that viruses and worms don't infect it'. Let's get real here, idiot (and I am being kinda kind to you): MOST VIRUSES USE THE SAME EXACT METHODS FOR INSTALLING AS REGULAR PROGRAMS! That is why Vista and Windows 7 are so much safer than XP: there is an added layer of permission that for ANY program installing at anything other than user level access to the system, and most people are not going to just go "CLICK! INSTALL!" if they just suddenly see the UAC prompt appear.
Until we start to realize that as long as ANY third party software can be installed on a machine, that it is NEVER going to be totally impossible to install viruses on it (and even then, with easy signature faking.....)..... we are not going to be having a real discussion on how to mitigate things.
by JCPayne February 12, 2009 7:54 PM PST
@ by Penguinisto M$ also has this pesky habbit of putting new features in "patches" which tend to break new stuff.. Another reason why many people don't bother to patch.
by tm_anon February 15, 2009 4:27 PM PST
@viper396

Cars have locks and alarms but if you leave the locks off and don't turn on the alarm and someone "steals" your car, it's your fault. Windows users by far have left the locks open and have kept the alarms turned off.

If a guy robs my house and gets in because the security alarm was so annoying I turned it off, I'd blame the company that refused to fix it to work properly along with the guy who broke into my house.

I use Linux because it's not annoying and it still provides a good level of security without limiting functionality. Besides, it's like having a security alarm that is constantly being cared for.
by ckurowic February 12, 2009 1:49 PM PST
Um we should be suing Microsoft for the craptastic OS that is so insecure. What about all the time I've lost screwing with reinstalling the OS after some trojan got through? How about that?
Reply to this comment
by ZetaZeta_ February 12, 2009 2:17 PM PST
You install something else.
by Lerianis February 12, 2009 5:53 PM PST
It isn't 'so insecure'. As I have said before, any OS that is going to allow ANY third-party program to be installed on it without confirmation (and that was F I X E D in Vista and Windows 7!) is going to be 'insecure'.
by massfat February 15, 2009 6:10 PM PST
Insecure? Installing? How about Mac, when you don't even install and it can run? How much more insecure is that? And as for Linux and the server issue, the people hosting a server watch for it all the time, unlike usual PC users.
by ericyen February 12, 2009 1:50 PM PST
that like asking who was the first person with HIV.
Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto February 12, 2009 2:20 PM PST
That question can be answered to a large extent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV (and so can the virus transmission question, again to a large extent).
by ZetaZeta_ February 12, 2009 2:52 PM PST
HIV doesn't phone back to daddy. Sure, I'm not exactly sure if Conficker does that (wikipedia isn't clear on this) but a lot of malware exists to steal information, advertise, etc. You can examine how they work, not just how they spread.
by pentest February 12, 2009 4:06 PM PST
Apparently, whatever this worm was created for hasn't happened. SearchSecurity has opined that it is because the worm is too famous. Successful exploits are those that get little if any attention until after the fact. If whomever wrote it dropped the payload he would be caught fairly quickly, even if he is hiding behind multiple proxies.
by The_happy_switcher February 12, 2009 1:54 PM PST
What's next a reward from Microsoft to catch Bin Laden, too? Both endeavors will be equally successful. LOL
Reply to this comment
by Vegaman_Dan February 12, 2009 6:06 PM PST
I wonder how much money people would offer to shut you up?

I'm in for $10. Anyone else?
by ReigningChamp February 12, 2009 2:00 PM PST
I'm with uhpl508. There are worms and viruses out there that infect Mac's and Linux/Unix based boxes, but as a hacker would you rather program a virus for the 90% of the world that uses Windows based machines or the 10% that uses "other"? It's common sense, and it is frustrating. You can't make anything bulletproof.
Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto February 12, 2009 2:21 PM PST
"There are worms and viruses out there that infect Mac's and Linux/Unix based boxes"

Really? Name some.

All that the web can cough up are oddball trojans that require a user to intentionally install the things, then enter root passwords or have root privileges.

I'd be really interested to see these "visruses" and "worms" you speak of.
by Lerianis February 12, 2009 5:55 PM PST
Penguinisto, go to Symantec website, do a site in their virus database for 'Mac', and then you will see how many viruses are out there. Not to mention, that security researchers are mainly focusing on..... what brand of computers or OS? Oh yeah.... W I N D O W S! So they might not be finding viruses on those machines that are there and no one is looking for them.
by Vegaman_Dan February 12, 2009 6:07 PM PST
Lerianis:

Don't bother wasting your breath. When you prove Penguinisto wrong by using things like facts as you have, you're just going to have him change the subject, lie, or start quoting blogs and wiki articles.

It's really not worth the effort.

Don't feed the trolls.
by tm_anon February 15, 2009 5:00 PM PST
@Lerianis

I looked on Symantec and found a bunch of links to Symantec software, then I tried googling MacOS X virus and found one site offering antivirus services and the rest were combinations of the words in seperate sentences. Perhaps you could try sending a link that shows that info you were speaking of. I took half an hour and couldn't find a virus list or even a virus number anywhere.

@Vegaman_Dan

Be careful, if nobody fed the trolls you'd starve.
by menehune9 February 12, 2009 2:02 PM PST
What, only $250K...they charge an arm and a leg for their software and that's all they can put up! Seriously, with all the "brains" they got working for them, where the hell is the QA?
Reply to this comment
by Hunnter2k3 February 12, 2009 2:14 PM PST
Yes, they will totally find who did it... unless the person who made it was an idiot and never used some other idiots wireless to do it, but of course, i doubt that since they have made a pretty successful Worm here.

Better luck finding Dark Matter than the creator of this one.
Reply to this comment
by coryschulz February 12, 2009 2:41 PM PST
It really is funny, because I have an iMac! And I will continue to laugh at all of you Windows users.
Reply to this comment
by ZetaZeta_ February 12, 2009 2:58 PM PST
Why laugh when you can just not care and have fun with your own system or try to make an informed post to convert others to a superior system? Mocking most of the world isn't going to get them to switch.
by solu1978 February 12, 2009 3:03 PM PST
Sure anything that makes you happy
by tm_anon February 15, 2009 5:23 PM PST
You may notice when you do a google search for viruses that it takes several pages just to find mention of any OS other than Windows. When you go to antivirus programmers, virtually all virus definitions are for Windows as well. That doesn't mean that nobody is capable of writing a virus for anything but Windows. What it does mean is that there are no viruses in the wild for either OS X or for Linux.

Switching doesn't mean that you are 100% safe and that no viruses can be propogated via your machine, it just means that you are 99.9% safe and that viruses can not propogate themselves via your machine. In other words, if there is a virus on your machine, it won't run, but you can still send it to someone else.
by n3td3v February 12, 2009 2:49 PM PST
I'm sure the intelligence services already know who done it. They very rarely share what they know with law enforcement agency's as it hinders ongoing investigations. The intelligence services learn more by monitoring and learning from the bad guys, as soon as you arrest the bad guys, the monitoring ends and so does the intelligence. The intelligence services have to often weigh up, the value of the arrest vs tipping off the bad guys that they are being watched, and how valuable the intelligence flow is, and what's better for national security? Let the bad guys continue to develop the worms or pass information to law enforcement? I would say the intelligence services are going to opt for intelligence flow over an arrest, since their primary objective is collecting intelligence on threats and learning from techniques being used.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis February 12, 2009 5:57 PM PST
That might be true in terrorism cases. In cases of computer crime like this.... the benefit would NOT outweigh the costs, unless those people who are writing the viruses are connected with Al-Qaida or another terrorist organization. Even then...... the benefits STILL would not outweigh the costs in 99.999999% of cases.
by n3td3v February 12, 2009 6:04 PM PST
@Lerianis

Is Al-Qa'ida even a real terrorist organization? I thought it was a CIA Blackops.
by jenstuart_2000 February 12, 2009 3:02 PM PST
Every time I read about another problem on the Microsoft platform I hug my Ubuntu Linux boxes. I never have any issues with Ubuntu. If more people ran Linux there wouldn't be much of a malware problem.
Yes I know it's possible it infect a Linux system but unless you are running as Root or give a program Root privileges the damage is usually limited to the user account. User accounts can be easily nuked and redone from Root if need be.
In the end though as long people are ignorant about the computers they use malware will be a problem on any platform no matter how secure you make the OS,
No OS can compensate for an idiot at the keyboard...
Reply to this comment
by t8 February 12, 2009 4:17 PM PST
Except Linux.
by pentest February 12, 2009 4:18 PM PST
That is not entirely true.

It is possible to gain administrator access in Windows, even if the user only has guest privileges.

Same goes for Linux. Linux has other solid security features, unlike Windows.

So how can one gain elevated privileges? There are several ways, the most direct is to exploit a programming running with those privileges. Just because you aren't running as root/admin, doesn't mean lots of other programs are. And those programs, of course, have flaws. Since they have higher rights than you, the machine doesn't need your permission.

Of course, the best target is the kernel. Get into ring 0 and you can own the firewall and any and all AV software. This is very difficult to do in Linux. Not so hard in Windows, which MS helpfully adds routines to make it a bit easier. To be fair, MS didn't add those in the make the bad guys lives easier, but that is the end result.

Windows makes it easier to attack by design.

If you have a small amount of technical knowledge(need to understand processor architecture, assembly, and C, none of which are all that challenging freshman/sophmore level stuff) read these three books(one of which has information on attacking multiple OS's and one is purely about Linuxl) and see how bad it gets:

The Shellcoders Handbook
Hacking: The Art of Exploitation <This also has the BEST intro to C I have ever read> I wish I had this book when I started.
Rootkits: Subverting the Windows Kernel

All are top notch professional books that serve so many good purposes. In fact, if you are a real programmer these books will make you better.
by Lerianis February 12, 2009 5:59 PM PST
pentest, that is the main problem: too many programs coded B A D L Y, to put it mildly. No program, except a security program or OS tweaking program (maybe a few other exceptions to the rule that are minor) should be running with Admin privileges. That is the main reason why Microsoft has been LAMBASTING businesses and others who make their programs with Admin necessary.... there just never was, dating back to Windows ME, a reason that all programs needed Admin privileges.... none!
by sciontcya February 12, 2009 4:30 PM PST
MS should spend that money to hire the guy - maybe he can fix the mess...
Reply to this comment
by JCPayne February 12, 2009 7:55 PM PST
Imagine if all companies calculated alllllll of the downtime they've had from Viruses, Trojans and worms on Windows and sued.....
Reply to this comment
by DrtyDogg February 14, 2009 9:50 AM PST
Or if they just applied the recommended updates, they could avoid any down time. FYI as usual the fix preceded the exploit.
by tm_anon February 15, 2009 5:31 PM PST
@DrtyDogg

You may want to read the comments above. Because of how Windows Updates typically work, applying all updates can mean that programs which are mission critical will break due to an update which also contained a security patch along with the problem software.

Either way, the company ends up with down time and either way, the company should put together all of that time and sue MS for the losses caused by it.
by jcomputm February 13, 2009 8:57 PM PST
Microsoft is right! The creator MUST be caught and sentenced for online criminality! I mean, I have a computer that (if I had to guess) has been affected with this worm, and it is going slow lately.
Reply to this comment
by Willy Wonker February 14, 2009 7:37 AM PST
$250,000? It probaly a governement test by Microsoft. Ever think the machine can lie to you? What you seeing isn't actual true?
Reply to this comment
by Willy Wonker February 14, 2009 7:52 AM PST
this virus is small. Doesn't really have anything in it to do much damage. As long you have a stong password. Weak but widespread. Can do more damage if it was smart like. Knowing where all data for password and etc.
Reply to this comment
by tm_anon February 15, 2009 5:40 PM PST
Nobody knows what the worm was meant to do. It could in fact be meant to shut down every computer running Windows which has been infected at the same time. It could be meant to stream pornography to every computer or it could be meant to steal all data from the ground up from every computer. It could also be meant to just play Mary Had a Little Lamb night and day for a week straight or until the computer was unplugged.

Until we know anything more about it than that it was spread so easily and so quickly, then we can't make any judgement calls.
by Willy Wonker February 14, 2009 7:56 AM PST
As Exacly how the virus is targeted for? What group? P2P file sharers? Pedophilers? Queers? Making the Talmud believers scared. Do evil shall be punish for actions.
Reply to this comment
by cyberfreak13 February 23, 2009 10:19 PM PST
WOW!! such interesting comments!! and such interesting replies!! =0
Man, i wonderr wot id do if i got dat 250k reward......
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (74 Comments)
advertisement

After 5 years, Firefox faces new challenges

Mozilla helped reshape the Web since releasing Firefox 1.0 five years ago. Now it's got a reawakened Microsoft and Google Chrome to reckon with.

There's a map for that: GPS or smartphone?

Almost every handset comes with mapping software these days, but standalone GPS devices are becoming more affordable than ever.

About Security

Online security is threatened by more than hacking and phishing attempts. Check here for the latest updates on software vulnerabilities, data leaks, and rapidly spreading viruses--and learn how to protect your systems.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Security topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right