Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First IA64 Windows Virus Released

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the that-didn't-take-long dept.

Security 479

NinjaPablo writes "W64.RugRat.3344 has been released as a proof of concept virus. It is the first virus which will only run on Windows on the IA64 platform, and uses APIs from 3 native DLLs to avoid crashing applications. It infects files that are in the same folder as the virus and in all subfolders. The author of the virus has also written other concept virii in the past."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

W32/Shrug (0)

bendelo (737558) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268361)

The virus carries the following string within itself which is never displayed: "Shrug - roy g biv"

This presumably refers to the colours of the rainbow: Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet.

Re:W32/Shrug (1)

nukka (777713) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268425)

good thing im still runnning my 16bit 8086 ;)

Re:W32/Shrug (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268580)

Don't say something like that. You're going to start an endless thread of "Back in my days we used [ancient technology] and liked it" ... "Yes, but when I was young, we used [even more ancient technology]!"

Re:W32/Shrug (1)

rilister (316428) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268429)

Or the *awesome* Boards of Canada track of the same name from "Music has the Right to Children"....

Re:W32/Shrug (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268528)

Gee, thanks! Ya know, not all of us graduated from THE SECOND FUCKING GRADE

Re:W32/Shrug (2, Interesting)

lcsjk (143581) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268600)

I know what ING means. What does shrug mean?

Re:W32/Shrug (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268624)

Actually, it is a Latin phrase which means "You are a fucking moron".

Re:W32/Shrug (2, Funny)

Rupert (28001) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268638)

Nah, it's a historical critique of the military strategy of Richard the Third.

roy g biv (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268659)

It looks like Gaelic or somesuch to me.

i rule... (1)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268362)

u drool.
f to tha [insert 'p' here]

A toast... (5, Funny)

BJZQ8 (644168) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268366)

Here's to a long and fruitful future for Win64 viruses...

Viruses, not virii! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268370)

The correct plural is viruses, not virii.

Re:Viruses, not virii! (2, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268411)

I'm surprised that this tiresome topic wasn't raised before the third post.

Re:Viruses, not virii! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268483)

I'm more surprised that after all these years someone would still call it virii.

Re:Viruses, not virii! (-1, Flamebait)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268461)

The plural of is virii, not viruses.

Just as the plural for penis is penii. Or a single, multi-headed penis is also penii.

Re:Viruses, not virii! (-1, Offtopic)

leerpm (570963) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268488)

Actually, both virii and viruses are now generaly considered to be accepted definitions for the plural of virus.

Re:Viruses, not virii! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268532)

Mod me down. I double-checked this again, apparently virii isn't accurate.

Re:Viruses, not virii! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268543)

Where do you get that from? Some obscure jargon file?
The only place I find the word "virii" are in wannabe geek sub-culture web sites like Slashdot and New Order...while everyone else in the real world calls them "viruses" which IS plurl for virus

"My boxen is borken from virii" = The NEW Ebonics!

No surprise... (0, Offtopic)

Mz6 (741941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268380)

It was only a matter of time...

somebody has to say it.. (3, Funny)

hp46168 (740846) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268388)

I for one, welcome our new IA64 Win32 Script Kiddy overlords.

so... (5, Funny)

pb (1020) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268389)

Now we hunt him down and execute him, right?

Re:so... (2, Insightful)

bl4nk (607569) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268426)

If he's already infected with his own virus, you probably can't execute him. You'll just get a BSOD..
Hopefully he made a backup of himself recently.

Re:so... (2, Funny)

MrRuslan (767128) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268494)

No. We make him write a virus for a 286 and see if that will fly.

Should we execute him? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268392)

Think about all the money lost by the viriis derivated from his work.

Maybe he should get the death penalty?

(Especially if he is an evil muslim)

Re:Should we execute him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268571)

That's Muslimoid, as in Islamoidizationification.

Re:Should we execute him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268645)

It could be worse. He could be an Idiotarian [catb.org] .

Critique of the virus (4, Funny)

prostoalex (308614) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268404)

1) The virus uses native DLLs - it should've used .NET managed code to avoid common memory leaks and other mistakes
2) The virus does not run on 32-bit platform - so no chance of getting "Windows XP Compatible" logo.
3) The virus does not take advantage of the latest Longhorn, Avalon and Indigo features.

Overall, the work is impressive, but I am waiting for more robust and efficient viruses.

Re:Critique of the virus (2, Interesting)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268472)

There's also

4) The virus doesn't also support x86-64, so it's not as CPU-independent as 64-bit Windows is.

Re:Critique of the virus (-1, Offtopic)

eyeye (653962) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268514)

There are no perl interview questions in the link in your sig, contrary to what you state.

Re:Critique of the virus (1)

EvilGrin666 (457869) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268522)

Does it fall foul of the NX bit at all?

Re:Critique of the virus (1)

Random Web Developer (776291) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268595)

1) The virus uses native DLLs - it should've used .NET managed code to avoid common memory leaks and other mistakes

Last thing i heard (though i'm not following the win 64 bit stuff very closely) is that the .NET framework is not yet fully supported on 64 bit.

Does that still stand?

woot! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268410)

FV?

I'mii soii gladii Iii runii Linuxii (5, Funny)

King of the Trolls (740328) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268414)

Iii neverii getii anyii virii. Itii mustii beii painfulii toii runii windowii.

There's no such word as "virii" (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268417)

I'm on a crusade. I intend to post a comment like this one whenever I see anybody use "virii." Please don't interpret this comment as either endorsement of or disagreement with the parent post. Moderators: with your help, we can wipe out "virii" in our lifetime!

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com [cknow.com] , quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com [perl.com] , the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer [tesco.net]
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise [m-w.com] ," January 20, 2000.

Re:There's no such word as "virii" (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268476)

Quote:
"I intend to post a comment like this one whenever I see anybody use "virii.""

I have just one thing to say to you...

Virii!

Re:There's no such word as "virii" (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268581)

I'm on a crusade. I intend to post a comment like this one whenever I see anybody use "virii." Please don't interpret this comment as either endorsement of or disagreement with the parent post. Moderators: with your help, we can wipe out "virii" in our lifetime!

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com [cknow.com] [cknow.com], quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com [perl.com] [perl.com], the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer [tesco.net] [tesco.net]
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise [m-w.com] [m-w.com]," January 20, 2000.

Virii (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268510)

Virii

Re:There's no such word as "virii" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268548)

Linguistic evolution is an ongoing process which can 't be controlled by an "official" standard for a word. Virii is the next step in this evolution, like it or not. You should find a job with the Quebec language police...who enforce a variant of French that has many "incorrect" features in comparison to "real" French. Neither variants is less legitimate than the other, or Cajun French for that matter. I suppose Chaucer's English should still exist. It doesn't. Get over it.

*barf* (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268601)

"l33+5p34k" is not acceptable and should not carry over into the official language just because a bunch of basement dwelling morons think so.

Re:There's no such word as "virii" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268655)

this isn't an evoltion of the language. It doesn't follow any proper forms and needs to be stopped.

For a website that is full of "geeks" you sure do pride yourselves in talking like a bunch of undeducated morons.

Re:There's no such word as "virii" (1)

Cereal Box (4286) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268593)

If you think "virii" is annoying, ponder this. I had a friend who insisted that not only was "virii" the plural form of "virus", but that it was pronounced "ver-il-eye".

Re:There's no such word as "virii" (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268603)

Without any comment :) Check my signature. Oh also the errors are in purpose

Re:There's no such word as "virii" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268608)

You're right, there's no such word as "virii." There are also no such words as "boxen," "*nix," "sysadmin," "interweb," and "teevee." "Awesome" means "awe-inspiring," "cool" refers to a temperature, "radical" is what we call a nutjob, and, to my knowledge, no one has ever gotten "jiggy" with anything. Purists would even say that using "google" as a verb is wrong. These are the same people who had a problem with "surfing" the "web."

It's called slang, and it's evolving and changing all the time. Were these people to use "virii" in an official capacity, such as in a company-wide memo, or an academic paper, there would be a problem. But this is Slashdot, for crying out loud. Get over yourself and have a little fun.

Re:There's no such word as "virii" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268651)

The difference is that I don't think these people know it isn't correct.

Boxen (1, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268609)

So what? Boxen is not the plural of box and Unices is not the plural of Unix. But this is part of hacker culture. They are jokes. You don't have to laugh, but it's not incorrect to make jokes either.

Re:Boxen (5, Funny)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268660)

Boxen is annoying too. It's fucking boxii.

Re:There's no such word as "virii" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268649)

Does this fall under the "overgeneralization" section of the jargon file? (maintained by ESR as far as I know)

here [catb.org]

Just like
radius..radii
hippopotamus..hippopotami
me ntos..menti?

Re:There's no such word as "virii" (5, Funny)

yecrom2 (461240) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268653)

Sure. Next you'll tell me that the plural of box isn't boxen. It has to be. English is a totally consistent language and the plural of VAX is VAXen.

It is well known that the pluralizing of nouns in english is well defined:

ouse -> ice.
eg. house -> hice.
ata -> atabase.
eg. data -> database.
ink -> egnancy.
eg. drink -> pregnancy.
That one is a little tricky because it requires a change in the base word.

outer -> 0,000
cisco router -> $450,000
See previous example.

Just a thought.

3 Years of Latin and I only remember this... (1)

AnomalyConcept (656699) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268668)

...'vir' in Latin is 'man'. The form of 'viri' mentioned above can be confused with some derivation/declention? of 'vir'. My lack of remembering much of Latin is also why I only took three years. =P

Re:There's no such word as "virii" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268679)

About time some one stepped forward clarified that point. I used to work on an anti-virus product and my boss alway called them virii. I tried to correct him, but you know the boss is always right. The sad thing is he couldn't use the excuse that he wasn't a "technical person." This is a language construct!

Cost: A 2 bits to buy a clue.

Re:There's no such word as "virii" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268686)

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

This here is Slashdot, boy. We don't tolerant none of that big city, college boy talk. You think we have time to look in your big fancy dictionary?

Does that mean (4, Funny)

gsfprez (27403) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268418)

that 64 bit viruses are twice as powerful as 32-bit ones?

Re:Does that mean (1)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268500)

No, they just spread twice as fast.

Re:Does that mean (5, Funny)

moZer (83729) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268503)

No, they are 4294967296 times better.

Re:Does that mean (1)

Adriax (746043) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268556)

Not so weak, it's 4294967296 times as powerful!

Re:Does that mean (5, Funny)

leerpm (570963) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268618)

They are 4,294,967,296 times more powerful.

So by RIAA math logic, this means that the virus writers are really causing $429,496,729,600,000,000 worth of damage!

Re:Does that mean (2, Informative)

dan_sdot (721837) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268632)

that 64 bit viruses are twice as powerful as 32-bit ones?

???
Twice as fast?
(2^32)*2 = 2^64

Not really.

Virii/Viruses (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268421)

Argh.

To try to stall everyone's almost certain flamewars regarding the correct plural form of virus, let me propose a new word.

Virusesii.

There, now everyone can use it, okay?

what if.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268509)

the plural of 'virus' was actually 'virus'. Whoa.

Re:Virii/Viruses (5, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268598)

Hmm... You come from the KiB camp, right? ;-)

Re:Virii/Viruses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268605)

No. Americans will confuse it with VirusesII - the return, and say I haven't had VirusesI yet, so no point getting it.

Re:Virii/Viruses (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268639)

How about virusiis?

It's the second, not the first. (5, Funny)

WillAJ (716404) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268428)

IA64 Windows was the first. (Someone had to say it)

Re:It's the second, not the first. (-1, Troll)

akedia (665196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268577)

Just fucking die already.

Virii is not a word (-1, Redundant)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268430)

Virii is not a word people. The plural of "virus" is "viruses." [reference.com]

The plural of "radius" is "radii" only because an "i" follows the "d". If you were to follow the same pattern, "virus" would be come "virui." Hey, that kind of has a nice ring to it...

Re:Virii is not a word (0, Redundant)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268478)

Wow, in the time it took me to type that, four other people posted basically the same thing. I've never been this redundant before.

Re:Virii is not a word (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268480)

The plural of "radius" is "radii" only because an "i" follows the "d".

Indeed, I often tell people that you'd say "Look at the buses" instead of "Look at the bii".

Re:Virii is not a word (-1)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268501)

Virii is not a word people

Ya...you were on the "Ain't ain't in the dictionary" bandwagon too?

VIRII!

Re:Virii is not a word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268694)

Take a nice long breathii.

Doesn't this blow... (5, Funny)

Flashpot (773365) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268432)

a hole in the "people write virii for it because it's the biggest target" argument for the proliferation of Windows virii?

Re:Doesn't this blow... (2, Interesting)

gandalphthegreen (751209) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268555)

That's why it's called a proof of concept. It simply proves that something can be done and is not concerned with doing lots of damage.

Re:Doesn't this blow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268604)

In this particular case it's probably politically based (I'm cool cuz I stuck it to the Man) rather than popularity based (now everybody can see how cool I am).

It will always be easier to destroy than create. I see no coolness in destruction.

Damn Cyberterrorists (0, Troll)

LynchMan (76200) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268435)

I wonder how long it will be before the FBI (or other law enforcement agency of choice) is breaking down his/her door and takes away his PC's before locking him/her up forever without a trial. Ahhh Freedom.

So what? (1, Funny)

MrRuslan (767128) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268436)

Whats the big deal? Now windows will get messed up in full 64 bin glory.And later you will see some 64 bit spyware and a tad of some 64 bit spam :P. Basicly Fucked above the 4GB limit.

ah, me (5, Funny)

abscondment (672321) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268441)

A true 64 bit machine is not required for this virus, as it can be run on a 32 bit machine using 64 bit simulation software.

Yes! You're no longer limited to slowing your computer by simulating an architecture you don't have--you can run their viruses, too!

roy is in trouble. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268445)

stupid idiot.

-duh.

What are the legal implications? (4, Interesting)

ZosX (517789) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268452)

So what are the legal implications of writing viruses?

Could the DMCA be evoked in such a case?

Or is it only illegal when they are executed and allowed to spread to the wild?

Just some questions.

Feel free to respond, thanks.

Re:What are the legal implications? (2, Insightful)

stephenisu (580105) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268531)

In order for this to be a breach of the DCMA, he would have had to break a digital security measure.

Seeing as this is Windows, it was less of a security measure and more of an invitation.

Far out (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268588)

Haven't you read the "How to Troll" posts or something? That's the lamest attempt I've seen on slashdot yet.

Re:What are the legal implications? (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268657)

So what are the legal implications of writing viruses?

Legal implications? C'mon, this is the real world, not the mirror and smoke universe of regulators and lawyers.

It would be fun to see a virus/worm attacking the legal system itself. Kind of SCO. DDoSing courts, generating silly and contradictory jurisprudence and prompting for even more dumb laws and regulations until the judicial system comes to a grinding halt.

How would you reboot Justice then? Would we need a foreign power to invade us and provide us with a brand new, lean and mean legal system?

Wow, on the ball. Maybe MS should hire these guys. (5, Funny)

CarrionBird (589738) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268456)

Then that 64 bit OS might actually get out the door sometime this decade.

New Virus?!?! (2, Funny)

twofidyKidd (615722) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268468)

We should have him executed, and collect the $1million+ he's worth.

Re:New Virus?!?! (1)

cuffsofgb (704607) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268590)

dibs on the kidney!!

In other news.... (2, Funny)

mikael (484) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268484)

Virus researchers have just announced that they developed a proof-of-concept virus that can spread on an 256-bit operating system that has as yet to be designed.

According to spokesperson who didn't wish to be identified, he claimed that this had been the most infectious virus that he had seen in the twenty years of his career and had also proved to be worst to remove. He also recommended that all users should immediately buy the latest version of Anti-Virus-Sponge-Sentinel which would mop up all traces of the virus before it reached the system.

Virii (5, Funny)

NinjaPablo (246765) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268495)

I apologize for my horrid use of the word 'virii', and accept the standard and proper word, 'viruses'.

Must not have had enough coffee when I submitted that...

Re:Virii (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268623)

I'm on a crusade. I intend to post a comment like this one whenever I see anybody use "virii." Please don't interpret this comment as either endorsement of or disagreement with the parent post. Moderators: with your help, we can wipe out "virii" in our lifetime!

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com [cknow.com] , quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com [perl.com] , the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer [tesco.net]
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise [m-w.com] ," January 20, 2000.

wow--oldskool (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268508)

This looks pretty oldschool... no stupid RPC nonsense or VBScript, it's a virus that infects other programs, and is spread by copying infected executables around. Just like the old days with MS-DOS viruses passed around on BBS's.

Incidentally, you could probably limit your vulnerability if the program was installed by an Administrator but only run by users without write permission, or if you removed write permission from programs that you run in your own folders.

The really cool thing is that it's written in IA64 assembly code. That sounds like quite an impressive feat. From what I hear that is far worse even than the PPC64 assembly code I usually write.

Grr (0, Redundant)

.com b4 .storm (581701) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268512)

The plural of "viruses" is not "virii"!

Quoth Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :
The "ii" ending only occurs in the plural of words ending in "ius". For instance, take radius, plural radii: the root is radi-, with the singular ending -us and the plural -i. The ending -i is used only for masculine nouns, not neuter ones such as virus; moreover, viri is the plural of vir, and means "men"

It's viruses [reference.com] ! </rant>

heh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268563)

If only Wikipedia were right, and all such endings in Latin were so regular...

Re:Grr (1, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268641)

But it's so cool to say virii and it makes you look wise and better than the people who just go for the simple "viruses"! :-P

At least that's why I think so many caught on with the term...

Re:Grr (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268681)

I know I dread having virii infect my linux boxen!

Conga Line (0, Redundant)

Rassleholic (591097) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268517)

There's no such word as virii,
There's no such word as virii,
You don't win friends with salad.....

Re:Conga Line (1)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268592)

I am evil Homer.

Re:Conga Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268670)

"There's no such word as virii,
There's no such word as virii,
You don't win friends with salad....."


7, 7, 7? What kind of screwed up Haiku is that!?

This isn't a big deal (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268567)

Read the details, there's nothing special to see here. This isn't a worm, it doesn't gain root/admin access and it doesn't exploit any vunerabilities of the platform. It requires "direct execution" (i.e. the user has to run it manually). It's just a good old fashioned virus that inserts code into an exe. The proof of concept is that Windows leaves exes writable by default. You can prevent it by not making your application folders writable from userland, which is what any good admin should be doing anyway.

"The file infection routine is standard. The last section of the executable is marked as executable, the virus body is inserted into the
last section and a random number of bytes are appended to the end of the virus body."

What's the point? (2, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268569)

Showing that you can write viruses for 64-bit system?

Oh my god, I would never have thought that was possible! How can it be!? Mind boggling indeed! But it's great virus writers develop concept viruses to show us these amazing tasks that was previously thought impossible can actually be done!!

Where is the Open Source Virus? (5, Funny)

BigFire (13822) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268582)

I'm still waiting for the fabled Open Source Cross Platform Virus [bbspot.com] that can be deliever to all mail system. Sure it require the recipient to uncompress and compile the virus, but it can hit ALL platforms.

Gee, thanks! With friends like these... (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268596)

So is this how virus writers get away with it, just call it a "proof of concept"? Gee, thanks, but I really don't think there was any question at all that it could be done...

Let me guess.... (4, Funny)

teslatug (543527) | more than 10 years ago | (#9268640)

The release is followed by a proof of concept jail sentence ;)

Those 5 people must be pissed!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9268642)

Of course I'm referring to total amount of Itanium users out there.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?