Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Predicting Malware

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the seasonal-malice dept.

61

Pseudonymous B*ard writes "SANS has an interesting article showing how to predict what forms future malware will take. For example, last year there were many hurricane-related scams, while this year, another bad hurricane season is predicted. SANS has noticed that the scammers are gearing up for this and that many new domains with the words Alberto, Beryl, donation, and hurricane have been registered (Alberto & Beryl are the first two names on the hurricane list). The only question now is whether hackers will be able to preempt any of these scams before they have a chance to be used?"

cancel ×

61 comments

Hurricane scams... (1, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476225)

SANS has noticed that the scammers are gearing up for this and that many new domains with the words Alberto, Beryl, donation, and hurricane have been registered (Alberto & Beryl are the first two names on the hurricane list).

This wouldn't be a problem if the Federal government wasn't in such a hurry to shovel cash out the door everytime there's a natural disaster to some politician's poll numbers.

Re:Hurricane scams... a hoax? (-1, Flamebait)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476243)

oh, come on, it's not like global warming is making it much more probable that hurricanes cause more and more devastation with the increase in destructive energy ....

spammers don't care about the spin from the feds, they only care about where the easy money and gullible people are.

Re:Hurricane scams... a hoax? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476311)

If you don't consider the Feds shoveling cash out the door as "easy money", I got a bridge on the West Coast that I can sell to you. :P

Re:Hurricane scams... a hoax? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15476338)

the Feds shoveling cash out the door

The article isn't about folks scamming the feds, its about bogus "relief" sites taking money given by ordinary folks trying to help out a storm ravaged area. Like collecting door to door for AIDS relief and keeping the $$$ yourself. (assuming you don't have AIDS)

Re:Hurricane scams... a hoax? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476424)

Like collecting door to door for AIDS relief and keeping the $$$ yourself. (assuming you don't have AIDS)

But, if you were going to use the money to go on a safari tour in Africa, then you might have a possibility of getting it, so isn't that ok?

Hey, we had a theory that there might be a possibility of WMD, so we went to Iraq, same logic, right?

In the end, though, I think it all boils down to gullibility and people's innate desire to help out those who actually need help - a good thing - and the unscrupulous people who feed off of our good impulses.

Re:Hurricane scams... (2, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476930)

This wouldn't be a problem if the Federal government wasn't in such a hurry to shovel cash out the door everytime there's a natural disaster to some politician's poll numbers.

Bzzzt! Wrong! This is about scammers tricking Mr. and Mrs. Citizen to send them money "to help hurricane victims". It has nothing to do with money the Feds may, or may not, send out.

Re:Hurricane scams... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480927)

That's not Malware (bad software) that's SPAM you're talking about.

It will probably involve pictures or fast money (0, Flamebait)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476230)

As both of those things cause people to become incredibly gullible, whether it be pictures of tennis stars or the possiblity of "inheriting" or "winning the lottery" a large sum of money.

Also, you can pretty much guarantee it will start off as a Windows malware attempt.

Its nice to see people thinking about the future (4, Funny)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476231)

But this boils down to Malware will likely be associated with major events. Color me unimpressed. I have another one future malware will exploit unpatched security flaws.

Oblig. (2, Insightful)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476232)

Obligatory grammar post.
"Last year X, while this year X again." "And" for pete sakes. If you are comparing two things which are the same in nature but different in time, it should be "and". "While" would be used if, say, it was hurricanes last year and earthquakes this year (i.e., things which are different in their nature).

O/T Spelling Nazi Oblig. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15476277)

It's interesting that a Grammar Nazi can't spell "for Pete's sake" [phrases.org.uk] correctly :)

Re:O/T Spelling Nazi Oblig. (1)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15477568)

a) I spell it how I (and everybody I know) pronounce it.
b) Example is from a Brit site. I'm an American, so your slang (and it's spelling) mean jack to me.
c) GoogleBattle [googlebattle.com] says I win. :P

Re:O/T Spelling Nazi Oblig. (1)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478946)

Dear god... you actually SAY it like that? For Pete's sake, how can you?

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15476346)

do you mean "it was hurricanes last year while earthquakes this year"?

Re:Oblig. (1)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15477577)

Nope. The word "it" has to be taken in context. In the original story, "it" meant the state of the weather. Here, "it" refers to the whole of the items under comparison, i.e., "hurricanes last year and earthquakes this year."

O/T re: sig (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15476387)

The fourth wave of attackers approaches. Go forth, and conquer them! Couldn't I just use the fourth release of my Forth program to go forth and conquer the fourth wave of attackers?

Re:O/T re: sig (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15477155)

Only if you know why Forth is called Forth.

Re:O/T re: sig (1)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15477589)

: SIG ( -- ) CR ." The fourth wave of attackers approaches. Go forth, and conquer them!" ;
SIG

Looking up "Hello, world!" format for weird languages on wikipedia ftw. :D

Big Surprise (5, Interesting)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476234)

Summary of article: malware authors may try to take advantage of disasters. That's not exactly cutting edge reporting. What I would be more interested in hearing about is if malware authors start creating rumors of disasters in order to cash in anyways if nothing bad happens. Let's say Alberto fizzles. Will we still get spam asking for donations to help the newly homeless? I guess I'll have to wait and see.

Re:Big Surprise (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476303)

I hear there are increasing numbers of people becoming dependent on tuning out the world and only listening to audio signals that are pleasing to their ears. This self-centered madness must stop, before we lose an entire generation to its own self-centredness! Please, for the sake of the children, donate [itunes.com] what you can today!

Re:Big Surprise (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15476312)

Yeah, but in this case, it has to be pretty clear that the people who registered the domains have nefarious intent, so it might not be unreasonable to get them shut down early. Or at least blacklist 'em somehow (e.g. blacklist the URLs in your spam filters).

Unless, perhaps, your name is Alberto.

Re:Big Surprise (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476332)

Summary of article: malware authors may try to take advantage of disasters. That's not exactly cutting edge reporting.

Sad part is, it doesn't need to be cutting edge reporting. They got on Slashdot, cashed in the banner impressions, job well done.

It's a variation of the same issue that people create site and contents for search engines and not for people.

Re:Big Surprise (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480112)

cashed in the banner impressions, job well done.

HA! That's where they went wrong! Little did they know that no /.ers actually RTFA!

-Eric

Fake news (2, Interesting)

dj245 (732906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476644)

I would be most impressed if someone created a bunch of fake news sites that claimed that Alberto was a great disaster and millions of lives were lost with the flooding in, say, North Carolina. And blasted the mainstream press for not carrying this most important piece of national news in this great crisis. And then pointed to websites collecting donations for the millions of displaced and homeless people.

Go on, then, get to it.

Re:Fake news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15477782)

That would be the Democratic party, I believe...

"There are hundreds dead in the super dome... dozens of murders, rapes"

Re:Big Surprise (0)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15477115)

I am not really interested what kind of spam will be filling my spam folder. Google Mail anti-spam filters work with 100% accuracy and 100% precision: none of legit mail ended up in the Spam folder and none of the spam messages sneaked into the Inbox.

Non-story.

Re:Big Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15482099)

... start creating rumors of disasters in order to cash in anyways ...

You mean, like Hurricane Katrina? If you read the news behind the news, you'll find that 90% of what was reported about the things going on in New Orleans were overblown, exaggerated, or unfounded. Don't look for a retraction from CNN/CBS/ABC/Fox/MSNBC of course.

Seriously (1)

cheaphomemadeacid (881971) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476255)

if they succeed everything they have thought of will probably be abused :)

One does not simply predict malware! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15476264)

you need, like, an army, and... ninja wizards! some bears with lasers, too!

Re:One does not simply predict malware! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15476348)

I'm a wizard!

Re:One does not simply predict malware! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15476370)

But you're gay

I hold the answer (3, Funny)

Mr. Samuel (950418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476288)

Clearly, the solution is to infect natural disasters with malware before they can strike.

Re:I hold the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15476739)

So, does that mean that we could get a security patch *before* a hurricane strike? If the natural disaster is infected with a known malware, we could just produce a signature file for it beforehand! Brillant!

JP

Another question (1)

DaveRexel (887813) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476299)

Shouldn't one assume that the scammers and the cr|hackers are working hand in hand with the former providing technical services and entire networks of compromised computers to the latter who perform the commercial tasks?

Happy National Day Sweden 060606 (play some Slayer please)

The next phase in Malware? (1)

Eco-Mono (978899) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476336)

Two little words, kid: Pluto's Kiss. Only Linux will be spared!

Re:The next phase in Malware? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476865)

Would people falling unconcious be considered malware, or would they introduce a new name for that?

No way out (2, Informative)

nlago (187984) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476337)

As much as I think it sucks that people would actually do such things, they do. And they have been doing it for ages (anyone up to buy a bridge?). In the "real world" people still get caught in naughty scams, but maybe they are a little more aware nowadays. When online, however, I guess most people lower the guard; maybe it is "the internet" or the fact that it is in written form that gives some sense of seriousness to them. Add to it the fact that the vast majority of internet users does not know how easy it is to register ANY domain name in the US and there you are...

A little more education might be useful here. Also, maybe there should be a little higher barriers to domain registration. In Brazil, it is a little more difficult to set-up a domain name: you have to have an actual company, otherwise you have to restrict yourself to the "personal" TLDs. This was originally put in place to avoid a parallel market for domain names (much like what exists in the US today; in Brazil, the registrar is government-managed).

In the end, however, many people are just naïve. It would be nice if that could be a compliment...

My eyes! (0, Offtopic)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476356)

Please put the old css code back please?

Kaspersky Anti-Virus is revolutionary (2, Informative)

Andorion (526481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476360)

For those of you who've never heard of it:

Kaspersky Anti-Virus [kaspersky.com] is the top of the line when it comes to protecting your system from all current and future virus and malware threats. I was skeptical until I tried it, but it really does work. It protects your system at an extremely low level without degrading performance, preventing the mal in malware, and requiring you to OK the way applications access your system sort of like how ZoneAlarm confirms each time a program accesses the internet. ANY possibly harmful action is checked against and you can set up very complex exception rules, so in a few days all your regular apps are up and running like normal and absolutely nothing slips into your system without you knowing about it.

No, I don't work for them, just want to share a wonderful product.

Re:Kaspersky Anti-Virus is revolutionary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15476951)

Yes, but does it work on Linux?

Re:Kaspersky Anti-Virus is revolutionary (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480469)

Let's have the canonical answer to this question so we can settle it once and for all.

Any piece of software will work on Linux, if you build it on Linux from source. If they won't show you the source code, they most probably are trying to hide something from you and you should seek an alternative.

Software for minis and mainframes often used to be shipped as source code without a distribution licence, effectively still granting its user freedoms 0, 1 and 3. Absence of source code does not make copying harder, as is evidenced by the ubiquity of pirated Office and Windows; but the existence of many machines which are electronically identical and many new sysadmins makes it easier to get away with not supplying source code.

Re:Kaspersky Anti-Virus is revolutionary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478003)

why is parent modded troll?? Its hardly offtopic and mostly true. It seems like any reference to non linux gets a troll mod here.

Malware timing (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476419)

You can be confident a major nuisance will be gaining momentum on June 30, 2006, just in time to ruin your major US holiday weekend.

Site design (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15476487)

WTF is up with this site design? Taco's CMOS clock must be screwed up because April Fools was 2 months ago.

And don't forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15476512)

You will be able to track the world's hurricanes here [stormreportmap.com] . Thanks, Googlemaps! :)

Who is SANS, anyway? (2, Interesting)

tb3 (313150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476671)

I have to ask this, just who is SANS, anyway? We get tons of alarmist reports from them, but nobody ever checks the source. I haven't been able to find much more than this entry on Wikipedia: "The SANS Institute (SysAdmin, Audit, Networking, and Security) is a trade name owned by the for-profit Escal Institute of Advanced Technologies. SANS provides computer security training, professional certification, and a research archive . It was founded in 1989."

And Wiki doesn't even have an entry for "Escal Institute of Advanced Technologies". Try Google, there's also next-to-nothing there. I don't like placing a lot of trust in something when I don't even know the source.

Does anyone have any more information?

Re:Who is SANS, anyway? (1)

Odin's Raven (145278) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480872)

I have to ask this, just who is SANS, anyway? We get tons of alarmist reports from them, but nobody ever checks the source. [...] Does anyone have any more information?

The story comes from a SANS ISC Handler's Diary [sans.org] entry from a few days ago. The Handler's Diary is basically a security blog maintained by the volunteers manning the ISC (Internet Storm Center), and the content varies from day to day. It may contain information about new exploits, workarounds, upcoming patches, requests for data on unusual/suspicious network activity, detailed analysis of malware distribution techniques, etc. Or on slower days it might contain random tidbits on something that a handler found curious/interesting, reminders about good security practice, a compendium of links to various tools that a handler has found useful, etc.

The Handler's Diary is part of my "morning coffee reading" sites. I've been reading it for years, and wouldn't say it's alarmist. I'll note, however, that /. submissions occasionally overinflate or misinterpret articles. Purely hypothetical example might be a simple article that basically says "hmmmm, curious how there's a flurry of new hurricane-relief-related domain registrations, especially given the large number of fraud sites that popped up within 24 hours of Katrina...btw, have you talked with your (l)users lately about fraudulent sites and being careful with their donations?", which somehow on /. becomes "article shows how to predict what forms future malware will take".

For a more interesting/useful example of what the Handler's Diary can sometimes offer up, there's gems like Tom Liston's "Follow the Bouncing Malware" articles:

Back to your main question, SANS has a for-profit side offering security training and certification, and a free side which provides articles, papers, and assorted trend-tracking information that might be of interest if you're into network security. Since Wiki is a bit light on info, consider reading About SANS [sans.org] and About the Internet Storm Center [sans.org] . As to whether it's sensationalistic/alarmist/whatever, all I can suggest is to read back through the last month or two of Handler's Diary articles and see if they sound like fud/fear-mongering or potentially useful info.

Re:Who is SANS, anyway? (1)

tb3 (313150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481177)

Sorry, but I'm still not comfortable with it. The "About SANS" link you provided has quotes like, "SANS is the most trusted and by far the largest source for information security training and certification in the world." Well, says who? I'd like some third-party verification, or at least, a little more background on the 'Institute' and its owners.
What really started me wondering was the story they had a while ago about "Mac OS security reputation in tatters" or words to that effect. They had absolutely no supporting evidence, and a grand total of two links to outside sources. One of them was a site known for trying to hawk bogus spyware scanners for OS X, and the other was a Mac security discussion board that had been hacked!

Re:Who is SANS, anyway? (1)

Odin's Raven (145278) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483244)

What really started me wondering was the story they had a while ago about "Mac OS security reputation in tatters" or words to that effect. They had absolutely no supporting evidence, and a grand total of two links to outside sources. One of them was a site known for trying to hawk bogus spyware scanners for OS X, and the other was a Mac security discussion board that had been hacked!

Okay, that was from their Spring 2006 Top 20 Vulnerabilities [sans.org] press release. The actual quote regarding Mac OS/X was:

Rapid growth in critical vulnerabilities being discovered in Mac OS/X including a zero-day vulnerability (OS/X still remains safer than Windows, but its reputation for offering a bullet-proof alternative to Windows is in tatters.)

For context, this press release came out around the time of Apple's Security Update 2006-001 [apple.com] , which included fixes for multiple remote execution exploits in multiple applications. Between Apple's own info and the Handler's Diary [sans.org] regarding the patches, I wouldn't exactly say that the writeup had "no supporting evidence".

Keep in mind that SANS wasn't impugning Apple's overall security, just the fan-boy attitude that Macs are somehow bullet-proof. If you read the Handler's Diary regularly you'd see similar slapdowns for fan-boys of all stripes - Linux, Firefox, whatever. Nothing is magically secure, and it's hubris to believe otherwise. In late Feb/early March, it just happened to be Apple's turn to face up to some serious security bugs. (Me, I've been running various flavors of Linux since the SLS days - I've long accepted the fact that my favorite OS and its applications are far from perfect. ;-)

I might also note that the same SANS press release devoted space to multiple slams against Microsoft products, ongoing vulnerabilities in Firefox and Mozilla, and critical bugs in database and backup tools. These just happened to be some of the top bugs for that particular time period - it's not like Apple or OS/X makes a regular appearance in the SANS Top 20 lists or in the ISC Handler's Diary.

I couldn't identify any links in the SANS or ISC writeups that pointed to bogus spyware scanners or hacked Mac discussion boards - maybe you can point those out to me. (I might've missed something, but all I could see were links to Apple, iDefense, and SecureSec.)

Re:Who is SANS, anyway? (1)

tb3 (313150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483664)

From this page [sans.org] at SANS. The link is to www.securemac.com [securemac.com] . Feedback on both Versiontracker and MacUpdate suggests that the SecureMac application is at best, useless and at worst, dangerous. The hacked discussion board seems to be missing from their links now. :P

I still think the actual quote is extreme and alarmist, considering we are comparing a fixed vulnerability with thousands of known exploits. I am still unaware of a single remote exploit against OS X.

Anyway, this is going off the subject a bit. I still want to know why I should treat the SANS Institute as an authoritative source, given that I know nothing about them, can find out next to nothing about them, and I find some of their data questionable.

I'll add to that the number of self-proclaimed 'internet security experts' is legion, with most of them having their own agendas.

Re:Who is SANS, anyway? (1)

Odin's Raven (145278) | more than 8 years ago | (#15486634)

The link is to www.securemac.com. Feedback on both Versiontracker and MacUpdate suggests that the SecureMac application is at best, useless and at worst, dangerous.

Fair enough - I'm not familiar with their product, but with the first three pages of Google searches essentially just regurgitating press releases from the company I'm more than willing to accept that the only source touting this software is the company itself.

The hacked discussion board seems to be missing from their links now. :P

Alas, the dynamic nature of the web strikes again. :-) Although I suppose that's actually "A Good Thing" if the discussion board was compromised.

I still want to know why I should treat the SANS Institute as an authoritative source, given that I know nothing about them, can find out next to nothing about them, and I find some of their data questionable.

I'll add to that the number of self-proclaimed 'internet security experts' is legion, with most of them having their own agendas.

Hehe, totally agree about the legions of 'experts' out there. :-) And I think that actually makes it difficult to "prove" that the ISC writeups are worth listening to. If you google for handler Jim Clausing, you'll see that he's been in IT admin and security for over 20 years, but of course there's plenty of counterexamples of people who've spent decades in the computer industry without having a clue. George Bakos, another handler, is the senior security expert at Dartmouth College's Institute for Security, but people can hold academic posts without having practical, real-world experience. Lenny Zeltser is the Information Security Practice Leader at Gemini Systems and teaches a course on analyzing malicious software, but if you don't know anything about Gemini and haven't taken the course you still don't know if he's an expert or a poser. Marcus Sachs is Deputy Director of DHS's Cyber Security R&D Center, has co-authored several books on security, and spoken at Black Hat, but ... well, again, those are just positions and words, and you probably don't want to buy/read one of those books just to decide whether you might trust a web site. (There's about 40 handlers at the ISC, but I won't run through each because it still boils down to the same thing - a bogus guru can have paper/web credentials that, on the surface, look as plausible as those of a real expert.)

So I think the best I can give you is the "proof is in the pudding" approach. Read a month or two of the Handler's Diary [sans.org] entries. See if you believe that the articles are relevant and accurate. See if there's any major incidents that are not mentioned. (After all, if we really wanted a blog that missed major bugs while misreporting/overhyping other bugs, well, we're both already reading Slashdot. ;-) Ask yourself if this is the work of a bunch of punters, or if this is a credible source of security info. Obviously I have my opinion regarding the site, but hey, that's just me - what I find interesting and informative might well be boring and/or irrelevant to another person. (For instance, someone who deals exclusively with OS/X systems might find all the entries on Windows, Unix, Cisco, etc to effectively be "noise". Doesn't mean the articles are wrong or badly-written, just that 99% of them are going to be irrelevant.)

Re:Who is SANS, anyway? (1)

tb3 (313150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15486815)

Okay, I take your point. It looks like those diaries are worth looking into. And I'm reasonably interested in Windows issues anyway, given that I have a few Windows boxes to look after, and I'm always looking for more ammo to convince people to switch. :p

Thanks for all your input, I think I now have a better idea of what's going on.

I predict future malware will take the shape...... (1)

mAineAc (580334) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476695)

Of programs that take advantage of flaws in Internet Explorer and Windows. ;)

Re:I predict future malware will take the shape... (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 8 years ago | (#15479316)

Stupidity is the major vector, though.

I like the foresightedness of it (2, Funny)

SnuffySmith (780790) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476718)

another bad hurricane season is predicted ... the scammers are gearing up for this
These guys aren't just assholes; they take the long view of things: "So, you can see from this chart, in Q2 and Q3, we've got our shit-heel plan well mapped out. And our top asshole thinkers are hard at work in R&D, developing asshole plans for Q4 and the Christmas season."

Why do a few domains imply malware??? (2, Insightful)

WoTG (610710) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476923)

IMHO, the far more likely purpose of registering domains related to the next hurricane names are simply for SPAM. When the hurricanes hit, tens of thousands of people will mistype or find some other way of ending up on what I expect will be plain old ad serving pages. Considering the miniscule costs of setting this up, I'd suspect that it would make a few bucks. Especially compared to some of the other ad based domains I've stumbled on in the past...

old methods (1)

SekShunAte (978632) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476952)

i guess my old crystal ball and tarot cards just aren't cutting it anymore. I foresaw future malware being based on Vista.

Say what? (3, Insightful)

Omega Blue (220968) | more than 8 years ago | (#15477541)

I am not sure about you, but to me malware is clearly distinct from e-mail scams.

Malware is a program that do nasty things to your computer. e-mail scams have nothing to do with that.

the SANSturions (1)

lon3st4r (973469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15477753)

In the near future, Doc Terror, and his cyborg companion Hacker, unleash their forces to conquer Earth and spread malware!

Only one force can stop this evil: a handful of brave men; in specially created exoframes they can sniff packets anywhere to fuse with incredible anti-malware weapons. Beamed down from the space station Sky Vault, becoming man and machine,

Power Xtreme!

The SANS [wikipedia.org] turions [wikipedia.org]

* lon3st4r *

Forms? (2, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478654)

He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the malware came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

another bad season is *not* predicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15482272)

From the summary:
... while this year, another bad hurricane season is predicted ...

Actually, the NOAA and NWS are telling us that last year's hurricane season was unusally busy (translation: most years have fewer storms than that), and that this year will see fewer hurricanes.

Many scientists have explained in detail that the average temperature of the water in the Gulf of Mexico is much lower this year, which means hurricanes won't be as strong / plentiful as they were last year.

Oh yeah, before I forget ... it's still all Bush's fault. And eeeeviiil Halliburton (cue LotR music for orcses).
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...