Malware Futures | FAT Travesty | MPG on BLOOD: G.War.Bush's Burnin' 'Maths'
Future Trends of Malware: "Key summary points and conclusion
(Score:5, Insightful)
by millwall (622730) Alter Relationship on Wednesday January 11, @08:23AM (#14445344)
Key summary points
--------------
Malware authors update their multi-vendor anti virus signatures faster than most end users and enterprises do altogether
The high pressure put on malware authors by the experienced vendors is causing them to unite efforts and assets, and realize that it's hard to compete on their own. Yet this doesn't stop them from waging a war in between
Intellectual property theft worms have to potential to dominate in today's knowledge-driven society acting as tools for espionage
Don't matter what you always wanted to do to ecriminals, in case of a cryptoviral extortion, you'll be the one having to initiate the contact
The growing Internet population, E-commerce flow, and the demand for illegal/unethical services, would fuel the development of an Ecosystem, for anything, but legal
The 'Web as a platform' is a powerful medium for malware attackers understanding the new Web
The unprecedented growth of E-commerce would always remain the main incentive for illegal activities
7.0 Conclusion
--------------
I hope that the points I have raised in this research, would prove valuable to both end users, businesses and anti-virus vendors. The Internet as a growing force shaping our ways of thinking and living is as useful, as easy to exploit as well. The clear growth in E-commerce, today's open-source nature of malware, the growing penetration of the Internet in respect to insecure connected PCs, are among the main driving factors of the scene. Do your homework and stay ahead of the threats, most of all, less branding when making security decisions, but high preferences! Please, feel free to direct your opinions, remarks, or any feedback to me, at dancho.danchev AT hush.com or at ddanchev.blogspot.com where you can d"
====================
One word: Legitimization.
(Score:5, Insightful)Thus, I can only conclude that the future of malware is for it to go from something created by shady companies like Gator (a.k.a. "Claria") and 419WebSolutions (or whatever) to something created (or at least branded) by "household name" companies like HP, Dell, etc. A first step towards a future in which major corporations embrace malware has already occurred; just look at all the crap Dell shovels onto their much-maligned default software installations.
With spending like this [twu.net], just what are "conservatives" conserving? (Homophobia?)
==============
Re:What if we sandbox major apps like browsers?
(Score:4, Interesting)
<kadin2048@ma[ ]om ['c.c' in gap]> on Wednesday January 11, @10:35AM (#14446335) (Last Journal: Wednesday December 14, @08:49PM)
Actually I think what people are doing today, is practically building another guest house out back for the foreman and the rest of his work crew to live in while they're patching up your house. Remember the discussion a few months ago here on Slashdot about why the average joe needed a dual-core or multiprocessor Windows box? It was so one processor could run his actual application, and the other one could run all the anti-virus/spyware/adware/intrusion programs.
The situation has really become ridiculous, but because it's happened so slowly and because so many people are highly invested in it, nobody with any authority wants to take a step back and call it for what it is.
If only we could make stupidity more painful...
=================
Categories by goal
(Score:5, Interesting)- Marketing: Redirecting browser windows or overlaying pop-ups to promote a product or service
- Phishing: attacking an individual to extract passwords that let a criminal access the victim's accounts or identity
- Vandalism: Wanton destruction of a PC or network
- Spam Broadcasting: creating and controlling a botnet for spamming
- Extortion: Forcing a company to pay a ransom to avoid a DDoS or the triggering of an embedded bit of malware.
- Vilgilantism: Attacking P2P, spamming, or phishing networks to forestall perceived illegal activity
- Espionage: Illegally accessing company or country's secrets
- Military: Damaging an opponent country's IT infrastructure
Note that some of these goals target individuals and their PCs whereas other target larger organizations. One key commonality of nearly all of the goals is that they target large numbers of PCs or require large numbers of infected machines to achieve the goal. Thus immunological approaches that look for the spread of unusual code or data packet patterns can help address this problem. On the other hand, immunological approaches won't work if the malware attack targets a single individual or company -- e.g. implanting a unique virus in one computer in a company for purposes of espionage or extortion.
Note that half of the goals are very different from the stereotypical destructive virus or worm of yesteryear. With the exception of vandalism, extortion, vigilantism, and military, the other goals are essentially non-destructive. The malware creator's goals are not achieved if the malware crashes the target machine.
=================
Re:Food chain
(Score:5, Interesting)1) Even if they do have FAT pre-installed, that doesn't matter. A patent applies to the device that is using the FAT system (camera, computer, etc.), not the media it is on. (For example: A patent woudl apply to a printing press, but not to the book that is printed by the press.)
2) His point is that they don't have to have it pre-installed anyway. The device you put it in can do the formatting easily enough.
Also, just because something is modded-up that you think is wrong, doesn't mean that the moderation system is bad. You may be modded down merely for the comment.
=================
Re:Food chain
(Score:5, Informative)Windows: http://freshmeat.net/projects/ext2ifs/ [freshmeat.net]
MacOS X: http://freshmeat.net/projects/ext2fs/ [freshmeat.net]
OS/2: http://freshmeat.net/projects/ext2-os2/ [freshmeat.net]
The problem is, they don't come pre-installed...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
-=====================
MOD PARENT UP
(Score:5, Insightful)C# and CLR on linux people take note, Microsoft never acts in good faith. Why file for patents unless you plan to enforce them? Ever heard the phrase "trust a fox"?
=================Move Kernel.org to the EU
(Score:5, Insightful) <msadler@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 11, @10:49AM (#14446454) (http://mhsadler.home.comcast.net/)
*this would also mean Linus and everyone working on the kernel would have to move to the EU, and also a fork in the kernel in the US that does not included vFat.
======================
Re:So now...
(Score:5, Interesting)You wouldn't want to use standard journalling on a flash drive. IIRC for each write cycle at least 3 write actions are required: log in the journal that a write will be done (has to be synced to the disk), do the write, log in the journal that the write action ended successful. With flash, where you can only erase block-wise, this is not a good idea - for one its very slow, and on the other hand, the flash supports only so many write cycles. For journalling, special handling is needed as implemented e.g. in jffs2 [sourceware.org].
jqj: WTF why does M$ and ~all ~experts say to USE NTFS for OS partition, if it cant possibly be faster....
======================
The claims in US patent No. 5579517 - the patnet that was subject to re-examination - are rather strange, and to my reasding are not infringed by a Linux system reading or writing a vfat file system. The analysys is not straightforward, but as a clue to those used to looking at patent claims, think about the effect of the opening words of the claim: "In a computer system having a processor running an operating system..." followed by the words "said short filename including at most a maximum number of characters that is permissible by the operating system", i.e., not some other operating system but by the executing operating system.
US Patent 5758352 is more of a worry, because it relates to the way in which long and short filenames are stored in a directory structure by an (i.e., any) operating system. I cannot find any reference to this potentially much more damaging patent having been re-examined.
Note that the claims are not infringed by any system that does not support both long and short filenames. It is not FAT per se that is being protected, it is the backwards-compatible DOS filenames and the particular manner in which they are stored. You have to read the claims to understand this.
So the question about Linux etc., requires an analysis of the claims with an understanding of how the Linux FS driver works.
HTH
Anonymous European Patent Attorney
==================
FAT, Chests of drawers, and brainwashing
(Score:5, Insightful)FAT is such a technical piece of crap that I would have thought nobody would want to patent it, out of pure
embarrassment.
For non-technical people who don't grok filesystems, there's a good story about FAT here: CyberSnare
=============================
[netaction.org].
Re:What about UDF?
(Score:5, Informative)Update:
- This page indicates that Windows does *not* have UDF write support [aumha.org] without the use of a third party program, like DirectCD or Nero's offering, InCD.
- Linux does have write support for UDF filesystems [chalmers.se], but it's not turned on in the default kernel config.
- It's difficult to find anything definitive about OSX, but the consensus from the interweb is that OS X can't currently handle writing to UDF without third party software.
So this probably won't work as a universal filesystem unless some pressure is put on MS and Apple to get native support for writing to UDF, unfortunately
-=======================
Re:USB Sticks and CF cards
(Score:5, Insightful)Except that these patents weren't around when they were making these decisions. These FAT patents were *rejected*. Why would a company base a decision around patents that were rejected by the UPTO? This is yet another example of the USPTO's stupidity - VFAT was created how long ago? Some where between 92 and 95 IIRC. So at least 10 years ago. VFAT has had 10 years to creep into all corners of the industry, and only now it's going to start costing money? Imagine if 5 years after the motor industry really got going, the patent for internal combustion engines was finally approved. Progress of science and useful arts my ass.--
No trilogy should have more than four books - Arthur C. Clarke
===============
Re:USB Sticks and CF cards
(Score:5, Informative) <public@kered.org> on Wednesday January 11, @08:53AM (#14445553) (http://kered.org/)
Patent trolls are nothing new to society.--- derek
Good Thing?
(Score:4, Informative)==========
Chain of events
(Score:5, Informative)2. "Mass Storage Class" added to USB that is so low level, the OS uses it as any disk, needing to support it's file systems
3. 95% of computers run windows and the ones that support USB only support FAT, forcing device manufacturers to use that as filesystem.
4. Patent filesystem and demand royalties after the fact
5. No need for "???"
6. Profit!
Yup, they planned this all along, the sneaky bastards ==
======================================
More accurate history of FAT
(Score:5, Interesting) on Wednesday January 11, @04:03AM (#14444411) (http://www.berylliumsphere.com/ | Last Journal: Monday January 02, @04:36PM)
Bill Gates has received the credit in print. The confusion probably happened because Bill Gates identifies himself completely with Microsoft.
Marc designed it to be optimized for floppies, with an allocation table sized to stay resident even in the tiny RAM of the machines of those days. He always thought it was a little silly to use it on hard disks.
==============
-
Re:More accurate history of FAT
(Score:5, Funny)by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11, @06:22AM (#14444808)You are a tad incorrect, sir.[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Ronald McDonald http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mcdonald [wikipedia.org] is the inventor of FAT. He has been shipping it to his clients for years now. Obviously this constitutes as prior art; One can see millions and millions of people who are dependant on FAT.
Fat is the basis for several of Ronald McDonald's technologies, including but not limited to:
- McCheeseburgers
- McFries
- Chicken McNuggets
- McGrittles
- McDonalds Coffee
He has tried to enforce his patents with the help of City Hall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_McCheese [wikipedia.org] and the Police Chief, Big Mac, but unfortunatly a criminal only known by the psuedonym "The Hamburgler" http://www.shermangalleries.com.au/artists_exhib/a rtists/lindeman/images/hamburgler.jpg [shermangalleries.com.au] has been infringing for years. - Re:More accurate history of FAT by swilver (Score:4) Wednesday January 11, @11:05AM
- ================
December 3, 2005
Bush's Blood Power Level http://www.opednews.comOn Thursday, in Fallujah, a roadside bomb killed at least 10 Marines and wounded 11.
Soon, the family members of the dead will hear the words, "We regret to inform you..." My family knows the horror of the doorbell, ringing in the night. The dead of night. My brother understands to the core the devastation of what, perhaps, has become too familiar--the rote relaying by the military's deliverers of pain.
If it's daytime, they may see the car that slows to a stop, carrying the uniformed messengers. The fathers, mothers, siblings, wives or husbands may be either sitting or standing, taking out the trash or raking leaves and they know what is about to come--the syllables, their impact. It's the nightmare of all those with a loved one serving during wartime. At first, there's numbness but, soon, that is replaced by agony so overwhelming it sends the grieving to the floor screaming. Or they are paralyzed by sorrow. And there is wave after wave of disbelief.
George Bush is the bogeyman who comes at all hours of the day and night with sentences that make parents and relatives want someone to put a pillow over their faces to prevent breathing.
Imagine having a child in Iraq, fighting this war that we all now know was based on lies. Imagine logging on to your computer or watching the news and learning that so many troops were killed and wounded. Imagine the sick feeling, hoping it's not your child. Maybe, praying that it isn't but, also, feeling the guilt that tells you if it isn't yours, then, it's someone else's.
We've been warned to expect more attacks as the December 15th election in Iraq approaches. Is this some feeble attempt to steel families against the unthinkable? As if there's any preparation for the death or maiming of a loved one.
And George W. Bush whose only combat as a member of the elite National Guard's "Champagne Unit" during the Vietnam War, probably, was his participation in barroom brawls after popping too many corks. How could people have been so duped to elect this loser twice?
Here is Bush on sacrifice: "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."
Imagine the insensitivity of this. But, then, I've watched him cross the White House lawn on a day when troops were killed and he's waved and grinned as if he's got the winning lottery ticket in his wallet. He does. Each day the war rages on, Bush makes more money. And he has no children there. He doesn't have to worry about the ringing of the doorbell. He doesn't know the truth of war.
Plus, he's got the POWER. He's manipulating life and death and that has to be the ultimate rush for a man who used to love the feel of alcohol coursing through his veins. He's replaced that addiction with power. Bush's blood power concentration has to be so high right now that it exceeds a level toxic to our country.
How many troop deaths will, finally, convince Americans that this war is a mistake? Or will it take the reinstatement of conscription?
When I hear people declare that they still support this man and his war, I tell them, "Don't advocate that OTHERS fight unless you're willing to go to the recruitment station and enlist or encourage your children to sign on."
When will more Americans turn off Reality T.V. and tune into the realities of a United States foreign policy that is collapsing under its own hubris? We should be marching in the streets to show the world that not all of us are under the spell of a madman. We have to do this for ourselves, our children and their children. The survival of our planet is at stake.
And once we're rid of Bush Inc., we should insist that every candidate take a political-power Breathalyzer test.
=================================ards.
============================Re:Let it go Microsoft
(Score:5, Insightful)by Dual_View (933041) on Wednesday January 11, @03:27AM (#14444297)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 20, @01:53AM)A patent on FAT doesn't really have much of a use for them now; at least none that I can think of. Just let the filesystem become an open standard now, MS.
I only wish that were true. The problem is that this is exactly the kind of thing that Microsoft has been after for quite a while. Now that it's everywhere, and it's something that every modern operating system has already implemented, Microsoft is going to go on a licensing spree. After all, they have already been talking about licensing it, [com.com] long before anyone else considered the idea that the patents might actually be approved.
There are only a few possible ways that this can turn out good:
- Microsoft has a change of heart, and decides that the chance to utterly destroy all its competition and leverage a complete monopoly with Windows is not worth the price of temporarily finding itself villified in the eyes of the public. (Unlikely.)
- Some intrepid open-source developer(s) quickly cracks open the last few secrets of the NTFS file system, finally allowing the Linux kernel total interoperability with NTFS volumes. The open-source community rips out FAT support and relies more on NTFS volumes, fully expecting Microsoft to try to patent this file system too. In the meantime, additional research is performed either to try and create a more universal file system, or grant ext2 and ext3 more reliable interoperability with Windows and other operating systems. (Wishful thinking.)
- Microsoft does indeed go on a licensing spree and begins threatening the markets for all competing operating systems. Commercial OS's will fork over the money; open-source OS's like Linux, BSD, ReactOS, etc. will strip FAT support from their systems, disrupting their interoperability with Windows volumes and each other. The US economy takes such a hard hit from this scandal that the patents get overturned later. Or perhaps, this is the evidence that the free and open-source software advocates in the US need to finally demonstrate that software patents aren't just a hassle, but a genuine liability. (Hard to say.)
At any rate, I hope that I'm wrong, and that this is just excessive paranoia on my part. But with Microsoft in this position, I don't think we should rely on optimism and just say that this will all be fine.
posted by USSSlavebation @ 1/17/2006 02:47:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home