[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ransomware meets Linux - on the command line!

On Friday 13 November 2015 14:19:00 Piyavkin wrote:

> On 12.11.2015 21:14, Ralph Katz wrote:
> > On 11/11/2015 10:24 PM, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> Brian Krebs of Krebs On Security had
> >> something on ransomware and Linux, just not labeled Ransm-C or
> >> anything:
> >>
> >> http://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/11/ransomware-now-gunning-for-your-
> >>web-sites/
> >>
> >> IF I'm understanding correctly, he appears to have updated that
> >> article with a *potential* way to beat it via a *potential*
> >> vulnerability.... at least until the perpetrators upgrade their own
> >> tactics, anyway.
> >>
> >> I like what Brian's been doing. I can cognitively understand a LOT
> >> of what he writes about. He's caught SlashDot's eye a time or two,
> >> too.
> >>
> >> Adding another keyword here, Linux.Decoder.1, which Brian says was
> >> a name dubbed by "Russian antivirus and security firm Dr.Web". It
> >> may or may not be the same as the other, but sounds like it works
> >> similar'ISH.
> >>
> >> Next stop is to pop over to a group called BlindWebbers. I'd seen
> >> Brian's email subject line earlier and thought instantly of them,
> >> just didn't get around to opening it then. The guy in Brian's
> >> article makes it sound like it's a little time consuming and still
> >> has incidental glitches afterwards.
> >>
> >> That's presumably coming from someone with no visual disabilities.
> >> The difficulty level of getting one's website back would
> >> understandably rise relative to one's ability or lack thereof to
> >> actually see what's going on within the file hierarchy..... AND
> >> apparently each single file that reportedly stands to potentially
> >> gather random bits AFTER the files have been decrypted.
> >
> > As a user, I too, find Krebs informative.  Also notable was this
> > recent Washington Post article about Linus Torvalds and Linux
> > security:
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/11/05/net-of-insecuri
> >ty-the-kernel-of-the-argument/
> >
> > "Fast, flexible and free, Linux is taking over the online world. But
> > there is growing unease about security weaknesses."
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ralph
> The ransomware articles from the security companies are pure marketing
> efforts to develop customer's «pain» and to exploit it. There is
> nothing new in the scheme «pay or suffer». And the companies provide
> nothing new as a «cure» either (which haven't been there for decades).
> More over, I wonder, what is the difference between the «ransomware»
> business model and so called «planned obsolescence» business model,
> which, I guess, has become worldwide industrial standard nowaday? And
> in what way should differ protective measures for both of them? I
> mean, from the end users point of view, there is no much difference if
> their data have been stolen/encrypted by one crook or if their data
> have been lost because of «sudden» HDD fail planned in advance by
> another crook. Except, may be, the fact that in the first case you
> still have a tiny chance to get your precious data back (may be, which
> I doubt).
> The WP article seems like a spin. It gives us a spooky filling of
> great imminent danger radiating from the Linux, but in the same time
> it is surprisingly shallow and inconcrete. Though it uses security
> thing as a pretext, I guess, it's not about security.
> Of course, I don't think the subject of Linux security does not
> deserve attention or discussion. But what the point in such articles
> as the WP example, except from not so subtly playing with mass opinion
> with pretty obvious commercial intention?
Shallow?  Devoid of facts was my impression.
> Regards,
> Piyavkin

Cheers, Gene Heskett
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

Reply to: