Klez: a closer look 204
sheriff_p writes "Anyone recieving even a small amount of email is likely to have encountered Klez varients of some form in the last few months - Message Labs shows it as being the biggest email-transmitted virus of all time by some way. So just how boring is it? Virus Bulletin has an indepth look at what makes Klez tick." And today alone, Klez virus e-mails were 90% of my e-mail by bytecount. YAY Outlook!
Nice article (Score:5, Insightful)
As I have tried to explain to my more gullible user-friends, a little crankiness goes a long way
towards virus protection!
: )
biggest of all time? (Score:1)
From what I have seen, I agree with this. Klez has arrived more times in my inbox than all other worms/trojans/etc combined. The other ones I see (saw) most often are MyParty and Hybris (Dwarf4u). What distributions are other people seeing?
Re:biggest of all time? (Score:1)
Re:biggest of all time? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:biggest of all time? (Score:1)
lots of different delivery methods.. same annoying virus.
lately I've been seeing HiGuy and a little Yaha, and the old classic magistrB.
Re:biggest of all time? (Score:1)
Re:biggest of all time? (Score:1)
Re:biggest of all time? (Score:2)
It should be noted that only a small proportion of the messages contain "Klez" in the subject. I've seen it with subject lines that seem faintly related to newsgroups that I've posted in : SQL Server terms, HTML phrases, CSS selectors, etc.
Follow the Yellow Klez road. (Score:5, Interesting)
But seriously...127K seems to be the magic number for Klez.
So couldn't a filter simply be set up to block all emails 127k in size?
tcd004
Re:Follow the Yellow Klez road. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Follow the Yellow Klez road. (Score:4, Interesting)
True story: I was helping a user send out emails to a group of students. Her subject was "Important message about your scholarship." She kept getting messages back that the mail was infected with the Melissa virus. Well, she wasn't sending any attachments, so I thought we had a variant that piggybacked on outgoing mail messages. I searched her machine. I moved her to a different machine and searched it. Same thing. I re-imaged a machine. Same thing.
I also couldn't figure out where it was being caught. The message wasn't coming from our server because the infected message wasn't the same.
I traced it back to the main university's mail servers. So I called them up and told them that their anti-virus software was catching a virus that we couldn't find and could they tell us what they were using. They said they weren't using anti-virus scanning software.
Turns out some bright bulb had written a perl script that flagged every outgoing message with a subject that contained "Important message" as being infected with the Melissa virus.
A half a day wasted trying to track down a non-existant virus. And as soon as the Melissa virus changed its subject line, the script would let it through. What a joke.
Re:Follow the Yellow Klez road. (Score:2)
At least the klez authors... (Score:1)
If Subject contains "klez" move to folder "garbages"!
No One Loves Me... (Score:1)
I havn't recieved a e-mail virus in about a year.
Boo Hoo
Carrot007.
Re:No One Loves Me... (Score:1)
Already slashdotted! (Score:1)
More to do with admin set up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More to do with admin set up. (Score:1)
Re:More to do with admin set up. (Score:5, Informative)
Not all of the complaints about Outlook are "bs". Certainly, a lot of people seem to like the interface. This is one point that has probably kept it on users' desktops.
However, it will randomly refuse to work with perfectly functional IMAP servers. Some people have had it delete everything in their inbox. And many aspects of its design make it an easy target for virus writers. Up until recently, even if you knew what you were doing and wanted to, you couldn't prevent Outlook from displaying HTML (and everything associated with it, such as Javascript and Web bugs). It's gotten a bit more difficult to have it automatically execute attachments, but apparently not difficult enough. (In all fairness, it should be pointed out that a large section of the population would simply execute those attachments themselves anyway).
It's easy to say that you're safe at work. You're sitting behind various filters set up by competant administrators. But many people at home don't have that option. If an ISP started filtering out attachments by file type, many would doubtless scream bloody murder. Home users are the main problem here (not that it's necessarily their fault). In an unprotected environment, Outlook still makes it too easy for virus writers, and while I would love to be in a world where everyone was shielded by competent admins (hello big job market for me!), we currently aren't.
Re:More to do with admin set up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Outlook is targeted because it's the only email client that anyone has ever heard of (probably the only email client in the history of the world) that executed a script mailed to it, without user interaction. (Yes, that has been fixed, but it's still in people's heads.) It's also the only email client I've seen (though probably not the only on in history in history) that will allow a user to execute an attached script just by clicking on it. Traditionally, email clients aren't desktop shells; they might go to the trouble to display static attachments such as pictures, but executing scripts is way over the line. Traditionally, if you want to execute an attachment, you have to save it and execute it seperately. A sane and responsible software designer would never entertain such an idea for more than a few seconds. Microsoft did.
Outlook's reputation is deserved. You're lucky your mail is so well filtered by good Admins, because as an Outlook user, you would be in unusual danger without those Admins.
90%? really? (Score:1)
Are you really getting that many hits from Klez? Does anyone else have this problem? I have 4 email accounts that all see a fair amount of activity, and I've only gotten a couple of Klez hits in the last month... I think Hemos must be the target of the an underground Kluz spreading cult or something.
Re:90%? really? (Score:1)
Also note that the percentage is much higher when one recieves just one email (spam, most likely) per week because he has no friends at all.
Re:90%? really? (Score:1)
Re:90%? really? (Score:3, Informative)
The trick with Klez is that it spoofs the "from" header, and chooses an address at random from the infected computer's address book and its web cache.
I got tons of infected emails from people who had only surfed into a page containing one of my email addresses. Since I have 25 or design clients, this can add up to quite a few "webmaster@" email addresses. While my busiest site gets about 700 unique visitors daily, overall, my email accounts are exposed to ca. 4500 uniques daily.
That's a lot of novice users who think that getting an email that has the subject:
"A Excite Game"
and a body message that runs something like:
This is a excite game I made. It is my first try at a game. I hope you like it!
is a legit email. I have personally gotten this one over and over again, with the adjective randomized (a FUNNY game, a NEW game, etc.).
I can't believe that people open it, but they do. And they get infected, and then I get mails from them, spoofed to appear to be coming someone in their address book, or their browser cache.
Which makes it a drag, because you can't easily track down the offending individual.
The reason I think this virus is so prevalent (aside from the fact that most users are so gullible) is simply because you can't email the infected party and say "hey, you are infected with Klez", but with other viruses, such as SirCam and what not, you could, therefore stopping the virus infection, eventually.
Re:90%? really? (Score:2)
I, on the other hand, am a programmer who uses Linux at home; I didn't get infected by those damn Klez viruses, nor do I even download them--I limit fetchmail on the size of attachment and inspect the oversized mails thru my ISP's web interface every few days. Almost everytime, they are Klez viruses, though I'm also seeing some Goldfish thingy, starting recently.
I'm really, really sick of this crap filling up my mailbox. It's viral spam: an unspeakable hybrid of two of the worst internet evils.
Why use an address book anyway? (Score:1)
Re:Why use an address book anyway? (Score:2)
Some geeks actually have jobs... (Score:2, Insightful)
Small company, so I wear a few hats. Anyway, I have a fairly decent sized Address book that contains virtually all of the vendors that I have to deal with, business contacts at both client sites as well as my geek contacts that let me bounce ideas off of them.
Sure, if you are a "house-geek" or a college geek, you probably only have a small number of people to E-mail. (Mostly your 3733t friends and such.) However, once you hit the "real" world you find that your boundless memory actually has a few boundries.
-.-
Re:Some geeks actually have jobs... (Score:1)
Hmm... Is Anonymous that hard to spell? ;)
Irrelevant query (Score:2)
Good way to filter UCE (Score:4, Informative)
ignoreme@example.net
and publish it on your webpage, as an address for UCE only, and ask people not to send correspondence to it.
Then, filter all E-Mail received in your other mail boxes, against all of the mail received by ignoreme, and any that matches, delete.
Re:Good way to filter UCE (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know how you know my E-mail address, but thanks to you the spam will arrive in huge amounts
if readers were to follow this example. Now I have get myself a new address.
Sincerest,
ignoreme@example.net
Re:Good way to filter UCE (Score:2, Interesting)
MOD parent up (Score:2)
Defenition of unpopular... (Score:5, Funny)
Steve
Hemos, CmdrTaco (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever Hemos or CmdrTaco posts about a Windows virus, they always end with "yadda yadda 90% of my e-mail yadda...". How is it that you can run the #1 geek news site and still have e-mail viruses infaltrating your inbox? Is it that much trouble to install MIMEDefang [roaringpenguin.com]? If you'd like, I'll offer up my services as a consultant to install virus scanning software on your e-mail server, since you two obviously can't figure it out, but I hope that isn't neccesary.
Re:Hemos, CmdrTaco (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe Hemos came up with the figure by checking his e-mail and watching as 90% of it was filtered into the bitbucket. Maybe he still filters it by hand - regardless, when a massive collection of your inbox is junk, you still have to watch it go through the filter. (Well, OK, not always - there are filter setups where you don't see it, but let's not get too technical, alright?)
The bottom line is this: they may filter it, but they still have to deal with the incoming bytes in some way. The "90%" figure probably comes from either a filter report, or from watching the data be filtered if they're using client-based filtering. Just because they know that 90% of their incoming e-mail is crap doesn't mean they manually sort it.
Re:Hemos, CmdrTaco (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hemos, CmdrTaco (Score:2)
Re:Hemos, CmdrTaco (Score:2)
If you instal MIMEDefang your mailbox will still fill up with virii that get sent to you, they'll just be "defanged".
-
Re:Hemos, CmdrTaco (Score:1)
Question (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, that the whole going through your contacts/sent items list and mailing them is all very well, but I can write some perl that does that with your Pine folders easily enough.
I posted an article a while ago on this but it was rejected. It's a Wired article entitled "The Great MS Patch Nobody Uses [wired.com]". Granted it is Microsoft's fault this stupid stupid exploit happened in the first place, but it's also interesting to note that the fix for 80% of these problems have been available for over a year virtually unnoticed.
And finally, if you're running procmail then:
* Content-Disposition: attachment
* name=.*\.(com|exe|pif|scr|bat|lnk|shf|vbs)
{
# Stick it somewhere
}
does a pretty good job of filtering out that sort of junk.
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Question (Score:2)
You can't say "well, I have a bunch of holes, but I made a patch, so the fact that I put out tons of vulnerable systems and 95% of them are still vulnerable doesn't count".
No Problems Here (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No Problems Here (Score:2)
If you mean you just saw two viruses, then that means you are not receiving any. I would be much more impressed if you said you received thousands of viruses, but that you have proof that Outlook de-fanged or filtered them.
Klez nightmare (Score:2)
This article is very timely for me. I had never received an email virus until about a week ago. Now I get Klez virtually every day.
Fortunately I look the descision a long time ago not to use Outlook as my email client (I use Eudora). However, Klez is still a nightmare because it can randomly choose an address for the "From:" field from the computer it has infected, which means that if someone you know gets infected, you can get irate emails from people telling you not to send them viruses!
Nightmare.
The Difference In Receipt Rates Is In the User (Score:3, Insightful)
My wife and I both use Outlook for all of our email. Neither of us have ever been infected by the virus because we've kept up with updates to Outlook that block you from opening programs (and we know better).
She receives several copies a day of the Klez virus. I've never received it despite having about the same overall email traffic.
I think that the difference lies in who we know. I'm a Computer Engineer and she's a counselor. Thus, the average individual with my email address is a lot more computer savvy than those with her email address.
Re:The Difference In Receipt Rates Is In the User (Score:2)
I think the problem is that it just takes one person that you know to have this virus and not know about it.
maybe you should switch to linux :P (Score:1)
use windows on thier desktop.
tisk tisk.
Once more, with feeling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
YAY OUTLOOK? (Score:1)
On another note, just push your mail providers to install a virus scanner on ther mailer daemon side... my school recently did this and it seems to be working very well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:YAY OUTLOOK? (Score:2)
Not necessarily something a provider wants to do. For starters, scanning thousands upon thousands of incoming e-mails puts a heavy strain on the servers. More importantly, however, is that by doing so a provider implicitly admits legal responsibility for what their users are doing on their systems. If you can read through users' e-mails to determine if they're infected with a virus, Big Bad Government is going to come in to ask you to scan for evidence of illegal actions as well.
For this reason, my employer has, for now, decided to forego server side virus scanning, and I pretty much would agree with him.
Re:YAY OUTLOOK? (Score:2)
clamav - powerful anti-virus scanner for Unix.
mailscanner - An email virus scanner and spam tagger.
renattach - Rename attachments on the fly.
sanitizer - The Anomy Mail Sanitizer - an email virus scanner
xbill - Get rid of those Wingdows Viruses!
amavis-exim - Interface between MTA and virus scanner.
amavis-milter - Interface between MTA and virus scanner.
amavis-postfix - Interface between MTA and virus scanner.
scannerdaemon - virus scanner written in Java
virussignatures - virus signatures for ScannerDaemon
A question (Score:3, Interesting)
In which case (since the From: field is not necessarily indicative of who it came from) how can I find out who it came from so that I can tell them that they're infected?
Re:A question (Score:1)
Re:A question (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:A question (Score:1, Informative)
Re:A question (Score:2)
If I receive emails with the Klez virus attached, that means someone I know is probably infected, doesn't it?
Not necessarily. I find that I get most of mine from infected spammers.
Re:A question (Score:2)
======================
Hey man, long time no see.
I got this today with your name on it. It's a copy of the Klez virus, which may mean some of your computers at work may have that virus on them. I'd check to make sure.
On the other hand, the mail trail says it originated from someotherisp.net. I don't know anyone who uses that service, but perhaps you do. If so, they could be sending out mails in your name, so you might want to check with them.
Anyway, how are things?
Does it strike anyone else as ironic.... (Score:1)
possibly stupid question about Klez's appearance (Score:3, Interesting)
So can I just assume that Klez is just generating these on its own and it's actually the *other* guy who is infected? Because I run Norton AntiVirus with the latest filters...or am I actually infected with Klez and I am really generating all this email that is bouncing at the other end?!?
Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks.
- adam
Re: (Score:1)
gotcha (Score:2)
Clever.
- adam
Re:possibly stupid question about Klez's appearanc (Score:1)
Re:possibly stupid question about Klez's appearanc (Score:2)
You will be clean.
Just another postmaster.
Klez Variant? (Score:2, Interesting)
Recently I received something that could be a new variany of Klez. The difference is that it does not look at your own computer for contacts. It looks at web-pages. This is how it seems to work:
NNTP/ mailing lists (Score:2)
2. etc.......
Mailing lists are better, because the sender is ofter waiting for a reply.
the forged From: line makes all the difference (Score:4, Informative)
The only way to track down a Klez sender is to follow the Received: headers back to the ISP, and ask them to search their RADIUS &/or DHCP logs to figure out which user was at that address at the time the message was sent. Most ISP's that I've contacted would rather not bother, so the infected PCs remain blissfully ignorant.
Alternately, the ISP could require authenticated SMTP, and attach the real user ID to every message in some way. Or install a virus filter on the outbound connection. But once again, they don't want to bother. It's the tragedy of the commons.
Time for a mirror ... (Score:1)
Forged sender (Score:2, Interesting)
Two or three times, I have tried to warn users that they are infected by sending messages to the "From" (no colon) address. It never has worked. Why not? Every time, I have ended up emailing the administrators of the domain or mail server. (BTW, most places do a terrible job of monitoring email to postmaster.) I always have included the headers so that the administrator could track down the infected user by date and IP address. Each time, the administrator then contacted the user and put a stop to the problem. How come the user never fixes it? Shouldn't my emails have gotten through? Did the users just ignore my warnings or was there something else at work?
That's not a message header... (Score:1)
I have noticed the same thing you have, I believe that the envelope sender is the correct person to contact.
Klez Quick Fix? (Score:3, Interesting)
New poll! (Score:5, Funny)
[ ] Nimda
[ ] Klez
[ ] ILoveYou
[ ] Sircam
[ ] Hybris
[ ] Whatever CowboyNeal has
Re:New poll! (Score:2)
Procmail rule to catch Klez (Score:3, Interesting)
* ! ^Received:
* 9HyTO130D42FAAAAU1bo5RoAAGoAi9joFC4AAIvwi0UIg.YBV
klez
The lameness filter is putting a space in the string of characters above so be sure to remove it when you put this in your procmailrc file. Also remove the space before the :0 B in the first line.
Re:Procmail rule to catch Klez (Score:2)
I wouldn't know how to cut and paste your line into the app.
Re:Procmail rule to catch Klez (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Procmail rule to catch Klez (Score:2)
man procmailex
You'll want to have a decent grasp of regular expressions as procmail is centered around them. Also check out the faq that the other poster linked to.
Re:Procmail rule to catch Klez (Score:2)
how I deal with Klez (Score:3, Informative)
Well, the anti-virus companies won't tell you how to block Klez (except by buying their products) but I funnel all my mail through a custom filter and this is the algorithm I use to get rid of Klez-like messages, once and for all:
If message contains multipart/alternative entity, /etc/mime.types,
and entity has a part with a filename,
and the filename's extension doesn't match the entry in
then drop the message.
You could also, I think, send a "you're an idiot" bounce message to the envelope MAIL FROM: address (not the header From:, it's wrong). That one usually looks correct. Not sure though, probably best to just drop them.
There are other clues in the message, such as IFRAME code, etc., but this seems foolproof, and I can't imagine any normal email program generating multipart/alternative sub-parts with a filename.
my slashdot spam account gets wailed on with Klez (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stupid Address Books (Score:3, Informative)
i.e. the virus doesn't raw-read the address file, it uses the Outlook API to look it up on it's behalf, just like any other program.
Hence, the fact the address book file is now encrypted does not stop the virus using it.
You dig?
Re:Stupid Address Books (Score:2)
It's not like the virus is accessing raw binary data from the address book; more than likely it's using some sort of API call to get the data.
Re:Stupid Address Books (Score:5, Insightful)
It would appear that a more long term solution would be to remove scripting! I have yet to see a use of scripting used within an email that could not be done if Microsoft removed scripting from Outlook. The only thing anyone ever uses is the ability to add buttons to the top of the email. You do not need a turing complete scripting language that can open sockets and read the address book to do that.
Then again, baubles and shiny things make managers with budgets happy, I guess.
Re:Stupid Address Books (Score:3, Insightful)
Scripting is still there, however. How much do you trust that there is not Yet Another Security Loophole in there somewhere?
The fact remains that if there is no scripting at all in Outlook, it will make it impossible for worms to spread themselves via. Outlook.
Lotus Bloats (Score:2)
We use Lotus at my company. But I still get about a dozen emails a day from Klez. But I never got any virus originating from a Linux machine...
Re:Stupid Address Books (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stupid Address Books (Score:2)
Unless every use of the address book required the user to enter a key then this would do nothing especially useful. Since a virus could easily decrypt the data, assuming it even needed to.
At the least, this would slow a virus down.
Only if the encryption was complex enough that decrypting the data too a long period of time...
Re:Stupid Address Books (Score:1, Insightful)
Ummm... If anyone updated Outlook and IE within the last year or so this thing wouldn't spread at all. One of the primary vulnerabilities exploited was patched in March of last year, and Outlook itself filters out the worm if it's been updated to sp2 for Outlook2k or the default install for OutlookXP.
Re:Stupid Address Books (Score:1)
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl
Re: YAY Outlook! (Score:1)
Re: YAY Outlook! (Score:2)
Re: YAY Outlook! (Score:1)
Re:What would it take (Score:2)
Brilliant. Sheer brilliance.
Re:What would it take (Score:2, Insightful)