How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps [LWN.net]

How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps

Posted Feb 11, 2009 20:35 UTC (Wed) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203)
In reply to: How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps by rvfh
Parent article: How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps

Ok, I probably shouldn't but I gotta go on a rant here.

> What happened in more than two years?

Exactly nothing. Because the leading lights in both the GNOME and KDE camps do not see themselves as UNIX users, do not intend to 'inflict' UNIX design decisions on their users and just generally have the attitude that they are supplanting UNIX, not extending it. The relationship between OS X and Darwin is their guidestar. Or more bluntly, that they draw their inspiration from Windows and the Mac and despise *NIX. They consent to be hosted on *NIX/X because it is the only game in town and doing so lets them get on with the GUI stuff they like and forget about the operating system details.

Make all .desktop files executable and the problem doesn't exist. That this IS a problem waiting to happen has been obvious for years and the downside to the change is pretty close to zero. This is a failure in design philosophy. Push a devel in a corner and make em explain and I'd bet money it would involve a more weasel worded version of "Windows doesn't have an executable flag, thus it would confuse new users. Getting new users is the be all end all arguments priority."

(Log in to post comments)

How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps

Posted Feb 11, 2009 21:47 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

aleXXX wrote: Being a KDE developer myself, I can assure you that this is simply not true.

I'm willing to give KDE some grudging benefit of the doubt, but some of the top GNOME people (eg, Miguel de Icaza) are anti-UNIX.

And although .desktop files are a "standard", they are a terrible idea. They are a clear security danger.

I have e-mailed the security contacts at both kde.org and gnome.org. I fully expect them to ignore the issue, at which point I will have to write an article retracting my original opinion (from 2001) that Linux is more resistant to e-mail trojans than Windows. What a sad state of affairs.

How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps

Posted Feb 12, 2009 7:58 UTC (Thu) by bkor (guest, #27950) [Link]

some of the top GNOME people (eg, Miguel de Icaza) are anti-UNIX

Ignoring your statement about Miguel, could you give another example? I'm involved in GNOME and I think your statement is not true.

Further, Miguel isn't involved with GNOME anymore (only relation is that he started it, etc). From what he said himself, he only attends e.g. GUADEC as an interested user (plus it is fun).

I have e-mailed the security contacts at both kde.org and gnome.org

We don't have a security contact (unless it changed over the last few months).

How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps

Posted Feb 12, 2009 14:20 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

bkor wrote: We don't have a security contact (unless it changed over the last few months).

Well, I sent an e-mail to security@gnome.org, and the mail did not bounce. So either that address exists or your mail server is blackholing mail.

Ignoring your statement about Miguel, could you give another example?

I cannot give names, because I don't know any. But I'll give an example of anti-UNIX behaviour: I've asked for various GNOME tools such as evolution to support an external editor; shelling out to an external editor is time-honoured UNIX behaviour. This request has been met with reactions of various degrees of hostility, from "go away, we're too busy" to downright derision.

I don't mean to go on an anti-GNOME rant. But you did ask! (For the record, I don't use KDE either.)

How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps

Posted Feb 12, 2009 18:26 UTC (Thu) by bkor (guest, #27950) [Link]

Well, I sent an e-mail to security@gnome.org, and the mail did not bounce. So either that address exists or your mail server is blackholing mail.

Or that is the wrong address. Just mailing some random thing is not a promise that it is the right method.

But I'll give an example of anti-UNIX behaviour

Ah, so you're feature request wasn't implemented. Oh well, I wouldn't call it anti.

I do want to know in which bugreport you interpreted someones remark as derision. Feature requests can be rejected, but people have to be respectful. Btw, Evolution has a plugin to use an external editor.

How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps

Posted Feb 13, 2009 2:21 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

Well, I sent an e-mail to security@gnome.org, and the mail did not bounce. So either that address exists or your mail server is blackholing mail.
Or that is the wrong address. Just mailing some random thing is not a promise that it is the right method.

No, one of two things he or she said is true regardless of your postulation. Your comment may be pretty relevant to the right way of going about things, of course.

However, gnome does all kinds of things totally wrong in a manner that shows a failure to understand UNIX.

Gnome libraries don't even understand what standard error is for. They think it's standard debug or something. A typical gnome program has so much library spew that you couldn't ever possibly notice a real problem that the application you're using is trying to tell you about.

How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps

Posted Feb 12, 2009 11:32 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

"I'm willing to give KDE some grudging benefit of the doubt, but some of the top GNOME people (eg, Miguel de Icaza) are anti-UNIX."

Let me point out that the desktop file standard is heavily based on kdelnk format from KDE. A anti-GNOME rant is going to fix any potential security issues with a cross-desktop standard format at this point.

How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps

Posted Feb 13, 2009 16:35 UTC (Fri) by geohump (guest, #27792) [Link]

>Other people also like to distance themselves from Unix. Remember what GNU
>stands for? That is not just a joke name. Linux is also
>not Unix for that matter.

Dear Mike, I'm sorry but you seem to have misunderstood both why GNU is called GNU and why Linux is Linux. RMS was not "distancing" GNU from UNIX. RMS was making a free CLONE of UNIX. RMS intended GNU to be an exact functional replacement for UNIX. You might want google up the original postings to usenet from RMS about the project.

RMS named GNU "GNU" as part of his way of making clear that GNU was to be completely free of any the original UNIX intellectual property despite being a clone of UNIX. Do you suppose that its just an accident that every tool the GNU folks built had exactly the same name and function as their UNIX counterparts? (And tweaks as well. I never met a programmer yet who could resist the chance to "flavor the pot" to their own personal taste when they could get away with it. :-) )

Both the GNU and Linux efforts were created in order to give the people who loved the power and elegance of UNIX, a free version of UNIX, complete with source code to work on themselves, without having to purchase an AT&T/Bell Labs source code license.

Your idea that GNU and LINUX are not UNIX show that you missed the conversation that happened at the time of their creation. The GNU tools and Linux were made to be as much like the original UNIX as they could be in every way that matters to programmers, while maintaining total separation from any of the source code from ATT/Bell so that they would be free from licensing costs and restrictions. If all you care about is the name "UNIX" being licensed, then you were never a UNIX or Linux person anyway.

For those who say Linux is not a "UNIX" because its not perfectly identical to UNIX, I say: "Hey thanks for the belly laugh!" Linux is just as identical to UNIX as ULTRIX, HP-UX, Domain-IX, SUNOS, BSD, AIX, SCO, and all the other "legal UNIX licensees" are to each other and to the original ATT/BELL UNIX (assuming you can resolve the differences between the teeming masses of UNIX versions Bell put out itself! How many were there? 20? 30? )

Your claims that names should be longer 3 or 4 chars and that "Modern systems" have both PATH and "tab complete" are amazingly lacking. UNIX and its clones/variants have had those for more than 25 years. In fact PATH was there in the 1970's. Probably longer than you've been alive. (Personally I approve of keeping comamnd names somewhat short as long as there is a mnemonic relationship in the name. Why make people type more than they have to? (Excuse me, I meant "cat" not "type" :-) Well, OK, cat isn't the best example of a mnemonic. :-) ) ) (Note these are parenthetical side notes, not Lisp code. ( Hey, these ARE the jokes folks! ) )

As for liking Python. Thats great. New languages come out of the UNIX/Linux environments all the time. UNIX/Linux even has tools for generating new languages. You are, of course, totally familiar with Lex and yacc. :-) What I especially like about python is how well it integrates with the "standard" UNIX/Linux environment. :-) That liking python might imply anything is wrong with the UNIX/Linux tools is an interesting notion.

The GNOME desktop vulnerability is a clear example of why the UNIX design legacy is a good one, well thought through and still applicable today. That vulnerability exists because the GNOME folks are trying to make LINUX just like Windows and sadly, within the confines of their project, they are suceeding. They are even introducing the typical Windows security issues!. Happily no one has to use GNOME and therefore Linux users can remain free of this Ballmer-esque disease of corruption. (Hey guys - try throwing a chair at your design, maybe that will improve it. ) The Gnome project is an excellent example of people ignoring the UNIX design philosophy and paying the price.

"Those who do not understand UNIX will re-invent it. Poorly." Has never been more true than today.

The quality of the UNIX design philosophy is becoming more and more clear as time goes forward. Even MS is busy today adding more and more UNIX-Like features to their OS. :)

Does this mean that Linux has to stay the same? Absolutely not. New features can and are being added all the time. Lets just make sure those new features are really new, not copies of MS mistakes and that those features actually work the way they need to, including security.

[N.B.]
To those who will inevitably protest that GNU and Linux aren't "UNIX", You are technically correct but only in terms if licensing. And that is true for good reason. It was made deliberately true by the GNU and Linux founders to make sure that GNU and Linux would be FREE of the ATT/Bell licensing encumberances and costs. Unlike all the flavors of UNIX, and there were quite a few, which were all hampered and restricted by the ATT/Bell labs ownership and licensing.

By creating a clean room style clones of UNIX, GNU and Linux gave a version of UNIX to the worlds programmers that they could use in a totally unrestricted fashion. The key point being that the GNU tools and Linux system WERE UNIX CLONES. Thats WHY they are and were so popular. Legally, NOT licensed from ATT/Bell, Functionally and design-wise - as darned near identical as they could be made to be by the best efforts of their creators. (subject to the perfidies of ego, of course. :-) )

The naming of GNU was done to emphasize the free licensed nature of GNU. Otherwise it was a functional clone (plus more) of UNIX tools.

Final postscript: To those who will try to play "geek gotcha" with this comment by finding obscure techno arcana or tortured interpetations of the above statements repurposed to support things other than what was said in the context above, you fail. The above posting is about the philosophical spirit of UNIX which GNU and LINUX completely engender and not about the legal-word-smithing typical of the "We-add-no-value-but-we-have-lawyers" approach typical of some people and companies. By trying the latter approach you actually support the statements made above. The spirit, not the letter rules here.