Symantec nabs first 64-bit virus

[truthisfreedom]

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/05/27/HNrugrat_1.html

Symantec nabs first 64-bit virus
Intruder rated as low threat


By Paul Roberts, IDG News Service
May 27, 2004 

BOSTON - Symantec Corp. has captured an example of what is believed to be the first virus that targets 64-bit Microsoft Corp. Windows operating systems, the company said.
The company posted a security advisory for W64.Rugrat.3344 on its Web page Thursday. The virus is rated low threat and does not appear to be spreading on the Internet, Symantec said. Instead, Rugrat is believed to be a "proof of concept" virus written by the same author of at least six other virus "firsts," Symantec said.
<snip>

Rugrat does not appear to be designed to spread, but is a "direct-action infector," meaning it stops running immediately after infecting files, Symantec said.

Symantec researchers have linked Rugrat to a family of six viruses called W32.Chiton.gen, which are all believed to be the work of the same author. Each virus in the family demonstrates a different "first ever" infection technique, including W32.Shrug, the first known virus to use the Thread Local Storage structures in Windows NT, 2000 and XP to run virus code, and W32.Chthon, the first virus to run as a native application in Windows NT, 2000 and XP, Symantec said.

[Endangered Specie]

1. lol, its not spreading bc there hardly any place to go...

They are already finding holes in the 64bit windows, sad.

[Walt Starr]

2. Yep, Itanium only ever made market penetration into

the software development industry, and then only to companies gullible enough to gamble on EPIC architecture.

[MurrayDelph]

4. and THEN only

after they swiped a lot from the old DEC Alpha Chips.

MurrayDelph
ex-VMS instructor

[Nihil]

5. (Shhh .. intel are supposed to be the innovators!)

Haven't you been reading your "revised history"? :-)

(ex-VMS & graphics support guy)

[Walt Starr]

11. Yeah, maybe that's why they are dumping the Itanium

in favor of following AMD's lead with an x86 based 64 bit chip.

:silly:

[Voltaire99]

3. Yeah, but who's going to protect you from Symantec?

Two critical vulnerabilities in Norton Antivirus in one month has made it at least as dangerous as any virus.

[realcountrymusic]

7. Hear, hear!

Lousy, lousy products. As likely to mess up your computer, in my experience, as fix it.

Presumably, a virus for a 64-bit )S and architecture won't propagate fast for the same reason a Mac virus wouldn't. Not enough concentration of hosts (yet). The biological analogy to an epidemic is compelling. Windows is a disease. Get your shots.

(Mac/Unix user)

Realcountrymusic

[playahata1]

8. Glad I changed my anti-virus equipment when I did.

Norton, which came with my computer, was looking quite shaky.

[GregW]

9. Really!??!

I use SYMC products exclusively and have never had any problems. Do you have links to the "critical vulnerabilities" you cite above?

[porkrind]

6. Anyone else think Anti-virus companies help write viruses?

Maybe not all, but secretly some? They have so much to gain when a new virus hits the internet and everyone freaks out and buys up anti-virus software.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

---

Read about the Right-Wing "Master Plan": http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html

Have you read "War is a Racket"?: http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[GregW]

10. Nope

Because if they were ever discovered, their credibility would be destroyed and their companies with it. They are definitiely the "white hats".