PDA

View Full Version : Hackers are using Wikipedia to spread malware!


Kiran_tech_mania
04-11-2006, 09:30 AM
Source: vnunet.com (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2167949/hackers-wikipedia-dupe-users)

Hackers are using online encyclopaedia Wikipedia to spread malware, according to a security firm.

Sophos discovered that hackers had created an article on the German edition of Wikipedia containing false information about a new version of the Blaster worm, along with a link to a fix.

However, the fix is actually a piece of malicious code designed to infect visitors' PCs.

Wikipedia is built from user contributions, allowing anyone to create or edit the content of a page.

The hackers sent spam messages to German computer users, which purported to come from Wikipedia, and directed recipients to the fraudulent information.

As the emails linked to a legitimate website, they were able to bypass some anti-spam solutions.

"The good news is that the authorities at Wikipedia quickly identified and edited the article on their site," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos.

"Unfortunately, a version of the page remained in the archive, allowing the hackers to send spam and continue to direct visitors to the malicious code."

Wikipedia has now confirmed that it has permanently erased all versions of the page.

"The very openness of websites like Wikipedia, which allow anyone to edit pages, makes them terrific, but can also make them less trustworthy, " Cluley added.

"In this case, the article in question was not just misleading, it was downright malicious.

"Everyone should exercise caution and ensure they have appropriate defences in place to protect their computer systems.

"Additionally, people should remember that if there really is a new threat on the internet, you're likely to hear about it first from the security companies, not an online encyclopaedia."

So friends, make sure you have a good 'On-access' Anti-spyware in your system before browsing such sites. Wikipedia is a good site. It's a pitty that Hackers have not even spared this one. I never understand the intention of these Hackers. They tamper such informative sites which are are so loyal that even a visitor can edit the contents. Due to this new threat on Wikipedia, we could soon see that a visitor cannot simply edit the content without autentication.

hemant_mathur
04-11-2006, 09:50 AM
Thanx for sharing this info

thewisecrab
04-11-2006, 10:40 AM
Thanx 4 sharing..........pity that the hackers havent spared this site 2........

Third Eye
04-11-2006, 10:57 AM
Thanks for telling us,i use wikipedia mostly to get some info.

Kiran_tech_mania
04-11-2006, 12:35 PM
thinkdigit.com will always be intact though many attempts were made. I dont know about hackers attacks, but sure about SPAM advertising! Some think this is a portal for free advertising of their shop products!! :D

anandk
04-11-2006, 12:35 PM
nice pc of info. thanx.

mehulved
04-11-2006, 02:31 PM
Ugh what kind of journalism is this man?The url of wikipedia is mentioned as www.wikipedia.com instead of .org. Yeah both point to wikipedia but latter is the actual url. To me this shows how half baked their research is.
Then they report that they got information from Sophos, but nowhere have they given a link pointing to the fact. Though thankfully it's on the first page right now as the news is still hot . This is the direct link http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/11/wikipedia-malware.html.
In this case it is true but I'd be a bit aware before believing this kind of articles.

Kiran_tech_mania
04-11-2006, 05:27 PM
Ugh what kind of journalism is this man?The url of wikipedia is mentioned as www.wikipedia.com instead of .org. Yeah both point to wikipedia but latter is the actual url. To me this shows how half baked their research is.
Then they report that they got information from Sophos, but nowhere have they given a link pointing to the fact. Though thankfully it's on the first page right now as the news is still hot . This is the direct link http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/11/wikipedia-malware.html.
In this case it is true but I'd be a bit aware before believing this kind of articles.

Wikipedia.org was wikipedia.com earlier. In August 2002 it was given new domain as Wikipedia.org. So now even if you type www.wikipedia.com the browser directs you to www.wikipedia.org. Don't blame game on journalism without proper research.

sourav
04-11-2006, 10:53 PM
thanks for telling us

mehulved
05-11-2006, 03:34 AM
Wikipedia.org was wikipedia.com earlier. In August 2002 it was given new domain as Wikipedia.org. So now even if you type www.wikipedia.com (http://www.wikipedia.com) the browser directs you to www.wikipedia.org (http://www.wikipedia.org). Don't blame game on journalism without proper research.I already checked that fact, And we are in 2002 now. So, I guess 4 years is enough time for a person to know about the change in url. Or you think 4 years is too short a period?

–•(–•Raghav™•–)•–
05-11-2006, 09:15 AM
I already checked that fact, And we are in 2002 now. So, I guess 4 years is enough time for a person to know about the change in url. Or you think 4 years is too short a period?

:D Guess we have a fight here....

Mr.Cool
05-11-2006, 01:23 PM
Whats the big deal about .org and .com ? both TLDs point to the same thing ! It aint something to go arguin about :|

Kiran_tech_mania
05-11-2006, 05:59 PM
I already checked that fact, And we are in 2002 now. So, I guess 4 years is enough time for a person to know about the change in url. Or you think 4 years is too short a period?

Already checked the fact?! And still managed to say...
The url of wikipedia is mentioned as www.wikipedia.com instead of .org. Yeah both point to wikipedia but latter is the actual url. !!!

and went on to criticise 'Journalism'!!

What kind of fact did you know? If u knew it earlier, you should have never quoted that statement. Now what's the big deal even if it was mentioned as Wikipedia.com that too in hyperlink text. There is no other fake wikipedia to which Sophos are pointing out. Your quote would have been justified if it links to another site wikipedia.com. Both Url's direct you to same site.
And I think 4 years is not enough for some persons to know change of url's becoz right now I see a person who was not knowing this fact!