153 LINUX SERVERS INFECTED WITH RANSOMWARE

>Trend Micro recently discovered malware that has the potential to infect Linux-based servers. The malware, called Erebus, has been responsible for hijacking 153 Linux-based networks of a South Korean web-hosting company called NAYANA.

>As such, around 3,400 of NAYANA’s clients were affected due to the attack with databases, websites and other files being encrypted.

>According to Trend Micro’s report, Erebus was originally found back in September 2016.

>Erebus is not the first ransomware to have affected networks running on Linux. In fact, Trend Micro claims that such ransomware was discovered as far back as in 2014.

>Some of the ransomware include Linux.Encoder, Encrypter RaaS, KillDisk, KimcilWare and much more. All of these were allegedly developed from an open-source code project that was available as part of an educational campaign.

hackread.com/erebus-ransomware-targets-linux-servers/


>There is a common belief that Linux servers are more secure and less vulnerable than Windows servers.

>There was a time not too long ago when Linux was a ‘geek’ OS, the domain of command line management and limited enterprise use. Those days are definitely gone. With such widespread use for sensitive enterprise applications, it’s no small wonder that there is an increasing focus on attacking Linux servers, as evidenced in the recent ransomware attack in South Korea that used a Linux-focused ransomware attack called Erebus that impacted the web sites, databases, and multi-media files of 3,400 businesses.

blog.trendmicro.com/linux-is-secureright/


IT'S OGRE!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>All of these were allegedly developed from an open-source code project that was available as part of an educational campaign.
Open Source was a mistake.

kys clueless pajeet

>run 10 YEAR OLD version of linux
>OMG WHY WE GOT HACKED???!
Those exploits were all patched many fucking years ago.
The difference on windows is you don't get the patch unless you pay for the current version of the OS.

Yeah if you ignore the fact that they patched ms17-010 on Windows XP
That doesn't count though, right?

i-is the penguin alright?

>IT'S OGRE!
153 Linux machines infected, compared to the 300,000+ infected by WannaCry? Wow, it's fucking nothing.

What happened to that penguin?

Antivirus companies have always been in the business of scare tactics.
Since only windows systems require antivirus, they could never get linux customers, but now they're doubling down on the "LINUX IS INSECURE" meme so they can start selling antivirus suites.
It's the 1990s all over again.

BUT LINUX DOESN'T GET VIRUSES WAAAAAH

nerve gas

This
It also applies to the sudden surge of ransomware attacks
People had stopped using traditional anti virus and used the latest suite of Common Sense™

Percentage wise it's about the same.

> Linux-Kernel 2.6.24.2
> 2017

>run latest version
>be crippled with instability issues

>run stable version
>catch malware and get hacked

Linux is such a great deal!

>AAAAA WANNACRY FUCK WINDOWS LEL
>yes but you see in this situation linux shouldn't get any of the blame because they are old versions and ignore any updates/patches windows has made even on old systems they were just doing it to save face
:thinks:

There aren't as many Linux machines out there to infect as there are Windows ones.

You get what you pay for.

Isn't capitalism just great?

Not a problem with Linux itself. Those stupid fucks were using the 2.6.24 kernel and a 10 year old version of apache. If you don't patch your fucking servers, you deserve it.

This guy gets it.

my man, there might be some middle ground between muh bleeding edge archlinux and a Kernel released in 2008

So why do you think scare tactics are so common on Sup Forums, riddle me that. In addition, why do you think people only call out 'scare tactics' in threads about linux but not any concerning windows or any other OS?
I wonder...

Because windows really does require an antivirus.
It's fundamentally broken on an architectual level.
For a long fucking time, GUI code ran INSIDE THE KERNEL, there was zero separation of concerns.

I want Sup Forums to leave

>Because windows really does require an antivirus.
Which is literally has baked in since ~8. But yeah let's keep pretending it's still 2004

Ransomware isn't a "virus" per se. All it needs is arbitrary code execution privileges, which can be attained on any system which is in contact with humans.

Not in terms of servers it isn't.

Microsoft didn't make patches readily available for old systems until AFTER Wannacry was in the news. And Linux updates don't require a drastic change to the UI just to get the latest security and stability updates.

>the last stable kernel came out in 2004

>use 13 year old kernel
>get rekt
>waaaa linus sucks

>open-source code project
>part of an educational campaign
confirmed for nobody reads the source
open source the new threat

It's a known fact that Microsoft is at worst after your personal information, and at best is indifferent to the desires of its users. There's no reason to think that Windows is on the side of the user.

you wouldn't be posting here without capitalism you fucking cuckold

Improvements to open-source code only benefit you if you use builds made AFTER the source was improved. This is a vulnerability in kernel 2.6. It's no more of a surprise than if somebody finds a major vulnerability in Windows Vista this year.

>fucking cuckold

nice try deflecting away from your ignorance

>use builds made AFTER the source was improved
windows forced updates and telemetry confirmed for masterrace, not botnet

>There is a common belief that Linux servers are more secure and less vulnerable than Windows servers.
But now, agter having THAT much of affected systems (about 150 worldwide), this myth is totally busted.

You wouldn't be posting here without socialism, you fucking corporate shill.

If it wasn't for organized labor and unions, you'd still be at the sweatshop floor working for the 14th hour straight, alongside your wife and kids, just to earn a famine wage.

Read a history book anytime so you may start composing posts based on facts instead of ideology, you useful idiot.

>worldwide
That's Worst Korea only, lad.

>Linux users can't read
I'm shocked.

It's not like there's a lot of Linux systems running worldwide to begin with.

>use recent kernel
>too unstable for mission critical

Wow, it's almost as if Linux was just a niche OS made by amateur students. Who would've thought?

that's not because of socialism, that's just putting regulations on capitalism.

fucking lol, you don't even know what socialism is

Socialist parties pushed for it you fucking moron.

Said the moron who attributes technological progress to capitalism.

Yea, these regulations are due to socialism.

Before that, employers might very well call on the army and police to *make* you work, no matter what grievance you might have had, and be it that people are dieing every day in terrible working conditions.

>attributes technological progress to capitalism.
yes, because without incentive there is less motivation for progress. i'm sorry you're having trouble understanding basic concepts user

Your "basic reasoning" is simply anti-empirical, and it's easy to show:

1- There has always been technological progress, even before capitalism.

2- Most contemporary technological progress isn't done in corporate environments, but academic ones.

Fuck off already, Sup Forums is a socialist board.

Are you unironically defending software patents?

ON FUCKING Sup Forums?!??

>he does it for free

Socialism isn't against incentives.

Not even the more extreme communism is (though the incentive there is usually the stick).

Typical social democrats are for a capitalist system but with heavy limitations. Can't work people to death, can't make slavery-like contracts, ridiculously unfair distribution of the spoils of work are supposed to be impossible, and employees generally do have some say - not just employers.

Even then, both employees and employers have obligations.

>defend incentives
>defend a system where the people who do all the productive work barely receive any incentive and where the lazy scum who just exploit the surplus value receive all of it
Contradictory, to say the least.

guys this is not Sup Forums :(
we're here to discuss technology not political systems

is he okay?

No one here's discussing politics, user.
We're discussing economics.

I am currently updating my stable Gentoo, which includes a kernel update to stable 4.11.6. I currently use stable 4.11.1, which I updated to not too long ago. As you can conclude by this, the latest stable kernel is very recent and will most likely not be affected by such malware. Stable does not mean Debian-level time travelling.

>Fuck off already, Sup Forums is a socialist board.
still struggling i see. basic tenant of Sup Forums is that it is not made up of one person, ideology, or way of thinking
>Socialism isn't against incentives.
it inherently is. you can argue it's not the intention to do so all you want but that is the end result. collectivism and egalitarianism goes against the human nature which is selfishness and greed
corporatism is not capitalism

The people that fought for your rights and kept us from being serfs were Marxists and hardcore leftists. They were also the ones stopping sjws from spreading their cancer to the rest of society.

did he died?

>tenant

Debian stable comes with 4.9.30

nice catch

>there was technological progress before people privately owned property

No, there wasn't.

thx correcting simple mistakes is a tenet of mine

>corporatism is not capitalism
Sure it is. All capitalism leads to "corporatism" in the end because of the way free markets function.

no, capitalism leads to corporatism because of the lack of a free market

o no
rip my servers

and it will keep on doing so for the next two years

It just shows we have even better reasons to do good backups now.

> "Lel, if our (so specially skilled) leaders don't get ALL the money and power, who will even bother to lead us?"
> "Lel, if you don't allow extreme inequality at over 9000%, soon nobody with bother to do a good job."
There is nothing inherent in this. Just the same old myths that herald from slavery and aristocracy.

I never even made those arguments, you're strawmanning

If you use a respectable distro then security patches are generally backported to the stable branches.

BSD is the new Linux

You said there is something inherent against incentives in socialism.

I assume by vehemently calling this a "strawman", you agree that there is nothing "inherently against incentives" when you DO share a certain degree of the decision making power & restrict how bad working conditions or how low or uneven salaries can be?

We basically covered most of the typical social democrat positions, though. It's always somewhat about sharing of power, wealth, and having responsibility for each other rather than it all going almost entirely in just one direction.

What ignorance? Go back to your containment board.

No, it's still botnet because it's actually illegal to know precisely what the updates do. Linux doesn't have that problem. And besides, adding telemetry doesn't count as an "improvement".

Economics is closer to politics than technology.

Capitalism is literally only a few hundred centuries old. Before that there was mercantilism, and before that there was feudalism. And you'd have to be crazy to insist technology only began around 1700. Are guns, swords, bridges, ships, and books not technology? Because they all had their beginnings before capitalism.

>Kernel version 2.6.x

NEWSLFASH, COMPANY RUNNING WINDOWS XP IN 2017 LOSES BILLIONS BECAUSE MALWARE.

it's a strawman because those are not my arguments, I never even brought them up. My arguments are that egalitarianism and collectivism are against human nature and therefore socialism, which is founded around these principles, is also against human nature.

You bring up decision making power but I don't think people should be able to make decisions or policy, or vote on them. I don't think you should be able to restrict the market or regulate it, and I don't think you should be able to decide what is low or uneven. By trying to enforce an artificial limitation on the free market you are either 1) doing it for the collective good, aka collectivist, and/or 2) you are doing it for the sake of equality, which is what I meant by egalitarianism

This is just false.

Android + server space overcomes the Desktop numbers easily.

Sup Forumseddit sure is leaking

>literally don't patch for 12 years
>get hacked

1. Yes, but capitalism undeniably accelerated this technical progress.

2. [citation needed]

You don't own the output of someone else's labor because "muh feelings." Socialism is slavery.

>socialism is slavery! said the slave with stockholm syndrome

why do you think capitalism is slavery?

Taking from someone is theft, forcing them to work is slavery.

Did user sleep through the 4th grade again?

>dey takin muh monies! said the wigger frying burgers for 8 McDollars an hour

So you can steal from someone because they don't have a lot, or...?

This is a new low, even for a socialist.

>oh i know i'll tell him dey stealing from me fo being ratpoor instead of admitting it's dem big capitials1!!! fuk u commie
how much do you weigh son? stop eating those cheeseburgers you're gonna have a heart attack

Are you suggesting something like a latest stable release even exists?

So you're resorting to an absurd mode of argumentation where you just broadly redefine socialism away from the actually commonly held positions / demands.
And you even propose some unproven but universal truth about human nature that somehow must clearly contradict all of socialism because I don't think you should be able to restrict the market or regulate it
I guess I should own all land you could possibly stand on and all food and water you could eat. Maybe add in a patent on your DNA.

Just to really drive it home how much I can coerce you.

> 1) doing it for the collective good, aka collectivist, and/or 2) you are doing it for the sake of equality
No, it's for the individual good to have a share in power and wealth on your own.

>instability issues
I know you're baiting, but still

>user goes to get a job
>willingly signs an employment contract
>freely sets the price of his labor
>claims he was robbed
>GIBS ME DAT!

If capitalism benefits you, then you are a retard if you oppose it. If capitalism hurts you, then you a retard that can't contribute anything of value to society. user, I'm afraid you might be retarded.

Actually worker benefits such as paid leave, medical coverage, educational leave, vacations, limited working hours, etc. were first put into place at Carl Zeiss long before labor unionism existed.

It was determined that a more stable, happy, and highly-skilled base of employees led to a more profitable company.

Labor unionists, socialists, and commies all like to take credit for something which was produced by capitalism yet again.

>the price of his labor already set on print on the contract before being signed is freedom
pajeets taking your job via unlawful competition and corporatelobbying is also freedom i bet lel

>all capitalism must bre completely regulation free or it's socialism!
this is how retarded you sound

>only sane proportions in sharing products of work
it can be little or a lot of it, it doesn't matter. the issue is that corruptibility is a feature of people and government, and when you have a central government it allows for it to be corrupted. You can't have a "sane" amount of socialism, because it will inevitably corrupt. the solution is like bitcoin: to decentralize it and take out the human element.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

but that's what you're saying mong
you can't even keep track of your own bullshit lel

You're free not to sign the contract.

>pajeets taking your job via unlawful competition
I try to get ahead by being better than the competition, that way I improve myself and my workplace. The socialist appears to prefer to name-call in times of hardship, rather than put in extra work to make themselves a better individual.

> Carl Zeiss: 1846
> Trade / Labour unions: pre 1800
> Limited working hours, work safety, holidays etc: Often practiced *somewhere* or in whole nations even in antiquity
> Anchoring these things into most nation's modern laws: Socialist achievement.

>he thinks he can outcompete corporate lobbying and ten times cheaper wages by "improving himself"
>he's a corporate cuck who doesn't even defend his own rights

>project chanology was 8 years ago

I use this as a sanity test. "If I was running the oldest supported Ubuntu LTS would I have been hit".

14.04.5. Even without HWE that would put it at Kernel 3.13. So the issue is nothing.

Most likely a bird of prey tried to kill it but didn't manage to.

Looks like mostly a flesh wound, so if it doesn't get infected I think it could live.

>ten times cheaper wages
This would be impossible.

Stop projecting your insecurities, user. Just because your career is apparently valueless does not mean the rest of us are in that situation.

You should try to perfect your skills until you are in a similar situation, rather than try to drag everyone down to your level of worthlessness. People will like you more, you'll get paid more, you'll be happier, and you'll actually succeed in making the world a better place.