Filed under: iPod Family, Security
Bogus iPod Virus
So there's this company, Kaspersky, and they say they've discovered the first iPod virus[1]. Oh dear! Everyone panic, alarums and excursions, and all that, right? Not.
This is about Podloso a proof-of-concept virus that infects iPods (rather than using iPods as a distribution mechanism). And it goes like this: First, you have to install Linux on your iPod. Next, you have to install the virus to your Linux-capable iPod. Then you have to launch the virus, because "Podloso cannot be launched automatically without user involvement". Once launched, it infects all executable .elf files with a lame message.
So here's TUAW take on the matter: if you own an iPod and you run Linux on it? Don't install the virus, 'kay?
[Via TechDirt]
[1]They're not counting the Windows virus that accidently hitched a ride on some otherwise innocent 5.5G iPods.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Biffo said 10:00AM on 4-06-2007
"So here's TUAW take on the matter: if you own an iPod and you run Linux on it? Don't install the virus, 'kay?"
Not sure whether its a lack of ability to write English, or just a lack of care that's the problem, but could you, or preferably someone else, proof-read your posts before they go on the site.
You might not give a sh!t about quality, but don't assume all your readers feel the same.
Reply
Eric said 10:13AM on 4-06-2007
So to prevent this virus from infecting my iPod, I need to not install Linux (I think I can handle it), not install the virus, and then not tell the virus to start working?
It'll be hard, but I'll try.
Or I'll try to try.
Reply
Jose said 10:22AM on 4-06-2007
That's like saying they have found the first real Mac virus. But for it to work you first need to install Windows on your Mac, get it running and download some crap from the internet and get infected. LOL.
Reply
Jens said 10:23AM on 4-06-2007
This "proof of concept" says as much as:
If you delete a file on your computer, it really gets deleted! So be careful...
I think it is necessary to take an eye on all security matters. But the way these "proof of concepts" are publicated is kind of ridiculous.
Reply
Joe said 10:27AM on 4-06-2007
I don't understand what actually makes this thing a virus. If I were to look at what the application does and then try to classify it, I would probably call it a file utility, since it simply scans the machine for a particular type of file, and then modifies those files.
@Biffo - I have no clue who you are trying to impress, but I think you should get back to work.
Reply
Ryan said 10:30AM on 4-06-2007
It's called sarcasm and making the article funny Biffo. Quit being a hardass.
Reply
Biffo said 10:46AM on 4-06-2007
Ryan, I'm talking about the incorrect grammar, not the content. The fact you don't know the difference is not my problem.
Reply
Biffo said 10:46AM on 4-06-2007
No Ryan, its called incorrect grammar, nothing to do with the style or the content. Have another go when you can tell the difference.
Reply
Simon Arch said 10:46AM on 4-06-2007
Some folks (like the snotty 'biffo') only feel good when they're tearing others down. It's difficult to take someone named after a clown seriously though.
Remember, kids: if your comment doesn't contribute to the conversation in some constructive way, don't post it. And if all you're doing is posting to bitch? Let's see YOU do better on your OWN Apple weblog.
Reply
Biffo said 10:54AM on 4-06-2007
Simon, the point is that TUAW has some excellent bloggers and some excellently written articles, and I and many others give credit where its due. Likewise, when that standard is dragged down, as in this instance, I and anyone else have a right to voice our opinion about that.
And assuming you have the right to tell other people where and when to comment? Well, I'm afraid that's just snotty.
Reply
Mike said 11:00AM on 4-06-2007
Not to get off-topic, but I agree with Biffo on this. At least learn -- and adhere to -- the basic rules of English grammar. Believe it or not, following proper grammar does in fact make things easier to read.
Reply
tundraboy said 11:02AM on 4-06-2007
Biffo. You just made an ass of yourself.
Your first post complaing about grammar lacks a question mark. It goes at the end of the second paragraph.
So much for your high grammatical standards. You're such an idiot.
Reply
Nick said 11:02AM on 4-06-2007
I think what makes it a "virus" is that is, at least to some degree, self-replicating. Hence:
"Once launched, it infects all executable .elf files ..."
In other words, it spreads through all these executables, like a biological virus spreading through tissue. How far it goes is, presumably, only dependant on how many .elf files there are there in a particular installation.
But I could be wrong. I'm certainly not an expert on malware.
But I agree there's something a little "bogus" about this - at any rate, there is if it's being described as an iPod virus, since it won't run on a factory-installed iPod. And I think I can forgive Erica for forgetting where she was in her sentence, missing a possessive, and so on.She was obviously distracted while typing the final words. It happens to us all.
"So here's TUAW['s] take on the matter: if you own an iPod and you run Linux on it[,] [d]on't install the virus ..."
That's sound advice. :-)
Reply
superadam said 11:05AM on 4-06-2007
I, for one, don't come here expecting rigid and stuffy academic essays. It's ok if the tone is conversational. It's not like this is parliament or something.
If these guys are so concerned with the "poor grammatical adherence" of TUAW, then I hope they don't ever stumble upon Myspace!
Reply
Joe said 12:03PM on 4-06-2007
"In other words, it spreads through all these executables, like a biological virus spreading through tissue. How far it goes is, presumably, only dependant on how many .elf files there are there in a particular installation."
My understanding was that a virus infects the other files with a copy of itself, and possibly some other malicious code. The description sounds to me as if it patches every .elf it finds with a message, but not with a copy of the virus, meaning it wouldn't spread further.
If my definition is correct, then in order to be classified as a virus then it would have to be attached to another file that is executable, and then infect other files with a copy of itself in the same manner. I would think that Podloso could have been designed in this way and attack .elf's that the current user is allowed to modify, but it wasn't for some reason.
Whatever it is, it's lame. Besides, viruses are classified by the OS they run on, not the hardware. You don't hear about Dell Dimension viruses or x86 viruses, you hear about Windows viruses and unix viruses.
Reply
GadgetGav said 1:22PM on 4-06-2007
Well said tundraboy..! :)
Reply
Biffo said 2:31PM on 4-06-2007
Nice try tundraboy, but that sentence is imperative not interrogative as you wrongly assume. So while I'm not childish enough to call someone I've never met an "ass", I have to say you appear to be moving in that direction.
Your attempt at being smart would still have been irrelevant, even if my comment were full of grammatical errors, as I am not being paid to write for TUAW, nor do I make any contribution to the quality of the articles on the site.
Which, had you not been so distracted by your desperate need to appear clever, you would have realised was the whole point of this.
Looking at the bigger picture however, its interesting to see how a comment about incorrect grammar riles so many readers. I wonder if people like tundraboy ever stop to wonder why. (Hmmm, maybe there should be a question mark at the end of that last sentence - maybe tundraboy could enlighten us...)
Reply
Shunnabunich said 2:36PM on 4-06-2007
As condescending as Biffo is being, I absolutely agree with his point: the quality of writing on not only this blog, but many others (i.e. Engadget, DownloadSquad, etc.) is just not quite up to par. It's really not that hard to either double-check your own work to weed out mistakes, or get someone else to do the same for you.
As for superadam's post: at no point has anyone here suggested that TUAW's writers change their tone, only the *quality* of the English in their posts. If correct punctuation, capitalization and so on are all it takes to make an academic essay, I quake in my boots for the future of our respective education systems. English text can be written in a conversational tone without having grammatical mistakes; I hate to break it to you, but your own post (assuming "ok" is allowable in lowercase) is alarmingly lacking in errors, but is still written conversationally! :)
In other news, this is absolutely not a virus. It simply doesn't count. It takes more than malicious intent to make a virus for any platform; that's why adware, spyware and the like aren't called viruses, but rather lumped under the broader term of malware. Podloso is malware, but is absolutely not a virus.
Reply
Word Diggity said 2:54PM on 4-06-2007
I know I shouldn't reply to a troll, but...well, I'm feeling rather saucy today:
"And assuming you have the right to tell other people where and when to comment? Well, I'm afraid that's just snotty."
I'm pretty sure Simon wasn't trying to tell people what they can and cannot do, but instead to provide a helpful guideline for commenting. It makes sense to ME, at any rate.
Your initial comment was rude and pointless, biffo. When I see a grammatical error in an article, I either ignore it (99% of the time-I've got better things to do with my day), or I post a comment without verifying it. The comment will go to the poster, but since it wasn't verified it won't show up here. Either way, you come out ahead because you won't get flamed left, right and centre.
Reply
Bubba said 7:48PM on 4-06-2007
Biffo,
Given the choice of being polite or grammatically correct, I would choose to be polite every single time. However, why not be both whenever possible? You could have made your very valid point without the profanity. But, that's just my opinion. I think the world needs a bit of class more than it needs grammatical correctness.
Also, could you please refer to the following link regarding usage of basic modals?
http://www.eslgold.com/grammar/basic_modals.html
Have a nice day! Bubba
Reply