Getting viruses from friends

And washing your hands won't help:

...Facebook has seen five different security threats in the past week. According to Trend Micro, four new hoax applications are attempting to trick members into divulging their usernames and passwords. And a new variant of the Koobface worm is running wild on the site, installing malware on the computers of victims who click on a link to a fake YouTube video.

The Koobface worm is dangerous. It can be dropped by other malware and downloaded unknowingly by a user when visiting malicious Web sites, Trend Micro reports. When attackers execute the malware, it searches for cookies created by online social networks. The latest variant is targeting Facebook, but earlier variants have also plagued MySpace.

Koobface's Wicked Agenda

Once Koobface finds the social-networking cookies, it makes a DNS query to check IP addresses that correspond to remote domains. Trend Micro explains that those servers can send and receive information about the affected machine. Once connected, the malicious user can remotely perform commands on the victim's machine.

"Once cookies related to the monitored social-networking Web sites are located, it connects to these Web sites using the user log-in session stored in the cookies. It then navigates through pages to search for the user's friends. If a friend has been located, it sends an HTTP POST request to the server," Trend Micro reports.

Ultimately, the worm's agenda is to transform the victim's computer into a zombie and form botnets for malicious purposes. Koobface attempts to do this by composing a message and sending it to the user's friends. The message contains a link to a Web site where a copy of the worm can be downloaded by unsuspecting friends. And the cycle repeats itself.

Ways to protect yourself?

Argast called the Koobface worm a mix of something old and something new. The new is using social networks as a method to spread malware. The old is using fake codec Trojans linked to a saucy video to induce the user to install the malware.

Argast said people can protect themselves by running up-to-date antivirus software, restricting which Facebook applications they install, thinking twice before clicking on links from friends and never, never installing a codec from some random Web site in the hopes of catching some celebrity in a compromised situation.

Basically wear protection at all times....

Being a teenager not covered by Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield

And everything you say or do will be held against you. Via Ripley of Zen Cabin, The Consumerist:

How's this for twisted: An insurance company, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, have demanded that the parents of minor children who suffer from anorexia turn over their children's writings on MySpace and Facebook, as well as any emails where they discuss their problems.

The insurer says that eating problems are not "biologically based" and are therefore not covered.

Lovely. Way to show you want to heal people rather than screw them for their money and not help them when in need, besides invading their privacy and doing more untold damage to the teenager in question.

Tell me again, why we are paying insurance premiums?

I'm going to predict the future....

We will be doing splendidly in Iraq in just a few .... (/yanks out a few more Cat5 cables) .... more minutes....



Jeraylyn Merritt of Firedoglake:

Iraq’s interior ministry has decided to bar news photographers and camera operators from the scenes of bomb attacks, operations director Brigadier General Abdel Karim Khalaf said on Sunday (local time).

His announcement was the latest in a series of attempts to curtail press coverage of the ongoing conflict, which has already attracted criticism from international human rights bodies.

That got me thinking, how real is the War in Iraq to Americans who don’t have a loved one fighting in the conflict? Where has the news coverage been of the gory daily details?

For those of you old enough to remember the media coverage of the Vietnam War, you’ll remember how vividly it was brought to us every evening on our television screens by the nightly news programs.

Without the internet or e-mail, a massive anti-war movement grew. I don’t think anyone doubts that it contributed to the war’s end.

By contrast, we hardly ever see the damage inflicted in Iraq up close and personal on television news. The war has become something we hear about in headlines, like “5 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iraq” and “37 Civilians Killed by Roadside Bomb,” but we don’t actually see it.

Maybe we should. Maybe the visceral effect of watching people die and be maimed, which is a daily occurrence in Iraq, would spark greater outrage here at home and force Congress to act to end this war once and for all.

So, what do you think? Is the media doing its part to expose the atrocities in Iraq? Has self-restraint dictated media coverage to date or is the Administration controlling what the media shows?

This new embargo on showing bombings in Iraq is very troubling. I think Americans need to see the blood and gore to absorb the reality of war and the lives lost.

And Bryan of Why Now?:

[05/11/07] Laura Smith-Spark, BBC News, Washington: US military takes Iraq war to YouTube

The US military has taken the war in Iraq into cyberspace, with the launch of its own channel on the video-sharing website YouTube.

[05/14/07] Rob Watson, BBC defence and security correspondent: US blocks soldiers from websites

The US military is to block troops from using YouTube and MySpace and 11 other popular websites for sharing photos, video clips and messages.

[05/02/07] Army Regulation 530–1: Operations Security (OPSEC) - commanders must approve blog posts and e-mails.

So, who wants to bet that Commander Guy, the Big Manly Surge, and his Plan to Win will suddenly be doing super-de-duper well?

Update 5/15: Think Progress:

As of yesterday, U.S. soldiers are blocked from accessing YouTube, MySpace, and 11 other websites on official Defense Department computers nationwide, “severing some of the most popular ties linking U.S. troops in combat areas to their far-flung relatives and friends, and depriving soldiers of a favorite diversion from the boredom of overseas duty.”

The military has justified the new policy by stating it will “increase network security and protect the use of the bandwidth.” But soldiers are already barred from posting classified material and scholars point out that “the Pentagon could have rationed Web access rather than cut it off entirely.” While troops will still be allowed to visit the sites from non-military computers, “few soldiers in combat areas carry private computers.”