YouTube fake tool dumbs down malware distribution
Nothing on the internet is real, man
Miscreants have created a tool that dumbs down the process of using fake YouTube websites to spread malware.
The YFakeCreator tool allows budding VXers to set up a fake site and configure options such as the properties of a supposed video. Typically users are required to download a fake codec to view content, which is not actually on offer. The codec contains the malware payload which can be anything from adware to a Trojan.
The tool also includes the ability to set-up a fake error message in a bid to disguise any attack.
Would-be virus writers would still need to mount a spam campaign in order to dupe prospective marks into visiting sites created by YFakeCreator, but the tool does reduce the overall work needed to mount an attack.
The tool was spotted by net security firm Panda Security which has published a full write-up, including screenshots of the tool, here. Panda discovered the tool on underground hacking forums.
YFakeCreator is far from an isolated example of tools that remove the need to understand coding from the task of malware distribution. For example, Panda found a tool that can turn any executable file into a worm on underground forums back in June. ®
Wow, isn't Panda on the ball
>>Panda found a tool that can turn any executable file into a worm on underground forums back in June.
Well, I found similar technology, hilariously titled "Back Orifice", back in the 20th century. My version seems to be dated 1996 and it allowed you to easily trojanize the file of your choice. But I haven't used it, I promise. What do I win?
So what's vulnerable here? Opera? FF? Chrome? Lynx? MacOS 6.x? Linuxi? *BSD? VMS? Flash? JS? Cobol? Either or, triple plus more, none of the above, or ain't-telling? Does IT impact that trans^2-Web42.0 experience that aMfM keeps alluding to?
Or is it simply (yawn) the usual suspects, IE + MS32/64? Really, more clarity is called for in the article if only for honesty. El Reg: if you truly bite the hand that feeds IT, do make sure the marks land accurately if not decisively, yeah?
(Otherwise, the Phreak-y may have been spun up prematurely. Or not at all. Either way, your readership would lose out on yet another grand learning opportunity.)
Oh now what??! Red flag?? For violating Reg Rules 3 and 8?! Cos the Moderatrix said so? Well alright then. (shuffle)
Here's another example.
WARNING: LINK TO MALWARE
WARNING: LINK TO MALWARE