Cross-platform virus?

Eric Dunbar eric.dunbar at
Wed Apr 19 13:35:44 UTC 2006

On 19/04/06, tomski <ulist at> wrote:
> Hi there,
> i'm just as confused as you if not more ???
> i thought to get infected you would need to install/compile it yourself
> am i wrong????

It's not a virus (not even proof of concept... that's a fiction
created by a Russian anti-virus manufacturer trying to drum up

As for someone else's query about whether or not it's truly
cross-platform because it ran under WINE (I think it was WINE)... it
does run natively under both Windows and GNU/Linux and is able to
modify an executable from the one OS that'll run under the other...


... it can only modify existing executables if the host user has
permission to write to the target executables.

It's basically an old piece of code that is capable of running under
two OSes (that's the cool part) -- its viral properties are a subject
of debate. You've got the anti-virus company on the one side spreading
PR and FUD (this is real FUD) and you've got people who know the
difference between their ass and a hole in the ground saying the

One link recently posted here points to a bug-fix provided by Linus
which updated the Linux kernel to allow the code to run. Because it's
so old it relies on some 'register' behaviours that -- although not
formally supported -- were broken in newer kernels. It only actually
ran on old kernels (until this update -- isn't it nice that Linus is
providing bug fixes for virus writers :-).


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list