Categories: Report an Issue :

serious virus from Google Chrome

Showing 1-6 of 6 messages
serious virus from Google Chrome mintrose 5/13/10 11:37 AM
i just felt i should share this... about a month ago, i clicked on the Google Chrome link to install it as a search engine... i had AVG anti virus plus microsoft firewall... i thought my computer was highly protected... i am a university student and i have all my school files in my computer... plus lots of other important things...
 
as soon as i clicked on Google Chrome it asked me to restart my computer... and it restarted with a blank screen and the usual curser blinking at the top left corner of the blank screen. i tried everything...
 
i had to bring it into the shop and they were able to pull my school files (extremely important - i don't know what i would have done if i lost these...) but everything else was lost... they actually had to put in a new hard drive because whatever came with the Google Chrome completely destroyed my hard drive... it was unpenetrable and completely trashed...
 
i know Google has had some issues with viruses from China... i never encounted anything like this before... i have had serious virus issues in the past... but i was able to retrieve some important files and reload the Microsoft program... they never trashed my hard drive...
 
i have a strong anti-virus (AVG) and this was not able to prevent this... i still have the AVG but i am wary of any new links and i quickly delete the Google Chrome ad when i see it...
 
... i have kept a receipt of the cost of the work done and what was done ... my computer tech can also verify this...
 
just to let folks know... and to let Google know, too...
Re: serious virus from Google Chrome StevePaul 5/13/10 6:16 PM
Sorry to hear of your problems but I don't think it was Google Chrome ...

First and foremost Chrome is a browser not a search engine ...

As for your AV, AVG isn't exactly the best going (imo) ...

Would you happen to still have the link you followed so that other people can check it out ....

It would seem to me that the link you followed was masquerading as a Chrome download, when in fact you downloaded what sounds like a particularly nasty infection ...
Re: serious virus from Google Chrome mintrose 5/15/10 11:08 PM
the link i followed was the Google Chrome advertisement on my Google search home page.. that was the last thing before my download and the restart...  
 
when i was downloading it my SmartScreen Filter (from Internet Explorer) checked it as safe... i think it was a virus that attached itself to Google Chrome...  but how could it have done that undetected?

also, thanks for the info on AVG... i heard it was good... now i'm not so sure...
Re: serious virus from Google Chrome zerothis23 7/24/10 10:22 AM
AVG will protect you from 20 year old viruses without fail. There is no good virus protection if you use Windows. Its designed in such a way that it will always be the ideal virus target. Mac is different, but still venerable. It is 'protected' only by the fact that there are so few of them in use. Less incentive to attack such a small segment of PCs.
For the easiest and best protection against viruses, use Linux. There's an estimated 63 million Linux users currently, and 89.20% of servers use Linux, so there's incentive for viruses. But Linux is engineered from a very basic level in such a way that viruses just don't work install, run, or if they do, can't not do much on the platform. Viruses never have access to the whole system. They can't run undetected. Can't be installed undetected. Are unlikely to run if installed because there are so many combinations of kernels and distros (the virus basically must request that the user themselves customize the virus to match their operating system.) Security flaws and loopholes are repaired as soon as they are found (no one has to consult the marketing team to strike a balance between fixing flaws and admitting to customers the flaws exist. there is no financial incentive in hiding flaws). Microsoft makes no secret that they hide flaws <http://www.zdnet.com.au/bug-secrecy-vs-full-disclosure-120261849.htm>. In fact, that article points out that Microsoft knows their flaws in their products before they even publish them. They are selling you a condom with holes in it and telling planned parenthood "shhhh, don't say anything until we've had a few thousands pregnancies." Freely available and modifiable source code means that potential millions of people can find and fix flaws (at its peak, only 1000 have ever been available to Microsoft, by their own estimates). Even though Linux can run Windows applications, only a few Windows viruses can both be run on Linux and have any effect whatsoever. These few will not effect Linux, they only effect the Windows applications that are installed on the Linux system. Linux software is primarily installed and tracked through a centralized system through a limited number of trusted official servers (or official installation disks) that can be transparently observed by anyone by rather that individual files that come from who know where having who knows what hidden in them while only a single individual may know the actual inner workings of the file. Linux executable files are encrypted, protected, and not writable and it requires a name and password to change these states (compared to Windows where a virus can automatically unencrypted, unprotected, and make writable any file without notification, plus these files are not protected in these ways by default). Should a Linux virus make it through these hurtles, it then needs to repeat this process for multiple users (each with different passwords). And that is just for one installation. The problem is multiplied by having to covertly spread to other systems that are likely to be a different distro and kernel. There is no financial incentive for Linux application writers to create features that make the system venerable. When customers, even a few customers, demand easy to use and run macros that open security flaws, Microsoft is obligated to do so because customers pay the bills. When Linux users demand similar security holes, programmers can say "no, won't make the security hole, I use this software and refuse to make myself venerable, if you don't like it, tough, I don't have to do this evil thing, its not like i depend on you for my paycheck, and if you want it bad enough, then do it, the code is free, you can do as you like with it". Programmers are in charge of Linux, not the marketing department. Anyone can be a programmer (no inherent exclusions from doing as you like to change the application, it just takes study), but not anyone can be hired as a marketing guru (and making no profit will get you excluded from even knowing about the application). Linux users tend to want and use free/open source applications. You can't really hide a virus (or malware) in source code that everyone can look at. Closed-source applications can hide anything. Financial concerns can drive companies to push their programs to make code fast and sloppy to get to market sooner (since noone outside the company sees their code, they get away with it). Linux programmers are free to take their time to do things right. If they release sloppy code, they are subject to ridicule. A virus must reproduce rapidly and thrive for a long period to be a real threat. For all of the reason mentions, this does not happen with the minuscule numbers of Linux virus known to have occurred. Windows viruses thrive long enough to be found by other virus writers and thus are mutated. There is little profit to be made in writing anti-virus software for Linux. What?, anti-virus software makers benefit from viruses? Well duh! Linux programmers benefit when viruses are made extinct, but anti-virus software makers have no incentive whatsoever in eliminating viruses. They can clean and protect their customers' computers and do nothing whatsoever to actually cause virus extinction and be quite content.

ClamAV and Chrome are available for both Windows and Linux. I've run clamwin (ClamAV for windows) and Symantec simultaneously and always ROFL when the clam scan finds the hundreds of virus that Symantec allowed to infect the system and only then Symantec goes ballistic announcing all of the virus it is supposedly protecting you from. If you insist on using virusware (Windows), then I recommend Clamwin. It doesn't stop viruses from downloading. You have to schedule it to scan for and remove them (over night is good). But its meticulous and has successfully defended all my windows using customers for over 10 years, no successful attacks.

Real Linux viruses? Well sort of.
<http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/bliss/> Bliss, the Linux 'virus' that comes with a polite uninstaller :) Also _could_ be used on Solaris, SunOS, BSD. Though it can infect and spread, can only damage a few easily replaced files. A truly minor annoyance that most people did not even notice. No real damage can be done due to the numerous reason mentioned above. A modified bliss virus attempted to gain root access to a system and thus become capable of some actual damage. But, seeing as how this prompted the user to enter their name and password, it was as effective as trying to rob the Cops & Donuts Bakery. It had an option to infect the Linux kernel, (quite audacious) but as any two Linux kernels are likely different, this was completely ineffective even if the user granted access.
<http://www.c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack> The Ken Thompson Hack proof of concept. NOT LINUX SPECIFIC. Now that programmers are aware, it cannot not stand up to the millions of code viewers long enough to be a viable IN A FREE/OPEN SOURCE SYSTEM. Note that this is the worst possible virus ever conceived in closed-source systems. It can infect ANYTHING, even hardware with firmware or microcode (CPUS, Video cards, routers, TVs). It can covertly infect the "Trusted Computing" chips. Ironically, this is touted as an Linux threat by Linux detractors (simply because it _can_ effect Linux). But in actually practice open source systems such as Linux are the only ones that can defend against it.
Additional Linux threats:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledgehammer>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comets> Dinosaur Killers
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_hooligan>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bombs>
<http://bettylou.zzruss.com/blameitonthekelleys.htm> The Kelleys

This likewise is intended as humor <http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/evilmalware.html>, but it actually is an accurate rendition of the simplest tutorial on the easiest way to install Linux malware (7 easy steps, actually 8). The point being that this is a bit more complicated than simply single or double clicking something to be infected (as on Windows or Mac). Note the author *purposefully* fails to mention that the user must sign in as root (name and password). Otherwise Linux will repeatedly stop them and warn them they don't have permission to run these commands. Feel free to try and perform this proceeder yourself, to get the full appreciation of the difficulty viruses face.
Re: serious virus from Google Chrome StevePaul 7/24/10 12:05 PM
@zero

The single biggest frustration I have in life when it comes to forums is the people who insist on posting to a thread that is effectively inactive (ie no one has posted to it for months) ...

The other is linux users who will insist on telling us how wonderful linux is and how it is so much better that the World's number one virus magnet (ie Windows) ...

While I concur with a large amount of your post (I use Ubuntu as well as Windows) I do find it to be totally overboard for the question that was originally posted.

At the end of the day what OS you use is one of personal choice and whether you are at threat from malware attacks is a matter of education 

I do a lot of software evaluation and am a prime candidate for attacks of all kinds, however by being stringent and scanning anything that comes near my computer I manage to remain reasonably threat free.

As for Linux, although it is good, it will never replace my Windows simply because of the abundance of software that is freely available for the Windows environment ...

You mention that There is little profit to be made in writing anti-virus software for Linux ....

This is patently true, the 'profit' is not in financial gain but in personal 'kudos' ...

Who really cares if you've managed to 'breach' a Linux OS (which one, there' so many) but as it has such a small market share the effect on people worldwide would be minimal (in relative terms).

Much better that the whole world shudders to a halt than a few poor unfortunates somewhere that nobody has ever heard of !! (bit simplistic I know)

As for tagging Windows as Virusware,  I think you're being just a little bit too argumentative (I'd like to think that was the intention)...

Enjoy your Linux, but please don't be critical of my choice ...

Re: serious virus from Google Chrome riyazhmba05 6/15/11 2:12 AM
dear sir,

                  now i am having lot of trouble in my mail. attachments won't open, please cure it.. what can i do.. reply please