a buddy tricked me into going to a website, which was just a blank white page. i looked at the source and it had a hidden applet which named a few .exe files. it looked very much like it was meant to download and run some exploit, but I didn't get any security warnings.
can someone please take a look and see if this site is dangerous or if it's just meant to scare me?
theyareliars.info
(warning, this site may harm your computer, etc etc)
i'm asking for help because i'm not a programmer and i know there's someone here knowledgeable enough to protect their computer while they look at this site. obviously anyone who's afraid of catching a virus should not go there. have i been infected or not?
i don't understand. no exceptions to what? can anyone else please jump in and tell me why this guy is saging me, if I'm doing something wrong i don't know what it is.
>>9
It's only supposed to be >>2 -- the others are probably not the same person (and if they are, they're doing it wrong.)
I'm not giving you any other hints.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-15 18:25
>>12
one time in middle school these kids kept saying this word over and over again, it was just some garbage word they made up, and everyone kept asking them what it meant. i'm sure they loved the feeling of power they got by withholding valuable information from people who wanted it, especially when it didn't mean anything at all.
>>13
Well it does mean something. In the >>2 position it's meant to annoy you whether or not you know what it denotes. The others mean exactly what you have surmised, however.
In case you haven't guessed, /prog/ isn't going to follow your link--at least not until such time as this thread gets necrobumped. /g/ will almost certainly take the bait though.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-15 18:31
Okay, let's get serious. This is the main page:
<title>They Are Liars!</title>
<style type="text/css">
html {overflow: auto;}
html, body, div, iframe {margin: 0px; padding: 0px; height: 100%; border: none;}
iframe {display: block; width: 100%; border: none; overflow-y: auto; overflow-x: hidden;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<iframe id="tree" name="tree" src="index1.php" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" width="100%" height="100%" scrolling="auto"></iframe>
</body>
</html>
This simply loads an iframe filling the whole browser area. Just a trick to hide the internal URLs by always showing the same URL into the location bar. Quite typical. However, the HTML code itself can't be lamer: not even an <html> opening tag!
Now let's have a look to that index1.php: <title>Who were they to tell us?</title>
<body bgcolor="BLACK">
<br><br>
<center><img src="splash.png" border="0"><br>
<a href="answers.php"><font size="5" color="#333333">ENTER</font></a></center><br><br>
A splash image and a link. The .png file looks like a PNG image. And what is answers.php? This:
<TITLE>They Are Liars!</title>
<!-- They expect us to wish upon a star
They don't tell us that star is deadly --!>
<body bgcolor="BLACK">
<br><br>
<center><img src="twitterdotcom@theyareliars.gif" border="0"><br>
<font color="#333333">30:32:20:2f:20:31:39:20:2f:20:32:30:30:37</font><br>
<font color="#333333">Guvf vf gur cynpr jurer rira natryf srne gb gernq.</font><br>
<a href="" onClick="history.go(0)">answers?</a> ?'s
<br><br><br>
7447<embed src="1.mp3" width="1" height="1" autostart="true" loop=TRUE hidden="true"></embed>
<!-- <embed src="2.mp3" width="1" height="1" autostart="true" loop=TRUE hidden="true"></embed> --></center> [b]ENTERPRISE QUALITY[/q]. Invalid HTML code, setting an e-mail address as the source for an image, and trying to reproduce whatever sound is contained inside that 1.mp3 file. Ah, the onclick="history.go(0)" puzzles me. Nice way to do nothing, and do it improperly.
Summarizing: you won't catch any infection by visiting this site. The author is too lame.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-15 18:41
>>17
Thank you for looking. The source you posted isn't what I saw however- the first time I visited the website, it was a blank page with a much shorter source. It had only a few lines, and contained ".exe" several times. I refreshed the page and it changed into the site you described, which was what made me start freaking out.
I'm still not getting any warnings from Norton or ZoneAlarm so I assume that the website wasn't malicious. Thanks for your time, I'm much calmer now.
>>17
If someone wanted, they could only deliver exploits if a vulnerable User-agent is present, which might mean not everyone would see them. I don't think this is the case with this site, but one cannot know without looking at the source code. It's probably some silly puzzle. You can't get "infected" by visiting sites unless you have vulnerable client software, and if you do, shame on you!
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-15 19:21
Last question: which antivirus software does /prog/ use? I've always felt safe with Norton and/or ZoneAlarm but the first eats up my CPU (usually at a time when I can't tolerate system slowdown) and the second asks a lot of god damned questions and blocks stuff it shouldn't be blocking. Can you recommend some good protection?
>>23
This fails for the usual reason: who is who from one panel to the next? Dammit, Randall, use distinguishing features so we know what the hell is going on.
>>20
None, not even on Windows. Knowing how to secure your box and isolate untrusted/unverified software from it is usually enough. Having some multi-tier plan in mind (for example, in the unlikely scenario that some client-side exploit succeeds, you have to make sure that it can't do any damage at all).
>>28
these are much better then the original XKCD.
Name:
Anonymous2010-05-20 16:24
I'm using Avira Antivir and common sense. If it weren't for my games I'd want to switch to a linux distro as more and more Linux-only / really crappy Windows ports software which I need is coming in my way. Or well, maybe I'll just set up a VM and run a linux distro on that...
>>34
Unless literally all you do on a computer is play games (that is, unless it's just a console with fancier input devices (and it isn't, because you apparently also use it for web browsing)), you're a moron for using Windows as your main OS. Do what every sensible person would do and just run it in a VM under a real operating system.
Name:
Anonymous2010-05-20 17:18
But then you have to buy an extra graphics card. Or maybe even a new CPU and motherboard if they don't support IOMMU.
>>37
What else are you suggesting?
The only other way is to translate Direct3D calls to OpenGL with wine dlls (as no game uses OpenGL directly which would make this easy) which isn't much better than just using wine itself and often worse.
Unless by "game" you mean minesweeper.
>>38
What the fuck are you even talking about anymore? >>35 san clearly said, Unless literally all you do on a computer is play games
then you should run Windows in a virtual machine. You don't need any extra hardware for a VM, since it's fucking virtual.
Obviously we aren't talking about running 3D accelerated games in a virtual machine, because that would be retarded.
Name:
Anonymous2010-05-20 17:57
>>39
It's not retarded at all. You just need an extra graphics card which you can allocate to your VM. Then you install the normal drivers and get native like performance and compatibility. It's not that hard.
Or, if you have it, just use the onboard graphics on your motherboard for your "real OS" since that will be more than enough for your spinning cubes. This leaves your graphics card for the VM to use.
Name:
Anonymous2010-05-20 18:11
>>38 as no game uses OpenGL directly
citation needed