Talk:Users insert virus source code into Wikipedia pages

OR
Unless I can get the revision history of the users to blame, I don't have links to them. The administrator e-mailed me after I e-mailed him for questions. here are the correspondents as follows beginning with my sending of questions.

"Hello I am user DragonFire1024 on Wikinews. Was wondering if you could answer some questions about the virus on WP for a possible article.

What or who caused it? What was its purpose? Could other users/computers get the virus? What harm did it cause? When did this happen and how long was this happening before someone noticed it? How was it removed and who had to do it? Was any other Wiki affected other than Wikipedia?

And any kind of statement you could give would be great.

I am not a techie, so please bare with me :-)

Jason Safoutin"

Here is the reply from the administrator:

"I'll do my best to answer as much as I can... Yesterday I stumbled onto a troublemaker (or two) when I went to the Wikipedia sandbox. What I found was that User:MODX and User:71.40.157.158 were leaving text on various Wikipedia pages, including the sandbox, that would somehow (beyond my technical knowledge) load viruses onto a computer viewing the page. My antiviral program, luckily, seems to have protected me from the issue: McAfee Antivirus ID'd the executable files as: Generic@MM Virus LoveLetter@MM Virus

I was able to block the accounts and revert the additions to several pages. I went further and deleted the contributions of these editors where I could in the hopes of preventing follow-up attacks, copycat actions, and random editors stumbling into viral traps whilst walking through a page history. This went perfectly fine until I bit off waaay more than I (or the Wikipedia servers) could chew when I foolishly attempted to do the same to the sandbox, which has an extensive revision history. My action caused the site to come to a screeching halt for half an hour and filled my page with WP:TROUT wikitrout. :) Here's the current ANI thread that I started upon realizing the magnitude of my error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Apologies_everyone... The site developers have now instituted a fix or two that should help prevent future massive deletion problems like what I caused. See for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_Pump_%28technical%29#Deletion_restrictions_for_pages_with_long_histories

To end what I know of this story, I was advised that oversight was a better option for removing contributions on huge pages and, as such, contacted the oversight mailing list to request the complete deletion of all contributions by these users. The request was processed by User:Fred Bauder. He wrote to me in a response email: "I have a Mac so successfully viewed and oversighted. They do nothing to me, but look nasty, whatever they are." [I'm sure Fred won't mind that I shared this bit of pretty non-sensitive information, but please do okay with him any use of his ID or text in any sort of writeup you may do. Thanks.] That's all I got...hope it helps. Please do your best to play it safe on the details to avoid giving others nasty ideas, if possible. Cheers, User:Scientizzle" DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the contribution history, there's nothing there, only accessable by Oversight users. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 01:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Name
I am waiting on the user to e-mail me his real name :) Not sure if its required, but looks better. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:LoveLetter virus e-mail screenshot.gif
This image may be freely licensed on Flickr but is not correct as the image contains copyrighted elements, namely the Microsoft Windows interface. I'm currently considering the correct course of action but whatever happens this won't last long on Commons and should probably be uploaded locally with an appropriate fair use rationale as per screenshot. Some more info is at Category:Screen shots. Regards. Adambro 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...Well I don't know what else to say really...its a private e-mail to him. So he can reveal it. The Windows icons or whatever can be cropped. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Image has been cropped. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to local upload asthe flickr user didn't create it so he doesn't really own the copyright. (i think) Bawolff ☺☻ 07:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Disseminating the IP address
How confident are you that Scientizzle got the IP exactly right? There is no edit history (obviously as the whole thing is about removing those edits). But it seems that there is some chance that it is a dynamic IP from Road Runner. Wouldn't it suffice to say "anon user" instead of listing the IP? I don't see how it benifits the reader to know the exact IP, it seems irrelevant. --SVTCobra 02:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Given the circumstances in this case, I agree. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All the edits were oversighted, I believe. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 03:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph about the worm (near the end)
I am a little concerned about the information, which seems to be from ILOVEYOU:Effects. This part of the Wikipedia article cites no sources or references for their $ amounts in the cleanup/damages. I am not sure that Wikipedia is a reliable source, when there are no citations. --SVTCobra 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

this does not make sense. how did an anon insert vbscript into the sandbox?
Although I am not familiar with the circumstances, if an anon managed to do what this article says he did (although it is a little short on details), this would be a fairly bad vulnerability in mediawiki. (see XSS). Only admins should be able to insert vbscript into wikipedia. (in a page in mediawiki ns where html is not escaped) ordinary users should not. Or is this article saying something other then I think it is? Bawolff ☺☻ 03:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Will a script like this actually insert a virus in somebody's system without warning? Does this depend on what browser the user is using? Dtobias 03:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Scripts like these aren't supposed to. If there is a vulnrability in the scripting language then its possible. This only affects internet explorer as it is the only browser to support vbscript (however there have been incidents in the past with other scripting languages I assume.). I'm not sure exactly what the circumstances of this whole thing is so take what i say with a grain of salt. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note this was just the source code. the script wasn't included in a way that would activate it. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly this "news report" is a complete joke. All that happened was a user copy-pasted the code to an 8-year-old virus into the wikitext of the sandbox -- it's completely impossible to make code execute by embedding it into wikitext, for obvious reasons. Not even the most insecure user was even close to having any harmful code being run on their machine; this was basically a complete non-event. Krimpet 07:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Krimpet. The only news-worthy aspect of this was that the site was un-editable for a few minutes. --MZMcBride 07:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that, the point about the problems that were encountered when trying to remove this nonsense is the real interesting element of the story. Adambro 14:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

VBScript
Got that from some folks in the Wikipedia IRC CannNEL and bawolff. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I got vbscript from the article, so I can't really be used as a source. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Source
I don't want this to be too public:
 * While considering its a blank page and all.... Bawolff ☺☻ 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Scroll down. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats fairly complete proof that they didn't do anything that caused harm. (for that code to work, it would need to be inside certain tags on a webpage, and probably not executed in a web context (ie executed locally)) Bawolff ☺☻ 07:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats fairly complete proof that they didn't do anything that caused harm. (for that code to work, it would need to be inside certain tags on a webpage, and probably not executed in a web context (ie executed locally)) Bawolff ☺☻ 07:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

not a real threat
Partly based on the conversation i had on irc: bawolff>	I recently read an article about there being a vbscript virus in en wikipedia sandbox. inserted by an anon, but the article is really low on details.I was wondering if you folks know anything about it (was real vbscript inserted, was it a link to a vbscript virus, was it just the source with no real threat?, is the report inaccurate) bawolff: someone pasted the vbcode 	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Archive?oldid=184831888&action=edit 	someone needs to oversight that but no threat So it was just the source code, it wasn't in tags or anything? not that I recall that's the link Splarka pasted 	the newsworthy aspect is that it made an admin try to delete the sandbox, causing enwp backends to lock up for 15-30 minutes 	and causing a quick patch in of a new rights group 'bigdelete' (not assigned on enwp) restricting deletions to articles with fewer than 5000 revisions 	hilarity did ensue ok thanks 	wikinews gonna report on it? Do you mind if we use the information you just gave me in the wikinews article on it		no prob, but it is not authoritive (not my vague understanding of the server-side problems anyway), it is based on watching the sysops and devs yell at each other for an hour ^_^ 	I can say: the delete failed (as the sandbox apparently has a few hundred thousand revisions), but while it was being processed editing was disabled on the english wikipedia for about a half hour Also the fact that if the script really got inserted that would be a major security vulnrability, and i assume people would be talking about that more then the fact it made 'pedia busy for half an hour. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Trout
With the mention of wikitrout, I'd categorise this more as Wackynews than anything serious.

I immediately assumed it was code trying to display in the browser and an overzealous antivirus program trying to justify its annual subscription. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why preserve the sandbox history?
The sandbox is intended for only short-term use, so why doesn't the system regularly delete its entire revision history, preventing delays if it needs to be scrubbed? After all, when every new toy computer program is designed to allow new methods of inserting remote code into your system, there will eventually be a time when simply looking at a viral text code will put your hard drive so deep into a botnet it would take a sledgehammer to clean the virus out of it. 70.15.116.59 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If simply looking at viral code infects your computer, you need a different operating system. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To look at the code the computer downloads and processes it. Barts1a (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

a wikipedia page link downloaded me a virus that locked my PC. How on earth do you get the link removed?? I am not rellay techie, so don't dare go back on to the page. It was the one that linked to all Hindu temples in the UK.