Can a camera carry a virus?

Trig's

Trig's

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,367
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Silly question but can a camera carry a virus on it?

Just that a new pc hooked up my camera and some how managed to cop a virus & had to do a "factory reset" in order to reinstall MSE...

Its got the crap windows 7 installed onit which is a "pita" hate it to bits
 
I very much doubt it. Virus's are coded for certain operating systems. This is why Mac's arent as suseptible, as people just tend not to write the code for them.
The only way it could happen is if you had other files on your memory card that you copied to it and copied back onto the new PC
 
Theoretically, yes, although it's not something I've ever heard of being done. The memory card is just a storage device so it's entirely possible - although not very likely - that you've somehow got a virus on there from some other source and transferred it onto your new PC. It doesn't sound the most likely source of a virus though.
 
cheers for that guys - its put my mind at ease :thumbs:
 
arad85 said:
That's a very naive view ;) They are starting to appear. For example: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2384780,00.asp
Click to expand...

It's not naive. He said they aren't as susceptible because fewer people write viruses for them. That's exactly the case. It's still perfectly possible to write a virus for a mac and many do exist, it's just that the number of viruses for a Mac pales in significance when compared to the number of viruses that threaten a Windows system.
 
If your asking can a virus be transferred betweens PC's by a Camera / Mem card then yes its entirely possible - some worms & virus specifically target removable media as a method of transfer
 
The answer unfortunately as Paul has said is a definate yes.

Autorun.inf viruss will attach themselves to any removable media from pendrives, hard drives even your CF, Sd and micro SD cards. In fact anything your plug into your pc that can hold data.

I have had the missfortune to have to go round a group of shell petrol stations removing a virus on many tills and back offices.

Some even defeat antivirus software, but thankfully very few.

It's worth keeping your virus scanner up to date and scanning all media from time to time.
 
Win 7 disables autorun on USB card insertion, so unlikely to be that...
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
There's more than one way to skin a cat - there's virus's that uses .jpg files to transmit themselves
Click to expand...
And how will that infect your system? In order for a virus to infect a system, it has to execute the code. You don't execute .jpg unless it's wrapped by another virus which actually extracts the virus and executes it (i.e. you already need to be infected for the virus to be extracted). Opening the .jpg in Windows picture viewer won't execute the virus ;)
 
arad85 said:
Win 7 disables autorun on USB card insertion, so unlikely to be that...
Click to expand...
To follow up on this....

This article: http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2009/04/28/autorun-changes-in-windows-7.aspx

says that USB drive insertion autorun is disabled, but for CD/DVD media it isn't. This quote is intertesting:

Blog said:
It is worth noting that some smart USB flash drives can pose as a CD/DVD drive instead of standard ones (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U3 for an example). In this specific scenario, the operating system will treat the USB drive as if it is a CD/DVD because the type of the device is determined at the hardware level.
Click to expand...
 
arad85 said:
And how will that infect your system? In order for a virus to infect a system, it has to execute the code. You don't execute .jpg unless it's wrapped by another virus which actually extracts the virus and executes it (i.e. you already need to be infected for the virus to be extracted). Opening the .jpg in Windows picture viewer won't execute the virus ;)
Click to expand...

There's more than one way to skin a cat - there's virus's that uses .jpg files to transmit themselves :p - there was i remember from a long time ago a Microsoft hot-fix for a buffer overrun venerability that potentially allowed a remote code execution via a jpg file. :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Dogfish_magnet said:
There's more than one way to skin a cat - there's virus's that uses .jpg files to transmit themselves :p - there was i remember from a long time ago a Microsoft hot-fix for a buffer overrun venerability that potentially allowed a remote code execution via a jpg file. :thinking:
Click to expand...
Buffer overrun is always a good way of worrying people. Historical anecdotes about how this was a problem a long time ago only spread FUD and perpetuate things which don't apply today....
 
Yes, if your device shows itself as an USB mass storage device, then the answer is definitely yes. There are several viruses written to attach themselves to any mass storage device (USB, network share etc.), and to auto-infect the next time that the device is viewed.

A lot of cameras do just show themselves as mass-storage devices, and are basically the equivalent of plugging a USB pendrive in from one system to another as far as a virus goes.


As to whether the camera itself has been infected by a virus, it depends on the interpretation of the user. In theory, in this situation it is merely a carrier. In itself it cannot execute the code, but it can pass it on to others.
There are
 
arad85 said:
That's a very naive view ;) They are starting to appear. For example: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2384780,00.asp
Click to expand...

There are allegedly no know viruses (in the traditional sense) in the wild for MAC OS. Other forms of malware are now starting to appear however. Unlike the PC, the user has until now been required to take action to actually run the affected code and the threat has been therefore simpler to handle. You now should take this one step further and do not allow the browser to automatically "open safe downloads" for newly downloaded files.
 
Last edited:
SteveRob said:
There are allegedly no know viruses (in the traditional sense) in the wild for MAC OS. Other forms of malware are now starting to appear however. Unlike the PC, the user has until now been required to take action to actually run the affected code and the threat has been therefore simpler to handle. You now should take this one step further and do not allow the browser to automatically "open safe downloads" for newly downloaded files.
Click to expand...

viruses are becoming less common anyway. gone are the days of software writers wanting to destroy systems, cash/info harvesting malware is king now. which macs users are just as easy to fall foul to.
 
Traditional viruses are pretty uncommon. "Virus" is just used as a generic term for all malware.

I've not seen any self-replicating malware - with the exception of Ramnit and Virut (and those are just plain nasty. If you are infected with one of those, always reformat.) - for a long time. I deal with malware every day, scareware programs, rogue security programs and rootkits are king.

Mac users are lucky in that the small amount of malware that's out there for Macs is not very sophisticated. MAC Defender is a basic infection at the moment, the problem is when it develops and gets more advanced. If a rootkit suddenly sprung up for Macs, you would have a tricky time removing it.
 
I agree that Mac users have a growing threat. As the platform grows in popularity so does the will of undesirables to create malware. As a Mac user I am certainly nowhere near as complacent about such things as I was a few years ago and can only see it getting worse.

Like everything though it needs to be looked in perspective and some common sense practices can limit you risk considerably.
 
The argument of macs not having virus/malware because of their rarity compared to windows boxes is very weak. There are other reasons that are far more significant. As at this moment in time there are 0 virus out there for Mac OS X, and one poor malware attempt.
 
Kasalic said:
The argument of macs not having virus/malware because of their rarity compared to windows boxes is very weak. There are other reasons that are far more significant. As at this moment in time there are 0 virus out there for Mac OS X, and one poor malware attempt.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact your stats are completely wrong. But don't let that worry you.
 
I'd like to chip in on this as well.

Any media can transfer a virus, and the memory card in a camera is little different to a floppy disk of USB key transferring a virus - which commonly happens especially in places like schools and universities.

As for the merits of various platforms in terms of security - Windows is the hardest hit by viruses - that is a fact. The reasons behind it are many. But it that is largely due to how widespread Windows is. If you are crafting a virus you want to hit as many people as possible - home and business - Windows is the best bet.

Until the last few years Mac numbers were relatively low in comparison to Windows PCs and still and largely overlooked as a system to hack for this reason. Now the market share is growing they are becoming more targeted - but haven't had the same widespread issues as Windows.

Also throw into the mix the fact that hackers have spent 20+ years finding and exploiting security holes in Windows. Mac hacking is just a less refined art.
 
arad85 said:
And how will that infect your system? In order for a virus to infect a system, it has to execute the code. You don't execute .jpg unless it's wrapped by another virus which actually extracts the virus and executes it (i.e. you already need to be infected for the virus to be extracted). Opening the .jpg in Windows picture viewer won't execute the virus ;)
Click to expand...

JPG exploits rely on using a malformed JPG that has embedded executable code in it. When a vulnerable JPG codec is used, the virus is loaded into memory and runs with the JPG and runs with the current user's level of permissions.

So while the JPG is never "run" in the traditional sense, the malicious code in it does run as it takes advantage of the JPG codec vulnerability to run itself.

The major danger from it was that you could trick a user into viewing a web page with a malformed, infected JPG in it, which would then cause the virus to run.

IIRC, that vulnerability is a few years old.
 
Super Simple said:
JPG exploits rely on using a malformed JPG that has embedded executable code in it. When a vulnerable JPG codec is used, the virus is loaded into memory and runs with the JPG and runs with the current user's level of permissions.
Click to expand...
All that was ever done was a proof of concept crash of the Microsoft dll decoding the JPEG due to a buffer overrun. AFAIK, no known viruses have successfully used that exploit and it was patched by M$ around 7 years ago. Unless you've been living as a hermit, you'll have an updated dll anyway.

The only other way is via a helper program that has to be executed in some way to extract and execute the payload.

The FUD surrounding viruses is greatly exaggerated IMHO. The biggest problem is users clicking on things when some popup tells them to do so.....
 
arad85 said:
The biggest problem is users clicking on things when some popup tells them to do so.....
Click to expand...

Yep. The user is the weakest link.

It doesn't take much for a user to download an .exe file. Just naming it (Cool pictures) and spamming it to 100 users would get you at least 1 or two downloads.

Advanced malware doesn't use sophisticated infection methods - it's a business. The TDL4 creators get paid for spreading a certain re-direct list - they then pay other malware creators to spread TDL4 as well as their own methods.

Thus why lots of malware focuses on just getting a single downloader onboard, using fairly simple but very successful methods - which then downloads a bundle of malware. Everytime you get a virus, someone gets paid for it.

Why spend months coding for a particular vulnerability that could be patched at any moment, when a big pop-up saying "Click here for treasure" works just as well.
 
joescrivens said:
I don't think I have ever seen a comment pass you by on here, the mods should change your tagline to "Windows Defence Lawyer" :lol:
Click to expand...
It's what comes from being a devout atheist. Flagrant religion, whether in the street, at my door, or on line, tends to get very short shrift ;) :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top