Can a virus infect my Windows XP operating system by its mere presence? I mean, if I copy/paste a virus on my computer and I never click on it, will it infect my computer or will it remain dormant, not harming my computer, as long I do not click on it?
No, a virus does not need to be clicked on or accessed by the user directly to infect a system. All the virus laden file needs to do is take advantage of a vulnerability in the program that is accessing it.
Examples in Windows XP
Security Bulletin MS11-006 documents a bug in the way thumbnails were produced by windows explorer to trick it into running code and only required the user to access the folder containing the file.
Microsoft Knowledge Base 971029 - Update to the AutoPlay functionality in Windows documents a change to behaviour in Windows XP where a file (called autorun.inf) is used to direct the system to launch application(s) when a piece of media is inserted/connected. This behaviour was taken advantage of by viruses like Autorun.NH on USB sticks, removable drives and network drives by viruses to propagate. No user interaction beyond connecting a usb or removable drive to propagate and execute.
It's not just an operating system problem either
Well, no. Problems like this are not restricted to the operating system, nor are they restricted to Windows. A recent example is A 20 year old bug in the commonly used LZO compression module which has been discovered and fixed. It affected a shared library used by dozens (if not 100's) of applications and meant that if the faulty routine happened to be in a program that scans files (for example a media application scanning for metadata) then again a machine could get infected without a user interacting with or clicking on that file.
How likely is it?
These examples have all been spotted and fixed for those who've applied the appropriate updates and patches. What they should do above all is to serve as illustration as to how these types of bugs can be used and exploited to get code to run without user interaction. Copying or just having the file there can be enough.
Initially creating files to take advantage of these flaws/features initially might take a good deal of skill. But toolkits are available which make producing a virus more of a point and click operation - you tell it what flaws you want it to take advantage of and what you want to run and it'll give you back a nasty. So it's more likely than you'd think.
Do you have any tips on protecting myself? Why, yes I do! Defence in depth is the key and operate on the principle that none of them will keep out everything but each one helps. Here are my top 3 for file-based viruses.
I'm not affiliated with Secunia, just a satisfied user.
A virus can't do anything by simply being present on your system as data. A virus is just a program, it must be executed by something. The trick is that that something does not have to be you clicking it.
Any of these hundreds of paths of execution can be used to either trick a system in to running a virus that is downloaded with a website or to even remotely cause execution of a virus loaded on to the system without any user interaction at all. So while you could (generally) safely download a copy of most viruses and let the code sit dormant on your system, there are a great many ways that an attacker could potentially cause a virus to be installed on your system without you taking any direct action. (This is, in fact, the way that the quarantine option normally works in a virus scanner. It just renames it and copies it to a different location.)
That said, I'd still recommend setting up a virtualized environment to test with. There isn't any good reason not to, they are easy to setup and provide an extra layer of protection. There is a very slim possibility it might be able to abuse some system process, such as hooking a search indexer or thumbnail viewer. However, there is also a very slim chance that a virus may be able to escape a virtualized environment. The odds of it doing both become increasingly unlikely though, especially if you change the extension on it to disassociate it from many system processes that might otherwise process it differently.
As XP no longer gets security updates, you are left high and dry against any newly discovered vulnerabilities and it will become increasingly easy for a remote code execution vulnerability to be used against your system without there being anything you can do to stop it short of removing your computer from the Internet.
It depends on the file format.
Executables do not run themselves, unless some clever trick is employed (autorun.inf and .lnk were popular techniques a while ago).
Nevertheless, MS11-006 demonstrates that clicking on an infected file is not always necessary (this exploit triggered when a thumbnail of the infected document was rendered by the system, for example when you browsed to a folder containing it). The lesson we learn from this is that the system may interact with your files without you explicitly asking for it.
For instance, you may have an antivirus software which will automatically scan the infected file. Suppose that the AV's PE parser is flawed, you might just get code execution without any interaction.
Realistically though, you're most likely safe if you don't double-click on the file. Otherwise, it means that you are analyzing something quite sophisticated. Just to be on the safe side, always handle malware in virtualized environments!
It depends. Typically trivial viruses require you to click on them (i.e. execute a file in some way). There should be no way to execute code without you double-clicking
In reality, a virus author can technically find a bug in windows (which isn't that improbable on XP) and cause trouble that way. For example, if there is a bug in the file copying routine and an attacker is able to execute code just by you copying the file, then yes, the virus can certainly harm you.
In any case, if you have a virus to analyze (or whatever you where trying to do with it on your computer) you should do it in a sandboxed environment (i.e. VirtualBox or a seperate computer) so it can do no harm to your system
I couldn't agree more with HackerCow's answer. There are lot of viruses that are different in the way they behave such as executing by click, auto-executing, auto-duplicating, etc.
Once a virus enters your system, you are vulnerable no matter what the type or behavior it possesses. And as an obvious statement, we know that XP is not so great with security compared to the latest versions of the operating system. For instance, the User Account Control(UAC) which allows to execute a program with administrator rights is missing.
Have an updated Anti-virus software installed and do not allow any sort of virus or malwares to enter your machine. It is harmful even if you have it without executing.
No. It is not always necessary to click on a virus. For instance. A virus may be dropped on your computer by a drive-by download. This is done when you visit a site which exploits a vulnerability in your browser, hence dropping malware on your system. This also allows a remote attacker to start the virus.
Another example is a virus which will attach itself to boot-commands of other applications, thus being called when for eample the mediaplayer is used. You don't directly open the virus but it will be opened by the mediaplayer for example.
A malicious file, virus if you will, sitting completely isolated on a harddrive without user or system interaction will not be able to launch itself if that's the concern.
One practical answer to this question, too. Which was, "If I copy/paste a virus on my computer and I never click on it," will it do any harm? And as others have noted, it will almost certainly not do any harm, if you copy it to your computer and do nothing else. Email and web browsing are separate topics. However, if you want to store a virus for some reason (?) and want to ensure it does nothing: a) change the filetype (as mentioned), b) put it in a file archive (ZIP, etc.), and best yet, c) encrypt it or the like.
protected by Community♦ Aug 3 '14 at 10:17
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?