Quick Access :
...the Paranoid survive.
Professional Arena
Professional Arena
Malware: certified trustworthy
The H Security, 2010-06-22

According to anti-virus vendor, the number of digitally signed malware samples for Windows is increasing - and more and more scareware programs also include a valid digital signature. Virus authors use this method to overcome various hurdles on Windows systems and suppress alerts such as those triggered when a program attempts to install an ActiveX control in Internet Explorer, or before installing a driver. The Av vendor list of potentially undesirable programs contains almost 400,000 digitally signed samples. In terms of malware, the list still includes almost 24,000 samples.
Authenticode is used for signing and checking software under Windows and is meant to verify the origin of software. Users tend to trust digitally signed software. Software without a digital signature triggers a dialogue that explicitly asks the user for confirmation before proceeding with the installation. In the 64-bit versions of Windows 7 and Vista, installing an unsigned driver isn't possible at all, even if a user were to wave it through.
The vendor say that virus authors successfully use various tricks to obtain valid digital signatures or certificates for their programs. The most reliable method is to trick a Certificate Authority into issuing a code signing certificate. It seems that this has become just as easy as obtaining a valid SSL server certificate – a valid email address is sufficient. Internet frauds and criminals also use such services as Digital River, which sign software for their customers.
Virus authors can also misuse stolen certificates or private keys to sign their own software. Various versions of the Adrenalin, Ursnif and ZeuS families of botnets are said to contain functions for reading the relevant data from developers' infected PCs. However, so far the vendor has not found any malware that actually uses a stolen key in its malware database.
What does seem to happen more and more often is that a trojan infects files on a developer's system, and that the developer's entire software package including the trojan is subsequently signed and deployed. Very often, virus programmers also sign their samples with keys and certificates they have signed themselves, using bogus information about the issuer or owner to mislead programs and users.
The vendor estimates that the problem has, so far, not reached critical proportions because virus authors have not yet begun to exploit this method on a large scale. However, this could change with the widespread dissemination of Windows 7, because this version relies even more heavily on Authenticode than previous versions of Windows. In this case, anti-virus vendors will need to work in close cooperation with the Certificate Authorities to ensure that compromised and misused certificates (and keys) can be blocked as quickly as possible.
Update: According to a post on the blog of anti-virus vendor Sophos, the Troj/BHO-QP Browser Helper Object (BHO) malware, which disguises itself as a Flash Player extension from Microsoft, is using a fake VeriSign root certificate. Because the root certificate is provided by the malware looks genuine, no warning is displayed on a users system. The only way to confirm that it is indeed a rogue certificate is to make sure that the certificate fingerprints match.

Microsoft warns of help flaw in Windows XP, Server 2003
ARS Technica, 2010-06-10

Microsoft has issued Security Advisory (2219475) to address a publicly disclosed vulnerability in the Windows Help and Support Center function (helpctr.exe). The flaw only affects Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Microsoft's newer OSes are unaffected.
In Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, clicking on an hcp:// link launches helpctr.exe via a registered protocol handler; this is normally a safe way to launch help content thanks to an allow list that Help and Support Center checks before navigating to a given help page. A Google security researcher discovered, however, that a help page with a cross-site scripting vulnerability can be paired with a mechanism to abuse the allow-list functionality to access that page with an exploit querystring. Thus, clicking on a malicious hcp:// link leverages the XSS vulnerability to circumvent helpctr.exe's safety controls and ultimately run an arbitrary executable on the machine.
Redmond took pains to note that it is unaware of any attacks trying to use the vulnerability, is actively monitoring the situation, and may provide a security update on an upcoming Patch Tuesday, or earlier.
In the meantime, Microsoft lists three mitigating factors for the vulnerability:
• In a Web-based attack scenario, an attacker could host a webpage that is used to exploit this vulnerability or do so via a webpage that accepts or hosts user-provided content or advertisements. In all cases, however, an attacker would have no way to force users to visit these websites and would have to convince them to do so, which is typically achieved via an e-mail or instant message.
• The vulnerability cannot be exploited automatically through e-mail; a successful attack would require the user clicking a link in an e-mail message.
• An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less affected than users who operate with administrative user rights.
Microsoft also details one workaround for the issue: unregistering the HCP Protocol. It requires editing the registry, and Microsoft explains two different ways to do so. While this prevents the flaw from being exploited on affected systems, Microsoft notes that it will break all local, legitimate help links that use hcp://. For example, links in Control Panel may no longer work.
Two things about this flaw: First, it's yet another reason to leave XP behind. Neither Vista nor Windows 7 are affected by it, underlining their improved security. Second, the vulnerability was discovered by Google and disclosed to Microsoft on June 5, and was made public on June 9. Microsoft is not happy with this. "Public disclosure of the details of this vulnerability and how to exploit it, without giving us time to resolve the issue for our potentially affected customers, makes broad attacks more likely and puts customers at risk," the company said in a post.

The top ten security holes for web developers
The H Security, 2010-04-20

The security experts at the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) have updated their Top 10 list of web application vulnerabilities. The OWASP previously released lists in 2004 and in 2007. OWASP board member Dave Wichers said that, in the updated list, the project discusses potential risks as well as the possible vulnerabilities.
Wichers said "Attempts to priorities vulnerabilities without context just don’t make sense". According to the release, this new focus on risks is intended to lead organizations to a more mature understanding and management of application security.
The OWASP says that the 22 page 2010 update , is based on more sources of web application vulnerability information than previous reports. According to the organization, the information is now also presented in a clearer, more concise way and includes stronger references to the various openly available resources that can help address each issue, for instance OWASP's Enterprise Security API (ESAPI) and Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS).
OWASP's Top 10 risks that are most likely to be relevant to web developers in 2010 are:
• Injection
• Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
• Broken Authentication and Session Management
• Insecure Direct Object References
• Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
• Security Misconfiguration
• Insecure Cryptographic Storage
• Failure to Restrict URL Access
• Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
• Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
The Open Web Application Security Project's Top 10 list is not the only initiative that tries to priorities the most important security issues. In February, the MITRE and SANS institutes released the second edition of the 25 most dangerous programming errors, a list commissioned by various companies and organizations, including OWASP.

Almost all Fortune 500 companies show Zeus botnet activity
ARS Technica, 2010-04-15

Up to 88% of Fortune 500 companies may have been affected by the Zeus trojan, according to research by a security firm. The trojan installs keystroke loggers to steal login credentials to banking, social networking, and e-mail accounts.
The botnet was first identified in 2007 and is still around today. The malware tends to be difficult to detect and remove, and several million machines worldwide are believed to be infected. The Zeus server-side components, used to collect the stolen data, surprisingly mimic techniques more commonly seen in the world of commercial software; the software is licensed (with fees ranging from several hundred to a few thousand dollars), and each installation is tied to the hardware it's installed on in a system reminiscent of Microsoft's software activation. The malware itself predominantly attacks Windows XP machines, though Windows Vista and Windows 7 variants are available for sale too.
The value of Zeus control servers is such that they have themselves become targets for hackers, seeking to steal the large caches of stolen data.
The study examined data found on Zeus control servers, finding e-mail addresses and IP addresses belonging to many major corporations. There was evidence of some form of infection from almost all the Fortune 500 companies, with stolen e-mail in particular from around 60% percent. About 20 companies with significant consumer-focused brands such as Google were excluded from the study as the sheer volume of data prevented any meaningful analysis.
Smaller companies (those with fewer than 75,000 employees) appeared to have a higher proportion of infected employees, suggesting that perhaps larger corporations are more effective at securing their systems and data. Home computers not subject to corporate IT policy but used to access corporate mail and networks are a particularly high risk.

Machines left unpatched so Microsoft can avoid BSOD déjà vu
ARS Technica, 2010-04-14

Microsoft is seeking to avoid a repeat of February's blue-screen problems with this month's bumper crop of Patch Tuesday patches. After installing the February updates, some users of Windows XP found their systems wouldn't boot. After investigation, this turned out to be due to an interaction between the Alureon rootkit and the patch for KB977165 which updates the Windows kernel. Microsoft has subsequently released tools that attempt to detect the rootkit and prevent installation of the patch if a machine appears compromised.
This month's patches also contain kernel updates, and so have the same incompatibility with the rootkit. As the bulletin for MS10-021 states, "This security update includes package detection logic that prevents the installation of the security update if certain abnormal conditions exist on 32-bit systems. These abnormal conditions on a system could be the result of an infection with a computer virus that modifies some operating system files, which renders the infected computer incompatible with the kernel update."
No exploits of this flaw appear to exist in the wild so far, but Microsoft warns that exploit code is likely to be developed. This makes patching sooner rather than later highly advised.
Though the rootkit-detection avoids blue-screening affected machines, it also means that the flaws remain unpatched. Given the severity of the problems being fixed, this is far from ideal. It is, however, understandable; the problem in February had consequences beyond a small minority of machines that could not boot. The issue was widely reported, and there's a risk that people will refrain from installing essential patches out of fear that their machines too will be left unusable. People being fearful of security updates is a disastrous outcome for both Microsoft and the world at large.
The position Microsoft is in is an awkward one. Extant security exploits are causing the company to leave flaws unpatched, and hence vulnerable to further exploitation. These exploited machines are a substantial nuisance to the Internet as a whole—exploits are used to recruit machines into botnets which then send spam, launch denial-of-service attacks, and further propagate malware—so clearly the most desirable outcome is that these machines be cleaned up and then patched.
For users of the Internet, if not the owners of these compromised machines, being patched, blue-screened, and hence inoperable is the better result. That will, at the very least, indicate to the owners that something is wrong and their machines need to be fixed. But the risks of consequential refusal to install patches, not to mention the PR problems, makes the approach untenable. As distasteful as leaving infected machines unpatched is, the first step has to be removal of the rootkit.
But Redmond can't simply clean a computer unprompted. Rootkits are designed to be hard to detect and hard to remove, so the mere act of cleaning them from a machine carries some risk. Further, the company simply isn't entitled to make that kind of change to systems without permission. Though the company distributes its Malicious Software Removal Tool, which can remove a range of common exploits (including the Alureon rootkit), this tool is not installed automatically by Windows Update in its default configuration. To install it, Windows Update must be configured to install "Recommended" updates (it defaults to only installing "Important" ones), and the first time it is run, its license terms must be agreed to.
As such, even users who allow Windows Update to update their systems automatically won't, without further intervention, have such malware removed, and so will be blocked from future kernel patches.
This problem is only likely to grow worse with time. Until cleaned, the infected machines will be vulnerable to an increasing number of kernel flaws, leaving them exposed to new threats. With little chance that owners of affected computers will clean them up of their own volition, Microsoft might yet be forced to take some more aggressive action to get them clean and up-to-date.

Microsoft to fix 25 holes in Windows, Office, Exchange
CNet, 2010-04-9

Microsoft will issue 11 security bulletins in next week's Patch Tuesday to fix 25 vulnerabilities in Windows, Microsoft Office, and Exchange, including two holes for which exploit code is in the wild.
Five of the bulletins address critical vulnerabilities that could allow an attacker to take control of the computer, five are rated important, and one is rated moderate.
With the updates, Microsoft will be closing two outstanding security advisories that have been worrisome because code to exploit the vulnerabilities is available publicly.
One of the advisories is 981169, which involves a vulnerability in VBScript that could allow the remote execution of code and a complete takeover of the system. Disclosed on March 1, it affects older versions of Windows running Internet Explorer.
The other advisory to be closed is 977544, which involves a hole in Server Message Block (SMB) protocol that could allow a denial-of-service attack and that dates back to November.
Software affected by the updates: Windows 2000, XP, Vista, Windows 7, Server 2003, Server 2008, Office XP, Office 2003, 2007 Microsoft Office System and Exchange Server 2000, 2003, 2007, and 2010.
Also on Tuesday, Adobe Systems will release its latest security updates for Reader and Acrobat via a new update system. Adobe has quarterly security update releases that coincide with Patch Tuesdays.

Son of GhostNet: China-based hacking targets India government
ARS Technica, 2010-04-7

The people who uncovered GhostNet, an extensive cyber espionage network that targeted the Tibetan exile community, are back with a sequel. Starting with an infected machine that was found during that investigation, an international team of researchers has uncovered a completely separate network that primarily targeted the Indian government, and turned up some classified documents that had been obtained by the hackers. By reconstructing the network, the team was able to trace things back to the hacking community in Chengdu, China.
The work involved a collaboration between the Information Warfare Monitor and the Shadowserver Foundation, but, over the course of its work, involved dozens of other security groups and experts. It also benefitted from extensive cooperation with the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, which had previously approached the security researchers in response to security lapses that unearthed GhostNet. The researchers take what they term a "fusion methodology," which is basically a combination of fieldwork—studying infected systems in situ—with standard security approaches.
The investigation grew out of GhostNet in two ways. As part of their efforts to help the Tibetan exile community secure its systems, the researchers were monitoring the network used by the OHHDL. As part of that monitoring, they uncovered an malware-infected machine that attempted to transfer documents to a control server.
Separately, they found that most of the control servers identified through the GhostNet investigation were taken down after their report on it was released. As the domain registrations on these servers lapsed, the researchers grabbed them for themselves, and created what's termed a DNS sinkhole, in which requests from compromised machines were directed to one under the researchers' control, allowing a study of the command-and-control communications.
Over time, the authors were able to trace communications back and develop a reasonable picture of a computer espionage network that was separate from, but partially overlapped with, the GhostNet. It turns out that, just as hackers count on regular users having moments of carelessness, they suffer from the same problem, which allowed the researchers to view the complete list of infected systems four times, and obtain documents stolen by the hackers twice.
In general, machines were compromised using low-tech methods, primarily via malware that travelled as Microsoft Office or PDF files, and used relatively well-known exploits. Once on a machine, however, the malware would communicate with a specific Yahoo Mail account, which allowed it to receive more sophisticated software via attachments, and alert the network to its identity.
The command-and-control network operated primarily through free webhosting services, many of them operating from within the US. As these systems came and went, various social networking services—Google and Baidu blogs, Twitter, etc.—were used to supply the infected systems with a list of alternate hosts. Fortunately for the researchers, at times when a lot of the free webhosts were taken out of action, the social networking updates revealed a core of servers that remained constant; these were exclusively hosted within China.
The list of infected systems was pretty variable, and included US institutions like NYU and Honeywell, and at least one machine in China that the researchers think was used for testing the system. But the majority of infected machines were associated with India. Some of these were commercial, like the Times of India and the New Delhi rail station, but the list included Indian embassies and consulates.
The documents retrieved by the researchers include everything from information on missile systems being developed by India to a list of visas issued by Indian embassies. That latter item may have implications for NATO's Afghanistan mission, since many of the officials from NATO countries travel via India. Several of these were marked classified or confidential, and some provided internal security evaluations in regions where India is dealing with armed insurgency.
Aside from the fact that the core of the network resides in China, there is some circumstantial evidence linking the network to the hacking community that exists in Chengdu. A blog that follows Chinese hacking activity independently identified the e-mail address used to register one of the domains that turned up as part of the new espionage network. The address turned up in several popular Chinese hacking forums, but also showed up in association with advertisements for apartment rentals in Chengdu. Several of the command-and-control e-mails sent to the Yahoo account also originated from computers in the region.
So, does that mean the Chinese government is behind the espionage? Chengdu is the site of an Army technical reconnaissance bureau, which would be consistent with direct involvement. But, it's quite near Chongquing, a city with thriving criminal syndicates, and several of the servers were also traced to that city.
Complicating matters further, China is one of the governments that has been accused of hiring digital privateers, private citizens that engage in hacking while remaining independent of the central government. The report notes that private citizens might engage in these activities under the expectation that the documents, once obtained, could be sold to the government, even if the government didn't authorize the intrusions.
In any case, the report's authors mentioned that the Chinese CERT organization was cooperating with attempts to shut down the network.
In addition to providing an interesting window into the world of cyberespionage, the authors use the report to argue that the chaotic mix of private hackers and government interests highlights the need to develop some international norms that govern acceptable online behavior. In that sense, they seem to be on the same page as the authors of the National Academies of Science report on cyberdeterrance covered over the weekend.

Corporate Information Terms of Use Home Page Contact Information