Online Virus / Malware News

This week in Troyes, France, the University of Technology hosted the fourth French-Speaking Days on Digital Investigations, designed for investigators, prosecuting attorneys, and legal experts in charge of fighting cybercrimes. All the participants in the congress were members of the AFSIN, the Francophone Association for Digital Investigation.

In addition to the usual presentations on improving the administration of these fields, various talks covered juvenile protection and the tools used to unmask pedophiles and prove their guilt.

(Source: Police Headquarters, Paris)

Investigating alleged cybercriminals is difficult work that often must be completed in 48 hours, the time that police can hold a suspect. The main problem is the amount of data that police must analyze.

On average, each suspect owns:

• 5 hard disks
• 140 CDs or DVDs
• 17 floppy disks
• 4 memory cards and USB sticks

When searching a home or office, finding USB drives is always a challenge. They can be concealed in a pen, a lighter, or many other hard-to-examine locations.

The records for a single business are sometimes staggering:

• Up to 31 hard disks
• 14 terabytes of data
• 2.5 million pictures
• 11,000 MSN Messenger contacts to investigate

Only a well-organized methodology, automation, and devotion to the cause can produce results. For security reasons, I cannot describe the characteristics of the police’s child-abuse image scanners, but I was impressed by the technology they use–which not only searches for precalculated hashes of known clean and “illegal” images but also, based on similarities, analyzes images and videos to find and group child sexual-abuse elements. With 200 legal actions in 2009 and 70 police arrests, these computers run 24 hours a day.

Another talk discussed Facebook investigations. They can run on three fronts:

• By analyzing the data stored locally on the computer of the user (cookies and traces). They can be uncovered by searching Internet artifacts and by using forensic techniques.
• By requesting Facebook provide data stored on the server, with or without user knowledge (for example, IP address at creation, IP at connections, contacts, etc.). When requested via subpoena[@]facebook.com, responses have been positive in some occasions. Despite the fact that Facebook’s Law Enforcement Guidelines document is confidential, many versions are available on the Internet.



• By querying data deliberately left by the user. This information is visible in the public area, but above all they are accessible via a set of APIs and tools that include Facebook Query Language, Graph API, and Old REST API. Using scripting languages, the searches can be automated.

With GraphAPI, it is also possible to extract several photos’ metadata information that is not included in the tables. This is a very valuable feature for analyzing users or groups that store illegal photos.

I gave a talk on criminal searches using open sources, and recapped the methods McAfee used to investigate the business Innovative Marketing Ukraine.

We frequently read of the immense gap in cybersavvy between police forces and cybercriminals. The bad guys are way ahead of any attempt to stop them, some say. In Troyes, however, we saw that police investigations have changed and are much more sophisticated than in the past. Despite restricted budgets, law enforcement uses all possible modern equipment and works hand in hand with the security industry and the courts.

I was analyzing a piece of malware the other day and came across a unique method to place malware locally on a host without using the network to transfer it. This is something that is so simple in design, and yet so effective in its delivery. Let’s take a closer look.

To get the malicious file, one would simply need to visit or open malicious HTML content. Okay, we’ve heard of this before: bad sites and unexpected emails are breeding grounds for bad stuff. Of course you know to stay away from those things, and of course you should have the Internet security settings locked down, or at the least have them set to warn.

In fact, when viewing the HTML in Internet Explorer, we do get the warning about restricting the file from showing active content.

Cool. That offers a bit of relief to those who have taken some precautions or at least have left the Internet Explorer defaults, so they will have a forewarning. (A little social engineering may still allow success, but that’s a whole other discussion.)

Let’s say for argument’s sake that you didn’t have minimum protection, or got social-engineered. (This would never happen, right?)

If you did allow the content to run, the malware would start to build a text file using simple commands by echoing and then piping hex into a file. In the code below you will notice the MZ header being added:

objShell.Run “cmd /c echo 4d 5a… >> textfile.hex”

The malware continues until the file is complete:

objShell.Run “cmd /c echo c6 08 d1 00 3a 00 00 00 00 00… >> textfile.hex

etc… etc..

So now we have a full hex text file, built from the HTML commands and placed onto your desktop. All is done locally. There is no traffic going across the wire; thus this process would bypass network IDS or other network monitors that you may have.

So what does this malicious HTML do next?

I don’t want to go into too many details, but suffice it to say a method is used to turn this hex file into a binary using just two commands.

The only thing left is to run the executable.

It’s as simple as:

objShell.Run “cmd /c Malicious_File.exe”

In the sample I analyzed, the executable was corrupted and could not run. Had it worked, however, the host would now be infected, with no sign of a download.

The take-away is to be sure you are cautious of active content when visiting websites. This also shows us that malware does not have to be overly technical to bypass certain controls. Ingenuity counts for much; therefore, the fight continues.

As always, browse safely.

Oh, yes we do detect the malicious HTML file as Generic Dropper.xa in our supported DATs.

During the last six years, botnets have become one of the biggest threats to security professionals, businesses, and consumers. We at McAfee Labs have just released more information about how cybercriminals can use common social networks and common web applications, such as Twitter and XMPP-enabled applications like Google Talk, to take over a user’s computer.

As Web 2.0 services evolve, so do the efforts of botnet writers. They are rapidly adopting new technologies to increase the sophistication of their attacks. We have identified the following trends in botnets and social media:

• Twitter-controlled bots are the most prevalent example of using social media to receive and execute bot commands
• KreiosC2, though a proof-of-concept research tool, effectively demonstrates how LinkedIn and other social networks and applications can be used to control a botnet
• Protocol standards such as XMPP, used for authentication, presence, and messaging, can also be used by cybercriminals to communicate with botnets and execute malicious attacks

The dangers from controlling a bot or botnet through an application such as Twitter cannot be understated. Using widely adopted and deployed applications like Twitter to control a botnet effectively allows the attacker to hide in plain site by using an application or website that is allowed on most desktops worldwide. There’s nothing to it: Log into a Twitter account from a variety of Twitter applications (I’ll use TwitScoop) and send an update:

Then we send our command:

It really is as simple as that: decentralized, application-based control of one or many bots. Don’t try this at home: I ran this exercise from a private Twitter account with only one follower (my other Twitter account) in a research environment, so there was no danger!

The McAfee Labs research team has released a report that examines TwitterBots, KreiosC2, and XMPP as examples of how cybercriminals can use social networks as the new platform for botnet command, control, and attack.

During the last six years, botnets have become one of the biggest threats to security professionals, businesses and consumers. We at McAfee Labs have just released more information about how cybercriminals can use common social networks and common web applications, such as Twitter and XMPP-enabled applications like Google Talk to take over a user’s computer.

As Web 2.0 services evolve, so do the efforts of botnet writers. They are rapidly adopting new technologies to increase the sophistication of their attacks. We have identified the following trends in relation to botnets and social media:

-Twitter controlled bots are the most prevalent example of using social media to receive and execute bot commands
-KreiosC2, though a proof-of concept research tool, effectively demonstrates how LinkedIn and other social networks and applications can be used to control a botnet
-Protocol standards like XMPP, used for authentication, presence and messaging, can also be used by cybercriminals to communicate with botnets and execute malicious attacks

The danger’s from controlling a bot or botnet through an application like Twitter cannot be understated. Using WIDELY adopted and deployed applications like Twitter to control a botnet effectively allows the attacker to hide in plain site by using an application or website that is allowed on most desktops worldwide. It is as simple as logging into one’s Twitter account from a variety of Twitter applications (I’ll use TwitScoop) and sending an update:

Then we send our command…..

It really is as simple as that – decentralized, application-based control of one or many bots. BTW – This was done from a private Twitter account with only 1 follower (my other Twitter account) in a research environment so there was no danger!

Our research team has released a whitepaper that examines TwitterBots, KreiosC2 and XMPP as examples of how cybercriminals can use social networks as the new platform for botnet command, control and attack.

On April 30 www.multimedia***.com, a newly registered website that allowed users to post, search, and view amateur videos, came online. The site was part of a group of 160 new domain registrations, and was identified by the network of sensors and data feeds that contribute to McAfee Global Threat Intelligence. Seemingly legitimate, many of these domains had all the trappings of media-sharing sites, except for a clue that prompted us to adjust their reputations to “high risk” and block access to them in our products. What tipped us off? Read the story in the newly released report from McAfee Labs entitled Reputation: The Foundation of Effective Threat Protection.

Reputation systems have been used for years across many disciplines–from doctors diagnosing illnesses to economics experts rating financial instruments–to assess and make decisions about situations or entities. Since the early days of online communities and e-commerce, providers and consumers of goods, services, and information via the web have sought ways to gauge the reputation of parties involved in transactions, from vendors to community advice-givers. Reputation calculation tools are more critical to cybersecurity than ever before as more users access more online tools via more devices and interact with colleagues, friends, and strangers in more online venues. Reputation provides a critical level of assurance around identity and integrity in critical Internet-based personal and professional transactions, for which physical-world verification is impossible.

Download the report to gain valuable insights about what makes reputation systems effective and tips for using them in both near-term security policy and long-term strategy.

This report is also available in eight other languages.

Today, McAfee released a report based on a survey of more than 1,000 decision-makers about the use of Web 2.0 technology for business. The report reveals some interesting results (for example, who would have thought the United States is among the countries with the lowest adoption rate, and Germany is the country with the most companies not having policies governing the use of Web 2.0 in place?) and the unsurprising finding that security concerns are the greatest hindrance to adopting Web 2.0 and social networking.

Business leaders worldwide see the value of Web 2.0 in supporting productivity and driving new revenue, but they remain deeply concerned about security threats associated with deploying the technology. The survey of decision-makers in 17 countries found that half of businesses were concerned about the security of Web 2.0 applications such as social media, microblogging, collaborative platforms, web mail, and content-sharing tools. 60 percent were concerned about loss of reputation as a result of Web 2.0 misuse. Six out of ten organizations have already suffered losses averaging US$2 million, for a collective loss of more than US$1.1 billion in security-related incidents last year. Brazil, Spain, and India led in adoption of Web 2.0 technology for business, while adoption was lowest in Canada, Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

The report, “Web 2.0: A Complex Balancing Act–The First Global Study on Web 2.0 Usage, Risks and Best Practices,” was commissioned by McAfee and authored by faculty affiliated with the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security (CERIAS) at Purdue University in Indiana, examines the drivers for Web 2.0 and social networking use in business, and assesses their benefits and risks. Overall, the research highlights that although organizations see the potential value of Web 2.0 tools, decision makers continue to debate whether or how to allow employee usage of the technology in the workplace. “Web 2.0 technologies are impacting all aspects of the way businesses work,” said George Kurtz, chief technology officer for McAfee. “As Web 2.0 technologies gain popularity, organizations are faced with a choice: They can allow them to propagate unchecked, they can block them, or they can embrace them and the benefits they provide while managing them in a secure way.”

Key Report Findings:

• Web 2.0 adoption rates vary across countries. Overall, Web 2.0 adoption rates are high, reaching 90 percent or above in Brazil, Spain, and India. Adoption is lowest in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada.
• New revenue streams are the highest driver of Web 2.0 adoption. Three out of four organizations reported that expanded use of Web 2.0 technologies creates new revenue streams, while 40 percent said the tools have boosted productivity and enhanced effective marketing strategies.
• Security is the leading concern. Half of respondents named security as their primary concern for Web 2.0. One-third identified fear of security issues as the main reason Web 2.0 applications are not used more widely in their businesses. Companies’ top four perceived threats from employee use of Web 2.0 are malicious software (35 percent), viruses (15 percent), overexposure of information (11 percent), and spyware (10 percent).
• Reputation damage is the biggest business consequence. Sixty percent of companies reported that the most significant consequence from inappropriate Web 2.0 and social media usage is loss of reputation, brand, clients, or confidence. One-third of respondents reported unplanned investments related to workarounds related to social media in the workplace. Fourteen percent of organizations reported litigation or legal threats caused by employees disclosing confidential or sensitive information, with more than 60 percent of those threats caused by social media disclosures.
• Many businesses block Web 2.0 rather than put policies in place. Worldwide, 13 percent of organizations block all Web 2.0 activity, while 81 percent restrict the use of at least one Web 2.0 tool because they are concerned about security. Yet almost one-third of organizations reported that they do not have any social media policy in place. A quarter of organizations monitor how staff use social media and 66 percent have introduced social media policies, 71 percent of which use technology to enforce them.

Executives and industry experts who contributed to the research agreed that successful organizational use of Web 2.0 is a complex balancing act. Enterprises must analyze business challenges and opportunities while mitigating the risks and ensure staff training and robust technologies are in place to avoid cyberattacks.

“Web 2.0 and social networking technologies can be used effectively for business,” said Eugene H. Spafford, founder and Executive Director of CERIAS. “But to reap the benefits of Web 2.0, organizations must be proactive about understanding and managing the challenges. That involves putting the right policies in place, and deploying the technology that can enforce those policies.”

McAfee will host a webcast, “Bridging the Web 2.0 Security Gap,” on October 6 at 2 p.m. Eastern time, with Chenxi Wang of Forrester Research. This webcast will cover a recent Forrester Web 2.0 security trends study commissioned by McAfee. The session will help educate enterprise users on protecting their businesses while successfully using Web 2.0 technologies.

“Web 2.0: A Complex Balancing Act–The First Global Study on Web 2.0 Usage, Risks and Best Practices” is available for download at www.mcafee.com.

Stuxnet has received a lot of attention since McAfee first blogged about it in July. This post will answer some of the frequently asked questions we’ve received.

Q: What is Stuxnet?
A: Stuxnet is a highly complex virus targeting Siemens’ SCADA software. The threat exploits a previously unpatched vulnerability in Siemens SIMATIC WinCC/STEP 7 (CVE-2010-2772) and four vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows, two of which have been patched at this time (CVE-2010-2568, CVE-2010-2729).  It also uses a rootkit to conceal its presence, as well as two stolen digital certificates.  Additional information is provided in the Mcafee Virus Information Library.

Q: When did it first appear and where was it first reported?
A: The threat was discovered in July, but is believed to have been released a year before. McAfee Global Threat Intelligence (GTI) File Reputation first became aware of Stuxnet components starting in January and several File Reputation detections took place before Stuxnet became widely known in July (Artemis!97FD438F25A4, Artemis!4589EF6876E9, Artemis!CC1DB5360109). Early telemetry showed the highest concentration in the Middle East.

Q: What is McAfee’s product coverage for the threat?
A: There are many aspects to Stuxnet, including two recently patched vulnerabilities, and two yet-to-be patched privilege-escalation vulnerabilities. Coverage of the two announced vulnerabilities follows:

CVE-2010-2568

CVE-2010-2729

Coverage of the malware itself:

Stuxnet

Product coverage information has been previously communicated through the free McAfee Labs Threat Advisory service and Virus Information Library.

Q: How does McAfee Global Threat Intelligence (GTI) help protect me against this threat?
A: McAfee GTI File Reputation can identify and block all malware files associated with the Stuxnet worm. In addition, GTI Web Reputation and Network Connection Reputation prevent outbound connectivity to Stuxnet’s command servers, which are used for uploading confidential SCADA data collected by Stuxnet malware from industrial-control systems.

Q: If I have discovered a file identified as Stuxnet on my computer or in my environment, does that mean I was targeted by the creators of the threat?
A: Not necessarily, for a couple of reasons:

1. Although Stuxnet targeted SCADA systems, it also spread through removable media, such as USB devices, via a previously unknown Windows vulnerability, allowing nontargeted systems to be a carrier of the virus. Thousands of McAfee consumer product users have reported binaries that were intended to target systems running Siemens industrial-control systems.
2. Once the Stuxnet attack vector became known, unrelated attackers starting exploiting the same vector. Generic detection signatures can overlap with the initial attack such that other attacks are detected by the Stuxnet name. Although McAfee chose to name generic signatures separately from the signature detecting the original attack binaries, other vendors may not have done so. More than 1,000 binaries have been flagged by various vendors as Stuxnet over the past few months.

Tune in later for additional Stuxnet-related information.

McAfee Labs has been monitoring a spam run that was launched earlier today. The message follows:

The attachments are all the same and contain an encoded JavaScript, which redirects to a web page on the numerouno-india.com domain.

The destination page does a redirect (to a page on the scaner-g.cz.cc domain) and also contains an iframe (with a target of a page on the arestyute.com domain).

The redirect domain displays the standard fake anti-virus scanning animated image and subsequent prompt to download an executable:

fake scanning image

download prompt

icon used by executable

The iframe leads to a cocktail of exploits, including a Java Development Toolkit exploit (CVE-2010-0886), as well as exploits targeting Adobe Flash and PDF vulnerabilities, including CVE-2007-5659, CVE-2008-2992, CVE-2010-0188.

The payload of these exploits is a password-stealing Trojan, which copies itself using a randomly named folder and file in the %AppData% directory and creates a registry run key to load the file at start-up, for example:

• HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run
  “{608F1285-57B7-C631-DE51-8A99508CC7A9}” = “C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Application Data\Ezudi\oqek.exe”

This password stealer injects into the iexplorer.exe process and targets dozens of mainstream financial institutions.  It also contacts the domains ohmaebahsh.ru and eexiziedai.ru.

• This fake AV executable was detected by Global Threat Intelligence File Reputation at the time of this blogging when running at Very Low sensitivity or higher.
• The first-stage domain (numerouno-india.com) is rated RED by TrustedSource and SiteAdvisor
• The second-stage domains (arestyute.com, and scaner-g.cz.cc) are rated RED by TrustedSource and SiteAdvisor
• The third-stage domains (ohmaebahsh.ru and eexiziedai.ru) have been rated RED by TrustedSouce and SiteAdvisor for weeks
• DAT file coverage is being added under the following names:
  • PWS-Zbot
  • FakeAlert-PE
  • JS/Downloader.gen
  • JS/FakeAlert-AB.dldr

Customers may download updated signatures using the extra.dat request page: https://www.webimmune.net/extra/getextra.aspx. These are also available in the beta DATs.

Over the weekend I had the chance to put some work into my lowbie dwarf paladin named Boulderbrain. I was at the Stormwind bank minding my own business when I suddenly get this whisper:

Now normally I simply ignore most whispers I get in-game (other times I simply don’t notice them) but this one caught my attention. Zooming in I think you will see why:

This message is telling me that Blizzard suspects my account of using third-party tools to cheat and would I go to their website, login, and check my account settings. In actuality this is an “attacker” pretending to be a Blizzard GameMaster, and the website itself is a phishing site:

This particular fake was hosted on an IP address that had a pretty questionable report. (HINT, HINT use our SiteAdvisor browser plug in!) World of Warcraft has millions of users worldwide, making attacks and techniques like this very common. Many players (myself included) have taken the additional step of using two-factor authentication (commonly called 2FA or simply tokens), which can add an additional layer of protection to your logon credentials:

The addition of the 2FA pin makes it extremely difficult to break into or pop the account itself. (It’s like adding a secondary token to your bank logon.) OK, now granted I got the free Core Hound pup with it, but it also has a sweet iPhone app that generates the 2FA code!

Now what were those third-party apps the original phish may have alluded to? Bots most likely. As anyone who follows this blog is aware, bots refer to robots, usually malicious in nature, but they simply automate tasks. Some of the more popular bots for World of Warcraft are farming and leveling bots. They are designed for pretty much what you would guess: They automate the “farming” of a variety of materials (later sold for in-game gold) or even honor (honor points can be used to purchase in-game items). These bots can also automate the process of leveling your character. Some examples:

and also:

Should your account be found to be using any of these, it will get banned–as it violates Blizzard’s terms of service. Credential and logon theft is one of the biggest areas of malware we at McAfee Labs deal with on a daily basis. Make sure you stay updated, properly configured and be cautious of in-game messages!

And level-up old school–the account you save may be your own!

Social engineering is probably the most common technique for to enticing unsuspecting victims to reveal information or purchase something of no value. In the anti-virus world we often see malware authors use scare tactics to sell rogue anti-virus or “fake alert” anti-virus software.

Rogue malware authors use various methods to fool victims into purchasing their products. Some of the most common methods:

• Creating links to malicious web pages in which common search terms in search engines bring these pages to the top of the list, a.k.a. search poisoning
• Disguising themselves as legitimate applications, especially under peer-to-peer and IRC networks
• Offering downloads as legitimate software using bit torrent protocol

Over the last couple of days McAfee Labs has seen an increase in submissions from customers with regards to one variant of the fake alert family classified as FakeAlert-SpyPro.gen.ai. We’ll describe the characteristic behavior of this variant in this blog. We also have a comprehensive description of this malware in our Virus Information Library.

Once this malware is run on the local machine, it displays a warning indicating that the computer is infected with various types of malware and that the user needs to click to clean the computer.

When the user clicks the warning, it pops up a window and initiates a fake scan on the computer. It shows a number of detections and warns the user that the system is infected. To “clean” the malware from the computer, users must purchase the software from the website “antiv[removed].com”

If left to run, this software attempts to use Internet Explorer to open websites with pornographic content.

The fake alert software also makes a number of changes to the Windows registry so that it can load itself at startup and disables phishing filters on Internet Explorer.
When users attempt to run a legitimate executable, this malware pops up and informs them that the file is infected and if users want to run the anti-virus software to clean the infection.

Here are a few cleaning and remediation steps you can take to remove or keep this malware at bay:

• Ensure that you have a legitimate copy of anti-virus software installed on the machine
• Ensure that software is updated regularly
• Exercise caution when you click on links. Using software such as SiteAdvisor (www.siteadvisor.com) can help because it distinguishes between safe and risky sites.
• Do not be enticed into downloading legitimate software for free, especially from P2P, IRC, or bit torrent networks
• Exercise caution while clicking links in emails that look suspicious, even If they appear to come from a known contact