Slashdot Mirror


Spyware for Corporate Espionage

therufus writes "Late in July, an e-mail that hit employee in-boxes at a British credit card and finance company carried a secret payload--spyware capable of recording confidential corporate data and sending it over the Net."

51 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Most of my company's data already goes right to our competitors already. What with our fancy new wireless network. Check it out - SSID: linksys, no wep, no wpa...

  2. Here is an idea. by Omni+Magnus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't open Emails that you have no clue who they came from. This is just common sense.

    1. Re:Here is an idea. by binaryDigit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't open Emails that you have no clue who they came from. This is just common sense.

      That line of defense fails when only 1 person forgets this fact (or as a permutation of the following) and the "virus/worm" spreads itself by having the from address of the newly infected person. Plus, it doesn't take a lot of effort to find out who the IT or some other higher up in a company is and use their name as the sender of the email.

    2. Re:Here is an idea. by gclef · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The one problem with this is salescritters. They expect to get emails from unknown folks...those are called sales leads. Of course, salescritters are also notorious for being fools (no, your customers will never write to say "I LOVE YOU"), but your attitude ignores that some people need to open emails that come from unknown sources.

  3. Here's our nightmare scenario in the military.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some enterprising cracker is going to encapsulate a key logger into a piece of spyware, it is going to have a logic bomb in it so it will self destruct (the purpose to gather info and then leave no trace) , it will record passwords and other info, and that info will be sent back to some third party possibly a hostile government.

    It's going to happen. Here's why it's troublesome and mod me down if you must but our operation has a blind allegiance to Redmond and the IM folks are not particularly bright. We have had network problems in the past. China has opted to bet the farm on Linux after seeing the Windows Source Code.

    As one of the few Linux developers here, I fear a nightmare is coming. I would really welcome any ideas that anyone has about how we combat this or put our minds at ease.

    Redmond related flames go to /dev/null.

  4. Priceless... by gpinzone · · Score: 3, Funny

    Designing a spyware program: $153

    Bulk emailing said program: $35

    Obtaining thousands of credit card numbers: Priceless

  5. Stop Spyware at the Source by Ridgelift · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dubbed the Consortium Of Anti-Spyware Technology Vendors and led by the creators of the popular Ad-Aware and Pest Patrol software programs, the group is trying to create standard definitions of "spyware," "adware" and other pests, and give best-practices recommendations to the companies that want to avoid being blocked by their software.(emphasis added)

    Once again, the main technical problem lies with Windows. Spyware is just another form of malware, which takes advantage of defects in the operating system to gain access.

    I would hope that the Consortium Of Anti-Spyware Technology Vendors would promote Linux, Mac and other operating systems that are better equipped to rebuff malware attacks.

    1. Re:Stop Spyware at the Source by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny. Microsoft is to blame for spyware issues, but Kazaa, et. al. aren't the problem when it comes to piracy.

      Love the double standard. LOVE IT.

      --
      evil adrian
    2. Re:Stop Spyware at the Source by mysticgoat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Funny. Microsoft is to blame for spyware issues, but Kazaa, et. al. aren't the problem when it comes to piracy.

      Love the double standard. LOVE IT.

      Sorry, but I don't see the connection that you are trying to make between these two situations. The closest I can get is that some Microsoft products have subsurface design flaws that create opportunities for lawbreakers, while Kazaa is openly designed to offer opportunities to circumvent some laws in addition to other lawful uses. But I can't tie these separate statements together the way you suggest.

      Can you more clearly point out the connection between a flawed product that is dangerous to use in non-obvious ways and a product that is well designed but might be used for obviously illegal purposes?

    3. Re:Stop Spyware at the Source by Hub_City · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No double standard. Kazaa does exactly what it says it's going to do. Microsoft's platform has a whole bunch of unexpected (and harmful) side effects.

      If Kazaa started infecting people with viral code (outside of the spyware we all *know* it ships with) and people turned a blind eye, *then* there'd be a double standard.

      -HubCity

    4. Re:Stop Spyware at the Source by peter_gzowski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The connection he's trying to make is that when KaZaA spreads spyware to 10s of millions of people, it is largely ignored by the /. crowd. Most comments come to KaZaA's defence, saying Sharman Networks is the white knight trumpeting P2P legitimacy in the face of the 800lb gorilla (RIAA/MPAA), and could do no wrong. Then when an article comes up about Spyware distribution, which usually occurs through less-than-obvious installation on the back of programs like KaZaA, /. comments latch on to the less-common mechanism of email exploitation and are quick to blame Microsoft.

      Compare the earlier thread about KaZaA with this one. There is very little critism of KaZaA's spyware distribution (if any), and more just back and forth with the same tired arguments about P2P legitimacy (I'm not saying they're not valid, I've just heard them all a million times). This thread has little or no mention of KaZaA (except for the parent post and subsequent replies), and more talk about poor email client design.

      --
      "Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
  6. Strong Policy Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work for a Fortune 500 financial institution. We have very stringent requirements for our customer information. For instance, if any bank manager decides to take any client information to work over the weekend, he/she must get approval from 25% of the clients that he will work on. This is according to FCC regulations especially if said bank manager is using a wireless router with Verizon.

    We also frown upon expedient use of inter-office e-mail for non-productive purposes. We found that the best way to rationalize our procedures is to make the frequent example of an employee who refuses to follow the rules.

    Another point where we emphasize data security is in the discardation process of obsolete hardware. We make sure that any media has been de-magnetized (in case of floppies and CDs), exposed to ultraviolet light in case of Hard disk drives, or combusted for tape media.

    So far our security record has been 100% according to our internal auditing firm.

    Which is nice.

    1. Re:Strong Policy Required by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What does UV light do to hard disks? Last time I looked, aluminium castings and pressed aluminium were pretty much UV-opaque. And, the oxide layers on the platters aren't UV sensitive either.

    2. Re:Strong Policy Required by drayzel · · Score: 3, Funny

      So far our security record has been 100% according to our internal auditing firm.


      Your password is ji5ppii9

      Your desktop wallpaper is that of a large blonde woman and 3 kids.

      You spend 4 hours a day at slashdot.org, 2+ at espn.com and an hour at goatse.cx

      The most used applications on your computer are SOL.EXE, IEXPLORE.EXE and MSWORD.EXE

      You chronicaly respond to "Lenghten The Size Of Your Weed" and "See Her Naked" spam e-mails.


      Your internal auditing firm is 100% useless.

    3. Re:Strong Policy Required by nolife · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On that note. I tried using a large bulk tape eraser on a HD the other day. I passed over it, tried all angles of attack, held it on the drive for minutes at a time, and even tried some of the the above while the HD was running on a working system. It did not do any checksums of the data before and after but I really thought it would have caused some serious damage, it appeared to do nothing. It did demagnatize all the monitors within 10 feet though.

      There was a myth busting style show on cable last month where they tested credit card magnetic stips in various magnetic fields. I don't recall the actual magnetic field required to cause data corruption to the cards but it was much higher then I would have thought.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
  7. Good.... by Predathar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    maybe if more companies get hit by these things, more BIG companies, more pressure might be applied to help solve the problem, more tougher laws? Higher fines?

    And it has to be more than the USA that makes these laws, we need Asia and Europe to follow and nail these people.

  8. Sneaks by dolo666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My question is about sneaks. There are software packages that sneak spyware onto systems currently, but little is published about how to prevent this from happening. New technology circumvents anti-spyware using .Net and other features that hide the programs running. Similar uses for .Net is used by Counterstrike hacks, for cheating.

    My guess is that while we keep putting energy toward blocking spyware, and detecting it, the same energy is being put toward inventing it. Is this a battle between good and evil? It would seem so.

    Generally, I run anti-spyware programs on a frequent basis, but is it enough? Likely not. A watchdog organization, at the governmental level, is required, not just a committee. Committees come and go, but their findings should go toward an ethical standards legal department, or some kind of funded watchdog that has a declaration of what an ethical software package is, and what crosses the line. Penalties involving more than fines are in order, too, or you get people who just want to break even or make some dough, but are willing to risk fines. Espionage is illegal. Maybe that law applies, but IANAL...

    1. Re:Sneaks by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it's becoming vaguely "Star Wars"-ish. Darth Gator versus PepiMK Skywalker... oy, there's something I never wanted to see. However, at the school district where I work, we're coming up with an interesting method of combating spyware: lawsuits against the companies. Since the spyware is often found on elementary school computers, and it's children who download it, the technical staff has considered lawsuits. IANAL, but it goes something like this: the children are obviously minors, and when they click the EULA for installing an ActiveX control or someone goes through the ByteVerify exploit, they do not create a legally binding contract, and as it's an elementary school, the advertisers are very obviously collecting data on people under 13, which violates the COPA. Hence, we sue. It made sense to the legal department, and they're now trying to take out Rightfinder and CoolWebSearch. Also, since the CWS group of spyware can be classified as Trojan horses/virii, aren't they in violation of some obscure section of the USC? I'd _swear_ that they were.

      --

      Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
  9. Is anyone surprised? by blankinthefill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not. This is the logical conclusion (Or beginning) to the "virus age" that we've been experiencing. And I think the articale is wrong in some respects, like their thinking that the script kiddies and such are long gone. They are still here, and are having nore effect than ever as they modify already dangerous viruses, making it harder to block and stop them. And tell me, when has broad ranging legislation really helped anyone? Untill it's proven effective, I will remain wary of anything of the sort.

    1. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And tell me, when has broad ranging legislation really helped anyone?

      I don't see legislation being very effective at all. How will legislation stop the script kiddies? Are you going to drastically increase the punishments for releasing a virus into the wild? Two problems with that:

      1) Should somebody really be sent up the hill for 20-30 years for releasing a computer virus? Moreso if it's a stupid kid that really ought to know better, but doesn't? (We all did stupid stuff as kids) At worst the punishment should fit the crime -- if the virus kills someone in a Hospital because it locked up the database server and they couldn't pull medical records and the patient had some sort of allergic reaction (or what not), then you could charge the kiddie (assuming you even catch him -- see point 2) with manslaughter or the equivalent. If all the virus does is annoy people and eat up bandwidth, does he really deserve to go away for the next 30 years?

      2) How often are the actual authors behind viruses/worms caught anyway?

      I guess my point as far as the "punish those rat bastards" idea goes is that it would probably be better to enforce existing laws rather then write new ones. Do we really trust Congress (home to such wonderful ideas as the DMCA, the Patriot Act, etc etc) to not screw this up?

      As far as I see it, the solution is as it has always been. Security. A properly designed network with properly maintained/patched software and reasonably educated users is a pretty tough nut to crack. And as much as I dislike Microsoft I do have to admit that in the recent cases that gained fame (Blaster comes to mind) they did have patches out. People just ignored them. The home user has an excuse... the corporate user with a trained IT staff has none. Linux is hardly immune to this effect either -- if a flaw is discovered in OpenSSH, sendmail, or BIND, and you don't upgrade/patch it, you have nobody to blame but yourself when you get hosed. Saying you didn't know about the patch is a piss poor excuse -- it's your job to know.

      Of course the problem is getting those reasonably educated users and (if you work for a larger company) stopping the PHBs from interfering with your attempts to lock down the network. It's usually been my experience however that after a few rounds of viruses that rip apart the network and cost the company tons of money to deal with, the PHBs will start to listen to the IT staff. Of course, if the IT staff does too good of a job they may stop listening -- but that's the danger you face when working under a PHB. Fortunately I don't have to work for a clueless CTO or PHB -- but I have in the past, and I always managed to do a fairly good job at protecting them from themselves.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  10. Questions... by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Pardon my ignorance, but...

    • What kind of stupid sys-admin allows .vbs, .js , .exe, .sws attachements thru the corporate email ?
    • What kind of idiot sys-admin would allow the corporate users , to run their PCs with admin previleges , so that any unwanted junk s/w be installed on their PCs ?
    • Which genius allows unrestricted access to confidential corporate data to its users ?
    • Why do the corporate firewalls not block out-bound traffic to all ports but a select few HTTP/SSL ect ?
    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    1. Re:Questions... by jdreed1024 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      What kind of stupid sys-admin allows .vbs, .js , .exe, .sws attachements thru the corporate email ?

      The sys-admin who is told by the CEO to remove the e-mail blocks, because someone wants to e-mail him a self-extracing zip file (.exe).

      What kind of idiot sys-admin would allow the corporate users , to run their PCs with admin previleges , so that any unwanted junk s/w be installed on their PCs ?

      The sys-admin who gets in trouble when he yelled at Bobby the Intern (who happens to be the CTO's nephew) for installing Kazaa on his machine. Ditto for the sys-admin who was told to turn the PHB's account into an Administrator account so he could install MS Entertainment Pack.

      Which genius allows unrestricted access to confidential corporate data to its users ?

      The genius who tried to secure the confidential corporate data with X.509 certificates and/or passwords, but was then told to remove them, because the VIPs were complaining about having to remember too many passwords.

      Why do the corporate firewalls not block out-bound traffic to all ports but a select few HTTP/SSL ect ?

      Because then the PHB can't use AIM to chat with his friends.

      Seriously, I worked as a sys-admin in an environment like this. You wouldn't believe the number of safety procedures that the CEO/CTO/PHB wanted to circumvent to make life easier for themselves. Unless you have a CTO who understands security and will stand up to the rest of the VIPs, you're doomed. Completely and utterly doomed.

      I attempted to implement the passwd changing program with cracklib support to prevent users from picking stupid passwords. That lasted about a week before I was told to take it away.

      There was a brief period of time where we went around and killed off IE on the desktop machines, because there were too many damn vulnerabilities. That lasted about 2 weeks before the CEO told us that the researchers couldn't use "this Netscape thing".

      Repeat for many other events. Bottom line is anyone who is not a sys-admin knows two things: routine and usability. However, implementing propert security requires changing at least one of those, if not both. And therein lies the problem.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    2. Re:Questions... by wcdw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But the problem is that *all* of those questions are moot in the world of laptops and VPNs. It is MUCH harder to defend against virii (et alia) from the inside of the network.

      And who is going to tell the CEO that he can't bring his laptop (that his kid infected twelve ways from Sunday last night) into the office? Or that he can't *send* .vbs, .exe, et alia attachments? (Including to other employees, obviously.)

      Likewise, VPNs are a *wonderful* tool. The convenience of being able to transparently access corporate resources remotely is unbeatable. And a lot of VPN software even prevents personal internet connections while the VPN is active, to prevent backdoor routing into the corporate network.

      If the client computer is already infected, however, none of that amounts to a hill of beans. It becomes exactly the same scenario as taking the laptop into the office, only more dangerous -- the home VPN machine may have a full-time 'net connection, and has a better chance of being infected already.

      In short, if you really don't know the answers to your questions, you probably haven't supported a lot of senior management types.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    3. Re:Questions... by nearlygod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1. I block all executable email at the server but PHBs will not let me block .zip files.

      2. After two managers complained that they couldn't install any of software that they wanted because they didn't have Admin priviledges, the PHBs decided that everyone should have Admin rights so they could install anything that they want "within reason."

      I just felt like sharing.

      --
      The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
    4. Re:Questions... by Samus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why do the corporate firewalls not block out-bound traffic to all ports but a select few HTTP/SSL etc?
      I think any decent sized corporation with a firewall admin does this already. The problem starts when you have protocols designed to circumvent firewall security. SOAP is nothing really but rpc over http on port 80. You can block whatever ports you want but as long as you have an outbound port opening somebody can find a way to use it.

      What kind of idiot sys-admin would allow the corporate users , to run their PCs with admin previleges , so that any unwanted junk s/w be installed on their PCs ?

      Again it doesn't really matter. All the buffer overflow exploits that have happened recently didn't make a check to a security manager to see if they could install a piece of software. Nimda, code red etc just installed themselves.

      What kind of stupid sys-admin allows .vbs, .js , .exe, .sws attachements thru the corporate email ?
      If you haven't seen the list of attachments outlook 2003 won't let you send you'll laugh your ass off when you do. Its basically any document that you can create with a Microsoft tool with a few of their competitors thrown in for good measure(pdf!?). I still think people will find ways to socially engineer their way around that one.
      Which genius allows unrestricted access to confidential corporate data to its users ?

      Doesn't really matter. If the pc of someone who is authorized to view that data is comprimised the cracker gets the keys to the kingdom.

      --
      In Republican America phones tap you.
    5. Re:Questions... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It is your responsibility as a sys admin NOT to do so, up to and including resigning your post

      Actually your responsibility is to your family who might starve if you resign your post and can't get another job (all the moreso in our economy).

      Sorry, but I took a bullet for an employer in the past and it got me nothing but a pink slip and a "Thank you for your loyalty" when layoff time rolled around. They also left me out hanging to defend myself when the shit started to hit the fan.

      If a company tells me to do something stupid (as long as it isn't illegal) regardless of what I say, then I'm going to do it. I'll make sure I have a paper trail to cover my own ass (either within the company or without if it breaks down into some sort of outside audit/investigation), but I'm not going to resign to and go broke to defend a company that wouldn't listen to me in the first place. Even if you did resign, they'd just go hire somebody else who would do what they wanted.

      Fortunately I work for a small Independent company without any PHBs who make me do stupid stuff. Should I ever have the misfortune to work for a PHB again though, I will not be taking bullets for him or the company.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Questions... by jc42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there isn't a browser window up and visible on the screen (software CAN detect this), why should it allow ANY 443 or 80 traffic through ?

      So you would, for example, block all attempts to use the lynx browser (which runs in a terminal window)? Be a bit careful about answering, because in a lot of jurisdictions, there can be serious fine for knowingly discriminating against the visually impaired.

      And, on a more general basis, port 80 is used by a lot of software other than browsers. If a file my app needs to use is available via some centralized web archive, why shouldn't my app be allowed to get at the data? It's easy enough to code. Just a TCP connection to port 80 on the archive machine, and an HTTP "GET" command. I've worked on any number of projects where data is provided across the whole LAN this way, because it's simple and convenient. This presents no danger at all of any spyware being installed and run.

      Some time back, I got a lot of geek points on a project by writing a makefile entry that created a particular .h file by using wget to fetch the latest copy of a particular man page from a standard org's web site, and feeding it to a little perl program. This program grovelled through the text, built #defines and C structs from data that it found, and wrote the .h file. "What, your program reads a man page and generates C?" "Well, yeah; you got a problem with that?"

      Remember that the original function of the Web was for physicists who wanted to make their data files easily available to software on machines scattered around the Net. Browsers were added later. But the Web isn't only for browsers.

      And on a lot of server machines, the windowing software isn't even installed, because there's no display. Requiring an open browser window would prevent any use of any Web software on such machines.

      I for one wouldn't want to do without lynx and wget. And they are not sources of the sort of spyware being discussed here. Blocking their use wouldn't solve the problem at all.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    7. Re:Questions... by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I can sympathise with you , but you do realise that you are working (or have worked) for one idiot CEO.

      Two years ago I was working for a major bank's international head office, and the security there was paranoidal. It was a sys-admins dream come true.

      • No internet access, except for only those who need it. only http and https allowed.
      • No FTP or telnet, only ssh allowed, and ssh server , configured to allow access only from a very restricted subdomain
      • All system/sys DB accounts disabled after initial setup. No database with customer data could go live unless the system/sys a/cs were disabled
      • Audit loggig of every data that goes in-out
      • Root password split btween 3 persons, i.e. all three have to be present to log in as root..priceless
      • A new password generated for every previleged a/c login. i.e. password valid for only one login
      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    8. Re:Questions... by laci · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How about delaying the delivery of suspicious attachents by half an hour? If you get 10 emails (not necessarily the same addressee) with the same attachment within half an hour then declare it a virus/worm and do not deliver it. If no other copy arrives within half an hour then it is likely to be safe to deliver.

      So just replace the attachment with a message stating that the attachment will be delivered in half an hour. If you get a call from the CEO then you'll know that the attachment was legit and you can forward it right when he calls :-).

      --Laci

  11. Conflict of Interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    Ooooh! I'm so torn between my desire for a safe internet and my hatred of credit card companies.

    See? Bad things do happen to bad people!

  12. Re:Here's our nightmare scenario in the military.. by darkstar949 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I second that, it would not be too hard to either write the key logger or the logic bomb - for that matter it would not nessecary need to destroy the entire program, just anything that can be used to track back to the oginator. The biggest problem in preventing something such would be to control the vectors through which it could be introduced to the network (i.e. Users running e-mail attactments), because once the program is on the network the damage has been done.

  13. BS !! by AftanGustur · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Don't open Emails that you have no clue who they came from. This is just common sense

    Come one, grow up, we're no longer 6 years old and there is no good reason why we should be forced to live in fear of our emails !!

    If a email can do all kinds of bad stuff to your computer, it is the fault of the one who wrote the email software, period..

    Don't try to blame the victim because he was simply using the software for what is it supposed to do ...

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re: BS !! by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sure the virus writers are ultimately to blame. In terms of what you actually have control over, however, the email software is the big culprit.

      You can't control virus writers. You can't prevent unknown parties from targeting your network.

      You can, however, institute safeguards on your network. You can use an email client which is a well-known vector for worms. You can make it impossible for your users to accidentally execute an email worm. These things are under your control.

      Not that any of these things are easy, of course, especially if your users are addicted to Outlook.

  14. This happens quite a lot by nodwick · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There's an article in Dvorak's column in this month's PC Magazine (near the middle) describing how a day trader used a key logger to steal someone's brokerage password via a similar scheme. From the article:
    Using an alias, Dinh began prowling around in an online stock-chat forum, until he got the e-mail addresses of some of the traders. Using yet another alias, he then e-mailed these folks the key-logging backdoor, claiming in a long letter that he was beta-testing a new stock-charting software system and wondering whether they could help.

    Apparently, one unsuspecting sucker executed the software and wasn't suspicious when it didn't really do anything. Now Dinh had a backdoor and simply key-logged until he found the guy's online brokerage information and password. He could buy and sell from the guy's account.

    Apparently he used the other account as a dump for derivatives that he needed to offload quickly. Of course the person in the story should obviously have been more careful about clicking on attachments, but one lesson here is that as people become increasingly wired, the value of logins and passwords is becoming high enough that stealing those is as valuable or more than credit card numbers. This is especially true if you think about how much you can do financially online -- many people use the Internet almost exclusively for bill payments, stock transactions, money transfers, etc.
  15. No need to worry by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft is now focussing on security, so there's no need to worry any more :-)

    Since we're 110% confident that all those dedicated knowledgeable MS administrators will be keeping up-to-date with all the patches, and that with the new focus, MS software will soon be completely immune to viruses, who cares about any of this stuff ?

    Simon.
    [removes tongue from cheek]

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  16. Confidential data by Decameron81 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem here is at several different levels. You can no longer expect nowadays to be protected by simply closing your doors to the outside world (ie. protecting your computer against outside attacks), but you also have to learn how to protect your computer from internal attacks. The risk of having a program already installed in your computer trying to access your data is quite higher these days than it was a few years ago, and for this very reason corporations should spend more time trying to develop encrypted systems for data storage and tighter policies aimed at improving their security systems.

    It's also necessary to protect your data against your very own employees when they are not supposed to be able to see it. And I can say that often this is not the case.

    Another important and necessary step is to instruct people using computers to work on security. And this is often not the case either.

    Diego Rey

    --
    diegoT
  17. Don't fear the kiddies.... by ajs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a sysadmin that has been dealing with security issues in financial and other corporate settings for well over a decade, I can tell you that the fear-factor on kiddies with their viruses starts to fade over time. However, what I've noticed happening is that people are coming to accept these relatively benign viruses, root-kits, etc as a fact of life, and they seem to be forgetting that where kiddie-hack-of-the-week can succede there WILL ALWAYS BE a small, but worrisome number of clueful people exploiting the opening.

    Most often those people are insiders, so you have the added worry that things like firewalls are useless (do you sniff email for viruses on internal mail? do you have unpatched servers that only intenal users have access to?), and they may be able to convince others that you think you can trust to look the other way.

    Security is one of those ugly balancing acts. Ultimately, it's a losing game because once a determined cracker with a clue sets their sights on you, you're done for. No amount of security is sufficient... really (yes, even a gasketted vault with armed guards CAN be cracked). The key is risk-vs-reward and always trying to make sure that some poor clueless bastard out there is an easier target than you.

  18. Re:Here's our nightmare scenario in the military.. by LilJC · · Score: 3, Interesting
    As one of the few Linux developers here, I fear a nightmare is coming. I would really welcome any ideas that anyone has about how we combat this or put our minds at ease.

    Well we know that a lot of these get around even secured networks because of the users. However, in most of these networks there is a competent admin who runs a firewall, but can't run ad-aware on every machine constantly (and if that were feasible, damage might already be done in one user session).

    So here's my idea, which maybe is already done but if it is I'd like to hear more about it. Have the firewall maintain grey-listed domains/IP's, essentially running a quick spyware check on outgoing traffic. I don't think this would be a huge CPU load, as most traffic is incoming, not outgoing, in most offices. But I know I would like the routing machine in my office to send me a quick note if it suspects that IP 192.168.xxx.xxx has some spyware on it so I can check it out.

    Seems like a simple enough idea... it wouldn't even have to be done real-time as by the time an admin got the note, real-time action could not be taken. But a router could use some spare CPU cycles to check its log's latest outgoing packets for at least some known activity.

    Perhaps there is even a pattern of activity spyware reports through that a Bayesian-like filter would be able to catch and alert us of suspicious activity.

    When we go home from work, we all know that despite how we have users that simply open email and click attachments like nuts no matter what we say. At the same time, these people have skills that our offices need. Perhaps this would be a good added layer of protection to prevent spyware form staying around long enough to cause damage.

    --

    The only thing more dangerous than a file named -rf is renaming it -rf\ /
  19. Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The only thing that's news here is that someone caught it. God knows how much information is redistributed / modified this way (there are at least a dozen similar methods I can think of personally that any self-respecting spy, corporate or otherwise, must be using). That this one was caught just shows that people that aren't professionals are getting into the game.

    I have the pessimistic view that anything you know that someone else knows must be public knowledge (certainly to any member of the public that cares to know). The trick is, if you know they know, how do minimize the damage from the notions of a "secret" or "confidentiality" becoming extinct?

    God forbid we do develop telepathy like some sci-fi prophesied evolutionary advance.

  20. Obligatory Spyware Blocking Software Post by unassimilatible · · Score: 2, Informative

    At least for those with Windows boxes. My two favorites:

    Spybot S&D It's free and it "innouculates." Regular updates too.

    Spywareblaster. A little reduncancy, and it has a nice Flash killing tool as well.

    Honorable mention:

    Peer Guardian. In addition to RIAA IP address killing, it prevents loading of DoubleClick ads and snoopware. Regular blocklist updates, and IP addy's may be manually added.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  21. idiots always open attachments... by gamlidek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *Yawn* So what? Idiots will always open email attachments from unknown recipients and ultimately execute some sort of hidden code on their machine mainly because they can't figure out how to turn that stuff off or stop clicking on everything they see. I'd love to blame M$ here, but it really is the techno-weenies that do it to themselves by pretending they know how to use a computer, yet no matter how many times they're told "don't open attachments" they do it anyway. I love it when the email software is set up to autoexecute this stuff by default so they don't even know about it. RTFM, people!

    -gam

    --
    "In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not."
  22. Re:Here's our nightmare scenario in the military.. by zeux · · Score: 5, Insightful
    China has opted to bet the farm on Linux after seeing the Windows Source Code.

    I think that China choose Linux not because of Windows source code but because Windows is the product of an American company.

    But maybe I'm wrong.
  23. Re:Here's our nightmare scenario in the military.. by borgboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Are you talking about the US Millitary? Siprnet is rather closely watched, computers are audited for unauthorized applications, people get in serious trouble for installing unauthorized software on a secure network machine. It isnt connected to the internet. Ever.
    And if you're not talking about siprnet, then that machine/person/network just really isn't important enough to worry about - from a national security perspective.

    --
    meh.
  24. Security, or Intellectual Property, you pick. by emil · · Score: 2, Informative

    In the security context, Kazaa is actually much more to blame than Microsoft. Kazaa installs New.Net and other intrusive applications that compromise the privacy of their users. It is true that Microsoft Media Player and Windows Update also collect data on the habits of the userbase, but AFAIK their software isn't quite so intrusive.

    In the context of preserving intellectual property, Kazaa is to blame to some extent, but perhaps less so than Microsoft, Cisco, the phone companies and other infrastructure providers. Kazaa couldn't exist without a high-speed digital network with pervasive, ubiquitous connectivity. Kazaa is really only the "last mile" of a journey across a continent - because the infrastructure exists, destroying Napster and its derivatives simply causes the network to evolve a more rugged replacement - because the effort to evolve a new Napster is almost trivial.

    In any case, Microsoft could do some very public things to improve security:

    1. Use Mozilla Gecko (or KHTML) as the core of Internet Explorer 7 (which also solves W3C compliance issues).
    2. Hire Theo de Raadt & company to review and repair the Windows source code.
    3. Offer $100,000 for any Windows exploit that is delivered to Microsoft no less than one month before general release on the internet.

    To date, Microsoft has done nothing more than some enthusiastic chest-thumping about security. They have not seriously engaged a solution, and they are losing sales as a consequence.

  25. Flash drives? by tambo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So here's a (marginally) related thought.

    Vendors routinely give out free stuff at conferences, and one of the popular ones these days (actually halfway useful!) is a free 32mb USB key. And of course, every such key comes with plug-n-pray drivers so you can plug it in and start writing to it.

    They could easily include some network code in the driver that sends every document you write on the key to the company that sold the device. Of course, obscure this process: send only during idle periods; encrypt the document; send the files to some anonymous file dump in Malaysia or something that's only known and accessible by the company...

    Since these devices are routinely given freely to corporate representatives, this might net a high percentage of corporate documents, some of which might be valuable.

    - David Stein

    --
    Computer over. Virus = very yes.
  26. Re:Here's our nightmare scenario in the military.. by Hentai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The advantage of completely wiping the key logger is that if you destroy the evidence that they've been hacked, they'll never raise their suspicions, and you're much more likely to get away with whatever you're going to use those passwords for.

    Otherwise some administrator browses through someone's machine two months later, trying to figure out why it's so slow, and says "oh, shit..." - and then security clamps down like a {pick useful crude metaphor here}. It's far easier to slip in when noone's the wiser.

    --
    -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
  27. Re:Here's our nightmare scenario in the military.. by mc6809e · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We have had network problems in the past. China has opted to bet the farm on Linux after seeing the Windows Source Code.

    Even worse, maybe China never intended to use Windows but just wanted the source so that they might discover more vulnerabilities.

  28. Re:Keylogger prevention on OS X by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If, for whatever reason, you decide to boot to the console and run all of your programs in Xfree86 (and I do believe that some people do this, for what reasons I do not know), then you can know, because everything that's running is open source. OS X's core is open source, it's just the GUI layer that isn't.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  29. Re:Here's our nightmare scenario in the military.. by babyrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I disagree...it is MUCH better to have the entire program destroyed and no trace left whatsoever that the key logger/trojan/whatever you want to call it was there. That way a post mortem could not determine whether a specific machine was compromised.

    What would be scarier to you if you were in charge of machines with valuable data on them - a warning that said there was a potential breach, and check here, here and here to see if you were affected, or a warning that said there was a potential breach, however there is no way to determine whether you were affected or not? The latter situation certainly sounds scarier to me (if I acutally had anything that mattered on my PC)

  30. Re:Here's our nightmare scenario in the military.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Send your stolen information encrypted to a USENET group, and pick it up there. No connection traceable that way. And no one but you can read it. And out of the millions of messages...who else would know were to find it. Especially if you bounced it through some nym servers or mixmaster servers around the world a few times.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  31. Gator does not make AD-Aware! by BillX · · Score: 2, Informative

    Gator does not make AD-Aware. Lavasoft makes AD-Aware.

    You might be thinking of Spyware Nuker, which was spun off of the company (Lions' Pride Enterprises) that made the "Yo Mama Osama" spyware.

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.