Slashdot Mirror


New Worm Installs Sniffer

fmorgan writes "Netcraft just posted a note saying that a new worm installs a network sniffer in the infected computers." When I read these things it kind of makes me wonder why it took this long. Update: 09/13 22:47 GMT by T : More innovation: Ant writes "The Register has a story about a piece of malware that 'talks' to victims. The Amus email worm uses Windows Speech Engine (which is built-in to Windows XP) to deliver a curious message to infected users. The message reads: "How are you. I am back. My name is mister hamsi. I am seeing you. Haaaaaaaa. You must come to turkiye. I am cleaning your computer. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 0. Gule. Gule." ("Gule. Gule" is Turkish for "Bye. Bye". "Hamsi" is a small fish, like an anchovy, found in the Black Sea). F-Secure has a copy of the sound file generated by the message."

39 of 491 comments (clear)

  1. More technical details by Lord+Grey · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here is propagation information on the worm WORM_SDBOT.UH from Trend Micro (link pulled from the article):

    Network Propagation and Exploits

    This worm takes advantage of the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) vulnerability present on Windows XP systems, which allows an attacker to gain full access and execute any code on a target machine, leaving it compromised. Read more on this vulnerability from the following link:

    Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-026

    It also takes advantage of the Buffer Overflow in SQL Server 2000 vulnerability. Read more on this vulnerability from the following link:

    Microsoft Security Bulletin MS02-061

    This worm also exploits the IIS5/WEBDAV buffer overrun vulnerability affecting Windows NT platforms, which enables arbitrary codes to execute on the server. The following link offers more information from Microsoft about this vulnerability:

    Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-007

    It also exploits the Windows LSASS vulnerability. This is a buffer overrun vulnerability that allows remote code execution. Once successfully exploited, a remote attacker is able to gain full control of the affected system. For more information about this vulnerability, refer to the following Microsoft Web site:

    Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-011
    This worm spreads via network shares, using NetBEUI functions to get available lists of user names and passwords. It then searches for and lists down the following shared folders, where it drops a copy of itself using the gathered information:
    • Admin$\system32
    • C$\windows\system32
    • C$\winnt\system32
    • Ipc$
    Trend Micro reports that the worm runs on Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, and XP. But notice that they report that the worm as not in the wild. So... where is it? Did they get a prerelease?
    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
    1. Re:More technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      All the holes exploited were patched before XP SP2: SP2 already contains fixes for them.

    2. Re:More technical details by numark · · Score: 2, Informative

      The comment was more along the lines of, had those patches never been created in the first place, would SP2's Data Execution Prevention still prevent the problem? After all, "Prevention" implies a proactive system, so it should be able to prevent the problem even if a patch doesn't even exist.

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    3. Re:More technical details by Atrax · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    4. Re:More technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Tried it, they do.

    5. Re:More technical details by Net_Wakker · · Score: 2, Informative
      Microsoft will ship the [XP SP2] CD to you free of charge.
      true, but for a lot of languages the cdreleasedate is september 14 or later (check your own link), besides which MS states on that same page "Please allow approximately 4-6 weeks for shipping." So were I running XP, and on dial-up, I could'nt install SP2 before mid-october.
  2. Encrypt! by WD_40 · · Score: 5, Informative

    As demonstrated at DEFCON with "The Wall of Sheep" (stupid name, cool idea) it seems that a lot of people who should know better still don't encrypt their password transmissions.

    If you haven't already, it's time to get serious about encryption.

    --

    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

    1. Re:Encrypt! by rainer_d · · Score: 4, Informative

      > You can encrypt your password six ways from
      > Sunday and it will still have been intercepted
      > before it ever reaches your encryption software.

      Indeed. But there's that nice Squirrelmail plugin that lets you use a virtual keyboard to enter your password ;-)

      Rainer

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  3. Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by Jailbrekr · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you have a proper switch, then sniffing should not be a problem, as the traffic on the network will not reach the infected computer (unless it is also a server). Sadly, I fear that alot of the consumer "switches" on the market do not do proper routing, and have insufficient mac routing tables.

    --
    Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    1. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by khrtt · · Score: 2, Informative

      I fear that alot of the consumer "switches" on the market do not do proper routing

      All home routers I've seen (dlink, linksys, smc, belkin) do route, but only between the outside and the inside. On the inside, the 4 ports are on a regular hub, so no routing. This is appropriate for the normal usage pattern, 4 computers connected through the router to the evel internet. The sniffer would work fine. If the thing can sniff bank-account passwords from victims' home computers, it should give the author more than enough money to steal.

    2. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hubs, switches and routers are three different pieces of network equipment.

      Hubs are collapsed ethernet busses: Every attached device can see every ethernet frame sent by any other attached device.

      Switches work on a higher layer: They inspect the frames and send only broadcast frames to all devices. For the rest of the frames, they maintain a table of MAC-layer addresses of all devices attached to the switch ports. Targeted frames only get sent to the port to which the target device is connected.

      Routers work on an even higher level: They inspect IP packets and do with them about the same as what switches do with ethernet frames. Routers are generally more flexible about the rules regarding the packet flow than switches. It is not uncommon for routers to have the ability to perform switch-like ethernet level functions as well, but conceptually routing and switching are two different beasts.

      At least cheap home switches can be tricked into passing frames to the "wrong" ports in several ways. One method is to flood the MAC-address-to-port table. Most switches then fall back into hub mode. Generally speaking, non-manageable switches and switches without clearly-defined reactions to MAC flooding are not security devices. You should assume that an attacker can read your packets on a switched network.

    3. Re:Proper switches will defeat the sniffer by stor · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you flood the arp cache of most switches they will failover to behaving like a hub. There are other tricks as well.

      Switches don't route, they switch: they're a layer 2 device.

      I have a AU$25 switch that *is* a switch. I've tested it (not hard to test: I used tcpdump). Noone seems to be building hubs anymore because it's become so damn cheap to build a switch.

      Also the "switching" nature of a switch is more for performance reasons rather than security. A switch can store the packets in a small buffer then forward them to the relevant port for full duplex operation and collision-prevention. A hub is a half-duplex device.

      Don't guess, test, read, learn.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  4. Re:Non-malicious worms by newend · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you delete everything on the machine, then the virus can't propagate. What would have to happen is the virus would have to have a delay, and then there is a risk that it will be discovered before the payload (deletion) takes place. Futher, I think most of the virus writers think of it more as a game, and don't really want to destroy data so much as see what they can accomplish. Would you rather destroy Rome or own it?

  5. Re:I dont even get the purpose.... by aelbric · · Score: 2, Informative

    The idea is to sniff the infected computer, not it's connected network. Works wonders even on switched LANS. Once you're running local, the net infrastructure is meaningless.

    --
    nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
  6. uIP already exists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seems like the uIP embedded TCP/IP stack would be ideal for this, as it is very small and portable. Also, it apparently already has been ported to and run on laptop keyboard microcontrollers. How about that kind of sniffer virus!

  7. What's new about that? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... a new worm installs a network sniffer ... it kind of makes me wonder why it took this long.

    What's new about that?

    Network sniffers installed on compromised machines is the ENTIRE REASON DMZs were invented - so the network sniffer can only sniff the DMZ, not the LAN behind the second packet-filtering router/bridge.

    DMZs have been standard practice for over a decade. If there's anything new about this, it's just that it's the first time a worm in the wild has been identified as installing a sniffer.

    But that's hardly surprising. The explosion of professionally-engineered worms is quite recent, as is consumer-level deployment of multi-machine LANs behind firewall+NAT appliances. (I'd expect packet-sniffing cracks aimed at businesses to be more targeted rather than worm-style scatterguns, if only to reduce their chances of discovery.) Seems to me the time became ripe JUST NOW for general deployment of a sniffer-installing Microsoft-exploiting worm.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:What's new about that? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aside from the IIS bug, wtf would a DMZ matter? Seriously, we're talking about a worm that spreads via freaking network shares. What are you thinking...that each Windows machine live in its own DMZ? Or maybe you're just talking out of your ass...

      Servers on the DMZ provide services to the rest of the net, and thus are hosts that can be attacked through vulnerabilities in their service-providing protocols. This made such servers the likely points of compromise. Putting them on a DMZ that is isolated from the corporate LAN kept such compromises from sniffing the LAN - where inside-the-firewall desktop machines would be exchnging valuable data without further layers of protection. Exploits of compromised servers (and the use of a DMZ to isolate them) have been a problem (and solution) for a LONG time.

      Note the past tense.

      Attacks on workstations behind the firewalls by email viruses (i.e. trojan-horse attachments to emails including a self-remailing action) have also been with us for a while. Potentially these could (and occasionally did) install keyboard sniffers. But a LAN sniffer payload does not seem to have been common. Perhaps this is because LAN sniffer payloads would typically be directed at a particular target, and so be attached to NON-replicating trojan email directed toward users on the target LAN.

      Very recently, worms (propagating software modules that do NOT require human interaction to spread) graduated from a theoretical possibilty to a common scourge. And they have even more recently been adopted by profit-making criminal enterprises - first spammers, then other scammers (such as phishers). So there is plenty of money available to engineer them for more function.

      Some recent worms have included keyboard sniffers and filters to reduce the data, detecting and extracting the items of interest (i.e. account numbers and passwords of users of major banking institutions). This represents a breakthrough: Data reduction on the compromised machine, to limit the traffic on the collection sites to a pre-screened pithy dribble.

      At that point, general distribution of LAN packet sniffers in worm payloads (rather than directed infection as non-reproducing trojans) becomes a practical matter. The sniffer can use the infected machine to sort out the traffic of interest, rather than flooding the collector with junk (just as the viral keyboard sniffers with filtering can).

      But it also becomes desirable to do LAN rather than keyboard sniffing - because with LAN sniffing the traffic of NON-compromised machines can also be sniffed. A Windows machine on a corporate LAN or a personal LAN behind a firewall+NAT appliance becomes a threat to the traffic of Macs, Linux boxes, BSD boxes, and other tougher targets.

      So the appearance of a LAN-sniffing worm shortly after the worm explosion and the appearance of keyboard-sniffing, data-reducing viruses is right on the expected evolutionary timetable.

      As for having "each Windows machine live in its own DMZ", putting all the windows machines on another DMZ separated from the other internal servers might be a good idea about now.

      Further, some of the security solutions currently being deployed amount to monitoring the Windows machines' (or their individual applications') behavior to identify infection, and cutting off the machines (or killing the affected applications) if they appear compromised. This may not amount to putting each one on its own DMZ, but it's getting closer.

      And the use of switches, rather than hubs, to connect the machines in a *-base-T LAN, amounts to EXACTLY "each machine [on] its own DMZ", at least as far as sniffing unicast LAN traffic is concerned. It doesn't block active probing - but that's what those other solutions I mentioned are about.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  8. Re:Scary by agm · · Score: 2, Informative

    That would be a good thing, IMO.

    The problem with a sniffer virus like this is that it can sniff network data that comes from any OS, not just the infected one. So in this case this Windows only virus is a bad thing for Linux users as well (assuming the Linux users are sending plain-text passwords and the like).

  9. Question by prostoalex · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cannot check this right now, but wouldn't it be possible to write a Windows executable that writes to the HOSTS file? The file is at a known location, and couldn't you add a line to redirect msn.com and yahoo.com to your own site?

    Seems like a fairly simple exploit.

    1. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why is the parent modded interesting? Spyware has been editing hosts files for years. e.g.
      127.0.0.1 www.spywareinfo.com
      127.0.0.1 www.adaware.com

      WinPatrol and SpyBot's teatimer can tell you if the hosts file has been changed.

  10. yep! by Zilfondel2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yea, actually, a lot of the time the virus writers DO email them to the different antivirus companies. Having your virus added to the weekly virus definition files is part of their bragging rights.

    Do you really think there are 55,000 viruses in the wild?

    Yea yea, I worked for symantec for a couple of years.

  11. Many unswitched networks still exist by loqi · · Score: 3, Informative

    A lot of /.'ers have pointed out that most networks are switched nowadays; however, there are still plenty of networks out there that aren't.

    Every mid-level enthusiast home network I've known was just running a dumb hub, and I'm also familiar with a university that ran hubs per floor in the dorms (you couldn't get floor 8's data on floor 9, but as for everyone on floor 9...). This worm still has a plenty big playground.

    --
    If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
  12. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

    This reminds me, I'm in the process of building a new pc and want to get the opinion of the shack collective on what is the best antivirus software.

    Take your pick: *BSD, SuSE, Red Hat...

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  13. Re:SSL for everything by bluewee · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think you are forgetting OpenSSH and Cygwin.

    --
    [blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
  14. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by IcEMaN252 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I vote for Norton, but that's probably because its what I've used for a long time. McAfee tends to run background scans (at least in implentations I've seen) while Norton runs in the foreground. Obviously, both do realtime protection as well, but I prefer foreground virus scans that I can schedule when I'm not using my computer, like at 3:37 am.

    --
    CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
  15. Re:SSL for everything by hab136 · · Score: 2, Informative
    how come so many services require a certificate (such as SSL with email, imap, pop, etc) rather than auto-negotiating it like SSH does?

    The idea is that you can verify the certificate belongs to who it says it belongs to (like www.yourbank.com), without exchanging any other communication (such as SSH's fingerprints) - you just verify the site's signature from Verisign (or whomever). SSH relies on you confirming the fingerprint the first time you connect.

    You can generate your own SSL certs if you don't care about proving them to anyone. Check out the apache docs for examples. Then, once you've accepted it the first time, you'll have no more prompts on further connects - exactly like SSH.

    See, for example, http://www.apache-ssl.org/#FAQ, "Now I've got my server installed, how do I create a test certificate?"

  16. Proper switches cannot always defeat a sniffer by thanasakis · · Score: 4, Informative
  17. Re:A sniffer would still be helpful... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Informative

    "It is time to empty the litter box."

    If I forget, Mrs. Underfoot lets me know by leaving a present in the middle of the floor. Believe me, I rarely forget.

    "Please do your laundry."

    Done on an as-needed basis. I'll run out, and live off the least-wrinkled shirts until the weekend.

    "Are you really sure you want to eat that leftover pizza?"

    Of-fricken-course! Pizza is the only food I've ever had that's even better microwaved than fresh.

    "For the love of god, please try deodorant. Any deodorant."

    Why? It's not like anyone comes near me...

  18. Re:the bad one by omnisync · · Score: 2, Informative

    Grep has been ported to Windows. (And most GNU command-line tools too) Omni

  19. Re:HACKED BY CHINESE by Cheffo+Jeffo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Um ... I THINK that was an attempt at humour ... HACKED BY CHINESE was the tagline appearing on web servers infected with Code Red ... IIRC, that is.

  20. Re:SSL for everything by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe UltraVnc (what I use, mostly) has an ecryption plugin?

    as for services--I don't believe any of the SSH clients can run as a service.. I'd be very surprised if there isn't some software out there that could do that though--would be a good project :-p

  21. Re:As usual these useless virus alerts lack info. by kryptkpr · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  22. Re:Best AntiVirus? Help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'd have to recommend AVG. It's free for home use, and so are the (daily) virus definitions. You can set it up to download the latest definitions and do a full scan at any time of day. It comes with some more advanced stuff, like inbound/outbound email scanning, which I've disabled but some folks might like.

  23. Beating keystroke loggers by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can beat keystroke loggers by entering your password a few letters at a time in random order, using the mouse to place the cursor at the correct location in the half-finished password. I don't think there's a keystroke logger that is able to work out where you clicked in the password entry box.

    Cumbersome, but it's something I do on untrusted computers like the ones in web cafés.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Beating keystroke loggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Any input manipulation like that (using keyboard and mouse) that your OS can interpret, a worm could be coded to interpret.

    2. Re:Beating keystroke loggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Another way is to open up a notepad.exe window or two and alternate focus between the password dialog and the notepad windows, typing a random number of characters into each window in turn. A pure keystroke logger wouldn't be able to tell which keystrokes were entered into notepad and which ones were used for your password. It can be layered on top of your method as well.

      This can be defeated by a sophisticated enough software keystroke logger that has OS level hooks, but so far very few of them are designed to handle this attack. Hardware loggers are stopped cold by this technique, since they have no way to tell the OS state.

  24. PromiscDetect by rsteele19 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Netcraft article noted that checking to see if your network adapter is in promiscuous mode is a good way to tell if your machine has a sniffer running on it. Unfortunately, they did not mention how one can go about doing this.

    If you're using Linux, just run
    ifconfig -a
    and look for the string "PROMISC".

    If, however, you're using Windows, you need to get a utility called PromicDetect. Run it from a command prompt. If it indicates the Directed, Multicast and Broadcast filters are active, then you're probably OK.

    Source: Computerworld
    --

    This sig is umop apisdn.

  25. DEP info by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Informative

    From MS:

    By default, software-enforced DEP only protects limited system binaries, regardless of the hardware-enforced DEP capabilities of the processor.

    --

    I'm guessing MS runs its own software NX because it knows what memory these system binaries should and shouldnt be using. So even if it worked for DCOM/RPC it probably wouldn't work with the SQL server hole.

    Hardware DEP is a whole different story.

    Short and sweet thread on DEP here.

    Actually, you can enable software DEP for all programs. There's a button you can click on in system properties under advanced. Might be fun playing with to see if it breaks anything. Might be good to leave on if it doesnt.

  26. Re:A question... by cosmol · · Score: 2, Informative

    the trend micro link kindly provided in this comment says that it connects to an irc server.