Slashdot Mirror
No Defense Against Windows Rootkits?
An anonymous reader writes "Spyware bad guys (and also phishing people) started using rootkits technology to stay hidden in a system. The problem is that at the moment the technology to defend a Windows system from these things is very poor. In fact antivirus companies have just started adding basic anti-rootkits technology. So the problem is serious, and well outlined by this question: Is the closed source code of Windows preventing us from actively defending our systems?"
This would be a resounding YES.
And Butler and Hoglund's recent book on rootkits was pretty nice.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Because Windows has no root!
No, seriously, I don't know the answer to this. :-)
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
Who has the chops to run through 800,000,000 lines of code to do the fixing of this OS?
I mean even if you find the problem can you honestly say you'd be sure you wouldn't leave Notepad.exe broken by making your changes?
Clearly Windows needs to be completely re thought with NO concern for legacy apps. See also OS X.
This
Is the closed source code of Windows preventing us from actively defending our systems?
Yes. We are at the mercy of Microsoft to patch the systems for us. At least with Open Source you have potentially thousands of programmers looking for security holes and reporting those security problems.
Bradley Holt
Shameless plug: I've written a script that should be able to help find any rootkits that are listening on tcp/udp on windows.
Heres the link
What it does is attempt to handshake with itself on every available tcp or udp port. If the handshake fails, that is an indicator that somebody else is already camping out on that port.
Source is GPL, feedback is always welcome.
.. RootkitRevealer is your friend.
This topic has been beaten to death a thousand and one times before but the reality still holds true: as long as a company holds the source of their software to their chest, you simply have to rely on them to provide the security for said software. By doing so you create the equivalent of a single point of failure that has to be addressed solely by the holding company, and as a result, you are subject to the "hurry up and wait" syndrome that accompanies it. That's when it comes back to "suck it up or don't use it," which carries all the arguments of "we don't have a choice" or "switching isn't an alternative for us."
This sig is six words long.
Let us not forget the wonders of ActiveX controls not to mention IE's ability to install items with out authentication. As far as that is concerned ANY installer should have to be authenticated as an ADMINISTRATOR before the install can proceed. I think this small step would curb many of the issues with spyware, adware, toolbars, etc.
Is the closed source code of Windows preventing us from actively defending our systems?
The right question is what is the vendor (Microsoft) doing about it. You purchased a product from a vendor, you should expect them to solve problems with that product or explain how to properly secure it, or just ignore the issue which says something about their product and commitment to support.
Strider Ghostbuster,, a Microsoft developed technique for detecting all persistant and stealthy rootkits .
Just convince Microsoft to make it available.
There is also SysInternal's Rootkit Revealer, which although not quite as general, is still hard to fool.
Test your net with Netalyzr
I administer a network with about 50 workstations. We run Windows2000 with Symantec Anti-Virus Corporate (aka Norton). Symantec registered an internal attack by a root kit only two weeks ago. This stuff is in the wild now!
So we are left with two options:
a) Windows 2000 is impervious to rootkits, either off the shelf or through modifications unavailable to the general public
b) The US Navy is running an unsecurable OS for the most advanced surface ships in the world - with nuclear reactors to boot.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
The root of the problem may be the organizational structure of Microsoft. We have the mess that is/was longhorn/vista and the comments that it had to be re-written from the ground up.
d ral-bazaar/
The point made in the 'Cathedral and the Bazaar' may be coming to pass. It is impossible to manage very complex systems effectively. It is a question of distributed control vs. top down management. My favorite example is the Soviet Union vs. the US of A. A bureaucracy can't manage something as complex as a whole economy; maybe it can't manage something as complex as Windows.
The bottom line would seem to be that we will see a never-ending stream of problems like the one at hand.
www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathe
www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=6618
Yes, Microsoft has a Shared Source program. I'm not 100% sure of the exact requirements to join the Shared Source program (you could look it up on their website I'm sure) but the requirements are fairly hefty. You have to sign some pretty thorough NDAs, of course. To the best of my knowledge, an individual acting by themself rarely gets access, although I'm pretty sure that several book authors got access to Windows source. Companies can gain access, but they normally have to pay for the priveledge (if you recall the Win2k source code getting lose a year or so back, that was on account of a company that had purchased a liscense to the code losing it). A large number of Universities have access to the code, as do governments and government contractors.
Is there any product for Windows like Bastille Linux that would help a user lock down any vulnerabilities in their system like file shares, unnecessary accounts, open ports, unnecessary services, IE settings, etc?
If not, there should be.
1. Buy a Mac! and be a little bit paranoid about security.
/. grade paranoid), but is doable.
2. Use Linux and be paranoid about security.
3. Buy a tinfoil hat.
4. Build a beowulf cluster of Linux enabled devices: an iPod, two toasters, one 'smart' fridge, and one spoon -anything runs Linux these days-.
5. Build your own OS!
Or you can keep on using Windows and trusting AV companies and its flawed model of "ok, we'll release the fix AFTER enough people have been screwed".
I don't think that the design of Windows, where changing an int to a float in the library that displays Clippy can crash MSN Messenger, would allow for easy fixes, regardless of closed or open source code.
You can actively defend your system anyway. It takes time and money (e.g. self-made hardware firewall with parts bought from the tinfoil-hat store, if you want to be
Disclosure: I'm stupid
But the fundamental problem is that if someone wants to install this garbage, the only way you can really stop them is by taking control of their computer away from them. I'm not sure that even Microsoft is willing to go that far yet, and I'm not sure I would want them to, anyway.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
This may be slighty OT, but I don't see ANY reason why a closed source system that's this vulnurable should be allowed in any Medical/Govermental or Military implementation. Sure, lot's of Apps are written ABOVE the OS and thus in control of the branch maintaining them, but damnit, the OS is at the root of the problem here! Makes you understand why trains all across Europe are still kept track of (punny, eh?) by old Digital DEC's running VMS or OpenVMS. The whole idea that mindshare of the mainframe is growing old and retiring is going to be an issue, Windows 2000 server is not a replacement for something like VMS.
fak3r.com
Oh, and don't forget to mention that you should run tripwire from a known-secure system (a Knoppix CD, for instance) at least once in a while. Indeed, if your system is infested by a good rootkit, it could itself so well that it would play back a phony, made to look innocent contents of any files that it had infected.
Same goes for lsmod, ps and other tools (it is however very rare that a rootkit is so thorough as to hide itself from all tools. Most often an rpm -q --verify -a finds the nasties). But if you're really paranoid, run your tripwire and rpm --verify from an external system, not from within the one you want to examine.
I work with spyware infected systems every day, and I have never found a "rootkit" on one
The issuse is that they're extremely difficult to detect. What heuristics do you use that that the major AV companies are not aware of?
The most effective method that I have found to get rid of spyware on an infected system, by the way, is to boot from a live Windows bootable CD to delete all the crappy spyware directories...
I'm sure that works reasonably well, but once a system is comprimised, you never really know for sure. I find that the only surefire method, which incidentally often takes less time, is to wipe the drive and start fresh. The type of user that is going to get spyware probably doesn't have a complicated setup or do more than write documents and use iTunes, and backing up is as simple as looking for *.doc, *.xls, *.ppt, *.mp*, *.mov, *.wmv, and *.avi.
"the FU rootkit, which I wrote, is intended to demonstrate. It is not malicious but more proof of a premise."
"I do know that FU is one of the most widely deployed rootkits in the world. [It] seems to be the rootkit of choice for spyware and bot networks right now"
He wrote and distributed a rootkit for windows; for educational purposes only (!). It becomes one of the most widely used tools to propagate spyware and trojans. Does he bear any moral responsibilty for this?
I would answer positively. If I leave a loaded gun lying on the sidewalk and someone picks it up and shoots someone else, I think I may get some bad karma.
From http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=1687408 59
Currently, malicious code for Windows is more common than for UNIX because Windows is the most widely used operating system. However, if UNIX starts to gain popularity, then the situation will naturally change; new rootkits for UNIX will be written, and new methods of combating them will be developed.
This has been refuted time and again yet the various Windows-friendly analyst continually trot this one out as a rationale for the ( admittedly much improved but still ) relatively weak security design of M$ Windows.
Newsflash for those who didn't get the memo: Windows leads by a huge margin ON THE DESKTOP. On the server side the disparity, if one exists is a completely different story. Also, since there are many open source versions of Unix, such as Linux, *BSD, and Solaris, some of which have been available for more than a decade, it should have been relatively easy for Windows-loving, Unix-hating programmers to have designed the Unix-slaying, self-propagating daemon years ago. To date, the only thing that has come close was the Morris worm way back in the late '80s.
So guys, nice try - your explanation ( or rationale ) is leaking badly. If Windows represent a bigger target, it SUPPOSEDLY has the "advantage" of being closed-source but the open source Unices, which are fewer in number SHOULD be an easier target.
It's time to focus on what the true flaws of each platform are - their relative prevalence is no longer relevant to the discussion ( aka flamefest ).
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Does this question really need to be asked any longer?
Has this story teleported us all back to the year 2000? Hit the reset button? Is Slashdot's new motto "No hugging, no learning"?
I thought this was common knowledge. I didn't really expect a "pro-business" administration to do anything about it, did you? It's actually one of the few things that makes the rest of us feel safer.
Britain has the same problem, by the way:
Also see The Register which quotes an upbeat Armed Forces Minister:
Perhaps the Minister can now explain why his desktop PC doesn't even run properly.
Les Hatton gives his opinion at IT Week:
you had me at #!
The trouble is that people do not listen. Unless they do not actually have admin access to the system, the chances are if a box pops up going "You need admin access to install this, if you have it then just shove in a username and password here:" people will do so regardless.
Hell, in XPSP2 it has this big balloon which pops up repeatedly going along the lines of "Listen you pillock, you don't have firewall or automatic updates turned on. You really do need these. Click here and I'll set it all up for you, it's about 3 seconds work!". I know people who, when have this pointed out to them, go "Oh I never read that, it just keeps popping up".
The only other thing to do with some people is forcibly configure things, which I'm sure we'd all hate. I use Active Directory to force fine-tuned update compliance and firewall settings across my home network, but home users can't even negotiate a simple dialogue going "Here's what you need to do, here's why you need to do it, here's how to do it".
So when IE pops up a convenient dialogue warning about the fact that HotPornDialer32.exe isn't signed and is in fact coming from a website with an invalid certificate, along with a warning about exactly why it's bad to click 'Install', people will do anyway. Perhaps a Firefox-esque forced delay is in order so people can't just click 'OK' without thinking.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.
"This has been refuted time and again..."
Really? Got an example?
Try this one on for size: Firefox didn't have an security issues until it started becoming popular. The Mac had a few recently too.
Windows SERVERS are not the common target of these root-kits, the DESKTOP is because it IS the most popular.
If Joe Beerbelly used Linux on the desktop, you'd have to take away his ability to install programs to protect him. How useable is the system at that point?
"If Windows represent a bigger target, it SUPPOSEDLY has the "advantage" of being closed-source but the open source Unices, which are fewer in number SHOULD be an easier target."
Hogwash. Why would i target a system that fewer installs? I need an army of machines to get my spam out or to propagate my virus. *nix can't provide that right now.
I'm not saying that *nix is no good, but the logic that it is a smaller target therefore relatively unchallenged holds true.
..... My other computer is YOUR computer.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
This seems like a symptom of a different problem, not really a problem in and of itself. Users become complacent with dialog boxes, systray warnings, etc, because there are no limits or standards regarding when these warnings are issued.
In the same session I can recieve the "Take a tour of windows," "Your firewall is not turned on," "Clean up your desktop icons," and "Your hardware could not be installed" messages, all from the same section of the screen with the same look. Starting immediately after Windows installation users are taught those are 'random message bubbles' that could mean anything. Users just get discouraged when they have to acknowledge that they are sending information across the internet unencrypted, then acknowledge they are entering a secure site, then acknowledge they are leaving a secured site.