Slashdot Mirror


Rootkit Creators Turn Professional

pete richards writes "Signalling a trend towards increased 'outsourcing' of some elements of malware creation, worm authors are increasingly turning to commercially available rootkits to help their creations slip past virus detection engines. Those root kits in the mean time are becoming more professional. Antivirus vendor F-Secure reported last week that it had detected a first rootkit designed to bypass detection by most of the modern rootkit detection engines."

117 comments

  1. How dare they! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rootkits should be GPL.
    At the very least they should be GNU/Rootkits.

    Somebody contact the EFF or like start throwing chairs or something.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:How dare they! by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Informative

      Like, SuckIt?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:How dare they! by Geminus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Someone should develop the ultimate rootkit, patent it's code... and then sue the antivirus companies for IP infringement when they include it's code in their latest definition.
      "All your oil belong to us."

    3. Re:How dare they! by xappax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, the free version of the Hacker Defender rootkit mentioned in the article is open source. GPL, I'm not sure about, but it still surprised me. It actually makes a lot of sense, because it allows attackers to customize and recompile the rootkit, probably creating a new binary that malware-detectors are unaware of.

    4. Re:How dare they! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You know, that's actually not a bad idea. Something similar to this could (hopefully) be used to help overturn (or change) the DMCA.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    5. Re:How dare they! by netkid91 · · Score: 0

      You also seem to foget another important thing this could bring, PATENT REFORM. This whole BCGI or whatever incident has also proven that we need this, poor cingulair, don't care about Sprint though :P but seriously DCMA + Patent reform = YEAH!!!

      --
      NO~, I read Slashdot because I think it's stupid.....
  2. Easy prey? by adyus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it's a known fact that this Golden Hacker Defender rootkit is publically sold, isn't it that much easier to catch the writers? Assuming there's a law against rootkits...

    1. Re:Easy prey? by prichardson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There probably isn't a law against rootkits, and there shouldn't be. There should be a law against using them to break into systems that you are not authorized to enter, and there is a law against that.

      A law against rootkits would be very problematic. Is VNC a rootkit? If there's a bug in SSH that is exploitable to gain root access I bet it would suddenly fall under the domain of being labeled a rootkit by any law banning them, should the mainatainers of SSH be prosecuted because of that?

      It really comes down to liberty though. If I want to hack my own computer I should be allowed to do so. If I want to write a virus I should be allowed to do so, but I should not be allowed to release it into the wild.

      --
      Help I'm a rock.
    2. Re:Easy prey? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Informative
      There probably isn't a law against rootkits, and there shouldn't be. There should be a law against using them to break into systems that you are not authorized to enter, and there is a law against that.

      A rootkit isn't a tool to break into a machine; it's a tool to hide your presence once you've already broken into the machine...

      Is VNC a rootkit?

      No. But a tool hiding VNC from the process list might be.

    3. Re:Easy prey? by Lifewish · · Score: 1

      The examples you gave aren't actually rootkits. However, the Honeynet project could well be described that way, so substitute that for your examples.

      --
      For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
    4. Re:Easy prey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      'A law against rootkits would be very problematic. Is VNC a rootkit? If there's a bug in SSH that is exploitable to gain root access I bet it would suddenly fall under the domain of being labeled a rootkit by any law banning them, should the mainatainers of SSH be prosecuted because of that?" - by prichardson (603676) on Friday October 21, @06:26AM

      You do have a point there... PING is another example as well, & it ships with most OS.

      It too, can be used to issue a "ping of death" though iirc, most OS are "proofed" against that now (again, iirc).

      I would suppose it comes down to 1 thing as an analog:

      "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

      APK

      P.S.=> This is the 1 thing that "spooks me" somewhat - these rootkits.

      Personally, I don't think the "war on virus" can be won either, but in a way, maybe this is all for the 'good of all' in that it makes the creators of our Operating Systems we use have to work to make them better vs. these things (nuts as they are in virus, worms, & yes rootkits).

      On another note:

      I took a GOOD read, from the BSD folks the other day, & liked what I saw about how they have created some things in their IP stack that make their OS appear to be FAR better vs. another supposedly "unstoppeable" bogus phenomenon out there:

      The DDoS/DoS attack!

      Take a read -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/361

      Microsoft AND the Linux camp could take a play from the OpenBSD/FreeBSD playbook on THAT account imo!

      Between that, & heap/stack protection mechanisms in modern OS now being implemented/started? Things are starting to "look up" imo, but still have a ways to go...

      In 2003, one of my bosses (not particularly educated or skilled in this field mind you imo) said something that has stuck by me ever since:

      "We're still in the 'wild west days' & stone age of the computer/internet age - give it 10 years & watch how much gets better/stronger/faster"

      & I agreed. In 15-20 years, I have seen things get SO much better/nicer in the way of computing, that I must agree... apk

    5. Re:Easy prey? by AdamTheBastard · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "If I want to write a virus I should be allowed to do so, but I should not be allowed to release it into the wild."

      This poses an interesting question. If you did develop a worm with a nastey payload and release it on an entire subnet under your control (and ownership) that is firewalled off. Who would be blamed if a cracker broke in to the infected network, became infected themselves and then started infecting a public network either intentionly or not?

      We see this sort of thing happen a lot on the internet. Someone develops something that could be used to do something without the permission of copyright-holders/box-owners/ISPs but it is also possible to use it with the full permission of those that it effects. Who do we go after? Aparently the answer is both but I, along with a lot of others, disagree.
    6. Re:Easy prey? by m50d · · Score: 1

      MS sells a remote administration program that will hide its presence completely if you want it to.

      --
      I am trolling
    7. Re:Easy prey? by Redwin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This problem of who is guilty also comes up with the use of honeypots, ie if someone breaks into a honeypot system and launches an attack from there who is responsible? The attacker or the person supplying the resources?

      I agree with your point of view that a blanket "all are responsible" response is not the best course of action, as I've wondered how long it will be before people like the authors of security books get bundled into the category of "they supplied the knowledge to make this attack possible, therefore they are guilty as well".

      OTOH it might be considered negligent to have access to a dangerous piece of software available to the public domain at all, (even if it hidden behind some form of security).

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    8. Re:Easy prey? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some administration tools hide their presence so that corporate office drones won't notice the system administrator monitoring them (for "security" reasons dontcha know). Are they root kits?

  3. History Repeating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the new radar-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector -detector!

  4. Risk to burn karma but... by jamesjw · · Score: 5, Funny

    def n.: Rootkit:
    When an Australian male carries a few spare condoms with him on a night out.

    Ahhh.. maybe I shouldnt have bothered.. :)

    -- Jim.

    --
    -- If at first you don't succeed, lie!
    1. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 2, Funny

      If that's the aussie definition of a rootkit, what's the aussie definition of a trojan? Ahhh... never mind...

      Eric
      How the Vioxx recall reduced worldwide spam
    2. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Funny

      And no doubt the Aussie definition of an optimist is an opening batsman with sunblock on his nose!

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    3. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by gowen · · Score: 1

      Jeez, we win one Ashes series in twenty years, and look at us...
      Remember, the reason we enjoyed beating the Aussies so much is that they're such insufferably bad winners. Rise above it, mate.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    4. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny
      the Aussie definition of an optimist is an opening batsman with sunblock on his nose

      In India, where they really do have sunlight, that might be true.

    5. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      And no doubt the Aussie definition of an optimist is an opening batsman with sunblock on his nose!
      I saw Andrew Symonds wearing sunblock on his lips in a recent game. Would have been perfectly reasonable had they being playing anywhere other than the Telstra Dome!
    6. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying to the GP is to stop gloating your nation's victory, because it makes it more difficult for you to hold your belief that you are superior sportsmen to them? And that's somehow better?

    7. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Ah, you must be from Melbourne :) Try moving to Queensland, it's nice.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    8. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by The+Grassy+Knoll · · Score: 1

      He uses the sunblock on the ball. Quite legally, I should add (even though I'm English).

      Oh, and for any perplexed readers, the Telstra Dome has a roof.

      .

      --
      They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
    9. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      Try moving to Queensland

      If I stand take that kind of climate I would move to Malaysia.

    10. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by gowen · · Score: 1
      because it makes it more difficult for you to hold your belief that you are superior sportsmen to them
      Only pricks gloat, especially about sporting victories in which they were not personally involved. I was merely suggesting the OP not be a prick.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    11. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by robotoverflow · · Score: 1

      Most parts of Queensland are probably nowhere near as muggy as i'd imagine Malaysia is.

      --
      % mkdir :
      % ls -dF :
      :/
    12. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dome has a roof? Wow, who'd a thunk it?

    13. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was talking about england you moron.

      Queensland sun has obviously fried your brain.

      I'm.....froooom.....the......atherton......table.. ....lands.......

    14. Re:Risk to burn karma but... by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      He uses the sunblock on the ball. Quite legally, I should add (even though I'm English).
      Doesn't make him look any less the retard, though.
  5. Wicked by tezbobobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So here's what you do - write a worm and wrap it around a citrix or Windows Term Serv. Then when you have thousands, you can use then with DDOSs.

    Seriously though - Golden Hacker Defender. I've never heard of this. It it were seriously a commercial product, I doubt it would be a rootkit, perhaps a "Remote administration tool." I can't goole (verb) where to purchase it.

    So here's the thing. I wrote a virus, and now I'm going to sell it. It's a commercial virus. Oops! Not it isn't, it's just me selling a virus.

    Move along, nothing to see here.

    1. Re:Wicked by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 3, Informative

      You were looking for this website presumably.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    2. Re:Wicked by dan+dan+the+dna+man · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm it seems to be a new release of something called Hacker Defender. Apparently available here for the curious. Interesting comment in the box about how the commercial version is not released under the GPL :p

      --
      I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
    3. Re:Wicked by Cryptacool · · Score: 1

      The guy who writes hacker defender offers the source code for free, but offers to customize it to make it invisible to commericial anti-virus software and root kit detection software.

      This is a big problem, I do application/infrastructure attack and penentration and have seen/had co-workers see this fairly often in mainly financial and defense clients. This problem definetly exists and is causing some major headaches in the info sec world.

    4. Re:Wicked by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Shouldn't that be an administratorkit anyway ?

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    5. Re:Wicked by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's it. I was wrong, very professional.

  6. Sell rootkits and become a billionaire! by crazy_zulu · · Score: 5, Funny

    One company in Redmond has made billions from selling rootkits.

    --
    ...and one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
    1. Re:Sell rootkits and become a billionaire! by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      No, Internet Explorer and Outlook Express are both free. They never made money off those.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  7. Commercially available? Whatever.... by manarth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In other news, we learn that script kiddies don't actually write software.

    What's with the "commercially available" business? From TFA:

    The version of the rootkit detected by F-Secure is called Golden Hacker Defender. It is a commercial product that can be bought for around 500, according to the security firm.

    So you can buy it, so what - you can buy cocaine on street corners, does that make it 'commercially available'? Or are they simply heralding Rootkit 101 as the latest product to hit the v-scene? What's next, Virus Writers Monthly?

    Come on, malware's been for sale for donkeys years, someone packaging something up and calling it a product doesn't change the nature of the beast.

    --
  8. What's the point of this type of hacking? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What kind of pleasure can be had from doing this kind of hacking? After a while, doesn't it just become old hat?

    Or is there a Matrix-esque cabal of midnight hackers out there dressed in trenchcoats and sunglasses who are busy at work undermining the government? I find that hard to believe.

    I find it easy to believe that there are foreign governments very interested in this type of thing, but it is difficult to imagine ordinary citizens having both the desire and the wherewithal to perform serious attacks and avoid prosecution.

    Or maybe I am just having the wool pulled over my eyes.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:What's the point of this type of hacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget governments, think families.
      Finding out what goes on when your not there is tricky if your virus checker keeps detecting the presence of your bugs.

    2. Re:What's the point of this type of hacking? by Tune · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > What kind of pleasure can be had from doing this kind of hacking? After a while, doesn't it just become old hat?

      True, that's what happens to all industries while professionalizing. I guess it's similar to people willing to work in arms industry, so this doesn't just concern foreign governments.

    3. Re:What's the point of this type of hacking? by m50d · · Score: 1
      What kind of pleasure can be had from doing this kind of hacking? After a while, doesn't it just become old hat?

      There's a constant struggle to defeat the detection measures, or detect newer, stealthier rootkits. I've played around with seeing how well I can hide something on my own system, never used it in anger but there's an intellectual challenge there. Like chess or go, it's basically the same every time but I can see people constantly finding new pleasure in it.

      --
      I am trolling
  9. MOD PARENT UP!!! by gazbo · · Score: 0, Funny

    In case you don't get it, what he's saying is that Windows is insecure!

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for clearing that up. I've been legally dead for the last 20 years, and didn't get the reference.

  10. Re:Commercially available? Whatever.... by yfkar · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They sell cocaine openly on the web?

  11. Re:Waiting for Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Umm..did you know that rootkits were out for *nix long before windows? The rootkits for those systems are far more sophisticated.

  12. It's organised crime becoming more sophisticated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you've been watching the news the last few weeks ex-IRA members have been busted doing forgeries in North Korea, bomb-making in Iraq, and making IED's in Columbia. This is an example of the market for worldwide organised crime skills becoming huge as organisations outsource skillsets, especially nefarious skillsets. It's interesting to note the rise of these types of non-state actors on the world stage and how they are interplaying with governments and corporations. Organised crime is going to become huge and a much more realistic threat than terrorism will ever be on multiple fronts eg. economic (black markets), societal (drugs), morality (the increasing legitizmation of groups and the intertwining with big gov and big biz).

  13. Fact or fiction? by FishandChips · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hmnn, this article is thin on facts and figures. And like so much "news" coming from the security industry, you're never really sure how much of it is fud and puffery in order to sell new products. Still, I guess things will continue to get worse so long as much of the IT industry plays pass the parcel, a shuffling process that always ends with the hit landing up on the poor old end-user, the person who is usually least qualified to deal with it.

    I guess Bruce Schneier is right when he suggests that the way to improve some aspects of security, anyway, is by placing responsibility firmly on outfits like banks and ISPs who'll get smacked mightly hard in the wallet - by law, this time - unless they raise their game. That might put some pressure on OS-makers and their pals to design products that don't also need AV checkers that are dependent on signature libraries and prey to zero-day exploits.

    Love the quote from a researcher saying that the alleged sale of rookits means that "there is a criminalisation of the virus world going on." As if it hasn't been criminal till now, just good clean fun ho ho.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
    1. Re:Fact or fiction? by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Love the quote from a researcher saying that the alleged sale of rookits means that "

      I think what he meant (tho he could have phrased it much better) is that previously virus writers were just sad spotty adolescents with no social skills in their bedroom writing viruses to prove something to themselves or to impress they're equally sad and
      spotty online "friends". These days a lot of it is paid for by organised crime who have specific targets and specific agendas.

  14. designed to by-pass detection? by jm91509 · · Score: 1

    Isn't that the point of a rootkit?

    1. Re:designed to by-pass detection? by m50d · · Score: 2, Informative

      The point is this one is not only designed to not be found by "normal" methods, but also to avoid detection by specialist anti-rootkit programs.

      --
      I am trolling
  15. Virus writers go by their own rules. by geo_2677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Virus writers go by their own rules. The anti virus business has a reactionary approach. Unless the anti virus engines have the updated signatures they can't stop the virus from spreading.
    Doesn't this again bring up the question which was discussed a while ago. 'Why should Operating systems have a policy of default accept? Run programs only which you trust.' Not that this will solve the problem in one shot but it will make the problem more manageable. By the way things are going and the speed with which new viruses are created, i guess the day is not far when we will need huge databases to store the signatures for the viruses on each machine.

    1. Re:Virus writers go by their own rules. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somwhere on here are the six dumest ideas of it security:
      http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/11/171 6205&tid=172&tid=218

      Now
      The whole antivirus industry is one of them.

      I remember a co-worker once mentioning that while at a confrence for Mcafee this question arose:
      So since Anti-Virus compnaies rely so mutch on computer viri, do they employ virus writers?

      To which the representative giveing the lecture said:
      No We outsource that to contractors to limit liability.

      me bieng a contractor makes me wonder...

    2. Re:Virus writers go by their own rules. by m50d · · Score: 1
      Doesn't this again bring up the question which was discussed a while ago. 'Why should Operating systems have a policy of default accept? Run programs only which you trust.' Not that this will solve the problem in one shot but it will make the problem more manageable.

      No it won't. A default deny policy is simply not practical unless you can afford a lot of extra trouble. If I was developing on such a machine, would I have to get every revision of my code signed?

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:Virus writers go by their own rules. by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't this again bring up the question which was discussed a while ago. 'Why should Operating systems have a policy of default accept? Run programs only which you trust.'

      This is what selinux brings to the table. It allows you to specify a policy for your system that will block programs from doing things that they should not do. Of course if most windows systems operated with the least privilege rule most of the viruses out there would be unable to work as they do now. Instead of an arms race between virus writers and virus detectors (I'm still no convinced these are not one and the same) applying a few best practices to existing systems would go a long way toward solving this problem. But Microsoft refuses to do this.

      As far as commercially available rootkits and this company claiming they have detetected the first one out there, how do they know it is the first one? Any really good rootkit should go undetected by definition. If they can detect it then there is a bug in the code. :)

    4. Re:Virus writers go by their own rules. by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Default deny of executables, and requiring every executable be signed would be certian parties' wet dream.

      The "real" software developers (i.e. Microsoft, IBM, Adobe, Sun, Macromedia, etc., etc.) won't have a problem with the required code signing.

      All that will be harmed is the "freeware" and "open source" software. They will claim that this is a good thing. After all, that software merely serves to undermine the profitability of the "real" software developers.

      We'll hear arguments like: if The GIMP, OpenOffice.org, FireFox, etc. really are safe and trustworthy, then why aren't the authors willing to step up and have their application signed? (for a several thousand dollar fee)

      Then, we'll see proposed legislation to require default deny and code signing, because "it is the only way to stop all the malware". Oh my God! Think of the children!!!

      I may not have every element of this scenerio exactly right, but I bet its a more accurate prediction than the psychics on the tabloids.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  16. Misuse of the term by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFA:

    A rootkit is a tool that helps worm authors to slip past malware detection tools. The rootkit is 'wrapped around' the virus, and hides its payload from detection engines. After the rootkit has penetrated a system's defences, the worm can start doing its work.

    Wrong. A "rootkit" is a series of hacks to the underlying operating system, which make a running process harder to detect. In other words, a rootkit will keep your process from turning up in the Windows Task Manager, or a Linux "ps".

    Definition from the Jargon File.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Misuse of the term by Viol8 · · Score: 1, Informative

      That definition is wrong. A rootkit is a kit that helps you get
      root access on a system either by buffer overflow of a running
      process/server or some other method. To prevent a process
      showing up in ps all you have to do is put your own version of
      the ps command in place, hardly rocket science.

    2. Re:Misuse of the term by jaseuk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Root kits will normally includ things such as modded ps and other modified binaries so that the system appears to be running fine, yet has a backdoor and any logging / system monitoring tools will not show any processes or activity.

      There is more to a root kit than just a replacement ps, but of course that is a critical element.

      No it's not rocket science, but in practice modding system binaries whilst on the outside keeping the system appearing to be running normally is much harder, different library / operating system / architectures to deal with and the fact that you are messing around with core system files.

    3. Re:Misuse of the term by PhilHibbs · · Score: 3, Informative
      Wikipedia agrees with the Jargon File:
      A root kit is a set of tools used by an intruder after cracking a computer system. These tools can help the attacker maintain his or her access to the system and use it for malicious purposes.

      See also Sysinternals's Rootkit Revealer:
      The term rootkit is used to describe the mechanisms and techniques whereby malware, including viruses, spyware, and trojans, attempt to hide their presence from spyware blockers, antivirus, and system management utilities.
    4. Re:Misuse of the term by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, no. That's exploiting a vulnerability. As jaseuk's reply to you says, a rootkit is something that hides a process from things that examine the process table.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:Misuse of the term by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      No , sorry , a rootkit is something that gets you root privs.
      Always has been. If I get root access then I rm the ps command
      does "rm" suddenly become a rootkit? No, of course not.

    6. Re:Misuse of the term by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think at this point the burden of proof is on you to come up with a reference. I've personally always heard the term rootkit used in the manner used now by about three people who have replied to you, and as described on three different fairly-definitive websites referenced in this thread.

      We can sit here all night posting back and forth "is not," "is too" but I don't think that we'll get any further. If you're so certain on your position please take 30 seconds and find something reasonably definitive to support your position.

      Mods - before modding anything else in this thread please take the time to actually look up what a rootkit is... :)

      For the record, an exploit is software designed to gain unauthorized access to a system. A rootkit is a set of tools used to maintain such access without the knowledge of the admin of the cracked system. Typically it includes modified ps, login/su/sshd, etc.

      The whole idea of a rootkit is to make sure you can get back into the system a week later when the admin has patched the original vulnerability. If you rm the ps command it probably won't take long for the admin to figure out what happened.

      The best way to detect a rootkit is via tripwire, run from a boot CD. There really isn't any way of defeating this method of detection, but it is very inconvenient since it requires brining the system offline for scanning. There are tools like rkhunter which search for rootkits on running systems, and in theory these can be defeated by a very clever rootkit.

    7. Re:Misuse of the term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please link to rootkit fitting your description.

    8. Re:Misuse of the term by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There is more to a root kit than just a replacement ps, but of course that is a critical element.

      Not necessarily. There are rootkits which are based on kernel modules (so that the kernel API are not reporting the process either, just in case the sysadmin brings in a statically compiled ps, or manually digs through /proc).

      It's the primitive rootkits that only replace some common utilities such as ps, ls, and netstat. Many of these don't even bother to doctor md5sum or rpm, so they can be trivially detected by an rpm -qa --verify.

      The good ones on the other hand do a much more thorough job, and can only be detected by booting from a known-good media (i.e. a Knoppix CD)

    9. Re:Misuse of the term by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And this is why I like the idea of binaries being tied hard to the exact processor for which they were compiled, rather than every processor having the same instruction set. It makes it a stackload harder to do stuff like that, when actually enabling the build environment requires physical access to the machine. As long as there exists binary compatibility between your systen and Some Unknown Bad Guy's system, there will be rootkits.

      Now that we have seen proof of checksum collisions, I do not doubt that the next big thing in malware circles will be to create modified binaries whose checksums are the same as the originals ..... if they haven't already ..... of course, using checksums is actually a pretty christian way of checking for intrusions, because you don't really know for sure that the checksum creator itself hasn't been interfered with.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    10. Re:Misuse of the term by Cederic · · Score: 1


      Rootkits get you root.

      That's pretty much it.

      A given rootkit may well do more than that, and evading detection would be a great value-added extra, but making a running process harder to detect is not the core feature of a rootkit.

      Even if the jargon file says it is.

    11. Re:Misuse of the term by mikiN · · Score: 2

      A very good way to detect malware (in fact any unauthorized changes to system files is to md5sum (or better) all system files (which are preferrably stored on NAS on a local network) regularly by a separate heavily fortified system and send out an alert on differences.
      A framework for this (mtree, tools for package file checksumming, cron scripts etc.) has been part of the default installation on the *BSDs for ages, but I haven't seen anything like it in the default installation for any Linux distros.
      Of course there may always be holes, but at least they will require an attacker always use in-memory tricks to gain and maintain access, at least until the next vulnerability gets fixed.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    12. Re:Misuse of the term by BVis · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about processor serial numbering, or talking about the difference between an Intel vs Sparc vs AMD vs PowerPC vs whatever? You could further granularize it by using the differences in clock speed, processor ID, etc. Interesting concept. You'd have to rebuild the entire machine to upgrade the CPU(s), though, if you did things either way.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    13. Re:Misuse of the term by David+Off · · Score: 1

      md5ing a system with the md5 program on the system under test sounds like poor practise to me.

    14. Re:Misuse of the term by hellraizr · · Score: 2, Informative

      well it's obvious you've never actually been hit with one other wise you would know what you were talking about. *EXPLOITS* get you root. rootkits allow you to KEEP root. The average rootkit disables forensics programs like lsof, ps, find, locate, w, who, (sometimes) syslogd. They also modify shit like rc.sysinit or inittab.

      Don't let the name fool you because thats all it is is a name. Exploits and rootkits are 2 entirely different things. You can get all the exploits you want from packetstormsecurity but I dare you to find a single rootkit there.

      You don't have to take my word for it but jfyi, I worked as a security admin at a rather large dedicated hosting company and have seen just about every damn rootkit that actually works.

    15. Re:Misuse of the term by David+Off · · Score: 1
      > I haven't seen anything like it in the default installation for any Linux distros.

      You could just tar the rfs or a selection of critical system files, copy to tape, untar and md5sum those files on a non-networked box you keep hanging around for the purpose. For a limited number of key servers this wouldn't be too onerous.

      Now md5 hacks exist but a combination of creation date, filesize and md5 would be a fairly good fingerprint - or you could just diff against known good versions for a limited set of system files. The rootkit would need to hack your tar or other command or your tape driver or something to munge the files you are writing to tape.

      All this would work fine on running systems. I could knock up a shell script to do this in 5 minutes. It really doesn't sound like rocket salad to me but hey what would I know? I'm just a model.

    16. Re:Misuse of the term by Cederic · · Score: 1


      No. When I first started using the term 'rootkit', a rootkit implemented an exploit to enable you to acquire root access.

      The point of the rootkit was that it allowed a relatively inexperienced attacker to automate exploitation of vulnerabilities.

      Maybe you use the term a different way; that makes neither of us inherently right. It certainly doesn't mean the article mis-used the term any more than either of us.

    17. Re:Misuse of the term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Provide a link to a website or paper which uses the term "rootkit" that way, or zip it.

    18. Re:Misuse of the term by Redwin · · Score: 2, Informative

      have seen just about every damn rootkit that actually works

      Isn't that a contradiction?*

      You can get all the exploits you want from packetstormsecurity but I dare you to find a single rootkit there.

      Homepage: Assessments -> RootKits

      What you really want to watch out for are kernel level RootKits, as even checking the integrity of programs doesn't help as they aren't altered. The kernel runs a different program when you call the correct one. Evil I tell you!

      *Laugh, it was supposed to be a joke :-)

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    19. Re:Misuse of the term by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about each and every processor having a different instruction set. There would be two modes, selectable in hardware by shorting a pin to ground or not. In "Compatibility Mode" -- aka "Dangerous Mode" -- the instruction set would be known and standardised; thus allowing you to use a standardised toolchain to compile some bootstrap code {a kernel and a minimal userland} for running in Safe Mode. In "Safe Mode", the processor would use its own "personalised" instruction set, which you would necessarily have the ability to change. It must not be possible to determine, by cross-referencing "Safe Mode" compiled code with its corresponding source code, the full personalisation schema of the target processor. Any sources you compiled in Safe Mode would only run on that processor {or an identically-personalised one}.

      In a corporate environment, you might conceivably have all the machines in a department personalised the same way; so you would only have to compile your applications once per department. Any malware that gets on the loose there would be contained.

      Some variant of public key encryption / digital signature would be a nice way of doing this; but I fear that once PK-on-a-chip is a reality, The Bad Guys would find a way to use it against us. The serious weak spot in this scheme derives from the need to show your personalisation details to the compiler running in Dangerous Mode -- I don't see how you can be sure that there is no way for an "evil compiler" to send a copy of your schema to some malware author. And as has already been hinted elsewhere, an "evil compiler" is frighteningly possible {the only known antidote being a simple interpreter [just complete enough to interpretatively run the compilation of the compiler source code] written in assembler by someone you trust}.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    20. Re:Misuse of the term by randyflood · · Score: 1


      Rootkits are indeed designed to hide malware from the tools that are designed to show what applications, network connections, etc. are running. The article went on to explain this a bit more clearly, but it may have been a bit subtle. Yes, the purpose of a rootkit is to hide running processes from things like ps, and the windows task manager and such. But, the deal is that many Antivirus products include not only static pattern based detection algorithms that look for malware, but also behavior-based detection algortihms. As the article put it, "Adding a rootkit to a virus increases its chances of avoiding detection because modern antivirus applications do not just look for specific code, but incorporate behavioural analysis to catch worms." Because the malware detection tools (antivirus, rkhunter, etc.) are making system calls to a an operating system that has been compromised by a trojan, the trojan is able to hide the activities of the malware from the detection tools. So, any kind of behavioral analysis is likely to fail, unless it is based on something that the rootkit wasn't clever enough to hide.

      --
      Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
    21. Re:Misuse of the term by BVis · · Score: 1

      It's certianly a good idea, but I question how practical it would be. Most IT departments are so woefully understaffed as it is that maintaining specific builds for specific users (or departments) would quickly become a near-impossible task (not to mention the storage requirements of those images).

      In a technology-centric company that is able to build all its software in-house, this would make more sense, but would be adding "another layer" to what is already a significant amount of work.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    22. Re:Misuse of the term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more advanced rootkits will infect hardware, such as your BIOS and the firmware for your video card, hard drive, and cdrom making itself undetectable even if you boot from clean media on a different machine. Such a rootkit would have to be specially written for the target system so you won't see generic malware using such tactics.

    23. Re:Misuse of the term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There also exist non-persistent rootkits (which can be simply called "bots", because that's what they are, although the better rootkits don't use IRC anymore). Those are designed for covert intrusion and intelligence gathering and leave no traces on disk; pretty much completely undetectable (especially as they are very little-known, and difficult to get a sample of, so there are no signatures on the AV's wildlists), with the drawback that they only work until the computer is reset.

    24. Re:Misuse of the term by gatzke · · Score: 1


      What if rmp is repleaced as well to spit bogus results for a --verify?

      Knoppix is probably the only way to really find this stuff. And what do you look for? A new version of ls that is a different size than it should be?

    25. Re:Misuse of the term by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, all of this is exactly what tripwire does. It stores a database of file attributes (hashes, mtimes, etc.).

      You can also easily run it on a running system.

      The problem is that on a running system your executable is subject to the whims of the currently-running kernel, glibc, linker, etc. If the rootkit installed a kernel module, or a modified glibc, or something else, then when you scan ps it could just point you to a saved unmodified copy of ps, and then your scan would miss the changes. When you look for running processes via a system call, the kernel patch could deceive you. Even if you are statically linked you are still subject to the kernel for file access. Even if you run as root and directly access the hard drive device, you are going through the kernel device driver. Even if you make low-level hardware calls you are still in userland and a very clever rootkit running in ring 0 could interrupt your program and make it do whatever it wants. Of course, all of these tricks are very difficult to pull off, and most rootkits rely only on a subset of them.

      Also, if your hash database is not stored on read-only media it could have been tampered with.

      However, the safest way to scan for a rootkit is to boot from known-good media and scan against a known-good database. There is no way to defeat this. In the same way, the safest way to clean a virus is to boot off of a clean disk and purge the virus when it has not been loaded into memory.

      Usually the best practice is to run tripwire and do online scans frequently, and offline scans anytime you suspect malicious activity or one some less frequent schedule.

      The problem with tripwire is people like me who are constantly upgrading packages. Your tripwire database needs to be updated anytime you install software, making it best suited to infrequently-changing servers...

    26. Re:Misuse of the term by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

      Rootkit-- the software equivalent of a ninja. It is cunning and stealthy and its enemy has no knowledge of its presence.

    27. Re:Misuse of the term by David+Off · · Score: 1

      thanks for taking the trouble to reply, as the mods say that is very informative. Damn those rootkits. I would suspect that the hardest trick to pull off is a raw dump of the fs but that is not very convient to manipulate.

      I think the weakest link in most companies are idiot staff (like an ex-boss who brought more viruses into the company via his laptop than a Bombay hooker) and idiot sysadmins. In years of having a computer directly connected to the Internet I only got hit once when I installed a dodgy binary. I worked for France Telecom where we were not even given Internet access due to the risk of us bringing viruses etc onto the network. You know what, Sasser took out all our servers in the first wave and we were off-line for 2 days. Like, how did that happen? It seemed like the Sysadmins had configured the firewall to stop the staff getting out but allow worms in (by the way that is top secret so don't tell anyone ;-).

  17. Re:Commercially available? Whatever.... by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 1, Redundant

    In other news, we learn that script kiddies don't actually write software.

    I'd have thought 450 euros (see here, select "Golden Hacker Defender" from combo box) was a bit beyond the price range of your average copy/paste script kiddies, but then I've never met any so I wouldn't know. Either way, it's not clear to me that the site is breaking any laws by selling this software. Any lawyers around?

    What's next, Virus Writers Monthly?

    How about this?

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  18. arms race by kars · · Score: 5, Funny

    So now we can wait for the AV vendors to come up with a rootkit detector detector detector..

    --
    Take life easy: one bit at a time.
    1. Re:arms race by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Ummm, I'll worry about it when rootkit detector evasion detector evasion is detected...

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    2. Re:arms race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So now we can wait for the AV vendors to come up with a rootkit detector detector detector..

      Or even a rootkit detector detector detector detector.

      Feel free to mod this redundant. ;-)

  19. Re:Commercially available? Whatever.... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Bah. Kiddies won't pay a dime.

    One "l337 virii crew" gets a copy, and boom, it has a new home in the gnutella bitstream for all eternity.

  20. what do you think? by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    it's MONEY. compromised home machines, compromised online banking, identify theft, spam bot-nets...

  21. Re:Waiting for Vista by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting
    did you know that rootkits were out for *nix long before windows

    Which is the principle difference between *nix and windows. Most of the holes in unices have been found over the years. Windows was only exposed to wide area networks in a serious way over the last ten years. The bugs are still being found.

  22. Re:Waiting for Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and Windows doesn't have "root," it has "Administrator."

  23. As always, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is the last to innovate!

  24. Re:Commercially available? Whatever.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can buy cocaine on street corners, does that make it 'commercially available'?

    Yes.

  25. www.hxdef.org....nuff said by harmonics · · Score: 2, Informative

    Golden Hacker Defender does exist, can be purchased, and no it is NOT GPL..

    http://www.hxdef.org/antidetection.php

    They even have a license..

    Paid versions are not released under GPL licence.
    Every customer who buys antidetection service agrees with this licence.
    Customer is not allowed to spread the product or its parts in neither binary nor source code form.
    Violating of this licence will issue in loss of any support
    and also in impossibility of buying new updates and other products and services.
    Customer can do whatever he/she wants with his/her product except
    all activities that are forbidden in this licence.
    Customer can even modify the source code or the binary form of the product.
    Customer is fully responsible for the application of boughten product.
    Provider of antidetection service reserves the right to refuse any customers order.
    If customers order is accepted customer pledges to pay the full sum before he/she gets the product.
    Provider pledges to assemble the product and send it to the customer in 5 working days.
    If provider is not able to fulfil the order the customer will get all his/her money back.
    All payments are provided by e-gold (http://www.e-gold.com/ rarely by prior arrangement
    payments via Moneybookers (http://www.moneybookers.com/ can be accepted too.
    Customer will receive relevant payment information after provider accepts the order.

    1. Re:www.hxdef.org....nuff said by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      Customer is not allowed to spread the product or its parts in neither binary nor source code form.

      Ah, very clever. So if you actually put it on someone elses system they can say you were violating the licence agreement?

      Customer is fully responsible for the application of boughten product.

      Actually, maybe they're just retarded after all.

  26. In other news by DrXym · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ex-mental patients start genital shaving business. Please form an orderly queue to use their services.

  27. Quick! How do I give F-Secure all my money? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know, I'd like to see fewer "CRISIS! But wait! FooCorp can save you!" articles on Slashdot, and while we're at it, no dupes, and a pony.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  28. Rootkits can be used for good. by digitalstruct · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rootkits are not nessesarily bad. They have good purposes such as in the enterprise world to watch what you are doing/logging what you are doing without you being able to find and terminate that process. You have to remember everything has a level of good and can be turned bad in an instant.

    It is like a formatting tool, when used properly it deletes what you want but if someone wrote a program to access the formatting tool and run it on a drive that you wanted things on now it has just been turned into something bad.

    There is a legitimate use to everything :)

    1. Re:Rootkits can be used for good. by PooR_IndiaN · · Score: 1


      Really?!?

      They have good purposes such as in the enterprise world to watch what you are doing/logging what you are doing

      Rootkits are not nessesarily bad


      I Rest my case (Heh,Heh)

  29. What about kernel level RootKits? by Redwin · · Score: 1

    What about kernel level rootkits such as Knark?

    I'm not entirely sure why you would use a RootKit(legitimally) other than for limiting access on machines under your control, something that could surely be done with proper account setups.

    --
    Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    1. Re:What about kernel level RootKits? by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      What about kernel level rootkits such as Knark [packetstormsecurity.org]?

      Is there actually such a thing as a non-kernel level rootkit?

    2. Re:What about kernel level RootKits? by Redwin · · Score: 1

      RootKits that just replace tools such as ps and du for ones that don't display accurate information.

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
  30. Re:Commercially available? Whatever.... by xappax · · Score: 1

    It's actually an interesting business model, because it mirrors that of other open source businesses. Yeah, maybe you can get a copy of the code itself, but what you really need is the support agreement. When an attacker buys a commercial rootkit from the Hacker Defender folks, they agree to update his or her rootkit to keep it undetectable from malware-scanners for a given amount of time.

    If the attacker were to freely distribute the code they got, it would show up on Norton's radar pretty quick, and become worthless to everyone who used it. The money is not so much for the code as it is for the service of providing an attacker with a cutomized, up to date, undetectable rootkit.

  31. Worried about Rootkits? by IHawkMike · · Score: 1

    Check out this webcast from Microsoft. While not as in-depth as some of us would like, it has some good information on things you can do to prevent rootkit infection.

    Also, check out SysInternal's RootKitRevealer. Not only is it a handy tool, but the page gives a pretty good definition of rootkits as they apply to Windows.

  32. Re:Waiting for Vista by yfkar · · Score: 1
    I do know that. I also know that Windows XP and earlier create the main user with administrator rights by default (which is also why many programs need administator rights to work at all, as they haven't been developed with restricted accounds in mind) and before patched it can let viruses in without the user doing anything. Blaster/lovsan anyone?

    Rootkits don't just get into a computer magically, they have to exploit a vulnerability in the OS or trick the user. *nix based systems don't let user stupidity do much harm to the computer itself as the user has restricted access to the filesystem.

    On Windows, I've seen viruses getting full admin privileges and install a rootkit even if it's caught by a user with a restricted user account. That's why I'd like Vista to be more secure than WinXP. Call me a troll, I'm just talking about my own experiences.

  33. Re:Commercially available? Whatever.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw it at BestBuy but it was behind locked glass and they said you had to have a note from your mommy.

  34. MOD PARENT DOWN! by smiffy1976 · · Score: 1

    You cannot be serious! Which clowns modded this 'insightful'? I would hardly call spying on employees with a rootkit a 'legitimate' use! Your analogy with a format utility is extremely flawed.

  35. Re:It doesn't take a rootkit scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry.