Slashdot Mirror


Undetectable Rootkits Through Virtualization?

techmuse writes "eWeek has an article about a prototype rootkit that is implemented using a virtual machine hypervisor running on top of AMD's Pacifica virtualization implementation. The idea is that the target OS, or software running on it, would not be able to detect the rootkit, because the OS would be running virtualized on top of the rootkit. The prototype is supposed to be demonstrated at the Syscan conference and the Black Hat Briefings over the next month."

237 comments

  1. Before people start the Windows flamefest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative


    fta:
    Rutkowska stressed that the Blue Pill technology does not rely on any bug of the underlying operating system. "I have implemented a working prototype for Vista x64, but I see no reasons why it should not be possible to port it to other operating systems, like Linux or BSD which can be run on x64 platform," she added.

    1. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by haroldag · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You are right, I guess it is in fact a vulnerability of "AMD's SVM/Pacifica virtualization technology", not the OS...

      Anyways, "The Black Hat presentation will occur on the same day Microsoft is scheduled to show off some of the key security features and functionality being fitted into Vista."

      After reading this, I can't stop imagining

      Bill: So you can see the super cool security features bundled with Vista. Click, click, click...
      Audience: woooooow...
      SCREEN TURNS GREEN
      Audience in awe...
      Bill: We've changed the Blue Screen of Death. It is now Green, less intrussive.

      Sort of like this. Can't wait...
    2. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >....at least you'd stand a better chance of catching it in operation on a non-Windows OS, if for no other reason than transparency - No NTFS alternate data streams and the like to hide active processes in.

      Mod parent -1, totally clueless. I'm sure some other /.er will be along to tell you why shortly.

    3. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Rutkowska stressed that the Blue Pill technology does not rely on any bug of the underlying operating system.
      It's doesn't rely on any bug of the guest operating system, and isn't detectable from the guest operating system. But if something is mitigating access between multiple guest operating systems to hardware, then that thing is itself some sort of minimal operating system, and it is there that the problem lies. As far as the guest operating systems are concerned, this is really more like what would previously have been a hardware hack, in fact it's almost like your healthy computer is running behind a compromised firewall that's sending out the spam or whatever.

      Getting to the point, people act as if virtualization simplifies things, But really it's an additional layer of abstraction and complication, another mass of code and/or hardware to go wrong. Now there will have to be software tools to manange this new underlying minimal OS, and maybe virus/rootkit software. I think the applicability will be limited.

    4. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Informative

      WTF are you on about, this rides BELOW the operating system.

      It has no feasible way of detecting this because the host OS runs exacly as it did before completely oblivious that its not sitting on raw hardware.

      There is no spoon.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    5. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Then why do we have soup?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by MrLint · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if you would be able to detect these things by, say, keeping log of the relative offset from address 0 of actual physical ram of the box of say, the top of the kernel stack, or start of userland. If this number changes and there was no mitigating software installed, you might be able to suspect you are running in a VM.

    7. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by dextromulous · · Score: 2, Informative
      You would have to be rather closed-minded to think a rootkit would apply only to Windows. From wikipedia:
      The term "rootkit" (also written as "root kit") originally referred to a set of recompiled Unix tools such as "ps", "netstat", "w" and "passwd" that would carefully hide any trace of the intruder that those commands would normally display, thus allowing the intruders to maintain "root" on the system without the system administrator even seeing them.

      Generally now the term is not restricted to Unix-based operating systems, as tools that perform a similar set of tasks now exist for non-Unix operating systems such as Microsoft Windows (even though such operating systems may not have a "root" account).
      --
      There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
    8. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the least effective attempt at being clever in the history of slashdot.

    9. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blue Pill only works if the OS wasn't already virtualized. If it is, you would have to root the existing hypervisor, which is a much more difficult task. In short, it's probably less effective overall than existing rootkits.

    10. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      You have no idea what you're talking about.

      The OS is running in the environment provided for it by the rootkit, just as a guest OS runs within VMWare or similar. In exactly the same way that the guest OS doesn't know it's being hosted by VMWare, in this case the rooted OS would have no idea it wasn't on the raw hardware.

      There are plenty of valid reasons to criticise Windows or praise Linux/BSD, but this isn't one of them.

    11. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      I haven't read about it in detail yet, but from what I've gathered the virtualized OS does not have permission to call the virtualization operations. Thus you should be able to detect if the OS is virtualized by trying to call one of those functions.

      There might also be some flags you can read, dunno.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    12. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by VertigoAce · · Score: 1

      It's worth pointing out that you can write programs that know whether or not they are running inside VMWare, besides looking at hardware ids or names. You can read/write to one of the i/o ports on the CPU and it will behave differently on VMWare. They provide this as a mechanism for communicated with the host machine. You might choose to use this as a means to prevent a strictly licensed application from running on VMWare (this strikes me as pretty fragile and untrusting of your customer, but it does come up from time to time on the message boards).

      Obviously if your virtual machine was trying to hide its existance, you wouldn't do something like this, but commercial VM's have no reason to hide.

    13. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Freeze it and eat it with a fork!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I haven't read about it in detail yet, but from what I've gathered the virtualized OS does not have permission to call the virtualization operations. Thus you should be able to detect if the OS is virtualized by trying to call one of those functions.

      There might also be some flags you can read, dunno.


      There are a handful of processor instructions which behave differently under virtualization without causing a privilege fault. Not causing a privilege fault is crucial, because that would allow a malicious hypervisor to "step in" and hide itself. Even if the malicious hypervisor patches the host OS kernel and standard apps so that the OS cannot itself detect virtualization, it should be possible to load a "detector" application which uses these instructions to detect the problem. Of course, an effective implementation of such a "detector" utility would depend on the sophistication of the malicious hypervisor's countermeasures. The basic idea is presented in a paper from Rutkowska herself, aptly named "Red Pill".

      - T

    15. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's the least effective attempt at being clever in the history of slashdot.

      Yeah, well... I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
      Also, you stink.

    16. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but a virtualized machine is a sandboxed machine, is it not?

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    17. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by Charan · · Score: 1

      Rutkowska stressed that the Blue Pill technology does not rely on any bug of the underlying operating system.

      The critical point here is that the bug is in AMD's SVM/Pacifica virtualization technology, not any OS. Yes, there is a bug. The size of an elephant, it seems. And it's an elephant that happens to be implemented in hardware, where no amount of OS-level security will help.

    18. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      How about intentionally running in a VM?? Shove the parent OS into firmware, like a smarter-than-usual BIOS, and let *it* watch the system. Make it smart enough and it could detect the virtualising rootkit and seal it off in its own little world, kinda like a chroot jail... That could be loads of fun for a honeypot system - dozens of infected VMs, each thinking it's at the top of the heap, owning the hardware and talking to all the other infected VMs. Botnet in a box... :)

    19. Re:Before people start the Windows flamefest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > That could be loads of fun for a honeypot system - dozens of infected VMs, each thinking it's at the top of the heap, owning the hardware and talking to all the other infected VMs.

      This is not altogether different than what Symantec AV already does, which itself is not too different than "fakeroot", which is commonly used by Debian. It doesn't totally virtualize, but it basically sandboxes a suspected virus while not letting it know that, and lets it run for a while to see what it's up to. It's just about the only way to find the payload of some of the nastier polymorphic viruses, and the researchers let it run that way on lab machines for as long as they can (and incidentally, Symantec researchers do not use the term "virii"). Some newer viruses can get wise to this trick, but those countermeasures themseves are suspicious enough to cause immediate quarantine.

  2. said this before by dknj · · Score: 4, Interesting
    1. Re:said this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The blog entry mentioned in the article refers to SubVirt and describes some key differences. Among others, SubVirt requires a reboot and modifications to the disk, while Blue Pill doesn't.

      Of course, I should not be surprised to see a comment like that moderated as Interesting instead of Redundant. Who would expect the moderators to read the article before deciding if the comments are relevant or not?

  3. ok, but... by celardore · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who runs anything *real* on a virtual server?

    1. Re:ok, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Redundant
      Who runs anything *real* on a virtual server?

      I wish this hadn't been modded offtopic, because it isn't offtopic. It's just really fucking stupid.

      Where's the "-1 Mental Midget with the IQ of a Fencepost" mod option?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:ok, but... by mfaras · · Score: 1

      Tom Waits was on a virtualized rootkit caused by alcohol when he wrote that. -- I see friends saying "offtopic" / they really say "I love you"

    3. Re:ok, but... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Hey Stef, your post seems familiar.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    4. Re:ok, but... by teasea · · Score: 1

      Why is it people can't recognize a joke when they see it anymore unless they see the idiot on stage with the googly-eyed expression?

      People used to be able to recognize the tone and voice of the written word.

      Sigh.

    5. Re:ok, but... by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      Because you're typing, and you forgot the ;-)

      ;-)

    6. Re:ok, but... by Scooter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sadly, and in a large part due to the way commercial IT is funded, this can actually look good on paper - to the technology accountant: "as many servers as we like, that can be created and destroyed at will? Yes please". We also need virtual finance teams, virtual staff, virtual customers - hell don't bother running a real business at all - just model the entire thing, and play it like a RTS sim - with your score linked directly to the corporate stock price!

      Technology finance will cretae some bizarre technical solutions, if sombody in the organisation doesn't put the brakes on - another good example is "hmm terminal server runs all the same apps that native desltops do for the remote workers - let's just issue everyone a Windows TS "device" and host everyone's sessions inside a big servers in the data centre - it's cheaper, and there's no difference right? This is where someone gets to try and explain latency, and how it's different from "bandwidth", to an accountant :D "yeah but we just paid for a 1 Ooodlegig/s line - it'll be super quick!"

      It's not new either - mainframes have operated like this for years. IBM would have you create your entire data centre inside z/VM - including the routers, switches and firewalls. It's great for development and testing - need more Linux/Apache/WAS/Oracle servers? sure just wish 3 more into existence, re-test your fancy shmancy clustering and treacle bending widget, and then bin them off again with another wave of the virtual wand.

      We have clusters of Websphere AS inside one LPAR - not for speed I hasten to add - that would be silly, but to create resilience, seperate the Java VMs and add flexibitlty for software releases.

    7. Re:ok, but... by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      See? Works every time.

    8. Re:ok, but... by treeves · · Score: 1

      I got it, cuz it said "*real*", not "real".

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    9. Re:ok, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Are you kidding? Virtually everyone!

    10. Re:ok, but... by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know, perhaps people who use Java or Perl?

    11. Re:ok, but... by Phleg · · Score: 2, Funny

      --> The Joke <--


      --> Your Head <--

      --
      No comment.
    12. Re:ok, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Where's the "-1 Mental Midget with the IQ of a Fencepost" mod option?

      I don't know where the mod is, but I do know where the Mental Midget with the IQ of a Fencepost is.

    13. Re:ok, but... by dbc001 · · Score: 1

      My company actually just started moving to virtual servers, and I'd love to hear more detailed arguments against running mission-critical stuff on virtual servers (this is the first negative i've heard!). Although you make some interesting points, you don't really mention any facts or make any real arguments - I'd love to hear someone elaborate on the negatives of virtualization.

    14. Re:ok, but... by Scooter · · Score: 1

      In general- the downsides are the memory and CPU overhead, plus you're adding another layer of "stuff", that may have it's own problems. Everytime you are trying to trace a fault, you will often have to eliminate the VM layer.

      Plus - to turn the question on its head: just think about what you are doing and why? Shouldn't you just be able to run multiple things on one real machine? Why do we need to spin up entire operating system instances?

      Great for development and simulation - but I've yet to hear a convincing argument for doing this in production that doesn't amount to "ease of admin and installation" - ie convenience. These factors are relevant to any system design of course, but I value performance and reliability more.

  4. Is it *really* undetectable? by etymxris · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Can't you just take the hard drive out, mount it from another computer, and see all the malicious DLLs the rootkit was trying to hide from you?

    1. Re:Is it *really* undetectable? by etymxris · · Score: 1

      Why is this overrated? Article proudly announces "100% undetectable". Well, I just gave an example of how it could be detected, so the article is wrong.

    2. Re:Is it *really* undetectable? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Not sure why they moded you over rated since it would be the first thing I would do...

      But I think the problem is since the bootloader is putting the entire OS into a virtual machine there are not infected dlls to speak of. Heck... Bootloader might even use a filesystem you can't read, but you should be able to still see that extra partion or MBR whatever the highjack OS is using.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    3. Re:Is it *really* undetectable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the first thing you would do after dedecting you had an undetectable rootkit installed is take the hard drive out so you could detect that you had an undetectable rootkit installed?

    4. Re:Is it *really* undetectable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not hiding DLL's, dumbass. It runs on the virtualization layer, below the operating system. And in reference to your reply to your own post, when you disagree with the article don't assume you're right unless you're damn sure.

    5. Re:Is it *really* undetectable? by etymxris · · Score: 1

      Whether it's dlls or modifying the bootloader, it doesn't alter the point. And the point still stands. If connecting the hard drive to another computer is too much work, you can just do a weekly check from a live CD. And yes, I'm damn sure that a rootkit could not hide when mounted read only from a clean computer. There are various means to defeat this, such as if the hard drive's firmware has been infected, or if the entire drive is encrypted. But the article doesn't suggest any of these possibilities are being taken advantage of. So this type of rootkit, at least, is not "100% undetectable".

    6. Re:Is it *really* undetectable? by etymxris · · Score: 1

      People run weekly virus and spyware scans because they already know they have viruses or spyware? No, they run them regularly because there might be viruses or spyware they don't know about. "Undetectable" means there is no means to detect it, it doesn't mean it fails to call attention to itself.

      Leeches and tics secret numbing agents that make the host unaware of their existence. Until you visually inspect your body and find it there of course. Why would you be doing a thorough visual check of your body? Maybe you were walking through the brush. Why would you regularly inspect your hardware for rootkits? Maybe you've installed programs you don't totally trust.

      People with irregular problems often check their memory by booting a memtest86 CD and letting it run. I don't see how inspecting your computer with a bootable liveCD poses any greater a challenge, assuming a rootkit detector has been packaged as an ISO for such a purpose.

    7. Re:Is it *really* undetectable? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      or if the entire drive is encrypted.

      If the entire drive is encrypted, then either you encrypted it (which means that you should be able to decrypt it) or you didn't encrypt it (which is pretty much a sign of foul play).

    8. Re:Is it *really* undetectable? by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I don't think the comment was overrated, because it's right, but I do think the average computer user is unlikely to remove the hard drive and put it in another computer for analysis on a regular basis.

    9. Re:Is it *really* undetectable? by kcdoodle · · Score: 1

      Rootkits can hide themselves in flash bios for your hardware. Like a videocard for example. Swapping harddrives or even a formet will not get rid of those rootkits. www.rootkit.com

      --

      - I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
  5. the side effects are detactable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Current virtualization doesn't virtualize anything but basic VGA graphics. That's certainly noticable.

    Boss asks: are you playing games at work?!

    Me: Just checking for rootkits boss!

    1. Re:the side effects are detactable by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sure you could just make them see the actual hardware for the video card, just not for anything else

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:the side effects are detactable by enosys · · Score: 1

      Yeah, to make this truly undetectable you would need to provide access to some hardware. That is not straightforward. Some drivers deal with physical memory addresses. Physical addresses seen from a guest operating system might not correspond to actual physical addresses. Also this is an area where virtualization overhead might be significant and easy to detect.

    3. Re:the side effects are detactable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If I can see the actual hardware for the video card than I can detect the trojan by DMA. If I get cleaver enough, I just might be able to remove it.

      Besides, wouldn't I see it by machine total RAM shrinking?

    4. Re:the side effects are detactable by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      with a bit of clever swapping no you wouldn't, you would notice however that the system seemed to go to virtual memory when it shouldn't, and when the system isn't acknoledging that it is using virtual memory.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:the side effects are detactable by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sure you could just make them see the actual hardware for the video card, just not for anything else

      Well Einstein, as soon as you figure out how to do that please let the manufacturer of VMWare know so that we can all play games under it.

    6. Re:the side effects are detactable by GiMP · · Score: 1

      First, VMWare is a company, not a product. I'll assume your speaking of VMWare Workstation or VMWare Server.

      Xen can do this already, which is a better analogy to this described attack than VMWare Workstation or VMWare Server is anyway. Xen becomes your "host os" and then sets up your standard OS (Linux or BSD currently) as a "domain 0" -- the initial guest. Domain-0 full hardware access, just as if it was booted normally from the iron -- 3d acceleration on your latest Nvideo card runs fine. The described attack could be done today with a modified Xen kernel.

      By the way, in Xen, like in VMware, subsequent guests (DomU) do NOT get full hardware access, but can be assigned hardware resources on a case-by-case basis. Some users have added PCI-based USB and video controllers, assigned them to their DomU, and setup multi-user workstations (two independent keyboards/video/mouse on a machine).

    7. Re:the side effects are detactable by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 1

      The trick with these rootkit type virtualisations is that in the main they pass all hardware requests straight along to the relevant pieces of hardware. While you can't virtualise a graphics card, you can certainly just let the underlying OS have complete control.

      --
      Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
    8. Re:the side effects are detactable by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      VMWare allows you to run your virtual machine in a window and run multiple virtual machines at the same time if your computer is up to it.

      That makes it a bit more difficult for it to redirect video stuff direct to the card. A VM Rootkit doesn't need these features, so it can do it pretty easily.

      A version of VMWare which didn't have these features would be pretty useless, you may as well run the OS natively.

  6. Motherboards already block this... by Manip · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some, albeit high end, motherboards support a visual warning message that alerts the user to a program, or the OS trying to modify the boot sector on the hard disk. If you had this enabled it would stop this rootkit dead in its tracks. It's just a shame that more bioses / motherboards don't offer this support by default.

    If you have this on your motherboard I highly recommend you turn it on, it isn't too often that you reinstall the OS and pressing F9 isn't that much of an inconvenience even if you did it once a day.

    PS - All of the "My favorite OS is secure" posts below this are wrong if the Operating System supports some type of driver, or root program (running in the kernels memory space).

    1. Re:Motherboards already block this... by IHateChoosingAName · · Score: 1

      I don't know all the details, but didn't some old bioses let you get past that boot sector write warning by inserting the appropriate character into the keyboard buffer before attempting the write and therefore fooling the bios into thinking the user had pressed the key to allow the write?

    2. Re:Motherboards already block this... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hmm.. I have quite a pile of system boards here, dating from old 486 systems upto p4 and athlon xp, with ami, award, phoenix and biosses, and all of them have the boot sector virus protection option (tho sometimes just called virus protection).

      This offers at best a partial protection. While the MBR is important, the actual boot is done from the partition boot record, mot the master boot record, and this badly named feature is not going to help against that. Why badly named? because it does monitor (attempted) changes to the bootrecord and doesn't know anything about viruses.

      Next. even if you could protect against that, things just get a bit more OS and possibly OS version dependent because you have to move to the file that gets loaded by the partition bootrecord.

      Oh, quite a few 'boot managers' change the mbr on every boot.

      So while it offers some protection, that protection is extremely limited, and can be quite inconvenient.

    3. Re:Motherboards already block this... by enosys · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought this only trapped writes which were done through the BIOS. Modern operating systems deal with the hardware directly. That is much harder to trap.

    4. Re:Motherboards already block this... by utlemming · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well yes and no.

      There was a proof of concept virus that has the ability to use the ACPI interface to take over the BIOS.

      If you could that virus with the root kit that uses virtualization, the computer is now completely hosed. The only way to fix it is to flash the BIOS, and if it first takes over the BIOS and prevents the warning dialogs then virtualizes the OS, you now have an incrediably powerful malware that can only be stopped when it is run on the computer. If you don't detect the malware out the gate, then you may or may never know that you have a problem.

      The problem that computer security is having is that the people that can develop this stuff are not stupid. And it is rather hard to forecast what is going to happen with out knowing what the malware people are planning on.

      Essentially this problem is going to result in the implementation of signed code for anything that runs outside of a very limited sandbox. Frankly, I think that we are going to see an era of virtualized everything -- where the hardware runs a hypervisor, with a master kernel, and everything else runs in the context of a virtual machine that groups simular resources. Unsigned code would then be run inside of its own virtual machine using a microkernel that links to the master kernel. Or something like that.

      --
      The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
    5. Re:Motherboards already block this... by spotter · · Score: 1

      and this is where TCPA would come in handy. the bios hashes grub, grub hashes the kernel and initrd, get a "known" good result. This should be fairly stable. If executing within a hypervisor, the resulting hash value will not be equivalent and you will know something is up.

    6. Re:Motherboards already block this... by eraser.cpp · · Score: 1

      Unlike SubVirt, Blue Pill does not require a reboot before it becomes active and does not alter the MBR. That motherboard setting will not be an effective mitigation strategy.

    7. Re:Motherboards already block this... by Charan · · Score: 1

      There are two different ideas here. One concerns how the rootkit hides itself in a system, and the other concerns how the rootkit stays infected on a machine across reboots. The rootkit would only modify the boot sector if it wanted to reload itself on a reboot. From the article, this appears to be unnecessary to compromise a system. It's plausable that a rootkit could be resident only in memory, perhaps because it wants to avoid detection (by examining the disk from another computer) or because it can't (local media is read-only, maybe a CD boot). When the computer did reboot, it could just be infected again.

    8. Re:Motherboards already block this... by Nurgled · · Score: 1

      One of my boxes has a virus protection feature, and whenever it's switched on it makes entertaining beeping noises on startup and says that my MBR might be infected with a virus, presumably because it's detected LILO in there. Not sure what it is about LILO that upsets it so much, but as a result I keep that feature disabled so the system will reboot cleanly.

    9. Re:Motherboards already block this... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      That feature is like most car's proximity alarms. It's almost invariably a false alarm, and irritates the people who get "ALERTED" about legitimate operations, and thus often if not usually winds up left off except in a few instances where it helps create a false sense of security.

      Hitting F8 is fine, when the USB keyboard works at boot time and the monitor starts up fast enough and it doesn't prevent the system from correctly rebooting after a power failure or require expensive KVM setups for a rack full of servers, etc., etc., etc. It's like that "Hit F1 if no keyboard was detected", it's almost always a waste of someone's time.

    10. Re:Motherboards already block this... by lhorn · · Score: 1

      In my experience, the 'boot virus protection feature' just compare the first parts of the harddisk with a known checksum. When you first turn it on, there is no (valid) checksum, it will be generated on next boot. You can then 'accept the change' and a new checksum will be generated. The next reboot should give no warning. False virus warnings will be given on installing XP or LILO or a new harddisk.

      --
      accept no limits but time
    11. Re:Motherboards already block this... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      the bios hashes grub, grub hashes the kernel and initrd, get a "known" good result. This should be fairly stable. If executing within a hypervisor, the resulting hash value will not be equivalent and you will know something is up.

      You do not need tcpa for this. You do however need to have grub loaded from the MBR, and the MBR code needs to validate its checksum. In this case the bios will warn you if either the code or the checksum changed, and the MBR code can warn you about changes to whatever it loads.

      As you can see, this could easily be done today, and has been a possibility for the last decade or such at the very least.

      The problems with this, as well as with the setup you suggest (which seems functionally identical to me) is that you count on the code that gets loaded in the 1st stage to verify the code that gets loaded after that. It is this aspect that isn't implemented by most systems and why mbr change notification barely helps if any (with the systems we have today). It could be a usefull tool if used properly.

    12. Re:Motherboards already block this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that, with Trusted Computing as it is currently formulated, you don't get to decide what is and is not trusted. It's been said before, TC with control by the owner of the machine... useful. TC controlled by megacorp... Big Brother.

  7. This just reinforces the good old principle by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If your system suffered a successful intrusion, you wipe.

    Of course, there were LKM rootkits (pretty hard to detect) for a good while now, this is just taking it to an all new level.

    I wish the spread of better hidden rootkits on Windows, because only that will further sane security policies and wipe the stupid idea of virus scanners out (when it's doing IDS not IPS). There ain't such thing as 'intrusion removal'. It's like putting on a condom after sex. Oh wait, it's slashdot. Let me rephrase. It is like trying to recover data from /dev/null.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:This just reinforces the good old principle by sweet+'n+sour · · Score: 1

      If your system suffered a successful intrusion, you wipe.

      The trick, of course, if knowning when you've suffered a successful intrusion. The whole point of this exploit is not to be detected in the first place.
      I still don't see how this or any other rootkit can get past a clean bootdisk + scan, like Bart's PE for Windows, or something like rescue disk + chroot + rpm -qV for linux.

      BartPE http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/

    2. Re:This just reinforces the good old principle by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wiping isn't necessarily going to help. The BIOS could have been compromised and the virtualization taking place there.

      Many a BIOS already contains a pile of crap :

      ACPI
      USB
      IPMI 2.0
      SATA
      Infiniband

      On the GX2, the BIOS is a message-passing microkernel that lives in SMI !

      Wonder how your USB keyboard can be used before the OS is loaded :

      > The implementation is chipset dependent. Often what happens is
      > that the chipset recognizes an I/O request to port 0x60 or 0x64 and
      > aborts the request with an SMI (system management interrupt). This
      > is a *very* non-maskable interrupt (more non-maskable than NMI...)
      > that causes the processor to save pretty much all its register state
      > in a special memory area, and jump to a handler in the system BIOS.
      > The BIOS SMI handler examines the saved register state, figures out
      > what the OS was trying to do, runs a software model of the PS/2
      > keyboard controller's state, chats with the USB keyboard, formulates
      > an appropriate response, emulates the I/O instruction the OS was
      > trying to do, and resumes execution of the OS at the instruction
      > following the I/O instruction.
      >
      > Some chipsets might do it directly in hardware rather than using
      > the SMI+BIOS strategy.

      http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.plan9/brows e_thread/thread/4c154a61f5bf15fa/5b9040b5d3e3fcfe? lnk=st&q=group%3Acomp.os.plan9+SMI%2BBIOS&rnum=1#5 b9040b5d3e3fcfe

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    3. Re:This just reinforces the good old principle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you could rootkit the firmware (updatable BIOS for example) you could force externally loaded OSes to run in virtualization.

      1) Computer power on
      2) rootkit bios start
      3) rootkit bios calls rootkit host OS (from firmware or hardrive if there is not enought space in the firmware)
      4) rootkit host OS loads the first bootable device as guest to itself ... not easy, probably not feasible for more than an specific machine you know a lot about, but yet posible.

    4. Re:This just reinforces the good old principle by Alsee · · Score: 1

      It's like putting on a condom after sex. Oh wait, it's slashdot. Let me rephrase. It is like trying to recover data from /dev/null.

      So you're saying there's a '/dev/random/' for sex that will (eventually) work?!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:This just reinforces the good old principle by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Maybe the solution is linuxbios?. Presumably this would prevent any vector for a virus to take over the bios except a compromised kernel or physical access to the hardware.

    6. Re:This just reinforces the good old principle by XMyth · · Score: 1
      It is like trying to recover data from /dev/null.


      Funny, that's how I think of my wife too.
    7. Re:This just reinforces the good old principle by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      You apparently misunderstood information theory and the mathematical concept of infinity.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    8. Re:This just reinforces the good old principle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There ain't such thing as 'intrusion removal'. It's like putting on a condom after sex.

      Yeah, but what you suggest is like stepping into a disintegration booth after sex!

    9. Re:This just reinforces the good old principle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like putting on a condom after sex.

      So if someone has sex without a condom they should be killed and reincarnated, instead of diagnosed and treated? I've never really understood analogies.

    10. Re:This just reinforces the good old principle by shani · · Score: 1

      If your system suffered a successful intrusion, you wipe.

      It wasn't a good principle in the old days, and it's not a good principle now.

      In the olden days, if your (say) Windows 95 box was compromised, and you wiped (and presumably re-installed), then it would be compromised again very soon, from the same security hole that was used the first time.

      Unless you have some guess as to how the intrusion worked on your system, what makes you think it won't happen again?

      My advice: Don't panic! A system was probably compromised long before you noticed. There is little reason to pull the plug and wipe it right away... a few minutes or even hours will probably not cause more problems. At the very least, try get a disk image of the system that you (or someone else) can use for forensics later.

      Sure, you will need to wipe and reinstall (hopefully with a little more attention to security), but it should be done after you figure out what's going on.

    11. Re:This just reinforces the good old principle by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You apparently misunderstood information theory and the mathematical concept of infinity.

      It was a joke, but in true geekish fasion it disturbs me when someone says my post contained or suggested an error of logic or technical missunderstanding, even if it was just a joke. I'd say I'm reasonably familiar with basic information theory. Could you be more specific on how you think I missunderstand information theory and/or infinity?

      It seems to me that the mathematical element in the joke, and one that is easy to mathematically prove, is that any data of finite length can be retrieved from a random stream with arbitrary certainty within a finite limit. The punchline elements being (1) the absurdly long (yet still *finite*) time required, and (2) you basically need to already possess the target data in order to know when and where you have retrieved that data from the random stream.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  8. Virtualization not so virtuos since conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats the reason of all that institucional "support"

  9. A win-win situation for everyone by KingSkippus · · Score: 3, Funny

    From TFA:

    Rutkowska says of the Blue Pill concept, "I am very excited about the chance to work with Sony on how this technology can be used to protect their next generation of music CDs, DVDs, and high-definition Bluray discs. I believe it will be a win-win situation for everyone involved. Well, everyone important, anyway."
  10. Not much less detectable by mrcaseyj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think this changes the situation much. Viruses have always tried to hide. This just requires different methods to detect them. Ultimately some viruses can only be reliably detected by booting off of readonly media. The same now as before. I think OS providers should provide a boot disk for routine scanning as a matter of standard procedure.

    1. Re:Not much less detectable by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Why the OS makers? Third-party boot CDs have been easy to build or download and should be part of every skilled users toolkit. Very full-featured BartPE, "khauyeung", Linux, BSD, etc live CDs are easy to find and customize if needed.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Not much less detectable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how exactly do you ensure that the booting is happening outside the VM?

    3. Re:Not much less detectable by mrcaseyj · · Score: 1
      >And how exactly do you ensure that the booting is happening outside the VM?

      A full reset, typically by powering down. Of course that's a problem for servers. Perhaps BIOS manufacturers could create a BIOS that had firmware to take control of the system when you push a button and then run the virus scanner from your read-only media.

      Why the OS makers? Third-party boot CDs have been easy to build or download and should be part of every skilled users toolkit. Very full-featured BartPE, "khauyeung", Linux, BSD, etc live CDs are easy to find and customize if needed.
      I think it would work a lot more reliably and be much easier for users, if it was integrated into the system. It should become a part of routine maintenance even for regular users.
  11. Maybe it's time for some new paradigm by supradave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps there could be an OS that wouldn't allow malware to be injected through root-trust, signed applications, memory compartmentalization with read, write, execute permissions and 4 privilege levels (instead of 2). Of course, that wouldn't be Windows or Linux or BSD or any other generic OS.

    1. Re:Maybe it's time for some new paradigm by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

      Intel supports the 4 privilege levels, however the problem is if you want to write portable code, you are not guarneteed to have 4 levels. I'm not sure if AMD supports 4 levels, if someone knows please post, I do know for a fact that PPC is 2 levels though. The main problem as you can see, is to create an OS that starts using the features, which have been availiable from Intel for a while, you limit the processors it will run on without putting forth some considerable work.

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    2. Re:Maybe it's time for some new paradigm by operagost · · Score: 1

      Sounds like VMS.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Maybe it's time for some new paradigm by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      Any processor that's an x86 clone has the 4 privilege levels. AMD's x86 processors should for that reason. I think AMD64 does, too, but I haven't actually read any documents on it.

      It certainly is possible to make an OS use more than 2 privilege levels on x86 (a dude I knew in college modified Linux thusly; lots of very frequently-used kernel code and drivers needed modification and IIRC all the userland programs were unmodified because it all runs in ring 3 anyway). As far as portability goes... Linux was originally intended to be an implementation of a Unix kernel for 386. There's no absolute requirement that kernels are as portable as Linux has grown to be.

    4. Re:Maybe it's time for some new paradigm by orasio · · Score: 1

      I'm not supporting the idea of creating a new OS, at least it could be a way of getting a microkernel architecture.

      AST used your same argument, saying that Linux wouldn't be popular, partly because only people with 386 processors could use it.
      You just need to make it available for reasonably widespread hardware.

    5. Re:Maybe it's time for some new paradigm by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      and 4 privilege levels (instead of 2).

      Well, OS/2 (0/2/3) and Linux on Xen (0/1/3) both use 3. If you can take control of the hardware via a Xen-ed kernel, now that would be one for the hacker hall of fame.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    6. Re:Maybe it's time for some new paradigm by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

      I know it is, the privilage levels have been around since the 386. They certainly could have written XP, Vista, and even 2000 so that the system would support the ring security model. Its a matter of 1, someone finally doing it, and 2 doing it in such a way that it can easily be adopted. Rewriting every driver, and any other system level item isn't an easy adoption.

      A good method to still even maintain portability is to have it as an optional compile, so if you were going to run on a 2 ring processor you could. I dont really see this happening anytime soon, they've ignored this feature for how long already?

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    7. Re:Maybe it's time for some new paradigm by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > It certainly is possible to make an OS use more than 2 privilege levels on x86

      The multiple ring architecture was a Multics thing. I think VMS also used it, and it's also used by QNX (at least some builds of it). Xen runs guest OS's in ring 2.

      I'm told AMD64 doesn't have rings 1 and 2 in 64-bit mode.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    8. Re:Maybe it's time for some new paradigm by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      Perhaps there could be an OS that wouldn't allow malware to be injected through root-trust, signed applications, memory compartmentalization with read, write, execute permissions and 4 privilege levels (instead of 2). Of course, that wouldn't be Windows or Linux or BSD or any other generic OS.

      Oh, it's you again. How tedious. Still pimping you employer's vapourware bullshit without a word of explanation as to how the 4 privilege levels actually make the OS unbreakable in real life.

      Do us all a favour and stop breathing, you astroturfing little cocksucker.

      I'll try and dig out the URL you posted some time ago, so we can all tell them how much we appreciate you spamming Slashdot.

    9. Re:Maybe it's time for some new paradigm by releppes · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of something similar. I was thinking that in unix, the uid=0 account (root), should be an inaccessible account. No one should have root, not even a sysadmin. I was thinking that root (like) privledges should be granted via the gid=0 group only. And even those privledges could be superceeded via the uid=0 account. Let the computer/kernel retain control over that account. Somehow, via kernel/OS design, make it impossible for anything but the machine to control the (uid=0) account. I'm not just talking about locking the root account. I mean elimination of the root account, however retain the concept of uid=0. So if there was a uid=0 owned file with a-w permissions, there would be no way possible of removing that file, unless the kernel made the call itself. It also means there'd be no way of creating such a file unless done by the kernel. Same goes for processes and the like. I think the general concept of a sysadmin controling a computer would change. In a way, the computer (ie: kernel/OS) would have the final say on everything. If a computer ever misbehaved (ie: a likely bug in the OS), the only way to fix/patch the system would be to take it off line and patch it from another system (ie: mounting the root disk). This of course would make routine upgrades very difficult. It also mean that if there was a serious problem with a machine (ie: run away kernel process due to an OS bug), it's possible you couldn't fix it unless you took the machine down. The general concept is, even if you had a rootkit/virus compromised unix system, the worse that could happen would an infected userland space. There should be no way one could infect a kernel or loadible module or anything that's uid=0 owned (unless gid permissions were granted). Essentially, let the computer (ie: OS) have a means to protect itself. This is simply not possible if external forces (ie: sysadmins) have the ability to make modifications to the integrity of the system.

    10. Re:Maybe it's time for some new paradigm by supradave · · Score: 1

      You don't know me well enought to call me that.

      I was saying that maybe it's time for a paradigm shift using the processor to do the work that it's supposed to do. I know that having generic OS's are great, but until someone does the shift, the problems of root kits and viruses are going to be there due to device drives and such running a PL0. I don't think I touted anything in this post.

      Besides, I don't work for that company anymore.

  12. Real Beneficiaries of Hardware Virtualization... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, just as you would expect, the future of having CPUs with hardware support for virtualization will be wonderful for preserving absolutely perfect security and cloaking for rootkits and their owners. In fact, thinking of why a certain class of non-blackhat beneficiaries would very much like such a possibility, this could be why both Intel and AMD are planning to ensure that all future CPUs, including even those in ordinary non-server desktop PCs, will have compulsory (permanently enabled) hardware support for virtualization. You know the routine - think of the children etc etc.

  13. Is this a "root kit"? by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Technically it's not rooting an OS but actually is almost it's own OS (hypervisor actually) that is running the OS in a virtual machine. Couldn't you get the same effect by hacking BIOS?

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    1. Re:Is this a "root kit"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because modern OSes (linux, windows) don't use the BIOS calls.

  14. While the subject is scary by Goblez · · Score: 2

    Is this really a surprise? Given the layered design of software, if you have something that can sit between the hardware and the software (and monitor what passes between, and control said information), they why would it not have complete control? The question is how could this easily be placed on someone's machine? The next question is why can a level of virtualization be introduced between the operating system and the hardware during execution?

    "your operating system swallows the Blue Pill and it awakes inside the Matrix controlled by the ultra thin Blue Pill hypervisor. This all happens on-the-fly (i.e. without restarting the system)"

    --
    - Kal`Goblez
    1. Re:While the subject is scary by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      your operating system swallows the Blue Pill and it awakes inside the Matrix controlled by the ultra thin Blue Pill hypervisor. This all happens on-the-fly (i.e. without restarting the system)

      Not that the average Windows user would find yet another spontaneous reboot any particular cause for concern, but I admit it would be cool.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  15. Brilliant by illuminatedwax · · Score: 1

    The Matrix has you.

    --
    Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
    1. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, you has Matrix.

    2. Re:Brilliant by spacedsteve · · Score: 1

      pah ...take the other pill, its just not worth it!

      --
      All your base are belong to us!
    3. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Slashdot, you are not funny.

  16. livecd by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Microsoft already working on one to address teh issue. I dont know if you have to pay additional money as MS hinted that ms antivirus will be a subscription service.

    Running everything off a livecd is a good idea since most infected pc's are as slow as a 486 and could take hours to days to scan. In this case it would be ineffective.

    I wonder if bios virii are next/? Its the only way to go above even booting off a pc and some malware and spyware makers are working on this. That way it can't be removed at all. Claria should be taken out to a field and shot.

    1. Re:livecd by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      > Microsoft already working on one to address teh issue.

      Thank God. I feel so much better now. I hope they roll that into Defender.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  17. Let's make this a bit easier to understand. by khasim · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but ...

    This is not really different from running WinXP, then installing VMWare Workstation, then installing Win2K in a virtual machine.

    The "host" OS is what gets infected. That would be WinXP. Of course nothing running in the "guest OS (Win2K) would be able to detect it. But ... so what? And that would directly contradict their claim:
    Rutkowska stressed that the Blue Pill technology does not rely on any bug of the underlying operating system.
    There are only three (3) ways for the "underlying operating system" to be infected.

    #1. Worm
    #2. Virus
    #3. Trojan

    If we aren't talking "nude pictures of celebrities", then it's either a worm or a virus and both of those are bugs in the OS.

    If it's a trojan, then WTF are you doing installing unknown apps on the host OS?

    Now, the only way this would be interesting would be if the worm / virus / trojan installed the virtualization software, moved the existing OS to a virtual machine and faked the names of all the interfaces (NIC, IDE controller, etc). If you can do that, VMWare really wants to talk to you.
    1. Re:Let's make this a bit easier to understand. by kesuki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but ...

      There are only three (3) ways for the "underlying operating system" to be infected.

      There are only two ways, and you got them all wrong.

      1. User/administration Error.

      2. Programmer/Developer error.

      any remote vulnerabilities fall under 2, and any configuration errors fall under 1. :) you shouldn't have said 'I'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong' unless you wanted to be corrected.

    2. Re:Let's make this a bit easier to understand. by tool462 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Now, the only way this would be interesting would be if the worm / virus / trojan installed the virtualization software, moved the existing OS to a virtual machine
      That's exactly what it does, according to this paper that somebody else posted in the comments. I don't know that it fakes all the hardware names and such (unlikely), but I doubt that the typical user would recognize that the hardware in their control panel was any different than before.
    3. Re:Let's make this a bit easier to understand. by slamb · · Score: 1
      Now, the only way this would be interesting would be if the worm / virus / trojan installed the virtualization software, moved the existing OS to a virtual machine and faked the names of all the interfaces (NIC, IDE controller, etc). If you can do that, VMWare really wants to talk to you.
      Can someone please mod this guy down for not reading the article? It says:
      "The idea behind Blue Pill is simple: your operating system swallows the Blue Pill and it awakes inside the Matrix controlled by the ultra thin Blue Pill hypervisor. This all happens on-the-fly (i.e. without restarting the system) and there is no performance penalty and all the devices," she explained

      There's no need to fake the hardware; presumably it just lets the operating system use the real stuff.

    4. Re:Let's make this a bit easier to understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but ...

      This is not really different from running WinXP, then installing VMWare Workstation, then installing Win2K in a virtual machine.

      You're wrong :)

      On the target system, there is only one OS running, and no virtualization software. The malware is the virtual machine.

      There are only three (3) ways for the "underlying operating system" to be infected.

      The underlying operating system is not infected at all.

      Now, the only way this would be interesting would be if the worm / virus / trojan installed the virtualization software, moved the existing OS to a virtual machine and faked the names of all the interfaces (NIC, IDE controller, etc). If you can do that, VMWare really wants to talk to you.

      You're thinking of old school emulation technology. The new CPUs coming from Intel and AMD support hypervisor virtualization at the hardware level. The OS on such a system still has native access to hardware, without any emulation of it. The hypervisor effectively runs in a "ring -1" context to supervise it all.

      What Blue Pill does is set itself up as a hypervisor, and since it doesn't need to take control of or mediate access to any specific devices, the OS doesn't see anything different. And it does this live, without any need to interrupt or modify the OS.

      Once loaded, the OS kernel is fair game, since the hypervisor has full control of memory.
    5. Re:Let's make this a bit easier to understand. by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Actually, the rootkit itself would serve as the host OS and the virtualization software as one.

      This is not as much work as it may seem, because most functionality could simply be "leaked through" from the physical machine to the virtual one. The only functionality that the rootkit would fake would be stuff it used, such as the hard drive (to hide it's files, for example) and then whatever else it does (for example, it might have it's own network connection to a remote server, and then it would have to make it look like, to the guest OS, that there is no such connection).

    6. Re:Let's make this a bit easier to understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vmware has a product that does what you describe, acting as it's own OS and VM.

    7. Re:Let's make this a bit easier to understand. by Harik · · Score: 1
      Now, the only way this would be interesting would be if the worm / virus / trojan installed the virtualization software, moved the existing OS to a virtual machine and faked the names of all the interfaces (NIC, IDE controller, etc). If you can do that, VMWare really wants to talk to you.

      Good news! That's exactly why this is interesting. It gets a hook into ring-0 (any kernel mode driver bug gets you there) then uses ring-0 priveledge to turn on the CPU's Pacifica extensions. It sets itself up as hypervisor, sets the current OS up as a domain guest, and grants the guest full I/O privs.

      So a always-running-never-rebooted copy of windows goes from running on raw hardware, to running on hardware-accelerated virtuilization. Page faults bounce through the hypervisor which simply chains to the normal windows fault handler. Unless there's a special signature to the registers; then suddenly it activates and executes those user-mode commands at a hypervisor level. This could be read/modify memory not assigned to this process, grant direct hardware access; anything a hypervisor can do.

      Interesting note: You probably wouldn't notice a FPS drop in any game, since there's no overhead for the OS to get to hardware (it's checked and passed in the CPU, not trapped and tested in the hypervisor) and there's no overhead like there is running windows-in-vmware-in-windows.

    8. Re:Let's make this a bit easier to understand. by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      1. User/administration Error.
      2. Programmer/Developer error.
      any remote vulnerabilities fall under 2, and any configuration errors fall under 1.


      Users aren't vulnerable to remote exploits? Trojans and social engineering attacks rely on those.

  18. Everyone but you... by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    I don't know about your company, but I work for a giant Fortune 100 multinational company, by far one of the largest and most profitable and recognizable ones in the world. I'm very familiar with our computing environment, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that running applications on virtual machines is not only common here, it's a very important part of our future.

    Yes, real applications, the kind that are business critical.

    Is it a smart move? Maybe yes, maybe no. If you want to argue about it, go for it. (I don't really care one way or another.) But is it happening? Hell yeah, it already has.

    1. Re:Everyone but you... by celardore · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I work for a massive global company. I bet it's bigger than yours (three letters), but that's not the point. We run on thin clients and it is fucking awful! There's so much downtime it's unreal. I started at the company and we had 486 boxes and CRT monitors (granted the new LCD ones are a godsend), but everything ran perfectly then. They introduced remote computing, Citrix and all that stuff. I don't think they realised the 'small details' they would be impacting. For instance, before the 'upgrade' if the network went down, we could write some letters, work on some spreadsheets etc... Now with the new 'upgrade', if the network goes down, we can't do anything. Not even write a letter, send an email, none of that stuff....

      Virtualisation is NOT the way forwards, it's actually a hinderence to most common business-use functions. For so many reasons. For some reason, networks go down at least twice a week. (In several companies I've worked for)

    2. Re:Everyone but you... by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think they realised the 'small details' they would be impacting. For instance, before the 'upgrade' if the network went down, we could write some letters, work on some spreadsheets etc... Now with the new 'upgrade', if the network goes down, we can't do anything. Not even write a letter, send an email, none of that stuff....

      Yes, gone are the wonderful days of yore when one used to be able to pass the time while the network was down by "sending an email." :P

      --
      Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
    3. Re:Everyone but you... by XMyth · · Score: 1

      WTF do thin clients have to do with virtualization? Virtualization is useful for servers, not thin clients.

    4. Re:Everyone but you... by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      First of all, I reiterate that I wasn't arguing for virtualization, I was merely stating that it exists and will continue to grow in the future.

      Second of all, if your network goes down twice a week, then your IT people are incompetent idiots and should be fired immediately. (Sorry to have to break it to you. I hope I'm preaching to the choir.)

      Third of all, remote computing and virtualization are not the same thing. In fact, they have nothing to do with each other, unless one of your virtual servers happens to be a Citrix server or something, but that's really stretching. In fact, networking and virtualization have nothing to do with each other either.

  19. Towards a runtime for Voight-Kampff machines by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Is this testing whether I'm a virtual machine or a lesbian, Mr. Dowd?"

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  20. The piano was rooted, not Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, actually the piano was hit by the rootkit pretty badly. Tom says that he has nothing to do with it.

  21. The only defense by rufusdufus · · Score: 0, Troll

    I've been telling people this for a while, mainly to blank stares; you cannot detect if you have a virus/keylogger/spyware on your system. All those utilities people pay so much for are worthless! They only detect the known malware, but nobody knows about the undetected hacks. The technology discussed in this article has been around for longer than the OS's have been!
    You must assume in this day and age that if your computers will become infected with undetectable malware within a relatively short time of normal internet connectivity.
    Accepting this then, the only truly safe way to compute today is to keep your boot/OS/application drive from being writable. Baring this, the next best step is to re-image your drive from non-writable media daily. Throw away the expensive antivirus scanners, they do nothing.
    Are you staring blankly at me? Did you know that you can reimage your drive in 5 minutes and guarantee your computer is clean? Thats far less time than it takes a scanner to scan ineffectively your system files. The main trick is to boot from a DVD and to store the image on an external harddrive. And to use a certain discipline in creating incremental images that keep them malware free. This, along with a firewall, is the only reliable defense today.

    1. Re:The only defense by geekoid · · Score: 1

      that is not true.
      All thr AV companies have labds where they make new exploits. Then design a way to detect that TYPE of exlpoit.

      Besides, have software to protect your systems helps with the know problems bouncing around out there even if not the zero day ones. Fortuasntly there aren't a lot of zero day issues.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:The only defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Are you staring blankly at me?
      No, I'm staring at you like you're an effing loon who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
    3. Re:The only defense by OverflowingBitBucket · · Score: 1

      I've been telling people this for a while, mainly to blank stares; you cannot detect if you have a virus/keylogger/spyware on your system .... They only detect the known malware, but nobody knows about the undetected hacks.

      Not true.

      Many detection tools will look for specific signatures of known exploits. Thus this part of the detection will not detect anything else. We're in agreement up to this point.

      However...

      There are other means of detection. One can look to see if certain system calls have been hooked in some way, files placed in certain places, alternate calls to read the same file return different results, system behaviour typical of an exploit, so forth. Code sequences with known execution times can be run and if the results are too far off, you know something is up. Network traffic can be examined on the machine and passively tapped just off the machine, and the difference can be enlightening. Even if your malware author is a certified genius and masks every single possible activity (ha!), then how on earth are they going to hide the CPU power required to implement it? And so on and on...

      I'd be surprised if there were many modern anti-malware utilities that didn't implement a few of the more basic generic checks. Your assertion is not true.

      Heck, even in this case, bugs in the implementation of the virtualisation can be used to detect if we're running or not. Code sequences exist that can detect whether you're in a virtual machine by the subtle differences between a true machine and a virtual one. Look at VMware I/O addresses and drive IDs, for example. Any difference between the _huge_ interface between virtual machine and the real machine can potentially be tested for and used for detection.

    4. Re:The only defense by nincehelser · · Score: 1

      >Accepting this then, the only truly safe way to compute today is to keep your
      > boot/OS/application drive from being writable. Baring this, the next best
      >step is to re-image your drive from non-writable media daily.

      You'd certainly get a blank stare from me.

      That's not very practical. Depending on your OS and partioning scheme, you would be losing logs, patches, and preferences with each re-image.

      A better approach is to start with a clean system, run something like tripwire, and keep an eye out for unusual changes.

    5. Re:The only defense by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 1
      They only detect the known malware

      That isn't correct. Today's top of the line security software can detect threats that have never been seen before. It works by detecting behavior, not signatures.

    6. Re:The only defense by jthill · · Score: 4, Funny

      You just think you're booting off that DVD.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    7. Re:The only defense by twitter · · Score: 1
      You must assume in this day and age that if your computers will become infected with undetectable malware within a relatively short time of normal internet connectivity. Accepting this then, the only truly safe way to compute today is to keep your boot/OS/application drive from being writable. Baring this, the next best step is to re-image your drive from non-writable media daily.

      Windoze has a half life of 12 minutes but other OS don't. Can you name a Linux, BSD or even a Mac worm that's managed to escape a laboratory? Computers outside the windows world only have to worry about dedicated attacks by people who know what they are doing. Yes, intrusion detection helps at that level.

      There are problems with running from non writable media. The first is that you will never get security updates, so any know exploit is going to get you every time you boot. Also, wiping your binaries won't do you much good if the hacker has put the rootkit into the files you keep.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    8. Re:The only defense by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      Accepting this then, the only truly safe way to compute today is to keep your boot/OS/application drive from being writable. Baring this, the next best step is to re-image your drive from non-writable media daily.

      Yes, but how do you know that your drive or image hasn't already been infected?

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    9. Re:The only defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bzzzzzzzzzzzzz you lose

      Morris worm.

    10. Re:The only defense by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1
      Since the anti-virus software is available to the general public, the virus writers can test against it.

      It'll always be possible to find something that the code won't detect. All anti-virus software does is adds another step to the virus development process.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    11. Re:The only defense by willyhill · · Score: 0
      Windoze
      It's Windows, but you called it "Windoze". How cute.

      half life of 12 minutes
      So does an unpatched Linux box, that's why unpatched boxes belong behind your NAT.

      Can you name a Linux, BSD or even a Mac worm that's managed to escape a laboratory?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Worm

      Anything else?

      --
      The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
    12. Re:The only defense by OverflowingBitBucket · · Score: 1

      Since the anti-virus software is available to the general public, the virus writers can test against it.

      It'll always be possible to find something that the code won't detect. All anti-virus software does is adds another step to the virus development process.

      Absolutely.

      Having said that, you don't always have access to all versions of AV solutions (some do cost and a malware author might not find a warez version), and all research-in-progress at universities, AV labs, and whitehat/blackhat circles. Not all of it is available to the general public.

      Also, even discounting the volume of software you don't have access to, finding a solution that requires reverse engineering multiple versions of multiple AV solutions is generally going to be a hard problem.

      Also, just as one can examine AV code and find a way around it, once the exploit is out, one can examine it and find a weakness in the exploit.

      Having said all that, once you put money behind the problem it becomes easier. Sure, defeating several dozen AV solutions is going to require a lot of work. But if you can sell off the victims computers for a commercial DDOS or blackmailing, set up spam bots, or collect credit card numbers, it suddenly becomes profitable. Once there is money behind it, you will find people who are willing to make that investment of time.

      It's basically an arms race.

    13. Re:The only defense by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      BSD 4, yes. But how was the Morris Worm a Linux or Mac problem?

    14. Re:The only defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you name a Linux, BSD or even a Mac worm that's managed to escape a laboratory?

    15. Re:The only defense by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      OK, that was the original question. But how does it affect Linux or Mac?

    16. Re:The only defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They only detect the known malware

      > That isn't correct. Today's top of the line security software can detect threats that have never been seen before. It works by detecting behavior, not signatures.

      I think you are unfamiliar with basic math and metatheory.

      You are simply arguing that they can detect known behavior. He is arguing that they cannot detect unknown behavior. See, you guys don't disagree.

    17. Re:The only defense by Charan · · Score: 2, Informative

      All those utilities people pay so much for are worthless! They only detect the known malware, but nobody knows about the undetected hacks.

      One area of active reasearch in intrusion detection looks at detecting malware by examining the behavior of applications. The behavior patterns (network connections, system calls, file accesses, etc.) of a program can be compared against a list of known-bad actions. If a program acts like malware, it's malware, regardless of how what vulnerability (known or unknown) compromised it.

      Also, it is possible for some programs to detect when a specific vulnerability is triggered and take preventative action. This will stop previously-unseen exploits from using an established vulnerability to compromise a system. Still, the vulnerability must be discovered first for this to work.

      An technique called anomaly detection seeks to get around this limitation by building a profile of "normal" behavior for a program and flagging any deviant behavior. This still can't catch all malware, since the malware could have the infected application act within its normal boundaries, but it does severely limit what malware can do with a hijacked process. Hopefully, the malware is limited enough that it can't really harm the system.

    18. Re:The only defense by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Having said that, you don't always have access to all versions of AV solutions (some do cost and a malware author might not find a warez version), and all research-in-progress at universities, AV labs, and whitehat/blackhat circles. Not all of it is available to the general public.

      The only thing that might stop a new virus is installed antivirus software, most of which you can get at Staples for $40 (the corporate edition might cost twice that). I wouldn't want to base my security model on "the attacker will be to lazy to go to the store". As for new research, it doesn't matter at all - you can't install a college paper on your systems.

      Also, even discounting the volume of software you don't have access to, finding a solution that requires reverse engineering multiple versions of multiple AV solutions is generally going to be a hard problem.

      Sure, it'll take some work - but if it wasn't feasible we wouldn't hear about viruses any more.

      Also, just as one can examine AV code and find a way around it, once the exploit is out, one can examine it and find a weakness in the exploit.

      Right. After the attacker has *succeeded*, and infected a bunch of systems, then you can write a defense against it. It'd be better to just get an OS patch out quickly.

      Having said all that, once you put money behind the problem it becomes easier. Sure, defeating several dozen AV solutions is going to require a lot of work. But if you can sell off the victims computers for a commercial DDOS or blackmailing, set up spam bots, or collect credit card numbers, it suddenly becomes profitable. Once there is money behind it, you will find people who are willing to make that investment of time.

      Yup. That's the reality of the attackers... not poor kids sitting in their parent's basements who can't drive to Staples because they don't have drivers licenses.

      It's basically an arms race.

      Right... but Antivirus software adds almost nothing that you couldn't get from reasonably quick OS patches.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    19. Re:The only defense by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between what he said "known malware", i.e. programs, and your character known behavior. Out of curiousity, how in the world is this related to basic math?

    20. Re:The only defense by OverflowingBitBucket · · Score: 1

      The only thing that might stop a new virus is installed antivirus software, most of which you can get at Staples for $40 (the corporate edition might cost twice that). I wouldn't want to base my security model on "the attacker will be to lazy to go to the store".

      The type of person who writes malware probably doesn't have much of an issue with just copying the software rather than paying. ;) And for the people doing it professionally, I don't imagine $40 is a particularly expensive testbed, agreed.

      As for new research, it doesn't matter at all - you can't install a college paper on your systems.

      Quite true. I was thinking along the lines of a malware author developing software that almost nobody can find, which wasn't really the subject, so my mistake.

      Sure, it'll take some work - but if it wasn't feasible we wouldn't hear about viruses any more.

      We hear about a range of viruses, some fairly simple in function and some with capabilities designed to avoid specific products. I would say that for some viruses, the effort is made, and for others, it is not.

      Right. After the attacker has *succeeded*, and infected a bunch of systems, then you can write a defense against it.

      My point was that once it is out, damage is done to a number of systems, but given time someone will (may?) develop a means to detect it and stop it. Thus you need to achieve whatever purpose you set out for in the first hit before AV vendors start blocking you.

      It'd be better to just get an OS patch out quickly.

      Indeed, if your OS vendor supplies you with it in a timely fashion. ;)

      Yup. That's the reality of the attackers... not poor kids sitting in their parent's basements who can't drive to Staples because they don't have drivers licenses.

      I'd say that there are both. Kiddies using virus toolkits, amateurs reversing exploits or rolling their own, and pros who are taking the time to do what they need to make a profit.

      Right... but Antivirus software adds almost nothing that you couldn't get from reasonably quick OS patches.

      Assuming you mean worms: Fast OS patches would certainly be nice, but occasionally a blackhat will find an exploit first. Yes, they should be handled by the OS, not a separate product. If you meant viruses: Viruses don't need exploits to spread, patches won't stop them. Blocking modification to executables in some intelligent way (that doesn't barf if you use a compiler) could work though.

      AVs can sometimes clean up the mess caused by a virus or worm strike. They can pick up viruses in email attachments, or sitting in a new executable that you've just downloaded. They can often pick up known malware. They can contain generic tests to pick up some new malware. I'd argue they are still useful.

      Having said that, when it comes to a new exploit, worm, or similar that it doesn't know about, or is actively hiding from, you're dead right, they don't do a damn thing.

    21. Re:The only defense by truedfx · · Score: 1

      You're modded as funny, and you may have meant it as a joke, but is it actually possible? Could a virus modify the BIOS settings to always boot from the hard disk (or even re-flash the BIOS to do so), have the hard disk boot manager load the virus, then search for bootable floppy's / CDs / DVDs ?

    22. Re:The only defense by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      It's a pain to reboot from a CD and plug in the hard drive every time you want to back up your system though, and then unplug it once you're done. Makes unattended scheduled backups tricky.

    23. Re:The only defense by dbIII · · Score: 1
      There are other means of detection.
      You can consider what script kiddies want to do once they own a host. They hate it when you remove their scripts, so with linux rootkits they change the file attributes - the only place on the whole disk that would differ from the default so SOME of their stuff stands out like a neon sign. They want to do things on a network, so they may make the interface promiscous. They put dots in front of files to try to hide them. They mess with init scripts to start their pieces of nastyness. They mess with things that you may use to find them or stop them like ps, grep, ls and kill - so it becomes blatently obvious in seconds they have been there if you look at these things. All very obvious, but once you find something like this it's time to rebuild the system completely for whoever got rooted - and tell them that telnet is no good anymore, "coffee" is not a good password, and giving shell access to every user that just wants to check their email is a bad idea.
    24. Re:The only defense by dbIII · · Score: 1
      That's not very practical.
      Good point - even my firewall-router running uClinux in firmware has flash memory for when you want to change the iptables rules.
  22. Microsoft by Psionicist · · Score: 1

    I remember an article a couple of months ago where Microsoft employees had done something similiar, that is using virtualization to create a low level rootkit.

    Because, y'know, the only way to protect yourself against attacks like these are with Trusted Platform Modules.

    20 bucks Microsoft sponsored this research in some way.

    1. Re:Microsoft by dfn_deux · · Score: 1

      mod parent up. insightful! It had not occured to me that this is a good argument for "trusted computing platforms". although if the virtulization engine is one of the existing players from vmware, MS, etc I imagine it would alright be "certified" for the platform as the major users of these types of applications are corporate in nature and would require all those hoops to have been jumped through PRIOR to purchasing and implementing these types of software solutions.

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
  23. So what? by tidewaterblues · · Score: 1

    I don't think that anyone is suprised by this. After all, it is common sense that the virtual OS's security is at the pleasure of the host, in much the same way that the security of a user-mode process is at the pleasure of the operating system. If there is anything between you and the actual naked hardware, then there is always the possiblity that that layer is doing something with your data that you don't lie.

    --


    ...En að Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað Er Nýr Dagur
  24. No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you ran a VMWare image, and inside it ran a virus scanner, could you expect the scanner to detect viruses outside the image, in your hosting OS?

    Since the VM is simulating all privileged instructions, the undetectability really isn't a surprise.

    What's really impressive is that she has a way for a user mode program to reach between the OS and hardware and lift Vista onto a VM all without rebooting. Her Blackhat session will prove interesting.

  25. The Reverse: Using Host to Protect Virtual Servers by seawall · · Score: 1

    This is regarding Linux rather than Windows but:

    Host machine with Vserver kernel running Tripwire or Aide
        with configuration adjustments to detect changes in client "machines"

    Host machine well protected
      client machines doing ftp or web services or email or.....

    Although Vserver is particular to Linux: Other schemes doing
    reasonably strong virtualization can also do the job in Linux,
    Solaris (Zones), BSD (Containers), Windows, etc.

    It should greatly decrease the ability of something as clever as
    BluePill to do damage if it was infecting a well-partitioned virtual
    machine rather than a regular machine.

    Vserver: http://linux-vserver.org/
    AIDE: http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1424

  26. TPM by throx · · Score: 1

    This is actually the good side to the Trusted Platform Module - you can set up your machine to refuse to boot, warn you, whatever if anything in the boot process changes. As it's implemented in BIOS with hashing of the boot process before it even loads it from disk, there's no real way around this short of having physical access to the machine and turning off the TPM.

    The bad side of the TPM is when you lose control of it - then the machine isn't yours any more but the xxAA's.

    --

    Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

  27. Is the solution DRM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This idea has been discussed on slashdot before, and it seemed that the consensus was only DRM would be able to thwart this strategy.

    Which is kind of interesting, since DRM otherwise sucks.

    Your thoughts?

    1. Re:Is the solution DRM? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the solution is to not give the malware the path to even be able to do this by using a capability-type system.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  28. Don't expect the trusted machine hardware to save by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The trusted machine hardware, I have heard (from a src I believe), has a command to dump keys that are used. Unfortunately the designers were unable to think of anything better to do, so the key dump dumps them in the clear. Result is that hiding keys there is impossible also. So forget about that avenue saving things.
    What could help would be a boot path that could be varied with many such paths on a machine. That at least might afford some way to get into a different OS and examine the underlying hardware from there now and then. Perhaps this should be taken as a reason virtualization in hardware should be made impossible. (It is easy to do that: any nonpriv'd instruction that changes privilege state for example will do that. A "go to user mode" that always works, for instance, would do.)

  29. Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environments by grumbel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can't the same trick be used to make a rootkit-safe environment? Launch a watchdog application and let that watchdog application launch the real OS in a virtualized environment, as soon as a rootkit wants to fiddle the watchdog application takes notice and there would be no way for the rootkit to either detect or by pass the watchdog. Or even more drastic, launch each (or most) process in a virtualized environment, would probally be a little slow, but should provide a extremly secure OS.

  30. Whoa. Déjà vu. by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 4, Funny

    "A Slashdot article just went by, and then another one that looks just like it!"

    "It's a glitch in the rootkit! It happens when it changes something!"

    "No, I said a SLASHDOT article."

    "Ah, you're probably fine then."

  31. DRM as in Trusted Computing that is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For clarity, I mean the technology behind DRM, namely trusted computing and signed executables.

  32. There's nothing virtual about RootKit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is only ONE RootKit! the original Geekboy band

    And they need your votes to win google idol!

    http://www.roootkitonline.com/

  33. Once untrusted software is run on your machine... by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 1

    ... it's not your machine anymore.

  34. OT: Regarding Sig by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

    Your sig isn't scary, it just returns an error code of 0 (Success) to DOS. I'd be more worried about INT 13 calls...

  35. Earlier processors secure??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the wikipedia entry;
    Hardware availability of VT

    Intel calls its hardware assistance for emulation "VT" although it is often referred to by its codename "Vanderpool". It was officially launched at the Intel Developer Forum Spring 2005. It is available on all Pentium 4 6x2, Pentium D 9xx, Xeon 7xxx and Core Duo processors, though in the latter case it is sometimes disabled in the BIOS/EFI.

    So does this mean that earlier pentium III processors are secure from this particular rootkit attack? And because it can be disabled in the Core Duo in bios, is their a low-level bios routine that might be used to detect such a rootkit for other processors? I know that there is work to boot directly into linux from the bios firmware.

  36. So let me get this straight... by C3ntaur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A virtual machine can't tell anything about the state of the host it runs on other than what's exposed to it? Isn't this kinda like saying that if you use an oscilloscope to monitor bit flips on the bus, the OS can't detect it? How is this news?

    --
    Loading...
  37. Re: Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environme by OverflowingBitBucket · · Score: 1

    Launch a watchdog application and let that watchdog application launch the real OS in a virtualized environment, as soon as a rootkit wants to fiddle

    Or the watchdog could use a similar exploit to jump above the rootkit and look down to see what is running. If we're nested one level too deep then we've got a problem.

    Assuming of course we can nest. If we can't, the failure to nest would show the problem.

    Or you could always run something using heavy 3D, and if the CPU ignites then something's up. ;)

  38. Is there really no way to detect virtualization? by jdogalt · · Score: 0

    Is there truly no way to detect that the current running OS is running on virtualized hardware?

    I mean, sure the toplevel malware kernel can intercept attempts to read the current running kernel and other memory/system locations. And that all becomes a cat and mouse excercise. But thats how rootkit security has always been. Again, what I'm asking to someone knowledgable is- does the new wave of hardware supported virtualization make it truly impossible for a process in the virtualized host to detect that it's been virtualized?

    I mean, couldn't you look at the reported processor, and run a suite of simple benchmark code, and detect that a parasite meta-host is sucking away cycles that you expect to be there (this assumes the benchmark/detection code is run as root/kernel, and can therefore stop/ignore all other processes for some inconsequential amount of time).

    -jdog

  39. The virus must use some memory by enosys · · Score: 1
    The virus must use some memory. This probably makes it detectable. It would probably appear that your computer has less memory than is actually installed.

    What could the virus do? I doubt it could swap to disk to cover that. I guess it could try using compression on a small part of the guest OS.

    1. Re:The virus must use some memory by CXI · · Score: 1

      It has full control of your OS. How about it just LIES. Even if it slowed you down a little bit, how many windows users wouldn't think it was just Windows being slow again?

  40. Bah, humbug! by davecb · · Score: 3, Informative

    Exactly the same thing was done using the ancient "cookie monster" program on Multics, long before Unix was even a gleam in T&R's eye.

    The perpetrator created a user-ring instance of a user (a virtual-machine-like process), loaded in the cookie mosnter, then loaded the command interpreter and handed the result to an unsuspecting user, my boss.

    He searchrd high and low, never suspecting the program that kept saying "Want cookie!" was down below the shell.

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
    1. Re:Bah, humbug! by surprise_audit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I heard about the Cookie Monster program from a Honywell/Multics engineer while he was installing our system. He said that in one case, someone had managed to get it to run on the system console, which in those days was a paper printer/keyboard, not video. Every so often it would print out "I wanna a cookie!". The operators would just laugh and type in "cookie" to make it stop. But *this* particular implementation shortened the time delay every time it demanded a cookie, and before long it was demanding cookies faster than the operators could type... I think the fix was to deliberately crash the system, then bring it up in the bootloader to clean out the cookie program.

  41. Undetectable to software maybe by code+shady · · Score: 1

    I don't know about you, but when I start up VMWare in windows (or parrellels in OS X) I definatley notice a performance hit. I find it difficult to believe that somebody wouldn't notice the fact that larg(ish depending on how exactly this is implemented) chunks of RAM and disk space are suddenly in use by some rogue program.

    --
    Look out honey cause I'm usin' technology
    Ain't got time to make no apologies
    1. Re:Undetectable to software maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you will be using VMWare on a regular processor with no HyperVisor.

      This doesn't even have to emulate hardware - it can just chose to block/emulate some harware stuff if it wants.

      "sure guest OS dude, your MBR was just as you left it ...", heh, heh, yeah right ...

    2. Re:Undetectable to software maybe by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      The virtualization enhancements to the Intel and AMD processors significantly reduce the overhead of running virtualized environments. Xen, an open source virtualization software, exploits the chip hardware so that typical overhead is under 5%. On a modern processor this may be undetectable.

  42. DRM? by sr180 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can we use this to bypass the DRM included in Vista?

    --
    In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
  43. LiveCDs? by arkepp · · Score: 1

    Ok, I see how that's a great technical feat, but how is this any different? If I suspect a machine at work I wipe it. If it's a friend asking for help, and there are tons of settings I can't easily copy, I use a LiveCD and hope for the best. The illusion of real-time scanners and programs like AdAware passed a long time ago. Unless the virus flashes the BIOS (kudoz to the writer), the LiveCD should still be able to track it down, right? Provided the signature is known of course. I don't see how this changes anything?

  44. Nothing new, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fundamental question of systems administration: once you have had a root compromise, what can you do to the machine to get it back up and running, in a known good configuration, with all chances of future compromise as a result of the initial compromise removed?

    Answer: either compare the system (booted from known good media) to a known good set of files, or reinstall from known good media.

    There's no other answer. Any tools you run on the compromised system are by definition suspect; they might be good, or they might be compromised. You have no way of knowing; anything they tell you is suspect. Even if you have tool binaries that you know are good, you don't know that the data they're gathering reflects reality or has been altered to give you a wrong impression.

    So the fact that this software is undetectable doesn't really change anything; you're still finding out about the compromise through unusual activity, so that's 'status quo'. The only thing that's different is the layer that's compromised.

    The interesting question is how the software gets in place in the first instance to compromise the system. The answer is that it was run as root (or administrator, or supervisor, or whatever the super-user is called). How did it get root privileges? Two possible answers: (1) a flaw in the OS (defined as the kernel, and any processes running with root privileges); or (2) the end user ran it somehow as root.

    In the first case, it's the standard security problem. The OS is flawed; anything can get root. That's a bug. In the second case, it's end user stupidity. Nothing you run as an end user should require root privileges. (If the OS is designed in such a way that you do, again, that's a flaw in the OS. If the application expects it when it doesn't really need it, that's a bug in the application, and the vendor should be shot.)

    So there's another layer the rootkit can hide in. Be still, my beating heart! This is, and remains, nothing fundamentally new.

    1. Re:Nothing new, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous Coward, (my namesake)

      Be still my beating heart, no truer words have been said.

    2. Re:Nothing new, really. by Charan · · Score: 1

      The fundamental question of systems administration: once you have had a root compromise, what can you do to the machine to get it back up and running, in a known good configuration, with all chances of future compromise as a result of the initial compromise removed?

      Answer: either compare the system (booted from known good media) to a known good set of files, or reinstall from known good media.

      There's no other answer.

      There is another answer: Backtracking Intrusions. Basically, the idea is to keep your own virtual machine monitor (VMM) running on the bare hardware that logs everything that happens to a system. If you detect that a system is compromised, you can rewind the execution of the system to any point in the past to see every action the malware took.

      If a VMM-based malware were to try and take control of a system, it would really be taking control of a virtual machine. It would still be logged, so all its actions could be discovered and concievably undone.

      Any tools you run on the compromised system are by definition suspect; they might be good, or they might be compromised. You have no way of knowing; anything they tell you is suspect.

      If you're already running a VMM to log the system, you could put intrusion detection tools above the operating system, where no malware could touch it. This is the idea behind virtual machine introspection. Tools at this level can examine the virtualized operating system to detect whether the OS is compromised (or has been previously compromised) through a specific vulnerability without any chance that malware (inside the virtual machine) will interfere.

    3. Re:Nothing new, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting idea, and it does make a certain amount of sense. The problem then becomes one of how much information you have to wade through to restore the system; my guess is that the answer would be "too much; wipe and re-install".

      If you're already running a VMM to log the system, you could put intrusion detection tools above the operating system, where no malware could touch it.

      But at that point, the tools are no longer running on the compromised system - they're running at a higher (lower?) level. If your user account is compromised, you can repair the damage by logging in as root from the console. Same sort of principle.

      I'm nitpicking, I know. It's a very good idea, and I can see it being extremely useful, especially with tools that can figure out exactly when a compromise came through (based upon a description of the compromise used). Please bear in mind, though, that when I said "root compromise", I basically meant "compromise of the system at the level closest to the hardware". Your comments, although very pertinent, are about a layer that would be closer to the hardware than the OS. If this layer somehow was compromised as part of the OS compromise (and I don't know how easy or hard such an action would be), then everything I originally said still stands.

  45. The only way to really know your hands are clean by nickheart · · Score: 1

    You need to only use the hot water.
    You need 12 bars of new, still in shrink-wrap, soap.
    You need to rub 1 min under water per bar of soap.
    .....wee bit paranoid?

  46. Spoony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think that's soup you're eating?

  47. This is exactly why Linux supports 'TPM' modules. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes I understand that TPM module is redundant as saying ATM machines.

    People have know this for YEARS.

    TPM is designed to create a tamper-proof non-virtualizable.

    You see it goes like this:

    Microsoft says to the hardware manufacturers:
    "I want you to create these extensions to your motherboards and cpu chips that will allow use to run a protected virtual machine environment for our 'Palladium' project."

    They (MS, Intel, AMD, and friends) thought about it for a while and said:
    "Being about to provide a 100% virtulized environment for x86 can cause problems. If it's 100% compatable then end users won't be able to tell if they are running in a VM or not. This can lead to security problems. Also we need a way to ensure that Palladium and the system kernel as well a potentionally other software can be proven to be unmodified for security reasons and to impliment more efficient DRM controls"

    "TPM will be specificly be designed not be virtualized so that software can tell if it's running in a VM or not. Otherwise it's impossible to tell."

    (Palledium was a sort of protect-mode operating system running seperate, but inside of Windows Longhorn for implimenting more efficeient security and DRM controls. They were going to use a virtual machine environment and x86 is difficult to virtualize with speed.. so Microsoft had vendors change how x86 works.)

    A year or two later AMD and Intel say:
    "Good day Microsoft! We have implimented what you told us to do to run the next generation software! Intel has done VT and AMD has it's Pacifica technology. WOOT!"

    Microsoft says:
    "Sorry folks. Longhorn has most of it's features on the chopping block and palladium didn't make it"

    Xen + Linux VM people said:
    "Holy shit! This VT and Pacificia stuff rocks, we want to use it to make our para-virtualization technic work without having to modify the kernels of the operating systems running in the VM!"

    Intel + AMD:
    "Fuck ya! Here is a bunch of money and documentation. We will help make Xen work efficiently and we have all these other ideas on how to furthur virtualize the I/O of PCI devices and other things and the Linux kernel is perfect for this sort of thing!"

    Xen/Linux folks:
    "Cool (linus quietly adds support for various TPM hardware into 2.6.12)"

    Vmware folks:
    "Hey we can use this shit too"

    Microsoft:
    "Oh-oh shaggy, maybe forcing the hardware makers to bend to our designs then abandoning them wasn't a good idea..."

    "Hey! Folks! over hear! We have this virtual server thing, we will release it for free although since it's obviously inferior to Vmware various and usefull VM enterprise server products. No need to look over there, those hippy fucks don't know what they are doing and it's hard to use"

    (this has been dramatized slightly for Slashdot-friendly appeal)

  48. Pacifica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't Pacifica the old pallidum. This might be a good thing if AMD gets their ass handed back to them.

  49. What's that you say? by kimvette · · Score: 2, Funny

    The next version of WGA will be undetectable? Thanks, Microsoft! ;)

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  50. Re:Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environmen by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There were some motherboard BIOSes that had built in boot sector virus scanning, but they didn't know anything about Free operating systems. A BIOS watchdog wouldn't be any better, most likely. The other problem with virtualization is that it does cause a slight overhead for any protected mode instructions that need to be virtualized. It doesn't help that the x386 architecture has several unprivileged instructions that can easily tell an OS whether it's being emulated or not (see this paper). Timing privileged instructions will also allow a hosted operating system to detect virtualization unless the entire system is emulated, which is very slow.

  51. BootCD by phorm · · Score: 1

    Or boot from a bootCD and investigate from there. You'd have to have the machine down, but a downed machine to catch a rootkit is often better than an infected machine doing who knows what.

  52. Think about what it means if they're right. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think they're right. Look at page 3 where they have their diagram showing the VMM in direct contact with the hardware.

    Here's a simple test to see if they're right.

    Put in a NIC that your host OS does not have drivers for. Your host OS will not be able to connect to the network. Now, if the virtual machine in their example can access the network, then they're correct.

    There's no end of hype for "threats" that never seem to materialize (or are vastly over-stated). If they can do what their diagrams indicate, then this would revolutionize the computer industry. I really mean that.

    For example, you would NEVER again have any problem with wireless networking under Linux. Or sound. Or any peripheral. Or hardware accelerated video. No more nVidia drivers needed! The VMM handles it for you!

    So, no, I don't believe that what they claim is actually what they can deliver.

    1. Re:Think about what it means if they're right. by tool462 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are correct that the host OS would have to have drivers for the hardware on the machine in order to even have a prayer of success, but this problem is vastly easier for malware than for commercial software. For malware, they only need to be successfully installed on a small percentage of the machines they attempt to compromise, and they only need to be good enough to avoid detection by lazy users. They won't be able to virtualize hardware accelerated video, I'm sure, but how does that affect a user who is just using a non-accelerated onboard video card? All the VMM needs is a decent enough driver to support the resolution/color depth of the original machine and the user will likely never notice. A commercial product couldn't get by with only supporting 30/40/50% of the hardware out there.

      I also agree that this threat is overstated. Most users would at least notice that something wasn't right with their machine and dig deeper. I know for sure that I would notice if my Linksys wifi card suddenly became a RealTek Ethernet card ;) The people that would never notice this issue would probably be just as easily duped by a standard trojan. The only real significance is that this is harder to catch with AV software and harder to remove if found.

    2. Re:Think about what it means if they're right. by HeX314 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I didn't RTFA, I would like to inject my two cents:

      Intel's latest VT technology in Intel Macs assists in running an OS in a virtual space and allows that OS to directly (or transparently) access the hardware. AMD is working on a very similar technology that would allow the exact same hardware-accelerated VM. From Intel's Press Release: "Provides headroom for more robust hardware-assisted virtualization solutions." (source)

      The summary's mention of "AMD's Pacifica virtualization implementation" seems to suggest that this proof-of-concept "virus/worm/whatever" is very similar to a virtual machine but with the major exception that it utilizes a technology in hardware that is not widely adopted -- yet. Being that the software itself does not have to virtualize the environment and instead taps hardware means that it could potentially be very small compared with a 100+MB download of VMware, and its size and ease-of-distribution (potentially within a worm/virus/trojan/rootkit/etc. could make it a huge, undetectable threat; however, if the user beats the virus to the lowest-level VM (i.e. direct access to hardware), it would be impossible for an infection to be completely undetectable.

    3. Re:Think about what it means if they're right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wonder if this can't be solved by virtualizing the PCI controller itself? Then rather than
      |-- IDE controller --- VM --- [fake] IDE controller --- Guest OS
      --- bus --- video card --- VM --- [fake] video card --- Guest OS
              \-- network card --- VM --- [fake] network card --- Guest OS
      The system would work thus:
      --- bus --- VM --- [fake] bus --- video card --- Guest OS
      and so on. By presenting the PCI or PCI express busses to the guest OS rather than individual devices, the guest OS would feel like it's interfacing with the bus directly as it scans for whatever hardware is on the machine. Of course, this would make it harder to do anything malicious, since the VM would only have direct control of the bus, not of the individual devices, but with enough skill and processor power, it could read the streams of data moving through the bus and look for familiar-looking bits that would identify the individual devices and the data moving through them (like communication with a USB controller containing a keyboard).
  53. Subvirt by SPravin · · Score: 1

    This is old news. SubVirt by Peter Chen's group at UMich is the original system which proposed this idea. FYI.

  54. Ob. Tron by pcgabe · · Score: 2
    Launch a watchdog application and let that watchdog application launch the real OS in a virtualized environment [...]
    ALAN
    It's called Tron. It's a security program itself, actually. Monitors all the contacts between our system and other systems... If it finds anything going on that's not scheduled, it shuts it down. I sent you a memo on it.

    DILLINGER
    Mmm. Part of the Master Control Program?

    ALAN
    No, it'll run independently. It can watchdog the MCP as well.
    --
    Don't put advice in your sig.
  55. Useful Applications? by Lucre+Lucifer · · Score: 1

    I remember somewhere reading that the founder of Ubuntu, MArk Shuttleworth, wanted to get linux to the point of being as easy as Firefox to install. What better way than to install linux, and still virtualize Windows on top of it? Not very practical at this point, I admit, but this could be quite an impressive way to switch over, not to mention quite easy for the end-user. You could even set it up so that you could easily switch between the two.

  56. Great (start) Paper by not_hylas(+) · · Score: 1
    --
    ~hylas
  57. Let me guess... by greg_barton · · Score: 1

    The rootkit's code name is "The Matrix"?

  58. As I understand, a likely initial vector is... by CFD339 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...the virtual hardware drivers. The driver software which is part of the vm management software is by definition standardized and thus a prime target for attack. It also operates below most antivirus software so if an exploit can be found in the virtual hardware, it concievable could leap from the virtual machine into the host operating system. At least that's the way I understand the process.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  59. MOD PARENT UP, he's right. by 3l1za · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...and he provides a critical rejoinder to grandparent who misunderstood what BluePill does (or rather what it claims it does).

    Grandparent seems to think that BluePill merely is a mal-VMM that sits between any guest OS and the host OS. So the guest OS won't know that he's being thwarted. What these folks are claiming is two-fold:
    • They'll do what SubVirt did -- move the VMM which is usually operating as a process on a host OS below that host OS. So, not only are all the guest OSs not going to know a/b the the mal-VMM, but also the host OS itself effectively becomes another guest OS.
    • Unlike SubVirt which required that the mal-VMM exploit a vulnerability in the *host OS* in order to do this swallowing-up of the host OS, these folks' claim is that there are generic mechanisms to inject code into the Vista kernel. And these generic mechanisms are sufficient for this subversion.
    • Moreover, they're saying that this is the case, despite security mechanisms in Vista that prevent kernel-mode code from running if that code is not signed (by a trusted party).
    Anyway these are some pretty tall claims (particularly, re: the ability to inject arbitrary code into the Vista kernel). I initially thought the same thing as the grandparent: that they were saying that you could create a mal-VMM so that any VM running on that mal-VMM would not be able to detect the badness of the VMM (which is pretty trivial, actually).
  60. Re:Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environmen by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

    Of course, this assumes your watchdog OS doesn't have vulnerabilities...

  61. Re:Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Of course, this assumes your watchdog OS doesn't have vulnerabilities...

    Yes, it is entertaining how many people solve the problem that "this OS gets infected" by saying, aha, we'll write another OS to watch if this OS gets infected, and never wonder, what happens when the 'another' OS gets infected.

    You can see they are all unfamiliar with Russell :)

  62. User Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep in mind that I am NOT a programmer. Merely speculation here. In my understanding of rootkits is that they install themselves as a part of the operating system (Kernel Level) instead of a rogue program (Subsystem or User Space) taking advantage of Software holes or Poor User Rights admin. That being said, I know that LSASS.exe's default NTFS permissions are FULL CONTROL for Admin, System; and Read/Execute for Power users. With Virtual technology there would be two instances of all required system processes. Further, in the Virtual OS, you have Virtual Access to the Hardware within a Seperate Memory block. Now as a Rootkit, I would have to determine what user rights are currently in place, and which instance of LSASS is the Host or Real Mode OS. I could then use the guest OS to emulate NTFS permissions and further re-write Registry keys undetected. The cryptographic services then has to be fooled on either OS depending on what the programmer hopes to accomplish. Essentially, a rootkit on a guest OS would be more like a Nightmare virus. It would also have the potetnial to do more damage to either OS. Some helpful resources may be: Security Config and Analsis MMC. This is helpful when using templates. http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/en/advanced/h elp/default.asp?url=/windows2000/en/advanced/help/ sag_SCMwhatis.htm MRT: Malicious SOftware Removal Tool http://support.microsoft.com/kb/890830 Further Check out RootKit Revealer and Autoruns @ http://www.sysinternals.com/ These should all be helpful running in the proper OS. I know this isn't meant to be a support article, however, some out there may have no clue as to where they should search for help. there are a number of other sites that could be listed and probably should be, but I'm refraining from going further as to maintain the scope of this Article.

  63. Re:Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environmen by asuffield · · Score: 1

    There were some motherboard BIOSes that had built in boot sector virus scanning, but they didn't know anything about Free operating systems.

    All the ones I've seen didn't know anything about any operating systems. They just trapped all writes to the boot sectors. You were expected to turn it off while installing an operating system.

  64. Re:Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environmen by asuffield · · Score: 1

    Launch a watchdog application and let that watchdog application launch the real OS in a virtualized environment, as soon as a rootkit wants to fiddle the watchdog application takes notice and there would be no way for the rootkit to either detect or by pass the watchdog.

    Well, it's possible, but you're presupposing the existence of a function that can reliably tell whether or not a rootkit is present, assuming it has full access to look at anything it wants. That would be a very useful tool in its own right. Unfortunately it's very very hard to create.

  65. Re:Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environmen by Tony-A · · Score: 1

    Can't the same trick be used to make a rootkit-safe environment?

    Yes, provided you know exactly what the rootkit looks like and does.

    Unfortunately, you are committed to looking exactly for something specific, the rootkit writer knows what you are looking for, and should be able to get by your defenses with some ridiculously bad disguise.

  66. hypervisor and Windows Genuine Advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is to say that Microsoft won't use a similar technique to enforce WGA in the future for it's Windows OS?? Better to know now what is possible and how to defeat it. I like this concept though, it is very interesting and innovative (the hypervisor rootkit, not WGA)

  67. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia the rootkit runs you!

  68. First it was the chocolate in the peanut butter... by SubliminalVortex · · Score: 1

    Now it's the invading code in the 'software' that's supposed to be hardware. Not even the BIOS is safe anymore.

  69. Welcome to slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't let the door hit you on the way out!

  70. Re:Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environmen by dkf · · Score: 1

    You're making a major mistake here. You're thinking the only way to build a secure core is to define badness, that is to define what must be blocked. That's well known to be a dumb way of doing it because you end up in an arms race to define all possible badness in the world. Crazy.

    Far better is to define goodness. That is to say, define exactly when you'll allow something to bypass your protections. For best effect, do this in a way that is user-specific so that the onus in the arms race is wholly on the rootkit author. Let the blackhats do work (or, more likely, pick a different softer target).

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  71. Re:Real Beneficiaries of Hardware Virtualization.. by piranha(jpl) · · Score: 1

    The fact of the matter is, everything described in the article is implementable right now with existing hardware. Any x86 machine can emulate an x86 machine. If you don't believe me, take a look at qemu, which can do so entirely in user-mode.

    Rutkowska's approach to detecting whether code is run in a virtual machine is based on checking the address of the IDT. This approach fails to detect qemu. Below, furthermost is a qemu machine; evanescence is a "bare-metal" AMD K6-2:

    piranha@furthermost$ ./redpill
    idt base: 0xc02bd000
    Not in Matrix.

    piranha@evanescence$ ./redpill
    idt base: 0xc03b8000
    Not in Matrix.

    The IDT address that qemu reports doesn't match the signature of a VM. I should imagine this address could be modified to return the same result as my K6-2 does.

    The emulator has complete control over the guest environment. Complete. Control. Including completely spoofing the hardware of the real host system.

    This shouldn't be shocking.

    I'd also like you to qualify or expound on your allegations. It's not exactly clear; what does Intel or AMD stand to gain from undetectable rootkits?

  72. Obligatory Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anybody compared the responses here to that on Digg!!!

    http://www.digg.com/security/Blue_Pill_Prototype_C reates_100_Undetectable_Malware

    Kids abound on that channel. Back to Slash for me.

  73. Re:Real Beneficiaries of Hardware Virtualization.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Rutkowska's approach to detecting whether code is run in a virtual machine is based on checking the address of the IDT. This approach fails to detect qemu.
    Yes, it is self-evident that that particular approach would not be able to detect that particular form of virtualization. There are certainly other approaches which can detect it, but I am sorry I am not prepared to introduce them in an open forum.
    I'd also like you to qualify or expound on your allegations. It's not exactly clear; what does Intel or AMD stand to gain from undetectable rootkits?
    Some people will know the background of what I am talking about; many others won't. My remarks are addressed to the former, although they may pique the curiosity of the latter. I have said enough.
  74. Blue Pill technology by sam0vi · · Score: 0

    And what if you tried the Red Pill?

    --
    When my Karma level reaches 0 I feel in piece with the Universe
  75. Another Problem Reaction Solution (PRS) triple: by gd23ka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Problem: Virus / Rootkits are now so good there's no way we can detect them anymore! Reaction: Somebody has to do something about this! We need to be able to make sure something like that doesn't get installed. Solution: Trusted Computing / "Palladium" / "Fritz Chip" -- what they wanted all along. It would surprise me not one bit if the hypervisor root kit was built for people who had exactly this kind of discussion in mind.

  76. Pacifica doesn't emulate hardware by Nurgled · · Score: 2, Informative

    The goal of the Pacifica technology is to do the virtualization in the hardware to avoid the need to emulate devices. Microsoft's Virtual PC product is forced to emulate a particular network card (an old Intel 10mbit card, if memory serves) and then translate usage of that network card to calls to the NT device drivers for the real network card. Under Pacifica, the virtualized system talks directly to the real network card and the hypervisor software (which runs beneath the OS kernel) co-ordinates the different OS kernels in a similar sense to how the NT kernel co-ordinates multiple applications talking to the network card.

    Since the hypervisor software is essentially "an OS to run OSes on top of", if you can find a way get some software running in there you can do whatever you want with the "real" OS completely oblivious.

  77. Shhhhhhhhh....... by DiscoDave_25 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Please don't let Sony hear...

  78. Right on, mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You're right. A general-purpose computer will always be able to support any degree of virtualisation: VMs within VMs ad infinitum. But a "trusted" computer isn't a general-purpose machine any more - the TPM function can't be virtualised. If you could virtualise TPM, then you'd be able to run your "trusted" apps inside a VM and regain control of your machine through your own hypervisor program. No doubt you'd also make illegal copies of someone else's "intellectual property" too.

    The worst thing is that TPM would be very effective at preventing you from removing any malicious hypervisor that might be installed, like the rootkit being discussed here. Are any exploits possible for TPM? I heard that only executable code is verified, not data, at least on the "trusted" XBox 360, which would expose all sorts of vulnerabilities. And only one would be required...

  79. Kind of obvious by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    This requires them to move the host OS to a VM. Getting someone to install a trojan is getting easier but something this disruptive would be obvious to even the dumbest lamer.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  80. Actually quite detectable by Anthony+Liguori · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A key point about virtualization (even hardware virtualization) that people miss is that it does not guarentee that programs run as they normally if those programs are timing sensitive. This isn't a new revelation. If you go back to the Popek/Goldberg paper from the 70s, they make it quite clear.

    So how do you exploit this to detect that you're in a VM? If you're an operating system, the easiest approach is to disable interrupts periodically and wait out a few time slices. You would then compare wallclock time and see if you're wait took longer than you expected it should. If it did, you're being pre-empted. With interrupts off, that's a sure sign that you're in a VM.

    The above is a general solution to the problem. It's funny the author used SVM (a.k.a. Pacifica). SVM has a feature called dynamic attestation. This essentially introduces an unemulatable instruction that one can use precisely for the purpose of determining whether you're in a VM or not.

  81. Re:Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environmen by grumbel · · Score: 1

    ### Yes, it is entertaining how many people solve the problem that "this OS gets infected" by saying, aha, we'll write another OS to watch if this OS gets infected, and never wonder, what happens when the 'another' OS gets infected.

    How should that watchdog OS get infected? Its not talking to the internet the whole day, but instead doesn't do anything other then watching files. Sure, there is still a tiny tiny chance that it might get infected by some good old buffer overflow, but that is really so extremly tiny compared to the chance that a normal OS gets infected these days, that it doesn't really matter.

  82. Re:Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environmen by grumbel · · Score: 1

    ### Unfortunately, you are committed to looking exactly for something specific, the rootkit writer knows what you are looking for, and should be able to get by your defenses with some ridiculously bad disguise.

    No, its actually very easy, just use some cryptography and sign all 'good' binaries with a private key, let the watchdog OS have the public key and check all the binaries. A rootkit can't break that check unless it breaks the encryption, which is extremly hard, almost impossible. The trick is simply to not look for a rootkit, but just anything that differs from a clean OS.

  83. treuly virtualization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think most people don't realize the issue.
    What if lower layer based software is running below the system.
    It can simply fool the hosted OS that nothing has changed, it can give you the idea to your OS that it is direclty running everything while in reality there is a lower level of control.
    When your machine becomes virtualized nothing will be different to you, because all attempts by the OS to detect the environment can be fooled by this. while any interaction hardware interupt can be interupted by the viral ware to simply break in. To detect something complex like this cannt be done for 100% sure by the infected client, only by external network monitoring, still a hard job.

  84. What if... by mentaldingo · · Score: 0

    ... you infect a guest OS in a VM with blue pill?

  85. what's missing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IF every computer had a hardwired display of the CPU
    usage, like a car has a PRM meter this would easly be detectable.
    taskman shows no CPU usage, but the "RPM" equivalent is
    near the red zone :P

    also a hub or switch would be handly: taskman and/or firewall
    shows no activity for network but the LEDS on the switch are in
    "christmas tree" mode :P

    virtulisation is just that:: and good virtualisation won't let you
    get out of it. OBVIOUS!
    if u have rights to do so, you can install ANYTHING, obviously
    also virtualisation.

  86. An Obvious Solution by ccherlin · · Score: 1

    So the scenario described in TFA is like this:

    Hardware [ Operating System ]
    C:\rootkit.exe
    Hardware [ Rootkit [ Operating System ] ]

    But if we go back a step...

    Hardware [ Hypervisor [ Operating System ] ]
    VirtualC:\rootkit.exe
    Hardware [ Hypervisor [ Rootkit [ Operating System ] ] ]

    Then the Hypervisor can, in theory, detect the rootkit. So the obvious defense against such shenanigans is to install your own hypervisor before the bad guys do it first.

    All of this is meaningless, of course, because if a piece of malware has sufficient privileges to install a hypervisor, you're already boned. Fix the privilege hole and you're as safe as you ever were.

  87. Re:Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environmen by Tony-A · · Score: 1

    You're thinking the only way to build a secure core is to define badness, that is to define what must be blocked.
    Actually, no. (But I am phrasing things rather carefully and your reaction is totally correct if you didn't parse everything precisely)

    BUT ... You have a similar problem trying to define goodness.
    Carefully define everyone/everything who/how/whatever will ever befriend you during your uncertain future.
    However you try, you definition of friendly will have in it something fatal.

    A simple checksum on binaries -- trivial to implement in a program loader. Probably tried a few times and abandoned.
    As soon as you encounter a certain type of bug, you have just ensured that the bug is unfixable, unpatchable. There is a quick and easy fix but applying it makes the system permanently unusable. (Actually makes a very effective "logic bomb";)

  88. Re:Virtualisation used for rootkit-safe environmen by treak007 · · Score: 1

    Running a virtual os through a security "watchdog" application, talk about security. I think im hearing the future of software security suites. Instead of installing them on your os, Macafee or Norton could make little security distros of their software, allowing for any virtualization on top of that. Wow, that would be cool.

    --
    Klingon Software is not released, it escapes, inflicting terrible damage onto the enemy as it does
  89. parent is a troll by woolio · · Score: 1

    He doesn't seem to realize that worms existed before 1994 and they ran on UNIX, not Windows.