'Friendly' Worms Could Spread Software Fixes

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft researchers are working out the perfect strategies for worms to spread through networks. Their goal is to distribute software patches and other friendly information via virus, reducing load on servers. This raises the prospect of worm races — deploying a whitehat worm to spread a fix faster than a new attacking worm can reach vulnerable machines."

Comments

Prior Art

[orclevegam]

This is a very old idea. One of the earliest worm/viruses was actually of the "white-hat" variety. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Prior Art

[deadzaphod]

Very, very old idea. The first worm of this type was called "Reaper" and was created to kill the "Creeper" worm. http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/encyclopedia?chapter=153310937

Re:Prior Art

[verbalcontract]

This is a very old idea. One of the earliest worm/viruses was actually of the "white-hat" variety. Nothing to see here, move along.

DUH. That's why my Norton Antivirus lights up when I click on those helpful "GET RID OF SPYWARE" ads?

Re:Prior Art

[djradon]

Yeah, but this is a beautifully-summarized "plot point" on our way to the inevitable: SkyNet, or the Matrix, or whatever you want to call the rise of the machines.

Re:Prior Art

[nmb3000]

Very, very old idea.

And still being used occasionally. The most recent one I recall is Welchia which used the same RPC exploit as Blaster but tried to help the user by installing patches to prevent further use of the exploit.

It's an interesting idea, but still causes some of the big collateral problems that worms cause. Welchia brought university and corporate networks to their knees because of high traffic just as well as Blaster did - perhaps even moreso since it was also doing a lot of HTTP requests to Microsoft's servers. I think a better solution would be a more surefire way to make sure users get patched when such a critical vulnerability is found. That's the ironic part of the Blaster/Welchia RPC exploit, there was a patch available for months before the worm was released.

Re:Prior Art

[Beardo the Bearded]

If they learn how to program from us, we'll be fine.

We can survive salt water, high EMP fields, and power outages. A computer can't handle carpet.

My money's always going to be on the meatbags.

Re:Prior Art

[Spy der Mann]

It's an interesting idea, but still causes some of the big collateral problems that worms cause. Welchia brought university and corporate networks to their knees because of high traffic just as well as Blaster did

You could program the worm to spread based on a random calculation, and assign it a threshold so the traffic isn't excessive. This would give the worm a very low probability to survive.

However, a better approach IMO would be to get rid of all the Genuine Advantage and activation crack, and allow boxes using old and famous activation keys (such as the "devil's own") to get updated with Windows Update.

Re:Prior Art

[Deanalator]

"Funny isn't it? The human was impervious to our most powerful magnetic fields, yet in the end, he succumbed to a harmless sharpened stick."

        - Chapek 9 robot general

Re:Prior Art

[HTH NE1]

We need these friendly worms to patch these systems. How else than with lots of rapidly spreading, good intentioned automata are we to pave the very long road to Hell on time and under budget?

Re:Prior Art

[ArAgost]

Unfortunately, my guess is that they'll never quite get to program for us. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_theorem

A viral implementation of Windows Update?

[lawaetf1]

"A friendly worm updated your computer which required a reboot."

Re:A viral implementation of Windows Update?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clippy worm: "I see you have Ubuntu installed, would you like to purchase and install Windows Vista?"

Annnndddd...

[RandoX]

What makes this any more legal than a black hat worm?

Re:Annnndddd...

[sm62704]

How many people went to prison for the Sony XCP rootkit?

That's right, none. There's your clue.

This is an old idea

[sm62704]

It keeps resurfacing every now and then. Get this through your thick skulls: It's my computer. Keep your God damned hands off of it. I don't care how good your intentions are, you have no right to infect MY computer with anything at all, good or bad.

If you use a tool like this on your own network, fine, but if I find it on my own you had better cover your tracks because I'll go ballistic.

Re:This is an old idea

[KublaiKhan]

More to the point, if you can quantify any damage that this worm does to your network, you have a nice big fat target to sue.

What's more, it'll make one hell of a fun class action suit.

If they had any sense, MS would nip this one in the bud...but then, they're the ones who gave us Windows Me, so...

Re:This is an old idea

[mkoko]

Or breaks a more critical computer, say at a hospital. Once the possibility of human loss is recognized, this idea should (hopefully) be tossed aside.

Re:This is an old idea

[Morkano]

If you find it on your computer, you deserve it. You probably had or were in danger of becoming infected by the worm that exploited the vulnerability this was trying to fix. And I don't care if it's your computer or not, if you can't be trusted to keep it from polluting the Internet at large then someone will have to do it for you.

A well designed "white hat worm" could just sit and listen for a while until it got hit with a computer probing for the vulnerability and then infect and fix the computer that did the probing. Once it has fixed a certain number of computers, or a certain amount of time has elapsed, it removes itself.

Just what we need...

[weak*]

... a system that will further reduce transparency regarding MS updates...

Re:Annnndddd... Well, these worm

[davidsyes]

their way into your heart, so they're heart-worming welcomes.

Caused Issues the last time someone tried it..

[ironwill96]

Anyone remember when someone did this for Blaster and created the "Welchia" worm variant? An article on it is located here: White Hat Worm and Microsoft even complained that it "generated excess network traffic". Now they are proposing to do the same thing? How are they going to make the worm spread, through vulnerabilities like Welchia did? Hope they don't use an RPC vulnerability and cause your system to crash like it did!

I guess this goes with all of the tags we've seen today on articles of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong?".

3-2-1 tagged "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"

[sd.fhasldff]

I'm surprised this hasn't been slapped with the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag yet.... seems like most stories are, pretty much regardless of content.

I can hear it already...

[TheUni]

Customer: Something's wrong, my computer's not acting right.
Tier1 Customer Support: Ok sir, I'd be happy to help you with that. Firstly, do you have the latest Microsoft Virus(tm) installed?
Customer: Yes.
Tier1 Customer Support: OK, do you have an Antivirus installed?
Customer: Yes.
Tier1 Customer Support: Ah, that's the problem. You'll need to remove the Antivirus in order for the Virus to function correctly. It's not safe these days to be running without the latest Virii!

Stupid Idea

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

If the mechanism exists, it will be compromised. Haven't you leaned anything yet? Better design a system that can't process a worm.

The temptation if this became a strategy, i.e. the system can run Microsoft Worms only, would in a very short time, run Microsoft like worms.

This seems more like and admission that their systems can't be secured.

Or "Who's finger is in the dike? Dammit, thats not my dike!"

Bad idea

[EmbeddedJanitor]

MS already sat on AUtopatcher because they said that they lost control of the distribution and a malicious patch could slip in. With the worm thing it is a bazzillion times worse. So many more potential points of infection.

Re:Bad idea

[Sancho]

It could be done right with the correct combination of hardware, software, and keys. Use TPM to verify that the worm is valid and to verify the keys, then standard use of certificates and signing can be used to ensure that the patches aren't tampered with before they hit the drive.

Unfortunately, without the infrastructure in place, it's going to be much harder to ensure that nothing goes wrong.

Re:Bad idea

[Lord Balto]

Not to mention the ability it would give Microsoft to "upgrade" your software whether you wanted it or not. This would be a bad idea from a company you could actually trust. From Microsoft? Horrendous.

This one is different.

[Bananatree3]

First off this wouldn't be some whitehat's haphazard cure worm like the Welchia worm. This worm would proabably be signed by microsoft, made by microsoft. from TFA:

Because no central server needs to provide and coordinate all the downloads, Software patches that spread like worms could be faster and easier to distribute because no central server must bear all the load. This is more P2P patch distribution, which is not a bad idea.

Re:This one is different.

[mhall119]

If only it were possible to provide a list of other servers that somehow mirrored the data available on the central server....

Or, even better, a way to send requests to the same domain name to physically different servers...

I think I may be on to something here.

Re:This one is different.

[KublaiKhan]

And what, exactly, is stopping someone from forging an MS cert on their own worm (or, simpler, giving the appearance of a legit one--y'know, like bank website phishing), exploiting the worm dispersal mechanism, and rootkitting everyone who's stupid enough to let this worm in?

Re:This one is different.

[Wildclaw]

There is absolutly no need to trust your peers.

Modern p2p protocols use cryptography (usually secure hashes, but cryptographically signed data also works) to verify that what you downloaded is authentic.

In the case of secure hashes, you only have to trust that you got the hash value from a trusted source. In other words, you have to trust the original distributor as well as any intermediate distibutor that provides the hash.

With signed data you don't even have to trust any intermediate distributor. The data can automatically be verified to have originated from the original distributor.

Of course, if you can't trust the original distributor, such when you download random files from p2p, then you are on your own. But that isn't what we are talking about here.

Re:This one is different.

[evanbd]

Did you pay any attention to the last 30 years or so of cryptography? Any peer-to-peer patch distribution system would use digital signatures that are difficult to fake. The corresponding public keys would be distributed with the OS install or through some other secure mechanism (SSL from the main update site or similar). Any attacker that can install their own key could install a worm through that route anyway.

P2P is quite good at solving intermittent high demand distribution problems, and is quite well matched to this.

Re:This one is different.

[OECD]

Then again, it'll never catch on. Who's ever gonna download more than 2mb anyway? The tubes would get clogged!

It's OK, Comcast will block it.

not exactly

[Brigadier]

If I'm not mistaken according to Micro Soft's EULA you don't actually own the software they do. They are just giving you permission to use it. Though you do own the hardware the worm in question would only affect or change the Soft Ware. In addition you neither own your network connection or most likely the building you live in ( dorm, apartment, mortgaged home etc) so from a purly legal stand point you have no leg to stand on. Though I do completely understand and support the meaning behind yrou rant :)

Re:not exactly

[zulater]

Just because you may not own the building or the network you still have a basic right to privacy.
If you want to argue that route you can still prove that you own the router, network cable, processor etc. so you still own the last few feet they are trespassing on. Heck renters still have a right to use lethal force against an intruder is many states. So there is a legal leg to stand on.
Regardless privacy is the main concern.

Re:not exactly

[howdoesth]

There's no such thing as software, I own my hardware and every single one of the 2^bignum potential states it can be in.

Re:not exactly

[sm62704]

Oh, I realise that it would probably be legal. They have armies of lawyers and lobbyists.

Now, I keep asking this question about EULAS: tell me, now. Mike buys a naked, no OS computer and a boxed set of Windows Vista Home, and asks me to install it for him. If I'm the one who agrees to the EULA, how is he legally held to that EULA? He didn't agree to anything, I did. And unless he's signed "power of attorney" to me, well?

What if his ten year old child (or neighbor kid) installs it?

What if it's already installed on a computer he gets at Best Buy? I ask this out of ignorance because I haven't bought a whole computer since 1987. You have to agree to a contract AFTER buying the computer?

How can this hold up in court?

If I have six PCs in my house networked together then I do own my network connection. I also own MY COPY of Windows. Nowhere on the box does it say I don't.

You can't put a contract in a new car's glove box saying "if you open this glove box you are held to the following conditions..."

I wish a real lawyer would explain to me how in the hell anybody thinks a EULA is binding on anybody. It makes no sense at all.

Re:not exactly

[Brigadier]

Now, I keep asking this question about EULAS: tell me, now. Mike buys a naked, no OS computer and a boxed set of Windows Vista Home, and asks me to install it for him. If I'm the one who agrees to the EULA, how is he legally held to that EULA? He didn't agree to anything, I did. And unless he's signed "power of attorney" to me, well? well he owns the computer, and has given you permission to act on his behalf installing the software. assuming you made him aware and he did not object the responsibility is his. If you did not make him aware thus he did not agree to it, he woudl then have recourse if he were sued say by microsoft to then sue you.

What if his ten year old child (or neighbor kid) installs it? if the child is his he will incur any responsibility for actions made by the child

If I have six PCs in my house networked together then I do own my network connection. I also own MY COPY of Windows. Nowhere on the box does it say I don't. See excerpt from microsoft EULA below.

3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx

At one point, I liked this idea....

[mbourgon]

then we got hit with the anti-slammer worm. The slammer worm hadn't infected us, but the anti-slammer did, and wound up rebooting about 20 servers (which begs the question "why weren't they already patched?"), during the middle of the day. Pure panic mode as they started spontaneously rebooting.

Extremely bad idea

[Zen]

I don't care who implements this solution. It was a bad idea a few years ago and it's still a bad idea today. The delivery mechanism will be compromised, and just having this type of thing out there will create new interest in creating hazardous worms/virii. I don't know about you guys, but I don't want anybody touching any of my systems. Ever! How about differences in configurations? What if I have a highly modified registry because I'm doing some advanced package testing? Then you come in and 'fix' something based on default values and it corrupts my entire system? Who's going to fix it then?

What about all the security admins who filter traffic based on pattern matches and ports? So now when we see a spike in traffic from thousands of machines going to 1433 on successive IP's we're supposed to somehow make a diagnosis on whether it's good or bad traffic? It's unnecessary overhead on the network. Whatever it's intention, auto fixing of problems and specifically designed auto replicating extra internet traffic is a bad idea.

nothing to see here...

[RyLaN]

http://blanu.net/curious_yellow.html/

Brandon Wiley proposed a scenario in which a future internet would be consumed by the warfare between several (black or white) worms that feature node-coordinated efforts to prevent detection and removal. For those too lazy to read the link, "Curious Yellow" is basically a modular worm in which zero-day exploits can be added as they are discovered allowing for unchecked growth across the 'net. The worm can then work with other nodes to attack targets by dropping all their traffic, or by subtly modified whatever they receive. The best way to fight such a worm is with fire, a similarly designed "white" worm that goes around patching hosts as quickly as it can.

IMO, remote exploits are rare enough that I don't see this ever happening. On the other hand, with enough infected bot nodes to work with the data mining potentials of some of the more sophisticated extant work networks does worry me...

Oh yah, that'll work.

[Secret Rabbit]

Because M$ is soooo very good at normal updates:

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/12/18/post-install-issues-with-ms07-069-ie6-on-xpsp2.aspx

(Among others) That they'll be a perfect candidate to create this type.

For that matter, I'd really like to know how someone/people who might do this, would get around that whole illegal thing.

This BS creeps up time and again....

[gweihir]

There are no friendly worms. Compromising the security of a system, REGARDLESS OF PURPOSE, is a hostile and criminal act. There is no excuse for it. In addition, an agile black hat could hijack the worm and put its own malcode in there.

Anybody proposing this nonsense just shows they do not even have elementary security knowledge and did not research the topic at all. Incompetents.

I can't wait...

[hoggoth]

Till the script kiddies use this delivery mechanism to bypass all security and deliver their own custom payloads.
Yay Microsoft! They have such good instincts when it comes to security!

Cryptographic signatures?

[bob van hove]

A hash of the code is encrypted with MS' private key, which stays at HQ, the hash can only be decrypted with the public key. (google asymmetric cryptography, if you'd like more info)

Sounds like a game I used to play

[MrMunkey]

called Uplink *Spoiler alert* at the end of your regular hacker job you find out what the mega-corporation is doing and have to stop their ultimate bad worm with one that patches systems. It was a pretty fun game.

Why not use bittorrent?

[the4thdimension]

Maybe I missed something but if load on servers is a problem and you are going to try and push that problem off onto customers, why not just use the bit torrent way of distributing patches? Blizzard has done it with WoW since day 0 and it has worked out for them... especially on large patches. Seems like an easy integration into your software. If even a single person helps seed that isn't your server, that's already a bonus.

Re:Windows Update

[calebt3]

I am touching a window right now and I don't feel unsafe. Maybe uncomfortable having to stretch all the way to ground-level while typing, but not unsafe.