Slashdot Mirror


Sneaky Blackmailing Virus That Encrypts Data

BaCa writes "Kaspersky Lab found a new variant of Gpcode which encrypts files with various extensions using an RSA encryption algorithm with a 1024-bit key. After Gpcode.ak encrypts files on the victim machine, it changes the extension of these files to ._CRYPT and places a text file named !_READ_ME_!.txt in the same folder. In the text file the criminal tells the victims that the file has been encrypted and offers to sell them a decryptor. Is this a look into the future where the majority of malware will function based on extortion?"

60 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. But were they smart, or stupid? by pclminion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Question is, does the encryptor rewrite the data in-place, or just encrypt to a new file then delete the original? If the latter, the data is still recoverable with a simple undelete utility.

    1. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... or from handy backups...

      besides... do you really expect to get your data back after a hack like that? you're system is hosed, any correspondence with the malware author is only going to lead to more loss.

      you got pwnd, restore from backup, call the FBI if you're a good corporate citizen and have nothing to hide. Otherwise, get a Mac.

    2. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does it matter? I have backups.

      And how often do you roll through your backups? Will you notice the encrypted files in time, or will you end up backing up the worthless files instead?

      I have plenty of important files which I don't look at very often. It might take months before I realize they are corrupted -- and by that time, I've overwritten the last valid backup with the encrypted stuff.

    3. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then we should paste a caption on you that says "Backups: Your doin it wrong."

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    4. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      how are the criminals supposed to get their money?

      Fear, and adware. For example, if this virus becomes really widespread, the malware author could create a rouge anti-virus program that promises to get rid of it, and might even get rid of it, the downside is, it infects the host machine with adware giving the author $$$. Otherwise he can simply modify the script to not only encrypt it but add some adware into there. If you have root, there isn't much you can't do.
      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless you have space for infinite backups, his method is write. At some point, you'll run out of space and have to delete old backups to make room for the new ones.

      --
      Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
    6. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by kesuki · · Score: 4, Informative

      "And how often do you roll through your backups? "

      try 'never i use 1 time recordable optical media'

      i realize some people use 'rewritable' media for backups, and have this 'roll over' issue, but the only part of my backup that does rollover is the redundant external HDD for 'critical' data that i don't trust entirely to a DVD media, even is i only buy grade 1 media...

      I don't have a small data set either, I have over 1 TB of stuff on optical discs, but surprisingly only about 30 gigs that is important enough to go to a redundant hdd.

    7. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Given properly rolling backups, you don't just keep dailies for the past month. You keep dailies for a week, and weeklies for a month, and monthlies for however long you have space for.

      And given that most people work in files which are essentially text or the moral equivalent (Word docs, etc), it's likely that you do, in fact, have enough space for a very, very large number of backups.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    8. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by severoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would happily contact the criminal and send them $1 after working with my bank and law enforcement to set up an account trace to see where the money goes and who ends up with it.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    9. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Funny

      if this virus becomes really widespread, the malware author could create a rouge anti-virus program

      But a crimson anti-virus program can detect a rouge one.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    10. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by secolactico · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or get GNU/Linux.

      He did say "good corporate citizen", so if you are not paying for it, you obviously have something to hide and should be reported.

      Damn commie scum.

      --
      No sig
    11. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It displays a message when it does it, presumably so that the virus-runner will know that they need to pay someone to decrypt their file. That makes it pretty un-scary: it tells you when to restore. Of course, since your machine is compromised, maybe the "restore" really just overwrites your tape.

      It might take months before I realize they are corrupted

      In which case the virus writer never gets payed, since his yahoo email account is probably long disabled by then.

      There's no point in delaying extortion. The kind of people who decide to run malware, are the same kind of people who don't have any backups, so they're ready to collect from, immediately.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    12. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Informative

      An important part of the backup process is to occasionally test the backups to make sure that they can be restored properly. corrupted backups suck, but do happen. I test my personal ones pretty regularly. I test my work ones on a set schedule. You should too.

    13. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > I would happily contact the criminal and send them $1 after working with my bank and law enforcement to set up an account trace to see
      > where the money goes and who ends up with it.

      Yeah, because they'd never have thought of that.

    14. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

      Allow me to tell you how the money trail on this works:

      You are asked to send money through Western Union or some other provider that doesn't check your ID for amounts smaller than a few thousand USD. Then they send some bum to one of the thousand WD offices, somewhere on this planet, with the withdrawal code. And only once they get your money, you get your decryption key.

      So, now you know where the money ends up, and why police can't do jack about it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the latter, the data is still recoverable with a simple undelete utility. No it isn't.

      Okay, it might be. Imagine it repeating the process on many files, each time a new file is written it may fill the space of the last deleted one. This also depends on the file system, OS strategy, file sizes, etc.

      Using an undelete utility means you risk recovering many corrupt files. That may be better than nothing or sending money to a malware author, which as much as I hate to say it may legitimately be classed as "funding terrorism".
    16. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 5, Informative
      And only once they get your money, you get your decryption key.

      "And only once they get your money, you don't get your decryption key."

      There, fixed that for you. :-)

    17. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Chaxid · · Score: 4, Funny

      And when the $1 ends up in a bank in Nigeria, then what? Oh please! We all know there aren't any REAL banks in Nigeria.
    18. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So? Do you really think the CIA cares where your money goes if it doesn't go to them? Or that they'd blow their cover just to save your 5k bucks?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by hey · · Score: 4, Funny

      They send the decrypt code with Western Union?
      As a telegram? Do they still exist?

    20. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you got pwnd, restore from backup, call the FBI if you're a good corporate citizen and have nothing to hide. Otherwise, get a Mac.

      Getting a Mac will help for a while, but as more people switch to Macs malcontents will target OS X. And while it's more secure it's not totally secure, nothing is.

      Falcon

      Oh, and I'm not an MS fanbous, my desktop PC's OS is Linux and the laptop I'm typing this on is a MacBook Pro.
    21. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Niten · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He did say "good corporate citizen", so if you are not paying for it, you obviously have something to hide and should be reported.

      You may think this is just a joke, but when my second college roommate saw me using an unfamiliar operating system, he naturally started asking me about it. "What's it called?" "Red Hat Linux." "How much does it cost?" "Nothing, it's free." He freaked out: "Oh my God, how can that be legal? That could cost Microsoft so much in lost profits! That should really be illegal..."

      The worst part? He was a business major, an honest-to-goodness PHB in training...

    22. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by computerman413 · · Score: 5, Informative
    23. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Informative

      In MSFT's and even OS X time machine the default settings are to backup everything, the OS, applications etc. News flash: There are more than two backup programs in the universe.

      for a home users that is just stupid. When was the last time you saw a home user reinstall an entire OS? How many home users still have all the application CDs needed?

      For that matter, these are also things which don't change a lot. They shouldn't take up too much space in the backup, if you're using even a halfway-intelligent backup program -- both of the ones you mentioned at least do hardlinks.

      The real danger here would be if the program actually corrupted the entire backup repository. For that to happen, it would have to know when your backup hard drive was plugged in -- and there are other ways of avoiding this, such as running backups over a network to a server with limited access.
      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    24. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That particular brand of Kool-Aid is served in a lot more places than Redmond...

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    25. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      anyone with half a brain will not give out their bank account details when blackmailing someone. I beg to differ. Prince Omadeke has been very forthcoming with all the bank details, officially signed documents, and necessary guarantees to ensure our secret transaction is carried out according to all successful modalities.
    26. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

      STOP.

    27. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by RexDevious · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait a minute... Western Union has absolutely nothing in place to flag illegal payments? You can't fill out the form saying the money is for blackmail?

      Jeez. If not - I'd fill out the form saying the payment was to help Osama Bin Laden buy some Yellow Cake Uranium-flavoured rolling papers that had pictures of Child Porn on ons side, and copy written Metallica lyrics and Vista Activation codes on the other. Surely one of our many country's many Big Brother Agency would ensure the black mailer had a quick career change.

    28. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope you promptly yelled "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!" and slapped some sense into him.

      --

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

    29. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Call me silly, but I "paid" for my copy of Linux. Instead of a licensing fee, I paid some in donations to various projects of utilities I use daily, from Firefox, to OpenOffice, to TrueCrypt, etc.

    30. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by silvalen · · Score: 5, Funny

      HAMMER TIME.

    31. Re:But were they smart, or stupid? by the_womble · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Every time I go to a supermarket they seem to be handing out free samples of something. Does he think that should be illegal? If he has taken an economics course and managed to understand it (although that sounds unlikely), you could have pointed out that the marginal cost of production of a downloaded copy of Linux is much less than that of a free sample of any physical product. I wonder if he thinks that free websites and web services should be illegal as well? Should Internet Explorer be banned because it lost Netscape a lot of money? Did you ever mange to explain to him that there is actually a sound business model behind Red Hat?

  2. LET'S HOPE SO by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously. In order for extortion to work, money has to change hands. Money can be traced, easily (don't believe what they say about Western Union). This is a great way to track down and capture the people who are spreading the virus. And the people whose files are encrypted could as easily have seen those files deleted, or worse. So it's no difference to them, except that they now have a hand in putting a crook behind bars.

    The virus tossers are actually making their situation worse by turning to extortion. But they weren't all that bright to start with.

    1. Re:LET'S HOPE SO by frosty_tsm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What happens when the virus writer is in another country? What if that country doesn't care?

  3. Is this the future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is this a look into the future where the majority of malware will function based on extortion?

    I don't know! Stop asking me those questions all the time. Is it obligatory to end every blurb with a question, or what?

    1. Re:Is this the future? by DriedClexler · · Score: 3, Funny

      Goddamnit, who keeps sending self-aware chatbots to access Slashdot?

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  4. Re:Anti-Malware Response by pclminion · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uh, if 1024-bit RSA was broken, the world of encryption security would collapse (at least for the short term). Could it happen? Sure, it's possible. Will it happen in time to save your pr0n collection? Highly unlikely.

    For one thing, compromise of RSA encryption would render SSL useless.

  5. They think they're pretty clever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The fundamental problems with hairbrained schemes like these is that the money has to change hands somehow, and there's a fundamental trust issue. First, if money gets transferred to you then you are susceptible to being caught.

    The trust issue is that there is fundamentally no reason for the person receiving the money to follow through and send you the private keys to decrypt the data. If it was a known person, they'd be arrested, and since they're unknown there is no "reputational" factor that would make people more likely to pay based on the experience of others.

    Just another moron criminal scheme from some douchebag who thinks he's found a get rich scheme. Just like other "genius" criminals, the fact is that the professionals in the field are smarter than the criminals.

  6. This has been done before by mrbill1234 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This same thing happened in the late 80's (or maybe early 90's). Some hackers mailed a 5.25 inch floppy with some "free" software on it to thousands of people around the world. When you installed the software, it would hijack your PC and encrypt various files and you had to pay a ransom to get it back. There was a EULA and everything with the disk (which of course nobody read) which made it clear what would happen if you installed the disk. Perhaps someone can remember what it was called.

    1. Re:This has been done before by mrbill1234 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok, I googled it:

      The Aids information disk:

      http://www.jahewi.nl/malware/ransomware/ransomware.html

    2. Re:This has been done before by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Funny

      MS-DOS 6.22

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    3. Re:This has been done before by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Informative

      This was done recently, perhaps two or three years ago. I believe it encrypted everything in My Documents and asked for payment to unencrypt it. Turns out they used the same key every time. Article from 2006 here.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5038330.stm

      The magic key is:

      mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw

    4. Re:This has been done before by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perhaps someone can remember what it was called.

      America On Line?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:This has been done before by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do people still keep stuff in "My documents?". Ya'd think that after all of the very public worms, viruses, malware, and phoning-home that people would learn to make their own "My Stuff" folder(if not regularly back up and/or encrypt their important data).

  7. All your dataz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Joe User: Someone set us up the encryption. We get no data. Readme file turn on.
    Jack Hacker: How are you gentlemen? All your data are belong to us.

  8. Gonna be ok by Joebert · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm not going to worry about this.
    I'm sure the fine folks of our Government are watching everything that happens on my computer & will promptly decrypt my files for me using their built-in back doors.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  9. I got infected by this virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    My computer was infected by this virus... luckily all my files were already encrypted so all it did was make plain-text versions of everything and leave me a file asking for a donation

  10. Yeah, sure, *that'll* work.. by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful
    *ransom note received composed of random letters clipped from newspaper*

    "We have encrypted your illegally copied music files. Put $5000 in unmarked bills in a plain brown paper sack and mail it to: RIAA Washington, D.C. no later than midnight tonight or you'll never listen to your music again"

    ..but seriously, folks, this starts to sound like some sort of wierd 419 scam. They're not going to decypt your files even if you pay them, and I'll bet you a whole DOLLAR that if you're stupid enough to contact them, they accept only CREDIT CARDS as payment. Chances are that the data isn't even really encrypted, it's just plain overwritten and GONE, copied over with gobbledegook random data, and you'll just get your identity stolen on top of never getting your files back. On the other hand they think they're being really clever, I'm sure, and the ones that think they're clever are usually the ones that get caught quickly and go to jail for a long, long time.

  11. Re:Anti-Malware Response by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

    The last version was eventually "cracked", because the virus used the same key for all the encrypted files so once someone paid up they could distribute the key.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  12. Reminds me of... by vivin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...the Casino Virus. Perhaps because of the similar concept of "holding data hostage".

    The virus takes your FAT and stores it in RAM. Then lets you play a slot-machine game. If you win, you get your data back. If you lose, you lose your data. Some other combination of characters (in the slot machine) gives you the virus-writer's phone number.

    --
    Vivin Suresh Paliath
    http://vivin.net

    I like
    1. Re:Reminds me of... by SL+Baur · · Score: 3, Funny

      The virus takes your FAT and stores it in RAM. Awesome! Sounds like a weight loss system that could really work.
  13. data ransom != blackmail by Deanalator · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is data ransom, not blackmail.

  14. Re:Anti-Malware Response by kesuki · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fortunately, brute force attacks aren't necessary. If one can read the memory space used by the 'decryptor' one can find the key in seconds.

    this is why movie content will 'never' be immune to cracking. in the case of this virus, the decryptor is sent to you over the internet, if you pay the money, but having a good backup scheme also defeats the need to brute force. having a good security setup, should negate even the need for backups to prevent infection in the first place.

    so always have a competent hardened firewall device like smoothwall express, never download attachments (webmail helps a lot in this arena, along with a secure browser, and a phishing aware user/browser add-on) avoid windows like the plague, but if you must run windows make sure it can only get access to the actual ports of the programs you actually use on it. and never run as administrator, unless you really genuinely need to do something that can't be done as a normal user.

    trusting a 'commercial' 'hardware' router to protect a windows machine is insane, even if you've replaced the firmware with some variant of linux, it's Still Not hardened like smoothwall...

    fine if you have all linux/bsd machines, but windows has as much security as the emperor had new clothes, even with a $$$ security suite. sad but true, only 0% of tested windows security software could stop 50/50 2006/2007 known rootkit/malware post install... the best was i think being able to remove 7/50 and 13/50, if it had actually gotten installed. specialized tools were also tested, not just suites.

    the point being, if you must run windows remember that a piece of paper stands more chance of surviving a nuclear blast at point blank than windows has of being de-rooted without a format.

  15. Actually it's called Ransomware by ewhenn · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransomware_(malware)

    The crypting your files and extort has been around since 1989 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Cyborg_Trojan

  16. 1024-bit RSA is NOT considered secure anymore by this+great+guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    As it was pointed out by another poster, no 1024-bit RSA is not sufficiently strong. Recent papers have demonstrated that factoring a 1024-bit key is now within practical reach. See for example this PhD dissertation from a student whose advisor was Shamir (the S in RSA FYI), which estimates that cracking a 1024-bit key would cost a few million US dollars.

    Sure, at this point only a small number of organizations have a few million dollars to spare on cracking RSA, but this is beyond the point. The flaw is sufficiently serious that security standards are now recommending 2048-bit RSA keys minimum.

    What I am talking about are relatively recent developments, it is not very well-known that 2048-bit is the minimum recommended length. This is why 1024-bit keys are still wildly used everywhere. My bank (www.wellsfargo.com) uses a 1024-bit key...

    1. Re:1024-bit RSA is NOT considered secure anymore by this+great+guy · · Score: 4, Informative
      Damn. 2000 bits of binary... Every single bit added to a binary key does exponential increases to the resulting protection.

      This is a common mistake that non-cryptographers make. The above is true only for symmetric algorihtms. For asymmetric ones, like RSA, this is false. A 2001-bit RSA key is not twice harder to crack than a 2000-bit key. This is why for example the NIST recommendations list different key lengths depending on the type of crypto (sym vs. asym). For introductory-level material I suggest Cryptographic key length.

  17. Oh please! We all know there aren't any REAL banks by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    in Nigeria?

    There are real banks in Nigeria, owned by the ruling ethnic group, that's where the billions of dollars from oil goes. The rulers get their money while those who live where the oil comes from, the Niger Delta, have to fight for scraps.

    Falcon
  18. Re:Oh please! We all know there aren't any REAL ba by Chaxid · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll append a sarcasm tag next time. By the way, that bit of info is insanely depressing, and kind of made me feel a bit insensitive. Mod parent up.

  19. Re:Vista by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that a fresh install of Vista (Like most of the home users get with their recently bought PCs) is around 16GiB all by it self. A complete installed system (OS + Applications, etc...) is going to weight at least a couple of dozens GB. So what? Storage isn't that expensive -- and the smallest one there is 60 gigs, which should easily be able to hold it.

    If the person doing the backup has a couple of TB storage (like I think, most of the /.ers) I see -- you didn't read it. That or you really didn't do the math.

    Most people aren't going to have more than a hundred gigs or so of storage in their computer in the first place. Given a halfway-decent backup system -- one which uses hardlinks, as I mentioned before -- and yes, the OS might take half of the backup drive. It will not, however, need an additional half every incremental backup -- only every time the OS changes.

    As most people aren't causing terabytes worth of change, it should be no problem to have many backups (as in, every day for the past few months) on a single, dirt-cheap external hard drive.
    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  20. Re:Oh please! We all know there aren't any REAL ba by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Interesting
    owned by the ruling ethnic groupNo. owned by the shareholders, or subsidiaries of well-known internaitonal banks (British, American, etc).

    Banking in Nigeria is not significantly less reputable than anywhere else.

    The problem with Nigerian scams is because there are a lot Nigerians, and a significant fraction of them do not trust random people they don't know from Adam (or in some cases, members of their own family) and think that "europeans" must be a bunch of illiterate cretins if they are willing to believe things they read in random e-mails from strangers, and hence deserve to be scammed.

    The main factor in Nigerian fraud, is that part of the Nigerian population that believe that God created cretins so they could be scammed. Not a very christian beliefe:

    Yes its true, Christianity would stop Nigerian scams - send more missionaries :-)

    Yes, I have been to Nigeria.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII