Slashdot Mirror


How Can I Tell If My Computer Is Part of a Botnet?

ashraya writes "My father (not too computer literate) has a desktop and a laptop both running Windows in his network back in Hyderabad, India. I set up a Linksys router for him to use with his broadband service. For some reason, he reset the config on the Linksys, and connected it up without wireless security, and also with the default admin password for some time. As you would expect, both of the Windows computers got 'slow,' and the desktop stopped connecting to the internet completely for some reason. As I logged in remotely to 'fix' things, I noticed on the Linksys' log that the laptop was making seemingly random connections to high-numbered ports on various IPs. I did an nslookup on the IPs to see that they were all either in Canada or US, with Comcast and other ISP addresses. Is that a sign that the computers were in a botnet? Are the other hosts part of the botnet too? (I have since rebuilt the Windows hosts, and these connections are not happening now. I have also secured the Linksys.)"

82 of 491 comments (clear)

  1. Well the only fool proof way... by ls671 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well the only fool proof way that I can envision is the following

    1) Plug you father computer into a HUB ( not a switch, unless it has a special port for this usage)

    2) Plug the router into this HUB

    3) Plug a Linux machine into the HUB and use tcpdump to examine traffic.

    This is what security experts do.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by jspenguin1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can also use a host with two interfaces and set up bridging or routing with NAT. If you are running custom firmware you can do this straight on the router itself.

    2. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ls671 · · Score: 5, Informative

      netstat could be modified not to report the botnet connections if you are owned, hence the fool proof solution.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by neowolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      The hard part nowadays (although maybe not a problem in India) is actually finding a HUB. It is very difficult to actually buy a hub anymore, and most "hubs" sold in the US anyway are actually low-end unmanaged switches, so you can't sniff traffic on them.

      In answer to the question though (I'm sure redundant at this point) is: YES- they are probably part of at least one bot-net, and are probably infected with all sorts of other nastiness. The best thing to do is re-secure the wireless router, and the all-too-often-recommended reformat and re-install of Windows. I wouldn't even try to salvage the current installs at this point.

    4. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ls671 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed, I do it from my Linux router which I assume is not owned.

      It is nevertheless better to reserve a machine on your network for just this usage. Nothing installed on it but tcpdump and similar tools. You should even disconnect than machine from the network when not in use. Again, that's what security expert firms do.

      The important point is to be confident than what you are looking at is not coming from something that is already owned. Many root kits modify netstat, tcpdump and the like... ;-)

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    5. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by endikos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or they use a "real" switch that has port mirroring, or a passive ethernet tap.

    6. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by iamhigh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well the only fool proof way

      If that sentence doesn't end with "from orbit" and have "nuke it" in there somewhere it just isn't true!

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    7. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by sofar · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't need a HUB at all. Linux bridging allows you to use two ports on a system 'as a HUB', while still providing you with the ability to tcpdump a port on the bridge. You just add both interfaces to your bridge and stick the linux bridge in between the real router and the infected machine. Only thing needed is a linux system with 2 physical ethernet ports.

    8. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did you know that both wireshark and tcpdump use libpcap? Wireshark has a pretty GUI, tcpdump is the command line version.

      Perhaps it would help if I explained that in video format.

      Captcha was "obvious", this is unnerving.

    9. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree with your theory, however in practice, a hacker clearly has several million low hanging fruits running unpatched xp with antivirus which expired 60 days after the computer was purchased in 2006.

      The idea that a botnet is really going to worry about the fraction of the fraction of a percent that knows about netstat seems improbable, though obviously not impossible, which is why I agree with you in theory, but in practice netstat would probably answer his question when a hub and a linux box is inconvenient. If someone has an example of a virus masking its connections through netstat I would both eat crow and be interested to hear it.

    10. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by bpfinn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You could also get a network tap. I've had my eye on the Teeny Tap for a while.

    11. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by taskiss · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is a father computer anything like a mother board?

      --
      - real hackers don't have sigs -
    12. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by dotgain · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then you'll need a switch supporting 802.1q in order to allow a device with a single port to 'sit between' two other devices.

    13. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by B'Trey · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is nevertheless better to reserve a machine on your network for just this usage. Nothing installed on it but tcpdump and similar tools.

      Or boot from a Linux Live CD.

      Also, some switches support spanning ports, which will allow you to sniff the traffic on another port. Your typical home network dumb switch probably doesn't support this, but if you have temporary access to a higher end switch, it makes such tasks much easier. You can pick up older switches that support this fairly cheap on Ebay, although you probably won't want to spend the money for a one-time usage.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    14. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't have any links, but I personally cleaned a PC that had a trojan on it that used netstat hiding tricks. I found it accidentally by looking at files I couldn't delete in the temp folder (trojans often mess with the permissions to make clean-up less likely).

      The contents of the file was a text printout of the netstat command, re created every fifteen or so seconds, MINUS the offending connections. Just by waiting and opening the file again I got new netstat info.

      Running the command, showed the contents of the text file, not the actual output of netstat. I could see traffic going on using a packet sniffer elsewhere on the network, so knew something was up.

      Eventually just wiped and reinstalled anyway because it was faster than fighting it bit by bit.

      So, there are such things out there, yeah, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for them to spend much time on it, but a lot of that stuff is made from "kits" now days anyway so it's not a big deal to enable the feature.

    15. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd assume you want to limit that to a virus actually spreading in the wild and manipulating netstat where it's running on an otherwise properly working Windows box. I'm pretty confident there's been cases where a laboratory proof of concept manipulation of netstat, nmap, or others have been accomplished. The real question is have any of these shown up on an actual machine in the wild, whether that machine was running a botnet or showing some other compromise, i.e. just being infected via to a root-kit. For netstat, ideally, let's see an exploit that is transmitted by other methods than physically being in the same room as the PC, and infecting a machine that was behind a router and until then had both a local, wired network and internet access that worked.
              Something that can only spread to machines that are directly connected to a particular brand of cable modem and only when that device is running old firmware, or only via an improperly set up wireless connection, or where the hacker has to first gain unaccompanied physical access, isn't really much of a netstat bug, even if it affects netstat once those other conditions are first met. It's sort of like complaining that it's possible to pry a safety deposit box open with a simple crowbar, if you can just first get unaccompanied access to the vault where those boxes are kept. The real question becomes, can you get the other, preliminary conditions, or not?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    16. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Tacvek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ethernet using cat5 cabling was specifically designed such that the cheapest hubs would just be RJ45 jacks wired together passively. So one could make a "hub cable" in theory.

      Interestingly another instructable linked to the one he showed, was about how to use 1 cat5 cable to every jack in the house to support both phone and Ethernet data.

      This person was apparently unaware of the fact that a phone cords 6P4C or 6P2C cable will happily fit into the wider 8P jack. (That is to say that phone cable will plug into Ethernet jacks by design).

      Further the Ethernet wiring standard deliberately has pins 3-6 (which correspond to pins 2-5 in a phone style jack, which are the 4 that are normally connected in a phone jack) connected identically to standard phone cord. Further Pins 4 and 5 are deliberately unused in 100Mbs Ethernet, which is the one pair necessary for a single phone line.

      Thus if you have a house wired for Ethernet but not phone, adding support for phones to all the jacks is as simple as using Ethernet switches that connect pin 4 of all jacks together and pin 5 of all jacks together, and then plug a pone line into one of the jacks in the switch. (I would actually be surprised if there were not Ethernet switches specially designed for that).

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    17. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by SCPRedMage · · Score: 4, Funny

      And he totally isn't being paid to refer you!

      Because, I mean, he only gets paid when he's SUBTLE.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    18. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by hymie! · · Score: 3, Funny

      A horse is a horse,

      Of course! Of course!

    19. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by bugg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In practice, I'd run the sniffer on the machine if there was already one there. The absence of the sniffer revealing traffic does not mean there is no traffic, but if the sniffer shows traffic it's a safe bet it's real. Frankly I've yet to hear of any rootkits that would let the sniffer still work and not show the compromised traffic, I think it's more of an in-theory than in-practice. Because I mean, I suspect users who know how to operate sniffers are an edge case for botnet authors. If you've got the sniffer on the machine and can easily run it, why not? A fine alternative is setting up a span port (monitor port) on the switch. I work with managed switches all day, so I'm spoiled in this regard - I don't really think that's an option for the OP however, linksys switches tend to be pretty dumb.

      --
      -bugg
    20. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by budgenator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes it does seem possible and you might even get away with it in real life, but the idea of running a 48VDC pair that also uses a 100VAC ring signal right beside your ethernet pairs is scary. Also every time the telephone rings it would induce a hellacious amount of electrical noise into the data pairs; it would probably shut down any data packets on the network and possibly blow out your ethernet cards. If another technician was faninng the wires and happened puncture his skin with them the jolt from the 48VDC would probably make you number ten thousand dirty rotten SOB, a 100VAC ring signal would definitely make you number ten thousand dirty rotten SOB. Telephone and ethernet really don't play well together.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    21. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by xianthax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      not really...

      POE uses the two spare pairs to provide 48VDC

      POE+ uses the spare pairs and induces a DC offset onto the differential signal pairs ala "phantom power".

      in either case the specified current is much higher than a phone line can provide.

      doubtful the AC ring would have any effect, the frequency is far too low and current is extremely limited and the differential nature of ethernet's signaling would cancel out noise of this type anyway.

      however, the analog phone line most likely would pick up some rather obnoxious noise from the ethernet lines. the carrier frequencies are clearly well above the audio spectrum but you could likely hear packet bursts, like setting your cell phone next to a speaker.

    22. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Phiu-x · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://ettercap.sourceforge.net/ Can sniff switched traffic.

      --
      This is a stolen sig.
    23. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by u38cg · · Score: 4, Funny
      My foolproof method:
      1. Is it running Windows?
      2. Is it connected to the Internet?

      If the answer to both your questions is "Yes", then you are most likely part of a botnet. This advice is free of charge.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    24. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by selven · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mod parent up.

    25. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed. I don't know why security companies don't aggressively push this kind of product for home use- sounds like a win-win for them: sell the consumer an expensive physical box /and/ charge them for monthly firmware updates. Special bonus: An external box would actually /work/ (and with the aid of a USB connection, it could boot into its own environment to do scans) Just for fun, you could throw in a "real" firewall.

      So then you'd provide:
        - Network monitoring for statistical "suspicious packet" analysis
        - Completely detached scanning which doesn't just nicely ask an infected system whether it's infected or not
        - Hardware firewall
        - A solution which potentially /works/, rather than one which is guaranteed not to

      Yet everything I've ever seen pushed to home users has been a software-only package, or just a firewall. When will I be able to tell my mom to "go buy a Norton ActuallyWorX box and plug it between your computer and router"?

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    26. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yah, 'cause there's no way I could just be recommending it as a favour to the guy who asked the question. Way to catch me out dude.

      +1 no-flies-on-you

      Considering that others have already pointed out that it's a "firewall" you run as software on the computer you're trying to protect (tl;dr version: snake oil), no, we're all quite certain you weren't doing him any favors.

    27. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You should even disconnect than machine from the network when not in use.

      Or add a read-only end to your patch cable - http://www.ironcomet.com/sniffer.html

      I keep one in my black bag. Allows me to supervise any network without anyone knowing I'm even there, because it is impossible (electrically) for my NIC to respond...

      With such wiring, you're effectively immune to Virii and the like, unless they're some sort of magical single-packet thing...

    28. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by smackmywhammy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Insightful? Really?

      Ethernet using cat5 cabling was specifically designed such that the cheapest hubs would just be RJ45 jacks wired together passively. So one could make a "hub cable" in theory.

      Citation please. Cat5 maybe all on it's own hijacked for phone purposes, maybe. I've been installing ethernet and phones for 20 years, and from what I know of Ethernet over twisted pair, there is no electrical provision for this anywhere.

      Interestingly another instructable linked to the one he showed, was about how to use 1 cat5 cable to every jack in the house to support both phone and Ethernet data.

      This person was apparently unaware of the fact that a phone cords 6P4C or 6P2C cable will happily fit into the wider 8P jack. (That is to say that phone cable will plug into Ethernet jacks by design).

      Again, citation please. Every Ethernet jack I've ever used gets the 1-8 pins bent or broken when some fool does this. You can put a one inch round peg in a one inch square hole, but to say that they mate correctly is a bit misleading.

      Further the Ethernet wiring standard deliberately has pins 3-6 (which correspond to pins 2-5 in a phone style jack, which are the 4 that are normally connected in a phone jack) connected identically to standard phone cord. Further Pins 4 and 5 are deliberately unused in 100Mbs Ethernet, which is the one pair necessary for a single phone line.

      Thus if you have a house wired for Ethernet but not phone, adding support for phones to all the jacks is as simple as using Ethernet switches that connect pin 4 of all jacks together and pin 5 of all jacks together, and then plug a pone line into one of the jacks in the switch. (I would actually be surprised if there were not Ethernet switches specially designed for that).

      One more time! Citation please. I don't recall T568A or T568B mentioning anything about cohabitation of analog phone and data in any one cable sheath. I'd hazard a guess that the reason you don't know about any Ethernet switches off the top of your head that merge analog phone and data is because there probably aren't any. Find just one, please, even just one made 20 years ago. Another SWAG about why you won't find any: 100V ring voltage would probably smoke most of the components intended for voltages lower than 5V. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that it was intended by the design engineers that created a product.

    29. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, the link is instructions. Not sales.

  2. Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    As you would expect, both of the Windows computers got 'slow', and the desktop stopped connecting to the internet completely for some reason. As I logged in remotely to 'fix' things ...

    Quick question, how did you log into his desktop remotely if it "stopped connecting to the internet completely for some reason?"

    If all you did was reset the hosts file, it will be back sometime. Somewhere, probably in multiple places on that hard drive, is an executable waiting to be run. It's probably infected some inane looking routine Windows system file that occasionally runs and when that happens your host file will magically change again.

    I could recommend you do a netstat but what's the point? Any botnet today would know how to elude that or run as part of a system routine. If the bot is serious enough, your best bet might be to save the data and just do a routine re-install. You know on my parent's WinXP machine, I do that everytime I'm home for christmas. Then I patch it as far as I can over their 56k modem.

    Odds are high your dad's machine is still infected and I would also suspect your machine as being potentially compromised if you connected using Windows remote desktop. Call me overly cautious but I don't take chances with Windows.

    You can run all the programs you want (Bothunter, Symantic, AVG, AdAware, etc.) but in the end there's no guarantee although BotHunter's probably your best bet.

    The best thing to do is educate your dad. If he has a valid copy of Windows, spend time with him to show him how to go to IE and click Tools -> Update Windows then select all updates. Remind him periodically when you talk to him--especially if he does any banking or commerce online!

    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Assume it is .. by Brigadier · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Overseeing a small office lan, I've come to the conclusion that you will be infected whether you like to or not. Regardless of how much you threaten users. I've resorted to using an drive image (paragon) saved on a drive partition which saves the system in a uninfected state. As soon as a user goes 'uh ooh' or complains of slowness I restore the image (keep in mind data is stored on a server which is backed up and scanned on which no apps are allowed to run). I also run a combination of ccleaner, spybot s&d and windows defender.

    In addition I check the network once a week for mail or ftp sockets ( evidence there is a bot net at work). So far this has been the easiest way to stay on top.

    1. Re:Assume it is .. by realmolo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're doing it wrong.

      You need an IDS/IPS system like a Fortigate or ASA that scans all incoming/outgoing packets for viruses/spyware/whatever, and blocks them before they get to the computer (as well as performing standard firewall duties like NAT and traffic filtering). You need Websense Express (or something similar) to block access to malicious websites (and inappropriate websites, which are often malicious anyway). You need to take away the Local Administrator rights from every user on the network, and use Group Policy to a) lock down Internet Explorer, and b) prevent them from installing any software and c)making any system changes.

      This is all easy to do. Why aren't you doing it? For a small office, it wouldn't even be expensive.

    2. Re:Assume it is .. by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In addition I check the network once a week for mail or ftp sockets ( evidence there is a bot net at work). So far this has been the easiest way to stay on top.

      I would also block outgoing port 25 and then ask the users what smtp servers they use and whitelist those.

      Getting the users to run as a non-privileged user will make clean-up much easier. Set their normal login to be a low-privilege user (and add network configuration so they can configure wireless networks), then give them their own administrator login (another user with admin rights) and show them how to login as their normal username and use "run-as". That way they can do everything they would like with a much lower risk of an infection that can't be handled.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Assume it is .. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Youre doing it wrong. Set your users to be users, not administrators. Give them permissions to exactly what they need and whatever special permission the applications they run need. Sure, it takes time at first, but once you figure it out then you're good for the rest.

      Or you can take the lazy man's approach and set them as power users, which is almost like an administrator, but selectively remove modify/write permission from c:\windows, c:\program files, and other critical areas. Less secure but a bazillion more times secure than just running as admin.

    4. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      and show them how to login as their normal username and use "run-as".

      Awwww, how cute! He's trying to teach a user something!

      Let's watch...

    5. Re:Assume it is .. by Brigadier · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All great points, here are mine.

      1.) We are an architecture office which runs AutoCAD problem is this requires Power User group membership in order to run. (also on windows even without admin privs malicious software can infect.

      2.) Unfortunately any expense is an expense, (economy doesn't help.) This is why you will note all my network software is freeware.

      3.) My most malicious user is the owner of the company, who insist on having admin privies ( he equates user authority to company hierarchy) So he constantly does stuff like installs go to my pc, and leaves his system up and logged in.

      unfortunately I don't live in your well funded and taken seriously IT world.

    6. Re:Assume it is .. by rsborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is all easy to do. Why aren't you doing it? For a small office, it wouldn't even be expensive.

      Especially in a small business, your users will rebel if they can't install (or use) their software... which is quite reasonable given most people are still running Windows XP, and most XP software is not capable of being installed or sometimes even used without admin access... this is especially troublesome if that user happens to be the CEO/Owner.

      You hardly ever have time/resources to "do it properly" in a small business, unless what you're "doing right" is a core competency of the business. The trick is to convince the guy who signs the checks that it is business/mission critical (often non-trivial).

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    7. Re:Assume it is .. by peragrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      for a small office running windows the end users HAVE to run as admin, as Most windows apps require it. My HP printer drivers, and a couple of other apps require my to be fully logged in as an admin or they don't work basically preventing me from doing most of my work.

      I know this as I tried it as I don't believe I should run as admin. Since Windows and MSFT doesn't force developers to code to security standards, including their own. Running as a non admin in a real world environment is impossible. Oh and just to really make you scratch One of those mission critical apps crashes on install because it loads the win16 subsystem for running.

      It gets updated 3-4 times a year but it still requires win16 components. MSFT has enabled that in 2009 that win16 parts are required still. If MSFT would let go of old and outdated parts like the rest of the OS world shit like that wouldn't happen.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:Assume it is .. by iron-kurton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just a quick question: how hard would it be to give your most malicious user an account named Administrator that was actually not an administrator?

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
    9. Re:Assume it is .. by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No! You do not put all your effort at one entry point.. I have seen a company that was totally secure from the old "code red" virus because all the firewalls were updated, and public facing servers were patched. The network guys blocked all the appropriate ports at the firewalls. Then, a Salesman came into the office from out at a client site, and hopped on the network to check his email, and his laptop took out everyone.

      You need layers of defense. preferably from different vendors or makers.

      And really, this is Slashdot, why are you recommending Fortigate or ASA? you should be talking up Snort, or its commercial appliance version, Sourcefire.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    10. Re:Assume it is .. by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You hardly ever have time/resources to "do it properly" in a small business, unless what you're "doing right" is a core competency of the business. The trick is to convince the guy who signs the checks that it is business/mission critical (often non-trivial).

      Sure you do! It's called OSX. Now, before you flame me into submission, understand that I'm writing this on my Fedora Core Linux laptop. I'm a command-line junkie extraordinaire, and don't feel comfortable until I have an xterm or three up on one or two virtual desktops while running dual-head.

      But there's a very real, very useful, and very definite benefit to running on OSX - there really is not just nearly as much of a problem with viruses, worms, trojans, and other crapware. Really really for real and yes, it's for real.

      Really.

      You can argue about marketshare or Unix core or whatever, but it's true - Macs *are* more reliable and *do* have much less of a problem with viruses and such. Who cares why? And if you really must run something windows like, you can get Parallels/VMWare or boot camp. (I recommend the former unless you are a gamer) Even better, if you go the VM route, you can easily save your Windows VM image to an external disk every week or so, and if/when it gets infected, just recover from a backup and be up and running again in minutes instead of days!

      I didn't appreciate OSX until I had to port our software over to it. It was painful at first, but in the process, I fell hard-core in love with OSX. Except for the dated Unix command line, it's everything that Fedora Core ever dreamed of.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    11. Re:Assume it is .. by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 5, Informative

      All great points, here are mine.

      1.) We are an architecture office which runs AutoCAD problem is this requires Power User group membership in order to run. (also on windows even without admin privs malicious software can infect.

      No, AutoCAD doesn't require Power User membership. What it requires is someone to spend a few minutes to adjust the system to allow it (and pretty much anything else) to run with User perms only. Do a Google search for Filemon and Regmon formerly from SysInternals and now Microsoft free software. Run them (using RunAs since these DO require admin rights) while your users have normal perms. Set them to only show you what ACAD.EXE does. When it craps out (and it will), search the logs for Access Denied. Manually add perms for Users Full Control to the folders and registry keys that it requires. This will take several passes as the program will run better and better each time. Write down what you have to permit, so next time you install on a new machine you'll know what you need.

      Almost none of my hundreds of supported desktops allow users to have admin rights. The ones I'm not PERMITTED to spend the labour tend to get owned periodically. The non-admin systems don't. Really. Since Win2k's release I have yet to have even one system actually get infected. Light damage, yes. Infected, no.

      What... you think admins running Citrix or Terminal Servers just throw their hands up in the air and accept some lazy-ass vendor's word that their software NEEDS admin rights?

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    12. Re:Assume it is .. by superskippy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate to break the Slashdot rules-of-posting, but I've got some sympathy for Microsoft here. A lot of the things Vista tried to do was to sweep away some of the old crud and make developers code more securely- that was what the whole Blah wants to do something- confirm or deny bit was about.

      Everyone's reaction? Waaaaahhhh, my computer is far more annoying. Where are my XP disks?

      MS are damned if they do sweep away old insecure crud (because old stuff stops working) and damned if the don't sweep old crud away (because their OS has a load of crud in it). Their main competitor (Apple) doesn't have this problem- when people move to a Mac they expect all of their old stuff to stop working- indeed none of their old applications work!

    13. Re:Assume it is .. by coolmoose25 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can argue about marketshare or Unix core or whatever, but it's true - Macs *are* more reliable and *do* have much less of a problem with viruses and such. Who cares why?

      You will care about why when the market share numbers change. If MACS were 90% of the market, they'd be the ones with the botnets running on them, and the Windows machines would look just like Macs do to you. And it doesn't need to get to 90% for it to be that way. As the Mac marketshare continues to climb - and it will - you'll find that botmakers will target the Mac platform. They'll find holes. And they'll start to get infected. It is a function not of the OS, but a function of WHO is running them. Historically, the uneducated, uncaring masses were the home user running Windows. The botnets are written for THEM. When the uneducated, uncaring masses are running Macs, the botnets will be written for them too. Sure, you can buy some time by going the Mac route today. You'll be helping make Macs get on the bad guys radar screen, and will hasten the botnet coming soon to a computer near you!

      --
      Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
  4. See what is going on with NETSTAT by (H)elix1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fire up a command prompt and type

    netstat -a | find "LISTENING"

    to find out what ports your system is listening to. Running the netstat command will give you all the traffic. Should give you a good idea as to what is happening. (Helps to close all of your 'normal' apps)

    1. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Considering GREP doesn't even exist in CMD and FIND does, I think the grandparent has it right and you're the one who is confused.

      The command works fine, in Vista at least. Probably requires Admin privileges for full results.

    2. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by mkramer · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is windows. find == grep. Well, find < grep.

    3. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by Zalbik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The parent has find and grep confused, as far as I can tell.

      You have Windows and Linux confused, as far as I can tell.

  5. If you suspect the router itself by Ilgaz · · Score: 5, Informative

    If I had that kind of suspicion and if it was router itself I was suspicious about, I would simply get the latest stable firmware for that particular model (be careful) and simply reinstall it over the router itself. It would be something like "format and install windows" I wouldn't really backup any settings on that case. Just make sure you know ISP login and pwd. Make sure they work, they haven't been changed at any point or you will end up speaking with Bangalore at 4 AM :)

    A simple,fast port scanner exists at http://www.grc.com/ (shields up!) which really works, ignore Mr. Gibson's weird named inventions like "nano scan" etc. What I know is, it works. Oh also ignore its port 139 or "you aren't stealth" paranoia. 139 is client port and stealth would be good but you won't really die if you have nothing served.

    For clients, don't re invent the wheel. NMAP is there, free and can run under win32 if you need. http://nmap.org/download.html , some instructions exist for detecting current security threats but I didn't really check since it is all OS X here, we have different issues than win32.

  6. No by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Funny

    What it really means is that your dad is a part of an international crime ring and he really is a cracker, without your knowledge. He just felt that you did not have a clue so allowed you to play with his computer.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. Try using rubotted or dronebl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The rubotted tool does a pretty decent job of detecting most botted computers. Have your dad download it here:

    http://www.trendsecure.com/portal/en-US/tools/security_tools/rubotted

    You could also look for his system on the dronebl:

    http://dronebl.org/

    Good luck!

    1. Re:Try using rubotted or dronebl by HikingStick · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've had success using Trend Micro's RUBotted. It monitors for some typical bot behaviors, like making phone-home connections. It was handy around the office when I was trying to track down a bot that wasn't caught by our AV/Firewall product. Once the machines were identified by RUBotted, I was able to remediate them (one I had to nuke, but was able to recover one of the machines).

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  8. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by RetroGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    Then I patch it as far as I can over their 56k modem.

    Get Autopatcher and update it from a CD BEFORE you connect it to anything.

    --

    - - - - - - - - - - -
    I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
  9. You can tell if.. by papasui · · Score: 3, Funny

    It makes remarks about wanting to try other operating software. It's unusually concerned about antivirus protection. Plug and Play only works with force-feedback devices. It makes unusually long "hand-shakes" with the email server. It accuses you of installing spyware. It asks you to run your network scans in promiscuous mode. It tells you that it's mainframe never liked you.

  10. Re:Doesn't work by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doesn't work in my already-compromised computer running XP.

    FTFY

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  11. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    For a suspicion? Good luck with that.

  12. Some Answers to the questions asked here... by ashraya · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A good many replies here - so I will answer a few questions that have been asked.

    1. For this time, I assumed the systems were owned, and they have now been rebuild (Windows Reinstalled).
    2. The Linksys is re-secured - but I hadnt thought of that being owned - so I have to now do a firmware upgrade on that - Thanks for the suggestion.
    3. Other suggestions are to confirm botnet or sniff traffic - I am in the UK, and I can only do so much remotely.
    4. One of the quesions was how I managed to remote into the windows hosts - No, I managed to remote into the Linksys, not the windows hosts.
    5. The bizzarre situation in the Windows host before it was rebuilt was that if we did (I told the commands over the phone for my dad to execute) ping or traceroute to a destination like www.google.co.in, it would work. It would resolve the right IP. However, with any of the browsers, as soon as access to a site was attempted - We would get a message "Connection Reset" or the browsers equivalent. (Firefox, Chrome and IE tried). Has anyone seen that one before?
    6. Another question asked was if the Windows in question was legit - Yes, I bought him a OEM XP the last time I was there and installed it.

    Regards,
    Ashraya

    1. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A Question... "without wireless security, and also with the default admin password for some time. "

      Your implication seems to be that someone wandered by your fathers house, saw an open wireless network and decided to insert packets to own his machine.

      WTF?!

      This seems like a pretty unlikely method of building a botnet compared to spam, website security holes, application fail (office, adobe, gif).

      It also seems to support the whole "sharing is bad" mentality that the RIAA and ISPs (and their net neutrality BS) are shoving down our throats. Though that might just be paranoia or my own politics interfering in what is really a technical matter.

    2. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by lanes · · Score: 2, Informative

      You also can't upgrade from previous versions of Windows with an OEM copy, nor can you transfer the license to a new machine - it gets tied to the motherboard it's first installed on, and while I've heard that you can sometimes give Microsoft a sob story about the death of your old machine and they'll activate the license on another box, it seems to be a pretty rare occurrence. Basically, OEM licenses are intended to be installed once on a brand new machine, and when that machine dies, the license dies with it.

  13. Solaris does this automatically by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember from my Sun Solaris 8 network or sys admin class that they said the system will automatically configure itself as a gateway between two network cards. When my son gets old enough to start surfing on his own, it's what I intend to do. I've got an old Solaris 8 machine on an Ultra 10. I can put it out in the garage (next to the cable modem) and have it be a physical hop between the cable modem and Dual Band WiFi router.

    1. Re:Solaris does this automatically by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's true, by default Solaris has IP forwarding enabled between all interfaces.

      You can turn it off, by using: ndd -set /dev/ip ip_forwarding 0

      On most Linux systems, it's off by default, but you can enable it by doing echo 'net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1' >> /etc/sysctl.conf
      sysctl -p

      Or temporarily by doing sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forwarding=1

      This is not really an advantage of Solaris that it's enabled by default, but a security risk.

      My suggestion would be to instead use a cheap old x86 PC and install a firewall distro with integrated reporting and blocking functions such as Untangle on it.

      Or I suppose you could spend a few weeks tinkering with the Solaris box. But its traffic filtering capabilities are fairly limited/sparse at best, if you do use Solaris for such a thing you may be better off blocking port 80+443 and using a tailored Squid proxy, than relying on Solaris' default IP forwarding to help you.

      Squid gives you the flexibility to log URLs, and also, to block URLs, with addons like Squidguard.

    2. Re:Solaris does this automatically by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While he's under 18 and I'm legally responsible for the tings he downloads and does, yes I will spy on him.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  14. Oh, the irony... by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot is doing tech-support for India now?

    Some chick named Alanis is calling you subby.

  15. OS Check! by dandart · · Score: 5, Funny

    Q: How do I tell if my computer is part of a botnet?
    A: If it's got Windows on it, it is.

    1. Re:OS Check! by ArtemaOne · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its funny though, I've run Windows for a very very long time, and haven't used antivirus for the past decade. I run checks and my system doesn't pass any weird traffic, there are not unexplainable processes or services. I guess I just don't do stupid things to get viruses.

    2. Re:OS Check! by harl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Computer viruses and trojans are social illnesses. Risk of social illness infection is greatly mitigated through behavior.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
  16. Three things to look for. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you are seeing netbios over tcp (port 445) traffic and he is not uploading/downloading files via the "My Network Places" interface he is most likely infected with a trojan.

    If your seeing random high port to random high port traffic (ports 1024 - 65535 connecting to another ports 1024-65535) and he isn't doing P2P then he most likely is infected and the infection is trying to set up the machine as part of a bot net and trying to infect others.

    If you are seeing UDP traffic on a consistent port on his machine to random high ports (1024-65535) on the outside, his machine is an active server in a bot net.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  17. You've rebuilt the windows machines? by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You've rebuilt the windows machines? So, now you can not at all be sure if they were part of a botnet or not.
    Chances are they were, and you've done the right thing by rebuilding them.

    I think the details about the router with it's default password an no wireless security is a red herring - I've not heard of a botnet that tries to get in to your network by guessing standard admin passwords for common wireless routers. More likely it was a drive-by download from a dodgy web page, or a trojan in some downloaded software that put the malware on the machines.

  18. Re:Force a failover by billcopc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Please don't make unverified claims. I have seen this happen first-hand on several residential switches (5/8 port Linksys/Acer/whatever). It's how they can get away with crapping 8 ports on an underpowered processor with piddly amounts of memory.

    There's basically 3 ways a switch can deal with ARP overload:

    1. Ditch the least recently seen address (annoying and laggy but relatively clean)
    2. Slow down, panic, and stop forwarding packets altogether (hello Linksys)
    3. Ignore ARP entirely and revert to being a dumb hub, at least temporarily until everyone shuts up

    You'd be surprised how many A+ asshats have daisy-chained those cheap switches to save a buck. I remember one guy who had a cage full of shitty old gear going into a bunch of $40 Aopen switches, because he figured it was cheaper to cram a few U's with those tiny 8-port toys than to drop real money on a bunch of FSM750s. His latency was pretty bad for 100mbit, but his brain was even slower so he cared not. Then one day he added one device too many and a true packet storm ensued, which caused his entire network to seize within minutes. One switch barfed, then another, and another... he had four or five of them per rack, times maybe ten racks. I tried to explain how retarded he was for trying to save maybe $1000 per rack, when each rack had at least 50k worth of gear, but they say ignorance is bliss.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  19. He's Lying by Shadow7789 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like Dad, if that's even his real name, knows more about computers than he is pretending to.

    He is clearly torrenting, and your best course of action would be to report his nefarious actions to the authorities.

  20. Securing Linux Box? by Lotana · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While we are on a topic of security:

    Several months ago I started using Debian as my primary OS at home. I am very happy with it, but don't know much about how to keep it secure or how to tell if I had been compromised. Of course very basics are clear: I do not use root except in those instances of updates, etc. The consensus on this site is that if you run Linux then you are invincible, but I respectfully disagree. The system is only as secure as the competence of the user.

    To cut the long story short:

    - What do you normally do to make sure that your Linux system is clean? Is running apt-get upgrade regularly enough or is there more to it?

    - What articles or books would you recommend to a newbie in this area? I am fully willing to RTFM as such, but please at least give me at least some direction on what to search for.

    - Any other general tips, advice or wisdom would you be willing to share?

    Thank you

    1. Re:Securing Linux Box? by Gogo0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      -i heard its good to remove SUID from any binaries that have it set. check google for this, its some long command that involves xargs.

      -check your /var/log/auth.log from time to time and make sure there arent a bunch of failed login attempts.

      -if you see a lot of activity in auth.log and other logfiles pointing to repeated attempts at breaking into your system, identify the method theyre trying to get in through (usually ssh or ftp) and change the port. i usually use 2222 for ssh and 2121 for ftp, that stopped all the connection attempts i was getting and theyre easy to remember.

      yeah, these are kind of basic and are not helpful in learning in-depth, but im kind of in the same boat. iv been using debian since 2001 and these (plus the basics of course) are all iv needed to secure my systems from attempted intrusions (at least, the ones i KNOW about).

  21. Not hard... by WheelDweller · · Score: 2, Funny

    It comes with a logo; looks like a window. :)

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  22. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you are going to fart around that much, you might as well build a new install CD with SP3 slipstreamed in and the most recent hotfixes set to run on install:

    http://www.nliteos.com/guide/part1.html

    I have built such a CD from the I386 folder on my harddrive (my laptop came with a recovery partition, not a CD) and successfully installed it into a virtual machine.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  23. Re:Check network connections by dotgain · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... and now imagine I chose 'Plain text'

    c:\>netstat -b
    Your computer is fine.
    c:\>

    Sweet!

  24. On the other hand, by reiisi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the bogus netstat (and other utilities) are already part of the rootkit the skript ciddey downloaded, it doesn't cost the skript ciddey any more effort, and is even less likely to be noticed than strange output in netstat.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  25. Re:Force a failover by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's rather unfounded, it's not undefined behavior, and it's well understood. The simple fact is cheap switches have such a small CAM table available, that they can be filled up even in normal operation. It doesn't take very many packets per second or very many kilobytes per second to keep the table filled up, just frames with unique MAC addresses.

    Even large expensive switches can have their CAM tables filled up, and they do the same thing (but the admin has more controls to stop it).

    When an Ethernet frame arrives that has a destination MAC address not in the table, the switch will send the frame out all ports except the source port.

    In normal operation, every received Ethernet frame is inspected, if the source MAC address is not in the table, and there's room in the table, then it is added. , if there is no place to store the new CAM entry, it's not stored, and the MAC address remains unknown.

    Similarly, old entries in the table will get removed (usually after about 5 minutes, if no more frames have been received from that source)

    When a switch receives a frame, and there is no CAM entry for the destination MAC addresses, the switch has to send every frame received out all ports, because it doesn't know the right destination.

    Ergo, if the CAM table has been flooded, the flood is sustained, AND the MAC address whose traffic you want to sniff is not in the table, then all other ports will receive traffic they send.

    It is true that it's dependant on how much memory the switch has.

    There is another layer 2 attack called "ARP Injection" which is more reliable in this regard, especially when combined with CAM flooding.

    However, ARP injection is easily detected by the security concerned just by watching system logs, and there are tools to easily detect it.

    CAM flooding is harder, especially if the data sent in the Ethernet frame isn't a valid IP payload, they can be constructed in such a way that many ordinary packet sniffers will not detect the CAM flooding.

    The security concerned use SNMPv3 managed switches that allow forwarding table monitoring and a network management station that can detect such incidents.

  26. Re:Force a failover by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's true devices can do those things, and yeah, you would certainly need to test before trying flooding as a solution. (1) and (3) are really the only proper choices.

    (2) is definitely a defect in the device, that the manufacturer should fix. I equate it to a hard drive running out of disk space, and deciding to shut itself off, instead of reporting an error when you try to write past the end of the disk.

    But I suppose he did say it was a cheap switch, and sometimes, you really do get what you pay for.

  27. The takeaway... by Chysn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've read this entire thread and learned that it's impossible to tell if your computer is part of a botnet.

    --
    --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
    -- See?
  28. The Shark by bizitch · · Score: 3, Informative

    Download and install Wireshark from http://www.wireshark.org/

    Fire it up and watch everything on the NIC

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
  29. Re:Beware Many wireless Routers Loose their Securi by cboslin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are some very inexpensive UPS enabled power strips today. APC makes a bunch. Just pick one up and make sure only your hardware router/firewall and hubs (if you use them) are plugged into it. With that light of a load, they will run longer than a larger UPS hooked up to your monitor and tower PC. Lets face it, if the power is out more than 30 minutes today, most home UPSs will run out of battery power before the smaller one dedicated to the modem and router/firewall. At least that has been my experience.

    I put larger UPS hardware next to my primary work tower and (servers + big screen TV) and put a smaller less expensive UPS for my routers, modem, hubs. In the last two years I lost power for longer than 30 minutes only once. It was a no brainer shutting down everything before the UPS battery was completely depleted.

    I was able to watch a 42 inch TV for 20 minutes before I had to turn it off, because the power did not come back on. So it is a pretty big UPS for a home. At least I do not have to worry about brown outs any more. The lights blink, no worries.

    I turned the larger one off about 10 - 15 minutes before the smaller one keeping the modems and router/firewall hardware up ran out of juice. (I had a firewall/router, dumb hub and cable modem on that one smaller UPS, no problems and nothing else.)