Slashdot Mirror


Malware Targets Shortcut Flaw In Windows, SCADA

tsu doh nimh writes "Anti-virus researchers have discovered a new strain of malicious software that spreads via USB drives and takes advantage of a previously unknown vulnerability in the way Microsoft Windows handles '.lnk' or shortcut files. Belarus-based VirusBlokAda discovered malware that includes rootkit functionality to hide the malware, and the rootkit drivers appear to be digitally signed by Realtek Semiconductor, a legitimate hi-tech company. In a further wrinkle, independent researcher Frank Boldewin found that the complexity and stealth of this malware may be due to the fact that it is targeting SCADA systems, or those designed for controlling large, complex and distributed control networks, such as those used at power and manufacturing plants. Meanwhile, Microsoft says it's investigating claims that this malware exploits a new vulnerability in Windows."

4 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Windows for SCADA? WTF?! by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, anyone using Windows for SCADA in this day and age has to get their head checked.

    About 6 years ago I worked as an engineer for a manufacturing company. One day a pop up message appears on my computer. It says something like, "this machine will restart in 30 seconds. Please save all of your work." I saved my work and the machine restarted. A few minutes later, it happened again, and I called IT.

    IT comes out, and looks at my machine. They figure it's some sort of virus, but it turned out to be a worm. The Sasser worm to be exact.

    Machines start rebooting themselves all over the office, and my boss asks the IT manager if this will effect the assembly line PLCs.

    The IT manager gives my boss a very firm, "No!" and goes on to explain how those machines are behind a separate firewall, and can't possibly get the worm.

    Just as he is explaining this, the foreman comes in from the plant and says, "Hey! all of those computers out on the assembly line just rebooted themselves!"

    Our IT director got very red, and went into the server room and unplugged all of the switches. We were one of the few companies using VOIP at the time, and that meant no phone, fax or internet for the whole building.

    Why did we use Windows on the assembly line? I asked that my first day on the job. Corporate determined it was cheaper than running embedded devices.

    The company was shut down for a whole day, costing $20,000 per minute in lost revenue. I can't imagine those embedded devices were that much more expensive.

    As a side note, our IT Manager developed a heart condition at a very young age, and I quit a year later.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  2. Re:Realtek by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The 8139 is one of the shittiest NICs ever created. It personifies the Realtek ethos of bottom-of-the-barrel, "get it to sort-of work and ship it" engineering. The fact that it works on "any operating system you've ever installed" is a testament not to the virtues of Realtek, but the skill and dedication of a few people who undertook the monumental task of creating drivers. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I have $5 surround sound on my motherboard, but I still wouldn't piss on Realtek to put out a fire.

    * Supports several extremely cheap PCI 10/100 adapters based on
          40 * the RealTek chipset. Datasheets can be obtained from
          41 * www.realtek.com.tw.
          42 *
          43 * Written by Bill Paul
          44 * Electrical Engineering Department
          45 * Columbia University, New York City
          46 */
          47 /*
          48 * The RealTek 8139 PCI NIC redefines the meaning of 'low end.' This is
          49 * probably the worst PCI ethernet controller ever made, with the possible
          50 * exception of the FEAST chip made by SMC. The 8139 supports bus-master
          51 * DMA, but it has a terrible interface that nullifies any performance
          52 * gains that bus-master DMA usually offers.
          53 *
          54 * For transmission, the chip offers a series of four TX descriptor
          55 * registers. Each transmit frame must be in a contiguous buffer, aligned
          56 * on a longword (32-bit) boundary. This means we almost always have to
          57 * do mbuf copies in order to transmit a frame, except in the unlikely
          58 * case where a) the packet fits into a single mbuf, and b) the packet
          59 * is 32-bit aligned within the mbuf's data area. The presence of only
          60 * four descriptor registers means that we can never have more than four
          61 * packets queued for transmission at any one time.
          62 *
          63 * Reception is not much better. The driver has to allocate a single large
          64 * buffer area (up to 64K in size) into which the chip will DMA received
          65 * frames. Because we don't know where within this region received packets
          66 * will begin or end, we have no choice but to copy data from the buffer
          67 * area into mbufs in order to pass the packets up to the higher protocol
          68 * levels.
          69 *
          70 * It's impossible given this rotten design to really achieve decent
          71 * performance at 100Mbps, unless you happen to have a 400Mhz PII or
          72 * some equally overmuscled CPU to drive it.
          73 *
          74 * On the bright side, the 8139 does have a built-in PHY, although
          75 * rather than using an MDIO serial interface like most other NICs, the
          76 * PHY registers are directly accessible through the 8139's register
          77 * space. The 8139 supports autonegotiation, as well as a 64-bit multicast
          78 * filter.
          79 *
          80 * The 8129 chip is an older version of the 8139 that uses an external PHY
          81 * chip. The 8129 has a serial MDIO interface for accessing the MII where
          82 * the 8139 lets you directly access the on-board PHY registers. We need
          83 * to select which interface to use depending on the chip type.
          84 */

    http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/pci/if_rl.c

  3. Re:Windows for SCADA? WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Re: CIP (CIP-007 R3), the standard actually requires

    R3. A patch management program
    R3.1. Patches be assessed within 30 days
    R3.2. Document the implementation (usually interpreted as an implementation plan) and install the patches or mitigate

    There is no requirement on the timing of installing the patches in R3.2, only that assessment be completed in 30 days.

    As a result, certain utilities are very legally setting the install plan date for 2013. When they get the opportunity to install, they then update the plan the week they install and document the change. In the interim, they put together a document that shows that IDS, AV, Firewalls, or something else similar mitigates the attack.

    While crazy in the desktop world, most control systems cannot be updated without shutting down generation plants. Transmission has a slightly easier time of it but not much. Shutting down generation during peak periods such as heat waves or blizzards are a worse choice than patching as long as decent security is in place. Major upgrades such as O/S Service Packs and SCADA/DCS upgrades only have an opportunity maybe once a year during planned maintenance shutdowns. This is true regardless of the OS ('nix, Windows, VMS...)

    Yes, certain vendors are very good about updates (Wonderware and similar) and others are very poor. They are all getting better but there is no way I would patch most systema on running coal or gas turbine generation plant. Risks are too high on environment and life safety. A loss of the control system can result in a plant shutdown or scram. A problem control system can put safety at risk because the plant is running and improperly controlling.

    More of a problem is the proprietary hardware, especially on DCS systems. While no direct user interface is present, these systems are never patched, run hidden or semi-proprietary OS's. Worst case I know of is a DCS board that allows remote login with a known unpublished ID/password.

    At least today, virtually every control system is behind an internal firewall and the majority have a decent firewall configuration. However, the value of communicating out of the control system outweighs the risk. Especially when running 15 power plants in a major utility and the power supply/demand balance on the grid is more important than air-gapping. If air-gapped, high quality frequency control at 60 Hz would be near impossible.

  4. Re:Windows for SCADA? WTF?! by Mousit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Starting to wander a little off-topic here but I couldn't resist one more answer. :) I wasn't aware of the lack of timing requirement, hmm. Certainly our company didn't interpret it that way, so we're actively implementing patches on the month-behind schedule, and this includes our control systems too. We can do this because every server type (data ack, database, human interface server, etc) we have operates in tandem with an identical twin, in standard failover configuration. So we patch the backup, and initiate a controlled failover to it. Problem? Fail back. Works? Patch the other side now. This is how most every SCADA control system I've worked with has operated, even the old 1970s paired-mainframe-based system we had at the company when I first started here.

    We are a central control center though, the HQ for utility company as a whole, not an individual generation plant. So our system setup may indeed be very different from the individual plants we operate, so I can't speak for how the plants manage their DCS control systems directly. Our major SCADA upgrades though are on a yearly basis, unlike OS patches.

    I see a few people all replied to my air-gap comment, but I'm lazy and don't need to make three replies! ;) I didn't mean to imply it operated in a vaccuum, totally networkless. I merely meant air-gapped away from the Internet specifically. Communications between facilities is indeed vital, it's just that going the Internet route to achieve that is flat out "wrong" and really, I think should be completely banned, by regulation or otherwise.

    We do indeed have inter-facility communications all over the place, to all of our various power plants we operate and control, to all our individual substations, all that stuff. However, it's done via private networks. We have our own microwave communications system licensed throughout the state and probably 90% of our communications to our assets is via this. The rest is through dedicated leased lines. We also communicate realtime with the state's central control authority, and that's done via a private frame relay circuit that THEY actually had installed at our facility (along with their equipment) because they actually require this from all utilities under their authority, to communicate to them. They did it right, basically.