Slashdot Mirror


Flame Malware Authors Hit Self-Destruct

angry tapir writes "The creators of the Flame cyber-espionage threat ordered infected computers still under their control to download and execute a component designed to remove all traces of the malware and prevent forensic analysis. Flame has a built-in feature called SUICIDE that can be used to uninstall the malware from infected computers. However, late last week, Flame's creators decided to distribute a different self-removal module to infected computers that connected to servers still under their control."

77 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. SUICIDE not good enough... by reve_etrange · · Score: 5, Funny

    The article implies that the new module overwrites with random data instead of just deleting files. I guess the original authors didn't think of that one...government inefficiency in action I suppose.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
    1. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No need to wipe the files if no one knows they're there.

    2. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by cheater512 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It overwrites with random data THEN deletes.

      Makes it impossible to tell it was ever installed.
      Otherwise you could scan the disk for remnants to tell if a computer was infected in the past.

      Delete doesn't actually remove any data, just the filename and allocates it as free space.

    3. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The more I learn about Flame the more it amazes me.

      Arstechnica.com has more stories on it and how it worked through collision detection and much more. I am amazed yet worried as I am sure malware mobfia folks are using the source code with real NATO grade malware complete with forging certificates, turning zombies into proxy servers, and using the Md5 collision detection done by professional mathematicians.

      Worse Ubuntu and other operating systems can be hit by this as they use the same algorithms for the certificates. This piece of malware was just done through conventional 0 day exploits but rather a very sophisticated means of forging certificates and might have done the cyberworld much more harm.

    4. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by cheater512 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most certificates these days use SHA1 at the very least.

      This is not a issue for Linux anyway because Linux does not use certificates for code.
      Some do sign repositories, however those certificates are somewhat stronger.

      Remember, MD5 has been broken and deprecated for many years.

    5. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by blueg3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Journals are only so deep and, more importantly, only contain file metadata. You might, sometimes, be able to use them to determine that a file used to exist on a computer, but not what its contents were.

    6. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

      Journals are only so deep and, more importantly, only contain file metadata.

      True, but Volume shadow copy can retain past revisions of files for a considerable length of time. So can backup applications which store copies of files offline

    7. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Journals are only so deep and, more importantly, only contain file metadata.

      This is true for most installations, but not in general. Some journaling filesystems (including ext3 and ext4) let you write all data through the journal as well -- it guarantees data integrity as well as filesystem consistency.

      Obviously, if the journal is on the filesystem device (internal journal, or external journal on another partition of the same disk (but WTF would you do that)), it costs you half your write bandwidth, which is why it's rarely used (though it can boost performance on fsync-heavy workloads, because it reduces seeking), but it can be effective with an external journal, or if the data integrity is worth the performance loss.

    8. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      all true, which is why you keep multiple backups dating back months, right?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by catmistake · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The more I learn about Flame the more it amazes me.

      The more I learn about the whole cyberwar program the more I am impressed.

    10. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Many SSD's will write to empty blocks without erasing the original as the erase block size is much larger than the write block size. You don't want to have to read 15x more data and write it back just because you changed 16th of the erase block.

    11. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which brings up something I've been wondering about...is it even POSSIBLE to overwrite a file if its on an SSD? Sure its easy enough to do on a HDD without having to wipe the whole drive, but since the SSD basically "lies" to the OS about where the data is actually at so it can perform wear leveling is it even possible to overwrite just a few files on an SSD with random data, or would one have to format the whole thing?

      As for TFA just more proof it was written by a government and NOT a criminal, because a criminal would have been more likely just to wipe the whole drive just to be pricks. Lets face it when it comes to malware we have a lot more cases of the writers being pricks than we do of them being nice, so it just makes me think even more these new bugs are just government works for hire.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      As someone who works in the ITAD industry SSDs are causing an absolute shit-fit to put it lightly. No, it is not possibly to reliably overwrite any given file on an SSD. The obfuscation layer makes it impossible to do perform a true full overwrite and even harder to verify.

      Sadly even formatting the whole thing is ineffective if you want to be sure that 100% of data is overwritten. SSDs have 10-30% more blocks than they let on, and the drive chooses which ones it's telling you about. If you write one day and wipe another your guess is as good as mine where the data was saved, what the software tried to overwrite, and what any effort to verify is reading. All three could be different.

    13. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by Henk+Poley · · Score: 2, Informative

      A format is not enough. You have to do a ATA Secure Erase to be really sure. But, a format or full empty space overwrite should make sure somebody will have to disassemble the drive to actually get to the data remnants. Since the visible virtualized drive part will of course remain empty, else the 'contract' of storage would be broken.

    14. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by detritus. · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except when stuff like this comes out: http://freecode.com/articles/ubuntu-new-apt-packages-fix-security-vulnerabilities-3

      No one should dismiss the likelihood of rogus developers submitting changes to key components of popular distros like Ubuntu to exploit. Combined with a MITM attack, your Ubuntu system is owned. This is one reason I no longer use Ubuntu. This news also appeared on Slashdot, but it's mysteriously disappeared since then (this is where I originally heard about it).

    15. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right but the assumption has always been they don't vandalize their own bots because the owners would then discover they are part of a bot net. That does not hold if the bot net owner is already dismantling the network, I don't know what motivation they have to not nuke the hosts entirely to ensure there don't leave any finger prints.

      The only thing I can think of is they may be concerned that if a large percentage of the public has their machines trashed all at the same time Joe Sixpack of Pakistani mangoes might wake up and start taking computer security seriously. Which could make future bot nets harder to construct.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    16. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, yes - my Mac does it automatically.

    17. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by chrb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except when stuff like this comes out: http://freecode.com/articles/ubuntu-new-apt-packages-fix-security-vulnerabilities-3 [freecode.com]

      Ubuntu bug: Bug reported 22nd September and closed the same day.

      Microsoft bug: attacks on MD5 widely known and carried out since 2005, but Microsoft still carry on using it in Windows Update until 2012.

      No one should dismiss the likelihood of rogus developers submitting changes to key components of popular distros like Ubuntu to exploit. Combined with a MITM attack, your Ubuntu system is owned. This is one reason I no longer use Ubuntu.

      Do you have any evidence that this was the action of a rogue developer? By your logic, you must no longer use a computer, as the "rogue" developer issue is one that potentially affects all software.

    18. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But, a format or full empty space overwrite should make sure somebody will have to disassemble the drive to actually get to the data remnants

      That is almost certainly false. The vendor almost certainly has commands to let them retrieve the full data from the drive over the bus.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      Modern hard drives can do similar things though the probability is lower because they only do it as a fault recovery mechanism rather than as part of normal operation.

      Some drives (both HDD and SSD) have a built in secure erase function but you have to trust the drive manufacturer to have implemented it right.

      Bottom line if you have a modern storage device (whether solid state or spinning rust) and need to be absoloutely sure the data won't fall into enemy hands your only option is to reduce it to dust.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    20. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Please don't do that. you'd be surprised how many people out there can't afford a PC at all and how many guys there are like me that donate their time refurbing give aways from businesses so that those poor folks can have a PC. I have yet to see ANYONE recover squat from a spinning rust drive wiped with DoD-3, which is what I use on all donations, so please don't destroy the drives because with the price of HDDs still so high that just means that many more machines can't be refurbed to help the poor. Do a DoD-3 and then use whatever software you wish to try to recover but you won't find anything, then donate it, if you don't know about anyone like me your local churches or Freecycle will be glad to help.

      But so far if things continue as they have been frankly you won't have to give away that SSD, it'll already be dead before you get a chance. The amount of failures from SSDs is just insane, every one of my gamer customers that tried to switch ended going with the hybrids or raptors simply because of how quickly they die.

      But when it comes to HDDs please just do a DoD-3, there are folks out there that would look upon that old P4 or early dual as a real blessing, thanks.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    21. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That is almost certainly false. The vendor almost certainly has commands to let them retrieve the full data from the drive over the bus.

      Potentially this post is almost certainly informative.

    22. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by sir-gold · · Score: 2

      Even if you do destroy the drive, PLEASE leave the HD cage in the case! I hate getting computers from businesses that are missing both the HD AND the proprietary cage, especially when it's an entire pallet of computers and the PC manufacturer no longer stocks the cages.

    23. Re:SUICIDE not good enough... by magli · · Score: 2

      If they nuked the hosts entirely, they would reveal which hosts were infected. This would show who their targets were, and potentially shed light on who they are. It would also reveal what data they had managed to steel.

  2. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Something tells me that this wasn't designed by a teenager.

    1. Re:Interesting by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Something tells me that this wasn't designed by a teenager.

      There are a limited number of possible suspects. First off, not many parties have the means to create this. The consensus is that Flame is one of the largest and most advanced pieces of malware ever created- it's 20 megabytes of code- which strongly implies that it was developed by a nation with an advanced cyber-warfare capability. That list is pretty short, and would include countries like the United States, China, Russia, Israel, and North Korea.

      Second, let's look at the targets. The Flame malware hit Iran, Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, in that order. Roughly half of the infections are in Iran. So whoever created Flame is worried about the Middle East, but really, really worried about Iran. More worried about Iran than any other country. The Iran fixation suggests two possible suspects- Israel and the United States.

      The focus on Iran is consistent with Flame coming from the U.S., but Flame also targets several U.S. allies, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The other thing is, Flame doesn't target anything outside of the Middle East. If it was produced by the U.S., you'd expect Flame to be found in other countries- North Korea and Pakistan, for example- where the U.S. has security interests. But whoever created Flame doesn't really care what happens in North Korea or Pakistan. Whoever created Flame is primarily concerned with countries that are either enemies or potential enemies of Israel- Iran, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon. That strongly suggests Israel as the culprit.

    2. Re:Interesting by catmistake · · Score: 2

      Something tells me that this wasn't designed by a teenager.

      Arguably, yes it was. According to the NYT, it was designed under George Bush.

      That's not what the article says. It says Olympic Games began under George Bush's administration. The article doesn't say who developed Flame, only that forensic analysis is underway.

    3. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Second, since when is Pakistan not in the Middle East?

      Pakistan is in South Asia. Consider, for example, their membership in the SAARC.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asian_Association_for_Regional_Cooperation#Current_members

      They _want_ to be considered as a Middle East, or more accurately, an Arab country. There are "scholars" in Pakistan producing academic papers "proving" that Pakistanis are descended from Arabs. Not only does this ignore the complex interplay of ethnicities present in the Indian sub-continent, it is pure political revisionism to disown their shared ancestry with Indians, so that the creation of Pakistan on religious grounds gains justification.

      BTW, "Indian" subcontinent is also not a term preferred in Pakistani discourse. South Asia is more acceptable.

    4. Re:Interesting by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... because small groups of smart people can't create something complex? It's software, you don't need massive amounts of funding, all you need is a few smart people and some time.

    5. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Second, since when is Pakistan not in the Middle East?

      Pakistan has never been in the Middle East.

    6. Re:Interesting by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

      This "new" kind of malware has been dubbed (I think more accurately than most) crimeware

      I think Mobware is a more accurate description

      "Crime" can be mere petty crime

      But "Mob" is a total different animal altogether

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    7. Re:Interesting by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

      You need SEVERAL smart people and A LOT OF time. If they only work weekends for free, on something this massive and complex, your project will be finished in 15 years and be already obsolete.

      You have seriously underestimate the productivity of really really smart programmers

      It has been estimated that a very talented programmer is more effective than the output of 300 garden variety code monkeys combined

      And in my time I've in several occasions the privilege to work with some of the top brains of the programming field, and I can tell you that it has been such a blessing

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    8. Re:Interesting by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      also the 20mbyte claim is misleading, since it includes runtimes so that they could get away with coding less native code and more scripting..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it's written in a .NET language, 20mb is about the size of "Hello World!".

    10. Re:Interesting by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      it's 20 megabytes of code- which strongly implies that it was developed by a nation with an advanced cyber-warfare capability.

      The thing weighing in at 20 megs is not an achievement, rather its an embarrassment showing total lack of craft. Much of the code in this thing is not the malware itself either, its interpreters and support libraries to run it, and much of open source and otherwise stuff that serves other purposes. Its not an efficiently built thing at all.

      The only achievement here if there is one is somebody manged to deliver a payload that large, so often undetected and reliably. I agree it looks state sponsored to me, only government contractors could create a turd this large and still polish it enough that it mostly worked.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    11. Re:Interesting by cryptizard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually quite the opposite. It has been stated by antivirus folks that its large size and structure actually helped it hide for longer. AV software is used to viruses being super-optimized and obfuscated. Flame on the other hand looks like any other desktop application, complete with included runtimes.

    12. Re:Interesting by Cruciform · · Score: 2

      How about "WarioWare"?

  3. That explains it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    My mother was wondering why her computer suddenly was working so much better.

    Thanks dudes!

  4. Re:Nice try by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

    Er no, this is infected machines being remotely instructed to clean themselves up by the person controlling the "virus". It has nothing to do with you doing anything to your machine. They sent the virus an instruction, and the virus is removing all traces of itself from a machine.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  5. No AutoDestruct by bengoerz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In hindsite, perhaps the developers should have triggered suicide (at least of all non-critical components) whenever contact with the control servers could not be maintained. As it stands, there's still evidence of Flame sitting on disconnected machines.

    1. Re:No AutoDestruct by nanoflower · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All too true. I'm sure the authors will be taking that into account for their next version. Hopefully everyone will be on the lookout and catch it quicker than they did this one.

    2. Re:No AutoDestruct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That doesn't sound like a very effective worm. If they did it that way you could fix the infection with a pf rule.

    3. Re:No AutoDestruct by gman003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Imagine if everything had gone according to plan. They've gotten all the data they need, and have not been detected. They issue a self-destruct order, and bam. Nobody will ever know they were even there.

      Now, as for why they're doing it now, there's another reason. I imagine the target has figured out they're infected. But maybe they don't know every computer that was infected. And if the virus has self-destructed, they may never know for sure which machines were hit. Even if they actually *did* ID every machine, the fact that the creators did this may make them think they missed some.

    4. Re:No AutoDestruct by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If this is a real professional job I would not be surprised if it leaves some backdoors opened for another different piece of malware. It wouldn't surprise me if Cisco router rootkits exist. After all evidence points in China they are doing just this, as they did with Nortel routers with a backdoor.

    5. Re:No AutoDestruct by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The implication here, since the creators had to know security researchers already had the virus code, is that there is some module the researchers don't know about (which is actually highly probable, anyways, given the fact they wouldn't have unrestricted access to the targeted computers) and the creators wanted to eliminated the evidence. Most likely, that was the module that fulfilled Flame's main purpose, since researchers still aren't sure exactly what it does, which means now they might never know. It also helps that the targeted computers are (most likely) not infected anymore, so people can't even identify if they were ever hit.

      A secondary implication is that Flame has fulfilled it's purpose. Again, what that is, no one is exactly sure (espionage, certainly, but you don't create something this advanced without some specific target in mind) and wasn't worth maintaining anymore.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    6. Re:No AutoDestruct by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      If the blackhats can wipe all active instances of Flame in such a way that no one can tell it was ever there, AND they can do so before Flame is fully analyzed, then they only need to wait until some critical computers have to be restored from backups, where some backups are assuredly dirty with Flame. This way Flame has a better chance of coming back as undead malware.

      I rather suspect that whoever constructed Flame is also capable of arranging things so that certain computers will need to be restored from back ups.

      Cleansing backups is going to be costly. There will be fewer resources available to the teams that are developing the missile guidance systems and the nuclear detonation simulators.

      --
      Will
    7. Re:No AutoDestruct by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 2

      Alternatively, the fact that it was discovered may mean the current deployment was aborted and there will be (or already is) a new version of Flame to replace the old one.

    8. Re:No AutoDestruct by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      They're shutting down now because they have the data they need and they're erasing now to try to prevent the target from knowing they have been compromised.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. The bigger question. by multicoregeneral · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure, all this business with Flame is absolutely fascinating. But even more fascinating: why are European and American software companies doing business with Iran in the first place?

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:The bigger question. by Hamsterdan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a hunch money's involved...

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    2. Re:The bigger question. by TheEyes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why do companies outsource their factories to China? Why did AIG and several other companies leverage themselves to several times what they were worth?

      Birds gotta fly. Fish gotta swim. Pointy-haired bosses gotta sacrifice the future for a monetary bonus today.

    3. Re:The bigger question. by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know what's more interesting?

      Heckler und Koch GmbH and Rheinmetal AG have licensed factories in Iran. Iranian factories are cranking out G3s, MP5s, MG3s, all legally and for export. Not to mention the various Chinese/Russian small arms they manufacture (couldn't find out whether those were licensed or not).

      I think that, before they ban software companies from doing business in Iran, they should maybe think about banning the firearm companies. Just a thought.

    4. Re:The bigger question. by fullback · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because there is no legitimate reason to not do business. The relentless war mongering against fictional bogeymen is fascinating, too.

    5. Re:The bigger question. by kermidge · · Score: 2

      Nice catch.

      I recall reading some thirty years back that the last parties to lose money in a depression are cosmetics and booze; by examination and extrapolation they seem to do pretty well in good times as well.

      Arms merchants transcend that - there's always people wanting to mess over others, and other people wanting to defend themselves. I expect that given net and scope of profit and the realpolitik of weaponry, it's a no-lose proposition. Guns and bullets have no morals, nor, essentially, do their makers. True capitalism, true free markets. Funny, doesn't bring the prices down to stick an MP5 in the closet.

    6. Re:The bigger question. by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. Because iran has money.
      2. Because there are 70 million people in Iran, the vast majority of whom are not engaged in trying to kill americans or europeans.
      3. Because lots of people, especially in europe, believe that US sanctions are counter productive, and so don't have such sanctions.

      Also keep in mind there are lots of things that aren't barred from export to Iran, and lots of things are sold legally to other countries and then illegally re-exported to Iran. Most notably to qatar and bahrain, but other places as well.

    7. Re:The bigger question. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      why are European and American software companies doing business with Iran in the first place?

      Why not? How is it significantly different from Russia, or China, or Vietnam, or Saudi Arabia?

    8. Re:The bigger question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Heckler und Koch GmbH and Rheinmetal AG have licensed factories in Iran.

      Not quite correct: there were factories in Iran producing those weapons under license, since the early 1970s. Not H&K factories. The Iranians originally paid a royalty on each item produced.

      Are you also going to be indignant that Bell provided critical assistance in establishing the helicopter repair and production facility at Isfahan in the same period?

    9. Re:The bigger question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      ... or Israel?

    10. Re:The bigger question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Germany is Iran's largest trading partner as well.

      Say what you will about a culture of Holocaust related guilt (which has caused them to fund and build multiple nuclear missle subs for Israel), Germany has far less qualms about who it sells what to than any other country I've ever seen. They sell guns to Iran and subs to Isreal; tanks to Turkey and landing craft to Greece. If there's a conflict Germany is more than happy to supply both sides if there's profit to be made.

      Side note, I'm married to a German national, and happy that as fucked up as U.S. foreign policy is at least we've picked a side on our misguided war.

  7. Flame just gets more and more interesting by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only does Flame use a previously unknown MD5 chosen prefix attack, but now they are removing all traces of the software from machines under their control.

    Now, since security researchers already have copies of the software this isn't going stop anyone further deconstructing and analysing it. The only possible reason for doing this is to avoid discovery of infection somewhere particularly sensitive. I wonder who the lucky person or nation-state is?

  8. Yes, "Lucky" by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only possible reason for doing this is to avoid discovery of infection somewhere particularly sensitive.

    Or, to make everyone else stop looking.

    You know all of the installations received the same self-destruct command how again?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  9. That's it, I'm officially convinced by Voyager529 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The people who wrote Flame are the same fine ladies and gentlemen who have brought us CleanMyPC.com. Apparently their accountant is on vacation or something, because removing malware is generally a service that they charge for.

    1. Re:That's it, I'm officially convinced by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Dude the more you spam for it the higher the Google page ranking it gets. Out of curiosity I did a google search for malware and cleanPC was 4 out of the 5 links listed. Good god talk about SEO to the extreme

  10. The Other by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Funny

    maybe it self destructs when it can't find a LAN connection?

    Works for Diablo 3...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  11. Re:Nice try by griffjon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does it close the doors on the way out and patch the various exploits it used to get in to the system in the first place, or does it just leave the system ripe for future re-exploitation by the same or similar tools?

    In other news, over in Oz - the man who was behind the curtain is not only unimportant, but not there now, so please stop looking.

    --
    Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
  12. When your covert operation has made the news... by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... it is way too late to get rid of the evidence. I mean, really? Every malware researcher ever must now have a copy of the code.

    1. Re:When your covert operation has made the news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... it is way too late to get rid of the evidence. I mean, really? Every malware researcher ever must now have a copy of the code.

      The code, sure. But there is still value in hiding what data has been stolen. Destroying the evidence rather than deleting it in a recoverable way means that if a target realises they were infected they will have to assume that everything was taken. That's much worse than knowing exactly what was taken. Consider online store that keeps credit card details for a million users - the difference between knowing that 20 credit card details were leaked and merely knowing that you were infected could well be the difference between surviving as a company or not.

    2. Re:When your covert operation has made the news... by Arrepiadd · · Score: 2

      Sure, but who says the point was trying to avoid being discovered

      To me it sounds more like a method to avoid being detected where it hadn't been yet. Let's say the biggest bad ass in the neighborhood just got to know about Flame. As others have pointed, unless he backed up his computer, he will never be able to find out if he was infected. For whomever built this, I'd say this is very valuable.

  13. Best reason to hide this is 'Intelligence'. by arthurh3535 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As in those who were infected that lost important data can no longer know (for a surety) that their important data kept on their computer/server was compromised or not.

    "So our top-sekret 'eyes-only' data may or may not be compromised and they may know everything. But we don't know if they actually know anything about everything. So we can't trust anything that we've stored on a computer in the last year."

    Talk about your security nightmare situation for an Intelligence Agency of some acronym.

    --
    No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
  14. Re:Good thing, I guess... by shentino · · Score: 2

    Which is why it's sound engineering for a computer to have a bios loader burned into a rom chip that can reflash the bios.

  15. Re:In that order by Bevilr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have you bothered to read other articles on Flame? It's ability to record and gather information and transmit it back to C&C servers means that it's an excellent tool not just to do large government espionage, but also to listen in on individual conversations. As a tool in a fight against domestic terrorism, and counter espionage. I imagine it would be very effective, it's like a wiretap, without having to ask a judge for a wiretap. Infections in Israel/Palestine aren't broken down by Israel vs Palestine anywhere I've seen, which may mean that the vast majority are in Palestine. If that's true, it is another pretty large piece of evidence in favor of Israeli authorship.

  16. Re:In that order by sortadan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would you think that they wouldn't spy on their own people, especially with their relationship to the Palestinians? If anything, the fact that it's not showing up in the US would tend to prove the point that it was Israel. The US clearly isn't afraid to spy on it's own people.

  17. Re:In that order by slashmojo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By the same reasoning it could have been made by Iran..

  18. Coincidentally by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

    Download rate for MyCleanPC is up in Iran, Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

  19. Re:Goverment Crimeware? by slimjim8094 · · Score: 3

    It's an illegal activity, whether done by governments or by the mob.

    So if the government murders (we call it war) or kidnaps (we call it arrest), is it also illegal? I understand and sympathize with a lot of the "fuck da man" libertarianism around here, but nobody's ever seriously argued that the government shouldn't have more power to affect a person than the average person. The trade-off is all the accountability they're supposed to have. We don't let your neighbor tie you up and lock you in his house, but we let the police - if they can justify it.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  20. Re:SSD file deletion and overwriting by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This older article from slashdot points out the opposite problem.

    "They found that SSDs start wiping themselves within minutes after a quick format (or a file delete or full format) and can even do so when disconnected from a PC and rigged up to a hardware blocker."

  21. Strong evidence this is a state-run malware app. by conspirator23 · · Score: 2

    Despite being smart and thoughtful enough to put in a method to cover their tracks after discovery, they took way, WAY to long to pull the trigger and too much forensic data has already been determined. That's a failure of bureacracy. A more nimble organization would have flushed the damn thing before it could be slashdotted.