Synolocker 0-Day Ransomware Puts NAS Files At Risk

Deathlizard (115856) writes "Have a Synology NAS? Is it accessible to the internet? If it is, You might want to take it offline for a while. Synolocker is a 0-day ransomware that once installed, will encrypt all of the NAS's files and hold them for ransom just like Cryptolocker does for windows PC's. The Virus is currently exploiting an unknown vulnerability to spread. Synology is investigating the issue."

Comments

This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

not to connect your NAS directly to the internet.

Re:This is how we learn

[jonwil]

It should be attached to a network fire-walled off from the Internet and only accessible if you are on the local LAN.

Re:This is how we learn

[Thanshin]

If it was meant to be connected to the internet it would be called ASOTAS

Re:This is how we learn

[rikkards]

Kind of defeats the cloud feature on Synology NAS doesn't it? Granted you should have it firewalled off except for the specific port it needs.

Re:This is how we learn

[rikkards]

Oh also it can act as a firewall as well (not saying much for its capabilities though)

Re:This is how we learn

[spacefight]

What if the attack surface is the "port it needs"?

Re:This is how we learn

[SuricouRaven]

When did 'server full of hard drives' turn into 'cloud storage?'

The useful thing about the cloud is that no-one knows what it actually is, so any company is free to call their product cloud-based without contest.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

The firewall is a reasonable precaution I have already implemented. Although I don't have a Synology NAS, I do have an NAS that is attached to the internet because that's the point: I want to be able to access my files remotely from wherever I may be.

Re:This is how we learn

[jythie]

Well, by the original usage, a server full of drives would not be "cloud storage", but as with any new term that gets popular marketers use it to describe products that only kinda function a little like the new stuff.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard crunchy outer shell. soft chewy underbelly.

Nom-nom-nom-nom-nom! More tasty internal LAN's for *me*, as my rootkitted minion laptops wander into "secure" environments delivering my tasty minions to your unsecured internal network.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

"only accessible if you are on the local lan" covers people connected to said lan via a vpn.

Re:This is how we learn

[drinkypoo]

Kind of defeats the cloud feature on Synology NAS doesn't it?

It's called VPN. Learn it, live it, love it. Also, welcome to slashdot. You must need a welcome, because we know about VPNs here.

Re:This is how we learn

[FireFury03]

Well, by the original usage, a server full of drives would not be "cloud storage"

I want to dispute this - I had a server full of drives that I bought to be my "cloud storage". But when I tried to store my cloud in it, it started to leak out of the server. I ended up with a messy pool of water on the floor and a ruined server!

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

not to connect your NAS directly to the internet.

Especially the IPv6 guys want to connect everything directly to the Internet because NAT "is not a real firewall". So unfortunately we can't but expect more schoolboy mistakes like this in the future.

Re:This is how we learn

[ShaunC]

The useful thing about the cloud is that no-one knows what it actually is, so any company is free to call their product cloud-based without contest.

Reminds me of the quote about "big data" being like sex in high school. Nobody's really sure what it is, but everyone thinks that everyone else is doing it, so everyone says they're doing it, too.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of defeats the cloud feature on Synology NAS doesn't it? Granted you should have it firewalled off except for the specific port it needs.

That makes no difference, this is a remote exploit over the remote access port, which is trivially scannable. Synology are not telling anyone what the actual attack vector is (SSL hole again?), meanwhile their unsuspecting users do not know this is happening, as synology aren't even sending emails out to warn the registers users.

It's worth noting that not a single case has happened to DSM5, so the hole may well be fixed for those that upgraded from 4.x.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially the IPv6 guys want to connect everything directly to the Internet because NAT "is not a real firewall".

NAT *isn't* a firewall, just like RAID isn't a backup strategy. No one's recommending not having a separate firewall for their IPv6 boxes connected to the Internet. Go back and learn how networking works, son.

Re:This is how we learn

[AmiMoJo]

It basically runs a dynamic DNS client that lets you connect to your NAS away from home, via a web site. For this to work it must accept connections through your firewall, which it uses UPnP to set up.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

When did 'server full of hard drives' turn into 'cloud storage?'

When someone accessed it over the internet?

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us have better things to do with our time than tinker with computers and fuck with VPNs when we access our shit. Not all of us are sniveling little nerds.

Re:This is how we learn

[SpzToid]

Technology Students in Southern California and Florida have managed to achieve a breakthrough in cloud-storage. Imagine for a moment, if you could possibly harness the entire storage volume of The Cloud, and then increase that by a trillion-fold! That's exactly what these students have achieved by a technique having to do with their ability to create an environment with sustained, extremely cold temperatures over a lengthy period of time. Imagine all the clouds you could see across the Wyoming horizon, and then holding all of them in something a lot like an ordinary ice cube tray. That's the power of the cloud, where the lightening comes from(tm)!

However I'm still somewhat foggy as to how they implement it. I've even heard there's even a subgroup of those technology students that "likes to crush the cloud", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Now excuse me while I water that last patch of grass you're standing on please, using only cloud energy, of course as I'm write publicly on The Slashdots to be read worldwide and forever.

Re:This is how we learn

[saleenS281]

The problem is Synology advertises it as a replacement for your router/firewall as well. I always thought that was stupid. I mean, I get the draw of "only having one box", but I don't know why you'd ever directly expose your personal data to the internet that way.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

ah. then this is your last time reading /. , since that's the target audience. good riddance.

Re:This is how we learn

[mrchaotica]

That's the power of the cloud, where the lightening comes from(tm)!

For the love of $DIETY, enforce that trademark so no real company uses that catch phrase!

Re:This is how we learn

[hawkinspeter]

I always thought that "cloud" meant "on someone else's computer", so as long as you don't own the storage, it's "in the cloud".

Re:This is how we learn

[SpzToid]

As a working stiff seriously just trying to keep up with my rent, I'll ask the Slashdots, is this idea kickstarter worthy, because I can't actually finance the application myself at this time? As always, I'll set the default answer at NO. But oh so how I wish I was proven wrong, yet there's that cynicism kicking in again. Have a nice day y'all, and thanks for the complement, while I get back to bulking SSL certificates. Ho hum.

Re:This is how we learn

[SpzToid]

Sorry to reply to myself but I just got an idea. "That's the power of the cloud, where the lightening comes from, cubed!"

Re:This is how we learn

[Lazere]

Yep, I have to "fuck with VPNs" whenever I need to access my stuff. Hitting that "connect" button is really hard, you know.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Right but maybe they think of it like cell phones, you buy it, but they still consider it theirs to control, until it breaks, then it is yours to replace.

Re:This is how we learn

[s.petry]

Really? So we had "Cloud" back in 1984 when NFS was released?

Re:This is how we learn

[s.petry]

Pretty much a standard architecture decisions that people are making, then bothered by the predictable results.

Client < - > Server ( Firewall < - > Application Layer with authentication < - > NAS )

You can scale any of the 3 server side layers as needed, add encryption to the client or application layer, and have granular control.

The issue is really that people (E.G. CEO/CFO/Shareholders) don't want to "PAY" for a proper architecture. If you don't build it secure, don't bitch when the solution is not secure. If you don't build it to scale, don't bitch when the solution can not scale.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Then this is the wrong site for you it is only for stuff that matters.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, definitely not somebody else's internet. Unless of course, you want them to have access. I think connecting it to a wall socket is the real problem. And those guys who fill their NAS with hard drives are taking the biggest risk of all. Personally, I keep my raid volumes seperated. Some in the refridgerator of my vacation home and some in the toilet tank. (saves water on every flush) so i feel morally superior as well. Some people have criticised this solution as too limiting, to which I reply- Those that would sacrifice their libert for data, deserve neither. Believe me, I have been at this a long time. I warned them about moving away from modems and punch cards, but they laughed at me. Look who's laughig now!

Re:This is how we learn

[EvilJoker]

Is there a consumer-grade router that supports IPv6, and by default has a firewall enabled that's as effective as PAT?

While I realize NAT (PAT) isn't technically a firewall, it does provide much of the same security as one.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically enough, the Synology NAS has an OpenVPN package that can be installed to act as a SSL/TLS VPN server. Simple and easy

Re:This is how we learn

[benjymouse]

It should be attached to a network fire-walled off from the Internet and only accessible if you are on the local LAN.

But it is based on Linux, right? Why would it need to be fire-walled off from the Internet when so many Linux servers and appliances are on the Internet?

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd refute your nonsense but I have to get into my cloud-ready vehicle and get to work. We work in the cloud, so... *sniff*

Re:This is how we learn

[RatherBeAnonymous]

Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Cloud is. You have to see it for yourself.

Re: This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Dlink dir826 has a firewall for ipv6. Looks ok, but YMMV.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

The only ports a synology needs open are the VPN ports. You VPN in first, then do your cloud business.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this saves me from encrypting the files myself!

I've been looking up against that for a long time...

Thank you Synolocker!

Re:This is how we learn

[Applehu Akbar]

Are we sure this exploit only affects Synology users who have the web access feature turned on?

Re: This is how we learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it runs PHP.

Re:This is how we learn

[tepples]

Do all VPNs use the same protocol? Are implementations of all VPNs' protocols available at reasonable cost for all platforms?

Re:This is how we learn

[Lazere]

The simplest one is PPTP. Windows (at least the professional version) has a server for this. Set it up in the Windows network center and open the port on your router. Just about every OS out there (including Android and iOS) has a VPN client capable of PPTP. Point that to your external IP, put in the username and password, and you're off to the races. After that, all that information is saved and all you have to do is hit "connect". There are various other protocols with extra levels of security and difficulty, but PPTP will get you a basic VPN pretty quickly that will still be more secure than exposing a private NAS to the internet.

Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[heypete]

You do have backups, right?

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. But they are on another similar box connected to the internet of things which was crypted earlier.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Noughmad]

Backup? What do people usually use NAS for, I always thought it's mostly for ripped/torrented movies and backups of other computers. Neither of these need backups.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

They may have some unhappy customers right now; but 'NAS', in Synology's product lineup, includes a variety of devices that are aimed either at reasonably serious users or very serious pirates.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

Backup? What do people usually use NAS for, I always thought it's mostly for ripped/torrented movies and backups of other computers. Neither of these need backups.

Meh, if you ripped it you can rip it again (assuming you didn't get rid of the disc), if you torrented it you can torrent it again, if you backed up another machine onto it you can back it up again. Maybe it was about time you did another backup anyway. It'll be a load of hassle but not the end of the world unless you really wanted to keep older versions of things.

If it is the end of the world for some of your important files then maybe they should have been backed up again to a different machine/location. I thought that was standard in case your house burnt down/machine was nicked/crazy ex threw it out the window.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

They may have some unhappy customers right now; but 'NAS', in Synology's product lineup, includes a variety of devices that are aimed either at reasonably serious users or very serious pirates.

Translation: They have a built-in torrent client and FTP server. Therefore you can practically smell the salt water reeking from ye digital box.

I love how certain tools label people as scurvy dogs hell-bent on illegal activities.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Thanshin]

The deluxe edition comes with an eye-patch. They initially offered a parrot, but there where some shipment incidences*.

*: There's still some debate about the actual status of the parrots upon arrival. Synology insists on the parrots' being alive, but there have been customer reports on the parrots being: "passed on", "no more", "ceased", "expired and gone to meet it's maker", "a stiff", "Bereft of life", "resting in peace", among others.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Dutch Gun]

My Synology NAS is my home-based business' file server, a local machine backup (for my development machine and my digital audio workstation), and a media server for my ripped DVDs and Blurays, although this third function is just a nice bonus for me. Synology NAS devices have a very handy cloud backup application as well, which I use to backup all my most critical files to Amazon S3 services. I hope most people made use of this, because if Cryptolocker has taught us anything, it's that you absolutely need offsite backups that are NOT connected to your network.

I bought it specifically because it makes it easy to set up a multi-tiered backup strategy like that - something that takes on new importance when you spend a few years writing code on your own dime. As a file server, it's fantastic for small operations. I had a drive begin to fail last year, and so had a chance to test out the hot-swapping / RAID rebuilding feature. Worked like a charm - was super simple and zero down-time.

Personally, I've never once considered opening up my NAS to the outside internet. That always seemed crazy risky to me - after all, a single software mistake, a buffer overrun in a protocol stack of some sort, and *poof*, there's direct access to your file server and all it's critical data. I guess sometimes being paranoid pays off, but it gives me no pleasure to say so.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Quite the opposite. Being satisfied with the built in bittorrent clients, or FTP in general, suggests somewhat casual activity; but if you are buying your piracy gear based on its support for lots of iSCSI LUNs, 10GbE, and availability of rackmount expansion enclosures with redundant power supplies I would say that you are pretty serious about it...

I don't know how successful they've been in terms of market share; but their pitch for most of the 'rackstation' line suggests that they are hoping for relatively demanding applications by the standards that 'NAS' has historically evoked.

Re: Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a superposition...

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Presumably you'd update your gear. This was patched last fscking year!

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[neoform]

Synology's NAS OS has a nice built in BT client with built in search that goes to all your favorite sites.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[TerryC101]

I didn't think it was known yet if it was the same attack vector.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Chris Mattern]

Synology now insists that this in fact reflective of their move to quantum computing technology, and that the parrot is both alive and dead.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

Synology NAS devices have a very handy cloud backup application as well, which I use to backup all my most critical files to Amazon S3 services.

Personally, I've never once considered opening up my NAS to the outside internet. That always seemed crazy risky to me - after all, a single software mistake, a buffer overrun in a protocol stack of some sort, and *poof*, there's direct access to your file server and all it's critical data.

...kinda like putting it up in the cloud does.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[TyFoN]

The NAS OS is linux and the BT client is just transmission with a web interface.

But it is nicely put together :)

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[pnutjam]

Backups need backups too. Your data isn't safe unless there are 3 copies, working, backup, archive (minimum), one should be offline.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

They may have some unhappy customers right now; but 'NAS', in Synology's product lineup, includes a variety of devices that are aimed either at reasonably serious users or very serious pirates.

Let's be honest, it doesn't take very many BR Rips to come out ahead on a $500 NAS, unless you are comparing it to RedBox.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

The deluxe edition comes with an eye-patch. They initially offered a parrot, but there where some shipment incidences*.

*: There's still some debate about the actual status of the parrots upon arrival. Synology insists on the parrots' being alive, but there have been customer reports on the parrots being: "passed on", "no more", "ceased", "expired and gone to meet it's maker", "a stiff", "Bereft of life", "resting in peace", among others.

Synology is right, the parrots were definitely alive up until the box was opened by the recipient. The catch is that they were also definitely dead.

Sincerely,
Erwin Schrodinger

Re: Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[maroberts]

No I think it was a Norwegian Blue, but I'm not sure we can af-fjord any more references to that sort of thing

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Noughmad]

Backups need backups too. Your data isn't safe unless there are backups all the way down.

But seriously, having two copies is enough most of the time, provided they are somewhat separate (i.e. not on two identical, connected NAS machines).

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[saleenS281]

S3? Yuck. Their pricing is horrendous. I'd suggest crashplan.

http://www.code42.com/crashplan/
http://forum.synology.com/wiki/index.php/CrashPlan_Headless_Client

Although the synology forums are currently getting destroyed (guessing from this article).

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a great case against using Linux :)

Third parties can put together a poor OS distro, and leave it so full of holes that this can happen. Should have used FreeNAS :)

Seriously speaking though, this happened because it was obviously able to run a binary on the device itself, so that means there's some obvious security hole (telnet open?)

Recently I found video files (torrents) that have a filenames designed to hide the .exe in them so they look like AVI files. If you're not paying attention you'll accidentally run them (they have the VLC icon) and they aren't picked up by ANY antivirus package. I submitted samples to at least one AV vendor.

In two different payloads, it uses a exe-compiled AutoIT macro to decrypt the video file, so someone not paying attention will not realize what is happening until maybe they finished watching the video. Someone who is paying attention would realize that it's a executable binary, not a normal video because you can't "play in VLC"

When it runs, it attempts to download and launch various malware shit. One of the payloads is a bitcoin miner, another is an unknown payload because it failed to run inside the sandbox, and I'm not stupidly running things with administrative permission levels.

None the less, this malware explicitly targeted people who download torrents. The first clue that it's malware is that it's a video file wrapped in a rar file. If you open the rar file with 7zip and not winrar, you'll see the filename end with ".exe -.avi" using some character that mimics a backspace or something. If you try to rename the file, you'll see the real extension.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

I ordered that deluxe edition once, but I had to RMA it. The parrot was DOA.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does CrashPlan have virtual servers with rsync capability? If not, it could be free but it would be worthless for serious backup tasks.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[saleenS281]

I think you're lost. This thread is about integrated synology backups; not rsync, not virtual servers. Please move along.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Arguably, 'should have used FreeNAS' is close to the BSD equivalent of 'should have used debian'. Probably good advice, unless you prefer the nas4free fork; but not closely related to the OS used.

(That said, I'm always a bit surprised at how many awful embedded firmwares are elderly-linux-with-dubious-GPL-compliance rather than BSD. It's not as though putting a dangerously awful proprietary web interface and lighthttpd on one is all that different from doing so on the other. I can only assume that the ones hacking together the BSPs for today's cheap embedded boards support linux better.)

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This is quite true; but I suspect that trying to get .6 bitcoins out of somebody for some files that they can re-download is going to be harder than doing the same for the smallish business customers who are presumably the target for their $1000-and-up devices.

Network attached storage is all kinds of convenient; but if you are the attacker, and building a vendor-specific ransom package, it needs to be a vendor who sells enough devices that store important files, particularly ones that aren't just backups of somebody's PC, to get people to pay the ransom.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[rahvin112]

You do realize that for the S3 backup to work Synology or the NAS (and the NAS has you Synology login info) has your login information for S3, and that if this thing is owning the NAS there is a pretty damn good chance the malware has owned your S3 instance as well right? The only way it wouldn't is if the S3 backup is totally manual.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Dutch Gun]

That's actually a very good point. The S3 backup is completely automated which means, of course, that everything the malware would need to screw with your S3 (or other) account is right there for the taking - the keys have to be local and accessible. Granted, we haven't heard any confirmation of this malware having those sorts of capabilities, but we've seen incredibly sophisticated banking trojans out in the wild that do things that are far more sophisticated.

Damn. Well, all the more reason to stay patched up, and to avoid exposing any more of an attack surface to the internet than you absolutely need to. Fortunately, the way my local network is set up, it's pretty much impossible for a single trojan to access all of the redundant copies of my critical files, since the multiple workstations all sync to a Mercurial repository on the NAS, and none of those workstations share their drives, providing some degree of protection from potential malware on the other machines in the network. I guess you can never really have too many backups.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think maybe you are lost. rsync is one of the primary ways Synology boxes talk to each other. It's a reasonable question, and I was hoping to see a real answer.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[heypete]

You do realize that for the S3 backup to work Synology or the NAS (and the NAS has you Synology login info) has your login information for S3, and that if this thing is owning the NAS there is a pretty damn good chance the malware has owned your S3 instance as well right? The only way it wouldn't is if the S3 backup is totally manual.

Amazon has a very extensive authentication system -- you can easily configure the Synology with an S3 access key that only has "List Files" and "Upload Files" permissions, but not "Delete Files" or "Overwrite Files". This way, even if the Synology box gets owned or a user fat-fingers something, the files on S3 aren't at risk. You don't (and shouldn't) need to use your AWS root access keys for S3.

I have a similar setup with Amazon's Glacier: my standard access key has only list, upload, and retrieve permissions. A separate access key is required to delete files (I've configured my Glacier client, FastGlacier, to prompt me for a password when I switch to the "delete" key) so that I don't accidentally end up deleting important backups.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[rahvin112]

If the keys are stored on the box in any way then they are compromised because the box is. The synology box is rooted, any information stored on that box is compromised. If for example your root key for S3 is backed up on the NAS then it's compromised.

People are glossing over this, if the box is rooted everything it knows and stores is compromised, that's how people need to be analyzing this instead of blowing it off as no big deal.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[heypete]

If the keys are stored on the box in any way then they are compromised because the box is. The synology box is rooted, any information stored on that box is compromised. If for example your root key for S3 is backed up on the NAS then it's compromised.

Agreed. That's why you shouldn't use the root S3 access key for anything (in fact, don't generate one at all). Use service-limited, least-access keys for AWS accounts: there's no reason a NAS should have an access key capable of creating EC2 instances. It should have list+write access only to S3 (and/or Glacier). If users want to delete files from S3, they should have to log in with a different user (perhaps to the AWS console) and specifically do that.

Amazon provides good options in this regard, and it's too bad if users aren't taking advantage of them.

People are glossing over this, if the box is rooted everything it knows and stores is compromised, that's how people need to be analyzing this instead of blowing it off as no big deal.

In this specific case, the malware does not seem to want to steal user data, only to encrypt it and ransom it back to users. Sure, it could steal data, but it doesn't seem to do so. It's a big deal to those who are unprepared and don't have proper backups, but it could definitely be worse.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[saleenS281]

It's not a reasonable question, because it's not the topic at hand. If you want a virtual machine running linux, go get a virtual machine running linux. This is about backup services. Synology S3 integration isn't a VM on amazon with rsync, it's Synology making native S3 api calls.

No, crashplan isn't a vm running linux with rsync, it's a backup service. If you bothered to spend 30 seconds clicking on either link, you'd have seen that. Instead you started babbling about "serious backups" using rsync which is completely and utterly inferior to the crashplan or s3 option for 99%+ of Synology's target market.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never worked in a technical capacity anywhere. You should ALWAYS have safe backups.

Re:Nuke it from orbit, then restore from backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you should always have at least one that is only connected when performing a backup and the rest of the time sitting in a safe, hence the term "safe backup". If your only backup is a live NAS, then you're doing it wrong.

Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

because all my files are encrypted. I can see the list of files, but it only makes me want to puke. I am fucked, screwed, and borked, all at once. Thanks Syno. Damn Chinese software! Never again. They can make cheap hardware but they can't make software worth ... my files! All my pretty files. Gone.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being a tight arse and pay the ransom!

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't you pay the ransom with a credit card, and then stop payment or dispute it once you have successfully retrieved the unlock key? Oh, and don't buy insecure *nix based solution to start with would be a good idea.

Re:Nothing to see here

[hawkinspeter]

Why don't you just restore from your offsite backup?

Re:Nothing to see here

[tepples]

Why don't you just restore from your offsite backup?

Airfare would probably be just as expensive.

"Investagating"?

[fnj]

Really?

Re:"Investagating"?

[wonkey_monkey]

A've encrypted all the farst As (the nanth letter of the alphabet) an each word on Slashdot (except an sags). You must pay me sax mallion dollars to get them back.

Re:"Investagating"?

[Thanshin]

Well, they need gates. And gates aren't free.

Re:"Investagating"?

[wonkey_monkey]

Goddammit. There are three Is in "investigating."

*palmface*

Re:"Investagating"?

[Anonymous Coward]

But there is no "I" in teamwork!!!!

That's because when managers start spouting that nonsense, "I" get out very, very fast.

Re:"Investagating"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Contraction of "investigate" and "stagnate".

Re:"Investagating"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent "+1 halaraous!"

RTFS

[hoboroadie]

Amazing! Somebody is paying attention.

Interesting

[rebelwarlock]

So between TOR and bitcoin, they think they finally have a viable method of collecting on ransomware. Also, I found it interesting that they're asking specifically for 0.6BTC - that is, double what Cryptolocker is asking. I wonder if there's an intentional correlation there.

Re:Interesting

[GNious]

My bit of pondering is whether that 0.6btc can be tracked/identified at companies handling bitcoins, and especially at companies converting between btc and real money?

Could you basically get the police (Europol/Interpol?) involved, and when a company reports that a user is trying to use/convert the btc you paid with, have that user charged with ransoming data, or taking stolen goods (i.e. either as the original thief, or as a fence)?

If the 0.6btc is acquired by the person via a laundry-service, charge him/her with engaging in activities meant to conceal the original crime?

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes people have their documents and other valuable files tucked away in a encrypted container file, offline hard drives and such. They might notice something went horribly wrong and correctly decide not to mount/plugin their hard drives on that computer.

Here? You're exploiting a device that's used to store and share large amount of data. The chance that your going to encrypt something very dear to them goes up, and you can bet your ass that they will pay whatever you ask for. Within reason of course.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get a clueless mule to buy moneypaks for you.

Thats it.

You get the wrong guy, they get their money.

Re:Interesting

[Xenna]

That's what I was thinking.

Now this is just data, but what if this kind of thing gets used for real ransom demands?
Like kidnapping someone's child and demanding ransom in bitcoin.
Is it feasible that one could get away with that?

Wouldn't that be the death of TOR and bitcoin?
I mean I'm all for privacy but not if it facilitates kidnapping.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean I'm all for privacy but not if it facilitates kidnapping.

TOR or other tor-like services, and bitcoin or equivalents will *always* be possible on any general purpose network like the internet. So it is the internet that facilitates kidnapping, shutting down TOR would just shift anonymous traffic to another similar service, same with bitcoin. So logically you must think the entire Internet should be shut down, it's the only way to stop anonymous kidnappers collecting ransoms.

Also, giving up all your privacy will always potentially help crime solving, so we should all give up all of our privacy to reduce crime. Cameras in every private room will certainly deter crime, probably at least half of all crimes happen in these places.

In other words, you're a moron.

Re:Interesting

[radarskiy]

Clearly, ransoms are Veblen goods.

Re:Interesting

[TangoMargarine]

Wasn't the whole objective of Bitcoin to create a system where you *couldn't* do that?

Re:Interesting

[GNious]

Bitcoins must, as far as I can tell, have something that identifies them; at the very least, you need to be sure that only 1 person mined a given coin (solved a given mathematical challenge), to avoid endless, easily mined coins.

Am starting to think one should investigate the possibility of making a blacklist of coins known to be acquired via illegal methods.

Re:Interesting

[TangoMargarine]

Rereading your post, it looks like you weren't implying the link between a person and a bitcoin userid like I thought. But still, part of the value of bitcoins is that there is no central authority to revoke your currency. Hence the use in black market applications etc.

Well, until that one group that has 50%+1 of the coins decides it wants to become that authority, I suppose.

Re:Worlds smartest liberal!

[Anonymous Coward]

200% Offtopic
Not only this post is offtopic relative to the the news, it's also offtopic relative to itself (guy loses money at a carnival game -> blah blah Obama). Nice one.

"Synology is investagating"

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it. Is it really.

'Investigating', not 'investAgating'. American cretins.

Open-source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the firmware that was hacked open-source?

"Open source projects that are included with Synology DiskStation/RackStation series."
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dsgpl/

Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

This shows that users should switch from windows to Linux because Linux is more secure.

Oh wait...

Re:Windows

[hawkinspeter]

I don't think many manufacturers made network equipment that ran on Windows, so it's not that useful to compare their relative security in this instance. Also, "more secure" is not a synonym of "perfectly secure". You may also note that this ransomware targets an older firmware that has since been patched.

Re: Us with Ebola

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU Troll

Cheeky bastards

[CurryCamel]

From TFA: the message that pops up to the victims ends with:

Copyright 2014 SynoLocker(TM) All Rights Reserved.

I have a real hard time respecting that copyright...

Re:Cheeky bastards

[drinkypoo]

I have a real hard time respecting that copyright...

And yet you are still required by law to respect it, even though the act of creating and disseminating that code is illegal.

Re:Cheeky bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting how the whole ransom page is crafted to look like it's some kind of legitimate step of being a Synology customer. No flaming skulls or "lolz you have been pwned" text. Just perform this little Bitcoin payment to keep your system running. Some suckers might just think "oh, okay, I guess this is part of the deal then".

Update from Synology-sec issue patched 12/2013

[bhoar]

Updated posted 8/5/2014 by Jeremie on the English language Synology Forum: [We’d like to provide a brief update regarding the recent ransomware called “SynoLocker,” which is currently affecting certain Synology NAS servers. Based on our current observations, this issue only affects Synology NAS servers running some older versions of DSM (DSM 4.3-3810 or earlier), by exploiting a security vulnerability that was fixed and patched in December, 2013. At present, we have not observed this vulnerability in DSM 5.0.]

Re:Update from Synology-sec issue patched 12/2013

[Anonymous Coward]

That post is at http://forum.synology.com/enu/...

Beyond the quoted text, note that this also gives instructions on how to update the DSM software. Rough steps:

1. Start Synology Assistant (may be able to bypass this with other connection methods).
2. Select your DiskStation and click the Connect button.
3. Go to Control Panel and select DSM Update.
4. Tell it to Download and then Install the latest software.
5. Wait up to twenty minutes while it installs.

Unlike a desktop OS, browser, or other software, the DiskStation does not normally remind you to do this. You have to check manually.

If you don't want to install the latest software, it looks like you can get older versions from http://www.synology.com/suppor... (requires Javascript).

Incidentally, my DiskStation was still running the older software, which came installed on it. Shouldn't security updates get installed automatically for most people? I get that some want full control but shouldn't the default be to auto-install?

Re:Update from Synology-sec issue patched 12/2013

[Anonymous Coward]

Updated posted 8/5/2014 by Jeremie on the English language Synology Forum:

[We’d like to provide a brief update regarding the recent ransomware called “SynoLocker,” which is currently affecting certain Synology NAS servers.

Based on our current observations, this issue only affects Synology NAS servers running some older versions of DSM (DSM 4.3-3810 or earlier), by exploiting a security vulnerability that was fixed and patched in December, 2013. At present, we have not observed this vulnerability in DSM 5.0.]

There is a screenshot on the synology forums showing the hostage message on a DSM 5.0 background. Based on this I'd say Synology are talking crap and haven't a clue what's going on. I'd also say based on my experience of their support generally, they're talking crap and haven't a clue what's going on. So no change there.

I

Re:Update from Synology-sec issue patched 12/2013

[bhoar]

Theory is that the DSM 5.0 looking background is a background image snapshot and what is displayed is a simpler webpage with just the countdown timer and links. Why program the payload as an actual DSM module when you can just put a much simpler webpage in place? Synology appears to think similarly, as they say one of the symptoms is that you didn't upgrade to 5.0 but the background looks like 5.0.

Re:Update from Synology-sec issue patched 12/2013

[Anonymous Coward]

Also hopefully you have a newer version of the hardware. They EOL'd a bunch last year and people were not happy. In other words they get 4.0 and thats it. Think mine EOLs in 2 years.

I get that some want full control but shouldn't the default be to auto-install?
The upgrades have been haphazard from synology. They usually take 1-3 patches before they fix everything. Also sometimes they tell it to do 'scrubbing'. Which then has the effect of overheating the drives. Then people lose their data and blame the patch. Many have got stuck also in the 'indexing' issue. The cpu goes to 100% and then sits there digging thru the files doing something (no one is really sure).

I usually wait a couple of weeks then patch. I have seen too many people on their forums lose their entire array. I do not feel like restoring that much data any time soon.

They are also using a 2.6.30ish kernel. You know from about 3-4 years ago... So all those ext4 updates have not been put in there. When I saw that I thought do not think I will be using the openssh tool they put into this thing. Maybe on my router where rmerlin and asus have been keeping it up to date...

But for a plug and play nas they are way cool... Use mine everyday.

Re:Update from Synology-sec issue patched 12/2013

[bhoar]

Hmm, reading more, I think I'm fully or partly wrong about what's going on with the background, since synology states in the updated post that the symptom is that you were running 4.3 or earlier, but now you've got the extortion message and DSM reports it is 5.0. Apologies for posting that last message before I knew what I was talking about.

Re:Update from Synology-sec issue patched 12/2013

[MachDelta]

[quote]Unlike a desktop OS, browser, or other software, the DiskStation does not normally remind you to do this. You have to check manually.[/quote]
It's trivially easy to set up a Synology NAS to email/sms/skype/etc you about both OS and package upgrades being available, at least on the versions of DSM I've used.

Re:Update from Synology-sec issue patched 12/2013

[Arkh89]

Unlike a desktop OS, browser, or other software, the DiskStation does not normally remind you to do this.

My NAS on DSM 5 popups the update window shortly after connecting if a new update is available...

What a load of FUD!

[randomhacks]

This article is complete FUD. According to Synology "this issue only affects Synology NAS servers running some older versions of DSM (DSM 4.3-3810 or earlier), by exploiting a security vulnerability that was fixed and patched in December, 2013." Like any operating system - if you don't patch it then you it will be probably be vunerable to hacking. Just upgrade to the lastest version. As you were.

Re:What a load of FUD!

[Fringe]

That's not entirely fair. That's still a pretty recent version - if you purchase from Amazon or NewEgg you have a good bet of getting it even on an x14 model, and certainly will get that or older on any other model - and there's no "Automatic Update" mechanism on Synology systems. Plus they're essentially storage appliances; users aren't expected to log into and manage them frequently. And the feature that seems to put people at risk is a selling point of the device.

I'm not bashing Synology; I have two Syns running in my system (both current, both firewalled, neither has the rumored susceptible port open, neither infected.) But you're not spending enough time around regular people if you think people expect to be logging into the admin screen of their external hard drive - or their fridge, toaster oven or coffee maker - frequently to check for updates. ;)

Re:What a load of FUD!

[h2okies]

There is however the constant Nag from Synology to upgrade to the latest versions that system automatically kicks out to you along with the emails they send about the current patches that they recommend you apply to your system. No one auto-patchs NAS devices as bad things can happen to peoples data.

Re:What a load of FUD!

[Dutch Gun]

A NAS device is not a toaster. It's a file server running a lightweight but fully-featured operating system. You don't need to be a professional network administrator, but you do need to be careful enough to at least check in regularly for updates. One presumes such hardware was purchased because you had valuable data you wished to manage or protect. Honestly, a NAS is really not a purchase for "normal" people. Power-users and up, I'd say, are the minimum personnel requirements.

Even so, Synology machines are not hard to patch. They download OS updates automatically by default. All you have to do is log in via the administration page once in a while and click the "update" button, since it pops up right on the page after it sees you have an update to install. And every update has a link right next to it that points to a web page detailing exactly what changed or what was fixed. I'd suppose the reason there's no "auto-update" is because an update requires a 5-10 minute patch and reboot cycle, and you generally don't want your file server automatically rebooting at it's own convenience.

I'm presuming (since information is a bit scarce) that users either failed to patch their machines for six months or longer due to neglect, or they made a deliberate choice not to do so for some reason, yet kept their internet-facing services wide open (note that these are not installed or enabled by default). Unfortunately, that's pretty much a guaranteed recipe for an attack of this sort. It's a crappy way to have to learn a lesson.

Re:What a load of FUD!

[SuiteSisterMary]

and there's no "Automatic Update" mechanism on Synology systems.

Mine nags me every time there's an update released. There's no unattended update option, but that makes sense for a NAS.

Re:What a load of FUD!

[Just Some Guy]

That's still a pretty recent version - if you purchase from Amazon or NewEgg you have a good bet of getting it even on an x14 model, and certainly will get that or older on any other model - and there's no "Automatic Update" mechanism on Synology systems. [...]

I'm not bashing Synology; I have two Syns running in my system

I'm having a hard time reconciling those statements because it doesn't match my experience at all. First, it's my understanding that all Synologys come "bare" and you have to download and install the OS when you first power them on. My DS412+ that I bought a couple of months ago certainly did. It's initial boot gave me a web page with instructions for downloading and installing the most recent OS version.

Second, Synologys don't automatically reboot themselves, but can easily be configured (as in truly easily, right through the settings UI) configured to email you every time a new OS comes out. Perhaps that should be required, though, before allowing you to enable external services.

Re:What a load of FUD!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you configure SMTP it'll mail you when updates are available (downloaded or not).

Re:What a load of FUD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, needing users perform steps no matter how simply is not viable when it comes to security in this day and age. There needs to be an option to install security updates automatically, without user interaction at all.

Not a Zero Day

[JamieKitson]

There is no mention in the article of this being a zero day vulnerability, in fact the article specifically says "it’s not clear yet how SynoLocker’s operators installed the malware".

As others have said Synology is reporting the vulnerability was patched in December. Hardly a zero day.

/.ed

[simplypeachy]

Forum post so far:

Hello Everyone,

We’d like to provide a brief update regarding the recent ransomware called “SynoLocker,” which is currently affecting certain Synology NAS servers.

Based on our current observations, this issue only affects Synology NAS servers running some older versions of DSM (DSM 4.3-3810 or earlier), by exploiting a security vulnerability that was fixed and patched in December, 2013. At present, we have not observed this vulnerability in DSM 5.0.

For Synology NAS servers running DSM 4.3-3810 or earlier, and if users encounter any of the below symptoms, we recommend they shut down their system and contact our technical support team here: https://myds.synology.com/supp....

-When attempting to log in to DSM, a screen appears informing users that data has been encrypted and a fee is required to unlock data.
-A process called “synosync” is running in Resource Monitor.
-DSM 4.3-3810 or earlier is installed, but the system says the latest version is installed at Control Panel > DSM Update.

For users who have not encountered any of the symptoms stated above, we highly recommend downloading and installing DSM 5.0, or any version below:
-For DSM 4.3, please install DSM 4.3-3827 or later
-For DSM 4.1 or DSM 4.2, please install DSM 4.2-3243 or later
-For DSM 4.0, please install DSM 4.0-2259 or later

DSM can be updated by going to Control Panel > DSM Update. Users can also manually download and install the latest version from our Download Center here: http://www.synology.com/suppor....

If users notice any strange behavior or suspect their Synology NAS server has been affected by the above issue, we encourage them to contact us at security@synology.com.

Apologies for any problems or inconvenience caused. We will keep you updated with latest information as we address this issue.

Re:/.ed

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you.

Article needs a rewite, simple, yet just the same.

[Trax3001BBS]

As for the article...

First part says "According to the user, there’s a small window of opportunity to minimise the damage. That is, if you can backup files faster than the program encrypts them."

Then buried where many don't wonder (towards the end, it mentions "1) Power off the DiskStation immediately to avoid more files being encrypted"

I would think the wise thing would be to exchange the location of the two sentences. least you have some would be hero actually try to find where to start saving at.

If you know you need a NAS, why buy it?

[Gothmolly]

There's plenty of free options out there, if you really need that much storage, you need to care how it works and how well.

Re:If you know you need a NAS, why buy it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to nerd-out all day long at work. When I come home, I'm tired. As I've gotten older, I have more non-nerd responsibilities (home, family) that require my time, rather than tinkering with hardware assembly. I *do* know enough to understand what NAS is, that RAID is not a backup, etc. So I did research and chose a solution. Frankly with digital media becoming ubiquitous, 'that much storage' really isn't that much any more. Without resorting to torrents, pirating, or anything else, simply do the math: rip all your dvds to iso's (figure 8gb each) -- that means you retain special features, menuing etc., and rip all your CDs at a high bit rate (figure maybe 200mb each). ta-da. 'that much storage'.

Old fogies have a large number of dvds and cds.

Re:If you know you need a NAS, why buy it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Says somebody who doesn't own their home or have children. Ain't nobody got time for that shit any more. The days of having time to meticulously catalog your CD/DVD collection, organize photos, write rsync backup scripts, scan all of your documents, have LAN parties ... all gone.

Re:If you know you need a NAS, why buy it?

[Strider-]

There's plenty of free options out there, if you really need that much storage, you need to care how it works and how well.

Sure, but the free options generally don't come in something the size of a shoe-box, with nearly silent fans, and 8 hot-swappable drive bays. Besides, as others have said, I've got better thigns to do with my time than futz around with mass storage.

Re:If you know you need a NAS, why buy it?

[Just Some Guy]

It has a huge Wife Acceptance Factor, for one. We have iPhone apps that let you select any of the movies I've ripped onto it and play them back directly to our Apple TV (or any of another of settop boxes). Throw music onto it and the songs show up in iTunes for people on our LAN. Save a file to a certain folder on our laptop home directories and it gets synced to the NAS (ala Dropbox), made available on our iPads, then backed up to Amazon Glacier.

In short, it does everything you'd ever want a NAS to do but smoothly and nicely. My DS412+ replaced the FreeBSD system I'd assembled and installed from scratch, because there's other stuff I'd rather be doing and because I couldn't possibly make the experience as pleasant as Synology has.

Oh! NAS files, not NSA files

[MikeTheGreat]

I misread this as

Synolocker 0-Day Ransomware Puts NSA Files At Risk

That would have been a much more interesting article to read, methinks :)

Re:Oh! NAS files, not NSA files

[I_Lost_My_Puppy]

Damn, moderation fail

Synology history of security vulnerabilities

[zerofoo]

A while back synology had a problem with unauthorized bitcoin miners running on their devices:

http://www.cvedetails.com/vuln...

There seems to be a culture of fast and loose with regards to software development at Synology.

I love my Synology NAS, but you have to be nuts to put these things on the internet.

the VIRUS... what?!

[cciRRus]

The Virus is currently exploiting an unknown vulnerability to spread.

Are all the security geeks busy at Blackhat such that nobody realized this mistake?

Dyslexia makes things more interesting

[r_jensen11]

Here I was, reading the headline as:

Synolocker 0-Day Ransomware Puts NSA Files At Risk

If only....

this is not a 0-day attack

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2013-6955/
what we learned is always to check the latest OS version and upgrade to it!