USB Trojan Hides In Portable Applications, Targets Air-Gapped Systems
Reader itwbennett writes: A Trojan program, dubbed USB Thief by researchers at security firm ESET, infects USB drives that contain portable installations of popular applications such as Firefox, NotePad++, or TrueCrypt, and it also seems to be designed to steal information from so-called air-gapped computers. "In the case we analyzed, it was configured to steal all data files such as images or documents, the whole windows registry tree (HKCU), file lists from all of the drives, and information gathered using an imported open-source application called 'WinAudit'," the ESET researchers said. The stolen data was saved back to the USB drive and was encrypted using elliptic curve cryptography. Once the USB drive was removed, there was no evidence left on the computer, the ESET researchers added.
He killed her and him!
I just like it when it's air gapped..
I lost my USB drive. I wrote a program that automatically backs up my computer when I plug it in (of course encrypted). I guess they found it.
> it was configured to steal all data files such as images or documents, the whole windows registry tree (HKCU)
Apparently, this happens in Microsoft Windows. But does it work in Linux? BSD?
Oh well.. what sounds like free-form obfuscation improvisation to me turns out to be, once more, the state of the art in today's heists.
How does the trojan get installed on the USB stick in the first place? Either you are using USB drives provided by a stranger (who does that?) or someone has stolen your drive, installed their software, and replaced it without your knowledge. Plausible, but not a great way to propagate this to more than a few specific people.
Reminds me of IPoAC
See subject: I protect my portable program via a method I extolled @ "CODING FOR DEFCON" here years ago which was up-modded for its technique, one EVERY exe should use imo as it acts as "native/built-in" antivirus protection in the program itself -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... where I check exe size @ startup of the program - if it differs? Program will NOT operate...
* This thing, IF I understood its description correctly per the source article's analysis, NEEDS to alter .exe size or .DLL function call tables exported (or exe "jump tables"), in order to operate - add even 1 BYTE to my program (which has NO external DLL dependencies (other than OS api) or DLLs it ships with (none, it's a stand-alone single portable Win32 PE executable))? See above.
(It works...)
APK
P.S.=> Anyone see this differently, or did I miss something (only cursory read of the article here is why I ask)? Feel free to correct me... apk
I had the info stolen off my computer last year. The thieves who took it are now slightly dumber for having read it.
Let's assume for a moment you've hijacked a USB dongle, you've gotten a ride onto an airgapped computer. ......now what?
Are you going to write a visual basic GUI to trace all the IPs simultaneously or something?
So you've taken over a standalone PC. Huzzah. You've haxxored the boxen.
What are you doing with the data you've stolen?
Did you realize that you now have to snag another ride back OFF the machine via another USB stick, ride someplace else, infect THAT machine, and hope it isn't airgapped too, in order to get out again?
It will work. They'd just hot patch that check out of your binary and unless you've somehow encrypted the binary and used some kind of loader, it's quite easy.
If you did use a small loader to unencrypt the rest of the binary, they'd just hot-patch the decrypted image in memory through DMA (bypassing cpu's memory isolation) and you'd still be owned.
Wrong time to chime in I think APK.
I have a couple gigabytes worth of .tiff files from various 3D rendering programs. Sometimes I convert the tiffs into PNGs. Just saying.
See subject: I protect my portable program via a method I extolled @ "CODING FOR DEFCON" http://it.slashdot.org/comment... [slashdot.org] here years ago which was up-modded for its technique, one EVERY exe should use imo as it acts as "native/built-in" antivirus protection in the program itself where I check exe size @ startup of the program - if it differs? Program will NOT operate.
Additionally, this functions to also protect my program vs. hexediting alterations as well (bonus).
* This thing, IF I understood its description correctly per the source article's analysis, NEEDS to alter .exe size or .DLL function call tables exported (or exe "jump tables"), in order to operate - add even 1 BYTE to my program (which has NO external DLL dependencies (other than OS api) or DLLs it ships with (none, it's a stand-alone single portable Win32 PE executable))? See above.
(It works...)
APK
P.S.=> Anyone see this differently, or did I miss something (only cursory read of the article here is why I ask)? Feel free to correct me!
N, disassembly for the JNE instruction override by the malware isn't in this malware, let alone the fact it has to be tailored for that in my program + in the exact place for it!
(Worst part is, due to ~10 antivirus companies claiming exe compressors & their loaders are "malware" along with checking for disassemblers/debuggers is 'malware' (which I overturned constantly by those morons, but ended up taking it out due to ABSOLUTELY STUPID 'rules' for heuristic detection calling those protective methods 'bad' caused false positives by them (which they agreed I was RIGHT on no less, but NEVER changed their bullshit either...))).. apk
To quote an instructor of mine, who was probably quoting someone else without attribution: "The only secure computer is one that is turned off, unplugged, in a closed safe buried within 6 feet of poured concrete."
On linux, get a uuid on all usb drives approved and have udev rules that disallow mounting on non whitelisted usb sticks. You can AAA them if you've got a remote logging sytem in place. Not sure about windows!
compile from source. distrowatch.com
or if you use Windows you already have Global Mother Fucking Spyware so what does it matter?
Why're your informative posts downmoded? Technique's sound vs the threat currently. Your 1st post too https://it.slashdot.org/commen... but they left junk on this page (nigger etc) alone not downmodding it. What's the matter with the idiots here?
See subject: I protect my portable program via a method I extolled @ CODING FOR DEFCON https://it.slashdot.org/commen... here years ago which was up-modded for its technique.
It's one EVERY exe should use imo as it acts as "native/built-in" antivirus protection in the program itself where I check exe size @ startup of the program & other areas of operations - & if it differs? It won't run.
Additionally, this functions to also protect my program vs. hexediting alterations as well (bonus).
* This thing, IF I understood its description correctly per the source article's analysis, NEEDS to alter .exe size or .DLL function call tables exported (or exe "jump tables"), in order to operate - add even 1 BYTE to my program (which has NO external DLL dependencies (other than OS api) or DLLs it ships with (none, it's a stand-alone single portable Win32 PE executable))?
See above - It works.
APK
P.S.=> Anyone see this differently, or did I miss something (only cursory read of the article here is why I ask)? Feel free to correct me!
No, disassembly for the JNE instruction override by the malware isn't in this malware, let alone the fact it has to be tailored for that in my program + in the exact place(s) for it!
Worst part is, due to ~10 antivirus companies claiming exe compressors & their loaders are "malware" along with checking for disassemblers/debuggers is 'malware' (which I overturned false positives from them constantly by those morons)?
I ended up taking out compressed exe loaders & disassembler/debugger checks out due to ABSOLUTELY STUPID 'rules' for heuristic detection calling those protective methods 'bad' since it caused false positives by them (which they agreed I was RIGHT on no less, but NEVER changed their bullshit either!)
... apk
Amicusnycl whom I made eat his words https://slashdot.org/comments.... who's still butthurt over it or heroin junkie KGIII https://science.slashdot.org/c... who did the same. Neither produces anything of worth to others & are BULLSHITTERS to the highest order - mere "talkers" not doers.
Probably also other losers of like ilk also along with inferior competitors paid shill cronies. It's common sense: Who else would try attempt to stop me posting or troll me as well as downmod me? I'm not stupid. Neither are you. Do the math here. It's obvious who is doing what to my posts to NO avail - I post as much as always, & IF/WHEN I get a bogus downmod? I repost, exhausting the dolts of their effete useless "downmod points" & I can post with NO limits here unlike most ac posters to do it.
APK
P.S.=> They can't validly beat my points on hosts technically so they resort to other weak bullshit in unjustifiable downmods or offtopic trolling me... apk