If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Unknown svchost.exe DNS port 53 network activity
You're a gem, Alun! Your posts are always insightful, and I very much enjoy
your sly, tongue-in-cheek writing. -- ~PA Bear Alun Jones wrote: "William" wrote in message t... Not necessarily. If you're just using it to illegally download music and videos (not program executables), and you're careful about how you play these (I wouldn't rely on Windows to launch them, for example, but load them in Winamp, and don't let Winamp connect to Internet), than you're more or less safe. Right, because Winamp has never had any vulnerabilities that can be exploited by badly formatted data. Oh. No, wait, actually it has. Several times. This is why the trend lately is to attack applications, rather than operating systems - the operating system vendors are getting much better at tracking and fixing problems, but many application vendors still have their heads in the sand - and so do many users, to judge from the reactions I get whenever I suggest that data - music, video, etc - might carry trojans. In the abstract sense, there is no dividing line between code and data - data tells code where to go, and so acts as pseudo-code, in many cases. Also, more than likely, the P2P proggie you used had its own malware (like Navaccel or something like that). Don't make the mistake of assuming that I'm talking about my own experiences with P2P - I've simply seen too many machines infected where the source of infection is traced to an overactive P2P exchanger. Finally, some P2P proggies (such as Bittorrent) can be used safely (like for downloading Linux distros), since even though you're downloading from other computers, the tracker is administered by the Linux Distribution and, to my knowledge, it's not possible yet to alter a file or set of files once the tracker has already been posted without posting a new torrent tracker. I'm glad you put me at ease there - after all, the main Linux distros have never been altered maliciously by hackers. Oh, wait, they have, haven't they. http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32240.html Cleaning a virus or trojan infection is only going to be effective if you can plug whatever hole they got in through - whether it's a hole in your behaviour, or in your apps, or in your OS. Even flattening and restoring just means that the attacker gets another chance to try the same thing at you, but this time on a system that's less cluttered with the debris of other previous attacks. Alun. ~~~~ |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Unknown svchost.exe DNS port 53 network activity
On 12/28/2006 10:10 AM, something possessed Alun Jones to write:
"William" wrote in message t... Not necessarily. If you're just using it to illegally download music and videos (not program executables), and you're careful about how you play these (I wouldn't rely on Windows to launch them, for example, but load them in Winamp, and don't let Winamp connect to Internet), than you're more or less safe. Right, because Winamp has never had any vulnerabilities that can be exploited by badly formatted data. I didn't recommend Winamp because it was invulnerable, but simply because its not Integrated into the OS, so that if it goes bad, the whole OS doesn't suffer. Additionally, while exploits may exist in Winamp when accessing questionable media locally stored, In order for any real damage to be done (i.e. a trojan downloader), Winamp would need to access the Internet (or maybe that reched program Internet Explorer). A good Firewall (like Kerio) should be able to prevent this from happening. Oh. No, wait, actually it has. Several times. This is why the trend lately is to attack applications, rather than operating systems - the operating system vendors are getting much better at tracking and fixing problems, but many application vendors still have their heads in the sand - and so do many users [snip] I understand your sentiment. Clearly, you support Microsoft, and that's fine. I don't agree with that sentiment, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. In the abstract sense, there is no dividing line between code and data - data tells code where to go, and so acts as pseudo-code, in many cases. Again, requires Internet access to download the trojan. Media itself cannot contain the final executable code that infests a system with malware, all it can do is exploit vulnerabilities that allow the said malware to be installed. Also, more than likely, the P2P proggie you used had its own malware (like Navaccel or something like that). Don't make the mistake of assuming that I'm talking about my own experiences with P2P - I've simply seen too many machines infected where the source of infection is traced to an overactive P2P exchanger. Which is why if someone is going to use P2P, they should be advised (as I'm trying to do) on how to use it safely. I'm not condoning such action, but its kind of analogous to making sure your teenager has protection, you don't want them to have to use it until they've matured, but they do, than it'll be there for them. Finally, some P2P proggies (such as Bittorrent) can be used safely (like for downloading Linux distros), since even though you're downloading from other computers, the tracker is administered by the Linux Distribution and, to my knowledge, it's not possible yet to alter a file or set of files once the tracker has already been posted without posting a new torrent tracker. I'm glad you put me at ease there - after all, the main Linux distros have never been altered maliciously by hackers. Oh, wait, they have, haven't they. http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32240.html What's this got to do with altering a bittorrent stream. The results would have been the same rather bittorrent was used to download the distro or if it was downloaded from the server. In fact, in this case, the bittorrent tracker probably would have been the safer bet, since it was the server (and not the torrent) that was hacked. Cleaning a virus or trojan infection is only going to be effective if you can plug whatever hole they got in through - whether it's a hole in your behaviour, or in your apps, or in your OS. Even flattening and restoring just means that the attacker gets another chance to try the same thing at you, but this time on a system that's less cluttered with the debris of other previous attacks. Agrees with you here. So, with that, I hope that if the OP ultimately decides to continue P2P, that he/she does so safely. Regards, Will |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Unknown svchost.exe DNS port 53 network activity
"William" wrote in message
. net... On 12/28/2006 10:10 AM, something possessed Alun Jones to write: "William" wrote in message t... Not necessarily. If you're just using it to illegally download music and videos (not program executables), and you're careful about how you play these (I wouldn't rely on Windows to launch them, for example, but load them in Winamp, and don't let Winamp connect to Internet), than you're more or less safe. Right, because Winamp has never had any vulnerabilities that can be exploited by badly formatted data. I didn't recommend Winamp because it was invulnerable, but simply because its not Integrated into the OS, so that if it goes bad, the whole OS doesn't suffer. It does if you're running as an administrator account. Windows (as with all computer systems I'm aware of) cannot distinguish between the user, and programs run on that user's behalf. If you, the user, run Winamp, and it loads a data file that causes execution through exploiting a buffer overflow, the malware inside of that data file can do absolutely anything to the system that you can do, with the exception of anything that requires your actual physical presence. So, if you're running as an administrator, it doesn't matter if you're loading exploits into a program that's labeled "part of the OS", or one that's labeled "third party shovelware", the exploit can do what it chooses. The answer, then, is to run as a restricted user account. I do it all the time - and when I do, my Internet Explorer runs as a restricted user account too. Exploits in the apps I use can still do anything I can do, but the damage is limited to my personal data, not the entire OS. You can even run as an administrator while forcing IE to run as a restricted user! [Search for "SAFER" and "SRP" and "Internet Explorer" for some articles, or see http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard...1/363985.aspx] Note, though, that once you've downloaded and run a piece of malware, whether it's an EXE or a buffer-overflowing MP3, that malware can do everything you can do as a user. Additionally, while exploits may exist in Winamp when accessing questionable media locally stored, In order for any real damage to be done (i.e. a trojan downloader), Winamp would need to access the Internet (or maybe that reched program Internet Explorer). Uh... no. Remember, Winamp - and any exploit it loads, as far as the operating system is concerned, _is_ you. It can start another program, it can inject itself into another program you're already running, or it can combine the two. A good Firewall (like Kerio) should be able to prevent this from happening. No, no it won't. Again, if you've told Kerio, or whatever, to allow _any_ program to access the outside world, that program can be compromised by code you've run under any other program. So, your Winamp exploit can infect your Internet Explorer in memory (not on disk, unless you have rights to that), and pretend to be Internet Explorer in order to download its exploit - or, quite honestly, it can simply start up IE to fetch the rest of its code. But why would it need to do even that? How big are the media files you're "sharing"? Way bigger than most damaging code I could imagine. If you're downloading a video, or anything more than a few seconds of sound, you won't notice the increase in size that you get by adding some kind of malware. Oh. No, wait, actually it has. Several times. This is why the trend lately is to attack applications, rather than operating systems - the operating system vendors are getting much better at tracking and fixing problems, but many application vendors still have their heads in the sand - and so do many users [snip] I understand your sentiment. Clearly, you support Microsoft, and that's fine. I don't agree with that sentiment, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. A = Z. Welcome to today's edition of "Jumping to Conclusions". In the abstract sense, there is no dividing line between code and data - data tells code where to go, and so acts as pseudo-code, in many cases. Again, requires Internet access to download the trojan. Media itself cannot contain the final executable code that infests a system with malware, all it can do is exploit vulnerabilities that allow the said malware to be installed. If you believe that, you've got a long way to go. There really is no other way to say it, but to note that you are completely wrong in that assertion. Media itself can quite comfortably contain the exploit and whatever code is going to execute after the exploit has taken over control of your system. Also, more than likely, the P2P proggie you used had its own malware (like Navaccel or something like that). Don't make the mistake of assuming that I'm talking about my own experiences with P2P - I've simply seen too many machines infected where the source of infection is traced to an overactive P2P exchanger. Which is why if someone is going to use P2P, they should be advised (as I'm trying to do) on how to use it safely. I'm not condoning such action, but its kind of analogous to making sure your teenager has protection, you don't want them to have to use it until they've matured, but they do, than it'll be there for them. Best protection against catching malware from P2P is a membership at Blockbuster, or a Netflix subscription. Get your movies, and your tunes, from reputable sources who have a little skin in the game should you get infected through them. Finally, some P2P proggies (such as Bittorrent) can be used safely (like for downloading Linux distros), since even though you're downloading from other computers, the tracker is administered by the Linux Distribution and, to my knowledge, it's not possible yet to alter a file or set of files once the tracker has already been posted without posting a new torrent tracker. I'm glad you put me at ease there - after all, the main Linux distros have never been altered maliciously by hackers. Oh, wait, they have, haven't they. http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32240.html What's this got to do with altering a bittorrent stream. The results would have been the same rather bittorrent was used to download the distro or if it was downloaded from the server. In fact, in this case, the bittorrent tracker probably would have been the safer bet, since it was the server (and not the torrent) that was hacked. The point is that you can only trust checksummed streams as much as you can trust the person who created the file and the checksum in the first place. Since most "sharing" of illegally copied material is done by people who would like to remain anonymous, you're relying on trusting someone whom you can't identify, and whose reputation (and reason for maintaining that reputation) is unverifiable. Cleaning a virus or trojan infection is only going to be effective if you can plug whatever hole they got in through - whether it's a hole in your behaviour, or in your apps, or in your OS. Even flattening and restoring just means that the attacker gets another chance to try the same thing at you, but this time on a system that's less cluttered with the debris of other previous attacks. Agrees with you here. So, with that, I hope that if the OP ultimately decides to continue P2P, that he/she does so safely. That requires only loading files with hashes generated by trusted authorities. ("Authority" here means anyone with the right to say what is, or isn't, a valid copy of a file.) Downloading stolen movies and songs is not going to be safe. Not ever. Alun. ~~~~ |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Unknown svchost.exe DNS port 53 network activity
William wrote: On 12/26/2006 10:21 PM, something possessed Raffi to write: David H. Lipman wrote: From: "Raffi" | I had some time to do packet analysis using Etherial and most of the | conenctions were DNS queries and SMTP connections. | I went ahead and blocked all traffic from the PC to the ISP DNS servers | in my firewall (Comodo). The DNS server for my PC is statically defined | as the gateway router. Since the ISP DNS was no longer accessible it | rerouted the DNS queries (and/or query responses) to the gateway | router. These were a bunch of MX queries for mostly .ru domains. | Next I blocked all inbound and outbound UDP connections for svchost.exe | and services.exe. This stopped most of the traffic. After a while I | started seeing traffic to a couple of specific ip addresses | (208.66.195.78 and 62.189.194.215) which don't resolve to anything with | nslookup. I blocked these IP addresses in the firewall as well. Next | the PC started sending out a bunch of broadcasts (.255). So I blocked | outbound broadcast connections. | Next it started sending broadcast to 0.255 using the ZIP (Zone | Information Protocol) protocol. I don't think I've seen this one | before. I haven't been able to block these yet. | My guess is the PC is somehow being used as a DNS/SMTP relay. Another | guess is my svchost.exe and/or services.exe have been compromized. | As usual, any help in getting to the bottom of this would be welcome. | Raffi http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois....whois.arin.net http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois....4.215&email=on This is suspicious. You may have to backup the PC, wipe it and then reinstall the OS from scratch if all the csnas have come up negative. The only other option is to use anti RootKit software such as Gmer and BlackLight to find the malware. Otherwise, wipe the system. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm Update - I had tried a couple of rootkit detection software without success and had given up. But gmer finally found it. Turns out it is a rootkit. It's called Backdoor.Rustock.B. It uses the following hidden data stream c:\windows\system32:lzx32.sys (c:\windows\system32:18467). This Symantec website has more information: http://www.symantec.com/security_res...305-99&tabid=3 The syptoms for the rootkit are similar to what I'm experiencing. From what I've read so far it might be tricky to get rid of. It seems to be active in safe mode as well. I'll be searching for a way to get rid of it. If there are any ideas out there, please let me know. Thanks for all the help. Raffi First, stay of the network with your infected PC. Secondly, Get PEBuilder and create a BartPE LiveCD. Use this to edit your registry.hiv file in order to remove the rootkit (I haven't done the research because my blood sugar is getting low, so you'll need to do the research to figure out what registry keys in registry.hiv should be deleted (or maybe someone else here will be nice enough to post those for you). Good luck. Cheers, Will Will, Thanks for the suggestions. I did manage to clean my system using a tool called "rustbfix.exe". My guess is this tool disables the root kit in the registry but doesn't actually delete the stream (c:\windows\system32:lzx32.sys). After running the tool, I ran gmer.exe again and had to manually delete the stream. The stream was inaccessible before but after running the cleaning tool, I was able to delete it. Anyway, this little adventure took up alot of my time and hopefully this message thread will help others get to a fix much quicker/easier. Thanks for everyone for the help and suggestions. Raffi |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Unknown svchost.exe DNS port 53 network activity
From: "Raffi"
| Will, | Thanks for the suggestions. I did manage to clean my system using a | tool called "rustbfix.exe". My guess is this tool disables the root kit | in the registry but doesn't actually delete the stream | (c:\windows\system32:lzx32.sys). After running the tool, I ran gmer.exe | again and had to manually delete the stream. The stream was | inaccessible before but after running the cleaning tool, I was able to | delete it. | Anyway, this little adventure took up alot of my time and hopefully | this message thread will help others get to a fix much quicker/easier. | Thanks for everyone for the help and suggestions. | Raffi That would be the following Rustock RootKit removal toool... http://www.uploads.ejvindh.net/rustbfix.exe -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Unknown svchost.exe DNS port 53 network activity
"Raffi" wrote in
ups.com: William wrote: On 12/26/2006 10:21 PM, something possessed Raffi to write: David H. Lipman wrote: From: "Raffi" | I had some time to do packet analysis using Etherial and most of | the conenctions were DNS queries and SMTP connections. | I went ahead and blocked all traffic from the PC to the ISP DNS | servers in my firewall (Comodo). The DNS server for my PC is | statically defined as the gateway router. Since the ISP DNS was | no longer accessible it rerouted the DNS queries (and/or query | responses) to the gateway router. These were a bunch of MX | queries for mostly .ru domains. | Next I blocked all inbound and outbound UDP connections for | svchost.exe and services.exe. This stopped most of the traffic. | After a while I started seeing traffic to a couple of specific | ip addresses (208.66.195.78 and 62.189.194.215) which don't | resolve to anything with nslookup. I blocked these IP addresses | in the firewall as well. Next the PC started sending out a bunch | of broadcasts (.255). So I blocked outbound broadcast | connections. | Next it started sending broadcast to 0.255 using the ZIP (Zone | Information Protocol) protocol. I don't think I've seen this one | before. I haven't been able to block these yet. | My guess is the PC is somehow being used as a DNS/SMTP relay. | Another guess is my svchost.exe and/or services.exe have been | compromized. | As usual, any help in getting to the bottom of this would be | welcome. | Raffi http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois....08-66-195-64-1 &serv er=whois.arin.net http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois....4.215&email=on This is suspicious. You may have to backup the PC, wipe it and then reinstall the OS from scratch if all the csnas have come up negative. The only other option is to use anti RootKit software such as Gmer and BlackLight to find the malware. Otherwise, wipe the system. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm Update - I had tried a couple of rootkit detection software without success and had given up. But gmer finally found it. Turns out it is a rootkit. It's called Backdoor.Rustock.B. It uses the following hidden data stream c:\windows\system32:lzx32.sys (c:\windows\system32:18467). This Symantec website has more information: http://www.symantec.com/security_res...sp?docid=2006- 070 513-1305-99&tabid=3 The syptoms for the rootkit are similar to what I'm experiencing. From what I've read so far it might be tricky to get rid of. It seems to be active in safe mode as well. I'll be searching for a way to get rid of it. If there are any ideas out there, please let me know. Thanks for all the help. Raffi First, stay of the network with your infected PC. Secondly, Get PEBuilder and create a BartPE LiveCD. Use this to edit your registry.hiv file in order to remove the rootkit (I haven't done the research because my blood sugar is getting low, so you'll need to do the research to figure out what registry keys in registry.hiv should be deleted (or maybe someone else here will be nice enough to post those for you). Good luck. Cheers, Will Will, Thanks for the suggestions. I did manage to clean my system using a tool called "rustbfix.exe". My guess is this tool disables the root kit in the registry but doesn't actually delete the stream (c:\windows\system32:lzx32.sys). After running the tool, I ran gmer.exe again and had to manually delete the stream. The stream was inaccessible before but after running the cleaning tool, I was able to delete it. Anyway, this little adventure took up alot of my time and hopefully this message thread will help others get to a fix much quicker/easier. Thanks for everyone for the help and suggestions. Raffi OK. Surf safely, now, and seriously, be careful with the P2P. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Unknown svchost.exe DNS port 53 network activity
Rustock (a,b,c) Rootkit remover Free"
http://forum.sysinternals.com/forum_...?TID=9385&PN=1 -- Grzegorz Wiktorowski |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Unknown svchost.exe DNS port 53 network activity
Alun Jones wrote: "William" wrote in message . net... On 12/28/2006 10:10 AM, something possessed Alun Jones to write: "William" wrote in message t... Not necessarily. If you're just using it to illegally download music and videos (not program executables), and you're careful about how you play these (I wouldn't rely on Windows to launch them, for example, but load them in Winamp, and don't let Winamp connect to Internet), than you're more or less safe. Right, because Winamp has never had any vulnerabilities that can be exploited by badly formatted data. I didn't recommend Winamp because it was invulnerable, but simply because its not Integrated into the OS, so that if it goes bad, the whole OS doesn't suffer. It does if you're running as an administrator account. Windows (as with all computer systems I'm aware of) cannot distinguish between the user, and programs run on that user's behalf. If you, the user, run Winamp, and it loads a data file that causes execution through exploiting a buffer overflow, the malware inside of that data file can do absolutely anything to the system that you can do, with the exception of anything that requires your actual physical presence. So, if you're running as an administrator, it doesn't matter if you're loading exploits into a program that's labeled "part of the OS", or one that's labeled "third party shovelware", the exploit can do what it chooses. The answer, then, is to run as a restricted user account. I do it all the time - and when I do, my Internet Explorer runs as a restricted user account too. Exploits in the apps I use can still do anything I can do, but the damage is limited to my personal data, not the entire OS. You can even run as an administrator while forcing IE to run as a restricted user! [Search for "SAFER" and "SRP" and "Internet Explorer" for some articles, or see http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard...1/363985.aspx] Note, though, that once you've downloaded and run a piece of malware, whether it's an EXE or a buffer-overflowing MP3, that malware can do everything you can do as a user. Additionally, while exploits may exist in Winamp when accessing questionable media locally stored, In order for any real damage to be done (i.e. a trojan downloader), Winamp would need to access the Internet (or maybe that reched program Internet Explorer). Uh... no. Remember, Winamp - and any exploit it loads, as far as the operating system is concerned, _is_ you. It can start another program, it can inject itself into another program you're already running, or it can combine the two. A good Firewall (like Kerio) should be able to prevent this from happening. No, no it won't. Again, if you've told Kerio, or whatever, to allow _any_ program to access the outside world, that program can be compromised by code you've run under any other program. So, your Winamp exploit can infect your Internet Explorer in memory (not on disk, unless you have rights to that), and pretend to be Internet Explorer in order to download its exploit - or, quite honestly, it can simply start up IE to fetch the rest of its code. But why would it need to do even that? How big are the media files you're "sharing"? Way bigger than most damaging code I could imagine. If you're downloading a video, or anything more than a few seconds of sound, you won't notice the increase in size that you get by adding some kind of malware. Oh. No, wait, actually it has. Several times. This is why the trend lately is to attack applications, rather than operating systems - the operating system vendors are getting much better at tracking and fixing problems, but many application vendors still have their heads in the sand - and so do many users [snip] I understand your sentiment. Clearly, you support Microsoft, and that's fine. I don't agree with that sentiment, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. A = Z. Welcome to today's edition of "Jumping to Conclusions". In the abstract sense, there is no dividing line between code and data - data tells code where to go, and so acts as pseudo-code, in many cases. Again, requires Internet access to download the trojan. Media itself cannot contain the final executable code that infests a system with malware, all it can do is exploit vulnerabilities that allow the said malware to be installed. If you believe that, you've got a long way to go. There really is no other way to say it, but to note that you are completely wrong in that assertion. Media itself can quite comfortably contain the exploit and whatever code is going to execute after the exploit has taken over control of your system. Also, more than likely, the P2P proggie you used had its own malware (like Navaccel or something like that). Don't make the mistake of assuming that I'm talking about my own experiences with P2P - I've simply seen too many machines infected where the source of infection is traced to an overactive P2P exchanger. Which is why if someone is going to use P2P, they should be advised (as I'm trying to do) on how to use it safely. I'm not condoning such action, but its kind of analogous to making sure your teenager has protection, you don't want them to have to use it until they've matured, but they do, than it'll be there for them. Best protection against catching malware from P2P is a membership at Blockbuster, or a Netflix subscription. Get your movies, and your tunes, from reputable sources who have a little skin in the game should you get infected through them. Finally, some P2P proggies (such as Bittorrent) can be used safely (like for downloading Linux distros), since even though you're downloading from other computers, the tracker is administered by the Linux Distribution and, to my knowledge, it's not possible yet to alter a file or set of files once the tracker has already been posted without posting a new torrent tracker. I'm glad you put me at ease there - after all, the main Linux distros have never been altered maliciously by hackers. Oh, wait, they have, haven't they. http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32240.html What's this got to do with altering a bittorrent stream. The results would have been the same rather bittorrent was used to download the distro or if it was downloaded from the server. In fact, in this case, the bittorrent tracker probably would have been the safer bet, since it was the server (and not the torrent) that was hacked. The point is that you can only trust checksummed streams as much as you can trust the person who created the file and the checksum in the first place. Since most "sharing" of illegally copied material is done by people who would like to remain anonymous, you're relying on trusting someone whom you can't identify, and whose reputation (and reason for maintaining that reputation) is unverifiable. Cleaning a virus or trojan infection is only going to be effective if you can plug whatever hole they got in through - whether it's a hole in your behaviour, or in your apps, or in your OS. Even flattening and restoring just means that the attacker gets another chance to try the same thing at you, but this time on a system that's less cluttered with the debris of other previous attacks. Agrees with you here. So, with that, I hope that if the OP ultimately decides to continue P2P, that he/she does so safely. That requires only loading files with hashes generated by trusted authorities. ("Authority" here means anyone with the right to say what is, or isn't, a valid copy of a file.) Downloading stolen movies and songs is not going to be safe. Not ever. Alun. ~~~~ Let's not assume the malware came through P2P. This stuff is all over the Internet. Raffi |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Unknown svchost.exe DNS port 53 network activity
on 29 Dec 2006, something possessed Raffi to write:
Alun Jones wrote: "William" wrote in message . net... On 12/28/2006 10:10 AM, something possessed Alun Jones to write: "William" wrote in message t... Not necessarily. If you're just using it to illegally download music and videos (not program executables), and you're careful about how you play these (I wouldn't rely on Windows to launch them, for example, but load them in Winamp, and don't let Winamp connect to Internet), than you're more or less safe. Right, because Winamp has never had any vulnerabilities that can be exploited by badly formatted data. I didn't recommend Winamp because it was invulnerable, but simply because its not Integrated into the OS, so that if it goes bad, the whole OS doesn't suffer. It does if you're running as an administrator account. Windows (as with all computer systems I'm aware of) cannot distinguish between the user, and programs run on that user's behalf. If you, the user, run Winamp, and it loads a data file that causes execution through exploiting a buffer overflow, the malware inside of that data file can do absolutely anything to the system that you can do, with the exception of anything that requires your actual physical presence. So, if you're running as an administrator, it doesn't matter if you're loading exploits into a program that's labeled "part of the OS", or one that's labeled "third party shovelware", the exploit can do what it chooses. The answer, then, is to run as a restricted user account. I do it all the time - and when I do, my Internet Explorer runs as a restricted user account too. Exploits in the apps I use can still do anything I can do, but the damage is limited to my personal data, not the entire OS. You can even run as an administrator while forcing IE to run as a restricted user! [Search for "SAFER" and "SRP" and "Internet Explorer" for some articles, or see http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard...1/363985.aspx] Note, though, that once you've downloaded and run a piece of malware, whether it's an EXE or a buffer-overflowing MP3, that malware can do everything you can do as a user. Additionally, while exploits may exist in Winamp when accessing questionable media locally stored, In order for any real damage to be done (i.e. a trojan downloader), Winamp would need to access the Internet (or maybe that reched program Internet Explorer). Uh... no. Remember, Winamp - and any exploit it loads, as far as the operating system is concerned, _is_ you. It can start another program, it can inject itself into another program you're already running, or it can combine the two. A good Firewall (like Kerio) should be able to prevent this from happening. No, no it won't. Again, if you've told Kerio, or whatever, to allow _any_ program to access the outside world, that program can be compromised by code you've run under any other program. So, your Winamp exploit can infect your Internet Explorer in memory (not on disk, unless you have rights to that), and pretend to be Internet Explorer in order to download its exploit - or, quite honestly, it can simply start up IE to fetch the rest of its code. But why would it need to do even that? How big are the media files you're "sharing"? Way bigger than most damaging code I could imagine. If you're downloading a video, or anything more than a few seconds of sound, you won't notice the increase in size that you get by adding some kind of malware. Oh. No, wait, actually it has. Several times. This is why the trend lately is to attack applications, rather than operating systems - the operating system vendors are getting much better at tracking and fixing problems, but many application vendors still have their heads in the sand - and so do many users [snip] I understand your sentiment. Clearly, you support Microsoft, and that's fine. I don't agree with that sentiment, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. A = Z. Welcome to today's edition of "Jumping to Conclusions". In the abstract sense, there is no dividing line between code and data - data tells code where to go, and so acts as pseudo-code, in many cases. Again, requires Internet access to download the trojan. Media itself cannot contain the final executable code that infests a system with malware, all it can do is exploit vulnerabilities that allow the said malware to be installed. If you believe that, you've got a long way to go. There really is no other way to say it, but to note that you are completely wrong in that assertion. Media itself can quite comfortably contain the exploit and whatever code is going to execute after the exploit has taken over control of your system. Also, more than likely, the P2P proggie you used had its own malware (like Navaccel or something like that). Don't make the mistake of assuming that I'm talking about my own experiences with P2P - I've simply seen too many machines infected where the source of infection is traced to an overactive P2P exchanger. Which is why if someone is going to use P2P, they should be advised (as I'm trying to do) on how to use it safely. I'm not condoning such action, but its kind of analogous to making sure your teenager has protection, you don't want them to have to use it until they've matured, but they do, than it'll be there for them. Best protection against catching malware from P2P is a membership at Blockbuster, or a Netflix subscription. Get your movies, and your tunes, from reputable sources who have a little skin in the game should you get infected through them. Finally, some P2P proggies (such as Bittorrent) can be used safely (like for downloading Linux distros), since even though you're downloading from other computers, the tracker is administered by the Linux Distribution and, to my knowledge, it's not possible yet to alter a file or set of files once the tracker has already been posted without posting a new torrent tracker. I'm glad you put me at ease there - after all, the main Linux distros have never been altered maliciously by hackers. Oh, wait, they have, haven't they. http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32240.html What's this got to do with altering a bittorrent stream. The results would have been the same rather bittorrent was used to download the distro or if it was downloaded from the server. In fact, in this case, the bittorrent tracker probably would have been the safer bet, since it was the server (and not the torrent) that was hacked. The point is that you can only trust checksummed streams as much as you can trust the person who created the file and the checksum in the first place. Since most "sharing" of illegally copied material is done by people who would like to remain anonymous, you're relying on trusting someone whom you can't identify, and whose reputation (and reason for maintaining that reputation) is unverifiable. Cleaning a virus or trojan infection is only going to be effective if you can plug whatever hole they got in through - whether it's a hole in your behaviour, or in your apps, or in your OS. Even flattening and restoring just means that the attacker gets another chance to try the same thing at you, but this time on a system that's less cluttered with the debris of other previous attacks. Agrees with you here. So, with that, I hope that if the OP ultimately decides to continue P2P, that he/she does so safely. That requires only loading files with hashes generated by trusted authorities. ("Authority" here means anyone with the right to say what is, or isn't, a valid copy of a file.) Downloading stolen movies and songs is not going to be safe. Not ever. Alun. ~~~~ Let's not assume the malware came through P2P. This stuff is all over the Internet. Yup. Like, for example, it could have happenned from surfing the Internet using Internet Exploiter ;-D. Cheers, William |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Unknown svchost.exe DNS port 53 network activity
"Raffi" wrote in message
ps.com... Let's not assume the malware came through P2P. This stuff is all over the Internet. I don't think I ever did assume that - however, it's a behaviour one should strongly avoid if one wants to prevent malware infections. It's like surfing to random locations on the web and running whatever ActiveX controls you find. Alun. ~~~~ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|