<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Angels of security &#187; virus</title>
	<atom:link href="http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/tag/virus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog</link>
	<description>Musings of an infosec renegade</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:01:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>bountys for virus writers</title>
		<link>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2009/02/13/bountys-for-virus-writers/</link>
		<comments>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2009/02/13/bountys-for-virus-writers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bounty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[worm]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2009/02/13/bountys-for-virus-writers/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Conficker worm author is the latest to latest to have a bounty placed on his/her head. While I&#8217;m not inherently opposed to rewarding people who turn in criminals (it certainly has been standard practice in the non-cyber world for centuries). However, I think that in this case the organization offering the bounty is simply [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Conficker worm author is the <a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11546?ref=rss">latest to latest to have a bounty</a> placed on his/her head. While I&#8217;m not inherently opposed to rewarding people who turn in criminals (it certainly has been standard practice in the non-cyber world for centuries). However, I think that in this case the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx">organization offering the bounty</a> is simply trying to look &#8220;tough on crime&#8221; after suffering for decades due to their lax security posture.</p>
<p><strong>update</strong> On a related topic, when doing some background research on conficker, I stumbled across the following headline:<br />
<center><a href="http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/french-navy-surrenders-conficker-49733">French navy surrenders to Conficker</a></center> The jokes just sort of write themselves&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2009/02/13/bountys-for-virus-writers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Now we&#8217;ve done it&#8230;.</title>
		<link>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/08/27/now-weve-done-it/</link>
		<comments>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/08/27/now-weve-done-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:50:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NASA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[space]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/08/27/now-weve-done-it/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It looks like the first computer virus to cross into outer space is the W32.Gammima.AG worm.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It looks like the first<a href="http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1305"> computer virus to cross into outer space</a> is the <font><em><font size="-1" face="geneva,arial,verdana"><em>W32.Gammima.AG </em></font></em><font size="-1" face="geneva,arial,verdana">worm.</font></font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/08/27/now-weve-done-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Race to zero</title>
		<link>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/08/12/race-to-zero/</link>
		<comments>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/08/12/race-to-zero/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:49:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defcon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[malware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race to zero]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/08/12/480/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Race to Zero is a competition which recently wrapped up at Defcon. In it, teams of contestants are given ten known pieces of malware &#8211; viruses and exploits &#8211; and are tasked with obfuscating the malware in such a way that antivirus programs cannot detect the malware. The competition was ultimately won by Mandiant [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.racetozero.net/">Race to Zero</a> is a competition which recently wrapped up at <a href="https://www.defcon.org">Defcon</a>. In it, teams of contestants are given ten known pieces of malware &#8211; viruses and exploits &#8211; and are tasked with obfuscating the malware in such a way that antivirus programs cannot detect the malware. The competition was <a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/795?ref=rss">ultimately won</a> by <a href="http://www.mandiant.com/">Mandiant</a> which completed the task in a little over six hours. (About 36 minutes per challenge). This contest simply serves to illustrate the point that signature based antivirus scanning is a failing proposition. As I&#8217;ve <a href="/blog/2008/06/26/more-malware-signatures-needed-than-before/">said before</a>, there are a virtually infinite number of possible malware signature out there, and trying to write an infinite number of signatures is an exercise in futility. It makes a lot more sense to enumerate good than to enumerate bad. We figured this out years ago when we started making firewalls use a default deny &#8211; we should be doing the same for antivirus.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/08/12/race-to-zero/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>more malware signatures needed than before</title>
		<link>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/06/26/more-malware-signatures-needed-than-before/</link>
		<comments>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/06/26/more-malware-signatures-needed-than-before/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:44:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proactive security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whitelisting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/06/26/more-malware-signatures-needed-than-before/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the &#8220;duh&#8221; reporting on the moment, securityfocus reports that: The number of signatures required to detect malicious code skyrocketed in the first half of 2008. While I may mock them (gently of course) for reporting something which is obvious, the growth curve is impressive: The data &#8212; part of the F-Secure&#8217;s IT Security Threat [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the &#8220;duh&#8221; reporting on the moment, <a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/763?ref=rss">securityfocus reports</a> that:</p>
<blockquote><p><span class="body"> The number of signatures required to detect malicious code skyrocketed in the first half of 2008.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>While I may mock them (gently of course) for reporting something which is obvious, the growth curve is impressive:</p>
<blockquote><p><span class="body"> The data &#8212; part of the F-Secure&#8217;s <a href="http://www.f-secure.com/2008/1/index.html" target="_blank">IT Security Threat Summary</a> &#8212; showed that the company currently requires nearly 900,000 different signatures, also referred to as &#8220;definitions&#8221; or &#8220;detections,&#8221; in its product to catch current threats, up from <a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/655">500,000 signatures</a> at the end of 2007.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>The solution of course, is to stop writing signatures. There are a virtually infinite number of pieces of malware that can be written, and trying to write a signature for each and every one is an exercise in futility. We&#8217;ve seen it time and again &#8211; blacklisting does not work in the long run, it is not scalable, and is inherently reactive rather than proactive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/06/26/more-malware-signatures-needed-than-before/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>1024 bit RSA key circumvented</title>
		<link>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/06/18/1024-bit-rsa-key-circumvented/</link>
		<comments>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/06/18/1024-bit-rsa-key-circumvented/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:05:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[cryptography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brute force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kaspersky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schneier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shamir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/06/18/1024-bit-rsa-key-circumvented/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The gpcode virus has been making news of late. It&#8217;s ransom-ware that encrypted the infected machine&#8217;s files with a 1024 bit RSA key, demanding a monetary payment in exchange for the decryption key. Kaspersky labs announced that they would try to brute force the key if people would just loan them some spare CPU cycles. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The gpcode virus has been making news of late. It&#8217;s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransomware_%28malware%29">ransom-ware</a> that <a href="http://www.intology.com/computers-internet/ransomware-virus-that-uses-1024-bit-encryption-key/">encrypted the infected machine&#8217;s files with a 1024 bit RSA key</a>, demanding a monetary payment in exchange for the decryption key. Kaspersky labs announced that they would try to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965381-7.html">brute force the key </a>if people would just loan them some spare CPU cycles. They took some flak for even trying this, including a rebuke from the master cryptographer himself, <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/kaspersky_labs.html">Bruce Schneier</a>.</p>
<p>Now it appears they&#8217;ve found a solution. No, they haven&#8217;t cracked a 1024 bit RSA key this quickly, they&#8217;ve discovered that the <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9098338&amp;source=rss_topic17">files can be undeleted</a>, and released a utility to assist in the endeavor. This is another example of <a href="http://awards.acm.org/images/awards/140/vstream/2002/S/s-pp/shamir_1files_files/800x600/Slide8.html">Shamir&#8217;s third law of security</a>. For those of you who don&#8217;t know, Adi Shamir, recipient of the turing award and the S in RSA once delivered his 3 laws of security:</p>
<ol>
<li>Absolutely secure systems do not exist</li>
<li>To halve your vulnerability you need to double your expenditure</li>
<li>Cryptography is typically bypassed, not penetrated</li>
</ol>
<p>This is about as good an example of law number three as I can think of. Kaspersky would have found it nearly impossible to break the key in a meaningful amount of time, however circumventing the cryptography proved itself to be much easier.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://angelsofsecurity.com/blog/2008/06/18/1024-bit-rsa-key-circumvented/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

