Microsoft certificate used to sign Flame malware, issues warning
Summary: Microsoft has issued a security advisory warning and a high-priority update after parts of the Flame malware were signed with Microsoft-issued certificates.
Microsoft has issued an emergency security patch after it found components of the Flame malware were signed with one of its trusted digital certificates that "chained up" to the Microsoft Root Authority.
The software giant said it had "immediately began examining the issue".
Flame, described by Kaspersky researchers as the “most complex threat” ever discovered, was discovered in a series of machines in what is understood to be a state-sponsored attack.
"Our investigation has discovered some techniques used by this malware that could also be leveraged by less sophisticated attackers to launch more widespread attacks," Mike Reavey, senior director to Microsoft's Security Response Center (MSRC), said in a blog post.
Having said that, the out-of-the-blue advisory fails to actively note that the malware affects virtually every currently supported version of Windows. Despite this, because of the highly-targeted nature of the malware, most Windows users are not at risk.
In response, Microsoft has issued a security advisory warning its digital certificates could allow "spoofing", and has revoked the two intermediate certificate authorities.
However, the security bulletin does not make clear who had access to these certificates, or whether they were abused by authorised personnel. It may be that they were compromised and abused by an unauthorised user.
Microsoft has also released a Windows Update patch that customers are advised to install immediately.
MSRC's Jonathan Ness explained: "What we found is that certificates issued by our Terminal Services licensing certification authority, which are intended to only be used for license server verification, could also be used to sign code as Microsoft."
The company will therefore discontinue issuing certificates that could be used to sign code via the Terminal Services activation process.
Image credit: Robert S. Donovan/Flickr.
Related:
- Flame: 'Most complex' cyber-attack ever discovered
- CNET: Behind the 'Flame' malware spying on Mideast computers (FAQ)
- ZDNet: UK government ‘planning to launch Stuxnet-like attacks’ against hostile states
- CBS 60 Minutes: Stuxnet worm opens new era of warfare
- Stuxnet 2.0? Researchers find new ‘cyber-surveillance’ malware threat
- Hungarian Lab found Stuxnet-like Duqu malware
- ZDNet Government: Stuxnet may be the Hiroshima of our time
- CNET: Stuxnet delivered to Iranian nuclear plant on thumb drive
- Ex-CIA chief: Stuxnet a good idea
- CBS News: Video: Is Duqu the progeny of Stuxnet?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
A better headline should have been ...
But I can understand. You need to get the page views.
It's all about the clicks..
Patch was released yesterday FYI not today.
Do tell what happens if you're already exploited?
Can you point to anything in this micro-patch that would let you know if you have been exploited? Not much chance apparently, but who knows, you could have been extra-lucky. Here's hoping.
This
Yes, and....
Not the U.S.
Not true
Also, it's pretty clear that this targets countries that house Arab, Muslim, or Palestinian citizens since they have been considered or admitted to be an enemy of the US's friend, Israel.
Booted up my machine today
It's only 91KB on Windows 7.
Is that the Flame malware popup or the real MS auto update warning?
So how does one know if the pop-up update warning is really from Microsoft?
What if the balloon pop-up is already the Flame malware?
Exactly how did the malware authors get that certificate?
Perhaps the message to the world is - use Microsoft software and the US government Pwns you. And maybe Mossad Pwns you too.
If you would have spent a little time reading the actual ...
BTW it requires only 200 PS3s to crack a MD5 hash algorithm.
And this is "trusted computing"?
One does wonder if it was possible and about the potential of there being a parallel signing authority chain in existence.
Note the obligatory negative downvotes, even when there are others who have said the same thing. Oh, the wonder that is zdnet!
I read what MSRC is claiming
Could they be lying to deflect the blame for having the cert stolen, or providing it to the government?
I'm not saying they are lying. But if they were, how would we know?
Can we trust the digital certificate system?
Answer is
From how I read this
The problem is that Windows (until patched) will take this server certificate and if there is code signed with it accept it as if it were Microsoft code and run it without question.
So the problem is the percentage of windows users who don't apply patches will run malware signed by any terminal server certificate without question.
So this one type of cert is now blocked (if you apply the patch), but what other ones are not yet?
Relax, OS X and Linux users are not affected
Them internets
Geez get a clue. You know about Flashback right?
You're right
But at least, if there is no security, it cannot be broken.
So true.
Apparently IBM disagrees with you
Honestly, you could do better. You should do better. I've seen cheese more knowledgable than you wrt Linux.