ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Is Windows vulnerable to attack by stolen digital certificates?

By | September 9, 2011, 7:43am PDT

Summary: Hacker claims that stolen SSL certificates can be used to create fake Windows Update packages.

An Iranian hacker going by the name of ‘Comodohacker’ claims that Windows PCs are vulnerable to attack from malware-loaded updates digitally signed with stolen certificates.

‘Comodohacker’ makes the claim following attacks on several certificate authorities (CAs), the companies responsible for issuing SSL certificates, including Comodo back in March and DigiNotar in July. The hacker now claims that the certificates he has stolen could be used to create fake Windows Updates.

I’m able to issue windows update, Microsoft’s statement about Windows Update and that I can’t issue such update is totally false! I already reversed ENTIRE windows update protocol, how it reads XMLs via SSL which includes URL, KB no, SHA-1 hash of file for each update, how it verifies that downloaded file is signed using WinVerifyTrust API, and… Simply I can issue updates via windows update! You see? I’m so smart, sharp, dangerous, powerful, etc. huh?

Microsoft however says that these claims are not accurate. Jonathan Ness, an engineer with the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC), had this to say:

In this particular case, we were originally aware of fraudulent certificates issued by DigiNotar for *.google.com and have since become aware of fraudulent certificates issued for *.microsoft.com, *.windowsupdate.com, www.update.microsoft.com, and a number of other domains for which conversation privacy is extremely important. Windows Update is a special case addressed later in the blog; however, suffice it to say that if the attacker had one of those certificates and had man-in-the-middle access to your network traffic, they could potentially snoop on (or change the contents of) conversations between you and any of those domains.

All versions of Windows are affected by this attack. However, when a user initiates an HTTPS SSL connection via Internet Explorer on Windows Vista, Windows 7, or Windows Server 2008 and encounters a new root certificate, the Windows certificate chain verification software checks a list of valid root certificates, which is hosted on Windows Update. As of August 29th, this Certificate Trust List (CTL) on Windows Update has been revised to remove DigiNotar from the list of trusted Certificate Authorities so that any certificates issued by DigiNotar are no longer trusted for HTTPS conversations.

Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 do not have the same Windows Update check mechanism. Instead, these versions of Windows rely on a static list of trusted root certificate authorities. This list is updated through the non-security update “Update for Root Certificates (KB 931125)”. DigiNotar was not initially included as a trusted root certificate in Windows XP, so if you have never installed this update, you are not vulnerable to any certificates issued by them.

However, any Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 system that installed this update as of November 2008 or later would have DigiNotar added as a trusted root certificate. Administrators of these systems can follow the steps in the “What you can do to protect yourself” section below to take proactive actions to remove DigiNotar as a trusted root Certificate Authority until Microsoft releases an update that fully addresses this problem.

Updates for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 platforms which will add DigiNotar to the Untrusted Certificate Store will, according to Microsoft, ‘be available soon.’ are available now [see update below].

Ness also gives instructions on delete the DigiNotar root from the certificate store. I’ve reprinted them below for your convenience:

Step 1: Remove the DigiNotar Root from the trusted root CA store

  • Click Start, click Start Search, type mmc, and then press ENTER.
  • On the File menu, click Add/Remove Snap-in
  • Under Available snap-ins, click Certificates, and then click Add
  • Under This snap-in will always manage certificates for, click Computer account, and then click Next
  • Click Local computer, and click Finish
  • If you have no more snap-ins to add to the console, click OK
  • In the console tree, double-click Certificates
  • Double-click the Trusted Root Certification Authorities store and click on Certificates to view all certificates in the store
  • Select the two DigiNotar Root CA certificates. You can confirm the right certificates by checking their thumbprints which should be “c0 60 ed 44 cb d8 81 bd 0e f8 6c 0b a2 87 dd cf 81 67 47 8c” and “43 d9 bc b5 68 e0 39 d0 73 a7 4a 71 d8 51 1f 74 76 08 9c c3″
  • Right-click the certificates and select Delete

To perform the above steps from the command-line, you can use the certutil.exe tools as follows:

  • certutil -delstore authroot “c0 60 ed 44 cb d8 81 bd 0e f8 6c 0b a2 87 dd cf 81 67 47 8c”
  • certutil -delstore authroot “43 d9 bc b5 68 e0 39 d0 73 a7 4a 71 d8 51 1f 74 76 08 9c c3″

Step 2: Clear the cache to remove any older cached CTL

The simplest way to do so is to use “certutil -urlcache * delete”. This will clean up the cache for the current user.

Stay safe!

[UPDATE: While the Microsoft blog post says that the updates for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 platforms will be 'available soon' they are available now.]

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

33
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

It's the right way to go.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 13th Sep
@Rabid Howler Monkey ... Locking down Windows (or any OS) prevents infections in the first place. When you get a message that your AV found an issue, you wonder what damage was done already. A while ago, I was at work, using XP and it was protected by Symmantec Corporate AV. Both were fully updated. I decided to cross check things and ran a couple of third party applications. They scan and identify problems, but don't remove them unless you purchase them. Fortunately they give enough info. to remove them yourself. They found 2 trojans and 2 keyloggers that had been on the system for 21 days. I removed the files and edited the registry myself. I was surprised Symantec did not find them. But the big mystery was if my bank or retirement information was taken.
I monitored the accounts and nothing was out of line. It was pretty uneasy for a while though. But it seems from the media that sometimes this is normal, even for the major AV providers.

It seems like the best we can do is to help people stay protected with any computer. If you type in your banks' URL and hit an adjacent character by mistake, you most likely will get a fraudulent web site that has the same format, color, fonts and layout as your bank. It also has the input boxes for your username and password. It happened to me, but fortunately I checked the URL and noticed it was off by one adjacent character. I called the bank security and reported it.

Recently I was at a state office and they have XP, but it's totally locked down, you can't write to the C:\ drive. If people want to save work, they have to use a flash drive. Thinking about it, that's not a bad way to go, sort of like a Linux Live CD. The people there said they never had an infection.

Cheers
0 Votes
+ -
Is this unique to Windows?
toddybottom 9th Sep
It seems to me that the real conclusion is that if you steal a key, you will be able to open the lock that key was for. This is newsworthy?

I was wondering how long it would take for ZDNet to turn this DigiNotar issue into a Windows specific issue. Looks like we didn't have to wait long and sure enough, it is AKH leading the charge.
@toddybottom Exactly, if someone robs a bank do you blame the bank's customer for using said bank?
@ccrockett@... I am surprised Adrian did not tell everyone Apple has yet remove DigiNotar from their browser on Macs
@mrlinux

He did. wink
@toddybottom How the hell is that fair? NOWHERE does Adrian blame Microsoft.

You are right this isn't Microsoft's fault, and I expect the problem will have other unintended consequences too (not just Windows).

However, this IS serious. Adrian (or more correctly Microsoft who Adrian is quoting) explains how to protect Windows systems from this. So instead of telling us the article is biased, why don't you run along and do what it says? THEN your Windows PC will actually be protected and you can go back to being a fanboy.

Jeesh!
0 Votes
+ -
Mr. Grumpy Pants
toddybottom 9th Sep
@Jeremy-UK
"NOWHERE does Adrian blame Microsoft."

Nice strawman. Nowhere did I accuse AKH of blaming MS for this.

I did accuse AKH of turning this into a Windows specific issue which is exactly what he did.

Sounds like Mr. Grumpy Pants needs a nappy changing.
@toddybottom
AKH didn't turn this into a Windows issue, the hacker that says he can publish malicious Windows Updates using the stolen certificates did. All AKH did was show that MS is on top of their game and have given users of their software (including the no longer officially supported Windows XP) ways to mitigate those attacks. Geez, some people just aren't happy if they can't complain about something.
90% of your post is/was/most of the time are c/p. Why not just have a link to said article and save space?
So... Why are we still using Windows XP again? Everyday a new attack seems to come out that affects XP, but not so much Vista and 7. Rootkits come to mind here.
0 Votes
+ -
@Cylon Centurion wrote:
"Why are we still using Windows XP again?

The economy?! It's adversely affecting many consumers and enterprises (especially local, state and federal gov't organizations). Plus, XP still has approx. 3 years of Microsoft support remaining.

@Cylon Centurion also wrote:
"Rootkits come to mind here.

Keep Windows and your apps updated/upgraded, don't run day-to-day in the Windows default account (i.e., create and use a limited/standard user account) and download software only from trusted sources like the developers sites, if at all possible. There are rootkits available for all versions of Windows, from XP to 7. And some have even gotten around PatchGuard.

That said, only keeping Windows and internet-facing apps, such as web browsers and email clients, updated will help protect against the stolen digital certificates under discussion. The vast majority of consumers will not use the Certificates snap-in to delete certificates as discussed in this article.
0 Votes
+ -
Reply: Rabid Howler Monkey.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 9th Sep
Seriously, XP is a monster and can be found anywhere computers are used in business. It forms the backbone of the current MS structure and finances. However, It also has received 70% of the 4.5 million TDL-4 botnet infections done in the first three months of 2011. MS is trying to kill it outright and also by the IE-9 debacle. Posters at ZDNet would like you to think it is a minority, obsolete and a non-issue. It amazing how fast they turn on it like it's some kind of pariah and responsible for all the evil in the Microsoft World.

New developments with TDL-4 research have discovered the creators are openly advertising anonymous proxy use of the infected computers and accepting payment via Visa, MC, AMEX and paypal. Several Firefox add-ons are available to configure and switch between proxies.

The second link is chilling, since it describes how illegal activity performed on an infected computer can result in legal ramifications if the victims IP address was identified. Very sobering indeed.

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/09/rent-a-bot-networks-tied-to-tdss-botnet/

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Anonymisation-service-uses-botnet-as-proxies-1339950.html
0 Votes
+ -
@Joe.Smetona Think about the default install of the most popular desktop Linux distros. (I know you're a Linux fan.)

1. The default account is a non-root account (usually with full sudo+ privileges).
2. The package manager provides users access to default software repositories with applications to download and install. (Users can choose to add add'l repositories.)
3. The updater takes care of all package updates, including the installed applications. In my experience, an icon or balloon notifies the user of available updates, the user clicks the icon or balloon and is presented with a list of updates and command button that he/she clicks to retrieve and apply the updates.

These three (3) items are pretty much in line with my above recommendations for Windows XP, Vista and 7. And why does Windows XP get picked on for rootkits such as the Alureon(TDL4/TDL3) family? Because there are so many unpatched, pirated versions of XP:

http://www.sectechno.com/2011/08/06/pirated-copies-of-windows-xp-top-rootkit-target/

In addition, many users running licensed versions of Windows XP run day-to-day in the default account (as Admin), install software from untrustworthy sources and fail to keep their systems and applications updated. These latter two poor practices will also help to bring down Windows Vista and 7. The figure in the link above clearly indicates both Vista and 7 rootkit infections.

Note that there are rootkits for Linux too. Check the rkhunter and chkrootkit home pages for a listing of *Nix rootkits. Btw, rkhunter and chkrootkit are open-source rootkit (or malware if you like) scanners for *Nix, including Linux.

Why aren't rootkits a problem for desktop Linux users? A combination of reasonable default security settings and low market share (read 'the malware miscreants aren't interested because there isn't enough money in it to make it worth the effort'). *Nix rootkits are primarily an issue for servers. Especially those servers that are poorly configured, infrequently updated and/or inadequately monitored.

+ sudo - On a new Linux install, I add 'timestamp_timeout=0' to the 'Defaults' line in /etc/sudoers to remove the default 5-minute time period after a successful sudo authentication when no further authentication is requested for elevating privileges (it's just like running as Admin in Windows XP for 5 minutes). Also, I modify /etc/sudoers to allow the default user access to only a handful of commands not susceptible to shell escape (thanks ye), I run 'su root' in a terminal window for all other commands that require root privileges.
0 Votes
+ -
Reply: Rabid Howler Monkey.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 10th Sep
Thanks for the information about Linux. It's really very, very good advice and it makes a lot of sense to minimize exposure to priority use. It's really like polishing your driving skills to make you a safer driver. Linux has been an extremely good experience for me and my family.

It's given me total freedom from maintenance and security issues. I've tried to extend it's benefits as much as possible to others, including friends and family and readers here. I installed Mint 11 in two schools and it removed a lot of headaches and problems from the students and faculty.

I can recommend Mint from my own experience. My computer experience goes back to before MS using mini-computers, so I can understand that Windows is not "computing" and alternatives are available. Unfortunately, MS through strong arm tactics has cultivated an image of being the only player. This isn't based on quality of product.

The one totally underrated characteristic of Linux is the fact it's code and kernel are open source. I can't stress enough how important that has been. Linux was open source since version 1 in 1991 under the GNU/GPL license. This is one attribute of Linux that seems to go completely over peoples' heads and it's the most important. Linux making their complete blueprint available to anyone for free (OS and Kernel) speaks volumes to the quality and security of their code.

Attacks on Windows are from indirect information. Since their source code is closed and held in strictest privacy, someone wanting to understand it's operation has to use other indirect means to gather data. I've used the Mutek Black box on a sophisticated CAD program. I opened the program, drew one line, and closed the program. The Black box generated a file of over 30,000 operations. These "sniffers" can also identify a program or OS sending information or connecting to the network or internet.

Having experienced this, It became apparent to me that Windows source code can never be published, even if it were not a matter of Microsoft IP. Windows is actually relying on keeping it's source code private for security. Binary files aren't readable. That's why AV companies are so important in it's life cycle. Feedback has to be provided to MS to create "Critical Updates". This system is desirable to MS because they really don't have to pay for AV services or security.

As time goes on, the OS becomes more secure. That's what happened to XP. Ten years of exploits, Free AV feedback and Critical Updates have created a relatively strong platform. XP really became too popular, too seasoned and well entrenched for MS financial health.

I think a lot of people here think I sprouted out of the ground as a LInux Geek. Actually the opposite is true.

I worked for a large engineering company and we were all using Windows for Workgroups 3.1. We were using a new relational database system with our CAD system called Rebis. It was very slow and kept crashing to the point of being unusable. I was asked to write a report on upgrading our companies existing Windows for Workgroups 3.1 (16-bit) computers to the new 32-bit Windows NT OS's. I supplied an 18 page report with NT technical innovations to management and they decided to go with NT (10,000 computers world wide). Part of the transition was to use Net-G online testing for NT with all employees having to score at least 80 to pass. I was one of two in the office (of 1000) to score 100. Using 32-bit NT allowed the project to complete successfully.

Ye, along with a few others have mentioned that they can use Windows without AV. I don't doubt them, but they are experienced professionals and use scanning tools to hand pick items of interest. The real world and ordinary people are different. There's probably no conscious effort to be secure. Linux excels for these people, because it does keep them safe with no attention or maintenance required.
0 Votes
+ -
@Joe.Smetona The open-source nature of Linux and open-source applications is a double-edged sword. Open-source devs are just as human as the devs at Microsoft, Apple, etc. and they all make mistakes, both in design and implementation (read 'coding'). And the C (and C++) language, with which poor coding practices can lead to buffer overflow vulnerabilities and associated exploits, is used for all the Linux, Windows and Mac OS X kernels.

A malware miscreant is free like anyone else to inspect open-source code for vulnerabilities. But unlike the good guys, he/she will quietly craft an exploit and start using it. Also, there is voluminous, publicly available literature on discovered vulnerabilities in open-source (and closed-source) software. And guess what, some of these vulnerabilities, for various reasons, have gone unpatched. In this case, the malware miscreants will craft an exploit from a known and published vulnerability. And in fact, the most recent in-the-wild, DoS exploit for the Apache web server resulted from a vulnerability that was first noted in 1999 and remained unpatched for years:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/kill-tool-released-for-unpatched-apache-server-vulnerability/9304

In addition, a technique known as 'fuzzing' is used by hackers/crackers to find exploitable vulnerabilities in software. It was highlighted at a recent Pwn2Own contest and resulted in the identification of exploitable vulnerabilities in OpenOffice (in addition to Microsoft and Apple software):

"Respect The Fuzzer
http://threatpost.com/en_us/slideshow/10%20Lessons%20From%20The%20Pwn2Own%20Hacker%20Contest?page=9

Fortunately, Charlie Miller is one of the good guys.

@Joe.Smetona wrote:
"Ye, along with a few others have mentioned that they can use Windows without AV ... The real world and ordinary people are different. There's probably no conscious effort to be secure. Linux excels for these people, because it does keep them safe with no attention or maintenance required.

With regard to using an AV on Windows, true least privilege beats an AV hands down. And by least privilege I mean don't use a Windows default account for anything except administering the system. Create and use a limited user account on XP and a standard user account on Vista/7 for day-to-day activities.

Just remember that the digital certificate fiasco discussed in this very article put Linux users at as much risk as Windows and Mac OS users. Also, Linux users remain susceptible to both phishing and spear phishing attacks.

That said, I have to agree with your statement. However, "the ordinary people" you describe usually need a helping hand getting started with desktop Linux. This is also why I favor Apple's iPad, with it's curated app store, and Google's Chrome OS for "the ordinary people" you describe. But, make no mistake, there will eventually be LOTS of malicious web apps to ensnare "the ordinary people" that will use Chrome OS in the future.
0 Votes
+ -
It's sometimes a difficult topic.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 10th Sep
@Rabid Howler Monkey ,,, I would not trust ZDNet articles about such problems. I've found them to be threaded with propaganda and especially propaganda by omission (or card stacking). For the most part, even if the author seems to advocate Apple or Linux, they provide subtle references to discredit their use. Discrediting Apple or Linux actually is a hidden endorsement of Microsoft. Zdnet exists to further Microsoft marketing and sales ambitions. It's very time intensive to research and validate an article like that.

One of the areas I have found most disturbing here over the years (and it hasn't changed) is the omission of the OS used in the articles. From a propaganda standpoint, it serves a two-fold purpose. 1. It may be assumed that MS is being used, but not mentioning it advances the perception that "it's the only player". 2. In cases (as you mentioned) of security articles on OpenOffice, Firefox or Chrome, the issue at hand is blamed on the application, even in most cases that I have seen there is an underlying component causing the problem in the OS. Again, this is how propaganda works, by not mentioning the OS, all the blame is pushed onto the application. The dirty little secret is that sister applications I have used for years on Linux don't have any issues. So, it's logical to see even though a vector is free to penetrate Firefox, it's root cause is a problem with Windows. For arguments sake, let's say that for Firefox to compete, it winds up fixing the hole to protect Windows. That's something it should not have to do on a secure OS like Linux without the vulnerability. Firefox having a problem on Windows doesn't necessarily mean it's a Firefox problem. In fact, I would not expect any application used on Windows to correct Windows security. These articles are written and the net result is that "Windows suffers a complete takeover by an un-trusted source". Really? How is Firefox to blame for that? People just don't think sometimes.

http://www.zdnet.com/tb/1-102399-2008592?tag=talkback-river;1_102399_2008592

I've seen listings for Linux malware and have investigated to a degree. It seems a lot of what has been posted are potential problems that have long since been corrected. I go to a new version of Linux Mint every 6 months. I'm not sure any of those documented problems have any bearing on Mint 11. I've maintained the family Win98 and WinXP computers years ago, when my oldest son was in HS and college. It was horrific, even with ZoneAlarm and AV and spyware protection. It was always getting infected and always at the worst time. Win7 is no different, only slower. Relatives have infection issues and the UAC is a nuisance. Why does it continually pop up even though I didn't request to install anything? It's dumb, I have to dismiss it every 3 minutes. Linux does not request confirmation unless you want to install something.

I disagree about the open source/closed source statements. Windows 7, 8 or whatever would be taken down within minutes if the source code ever got out. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't have to be that way. Closed source could easily be private and have the same security level as Open Source. But I've seen the listing of companies acquired by MS and the corresponding technology gained (Like Active-X). MS pieced together this acquired code to create their OS. That and the arrogance of supplying just the binary files allowed them to create code without regard to security. Think about this, why would they have to do otherwise with AV companies giving them feedback on any major problem for free? Did you ever see the Stuxnet .pdf file from Symantec? That's a 77 page freebie for MS loaded with data. Why pay someone to research it or even try to write secure code to prevent it.

Stuxnet, Conficker, TDL-4 and others don't affect Linux.

I use the computer every day and in 9 years I haven't had to think about any security issue, virus, AV update, botnet or identity theft. It really does sound to good to be true. I wouldn't put too much trust in ZDNet articles though. TDL-4 infected millions in the first quarter of 2011 and ZDNet completely ignored it. People don't know they were infected. The 4.5M infections were derived by Kapersky Labs. 70% were XP and 30% were Vista and Win7, incl.64-bit Win7 with driver signing protection. This is obviously something MS is deathly afraid of.

80,000+ web hits for "tdl4" + "rootkit"
http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22tdl4%22+%2B+%22rootkit%22&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=

TDL-4 variant discovered: TDL-4.2
http://sub0day.com/?page_id=2
0 Votes
+ -
@Joe.Smetona wrote:
"I would not trust ZDNet articles about such problems. I've found them to be threaded with propaganda and especially propaganda by omission (or card stacking).

The Apache web server vulnerability in question was reported by ZDNet (linked in my post above) as well as other well-known tech publications. However, ZDNet's article didn't go into detail regarding the history of this particular vulnerability. Below are two links, external to ZDNet, that discuss the vulnerability in detail, the first from a software perspective and the second from the TCP perspective:

"a cheesy Apache / IIS DoS vuln (+a question)
http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2007/Jan/83

This vulnerability was reported on January 4, 2007 for *both* Apache and IIS. Microsoft actually fixed the problem for IIS versions 6.0 and higher.

"Vulnerability Note VU#102014
"Optimistic TCP acknowledgements can cause denial of service
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/102014

This vulnerability date is November 10, 2005. Note that the 'condition' was first described in 1999.

Using your dislike and mistrust of ZDNet as an excuse to discount factual information just makes it clear that you're only interested in running around waving the FOSS flag. Whatever. Knock yourself out.

Here's my anecdotal story: I've been running Windows XP since 2004, mostly as a limited user, and have seen only one infection attempt on my system. This was back in early 2005 when I was experimenting with a 3rd party software firewall (Outpost, I think) and was not behind a hardware firewall. I got the firewall rules wrong and took it down by mistake. Almost immediately, I got nailed and what saved me in the end was XP's Data Execution Prevention (DEP) which I had enabled for all programs (not Microsoft's default setting). DEP stopped the infection attempt in its tracks and also provided me with a notification.

The moral of the story? Windows XP's default security settings are terrible, even at SP3. However, one can improve security considerably with just a few set and forget configuration changes to the OS discussed in my posts on this thread. And one can improve their security even more through good practices, also discussed in my posts.

Ciao
0 Votes
+ -
I have to respond to this.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 10th Sep
@Rabid Howler Monkey ...

"Using your dislike and mistrust of ZDNet as an excuse to discount factual information just makes it clear that you're only interested in running around waving the FOSS flag. Whatever. Knock yourself out."

Are you serious? I can't believe you wrote that. How in the world do you explain ZDNet writing or reporting absolutely nothing about the TDL-4 botnet in over 9 months??? TDL-4 infected 4.5 million Windows users in the first three months of 2011. These users are in danger of identity theft, bank theft, credit card theft and other atrocities without even being aware they are infected. And you don't see the Propaganda angle here???

The Apache issue is a "denial of service issue" which builds into a life or death article by ZDNet. Alert: It's another lame attempt to discredit Apache and/or open source. IT'S NOT A TDL-4 SITUATION, LIKE THEY *** DON'T *** REPORT FOR WINDOWS. It's propaganda, but in order to see that, you have to know the history. I have 4516 archived email and newsletters from ZDNET. If I click my ZDNet label, I see the last 100 newsletters and topics at a glance. I know how they dance around. How about that Ed Bott article on Windows security advancements where he did not even mention TDL-4??? The one where 45 non-offensive posts were deleted. I feel sorry for people who don't notice what's going on here.

Basically if you don't see how not reporting TDL-4 for nine months (when there are 87,000 NON-ZDnet posts about it) is not propaganda, then you will never see it.

You have to ask yourself, Why write an article about an old DoS issue on Apache when we could be writing about TDL-4 and 4.5 million infected Windows users? Nah, we won't ever mention TDL-4. That's how you begin to see propaganda.

I'm reading posts about TDL-4 and 4.2 and it's very obvious that very talented and street wise users are getting infected too. The precautions you are doing for XP are notable, but given 2 rooms with 100 low-average users in each using Win7 or Mint, I'll put my money on the Mint users for security. And that's without any training or intervention.

Good luck with this TDL thing, it's constantly changing and it's surely nothing to be ignored. Waving flags has nothing to do with it, Linux doesn't get it, that's notable. This is a real Windows killer and hiding under a rock isn't going to make it go away.
0 Votes
+ -
@Joe.Smetona Here's a link to a ZDNet article on Windows rootkits dated August 5, 2011:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/study-rootkits-target-pirated-copies-of-windows-xp/9223

The "Alureon(TDL4/TDL3) family" is mentioned prominently in the body of the article which also gives a nod to Windows 7 improved security. Even though both Windows Vista and 7 also had rootkit infections, but at significantly reduced levels relative to XP. Only one commenter recommended desktop Linux or Mac OS X as alternatives to Windows. And a blog spammer pushed cheap iPad2s (among other things), probably nothing to do with the article though.

All in all, a pretty weak article. Why don't you get SJVN to write an article on the Windows Alureon malware family? He enjoys shining a spotlight on Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
You are welcome to believe anything you want.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 11th Sep
@Rabid Howler Monkey ... I come here for the posts and more than a few times, got valuable information from some of the blog contributors. The stories, like I mentioned before are imbalanced, like putting a few bricks in the spin cycle. They aren't designed for people like me, they are designed for people who believe them and accept them at face value (without a critical eye). So, I guess if you want to agree with the article, it's your prerogative. Personally, I see a much darker picture. I expected they would blame pirated copies of XP. Why not kill two birds with one propaganda stone? The information I read about TDL-4 is obviously from people using genuine copies. And what about 64-bit Windows 7 with it's driver signing getting hosed? I don't think there are too many pirated copies of those around.

This is not an article about TDL-4 by any stretch of the imagination.
Please note that I do feel sorry for some of the authors here, but unfortunately they are victims and heavily scripted by Microsoft. It's patently obvious there are certain things they are forbidden to discuss or mention.

Have a cup of tea, fire up your Windows and enjoy the article. It's good that you have determined there's nothing to worry about. Surely ZDNet has full equipped you to recommend Windows to your friends and colleagues without hesitation. That's more money in the Microsoft coffers, exactly as designed and planned.

I wouldn't discount some of the authors purporting to advocate Linux or Apple here. The articles are threaded with reverse incantations either directly or indirectly promoting Microsoft (if you look closely). Remember, I have the Microsoft newsletters since 2006 and have a good perspective to see what goes on here. The article you referenced is an absolute joke, and I'm sure even the author is ashamed of it, but a job is a job. It's not an article on TDL-4 at all.

I'm just the messenger, I don't use Windows, but have friends that do. If Linux is so bad, why isn't it considered for Stuxnet or TDL-4? I think you mentioned market share befrore, but that bird has flown since Android and Apple. How has MS done in the smartphone arena? Windows smartphones need AV. I recently got a Walmart flyer with a page dedicated to smartphones. It only depicted 9 Android phones. All that money and no Smartphone share to speak of. Why? (They can't schlep their botnet, virus, AV garbage on closely metered cell tower 3G and 4G internet.) 2,500 spam emails a day from a botnet smartphone create some pretty hefty data plan overages. How are you going to spin that, or is there another ZDNet article on it? Microsoft hit a brick wall with this.
0 Votes
+ -
@Joe.Smetona Now you're on to market share.

Consider desktop vs. mobile market share from two sources:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-monthly-201101-201108

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Looks like mobile device usage from a web site perspective is a fraction of desktop device usage. Current mobile device usage is 7% from StatCounter and 1% from w3schools. The desktop gets the remainder, over 90%.

Looking at it another way, combining both mobile and desktop OS market share:

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

Windows XP, 7 and Vista continue to dominate all other OSs, including mobile OSs.

For the malware miscreants, the Windows-based PC remains as their primary revenue source. But, this is beginning to change. Mobile device usage is trending upwards.

Google's Android Market has been plagued by miscreants introducing malware-laden apps into the store, to be discovered and reported by university researchers, security researchers, AV companies, etc. I guess that Google doesn't care much for the repository model used by the desktop Linux distros (Apple likes it though, KaChing!). Pity.

AV products actually exist for iOS- and Android-based mobile devices. They're completely unnecessary for the iPhone and iPad. However, for "the ordinary people", AV software for Android-based devices is as relevant as it is for Windows-based PCs. I, personally, would not use AV software on a mobile device (unless my employer required it). But, then again, I wouldn't touch Android (other than a Nook Color eReader/tablet) with a 10-foot pole. Not to mention many Android OEMs that are late (or, worse, absent) with important firmware updates and upgrades.

P.S. Send SJVN an email requesting that he write an article on the Windows Alureon malware family. He just might do it. And, if so, it will be a doosy.
0 Votes
+ -
Perspective.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 12th Sep
@Rabid Howler Monkey ... I don't own a smartphone, but I've had Gmail since 2005. If you read Google's white papers on spam identification and removal, they are second to none. I only get (maybe) one spam email a year in my inbox. I would expect the same quality with their apps library for the Android smartphone. Any of the millions of people who have Gmail can attest to this fact regarding spam. It's a total non-issue. As far as Android, it's done remarkably well in it's beginning stages and given Google's experience in this area, it's obviously not going to be a problem. So, your point isn't with Android, it's with some bad applications and Google's ability to identify and remove them. There is no one better equipped on the planet to do that than Google. It's been proven with Gmail.

Your comments about Apple preclude someone iOS jailbreaking their phone, which I understand is done quite often. Can Apple be held accountable for this? Granted, Apple wants to make money through a closed software circuit, but they are also providing security. Anyone breaking the phone assumes the responsibility for the rogue apps they are installing.

These issues are going to apply to any computer and AV is not going to help since the user is given control. Getting a user to have some discipline regarding installation of software is not easy.

Anyway, regarding TDL-4, the easiest way to check for infections is to open your processes dialog box. If you have more that a few svchost.exe processes running (ex. 10 or 15), you are most likely infected. Since TDL-4 now, TDL-4.2 is constantly changing, it's difficult to determine the action to take. It appears to now be able to completely redirect browsers with absolutely no indication or messaging to the user.
0 Votes
+ -
@Joe.Smetona Here's some perspective on mobile device security from a security pro:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219848/Blinded_by_the_smartphone_glitz_Is_security_on_your_must_have_features_list_

The Apple iPhone and RIM Blackberry are currently beating Google Android in the security space. Get over it.

"the ordinary people" don't jailbreak their iOS-based devices. Nor do they 'root' their Android-based devices.

Aren't rootkits, at least the good ones, supposed to hide themselves? You make the Alureon rootkit family appear as ordinary trojans or viruses. I guess there's no need for the likes of RootkitRevealer, Blacklight, IceSword, SVV, GMER, etc.

Similarly, you might want to download, install and run the open-source 'chkrootkit' and 'rkhunter' malware scanners on your Linux systems. Just be aware that a MTA (mail tranfer agent), probably exim, will be installed as a dependency of rkhunter and will run as a daemon. If you are not running your Linux behind a firewall, you should also load iptables with rules that implement a default deny policy.
0 Votes
+ -
Issues with Android.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 12th Sep
@Rabid Howler Monkey .. I read the article and the author does not have a problem with Android (Linux), but with apps created for it that are insecure. Since I don't own a smartphone, I'll go out a limb and say that if I bought one, I would only install from trusted sources - Similar to not using Windows to arbitrarily download screensavers at random. For me, with home Linux Mint, I download an ATI video driver for my 2GB PCI 16X card. Previously, it was a custom Nvidia Linux driver for the onboard graphics. Also, Filezilla, Google Chrome 64, Opera, Lynx, Google Earth, Google Picasa, Truecrypt, K3B, and even SETI at one point. The balance of the programs come from the Software manager containing 33,000 free titles. Mint, having come from Ubuntu incorporated the Novell Security Suite, and LSM (Linux Security Module). It's a very closed system and Linux doesn't install things by itself (unattended) like Windows does.

I mentioned about Gmail and ZDNet archives, but, I have over 10,000 Linux emails archived, many from help forums. I haven't run across any mention of rootkit infections in any of the forums or articles. No one is hiding anything, it just does not happen in real life.

"Android phones are required to back up to a cloud-based service that we hear is regularly compromised." -- from the article. This shows me the author has no idea what he's talking about. Google data centers being compromised?? The one Google issue regarding their data was from two Chinese employees keeping sensitive data on a Windows notebook. The notebook was hit with a zero-day exploit and Google immediately ordered that Windows was no longer to be used within the company.

I looked at the "rootkit finders" you mentioned. Here's part of the readme from chrootkit:

exec file('c:\\python\\chkrootkit.py')
after that use the [options] button and select 'Search Malwares'.
I hope this helps. -- Chrootkit readme."

This is for s60 phones, most notably Nokia. I don't see this being viable for Linux based on my experience. Andriod is fine and Google Market could probably improve it's methods for screening apps, but based on my experience with Gmail algorithms, that's going to come in short order. This is not something your ordinary user is going to use or try to install

"Android Market is the online software store developed by Google for Android devices. An application program ("app") called "Market" is preinstalled on most Android devices and allows users to browse and download apps published by third-party developers, hosted on Android Market. As of December 2010 there were about 200,000 games, applications and widgets available on the Android Market. In April 2011 Google said there had been more than 3 billion Android apps installed and at end of June 2011 there are 6 billion apps installs from the Android market. The operating system itself is installed on 130 million total devices."

"Only devices that comply with Google's compatibility requirements are allowed to preinstall Google's closed-source Android Market app and access the Market. The Market filters the list of applications presented by the Market app to those that are compatible with the user's device, and developers may restrict their applications to particular carriers or countries for business reasons."
--From Wikipedia.

Please note the quantities of installed apps. This is a gigantic endeavor, and I'm not seeing too many complaints or bad press. Wal-Mart advertising just Android is significant. Smartphones are a sensitive commodity, unlike Windows desktops, where MS can get away with anything and hide it under the rug (ZDNet) because of broadband. If they ever metered desktop broadband like 3G or 4G internet from cell towers, MS would be gone in a flash.
@Joe.Smetona The CW article I linked regarding mobile device security also addresses patches for the Android platform. In particular, assuming that there are patches available. It's well known that many of the Android OEMs and carriers are not pushing firmware updates (read patches) nearly as fast as the vulnerabilities are discovered, leaving their customers hanging. Ditto for firmware upgrades (another way to escape known vulnerabilities). This isn't a Google problem as they are quick to patch vulnerabilities. It's an OEM and carrier problem because they modify the Android software created and provided by Google.

You said regarding Android applications, "I would only install from trusted sources". This is the problem. The malware miscreants have infiltrated, and continue to infiltrate, Google's Android Market. This is why I stated in a previous post that the only Android-based device I would consider using is the Nook Color eReader/tablet. Barnes & Noble curates the apps in their app store. Sure, there are a lot fewer apps than found in the Android Market, but they are safe.

The rootkit scanners, chrootkit and rkhunter, are for Linux and other *Nix's. They should both be in your Linux Mint package manager. This was merely a ***-for-tat in response to your svchost.exe comment for Windows. happy
0 Votes
+ -
It's been a good run here.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 13th Sep
@Rabid Howler Monkey ... I think we both covered a lot of territory with some really good introspections.

I have 3 Virgin mobile flip phones for the family with the 6.99/month plan and .10 cents a minute. I guess it would be nice to have a smartphone someday, but I'm probably paying less for three regular phones than one smartphone. Plus, we don't have the phones glued to our ear like some people do. Typically the calls are 1-3 minutes. A new Ford mustang crashed head on into a large tree about 2 houses down from us. It was a one car accident and the car was mangled pretty bad. We live on a pretty wide residential street and it doesn't take much to figure out the kid was texting or something. I was in a car while the driver received a text from his son and he attempted to answer it going about 70 mph. He was swerving all over as he tried to text back while driving. If you've ever experienced someone doing this, it's pretty frightening.

I mentioned the svchost issue because it is viable and was mentioned in one of the Kapersky articles as an effective way to test for infection.

I kept Win7 on my netbook when I installed Mint. I installed Avira on Win7 immediately after getting it and Windows is basically never used. (Browsing operations are identical with MInt). However, recently, I opened it up to let the MS updates install and was getting a different pop up virus found message from Avira about every 3 minutes. This is a pristine OEM install getting viruses just trying to install updates. This is just unacceptable. Having used Linux for 9 years with no issues, it's a real turn off to have to deal with those virus found message dialogs. According to the articles and posts here, I should not have to deal with this. I've closed over 4,000 technical support calls for a major enterprise CAD software company. I really don't want to involve myself (at this point) in finding preventions and cures for Windows, which is what is happening without even using it. I mean, you have used Mint or Ubuntu, did you ever personally get infected? I've never found anyone with infection issues?

The family is comfortable with Mint. There's absolutely no maintenance except clicking the shield (update icon) once or twice a week. I can update every six months to a new revision for free. A new install takes about 10 minutes on my dual core AMD. (and I only have 2 GB Ram)

From working on computers I have found the people generally are very attached to them. It's generally not easy for people to make a transition to LInux. They are familiar with Windows, even though they have to deal with AV and infections. I would not expect Geek Squad to make many visits to a family at $300 a pop before the family goes to BJ's, Sam's or Best Buy to replace it (Usually with another Windows computer). It's just a cycle I've seen over the last 20 years. Hardware rapidly depreciates.

I'm fine with Linux and you prefer Windows, they both do the job.
@Joe.Smetona wrote:
"I'm fine with Linux and you prefer Windows, they both do the job.

I use both Windows and Linux systems and never stated that I prefer Windows. I actually like both OSs. (I like PC-BSD and OpenBSD too, but am not running either at the moment for various reasons.) As a matter of fact, all my posts on this thread were made from a PC running desktop Linux.

Regarding AV software, I don't run it on my Windows systems because my experience has shown that true least privilege is more effective. On all of my Windows systems (XP and Vista), I consider the default account to be the Administrator account and use it only to administer the system. All other activities get done in a limited user account on Windows XP and a standard user account on Windows Vista.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that a default desktop Linux install with a popular distro is both more secure and maintenance free than Microsoft's default Windows XP install. Especially for consumers and small businesses. (Enterprises, if they choose to, can lock down Windows XP Professional pretty darn tight.)

Cheers
0 Votes
+ -
It's the right way to go.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 13th Sep
@Rabid Howler Monkey ... Locking down Windows (or any OS) prevents infections in the first place. When you get a message that your AV found an issue, you wonder what damage was done already. A while ago, I was at work, using XP and it was protected by Symmantec Corporate AV. Both were fully updated. I decided to cross check things and ran a couple of third party applications. They scan and identify problems, but don't remove them unless you purchase them. Fortunately they give enough info. to remove them yourself. They found 2 trojans and 2 keyloggers that had been on the system for 21 days. I removed the files and edited the registry myself. I was surprised Symantec did not find them. But the big mystery was if my bank or retirement information was taken.
I monitored the accounts and nothing was out of line. It was pretty uneasy for a while though. But it seems from the media that sometimes this is normal, even for the major AV providers.

It seems like the best we can do is to help people stay protected with any computer. If you type in your banks' URL and hit an adjacent character by mistake, you most likely will get a fraudulent web site that has the same format, color, fonts and layout as your bank. It also has the input boxes for your username and password. It happened to me, but fortunately I checked the URL and noticed it was off by one adjacent character. I called the bank security and reported it.

Recently I was at a state office and they have XP, but it's totally locked down, you can't write to the C:\ drive. If people want to save work, they have to use a flash drive. Thinking about it, that's not a bad way to go, sort of like a Linux Live CD. The people there said they never had an infection.

Cheers
@Cylon Centurion -- Man, you just can't let go can you? People are going to be using XP for the next two years and beyond, so you better suck it up and get used to it.

"...but not so much Vista and 7"

Then why is MS patching them as well?

God Almighty! You are like a broken record!
0 Votes
+ -
@Rodo1

Joe.Smetona said it best: "It forms the backbone of the current MS structure and finances. However, It also has received 70% of the 4.5 million TDL-4 botnet infections done in the first three months of 2011."

You can also add in to that Conficker, Blaster, MyDoom, etc.

Is is a work horse, but is also higly vulnerable. Kinda like the North Atlantic to the Titanic - Once you get past the hull (Which isn't hard to do), you have free reign over the entire ship. Those "water tight compartments" aren't so water tight in XP.

Not a trade off I'd like to make.
0 Votes
+ -
@Cylon Centurion If a Windows XP user keeps Windows and all installed applications updated/upgraded (read 'uses IE8', for example), downloads software from only trusted sources (like the developers sites) and runs day-to-day in a limited user account, how on earth will an mbr rootkit, driver, etc. get installed on their system?

And worms? The only supported version of Windows XP is SP3 and it includes the Windows firewall that is enabled by default. Plus, most users are also behind a hardware firewall. Finally, users can choose to (or be forced to in an enterprise setting) create sufficiently long and complex user account passwords to thwart brute force attacks.

Remember, Stuxnet was effective against *all* supported versions of Windows when it was released.

And Conficker? Don't pick up a USB stick or CD-ROM in a parking lot or accept one from a stranger and stick it in your PC when you get home or to your desk at work.

I realize that both Windows Vista and 7 have significant security improvements over XP, but if one follows the rules, then infection will not be a slam-dunk on Windows XP.
after i installed KB2607712 i see 5 DigiNotar entries in the Untrusted Certificate Store. i assume before the update that they were not there. however, i still see the two DigiNotar entries in the Trusted Certificate store. this is on an XP system. anyone know if the update is actually suppose to remove the Trusted entries or is this a case where the Untrusted entries always overrides the Untrusted ones?
Most of the U.S. government uses Windows XP, and I can confirm that at least my computer still has the DigiNotar Root CA and DigiNotar Root CA G2 certificates.
I'm pretty sure that Ubuntu issued an update for certificates the other day as well. This affects everyone.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix