Video Screencast Help
Security Response
Showing posts in English
Peter Ferrie | 18 Dec 2006 08:00:00 GMT | 0 comments

SecuriTeam recently ran a Code Cruncher competition. The idea was to create the smallest possible Windows executable file that could download an arbitrary file from the Code Cruncher site.

While the final results are not in yet, one entry at 210 bytes (including the length of the URL) looks set to be the winner. Why? Because it executes entirely from within the PE header. That's right - there is no code outside of the file header, only strings, such as the URL. Even more amazing, those strings are encrypted. The decryptor fits into the PE header, along with the downloader code.

Here's a sanitized version of it (the relevant code and URL have been replaced):

Malware that can travel in one network packet, even smaller than CodeRed...

Ollie Whitehouse | 15 Dec 2006 08:00:00 GMT | 0 comments

Ciao! Back in May, at the Microsoft Embedded Developer Conference in Las Vegas, Microsoft provided a number of presentations on Windows CE 6. The following is a summary of the improvements in Windows CE 6, which either directly or indirectly impact upon the security. The points below are taken from the slide decks of the presentations and are distilled down with some commentary added. It should be noted that it is not currently clear when or if Windows CE 6 will be adopted by the Windows Mobile Group. This entry follows up on the blog regarding Windows CE/Mobile 5, which I posted earlier this week.

From the talk Windows CE 6 Overview by David Kelly & Tim Kiesow of Microsoft, I have taken the following points away:
  • It supports safe SEH for security compliance (/GS)
  • Secure C Run-Time Libraries (Same...
Mimi Hoang | 14 Dec 2006 08:00:00 GMT | 0 comments

Rustock, also known as “Spambot”, is a family of back door programs with advanced user and kernel mode rootkit capabilities. Rustock has constantly been in development since around November, 2005. Rustock is a tough threat to combat because of its approach of combining multiple evasion techniques to remain undetected by commonly used rootkit detectors, such as Rootkit Revealer, IceSword, and BlackLight.

To start with, Rustock is downloaded from remote Web sites that host Web browser exploits and is then installed on unpatched computers. Along with the Rustock threat, a downloader will download other malicious code and even a misleading application, Spy Sheriff.

The second version of Rustock, named Rustock.B, employs even more sophisticated techniques than its predecessor – the original Rustock.A. Its advanced rootkit techniques,...

Amado Hidalgo | 14 Dec 2006 08:00:00 GMT | 0 comments

I’d like to try and clarify the confusionthat has surrounded the publishing and reporting of three MicrosoftWord vulnerabilities in the last few days. The bad news is that thereare actually three different vulnerabilities in the wild. Inchronological order, this is the breakdown of these threevulnerabilities.

Vulnerability #1
BID 21451: Microsoft Word Unspecified Remote Code Execution Vulnerability (CVE-2006-5994).
This vulnerability was first reported by Microsoft on December 6 via their Security Advisory 929433. Symantec Security Response created a heuristic detection (Bloodhound.Exploit.106) for this vulnerability that yielded some...

Amado Hidalgo | 13 Dec 2006 08:00:00 GMT | 0 comments

MS Word is under scrutiny again this month.We have some new and interesting details about the vulnerabilityreported by Microsoft on December 5 (referenced by CVE-2006-5994). Thestory shows how the road from a simple bug to a working exploit isshort and sometimes unpredictable.

This morning we analyzed some new samples that had been detected as Bloodhound.Exploit.106, which is a new heuristic detection released yesterday for the Microsoft Word zero-day vulnerability (described in Microsoft Security Advisory 929433). Among the submissions received from our customers we found a Word file that turned out to be a little gem.

We found a malicious Word document that was written in Portuguese and added detection for it as...

Ben Greenbaum | 12 Dec 2006 08:00:00 GMT | 0 comments

All aboard! Welcome to another ride on themonthly Microsoft patch train. We’ve got quite a few stops this monthand most are client-side vulnerabilities, meaning that an end user hasto take specific actions (typically by obtaining and then openinghostile content). Unless otherwise stated, the privilege granted to theattacker for all of the below vulnerabilities is the privilege level ofthe victim user. Most were publicly disclosed for the first time today,but the exceptions are noted. They are listed below in the order ofmost to least critical for the fabled “typical” network.

Vulnerability in SNMP Could Allow Remote Code Execution MS06-074 / KB926247

This vulnerability seems almost old-fashioned in the modern securitylandscape – a common buffer overflow...

Ben Greenbaum | 12 Dec 2006 08:00:00 GMT | 0 comments

All aboard! Welcome to another ride on the monthly Microsoft patch train. We’ve got quite a few stops this month and most are client-side vulnerabilities, meaning that an end user has to take specific actions (typically by obtaining and then opening hostile content). Unless otherwise stated, the privilege granted to the attacker for all of the below vulnerabilities is the privilege level of the victim user. Most were publicly disclosed for the first time today, but the exceptions are noted. They are listed below in the order of most to least critical for the fabled “typical” network.

Vulnerability in SNMP Could Allow Remote Code Execution MS06-074 / KB926247

This vulnerability seems almost old-fashioned in the modern security landscape – a common buffer...

Ollie Whitehouse | 12 Dec 2006 08:00:00 GMT | 0 comments

Bonjour! Carrying on from my previous blog post, here is some more information on Windows CE/Mobile 5 security.

Shatter

Windows CE and Mobile, like its desktop cousin, can suffer “shatter attacks” across processes. This includes processes running at different levels of trust (please see my previous blog post and the section on One-tier versus Two-tier). For those of you unfamiliar with what shatter attacks are, there is a Microsoft TechNet bulletin that addresses the original assertion that the shatter attack condition can exist.

There are some complexities...

Symantec Security Response | 11 Dec 2006 08:00:00 GMT | 0 comments

Microsoft have announced they are investigating yet another zero-dayvulnerability, apparently unrelated to the December 5 MicrosoftSecurity Advisory 929433. According to their investigations, Word 2000,Word 2002, Word 2003 and the Word Viewer 2003 are affected, but Word2007 is not affected by the vulnerability. They also report that thevulnerability is being exploited on a very limited and targeted basis.Symantec Security Response is monitoring the situation and will respondappropriately once further information is available. As always,standard best practices apply in this situation and caution should beexercised when dealing with unsolicited attachments from both unknownsources, as well as from trusted sources.

Kelly Conley | 08 Dec 2006 08:00:00 GMT | 0 comments

Besides the obvious inconvenience of time wasted clicking through and deleting spam email messages, what are some of the negative effects of spam? To the average user, it’s as simple as having better things to do than hunt through their email accounts for ”real” messages – messages they want to receive. For businesses, it is money spent paying employees for work they aren’t doing because they’re spending work hours picking through emails.

Then we have the hapless user who falls into a phish trap. To this user the problem can include a financial hit, not to mention the endless hours spent trying to get their money back or pursuing legal action. This often leads to a long lasting fear of future dealings with the company that was phished. This scenario also has a negative impact on said company because they may lose a customer do to fear of recurrence. In fact, they may lose several customers if word spreads on the Internet. We call this “negative brand image” – and no...