Handbook of Infosec Terms 2.0/Handbook_of_Infosec_Terms_Version_2.0_ISSO.iso/text/virusl/vl04_077.txt

Internet Message Format | 1996-09-04 | 18.6 KB

From:       Kenneth R. van Wyk (The Moderator) <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
To:       [e-mail]
Path:      cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw
Subject:   VIRUS-L Digest V4 #77
Reply-To:  [e-mail]
--------
VIRUS-L Digest   Wednesday,  8 May 1991    Volume 4 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:

F-PROT and FluShot problems (PC)
Original-Equipment Viruses
amiga virus
Viral or other problem? (Mac)
Re: TSR Virus Detector (PC)
Re: help with mac "virus"? (Mac)
Re: help with mac "virus"? (Mac)
Re: help with mac "virus"? (Mac)
re: What's so bad about self-extracting archives?
Re: What's so bad about self-extracting archives?
Re: can we trust diskette write-protection? (PC)

VIRUS-L is a moderated, digested mail forum for discussing computer
virus issues; comp.virus is a non-digested Usenet counterpart.
Discussions are not limited to any one hardware/software platform -
diversity is welcomed.  Contributions should be relevant, concise,
polite, etc.  Please sign submissions with your real name.  Send
contributions to [e-mail] (that's equivalent to
VIRUS-L at LEHIIBM1 for you BITNET folks).  Information on accessing
anti-virus, documentation, and back-issue archives is distributed
periodically on the list.  Administrative mail (comments, suggestions,
and so forth) should be sent to me at: [e-mail].

   Ken van Wyk

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 07 May 91 09:35:29 -0400
From:    [e-mail] (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: F-PROT and FluShot problems (PC)

>From:    umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu![e-mail] (cs106132)

>I was testing the new release of F-PROT 1.15a the other day, and came
>across an interesting problem.  It happened when a variant of 4096 was
>active.  Since F-PROT did not know this strain, it could not detect
>it.  This is expected as the documentation hints.
> However, when I ran F-OSCHK, the virus infected the system files
>(IBMBIO....), the result was a non-bootable hard disk.
>   I repeated the same test using FluShot+ (1.81), the same thing
>happened in a slightly different manner.  But the system again became
>impossible to boot from the hard disk.

Simple integrity checking (e.g. intelligent use of CHKDSK-type values)
would have revealed that something unusual was going on, particularly
with the varieties of 4096 that I have seen since a memory mis-match
occurs. You get what you pay for.
                                      Warmly,
                                               Padgett

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 07 May 91 10:02:16 -0400
From:    Sandy=[e-mail]
Subject: Original-Equipment Viruses

I would like to get more information on viruses originating from
manufacturers, such as Packard Bell recently.  Is this widespread with
this particular company? What has been the remedy to this situation?
Should purchasers scan new software for viruses before using?

------------------------------

Date:    08 May 91 02:53:04 +0000
From:    [e-mail] (jonathan ross coombes)
Subject: amiga virus

    I seen this in the amiga newsgroup and thought I would post
  it here. Does anyone have any more information on the virus as yet?

    The post is actually of two files that was posted.

***********************************************************************

I new virus was sent to me today that will infect a machine just by
sticking a disk in the drive. No need to run any program from it.  It
turns out that the disk was not validated and was write protected.
When the disk is inserted in the drive AmigaDOS kicks in the
Disk-Validator but instead of getting it from the L: directory it gets
it from the l directory of the inseted disk. The virus replaced this
file with itself so when AmigaDOS ran it it infects the machine. The
virus is the same size as the original 1.3 validator and is encrypted.
Upon decrypting it it calls itself the SADDAM virus and has a mention
of IRAK. I am not sure what it does when it is triggered but there is
a call to Alert().  It patches itself into the intterupts, TrackDisk,
InitResident and OpenWindow calls at various times.

I hope CBM will fix this before 2.0 is finished so that the Validator is
called from the L:  directory in future and stop this new type of virus.
- --

************************************************************************


I have worked out what the Saddam virus does and it is very nasty.
There are a few different stages to it so I will go through it.  It
infects your machine by AmigaDOS using the Disk-Validator on the disk
you insert in the drive.

When you write to the root directory of any drive the virus will move
the BitMap page pointer to another slot. If the virus is active then
when the root block is read it moves it back so AmigaDOS thinks the
disk is okay. If the virus is not running AmigaDOS will see no BitMap
pages and run the Disk-Validator on the disk and infecting your
machine again.  When AmigaDOS writes to Data blocks the virus will
change the first bit to IRAK and encode the rest of the block. If the
virus is running when the block is read it replaces in memory the IRAK
with the proper number (8) and decode the data block. If the virus is
not running you will get a read write error as AmigaDOS can't find a
valid DATA block there.  No comes the worst bit.

When the virus is triggered it will (if the disk is write enabled)
wipe out both sides of the disk with random data (what ever is in
memory at the time) by writing to every track on the disk. It will
then bring up an Alert() telling you it is the SADDAM virus and reboot
the machine once the alert is canceled.

So beware this virus and try to wipe it out early.

Please CBM fix this little loophole before you finish 2.0 so that the
Disk-Validator is got from L: instead of :L/ first
- --
*** John Veldthuis, NZAmigaUG.         [e-mail]       ***

**************************************************************************


/************************************************************************/
/*  Jonathan Coombes             THE TECHNOMANCER        */
/*  University of Newcastle                        */
/*  Australia                                */
/*                                      */
/*        "I wasn't born, I was compiled!!!            */
/*                                    */
/*  Internet: [e-mail]                */
/************************************************************************/

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 08 May 91 06:38:57 -0400
From:    [e-mail]
Subject: Viral or other problem? (Mac)

I don't know if my problem is virus-related or not, but I've been
trying other methods of eliminating the problem with no results.  Here
is my problem: I have a MacIIfx and a Mac IIci in my lab.  Both are
using System 6.0.7, which came with the hardware.  Since installation,
both Macs have had problems opening Superpaint 1.1MS, MacDrawII, and
MacPaint.  I get messages stating either that the document type is
unknown (the documents were created with resident applications on an
older machine!) or there is not enough memory to open the document
(one of the machines has 8 Meg on it!)  My local Apple techie has told
me to remove 6.0.7 and install 6.0.5 to correct the problem (seems
that 6.0.7 and certain Mac models have problems?).  I did what he
suggested, but the problem persists.  I have scanned the hard disks on
both machines with Disinfectant 2.4, but have found no viral
infections.  Is what I've got a viral problem, a system problem, a
hardware problem?  Granted, this is a viral board, but if I can be
told it is a virus, perhaps I can isolate what the real problem is.
Thanks in advance.  Dennis Perzanowski

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 08 May 91 15:28:00 +0300
From:    Y. Radai <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TSR Virus Detector (PC)

  John Councill asks:
>Can anyone reading this recommend a reliable program that will sit in
>memory and warn against writes to .EXE and .COM files, as well as
>other suspicious virus-like activity without degrading performance of
>the machine too much?

  Several months ago, I made a quick comparison between several pro-
grams of this type which I have.  (I call them "monitoring" programs.
There are other reasonable names, and also one which I consider very
inappropriate: Robert Slade's term "vaccine" software.)
  When I saw John's question, I thought this would be a good opportu-
nity to make my comparison more complete, but I see I'm not going to
find the time, so for now I'm reporting only my previous results.
  The programs which I compared were F-LOCK, FSP, SECURE, TSAFE, and
VTAC.  I decided that the most important criterion was the ability to
prevent infection by the largest number of viruses (without giving too
many false alarms, of course), and that the type of virus which would
be most likely to separate the good programs from the mediocre would
be those viruses which avoid re-direction of interrupt vectors (by
jumping directly to the interrupt handlers or by issuing commands
directly to the controller).
  So I threw 4 viruses of this type against each of the above programs.
The number which each program stopped was as follows:
                            SECURE  4
                            F-LOCK  1
                            others  0
  On this criterion, SECURE is clearly the best monitoring program.
(Fridrik Skulason has an alternative version of F-LOCK which would do
better, but he hasn't released it because of conflicts with certain
software.)  It's conceivable that other viruses would give opposite
results, but I very much doubt it.  On the other hand, there are many
other criteria which I did not subject to a systematic comparison,
such as false alarms, slowing down of ordinary computer activity,
flexibility and convenience.
  Btw, the author of SECURE, Mark Washburn, is also the author of the
V2P* virus series, all of which are variable self-encrypting viruses
designed to demonstrate the futility of relying on programs which
attempt to detect viruses by scanning for characteristic strings.
V2P1 (better known as the 1260) was distributed publicly, and while it
is not itself destructive, someone evidently used its disassembly as
the basis for the Casper virus, which is quite destructive.
  This, of course, does not prevent SECURE from being the best moni-
toring program, at least judging by my limited comparison.  I can only
hope that others will make more thorough tests.  (All of the above
except TSAFE are available from Simtel20 in <MSDOS.TROJAN-PRO>.)

                                     Y. Radai
                                     Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, Israel
                                     [e-mail]
                                     [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date:    07 May 91 13:27:07
From:    [e-mail] (Rick Keir, MACC)
Subject: Re: help with mac "virus"? (Mac)

[e-mail] (Snugglupagus) writes...

>- - the mac has a 40 meg hard disk
>- - there is only about 16 meg of software installed
>- - both the finder and mactools report 38 meg used, 2 meg free

This is fairly common in the Mac labs here.  Run "Disk First Aid"
(from Apple, the free thing) and tell it to fix the drive.  Your
students have probably been having programs crash frequently, so that
you have unused space which is neither in a file nor free.  (What DOS
refers to as "lost" space -- D.F.A. will just say "fixed").

Important:  Disk First Aid is NOT the same thing as "First Aid
HFS", although half the people I tell about these programs seem
to want to use whichever one I *didn't* mean.  Both programs are
good but they do different things.  Use Apple's to recover lost
space from your hard disk

------------------------------

Date:    07 May 91 23:13:27
From:    [e-mail] (Pandy Holmberg)
Subject: Re: help with mac "virus"? (Mac)

[e-mail] (Snugglupagus) writes:

- -> recently, we've come across a problem with one of the macs in our lab.
- -> we really don't know if it's a virus or not, but it does act something
- -> like one.  anyway, here are the symptoms:

- -> - - there is only about 16 meg of software installed
- -> - - both the finder and mactools report 38 meg used, 2 meg free

- -> what we really want to know is: is this some sort of new virus, or is
- -> our mac just confused?

    I wouldn't blame it on the machine....

    I think that perhaps the directory information on your disk
    has been damaged and thus the computer can't use all the
    space that really is free.

    Therefore I suggest:
    Copy the 16 megs of software to floppies and format your hard disk.

    In the future:
    It's good to format your HD every once in a while. Not only
    does it give you more space, but the HD becomes much faster.

- --
                    Tsaukki says
                              Pandy

- --                                  ,
"La nostalgie n'est plus ce qu'elle etait."
                - S. Signoret

===============================================================================
              Andreas "Pandy" Holmberg          Email:  [e-mail]
     Helsinki University of Technology          Finger: [e-mail]
===============================================================================

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 07 May 91 20:21:44 +0000
From:    [e-mail] (Geoff Bronner)
Subject: Re: help with mac "virus"? (Mac)

[e-mail] (Snugglupagus) writes:

>recently, we've come across a problem with one of the macs in our lab.
>we really don't know if it's a virus or not, but it does act something
>like one.  anyway, here are the symptoms:
>- - the mac has a 40 meg hard disk
>- - there is only about 16 meg of software installed
>- - both the finder and mactools report 38 meg used, 2 meg free
>what we really want to know is: is this some sort of new virus, or is
>our mac just confused?

I think it is confused. I have seen a similar problem with MacIIcx's
with 80MB drives. They thought they had 56MB instead of the actual
amount (around 30). This occured on several machines in a public
cluster of 17 identical cx's.

Solution: about 50% of the time I was able to fix the problem by
simply re-building the desktop file. In the other cases, tranferring
the entire disk to another hard disk or tape and then putting it back
also worked. This implies that fragmentation may have been the cause
and I have seen similar cases where using Disk Express or a similar
utility also helped.

- -Geoff Bronner '91
 Student Consultant, Dartmouth College Computing Services

- --
 [e-mail]

 "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,
  or of the press..."

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 07 May 91 14:38:04 -0400
From:    Peter Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: What's so bad about self-extracting archives?

On Mon, 06 May 91 15:08:43 -0400 you said:
>>From:    [e-mail]
>
>>The other objection I have with self-extracting
>>archives is that you're stuck with extracting the whole lot, even if
>>you only want to find out what the !@#$%^&*() thing does.

One objection I have is the lack of a guarantee that the incoming
extraction code doesn't have a trojan lurking in it. This is a
well-known security risk in UNIX self-extracting SHAR archives.
There's an un-archiver on SIMTEL20 that runs without executing
incoming code, allowing incoming programs to be inspected.

Another is the unexpected increase in disk space use when the archive
is run, and starts extracting itself unexpectedly.

Peter Jones                    (514)-987-3542
Internet:Peter Jones <[e-mail]>
UUCP: ...psuvax1!uqam.bitnet!maint
N.B.
"Our customers will forgive a one-time error far more quickly than they will
forgive our inability to correct that error." - Karen Ward ([e-mail])

------------------------------

Date:    08 May 91 09:51:45 +0000
From:    [e-mail] (Henk de Groot)
Subject: Re: What's so bad about self-extracting archives?

[e-mail] writes:

>[e-mail] (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>> Can't you just first run the archive file through your favourite virus
>> checker, and if it passes the test extract it, and then test the
>> individual files that were inside it? Or have I missed something?

>   Well, yes, I suppose you could, but it involves an extra step which
>is unnecessary. The other objection I have with self-extracting
>archives is that you're stuck with extracting the whole lot, even if
>you only want to find out what the !@#$%^&*() thing does.

Most of the popular archiveing programs (ZIP, LHA, ARJ) are able to
extract files from their SFX files. If you insist on using a shell on
it just rename the .EXE file to a file with the proper extension. You
can avoid virus problems this way.

An ARJ type SFX file allows you to list files just by running the SFX
file with flag "-l". You can also selecively extract files.

The only real problem I see with SFX files is that it may be a trojan
horse.  Just getting files from trusted places will cure this type of
problem.  (Trusted places like SIMTEL20 and Garbo).

Henk.

- --
  /   /            Henk de Groot      | Department: PG 9000i - System Services
 /---/ __  __  /   V2/A12-A13         | Internet : [e-mail]
/   / (-_ / / /(   Tel: [phone] |  == PHILIPS INFORMATION SYSTEMS ==
          Disclaimer: I only speak for myself, not for my employer!

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 07 May 91 15:03:15 +0000
From:    [e-mail] (** DECKER **)
Subject: Re: can we trust diskette write-protection? (PC)

[e-mail] (Acer - Jesse Chisholm) writes:
>[e-mail] (Mark Aitchison, U of Canty; Physics) writes:
>| Possibly, the reason why it sometimes fails, other than obvious loose
>| wires, is because of light bouncing around the diskette drive.

I used to use red masking tape whenver I ran out of labels, but this
caused problems due to the fact that some drives use infra-red light
to detect a label.

- --
 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 : DECKER : [e-mail] : Dept. of Computer Science, Coventry Poly  :
 :                        G  O  D   F  O  D  D  E  R                         :
 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


------------------------------

End of VIRUS-L Digest [Volume 4 Issue 77]
*****************************************