PDA

View Full Version : How malware is delivered nowadays?


lucas1985
April 19th, 2008, 04:25 PM
I've stumbled upon a very interesting blog entry (http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00001408.html) made by the folks at F-Secure. I will quote the most interesting bits and analyze them according to my knowledge:
-{ Quote: "A year or two ago, most malware was spread via e-mail attachments, which resulted in mass outbreaks such as Bagle, Mydoom, and Warezov. Nowadays sending .EXE attachments in e-mail doesn't work so well for criminals because almost every company and organization is filtering out such risky attachments from their e-mail traffic." }-
Pretty simple, isn't it? Use a mail provider which filters spam and executable attachments (GMail does this). Configure your mail client to display file extensions and MIME types. Don't open unsolicited attachments. Attachments coming fron trusted peers should be handled very carefully, your friends may be infected. If you didn't solicite the content, don't open it. If you solicited it, save the attachment to disk and scan it with your local AV and a service like Virustotal/Jotti. Another option is running that content inside a sandbox or, better yet, a VM.

-{ Quote: "The criminals' new preferred way of spreading malware is via drive-by downloads on the Web. These attacks often still start with an e-mail spam run but the attachment in the e-mail has been replaced by a web link, which takes you to the malicious web site. So instead of getting infected over SMTP, you get infected over HTTP." }-
-{ Quote: "There are several methods criminals use to gather traffic to malicious websites. A common approach is to launch an e-mail spam campaign containing messages that tempt people to click on a link. Messages such as "There is a video of you on YouTube", or "You have received a greeting card", or "Thank you for your order" have been popular baits." }-
Now that malicious attachments aren't working well for the gangs, they try to trick you in clicking a link which takes you to the malicious/compromised site. Common computer sense says that you shouldn't click on random links, specially if they come in unsolicited/bulk/spam email and contain obvious social engineering tricks.

-{ Quote: "Infection by a drive-by download can happen automatically just by visiting a website, unless you have a fully patched operating system, browser, and browser plug-ins. Unfortunately, most people have some vulnerabilities in their systems." }-
-{ Quote: "Another method used by criminals is to create many web pages with thousands of different keywords which are indexed by Google, and then simply wait for people to visit these sites. So when you do a search for something innocuous such as "knitting mittens" (as a random example), and click on a search result that looks just like all the others, you are actually getting your computer infected. Typically, an infection by an automatic exploit happens without you realizing it or seeing anything strange on the computer screen." }-
Drive-by downloads aren't black magic. They require that you:
- Visit a malicious or compromised website. You can avoid the former by not visiting warez and cracking websites and other types of dodgy sites. The compromise of legitimate sites is on the rise, but (IMO) we are far away from reaching epidemic proportions.
- Happen to have a vulnerable application waiting to be exploited. Just enable DEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Execution_Prevention) for all your applications to prevent the most common types of buffer overflows (a kind of vulnerability) and keep up-to-date wich patches for every applications that deals with untrusted content, specially if it comes fron Internet. This includes the operating system, the browser(s), the mail client(s), the office suite (Microsoft Office, Open Office, etc), the PDF reader (Adobe Reader, etc), the archiver (WinZiip, WinRAR, 7-Zip, etc), the image viewers (XnView, FastStone Image Viewer, Irfanview, etc), the multimedia players (Winamp, Media Player Classic, VLC, PowerDVD, WinDVD, Windows Media Player, Real Player, Quick Time Player, Nero, etc), the runtime libraries (.NET Framework, Java, etc), P2P applications (Emule, BitTorrent clients, Shareaza, etc) and browser plug-ins (Java, Flash, Shockwave, Quick Time, Windows Media, Real, Silverlight, etc)
0-day vulnerabilities (i.e. vulnerabilities which are being exploited by the bad guys before a patch is avalable or the vulnerability is acknowledged by the vendor) are much less common than some ones may think. Also, when a 0-day is "in the wild" you can apply temporary workarounds offered in websites dedicated to information security.

-{ Quote: "Infection can also take place when you are fooled into manually clicking on a download and running a program from the web page that contains the malware." }-
Common computer sense says that you shouldn't trust strange and unexpected executables. If you have installed the most common codecs from a trusted source, you shouldn't need an ActiveX codec or another browser plug-in.

-{ Quote: "Another vector for drive-by downloads are infiltrated ad networks. We are seeing more and more advertising displayed on high-profile websites. By infiltrating the ad networks, the criminals don't have to hack a site but their exploit code will still be shown to millions of users, often without the knowledge of the webmaster of those sites." }-
No matter what somebody wants you to believe, ads not only are annoying, a waste of (often scarce) bandwidth and sometimes a violation of privacy, they're also a security risk. Often, ads are combined with social engineering tricks to incite you to click them (the famous messages of system errors and alerts of infections). The bad guys are even deploying rogue ad networks. So, use a pop-up blocker (built-in into your browser) and filter ads with a browser plug-in or a local proxy. Only accept ads from sites you want to support and you trust in their security skills.

-{ Quote: "The third method of distributing malware involves the criminals hacking into existing high profile, high traffic web sites. Unlike the joke defacements that some hackers played on the front pages of prominent web sites in the past, today's criminal hackers don't change the front page at all. They simply insert a line of JavaScript on the front page which uses an exploit to infect your machine when you visit. Everything works and looks as normal.
This has happened to the websites of some popular magazines that can have a million users every single day. People trust sites that are part of their daily routine, and they don't suspect that anything bad could happen when they go there." }-
As I've said before, hacking of legitimate sites is on the rise, but it's far away from an epidemic. Depending on your comfort level and abilities/skills, you may consider the whitelisting (i.e. only allow what you deem good/trustworthy and deny the rest) the web content, specially scripts and multimedia plug-ins. This will provide your first line of defense against a sudden compromise of a trusted/legitimate site. The general measures of avoiding executable content, enabling DEP, patching your whole system and avoiding risky sites also apply here.

As you've seen, you can secure most of the threat-gates with simple measures and avoid most of the junkware/malware with just some common computer sense without even using security software.
But you need security software to close any potential hole, be it a high-profile 0-day without workarounds or unknowingly trusting malicious content or whatever happens:
- Enable the Windows firewall (XP and Vista) to prevent exploitation of system services which listen for incoming connections. Actually, this is a low-risk threat, but it was a popular one in the past (think about Blaster, Sasser, Code Red and other worms) and new vulnerabilities on these services may arise again. If you have multiple PCs, consider buying a NAT/SPI router and configure it appropiately (change the default password, disable the remote admin feature, disable the UPnP service, enable the SPI, etc)
- Disable the AutoRun/AutoPlay feature from every removable device (CD/DVD, USB disks, pen drives, etc) on every user account. It isn't uncommon to buy an infected pen drive or digital frame or infect your pen drive when you use it on someone else PC.
- Create and use a standard/limited user account for daily activities and leave the admin accounts for administration purposes (installing hardware and software, applying patches, changing system settings, etc)
A limited account prevents malware from tampering with your system, disabling your security software and manipulating the kernel to hide from security tools and you. This makes recovery much easier and it also eliminates the risks of kernel rootkits, the most dangerous kind of malware. See here (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=196737) for more info.
- Since most malware is of executable nature (be it a mail attachment, the result of a drive-by download, a file launched by the autorun trick or something else), consider the whitelisting of your trusted executables (Windows and Program Files) and deny the rest. This can be done with applications like Faronics' Anti-Executable or using Software Restriction Policies (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=200772).
- Install an AV and configure it to the recommended settings. Then check that it's working normally going to the EICAR site and then schedule weekly scans. Advanced users may want to stop using a real-time malware scanner and go for applications like behaviours blockers and leave the AV to do only on-demand scans. If it's possible, scan downloaded content at sites like Virustotal or Jotti.
- Isolate the vectors of attack. Sandboxing your browser is an effective way of dealing with drive-by downloads.
- Backup your system and information to ensure a painless recovery if you ever manage to get infected. Backups also protect against hardware failures, user mistakes, natural disasters (if you have offsite protected backups) and thief.


Mods: if you think that this is not the appropriate sub-forum, feel free to move the thread, although I think it should be here due to the higher exposure it can get.

Huupi
April 19th, 2008, 04:49 PM
Thanks Lucas, good read !! ;)

sukarof
April 19th, 2008, 04:58 PM
Thanks for the interesting post. It gives a layman like me confirmation that my security strategy is adequate.
I always believed that java scripts, when online, are the weak link (actually the vulnerability in browsers that they use) so the only two entry points that is hard to protect against are hacking of legitimate sites (Noscript wont help there since I usually allow scripts on these when needed) and software installation. And the latter is the only reason why I still use a AV becaus my SRP and Limited account wont prevent if a malware is bundled with a software I want to install. (maybe LUA takes the edge of the malware, but it wont prevent it)

lucas1985
April 19th, 2008, 05:00 PM
Thanks Huupi and sukarof, I'm glad that you liked it.
-{ Quote: "hacking of legitimate sites (Noscript wont help there since I usually allow scripts on these when needed)" }-
NoScript may protect you if you block IFRAMES (prevents redirections to malicious sites) and forbid plug-ins (allow on-demand Flash clips, etc) even on trusted sites. You would be unprotected against remote code execution vulnerabilities in the Firefox's Javascript engine.

EASTER
April 19th, 2008, 05:05 PM
Much agreed, excellent material there and lines up with what this great forum, staff, and membership is been about for some time.

Hats off to all the Brilliant, generous and most (helpful) developers who are mostly always commonly overlooked at in the big world press machines eyes and articles as medium security vendors at best.

Heck, they been the top chief architects of the ABSOLUTE very best innovations and security that Microsoft Operating Systems can only drool over.

EASTER

Wake2
April 19th, 2008, 05:17 PM
lucas excellent write up and thank you for posting it.

Wake

Huupi
April 19th, 2008, 06:20 PM
Please mods make it sticky,this is serious stuff !

Dogbiscuit
April 20th, 2008, 12:15 AM
-{ Quote: "-{ Quote: "hacking of legitimate sites (Noscript wont help there since I usually allow scripts on these when needed)" }-
NoScript may protect you if you block IFRAMES (prevents redirections to malicious sites) and forbid plug-ins (allow on-demand Flash clips, etc) even on trusted sites. You would be unprotected against remote code execution vulnerabilities in the Firefox's Javascript engine." }-
If someone watches flash content from YouTube, for example, Noscript can't prevent them from being compromised if one of those files is also malware that exploits an unpatched vulnerability in Flash, right? Natural social engineering, if you will.

-{ Quote: "Drive-by downloads aren't black magic. They require that you:
- Visit a malicious or compromised website...
- Happen to have a vulnerable application waiting to be exploited. " }-
Two distinct events have to happen in the same window of time (i.e., coincidence)

For example, the Miami Dolphins Stadium website hack couldn't have compromised a system if that system was patched. The hacker(s) simply could not coincidentally hack into a website that would be popular at the time and obtain a zero-day vulnerability. They likely could "get lucky" only once and, like most of these hacks, needed to rely on a user having an unpatched system (with multiple vulnerabilities, in this case) for the complete drive-by infection to occur. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but my sense is that a serious unknown zero-day vulnerability can usually be exploited for a few weeks or a few months at best, before it's discovered.

It doesn't seem easy to pull off a drive-by, if the user keeps patched and employs common computer sense, as you point out, because of the coincidences needed for the hacker. This is why I personally rely less and less on security products, and more and more on security policies (for my situation anyway).

A piece of advice from these forums that influenced how I look at the limits of computer security (once I understood what he meant), was Mrkvonic's often repeated, seemingly tautological comment to not put malware on your computer if you don't want to be compromised.

Like that advice, your post gets back to the basics.

Threedog
April 20th, 2008, 12:50 AM
Good post Lucas. :thumb:

wat0114
April 20th, 2008, 01:12 AM
-{ Quote: "
It doesn't seem easy to pull off a drive-by, if the user keeps patched and employs common computer sense, as you point out, because of the coincidences needed for the hacker. This is why I personally rely less and less on security products, and more and more on security policies (for my situation anyway)." }-

This is the direction I'm heading in too, Dogbiscuit. Maybe I'm burned out from trialling so many different pc security gadgets (software) over the years in an attempt to build the perfect layered security fortress, capable of stopping every conceivable exploit out there, when really the most logical approach is to follow the sound advice given in this thread and others similar to it.

-{ Quote: "A piece of advice from these forums that influenced how I look at the limits of computer security (once I understood what he meant), was Mrkvonic's often repeated, seemingly tautological comment to not put malware on your computer if you don't want to be compromised." }-

Yes, I must admit Mrk's *"cool, reflective approach" on pc security eventually rubbed off on me to some extent, too :)

*credit for this quote goes to lusher

danny9
April 20th, 2008, 01:23 AM
Thanks Lucas, for taking the time to post this.
Excellent read. :thumb:

Long View
April 20th, 2008, 04:51 AM
I agree with almost every word. There is plenty for people to get their teeth into here - without the need to buy or install any security software.

Use a mail provider which filters spam
Don't open unsolicited attachments
you shouldn't click on random links
not visiting warez and cracking websites
buying a NAT/SPI router and configure it appropriately
Disable the AutoRun/AutoPlay
Limited user account for daily activities
Sandboxing
Backup your system

My 2 concerns are that (1) far too many think that the risks of infection are far greater than they really are and (2) Far too many would prefer to buy vast numbers of programs to provide protection in preference to understanding what is going on.

Huupi
April 20th, 2008, 05:02 AM
Long View, I agree,in reality for many much is overdone but they feel safer by it so let it be,also many play with different setups,its their hobby and joy in live,better then roaming the streets. ;)

Long View
April 20th, 2008, 05:18 AM
Better than roaming the streets yes and playing as a hobbie - fine - but I find that all too often those who complain that they have been infected say that they were running the latest version of XYZ anti-virus, they regularly use Super anti spybot adaware cookie cleaner. Load a bunch of programs, call it layered and then wonder why they still get infected.

Instal HIPS if you want to enjoy learning about HIPS programs. Install an anti-executable if it allows you to sleep better but don't be surprised if having taken all of the sensible steps recorded by Lucas 1985 that nothing ever happens.

MrBrian
April 21st, 2008, 07:41 PM
Bravo for the nice post lucas1985 :).

Unfortunately, I believe that avoiding high-risk websites is no longer a good guarantee of avoiding malicious content, so I respectfully disagree somewhat with lucas1985's position on this. According to http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=11241, most website malware is now actually from legitimate sites. Also, a technical report from Google, available at http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-your-iframe-are-point-to-us.html, states that "we showed that exposure to web-malware is not strongly tied to a particular browsing
habit." This is partially due to the ad distribution networks that lucas1985 mentions. See page 10 of this paper for a nice graph of malware exposure by various category of website. As you can see from the graph, the 'adult' category websites have only 2 to 3 times the malware exposure rate (counting both known malware and suspicious behavior as malware) of the other categories.

If you're running as administrator, it's a good idea to run all the high-risk app types lucas1985 mentions as 'Basic User' in Software Restriction Policies. In XP, 'Basic User' is not present by default - see http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,14461638 on how to add it.

Use freeware Secunia PSI to keep the high-risk app types lucas1985 mentions updated.

If your processor does not support hardware DEP, consider using freeware Comodo Memory Firewall to combat buffer overflow exploits. Software-only DEP is weak protection. In XP, you can check if your DEP is hardware-based in Control Panel->System->Advanced->Performance->Data Execution Prevention. Comodo Memory Firewall also claims to protect against some types of buffer overflow attacks that even Hardware DEP may in some cases not protect against, such as Return-to-libc attacks. See http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=912 for further details.

Using an alternative browser can help you to lessen the threat of web malware. Firefox and Opera are good alternatives to Internet Explorer.

Threedog
April 21st, 2008, 08:50 PM
I am like a lot in here and play around with security software mainly to see what it does. But I am finding my favored setup is a Limited User Account, Software Restriction Policy and an AV. My thinking is if something does get by the AV it can't execute anyways because of the SRP, and as someone said, "If it can't execute, it can't infect." A virtulization app like Returnil finishes off the mix by getting rid of the crap with a simple reboot. It's safety without slowing my computer down.

HURST
April 21st, 2008, 09:05 PM
A great reading. Thnaks lucas for taking the time to write it.

Rmus
April 22nd, 2008, 12:50 AM
Very thorough analysis, Lucas!


----
rich

Dogbiscuit
April 22nd, 2008, 03:16 AM
-{ Quote: "Unfortunately, I believe that avoiding high-risk websites is no longer a good guarantee of avoiding malicious content, so I respectfully disagree somewhat with lucas1985's position on this." }-

I must have missed something because I didn't read anything in lucas1985's post which held that avoiding high-risk websites was a guarantee of avoiding all malicious content. As to avoiding some malicious content, even the Google Technical Report referenced stated: "Although we found that adult web pages may increase the risk of exploitation, each DMOZ category was affected.'

And while they found no strong correlation between browsing habits and malware exposure in the 2007 period studied, the above referenced statement implies at least some correlation.

Isn't this consistent with lucas1985's advice?

MrBrian
April 22nd, 2008, 03:58 AM
-{ Quote: "I must have missed something because I didn't read anything in lucas1985's post that stated that avoiding high-risk websites was a guarantee of avoiding all malicious content. As to avoiding some malicious content, even the Google Technical Report referenced stated: "Although we found that adult web pages may increase the risk of exploitation, each DMOZ category was affected.'

Isn't this consistent with lucas1985's advice?" }-

The statement I was referring to is "The compromise of legitimate sites is on the rise, but (IMO) we are far away from reaching epidemic proportions." This statement to me would seem to indicate that malware found on legitimate sites is not that great of an issue. But according to the one of the links I supplied, "According to data compiled by Websense, 51 percent of the sites it classified as malicious in the second half of 2007 had been compromised and then seeded with attack code that infected unpatched machines visiting the URLs." Thus, I believe legitimate sites hosting malware is indeed a big issue, perhaps large enough to be considered "epidemic proportions." Fortunately, the good advice given to use ad blockers would mitigate this issue at least somewhat.

The statement "Although we found that adult web pages may increase the risk of exploitation, each DMOZ category was affected" means that even though the malware risk is higher with adult websites, there is nonetheless a nontrivial risk of malware associated with other types of websites other than adult websites. Or, to use the authors' own words again, "we showed that exposure to web-malware is not strongly tied to a particular browsing habit."

The point of all of this is that you cannot let your guard down even if you avoid iffy websites. The advice given here by lucas1985 and others has been fine. My desire is to emphasize that even users who believe they browse only "safe" sites also need to follow the advice given.

Dogbiscuit
April 22nd, 2008, 04:08 AM
I see. Point taken.

MrBrian
April 22nd, 2008, 04:19 AM
-{ Quote: "The point of all of this is that you cannot let your guard down even if you avoid iffy websites." }-

Here is a fine example from http://windowssecrets.com/2008/04/17/02-Flash-ads-bearing-malware-plague-popular-sites: "A Flash-based advertisement that appeared last week on the USA Today site downloaded malicious code to users' computers, generating erroneous warnings of a malware infestation and offering a phony solution." The article later states:

"Makers of Flash-building tools, including Adobe, Autodemo, TechSmith, and InfoSoft, quickly updated their development environments to patch the holes, according to a March story in The Register. But because many of the vulnerable files have to be regenerated from scratch, a titanic number of high-risk Flash files remain online."

"Speaking at last month's CanSecWest security conference in Vancouver, B.C., [Google researcher and author Rich] Cannings estimated that over 10,000 sites host the risky files, The Register reported."

"But that estimate may be low. In his security blog, Jeremiah Grossman, founder and chief technology officer of WhiteHat Security, writes that 'potentially hundreds of thousands' of Web sites could be at risk. 'Reasonably workable fixes are going to be a long time coming,' he adds."

The facts stated in this article are illustrative of why computer users should follow the advice given in this topic, even those who avoid iffy websites.

Long View
April 22nd, 2008, 06:26 AM
Interesting - "exposure to web-malware is not strongly tied to a particular browsing habit."

I had always "assumed" that one of the main reasons that I had never found any evidence of infection was that I was a safe surfer. Now I have no idea why I'm staying safe

Mele20
April 22nd, 2008, 07:25 AM
I don't have Flash Player installed. I hate that thing. I won't use Microsoft's Silverlight either. I use Fx 1.5 and Adobe Reader 5 and and and.....and I don't get infected. It has nothing to do with the version of applications you use or running as Admin...it has to do with stupid things that the majority of users want ...Flash Player, CNN, junk stuff. Oh and Facebook and Instant Messaging. I block Facebook specifically and I do not engage in Instant Messaging. I use the Proxomitron for many years. I can't imagine seeing ads. If that was happening, I'd get rid of my computer and just get a TV. Just don't think like the masses ...avoid all that garbage stuff and you will be ok.

wat0114
April 22nd, 2008, 12:33 PM
-{ Quote: "I don't have Flash Player installed." }-

The exclusion of Flash will reduce the chance of infection, but won't it dampen your web surfing experience?

fax
April 22nd, 2008, 01:43 PM
-{ Quote: "The exclusion of Flash will reduce the chance of infection, but won't it dampen your web surfing experience?" }-

I tend to agree... it is like to say since driving a car is so dangerous I just keep walking on my own foot.

Probably safer but the approach has serious limitation (IMO) considering that so many websites nowadays only works with flash and/or other browser graphics add-ons.

Fax

ccsito
April 23rd, 2008, 07:09 PM
A lot of the web is multimedia based so if you don't install the related plugins, you can't view the content. Malware can be transmitted through IM. Does that mean I will not use AIM, ICQ, MSN messenger, Yahoo IM? Nope. Otherwise you would have to go to a chat site (which could be infected) or converse through a telephone conference call.

MrBrian
April 24th, 2008, 11:07 PM
Here are some interesting quotes from Sophos 2008 first quarter security report: (http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2008/04/secrep08q1.html)

-{ Quote: "
The findings show a dramatic increase in web-based threats compared to 2007 – the first three months of 2008 showed Sophos finding and blocking a new infected webpage every five seconds, compared with one every 14 seconds last year.
" }-

-{ Quote: "
Research into which countries host the most infected webpages shows some interesting changes since the 2007 Sophos Security Threat Report. The US in particular has experienced unprecedented growth, from hosting less than 25 percent of all infected pages overall in 2007, to almost half in the first three months of 2008.

China has demonstrated the biggest drop, from hosting more than half of all the infected pages seen by Sophos in 2007, to just under a third in the first quarter of 2008.
" }-

-{ Quote: "
From January to the end of March 2008, Sophos identified an average of more than 15,000 newly infected webpages each day. Most worrying for computer users, is the fact that the majority of these poisoned sites – 79 percent – are found on legitimate websites that have been hacked.
" }-

-{ Quote: "
In contrast, just one in every 2500 emails is now infected, compared to one in every 909 in 2007.
" }-

-{ Quote: "
"About 1 percent of web requests now deliver an infected page, most of which are legitimate websites belonging to people just trying to earn a living,” says Theriault.
" }-

jfd15
April 25th, 2008, 07:32 PM
Thanks Lucas, nice post....even those with limited knowledge like myself can follow the instructions there to avoid malware....

MrBrian
April 26th, 2008, 12:47 PM
Huge Web Hack Attack Infects 500,000 Pages (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=207455)

-{ Quote: "
Although it may not be clear how attackers are compromising such large numbers of Web sites, what happens after a site is infected is well-understood, researchers have said. When a visitor reaches one of the hacked sites, malicious JavaScript loads an IFRAME from a malware-hosting server; the IFRAME redirects the browser to a different page, also hosted on the hacker's server.

Next, a multiple-strike attack kit is downloaded to the visitor's PC. The kit tries eight different exploits, and if it finds one that works, hijacks the system.

These kinds of attacks, said Sherstobitoff, essentially make the idea of a "trusted site" moot. "You used to know that if you walked down the dark streets of the Web, you would be infected. Today, you really can't tell what the dark streets are."
" }-

jfd15
April 27th, 2008, 02:50 AM
-{ Quote: "Huge Web Hack Attack Infects 500,000 Pages (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=207455)" }-

damn, i use "freebie" sites lately where you supposed to disable firewall, AV, etc.
to get credit for trying things....now am starting to wonder if its a bad idea...

Huupi
April 27th, 2008, 03:51 AM
So if these attacks are growing at an alarming rate according to Sophos then how we has to deal with it as even legitimate sites are ever more compromised.I tend to trust the Sophos findings,but also the expertise of the anti malware vendors to find solutions,and yes its a continuous batle to no end as long as we live here on earth. I'm not dreaming,paradise exist only in your mind ! ;)

Mrkvonic
April 27th, 2008, 04:35 AM
Hello,

lucas, simple and effective.

Pretty much covers the basics for a typical Windows user. With some extra trimming, you can get even more leeway, allowing you extra lazy comfort if you do not want to implement all the steps.

One thing, regarding hacked trusted sites: the chance of getting infected if you use a normal browser are low. The chances are much higher you might inadvertently disclose privileged info. For example, login credentials or you might buy something, with your credit card number.

Mrk

Long View
April 27th, 2008, 04:39 AM
-{ Quote: " how we has to deal with it as even legitimate sites are ever more compromised.)" }-

Firefox with NoScript protects against this I believe.

Extract from the Noscript FAQ

"IFrame blocking is disabled by default because I think it's overkill, breaking too much stuff for a too small theoretical security gain: disabling scripts and blocking objects, combined with the anti-XSS protection, actually prevents all the IFRAME-based attacks you could imagine."

If that is not good enough then just disable Iframe and live with the pain

MrBrian
April 27th, 2008, 02:21 PM
-{ Quote: "So if these attacks are growing at an alarming rate according to Sophos then how we has to deal with it as even legitimate sites are ever more compromised." }-

Use a browser without ActiveX support. Opera browser doesn't support ActiveX and lets you turn off/on JavaScript, Java, and plugins per site and also globally. If using XP and not using a limited account, then make sure browser runs with lowered rights using Software Restriction Policies with 'Basic User'. Keep browser addins up to date using Secunia PSI. Turn on DEP and consider changing the defaults to OptOut. Also use a 3rd party buffer overflow protection product such as Comodo Memory Firewall.

Threedog
April 27th, 2008, 03:42 PM
Or you could use a Sandbox + HIPS. If it can't execute it can't infect.

Diver
April 29th, 2008, 10:34 AM
To make a long story short, the F-Secure blog recommends using HTTP scanning, a feature that is starting to show up in more and more AV programs.

Not only is DEP a good idea (provided you are not still in the P3 era) but so is LUA/SRP. The effect of LUA/SRP is the browser launches with user rights and may only write to areas from which no .exe may run.

tawd1992
April 30th, 2008, 11:31 AM
-{ Quote: "
Infection by a drive-by download can happen automatically just by visiting a website, unless you have a fully patched operating system, browser, and browser plug-ins. Unfortunately, most people have some vulnerabilities in their systems." }-

I thought that a website could put viruses/trojans in your temp internet folder even with a fully patched system & no interaction from the user? So by typing one letter wrong of a url you could possibly get infected.

Cerxes
April 30th, 2008, 12:35 PM
-{ Quote: "I thought that a website could put viruses/trojans in your temp internet folder even with a fully patched system & no interaction from the user? So by typing one letter wrong of a url you could possibly get infected." }-
Yes it can, but it can´t infect your system unless it´s targeting some vulnerability you already have among your applications/OS. Otherwise it will just stay idle in your Temp folder until it´s deleted.

/C.

richbuff
May 4th, 2008, 06:32 AM
Thank you for the informative post, Lucas. I hope that a decision is made to display it in a very prominent location.

After the read, I was struck with just how difficult it is to convince the average person, at medium risk for acquiring malware infection, to follow the rules and guidelines to become a person who does not acquire malware infections.

What are the risk factors for malware infection and how difficult is it to positively compensate? The overall risk of malware infection is combination of various risk factors, including behavioral risk factors and configurational risk factors. Members of the non-infectious population are those who do not engage in risky behavior and who also do not have risky configurations. They may even receive positive input from the group that they belong to, including advice on what behaviors and configurations to avoid. Members of the infectious population engage in infectious behaviors and also have infectious configurations. Members of these two groups don't have too many mysteries to solve, the causes and effects are clear and uncomplicated. However, those in the moderate risk group due to a combination of moderately infectious behaviors and moderately infectious configurations appear to be stuck in an endless, unresolvable debate over which is the greater risk determinant, behavior or configuration?

Which of these three groups do I want to be in? Do I answer this question or does the group answer it for me? Just as individual members of the non-infectious group receive much positive support from the group to stay in that group by avoiding certain configurations and behaviors, individual members of the infectious group receive much more pressure from the group to stay in that group via retaining infectious behaviors and configurations. Members of the infectious group and the moderately infectious group find it difficult to to join the non-infectious group, by simply changing infectious behaviors and configurations, because pressures exerted against this are very strong. I have found that lack of basic infection prevention knowledge is not the problem, most everybody knows all the rules.

The only way that I have been able to assist individuals to adopt non infectious norms is to first confront them with the fact that what their peers normally do configurationally and behaviorally with their PC's appears to be perfectly normal, but in fact only appears normal because they are members of the global Culture of Infection. When the decision is made to join the culture of non-infection, replete with its stark lack of negative attractors, the individual finally finds it easy to follow the basic rules that he and everyone else knows in order to be infection free.

ErikAlbert
May 4th, 2008, 08:11 AM
Richbuff,
In the past, I was a member of the infectious group without knowing it and I was infected all the time without knowing it. This was my happiest time on internet.

Once I realized that something was wrong, I became a member of the moderately infectious group and observed the non-infectious group with members like Lucas. First I stole all his ideas, except the ideas, I didn't understand and then I called them my ideas. ;)

Finally, I joined the non-infectious group and although it was an improvement, it was also the most boring group. Now I'm homesick and want to join the infectious group again. Nothing is perfect. :)

Long View
May 4th, 2008, 08:37 AM
I understand that it is against the rules to list bad sites etc but is there perhaps a more general way in which I could deliberately try to get infected ?

Any suggestions - most welcome

the only rules:

I will continue to:

(1) use my firewall router
(2) Firefox + Noscript, Cslite,adblock plus
(3) have my mail delivered to outlook by a provider that checks for and removes malware and spam
(4) delete e-mail from people "I don't know" and not open stange attachments.
(5) not run any real-time av, as, or hips
(6) not run any sand boxie type program

system and data are backed up using Acronis and Shadow Protect and passwords are encrypted so I don't see that I can come to much harm.