Termination Protection- How good is ur HIPS

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by aigle, Apr 24, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Seishin

    Seishin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Posts:
    204
    What version of GW was that? Freeware (2.5.1/Beta 2.6) or Pro (2.5.1)

    BTW what software is GSS 1.2?

    Thx.
     
  2. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
    GeSWall 2.6 beta
    GSS- ghost Security Suite
     
  3. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
    Nice to see that.
    thanks for sharing. So one more winner!
     
  4. zopzop

    zopzop Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Posts:
    642
    i actually tested geswall 2.2.5 a while ago against this sort of thing and it passed. aigle recently tested it vs version 2.6 and it passed. geswall's been on top of this for at least a few months :)
     
  5. MaB69

    MaB69 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Posts:
    540
    Location:
    Paris
    I think this product protect itself in this way from cracking

    I am very surprised to see that top hips could fail to intercept a WM_CLOSE sended to regmon but very happy to see that GeSwall pass this test

    MaB
     
  6. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
  7. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
    Hi Zopzop and MaB69!

    Run Windows task manager isolated in GW via right click menue. Run wordpad as trusted( non-isolated). On applications tab of Task manager, select WordPad and opt for End Task- --- that,s it. Untrusted task manager is able to kill trusted wordpad. Shhhh..... Don,t tell anyone.

    BTW, defenceWall is able to protect here too. I already let GW people know this.
     
  8. Kenjin

    Kenjin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Posts:
    63
    Here is news regarding PS' failure to block this: I talked to PS developer about it and it turned out that this is caused by a bug which has been introduced somewhere in the 1.30 beta versions. The protection against this type of termination attack was already implemented long ago. Here is a screenshot showing PS 1.26 successfully blocking this:
    http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1588/psblockbl9.th.png

    A fixed 1.3x version will be released in the next days.
     
  9. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
    Thansk for update!
     
  10. MaB69

    MaB69 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Posts:
    540
    Location:
    Paris
    ICE protectors
    Thanks aigle, did not read this thread.

    You are right aigle but in GSwall logs i had this

    Code:
    2007.04.25 20:37:42 taskmgr.exe ISOLATE on start from explorer.exe
    2007.04.25 20:37:42 taskmgr.exe DENY 7F message to notepad.exe (Process)
    
    obviously, used notepad instead of wordpad
    Strange that i could kill notepad

    Did you reported this to Gentle Security Forum or Brian ?

    MaB
     
  11. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
    Yes! since last beta version or before and yesterday as well. I hope they will fix it. Actually I expect there r many of granular settings/features/ tweaks/ GUI things to come but ATM their priority seems to be stability and I agree with that.
     
  12. zopzop

    zopzop Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Posts:
    642
    nice catch aigle. i can confirm this works in geswall 2.5.1 too
     
  13. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
    Just got it by chance.
     
  14. JeffBuck

    JeffBuck Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Posts:
    32
    did anyone try with viguard?
     
  15. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
    It,s hard to find a ViGuard user here though I will be interested. Last time I tried it, it will not install if u have an AV on ur system( Antivir at least).

    Lets, wait for:

    BufferZone
    ViGuard
    ??
    ?
     
  16. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
    Ok, another experiment. I am not sure if it is justified or not.

    I tried RotKit Unhooker and IceSword to kill notepad.exe while using different HIPS as protection against termination of notepad.exe( using maximum HIPS protection settings- if there were any). Results are as follows:

    - SSM free 2.0.8.583 -- failed
    - SSM Pro 2.3.0.612 -- failed( even I was able to kill syssafe.exe itself)
    - PS free failed
    - PS Pro 1.30 failed
    - NG beta 2 -- failed against IceSword, succedded against RKU.
    - AppDefend version 1.110 -- failed against IceSword, succedded against RKU.

    Poor results are obvious as IS and RKU load a kernel driver so they are very strong in killing the processes.
    Sandboxes( GW, DF, SIE) can,t be checked here as they will not allow loadind of a kernel driver by IS or RKU.

    Advanced Process Terminator( APT) from DCS

    I tried to kill notepad.exe while protecting it by HIPS.

    - NeovaGuard beta2 failed with user mode kill 2, 3, 4, 10 and Crash 01
    - SSM free failed with user mode Kill 2, 3 and 4
    - SSM Pro passed all APT tests
    - PS Pro failed with user mode kill 2, 3, 4 and Kernel Kill 2

    Advanced Process Termination( APT) from DCS & Simple Process Termiantion( SPT) from syssafety.

    GesWall: I tried to kill notepad.exe via untrusted Adavnced Process Termination( APT) and SPT( Simple process Termiantion) while notepad.exe was running as rusted.
    GeSWalled blocked all 16 kill modes of APT and also all 16 kill modes of SPT.
    Not a single failure even.
     
  17. korb

    korb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Posts:
    150
    Location:
    singapore-thailand

    SSM pro sucessfully blocked vlp and avs with default setting
     
  18. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
  19. Kenjin

    Kenjin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Posts:
    63
    Right, it is pointless to test this in my opinion. Once you allow a kernel mode driver to load the game is over anyway. It can do whatever it wants and undermine all security software and the Windows kernel itself.

    ProSecurity does not fail kill 2-4 tests. As I have already pointed out, only the latest version of PS has a bug which makes protection against termination by sending window messages ineffective. If you want to make any further termination tests, use an older version like 1.26, you will see it blocks kill 2-4 successfully.
    By the way, I could not verify your SSM Pro results. For me SSM Pro 2.4.0.618 beta does not pass kernel kill tests if you allow the driver to load. Neither 1 nor 2. ProSecurity passed kernel kill 1 even then! Anyway, as already said, I don't believe testing against kernel kills makes much sense.
     
  20. MaB69

    MaB69 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Posts:
    540
    Location:
    Paris
    Hi all,

    I agree too

    APT vs OA 2 beta 178

    notepad protected from termination/suspend/remote code control/remote data modification

    OA succeed all kill and Crash tests but failed only suspend 2 :cool:

    SPT vs OA 2 beta 178

    Code:
    C:\>spt 2160 1
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 1...
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 2
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 2...
    Total opened thread count 1
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 3
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 3...
    Error: AccÞs refusÚ.
    
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 4
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 4...
    Total opened thread count 1
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 5
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 5...
    Error: AccÞs refusÚ.
    
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 6
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 6...
    Error: AccÞs refusÚ.
    
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 7
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 7...
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 8
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 8...
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 9
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 9...
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 10
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 10...
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 11
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 11...
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 12
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 12...
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 13
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 13...
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 14
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 14...
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 15
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 15...
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 2160 16
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 16...
    Test succeeded
    
    OA failed only test 16 and detected a keylogger for test 13 :cool:

    SPT with parameters e and f

    Code:
    C:\>spt 3644 1 -e -f
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Searching...%100
    Starting test 1...
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 3644 2 -e -f
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 2...
    Searching...%100
    Total opened thread count 1
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 3644 3 -e -f
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Searching...%100
    Starting test 3...
    Error: AccÞs refusÚ.
    
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 3644 4 -e -f
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Starting test 4...
    Searching...%100
    Total opened thread count 1
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 3644 5 -e -f
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Searching...%100
    Starting test 5...
    Error: AccÞs refusÚ.
    
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 3644 6 -e -f
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Searching...%100
    Starting test 6...
    Error: AccÞs refusÚ.
    
    Test failed
    
    C:\>spt 3644 7 -e -f
    Simple Process Termination (SPT).
    Copyright (C) System Safety Limited. All rights reserved.
    
    Searching...%100
    Starting test 7...
    Test failed
    OA succeed against all this tests :cool:

    Regards,

    MaB
     
  21. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Hi all,

    Lucky us (one PC protected by DefenseWall, other by GeSWall Pro 2.5 latest),

    EQSecure failed regmon termination (quite an effort to install those programs).

    Note when removing the video downloader it does not remove dartsock.dll and dartweb.dll from system32 directory, you have to remove them manually.

    Regards K
     
  22. MaB69

    MaB69 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Posts:
    540
    Location:
    Paris
    This is why i use RollbackRx : a snapshot before installing, make my test and then restore my last snapshot (no need to worry about dirts left by tested apps )

    MaB
     
  23. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
    Hi MaB9 and Kenjin , I agree, kill tests after loading a kernel driver are useless anyway. In case of APT kernel kill I denied loading the driver.
     
  24. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
    I installed with ShadowSurfer.
     
  25. farmerlee

    farmerlee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,585
    I agree, i don't even worry about uninstalling any test software, just reboot to a clean snapshot, so much easier.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.