• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

W32.Blaster.Worm - RPC vulnerability causes reboots in Windows NT, 2K, and XP.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Yep, even if you run anti-virus software you were wide open until they(anti-virus people) were able to get a copy of the virus and create discription that can detect it. OF course if they(virus programmer) modify the virus slightly then it is again COMPLETELY IMMUNE to a traditional virus scanner. That is until the anti-virus people get around to finding another copy of the modified virus making a discription of that.

Also firewalls won't keep you immune from attacks like this. They will mostly, but what if they decide to add the virus (modified) to a e-mail attactment. Some idiot on your LAN downloads the e-mail, accidently double clicks the attactment thru a spasm in their pointer finger and WHOOPS. There goes every FREAKING COMPUTER ON YOUR LAN! Not much of a problem with home users, but for any admin who has the misfortune to administrate Windows machines, and has enough common sense, should be extremely worried.

How long till they expose a vunerability. What if Black-hats figure it out before White-hats? Something like this could bring the windows world to a screaming halt in hours. Are we going to facing something like a "worm of the month"?

Remember security places HAVE TO POST PROOF OF CONCEPT CODE. That's the only way they can get Windows and other close sourced software companies to take security seriously. IT's to force their hand to create patches and stuff. Otherwise people get lulled into a false sense of security by thinking they can depend on software like Microsoft windows to protect their information. Without exeption they notify Microsoft (and others) a LONG time before they ever take the exploit public. The goal is to make stuff safe, not to screw users over. It's not LSD's fault nobody practices even the minimal discipline needed to protect themselves.

Of course this paticular attack can be stopped with a patch, that is off course if you can keep your computer running long enough to log onto microsoft.com and download the patch.

Now I have a mantra you need to repeat over and over again in order to stay safe.

1. find a quiet seculded corner of a room
2. turn down the lights, make your self confortable.
3. burn some lightly sented ensense, becaureful not to overload your senses.
4. sit cross legged in the traditional yoga manner, close your eyes and.
5 repeat: "In windows operating systems; security costs extra."

Do that hundred times, then take a nap. Get drunk later that evening, but be sure to get rid of all AOL products before hand because sometimes people suffer a uncontrollable urge to use up those free hours as a side-effect.

Of course if you run the same type of anti-virus software that I use, you'd never have to worry about this stuff again. (just as long as you keep yourself educated and the OS up to date.) Hell I can probably put my computer out on the internet with no firewall or anything (although I a fundamentally lazy and so I use a firewall to slow attacks down) and not have to worry about virus's and script kiddies, as long as I pay attention to security advisments. You always will have to worry about uber crackers no matter what, though.
 

NogginBoink

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
5,322
0
0
Originally posted by: Wiktor
You got me all wrong there bobdude1 :)

I think it's great that WinXP incorporates such services as firewall or CD burning or many other (also a audio/video player and Internet communicator or even IE). Some say it is unfair to all those software comapnies that develop these products on their own, maybe, but for the costumer it is better IMO.

So what I was saying is: well, it looks like even with the firwall (or ignore the firewall itself - this time it seems to do the job and blocks the worm, but it doesn't have the reputation of a professional security application or you may have it off), Windows on it's own is so open to worms/viruses especially this one that you can't say it is 'good' for Internet. There ;)

I encourage MS to further develop their firewall and igonore all those that will start talking about monopoly and so on :(

Actually, information from MS suggests that if users had the internet connection firewall turned on, they would not have been affected. My guess is that the MS firewall does protect against this attack, but people don't turn it on.

(MS info about using their firewall)
 

razor2025

Diamond Member
May 24, 2002
3,010
0
71
ok, I need help really bad.

I got hit by the worm, and so I ran the patches and fixes.

I'm not getting the RPC shut-down/retart now, but my IE is still acting wierd... It won't display thumbnails/icon and even ads on alot of website, like AT, Newegg, Rage3D. But if I goto Ars forum( Ars main site is still problematic) or Amdmb board there isn't the problem. I'm thinking there's still something wrong with the incoming port. Any clue?
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,666
21
81
Seems like the nation got hit hard by this virus. Some business's had to shut down because of it.

Info from cnn.com
But to expect home users to keep their systems current is unreasonable, said Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer with Counterpane Internet Security Inc. He blames software developers for writing bad software that constantly need ``critical'' patches.

I think he is pointing the finger at Windows here.... lol .

Researchers also discovered another message hidden inside the infection that appeared to taunt Microsoft's chairman: ``billy gates why do you make this possible? Stop making money and fix your software!''
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Originally posted by: razor2025
ok, I need help really bad.

I got hit by the worm, and so I ran the patches and fixes.

I'm not getting the RPC shut-down/retart now, but my IE is still acting wierd... It won't display thumbnails/icon and even ads on alot of website, like AT, Newegg, Rage3D. But if I goto Ars forum( Ars main site is still problematic) or Amdmb board there isn't the problem. I'm thinking there's still something wrong with the incoming port. Any clue?


Sounds to me like your internet explorer just got frazzled from the virus. Probably (if your computer kept crashing) it just corrupted some of your system files. IE seems especially fragile(from my experiances troubleshooting). The port that was attacked was for TFTP, which is a udp port used for simple transfers that don't require much in the way of information control or checking.... HTTP is a different beast that runs on TCP port 80, however:

First I'd try clearing your web cache of all it's files, some of them could be corrupt gifs and jpegs that your computer is thinking are ok, so it isn't bothering to redownload them.

IF that didn't help,

I'd just download a new version of IE from microsoft's website, or extract it from your i386 folder and reinstall it.

IF that didn't help,

I'd try reinstalling your TCP/IP stack by extracting it from your i386 folder...

THat last bit is just me grasping at straws, (BTW I've forgot how to reinstall TCP/IP in 2000 and XP a long time ago), but I realy don't know if that would have anything to do with it.

edit:
P.S. Here are directions for resetting TCP/IP I don't know if that would help, but I doubt it would hurt a whole lot.
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Originally posted by: drag
Yep, even if you run anti-virus software you were wide open until they(anti-virus people) were able to get a copy of the virus and create discription that can detect it. OF course if they(virus programmer) modify the virus slightly then it is again COMPLETELY IMMUNE to a traditional virus scanner. That is until the anti-virus people get around to finding another copy of the modified virus making a discription of that.
Have you heard of "heuristics?" McAfee VirusScan was detecting this threat heuristically before it was even known for certain to exist, and I expect other vendors' AV software was, too. Anything looking for this vulnerability is going to be holding a big "HEY!!! Virus right here, come get me!" sign for good AV software to see. edit: or perhaps I should say "good AND properly-configured AV software" ;)
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Heuristics seems to me to be just a fancy term for a established set of standards or steps to accomplish a task.

Some of the heuristics type stuff that virus scanners do is scan the files, once it gets a file then it reads the header information to detect the proper format of the file. If for example it is a word file then it will look thru the file for a sequence of bits that could match a virus definition in it's database. Another hueristitic thing it does is checksum system files to make sure they match the original binaries from microsoft. Other thing it does is to look for executables with unusual file names like: loveme.doc.exe. A file name like that is likely to have/be a virus. Or they will scan files for ascii keywords that match viruses in their databases.

That is not some magic bullet or anything to detect viruses, there is not some super quatum mathmatics algorithim that can detect a malicious program. Nor can virus scanners detect the intent of the author of the program.

A binary is a binary is a binary. Their realy isn't anything more then that. How can a virus scanner detect the difference between a program that is designed to make it easy to shut off a computer (say in a installation sheild that reboots your computer after installing a program) and a computer program that has a mean little face in a window that shuts your computer off after a 60 second timer? Fundamentally there is no difference.

Anyways if McAfee VirusScan detected it before hand then they probably download the sample code from LSD and compiled it and added it to their virus definitions. Since this worm basicly just used a copy of that sample code in itself then I am not suprised that it would be able to detect this worm AFTER it installed itself on your machine. This exploit could easily be used in a different way then putting into a worm and your scanner wouldn't be able to help you... say if it automaticly crashed your machine right away. (but then it wouldn't be that much of a universal threat, since the worm wouldn't propigate, but it would be usefull for a DOS attack.)

Heuristics is more marketing fluff then anything else. It would be like saying that Microsoft uses multi-level patented algrorithmic software technology to provide advanced cost saving networking performance from it's new line of servers. Sometimes I think that virus scanners manufacturers are the used car salesmen of the software world.

I am having a hard time finding news of the heuristic advanced detection of the RPC virus. I would appreiciate a link if you would be so kind.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
BTw (don't get me wrong virus scanning technics are a lot better then they use to be, but I beleive their are much better ways of protecting yourself then to depend on stuff like that.)
 

Kinesis

Senior member
May 5, 2001
475
0
76
:p

Now I have a mantra you need to repeat over and over again in order to stay safe.

1. find a quiet seculded corner of a room
2. turn down the lights, make your self confortable.
3. burn some lightly sented ensense, becaureful not to overload your senses.
4. sit cross legged in the traditional yoga manner, close your eyes and.
5 repeat: "In windows operating systems; security costs extra."


You know, I am actually sexually aroused by this.... :p
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Originally posted by: drag

I am having a hard time finding news of the heuristic advanced detection of the RPC virus. I would appreiciate a link if you would be so kind.
Here you go :cool:
McAfee anti-virus solutions protected against W32/Lovsan.worm before it was even discovered. W32/Lovsan.worm exploits the MS03-026 vulnerability, and McAfee anti-virus solutions with signatures updated since August 8, 2003 are able to detect a variety of threats containing code that attempts to exploit that vulnerability. By scanning files as they are saved to disk, downloaded through the Internet gateway, or as they pass through the e-mail server, McAfee anti-virus solutions can detect and eradicate W32/Lovsan.worm from your environment. Click here to learn more about the W32/Lovsan.worm.
I maintain a fleet of about 75 business PCs, now running VirusScan Enterprise 7 and administering them centrally with ePolicy Orchestrator. Heuristics are my friend :cool: My home page at work is McAfee's Newly-Discovered Threats, great way to keep up on what's new.

Incidentally, we have one outlying employee who works from home, and he moved to a new house. At his new place, it turns out he didn't put his Linksys BEFSR41 between his new cable modem and his PC, and it hadn't been updated with the patch that prevents this worm. VirusScan was his ONLY line of defense, I'm sorry to say, and it held the fort down nicely. :D I went to update his PC yesterday and urged him to find that Linksys and get it back in place... for the meantime, he's got ZoneAlarm and is patched up.
 

seismik

Senior member
May 9, 2003
232
0
0
You can tell everyone is still scrambling to plug this hole -- WindowsUpdate might as well have a DoS attack against it right now for how slowly it's running.
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Some of the heuristics type stuff that virus scanners do is scan the files, once it gets a file then it reads the header information to detect the proper format of the file. If for example it is a word file then it will look thru the file for a sequence of bits that could match a virus definition in it's database. Another hueristitic thing it does is checksum system files to make sure they match the original binaries from microsoft.

None of these examples are of heuristic detection.

Heuristics is more marketing fluff then anything else. It would be like saying that Microsoft uses multi-level patented algrorithmic software technology to provide advanced cost saving networking performance from it's new line of servers. Sometimes I think that virus scanners manufacturers are the used car salesmen of the software world.

rolleye.gif
Always nice when someone who doesn't really know anything about an area starts posting opinions as facts ;)

Bill
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Sure it is. heuristic scanning just looks for things that binaries do that are things that viruses are know to do. In other words in stead of just looking for virus based on what sort of numerac that matches files they look for the same thing that human would look out for. Unusual filenames are one thing, weird macros in word documents, if the the program is designed to terminate; but still be resident in memory, or if a program is designed to access parts of the harddrive in a low-level manner are all indications of a virus. The anti-virus program puts a flag up for each of these instanses and once a program gets two to three flags against it, then it is likely to be a virus and the scanner tells you that this file is likely to contain a virus. Hueristics mostly pertain to behavior, but that's not everything. There are also dozens of other aspects of program behavior that the heuristic virus scanner looks for.

I could be wrong, I am no expert, but it doesn't seem very mysterious or magical way of doing things. It's just common sense, the same things that you or I look at when we are looking for a virus is what the scanner attempts to do.

It's also pretty easy to defeat. If your just a virus manufacturer you just have a couple computers running up to date virus scanner. You attack the computer with your worm or install your virus on it, if the hueristics detect it, then you find out what sort of flags it sets of and modify the vius's behavior so that it doesn't get detected. Then all that heuristics is useless to any of the virus's intended victims. As more and more viruses proliferate, and the hueristics end up being more and more exact to try to differenciate between good programs and bad programs, windows becomes more and more complicated and varied in it's abilities more and more holes are going to be openned up and be ready to be exploited. It a loose/loose situation as people pay more and more for virus scanners that they need to protect them. The only solution is for MS to produce decent products or for people to move away from windows.
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
I could be wrong, I am no expert, but it doesn't seem very mysterious or magical way of doing things. It's just common sense, the same things that you or I look at when we are looking for a virus is what the scanner attempts to do.

Again, the examples I quoted that you gave where not of what the AV vendors consider heuristics. You give examples that are purely file scanning that don't involve heuristics such as "If for example it is a word file then it will look thru the file for a sequence of bits that could match a virus definition in it's database". You simply don't know the internals of the heuristic engines are doing, but few people actually do.

It's also pretty easy to defeat. If your just a virus manufacturer you just have a couple computers running up to date virus scanner. You attack the computer with your worm or install your virus on it, if the hueristics detect it, then you find out what sort of flags it sets of and modify the vius's behavior so that it doesn't get detected. Then all that heuristics is useless to any of the virus's intended victims. As more and more viruses proliferate, and the hueristics end up being more and more exact to try to differenciate between good programs and bad programs, windows becomes more and more complicated and varied in it's abilities more and more holes are going to be openned up and be ready to be exploited. It a loose/loose situation as people pay more and more for virus scanners that they need to protect them. The only solution is for MS to produce decent products or for people to move away from windows.

Your actually right on your first point, it's a definate problem. That said, you then illogically extend your logic to presume that Windows itself is at fault. If Linux was the primary desktop OS today and Windows had a small percentage share, we'd be dealing with the same issue only you'd be saying 'move away from Linux'.

Bill

 

gplracer

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2000
1,768
37
91
What do you do if your computer will not boot all the way into windows? My friends computer stops at the blue screen that says now booting into windows.
 

xcript

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2003
8,258
2
81
Originally posted by: gplracer
What do you do if your computer will not boot all the way into windows? My friends computer stops at the blue screen that says now booting into windows.

Try and boot into safe mode.

If he can't, try booting off the 2k/xp cd and repairing the installation.

If this fails, it's reinstall time.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
I don't think that we would be dealing with the same issues if everyone was using Linux. Their are many reasons why this is so. One thing is viariaty. Anybody who creates a worm or a virus has to create it genericly. It can't be too specific or it would only target a small amount of vunerable servers/PCs and go nowere. You could write a worm that would maybe attack Redhat 8.0 servers running Wu-ftp server and that would work and if your lucky this could affect earlier versions of Redhat, too. But if you were running Redhat 8.0 with a upgraded Wu-ftp server they would probably be immune, but then would be all servers running any other FTP service like ProFTP or any other distro would be immune. All debian/slackware/Suse/gentoo user would be immune. That worm would have a very hard time existing, and not that much fun for a virus writer to spend so much time for so little of a results.

You also have clear definition of what a user is and what a admin or root user is. Windows for all the work that MS has put into it is still fundamentally based on a single user model. Linux and other BSD's were designed from the ground up to provide a strong seperation. You could very easily write the types of viruses that affect windows user for Linux. I've seen examples of it actually being pretty trivial. However you are not going to be able to affect something system wide like you would be with windows. The most destructive thing you could do would be to corrupt the files in a user's home folder and create a program that would try to eat 100% of the Ram, disk space, or cpu time. Any decent admin could counter act this with a simple rm and a kill -9 command.

The only way around that you could do that was to use a virus that would attack a certain vunerability in a program that was run setuid root. Like for instance if you discovered that X windows had a buffer overflow exploit you could concerviably run a program that would take advantage of this. Then you would run into another problem, you can't make a file a exacutable just by adding a .exe in the back of the name. You would have to find someway to trick a user into downloading a file, making it exacutable and then exacuting it. Which all involved manual intervention. With vunerable windows systems I could just add a attactment to a e-mail called, loveme.doc.exe someone double clicking on the attactment would run the program and install the virus or worm. So then as a virus writer I would have to figure out a way to trick people to download, make executable my program, and then run it. And that would only affect a certain amount of people running a specific version of X windows or other setuid root program.

Also another reason that Linux and the *BSDs are much less vunerable to windows is peer review. Since they know by the design of unix which out of the thousands of programs aviable for *nix boxes would be likely targets for a cracker they go over the source code of these programs over and over again to make sure that they are secure.

I am not saying that Linux is invunerable to attack from a virus or worm, I am just saying that the level of sophistication that would be required for the attack is much more then virus writers for windows face. The types of attacks that Linux and friends have to be carefull of is the type of specific targeting that goes on by a determined enemy, which is also what windows admins have to look out for, too.

But there is just one thing that realy pisses me off about this latest MSblaster. Stuff like this shouldn't be happening, Ms released a patch for this specific vunerability long ago, so this specific worm attacks are by no way MS's fault. It is the fault of the lazy/incompitent admins that are resposible for the security of there systems.

A home user can be forgiven, they got more important things to worry about, but MS has released this patch for almost a month now and critical computers were still vunerable. Like those computers in that DMV place getting aflicted by this virus, or computers in Banks getting attacked by the worm and crashing.

This means that these computers were left wide open to crackers who could exploit this vunerablity to gain control of those computers for over a month, when they should of been patched right away. If I was a CEO of a place that had computers that were aflicted I would be VERY VERY PISSED OFF, right now. I mean I would hire people to take care of security and you would normally think that they would know what they are doing, however if they do not take the even most fundamental steps to protect us from attacks I probably would be looking for some new admins.

(BTW I found a nice white paper/article a little while ago describing how the heuristic scanning works, I haven't found it yet, but I'll keep looking.)
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
I don't think that we would be dealing with the same issues if everyone was using Linux. Their are many reasons why this is so. One thing is viariaty.

I will argue that isn't as true as you think it is. Once you get millions and millions of users on an OS, there are plenty of similarly configured machines to attack. Your taking the current Linux environment and extrapolating it the mainstream while discounting the dynamics that allow an OS to go mainstream in the first place.

Any decent admin could counter act this with a simple rm and a kill -9 command.

See above ;) Admins (while part of the problem) aren't nearly as responsible for this issue than home users (sqlslammer, you can argue, was the admins fault).

So then as a virus writer I would have to figure out a way to trick people to download, make executable my program, and then run it. And that would only affect a certain amount of people running a specific version of X windows or other setuid root program.

Bear in mind end user accept zip files from strangers, open them, and then launch executables.

Also another reason that Linux and the *BSDs are much less vunerable to windows is peer review. Since they know by the design of unix which out of the thousands of programs aviable for *nix boxes would be likely targets for a cracker they go over the source code of these programs over and over again to make sure that they are secure.

That (IMHO) is a still a theory. While it may have some merit, it's not a proven fact. You can argue that the unique exploits per user is much lower than Windows than with the other OS's. You can make statements of facts supporting either case, so let's call this a wash for now and discuss it later.

But there is just one thing that realy pisses me off about this latest MSblaster. Stuff like this shouldn't be happening, Ms released a patch for this specific vunerability long ago, so this specific worm attacks are by no way MS's fault. It is the fault of the lazy/incompitent admins that are resposible for the security of there systems.

Well, MS doesn't get off completely. They do have a history of releasing patches which have broken 'unrelated' things on the system. That has caused admin's to be more learly of immediately installing patches. This needs to change, but you can't put it all (today) on the admins.

A home user can be forgiven, they got more important things to worry about, but MS has released this patch for almost a month now and critical computers were still vunerable. Like those computers in that DMV place getting aflicted by this virus, or computers in Banks getting attacked by the worm and crashing.

Actually the home users who turned off automatic updates (a popular how-to topic around here) are just as irresponsible as the admins you suggest. I think the ISP's are also to blame. Don't get me wrong, I want the option from my ISP of access my machine on port (enter whatever you care about here), but do we really need things like RPC and windows shares open by default while they same ISP's block incoming port 80 traffic? Turn it all off and let me go turn it on if I need it.

(BTW I found a nice white paper/article a little while ago describing how the heuristic scanning works, I haven't found it yet, but I'll keep looking.)

Did we write it?

Bill
 

Slickone

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 1999
6,120
0
0
Microsoft says if you've previously applied the security patch MS03-026, you're protected. But I can't figure out if I've installed it. I do all the critical updates that it notifies me of, but all the updates are a 6 digit number (some have a Q in front). How do I match the #'s up?
Also the same page says the worm affects Win NT, but Symantec says only 2K and XP. Why?
 

Renegade23216

Senior member
Apr 30, 2003
418
0
0
I have a problem with the virus.

I had Norton with the newest definitions, and I followed the instructions to manually remove it from my computer. My computer started working fine but later on it rebooted again. I think I got the virus a second time.

Regardless, the problem is now that it keeps shutting down again, no matter how often I scan it doesn't find the virus this time. Although, every time the 59 second reboot timer pops up, my virus scanner pops up also with a "virus detected" box. It ads another file to the quarantine list, then I reboot and it happens over and over. What's going on?
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Originally posted by: Azo313
I have a problem with the virus.
I had Norton with the newest definitions, and I followed the instructions to manually remove it from my computer. My computer started working fine but later on it rebooted again. I think I got the virus a second time.
Regardless, the problem is now that it keeps shutting down again, no matter how often I scan it doesn't find the virus this time. Although, every time the 59 second reboot timer pops up, my virus scanner pops up also with a "virus detected" box. It ads another file to the quarantine list, then I reboot and it happens over and over. What's going on?

You've removed the virus (each time), but you haven't patched the vulnerability yet. Even if you think you have, go reapply the appropriate patch for your OS.
Bill


 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Also the same page says the worm affects Win NT, but Symantec says only 2K and XP. Why?

NT has the same exploit (so should be patched), but the current worm will only execute properly on a 2k/xp system.
Bill




 

showhost

Member
Feb 2, 2002
53
0
0
Hi all...

I'm hoping someone can help me. My computer is showing all signs of Blaster worm virus (multiple crashes, same RPC warning as others). I have followed all the steps with FixBlast making sure to disable system restore, verify digital signature of repair tool and then running the tool. But as some others have said, the tool indicates there is no virus found.

My dilemma is this: I haven't installed the patch as there is a line of text on the MS web page stating:
The patch for Windows XP can be installed on systems running Windows XP Gold or Service Pack 1
My system is running XP without SP1 and without spelling it out, I have to confess that there is a reason for this. But now I find myself in the position of possibly HAVING to install a patch that may not work without having first insalled SP1. Can anybody shed light on this or verify or at the very least, speculate?

Thanks...

Showhost

:frown: