Posted on 02/18/2005 2:29:06 PM PST by Caesar Soze
Microsoft Corp. security researchers are warning about a new generation of powerful system-monitoring programs, or "rootkits," that are almost impossible to detect using current security products and could pose a serious risk to corporations and individuals.
--snip--
It is sometimes possible to spot kernel rootkits by examining infected systems from another machine on a network, said Dillard. Another strategy to spot kernel rootkits is to use Windows PE, a stripped-down version of the Windows XP operating system that can be run from a CD-ROM, to boot a computer and then compare the profile of the clean operating system to the infected system, according to Dillard and Danseglio.
Microsoft researchers have developed a tool called Strider GhostBuster that can detect rootkits by comparing clean and suspect versions of Windows and looking for differences that may indicate that a kernel rootkit is running, according to a paper published by Microsoft Research.
The only reliable way to remove kernel rootkits is to completely erase an infected hard drive and reinstall the operating system from scratch, Danseglio said.
Although rootkits are not unique to Windows, the popular operating system is a rich target and makes it easy for malicious hackers to disguise the presence of such programs, according to Jonathan Levin of Symantec Corp.'s @stake division, who attended the presentation at the RSA conference.
The operating system's powerful application programming interfaces make it easy to mask behaviors on the system. Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser is also a frequent avenue for malicious hackers, viruses and worms that could drop a rootkit on a vulnerable Windows system, Levin said.
(Excerpt) Read more at computerworld.com ...
Microsoft sucks...ok, I started it!
That's why any sane person doesn't run as a local administrator.
Not My Text - Copied from the internet.
Shattering Windows: Is a Disaster Lurking?
By Larry Seltzer
One of the scarier things I've read about in security circles is what are called shatter attacks. These are software-based attacks that take advantage of a basic architectural flaw in Windows. They utilize flaws in the basic window communications in Windows either for buffer overflows or for privilege escalation.
At a very basic level, GUI events in Windows happen when windows on the screen send messages to each other.(Capital Windows means the operating system, small windows refers to a window in Windows or any other operating system.) For the most part, windows aren't normally programmed any more by application developers. Windows also sends messages to these windows, for instance telling them to redraw themselves when they have been moved around on the screen.
All windows running in the Windows GUI are peers, which means that at the level of window management they are all equal in Windows' view, and that they can send messages to each other. There's no authentication behind these messages, so there's no way to control who can send messages to whom.
Some of these messages can invoke commands; for example, to expand the size of an Edit Control. Here's how someone might invoke a buffer overflow and shatter the window: First the Edit Control is grown by sending data to it, which then overflows the buffer for that Control. Remember, the buffer was sized to the original, smaller version of the Edit Control.
A more scary shatter attack (that has been fixed by Microsoft) uses the WM_TIMER message. This common message has an optional parameter for a callback function, so that the window receiving the message should execute the code pointed to by the message. Any unprivileged process could send a WM_TIMER message to a privileged interactive process and capture its privilege level just by having it call back.
Despite being around for well over a year, shatter attacks haven't been much of a real-world problem. Shatter attacks presume an intrusion of attack code on the system, or in other words, a hacker needs to already have an interactive attack program installed and executed on your system in order to begin his or her shatter attack. By the time they can do this, they probably don't need to do the shatter attack in order to have their way with the system, although it could be useful for privilege escalation at that time.
Many industry observers believe that shatter attacks can be solved, at least for the most part, by good programming practices. This means that programmers should be checking buffers. In addition, interactive programs should run at the minimum privilege level necessary. More privileged operations of a program can be run in a background, non-GUI process, such as a Windows service.
At the same time, that's not the end of the line for shatter attacks. A PDF paper from iDefense lists several other ways to exploit windows in a manner similar to the old WM_TIMER method.
Fixing the shatter attack problem at its core would mean making basic changes to Windows. This would end up breaking a large number of existing programs, and we all know that's a no-no. Microsoft can endeavor to fix the callback vulnerabilities over time (really, the bigger problem) and hope that no vulnerability comes along that encourages accompanying shatter attacks. Because if hackers see that opening, we've got a big problem.
Thanks for the corrected link. Sometimes I cut and paste or type thing swrong.
Hadn't heard of Windows PE.
Now things are getting very scary.
PE is pretty cool.. You can make a stripped down bootable OS with just the parts you need. I'm not sure if or how MS distributes it, but I have a copy at work that I use occasionally.
I think PE stands for Pre-Install Environment. Could be wrong.. about the P part though.
You are correct. Preinstallation Environment.
I dont touch the net unless Im on linux these days. Oh and yes Im vnc'ing through a remote windows box right now
Bet it is not available for us peons.
I don't, I hate Windoze.
...Microsoft Windows Preinstallation Environment Windows PE...
It's out there...
It's time to make hacking into a PC a felony and a $50,000.00 fine ? Who would be against it ?
This isn't unique to Windows, BTW, kernel cracks can happen on any O/S if the developer has enough sophistication. Not many do though, thankfully, which is why they're so rare. Detection could be as simple as booting to a floppy, and verifying size/date of files like ntoskrnl.exe. When you find a specific threat, you might post that, but this is nothing more than hysteria.
You know, I was telling my wife just the other day that it's been quite awhile since our last Shatter Attack.
That's right, but that doesn't feed into the Windows-bad-everything-else-good hype.
(Ask the author of any blame-Windows post in this thread how the term "rootkit" came about... it didn't originate with Windows.)
The only time I have ever had a system compromised on our network, which consists of Unix and Windows systems, was an IBM AIX system, where a hacker got in through an ftp daemon flaw and installed a rootkit.
Do you actually read this forum? We haven't had a OS flamewar since...like....yesterday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.