THE ART OF COMPUTER VIRUS RESEARCH AND DEFENSE [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

اینجــــا یک کتابخانه دیجیتالی است

با بیش از 100000 منبع الکترونیکی رایگان به زبان فارسی ، عربی و انگلیسی

THE ART OF COMPUTER VIRUS RESEARCH AND DEFENSE [Electronic resources] - نسخه متنی

Peter Szor

| نمايش فراداده ، افزودن یک نقد و بررسی
افزودن به کتابخانه شخصی
ارسال به دوستان
جستجو در متن کتاب
بیشتر
تنظیمات قلم

فونت

اندازه قلم

+ - پیش فرض

حالت نمایش

روز نیمروز شب
جستجو در لغت نامه
بیشتر
لیست موضوعات
توضیحات
افزودن یادداشت جدید











  • 13.1. Introduction


    Computer worms can be classified based on the replication method they use. During the last couple of years, most of the successful, so-called "in-the-wild" computer worms used e-mail as the primary infection vector to reach new host systems. These worms are called mailer or mass-mailer worms.4. The infections peaked for a couple of hours, resulting in a massive denial of service (DoS) attack on the Internet.

    Slammer used a UDP-based attack, instead of TCP, as previously seen in CodeRed. Because of the "fire and forget" nature of UDP (as compared to TCP) and because the attack could fit into a single packet, Slammer was much faster than CodeRed. A process attempting a TCP connection must wait for a timeout to know that a connection has failed, whereas Slammer could simply fire the entire attack at a potential target and then move on without waiting. A successful attack takes the same amount of time as a failed attackeach is fast, sending a single packet.

    Properly written, asynchronous TCP connection methods can be nearly as efficient as UDP methods, but it takes considerably more programming skill and code to pull it off.

    We can expect more malicious hackers to take advantage of "automated intrusions" using worms. Thus protecting systems against such classes of worms is increasingly important.

    13.1.1. Script Blocking and SMTP Worm Blocking


    Script worms such as VBS/Loveletter@mm spread at an order of magnitude faster than previous threats had done. Script worms encouraged Symantec engineers to consider adding generic behavior blocking against such threats as part of a line of Symantec AntiVirus products. As a result, script-blocking technology was successfully deployed in 20005.6, W32/Brid@mm, W32/HLLW.Lovgate@mm, W32/Holar@mm, W32/Lirva@mm, and other variants. During the first few months after deployment, Symantec Security Response received several thousand submissions, which worm blocking quarantined.

    In August 2003, W32/Sobig.F@mm became responsible for one of the most significant e-mail worm attacks, paralyzing e-mail systems and lasting for days. Worm blocking stopped over 900 copies of the worm during the initial outbreak; thus Symantec AntiVirus retail customers were successfully protected from the worm even before definitions were made available against it. According to recent statistics, worm blocking stopped W32/Mydoom.A@mm more than 12,000 times. Table 13.1 shows the top 20 worm outbreaks according to worm-blocking data.

    Table 13.1. Top 20 Win32 Worm Submissions via Worm Blocking

    Number of Submissions

    Name of Worm

    12159

    W32.Mydoom.A@mm

    9709

    W32.Netsky.D@mm

    5334

    W32.Netsky.B@mm

    5111

    W32.Yaha.K@mm

    2598

    W32.Netsky.C@mm

    2451

    W32.Mydoom.F@mm

    1275

    W32.Netsky.Z@mm

    1274

    W32.Sobig.E@mm

    1210

    W32.Mapson.Worm

    1048

    W32.Netsky.K@mm

    1039

    W32.Bugbear.B@mm

    1021

    W32.Sobig.F@mm

    971

    W32.Netsky.X@mm

    888

    W32.Dumaru@mm

    745

    W32.Netsky.Q@mm

    673

    W32.HLLW.Mankx@mm

    652

    W32.Sobig.C@mm

    629

    W32.Sobig.B@mm

    390

    W32.Mimail.A@mm

    372

    W32.Netsky.Y@mm

    Typically, worm outbreaks are successful until the signature updates are delivered to the systems. Without worm blocking, it appears that an extra 12,000 systems would have propagated Mydoom.

    Worm-blocking submissions resulted in quicker signature update deployments. As a result, all Symantec customers now enjoy a faster response to highly infectious Win32 worms. This outcome is excellent, considering that the virus writers have introduced several hundred 32-bit Windows viruses in each month of 2004, and many of the successful ones are mass-mailers.

    Figure 13.1 shows the number of known 32-bit virus variants per month from September 1999 to October 2004.

    Figure 13.1. Accumulated total known 32-bit Windows virus variants per month.

    [View full size image]

    It appears that virus writing accelerated in 2004, with the fastest-developing type of computer worm being the network-level worm that uses exploits. There have been about 1,000 mass-mailer binary worms all together in the last few years. However, thousands of new worm variants appeared during the last 12 months that utilize exploits. Worms that use exploits might be underreported (compared to e-mail worms) for a number of reasons: They are harder to notice in general, and people experience the side effects of e-mail worms, together with other spam, on a daily basis. Their e-mail boxes are full of them.

    The basic idea behind worm blocking is simple. The patented technology uses a host-based SMTP proxy that uses a kernel mode driver to direct outgoing traffic not only to the antivirus (AV) e-mail scanner component, but also to the worm-blocking component.

    The worm-blocking component knows which particular process initiated the SMTP traffic because everything gets connected through the proxy. Thus the worm-blocking proxy component can check whether such a process, or its parent process, is in the current e-mail as an attachment. Self-mailing software is easily detected and blocked. This process works even if the actual attachment is a compressed file, like a ZIP file. In addition, the matching algorithm survives modifications to the file content to some extent, so worms such as W32/Klez or W32/ExploreZip, which change their body during each replication, remain detectable.

    Worm blocking might not be able to stop each worm, but it has a great chance of doing so, especially when it comes to copycat worms.

    13.1.2. New Attacks to Block: CodeRed, Slammer


    Computer worms such as W32/CodeRed or W32/Slammer are particularly challenging to existing AV technologies alone. These highly infectious worms jump from host to host and from one infected system service process to another, over the Internet using buffer overflow attacks on networked services. Because the files need not be created on disk and the code is injected into the address space of vulnerable processes, even file integrity checking systems remain challenged by this particular type of attack.


    • / 191