Graham Cluley, of Sophos and Naked Security, posted some reminiscences of the Michelangelo virus.  It brought back some memories and he’s told the story well.

I hate to argue with Graham, but, first off, I have to note that the twentieth anniversary of Micelangelo is not tomorrow (March 6, 2012), but today, March 5.  That’s because 1992 was, as this year is, a leap year.  Yes, Michelangelo was timed to go off on March 6th every year, but, due to a shortcut in the code (and bugs in normal comptuer software), it neglected to factor in leap years.  Therefore, in 1992 many copies went off a day early, on March 5th.

March 5th, 1992, was a rather busy day for me.  I was attending a seminar, but kept getting called out to answer media enquiries.

And then there was the fact that, after all that work and information submitted to the media in advance, and creating copies of Michelangelo on a 3 1/2″ disk (it would normally only infect 5 1/4″s) so I could test it on a safe machine (and then having to recreate the disk when I accidentally triggered the virus), it wasn’t me who got my picture in the paper.  No, it was my baby brother, who a) didn’t believe in the virus, but b) finally, at literally the eleventh hour (11 pm on March 4th) decided to scan his own computer (with a scanner I had given to him), and, when he found he was infected, raised the alarm with his church, and scanned their computers as well.  (Must have been pretty close to midnight, and zero hour, by that time.)  That’s a nice human interest story so he got his picture in the paper.  (Not that I’m bitter, mind you.)

I don’t quite agree with Graham as to the infection rates.  I do know that, since this was the first time we (as the nascent antivirus community) managed to get the attention of the media in advance, there were a great many significant infections that were cleaned off in time, before the trigger date.  I recall notices of thousands of machines cleaned off in various institutions.  But, in a sense, we were victims of our own success.  Having got the word out in advance, by the trigger date most of the infections had been cleaned up.  So, yes, the media saw it as hype on our part.  And then there was the fact that a lot of people had no idea when they got hit.  I was told, by several people, “no, we didn’t get Michelangelo.  But, you know, it’s strange: our computer had a disk failure on that date …”  That was how Michelangelo appeared, when it triggered.

I note that one of the comments wished that we could find out who created the virus.  There is strong evidence that it was created in Taiwan.  And, in response to a posting that I did at the time, I received a message from someone, from Taiwan, who complained that it shouldn’t be called “Michelangelo,” since the real name was “Stoned 3.”  I’ve always felt that only the person who wrote that variant would have been that upset about the naming …

Gizmodo reports:

New “Man in the Browser” Attack Bypasses Banks’ Two-Factor Authentication Systems

Except there is nothing new about this attack. OWASP documented it in 2007 and it was widely known that malware writers used it to bypass 2-factor authentication.

More from Gizmodo:

Since this attack has shown that the two-factor system is no longer a viable defense, the banking industry may have to adopt more advanced fraud-detection methods

Given that this has been going on for more than 5 years, it’s obvious that banks already have adopted more advanced fraud detection methods.

So why are they forcing you to carry around tokens and one-time passwords that make it awkward and uncomfortable to use your own money as you wish?

Because with only few exceptions, banks’ security guys are not interested in making your life comfortable. The more you suffer, the more you think they are secure.

Maybe it’s time to ask for accountability? Which of their so-called security features is really for security, and which is for CYA or ‘make-the-regulator-happy’?

Since most of my income comes from a company on the West Coast, I’m used to people assuming that I should be working according to their time zone (PST) rather than my own (GMT). But apparently we’re all wrong.
According to Trustwave’s Global Security Report:

“The number of executables and viruses sent in the early morning hours increased, eventually hitting a maximum between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. Eastern Standard Time before tapering off throughout the rest of the day. The spike is likely an attempt to catch people as they check emails at the beginning of the day.”

Did I miss something? Has everyone but me moved to the East Coast? I’m not even sure it matters when you receive a malicious executable, unless you don’t get around to opening it until after your security software has been updated to detect it. However, the report also tells us that:

“The time from compromise to detection in most environments is about six months…”

So if evading AV software is really the point, this seems to suggest that all those people who’ve moved to the East Coast are coping even less effectively with their email than I am.

Hold on, though. Maybe this tells something about the blackhat’s time zone, rather than the victim’s? The report doesn’t seem to tell us anything about the geographical origin of the emails that Trustwave has tracked, but it does tells us that apart from the 32.5% of attacks in general that are of unknown origin, the largest percentage (29.6%) come from the Russian Federation. Russia actually covers no less than nine time zones (until a couple of years ago, it was eleven), but perhaps we can assume for the sake of argument that a high percentage of those attackers are in time zones between CET and Moscow Standard (now UTC+4), which applies to most of European Russia. (That assumption allows us to include Romania and the Ukraine.) Perhaps, after a hard morning administering botnets, Eastern European gangsters are best able to find time to fire off a few malicious emails between the afternoon samovar break and early evening cocktails. Convinced? No, me neither.

Actually, there are some interesting statistics in the report. If they’re reliable, some assumptions that we make about geographical distribution, for example, might bear re-examination. But I’d really have to suggest that journalists in search of something new to say about malware examine some of the report’s interpretations with a little more salt and scepticism. I suppose I should be grateful that no-one has noticed yet that according to the report, twice as many attacks originate in the Netherlands as do in China. Just think of the sub-editorial puns that could inspire…

David Harley CITP FBCS CISSP
Small Blue-Green World/AVIEN
ESET Senior Research Fellow

BKZERDAY.RVW   20111109

“Zero Day”, Mark Russinovich, 2011, 978-0-312-61246-7, U$24.99/C$28.99
%A Mark Russinovich www.zerodaythebook.com markrussinovich@hotmail.com
%C   175 Fifth Ave., New York, NY   10010
%D   2011
%G   978-0-312-61246-7 0-312-61246-X
%I   St. Martin’s Press/Thomas Dunne Books
%O   U$24.99/C$28.99 212-674-5151 fax 800-288-2131
%O   josephrinaldi@stmartins.com christopherahearn@stmartins.com
%O  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/031261246X/robsladesinterne
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/031261246X/robsladesinte-21
%O   http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/031261246X/robsladesin03-20
http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m3CQBX46DOK0AK/ref=ent_fb_link
%O   Audience n Tech 1 Writing 1 (see revfaq.htm for explanation)
%P   328 p.
%T   “Zero Day”

Mark Russinovich has definitely made his name, in technical terms, with Winternals and Sysinternals.  There is no question that he knows the insides of computers.

What is less certain is whether he knows how to write about it within the strictures of a work of fiction.  The descriptions of digital forensics and computer operation in this work are just as confusing, to the technically knowledgeable, as those we regularly deride from technopeasant authors.  “[T]he first thing Jeff noted was that he couldn’t detect any data on the hard disk.”  (Emphasis in the book.)  Jeff then goes on to find some, and notes that there are “bits and pieces of the original operating system.”  Now there is a considerable difference between not finding any data, and having a damaged filesystem, and Russinovich knows this perfectly well.  Our man Jeff is a digital forensics hacker of the first water, and wouldn’t give a fig if he couldn’t see “the standard C: drive icon.”

Generally, you would think that the reason a technically competent person would write a novel about cyberwar would be in order to inject a little reality into things.  Well, reality seems to be in short supply in this book.

First of all, this is the classic geek daydream of being the ultimate ‘leet hacker in the world.  The Lone Hacker.  Hiyo SysInfo, away!  He has all the tools, and all that smarts, about all aspects of technology.  Sorry, just not possible any more.  This lone hacker image is unrealistic, and the more so because it is not necessary.  There are established groups in the malware community (among others), and these would be working together on a problem of this magnitude.  (Interestingly, these are generally informal groups, not the government/industry structures which the book both derides and relies upon.)

Next, all the female geeks (and there are a lot) are “hot.”  ‘Nuff said.

The “big, bad, new” virus is another staple of the fictional realms which does not exist in reality.  Viruses can be built to reproduce rapidly.  In that case, they get noticed quickly.  Or, they may be created to spread slowly and carefully, in which case they can take a while to be detected, but they also take a long time to get into place.

Anti-malware companies don’t necessarily rely on honeypots (which are usually there to collect information on actual intruders), but they do have bait machines that sit and wait to be infected (by worms) or emulate the activity of users who are willing to click on any link or open any file (for viruses).  Malware can be designed to fail to operate (or even delete itself) under certain conditions, and those conditions could include certain indications of a test environment.  However, the ability to actively avoid machines that might be collecting malware samples would be akin to a form of digital mental telepathy.

Rootkits, as described in the novel, are no different than the stealth technology that viruses have been using for decades.  There are always ways of detecting stealth, and rootkits, and, generally speaking, as soon as you suspect that one might be in operation you start to have ideas about how to find it.

A backup is a copy of data.  When it is restored, it is copied back onto the computer, but there is no need for the backup copy to be destroyed by that process.  Therefore, if a system-restored-from-backup crashes, nothing is lost but time.  You still have the backup, and can try again (this time with more care).  In fact, the first time you have any indication that the system might be corrupted enough to crash, you would probably try to recover the files with an alternate operating system.  (But, yes, I can see how that might not occur to someone who works for Microsoft.)  After all, the most important thing you’ve got on your system is the data, and the data can usually be read on any system, and with a wide variety of programs.  (Data files from a SQL Server database could be retrieved not only with other SQL programs, but with pretty much any relational database.)

Some aspects are realistic.  The precautions taken in communications, with throwaway email addresses and out-of-band messaging, are the type that would be used in those situations.  There is a lot of real technology described in the book.  (Although I was slightly bemused by the preference for CDs for data and file storage: that seems a bit quaint now that everyone is using USB drives.)  The need, in this type of work, for a level of focus that precludes all other distractions, and the boredom of trying step after step and possibility after possibility are real.  The neglect of security and the attendant false confidence that one is immune to attack are all too real.  But in a number of the technical areas the descriptions are careless enough to be completely misleading to those not intimately familiar with the technology and the information security field.  Which is just as bad as not knowing what you are talking about in the first place.

Other forms of technology should have had a little research.  Yes, flying an airliner across an ocean is boring.  That’s why the software designers behind the interface on said airliners have the computer keep asking the pilots to check things: keeps the pilots from zoning out.  I don’t know how quickly you can “reboot” the full control system in an airplane, but the last one I was on that did it took about fifteen minutes to even get the lights back on.  I doubt that would be fast enough to do (twice) in order to pull a plane out of a dive.  And if you are in a high-G curve to try and keep the plane out of the water, a sudden cessation of G-forces would mean that a) the plane had stalled (again) (very unlikely), or b) the wings had come off.  Neither of which would be a good thing.  (And, yes, the Spanair computer that was tracking technical problems at the time was infected with a virus, but, no, that had nothing to do with the crash.)

Russinovich’s writing is much the same as that of many mid-level thriller writers.  His plotting is OK, although the attempt to heighten tension, towards the end, by having “one darn thing after another” happen is a style that is overused, and isn’t very compelling in this instance.  On the down side, his characters are all pretty much the same, and through much of the book the narrative flow is extremely disjointed.

Overall, this is a reasonable, though unexceptional, thriller.  He was fortunate in being able to get Bill Gates and Howard Schmidt to write blurbs for it, but that still doesn’t make it any more realistic than the mass of cyberthrillers now coming on the market.

copyright, Robert M. Slade   2011     BKZERDAY.RVW   20111109

Just as 419-ers seem to have been permanently renamed in some quarters as “the Lads from Lagos”, I wonder if we should refer to those irritating individuals who persist in ringing us to offer us help (for a not particularly small fee) with non-existent malware as the “Krooks from Kolkata” (or more recently, the Ne’erdowells from New Delhi). It would be a pity to slur an entire nation with the misdeeds of a few individuals, but the network of such scammers does seem to be expanding across the Indian continent.

Be that as it may, I’ve recently been doing a little work (in association with Martijn Grooten of Virus Bulletin) on some of the ways that PC support sites that may be associated with cold-call scams are bolstering their own credibility by questionable means. Of course, legitimate businesses are also fond of Facebook likes, testimonials and so on, but we’ve found that some of these sites are not playing altogether nicely.

I’ve posted a fairly lengthy joint blog on the topic here: Facebook Likes and cold-call scams

David Harley CITP FBCS CISSP
ESET Senior Research Fellow

C’mon, Infoworld, give us a break.

“There are few viable options to combat crimeware’s success in undermining today’s technologies.”

How about “don’t do dangerous stuff”?

“Crimeware: Foundation of today’s telescreens”

I’m sorry, what has “1984″ to do with the use of malware by criminal elements?

“Advancement #1: Form-grabbing for PCs running IE/Windows
Form grabbing, as its name implies, is the crimeware technique for capturing web form data within browsers.”

Can you say “login trojan”?  I knew you could.  They existed even before PCs did.

“Advancement #2: Anti-detection (also termed stealth)”

Oh, no!  Stealth!  Run!  We’re all gonna die!

Possibly the first piece of malware to use some form of stealth technology to hide itself from detection was a virus.  Perhaps you might have heard of it.  It was called BRAIN, and was written in 1986.

“Advancement #5: Source code availability/release
The source codes for Zeus and SpyEye, among the most sophisticated crimeware, were publicly released in 2010 and 2011, respectively.”

And the source code for Concept, which was, at the time, the most sophisticated macro virus (since it was the only macro virus), was released in 1995, respectively.  But wait!  The source code for the CHRISTMA exec was released in 1988!  Now how terrified are you!

“Crimeware in 2010 deployed the capability to disable anti-malware products”

And malware in 1991 deployed the capability to disable CPAV and MSAV.  With only fourteen bytes of code.  As a matter of fact, that fourteen byte string came to be used as an antivirus signature for a while, since so many viruses were included it.

“Advancement #7: Mobile device support (also termed man-in-the-mobile)”

We’ve got “man in the middle” and “meet in the middle.”  Nobody is using “man in the mobile” except you.

“Advancement #8: Anti-removal (also termed persistence)
As security solutions struggle to detect and remove crimeware from compromised PCs, malware authors are updating their code to permit it to re-emerge on PCs even after its supposed removal.”

I’ve got four words for you: “Robin Hood” and Friar Tuck.”

The author “has served with the National Security Agency, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the U.S. Air Force, and two Federal think tanks.”

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

The Scientific American, no less, has published an article on malware.  Not that they don’t have every right, it’s just that the article is short on fact or help, and long on rather wild conjecture.

The author does have some points to make, even if he makes them very, very badly.

We, both as security professionals and as a society, don’t take malware seriously enough.  The security literature on the subject is appalling.  It is hard to find books on malware, even harder to find good ones, and well nigh impossible to find decent information in general security books.  The problem has been steadily growing since it was a vague academic topic, and has been ignored for so long that, now that it is a real problem, even most security experts have only a tenuous grasp of it.

Almost all reports do sound like paranoid thrillers.  Promoting the idea of shadowy genius figures in dark corners manipulating us at will, this engenders a kind of overall depression: we can’t possibly fight it, so we might was well not even try.  This attitude is further exacerbated but the dearth of information: we can’t even know what’s going on, so how can we even try to fight it?

It is getting more and more difficult to find malware, mostly because we are constantly creating new places for it to hide.  In the name of “user friendliness,” we are building ever more complex systems, with ever more crevices for the pumas to hide in.

Yes, then he goes off into wild speculation and gets all “Reflections on Trusting Trust” on us.  Which kind of loses the valid points.

Once upon a time, somebody at Microsoft wrote an article on the “10 Immutable Laws of Security.”  (I can’t recall how long ago: it’s now listed as “Archived content.”  And I like the disclaimer that “No warranty is made as to technical accuracy.”)  Now these “laws” are all true, and they are helpful reminders.  But I’m not sure they deserve the iconic status they have achieved.

In terms of significance to security, you have to remember that security depends on situation.  As it is frequently put, one (security) size does not fit all.  Therefore, these laws (which lean heavily towards malware) may not be the most important for all users (or companies).

In terms of coverage, there is little or nothing about management, risk management, classification, continuity, secure development, architecture, telecom and networking, personnel, incidents, or a whole host of other topics.

As a quick recap, the laws are:

Law #1: If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it’s not your computer anymore

(Avoid malware.)

Law #2: If a bad guy can alter the operating system on your computer, it’s not your computer anymore

(Avoid malware, same as #1.)

Law #3: If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it’s not your computer anymore

(Quite true, and often ignored.  As I tell my students, I don’t care what technical protections you put on your systems, if I have physical access, I’ve got you.)

Law #4: If you allow a bad guy to upload programs to your website, it’s not your website any more

(Sort of a mix of access control and avoiding malware, same as #1.)

Law #5: Weak passwords trump strong security

(You’d think this relates to access control, like #4, but the more important point is that you need to view security holistically.  Security is like a bridge, not a road.  A road halfway is still partly useful.  A bridge half-built is a joke.  In security, any shortcoming can void the whole system.)

Law #6: A computer is only as secure as the administrator is trustworthy

(OK, there’s a little bit about people.  But it’s not just administrators.  Security is a people problem: never forget that.)

Law #7: Encrypted data is only as secure as the decryption key

(This is known as “Kerckhoffs’ Law.”  It’s been known for 130 years.  More significantly, it is a special case of the fact that security-by-obscurity [SBO] does not work.)

Law #8: An out of date virus scanner is only marginally better than no virus scanner at all

(I’m not sure that I’d even go along with “marginally.”  As a malware expert, I frequently run without a virus scanner: a lot of scanners [including MSE] impede my work.  But, if I were worried, I’d never rely on an out-of-date scanner, or one that I considered questionable in terms of accuracy [and there are lots of those around].)

Law #9: Absolute anonymity isn’t practical, in real life or on the Web

(True.  But risk management is a little more complex than that.)

Law #10: Technology is not a panacea

(Or, as (ISC)² says, security transcends technology.  And, as #5 implies, management is the basic foundation of security, not any specific technology.)

Well behaved anitvirus programs can safely work together in peace and harmony.

Unfortunately, relatively few AVs are well behaved.

On my new desktop, I’ve got Avast (came with the machine, has a free version, and is a pretty good product) and MSE (it’s free, and it’s pretty safe for most users, although, as a professional, some parts of it irk me).  I’ve set both to ignore the virus zoo, although they aren’t too good at taking that restriction to heart.

MSE quarantined a few samples before I got things tuned.  Of course, it doesn’t have any function to get stuff out of “quarantine.”  (As I say, as a professional this is irksome, but, considering the average user, I’d say this is a darn good thing.)

Today Avast gave me a warning of some dangerous files.  They were the ones MSE quarantined.

(In case anyone is interested, the quarantine seems to be in \ProgramData\Microsoft\Microsoft Antimalware\LocalCopy.)

We all know, I guess, about the professionalization of Internet crime and the diversification of the underground economy, but measuring it isn’t so easy.

ESET’s Aleksandr Matrosov and Eugene Rodionov have alluded to it in several papers and presentations with particular reference to TDSS, and we consolidated some of that material into an article (actually the first of a series of three articles on TDSS) that talks about the Dogma Millions and GangstaBucks affiliate models used in that context.

However, a paper on Measuring Pay-per-Install: The Commoditization of Malware Distribution by Juan Caballero, Chris Grier, Christian Kreibich, and Vern Paxson, is based on a measurement study implemented by infiltrating four PPI service providers: LoaderAdv (of which GangstaBucks is one of the brands), GoldInstall, Virut, and Zlob. The authors assert that 12 out of the top 20 malware families tracked by Fire Eye between April and June 2010, twelve were using PPI services to buy infections.

Lots of other interesting data there, too. Hat tip to Aleks for bringing it to my attention.

David Harley CITP FBCS CISSP
ESET Senior Research Fellow

A few days ago, I noted a very silly news story about someone getting hit with a computer virus. Well, maybe the administrators don’t know all that much about malware, and maybe a smaller local paper reporter didn’t know all that much about it, either.

But now the story has been taken up by a company that makes security software. A “Microsoft Gold Certified Partner,” according to their Website. A company that makes antivirus software. And their story is just as silly, or even worse.

They say the local admin “stated that, the virus is classified as harmful and they are being quite alert.” I suppose that is all well and good, but then they immediately say that, “[a]ccording to him, the anti-virus firms were not able to recognize it …” So, AV firms don’t know what it is, but it is classified as harmful? Oh, but not to worry, “the good part is that it doesn’t seem to do extensive harm.” So, it’s harmful, but it’s not harmful. Well, of course it’s not harmful. It only “collects information and details, such as bank accounts and passwords …” No possible problem there. (Oh, and, even though nobody knows what it is, it’s Qakbot.)

Right, then. Would you be willing to buy AV software from a firm that can make these kind of mistakes in a simple news story?

I really don’t know who is more ignorant here, the city authorities “protecting” the computers, or the journalist writing up the story …

If you know anything about the technology, this is howlingly funny (or, it would be, if it weren’t so sadly representative …)

“Officials at Nanaimo city hall are desperately working to find out how a virus attacked their computer system Wednesday afternoon.”

(Oh, oh!  Pick me!  I can tell you!  You didn’t tell people NOT TO CLICK ON RANDOM ATTACHMENTS THEY GET IN STRANGE EMAIL MESSAGES AND SUPPOSED E-CARDS!!!)

“Per Kristensen, director of information and technology, said he was shocked by how quickly the virus infected the system.

“The first time anyone anywhere in the world noticed this new virus was on [March 15] and then it hit us on the 16th,” he said Thursday.”

(How many new viruses are “created” every day, these days?)

“People can be assured that all their information is secure. Protection of their personal information is a priority. The city’s system won’t be turned on until we are confident we have this solved,” he said.

(Ummm, how are you going to clean up the computers if they are turned off?)

“Kristensen said the virus is so new, it has no signature that security devices can recognize.”

(Let me guess: a certain antivirus in a yellow box couldn’t recognize it, so you figure that nobody can, right?)

“We’ve got multiple levels of protection and firewalls, but nothing recognizes this.”

(Yeah, firewalls do a GREAT job against viruses …)

“We may have to shut down throughout the weekend and we won’t put the system back up until we know we have this under control. And right now, we don’t know how long that will be.”

(Based on this, I’m not holding my breath …)

By now people are starting to hear that RSA has been hit with an attack.  Reports are vague at best, and we have very little idea how this may affect RSA customers and security in general.  But I’d like to opine about a few points.

First, we, in the profession of information security, are still not taking malware seriously enough.  Oh, sure, most people are running antivirus software.  But we don’t really study and understand the topic.  Malware gets extremely short shrift in any general security textbook.  Sometimes it isn’t mentioned at all.  Sometimes the descriptions are still based on those long-ago days when boot-sector infectors ruled the earth.  (Interesting to see that they are coming back again, in the form of Autorun and Autoplay, but that’s simply another aspect of Slade’s Law of Computer History.)  Malware has gradually grown from an almost academic issue to a pervasive presence in the computing environment.  It’s the boiling frog situation: the rise in threat has been gradual enough that we haven’t noticed it.

Second, we aren’t taking security awareness seriously enough.  These types of attacks rely primarily on social engineering and malware.  Security awareness works marvelously well as a protection against both.  RSA is a security corporation: they’ve got all kinds of smart people who know about security.  But they’ve also got lots of admin and marketing people who haven’t been given basic training in the security front lines.  For a number of years I have been promoting the idea that corporations should be providing security awareness training.  Not just to their employees, but to the general public.  For free.  I propose that this is not just a gesture of goodwill or advertising for the companies, but that it actually helps to improve their overall security.  In the modern computing (and interconnected communications) environment, making sure somebody else knows more about security means that there is less chance that you are going to be hit.

(Third, I really hate that “APT” term.  “Advanced Persistent Threat” is pretty meaningless, and actually hides what is going on.  Yes, I know that it is embarrassing to have to admit that you have been tricked by social engineering [which is, itself, only a fancy word for "lying"] and tricked badly enough that somebody actually got you to run a virus or trojan on yourself.  It’s so last millennium.  But it’s the truth, and dressing it up in a stylish new term doesn’t make it any less so.)

It probably hasn’t escaped your notice that there’s a lot of malware/SEO/scamming whenever a major disaster occurs. A few days ago I started to put together a list of commentary (some of it my own) and resources relating to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, in anticipation of that sort of activity.

Originally, I was using several of my usual blog venues, but decided eventually to focus on one site. As ESET had no monopoly on useful information, I wanted to use a vendor-agnostic site. Actually, I could have used this one, but for better or worse, I decided to use the AVIEN blog, since I’ve pretty much taken over the care and feeding of that organization. The blog in question is Japan Disaster: Commentary & Resources.

It’s certainly not all-inclusive, but it’s the largest resource of its type that I’m aware of. Eventually, it will be organized more so as to focus again on the stuff that’s directly related to security, but right now, given the impact of the crisis, I’m posting pretty much anything that strikes me as useful, even if its relevance to security is a bit tenuous.

I’m afraid I’m going to post this pointer one or two other places: apologies if you trip over it more often than you really want to!

David Harley CITP FBCS CISSP
AVIEN COO
ESET Senior Research Fellow

I seem to be back on the air.

A few observations over this whole affair:

(Sorry, I’ve not had time to put these in particular order, and some of the point may duplicate or relate …)

1) I still have absolutely no idea why Shaw cut me off.  They keep blaming Spamhaus, but the only links they offer me as evidence clearly show that there is no “bad reputation” in the specific IP address that I am currently using, only a policy listing showing one of Shaw’s address ranges.

2) I got absolutely no warning from Shaw, and no notice after the fact.

3) Shaw’s spam filtering is for the birds.  Today I got two messages flagged as spam, for no clear reason I could see.  They were from a publisher, asking how to send me a book for review.  The only possible reason I could see was that the publisher copied three of my email addresses on the same message.  A lot of people do that, but it usually doesn’t trip the spam filter.  Today it did.  (Someone else with Shaw “service” tried to send out an announcement to a group.  Since he didn’t have a mailing list server, he just sent out a bunch of messages.  Apparently that got *his* account flagged as spamming.)  I also got the usually round of messages from security mailing lists tagged as spam: Shaw sure has something against security.  And at least one 419 scam got through unflagged today, despite being like just about every other 419 in the world.  (Oddly, during this period I’ve noted a slight uptick in 419s and phishing in general.)

4) Through this episode I had contact with Shaw via email, phone, “live chat,” and Twitter.  I follow ShawInfo and Shawhelp on Twitter.  On Twitter, I was told to send them a direct message (DM).  I had, in fact, tried to do that, but Shaw doesn’t accept direct messages by default.  (Since I pointed that out to them, they now, apparently accept them from me.)  They sent me public messages on Twitter, and I replied in kind.  Through the Twitter account they also informed me that error 554 is “poor reputation” and is caused by sending too many emails.  They didn’t say how many is too many.  (Testing by someone else indicated something on the order of 50-100 per hour, and I’ve never done anything near that scale.)

5) The “live chat” function installs some software on your (the client) machine.  At least two of the pieces of software failed the digital signature verification …

6) The “information” I got from Shaw was limited.  The first (phone) support call directed me to http://www.senderbase.org/senderbase_queries/detailip?search_string=70.79.166.169  If you read the page, the information is almost entirely about the “network” with only a few (and not informative) pieces about the IP address itself.  (I did, separately, confirm that this was my IP address.)  The bulk of the page is a report on addresses that aren’t even in the same range as I am.  About halfway down the right hand side of the page is “DNS-based blocklists.”  If you click the “[Show/Hide all]” link you’ll notice that four out of five think I’m OK.  If you click on the remaining one, you go to http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=70.79.166.169  At the moment, it shows that I’m completely OK.  At the time I was dealing with Shaw, it showed that it’s not in the SpamHaus Block List (SBL) or the XBL.  It was in the PBL (Policy Block List), but only as a range known to be allowed to do open sending.  In other words, there is nothing wrong with my IP address: Shaw is in the poop for allowing (other) people to send spam.

7) The second (live chat) support call sent me to http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a70.79.166.169+  Again, this page showed a single negative entry, and a whole page of positive reports.  The single negative entry, if pursued, went to the same Spamhaus report as detailed above.

At the time, both initial pages, if followed through in terms of details, led to http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/query/PBL164253 giving, as the reason, that “This IP range has been identified by Spamhaus as not meeting our policy for IPs permitted to deliver unauthenticated ‘direct-to-mx’ email to PBL users.”  Again, Shaw’s problem, not mine.  However, that page has a link to allow you to try and have an address removed.  However, it says that the “Removal Procedure” is only to be used “If you are not using normal email software but instead are running a mail server and you are the owner of a Static IP address in the range 70.79.164.0/22 and you have a legitimate reason for operating a mail server on this IP, you can automatically remove (suppress) your static IP address from the PBL database.”  Nevertheless, I did explore the link on that page, which led to http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/removal/  Again, there you are told “You should only remove an IP address from the PBL if (A) the IP address is Static and has proper Reverse DNS assigned to your mail server, and (B) if you have a specific technical reason for needing to run a ‘direct-to-MX’ email service, such as a mail server appliance, off the Static IP address. In all other cases you should NOT remove an IP address from the PBL.”  This did not refer to my situation.  Unfortunately, THESE TWO PAGES ARE INCORRECT.  If you do proceed beyond that page, you get to http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/removal/form  This page does allow you to submit a removal request for a dynamic IP address, and, in fact, defaults to dynamic in the form.  It was only on the last part of the second call, when the Shaw tech gave me this specific address, that I found this out.  For this I really have to blame Spamhaus.

9) In trying to determine if, by some weird mischance, my computer had become infected, I used two AV scanners, one spyware scanner, and two rootkit scanners.  (All results negative, although the Sophos rootkit scanner could have been a bit clearer about what it had “found.”)  Of course, I’ve been in the field for over two decades.  How would the average user (or even a security professional in a non-malware field) even know that there are different types of scanners?  (Let alone the non-signature based tools.)

Well, multiple scanners say I have no malware, no spyware, and no rootkits.

http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a70.79.166.169+ says I’m clean except for Spamhaus.

Spamhaus shows that http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=70.79.166.169 I’m clean and it’s Shaw that’s dirty.

Shaw’s support is as inane as ever:

GoToAssist (11:43:33):
Your representative has arrived.

Stephen – 6685 (11:43:37):
Thank you for choosing Shaw Internet Chat Support, my name is Steve.  I will be happy to help you today.Before continuing, would you please confirm your home telephone number and address so that I can bring up your account information?

[If you don't mind, I've elided this, but it's the only change I've made - rms]

Stephen – 6685 (11:44:57):
Thank you, one moment please
Stephen – 6685 (11:48:07):
from what we see on the notes, it looks like your email is being blocked to due a poor reputation which means its being blocked by spam protection companies,  im just looking into this a little further for you.

Rob Slade (11:49:16):
Do you have any idea of what that means?  When I talked to “Rowell” yesteerday, he did not know anything about anti-spam technology, and just kept handing me bafflegab.  If you do not have any knowledge in thsi area, please hand me to someone who does.
Rob Slade (11:49:46):
I should let you know that I *do* know what I’m talking about: look up “Robert Slade” on Wikipedia.

Stephen – 6685 (11:49:48):
your being blocked by spamhaus
Stephen – 6685 (11:50:02):

http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a70.79.166.169+

Rob Slade (11:50:18):
I’ve written two books on viruses and malware, the first book on software forensics, and a dictionary of information security.
Rob Slade (11:50:38):
I do know what spam is, and I am well aware of antipsam technology.
Rob Slade (11:51:08):
Per looking at senderbase yesterday, my specific IP address has nothing on it.  Just Shaw’s domain range.

Stephen – 6685 (11:52:03):
you would need to go here   http://www.spamhaus.org/lookup.lasso   type in your ip address to lookup, then  click the document it shows under the listed in red, and follow the steps to get it removed from spamhaus

Rob Slade (11:52:29):

http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=70.79.166.169

Rob Slade (11:53:04):
See that it is only listed in the PBL, and if you look up the detail on that you will see that it is only the Shaw /22 range, and not my address.
Rob Slade (11:53:49):
Going back to your original list, you will see that it is *only* listed on Spamhaus (and therefore only on the PBL), and that *all* the other sites give me a clean bill of health.
Rob Slade (11:54:19):
In addition, why did I get absolutely no warning or notice from Shaw, just had my ability to send cut off without warning?

Stephen – 6685 (11:54:27):
its not blocked by us
Stephen – 6685 (11:54:31):
thats why we couldnt give warning
Stephen – 6685 (11:54:37):
its blocked by spamhaus

Rob Slade (11:54:49):
It is your SMTP server that refuses the connectionh.
Rob Slade (11:55:00):
You can’t blame Spamhaus.

Stephen – 6685 (11:55:14):
http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a70.79.166.169+   please review this,  it will show you based on a search of your ip address, its listed by spamhaus-zen….

Rob Slade (11:55:52):
That is the same list as before.

Stephen – 6685 (11:56:19):
yes it is

Rob Slade (11:56:36):
As I told you, it gives me a clean bill of health, except for Spamhaus, and Spamhaus only lists the Shaw /22 range in the PBL, not my IP address specifically.

Stephen – 6685 (11:56:37):
if you look at the top.. spamhaus-zen  to the right of that it shows as listed  which means its blocked by them
Stephen – 6685 (11:57:00):
its still being listed by them, otherwise it would come up saying OK  next to spamhaus
Stephen – 6685 (11:57:16):
if you login to webmail  and try sending an email out from there, it will work because its not associated with your computer
Stephen – 6685 (11:57:30):
its not working on your computer because your ip  address is blocked by spamhaus

Rob Slade (11:57:44):
Yes, and if you look at the detail, you will see that I am *not* lsited in the SBL, *not* listed in the CBL, and *only* listed in the PBL, and if you look at the detail for *that* you will see that it is *Shaw* that violates, not me.
Rob Slade (11:58:37):
Here. chew on these: http://is.gd/VbjOIh http://is.gd/ogefIX

Stephen – 6685 (11:59:31):
im not sure what i am suppose to be seeing in those links..   Error establishing a database connection
Stephen – 6685 (12:00:07):
http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/query/PBL164253  from there, you will need to follow the steps from clicking on remove an ip from pbl

Rob Slade (12:01:20):
In the meantime, I will be writing up more blog posts on how Shaw has inconsitent spam filtering, does not say what kind of spam filtering it does do, has a weird relationship with the blacklisting outfits.
Rob Slade (12:02:09):
Obviously you have not read the page you sent me.  This is the procedure only if you are running an email server (MTA) yourself.  I don’t.  You guys do.

Stephen – 6685 (12:05:15):
yes, from the report, its showing that its being blocked due to not using smpt authentication, that gets addressed from our side, where we communicate with spamhaus to get that resolved, however also by having you follow the link from the remove my ip address can usaully help get it resolved quicker.
Stephen – 6685 (12:06:12):
it is blocked by spamhaus, not us, which is something that will get looked into, if it was just being blocked by us, we could easily resolve it for you, however because its being blocked by a 3rd party, it will take some time, in the meantime you can use webmail to send and receive emails

Rob Slade (12:06:19):
How so?  I don’t run an SMTP server, so I can’t give them full info in filling out that form.
Rob Slade (12:07:06):
Besides, it’s not a static address.
Rob Slade (12:07:45):
Obviously you do not know what you are talkign about.  Are you going to put me through to someone who does?

Stephen – 6685 (12:08:08):
yes i do know what i am talking about Rob

Rob Slade (12:08:45):
Then how come you are asking em to fill out a form when the instructions specifically state not to do it unless this is a static IP address and I am running my own mail server?
Rob Slade (12:09:36):
http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/removal/ “You should only remove an IP address from the PBL if (A) the IP address is Static and has proper Reverse DNS assigned to your mail server”

Stephen – 6685 (12:09:37):
i am just looking to see what more we can do on this right now, i will be a couple minutes.