I’ve been using Panda Security’s free Cloud Antivirus for awhile and I must say I’m impressed. It’s there, but you’ll never know it unless you look (the little panda icon in the system tray). I rarely get malware of any kind, but Cloud AV has caught a couple of things that were probably drive-bys. It’s so transparent that I actually had to go check on it before I noticed that malware had been caught. This is a perfect set-it-and-forget-it AV for the regular user. It’s free, self-updating and doesn’t require any decisions on the part of the user. You can believe what they have to say:
Panda Cloud Antivirus protects you while you browse, play or work and you won’t even notice it. It is extremely light as all the work is done in the cloud.
Panda Cloud Antivirus is truly install and forget. Don’t worry about updates, configuration or complicated decisions ever again.
Panda Cloud Antivirus provides you with the fastest protection against the newest viruses thanks to its cloud-scanning from PandaLabs’ servers.
But the great part about it is how it works. Watch the video. It’s really slick, blocking malware within 6 minutes when encountered by anyone who has it installed; it’s truly real time updating.
That’s my two cents. You be the judge and try it for yourself.
Once again, I’m behind on the news. This Security Fix report is almost a week old:
Alan Ralsky, a 64-year-old Michigan man that federal investigators say was among the world’s top spam kingpins, pleaded guilty on Monday to running a multi-million dollar international stock fraud scam powered by junk e-mail.
Ralsky … and his son-in-law and chief financial officer Scott K. Bradley, 38, also of Michigan, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering and to violate the CAN-SPAM Act.
Under the terms of his plea agreement, Ralsky faces a federal prison sentence of 87 months and a fine of $1 million. He allegedly earned up to $3 million on the Chinese penny stock scam that he promoted using junk mail sent out by various botnets. It’s interesting that the plea agreement doesn’t call for the forfeiture of his profits. So, he’ll spend his time in a minimum-security “camp” at taxpayer expense and, probably get released well before his full sentence is up the while earning interest on the money he has squirreled away somewhere.
BTW, my apologies for being lax in keeping this blog up to date. I do have an excuse: I tore ligaments in my left hip and have been unable to sit, stand or lie down for the better part of two weeks. Look for a more regular posting schedule next month.
Michael Jackson malware? Farrah Fawcett phishing attempts? Billy Mays spam? Ed McMahon notifies you—from the other side of the grave–that you’ve just won the million-dollar Publisher’s Clearinghouse (but you have to send him some money, first)? Yes, expect it. US-CERT is monitoring reports of an increased number of spam campaigns, phishing attacks, and malicious code targeting the recent deaths. Here’s a typical example:
Subject: Confidential===Michael Jackson
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:25:50 –0400
Vital informations after the death of Michael Jackson’s I really need some one trusted & secrective to speak with with informations i have in my possession before its too late Kindly reply me and i will immediately respond back,Its for just secret between both of us.
Notice the blatant misspellings, lack of punctuation and obvious grammatical mistakes from someone who is clearly not a native English-speaking person. If you get this email, delete it immediately. Same with anything related to any of the other celebrities’ deaths.
They’re all from scammers (criminals) either trying to steal your money, your identity or both.
It doesn’t surprise me that the inventor of the ZIP file format was recently awarded a large enterprise
software license and maintenance agreement from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). What does surprise me is that with my network of security news sources, I hadn’t heard about this product before now. Granted, I’m mostly an Open Source guy and SecureZIP is commercial software ($39.95 for a single-user license), but I was asleep on this one.
I like the way SecureZIP leverages PKI. It enables users to secure files and folders with strong passphrase or digital certificate-based encryption. It also supports digital signatures to ensure data integrity. SecureZIP makes acquiring and using a digital certifcate simple: Upon installation, SecureZIP will automatically request and install (if desired) a digital certifcate from Comodo.
I like AxCrypt and have been using it for quite some time for simple security. AxCrypt doesn’t offer compression, however, so you have to create an archive first, then encrypt it. Moreover, you can’t use certificates or employ digital signatures. SecureZIP is a clear winner for robust security with compression.
I’m headed over there right now to get an evaluation version.
Foxit Reader has released updates for multiple vulnerabilities. By convincing a user to open a malicious PDF file, an attacker may be able to execute code or cause a vulnerable PDF viewer to crash. The PDF could be emailed as an attachment or hosted on a website.US-CERT encourages users to review the Foxit Security Bulletin and Vulnerability Note VU#251793 and apply any necessary updates.
The Foxit Security Bulletin describes the issues:
Two Security Vulnerabilities Fixed in Foxit Reader 3.0 and JPEG2000/JBIG2 Decoder
Here is detailed information about the vulnerabilities:
1. Fixed a problem related to negative stream offset (in malicious JPEG2000 stream) which caused reading data from an out-of-bound address. We have added guard codes to solve this issue.
2. Fixed a problem related to error handling when decoding JPEG2000 header, an uncaught fatal error resulted a subsequent invalid address access. We added error handling code to terminate the decoding process.
I recommend that all Foxit Reader users update their Foxit Reader 3.0, available here: http://www.foxitsoftware.com/downloads/. Then, be sure to go to Help>Check for updates and download the stream decoder update.
In Part 1 of this series, I introduced you to the concept of date/time coincidence and we explored five registry keys that are useful to the forensic examiner. This time, I’ll show you how data can be encrypted and hidden in the registry.
If you’re involved in data security, you’re familiar with cryptography in some fashion and you know that ciphers – algorithms for performing encryption and decryption – are what do the work. You probably also know that there are a few quick-and-dirty algorithms for encrypting data. One such algorithm is known as the Caesar Cipher, or ROT-13, a simple algorithm that encrypts data by shifting each character 13 places in the alphabet while leaving non-alpha characters untouched. It’s so simple that you can decrypt it manually, but it’s enough to fool the casual observer. Anyone coming across something like cnffj beqsb egurf rperg svyrf vfcnf fjbeq, is naturally going to assume it’s encrypted; in fact, it’s ROT-13 for password for the secret files is password. I broke it up into five-character groups to make it more convincing.
For whatever reason, Microsoft uses ROT-13 to encrypt data in some registry keys. One such key is: HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\UserAssist. Here’s an example: “HRZR_EHACNGU:P:\AFYBBXHC.RKR.” Decrypted, that’s “UEME_RUNPATH:C:\NSLOOKUP.EXE.” (We’ll look at the UserAssist key in Part 3.) A better way to hide data is to encode text-based information in binary format and store it in binary form as a string in registry values of type REG_SZ. Given that binary data is common in the registry, the technique would make it extremely difficult to retrieve the hidden information.
In addition to using ROT-13 and binary encoding to obfuscate data, a suspect could take advantage of a flaw in the registry editor to also make the data invisible to anyone but a forensics examiner who knows about the flaw. From “Forensic Analysis of the Windows Registry:”
The Windows 2000 and XP Registry Editor (regedit.exe or regedt32.exe) have an implementation flaw that allows hiding of registry information from viewing and editing, regardless of users access privilege (Secunia, 2005). The flaw involves any registry values with name from 256 to 259 (maximum value name) characters long. The overly long registry value (regardless of type) not only hides its own presence, but also subsequently created values (regardless of type) in the same key (Franchuk, 2005). The editor stops displaying the remaining of the values thinking the overly long value as the last value in that key. Suspect could exploit such Registry Editor flaw to hide information.
The Windows console registry tool (reg.exe) can display these overly long registry values so the hidden data can be recovered as evidence; however, given the sheer number of entries in the registry, this process is not trivial.
I hope this series is giving you some insight, perhaps even piqueing your interest, in cyber forensics. Hit the comment button and tell me what you think.
In Part 3, we’ll explore some keys that can tell us where a suspect has been storing files.
My new eBook, “14 Golden Rules of Computer Security” is almost complete and will be ready for downloading shortly. Written with the non-technical person in mind, the book is packed with proven, practical advice on how to stay safe on the Wild, Wild Web including bonus articles about creating strong, easy-to-remember passwords and email security tips. I give you tons of links to free and low-cost tools as well as special discounts for software and services by some of the best computer security companies in the business. It’s a must-have for every computer owner.
Based upon my popular “How to Secure Your Computer” series of web articles and fully updated with late-breaking information on safe searching and social networks, “14 Golden Rules of Computer Security” will help you help your clients develop their own secure computing practices and save you from the hassle of dealing with unpleasant malware attacks.
All Security Corner readers are eligible for a free copy. Sign up by clicking here and you’ll be sent a download link when I release the book.
Are you? It’s not necessarily a derogatory term. Neither is “geek.” But what does “hacker” really mean? Here’s one opinion:
Someone that is looking to work outside the normal parameters. The media grabs the term and turns it into something bad. Like all hackers are evil and looking to steal your identity, your money and bring down the system in some [sort of] anti-government/corporate protest. Sure there are always extremist[s] on the either side of nearly any issue…For a true hacker, statements like, "Never do this…" or "one use only" or even better the golden "authorized users only" tend to get us thinking. What is behind that interface, that door, that piece of tape that will void my warranty if removed you are trying to keep me from learning.
Folks, I’m a hacker. I hack computers and networks—it’s part of my job—I don’t do anything malicious, but I dig into things I probably shouldn’t. I’ve always been the kind of guy who takes things apart to see what makes them tick. Usually, I get them back together the way they were. Sometimes, I break them; but, I always come away with a better understanding of how things work.
If more people were “hackers,” if more people knew how things work, if more people *understood* how this universe is put together, if more people even cared to look, this world would be a better place.
I’m a hacker. Are you?
Enter “screensavers” into any major search engine and there’s better than a fifty percent chance that any result you click on will land you on a malicious website. According to McAfee’s recently released report “The Web’s Most Dangerous Search Terms,“ that search term carries a maximum risk of 59.1 percent. Furthermore, lyrics and anything that includes the word “free” have a high risk of exposing users to malicious or fraudulent web sites. Health-related search terms have the lowest risk profile. Check out The Web’s most dangerous keywords to search for on ZDNet.com.
One of the biggest problems is that the bad guys, using Black Hat SEO techniques, grab onto the trending search terms of the moment and use their popularity to get links to compromised sites placed high in the search engine rankings. This, coupled with the fact that 77% of Websites carrying malicious code are legitimate sites, make for an increasingly dangerous environment for the casual surfer.
This is yet another reason to continue to beat my drum: If you use IE, disable scripting and ActiveX (IE8 has increased security, so consider upgrading). Better yet, switch to Firefox and use the NoScript plugin. Tell the users who trust you to do the same, will you? And make sure they have the latest security patches on their systems. Most people are trusting souls; on the web, they shouldn’t be. Let’s instill the “trust no one” (except for us white hats, of course) mentality into everyone we can.
A new, free service offered by ID Analytics, www.myidscore.com, validates my Identity Exposure Index concept I proposed last month (What’s Your Identity Exposure Index?). While the results of the iEi investigation give you an index between 0 and 5, the MyIDScore.com results range from 0 to 1000. In both tests, the higher the score, the more at risk you are.
I compared iEi results for myself and my wife with those obtained from myidentityscore.com and was a bit surprised at the correlation: my iEi is exactly 4 times my wife’s; my My ID Score is 3.9 times my wife’s. I consider that a pretty strong case for my method. ID Analytics’ technology is patented, but they do reveal that they rely on real-time, cross-industry compilation of identity information, some other identity-specific analytics, and a database of reported identity frauds.
I don’t question the validity of their method and it’s certainly easier to go to their web site and enter a few pieces of basic information than it is to figure out your iEi, but it sure is interesting that my little “invention” appears to be just as valid.
You be the judge; do your own test and please let me know what you find.