December 19, 2007

Mac versus Windows vulnerability stats for 2007

December 18th, 2007

Posted by George Ou

The year 2007 has been an interesting year that brought us improved security with Windows Vista and Mac OS X Leopard (10.5).   But to get some perspective of how many publicly known holes found in these two operating systems, I’ve compiled all the security flaws in Mac OS X and Windows XP and Vista and placed them side by side.  This is significant because it shows a trend that can give us a good estimate for how many flaws we can expect to find in the coming months.  The more monthly flaws there are in the historical trend, the more likely it is that someone will find a hole to exploit in the future.  For example back in April of this year, hackers took over a fully patched Macbook and won $10,000 plus the Macbook they hacked.

I used vulnerability statistics from an impartial third party vendor Secunia and I broke them down by Windows XP flaws, Vista flaws, and Mac OS X flaws.  Since Secunia doesn’t offer individual numbers for Mac OS X 10.5 and 10.4, I merged the XP and Vista vulnerabilities so that we can compare Vista + XP flaws to Mac OS X.  In case you’re wondering how 19 plus 12 could equal 23, this is because there are many overlapping flaws that is shared between XP and Vista so those don’t get counted twice just as I don’t count something that affects Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 twice.

Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X vulnerability stats for 2007
  XP Vista XP + Vista Mac OS X
Total extremely critical 3 1 4 0
Total highly critical 19 12 23 234
Total moderately critical 2 1 3 2
Total less critical 3 1 4 7
Total flaws 34 20 44 243
Average flaws per month 2.83 1.67 3.67 20.25

 X Extremely critical
 H Highly critical
 M Moderately critical
 L Less critical

So this shows that Apple had more than 5 times the number of flaws per month than Windows XP and Vista in 2007, and most of these flaws are serious.  Clearly this goes against conventional wisdom because the numbers show just the opposite and it isn’t even close.

Also noteworthy is that while Windows Vista shows fewer flaws than Windows XP and has more mitigating factors against exploitation, the addition of Windows Defender and Sidebar added 4 highly critical flaws to Vista that weren’t present in Windows XP.  Sidebar accounted for three of those additional vulnerabilities and it’s something I am glad I don’t use.  The lone Defender critical vulnerability that was supposed to defend Windows Vista was ironically the first critical vulnerability for Windows Vista.

Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X vulnerability details for 2007
Month Windows XP Windows Vista Mac OS X
DEC CVE-2007-0064 H
CVE-2007-3039 L
CVE-2007-3895 H
CVE-2007-3901 H
CVE-2007-5355 L
CVE-2007-0064 H
CVE-2007-5350 L
CVE-2007-3895 H
CVE-2007-3901 H
CVE-2007-5351 M
CVE-2007-5355 L
 
CVE-2006-0024 H
CVE-2007-1218 H
CVE-2007-1659 H
CVE-2007-1660 H
CVE-2007-1661 H
CVE-2007-1662 H
CVE-2007-3798 H
CVE-2007-3876 H
CVE-2007-4131 H
CVE-2007-4351 H
CVE-2007-4572 H
CVE-2007-4708 H
CVE-2007-4709 H
CVE-2007-4710 H
CVE-2007-4766 H
CVE-2007-4767 H
CVE-2007-4768 H
CVE-2007-4965 H
CVE-2007-5379 H
CVE-2007-5380 H
CVE-2007-5398 H
CVE-2007-5476 H
CVE-2007-5770 H
CVE-2007-5847 H
CVE-2007-5848 H
CVE-2007-5849 H
CVE-2007-5858 H
CVE-2007-5850 H
CVE-2007-5851 H
CVE-2007-5853 H
CVE-2007-5854 H
CVE-2007-5855 H
CVE-2007-5856 H
CVE-2007-5857 H
CVE-2007-5859 H
CVE-2007-5860 H
CVE-2007-5861 H
CVE-2007-5863 H
CVE-2007-6077 H
CVE-2007-6165 H
CVE-2006-4339 H
CVE-2006-6731 H
CVE-2006-6736 H
CVE-2006-6745 H
CVE-2007-0243 H
CVE-2007-2435 H
CVE-2007-2788 H
CVE-2007-2789 H
CVE-2007-3004 H
CVE-2007-3005 H
CVE-2007-3503 H
CVE-2007-3504 H
CVE-2007-3655 H
CVE-2007-3698 H
CVE-2007-3922 H
CVE-2007-4381 H
CVE-2007-5232 H
CVE-2007-5862 H
CVE-2007-6276 M
NOV     CVE-2007-6165 H
CVE-2007-4702 L
CVE-2007-4703 L
CVE-2007-4704 L
CVE-2005-0953 H
CVE-2005-1260 H
CVE-2007-0464 H
CVE-2007-0646 H
CVE-2007-2926 H
CVE-2007-3456 H
CVE-2007-3749 H
CVE-2007-3756 H
CVE-2007-3758 H
CVE-2007-3760 H
CVE-2007-3999 H
CVE-2007-4267 H
CVE-2007-4268 H
CVE-2007-4269 H
CVE-2007-4671 H
CVE-2007-4678 H
CVE-2007-4679 H
CVE-2007-4680 H
CVE-2007-4681 H
CVE-2007-4682 H
CVE-2007-4683 H
CVE-2007-4684 H
CVE-2007-4685 H
CVE-2007-4686 H
CVE-2007-4687 H
CVE-2007-4688 H
CVE-2007-4689 H
CVE-2007-4690 H
CVE-2007-4691 H
CVE-2007-4692 H
CVE-2007-4693 H
CVE-2007-4694 H
CVE-2007-4695 H
CVE-2007-4696 H
CVE-2007-4697 H
CVE-2007-4698 H
CVE-2007-4699 H
CVE-2007-4700 H
CVE-2007-4701 H
CVE-2007-4743 H
OCT CVE-2007-5587 L
CVE-2007-2217 H
CVE-2007-2228 L
CVE-2007-3897 H
CVE-2007-2228 L
CVE-2007-3897 H
 
SEPT CVE-2007-4916 M CVE-2007-3036 L  
AUG CVE-2007-1749 H
CVE-2007-3034 H
CVE-2007-2224 H
CVE-2007-3033 H
CVE-2007-3032 H
CVE-2007-3891 H
CVE-2007-1749 H
CVE-2004-0996 H
CVE-2004-2541 H
CVE-2005-0758 H
CVE-2005-3128 H
CVE-2006-2842 H
CVE-2006-3174 H
CVE-2006-4019 H
CVE-2006-6142 H
CVE-2007-0450 H
CVE-2007-0478 H
CVE-2007-1001 H
CVE-2007-1262 H
CVE-2007-1358 H
CVE-2007-1460 H
CVE-2007-1461 H
CVE-2007-1484 H
CVE-2007-1521 cialis soft H
CVE-2007-1583 H
CVE-2007-1711 H
CVE-2007-1717 H
CVE-2007-1860 H
CVE-2007-2403 H
CVE-2007-2404 H
CVE-2007-2405 H
CVE-2007-2406 H
CVE-2007-2407 H
CVE-2007-2408 H
CVE-2007-2409 H
CVE-2007-2410 H
CVE-2007-2442 H
CVE-2007-2443 H
CVE-2007-2446 H
CVE-2007-2447 H
CVE-2007-2589 H
CVE-2007-2798 H
CVE-2007-3742 H
CVE-2007-3744 H
CVE-2007-3745 H
CVE-2007-3746 H
CVE-2007-3747 H
CVE-2007-3748 H
CVE-2007-3944 H
 
JUL CVE-2007-3896 H
CVE-2007-4041 H
CVE-2007-5020 H
   
JUN CVE-2007-2219 H
CVE-2007-2218 H
CVE-2007-1658 H
CVE-2007-2225 H
CVE-2007-2227 H
CVE-2007-1658 H
CVE-2007-2225 H
CVE-2007-2227 H
CVE-2007-2229 L
CVE-2007-2399 H
CVE-2007-2401 H
CVE-2007-2242 M
MAY     CVE-2005-3011 H
CVE-2006-4095 H
CVE-2006-4096 H
CVE-2006-4573 H
CVE-2006-5467 H
CVE-2006-6303 H
CVE-2007-0493 H
CVE-2007-0494 H
CVE-2007-0740 H
CVE-2007-0750 H
CVE-2007-0751 H
CVE-2007-0752 H
CVE-2007-0753 H
CVE-2007-1536 H
CVE-2007-1558 H
CVE-2007-2386 H
CVE-2007-2390 H
APR CVE-2007-1205 H
CVE-2007-1206 L
CVE-2007-1973 L
CVE-2007-1209 L CVE-2006-0300 H
CVE-2006-5867 H
CVE-2006-6143 H
CVE-2006-6652 H
CVE-2007-0022 H
CVE-2007-0465 H
CVE-2007-0646 H
CVE-2007-0724 H
CVE-2007-0725 H
CVE-2007-0729 H
CVE-2007-0732 H
CVE-2007-0735 H
CVE-2007-0736 H
CVE-2007-0737 H
CVE-2007-0738 H
CVE-2007-0739 H
CVE-2007-0741 H
CVE-2007-0742 H
CVE-2007-0743 H
CVE-2007-0744 H
CVE-2007-0745 H
CVE-2007-0746 H
CVE-2007-0747 H
CVE-2007-0957 H
CVE-2007-1216 H
MAR CVE-2007-0038 X CVE-2007-0038 X CVE-2005-2959 H
CVE-2006-0225 H
CVE-2006-0300 H
CVE-2006-1516 H
CVE-2006-1517 H
CVE-2006-2753 H
CVE-2006-3081 H
CVE-2006-3469 H
CVE-2006-4031 H
CVE-2006-4226 H
CVE-2006-4829 H
CVE-2006-4924 H
CVE-2006-5051 H
CVE-2006-5052 H
CVE-2006-5330 H
CVE-2006-5679 H
CVE-2006-5836 H
CVE-2006-6061 H
CVE-2006-6062 H
CVE-2006-6097 H
CVE-2006-6129 H
CVE-2006-6130 H
CVE-2006-6173 H
CVE-2007-0229 H
CVE-2007-0236 H
CVE-2007-0267 H
CVE-2007-0299 H
CVE-2007-0318 H
CVE-2007-0463 H
CVE-2007-0467 H
CVE-2007-0588 H
CVE-2007-0719 H
CVE-2007-0720 H
CVE-2007-0721 H
CVE-2007-0722 H
CVE-2007-0723 H
CVE-2007-0724 H
CVE-2007-0728 H
CVE-2007-0726 H
CVE-2007-0730 H
CVE-2007-0731 H
CVE-2007-0733 H
CVE-2007-1071 H
FEB CVE-2006-1311 L
CVE-2007-0025 L
CVE-2007-0026 M
CVE-2007-0210 L
CVE-2007-0211 L
CVE-2006-5559 H
CVE-2007-0214 H
CVE-2006-5270 H CVE-2007-0021 H
CVE-2007-0023 H
CVE-2007-0197 H
CVE-2007-0614 H
CVE-2007-0710 H
JAN CVE-2007-0024 X   CVE-2007-0462 L
CVE-2007-0023 L
CVE-2007-0355 L
CVE-2007-0236 L
CVE-2007-0229 H

Permalink • Print • Comment

Remove tell-tale metadata from Microsoft apps

December 17th, 2007

Posted by Robin Harris

When you send a Word document to a client or a co-worker, you are also sending metadata – info about the document – as well. You can easily include embarrassing comments, hidden text or info helpful to hackers. Here’s how to get rid of it.

Start with this Microsoft support document
Titled How to minimize metadata in Office documents, the document covers the following Office apps:

Permalink • Print • 1 Comment

Apple delivers hefty patch haul; Addresses Leopard flaws and Safari

December 17th, 2007

Posted by Larry Dignan

Apple on Monday delivered another 41 patches to address multiple vulnerabilities in Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server including more than a few for Leopard.

The security update, which matches last month’s patch crop from Apple, features a few common threads. Among them:

  • Leopard and Tiger are affected;
  • The patches mostly cover flaws that allow hackers to take over your system;
  • Execution holes abound throughout Mac OS X in iChat,  Core Foundation, cialis soft tablets Quick Look and Desktop Services;
  • Apple has been busy on the security front. Last week, Apple delivered a Java runtime update and patched a bunch of QuickTime. QuickTime has been under fire of late.

In any case, it is recommended that you update. Here’s the laundry list of Apple’s latest round of patches.

CVE-2007-4708: This plugs vulnerability in Address Book’s URL handler. Apple says: “By enticing a user to visit a maliciously crafted website, a remote attacker may cause an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. This update addresses the issue through improved handling of format strings.” Versions affected include Mac OS X v10.4.11 and Mac OS X Server v10.4.11. Anyone running Mac OS X 10.5 or later isn’t affected.

CVE-2007-4709: This one covers the Mac OS X v10.5.1, Mac OS X Server v10.5.1–also known as Leopard. The problem: “A path traversal issue exists in CFNetwork’s handling of downloaded files,” said Apple. In a nutshell, visiting a malicious Web site could allow the automatic download of files to arbitrary folders, which is a nice way of saying your computer has been hijacked.

CVE-2007-4710: This covers Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11 and doesn’t affect Leopard. Specifically, Apple is addressing ColorSync. The issue: “Viewing a maliciously crafted image with an embedded ColorSync profile may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution.” Leopard not affected.

CVE-2007-5847: Again, this ditty covers Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11. (See a trend here yet?). The problem is Core Foundation, which could disclose sensitive information. Leopard not affected.

CVE-2007-5848: This one covers a CUPs vulnerability in a printer driver. Apple says “a local admin user may be able to gain system privileges.” Leopard not affected.

CVE-2007-4351: Another CUPS problem and this one affects Leopard. Specifically, the OS X flavors impacted include Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11, Mac OS X v10.5.1, Mac OS X Server v10.5.1. The update corrects for a memory corruption issue in the handling of Internet Printing Protocol tags that could lead to an application crash or arbitrary code execution.

CVE-2007-5849: Another CUPs issue affecting Leopard and Leopard Server. Apple says: “If SNMP is enabled, a remote attacker may cause an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. Description: “The CUPS backend SNMP program broadcasts SNMP requests to discover network print servers.”

CVE-2007-5850: This one covers desktop services in Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11. Leopard isn’t impacted. The gist: There’s a buffer overflow problem in Finder that can lead to an arbitrary code execution. Leopard not affected.

CVE-2007-5476: Affects the Flash Player plug-in for Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11, Mac OS X v10.5.1 and Mac OS X Server v10.5.1. There are multiple vulnerabilities addressed by Adobe.

CVE-2007-4131: This one corrects a “maliciously crafted tar archive,” an issue with GNU Tar. Affects Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11, but Leopard in the clear.

CVE-2007-5851: iChat is the issue here. The problem: A person on local network may initiate a video connection without permission. Leopard not impacted, but does cover Mac OS X v10.4.11 and Mac OS X Server v10.4.11.

CVE-2007-5853: IO storage issue where “opening a maliciously crafted disk image may lead to an unexpected system shutdown or arbitrary code execution. Leopard in the clear, but Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11 isn’t.

CVE-2007-5854: This one fixes launch services in Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11, Mac OS X v10.5.1, Mac OS X Server v10.5.1. The problem: “Opening a maliciously crafted HTML file may lead to information disclosure or cross-site scripting.”

CVE-2007-6165: Another launch services problem, this time “opening an executable mail attachment may lead to arbitrary code execution with no warning.” Affects Leopard and Leopard Server.

CVE-2007-5855: Affects mail on Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11, Mac OS X v10.5.1, Mac OS X Server v10.5.1. The problem: “SMTP accounts set up through Account Assistant may use plaintext authentication even when MD5 Challenge-Response authentication is available.”

CVE-2007-5116 and CVE-2007-4965: Addresses problems with perl and python, respectively. Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11, Mac OS X v10.5.1, Mac OS X Server v10.5.1 impacted.

CVE-2007-5856 and CVE-2007-5857: Both address Quick Look vulnerabilities in Leopard. Previewing a movie can disclose sensitive information. There are also some URL access issues.

CVE-2007-5770 and CVE-2007-5379, CVE-2007-5380, CVE-2007-6077: Vulnerabilities abound in Ruby libraries and Rails 1.2.3. The first one listed impacts. Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11, Mac OS X v10.5.1, Mac OS X Server v10.5.1. The remainder CVEs impact Leopard only.

CVE-2007-5858: A Safari fix for a information disclosure flaw. Impacts Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11, Mac OS X v10.5.1, Mac OS X Server v10.5.1. Also impacts Safari 3 Beta on Windows XP and Vista.

CVE-2007-5859: Safari RSS has issues on Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11. Maliciously crafted feed may lead to application termination or arbitrary code execution. Leopard not affected.

CVE-2007-4572, CVE-2007-5398: Addresses Samba vulnerabilities. Impacts Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11, Mac OS X v10.5.1, Mac OS X Server v10.5.1.

CVE-2006-0024: Addresses Shockwave woes in Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11, Mac OS X v10.5.1, Mac OS X Server v10.5.1.

CVE-2007-3876: Apple says: “A stack buffer overflow issue exists in the code used by the mount_smbfs and smbutil applications to parse command line arguments, which may allow a local user to cause arbitrary code. Impacts Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11.

CVE-2007-5863: Even Software Update has a few flaws. Leopard impacted by “a man-in-the-middle attack could cause Software Update to execute arbitrary commands execution with system privileges.”

CVE-2007-5860: Spin Tracer flaw affecting Leopard. “A local user may be able to execute arbitrary code with system privileges.”

CVE-2007-5861: Addresses Spotlight flaws. Affects Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11.

CVE-2007-1218, CVE-2007-3798: Vulnerabilities abound in tcpdump. Affects Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11.

CVE-2007-1659, CVE-2007-1660, CVE-2007-1661, CVE-2007-1662, CVE-2007-4766, CVE-2007-4767, CVE-2007-4768: Multiple vulnerabilities plugged in XQuery. Affects Mac OS X v10.4.11, Mac OS X Server v10.4.11.

Permalink • Print • Comment

Wireless Network

Q:
I just set up a wireless network in my home and while I love it, I'm still a little concerned about others being able to use cialis reviews my signal or even hack into my computer. I was told that hiding my SSID will take care of the problem, but I'm not sold on that idea. I'm not even sure what an SSID is or how to hide it. Can you please help me? Thanks!

A:
First of all, I want to welcome you to the world of wireless! I've been using a wireless connection in my home for a few years now and I absolutely love it. I'm sure you will too! And it's very impressive that you're already concerned about your safety when it comes to using your wireless network. A lot of people don't start worrying about that until it's too late, so it's great that you're already so far ahead of the game. I think your question will help a lot of other readers out there who are using wireless networks as well. I just love that!

As we all know, when you use a wireless router, there's always a chance that other computers will be able to pick up your signal and use it, without you ever knowing a thing about it. Even more than that, there's always the risk of your computer being hacked into as well. So, what can you do to keep yourself safe when using your wireless connection? Well, the person who asked today's question mentioned hiding their SSID and while that helps, it's not always the best solution. Let's take a look at our options!

To begin, wireless routers are set up to send out a beacon called the Service Set IDentifier (SSID), which is what helps your wireless devices (laptop, etc.) connect to the Internet. The main purpose of the SSID is to broadcast wireless signals and invite available devices within range to connect to them. Now, if a device doesn't know a network's SSID, it will not be able to connect. So, if you change your SSID settings, only the people who know the SSID will be able to connect to your wireless network. That can help keep some of the "outsiders" away.

Now, while hiding your SSID keeps casual users at bay, you could still have trouble with hackers. Unfortunately, a hacker who is determined enough to get into your network will find a way. If they have the right kind of software, they will be able to easily gain access to your computer. Plus, changing your SSID can result in a slower performance and it could take you longer to connect to the Internet. Who wants that?! Luckily, there are a few other things you can do to keep your wireless network as secure as possible. Let's check them out!

For starters, you can change your router's login and password to be different from the default settings. If you're still using the login and password that came with your router, anyone could connect to it, change your settings and even lock you out. You should also change your SSID to something a little more unique. Most routers come with a name of "default," which is very easy for hackers to figure out. You should change it to something a little more meaningful to yourself. Lastly, you should turn on your encryption. If you do that, your router will not give access to any wireless devices unless they can provide the password you specify. It will also encrypt any communication between your computer and your router so that no one will be able to see what goes on. Note: If your router supports WPA encryption, you should use that over WEP, which is an older version.

Doing the three things I discussed above are your best bets for secure wireless networking, but if you still want to hide your SSID, you can do so by following the directions in your user manual. Every router is different, so your manual should give you detailed directions on how to get the job done. If that doesn't work, you can always contact your ISP for help as well. Either way, it's very important to keep your wireless network as safe as possible. Hopefully one of the above suggestions is just what you've been looking for. Test them out today!

Permalink • Print • Comment

December 18, 2007

Cracking open the cybercrime economy

By Tom Espiner, ZDNet (UK)
Published on ZDNet News: Dec 14, 2007

"Over the years, the criminal elements, the ones who are making money, making millions out of all this online crime, are just getting stronger and stronger. I don't think we are really winning this war."

As director of antivirus research for F-Secure, you might expect Mikko Hypponen to overplay the seriousness of the situation. But according to the Finnish company, during 2007 the number of samples of malicious code on its database doubled, having taken 20 years to reach the size it was at the beginning of this year.

There seems to be some serious evidence then for the idea of an evolution from hacking and virus writing for fun to creating malicious code for profit. Security experts are increasingly pointing to the existence of a "black" or "shadow" cybereconomy, where malware services are sold online using the same kinds of development methods and guarantees given by legitimate software vendors.

It is difficult to establish exactly how organized this malware economy is but, according to David Marcus, security research manager at McAfee Avert Labs, it's relatively straightforward to buy not only the modules to build malware, but also the support services that go with it.

"If it weren't for Storm, bots would be in significant recession. Some days we're seeing 1,000 different variants a day."

–David Marcus, security research manager, McAfee Avert Labs

"From Trojan creation sites out of Germany and the Eastern bloc, you can purchase kits and support for malware in yearly contracts," said Marcus. "They present themselves as a cottage industry which sells tools or creation kits. It's hard to tell if it's a conspiracy or a bunch of autonomous individuals who are good at covering their tracks."

As well as kits and support, legions of compromised computers, or botnets, can be hired for nefarious purposes–usually for spam runs, or to perpetrate denial-of-service attacks. One of the most successful botnets of 2007 has been "Storm," so-called due to the hook-line used to trick victims into opening e-mails containing the Trojan horse. In January, the first malware was sent out with the tagline "230 dead as storm batters Europe."

The Storm botnet, estimated now to contain millions of compromised computers, has advanced defenses. The servers that control the botnet use so-called fast-flux Domain Name System (DNS) techniques to constantly change their location and names, making them difficult to locate and shut down. And security researchers who have attempted to find the command and control servers have suffered denial-of-service attacks launched by the controllers of the botnet.

"Storm has been exceptionally successful," said McAfee's Marcus. "It's used for spam runs, and researchers attempting to locate Storm command and control servers have come under attack. The hardest part is finding the key to those channels. They're not always easy to detect and find. Some of the communications are encrypted, while some are difficult to detect from a network point of view. I hate to use the word evolution, but they're certainly learning from their successes and failures. If it weren't for Storm, bots would be in significant recession. Some days we're seeing 1,000 different variants a day."

Weathering the Storm
Joe Telafici, director of operations at McAfee's Avert Labs, said Storm is continuing to evolve. "We've seen periodic activity from Storm indicating that it is still actively being maintained. They have actually ripped out core pieces of functionality to modify the obfuscation mechanisms that weren't working any more. Most people keep changing the wrapper until it gets by (security software)–these guys changed the functionality."

In the past year, the development of illegal malware has reached the point where it is almost as sophisticated as the traditional software-development and sales channel, according to Telafici.

"We've seen platform development, middleware, solutions sellers and hosting–all types of software and companies, with the same level of breakdown," said Telafici.

One indication of the maturity of the black economy, according to Telafici, was the recent case of a hacker who wrote a packer (software used to bypass antivirus protection) and who "threw in the towel recently as it wasn't profitable enough–there's too much competition. They opened the source code and walked away."

Security vendors seem to be powerless to take any action against the groups in control of botnet networks, especially those who use fast-flux techniques to move the location of command and control servers.

"With botnets, we are unlikely to make a dent unless we find the guy who controls the command and control server," said Telafici.

While law-enforcement agencies have a headstart in tracking cybercriminals, due to their experience of dealing with economic crimes such as fraud, many of the crimes are seemingly small, not warranting police attention.

"The majority of cybercriminals are small players for small dollars and short bursts of traffic," said Telafici. "On the flip side, you see the amount of effort and money spent protecting spam relays (as in Storm). If (security researchers) aren't careful they get DDoS-ed"–that is, hit by a distributed denial-of-service attack–"by a chunk of the spam network. That the guys are protecting their turf indicates that in aggregate the amount of money that is changing hands is significant."

Game theory, a branch of applied mathematics that models how adversaries maximize their gains through adapting to each other's strategies, features heavily in security assessments of the black economy. As one player becomes stronger, the other increases its efforts to gain the upper hand.

"I view it as we're locked in a Darwinian power struggle," said Telafici. "As we up the ante, the black economy adjusts to that, and it in turn ups the ante."

Anatomy of the 2007 black economy
Raimund Genes, chief technology officer of anti-malware for security company Trend Micro, said that malicious software via the affiliate model–in which someone pays others to infect users with spyware and Trojans–has become more prevalent in 2007.

The affiliate model was pioneered by the iframedollars.biz site in 2005, which paid Webmasters 6 cents per infected site. Since then, this has been extended to a "vast number of adware affiliates," said Genes. For example, one adware supplier pays 30 cents for each install in the U.S., 20 cents in Canada, 10 cents in the U.K., and 1 or 2 cents elsewhere.

"You wonder why anyone still bothers burgling houses when this is so much easier."

–Raimund Genes, CTO of anti-malware, Trend Micro

Hackers also piggyback malicious software on legitimate software. According to Trend Micro, versions of coolwebsearch co-install a mail zombie and a keystroke logger, while some peer-to-peer and file-sharing applications come with bundled adware and spyware.

While standard commercial software vendors sell software as a service, malicious-software vendors sell malware as a service, which is advertised and distributed like standard software. Communicating via Internet relay chat (IRC) and forums, hackers advertise Iframe exploits, pop-unders, click fraud, posting and spam. "If you don't have it, you can rent it here," boasts cialis reactions one post, which also offers online video tutorials. Prices for services vary by as much as 100 percent to 200 percent across sites, while prices for non-Russian sites are often higher: "If you want the discount rate, buy via Russian sites," said Genes.

In March the price quoted on malware sites for the Gozi Trojan, which steals data and sends it to hackers in an encrypted form, was between $1,000 and $2,000 for the basic version. Buyers could purchase add-on services at varying prices starting at $20.

In the 2007 black economy, everything can be outsourced, according to Trend Micro. A scammer can buy hosts for a phishing site, buy spam services to lure victims, buy drops to send the money to, and pay a cashier to cash out the accounts. "You wonder why anyone still bothers burgling houses when this is so much easier," said Genes.

Antidetection vendors sell services to malicious-software and botnet vendors, who sell stolen credit card data to middlemen. Those middlemen then sell that information to fraudsters who deal in stolen credit card data and pay a premium for verifiably active accounts. "The money seems to be in the middlemen," said Genes.

One example of this is the Gozi Trojan. According to reports, the malware was available this summer as a service from iFrameBiz and stat482.com, who bought the Trojan from the HangUp team, a group of Russian hackers. The Trojan server was managed by 76service.com, and hosted by the Russian Business Network, which security vendors allege offered "bullet-proof" hosting for phishing sites and other illicit operations.

According to Trend Micro, there are many independent malicious-software developers selling their wares online. Private releases can be tailored to individual clients, while vendors offer support services, often bundling antidetection. For example, the private edition of Hav-rat version 1.2, a Trojan written by hacker Havalito, is advertised as being completely undetectable by antivirus companies. If it does get detected then it will be replaced with a new copy that again is supposedly undetectable.

Hackers can buy denial-of-service attacks for $100 per day, while spammers can buy CDs with harvested e-mail addresses. Spammers can also send mail via spam brokers, handled via online forums such as specialham.com and spamforum.biz. In this environment, $1 buys 1,000 to 5,000 credits, while $1,000 buys 10,000 compromised PCs. Credit is deducted when the spam is accepted by the target mail server. The brokers handle spam distribution via open proxies, relays and compromised PCs, while the sending is usually done from the client's PC using broker-provided software and control information.

"This is a completely standard commercial business. The spammers even have their own trade associations."

–Raimund Genes, CTO of anti-malware, Trend Micro

"This is a completely standard commercial business," said Genes. "The spammers even have their own trade associations."

Ready-made tools for creating phishing e-mails, such as fake requests for bank details, are fairly easy to buy, with many independent vendors selling them. Bulletproof hosting is also easily available, while phishers engage spam services to lure users to their sites.

Carders, who mainly deal in stolen credit card details, openly publish prices, or engage in private negotiations to decide the price, with some sources giving bulk discounts for larger purchases. The rate for credit card details is approximately $1 for all the details down to the Card Verification Value (CVV); $10 for details with CVV linked to a Social Security number; and $50 for a full bank account.

Scammers use a variety of ways to launder cash. Compromised bank accounts can be used to launder funds, or struggling companies can be bribed to turn the money into ready cash. Scammers can find businesses with a debt of $10,000, and agree to pay them $20,000 if they agree to cash out 50 percent of the funds. Dedicated cashiers, also known as "money mules," can also take up to 50 percent of the funds to move the money via transfer services.

Money can also be laundered by buying and selling merchandise on the wider black market. Shipper rings can ship PCs to scammers via intermediaries, which can then be resold.

Cost to legitimate business
As the malicious-software economy grows in sophistication, so do the losses sustained by legitimate businesses. According to the 2007 Computer Security Institute computer crime and security survey, these losses have seen a sharp increase this year.

Robert Richardson, director of the CSI, said the average annual loss among U.S. businesses due to cybercrime has shot up to $350,424, from $168,000 in 2006. "Not since the 2004 report have average losses been this high," said Richardson.

This year's survey results are based on the responses of 494 computer security practitioners in U.S. corporations, government agencies, financial institutions, medical institutions, and universities.

Almost one-fifth of those respondents who suffered one or more kinds of security incidents said they had suffered a targeted attack aimed exclusively at their organization, or organizations within a small subset. Khalid Kark, a principal security analyst at Forrester, said targeted attacks against companies and institutions are becoming more common.

"As banks and companies have increased security levels, the hacker community is casting a much wider net," said Khalid. "Instead of hacking into something right away, now it's low and slow. They're determining attack avenues, taking their sweet time to find holes, and then using stealth (to steal data)."

Financial services companies are being attacked more and more, said the analyst, while the attacks are increasing in number and complexity.

But while the black cybereconomy is maturing, at the moment its main practitioners seem to be individuals or small groups acting within a loose web of affiliations that can be quickly established and broken to evade detection.

F-Secure's Hypponen blames a lack of international co-operation and political and social problems for the current situation. "In many cases these are people with skills but without opportunities," said Hypponen. "What if you are born with IT skills in rural China, or in the middle of Siberia? There is no legal way of making use of the skills they have."

While law enforcement co-operation with government and the IT community is paramount in addressing the problem in the short term, longer-term solutions must be found. One way to address the issue of the growth of the "black cybereconomy" in the long term is to harness the IT talent in developing countries that otherwise might be co-opted into illegal activity, say security experts.

"We have to make it more attractive to be in the white economy than in the black–when that happens we will turn a corner. We're starting to see that happen as companies look to less expensive economies as places to put people. In Eastern Europe and Asia there are highly skilled people where there are less opportunities–this is where the black economy is fueled now," said McAfee's Telafici.

Tom Espiner of ZDNet UK reported from London.

Permalink • Print • Comment
« Previous PageNext Page »
Made with WordPress and the Semiologic theme and CMS • Sky Gold skin by Denis de Bernardy