![]() |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 |
|
McLovin
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: My house.
Posts: 6,280 (2.35/day)
Thanks: 105
Thanked 340 Times in 246 Posts
|
Persistant 'zombie' attacks target systems protected by corporate editions of Symantec antivirus
Once again, it really pays to keep your virus protection updated. A new worm, which seems to be a spybot variant, works on a flaw found in older versions of Symantec antivirus for corporations. While personal editions of the software are not affected, any corporation running an older version of Symantec Norton will be vulnerable to the worm. The worm turns whatever it infects into a "zombie" PC, which only serves to copy and send the virus. Symantec had a fix for the problem on May 25th, but not all users downloaded it. Symantec is re-evaluating it's patch/virus definition distribution method.
Source: CNET |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Graphical Hacker
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 7,478 (2.81/day)
Thanks: 798
Thanked 1,174 Times in 834 Posts
|
Noobs got pwnt.
__________________
CPU-Z validation sig pics temporarily blocked |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Eligible for custom title
|
Trying to see if you haxored your stuff and are running a webserver, or FTP.
It happens.
__________________
“it would have been perfect....its got trains and the line"tech your kids not to do what iv done"(or similar) because i had obviously done something to warrent 2 e-thugs to come 4000miles out of their way and kill me.” -Solaris17 “yeah i failed. i noticed the "coming soon" part after i posted.” -Mussels
“people are just stupid.” -W1zzard
Yes I am evil, yes you can have some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Bird of Prey
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gurley, AL
Posts: 9,994 (3.99/day)
Thanks: 3,810
Thanked 557 Times in 521 Posts
|
Symantec is a great product, but they cant force everyone to update and download new patches (though, I think all Antivirus companies should automatically force a download of a patch, just to make sure folks are protected).
__________________
=-TheEagle-= ![]() http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=62454 “You crazy? Surfing any website without an antivirus is like freaking with a dirty woman without protection” -OzzmanFloyd120 - Edited for content and clarity
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Señor Moderator
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Utrecht, Utrecht, The kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 8,498 (2.59/day)
Thanks: 41
Thanked 1,453 Times in 1,077 Posts
|
Symantec is the company. As for their products, they're mostly bloated memory hogs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
![]() |
Those software "firewall" , "security" suite whatever things, constantly show false positives about everything. However, it's not out of the question that an ISP would do portscans to check for users hosting services such as www and ftp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Someone who's going to find NewTekie1 and teach him a lesson
Posts: 3,380 (1.32/day)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 102 Times in 101 Posts
|
HOW TO SECURE VULNERABLE SERVICES vs. BUFFEROVERFLOW ESCALATION OF PRIVELEGE ATTACKS
HOW TO SECURE VULNERABLE SERVICES vs. BUFFEROVERFLOW ESCALATION OF PRIVELEGE ATTACKS
Per a discussion I had w/ Russ Cooper from NtBugTraq here on our forums in this NEWS section: A "working-work around" I discovered earlier in 2005-2006 & posted here on these forums (now a STICKY thread in the GENERAL SOFTWARE SECTION of the forums) & prior to that on SETI@Home & Folding@Home forums, that should help in the meantime, is listed below... http://forums.techpowerup.com/showth...495#post232495 ============================================= PERTINENT MATERIAL EXCERPT: ============================================= Quote:
SECURING VULNERABLE SERVICES AGAINST ATTACK FORUM POST: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=16097 & later here, when the folks here "wikipediafied it": SECURING VULNERABLE SERVICES AGAINST ATTACK TPU WIKI: http://reference.techpowerup.com/Sec...ndows_Services The technique noted by myself counters for services buffer overflow escalation of privelege attacks (the very thing you noted as an example, & it works against it, by lowering services logon privelege entities - very safe & simple) IF the service in question is securable thus (not ALL are unfortunately due to WHAT they may have to be able to do, priveleges wise). Many antivirus makers' ware can have their services/daemons can be limited to NETWORK PROCESS entity levels, & lower, like LOCAL PROCESS levels. Also, NORTON ANTIVIRUS (corporate edition @ least, post v.10.1 iirc) has "ANTITAMPER PROTECTION" as well, keeping its services list running no matter what - works well, I can't even MANUALLY SHUTDOWN 10.2 IF I TRY AS ADMIN!)... ---------------------------------------------------------- SYMANTEC CORP. EDITION CLIENT SERVICES TO SET AS LOCAL SERVICE (& they will still work fully & fine): Symantec AntiVirus Symantec AntiVirus Definitions Watcher Service SYMANTEC CORP. EDITION CLIENT SERVICES TO SET AS NETWORK SERVICE (& they will still work fully & fine): SAV Roam Symantec LiveUpdate ============================================= ![]() * Microsoft now also has a subset of this material (covering only their default OS services though, ONLY (my list has FAR MORE that apply & can do this) on their technet/knowledgebase websites, which appeared 6 months or more after I wrote mine up! (So, that said? Well, you KNOW this works well enough, as a substantiation of it, because MS has it also, albeit far after the article I authored here & elsewhere on it, & far less services this security technique applies to!) APK P.S.=> This technique also works in the patched model, 10.2 (& above), of the Norton/Symantec Corporate Edition AntiVirus client program, some "FYI" & a good general measure of protection against exploitable services (not just NORTON/SYMANTEC ONES, mind you)! The URL above detailing HOW this defense mechanism is done (easy, via services.msc) also notes many other services this can apply to, to protect you vs. this type of attack... apk |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|