As Mr. Ferguson pointed out, polymorphic viruses are making their way into the DOS world. This is a problem in the short term, but not in the long term because people will be changing to memory-protected & file-permission based operating systems like NT, OS/2 and Unix, where it is very difficult for most kinds of virus to spread. I myself am very familiar with the virus underground, so for those who are not, let me explain the two newest and most deadly virus techniques which are being seen in the DOS world. The first is something called "Stealth" viruses. Stealth viruses imbed themselves into DOS and intercept disk read calls from applications. If those read system calls are reading non .EXE or .COM files, then they are processed normally. However when an application such as virus scanning program is reading in .COM and .EXE files (in order to scan them for virus code), the stealth code in DOS intercepts this and returns to the application what the .EXE or .COM file would look like if it wasn't infected by the stealth virus. Thus, all virus checking programs can be decieved in this manner. There are steps to get around this, like booting off of a write-protected floppy disk (with a clean copy of DOS on it) and running the virus checking program directly from that floppy. But people seldom do that, so the stealth technology is a worthwhile one for virus creators to pursue. The second is called "Polymorphic" viruses. These are viruses which contain a tiny encryption/decryption engine. The great thing about polymorphic viruses is that they encrypt themselves with a different key each time they replicate (make a new copy of themselves). The small amount of virus bootstrap code which is not encrypted is changed in each replication by dispursing random NOP's throughout the virus boostrap code. Thus each sample of polymorphic virus looks completely different to virus checking programs. The virus checking programs cannot use "signature" byte strings to detect polymorphic viruses. I have seen something called D.A.M.E., also known as Dark Avenger Mutation Engine. This is a freeware polymorphic library/kernel/toolkit which allows anyone to take an ordinary virus and wrap it in a polymorphic shell. Thus each new copy of the virus will look completely different as it replicates. D.A.M.E. is a great toolkit for those who want to release new viruses but don't have the skills to write a virus from scratch. DAME works very well with Turbo Assembler and MASM. I believe that DAME II will be coming out sometime this spring. At least that is what the author has promised. Among the new features will be more powerful encryption, stealth capabilities, and compatibility with Stacker and DR DOS compressed file systems. I have read that the author of DAME and DAME II will be coming out with a Virus Construction Set, which will allow point-n-click building of new viruses using object oriented techniques. It works sort of like a Mr. Potatohead, you point and click on the parts/modules you want and it builds it for you. You select the replication method, stealth capability, polymorphism, and payload module (there are several payloads, varying from playing music and showing graphics, to printing a text message on screan, to complete wipe out of the HD). The really wonderful thing is that you will be able to build your own modules and link them into the virus. I am sure a flourishing of third-party modules will occur. With the VCS, a 9 year old can build a competely new virus just by pointing, clicking, and dragging, popping up windows and choosing options. My oh my, aren't we in for fun times ahead... Thug
From: thug@phantom.com (Murdering Thug) I myself am very familiar with the virus underground, so for those who are not, let me explain the two newest and most deadly virus techniques which are being seen in the DOS world.
[ discusses stealth viruses, around for, oh, five years at least; and the MtE. ] Reasonably accurate discussions, but let's leave the hype for _Time_ and McAfee. "Stealth" viruses can be detected in memory, if you make the mistake of getting infected in the first place. MtE-derived viruses enjoyed a window of about a month while they could not be detected by scanners; they had no such reprieve from integrity checkers. Big deal. (Well, from the point of view of a scanner writer, it must be a pain, but that's not the user's problem.) Cryptohash integrity checking is probably the way to go in the long run, but scanners still work. The "most deadly virus technique", in terms of number of infections caused, is probably that of boot-sector infection. Low-tech, but it seems to work.
Thug
PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu
From: thug@phantom.com (Murdering Thug) I myself am very familiar with the virus underground, so for those who are not, let me explain the two newest and most deadly virus techniques which are being seen in the DOS world.
[ discusses stealth viruses, around for, oh, five years at least; and the MtE. ]
Reasonably accurate discussions, but let's leave the hype for _Time_ and McAfee. "Stealth" viruses can be detected in memory, if you make the mistake of getting infected in the first place. MtE-derived viruses enjoyed a window of about a month while they could not be detected by scanners; they had no such reprieve from integrity checkers. Big deal. (Well, from the point of view of a scanner writer, it must be a pain, but that's not the user's problem.) Cryptohash integrity checking is probably the way to go in the long run, but scanners still work.
The "most deadly virus technique", in terms of number of infections caused, is probably that of boot-sector infection. Low-tech, but it seems to work.
Thug
PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu
I'm sick and tired of all the virus hoo-hah myself. The only "anti-virus software" a hacker needs is DEBUG. And maybe your favorite sector editor utility, like DISKEDIT. Anything more, and you're an embarassment. Why don't you just send your life savings to McAfee while you're at it. I could go and quote P. T. Barnum right now, but I think my point is made.
I'm sick and tired of all the virus hoo-hah myself. The only "anti-virus software" a hacker needs is DEBUG. And maybe your favorite sector editor utility, like DISKEDIT. Anything more, and you're an embarassment. Why don't you just send your life savings to McAfee while you're at it. I could go and quote P. T. Barnum right now, but I think my point is made.
Unfortunately most of humanity is not in the category of "hacker", and we should be considerate of them. While we tout cryptography for example we have to remember that the only way that it will get into the mainstream is if it is integrated very nicely into foolproof user-friendly (sorry, the term makes me cringe a bit too) software. I don't see any constructive purpose served by viruses, and if anybody in this group is advocating or even pursuing their development, I think that has just brought the quality of the list down several notches, and really damaged the credibility of the speakers. Definitely, they are interesting to study, but the havoc they wreak is incalculable. To the extent that they encourage designers to create more straightjacket-type security mechanisms, they are detrimental to the goal of simple and straightforward access to computer technology, and significantly undermine confidence in and use of that technology.
participants (4)
-
Eli Brandt
-
L. Detweiler
-
Phiber Optik
-
thug@phantom.com