Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
Other security for Windows, Mac, Linux
MacDefender Test #2, "Trojan" Ransomware
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MacDefender" data-source="post: 858362" data-attributes="member: 83059"><p>That's pretty cool that there's already ransomware that does this!</p><p></p><p>I mentioned earlier that this wasn't a very creative idea, I spent just a few minutes looking at various well known executables that could be used to ransom files. The hardest thing to find actually was the ability to delete the original since attempting to do that from a untrusted binary sets off behavior blockers for sure. The other zip/RAR archiver's had stricter licenses and I wanted to respect copyright law. I also quickly looked at Busybox and MinGW and other UNIX like runtimes. Busybox actually had a negative cloud reputation with ESET and Windows Defender so I am guessing malware has tried to use it before. But there's many many other things that can be used to carry out this kind of escape. </p><p></p><p></p><p>By the way, thanks to all the other testers who have been trying this against custom settings. That is a lot of valuable info. It's of course good to know when standard settings don't work, but I also like learning about what tools and techniques are available for those willing to put in that extra effort to configure them. I like making proof of concept exploits because the way they behave can be described in an easy to understand manner and we can just analyze the core mechanics. Real malware tends to be obfuscated, depend heavily in a remote payload stage, and attempts to evade analysis. It takes much longer to whittle them down to the point that you're able to test just a component of the malware. </p><p></p><p></p><p>For example, even in "bonus" dynamic testing, you can see a lot of AVs still simply say "the cloud thinks this is a virus", and that's more or less still signature scanning, not a behavior blocker test.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MacDefender, post: 858362, member: 83059"] That's pretty cool that there's already ransomware that does this! I mentioned earlier that this wasn't a very creative idea, I spent just a few minutes looking at various well known executables that could be used to ransom files. The hardest thing to find actually was the ability to delete the original since attempting to do that from a untrusted binary sets off behavior blockers for sure. The other zip/RAR archiver's had stricter licenses and I wanted to respect copyright law. I also quickly looked at Busybox and MinGW and other UNIX like runtimes. Busybox actually had a negative cloud reputation with ESET and Windows Defender so I am guessing malware has tried to use it before. But there's many many other things that can be used to carry out this kind of escape. By the way, thanks to all the other testers who have been trying this against custom settings. That is a lot of valuable info. It's of course good to know when standard settings don't work, but I also like learning about what tools and techniques are available for those willing to put in that extra effort to configure them. I like making proof of concept exploits because the way they behave can be described in an easy to understand manner and we can just analyze the core mechanics. Real malware tends to be obfuscated, depend heavily in a remote payload stage, and attempts to evade analysis. It takes much longer to whittle them down to the point that you're able to test just a component of the malware. For example, even in "bonus" dynamic testing, you can see a lot of AVs still simply say "the cloud thinks this is a virus", and that's more or less still signature scanning, not a behavior blocker test. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top