home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
- VIRUS-L Digest Monday, 11 Feb 1991 Volume 4 : Issue 25
- ******************************************************************************
-
-
- Today's Topics:
-
- "Virus" story
- I need help !!! (PC)
- FPROT and F-XCHK (PC)
- Re: Virus questions (PC)
- re: VAX/VMS and Viruses
- New Leprosy signiture? (PC)
- Re: Virus questions (PC)
- Re: Alameda/Yale (PC)
-
- VIRUS-L is a moderated, digested mail forum for discussing computer
- virus issues; comp.virus is a non-digested Usenet counterpart.
- Discussions are not limited to any one hardware/software platform -
- diversity is welcomed. Contributions should be relevant, concise,
- polite, etc. Please sign submissions with your real name. Send
- contributions to VIRUS-L@IBM1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU (that's equivalent to
- VIRUS-L at LEHIIBM1 for you BITNET folks). Information on accessing
- anti-virus, documentation, and back-issue archives is distributed
- periodically on the list. Administrative mail (comments, suggestions,
- and so forth) should be sent to me at: krvw@CERT.SEI.CMU.EDU.
-
- Ken van Wyk
-
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 91 17:39:11 +0000
- From: adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin)
- Subject: "Virus" story
-
- Thanks to all who sent me e-mail on this. Here's the story that ran in
- the paper, but please read it with two caveats. I got Ilene Hoffman's
- first name wrong, and she did NOT say Mac hard drives are prone to
- mechanical failure (what she said was that Mac owners are less likely
- to do such things as run de-fragmentation programs and I, in my Stupid
- Reporter mode, tried to write something the average reader would
- understand).
-
- Adam Gaffin
- Middlesex News, Framingham, MA
- adamg@world.std.com
- Voice: (508) 626-3968
- Fred the Middlesex News Computer: (508) 872-8461
-
- Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 2/7/91
- Expert: Virus unlikely budget bug
-
- By Adam Gaffin
- NEWS STAFF WRITER
- BOSTON - State officials say a computer virus destroyed 50 pages
- of Gov. Weld's budget proposal earlier this week, but a computer
- consultant with experience in fighting the bugs says it sounds more
- like a case of inadequate maintenance than anything sinister.
- Michael Sentance of Maynard, a legislative aide to Weld, had typed
- in 50 pages of the governor's proposed budget on a Macintosh computer
- when he tried saving the document to the machine's hard drive around 3
- a.m. on Monday - only a few hours before it was due to be submitted to
- the Legislature.
- But instead of being saved, the document disappeared, according to
- Liz Lattimore, a Weld spokeswoman. Sentance was eventually able to
- retrieve an earlier draft, filed under a different name, minus the 50
- pages, she said.
- When Sentance ran a program to check for the presence of viruses
- on the machine, it responded with a message indicating a ``type 003
- TOPS network'' virus, Lattimore said. TOPS is the name of the network
- used by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance to connect
- its Macintoshes.
- Sentance had borrowed one of that office's computers because he
- was more familiar with Macs than with the older Wang system in the
- governor's suite, Lattimore said.
- Viruses are small programs that can take control of a computer's
- operating system and destroy other programs and data, and can be spread
- through people unwittingly sharing ``infected'' programs or disks.
- Lattimore said officials managed to transfer data from the ailing
- computer to another machine, adding that they are now checking all of
- Administration and Finance's Macintosh computers for possible
- infection.
- But Eileen Hoffman of Needham, a Macintosh consultant, says what
- happened to Sentance sounds more like a hard-drive ``crash'' than a
- virus - something she said is potentially far more destructive.
- A document that disappears when the user tries to save it onto the
- hard drive usually means there is something physically wrong with the
- computer's hard drive, not that it is under viral attack, Hoffman said.
- Hoffman, who keeps three or four infected disks in a safe so that
- she can test new anti-viral software, said the software that runs TOPS
- networks is written in such a way that it can show up as a ``virus'' in
- programs that check for viruses. She said a ``Type 003'' virus is one
- of these phantom ``sneak'' viruses.
- Hoffman said Macintosh users are often more lax about maintaining
- their computer's hard drives than users of IBM compatible machines,
- because Macintoshes are aimed at people who do not want to have
- anything to do with the hardware of their machines. The Macintoshes
- were installed during the Dukakis administration.
- But even Mac hard drives require regular maintenance, she said.
- She said she often gets calls from clients who blame disappearing data
- or strange things on their screens on viruses, but that almost always
- the problem is caused by a mechanical hard-drive problem.
- She added that the particular version of anti-viral software
- Sentance used is two years out of date. Since new viruses are created
- all the time, this means the software might not be able to detect one
- even if the machine were infected, she said.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 91 18:12:00 +0000
- From: cdbenaiah@trillium.uwaterloo.ca ()
- Subject: I need help !!! (PC)
-
- Help!!!
-
- I think I was savaged by a virus/trojan/nasty type of thing. My hard
- drive (120 MB PS/2 ESDI drive) has been savaged. It no longer is
- recognized at boot up. Apparently this virus thing or whatever wrote
- over the partition table. I ran fdisk and set up the original
- partition, and now it recognizes my hard drive, but when I try to read
- C: it says 'Invalid media type drive C'. I can run Norton Utilities in
- maintenance mode, and it will read the info on the disk, but otherwise
- I can't read it. When I run the technical information section of
- norton it says my hard drive is a 360K drive :-(.
-
- What can I do? Am I toast forever, or is the data/directories
- recoverable? I was running FRECOVER from norton before it bombed,
- will this help? Can Norton help? Do I need something else like MACE
- utilities (I have heard they can recover from this)? The way I see it
- is the nasty tried to write its boot sector over the hard drive, thus
- making it think it is a 360K floppy and just die. What are my chances
- of data recovery here? Can anyone recommend a program to help, or
- better yet, send me one???
-
- All help appreciated! Please send mail right away - I need help quickly!!!
-
- Thanks in advance...
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 91 08:55:30 -0800
- From: p1@arkham.wimsey.bc.ca (Rob Slade)
- Subject: FPROT and F-XCHK (PC)
-
- I received an emergency call yesterday from one of the members of
- INtegrity. She had tried out a few of the FPROT programs, and found
- them easy enough to use that she decided to experiment with the other
- programs without reading the documentation....
-
- ==<orks > INtegrity > GrapeVine > Virus protection > Slade, Robert - INte
- ======
-
- Subject: FPROT and F-XCHK
-
- From Danielle Trottier:
-
- I was glad I had downloaded the F-PROT programm until today...
- but I have no fear, thanks to Robert Slade I am still glad I did
-
- I was playing around and decided to trust that each program of
- F-PROT would guide me as how to use it so that way I wouldn't
- have to read trought the entire litterature that came with it...
-
- So I used the F-XCHK command before using the F-XLOCK and
- because of that, all .exe or .com (absolutely everything...
- except for your basic DIR COPY TYPE commands) answered me back
- with ACCESS DENIED...
-
- I 've learned my lesson I will definitely always read the
- litterature that comes with the software from now on.
-
- =========
-
- Just to add a little to Danielle's posting:
-
- The documentation for FPROT does stated quite clearly what must
- be done before F-XCHK is used. It also warns that F-XCHK is
- something that you may not be able to use on your system.
-
- Fortunately we were able to solve Danielle's problem quite
- quickly, since she had not installed F-XCHK in the AUTOEXEC.BAT
- file. F-XCHK prevent any "non-F-XLOCKed" programs from running,
- but rebooting removed F-XCHK from memory.
-
-
- Vancouver p1@arkham.wimsey.bc.ca _n_
- Insitute for Robert_Slade@mtsg.sfu.ca H
- Research into (SUZY) INtegrity /
- User Canada V7K 2G6 O=C\
- Security Radical Dude | O- /\_
- /-----+---/ \_\
- / | ` ||/
- "A ship in a harbour is safe, but that / ||`----'||
- is not what ships are built for." || ||
- - John Parks `` ``
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 09 Feb 91 05:34:50 +0000
- From: ms@pogo.ai.mit.edu (Morgan Schweers)
- Subject: Re: Virus questions (PC)
-
-
- Greetings,
- In regards to the question about viruses loading themselves
- high... No viruses as yet have the capability to place themselves
- high in memory. To understand why, look at it like this... First you
- would need a memory manager. You can't assume that every system you
- infect will have one, so you need to carry it around with you. Then
- you need a load-high routine (much less difficult). For Some Reason
- (tm) viruses don't successfully load high. It may be due to the
- oft-used technique of determining their own location and modifying
- themselves thereby. This may not be supported by the memory managers
- I've tested viruses under. I just recieved a new environment, and
- will be testing to see if this is susceptible.
-
- If anyone has experience with a virus which successfully loaded
- high, I would *VERY* much like to know!
-
- -- Morgan Schweers
-
- P.S. No, viruses do not infect non-executable code on PC's.
- P.P.S. What sort of AI techniques were you thinking of?
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sat, 09 Feb 91 10:07:16 -0400
- From: Jerry Leichter <leichter@LRW.COM>
- Subject: re: VAX/VMS and Viruses
-
- Bert Medley asks for information about virus protection software for
- VAX/VMS and Unix systems. I'll leave it to others to speak about Unix
- - - though I suspect the answers will be pretty much the same - but the
- story in the VMS world appears to be as follows:
-
- - As far as I'm aware, no VMS viruses have been reported so far.
- That's not at all to say that they can't be, or even haven't
- been, written; it's just that if there are any, they have
- either not spread much, or (if you insist on the paranoid
- view) are so good that no one has detected them yet.
-
- Note that most of the PC world's virus detectors are based
- on scanning for known viruses (of which so far hundreds are
- known). Since there are no known VMS viruses, it's meaning-
- less to use a VMS virus scanner of this sort at this point.
-
- - The protection mechanisms available on VMS (or Unix) are much more
- sophisticated than those on PC's. Again, this doesn't mean
- that viruses can't be written; it just means that they are
- harder to write, will likely be bigger - and will have to
- use more elaborate mechanisms to spread.
-
- In particular: "Boot sector"-like viruses - which gain con-
- trol during system boot - could only be inserted by software
- that managed to gain privileges. Similarly, viruses that
- wished to take over system calls would first have to gain
- privileges. On both Unix and VMS, this would be true even
- for a viral program trying to take over only calls made by
- programs run subsequently, in the same login session, by the
- same user. This means that some of the other common kinds of
- PC anti-virals - the boot-sector checkers and, particularly,
- the disk-write-monitors, are also pretty pointless on VMS
- systems.
-
- Actually, it even goes beyond that: On VMS, it is possible
- to set alarms on files that will log messages if any attempt
- is made to modify them. Turning the alarms off without set-
- ting off yet other alarms is quite difficult. Alternatively,
- the VMS on-disk structure is very complex; while a privileged
- program COULD write directly to the physical disk, it would
- require a lot of code for it to write to a particular block
- of a particular file without help from the file system (which
- could raise an alarm). Note that on any PARTICULAR system,
- one could determine ahead of time just what to write where;
- but that doesn't help a virus, which must be able to survive
- on its own.
-
- - On a VMS system with properly set up security, the most a virus
- could do is spread from one user's infected files, to other
- files he owns. If a user made an infected program available
- for others to run, anyone running the program could likewise
- see his files infected. However, unless an infected program
- were run by a privileged user, the virus could never gain
- privileges this way. A good security policy INSISTS that
- privileged users run ONLY trusted software - a Trojan Horse
- run by a privileged user is at least as much of a threat as
- a virus, in practice probably much more so.
-
- One way to think about this is that on a properly run system,
- each individual non-privileged user account acts like its own
- private PC and disk. Infections can spread within a PC/disk,
- but can only move from one to another by sharing. A privi-
- leged user is someone who gathers up all the private disks
- and perhaps looks at them on his machine. If he isn't care-
- ful, he can serve as a vector and spread a virus far and wide.
-
- - It is simple on a VMS system to configure an account for an end-
- user which does not allow the end-user to create new execu-
- tables, only run executables TO WHICH HE DOES NOT HAVE WRITE
- ACCESS. Such an account is immune to viruses: Even if one
- of those executables came to be infected, the virus in it
- couldn't spread, as it couldn't write to any other execut-
- ables. (Yes, we can get into all sorts of theoretical
- discussions about what constitutes an "executable" if there
- are things like macros and interpreters around - but nothing
- of this sort has been observed "in the field" as far as I
- know.)
-
- - The "infections" that have been reported on VMS systems have usually
- been network-related, and were not viruses in any real sense.
- (They were self-propagating command files that relied on
- the fact that, in a more innocent time, VMS systems usually
- allowed remote users to run small programs in a default
- account.)
-
- In summary: If someone tries to sell you a VMS anti-viral package AT THIS
- TIME, you should probably tell them to take a hike. Better, put them on the
- spot: Don't let them tell you in general terms what their package does,
- insist that they tell you IN DETAIL what risks they claim you face, what
- evidence they have that those risks are real, and how their product protects
- you from those risks in a way that the base system does not.
-
- -- Jerry
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sat, 09 Feb 91 16:06:46 -0500
- From: jguo@cs.NYU.EDU (Jun Guo)
- Subject: New Leprosy signiture? (PC)
-
- Hi,
-
- I downloaded the new signature file
- anonymous/pub/virus/pc/virus.new from beach.gal.utexas.edu. But then
- F-FCHK tell me Turbo Debugger 1.0 TD.OVL and Turbo C++ 1.0 TCLASSS.LIB
- was infected by Leprosy. Is the new signature appropreate?
-
- The new signature is:
- Leprosy iHNjpjKmumoXO8rHxotuxiWmtHW5mK4bD51CMK4Em5tnCG
-
- When I use F-DISINF, it reported possible unknown virus infection.
- I use NEC MS-DOS 3.30 to get around the 32MB partition limit. But is
- there really some virus? The dump of the boot by F-BOOT:
-
- F-BOOT Shows the boot sector Version 1.14A - Jan. '91
-
- eb34 904e 4543 4953 332e 3300 0402 0100 0200 0219 aaf8
- 2b00 1100 0700 1100 0000 0000 0000 0004 0000 0000 0000
- 0000 0012 0000 0000 0100 fa33 c08e d0bc 007c 1607 bb78
- 0036 c537 1e56 1653 bf2b 7cb9 0b00 fcac 2680 3d00 7403
- 268a 05aa 8ac4 e2f1 061f 8947 02c7 072b 7cfb 8a16 fd7d
- cd13 7303 e980 00f6 0624 7c20 7405 c606 9004 54a0 107c
- 98f7 2616 7c03 060e 7ca3 3f7c a337 7cb8 2000 f726 117c
- 8b1e 0b7c 03c3 48f7 f303 0637 7ca3 3d7c e8cb 00a3 377c
- a13f 7ce8 c200 a33f 7cbb 0005 a13f 7ce8 7300 b001 e888
- 0072 198b fbb9 0b00 bee0 7df3 a675 0d8d 7f20 beeb 7db9
- 0b00 f3a6 7418 be87 7de8 4000 32e4 cd16 5e1f 8f04 8f44
- 02cd 19be cf7d ebeb b902 00bb 0007 a137 7ce8 2f00 b001
- e844 0072 e8ff 0637 7c81 c300 02e2 e98a 2e15 7c8a 16fd
- 7d8b 1e3d 7cea 0000 7000 ac0a c074 21b4 0eb3 ffcd 10eb
- f333 d2f7 3618 7cfe c288 163b 7c33 d2f7 361a 7c88 162a
- 7ca3 397c c351 b402 8b16 397c 0316 1e7c 8aea d0ce d0ce
- 80e6 c08a 0e3b 7c80 e13f 0ace 8a36 2a7c 8a16 fd7d cd13
- 59c3 8b16 0b7c b109 d3ea f7e2 0306 1c7c c30d 0a4e 6f6e
- 2d53 7973 7465 6d20 6469 736b 206f 7220 6469 736b 2065
- 7272 6f72 0d0a 5265 706c 6163 6520 616e 6420 7072 6573
- 7320 616e 7920 6b65 7920 7768 656e 2072 6561 6479 0d0a
- 000d 0a42 6f6f 7420 4661 696c 7572 650d 0a00 494f 2020
- 2020 2020 5359 534d 5344 4f53 2020 2053 5953 0000 0000
- 0000 0080 55aa
-
- And when I use F-SYSCHK, the process slows down considerably when
- it gets to Lehigh. Before that one, I can hardly tell which virus is
- currently checking on, but begin from Lehigh, it is much slower. Is
- that normal? Or does that suggest some problem?
-
- Thanks a lot.
-
- Jun
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 10 Feb 91 13:27:35 +0000
- From: frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason)
- Subject: Re: Virus questions (PC)
-
- Roggie Boone wrote:
-
- >I have 4 questions regarding computer viruses.
-
- >1) I have seen the SCAN software (MaAffee) scan a computer's memory for
- > viruses and noticed that it only scanned the base 640K of RAM. Do
- > viruses typically not infect or use extended/expanded memory?
-
- There are no viruses which use or infect extended/expanded memory. A
- virus could theoretically place a part of itself there, but it would
- also have to change something in tke lowest 640K, in order to load and
- execute this code.
-
- There is one virus, however, which locates itself between 640K and 1Meg.
-
- > Are there virus scanning packages that will scan the additional memory?
-
- No - there is no need to do so (yet).
-
- > I raise this question, because it seems I read somewhere that some
- > computers with certain memory management drivers may not erase the
- > contents of extended memory on a warm boot, and hence may not erase any
- > virus that may be sitting in extended memory. (My memory isn't too good
- > on this topic).
-
- So what? The virus code would be "dead", as it could never be activated.
- Just having it in memory will not do any harm whatsoever, as it is not active.
-
- >2) Are there anti-virus packages (for PC or any computer) that use
- > artificial intelligence techniques to protect the system, or is such
- > an effort overkill?
-
- Several packages claim to use AI methods - none do. The closest thing to AI
- in anti-virus products are the sets of rules some packages use to search
- for previously unknown viruses.
-
- >3) Not meaning to plant ideas, but I was talking with a facutly member
- > in the dept. where I work, and the question arose as to whether a virus
- > could be transmitted to an orbiting satellite and cause the same havoc
- > that viruses cause us PC users. Is this possible?
-
- A Trojan, yes - it could be sent to the satellite, just as any other
- software "update". A virus ? Well, why bother making the program
- replicate inside the satellite, when a simple Trojan will do the job ?
-
- >4) I have also noticed that SCAN, for instance, scans basically the .EXE,
- > .COM, .SYS, .OVL files in a directory. Do viruses not infect .TXT or
- > .DOC files or maybe C (Pascal, Basic) source code?
-
- Known viruses may either:
-
- infect EXE and/or COM files. (unconfirmed reports of
- SYS-infecting viruses) The one or two BAT viruses are
- not a serious threat.
- or
- Infect any file which is loaded/executed by INT 21/4B.
- That is, programs and overlays.
-
- The latter group typically includes COM/EXE/APP/OVL/OVR/OV1/BIN and a
- few other extensions. A file which cannot be executed/ loaded as
- overlay cannot be infected.
-
- A virus could infect source or object code, but no such viruses exist.
- DOC and TXT files cannot be infected.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 10 Feb 91 13:35:47 +0000
- From: frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason)
- Subject: Re: Alameda/Yale (PC)
-
- Michael_Kessler.Hum@mailgate.bitnet writes:
- >But when asked to clean the boot sector, I received that message that the
- >virus could not be removed, no boot sector was found. Copying the files to
- >a new disk and reformatting the disks solved the problem. But is there any
- >explanation for finding the virus in an infected boot sector that then
- >cannot be found?
-
- The diskettes are infected, all right - the problem is just that the
- original boot sector, (which is normally stored on track 39) cannot be
- found.
-
- This could be because the diskettes did not contain a valid boot
- sector when they were infected - the disinfector could remove the
- virus, but when it attempts to locate a valid boot sector to replace
- it with, it fails.
-
- Another possibility is that the diskettes were infected by a new
- variant of the virus, (which stores the boot sector elsewhere) but
- this cannot be determined as the diskettes were (unfortunately)
- formatted.
-
- - -frisk
-
- Fridrik Skulason University of Iceland |
- Technical Editor of the Virus Bulletin (UK) | Reserved for future expansion
- E-Mail: frisk@rhi.hi.is Fax: 354-1-28801 |
-
- ------------------------------
-
- End of VIRUS-L Digest [Volume 4 Issue 25]
- *****************************************
-
-
-
-