Discussion:
OpenDNS and CryptoLocker
(too old to reply)
David Kaye
2013-11-26 19:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Okay, it looks like nobody here has had any problem with CryptoLocker, but
the Google news alerts keep coming in, so it seems like it may just be a
matter of time before someone here is infected.

Or not.

OpenDNS has an interesting way of detecting which domains to block so that
CryptoLocker doesn't get connected to computers. Of course, that's only one
part of the problem, but at least it's a start. For your edification here's
an article about OpenDNS's approach:

http://www.securitybistro.com/?p=8131
Roy
2013-11-26 20:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kaye
Okay, it looks like nobody here has had any problem with CryptoLocker, but
the Google news alerts keep coming in, so it seems like it may just be a
matter of time before someone here is infected.
Or not.
OpenDNS has an interesting way of detecting which domains to block so that
CryptoLocker doesn't get connected to computers. Of course, that's only one
part of the problem, but at least it's a start. For your edification here's
http://www.securitybistro.com/?p=8131
You have to realize that OpenDNS isn't "Open". Its just a company
providing DNS services and raises money by selling ads, premium services
and by redirecting queries for non-existent domains to their own search
engines.

Users of OpenDNS need to realize that they are dealing with something
more than a standard DNS service.
David Kaye
2013-11-26 23:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Users of OpenDNS need to realize that they are dealing with something more
than a standard DNS service.
Oh, sure. Like Google, they probably count up the hits to various domain
names and sell the results to somebody.
Roy
2013-11-27 05:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kaye
Users of OpenDNS need to realize that they are dealing with something more
than a standard DNS service.
Oh, sure. Like Google, they probably count up the hits to various domain
names and sell the results to somebody.
OpenDNS is far different.

Example: ignore-domain.com

A normal DNS returns "No such domain"

OpenDNS returns 67.215.65.132

Two radically different answers: The "No such domain" response is
correct.

The Google DNS returned the correct answer as did the Verizon DNS and
the others I tested
Thad Floryan
2013-11-27 05:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy
Post by David Kaye
Post by Roy
Users of OpenDNS need to realize that they are dealing with something
more than a standard DNS service.
Oh, sure. Like Google, they probably count up the hits to various domain
names and sell the results to somebody.
OpenDNS is far different.
Example: ignore-domain.com
A normal DNS returns "No such domain"
OpenDNS returns 67.215.65.132
Which is OpenDNS itself (in San Francisco). Note this:

[...]
NetRange: 67.215.64.0 - 67.215.95.255
CIDR: 67.215.64.0/19
[...]
Post by Roy
Two radically different answers: The "No such domain" response is correct.
The Google DNS returned the correct answer as did the Verizon DNS and
the others I tested
Comcast's DNS provided the correct answer, too.

Thad
b***@MIX.COM
2013-11-27 06:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy
OpenDNS is far different.
Example: ignore-domain.com
A normal DNS returns "No such domain"
OpenDNS returns 67.215.65.132
Two radically different answers: The "No such domain" response is
correct.
From OpenDNS First Responders <***@opendns.com> about a year ago,
regarding my complaint about NXDOMAIN redirection -

| OpenDNS Guide search results are delivered on our free services whenever
| an URL is invalid, or cannot be resolved via Typo Exception, Shortcut, or
| address bar search.
|
| The Guide is required for all Basic/Free account holders who want to use
| our filtering options; it's how we keep OpenDNS free for these users.
| Without the Guide, OpenDNS would no longer have any free options available.
|
| Under a Basic/Free account you can disable NXDOMAIN redirection, Typo
| Exceptions, and Block Suspicious Responses under a registered network's
| settings to disable the Guide, but doing so will disable all OpenDNS
| filtering setting on a non-paid subscription account.

Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
Thad Floryan
2013-11-26 21:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kaye
Okay, it looks like nobody here has had any problem with CryptoLocker, but
the Google news alerts keep coming in, so it seems like it may just be a
matter of time before someone here is infected.
Or not.
OpenDNS has an interesting way of detecting which domains to block so that
CryptoLocker doesn't get connected to computers. Of course, that's only one
part of the problem, but at least it's a start. For your edification here's
http://www.securitybistro.com/?p=8131
Uh, OK.

Scratchin' my head and color me clueless, but what does DNS have to do
with blocking CryptoLocker?

CryptoLocker's vector is email that's opened by the unwary at which time
CryptoLocker installs itself on the unwary user's system and begins to
encrypt files and, when finished, puts up a window which demands ransom be
paid within 72 hours via BitCoin (or other) else it's bye-bye to all files.

If CryptoLocker's home system(s) is/are blocked by DNS, then how can the
victimized user pay the ransom since there is no way at present to decrypt
the files that CryptoLocker hosed?

At present there seems to be no solution to full data recovery unless the
ransom is paid since most people are negligent performing system backups.

The $300 (or so) ransom is a drop in the bucket given the consequences of
not paying the ransom and not having "correct" backups.

Thad
Thad Floryan
2013-11-26 21:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thad Floryan
[...]
CryptoLocker's vector is email that's opened by the unwary at which time
CryptoLocker installs itself on the unwary user's system and begins to
encrypt files and, when finished, puts up a window which demands ransom be
paid within 72 hours via BitCoin (or other) else it's bye-bye to all files.
If CryptoLocker's home system(s) is/are blocked by DNS, then how can the
victimized user pay the ransom since there is no way at present to decrypt
the files that CryptoLocker hosed?
[...]
Note that I'm assuming CryptoLocker's payload is a binary attachment
to email and thus doesn't need to contact home to install itself and
DNS never enters into the equation. I've neither read nor seen any
articles to date that conflict my assumption.

Thad
David Kaye
2013-11-26 23:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thad Floryan
Note that I'm assuming CryptoLocker's payload is a binary attachment
to email and thus doesn't need to contact home to install itself and
DNS never enters into the equation. I've neither read nor seen any
articles to date that conflict my assumption.
I believe OpenDNS is trying to get to the source of the problem, meaning the
servers that are creating the spambots and the emails in the first place. I
thought it was interesting that they're going after the very thing that
makes ransomware unique: the thousands of randomized domain names being
created. So, I'd think that once they find those, they blacklist them and
send the blacklists out to other DNS operators.
Thad Floryan
2013-11-27 00:33:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kaye
Post by Thad Floryan
Note that I'm assuming CryptoLocker's payload is a binary attachment
to email and thus doesn't need to contact home to install itself and
DNS never enters into the equation. I've neither read nor seen any
articles to date that conflict my assumption.
I believe OpenDNS is trying to get to the source of the problem, meaning the
servers that are creating the spambots and the emails in the first place. I
thought it was interesting that they're going after the very thing that
makes ransomware unique: the thousands of randomized domain names being
created. So, I'd think that once they find those, they blacklist them and
send the blacklists out to other DNS operators.
Interesting. But unless one's email server checks the [same] blacklist(s)
any email carrying CryptoLocker baggage would still get through and unwary
users might/would still open the email and become immediately infected and
their files encrypted.

That would be the case if CryptoLocker domains are only "handled" in DNS
and one's system's mail service is not trusting or using blacklisting sites.

So, the infected email would still arrive, the user's system is infected,
and now because of DNS blocking the user cannot respond to CryptoLocker's
criminals' eventual ransom request and the user's files are effectively
gone and unrecoverable in 72 hours.

Granted users should never open unsolicited email especially if there's an
attachment, but numerous examples of user naïveté appeared when CryptoLocker
appeared on the 'Net and that's how/why many users' systems were infected.

Thad
Igor Sviridov
2013-11-27 01:52:18 UTC
Permalink
hi,
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by David Kaye
Okay, it looks like nobody here has had any problem with CryptoLocker, but
the Google news alerts keep coming in, so it seems like it may just be a
matter of time before someone here is infected.
...
OpenDNS has an interesting way of detecting which domains to block so that
CryptoLocker doesn't get connected to computers. Of course, that's only one
part of the problem, but at least it's a start. For your edification here's
http://www.securitybistro.com/?p=8131
Uh, OK.
Scratchin' my head and color me clueless, but what does DNS have to do
with blocking CryptoLocker?
CryptoLocker's vector is email that's opened by the unwary at which time
CryptoLocker installs itself on the unwary user's system and begins to
encrypt files and, when finished, puts up a window which demands ransom be
paid within 72 hours via BitCoin (or other) else it's bye-bye to all files.
I believe initial infection is generic and CryptoLocker needs to contact it's C&C
server to receive individual public key which is used to encrypt the drive.
If it fails to connect to C&C it would not be able to encrypt.

Yep, something like this is described in Wikipedia article and references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoLocker

I guess it could be possible to customize the malware/link in each email, but it would
require extra key generation effort (infection rate is probably quite low), and
closer coupling between malware/spam operation and C&C.
Post by Thad Floryan
Thad
--igor
Thad Floryan
2013-11-27 02:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Igor Sviridov
hi,
Post by Thad Floryan
[...]
CryptoLocker's vector is email that's opened by the unwary at which time
CryptoLocker installs itself on the unwary user's system and begins to
encrypt files and, when finished, puts up a window which demands ransom be
paid within 72 hours via BitCoin (or other) else it's bye-bye to all files.
I believe initial infection is generic and CryptoLocker needs to contact it's C&C
server to receive individual public key which is used to encrypt the drive.
If it fails to connect to C&C it would not be able to encrypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoLocker
Hi Igor,

Thank you for the Wikipedia link!

The sequence of events is clearly spelled-out there:

[...]
CryptoLocker typically propagates as an attachment to a
seemingly innocuous e-mail appearing to have been sent by
legitimate company, or is uploaded to a computer already
recruited to a botnet by a previous Trojan infection. A ZIP
file attached to email contains an executable file with
filename and icon disguised as a PDF file, taking advantage
of Windows' default behaviour of hiding the extension from
file names to disguise the real .EXE extension.
[...]
It then attempts to contact one of several designated
command and control servers; once connected, the server then
generates a 2048-bit RSA key pair, and sends the public key
back to the infected computer.
[...]
The payload then proceeds to begin encrypting files across
local hard drives and mapped network drives with the public
key, and logs each file encrypted to a registry key.
[...]

So at the time the Wikipedia article was written, CryptoLocker
did have to call home before the system file encryption begins.

But who's to say what the next version of CryptoLocker will do?

If I was the author I would have it do the encryption regardless
of whether the home site could be contacted just to be nasty. :-)
Post by Igor Sviridov
I guess it could be possible to customize the malware/link in each email, but it would
require extra key generation effort (infection rate is probably quite low), and
closer coupling between malware/spam operation and C&C.
I haven't seen much banter about CryptoLocker recently so it's not
clear how many folks have really been infected. Absolutely none
of my friends or immediate neighbors have been bitten.

Thad
Thad Floryan
2013-11-27 03:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Igor Sviridov
[...]
I believe initial infection is generic and CryptoLocker needs to contact it's C&C
server to receive individual public key which is used to encrypt the drive.
If it fails to connect to C&C it would not be able to encrypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoLocker
[...]
It then attempts to contact one of several designated
command and control servers; once connected, the server then
generates a 2048-bit RSA key pair, and sends the public key
back to the infected computer.
[...]
The payload then proceeds to begin encrypting files across
local hard drives and mapped network drives with the public
key, and logs each file encrypted to a registry key.
[...]
So at the time the Wikipedia article was written, CryptoLocker
did have to call home before the system file encryption begins.
But who's to say what the next version of CryptoLocker will do?
If I was the author I would have it do the encryption regardless
of whether the home site could be contacted just to be nasty. :-)
[...]
A excellent place (and very, VERY nasty) to store any data other
than in the Registry if [a new version of] CryptoLocker did its
encryption procedures locally if it couldn't contact its C&C would
be to falsely alter the HD's bad sector table by falsely marking
good sectors as bad and then storing that data in the now falsely
marked good sectors.

That method is totally undetectable by *ALL* malware detector and
snooper programs. The only way to clear out the falsely marked
"bad" sectors is to do a low-level format as I wrote here before
using this program (which I've done for clients and friends over
the years):

http://hddguru.com/

http://hddguru.com/software/HDD-LLF-Low-Level-Format-Tool/

Thad
Igor Sviridov
2013-11-27 04:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Igor Sviridov
[...]
I believe initial infection is generic and CryptoLocker needs to contact it's C&C
server to receive individual public key which is used to encrypt the drive.
If it fails to connect to C&C it would not be able to encrypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoLocker
...
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Thad Floryan
So at the time the Wikipedia article was written, CryptoLocker
did have to call home before the system file encryption begins.
But who's to say what the next version of CryptoLocker will do?
If I was the author I would have it do the encryption regardless
of whether the home site could be contacted just to be nasty. :-)
Yeah, it could use last-resort public key if it cannot contact C&C :-(
Still, once disclosed it would help all victims in this potentially large class.
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Thad Floryan
[...]
A excellent place (and very, VERY nasty) to store any data other
than in the Registry if [a new version of] CryptoLocker did its
encryption procedures locally if it couldn't contact its C&C would
be to falsely alter the HD's bad sector table by falsely marking
good sectors as bad and then storing that data in the now falsely
marked good sectors.
That method is totally undetectable by *ALL* malware detector and
snooper programs. The only way to clear out the falsely marked
"bad" sectors is to do a low-level format as I wrote here before
using this program (which I've done for clients and friends over
http://hddguru.com/
http://hddguru.com/software/HDD-LLF-Low-Level-Format-Tool/
If you're referring to NTFS bad sector table - it's quite plausible.
But then you can use any disk partitioning / NTFS formatting utility to remove it.

I really doubt virus can modify G(rown) defect list in the service area, especially
considering it's manufacturer-specific. It sounds like badBIOS story ;-)

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/10/meet-badbios-the-mysterious-mac-and-pc-malware-that-jumps-airgaps/
Post by Thad Floryan
Thad
--igor
Thad Floryan
2013-11-27 05:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Igor Sviridov
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Igor Sviridov
[...]
I believe initial infection is generic and CryptoLocker needs to contact it's C&C
server to receive individual public key which is used to encrypt the drive.
If it fails to connect to C&C it would not be able to encrypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoLocker
...
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Thad Floryan
So at the time the Wikipedia article was written, CryptoLocker
did have to call home before the system file encryption begins.
But who's to say what the next version of CryptoLocker will do?
If I was the author I would have it do the encryption regardless
of whether the home site could be contacted just to be nasty. :-)
Yeah, it could use last-resort public key if it cannot contact C&C :-(
Still, once disclosed it would help all victims in this potentially large class.
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Thad Floryan
[...]
A excellent place (and very, VERY nasty) to store any data other
than in the Registry if [a new version of] CryptoLocker did its
encryption procedures locally if it couldn't contact its C&C would
be to falsely alter the HD's bad sector table by falsely marking
good sectors as bad and then storing that data in the now falsely
marked good sectors.
That method is totally undetectable by *ALL* malware detector and
snooper programs. The only way to clear out the falsely marked
"bad" sectors is to do a low-level format as I wrote here before
using this program (which I've done for clients and friends over
http://hddguru.com/
http://hddguru.com/software/HDD-LLF-Low-Level-Format-Tool/
If you're referring to NTFS bad sector table - it's quite plausible.
But then you can use any disk partitioning / NTFS formatting utility to remove it.
Hi Igor,

I'm referring to the HD's internal bad sector list which is OS independent
and *NO* NTFS formatting utility touches that area which is why the HDDGURU
program is the only one publicly available that totally clears the HD's list
and rebuilds it by diagnosing every sector one-by-one on the disk. That is
what's called a low-level format and it takes a l-o-n-g time to do correctly.

NTFS formatting is one level higher after all the bad blocks are identified
and skipped by the HD itself using its internal remapping which is why any
malware that uses the bad block list is undetectable and the only way to
100% remove the malware is to do a low-level format.
Post by Igor Sviridov
I really doubt virus can modify G(rown) defect list in the service area, especially
considering it's manufacturer-specific. It sounds like badBIOS story ;-)
[...]
The fact the HDDGURU program can do it is clear evidence the guy knows the
internals of today's HDs and he's not the only one who does -- some malware
authors know how to do it, too. Get me the HD internal factory docs and I
will write a program to do it also.

I have a knack with direct hardware programming. One example can be seen here
(the shortest URL to a comp.sources.unix archive of which I'm aware hosting my
tprobe program from 1992):

http://ae-www.technion.ac.il/pkgs/g-k/in/tprobe/tprobe

It's a shar archive (plain ASCII text) and it can be easily read at the
above URL. It you want to read its 4-page manual:

http://thadlabs.com/FILES/tprobe.pdf 13kB

Awhile back I had factory-internal manuals for a number of SCSI disks and it
would have been trivial to alter/read/write those HD's bad block lists, too.

Thad
Igor Sviridov
2014-01-10 19:42:57 UTC
Permalink
hi Thad,

I've started to write this reply more than a month ago, expressing my doubts in virus writers ability
to hide in low-level defects, but never finished it.

Recent NSA disclosures (specifically IRATEMONK implant described in URL below) prove that's it's possible to infect
wide variety of drive firmware; from there through occasional substitution of MBR you can infect host:
http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/nsas-ant-division-catalog-of-exploits-for-nearly-every-major-software-hardware-firmware/

We do know that drive firmware programming is possible online. So your scenario is now confirmed to be fully plausible;
i guess only amount of effort is preventing (for now?) it's wide adoption by virus writers.

--igor
Post by Thad Floryan
I'm referring to the HD's internal bad sector list which is OS independent
and *NO* NTFS formatting utility touches that area which is why the HDDGURU
program is the only one publicly available that totally clears the HD's list
and rebuilds it by diagnosing every sector one-by-one on the disk. That is
what's called a low-level format and it takes a l-o-n-g time to do correctly.
NTFS formatting is one level higher after all the bad blocks are identified
and skipped by the HD itself using its internal remapping which is why any
malware that uses the bad block list is undetectable and the only way to
100% remove the malware is to do a low-level format.
Post by Igor Sviridov
I really doubt virus can modify G(rown) defect list in the service area, especially
considering it's manufacturer-specific. It sounds like badBIOS story ;-)
[...]
The fact the HDDGURU program can do it is clear evidence the guy knows the
internals of today's HDs and he's not the only one who does -- some malware
authors know how to do it, too. Get me the HD internal factory docs and I
will write a program to do it also.
I do not belive HDDGURU is modifying defect list.
I suspect maximum it does is ATA Security Erase.
There is no low level format in ATA command set.
Post by Thad Floryan
I have a knack with direct hardware programming. One example can be seen here
(the shortest URL to a comp.sources.unix archive of which I'm aware hosting my
http://ae-www.technion.ac.il/pkgs/g-k/in/tprobe/tprobe
It's a shar archive (plain ASCII text) and it can be easily read at the
http://thadlabs.com/FILES/tprobe.pdf 13kB
Awhile back I had factory-internal manuals for a number of SCSI disks and it
would have been trivial to alter/read/write those HD's bad block lists, too.
It's not conceptually impossible, but would require support for varying firmware versions and drive vendors.
I'm also not convinced that there are ATA commands for defect list manipulation; but i guess you can rewrite
firmware or directly update host protected area.
Post by Thad Floryan
Thad
--igor
Thad Floryan
2014-01-11 02:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Igor Sviridov
hi Thad,
I've started to write this reply more than a month ago, expressing
my doubts in virus writers ability to hide in low-level defects, but
never finished it.
Hi Igor,

Professional malware and virus "authors" are not dummies vs. all the
proverbial script kiddies simply running scripts spreading malware
far and wide.

Who are such "authors"? My guess includes the CIA, NSA, China, Russia,
North Korea and possibly even some folks involved in the anti-malware/
-virus community of companies. I can't prove anything that but a lot
of circumstantial evidence can be found doing some searching.

Such "authors" cobble-up things like StuxNET:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

which are extremely complex suites of programs. Hiding code in falsely
marked "bad" blocks could/would be trivially implemented.

Back when I worked at Tymshare in Cupertino there was a one-week period
I was charged with the responsibility of assuring Xerox's Sigma 7 would
not pass its acceptance tests because Tymshare's technical founders were
favoring DEC's PDP-10 systems and wanted Xerox to fail.

For one week I'd come in and do "something" that caused the Sigma to go
belly up and then go home for the day.

I exploited every bug I could find in the system and hid several of my
"crash" programs which ran in the machine's registers in page 0 of real
memory whose first 16 location could not be easily examined because the
hardware mapped addresses 0x0 to 0xF to the machine's registers -- so I
swapped the system's map between pages 0 and 1 to be able to write the
code to memory in page 1, then flip the hardware map again exchanging
pages 0 and 1.

One day I completely wiped the system RADs (Rapid Access Disks fixed-head
drums made by Bryant), another day I wiped the entire OS from disk, etc.

I made all these "incidents" appear to be hardware failures and the CEs
simply could NOT figure out what I had done even after spending hours
with all their test gear (oscilloscopes, etc.).

The key to being able to perform the above required "god" status on the
machine. There was a bit in the PSW (Program Status Doubleword, 64 bits)
that, if set to 1, granted a process "god" status much like being root
on a Linux or UNIX system.

The user-level command interface (the "exec") of the Xerox UTS (Universal
Timesharing System) had a "dump" that saved all of the process' memory,
16 registers, and a copy of the PSW. It was trivial to set the "god" bit
in the PSW on the saved dump file. The "restore" command then restored the
environment: memory, registers, and the PSW with the "god" bit set in the
program's process PSW.

Each day I wrote a new program to do something different: clear the RADs,
wipe the OS, play bird calls through the console speaker then halt the
system, etc. The bird call trick was hilarious -- I had actually been
given a single punch card by one of the CEs that when read in the card
reader would play continuous bird calls through the console speaker when
the system was in diagnostic/maintenance mode and I used the same bird
call code in one of my daily programs. It was a fun week. :-)
Post by Igor Sviridov
[...]
Recent NSA disclosures (specifically IRATEMONK implant described in URL
below) prove that's it's possible to infect wide variety of drive firmware;
http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/nsas-ant-division-catalog-of-exploits-for-nearly-every-major-software-hardware-firmware/
Drive firmware modification isn't the same thing as putting malware in the
falsely-marked bad blocks but it is something that could also be done. For
every disk I low-level formatted (only 3 so far) there was no evidence the
drive's firmware had been altered. Once a low-level format completed, the
drives operated fine the same as when they left the factories and were
installed in the PCs after reloading the OS.
Post by Igor Sviridov
We do know that drive firmware programming is possible online. So your
scenario is now confirmed to be fully plausible; i guess only amount of
effort is preventing (for now?) it's wide adoption by virus writers.
Drive firmware and falsely-marked bad blocks are two different vectors
for malware. I suppose some new and upcoming malware could use both
vectors to be really nasty.

It's been commonly known that drive firmware can be easily "updated"
because the vendors often issue firmware upgrades to be downloaded
and applied in the field by "end users" (e.g., consumers); I did that
for many Seagate drives over the years.

I haven't ever seen, AFAIK, a malware firmware update on a disk but it
was very clear that using falsely-marked-as-bad good blocks to store
malware isn't that rare. I have had several clients' systems infected
by malware which clearly existed in the falsely-marked blocks because
absolutely NO anti-malware checker could find them and the only solution
was to do the low-level format using the HDDGURU's program which cleared
the bad block list and rebuilt it by laboriously re-analyzing the entire
disk sector-by-sector.

Several months back here David Kaye also reported one client's disk had
no malware that could be found using a long list of tools and yet it was
still infected. My suspicion was the malware resided in the falsely-marked
sectors which is why I posted the URL to the HDDGURU's program. Dave never
reported back the disposition of that disk and whether he did a low-level
format to clear the malware or not because David also wrote the customer
was extremely distraught and wanted simply to buy a new system and abandon
the old system with the presumed infected disk.

Here's the website URL again for those who didn't save it previously because
it should be THE tool of last resort when fighting a malware infection:

http://hddguru.com/
Post by Igor Sviridov
Post by Thad Floryan
[...]
Awhile back I had factory-internal manuals for a number of SCSI disks and it
would have been trivial to alter/read/write those HD's bad block lists, too.
Thad
It's not conceptually impossible, but would require support for
varying firmware versions and drive vendors.
I'm also not convinced that there are ATA commands for defect list
manipulation; but i guess you can rewrite firmware or directly update host
protected area.
The very fact the HDDGURU's program exists and works is prima facie evidence
the bad-block list can be altered by other than the HD's own internal firmware.

I haven't seen the HDDGURU's source code but he's obviously using internal
documentation to perform the identical task(s) the HD manufacturers do when
testing any given disk and building the initial bad-block list before the HD
is shipped (or rejected if the bad-block list is too large -- stuff happens).

I also assume any/all hard disk recovery companies have similar programs.

Thad
Igor Sviridov
2014-01-11 02:34:10 UTC
Permalink
hi,

Relevant links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_protected_area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_Configuration_Overlay
http://www.utica.edu/academic/institutes/ecii/publications/articles/EFE36584-D13F-2962-67BEB146864A2671.pdf

--igor

David Kaye
2013-11-27 18:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thad Floryan
I haven't seen much banter about CryptoLocker recently so it's not
clear how many folks have really been infected. Absolutely none
of my friends or immediate neighbors have been bitten.
It's funny. I have a Google news alert set for CryptoLocker and I get about
5 links a day to various articles. Most come from news sites, but many come
from the various anti-malware companies and tech sites.

Still, even at this late date nobody I know has had any kind of
CryptoLocker-like infection. When the "FBI virus" hit I was swamped with
calls from my customers. But nothing for CryptoLocker.
Loading...