Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Symantec Users, Start Your Keyloggers

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Mar 02, 2006 08:01 PM
from the unfurling-the-welcome-mat dept.
Security The Internet
An anonymous reader writes "Script kiddies have been taking advantage of intrusion prevention features of Symantec's Norton Firewall and Norton Internet Security Suites to knock users offline in IRC channels, according to an amusing post at Washingtonpost.com. From the article: 'Turns out that if someone types "startkeylogger" or "stopkeylogger" in an IRC channel, anyone on the channel using the affected Norton products will be immediately kicked off without warning. These are commands typically issued by the Spybot worm, which spreads over IRC and peer-to-peer file-swapping networks, installing a program that records and transmits everything the victim types (known as a keylogger).' Makes you wonder what other magic keywords produce unexpected results with Symantec's software."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Point and Click Cracking 105 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Washingtonpost.com is running a story about a number of botnets and keylogger operations being controlled by Web-sites with point-and-click type front-end software interfaces. The sites mentioned in the story look like fairly slick PHP pages designed to sort through password data from keylog victims and update infected computers with new code or instructions. From the story: 'The hacking software also features automated tools that allow the fraudsters to make minute adjustments or sweeping changes to their networks of hacked PCs. With the click of a mouse or a drag on a pull-down menu, users can add or delete files on infected computers.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Symantec Users, Start Your Keyloggers 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • +++ATH (Score:5, Funny)

    by petard (117521) * on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:02PM (#14839548) Homepage
    People just don't learn very well from past mistakes...

    • Bitcom too (Score:5, Funny)

      by Reziac (43301) * on Thursday March 02 2006, @10:30PM (#14840296) Homepage Journal
      Remember the old Bitcom for DOS? if you were reading messages on a BBS, and if in one of those messages you encountered the phrase "NO CARRIER", Bitcom would helpfully hang up the modem!

    • Re:+++ATH (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday March 02 2006, @10:58PM (#14840411) Journal
      There was also the "ANSI Standard Back Door".

      Some of the early not-too-smart (pre-computer-running-the-show) terminals - notably the "Ann Arbor Terminals" terminal, the DEC VT105, and anything following the ANSI standard for terminal operation which was based on them - had several "soft keys".
        - These could be configured to send any desired sequence of up to maybe 128 or so characters when hit.
        - They were configured by an escape sequence.
        - The escape sequence could be delivered from the far end of the link. (Typically was, by a program setting up the softkey.)
        - The escape sequence setting the key would not produce any visual indication on the screen that this was being done (so as not to corrupt the screen).
        - The key could also be "struck" by another escape sequence, also deliverable from the remote end.
        - Some talk/chat features (think "stone-age instant messaging") did NOT filter out escape sequences in inter-user messages.

      What this meant was that a user (especially one running an early terminal emulator on an early home computer - like an Apple ][) could compose a message to another user that would reprogram one of his softkeys to send anything the malicious user wanted and "hit" it remotely. The time-sharing machine in the middle would interpret the command as if it came from the victim. (This was especially handy if the victim happened to be logged in as the equivalent of a superuser at the time.)

      If the message was a multiple command to disable keysroke echoing at the start and reenable it at the end it might not show up at all. (Or screen control stuff could be included to blank out the echoed command before it could be noticed.)

      There were revs to the terminals to disable this. But installing them made the terminal no longer standards compliant. B-)

      • Re:+++ATH (Score:4, Informative)

        by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday March 02 2006, @11:00PM (#14840423) Journal
        (An even more viscous hack was to reprogram the terminal's scrolling window to 1x1 character, change the escape sequence for programming it, and store it as the startup configuration. This killed the terminal - permanently. B-b )

    • Workaround for that dumb +++ problem (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Myria (562655) on Friday March 03 2006, @01:32AM (#14840987)
      There actually was a simple workaround for that problem that almost all modems support. The standard command ATS2= sets which ASCII value is your modem escape code: the default value 33 is +.

      However, the value 255 was special: if you do ATS2=255, the +++ escape feature is disabled entirely. In this mode, you hang up by dropping the "terminal ready" bit on the serial port - something that can't be faked like +++. This has the disadvantage that you can't switch to command mode without hanging up, but that feature was rarely used (especially because data sent by the other side while in command mode gets dropped).

      This feature was frequently used by BBSs to stop this kind of thing from happening (IE, people doing +++ATH ATDT911).

      Meow,

      Melissa
      • That worked. There was also a simpler work-around known as guard time. Basically, the modem would expect a counfigurable amount of DTE silence on either side of the escape sequence. This technique was patented by Hayes, who charged a healthy fee for it. So most budget modems suffered from the problem. Zyxel was one of the exceptions... they had some alternative technique that allowed them to avoid licensing the patent but still not suffer from this problem.

  • One thing for sure. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by techno-vampire (666512) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:05PM (#14839561) Homepage
    This is a very elegant trick; using the victim's anti-virus software as the tool to kick them off the net. Not only that, but you can do this to any number of people who happen to be on that channel and use the affected product. Now, if we could only get the skript kiddies to put their minds to something productive...

    • But they just did... (Score:4, Funny)

      by TCQuad (537187) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:14PM (#14839619)
      Now, if we could only get the skript kiddies to put their minds to something productive...

      Since IRC is mostly a time-killer, wouldn't something that knocks people off of it be considered productive?

    • Re:One thing for sure. (Score:5, Informative)

      by NitsujTPU (19263) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:29PM (#14839703)
      Dude... what are you talking about? Script kiddies are called script kiddies because they steal other people's ideas. They aren't actually coming up with anything.

      It wasn't a script kiddie who figured out that this works, it was a "hacker" (or a "cracker").

      It's not like some kid spent hours figuring this out. These kids were told by someone who figured it out, who would not be referred to as a script kiddie.

  • Yep, it works... (Score:5, Funny)

    by xx_toran_xx (936474) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:05PM (#14839567)
    startkeylogger -- phonex has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) -- TomA has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) -- something3280 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer

    • Channel name (Score:3, Interesting)

      by phorm (591458)
      How about if you put one of the keywords in the channel name, how would affected machines behave on getting a listing or joining the channel?

  • protection? yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by psycho chic (958251) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:05PM (#14839568) Journal
    and people pay for that crap?

    thats a really scary concept, that the very programs we rely on to protect our computers are so incredibly insecure that a couple keystrokes can completely disable our protection. you would think that if we are expected to pay a company to protect us, that they would do their best. this day in age, that is NOT the best they can do. Not a chance.

    • Re:protection? yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Eightyford (893696) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:09PM (#14839590) Homepage
      And now Microsoft is selling Antivirus software. Antivirus software to secure their unsecure operating system. I think this type of thing will ultimately force companies to switch back to Unix-like operating systems.

        • Re:protection? yeah, right (Score:4, Informative)

          by Mistshadow2k4 (748958) on Friday March 03 2006, @01:09AM (#14840902) Journal

          "Exepct that Unix like operating systems aren't immune to many virus attacks too. They just haven't been the focus of attack in any significant way, so the true virus potential isn't know."

          You seem to think *nix OSes are a lot less popular then they are. You do know that Unix was the most popular server OS until this year, right? You do know that when combined with Linux and BSD, the *nix OSes still outnumber Windows servers, don't you? And surely you've heard that Unix has been around about 35 years, haven't you? So.... where are all the Unix viruses? There should be a million of them at least but there aren't. There have been only 13 Unix viruses in computing history. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it has always been desinged to be secure from the start.

          • The OS can protect the system from stupid users so they can't do anything damaginng.

            Which, were it still the 70s and everyone was using dumb terminals off a mainframe, might be something worth considering.

            However, in today's world we have these things called *Personal* Computers that aren't managed by a team of engineers and rarely have more than one user. On PCs, the "system" is the *least* important data on the machine.

            In Linux and other UNIX-like OS its trivial to set it up so a ignorant user never

    • Re:protection? yeah, right (Score:5, Informative)

      by macklin01 (760841) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:11PM (#14839600) Homepage

      thats a really scary concept, that the very programs we rely on to protect our computers are so incredibly insecure that a couple keystrokes can completely disable our protection. you would think that if we are expected to pay a company to protect us, that they would do their best. this day in age, that is NOT the best they can do. Not a chance.

      From what I understood, the keystrokes weren't disabling the protection, but rather activating it, i.e., shutting down the chat session to prevent it from triggering malware. - Paul

    • and people pay for that crap?

      thats a really scary concept, that the very programs we rely on to protect our computers are so incredibly insecure that a couple keystrokes can completely disable our protection.       - well, maybe you should read the article then (if it didn't become obvious to you right away) and see that this IS the protection. Nothing is disabled, Norton sees these commands in the channel and decides to shutdown the connection (supposedely to prevent your computer from being infected.)

      It doesn'

  • MMORPG affected? (Score:5, Funny)

    by kindbud (90044) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:06PM (#14839572) Homepage
    If I am dueling with a leet player on WoW, will this work to kick him off the game? Would I be able to gank him before the server times him out?
    • So, a lot of people have been making the "Connection reset by peer" joke.

      The reason I chose to respond to your post, is cause I just did a /whois peer on EFnet. Here's the result
      peer is peer@195.180.11.197 * i reset you all !!
      peer using irc.inet.tele.dk Better than WoW
      peer End of /WHOIS list.
      So I guess IRC > WoW
    • Yep, I've been hit before by the exact same scenario you describe, although probably with a different string.

      So I'm playing WoW happily and suddenly I'm completely lagged (you know, those time-bubbles where you can run around, but not cast spells or receive any update from the server) and then disconnected. Better yet, when I try to reconnect, I can't.

      Turns out that something in that stream of binary data between the WoW server and the WoW client looked to Norton suspiciously like some old SQL Server exploi

        • Re:MMORPG affected? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday March 02 2006, @11:26PM (#14840515) Homepage Journal
          on machine one:

          nc -l -p 6667

          on machine with NPF or NIS on it:

          telnet machineone 6667

          on machine one:

          startkeylogger

          machine two will now disconnect you from machine one and Norton will block you from connecting to machine one again. You have to go into the AutoBlock tab of the Symantec Client Firewall and remove the ip from the list.

  • So bad? (Score:4, Funny)

    by mugnyte (203225) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:06PM (#14839575) Homepage Journal

      While yes a bug, most of my experience on IRC would point towards a benefit if anyone could boot anyone else. The benefit is to those booted, to be clear.

  • No surprise here... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Radi-0-head (261712) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:07PM (#14839583)
    Anyone who uses Symantec software with the expectation that it will actually protect them from anything deserves whatever they get.

    I deal with hundredes of machines monthly, and it's always the NIS/Norton Antivirus machines that have been completely compromised without Norton making a peep.

    US companies suck at malware detection. I've found the eastern European companies to be among the best.
    • US companies suck at malware detection. I've found the eastern European companies to be among the best.
      Eastern European companies...

      You mean... companies in the former Soviet BLOC?

      Because we all know, that in Soviet Russia, malware detects you!

    • Re:No surprise here... (Score:4, Funny)

      by caudron (466327) on Friday March 03 2006, @07:53AM (#14841825) Homepage
      US companies suck at malware detection. I've found the eastern European companies to be among the best.

      Sure, the author is always gonna best know how to uninstall his app.

  • Um. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by daeg (828071) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:11PM (#14839601)
    I hate Norton products. They are incredibly bloated, offer no technical documentation, and literally take over a system once installed. Have you ever tried to uninstall a Norton product? They are as bad as the viruses, worms, and trojans they claim to protect against.

  • Doesn't affect me (Score:5, Funny)

    by GAATTC (870216) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:12PM (#14839602)
    I have Symantec's Norton Firewall and when I type startkeylogge
  • Reminds me of a bash.org quote (can't find it atm) that looked like someone was disconnected by an obsene language filter every time someone in the channel swore.
    "Wait so everytime someone says **** he gets disconnected?"
    "Quit ..."
    "Join ..."
    etc...
  • It doesn't have to be spoken text. If an incoming packet is caught by norton firewall with a keyword in it, the connection is closed reguardless of where it is.

    Which means you can change your nick to one of the words.

    Or even more devlishly, put it in your ident where noone will notice it. Your speech will be so powerful it will knock people off the internet. Or is it your breath...

    PS: Another keyword that works is "stopspy", which is more useful for idents. I don't normally take advantage of stuff like this but it's too good to pass up.

    To redeem myself, I will mention that you can work around this by turning off some filter called "Spybot keylogger" or something under advanced options.
  • Stupid slashdot! Great, now its public. I've had so much fun the last 2 weeks joining channels like 'teenlink69' and 'cyberz' on big networks and using the command.

    Its good times watching 10-15 people drop at a time in the huge channels.

    But now the fun will quickly disapear, thanks to slashdot. DOH!

  • Some servers filter these already (Score:3, Informative)

    by cojsl (694820) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:36PM (#14839744) Homepage
    I get "Message blocked: Exploiting Norton bug" on my favorite channel if I type in either command

  • Security (Score:3, Insightful)

    by typical (886006) on Thursday March 02 2006, @08:57PM (#14839849) Journal
    For a company that purports to "improve" your computer's security, Symantec clearly doesn't have much by way of policy on what actions can be taken based on untrusted data.

    This is not the first "personal firewall" product to be attackable, either. BlackICE has had its time up on Slashdot, as well as other packages.

    "Personal firewalls" do little to improve computer security, and do add overhead, complexity, and their own collection of security problems.

    The real fix is to not start servers that you don't trust to be solid listening for traffic from your computer. Microsoft does (irritatingly) have a collection of servers running by default (unless SP2 disabled or blocked access to them -- dunno).

    Worrying about personal firewalls, trying to treat NAT as a "security enhancer", etc...it's all crazy. Just don't open the holes in the computer in the first place and you don't have to worry about it.

  • norton has got to be the least secure virus produc (Score:5, Informative)

    by Blymie (231220) * on Thursday March 02 2006, @10:09PM (#14840214)

    Why?

    Because you have to run Norton as the administrator, if you want updates. You *used* to be able to get around this, by installing Norton as an admin, then setting up a cron (scheduled tasks :P ) to do the updates. However, Norton actually *disabled* the ability to do this in its latest versions. For the last year or so, you MUST run Norton as the administrator to get updates. Put another way, you have to log in once a day as administrator, or you never receive virus updates.

    Lame? Yes, it is. Their techincal support staff find nothing odd about this, and their sales staff try to sell you an inordinately expensive "professional" product which does allow you to run as a normal user, and have updates occur without logging in as admin every 5 minutes. This is just sad. Every XP user should be running as a non-admin. Norton should be *encouraging* that.

    I thought these people were trying to *help* security? The last thing I want anyone to do, is run as administrator on an XP box. Sure, you don't get the same level of security that you do under Linux, when one runs as a normal user, but it's still *very preferable* to run as a non-admin user for your day to day tasks, under XP.

    There are so many "business" class products that don't understand such a simple concept. I've seen income tax software that must be run as the admin user under XP. Anti-virus software though??! That's just absurd.

  • I can't decide what's more interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SeaFox (739806) on Friday March 03 2006, @01:26AM (#14840965)
    This side effect of Norton's attempt to protect the user, or that Symantec thinks this is the best way to protect the user.

    I mean, if Norton is aware of a keylogger worm on IRC, wouldn't it make more sense to have Norton Internet Security kill the keylogger process or block the data the keylogger tries to send out? It is a firewall after all. Or, for Norton Antivirus to identify the keylogger and remove it as part of removing the worm. Would it not be part of the worm, and therefore something Norton is supposed to be removing, as part of the program's specified function?

    If stopping access to a service is how one should protect themselves from threats on it, maybe Norton should just block all TCP/IP traffic to prevent viruses, worms, and identity theft.

    Good thing the keylogger trigger wasn't "hello everyone".
    • OTOH if you want to quickly get ahold of a random asshole, and you don't live in NYC, it's really the only solution.
    • I hang out with friends from high school on IRC. MSN and AIM suck for that, because you have to initiate contact. On IRC, all you do is type something, and all your friends see it. If they want to respond, they can. With modern IM's, when you initiate contact it's at the other person's inconvenience. You can leave a copy of XiRCON or mIRC minimized and idle 24/7. If you want to talk to people, just pop it up and you've got a convenient-for-both-parties instant line of communication. This is in contrast to i
    • irc.freenode.net irc.oftc.net

      thats just for starters

    • Yep, that works quite nicely.

      I've confirmed on my network that the following will kick some serious ass:

      - simply saying it in a channel
      - adding it to the beginning of a topic (meaning if a user simply does a /list, or /join's, they'll get kicked out)
      - changing your name to it
      - Quit messages

      It may also cause issues in PM's, notices, but have yet to confirm with that.

      We ended up just adding text filters for any spot where the text can occur, something like this (since we're on UnrealIRC):

      /spamfilter add cpnN
    • Not any program. The software only monitors IRC communication because that's where the commands to the zombies are sent. mIRC works through IRC, hence it causes the thing to be tripped.
    • How about this [freenode.net] ?

      But I guess that would just time out...
    • I don't know if it's the same string (probably not), but Norton was idiotic enough to forbid WoW from accessing the network any more after it detected something in the stream of data that looked like an SQL Server exploit. Or something like that, I don't remember the exact message, since I was busy swearing when that happened. The fact that it was a different program, on a different port, _and_ the direction in which the "exploit" was transmitted was all wrong... well, that didn't stop Norton from helpfully

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.