Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Extortion Virus Code Cracked

Posted by Zonk on Thu Jun 01, 2006 02:47 PM
from the unlock-your-stuff dept.
Security Worms
Billosaur writes "BBC News is reporting that the password to the dreaded Archiveus virus has been discovered and is now available to anyone who needs it. Archiveus is a 'ransomware' virus, which combines files from the My Documents folder on Windows machines and exchanges them for a single, password-protected file, which it will not unlock unless a password is given. The user would normally be required to pay the extortionist money in order to receive the password, but apparently the virus writer made one small, critical error in coding: placing the password in the code. BTW, the 30-digit password locking the files is mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Using Distributed Computing To Thwart Ransomware 361 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The folks at Kaspersky labs are turning to distributed computing to factor the RSA key used by the GPcode virus to encrypt people's files and hold them for ransom. There are two 1024-bit RSA keys to break, which should require a network of about 15 million modern computers to spend a year per key factoring them. Unfortunately, there appear to be no vulnerabilities in the virus' use of RSA, unlike some previous cases. Perhaps more interestingly, there's some debate over whether people should bother cracking it. After all, what if they were trying to trick us into factoring the key for a root signing authority? Besides, there's a more direct method of breaking the encryption: track down the people who wrote the virus and force them to talk."
This discussion has been archived.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.

Extortion Virus Code Cracked 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • What relief! (Score:5, Funny)

    by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdot.exit0@us> on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:48PM (#15448013) Homepage
    BTW, the 30-digit password locking the files is mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw."

    I was just looking for that. Thanks!

  • ummm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by geoffspear (692508) on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:49PM (#15448016) Homepage
    Odd how that "30 digit password" has 38 characters, 13 of which are digits.

  • Wait... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ImaLamer (260199) <john,lamar&gmail,com> on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:49PM (#15448017) Homepage Journal
    We are all now victims of a DMCA lawsuit!

  • My Lord what are we coming to (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:50PM (#15448025)
    These days even the virus authors don't know anything about writing secure software :(

  • Wow! (Score:3, Funny)

    by daivzhavue (176962) on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:50PM (#15448026)
    That's the combination to my luggage!

  • Just wait... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hanssprudel (323035) on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:51PM (#15448039)

    Next time it will be a virus writer who knows about public key cryptography, and then you'll just have to pony up the dough... (or you could stop getting your computer infected with malware in the first place.)

    • Re:Just wait... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:58PM (#15448128) Homepage Journal
      >(or you could stop getting your computer infected with malware in the first place.)

      Backing up your data would also work.

      Notice how much this virus is like a proprietary file format? You can't get at your own data without paying for a license to the proprietary reader.

      • Wrong (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2006, @03:04PM (#15448171)
        You're wrong. You can cypher it with the public key and it can't be recovered without the private key, which is safe at his computer.

      • Re:Just wait... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday June 01 2006, @03:07PM (#15448206)
        When the files are being encrypted by software running on your computer, such a virus is inevitably vulnerable.
        Unless it uses the Trusted Platform Module on new computers to do the encryption for it!

      • Re:Just wait... (Score:5, Informative)

        by swillden (191260) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday June 01 2006, @03:11PM (#15448230) Homepage Journal

        Public key cryptography does not work against a man in the middle attack.

        True, in general, though precautions can be taken. I fail to see how a MITM attack is even relevant here, though.

        When the files are being encrypted by software running on your computer, such a virus is inevitably vulnerable.

        Why? Virus contains public key, generates random session key (ideally in memory-locked pages that cannot be swapped out), encrypts all your data with session key, encrypts session key with public key, writes encrypted session key to a file, wipes session key from memory, then shuts down.

        Assuming you don't notice the virus before all of this happens, you're toast unless you can get a copy of the private key.

        To overcome this flaw, the virus writer would have to send the files to a pre-known IP address for off-site encryption (which among other problems would probably be a pretty noticeable activity). Doing so would presumably also expose the author to risk that the computer in question (and presumably he himself) could be siezed.

        Did you mean decryption? If so, yes, the writer would have to have you ship your session key file to him so he could decrypt it and give you your unique decryption key. I don't think that activity is nearly as risky to the writer as trying to figure out how to collect the money, though. Following money trails is something the world's law enforcement agencies are very good at.

        • Following money trails is something the world's law enforcement agencies are very good at.

          Yeah, I used to think that. But the fact that I get hundreds of emails every day from people hawking either pirated software and counterfeit/illegal pills has convinced me otherwise.

            • Re:Just wait... (Score:5, Interesting)

              by BeBoxer (14448) on Thursday June 01 2006, @04:01PM (#15448674)
              The fact the LE is good at following money doesn't mean they're actually interested in doing it in the cases you care about.

              As a loyal slashdot member, I had not bothered to read the article before posting. I actually did go back and read it, and you'll never guess how the ransom is paid. The victims are asked to go buy drugs at one of three online "pharmacies". Curious, eh?

              • Re:Just wait... (Score:4, Funny)

                by swillden (191260) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday June 01 2006, @04:11PM (#15448762) Homepage Journal

                As a loyal slashdot member, I had not bothered to read the article before posting.

                That goes without saying, good sir.

                I actually did go back and read it

                You what??? As an even more loyal slashdot member, I *still* have not read the article :-)

                you'll never guess how the ransom is paid. The victims are asked to go buy drugs at one of three online "pharmacies". Curious, eh?

                Very. So this virus is... advertising? Wow.

      • Re:Just wait... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TikiTDO (759782) <TikiTDO@gmail.com> on Thursday June 01 2006, @03:26PM (#15448348)
        You are absolutely wrong. PKI was designed with the purpose of preventing man-in-the-middle attacks. The virus writer would include the public key in the virus with an associated encryption algorithm. The problem arised with decryption. In order to decrypt a file you would need an associated private key. Now if this key is available inside the virus it would be just as easy to find as the password within the article.

        In fact the whole idea of cryptography revolves around the encryption algorithm telling you nothing about a method to decrypt the data it encrypts (At least without a certain key). These are called trapdoor one-way functions.

        The most realistic way I can think of writing such a virus would be to provide and encryption algo in the virus and then provide a decryption program when the intended victim has paid you the money. Now aren't you glad I'm not writing viruses?

  • Wow... (Score:5, Funny)

    by beheaderaswp (549877) * on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:51PM (#15448046)
    Hmm...

    It also works for new Windows XP Professional installs.

    Strange.

  • News That's Old, Stuff that's Stale (Score:5, Informative)

    by lbmouse (473316) on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:53PM (#15448063) Homepage
    Hasn't this been around for a while? According to this page [symantec.com], the password has been know for at least a month.

  • hold on... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joe 155 (937621) on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:53PM (#15448065) Journal
    you mean that when they pay up the people actually let them get their files back? you would think any criminal would just delete them, say that they would give them back and then just take off with the money; they are already breaking the law, whats another one added to that? I wonder if this will now work like it should in the perfect open source community though, a bug is found, someone patches it, the new stuff is available within the day, maybe even better than before?

    • Re:hold on... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by venicebeach (702856) on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:56PM (#15448109) Homepage Journal
      you mean that when they pay up the people actually let them get their files back? you would think any criminal would just delete them, say that they would give them back and then just take off with the money; they are already breaking the law, whats another one added to that

      If you don't give the files back you remove the incentive for other infected users to pay up.

      • Re:hold on... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ThePyro (645161) on Thursday June 01 2006, @04:07PM (#15448726)
        If you don't give the files back you remove the incentive for other infected users to pay up.
        But that assumes that other infected users are collaborating (how else would you hear about the deletions?). And if they were collaborating then they could just share the password (like what has just occurred in this article), and the money dries up anyway.

  • strings? (Score:4, Funny)

    by blinder (153117) * <blinder.dave@NOspam.gmail.com> on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:55PM (#15448087) Homepage Journal
    heh, is this strings to the rescue?

    one of the best programs evar :)

  • Consider this a warning (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:56PM (#15448095)
    If you are still betting on antivirus companies to keep you safe, you should consider this a warning. There is no technical reason why the password should be recoverable. Had the author used strong public key cryptography instead of a symmetric cypher, there would be no way to get the key without the help of the virus author. The only way to be safe is to not get infected and that means you have to use your brain.

  • If it's the same password... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:56PM (#15448099)
    If it's the same password for every infection, wouldn't it be likely that the first victim who actually paid for it would then release it to the wild to screw-over the extortionist ASAP?

  • From the TFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BaltikaTroika (809862) on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:56PM (#15448111)
    The most interesting part of TFA: "Victims are only told the password if they buy drugs from one of three online pharmacies."

    Are online pharmacies so unregulated that criminals can extort people as a means for advertising?

    Wow.

    • Re:From the TFA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geoffspear (692508) on Thursday June 01 2006, @03:04PM (#15448178) Homepage
      If they can get away with illegally selling prescription drugs without a prescription and sending out billions of emails advertising the fact (as well as hacking PCs to use as zombies to send out said emails), they can probably get away with a little extortion on top of it.

  • weird (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mr_tommy (619972) * <tom@neo w i n . n et> on Thursday June 01 2006, @02:57PM (#15448116) Journal
    Strike anyone else as odd that the BBC (et al.) ran this story big time - made the world service - on the same day that Microsoft announced their all in one security suite, that, by coincidence, protects against such virus'?

  • Profit! (Score:3, Funny)

    by insanechemist (323218) on Thursday June 01 2006, @03:01PM (#15448147) Homepage
    1) Write ransom virus
    2) Release
    3) ....
    4) Profit!

    Wait - that actually works I think

  • Thank the GPL (Score:5, Funny)

    by mypalmike (454265) on Thursday June 01 2006, @03:04PM (#15448176) Homepage
    The virus writers could have used a GPL-based crypt library, but realized that there would be legal issues involved, requiring them to open-source the whole virus.
  • today's Sesame Street program has been brought to you by:

    mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vm and w

  • Arrest? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by crossmr (957846) on Thursday June 01 2006, @03:21PM (#15448312) Journal
    Has this guy been arrested? It shouldn't have taken a genius law enforcement officer to make a payment for this and track it and then pick the guy up?

  • Obvious problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sylver Dragon (445237) on Thursday June 01 2006, @03:30PM (#15448382) Journal
    There seems to be one glaring problem with the idea of ransomware:
    Eventually you're gonna piss off the wrong person.
    Imagine the DoD or the CIA getting hit with this. They lookup the registar of the sites you are supposed to buy the drugs from. They then go visit that registar's main office (borders, what borders? we're the CIA, we've never paid attention to soviernty in the past.). They politely ask the registar to hand over all information on the person paying for the domain name (for the definition of polite which involves pointing guns at and kicking people in the head). Once they know who is paying for the web sites (credit info/check info), they visit that person and politely ask for the password to unlock the virus (same definition of polite).
    If it's the DoD which gets hit, replace CIA with a Navy SEAL team.
  • How'd that guy find out my root password!?
  • Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
    Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
    mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw!
    Even though the sound of it Is something quite atrocious
    If you say it loud enough
    You'll always sound precocious
    mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw !
    Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
    Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
    Because I was afraid to speak
    When I was just a lad My father gave me nose a tweak And told me I was bad
    But then one day I learned a word That saved me aching nose
    The biggest word I ever heard And this is how it goes:
    Oh, mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw!
    Even though the sound of it
    Is something quite atrocious
    If you say it loud enough
    You'll always sound precocious
    mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw !
    • Personally, worst case I'd write a little algorithm to generate it (if I wanted a constant password that is).

      More likely I'd write one that created a hashcode from the completed compression, encoded the hashcode in base64, told the user to enter it when he bought his drugs then used a second algorithm online to encode that result into a specific "key" that would only work for that one, umm, "Customer". If possible I'd write the algorithm in a custom bytecode language so that it wasn't just a straightforwar

    • Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . (Score:5, Funny)

      by grassy_knoll (412409) on Thursday June 01 2006, @03:46PM (#15448524) Homepage
      How else are you supposed to do it? Or did TFA mean that it was stored in plaintext in the code?


      I was confused by that as well. I presume plaintext, since storing a hash and comparing a hash generated from user input seems standard practice... at least in the non-virus writting community.

      Ya think the writter had a PHB leaning on him to meet deadline?

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.