Malicious Adware

Malicious Adware

Secure Home | Search | About
 Microsoft Antivirus Discussions    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
Malicious Adware Simonel 04-24-2006
  ---> Re: Malicious Adware wng_z3r0--MSMVP...05-06-2006
  ---> Re: Malicious Adware cquirke (MVP Wi...05-08-2006
    ---> Re: Malicious Adware wng_z3r0--MSMVP...05-08-2006
      ---> Re: Malicious Adware cquirke (MVP Wi...05-09-2006
        `--> Re: Malicious Adware wng_z3r0--MSMVP...05-09-2006
Posted by David H. Lipman on May 6, 2006, 10:30 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

>> respectfully disagree with Panda_man. Disabling system restore should
>> be a last resort option. An infected restore point is better than none
>> at all.
|
| Now that is what I call an intelligent saying or comment . You are not serious
of course?

Actually I was the opposite opinion for a couple of years. I have turned 180
degrees on
this subject matter after discussions with peers and personal experiences
removing malware
for others.

As Robear Dyer puts it (paraphrased), "A leaky boat is better than no boat at
all".

There are situations where a particular path followed to remove malware can
corrupt the PC.
Thus restoring it to a previous point one can start all over again and remove
the malware
using a different path or set of processes that won't have a corrupt PC as an
outcome.

Then when the PC is completely clean of malware the System Restore cache can be
dumped and a
new Restore point, one that is clean, can be created.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm



Posted by wng_z3r0--MSMVP Security on May 8, 2006, 6:33 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I am dead serious.
At least twice in this past year alone, I have instructed victims to use
system restore after attempting to clean the computer. Certain
infections make the system so unstable that it is a deck of cards
waiting to fall down.

The system restore files cannot be modified easily, as many of the API
calls are disabled. I'm not saying it can't be done, but 99% of malware
files out there today are not capable of regenerating themselves from
system restore.

wng

Peter Foldes wrote:
> >respectfully disagree with Panda_man. Disabling system restore should
>> be a last resort option. An infected restore point is better than none
>> at all.
>
>
> Now that is what I call an intelligent saying or comment . You are not serious
of course?

--
Microsoft MVP - Security 2006
http://spyware-free.us

Posted by cquirke (MVP Windows shell/use on May 8, 2006, 4:04 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Mon, 08 May 2006 05:33:03 -0500, wng_z3r0--MSMVP Security

>The system restore files cannot be modified easily, as many of the API
>calls are disabled. I'm not saying it can't be done, but 99% of malware
>files out there today are not capable of regenerating themselves from
>system restore.

They don't have to; System Restore will do it for them, by design.

After all, what SR does is restore original code files (e.g. a malware
file deleted by an av) and integration context info such as the
registry (so the malware file will be patched in again).

Similarly, SR does not have to be written to - to get malware into SR,
just create the malware file, create a restore point, then delete it.
The malware will be in SR data, and the restore point will restore it.

As to *running* from within SR, that's less easy unless the malware
exploits a defective internal risk surface such as SR itself.

The most common re-infection scenario goes like this:
- av tools are installed
- malware is cleaned
- residual damage remains
- user does System Restore to make things work again
- SR fallback removes installed av tools
- SR fallback restores malware and integrates it to run again

As to "residual damage remains", consider teeners who want thier KaZaA
working again, after the cleanup nukes the commercial malware that
KaZaA looks for before it will run... or consider the cleaning of
"difficult" intra-file code infectors such as Magistr, where your
existing code files may now be clean, but may not work.

The effects of post-cleanup damage to code files may not be obvious,
if the virus patches in and/or overwrites code deep in the file rather
than at the entry point - perhaps it will only crash when you go
Tools, Options, Advanced or File, Import or something like that.



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Tech Support: The guys who follow the
'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

Posted by wng_z3r0--MSMVP Security on May 8, 2006, 6:17 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Good afternoon cquirke.

I am well aware as how system restore works. I am not talking about when
you actually use a system restore point. I assumed the reason panda_man
suggested clearing the sys restore cache was to prevent malware from
running from the sys restore folder, or what I have seen, looking for
any missing parts of the infection (assuming at least part of the
infection is active), and then regenerating the missing pieces from the
sys restore cache. Note this doesn't involve actually running the system
restore program.

As per residual damage, I have no problems with flushing the cache
*after* the computer is clean. That is what usually do anyways.

wng

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 05:33:03 -0500, wng_z3r0--MSMVP Security
>
>> The system restore files cannot be modified easily, as many of the API
>> calls are disabled. I'm not saying it can't be done, but 99% of malware
>> files out there today are not capable of regenerating themselves from
>> system restore.
>
> They don't have to; System Restore will do it for them, by design.
>
> After all, what SR does is restore original code files (e.g. a malware
> file deleted by an av) and integration context info such as the
> registry (so the malware file will be patched in again).
>
> Similarly, SR does not have to be written to - to get malware into SR,
> just create the malware file, create a restore point, then delete it.
> The malware will be in SR data, and the restore point will restore it.
>
> As to *running* from within SR, that's less easy unless the malware
> exploits a defective internal risk surface such as SR itself.
>
> The most common re-infection scenario goes like this:
> - av tools are installed
> - malware is cleaned
> - residual damage remains
> - user does System Restore to make things work again
> - SR fallback removes installed av tools
> - SR fallback restores malware and integrates it to run again
>
> As to "residual damage remains", consider teeners who want thier KaZaA
> working again, after the cleanup nukes the commercial malware that
> KaZaA looks for before it will run... or consider the cleaning of
> "difficult" intra-file code infectors such as Magistr, where your
> existing code files may now be clean, but may not work.
>
> The effects of post-cleanup damage to code files may not be obvious,
> if the virus patches in and/or overwrites code deep in the file rather
> than at the entry point - perhaps it will only crash when you go
> Tools, Options, Advanced or File, Import or something like that.
>
>
>
>> --------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> Tech Support: The guys who follow the
> 'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.
>> --------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

--
Microsoft MVP - Security 2006
http://spyware-free.us

Posted by cquirke (MVP Windows shell/use on May 9, 2006, 6:53 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Mon, 08 May 2006 17:17:11 -0500, wng_z3r0--MSMVP Security

>Good afternoon cquirke.

Hi!

>I am well aware as how system restore works. I am not talking about when
>you actually use a system restore point. I assumed the reason panda_man
>suggested clearing the sys restore cache was to prevent malware from
>running from the sys restore folder, or what I have seen, looking for
>any missing parts of the infection (assuming at least part of the
>infection is active), and then regenerating the missing pieces from the
>sys restore cache. Note this doesn't involve actually running the system
>restore program.

Yes, I gathered that, and I agree with you that's unlikely. The
significance of SR in the malware context is more about the other
things that you weren't talking about, which is why I was doing so.

>As per residual damage, I have no problems with flushing the cache
>*after* the computer is clean. That is what usually do anyways.

That's my approach too; I also don't flush SR until the system is
clean. Usually, I create a new baseline clean SR point and then use
Disk Cleanup to flush all previous restore points. What I don't want
to do, is return the system to the user with viable malware hidden in
the SR data, which would go active if that SR data were restored.

Also, I don't flush SR (or delete SVI) before scanning, for the same
reason I don't clear TIF and Temp etc. I want my scanners to detect
malware within these stores, as a detection cue.

Normally I scan and clean traditional malware e.g. viruses from Bart
PE, which bypasses SR anyway, and so invalidates the chain between the
new current state and previous restore points. Because Bart makes SVI
as easy to scan and clean as anything else, such malware is usually
killed from SR as well as in the rest of the file system.

When it comes to commercial malware, I scan from Bart but I don't
clean from there unless I have to. The risk of a deliberate
destructive payload is less than the risk of complications following
removing commercial malware, so I prefer to preserve SR's ability to
undo the cleanup, so I defer the cleanup until Safe Cmd Only.

Before starting the Safe Cmd Only phase, I relocate all Temp, TIF and
sometimes DPF and even less often (on FATxx only) SVI, so these are
not in active reach at the time Windows runs - just in case there's
missed malware in there. Same goes for random code in C:\

All of the above is subject to the context, what the various scans
show, and to a lesser extent, what I'm expecting to find.



>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Our senses are our UI to reality
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Similar ThreadsPosted
Adware bug February 20, 2008, 6:41 pm
Adware.QoolAid September 20, 2005, 9:16 am
Adware.Starware November 21, 2005, 1:14 pm
Registry Adware? April 1, 2006, 11:47 am
RE: adware delete? in use? January 12, 2006, 10:47 am
AVG AS says my ISP gave me adware... November 28, 2006, 2:11 pm
Virus put adware on PC October 27, 2007, 8:26 am
Adware infection December 1, 2008, 2:52 pm
Adware Qoolaid - SSPDKP.exe August 22, 2005, 5:36 pm
virus/adware protection August 27, 2005, 8:50 pm

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy