Someone once made the comment, “Most people, I think, don’t even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?”
That was in in 2005, when rootkits were an unknown menace for most users. Nowadays, that isn’t quite the case any more, as the number of rootkit infections have exploded in the last few years and lead to more media coverage. In any case, you know a malware has reached evil superstar status when it warrants its own ‘For Dummies’ book.
In the beginning (as in the late 1980s), rootkits were standalone toolkits that allowed hackers to gain root, or administrative access to a computer system (hence the name). Today, the term is usually used to mean programs, codes or techniques that are used to hide malware on an computer.
I’m not going to dwell much on their history or workings (though if you’re interested, Alisa Shevchenko over on Securelist has an excellent article on rootkit history). Instead, I’m going to focus on one particular aspect of rootkits that’s been irritating the daylights out of our Support and Analyst folks recently – why are they so difficult to remove?
Media reports tend to hype ‘rootkits’ as the next big evil in computing, but it’s a bit more complicated than that. For one thing, rootkit tools, coding or techniques aren’t strictly illegal, or even undesirable – perfectly legitimate commercial applications use them to the benefit of users. It also doesn’t help that security vendors don’t have a uniform approach to rootkits; some consider all rootkits as a type of malware, while others shade their evaluations depending on whether the rootkit-like behavior is in a commercial software (in which case, the program may just be potentially unwanted).
Personally, I find it more useful to think of rootkits as operating system controllers. Their entire purpose is to burrow deep into the operating system’s files and subroutines, latching onto and modifying specific processes to gain control over the system. The processes targeted will vary depending on the system and the rootkit in question, but the end result is the same – the rootkit is now in a position to direct the system’s actions for its own ends; it’s become the puppeteer to the computer’s marrionette.
Rootkits have been around a long time, but they only really became a major concern for most users when malware authors found ways to incorporate rootkits into their malicious programs. And for most security professionals, rootkits are considered one of the most troublesome threats to deal with.
A rootkit’s defining characteristic is that it has administrative access – its commands are accepted by the operating system as though they were its own. How this access is gained is another story – a separate trojan may exploit a vulnerability to gain access to a administrator account, or a worm might steal the necessary passwords, any number of things. However the access is gained, the end result is that the rootkit is installed with admin rights, and from there proceeds to do its dirty work.
Rootkits use their privileged access to control the operating system itself, mainly by intercepting and modifying the commands it sends to other programs and basic system activities. Slightly more technically, rootkits usually manipulate various application programming interfaces (APIs), or the subroutines used by the operating system to direct operations (at least, in Windows).
An important point to remember is that these APIs are a built-in features of the operating system. They may be undocumented, or rarely used – but commands made through them are perfectly legitimate, and recognized and treated as such. These APIs can involve and affect every activity performed on the computer, from the mundane (e.g., displaying a folder) to the most fundamental (e.g., booting up).
There are various types of rootkits based on how deeply they can penetrate the operating system to control its most basic processes (if you want to get more technical, Joanna Rutkowska has a good article), but in every case, the key idea is the same – commands sent by the operating system can be viewed and countermanded by the rootkit, if necessary; likewise, requests coming from other programs or system processes are checked and filtered by the rootkit before they reach the operating system.
To illustrate why a rootkit’s manipulation of APIs is significant, let’s compare it to other malwares. When a trojan or virus infects a computer, its interactions with the operating system will usually fall into one of two strategies:
Note that strategy 1 involves the malware functioning just like any other program – its processes and files are visible, the instructions between operating system and program are ‘standard’, and so on. Strategy 2 usually involves some novel technique that forces the system to behave in an unintended manner – ‘breaking the system’, if you like.
Rootkits on the other hand, doesn’t do either. Unlike trojans or viruses, the rootkit doesn’t behave like a separate program being run on top of the operating system; instead, the rootkit acts more like a driver, or one of the operating system’s own components, giving directions on how other programs should be handled. The rootkit also doesn’t exploit any vulnerabilities – it simply uses the operating system’s own features for its own ends.
The thing is, malwares that use Strategies 1 & 2 can be defeated with fairly standard countermeasures: for example, software vendors can release patches to close vulnerabilities, and users can uninstall malicious programs. Rootkits however don’t suffer either problem: there’s no vulnerability that can be patched, and because a rootkit’s first action is usually to hide itself, the rootkit can effectively prevent the user or the operating system from detecting its presence at all, let alone uninstalling it.
The highly technical reason for this is: you can’t remove a file you can’t find. Remember, the rootkit is in control. If the user starts looking through system folders for suspicious files, or starts an antivirus scan, a sophisticated rootkit can display a clean ‘image’ of the infected folder rather than the actual infected one, or move the infected file to another location for the duration of the scan; it can stop the antivirus from running, or force it to report false scan results; anything, really, to prevent detection.
Malware authors really want their creations stay installed and active on your computer, and they can use the rootkit to perform any number of actions to prevent their malwares – or the rootkit itself – from being detected. Some of the tricks they can use to get their way include:
Heck, about the only thing they don’t do is say they love you and will still respect you in the morning.
Antivirus programs have historically had a difficult time dealing with rootkits, precisely because of how they operate: by using the operating system itself to evade detection and prevent removal. In the case of simpler rootkits, it was possible to look for telltale signs – odd changes, missing or alter folders, etc, to determine a rootkit was present. With more sophisticated threats though, detection meant deactivating the rootkit entirely before it could start active evasion; because once it was active, detection and removal became well nigh impossible.
That status quo has changed somewhat in the last few years, as more antivirus vendors have developed the necessary tools to combat the threat. As rootkits themselves vary in complexity, detecting and removing them requires a multi-layered approach:
These detection and removal methods will probably catch most of the rootkits out there, but none of them are 100% certain. In some cases, the fastest, easiest and cheapest possible solution is to simply format and reinstall the entire operating system (assuming of course you have backups of your important files). Determining whether that applies in your case really depends on your personal evaluation of the costs and benefits though, so it’s hard to state any hard and fast rule about this.
Unfortunately, malware authors are ingenious at finding ways to get where they’re not wanted, and the highly complex, multi-layered nature of computing tilts the odds in their favour more than it does to ensuring computer security. Then again, to be fair, humans have lived in houses for thousands of years, and we still haven’t figured out how to totally prevent burglars from invading our homes, so you could probably also credit a natural human genius for finding ways to inconvenience their fellows.
If you’re still interested, here are few other articles with more details (some technical, others less so) about rootkits:
Also partially available in Google Books:
Tuesday February 9th is Safer Internet Day this year. An excellent time to sit down and reflect about what kind of Internet we offer to our kids. And what kind of electronic environment they will inherit from us. I have to be blunt here. Our children love their smartphones and the net. They have access to a lot of stuff that interest them. And it’s their new cool way to be in contact with each other. But the net is not designed for them and even younger children are getting connected smartphones. Technology does not support parents properly and they are often left with very poor visibility into what their kids are doing on-line. This manifests itself as a wide range of problems, from addiction to cyber bullying and grooming. The situation is not healthy! There are several factors that contribute to this huge problem: The future’s main connectivity devices, the handhelds, are not suitable for kids. Rudimentary features that help protect children are starting to appear, but the development is too slow. Social media turns a blind eye to children’s and parents’ needs. Most services only offer one single user experience for both children and adults, and do not recognize parent-child relationships. Legislation and controlling authorities are national while Internet is global. We will not achieve much without a globally harmonized framework that both device manufacturers and service providers adhere to. Let’s take a closer look at these three issues. Mobile devices based on iOS and Android have made significant security advances compared to our old-school desktop computers. The sandboxed app model, where applications only have limited permissions in the system, is good at keeping malware at bay. The downside is however that you can’t make traditional anti-malware products for these environments. These products used to carry an overall responsibility for what happens in the system and monitor activity at many levels. The new model helps fight malware, but there’s a wide range of other threats and unsuitable content that can’t be fought efficiently anymore. We at F-Secure have a lot of technology and knowledge that can keep devices safe. It’s frustrating that we can’t deploy that technology efficiently in the devices our kids love to use. We can make things like a safe browser that filters out unwanted content, but we can’t filter what the kids are accessing through other apps. And forcing the kids to use our safe browser exclusively requires tricky configuration. Device manufacturers should recognize the need for parental control at the mobile devices. They should provide functionality that enable us to enforce a managed and safe experience for the kids across all apps. Privacy is an issue of paramount importance in social media. Most platforms have implemented good tools enabling users to manage their privacy. This is great, but it has a downside just like the app model in mobile operating systems. Kids can sign up in social media and enjoy the same privacy protection as adults. Also against their parents. What we need is a special kind of child account that must be tied to one or more adult accounts. The adults would have some level of visibility into what the kid is doing. But full visibility is probably not the right way to implement this. Remember that children also have a certain right to privacy. A good start would be to show whom the kid is communicating with and how often. But without showing the message contents. That would already enable the parents to spot cyberbullying and grooming patterns in an early phase. But what if the kids sign up as adults with a false year of birth? There’s currently no reliable way to stop that without implementing strong identity checks for new users. And that is principally unfeasible. Device control could be the answer. If parents can lock the social media accounts used on the device, then they could at the same time ensure that the kid really is using a child account that is connected to the parents. The ideas presented here are all significant changes. The device manufacturers and social media companies may have limited motivation to drive them as they aren’t linked to their business models. It is therefore very important that there is an external, centralized driving force. The authorities. And that this force is globally harmonized. This is where it becomes really challenging. Many of the problems we face on Internet today are somehow related to the lack of global harmonization. This area is no exception. The tools we are left with today are pretty much talking to the kids, setting clear rules and threatening to take away the smartphone. Some of the problems can no doubt be solved this way. But there is still the risk that destructive on-line scenarios can develop for too long before the parents notice. So status quo is really not an acceptable state. I also really hope that parents don’t get scared and solve the problem by not buying the kids a smartphone at all. This is even worse than the apparent dangers posed by an uncontrolled net. The ability to use smart devices and social media will be a fundamental skill in the future society. They deserve to start practicing for that early. And mobile devices are also becoming tools that tie the group together. A kid without a smartphone is soon an outsider. So the no smartphone strategy is not really an alternative anymore. Yes, this is an epic issue. It’s clear that we can’t solve it overnight. But we must start working towards these goals ASAP. Mobile devices and Internet will be a cornerstone in tomorrow’s society. In our children’s society. We owe them a net that is better suited for the little ones. We will not achieve this during our kids’ childhood. But we must start working now to make this reality for our grandchildren. Micke
Mikko Hypponen is one of the world’s most prominent cyber security experts. Described as a “virus hunter” in a Vanity Fair profile called “The Code Warrior”, Hypponen has spent nearly 25 years with F-Secure protecting people from computer viruses, worms, trojans, and other types of malware. In 2011, Hypponen travelled to Pakistan to meet the men behind the first known PC virus – Brain.A. [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnedOWfPKT0&w=560&h=315] The Brain virus was released in January of 1986, making January 2016 the 30th anniversary of this milestone in malware history. I thought it would be interesting to reach out to Mikko and ask him about other families of malware that standout as being noteworthy. So here’s Mikko’s list of some of the most infamous malware families (including viruses, worms, trojans, etc) that’ve pestered, frustrated, and even extorted computer users over the past few decades. 1990 Form – Form was a common computer virus identified in 1990, and for several years, was arguably the most prominent computer virus in the world. Spread through 3.5” floppy disks, it infected millions of computers throughout the world, and is possibly one of the most widespread viruses in history. 1992 Michelangelo – Michelangelo earns a place on the list for being the first truly global virus scare. It was named after the famous artist because the virus remained dormant until March 6 (the artist’s birthday), when it would awaken and overwrite sections of infected hard disks, thereby making the information inaccessible and the computer unusable. The virus was never particularly prominent compared to some of its contemporaries, but its destructive nature and subtlety helped spread Michelangelo Madness throughout the globe. 1995 Concept – Concept was the very first macro virus – a type of virus that infects applications such as Microsoft Word. It was a very prominent security concern in the mid-nineties, and even though it was successful in propagating itself organically during this time, it hasn’t been seen in over a decade. As the first macro virus, it was notable in that it spread by hiding itself as a Word doc and then infecting computers as those documents were shared. By using Word, it could use both Windows PCs and Macs to spread infections, as the software could run on both platforms. 1999 Melissa – Melissa, supposedly named after an exotic dancer, was a computer virus that sent infected Word documents to contacts in victims’ Outlook address book. While the virus was not designed to be particularly destructive, its rapid proliferation through the Internet wreaked considerable havoc on corporate servers and infrastructure. Some accounts claim that it infected twenty percent of computers globally, and the man eventually convicted of releasing the virus into the wild admitted to causing eighty million dollars in financial losses. 2000 Loveletter – Loveletter, also widely known as ILOVEYOU, was a prominent email worm that was able to spread itself throughout the globe in a matter of hours by promising victims a little bit of love. Disguising itself as a chain, love-themed email to recipients helped it quickly spread from its Filipino origin through Asia, Europe and North America. To this date, it is one of the largest malware outbreaks of all time, and responsible for an estimated 5.5 billion dollars of damage. 2001 Code Red – Code Red was the first fully-automated network worm for Windows. As in users would not have to interact with a machine in order to spread the infection. Code Red’s most infamous day was July 19th, 2001, when it successfully infected 300,000 servers. The worm was programmed to spread itself on certain days, and then execute distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on others, and was used against several different targets (including The White House). 2003 Slammer, Lovsan, and Sobig – Ok, so there’s three here and not just one. But they all occurred very close together, and unfortunately, all three were worms responsible for massive, global malware outbreaks. Slammer targeted servers so it’s presence wasn’t readily apparent to end users (save some lagging when they were attempting to access an infected server). Lovesan, however was able to infect end users running Windows ME or Windows XP, and use the infected machines in DDoS attacks. Sobig spread itself through email and network drives, and contained a trojan in order to cause more headaches for infected users. However, it appears that the trojan feature did not function as expected. These three worms infected millions of machines, and made headlines all over the world. 2004 Sasser – A computer worm that can be considered as the last large “hobbyist” outbreak. This is significant as it signaled the end of an era when most malware was written by people who were simply curious to see what the malware could do. Nowadays, malware has a more specific, insidious purpose, such as stealing information or making money. 2006 Warezov – A two-year email worm campaign perpetuated by professional criminals, Warezov gained notoriety for downloading new versions of itself from remote servers – sometimes as frequently as every 30 minutes, according to a 2006 interview with Mikko. 2007 Storm Worm (also called Small.dam) – Storm Worm was a trojan that was spread as an attachment to spam emails. But more importantly, it was a combination of complex and advanced virus techniques that criminals were able to use to make money by using infected machines as part of a botnet. 2013 Cryptolocker – A notorious ransomware family, Cryptolocker was spread through malicious email attachments, as well as the infamous Gameover Zeus botnet. Infected victims would find their hard drives suddenly encrypted, essentially locking them out of their devices and data until they paid a ransom to the perpetrators. While the FBI, in cooperation with other law enforcement agencies and security companies (including F-Secure), were able to disrupt the operation, the perpetrators were able to use Cryptolocker to extort about 3 million dollars from victims before being stopped. Other notable mentions include the 2005 Sony rootkit (for being distributed on Sony BMG CD-ROMs on their behalf), the still prominent Downadup worm from 2008 (for infecting millions, including armed forces of several countries and police departments), and the well-known Stuxnet virus from 2010 (for both its sophistication and its apparent state-sponsorship). If you want to know more about the history of computer viruses, you can check out Computer Invaders: The 25 Most Infamous PC Viruses of All Time!
This TED talk is so hilarious that I just have to share it with you. Watch it! British comedian James Veitch is engaging in the noble art of scam baiting, or scamming the scammers. The same as this site is dedicated to, or when I almost sold my boat to Mexico. I guess most or all of you already know how to spot an advance payment scam, aka. Nigerian scam. But James has some more to offer here. He’s making two important points, in addition to the excellent entertainment value. People often warns about engaging in any kind of conversation with these scammers. They are after all criminals and it’s safest to steer clear of them. I disagree, just like James. The people behind this kind of scams is not exactly the violent drug mafia. As a matter of fact, anyone who can use e-mail and Google Translate can set up a scam like this. And they are located in some poor remote country, typically in Africa. So it’s extremely unlikely that any of them would start hunting down people who play with them. That would disrupt their everyday business and cut profits, cost money and introduce the risk to get caught. But I do discourage people from engaging in scam baiting under their real identity. Set up a new mail account under a false name and never reveal any real contact info to them. You can reply from a different address than where you got the original spam. They are pumping out millions of spam messages and will not even notice the changed address. This adds an additional layer of security. And more important, it keeps your real inbox free of spam. Use their own tactic. Create a false identity with name, address, profession and country of residence. Stick to that story and make sure not a single bit of it is true. Read more about how to scam bait at 419eater.com. The other point is that scam baiting is a good deed. It keeps the scammers busy and ties up their resources. Resources that otherwise would have been used to scam a real victim and cause real damage. A single scam baiter can’t of course save the world, but they would probably shut down if all of us spent an hour a week scam baiting. And it can be fun so why not? A good scam baiter can be a real pain in the a** for the scammers. Be prepared to get some threats and evil language when they realize what is going on. Consider that as a trophy, a proof that you did it right. Don’t feel bad for them. They did after all contact you with the sole purpose to scam you for money. Safe scam baiting, Micke Image: Screenshot from ted.com