There is a free version of Windows based Baregrep at
http://www.baremetalsoft.com/baregrep/.  Runs through the logs pretty fast.

John C 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Brown
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:24 AM
To: Markus Gufler
Subject: Re: [Declude.Virus] Encoded viruses...worried

Off list - what grep do you use or which is the best for a W32 box?


Wednesday, February 1, 2006, 8:40:19 AM, Markus Gufler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MG>   
MG>  
MG> I've grep'ed trough the logfiles for the last 7 days on my  servers
MG>  
MG>  
MG>  
MG> 2981 lines has sources of  "\.BHX|\.HQX|\.B64|\.UU|\.MIM|\.MME"
MG> (ignoring double counts for the second av  scanner)
MG>  
MG>  
MG>  
MG> After filtering out all lines containing "Kapser" and  "Mywife"
MG> there remains the following 4 lines
MG>  
MG>  
MG>  
MG> 01/25/2006 11:46:45.937 q570b9f4500e492b1.smd Found file  with 
MG> mismatched extensions [Attachments001.BHX-Removed Attachment.txt]; 
MG> assuming  .exe
MG> 01/26/2006 08:07:23.078 q7525030700d4d05a.smd Found file with 
MG> mismatched  extensions [Attachments00.HQX-Removed Attachment.txt]; 
MG> assuming  .exe
MG> 01/26/2006 08:08:23.890 q755303060132d08f.smd Found file with 
MG> mismatched  extensions [Attachments001.BHX-Removed Attachment.txt]; 
MG> assuming  .exe
MG> 01/27/2006 21:51:19.375 q87bd58b10020b63d.smd Warning: EOF in middle 
MG> of  MIME segment [] [------=_NextPart_001_0008_01C6238B.B6472520]
MG>  
MG>  
MG>  
MG> This  looks very promising that declude is already handling it in 
MG> order to catch  malicious code inside such attachments.
MG>  
MG> Note:  the 4.th line is listed due the "MIME" 
MG>  
MG>  
MG>  
MG> Markus
MG>  
MG>  
MG>  
MG>  
MG>  


MG>  
MG>   
MG>   

MG>   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
MG> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
MG> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:19 PM
MG> To: Declude.Virus@declude.com
MG> Subject: Re: [Declude.Virus] Encoded    viruses...worried

MG>   
MG> You know, I was going to ask if you would do a search, but I   
MG> figured you might do it anyway :)  You did leave out the ".uue"   
MG> extension, but I doubt that would have changed your results.

MG> I suppose    that if these extensions aren't hardly ever used
MG> anymore, it might be prudent    enough to just watch for the
MG> possibility of the tactic to become widespread    and then take action.

MG> I do have a fair number of Mac users and probably    more
MG> overseas traffic that you do, so I think that I am going to have
MG> to    search a little on my own.  Unfortunately I zip all of my
MG> logs nightly,    so it isn't practical to search through all of    them.

MG> Matt



MG> Colbeck, Andrew wrote: 
MG>   


MG>     On the plus side, there are mitigating      circumstances...
MG>    
MG>   First, let me point out that although the antivirus     
MG> companies will lag behind the virus authors, the antivirus guys aren't
sleeping.
MG>    
MG>   For many years, the bad guys have been using encoding     
MG> methods and 3rd party applications to obfusticate their software
MG> as a      cheaper alternative on their time than writing
MG> polymorphic code whose very      technique gave them away.
MG>    
MG>   PKLite was probably the first 3rd party tool      used.  I've
MG> recently seen PAK, UPX and FSG... all three of which were     
MG> caught by F-Prot because the antivirus guys simply make signatures
MG> for the      binary itself, and don't bother including unpacking
MG> methods for all possible      compression/encryption methods. 
MG> This explains why we have relatively      few upgrades on the engines
themselves.
MG>    
MG>   The F-Prot documentation mentions (I think) only zip     
MG> decoding, but we know that it certainly does UPX and RAR decoding
MG> based on      issues that have been raised with each (for the
MG> former, pathetic speed and      the former, a buffer overflow).
MG>    
MG>   If you want to see what your virMMDD.log might reveal     
MG> about this latest malware this month and what attachments you're seeing
anyway, try this:
MG>    
MG>   egrep "\.BHX|\.HQX|\.B64|\.UU|\.MIM|\.MME"      vir01??.log
MG>    
MG>   (if you don't want the filename, stick a -h parameter      and
MG> a space before that first quotation mark)
MG>    
MG>   By doing this, against my virMMDD.log I just discovered     
MG> that F-Prot decodes BHX and HQX attachments too.
MG>    
MG>   By doing something similar against my nightly     
MG> virus-scan-the-spam-folder logs I also discovered that I have zero
MG> non-viral      messages using the unconventional attachment
MG> formats in the last two      months.  You can take that as an
MG> indication that it's okay to ban those      formats if you wish,
MG> but I'll warn that I have a pretty homogeneous Windows      user base.
MG>    
MG>   .... and that's a wrap for      tonight.
MG>    
MG>   Andrew 8)
MG>    
MG>    

MG>     
MG>   

MG>   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
MG> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew
MG> Sent: Tuesday, January 31,        2006 6:04 PM
MG> To: Declude.Virus@declude.com
MG> Subject: RE: [Declude.Virus] Encoded viruses...worried

MG>   
MG> John, the other formats are common (or, were common)        on
MG> Macintosh and Unix based systems for binary attachments and for   
MG> attached messages.  Eudora for Windows used to expose several of 
MG> these formats for message construction.
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG> They've fallen into disuse in favour of MIME        attachments, but
they are still extant.
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG> Blocking messages containing those attachment        formats may
MG> be reasonable for you if you're doing postmaster alerts and       
MG> can check whether you've found false positives.
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG> Like Matt, I'm somewhat worried that this technique        will
MG> become as common a nuisance as encrypted zips.  Until recently,   
MG> I've put my faith in the combination of Declude unpacking the
MG> attachments        (I've assumed MIME encoding only) and F-Prot's
MG> packed and server options        to otherwise do message decoding before
virus  scanning.
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG> I've been watching for copies of Blackworm that might        be
MG> caught on my system so that I check if Declude+F-Prot would catch
MG> these        other packing formats, but no luck so far (or rather,
MG> I've had the good        luck to receive so few copies in so few
formats).
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG> Andrew 8)
MG>   
MG>  

MG>   
MG>   
MG>   

MG>   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
MG> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John T (Lists)
MG> Sent: Tuesday, January 31,          2006 5:44 PM
MG> To: Declude.Virus@declude.com
MG> Subject: RE: [Declude.Virus] Encoded viruses...worried

MG>   
MG>   
MG> Actually, I          am already blocking hqz and uue so I went
MG> and added the others and will          see what happens.
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG>   
MG> John          T
MG>   
MG> eServices For          You
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG> "Seek, and ye          shall find!"
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG>   
MG> -----Original          Message-----
MG> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MG> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John T
(Lists)
MG> Sent:  Tuesday,          January 31, 2006  5:37          PM
MG> To: Declude.Virus@declude.com
MG> Subject: RE: [Declude.Virus]          Encoded viruses...worried
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG> Matt, are you          saying the attachment as Declude would see
MG> it is B64, UU, UUE, MIM, MME,          BHX and HQX? If that is so,
MG> what harm would be in blocking those for          now?
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG>   
MG> John          T
MG>   
MG> eServices For          You
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG> "Seek, and ye          shall find!"
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG>   
MG> -----Original          Message-----
MG> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
MG> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
MG> Sent:  Tuesday,          January 31, 2006  4:50          PM
MG> To: Declude.Virus@declude.com
MG> Subject: [Declude.Virus] Encoded          viruses...worried
MG>   
MG>  
MG>   
MG> Someone just reported to me that MyWife.d         
MG> (McAfee)/Kapser.A (F-Prot)/Blackmal.E (Symantec)/etc., has a 3rd
MG> of the          month payload that will overwrite a bunch of
MG> files.  It's really          nasty.  More can be found at these links:

MG>     http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1067
MG>     http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_138027.htm

MG> This          started hitting my system on the 17th, possibly
MG> seeded through Yahoo!          Groups.  The problem is that it
MG> often sent encoded attachments in          BinHex (BHX, HQX),
MG> Base64 (B64), Uuencode (UU, UUE), and MIME (MIM,          MME),
MG> and I'm not sure that Declude is decoding all of these to see what 
MG> is inside.  For instance, I found that some BHX files that clearly
MG> contained an executable payload, showed up in my Virus logs like   so:
MG>   
MG> 01/16/2006 05:36:49          Q7741EFB6011C4F95 MIME file:
MG> [text/html][7bit; Length=1953          Checksum=154023]
MG> 01/16/2006 05:36:50 Q7741EFB6011C4F95 MIME file:         
MG> Attachments001.BHX [base64; Length=134042 Checksum=8624521]
MG>   
MG> There was no mention about the payload inside of          it, and
MG> there almost definitely was.  The same attachment name with       
MG> the same length was repeatedly detected as a virus later on that 
MG> day.  This likely was a PIF file inside, though it could also have 
MG> been a JPG according the notes on this virus.  I, like most of us 
MG> here, don't allow PIF's to be sent through our system, but when
MG> the PIF          is encoded in at least BinHex format, it gets
MG> past this type of          protection.

MG> Here's the conundrum.  This mechanism could be          exploited
MG> just like the Zip files were by the Sober writers and         
MG> continually seeded, but instead of requiring some of us to at
MG> least          temporarily block Zips with executables inside, an
MG> outbreak of          continually seeded variants with executables
MG> within one of these          standard encoding mechanisms would
MG> cause us to have to block all such          encodings.  I
MG> therefore think it would be prudent for Declude to         
MG> support banned extensions within any of these encoding mechanisms
MG> if it          doesn't already.  I readily admit that this could
MG> be a lot of work,          but it could be very bad if this
MG> mechanism becomes more common.           This particular virus is
MG> so destructive that a single copy could cause          severe
MG> damage to one's enterprise.  I cross my fingers hoping that       
MG> none of this would be necessary, but that's not enough to be       safe.

MG> Matt


MG>   


----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]       http://www.inetconcepts.net
(972) 788-2364                    Fax: (972) 788-5049
----

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA www.declude.com]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.Virus mailing list.  To unsubscribe, just
send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.Virus".    The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA www.declude.com]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.Virus mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.Virus".    The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.

Reply via email to