Massive Indestructible Botnet
computerworld.com
Massive Indestructible Botnet
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Massive Indestructible Botnet
#2> TDL-4's makers created their own encryption algorithm
Two comments about this
-- I give it maybe a week or two against a good cryptographer. You never, ever invent your own encryption algorithm.
-- Even if the encryption algorithm happens to be secure against differential/linear/slide/boomerang attacks, I bet there will be an implementation flaw. It's really hard to get implementation right on those things, even if you have an almost perfect algorithm.
Not that that all really matters -- anything that it's encrypted can be decrypted since they key lives on the computer -- but the fact that they created their own encryption algorithm gives some insight in to their minds. Namely, that they they they are smarter than they really are, and that despite all of that, they don't know enough about security to stick with AES.
> and the botnet uses the domain names of the C&C servers as the encryption keys.
... what? That kind of defeats the entire purpose of encryption when they key is something like that. Besides, what are they using this encryption for. It seems more likely they want a check on the integrity of messages. And even still, a MAC is equally worthless since it's not public/private key.
Either (1) this botnet is really weak or (2) the writers of this article have distorted the truth.
Re: Massive Indestructible Botnet
#3> TDL-4's makers created their own encryption algorithm Two comments about this -- I give it maybe a week or two against a good cryptographer. You never, ever invent your own encryption algorithm. -- Even if the encryption algorithm happens to be secure against differential/linear/slide/boomerang attacks, I bet there will be an implementation flaw. It's really hard to get implementation right on those things, even if…
> TDL-4's makers created their own encryption algorithm
Well, they could simply be using more than one algorithm. They could use AES as the main one and then re-encrypt everything with their own algorithm. If cryptographers break through their own created algorithm (probably just a variation of 3DES or AES) then they still have to break through the standard AES. I would be surprised if they were not doing something like this. As you say, everybody knows that you do not create your own algorithm. However, layering it with different algorithms, would probably be a good idea and it would make cryptographers work a lot harder (maybe?)
Although if the keys are as easily accessible as they say then I agree with you, what is the point?
Re: Massive Indestructible Botnet
#4Wouldn't it help to have a read-only bootup DVD to scan the MBR?
Re: Massive Indestructible Botnet
#5> TDL-4's makers created their own encryption algorithm Two comments about this -- I give it maybe a week or two against a good cryptographer. You never, ever invent your own encryption algorithm. -- Even if the encryption algorithm happens to be secure against differential/linear/slide/boomerang attacks, I bet there will be an implementation flaw. It's really hard to get implementation right on those things, even if…
> TDL-4's makers created their own encryption algorithm Well, they could simply be using more than one algorithm. They could use AES as the main one and then re-encrypt everything with their own algorithm. If cryptographers break through their own created algorithm (probably just a variation of 3DES or AES) then they still have to break through the standard AES. I would be surprised if they were not doing something l…
If they're using their own algorithm and then AES, what's the point? They're worrying about AES being broken? But yeah, you're right.
Seems like it would be better to spend time on the implementation of other parts of their botnet (like ... public key cryptography instead of using domain names as a key?).
Re: Massive Indestructible Botnet
#6Not even a software firewall can pick up connections? I always look to firewalls for abnormal activity.
Re: Massive Indestructible Botnet
#7> TDL-4's makers created their own encryption algorithm Two comments about this -- I give it maybe a week or two against a good cryptographer. You never, ever invent your own encryption algorithm. -- Even if the encryption algorithm happens to be secure against differential/linear/slide/boomerang attacks, I bet there will be an implementation flaw. It's really hard to get implementation right on those things, even if…
> and the botnet uses the domain names of the C&C servers as the encryption keys.
... what? That kind of defeats the entire purpose of encryption when they key is something like that. Besides, what are they using this encryption for. It seems more likely they want a check on the integrity of messages. And even still, a MAC is equally worthless since it's not public/private key.
Maybe it is public/private key, and they use (derive?) the public key from the name of the server?
Either (1) this botnet is really weak or (2) the writers of this article have distorted the truth.
I suspect (2), but I don't think they did it deliberately. I suspect it was an attempt at simplification, but they went too far.
Re: Massive Indestructible Botnet
#8> TDL-4's makers created their own encryption algorithm Two comments about this -- I give it maybe a week or two against a good cryptographer. You never, ever invent your own encryption algorithm. -- Even if the encryption algorithm happens to be secure against differential/linear/slide/boomerang attacks, I bet there will be an implementation flaw. It's really hard to get implementation right on those things, even if…
> and the botnet uses the domain names of the C&C servers as the encryption keys. ... what? That kind of defeats the entire purpose of encryption when they key is something like that. Besides, what are they using this encryption for. It seems more likely they want a check on the integrity of messages. And even still, a MAC is equally worthless since it's not public/private key. Maybe it is public/private key, and the…
> Maybe it is public/private key, and they use (derive?) the public key from the name of the server?
How would that work though? Maybe I just don't know enough, but I can't think of a way to generate a public key from some known source, and then somehow derive a private key from that source such that no one else can derive that same private key.
I guess you could generate an RSA key pair using the domain name as a seed for your random number generator, but that seems like a terrible idea. As soon as they introduce some real randomness in to it, then you're no longer deriving the key from the domain name.
I also suspect (2), but I wouldn't be surprised if they added some extra distortion to make the article read more like "Look how impressive these guys are! They made their own encryption algorithm!".
Re: Massive Indestructible Botnet
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and the botnet uses the domain names of the C&C servers as the encryption keys. ... what? That kind of defeats the entire purpose of encryption when they key is something like that. Besides, what are they using this encryption for. It seems more likely they want a check on the integrity of messages. And even still, a MAC is equally worthless since it's not public/private key. Maybe it is public/private key, and the…
> Maybe it is public/private key, and they use (derive?) the public key from the name of the server? How would that work though? Maybe I just don't know enough, but I can't think of a way to generate a public key from some known source, and then somehow derive a private key from that source such that no one else can derive that same private key. I guess you could generate an RSA key pair using the domain name as a se…
Maybe the server generates the private key/public key pair, then derives the domain name from the public key (eg, long-random-string-that-comes-from-public-key.dyndns.com)? This derivation process could be the "encryption algorithm" the article refers to?
The client is given the new servername via the P2P network, then derives the public key from the hostname, encrypts using it and communicates with the server which can decode using the private key.
I'm not sure what the max length of a hostname is, which might be a problem.
Another possibility is to put the public key in a TEXT DNS for the server hostname. That could be what they meant maybe?
Re: Massive Indestructible Botnet
#10Not even a software firewall can pick up connections? I always look to firewalls for abnormal activity.
I always look to firewalls for abnormal activity
I suspect you aren't the type of person who gets infected by a botnet.