31–40 of 49 posts
Why is anybody on Earth still using Windows?
If TDL-4 keeps your machine free of other malware at the cost of engaging in the occasional DDoS....
Actually, wouldn't TDL-4's owners possibly earn more money by doing remote management and tuning of 4.5 million PCs than they could by selling malware connectivity?
> 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…
Don't rule out the possibility that the botnet code was written by a good cryptographer. It may be that they're using a well-designed algorithm that these researchers didn't happen to recognize.
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.
Sometimes something that would be bad as a standard building block can hold up in a specific use case. Maybe this thing really only needs to obfuscate the communications.
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.
I wouldn't underestimate the Russians and Eastern Europeans like that.
[...] Either (1) this botnet is really weak or (2) the writers of this article have distorted the truth.
Probably both, at least (2).
It's really really hard to write technically accurate descriptions of these things that are also accessible to a wide enough audience that you reach the people you need to reach.
> 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…
I give it maybe a week or two against a good cryptographer. You never, ever invent your own encryption algorithm. Don't rule out the possibility that the botnet code was written by a good cryptographer. It may be that they're using a well-designed algorithm that these researchers didn't happen to recognize. Even if the encryption algorithm happens to be secure against differential/linear/slide/boomerang attacks, I be…
TDL-4's makers use the botnet to plant additional malware on PCs Whoa, it's the evil app store! Could this be used to take the botnet down? Pay them to install something and sneak in an antidote?
Why is anybody on Earth still using Windows?
The fact that the malware has to bury itself so deep into the boot sector actually says some pretty positive things about Windows security. Nothing like those heroics would be needed to target Linux for example (I don't know about Mac).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I give it maybe a week or two against a good cryptographer. You never, ever invent your own encryption algorithm. Don't rule out the possibility that the botnet code was written by a good cryptographer. It may be that they're using a well-designed algorithm that these researchers didn't happen to recognize. Even if the encryption algorithm happens to be secure against differential/linear/slide/boomerang attacks, I be…
Has any botnet ever been written by a good cryptographer? I remember Vern Paxson getting a whole paper out of supposedly-skillful botnet authors not even being able to generate random numbers securely.
There's nothing preventing a scenario where someone with nefarious intent and a large pile of money convinces a skillful cryptographer into building a cipher robust enough be resistant to cryptanalysis.
(I'm not your downvoter by the way)
Why is anybody on Earth still using Windows?
My misadventures with linux include forgetting to set up a netbook to connect to unencrypted wireless networks and the latest kernel update breaking wifi after suspending or hibernating; I've never had to deal with any of that on Windows. The most time that I've spent on system administration has been switching to an SSD, which became extremely easy after I found the right software to mirror my disk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I give it maybe a week or two against a good cryptographer. You never, ever invent your own encryption algorithm. Don't rule out the possibility that the botnet code was written by a good cryptographer. It may be that they're using a well-designed algorithm that these researchers didn't happen to recognize. Even if the encryption algorithm happens to be secure against differential/linear/slide/boomerang attacks, I be…
Has any botnet ever been written by a good cryptographer? I remember Vern Paxson getting a whole paper out of supposedly-skillful botnet authors not even being able to generate random numbers securely.
I don't know about its cryptography specifically, but Stuxnet, for example, is a botnet regarded as a game-changer precisely because it was such a professional hit.
BTW, I'm trying to see if there's any interest in a collaboration on the cryptanalysis of this custom encryption system. Anyone with an interest please ping me. It may turn out to be nothing.