AWESOME WARFARE OSINT BLOG
Cyber-INSEC
Building REAL security through acceptance of insecurity.
Thursday, 18 June 2015
Saturday, 4 October 2014
HEWLETT PACKARD SECURITY REPORT ON N.KOREA CYBER OPShttp://h30499.www3.hp.com/hpeb/attachments/hpeb/off-by-on-software-security-blog/388/2/HPSR%20SecurityBriefing_Episode16_NorthKorea.pdf
NEWS
That the United States and China have engaged in skirmishes in the cyber domain is no secret. Since the beginning of the 21st century, targeted cyberattacks, often with signs of Chinese origin, have attempted to penetrate the computer networks of U.S. corporations and government agencies in search of potentially valuable information. In response to this new strategic threat, the U.S. Military’s Strategic Command commissioned the creation of a sub-unified Cyber Command in 2009, with one of its stated objectives being the “defense of specified Department of Defense information networks.”
U.S. President Barack Obama very clearly defined the threat that cyberattacks pose to the economy, in both the public and private sectors, when he said that the “cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.” Indeed, conflict in the cyber domain is still having some serious repercussions for the business world.
Civilian Involvement in Cyber Warfare
The characteristic of cyber warfare that makes it so uniquely dangerous to the corporate sector is that military power in the cyber domain must be extended through computer networks provided and maintained by non-governmental bodies. The use of these networks for cyberattacks or defense requires the conscription or cooperation of civilian resources. This creates extreme liabilities for the corporations that provide these networks, as they will quickly become the targets of suspicion and possible retaliation from the enemy state. In recent years, both Chinese and American companies have been caught in just this situation.
On October 8, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives’ intelligence committee released a report that warned of potential national security threats posed by Chinese telecommunication giants Huawei and ZTE. After conducting a year-long investigation of the suspect companies, the intelligence committee found serious vulnerabilities caused by hidden “backdoors” worked into the companies’ technologies that would allow access to U.S. government and business networks. The report advised against the purchase of products manufactured by Huawei or ZTE, and suggested that policymakers block any mergers between either of the two companies and U.S. telecommunication corporations. These accusations have seriously hurt consumer confidence in the two companies, to the extent that in December of 2013, Huawei’s executive vice president dramatically declared “we are not interested in the U.S. market anymore.” While Huawei has managed to hold on to a small market share in America, the company’s association with Chinese state-sponsored cyberattacks has devastated its ability to operate in the United States.
It became clear last year, though, that the United States was a perpetrator of cyberattacks as well as a victim. In June 2013, former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden provided the world with a look into the intelligence apparatus of the NSA, releasing thousands of classified documents to the media. The released documents revealed that the U.S., like China, was using domestic tech firms (in many cases without their knowledge or consent) as conduits for intelligence gathering cyberattacks. In May 2014, the Chinese government announced that it would no longer purchase or use two of Microsoft’s main products, the Windows 8 operating system and the Microsoft Office 365 Suite. Then, in late July and early August, Chinese officials from the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) raided multiple offices owned by Microsoft and its contractors in China. While vague statements about an anti-monopoly probe were made, the company’s decision to end support for the Windows XP operating system – a move that would expose the many Chinese computers that use the operating system to security risks – was also cited as a factor in the raids. While it is likely that the ban and subsequent raids were also intended to pave the way for new operating system technologies created in China, the Snowden revelations allowed potential U.S. espionage activities to be cited as a justification. Just as Huawei and ZTE suffered for their association with espionage activities of the Chinese government, Microsoft took a major hit because of the provocative actions of its government.
An Undefined Battlefield
On both sides of the Pacific, it is clear that both U.S. and Chinese tech firms are being caught in the crossfire of these cyber skirmishes between the two countries. Any escalation in tensions in the cyber domain could be disastrous to the private sector. Unfortunately, despite the risks that future cyberwars hold for multinational corporations, there is a marked absence of legislation, precedent, and international norms that could govern the relationships between private companies and the governments looking to use them as avenues through which cyberwar could be conducted. For as long as these ambiguities exist, corporations that deal in the communication technology industry will exist in the gray area of an unregulated cyber battlefield devoid of any policies meant to protect the assets and infrastructures of civilian actors. It is in the interests of both countries to more clearly define, through domestic cooperation with corporate partners and with bilateral international discussion and agreement, the boundaries between civilians and the military in cyber warfare. Failure to do so could severely hamper the economic interaction that has been so lucrative for both countries and further destabilize an already fragile Sino-American relationship.
Government’s Role in Domestic Cyber Security
While organizations have taken extensive measures to provide security against cybercrime, the challenges of a larger cyberwar against a capable and persistent foe require greater national organization and civilian-government cooperation. Unfortunately, in the United States, government responses to engagements in the cyber domain have been slow at best, but more often nonexistent. The cause of this is commonly the difficulty in identifying attackers and the lack of procedures in place for how a national response can and should be mobilized to address an attack on a civilian target. This lack of definition creates additional liability for the civilian counterpart because the opposing state (in this case China) does not know to what extent the civilian is involved with the defense and possible subsequent counterattacks. The lack of clarity directly increases the probability that the civilian will be the target of general suspicion and will suffer financial damage, as was seen with Huawei, ZTE and Microsoft. In broad terms, foreign attacks on domestic civilian targets can be placed in one of two categories: those that pose a national security threat and those that cause potential financial harm to the recipient of the attack. These two types of attacks require specific responses that have not yet been clearly defined by the U.S. government and the business community.
A cyberattack that directly threatens the national security of the United States might require the temporary direct use, or even the partial or complete conscription, of a civilian network. Disruptions of public utilities, theft of sensitive information from a security contractor, or the sabotage of civilian networks necessary for the operation of the military are examples of intrusions that might necessitate such a response. However, the documents released by Edward Snowden revealed that civilian networks were commonly conscripted for foreign surveillance activities, often without the knowledge of their owners. One of the largest barriers that conscription faces to becoming a transparent counter-cyberattack strategy is the ambiguity surrounding the cyber domain in warfare. Because no legislation exists that explicitly defines cyberattacks as acts of war and because the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of conscription in any form during peacetime, no precedent has ever been set that would instruct the government on how to publicly organize a defense in the case of a cyberattack against a civilian target that threatened national security. While this does not excuse the NSA of its secrecy, it does indicate the need for legal clarification on the matter of cyber warfare. A decisive answer to the question of the legality of government conscription of civilian network assets in the interests of national security would allow a transparent strategy that involved input from both civilian and government representatives to be formed.
If a cyberattack is not a national security threat, but only threatens the financial health of the victim, the procedures for a government response are even more unclear. With traditional cybercrime, civilians are responsible for their own cyber security and the liability of unsuccessfully defending against an attempted network penetration falls on the civilian’s security provider or the civilian’s own security measures. However, it seems unreasonable to assume that a civilian would be able to successfully defend against the cyberattacks of a foreign state, which presumably would have greater access to technology, talent and funding.
Say, for example, a cyberattack of Chinese origin manages to steal sensitive information relating to a patented product of an American company. What response could that company expect to receive from the government? The answer to that question has yet to be explicitly defined through any official legislation or successful precedent. However, the Cybersecurity Act of 2013, which was recommended for further consideration in July 2013, might be a step in the right direction. The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of National Institute of Standards and Technology to work toward the, “development of a voluntary, industry-led set of standards and procedures to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure.” While the bill does not specifically say what measures can be taken to address the problem, a dialogue between the government and the civilian sector is a necessary first step toward assuring that the government will take an active role in preventing damaging cyberattacks on civilian targets.
A Line in the Cyber Sand
The lack of adequate procedural preparation for cyber warfare and ambiguity about the government’s role in protecting its civilians from cyberattacks represents a real strategic threat to the United States as well as a financial liability for civilians. Before the release of the NSA documents last year, the U.S. government was acting unilaterally to address the problems presented by aggression from the Chinese in the cyber domain. The nature of cyber warfare, however, necessitates civilian cooperation. Now there is an opening to create a partnership to more clearly define the lines between state actions that might be internationally provocative and civilian resources that, while necessary to the state’s actions, do not represent the civilian’s participation as an aggressor. Not only will this protect civilian assets that are not directly involved in cyber warfare efforts, it will also create procedures that will allow for a more effective and efficient strategy for the conduct of cyber warfare.
Given the very real risk that conflict between China and the U.S. in the cyber domain could escalate in the future, we need to find ways to isolate it from the vibrant economic exchange that have benefited both countries. The worst-case scenario would be the disintegration of the line between warfighting assets and civilian assets, such that the intentional targeting of noncombatants becomes a viable strategy. Both China and the U.S. need to act to ensure that their civilians do not become casualties of cyber warfare.
Cameron Stevens is a student at the Schreyer Honors College of Pennsylvania State University, and an intern at the Strategic Studies Institute. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the opinions or positions of the Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, or the U.S. military.
That the United States and China have engaged in skirmishes in the cyber domain is no secret. Since the beginning of the 21st century, targeted cyberattacks, often with signs of Chinese origin, have attempted to penetrate the computer networks of U.S. corporations and government agencies in search of potentially valuable information. In response to this new strategic threat, the U.S. Military’s Strategic Command commissioned the creation of a sub-unified Cyber Command in 2009, with one of its stated objectives being the “defense of specified Department of Defense information networks.”
U.S. President Barack Obama very clearly defined the threat that cyberattacks pose to the economy, in both the public and private sectors, when he said that the “cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.” Indeed, conflict in the cyber domain is still having some serious repercussions for the business world.
Civilian Involvement in Cyber Warfare
The characteristic of cyber warfare that makes it so uniquely dangerous to the corporate sector is that military power in the cyber domain must be extended through computer networks provided and maintained by non-governmental bodies. The use of these networks for cyberattacks or defense requires the conscription or cooperation of civilian resources. This creates extreme liabilities for the corporations that provide these networks, as they will quickly become the targets of suspicion and possible retaliation from the enemy state. In recent years, both Chinese and American companies have been caught in just this situation.
On October 8, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives’ intelligence committee released a report that warned of potential national security threats posed by Chinese telecommunication giants Huawei and ZTE. After conducting a year-long investigation of the suspect companies, the intelligence committee found serious vulnerabilities caused by hidden “backdoors” worked into the companies’ technologies that would allow access to U.S. government and business networks. The report advised against the purchase of products manufactured by Huawei or ZTE, and suggested that policymakers block any mergers between either of the two companies and U.S. telecommunication corporations. These accusations have seriously hurt consumer confidence in the two companies, to the extent that in December of 2013, Huawei’s executive vice president dramatically declared “we are not interested in the U.S. market anymore.” While Huawei has managed to hold on to a small market share in America, the company’s association with Chinese state-sponsored cyberattacks has devastated its ability to operate in the United States.
It became clear last year, though, that the United States was a perpetrator of cyberattacks as well as a victim. In June 2013, former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden provided the world with a look into the intelligence apparatus of the NSA, releasing thousands of classified documents to the media. The released documents revealed that the U.S., like China, was using domestic tech firms (in many cases without their knowledge or consent) as conduits for intelligence gathering cyberattacks. In May 2014, the Chinese government announced that it would no longer purchase or use two of Microsoft’s main products, the Windows 8 operating system and the Microsoft Office 365 Suite. Then, in late July and early August, Chinese officials from the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) raided multiple offices owned by Microsoft and its contractors in China. While vague statements about an anti-monopoly probe were made, the company’s decision to end support for the Windows XP operating system – a move that would expose the many Chinese computers that use the operating system to security risks – was also cited as a factor in the raids. While it is likely that the ban and subsequent raids were also intended to pave the way for new operating system technologies created in China, the Snowden revelations allowed potential U.S. espionage activities to be cited as a justification. Just as Huawei and ZTE suffered for their association with espionage activities of the Chinese government, Microsoft took a major hit because of the provocative actions of its government.
An Undefined Battlefield
On both sides of the Pacific, it is clear that both U.S. and Chinese tech firms are being caught in the crossfire of these cyber skirmishes between the two countries. Any escalation in tensions in the cyber domain could be disastrous to the private sector. Unfortunately, despite the risks that future cyberwars hold for multinational corporations, there is a marked absence of legislation, precedent, and international norms that could govern the relationships between private companies and the governments looking to use them as avenues through which cyberwar could be conducted. For as long as these ambiguities exist, corporations that deal in the communication technology industry will exist in the gray area of an unregulated cyber battlefield devoid of any policies meant to protect the assets and infrastructures of civilian actors. It is in the interests of both countries to more clearly define, through domestic cooperation with corporate partners and with bilateral international discussion and agreement, the boundaries between civilians and the military in cyber warfare. Failure to do so could severely hamper the economic interaction that has been so lucrative for both countries and further destabilize an already fragile Sino-American relationship.
Government’s Role in Domestic Cyber Security
While organizations have taken extensive measures to provide security against cybercrime, the challenges of a larger cyberwar against a capable and persistent foe require greater national organization and civilian-government cooperation. Unfortunately, in the United States, government responses to engagements in the cyber domain have been slow at best, but more often nonexistent. The cause of this is commonly the difficulty in identifying attackers and the lack of procedures in place for how a national response can and should be mobilized to address an attack on a civilian target. This lack of definition creates additional liability for the civilian counterpart because the opposing state (in this case China) does not know to what extent the civilian is involved with the defense and possible subsequent counterattacks. The lack of clarity directly increases the probability that the civilian will be the target of general suspicion and will suffer financial damage, as was seen with Huawei, ZTE and Microsoft. In broad terms, foreign attacks on domestic civilian targets can be placed in one of two categories: those that pose a national security threat and those that cause potential financial harm to the recipient of the attack. These two types of attacks require specific responses that have not yet been clearly defined by the U.S. government and the business community.
A cyberattack that directly threatens the national security of the United States might require the temporary direct use, or even the partial or complete conscription, of a civilian network. Disruptions of public utilities, theft of sensitive information from a security contractor, or the sabotage of civilian networks necessary for the operation of the military are examples of intrusions that might necessitate such a response. However, the documents released by Edward Snowden revealed that civilian networks were commonly conscripted for foreign surveillance activities, often without the knowledge of their owners. One of the largest barriers that conscription faces to becoming a transparent counter-cyberattack strategy is the ambiguity surrounding the cyber domain in warfare. Because no legislation exists that explicitly defines cyberattacks as acts of war and because the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of conscription in any form during peacetime, no precedent has ever been set that would instruct the government on how to publicly organize a defense in the case of a cyberattack against a civilian target that threatened national security. While this does not excuse the NSA of its secrecy, it does indicate the need for legal clarification on the matter of cyber warfare. A decisive answer to the question of the legality of government conscription of civilian network assets in the interests of national security would allow a transparent strategy that involved input from both civilian and government representatives to be formed.
If a cyberattack is not a national security threat, but only threatens the financial health of the victim, the procedures for a government response are even more unclear. With traditional cybercrime, civilians are responsible for their own cyber security and the liability of unsuccessfully defending against an attempted network penetration falls on the civilian’s security provider or the civilian’s own security measures. However, it seems unreasonable to assume that a civilian would be able to successfully defend against the cyberattacks of a foreign state, which presumably would have greater access to technology, talent and funding.
Say, for example, a cyberattack of Chinese origin manages to steal sensitive information relating to a patented product of an American company. What response could that company expect to receive from the government? The answer to that question has yet to be explicitly defined through any official legislation or successful precedent. However, the Cybersecurity Act of 2013, which was recommended for further consideration in July 2013, might be a step in the right direction. The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of National Institute of Standards and Technology to work toward the, “development of a voluntary, industry-led set of standards and procedures to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure.” While the bill does not specifically say what measures can be taken to address the problem, a dialogue between the government and the civilian sector is a necessary first step toward assuring that the government will take an active role in preventing damaging cyberattacks on civilian targets.
A Line in the Cyber Sand
The lack of adequate procedural preparation for cyber warfare and ambiguity about the government’s role in protecting its civilians from cyberattacks represents a real strategic threat to the United States as well as a financial liability for civilians. Before the release of the NSA documents last year, the U.S. government was acting unilaterally to address the problems presented by aggression from the Chinese in the cyber domain. The nature of cyber warfare, however, necessitates civilian cooperation. Now there is an opening to create a partnership to more clearly define the lines between state actions that might be internationally provocative and civilian resources that, while necessary to the state’s actions, do not represent the civilian’s participation as an aggressor. Not only will this protect civilian assets that are not directly involved in cyber warfare efforts, it will also create procedures that will allow for a more effective and efficient strategy for the conduct of cyber warfare.
Given the very real risk that conflict between China and the U.S. in the cyber domain could escalate in the future, we need to find ways to isolate it from the vibrant economic exchange that have benefited both countries. The worst-case scenario would be the disintegration of the line between warfighting assets and civilian assets, such that the intentional targeting of noncombatants becomes a viable strategy. Both China and the U.S. need to act to ensure that their civilians do not become casualties of cyber warfare.
Cameron Stevens is a student at the Schreyer Honors College of Pennsylvania State University, and an intern at the Strategic Studies Institute. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the opinions or positions of the Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, or the U.S. military.
Monday, 8 September 2014
The ever slow death of American Warfighting Capability and an Open Door Policy for China...
Net-Centric Warfare; The key to current Army and future transformation of its units into connected, all seeing, all knowing warriors with a god eye view of the battlefield has taken a a few hard knocks. It is not the budget gouging, nor ugly sequestrianism one may think, but rather a pervasive yet inherent and slowly parasitic problem that has been silently creeping deeper into the entire connected battle-space since its birth...
A massive shift in cold-war legacy doctrine, leading to our modern connected battlefield driven by broad insertions of net centric thought where strategic command and control systems, tactical small units, and wholesale integration of networked forces resulting in the Brigade Combat Team has been completed. Net-Centricity; The much championed Warfighting and Combat Multiplier, with 360 degree's of vision and destructive power, highly efficient sensor-to-shooter reductions in times from sense to kill removed much of the fog of war. User friendly, American innovation and game boy style controls embedded in the arts of modern combat is becoming what I feared; The very thing it was designed to be...an easy to follow template for the rising dragon, albeit without the expensive economic development costs, expensive and time consuming test and evaluations, budget hungry gluttons for new systems and more bandwidth lofted into space, antenna's and hardware installations on everything from Humvee's to rifles, to new encryption schemes, lack of, and new waveforms. More networks, servers, clients, connectivity and more avenues of attack for the enemy. With a lack of Information Assurance built into DoD networks during their initial birthing of this new era in warfare, an equal gods eye of view of both all that we see of the enemy, and all that we know of ourselves classified and supposed to be hidden is given freely to our adversaries. The entire paradigm was designed to combat and kill, with greater efficiency--us or them?
During approximately half of FY11 assessments, assessment eams ... observed serious adverse mission impact including degradation to the timeliness, accuracy, and efficiency of the networks crucial to command and control; adverse impacts to the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of operational data. Delays in critical battlefield situational awareness, leading to reductions in allocating effective placement of forces for operational tasking due to deceptive enemy activity within blue--force networks.
Large-scale exfiltration of operationally significant data by opposition force
actors.
Some of these problems were discovered in early testing of systems fielded, yet economic
punishment by delays in operational fielding and focus on schedules and time-tables, not on
actual developmental testing. These problems were and are still being seen in numerous
systems as they begin to become operational, yet are more serious as they are fatal system
flaws as operational uses mean combat use. People get killed, networked systems get
breached, operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability is countervailed. These
situations are entirely avoidable.
Most Red Teams reported increased difficulty in penetrating
network defences, but as Red Teams gained experience and had no time constraints
in developing attacks, the opposite given to network defensive teams the
penetration of networks and systems become more and more successful and undetected.
Network intrusion detections and the movement within these networks remained
undetected, and the ability of network defenders to detect subsequent exploitations
of network data was minimal; most assessments witnessed large
exfiltrations of operationally significant data. The extracted data
often allowed for Red Teams or Opposing Force tactical and strategic exploitation.
Simple Solutions--Time and time again.
The assessments showed a decrease in the use of backup files for proper system wiping and
complete removal of infected disks, with rapid network re-establishment simply because
backups.....
Proper audit logging and reviews, logical access controls, incident planning, and vulnerability management rules were not followed. There was an overall increase in high-risk vulnerabilities
as patch management and updating of system vulnerabilities were not considered to be
effective measures of information assurance or network security. Thus CVE and attack vectors
increased. The recent development and wide scale integration of the Host Based Security
System (HBSS) has resulted in many local improvements in network protection from intrusion as well as intrusion detection, but the majority of HBSS suites observed were found to be incorrectly or
ineffectively configured. Experience and formal training levels for network defenders
NEEDS to be completely re-prioritised, and incompetence punished lest we lose our future
wars, global military pre-emminence, if we have not done so already.
A massive shift in cold-war legacy doctrine, leading to our modern connected battlefield driven by broad insertions of net centric thought where strategic command and control systems, tactical small units, and wholesale integration of networked forces resulting in the Brigade Combat Team has been completed. Net-Centricity; The much championed Warfighting and Combat Multiplier, with 360 degree's of vision and destructive power, highly efficient sensor-to-shooter reductions in times from sense to kill removed much of the fog of war. User friendly, American innovation and game boy style controls embedded in the arts of modern combat is becoming what I feared; The very thing it was designed to be...an easy to follow template for the rising dragon, albeit without the expensive economic development costs, expensive and time consuming test and evaluations, budget hungry gluttons for new systems and more bandwidth lofted into space, antenna's and hardware installations on everything from Humvee's to rifles, to new encryption schemes, lack of, and new waveforms. More networks, servers, clients, connectivity and more avenues of attack for the enemy. With a lack of Information Assurance built into DoD networks during their initial birthing of this new era in warfare, an equal gods eye of view of both all that we see of the enemy, and all that we know of ourselves classified and supposed to be hidden is given freely to our adversaries. The entire paradigm was designed to combat and kill, with greater efficiency--us or them?
During approximately half of FY11 assessments, assessment eams ... observed serious adverse mission impact including degradation to the timeliness, accuracy, and efficiency of the networks crucial to command and control; adverse impacts to the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of operational data. Delays in critical battlefield situational awareness, leading to reductions in allocating effective placement of forces for operational tasking due to deceptive enemy activity within blue--force networks.
Large-scale exfiltration of operationally significant data by opposition force
actors.
Some of these problems were discovered in early testing of systems fielded, yet economic
punishment by delays in operational fielding and focus on schedules and time-tables, not on
actual developmental testing. These problems were and are still being seen in numerous
systems as they begin to become operational, yet are more serious as they are fatal system
flaws as operational uses mean combat use. People get killed, networked systems get
breached, operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability is countervailed. These
situations are entirely avoidable.
Most Red Teams reported increased difficulty in penetrating
network defences, but as Red Teams gained experience and had no time constraints
in developing attacks, the opposite given to network defensive teams the
penetration of networks and systems become more and more successful and undetected.
Network intrusion detections and the movement within these networks remained
undetected, and the ability of network defenders to detect subsequent exploitations
of network data was minimal; most assessments witnessed large
exfiltrations of operationally significant data. The extracted data
often allowed for Red Teams or Opposing Force tactical and strategic exploitation.
Simple Solutions--Time and time again.
The assessments showed a decrease in the use of backup files for proper system wiping and
complete removal of infected disks, with rapid network re-establishment simply because
backups.....
Proper audit logging and reviews, logical access controls, incident planning, and vulnerability management rules were not followed. There was an overall increase in high-risk vulnerabilities
as patch management and updating of system vulnerabilities were not considered to be
effective measures of information assurance or network security. Thus CVE and attack vectors
increased. The recent development and wide scale integration of the Host Based Security
System (HBSS) has resulted in many local improvements in network protection from intrusion as well as intrusion detection, but the majority of HBSS suites observed were found to be incorrectly or
ineffectively configured. Experience and formal training levels for network defenders
NEEDS to be completely re-prioritised, and incompetence punished lest we lose our future
wars, global military pre-emminence, if we have not done so already.
DYBAMIC MALWARE ANALYSIS
Look at it like this; Your drunk, very drunk. Your date looks amazing, and you both get back to your place for some xxx...you don't know her, you didn't care but as she enters your room, in an instant SURPRISE! Your not drunk, your sober, and she looks the definition of nastiness in the eye's and she says "fuck you, I am both nasty and ugly". If you could play the whole night through, without actually lviing it first, you would save yourself from a coyotee ugly. That's virtualization, emulation and virtualized dynamic analysis with sandboxing. Read on and you'll understand;
This can used for simple detection of a malicious file, nasty code within a webpage, its code for the reverse engineering of it (the manual was in chinese) when one wants to build a similar malware file, or to develop a signature detection algorithim to add to anti-virus programs. A virtual environment emulates the real-world, allowing bad actors to operate without the constraints and rule sets one might emplace in order to analyze, yet maintain safety while doing so; A difficult prospect. A virtual environment allows the malware to perform its actions, get dirty and wreak its nastiness and havoc, yell and scream, push and shove but do so all in vain. The virtual environment and its sandbox prevents the ugly date from entering your home, or bed for that matter.
Advanced malware can utilize obsfucation to avoid virtual analysis detection techniques either by sophisticated design, occassionally by chance; Virtual enviroment emulation are 99% replications, but the 1% can allow for that date to find another way inside your house, even when you haven't brought her home drunk from the bar.
Excellent real-time, virtual malware analysis resource listed below; Website analysis, java and flash code, android apk's, executables and other files are all uploadeable for scanning and detection.
http://anubis.iseclab.org/?action=advanced_form
Look at it like this; Your drunk, very drunk. Your date looks amazing, and you both get back to your place for some xxx...you don't know her, you didn't care but as she enters your room, in an instant SURPRISE! Your not drunk, your sober, and she looks the definition of nastiness in the eye's and she says "fuck you, I am both nasty and ugly". If you could play the whole night through, without actually lviing it first, you would save yourself from a coyotee ugly. That's virtualization, emulation and virtualized dynamic analysis with sandboxing. Read on and you'll understand;
This can used for simple detection of a malicious file, nasty code within a webpage, its code for the reverse engineering of it (the manual was in chinese) when one wants to build a similar malware file, or to develop a signature detection algorithim to add to anti-virus programs. A virtual environment emulates the real-world, allowing bad actors to operate without the constraints and rule sets one might emplace in order to analyze, yet maintain safety while doing so; A difficult prospect. A virtual environment allows the malware to perform its actions, get dirty and wreak its nastiness and havoc, yell and scream, push and shove but do so all in vain. The virtual environment and its sandbox prevents the ugly date from entering your home, or bed for that matter.
Advanced malware can utilize obsfucation to avoid virtual analysis detection techniques either by sophisticated design, occassionally by chance; Virtual enviroment emulation are 99% replications, but the 1% can allow for that date to find another way inside your house, even when you haven't brought her home drunk from the bar.
Excellent real-time, virtual malware analysis resource listed below; Website analysis, java and flash code, android apk's, executables and other files are all uploadeable for scanning and detection.
http://anubis.iseclab.org/?action=advanced_form
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)