lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu Jun 29 18:49:33 2006 From: kkadow at gmail.com (Kevin) Subject: Corporate Virus Threats On 6/29/06, Terminal Entry <Security@...dro.net> wrote: > When the malicious code writers build their viruses and Trojans why not code > the threats to detect the use of proxy servers and if used, connect through > them. One reason why not is that it's easier to aim for the largest population of easy targets, which will always be the home consumer. There are other optimizations a worm or trojan author would choose when targeting code to a corporate environment; so far I haven't seen malware optimized for intranet deployment :) > Working in Corporate America, most firewall configurations block > outbound TCP 80, as the proxies listen on other non-standard TCP ports. You'd think that, but when I talk to vendors about "proxy aware" support in their custom applications, they seem genuinely surprised that any corporation mandates HTTP traffic to go only via proxy. > A virus should first check to determine if a proxy is used and if so use that > proxy to download the malicious code, backdoor, etc. There are already a few worms/trojans using the MSIE API instead of carrying their own http client library. Call the API appropriately, and you'll use a proxy as needed, without any extra work/code. Same goes for using Outlook instead of an integrated SMTP engine. One tricky part, many proxy gateways require authentication, in some cases the credentials will not (or can not) be cached. Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists