full-disclosure - Re: Linux - Indicators of compromise

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:58:16 +0000
From: "Ali Varshovi " <ali.varshovi@...mail.com>
To: "Benji " <me@...ji.com>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk " <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Linux - Indicators of compromise

I wasn't initially, but that's where the discussion is taking me. I was thinking of collecting local logs from a Linux box and analyze them to determine if its been compromised or not. I understand a hybrid approach should be taken, including pattern detection to capture known malware/backdoors and a behavioral analysis to tag any abnormal behavior.

Michael mentioned a very true and good point that theoretically logs and behavior of a compromised system cannot be trusted. Other folks, also pointed that a data exfilteration usually follows a compromise and can be considered as a shared pattern for majority of attacks (I want to add command/control traffic myself).

Friends, is that a good summary of a high level approach?

Cheers,
Ali
.
---------------------------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry device

-----Original Message-----
From: Benji <me@...ji.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:31:12 
To: <ali.varshovi@...mail.com>
Cc: <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Linux - Indicators of compromise

SO you're talking about making a baseline?

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Ali Varshovi <ali.varshovi@...mail.com> wrote:
> Hello everybody and thank you for your useful comments.
>
> Now I'm thinking that we need a comparison base or normal behavior profile to be able to detect any deviations or abnormal/suspicious activity. While some known patterns of behaviors are useful to detect malware or backdoors we still need that normal profile to detect 0-day or APT style intrusions. Isn't that the same idea from early days of intrusion detection research (anomaly detection approach)? Or maybe I'm off track.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> ------Original Message------
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
> Subject: Linux - Indicators of compromise
> Sent: Jul 14, 2012 8:46 AM
>
> Greetings FD,
>
> Does anyone have any guidelines/useful material on analysis logs of a Linux machine to detect signs of compromise? The data collection piece is not a challenge as a lot of useful information can be captured using commands and some scripts. I'm wondering if there is any systematic approach to analyze the collected logs? Most of the materials I've seen are more aligned to malware and rootkit detection which is not the only concern apparently.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ali
> .
> ---------------------------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry device
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/