Country Institutions Accounts
US 60 4,287
IT 34 1,459
DE 122 641
ES 18 228
PL 14 102
è tra queste? se si come fai a saperlo? se no come fai a saperlo?
nei 10 giorni hanno preso una marea di IP, dicono di aver contatto tramite gli ISP i "proprietari" degli IP stessi ed aver cercato di prendere il più contromisure possibile, successe niente da voi?
è la tabellina dei dati relativi ai 10giorni di controllo di torpig del mio post di prima, si tratta di istituti finaziari, tra cui potrebbe esserci anche avve quindi.
US 60 4,287
IT 34 1,459
DE 122 641
ES 18 228
PL 14 102
è tra queste? se si come fai a saperlo? se no come fai a saperlo?
nei 10 giorni hanno preso una marea di IP, dicono di aver contatto tramite gli ISP i "proprietari" degli IP stessi ed aver cercato di prendere il più contromisure possibile, successe niente da voi?
è la tabellina dei dati relativi ai 10giorni di controllo di torpig del mio post di prima, si tratta di istituti finaziari, tra cui potrebbe esserci anche avve quindi.
Immacolata concezione
Ad
http://archive.vn/qN1x1
Meglio della Madonna! Se vuoi scoprire come ha fatto clicca qui!!
- Scritto da: Caccola
> Tempo fa ero convinto fosse un vantaggio.
>
> Un anno fa, il capo della lombardia ci volle
> conoscere personalmente, noi 8 "sistemisti", e ci
> chiese quali erano le nostre aspettative
> professionali e
> personali.
>
> Nel periodo si discuteva della cessione di Kakà
> dal milan a non so quale squadra. Le polemiche
> erano all'ordine del giorno: "quello guadagna 20
> milioni e io a spaccarmi la schiena" era la lagna
> tipica.
>
> Io non ne ho mai capito niente di calcio, né
> nutro particolare simpatia per lo sport; ma mi
> sono trovato nella condizione di doverlo
> difendere. "Quello può fare il tuo mestiere
> altrettanto bene", rispondevo al polemico di
> turno, "ma tu non saprai mai fare quello che fa
> lui".
> Per me era naturale che per la legge della
> domanda e dell'offerta, chi sa fare qualcosa che
> nessun'altro, può chiedere di
> più.
>
> E quindi, ciò che gli dissi, al grande capo, era
> che sognavo di diventare il kakà
> dell'informatica, ma più realisticamente il mio
> desiderio voleva semplicemente essere quello di
> approfondire nella pratica le mie competenze,
> fino a raggiungere il mio massimo potenziale.
> Avrei voluto fare corsi, avrei desiderato più
> diritti amministrativi e incarichi più
> specialistici di installazioni con kit "avanti
> avanti
> avanti".
>
>
>
> Ora, è passato un anno. Quelle riunioni, dovevano
> essere un appuntamento periodico e invece sono
> state un caso
> sporadico.
> Io, forte di un'esperienza di 1 anno superiore ai
> miei colleghi sistemisti, ma soprattutto di una
> passione che non si trova in egual modo in loro,
> posso tranquillamente definirmi il migliore
> (escludendo i sistemisti dei centri meccanizzati,
> che sono dei mostri, ma hanno anche decenni di
> esperienza e anche al di fuori di Poste). E
> infatti faccio quello che nessun'altro sa fare, e
> che i sistemisti dei cmp non hanno il tempo di
> fare. Script, progettini, analisi di
> problematiche particolari che non si possono
> proseguire col canonico flusso di escalation.
> Perché è quello che possono fare al massimo gli
> altri: non lo so fare, lo scalo a chi è sopra di
> me.
>
> Pensavo di essere nel mio piccolo riuscito nel
> mio
> intento.
>
> Invece mò mi trovo a:
> 1) essere tirato scemo per ogni cosa incasinata,
> mentre i miei colleghi sono tranquilli e non
> trattano mai niente di
> strano;
> 2) non avere una riduzione del carico di lavoro,
> perché comunque nel frattempo il mio lavoro
> ordinario è uguale a quello degli
> altri;
> 3, conseguenza della 2) i tempi sono ristretti e
> spesso non riesco ad essere preciso sia nei
> compiti straordinari che in quelli ordinari, e ne
> inficia la mia credibilità
> professionale;
> 4) non posso chiedere ferie con la stessa
> flessibilità
> altrui.
>
>
>
>
> Ovviamente le prospettive di riconoscimento di
> questi sforzi sono miseri, pertanto questo è solo
> un mio personale sfogo. Comunque non cercate di
> essere bravi in un'organizzazione non
> meritocratica, perché finirete per fare la figura
> dei fessi.
>

>
>
>
>
>

una volta mi ritrovai in una situazione analoga (più piccola), provai a fare la voce grossa e dire: ok allora me ne vado domani e vi lascio nella merda!
si sono riorganizzati e quello che facevo io hanno cominciato a farlo in due così io sono rimasto cornuto e mazziato.
magari uno crede di essere indispensabile perchè lavora più degli altri o fa cose uniche, però a dire il vero sta solo facendo più cose e diverse, senza esserlo davvero...
per essere davvero indispensabili in un organizzazione comincio a pensare che sia più una questione di tempo e soprattutto affidabilità NEL tempo (anni e anni) e alla fine lo diventi non perchè fai cose che puoi fare solo tu, cose uniche, ma perchè offri garanzia di costanza sulle cose comuni.
- Scritto da: Caccola
> - Scritto da:
> >
> > - Scritto da: Caccola
> > > Tempo fa ero convinto fosse un vantaggio.
> > >
> > > Un anno fa, il capo della lombardia ci volle
> > > conoscere personalmente, noi 8 "sistemisti", e
> > ci
> > > chiese quali erano le nostre aspettative
> > > professionali e
> > > personali.
> > >
> > > Nel periodo si discuteva della cessione di
> Kakà
> > > dal milan a non so quale squadra. Le polemiche
> > > erano all'ordine del giorno: "quello guadagna
> 20
> > > milioni e io a spaccarmi la schiena" era la
> > lagna
> > > tipica.
> > >
> > > Io non ne ho mai capito niente di calcio, né
> > > nutro particolare simpatia per lo sport; ma mi
> > > sono trovato nella condizione di doverlo
> > > difendere. "Quello può fare il tuo mestiere
> > > altrettanto bene", rispondevo al polemico di
> > > turno, "ma tu non saprai mai fare quello che
> fa
> > > lui".
> > > Per me era naturale che per la legge della
> > > domanda e dell'offerta, chi sa fare qualcosa
> che
> > > nessun'altro, può chiedere di
> > > più.
> > >
> > > E quindi, ciò che gli dissi, al grande capo,
> era
> > > che sognavo di diventare il kakà
> > > dell'informatica, ma più realisticamente il
> mio
> > > desiderio voleva semplicemente essere quello
> di
> > > approfondire nella pratica le mie competenze,
> > > fino a raggiungere il mio massimo potenziale.
> > > Avrei voluto fare corsi, avrei desiderato più
> > > diritti amministrativi e incarichi più
> > > specialistici di installazioni con kit "avanti
> > > avanti
> > > avanti".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ora, è passato un anno. Quelle riunioni,
> > dovevano
> > > essere un appuntamento periodico e invece sono
> > > state un caso
> > > sporadico.
> > > Io, forte di un'esperienza di 1 anno superiore
> > ai
> > > miei colleghi sistemisti, ma soprattutto di
> una
> > > passione che non si trova in egual modo in
> loro,
> > > posso tranquillamente definirmi il migliore
> > > (escludendo i sistemisti dei centri
> > meccanizzati,
> > > che sono dei mostri, ma hanno anche decenni di
> > > esperienza e anche al di fuori di Poste). E
> > > infatti faccio quello che nessun'altro sa
> fare,
> > e
> > > che i sistemisti dei cmp non hanno il tempo di
> > > fare. Script, progettini, analisi di
> > > problematiche particolari che non si possono
> > > proseguire col canonico flusso di escalation.
> > > Perché è quello che possono fare al massimo
> gli
> > > altri: non lo so fare, lo scalo a chi è sopra
> di
> > > me.
> > >
> > > Pensavo di essere nel mio piccolo riuscito nel
> > > mio
> > > intento.
> > >
> > > Invece mò mi trovo a:
> > > 1) essere tirato scemo per ogni cosa
> incasinata,
> > > mentre i miei colleghi sono tranquilli e non
> > > trattano mai niente di
> > > strano;
> > > 2) non avere una riduzione del carico di
> lavoro,
> > > perché comunque nel frattempo il mio lavoro
> > > ordinario è uguale a quello degli
> > > altri;
> > > 3, conseguenza della 2) i tempi sono
> ristretti
> e
> > > spesso non riesco ad essere preciso sia nei
> > > compiti straordinari che in quelli ordinari, e
> > ne
> > > inficia la mia credibilità
> > > professionale;
> > > 4) non posso chiedere ferie con la stessa
> > > flessibilità
> > > altrui.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ovviamente le prospettive di riconoscimento di
> > > questi sforzi sono miseri, pertanto questo è
> > solo
> > > un mio personale sfogo. Comunque non cercate
> di
> > > essere bravi in un'organizzazione non
> > > meritocratica, perché finirete per fare la
> > figura
> > > dei fessi.
> > >

> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> > E poi dicevi di lich! Ma



>
> la storia non si riproporrebbe ciclicamente, se
> gli esseri umani fossero in grado di apprendere
> dagli errori del
> prossimo.
>
>
>

> --------------------------------------------------
> Modificato dall' autore il 13 dicembre 2010 15.17
> --------------------------------------------------
La lezione più importante della storia è che gli uomini non imparano niente dall storia (o qualcosa del genere)
- non ricordo chi
- Scritto da:
> Mia sorella si è trasferita in Germania in una
> scuola/collegio molto
> costosa.
>
> Mi ha detto che è pieno così di gente che se la
> tira e guarda solo ai vestiti e ai soldi. Peggio
> che in Italia.
>
>
> Oggi in mensa sei ragazzi dell'ultimo anno molto
> grossi hanno avvicinato un ragazzino/geek del
> primo anno e l'hanno menato di brutto, anche in
> faccia.
>
> Però non sono stati espulsi perché appartengono a
> famiglie molto facoltose che fanno grosse
> donazioni all'istituto. Lì appartengono a una
> categoria specifica della scuola, vengono
> inseriti in classi per soli ricchi. Quindi non
> sono stati punti perché i genitori hanno il
> grano.
>
> Quello menato invece rischia di essere espulso
> perché un giorno non ha fatto i compiti e ha
> risposto male
> all'insegnante.
tutto il mondo è paese.
According to [45], Torpig initially used spam emails to
propagate, which may give another explanation for the botmasters
interest in email addresses. Form data items contain the content of
HTML forms submitted via POST requests by the victims browser.
More precisely, Torpig collects the URL hosting the form, the URL
that the form is submitted to, and the name, value, and type of all
form fields. These data items frequently contain the usernames and
passwords required to authenticate with web sites. Notice that cre-
dentials transmitted over HTTPS are not safe from Torpig, since
Torpig can access them before they are encrypted by the SSL layer
(by hooking appropriate library functions). HTTP account, FTP
account, POP account, and SMTP account data types contain the
credentials used to access web sites, FTP, POP, and SMTP ac-
counts, respectively. Torpig obtains this information by exploit-
ing the password manager functionality provided by most web and
email clients. SMTP account items also contain the source and des-
tination addresses of emails sent via SMTP. Finally, the Windows
password data type is used to transmit Windows passwords and
other uncategorized data elements.
da notare che nelle figure gli stati più colpiti da torpig paiono USA, germania e italia, in qualcosa siamo sempre tra i big...
Data Type Data Items (#)
Mailbox account 54,090
Email 1,258,862
Form data 11,966,532
HTTP account 411,039
FTP account 12,307
POP account 415,206
SMTP account 100,472
Windows password 1,235,122
Questo è riferito alle financial institutions, sempre nei 10 giorni in cui l'hanno avuta in mano loro
Country Institutions Accounts
US 60 4,287
IT 34 1,459
DE 122 641
ES 18 228
PL 14 102
propagate, which may give another explanation for the botmasters
interest in email addresses. Form data items contain the content of
HTML forms submitted via POST requests by the victims browser.
More precisely, Torpig collects the URL hosting the form, the URL
that the form is submitted to, and the name, value, and type of all
form fields. These data items frequently contain the usernames and
passwords required to authenticate with web sites. Notice that cre-
dentials transmitted over HTTPS are not safe from Torpig, since
Torpig can access them before they are encrypted by the SSL layer
(by hooking appropriate library functions). HTTP account, FTP
account, POP account, and SMTP account data types contain the
credentials used to access web sites, FTP, POP, and SMTP ac-
counts, respectively. Torpig obtains this information by exploit-
ing the password manager functionality provided by most web and
email clients. SMTP account items also contain the source and des-
tination addresses of emails sent via SMTP. Finally, the Windows
password data type is used to transmit Windows passwords and
other uncategorized data elements.
da notare che nelle figure gli stati più colpiti da torpig paiono USA, germania e italia, in qualcosa siamo sempre tra i big...
Data Type Data Items (#)
Mailbox account 54,090
Email 1,258,862
Form data 11,966,532
HTTP account 411,039
FTP account 12,307
POP account 415,206
SMTP account 100,472
Windows password 1,235,122
Questo è riferito alle financial institutions, sempre nei 10 giorni in cui l'hanno avuta in mano loro

Country Institutions Accounts
US 60 4,287
IT 34 1,459
DE 122 641
ES 18 228
PL 14 102
In practice, the Torpig controllers registered the weekly .com do-
main and, in a few cases, the corresponding .net domain, for backup
purposes. However, they did not register all the weekly domains in
advance, which was a critical factor in enabling our hijacking.
The use of domain flux in botnets has important consequences
in the arms race between botmasters and defenders. From the at-
tackers point of view, domain flux is yet another technique to po-
tentially improve the resilience of the botnet against take-down at-
tempts. More precisely, in the event that the current rendezvous
point is taken down, the botmasters simply have to register the next
domain in the domain list to regain control of their botnet. On the
contrary, to the defenders advantage, domain flux opens up the
possibility of sinkholing (or "hijacking") a botnet, by registering an
available domain that is generated by the botnets DGAs and re-
turning an answer that is a valid C&C response (to keep bots from
switching over to the next domain in the domain list). As we men-
tioned, Torpig allowed both of these actions: C&C domain names
were available for registration, and it was possible to forge valid
C&C responses.
The feasibility of these sinkholing attacks depends not only on
technical means (e.g., the ability to reverse engineer the botnet pro-
tocol and to forge a valid C&C servers response), but also on eco-
nomic factors, in particular the cost of registering a number of do-
mains sufficient to make the sinkholing effective. Since domain
registration comes at a price (currently, from about $5 to $10 per
year per .com and .net domain name), botmasters could prevent
attacks against domain flux by making them economically infeasi-
ble, for example, by forcing defenders to register a disproportionate
number of names. Unfortunately, this is a countermeasure that is
already in use. Newer variants of Conficker generate 50,000 do-
mains per day and introduce non-determinism in their generation
algorithm [32]. Taking over all the domains generated by Conficker
at market prices would cost between $91.3 million and $182.5 mil-
lion per year. Furthermore, the domain flux arms race is clearly in
favor of the malware authors. Generating thousands more domains
requires an inexpensive modification to the bot code base, while
registering them costs time and money.
We registered domains that bots would
resolve and setup a server to which bots would connect to find their
C&C. Moreover, we present our data collection and hosting infras-
tructure and review a timeline of events during our period of con-
trol.
The behavior of the botmasters was to not register many of the
future Torpig C&C domains in advance. Therefore, we were able to
register the .com and .net domains that were to be used by the bot-
net for three consecutive weeks from January 25th, 2009 to Febru-
ary 15th, 2009. However, on February 4th, 2009, the Mebroot con-
trollers distributed a new Torpig binary that updated the domain
algorithm. This ended our control prematurely after ten days. Me-
broot domains, in fact, allow botmasters to upgrade, remove, and
install new malware components at any time, and are tightly con-
trolled by the criminals. It is unclear why the controllers of the
Mebroot botnet did not update the Torpig domain algorithm sooner
to thwart our sinkholing.
All bots communicate with the Torpig C&C through HTTP POST
requests. The URL used for this request contains the hexadecimal
representation of the bot identifier and a submission header. The
body of the request contains the data stolen from the victims ma-
chine, if any. The submission header and the body are encrypted
using the Torpig encryption algorithm (base64 and XOR). The bot
identifier (a token that is computed on the basis of hardware and
software characteristics of the infected machine) is used as the sym-
metric key and is sent in the clear.
After decryption, the submission header consists of a number of
key-value pairs that provide basic information about the bot. More
precisely, the header contains the time stamp when the configura-
tion file was last updated (ts), the IP address of the bot or a list
of IPs in case of a multi-homed machine (ip), the port numbers of
the HTTP and SOCKS proxies that Torpig opens on the infected
machine (hport and sport), the operating system version and
locale (os and cn), the bot identifier (nid), and the build and ver-
sion number of Torpig (bld and ver). Figure 3 shows a sample of
the header information sent by a Torpig bot.
The request body consists of zero or more data items of different
types, depending on the information that was stolen.
the different data types that we observed during our monitoring. In
particular, mailbox account items contain the configuration infor-
mation for email accounts, i.e., the email address associated with
the mailbox and the credentials required to access the mailbox and
to send emails from it. Torpig obtains this information from email
clients, such as Outlook, Thunderbird, and Eudora. Email items
consist of email addresses, which can presumably be used for spam
purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Modificato dall' autore il 13 dicembre 2010 18.18
-----------------------------------------------------------
main and, in a few cases, the corresponding .net domain, for backup
purposes. However, they did not register all the weekly domains in
advance, which was a critical factor in enabling our hijacking.
The use of domain flux in botnets has important consequences
in the arms race between botmasters and defenders. From the at-
tackers point of view, domain flux is yet another technique to po-
tentially improve the resilience of the botnet against take-down at-
tempts. More precisely, in the event that the current rendezvous
point is taken down, the botmasters simply have to register the next
domain in the domain list to regain control of their botnet. On the
contrary, to the defenders advantage, domain flux opens up the
possibility of sinkholing (or "hijacking") a botnet, by registering an
available domain that is generated by the botnets DGAs and re-
turning an answer that is a valid C&C response (to keep bots from
switching over to the next domain in the domain list). As we men-
tioned, Torpig allowed both of these actions: C&C domain names
were available for registration, and it was possible to forge valid
C&C responses.
The feasibility of these sinkholing attacks depends not only on
technical means (e.g., the ability to reverse engineer the botnet pro-
tocol and to forge a valid C&C servers response), but also on eco-
nomic factors, in particular the cost of registering a number of do-
mains sufficient to make the sinkholing effective. Since domain
registration comes at a price (currently, from about $5 to $10 per
year per .com and .net domain name), botmasters could prevent
attacks against domain flux by making them economically infeasi-
ble, for example, by forcing defenders to register a disproportionate
number of names. Unfortunately, this is a countermeasure that is
already in use. Newer variants of Conficker generate 50,000 do-
mains per day and introduce non-determinism in their generation
algorithm [32]. Taking over all the domains generated by Conficker
at market prices would cost between $91.3 million and $182.5 mil-
lion per year. Furthermore, the domain flux arms race is clearly in
favor of the malware authors. Generating thousands more domains
requires an inexpensive modification to the bot code base, while
registering them costs time and money.
We registered domains that bots would
resolve and setup a server to which bots would connect to find their
C&C. Moreover, we present our data collection and hosting infras-
tructure and review a timeline of events during our period of con-
trol.
The behavior of the botmasters was to not register many of the
future Torpig C&C domains in advance. Therefore, we were able to
register the .com and .net domains that were to be used by the bot-
net for three consecutive weeks from January 25th, 2009 to Febru-
ary 15th, 2009. However, on February 4th, 2009, the Mebroot con-
trollers distributed a new Torpig binary that updated the domain
algorithm. This ended our control prematurely after ten days. Me-
broot domains, in fact, allow botmasters to upgrade, remove, and
install new malware components at any time, and are tightly con-
trolled by the criminals. It is unclear why the controllers of the
Mebroot botnet did not update the Torpig domain algorithm sooner
to thwart our sinkholing.
All bots communicate with the Torpig C&C through HTTP POST
requests. The URL used for this request contains the hexadecimal
representation of the bot identifier and a submission header. The
body of the request contains the data stolen from the victims ma-
chine, if any. The submission header and the body are encrypted
using the Torpig encryption algorithm (base64 and XOR). The bot
identifier (a token that is computed on the basis of hardware and
software characteristics of the infected machine) is used as the sym-
metric key and is sent in the clear.
After decryption, the submission header consists of a number of
key-value pairs that provide basic information about the bot. More
precisely, the header contains the time stamp when the configura-
tion file was last updated (ts), the IP address of the bot or a list
of IPs in case of a multi-homed machine (ip), the port numbers of
the HTTP and SOCKS proxies that Torpig opens on the infected
machine (hport and sport), the operating system version and
locale (os and cn), the bot identifier (nid), and the build and ver-
sion number of Torpig (bld and ver). Figure 3 shows a sample of
the header information sent by a Torpig bot.
The request body consists of zero or more data items of different
types, depending on the information that was stolen.
the different data types that we observed during our monitoring. In
particular, mailbox account items contain the configuration infor-
mation for email accounts, i.e., the email address associated with
the mailbox and the credentials required to access the mailbox and
to send emails from it. Torpig obtains this information from email
clients, such as Outlook, Thunderbird, and Eudora. Email items
consist of email addresses, which can presumably be used for spam
purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Modificato dall' autore il 13 dicembre 2010 18.18
-----------------------------------------------------------
After the initial update, Mebroot contacts its C&C
server periodically, in two-hour intervals, to report its current con-
figuration (i.e., the type and version number of the currently in-
stalled modules) and to potentially receive updates. All commu-
nication with the C&C server occurs via HTTP requests and re-
sponses and is encrypted using a sophisticated, custom encryption
algorithm [9]. Currently, no publicly available tool exists to cir-
cumvent this encryption scheme.
During our monitoring, the C&C server distributed three mod-
ules, which comprise the Torpig malware. Mebroot injects these
modules (i.e., DLLs) into a number of applications. These appli-
cations include the Service Control Manager (services.exe),
the file manager, and 29 other popular applications, such as web
browsers (e.g., Microsoft Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera), FTP
clients (CuteFTP, LeechFTP), email clients (e.g., Thunderbird, Out-
look, Eudora), instant messengers (e.g., Skype, ICQ), and system
programs (e.g., the command line interpreter cmd.exe). After
the injection, Torpig can inspect all the data handled by these pro-
grams and identify and store interesting pieces of information, such
as credentials for online accounts and stored passwords.
Periodically (every twenty minutes, during the time we moni-
tored the botnet), Torpig contacts the Torpig C&C server to upload
the data stolen since the previous reporting time (6).
This com-
munication with the server is also over HTTP and is protected by
a simple obfuscation mechanism, based on XORing the clear text
with an 8-byte key and base64 encoding. This scheme was broken
by security researchers at the end of 2008, and tools are available
to automate the decryption [20]. The C&C server can reply to a
bot in one of several ways. The server can simply acknowledge the
data. We call this reply an okn response, from the string contained
in the servers reply. In addition, the C&C server can send a con-
figuration file to the bot (we call this reply an okc response). The
configuration file is obfuscated using a simple XOR-11 encoding.
It specifies how often the bot should contact the C&C server, a set
of hard-coded servers to be used as backup, and a set of parameters
to perform man-in-the-browser phishing attacks [14].
Torpig uses phishing attacks to actively elicit additional, sensi-
tive information from its victims, which, otherwise, may not be ob-
served during the passive monitoring it normally performs. These
attacks occur in two steps. First, whenever the infected machine
visits one of the domains specified in the configuration file (typi-
cally, a banking web site), Torpig issues a request to an injection
server. The servers response specifies a page on the target domain
where the attack should be triggered (we call this page the trigger page, and it is typically set to the login page of a site), a URL on
the injection server that contains the phishing content (the injection
URL), and a number of parameters that are used to fine tune the
attack (e.g., whether the attack is active and the maximum number
of times it can be launched). The second step occurs when the user
visits the trigger page. At that time, Torpig requests the injection
URL from the injection server and injects the returned content into
the users browser (7). This content typically consists of an HTML
form that asks the user for sensitive information, for example, credit
card numbers and social security numbers.
These phishing attacks are very difficult to detect, even for at-
tentive users. In fact, the injected content carefully reproduces
the style and look-and-feel of the target web site. Furthermore,
the injection mechanism defies all phishing indicators included in
modern browsers. For example, the SSL configuration appears
correct, and so does the URL displayed in the address bar.
A fundamental aspect of any botnet is that of coordination; i.e.,
how the bots identify and communicate with their C&C servers.
Traditionally, C&C hosts have been located by their bots using their
IP address, DNS name, or their node ID in peer-to-peer overlays.
In the recent past, botnet authors have identified several ways to
make these schemes more flexible and robust against take-down
actions, e.g., by using IP fast-flux techniques [17]. With fast-flux,
the bots would query a certain domain that is mapped onto a set of
IP addresses, which change frequently. This makes it more difficult
to take down or block a specific C&C server. However, fast-flux
uses only a single domain name, which constitutes a single point of
failure.
Torpig solves this issue by using a different technique for locat-
ing its C&C servers, which we refer to as domain flux. With domain
flux, each bot uses a domain generation algorithm (DGA) to com-
pute a list of domain names. This list is computed independently
by each bot and is regenerated periodically. Then, the bot attempts
to contact the hosts in the domain list in order until one succeeds,
i.e., the domain resolves to an IP address and the corresponding
server provides a response that is valid in the botnets protocol. If a
domain is blocked (for example, the registrar suspends it to comply
with a take-down request), the bot simply rolls over to the following
domain in the list. Domain flux is also used to contact the Mebroot
C&C servers and the drive-by-download servers. Domain flux is
increasingly popular among botnet authors. In fact, similar mech-
anisms were used before by the Kraken/Bobax [1] and the Srizbi
bots [46], and, more recently, by the Conficker worm [32].
In Torpig, the DGA is seeded with the current date and a numer-
ical parameter. The algorithm first computes a weekly domain
name, say dw, which depends on the current week and year, but is
independent of the current day (i.e., remains constant for the en-
tire week). Using the generated domain name dw, a bot appends
a number of TLDs: in order, dw.com, dw.net, and dw.biz. It then
resolves each domain and attempts to connect to its C&C server. If
all three connections fail, Torpig computes a daily domain, say
dd, which in addition depends on the current day (i.e., a new do-
main dd is generated each day). Again, dd.com is tried first, with
fallbacks to dd.net and dd.biz. If these domains also fail, Torpig at-
tempts to contact the domains hardcoded in its configuration file
(e.g., rikora.com, pinakola.com, and flippibi.com).
Listing 1 shows the pseudo-code of the routines used to generate
the daily domains dd. The DGA used in Torpig is completely deter-
ministic; i.e., once the current date is determined, all bots generate
the same list of domains, in the same order.
server periodically, in two-hour intervals, to report its current con-
figuration (i.e., the type and version number of the currently in-
stalled modules) and to potentially receive updates. All commu-
nication with the C&C server occurs via HTTP requests and re-
sponses and is encrypted using a sophisticated, custom encryption
algorithm [9]. Currently, no publicly available tool exists to cir-
cumvent this encryption scheme.
During our monitoring, the C&C server distributed three mod-
ules, which comprise the Torpig malware. Mebroot injects these
modules (i.e., DLLs) into a number of applications. These appli-
cations include the Service Control Manager (services.exe),
the file manager, and 29 other popular applications, such as web
browsers (e.g., Microsoft Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera), FTP
clients (CuteFTP, LeechFTP), email clients (e.g., Thunderbird, Out-
look, Eudora), instant messengers (e.g., Skype, ICQ), and system
programs (e.g., the command line interpreter cmd.exe). After
the injection, Torpig can inspect all the data handled by these pro-
grams and identify and store interesting pieces of information, such
as credentials for online accounts and stored passwords.
Periodically (every twenty minutes, during the time we moni-
tored the botnet), Torpig contacts the Torpig C&C server to upload
the data stolen since the previous reporting time (6).
This com-
munication with the server is also over HTTP and is protected by
a simple obfuscation mechanism, based on XORing the clear text
with an 8-byte key and base64 encoding. This scheme was broken
by security researchers at the end of 2008, and tools are available
to automate the decryption [20]. The C&C server can reply to a
bot in one of several ways. The server can simply acknowledge the
data. We call this reply an okn response, from the string contained
in the servers reply. In addition, the C&C server can send a con-
figuration file to the bot (we call this reply an okc response). The
configuration file is obfuscated using a simple XOR-11 encoding.
It specifies how often the bot should contact the C&C server, a set
of hard-coded servers to be used as backup, and a set of parameters
to perform man-in-the-browser phishing attacks [14].
Torpig uses phishing attacks to actively elicit additional, sensi-
tive information from its victims, which, otherwise, may not be ob-
served during the passive monitoring it normally performs. These
attacks occur in two steps. First, whenever the infected machine
visits one of the domains specified in the configuration file (typi-
cally, a banking web site), Torpig issues a request to an injection
server. The servers response specifies a page on the target domain
where the attack should be triggered (we call this page the trigger page, and it is typically set to the login page of a site), a URL on
the injection server that contains the phishing content (the injection
URL), and a number of parameters that are used to fine tune the
attack (e.g., whether the attack is active and the maximum number
of times it can be launched). The second step occurs when the user
visits the trigger page. At that time, Torpig requests the injection
URL from the injection server and injects the returned content into
the users browser (7). This content typically consists of an HTML
form that asks the user for sensitive information, for example, credit
card numbers and social security numbers.
These phishing attacks are very difficult to detect, even for at-
tentive users. In fact, the injected content carefully reproduces
the style and look-and-feel of the target web site. Furthermore,
the injection mechanism defies all phishing indicators included in
modern browsers. For example, the SSL configuration appears
correct, and so does the URL displayed in the address bar.
A fundamental aspect of any botnet is that of coordination; i.e.,
how the bots identify and communicate with their C&C servers.
Traditionally, C&C hosts have been located by their bots using their
IP address, DNS name, or their node ID in peer-to-peer overlays.
In the recent past, botnet authors have identified several ways to
make these schemes more flexible and robust against take-down
actions, e.g., by using IP fast-flux techniques [17]. With fast-flux,
the bots would query a certain domain that is mapped onto a set of
IP addresses, which change frequently. This makes it more difficult
to take down or block a specific C&C server. However, fast-flux
uses only a single domain name, which constitutes a single point of
failure.
Torpig solves this issue by using a different technique for locat-
ing its C&C servers, which we refer to as domain flux. With domain
flux, each bot uses a domain generation algorithm (DGA) to com-
pute a list of domain names. This list is computed independently
by each bot and is regenerated periodically. Then, the bot attempts
to contact the hosts in the domain list in order until one succeeds,
i.e., the domain resolves to an IP address and the corresponding
server provides a response that is valid in the botnets protocol. If a
domain is blocked (for example, the registrar suspends it to comply
with a take-down request), the bot simply rolls over to the following
domain in the list. Domain flux is also used to contact the Mebroot
C&C servers and the drive-by-download servers. Domain flux is
increasingly popular among botnet authors. In fact, similar mech-
anisms were used before by the Kraken/Bobax [1] and the Srizbi
bots [46], and, more recently, by the Conficker worm [32].
In Torpig, the DGA is seeded with the current date and a numer-
ical parameter. The algorithm first computes a weekly domain
name, say dw, which depends on the current week and year, but is
independent of the current day (i.e., remains constant for the en-
tire week). Using the generated domain name dw, a bot appends
a number of TLDs: in order, dw.com, dw.net, and dw.biz. It then
resolves each domain and attempts to connect to its C&C server. If
all three connections fail, Torpig computes a daily domain, say
dd, which in addition depends on the current day (i.e., a new do-
main dd is generated each day). Again, dd.com is tried first, with
fallbacks to dd.net and dd.biz. If these domains also fail, Torpig at-
tempts to contact the domains hardcoded in its configuration file
(e.g., rikora.com, pinakola.com, and flippibi.com).
Listing 1 shows the pseudo-code of the routines used to generate
the daily domains dd. The DGA used in Torpig is completely deter-
ministic; i.e., once the current date is determined, all bots generate
the same list of domains, in the same order.
Analysis of a Botnet Takeover
Brett Stone-Gross, Marco Cova, Lorenzo Cavallaro, Bob Gilbert, Martin Szydlowski,
Richard Kemmerer, Christopher Kruegel, and Giovanni Vigna
Department of Computer Science, University of California, Santa Barbara
tutto ambientato nel 2009, consiglio di leggere tutto il pdf perchè è proprio interessante.
www.cs.ucsb.edu/~seclab/projects/torpig/torpig.pdf
A particularly sophisticated and insidi-
ous type of bot is Torpig, a malware program that is designed to
harvest sensitive information (such as bank account and credit card
data) from its victims. In this paper, we report on our efforts to take
control of the Torpig botnet and study its operations for a period of
ten days. During this time, we observed more than 180 thousand
infections and recorded almost 70 GB of data that the bots col-
lected. While botnets have been hijacked and studied previously,
the Torpig botnet exhibits certain properties that make the analysis
of the data particularly interesting. First, it is possible (with rea-
sonable accuracy) to identify unique bot infections and relate that
number to the more than 1.2 million IP addresses that contacted our
command and control server. Second, the Torpig botnet is large,
targets a variety of applications, and gathers a rich and diverse set
of data from the infected victims. This data provides a new un-
derstanding of the type and amount of personal information that is
stolen by botnets.
A more active approach to study botnets is via infiltration. That
is, using an actual malware sample or a client simulating a bot,
researchers join a botnet to perform analysis from the inside. To
achieve this, honeypots, honey clients, or spam traps are used to
obtain a copy of a malware sample. The sample is then executed in
a controlled environment, which makes it possible to observe the
traffic that is exchanged between the bot and its command and con-
trol (C&C) server(s).
To overcome the limitations of passive measurements and infil-
tration in particular in the case of centralized IRC and HTTP
botnets one can attempt to hijack the entire botnet, typically by
taking control of the C&C channel. One way to achieve this is
to directly seize the physical machines that host the C&C infras-
tructure [8]. Of course, this is only an option for law enforcement
agencies. Alternatively, one can tamper with the domain name ser-
vice (DNS), as bots typically resolve domain names to connect to
their command and control infrastructure. Therefore, by collab-
orating with domain registrars (or other entities such as dynamic
DNS providers), it is possible to change the mapping of a botnet
domain to point to a machine controlled by the defender [6]. Fi-
nally, several recent botnets, including Torpig, use the concept of
domain flux. With domain flux, each bot periodically (and inde-
pendently) generates a list of domains that it contacts. The bot
then proceeds to contact them one after another. The first host that
sends a reply that identifies it as a valid C&C server is considered
genuine, until the next period of domain generation is started. By
reverse engineering the domain generation algorithm, it is possible
to pre-register domains that bots will contact at some future point,
thus denying access to the botmaster and redirecting bot requests
to a server under ones own control. This provides a unique view
on the entire infected host population and the information that is
collected by the botmasters.
Torpig has certain properties that make our analysis particularly in-
teresting.
First, Torpig bots transmit identifiers that permit us to distinguish
between individual infections. This is different from other botnets
such as Conficker. The presence of unique identifiers allows us to
perform a precise estimate of the botnet size. Moreover, we can
account for DHCP churn and NAT effects, which are well-known
problems when computing botnet sizes. In addition, we compare
our results to IP-based techniques that are commonly used to esti-
mate botnet populations.
Second, Torpig is a data harvesting bot that targets a wide vari-
ety of applications and extracts a wealth of information from the
infected victims. Together with the large size of the botnet (we
observed more than 180 thousand infections), we have access to
a rich data set that sheds light on the quantity and nature of the
data that cyber-criminals can harvest, the financial profits that they
can make, and the threats to the security and privacy of bot vic-
tims.
So far, Torpig has been distributed to its victims as part of Meb-
root. Mebroot is a rootkit that takes control of a machine by replac-
ing the systems Master Boot Record (MBR). This allows Mebroot
to be executed at boot time, before the operating system is loaded,
and to remain undetected by most anti-virus tools. More details
on Mebroot can be found in [9, 12, 25]. In this paper, we will focus
on Torpig, introducing Mebroot only when necessary to understand
Torpigs behavior. In particular, hereinafter, we present the life cy-
cle of Torpig and the organization of the Torpig botnet, as we ob-
served it during the course of our analysis. We will use Figure 1 as
a reference.
Victims are infected through drive-by-download attacks [33]. In
these attacks, web pages on legitimate but vulnerable web sites (1)
are modified with the inclusion of HTML tags that cause the vic-
tims browser to request JavaScript code (2) from a web site (the
drive-by-download server in the figure) under control of the attack-
ers (3). This JavaScript code launches a number of exploits against
the browser or some of its components, such as ActiveX controls
and plugins. If any exploit is successful, an executable is down-
loaded from the drive-by-download server to the victim machine,
and it is executed (4).
The downloaded executable acts as an installer for Mebroot. The
installer injects a DLL into the file manager process (explor-
er.exe), and execution continues in the file managers context.
This makes all subsequent actions appear as if they were performed
by a legitimate system process. The installer then loads a kernel
driver that wraps the original disk driver (disk.sys). At this
point, the installer has raw disk access on the infected machine.
The installer can then overwrite the MBR of the machine with Me-
broot. After a few minutes, the machine automatically reboots, and
Mebroot is loaded from the MBR.
--> continua
Brett Stone-Gross, Marco Cova, Lorenzo Cavallaro, Bob Gilbert, Martin Szydlowski,
Richard Kemmerer, Christopher Kruegel, and Giovanni Vigna
Department of Computer Science, University of California, Santa Barbara
tutto ambientato nel 2009, consiglio di leggere tutto il pdf perchè è proprio interessante.
www.cs.ucsb.edu/~seclab/projects/torpig/torpig.pdf

A particularly sophisticated and insidi-
ous type of bot is Torpig, a malware program that is designed to
harvest sensitive information (such as bank account and credit card
data) from its victims. In this paper, we report on our efforts to take
control of the Torpig botnet and study its operations for a period of
ten days. During this time, we observed more than 180 thousand
infections and recorded almost 70 GB of data that the bots col-
lected. While botnets have been hijacked and studied previously,
the Torpig botnet exhibits certain properties that make the analysis
of the data particularly interesting. First, it is possible (with rea-
sonable accuracy) to identify unique bot infections and relate that
number to the more than 1.2 million IP addresses that contacted our
command and control server. Second, the Torpig botnet is large,
targets a variety of applications, and gathers a rich and diverse set
of data from the infected victims. This data provides a new un-
derstanding of the type and amount of personal information that is
stolen by botnets.
A more active approach to study botnets is via infiltration. That
is, using an actual malware sample or a client simulating a bot,
researchers join a botnet to perform analysis from the inside. To
achieve this, honeypots, honey clients, or spam traps are used to
obtain a copy of a malware sample. The sample is then executed in
a controlled environment, which makes it possible to observe the
traffic that is exchanged between the bot and its command and con-
trol (C&C) server(s).
To overcome the limitations of passive measurements and infil-
tration in particular in the case of centralized IRC and HTTP
botnets one can attempt to hijack the entire botnet, typically by
taking control of the C&C channel. One way to achieve this is
to directly seize the physical machines that host the C&C infras-
tructure [8]. Of course, this is only an option for law enforcement
agencies. Alternatively, one can tamper with the domain name ser-
vice (DNS), as bots typically resolve domain names to connect to
their command and control infrastructure. Therefore, by collab-
orating with domain registrars (or other entities such as dynamic
DNS providers), it is possible to change the mapping of a botnet
domain to point to a machine controlled by the defender [6]. Fi-
nally, several recent botnets, including Torpig, use the concept of
domain flux. With domain flux, each bot periodically (and inde-
pendently) generates a list of domains that it contacts. The bot
then proceeds to contact them one after another. The first host that
sends a reply that identifies it as a valid C&C server is considered
genuine, until the next period of domain generation is started. By
reverse engineering the domain generation algorithm, it is possible
to pre-register domains that bots will contact at some future point,
thus denying access to the botmaster and redirecting bot requests
to a server under ones own control. This provides a unique view
on the entire infected host population and the information that is
collected by the botmasters.
Torpig has certain properties that make our analysis particularly in-
teresting.
First, Torpig bots transmit identifiers that permit us to distinguish
between individual infections. This is different from other botnets
such as Conficker. The presence of unique identifiers allows us to
perform a precise estimate of the botnet size. Moreover, we can
account for DHCP churn and NAT effects, which are well-known
problems when computing botnet sizes. In addition, we compare
our results to IP-based techniques that are commonly used to esti-
mate botnet populations.
Second, Torpig is a data harvesting bot that targets a wide vari-
ety of applications and extracts a wealth of information from the
infected victims. Together with the large size of the botnet (we
observed more than 180 thousand infections), we have access to
a rich data set that sheds light on the quantity and nature of the
data that cyber-criminals can harvest, the financial profits that they
can make, and the threats to the security and privacy of bot vic-
tims.
So far, Torpig has been distributed to its victims as part of Meb-
root. Mebroot is a rootkit that takes control of a machine by replac-
ing the systems Master Boot Record (MBR). This allows Mebroot
to be executed at boot time, before the operating system is loaded,
and to remain undetected by most anti-virus tools. More details
on Mebroot can be found in [9, 12, 25]. In this paper, we will focus
on Torpig, introducing Mebroot only when necessary to understand
Torpigs behavior. In particular, hereinafter, we present the life cy-
cle of Torpig and the organization of the Torpig botnet, as we ob-
served it during the course of our analysis. We will use Figure 1 as
a reference.
Victims are infected through drive-by-download attacks [33]. In
these attacks, web pages on legitimate but vulnerable web sites (1)
are modified with the inclusion of HTML tags that cause the vic-
tims browser to request JavaScript code (2) from a web site (the
drive-by-download server in the figure) under control of the attack-
ers (3). This JavaScript code launches a number of exploits against
the browser or some of its components, such as ActiveX controls
and plugins. If any exploit is successful, an executable is down-
loaded from the drive-by-download server to the victim machine,
and it is executed (4).
The downloaded executable acts as an installer for Mebroot. The
installer injects a DLL into the file manager process (explor-
er.exe), and execution continues in the file managers context.
This makes all subsequent actions appear as if they were performed
by a legitimate system process. The installer then loads a kernel
driver that wraps the original disk driver (disk.sys). At this
point, the installer has raw disk access on the infected machine.
The installer can then overwrite the MBR of the machine with Me-
broot. After a few minutes, the machine automatically reboots, and
Mebroot is loaded from the MBR.
--> continua
- Scritto da:
>

>

certo che succede, la caccia non è mica cosa per donnicciole isteriche, a quelle viene bene solo fare le associazioni di difesa dei diritti dell'aquila giamaicana.
- Scritto da: Caccola
> nel mentre che memtesto la ram del nuovo mulo
> posto la
> domanda?
> vedo che amahi fa da server dhcp e dns e
> cippirimerlo.
> A cosa serve? Vedo che se si disabilita ciò vien
> persa la possibilità di utilizzare i nomi brevi
> http://hda
e via> dicendo.
exactly. c'è da dire che lo scriptone di amahi mette anche il dydns di username.yourhda.com
e credo che il server dhcp e il coso dns siano nella stessa sezione dello script, quella che usa il codice di installazione di amahi.org
per fare le configurazioni degli indirizzi della singola installazione, per questo consigliano di non disabilitarlo MA:> non posso implementare lo stesso la cosa,
> lasciando fare il dhcp al mio router del menga e
> scrivendo negli host dei miei pc la risoluzione
> dell'ip col nome
> scelto?
puoi fare così e farti tuttoa manina e disabilitare il servizio dhcp sulla fetora, però solo dopo che lo scriptone di amahi ha configurato tutto.
> possibile che sia tutto qui?
> e se voglio un ip statico sui miei clients?
nella pagina di configurazione dei server sulla dashboard hai la possibilità di configurare indirizzi statici, ovviamente outside il range di quelli dinamici.
cmq non è tutto li, perchè se vuoi usarlo come server di netboot deve esserci il dhcp attivo, è possibile che ci siano altri servizi del genere che hanno bisogno che il coso sia pure dhcp server.
- Scritto da:
> - Scritto da: Caccola
> > e ho scoperto che tagliando qua e là riesco a
> > liberare quei 300 gb necessari a fare i
> movimenti
> > per liberare un disco alla volta quei due dischi
> > da 1tb, senza doverne cercare altri nel
> > bagagliaio...
> >
> > mò devo capire quanto è affidabile greyhole.
> > Quanto è
> > affidabile?
> >
>
> codename is It should work
concordo, anche a me le interiora della rete leggono così.
avve greyhole non lo ho ancora usato, testalo tu e fammi sapere.
Da quel che ho capito io però non c'è nessun tipo di ridondanza, dovresti usare dischi affidabili e il coso semplicemente sposta i files tra i dischi...
alla fine cos'hai fatto?
vuoi un po di marzapane?
sempre jappo, questo bello però, è un odi quei film che lo guardi per 90 minuti e credi che sia una cosa, poi negli ultimi 15 fai così:

e alla fine ti sei innamorato del film
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audition_%28film%29

e alla fine ti sei innamorato del film
OMGm i jappy l'hanno fatto di nuovo, guardate il trailer, rischia di essere persino meglio di troll 2...
no scherzavo, troll 2 è inarrivabile:
no scherzavo, troll 2 è inarrivabile:
- Scritto da: yngwie123
>
> - Scritto da: Caccola
> >
>

> mah nn mi pare nulla di ke ho visto di meglio...
ssshhhhhh, è anni che gli stiamo facendo credere di essere il tabboz dei troll, non rovinarci tutto.
- Scritto da: avvelentani
> ... come fare?
>
> Mica posso usare il 12 e neanche la 357Mgm, anche
> una 9x21 non sarebbe adatta. Non ho più una sana
> .22", che fare? Veleno?
> Quale?
>
> PS-mi viene a predicare sulla porta di ingresso.
>

>
> PS2- Gli ho gia mandato un fax ma niente.

gli argomenti logici non hanno effetto sui diaconi, sei autorizzato ad usare la magnum

- Scritto da:
>
> - Scritto da: dada_216
> > uau che miscuglio di cose, interessante
> comunque,
> > concordo in pieno sull'idea che è una cosa
> giusta
> > e buona recuperare le arti marziali della
> > tradizione europea pre armi da
> > fuoco.
> > non capisco bene chi cazzo sia che lo ha fatto,
> > per quale pubblico, con quale intento, stile da
> > tivi ammeregana,
> > boh.
> >
> >

>
> la scrima è un pezzo che viene recuperata e
> praticata
GRANDISSIMO, non ne sapevo niente di niente, interessantissimo, ora che ho la parola chiave è tutto un altro mondo.
la scrima si pratica nella sala d'arme, peccato che sembri essercene solo una in italia a roma.
...con l'inchiostro simpatico, qui sopra c'è il post più bello che possiate mai leggere, per vedere il testo dovete spruzzare lo schermo con succo di limone e metterlo sopra una fonte di calore, una candela va bene.
