News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by jgrahamc on Friday August 26, 2011 @08:18AM (#2928213)
It is easily available: http://www.poisonivy-rat.com/
Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by skcin7 on Friday August 26, 2011 @09:49AM (#2928452)
So if I download (which I already did) and install this file, how can I know it's not going to inject code into my own computer?
Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by andrewcooke on Friday August 26, 2011 @10:22AM (#2928556)
you can't, obviously. so start up a virtual machine, run a new version of your OS, and install it there. you should also take care to isolate the network connection of your vm as much as possible (and/or monitor it). i'm not promising this is sufficient - good luck :o)

ps to answer your other question - antivirus scanners look for patterns in the file itself, so they don't need to install it, but are vulnerable to alternative packaging, modified code, etc etc (of course, scanners also check for problems with installed files, but the first line of defense is to inspect the data - including unpacking zip files etc).

Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by chopsueyar on Friday August 26, 2011 @10:07AM (#2928505)
Trust no one.
Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by skcin7 on Friday August 26, 2011 @10:21AM (#2928552)
What's the best way to scan a file (Windows) then to ensure it's clean? I believe this file to be clean, I suppose I'm just asking to better understand the theory.
Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by chopsueyar on Friday August 26, 2011 @10:37AM (#2928599)
Specifically for poisonivy, off the top of my head, I would run a virtualized instance of windows inside of a different OS, and then monitor all network activity between the virtualized OS and the host system and verify every IP it is connecting to during installation and once installed.

Maybe somebody else can jump in here and offer better advice?

Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by oconnore on Friday August 26, 2011 @11:11AM (#2928711)
The virtual machine isn't guaranteed to work: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-threats/2009/06/09/virt...

Unless you know exactly what it can do, you should probably run it on an old machine without [direct] internet access.

Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by chopsueyar on Friday August 26, 2011 @12:52PM (#2929019)
From your link:

Cloudburst uses a vulnerability in the virtual-machine display functions of VMware Workstation that can be exploited by a specially crafted video file.

and...

However, the Cloudburst exploit currently has certain limitations: it will only succeed on Workstation 6.5.0 or 6.5.1 or the associated Player versions. In addition, the guest and host must be Windows-based, among other requirements, Immunity said in its release notes.

Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by count on Friday August 26, 2011 @10:37PM (#2930655)
Remember, that's a publicly released exploit that's not even very new.

Assume that if that's been publicly released, more advanced stuff has already been seen in the wild.

Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by skcin7 on Friday August 26, 2011 @12:53PM (#2929022)
Makes sense. That is good advice but as oconnore pointed out that even a VM can be exploited, though I think your solution would work well in the majority of cases. I suppose using a virtual copy of Windows in my OS X wouldn't be 100% safe because of the exploit. I suppose I'll be getting out my old Dell Windows XP machine then to test this out until I am sure it is safe (which I imagine it is but who knows), and if something happens to it then I'll just wipe the drive and re-install Windows. Poison Ivy seems like it would be an awesome tool to know which would be worth my time.
Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by chopsueyar on Friday August 26, 2011 @01:03PM (#2929070)
Did you read the actual article about the VM exploit? It requires both OSs to be Windows based AND the use of a malformed video file.

But, yeah, paranoia is healthy in this circumstance.

Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by mambodog on Friday August 26, 2011 @12:28PM (#2928953)
I think you're missing the point of "Trust no one".

You don't scan it, just use it in a disposable environment (usually a VM, on a non-valuable machine) and see what it does.

Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by probablyrobots on Friday August 26, 2011 @09:34AM (#2928408)
If this software is so widely available why didn't ECM's antivirus software detect it?
Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by statenjason on Friday August 26, 2011 @09:44AM (#2928437)
This is answered in a response[1] to the grandparent post.

"The reason that PI was not detected is because the attacker embedded a Flash object inside the Excel file. The Flash file was a 0day exploit that could download and execute a file, which in this case was the attacker's PI client."

[1]:http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2928223

Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by waitwhat on Friday August 26, 2011 @10:19AM (#2928545)
The reason that PI was not detected is because the attacker embedded a Flash object inside the Excel file. The Flash file was a 0day exploit that could download and execute a file, which in this case was the attacker's PI client.

The Poison Ivy client was downloaded to the target system. Why did the anti-malware software installed there not pick it up? (Attempting to hand-wave this away by talking about 0-day flash exploits really isn't answering the question.)

Re:How we found the file that was used to Hack RSA by zxw on Friday August 26, 2011 @11:37AM (#2928787)
It's common for the free detectable version of popular trojans to be used as the advertisement for the paid undetectable one.

Looking at the poison ivy website they have a customer portal, so presumably this is how they did it.

There are also methods to pay without leaving a paper trail back to you (pre-paid cards I think).

Edit: It's also possible to modify detectable executables to make them undetectable if you don't want to pay. Virus scanners for the most part work by reading a few bytes from an executable at a particular point, hashing those bytes and if they match a known virus, report it as one. By finding those parts of the executable (there are often multiple signatures, and different vendors will have different signatures too) and modifying them slightly, the resultant hash will be different and the executable undetected.