Vulnerabilities / Threats
12/4/2013
12:06 PM
50%
50%

Do Antivirus Companies Whitelist NSA Malware?

Microsoft, Symantec, and McAfee fail to respond to a transparency plea from leading privacy and security experts.

Dear antivirus vendors: Are you aiding and abetting National Security Agency (NSA) spying?

That's the subject of an open letter, sent in October to leading antivirus vendors, from 25 different privacy information security experts and organizations. The letter asks the vendors to detail whether they've ever detected state-sponsored malware or received a government request to whitelist state-sponsored malware, and how they would respond to any such requests in the future.

The letter, sent from Dutch digital rights foundation Bits of Freedom, requested that the firms respond by November 15. "Please let us know if you feel that you cannot, or cannot fully, answer any of the above questions because of legal constraints imposed upon you by any government," it said.

"Since we learned that the NSA has surreptitiously weakened Internet security so it could more easily eavesdrop, we've been wondering if it's done anything to antivirus products," letter signatory Bruce Schneier, chief security technology officer of BT, said in a blog post. "Given that it engages in offensive cyberattacks -- and launches cyberweapons like Stuxnet and Flame -- it's reasonable to assume that it's asked antivirus companies to ignore its malware. We know that antivirus companies have previously done this for corporate malware."

As of two weeks ago, however, only six security vendors -- ESET, F-Secure, Kaspersky Lab, Norman Shark, Panda, and Trend Micro -- had responded to the request for information. Even so, the news was good. "All of the responding companies have confirmed the detection of state sponsored malware, e.g. R2D2 and FinFisher," according to researcher Ton Siedsma at Bits of Freedom. "Furthermore, they claim they have never received a request to not detect malware. And if they were asked by any government to do so in the future, they said they would not comply."

More recently, meanwhile, Avira CEO Travis Witteveen reported, in a letter to Bits of Freedom, that his company likewise had no time for state-sponsored malware, and said the company would change its headquarters to a foreign country if the German government ever ordered it to ignore any type of malware. Likewise, the CEO of BitDefender, speaking by phone, said that his company had never received a copy of the letter from Bits of Freedom, but that his company would never -- and had never -- whitelisted any form of malware. The company plans to soon publish a more detailed statement on its website. 

No malware is harmless

That, of course, gets to the crux of the matter: Is there any such thing as benign malware? Most, if not all, security experts would argue otherwise. "All the aforementioned companies believe there is no such thing as harmless malware," Bits of Freedom’s Siedsma noted.

Hence it's odd that US-based McAfee, Microsoft, and Symantec all failed to respond to Bits of Freedom's letter before the deadline. (Siedsma at Bits of Freedom didn't immediately respond to an emailed question about whether any have done so since then.) Ditto for Agnitum (Russia), Ahnlab (South Korea), Avast (Czech Republic), AVG (Czech Republic), and Bullguard (United Kingdom).

Firms that did respond, by contrast, were largely outspoken in their attitude toward state-sponsored malware. "We have a very simple and straightforward policy as it relates to the detection of malware: We detect and remediate any malware attack, regardless of its origin or purpose. There is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' malware for us," according to Kaspersky Lab's statement.

Likewise, Christian Fredrikson, president and CEO of Finnish antivirus vendor F-Secure, argued that malware has no shades of gray. "If it's malware, we will protect our customers from it," he wrote to Bits of Freedom. "Our decision-making boils down to a simple question: would our customers want to run this program on their system or not. Obviously the answer for governmental Trojans would be a 'No.' "

Ignoring malware of any stripe leads to collateral damage. For example, take the Stuxnet virus, which was allegedly developed by the United States and Israel under the so-called "Olympic Games" cyberweapon program, and which was designed to sabotage the high-frequency convertor drives used in centrifuges inside the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz.

Security firms, in fact, were the first to discover Stuxnet -- in July 2010 -- and soon began sounding related warnings. While Stuxnet was designed to not cause damage to any other systems outside of Natanz, it did infect numerous other systems, for example at energy giant Chevron, triggering panic and cleanup costs.

For the record, whatever antivirus vendors' attitude toward state-sponsored malware, whether or not they detect it won't necessarily stop the spread of such malware. In part, that's because for an antivirus firm to spot malware, it first needs to have seen the malware, recognized that it's malicious code, and written a corresponding virus signature for its products. In addition, intelligence agencies no doubt work overtime -- and occasionally make use of zero-day vulnerabilities -- to ensure that their malicious code escapes detection. They're probably quite successful at doing so. For example, leaked documents suggest that by 2012, the NSA had installed malware on more than 50,000 PCs used by US government targets.

Given that level of success, it's unlikely, argued Schneier, that any intelligence or law enforcement agencies would try to tell domestic antivirus firms what to do. "Antivirus is a very international industry, and while a government might get its own companies to play along, it would not be able to influence international companies," he said.

But if that's the case, what's to account for the silence from McAfee, Microsoft, and Symantec, and the other antivirus firm holdouts?

 

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
brianmooreDR
50%
50%
brianmooreDR,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/7/2014 | 5:05:51 AM
NSA uses some antivirus software to spy thousands of computers
Things are easiest :  NSA uses some antivirus software to spy thousands of computers.


When you have access to the antivirus software, you have full admin access to the whole computer : files, network, USB, ...

Antivirus software watches all processes on the computer but nobody watches antivirus software ..

Antivirus software can read file and send data to distant server.

Users cannot distinct normal antivirus scan process and updates and data spying ...

 

 
Michelle Schenker
50%
50%
Michelle Schenker,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/6/2014 | 7:16:31 PM
Re: Good news/bad news
I too am impressed but not surprised that the Europeans were quicker to jump on board before the Americans. BItdefender always seems to be ahead of the game from all the research we've conducted over the years. Glad to see they are doing their part to keep the NSA as honest as possible. If anyone wants to read more about what sets Bitdefender apart, here's a helpful review that we put together with our findings: http://www.asecurelife.com/bitdefender-reviews/  And, if you find anything that needs updating, I'd love the heads up on that too. Thanks! 
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
12/6/2013 | 12:49:16 PM
Re: Good news/bad news
It's great to see Avira and Bitdefender respond to the  transparency question about NSA malware from Dutch digital rights foundation Bits of Freedom. Now its your turn, Microsoft, Symantec, and McAfee!
Mathew
50%
50%
Mathew,
User Rank: Apprentice
12/6/2013 | 12:37:33 PM
Re: Good news/bad news
Update: two more AV vendors have come forward -- and we've updated the story accordingly. Avira's CEO has sent Trail of Bits a letter saying it hasn't, and won't, block any malware, full stop. Ditto for the CEO of Bitdefender, who said that his firm first learned of the open letter via the press, saying he'd never received a written inquiry from Bits of Freedom. 

Do any other AV vendors who haven't responded want to make their views known?
DREGstudios01
50%
50%
DREGstudios01,
User Rank: Apprentice
12/4/2013 | 2:51:59 PM
Re: Good news/bad news
The dystopian fantasies of yesteryear are now a reality.  We've allowed the coming of an age where the civil liberties our forefathers fought so hard for are being eroded by the day.  Freedom of Press, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are mere ghostly images of their original intent.  We've woken up to an Orwellian Society of Fear where anyone is at the mercy of being labeled a terrorist for standing up for rights we took for granted just over a decade ago.  Read about how we're waging war against ourselves at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/09/living-in-society-of-fear-ten-years.html
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
12/4/2013 | 1:24:37 PM
Good news/bad news
Kudos to the six AV vendors who responded to the Bits of Freedom request. As the for the silence from  McAfee, Microsoft, Symantec and the other holdouts, it's deafening to say the least.  At the very least, they should justify their lack of transperncy with their reasons why.
More Blogs from Commentary
Strategic Security: Begin With The End In Mind
The trouble with traditional infosec methodology is that it doesn’t show us how to implement a strategic security plan in the real world.
Cloud & The Fuzzy Math of Shadow IT
Do you know how many cloud apps, on average, are running in your organization? The number is probably greater than you think.
In Fog Of Cyberwar, US Tech Is Caught In Crossfire
Distrust of the US intelligence community is eroding consumer confidence and hampering US technology firms on the global stage at a time when the sector should be showing unprecedented growth.
6 Tips for Using Big Data to Hunt Cyberthreats
You need to be smart about harnessing big data to defend against today’s security threats, data breaches, and attacks.
Dark Reading Radio: The Changing Role Of The CSO
Why does the CSO report to the CIO? Join us for a panel discussion. Showtime is today, Wednesday, 1:00 p.m., New York, 10 a.m., San Francisco.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Flash Poll
Current Issue
Cartoon
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-6117
Published: 2014-07-11
Dahua DVR 2.608.0000.0 and 2.608.GV00.0 allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and obtain sensitive information including user credentials, change user passwords, clear log files, and perform other actions via a request to TCP port 37777.

CVE-2014-0174
Published: 2014-07-11
Cumin (aka MRG Management Console), as used in Red Hat Enterprise MRG 2.5, does not include the HTTPOnly flag in a Set-Cookie header for the session cookie, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain potentially sensitive information via script access to this cookie.

CVE-2014-3485
Published: 2014-07-11
The REST API in the ovirt-engine in oVirt, as used in Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization (rhevm) 3.4, allows remote authenticated users to read arbitrary files and have other unspecified impact via unknown vectors, related to an XML External Entity (XXE) issue.

CVE-2014-3499
Published: 2014-07-11
Docker 1.0.0 uses world-readable and world-writable permissions on the management socket, which allows local users to gain privileges via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-3503
Published: 2014-07-11
Apache Syncope 1.1.x before 1.1.8 uses weak random values to generate passwords, which makes it easier for remote attackers to guess the password via a brute force attack.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Marilyn Cohodas and her guests look at the evolving nature of the relationship between CIO and CSO.