Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

2/16/2007
05:48 PM
Sharon Gaudin
Sharon Gaudin
Commentary
50%
50%

Would You Use A Virus Writer's Antivirus Patch?

The Chinese hacker who was recently arrested for writing and selling the Fujacks worm could be writing code to run on your corporate network. Now what do you think of that?

The Chinese hacker who was recently arrested for writing and selling the Fujacks worm could be writing code to run on your corporate network. Now what do you think of that?Li Jun, the alleged author of the virus, was recently arrested, along with five other men. They've been charged with creating and selling the virus that distracted users with a picture of a panda while it stole user names and passwords from online game players. The worm, also known as Whboy, has grabbed a lot of attention with its tactic of converting icons of infected programs into a picture of a panda burning joss sticks as it steals user names and passwords from online game players.

By the way, joss sticks, according to Wikipedia, are incense sticks usually burned before a Chinese religious symbol or shrine.

Anyway, here's the interesting part -- the Chinese authorities reportedly have said they're going to allow Jun to release a seek-and-destroy fix to wipe it out. Police have said they'll test it and then release it on the Internet.

What an odd plan. I'm just not sure if it's stupid or brilliant.

Graham Cluley, a senior technology consultant at Sophos, definitely is not going with brilliant. "Hackers and virus writers have shown themselves to be irresponsible and untrustworthy and I certainly wouldn't choose to run their code on my computer," he wrote on the Sophos Web site. "Additionally, the Fujacks virus left some infected files unable to run. That hardly suggests that the author took quality assurance seriously when he constructed his malware. Our recommendation to computer users would be to clean their PCs with professional tools written by security experts."

OK. OK. I can hear some of you now saying Cluley is only griping because he wants the antivirus vendors, like Sophos, to get the business. But there's more than that going on here. Do we want virus writers being the ones to write the code that fixes the mess they created? Obviously, the code will be gone over before it's released, but who will go over it? How thorough will the inspection be?

Jun's worm affected a lot of systems and the people who use them.

What I'm asking is, should consumers and companies be using a fix that he creates?

"Malware authors have tried to write antivirus programs in the past," writes Cluley. "For instance, Stormbringer of the Phalcon/SKISM virus-writing gang -- whose real name was Mike Ellison -- wrote a utility to clean-up the SMEG virus, and Mark Washburn, who created the V2P6 polymorphic virus, also wrote antivirus software. …However, the public tends to trust the security researchers who haven't been tainted by writing viral code."

So, what do you think? If he writes a fix that's released to the public, is that fit payback, or at least good cosmic karma? Or is using a fix written by a man who's under arrest for creating the problem in the first place just this side of ridiculous?

You tell me. I'd love to hear what you think about this.

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/10/2020
Researcher Finds New Office Macro Attacks for MacOS
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/7/2020
Healthcare Industry Sees Respite From Attacks in First Half of 2020
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  8/13/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: It's a technique known as breaking out of the sandbox kids.
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-24348
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
njs through 0.4.3, used in NGINX, has an out-of-bounds read in njs_json_stringify_iterator in njs_json.c.
CVE-2020-24349
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
njs through 0.4.3, used in NGINX, allows control-flow hijack in njs_value_property in njs_value.c. NOTE: the vendor considers the issue to be "fluff" in the NGINX use case because there is no remote attack surface.
CVE-2020-7360
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
An Uncontrolled Search Path Element (CWE-427) vulnerability in SmartControl version 4.3.15 and versions released before April 15, 2020 may allow an authenticated user to escalate privileges by placing a specially crafted DLL file in the search path. This issue was fixed in version 1.0.7, which was r...
CVE-2020-24342
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
Lua through 5.4.0 allows a stack redzone cross in luaO_pushvfstring because a protection mechanism wrongly calls luaD_callnoyield twice in a row.
CVE-2020-24343
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
Artifex MuJS through 1.0.7 has a use-after-free in jsrun.c because of unconditional marking in jsgc.c.