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.

Perimeter

2/9/2012
02:14 PM
Tom Parker
Tom Parker
Commentary
50%
50%

Between Source Code And Cyanide

What the Symantec source-code leak really means

With all of the talk about source-code theft, extortion attempts by a shadowy probably-Anonymous-affiliated group, and most importantly the Giants winning the Super Bowl, I thought I’d spend a moment to reflect on what the release of source code for PCAnywhere and, in all likelihood, a depreciated version of Norton Antivirus could mean for the average persistent threat.

Much of the commentary on the topic, specifically that relating to PCAnywhere, has downplayed the release, owing to the age of the stolen code and number of active users. While it is true that installations of PCAnywhere certainly do not seem to be as widespread as they once were, it is certainly still out there and remains utilized by large private and government organizations. Although I don’t consider the release of PCAnywhere source to be particularly severe, I do question why Symantec chose to advise users to cease use of the product after the release and not before. And what makes it so sure that the product is now safe? In any case, the question of Norton Antivirus may be a little complex.

Targeting security products (whether that be an IDS, firewall, or AV product) is hot business these days, and vulnerabilities in antivirus engines can be extremely valuable to attackers if it means they are now able to slip an email attachment or drive-by download that would have otherwise been caught onto the target's system.

Anyone that has ever worked with, or had anything to do with, any kind of software product company will know that while names, logos, and even the interface for a product may change over time, the code behind it all will not necessarily follow suit. Even in circumstances where a “complete rewrite” has been done, they seldom ever are, and even in extreme cases we all know that a certain amount of CTRL-C/V action is going to go down somewhere along the way.

Note that although at the time that this was written the source code for Norton Antivirus does not appear to have been made public, we can safely assume that the stolen code has been shared privately, amongst a closed community associated with the individual responsible for the original heist.

So what does this all mean? Well, for the high-end adversary, probably not a whole lot as you’re likely to already have a copy of the source code. And it’s likely to be a much more recent version. On the other hand, folks who do not have a few hundred Gs laying around for bribing the employee of a software vendor so he’ll cut you a DVD full of source code are likely to see this as something of an opportunity. Through the use of not-uncommon analysis tools, figuring out which code segments are shared between the compromised source and possible modern derivatives thereof is a relatively trivial and inexpensive task.

While many groups who may do such a thing have probably put Symantec products under the microscope before, source-code analysis often opens up a whole, new world of subtle bugs in hard-to-reach regions of code that may have previously gone unnoticed. While the world's most well-funded and sophisticated actors are unlikely to find the release of source code particularly exciting, this may provide an excellent opportunity for less well-resourced groups involved in organized crime (such as botnet herders) and acts of industrial espionage to get one up on a product that has in the past spoiled the fun.

Tom Parker is Chief Technology Officer at FusionX.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Sabrina
50%
50%
Sabrina,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/10/2012 | 6:55:04 AM
re: Between Source Code And Cyanide
Norton is not doing good after the source code leak and also many customers moved away from them-
Georgeken
50%
50%
Georgeken,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/10/2012 | 5:22:39 AM
re: Between Source Code And Cyanide
pretty cool stuff mate.Symantec source code hack is spreading a lot .is that Norton AV performance is affected due to this hack?I am having this doubt from long before.
CPADEN000
50%
50%
CPADEN000,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/9/2012 | 10:41:51 PM
re: Between Source Code And Cyanide
Symantec-anticipates that Anonymous will post the rest of the code they have claimed to have in their possession.- So far, they have posted code for the 2006 versions of Norton Utilities and pcAnywhere. -We also anticipate that at some point, they will post the code for the 2006 versions of Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition and Norton Internet Security.- As we have already stated publicly, this is old code, and Symantec and Norton customers will not be at an increased risk as a result of any further disclosure related to these 2006 products.
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
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
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...