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

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.
Small Business Security: 5 Tips on How and Where to Start
Mike Puglia, Chief Strategy Officer at Kaseya,  2/13/2020
Architectural Analysis IDs 78 Specific Risks in Machine-Learning Systems
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  2/13/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-2498
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
The Linux kernel from v2.3.36 before v2.6.39 allows local unprivileged users to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by triggering creation of PTE pages.
CVE-2012-2629
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) and cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Axous 1.1.1 and earlier allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) add an administrator account via an addnew action to admin/administrators_add.php; or (2) c...
CVE-2014-3484
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
Multiple stack-based buffer overflows in the __dn_expand function in network/dn_expand.c in musl libc 1.1x before 1.1.2 and 0.9.13 through 1.0.3 allow remote attackers to (1) have unspecified impact via an invalid name length in a DNS response or (2) cause a denial of service (crash) via an invalid ...
CVE-2015-2923
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
The Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol implementation in the IPv6 stack in FreeBSD through 10.1 allows remote attackers to reconfigure a hop-limit setting via a small hop_limit value in a Router Advertisement (RA) message.
CVE-2014-4660
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
Ansible before 1.5.5 constructs filenames containing user and password fields on the basis of deb lines in sources.list, which might allow local users to obtain sensitive credential information in opportunistic circumstances by leveraging existence of a file that uses the "deb http://user:[email protected]