Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
An onion of obfuscation (arcanesentiment.blogspot.com)
55 points by blasdel on Jan 8, 2010 | hide | past | favorite | 8 comments


I'm a little confused. He says that it's a phishing attack and not a virus, but isn't the eventual payload an executable that does lots of dark win32 magic? I kept expecting him to describe how it launches your browser to a fake bank login site. Just curious... did I miss something?


You're correct, the analysis is incomplete without analyzing the payload.


He thinks it's for replacing a bit of your browser and doing phishing that way, based entirely on the symbols the executable imports. So it's a guess, but a semi-educated one.


I'll capitulate, but only if we get to subsequently call it a "phirus". (Though I suppose the lack of self-replication precludes calling it a virus.)


by chance it appeared to come from someone who has previously written to me

To me, this suggests a viral nature of the attack.


I think the correct term would be 'malicious agent', which is a program which does something bad, but we don't know what for now.


I'd be interested to know which steps of the packaging process were done automatically. Presumably these two could be automated in a straightforward fashion:

Embedding a script in a command via cmd /C ... & ... & ... (twice)

Generating a script and then running it (four times)

The call to isDebuggerPresent in the final payload executable would be about zero inconvenience to a malware analyst. The sophistication of the packing makes me think there are probably other antidebug techniques present.


I was hoping that an onion was the name for a group of obfuscations as per http://www.futilitycloset.com/2010/01/03/a-field-guide/




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: