Tag Archives: Malware

Steam Censors MEGA.nz Links in Chats and Forum Posts

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/steam-censors-mega-nz-links-in-chats-and-forum-posts-180421/

With more than 150 million registered accounts, Steam is much more than just a game distribution platform.

For many people, it’s also a social hangout and a communication channel.

Steam’s instant messaging tool, for example, is widely used for chats with friends. About games of course, but also to discuss lots of other stuff.

While Valve doesn’t mind people socializing on its platform, there are certain things the company doesn’t want Steam users to share. This includes links to the cloud hosting service Mega.

Users who’d like to show off some gaming footage, or even a collection of cat pictures they stored on Mega, are unable to do so. As it turns out, Steam actively censors these type of links from forum posts and chats.

In forum posts, these offending links are replaced by the text {LINK REMOVED} and private chats get the same treatment. Instead of the Mega link, people on the other end only get a mention that a link was removed.

Mega link removed from chat

While Mega operates as a regular company that offers cloud hosting services, Steam notes on their website that the website is “potentially malicious.”

“The site could contain malicious content or be known for stealing user credentials,” Steam’s link checker warns.

Potentially malicious…

It’s unclear what malicious means in this context. Mega has never been flagged by Google’s Safe Browsing program, which is regarded as one of the industry standards for malware and other unwanted software.

What’s more likely is that Mega’s piracy stigma has something to do with the censoring. As it turns out, Steam also censors 4shared.com, as well as Pirate Bay’s former .se domain name.

Other “malicious sites” which get the same treatment are more game oriented, such as cheathappens.com and the CSGO Skin Screenshot site metjm.net. While it’s understandable some game developers don’t like these, malicious is a rather broad term in this regard.

Mega clearly refutes that they are doing anything wrong. Mega Chairman Stephen Hall tells TorrentFreak that the company swiftly removes any malicious content, once it receives an abuse notice.

“It is crazy for sites to block Mega links as we respond very quickly to disable any links that are reported as malware, generally much quicker than our competitors,” Hall says.

Valve did not immediately reply to our request for clarification so the precise reason for the link censoring remains unknown.

That said, when something’s censored the public tends to work around any restrictions. Mega links are still being shared on Steam, with a slightly altered URL. In addition, Mega’s backup domain Mega.co.nz still works fine too.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Securing Elections

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/securing_electi_1.html

Elections serve two purposes. The first, and obvious, purpose is to accurately choose the winner. But the second is equally important: to convince the loser. To the extent that an election system is not transparently and auditably accurate, it fails in that second purpose. Our election systems are failing, and we need to fix them.

Today, we conduct our elections on computers. Our registration lists are in computer databases. We vote on computerized voting machines. And our tabulation and reporting is done on computers. We do this for a lot of good reasons, but a side effect is that elections now have all the insecurities inherent in computers. The only way to reliably protect elections from both malice and accident is to use something that is not hackable or unreliable at scale; the best way to do that is to back up as much of the system as possible with paper.

Recently, there have been two graphic demonstrations of how bad our computerized voting system is. In 2007, the states of California and Ohio conducted audits of their electronic voting machines. Expert review teams found exploitable vulnerabilities in almost every component they examined. The researchers were able to undetectably alter vote tallies, erase audit logs, and load malware on to the systems. Some of their attacks could be implemented by a single individual with no greater access than a normal poll worker; others could be done remotely.

Last year, the Defcon hackers’ conference sponsored a Voting Village. Organizers collected 25 pieces of voting equipment, including voting machines and electronic poll books. By the end of the weekend, conference attendees had found ways to compromise every piece of test equipment: to load malicious software, compromise vote tallies and audit logs, or cause equipment to fail.

It’s important to understand that these were not well-funded nation-state attackers. These were not even academics who had been studying the problem for weeks. These were bored hackers, with no experience with voting machines, playing around between parties one weekend.

It shouldn’t be any surprise that voting equipment, including voting machines, voter registration databases, and vote tabulation systems, are that hackable. They’re computers — often ancient computers running operating systems no longer supported by the manufacturers — and they don’t have any magical security technology that the rest of the industry isn’t privy to. If anything, they’re less secure than the computers we generally use, because their manufacturers hide any flaws behind the proprietary nature of their equipment.

We’re not just worried about altering the vote. Sometimes causing widespread failures, or even just sowing mistrust in the system, is enough. And an election whose results are not trusted or believed is a failed election.

Voting systems have another requirement that makes security even harder to achieve: the requirement for a secret ballot. Because we have to securely separate the election-roll system that determines who can vote from the system that collects and tabulates the votes, we can’t use the security systems available to banking and other high-value applications.

We can securely bank online, but can’t securely vote online. If we could do away with anonymity — if everyone could check that their vote was counted correctly — then it would be easy to secure the vote. But that would lead to other problems. Before the US had the secret ballot, voter coercion and vote-buying were widespread.

We can’t, so we need to accept that our voting systems are insecure. We need an election system that is resilient to the threats. And for many parts of the system, that means paper.

Let’s start with the voter rolls. We know they’ve already been targeted. In 2016, someone changed the party affiliation of hundreds of voters before the Republican primary. That’s just one possibility. A well-executed attack that deletes, for example, one in five voters at random — or changes their addresses — would cause chaos on election day.

Yes, we need to shore up the security of these systems. We need better computer, network, and database security for the various state voter organizations. We also need to better secure the voter registration websites, with better design and better internet security. We need better security for the companies that build and sell all this equipment.

Multiple, unchangeable backups are essential. A record of every addition, deletion, and change needs to be stored on a separate system, on write-only media like a DVD. Copies of that DVD, or — even better — a paper printout of the voter rolls, should be available at every polling place on election day. We need to be ready for anything.

Next, the voting machines themselves. Security researchers agree that the gold standard is a voter-verified paper ballot. The easiest (and cheapest) way to achieve this is through optical-scan voting. Voters mark paper ballots by hand; they are fed into a machine and counted automatically. That paper ballot is saved, and serves as a final true record in a recount in case of problems. Touch-screen machines that print a paper ballot to drop in a ballot box can also work for voters with disabilities, as long as the ballot can be easily read and verified by the voter.

Finally, the tabulation and reporting systems. Here again we need more security in the process, but we must always use those paper ballots as checks on the computers. A manual, post-election, risk-limiting audit varies the number of ballots examined according to the margin of victory. Conducting this audit after every election, before the results are certified, gives us confidence that the election outcome is correct, even if the voting machines and tabulation computers have been tampered with. Additionally, we need better coordination and communications when incidents occur.

It’s vital to agree on these procedures and policies before an election. Before the fact, when anyone can win and no one knows whose votes might be changed, it’s easy to agree on strong security. But after the vote, someone is the presumptive winner — and then everything changes. Half of the country wants the result to stand, and half wants it reversed. At that point, it’s too late to agree on anything.

The politicians running in the election shouldn’t have to argue their challenges in court. Getting elections right is in the interest of all citizens. Many countries have independent election commissions that are charged with conducting elections and ensuring their security. We don’t do that in the US.

Instead, we have representatives from each of our two parties in the room, keeping an eye on each other. That provided acceptable security against 20th-century threats, but is totally inadequate to secure our elections in the 21st century. And the belief that the diversity of voting systems in the US provides a measure of security is a dangerous myth, because few districts can be decisive and there are so few voting-machine vendors.

We can do better. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security declared elections to be critical infrastructure, allowing the department to focus on securing them. On 23 March, Congress allocated $380m to states to upgrade election security.

These are good starts, but don’t go nearly far enough. The constitution delegates elections to the states but allows Congress to “make or alter such Regulations”. In 1845, Congress set a nationwide election day. Today, we need it to set uniform and strict election standards.

This essay originally appeared in the Guardian.

WHOIS Limits Under GDPR Will Make Pirates Harder to Catch, Groups Fear

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/whois-limits-under-gdpr-will-make-pirates-harder-to-catch-groups-fear-180413/

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a regulation in EU law covering data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union.

As more and more personal data is gathered, stored and (ab)used online, the aim of the GDPR is to protect EU citizens from breaches of privacy. The regulation applies to all companies processing the personal data of subjects residing in the Union, no matter where in the world the company is located.

Penalties for non-compliance can be severe. While there is a tiered approach according to severity, organizations can be fined up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20 million, whichever is greater. Needless to say, the regulations will need to be taken seriously.

Among those affected are domain name registries and registrars who publish the personal details of domain name owners in the public WHOIS database. In a full entry, a person or organization’s name, address, telephone numbers and email addresses can often be found.

This raises a serious issue. While registries and registrars are instructed and contractually obliged to publish data in the WHOIS database by global domain name authority ICANN, in millions of cases this conflicts with the requirements of the GDPR, which prevents the details of private individuals being made freely available on the Internet.

As explained in detail by the EFF, ICANN has been trying to resolve this clash. Its proposed interim model for GDPR compliance (pdf) envisions registrars continuing to collect full WHOIS data but not necessarily publishing it, to “allow the existing data
to be preserved while the community discussions continue on the next generation of WHOIS.”

But the proposed changes that will inevitably restrict free access to WHOIS information has plenty of people spooked, including thousands of companies belonging to entertainment industry groups such as the MPAA, IFPI, RIAA and the Copyright Alliance.

In a letter sent to Vice President Andrus Ansip of the European Commission, these groups and dozens of others warn that restricted access to WHOIS will have a serious effect on their ability to protect their intellectual property rights from “cybercriminals” which pose a threat to their businesses.

Signed by 50 organizations involved in IP protection and other areas of online security, the letter expresses concern that in attempting to comply with the GDPR, ICANN is on a course to “over-correct” while disregarding proportionality, accountability and transparency.

A small sample of the groups calling on ICANN

“We strongly assert that this model does not properly account for the critical public and legitimate interests served by maintaining a sufficient amount of data publicly available while respecting privacy interests of registrants by instituting a tiered or layered access system for the vast majority of personal data as defined by the GDPR,” the groups write.

The letter focuses on two aspects of “over-correction”, the first being ICANN’s proposal that no personal data whatsoever of a domain name registrant will be made available “without appropriate consideration or balancing of the countervailing interests in public disclosure of a limited amount of such data.”

In response to ICANN’s proposal that only the province/state and country of a domain name registrant be made publicly available, the groups advise the organization that publishing “a natural person registrant’s e-mail address” in a publicly accessible WHOIS directory will not constitute a breach of the GDPR.

“[W]e strongly believe that the continued public availability of the registrant’s e-mail address – specifically the e-mail address that the registrant supplies to the registrar at the time the domain name is purchased and which e-mail address the registrar is required to validate – is critical for several reasons,” the groups write.

“First, it is the data element that is typically the most important to have readily available for law enforcement, consumer protection, particularly child protection, intellectual property enforcement and cybersecurity/anti-malware purposes.

“Second, the public accessibility of the registrant’s e-mail address permits a broad array of threats and illegal activities to be addressed quickly and the damage from such threats mitigated and contained in a timely manner, particularly where the abusive/illegal activity may be spawned from a variety of different domain names on different generic Top Level Domains,” they add.

The groups also argue that since making email addresses is effectively required in light of Article 5.1(c) ECD, “there is no legitimate justification to discontinue public availability of the registrant’s e-mail address in the WHOIS directory and especially not in light of other legitimate purposes.”

The EFF, on the other hand, says that being able to contact a domain owner wouldn’t necessarily require an email address to be made public.

“There are other cases in which it makes sense to allow members of the public to contact the owner of a domain, without having to obtain a court order,” EFF writes.

“But this could be achieved very simply if ICANN were simply to provide something like a CAPTCHA-protected contact form, which would deliver email to the appropriate contact point with no need to reveal the registrant’s actual email address.”

The groups’ second main concern is that ICANN reportedly makes no distinction between name registrants that are “natural persons versus those that are legal entities” and intends to treat them all as if they are subject to the GDPR, despite the fact that the regulation only applies to data associated with an “identified or identifiable natural person”.

They say it is imperative that EU Data Protection Authorities are made to understand that when registrants obtain a domain for illegal purposes, they often only register it as a “natural person” when registering as a legal person (legal entity) would be more appropriate, despite that granting them less privacy.

“Consequently, the test for differentiating between a legal and natural person should not merely be the legal status of the registrant, but also whether the registrant is, in fact, acting as a legal or natural person vis a vis the use of the domain name,” the groups note.

“We therefore urge that ICANN be given appropriate guidance as to the importance of maintaining a distinction between natural person and legal person registrants and keeping as much data about legal person domain name registrants as publicly accessible as possible,” they conclude.

What will happen with WHOIS on May 25 still isn’t clear. It wasn’t until October 2017 that ICANN finally determined that it would be affected by the GDPR, meaning that it’s been scrambling ever since to meet the compliance date. And it still is, according to the latest available documentation (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

uTorrent Flagged as ‘Threat’ by Microsoft and Anti-Virus Vendors

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/utorrent-flagged-as-threat-by-microsoft-and-anti-virus-vendors-180312/

Installed on dozens of millions of devices, uTorrent is the go-to torrent client for people all around the world.

While the software usually runs without hassle, many users started to experience problems recently. Several anti-virus tools, including Windows Defender, suddenly labeled the torrent client as dangerous.

Microsoft categorizes the affected clients as “Potentially Unwanted Software,” as can be seen below. The company has had a dedicated Utorrent page for a while, labeling it as a severe threat. This week, however, alarm bells started to go off on a broader scale.

uTorrent threat

It’s unclear what exactly triggered the recent warning. According to VirusTotal, a handful of anti-virus companies label uTorrent as problematic. ESET-NOD32 lists “Web Companion” as the trigger, which likely points to Lavasoft’s Ad-Aware software, which is sometimes bundled with uTorrent.

uTorrent parent company BitTorrent Inc. is aware of the problems but believes they’re false positives triggered by one of their recent releases.

“We believe that this passive flag changed to active just hours ago with the Windows patch Tuesday update, when a small percent of users started getting an explicit block,” the company told us.

“We had three uTorrent executables being served from our site. Two were going to 95% of our users and were not part of the Windows block. The third, which was going to 5% of users, was part of the Windows block. We stopped shipping that and confirmed we are no longer seeing any blocks.”

The issue doesn’t appear to be restricted to new installs only. Several users have reported that their uTorrent application was suddenly quarantined as unwanted software, possibly after an automatic update.

We rechecked the VirusTotal result with the most current uTorrent release, and this is still flagged by six anti-virus vendors.

VirusTotal results

But that’s not all. The uTorrent download page itself also triggers a warning from MalwareBytes’ real-time protection module, which brands the website itself as malicious.

Interestingly, when trying to install uTorrent, Windows lists Lavasoft Software Canada as the verified publisher. While Lavasoft’s “Ad-Aware WebCompanion” is regularly bundled with uTorrent as an ‘offer,’ we didn’t get that option when we last tried, nor was it installed.

After we installed it during an initial test yesterday, we did notice that WebCompanion was installed around the same time. However, we have been unable to replicate this result.

BitTorrent Inc. stresses that any of the offers users get during the install process are optional, Google-compliant, and in accordance with the Clean Software Alliance (CSA) standards.

Whatever is causing the red flags at Microsoft and the other companies remains a mystery for now, also for BitTorrent Inc.

“Based on our best assessment to date, we’ve found no reason why we would be blocked – especially on some builds and not others which are basically identical,” BitTorrent says.

“We are continuing to reach out, though, and hope to have more information,” the company adds.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

[$] Kernel lockdown in 4.17?

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/750730/rss

The UEFI secure boot mechanism is intended to protect the system against
persistent malware threats — unpleasant bits of software attached to the
operating system or bootloader that will survive a reboot. While Linux
has supported secure boot for some time, proponents have long said that
this support is incomplete in that it is still possible for the root user
to corrupt the system in a number of ways. Patches that attempt to
close this hole have been circulating for years, but they have been
controversial at best. This story may finally come to a close, though, if
Linus Torvalds accepts the “kernel lockdown” patch series during the 4.17
merge window.

Adding Backdoors at the Chip Level

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/adding_backdoor.html

Interesting research into undetectably adding backdoors into computer chips during manufacture: “Stealthy dopant-level hardware Trojans: extended version,” also available here:

Abstract: In recent years, hardware Trojans have drawn the attention of governments and industry as well as the scientific community. One of the main concerns is that integrated circuits, e.g., for military or critical-infrastructure applications, could be maliciously manipulated during the manufacturing process, which often takes place abroad. However, since there have been no reported hardware Trojans in practice yet, little is known about how such a Trojan would look like and how difficult it would be in practice to implement one. In this paper we propose an extremely stealthy approach for implementing hardware Trojans below the gate level, and we evaluate their impact on the security of the target device. Instead of adding additional circuitry to the target design, we insert our hardware Trojans by changing the dopant polarity of existing transistors. Since the modified circuit appears legitimate on all wiring layers (including all metal and polysilicon), our family of Trojans is resistant to most detection techniques, including fine-grain optical inspection and checking against “golden chips”. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach by inserting Trojans into two designs — a digital post-processing derived from Intel’s cryptographically secure RNG design used in the Ivy Bridge processors and a side-channel resistant SBox implementation­ — and by exploring their detectability and their effects on security.

The moral is that this kind of technique is very difficult to detect.

Pirate Site Visits Lead to More Malware, Research Finds

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-site-visits-lead-to-more-malware-research-finds-180318/

In recent years copyright holders have been rather concerned with the health of pirates’ computers.

They regularly highlight reports which show that pirate sites are rife with malware and even alert potential pirates-to-be about the dangers of these sites.

The recent “Meet The Malwares” campaign, targeted at small children, went as far as claiming that pirate sites are the number one way through which this malicious software is spread. We debunked this claim, but it’s hard to deny that pirate sites have their downsides.

While the operators of pirate sites are usually unaware, advertisers and malicious uploaders sometimes use their sites to distribute adware or malware. But does that put people at significant risk? Research from Carnegie Mellon University Professor Rahul Telang provides some further insight.

For a year, Telang observed the browsing and other computer habits of 253 people who took part in the Security Behavior Observatory. The results, published in a paper titled “Does Online Piracy make Computers Insecure?” show that there is a link between pirate site visits and malware.

“We find that more visits to infringing sites does lead to more number of malware files being downloaded on user machines. In particular doubling the amount of time spent on infringing sites cause a 20 percent increase in malware count,” Telang writes.

This effect was only visible for pirate sites, and not for other categories such as banking, gambling, gaming, shopping, social networking, and even adult websites.

Through the Security Behavior Observatory, all files on the respondents’ computers were scanned and checked against reports from Virustotal.com. This also includes adware, but even without this category, the results remain intact.

“Even after we classify malware files into adware and remove them from analysis, our results still suggest that there is a 20 percent increase in malware count due to visits to infringing sites. These results are robust to various controls and specifications.”

Interestingly, one would expect that people who frequently visit pirate sites are more likely to have anti-virus software installed. However, this was not the case.

“We also find that users who visit infringing sites do not take any more precautions than other users. In particular, we find no evidence that such users are more likely to install anti-virus software. If anything, we find that infringing users are more risk taking,” the paper reads.

A 20 percent increase in malware sounds dramatic, and while we don’t want to downplay these results or the risks involved, it’s worth highlighting the absolute numbers.

The research estimates that, when someone doubles the amount of traffic spent on a pirate site, this person adds an extra 0.05 of a piece of malware per month, with the average being 0.24. So, most people encounter no malware in a typical month. This means that pirate sites are an increased a risk, but it’s not as extreme as sometimes portrayed.

There is also no evidence that malware is predominantly spread through pirate sites. Looking at the total sample, the average number of malware files found on a pirate’s machine is 1.5, compared to 1.4 for those who never visit any pirate sites at all.

While there’s certainly some risk involved, it’s doubtful that the results will deter many people. Previous research revealed that the majority of all pirates are fully aware of the malware risks, but that they continue nonetheless.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Microsoft: Poisoned Torrent Client Triggered Coin Miner Outbreak

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-poisoned-torrent-client-triggered-coin-miner-outbreak-180315/

First released in 2010, MediaGet has been around for a while. Initially, the torrent client was available in Russian only, but the team later expanded its reach across the world.

While it’s a relatively small player, it has been installed on millions of computers in recent years. It still has a significant reach, which is what Microsoft also found out recently.

This week the Windows Defender Research team reported that a poisoned version of the BitTorrent client was used to start the Dofoil campaign, which attempted to offload hundreds of thousands of malicious cryptocurrency miners.

Although Windows Defender caught and blocked the culprit within milliseconds, the team further researched the issue to find out how this could have happened.

It turns out that the update process for the application was poisoned. This then enabled a signed version of MediaGet to drop off a compromised version, as can be seen in the diagram below.

“A signed mediaget.exe downloads an update.exe program and runs it on the machine to install a new mediaget.exe. The new mediaget.exe program has the same functionality as the original but with additional backdoor capability,” Microsoft’s team explains.

The update poisoning

The malicious MediaGet version eventually triggered the mass coin miner outbreak. Windows Defender Research stresses that the poisoned version was signed by a third-party software company, not MediaGet itself.

Once the malware was launched the client built a list of command-and-control servers, using embedded NameCoin DNS servers and domains with the non-ICANN-sanctioned .bit TLD, making it harder to shut down.

More detailed information on the attack and how Dofoil was used to infect computers can be found in Microsoft’s full analysis.

MediaGet informs TorrentFreak that hackers compromised the update server to carry out their attack.

“Hackers got access to our update server, using an exploit in the Zabbix service and deeply integrated into our update mechanics. They modified the original version of Mediaget to add their functionality,” MediaGet reveals.

The company says that roughly five percent of all users were affected by the compromised update servers. All affected users were alerted and urged to update their software.

The issue is believed to be fully resolved at MediaGet’s end and they’re working with Microsoft to take care of any copies that may still be floating around in the wild.

“We patched everything and improved our verification system. To all the poisoned users we sent the message about an urgent update. Also, we are in contact with Microsoft, they will clean up all the poisoned versions,” MediaGet concludes.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Trump Promises Copyright Crackdown as DoJ Takes Aim at Streaming Pirates

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/trump-promises-copyright-crackdown-as-doj-takes-aim-at-streaming-pirates-180308/

For the past several years most of the world has been waking up to the streaming piracy phenomenon, with pre-configured set-top boxes making inroads into millions of homes.

While other countries, notably the UK, arrested many individuals while warning of a grave and looming danger, complaints from the United States remained relatively low-key. It was almost as if the stampede towards convenient yet illegal streaming had caught the MPAA and friends by surprise.

In October 2017, things quickly began to change. The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment sued Georgia-based Tickbox TV, a company selling “fully-loaded” Kodi boxes. In January 2018, the same anti-piracy group targeted Dragon Media, a company in the same line of business.

With this growing type of piracy now firmly on the radar, momentum seems to be building. Yesterday, a panel discussion on the challenges associated with piracy from streaming media boxes took place on Capitol Hill.

Hosted by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), ‘Unboxing the Piracy Threat of Streaming Media Boxes’ went ahead with some big name speakers in attendance, not least Neil Fried, Senior Vice President, Federal Advocacy and Regulatory Affairs at the MPAA.

ITIF and various industry groups tweeted many interesting comments throughout the event. Kevin Madigan from Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property told the panel that torrent-based content “is becoming obsolete” in an on-demand digital environment that’s switching to streaming-based piracy.

While there’s certainly a transition taking place, 150 million worldwide torrent users would probably argue against the term “obsolete”. Nevertheless, the same terms used to describe torrent sites are now being used to describe players in the streaming field.

“There’s a criminal enterprise going on here that’s stealing content and making a profit,” Fried told those in attendance.

“The piracy activity out there is bad, it’s hurting a lot of economic activity & creators aren’t being compensated for their work,” he added.

Tom Galvin, Executive Director at the Digital Citizens Alliance, was also on the panel. Unsurprisingly, given the organization’s focus on the supposed dangers of piracy, Galvin took the opportunity to underline that position.

“If you go down the piracy road, those boxes aren’t following proper security protocols, there are many malware risks,” he said. It’s a position shared by Fried, who told the panel that “video piracy is the leading source of malware.”

Similar claims were made recently on Safer Internet Day but the facts don’t seem to back up the scare stories. Still, with the “Piracy is Dangerous” strategy already out in the open, the claims aren’t really unexpected.

What might also not come as a surprise is that ACE’s lawsuits against Tickbox and Dragon Media could be just a warm-up for bigger things to come. In the tweet embedded below, Fried can be seen holding a hexagonal-shaped streaming box, warning that the Department of Justice is now looking for candidates for criminal action.

What form this action will take when it arrives isn’t clear but when the DoJ hits targets on home soil, it tends to cherry-pick the most blatant of infringers in order to set an example with reasonably cut-and-dried cases.

Of course, every case can be argued but with hundreds of so-called “Kodi box” sellers active all over the United States, many of them clearly breaking the law as they, in turn, invite their customers to break the law, picking a sitting duck shouldn’t be too difficult.

And then, of course, we come to President Trump. Not usually that vocal on matters of intellectual property and piracy, yesterday – perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not – he suddenly delivered one of his “something is coming” tweets.

Given Trump’s tendency to focus on problems overseas causing issues for companies back home, a comment by Kevin Madigan during the panel yesterday immediately comes to mind.

“To combat piracy abroad, USTR needs to work with the creative industries to improve enforcement and target the source of pirated material,” Madigan said.

Interesting times and much turmoil in the streaming world ahead, it seems.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Comcast’s Protected Browsing Blocks TorrentFreak as “Suspicious” Site

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/comcasts-protected-browsing-blocks-torrentfreak-as-suspicious-site-18004/

Regular TorrentFreak readers know that website blocking is rampant around the globe.

Thousands of pirate sites have been blocked by court orders for offering access to infringing content. However, there are plenty of voluntary blocking measures as well.

Some Internet providers offer web filtering tools to help their customers avoid malware, adult content, pirate services, or other suspicious content. Comcast’s Xfinity Xfi service, for example, has a “protected browsing” feature.

While this can be useful in some situations, it’s far from perfect. The blocklists that are used can be quite broad. Websites are sometimes miscategorized or flagged as dangerous while that’s not the case.

This also appears to be happening with Xfinity’s protected browsing feature. A reader alerted us that, when he tried to access TorrentFreak, access was denied stating that a “suspicious” site was ahead.

A pirate logo on the blocking page suggests that there’s copyright-infringing activity involved. While it’s no secret that we cover a lot of news related to piracy, it goes a bit far to label this type of news reporting as suspicious.

Suspicious…..

While we don’t know whether the blockade is intentional or a false positive, this is certainly not the only ‘problem’ with Xfinity’s protected browsing feature.

Previously, Comcast users reported that this system prevented people from accessing PayPal as well, which is a bit much, and others reported that it stopped the Steam store from loading properly.

The good news is that the blocking ‘feature’ isn’t mandatory. Subscribers can enable and disable it whenever they please, by changing their network settings.

Unfortunately, Xfinity’s blocking efforts are not unique. We regularly get reports from users who can’t access TorrentFreak because it’s blocked, often on public WiFi networks. In these and other cases, a VPN can always come in handy.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Malware from Space

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/malware_from_sp.html

Since you don’t have enough to worry about, here’s a paper postulating that space aliens could send us malware capable of destroying humanity.

Abstract: A complex message from space may require the use of computers to display, analyze and understand. Such a message cannot be decontaminated with certainty, and technical risks remain which can pose an existential threat. Complex messages would need to be destroyed in the risk averse case.

I think we’re more likely to be enslaved by malicious AIs.

New Spectre/Meltdown Variants

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/02/new_spectremelt.html

Researchers have discovered new variants of Spectre and Meltdown. The software mitigations for Spectre and Meltdown seem to block these variants, although the eventual CPU fixes will have to be expanded to account for these new attacks.

Flight Sim Company Embeds Malware to Steal Pirates’ Passwords

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/flight-sim-company-embeds-malware-to-steal-pirates-passwords-180219/

Anti-piracy systems and DRM come in all shapes and sizes, none of them particularly popular, but one deployed by flight sim company FlightSimLabs is likely to go down in history as one of the most outrageous.

It all started yesterday on Reddit when Flight Sim user ‘crankyrecursion’ reported a little extra something in his download of FlightSimLabs’ A320X module.

“Using file ‘FSLabs_A320X_P3D_v2.0.1.231.exe’ there seems to be a file called ‘test.exe’ included,” crankyrecursion wrote.

“This .exe file is from http://securityxploded.com and is touted as a ‘Chrome Password Dump’ tool, which seems to work – particularly as the installer would typically run with Administrative rights (UAC prompts) on Windows Vista and above. Can anyone shed light on why this tool is included in a supposedly trusted installer?”

The existence of a Chrome password dumping tool is certainly cause for alarm, especially if the software had been obtained from a less-than-official source, such as a torrent or similar site, given the potential for third-party pollution.

However, with the possibility of a nefarious third-party dumping something nasty in a pirate release still lurking on the horizon, things took an unexpected turn. FlightSimLabs chief Lefteris Kalamaras made a statement basically admitting that his company was behind the malware installation.

“We were made aware there is a Reddit thread started tonight regarding our latest installer and how a tool is included in it, that indiscriminately dumps Chrome passwords. That is not correct information – in fact, the Reddit thread was posted by a person who is not our customer and has somehow obtained our installer without purchasing,” Kalamaras wrote.

“[T]here are no tools used to reveal any sensitive information of any customer who has legitimately purchased our products. We all realize that you put a lot of trust in our products and this would be contrary to what we believe.

“There is a specific method used against specific serial numbers that have been identified as pirate copies and have been making the rounds on ThePirateBay, RuTracker and other such malicious sites,” he added.

In a nutshell, FlightSimLabs installed a password dumper onto ALL users’ machines, whether they were pirates or not, but then only activated the password-stealing module when it determined that specific ‘pirate’ serial numbers had been used which matched those on FlightSimLabs’ servers.

“Test.exe is part of the DRM and is only targeted against specific pirate copies of copyrighted software obtained illegally. That program is only extracted temporarily and is never under any circumstances used in legitimate copies of the product,” Kalamaras added.

That didn’t impress Luke Gorman, who published an analysis slamming the flight sim company for knowingly installing password-stealing malware on users machines, even those who purchased the title legitimately.

Password stealer in action (credit: Luke Gorman)

Making matters even worse, the FlightSimLabs chief went on to say that information being obtained from pirates’ machines in this manner is likely to be used in court or other legal processes.

“This method has already successfully provided information that we’re going to use in our ongoing legal battles against such criminals,” Kalamaras revealed.

While the use of the extracted passwords and usernames elsewhere will remain to be seen, it appears that FlightSimLabs has had a change of heart. With immediate effect, the company is pointing customers to a new installer that doesn’t include code for stealing their most sensitive data.

“I want to reiterate and reaffirm that we as a company and as flight simmers would never do anything to knowingly violate the trust that you have placed in us by not only buying our products but supporting them and FlightSimLabs,” Kalamaras said in an update.

“While the majority of our customers understand that the fight against piracy is a difficult and ongoing battle that sometimes requires drastic measures, we realize that a few of you were uncomfortable with this particular method which might be considered to be a bit heavy handed on our part. It is for this reason we have uploaded an updated installer that does not include the DRM check file in question.”

To be continued………

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

How to Patch Linux Workloads on AWS

Post Syndicated from Koen van Blijderveen original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/how-to-patch-linux-workloads-on-aws/

Most malware tries to compromise your systems by using a known vulnerability that the operating system maker has already patched. As best practices to help prevent malware from affecting your systems, you should apply all operating system patches and actively monitor your systems for missing patches.

In this blog post, I show you how to patch Linux workloads using AWS Systems Manager. To accomplish this, I will show you how to use the AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI) to:

  1. Launch an Amazon EC2 instance for use with Systems Manager.
  2. Configure Systems Manager to patch your Amazon EC2 Linux instances.

In two previous blog posts (Part 1 and Part 2), I showed how to use the AWS Management Console to perform the necessary steps to patch, inspect, and protect Microsoft Windows workloads. You can implement those same processes for your Linux instances running in AWS by changing the instance tags and types shown in the previous blog posts.

Because most Linux system administrators are more familiar with using a command line, I show how to patch Linux workloads by using the AWS CLI in this blog post. The steps to use the Amazon EBS Snapshot Scheduler and Amazon Inspector are identical for both Microsoft Windows and Linux.

What you should know first

To follow along with the solution in this post, you need one or more Amazon EC2 instances. You may use existing instances or create new instances. For this post, I assume this is an Amazon EC2 for Amazon Linux instance installed from Amazon Machine Images (AMIs).

Systems Manager is a collection of capabilities that helps you automate management tasks for AWS-hosted instances on Amazon EC2 and your on-premises servers. In this post, I use Systems Manager for two purposes: to run remote commands and apply operating system patches. To learn about the full capabilities of Systems Manager, see What Is AWS Systems Manager?

As of Amazon Linux 2017.09, the AMI comes preinstalled with the Systems Manager agent. Systems Manager Patch Manager also supports Red Hat and Ubuntu. To install the agent on these Linux distributions or an older version of Amazon Linux, see Installing and Configuring SSM Agent on Linux Instances.

If you are not familiar with how to launch an Amazon EC2 instance, see Launching an Instance. I also assume you launched or will launch your instance in a private subnet. You must make sure that the Amazon EC2 instance can connect to the internet using a network address translation (NAT) instance or NAT gateway to communicate with Systems Manager. The following diagram shows how you should structure your VPC.

Diagram showing how to structure your VPC

Later in this post, you will assign tasks to a maintenance window to patch your instances with Systems Manager. To do this, the IAM user you are using for this post must have the iam:PassRole permission. This permission allows the IAM user assigning tasks to pass his own IAM permissions to the AWS service. In this example, when you assign a task to a maintenance window, IAM passes your credentials to Systems Manager. You also should authorize your IAM user to use Amazon EC2 and Systems Manager. As mentioned before, you will be using the AWS CLI for most of the steps in this blog post. Our documentation shows you how to get started with the AWS CLI. Make sure you have the AWS CLI installed and configured with an AWS access key and secret access key that belong to an IAM user that have the following AWS managed policies attached to the IAM user you are using for this example: AmazonEC2FullAccess and AmazonSSMFullAccess.

Step 1: Launch an Amazon EC2 Linux instance

In this section, I show you how to launch an Amazon EC2 instance so that you can use Systems Manager with the instance. This step requires you to do three things:

  1. Create an IAM role for Systems Manager before launching your Amazon EC2 instance.
  2. Launch your Amazon EC2 instance with Amazon EBS and the IAM role for Systems Manager.
  3. Add tags to the instances so that you can add your instances to a Systems Manager maintenance window based on tags.

A. Create an IAM role for Systems Manager

Before launching an Amazon EC2 instance, I recommend that you first create an IAM role for Systems Manager, which you will use to update the Amazon EC2 instance. AWS already provides a preconfigured policy that you can use for the new role and it is called AmazonEC2RoleforSSM.

  1. Create a JSON file named trustpolicy-ec2ssm.json that contains the following trust policy. This policy describes which principal (an entity that can take action on an AWS resource) is allowed to assume the role we are going to create. In this example, the principal is the Amazon EC2 service.
    {
      "Version": "2012-10-17",
      "Statement": {
        "Effect": "Allow",
        "Principal": {"Service": "ec2.amazonaws.com"},
        "Action": "sts:AssumeRole"
      }
    }

  1. Use the following command to create a role named EC2SSM that has the AWS managed policy AmazonEC2RoleforSSM attached to it. This generates JSON-based output that describes the role and its parameters, if the command is successful.
    $ aws iam create-role --role-name EC2SSM --assume-role-policy-document file://trustpolicy-ec2ssm.json

  1. Use the following command to attach the AWS managed IAM policy (AmazonEC2RoleforSSM) to your newly created role.
    $ aws iam attach-role-policy --role-name EC2SSM --policy-arn arn:aws:iam::aws:policy/service-role/AmazonEC2RoleforSSM

  1. Use the following commands to create the IAM instance profile and add the role to the instance profile. The instance profile is needed to attach the role we created earlier to your Amazon EC2 instance.
    $ aws iam create-instance-profile --instance-profile-name EC2SSM-IP
    $ aws iam add-role-to-instance-profile --instance-profile-name EC2SSM-IP --role-name EC2SSM

B. Launch your Amazon EC2 instance

To follow along, you need an Amazon EC2 instance that is running Amazon Linux. You can use any existing instance you may have or create a new instance.

When launching a new Amazon EC2 instance, be sure that:

  1. Use the following command to launch a new Amazon EC2 instance using an Amazon Linux AMI available in the US East (N. Virginia) Region (also known as us-east-1). Replace YourKeyPair and YourSubnetId with your information. For more information about creating a key pair, see the create-key-pair documentation. Write down the InstanceId that is in the output because you will need it later in this post.
    $ aws ec2 run-instances --image-id ami-cb9ec1b1 --instance-type t2.micro --key-name YourKeyPair --subnet-id YourSubnetId --iam-instance-profile Name=EC2SSM-IP

  1. If you are using an existing Amazon EC2 instance, you can use the following command to attach the instance profile you created earlier to your instance.
    $ aws ec2 associate-iam-instance-profile --instance-id YourInstanceId --iam-instance-profile Name=EC2SSM-IP

C. Add tags

The final step of configuring your Amazon EC2 instances is to add tags. You will use these tags to configure Systems Manager in Step 2 of this post. For this example, I add a tag named Patch Group and set the value to Linux Servers. I could have other groups of Amazon EC2 instances that I treat differently by having the same tag name but a different tag value. For example, I might have a collection of other servers with the tag name Patch Group with a value of Web Servers.

  • Use the following command to add the Patch Group tag to your Amazon EC2 instance.
    $ aws ec2 create-tags --resources YourInstanceId --tags --tags Key="Patch Group",Value="Linux Servers"

Note: You must wait a few minutes until the Amazon EC2 instance is available before you can proceed to the next section. To make sure your Amazon EC2 instance is online and ready, you can use the following AWS CLI command:

$ aws ec2 describe-instance-status --instance-ids YourInstanceId

At this point, you now have at least one Amazon EC2 instance you can use to configure Systems Manager.

Step 2: Configure Systems Manager

In this section, I show you how to configure and use Systems Manager to apply operating system patches to your Amazon EC2 instances, and how to manage patch compliance.

To start, I provide some background information about Systems Manager. Then, I cover how to:

  1. Create the Systems Manager IAM role so that Systems Manager is able to perform patch operations.
  2. Create a Systems Manager patch baseline and associate it with your instance to define which patches Systems Manager should apply.
  3. Define a maintenance window to make sure Systems Manager patches your instance when you tell it to.
  4. Monitor patch compliance to verify the patch state of your instances.

You must meet two prerequisites to use Systems Manager to apply operating system patches. First, you must attach the IAM role you created in the previous section, EC2SSM, to your Amazon EC2 instance. Second, you must install the Systems Manager agent on your Amazon EC2 instance. If you have used a recent Amazon Linux AMI, Amazon has already installed the Systems Manager agent on your Amazon EC2 instance. You can confirm this by logging in to an Amazon EC2 instance and checking the Systems Manager agent log files that are located at /var/log/amazon/ssm/.

To install the Systems Manager agent on an instance that does not have the agent preinstalled or if you want to use the Systems Manager agent on your on-premises servers, see Installing and Configuring the Systems Manager Agent on Linux Instances. If you forgot to attach the newly created role when launching your Amazon EC2 instance or if you want to attach the role to already running Amazon EC2 instances, see Attach an AWS IAM Role to an Existing Amazon EC2 Instance by Using the AWS CLI or use the AWS Management Console.

A. Create the Systems Manager IAM role

For a maintenance window to be able to run any tasks, you must create a new role for Systems Manager. This role is a different kind of role than the one you created earlier: this role will be used by Systems Manager instead of Amazon EC2. Earlier, you created the role, EC2SSM, with the policy, AmazonEC2RoleforSSM, which allowed the Systems Manager agent on your instance to communicate with Systems Manager. In this section, you need a new role with the policy, AmazonSSMMaintenanceWindowRole, so that the Systems Manager service can execute commands on your instance.

To create the new IAM role for Systems Manager:

  1. Create a JSON file named trustpolicy-maintenancewindowrole.json that contains the following trust policy. This policy describes which principal is allowed to assume the role you are going to create. This trust policy allows not only Amazon EC2 to assume this role, but also Systems Manager.
    {
       "Version":"2012-10-17",
       "Statement":[
          {
             "Sid":"",
             "Effect":"Allow",
             "Principal":{
                "Service":[
                   "ec2.amazonaws.com",
                   "ssm.amazonaws.com"
               ]
             },
             "Action":"sts:AssumeRole"
          }
       ]
    }

  1. Use the following command to create a role named MaintenanceWindowRole that has the AWS managed policy, AmazonSSMMaintenanceWindowRole, attached to it. This command generates JSON-based output that describes the role and its parameters, if the command is successful.
    $ aws iam create-role --role-name MaintenanceWindowRole --assume-role-policy-document file://trustpolicy-maintenancewindowrole.json

  1. Use the following command to attach the AWS managed IAM policy (AmazonEC2RoleforSSM) to your newly created role.
    $ aws iam attach-role-policy --role-name MaintenanceWindowRole --policy-arn arn:aws:iam::aws:policy/service-role/AmazonSSMMaintenanceWindowRole

B. Create a Systems Manager patch baseline and associate it with your instance

Next, you will create a Systems Manager patch baseline and associate it with your Amazon EC2 instance. A patch baseline defines which patches Systems Manager should apply to your instance. Before you can associate the patch baseline with your instance, though, you must determine if Systems Manager recognizes your Amazon EC2 instance. Use the following command to list all instances managed by Systems Manager. The --filters option ensures you look only for your newly created Amazon EC2 instance.

$ aws ssm describe-instance-information --filters Key=InstanceIds,Values= YourInstanceId

{
    "InstanceInformationList": [
        {
            "IsLatestVersion": true,
            "ComputerName": "ip-10-50-2-245",
            "PingStatus": "Online",
            "InstanceId": "YourInstanceId",
            "IPAddress": "10.50.2.245",
            "ResourceType": "EC2Instance",
            "AgentVersion": "2.2.120.0",
            "PlatformVersion": "2017.09",
            "PlatformName": "Amazon Linux AMI",
            "PlatformType": "Linux",
            "LastPingDateTime": 1515759143.826
        }
    ]
}

If your instance is missing from the list, verify that:

  1. Your instance is running.
  2. You attached the Systems Manager IAM role, EC2SSM.
  3. You deployed a NAT gateway in your public subnet to ensure your VPC reflects the diagram shown earlier in this post so that the Systems Manager agent can connect to the Systems Manager internet endpoint.
  4. The Systems Manager agent logs don’t include any unaddressed errors.

Now that you have checked that Systems Manager can manage your Amazon EC2 instance, it is time to create a patch baseline. With a patch baseline, you define which patches are approved to be installed on all Amazon EC2 instances associated with the patch baseline. The Patch Group resource tag you defined earlier will determine to which patch group an instance belongs. If you do not specifically define a patch baseline, the default AWS-managed patch baseline is used.

To create a patch baseline:

  1. Use the following command to create a patch baseline named AmazonLinuxServers. With approval rules, you can determine the approved patches that will be included in your patch baseline. In this example, you add all Critical severity patches to the patch baseline as soon as they are released, by setting the Auto approval delay to 0 days. By setting the Auto approval delay to 2 days, you add to this patch baseline the Important, Medium, and Low severity patches two days after they are released.
    $ aws ssm create-patch-baseline --name "AmazonLinuxServers" --description "Baseline containing all updates for Amazon Linux" --operating-system AMAZON_LINUX --approval-rules "PatchRules=[{PatchFilterGroup={PatchFilters=[{Values=[Critical],Key=SEVERITY}]},ApproveAfterDays=0,ComplianceLevel=CRITICAL},{PatchFilterGroup={PatchFilters=[{Values=[Important,Medium,Low],Key=SEVERITY}]},ApproveAfterDays=2,ComplianceLevel=HIGH}]"
    
    {
        "BaselineId": "YourBaselineId"
    }

  1. Use the following command to register the patch baseline you created with your instance. To do so, you use the Patch Group tag that you added to your Amazon EC2 instance.
    $ aws ssm register-patch-baseline-for-patch-group --baseline-id YourPatchBaselineId --patch-group "Linux Servers"
    
    {
        "PatchGroup": "Linux Servers",
        "BaselineId": "YourBaselineId"
    }

C.  Define a maintenance window

Now that you have successfully set up a role, created a patch baseline, and registered your Amazon EC2 instance with your patch baseline, you will define a maintenance window so that you can control when your Amazon EC2 instances will receive patches. By creating multiple maintenance windows and assigning them to different patch groups, you can make sure your Amazon EC2 instances do not all reboot at the same time.

To define a maintenance window:

  1. Use the following command to define a maintenance window. In this example command, the maintenance window will start every Saturday at 10:00 P.M. UTC. It will have a duration of 4 hours and will not start any new tasks 1 hour before the end of the maintenance window.
    $ aws ssm create-maintenance-window --name SaturdayNight --schedule "cron(0 0 22 ? * SAT *)" --duration 4 --cutoff 1 --allow-unassociated-targets
    
    {
        "WindowId": "YourMaintenanceWindowId"
    }

For more information about defining a cron-based schedule for maintenance windows, see Cron and Rate Expressions for Maintenance Windows.

  1. After defining the maintenance window, you must register the Amazon EC2 instance with the maintenance window so that Systems Manager knows which Amazon EC2 instance it should patch in this maintenance window. You can register the instance by using the same Patch Group tag you used to associate the Amazon EC2 instance with the AWS-provided patch baseline, as shown in the following command.
    $ aws ssm register-target-with-maintenance-window --window-id YourMaintenanceWindowId --resource-type INSTANCE --targets "Key=tag:Patch Group,Values=Linux Servers"
    
    {
        "WindowTargetId": "YourWindowTargetId"
    }

  1. Assign a task to the maintenance window that will install the operating system patches on your Amazon EC2 instance. The following command includes the following options.
    1. name is the name of your task and is optional. I named mine Patching.
    2. task-arn is the name of the task document you want to run.
    3. max-concurrency allows you to specify how many of your Amazon EC2 instances Systems Manager should patch at the same time. max-errors determines when Systems Manager should abort the task. For patching, this number should not be too low, because you do not want your entire patch task to stop on all instances if one instance fails. You can set this, for example, to 20%.
    4. service-role-arn is the Amazon Resource Name (ARN) of the AmazonSSMMaintenanceWindowRole role you created earlier in this blog post.
    5. task-invocation-parameters defines the parameters that are specific to the AWS-RunPatchBaseline task document and tells Systems Manager that you want to install patches with a timeout of 600 seconds (10 minutes).
      $ aws ssm register-task-with-maintenance-window --name "Patching" --window-id "YourMaintenanceWindowId" --targets "Key=WindowTargetIds,Values=YourWindowTargetId" --task-arn AWS-RunPatchBaseline --service-role-arn "arn:aws:iam::123456789012:role/MaintenanceWindowRole" --task-type "RUN_COMMAND" --task-invocation-parameters "RunCommand={Comment=,TimeoutSeconds=600,Parameters={SnapshotId=[''],Operation=[Install]}}" --max-concurrency "500" --max-errors "20%"
      
      {
          "WindowTaskId": "YourWindowTaskId"
      }

Now, you must wait for the maintenance window to run at least once according to the schedule you defined earlier. If your maintenance window has expired, you can check the status of any maintenance tasks Systems Manager has performed by using the following command.

$ aws ssm describe-maintenance-window-executions --window-id "YourMaintenanceWindowId"

{
    "WindowExecutions": [
        {
            "Status": "SUCCESS",
            "WindowId": "YourMaintenanceWindowId",
            "WindowExecutionId": "b594984b-430e-4ffa-a44c-a2e171de9dd3",
            "EndTime": 1515766467.487,
            "StartTime": 1515766457.691
        }
    ]
}

D.  Monitor patch compliance

You also can see the overall patch compliance of all Amazon EC2 instances using the following command in the AWS CLI.

$ aws ssm list-compliance-summaries

This command shows you the number of instances that are compliant with each category and the number of instances that are not in JSON format.

You also can see overall patch compliance by choosing Compliance under Insights in the navigation pane of the Systems Manager console. You will see a visual representation of how many Amazon EC2 instances are up to date, how many Amazon EC2 instances are noncompliant, and how many Amazon EC2 instances are compliant in relation to the earlier defined patch baseline.

Screenshot of the Compliance page of the Systems Manager console

In this section, you have set everything up for patch management on your instance. Now you know how to patch your Amazon EC2 instance in a controlled manner and how to check if your Amazon EC2 instance is compliant with the patch baseline you have defined. Of course, I recommend that you apply these steps to all Amazon EC2 instances you manage.

Summary

In this blog post, I showed how to use Systems Manager to create a patch baseline and maintenance window to keep your Amazon EC2 Linux instances up to date with the latest security patches. Remember that by creating multiple maintenance windows and assigning them to different patch groups, you can make sure your Amazon EC2 instances do not all reboot at the same time.

If you have comments about this post, submit them in the “Comments” section below. If you have questions about or issues implementing any part of this solution, start a new thread on the Amazon EC2 forum or contact AWS Support.

– Koen

Water Utility Infected by Cryptocurrency Mining Software

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/02/water_utility_i.html

A water utility in Europe has been infected by cryptocurrency mining software. This is a relatively new attack: hackers compromise computers and force them to mine cryptocurrency for them. This is the first time I’ve seen it infect SCADA systems, though.

It seems that this mining software is benign, and doesn’t affect the performance of the hacked computer. (A smart virus doesn’t kill its host.) But that’s not going to always be the case.

Google Won’t Take Down ‘Pirate’ VLC With Five Million Downloads

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/google-wont-take-down-pirate-vlc-with-five-million-downloads-180206/

VLC is the media player of choice for Internet users around the globe. Downloaded for desktop at least 2,493,000,000 times since February 2005, VLC is an absolute giant. And those figures don’t even include GNU/Linux, iOS, Android, Chrome OS or Windows Phone downloads either.

Aside from its incredible functionality, VLC (operated by the VideoLAN non-profit) has won the hearts of Internet users for other key reasons, not least its commitment to being free and open source software. While it’s true to say that VLC doesn’t cost a penny, the term ‘free’ actually relates to the General Public License (GPL) under which it’s distributed.

The GPL aims to guarantee that software under it remains ‘free’ for all current and future users. To benefit from these protections, the GPL requires people who modify and redistribute software to afford others the same freedoms by informing them of the requirement to make source code available.

Since VLC is extremely popular and just about as ‘free’ as software can get, people get extremely defensive when they perceive that a third-party is benefiting from the software without adhering to the terms of the generous GPL license. That was the case beginning a few hours ago when veteran Reddit user MartinVanBallin pointed out a piece of software on the Google Play Store.

“They took VLC, put in ads, didn’t attribute VLC or follow the open source license, and they’re using Media Player Classics icon,” MartinVanBallin wrote.

The software is called 321 Media Player and has an impressive 4.5 score from more than 101,000 reviews. Despite not mentioning VLC or the GPL, it is based completely on VLC, as the image below (and other proof) shows.

VLC Media Player 321 Media Player

TorrentFreak spoke with VideoLAN President Jean-Baptiste Kempf who confirmed that the clone is in breach of the GPL.

“The Android version of VLC is under the license GPLv3, which requires everything inside the application to be open source and sharing the source,” Kempf says.

“This clone seems to use a closed-source advertisement component (are there any that are open source?), which is a clear violation of our copyleft. Moreover, they don’t seem to share the source at all, which is also a violation.”

Perhaps the most amazing thing is the popularity of the software. According to stats provided by Google, 321 Media Player has amassed between five and ten million downloads. That’s not an insignificant amount when one considers that unlike VLC, 321 Media Player contains revenue-generating ads.

Using GPL-licensed software for commercial purposes is allowed providing the license terms are strictly adhered to. Kempf informs TF that VideoLAN doesn’t mind if this happens but in this case, the GPL is not being respected.

“A fork application which changes some things is an interesting thing, because they maybe have something to give back to our community. The application here, is just a parasite, and I think they are useless and dangerous,” Kempf says.

All that being said, turning VLC itself into adware is something the VideoLAN team is opposed to. In fact, according to questions answered by Kempf last September, the team turned down “several tens of millions of euros” to turn their media player into an ad-supported platform.

“Integrating crap, adware and spyware with VLC is not OK,” Kempf informs TF.

TorrentFreak contacted the developer of 321 Media Player for comment but at the time of publication, we were yet to receive a response. We also asked for a copy of the source code for 321 Media Player as the GPL requires, but that wasn’t forthcoming either.

In the meantime, it appears that a small army of Reddit users are trying to get something done about the ‘rogue’ app by reporting it as an “inappropriate copycat” to Google. Whether this will have any effect remains to be seen but according to Kempf, tackling these clone versions has proven extremely difficult in the past.

“We reported this application already more than three times and Google refuses to take it down,” he says.

“Our experience is that it is very difficult to take these kinds of apps down, even if they embed spyware or malware. Maybe it is because it makes money for Google.”

Finally, Kempf also points to the obviously named “Indian VLC Player” on Google Play. Another VLC clone with up to 500,000 downloads, this one appears to breach both copyright and trademark law.

“We remove applications that violate our policies, such as apps that are illegal,” a Google spokesperson informs TorrentFreak.

“We don’t comment on individual applications; you can check out our policies for more information.”

Update: The app has now been removed from Google Play

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Anti-Piracy Video Scares Kids With ‘Fake’ Malware Info

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-video-scares-kids-with-fake-malware-info-180206/

Today is Safer Internet Day, a global awareness campaign to educate the public on all sorts of threats that people face online.

It is a laudable initiative supported by the Industry Trust for IP Awareness which, together with the children’s charity Into Film, has released an informative video and associated course materials.

The organizations have created a British version of an animation previously released as part of the Australian “Price of Piracy” campaign. While the video includes an informative description of the various types of malware, there appears to be a secondary agenda.

Strangely enough, the video itself contains no advice on how to avoid malware at all, other than to avoid pirate sites. In that sense, it looks more like an indirect anti-piracy ad.

While there’s no denying that kids might run into malware if they randomly click on pirate site ads, this problem is certainly not exclusive to these sites. Email and social media are frequently used to link to malware too, and YouTube comments can pose the same risk. The problem is everywhere.

What really caught our eye, however, is the statement that pirate sites are the most used propagation method for malware. “Did you know, the number one way we infect your device is via illegal pirate sites,” an animated piece of malware claims in the video.

Forget about email attachments, spam links, compromised servers, or even network attacks. Pirate sites are the number one spot through which malware spreads. According to the video at least. But where do they get this knowledge?

Meet the malwares

When we asked the Industry Trust for IP Awareness for further details, the organization checked with their Australian colleagues, who pointed us to a working paper (pdf) from 2014. This paper includes the following line: “Illegal streaming websites are now the number one propagation mechanism for malicious software as 97% of them contain malware.”

Unfortunately, there’s a lot wrong with this claim.

Through another citation, the 97% figure points to this unpublished study of which only the highlights were shared. This “malware” research looked at the prevalence of malware and other unwanted software linked to pirate sites. Not just streaming sites as the other paper said, but let’s ignore that last bit.

What the study actually found is that of the 30 researched pirate sites, “90% contained malware or other ‘Potentially Unwanted Programmes’.” Note that this is not the earlier mentioned 97%, and that this broad category not only includes malware but also popup ads, which were most popular. This means that the percentage of actual malware on these sites can be anywhere from 0.1% to 90%.

Importantly, none of the malware found in this research was installed without an action performed by the user, such as clicking on a flashy download button or installing a mysterious .exe file.

Aside from clearly erroneous references, the more worrying issue is that even the original incorrect statement that “97% of all pirate sites contain malware” provides no evidence for the claim in the video that pirate sites are “the number one way” through which malware spreads.

Even if 100% of all pirate sites link to malware, that’s no proof that it’s the most used propagation method.

The malware issue has been a popular talking point for a while, but after searching for answers for days, we couldn’t find a grain of evidence. There are a lot of malware propagation methods, including email, which traditionally is a very popular choice.

Even more confusingly, the same paper that was cited as a source for the pirate site malware claim notes that 80% of all web-based malware is hosted on “innocent” but compromised websites.

As the provided evidence gave no answers, we asked the experts to chime in. Luckily, security company Malwarebytes was willing to share its assessment. As leaders in the anti-malware industry, they should know better than researchers who have their numbers and terminology mixed up.

“These days, most common infections come from malicious spam campaigns and drive-by exploit attacks,” Adam Kujawa, Director of Malware Intelligence at Malwarebytes informs us.

“Torrent sites are still frequently used by criminals to host malware disguised as something the user wants, like an application, movie, etc. However they are really only a threat to people who use torrent sites regularly and those people have likely learned how to avoid malicious torrents,” he adds.

In other words, most people who regularly visit pirate sites know how to avoid these dangers. That doesn’t mean that they are not a threat to unsuspecting kids who visit them for the first time of course.

“Now, if users who were not familiar with torrent and pirate sites started using these services, there is a high probability that they could encounter some kind of malware. However, many of these sites have user review processes to let other users know if a particular torrent or download is likely malicious.

“So, unless a user is completely new to this process and ignores all the warning signs, they could walk away from a pirate site without getting infected,” Kujawa says.

Overall, the experts at Malwarebytes see no evidence for the claim that pirate sites are the number one propagation method for malware.

“So in summary, I don’t think the claim that ‘pirate sites’ are the number one way to infect users is accurate at all,” Kujawa concludes.

While it’s always a good idea to avoid places that can have a high prevalence of malware, including pirate sites, the claims in the video are not backed up by real evidence. There are tens of thousands of non-pirate sites that pose similar or worse risks, so it’s always a good idea to have anti-malware and virus software installed.

The organizations and people involved in the British “Meet the Malwares” video might not have been aware of the doubtful claims, but it’s unfortunate that they didn’t opt for a broader campaign instead of the focused anti-piracy message.

Finally, since it’s still Safer Internet Day, we encourage kids to take a close look at the various guides on how to avoid “fake news” while engaging in critical thinking.

Be safe!

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons