The malware detected by Kaspersky Anti-Virus as TDSS is the most sophisticated threat today. TDSS uses a range of methods to evade signature, heuristic, and proactive detection, and uses encryption to facilitate communication between its bots and the botnet command and control center. TDSS also has a powerful rootkit component, which allows it to conceal the presence of any other types of malware in the system.
Its creator calls this program TDL. Since it first appeared in 2008, malware writers have been perfecting their creation little by little. By 2010, the latest version was TDL-3, which was discussed in depth in an article published in August 2010.
The creators of TDSS did not sell their program until the end of 2010. In December, when analyzing a TDSS sample, we discovered something odd: a TDL-3 encrypted disk contained modules of another malicious program, SHIZ.
TDL-3 encrypted disk with SHIZ modules
At that time, a new affiliate program specializing in search engine redirects had just emerged on the Internet; it belonged to the creators of SHIZ, but used TDL-3.
The changes that had been made to the TDL-3 configuration and the emergence of a new affiliate marketing program point to the sale of TDL-3 source code to cybercriminals who had previously been engaged in the development of SHIZ malware.
Why did the creators of TDL decide to sell source code of the third version of their program? The fact is that by this time, TDL-4 had already come out. The cybercriminals most likely considered the changes in version 4 to be significant enough that they wouldn’t have to worry about competition from those who bought TDL-3.
In late 2010, Vyacheslav Rusakov wrote a piece on the latest version of the TDSS rootkit focusing on how it works within the operating system. This article will take a closer look at how TDL-4 communicates with the network and uploads data to the botnet, which numbered over 4.5 million infected computers at the time of writing.
The way in which the new version of TDL works hasn’t changed so much as how it is spread – via affiliates. As before, affiliate programs offer a TDL distribution client that checks the version of the operating system on a victim machine and then downloads TDL-4 to the computer.
Affiliates spreading TDL
Affiliates receive between $20 to $200 for every 1,000 installations of TDL, depending on the location of the victim computer. Affiliates can use any installation method they choose. Most often, TDL is planted on adult content sites, bootleg websites, and video and file storage services.
The changes in TDL-4 affected practically all components of the malware and its activity on the web to some extent or other. The malware writers extended the program functionality, changed the algorithm used to encrypt the communication protocol between bots and the botnet command and control servers, and attempted to ensure they had access to infected computers even in cases where the botnet control centers are shut down. The owners of TDL are essentially trying to create an ‘indestructible’ botnet that is protected against attacks, competitors, and antivirus companies.
Encrypted network connections
One of the key changes in TDL-4 compared to previous versions is an updated algorithm encrypting the protocol used for communication between infected computers and botnet command and control servers. The cybercriminals replaced RC4 with their own encryption algorithm using XOR swaps and operations. The domain names to which connections are made and the bsh parameter from the cfg.ini file are used as encryption keys.
Readers may recall that one of the distinguishing features of malware from the TDSS family is a configuration file containing descriptions of the key parameters used by various modules to maintain activity logs and communications with command and control servers.
Compared to version 3, there are only negligible changes to the format of the configuration file. The main addition is the bsh parameter, an identifier which identifies the copy of the malware, and which is provided by the command and control sever the first time the bot connects. This identifier acts as one of the encryption keys for subsequent connections to the command and control server.
Upon protocol initialization, a swap table is created for the bot’s outgoing HTTP requests. This table is activated with two keys: the domain name of the botnet command and control server, and the bsh parameter. The source request is encrypted and then converted to base64. Random strings in base64 are prepended and appended to the received message. Once ready, the request is sent to the server using HTTPS.
The new protocol encryption algorithm for communications between the botnet control center and infected machines ensures that the botnet will run smoothly, while protecting infected computers from network traffic analysis, and blocking attempts of other cybercriminals to take control of the botnet.
Just like Sinowal, TDL-4 is a bootkit, which means that it infects the MBR in order to launch itself, thus ensuring that malicious code will run prior to operating system start. This is a classic method used by downloaders which ensures a longer malware lifecycle and makes it less visible to most security programs.
TDL nimbly hides both itself and the malicious programs that it downloads from antivirus products. To prevent other malicious programs not associated with TDL from attracting the attention of users of the infected machine, TDL-4 can now delete them. Not all of them, of course, just the most common.
TDSS contains code to remove approximately 20 malicious programs, including Gbot, ZeuS, Clishmic, Optima, etc. TDSS scans the registry, searches for specific file names, blacklists the addresses of the command and control centers of other botnets and prevents victim machines from contacting them.
This ‘antivirus’ actually helps TDSS; on the one hand, it fights cybercrime competition, while on the other hand it protects TDSS and associated malware against undesirable interactions that could be caused by other malware on the infected machine.
Which malicious programs does TDL-4 itself download? Since the beginning of this year, the botnet has installed nearly 30 additional malicious programs, including fake antivirus programs, adware, and the Pushdo spambot.
Notably, TDL-4 doesn’t delete itself following installation of other malware, and can at any time use the r.dll module to delete malware it has downloaded.
One of the most outstanding new features of TDL-4 is the kad.dll module, which allows the TDSS botnet to access the Kad network. So what do the cybercriminals want with a publicly accessible file exchange network?
We have known about botnets controlled via P2P for some time now, although until now, these were closed protocol connections created by the cybercriminals themselves. In contrast, TDSS uses a public P2P network in order to transmit commands to all infected computers in the botnet. The initial steps of how TDSS makes use of Kad are given below:
- The cybercriminals make a file called ktzerules accessible on the Kad network. The file is encrypted and contains a list of commands for TDSS.
- Computers infected with TDSS receive the command to download and install the kad.dll module.
- Once installed, kad.dll downloads the file nodes.dat, which contains the publicly accessible list of IP addresses of Kad network servers and clients.
- The kad.dll module then sends a request to the Kad network to search for the ktzerules file.
- Once the ktzerules files has been downloaded and encrypted, kad.dll runs the commands which ktzerules contains.
Below is a list of commands from an encrypted ktzerules file.
- SearchCfg – search Kad for a new ktzerules file
- LoadExe – download and run the executable file
- ConfigWrite – write to cfg.ini
- Search – search Kad for a file
- Publish – publish a file on Kad
- Knock – upload a new nodes.dat file to the C&C which contains a list of Kad server and clients IP addresses, including those infected with TDSS.
The most interesting command is Knock. This command allows the cybercriminals to create their own Kad P2P, the clients of which are exclusively TDSS-infected computers.
How publicly accessible and closed KAD networks overlap
Essentially, the TDSS botnet kad.dll module is more or less the same as cmd.dll in terms of control function. By running nodes.dat files containing a list of IP addresses of Kad clients in addition to ktzerlrules, which contains a command to download a new nodes.dat file from cybercriminal servers, the owners of the botnet can both include their infected computers in the publicly accessible Kad network and remove them from the network. The publicly accessible Kad network contains no more than 10 TDSS infected computers. This makes replacing the ktzerules file as inefficient as possible, which prevents other cybercriminals from taking control over the botnet. The total number of TDSS infected computers on the closed network number tens of thousands.
Furthermore, access to Kad makes it possible for the cybercriminals to download any files to botnet machines and make them accessible to the P2P users. This includes adult content files and stolen data bases.
The key threat that such a botnet poses is that even when its command and control centers are shut down, the botnet owners will not lose control over infected machines. However, the system does face two major obstacles:
- By using the publicly accessible Kad network, the cybercriminals still run the risk of fake botnet commands.
- When developing the kad.dll module for maintaining communication with the Kad network, code with a GPL license was used — this means that the authors are in violation of a licensing agreement.
In addition to its known adware function, TDL-4 has added some new modules to its arsenal. This article has already touched on the ‘antivirus’ function and the P2P module. The owners of TDSS have also added several other modules to their malware, and now offer services such as anonymous network access via infected machines and 64-bit support.
A file called Socks.dll has been added to TDSS’s svchost.exe; it is used to establish a proxy server on an infected computer. This module facilitates the anonymous viewing of Internet resources via infected machines.
Having control over such a large number of computers with this function, the cybercriminals have started offering anonymous Internet access as a service, at a cost of roughly $100 per month. For the sake of convenience, the cybercriminals have also developed a Firefox add-on that makes it easy to toggle between proxy servers within the browser.
The appearance of a 64-bit malicious driver in TDSS was another innovation in malware in 2010. In order to support operations with 64-bit systems in user mode, TDL-4 contains a module called cmd64.dll, a version of cmd.dll for 64-bit systems. However, due to the limitations of working with 64-bit programs, cmd64.dll code only provides communication with the botnet command and control servers.
The cmd.dll module (see for details) remains almost completely unchanged. This module facilitates communication with the botnet command and control servers and substitutes search results, i.e. fraudulently manipulates advertising systems and search engines. The newest innovation in the list of commands for TDSS is the SetName command, which assigns a number to each infected computer. For search engines and banner networks, TDSS uses the same fake click and traffic technologies as similar malicious programs. However, TDSS has the longest list of search engines for which it substitutes search results.
List of search engines supported by TDSS
Botnet command and control servers
When running, TDSS uses several sources to obtain lists of command and control server addresses. The default list is taken from cmd.dll; if these addresses are inaccessible, then TDSS gets a list from cfg.ini. If for some reason no command and control server listed is accessible, then a list is created from an encrypted file called bckfg.tmp, which the bot receives from the command and control server on first connection. Since the beginning of the year, around 60 command and control centers have been identified across the globe.
|Server address at the|
beginning of February
|Server address at the |
beginning of March
|Percentage of |
mentions in C&C lists
A careful examination of this list reveals that the IP addresses of command and control centers are constantly changing, while some command and control centers are phased out altogether. These changes are due to the use of proxy servers, which hide the true location of the command and control centers.
Despite the steps taken by cybercriminals to protect the command and control centers, knowing the protocol TDL-4 uses to communicate with servers makes it possible to create specially crafted requests and obtain statistics on the number of infected computers. Kaspersky Lab’s analysis of the data identified three different MySQL databases located in Moldova, Lithuania, and the USA, all of which supported used proxy servers to support the botnet.
According to these databases, in just the first three months of 2011 alone, TDL-4 infected 4,524,488 computers around the world.
Nearly one-third of all infected computers are in the United States. Going on the prices quoted by affiliate programs, this number of infected computers in the US is worth $250,000, a sum which presumably made its way to the creators of TDSS. Remarkably, there are no Russian users in the statistics. This may be explained by the fact that affiliate marketing programs do not offer payment for infecting computers located in Russia.
This heading of this last section has become traditional in our articles on TDSS. In this case, we have reason to believe that TDSS will continue to evolve. The fact that TDL-4 code shows active development — a rootkit for 64-bit systems, the malware running prior to operating system start launches, the use of exploits from Stuxnet’s arsenal, P2P technology, its own ‘antivirus’ and a lot more — place TDSS firmly in the ranks of the most technologically sophisticated, and most complex to analyze, malware. The botnet, with more than 4.5 million infected computers, is used by cybercriminals to manipulate adware and search engines, provide anonymous Internet access, and acts as a launch pad for other malware.
TDSS and the botnet that unites all the computers it infects will continue to cause problems for users and IT security professionals alike. The decentralized, server-less botnet is practically indestructible, as the Kido epidemic showed.
Microsoft has warned users of all supported versions of the Internet Explorer browser that an unpatched vulnerability exists in the product that is being actively exploited by malicious hackers in targeted attacks.
The zero-day vulnerability, described in aMicrosoft’s security advisory, allows cybercriminals to execute code on remote users’ computers without their permission.
In other words, simply clicking on a link in an email could take you to a webpage which would silently install malicious code (such as a backdoor Trojan horse) onto your computer. In short, you could be one click away from having a hacker access your computer or comandeer it into being part of a botnet.
Sophos is adding detection of the malicious webapges as Mal/20103962-A, and the Trojan horse that we have seen being downloaded as Troj/GIFDldr-A.
According to Microsoft’s advisory, Data Execution Prevention (DEP) – which is enabled by default in Internet Explorer 8 on Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista SP1, Windows Vista SP2, and Windows 7 – helps to protect against the attacks.
All eyes will now be on Microsoft to see how quickly they can issue a fix for this vulnerability – it would certainly be impressive if they managed to roll-out a patch in time for next Tuesday’s “Patch Tuesday”, but that may be a little optimistic.
Adobe has issued a security advisory about an as-yet unpatched vulnerability in its popular Flash Player software, affecting users of Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris and even Google Android.
The critical security hole could allow an attacker to take control of your computer and run malicious code.
The firm also confirmed that the vulnerability also affects Adobe Reader 9.3.4 for Windows, Mac and UNIX, and Adobe Acrobat 9.3.4 and earlier versions for Windows and Mac. The reason that Acrobat and Reader are also affected is because the programs support Flash content inside PDF files
The new warnings follow closely after news last week of another vulnerability in Reader and Acrobat that was being exploited by malware authors.
Adobe has announced that an update for Flash Player tackling the latest vulnerability is expected to be available during the week of September 27, and an update for Acrobat and Reader will be available the following week.
Last month, Sophos blogger Chet Wisniewski interviewed Brad Arkin, Adobe’s Senior Director of Product Security and Privacy, about the firm’s security strategy and their upcoming sandboxing technology.
You can also download the interview directly in MP3 format.
It was “Patch Tuesday” yesterday, which means another parcel of security updates for computer users to unwrap, and this time the fixes aren’t just from Microsoft, but from Adobe too.
First on the menu is Microsoft, which has served up two security bulletins detailing vulnerabilities that could be exploited by hackers to execute malicious code (such as a worm) on your computer.
The first of these security holes exists in Outlook Express, Windows Mail, and Windows Live Mail. Microsoft’s Security Research & Defense blog goes into some detail about the vulnerability, explaining that although the security hole is given a “critical rating” on Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Server 2008, it is considered less serious for Windows 7 users as Windows Live Mail is not installed by default on that platform.
The other patch from Microsoft addresses a vulnerability in Visual Basic for Applications, a component used by Microsoft Office and other third-party products. Microsoft has given this security update its highest possible rating – “Critical” – for all supported versions of Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications SDK and third-party applications that use Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications. It is also rated “Important” for all supported editions of Microsoft Office XP, Microsoft Office 2003, and the 2007 Microsoft Office System.
Next up is Adobe, who have released patches to squash over 20 security vulnerabilities in its Shockwave and ColdFusion products.
The critical vulnerabilities identified in Adobe Shockwave Player 22.214.171.1246 and earlier versions impact both Windows and Macintosh users, and could allow attackers to run malicious code on your computer.
Adobe recommends that users update their version of Adobe Shockwave Player to version 126.96.36.1999.
Details of the ColdFusion vulnerabilities, classed as “important”, are provided in Adobe Security Bulletin APSB10-11.
Enough of waffle. Download and install the patches if your computer is affected.
By Graham Cluley, Sophos
The last couple of days there have been a lot of headlines in the security press about a report by a firm called Matousec, which claimed that “today’s most popular security solutions simply do not work.”
The attack method, dubbed KHOBE and described by Matousec researchers as an “8.0 earthquake for desktop security software”, describes a potential bypass in the way some parts of some anti-malware products operate on some versions of Microsoft Windows.
The dramatic headlines might make you think that this is TEOTWAWKI*, but the truth is somewhat different.
Because KHOBE is not really a way that hackers can avoid detection and get their malware installed on your computer. What Matousec describes is a way of “doing something extra” if the bad guys’ malicious code manages to get past your anti-virus software in the first place.
In other words, KHOBE is only an issue if anti-virus products such as Sophos (and many others) miss the malware. And that’s one of the reasons, of course, why we – and to their credit other vendors – offer a layered approach using a variety of protection technologies.
So, before you hide yourself in the basement and prepare for nuclear winter, make sure you read this excellent piece by Paul Ducklin, which examines and discusses the KHOBE claims in greater detail.
TEOTWAWKI: The End Of The World As We Know It
By Graham Cluley, Sophos
Players of the online game Farm Town are being warned to be on their guard for malicious adverts that display fake security warnings in an attempt to dupe unsuspecting users into installing malicious code or handing over their credit card details.
SlashKey, the developers of the game which has over 9.6 million monthly active users on Facebook, has posted a warning on its forum advising players to be wary of warnings that suddenly pop-up telling them that their computer is infected:
If you suddenly get a warning that your computer is infected with viruses and you MUST run this scan now, DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK, CLOSE THE WINDOW IMMEDIATELY. You should then run a full scan with your antivirus program to ensure that any stray parts of this malware are caught and quarantined.
If you do research on many of these spyware programs you will also find a myriad of sites proclaiming they are the only ones who can rid you of these programs. This is not true and on a personal level I urge you to use great caution as some of these so called wonder cures are as much of a scam as the malware you are trying to remove.
Hundreds of Farm Town players have responded on the forum, saying that they have been on the receiving end of the attack – but the worry is that many many more users may not have seen the warning and could have been tricked by the fake anti-virus warnings into infecting their computers or handing over personal information.
It appears that the problem is related to the third-party advertising that Farm Town displays underneath its playing window. In all likelihood, hackers have managed to poison some of the adverts that are being served to Farm Town by the outside advert provider.
What makes this attack all the more serious, of course, is the sheer number of people that regularly play Farm Town, and that – in all likelihood – they might not be as tech-savvy as the typical Gizmodo reader, and thus more vulnerable to falling for the hackers’ scam.
Rather than SlashKey simply asking its players to report offending adverts when they appear, it might be sensible for the company to disable third-party adverts appearing alongside Farm Town until the problem is fixed.
It may not be Farm Town’s fault that a third-party advertising network is serving up malicious ads, but doing anything less is surely showing a careless disregard for the safety of its players.
Until the makers of Farm Town resolve the problem of malicious adverts, my advice to its fans would be to stop playing the game and ensure that their computer is properly defended with up-to-date security software. If you do feel you have to play Farm Town then it might be wise to disable adverts in your browser (for instance, using an add-on such as Adblock Plus on Firefox).
By the way, if you are on Facebook and want to keep yourself informed about the latest security news you may want to become a Fan of Sophos on Facebook.
By Graham Cluley, Sophos
The German government has advised computer users not to run Firefox and run an alternative browser instead, because of a critical security flaw.
The advice, which comes from BürgerCERT, part of the German Federal Office for Security in Information Technology (known as the Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik or BSI), recommends that computer users stop using Firefox until Mozilla releases a fix.
The reason why Germany is suggesting such seemingly drastic action is that there is a critical vulnerability in currently available versions of Firefox that could be exploited by hackers to launch malicious code on users’ computers.
For its part, Mozilla has acknowledged the security vulnerability, and advises that a patched version 3.6.2 of Firefox is scheduled to be available on March 30th.
Here is a rough translation (courtesy of Google Translate):
Because of the Mozilla Foundation, a privately disclosed vulnerability Bürger-CERT recommends the use of alternative browser until Mozilla has released Firefox version 3.6.2. The current release of Firefox 3.6.2 Plan provides for delivery on Tuesday 30 Before March 2010.
There is an as yet unspecified vulnerability in Mozilla Firefox version 3.6. A remote attacker to execute using rigged websites the opportunity to inject malicious code in the context of the logged on user.
Security researcher Evgeny Legerov discovered the vulnerability last month, controversially making code which exploited it available to those who were prepared to pay. That’s not an approach which is likely to have won him many friends at Mozilla, who would much prefer that vulnerability researchers worked with them on responsible disclosure.
It must be an uncomfortable time for German web users too. After all, in January they were advised not to use Internet Explorer, and now they’re being told to keep a wide berth from Firefox until it’s fixed.
It’s certainly a lot easier for computer-savvy home users to leapfrog from browser to browser than companies.
Switching your web browser willy-nilly as each new unpatched security hole is revealed could cause more problems than it’s worth. For instance, imagine how much training some users will require to switch from one browser to another.
And it’s worth bearing in mind – what are you going to do when your replacement browser itself turns out to contain a vulnerability? Are you going to switch yet again?
My advice is to only switch from Firefox if you really know what you are doing with the browser you’re swapping to. If you stick with Firefox, apply the security update as soon as its available.
If you can’t wait – Mozilla says it has produced a release candidate build of Firefox 3.6.2 which already contains the fix (obviously it hasn’t been through their complete quality assurance process yet). You can download it from their website at https:/ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.6.2-candidates/build3/
By Graham Cluley, Sophos
Apple has released version 4.0.5 of its Safari browser, fixing a number of issues with its browser for Windows and Mac OS X including – most importantly – a grand total of 16 security vulnerabilities.
If you dilly-dally over updating your computer, it’s possible that hackers could exploit the security bugs – including some that could mean that simply visiting a webpage with a maliciously crafted image could lead to malicious code being automatically run on your computer.
Interestingly, one of the bugs (CVE-2009-2285) fixed in Safari 4.0.5 was announced and patched in Mac OS X 10.6.2 back in December 2009, and in Mac OS X 10.5 since January, meaning that Windows users of Safari have been vulnerable for over two months to the way their browser handles booby-trapped TIFF images.
But it doesn’t matter whether you own a Mac or PC, if you run Safari the message is clear: It’s time to update your browser and ensure that you are protected against hackers exploiting the security holes detailed in the security advisory on Apple’s website.
Safari users should practise safe computing, and update their systems as soon as possible.
By Graham Cluley, Sophos
Last night saw Kathryn Bigelow’s hard-hitting film “The Hurt Locker”, about a bomb disposal team in Iraq, scoop the major gongs at the Academy Awards. It shouldn’t probably be any surprise to hear that movie buffs around the world used the internet to keep track of who won which Oscars, and – sadly -that hackers would try and exploit the event.
Internet users searching for phrases like
Oscars 2010 winners
may be putting the security of their computers at risk today, as some of the results returned by search engines can point to malicious webpages.
By using SEO (search engine optimisation) techniques, hackers have created webpages that are stuffed with content which appears to be related to the 2010 Oscars, but are really designed to infect your computer.
As you can see, information about the Oscars ceremony and award winners has been one of the hottest search topics overnight.
Clicking on the dangerous links takes you to a page which pretends to scan your computer for security threats, trying to trick you into downloading malicious code and hand over your credit card details.
As Fraser Howard recently described on the SophosLabs blog, victims are redirected a number of times upon visiting from a search engine, before being taken to a webpage hosting a malicious script.
Fake anti-virus attacks (also known as scareware) are nothing new, and it’s very common for hackers to exploit hot topics in an attempt to bring a steady stream of traffic to their infected webpages.
By Graham Cluley, Sophos
Liviu Iftode and Vinod Ganapathy, two researchers at Rutgers University, have revealed some experiments they have been conducting, showing how rootkits could be used to take control of smartphones.
The scientists have shown that a malicious attacker could cause a smartphone to “eavesdrop on a meeting, track its owner’s travels, or rapidly drain its battery to render the phone useless”.
Watch the following YouTube video to learn more:
It’s a cute little video, but how realistic is this threat in reality?
I don’t think the kind of attack described by Iftode and Ganapathy is a big deal right now.
Yes, it is possible to change or put software onto a smartphone (by, for instance, installing a rootkit) so that the mobile device then performs malicious functions. For instance, code that enables covert remote surveillance, battery drainage or silently steals data.
Of course, this relies upon the smartphone allowing you to make changes to its low-level software. Popular smartphones like the Apple iPhone lock down that kind of meddling to a great extent.
So, the key thing to remember is that the bad guys have to somehow get the malicious rootkit onto your phone in the first place.
How are they going to do that?
They would either need to have physical access to your smartphone, exploit an unpatched security vulnerability or use a social engineering attack to trick you into installing malicious code. Even if they went down the “trick” route they would be relying upon the phone’s OS to allow you to install unapproved apps (iPhones, for instance, are strictly controlled by their Cupertino-based overlords, allowing users to only install code that has been approved and checked by the AppStore).
So it doesn’t sound like what Iftode and Ganapathy are describing is actually any different from the rootkits that infect traditional desktop computers. The main difference is that there are probably less opportunities (and thus much harder) to infect a mobile phone than, say, a computer running Windows.
Furthermore, I would argue that the typical mobile phone user is still typically less used to installing applications than their Windows counterparts, and so the chances of success via fooling the user into installing a dangerous application can be assumed to be even lower.
Iftode and Ganapathy have not demonstrated any revolutionary new way of getting round the biggest hurdle for those wanting to spy on smartphones: how are they going to get the malware onto the phone?
If I really wanted to snoop on someone’s phone I think it would probably be easier to swap my victim’s mobile phone for an identical (but bugged) device rather than go to all this effort with no promise of success.
Sure, the mobile phone malware threat is growing – but it’s a tiny raindrop in a thunderstorm compared to regular attacks that strike Windows computers. Slowly but slowly it’s becoming more serious (the recent discovery of financially-motivated malware that targets jailbroken iPhones is proof of that), and undoubtedly we will begin to see more users running anti-virus security on their phones in the years to come.
However, if I was responsible for securing my company’s mobile phones I would be much more worried about the real security threat of staff losing their phones in taxis or on the train, rather than the theoretical risk of surveillance rootkits.
It’s a nice video and presentation that Iftode and Ganapathy made, but I won’t be losing any sleep over it just yet.
More information on the topic of smartphone rootkits can be found in the paper Iftode and Ganapathy have produced: “Rootkits on Smart Phones: Attacks, implications and opportunities” [PDF]
By Graham Cluley, Sophos