Disasters, Disasters, Disasters

Year 2011 came in with some notable natural and man-made calamities. The New Zealand earthquake, the Japan earthquake and tsunami, the Turkish earthquake, the Japan Nuclear Plant leaks, and so much more. Recently the Philippines was hit by a devastating flood which left thousands of people dead. Two years ago, a typhoon leashed at the nation’s capital, dumping out rains that were normally dumped for a month. Although casualties are not that high as compared to the casualties that were bought by the recent flash flood. 

One thing goes to mind. How will businesses continue in case of such calamities? How can consumers recover quickly? Remember, in calamities, the fastest way to recover is:

(a) immediate restoration of power

(b) immediate restoration of communication facilities

(c) immediate restoration of financial services

(d) immediate restoration of physical infrastructure like roads and bridges

(e) immediate delivery of supplies and services to the users

The answer to all of these is for all businesses to think of and develop their own contingency plans and business recovery plans. And in no such case that a contingency plan or a business recovery plan will work if it is not reviewed, tested and implemented properly. Contingency plans and business recovery plans are not limited to IT alone. It includes all parts of the enterprise resource activities, including supply chain management processes. It is not limited to hardware, networks, software or databases, it includes manual processes to enable employees of affected businesses to continue with their supposed to be tasks if the business is affected by such calamities. It may include handling of work, even of outside of the company’s premises, transfer of an IT system to other locations, handling of financials, alternative source and target channels and the like.  

I have read the other day that a Philippine senator filed a bill mandating businesses to have their own business and contingency plans. We think its a good idea. A calamity should not stop commerce and businesses and at the same time, a calamity should not stop consumers and customers from getting the kind of service they want.

It would be a pity for a business if they stop operating if they are affected by these calamities. It would mean loss of income, revenue and reputation.  There should always be a Plan B, a Plan C or even a Plan D, if these happens. 

The next question is: Are you ready?

The Year of the Breach

As the year is coming to a close, news headlines were dominated by reports of high-profile security attacks, some launched by “hacktivists” such as Anonymous and LULZSEC.

But something  larger was brewing. Amidst hacktivists’ attacks on Sony, HBGary and NATO, highly sophisticated, clandestine attackers—the kind with the rarefied expertise, deep pockets and specialized resources typically only seen in nation-state adversaries—were actively infiltrating a broad range of targets.

These attacks were different: they were patient, stealthy and leveraged a potent combination of technical skill and social savvy.  Some used clever social engineering to get a foothold into their target organizations, while others used zero-day vulnerabilities—previously unknown holes in software—to penetrate defenses. 

While advanced attacks have happened for years, IT security experts observed recent attacks had grown bolder and more frequent. Recent attacks were also highly targeted, customized, well-researched and, in many cases, employed both technical and social
components.

The term used to describe such complex, sophisticated attacks was
“advanced persistent threats” (APTs), but as IT security experts quickly pointed out, APTs were only as advanced as they needed to be to get the job done. A concrete definition is elusive and, as cautioned, “Defining it could limit us and lead us to be blindsided. We need to constantly revisit the characteristics because they’re always changing.”

Much of the day’s focus was on the techniques of highly organized attackers. such
advanced threats, which include APTs, span from corporate espionage to hacktivism.

This article distills certain key insights from those discussions and
aspires to advance the industry’s dialog on advanced threats, spur disruptive innovation and disseminate some of our learnings from some of the most seasoned professionals in information security.

From a Cookie-Cutter Approach to Adaptive

In 2000, the I LOVE YOU worm crippled more than 50 million Pcs. The delivery mechanism was simple but effective: an e-mail showed up in your in-box with a subject line of “iloveyou.” When people clicked on the e-mail’s attachment, titled “love-leTTer-Foryou,” they were infected with a computer worm. while the damage was significant, a
partial solution to this problem came in the form of antivirus software: a signature could be deployed to antivirus agents that would identify the file as malicious and arrest its actions.                                                                          
Today, generic malware is still profuse but signature-based defenses, at either the network or host layer, can greatly decrease the odds of infection. What makes recent
advanced threats different is their defiance of a signature. In the world of advanced threats, malware evolves quickly, and security experts have  described several cases of special-purpose malware custom-developed specifically for their targets. Some were
compiled within hours of launching the attack.

It became clear that enterprises targeted by highly organized attackers cannot depend on signature-based “bread and butter” security tools as a sole means of defence. While the payloads of some advanced threats were fairly standard, entry strategies were often custom tailored.

Attackers typically used social networking sites to gather intelligence and identify specific users within an organization. Some of the main infection vectors that cited were  e-mail, Skype and instant messages with malware payloads in the form of PDFs, compressed HTML, script files, executables and attachments.
customization of attack techniques extend through data exfiltration.

Advanced threats often use sophisticated methods for compressing, encrypting and transmitting data to other compromised organizations, leaving little evidence of the origin of the attack or the destination for stolen information. This move from generic to tailored, from cookie-cutter to adaptive, means that security organizations need to think beyond signatures and re-evaluate how effective their current defenses are.

Remember that people, not technology, were the Achilles heel in most defensive strategies.

People are the Weakest Link 
“People are the weakest link” is perhaps the biggest cliché in information security. Security experts have long understood that users make bad choices, click on links they shouldn’t and install malware through simple ruses.

Corporate IT departments deploy multiple controls to help deal with this threat: e-mail filtering solutions catch many attacks before they make it to users, malicious links are blocked by the network, network scanners look for malicious content, and host-based antivirus (the last line of defense) tries to stop what slips through the cracks.

This process works well for generic, shotgun attacks in that signatures can be updated quickly to immunize users. Advanced attackers, however, are now creating highly credible scenarios in which they convince users to click on dialog boxes warning of fake software updates, retrieve content from quarantined areas and act (unknowingly) on behalf of the attacker.

Attackers have become dangerously adroit at using our weaknesses and behaviors against us. Attackers are creatively leveraging people inside the company to help accomplish their goals. “Internet scams are supposed to be sloppy, but they work.”

Advanced threats defy that stereotype. Experts put a fine  point on it: “The perimeter is not a firewall; it’s our users. They don’t treat their computer as an adversary; they treat it as a tool—an extension of themselves—so they don’t question what it tells them.”

Addressing the people problem will take more than technology. Organizations need to
drive a sense of personal responsibility for security among employees.

Attackers Aim for Advantage, Not Infamy

Advanced attacks are typically not the product of hobbyists. These attacks often require months of planning, mapping out internal networks by looking at the fringes.

The reconnaissance can go much further: targeting key employees, deconstructing their life by scouring social media, custom-crafting an attack so that it is stealthy, patient, and very effective.

Cybercriminals, the ones who look to steal credit card numbers and other
commoditized and sellable data, have become increasingly sophisticated but advanced
attacks are different. Increasingly, they focus on espionage—stealing specialized data
that may be of high value and strategic importance to the commissioning entity, which
can be foreign governments, rival corporations and organized crime groups. The entities behind advanced attacks literally mean business.

Also, entities perpetrating many advanced attacks are substantively different from the
hacktivists groups that have attracted attention in recent times. Hacktivists want to
embarrass and expose their targets’ activities, taking pride in publishing their conquests.

Many advanced attackers, in contrast, have the goal of stealth. They do not want to be
discovered or seek publicity.

Now some advanced threats are now masquerading as hacktivist attacks, with the goal being to confuse forensics and place blame on groups that are often eager to accept it. This pattern makes it difficult to size the scale of advanced threats: a willing scapegoat makes post-incident attribution particularly problematic.

The New Normal: Act as Though You Are Already Hacked  

The events of the year have shown that determined adversaries can always find exploits through people and in complex IT environments. It’s not realistic to keep
adversaries out. Organizations should plan and act as though they have already been breached.

Three foundational principles of security are compartmentalization, defense in depth and least privilege. in combination, these three tenets dictate that if one system (or person) is compromised, it should not result in a compromise of the entire system.

While simple in concept, these tenets have proven complicated to implement in practice. Organizations have long relied on the notion of a “perimeter,” where a big thick wall—in the form of firewalls and gateway defenses—guards the organization, with good guys (insiders) on one side of the wall and attackers on the other.

Security perimeters are now considered a construct of the past. Boundaries are nearly
impossible to define in modern organizations. The inclusion of partially trusted users
such as customers, suppliers, contractors, service providers, cloud vendors and others
have made organization boundaries very porous. Beyond the eradication of traditional
organizational boundaries, the consumerization of IT has brought a rash of unmanaged
devices into the enterprise and exposed the organization to services (and suppliers) that are opaque.

IT consumerization has also blurred the line between the business lives and
the personal lives of employees. We have moved from the illusion of a perimeter-driven defense to living in a state of compromise.

Accepting that some systems, some people, and some services may already be under the control of attackers changes information security strategy. it forces a return to the core principles of compartmentalization, defense-in-depth, and least privilege.

Organizations need to focus on closing the exposure window and limiting damage through efforts to compartmentalize systems, stop sensitive data egress and contain malfeasance. This new model also demands that we rethink old habits of sharing sensitive corporate information—such as source code, product plans and strategic roadmaps—using collaborative processes that presume perimeter defenses can keep attackers out.

Security improves through greater situational awareness: gaining the ability to
understand what’s happening beyond our network boundaries to detect threats on the horizon. Organizations get smarter by looking beyond their infrastructure and observing  the ecosystem. The ecosystem approach to security relies on organizations actively sharing information with other organizations about threats. It also demands greater visibility into the security of suppliers and service providers within one’s supply chain.

The key is to know what digital assets are important to protect, where they reside, who
has access to them and how to lock them down in the event of a breach. This ability to
tighten the net before and during an attack is key, and it requires a mature process for
incident handling. Incident response should not be considered exclusively a security
function. Instead, it is an organizational competency that must be developed and
continually honed well before an attack occurs. if organizations are planning responses
as an attack unfolds, they are too late. A competency approach allows remediation
activities to kick in automatically—like a reflex.

The Road Ahead

The reality of advanced threats demands a disruptive approach to defense—one where
enterprises can be agile and thrive in a contested environment. This approach must be
applied holistically: approaching advanced threat defense not as a discrete function but
as a natural consequence of robust but agile security.

Many of the holes that exist today come from an unmanageably complex iT infrastructure. Given that information security is a “weakest link” problem, only through understanding our assets, processes and endpoints do we have a chance at effective defense. Unraveling complexity and fielding a successful defense means that we also need to think creatively about the range of attacker motivations, which can extend far beyond data theft.

With every new technology, we have the ability to weave security into its fabric, to begin anew. We are at the start of an industry-wide move to cloud-based services and systems. We stand on the precipice of a sea-change in technology. There is a new mantra that goes within the industry saying “If we can’t get it right with cloud, shame on us.”

Today more than ever, security is an ecosystem problem in which every constituent has a responsibility. Attackers are collaborating, sharing information, going after the supply chain, co-opting careless insiders and evading our long relied-upon defenses. we need disruptive collaboration and innovation in defense. Through collaboration, information sharing and increasing our agility, we can successfully fend off APTs and other advanced threats.

Happy Holidays! And a blessed new year to all!

 

Duqu

Security experts are warning of a new malware threat that it says could be a precursor to the next Stuxnet. 

The new threat, dubbed W32.Duqu, is a remote access Trojan (RAT) that appears to have been written by the authors of Stuxnet, or at least by someone who has access to Stuxnet source code, Symantec said in a report released today.

It was confirmed that Duqu is a threat nearly identical to Stuxnet, but with a completely different purpose. Duqu’s purpose is to steal data from manufactures of industrial control systems that can then be used to craft attacks against entities using such systems.

Analysis shows that the Trojan is “highly targeted” at a limited number of organizations. Though Duqu uses a lot of the same code as Stuxnet, its payload is completely different.

While Stuxnet is designed to sabotage industrial control systems, Duqu is simply a Trojan with remote access capabilities that appears to have been created specifically to gather information about industrial control systems.

News of the new Trojan is sure to reinforce concerns about targeted cyberattacks against the industrial control systems used in critical infrastructures, such as power plants, water treatment facilities and chemical plants.

The Stuxnet worm , which some security researchers call the most sophisticated malware program ever written, has already affected industrial control systems in many countries.

The worm is noteworthy as the first piece of malware known to have morphed into physical destruction of a resource,

Attackers have used Duqu to install keystroke loggers and network enumerators for stealing information that can be used in future attacks. The attackers are looking for information such as design documents that could help them mount a future attack on an industrial control system.

Duqu has already been used to carry out attacks against a handful of companies that manufacture industrial control systems.

In at least one case, the attackers were unsuccessful in their attempts to steal such data. But information is not yet available on all cases where Duqu has been used to launch an attack.

Attacks using Duqu and its variants may have been going on since last December 2010 based on a review of file-compilation times. Duqu cannot replicate or propagate on its own, Haley said. It is configured to run for 36 days after which it removes itself from the infected machine.

Note that Duqu’s propagation techniques are still unknown, there is nothing in Duqu that says it comes from USB, or look for a network share and take me there.
It just sits there and works as a remote access tool.

The new malware is named Duqu because it creates files with filenames having the prefix “DQ”.

The Trojan consists of three files — a driver file, a dynamic link library and a configuration file. The files need to be installed by a separate executable which has not yet been recovered.

Besides the link between Duqu and Stuxnet, there is no other information on who might be behind the Trojan.

Duqu uses HTTP and HTTPS to communicate with a command & control server hosted in somewhere in India.

Attackers have been using the C&C server to download key loggers, network enumerators and other information stealing programs. The stolen information is stored on a “lightly encrypted’ file and then uploaded back to the server.

reference : Symantec

Solving Google Chrome’s High CPU Usage

Most of us know that Google Chrome is the fastest browser today. It loads fast, it starts fast and it really navigates fast. 

But how many know that Chrome utilizes so much processor’s resources that for those PCs who have lower powered processors installed, suddenly, everything crawls down.

My laptop has a dual core processor and 2 GB of RAM (the standard off the shelf package). The only difference is that I use this laptop as a network management and monitoring unit. I’ve installed a processor and RAM monitoring facility (naaah, I am not using Windows gadgets which consumes lots of RAM), but instead, am using Rainmeter and its necessary skins.

What I’ve noticed is that when I was using Mozilla Firefox, CPU activities only range from 8-15% utilization on 45% RAM usage. The CPU activities nor the RAM usage do not go up when using Firefox’s multiple tab functionalities.

Recently, I’ve tried using Chrome, and using the same behavioral processes in browsing, I’ve noticed that my CPU and RAM usage spikes, even though I am confined with one tab. Much worse, it increases when I am using at least three tabs.

As I am writing this blog article using Chrome, I am only using 6% of my CPU and 40% of my RAM. Yes, I have three open tabs and I have multiple processes running in the background.

The secret?

I’ve found out that Chrome, in its default installation, protects users from phishing and malware on real time. Sure, small deal, but if it consumes 80% of your CPU and 80% of your RAM, its definitely big deal.

What I did is just to disable this functionality under the Options – Under the Bonnets area. And right there and then, my CPU usage went down from 60% to 14%, my RAM usage went down from 70% to 45% and everything is back to normal.

Of course, I am not saying that you go through everything without the phishing and malware protection for this is important.

But it surely works. I am also attaching a screenshot of my resource monitoring results here.

-ViZ-

Ways to Fix Gmail Slow Loading Issues

This gallery contains 1 photo.

Nothing personal, but the past few months, Google and its services seem to bug me up. Erroneous search outputs, failure to show images in Google Image searches, Google hangs, unrelated search outputs, missing Google calendar entries, worst….failure of calendar items to send me an SMS, which somehow led me to miss one of my appointments…. … Continue reading

Rate this:

Social Networking and Balancing It To Network Security Objectives

With the explosion of social networking, interaction and  collaboration, email has lost its position as the primary Internet-based
communication tool. In fact, in a related literature that I’ve recently read, it reported that there were more social networking accounts than Webmail accounts in 2009.

Today, users rely more on blogs, tweets, social networking posts and  even video clip communications to enrich both personal and professional information exchange. Even businesses are leveraging social networking to communicate with customers, employees and partners.

While these sites and services offer tremendous business benefits, they also present serious risks that have to be managed. For instance,they are often the target of malicious attacks due to their popularity. Video sites like YouTube consume tremendous amounts of bandwidth if they are not properly managed on the corporate network. And employees may intentionally or accidentally leak sensitive company data onto a social networking site, breaches that can result in lost competitive information, public relations headaches, fines, legal action and more.

The good news is, with the right security approach, these consequences can be successfully avoided.

In addition to addressing technology gaps, you also have to educate users  about social networking security problems that stem from simple human error. And while the end user will likely remain the number one security risk for any organization, dramatic results can be achieved with just general security training.

Education should begin with the basics, but can be placed in the context of social networking to make them fresh and interesting.
For example, good login and password practices are a common problem within social networking. Routinely changing login credentials and protecting the confidentiality of passwords are basic security requirements – or should be. While this may sound like common sense, there was this recent fiasco may have been caused by one scientist who actually included his password in his email signature. So even highly educated users need to be reminded about basic security measures. Cybercriminals also know that many users use the same login ID and password on multiple sites, which enables attackers to easily gain access to social networking accounts. In one instance, many Twitter accounts were hacked when users were tricked into creating an account on a fake torrent site.

Other examples that are much less dramatic, but occur much more frequently, take place when users try to share something to a select group in an appropriate way, but do not realize that the way they shared it made it available to a broader group. Some applications may be popular enough to reasonably provide in-depth application training for users. A great example of an easily avoidable issue
recently occurred when over 100 million Facebook pages were compromised simply because most users did not understand some of the security settings available.

It may be worthwhile to start surveying users to identify their needs, applications of choice and perhaps even their own list of concerns. Then prepare a plan to ensure users are aware of how to use those applications safely.

Also, users need to be reminded that there are no safe zones on the web – including social networking sites. Assume that everything revealed on a social networking site will be visible on the Internet forever. Once it has been searched, indexed and cached, it may later turn up online no matter what steps are taken to delete it.

Finally, most users are no different than IT – no one reads the manual. So many users won’t really understand security guidelines until they violate them once or twice. “Coaching screens” are informational pop-ups or browser redirects that would appear at the instant a violation occurs to inform the user they have violated a policy, someone else knows about it, and explains how to prevent it from happening again. From a product standpoint, IT should look for solutions that not only provide security, but can also support education efforts.

Conclusion
Social networking has achieved a level of popularity that requires reasonable access at work, but it is also sufficiently mature to bring value to many businesses. But safe social networking requires an aggressive and layered security strategy at the web gateway, as well as the definition of new usage policies and priorities from management and IT. Better end-user education will also be required to ensure workers use social networking applications safely and appropriately.

The combination of layered security and education can help organizations dramatically reduce the risks from malware, phishing, data loss and bandwidth abuse.

Why is all this necessary? Cybercriminals are taking advantage of social networking’s fundamental model of familiarity, trust, sharing and open communications  to dupe users and steal valuable data.”

To close these security gaps, IT and business leaders must ensure they have the right security strategies   in place to identify and protect against the rapid evolution of social networking threats.

Do we need an endpoint security?

Business owners and IT managers would think that their anti-virus software would be enough for their day to day protection needs. They think that a separate endpoint security would be an additional cost and another thing to manage.  

But what we read in the papers are constant reminders that malware attacks and data leakage incidents are really on the rise. High profile incidents that make big new might seem out of the ordinary, yet businesses of every size face similar risks in the everyday acts of using digital technology and the internet for legitimate purposes.

Then, it was the anti-virus technology and the necessary response to security’s most common, but the most riskiest aspects. Where you need more than anti-virus is a not just a technological decision….it is a business decision. The original anti-virus concepts where zero-day threats are not handled is getting to be one of the biggest headaches in the IT security world today. Before, signature-based detection was sufficient when threats were fewer, farther between and generally, less dangerous.

Now that organized (or even, non-organized) cyber-criminals relentlessly troll for vulnerabilities, the risk is always high for ANY organization that uses technology in ordinary and legitimate ways.  Because exposure lies in such situations, organizations must update their protection beyond the traditional anti-virus. As experience show, letting your guard down has dangerous consequences.

But what are these ordinary situations that can bring you staggering consequences? Let me enumerate them:

A. Zero day threats

Zero-day threats are defined as threats which wreak havoc without having the anti-virus software identify it. No signature means no detection, no detection means no removal, and no removal means havoc. Examples of these are malware which consists of different identities everytime and those threats which seem to morph everytime.

What they can do to you? They can destroy your operating systems, steal information from your databases and servers and can put down your network.

B. Letting your employees work outside of the firewall

Before, employees just use to work within the protected and comfort levels of their internal corporate network where firewalls and gateways rule. But now, people work in airport lounges, internet cafes, hotels and their own homes.

What they can do to you? Working in unprotected networks is always risky. The Conficker virus is spread in vulnerable networks and that persistent outbreak experienced last year (and even up to now) created worldwide damage.

C. The unpatched PC

Patching means putting updates because of software lacks, mostly because of security. Some people choose to ignore updates on their PCs, and some systems administrators choose not to patch their servers because of the extensiveness of the activity.

What they can do to you? Simple…. the hackers simply exploit the security loopholes…. resulting in data loss… or they can simply use these loopholes as entry points for their more damaging exploit software.

D. The uncontrolled applications

Social networking sites as well as instant messengers are one of the security holes that must be covered. People with malicious intent (or sometimes, even those without malicious intent), intentionally or unintentionally leaks information via these channels.

E. Web Insecurity

Phishing websites are now used as data leakage channels. Why? it is because people simply trust the the valid websites, so that phishers imitate these websites.

F. The Lost Laptop  

A lost laptop is one of the biggest issues in data leakage. Imagine a laptop containing years and years of accounting information. Or imagine a laptop containing information on one of your most innovative products.. Once the laptop is lost, the information stored in there now has a new owner.

G. The misdirected e-mail

One small click, and that document that you may be protecting may fall into wrong hands. Such slim margins are unacceptable if that email contains very confidential data. In some organizations, employees use email to transfer information or to steal these data that they can sell or do identity theft.

H. The infected or lost USB flash drive    

Every time a user plug a USB device into a company computer, they bypass other layers of defense such as the gateway or the firewall protection. This makes devices with USB ports an easy means of attack. If no protection is available, it is an available swinging door for malware and data loss or theft channel. Also, do not forget that these USB devices are main channels of malware.

Conclusion:

As normal incidents show, there is no longer anything unusual about malware attacks and data breaches. Most happen everyday, and the classic anti-virus software is designed to block some of the threats. The best defense at the endpoint is multiple layers of protection integrated into a single solution, including live anti-virus, behavior based detection, URL filtering, applications control, network access control, data encryption, data loss prevention and device control.

Security can’t be handled by a single solution anymore.

 


					

The Frustrations….

… having been doing the same thing over and over for years already, and there is this instance where you have done this certain thing, but it does not work..

… people who do not seem to understand what you are trying to do..

… server or computer peripheral failures which are hard to detect and isolate (like network cards?)

… pirated software…

… old operating systems which gives you a hard time installing a certain device driver…

… old processors…

… insufficient memory…

… forgotten password…

… databases which does not seem to properly store and process information…

… trial software which seems to not to handle a certain process when you need them…

… hard disk crash…

… Windows updates which takes forever to load…

… Internet outage…

… new technologies which are not thoroughly tested…

… WiFi access which you cannot access…

and lots more…..

 

Now, there is FakeAV

Before, we only used to hear fake bags, fake shoes, fake movies, fake music and even fake identity. Now, there is this thing called as FakeAV. What is this new IT security lingo?

FakeAV or Fake AntiVirus, also known as Rogue AntiVirus, Rogues, or ScareWare, is a class of malware that displays false alert messages to the victim concerning threats that do not really exist. These alerts will prompt users to visit a website where they will be asked to pay for these non-existent threats to be cleaned up. The FakeAV will continue to send these annoying and intrusive alerts until a payment is made. 

During the last part of 2010, the number of FakeAVs has really grown. In fact, IT security experts have determined the quantity of these FakeAV variants from less than 1,000 late last year to around 500,000 today.  The reason for the increasing popularity of FakeAVs is because of the direct revenue source that FakeAV provides.  Compared to other malware variants, FakeAV is somewhat associated with some network communities that make large amounts of money by driving traffic toward the stores of their partners.

How will I know if I am dealing with FakeAVs?

FakeAVs use social engineering techniques to get it self installed. Normally, it goes through the routes of Windows Security updates, fake anti-virus pages and fake social network engineering applications.  Once installed, there could be several behaviors like popup messages, fake virus scanning where it usually reflects make believe files. FakeAVs usually use high-tech names so that it may sound valid like “security central”, “malware database”, etc.

How do we get FakeAVs?

There are may ways a FakeAV can get into your system, but the majority of which is that a user can be tricked into running installer executable in a way similar to how Trojans work. But the following are the most popular techniques:

  • E-mail spam campaigns
  • Infected websites
  • FakeAV downloads by other malware

Initiating a Fake Scan

Once a FakeAV is installed, it will usually attempt to contact a remote website and download the main component or a main program. This will initiate a fake system scan, where may non-existent threats will be discovered and reflected. A main FakeAV window is usually professionally created and victims can be convinced that they are using a genuine security product.

Once the fake threats have been discovered, users are told that they must register or activate the program to clean up the threats. Users are taken to a registration website where they are asked to enter their credit card number and give other confidential information. These pages are convincing, sometimes featuring the illegal use of logos and industry-recognized organizations. 

Other FakeAV behavior

Most FakeAVs also cause further effects to the victim by interfering with normal systems processes and runtime. Sometimes, this includes disabling of the task manager and use of the Registry Editor, prohibiting processes from running and even web site redirection. This behavior further convinces the victim that there is a problem on the system and increases the likelihood of a purchase being made.

Prevention and Protection

The most effective defense against FakeAVs is a comprehensive security as well as literacy. For network administrators, a layered security can and should take place at each stage.

URL Filtering : by blocking the domain and the URLs from which FakeAV is downloaded, infection can be prevented from ever happening.

Detection of Web-based Content:  it should include detection of Javascript and HTML used on FakeAV and fake webpages.

Runtime Detection: if a FakeAV executable manages to evade the other layers of protection, you should be able to detect and block the behavior of the FakeAV as it tries to execute on a system.

Spam blocking: self-explanatory, the network should recognize, detect and eliminate spam.

Conclusion:

FakeAV is a fast growing threat. The direct financial benefit gained from this threat will not go away in just one snap, in fact, it will be more widespread. FakeAVs are already being distributed via several sources and the variety and inventive distribution will only increase.