Mitigate Ransomware "WannaCry"
-
"Just make them available in environments they don't want affected."
Wouldn't you just make sure places you don't want to be affected are updated against whatever exploit your using. I guess if you were using an exploit that was not patched ;) having a way to kill it would be good. And Jimp makes a good point as well.
Both very viable answers to reason for killswitch - thanks.
-
"Just make them available in environments they don't want affected."
Wouldn't you just make sure places you don't want to be affected are updated against whatever exploit your using. I guess if you were using an exploit that was not patched ;) having a way to kill it would be good. And Jimp makes a good point as well.
Both very viable answers to reason for killswitch - thanks.
In addition to perhaps a not yet patched exploit. Perhaps the environments not to be affected are vast and not under direct control for patching. A domain/web site based kill switch could also be used for targeting attack (exclude non targeted environments). For instance nation states and cyber warfare.
Though it could also be just as simple as an oversight to remove test/debug/example code.
-
They could also sell the killswitch to some places for more $$$
-
They could also sell the killswitch to some places for more $$$
Yup, lots of possibilities.
What made me think of cyber warfare was a top 20 chart I saw with one particular nation affected way more than any other. Another thought on cyber warfare could be nation C trying to stoke animosity between nations A and B.
General public pawns will probably never know much of any of this. But it is fun to speculate.
Hmmm. They would only be able to sell the kill switch once. Then everyone would have it. Also, why two kill switches? Seems to me that may indicate targeting.
-
The simple reason so many companies were hit by the WannaCry 2.0 ransomware
Daniel Howley
Technology EditorYahoo FinanceMay 16, 2017
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/simple-reason-many-companies-hit-wannacry-2-0-ransomware-192836300.html
Excuses, excuses. It's their job/responsibility to operate a secure environment. If they are unable or unwilling to allocate the necessary resources to accomplish that then it is their fault, and stupidity for taking the associated risk without being prepared to deal with the possible consequences.
-
<interrup>Whats a killswitch ?</interrup>
-
<interrup>Whats a killswitch ?</interrup>
It's a condition that, if met, causes a program to stop executing.
In this case, the malware checks to see if one of the domains is live (attempts an HTTP connection to it). If this succeeds, then it does not attempt to spread itself further.
So by making sure the malware can access these "killswitch" domains, you effectively stop it from infecting more machines, giving you more time to get your systems patched/configured/etc to properly prevent them from being exploited, and to clean up existing infections.
-
For a really good explanation of the killswitch take a read of this https://www.malwaretech.com/2017/05/how-to-accidentally-stop-a-global-cyber-attacks.html
-
thanks
-
It does not require any specific response, only that it can make an HTTP request to those domains.
[]
DO NOT BLOCK THESE DOMAINS, blocking solves nothing. It is not a C&C server, but a killswitch.Dear Jim,
Could I ask why blocking the domain doesn't solve anything? In my humble view of the world, if it can't connect to it because it's blocked, it can't make a HTTP request?
Thank you :)
-
How about you read jimp's post again.
-
I know some people that pay bitcoins for his information :'(
-
Exactly - pay attention to this part
" It is not a C&C server, but a killswitch."
This is why do not block the domain… But bring the domains online and let it make a http connection.
