<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Google Data &#187; Niels Provos</title>
	<atom:link href="/author/niels-provos/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://googledata.org</link>
	<description>Everything Google: News, Products, Services, Content, Culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:49:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.7.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Safe Browsing Protocol v2 Transition</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/safe-browsing-protocol-v2-transition/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=safe-browsing-protocol-v2-transition</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/safe-browsing-protocol-v2-transition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 21:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://googledata.org/?guid=78ea7a87f96fe753d15142f270150be0</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Ian Fette, Google Security TeamLast year, we released version 2 of the Safe Browsing API, along with a reference implementation in Python. This version provides more efficient updates compared to version 1, giving clients the most useful (fre...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Ian Fette, Google Security Team</span><br /><br />Last year, we released <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/developers_guide_v2.html">version 2</a> of the Safe Browsing API, along with a <a href="http://code.google.com/p/google-safe-browsing/downloads/list">reference implementation</a> in Python. This version provides more efficient updates compared to version 1, giving clients the most useful (freshest) data first. The new version uses significantly less bandwidth, and also allows us to serve data that covers more URLs than previously possible. Browsers including Chrome and Firefox have already migrated to version 2, and we are confident that the new version works well and delivers significant benefits compared to the previous version.<br /><br />We are now planning to discontinue version 1 of the protocol to help us better focus our efforts and resources. On December 1, 2011, we will stop supporting version 1 and will take the service down shortly thereafter. If you are currently using version 1 of the protocol, we encourage you to migrate as soon as possible to the new version. In addition to the <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/developers_guide_v2.html">documentation</a> and <a href="http://code.google.com/p/google-safe-browsing/downloads/list">reference implementation</a>, there’s a <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/google-safe-browsing-api">Google Group</a> dedicated to the API where you may be able to get additional advice or ask questions as you prepare to transition. Those of you who who have already migrated to version 2 will not be affected and do not need to take any further action.<br /><br />If you are looking to migrate from the version 1 API and are worried about the complexity of the version 2 API, we now have a <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/lookup_guide.html">lookup service</a> that you can use in lieu of version 2 of the Safe Browsing Protocol if your usage is relatively low. The lookup service is a RESTful service that lets you send a URL or set of URLs to Google and receive a reply indicating the state of those URLs. You can use this API  if you check fewer than 100,000 URLs per day and don’t mind waiting on a network roundtrip. This process may be simpler to use than version 2 of the Safe Browsing Protocol, but it is not supported for users who will generate excessive load (meaning that your software, either your servers or deployed clients, will collectively generate over 100,000 requests to Google in a 24-hour period).<br /><br />If you are currently using version 1 of the Safe Browsing Protocol, please update to either the Safe Browsing Protocol version 2, or the lookup service, before December 1, 2011. If you have any questions, feel free to check out the Google Safe Browsing API <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/google-safe-browsing-api">discussion list</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-6362648509819552812?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/safe-browsing-protocol-v2-transition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stay safe while browsing</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/stay-safe-while-browsing-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=stay-safe-while-browsing-2</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/stay-safe-while-browsing-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://googledata.org/?guid=eb60ccaa4997e1a4376c04a40448b460</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Panayiotis Mavrommatis and Niels Provos, Security TeamWe are constantly working on detecting sites that are compromised or are deliberately set up to infect your machine while browsing the web. We provide warnings on our search results and to...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Panayiotis Mavrommatis and Niels Provos, Security Team</span><br /><div><br /></div><div>We are constantly working on detecting sites that are compromised or are deliberately set up to infect your machine while browsing the web. We provide warnings on our search results and to browsers such as Firefox and Chrome. A lot of the warnings take people by surprise — they can trigger on your favorite news site, a blog you read daily, or another site you would never consider to be involved in malicious activities. <br /><br />In fact, it’s very important to heed these warnings because they show up for sites that are under attack. We are very confident with the results of our scanners that create these warnings, and we work with webmasters to show where attack code was injected. As soon as we think the site has been cleaned up, we lift the warning.<br /><br />This week in particular, a lot of web users have become vulnerable. A number of live public exploits were attacking the latest versions of some very popular browser plug-ins. Our automated detection systems encounter these attacks every day, e.g. exploits against PDF (CVE-2010-2883), Quicktime (CVE-2010-1818) and Flash (CVE-2010-2884).<br /><br />We found it interesting that we discovered the PDF exploit on the same page as a more “traditional” fake anti-virus page, in which users are prompted to install an executable file. So, even if you run into a fake anti-virus page and ignore it, we suggest you run a thorough anti-virus scan on your machine.<br /><br />We and others have observed that once a vulnerability has been exploited and announced, it does not take long for it to be abused widely on the web. For example, the stack overflow vulnerability in PDF was announced on September 7th, 2010, and the Metasploit project made an exploit module available only one day later. Our systems found the vulnerability abused across multiple exploit sites on September 13th.<br /><br />Here’s a few suggestions for protecting yourself against web attacks:<ul><li>Keep your OS, browser, and browser plugins up-to-date.</li><li>Run anti-virus software, and keep this up-to-date, too.</li><li>Disable or uninstall any software or browser plug-ins you don’t use — this reduces your vulnerability surface.</li><li>If you receive a PDF attachment in Gmail, select “View” to view it in Gmail instead of downloading it.</li></ul></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-1182611172504467316?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/stay-safe-while-browsing-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stay safe while browsing</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/stay-safe-while-browsing/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=stay-safe-while-browsing</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/stay-safe-while-browsing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Panayiotis Mavrommatis and Niels Provos, Security TeamWe are constantly working on detecting sites that are compromised or are deliberately set up to infect your machine while browsing the web. We provide warnings on our search results and to...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Panayiotis Mavrommatis and Niels Provos, Security Team</span><br /><div><br /></div><div>We are constantly working on detecting sites that are compromised or are deliberately set up to infect your machine while browsing the web. We provide warnings on our search results and to browsers such as Firefox and Chrome. A lot of the warnings take people by surprise — they can trigger on your favorite news site, a blog you read daily, or another site you would never consider to be involved in malicious activities. <br /><br />In fact, it’s very important to heed these warnings because they show up for sites that are under attack. We are very confident with the results of our scanners that create these warnings, and we work with webmasters to show where attack code was injected. As soon as we think the site has been cleaned up, we lift the warning.<br /><br />This week in particular, a lot of web users have become vulnerable. A number of live public exploits were attacking the latest versions of some very popular browser plug-ins. Our automated detection systems encounter these attacks every day, e.g. exploits against PDF (CVE-2010-2883), Quicktime (CVE-2010-1818) and Flash (CVE-2010-2884).<br /><br />We found it interesting that we discovered the PDF exploit on the same page as a more “traditional” fake anti-virus page, in which users are prompted to install an executable file. So, even if you run into a fake anti-virus page and ignore it, we suggest you run a thorough anti-virus scan on your machine.<br /><br />We and others have observed that once a vulnerability has been exploited and announced, it does not take long for it to be abused widely on the web. For example, the stack overflow vulnerability in PDF was announced on September 7th, 2010, and the Metasploit project made an exploit module available only one day later. Our systems found the vulnerability abused across multiple exploit sites on September 13th.<br /><br />Here’s a few suggestions for protecting yourself against web attacks:<ul><li>Keep your OS, browser, and browser plugins up-to-date.</li><li>Run anti-virus software, and keep this up-to-date, too.</li><li>Disable or uninstall any software or browser plug-ins you don’t use — this reduces your vulnerability surface.</li><li>If you receive a PDF attachment in Gmail, select “View” to view it in Gmail instead of downloading it.</li></ul></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-1182611172504467316?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/stay-safe-while-browsing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More Information about Malware Details</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/more-information-about-malware-details/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=more-information-about-malware-details</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/more-information-about-malware-details/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by: Lucas Ballard, Anti-Malware TeamA month ago we announced the release of a new Webmaster Tools feature that helps webmasters identify malicious content that has been surreptitiously added to their sites. We've been working on improving the qu...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by: Lucas Ballard, Anti-Malware Team</span><br /><br />A month ago we announced the release of a new <a href="http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2009/10/show-me-malware.html">Webmaster Tools feature</a> that helps webmasters identify malicious content that has been surreptitiously added to their sites. We've been working on improving the quality of the feature since it launched, and yesterday we released some changes that should make the information even more useful. Most of the changes have occurred behind the scenes, but the end result is that we can provide more data, with higher accuracy, and do so more quickly. If your site is receiving a malware warning for Google search results, please visit <a href="http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools">Webmaster Tools</a> for more details about the problematic code that our automated systems have discovered.<br /><br />We will continue to improve the feature over time and welcome feedback via comments on this blogpost. If you are a webmaster of a compromised site and use the feature to help clean your site, please include feedback in the comment field of the <a href="http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/malware-we-dont-need-no-stinking.html">appeal request</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-3140031525956366579?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/more-information-about-malware-details/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Malware Statistics Update</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/malware-statistics-update/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=malware-statistics-update</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/malware-statistics-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Niels Provos, Security TeamEvery now and then people ask us for an update on the malware statistics we published in the All Your iFrames Point To Us blog post. We're glad to share this sort of data because we believe that collaboration and in...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Niels Provos, Security Team</span><br /><br />Every now and then people ask us for an update on the malware statistics we published in the <a href="http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-your-iframe-are-point-to-us.html">All Your iFrames Point To Us</a> blog post. We're glad to share this sort of data because we believe that collaboration and information sharing are crucial in driving anti-malware efforts forward. Here is a small update containing some interesting trends we've observed over the last 12 months.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Number of Entries on the Google Safe Browsing Malware List</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wLESxcF8BBY/SpRY5BPvaWI/AAAAAAAAIHU/G9lYZ6lWpEk/s1600-h/urlnum_small.png"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 301px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wLESxcF8BBY/SpRY5BPvaWI/AAAAAAAAIHU/G9lYZ6lWpEk/s400/urlnum_small.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5374017991970089314" /></a><br />As we mentioned in our <a href="http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2009/06/top-10-malware-sites.html">Top-10 Malware Sites</a> blog post, we have seen a large increase in the number of compromised sites since April. The number of entries on our malware list has more than doubled in one year, and we have seen periods in which 40,000 web sites were compromised per week. However, compared to infections associated with Gumblar and Martuz — two relatively large and well-known pieces of malicious code, many compromised web sites now point to hundreds of different domains. As these malware trends evolve, we're constantly improving our systems to better detect compromised web sites. The increase in compromised sites we observed may have also been influenced by our improved detection capabilities.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Search Results Containing a URL Labeled as Harmful</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wLESxcF8BBY/SpRZHdRAujI/AAAAAAAAIHc/lEmJvbKUbCE/s1600-h/fraction_labeled_small.png"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 310px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wLESxcF8BBY/SpRZHdRAujI/AAAAAAAAIHc/lEmJvbKUbCE/s400/fraction_labeled_small.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5374018240009779762" /></a><br />The above graph shows the percentage of daily queries that contain at least one search result <a href="http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/malware-we-dont-need-no-stinking.html">that we labeled as harmful</a>. In January 2008, more than 1.2% of all Google search queries contained at least one such result (you can review a graph of this data in the aforementioned <a href="http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-your-iframe-are-point-to-us.html">All Your iFrames Point To Us</a> post). Since then, there has been a downward trend to well below 1%. We noticed an increase around May 2009, and that growth may be due to the appearance of a larger number of compromised web sites. That said, it's encouraging that compared to last year, fewer search queries contain results to potentially harmful sites.<br /><br />Users of Google search, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Apple Safari receive warnings when visiting sites we identify as potentially harmful. These warnings are produced by our <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/">Safe Browsing API</a>, a technology that is freely available for webmasters to implement.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-4805965695973983830?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/malware-statistics-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Improving web browser security</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/improving-web-browser-security/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=improving-web-browser-security</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/improving-web-browser-security/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Chris Evans, Security TeamMalware is the source of a large number of reported security incidents on the Internet. Since Internet users can become infected in many different ways, the proliferation of malware is a very hard problem to solve. O...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Chris Evans, Security Team</span><br /><br />Malware is the source of a large number of reported security incidents on the Internet. Since Internet users can become infected in many different ways, the proliferation of malware is a very hard problem to solve. One part of the solution is to improve the robustness of web browsers such that security compromises due to browser bugs are minimized. We work hard to scrutinize our own code for potential vulnerabilities. We also contribute to research in this area with projects like the <a href="http://code.google.com/p/browsersec/wiki/Main" title="Browser Security Handbook"  >Browser Security Handbook</a> and open source releases of the&nbsp;<a href="http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/canvas/" title="fuzzers" >fuzzers</a>&nbsp;<a href="http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/dom_checker/" title="involved"  >involved</a> in our software testing.<br /><br />Some of you may have noticed that while working on Google Chrome, we have also discovered and responsibly reported a number of security issues in other browsers. Various scenarios lead us to report these bugs:<br /><br /><ul><li >Some browsers share code bases with Google Chrome, and we collaborate with those browser vendors.</li><li>We develop generic fuzzers that are applicable to most browsers and that we want to share with others.</li><li >We spend time analyzing behavior in different browsers, and we sometimes discover bugs in the process.</li><li>It benefits our users and the Internet as a whole if we work collaboratively on better web browser security.</li></ul><div><br></div>A few of the more interesting bugs we've researched recently include: <a href="http://www.opera.com/support/kb/view/882/" title="this one in Opera"  >this one in Opera</a> uncovered by Michal Zalewski's &lt;canvas&gt; fuzzer; a&nbsp;<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms08-aug.mspx" title="HTTP 449 response code issue in IE"  >HTTP 449 response code issue in IE</a> found by Tavis Ormandy; <a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3613" title="contributing to Safari 4's security"  >contributions to Safari 4's security</a> by Robert Swiecki, SkyLined, and Dean McNamee (and others); an <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2008/mfsa2008-64.html" title="interesting XMLHttpRequest leak" >XMLHttpRequest leak</a>&nbsp;in Firefox discovered by Marius Schilder; and a&nbsp;<a href="http://scary.beasts.org/security/CESA-2009-008.html" title="finding an interesting cross-domain leak" >cross-domain leak</a> in Chrome / Safari (the two share a common base) unearthed by Chris Evans.<br /><br />The collaboration works both ways. We'd like to thank the following browser vendors:<br />Microsoft for helping with <a href="http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=79323" title="SSL with HTTP proxies">SSL interactions with HTTP proxies</a>, Mozilla for <a href="http://www.squarefree.com/2009/03/16/css-grammar-fuzzer/" title="sharing fuzzers">sharing fuzzers</a>, and <a href="http://www.apple.com/" title="Apple">Apple</a> for sharing and coordinating Webkit-based bugs.<br /><br />Together as a security community, our combined efforts to find vulnerabilities in browsers, practice responsible disclosure, and get problems fixed before criminals exploit them help make the Internet an overall safer place for everyone. We'd also like to thank all those who have helped us by contributing to Google Chrome.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-2562760134438794883?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/improving-web-browser-security/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Top 10 Malware Sites</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/top-10-malware-sites/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=top-10-malware-sites</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/top-10-malware-sites/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Niels Provos, Security TeamA recent surge in compromised web servers has generated many interesting discussions in online forums and blogs.  We thought we would join the conversation by sharing what we found to be the most popular malware sit...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Niels Provos, Security Team</span><br /><p>A recent surge in compromised web servers has generated many interesting discussions in online forums and blogs.  We thought we would join the conversation by sharing what we found to be the most popular malware sites in the last two months.<br /><br />As we've <a href="http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-your-iframe-are-point-to-us.html">discussed previously</a>, we constantly scan our index for potentially dangerous sites.  Our automated systems found more than 4,000 different sites that appeared to be set up for distributing malware by massively compromising popular web sites.  Of these domains more than 1,400 were hosted in the .cn TLD.  Several contained plays on the name of Google such as <a href="http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=goooogleadsence.biz/">goooogleadsence.biz</a>, etc.<br /><br /></p><div style="text-align: center;"><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wLESxcF8BBY/SibVjEXYs0I/AAAAAAAAHP0/PxUHv8s7g3Y/s1600-h/top10sites.png"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 324px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wLESxcF8BBY/SibVjEXYs0I/AAAAAAAAHP0/PxUHv8s7g3Y/s400/top10sites.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5343192806365639490" /></a><br /></div><br /><br />The graph shows the top-10 malware sites as counted by the number of compromised web sites that referenced it.  All domains on the top-10 list are suspected to have compromised more than 10,000 web sites on the Internet.  The graph also contains arrows indicating when these domains where first listed via the <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/">Safe Browsing API</a> and flagged in our search results as potentially dangerous.<br /><br />Other malware researchers <a href="http://blog.unmaskparasites.com/2009/05/07/gumblar-cn-exploit-12-facts-about-this-injected-script/">reported</a> widespread compromises pointing to the domains gumblar.cn and martuz.cn, both of which made it on our top-10 list. For gumblar, we saw about 60,000 compromised sites; Martuz peaked at slightly over 35,000 sites.  Beladen.net was also <a href="http://securitylabs.websense.com/content/Blogs/3408.aspx">reported</a> to be part of a mass compromise, but made it only to position 124 on the list with about 3,500 compromised sites.<br /><br />To help make the Internet a safer place, our Safe Browsing API is freely available and is being used by browsers such as Firefox and Chrome to protect users on the web.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-8528075173029712348?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/top-10-malware-sites/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Announcing &quot;Browser Security Handbook&quot;</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/announcing-browser-security-handbook/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=announcing-browser-security-handbook</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/announcing-browser-security-handbook/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Michael Zalewski, Security Team.Many people view the task of writing secure web applications as a very complex challenge - in part because of the inherent shortcomings of technologies such as HTTP, HTML, or Javascript, and in part because of ...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Michael Zalewski, Security Team.</span><br /><br />Many people view the task of writing secure web applications as a very complex challenge - in part because of the inherent shortcomings of technologies such as HTTP, HTML, or Javascript, and in part because of the subtle differences and unexpected interactions between various browser security mechanisms.<br /><br />Through the years, we found that having a full understanding of browser-specific quirks is critical to making sound security design decisions in modern <i>Web 2.0</i> applications. For example, the same user-supplied link may appear to one browser as a harmless relative address, while another could interpret it as a potentially malicious Javascript payload. In another case, an application may rely on a particular HTTP request that is impossible to spoof from within the browser in order to defend the security of its users. However, an attacker might easily subvert the safeguard by crafting the same request from within commonly installed browser extensions. If not accounted for, these differences can lead to trouble.<br /><br />In hopes of helping to make the Web a safer place, we decided to release our <a title="Browser Security Handbook" href="http://code.google.com/p/browsersec/wiki/Main" id="rhcz">Browser Security Handbook</a> to the general public. This 60-page document provides a comprehensive comparison of a broad set of security features and characteristics in commonly used browsers, along with (hopefully) useful commentary and implementation tips for application developers who need to rely on these mechanisms, as well as engineering teams working on future browser-side security enhancements.<br /><br />Please note that given the sheer number of characteristics covered, we expect some kinks in the initial version of the handbook; feedback from browser vendors and security researchers is greatly appreciated.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-3843938145701645497?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/announcing-browser-security-handbook/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gmail security and recent phishing activity</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/gmail-security-and-recent-phishing-activity/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=gmail-security-and-recent-phishing-activity</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/gmail-security-and-recent-phishing-activity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Chris EvansWe've seen some speculation recently about a purported security vulnerability in Gmail and the theft of several website owners' domains by unauthorized third parties. At Google we're committed to providing secure products, and we m...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Chris Evans</span><br /><br />We've seen some speculation recently about a purported security vulnerability in Gmail and the theft of several website owners' domains by unauthorized third parties. At Google we're committed to providing secure products, and we mounted an immediate investigation. Our results indicate no evidence of a Gmail vulnerability.<br /><br />With help from affected users, we determined that the cause was a phishing scheme, a common method used by malicious actors to trick people into sharing their sensitive information. Attackers sent customized e-mails encouraging web domain owners to visit fraudulent websites such as "google-hosts.com" that they set up purely to harvest usernames and passwords. These fake sites had no affiliation with Google, and the ones we've seen are now offline. Once attackers gained the user credentials, they were free to modify the affected accounts as they desired. In this case, the attacker set up mail filters specifically designed to forward messages from web domain providers.<br /><br />Several news stories referenced a <a title="domain theft from December 2007" href="http://www.davidairey.com/google-gmail-security-hijack/" id="d.kh">domain theft from December 2007</a> that was incorrectly linked to a Gmail CSRF vulnerability</span>. We did have a Gmail CSRF bug reported to us in September 2007 that we fixed worldwide within 24 hours of private disclosure of the bug details. Neither this bug nor any other Gmail bug was involved in the December 2007 domain theft.<br /><br />We recognize how many people depend on Gmail, and we strive to make it as secure as possible. At this time, we'd like to thank the wider security community for working with us to achieve this goal. We're always looking at new ways to enhance Gmail security. For example, we recently gave users the option to <a href="http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/making-security-easier.html" id="murn" title="always connect via https">always run their entire session using https</a>.<br /><br />To keep your Google account secure online, we recommend you only ever enter your Gmail sign-in credentials to web addresses starting with https://www.google.com/accounts, and never click-through any warnings your browser may raise about certificates. For more information on how to stay safe from phishing attacks, see our blog post <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-to-avoid-getting-hooked.html" id="o8q2" title="here">here</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-6444139837950470630?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/gmail-security-and-recent-phishing-activity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Meet ratproxy, our passive web security assessment tool</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/meet-ratproxy-our-passive-web-security-assessment-tool/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=meet-ratproxy-our-passive-web-security-assessment-tool</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/meet-ratproxy-our-passive-web-security-assessment-tool/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Michal ZalewskiWe're happy to announce that we've just open-sourced ratproxy, a passive web application security assessment tool that we've been using internally at Google. This utility, developed by our information security engineering team,...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Michal Zalewski</span><br /><br />We're happy to announce that we've just open-sourced <a href="http://code.google.com/p/ratproxy">ratproxy</a>, a passive web application security assessment tool that we've been using internally at Google. This utility, developed by our information security engineering team, is designed to transparently analyze legitimate, browser-driven interactions with a tested web property and automatically pinpoint, annotate, and prioritize potential flaws or areas of concern.  <br /><br />The proxy analyzes problems such as cross-site script inclusion threats, insufficient cross-site request forgery defenses, caching issues, cross-site scripting candidates, potentially unsafe cross-domain code inclusion schemes and information leakage scenarios, and much more. (A more-detailed discussion of these features and information on securing vulnerable applications is provided <a href="http://code.google.com/p/ratproxy/wiki/RatproxyDoc">here</a>.) Compared with more-traditional active crawlers, or with fully manual request inspection and modification frameworks, this approach offers several significant advantages in terms of minimized overhead; marginalized risk of site disruptions; high coverage of complex, client-driven application states in web 2.0 solutions; and insight into dynamic cross-domain trust models.<br /><br />We decided to make this tool freely available as open source because we feel it will be a valuable contribution to the information security community, helping advance the community's understanding of security challenges associated with contemporary web technologies. We believe that responsible security research brings a net overall benefit to the safety of the Web as a whole, and have released this tool explicitly to support that kind of research.<br /><br />To download the proxy, please visit this <a href="http://ratproxy.googlecode.com/files/ratproxy-1.50.tar.gz">page</a>. Also, please keep in mind that the proxy is designed solely to highlight interesting patterns in web applications, and a further analysis by a security professional is often required to interpret the results and their significance for the tested platform.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-2193653239305893818?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/meet-ratproxy-our-passive-web-security-assessment-tool/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Safe Browsing Diagnostic To The Rescue</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/safe-browsing-diagnostic-to-the-rescue/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=safe-browsing-diagnostic-to-the-rescue</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/safe-browsing-diagnostic-to-the-rescue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 20:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Niels ProvosWe've been protecting Google users from malicious web pages since 2006 by showing warning labels in Google's search results and by publishing the data via the Safe Browsing API to client programs such as Firefox and Google Desktop...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Niels Provos</span><br /><br />We've been protecting Google users from malicious web pages since 2006 by showing warning labels in Google's search results and by publishing the data via the <a  title="Safe Browsing API" href="http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/" >Safe Browsing API</a> to client programs such as Firefox and Google Desktop Search. To create our data, we've built a large-scale infrastructure to automatically determine if web pages pose a risk to users. This system has proven to be highly accurate, but we've noted that it can sometimes be difficult for webmasters and users to verify our results, as attackers often use sophisticated obfuscation techniques or inject malicious payloads only under certain conditions. With that in mind, we've developed a Safe Browsing diagnostic page that will provide detailed information about our automatic investigations and findings.<br /><br />The <a title="Safe Browsing Diagnostic page" href="http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://malware.testing.google.test/testing/malware/">Safe Browsing diagnostic page</a> of a site is structured into four different categories:<br /><ol><br /><li><b>What is the current listing status for [the site in question]?</b><br><br />We display the current listing status of a site and also information on how often a site or parts of it were listed in the past.<br /></li><br /><li><b>What happened when Google visited this site?</b><br><br />This section includes information on when we analyzed the page, when it was last malicious, what kind of malware we encountered and so fourth.&nbsp;&nbsp; To help web masters clean up their site, we also provide information about the sites that were serving malicious software to users and which sites might have served as intermediaries.<br /></li><br /><li><b>Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?</b><br><br />Here we provide information if this site has facilitated the distribution of malicious software in the past.  This could be an advertising network or statistics site that accidentally participated in the distribution of malicious software.</li><br /><li><b>Has this site hosted malware?</b><br><br />Here we provide information if the the site has hosted malicious software in the past.  We also provide information on the victim sites that initiated the distribution of malicious software.</li><br /></ol><br />All information we show is historical over the last ninety days but does not go further into the past.&nbsp;&nbsp; Initially, we are making the Safe Browsing diagnostic page available in two ways.&nbsp; We are adding a link on the <a title="interstitial" href="http://www.google.com/interstitial?url=http://malware.testing.google.test/testing/malware/">interstitial</a> page a user sees after clicking on a search result with a warning label, and also via an "additional information" link in Firefox 3's warning page.  Of course, for anyone who wants to know more about how our detection system works, we also provide a detailed <a title="tech report" href="http://research.google.com/archive/provos-2008a.pdf">tech report [pdf]</a> including an overview of the detection system and in-depth data analysis.<br><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-663530374649564816?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/safe-browsing-diagnostic-to-the-rescue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contributing To Open Source Software Security</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/contributing-to-open-source-software-security/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=contributing-to-open-source-software-security</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/contributing-to-open-source-software-security/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 18:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Written by Will DrewryFrom operating systems to web browsers, open source software plays a critical role in the operation of the Internet. The security of open source software is therefore quite important, as it often interacts with personal informatio...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Written by Will Drewry</span><br /><br />From <a id="t82-" title="operating systems" href="http://www.linux.org/" >operating systems</a> to <a id="zafu" title="web browsers" href="http://www.mozilla.org/" >web browsers</a>, open source software plays a critical role in the operation of the Internet. The security of open source software is therefore quite important, as it often interacts with personal information -- ranging from credit card numbers to medical records -- that needs to be kept safe. There has been a long-lived discussion on whether open source software is inherently more secure than closed source software.  While popular opinion has begun to tilt in favor of openness, there are still arguments for both sides.  Instead of diving into those treacherous waters (or giving weight to the idea of "inherent security"), I'd like to focus on the fruits of this extensive discussion.  In particular, David A. Wheeler laid out a "bottom line" in his <a id="ldw." href="http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/open-source-security.html">Secure      Programming for Linux and Unix HOWTO</a> which applies to both open and closed source software. It predicates real security in software on three actions:<br /><ol><br /><li><i>people need to actually review the code</i></li><br /><li><i>developers/reviewers need to know how to write secure code<br /></i></li><br /><li><i>once found, security problems need to be fixed quickly, and their                                  fixes distributed quickly</i></li><br /></ol><br />While distilling anything down to three steps makes it seem easy, this isn't necessarily the case.  Given how important open source software is to Google, we've attempted to contribute to this bottom line.  As Chris <a title="post" href="http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2007/10/auditing-open-source-software.html" id="u6ym">said before</a>, our engineers are encouraged to contribute both software and time to open source efforts.  We <a id="m0o9" href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=%22Google+Security+Team%22+CVE&amp;btnG=Search">regularly submit</a> the results of our automated and manual security analysis of open source software back to the community, including related software engineering time. In addition, our engineering teams frequently release software under open source licenses. This software was written either with security in mind, such as with <a id="abc0" href="http://code.google.com/p/bunny-the-fuzzer/">security testing                                        tools</a>, or by engineers well-versed in the <a id="ouhv" href="http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit/web/security-for-gwt-applications">security        challenges</a> of their project.<br /><br />These efforts leave one area completely unaddressed -- getting security problems fixed quickly, and then getting those fixes distributed quickly.  It has been unclear how to best resolve this issue.  There is no centralized security authority for open source projects, and operating system distribution publishers are the best bet for getting updates to the highest number of users.  Even if users can get updates in this manner, how should a security researcher contact a particular project's author?  If there's a potential, security-related issue, who can help evaluate the risk for a project?  What resources are there for projects that have been compromised, but have no operational security background? <br /><br />I'm proud to announce that Google has sponsored participation in oCERT, the <a title="open source computer emergency response team" href="http://ocert.org/" id="xji8">open source computer emergency response team</a>.  oCERT is a volunteer workforce of security professionals from the open source community with the goal of providing security vulnerability mediation and incident response services to open source projects.  It will strive to contact software authors with all security reports and aid in debugging and patching, especially in cases where the author, or the reporter, doesn't have a background in security.  Reliable contacts for projects, publishers, and vendors will be maintained where possible and used for notification when issues arise and fixes are available for mediated issues.  Additionally, oCERT will aid projects of any size with responses to security incidents, such as server compromises. <br /><br />It is my hope that this initiative will not only aid in remediating security issues in a timely fashion, but also provide a means for additional security contributions to the open source community.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-8351519294230153907?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/contributing-to-open-source-software-security/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Help us fill in the gaps!</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/help-us-fill-in-the-gaps/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=help-us-fill-in-the-gaps</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/help-us-fill-in-the-gaps/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Ian FetteWe've been targeting malware for over a year and a half, and these efforts are paying off. We are now able to display warnings in search results when a site is known to be malicious, which can help you avoid drive-by downloads and ot...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Ian Fette</span><br /><br /><div>We've been targeting malware <a title="for over a year and a half" href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/putting-stop-to-spyware.html" id="ugj2">for over a year and a half</a>, and these efforts are paying off. We are now able to display warnings in search results when a site is known to be malicious, which can help you avoid drive-by downloads and other computer compromises. We are already distributing this data through the <a title="Safe Browsing API" href="http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/" id="fice">Safe Browsing API</a>, and we are working on bringing this protection to more users by integrating with more Google products. While these are great steps, we need your help going forward!</div><div> </div><div><br />Currently, we know of hundreds of thousands of websites that attempt to infect people's computers with malware. Unfortunately, we also know that there are more malware sites out there. This is where we need your help in filling in the gaps. If you come across a site that is hosting malware, we now have an easy way for you to let us know about it. If you come across a site that is hosting malware, please fill out <a title="this short form" href="http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/report_badware/" id="y8or">this short form</a>. Help us keep the internet safe, and report sites that distribute malware. </div><div> </div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-8870035823860978621?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/help-us-fill-in-the-gaps/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Information flow tracing and software testing</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/information-flow-tracing-and-software-testing/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=information-flow-tracing-and-software-testing</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/information-flow-tracing-and-software-testing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Will Drewry, Security TeamSecurity testing of applications is regularly performed using fuzz testing.  As previously discussed on this blog, Srinath's Lemon uses a form of smart fuzzing.  Lemon is aware of classes of web application threats a...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Will Drewry, Security Team</span><br /><br />Security testing of applications is regularly performed using fuzz testing.  As previously discussed on this blog, <a href="http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2007/07/automating-web-application-security.html" id="jmad" title="Srinath's Lemon">Srinath's Lemon</a> uses a form of smart fuzzing.  Lemon is aware of classes of web application threats and the input families which trigger them, but not all fuzz testing frameworks have to be this complicated. Fuzz testing <a href="http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/%7Ebart/fuzz/fuzz.html" >originally</a><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span> relied on purely random data, ignorant of specific threats and known dangerous input. Today, this approach is often overlooked in favor of more complicated techniques.  Early sanity checks in applications looking for something as a simple as a version number may render testing with completely random input ineffective.  However, the newer, more complicated fuzz testers require a considerable initial investment in the form of complete input format specifications or the selection of a large corpus of initial input samples.<br /><br />At <a href="http://www.usenix.org/events/woot07/tech" >WOOT'07</a>,I presented a <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;q=%22Flayer%3A+Exposing+Application+Internals%22" >paper</a> on <a href="http://code.google.com/p/flayer" >Flayer</a>, a tool we developed internally to augment our security testing efforts.  In particular, it allows for a fuzz testing technique that compromises between the original idea and the most complicated.  Flayer makes it possible to remove input sanity checks at execution time. With the small investment of identifying these checks, Flayer allows for completely random testing to be performed with much higher efficacy. Already, we've uncovered multiple vulnerabilities in Internet-critical software using this approach.<br /><br />The way that Flayer allows for sanity checks to be identified is perhaps the more interesting point. Flayer uses a <a href="http://valgrind.org/" >dynamic analysis framework</a> to analyze the target application at execution time. Flayer marks, or taints, input to the program and traces that data throughout its lifespan. Considerable research has been done in the past regarding information flow tracing using dynamic analysis. Primarily, this work has been aimed at malware and exploit detection and defense. However, none of the resulting software has been made publicly available.<br /><br />While Flayer is still in its early stages, it is available for <a href="http://code.google.com/p/flayer/downloads/list" >download</a> under the GNU Public License.  External <a href="http://code.google.com/p/flayer/issues/list" id="wkck" title="contributions">contributions</a> and <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/flayer" id="w7dc" title="comments">feedback</a> <a href="http://code.google.com/p/flayer/issues/list" id="wkck" title="contributions"></a>are encouraged!<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-4257308291520481954?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/information-flow-tracing-and-software-testing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The reason behind the &quot;We&#8217;re sorry&#8230;&quot; message</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/the-reason-behind-the-were-sorry-message/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-reason-behind-the-were-sorry-message</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/the-reason-behind-the-were-sorry-message/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Niels Provos, Anti-Malware TeamSome of you might have seen this message while searching on Google, and wondered what the reason behind it might be. Instead of search results, Google displays the "We're sorry" message when we detect anomalous ...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_wLESxcF8BBY/RpKG2OwJMgI/AAAAAAAABZY/MUEcZfcOBgU/s1600-h/wearesorry.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_wLESxcF8BBY/RpKG2OwJMgI/AAAAAAAABZY/MUEcZfcOBgU/s400/wearesorry.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5085275195485794818" /></a><br /><span class="byline-author">Posted by Niels Provos, Anti-Malware Team</span><br /><br />Some of you might have seen this message while searching on Google, and wondered what the reason behind it might be. Instead of search results, Google displays the "We're sorry" message when we detect anomalous queries from your network. As a regular user, it is possible to answer a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha" title="captcha">CAPTCHA</a> - a reverse Turing test meant to establish that we are talking to a human user - and to continue searching. However, automated processes such as worms would have a much harder time solving the CAPTCHA. Several things can trigger the <span><i>sorry</i></span> message. Often it's due to infected computers or DSL routers that proxy search traffic through your network - this may be at home or even at a workplace where one or more computers might be infected. Overly aggressive SEO ranking tools may trigger this message, too. In other cases, we have seen self-propagating worms that use Google search to identify vulnerable web servers on the Internet and then exploit them. The exploited systems in turn then search Google for more vulnerable web servers and so on.&nbsp; This can lead to a noticeable increase in search queries and <span><i>sorry</i></span> is one of our mechanisms to deal with this.<br/><br />At <a href="http://www.eecs.umich.edu/%7Efarnam/worm2006.html" title="ACM WORM 2006">ACM WORM 2006</a>, we published a paper on <a href="http://www.citi.umich.edu/u/provos/papers/search_worms.pdf" title="Search Worms">Search Worms [PDF]</a> that takes a much closer look at this phenomenon.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santy" title="Santy">Santy</a>, one of the search worms we analyzed, looks for remote-execution vulnerabilities in the popular phpBB2 web application. In addition to exhibiting worm like propagation patterns, Santy also installs a botnet client as a payload that connects the compromised web server to an IRC channel. Adversaries can then remotely control the compromised web servers and use them for DDoS attacks, spam or phishing. Over time, the adversaries have realized that even though a botnet consisting of web servers provides a lot of aggregate bandwidth, they can increase leverage by changing the content on the compromised web servers to infect visitors and in turn join the computers of compromised visitors into much larger botnets. This fundamental change from remote attack to client based download of malware formed the basis of the research presented in our <a href="http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2007/05/introducing-googles-anti-malware.html" title="first blog post">first post</a>. In retrospect, it is interesting to see how two seemingly unrelated problems are tightly connected.<br/><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-4473627103477740760?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/the-reason-behind-the-were-sorry-message/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Phishers and Malware authors beware!</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/phishers-and-malware-authors-beware/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=phishers-and-malware-authors-beware</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/phishers-and-malware-authors-beware/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Brian Rakowski and Garrett Casto, Anti-Phishing and Anti-Malware TeamsOK, so it might be a little early to declare victory, but we're excited about the Safe Browsing API we launched today. It provides a simple mechanism for downloading Google...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Brian Rakowski and Garrett Casto, Anti-Phishing and Anti-Malware Teams</span><br /><br />OK, so it might be a little early to declare victory, but we're excited about the <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/overview.html" title="Safe Browsing API">Safe Browsing API</a> we launched today. It provides a simple mechanism for downloading Google's lists of suspected phishing and malware URLs, so now any developer can access the blacklists used in products such as Firefox and Google Desktop.<br /><p>The API is still experimental, but we hope it will be useful to ISPs, web-hosting companies, and anyone building a site or an application that publishes or transmits user-generated links. <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/key_signup.html" title="Sign up for an API key">Sign up for a key</a> and let us know how we can make the API better. We fully expect to iterate on the design and improve the data behind the API, and we'll be paying close attention to your <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/google-safe-browsing-api" title="user feedback">feedback</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> as we do that. We  look forward to hearing your thoughts.<br /></span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-5775408038980080254?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/phishers-and-malware-authors-beware/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thwarting a large-scale phishing attack</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/thwarting-a-large-scale-phishing-attack/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=thwarting-a-large-scale-phishing-attack</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/thwarting-a-large-scale-phishing-attack/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Colin Whittaker, Anti-Phishing TeamIn addition to targeting malware, we're interested in combating phishing, a social engineering attack where criminals attempt to lure unsuspecting web surfers into logging into a fake website that looks like...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Colin Whittaker, Anti-Phishing Team</span><br /><p><br />In addition to targeting malware, we're interested in combating <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing" title="Phishing">phishing,</a> a social engineering attack where criminals attempt to lure unsuspecting web surfers into logging into a fake website that looks like a real website, such as eBay, E-gold or an online bank. Following a successful attack, phishers can steal money out of the victims' accounts or take their identities. To protect our users against phishing, we publish a blacklist of known phishing sites. This blacklist is the basis for the anti-phishing features in the latest versions of Firefox and Google Desktop. Although blacklists are necessarily a step behind as phishers move their phishing pages around, blacklists have proved to be reasonably effective.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Not all phishing attacks target sites with obvious financial value. Beginning in mid-March, we detected a five-fold increase in overall phishing page views. It turned out that the phishing pages generating 95% of the new phishing traffic targeted <a href="http://myspace.com/" title="MySpace">MySpace</a>, the popular social networking site. While a MySpace account does not have any intrinsic monetary value, phishers had come up with ways to monetize this attack. We observed hijacked accounts being used to spread bulletin board spam for some advertising revenue. According to <a href="http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20070508/phishing-social-networking-sites/" title="this interview with a phisher">this interview with a phisher</a>, phishers also logged in to the email accounts of the profile owners to harvest financial account information. In any case, phishing MySpace became profitable enough (more than phishing more traditional targets) that many of the active phishers began targeting it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Interestingly, the attack vector for this new attack appeared to be MySpace itself, rather than the usual email spam. To observe the phishers' actions, we fed them the login information for a dummy MySpace account. We saw that when phishers compromised a MySpace account, they added links to their phishing page on the stolen profile, which would in turn result in additional users getting compromised. Using a quirk of the CSS supported in MySpace profiles, the phishers injected these links invisibly as see-through images covering compromised profiles. Clicking anywhere on an infected profile, including on links that appeared normal, redirected the user to a phishing page. Here's a sample of some CSS code injected into the "About Me" section of an affected profile:<br /></p><br /><span style="font-family:Courier New;">&lt;a style="text-decoration:none;position:<br />absolute;top:1px;left:1px;" href="http://myspacev.net"&gt;&lt;img<br />style="border-width:0px;width:1200px; height:650px;"<br />src="http://x.myspace.com/images/clear.gif"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/style&gt;</span><br /><br />In addition to contributing to the viral growth of the phishing attack, linking directly off of real MySpace content added to the appearance of legitimacy of these phishing pages. In fact, we received thousands of complaints from confused users along the lines of<span class="sub-comment"> "</span><span class="sub-comment">Why won't it let any of my friends look at my pictures?</span><span class="sub-comment">" regarding our warnings on these phishing pages, suggesting that even an explicit warning was not enough to protect many users. The effectiveness of the attack and the increasing sophistication of the phishing pages, some of which were hosted </span>on <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=botnets" title="botnets">botnets</a> and were near perfect duplications of MySpace's login page, meant that we needed to switch tactics to combat this new threat.<br /><br />In late March, we reached out to MySpace to see what we could do to help. We provided lists of the top phishing sites and our anti-phishing blacklist to MySpace so that they could disable compromised accounts with links to those sites. Unfortunately, many of the blocked users did not remove the phishing links when they reactivated their accounts, so the attacks continued to spread. On April 19, MySpace updated their server software so that they could disable bad links in users' profiles without requiring any user action or altering any other profile content. Overnight, overall phishing traffic dropped by a factor of five back to the levels observed in early March. While MySpace phishing continues at much lower volumes, phishers are beginning to move on to new targets.<br /><br /><b>Things you can do to help end phishing and Internet fraud</b><br /><ul><li>Learn to recognize and avoid phishing. The Anti-Phishing Working Group has a good <a href="http://www.antiphishing.org/consumer_recs.html" title="list of recommendations">list of recommendations</a>.<br /></li><br /><li>Update your software regularly and run an anti-virus program. If a cyber-criminal gains control of your computer through a virus or a software security flaw, he doesn't need to resort to phishing to steal your information.<br /></li><br /><li>Use different passwords on different sites and change them periodically. Phishers routinely try to log in to high-value targets, like online banking sites, with the passwords they steal for lower-value sites, like webmail and social networking services.</li></ul><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-5214640820345012438?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/thwarting-a-large-scale-phishing-attack/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Web Server Software and Malware</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/web-server-software-and-malware/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=web-server-software-and-malware</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/web-server-software-and-malware/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Nagendra Modadugu, Anti-Malware TeamIn this post, we investigate the distribution of web server software to provide insight into how server software is correlated to servers hosting malware binaries or engaging in drive-by-downloads.We determ...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[Posted by Nagendra Modadugu, Anti-Malware Team<br /><br />In this post, we investigate the distribution of web server software to provide insight into how server software is correlated to servers hosting malware binaries or engaging in drive-by-downloads.<br /><br />We determine server operating system by examining the 'Server:' HTTP header reported by most web servers. A survey of servers running roughly 80 million domain names reveals the web server software distribution shown below. Note that these figures may have some margin of error as it is not unusual to find hundreds of domains served by a single IP address.<br /><br /><b>Web server software across the Internet.</b><br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_LMSk7hTEaIE/RmWVdyEWsCI/AAAAAAAAEqg/iXdunlloTHc/s1600-h/image1.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_LMSk7hTEaIE/RmWVdyEWsCI/AAAAAAAAEqg/iXdunlloTHc/s400/image1.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5072624894191513634" border="0" /></a><br />Web server software distribution across the Internet.<br /><br /></div><br /><br />Our numbers report a slightly larger fraction of Apache servers compared to the <a href="http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html" title="Netcraft web server survey">Netcraft web server survey</a>. Our analysis is based on crawl information and only root URLs were examined, therefore hosts that did not present a root URL (e.g. /index.htm) were not included in the statistics. This may have contributed to the disparity with the Netcraft numbers.<br /><br />Amongst Apache servers, about 35% did not report any version information.  Presumably the lack of version information is considered to be a defense against version specific attacks and worms. We observed a long tail of Apache server versions; the top three detected were 1.3.37 (15%), 1.3.33 (7.91%), and 2.0.54 (6.25%).<br /><br />Amongst Microsoft servers, IIS 6.0 is by far the most popular version, making up about 80% of all IIS servers.  IIS 5.0 made up most of the remainder.<br /><br /><b>Web server software across servers distributing malware.</b><br /><br />We examined about 70,000 domains that over the past month have been either distributing malware or have been responsible for hosting browser exploits leading to drive-by-downloads.  The breakdown by server software is depicted below.  It is important to note that while many servers serve malware as a result of a server compromise (by remote exploits, password theft via keyloggers, etc.), some servers are configured to serve up exploits by their administrators.<br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_LMSk7hTEaIE/RmWVoSEWsDI/AAAAAAAAEqo/EZmG71AhWHI/s1600-h/image2.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_LMSk7hTEaIE/RmWVoSEWsDI/AAAAAAAAEqo/EZmG71AhWHI/s400/image2.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5072625074580140082" border="0" /></a><br />Web server software distribution across malicious servers.<br /></div><br /><br />Compared to our sample of servers across the Internet, Microsoft IIS features twice as often (49% vs. 23%) as a malware distributing server.  Amongst Microsoft IIS servers, the share of IIS 6.0 and IIS 5.0 remained the same at 80% and 20% respectively.<br /><br />The distribution of top featured Apache server versions was different this time: 1.3.37 (50%), 1.3.34 (12%) and 1.3.33 (5%).  21% of the Apache servers did not report any version information.  Incidentally, version 1.3.37 is the latest Apache server release in the 1.3 series, and it is hence somewhat of a surprise that this version features so prominently.  One other factor we observe is a vast collection of Apache modules in use.<br /><br /><b>Distribution of web server software by country.</b>                            <br /><div style="padding: 1em 0pt; text-align: left;" align="center"><br /><table><br /><tbody><tr><td><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_LMSk7hTEaIE/RmWV6CEWsEI/AAAAAAAAEqw/S9h_8dW_NtQ/s1600-h/image3.png"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_LMSk7hTEaIE/RmWV6CEWsEI/AAAAAAAAEqw/S9h_8dW_NtQ/s400/image3.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5072625379522818114" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Web server distribution by country</td><td><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_LMSk7hTEaIE/RmWWCyEWsFI/AAAAAAAAEq4/5kIjQoX1s4E/s1600-h/image4.png"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_LMSk7hTEaIE/RmWWCyEWsFI/AAAAAAAAEq4/5kIjQoX1s4E/s400/image4.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5072625529846673490" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Malicious web server distribution by  country<br /></td><td><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_LMSk7hTEaIE/RmWWJSEWsGI/AAAAAAAAErA/y-xbrVReUXs/s1600-h/image5.png"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_LMSk7hTEaIE/RmWWJSEWsGI/AAAAAAAAErA/y-xbrVReUXs/s400/image5.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5072625641515823202" border="0" /></a><br /></td></tr></tbody></table> <br /><div style="padding: 1em 0pt;"><br />The figure on the left shows the distribution of <b>all</b> Apache, IIS, and nginx webservers by country. Apache has the largest share, even though there is noticeable variation between countries. The figure on the right shows the distribution, by country, of webserver software of servers either distributing malware or hosting browser exploits. It is very interesting to see that in China and South Korea, a malicious server is much more likely to be running IIS than Apache.<br /><br />We suspect that the causes for IIS featuring more prominently in these countries could be due to a combination of factors: first, automatic updates have not been enabled due to software piracy (piracy statistics from <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sof_pir_rat-crime-software-piracy-rate" title="Nationmaster">NationMaster</a>, and <a href="http://www.bsa.org/globalstudy/" title="BSA">BSA</a>), and second, some security patches are not available for pirated copies of Microsoft operating systems.  For instance the patch for a commonly seen ADODB.Stream exploit is <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4D056748-C538-46F6-B7C8-2FBFD0D237E3&amp;DisplayLang=en" title="not available to pirated copies">not available to pirated copies</a> of Windows operating systems.<br /><br />Overall, we see a mix of results.  In Germany, for instance, Apache is more likely to be serving malware than Microsoft IIS, compared to the overall distributions of these servers.  In Asia, we see the reverse, which is part of the cause of Microsoft IIS having a disproportionately high representation at 49% of malware servers.  In summary, our analysis demonstrates how important it is to keep web servers patched to the latest patch level.<br /></div><br /></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-2880862429622070690?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/web-server-software-and-malware/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="" length="" type="" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On virtualisation</title>
		<link>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/on-virtualisation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=on-virtualisation</link>
		<comments>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/on-virtualisation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 23:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niels Provos]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google Online Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted by Tavis Ormandy, Security TeamFollowing Panayiotis' and Niels' post on malware, I'd like to discuss a somewhat related topic, virtualisation. Virtual machines are often used by security researchers to sandbox malware samples for analysis, or to...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Tavis Ormandy, Security Team</span><br /><br />Following <a title="Panayiotis' and Niels' post" href="http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2007/05/introducing-googles-anti-malware.html">Panayiotis' and Niels' post</a> on malware, I'd like to discuss a somewhat related topic, virtualisation. Virtual machines are often used by security researchers to sandbox malware samples for analysis, or to protect a machine from a potentially hazardous activity. The theory is that any security threat or malicious behaviour will be restricted to the virtual environment which can be discarded and then restored to pristine condition after use.<br /><br />Virtual machines are sometimes thought of as impenetrable barriers between the guest and host, but in reality they're (usually) just another layer of software between you and the attacker. As with any complex application, it would be naive to think such a large codebase could be written without some serious bugs creeping in. If any of those bugs are exploitable, attackers restricted to the guest could potentially break out onto the host machine. I investigated this topic earlier this year, and presented a <a href="http://taviso.decsystem.org/virtsec.pdf">paper</a> at <a href="http://cansecwest.com/">CanSecWest</a> on a number of ways that an attacker could break out of a virtual machine.<br /><br />Most of the attacks identified were flaws, such as buffer overflows, in emulated hardware devices. One example of this is missing bounds checking in <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=bitblt">bitblt routines</a>, which are used for moving rectangular blocks of data around the display. If exploited, by specifying pathological parameters for the operation, this could lead to an attacker compromising the virtual machine process. While you would typically require root (or equivalent) privileges in the guest to interact with a device at the low level required, device drivers will often offload the parameter checking required onto the hardware, so in theory an unprivileged attacker could be able to access flaws like this by simply interacting with the regular API or system call interface provided by the guest operating system.<br /><br />While researching this topic we worked with the vendors affected to make sure they were aware of our findings, and provided patches where possible. I've also suggested some precautions virtualization you can take to minimise the impact of any flaws like this discovered in future, such as:<b><br /></b> <h3>   <span style="font-size:85%;"><b> Reduce the attack surface</b></span> </h3> By disabling emulated devices, features and services you don't need you reduce the amount of code exposed to an attacker, thus reducing the number of possible bugs that can be exploited. You should also aim to protect the integrity of the guest operating system, making it harder for an attacker to get lower level access to emulated hardware. By keeping software in the guest up to date, and hardening it by locking down the operating system and minimising what is run with root or admin privileges, you can reduce the risk of privilege escalation attacks. If an attacker cannot get low level access to the emulated hardware, it will be more difficult to exploit the bugs in them. Remember that some legacy operating systems make no attempt to restrict access to I/O ports and similar interfaces, these should be used with caution in a security sensitive context.<b><br /></b> <h3>   <span style="font-size:85%;"><b> Treat virtual machines as services that can be compromised</b></span> </h3> Most administrators will take steps to limit the impact of a compromise of a network facing daemon, such as using chroot() or running the daemon as a low privileged user. These same tactics can be applied to your virtual machine. As always, try to minimise what has to run as root or administrator.<b><br /></b> <h3>   <span style="font-size:85%;"><b> Keep software up to date</b></span> </h3> Keep your virtual machine software up to date, and look out for any security advisories from your vendor so that you can apply any patches promptly.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1176949257541686127-7304477523881702734?l=googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://googledata.org/google-online-security/on-virtualisation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
