![]() HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\WbemPerf\HBP.HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\WbemPerf\004.HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\WbemPerf\003.HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\WbemPerf\002.HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\WbemPerf\001.The following information helps identify if a stage 2 payload has been planted on the system. The 32-bit trojan is TSMSISrv.dll, the 64-bit trojan is EFACli64.dll. It checks the version of the operating system, and plants a 32-bit or 64-bit version of the trojan on the system based on the check. The stage 2 installer is GeeSetup_x86.dll. ![]() These findings also support and reinforce our previous recommendation that those impacted by this supply chain attack should not simply remove the affected version of CCleaner or update to the latest version, but should restore from backups or reimage systems to ensure that they completely remove not only the backdoored version of CCleaner but also any other malware that may be resident on the system. The new evidence reinforces this, and the researchers suggest strongly that it may not be enough to simply update CCleaner to get rid of the malware. Talos Group suggested to restore the computer system using a backup that was created prior to the infection. This would suggest a very focused actor after valuable intellectual property. Interestingly the array specified contains Cisco's domain () along with other high-profile technology companies. At least that’d be rational, if unethical.The researchers suggest that the attacker was after intellectual property based on the list of domains that belong to high profile tech companies. I’d like to think the people who still talk it up in comment sections and the like are paid shills or people who work for the company that makes it in some other capacity. Just on principle, I would say users shouldn’t be blocked from downloading any software in a way that they can’t disable if they are really set on downloading it anyway, but if they enable options to protect them from this type of software, this should be blocked, and if they don’t, they should alerted to what they are doing and given a chance to reconsider before actually downloading it. Users can always switch those options off temporarily, or, if it’s a prompt that asks you to reconsider by allows you to download anyway, click the download anyway, if they really want to download anyway. ![]() That might be consider anti-competitive, so it’s understandable why they don’t, but it meets the criteria.Ĭertainly, browsers that offer a feature to block or prompt users to reconsider when they try to download dangerous software should be doing that when anyone tries to download any of the setup programs for these programs, if those options are turned on inside the browser. ![]() I think there is actually a case for Microsoft to remove the software through it’s malicious software removal thing. It’s stuff that does the exact opposite of what it states it’s purpose to be. It’s not even giving you a free game to play or something. I don’t get how people can be so cautious about Internet privacy and security and then download software that is generally known to be malware malware and that they personally know is malware, with the purpose of using it enhance or manage privacy and security related things. There are, granted, some potential issues with the idea of your operating system providing your anti-virus, but they are far less than the potential issues of running AVG or AVAST, and if you really are that set on not using Microsoft’s anti-virus, some semi-reputable paid alternatives like Norton and McAfee still exist (One or the other is free for Comcast Internet customers, I believe, if you track down the page to download it through Comcast).ĬCleaner is even less understandable than the anti-virus thing, because it doesn’t really do anything that’s necessary. I understand that some people aren’t willing or able to pay for anti-virus, but Microsoft offers a no-charge ad-free anti-virus with Windows Defender (Initially it was more limited, but it’s a full anti-virus in Windows 10, and possibly in Windows 8 as well ). Even before that, they were a known adware/nagware vendor.ĪVAST and AVG should detect, quarantine, and delete themselves. ![]() I have no idea why people would use this company’s productions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |