[Snort-sigs] Proposed Signature - "COMMUNITY SPECIFIC-THREATS High Probability Blackhole Landing with catch qq"
molney at ...435...
Thu Mar 1 09:45:47 EST 2012
Nathan, Got an email entitled:
Fwd: Your Flight N 91-17249698
It had an attached html file with the following html (recognize it? :))
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
*<title>Please wait untill the page loads...</title>*
<h1>Please Wait... Loading... </h1><br>
Good rule :)
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Community Signatures
<lists at ...3397...>wrote:
> On 02/29/12 15:19, Matt Olney wrote:
> > Since you're associating with an exploit kit, rather than an active
> > trojan, and given that exploits are typically aimed at user
> > applications, I'd use classtype:attempted-user;
> Understood, on the ET side we tend to use trojan-activity because the
> point of the exploit kit is to install a trojan/malware. I always
> viewed attempted-user as privilege escalation. I may just leave
> classtype off and let VRT apply this and the metadata as they feel fit.
> > Because it is a file, and you're not using any http_inspect buffers,
> > we'd use $FILE_DATA_PORTS in case it is delivered via mail (saw one like
> > that yesterday).
> Thanks Matt, can you elaborate more on this as I've not seen this
> behavior before, where Blackhole is delivered via mail. I have seen
> mailing campaigns that include a link which, upon landing, is Blackhole.
> I don't disagree with your changes over $HTTP_PORTS but I have not seen
> this behavior especially with SMTPDs
> > Again, primarily cosmetic changes, and does nothing, in this simple
> > case, to modify the functionality of the rule.
> Thank you for taking the time to explain the changes and current
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Snort-sigs