Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
From: Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 10:56:21 -0800
After updating ClamWin to daily.cld 21032 both the 32-bit and 64-bit Windows buildbots pass the ClamWin step. On 11/1/15 10:41 AM, Gerald Combs wrote: > The only report I've seen so far on the buildbots is > Win.Adware.Outbrowse-1168 in the NSIS uninstaller: > > C:\[...]\build\cmbuild\run\RelWithDebInfo\uninstall.exe: > Win.Adware.Outbrowse-1168 FOUND > > On 11/1/15 10:38 AM, gedropi@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Are you referring to only the Wireshark/WinPCap trojan or all of the >> trojans? Thanks >> >> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Gerald Combs wrote: >>> That should've been: >>> >>> ---- >>> Sun Nov 1 17:29:10 2015 -> ClamAV update process started at Sun Nov 1 >>> 17:29:10 2015 >>> Sun Nov 1 17:29:10 2015 -> main.cld is up to date (version: 55, sigs: >>> 2424225, f-level: 60, builder: neo) >>> Sun Nov 1 17:29:10 2015 -> daily.cld is up to date (version: 21032, >>> sigs: 1645531, f-level: 63, builder: shurley) >>> Sun Nov 1 17:29:10 2015 -> bytecode.cld is up to date (version: 269, >>> sigs: 47, f-level: 63, builder: anvilleg) >>> ---- >>> >>> That is, daily.cld version 21032 does not report the trojan. 21031 does. >>> IIRC 21030 reported the trojan on Friday as well. >>> >>> On 11/1/15 10:25 AM, gedropi@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> ClamAV update process started at Sun Nov 01 05:58:39 2015 >>>> >>>> main.cvd is up to date (version: 55, sigs: 2424225, f-level: 60, >>>> builder: neo) >>>> daily.cld is up to date (version: 21031, sigs: 1645560, f-level: 63, >>>> builder: neo) >>>> bytecode.cld is up to date (version: 269, sigs: 47, f-level: 63, >>>> builder: anvilleg) >>>> >>>> Thanks for your response. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 10:14 AM, Gerald Combs wrote: >>>>> Which versions of the main, daily, and bytecode databases are you using? >>>>> On Friday clamscan was reporting that Win.Adware.Outbrowse-1168 was >>>>> present in some of the 32-bit Windows installers. >>>>> >>>>> If I run clamscan today with the following database versions on the same >>>>> files the scans come up clean: >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Sun Nov 1 08:27:42 2015 -> ClamAV update process started at Sun Nov 1 >>>>> 08:27:42 2015 >>>>> Sun Nov 1 08:27:43 2015 -> main.cld is up to date (version: 55, sigs: >>>>> 2424225, f-level: 60, builder: neo) >>>>> Sun Nov 1 08:27:43 2015 -> daily.cld is up to date (version: 21031, >>>>> sigs: 1645560, f-level: 63, builder: neo) >>>>> Sun Nov 1 08:27:43 2015 -> bytecode.cld is up to date (version: 269, >>>>> sigs: 47, f-level: 63, builder: anvilleg) >>>>> ---- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Note that AV false positives happen often enough that we maintain a list: >>>>> >>>>> https://wiki.wireshark.org/FalsePositives >>>>> >>>>> As does the NSIS team (which tends to impact the Wireshark and WinPcap >>>>> installers): >>>>> >>>>> http://nsis.sourceforge.net/NSIS_False_Positives >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/1/15 9:46 AM, gedropi@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>>> Yes I am. But these trojans were not present a on the 28th of October. >>>>>> Meaning that the database update since the 28th would have had to have >>>>>> contained this misinformation. I have contacted ClamAV but they have not >>>>>> responded yet. SANS is involved in this issue as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 09:12 AM, Pascal Quantin wrote: >>>>>>> 2015-11-01 17:58 GMT+01:00 <gedropi@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After discovering the attached trojans during a scan on the 30th, I >>>>>>>> removed infected files, scrubbed the registry, repeated the scan. Nada. >>>>>>>> Then, I needed to replace the networking tools by downloading fresh >>>>>>>> copies of the removed, infected exe files. Upon downloading various >>>>>>>> tools from their respective websites, I repeated the virus scan to be >>>>>>>> sure. All newly downloaded exe files were again infected with the same >>>>>>>> trojans. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since all the Wireshark & WinPCap files were affected, I was wondering >>>>>>>> if any of you out there have had the same experience? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I hope that someone can help me brainstorm for a fix. I need to use the >>>>>>>> tools of the trade. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for any ideas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you using ClamAV by any chance? as reported by Gerald Comb >>>>>>> (Wireshark's >>>>>>> leader) on the development list ( >>>>>>> https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201510/msg00125.html) this >>>>>>> seems to be a false positive reported to clamav.net. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Pascal. >>>>>>> ___________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users >>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users >>>>>>> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe >>>>>> ___________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users >>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users >>>>>> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ___________________________________________________________________________ >>>>> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users >>>>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users >>>>> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe >>>> ___________________________________________________________________________ >>>> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users >>>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users >>>> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe >>>> >>> >>> ___________________________________________________________________________ >>> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users >>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users >>> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe >>> >>> >>> ___________________________________________________________________________ >>> Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users >>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users >>> mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users > mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe >
- References:
- [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- From: gedropi
- Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- From: Pascal Quantin
- Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- From: gedropi
- Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- From: Gerald Combs
- Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- From: gedropi
- Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- From: Gerald Combs
- Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- From: gedropi
- Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- From: Gerald Combs
- [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- Prev by Date: Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- Next by Date: Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- Previous by thread: Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- Next by thread: Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
- Index(es):