Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Dave S <gentoo@××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: chkrootkit LKM trojan ?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:44:37
Message-Id: 200607171936.30527.gentoo@pusspaws.net
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Re: chkrootkit LKM trojan ? by dnlt0hn5ntzhbqkv51
1 On Sunday 16 July 2006 21:52, dnlt0hn5ntzhbqkv51 wrote:
2 > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:54:18 -0400, Dave S <gentoo@××××××××.net> wrote:
3 > > On Sunday 16 July 2006 19:54, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
4 > >> On Sunday 16 July 2006 20:25, Dave S wrote:
5 > >> > HI, I have a potential security problem ...
6 > >> >
7 > >> > and err its not on gentoo, its on ubuntu but I am not getting any
8 > >> > response there & you guys are the most tech bunch I know - Thought I
9 > >> > would lay it on the table :)
10 > >> >
11 > >> > I just had an email from chkrootkit last night -
12 > >> >
13 > >> > ---
14 > >> >
15 > >> > The following suspicious files and directories were found:
16 > >> >
17 > >> > You have 3 process hidden for readdir command
18 > >> > You have 3 process hidden for ps command
19 > >> > chkproc: Warning: Possible LKM Trojan installed
20 > >> >
21 > >> > ---
22 > >> >
23 > >> > Running chkrootkit now and all is OK
24 > >> >
25 > >> > root@dave-comp:~#
26 > >> > root@dave-comp:~# chkrootkit | grep chkproc
27 > >> > Checking `lkm'... chkproc: nothing detected
28 > >> > root@dave-comp:~#
29 > >> >
30 > >> > I have even 'sudo install --reinstall chkrootkit' in case its binarys
31 > >> > have been modified (paranoid)
32 > >>
33 > >> if you installed using the tools of the system, it could be worthless,
34 > >> because compromised. Boot from a cd and check from the cd.
35 > >
36 > > I understand. Booted from knoppix 5.0.1, executed a
37 > >
38 > > 'chroot /mnt/hda1 chkrootkit' and a
39 > > 'chroot /mnt/hda1 rkhunter -c'
40 > >
41 > > - both scans brought back nothing. From what I have read the chkrootkit &
42 > > rkhunter binarys would have been from the CD and therefore untainted ?
43 > > Am I
44 > > correct ?
45 > >
46 > > Are there any other checks I can do - re-installing the system is not my
47 > > preferred option :)
48 > >
49 > > Dave
50 >
51 > I'm a newbie, so discount this appropriately.
52 >
53 > 1. IIUC, running rkhunter/chkrootkit from knoppix simply checks the
54 > knoppix cd.
55 > 2. You want second/third opinions. IIWU,
56 > i. I'd scan the box with a Trojan signature scanner - e.g. fprotect,
57 > AntiVir, etc.
58 > from Knoppix - first assuring that you have current signatures.
59 > ii. I'd reemerge/recompile the kernel WITHOUT modules or module
60 > support, and clear out your usr/lib/modules (though IIUC, this
61 > can be foiled).
62 > iii. I'd try zeppoo.
63 > 3. Try to figure out how you got it. e.g. you installed software from an
64 > unreliable source; your privileges are screwed up; you have an unpatched
65 > server(s) running; etc.
66
67 I am pretty picky about my software - have not messed with permissions & its a
68 desktop machine not running any external services.
69
70 >
71 > Maybe.... you could find the both the vector and the lkm - but
72 > understanding that the only real solution to a
73 > rootkit is restoring from a clean backup, or rebuilding :-(
74
75 ... gulp ... On digging around and listening to you guys I am going to go with
76 a false +ve. My clue came when I discovered how chkrootkit detected the
77 problem ...
78
79 How accurate is chkproc?
80 If you run chkproc on a server that runs lots of short time processes it
81 could report some false positives. chkproc compares the ps output with
82 the /proc contents. If processes are created/killed during this operation
83 chkproc could point out these PIDs as suspicious.
84
85 That fits in with the fact that chkrootkit & rkhunter now report clean (& also
86 fits in with someone tinkering from the inside !)
87
88 I will keep a slightly suspicious eye on the box from now on :)
89
90 Cheers
91
92 Dave
93
94
95
96
97 --
98 gentoo-user@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: chkrootkit LKM trojan ? Hans-Werner Hilse <hilse@×××.de>