Kaspersky and INTERPOL Say Blockchain is Vulnerable - page 2.

thejaytiesto

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1014

Quote from: Blazr on April 12, 2015, 07:51:24 AM

What they are basically saying is that viruses can use the Bitcoin blockchain to communicate with their authors. So for example the virus author could put code into the blockchain and the infected computers would all get that code from the blockchain and run it.

This is a concern to kaspersky because normally the viruses would connect to a server, called a command and control server, to receive new instructions from the virus' author and send back stolen data etc. So all law enforcement would have to do is shut down the command and control server and they can cut the virus authors access to the infected computers. However, if the virus was using a blockchain, there would be no central point of failure and cutting the authors access would be non-trivial.

Other security researchers also had concerns about the website pastebin.com for similar reasons, that it could be used for botnet communication: http://blog.spywareguide.com/2009/06/pastebin-botnets.html

Most people are going to read this article and take it to mean that computers can be infected via the blockchain. This is not true. What they are talking about is using the blockchain as a way for hackers to send instructions to infected computers.

Anyone that is into Bitcoin should have decent, solid knowledge of how to keep a computer clean. If you are infected you are already screwed up.
I still don't get how the blockchain is going to be able to execute "code". All the blockchain does is verify hashes, given you aren't using some weird non common wallet.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Besides, INTERPOL is the worldwide "company" that claims to be fighting child trafficking for sexual purposes. Yet the thing that it is doing behind the scenes is promoting child trafficking. Its supposedly legitimate operation has allowed it to set up all the connections worldwide that it needs to do the exact thing that it is claiming to be fighting against.

If INTERPOL claims something is wrong with the Bitcoin blockchain, it's because they tried to use Bitcoin for their wicked activities, and some of their own agents were found to be untrustworthy, and skimmed bitcoins out of company pockets.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

How is anyone going to interject code into the blockchain universally? The blockchain will reject code that isn't in the majority of its databases around the world.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on April 12, 2015, 11:04:23 PM

CIYAM, how possible would it be for a spy network (government or otherwise) to communicate using messages hidden in the blockchain? You could essentially be anywhere in the world and update the last 24 hours to see today's messages and no one would know it. All they would think is you use Bitcoin as money.

Sure you could expensively embed messages in Bitcoin txs (I even developed a method of encoding the data into sigs) but it would be a ridiculously expensive way to send messages when you could just use stego and put them in images for no cost at all (with pretty much the same level of obscurity).

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: CIYAM on April 12, 2015, 09:29:42 AM

So it is no more vulnerable that any other P2P network (as you can just spread your virus information via torrents if you want to hidden in images or other files using steganography).

IMO it would actually make much more sense (and cost nothing) to use torrents over Bitcoin so the fact that the article focuses on Bitcoin and not other (free to use) data storage P2P networks is rather odd.

CIYAM, how possible would it be for a spy network (government or otherwise) to communicate using messages hidden in the blockchain? You could essentially be anywhere in the world and update the last 24 hours to see today's messages and no one would know it. All they would think is you use Bitcoin as money.

goldkey0070

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

why are there so many bitcoin haters in the world .... i can't stand bad media trying to hate on bitcoin

NyeFe

hero member

Activity: 699

Merit: 501

Quote from: Blazr on April 12, 2015, 03:48:49 PM

Quote from: CIYAM on April 12, 2015, 09:29:42 AM

So it is no more vulnerable that any other P2P network (as you can just spread your virus information via torrents if you want to hidden in images or other files using steganography).

IMO it would actually make much more sense (and cost nothing) to use torrents over Bitcoin so the fact that the article focuses on Bitcoin and not other (free to use) data storage P2P networks is rather odd.

Yeah there isn't a huge difference between any other P2P communication system, there are already lots of botnets that have their own P2P network. I don't see how this even deserves it's own report, it's not a very practical method of communication since it requires 20+GB of diskspace on the infected computer to store the blockchain, or a way of searching the blockchain on a remote server, which would then be a central point of failure and the whole point of using a blockchain would be pointless. They could use their own blockchain, but then that is just a run-of-the-mill P2P botnet with some minimal improvements.

Well then, I guess we've done their research for them. It wouldn't be feasible or logical for a botnet controller to utilise the blockchain to exploit each individual user. Not only would it be an outer retardation for such a talented mind, but it would ultimately end-up as a failed-attempt, after failed attempts.

I still can't grasp the reasons, why these antivirus companies didn't mention the increasing size of the blockchain to their audience?

Blazr

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 1006

Quote from: CIYAM on April 12, 2015, 09:29:42 AM

So it is no more vulnerable that any other P2P network (as you can just spread your virus information via torrents if you want to hidden in images or other files using steganography).

IMO it would actually make much more sense (and cost nothing) to use torrents over Bitcoin so the fact that the article focuses on Bitcoin and not other (free to use) data storage P2P networks is rather odd.

Yeah there isn't a huge difference between any other P2P communication system, there are already lots of botnets that have their own P2P network. I don't see how this even deserves it's own report, it's not a very practical method of communication since it requires 20+GB of diskspace on the infected computer to store the blockchain, or a way of searching the blockchain on a remote server, which would then be a central point of failure and the whole point of using a blockchain would be pointless. They could use their own blockchain, but then that is just a run-of-the-mill P2P botnet with some minimal improvements.

dasource

hero member

Activity: 821

Merit: 1000

Quote from: CIYAM on April 12, 2015, 09:29:42 AM

So it is no more vulnerable that any other P2P network (as you can just spread your virus information via torrents if you want to hidden in images or other files using steganography).

IMO it would actually make much more sense (and cost nothing) to use torrents over Bitcoin so the fact that the article focuses on Bitcoin and not other (free to use) data storage P2P networks is rather odd.

Exactly, considering one would also need a bitcoin client or a third party website to push/read the transaction on the network. If they are doing that then why not use a free secure/encrypted method.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

So it is no more vulnerable that any other P2P network (as you can just spread your virus information via torrents if you want to hidden in images or other files using steganography).

IMO it would actually make much more sense (and cost nothing) to use torrents over Bitcoin so the fact that the article focuses on Bitcoin and not other (free to use) data storage P2P networks is rather odd.

NyeFe

hero member

Activity: 699

Merit: 501

Quote from: Blazr on April 12, 2015, 07:51:24 AM

What they are basically saying is that viruses can use the Bitcoin blockchain to communicate with their authors. So for example the virus author could put code into the blockchain and the infected computers would all get that code from the blockchain and run it.

This is a concern to kaspersky because normally the viruses would connect to a server, called a command and control server, to receive new instructions from the virus' author and send back stolen data etc. So all law enforcement would have to do is shut down the command and control server and they can cut the virus authors access to the infected computers. However, if the virus was using a blockchain, there would be no central point of failure and cutting the authors access would be non-trivial.

Other security researchers also had concerns about the website pastebin.com for similar reasons, that it could be used for botnet communication: http://blog.spywareguide.com/2009/06/pastebin-botnets.html

Most people are going to read this article and take it to mean that computers can be infected via the blockchain. This is not true. What they are talking about is using the blockchain as a way for hackers to send instructions to infected computers.

"Other security researchers also had concerns about the website pastebin.com" I've used pastebin to communicate between personal computers, but I don't think it would be a good example because in most case the program would be depending on one link for instructions, if it's removed then the program is vitally dead.

My main question, was why didn't they exploit the bug (using the blockchain) when they found it, until you explained it.
From my understanding the only solution, since you cannot restrict the type or format of data included in the blockchain, would be to update their antivirus to monitor the behaviours of local programs which listen for data included on the blockchain, then proceed to quarantining these programs.

So the problem is not that there's a code which can harm the Bitcoin ecosystem, but virus owners could utilise the blockchain to communicate with their Trojan horses...

sana54210

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 1128

Blazr

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 1006

What they are basically saying is that viruses can use the Bitcoin blockchain to communicate with their authors. So for example the virus author could put code into the blockchain and the infected computers would all get that code from the blockchain and run it.

This is a concern to kaspersky because normally the viruses would connect to a server, called a command and control server, to receive new instructions from the virus' author and send back stolen data etc. So all law enforcement would have to do is shut down the command and control server and they can cut the virus authors access to the infected computers. However, if the virus was using a blockchain, there would be no central point of failure and cutting the authors access would be non-trivial.

Other security researchers also had concerns about the website pastebin.com for similar reasons, that it could be used for botnet communication: http://blog.spywareguide.com/2009/06/pastebin-botnets.html

Most people are going to read this article and take it to mean that computers can be infected via the blockchain. This is not true. What they are talking about is using the blockchain as a way for hackers to send instructions to infected computers.

lucullus

hero member

Activity: 529

Merit: 500

Quote from: poncom on April 12, 2015, 06:10:39 AM

Quote from: Lauda on April 12, 2015, 03:33:58 AM

Quote from: redsn0w on April 11, 2015, 11:30:27 AM

This,

where is the research? They cannot say "blockchain is vulnerable" without give a full report and various example of that attack.

I trust my cat more than FBI + Interpol

.

Well this doesn't surprise me. I'm just disappointed that Kaspersky has joined them. I've had some faith in them.

Quote from: tokeweed on April 11, 2015, 07:28:48 PM

Until Kaspersky can make a tool to prove there is a vulnerability, I am not believing anything.

Prove it.

Exactly. Let's say that Kaspersky wanted to be the good guy here. They should have gives us information so that it can be fixed.

For viruses I thought it's standard practice to keep quiet about a new vulnerability until the experts develop a fix for it. They tell each other about it but keep quiet about it publicly. Why has Kaspersky publicly blurted out a story about a vulnerability before the experts have had a chance to work on it?

Good question Huh

poncom

sr. member

Activity: 318

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on April 12, 2015, 03:33:58 AM

Quote from: redsn0w on April 11, 2015, 11:30:27 AM

This,

where is the research? They cannot say "blockchain is vulnerable" without give a full report and various example of that attack.

I trust my cat more than FBI + Interpol

.

Well this doesn't surprise me. I'm just disappointed that Kaspersky has joined them. I've had some faith in them.

Quote from: tokeweed on April 11, 2015, 07:28:48 PM

Until Kaspersky can make a tool to prove there is a vulnerability, I am not believing anything.

Prove it.

Exactly. Let's say that Kaspersky wanted to be the good guy here. They should have gives us information so that it can be fixed.

For viruses I thought it's standard practice to keep quiet about a new vulnerability until the experts develop a fix for it. They tell each other about it but keep quiet about it publicly. Why has Kaspersky publicly blurted out a story about a vulnerability before the experts have had a chance to work on it?

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: redsn0w on April 11, 2015, 11:30:27 AM

This,

where is the research? They cannot say "blockchain is vulnerable" without give a full report and various example of that attack.

I trust my cat more than FBI + Interpol

.

Well this doesn't surprise me. I'm just disappointed that Kaspersky has joined them. I've had some faith in them.

Quote from: tokeweed on April 11, 2015, 07:28:48 PM

Until Kaspersky can make a tool to prove there is a vulnerability, I am not believing anything.

Prove it.

Exactly. Let's say that Kaspersky wanted to be the good guy here. They should have gives us information so that it can be fixed.

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Quote from: R2D221 on April 12, 2015, 01:37:25 AM

Quote from: drawingthesun on April 12, 2015, 01:22:21 AM

Quote from: majeis on April 12, 2015, 01:06:55 AM

...and Kaspersky just lost my general recommendation as antivirus software. Time to tell everyone to use virustotal with avira or avast again, I guess.

Why aren't you using Microsoft security essentials? I'm assuming you're on a Windows box.

If you're in the latest Windows (8.1), there's no Security Essentials anymore. You're looking for Windows Defender.

Good point, I'm stuck on Windows 7 for now.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: drawingthesun on April 12, 2015, 01:22:21 AM

Quote from: majeis on April 12, 2015, 01:06:55 AM

...and Kaspersky just lost my general recommendation as antivirus software. Time to tell everyone to use virustotal with avira or avast again, I guess.

Why aren't you using Microsoft security essentials? I'm assuming you're on a Windows box.

If you're in the latest Windows (8.1), there's no Security Essentials anymore. You're looking for Windows Defender.

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Quote from: majeis on April 12, 2015, 01:06:55 AM

...and Kaspersky just lost my general recommendation as antivirus software. Time to tell everyone to use virustotal with avira or avast again, I guess.

Why aren't you using Microsoft security essentials? I'm assuming you're on a Windows box.

Topic: Kaspersky and INTERPOL Say Blockchain is Vulnerable - page 2. (Read 4256 times)