Ransomware
-
Besides good recovery options (Backups, Versioning, etc.), what are you doing to protect against getting ransomware in the first place?
-
Versioning, is huge.
-
And AV, of course. Which mostly goes without saying but... worth mentioning.
-
And the big one... LANless design, especially around storage.
-
-
@aaronstuder said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Versioning, is huge.
That's a recovery option, not a protection
Same with backups, but you mentioned them.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Same with backups, but you mentioned them.
Isn't versioning a type of backup?
-
Edited the question to help other understand what I am asking
-
Either whitelisting software and/or blocking things from running in certain folders. I forget what all I block without pulling up the script.
-
@aaronstuder said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Same with backups, but you mentioned them.
Isn't versioning a type of backup?
Not exactly. Sort of. If you do versioning on your backup server then yes. If you do it on the storage itself, then I would not call it that.
-
https://www.carbonblack.com/ they are good for executable whitlisting. Though a developer there once had his computer compromised by not having the software installed, and got malware pushed out with the product because he didn't tell anyone. But let's not talk about that haha.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If you do it on the storage itself, then I would not call it that.
If it's windows it will be pointless. Most any product will leverage system ransomware can attack. (Volume shaddow copies) etc.
-
@Jason said:
If it's windows it will be pointless. Most any product will leverage system ransomware can attack. (Volume shaddow copies) etc.
Mostly true. Although there is a bit of ransomware that only goes after the users and if it doesn't breach to the admin user the VSS is intact.
-
You can also disable VSSAdmin.exe . It is used by alot of ransomware to delete the shadow copies.
-
@Jason said:
https://www.carbonblack.com/ they are good for executable whitlisting. Though a developer there once had his computer compromised by not having the software installed, and got malware pushed out with the product because he didn't tell anyone. But let's not talk about that haha.
What's something like this cost? Looks to be expensive. No pricing on the website is a bad sign
-
@aaronstuder said:
@Jason said:
https://www.carbonblack.com/ they are good for executable whitlisting. Though a developer there once had his computer compromised by not having the software installed, and got malware pushed out with the product because he didn't tell anyone. But let's not talk about that haha.
What's something like this cost? Looks to be expensive. No pricing on the website is a bad sign
It's not crazy expensive. Configuring it takes a while. It's not AV. It is a Whitlist only/Default Deny package.
-
@Jason Thanks!
-
@Jason said:
@aaronstuder said:
@Jason said:
https://www.carbonblack.com/ they are good for executable whitlisting. Though a developer there once had his computer compromised by not having the software installed, and got malware pushed out with the product because he didn't tell anyone. But let's not talk about that haha.
What's something like this cost? Looks to be expensive. No pricing on the website is a bad sign
It's not crazy expensive. Configuring it takes a while. It's not AV. It is a Whitlist only/Default Deny package.
I definitely love the idea of white listing software. How does it handle things like infected Word documents? I think it would have killed Lockie because Lockie downloaded a thirdparty software package and then executed it, so that would be prevented.
Next the virus writers will start creating a Turing Complete setup inside the foothold they get, allowing them access to anything they want. - though maybe I'm completely off base on this.
-
@Dashrender said:
I definitely love the idea of white listing software. How does it handle things like infected Word documents? I think it would have killed Lockie because Lockie downloaded a thirdparty software package and then executed it, so that would be prevented.
It's not AV. Your AV should be the primary defense on that one. You could block Word.exe, the word/office HASH (so even if word.exe or whatever was me.exe it would still be blocked) or you can block the all .doc/docx files or the hash for one of these.
Your AV should really be handling the signatures. You can easily block powershell hash for users though and prevent a lot of those since they tie into powershell or CMD a lot of times.Or you can get more specific with it and say, that if X application (or hash) launches from word (or HASH) to not allow.
Here's some info on that:
-
In my previous post, I basically walked through my whole thought process from problem to solution, which I outline again below.
being specific is only good after you know about the badness.
Whitelisting is good because you only trust things you know are good.
Back to lockie - sure, you'd love your AV to kill this - but zero day exploits just slip right by AV. Why would I look at blocking Word.exe? or block all .doc/.docx files? my users need these for their day to day operations.
As I mentioned, I think the white list would still completely solve this because, when you open the bad Word document, it goes to the internet, downloads a file, and tries to execute that file.... but execution is prevented by the whitelist.
In a zeroday situation, the AV is definitely not going to protect you.
