The Inquirer-Home

Spyeye malware source code is leaked

New variants expected
Wed Aug 17 2011, 14:29

THE SOURCE CODE for the Spyeye toolkit has been leaked, prompting concerns that it could be tailored to produce more malware and security attacks.

The source code release was announced on security firm Damballa's blog, where it was introduced as a two edged sword.

The Spyeye builder patch source code was leaked by French cracker Xyliton, said Damballa in its post, and was accompanied by a handy how-to guide.

"Xyliton, part of the Reverse Engineers Dream Crew (RED Crew) [was] able to locate a copy of SpyEye builder 1.3.45 and created a walkthrough/tutorial that enables the reader (once in possession of SpyEye builder) to crack the hardware identification (HWID) which has been secured using VMProtect (a licensing tool that locks an installation of software to a particular physical device)," wrote Sean Bodmer, senior threat intelligence analyst .

"This leak is important as it illustrates the coding techniques of Gribo-Demon's team (the authors of SpyEye) and also deals another blow to the underground criminal ecosystem. But it is a double-edged sword."

The release is double-edged because, although it could be used by security researchers looking to understand more about the threat, so could it be used by cyber criminals, and worse, they could tailor it to their special and emerging needs.

"Now that a patch/crack for the SpyEye builder (the tool that generates the SpyEye malware) has been released along with source for the HWID crack, security researchers can now begin bug hunting for vulnerabilities in the authors work. This is a good thing, especially if you have the SpyEye SDK and know which APIs are available and capable of being accessed/exploited for defensive purposes," added Bodmer.

"With this leak and the leak of the Zeus source in March 2011, this now puts one of the world's largest botnet criminal enterprises at risk to all sorts of horizontal and vertical attacks by world governments, law enforcement, security vendors, and even other criminals desiring to increase their monetary footprint across the Internet."

The ability to do this is not new and indeed there are Spyeye code kits already available. However the cost of these at $10,000 has been prohibitive for some. This release and its handy walkthrough will have much more appeal than the paid-for alternatives, and as a result it could see much more use.

"At over $10,000 (USD or WMZ) for the bundle, it is now easier and cheaper for criminals to find a leaked version and use this walkthrough to break the embedded security of the builder and start their own enterprise," said Bodmer

"Putting in the hands of babes one of the most powerful cyber threats today, 'for free', is something that will mean even more sleepless nights for security administrators." µ

Share this:

Comments
Spyeye malware source code is NOT leaked: worst-reported story ever.

The entire computer press (not just the Inq) appears to have had the most massive brain fart / reading comprehension fail ever in reporting this story. The source code that has been leaked is the source code for a tool that patches the binary executable of SpyEye; it is absolutely not the source code of SpyEye itself. You even said so yourself, when you wrote, correctly,

"The Spyeye builder patch source code was leaked by French cracker Xyliton,"

READ it. The source code is for the patcher, not SpyEye. You can download it from http://www.potsec.net/files/SpyEye_1.3.45_Loader.rar and see for yourself if you don't believe me.

Yet somehow, *every* journalist has unthinkingly copied each other's false headlines. The internet echo chamber is in full effect here. I'm astonished that not one professional journalist has noticed the blatant contradiction between the body text of their articles and the headlines they post them under, it really is shameful.

posted by : DaveK, 17 August 2011 Complain about this comment
Yeah, er...

But this isn't open-source software code, is it? Legally, somebody somewhere has the copyright on it? But someone else (I'm assuming) is publishing it...

...and getting the eyes of many potential bug-fixers on it...

posted by : Robert Carnegie, 17 August 2011 Complain about this comment
aboutus
Advertisement
Subscribe to INQ newsletters
Advertisement
INQ Poll

Facebook starts selling shares

Will you buy Facebook shares?