Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Trojans associate with Wireshark, WinPCap, etc
From: Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 10:38:59 -0800
Both freshclam and ClamWin are giving me version 21032 right now. On 11/1/15 10:34 AM, gedropi@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > But I have my db download set to update any time that I log on. It > should therefore be current. > > 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 >
- 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
- [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):
- Get Wireshark
- Download
- Code of Conduct