[Esa-l]Re: Sircam virus filter

[John D. Hardin]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Juan Manuel Calvo wrote:

> I have found a very simple solution to the Sircam problem. Your
> procmail sanitizer allows defang the attachment but the users
> receives the email.

Not if you poison *.bat *.pif *.lnk and *.com - is there really any
reason to be accepting these sort of attachments from random people
out on the Internet?

> I have added the following lines in my /etc/procmailrc BEFORE
> the sanitizer:
> 
> ------------cut here-----------------------
> # This tries to match a binary string from the SirCam virus
> # in the base64 encoded MIME attachment.
> # B: search body, D case sensitive
> :0BD
> *
> AAAAGgU0NhbTMyABCDTUlN|AAAAAaBTQ2FtMzIAEINNSU1F|ABkAAAABoFNDYW0zMgAQg01J
> /var/spool/mail/sircamvirus

That's a signature-based defense. What if SirCam mutates a little?

--
 John Hardin KA7OHZ   ICQ#15735746   http://www.wolfenet.com/~jhardin/
 jhardin at impsec.org        pgpk -a finger://gonzo.wolfenet.com/jhardin
  768: 0x41EA94F5 - A3 0C 5B C2 EF 0D 2C E5  E9 BF C8 33 A7 A9 CE 76 
 1024: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  In 1998 more than three times as many people in the US were killed
  by incompetent physicians than were killed by handguns, yet the
  President of the A.M.A. is adopting "gun safety" as his platform.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   1189 days until the Presidential Election