<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Sinowal, Torpig detection. in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/sinowal-torpig-detection/m-p/1410821#M68111</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have had and still have problems with it too.&amp;nbsp; We were elated when Cisco&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;FINALLY added the signatures to the IPS.&amp;nbsp; Of course, then we found out it didn&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;'t work.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The IPS doesn't see it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hopefully, Cisco will fix this for its customer base.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:39:32 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>george.goebel</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-02-18T20:39:32Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Sinowal, Torpig detection.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/sinowal-torpig-detection/m-p/1410819#M68109</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am running an SSM_10 and am curious does any konw the sig to block the torpig, sinowal rootkit. My ISP is telling me it is in our network but I can't seem to find it. I want to block the traffic, if possible via my IPS module.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;D&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 11:52:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/sinowal-torpig-detection/m-p/1410819#M68109</guid>
      <dc:creator>ddevecka</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-10T11:52:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sinowal, Torpig detection.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/sinowal-torpig-detection/m-p/1410820#M68110</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi saw a few Torpig detections on my network about a week ago, but they were caught by a Snort IPS sensor running the Emerging Threat sigs.&amp;nbsp; The Cisco IPS sensors didn't blink an eye, but traditionally they don't for Trojan/Malware infections.&amp;nbsp; Cisco just doesn't seem to put much effort in developing malware/trojan; not sure why since I've caught MANY infected machines on my network with the ET sigs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;There are two ET sigs for Torpig (from &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-external-small" href="http://emergingthreats.net/index.php/rules-mainmenu-38.html"&gt;http://emergingthreats.net/index.php/rules-mainmenu-38.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;alert tcp $HOME_NET any -&amp;gt; $EXTERNAL_NET $HTTP_PORTS (msg:"ET TROJAN Torpig Reporting User Activity (x25)"; flow:established,to_server; uricontent:"/x25.php"; nocase; uricontent:"?id="; nocase; uricontent:"&amp;amp;sv="; nocase; uricontent:"&amp;amp;ip="; nocase; uricontent:"&amp;amp;sport="; nocase; uricontent:"&amp;amp;hport="; nocase; uricontent:"&amp;amp;os="; nocase; classtype:trojan-activity; reference:url,www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/trojtorpigr.html; reference:url,doc.emergingthreats.net/2002762; reference:url,www.emergingthreats.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/sigs/VIRUS/TROJAN_Torpig; sid:2002762; rev:5;)&lt;BR /&gt;alert tcp $HOME_NET any -&amp;gt; $EXTERNAL_NET $HTTP_PORTS (msg:"ET TROJAN Torpig Reporting User Activity (wur8)"; flow:established,to_server; uricontent:"/wur8.php"; nocase; uricontent:"?id="; nocase; uricontent:"&amp;amp;sv="; nocase; uricontent:"&amp;amp;ip="; nocase; uricontent:"&amp;amp;sport="; nocase; uricontent:"&amp;amp;hport="; nocase; uricontent:"&amp;amp;os="; nocase; classtype:trojan-activity; reference:url,www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/trojtorpigr.html; reference:url,doc.emergingthreats.net/2003066; reference:url,www.emergingthreats.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/sigs/VIRUS/TROJAN_Torpig; sid:2003066; rev:3;)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can create a custom sig for it, using the HTTP engine, and doing an Argument Name RegEx that matches the URICONTENT fields in the ET sigs.&amp;nbsp; For example, using the ET sig above:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;URI Regex: /wur8.php&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;URI Content:((?id=).*(&amp;amp;sv=).*(&amp;amp;ip=).*(&amp;amp;sport=).*(&amp;amp;hport=).*(&amp;amp;os=).*)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cisco is big (and I agree) on making the detections case-insenstive, so you should really do: [^/][Ww][Uu][Rr][8]&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please be really careful with developing custom sigs, especially ones that use RegEx - you can really bork your Sensor.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:53:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/sinowal-torpig-detection/m-p/1410820#M68110</guid>
      <dc:creator>clausonna</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-01-25T20:53:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sinowal, Torpig detection.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/sinowal-torpig-detection/m-p/1410821#M68111</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have had and still have problems with it too.&amp;nbsp; We were elated when Cisco&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;FINALLY added the signatures to the IPS.&amp;nbsp; Of course, then we found out it didn&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;'t work.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The IPS doesn't see it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hopefully, Cisco will fix this for its customer base.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:39:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/sinowal-torpig-detection/m-p/1410821#M68111</guid>
      <dc:creator>george.goebel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-02-18T20:39:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

