Quote from kowboy:
Aphexcoil,
Here's another. Would a malicious keylogger necessarily require a .exe extension in order to operate on the target computer?
The short answer -- no. I'll assume we're speaking strictly of Microsoft PC's here. There are several types of files that are executable or contain executable code -- an .exe file is only one of them. A *.dll file could also be executed and run malicious code. There are many file extensions that can be the first domino that allows for the really malicious code to execute.
Also would a malicious keylogger require a change to the registry in order to operate and gather data?
Yes and no. A program does not need to make a registry change in order to run. HOWEVER, most illegitimate programs will make a registry change in order to execute automatically upon bootup. Most spyware programs, if they are programmed to be a real pain in the ass, will make multiple registry changes and run programs that are completely hidden from the task manager. You can also get into rootkits which can totally corrupt your operating system.
The problem with Microsoft Windows and the way it operates is that it generally gives administrative rights to the default account. Generally, you do not want your account to have administrative rights. You want to run under an account that has standard user rights so that malicious code cannot promote itself to administrator and run as root system code.
I believe this was a decision on Microsoft's part to make the system as easy to use as possible but this was definitely at the expense of security. You see, if you run under standard user access rights and try to install programs, it will either deny you that ability or prompt you for an administrator password. This would be confusing to your average computer user -- but is definitely the way to go in terms of security.
If the answer is yes to either, would it be possible to detect either case prior to its operating on the target computer?
By detection, I assume you mean being able to recognize a program as malicious before it infects your computer? Well, following up on my previous comment, once malicious code executes under an account with administrative rights (which is a common setup for MSFT OS), it is next to impossible to remove it cleanly because it can elevate itself to the highest level and, in the process, actually demote your rights to below its own rights. In essence, you won't be able to see it because it has demoted your ability to do so. This is what makes it so bad.
To give you an idea, I've had machines that were infected so bad at my work, that I had to remove the hard-drive from the system and add it as a secondary drive to a clean system. I then had to scan that drive under a clean OS in order to see the hidden files and malicious code. It is an ugly, time consuming process.
Apple computers are actually growing rapidly in popularity due to the fact that there are far less virii and trojans written for the Mac operating system.
If you really wanted to run a clean, bullet-proof system, you could purchase a cheap Mac and use that, along with a few tools to constantly monitor your system.
There is a balance between price and security -- but the curve is exponential in my opinion. The first few hundred dollars will solve 99.9% of the most common problems and the other .1% would cost thousands more and require far more time.
For the average user, you don't need 100% security. E*Trade needs 100% security. I used to have an E*Trade account as one of my first trading accounts and I was completely blown away at their horrible level of security.
In my opinion, a responsible corporation needs to meet their client halfway when it comes to security. Having a customer lose $4k due to lack of forward thinking on the corporation's behalf is unacceptable in my opinion.
If it were me, I'd raise a huge stink over it and become a thorn in their corporate foot. Going head to head through arbitration and/or law suits is a losing proposition for David, but showing how bad Goliath's shit can stick will generally make them waiver enough to throw some money at you so that you will shut up -- assuming that you have lost money due to a scam that even E*Trade admits has been a problem. The individual who originally lost around $174k would probably not have recouped a penny of it had it not been for the media picking up on the story and causing bad publicity for E*Trade. It might cost E*Trade a couple of hundred thousand to replace what they would consider nickle and dime losses -- but one stinging review that shows their security in a poor light would cost them millions upon millions and perhaps serve as the catalyst to eventually put them under.
If I were E*Trade, I'd rather risk losing customers by restricting ACH withdrawals than leave my system wide open to my client's getting shafted by a phishing scam.