does anybody know about gstatic browser virus?

Am Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:56:01 GMT
schrieb Sosaidh <Sosaidh@no-mx.forums.microfocus.com>:

> Knurpht;2786036 Wrote:
> > This is how you do that technically:
> >
> > ,
> >
> > You can also use the Reply with Quote button.
>
> Ok still not quite getting it but improved, will try suggestions by
> @Akoellh

What suggestions?

One of them is identical to the comments from Knurpht, the remark about “I use
this via NNTP” was no suggestion and the “don’t bother too much” might be the
only one I support (and consider a suggestion).

> also wanting to mark this thread solved but not seeing where to do that
> now either!?
>

Simple answer, this option is not there for “mere mortals” (i.e. normal users),
so I can now recycle the suggestion “don’t bother too much”.

You might be able to edit the subject of your first post, but if not, “Solved”, but if not, “don’t bother” (recycling
is good for the environment, you know?).

Even if that works, the NNTP users will not see the difference, but yeah … at
least I “don’t bother” in that case.

Maybe some Admin/Moderator would/could change the thread status if asked, but
they have other main tasks.

In “my” forum (where I have admin privileges) we decided to deactivate
that feature and let the mods/admins mark threads as solved and -in most cases-
close the threads directly after that, especially if they contain a well
written way from problem to solution.

But, that’s a lot of work the bigger the forum gets and marking as solved
without closing it leads to other users adding the “AOL
post” (aka “me too”) often with problems not even related to the original one.

So choose your poison here, more work for Admins/Mods or -to be frank- more
crap added to maybe useful threads.

AK


Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
(R.J. Hanlon)

Ok not bothered, sorry for wasting valuable time

No one said that it was a browser hijacker? My brother got this virus days ago and he googled guides. Then he found so many detailes about this threat:

https://forums.malwarebytes.org/topic/180750-gstaticcom-sslgstaticcom/
http://guides.uufix.com/category/redirect-virus/

He got it added on Google Chrome and this is the solution he recommend:

If unfamiliar pages are opening up each time you start up Chrome, check in Chrome Menu > Settings > On Startup > next to the radio button for Open a specific page or set of pages, click on Set pages > remove any unwanted URLs by hovering over the URL until you see an “X” appear to the right side of the URL.
If all searches that you perform in the omnibox are returning with results from a different search engine instead of your preferred search engine, check in Chrome Menu > Settings > Search > Manage search engines > check the list of Default search engines, Other search engines, and Search engines added by extensions, and remove suspicious entries that you are not familiar with. Depending on your extensions, you may not see the last section for Search engines added by extensions.

To remove an unfamiliar search engine, make sure you select your preferred search engine first, and then remove the unfamiliar option.

If an unfamiliar page opens up when you click on the Home button, check in Chrome Menu > Settings > Appearance > select the Show Home button checkbox > check the URL below it.
Also check that there are no extensions installed that may be causing these changes. Go to Chrome Menu > Settings > Extensions > if you see any unfamiliar extension that you do not remember installing, try disabling/removing the extension to see it was causing these changes. To disable, uncheck the “Enabled” checkbox next to the extension. To remove, hover over the extension until you see a trash can icon appear, and click on the icon.

What OS this seems to be a Windows problem

After so much discussion on a topic I initially guessed might be answered by someone relatively simply,
I decided to take a look at this, and this is apparently a not-so-simple malware attack.

First, I found no technical report anywhere that describes the malware typically, ie how the malware might be classified, its attack vectors, recommended solutions and workarounds (if a solution doesn’t exist).
Instead, I found sites that describe how to remove but even then probably because no one seems to have clearly defined it and because there is a web component it may also easily mutate.

After skimming a few removal guides, it’s possible to identify a few broad concepts and description of the malware…

To some degree, it will affect <all> web browser applications at the application layer only, which means that it’s possible to be infected on Linux or any other OS.
Beyond the web browser itself, the malware can be seen installed deeply into a Windows system, “infecting” the Windows Registry, and various common file locations where apps can be configured to start on boot. Non-Windows systems like Linux are not affected by this deeper infection.

I won’t recommend any “Guide” to removing this malware from a Windows machine, partly because although all seem to be partly similar (standard practice configuring “safe boot” which involves configuring only minimal services to auto start and then rebooting) but can vary greatly on exactly what to “clean.”

But, even on Linux machines, you need to remove the malware that are installed into the browser like extensions, plugins, add-ons, possibly toolbars, etc.
For this, I will recommend (for now) this webpage which first lists some auto-removal tools and then what is needed to clean each web browser you run
http://www.malwareaid.com/how-to-delete-ssl-gstatic-com-from-your-pc/

But,
As I noted, be aware that my cursory inspection of a number of supposed “guides” don’t agree in total, so YMMV.

Lastly,
For how the machine was likely infected and to avoid another infection,

It should be noted that this type of compromise almost certainly requires <user permission> to infect. It’s very, very unlikely that there is some kind of fundamental security flaw across all those web browsers, particularly for the kind of problems that are caused. On one site, I saw some speculation that it might be a “Java required… Click here to upgrade” which is commonly seen even on legitimate sites. Of course, clicking on <any> warning is bad practice which can lead to infection. The user should instead go to the needed technology by <typing the address> in the URL field (eg http://java.com if you want to update java) but of course typical non-technical people won’t know to do this.

Also,
IMO this attack vector (visiting websites which prompt you to install a missing component) is not necessarily typical only of surfing disreputable websites. For years now, I’ve noticed a very large number of supposed “reputable” or at least “not the underbelly of the Internet” websites serving various forms of malware from Flash cookies (Which was all the rage about 3 years ago but disappearing as Flash is used less often) to normal cookie tracking to otherwise interrogating your machine for more than necessary info because

  • Legitimate and reputable websites don’t always partner with advertisers with the same goals. Remember, advertisers want to know everything they can about you to serve targeted content.
  • Some sites like political sites (even the major campaigns here in the USA) regularly want to know everything about you just because you expressed enough interest to visit their site and maybe explore content. They won’t ask, they just collect everything they can technically without asking you to provide that info.
  • At least the above is possible even without malware because the new HTML5 standards and features enable and require capabilities to deliver services like geo-location, targeted content, more. But, if that isn’t enough, of course infecting with malware is no problem for those who are <really> unethical.

HTH,
TSU

All very true, tsu. Good writing.:good:

Non-Windows systems like Linux are not affected by this deeper infection.

Yes, but, if and only if the non-Microsoft systems strictly adhere to a system model which strictly separates the system space from the user space.
[HR][/HR]Does anyone remember the (possibly) first “Network Worm”? – “The Morris worm” or “The Internet worm of November 2, 1988”. An “intellectual exercise” which wreaked havoc in the Arpanet (fledgling Internet) community of 1988 – my personal recollection of the incident is that the IT department boss attempted to ban the use of UNIX® by the company’s software development teams.

Is anyone brave enough to claim that, “This will never happen again?”
[HR][/HR]The title slide of one of my presentations on Software Quality has the subtitle: “Human beings produce failures.” (only robots operate failure free . . . )

IMHO, one of the basic issues here is:

  • provided the system administrators can be trusted, it is currently possible to provide, at the system level, systems with at least a “5 nines” (99.999%) reliability;
  • however, at the user level, due to human fallibility, it is currently (and probably in the future) impossible to achieve this reliability.

One of the issues I have with modern current user space software applications is, the number of options available to every user, regardless of their technical expertise and, their (in)sensitivity to attacks by malevolent human beings on their user space.

Thankyou! Clear, informative, very welcome information, sincere gratitude