How can you tell if someone installed a program like spy PC on your computer and is monitoring your keystrokes?
Printable View
How can you tell if someone installed a program like spy PC on your computer and is monitoring your keystrokes?
Run an Anti virus/trojan/spyware program regularly, make sure they are kept upto date. Always be aware of what is running on your pc, Check the task manager for running processes.
Install only genuine software from trusted sauces. Don't surf for pRon.
Use a good firewall and check the logs.
Don't let anyone use your pc.
Be paraniod
There's a good freeware program called Spy Sweeper that I use to scan my computer for spyware/adware/trojans etc (by webroot software, http://www.webroot.com).
Its free to download, and free to use, but you only get to download an update only once, and that's when you first install the program. But, it does its job. Anyone know a better one I'm interested.
Ask and you shall receive -----> Swatit : http://swatit.org/Quote:
Its slow and takes a long time, but it does dig deep into your system.Quote:
All Product and File Signature Updates are Totally FREE, this means that you will never have to pay a single penny to get the very latest version of Swat It or to update the File Signatures.
Swat It is a Completely FREE program that scans your computer for Trojans, Worms, Bots and other Hacker programs. Swat It can detect and remove over 4000 different Trojan programs plus variants.
Also try Antikey at www.antikey.com It's shareware,so you're going to have to pay for it after a few tries..the firewall's the best bet to find out a logger if it's trying to access the net.On the other hand,if the attacker has direct access to your PC,I'd assume he wouldnt get a logger which would access the net if you had a firewall(Note:I've seen some that pretend to masquerade as windows update files etc so be very VERY paranoid when you see a program trying to access the net if you havent told it to).So checking your registry entries(HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Current Version\Run and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Current Version\RunServices).Search for entries that you think shouldnt be there.Note:You modify the registry at your own risk.If you delete valid system files you might have to reinstall.Also,you could check up startup programs,your msconfig(comprising of wini.ini,autoexec.bat etc) and disable programs you think are not necessary.
I'd recommend the manual methods as trojan remover probs cannot remove every logger for the simple reason that if someone decides to code one's own and not distribute it freely,it wont be detected
Maybe I am paranoid on this but I saw a copy of this program in the IT guys hands. I picked up the manual and this program is suppose to run in an invisible mode that is completely undetectable. The only way to bring it up is if you know the password and type it into the run program. When the error message comes up with the right password, the program reappears.
I very concerned about leaking information to the company.
nothing..repeat..NOTHING is completely invisible..it'll still show up in your registry if not other startup options like win.ini or autoexec.bat..I mean,it has to load from somewhere right?;)
Don't use IE. Use a decent browser like Mozilla Firefox. I have nothing against IE (well, actually I do), but I haven't seen an ActiveX spyware that targets any other browser yet :).
Cheers,
cgkanchi
It just said trojans, worms, and bots that it removes. Does that include adware and spyware?Quote:
To repeat the now standardized response: Spybot/Adaware combo solves almost all such problems.
Then don't use the company computer for anything other than what you are supposed to?? :confused:Quote:
I very concerned about leaking information to the company.
No,it doesnt use Adaware(www.lavasoft.de) and Spybot S&D(www.spybot.safer-networking.de) for malware.I'm afraid there isnt a COMPLETE program which gets everything(*Hint to the guys at AO to get cracking on it*;))
Meh, it's not that big of a deal to run Adaware and Spybot once a week. If you browse smart and keep everything clean and up to date there shouldn't be a need for much more. I run them about once every two weeks and at most they'll find one or two minor problems. They do make a good team though. :)
Sure thing!Quote:
I'm afraid there isnt a COMPLETE program which gets everything(*Hint to the guys at AO to get cracking on it
http://www.linuxiso.org/
http://www.slackware.com
http://www.redhat.com
http://fedora.redhat.com
http://www.gentoo.org
http://www.debian.org
http://www.suse.com/
http://www.freebsd.org/
http://www.openbsd.org
http://www.linux-mandrake.com/
Heh :)Quote:
Another solution! Screw Windows, go to Linux and you'll forever be spyware free!
At least, that's until Linux gets more popular and people start targeting it more.
Let's just cross our fingers and hope that doesn't happen.
mjk
A common misconception is that spyware == popularity, when in fact it is a combination of a few things: popularity of the OS and how the OS works.Quote:
At least, that's until Linux gets more popular and people start targeting it more.
Even when Linux hits mainstream, the amount of viri and spyware will not ever notice a huge increase. Why? This is because linux is built similar to a very large cruise ship. Each part of the ship is seperated off into compartments (partitions, ie /var /home /boot etc etc) so that just in case one areas gets flooded (fscked) the rest can still be fine and the ship stays afloat even if one compartment is ruined to the point of tears. Another thing is that Windows (even in a mode that isn't admin) makes administrative calls to system dll's for modification (such as dll hook calls). Because Linux encourages users to NOT run as root (I know some distrobutions that give quite a few nasty messages if you login as root) and thus the whole privileges ability for spyware to modify systemwide changes is much more solid.
Ah yes, and permissions. For the most part, linux permissions are set in default security mode, which is rather high and already smartly secured. So, even if a dumb new user on linux runs a peice of spyware on their computer, the chance of that user not even being able to break past the iptables to send out data is so much higher than windows ICFirewall.
What I am saying is this: Yes, you can secure Windows up to the same level of security that Linux has in regards to halting user stupidity, but it does take a lot more configuration and time than a run of the mill Linux box. There are safeguards in linux (both kernel and on a distro level) which are already in place to prevent accidentals, much less "browser hijacks" because of dll hook calls. This is something Longhorn is striving for, and how well they can get there no one knows (but I wish them the best, of course).
edit Example images of what I mean by OS partitioning being similar to handling the disasters that compartments on a ship handle:
Linux partitioning: http://titanic.marconigraph.com/fig3.jpg -- notice the compartments just in case of water leakage
Windows filesystem: http://this.is/globe/myndir/blueprintxsm.jpg -- notice a lack of protecting compartmentalization (christ that's a big word)
I totally agree with you pooh.
I guess this is what will keep Linux one step above Windows at all times (until Microsoft gets their act together). I like the cruise ship thing. That's a great way of explaining it :)Quote:
Another thing is that Windows (even in a mode that isn't admin) makes administrative calls to system dll's for modification (such as dll hook calls). Because Linux encourages users to NOT run as root (I know some distrobutions that give quite a few nasty messages if you login as root) and thus the whole privileges ability for spyware to modify systemwide changes is much more solid.
Ah yes, and permissions. For the most part, linux permissions are set in default security mode, which is rather high and already smartly secured. So, even if a dumb new user on linux runs a peice of spyware on their computer, the chance of that user not even being able to break past the iptables to send out data is so much higher than windows ICFirewall.
But I still believe that if Linux hits mainstream, it will be targeted a lot more. No matter how hardened and secured the OS is, if the end user is a complete dipshit it's still very possible for the computer to get infected with something. Right now, it's mostly experienced users who are dealing with Linux. In the future, if casual users are using linux as a desktop, they will be more easily fooled.
Anyways, thanks for the little lesson :)
mjk
edit After I posted I saw your edit. I find it funny that you used the Titanic to represent Linux :D
Remember, the Titanic was sunk by a hole that started out small enough to be plugged with a shirt. Guess they should have secured their OS more... or something..
No, that was the entire point I was trying to make. That it doesn't matter so much the level of experience a user has on Linux, as the OS itself has built in safeguards even against complete dipshits (for example, fedora core 2 implmenting SELinux) and thus by the very nature of how the OS acts.. it is better protected against the newer users.Quote:
Right now, it's mostly experienced users who are dealing with Linux. In the future, if casual users are using linux as a desktop, they will be more easily fooled.
A spyware tool can try all it wants to write it's override hook in /usr/lib/mozilla, but it will never be able to unless the user is su rooted. Sure, it could trick them into going into su root, but an OS can only protect -so much- against users. My point was, Linux is better implmented and coded from the bottom up to already do everything it can to protect itself against moronic users (through permissions, partitions, users, warninings, SELinux and Gresecurity (HAIL THEM BOTH!) and some distros locking root completely out of the X server)
edit:
Just a tidbit of information:Quote:
Remember, the Titanic was sunk by a hole that started out small enough to be plugged with a shirt.
The titanic actually took quite a few lashes across her bow, and thus why she sank. A singular hole would have been fine because of the compartments put in place to stop the water from carrying over to the rest of the ship, however because the lashes breached quite a ways horizontally, it bypassed 5 compartments, in which a maximum of 4 compartments being flooded was the blueprint danger point.
Quote:
from : http://home.flash.net/~rfm/SINKING/Sank.html
The ship had grazed the iceberg but not in a smooth sweep. It pushed and bounced off, pushed and bounced, in small bursts, leaving spaced ruptures in the shell plate below the water line. Most people noticed something was different when the vibration of the engines stopped. That was something different in the middle of a voyage.
Here is an image to show how far the cuts ranged in terms of across the compartment layers, and thus showing how the water was able to get past the compartments by leaking straight into them from the many holes on the side.Quote:
from : http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...rounding.shtml
Flooding resulting from a grounding would have immediately filled Holds #1 and #2. Water rising in the Hatch #1 tower would have caused the canvas cover to bulge upward and produce the sounds described by eyewitnesses. Water in Hold #2 was contained by the Orlop deck, but water rising in the stair tower quickly began to flood onto G Deck forward of bulkhead "B." This is the water that forced the greasers and firemen sleeping on G Deck to evacuate before midnight. If Boiler Room #6 was flooded as quickly as the BOT report indicates, the water likely came through partially-closed watertight doors in the vestibule at the after end of the Firemen's Passage. After midnight or so, secondary flooding through scuttles, hatches, ports and other ordinary openings in the liner's structure became the primary source of water.
http://home.flash.net/~rfm/BREAKUP/Break1.gif
Ok, I get it now. Linux will forever be spyware free! (I'm not being sarcastic)
As for the Titanic thing, I'm not sure where I heard that... But whatever. It's beside the point.
Again, thanks for the lesson pooh :)
mjk