Friday, October 25, 2013

BEST AUTHORS FOR ECE GATE PREPARATIONS

                      BEST AUTHORS FOR ECE GATE PREPARATIONS

    Book List for GATE


Subject  Author
Network Analysis  Van Valkenburg
Network and Systems  D. Roy Choudhary
Integrated Electronics  Jacob Milman & C. Halkias; Millman & Grabel
Integrated Circuits  K R Botkar
Op. Amps & Linear Integrated Circuit  Gayakwad
Digital Logic & Computer Design  Moris Mano
Signals and System  Oppehum, Willsky & Nacob
Automatic Control System  Benjamin C. Kuo
Control System Engg.  Nagrath & Gopal
Principle of Communication System   Taub & Schilling
Communiation System  A. Bruu Carlson
Electromagnetic Waves & Radiating Systems  Jardon & Balmain; JD Kraus

GATE PREVIOUS EXAM SOLVED PAPERS FOR ECE

          GATE PREVIOUS YEARS EXAMS SOLVED PAPERS                                       FOR E.C.E   (1996-2013)



GATE 2013                                                                             GATE 2007
                       CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD                CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD

GATE 2012                                                                          GATE    2006
                     
                       CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD                CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD

GATE 2011                                                                         GATE     2005

                       CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD                CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD
                       
GATE 2010                                                                          GATE   2004

                        CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD               CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD
                                                                                           
GATE 2009                                                                          GATE    2003


                        CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD                CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD
GATE 2008                                                                        
                                                                                              GATE   2002

                        CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD                 CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD


                                                      DOWNLOAD           GATE 2001
                                                        DOWNLOAD            GATE 2000
                                                         DOWNLOAD                GATE 1999
                                                             DOWNLOAD               GATE 1998
                                                                 DOWNLOAD               GATE 1997
                                                                   DOWNLOAD               GATE 1996


Download GATE Mathematics materials

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Gate 2014 materials free download

                            GATE study material
                                     click here to watch and download
A great list of Study material collected from different sources like coaching centers and student surveys on this site.
                      GATE Video Lectures and Video Tutorials
Engineering Mathematics and other courses 
Civil Engineering (CE) Lectures and Tutorials 
Computer Science & Engineering (CSE) Lectures and Tutorials
Electrical Engineering (EE)Lectures and tutorials
Gate ece 2013 question paper
Gate ece 2012 question paper
Gate ece 2011 question paper
Gate ece 2009 question paper
Gate ece 2008 question paper
Gate ece 2007 question paper
gate ece 2010 question paper
Electronics and Communication Engineering Lectures and Tutorials 
Gate ece 2013 question paper
Gate ece 2012 question paper
Gate ece 2011 question paper
Gate ece 2009 question paper
Gate ece 2008 question paper
Gate ece 2007 question paper
gate ece 2010 question paper
Mechanical Engineering Lectures and Tutorials
Ocean Engineering Lectures and Tutorials 
Biotechnology Lectures and Tutorials
Mining Engineering lectures and tutorials


                   

Hacker stole $100,000 from Users of California based ISP using SQL Injection.

Hacker stole $100,000 from Users of California based ISP using SQL Injection.




Recently a hacking Group named 'TeamBerserk' claimed on Twitter that, they have stolen $100,000 by leveraging user names and passwords taken from a California ISP Sebastian (Sebastiancorp.com)to access victims' bank accounts.

A video proof was uploaded on the Internet, shows that how hackers used a SQL injection attack against the California ISP Sebastian to access their customers' database includes  e-mail addresses, user names and clear text passwords and then using the same data to steal money from those customers.

Let's see what SQL Injection is and how serious an attack like this actually can be.

SQL Injection is a type of web application vulnerability in which the attacker adds Structured Query Language (SQL) code to web inputs to gain access to an organization's resources. Using this technique, hackers can determine the structure and location of key databases and can download the database or compromise the database server.
SQL Injection bank hacked 4
Hackers took just 15 minutes to hack into the website using SQLmap (Automated SQL Injection Tool) -- stole customers' database and then immediately accesses the victim's Gmail account, linked PayPal accounts and Bank accounts also.
SQL Injection bank hacked 3
It's so hard to remember multiple passwords, some people just use the same one over and over. Is your Facebook password the same as your Twitter password? How about the password for your bank's website?

Now the hack explains that this us why it's extremely dangerous to use the same password on more than one Web site. In the POC video, hacker randomly chooses one Sebastian username and his relative password against Paypal, Gmail and even Citibank account logins and seriously that actually worked, because the victim is using the same passwords for all websites.
SQL Injection bank hacked 2
Hacker stole $100,000 from Users of California based ISP using SQL Injection
Now that you've control of the situation, don't let this happen again! If you have a bank account, a few credit cards, and several other important sensitive accounts, conduct a thorough security audit on them. Be sure that you know when you last logged in. Be sure to keep using different and Strong passwords for each website.

New Phishing attack targets Italian Postal and Financial service again

Simple, but Critical vulnerability in Verizon Portal revealed users' SMS History

Simple, but Critical vulnerability in Verizon Portal revealed users' SMS History

A Security researcher discovered a critical privacy vulnerability on Verizon Wireless’s Web-based customer portal that allows anyone to download user’s SMS History and Numbers of other users he communicated with.

Back in August, researcher 'Cody Collier' found that a simple URL exploit could allow any subscriber to extract data using 'Download to SpreadSheet' function.
To exploit, an attacker only needs to modify the subscriber’s phone number in the URL and this would give an attacker access to the SMS history to the targeted account.
https://wbillpay.verizonwireless.com/vzw/accountholder/unbilledusage/UnbilledMessaging.action?d-455677-e=2&1548506v4671=1&mtn=999999999
Where variable 'mtn' within the URL defines the mobile number and an attacker just need to modify this. "Message details consist of: Date, Time, To, From, and Direction an SMS or MMS took place. With no user interaction, all that was required was a subscriber's phone number." he explained.

There were no safeguards to ensure that the person downloading the spreadsheet owned that number, potentially exposing tens of millions of Verizon customer contact lists and texting habits.

As Verizon's site doesn't offer any direct contact info to report vulnerabilities, so he finds someone on LinkedIn who had forwarded his request to Verizon's corporate security.

Now Verizon has created a dedicated email contact, CorporateSecurity@verizonwireless.com, to field these security issues.

We are also trying to reach Verizon for comment on this serious Privacy issue and will update should we hear back.


Monday, October 14, 2013

Hardware Keylogger used by Card skimmers to steal Credit Cards at Nordstrom Store

 Hardware Keylogger used by Card skimmers to steal Credit 

Cards at Nordstrom Store                                                                   


Three men allegedly installed Credit Card Skimming keylogges at into cash registers in a Nordstrom department store in the Florida.  Those Keyloggers were connected via a keyboard cord between the keyboard and the computer to intercept the information transmitted between the two devices and Furthermore, the gang used the connectors designed to resemble common PS2 cables. Krebs has indicated on his blog that such keyloggers can be easily obtained online for about $40 only.

Placing such a devices would have allowed criminals access to data for anyone applying for a Nordstrom credit card, plus any numbers typed in via the keyboard. 

In order to collect the captured data, criminals have to return back after few days to collect the keylogger from store.

But at this time it is unknown if the men ever returned to the store in order to retrieve the keyloggers and Nordstrom are unaware of any arrests being made.

An alert circulated by the police department in Aventura, Florida told of three male suspects captured on the close-circuit cameras tampering with the registers on October 5, 2013.

Let's hope that Nordstrom customers have not been comprised in this attack.





CryptoLocker Ransomware demands $300 to decrypt your files

CryptoLocker Ransomware demands $300 to decrypt your files

                 BE ACTIVE AND ALERT USING OF OUR PC IN INTERNET

If you're a daily computer user, you're likely aware of all the threats you face every day online in the form of viruses and malware.

CryptoLocker, a new ransomware malware, began making the rounds several months ago. This ransomware is particularly nasty because infected users are in danger of losing their personal files forever.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Apple's own Encryption Mechanism allows hacker to create an Undetectable Mac OS X Malware

Apple's own Encryption Mechanism allows hacker to create an Undetectable Mac OS X Malware



 Reverse Engineer and lead developer of Cerbero Profiler, former developer of IDA Pro comes up with another interesting research, and explained The Hacker News, the basic details behind the technique he used to create an undetectable malware for Mac OS X.

Apple implements internally an encryption mechanism to protect some of their own executable like "Dock.app" or "Finder.app". This encryption can be applied to malware as well. If one does, anti-malware solutions can no longer detect the malware because of the encryption, but OS X has no problem loading such malware.

This same protection mechanism can be used on existing malwares that are already detected by Anti-malware products, to make them completely undetectable. Those same anti-malware products can no longer detect the malware because they don't understand it's encrypted.
macho decrypt
Currently, it’s true that there are fewer malware programs that are targeting Mac OS X  versus Windows. However, that doesn’t mean that Macs are totally secure.
vs after
To mitigate this problem Daniel suggests Anti-Malware product makers to either support the actual decryption , alternatively, to trust encrypted executables only when signed by Apple. Read complete technical details about the method on Daniel's Blog.

The events of recent years have led many users to question just how secure Mac really is.

Disclosure: Creating undetected malware for OS X



Disclosure: Creating undetected malware for OS X

While this PoC is about static analysis, it’s very different than applying a packer to a malware. OS X uses an internal mechanism to load encrypted Apple executables and we’re going to exploit the same mechanism to defeat current anti-malware solutions.
OS X implements two encryption systems for its executables (Mach-O). The first one is implemented through the LC_ENCRYPTION_INFO loader command. Here’s the code which handles this command:
case LC_ENCRYPTION_INFO:
                if (pass != 3)
                    break;
                ret = set_code_unprotect(
                    (struct encryption_info_command *) lcp,
                    addr, map, slide, vp);
                if (ret != LOAD_SUCCESS) {
                    printf("proc %d: set_code_unprotect() error %d "
                           "for file \"%s\"\n",
                           p->p_pid, ret, vp->v_name);
                    /* Don't let the app run if it's
                     * encrypted but we failed to set up the
                     * decrypter */
                     psignal(p, SIGKILL);
                }
                break;
This code calls the set_code_unprotect function which sets up the decryption through text_crypter_create:
/* set up decrypter first */
    kr=text_crypter_create(&crypt_info, cryptname, (void*)vpath);
The text_crypter_create function is actually a function pointer registered through thetext_crypter_create_hook_set kernel API. While this system can allow for external components to register themselves and handle decryption requests, we couldn’t see it in use on current versions of OS X.
The second encryption mechanism which is actually being used internally by Apple doesn’t require a loader command. Instead, it signals encrypted segments through a flag.
Protected flag
The ‘PROTECTED‘ flag is checked while loading a segment in the load_segment function:
if (scp->flags & SG_PROTECTED_VERSION_1) {
    ret = unprotect_segment(scp->fileoff,
                scp->filesize,
                vp,
                pager_offset,
                map,
                map_addr,
                map_size);
} else {
    ret = LOAD_SUCCESS;
}
The unprotect_segment function sets up the range to be decrypted, the decryption function and method. It then calls vm_map_apple_protected.
#define APPLE_UNPROTECTED_HEADER_SIZE   (3 * PAGE_SIZE_64)
 
static load_return_t
unprotect_segment(
    uint64_t    file_off,
    uint64_t    file_size,
    struct vnode        *vp,
    off_t               macho_offset,
    vm_map_t    map,
    vm_map_offset_t     map_addr,
    vm_map_size_t       map_size)
{
    kern_return_t       kr;
    /*
     * The first APPLE_UNPROTECTED_HEADER_SIZE bytes (from offset 0 of
     * this part of a Universal binary) are not protected...
     * The rest needs to be "transformed".
     */
    if (file_off <= APPLE_UNPROTECTED_HEADER_SIZE &&
        file_off + file_size <= APPLE_UNPROTECTED_HEADER_SIZE) {
        /* it's all unprotected, nothing to do... */
        kr = KERN_SUCCESS;
    } else {
        if (file_off <= APPLE_UNPROTECTED_HEADER_SIZE) {
            /*
             * We start mapping in the unprotected area.
             * Skip the unprotected part...
             */
            vm_map_offset_t     delta;
            delta = APPLE_UNPROTECTED_HEADER_SIZE;
            delta -= file_off;
            map_addr += delta;
            map_size -= delta;
        }
        /* ... transform the rest of the mapping. */
        struct pager_crypt_info crypt_info;
        crypt_info.page_decrypt = dsmos_page_transform;
        crypt_info.crypt_ops = NULL;
        crypt_info.crypt_end = NULL;
#pragma unused(vp, macho_offset)
        crypt_info.crypt_ops = (void *)0x2e69cf40;
        kr = vm_map_apple_protected(map,
                        map_addr,
                        map_addr + map_size,
                        &crypt_info);
    }
    if (kr != KERN_SUCCESS) {
        return LOAD_FAILURE;
    }
    return LOAD_SUCCESS;
}
Two things about the code above. The first 3 pages (0×3000) of a Mach-O can’t be encrypted/decrypted. And, as can be noticed, the decryption function is dsmos_page_transform.
Just like text_crypter_create even dsmos_page_transform is a function pointer which is set through thedsmos_page_transform_hook kernel API. This API is called by the kernel extension “Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext“, allowing for the decryption logic to be contained outside of the kernel in a private kernel extension by Apple.
Apple uses this technology to encrypt some of its own core components like “Finder.app” or “Dock.app”. On current OS X systems this mechanism doesn’t provide much of a protection against reverse engineering in the sense that attaching a debugger and dumping the memory is sufficient to retrieve the decrypted executable.
However, this mechanism can be abused by encrypting malware which will no longer be detected by the static analysis technologies of current security solutions.
To demonstrate this claim we took a known OS X malware:
Scan before encryption
Since this is our public disclosure, we will say that the detection rate stood at about 20-25.
And encrypted it:
Scan after encryption
After encryption has been applied, the malware is no longer detected by scanners at VirusTotal. The problem is that OS X has no problem in loading and executing the encrypted malware.
The difference compared to a packer is that the decryption code is not present in the executable itself and so the static analysis engine can’t recognize a stub or base itself on other data present in the executable, since all segments can be encrypted. Thus, the scan engine also isn’t able to execute the encrypted code in its own virtual machine for a more dynamic analysis.
Two other important things about the encryption system is that the private key is the same and is shared across different versions of OS X. And it’s not a chained encryption either: but per-page. Which means that changing data in the first encrypted page doesn’t affect the second encrypted page and so on.
Our flagship product, Cerbero Profiler, which is an interactive file analysis infrastructure, is able to decrypt protected executables. To dump an unprotected copy of the Mach-O just perform a “Select all” (Ctrl+A) in the main hex view and then click on “Copy into new file” like in the screen-shot below.
Mach-O decryption
The saved file can be executed on OS X or inspected with other tools.
Decrypted Mach-O
Of course, the decryption can be achieved programmatically through our Python SDK as well. Just load the Mach-O file, initialize it (ProcessLoadCommands) and save to disk the stream returned by the GetStream.
A solution to mitigate this problem could be one of the following:
  • Implement the decryption mechanism like we did.
  • Check the presence of encrypted segments. If they are present, trust only executables with a valid code signature issued by Apple.
  • 3. Check the presence of encrypted segments. If they are present, trust only executables whose cryptographic hash matches a trusted one.
This kind of internal protection system should be avoided in an operating system, because it can be abused.
After we shared our internal report, VirusBarrier Team at Intego sent us the following previous research about Apple Binary Protection:
The research talks about the old implementation of the binary protection. The current page transform hook looks like this:
if (v9 == 0x2E69CF40) // this is the constant used in the current kernel
  {
    // current decryption algo
  }
  else
  {
    if (v9 != 0xC2286295)
    {
      // ...
      if (!some_bool)
      {
        printf("DSMOS++: WARNING -- Old Kernel\n");
        ++some_bool;
      }
    }
    // old decryption algo
  }
VirusBarrier Team also reported the following code by Steve Nygard in his class-dump utility:
This is the correct decryption code. In fact, the kernel extension by Apple, just as in the code above provided by Steve Nygard, uses the OpenSSL implementation of Blowfish.
We didn’t know about Nygard’s code, so we did our own research about the topic and applied it to malware. We would like to thank VirusBarrier Team at Intego for its cooperation and quick addressing of the issue. At the time of writing we’re not aware of any security solution for OS X, apart VirusBarrier, which isn’t tricked by this technique. We even tested some of the most important security solutions individually on a local machine.
The current 0.9.9 version of Cerbero Profiler already implements the decryption of Mach-Os, even though it’s not explicitly written in the changelist.
We didn’t implement the old decryption method, because it didn’t make much sense in our case and we’re not aware of a clean way to automatically establish whether the file is old and therefore uses said encryption.
These two claims need a clarification. If we take a look at Nygard’s code, we can see a check to establish the encryption method used:
#define CDSegmentProtectedMagic_None 0
#define CDSegmentProtectedMagic_AES 0xc2286295
#define CDSegmentProtectedMagic_Blowfish 0x2e69cf40
 
            if (magic == CDSegmentProtectedMagic_None) {
                // ...
            } else if (magic == CDSegmentProtectedMagic_Blowfish) {
                // 10.6 decryption
                // ...
            } else if (magic == CDSegmentProtectedMagic_AES) {
                // ...
            }
It checks the first dword in the encrypted segment (after the initial three non-encrypted pages) to decide which decryption algorithm should be used. This logic has a problem, because it assumes that the first encrypted block is full of 0s, so that when encrypted with AES it produces a certain magic and when encrypted with Blowfish another one. This logic fails in the case the first block contains values other than 0. In fact, some samples we encrypted didn’t produce a magic for this exact reason.
Also, current versions of OS X don’t rely on a magic check and don’t support AES encryption. As we can see from the code displayed at the beginning of the article, the kernel doesn’t read the magic dword and just sets the Blowfish magic value as a constant:
crypt_info.crypt_ops = (void *)0x2e69cf40;
So while checking the magic is useful for normal cases, security solutions can’t rely on it or else they can be easily tricked into using the wrong decryption algorithm.
If your organization wishes to be informed by us in the future before public disclosure about findings & issues, it can contact us and become a technical partner for free.

facebook frnds

About Me