DOCSLIB.ORG

Guide to Malware Incident Prevention and Handling

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guide to Malware Incident Prevention and Handling Archived NIST Technical Series Publication The attached publication has been archived (withdrawn), and is provided solely for historical purposes. It may have been superseded by another publication (indicated below). Archived Publication Series/Number: NIST Special Publication 800-83 Title: Guide to Malware Incident Prevention and Handling Publication Date(s): November 2005 Withdrawal Date: July 2013 Withdrawal Note: SP 800-83 is superseded in its entirety by the publication of SP 800-83 Revision 1 (July 2013). Superseding Publication(s) The attached publication has been superseded by the following publication(s): Series/Number: NIST Special Publication 800-83 Revision 1 Title: Guide to Malware Incident Prevention and Handling for Desktops and Laptops Author(s): Murugiah Souppaya, Karen Scarfone Publication Date(s): July 2013 URL/DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-83r1 Additional Information (if applicable) Contact: Computer Security Division (Information Technology Lab) Latest revision of the SP 800-83 Rev. 1 (as of August 12, 2015) attached publication: Related information: http://csrc.nist.gov/ Withdrawal N/A announcement (link): Date updated: ƵŐƵƐƚϭϮ, 2015 Special Publication 800-83 Sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security Guide to Malware Incident Prevention and Handling Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Peter Mell Karen Kent Joseph Nusbaum NIST Special Publication 800-83 Guide to Malware Incident Prevention and Handling Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Peter Mell Karen Kent Joseph Nusbaum C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930 November 2005 U.S. Department of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary Technology Administration Michelle O'Neill, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology William A. Jeffrey, Director GUIDE TO MALWARE INCIDENT PREVENTION AND HANDLING Reports on Computer Systems Technology The Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) promotes the U.S. economy and public welfare by providing technical leadership for the nation’s measurement and standards infrastructure. ITL develops tests, test methods, reference data, proof of concept implementations, and technical analysis to advance the development and productive use of information technology. ITL’s responsibilities include the development of technical, physical, administrative, and management standards and guidelines for the cost-effective security and privacy of sensitive unclassified information in Federal computer systems. This Special Publication 800-series reports on ITL’s research, guidance, and outreach efforts in computer security and its collaborative activities with industry, government, and academic organizations. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-83 Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ . 800-83, 101 pages (November 2005) Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experim ental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Techn ology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are neces sarily the best available for the purpose. ii GUIDE TO MALWARE INCIDENT PREVENTION AND HANDLING Acknowledgments The authors, Peter Mell of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Karen Kent and Joseph Nusbaum of Booz Allen Hamilton, wish to thank their colleagues who reviewed drafts of this document and contributed to its technical content. The authors would particularly like to acknowledge Tim Grance and Murugiah Souppaya of NIST and Lucinda Gagliano, Thomas Goff, and Pius Uzamere of Booz Allen Hamilton for their keen and insightful assistance throughout the development of the document. The authors would also like to express their thanks to security experts Mike Danseglio (Microsoft), Kurt Dillard (Microsoft), Michael Gerdes (Getronics RedSiren Security Solutions), Peter Szor (Symantec), Miles Tracy (U.S. Federal Reserve System), and Lenny Zeltser (Gemini Systems LLC), as well as representatives from the General Accounting Office, and for their particularly valuable comments and suggestions. The National Institute of Standards and Technology would also like to express its appreciation and thanks to the Department of Homeland Security for its sponsorship and support of NIST Special Publication 800- 83. Trademark Information All product names are registered trademarks or trademarks of their respective companies. ii i GUIDE TO MALWARE INCIDENT PREVENTION AND HANDLING Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................ES-1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Authority................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Scope............................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Audience ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Document Structure .............................................................................................. 1-1 2. Malware Categories....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Viruses.................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Compiled Viruses....................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Interpreted Viruses..................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.3 Virus Obfuscation Techniques.................................................................... 2-3 2.2 Worms................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Trojan Horses........................................................................................................ 2-4 2.4 Malicious Mobile Code .......................................................................................... 2-5 2.5 Blended Attacks .................................................................................................... 2-5 2.6 Tracking Cookies................................................................................................... 2-6 2.7 Attacker Tools ....................................................................................................... 2-6 2.7.1 Backdoors.................................................................................................. 2-7 2.7.2 Keystroke Loggers ..................................................................................... 2-7 2.7.3 Rootkits...................................................................................................... 2-7 2.7.4 Web Browser Plug-Ins................................................................................ 2-8 2.7.5 E-Mail Generators...................................................................................... 2-8 2.7.6 Attacker Toolkits......................................................................................... 2-8 2.8 Non-Malware Threats............................................................................................ 2-9 2.8.1 Phishing ..................................................................................................... 2-9 2.8.2 Virus Hoaxes.............................................................................................. 2-9 2.9 History of Malware............................................................................................... 2-10 2.10 Summary............................................................................................................. 2-11 3. Malware Incident Prevention ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Policy .................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Awareness ............................................................................................................ 3-2 3.3 Vulnerability Mitigation........................................................................................... 3-4 3.3.1 Patch Management .................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.2 Least Privilege ........................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.3 Other Host Hardening Measures................................................................ 3-5 3.4 Threat Mitigation.................................................................................................... 3-6 3.4.1 Antivirus Software ...................................................................................... 3-6 3.4.2 Spyware Detection and Removal Utilities................................................... 3-9 3.4.3 Intrusion Prevention Systems..................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statistical Structures: Fingerprinting Malware for Classification and Analysis
    Statistical Structures: Fingerprinting Malware for Classification and Analysis Daniel Bilar Wellesley College (Wellesley, MA) Colby College (Waterville, ME) bilar <at> alum dot dartmouth dot org Why Structural Fingerprinting? Goal: Identifying and classifying malware Problem: For any single fingerprint, balance between over-fitting (type II error) and under- fitting (type I error) hard to achieve Approach: View binaries simultaneously from different structural perspectives and perform statistical analysis on these ‘structural fingerprints’ Different Perspectives Idea: Multiple perspectives may increase likelihood of correct identification and classification Structural Description Statistical static / Perspective Fingerprint dynamic? Assembly Count different Opcode Primarily instruction instructions frequency static distribution Win 32 API Observe API calls API call vector Primarily call made dynamic System Explore graph- Graph structural Primarily Dependence modeled control and properties static Graph data dependencies Fingerprint: Opcode frequency distribution Synopsis: Statically disassemble the binary, tabulate the opcode frequencies and construct a statistical fingerprint with a subset of said opcodes. Goal: Compare opcode fingerprint across non- malicious software and malware classes for quick identification and classification purposes. Main result: ‘Rare’ opcodes explain more data variation then common ones Goodware: Opcode Distribution 1, 2 ---------.exe Procedure: -------.exe 1. Inventoried PEs (EXE, DLL, ---------.exe etc) on XP box with Advanced Disk Catalog 2. Chose random EXE samples size: 122880 with MS Excel and Index totalopcodes: 10680 3, 4 your Files compiler: MS Visual C++ 6.0 3. Ran IDA with modified class: utility (process) InstructionCounter plugin on sample PEs 0001. 002145 20.08% mov 4. Augmented IDA output files 0002. 001859 17.41% push with PEID results (compiler) 0003. 000760 7.12% call and general ‘functionality 0004.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Mortem of a Zombie: Conficker Cleanup After Six Years Hadi Asghari, Michael Ciere, and Michel J.G
    Post-Mortem of a Zombie: Conficker Cleanup After Six Years Hadi Asghari, Michael Ciere, and Michel J.G. van Eeten, Delft University of Technology https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity15/technical-sessions/presentation/asghari This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 24th USENIX Security Symposium August 12–14, 2015 • Washington, D.C. ISBN 978-1-939133-11-3 Open access to the Proceedings of the 24th USENIX Security Symposium is sponsored by USENIX Post-Mortem of a Zombie: Conficker Cleanup After Six Years Hadi Asghari, Michael Ciere and Michel J.G. van Eeten Delft University of Technology Abstract more sophisticated C&C mechanisms that are increas- ingly resilient against takeover attempts [30]. Research on botnet mitigation has focused predomi- In pale contrast to this wealth of work stands the lim- nantly on methods to technically disrupt the command- ited research into the other side of botnet mitigation: and-control infrastructure. Much less is known about the cleanup of the infected machines of end users. Af- effectiveness of large-scale efforts to clean up infected ter a botnet is successfully sinkholed, the bots or zom- machines. We analyze longitudinal data from the sink- bies basically remain waiting for the attackers to find hole of Conficker, one the largest botnets ever seen, to as- a way to reconnect to them, update their binaries and sess the impact of what has been emerging as a best prac- move the machines out of the sinkhole. This happens tice: national anti-botnet initiatives that support large- with some regularity. The recent sinkholing attempt of scale cleanup of end user machines.
    [Show full text]
  • Hacking & Social Engineering
    Hacking & Social Engineering Steve Smith, President Innovative Network Solutions, Inc. Presentation Contents Hacking Crisis What is Hacking/Who is a Hacker History of Hacking Why do Hackers hack? Types of Hacking Statistics Infrastructure Trends What should you do after being hacked Proactive Steps Social Engineering Objective What is Social Engineering What are they looking for? Tactics Protecting yourself INS Approach Infrastructure Assessment Network Traffic Assessment Social Engineering Assessment Conclusion Security is Everyone’s Responsibility – See Something, Say Something! Hacking Crisis Internet has grown very fast and security has lagged behind It can be hard to trace a perpetrator of cyber attacks because most are able to camouflage their identities Large scale failures on the internet can have a catastrophic impact on: the economy which relies heavily on electronic transactions human life, when hospitals or government agencies, such as first responders are targeted What is Hacking? The Process of attempting to gain or successfully gaining, unauthorized access to computer resources Who is a Hacker? In the computer security context, a hacker is someone who seeks and exploits weaknesses in a computer system or computer network. History of Hacking Began as early as 1903: Magician and inventor Nevil Maskelyne disrupts John Ambrose Fleming's public demonstration of Guglielmo Marconi's purportedly secure wireless telegraphy technology, sending insulting Morse code messages through the auditorium's projector The term “Hacker” originated in the 1960’s at MIT A network known as ARPANET was founded by the Department of Defense as a means to link government offices. In time, ARPANET evolved into what is today known as the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • Metahunt: Towards Taming Malware Mutation Via Studying the Evolution of Metamorphic Virus
    MetaHunt: Towards Taming Malware Mutation via Studying the Evolution of Metamorphic Virus Li Wang Dongpeng Xu Jiang Ming [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] The Pennsylvania State University University of New Hampshire University of Texas at Arlington University Park, PA 16802, USA Durham, NH 03824, USA Arlington, TX 76019, USA Yu Fu Dinghao Wu [email protected] [email protected] The Pennsylvania State University The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802, USA University Park, PA 16802, USA ABSTRACT KEYWORDS As the underground industry of malware prospers, malware de- Malware detection, metamorphic virus, binary diffing, binary code velopers consistently attempt to camouflage malicious code and semantics analysis undermine malware detection with various obfuscation schemes. ACM Reference Format: Among them, metamorphism is known to have the potential to Li Wang, Dongpeng Xu, Jiang Ming, Yu Fu, and Dinghao Wu. 2019. Meta- defeat the popular signature-based malware detection. A meta- Hunt: Towards Taming Malware Mutation via Studying the Evolution of morphic malware sample mutates its code during propagations so Metamorphic Virus. In 3rd Software Protection Workshop (SPRO’19), Novem- that each instance of the same family exhibits little resemblance to ber 15, 2019, London, United Kingdom. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 12 pages. another variant. Especially with the development of compiler and https://doi.org/10.1145/3338503.3357720 binary rewriting techniques, metamorphic malware will become much easier to develop and outbreak eventually. To fully under- stand the metamorphic engine, the core part of the metamorphic 1 INTRODUCTION malware, we attempt to systematically study the evolution of me- The malicious software (malware) underground market has evolved tamorphic malware over time.
    [Show full text]
  • The Botnet Chronicles a Journey to Infamy
    The Botnet Chronicles A Journey to Infamy Trend Micro, Incorporated Rik Ferguson Senior Security Advisor A Trend Micro White Paper I November 2010 The Botnet Chronicles A Journey to Infamy CONTENTS A Prelude to Evolution ....................................................................................................................4 The Botnet Saga Begins .................................................................................................................5 The Birth of Organized Crime .........................................................................................................7 The Security War Rages On ........................................................................................................... 8 Lost in the White Noise................................................................................................................. 10 Where Do We Go from Here? .......................................................................................................... 11 References ...................................................................................................................................... 12 2 WHITE PAPER I THE BOTNET CHRONICLES: A JOURNEY TO INFAMY The Botnet Chronicles A Journey to Infamy The botnet time line below shows a rundown of the botnets discussed in this white paper. Clicking each botnet’s name in blue will bring you to the page where it is described in more detail. To go back to the time line below from each page, click the ~ at the end of the section. 3 WHITE
    [Show full text]
  • Mcafee Potentially Unwanted Programs (PUP) Policy March, 2018
    POLICY McAfee Potentially Unwanted Programs (PUP) Policy March, 2018 McAfee recognizes that legitimate technologies such as commercial, shareware, freeware, or open source products may provide a value or benefit to a user. However, if these technologies also pose a risk to the user or their system, then users should consent to the behaviors exhibited by the software, understand the risks, and have adequate control over the technology. McAfee refers to technologies with these characteristics as “potentially unwanted program(s),” or “PUP(s).” The McAfee® PUP detection policy is based on the process includes assessing the risks to privacy, security, premise that users should understand what is being performance, and stability associated with the following: installed on their systems and be notified when a ■ Distribution: how users obtain the software including technology poses a risk to their system or privacy. advertisements, interstitials, landing-pages, linking, PUP detection and removal is intended to provide and bundling notification to our users when a software program or technology lacks sufficient notification or control over ■ Installation: whether the user can make an informed the software or fails to adequately gain user consent to decision about the software installation or add- the risks posed by the technology. McAfee Labs is the ons and can adequately back out of any undesired McAfee team responsible for researching and analyzing installations technologies for PUP characteristics. ■ Run-Time Behaviors: the behaviors exhibited by the technology including advertisements, deception, and McAfee Labs evaluates technologies to assess any impacts to privacy and security risks exhibited by the technology against the degree of user notification and control over the technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography [1] M Aamir Ali, B Arief, M Emms, A van Moorsel, “Does the Online Card Payment Landscape Unwittingly Facilitate Fraud?” IEEE Security & Pri- vacy Magazine (2017) [2] M Abadi, RM Needham, “Prudent Engineering Practice for Cryptographic Protocols”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering v 22 no 1 (Jan 96) pp 6–15; also as DEC SRC Research Report no 125 (June 1 1994) [3] A Abbasi, HC Chen, “Visualizing Authorship for Identification”, in ISI 2006, LNCS 3975 pp 60–71 [4] H Abelson, RJ Anderson, SM Bellovin, J Benaloh, M Blaze, W Diffie, J Gilmore, PG Neumann, RL Rivest, JI Schiller, B Schneier, “The Risks of Key Recovery, Key Escrow, and Trusted Third-Party Encryption”, in World Wide Web Journal v 2 no 3 (Summer 1997) pp 241–257 [5] H Abelson, RJ Anderson, SM Bellovin, J Benaloh, M Blaze, W Diffie, J Gilmore, M Green, PG Neumann, RL Rivest, JI Schiller, B Schneier, M Specter, D Weizmann, “Keys Under Doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data and communications”, MIT CSAIL Tech Report 2015-026 (July 6, 2015); abridged version in Communications of the ACM v 58 no 10 (Oct 2015) [6] M Abrahms, “What Terrorists Really Want”,International Security v 32 no 4 (2008) pp 78–105 [7] M Abrahms, J Weiss, “Malicious Control System Cyber Security Attack Case Study – Maroochy Water Services, Australia”, ACSAC 2008 [8] A Abulafia, S Brown, S Abramovich-Bar, “A Fraudulent Case Involving Novel Ink Eradication Methods”, in Journal of Forensic Sciences v41(1996) pp 300-302 [9] DG Abraham, GM Dolan, GP Double, JV Stevens,
    [Show full text]
  • Backdoors in Software: a Cycle of Fear and Uncertainty
    BACKDOORS IN SOFTWARE: A CYCLE OF FEAR AND UNCERTAINTY Leah Holden, Tufts University, Medford, MA Abstract: With the advent of cryptography and an increasingly online world, an antagonist to the security provided by encryption has emerged: backdoors. Backdoors are slated as insidious but often they aren’t intended to be. Backdoors can just be abused maintenance accounts, exploited vulnerabilities, or created by another agent via infecting host servers with malware. We cannot ignore that they may also be intentionally programmed into the source code of an application. Like with the cyber attrition problem, it may be difficult to determine the root cause of a backdoor and challenging to prove its very existence. These characteristics of backdoors ultimately lead to a state of being that I liken to a cycle of fear where governments or companies throw accusations around, the public roasts the accused, and other companies live in fear of being next. Notably missing from this cycle are any concrete solutions for preventing backdoors. A pervasive problem underlies this cycle: backdoors could be mitigated if software developers and their managers fully embraced the concept that no one should ever be able to bypass authentication. From the Clipper chip to the FBI and Apple’s standoff, we will examine requested, suspected, and proven backdoors up through the end of 2017. We will also look at the aftermath of these incidents and their effect on the relationship between software and government. Introduction: A backdoor has been defined as both “an undocumented portal that allows an administrator to enter the system to troubleshoot or do upkeep” and “ a secret portal that hackers and intelligence agencies used to gain illicit access” (Zetter).
    [Show full text]
  • Bots and Botnets: Risks, Issues and Prevention
    EMEA MSSD The Journey, So Far: Trends, Graphs and Statistics Martin Overton, IBM UK 20th September 2007 | Author: Martin Overton © 2007 IBM Corporation EMEA MSSD Agenda . The ‘First’ IBM PC Virus . Statistics, 80’s . Statistics, 90’s . Statistics, 00’s . Malware Myth-busting . Putting it all Together . Conclusions . Questions The Journey, So Far: Trends, Graphs and Statistics | Martin Overton © 2007 IBM Corporation EMEA MSSD Disclaimer . Products or services mentioned in this presentation are included for information only. Products and/or services listed, mentioned or referenced in any way do not constitute any form of recommendation or endorsement by IBM or the presenter. All trademarks and copyrights are acknowledged. The Journey, So Far: Trends, Graphs and Statistics | Martin Overton © 2007 IBM Corporation EMEA MSSD Brain . The very first malware written for the IBM PC [and clones] used ‘stealth’ to hide its presence[1]: . Here is a short extract from the description of Brain from F-Secure explaining how the stealth function it used works: . “The Brain virus tries to hide from detection by hooking into INT 13. When an attempt is made to read an infected boot sector, Brain will just show you the original boot sector instead. This means that if you look at the boot sector using DEBUG or any similar program, everything will look normal, if the virus is active in memory. This means the virus is the first "stealth" virus as well.” [1] Source : http://www.research.ibm.com/antivirus/timeline.htm [2] More data can be found here : http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/brain.shtml
    [Show full text]
  • Secure Network Design
    NUREG/CR-7117 SAND2010-8222P Secure Network Design Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material Non-NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access Documents available from public and special technical NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at libraries include all open literature items, such as NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and records include, to name a few, NUREG-series congressional reports. Such documents as theses, publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; from their sponsoring organization. bulletins and information notices; inspection and investigative reports; licensee event reports; and Copies of industry codes and standards used in a Commission papers and their attachments. substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at— NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC The NRC Technical Library regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of Two White Flint North Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 11545 Rockville Pike of these two sources. Rockville, MD 20852–2738 1. The Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office These standards are available in the library for Mail Stop SSOP reference use by the public. Codes and standards are Washington, DC 20402–0001 usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov originating organization or, if they are American Telephone: 202-512-1800 National Standards, from— Fax: 202-512-2250 American National Standards Institute 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Threats to Cyber Security Part 1 of 2
    Common Threats to Cyber Security Part 1 of 2 Table of Contents Malware .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Viruses ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Worms ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Downloaders ................................................................................................................................... 6 Attack Scripts .................................................................................................................................. 8 Botnet ........................................................................................................................................... 10 IRCBotnet Example ....................................................................................................................... 12 Trojans (Backdoor) ........................................................................................................................ 14 Denial of Service ........................................................................................................................... 18 Rootkits ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Notices .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 9 Steps to Protect Against Ransomware
    9 Steps to ProtectUsers/Devices Against Ransomware Home Security Dashboard Security Dashboard IT Support Analyst Task Overview Devices Vulnerability Scan With Vulnerabilities In Last 30 Days Security Manager Critical Security Dashboard 40 Devices 95 Not Scanned Self Service Important/High 85 Estimated Not Scanned 90 Devices 31 Scanned So ware Catalog Moderate/Medium 15% Launchpad 90 Devices Asset Manager NA 140 Devices So ware Asset Hardware Asset Inventory Scan Most detected Critical/High Vulnerables In Last 30 Days In Last 30 Days Sign Out MS15-080_MSU 70 Devices 169 Not Scanned 42 Scanned MS15-084_MSU White Paper 70 Devices 20% MS15-049_INTL 50 Devices MS15-049_INTL 50 Devices Contents Introduction . 1 Prevention . .. 2 1. Patch the critical operating systems and applications .................................2 2. Ensure that antivirus software is up-to-date and that regular scans are scheduled .......3 3. Manage the use of privileged accounts ..............................................4 4. Implement access control that focuses on the data ...................................4 5. Define, implement, and enforce software rules .......................................6 6. Disable macros from Microsoft Office files ...........................................6 Other considerations . 6 7. Implement applications whitelisting ................................................7 8. Restrict users to virtualized or containerized environments ............................7 9. Back up critical files frequently .....................................................7 Ransomware incidents are on the rise . Fight back! . 8 References . 8 This document contains the confidential information and/or proprietary property of Ivanti Software, Inc. and its affiliates (referred to collectively as “Ivanti”), and may not be disclosed or copied without prior written consent of Ivanti. Ivanti retains the right to make changes to this document or related product specifications and descriptions, at any time, without notice.
    [Show full text]