madison

Zero Day

Ryan Naraine and Dancho Danchev

10 things you didn't know about the Koobface gang

By | February 23, 2010, 9:30am PST

Summary: The intensive multitasking on behalf of the Koobface gang, next to the fact that the Koobface botnet is the tip of the iceberg for their malicious operations, prompts the publishing of this top 12 things you didn’t know about the Koobface gang list.


Click here to see a gallery of Koobface pranks

With Koobface continuing to spreading across Facebook by utilizing hundreds of compromised sites as infection vectors, next to using them as distributed hosting infrastructure in an attempt to undermine potential take down activities, a common misconception regarding the gang’s activities shifts the attention from their true participating within the underground ecosystem.

The intensive multitasking on behalf of the Koobface gang, next to the fact that the Koobface botnet is the tip of the iceberg for their malicious operations, prompts the publishing of this top 10 things you didn’t know about the Koobface gang list.

Some are funny, others are disturbing,  the majority indicate a cybercrime ecosystem that actively keeps itself up-to-date with the very latest research profiling it, by reading the blogs of security vendors and researchers.

01. The gang is connected to, probably maintaining the click-fraud facilitating Bahama botnet

In September, 2009, researchers from ClickForensics established an interesting connection between the Bahama botnet — the name comes from the 200,000 parked domain sites located in the Bahamas where they were redirecting the traffic to — between what I refer to as my “Ukrainian fan club” due to the offensive messages they were including in the redirectors every time I exposed and shut down one of their campaigns.

Malware samples pushed by the Koobface botnet, were modifying HOSTS file on the infected hosts, in an attempt to redirect the user into a bogus Google featuring pharmaceutical ads, as well as related cybercrime-friendly search engines in order to monetize the hijacked traffic. The “Ukrainian fan club” itself, appears to be the blackhat SEO department for the Koobface gang, whose connections to the following campaigns, as well as the multiple connections linking it to the then centralized Koobface infrastructure, resulted in the take down of the Koobface-friendly Riccom LTD - AS29550 in December, 2009.

How did the gang respond? With a bold sense of humor.

02. Despite their steady revenue flow from sales of scareware, the gang once used trial software to take a screenshot of a YouTube video

Just when you start thinking that quality assurance is daily routine for these botnet masters, imagine my surprise when an October, 2009 spoof of YouTube page, was actually a screenshot taken by using a trial version of the HyperSnap.

The result? A “Created with HyperSnap 6. To avoid this stamp, buy a license” at the bottom of the screenshot, shown to everyone visiting a Koobface infected hosting serving it. The entire YouTube spoof was basically a screenshot taken from a legitimate video page, with the spoofed Adobe error message, being the only part of it that was clickable.

03. The Koobface gang was behind the malvertising attack the hit the web site of the New York Times in September

Data and real-time OSINT (open source intelligence) analysis speaks for itself. With ClickForensics establishing a connection between my “Ukrainian fan club” the Bahama botnet, and the malvertising attacks, the assessment of the incident further confirmed this connection based on historical OSINT gathered from their previous blackhat SEO campaigns.

The Koobface/Ukrainian fan club connection? The same redirector used in the NYTimes malvertising attack, was not only simultaneously found on Koobface infected hosts, but was also profiled a month earlier in the “Dissecting the Ongoing U.S Federal Forms Themed Blackhat SEO Campaign“, a blackhat SEO campaign maintained by them.

04. The gang conducted a several hours experiment in November, 2009 when for the first time ever client-side exploits were embedded on Koobface-serving compromised hosts

With Koobface representing a case-study on successful propagation across social networking sites, relying on social engineering only, in November, for the first time ever, they conducted an experiment lasting several hours, where client-side exploit serving iFrames were embedded on Koobface infected hosts.

Sampled exploits included VBS/Psyme.BM; Exploit.Pidief.EX; Exploit.Win32.IMG-WMF, moreover, despite the Koobface gang’s claim — more on that claim and their bold sense of humor in an upcoming poing — on the very same IP hosting the exploit serving domain, there was an active Zeus crimeware campaign.

By embedding these particular domains, the gang also exposed an affiliation with an author of a popular web malware exploitation kit. Whether the experiment was meant to test its exploitation capabilities before the gang would start serving exploits permanently remains unknown. A few hours after their experiment was exposed, they suspended it.

05. The Koobface gang was behind the massive (1+ million affected web sites) scareware serving campaign in November, 2009

Remember the massive blackhat SEO campaign from November, 2009, where 1+ million web sites were found compromised and serving scareware?

Real-time monitoring of the campaign, and cross checking the data with real-time monitoring of Koobface activity revealed an interesting observation. The redirectors embedded on the compromised web sites, are also the same redirectors found on Koobface infected hosts, both pushing scareware.

Are Mac OS X users left behind? –>

Topics

Dancho Danchev is an independent security consultant and cyber threats analyst, with extensive experience in open source intelligence gathering, malware and cybercrime incident response.

Disclosure

Dancho Danchev

More details on Dancho Danchev's current and past professional affiliations, can be found in his LinkedIn profile.

Biography

Dancho Danchev

Dancho Danchev is an independent security consultant and cyber threats analyst, with extensive experience in open source intelligence gathering, and cybercrime incident response. He's been an active security blogger since 2007, and maintains a popular security blog sharing real-time threats intelligence data with the rest of the community on a daily basis. More details on Dancho Danchev's current and past professional affiliations, can be found in his LinkedIn profile. You can also follow him on Twitter

Talkback Most Recent of 82 Talkback(s)

  • Set your firewalls to stun.. block executable downloads
    Doesnt matter how they attack your PC, if they cannot download the executable, they are dead in their tracks.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Been_Done_Before
    23rd Feb 2010
  • ZDNet Gravatar
    AzuMao
    23rd Feb 2010
  • Damn right!!
    Linux CAN'T EVER be infected because Linux users are smarter then Windoze users.

    We don't click on neferious links that install executables!!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Ron Bergundy
    23rd Feb 2010
    • Flagged
  • ????
    There can't even be any "links that executables" to click on; the default for a newly created file is to be non-executable. So I'm not sure what your post is trying to
    get across, sorry. o_O
    ZDNet Gravatar
    AzuMao
    23rd Feb 2010
  • Maybe your new?
    Even the other Linux die hards ignore that guy.

    This guy even has multiple accounts on here and he'll post something then have his other account complament himself for something then agree with what he's saying.

    Pretty much read what he says for a laugh then move on.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Cobra7fac
    23rd Feb 2010
  • LInux in the screen name
    It's probably best to just ignore posters with Linux as part of their screen name. Mostly they just post drivel.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Bill4
    24th Feb 2010
  • you know what he's trying to say
    yet...your being a little extreme

    fail.

    a redirect is a redirect.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    pcguy777
    24th Feb 2010
  • ZDNet Gravatar
    *Gman*
    24th Feb 2010
  • ZDNet Gravatar
    ItsTheBottomLine
    24th Feb 2010
  • to be fair, give windows users a better net-security conscience
    After two dozen XP rebuilds for 2009 and total 4 so far in 2010, I can say with 100% certainty that most of the general population of windows users are determined to bypass any security mechanisms to install socially-engineered malware disguised as friendly email "click-me's".

    It is akin to the big, red button that states "do not push!". I ask "Why did you push it?" - response usually equates to "because it was there".

    Most low-end desktops are dual-core overkill for the typical net user, so much power they can seamlessly run whatever linux distro under virtualbox as an internet appliance, but it's an inconvenience for them.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    ~doolittle~
    24th Feb 2010
  • good idea thanks.
    running linux for web surfing, on vmware, or virtual sunbox etc.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    pcguy777
    24th Feb 2010
  • That is the general culture among Windows users, yes, but not by..
    ..mere coincidence.

    I'm not sure if you've really used Windows
    before, because if you had, you'd know that in
    Windows, if you want to install something, you
    search around all over the place, download some
    file from some website you've never heard of,
    and run it. So of course Windows users will be
    used to downloading random crap from randomly
    places and running it.

    Where as most Linux distros have these things
    called "repositories" where everything you could
    ever want and then some is located all in one,
    verified place, and cryptographically signed to
    prevent someone in between you and the server
    modifying stuff while you're downloading it. You
    don't go to some website and click on a file and
    run it. Files aren't even executable by default.
    The culture is completely difference, it isn't
    just a matter of coincidence.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    AzuMao
    24th Feb 2010
  • comparing grandmas and frogs ...
    There's very little threat of somebody "modifying stuff while you're downloading it" ... that's actually quite an absurd notion. Hackers and spreaders of malware don't need to bother intercepting anything enroute, cause it's so easy to trick ignorant users into downloading malware or other foolishness in direct and simple manners such as phishing. Actual redirection is very very rare ... mostly the fools are going directly to malware sites out of their own ignorance.

    The vast majority (probably around 5-nines) of internet-based repositories of Windows executable programs are completely legit and wholly uninfected while serving up cheap goodness. Why are you down on that?

    Are you telling me you really do the whole MD5 hash checking for every damn file you download? Absurd. Nobody does that except for the most anal-retentive nerdniks with nothing better to do with their time.

    I've run various flavors of linux on various pc's from time to time just to explore & experience the "other side" and I have never found any repositories of "everything you could ever want" ... the number and variety of user-oriented (i.e., non-IT) software for linux utterly pales in comparison to what's available for Windoze users.

    General PC users will never switch to linux until the vast majority of distros & apps are regularly delivered as 'one click install' packages like windows-based stuff, with all necessary configuration issues (especially drivers) included and set. Mom & pop don't want to be bothered with trying to understand hash sums, make files, and especially don't want to have to troubleshoot driver problems. They want shyte to work right outa the box without any effort, and linux still can't do that.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Tivolier
    24th Feb 2010
  • "it's so easy to trick ignorant users into downloading malware or other foo
    lishness in direct and simple manners such as phishing"

    In the Windows world, yes.


    In the Linux world, people aren't used to downloading files off of random websites, making them executable (you can't run them by default), and running them.


    Meaning that in-transit would be an easier window to target. But that too is impervious.


    The vast majority (probably around 5-nines) of internet-based repositories of Windows executable programs are completely legit and wholly uninfected while serving up cheap goodness. Why are you down on that?

    Because the vast majority of Windows software is downloaded on a per program, per site basis. Not from Windows.com or some other trusted authority.

    Are you telling me you really do the whole MD5 hash checking for every damn file you download? Absurd. Nobody does that except for the most anal-retentive nerdniks with nothing better to do with their time.

    That question demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of basic security procedures.

    For one thing, MD5 has been broken for a long time.
    For another, where would you get the MD5 hash from.. the very connection that isn't trustworthy?
    For a third, putting the above two aside.. why would the check be manual (done by the user)?

    True repositories, used by Linux like OSs, are encrypted end-to-end from the beginning. Any modification of in-transit data would result in random, useless data. Think HTTPS, but implemented in the OS directly, not the browser.

    I've run various flavors of linux on various pc's from time to time just to explore & experience the "other side" and I have never found any repositories of "everything you could ever want" ... the number and variety of user-oriented (i.e., non-IT) software for linux utterly pales in comparison to what's available for Windoze users.

    That exists, I mean. Obviously you won't find a repository with DiRT 2, since a Linux version of it wasn't made. This is the fault of whoever develops the program, not Linux. Just like it isn't the fault of Windows that it can't run AppArmor.


    General PC users will never switch to linux until the vast majority of distros & apps are regularly delivered as 'one click install' packages like windows-based stuff, with all necessary configuration issues (especially drivers) included and set. Mom & pop don't want to be bothered with trying to understand hash sums, make files, and especially don't want to have to troubleshoot driver problems. They want shyte to work right outa the box without any effort, and linux still can't do that.

    It's called the Synaptic Package Manager.

    Have you used a Linux distro
    in this millennium (relevant part bolded)?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    AzuMao
    24th Feb 2010
  • Have I used linux this millenium?
    Yes, several. I've been trying it out about once every other year for the past decade. My latest experiment was Ubuntu. Very pretty, but couldn't get online coz it didn't have the right drivers for my wireless network card, and I'm just not inclined to figure it out. Reboot to windoze, delete Ubuntu.

    I've run linux in a VM thereby avoiding the hardware compatibility and driver issues, but like others have pointed out that just adds overheard slowing things down while not eliminating the risks of the host os, so there's really no benefit to doing that.

    I'm not against linux, and I will continue to play with it coz I think it's neat. I can easily see it being used as a standard office platform, since in that environment you should have some professional IT support anyways, and linux would be easier to manage than windows in that environment.

    I'm just saying I don't believe it will be most folks first choice for their home pc's until it becomes as easy to use & manage (from a casual user standpoint) as Windows.

    But just to keep this posting somewhat on-topic, my main point was that the vast majority of risks within the Windows world are due to user ignorance, not to any inherent flaw in Windows. If Linux had as wide a user base as Windows, then hackers would be working overtime to compromise it. Browser-based attacks can be developed for any OS, and I seriously doubt that linux can't be hacked.

    Cheers happy
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Tivolier
    25th Feb 2010

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
Click Here
Click Here

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
Click Here