From Gimmiv to Conficker: The lucrative MS08-067 flaw

Summary: GENEVA -- The critical MS08-067 vulnerability used by the Conficker worm to build a powerful botnet continues to be a lucrative security hole for cyber criminals.During a presentation at the Virus Bulletin 2009 conference here, a trio of Microsoft researchers dissected the malware attacks linked to MS08-067 and found that criminal gangs are still exploiting the flaw to plant data-theft Trojans on vulnerable Windows machines.

GENEVA -- The critical MS08-067 vulnerability used by the Conficker worm to build a powerful botnet continues to be a lucrative security hole for cyber criminals.

During a presentation at the Virus Bulletin 2009 conference here, a trio of Microsoft researchers dissected the malware attacks linked to MS08-067 and found that criminal gangs are still exploiting the flaw to plant data-theft Trojans on vulnerable Windows machines.

[ SEE: Eyeballing Conficker with eye-charts and maps ]

Even before the appearance of Conficker in November 2008, the Microsoft research team said three different malware families -- Arpoc, Gimmiv and Clort -- were already using the code execution hole to "test the effectiveness" of exploit code.

The researchers -- Elda Dimakiling, Francis Allan Tan Seng and Scott Wu --said the three malware families used different techniques and tricks to launch exploits copied from public Web sites like Milw0rm.com but it wasn't until the appearance of Conficker that the attacks took on a professional -- and sinister -- turn.

The first variant, Conficker.A, appeared on November 25 and generated 250 URLs that it checked for updates daily.

By December 2008, a second variant appeared with new propagation techniques -- spreading via removable and mapped drives, and network shares with weak passwords.  This updated worm also started blocking access to anti-virus and security-related sites.

Over time, a total of five Conficker variants would be launched, each more potent than the others, confirming fears by researchers that the industry was up against a very skilled, professional malware gang.

The Microsoft research team declined to provide hard statistics on the number of infections today but according to a spokesman for the Conficker Working Group, there are about five million Windows machines in the botnet.

Aside from Conficker, there are at least three different malware malware families using the MS08-067 exploit to spread, including a worm called Neeris that spreads via IM programs like Live Messenger and AOL Instant Messenger.

Another malware family, called Synigh, also spreads via instant messenger programs and contains IRC backdoor functionalities.

Several additional backdoor Trojan families such as Mocbot and IRCbot have added MS08-067 exploitation into their functionalities, proving conclusively that more than a year after Microsoft patched the flaw, there are still enough vulnerable machines to present a business model for malware purveyors.

"One of the main applications of the MS08-067 exploit is its use as a stepping stone for malware to do further damage by installing other threats," the research team said.  These threats include information-stealing Trojans, backdoors, spyware, adware and scareware (fake security software).

"Malware authors can make a large profit from this.  For example, attackers can sell important data stolen by the payload.  Remember that there are a high number of these attacks.  A small amount of money earned from each infected machine is amplified by the magnitude of its infection," the researchers explained.

"Huge amounts of money are involved."

More than a year later, MS08-067 is still very lucrative.

Topics: Malware, Security

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

58 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Danger Will Robinson, Danger.

    [i]By December 2009, a second variant appeared with new propagation techniques ? spreading via removable and mapped drives, and network shares with weak passwords. This updated worm also started blocking access to anti-virus and security-related sites.[/i]

    You either have a typo or a time machine. December 2009 hasn't come yet.
    Erroneous
  • Well this just proves..

    you cant fix stupid. This patch was released in 2008...nearly a year later we should NOT see issues like this if people are patching appropriately and letting Windows Update do its job.
    JT82
    • I'm just waiting for the talkbacks

      that explain how insecure Windows is and how this is all Microsoft's fault despite it being fixed for a year now. Then we'll hear how with OSX or Linux, even if they had the market share of Windows, could never fall victim to something like this. Of course the only way that might be true is if you don't give users an option for updates and just force them on the PC. Not sure what makes someone think that a person who ignores their Windows Update notifications or turns them off altogether would do any different on any other OS.
      LiquidLearner
      • This has nothing to do with Linux...

        or OS X. But it does show that MS is getting away with selling a product that puts millions of people in financial danger. If this was physical instead of financial danger MS would be sued until they didn't exist any longer. It is way past time for MS to be held financially accountable for the lack of due diligence they practice in making and selling their product.

        Obviously you have a fascination with Linux to bring it up out of the clear blue.
        bjbrock
        • And how are they doing that?

          "But it does show that MS is getting away with selling a product that puts millions of people in financial danger."
          ye
          • By selling a product that is...

            inherently unsafe to use. It not only puts the user directly in harms way but other people that may not even be using Windows simply by making it so easy for data to be compromised. And it is not like there are a hand full of issues. Month after month after month of patches. If you had a car that had this many safety problems it wouldn't be allowed on the road.
            bjbrock
          • Fix your tin foil hat...

            I think its slipping..
            JT82
          • How is it inherently unsafe?

            [i]Month after month after month of patches.[/i]

            Yet the total count is less than other operating systems (such as Linux and OS X). I assume you want to hold Apple and the Linux community liable too?
            ye
        • ERM... I think you need to check your facts..

          [i]"It is way past time for MS to be held financially accountable for the lack of due diligence they practice in making and selling their product."[/i]

          and maybe check the definition of "due dilligence". They are exerting due dilligence because they a) at [b]first[/b] run give [b]you[/b], the user, the option to select how you want to update your system. By default, Automatic is marked AND they say thats recommended. b) The update mechanisim, if enabled, pops up and tells you that updates are installed and shows their severity. Again, they present the [b]user[/b] with every opportunity in the world to update. If the user declines, refuses, or otherwise ignores it - MS, as much as you wish, will not ever be held accountable. They also offered the patch [b]before[/b] confiker had its 'hay-day'. Again, putting responsibilty squarely on the [b]users[/b] shoulders.
          JT82
          • Due diligence would negate...

            the requirement to patch (these are not updates they are patches, ie. fixing something that is broken) month after month after month in the first place. It is the number and frequency of the "patches" to start with that blows the due diligence. Not the fact that they let you choose how to patch. So if you are talking about patching you have already missed the boat.
            bjbrock
          • But then you would have to apply that to the entire software industry...

            Last I checked my Ubuntu box patches, my Vista box patches, my XP box patched, Mac patches, Adobe patches, need I go on?

            You have construed "due dilligence" horribly out of context and would lose if tried in any court. Professional software is written by teams and not every bug checker is 100%. Unless you could prove, beyond a resonable doubt, that MS has engaged in [i]intentionally[/b] leaving gaping holes to be exploited, its a non-starter. Oh and "beyond a reasonable doubt" is proving that they actually did this - not your opinion.

            Further, all the software vendors above (usually) release their patches in a reasonable time frame - thus satisfying due dilligence.
            JT82
          • Other operating systems don't patch?

            [i]Due diligence would negate the requirement to patch...[/i]

            That's odd because I could swear my OS X, Linux, and Solaris systems require patching.
            ye
          • Why do you keep bringing...

            other OS's into the discussion? I haven't mentioned anything about any of them. You did this very same thing the last discussion we had. I am very well aware of Linux's weaknesses and have discussed them as well - in the appropriate posts. I use Windows and I use Linux, both on a regular basis. This allows me to critique both from first hand experience instead of "he said, she said" FUD. You actually take it personally when someone criticizes Windows. Amazing.

            Linux's patching has nothing to do with Windows patching. Linux's strengths and weaknesses have nothing to do with Window's strengths and weaknesses. And they both have both.
            bjbrock
          • @bjbrock: You didn't answer the question. Let me repeat it for you:

            Other operating systems don't patch?
            ye
          • @ye: They all do as far as I know.

            I only use Windows and Linux, however, so that is all I could actually swear to.

            Now, answer my question(s). What does the patch cycle of other OS's have to do with my opinion about MS Windows and why do you always have to bring up Linux when the discussion is about Windows?
            bjbrock
          • I'm confused...

            Maybe I'm missing something, but you accept that other OSes patch yet Windows is at fault for... patching? Something all modern software does. Perhaps we should just not use computers at all anymore, pen and paper never require a patch. My adding machine has never required I patch it. Neither does an abacus, so we'll go back to that.
            LiquidLearner
          • @LiquidLearner: Sorry you are confused.

            I went back and reread all of my posts to see if perhaps I had stated that the other OS's were somehow doing a better job and that it was OK for them to leave security holes open when they shipped their product. I actually re-reread them. But as I had remembered their was no such statement. Not even a hint of such a statement.

            Perhaps the English language is just confusing to you.
            bjbrock
          • @bjbrock: LiquidLearner pretty much summed it up.

            And to address your follow up to his post. The confusion lies in your insistence that Microsoft is selling an inherently unsafe product because they issue patches for it while ignoring that every other operating system suffers the same issue. That's why we brought up Linux and OS X. If Windows is inherently unsafe so are Linux and OS X. Thus you should not only be calling out for Microsoft to be held liable but Apple and the Linux community as well. But you're not...are you?
            ye
          • @ye: Like I said originally,

            Microsoft is negligent when it comes to selling something as dangerous as Windows. And Linux has nothing to do with anything. Especially since this blog was about a specific, one of so very, very many, Windows security hole. If you feel the need to bring up Linux issues while the author is trying to have a discussion about Windows then you truly have a right to do so. Who knows, maybe there will be a Linux discussion arise shortly and all Linux fanbois can bring up Windows out of context.
            bjbrock
          • bjbrock...

            Okay, I get it. You think using any computer puts the user at risk. You think we should give them up and stop using any form of computing because software, being one of the most complex products humankind has ever produced, requires maintanence and updating to keep current against evolving security threats. I guess we should also give up bridges as they require fixing, roads require work, our homes even. We should perhaps live under the stars naked as even clothing makers don't do their "due diligence" as they wear out, have defects and eventually become unusable altogether.

            Windows undergoes more testing than any other single product ever made by people. Ever. In the history of our entire species. More man-hours are spent on that single piece of software than any other single device, vehicle, or other software package. To accuse Microsoft of neglect of any sort is absolutely insane, especially when the fact of the matter is we are now a year after the update that fixed the problem was released.

            Perhaps you can change the world though and enlighten us poor "fanbois". Please assemble a programming team and solve all the OS issues. Make one OS that [b]NEVER[/b] requires updating of any kind that will always be secure and adapt to any possible changes in future iterations of computing. And remember, no patches as that just goes to show how sloppy you are.
            LiquidLearner