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.
- Googling for Conficker clean-up information? Be careful
- Researchers make Conficker breakthrough
- CBS 60 Minutes covers Conficker, malware epidemic
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.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Danger Will Robinson, Danger.
You either have a typo or a time machine. December 2009 hasn't come yet.
Well this just proves..
I'm just waiting for the talkbacks
This has nothing to do with Linux...
Obviously you have a fascination with Linux to bring it up out of the clear blue.
And how are they doing that?
By selling a product that is...
Fix your tin foil hat...
How is it inherently unsafe?
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?
ERM... I think you need to check your facts..
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.
Due diligence would negate...
But then you would have to apply that to the entire software industry...
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.
Other operating systems don't patch?
That's odd because I could swear my OS X, Linux, and Solaris systems require patching.
Why do you keep bringing...
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: You didn't answer the question. Let me repeat it for you:
@ye: They all do as far as I know.
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?
I'm confused...
@LiquidLearner: Sorry you are confused.
Perhaps the English language is just confusing to you.
@bjbrock: LiquidLearner pretty much summed it up.
@ye: Like I said originally,
bjbrock...
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.