ie8 fix
madison

Zero Day

Ryan Naraine, Emil Protalinski and Dancho Danchev

Koobface botnet enters the Xmas season

By | December 1, 2009, 10:04am PST

Summary: The Koobface botnet enters the Xmas season with a new holiday-themed YouTube page. In between, the botnet masters are clearly experimenting with new features. Let’s review some of them.

The Koobface botnet, one of the most efficient social engineering driven botnets, is entering the Xmas season with a newly introduced template spoofing a YouTube video page, in between enticing the visitor into installing a bogus Adobe Flash Player Update (New Koobface campaign spoofs Adobe’s Flash updater), which remains one of the most popular social engineering tactics used by the botnet masters.

What is the Koobface gang up to? Would they continue sticking to their true nature and rely on social engineering tactics, or would they start using active exploitation tactics such as client-side exploits?

Let’s discuss some of the new developments introduced on the Koobface front over the past week, and try to answer these questions.

  • Experimenting with client-side exploits - last week, for the first time ever,  the Koobface botnet started serving client-side exploits by embedding two iFrames on the hundreds of thousands of Koobface-infected hosts, for a period of several hours. Despite its reliance on outdated exploits used by the web malware exploitation kit in question, this does not automatically mean that their “infection optimization” strategy would go in vain taking into consideration the fact that a huge percentage of users/enterprises continue failing to properly manage their “software inventory”. Whether the gang would re-introduce the use of client-side exploits (drive-by download) remains yet to be seen, however, this move directly contradicts with the infection model of the botnet, which so far has been exclusively using social engineering tactics.

  • Constant diversification of legitimate services to abuse - in order to add additional layers of legitimacy, and increase its chances of bypassing reputation-based scanning mechanisms, the Koobface botnet is continue to put efforts into creating a self-sufficient botnet platform that’s relying on the abuse of legitimate services only. Case in point - a user clicking on a bit.ly link generated by the Koobface botnet, will get forwarded to the automatically generated Blogspot account registered with the help of an already infected with Koobface victim, which will then use a legitimate compromised site to finally load the Xmas season themed template from a Koobface infected host. A similar redirection will take place if the user clicks on the spamvertised Google News redirector, or Google Reader link pushed by the Koobface botnet.
  • Intensifying abuse of Bit.ly, the service strikes back - yesterday, Bit.ly, one of the most popular URL shortening services, which is also the service of choice for the Koobface botnet as of recently, has announced its intention to add additional layers of security by cooperating with Verisign, Sophos, WebSense in detecting malicious content using the service. The move will successfully position bit.ly as the URL shortening service with security in mind, taking into consideration the lack of such publicly acknowledged features in competing services, however, the sooner they implement it, the better, since the Koobface botnet masters have found a pragmatic way to trick users relying on bit.ly’s preview feature months ago - in order to return a legitimate and recent news item, the automatically generated Blogspot accounts syndicate the title of a recent news item from Google News. The click-through rate on a sampled Koobface-generated bit.ly link speaks for itself - over 500 clicks within a 24-hour period.

  • Skype propagation module in the works - Two weeks ago, security vendors have intercepted a new Koobface variant (W32/Koobfa-O), which revealed more details into the gang’s intention of abusing the Skype accounts of already infected victims, by spamvertising Koobface-service links to their Skype contacts. Interestingly, the sample was also collecting personal Skype data (HOMEPAGE, ABOUT, PHONE_MOBILE, PHONE_OFFICE, PHONE_HOME, CITY, COUNTRY, BIRTHDAY, FULLNAME, PSTN_BALANCE etc.) and sending it back to the botnet masters, in what appears to be the foundation for a targeted marketing campaign tailored to the market segments which they’re able to identify based on the collected data.
  • Skype, with its millions of users is naturally a target for separate scareware campaigns which have been detected while using the application recently.

All of these recent developments clearly indicate the gang’s intention to remain in business, as well as to continue maintaining its leading position in the scareware business model by pushing new scareware variants on each and every visit of Koobface-infected host.

Have you ever experienced a Koobface infection? Were some of your friends unknowingly spamming you with Koobface links, and did you tip them on the fact that they’re infected? Do you think that the social networks most affected by Koobface should take a more radical approach when dealing with Koobface-infected users for the sake of providing a better service to the entire user base? Or is it the ISP’s role to tackle the problem at its roots?

TalkBack.

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

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

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
77
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Koobface botnet enters the Xmas season
lovedong 12th Sep
Thanks so much! chanel bags
0 Votes
+ -
X This
WyseSky 1st Dec 2009
Thanks for the info Dancho and Happy X Year everyone! Did everyone have a good Xgiving day?
Not enough space for 'Christmas'?
0 Votes
+ -
Wow.
TheSickEmpire 1st Dec 2009
Seriously, who cares?
0 Votes
+ -
It seems
markflax 1st Dec 2009
you don't.

Good luck when watching YouTube videos, if you ever do.

Mark
pretending to have YouTube videos. If the
URL in your browser address bar starts with
"http://www.youtube.com/" then it is not serving
up this exploit.
0 Votes
+ -
The guy you just asked.
AzuMao 1st Dec 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Xmas has like, been used forever...
JCitizen Updated - 1st Dec 2009
as an accepted shortening of the term. Get over it!

History excerpt from following source:

http://www.crivoice.org/symbols/xmasorigin.html


"Abbreviations used as Christian symbols have a long history in the church. The letters of the word "Christ" in Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written, or various titles for Jesus early became symbols of Christ and Christianity. For example, the first two letters of the word Christ (cristoV, or as it would be written in older manuscripts, CRISTOS) are the Greek letters chi (x or X) and rho (r or R). These letters were used in the early church to create the chi-rho monogram (see Chrismons), a symbol that by the fourth century became part of the official battle standard of the emperor Constantine."
(Original greek lettering truncated because of HTML)

I have studied original documents from the early church that confirm this information. The 'P' symbol over the X was an indication of victory over death, by the understanding of the ancients.

Please don't make matters worse for us Christians; get educated and be tolerant like Jesus teaches.

Don't be another ignorant 'Religio-fanatic American Taliban'
0 Votes
+ -
Jesus also...
TTGIT Guy 1st Dec 2009
teaches us to not call other people names just because we don't agree with them, or don't like what they say.
0 Votes
+ -
I stand corrected...
JCitizen 1st Dec 2009
however it is getting so bad, I wouldn't blame folks for calling us terrorists next.

Dragging his name through so much politics and controversy is certainly not helping us either.
0 Votes
+ -
Amen.
AzuMao 1st Dec 2009
0 Votes
+ -
OK
Par-Pro 2nd Dec 2009
God and his kid have left the building
0 Votes
+ -
Not Quite Right
knoxbury 2nd Dec 2009
While your history may be accurate, your application of history is not. The majority of people today who use Xmas do not use it because of its original intent but because they want to eliminate the mention of Christ.

So we don't always look at original intent to determine whether something is "ok", we also need to look at current usage. The other word for donkey and the holiday of Halloween would also fall into this category.
0 Votes
+ -
Speak for Yourself
loydrock@... 2nd Dec 2009
My very unscientific survey, found that a majority of people use Xmas because it is shorter. The Atheist I interviewed said he didn't care which form people used as long as they sent presents.
0 Votes
+ -
What mention?
AzuMao 2nd Dec 2009
The majority of people today say it as "crissmis"
so there's not much mention of Christ either way.
In fact, I can't even remember the last somebody I
actually heard somebody say it as Christ-mass.
It was probably shortened for convenience.
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks so much! chanel bags
0 Votes
+ -
Back to the original subject...
phatkat 1st Dec 2009
no matter what time of the year it is, these idiots are trying to new ways to get our personal information so they can ultimately steal our money.
In short, beware of anyone that asks your personal information for no good reason.
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly.
AzuMao 1st Dec 2009
Letting down your guard just because it's a
holiday is a very bad idea indeed.
0 Votes
+ -
The idiots who, despite being told, or even having been infected in the past themselves, fail to ever learn that the bulk of this stuff requires they do something in order to become infected.

So this week it's Tiger Woods. One day it'll be "blue movies" starring a 19 year old "Hannah Montana."

People are predictably and reliably stupid. There will never be an end to malware because human nature will never change.
0 Votes
+ -
Unless..
AzuMao 2nd Dec 2009
..someday they make an OS capable of recognizing
malware and deleting it.


Although that's going to be tricky since DRM
technologies like StarForce have so much in
common.. hmm..
0 Votes
+ -
Please clarify..
AzuMao 1st Dec 2009
..which platforms can Koobface infect?

No point scaring people who aren't affected by this.
Please post a list.
0 Votes
+ -
Why would anyone be scared by this?
NonZealot Updated - 1st Dec 2009
Don't give root permissions to applications just because some site that kind of looks like YouTube asks you to. That is good common sense that applies to all platforms, wouldn't you say?

Also, keep your machine up to date:
Despite its reliance on outdated exploits
Since you are on record as saying that vulnerabilities don't count if they've been patched (though we've yet to determine if that standard only holds for FreeBSD), there is no reason for anyone to be scared of this, no matter what platform they've chosen to use.
0 Votes
+ -
Because of the article I guess.
AzuMao 1st Dec 2009
If you don't have an an answer to a question then
just ignore it.
The question was directed at whoever might know
the answer.

Also, please retract your libel. Thank you.
0 Votes
+ -
I did answer your question
NonZealot 1st Dec 2009
No one has any reason to be scared of this, no matter what platform they use.

And you are well on record as dismissing vulnerabilities if they've been patched. Sorry bud, that is your cross to bear. sad
  • Flagged
Koobface infect?" which you failed to answer in
your first reply, as well as your second one.

Also, please do not libel me further. It is rude
to say that someone is on the record of having
said something when they have not said it (or
anything equivalent to it). Not only that, it is
also illegal.
You wrote this:

No point scaring people who aren't affected by this.

My answer is that people who keep their machines updated and don't give root permissions to programs they download from sites that look like YouTube have nothing to be scared about.

It is rude to say that someone is on the record of having said something when they have not said it

And it is cowardly not to stand by what one has written. Are you a coward?
When it ends in a "?" it is a question. Thus, my
question was "which platforms can
Koobface infect?".



And it is cowardly not to stand by what one
has written. Are you a coward


I stand by what I have written. What I do not
stand by are things I haven't written, that you
state I have. Please remove them. Thank you.
0 Votes
+ -
Although if you weren't concerned about people being scared, I do have to wonder aloud why you bothered making the statement about how people might be scared. I addressed the content of your post as an entirety instead of focusing on one, unimportant question.

Again, there is no point in getting scared over this, no matter what the answer happens to be to your first question, as long as you keep your system updated and you don't give up your root password. While this doesn't answer your question, it makes the answer to your question moot. While a technical answer to your question might be "OS X" or "Linux" or "FreeBSD", the most helpful answer is "it doesn't matter, no need to be scared".

Please remove them. Thank you.

Sure, if you go back and edit your posts in the FreeBSD blog where you stated that vulnerabilities in parsing routines that allow for media files to execute code locally don't count if they've been patched. Do that and I'll remove my comments in my posts here. happy
0 Votes
+ -
Because
AzuMao 1st Dec 2009
I assumed that a significant minority of people
would be alarmed by headlines containing
"botnet", and that if it is mentioned who's
affected by this and who's not, that wouldn't
happen. Also, some people are simply curious,
for the sake of curiosity alone, but not enough
to research it themselves. If the article
included it they wouldn't have to.




Sure, if you go back and edit your posts in
the FreeBSD blog where you stated that
vulnerabilities in parsing routines that allow
for media files to execute code locally don't
count if they've been patched. Do that and I'll
remove my comments in my posts here.


That article just came out today, so I doubt I'd
forget having made such a post. But I'll humor
you and take a look if you tell me which one
you're referring to.
0 Votes
+ -
I assumed that a significant minority of people would be alarmed by headlines containing "botnet", and that if it is mentioned who's affected by this and who's not, that wouldn't happen

Yes, your concern for the mental well being of people is evident. I addressed it by saying:
1. Don't give root permissions to programs you download from sites that look like YouTube.
2. Keep your OS up to date.

There, now there is no need for that significant minority of people to be alarmed!!! So happy!

Also, some people are simply curious,
for the sake of curiosity alone, but not enough to research it themselves.


Then I guess my answer to those people is: if you cared enough, you would research it yourself. Anyone too lazy to do the required research obviously isn't that curious.

But I'll humor you and take a look if you tell me which one you're referring to.

There were several but all of them stated that FreeBSD could not be affected by buffer overflows in media parsing programs because the examples I gave where FreeBSD could be affected by buffer overflows in media parsing programs has been patched. Now, if you want to take the stand that an OS is immune to an attack vector because a single example of that attack vector had been patched... well... that won't end well for you. happy
0 Votes
+ -
Actually
AzuMao 1st Dec 2009
Just answer the question next time, okay? Or if you don't
want to answer it, then just ignore it. No need to try to
avoid it and give excuses not to answer it.


There were several but all of them stated that FreeBSD
could not be affected by buffer overflows in media
parsing programs because the examples I gave where
FreeBSD could be affected by buffer overflows in media
parsing programs has been patched. Now, if you want to
take the stand that an OS is immune to an attack vector
because a single example of that attack vector had been
patched... well... that won't end well for you.


Would you mind quoting whatever it is I said that you are
interpreting in this way? I went back and reread all my
posts in that thread, and all I found was you going on
about how even a local privilege escalation (which was
the only vulnerability mentioned in the article) was bad
news if an attacker gets their code running on the
system, me pointing out that this wasn't "as easy as it
sounded" and that "the user is already screwed" if
malicious code is running on his system, whether or not
it compromises the kernel. Then you went on to post some
links to buffer overflow exploits (I guess to imply that
it's easy to get your malicious code onto peoples'
systems and that thus the privilege escalation is a big
deal) but I responded saying they couldn't be used in
conjunction with it since they were for other OSs and/or
were fixed before the vulnerability mentioned in the
article came out, and that thus they did not prove
it was a real problem at all. I never said that they
weren't real vulnerabilities, just that it would be
physically impossible to use them to exploit the one
mentioned in the article, since they didn't exist at the
same time.
0 Votes
+ -
Hilarious!!
NonZealot Updated - 1st Dec 2009
No need to try to avoid it and give excuses not to answer it.

I didn't ignore it at all. I answered your post. You were concerned about scaring people. I addressed that concern. Sorry if my answer wasn't the one you were hoping to elicit. Maybe next time, when you have an answer already in mind, you could let us know?

just that it would be physically impossible to use them to exploit the one mentioned in the article, since they didn't exist at the
same time.


Then conficker was impossible, as are the drive-bys mentioned in this article since both attacks occurred after the vulnerability in question had been patched.

It is laughable that you assume that because a patch is out, that the attack vector has been closed. Your original statement in that blog was that the user must download the code manually to be affected by a local privilege escalation vulnerability.

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12691-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=72198&messageID=1396671&tag=col1;tbTools
Also, the only way to exploit this is by convincing the user to download and run your malicious code.

You wrote that and note the use of the word "only".

I replied by saying that no, this wasn't true, and used examples to back up how media files could be used to exploit buffer overflows in locally installed applications. My first example was for a different OS. You complained even though at that point, I thought we were still discussing the theoretical. I then showed you one that did affect FreeBSD. You said it couldn't be used since it was patched. That is the same as saying that it doesn't count. Your problem is that it does count and conficker proved that vulnerabilities patched months earlier could still be used. The drive-bys mentioned in this article prove that patched vulnerabilities can still be used because they have been patched as stated in this article. Patched vulnerabilities do count and can be used in conjuction with other vulnerabilities that have not been patched.

So, do you now want to admit that patched vulnerabilities count? If so, great! If not, then what I wrote about you believing that patched vulnerabilities don't count is absolutely true.
This symbol (?) is known as a question mark.
When placed at the end of a sentence, it means
that sentence is a question, rather than a
statement like if it ends in a "." like this one
does.

Now do you understand why this sentence is a
question and the above paragraph is not? If so,
go read my post again and answer the actual
question in it. If not, re read this post
until you understand the difference between "."
and "?".




And to your continued attempts to misinterpret
my post in the other, completely unrelated
article about FreeBSD.. like I said in the other
thread; if you run code that lets strangers
remotely inject malicious code into it, that is
the same as downloading the malicious code
directly and running it.
0 Votes
+ -
Answer the question
NonZealot 1st Dec 2009
So, do you now want to admit that patched vulnerabilities count?

Answer that simple question and we will have all of this sorted out. happy

As for the rest of your post, yawn, I stated that I addressed your post as a whole. You obviously wanted us to ignore everything but the subject. Sorry, I don't work like that. Like I said, if you had a specific answer in mind, share it with us! We are all dying to know! happy
0 Votes
+ -
I asked first.
AzuMao 1st Dec 2009
And answered first as well, which you would have
known if you actually read posts before replying
to them instead of just trolling.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, I guess it ends here then!
NonZealot 1st Dec 2009
I hope you eventually find out who should be terrified by this Koobface thing and maybe you can suggest to them that they just hide under their beds until it all passes.

Personally, I feel like my answer helped everyone, even those who might not be at direct risk from this particular attack. I don't care what OS you use, if you don't patch, you are vulnerable. Even you seem to agree since you quickly dismissed a patched vulnerability in FreeBSD as being totally unusable because, well, it had been patched! That logic only applies if you assume that everyone patches, which is all that I suggested here.

You also seemed to agree with my advice that you do not download code from sites that look like YouTube and install it on your machine since that was the crux of your FreeBSD apology: local privilege escalation vulnerabilities don't matter if you don't execute any code locally.

So in the end, you didn't get the anwer you wanted, but you also couldn't disagree that my answer addresses the concern you had that people may be scared of this attack.
0 Votes
+ -
NonZealot, at least tell me this.
AzuMao 1st Dec 2009
I won't hold it against you one way or another
in this argument (if it continues) or any future
ones. I just want to know.

Do you actually believe everything you've just
posted, or are you talking bullcrap on purpose?

I mean, like, do you really think that when
somebody asks a question, and you say something
unrelated, and they ask you to answer the actual
question, that they are "not getting the answer
they wanted" like you say, rather then having
their question ignored?

Like if you asked what my favorite color was,
and I replied with "pizza is awesome", it
wouldn't be that I failed to answer your
question.. it would just be that you "didn't get
the answer you wanted"?

And do you actually think that saying one
vulnerability can not be used in conjunction
with another is the same as saying that neither
vulnerability "counts"? Or are you just being
like that because you really want to annoy me
and can't think of anything else?

I'm not judging you I just want to know so I can
stop wasting my time if it's the latter, or try
to explain more clearly if it's the former.
0 Votes
+ -
I believe everything I've written
NonZealot 1st Dec 2009
As I'm sure you do.
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks.
AzuMao 1st Dec 2009
I'm sorry for getting mad at you. I thought you
were just screwing with me.
0 Votes
+ -
And here's yet another exploit for that OS
John Zern Updated - 1st Dec 2009
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=5010&tag=wrapper;col1

Oops, that wasn't a Windows based one.

My Bad.
Yikes, that's bad. At least with this Koobface thing, it can't infect you unless you willingly download the application, run it, and provide administrator credentials when prompted.
I thought it meant the user doesn't need to give
permission. Please clarify.
0 Votes
+ -
First off, the drive-by aspect of Koobface is preceeded by this comment:
its reliance on outdated exploits

So keep your OS up to date and you are immune to this, no matter the platform.

Now, you may not realize this but just because code is running on your system doesn't mean it has access to every part of the system. Processes run with certain privileges and depending on your browser and platform, they will run with different levels. For instance, Safari on OS X is the worst, giving drive-bys the exact same privileges as the current user. This puts every single personal document at risk. Firefox under certain Linux distros runs with AppArmor that does a lot to restrict what a drive-by would be able to do. IE under Vista and Windows 7 runs with so few privileges that not only does it keep your OS safe, it even keeps your personal files safe.

So drive-bys will run without permission on any OS. The question is: how much damage can they do? That will range from "a lot" on OS X to "very little" on Linux and Windows. Since "very little" isn't usually enough for malware authors, it usually works better for them if they can throw in a bit of social engineering and get the user to willingly offer up their root permissions.

I didn't realize I would have to explain that to you since most Linux users are quite familiar with this concept.

I also have to admit that it is hilarious to see you bring up drive-bys that have been fixed by patches when just a couple short hours ago you were explaining to us how patched vulnerabilities in FreeBSD don't count. I've never understood the ability to hold such blatantly obvious double standards. Kudos to you sir, you have quite the talent!
0 Votes
+ -
Re: every part
AzuMao Updated - 1st Dec 2009
Malware doesn't need to compromise the kernel,
get into ring 0, and virtualize the
entire
system
(ring -1) for it to be bad. Just compromising a
user-mode program like the browser is bad enough
already. Without even leaving the browser, it
already gets all the passwords for all the sites
you log in to, as well as any bank
account/credit card information you enter
through the browser, and any other sensitive
information entered into it.

Damages the OS itself really isn't very
profitable. Stealing personal information is.
Also, the browser is allowed to make outgoing
requests by whatever firewalls you have
installed, so it can be used as part of a DDOS
attack.



p.s.
Also, please do not make libelous statements
about me anymore. It is very immature and
detracts from the actual debate. I have never
said "patched vulnerability don't count" or
anything with similar meaning.
Thanks.
0 Votes
+ -
You asked a question, I answered
NonZealot 1st Dec 2009
Hmm, if you knew all of this then why did you ask the question you did? You are an odd fellow.

You also must remember that there are multiple attack vectors here. The first, and much more common, requires that the user download a "Flash upgrade", run it, and provide it with root permissions. That isn't a drive-by.

The drive-by, as mentioned in the article, used a vulnerability that has long since been patched. Now Mr. Libel, take a stand... do patched vulnerabilities count, in which case FreeBSD is vulnerable to local privilege escalation attacks in media parsers, or do patched vulnerabilities not count, in which case there are no drive-bys in this attack. Oh dear, this is going to be tough for you. sad
0 Votes
+ -
You answered something that I never asked, but
you didn't answer
the actual question, and still haven't.

Also you keep stating that the malware mentioned
in this article
(Koobface) requires root privileges.. but where
did you get this
information? Did you get confused by the
sentence "Or is it the
ISP?s role to tackle the problem at its roots?"?
That wasn't
referring to a privilege level on the operating
system, it was a
metaphor.

And the article didn't say all the
vulnerabilities were patched.
It linked to two (one 7 months old, one 3 months
old) and said
nothing about the rest, or how many others there
were. I don't
know if they are all patched or not. I was just
pointing out
your double standards (going on about a 5 year
old patched
vulnerability in the FreeBSD article, even
though it was local,
and the privilege escalation vulnerability
didn't exist back
then and thus couldn't have been exploited by
it) while claiming
that this one requires the user download and run
it and enter
his password, even though it can be installed by
a three month
old drive-by.
0 Votes
+ -
My answers to yet more questions
NonZealot 1st Dec 2009
Yawn.

Also you keep stating that the malware mentioned in this article (Koobface) requires root privileges.. but where did you get this
information?


I suppose it is possible that the "bad guys" created a trojan horse (which is exactly what this Flash Update is) that does not ask for root privileges but I think it is more likely that it does ask for elevated privileges. Maybe you could find out for us since you seem so concerned?

And the article didn't say all the vulnerabilities were patched.

The article says this:
its reliance on outdated exploits

If the exploits took advantage of unpatched vulnerabilities, they wouldn't be outdated. It also stated that these exploits were taken down after a few hours.

Whether the gang would re-introduce the use of client-side exploits (drive-by download) remains yet to be seen, however, this move directly contradicts with the infection model of the botnet, which so far has been exclusively using social engineering tactics.

This really does suggest that they do not take advantage of any vulnerabilities in any platform in order to spread their botnet.

But, let me challenge you the same way you challenged me when I brought up vulnerabilities in the FreeBSD post: link to these unpatched vulnerabilities you claim Koobface is using.
0 Votes
+ -
@NonZealot
AzuMao 1st Dec 2009
I suppose it is possible that the "bad guys"
created a trojan horse (which is exactly what
this Flash Update is) that does not ask for root
privileges but I think it is more likely that it
does ask for elevated privileges. Maybe you
could find out for us since you seem so
concerned?


You're the one who keeps claiming it as fact,
not me, so the burden of proof rests on you.

The article says this:
its reliance on outdated exploits

If the exploits took advantage of unpatched
vulnerabilities, they wouldn't be outdated. It
also stated that these exploits were taken down
after a few hours.


It doesn't say solely, and they could be
outdated simply because most people don't use
whatever is affected anymore.

This really does suggest that they do not
take advantage of any vulnerabilities in any
platform in order to spread their botnet.


Nice out of context quoting there. Here's the
whole paragraph;

Experimenting with client-side exploits -
last week, for the first time ever, the
Koobface botnet started serving client-side
exploits by embedding two iFrames on the
hundreds of thousands of Koobface-infected
hosts, for a period of several hours. Despite
its reliance on outdated exploits used by the
web malware exploitation kit in question, this
does not automatically mean that their
?infection optimization? strategy would go in
vain taking into consideration the fact that a
huge percentage of users/enterprises continue
failing to properly manage their ?software
inventory?. Whether the gang would re-introduce
the use of client-side exploits (drive-by
download) remains yet to be seen, however, this
move directly contradicts with the infection
model of the botnet, which so far has been
exclusively using social engineering
tactics.


As you can see, it clearly states that they have
already done so, and that whether or not they
continue to do so remains to be seen.

Oh, and this is totally irrelevant to your
little comparison, since the five year old
exploit your linked to for FreeBSD was
NEVER used in conjunction with the
vulnerability in the article. So it's actually a
failed comparison regardless, and you still
haven't answered the question.
0 Votes
+ -
I guess tenses kind of confuse you
NonZealot 1st Dec 2009
I wrote:
This really does suggest that they do not
take advantage of any vulnerabilities in any
platform in order to spread their botnet.


And you took great offense to that by replying:
As you can see, it clearly states that they have already done so

What? Huh? Seriously? I stated in my post that they had used old, outdated exploits in their attacks:
It also stated that these exploits were taken down after a few hours.

I wrote that so I obviously knew that they had been used for a while. Reread my post and the article and you will see that when I wrote: they do not take advantage of any vulnerabilities in any platform in order to spread their botnet, I used the present tense. That is 100% correct. In the present, they use, and I quote from the article: exclusively using social engineering tactics

Will it change? Who knows? You don't. For now, they don't use any vulnerabilities in their attacks. They did in the past. They may in the future. They don't right now.

You're the one who keeps claiming it as fact, not me, so the burden of proof rests on you.

Hey, I admitted that they might not ask for root privileges so no, I do not claim that as fact. So no, there is no burden of proof on me. You seem to believe that they don't ask for root privileges but you haven't stated that as fact either so there is no burden of proof on you either. However, you seem much more concerned about it which is why I suggested that you look it up. If you don't, it isn't any skin off my back, I don't care that much. happy

It doesn't say solely, and they could be
outdated simply because most people don't use
whatever is affected anymore.


Right, so we should be scared of unpatched vulnerabilities in products that we don't use any more? Are you serious?
0 Votes
+ -
You quoted one part of the paragraph,
completely, out of context, changing the whole
meaning of it to imply that it hasn't been done
when really it has and the question is whether
it will be done again.
Correcting your error (whether you made it on
purpose or by mistake) is not taking any
offense. It is simply correcting the error.

Yes they aren't right this second, but the point
is they have and may resuming doing so at any
moment. Where as in your comparison to the
FreeBSD "vulnerability", the five year old
exploit was never used to get the necessary
local access for it. So there is simply no
comparison. That's all I'm saying.



Hey, I admitted that they might not ask for
root privileges so no, I do not claim that as
fact. So no, there is no burden of proof on me.
You seem to believe that they don't ask for root
privileges but you haven't stated that as fact
either so there is no burden of proof on you
either. However, you seem much more concerned
about it which is why I suggested that you look
it up. If you don't, it isn't any skin off my
back, I don't care that much.


All you did was change "it does" to "it probably
does" (after several iterations).


Right, so we should be scared of unpatched
vulnerabilities in products that we don't use
any more? Are you serious?


If you continue to refuse to actually read posts
before replying to them, I'm not going to keep
wasting my time on you. I didn't say nobody uses
them anymore.
0 Votes
+ -
Explain yourself
NonZealot 1st Dec 2009
You quoted one part of the paragraph, completely, out of context, changing the whole
meaning of it to imply that it hasn't been done


Serious question, what exactly did you think I meant when I wrote:
It also stated that these exploits were taken down after a few hours.

If you read that to mean I believed it never happened, well, I guess I won't waste my time with you any more. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but I wrote what I meant and meant what I wrote. They are not currently using any vulnerabilities in their attacks. They did for a couple hours, as the article stated, and as I stated very clearly. They then stopped using them. If I was unclear, I apologize but I always knew these exploits had been used and I state, with confidence, that they are currently not being used. I have no idea if they will be used in the future and neither do you. My position on this has not changed.

All you did was change "it does" to "it probably does" (after several iterations).

I probably did. I apologize. I do not know for a fact that they ask for root privileges. I only go based on experience and so far, nearly every single trojan ever released has asked the user for elevated privileges. This one could be different. Barring clarification, I will continue to believe that this trojan follows the pattern as laid out by tens of thousands of trojans that pre-date it. Fair enough?

I didn't say nobody uses them anymore.

No, you said: simply because most people don't use whatever is affected anymore.

Then I guess most people have absolutely nothing to worry about from this! After all, that is what this is all about, right? You are concerned about how much fear might be lurking in the hearts of people reading this blog? Good to know that you believe this is exploiting stuff that most people don't use. happy

Join the conversation!

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]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix