Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

So, Who Wrote Sobig?

Posted by Hemos on Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:00 AM
from the i'm-SO-BIG dept.
An anonymous reader writes "F-Secure's Virus Blog posted links to a 48-page technical study on who wrote the infamous Sobig worm which went around the world last year. The study is done by anonymous authors. The study concludes that author of this worm is a Russian programmer and goes out all the way to name him. This file has now been posted publicly but on Geocities and and Tripod. So you can have a look by yourself and make your own conclusions."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Mirror! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Emrikol (21551) * <emrikol@@@decarbonated...org> on Monday November 01 2004, @11:01AM (#10686217) Homepage
    I'm a whore! Mirror: HERE! [decarbonated.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 01 2004, @11:02AM (#10686226)
    Not me.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 01 2004, @11:03AM (#10686255)

    ...now been posted publicly but on Geocities and and Tripod. So you can have a look...

    Ummm, you realize that you're telling the entire /. community that they should look at Geocities and Tripod accounts, right? This should last, oh, about 5 seconds.

  • Kasperski (Score:5, Informative)

    by mirko (198274) on Monday November 01 2004, @11:05AM (#10686281) Homepage Journal
    A French magazine [acbm.com] named Kasperski, a former KGB agent and now an antivirus publisher.
    They said he happened to develop such things and then ask the major AV editors to bid in order to get the virus specs first...
    Not sure if it's that accurate but it will sure raise some tin-foil-heads interest...
    • Re:Kasperski (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gmuslera (3436) on Monday November 01 2004, @11:43AM (#10686845) Homepage Journal
      The old myth that says that the antivirus makers are the ones that are developing virus? I use AVP/KAV [kaspersky.com] since a decade ago, first in DOS and now in Linux, and is one of the best (if not THE best) available antivirus on the market.

      Even know someone that programmed a test virus long time ago, and sent to antivirus publishers to see how well it could be detected, and the response from the community of that time, specially the people from Kaspersky, was very against that kind of "tests", so is very improbable what you are telling there (and that includes too most of the other biggest players 10 years ago if the same is said about i.e. F-Prot or McAfee people)

      At least without hard proof (not just speculation or just urban myths) i would give that notice the same weight as that Bill Gates is sending big bucks to any that continues a chain letter.

        • Never was infected by a virus myself. But had a BBS whose files were checked against virus, worked in LANs where workers had not a lot of common sense sometimes, and avp is pretty good for checking for virus in mail servers (i.e. teamed up with anomy sanitizer [anomy.net]).

          To be "unprotected" from virus is ok if you have common sense, firewalls and safe software (i.e. windows is not in that category, and if well linux is pretty safe against virus, maybe is not 100% safe against worms), but when you talk about a lot o

  • by VC (89143) * on Monday November 01 2004, @11:05AM (#10686282) Homepage
    Ruslan Ibragimov of Russia
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 01 2004, @11:27AM (#10686568)
      Thanks! We didn't need to review any of the "evidence" and discuss their merits and authenticity. We just needed the bastard's name so we can hunt him down and stone him. Let's go folks! It's time to rid the world of this heathen!
  • Heh... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Blue-Footed Boobie (799209) on Monday November 01 2004, @11:07AM (#10686300)
    Kinda funny how the BSD devil up on the /. bar is looking at the worm...maybe he fears retribution?
  • There never seems to be any good American programmers who write malicious code and viruses like this. Ah well, where's Kevin Mitnick? :-P
    • by SonicBurst (546373) on Monday November 01 2004, @11:29AM (#10686598) Homepage
      I don't know if you read much code, but most virus code is horrible. Quite a bit of it is straight from a point-and-click virus builder, and the stuff that is hand written tends not to work as intended. Of course, I am talking about a virus, so maybe it works just like the author wanted it to for all I know....
    • There never seems to be any good American programmers who write malicious code and viruses like this.

      It all got outsourced to Asia.

  • Viruses for profit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tx (96709) on Monday November 01 2004, @11:15AM (#10686414) Journal
    Malware written for fun isn't any less damaging, I guess, but when apparently written specifically for a commercial purpose (sending spam in this case) it's certainly more annoying IMHO. At least if this case is anything to go by, there's likely to be more of a forensic trail left by the perpetrators due to the associated commercial activities. I hope this Ibragimov guy gets what's coming to him.
    • by Daedala (819156) on Monday November 01 2004, @11:36AM (#10686701)
      Malware for profit is worse.

      The problem isn't that professionals are necessarily better than amateurs at a task -- we know this isn't true. But being a professional allows you to work full-time on something. Many people are motivated by financial rewards (and egoboo doesn't put bread on the table, either).

      When a lot of money gets involved, organized crime gets involved, and they bring with them the infrastructure for serious misdeeds.

      I want my script kiddiez back.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 01 2004, @11:16AM (#10686418)
    One site was down before the story went active. The other shouldn't last long. The document is 48 pages. 26 are a hex dump. Here are two pages, sections 1 & 2, the Introduction and Overview. Pardon the messy text; I imported from PDF an fixed it up as best I could quickly.

    1 About This Document

    August 18, 2003 was a day of infamy in the world of computer software malware. The Sobig virus, as it was affectionately named by its the anti-virus industry, infected hundreds of thousands of computers within just a few short hours. W32.Sobig.F@mm was a mass-mailing, network-aware worm that sent itself to all the email addresses it could find, worldwide.

    Within two days after Sobig was released, an estimated $50 million in damages were reported in the US alone. China had reported over 30% of email traffic had been infected by Sobig, equivalent to over 20 million users! After interrupting freight operations and grounding Air Canada, Sobig went on to cripple computing operations within even the most advanced technology companies, such as Lockheed Martin. Sobig was so virulent that on November 5, 2003 Microsoft, in coordination with the FBI, Secret Service, and Interpol, setup the Anti-Virus Reward Program.
    Backed by $5 million from Microsoft, the program offered a $250,000 bounty for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the Sobig author. As the one year anniversary of the Anti-Virus Reward Program bounty for Sobig approaches, we felt this was an appropriate time to publicly release the current state of our Sobig forensic investigation. Appropriately, the authors of this document have chosen to release it anonymously for many reasons, some of which are:

    By releasing the information publicly, we hope to increase tips to law enforcement concerning the Sobig authorship and spur efforts toward apprehension of the malware author(s);

    This document shows how computer forensics can identify virus authors. The computer forensic methods demonstrated throughout this document have been utilized to successfully identify authors of other viruses as well;

    Our focus is the objective analysis of Sobig. It is our contention, position, and belief that associating this paper with any specific company, organization, group, or individual will only serve to detract from the investigation.

    The following public PGP key is provided for document validation, with the private key component safely locked away as to eliminate any future chance of a lost key pair. Any individual or entity that claims authorship should be able to validate their 'authorship' by signing a message with the corresponding PGP private key.

    The included PGP public key prevents unscrupulous people from claiming ownership of this document or attempting to collect the Microsoft bounty;

    As this document is present on multiple mirrored sites and has been turned over to law enforcement, anyone modifying the PGP public key will be unable to pass a fake key for potential bounty award;

    This PGP public key will only be included is this document. Other documents, where malcontents attempt to place our ownership on other findings, should be considered forgeries unless they include a message
    signed with the PGP private key.

    In the event that any individual or entity may be able to identify the authors of this document, we urge you to respect our request for anonymity.

    2 Overview

    Sobig was a virus specifically designed to aid the anonymity of spammers. Sobig opened up services that enabled spammers to relay their emails anonymously. Although publicly the motivation and author of the Sobig virus is unknown, through the use of forensics and profiling, we have identified a very likely suspect and motive. Our research indicates that Ruslan Ibragimov of Moscow, Russia, and/or Ibragimov's development team, authored the Sobig virus. Ibragimov himself is the author of Send-Safe, a bulk mailing tool product that was explicitly designed for sending unsolicited em
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Best deals: Worms
  • Coralized mirror (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Randar the Lava Liza (562063) on Monday November 01 2004, @11:16AM (#10686428) Homepage
    Why aren't all link submissions required to include a mirror? Ah well, here's the Coralized link [nyud.net]
  • Another mirror here [lafayette.edu]
  • by hex1848 (182881) on Monday November 01 2004, @11:24AM (#10686528) Homepage
    I glanced through most of the points the authors make in this document and most of the evidence (if not all) is circumstantial. Although there are a lot of similarities that could lead you to think that he did it, I don't think comparing the skill sets needed write the program to his newsgroup/forum posts and similarities in headers warrants an inquisition.

    Granted he should probably burn at the stake just for writing SPAM software...
    • by JASegler (2913) on Monday November 01 2004, @12:02PM (#10687163)
      If you actually read the PDF you would see that they compared the opcode sequences between sobig and various programs.

      The important bit is that when sobig was compared to Atomic Mail Sender (AMS) they didn't find much in the way of opcode sequence matches. What was there was standard glue code that just has to be there.

      When they compared sobig to Send-Safe they found big chunks of common code, strings, etc.

      And they don't say that Ruslan Ibragimov is the author. They say he and/or his development team.
      Assuming he has 4-5 developers working for him it could be one developer who swiped the Send-Safe code and used it to develop sobig. Although I would bet on Ruslan giving the nod on the development of sobig.

      This type of analysis is how people find GPL violations. Unless you take alot of effort to completely rearrange the code it keeps the same signatures, embedded strings, etc.

      The analysis appears to be sounds. LEA should use Ruslan as a starting point to track down the person(s) responsible for sobig.

      But since we are talking about spam tool/virus/worm writers I think the Aliens quote is best..

      I say we dust off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

      -Jerry
    • by analog_line (465182) on Monday November 01 2004, @12:07PM (#10687249)
      Well, you obviously didn't glance through all of the points, as you neglect to mention the opcode simmilarities, timeline of significant releases of both pieces of software and the activites of groups known to use Send Safe, and SoBig.

      Not to mention the exhaustive opcode comparison diagram at the end of the document.

      Circumstantial evidence, it may be, but that doesn't mean it's not valid. And what is forensics aside from a circumstantial investigation? Getting as many facts as you are able to directly observe in order to come to a logical conclusion about a question you can't directly observe the solution to.
  • Avast, slashbots! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by naitro (680425) <slashdot@gluon.se> on Monday November 01 2004, @11:25AM (#10686536)
    Let's all go visit [send-safe.com] the guy. Even if he didn't write Sobig, he's still developing software for spammers.
  • I wrote the virus which made the whole world cringe.
    I wrote the virus which screwed up things
    I wrote the virus that made system administrators cry
    I wrote the virus, I wrote the virus

  • Just... (Score:3, Funny)

    by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedyNO@SPAMtpno-co.org> on Monday November 01 2004, @11:30AM (#10686613) Homepage
    ...tell me what address to mail this...um...strangly ticking package to.
  • The anonymous authors have done really interesting technical forensics.

    The executable comparison charts between Send-Safe and Sobig-F in the appendix show a large correlation in both binaries. A different code base seems to be a pretty unrealistic thing there.

    If the given facts hold true, I bet that Ruslan Ibragimov will not sleep very well in the next time.
  • by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Monday November 01 2004, @11:59AM (#10687115) Journal
    Script kiddies using virus writing kits and punks putting graffiti on stop signs is at about the same level.

    What do you think of the notion that there are at least several really successful viruses that we never hear about, because they are more useful to the writer if they are not obviously annoying?

    Are all these zombie machines we hear about for rent to spammers infected with viruses that would be caught be common virus scanners, or are they truely different?

    • "What do you think of the notion that there are at least several really successful viruses that we never hear about, because they are more useful to the writer if they are not obviously annoying?"

      I think it's not very likely. It isn't the payload that necessarily gets viruses noticed. If a virus (well, technically a worm in this case) tries to exploit buffer overruns in remote services (as was done by worms like Code Red and Blaster), it's going to get caught by the log entries from failed intrusions.

  • I'm waiting (Score:5, Funny)

    by hchaos (683337) on Monday November 01 2004, @12:07PM (#10687251)
    I'm waiting for the study on who wrote the technical study on who wrote the infamous Sobig worm.
  • by Shambhu (198415) on Monday November 01 2004, @12:07PM (#10687258)
    Leaving aside the validity of their arguments for the time being (though I found them persuasive), I was wondering why exactly they felt the need to release this now. I think there are a few clues in the document:

    "Sobig was so virulent that on November 5, 2003 Microsoft, in coordination with the FBI, Secret Service, and Interpol, setup the Anti-Virus Reward Program. Backed by $5 million from Microsoft, the program offered a $250,000 bounty for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the Sobig author."


    And they add in a footnote to that sentence:

    "Ironically, our investigation into the identification of the likely Sobig author(s) and corresponding findings had already been concluded and passed on to law enforcement over two months prior to the Microsoft bounty offer. The bounty was not our incentive."


    So they say they had submitted their research prior to Nov. 5, '03. Why go public now? Though they don't say it, I can't help but think that it was frustration. Their own explanations for why they are going public seem thin to me.

    • Law enforcement had access to this report 14 months ago and yet Ruslan has still not been charged or arrested. At this point, it seems unlikely that he ever will be. If their is frustration on their part, it lays within this fact. Still, from the looks of it, they were sponsored to write this report and thus were paid. As they state, the "bounty was not our incentive." But nobody writes such a report or does this type of work for free. The only purposes releasing this report to the public serves now i
  • fairly convincing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mixmasterjake (745969) on Monday November 01 2004, @12:38PM (#10687803)
    The argument concering that he "had the skills necessary" to create the virus aren't really that convincing to me.

    The comparible code-base (unusual string concatanations that appear in both the virus and his commercial software) I suppose I *could* also overlook that because I know that a lot of developers copy code snippets from support pages and such. Especially for such generic functions as sending email.

    But, then throw in the fact that send-safe and the sobog virus have very consistent release schedules. That is a little suspicious.

    Not only that, but, if you remember when SoBig first came out - it was quite a long time after before people started to realize that it was creating spam proxies. send-safe was using those proxies even before the massive outbreak. Now that is kinda weird.

    So, when you add up all of those things, It seems convincing to me. Is it enough to raid his office computers?
  • by Tablizer (95088) on Monday November 01 2004, @01:16PM (#10688483) Homepage Journal
    I have only one question for virus writers:

    Has anyone ever gotten laid for writing a virus?
    • Re:motivation (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 01 2004, @11:14AM (#10686393)
      This is bs. The word linux did not appear once in the paper. Furthermore, all the other software written by him mentioned in the paper was windows software, mostly used for spamming.
    • Re:motivation (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 01 2004, @11:14AM (#10686403)
      5.4 Motive to Write Sobig Senders of spam typically relay their email messages through open proxy servers in a continuing effort to obscure the true sending host. With the proliferation of blacklists and other anti-spam systems, spam senders are finding it more and more difficult to locate available open proxy servers. By opening multiple proxy services on millions of compromised systems, a spam sender could very quickly and anonymously relay messages without the fear of being identified. Sobig provides the following two benefits for spam senders: 1. Sobig opens multiple proxy servers on systems that are not blacklisted; 2. Sobig spreads very quickly, infecting and re-infecting millions of systems in under a week. These benefits provide spam senders with a very large base of open proxy servers. Even though most of the infected systems will be cleaned within a week, there will be some systems that will remain infected to continually provide open proxies for weeks or even months. We believe that Sobig was most likely written to support spam software. Any user or developer of spam mailing software, including Ruslan Ibragimov and Send-Safe, would be financially eager to leverage malware such as Sobig.

      Doesn't say anything about linux as far as I can see....
    • MOD PARENT DOWN!!!!!!! MISINFORMATION.

      MODS: please, fucking read the article before you go on your modding spree.

      linux was not mentioned ONCE in the article. the motivation guessed(and reasoned) was creation of open proxies so the guy could sell more of his spam sending software. so purely financial.

    • Where did you get that idea? I admit didn't have time to read the entire paper thoroughly -- I just skimmed it -- but I don't see any anti-Windows sentiment discussed. They're pretty clear that they think the motive for SoBig was spam:

      5.4 Motive to Writing SoBig
      ......
      We believe that Sobig was most likely written to support spam software. Any user or developer of spam mailing software, including Ruslan Ibragimov and Send-Safe, would be financially eager to leverage malware such as Sobig.

      Writing viruse

      • Why is it always acceptable--preferable--to refer to anyone with a different belief than ourselves as a ``zealot''? This word is being way overused lately. ``Cease!'' sayeth the style police.

        I think that releasing a virus to achieve your ends qualifies one as a zealot. In fact, I would guess that the poster of the parent (this post's grandparent) thread is most likely not a Windows fan, so the underlying belief probably is not different, just what is perceived as acceptable means.

      • Because trying to destroy the opposition to your favorite operating system fairly well qualifies one as a zelaot.

        It has nothing to do with the differeing belief and everythign to do with his views of people who hold a differing belief
      • if they are that dedicated to the open source initiative, shouldn't they spend that time improving linux rather than writing viruses?

        Or, at the very least, release the source code under the GPL?
      • by phorm (591458) on Monday November 01 2004, @01:38PM (#10688880) Homepage Journal
        While many of the linux community aren't saints, the attitude-in-general towards viruses and their makers is negetive. You're not going to get a pat-on-the-back from the community for creating an anti-windows virus, you're going to get a kick-in-the-ass for dampening the reputation of the community. Furthermore if a bounty comes up for the virus it's likely somebody will turn you over if possible.

        MS would love to be able to state that linux programmers are behind virus attacks on windows, and most are smart enough to realize that.

        We don't love windows, but we're smart enough not to dirty our hands with viruses, partly because we hate viruses more than we'll ever hate windows (viruses/etc being in-fact one of the reasons for disliking windows)