Slashdot Log In
Estonian ISP Shuts Srizbi Back Down, For Now
Posted by
kdawson
on Friday November 28, @08:16AM
from the informal-pressure dept.
from the informal-pressure dept.
wiedzmin writes "In response to the recent resurrection of the Srizbi botnet, an Estonian ISP has shut down the hosting company that was housing its new control servers. Starline Web Services, based in Estonia's capital Tallinn, had become the new home for the Srizbi botnet control center after the McColo hosting company (which was taken down earlier this month) has briefly come back to life last week, allowing the botnet to hand-off control to the Estonian network. After Estonia's biggest ISP Linxtelecom demanded that Starline Web Service be taken offline, the newly acquired Srizbi control servers went down with it. However, as the rootkit is armed with an algorithm that periodically generates new domain names where the malware then looks for new instructions, it is only a matter of time before a new set of control servers is created and used to manipulate one of the biggest spam botnets in the world."
Related Stories
[+]
McColo Takedown, Vigilantes Or Neighborhood Watch? 194 comments
CWmike writes "Few tears were shed when alleged spam and malware purveyor McColo was suddenly taken offline last Tuesday by its upstream service providers. But behind the scenes of the McColo case and another recent takedown of Intercage, a ferocious struggle is taking place between the purveyors of Web-based malware and loosely aligned but highly committed groups of security researchers who are out to neutralize them. Backers claim that the effort to shut down miscreant ISPs is needed because of the inability of law enforcement agencies to deal with a problem that is global in nature. But some question whether there is a hint of vigilantism behind the takedowns — even as they acknowledge that there may not be any other viable options for dealing with the problem at this point."
[+]
McColo Briefly Returns, Hands Off Botnet Control 242 comments
A week ago we discussed the takedown of McColo (and the morality of that action). McColo was reportedly the source of anywhere from 50% to 75% of the world's spam. On Saturday the malware network briefly returned to life in order to hand over command and control channels to a Russian network. "The rogue network provider regained connectivity for about 12 hours on Saturday by making use of a backup arrangement it had with Swedish internet service provider TeliaSonera. During that time, McColo was observed pushing as much as 15MB of data per second to servers located in Russia, according to ... Trend Micro. The brief resurrection allowed miscreants who rely on McColo to update a portion of the massive botnets they use to push spam and malware. Researchers from FireEye saw PCs infected by the Rustock botnet being updated so they'd report to a new server located at abilena.podolsk-mo.ru for instructions. That means the sharp drop in spam levels reported immediately after McColo's demise isn't likely to last."
[+]
Massive Botnet Returns From the Dead To Spam On 204 comments
CWmike writes "Gregg Keizer reports that the big spam-spewing Srizbi botnet, shut down two weeks ago when McColo was shuttered, has been resurrected and is again under the control of criminals, security researchers said today. As of late Tuesday, infected PCs were able to successfully reconnect with new command-and-control servers, which are now based in Estonia, said Fengmin Gong, chief security content officer at FireEye. The comeback confirms what researchers noted last week, that Srizbi had a fallback strategy. So, in the end, that strategy paid off for the criminals who control the botnet."
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Algorithm (Score:5, Interesting)
However, as the rootkit is armed with an algorithm that periodically generates new domain names where the malware then looks for new instructions . . .
Couldn't the registrars run that algorithm ahead of time and ban (or track down) new registrations for those domains?
Reply to This
Re:Algorithm (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... or get White Hat control servers in place that NUKE THE ZOMBIES FROM ORBIT?
Enough with the defence. Don't the NSA and DOD have people whose job this is? If they can't deal with Srizbi, how are they going to deal with a real attack?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Algorithm (Score:4, Informative)
Still, it might be worth registering all those domains until someone determines the private key, so a 'good guy' can give the bots a suicide pill.
-David
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Algorithm (Score:5, Informative)
Feasible, algo is described here:
http://blog.fireeye.com/research/2008/11/technical-details-of-srizbis-domain-generation-algorithm.html [fireeye.com]
Reply to This
Parent
How about we work together on this? (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone publishes the list of all the domains that Srizbi will go to for instructions for the next few years, we can all buy one each and stop the spammers from ever regaining control.
Reply to This
Re:How about we work together on this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah coz no-one here would take control of a hugely profitable bot-net given the chance???
Reply to This
Parent
Arrest them ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good, but I'd be happier if the people involved had been arrested. Surely there must be enough information out there to trace the controllers of this bot net by now.
Rich.
Reply to This
Think (Score:5, Insightful)
To all the people who are saying "just take the botnet down with that control system", this isn't always possible.
Think, for instance, of a virus that not only has this sort of "find my controller" system but that, when it finds instructions, checks an attached PGP public key to ensure their integrity and that they came from the original author. If this particular virus doesn't have it, the next breed will. That makes it completely immune to "false" updates, in the same way that Linux repositories and Windows Update are... unless you have the private key associated with that virus' creation, you can't issue an update that it will take notice off.
You can't stop things like this by just intercepting the botnets... you can slow them, hinder them, give you time, but there are ways around everything. The way to stop it is to SHUT OFF USERS who have those botnets, who have allowed their computers to be compromised. Permanantly. Give them the incentive to actually keep their systems clean. They can move to another ISP etc. but the only way to stop them is to show them that leaving their PC open to infection is the problem here, along with an OS that allows that sort of compromise to be so easy, and not that some kid in Russia is somehow smarter or more resourceful than the entire world's IT experts.
I don't know if this worm actually does have a signed update system, but it's a very easy thing to do, with tons of well-audited, open-source, freely available code to do it for you. I would be very surprised if some malware somewhere wasn't already doing it.
Reply to This
Is this that Estonia? (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember recently that they accused Russians or Chinese or whatever for attacking their government sites and kind of they created some serious cyberforce after these attacks?
Kind of makes me wonder. How is this possible to have some serious cyberforce and not able to shut botnet which originates from your own country. Smelling bullshit somewhere.
Reply to This
Guinness World Record? (Score:4, Funny)
In essence this is the largest game of Wack-A-Mole ever played.
Reply to This
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:5, Interesting)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd love to see that too. Spoofing traffic on IRC is easy. But the problem is the commands must be signed using the bot herder's private key. It's apparently a very large key, (1024 BYTE iirc) and no one has managed to break it yet.
I bet there are several groups working on them though. Problem is, each time the herder pushes an update, they could rekey it, placing everyone's break attempts back on square 1.
My PERSONAL preference here is that the command sent should cause the participating computers to post a notice on the user's screen telling them they've been owned, that their computers have been being used to harm the public, and that they (the computers) have been rendered inactive and they'll have to take the computer into the shop for repair. (because no doubt they're infested with more than just this botnet) Some may say that's going too far, but imho, it's completely reasonable. They should share some of the responsibility for the actions of their computer after allowing it to be hijacked and being used to abuse ME. How about it just delete their NIC drivers and post the message?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:5, Funny)
> How about it just delete their NIC drivers and post the message?
Formating hard disks and writing a message to the boot sector will be a bit more efficient than this. Remember, a clean install in case of an infection is recommended even by Microsoft.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but a good 90% of the public doesn't have the skills to do this. And while as a PC repairman I wouldn't mind the extra business, in this shitty economy there are going to be plenty that can't afford to take it in, especially if all they have in their area is the ID10Ts at Worst Buy.
My solution would be this: Since most of us believe in OSS, and I am sure that many FLOSS guys read Slashdot, why can't we get together to help those infected Windows users and thus help us all?(And no, I don't mean by sending them a link to Ubuntu). Here is what we need: We need a small Linux based DOSbox that will autorun an antivirus cleaner and delete or quarantine any infections it finds. It needs to be small, so we can send the file or the link even to those with crappy connections, and should have a freeware burner software built in so they can simply double click they file and it will burn the ISO. Then they can simply reboot and let the tool do its job.
You see it is nearly impossible to remove an infection from a running OS, and most users simply don't have the skills required to run the complicated Linux security CDs which is the only thing I have even found which comes close. And we could even use it to promote FOSS by having links to FOSS like FF, OO.o, GNUCash, etc in a simple "more free software" link which the virus cleaner could drop on their desktop. This could help spread the word to those unfamiliar with FOSS while at the same time helping to cut down the slowdown from infected machines puking all over the net. It could be updated every week with the latest definitions to whichever free AV scanner was used, and if you wanted to get fancy you could even have it install a free AV like ClamWin with the scans and updates scheduled via Scheduled Tasks.
I have looked all over the web and have yet to find anything like that which I just described, and sadly programming is a skill I don't have so I can't build it myself. But it seems to me like this would be a great way to not only help clean up the net but spread the word about FOSS(and yes, you could have links to Ubuntu on the free software page) to those who may have never heard of it before. And if it is small and easy I'm sure that sites all over the net would be happy to promote it, as nobody likes all the spam and botnet traffic. The authors could even accept donations on their website for maintaining it and make a little scratch while they help to clean up the garbage. Sounds like a win/win to me.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for trying to help, but I'm afraid the authors of that project made the giant blunder that destroys any chance when it comes to most Linux solutions. Can you guess what the worst words any Linux user can possibly say to an average Windows user? The one that will cause fear and panic every time?
The third line says "Once fully booted into the CD, you will be met with a bash prompt." SORRY but you have LOST sir. Good day. The second the words CLI become connected to anything you expect a Windows user to touch you have lost. No further discussion, it is in the trash. I would be willing to bet a good 85-90% of Windows users don't even know Windows HAS a CLI, and they sure as hell aren't going to be comfortable trying to use one in Linux.
This is one of the reasons I quit even bothering to suggest Linux to home customers anymore, even though many could surely use its better security model. With Windows I can count the number of times I have HAD to go CLI in the past 10 years on one hand with fingers left over. Sure I use it to save time but I never HAVE to touch the CLI if I don't feel like it. Linux developers are such CLI heads that often the ONLY way to get a job done(as with this project) is with the CLI. And I don't know how many times I was researching a problem when I first tried Linux on my laptop and the first words were always "open Bash" which made me think "good luck ever converting Windows users". Because I can tell you from way too many years with Windows users as customers that their answer would be "it's broken" and into the dumpster or back to the store it would go.
If the FLOSS movement ever wants to make even a dent in that 90% Windows desktop monopoly, then they MUST follow this rule above ALL: You MUST design everything as if there is NO CLI. No Bash, no Corn, no shells at all. Period. If you design the OS to where there isn't a single thing they need CLI for, then you have a real shot at converting Windows users to FLOSS. But as long as the first answer to EVERY question starts with "open Bash" then folks will stick with Windows no matter how shitty a version Ballmer puts out. Because CLI is something that most Windows users simply don't want to know exists, and no amount of extolling its virtues will ever change their minds. But thanks anyway, it was a good idea until they blew it on the dismount. A real shame as it met every one of the earlier requirements except for the easy to use part, which is unfortunately the most important part of all.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:4, Insightful)
"The fact is, these people play by their own rules (no rules at all). As long as the "good guys" insist on dealing with them on the ethical high road, the problem will never go away."
The same argument could be made about the police and the anti-terrorists. I don't know about you, but I prefer that they have to follow rules.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:4, Funny)
I object.
Why should I (and others) waste ~$100 dragging our computers to Best Buy or some other service center? Your proposal violates multiple individual rights (right of property, right of labor, right of money). It's my damn computer, my damn money, and *I* will decide whether or not to take it to the service center.
Stay the hell away from both my computer and my wallet. (I'm not angry, just flabbergasted that you think it's acceptable behavior to hijack other people's personal property and money.)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:4, Insightful)
(I'm not angry, just flabbergasted that you think it's acceptable behavior to hijack other people's personal property and money.)
You mean like the way botnet owners do in the first place?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disabling someone else's machine is immoral, no matter what your goal might be.
Does "disabling" include cutting off network connectivity? In today's environment of cloud computing and web2.0 apps, being cut off from the net is arguably the same as disabling a machine entirely.
And to extend the logic a bit further, it is immoral for an ISP to cut off somebody's account if that account is being used to spew spam. Or to extend things a bit further, it's immoral for an upstream to cut off a downstream spam sewer ... or for anything like RBL or SBL to exist since it can be used to facilitate disruption of network service.
I'm not trying to explicitly condone an approach where zombies are vandalized to render them inoperable, but I'm trying to point out how this entire argument is shades of grey - at some point, action against criminal networks involves infringement on people's "right" to do whatever they want with their money, their computer, their internet connection, etc.
... and one other thing to keep in mind: when the day comes (becuase it's a when not an if) that terrorist organizations hire a botnet to attack the computers that control the electric grid, or to perform supercomputing nuclear simulations, or any number of other things ... you are going to see some serious shit being done to botnets and zombies, and it will be done by governments not by random vigilantes.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Stay the hell away from both my computer and my wallet. (I'm not angry, just flabbergasted that you think it's acceptable behavior to hijack other people's personal property and money.)
THIS, from a person whose computer is already hijacked and being used for illegal activities? If you hold your moral ground here, I'm doing you a favor by hijacking your already hijacked computer, and alerting you to its presence (without causing serious damage) so you can put an end to it.
Or would you prefer to continue to wallow in ignorant bliss as your computer spews forth tens of thousands of spam each day to the rest of the world? People that take THAT attitude, I have no problem with seeing them get their drives formatted.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stay the hell away from both my computer and my wallet.
THIS, from a person whose computer is already hijacked and being used for illegal activities?
Using evil methods to accomplish noble goals is still evil. Once you accept computer hijacking under some circumstances, how do you define the motives for which it's ok? Would it be ok to create or use a zombie net to process SETI or protein folding data? To scan for other zombies? How about DB indexing for your job?
If you're going to try to claim the moral high ground, you need to stick to the high ground and not compromise your ethics for the sake of expediency.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>I'm doing you a favor
The road to tyranny is paved with good intentions. Most of the men who we study in history class as "evil" would have repeated the exact same phrase: "I'm doing you a favor" as they burned books, or raided homes, or whatever other anti-human rights crime they committed.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would guess because of public key cryptography. If these bots were made smartly, they will only accept signed commands, so you need the private key.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:5, Funny)
The Russian authorities have an attitude problem, and don't give a tinker's damn about the crime being committed from their soil, as long as it isn't Russian citizens being targeted. Which goes part-way to explain why cybercriminals NEVER target people in their own countries.
You misspelled 'American' in your post. Twice.
Reply to This
Parent