After 1 Year, Conficker Infects 7M Computers 95
alphadogg writes "The Conficker worm has passed a dubious milestone. It has now infected more than 7 million computers, security experts estimate. On Thursday, researchers at the volunteer-run Shadowserver Foundation logged computers from more than 7 million unique IP addresses, all infected by the known variants of Conficker. They have been able to keep track of Conficker infections by cracking the algorithm the worm uses to look for instructions on the Internet and placing their own 'sinkhole' servers on the Internet domains it is programmed to visit. Conficker has several ways of receiving instructions, so the bad guys have still been able to control PCs, but the sinkhole servers give researchers a good idea how many machines are infected."
Ding! (Score:5, Funny)
Cleaning job (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe they can inject instructions to the worm so it shutsdown but not before it spreads the "fix" to other computers? So along counting the number of PC's infected they also help in cleaning the worm. Impossible?
Re:Cleaning job (Score:5, Informative)
Conficker is notable because it isn't a total piece of script kiddie crap. It uses asymmetric crypto to only accept instructions from the creator. It also patches the hole on the way in, so you couldn't even reinfect Conficked boxes with a cleaner.
Re: (Score:1)
So apparently the creators did a good job with it. Impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cleaning job (Score:4, Informative)
That would depend on whether the authors chose encryption that could be decrypted in a billion years with the combined computing power of today or if they chose some smaller number or a larger one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Besides everyone knows that Seatec Astronomy will beat the pants off them in a year or so.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is it a scam? By not elaborating I think you're actually just doing them a favour, because 1) it is possible to crack encryption incredibly fast with quantum computers, and 2) they are developing quantum computers. So all you've made me think is "cool".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
thanks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They took encryption seriously. The authors have implemented Ron Rivest's research algorithm MD6.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not just that.
Being a good samaratin like that often fails because of the risk you'll mess up and get slammed with a lawsuit. Simply by participating in the affair you become jointly and severally liable if anything goes wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
From my easy chair, and sitting in front of my uninfectable Linux computer, I say go for it and clean those suckers up. (Once you figure out how, that is.) We're all rooting for you!
Oh, but you might want to do it anonymously.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to preempt the trolls: "ZOMG, LINUX ALSO HAS A FEW BOTNETS"
There, done, it was barely a a thousandth of a %. This is probably 2%.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would cite the various "good samaritan" laws, as well as implied consent. The braindead gave implied consent to have viral infections cleaned from their computers by having an infection to start with.
FFS - everyone worries about being sued, so they do nothing. You bet your arse, if I were smart enough to program the virus to self destruct, I would do so in an instant. No thoughts about being sued, period.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cleaning job (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know if that was an episode of SG1, but you sig does remind me of Agatha Christie.
Re: (Score:2)
No, computer virii in SG-1 don't need a network connection.
Re: (Score:2)
The one that infected all the stargates did. It was .. aw heck .. the last Goa'uld guy. The mediocre badguy. It used the stargates automatic update network to reprogram all the gates. They used that plot device twice. The others that they had in the show propagated what ever way was easy to show. Didn't one go through the power lines?
Re:Cleaning job (Score:5, Informative)
Is there a way for the researchers to use the sinkhole to clean the worm?
Probably not.
But YOU CAN HELP:
Just Click the the CornFlicker Eye Chart to test your machine:
http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/infection_test/cfeyechart.html [confickerw...ggroup.org]
You can read about it in the link posted in TFA.
Re:Cleaning job (Score:5, Funny)
Probably not.
But YOU CAN HELP:
Just Click the the CornFlicker Eye Chart to test your machine:
Do you think I'm some kind of patsy? I'm not getting suckered into your virus propagation scam!
Re: (Score:2)
LOL...
Wise move.
That's why I referred you to the same link at
the side of panel of the Linked page in TFA.
Try F5 (Score:2)
Don't forget that if you have a proxy (and you probably do at work), the eye chart is bogus. The proxy will cache successful hits from a clean computer within your network. :(
However, if you hit F5 (or Ctrl+F5) to refresh, your browser will send out a no-cache request in the HTTP header, which most proxies I've tried it on respect, and thus they go to fetch a new copy of the page. That's right: hitting F5 is not the same as a browser simply requesting the page a second time.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't appear to have infected my Mac. :P
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there a way for the researchers to use the sinkhole to clean the worm?
Maybe they can inject instructions to the worm so it shutsdown but not before it spreads the "fix" to other computers? So along counting the number of PC's infected they also help in cleaning the worm. Impossible?
If you just sniff traffic, that doesn't mean you can inject instructions. And even if, how do you make sure *you* don't ruin the users computers? It is a ethical problem as soon as you mess with other peoples machines; These Botnet hijackers [youtube.com] explain that too.
So, no, researchers are not going to do that. Also, too complex technically.
I think there is one way (Score:3, Interesting)
Figure out how to trace a significant percentage of those IPs to their IP blocks to their ISPs. Notify the ISPs. Start a coalition among them to shut off infected customers with a message explaining why and how to fix. Start an advertising campaign to get public support for this and help pressure ISPs to join even though it is not in their short-term self-interest; sell it to them as good PR at this point. Ask them to send a coupon to customers who disinfect, with prorated hours to reimburse the custom
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't I read this suggestion elsewhere? Are you a plegiarist? WTF?!?!
Alright, I'm not being fair. The solution is so obvious, hundreds of people have suggested it here and elsewhere, and thousands more will do so. But, the obvious, easy, simple solution will never gain traction. Someone has to make money, or the solution will never be implemented. I'm afraid we'll have to incorporate a couple charges into the scheme. Save the children, save the baby seals, and buy a carbon credit, THEN is will work
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to have a reverse DNS service that retu
Action not words! (Score:2, Insightful)
Are these researchers doing anything about it? Have they handed the IP lists with timestamps over to the appropriate ISPs or corporate network administrators so that the infected systems can be dealt with? Did they even put up a page where you can check yourself or your network?
Merely counting the infected is nothing but mental masturbation. Even the lame government census has moved beyond simply counting.
Re:Action not words! (Score:4, Informative)
? Did they even put up a page where you can check yourself or your network?
Yes [confickerw...ggroup.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The researchers behind this botnet hijack did report to the appropriate people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GdqoQJa6r4&feature=youtube_gdata [youtube.com]
And they also say counting IP addresses is off by a factor of 10.
so 7 million IP adddresses really mean 700.000 computers
Analysing is always the first step, I'm sure they or other people are coming up with something. Like selling their malware remover software ;-)
I'm safe! (Score:5, Funny)
or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please somebody mod parent as funny. I don't want anyone reading it to think that that spyware is ACTUALLY a virus remover.... :(
Re:I'm safe! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's too bad there isn't a tiresome mod.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
This is Slashdot, not Yahoo Answers. I doubt anyone who frequents this site would read that and think "Oh my! I'll get to downloading AV2009 right away!" (and single posts don't come up on Google queries unless they're oddly specific.)
Don't fool yourself. A few years ago saying "This is Slashdot" would have meant something but today it really doesn't. For as much as people around here pissed on Digg the fact is that the Digg mentality is alive and well at Slashdot. This is not the technogeek site that most people make it out to be. Heavy tech sites kick the shit out of Slashdot and Slashdot is becoming more like the gossip section of a local newspaper.
So, no. I don't trust users here to be that smart. The fact that posts
Re: (Score:1)
I agree. There hasn't been any sort of posting concerning the Japanese Linux Symposium yet and the event is nearly over. I also note that the "Torvolds thumbs up" hasn't been posted either.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank god the Torvolds thumbs up hasn't been posted. That shits something for the comments section, not a goddamn article. Fuck Digg.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Half the things you listed are malware themselves.
But your point is well taken regarding just about any flavor of Linux or OSX.
When Windows 7, fresh out of the box from Redmond nags you go get an antivirus that says something right there.
First it says Microsoft has no confidence in the ability of this version to stop any malware.
Second it transfers blame to a sketchy industry that had grown up based on a dodgy OS, and actually lobbied Microsoft not to lock them out, demanding the same holes in the OS that a
Re:I'm safe! (Score:5, Informative)
Half? They're ALL malware (except for the last one, of course
Signed,
Proud and happy user of Windows 7, OS X and Ubuntu
Re: (Score:2)
" ... Half the things you listed are malware themselves. ..."
Actually, every one is malware. He was trying to make a point ... or a joke ... or both.
Re: (Score:2)
Win7 (and for that matter, Vista and even XP) DO NOT need anti-virus*. The ignorant monkeys who use them need anti-virus. Hell, the same is even true on OS X - it turns out there are people out there who are big enough Mac fanboys that they'll pirate iLife. Guess what - pirated versions of iLife have started coming with trojans in them, enough that a botnet composed exclusively of Macs running this malware now exists (small relative to Conficker, but nonetheless a serving to illustrate the point). Had those
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm safe! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I'm safe! (Score:5, Funny)
because its ./configure script fails
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"checking for wine.... yes"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To be honest, for most of the listed software, there was an RPM for RedHat 6.1. Unfortunately, the RPM depended on another RPM which we couldn't find.
Re: (Score:2)
The system protects users from installing software?
Linux does or at least makes it quite complicated to do so. Its one of the nice side-effects of having a package management system, that is incapable of handling non-root installations and doesn't have real support for third-party software, forcing the average user to pick all their software from the distributions repository instead of random webpages.
If a user manually adds new repositories or goes onto manually ./configure && make'ing things, than he is of course no better of then in Windows.
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't Adept use Apt just like Synaptic? So it should be the same as using aptitude instead of apt-get. Now if you used rpm (which is available in the apt repositories) to install the package, then that could have the effect you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much can't. It is naturally possible to purposefully infect your Unix machine, it's just that the system design doesn't set you up for failure.
The various UIs in Linux just don't make it easy to accidentally run a trojan, such as (for example) bodacious-tatas.jpg.exe. by treating users as if they might be too stupid to deal with seeing the entire actual filename. Then there's not being saddled with a legacy of expecting people to have administrative rights all the time.
Finally, there's no market
Re: (Score:1)
Oh no, didn't you hear? Linux isn't safe any more either :-)! http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/10/27/how-good-is-wine-at-running-windows-software-on-linux-good-enou [downloadsquad.com]
But it's OK, most of those spyware protection programs are available on Linux as well! The link above shows how to install Windows Police Pro!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Damages schmamages. It's only money. Just get someone who hasn't got any money to front the operation and damages wont mean a thing.
Re:Research = do not touch. (Score:5, Informative)
Except jail time.
Not really 7m at all (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone should read the original page, particularly the Introduction and section explaining how to interpret their population numbers.
Here's a relevant quote:
"The daily numbers should represent the potential maximum level of the infection, but in previous test cases usually prove to be much less than that maximum. So, take the range of 25% to 75% of the values that we display as the possible infection population and you will be close to the real value."
So the people actually providing these numbers are really saying that the current number of infections is likely to be between 1,750,000 and 5,250,000.
Re:Not really 7m at all (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks, I feel so much better now.
Conflicker? (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Conficker broke 7 Million Infections...
Microsoft just released Windows 7...
Has anyone ever seen Conficker and Windows 7 in the same room together?
Good point (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Going out of support ... in 5 years ...
Re: (Score:2)
Going out of support ... in 5 years ...
So if you start upgrading to Windows 7 now, it might just have finished in time. Unless it's still in that install-reboot cycle... http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=6671599 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Good point (Score:4, Insightful)
Second time? Citation needed, seriously.
Apart from self-contained data loss bugs that corrupt single files or bork their own data, the only difference between them is the identity of the data affected--deleting your user folder is no more or less "destructive" than deleting the Program Files folder or the System32 folder or any other combination of important data.
More to the point, you have a short and selective memory. On the Windows side, the number of data loss bugs in the Microsoft KB is staggering--many of which far more easily triggered than the Snow Leopard bug (which PC World was unable to reproduce). There have been plenty of famous and significant data loss bugs in Windows' history, like the Windows 98SE shutdown bug, the Windows 2000 ATA bug, and even the Windows XP bug that ate the user data folders, quite similar to the Snow Leopard bug: http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2116562/winxp-bug-ate [v3.co.uk].
How about the similar data loss bug in the Linux kernel a few years ago: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-976427.html [cnet.com]. A simple Google search will reveal several more, before and since, in the kernel and in distribution packages.
Then there's the infamous Mozilla bug that wiped out the entire Program Files directory on Windows: http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=4264 [mozillazine.org]
It's not just user-level software development, either. Just look at Intel's repeated data loss bugs in their SSDs.
All the big names have let a bug like this slip at one time or another. It's unfortunate, but inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
conficker (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"That was easy!"
It's a new trend, and I want one too. (Score:1)
I hate my linux box for not letting me have this shiny thingy. It is a new trend - 7mil users and growing. I want one too!!!
So disappointing (Score:5, Interesting)
I know I'm a terrible person for thinking this, but I was really curious about the chaos that was to ensue once Conficker's creators brought the hammer down.
*sigh*
Alright, so hell is that way, right? --->
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was really curious about the chaos that was to ensue once Conficker's creators brought the hammer down.
The most effective pathogens are the ones that keep their host alive as long as possible, because then they have best chances of re-infecting the healthy. BotNets are no different. If you "bring the hammer down," you lose everything.
This is the reason why influenza is a far more dangerous killer than, say, Ebola.
more than 7 million surely? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Windows virus devastates complacent idiots (Score:3, Funny)
A computer worm that spreads through low security networks, memory sticks, and PCs without the latest security updates is posing a growing threat to users blitheringly stupid enough [today.com] to still think Windows is not ridiculously and unfixably insecure by design.
Despite many years’ warnings that Microsoft regards security as a marketing problem and has only ever done the absolute minimum it can get away with, millions of users who click on any rubbish they see in the hope of pictures of female tennis stars having wardrobe malfunctions still fail to believe that taking Windows out on the Internet is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah, naked, arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying “COME AND GET IT.”
Microsoft cannot believe people have not applied the patch for the problem, just because they keep trying to use Windows Genuine Advantage to break legally-bought systems. “Don’t they trust us?” asked marketing marketer Steve Ballmer.
Millions of smug Mac users and the four hundred smug Linux users pointed and laughed, having long given up trying to convince their Windows-using friends to see sense. “There’s a reason the Unix system on Mac OS X is called Darwin,” said appallingly smug Mac user Arty Phagge.
“It can’t be stupid if everyone else runs it,” said Windows user Joe Beleaguered, who had lost all his email, business files, MP3s and porn again. “Macs cost more than Windows PCs.”
“Yes,” said Phagge. “Yes, they do.”
Ubuntu Linux developer Hiram Nerdboy frantically tried to get our attention about something or other, but we can’t say we care.
A lot more than 7m (Score:2, Funny)