Gameover ZeuS Re-Emerges As Fast-Fluxing Botnet 62
New submitter tylke (621801) writes: "Brian Krebs is reporting that the Gameover ZeuS botnet recently taken down by the U.S. Justice Department in June has re-emerged. The new variant of the Trojan is "stripped of the P2P code, and relies instead on an approach known as fast-flux hosting," a kind of round-robin technique that lets botnets hide phishing and malware delivery sites behind a network of compromised systems. Krebs says, "[T]his variant also includes a 'domain name generation algorithm' or DGA, which is a failsafe mechanism that can be invoked if the botnet’s normal communications system fails. The DGA creates a constantly-changing list of domain names each week (gibberish domains that are essentially long jumbles of letters).
In the event that systems infected with the malware can’t reach the fast-flux servers for new updates, the code instructs the botted systems to seek out active domains from the list specified in the DGA. All the botmasters need to do in this case to regain control over his crime machine is register just one of those domains and place the update instructions there." (Disclosure: I work for Malcovery Security, the company credited with identifying the new variant.)
Just to be clear... (Score:2)
Re:Just to be clear... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, as long as they don't go eyeliner...
Re: (Score:3)
Or, worse, guyliner.
Can they use this to reclaim the zombies? (Score:2)
The article from Brian Krebs seems to indicate that this new variant of Gameover can interface with the old one somehow, and be used to recover all of the infected computers that were part of the original Gameover botnet. Is this true, or is this an attempt to re-build the Gameover Zeus botnet from scratch?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They just need to register ONE of them to reestablish contact. They might even be able to use "domain tasting" to register a bunch and then cancel within 5 days.
Re: (Score:2)
Domain tasting is no longer possible - ICANN started charging 25 cents per domain registration years ago to counteract domain squatting where they'd register a bunch of domains, see if they make money, and return them if they don't.
By charging 25 cents always, it seems to have cut down the practice immensely because you need to register thousands of
Re: (Score:2)
Peanuts compared to the revenue. We're talking millions here.
Re: (Score:3)
Fast Flux (Score:4, Informative)
The basic idea behind Fast flux is to have numerous IP addresses associated with a single fully qualified domain name, where the IP addresses are swapped in and out with extremely high frequency, through changing DNS records.
In case anyone else didn't know that was Fast flux was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows or everyone? (Score:1)
I stopped paying attention to botnet stories a few years ago. Are botnets still always on Windows or do Unix users (Mac, Linux) have to worry too? If it's still all Windows then I'm going to stop paying attention again.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course linux is targeted. There are large numbers of linux servers, with fast processors and very fast high capacity network connections. Making matters worse, because they often to run important services, people may be slower to upgrade packages/kernels.
I don't know about this particular botnet, but it's been a long time since saying "I don't run windows" counted as a security strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
There was even an almost pure UNIX botnet, that has pinged every ipv4 address in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming we are talking about the same botnet, if i remember reading about it correctly it used a list of defualt passwords. If you are using a defualt password on any system you are going to get pwned hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it used a default password list.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux users are fairly smart, and value security.
I do not have to worry too much about viruses and bot nets but that is because I harden my systems so that people looking to get in can not. We all do it. Install only the components we need. Whitelist where possible. External firewalls and compartmentalizing.
Any decent Linux guy has a system that is fairly secure.
Re: (Score:2)
Not always so easy with windows.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm a big man. Don't fuck with me. I can take out anyone. I am smarter than all."
from an AC.
Ok. You are awesome.
Feel better?
Re: (Score:2)
But what you can not do is state that everyone with an Android phone is a Linux user. Just as people with a smart TV are not Linux users. Trying to equate people with phones to Linux users in order to "Destroy" my point only proves you have no leg to stand on.
So go back into your parents basement and cry.
Re: (Score:2)
Again. People with Android phones are not Linux users. This is proven by the quote you pulled.
Thanks for playing. You lose.
botnets are still Windows. Set a router password (Score:2)
This botnet, like the one the malware based on, is Windows only. The botnet that was used to seed this one is also Windows only.
There have been two botnets that kinda-sorta might be interesting to Linux and Mac users. In one, if you used a Windows desktop to ssh to a Linux server, the infected Windows machine could reveal the user name and password that you used from Windows. In the other, some idiots left the default admin user name and passwords on their routers, some of which run Linux. Surprisingly,
You have to destroy (Score:1)
all 42 horcruxes
Make VM OS read-only unless updating (Score:2)
> suggests that using a VM obtains a measure of safety.
You can make it almost perfectly secure by mounting Documents from another disk or image and marking the operating system VM read-only, or snapshotted so it reverts state on reboot.
Toggle it read-write while you update the OS or install new software.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a bad idea to keep things like /bin and /sbin and their brethren RO as well.
Re: (Score:2)
While a good idea, it's not that easy for Windows users. Especially since the "basic" (aka "premium") versions of Win7 come even without the ability to limit execution of files in certain directories (which would surprisingly actually defeat this pus, at least the variants that I'm aware of, my knowledge in this area is a bit dated, though).
Guess you have to pay extra with Microsoft if you want some semblance of security...
read-only OS doesn't execute random files (Score:2)
Suppose you have nastyshit.exe in your documents folder. How is it going to get executed? At boot, by a registry entry? Nope, because all the boot stuff, including the registry, is read-only. How did it get there in the first place? Not from malware resident on the system, because the system is read-only.
Re: (Score:2)
It got there using a buffer overflow in one of your outdated (read: 2 days since patch) software and also got executed that way. The downloader wrote it into your %appdata%\roaming folder (where it has write access without you needing elevated privileges) and got started likewise.
Why files in %appdata%\roaming can be run at all? Ask MS. I don't see a good reason why files located there should be executable. Actually, there are very few areas in user-writeable areas where execution of files makes sense, and
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The current version of this piece of internet-pus walks down mounted network devices, too.
So far they don't go for your network environment to hunt down unmounted shares. Not yet, at least.