Slashdot Mirror


Code Red Back For More

Brian Stretch writes: "The Code Red II worm was unleashed early this morning and appears to be very different than the original and far more dangerous. CR2 infected servers only attack servers within their Class A address block and their Class B address block in particular: since 9:11am EST I've logged 148 CR2 attack attempts, 89 of which are from within my Class B subnet, suggesting that only servers within Class A networks that were deliberately seeded are being attacked. The 24.x.x.x range is one of the hardest hit, and as before, it's folks with cable modems and DSL connections that are providing the most victims." Several @home customers have written about slowed service today, but they're definitely not alone.

12 of 866 comments (clear)

  1. A few more details by ryanr · · Score: 5, Informative

    It doesn't affect its own netspace exclusively. Initial analysis indicates that it will do so 6 out of 7 times. The 1 out of 7 will go outside its network range.

    We'll have full details posted to the Incidents list shortly.

    1. Re:A few more details by ShavenGoat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently the New worm doesn't really kill off the new worm. I was trying the telnet port 80 thing on a machine that was infected with V2.0, which address was in my logs.

      When I went to telnet, the backdoor didn't work and I got the "Hacked by chinese" message.

      Either the worms over write each other, or a machine can be infected by BOTH worms.

  2. Re:Source? by ksheff · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why not use the sort mentioned in the paper by Uri Guttman and Larry Rosler? It was made for this.

    print join "\n", map substr($_, 4) => sort map pack('C4' => /(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)/) . $_ => @ip;
    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  3. I made a rookie mistake in my story submission by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 4, Informative

    It just occurred to me to look up the definition of Class A/B/C addresses, and yup, I used the terms wrong in my story submission (argh!). What I meant to say was that when the worm generates addresses to scan, it appeared to always keep the first octet and a little over half the time (137 of 224 scans in my case) it keeps the second octet as well. That's no longer precisely true: I've since logged one scan from 152.72.x.x (grep XXXX access_log | grep -v 24.). And the high number of scans from within the first two octets may have more to do with that being a block of cable modem addresses rich in vulnerable IIS machines than anything else.

    And now we know these poor bastards have been rootkitted. There has to be a way to use this to warn them?

  4. Re:A few more details:It's a root trojan by Soko · · Score: 5, Informative
    From this thread on Ars Technica:
    Just discovered something interesting...
    telnet 80

    type GET /scripts/root.exe HTTP/1.0

    and you have a command prompt..

    Like this:
    [root@server httpd]# telnet 24.xxx.xxx.xxx 80
    Trying 24.xxx.xxx.xxx...
    Connected to 24.xxx.xxx.xxx.
    Escape character is '^]'.
    GET /scripts/root.exe HTTP/1.0

    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
    Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 07:45:08 GMT
    Content-Type: application/octet-stream
    Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
    (C) Copyright 1985-1999 Microsoft Corp.

    c:\inetpub\scripts>

    [This message was edited by The_Hitman on August 05, 2001 at 03:56.]



    --
    "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
  5. Re:C:\dos C:\dos\run | run\dos\run by Eeeeegon · · Score: 4, Informative

    This worm is combining TWO worms; both the Code Red worm we know and love, and the less-recent SANDMIND worm (sp?), famous for running of DOS commands and posting an anti-US webpage at 'default.asp', 'default.html', 'index.asp', and 'index.html' on directories relative to the website root. Apparently this worm is using 'cmd.exe' to get root access; what it does beyond that, I have no idea... I haven't been hit by it. I guess the logic is .... if the box isnt patched against Code Red, chances are it isn't patched against SANDMIND, too.

    Also, 90% of the 'NNNN's in my server logs came from my Class A subnet (and much more frequently than the 'XXXXX' requests).

    Logs available upon request, etc.

  6. @home preventative measures by WereTiger · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently @home is monitoring it's customers for Code Red.
    I'd JUST reinstalled Win2k Pro on a new system, I'd added IIS for my own purposes and before I had a chance to run the service pack and patch, I got the Code Red worm (ok, so I was lazy and tired and was going to leave it for the morning)

    @home unbound my cablemodem until I'd cleared the worm (disable IIS, reboot).

    normally, I'd be a little annoyed at @home for monitoring my connection and cutting my connection rather than just block all traffic to that IP at router level. but hey, it saved me from contributing to a problem.

    --
    If you're hearing rhetoric about Linux, open source, or Mac and everyone's bashing Microsoft, you've found Slashdot.
  7. Breakdown of the new "features" of CRII by 2675636B20796F75 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Ok, here's the latest on this new variant.

    1. It makes a copy of CMD.EXE called ROOT.EXE in the;

    \inetpub\scripts

    and

    \program files\common files\system\msadc

    directories. Does this on both drive C: and D: (doesn't fail if D: doesn't exist).

    2. It then runs its attack program code to infect itself upon numerous other boxes. This is done randomly, although there is a bias to attack boxes that are part of the same class A as infected attacker (so it hits your own boxes sooner rather than later). Attack code runs for 24 hours, 48 hours on Chinese language systems.

    3. After attack code runs (and it seems to be based on clock ticks, not date), it then writes out a Trojan.

    File Explorer.exe (8192bytes or 7K as displayed by Windows) is dropped (from the code in the original attacking URL) to the root of drive C: and D: (again, doesn't matter if D: doesn't exist).

    4. The system is then rebooted (probably a forced reboot).

    5. When the system restarts, it loads the trojan Explorer.exe from the root directory on the boot drive. This code then does several things;

    a) Launches the real Explorer.exe, so the system looks normal.

    b) Sets SFCDisable in hklm\software\microsoft\windows nt\currentversion\winlogon to some undocumented value. Presumably this disables Windows File Protection (so critical files could be overwritten)

    c) Creates two virtual directories (via the registry) in hklm\system\currentcontrolset\services\w3svc\param eters\virtual roots. Called "C" and "D", they are mapped to the root directories of the two drives and permissions are established in the virtual directory to allow script, read, and write access as well as setting execute permissions to scripts and executables.

    d) goes into an endless sleep loop.

    The end result of all of this action is to leave your box wide open to remote connection and total compromise.

    Unlike "Code Red", this worm doesn't attack any single target at any point, although its attack strength seems to be much higher (it launches 300 threads right off, although some may only launch 100), so its propagation seems much higher.

    The attack only works properly on Windows 2000 systems (preliminary analysis). ICSA Labs tested against an NT 4.0/IIS 4.0/SP3 box and received a standard error message. Reports from subscribers suggest that XP IIS 5.1 RC1 is invulnerable also. Its expected that it works on PWS and OWS equally to IIS (all on W2K).

    Its obviously a short-lived attack, at least the process of collecting victims. What would be done with them once collected is another story. No attempt is made by the worm to send anything "home", although detecting compromised boxes is far too easy (very unfortunately) for anyone outside your network.

    Cleaning a compromised box should really be done by reformatting. Although logging is left on for the new virtual directories created (meaning you'd see access in your IIS logs), there's really no way to be sure that files haven't been implanted to leave other backdoors (not as part of this worm, but as part of the use of the opening it creates).

    Credits:

    The bulk of the analysis was done by Nick Fitzgerald of Virus-L (and friends) and Roger Thompson of TruSecure. Additional help came from Bruce Hughes of the ICSA Labs.

    Cheers,
    Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor

  8. Re:logs by Kryptolus · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who are interested in the source:
    http://www.kryptolus.com/red.txt

    On another note, a server whose identity I will not name(solaris w/ apache) was hit with 17000 attacks as of yesterday(the server handles a lot of ips).

    --

    --
    Violators will be prosecuted and prosecutors will be violated.
  9. C:\dos C:\dos\run | run\dos\run by mcleodnine · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seeing a lot of "XXXX" and far fewer "NNNN" in the logs. This version appears to stay crunchier in milk than the first. Up to 25-30 per hour, from 10 this afternoon. The 24.x.x.x may be getting slammed, but I can see another that is just as bad.

    Snipped from incidents dot org (emphasis added)
    Both Henk Wevers and corecode submitted packet traces of the complete request as shown below. Comparing this trace with the original Code Red (see the Code Red Infection Illustrated section of the July 23 Handler's Diary at: http://www.incidents.org/diary/july2001.php) it is immediately obvious that we are dealing with a new worm. Note that line 820 shows that the worm is doing something with CMD.EXE; also the dump contains the string 'CodeRedII' on line 230. Note the references to root.exe on lines 840 and 880.

    Article also mentions that it appears the compromised servers are backdoored and rooted. Ouch.

    The editorial accusations of crying wolf might look a little pale this evening...

    --
    one better than mcleodeight
  10. Re:What are you talking about? by baptiste · · Score: 4, Informative
    Steve Friedl believes he has figured out the bizarre scanning of the new strain. From DSLReports forums:

    OK, I know how the scanning works now. The worm starts with the user's IP address, and then changes adds a variable number of random octets. Let's say that our web server is on 192.168.1.7:

    • One time out of eight, and entirely random IP address is generated
    • Four times out of eight, the lower octet of the IP address is randomized (192.168.1.X)
    • Three times out of eight, the lower two octets are randomized (192.168.X.Y)

    This is entirely consistent with the patterns we've been seeing, so if somebody on your local network gets infected, you're gonna get pounded until they fix it.

    Another point: if the web server in question is behind a NAT firewall, it will go nuts scanning the internal network. For a large company that has many NT systems internally, they will spend all day trying to infect each other.

    What a worm.

    Steve
    --
    Stephen J. Friedl / Software Consultant / Tustin, California USA / www.unixwiz.net

    Looks like somebody did their homework and decided to really make Code Red nasty

  11. Proposal for White Hat'ing CR][ by nebby · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since it seems that it's possible to run, and basically do, anything trivially on any of these infected computers via the root.exe "script" I'm guessing that a lot of shit is going to go down in the next two days that will probably be both good and bad for Microsoft and the public's understanding of network security.

    I'm also guessing that right now a bunch of /.'ers are doing one of two things:

    1) Writing scripts to make things suck more for those who have been compromised (shame on you)
    or
    2) Writing scripts to fix the compromised servers

    I propose that if a script is created to fix these servers (Code Green? :)) that it not be launched until after Monday afternoon around 3 or 4PM, since this is a serious problem for both sysadmin's and Microsoft. If a large part of the damage is avoided by white hat hackers sending a cure for the virus out, it will only happen again. If you don't give them time to sweat, then nothing will be changed and a even more malicious virus (which say, deletes the entire contents of the drives or something) will be unleashed soon enough.

    So, before you go out and launch a cure for the problem, think twice about the long term effects of doing so. Create it, make sure it works, and then the Open Source movement can release a cure for the problem faster than anyone else and "we" (I'm not really part of the OSS movement, or whatever) will look like the good guys. Instead of the media holding Microsoft on high for providing the cure to a problem they caused, if the patch is done and ready and launched by Monday afternoon they will have egg on their faces.

    Thanks.

    --
    --