Slashdot Mirror


MS05-039 Worm in the Wild

An anonymous reader noted that SANS is reporting that the MS05-039 worm is in the wild. It has been named Zotob.A. Not a lot of information on this one yet except that it's trying to FTP files from a subnet.

9 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. ClamAV by slavemowgli · · Score: 5, Informative

    And it's detected by ClamAV already, too.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  2. Vulnerability by Tiberius_Fel · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TFA:

    "Windows XP SP2 and Windows 2003 can not be exploited by this worm, as the worm does not use a valid logon."

    I think a lot of people were relieved to read this. :)

    --
    Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
    1. Re:Vulnerability by louarnkoz · · Score: 5, Informative

      The "valid logon" comment is misleading. On XP/SP2 and Windows 2003, the remote function can only be exploited by a logon with administrative privilege, the equivalent of root access. SP2 does not correct all bugs in Windows XP, but it includes a lot a system hardening. The guiding idea was "defense in depth", i.e. don't assume that the software is perfect, add multiple layers of protection. One of these defenses was requiring authentication for all RPC access. This "defense in depth" seems to be working, at least in this case.

  3. crappy summary by smoondog · · Score: 5, Informative

    What a crappy summary, it doesn't even mention what operating system this effects (or how to patch for that matter). "Important facts" from the article:

    - Patch MS05-039 will protect you
    - Windows XP SP2 and Windows 2003 can not be exploited by this worm, as the worm does not use a valid logon.
    - Blocking port 445 will protect you (but watch for internal infected systems)
    - The FTP server does not run on port 21. It appears to pick a random high port.

    1. Re:crappy summary by sucker_muts · · Score: 4, Informative

      Another usefull article from eweek with even more info:

      http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1847756,00.as p?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594

      --
      Dependency hell? => /bin/there/done/that
    2. Re:crappy summary by numbski · · Score: 4, Informative
      Blocking port 445 will protect you (but watch for internal infected systems)

      Yeah, and for grins, why is it you can't use a software firewall within Windows to block 445?

      Hmmm...lessee here...
      [erwin:~] numbski% cat /etc/services | grep 445
      microsoft-ds 445/udp # Microsoft-DS
      microsoft-ds 445/tcp # Microsoft-DS
      Microsoft-ds? No kids, that's not the Double Screen version, that's probably "Directory Services". LDAP. Your authentication. Block that internally and you're SOL. So if it gets into your internal LAN, you're powerless to block it off, other than to shut down the entire LAN, clean all of the systems without plugging back into the LAN, and bring the whole thing back up. w00t! :\
      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    3. Re:crappy summary by totallygeek · · Score: 3, Informative
      Microsoft-ds? No kids, that's not the Double Screen version, that's probably "Directory Services". LDAP. Your authentication. Block that internally and you're SOL. So if it gets into your internal LAN, you're powerless to block it off, other than to shut down the entire LAN, clean all of the systems without plugging back into the LAN, and bring the whole thing back up.


      Just so you know, Windows domain and directory authentication is over tcp 389. As for 445, that is for file sharing via CIFS. CIFS is the next gen past SMB (which used 137, 138 and 139).

  4. More Detail by Tiberius_Fel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even though it's linked to in the article, the bit by F-Secure is a bit better written (and more informative):
    http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/

    --
    Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
  5. Better analasys by Barny · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    ...
    /me sighs