Slashdot Mirror
Estonian ISP Shuts Srizbi Back Down, For Now
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."
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.
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.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
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?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Sounds like a good idea at first, but when you consider that the people who wrote the root kit already know how the algorithm works, you can be pretty sure they'll always be one step ahead of you on that front.
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.
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.
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
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.
(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?
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
This *is* funny.
But there is truth to it.
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.
Either way the reality is play dirty or accept boatloads of spam and quit bitching about it.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
>>>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.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
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.
You're modded funny, but I hope you're not serious. Yes, yes, I know that people should be performing backups (how many grandmothers do you know who do?).
How livid, or depressed would you be to loose a few years worth of photographs because somebody who was too annoyed with getting spam decided that you didn't deserve to have your data anymore?
Do something totally harmless like changing their default gateway to 0.0.0.0, then setting the background image on their desktop to a message with instructions on how to back up their personal information and take their computer in to be repaired.
Hell, i'm sure a few slashdotters could band together here and even do it for free. I will. If anybody brings me a bot-netted computer, I'll re-install their windows for free. If they are a little old lady, some freshly baked cookies would be nice :).
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
>>>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.
>>>
Spammail merely makes you delete a few messages per day. Annoying? Yes absolutely, but not that bad. BUT formatting my hard drive is going to cost me a few hundred dollars in (a) lost music, movies that I purchased and (b) time to restore everything. You sir are no better than the vandals who have been "keying" cars in my local city.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Bad car analogy.
This is the case where some dick has managed to file down your brake lines such that the next time you try to stop before hitting a pedestrian, your car will sail right through them. The /. solution is to take your spark plugs out and hand them to your mechanic with a note: "Check brake lines."
Your PC is already compromised. All the suggestion does is alert you to it. So you have to bring it in for repair - you had to do that before the vigilantes got a hold of your system, you just didn't know it. You obviously didn't know how to secure your box - and we're all paying for your ignorance (in the true sense of the word). You need the information that the tech is going to give you when you bring in the box, for not just our sake, but for yours as well (you're getting some of the spam you're sending out). You just don't know it yet.
The key point to the proposal is that we're not forcing you to do anything you weren't already supposed to do. We're just changing it from "should, but don't know it" to "have to, and now I know". The cost is not expanded. It's just made known, and made immediate.
That still doesn't make it legal, but, unless you're Reverend Lovejoy, you should know that legal != ethical. Things can be ethical and illegal, or legal and unethical. I'm having a hard time seeing much unethical about this solution. Even the concept of "unauthorised access to a computer" is kind of iffy to me: your computer came to my website, downloaded an update, and ran it. I didn't force your computer to do that. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to do this and then choose a trial by judge alone...
Riiiiight. Since slashdot loves car analogies, let's suppose I left my keys laying on my table, where the keys are visible to anyone walking past the front window.
And the botnet herders have already copied your keys and are using your car to commit various crimes, and you don't want to know/don't care.
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.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
"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.
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.