Slashdot Mirror
Romanians Find Cure For Conficker
mask.of.sanity writes "BitDefender has released what it claims is the first vaccination tool to remove the notorious Conficker virus that infected some 9 million Windows machines in about three months.
The worm, also known as Downadup, exploits a bug in the Windows Server service used by Windows 2000, XP, Vista, Server 2003 and Server 2008. It spreads primarily through a buffer overflow vulnerability in Windows Server Service where it disables the operating system update service, security center, including Windows Defender, and error reporting.
The Romanian security vendor said its removal tool will delete all versions of Downadup and will not be detected by the virus."
TFA even says that the worm can update itself, so how does BitDefender plan to distribute the worm if the worm can be updated to shut down everything that may harm it?
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
Until the next variant which is likely due out in the next 24 hours.
ESETs ThreatSense technology (heuristically) recognizes all the variants... F-Secure did a conflicker removal tool in 27th of February...
And above all that I'm skeptic about the "delete all versions" phrase, because BidDefender as a (bloated) AV that it is, is pretty much signature based, and has very weak heuristic detection...
$god = null;
if($god) echo 'I believe!';
In the first case blame the administrators (for not knowing how to properly protect a Windows server), in the second case blame Microsoft (for running servers on a desktop that should not be there in the first place). I would expect the second case as that I recall we have seen before, a virus exploiting a bug in a server function that can not even be stopped on a desktop.
Description of the Server service:
Supports file, print, and named-pipe sharing over the network for this computer. If this service is stopped, these functions will be unavailable. If this service is disabled, any services that explicitly depend on it will fail to start.
Dependant services: Computer Browser ("Maintains an updated list of computers on the network and supplies this list to computers designated as browsers. If this service is stopped, this list will not be updated or maintained.")
I think it starts automatically.
It can probably be disabled, but who knows...
We need a removal tool that can be run from a safe Linux environment (ie boot using a live disk etc., then run the tool from a USB drive)... not running it from inside windows where the Conficker is already running
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
In case you don't know where Romania is, here's a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itidLk5Dd3k
Please tag story as romaniaftw
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
Well, usually the Romulans keep to themselves instead of sharing all this information, for all we know, it could be them that started it!
Something must be up in the Star Empire.
*Appends To Trek Journal*
You don't need the Server service. Or at least, I haven't needed it in the last 6 months or so. I even run IIS on my Windows box for ASP.NET development. Seems like something called 'Server' would be needed for that, right? Nope.
I would certainly disable it on all desktops. In fact, Google 'unnecessary windows services' for a list of other services that seem to serve no practical purpose.
This "server" service has nothing to do with what you might expect from a "server", i.e. being a big machine that hosts a lot of stuff like mail or webpages. This "server" service is an integral portion of Windows' ability to share files through the local network and access network printers. Also, some other services (IIRC the whole bunch that deals with networking, from WiFi to telephony) depends on it.
In other words, the term "server" is maybe a bit preposterous. It's just the thingie that enables networking on Windows machines.
So, IMO, it's neither. It's neither a "real" server crappily configured by admins that should get their hands tied and pushed into administration where they can't do no harm, nor is it MS's fault for putting something that only a server OS should have on a desktop. It's simply the network thingamajig gone bad.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, this is The Cure
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Now that's just madness.
You seem to be working under the assumption that most servers have real admins.
Fact of the matter is, outside the very largest of companies, a very large majority of internet connected servers are run by small to medium size business who do not have a full-time IT department and/or often cannot either afford all the necessary equipment and software and man-hours necessary to secure against these threats, esp. since good security often winds up annoying a high-level manager who insists that they should be able to log in to the network and all their apps without a password and insists they have passwords to every computer in the building and that they can use myspace messenger and browse the web from the DNS server if they want to (which they will).
Also, many many many web servers are hosted with hosting companies like the one I work for where less than 5% of the 10,000+ physical servers have anything like a knowledgeable admin and are instead run by idiots in India who use cracked VoipSwitch software (which is itself virus infected, but they keep using it anyway even though the virus causes them to have to re-install every week or two). Or you get people who want to run their own website but simply don't have the skills to maintain it properly, but are convinced they don't need a real admin either... or a firewall... or anti-virus.
Oh, and the desktop has nothing to do with anything - these services would exists and be just as exploitable regardless of a GUI, as it's not the GUI that is being exploited - it's the poorly coded system services and libraries that aren't subject to any kind of external or peer review that are written by people who usually don't even know exactly what they are coding, leaving plenty of room for exploits to bad code crop up.
Funny, now that I think about it, MS treats the coding of it's OS similar to a terrorist operation, small groups of people working on compartmentalized tasks, never knowing who is doing exactly what or what the desired end-product actually is. This may be a great idea if you're a terrorist organization trying to get away with something and trying to prevent a loss of the whole project due to the capture of one or more cells, but this is not a good way to write software - I think the past 10+ years of shoddy performance and infection/exploit history of MS products should be a clear enough sign of the problem, but the MS execs are obviously too blind or ignorant to figure this out for themselves.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
Funny, now that I think about it, MS treats the coding of it's OS similar to a terrorist operation, small groups of people working on compartmentalized tasks, never knowing who is doing exactly what or what the desired end-product actually is.
Funny, now I think of it, this is EXACTLY how the whole Linux development goes on. You have a bunch doing the kernel, doing X, doing Gnome, doing Gimp, doing OOo, etc. All doing little parts of what is going to be the operating system, without having a clue of what the end product even could be. They just make sure that their little piece works fine. And for the software to communicate with each other they use some standard protocols.
Microsoft has at least some top management that will define the final look and feel (at least I assume so, any reasonable OS company would do so). So the little parts do not need to know the total, they just need to know what THEY have to do.
For example the printer server (like CUPS). They have to make sure they can address all kinds of printers on all kinds of ports, and then produce some interface for other software to talk to the printer server. The printer server people don't need to know the total picture. They just have to make sure their printer server works, and that they can answer requests according to specifications.
It seems the problem of Windows development may be that they do NOT work like that. That they want to keep it as a whole, finding interfaces to talk to all different programs in different ways, instead of standardising and creating independent components. Like Linux where you can add the components you need, and depending on the components you have a business work station (include word processor, image viewer, e-mail software), a multimedia station (install Gimp, some video editor, video and music players), or a server (do not install any GUI, instead Postfix, Apache and the rest).
The reason all these little programs can talk to each other is that they use certain standards. All open standards, official or not, some may have developed their own standard. But they use standard file formats, standard interfaces (named pipe, sockets, network) that other software also uses, and thus they can be patched together and generally work fine with each other. And then the distro producers (Mandriva, Ubuntu, Debian) test and make sure all works as expected, and optionally add bits of glue or eye candy to the whole.
Microsoft could be well off by starting to work like that. Kernel and GUI separate. Split off IE and Media Player. Set some goals for the new version, plan for each part what functionality it has to provide and how it is going to provide this to the outside world (e.g. API), and when the parts are done, glue them together. It may just work.
Without elaborating what Windows Server service that might be... Are there really that many vulnerable, not firewalled Windows servers connected to the Internet? Or is this a Server function that has no business on a Desktop that is getting infected?
The Server service provides file/print sharing in Windows. Technically that means it should only run on servers, but think of the number of Windows boxes (e.g. on home networks) where people use file sharing between machines. You can stop it, though.
If you de-select 'File and Print sharing' in the Windows firewall exceptions page, you block access to the Server service. (If memory serves correctly, Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 block file/print sharing by default.)
which is an additional service that increases the latencies greatly in Xp pro and vista and up. ie, it can bring down a 400 ms world of warcraft connection to 120 ms ping in average case.
Read radical news here
So apparently no one has heard of ComboFix?
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/combofix/how-to-use-combofix
www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
This gets old.
It is worth nothing more than a gratuitous +5 mod-up on Slashdot and a 0.83% share of the client desktop for Linux.
Time to dig deeper I think.
Cornflicker was dealt with in the January release of the Microsoft Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool
Deployment of the Microsoft Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool in an enterprise environment