Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Warns of Copycat Conficker Worm
nk497 writes "Microsoft is warning that malware writers have adapted a four-year-old virus to use features of Conficker to take advantage of Windows flaws. Other similarities between the adapted Neeris worm and Conficker are that it downloads a copy of the worm from the attacking machine using HTTP, spreads via autorun, and uses a driver to patch the TCP/IP layer of the system. It even saw a traffic jump around the first of April, when the Conficker hype peaked. But the Microsoft researchers suggested Conficker may have copied Neeris, or that they're copying each other: 'It is possible that these miscreants somehow collaborate or at least are aware of each other's "products."'"
This is could one of two ways, either the viruses will try and outdo each other by doing more and more outrageous things to the victim's computer or (and let's face it, this would be more amusing) they'll try and kill each other to get sole ownership of the PC.
Either way, I'm glad I use Linux.
Summation 2
I, for one, am amazed to learn that criminal software developers behave quite similarly to ordinary ones. Reusing code, copying features from industry leaders, why, they probably even use revision control systems!
Seriously, though. It would be more of a surprise if they weren't doing this. Of course players in a competitive market are going to be watching each other and adopting each others best features.
How long before each worm includes a copy of its source code in a git repository, searches out other variants of the same worm on the infected system or across the net, and randomly exchanges patches with them to create hybrid offspring? The worm would need some way to compile itself, of course (unless written in Javascript or other scripting language where the interpreter is included with Windows).
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
No, they are updating an old virus to use the new flaws. Think about it. If the old virus used the same security holes as Conficker then it would not need to be updated.
They will shortly be releasing a tool to test your system to make sure you have the real worm and not some impostor/pirate copy of the worm. This will be an extension of the WGA program.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
"It is possible that these miscreants somehow collaborate or at least are aware of each other's 'products.'"
Well, no shit, Sherlock. Guess they must have Internet connection too, then...
With all the resources at Microsoft's disposal, you'd have thought that they'd have come up with a specific fix. Yes, I'm aware that regularly-patched machines are better protected, but the evidence is clear that many people don't do that; (and not just the pirates, either).
If Ms supplied something that detected/removed/protected against up&down, (free, with no 'Genuine Advantage / Validation' bs), then I'm sure pretty soon all the media would link to that & the sheeple would rush to download & install... How about it, Redmond?
It's more like "You turned off autoupdates and don't have antivirus software, so watch out".
Conficker only affects out-of-date systems made vulnerable by idiots turning off security systems to gain a small performance improvement.
But hey, don't let me interrupt your "Bash M$; get karma" rant...
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
Why, I very nearly dropped my monocle when I heard that the rascals might be cahoots! Perhaps they have some sort of network (a system of tubes, perhaps?) that allows them to share their diabolical plans! Fiendishly clever!
We must safeguard our computing engines! I say we must find these these rogues and hang them from the highest scaffold in the land!
Disagree. Windows security issues are a major concern for Microsoft's customers, and hence to them. Apple, BSD/*x and FOSS boosters, (and yes, I'm one) regularly point out how much more 'secure' their platforms are. (Of course, as debated endlessly here and elsewhere, that may be as much a function of market share as inherent design, although few informed people would seriously challenge the latter).
Of course, it's not just the OS, it's the apps. Ms makes a lot from selling 'Office' too, which has its own vulnerabilities.
So, since the competition is 'free' (*x & Ooo) and more secure, yes, I guess they do give a damn.
While doing a bit of looking around for another post in this thread I found what's basically an idiot's guide to detecting conficker. It uses pictures to show you if you have it.
This tickled my funny bone for some reason; you have to love the lets-use-pictures approach!
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
It's pretty rare on Windows to actually need to reboot for software installation. The only things you can't really do are replace or delete files that are in use, and remove / replace a driver without rebooting.
The real secret - it hasn't really ever been necessary. Almost everything you'd want to do in an application installer could be done without rebooting even on Windows 95. Only system-level software (drivers, for example) ever really needed a reboot, and even that never really needed it on Windows NT.
Unfortunately, many (most?) people who develop installers on Windows don't realise that rebooting is unnecessary, so they do it anyway. Idiots.
Anyway, what does that have to do with autorun? I thought autorun was mostly because average computer users didn't know where to find the CD drive after they'd inserted a disk, and Windows didn't just copy Mac OS and stick an icon on the desktop.
This is untrue. Conficker uses a variety of ways to spread itself. Such as installing itself as autorun on various volumes. It also includes a password attack to get admin access to a machine and infect SMB shares.
It may use additional methods as well. This is part of the reason conficker is getting so much press.
I disagree with that statement. IMHO, Windows users are either:
1. Concerned about viruses, but they think their machine has some magical immunity because they don't actually think their machine might ever be infected, OR:
2. Are totally clueless about viruses and spyware.
Even on forums where experienced users post, how many times have you seen a post that is something like: "I don't use anti-virus, I'm just careful where I browse and my PC has never been infected"? Replace "never been" for "I've never been aware" and you might get something close to the truth.
Again, IMHO, Windows users for one reason or another are not significantly concerned about viruses.
One of my colleagues keeps asking why people create viruses -- I keep telling him that today, they do it for profit, but he seems to have a hard time wrapping his mind around that concept. I don't think he is atypical and I think that he, like many others, just doesn't understand how harmful viruses and spyware are and hence doesn't recognize the seriousness of the threat.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!