Slashdot Mirror


Torpig Botnet Hijacked and Dissected

An anonymous reader writes "A team of researchers at UC Santa Barbara have hijacked the infamous Torpig botnet for 10 days. They have released a report (PDF) that describes how that was done and the data they collected. They observed more than 180K infected machines (this is the number of actual bots, not just IP addresses), collected 70GB of data stolen by the Torpig trojan, extracted almost 10K bank accounts and credit card numbers worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in the underground market, and examined the privacy threats that this trojan poses to its victims. Considering that Torpig has been around at least since 2006, isn't it time to finally get rid of it?"

30 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. uuh..yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    why dont they just send a self destruct/uninstall command and kill it or would that be too simple ?

    1. Re:uuh..yeah. by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny thing is, if you do a favor for someone you don't even get thanked, but screw it up even a bit and you get slapped with a lawsuit.

    2. Re:uuh..yeah. by LackThereof · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why dont they just send a self destruct/uninstall command and kill it or would that be too simple ?

      Because that would be highly illegal. Just as illegal as creating the botnet in the first place. You can't just make modifications to 180,000 computers without their owners knowledge or consent.

      Some governmental agency should man up and do it, though. Researchers have been hijacking botnets to study them for a while now, they almost have it down to a science. Someone in Homeland Security should just grow some balls and hire a team of professionals to hijack and destroy botnets.

      --
      Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
    3. Re:uuh..yeah. by VValdo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Although we could have sent a blank conguration le to potentially remove the web sites currently targeted by Torpig, we did not do so to avoid unforeseen consequences (e.g., changing the behavior of the malware on critical computer systems, such as a server in a hospital). We also did not send a conguration le with a different HTML injection server IP address for the same reasons. To notify the affected institutions and victims, we stored all the data that was sent to us, in accordance with Principle 2, and worked with ISPs and law enforcement agencies, including the United States Department of Defense (DoD) and FBI Cybercrime units, to assist us with this effort. This cooperation also led to the suspension of the current Torpig domains owned by the cyber criminals.

      FTFA, they snaked a domain name they knew the botnet was going to use before the bad guys could, then just collected info sent to them by all the compromised systems.

      The submission header and the body are encrypted using the Torpig encryption algorithm (base64 and XOR)

      Torpig encryption algorithm: base64 and XOR. In contrast, Conficker uses all kinds of crypto (RC4, RSA, and MD-6).

      W

      --
      -------------------
      This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:uuh..yeah. by corsec67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some governmental agency should man up and do it, though. Researchers have been hijacking botnets to study them for a while now, they almost have it down to a science. Someone in Homeland Security should just grow some balls and hire a team of professionals to hijack and destroy botnets.

      What is to keep that agency from just hijacking and *keeping* the botnet? Suddenly you have a government agency with a trojan installed on many computers.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    5. Re:uuh..yeah. by DragonDru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I feel so conflicted. It is good they got enough information to tell law enforcement who the victims are, but I feel sad they did not do more to stop the botnet. However, there would be lawsuits if they had done more. Also, the bot masters now know exactly who was messing with their system (even their email addresses and their technique). Net effect, a botnet will go down slowly and some researches will get a *lot* of spam.

      --
      20 characters max for the password? How will I use my favorite poems as passwords?
    6. Re:uuh..yeah. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If YOUR homeland security fiddles with MY government computer, get ready for international troubles."

      Here's your reason why they don't.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:uuh..yeah. by NoobixCube · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, if it were an illegally operated rental car company, or if I were using the rental cars to smuggle banned substances or stolen goods. Turn the car into a smoking pile of twisted metal, and all the coke hidden in the seats suddenly isn't there anymore.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    8. Re:uuh..yeah. by phantomcircuit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually base64 and XOR is the obfuscation algorithm used for the configuration file. There is a separate encryption algorithm present that is entirely custom and which nobody has yet to break (although im guessing nobody has done a serious cryptanalysis either).

    9. Re:uuh..yeah. by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you're smart enough to hack into this botnet and make it do your bidding, your smart enough to not have commands sent to it traced back to you.

      True, but unfortunately it seems they aren't smart enough to keep quiet about it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:uuh..yeah. by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow. The sentiment is unarguable, but the rest of your post is amazingly uninformed.

      What is a den of thieves? Do thieves nest in the rafters of seedy pubs or something? Did anyone imply that credit card theft was "better" than some other kind of theft?

      I understand that we like the freedom of the internet. But making a bot of somebody's computer is akin to rape.

      Non sequitur. Also, the analogy is not appropriate: there is no physical harm being done.

      ...governments must fund efforts to detect and arrest the people responsible.

      They do. Perhaps you can improve on that suggestion with some further content.

      Plus, our banks and stores and so on must get smarter security.

      Smarter than what? As long as they have massive amounts of valuable information, they are targets. However, that's not really the subject of TFA, which is the low-hanging fruit consisting of people using insecure browsers and operating systems. The people running Torpig didn't need to hack a bank, they just relied on people being idiots. Vista and Win7 may be steps towards a more secure desktop environment, but they're not a cure for the root issue: PEBKAC.

      PEBKAC being ubiquitous, we should not expect a solution to the botnet issue any time soon. Just try and think of it as another idiot tax.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    11. Re:uuh..yeah. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They do. Perhaps you can improve on that suggestion with some further content.

      Problem is that a lot of countries DON'T care about these kinds of crimes. Laws tend to have a hard time keeping up with technology.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    12. Re:uuh..yeah. by mh1997 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I go as far as telling you that also the victims should be punished for leaving their machines wildly exposed to the botnet. Guess all of them they were running un-updated OS, without antivirus and/or firewall. Since it's obvious that these bots are used also in criminal attacks against other people (DDOS - Spamming - further botnet spreading) I don't see them as victims but more like accomplices.

      If you are not willing to learn how to safely use a computer you shouldn't have one, just stick to a iPhone or other toys (Internet tablets).

      Let's not limit this to computers. If someone breaks into your house or steals your car, cell phone, credit card, etc. then you should be responsible for all crimes committed by the thief. You are not just a victim, you are an accomplice. If you cannot reasonably protect yourself from physical theft by learning martial arts and proper use of firearms/weapons, you should just stick to...computers?

      Computers and the internet are sold as toys and a convenient way to handle business transactions for the common person. The common person has a reasonable expectation that upon opening the box, his computer and his personal data will be reasonably secure. If the OEMs can't provide that level of security, or that level of security can only be achieved by a certain amount of training, then they should put a giant disclaimer on the splash screen stating that any and all data put on that computer will likely be stolen and that the computer will probably be taken over by theives for crimminal activities.

    13. Re:uuh..yeah. by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's not limit this to computers. If someone breaks into your house or steals your car, cell phone, credit card, etc. then you should be responsible for all crimes committed by the thief. You are not just a victim, you are an accomplice. If you cannot reasonably protect yourself from physical theft by learning martial arts and proper use of firearms/weapons, you should just stick to...computers?

      You've latched onto the wrong thing here. The key is not that you should be responsible to avoid becoming a victim, the key is that you should be responsible for the equipment you are operating causing harm to others. The analogous situation would be driving an unmaintained car. For instance, here in the UK, cars must undergo an MOT every year to determine that they are safe for the road. If a car owner skips their MOT and is involved in an accident, they are in big trouble. In addition, before driving that car, the person must show themselves to be capable of operating it with a degree of skill that is reasonable to avoid harm to others. To turn this back around, the analogous situation with computers would be a course before people are allowed onto the Internet to teach people not to run random executables etc., and a requirement to install all available security patches as part of their ongoing maintenance.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  2. yes by mofag · · Score: 5, Funny

    no, maybe, oh I don't know. Why do I get all the hard questions?

  3. Re:Hacking is hacking isn't it? by mkairys · · Score: 4, Informative

    The BBC got in trouble when they took control of a botnet for one of their technology shows: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/mar/12/bbc-botnet-legality-questioned. While this research was performed in the US, I think they must have broken a law somewhere. I don't see how grabbing personal info obtained illegally for the sake of research, even if they didn't infect the computers originally, makes it permissible under US law.

  4. 3 years? Pfffft. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Take a machine. Install Windows XP SP1. Hook it to an unfiltered intenet access. Watch Sasser install. Mean time before infection: 30 seconds.

    That nuisance is 5 years old and still running rampart. Now, far from being the threat that Torpig is, but it shows you just how hard it is to get rid of something. And unlike Torpig, it's not really "in use" anymore. Its maker is gone, it doesn't get any updates or new variants to faciliate infection. We're talking about the same old crapware that every single AV kit knows and removes by now. Worse, it's a threat that any halfway decently patched machine is not susceptible to.

    And you want to get rid of Torpig?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:3 years? Pfffft. by socsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's say I reinstall XP SP1 and somehow MS manages to have included a nic driver for my card. I then need that Internet access to download AV from my uni, patches from MS, etc. How do you expect a consumer to have a machine fully patched prior to the initial network connection?

    2. Re:3 years? Pfffft. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Give him a CD with XP which includes SP3 and all patches up to now, and he should be good for some time.

      Give him Linux, and he will be good for a looong time.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:3 years? Pfffft. by socsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, consumers with their Dell OEM CD from seven years ago have easy access to slipstreamed SP3 CDs and know how to use Linux.

      He'll be good until iTunes or some niche piece of software doesn't install and then he'll just be pissed at you.

      We know better and we try to educate Joe Consumer, but Joe Consumer doesn't have our skills or knowledge, which was the point of my original post. The consumer is not to blame.

    4. Re:3 years? Pfffft. by value_added · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We know better and we try to educate Joe Consumer, but Joe Consumer doesn't have our skills or knowledge, which was the point of my original post. The consumer is not to blame.

      Sorry, but the consumer is to blame. They may not, at the present time, have any legal obligations, and may not suffer any direct liabilities while remaining blissfully oblivious of the consequences of their actions or inactions, but we're free and justified for assessing the blame on them as we are on the malware authors as both share responsibility for their actions or omissions. To use a cliche, it always takes two to tango.

      I don't care whether you're talking about a guy handing over money to an unscrupulous investor (or worse, trying to invest it themselves), someone doing home wiring without understanding electricity or codes, someone driving a car who ignores the relationship between speed and stopping distances, or someone who bought a product that doesn't do work as well as it was advertised, the blame rests ultimately with the individual who fucked up. That should come as no surprise given that individuals who do fuck rarely need encouragement or a convincing argument to admit they fucked up.

      The standard here is one of reasonableness.

      Is it reasonable to assume that computers are complex beasts and that malware is problem? Yes. The former is self evident and the latter is a also truism that can be cited by most Windows users or gleaned from the local news by everyone else. Then WTF is Joe Average doing trying to install an operating system? Or manage it? He has lots of alternatives including hiring the kid down the block or taking it the local shop.

      Is it reasonable to assume that Macs are also complicated but Mac users can do without requisite knowledge or skill? Yes. The reasons for that are as numerous as why Windows users continue to suffer problems.

      You can go on about complexity and missing skillsets, but none of those justify anything. If you're trying to comfort those who fucked up, you're doing them a disservice. If you're conceding that the battle is lost and ha ha this is the way things are and always will be, then you're being irresponsible and contributing nothing to the discussion or solution.

      Personally, I'd go so far as to say that anyone who trots out the "poor user" argument (usually in combination with the "Everyone is using Windows so everyone is doing it, too!" argument) is they participate in extending the current state of affairs and are therefore part of the problem.

      Why pay lip service to user education advocacy when responsibility and blame are pre-requisites? Start blaming. Blame everyone involved, but don't skip the person ultimately responsible. We'll all be better off for it.

  5. Suggested punishment by rossz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about we make the punishment for infecting a computer $100 and one day in jail for each system you infect. This way, someone who does something stupid but isn't actually malicious pays a few hundred dollars and spends a few days in jail while the real criminals pay big bucks and spend years in jail. For 180k systems, that's an eighteen million dollar fine and nearly five hundred years of jail time.

    Of course, the problem is catching these bastards who tend to live in countries where the government doesn't care or is actively involved in these illegal activities (I'm looking at you Russia).

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:Suggested punishment by Kaboom13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's already illegal. We don't need to run around making new laws. The problem is law enforcement world wide does not care. Even if the perpetrators of a major botnet are in their grasp, they will do their best to ignore it. If it happens on the internet, that means it's an international problem. Which means it's not their problem. They are too busy busting 19 year olds trying to sleep with 17 year olds, and "drug busts" of people licensed and permitted by their state government to grow marijuana, and harassing random people with the same name as a suspected "terrorist". Has anyone seen the FBI actually even investigate an identity theft case? We aren't talking criminal masterminds here, most of them could be tracked down with minimal effort.

      The only solution to crap like this will have to be technical. I suspect for the internet to survive, enforcement will have to come at the ISP level. Automated detection of botnets and ddos attacks in progress is possible. What should happen is when it's detected you are infected, your upload is heavily throttled, and you are contacted to correct it. Failure to do so results in suspension of service. ISPs that don't implement it should face having all their packets dropped by everyone else. It won't stop the latest and greatest, but years old botnets could easily be stopped. The potential for false positives will suck, as will the temptation for ISP's to abuse it, but currently theres several botnets out there that could easily take down critical infrastructure if they decide to ddos it.

    2. Re:Suggested punishment by Toonol · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's "Viruses". Just for future reference. I know, I'm being pedantic.

  6. Re:So they committed a felony? by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, they purchased a domain name, set up servers to accept data sent to that domain, then collected that data. That their research had told them that the domain would be used by the botnet is incidental. If you mail your credit-card information to my domain, I haven't committed any crime if I accept it and turn it over to the authorities.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  7. Re:WTF? by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Getting altruism out of people is hard enough at the best of times. Asking for altruism when the likely reward is getting arrested.. no.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  8. No mention of Windows as the target by david.emery · · Score: 4, Informative

    What bothered me after reading this paper is nowhere does this paper come out and say that the infected machines are all running Windows, although this is strongly implied by the description of how the virus works. The reader is left to wonder whether machines other than Microsoft Windows were infected.

    Instead, the paper leaves the impression that all computing has the same architectural vulnerabilities. I thought that was a surprising defect, sufficient to make me wonder what else isn't captured/stated/analyzed in the paper.

  9. Torpig by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why does this sound like a cross between an Onion and Swine Flu?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  10. Re:How do I make such a CD? by argiedot · · Score: 4, Informative

    If your recovery disks simply restore an image to the hard-drive, just install into a virtual machine, then download the the redistributable version of Windows XP SP3, then make an image of that and restore at your leisure.

    In fact, try that even otherwise. Simply install to a Virtual Machine without internet access, then get the redistributable SP3 using your safe Linux distribution, then create a slipstreamed ISO inside your Virtual Machine and burn it in your Linux distribution if you can't have passthrough enabled in the virtual machine.

    Never tried this myself (I use a Linux distro), but can't see why it shouldn't work, and it should be safe.

  11. Re:Hacking is hacking isn't it? by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    There already is a class of malware called "rouge anti-virus" that gives false removal instructions

    Fortunately they're quite easy to spot due to the red coloration.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."