Slashdot Mirror
Has Conficker Been Abandoned By Its Authors?
darthcamaro writes "Remember Conficker? April first doom and gloom and all? Well apparently after infecting over five million IP addresses, it's now an autonomous botnet working on its own without any master command and control. Speaking at the Black Hat/Defcon Hat security conference in Las Vegas, Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at security firm F-Secure, was told not to talk in detail about the Conficker gang — the problem is that not all researchers were under the same gag order. Just ask Roel Schouwenberg, senior anti-virus researcher at security firm Kaspersky, who says 'The Conficker botnet is autonomous; that is very strange in itself that they made Conficker replicate by itself. Now it seems like the authors have abandoned the project, but because it is autonomous, it can do whatever it wants and it keeps on trying to find new hosts to infect.'"
We have no idea who is behind this or what they intend to do so we will continue with wild-ass speculation in order to keep our companies in the news.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Possible scenarios:
1. they've been busted for something else and are now in gaol. Conficker patiently bides its time waiting for the stars to be right and its dark master(s) to be freed.
2. they've given up on that crappy little botnet and are working busily on a new, much stronger, more powerful one.
3. It was never invented by Russian mobsters, but by the Bush administration, intending to hack all the voting machines and deliver unto George a third term.
4. someone forgot their password, it was written on a little post-it by the monitor, which was vacuumed up by their mum when she did some spring cleaning.
5. The inventors had their fun with Microsoft and the internet, but now they've discovered girls and beer.
from any other virus? Last I checked, any effective virus has a mechanism to spread/replicate by itself, whether to other IPs on the same subnet or via AIM or USB drives or what have you. In April and may I scanned my network of ~8500 completely user-controlled machines and found a grand total of 4 confirmed infected. The IRC bots spread via AIM links were more prevalent.
That's what happens when software isn't open - it gets abandoned and the users are screwed. Free Conficker now! Turn it over to the EFF!
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Never getting laid?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
When enough users have been lulled into inaction and enough machines have been taken over, the enemy will strike. Meanwhile, the operators may be sending commands to specific PCs of interest. Security researchers might not be picking up commands targeted to only a few machines.
Most anti-virus defense efforts assume the enemy is only marginally competent and has no strategic goal. It's clear from what's known about the Conflicker attack that the enemy is significantly more competent and better funded than those behind previous viruses. The Conflicker attack was updated frequently until it was deploying itself successfully despite defensive efforts. Once the attack continued to grow despite defensive efforts, the updates stopped. That's not loss of interest, that's operational art.
This thing behaves like it has military tactical planning behind it.
Actually, most AV researchers do take their "enemies" serious. Malware writers are competent. If only because they manage to use security holes which require quite a bit of intimate knowledge of the machines (and the OS) you try to infect.
It's not a secret that most malware writers do have a goal by now: Money. The days of the pimple-faced kiddy sitting in the basement and, out of frustration of not getting laid, releasing some worm on the world. That's so 90s.
What's right is that AV research usually targets the "mass market", at least when it comes to AV development. If you're working for strategic targets, you usually can't make a big speech out of it, neither military nor government nor financial services like you blabbing about how insecure their setup is. So any commands issued only to a small subset of the botnet would probably go unnoticed.
While we're pissing in the wind anyway, allow me to add mine: How about this whole deal being a targeted attack, and they just waited for their designated target becoming infected.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Watch the series again. S.A.C. has nothing to do with a virus becoming self aware. It's actually a collective of individuals who believe to be acting autonomously but, in reality, are all following a pattern mimicking individual intent by a single entity.
The Laughing Man was originally a single hacker, but once he stopped his activities, a group of others took it from there and their actions collectively created another Laughing Man.
It's basically digital gestalt-ism combined with neural networking where each human is a node in the larger network without being aware of the whole.
Sort of like 4chan, but much less horrible ;)
Maybe Alan Cox can step in as maintainer, now that he has a little free time off his TTY maintainer position?