[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3F32B148.2020001@umn.edu>
From: eckman at umn.edu (Brian Eckman)
Subject: Red Bull Worm
Bassett, Mark wrote:
> What about what mobly posted earlier?
>
> <snip>
> FYI: Symantec's analysis
> http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/backdoor.irc.cir
> ebot.html
>
> -Dave
>
(snippage)
Well, it technically isn't a worm. But don't take my word for it, as I
am no expert. Symantec classifies it as a Trojan Horse, not a worm. On
the KAV Web page (http://www.avp.ch/avpve/worms/win32/autorooter.stm),
they state "Even though this file package does not contain any
auto-replication funnctions (sic), we still consider it much closer to
being a worm-type program rather than merely a backdoor or a hacktool. "
OK, so I'll call it a worm for argument's sake. It restricts itself to
roughly 5% of the possible IP space and only spreads via 445/tcp.
Symantec's site is still saying 0-49 hosts infected in the
first 4 days. I'd hardly say it's more effective than Code Red.
Now, if someone takes it and turns it into an E-mail aware worm, and/or
opens it's target IP range to the Internet at large, then it is a
*different* worm (I'm still calling it a worm for argument's sake) and
we're playing a whole different ballgame.
I have IP addresses in the target range of this "worm". I'm seeing lots
of scanning for 445/tcp, but not coming from other addresses in it's
target range.
Brian
--
Brian Eckman
Security Analyst
OIT Security and Assurance
University of Minnesota
612-626-7737
"There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who
understand binary and those who don't."
Powered by blists - more mailing lists