Author Topic: So what's up with Conficker, really?  (Read 2784 times)

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
So what's up with Conficker, really?
« on: Thursday, April 02, 2009, 01:08:23 PM »
April 1st came and went uneventfully.  Everything seems to work as before.  No gloom and doom scenarios involving Conficker C came to pass.  But then today I decided to check my firewall filter log file.  While most days see between 1 and 15 pages (at about 50 entries per page) of blocked access attempts, yesterday I had 88 pages of refused connection attempts.  They look like this (in a spoiler block to avoid formatting nightmare):

(click to show/hide)

The sites seem random.  There may be many of the same on a single page, but that's not indicative of any pattern that I can make out.  Comments?

Offline scottws

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6,602
    • Facebook Me
Re: So what's up with Conficker, really?
« Reply #1 on: Thursday, April 02, 2009, 01:21:33 PM »
Not sure, but it all seems to want to come in on TCP port 54107.  I tried to search what that port was and couldn't find anything.

The worm Conficker was spreading well before Apr. 1 (I had to help clean it off of 300 computers a month ago).  I can't see a reason why activity would spike yesterday.

I didn't get the Apr. 1 thing.  They thought something would happen but not what exactly would happen.  I'm not sure why that is.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So what's up with Conficker, really?
« Reply #2 on: Thursday, April 02, 2009, 01:49:18 PM »
That's my bittorrent port.  So that's what that is.  The port is open at the router for the BT client, and the firewall allows traffic to and from the client only.  I guess it has attracted all sorts of unwanted attention that can't get through, since like I said access is only allowed to and from the BT app itself.  Glad to see the firewall doing its job.  But still, looking back even a few days before, while there are attempts to get to the same port, they are way fewer.

Offline WindAndConfusion

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,336
Re: So what's up with Conficker, really?
« Reply #3 on: Thursday, April 02, 2009, 11:29:21 PM »
Conficker = not all that scary

UPnP = fucking terrifying (and yet I run it anyway)

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So what's up with Conficker, really?
« Reply #4 on: Friday, April 03, 2009, 09:41:31 AM »
Not me.  That's disabled.  I just checked to make sure.  Isn't that a bit like bending over and spreading your butt cheeks, hoping no one inserts anything sharp?  I know it facilitates some things, but I'm afraid of letting anything outside have that much control.

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,182
Re: So what's up with Conficker, really?
« Reply #5 on: Sunday, April 05, 2009, 11:08:49 PM »
i'm so out of the loop - i have no idea what either of those are.

Edit:  I just googled it...wtf?  Do i really need to disable plug and play, or just the network extension of it?  Does a router firewall block the dangerous traffic? Does disabling it send me back to windows 95-esque driver installations?

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So what's up with Conficker, really?
« Reply #6 on: Monday, April 06, 2009, 11:42:57 AM »
Having never used UPnP, I guess I don't know what I'm missing.  Things work as they always have for me.  Drivers install fine, and if it gets easier than this, ignorance is bliss.

Offline WindAndConfusion

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,336
Re: So what's up with Conficker, really?
« Reply #7 on: Monday, April 06, 2009, 11:11:05 PM »
Well, I can never resist the urge to expound upon some trivial technical subject, so here goes...

I'm assuming you already know what NAT is. (If you don't know, NAT is how you can share one IP address and Internet connection among several computers. If you have a home router, you are almost certainly using NAT.)

One of the disadvantages of NAT is that, if you're behind a NAT gateway, you can't receive incoming connections. This doesn't affect web browsing, for instance, because when you load a web page, your computer initiates the connection. On the flip side, if you try to run a web server behind a NAT, you'll encounter a problem, because no one on the Internet will be able to open a connection with your web server.

Naturally, this also affects peer-to-peer connections and other things. It was decided that it would be nice if there were some kind of automated system for forwarding incoming connections, so that actual human beings would never have to deal with this shit.

UPNP is one method of solving this problem. A UPNP-enabled program can ask your router to automatically forward incoming connections for you. Unfortunately, UPNP is an ill-considered hack of a protocol. Different routers have different UPNP implementations, but on many routers, a program can ask the router to do something stupid and dangerous and the router will happily comply.

To make matters worse, it's very easy to forge a UPNP request. Adobe Flash Player will gladly do it, if you load a Flash object which instructs it to do so.

Here's an example of a UPNP exploit. This actually happened to me once, and even though I managed to isolate and fix the problem in a few minutes, it took me a few weeks to figure out what the fuck happened.

You, being an innocent web user, inadvertently load a Flash object on a malicious website. The Flash object instructs your copy of Adobe Flash Player to send an instruction to your UPNP-enabled router that causes said router to redirect all outgoing UDP traffic on port 53 to a server in Russia.

The next time you click on a link to a website your computer hasn't visited recently, you find that you get redirected to a hardcore pornography website in Russia. In fact, every website you visit links to the exact same website, except for sites you've visited recently. The reason for this is that when your computer loads a URL, like google.com, it has to send a DNS query to find the IP address that corresponds to that URL (unless it has already visited that site, in which case it probably knows the IP already). These DNS requests are sent on UDP port 53; so when that malicious website from last paragraph sent a UPNP request to your router, it was hijacking your DNS and (by proxy) almost the whole God damn Internet.

Oh, and as much as it will probably piss Que off, the two cheapest and most practical solutions to this problem are sold almost exclusively by Apple.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So what's up with Conficker, really?
« Reply #8 on: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 11:33:33 AM »
While searching for why some things seem to think that I'm running Win 2K instead of XP, I ran across this infection-detecting tool which includes Conficker.  It was updated today, in fact.  If you run Windows automatic updates, you already have it, somewhere.  It claims to detect and disinfect.  I got a clean bill of health, so I don't know how well it deals with infections, or really, even if it works at all.  Microsoft says it does.

Offline scottws

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6,602
    • Facebook Me
Re: So what's up with Conficker, really?
« Reply #9 on: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 04:56:20 PM »
I'm always forgetting that you run an ancient version of Windows XP... almost another OS entirely.

Yeah, Microsoft releases a new Malicious Software Removal Tool monthly as part of Windows Automatic Updates.  I believe it also runs once silently and automatically after being installed, but I could be wrong.

There is a hotfix for the security hole that Conficker exploits.  I'm not sure if it works on XP RTM or SP1.  I doubt it.  It is KB958644.