Image via WikipediaBitdefender antivirus unwittingly released a signature update to its users on March 20th that detected and quarantined key Windows system files as malware, causing general OS failures.
Bitdefender had this statement on the news portion of their site:
“Saturday around 8:20am PST, an update that we were working on was uploaded prematurely in our servers. This update affected only products running on Windows 64-bit systems.”
The premature update caused various .exe and .dll files to be quarantined for both the Windows software and the Bitdefender software, each file detected as Trojan.FakeAlert.5.
“Consequently, for some systems, BitDefender did not run anymore, applications did not work or Windows could not start.”
This caused quite an uproar among the AV’s users as well as Bullguard antivirus users, whose software relies on Bitdefender’s engine and signatures. Though both companies have offered assistance in remediating the situation, many customers are outraged, especially when the only compensation offered to users so far has been free usage of the very software that caused the problem. A blunder like this also does nothing for the image of AV whose credibility and effectiveness has been in question for the last few years.
Detection rates by some AV groups is often low and the gap between release of new malware and its detection by AV is currently too significant, allowing for the growth of large botnets like Mariposa. False alarms, especially when automatically quarantined, can disrupt or severely damage home user and business systems, as it has with this update mishap.
I’m sure many of the Bitdefender/Bullguard users will be jumping ship, scouting alternative antivirus software, but how will they know which one to choose and which one to trust? A lot of AV company blogs end with something like, make sure you are completely updated with the latest signatures or software versions to ensure your protection.
Well, that’s not working for Bitdefender. What are they going to say now?
Bitdefender’s help page:
Bullguard’s help page:
Threat Research & Analysis
Image by slworking2 via FlickrWhen I heard of Corey Haim‘s death, shortly after fond recollections of License to Drive and The Lost Boys cinema moments, I wondered how soon the unfortunate news would be used in the spread of malware. Well it didn’t take long. Hours after the announcement of Haim’s death, search results for his name came up with domains used to spread rogue antivirus software.
Using search engine optimization (SEO), online criminals force their malware hosting sites into higher billing slots within search engine results. Often a series of redirection sites are traveled through by the user before the final malicious domain is contacted. This creates a level of separation from the actual malware and allows a variety of domains to be constantly created, altered, and moved around, evading detection and termination. Using timely and highly popular topics of interest. domains referring to these topics stay in the leading search engine results. Recent topics covered in SEO campaigns include the Haiti disaster, the Olympics, the Oscars, and unnamed Facebook applications.
So why do these attacks work so well? Amazingly there is still a level of trust by users for top resulting sites of search engine queries. It is common for people to see familiar sites time and again on the first page of search results, and popular sites deemed primarily benign usually take dominant billing. Perhaps this is why folks rarely question clicking on the initial links provided by their favorite search engines. They hadn’t been burned in the past when trusting the top resulting URLs, so why should they now question the validity and intention of every suggested link? Malware is why.
I don’t always keep up with the latest events, but with a little social interaction and casual reading I hear about most events I find interesting and usually several others I don’t, all within a reasonable amount of time. When I want to receive my news from a specific source I usually go to one location online or watch Robin Meade on HLN in the mornings. (There’s no such thing as bad news when Robin reads it.) I use search engines like everyone else to gather information on various inquiries but I don’t do grab bag research, blindly clicking on any keyword matching domains. I’ve never used the “I’m feeling Lucky” button because I never felt that lucky about randomly visiting unknown domains across the internet, and I certainly don’t want to be a punk. (nod to Dirty Harry in case that was missed)
Choosing a default news site to read about all things newsworthy would seem to be an obvious point to suggest here, just as a safety precaution. However, the simple facts behind these breaking stories are not commonly what people are after. There is usually a promise of a sex tape or footage of a celebrity’s death, which can’t be found on CNN. What they can’t find on news sites is what sends users searching, which is ironic because most people only go searching for this bonus material after reading about its availability outside of regular news sites. Maybe news site restriction or loyalty would keep more users safe from attack. But then there’s always Facebook and Twitter and forums/comment/email spam to shield your eyes from as well.
When I want to know what people are searching for I go to Google Trends: http://www.google.com/trends. I assume this is what criminals intent on spreading their malware also do. Topics that are “On Fire” and “Volcanic” are being queried the most and make for prime targets. If you want to try a little safer searching, wait for topics to cool down a little before clicking around. Even better, find a news site you trust and go there for your news. Anything outside of seeking the facts may just land you in some fire of your own.
Threat Research & Analysis
statistical chart from zeustracker.abuse.ch
Zeus is undoubtedly one of the most prevalent malware being used for web based criminal activity. It has compromised thousands of systems and, though an exact count is unknown, an example like the Kneber/Zeus botnet reported by Netwitness showed that one collection of infected computers consisted of “75,000 systems in 2,500 organizations around the world.” There have certainly been larger botnets concentrated on data theft, but with fluxing configurations, binaries and the domains used for hosting, the array of zeus botnets have remained both widespread and dangerous. Then, on March 9th 2010, Zeus took a big hit to its infrastructure.
Abuse.ch, who runs the ZeusTracker project, reported a significant drop in the active number of Zeus command and control servers, falling from 249 to 181 overnight. What they discovered was that the ISP Troyak (AS50215), and its dependent networks, had essentially been taken offline. These networks had been considered bulletproof hosting for Zeus domains, which means the hosting groups involved were believed to actively protect the malicious activity, ignore requests for ending it, or otherwise assumed by its users to be a safe zone for malicious domains.
While disconnecting thousands of compromised systems from their C&C domains is a great win, though likely a temporary one, no one knows who to congratulate. Security researchers assume it was an external takedown, but no one has stepped forward to be recognized. What is even more interesting, as mentioned by Brian Krebs, is that, 11 days prior to the Troyak switch-off, spam promoting Zeus also went into decline. On February 27th, as stated in Kreb’s blog, a large Zeus spamming gang stopped sending new spam.
For now we’ll just have to wonder who is behind this mysterious crusade against Zeus. It seems unlikely that it was the work of any security group or company as it is generally in our favor to promote such efforts. Perhaps a rival gang was involved and the “Zeus killer” feature in SpyEye wasn’t enough for them, or maybe somebody just thought to quit while they were ahead. That would be a novel idea.
Threat Research & Analysis
Moments after posting this, Troyak found a new upstream provider and got back online. They have since moved to yet another provider, trying to evade a second disruption of “services.” Some would say they’re on the run.
Related articles by Zemanta