January 2008 - Posts

This incident was reported via a comment on this blog. 

We have not found the malicious advertisement yet, but we can tell you that victims who are caught by the hijack when visiting mayoclinic.com end up being redirected to:
quinquecahue.com/swf/gnida.swf?campaign=fabulistor&u=1200910285

We can also tell you that this particular campaign (fabulistor) is coded to NOT trigger when the victim's computer falls within the following IP addresses or is located in the following US States:

129.176.0.0-129.176.255.255
172.21.0.0-172.21.255.255
Minnesota, California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Florida

Note that mayoclinic.com's IP address is 129.176.217.6

 

Spyware Sucks is accepting donations, with thanks.


The bad guys are certainly expanding their stable of advertisements.

Both lead victims to malicious quinquecahue.com URLs.  More later... 



 

Expedia.com has been infiltrated by a malicious banner advertisement - a new one that I have not seen before.

Victim site Expedia.com (216.251.114.10)
SWF host media.expedia.com
SWF Source  
Target fraudware domain scanner2.malware-scan.com
Banned cities, countries and IPs 199.3.0.0-199.3.255.255
216.251.0.0-216.251.255.255
172.30.0.0-172.30.25.255 (note: expedia.com's IP is banned)

IN, IL, UK, AU, FR, IT, CN, JP, DE, ES, MX, AE

colorado, washington, california, massachusetts, ontario, texas, hawaii, missouri, illinois
Permitted cities, countries and IPS  
SWF URL media.expedia.com/ads/FXSound/728x90.swf
Special notes  
Incident reported to expedia.com
Resolution  
 

Let's have a look at the danger path:

URL Referrer
scanner2.malware-scan.com/18_swp/?tmn=null&aid=&lid=&affid=&ax=&ed=&aid=pygmalioni_
ma18_mb1t&lid=728&affid=&ax=1&ed=2&mt_info=
3958_0_1349prevedmarketing.com/?tmn=mwatmp&aid=mi1eroof&lid=728&ax=1&ed=2
&mt_info=4957_3064_2358
prevedmarketing.com//?tmn=mwatmp&aid=pygmalioni&lid=728&ax=1&ed
=2&mt_info=5337_4168_2358
blessedads.com/?cmpid=pygmalioni&adid=728quinquecahue.com/statss.php?campaign=pygmalioni&u=1200655836
quinquecahue.com/swf/gnida.swf?campaign=pygmalioni&u=1200655836
quinquecahue.com/swf/gnida.swf?campaign=pygmalioni&u=1200655836 quinquecahue.com/statsg.php?u=1200655836&campaign=pygmalioni
quinquecahue.com/statsa.php?u=1200655836&campaign=pygmalioni media.expedia.com/ads/FXSound/728x90.swf

So, let's take a look at this new name, quinquecahue.com.

Not surprisingly, the malicious domain is hosted by, you guessed it, securehost.com (190.15.64.190):
http://www.robtex.com/dns/quinquecahue.com.html

Who else might we find in that IP range...
http://www.robtex.com/cnet/190.15.64.html

Again, no surprise, we see akamahi.net, newbieadguide.com, vozemiliogaranon.com and a name I have not seen before, familyislands.com.

Check out the domains sharing nameservers with quinquecahue.com - I *know* you're going to recognise many names....

domains sharing nameservers
 
advancedcleaner.com
akamahi.net
antispywaresuite.com
antiviruspcsuite.com
antiworm2008.com
avsystemcare.com
bestsellerantivirus.com
diskretter.com
elmejorantivirus.com
erreurchasseur.com
exterminadordevirus.com
moncontenuassistant.com
schijfbewaker.com
securepccleaner.com
spyguardpro.com
storageprotector.com
systemdoctor.com
thetechnorati.com
toolsicuro.com
vozemiliogaranon.com
winspycontrol.com
yourprivacyguard.com

 subdomains
*.quinquecahue.com
ns1.quinquecahue.com
ns2.quinquecahue.com
ns3.quinquecahue.com
ns4.quinquecahue.com
 

rhapsody.com has been hit by a malicious banner advertisement - rhapsody.com is owned by RealNetworks.

 

Victim site rhapsody.com (207.188.21.32)
SWF host RealOne / Doubleclick
SWF Source  
Target fraudware domain scanner2.malware-scan.com
Banned cities, countries and IPs 207.188.0.0-207.188.255.255 (note this IP range captures rhapsody.com)
newjersey, newyork, california, washington, virginia
paris, aarhus, velizycedex, jarrestr, amsterdam, rotterdam, zaanstad, koogaandezaan, seattle
Permitted cities, countries and IPS US, NL, FR, SE, DK, NO, UA
SWF URL i.realone.com/ads/Rollingstone/1_skyauction_728x90.swf?clickTag=http: // ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3652/3/0/%2a/x%3B177176445%3B0-0%3B0%3B12874614%3B3454-728/90%3B24358245/24376098/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/1/ff/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp: // www.skyauction.com/?id=384231
Special notes
Incident reported to Doubleclick
rhapsody.com
Resolution  

 

As always, let's work backwards from the final target site. 

URL Referrer

scanner2.malware-scan.com/9_swp/?tmn=null&aid=&lid=&affid=&ax=&ed=&aid=mi1eroof_ma9_mb1t&lid=728&affid
=&ax=1&ed=2&mt_info=3958_0_13496

prevedmarketing.com/?tmn=mwatmp&aid=mi1eroof&lid=728&ax=1&ed=2&mt_info=4957_3064_2358

blessedads.com/?cmpid=mi1eroof&adid=728

newbieadguide.com/statss.php?campaign=mi1eroof&u=23423424


newbieadguide.com/swf/gnida.swf?campaign=mi1eroof&u=23423424

newbieadguide.com/swf/gnida.swf?campaign=mi1eroof&u=23423424

newbieadguide.com/statsg.php?u=23423424&campaign=mi1eroof
newbieadguide.com/statsa.php?u=23423424&campaign=mi1eroof i.realone.com/ads/Rollingstone/1_skyauction_728x90.swf?clickTag=http: // ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3652/3/0/%2a/x%3B177176445%3B0-0%3B0%3B12874614%3B3454-728/90%3B24358245/24376098/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/1/ff/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp: // www.skyauction.com/?id=384231
i.realone.com/ads/Rollingstone/1_skyauction_728x90.swf?clickTag=http :// ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3652/3/0/%2a/x%3B177176445%3B0-0%3B0%3B12874614%3B3454-728/90%3B24358245/24376098/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/1/ff/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp: // www.skyauction.com/?id=384231 rhapsody.com/-search?query=U2&searchtype=RhapArtist

 

Screenshot of malicious SWF - yep, its the infamous Skyauction advertisement - again

image

The malware domains we have been featuring have moved on again - they are no longer hosted by Denit Internet Services, Amsterdam.

But it looks, this time, like the bad guys need a break from moving to host to host to host Cool

akamahi.net (190.15.64.185) (securehost.com)
newbieadguide.com (190.15.64.188) (securehost.com)
thetechnorati.com (190.15.64.191) (securehost.com)
vozemiliogaranon.com (190.15.64.192) (securehost.com)

Now remember, there is a slew of malicous domains hosted within the IP range 190.15.73 (also securehost.com), so we are not at all surprised that the bad guys have come to rest there.

To recap, first the domains were hosted by nine.ch but were dumped after the malicious advertisement that appeared on blick.ch, then they were briefly hosted by netrouting.eu, followed by FastServers, then by Denit Internet Services.

I think the next thing that we need to consider, bearing in mind the deep involvement of securehost.com in facilitating the distribution of fraudware, is to include SecureHost's upstream provider in any complaints about the hosted domains. 

Securehost may ignore complaints from the world at large, but if *their* bandwidth provider threatens to pull the pin, well that can be much harder to ignore...

Is it any surprise somebody has gotten grumpy and has been subscribing one of my public email addresses to a slew of mailing lists?  Oh well, if they want to devote valuable time to such games, then they're welcome to waste it - it will only take me only a few seconds to set up some appropriate mail rules to automatically delete the results of such shenanigans once I decide that the game is boring - there are plenty of common, yet unique, characteristics in "welcome to; you have joined; you have subscribed" email messages that make filtering too easy Geeked

 

IP 83.149.75.50 detected as subscribing one of my email addresses to a mailing list without permission.

Reduce it down to 83.149.75... do a Google search.. and what do we find?   Connections with malware.... "malwarewipe.com"????

http://board.protecus.de/t25767.htm

"http://malwarewipe.com/images/blue-gray-stripe.gif - deleted
http://83.149.75.51/count/l.php?pl=Win32&ce=true&id=rrd - deleted
http://www.surveyswages.com/img/laptop9.gif - deleted

http://dl.web-nexus.net/exclurls.php

"83.149.75." is a blocked IP.

Coincidence? 

What's cool is that I have only scratched the surface so far..... I have a mild interest in what's going on ... along the lines of "let's check this out just in case there's something newsworthy" but let's be honest... who gives two hoots about being subscribed to mailing lists... so many people have tried the "let's subscribe somebody we don't like to lots and lots of mailing lists" trick that it's a boring topic.

Let's see what happens over the next few days. Who knows, *they* may do something else mildly interesting, or something really dumb that we can giggle at, otherwise, I won't bore you with the details.

 

Keep 'em coming friend.  *Everything* is traceable eventually.

image

83.149.75.50 = LeaseWeb AS Amsterdam, Netherlands.... why am I not surprised?  The Netherlands has popped up several times in my recent articles about malware domains....

image

I admit, when I saw the following emails come in I assumed it was the typical "infected computer spewing out emails using me as a reply to" that we are all used to, and delete as a matter of course, until I saw the one from rollins.edu. That seems to be the result of an online form which requires actual input.

I confess to being disappointed... I expect my combatants to show, at the very least, a tiny glimmer of originality.

Oh well, you know what they say - small things amuse small minds.

 

That's right - this wasn't me:

 image

Nor this one...

 image

Nor this one....

image

 

Spyware Sucks is accepting donations, with thanks.

In order to uninstall Internet Explorer 7 from this system, you can follow the steps below:

1. Uninstall Service Pack 2 for Windows Server 2003 and restart the computer.

2. Uninstall Internet Explorer 7.0 and restart the computer.

3. Reinstall Service Pack 2 for Windows Server 2003.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/948093

 

Spyware Sucks was linked to by the MCPM (Microsoft Certified Professional Magazine and the "Redmond Security Watch" email newsletter:

http://mcpmag.com/columns/columnist.asp?columnistsid=16

"ESPN Sports Bad Code
ESPN's Soccernet site
hosted a malicious advertisement that, ultimately, led to PerformanceOptimizer.com, which in turn displayed numerous popups alleging problems with the victim's system and offering a solution.

Yep -- ad networks strike again! It simply amazes me how willing sites are to allow someone else to decide what its customers are going to see when they come to a site. That's precisely what you’re doing if you subscribe to an ad network. Revenue is a necessary component to any successful Web site, but there needs to be some additional steps taken to ensure your customers' experiences on your own site are good ones."

Cool!

Spyware Sucks is accepting donations, with thanks.



Source: 
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9058638&source=rss_news50

Check out what Insignia had to say in their alert:
http://www.insignia-products.com/news.aspx?showarticle=13

"It recently came to our attention that a limited number of Insignia 10.4” digital picture frames (model number NS-DPF-10A) were contaminated with  a computer virus during the manufacturing process. Once informed, we immediately pulled all units of this product from stores and retail web sites as a precautionary measure to protect our customers.  This product has been discontinued, and no additional inventory will be sold.  Please note that no other Insignia digital picture frame products are affected by this issue.
 
However, some affected units were purchased at a Best Buy store or from
www.bestbuy.com before the issue was detected. While this is an older virus which is easily  identified and removed by current anti -virus software, we are taking this situation seriously.  We apologize for the inconvenience that has been caused as a result of this incident."

I always ignore niceties such as "a limited number" - the fact that it occurred in the first place is bad enough; please don't try to make things sound better by saying "oh, but it was only a limited number".

The most glaring question I have is, if the "computer virus" is "an older virus which is easily identified and removed by current anti-virus software", then how the heck did the infection get past their own antivirus protection, and quality assurance, or is it that they don't they have any?

Insignia have not shared information about exactly what infected the frames, and I haven't been able to find any further information.

Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/01/massive_java_update_includes_s.html

I think it's worthwhile discussing a point that was raised in a comment made about the above article - specifically the comment made by the charmingly named "BelchSpeak", wherein he said:

"As a reminder, new versions of Java do not uninstall old ones automatically. This preserves some backwards compatibility issues with the software and older java applications that were version specific.

However, malware can make calls to older versions that still reside on your system, and many trojans are spread this way. Unless you know that you need an older version, you should uninstall all older versions from the system."

I am not certain that the above comment about malware being able to make calls to older versions is still correct.  I know that in the past it was an issue, but I am sure that this problem was resolved around 1.5.06 or something like that.

Ah, here we go:
http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-26-102557-1

"Prior to 5.0 Update 6, an applet could specify the version of the JRE on which it would run. With 5.0 Update 6 and later installed on the Windows platform, all applets are executed with the latest version of the JRE."

But, the advice comes with a disclaimer.  Java WebStart behaves differently.

"Prior to 5.0 Update 6, an application could specify the version of the JRE on which it would run. With 5.0 Update 6 and later installed, unsigned Java Web Start applications that specify a version other than the latest installed will trigger a warning, requiring explicit user permission before the application will run. Signed Java Web Start applications are not affected.

We should also examine this documentation:
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/webnotes/family-clsid.html

"As of JRE 5.0 Update 6, you can no longer specify the exact JRE release due to the potential misuse of static versioning. Instead, all Java applets are run using the latest version of the JRE software that is installed on the system. Note that this new behavior will not change if, after installing JRE 5.0 Update 6 or a later release, you then install an earlier JRE release. For details of the related Sun Alert, see http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-26-102557-1.

Because you can only use the latest version of the JRE software that is installed on the system to run Java applets, you must migrate your software to the latest JRE version as soon as possible.

This change might break existing Java applets that cannot be immediately migrated to the latest JRE version. For this reason, the JRE 5.0 Update 7 release introduces an interim solution that enables these Java applets to run with a specific JRE family version. As such, you can keep your existing deployment working while migrating your Java applets to the latest JRE version."

If I'm reading the document correctly, it is possible to work around the security introduced with 1.5.06 and specify a JRE "family" (eg: 1.4.2, JRE 5.0, or JRE 6), but not a specific version within that family.  In addition, there are "security baselines" in force  which consist of the version number of the latest release for each JRE family that is available when the latest JRE family is built.  If the latest release for the JRE family in question is installed, then that is what is used. If it is not installed, the user sees a warning, must specifically approve the applet to run, but more importantly the user is also given the opportunity to install the latest release.

So, is BelchSpeak's advice correct?  When I first read the comment, and responded, on Brian's page, my thinking was that advice is incorrect.  Now, I see that it is correct, but only with the proviso that the user must specifically approve the applet to run and ignore the prompt to update.  The most problematic versions of Java in each family are certainly below the security baseline, so there are layers of protection there.

That being said, each build of Java takes up over 100 megabytes of space on a hard drive and I generally remove old builds for just that reason.

 

Spyware Sucks is accepting donations, with thanks.



 

More Posts Next page »