Microsoft didn't crush Storm, counter researchers

Top Stories

Related

• Clues point to Jan. 13 release of Windows 7 beta
• Microsoft releases Vista SP2 beta
• Obama's DHS pick may find support for raising H-1B cap at confirmation hearing
• IBM wants info from Apple execs in Papermaster case
• License server glitch exposes SonicWall users to e-mail security threats
• Report: Former AOL chief exec tries to raise funds to buy Yahoo

• New Windows worm builds massive botnet
• Hosting firm shutdown forces botnets to relocate
• Feds warn about rise in attacks against e-commerce sites
• Analysts: Microsoft needs to look closely at security practices
• Microsoft admits defense against attacks was inadequate

Zone

The Security Zone With the mobility of employees and the ease with which external devices can be brought in and out of a network, continuing to build your security plan for network servers and clients is a must. Fortunately, there is much that organizations can do to protect themselves from attacks - internal and external. Having the right policies, procedures and server configurations is critical... Learn more in The Security Zone See All Zones

April 24, 2008 (Computerworld) Microsoft Corp. didn't crush the Storm botnet as it has claimed, rival security researchers argued today. Instead, the criminals responsible for the army of compromised computers diversified last year to avoid attention and expand their business.

Paul Ferguson, a network architect, and Jamz Yaneza, a research project manager, both at Trend Micro Inc., disputed Microsoft's contention that its Malicious Software Removal Tool (MSRT) had beaten Storm into submission.

The MSRT is a program that Microsoft updates and automatically redistributes to Windows users each month on Patch Tuesday. It includes definitions for the most popular malware, sniffs systems for malicious code and then deletes it. Microsoft first added detection for the Storm Trojan horse in September 2007.

By the company's count, the MSRT cleaned more than 526,000 Storm-infected PCs in the final four months of last year. After some back and forth between the Storm bot herders and Microsoft, the former gave up, said Jimmy Kuo, a senior security architect at the company.

"Even though they were able to maintain parts of their botnet, they knew they were in our gun sights," Kuo said in an interview earlier this week. "And ultimately they gave up."

Not so fast, said Trend Micro.

"The MSRT had an impact on Storm," Ferguson acknowledged, citing Trend Micro statistics that showed a 20% to 25% reduction in the number of bots within the Storm botnet late last year. "But there are some key gaps in the reality on the ground.

"Storm is still out there," he said. And active. "We've seen campaigns to renew their [botnet] body count within the last 48 hours," Ferguson said.

More important, though, is the big picture, said Ferguson and Yaneza. Storm is certainly diminished, they agreed, but not simply because of Microsoft and its MSRT.

"Storm's operators have been diversifying," said Yaneza, who has followed Storm since it first appeared in early 2007. In fact, the Storm botnet's current size -- considerably smaller than during 2007 -- was a matter of choice, not something forced on the hackers, Yaneza argued.

"They've changed business tactics and diversified into other botnets, just like the Russian Business Network diversified by getting out of St. Petersburg [Russia] and is now working out of many facilities worldwide," he said.

Researchers, including Yaneza, have linked Storm -- and other botnets -- with the Russian Business Network (RBN), a shadowy network of malicious code and hacker hosting services. Last November, Yaneza and others reported that the RBN pulled up stakes and moved most of its operations to servers based in China. When the media noted the shift, RBN apparently split its hosting services among several Asian countries, a move analysts saw as an attempt to avoid attention and possible action by law enforcement.