Re: Conflicker/NMAP

[Jerry Sell <Jerry_Sell () BYU EDU>]

I have a result to report. Nessus and the scs scanner both found 1 instance of Confickr, the NMAP script did not. Those 
of you who used the NMAP scanner, may want to look at something else.

Nessus seems to be much faster than the scs scanner.

Thank you,

Jerry Sell, CISSP
Security Analyst
Brigham Young University
(801)422-2730
Jerry_Sell () byu edu<mailto:Jerry_Sell () byu edu>


From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU] On Behalf Of Dean De 
Beer
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:23 PM
To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Conflicker/NMAP

The python scanner is checking for the signature returned by the conficker patch of the vuln.

> From the paper:
 "All of the three considered Conficker variants return the error code for "invalid parameters" (87) in case they 
either find a \..\ in the path or if the
path is longer than 200 wide characters..."

The malware hooks the NetpwPathCanonicalize() function but I think if it's a legit patch then the error msg that is 
returned should not be the conficker error code, so if those systems were already legitimately patched you would not 
detect them as infected but they may still be infected by one of the other vectors the worm uses.

/dean
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Pete Hickey <pete () shadows uottawa ca<mailto:pete () shadows uottawa ca>> wrote:
I've used the Python thing and I seem to have had success.  At least the machines
turned up make sense.

I've been regularly monitoring machines scanning on port 445, and have
ASSUMED that these were conficker infected.  They were infected with
something, and were cleaned.... at least in threory.

There were some repeat offenders.  Either the owner didn't know how to clean
them, or they were not patched properly, or something.

Everry machine that my python scanner picked up was one that had been
prreviously identified as infected severtal times (one lab, and about
5 other machines).

WHile I'm fairly confident that it is not returning any false positives, I
am not sure it is detecting everything, as today, after that scan, I
have found several infected-with-something machines scanning on 445.  Yes
it could be something else.  Unfortunately I don't get feedback when
machines are cleaned.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 09:21:35AM -0500, Consolvo, Corbett D wrote:
> I realize many folks may not want to answer this, but has anyone had many positives/infections with the released nmap 
> scan for Conflicker?  So far we seem to be coming up clean and many other folks I've talked to or emailed with have 
> come up clean as well.  I'm just concerned about the possibility of false negatives.  Of course, the problem may not 
> be particularly wide-spread except in the eyes of some media outlets.
>
> Thanks,
> Corbett Consolvo
> Texas State University
--
Pete Hickey                         There are only two kinds of people who
The University of Ottawa            are really fascinating:
Ottawa, Ontario                     People who know absolutely everything,
Canada                              and people who know absolutely nothing.