Welcome Guest. | Log In | Register | Membership Benefits

TDL4 Botnet Now Even Harder To Kill

Infamous botnet revamped to make its malware even more difficult for enterprises, security researchers, to detect

Oct 24, 2011 | 04:08 PM | 

By Kelly Jackson Higgins
Dark Reading
Researchers say that the rootkit used in the TDL4 botnet has been partially rewritten in what appears to be an attempt by the creators to make it even harder to eradicate.

Specifically, the kernel-mode driver and user-mode payload pieces have been completely revamped in an attempt to better fly under the radar, according to researchers at Eset. It's unclear whether the rewrites were by the original creators trying to make the botnet more marketable to other cybercriminals, or whether it's in the hands of other groups who are tweaking it, the researchers say.

The botnet malware is best known for delivering fake antivirus, adware, and spam. It had infected more than 4 million machines worldwide in the first three months of this year, according to a Kaspersky Lab report on the botnet published this summer. Damballa, meanwhile, says the botnet has ranged in size from 900,000 to 2 million bots in the past year just in the U.S.

"The criminals behind this rootkit incorporate updates to it in order to one, avoid detection, and, two, increase difficulty in removing it. Sometimes these updates are quite small, a change in code just enough to avoid detection or make removal unsuccessful by some anti-malware programs. But others, like the rewrite we noted, seem geared toward not just increasing persistence on already-compromised machines, but perhaps even providing a framework which may allow for placing additional hooks into a system," says Aryeh Goretsky, an Eset researcher.

"Why is this? Well, the criminals behind this rootkit realize that the longer it remains on a system, the more likely they are to make money from that system, so increasing the difficulty of removal results in a financial gain for them. It may even be a metric they use as a selling point to attract additional business," he says.

TDL4 was in the headlines in late June when researchers at Kaspersky shared their findings on a new version of the botnet that made it spread more easily, and more difficult to defend against. At the time, affiliates were making anywhere between $20 to $200 for every 1,000 infected machines, according to Kaspersky's data.

"The changes in TDL-4 affected practically all components of the malware and its activity on the Web to some extent," Kaspersky researchers said in their July blog post. "The malware writers extended the program functionality, changed the algorithm used to encrypt the communication protocol between bots and the botnet command and control servers, and attempted to ensure they had access to infected computers even in cases where the botnet control centers are shut down."

And the botnet is still evolving to stay alive: In the latest development revealed by Eset researchers this month, TDL4 has added a new defense against bot-fighters using virtual machines. When the malware installs, it detects whether the Trojan is being run on a virtual machine and passes that intelligence to the command-and-control infrastructure.

"Clearly, it’s also now trying to detect virtual environments, which does pose a problem for certain kinds of detection. But since we know how they’re doing it, it’s not beyond the wit of AV developers to take countermeasures," says David Harley, ESET senior research fellow.

It has also been modified to better hide, with a new hidden file system layout. "The change in implementation of the hidden file system is, probably intentionally, an effective countermeasure against tools for analyzing it. Fortunately, that doesn’t constitute any insuperable obstacles to detection: It’s still not an unbreakable botnet, though the P2P approach makes it more resilient," Harley says.

The alternations don't constitute a new version of TDL, he says. "It’s not TDL5, or even 4.x: It’s an alternative [or] modification within the overall development code tree. On the other hand, if code had been shared, that would probably suggest a major revamp on the way, similar to the way that TDL3 source code wasn’t sold until TDL4 was out," Harley says. "Another interesting development is the dropper mechanism for error tracing in a live infection environment. This is a sophisticated feature in itself, but it might also suggest an approach we can expect to see in a future, major update."

"TDSS is always active and under continuous development, at present," Harley says.

And that's not likely to change anytime soon. Researchers at Damballa say there's no end in sight for TDL4, especially given that its operators are in Russia.

Full technical details on the botnet's latest iteration are here in Eset's blog post.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add Your Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.



Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

Dark Reading encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, Dark Reading moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. Dark Reading further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
Subscribe to RSS



Advanced Threats Reports

report How Did They Get In? A Guide to Tracking Down The Source of an APT
If you think that your organization hasn't been affected by an advanced persistent threat, you probably haven't looked hard enough. Identifying that your organization is under attack is difficult enough; determining the scope of infiltration and damage presents a whole new level of challenge. To effectively protect against APTs, security pros will need to employ an arsenal of tools in a coordinated fashion, as well as develop new understandings of and approaches to system and data exploits. Here's a short and simple guide to this challenge.

report Detecting and Defending Against Advanced Persistent Threats
APTs are a growing problem for enterprises big and small. Protecting your organization from these targeted threats requires constant vigilance, ongoing employee training and a concerted effort to align security systems to address every phase of an APT. Companies also need to develop a remediation and response plan if, despite best efforts, defenses are breached.

report Smarter, Stealthier, Sneakier Malware
Increasingly sophisticated and targeted attacks are making it more difficult for organizations to detect and defend against the latest malware. In this compendium of recent coverage from Dark Reading, you?ll get a look at some of the newest -- and most dangerous -- malware on the Web, and what you can do to stop it.

Other reports from the Advanced Threats Tech Center:

Related Content

MOBILE SECURITY - Mapping an Ecosystem of Risk
This white paper highlights the various considerations for defending mobile applications-from the mobile application architecture itself to the myriad testing technologies needed to properly assess mobile applications risk.

Software Security Delivered in the Cloud
This Solution Guide details the automated, turnkey service that requires no special security assessment expertise. It details HP's market-leading static and dynamic analysis technologies that help organizations worldwide gain insight into the security state of their essential business applications.

SANS Mobility/BYOD Security Survey
This survey, which includes input from more than 500 IT professionals, explores how organizations are managing risk around their end user mobile devices as well as what level of policies and controls enterprises have around mobile usage.

Expert Guide to Application Security - Real-time Hybrid Analysis
Explore the next generation of hybrid security analysis - what it is, how it works, and its benefits. This white paper details how hybrid application security enables organizations to resolve critical software security issues faster and at a lower cost than any other available technology.

A Mainstay Partners Study: Does Application Security Pay?
Measuring the Business Impact of Software Security Assurance Solutions: a study of 17 organizations that implemented solutions from Fortify Software, combining industry research and benchmark analysis to identify, qualify, and quantify the full range of benefits seen from their SSA investments.




Featured Webcasts
Featured Whitepapers
Featured Reports