Attacks/Breaches

1/29/2015
01:30 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

ZeroAccess Click-Fraud Botnet Back In Action Again

After a six-month hiatus, the much-diminished P2P botnet is up to its old tricks.

After six months of silence, the ZeroAccess botnet -- aka Sirefet -- is back in action. Fortunately, it's operating at a smaller scale than it was a couple years ago.

Researchers at Dell SecureWorks Counter Threat Unit have discovered new activity by the once-disrupted botnet. ZeroAccess is actually two peer-to-peer botnets -- one for 32-bit Windows, one for 64-bit -- that both manipulate all major search engines and web browsers. Historically, it hijacked search results, directing users to malicious sites or fraudulently charging businesses for extra clicks on their ads.

In December 2013, Microsoft, Europol, and the FBI teamed up to disrupt ZeroAccess. At that time the botnet had infected nearly 2 million computers all over the world and was costing online advertisers upwards of $2.7 million every month.

The botnet resurfaced a few months later, and was active between March 21 and July 2. It was silent again until Jan. 15, according to SecureWorks, when infected machines began receiving URLs for click-fraud template servers controlled by attackers.

The botnet is hardly what it once was, though. Researchers say that the ZeroAccess administrators did not attempt to expand the botnet after the big disruption in December 2013. They're simply re-using whatever hosts were left.

So, instead of 2 million nodes, ZeroAccess now only has 55,000. The bulk of them are in Japan, India, and Russia. Only 2,540 are left in the United States.

“The ZeroAccess botnet is still under the control of the original actors," says Keith Jarvis, Dell SecureWorks CTU security researcher. "They haven’t moved any bots, this just happens to be the geographic distribution of the residual infected hosts still remaining in the botnet.”

From the researchers' blog post today:

    Although the threat actors behind ZeroAccess have not made any measurable attempts to augment the botnet in more than a year, it remains substantial in size. Its resiliency is a testament to the tenacity of its operators and highlights the danger of malware using P2P networks. ZeroAccess does not pose the same threat as other botnets used to perpetrate banking fraud, steal login credentials and valuable data, or hold victims’ files for ransom. However, it does cause untold fraud losses for advertisers and consumes considerable resources for organizations with compromised hosts.
Sara Peters is Senior Editor at Dark Reading and formerly the editor-in-chief of Enterprise Efficiency. Prior that she was senior editor for the Computer Security Institute, writing and speaking about virtualization, identity management, cybersecurity law, and a myriad ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
theb0x
50%
50%
theb0x,
User Rank: Ninja
1/30/2015 | 9:25:09 PM
RootKits, Bootkits, and Trojans Oh My!
ZeroAccess is a part of the Alureon (Microsoft) family of bootkit infections and otherwise known as TDSS (Kaspersky), Tidserv (Symantec).

It's very misleading for these "researchers" to make the statement:

"ZeroAccess does not pose the same threat as other botnets used to perpetrate banking fraud, steal login credentials and valuable data, or hold victims' files for ransom."

One of this ZeroAccess' primary behaviors is to download additonal payloads such as trojans. A trojan to a cyber criminal has many useful purposes, but controlling a system remotely sums it up. Here are just a few specific purposes of a trojan:

 

Keystoke Loggers

Electronic Money Theft

Data Theft

Ransomware



Once the PC is initially compromised by ZeroAccess that system is now in a state that is completely VULNERABLE to an endless array of additional attack vectors that may not even be initiated by the original attacker. Botnets are also sold, traded, leased, and compromised by other botnets.

There is simply no way of determining what their intentions are. Especially if all this network traffic is encrypted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
What We Talk About When We Talk About Risk
Jack Jones, Chairman, FAIR Institute,  7/11/2018
Ticketmaster Breach Part of Massive Payment Card Hacking Campaign
Jai Vijayan, Freelance writer,  7/10/2018
7 Ways to Keep DNS Safe
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  7/10/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Locked device, Ha! I knew there was another way in.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-15137
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
The OpenShift image import whitelist failed to enforce restrictions correctly when running commands such as "oc tag", for example. This could allow a user with access to OpenShift to run images from registries that should not be allowed.
CVE-2017-17541
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
A Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Fortinet FortiManager 6.0.0, 5.6.4 and below versions, FortiAnalyzer 6.0.0, 5.6.4 and below versions allows inject Javascript code and HTML tags through the CN value of CA and CRL certificates via the import CA and CRL certificates feature.
CVE-2018-1046
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
pdns before version 4.1.2 is vulnerable to a buffer overflow in dnsreplay. In the dnsreplay tool provided with PowerDNS Authoritative, replaying a specially crafted PCAP file can trigger a stack-based buffer overflow, leading to a crash and potentially arbitrary code execution. This buffer overflow ...
CVE-2018-10840
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
Linux kernel is vulnerable to a heap-based buffer overflow in the fs/ext4/xattr.c:ext4_xattr_set_entry() function. An attacker could exploit this by operating on a mounted crafted ext4 image.
CVE-2018-10857
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
git-annex is vulnerable to a private data exposure and exfiltration attack. It could expose the content of files located outside the git-annex repository, or content from a private web server on localhost or the LAN.