Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Endpoint

7/18/2011
01:33 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Microsoft Offers $250,000 Bounty To ID Rustock Botnet Operators

New tactic in response to evidence found in discovery process, Microsoft says

The effort to unmask and apprehend the criminals behind the massive Rustock botnet heated up today as Microsoft put up a $250,000 reward for new information on the botnet's operators.

Rustock -- which in March was knocked offline by federal authorities and Microsoft -- was able to send some 30 billion spam messages a day, such as for phony Pfizer prescription drugs and fake Microsoft lottery scams. FireEye, researchers at the University of Washington, Pfizer, the Dutch High Tech Crime Unit, and the Chinese CERT all assisted in the operation to take down the botnet, which had an army of some 1.6 million machines worldwide at its peak. And there are still some 700,000 machines infected with the botnet's malware, according to a recent report from Microsoft.

Richard Boscovich, senior attorney for Microsoft's Digital Crimes Unit, announced today that the company had decided to supplement its civil discovery efforts with the cash reward. Last month, Microsoft published notices in two Russian newspapers in an effort to alert the Rustock operators of the civil lawsuit against them. The reward was a way to turn up the "heat as a result of the evidence we have secured during the discovery process," Boscovich said in response to an inquiry from Dark Reading. However, he did not elaborate on just what that evidence might be.

The $250,000 reward is available to anyone offering new information that results in the arrest and conviction of the Rustock operators. Microsoft will be gathering information via email, at [email protected]

"This reward offer stems from Microsoft’s recognition that the Rustock botnet is responsible for a number of criminal activities and serves to underscore our commitment to tracking down those behind it. While the primary goal for our legal and technical operation has been to stop and disrupt the threat that Rustock has posed for everyone affected by it, we also believe the Rustock bot-herders should be held accountable for their actions," Boscovich said in a blog post.

He said the company has gathered "strong evidence" in the case, and that Microsoft continues to help clean up Rustock-infected machines.

Gunter Ollmann, vice president of research at Damballa, says a bounty will put pressure on the botnet operators, and on potential informants. "Offering a bounty increases the pressure on all those involved with the Rustock botnet and hopefully serves as a notice to the other botnet operators who’ve picked up the spam-delivery slack to build up their own businesses," he says. "As a threat to the Rustock operators, I believe that the bounty will increase the pressure on other informants to disclose their information. $250,000 will be tempting to many, especially when there are so many competing factions within the spam botnet industry."

The move also shows how Microsoft isn't afraid to flex some muscle in its fight against botnets. "This continues to show the level of commitment Microsoft has to combat cybercriminals and foster international cooperation on these efforts. This bounty is just one example of what they are willing -- and able -- to do to put a serious dent in the cybercrime landscape," says Alex Lanstein, senior researcher at FireEye, who worked on the Rustock takedown.

A copy of Microsoft's notice of pleadings is available here. It includes summons for 11 "John Doe" plaintiffs associated with Rustock.

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.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Overcoming the Challenge of Shorter Certificate Lifespans
Mike Cooper, Founder & CEO of Revocent,  10/15/2020
7 Tips for Choosing Security Metrics That Matter
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  10/19/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-27605
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-21
BigBlueButton through 2.2.8 uses Ghostscript for processing of uploaded EPS documents, and consequently may be subject to attacks related to a "schwache Sandbox."
CVE-2020-27606
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-21
BigBlueButton before 2.2.8 (or earlier) does not set the secure flag for the session cookie in an https session, which makes it easier for remote attackers to capture this cookie by intercepting its transmission within an http session.
CVE-2020-27607
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-21
In BigBlueButton before 2.2.8 (or earlier), the client-side Mute button only signifies that the server should stop accepting audio data from the client. It does not directly configure the client to stop sending audio data to the server, and thus a modified server could store the audio data and/or tr...
CVE-2020-27608
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-21
In BigBlueButton before 2.2.8 (or earlier), uploaded presentations are sent to clients without a Content-Type header, which allows XSS, as demonstrated by a .png file extension for an HTML document.
CVE-2020-27609
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-21
BigBlueButton through 2.2.8 records a video meeting despite the deactivation of video recording in the user interface. This may result in data storage beyond what is authorized for a specific meeting topic or participant.