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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

Russian Masterminds Ran Rustock Botnet, Microsoft Says

Forensic analysis of server hard drives points to Russian controllers and turns up email templates mentioning that old favorite, Viagra.

Strategic Security Survey: Global Threat, LocalPain
Strategic Security Survey: Global Threat, Local Pain
(click image for larger view and for full slideshow)
Has your botnet gone missing? Microsoft has taken the unusual step of running advertisements in two Russian newspapers, alerting the owners of the Rustock botnet that they can attempt to reclaim their confiscated property. The move is part of Microsoft's efforts to identify and serve court summonses to the Rustock botnet masterminds.

"Based on evidence gathered in the case, we have reason to believe that the people behind the Rustock botnet either have operated or are operating out of Russia," said Richard Boscovich, a senior attorney in the Microsoft Digital Crimes Unit, in a blog post. "Consequently, we have placed advertisements in two mainstream Russian newspapers, the Delovoy Petersburg in St. Petersburg and Moscow's daily paper, The Moscow News."

In April, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington instructed Microsoft to submit status updates about its efforts to put names to the "John Does" in its initial anti-Rustock lawsuit. That civil lawsuit, unsealed by the court in March, had alleged that John Does were "controlling a computer botnet and thereby injuring Microsoft and its customers."

Accordingly, Boscovich said that the advertisements "honor our legal obligation to make a good faith effort to contact the owners of the IP address and domain names that were shut down when Rustock was taken offline." The ads also designate a time and place where the botnet owners can argue their side of the case, as well as a related website, if they would rather argue their case remotely.

"Although history suggests that the people associated with the IP addresses and domain names connected with the Rustock botnet are unlikely to come forward in response to a court summons, we hope the defendants in this case will present themselves," he said.

What evidence does Microsoft have that the botnets were being run by people in Russia? According to court documents, Microsoft analyzed 20 seized hard drives from servers that ran Rustock, and found that they'd been used to access numerous websites based in Russia, including the Web-based email service mail.ru, as well as the free software downloading portal freesoft.ru. Another one of the drives had also been used to launch "cyber-attacks into Russian IP (Internet Protocol) space," according to the documents.

Microsoft said that it also had identified a specific WebMoney account that was used to pay for some command-and-control servers. According to the court documents, "WebMoney's records indicate that the owner of the WebMoney account is identified as a Vladimir Alexandrovich Shergin, associated with an address in Khimki, a city near Moscow." To date, however, Microsoft doesn't know whether this name is authentic, fake, or stolen.

The court documents also provide an interesting glimpse into how criminals create and manage botnets. For example, 18 of the seized hard drives used The Onion Router (better known as TOR) to give attackers anonymous access to the servers, as well as to give the servers anonymous access to the Internet. Microsoft also found "custom written software relating to assembly of spam emails and text files"--with one text file alone containing 427,000 harvested email addresses--as well as email templates relating to numerous pharmaceuticals, including Valium, Viagra, and Vicodin.

Microsoft is continuing to pursue botnet leads. For example, it's identified email addresses associated with the botnet masterminds, and is currently awaiting responses to subpoenas it's served to domain registrars and email hosting providers, which may help positively identify the owners of those email addresses.

Microsoft said it's also continuing to investigate "Cosma2k," which was the username associated with someone who signed up for multiple command-and-control servers. According to Microsoft, "this nickname has been associated with the several names: Dmitri A. Sergeev, Artem Sergeev, and Sergey Vladomirovich Sergeev."

Microsoft's use of a civil lawsuit to shut down a botnet was a novel legal strategy that earned it both praise and condemnation from various security, privacy, and legal experts, chiefly because Microsoft didn't just sue the botnet's unknown operators, but physically confiscated their equipment.

But Microsoft was also taking advantage of a rare opportunity. All of the physical servers that served as the Rustock command-and-control system were located--somewhat brazenly, on the part of the masterminds--at U.S. hosting sites. Accordingly, Microsoft gained a court order that enabled it, in conjunction with the U.S. Marshals Service, to physically seize those servers, knocking Rustock offline.

Industry watchers say that Microsoft's Rustock-busting strategy appears to have worked. A recent report from McAfee confirmed that the volume of Rustock traffic has decreased significantly.

In this new Tech Center report, we profile five database breaches--and extract the lessons to be learned from each. Plus: A rundown of six technologies to reduce your risk. Download it here (registration required).

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Data Leak Week: Billions of Sensitive Files Exposed Online
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/10/2019
Intel Issues Fix for 'Plundervolt' SGX Flaw
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/11/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-5252
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-14
There is an improper authentication vulnerability in Huawei smartphones (Y9, Honor 8X, Honor 9 Lite, Honor 9i, Y6 Pro). The applock does not perform a sufficient authentication in a rare condition. Successful exploit could allow the attacker to use the application locked by applock in an instant.
CVE-2019-5235
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-14
Some Huawei smart phones have a null pointer dereference vulnerability. An attacker crafts specific packets and sends to the affected product to exploit this vulnerability. Successful exploitation may cause the affected phone to be abnormal.
CVE-2019-5264
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
There is an information disclosure vulnerability in certain Huawei smartphones (Mate 10;Mate 10 Pro;Honor V10;Changxiang 7S;P-smart;Changxiang 8 Plus;Y9 2018;Honor 9 Lite;Honor 9i;Mate 9). The software does not properly handle certain information of applications locked by applock in a rare condition...
CVE-2019-5277
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
Huawei CloudUSM-EUA V600R006C10;V600R019C00 have an information leak vulnerability. Due to improper configuration, the attacker may cause information leak by successful exploitation.
CVE-2019-5254
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
Certain Huawei products (AP2000;IPS Module;NGFW Module;NIP6300;NIP6600;NIP6800;S5700;SVN5600;SVN5800;SVN5800-C;SeMG9811;Secospace AntiDDoS8000;Secospace USG6300;Secospace USG6500;Secospace USG6600;USG6000V;eSpace U1981) have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. An attacker who logs in to the board m...