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.

Perimeter

Guest Blog // Selected Security Content Provided By Sophos
What's This?
3/31/2009
12:06 PM
Graham Cluley
Graham Cluley
Security Insights
50%
50%

Will They Ever Catch Conficker's Authors?

While the world is holding its breath, wondering whether the Conficker worm is going to do anything dramatic on April 1st (I'm placing money that no computers are reported to have melted by the end of the day, and the Internet won't have turned to blancmange), perhaps a more important question is: Are we ever going to catch the pond life who wrote it?

While the world is holding its breath, wondering whether the Conficker worm is going to do anything dramatic on April 1st (I'm placing money that no computers are reported to have melted by the end of the day, and the Internet won't have turned to blancmange), perhaps a more important question is: Are we ever going to catch the pond life who wrote it?Five months ago, Microsoft placed a $250,000 bounty on the head of Conficker's author, offering the reward to anyone who provided information that might help catch the person responsible.

But all signs show that no one has even been tempted to take a nibble at the bait.

Maybe the problem is that the reward simply isn't big enough. After all, the papers are always full of tales of the millions that cybercriminals can make these days from a warehouse full of fake Rolex watches, a botnet, and a quick spam run.

A bounty for a virus-writer has worked only once as far as I remember: In May 2004 Microsoft paid $250,000 to a group of informants who identified German teenager Sven Jaschan as the author of the Netsky and Sasser worms. (Hey, Microsoft! What happened to inflation? You're still offering the same reward as five years ago?)

But Jaschan was an old-school virus writer doing it for kicks rather than financial reward, and so he didn't have a a gang of cyberhoodlums being paid handsomely to keep schtum about his activities.

Today's hackers are organized, financially motivated, and likely to take unpleasant revenge if they believe someone has informed the authorities.

There's nothing wrong in offering a quarter of a million dollars for Conficker's author -- but it feels increasingly like it's not going to get us the result we all want: Conficker's author behind bars.

Graham Cluley is senior technology consultant at Sophos, and has been working in the computer security field since the early 1990s. When he's not updating his other blog on the Sophos website you can find him on Twitter at @gcluley. Special to Dark Reading.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/4/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
How AI and Automation Can Help Bridge the Cybersecurity Talent Gap
Peter Barker, Chief Product Officer at ForgeRock,  6/1/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: What? IT said I needed virus protection!
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-13842
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). A dangerous AT command was made available even though it is unused. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200010 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13843
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS software before 2020-06-01. Local users can cause a denial of service because checking of the userdata partition is mishandled. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200014 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13839
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via a custom AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200007 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13840
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via an MTK AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200008 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13841
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 9 and 10 (MTK chipsets). An AT command handler allows attackers to bypass intended access restrictions. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200009 (June 2020).