New CodeRed variant - CodeRed.d

From: David Kennedy CISSP (david.kennedyat_private)
Date: Tue Aug 21 2001 - 21:24:51 PDT

  • Next message: Vern Paxson: "Re: Flash Worms"

    Forwarded by request:
    
    >Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:26:23 -0400
    >To: tsmalcodeat_private
    >From: Roger Thompson <rogertat_private>
    >Subject: New CodeRed variant - CodeRed.d
    >Cc: david Kennedy CISSP <david.kennedyat_private>, Russ <Russ.Cooperat_private>
    >
    >Hi all,
    >
    >A couple of weeks ago, I became curious to find out exactly what was 
    >knocking on port 80 on my pcs. I figured it was probably a CodeRed, but 
    >which one? To answer that question, I wrote a program which I call 
    >WormCatcher to listen on port 80 and checksum whatever comes calling. 
    >Recognized checksums are logged, and emailed to me every hour, and 
    >unrecognized checksums (ie possible variations) are emailed to me 
    >immediately. It's been live on just a few workstations for just a few days, 
    >but it has found several variants which looked like they'd been modified by 
    >some routers or repeaters along the way, which changed the code offsets, 
    >and therefore rendered the worm sterile.
    >
    >This evening, WormCatcher found a new, although minor variant of CodeRed. 
    >Specifically, the string "CodeRedII" has been replaced by underscores, and 
    >the byte at offset 07C5 is changed from a 0 to an FF.
    >
    >Replacing "CodeRedII" with underscores appears to be an attempt to fool any 
    >ids or av lame enough to look for that string as a detection. Changing the 
    >byte at offset 07C5 appears to not change the code materially, but is 
    >probably intended to throw off any checksummers which checksummed the body 
    >of the virus, excluding the "CodeRedII" string.
    >
    >This is such a minor variation that I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it 
    >except that WormCatcher found it once from an IP in Korea, and secondly 
    >from a college here in the Eastern United States.
    >
    >What is noteworthy then is that it is probably a deliberate, if ill-thought 
    >out attempt to populate a new variation into the wild.
    >
    >Functionality has not been changed. The initial "GET " and many "X" strings 
    >are identical, so any IDSs looking for that will do fine. Patched servers 
    >are still not vulnerable. No one needs to do anything unless they are 
    >detecting by lame string or checksum.
    >
    >Roger
    >
    >
    >
    >Regards
    >
    >Roger Thompson
    >Technical Director of Malicious Code Research
    >TruSecure Corporation
    >
    >
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service.
    For more information on this free incident handling, management 
    and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 10:31:28 PDT