RE: RemoteNC backdoors, attacks via ports 1433, 524, 139, 445, 21, destroyed files

From: James McGee (jmat_private)
Date: Wed Mar 13 2002 - 16:28:52 PST

  • Next message: Lee Evans: "ssh exploit"

    Fluxay contains a trojan, make sure you scan it for viruses "twice!"
    
    Port 524, do you need this open.
    
    Time and time again, I find many a system exposed to the world with a
    ridiculous number of ports open.
    
    Only let in through whatever firewall you use, the ports that are absolutely
    necessary for the servers functionality.
    
    Surely you could place your SQL server inside your network, and pass traffic
    through to it from a secure machine?  If not, the people/services using SQl
    must be reasonably trusted, put them on a separated connection?
    
    Cheers
    
    JM
    
     -----Original Message-----
    From: 	bukysat_private [mailto:bukysat_private]
    Sent:	13 March 2002 18:07
    To:	incidentsat_private
    Cc:	bukysat_private
    Subject:	RemoteNC backdoors, attacks via ports 1433, 524, 139, 445, 21,
    destroyed files
    
    We have experienced an unusually tenacious set of destructive attacks
    on very many machines here, in three waves over the last several weeks.
    
    Last month it was port 1433 SQL server blank admin password attacks,
    resulting in blasting of systems down to empty C: drives. Closely
    following by another set of attacks (method unknown) from the same set
    of hosts (in China), resulting in installation of the RemoteNC backdoor
    (usually listening on TCP ports 4 or 6), and often ending in
    destruction of the C: drive.
    
    This month, it looks like ping and port 524 probes, followed by a mix
    of port 21, 139, and 445 activity.  Also including installation of
    RemoteNC and/or wiping of C: drive, or at least removal of kernel
    file.  Disabling of port 524 traffic still resulted in successful
    attacks that apparently worked around lack of port 524 information
    leaks.  We have known brute-force password attempts.  We DON'T KNOW
    whether all entry is solely via weak passwords, or something else.
    
    I suspect they may be something called "Fluxay" which was published on
    the same Chinese site (netxeyes) that publishes RemoteNC.  Last month
    it was not downloadable to me.  Since then a few people have turned up
    some copies for me.
    
    RemoteNC is easy to detect, as a TCP connection to it gets a "RemoteNC
    password:" prompt.  Executable file on compromised machines is usually
    "TCPMUX.EXE" or "TCPMX.EXE".  ISS shows the "tcpmux" or "tcpmx" service
    running.  Recent antivirus software detects it (since we submitted it
    to AV vendors last month).
    
    
    *** If anybody is experiencing the same, CAN COMPARE NOTES? ***
    
    
    Liudvikas Bukys
    University of Rochester
    bukysat_private
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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
    
    ---
    Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.336 / Virus Database: 188 - Release Date: 11/03/2002
    
    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.336 / Virus Database: 188 - Release Date: 11/03/2002
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 : Thu Mar 14 2002 - 12:10:49 PST