Re: Worm on 445/tcp?

From: james (jameshat_private)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 12:54:45 PST

  • Next message: Stephen J. Friedl: "Re: Worm on 445/tcp?"

    Somewhat decompiled source here:
    http://www.unixwiz.net/iraqworm/iraqworm.cpp
    
    This looks ripe for a content matching rule:
    
    static const char *PasswordTable[] = {
    	NullPassword,
    	"admin",
    	"root",
    	"111",
    	"123",
    	"1234",
    	"123456",
    	"654321",
    	"1",
    	"!@#$",
    	"asdf",
    	"asdfgh",
    	"!@#$%",
    	"!@#$%^",
    	"!@#$%^&",
    	"!@#$%^&*",
    	"server",
    
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Joe Blatz" <sd_wirelessat_private>
    To: "Scott A.McIntyre" <scottat_private>;
    <incidentsat_private>
    Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 12:50 PM
    Subject: Re: Worm on 445/tcp?
    
    
    > Anyone have packet captures or Snort rules?
    >
    > --- "Scott A.McIntyre" <scottat_private> wrote:
    > > Over the past two weeks or so I've been noticing a
    > > steady rise in what
    > > appears to be worm related traffic to the new
    > > unified smb over tcp port
    > > (445) on Microsoft Win2k and newer operating
    > > systems.
    > >
    > > I haven't yet been able to properly identify what
    > > the culprit is; at
    > > first I thought a variation of OpaServ, and that
    > > hasn't been fully
    > > ruled out, but I'm not quite convinced of that
    > > either.  Anyone have any
    > > clues that might help pin this down further?
    > >
    > > An infected machine seems to send the following:
    > >
    > > 1095 114.002629 src -> dst  SMB Negotiate Protocol
    > > Request
    > > 1105 114.363458 src -> dst  SMB Session Setup AndX
    > > Request
    > > 1106 114.774364 src -> dst  SMB Session Setup AndX
    > > Request
    > > 1107 115.168792 src -> dst  SMB Tree Connect AndX
    > > Request,Path:
    > > \\dst\IPC$
    > > 1110 115.330792 src -> dst  SMB NT Create AndX
    > > Request, Path: \samr
    > > 1112 115.652261 src -> dst  DCERPC Bind: call_id: 1
    > > UUID: SAMR
    > > 1136 117.759036 src -> dst  SAMR Connect4 request
    > > 1137 118.299350 src -> dst  SMB Close Request, FID:
    > > 0x4000
    > > 1142 119.004483 src -> dst  SMB Logoff AndX Request
    > > 1150 119.375665 src -> dst  SMB Tree Disconnect
    > > Request
    > >
    > > And another:
    > >
    > > 7.933416 src -> dst SMB Negotiate Protocol Request
    > > 10.958481 src -> dst SMB Session Setup AndX Request
    > > 13.654558 src -> dst SMB Tree Connect AndX Request,
    > > Path: \\dst\IPC$
    > > 13.926353 src -> dst SMB NT Create AndX Request,
    > > Path: \samr
    > > 15.231252 src -> dst DCERPC Bind: call_id: 1 UUID:
    > > SAMR
    > > 17.149345 src -> dst SAMR Connect4 request
    > > 20.405997 src -> dst SAMR EnumDomains request
    > > 23.579240 src -> dst SAMR LookupDomain request
    > > 25.341903 src -> dst SAMR OpenDomain request
    > > 25.891947 src -> dst SAMR EnumDomainUsers request
    > > 26.597393 src -> dst SAMR Close request
    > > 29.615040 src -> dst SMB Close Request, FID: 0x4000
    > > 30.048894 src -> dst SMB Logoff AndX Request
    > > 32.738878 src -> dst SMB Tree Disconnect Request
    > >
    > >
    > > It appears as though there's a high degree of
    > > randomness to the
    > > destination IP addresses that are chosen by the worm
    > > as can be seen
    > > from this 1 second snapshot:
    > >
    > >
    > >      121.33.1.48
    > >    91.71.109.105
    > >     76.123.46.27
    > >    222.120.99.35
    > >     124.72.254.8
    > >    17.64.153.118
    > >     27.23.33.121
    > >    185.33.178.38
    > >    151.49.213.31
    > >    167.60.15.125
    > >    132.86.243.68
    > >    26.125.133.71
    > >     1.104.130.21
    > >     40.88.91.120
    > >    48.101.140.21
    > >      48.93.34.36
    > >    193.60.220.48
    > >     117.26.58.96
    > >      27.2.15.114
    > >      25.7.221.31
    > >
    > >
    > > Note: the infected system's ip address is not within
    > > any of these
    > > network segments.
    > >
    > > I've noticed others reporting similar increase in
    > > traffic, but so far
    > > haven't seen a definitive acknowledgment of
    > > precisely what it is that's
    > > responsible.
    > >
    > > Any pointers gratefully accepted.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------
    ------------------
    > > 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
    > >
    >
    >
    > __________________________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
    > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------
    ------------------
    > 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 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 Dec 18 2002 - 12:17:19 PST