skip to main content
10.1145/1920261.1920285acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesacsacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Conficker and beyond: a large-scale empirical study

Published:06 December 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Conficker [26] is the most recent widespread, well-known worm/bot. According to several reports [16, 28], it has infected about 7 million to 15 million hosts and the victims are still increasing even now. In this paper, we analyze Conficker infections at a large scale, including about 25 millions victims, and study various interesting aspects about this state-of-the-art malware. By analyzing Conficker, we intend to understand current and new trends in malware propagation, which could be very helpful in predicting future malware trends and providing insights for future malware defense. We observe that Conficker has some very different victim distribution patterns compared to many previous generation worms/botnets, suggesting that new malware spreading models and defense strategies are likely needed. Furthermore, we intend to determine how well a reputation-based blacklisting approach can perform when faced with new malware threats such as Conficker. We cross-check several DNS blacklists and IP/AS reputation data from Dshield [6] and FIRE [7], and our evaluation shows that unlike a previous study [18] which shows that a blacklist-based approach can detect most bots, these reputation-based approaches did relatively poorly for Conficker. This raised the question, how can we improve and complement existing reputation-based techniques to prepare for future malware defense? Finally, we look into some insights for defenders. We show that neighborhood watch is a surprisingly effective approach in the Conficker case. This suggests that security alert sharing/correlation (particularly among neighborhood networks) could be a promising approach and play a more important role for future malware defense.

References

  1. M. Antonakakis, R. Perdisci, D. Dagon, W. Lee, and N. Feamster. Building a Dynamic Reputation System for DNS. In Proceedings of USENIX Security of Symposium, Aug. 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. CAIDA. Conficker/Conflicker/Downadup as seen from the UCSD Network Telescope. http://www.caida.org/research/security/ms08-067/conficker.xml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. E. Chien. Downadup: Attempts at Smart Network Scanning. http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/downadup-attempts-smart-network-scanning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. DHIELD. All suspicious Source IPs in DSHIELD. http://www.dshield.org/feeds/daily_sources.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. DNSBL. invaluement DNSBL (an anti-spam blacklist). http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. DSHIELD. Cooperative Network Security Community. http://www.dshield.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. FIRE. Finding Rogue Networks. http://maliciousnetworks.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Fortune. Fortune 100 companies. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. U. G. and C. I. Oxford Dictionary of Statistics (2nd edition). Oxford University Press, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. T. Holz, C. Gorecki, and F. Freiling. Detection and Mitigation of Fast-Flux Service Networks. In Proceedings of NDSS Symposium, Feb. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. N. Ianelli and A. Hackworth. Botnets as a Vehicle for Online Crime. 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. S. Krishnan and Y. Kim. Passive identification of Conficker nodes on the Internet. In University of Minnesota - Technical Document, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. J. Kristoff. Experiences with Conficker C Sinkhole Operation and Analysis. In Proceedings of Australian Computer Emergency Response Team Conference, May 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. D. Moore, V. Paxson, S. Savage, C. Shannon, S. Staniford, and N. Weaver. Inside the Slammer Worm. In Proceedings of IEEE Security and Privacy, May 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Moore, C. Shannon, and K. Calffy. Code-red: a case study on the spread and victims of an internet worm. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Internet Measurement, Nov. 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. B. N. Online. Clock ticking on worm code. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7832652.stm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. P. Porras, H. Saidi, and V. Yegneswaran. A Foray into Conficker's Logic and Rendezvous Points. In Proceedings of USENIX LEET, Apr. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A. Ramachandran and N. Feamster. Understanding the Network-Level Behavior of Spammers. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Sep. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. C. Shannon and D. Moore. The Spread of the Witty Worm. In Proceedings of IEEE Security and Privacy, May 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. SORBS. Fighting spam by finding and listing Exploitable Servers. http://www.au.sorbs.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. SPAMHAUS. Spamcop.net. http://www.spamcop.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. SPAMHAUS. The SPAMHAUS Project. http://www.spamhaus.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. SRI-International. An analysis of Conficker C. http://mtc.sri.com/Conficker/addendumC/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. B. Stock, M. E. Jan Goebel, F. C. Freiling, and T. Holz. Walowdac Analysis of a Peer-to-Peer Botnet. In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Network Defense (EC2ND), Nov. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. B. Stone-Gross, M. Cova, L. Cavallaro, B. Gilbert, M. Szydlowski, R. Kemmerer, C. Kruegel, and G. Vigna. Your Botnet is My Botnet: Analysis of a Botnet Takeover. In Proceedings of ACM CCS, Nov. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. M. S. Techcenter. Conficker worm. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/dd452420.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Tmetric. Bandwidth Measurement Tool. http://mbacarella.blogspot.com/projects/tmetric/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. UPI. Virus strikes 15 million PCs. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/01/26/Virus-strikes-15-million-PCs/UPI-19421232924206/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Verisign. The Domain Name Industry Brief. http://www.verisign.com/domain-name-services/domain-information-center/domain-name-resources/domain-name-report-sept09.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. D. Watson. Know Your Enemy: Containing Conficker. http://www.honeynet.org/papers/conficker.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Y. Xie, F. Yu, K. Achan, E. Gillum, M. Goldzmidt, and T. Wobber. How Dynamic are IP Addresses? In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Y. Xie, F. Yu, K. Achan, R. Panigraphy, G. Hulte, and I. Osipkov. Spamming Botnets: Signatures and Characteristics. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Conficker and beyond: a large-scale empirical study

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          ACSAC '10: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference
          December 2010
          419 pages
          ISBN:9781450301336
          DOI:10.1145/1920261

          Copyright © 2010 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 6 December 2010

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate104of497submissions,21%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader