Image
 
linkedin_logo.png rss_logo.jpg
twitter_logo.png youtube_logo.jpg
Latest Additions
 
EH-Net Login
Welcome Guest.






Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
Who's Online
We have 50 guests and 2 members online
 
Advertisement

You are here: Home arrow Ethical Hacking Discussions and Related Certificationsarrow Malwarearrow Conficker.E to self-destruct on May 5th?
EH-Net
May 22, 2013, 01:23:38 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Go back to The Ethical Hacker Network Online Magazine Home Page
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Conficker.E to self-destruct on May 5th?  (Read 4677 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
timmedin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469



View Profile WWW
« on: April 25, 2009, 05:42:31 PM »

Quote
The evolution of the multi-faceted Conficker worm is expected to take another turn this May 5th when the latest version, Conficker.E, will simply self-destruct on infected machines, say a number of security researchers.

F-Secure, Trend Micro and SecureWorks are among those that believe Conficker.E—first spotted just this April and probably created by the same attackers that since last fall let loose the Conficker.A through Conficker.C variants—has been designed to simply self-detonate on May 5th.

“It will simply self-destruct,” says Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at F-Secure, pointing out that researchers, who had been arguing over name for variants, agreed to skip past the name “Conficker.D” entirely to settle on the name “Conficker.E.”

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/042409-conficker-worm.html

What would be their motivation to do this? If you have gained ground, why give it up? Why not have it pull updates and continue on?

My best guess is the authors authors just want to get drunk on Cinco de Mayo and they don't want to worry about it that day or the next then they have severe hangovers.

Anyone else have a better conspiracy theory?
Logged

twitter.com/timmedin | http://blog.securitywhole.com
don
Editor-In-Chief
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4165


Editor-In-Chief


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2009, 08:38:13 PM »

Actually I think I do...

Isn't that the same date that MS leaked that it would make the RC of Windows 7 available to the general public?

Hmmmm...

Don
Logged

CISSP, MCSE, CSTA, Security+ SME
Andrew Waite
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 928



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2009, 02:25:20 AM »

I've wondered for a while if .E could have been part of a coup attempt (either within Conficker's authors or external) which could explain the relatively small number of .E infections compared with reported statistics on other variants.
With a self destruct feature it could even be some 'white-hats' got control for research and are now releasing the infected machines. Would love to see some analysis if this is the case.

Or Don may have the right idea; Viral (literally) by Microsoft? Conficker appeared after the patch so MS definitely know about the vuln before exploit....

I love a good conspiracy theory, and Conficker is turning into a geeky soap-opera Cheesy
Logged

timmedin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2009, 10:32:53 AM »

Actually I think I do...

Isn't that the same date that MS leaked that it would make the RC of Windows 7 available to the general public?

Hmmmm...

Don

Are you saying the Windows 7 = Conficker.f?  Wink
Logged

twitter.com/timmedin | http://blog.securitywhole.com
timmedin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2009, 10:37:07 AM »

I've wondered for a while if .E could have been part of a coup attempt (either within Conficker's authors or external) which could explain the relatively small number of .E infections compared with reported statistics on other variants.
With a self destruct feature it could even be some 'white-hats' got control for research and are now releasing the infected machines. Would love to see some analysis if this is the case.

I wonder if it is "test" of what is to come. I have heard that the malware developers are usually separate from the controllers. If the developers gave the controllers a "demo" of their latest version then this would make sense.
Logged

twitter.com/timmedin | http://blog.securitywhole.com
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.084 seconds with 23 queries.
 
Exclusive Deal

sansfire13_245x90_cw90.jpg
SANSFIRE 2013
June 15 - 22

5% Off w/ Code: EHN_5

SANS Deals 4 EH-Netters
5% OFF Any SANS Course in Any Format!
Coupon Code: EHN_5 Including SANS Rocky Mountain 2013 & SANS Boston 2013
Polls
Compared to this year, 2013 will be:
 
Recent Forum Topics
EH-Net News Feeds
Latest Additions
 
         
Advertisement

© 2013 The Ethical Hacker Network
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.