[nsp-sec] botnet C&C at The Planet and malware download at dyndns.com client

CERT-UT - Peter p.g.m.peters at utwente.nl
Mon Mar 26 11:53:42 EDT 2012


Hi,

This afternoon (12:30 - 12:58 UTC+2) we experienced a large flood
towards one system (130.89.36.159) in our network. The flow came from
74.218.68.132 and was 2.1 Gbps. Our 1Gbps line did not cope. We did get
some netflow statistics and it was mainly random src port to random dst
port UDP traffic.

Later that afternoon we got a complaint about an attack from our system
towards another IP address (66.199.135.9). This made us have a closer
look. It appeared our system was compromised through an ftp-account with
a weak password. The miscreant installed scripts and binaries in .gnome/
and .gnome2/.

This host contacted something that looked like a C&C:
> 2012-03-26 12:30:36.514     0.000 TCP      174.123.217.5:6667  ->    130.89.36.159:38141        1       52     1
> 2012-03-26 12:32:12.450     0.128 TCP      174.123.217.5:6667  ->    130.89.36.159:38141        2      127     1
> 2012-03-26 12:32:12.450     0.000 TCP      130.89.36.159:38141 ->    174.123.217.5:6667         1       74     1
> 2012-03-26 12:33:50.331     4.032 TCP      174.123.217.5:6667  ->    130.89.36.159:38141        3      225     1
> 2012-03-26 12:33:58.991    10.752 TCP      174.123.217.5:6667  ->    130.89.36.159:38141        2      150     1
> 2012-03-26 12:34:31.352     0.000 TCP      174.123.217.5:6667  ->    130.89.36.159:38141        1       75     1
> 2012-03-26 12:35:08.808     6.848 TCP      194.109.20.90:6667  ->    130.89.36.159:53506        6      510     1
> 2012-03-26 12:35:17.160     0.000 TCP      174.123.217.5:6667  ->    130.89.36.159:38141        1      146     1
> 2012-03-26 12:37:00.700     0.000 TCP      194.109.20.90:6667  ->    130.89.36.159:53506        1       85     1

Shortly after this the system contacted another site on port 80. C&C or
malware? This host is currently known as checkip-iad.dyndns.com.

> 2012-03-26 12:48:32.333     9.024 TCP      130.89.36.159:56658 ->    216.146.38.70:80           3      180     1
> 2012-03-26 12:48:35.236     8.960 TCP      216.146.38.70:80    ->    130.89.36.159:56658        4      240     1
> 2012-03-26 12:48:50.564     6.016 TCP      216.146.38.70:80    ->    130.89.36.159:56658        3      180     1
> 2012-03-26 12:49:17.033     0.000 TCP      130.89.36.159:56658 ->    216.146.38.70:80           1       60     1
> 2012-03-26 12:49:17.106     8.960 TCP      216.146.38.70:80    ->    130.89.36.159:56658        3      180     1
> 2012-03-26 12:49:38.473     0.000 TCP      216.146.38.70:80    ->    130.89.36.159:56658        1       60     1

The IP address we got a complaint from seemed to be not that innocent.
We observed something like an SSH scan:

> Date flow start          Duration Proto      Src IP Addr:Port          Dst IP Addr:Port   Packets    Bytes Flows
> 2012-03-26 12:36:12.173     6.016 TCP       66.199.135.9:36984 ->    130.89.36.159:22           2      120     1
> 2012-03-26 12:37:03.954     3.008 TCP       66.199.135.9:37036 ->    130.89.36.159:22           2      120     1
> 2012-03-26 12:37:12.931     0.000 TCP       66.199.135.9:37036 ->    130.89.36.159:22           1       60     1
> 2012-03-26 12:38:50.473     0.256 TCP      130.89.36.159:22    ->     66.199.135.9:37189        2      144     1
> 2012-03-26 12:38:50.473     0.384 TCP       66.199.135.9:37189 ->    130.89.36.159:22           3      164     1
> 2012-03-26 12:40:58.890     7.872 TCP      130.89.36.159:22    ->     66.199.135.9:37189        2      104     1
> 2012-03-26 12:40:59.139     7.872 TCP       66.199.135.9:37189 ->    130.89.36.159:22           2      128     1
> 2012-03-26 12:41:20.338     8.960 TCP       66.199.135.9:37249 ->    130.89.36.159:22           3      180     1
> 2012-03-26 12:41:22.578     0.000 TCP      130.89.36.159:22    ->     66.199.135.9:37189        1       52     1
> 2012-03-26 12:41:22.575     0.000 TCP       66.199.135.9:37189 ->    130.89.36.159:22           1       64     1
> 2012-03-26 12:42:57.143     0.000 TCP      130.89.36.159:22    ->     66.199.135.9:37189        1       52     1

At this moment we think this might be two gangs attacking each other. We
did not observe any traffic towards 74.218.68.132. That IP address did
however stop its flood when we disconnected our system from the network.

-- 
Peter Peters
CERT-UT Officer
cert at utwente.nl               http://www.utwente.nl/itsecurity
office-hours: +31 53 489 2301

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 552 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/private/nsp-security/attachments/20120326/c1ee860b/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the nsp-security mailing list