Dissecting a Managed Spamming Service

0
July 30, 2008
With cybercrime getting easier to outsource these days, and with the overall underground economy's natural maturity from products to services, "managed spamming appliances" and managed spamming services are becoming rather common. Increasingly, these "vendors" are starting to "vertically integrate", namely, start diversifying the portfolio of services they offer in order to steal market share from other "vendors" offering related services like, email database cleaning, segmentation of email databases, email servers or botnets whose hosts have a pre-checked and relatively clean IP reputation, namely they're not blacklisted yet.



How much does it cost to send 1 million spam emails these days? According to a random spamming service, $100 excluding the discounts based on the speed of sending desired, namely 10-20 per second or 20-30 per second. Let's dissect the service, and emphasize on its key differentiation factors, as well as the customerization offered in the form of a dedicated server if the customer would like to send billions of emails :



"-- High quality and percentage of spam delivery 

-- Fast speed of delivery

-- Spam database on behalf of the vendor, or using your own database of harvested emails

-- Easily obtainable and segmented spam databases on per country basis

-- Randomization of the spam email's body and headers in order to achieve a higher delivery rate

-- Support for attachments, executables, and image files



The cost - $100 for a million for letters delivered spam, with the large volume of spam discounts 20% -30% -40% based on the value-added Do-it-yourself customer interfare based on a multi-user botnet command and control interface :

 


-- Automatic RBL verification

-- Support for many subjects, headers,

-- Total customization of the email sending process

-- Autogenerating junk content next to the spammers email/link in order to bypass filtering

-- Faking Outlook Message ID / Boundary / Content-ID

-- Interface added. Now do not necessarily understand all the features into the system to start the list.

-- Convenient management tasks.

-- A high percentage of punching, on the basis of good europe - 40-60% (For the United States - less because there aol and others).

-- Improved metrics, whether or not the emails have been sent, lost, unknown receipt, or have been RBL-ed



With the weight of a billion - even discounts and the possibility of making a personal server. "



Rather surprising, they state that European email users have a higher probability of receiving the spam message compared the U.S due to AOL. What they're actually trying to say is due to AOL's use of Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM). As far as localization of the spam to the email owner's native language is concerned, this segmentation concept has been take place for over an year now.



This service, like the majority of others rely entirely on malware infected hosts, which due to the multi-user nature of most of the malware command and control interfaces, allows them to easily add customers and set their privileges based on the type of service that they purchase. This leaves a countless number of opportunities for targeted spamming, and yes, spear phishing attacks made possible due to the segmentation of the emails based on a country, city, even company.



In the long term, the people behind spamming providers, web malware exploitation kits and DIY phishing kits, will inevitably start introducing built-in features which were once available through third-party services. For instance, hosting infrastructure for the spam/phishing/live exploit URLs, or even managed fast-flux infrastructure, have the potential to become widely available if such optional features get built-in phishing kits, or start getting offered by the spamming provider itself. And since the affiliate based model seems to be working just fine, the ongoing underground consolidation will converge providers of different underground goods and services, where everyone would be driving customers to one another's services and earning revenue in the process. Continue reading →

Neosploit Team Leaving the IT Underground

0
July 29, 2008
The Neosploit Team are abandoning support for their Neosploit web exploitation malware kit, citing a negative return on investment as the main reason behind their decision. However, given Neosploit's open source nature just like the majority of web malware kits, and the fact that it's slowly, but surely turning into a commodity malware kit just like MPack and Icepack did, greatly contribute to its extended "product lifecycle" :



"Let’s discuss their business model, how other cybercriminals disintermediated it thereby ruining it, and most importantly, how is it possible that such a popular web malware exploitation kit cannot seem to achieve a positive return on investment (ROI). The short answer is - piracy in the IT underground, and their over-optimistic assumption that high-profit margins can compensate the lack of long-term growth strategy, which in respect to web malware exploitation kits has do with the benefits coming from converging with traffic management tools. Let’s discuss some key points."



The end of Neosploit malware kit, doesn't mean the end of Neosploit Team, or the sudden migration to other malware kits since they're no longer providing support in the form of new obfuscations and set of exploits to their customers. Their customers have been in fact self-servicing their needs enjoying the modular nature of the kit, the result of which is an unknown number of modified Neosploit kits.



Related posts:

The Underground Economy's Supply of Goods and Services

The Dynamics of the Malware Industry - Proprietary Malware Tools 

Localizing Cybercrime - Cultural Diversity on Demand 

E-crime and Socioeconomic Factors 

Localizing Open Source Malware 

Coding Spyware and Malware for Hire

The FirePack Exploitation Kit Localized to Chinese

MPack and IcePack Localized to Chinese

The Icepack Exploitation Kit Localized to French  Continue reading →

Over 80 percent of Storm Worm Spam Sent by Pharmaceutical Spam Kings

0
July 29, 2008
It used to be a case where a botnet would be used for a single purpose, spamming, phishing, or malware spreading. At a later stage, the steady supply of malware infected allowed botnet masters more opportunities to "sacrifice" the clean IP reputation and engage in several malicious activities simultaneously - today's underground multitasking improving the monetization of what used to be commodity goods and services.



Today, a botnet will not only be sending out phishing emails, automatically SQL inject vulnerable sites across the web, but also, provide fast-flux infrastructure to money mule recruitment services, all of this for the sake of optimizing the efficiency provided by the botnet in general. This optimization makes it possible for a single botnet to be partitioned and access it it sold and resold so many times, that it would be hard to keep track of all the malicious activities it participates in. Cybercrime in between on multiple fronts using a single botnet is only starting to take place as concept.



That's the case with Stormy Wormy, according to IronPort whose "Researchers Link Storm Botnet to Illegal Pharmaceutical Sales" :



"Our previous research revealed an extremely sophisticated supply chain behind the illegal pharmacy products shipped after orders were placed on botnet-spammed Canadian pharmacy websites. But the relationship between the technology-focused botnet masters and the global supply chain organizations was murky until now," said Patrick Peterson, vice president of technology at IronPort and a Cisco fellow. "Our research has revealed a smoking gun that shows that Storm and other botnet spam generates commissionable orders, which are then fulfilled by the supply chains, generating revenue in excess of (US)$150 million per year."



Murky until now? I can barely see anything around me due to all the smoke coming from the smoking guns of who's what, what's when, and who's done what with who, especially in respect to Storm Worm whose multitasking on different fronts in the first stages of their appearance online made it possible to establish links between several different malware groups and the "upstream hosting providers", until the botnet scaled enough making it harder to keep track of all of their activities.



The Storm Worm-ers themselves aren't sending out pharma spam, the customers to whom they've sold access to parts of Storm Worm are the ones sending the pharma spam. Here's a brief analysis published in May - "Storm Worm Hosting Pharmaceutical Scams". What's in it for the scammers? Income based on a revenue-sharing affiliate program, a pharmacy affiliate program has been around for several years :



"This criminal organization recruits botnet spamming partners to advertise their illegal pharmacy websites, which receive a 40 percent commission on sales orders. The organization offers fulfillment of the pharmaceutical product orders, credit card processing and customer support services"



What's coming out of Storm Worm's botnet isn't necessarily coming from the hardcore Storm Worm-ers whose job today is more of a campaign-rotation related in order to ensure new bots are added, what's coming out of Storm Worm is coming from those using the access they've purchased to a part of the botnet.



Related posts:

Storm Worm Hosting Pharmaceutical Scams

All You Need is Storm Worm's Love

Social Engineering and Malware

Storm Worm Switching Propagation Vectors

Storm Worm's use of Dropped Domains

Offensive Storm Worm Obfuscation

Storm Worm's Fast Flux Networks

Storm Worm's St. Valentine Campaign

Storm Worm's DDoS Attitude

Riders on the Storm Worm

The Storm Worm Malware Back in the Game Continue reading →

Click Fraud, Botnets and Parked Domains - All Inclusive

0
July 28, 2008
It gets very ugly when someone owns both, the botnet, and the portfolio of parked domains actively participating in PPC (pay per click) advertising programs, where the junk content, or the typosquatted domain names is aiming to attract high value and expensive keywords in order for the scammer to year higher on per click percentage. This is among the very latest tactics applied by those engaging in click fraud. Hypothetically, the cost to rent the botnet and commit click fraud would be cheaper than sharing revenue on per click basis with "human clickers" who earn money based on how many ads they click given a set of scammer's owned sites, where the customer supports represents a DIY proxy switching application changing their IP on the fly.



Click Forensics's recent Q2 2008 report indicates that botnets were responsible for over 25% of all click fraud activity they were monitoring during Q2. Not surprising, given that botnets have long been observed to commit blick fraud, using a common traffic exchange scheme. What's new is the use and abuse of parked domains :



"Despite indication that some of the clicks from parked domains were invalid, Google failed to disclose to the plaintiff specific domain names in which these ads were clicked on, making detection of invalid clicks difficult and even worse concealing any evidence of invalid clicks," the lawsuit alleges. RK West eventually went through its server logs and discovered the source of the clicks, said Alfredo Torrijos, one of the company's attorneys."



Cybersquatting security vendors in order to improve the chances of attracting high-valued keywords to later on commit click fraud on the parked domains, now showing relevant security ads, is nothing new. The trend has been pretty evident for a while, with cybersquatting increasing on an yearly basis according to multiple sources :



"Rise in pay-per-click advertising where cybersquatters link the domain name they have registered with a website containing ads promoting a variety of competing brands.  The cybersquatter receives money every time internet users access this website and click on one of the ads."



However, the "internet users who are supposed to click on one of the ads on the parked domains owned by the scammers" will get clicked by a botnet owned or cost-effectively rented by the scammer. Here's a sample of currently parked domains attracting Symantec ads :



symentec .com

symantek .com

symanteck .com

symantac .com

symantaec .com

symantic .com

symmantec .com

symanntec .com

ssymantec .com

symanthec .com

symanzec .com

symanttec .com

sjmantec .com

saimantec .com

seymantec .com

symanrec .com

symantrc .com

symantwc .com

aymantec .com

dymantec .com

sxmantec .com

symantex .com

symantev .com

symabtec .com

symamtec .com

synantec .com

stmantec .com

symanyec .com

sumantec .com

symant3c .com

syman5ec .com

wwwsymantec .com

symanteccom .com

ymantec .com

syantec .com

symntec .com

symanec .com

symantc .com

symante .com

symattec .com

symantcc .com

syman-tec .com

syymantec .com

symaantec .com

symanteec .com

symantecc .com

ysmantec .com

syamntec .com

symnatec .com

symatnec .com

symanetc .com

symantce .com




As well as recent sample brandjacking Kaspersky :

kespersky .com

kasparsky .com

kaspaersky .com

kaspasky .com

kasperscky .com

gaspersky .com

kasbersky .com

kasppersky .com

kasperrsky .com

kasperssky .com

kasperskj .com

kasperskey .com

kaapersky .com

kasperaky .com

kasperdky .com

laspersky .com

kaspersly .com

kasperskt .com

kaspersku .com

kasp3rsky .com

kaspe4sky .com

kas0ersky .com

wwwkasperskycom .com

wwwkaspersky .com

kasperskycom .com

aspersky .com

kspersky .com

kasersky .com

kaspesky .com   

kaspersy .com

kaspersk .com

kappersky .com

kaspessky .com

kas-persky .com

kasp-ersky .com

kasper-sky .com

kasperskyy .com

akspersky .com

ksapersky .com

kapsersky .com

kaseprsky .com

kaspesrky .com   

kaspersyk .com

kaspersky24 .com

kasperskyonline .com

kaspersky-online .com




What's most disturbing is that instead of having cybersquatting taken care take of a long time ago, so that scammers would need to emphasize on the junk content in order to attract the relevant ads on the bogus domains, cybersquatting still does the magic by including the targeted word in the domain name itself, so that no junk content generation courtesy of a blackhat SEO tool is needed.



Related posts:

Cybersquatting Security Vendors for Fraudulent Purposes

Cybersquatting Symantec's Norton AntiVirus

The State of Typosquatting - 2007 Continue reading →

Smells Like a Copycat SQL Injection In the Wild

0
July 28, 2008
In between the massive SQL injections, that as a matter of fact remain ongoing, copycats taking advantage of the very same SQL injection tools using public search engine's indexes as a reconnaissance tools, are also starting to take advantage of localized and targeted attacks, attacking specific online communities. Among these is mx.content-type.cn /day.js using day.js to attempt multiple exploitation using publicly obtainlable exploits such as Adodb.Stream, MPS.StormPlayer, DPClient.Vod, IERPCtl.IERPCtl.1, GLIEDown.IEDown.1, and targeting primarily Chinese web communities.



Compared to a bit more sophisticated attack tactics applied by Chinese hackers, taking advantage of localized versions of the de facto web malware exploitation kits, those who don't have access to such continue using cybercrime 1.0 DIY exploit embedding tools at large. The rest of the SQL injected domains as well as the exploits themselves are parked on the same plaee - 222.216.28.25, also responding to :



down.goodnetads .org

ads.goodnetads .org

real.kav2008 .com

hk.www404 .cn

err.www404 .cn

mx.content-type .cn

sun.63afe561 .info

ads.633f94d3 .info

ads.1234214 .info

ad.50db34d5 .info

ads.50db34d5 .info

ad.8d77b42a .info

web.adsidc .info

free.idcads .info

free.cjads .info

ads.adslooks .info

list.adslooks .info

ad.5iyy .info




The SQL injected domains :

ads.633f94d3.info/day .js

ad.8d77b42a.info/day .js

ad.5iyy.info/day .js

free.idcads.info/day .js

efreesky.com/day .js

v.freefl.info/day .js




The internal structure :

free.idcads.info/f/index .htm

free.idcads.info/014 .htm

free.idcads.info/real11 .htm

free.idcads.info/real10 .htm

free.idcads.info/lz .htm

free.idcads.info/bf .htm

free.idcads.info/kong .htm

free.idcads.info/f/swfobject .js

ad.50db34d5.info//rm%5C/rm .exe




Parked domains responding to the command and control locations, 60.191.223.76 and 222.216.28.100 :

ftp.gggjjj .info

live.ads002 .net

log.goodnetads .org

dat.goodnetads .org

root.51113 .com

sun.update999 .cn

abb.633f94d3 .info

up.50db34d5 .info


web.cn3721 .org   

dat.goodnetads .org

cs.rm510 .com

sb.sb941 .com

k.sb941 .com

info.sb941 .com

day.sb941 .com

post.ad9178 .com

v.91tg .net




Centralizing their scammy ecosystem always makes it easier to monitor, keep track of, and of course, expose.



Related posts:

SQL Injecting Malicious Doorways to Serve Malware

Yet Another Massive SQL Injection Spotted in the Wild

Malware Domains Used in the SQL Injection Attacks

SQL Injection Through Search Engines Reconnaissance

Google Hacking for Vulnerabilities

Fast-Fluxing SQL injection attacks executed from the Asprox botnet

Sony PlayStation's site SQL injected, redirecting to rogue security software

Redmond Magazine Successfully SQL Injected by Chinese Hacktivists Continue reading →

Counting the Bullets on the (Malware) Front

0
July 25, 2008
How much malware is your antivirus solution detecting? A million, ten million, even "worse", less than a million? Does it really matter? No, it doesn't. What's marketable can also be irrelevant if you are to consider that today's malware is no longer coded, but generated efficiently and obfuscated on the fly. Sophos's recent statistics :

"It is estimated that the total number of unique malware samples in existence now exceeds 11 million, with Sophos currently receiving approximately 20,000 new samples of suspicious software every single day - one every four seconds."

F-Secure's comments according to which they're "lacking behind" Sophos with ten million malware samples :

"Our AVP database reached one million detection records last night. Dr. Evil would be so impressed…"

McAfee's recent comments as well, which seem to detect less malware samples than F-Secure, depending on how you count them of course :

"It demonstrates that it is possible to announce that we detected, at the end of 2007, “between 357,820 (DAT-5196) and 8,600,000 pieces of malware”. And I predict we will detect at the end of 2008 between 450,000 and 22,000,000 malware”. OK, I joke a bit, but I also want to demonstrate there are many manners to count malware and you must not judge a product only by the announced number of detections."

You have an antivirus software that's detecting 10 million malware samples, in reality, while it's protecting you from 10 million malware samples it wouldn't protect you from the just coded for hire malware bot that's about to get used in a targeted attack. The number of malware samples detected by any antivirus vendor is up to how they actually count them, do they take into consideration malware families, do they actually distinguish them, or are they in fact perceiving each and every malware as as seperate "bachelor".

Given the speed in which malware authors are lauching a DDoS attack against AV vendors by crunching out dozens of malware variants parts of a single family, their actions could start directly driving the data storage market, and if they continue maintaining the same rhythm, soon you'll be partitioning a separate GB for the signatures files. Then again, the number of malware samples detected by an antivirus solution isn't the single most important benchmark for its actual usability in a real-life situation, keep that in mind.

Where's the Count when you need him most? Well, he's somewhere out there counting. Continue reading →