SCADApedia
AAA  AAA 

Conficker beFUDdlement

I’ll start off by saying don’t believe all the FUD that’s been going around, we all know how many members of the media area when they get hold of a story, especially one that can have a date in the future to speculate on.

That said, there are definitely some interesting things going on with the worm, but at the heart of it, that’s all it is another worm albeit one with a sophisticated command and control network.  There are some good write-ups out there to get a basic understanding and SRI has a very good paper if you’re interested in the technical details.

So how does this worm affect the world of control systems?  Honestly, it shouldn’t, but whether you like it or not it’s a real world test of a few different policies that you should have in place.  First one, firewalls, 135/tcp and 445/tcp should be blocked, that’s the initial vector that this worm uses, exploit the MS08-067 vulnerability that we talked about on patch day.  I won’t say that there’s no good reason for you to have these ports coming into your SCADA network, but I haven’t heard one.

Next up, mobile computers that are uses on both the control system network and other networks.  File and print sharing might be blocked at the firewall, but if it’s enabled and all your systems are unpatched then you may well have a problem. Not only will this worm, and others like it try to use the MS08-067 vector, it will also try to access SMB shares using a long list of common/poor passwords. Two tests here, rre your SCADA admins allowed to have laptops connected to the corp network too?  How about home, coffee shop, or hotel networks?  These systems should be the first ones patched, and should be treated more suspiciously than others.  Strong password policies should be common knowledge by now, and I would hope that none that the worm is using are protecting anything as important as access to a control system.

Sneaker net, the silent killer.  Infected systems also infect removable devices that it uses, so make sure that USB drive that you’re using to move data back and forth isn’t already spreading badware.  Disable autorun, and be careful of sharing media with others, and between systems, and please don’t plug thumbdrives you’ve found somewhere into the control system network, you’re effectively sharing files with every other system that it’s been used in, and it might not cause problems on this one, but you’re asking for trouble.
Lastly, if you haven’t done any of these, and you find yourself infected, good egress filtering should make the infection rather painless.  Outbound connections should be denied by default, and those that are enabled should have a very good reason for being there.

In the mean time, there’s a lot of ways to tell if you’ve got a problem.  Nmap would be my tool of choice if you’re looking for one.  So in the end, if you’re following good practices you don’t have anything to worry about, and if you’re not then you should have started worrying about this back in November.

Comments

Comment from kowsik
Time: April 2, 2009, 12:38 am

The nastiest part about this worm (unlike slammer) is that it’s not static. Every aspect of this worm can change over time mainly because it has the ability to update itself from one of the gazillion domain names and do a signed download. That means the list of passwords it tries can change and so can other things. At least for now, we know (from Kaminsky’s work) how to fingerprint an infected machine. Quickly deinfect before the worm authors figure out how to hide this fingerprint with another update.

Comment from Ralph Langner
Time: April 2, 2009, 4:38 am

Daniel, you are getting me confused here. Nmap? The killer? Nmap is infamous as the ultimate attack weapon that brought down more control systems than all worms and viruses combined (followed by ping). A serious attacker would not waste nights in his den to come up with something of questionable chances for success like Conficker. He would just fire up the trusty old Nmap and do an aggressive scan for a sure kill. Ok, that might not get him into the news, but that’s a different story…

(Sorry, it was just TOO tempting…) :-)

Comment from Matthew Franz
Time: April 2, 2009, 8:47 am

Although Nessus has an even more checkered past WRT control systems than, the updated Nessus Conficker plugin can make use of credentials so has the *potential* to be safer if configured properly and a credentialed check can result in fewer packets sent on the wire and more accurate results.

See http://blog.tenablesecurity.com/2009/04/updated-conficker-detection-plugin-released.html and https://discussions.nessus.org

CAVEAT: I work for Tenable and obviously all the usual cautions about active scanning of critical networks applies.

Comment from Adriel Michaud
Time: April 2, 2009, 10:18 am

Port 135 is one of the ports used for DCOM and remote OPC connections. Unless you’re using tunnelling software like MatrikonOPC Tunneller, you probably have that port open and you might even have your firewall turned off.

Comment from stephan beirer
Time: April 3, 2009, 5:28 am

If you are monitoring your firewall between the worlds of control systems and ‘traditional’ IT you will probably detect Conficker C activity due the ICMP backscatter noise caused by the worm’s P2P module scanning for potential peers.. a nice example how simple anomaly detection, i.e. monitoring for unusal activity can improve security..

Write a comment