Does anyone really believe that the botnet operators behind the Aurora attacks chose to use the most basic and amateurish malware they had on hand because they didn’t need anything more advanced? That sounds about as silly as a bank robber choosing to leave his gun at home in favor of taking an 18 inch wooden baton along because he hears that the guards are only armed with 16 inch batons.
But, nevertheless, you’ve got to wonder why the botnet operators in question ended up using such unsophisticated and dated malware tools – especially when much more advanced tools are easily accessible. The output from any number of commercial malware creator kits (e.g. Zeus, Butterfly, SpyEye, Turkojan, etc.) are more sophisticated and capable than Trojan.Hydraq – and those are what I’d term “average” tools for a learner botnet operator. Compared to something like Conficker.C, Trojan.Hydraq had only recently stepped out of the primordial soup – and Conficker.C is over a year old already.
Then of course there’s the question as to why the malware didn’t employ any kind of armoring (e.g. packers, cryptors, anti-VM, anti-debugger, etc.). It’s not as if you have to go far to find or obtain them. Nor could you be blind to their existence – since practically every hacker site in existence contains extensive references to them (and guides on their use).
I’ve also heard a few people say that the botnet operators were so smart that they may have created the malware to look like it was developed by a bunch of amateurs. It’s all beginning to sound like a conspiracy theory – next we’ll hear that aliens have landed and are subtlety infiltrating online businesses as they proceed with their plan for world domination…
What we do know is that the botnet operators were running multiple botnet building campaigns simultaneously, and employing a number of different delivery techniques that targeted a bunch of similar businesses. The campaigns they ran made use of different families of malware and were slowly evolving in sophistication (but not by much) by the time they made the news in mid-January. It also appears that the various malware families were developed by different authors.
One question I’ve got to ask though is “Why didn’t they just use a DIY kit?” Malware generated using one of the kits would have offered greater functionality, armoring, and would generally have had less likelihood of detection. Some possible reasons for not using a DIY kit:
- They didn’t trust the kits that are out there. Many of the free and pirated kits are backdoored – meaning that any malware created from them have hidden CnC’s built in, and report back to the kit author/pirate.
- Just about every kit I tend to come across is menu driven and relies upon English, Portuguese or Spanish (sometimes Catalan) to use properly. Perhaps the botnet operators couldn’t find a kit that supported their language preference and they couldn’t understand them? (sounds like a market opportunity for some would-be DIY kit author)
- The malware authors may have wanted to “learn on the job” and treated the whole thing as a learning experience. As crazy as it seems, this is a popular experiment amongst the newbie hackers and computer science undergrads.
- Perhaps the malware authors have led a sheltered life and naively thought they could do it better than the professionals.
Regardless, the botnet operators did what they did and they were successful enough with it. I think they were a little lucky in their attacks and I’m a little surprised they managed to run their campaigns for as long as they did. That said though, it’s a valuable lesson for big businesses out there; if a bunch of amateurs can reap this much havoc with outdated unsophisticated tools and a pinch of luck, how easily do you think an experienced criminal crew can break their defenses?
– Gunter Ollmann, VP Research





