IBM sees Conficker hitting 4 percent of PCs
IBM is the second company in two days to suggest that the number of computers infected by the Conficker.C worm may be higher than previously thought.
After scanning 2 million computers over the past 24 hours, IBM's Internet Security Systems (ISS) division said Thursday that it had spotted the worm on 4 percent of the IP addresses it monitored.
Although Conficker is clearly the worst worm outbreak in years, the results came as a surprise, according to Holly Stewart, a threat response manager with ISS. "It is higher than what we expected; I thought we'd see 1 to 2 percent," Stewart said.
Late last week, IBM researchers reverse-engineered Conficker and figured out a way to track infections by measuring peer-to-peer traffic on the network. They used that technique to reach their estimate.
The results are similar to numbers released Wednesday by OpenDNS, which said it had also spotted a much larger number of infections than expected. Both IBM and OpenDNS' numbers count Conficker.C, the latest variant of the worm, and one that is easier to spot communicating on the network.
Conficker began spreading in October 2008, using a handful of sneaky tricks to spread. Once it infects a machine, it can spread very quickly on a local area network by taking advantage of a now-patched flaw in Microsoft Windows.
Experts had pegged Conficker infections in the 2 million to 4 million range, but IBM's numbers suggest that they may be much higher than that, perhaps in the tens of millions.
Still, Stewart cautioned against concluding that 4 percent of Internet users had been infected. "It's not a perfect number, nothing is. But it's the best that we can give with the data we have right now."
It's possible that Conficker infections are approaching 4 percent, said Danny McPherson, chief security officer with Arbor Networks. Because Conficker is more likely to infect certain types of users -- broadband consumers are generally more vulnerable than enterprise or government users, for example -- estimates like ISS' could come from a sample that does not represent the Internet as a whole, he said.
Still, by any measure, Conficker is a big problem. "Even if they're off by an order of magnitude -- which is possible -- the number of infected machines is immense."
IDG News Service
Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world
On Twitter now
conficker
Powered by Twitter
jfruh
Apple syncing patent can't come soon enough
pasmith
New Twitter features borrow from 3rd party clients
Esther Schindler
Open Source Changes the Software Acquisition Process
mikelgan
How to set up continuous podcast play on the new iTunes
David Strom
Five important Windows 7 mobility features
sjvn
Guard your Wi-Fi for your own sake
Sandra Henry-Stocker
Grepping on Whole Words
Sidekick: The Good News & the Bad News
Either way you look at it Microsoft Data Center management did not follow standards or best practices in this failure. In which case it makes me wonder more about the outsourcing of corporate data much less personal data.
- mburton325
Join the conversation here
Quick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.
Want to cash in on your IT savvy? Send your tip to tips@itworld.com. If we post it, we'll send you a $25 Amazon e-gift card.
Great
That's great, they have an approximation of the number of PC's infected and it's larger that first thought. (There's not much value in this but a little fear mongering.)Given that orgs are already trying to identify their infections, clean, and apply the patch, what would be more valuable is if IBM and others were able to better-understand what the conficker code _does_ and inform us of that. That way, instead of just waiting to be victimized, we could proactively prevent any future attempts/attacks by the bot.