<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Signatures related to confickr worm in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/signatures-related-to-confickr-worm/m-p/1241727#M77500</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Can someone please tell me if there has been a signature generated for the confickr worm and if not, what current signature or set of signatures I might want to key off when looking for this worm?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 11:33:14 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>johnny_utah</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-10T11:33:14Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Signatures related to confickr worm</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/signatures-related-to-confickr-worm/m-p/1241727#M77500</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Can someone please tell me if there has been a signature generated for the confickr worm and if not, what current signature or set of signatures I might want to key off when looking for this worm?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 11:33:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/signatures-related-to-confickr-worm/m-p/1241727#M77500</guid>
      <dc:creator>johnny_utah</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-10T11:33:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Signatures related to confickr worm</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/signatures-related-to-confickr-worm/m-p/1241728#M77501</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Try this. Go here:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/home.x" target="_blank"&gt;http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/home.x&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Type "conficker" into the search box up top...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You get here:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/viewAlert.x?alertId=17121" target="_blank"&gt;http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/viewAlert.x?alertId=17121&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scroll way down to the linked signature section and you'll see:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;7280-0, 7280-1 - these two are signatures that trigger on the smb vulnerability.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;13491-0, 13492-0 - these two are meta signatures that make use of existing sigs 5602-0 5605-0 5589-0 to localize infected machines brute forcing their way about. Note that 5602, 5605, and 5589 need to be enabled for the meta signatures to fire.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:19:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/signatures-related-to-confickr-worm/m-p/1241728#M77501</guid>
      <dc:creator>wsulym</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-03-18T13:19:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Signatures related to confickr worm</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/signatures-related-to-confickr-worm/m-p/1241729#M77502</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is there any way we can use our NAMS to any effect to detect infected hosts?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:53:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/signatures-related-to-confickr-worm/m-p/1241729#M77502</guid>
      <dc:creator>a.goldsmith</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-03-31T05:53:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Signatures related to confickr worm</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/signatures-related-to-confickr-worm/m-p/1241730#M77503</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;FYI, 5 new IPS signatures were released yesterday all on the intellishield alert.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;16293/0 Conficker Worm Shellcode S389 04/01/2009 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;16293/1 Conficker Worm Shellcode S389 04/01/2009 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;16293/2 Conficker Worm Shellcode S389 04/01/2009 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;16296/0 Potential Conficker Command And Control Request S389 04/01/2009 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;16297/0 Worm Activity - Brute Force S389 04/01/2009 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:40:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/signatures-related-to-confickr-worm/m-p/1241730#M77503</guid>
      <dc:creator>michael.d.brown</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-04-02T15:40:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Signatures related to confickr worm</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/signatures-related-to-confickr-worm/m-p/1241731#M77504</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;John. Have you found the way to defeat confliker using IOS IPS?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I do not understand why manually UNretired/enabled:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;7280/0	Windows Server Service Remote Code Execution S36711/11/2008&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;7280/1	Windows Server Service Remote Code Execution S36711/11/2008&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;16293/0	Conficker Worm Shellcode	S389	04/01/2009&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;16293/1	Conficker Worm Shellcode	S389	04/01/2009&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;16296/0	Potential Conficker Command And Control Request S395 04/16/2009&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;are not triggered in 2 different nets with almost all infected hosts. What I have only noticed a lot of these messages&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;*Jul 25 05:55:53.499: %IPS-4-SIGNATURE: Sig:5601 Subsig:1 Sev:100 Windows LSASS RPC Overflow [192.168.100.10:1343 -&amp;gt; 192.168.106.74:139] VRF:NONE RiskRating:85&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;*Jul 25 05:55:53.499: %IPS-4-SIGNATURE: Sig:6946 Subsig:0 Sev:100 Web Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability [192.168.100.10:1343 -&amp;gt; 192.168.106.74:139] VRF:NONE RiskRating:90&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;*Jul 25 05:55:53.499: %IPS-4-SIGNATURE: Sig:7280 Subsig:0 Sev:100 Windows Server Service Remote Code Execution [192.168.100.10:1343 -&amp;gt; 192.168.106.74:139] VRF:NONE RiskRating:90&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;*Jul 25 06:13:23.095: %IPS-4-SIGNATURE: Sig:5600 Subsig:0 Sev:100 Windows ASN.1 Bit String NTLMv2 Integer Overflow [192.168.109.27:1766 -&amp;gt; 192.168.100.118:445] VRF:NONE RiskRating:75&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;*Jul 25 06:22:47.175: %IPS-4-SIGNATURE: Sig:6764 Subsig:1 Sev:75 Cisco PIX and ASA Time-to-Live DoS [192.168.254.2:0 -&amp;gt; 224.0.0.5:0] VRF:NONE RiskRating:56&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;*Jul 25 07:15:49.927: %IPS-4-SIGNATURE: Sig:5600 Subsig:0 Sev:100 Windows ASN.1 Bit String NTLMv2 Integer Overflow [192.168.100.93:4658 -&amp;gt; 192.168.103.1:139] VRF:NONE RiskRating:75&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But only in during 30 sec. while the signatures are being compiled.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please help. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:15:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/signatures-related-to-confickr-worm/m-p/1241731#M77504</guid>
      <dc:creator>SludnevTN_2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-07-26T08:15:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

