Get on-the-go access to the latest insights featured on our Trustworthy Computing blogs.
Win32/FakeSecSen was added to MSRT November release as Hamish mentioned in his MMPC blog. We’ve since observed MSRT removing FakeSecSen from 994,061 distinct machines.
Breakdown of these removals by regions is shown as below.
Region/Country
Distinct Machines Cleaned
United States
548,218
United Kingdom
74,343
France
47,581
Germany
43,347
Netherlands
28,724
Spain
23,027
Italy
18,453
Australia
16,287
Canada
16,180
Sweden
15,412
Other
162,489
There is no surprise about the prevalence of these rogues given our earlier telemetry analysis on other Microsoft AV products and tools. For comparison, the #1 family last month was Renos with 389,036 distinct machines cleaned in the first week and 655,535 machines for the whole month. And the most significant result for MSRT this year was the June release when we added eight game password stealer families, was Win32/Taterf with 1,246,792 machines cleaned by week 1 and 1,536,831 machines for the whole month.
One way to interpret this data is to look into the infection rate. In the recent release of volume 5 of the Microsoft Security Intelligence Report we introduced “Computer Cleaned per thousand MSRT executions” (CCM). During 1H08, the CCM for US for the full six months was 11.2. Within one week in November US CCM for all threats is 10.3 and US CCM for just FakeSecSen alone is 5.0. This reads: every one thousand machines in US scanned by MSRT during the last seven days, roughly five were infected with FakeSecSen rogues.
Normally each FakeSecSen installation contains one EXE, one or two DAT files, one Control Panel applet (CPL), one desktop shortcut and sometimes one uninstaller. It is interesting that only 20% of these removals contain executables of FakeSecSen. This indicates either the other 80% machines had at one point been infected by FakeSecSen and the threat was then manually and partially removed, or the machines were cleaned by other AV products/tools, or FakeSecSen had failed to install, etc. To put the number in perspective and adjust the FakeSecSen to count only the EXE, it is #2, behind Renos..
Threat Family
Renos
565,728
FakeSecSen (EXEs)
198,812
Taterf
177,660
Zlob
175,559
Lolyda
118,130
Now how did one’s machine get infected by FakeSecSen? From our research a few Win32/Renos variants such as TrojanDownloader:Win32/Renos.Y, TrojanDownloader:Win32/Renos.AY, TrojanDownloader:Win32/Renos.EK are responsible for downloading FakeSecSen. The table below shows the top ten threats infecting machines that were also infected by FakeSecSen. Five of them are Renos.
Rank
Threat on FakeSec infected machine
1
TrojanDownloader:Win32/Renos.AY
5,437
2
TrojanDownloader:Win32/Renos.Y
5,223
3
Trojan:Win32/Zlob.J
4,922
4
TrojanDropper:Win32/Zlob
3,076
5
TrojanDownloader:Win32/Renos
2,619
6
Trojan:Win32/Zlob.AU
2,040
7
TrojanDownloader:Win32/Zlob.AMV
1,627
8
TrojanDownloader:Win32/Zlob.gen!CJ
1,567
9
TrojanDownloader:Win32/Renos.AT
1,399
10
TrojanDownloader:Win32/Zlob.gen!AX
1,248
We suggest you get familiar with the behaviors of Win32/Renos especially the three variants mentioned above and be cautious out there with your web surfing and other internet usage.
The following table shows the top ten FakeSecSen EXEs. We provide this data for any other antimalware vendors and security research firms who wish to solidify their detection capability or malware analysis.
FakeSecSen EXE
0x594771CD995BA6A77DEB10BEAA27DFD30B4A6CF1
24,488
0xDCED8E211919CC57878B53C7E6D288A31DC1C6AB
8,696
0xA73CEE93F3EF7B913CDE29EB84DCBF43B41C4920
6,595
0x83B3ED7F420D6B06A0F7FA0D429E3B8098205446
6,482
0x8CE338D88245B7C5DB92BFB9C2FD3852039477D5
6,392
0x6F6BB37E574FC70FCD90B5075A9100D254C83286
6,035
0xDB3C727A2F99E04FA8595161A6ADD6889DD29320
5,949
0xD98221F3893C15DBAE130CB38F3A02856091E733
5,236
0x3FC84BC022F53B1BED34FFB59681CE2DD42F6AE2
5,225
0x0D4C8ECA468532A72C4840ACE58257A307CA06EA
4,821
MMPC is keeping an eye on this space and watching closely the activities of AV rogues and their evolution. We strive for ensuring the safe Internet experience of our customers and we trust our colleagues in other industry leading firms are doing the same.
-- Scott Wu, Scott Molenkamp and Hamish O’Dea