Recently, a sharp-eyed reader noted that proxies on TCP port 9415 suck ass, and suggested they might be Koobface proxies. So this morning I did a little reality check and found:
- They do suck ass
- They share some aspects of last year’s Koobface spread
I did a special resurrection on every dead port 9415 proxy in the Gold Database (proxies verified at one time or another) and did some manual spot-checking. In all, out of 5766 dead proxies I found fifteen live ones. Most were located in China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan. One was in Alberta, Canada.
The first one I found, in China, gave me two pages before it started resetting connections.
The Canadian proxy – apparently a Shaw Cable residential account – was fine. It was perky and never refused a request.
However, I just now re-checked it and it’s timing out.
Several of the others simply returned the text string “error” to the browser.
Some took forever and never returned anything.
This report from Japan offers some interesting insights:
As for 9415/tcp, access from multiple sources in overseas (mainly China) observed at multiple monitoring points … has been on the rise since March.
When I look at the Big Database (all proxies scraped but not verified) I see approximately the same results just eyeballing the data, but I see the activity starting way back in August 2009.
It really takes off by the middle of May 2010. A quick query shows that 60% of all 9415 proxies were discovered after May 15th.
In all there are over 170,000 port 9415 proxies in the database, which would make a decent botnet.
Coincidentally, Koobface “bloomed” in May of 2009.
I’ve always said this was a seasonal business.