Also just downloaded it and ran it:

Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.34
Database version: 1900
Windows 6.1.7000

26/03/2009 14:43:45
mbam-log-2009-03-26 (14-43-45).txt

Scan type: Full Scan (C:\|D:\|E:\|)
Objects scanned: 186322
Time elapsed: 36 minute(s), 42 second(s)

Memory Processes Infected: 0
Memory Modules Infected: 0
Registry Keys Infected: 0
Registry Values Infected: 0
Registry Data Items Infected: 0
Folders Infected: 0
Files Infected: 0

Memory Processes Infected:
(No malicious items detected)

Memory Modules Infected:
(No malicious items detected)

Registry Keys Infected:
(No malicious items detected)

Registry Values Infected:
(No malicious items detected)

Registry Data Items Infected:
(No malicious items detected)

Folders Infected:
(No malicious items detected)

Files Infected:
(No malicious items detected)

Green Granite: I wish I knew. Are these trojans classed as malware, thus virus protectors are not interested or are the freebies such as Avast and AVG not as good as the paid for stuff? To be fair, when I used to use AVG I did get the occasional popup declaring that AVG had blocked a virus. However, it let the trojan through which subsequently blocked all my malware detectors and AVG itself from updating itself. Thus I switched to Avast, however it may well be that this was a very new trojan which got in and protected itself in this way before the virus/malware detectors could update themselves. This (please excuse the plug again Saab) is why I like Malwarebytes. Most anti malware software needs to update itself with the latest signatures from its website as soon as it is installed. Malwarebytes doesn't as the download you obtain is fully up to date.

P.P.

Avast usually goes ape sh1t if I down load any thing that has a virus in it as it scans the finished download, but seems to let things like tracking cookies through but then tells you when you do a complete scan. My answer is to have several bits of software and scan each day with a different one, but I run Windows Defender along side Avast and it seems fine.

I just ran it also it showed the same thing.
With fully updated windows, Norton, spybot and CC cleaner I guess I am safe then.
But it never hurts to make sure with a different product, thanks

This is the patch from MS that will (presumably) confer immunity from this.
(Machines that auto-update should have had this applied in October/08. Never hurts to check in "add/remove programs, though.)
Here is a little more info about it.
Personally, I'm not too concerned about this one.

I don't think it's the home pcs that are at high risk because most of them have auto update on and as Tarq57 said MS issued a patch for it. It's the large corporate networks that don't tend to apply updates who are, and will suffer.

There is a patch for Conficker, but I'm sure those who are security aware or in the security industry will have read SRI's excellent analysis of all three strains of Conficker and understand that the multiple infection pathways and actions Conficker takes to prevent its removal and stop the user accessing removal-related web sites mean the patch won't install if you are infected.

If you're infected, too late to patch - use the MS removal tool THEN patch.

Decent commercial standard IDS (generally found in large corporations) have been detecting Conficker since last October based on the fact it exploits a similar vulnerability to one for which detection has been available for a year or two, so one would hope they've been taking action for a while.

I tend to agree with the Snopes analysis: these days, it's all about commercial gain, not taking systems down. These things can go for years without being diagnosed, like a person who carries Epstein-Barr or HPV.

It would be nice to gloat about this Linux netbook, but I still keep an XP machine going for games, and jobs where only Microsoft Office is compatible enough. (Much as I like OpenOffice, it mangles the Equations in my Word documents.)

Someone's used their noggin, and put together a simple test for whether your machine has Conficker or not. Since Conficker blocks certain websites, such as those of anti-virus vendors, a web page with inline images from those sites will look wrong. This "Conficker Eyechart" tests that, so you can see at a glance whether you have an infection or not. (I checked the HTML source: it's just a simple web page, no active content of any kind.)