got to admit...
keeping multiple versions of the code extant is quite a clever ploy, if indeed it is intentional. If I were one of those psychological profilers you see a lot of these days in crime dramas, I'd be saying this pointed to a single developer who's intimately familiar with all aspects of the conficker code in all its iterations. They're probably more interested in and gain more satisfaction from the technical complexity of the code and adulation from their perceived peer group than with any payload the software can deliver... a bona-fide hacker type. Expect to see some trickery based around unforeseen interactions between different iterations of the code, or hidden code which will have a very low (but non-zero) probability of activation, which can only be predicted by a thorough understanding of *all* the code in *all* its versions.