Slashdot Mirror

An Anonymous Reader writes "If you recently set up a new PC with Windows XP, or if you had the pleasure to do a 'reinstall from scratch,' you probably found that many XP systems as they are shipped today are not patched against common issues like Blaster. Given that these worms are still going strong, it doesn't take long for a new system to be infected. In particular, if you have to connect it to the Internet to download all the patches. Well, help is in sight. The SANS Institute released a paper entitled Windows XP: Surviving the First Day." (Read on below.) Update: 12/24 17:59 GMT by T : Thanks for reader Bill Curnow for the updated link. Update: 12/24 19:15 GMT by T : Besides the workaround suggested below, Roblimo has a good suggestion on avoiding the first-day-of-Windows altogether.

"With many screen shots, it will walk you through the procedure to enable the XP firewall and downloading the patches without getting infected while doing so. This could be the (free) stocking stuffer that may save Christmas for your folks ;-). Given that its probably to late now to start downloading your favorite Linux distro."

But if you do have the time and bandwidth, and you're stuck on Windows, a nice live-CD distro like Knoppix or Mepis means you can download patches without racing the worms, and install your patches while offline. (And if you have time to download 50MB, you have time to grab Damn Small Linux.)

An Anonymous Reader writes "If you recently set up a new PC with Windows XP, or if you had the pleasure to do a 'reinstall from scratch,' you probably found that many XP systems as they are shipped today are not patched against common issues like Blaster. Given that these worms are still going strong, it doesn't take long for a new system to be infected. In particular, if you have to connect it to the Internet to download all the patches. Well, help is in sight. The SANS Institute released a paper entitled Windows XP: Surviving the First Day." (Read on below.) Update: 12/24 17:59 GMT by T : Thanks for reader Bill Curnow for the updated link. Update: 12/24 19:15 GMT by T : Besides the workaround suggested below, Roblimo has a good suggestion on avoiding the first-day-of-Windows altogether.

"With many screen shots, it will walk you through the procedure to enable the XP firewall and downloading the patches without getting infected while doing so. This could be the (free) stocking stuffer that may save Christmas for your folks ;-). Given that its probably to late now to start downloading your favorite Linux distro."

But if you do have the time and bandwidth, and you're stuck on Windows, a nice live-CD distro like Knoppix or Mepis means you can download patches without racing the worms, and install your patches while offline. (And if you have time to download 50MB, you have time to grab Damn Small Linux.)

An Anonymous Reader writes "If you recently set up a new PC with Windows XP, or if you had the pleasure to do a 'reinstall from scratch,' you probably found that many XP systems as they are shipped today are not patched against common issues like Blaster. Given that these worms are still going strong, it doesn't take long for a new system to be infected. In particular, if you have to connect it to the Internet to download all the patches. Well, help is in sight. The SANS Institute released a paper entitled Windows XP: Surviving the First Day." (Read on below.) Update: 12/24 17:59 GMT by T : Thanks for reader Bill Curnow for the updated link. Update: 12/24 19:15 GMT by T : Besides the workaround suggested below, Roblimo has a good suggestion on avoiding the first-day-of-Windows altogether.

"With many screen shots, it will walk you through the procedure to enable the XP firewall and downloading the patches without getting infected while doing so. This could be the (free) stocking stuffer that may save Christmas for your folks ;-). Given that its probably to late now to start downloading your favorite Linux distro."

But if you do have the time and bandwidth, and you're stuck on Windows, a nice live-CD distro like Knoppix or Mepis means you can download patches without racing the worms, and install your patches while offline. (And if you have time to download 50MB, you have time to grab Damn Small Linux.)

An anonymous reader submits "The SANS Institute (together with the FBI) published today an updated version of its list of The Twenty Most Critical Internet Security Vulnerabilities. As usual, part of the news is that not too much has changed. The list is split into 10 Unix and 10 Windows vulnerabilities. Leaders are BIND and IIS (last year it was RPC on the Unix side). But some issues (weak passwords) made it into both lists. For last years version, see here. In addition to this list, and a lot of other stuff, the SANS institute is behind DShield and the Internet Storm Center."

An anonymous reader submits "The SANS Institute (together with the FBI) published today an updated version of its list of The Twenty Most Critical Internet Security Vulnerabilities. As usual, part of the news is that not too much has changed. The list is split into 10 Unix and 10 Windows vulnerabilities. Leaders are BIND and IIS (last year it was RPC on the Unix side). But some issues (weak passwords) made it into both lists. For last years version, see here. In addition to this list, and a lot of other stuff, the SANS institute is behind DShield and the Internet Storm Center."

An anonymous reader submits "The SANS Institute (together with the FBI) published today an updated version of its list of The Twenty Most Critical Internet Security Vulnerabilities. As usual, part of the news is that not too much has changed. The list is split into 10 Unix and 10 Windows vulnerabilities. Leaders are BIND and IIS (last year it was RPC on the Unix side). But some issues (weak passwords) made it into both lists. For last years version, see here. In addition to this list, and a lot of other stuff, the SANS institute is behind DShield and the Internet Storm Center."

An anonymous reader submits "The SANS Institute (together with the FBI) published today an updated version of its list of The Twenty Most Critical Internet Security Vulnerabilities. As usual, part of the news is that not too much has changed. The list is split into 10 Unix and 10 Windows vulnerabilities. Leaders are BIND and IIS (last year it was RPC on the Unix side). But some issues (weak passwords) made it into both lists. For last years version, see here. In addition to this list, and a lot of other stuff, the SANS institute is behind DShield and the Internet Storm Center."

An anonymous reader submits "The SANS Institute (together with the FBI) published today an updated version of its list of The Twenty Most Critical Internet Security Vulnerabilities. As usual, part of the news is that not too much has changed. The list is split into 10 Unix and 10 Windows vulnerabilities. Leaders are BIND and IIS (last year it was RPC on the Unix side). But some issues (weak passwords) made it into both lists. For last years version, see here. In addition to this list, and a lot of other stuff, the SANS institute is behind DShield and the Internet Storm Center."

Ted Cabeen writes "The 2002 Salary Survey run by SAGE, SANS, and Sun's BigAdmin Group profiled in a March Slashdot Article has finally been released. Everybody who participated in the survey is entitled to a copy, as well as current members of those groups. How does your salary stack up in the post-crash economy?"

Anonymous Coward writes "In a paper published today, the point is made that ISPs should filter some ports (e.g. 135) for good. I guess given what everyone sees hitting their various firewalls these days, this may make sense. But wasn't the Internet supposed to be 'open' at one point? Or are we to the point where Internet=Web (and maybe AIM). The author of the paper is operating DShield and I guess has some insight into this issue. He made the same points before on various mailing lists."

Anonymous Coward writes "In a paper published today, the point is made that ISPs should filter some ports (e.g. 135) for good. I guess given what everyone sees hitting their various firewalls these days, this may make sense. But wasn't the Internet supposed to be 'open' at one point? Or are we to the point where Internet=Web (and maybe AIM). The author of the paper is operating DShield and I guess has some insight into this issue. He made the same points before on various mailing lists."

UnderAttack writes "This morning, the SANS Internet Storm Center posted a note about an increase in ICMP traffic, including a quick initial analysis. As it turns out, yet another worm, this time the W32/Nachi.worm, is going around taking advantage of the RPC DCOM vulnerability. The twist this time: the worm will actually clean up machines. It tries to download the correct patches from Windows Update and remove the Blaster worm."

UnderAttack writes "This morning, the SANS Internet Storm Center posted a note about an increase in ICMP traffic, including a quick initial analysis. As it turns out, yet another worm, this time the W32/Nachi.worm, is going around taking advantage of the RPC DCOM vulnerability. The twist this time: the worm will actually clean up machines. It tries to download the correct patches from Windows Update and remove the Blaster worm."

GPez writes "The first of I'm sure many RPC DCOM worms affecting Windows is on its way, according to the Internet Storm Center. Patch those systems!" According to the site, "The worm uses the RPC DCOM vulnerability [affects Win2k through Server 2003] to propagate. Once it finds a vulnerable system, it will spawn a shell on port 4444 and use it to download the actual worm via tftp."

newkid asks: "Our company needs to upgrade its standard browser, a difficult decision when we factor security, compatibility and the logistics of actually doing it. For compatibility, Internet Explorer is required by internal applications like IBM Tivoli Storage Manager, so we have to keep it. On the security front, expert bulletins keep ranting every week about the latest gaping holes in IE but nobody really seems concerned: for example, many on-line banking services only work in IE, and they don't check for patches. Meanwhile, users do not care, as a large portion of the traffic still comes from IE 5.5, a version discontinued by Microsoft. As for logistics,the software distribution technology and the cost of patching both make the project much larger than we can undertake this year. Our two options are: roll-out IE without patching, or roll-out IE and Netscape, but lock IE so it can only surf on intranet sites, and update NS with rsync or Ant. What is your company doing? What is your strategy? How serious are the security threats? What are the documented security breach caused by IE? We need a reality check."

MrRules writes "It's that time again; the 2002 salary survey's are out. This year there's an interesting twist: SAGE, SANS and Sun's BigAdmin site have combined to run the largest global participation sysadmin salary survey ever done. What I like is that this is different to those surveys done by HR departments -- this is real data on how you spend your time, by sysadmins for sysadmins. It'll be interesting to see how things have changed over the past 18 months."

This came across the Interesting-People list today: a preliminary draft of a paper, co-authored by Adi Shamir, that proposes new hardware for factoring large numbers. It is claimed that a machine could be built which would be "3-4 orders of magnitude more cost effective than the best previously published designs," and that "the NFS sieving step for 1024-bit RSA keys can be completed in less than a year by a $10M device." For background, here's a primer on key length in symmetric and asymmetric crypto.

hether writes "Customers of the auction site eBay have been targeted by a site called ebayupdates.com. The site attempts to steal credit card details from eBay's 55 million customers. The SANS Institute Internet Storm Center issued the warning on this one. Info about the scam can be found on the BBC site, CNN, CNet, vnunet, and more. Funny enough there's no mention of this on the eBay site..."

theBraindonor writes "SANS Institute and the FBI have compiled a listing of the The Twenty Most Critical Internet Security Vulnerabilities. The list is broken down into two groups: Windows Systems and Unix Systems." The list of Unix vulnerabilities is also a list of the network programs I (and presumably many others) use most. It's a good thing there's BugTraq.

theBraindonor writes "SANS Institute and the FBI have compiled a listing of the The Twenty Most Critical Internet Security Vulnerabilities. The list is broken down into two groups: Windows Systems and Unix Systems." The list of Unix vulnerabilities is also a list of the network programs I (and presumably many others) use most. It's a good thing there's BugTraq.

An anonymous reader writes "Computerworld is covering in more detail the new Federal 'Cybersecurity Center.' The article explains that unlike some earlier rumors indicated, the center will not try to build a super-carnivore, but instead use voluntary reports. It will be similar to the SANS Institute's Internet Storm Center, which summarizes contributions submitted to DShield.org. This system of voluntary contributors has been shown to be effective in the past by issuing early warning for a number of major Internet worms, like Code Red, Ramen and SQLSnake. Unlike Symantec's 'for pay ' Deep Sight service, which publishes alerts only to paying members, Incidents.org is a free service."

NeedaFirewall writes: "With all of the recent vulnerability announcements and increased concern about terrorism, a lot of folks are starting to take security and privacy more seriously, both at the network and node levels. Large companies can afford to send their IT people to detailed technical security conferences offered by the likes of SANS, Blackhat, and others. Some of these cost thousands of dollars for a single seminar, class, or other event. Small companies and individual programmers, network admins, etc (like me!) often can't afford these. Where can they go to learn more about security? Are there quality security conferences, seminars, trade shows, and the like out there that the little guys can afford? Particularly broad-scope gatherings that can teach these 'security newbies' the basics and alert them to the most pertinent threats?"

Ant writes: "A little over a year ago, the SANS Institute and the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) released a document summarizing the Ten Most Critical Internet Security Vulnerabilities. Thousands of organizations used that list to prioritize their efforts so they could close the most dangerous holes first. This new list, released on October 1, 2001, updates and expands the Top Ten list. With this new release, we have increased the list to the Top Twenty vulnerabilities, and we have segmented it into three categories: General Vulnerabilities, Windows Vulnerabilities, and Unix Vulnerabilities."

mspeedie writes "Seems Linux has very much arrive judging by the number of nasty virus starting to pop up. Check out the latest at: Lion Worm Virus on Linux " This is not a virus, its a worm that exploits a vulnerable bind to install a rootkit. Regardless, you should have tripwire or something running anyway.

Wanker writes "An Eastern European hacker group has spent the last year systematically exploiting known bugs in IIS to steal customer and credit card info. Read about it at the SANS security site." Says SANS, "The FBI and Secret Service are taking the unprecedented step of releasing detailed forensic information from ongoing investigations" of the IIS, MS SQL Server and Windows NT breakins. We don't normally post news about exploits, but the scale here is massive: more than a million credit cards have been taken in a blackmail-extortion operation that has been going on for a year. Speculation is welcome as to why NT sysadmins don't install service packs for known vulnerabilities... Update: 03/09 03:37 AM GMT by J : Microsoft says, Don't Be A Victim!.

If you are an NT admin or know someone who is, note especially:

"Within a day or two, the Center for Internet Security will release a small tool that you can use to check your systems for the vulnerabilities and also to look for files the FBI has found present on many compromised systems...

"The Center's tools are normally available only to members, but because of the importance of this problem, the Center agreed to make the new tool, built for the Center by Steve Gibson of Gibson Research) available to all who need it."

Jason Bennett, frequent reviewer of books, now regales you with this great piece on the background and development of the new encryption standard to replace the pretty-good-till-now DES. It's full of linked information you'll want to digest, too. Update: 02/23 12:32 AM by T : Note: The links I borked are better now; mea culpa (and beware copying in Mozilla).

Since it was officially approved by the U.S. Government in November of 1976, most of the world's sensitive commercial traffic has been secured through the use of the Data Encryption Standard (DES). In its twenty-five year lifetime, it has become the most widely used, most widely trusted, and most widely studied encryption algorithm in existence. Alas, in the same way that your Atari 2600 ^[?] is currently sitting on the floor of your closet, DES' lifetime has come to an end as well. This was most dramatically demonstrated in the three DES Challenges sponsored by RSA Labs between January of 1997 and January of 1999, with a DES-encrypted message eventually being broken in less than 24 hours. This challenge also witnessed the birth of a DES-specific cracking computer, a machine widely theorized about, but never before (publicly) built. Although variants of DES (most notably Triple DES) are still widely used, it became clear that a new algorithm would be needed for the next twenty-five years.

Thus was born the Advanced Encryption Algorithm Development Effort. Beginning in January, 1997 (just before the RSA challenges finally broke DES), the National Institute of Standards and Technology announced its intent to begin the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) process. The initial AES workshop was held in April, with the official call for algorithms going forth in September. Importantly, this call specified that the algorithms submitted have a key length of 128 bits, and be free of intellectual property constraints. Algorithms would be accepted from domestic and international submitters, and the resulting algorithm would be completely public. The con test would also consider both the hardware and the software implementation -- a divergence from DES, which was specifically designed for use in hardware. Importantly, the hardware that the AES had to operate in could vary from the largest supercomputer to a ROM-based smart card or other embedded ed environment. A candidate algorithm might well be optimized for one or the other, but had to perform at least reasonably well on all to have a real chance of being selected. Finally, this algorithm would be designed from the ground up to use the long key length, and thus would be faster and more secure than Triple-DES is at that length.

Thus came the warriors to the joust. On August 20-22, 1998, the first AES conference was held, with fifteen different algorithms being presented. Over the next seven months, these algorithms were tested in laboratories around the world to probe for weaknesses and to test the their speeds. There is a huge selection of papers on these tests at the AES1 site for your perusal, so I will not try and detail those tests here. Suffice to say, several of the algorithms had serious problems identified, while others came through with flying colors. The next March, the second AES conference was the forum for the presentation of these results, and a subsequent discussion of which algorithms should thus advance to the final round. These finalists were announced in August of 1999, thus beginning the second round of competition. NIST subsequently issued an excellent report detailing their rationale about each algorithm, including the problems and benefits associated with each.

The AES finalists were:

• MARS (IBM) (their case)
• RC6 (RSA) (their case)
• Rijndael (their case) (how to pronounce it)
• Serpent (their case)
• Twofish (Counterpane) (their case)

Obviously, each candidate comes to the conclusion that their cipher is the best. Nevertheless, there are some shared criticisms of the various ciphers that show patterns in each one. Serpent, for example, is universally named the slowest algorithm (in software), even by its creators. Nevertheless, they make their case based on being the most secure algorithm of the bunch. RC6 and MARS are both very fast on certain processors, but terrible on others. As noted above, any serious AES candidate had to perform well across all platforms, and thus this variable performance tended t o compromise these candidates. None of the algorithms were ever broken by a practical attack, however, and all should be considered secure enough for serious encryption work. Thus was held the third AES conference in April of 2000. This was the final conference before the official AES selection, and the last chance for each algorithm to make it s case. The statements above were presented at the end of this conference in an effort to make that case. Once the conference ended, it was up to NIST to make its selection. The candidates could only wait.

Finally, on October 2, 2000, NIST released their final decision, that R ijndael was to be the AES selection. Simultaneously, NIST released a paper detailing their rationale for the selection. In sum, this paper says that any of the finalists could have been selected (an opinion echoed by man y in the industry), but that Rijndael proved to have the proper balance necessary between speed in hardware, speed in software, and security. To quote from NIST's statement:

Rijndael appears to be consistently a very good performer in both hardware and software across a wide range of computing environments regardless of its use in feedback or non-feedback modes. Its key setup time is excellent, and its key agility is good. Rijndael's very l ow memory requirements make it very well suited for restricted-space environ environments, in which it also demonstrates excellent performance. Rijndael's operations ons are among the easiest to defend against power and timing attacks. Additionally, it appears that some defense can be provided against such attacks without significantly impacting Rijndael's performance. Rijndael is designed with th some flexibility in terms of block and key sizes, and the algorithm can accommodate alterations in the number of rounds, although these features would require e further study and are not being considered at this time. Finally, Rijndael's internal round structure appears to have good potential to benefit from instruction-level parallelism.

At this point, it's all over but the shouting. At some point later this year, the Secretary of Commerce will officially designate Rijndael the Advanced Encryption Standard, and a new era will have begun. AES was specified (and is expected) to remain a standard for at least as long as DES, and to protect data for even longer, and barring a major development (such as faster-than-forseen developments in quantum computing), this standard will likely be met. No one expects research into new algorithms to die, however. There will continue to be parallel algorithms developed and used, just as there are today. Thanks to be combined efforts of NIST and the community, however, there will always be the bedrock of AES available.

In conclusion, I'd like to point out the positive role that the U.S. Government, as represented by NIST, has played in this process. The Free Software/Open Source community has taken its share of shots at the government over patents, copyright and crypto export over the past several years, and deservedly so. The AES process, however, was lauded throughout the encryption community as a fair and open process that brought together the best minds available to select the algorithm for the next century (as NIST likes to say). Making an algorithm a FIPS standard gives it a legitimacy that cannot be obtained in any other way, especially given the way that this standard was arrived at. The algorithm is completely free of any IP hurdles, as was specified at the beginning of the process, and since the code is open, it can be downloaded by anyone in the world (and since it was designed outside of the U.S., any attempt to regulate its export from the U.S. would be silly). It is reasonable to criticize when a situation is bad, but it is only fair to praise when something is good.

Bibliography

I used a great number of sources from print and the web, so it's only fair to list them here. I also put many links in the body itself, most of which go into much more detail than I did.

• NIST's main AES site is the place to start. It links to most of the technical information I linked to above.
• RSA's crypto FAQ has been around for many years, and the latest edition only gets better. Covers all sorts of ground on cryptography, both general and specific. If you're trying to learn more about crypto, this is the definitive place to go.
• SANS InfoSec has a good overview of the process and the finalist algorithms.
• A Cryptographic Compendium has a good AES section
• SecurityPortal has an excellent perspective on what AES means
• Everyone's favorite IT rag The Register has a solid overview of the process
• Bruce Schneier publishes a crypto newsletter through his company, Counterpane Internet Security. See especially the issues from May 15, 1998, March and August 15, 1999, and April and October 15 of 2000.
• Simon Singh's The Code Book provided some excellent background

Do you remember the Piranha debacle back in April? Welcome to Part II. Last Tuesday, it was revealed that Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 is shipped with a default password - just like Red Hat's piranha module. Unlike Piranha, SQL Server is very common software for large e-business websites. Unlike Piranha, the vulnerable software has been shipping for months. Unlike Red Hat, Microsoft refuses to take responsibility for their mistake, which, unlike Red Hat's, has resulted in actual documented break-ins, some at high-profile websites. So why haven't you read about it?

Because unlike Red Hat, Microsoft is getting a pass by the media.

Piranha is web clustering/failover software that was released in April by Red Hat without much QA. It somehow went out the door with a default password ("Q") and without docs explaining in big bold caps that it must be changed. If you installed the Piranha RPM without reading the docs carefully, you had a security hole on your site.

The hole allowed an attacker to come in over port 80 and execute arbitrary commands as the Piranha user, which would have been the web user. Typically that's a nonprivileged "nobody" account. While this is never good, let's just note for the record that this is a read-only exploit unless the webserver is very poorly configured.

The media flipped, in a word, out.

Piranha: A Case Study

On April 25, Computerworld announced that the "backdoor password ... could allow an attacker to compromise a Web server and deface and destroy a Web site." Informationweek and Internetweek both warned about "a back-door security flaw that carries ISS's highest danger rating." MSNBC/ZDNET ran the story as "Red Hat Linux open to backdoor password" and explained "there's a backdoor account in Red Hat's Linux that would let a computer intruder access and alter files." The Standard's early report on April 25 wasn't too bad but attacked -- as all reports did to some degree -- the strawman myth that open source is inherently secure. At least it didn't use the word "backdoor." Newsbytes was pretty much the same.

"Backdoor" implies that the flaw was deliberately inserted, by a thoughtless or even malicious programmer. Why did most stories incorrectly use that word? Mostly because that was how it was described in the press release. A security firm called Internet Security Systems found the flaw on April 24 and sent out a security advisory that used the term four times by the end of the first paragraph.

ISS also made some interesting statements when speaking to the press about the vulnerability. Oft-quoted was a line about open-source being both a blessing and a curse (the media loves "on the one hand, on the other hand"). I also liked this comment from their research director:

"There's limited quality assurance in the open-source environment," says Rouland, "because open-source software is basically a bunch of peoples' hobby."

Of the early stories about Piranha, the best one I found was Henry Kingman's ZDNet piece on April 24 (both early and accurate: amazing). CNET's on April 25 wasn't bad either, though they let ISS lay down the anti-open-source and pro-Microsoft propaganda a little thick.

In the days to come, the story didn't change much except to note that Red Hat -- correctly, as it turned out -- denied the seriousness of the vulnerability and tried to explain that it wasn't really a backdoor. Inter@ctive Week's Charles Babcock did such a piece on May 1.

Computer Reseller News still called it a backdoor on April 27. And NetworkWorldFusion's report and Informationweek's followup both came out on May 1, both got the important facts right, but both still called it a backdoor.

ClieNT Server News ran an article in their May issue explaining "Red Hat Red-Faced." I'm not about to pay to read the whole thing. The free synopsis that's available smirks at how "embarrassed" the company must be, and ends: "It seems that Red Hat left a back door in," dot, dot, dot.

The Standard had a second, fair piece that eschewed the term and even, after quoting the line about open-source being a "hobby," gently suggested otherwise.

But the gold stars go to just two good reports. SecurityFocus' Elias Levy, on May 1, turned the spotlight on ISS by pointing out how they "...can make headlines by using the right jargon, even when it's wrong." And Linux World News' Liz Coolbaugh, who had weighed in a few days earlier, questioning the media's coverage in her story "Red Hat Security Hole Not a 'Backdoor'."

If you find any more stories about Piranha, post them below. The Red Hat-bashing pretty much came to a halt a week later, when a little Microsoft-specific email virus named "ILOVEYOU" did a few billion dollars' worth of damage.

(Breaking news: all charges dropped; to quote 10,000 Maniacs, "who ya wanna blame?")

Microsoft SQL Server 7.0

You've heard about the SQL Server vulnerability, right? The one found on Tuesday, six days ago?

Well, no, you probably haven't, unless you read NTBugtraq. Even the maintainer of SecurityPortal's Microsoft Security Digest missed it this week (don't worry: I dropped him a note, he added it).

As the cracker Herbless describes it:

"It has come to light that it is now common knowledge that MS-SQL has a blank 'sa' password by default. This seems to affect a _lot_ of servers on the internet."

A default password vulnerability? Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Here's Herbless's description and exploit code, posted to BugTraq last Tuesday. And here's Microsoft's acknowledgement, posted on Thursday.

Herbless wasn't kidding when he said it affected a lot of servers. If you're running SQL Server 7.0, with a firewall that doesn't block its port, and you haven't changed the sysadmin password, you're vulnerable.

As he described it to me, unlike Piranha's vulnerability which gave read-only access as an unprivileged user, this one typically gives access as "BUILTIN\System." I don't speak NT, so he had to describe to me what this is: "god-like powers ... greater that those of even the 'Administrator' user."

In other words, you have been 0wn3d.

You may be thinking that this is a vulnerability. Go back and read Microsoft's acknowledgement again. They say quite clearly, "The code does not exploit a vulnerability."

Does it confuse you that what was previously a "backdoor" is now not even a "vulnerability"? That threw me for a loop too -- as well as some of Microsoft's other disclaimers, which only make sense when you realize you're reading non-sequiturs about the newer version SQL Server 2000 (the vulnerability only affects SQL Server 7.0).

All will become clear, though, once you read this story from vnunet.com -- the only media story I've seen, by the way. The fault lies with the website administrators:

"Hacked websites 'didn't read the manual'

"Microsoft has blamed administrator error, rather than a bug in its software, for leaving hundreds of websites running SQL server open to attack this week."

Did they say hundreds? Yes, hundreds, at the very least. And did they say "hacked websites"? Yes -- this is not a theoretical vulnerability with no known attacks, like Piranha was.

All this month, Herbless has been cracking into websites like the National Transportation Safety Board and leaving edgy political messages (while backing up the original files and telling the admins how to close the holes). He confirmed to me that all his attacks, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, the UK's Adult Learning Inspectorate, and the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation, were done by exploiting Microsoft SQL Server.

Just to make the story that much better, according to Herbless, the default configuration of SQL Server 7.0 also has logging turned off -- in which case a successful attack would leave few if any tracks.

Sites are lucky if their webpages are hijacked; that way they know to fix the problem, format and reinstall. But some of those "hundreds" of websites running the vulnerable installation have surely been cracked by black hats who quietly installed Back Orifice or a similar remote-exploit program. They can set an SQL Server password, but it won't help them: they'll still be 0wn3d.

The proper fix would be to force the password to be changed before the software can be used, as piranha now does. Wayne Sowery of MIS Corporate Defence Solutions confirmed for me that "versions up to SQL Server 2000 do not ask for the SA password during installation ... we also tried various install options such as 'typical' and 'custom,' neither prompted for a new SA password." Incidentally, he too questions whether this is properly described as a "vulnerability," but I'm not sure what else it could be called.

The lesson here is that the media doesn't treat security reports very fairly. Some organizations have their own selfish reasons to push one agenda or another. (Like Slashdot? You bet. But you know where we stand.)

The motive doesn't have to be that devious, though sometimes, of course, it is. If a reporter gets to write a story that questions a core belief of Linux zealots -- whether or not it's actually a core belief, and whether or not they're actually zealots -- that will be much more attractive than simply reporting security news. The nitty-gritty of security news, after all, is rather dry.

So next time you see a biased polemic about system security, or even a small media feeding frenzy about the latest exploit, take a moment to ask why it's being reported outside of the admins' mailing lists. Open source software is still a new idea to many in the traditional news media, and that means that it's a hook for them to hang any kind of story on -- good or bad.

Lizard_King writes: "System Administration, Networking and Security (SANS) Institute published a list of exploits most often used to gain illegal access to network servers. View the list here." This is really a very good list, compiled from the viewpoint of fixing the potential forthcoming breach. Good work!

Thanks to D3 for reviewing Stephen Northcutt's Network Intrusion Detection: An Analysis Handbook. Recently published, this book is designed for those of you trying to keep people outside of your machines. Click below for more. Network Intrusion Detection: An Analyst's Handbook author Stephen Northcutt pages 267 publisher rating 8/10 reviewer D3 ISBN summary Any company or group that is serious about doing Intrusion Detection should read this book. Background

I have been learning about real computer and network security since January of this year. Thankfully I have been working under someone who really knows his stuff and once worked with the author, Stephen Northcutt. I have attended SANS '99 in Baltimore and will be at the New Orleans conference in October. I am by no means an expert on security or cracking. However, it is one of the most interesting aspects of what I do. I feel this book will be an essential tool in my career development.

To me the field of computer network security seems like a blossoming flower. Yes, people have been hacking, cracking, and fixing systems since the dawn of computing. However, I firmly believe once the we have recovered from the Y2K hangover, security will be the big buzz. You can already see it happening in the media with the attention certain incidents have had.

So where does Northcutt's book fit in? If you are an admin charged with securing the way your company interacts with other companies, the internet, your internal employees, e-mail, etc. this book can be an excellent resource. Keep in mind that Intrusion Detection is not a starting point. It is an integrated part to the overall picture. Having cool intrusion detection at your site does little good if you don't even have a decent firewall, acceptable use policies, e-mail filters, safe CGI's on your web, and current patch levels to your systems. Yes, you will be able to know where you were cracked from but you will have still been cracked. Likewise, if you don't understand networking and protocols to an advanced admin level this book may be a bit intimidating.

A search for Network Intrusion Detection on Amazon on Monday showed me a total of 3 titles on the subject and Northcutt's was one of them. He is certainly an expert in the field, having been the lead on the Navy Shadow Intrusion Detection Team for DoD, as well as being the current Chief Information Warfare Officer for the U.S. Ballistic Missle Defense Organization.

The Book

The best advice on how to get the value out of this book comes from the opening of chapter 6 which reads "If you do not have a lot of experience with Internet Protocol (IP), here's a suggestion to get the most out of this book: read Chapters 6, 7, and 8 twice." Northcutt starts out with a review of the Mitnick attack on Tsutomu Shimomura's system. The format of using real world examples carries throughout the rest of the book. His writing style is much the same as his lectures at SANS. He draws you in to interact with the examples he has chosen. Instead of just pointing out what he wants you to see he will ask you to think about what part of a given signature is important. Then he'll ask you to go back and look again for what he feels important. I wish textbooks in college were written this way because it helped me learn.

Included with Ch. 1 is a review of TCP/IP packet structure. Chapter Two carries on with introducing signatures and filters. This clearly explains how to tell what particular attack the script kiddie used to bring down your site. The chapter on Architectural Issues is a nice overview of sensor placement, hardware, and other implementation factors. This comes off as a little light with respect to comparing and contrasting, especially with regard to choice of OS. To be fair, these generalities will probably help keep the book relevant in the ever changing world of OS/Hardware combo. The final two chapters prior to the critical 6, 7, and 8 trio, deal with important factors to consider a good IDS solution should have and a review of known commercial and government software. Unfortunately the rapid changes involved in this field prevent a complete overview of all the available products out there. My suggestion is to read Ch. 4 more closely if you are about to make a decision on an IDS. It will help you ask the right questions to get the solution which will best suit your needs.

As I alluded to above, Chs. 6 through 8 are the guts of the book. The tcpdumps give you a real insider's view of what some classic attacks look like. Again, Northcutt is very thourough in what he presents. The exploits, like the IDS solutions, are also an ever evolving series and there is no way to write a book to cover them all. The point here is to begin to educate the eyes of the analyst. Only someone who has an idea of what traffic is normal versus what smells can hope to make good decisions when it comes to sounding the alarm. As Northcutt points out, sometimes the difference is as subtle as what port is being used. He is encouraging in that you can find the signature "fingerprint" of a given attack. He even admits that there are strange patterns he's seen but has not yet solved what tool or script was used to generate them.

Chapter 9's Introduction to Hacking takes you from the target to the attacker. With data from a crack where the attacker forgot to remove the history file, you can see how quickly a box can be 'owned'. Ten gives a look into coordinated attacks while Eleven shows some of the tools of the trade. The final chapters deal with convincing management to do things the right way and gives a taste of where IDS is heading. I don't mean to downplay the importance of these chapters. Keep in mind that the best way to play with cool toys on your job is to have management backing!

Summary

Any company or group that is serious about doing Intrusion Detection should read this book. Northcutt's tongue in cheek humor keeps things from getting too heavy. His reference to the best remote NT administration tool being a car had me chuckling for a while. The information provided is very thorough. His examples are clear and informitive. The areas where I wanted more information, he provides links to help follow up. I wouldn't be surprised if crackers used this as a reference to develop ways around detection and so the cycle will continue. I should also add the book went through technical review by Tim Aldrich, M. Dodge Mumford (of NFR), Judy Novak, and Larry Paccone.

Purchase this book at Amazon.

Contents

Acknowledgments

Tell Us What You Think

Introduction

Shadow History

Shadow Friends

1. Mitnick Attack

2. Introduction to Filters and Signatures

3. Architectural Issues

4. Interoperability and Correlation

5. Network-Based Intrusion Detection Solutions

6. Detection of Exploits

7. Denial of Service

8. Intelligence Gathering Techniques

9. Introduction to Hacking

10. Coordinated Attacks

11. Additional Tools

12. Risk Management and Intrusion Detection

13. Automated and Manual Response

14. Business Case for Intrusion Detection

15. Future Directions

Index