Slashdot Mirror

So, we've gotten a lot of submissions about various things related to the O'Reilly Open Source Convention. Michael Tiemann had a few words before the convention; Dan Gillmor wrote a column about it; Fred Baker made a few flameworthy remarks. For whatever reason the whole conference seemed to be dominated by the Mundie-Tiemann debate. See our earlier story for some good links, or watch the debate video, or just read some post-debate coverage here or here. And if you haven't heard enough from Mundie, you can even read his post-debate letter.

Quite a few readers submitted news about a recent Gartner study which implies a far-lower-than-usually-supposed percentage of servers running GNU/Linux. Reader mfarver, for instance, writes: "Only 8.6 percent of servers shipped in 3rd quarter 2000 were running Linux, claims a recent Gartner Dataquest report. A previous study published by IDC estimated linux held about 24% of the server market share. Unsurprisingly the Gartner study was partially commissioned by Microsoft." Roblimo has penned an interesting piece up at NewsForge about why those numbers might smell a little funny. Hint: how many machines have you bought running any Free operating system from the get-go?

mpawlo writes: "The widely debated Craig Mundie speech is now online." We tried not to run this, but there are too many submissions to ignore. Yes, much of what the guy says is nonsensical. Why not translate it into terms your boss can understand? For example, Mundie says forking code is bad. Here's the same thought translated into manager-speak: "Having multiple vendors competing to offer us the best product at the lowest price is worse than having one vendor who can sell the product to us at monopoly prices." Update: 05/03 8:19 PM by michael : Alan Cox has a response.

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.

This is a few weeks old, but it's a really good article. Markar writes: "Lawrence Lessig states in a article on WideOpenNews states that rights and privacy on line can best be preserved through Open Source protocols and software. Lessig warns that corporations and government are already using software and protocols that subvert individual rights and privacy on line, and warns that protocols must be kept open to keep government and industry from building regulations into Internet software. Lessig discusses the possibility and implications of Digital ID uses in CyberSpace. "

Anonymous Coward writes: "According to this, Maryland's governor has approved UCITA. It makes me ashamed to be from Maryland." This isn't a surprise...let's just note it for the record, shall we?

A reader writes, "Caldera has priced its IPO. See here in Wideopen for what little there is to read about it. " Summary: $7-9 expected range of price, while selling 5 million shares. Update: 02/26 01:31 by R : Slightly deeper story at News.com.

bgarcia writes "There is a PR Newswire story stating that Red Hat and RSA Security have signed an agreement to include RSA's BSAFE SSL software in Red Hat Linux Professional Edition." And Wired tells us Red Hat is coming out with with a new version that improves large system performance and speeds crash recovery. (Click below for more)

Plus, earlier this week we read about the e-commerce product they're working on with Oracle and their rumored Cygnus acquisition. Hot stuff, especially for corporate Linux users.

It looks like Red Hat is back on track, doing great Linux stuff, instead of fooling around with peripheral things like their Linux version of MSNBC (with Salon, The Industry Standard, and The Register jointly playing NBC).

According to a friend of mine who dabbles in the stock market, Red Hat's stock is up nicely as a result of their decision to go back to doing more of what they do best: improving Linux and extending its marketability.

Mazeltov!