Slashdot Mirror
Hotmail Servers Shut Down by Code Red
An Anonymous Coward writes: "SF Gate has this story about Code Red taking down some of Microsoft's Hotmail servers. That's funny." So is Code Red a problem yet? Meanwhile my sircams have stopped, except for 2 people who mail me a hundred or more a day. Thank god for filters, but if I had a monthly bandwidth cap, I'd be pissed.
I just queried Netcraft What's That Site Running and it answers:
... I'm laughing as much as everyone!
The site www.hotmail.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
I also tried the SSL Port 443 and it's also hosted on IIS5/Win2K. Hope this clears up any confusion *grin*
One thing to consider here folks: this is a classic case of Security Process falling down. It just so happens it's an Win2K hole in this instance. If Hotmail still ran BSD and there was a root exploit discovered, someone still needs to follow the process and plug the hole.
NB: I'm not excusing MS here
some fatal flaw that resulted in Actual Money being lost, the corporation could go after a commercial software house in the courts in an attempt to recover costs. have you read any EULA? I mean ANY? You cant do that, open source or not. Period...when you click "Yes", F8, or any other key saying you agree to their policies - you cant sue. Thats like that first line in these things too...
Who has losses that arise from code red?
ISP's and individuals/companies paying for bandwith used.
Who causes this mess?
People who haven't patched their software (gross negligence).
Who can sue who?
People who have losses because of gross negligence.
Micorosoft is shielded by a EULA that limits (or denies)liability (although this EULA might not be fully apllicable worldwide).
Back in the Dark Ages of corporate acceptance of Free Software (circa '97 or so) a common pointy-haired manager complaint was "Who do we sue?"
IE, if the software contained some fatal flaw that resulted in Actual Money being lost, the corporation could go after a commercial software house in the courts in an attempt to recover costs.
Free Software, being provided as a community service with no sue-able corporation behind it, lacked this perceived accountability.
Well, here we have a gold-plated example of a fatal flaw in a piece of commercial software, coupled to a lax attitude towards fixing it, that has without question resulted in the loss of Actual Money by a great deal of people. One would think then, that IS Managers across the world would be queuing up to sue Microsoft and recover their costs.
Anybody seeing any evidence of this happening?
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
They are difficult to patch or upgrade or remotely configure or fix, or even publish to.
So...how, exactly, are these systems easy to use again?
NT's standard remote admin tools, like Event Viewer and Server Manager, require RPC using NetBIOS, which is difficult if not impossible to secure.
UNIX may have its problems, but secure remote administration using native tools is not one of them.
Helevius
Now when it hit their Windows Update site, that was funny. Slow day?
DataSquid.net, a little about me.
I thought just the webfrontends are running a version of Windows & IIS, the backend is still FreeBSD.
Or did they change that by now?
- In Memoriam: Jeroen de Bruin (1972-2004), bye bro
If there is no Outlook, SirCam will scan your browser cache and grab email addresses from the web pages you have visited. That's why web masters are getting hit so much more than most people, because their email address is all over their webpage.
SirCam also has its own SMTP server meaning it can send mail without the help of Outlook.
This is not just an Outlook issue, it is a stupid users who open unsolicited attachments without virus scanning them problem.
Any windows email client that allows the user to open email from within the client is just as vulerable as Outlook.
The patch has been out since what, June? MS is happy to say "we had a patch out months ago, sent out plenty of warnings, everyone had plenty of time to stop this, it's not our fault they didn't patch it" when people complain about the problem.
The fact that they didn't get their systems patched is a real indictment of either their system administration practices (if even the vendor doesn't install widely-publicized vendor patches, how can they claim that Bob's Bait Store should always be up to date?) or the "easy administration" of W2K. Unfortunately I doubt anyone will actually be indicted....
I doubt it, since only some of the W2K HotMail servers are infected (according to Microsoft, anyway). I suppose they missed a few or just ran out of time to patch them all - how many boxen do you think they have to patch? Lots?
Unless Code Red II on the infected servers is having a field day with all those other NT boxen on the same subnet and they are suffering from congestion of course. Either way, it might explain why I haven't received any SirCam emails recently...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
They've coded themselves into a hole where people don't want to upgrade their software to new versions every year or two
Actually, this is so true it hurts. I work for a company with customers all over the world. Unfortunately, we decided to switch our Unix based software to NT several years ago (we maintain both versions, but I'm stuck working with the NT shit).
We just completed testing to see if our stuff runs on Win2K a little while ago, and are talking about XP testing soon.
The ironic thing is, I'm only aware of one of our customers who is even running win2K, and that's for the improved terminal server version (based on Citrix if memory serves). The vast majority of our international customer base isn't going to switch away from NT for years (unless we stupidly force them to).
We're prediciting very poor sales of XP server whenever it's due to ship, at least to customers in our industry. Microshaft should really look into expanding beyond the 'sell, sell, sell' mentality that worked for them in the 80's.
-- If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment. -- Harry F. Banks
There are thousands of programmers who could write this virus. All it takes is one. You can discourage 9999 out of 10,000, but you can't expect 100% cooperation from the entire world. Protecting servers is more realistic than eliminating every potential outlaw.
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)