Slashdot Mirror
Gartner Group Suggests Dumping IIS For Now
sachmet is one of the many readers who contributed news that "Gartner Group is now recommending that
IIS be replaced in corporate environments. This is based on the fact that TCO for IIS is rising due to the almost-weekly patches sent out by MS, and even then, it's nearly impossible to get patched quickly enough. Best part: 'Gartner remains concerned that viruses and worms will continue to attack IIS until Microsoft has released a completely rewritten, thoroughly and publicly tested, new release of IIS,' which they say has an 80% chance of happening by the end of next year." Gartner hasn't always said favorable things about Linux systems in the workplace, but the businesses that rely on this type of analysis to justify purchasing decisions may find this one interesting. Update: 09/24 22:04 GMT by T :As several people have pointed out, the 80% figure appears to be Gartner's odds that IIS won't be rewritten that soon, rather than the other way around (.673334 probability).
Gartner Group is usually not this anti-Microsoft, but given the events of the past week (who DIDN'T get hit by Nimda?), I can see why they're advocating switching, at least for the time being.
At work, we've been on-and-off contemplating switching a lot of our servers from IIS to something else. Our Linux and OpenBSD and Solaris boxes are all fine, but our unpatched IIS servers (the ones I don't admin, go fig) all got trashed. If you're gonna lose a day or two of work every month and you're paying the "cleanup people" $50 an hour or more, you can damn well bet you'll either start looking for new employees or new software.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Isn't it one of the greatest P2P app out there for automatic file sharing?
It is true though: companies relies on these reports to make decisions, so it's still relevant.
Just curious,
- RLJ
At least they appear to not be using IIS themselves, although their web-server has no indication of what server is behind it. This in itself indicates that it is not IIS.
Gartner wields a lot of influence, and this will raise heads. Congratulations.
gus
.. if only.
To be honest i'm surprised it took this long for a report like this to appear, I maintain a small network in a small company, we have mainly win machines except for one server and my laptop... the overhead on keeping the win machines patched (5 on the network) is crazy, I spend too much of my valuable time hunting down patches for machines.... luckily at the moment IIS is shutdown as all of the dev work is being completed on linux. however I have to keep the patches up to date otherwise I'll be spending a week or 2 updating the server in a month or so time.
Will MS really write a new IIS from scratch I doubt it, and if they did would it really improve on where things are now.... it would take n months to write, beta and then lauch IIS+ 1.0 then people would want to know it was ok, some would try it, but most people would want to see IIS+ 2.0 before moving their web applications to it..... timescale ? how long is a piece of string.... and would it be any better, would MS allow external code reviews (or opensource) to ensure that IIS+ was better / secure. I doubt it....
Regards
Dave
----
"Iceberg dead ahead..... oh sorry, only joking !"
A monkey in every office....
I've quit jobs due to PHB reliance on the morons over at Gartner.
"Unix will be a dead OS in three years." Quoth one, on his reasoning behind implemening MS solutions for the enterprise. (~ 1995)
An expensive Gartner "analyst" told him so.
Shoulda gave me that budget...
HooHa!
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
This is great but many companys can't switch easily because they have web apps based on ASP/ActiveX. Unless it's something small they are stuck since rewriting it isn't probably an option.
My PHB just saw this, screamed "MY PARADIGMS ARE MELTING!" and collapsed into a pile of goo. Many thanks to the Gartner Group!
The problem is not just that IIS is a vulnerable piece of crap. The problem is the point and click admins who can only run setup and never ever will check for patches.
So you ditch IIS and install Apache. Do you honestly think that the guy who couldn't be bothered to update it will be bothered to check for Apache vulnerabilities and fixes?
Yes, because you will have to ditch that guy! And your new unix-savvy admin will be more expensive.
Oh well, only a matter of time before they think of that. The product is only as good as it's admin, and certainly not better.
using Internet-exposed IIS Web servers securely has a high cost of ownership. Enterprises using Microsoft's IIS Web server software have to update every IIS server with every Microsoft security patch that comes out -- almost weekly.
I imagine you would need to patch Apache fairly regularly as well. Its not like its immune to worms or security holes. In fact, apache.org was compromised this year due to a security hole.
I am in the process of converting from a Windows based web server to Debian/Apache, and the process is not without its problems. On the first try, Debian did not pick up both processors on my machine. Also, using mySQL, I can consistently crash my machine by trying to index a 5 million row table.
So, I have some problems. As you might when converting from Windows to Linux. Where do I go? I can't just call my Debian rep and ask him to help me fix my problems. I have to hunt for the answers and spend a lot of time figuring out just what the heck is wrong with my system.
So keep this in mind if you are switching because of TCO costs. Yes, you will need to patch once a week sticking with Windows. However, I don't think this report fully explains everything that may be involved when figuring out the TCO for a Linux system.
That said, I expect to be able to solve my problems and end up with a very nice server.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
I think this is a good indication of why you shouldn't just go with a single platform for all of your services. It may look good on paper, but the fact of the matter is that the Microsoft environment right now is so vunerable with regard to exploits, that it doesn't make sense any more.
This kind of attack can be seen in the ecosystem as well. If everything is homogeneous, then a single form of attack can do a great deal of devastation.
I guess the powers that be think that learning a new OS is bad, but it just proves "The Right tool, for the right job". Right now, IIS, is not it!
More and more of these IIS "syadmins" (using the term loosely) will install Unix/Linux boxes, and forget about them, just like they installed the IIS boxes and forgot about them.
Then someone somewhere will find some little bug in some pre-installed convenience, some PHP shopping cart, some admin tool, some default password, something that comes on each machine. Then we'll have the same problem with some crazy Linux worm. And this time I bet the clueless M$-0wn3d media won't call it an "Internet worm", they'll be sure to call it a "Linux worm"!
Of course I could be wrong. Maybe Microsoft really can't code a proper webserver. But I think having sysadmins awake and at the wheel will help too.
Hmm, how about a web server that emails the admin saying "This web server will shut down in 15 days unless you run the up2date tool" or something similar? To force people to check for upgrades.
Does anyone have a step-by-step manual for how to implement an IIS replacement? I have been riding the MS bandwagon for about 12 years now, and I'm finally starting to open my eyes to the alternatives now that they've proven themselves (this is my first /. post, by the way). My company uses IIS, but we don't use many of the features. We use the VPN, Web server (basic ASP queries against Access databases), and that's about it. I've installed Linux a couple of times, but only for testing purposes and to satisfy my growing curiousity.
To really get something out of the operating system, I need to be able to install and implement those features easily. The nice thing about IIS is that it's easy to install and administer for basic tasks for people used to the MS interface (most people that use computers). If I can be shown how easy it is to change to a Linux solution, I'd probably make the switch in a heartbeat. If nothing else, it'd cut back drastically on the number of patches/virii.
Any and all links are welcome!
No offense... but they didn't say anything favoring Linux this time either. They said to dump IIS, they didn't suggest moving to Linux. There ARE other webservers for Windows.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Take a look at the data at:0 8/ index.html
.mil, and .br graphs!
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/2001
Since July IIS market share has been falling.
Check the
The share is flowing to Apache and Netscape servers.
Joao
Apache.org was comprimised due to a misconfiguration- not an exploit. Totally different. You could *not* write a nimda to take advantage of that.
"Gartner recommends that enterprises hit by both Code Red and Nimda immediately investigate alternatives to IIS..."
I think Gartner should be recommending an investment in competent IT staff if any enterprise was hit by both Code Red and Nimda, since the IIS exploits used in Nimda were the same as those in Code Red.
One of the biggest problems with getting Linux, OpenBSD, or any new OS widely adopted is that it costs a great deal to switch to a new system once a business has standardized on a different solution. So many corporations decided to use WinNT, and having made the investment need a great deal to sway them to something better. It has to be something very big, and these virii may do it. This could be good news for OS's competing with M$, because the investment thing works both ways. Once Linux is installed, companies are less likely to go back to Windows NT...
Am I the only one who thinks this is the absolute wrong thing to do? As vulnerable as IIS has proved as of late, completely rewriting any piece of software runs the risk of not only reintroducing old exploits but possibly generating new ones. IIS is a very complex piece of software with years of thorough public testing (in the form of live deployments) already in place. By completely rewriting it, you throw out that experience and start from zero.
the overhead on keeping the win machines patched (5 on the network) is crazy, I spend too much of my valuable time hunting down patches for machines
.asp pages and custom server ActiveX objects then migrating from IIS is a fairly large expense. Even if you don't, the hassle of securely setting up a whole new web server is just asking for more holes to turn up. I'd be recommending companies don't ship at all, but pay attention to Microsoft's security bullitens (you ARE signed up, aren't you?)
Install Windows Critical Update Notification.
If it honestly takes you too long to visit the Windows Update web site once every week for the 5 machines, or get the users to visit the site and install the critical updates then there's a problem somewhere.
My Win2k machines WERE running IIS and had all critical updates installed. No Code Red. No Nimda. WTF is everyone else's problem? Even my web host which is running IIS didn't get hit.
As for rewriting IIS, it is a rather stupid idea. First of all the Code Red problem wasn't IIS at all, but the Index Server ISAPI DLL. Rewriting IIS will have zero effect on any of these extensions, much as rewriting Apache would have little effect on a bug in mod_php.
Honestly I don't get Gartner's points here - if you have a significant site with a large investment in
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
(who DIDN'T get hit by Nimda?)
I didn't. IIS can be secured -- many things that MS releases patches for are not exploitable if you follow sane security practices. Stuff like deleting all the ISAPI crap that comes in the default setup, and putting your web root in a nonstandard location (preferably on a different partition), deleting all sample files, enforcing proper filesystem permissions, and running any applications in an isolated process.
Of course, one of the advantages of Apache is that it ships in a relatively secure configuration by default, it's better for dummys who install stuff and plug it into the network without bothering to check the configuration. It's a whole lot better by default than IIS, that's for sure. Most of the MS patches are for various add-ons like index service that most people don't use anyway and should be shut off.
DISCLAIMER: I use Apache for the primary web server for the business I work at. We run IIS as the secondary server for load-balancing and have yet to be compromised by anything, even though patches don't always get applied immediately (usually pretty soon after release though). I think Apache is great, but want to point out that anything can be secured if you put some effort into it.
Love,
Bill
What would /. use for stories?
Think about it guys...1/2 of the discussion today involves MS.
If you guys hate MS so much why do you spend so much energy talking about it?
I'm still working on a clever footer.
so after weeks of everyone telling you to shutdown IIS b/c it is vunerable to such-and-such you are only going to listen to the Group? Blah.
;))
They have been told over and over to keep their software updated and patched yet they don't. What is going to start them doing it now?
I highly doubt that this is going to change anything. MS wrote a piece of shit software (go figure) and now the customers are paying the price (if they paid anything in the first place
I am sick and tired of seeing my logs flooded w/that crap. Fuck stupid admins. Anyone w/a brain can fix the problem. Give me the god damn job. I will make sure it ain't broken.
"Where do you want your security hole today?"
If you are serving static pages you could easily switch.
if you are serving up pages that are dynamic that depend on database connections and what not this might prove to be a bit more troublesome, particularly if you are addicted to ADO and VbScript, but doable
I think, however, you have no choice not to switch if you depend on COM components hosted in MTS and depend on MTS to handle transactions for you unless you wish to write your own transaction monitor for the next couple of months.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
In recent dealings with the latest worms, I found a tool from Microsoft called Hfnetchk that will, with a valid connection to the internet, tell you exactly what patches you do or do not have installed. They cross list them by article (eg Q123455) and also by another form (eg MS01-077).
We're running Windows 2000 Adv Server (yeah yeah, I know, but we don't have the Cold Fusion package for Linux) with IIS 5, and were having an average of 30-45 minutes uptime before getting blasted by the worm(s).
After using the hfnetchk and downloading quite a few patches (burn them to a CD, having to reload the system isn't out of the question, even if it is working now), we have had about 5 days uptime, and *knocks on wood* no infections, although the log says there have been attempts.
Even though I'm spoiled to the ease at which I can find Linux updates, I found that the tool was very useful, especially since Microsoft's site is so unorganized when it comes to downloading patches and updates (I want a list, not having to search for something, especially when it never works right) that this tool was a big time saver for me.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Your post has shown a lot more insight than that Gartner report which is unsurprising given the typical quality of Gartner's work. The main problem with IIS isn't that there are exploits for it, after all there are exploits for every major piece of server software from BIND to Apache to Sendmail. The problem is that there is no decent pathway to funnel patches to users of IIS.
I foolishly used to go to the Windows Update site to download all the security patches thinking that I was being smart only to find out after being infected by Nimda that Windows Update Doesn't Have IIS patches. Now considering that this is Microsoft's most central and visible update site plus the fact that IIS worms have caused so much damage over the past year, one wonders why IIS patches aren't on the windows update site or at the very least there isn't a site similar to Windows Update just for IIS?
Gartner is wrong for telling people to switch webservers because admins haven't applied a patch that is almost a year old (that's right, the CodeRed/Nimda patch is that old) because it is tackling the symptoms and not the root cause. Gartner should be bitching Microsoft out for not having a sophisticated update system in place similar to apt-get & cron but with a GUI for the clueless admin instead of asking people to blindly switch web servers as if the Ramen worm and Sadmind didn't affect non-MSFT platforms.
The more people who use non-MSFT platforms, the more worms we'll see on non-MSFt platforms. Instead of looking for the web server silver bullet, we shoyld be encouraging admins to take responsibility and do thier freaking jobs.
Does anybody have any stats on the time spent administrating Linux boxes vs. NT boxes, and how much time is spent learning the systems in order to administrate them at a competent level?
Imagine if business did dump all of it's IIS servers and replaced them with Apache - how many 'point and click' admins would suddenly be unemployed?
I mean christ, I hear people complaining about how complicated Apache is in comparison to IIS and I think to myself "if you can't figure this shit out, you have no business being a network admin because YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO DO THE JOB!".
Seriously, any network admin that bitches about Apache (which is bloody easy to use, in comparison to most previous tools) is too fucking braindead to be let anywhere near a server. Switching to Apache would at least show an organization where some of its dead weight is in the IS department.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Right now the MS consultants are making a lot off money off on these worms. But if enough corporate sites go to Apache on Linux you'll likely see a lot more worms/viruses/trojans writen for Linux and Apache. Sure these systems are more secure, but there are plenty of skilled crackers that will find a way to screw up these systems if there get to be enough systems out there. An let's face it. If the people who currently run unpatched IIS servers switch to Apache, there will be a lot of unpatched Apache servers. Right now Microsoft is the Apache advocate's best friend, because they attract the largest number of lazy admins. If this changes, you'll likly see a lot more attacks going after Apache.
The problem with this idea is that most real testing must be done in production. There is no way to simulate production exactly in testing. What really needs to happen is for more clueful IT managers to come onboard.
Engineering and the Ultimate
According to Mindcraft, Apache is the most widely used webserver- wanna try making that statement again?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Rewriting is always an option. It's not a pretty one, but it CAN be done if you're dedicated enough.
Case in point - last year I saw the dead-end coming for my company's Enterprise solution, which was written in ASP/COM. The argument (er... *ahem*, discussion) I had with the higher-ups concluded that we HAD to continue moving forward. We couldn't wait 6 months for a rewrite (ambitious at best).
Fine, I said. Then let me do everything concurrently. Here's how it works:
Install Tomcat onto your Windows NT Server running IIS, along with JRE 1.3 and the HotSpot Server.
Link Tomcat in with IIS using the mod_isapi.dll you can get from the Tomcat site. Also install Tomcat as a service using jk_nt_service.exe.
Keep your Java session abstracted. The main session remains as-is within your ASP application. Write a bit of java.net code to hook in through a custom ASP page (note: security - ordinary clients can't access this page) to retrieve and update any session variables. This can be done by reading the ASPSESSION cookie, and spoofing it in your requests to IIS.
Any NEW components, write in Java. Remember - session variables get retrieved and saved from the ASP side still.
As you're working on new components, when you can arrange it, convert old components to Java one by one. Session still remains on ASP.
Wash, rinse, repeat until all components have been written in Java. Once this is done, convert your login into Java, and change your abstracted Session to be a Java session instead of hooking into IIS for the ASP one.
Voila. You are now 100% Java. Now get rid of IIS and switch to something else. This is the approach that my team took to rid ourselves of the VB horror that someone left me when I joined. It took about 8 months of solid effort, but it worked. We are now rid of all reliance on MS technologies from our site. We also managed to do it quickly because of good code layout, and the use of the most wonderful Velocity templates also available from the Jakarta site. This helped a lot.
The point is, you CAN do a rewrite. What you usually are NOT allowed to do is a code freeze. So... work around it! The beauty of this solution is that you are running two separate applications (technically) for a time. Keep a consistent look, and the users can't tell the difference between the ASP and the Java side. Change one function at a time, slowly, and eventually you'll reach the Utopia you're looking for.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Secondly, the timing couldn't be worse for Microsoft. With XP only just hitting the shelves, this has the potential to seriously cripple the uptake of the new OS. (Note: I'm saying "potential" as you're bound to get plenty of execs who argue that nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft. Even when it puts the entire company's public profile at risk.)
Thirdly, this also comes at a critical point in time, with respect to the European Union anti-trust investigation, the British fair trading investigation, and the US' very own anti-trust Lawsuit Revisited. Should the market-share of IIS continue to grow at the current rate, competitors may be able to argue the case that companies aren't heeding the report because they can't. That could seriously jeapordise Microsoft's arguments that they are not a monopoly, and that "future threats" could affect their market-share.
(Let's face it - if this isn't a "future threat", I don't know what is.)
Fourthly, this comes at a time when the economy is seriously wounded, and yet Microsoft's pricing continues to rise. As other posters have noted, this might persuade some accounts departments to start pushing the alternatives.
Lastly, homeless shelters are still pretty full, from the collapse of the dot-coms. This makes computer expertise very cheap. ("Will Code For Food" no longer sounds such a joke.) Thus, there is really little need to hold onto "old hands", who command high fees. You could probably pick up a webmaster and a couple of ASP/PHP/Perl gurus by going to the local K-Marts and asking the people collecting the carts. They'd cost a fraction of what most companies are paying for their IIS expert, and they'd probably worship the ground the management walk on.
HOWEVER, this is purely speculative. Although what I've written is a plausable scenario, companies could equally well ignore the report, the anti-trust lawyers might deem it too tenuous to be usable in court (if they notice it at all), and Microsoft might remain King Of The Hill by sheer default.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I was about to respond to this article, but Slashdot broke and wouldn't accept any postings and wouldn't let me log in for several minutes. Then, it continually timed out. Apache? Ha!
Don't blame it on Apache - it's more likely that it's either the database server, or Slashcode throwing a fit again (probably the former, not the later.) Ever since thier last upgrade, the system seems to be a bit flakey at times - sometimes for hours, sometimes for a couple o' minutes.
And if it WAS Apache - well, why would it still be serving webpages? :-)
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
Look, look. See, see
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
So what you're saying is they may find this one interesting since it puts down Microsoft, but they should disregard the others because they put down Linux? Just checking..
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
--Say you're a good MS admin and you ghave dutifully patched up your IIS machine and never got hit with Code Red or Nimda on your servers BUT your Win9x users who don't run Outlook (Express either) go to an infected webpage: How will not using IIS help?
.DAT files were'nt ready until the next day and the "Fix" is so-so at best.
--Yes the patch was there for months; but SARC (et al) was cuaght off guard,
--I"m not blaming anti - virus companies but I am confused how IIS is the sole badguy.
--You can get hit with this thing from many directions (assuming WinXX.)
--Gartner even says you "Can't Patch Fast Enough"
This
The submitter says that IIS needs to be rewritten, something that "[Gartner says] has an 80% chance of happening by the end of next year." This is incorrect.
The actual quote is: "Gartner believes that this rewriting will not occur before year-end 2002 (0.8 probability)." That means there's an 80% probability that the preceeding statement is true, and that statement is that MS will _not_ have completed a rewrite in that timeframe.
So instead of MS being 80% likely to fix the problem, they're 80% UNlikely to do so in the timeframe specified.
Ideology breeds Hypocrisy. Just how much is up to you.
Do what I do. I'm too f-ing lazy to keep up with the weekly patches. So I spent a couple hours a year ago and properly configured my IIS servers, following the published checklists. Now I review bug after bug and say "ok, that one can't impact me so I'll patch it later."
There is no reason a properly configured but completely unpatched IIS 4 or IIS 5 server could not have survived both the Nimda and Code Red worms.
Nimda made use of the Unicode directory traversal bug, which only lets you move around on the drive where the web documents are stored. Move the wwwroot to another drive, set file permissions as tight as possible, remove the sample applications, and you would have been safe. Every one of those is on any decent IIS admin's checklist.
Code Red made use of a bug in the Index Server. Removing unused mappings is near the top of every decent IIS admin's list. In fact, one IIS server I have didn't have the patch applied when Code Red hit. I didn't bother to apply it until almost a month later.
This is admittedly an old story; I don't know if M$ is still legally implementing this particular "innovative" license restriction nowadays. Does anybody know?
Not true. Totally not true.
Despite my best efforts to NEVER have and IIS server we in the travel industry need to have a "turn key" (oh I love marketing) solution to put reports on the web. ALL of the solutions use IIS as the server, Apache, iPlanet, Domino are NOT options.
So if you want reports on the web and don't want to spend a fortune having someone reinvent the wheel who has NO RELATIONSHIP with SABRE/Apollo/WorldSpan you buy and IIS server and run their products on it.
This
There are other transaction server frameworks- many of them scale to larger loads than MTS could ever dream of being able to handle...
Products offered by:
IBM (CICS)
Sybase (EAServer, Jaguar CTS)
Unisys (WebTS)
Compaq (NonStop Java Transaction server)
SAP (ITS)
There's quite a few of them that work rather well- some of them, of course, require new hardware. In the long run, though, which is more crushing- the web site being down for a day or more or spending more than you initially planned fixing the problem?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
System 1: IIS on Windows NT:
System 2: standard Mandrake-Linux distro with manual install of current versions of Apache, PHP, mySQL, OpenSSL and mod_ssl.
Now which system do you want to administer today ?
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
There is no reason for those point and click admins to remain ignorant, except all that MS BS about "new mindsets" and "completely different" aproaches to programing. I can only imagine how knowledgable and valuable some of my frinds would be if they had not wasted a good portion of the last ten years chasing ever changing MS interfaces, specs and patches. Rise! and free yourselves.
Remember, it's not your ability to manipulate a product that makes you worth something. It's your ability to poduce results from given resources.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yeah, that's right kids... when it's pro-Microsoft, Gartner are paid shills. When it's critical of Microsoft, Gartner are an unbiased research agency deserving of our undivided attention.
I believe you are correct with that analysis. Should it have read:
"there is a 20% chance of MS rewriting IIS by the end of next year"
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
If there's anyone reading this who's in charge of "decision-making" at the "enterprise level" --
/. but by almost every pundit on the web. Where was Gartner? Wouldn't it have saved you a ton of money if they had pointed out the probability of problems with security and patching in 1999 instead of late 2001? Isn't it amazing that they were near last to the table with this finding?
The question you should be asking yourself is not "Should I be replacing my IIS systems with Linux+Apache?" but, rather, "If I am relying on Gartner for recommendations on conditions in the future, why didn't they see this coming a year ago?"
Well more than a year ago, the security benefits of open source were explored not only by
Why does Gartner put probabilities on their expectations without showing their work? Does anyone go back in history and look at these probabilities?
Doesn't Gartner have an interest in pressing the solutions that people expect them to press? And here's a HUGE question... if you're using the exact same solutions as every one of your competitors, are you prepared to give up the idea that IT could give your company a competitive advantage? Do your bosses agree with this?
You don't need the browser on the server. You need some of the HTML related libraries on there that only get shipped with the browser.
Your question should really be "Why doesn't Microsoft ship a libhtml.rpm type of package instead of making us install IE(n+1)?".
The browser is no more "built-in" to the system than Konquerer is built into Linux (it's a user mode HTML renderer that the default GUI shell uses).
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
I am a NT 4 and Win2k MCSE (can't believe I am admitting on /. I should post this Anonymous Coward.) I take every chance to remind the high-ups that blindly choosing one platform for all network functions is a BAD IDEA. Lets face it - if there is one thing *nix platforms and Open Source apps can do, is provide a QUALITY piece of infrastrucutre software.
Conversely, large applications (ERP's, N-tier web interfaces blah blah) work better on NT (generally) because the API is friendlier to your clients (which are naturally running MS.) If you don't believe me, try installing Sybase Enterprise Application Server on Unix and get clients to save files and print locally.
Being a Business major, I understand what MS brings to the table in TCO - mainly that they will always have the lights on, but so will Sun, HP-UX, and possibly Red Hat. The truth of the matter is that the OS level is going to be smaller of concern than the applications that run on them. I think that any PHB that decides on a platform across the board is managing from the advertisements in CIO magazine. I say you define your network logicaly and wisely pick your physical model utilizing the best solutions for each problem (infrasturucre = Linux, Database = Sun / HP-UX etc., App servers, desktops, misc servers = NT/2K.)
They can find personnel who know both well, and command a higher salary - or have redundant admins because you hire unix admins who have such a disdain for MS they won't touch it and the MS admins who have no clue about Unix. It may cost more, but tough luck - cost of doing business.
--cgeek--
Jesse Wolfe Sr. Manager Systems Integration
Yeah, my bad, sorry. I read that as an 80% probability that somethhing will be done before the end of next year. Sometimes it's not so clear if you're not devoting 100% attention to it...
Fact: All OSes and web servers have remotely exploitable vulnerabilities
Fact: The scum that write these worms will target the most popular platform to get maximum impact.
Fact: IIS holds a lion's share of the web server market for corporate installations and business
Fact: There are a bunch of incompetent sysadmins out there who can't take the five minutes to follow MS' IIS Security Checklist (which would've foiled Code Red) or apply SP2 (which would've foiled Code Red II and Nimda)
So, if we all dump IIS and go with, for example, Solaris+IPlanet, or Linux+Apache, the same lousy SA's will still not apply their patches and the Scum will not be writing worms for Linux+Apache or Solaris or whatever.
The _REAL_ solution is to get people to be smart about installing Internet servers and make it dirt simple on all platforms to apply patches (MS has made great strides in this with the Network Hotfix Checker and the soon-to-be-released HF auto downloader).
Blaming MS for lazy sysadmins isn't going to help anyone.
The problem is that you can't trust MS's patches.
Personally I trust script kiddies even less. If I see a published bug that allows root access from remote sites I close the damn thing straight away.
I remember SP6 very well. Downloaded the SP6a patch and had my eval boxes working before I deployed. There is NO excuse for waiting three months with an open root compromise though.
The proper action with CRed and Nimda isn't to rush to patch the server, but to change the firewall to prevent malicious requests.
No. By the time you've done this it is too late - the worm has already hit you. If you'd applied the patch (even taken a week, hell a month even, to evaluate it) then you wouldn't have to firewall things after the fact.
To do otherwise is to risk having to reinstall the OS (without the patch) to get your servers working again.
You don't reinstall after a root compromise? What sort of admin are you?
The risk of patching a single file or two with a hotfix (which saves backups anyhow for rollback) is significantly less than having your server root compromised.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Its the Microsoft "all-in-one" solution as much as it is the server. Once you get into asp, activeX, etc you're entering a more patch intensive environment. Patch the IIS, patch the client, patch the OS, and so on.
Granted, a bad admin is a bad admin, but if you had to hedge your bets you'd also go with Apache. That's what the Gartner Group does, it tells you where to place your bets.
The most important factor is the estimate of future exploits. For IIS its pretty high, for Apache not so much.
In MS's defense their new securty tools are pretty nifty and there has to be some kind of boiling point where even the lowliest user knows the importance of patches after the 10th time their machine has been wiped due to a virus. That day may never come, or it may be next week, but no one is holding their breath.
I must have posted this at least a dozen times to /. alone over the past few months. It's been posted to ntbugtraq and every other support mailing list.
R el easeID=24168
Here it is, one more time. Live it, learn it, love it.
http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Release.asp?
Besides as of right now there has been any major patches for about a month and you just need to do Win2k SP2 plus the August hotfix rollup. Over WinNT4 SP6a plus a similar rollup hotfix.
I am amazed that people give Gartner, Giga and the rest any credibility at all. We don't hire them to make impartial analyses of the market. We hire them to push our product. If they concluded that the competition was better then they would never get another gig from us in the future.
What is amazing however is that the same people who purchase PR fluff then go and read other people's PR fluff and believe it.
People who really know about technology don't spend their time writing PR fluff for Gartner etc.
The idea that companies using IIS can switch to something else simply because security maintenance is lower cost is pretty idiotic. If you have an IIS site you are almost certainly doing so because you have a reason and will probably have a non-negligible switching cost. If you have developed ASP scripts you can't just switch to Apache overnight.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I recently installed DirectX on my sister's PC so her kids could play a particular game that required it. After four hours of downloading, installing, re-installing, upgrading (of course you can't uninstall DirectX - amazing...), changing sound card, upgrading drivers, etc, the PC was left with no sound in ANY games at all. This is a classic - Microsoft makes it 'easy' to upgrade and your system is left in a mess that can't be undone without a Windows re-install.
With this sort of philosophy, it's easy to understand why IIS/NT patching is also a mess.
Here's how I look at it (and with one IIS box on the Internet at a colo location, the rest being UNIX or Linux).
.shtml, .asp, and .pl. Period. I have one DLL allowed, and that's SDIIS.DLL, for RSA AceServer authentication, and that's done in a virtual directory with its own mapping for just that dll. The rest of it that I deleted is a gaping large maw of security hell and buffer overflows like Index Server, .htr files, and .idc files.
:). If people install Red Hat with a default install instead of IIS and think switching to Linux solves their problems, someone will make another Ramen worm.
1. Most of IIS you don't need. My script mappings in IIS are
2. My web root is not in the \inetpub directory.
3. ALL extraneous services are turned off.
4. ALL web directories except the site's are turned off.
IIS is an insecure piece of crap in its default install, but Apache and Netscape/iPlanet can be as well.
It's a matter of actually auditing your systems, whether they run Linux, NT, or some other OS, and making sure that you audit them properly and only allow what you need. Make sure the system serves its purpose. And make sure IUSR_ only has read access to \winnt, and only gets create/read/write access to \winnt\system32\logfiles. Period. You also want to make sure it has read access to its webroot directory, and no ability to write anything except to that one logging directory.
This was not an issue of the virus. This was an issue of poor adminstration.
I just went through 3 days of logfiles from that NT server (4.0, SP6A, with over 50 hotfixes ARGH!), and because we followed some basic configuration guidelines that come naturally with Apache admins apparently, we had 17,000 attempted break-ins, and 404's for all.
You can't point and click your way to good security. It's a matter of making sure that you only allow in what you want, and making sure the patches are THERE.
Apparently this isn't a problem with some Linux distributions, especially Debian and Slackware, because they actually care enough to not install many things you do not need. Red Hat is another issue
It's not just an IIS problem. It's an administration problem. People have to be educated to not turn on world+dog with their web server, and keep up with patches, or else this happens. I hope at the least it causes some admins to realize that ANY OS+Web Server must be configured properly before putting it out on the Internet for public view, because not even a PIX is going to protect you from bad configuration.
Apache-ssl is another great reason to use Debian.
But I've been enough of a Debian bigot already and so I'll stop.
It does seem like you have ended up investing more time into the Linux server than the Microsoft server. It could be that you do this because Linux is harder. Or it could be that you actually like tinkering around with the stuff more.
I'd almost swear that there are Microsoft email lists where you can read pretty much the same stuff as the Mandrake list does. Or if you wanted, you could update the Microsoft server more often.
My guess is that you'll move everything to Linux eventually. Not because it's cost effective but because you just get a kick out of compiling source code yourself and having high uptimes...
Inertia is Microsoft's greatest advantage and selling point. At this stage in the game, I don't see them winning back any ground they lose.
First, if it were a "pay per play" I'd be far more interested in seeing it work properly than I would be if I were just clicking a box that said "Install web server?"
Second, attacks would make it much less likely that anyone would pay for their product until it was far more secure.
The same would be true for the other virus-prone applications bundled with the Windows operating systems: I wouldn't consider Outlook Express if I had to pay for an e-mail client, especially with all the viruses that it retransmits. Internet explorer? There's not a chance I would purchase an ActiveX container for surfing the web, but since that big blue "e" is already sitting on the screen and doesn't take me a half hour to download, sure, I'll use it.
And now the D.O.J. has dropped their only chance to prevent the tragedy from repeating itself on XP.
John
- Download and install PHP for IIS on Windows.
- Convert your ASP pages to PHP (using ASP2PHP).
- Get it running on IIS.
- Replace IIS with Apache (still on Windows).
- Replace Windows with some secure Unix lookalike or other.
I haven't used ASP2PHP myself so I can't say whether it works or not. It's GPL though, so try it out if you're interested.Cheers //Johan
Installed the Bubblemon yet?
"But if enough corporate sites go to Apache on Linux you'll likely see a lot more worms/viruses/trojans writen for Linux and Apache."
/. is a link to a site where the survey indicates that Apache is in use by roughly 60% of sites and IIS is less than 30%.
I'm confused. Elsewhere on the front page of
With Apache having a larger market share (by 2 to 1), wouldn't Apache be more likely to be attacked? Or is there some other reason why we don't see as many exploits on Apache? Perhaps because it's designed to be secure instead of to be everything to everybody and be incetuous with the Windows OS?
I guess you're differentiating between servers running corporate sites and private/non-profit/etc. sites, but since Apache has the larger share, why should a difference in the ratio of the *type* of site matter?
I do agree that Apache servers are more often administered by clueful admins that the average MCSE, but your logic that the product with the largest market share is most likely to be attacked is not borne out by the numbers.
If I'm missing something here, please let me know.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
Netscape on Solaris. According to Netcraft.
(and this is to get past the lameness filter)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/. Go there, subscribe to the mailinglists on security and other useful things. Read the how-to's, walkthroughs and useful documents about administring a Win2k/NT4 server.
Now when you go to http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.asp?, you will see a form. Select the product, win2k server, select Date to sort on, and hit 'find it'. All patches you need to have are there, plus other useful downloads.
Other USEFUL information about how to secure your box: http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/microsoft_top ics.pl
Windows NT kernel based systems have excellent memory management. You should start/stop services (net start/stop w3svc) once in a while. Or use 'kill'. Reboot not needed. Honestly.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Oops, forgot the link!
Halcyon Software
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
...being that because of constantly having to patch IIS, the TCO is starting to get too high.
Female Prison Rape in NY
The damb has split wide open?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'd suggest running it on Debian. As you say, Go there, subscribe to the mailinglists on security and other useful things. Read the how-to's, walkthroughs and useful documents about administring. Well, the mailinglist is optional as setting up a cron job (type man at) to apt-get updgrade and apt-get update will do better.
Debian boxes can be remote administered through a secure shell (ssh), without loosing the connection. Try running dselect through one some time, it's really cool. Did that to install and then uninstall proftp.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Wash, rinse, repeat as needed. This doesn't make the hits go away, at least immediately, and it's probably only marginally more efficient than the 404 result that you'd ordinarily get, but at least it sends the traffic back where it came from. Since applying these rules the load on the servers I look over has fallen off nicely.
I would think that a properly patched & maintained copy of IIS should be able to do the same thing, or similar, but I don't know what the syntax would be.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL