Slashdot Mirror


The Twenty Most Critical Internet Security Holes

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."

14 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. people are your number 1 asset. by new-black-hand · · Score: 5, Informative

    id add

    21. Hiring admin's with no clue about security

  2. Here's the quick list... by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Informative
    The site is already fairly well /.'ed... Here's the top 20 holes they mention, without the detail for each point (sorry).

    "G" stands for "general holes"
    "W" stands for "Windows holes"
    "U" stands for "Unix holes"

    G1 - Default installs of operating systems and applications
    G2 - Accounts with No Passwords or Weak Passwords
    G3 - Non-existent or Incomplete Backups
    G4 - Large number of open ports
    G5 - Not filtering packets for correct incoming and outgoing addresses
    G6 - Non-existent or incomplete logging
    G7 - Vulnerable CGI Programs
    W1 - Unicode Vulnerability (Web Server Folder Traversal)
    W2 - ISAPI Extension Buffer Overflows
    W3 - IIS RDS exploit (Microsoft Remote Data Services)
    W4 - NETBIOS - unprotected Windows networking shares
    W5 - Information leakage via null session connections
    W6 - Weak hashing in SAM (LM hash)
    U1 - Buffer Overflows in RPC Services
    U2 - Sendmail Vulnerabilities
    U3 - Bind Weaknesses
    U4 - R Commands (rlogin, rsh, rcp)
    U5 - LPD (remote print protocol daemon)
    U6 - sadmind and mountd
    U7 - Default SNMP Strings

    MadCow

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    1. Re:Here's the quick list... by jmauro · · Score: 2, Informative

      U1 - Buffer Overflows in RPC Services
      U2 - Sendmail Vulnerabilities
      U3 - Bind Weaknesses
      U4 - R Commands (rlogin, rsh, rcp)
      U5 - LPD (remote print protocol daemon)
      U6 ? sadmind and mountd

      U1 - Implementation
      U2 - Implementation
      U3 - Implementation
      U4 - Known bad for a while, replaced with S Commands
      U5 - Implementation
      U6 - Implementation

      How exactly is Unix architectually bad compared to windows? Seems they're both full of bugs.

    2. Re:Here's the quick list... by bluebomber · · Score: 3, Informative
      At least sendmail and BIND have patches.

      You forgot the gaping hole otherwise known as the Office document format...

      What the hell are you smoking??

      Sendmail and bind can not be patched in such a way as to eventually become completely secure. The architecture underlying sendmail is not conducive to creating security. These packages should be taken out of use. There are alternatives to BIND and Sendmail: use djbdns and qmail. I haven't used djbdns, but given the quality and ease of configuration for qmail, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend anything from DJ Bernstein. See http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html and http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html.
      It's a pity about the licensing on DJB's stuff. Otherwise I would imagine that they would be included in more distributions...

  3. Seems to be down already: google cache: by anti11es · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google Link:
    http://www.google.com/search/?q=cache:dbJlh35mihk: www.sans.org/top20.htm+
    Click here

  4. Re:It's not just IIS... by aulendil · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is really important, to think what the machine is really supposed to do.

    It has been said a thousand time already, but disable all services, daemons etc, and start only those needed for the particular things this machine do.

    This is the first and foremost security measure, and sadly it seems, one of the most overlooked.

  5. SNMP exploit is UNDERRATED! by jgaynor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Maybe not on UNIX machines, where SNMP is generally turned off by default - but on Cisco devices where it is enabled by default with the common SNMP names . . .

    SNMP on cisco devices is weak because of the default community string names (public, private and secret). To add to the situation, the secret string will allow you to bring interfaces up and down at will, all without a trace of intrusion in the logs. While the big guys like ATT and Wcom may fix these using default config files, may universities and smaller carriers dont even know it exists.

  6. New easy way to make sure W2K/IIS is patched. by NineNine · · Score: 4, Informative
  7. The 5 most common reasons for security problems by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... in programs (setting aside administration issues such as passwords)

    1. string.h
    2. sprintf
    3. system
    4. char buff[255];
    5. snprintf(buf,len,user_input);

    Let's face it, C's string handling is the biggest cause of security problems on the Internet. Static strings are evil. Too bad there is no standard way to handle them in C.

  8. Consumers cannot fix these problems by nuetrino · · Score: 3, Informative
    When one looks at the top six vulnerabilities, one sees the mark of shoddy implementation and almost nonexistent manufacturer and vendor responsibility. For instance, the default installs of OSs that leave the customer at risk. An example of this is in the Windows and MacOs install. In the installation process, there is a suggestion to make a shared folder. Most people do not need a shared folder, and with the explosion of broadband, most people should not have a shared folder. Yet both these applications want the user to create one. To make matter worse, there is no suggested password to increase the likelihood of security(On an up note, I was happy to see that SuSE did suggest a password at installation). Software vendors should not be encouraging us to make our computers less secure.

    Equally negligent are broadband vendors that give away connection hardware, but can't be bothered to include a firewall or software that will check for open ports. These vendors won't make the simplest effort to insure the product they are selling is secure, yet will not take the responsibility when their service dies due to DOS attacks. These DOS attacks are largely possible because of the massive number of wide-open computers created by their broadband connections.

    This is not a rant; this is a statement of reality. Vendors can not, and should not, expect the consumer to be skilled enough to provide adequate levels of security. This is why houses and cars come with locks. Sometimes consumers lock themselves out, but that is a minor inconvenience. As an extreme example, many shoes now have Velcro, and most cars, at least in the U.S., have automatic transmissions.

    No stream of security patches, warnings, and news items will solve the problem. The consumer is not skilled enough to keep up. Until the default configuration is secure, until vendors are forced to take monetary consequences for their defective products, and until the consumer is trained to suffer the imposed inconveniences, we will continue to see the same sort of problems.

  9. Re:obsession with security ridiculous? NO!!! by CodeShark · · Score: 4, Informative
    I hope you were being sarcastic, but if not and for any body else who might not understand, here's my list of reasons why a high degree of focus on security is not ridiculous, but mandatory:
    • DDOS attacks, etc. that use your machine to do the dirty work,
    • Net worms which may be propagated from an insecure machine
    • back doors: perhaps you will do something useful, valuable, or important on your computer in the future, only to get clobbered or ripped off by whoever's bug installed the backdoor, not to mention the loss of your time to recover your valuable work (if you even can) or to reinstall and reformat.
    • remote keyboard monitors... first time you use your credit card to make an online purchase, and bam, script kiddie has your cc # and can attempt to use it or sell it to even less scrupulous folks,
    • and my personal favorite reason: to make it less worth the script kiddies time to try to take down yours, mine, and everybody else's machines for kicks and giggles. Think about the bragging rights between "hey my new ultra-virus took down four machines, or "hey, my new ultra-virus took down 200,000 machines..."

      Course, if those four machines were the front end machines for M$, that might be worth a brag or two ;-)

    But let me offer a different perspective. What if the security holes in your machine allowed big gov't, or someone else to snoop on what you were doing online all the time? Would you think about closing the security holes in your machine then?
    --
    ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
  10. Re:Most important? by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2, Informative
    Exploits that lead to user-access is normally less important than exploits that lead to root-access.
    Unfortunately, this is not true in practice.

    It is extremely difficult to maintain local security on UNIX systems if you and your users are using quite a few tools. For example, GNU Emacs 20 still has temporary file races (really old advisory), and a lot of your favorite tools, too. Such problems disappear only very, very slowly.

    Of course, there seems to be a way out of this dilemma: don't install anything on your server except the server software itself. Put each service (HTTP, SMTP, NNTP) on separate machines, and interactive users onto another. Unfortunately, after you've done this, you are facing a remarkable farm of servers, each requiring maintenance, which is not always acceptable.

    As a result, if you have limited capacities (and who doesn't?), you are better off when you focus most of your energy on securing against attacks over the network, as long as you can trust your local users. Relying on the security features of a typical UNIX system to confine a security breach to a certain account is not a good idea, at least at the moment.

  11. Missed one: Cross Site Scripting by slashkitty · · Score: 3, Informative
    This one affects most every site, including ones like chase, citibank, aol, slashdot, nytimes and many more. It's cross platform and their is not an easy patch. I wouldn't be surprised if there were already malicious undetected scripts that could pretty much get your logins to all your favorite sites.

    A year and a half old advisory, and sites still refuse to fix it. http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2000-02.html

    Some of you will remember the problems with Hotmail relating to cross site scripting. Newsflash, it affects your site too!

    --
    -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
  12. SANS' suggested filtering rules in ipchains by ajs · · Score: 3, Informative

    MY_NET=1.2.3.4/5
    INT_DEV=eth0
    EXT_DEV=eth1
    # 1. Any packet coming into your network must not have a source address of your internal network
    ipchains -A forward -i $EXT_DEV -j DENY -s $MY_NET
    # 2. Any packet coming into your network must have a destination address of your internal network
    ipchains -A forward -i $EXT_DEV -j DENY -d ! $MY_NET
    # 3. Any packet leaving your network must have a source address of your internal network
    ipchains -A forward -i $INT_DEV -j DENY -s ! $MY_NET
    # 4. Any packet leaving your network must not have a destination address of your internal network.
    ipchains -A forward -i $INT_DEV -j DENY -d ! $MY_NET
    # 5. Any packet coming into your network or leaving your network must not have a source or destination address of a private address or an address listed in RFC1918 reserved space. These include 10.x.x.x/8, 172.16.x.x/12 or 192.168.x.x/16 and the loopback network 127.0.0.0/8.
    ipchains -A forward -i $EXT_DEV -j DENY -s 10.0.0.0/8
    ipchains -A forward -i $EXT_DEV -j DENY -s 172.16.0.0/12
    ipchains -A forward -i $EXT_DEV -j DENY -s 192.168.0.0/16
    ipchains -A forward -j DENY -d 10.0.0.0/8
    ipchains -A forward -j DENY -d 172.16.0.0/12
    ipchains -A forward -j DENY -d 192.168.0.0/16
    ### REMOVE the next 3 rules for masquerading systems
    ipchains -A forward -i $INT_DEV -j DENY -s 10.0.0.0/8
    ipchains -A forward -i $INT_DEV -j DENY -s 172.16.0.0/12
    ipchains -A forward -i $INT_DEV -j DENY -s 192.168.0.0/16
    # 6. Block any source routed packets or any packets with the IP options field set.

    # This is done at the kernel level under Linux, and is usually set by default.