Slashdot Mirror
Web Hacking: Attacks and Defense
zenomorph writes: "I first heard of this book on amazon.com on a Monday morning, and read the reviews of people who had
purchased this book. I noticed that there were no reviews from any person in the web security community had commented
on it, either on Amazon or anywhere else (with the exception of two brief comments on the back of the book, of which one was written by the person who wrote the book's foreword). So I decided to pick it up on Friday
after I left work and see what it had to offer. After picking up the book I noticed it was co-authored by three
people who all work for Foundstone, a very large security company that deals with everything (including web
security). This review will cover some of the topics covered in this book, along with things that could or
should have been covered in greater detail." Read on for the rest of zenomorph's review.
Web Hacking: Attacks and defense
author
Stuart McClure, Saumil Shah, and Shreeraj Sha
pages
492
publisher
Addison-Wesley
rating
8
reviewer
zenomorph
ISBN
0201761769
summary
Web Application Hacking
Target audience: This book is geared more towards beginners and intermediate users, with a few things the more advanced people will enjoy. It explains concepts and practical examples in an easy to understand manner. Pros:
One portion of the book covered a topic which is rarely mentioned and almost never documented in security texts, which is ASP (Active Server Pages). This primarily covered security involving databases handling and login information. Another rarely documented subject this book covered was ISAPI application security. Additional good points below:
- Good examples of the types of commands an attacker will execute when remote command execution is possible. Also had a nice little attack fingerprint reference in the back. (Appendix D Page 462)
- General Tips and tricks for fingerprinting a web server, and database versions. (pages 182-194) Provides this information based on error messages and URL structure.
- Chapter 12 covers remote command execution threats with Java and Java servers. Definably a book highlight. Not too much documentation currently exists on this ever-growing web technology.
- Chapter 14 covers buffer overflows in a very easy to understand manner; something not easily accomplished for the less tech-savvy. It also walks through a complete example of bad code, to writing and executing the exploit.
- One nice section is the "Cheat Sheet" towards the back of the book which provides the most common improperly used functions in ASP, PHP, Java, and Perl. I did notice it left out the ever popular fopen() function in PHP, which is very popular for attackers to exploit when improperly used (Code inclusion attacks).
- Shows good practical examples of attackers using search engines to help further probe a site.
- Covers SQL and Oracle security. (Direct, and Injection based attacks)
- Web Application server security was covered with examples on BEA Weblogic, and Websphere.
- Provides good examples of using tools such as Netcat, Sam Spade, Teleport Pro, Black Widow, Webcracker, Brutus, Achilles, Cookie Pal, etc.
- Coveres the threats of Internet worms,including the effect on the Internet of Nimda, and Code Red. Gave details of what exactly they did, and how they could spread.
- Chapter 17 is a treat. Covers how attackers avoid IDS systems through the use of SSL, and URL encoding (such as Unicode, 2-byte, 3-Byte, and double encoding.) Also covers how to set up an IDS on SSL via reverse proxies.
Cons: This book was released in August of 2002, but I couldn't find any reference to cross-site scripting. Cross-site scripting isn't a new type of attack. In fact, it has been around since the late 1990's. More gripes below:
- The authors have a tendency to include snippets from IRC conversations. While it's explaining how hackers communicate during attacks I found it a little lame. I'd rather they had mentioned some "hacker" channels, or something along those lines.
- Neither cookie theft nor poisoning is mentioned, while cookie modification is.
- I went to the back of the book hoping to gather some good references for further reading and only got a small links section showing 6 links, none of which where technical documents but instead general web links.
- Web application abuse and spamming aren't covered at all, which is something very important and an ever-growing option for spammers.
- No references to XML-RPC or SOAP were found but the athors do briefly mention Microsoft's .NET technology without providing any code examples.
- Lack of web application wrappers and security. CGIWrap and Suexec aren't mentioned anywhere. Nothing about chrooting webservers, or applications for additional security were found.
- Apache's "Tomcat" server isn't mentioned anywhere, with the exception of an exploit mentioned in Appendix D. (Source Code, File, and Directory Disclosure Cheat sheet)
- Not a big complaint but it would have been nice if Python or TCL were covered.
Closing:
On a scale of one to ten I give this book an eight. This review was written to give you an idea of the contents, or lack thereof. Perhaps this will help you to decide if this book is what you're looking for, or a waste of time.
You can purchase Web Hacking: Attacks and Defense from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
There are, within the "security
industry" (whatever that means) people who-- intentionally or
unintentionally-- sell their customers short. The people create a false
aura of security wherever they pass, and are unwilling or incapable of
expanding their capabilities.
Scanning a network doesn't make it secure, but we've all run into people
who think it does-- including people who should know better.
I've long advocated (and tried to design) systems (not just hardware,
but software and business practices) that *fail well*. Systems designed
not to be unbreakable-- a fool's pursuit, to be sure-- but to contain
the inevitable breach. Systems that fail in known modes, so that the
consequences of an intrusion are known ahead of time, and steps can be
taken based on that knowledge. Systems that don't eliminate risk, but
manage risk.
Unfortunately, most customers aren't interested because systems like
this are expensive. They're hard to design, hard to build, hard to
maintain, and require profound knowledge of the components and the
activities that use them. It's a hard sell, especially when those less
educated self-labeled experts (and vendors) are pushing silver bullets
in the form of yet another certification, yet another scanner, yet
another training course.
I could be wrong, but I see the current upwelling of vitriol directed at
these people. They are truly living off the labor of others, and
providing little of use to anyone, including their customers. But
they're not everyone.
Life sucks.
"So I decided to pick it up on Friday after I left work and see what it had to offer...This review will cover some of the topics covered in this book, along with things that could or should have been covered in greater detail"
Ok, so its a 492 page technical resource, and you just *bought* the book 5 days ago?
Is it possible that maybe you missed some things?
I mean, I can read a good 500 page novel in a day or two, but I don't think I'd give a review on a technical book I just bought 5 days ago. Maybe that's just me.
B.) Its a Xenomorph, not a Zenomorph. Jesus.
The authors have a tendency to include snippets from IRC conversations. While it's explaining how hackers communicate during attacks I found it a little lame. I'd rather they had mentioned some "hacker" channels, or something along those lines.
I didn't realize that hacker communication was that interesting, even during an attack. Heh... It could be kind of funny I suppose if the "hackers" were script kiddies.
Hacker #1: D00Zs! I just hax0red this windoze box!
Hacker #2: No way! Fuckin' Awesome guy!
Hacker #1: YeAh, I woulda Hax0red more but mom made me go to bed
Hacker #2: Damn, That be harsh.
My guess is that script kiddies salivate over this type of information. Having read similar books, they are basically how-to tutorials, a capable System Administrator will likely know about this issues or learn them elsewhere. Oh well, since it makes the Authors some good bucks....I guess thats Security for them.
Honestly, I had more success reading this
book to protect my website. The book mentioned/reviewed in the article above is rubbish.
It's a simple fact that 95% of "attacks" are quite harmless game-playing by "script kiddies", against which there's no need to defend.
Virtually all of the remaining five percent are the work of honorable hackers (hackers in the correct sense: Brilliant geeks who like to explore and experiment) motivated solely by intellectual curiosity. As we all know, such true hackers are unable to do harm because their value system precludes it. For a true hacker to do harm is a logical impossibility, a meaningless paradox.
The hysteria about "security" is mostly an attempt to discredit the hacker community, to misrepresent curious and brilliant techies -- us, in short -- as demons in human form. It's bigotry, pure and simple.
I'm not surprised when CNN or MSNBC spews out this kind of propaganda, but for a geek site like Slashdot to be propagating the "security" myth is rather discouraging.
The problem I have with these reviews and those that are found on Amazon, is that there is no context for the review. Specifically, what's great to you might suck to me. We have no knowledge of the reviewers skill level or experience.
It would be far better if the reviewers would give a little background information about themselves, along with the review.
What is Zenomorph's skill level? How long have they worked in this field? What related hardware and software are they proficient with? What other books on the subject has this person read and what was their opinion of those books? Without this information the review carries no more weight than one from Jon Katz.
Model for maintaining security:
1. Publish book with questionable, though feel-good information about network security.
2. Sell lots of copies of it.
3. Profit!
By security, I of course am referring to JOB security.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
I noticed that there were no reviews from any person in the web security community had commented on it
See? Those web hackers are pretty good, no?
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
This story DOES NOT belong in the Reviews section.
The book got an "8." All books in the Reviews section get a "9." Therefore it does not belong.
"Chapter 17 is a treat. Covers how attackers avoid IDS systems through the use of SSL, and URL encoding (such as Unicode, 2-byte, 3-Byte, and double encoding.) Also covers how to set up an IDS on SSL via reverse proxies."
Ummm... here is a free version of that information. Very thorough, and it is by RFP the writer of whisker.
(Score:0) ???
Geeze, some people just don't recognize sarcasm when they see it.
The point here is, in many instances the PATRIOT act is written so broadly that it may be construed that the mere mention of anything security related is deemed an unpatriotic, seditionist, revolutionary plot.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Well, security is a big issue these days. Not only the Windows users have problems with flaws, but also Linux users. But if you want maximum security, you should place your computer in a place where only one person can be (Mission Impossible style:P). I'm currently using Gentoo linux, because of the idea behind it. Open source, Source code compiling, optimized for MY OWN PC, and then there is a very nice feature called Security Alert of something like that. It announces fixes and stuff, I have only seen one serious flaw (only have had 3 digests) which was the fetchmail bug which didnt effect me. But it's all easy to fix with Gentoo. Updating a System is as vital as knowing to find the K button or Gnome foot, or (sigh) Start button or that nice mac X thing or whatever you use. People should update there systems everytime they start their computers up. One day there will be a flawless system, with no bloatware in it, guess how its going to be called? Indeed, not Windows.
The problem that arises with books like this is that they become obsolete quickly. More generic hackerish books just describe generalisms and may discuss buffer overflows in general rather than specific buffer overflows in specific programs.
There is a need for both types of books, but one like this will not be good reading 10 years from now (nor should they be).
If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
Hudson Is this going to be a standup job sir, or just another bug-hunt?
Gorman: All we know is there's still no contact with the colony's Web server. In the meantime I want you all to look at this book on Web security. It's just been reviewed by zenomorph.
Apone: Excuse me sir - who?
Gorman: zenomorph.
Hicks (aside to Hudson) It's a bug hunt.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Nothing like a book full of FUD to further obscure the real "web site hackers".
This is just too complicated a subject to wrap it all up in a generi-book. Of course its aimed at beginners... they don't know any better!
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
So you haven't yet managed the modern learning techiques available? How do you expect to find or keep your job if you can't extract all useful content from a book by perusing the index and reading two or three careful selected pages plus the command reference table at Apendix A? I am really concerned about your future, mister, really concerned. Clearly you wouldn't have survived for a day during the dot.com boom. What if the economy becomes irrationaly exuberant again? What will you do when they discover you can't learn Magic Bullet v10.3 in two hours and have a presentation for marketing to give the client by the end of the day?
I find it quite interesting that you assume that any people of note should bother submitting a review to Amazon.com if they have something to say about a book. If I were going to take the time to write a professional review of a book, I'm sure that I would have it published somewhere that I would get good exposure and receive compensation for my time.
Maybe you would like to take a look at Web Security, Privacy & Commerce, 2nd Edition from OReilly (I have no connection w/ this link or this book).
Or maybe you could figure out where the Web Security zealots hang out. I bet they've talked about the book there, if it has any merit of note.
If you expect anything besides rehashes of the books TOC on the Amazon.com review system, you're going to be disappointed most of the time.
-S
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
I took the Foundstone "Ultimate Hacking" course a few months ago, and some of these guys were on the team who taught it. While I can't speak to the book itself, not having read it, the authors themselves were very knowledgeable and authoritative in their fields. I expect that the information in this book should (hopefully) be of the same caliber.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
How does one become a capable System Administrator? By learning which involves, amongst many other things, reading books on the subject.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
A book rating of 8!!! Ha!
:
I find it both sad and amusing that people try to publish books about this topic without first addressing the fact that there are more secure platforms for webserving. Most of these short-sighted me-too security bandwagon books concentrate onthe porous unix/linux offerings, or MS weaknesses, and avoid discussing Mac.
It is a concrete fact that that no MacOS based webserver has ever been hacked into in the history of the internet.
The MacOS running WebStar and other webservers as has never been exploited or defaced, and are are unbreakable based on ample historical evidence.
In fact in the entire SecurityFocus (BugTraq) database history there has never been a Mac exploited over the internet remotely. Scan it yourself.
That is why the US Army gave up on MS IIS and got a Mac for a web server.
I am not talking about FreeBSD derived MacOS X (which already had a more than a 30 exploits and potential exploits in BugTraq) I am talking about current Mac OS 9.x and earlier which are highly sophisticated abstract-OS models.
Why is is hack proof? These reasons
1> No command shell. No shell means no way to hook or intercept the flow of control with many various shell oriented tricks found in Unix or NT. Apple uses an object model for procces to process communication that is heavily typed and "pipe-less"
2> No Root user. All mac developers know their code is always running at root. Nothing is higher (except undocumented microkernel stufff where you pass Gary Davidians birthday into certain registers and make a special call). By always being root there is no false sense of security, and programming is done carefully.
3> Pascal strings. ANSI C Strings are the number one way people exploit Linux and Wintel boxes. The mac avoids C strings historically in most of all of its OS. In fact even its roms originally used Pascal strings. As you know pascal strings are faster than C (because they have the length delimiter in the front and do not have to endlessly hunt for NULL), but the side effect is less buffer exploits. Individual 3rd party products may use C stings and bind to ANSI libraries, but many do not. In case you are not aware of what a "pascal string" is, it usually has no null byte terminator.
4> Macs running Webstar have ability to only run CGI placed in correct directory location and correctly file "typed" (not mere file name extension). File types on Macs are not easily settable by users, expecially remotely. Apache as you know has had many problems in earlier years preventing wayward execution.
5> Macs never run code ever merely based on how a file is named. ".exe" suffixes mean nothing! For example the file type is 4 characters of user-invisible attributes, along with many other invisible attributes, but these 4 bytes cannot be set by most tool oriented utilities that work with data files. For example file copy utilities preserve launchable file-types, but JPEG MPEG HTML TXT etc oriented tools are physically incapable by designof creating an executable file. The file type is not set to executable for hte hackers needs. In fact its even more secure than that. A mac cannot run a program unless it has TWO files. The second file is an invisible file associated with the data fork file and is called a resource fork. EVERY mac program has a resource fork file containing launch information. It needs to be present. Typically JPEG, HTML, MPEG, TXT, ZIP, C, etc are merely data files and lack resource fork files, and even if the y had them they would lack launch information. but the best part is that mac web programs and server tools do not create files with resource forks usually. TOTAL security.
4> Stack return address positioned in safer location than some intel OSes. Buffer exploits take advantage of loser programmers lack of string length checking and clobber the return address to run thier exploit code instead. The Mac compilers usually place return address in front or out of context of where the buffer would overrun. Much safer.
7> There are less macs, though there are huge cash prizes for cracking into a MacOS based WebStar server (typically over $10,000 US). Less macs means less hacker interest, but there are MILLIONS of macs sold, and some of the most skilled programmers are well versed in systems level mac engineering and know of the cash prizes, so its a moot point, but perhaps macs are never kracked because there appear to be less of them. (many macs pretend they are unix and give false headers to requests to keep up the illusion, ftp http, finger, etc). But some huge high performance sites use load-balancing webstar. Regardless, no mac has ever been rooted in history of the internet, except with a strange 3rd party tool in 1995.
8> MacOS source not available traditionally, except within apple, similar to Microsoft source only available to its summer interns and engineers, source is rare to MacOS. This makes it hard to look for programming mistakes, but I feel the restricted source access is not the main reasons the MacOS has never been remotely broken into and exploited.
Sure a fool can install freeware and shareware server tools and unsecure 3rd party addon tools for e-commerce, but a mac (MacOS 9) running WebStar is the most secure web server possible and webstar offers many services as is.
One 3rd party tool created the only known exploit backdoor in mac history and that was back in 1995 and is not, nor was, a widely used tool. I do not even know its name. From 1995 to 2002 not one macintosh web server on the internet has been broken into or defaced EVER. Other than that event ages ago in 1995, no mac web server has ever been rooted,defaced,owned,scanned,exploited, etc.
I think its quite amusing that there are over 200 or 300 known vulnerabilities in RedHat over the years and not one MacOS 9.x or older remote exploit hack. There are even vulnerabilities a month ago in OpenBSD! Each month vulnerabilities in XP arise.
Not one exploit. And that includes Webstar and other web servers on the Mac.
A rare set of documentation tutorials and exercises on rewriting all buffer LINUX exploits from INTEL to PowerPC was published less than a year ago. The priceless hacker tutorials were by a linux fanatic : Christopher A Shepherd, 3036 Foxhill Circle #102, Apopka, FL 32703 and he wrote the tutorials in a context against BSD-Mach Mac OSX. but all of his unix methods will find little to exploit on a traditional MacOS server.
BTW this is NOT an add for webstar.. the recent versions of webstar sold for over the last year are insecure and cannot run on Mac OS 9.x or 8.x, and only run on the repeatedly exploited MacOS X.
--- too bad the linux community is so stubborn that they refuse to understand that the Mac has always been the most secure OS for servers.
BugTraq concurs! As does the WWW consortium. So you do not need a book to teach you how to pathetically try to secure a website, just use a Mac, as many colleges and large media sites do, and many commercial airlines for their in-house security.
Foundstone is essentially a Microsoft subsidiary now, so getting consistently useful information from them is somewhat in question for me. Now, maybe there are still a few people there who haven't compromised their integrity to get a cushy paycheck from MS.. but I'm a skeptic.
Essentially MS and Symantec have both bought out fairly prominent security "experts" who are taking their knowledge of exploits and hoarding that information.
And of course Foundstone is one of the "founding" members of OIS, the security through obscurity security notification group. No time limits for public disclosure of vulnerabilities, no documentation of vulnerabilities (.gif "viruses" anyone), and no public discourse unless the vendor is happy with what you're saying.
Considering that the book is written by the team at Foundstone, guys who have written other books on security such as Hacking Exposed, Hacking Linux Exposed, and Hacking Windows 2000 Exposed, teach courses in network security, such as Ultimate Hacking and Ultimate IDS, and have been doing this for countless years, Id have to say itd probally be a pretty good book on the subject. While not all topics are covered, as the reviewer pointed out the book is geared towards novices to intermediate users.. so dont expect everything. Not knowing the reviewers skill level, Ill trust that the Foundstone guys wrote a fairly decent book and expect that a few things are either held back due to relevence or space. And chances are I will probally pick it up myself in one of my future book runs. If someone who reads the book is all that interested in the security field after reading it, it will at least give them a starting point to start looking and discover some of the missing elements mentioned in the review...
from the guy whose name is $0 31337
-Tolerate my intolerance
Anybody else think it's kinda funny that Amazon.com is selling a book on web security?
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
"Distributed DOS attacks"
Post link to target site on slashdot front page. Wait a couple minutes.
The End.
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
Another book by the Foundstone crew is Hacking Web Applications Exposed. I found this book to a lot better than Web Hacking: Attacks and Defense. I know a bunch of the guys over at Foundstone and personally, I find Shema's book to be a lot better than Shah's.
Just a little insight.
I don't want to belabor the point, but often it's not necessary to read a technical book from start to finish to review it. A good part of technical reviewing involves just reporting what the book does and doesn't have. Sometimes a book's quality can be determined simply how well it is organized (for a reference book, for instance), or on the quality and depth of its learning activities. Sometimes, there may be very good reasons for writing a review/preview/response without reading a book in its entirety. I once had a rather frivolous dialogue with Jeffrey Dean about the merits and drawbacks of writing reviews for books you haven't read completely. I'm not defending the practice of reviewing books you haven't read. Nor am I defending the value that comes with "living with a book" for several weeks or months. But the value of early reporting of a book sometimes outweigh the decision not to read the book entirely. Other Idiotprogrammer Book Reviews
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
This may very well be true, but I work with WebStar / Filemaker Pro / Lasso setup on Mac OS 9.x at work (about 20 servers), but they are BRUTALLY slow. Although an Apache server may have more exploits, a single Apache / MySQL / PHP setup on a Linux box (EVEN a Mac OS X) can out perform 4 or 5 Mac OS 9.x boxes.
Mac OS 9.x is an obsolete OS, especially for web serving. (Isn't Mac OS 9.x only single-threaded as well?)
The bugtraq mailing list lists a known exploit for Lasso CGI on top of Webstar in 1997.
If CGI is enabled, Webstar becomes no more secure than any other web server with CGI enabled. For static content, Webstar does appear to be unbreakable.
"Never judge a book by its Amazon review"
>It is a concrete fact that that no MacOS based >webserver has ever been hacked into in the history of the internet. It's also a concrete fact that there are very few MacOS based servers around... >The MacOS running WebStar and other webservers as >has never been exploited or defaced, and are are >unbreakable based on ample historical evidence. AMPLE evidence? Apache had some security issues, but about 60% of the market, too... >In fact in the entire SecurityFocus (BugTraq) >database history there has never been a Mac >exploited over the internet remotely. Scan it >yourself. ...see the prevoius point
>That is why the US Army gave up on MS IIS and got >a Mac for a web server.
well, as stated by yourself, a Web server can always fool a client into thinking he's something different.
>Why is is hack proof? These reasons :
>1> No command shell. No shell means no way to >hook or intercept the flow of control with many >various shell oriented tricks found in Unix or >NT. Apple uses an object model for procces to >process communication that is heavily typed and >"pipe-less"
Ok, this is true. But now try to administrate
your nifty MacOS server via a remote session
300km away...
>2> No Root user. All mac developers know their >code is always running at root. Nothing is higher >(except undocumented microkernel stufff where you >pass Gary Davidians birthday into certain >registers and make a special call). By always >being root there is no false sense of security, >and programming is done carefully.
Ok, i'll run everything as root from now
on, my "false sense of security" will go away for sure.
>3> Pascal strings. ANSI C Strings are the number >one way people exploit Linux and Wintel boxes. >The mac avoids C strings historically in most of >all of its OS. In fact even its roms originally >used Pascal strings. As you know pascal strings >are faster than C (because they have the length >delimiter in the front and do not have to >endlessly hunt for NULL), but the side effect is >less buffer exploits. Individual 3rd party >products may use C stings and bind to ANSI >libraries, but many do not. In case you are not >aware of what a "pascal string" is, it usually >has no null byte terminator.
C string may or may not be slower than Pascal strings, according to what are you doing with those strings.
If you write code in C, you'll have C strings. What your OS does with them is not relevant.
>4> Macs running Webstar have ability to only run >CGI placed in correct directory location and >correctly file "typed" (not mere file name >extension). File types on Macs are not easily >settable by users, expecially remotely. Apache as >you know has had many problems in earlier years >preventing wayward execution.
Apache does, too.
>5> Macs never run code ever merely based on how a >file is named. ".exe" suffixes mean nothing! For >example the file type is 4 characters of >user-invisible attributes, along with many other >invisible attributes, but these 4 bytes cannot be >set by most tool oriented utilities that work >with data files. For example file copy utilities >preserve launchable file-types, but JPEG MPEG >HTML TXT etc oriented tools are physically >incapable by designof creating an executable >file. The file type is not set to executable for >hte hackers needs. In fact its even more secure >than that. A mac cannot run a program unless it >has TWO files. The second file is an invisible >file associated with the data fork file and is >called a resource fork. EVERY mac program has a >resource fork file containing launch information. >It needs to be present. Typically JPEG, HTML, >MPEG, TXT, ZIP, C, etc are merely data files and >lack resource fork files, and even if the y had >them they would lack launch information. but the >best part is that mac web programs and server >tools do not create files with resource forks >usually. TOTAL security.
A file is a file, is a file. Once I can run arbitrary code on a server, who keeps me from
creating both data fork and resource fork?
>4> Stack return address positioned in safer >location than some intel OSes. Buffer exploits >take advantage of loser programmers lack of >string length checking and clobber the return >address to run thier exploit code instead. The >Mac compilers usually place return address in >front or out of context of where the buffer would >overrun. Much safer.
Again, the flaw is in the C language - the stack contains both the return address and the parameters, if you overflow them -BLAM!- no matter where the stack is stored.
By the way Pascal does the same thing (only in a different order).
>7> There are less macs, though there are huge >cash prizes for cracking into a MacOS based >WebStar server (typically over $10,000 US). Less >macs means less hacker interest, but there are >MILLIONS of macs sold, and some of the most >skilled programmers are well versed in systems >level mac engineering and know of the cash >prizes, so its a moot point, but perhaps macs are >never kracked because there appear to be less of >them. (many macs pretend they are unix and give >false headers to requests to keep up the >illusion, ftp http, finger, etc). But some huge >high performance sites use load-balancing >webstar. Regardless, no mac has ever been rooted >in history of the internet, except with a strange >3rd party tool in 1995.
To crack a Mac, you would need at least:
- a mac
8> MacOS source not available traditionally, except within apple, similar to Microsoft source only available to its summer interns and engineers, source is rare to MacOS. This makes it hard to look for programming mistakes, but I feel the restricted source access is not the main reasons the MacOS has never been remotely broken into and exploited.
Sure a fool can install freeware and shareware server tools and unsecure 3rd party addon tools for e-commerce, but a mac (MacOS 9) running WebStar is the most secure web server possible and webstar offers many services as is.
One 3rd party tool created the only known exploit backdoor in mac history and that was back in 1995 and is not, nor was, a widely used tool. I do not even know its name. From 1995 to 2002 not one macintosh web server on the internet has been broken into or defaced EVER. Other than that event ages ago in 1995, no mac web server has ever been rooted,defaced,owned,scanned,exploited, etc.
I think its quite amusing that there are over 200 or 300 known vulnerabilities in RedHat over the years and not one MacOS 9.x or older remote exploit hack. There are even vulnerabilities a month ago in OpenBSD! Each month vulnerabilities in XP arise.
Not one exploit. And that includes Webstar and other web servers on the Mac.
A rare set of documentation tutorials and exercises on rewriting all buffer LINUX exploits from INTEL to PowerPC was published less than a year ago. The priceless hacker tutorials were by a linux fanatic : Christopher A Shepherd, 3036 Foxhill Circle #102, Apopka, FL 32703 and he wrote the tutorials in a context against BSD-Mach Mac OSX. but all of his unix methods will find little to exploit on a traditional MacOS server.
BTW this is NOT an add for webstar.. the recent versions of webstar sold for over the last year are insecure and cannot run on Mac OS 9.x or 8.x, and only run on the repeatedly exploited MacOS X.
--- too bad the linux community is so stubborn that they refuse to understand that the Mac has always been the most secure OS for servers.
BugTraq concurs! As does the WWW consortium. So you do not need a book to teach you how to pathetically try to secure a website, just use a Mac, as many colleges and large media sites do, and many commercial airlines for their in-house security.
Not a troll, just scientific facts about mac being more secure for webserver.
Find ONE fualt in it, if you think its a troll.
It should not be modded as a trol by linux-fanboys like you.
argh, pressed return by mistake..
Macs can be misconfigured.
Webstar has almost EVERY buffer dialed down to fit into a 4 megabyte ram space total! you need to increase all the configuration options and open up its transactions a little more.
Then it "magically" performs as it should.
They refuse to make the product autoconfigure itself.
There are countless settings.
play with some of them... it is not brutally slow.
leave the app IN THE FORGROUND at all times too.
There is nothing wrong with this review or anything intrinsically wrong with reviews in general! and you don't need to know his 5Kyllz lev3l either (alhtough i get this sense that he is strangely powerful, like Goku, maybe a 5 thousand !!!!). You have to make up your own mind, oh god, no! this is what we do when we think before making a decision. HOWEVER, a REVIEW is GREAT because it lets us know whether something interests us or not. We don't call them DECISIONS-MADE-WHILE-YOU-WAIT for a reason. Of course you have to check it out yourself, thumb thru it, maybe even buy it and read it before you really know its super-fantastic.
gripe about something important. like socks.
"Other bands play, but Manowar KILLS"
Only hard science can explain the preternatural, uncanny, supernatural security of the Macintosh!
Only the laws of GRAVITY will give you the true story! WE DISSECTED BUNNIES! HOLY FUCK! And yet the web server remained secure.
They're all fags. Ignore 'em.
I wrote all that stuff from scratch asshole
I pulled this out of my ass.
In addition I have run hack proof distributed-load-web servers for over 5 years, on macs.
I have a website that nobody's ever visited.
You are a closed minded linux lover who hates FACTS that show that NO MAC HAS EVER BEEN EXPLOITED!
I am bigoted against linux users. Plus, I firmly believe that shouting makes my arguments more persuasive.
EVER.
Sometimes I use complete sentences.
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
You seem to be angry at facts. Why not DISCUSS your envy of the fact that no mac webserver has ever been remotely exploited in internet history.
I'm a pretend psychologist.
And yes there are indeed many macs sold, and many used as servers.
But I failed statistics and research in college.
I think you are a Linux-zealot trying to be humorous.
I think you are a Linux-zealot trying to be humorous.
The mac is the most secure webserver in the world and that book does NOT address it because it is a MS controlled company.
I don't know that books are not companies.
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
Not a troll, just scientific facts about mac being more secure for webserver
Science is the study of copying and pasting from one web browser window to another.
Find ONE fualt in it, if you think its a troll.
I'm not smart enough to notice how ironic it is that I can't spell "fault".
It should not be modded as a trol by linux-fanboys like you.
I can't spell "troll", so I must not be one!
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
It is a concrete fact that that no MacOS based webserver has ever been hacked into in the history of the internet.
I bet you'd like to think you're right, but you're not.
Install a filter between you're brain and typing fingers, then come back, okay?
Typically, unless you're a book reviewer you probably wouldn't read a technical book that only explains things you already understand :)
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
That was fascinating. Thanks.
Don't click on slashdots link to buy the book from Barnes and Noble. It is listed there at $39.99. Amazon has the same book for $34.99.
Save yourself some money.
MacOS was also an incredibly secure web serving platform. A number of companies held a "crack a mac" contest in 1996/1997. After several repeats of the contest because no one could break in to claim the US $10,000 prize, third party software was included (Lasso CGI). The system was cracked shortly thereafter.
The original poster certainly overstated the case. Once CGI is enabled, all systems are (theoretically) as insecure. MacOS is no exception. It's superiority on this level is one of security through obscurity.
Parent is a copy-and-paste karma whore.
Let's look at your post from how you would feel if someone aimed this at you -- I think you'll find it a bit harsh.
"The problem I have with posts on Slashdot making personal attacks, is that there is no context for the attack. Specifically, blah blah blah. We have no knowledge of the posters skill level or experience.
It would be far better if the poster would give a little background information about themselves, along with the post.
What is FreeLinux's skill level? How long has he worked in this field? What related hardware and software is he proficient with? What other books on the subject has this person read and what was their opinion of one of those books? Without this information the post carries no more weight than one from Jon Katz."
May we never see th
B.) Its a Xenomorph, not a Zenomorph.
... They've even knocked off my once trademark smiley :]
>>>>
Zenomorph has been a friend of mine on CyberArmy.com for ages; that's his name, like it or not. Yes, things did get confusing for a while with two similar names, but now that everyone & their dog has an alias named '[xz]eno.*'
Sorry for this minor, OT rant. We now return to your regularly scheduled program...
Those 9 defacements were made via UNIX based MAc OS not Mac OS 8 and 9... Thats why BEFORE 1999 you see none reported for Mac.
Since 1999 people have been calling OS X "MacOS" by mistake now and then.
You need to learn more.
Name the site and the date! No MacOS webserver has ever been rooted or defaced in history.
Yah, except the exact same review you linked to is posted at Amazon by the author, who sounds more like a security-wannabe than a seasoned professional.
Amazon and other amateur web-based reviews can be very useful - especially the critical ones, those that talk about the books readability, those that detail errors, omissions and typos. So many otherwise decent technical books are unreadable because of poor editing and nonexistent proofreading. I also don't mind a rehash of TOC if it describes how well and in what detail the author actually wrote various sections. Professional and amateur reviews both have their place. Of course they should _all_ be taken with a grain of salt; therefore the more reviews the better. Amazon has done a lot of questionable things but their championing of reviews, although not perfect, is to their credit.
Amazon bashers, flame away!
Dammit, troll instead of funny? C'mon, have a heart -- the guy was funny.
...other than that event ages ago in 1995, no mac web server has ever been...scanned...
Oh, well. Here we go.
It's a concrete fact that no MacOS based webserver has ever been hacked into in the history of the internet.
Heh
The MacOS running WebStar and other webservers as hs never been exploited or defaced, and are unbreakable based on ample historical evidence
It's easy to write a secure webserver. It's a little harder to write one that does useful work *and* is secure. I can write a secure webserver in an afternoon. Start adding on forums or something worthwhile to a WebStar server and you'll see security holes.
That is why the US Army gave up on MS IIS and got a Mac for a web server
The Army dropped IIS because it's a bug-laden insecure piece of shit that's been responsible for more break-ins than any other piece of software in the history of mankind. That doesn't mean that Mac OS based webservers are ideal, mate.
I am not talking about FreeBSD derived MacOS X (which already had more than 30 exploits and potential exploits in BugTraq) I am talking about current Mac OS 9.x and earlier which are highly sophisticated abstract-OS models.
Ah, yes. Classic Mac OS. No memory protection, if my memory of 7.x days serves me well. An exploit of the server is an exploit of the whole machine. No chroot.
Why is it hack proof?
Hehe
No command shell. No shell means no way to hook or intercept the flow of control with many various shell oriented tricks found in Unix or NT. Apple uses an object model for process to process communication that is heavily typed and "pipe-less"
You're talking about command line arguments? Doesn't have anything to do with piped communication.
No root user. All mac developers know their code is always running at root. Nothing is higher (except undocumented microkernel stuff where you pass Gary Davidians birthday into certain registers and make a special call). By always being root there is no false sense of security, and programming is done carefully.
Yeah, I did development on System 7.x for a while. It does teach you to be damn careful with those pointers -- crash "Damn, gotta reboot so I can change one line, recompile, and try again!". I don't buy it.
Pascal strings. ANSI C Strings are the number one way people exploit Linux and Wintel boxes. The mac avoids C strings historically in most of all of its OS. In fact even its roms originally used Pascal strings. As you know pascal strings are faster than C (because they have the length delimiter in the front and do not have to endlessly hunt for NULL) but the side effect is less buffer exploits. Individual 3rd party products may use C sings and bind to ANSI libraries, but many do not. In case you are not aware of what a "pascal string" is, it usually has no null byte terminator
Pascal strings are a fucking archaic scheme dating from times when you statically allocated 255 byte strings and then had a size byte to tell you how much you were actually using. They cap you at 255 bytes. You can do bounds-checked arrays in C, just as you can in Pascal. Not everyone does so, but the same applies to the Mac and Pascal strings, as you pointed out. Furthermore, using UNIX or Windows doesn't mean that you have to use C/C++. In the GNU Compiler Collection alone, you have Java, fortran 77, objective C (*cough* like MacOS X), and Ada support, all of which have bounds-checked strings.
Macs running Webstar have ability to only run CGI placed in correct directory location and correctly file "typed" (not mere file name extension). File types on macs are not easily settable by users, especially remotely. Apache as you know has had many problems in earlier years preventing wayward execution.
Yeah? And UNIX has an executable bit. If someone can get it and flip permission bits and rename files, the chances are pretty good that they can change file types.
Macs never run code ever merely based on how a file is named. ".exe" suffixes mean nothing! For example the file type is 4 characters of user-invisible attributes, along with many other invisible attributes, but these 4 bytes cannot be set by most tool oriented utilities that work with data files. For example file copy utilities preserve launchable file-types, but JPEG MPEG HTML TXT etc oriented tools are physically incapable by design of creating an executable file. The file type is not set to executable for the hacker's needs. In fact its even more secure than that. A mac cannot run a program unless it has TWO files. The second file is an invisible file associated with the data fork file and is called a resource fork. EVERY mac program has a resource fork file containing launch information. It needs to be present. Typically JPEG, HTML, MPEG, TXT, ZIP, C, etc are merely data files and lack resource fork files, and even if they had them they would lack launch information. but the best part is that mac web programs and server tools do not create files with resource forks usually. TOTAL security.
This is why every communication program for the Mac supports MacBinary. If you can upload something to the system, you can pretty assuredly toss a resource fork up.
Stack return addresses positioned in safer location than some intel OSes. Buffer exploits take advantage of loser programers lack of string length checking and clobber the return address to run their exploit code instead. The Mac compilers usually place return address in front or out of context of where the buffer would overrun. Much safer.
Take a look at the first link on this Google search. Secure or not?
There are less macs, though there are huge cash prizes for cracking into a MacOS based WebStar server (typically over $10,000 US)
This happened *once*, laddie buck.
Less macs mean less hacker interest, but there are MILLIONS of macs sold, and some of the most skilled programmers are well versed in systems level mac engineering and know of the cash prizes, so its a moot point, but perhaps macs are never kracked because there appear to be less of them.
Some of the most skilled programmers are systems level Mac coders? I mean, it's not *impossible*, but is there a Archangeli or a Cox in the MacOS world? If there is, they likely work for Apple and aren't out trying to break into web servers.
But some huge high performance sites use load-balancing webstar.
Why should you *not* use a classic Mac for a high-powered server?
Let's see. If we have more than one process doing anything on the system, we run into the complete lack of preemptive multitasking. If an administrator is doing something at the console, everything except for interrupt-driven crap stops cold. Bit of an issue. There's the lousy VM in the classic Mac OS. HFS/HFS+ is not the most impressively high performance filesystem ever. Caching in the classic Mac OS sucks.
Classic Mac OS was designed to be a workstation. Servers were not in the mind of the designers at all. That doesn't matter -- it makes a fine workstation for many people. But pimping it as a server is silly.
MacOS source not available traditionally, except within apple, similar to Microsoft source only available to its summer interns and engineers, source is rare to MacOS. This makes it hard to look fo rprogramming mistakes, but I feel the restricted source access is not the main reasons the MacOS has never been remotely broken into and exploited.
So by your logic, there should be no IIS exploits.
Sure a fool can install freeware and shareware server tools and unsecure 3rd party addon tools for e-commerce, but a mac (MacOS 9) running WebStar is the most secure web server possible and webstar offers many services as is
People who install Apache are fools?
I really hate to break this to you, but you're in error here.
I think its quite amusing that there are over 200 or 300 known vulnerabilities in RedHat over the years and not one MacOS 9.x or older remote exploit hack. There are even vulnerabilities a month ago in OpenBSD! Each month vulnerabilities in XP arise.
Those 200 to 300 vulnerabilities you list are *local* exploits, you idiot. Classic Mac OS doesn't list those because by using the computer you are engaging in one giant exploit...able to read other users files and whatnot. If Apple was as ambitious as Red Hat is, they'd be listing "local vulnerabilities" as well. Apple doesn't go out of their way to point out holes that they *do* have. Furthermore, Red Hat ships with *servers* to exploit. The Mac OS doesn't *do* anything out of box as regards serving, so there isn't much to exploit. If you don't care about doing anything, an off computer is even more secure.
BTW, I distinctly remember Apple never shipping a free update to Open Transport to fix some vulnerabilities in the TCP implementation for those of us with System 7.5.x. That *is* attackable.
May we never see th
Spelling for dummies: Foreword
If you did - or bought something from an online retailer, or stored sensitive or valuable information stored on a computer that is connected to the internet....
There's definitely a lot of FUD sown by the "security" industry. I also agree that the media don't always treat the subject responsibly - events involving any kind of computer usually get cloaked in semi-accurate buzzwords implying the use of magical incantations and mysterious underground organisations, when usually it's a bored teenager trying to hack into a porn site.
On the other hand, there are serious security breaches every day - and script kiddies can do as much damage as a responsible hacker - more, because they often don't understand their tools very well. If nothing else, you need to protect your system against them.
If you write software that can be used by total strangers across the internet, you need to assume that some of them will have unpleasant motives and will attempt to cause your software harm. It doesn't matter if this applies to 0.001% - if you are dealing with sensitive data, providing a public service or rely on your income from your online application, if just one script kiddy brings your site down, you've lost the ball game.
I think anyone who is involved with online application development should at least look at books like this, and if you're the technical lead you should make sure you understand exactly what your application is going to be up against. The numbers don't matter - just one visitor is enough to do irreparable harm to your site.
It's all very well in practice, but it will never work in theory.
They'd never rob me. That's absurd.
Take your FUD back to Microsoft, pinhead.
Hey, a great book on internet security is Internet Site Security, written by Ken Green, Erik Schetina, and Jacob Carlson, who work for TrustWave Corp... Check it out if you like Security books that DON'T suck.
How can I get in on this great deal???
www.BinFeeds.com /. help me make money!!!
The best online XXX Newsgroup Binary Galleries
Thumbnailed for ease of use!! Click here and help
WebMaster:
BinFeeds
XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but
No MacOS webserver has ever been rooted or defaced in history.
Okay there, buddy. Stop frothing at the mouth. First of all, how the hell do you root a system that doesn't even have different levels of access? It's all root. In that sense, Mac OS 9 is just about as shiny and amazing as Windows 95. You don't even have protected memory. That's why you have vulnerabilities in your web broswers where just looking at a website can force your wonder machine to download and run any code the site designer wants, that's why doing a simple RDNS will shut your system down completely.
Oh, by the way. If your machine is a web server that RDNS's addresses, anyone browsing from, or spoofing 206.207.151.40, 206.98.128.14, 206.207.48.173, or 206.207.48.194 will shut your system down. Like, wave bye-bye down, since you again, have no protected memory. Wow. I'm sure in the HISTORY of Mac OS 8 and 9 webservers, no RDNS's have been performed.
Honestly, the system you're bragging about is fucking Mickey Mouse bullshit. Name the site and the date, indeed. The burden of proof is on you, friend. Nothing is secure. Why not show me some (any) respectable (non-geocities/mac zealot) links that agree with you?
I know this sounds retarded but I have to ask. Note: I'm remaining anonymous.
What the heck is "inversely proportional"
Seriously.
I almost understood that port.
While I agree in a foolishly pseudo intellectual slashdot way that electricity is important, its also important to realize that electricity is dangerous as well.... Mod this up sucker.
There are several other sources, some much more wacko than others, so try to consider the source when looking at a given site. Some more links:
voynich site on GeoCities
page of links from geocities Voynich site
We the Sheeple...