Slashdot Mirror
UCSB Bans Windows NT/2000 in the Dorms
nick58b writes "The people in charge of the networks for all of the on-campus dorms at UCSB banned the use of Windows NT and 2000 on their networks citing security and network problems associated with them. While there are problems with NT/2000, Windows 98 and ME computers are still permitted. Students using these are "recommended" to upgrade to XP Home Edition. In other news, sales of Windows XP are way up at the campus bookstore."
Permitting Win98 and denying Win2k? For all it's faults, it's not as bad as the 9x series of exploits. Plus with Win2k up to SP3, it's likely more secure than XP.
Methinks someone wants to make some money...
I remember when I lived on campus I used to get a kick out of busting out with a "NET SEND ALL blah blah" command. Good way to annoy everyone with an NT box. Of course I'm sure this isn't the reason they banned NT/2k since it'll automatically pop up on XP boxes too. The funniest thing I did with NET SEND was to send out a message asking all the single ladies to IM my roommate.
The idiocy of some network admins never ceases to amaze me.
"Residents' computers were compromised with several well-known vulnerabilities and used for all manner of unfriendly purposes such as the installation of viruses like Code Red and Nimda on other residents' computers."
Oh, so you really meant to ban IIS, which is, after all, the software that contributed to most of these worms. Ironically, www.resnet.ucsb.edu is running IIS 5.0 on that very same evil Windows 2000 OS.
Want to know my guess at what happened? Since the admins weren't blocking web servers running on port 80 outside of ResNet, someone set up an IIS server and got nailed with Nimda, which then killed their ResNet web servers (assuming that they hadn't patched their web servers, which isn't much of a leap to make, considering they don't seem to understand the difference between Windows 2000 and IIS.)
"OpenSSL and Apache holes? Wow, let's ban Linux!" That's the same ridiculous leap they made in banning Windows 2000.
"While we understand that it is possible to run a secure Windows 2000 environment, past history has shown that this rarely happens on ResNet."
Nothing like insulting your users AND taking away their right to run a particular OS. You know, this IS an educational institution -- why don't you try educating them? Better yet, cut off ports that are spreading Nimda -- that'll make people figure it out really quickly.
This is ridiculous in every sense of the word, and I hope the students there organize and fight against this. If I lived there, I know I would be.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Just for the record, I work for Residential Computing at UC Berkeley (the analog of Resnet at UCSB, except it's at Berkeley :), so you know I'm not completely talking out of my ass.
...
This has been a topic of discussion recently at our office mainly because there have been a tremendous number of security issues relating to Windows 2000 (not so much with NT since these are students, not corporate users). I personally think that the move is a little drastic, but it will be interesting to see how this pans out at UCSB (especially how they will enforce it).
There will be people talking about how secure/insecure Win2K is. Allow me to give a common trait to all of the compromised machines:
1) Blank Administrator Password
2) Unpatched Windows (i.e. no Service Packs installed)
In nearly ALL the compromised machines, the computer is not updated and has a blank Administrator password.
The easy solution: install SP3!
An easier solution: set an Administrator Password!
All really simple solutions that would prevent 99% of the issues we have encountered thus far.
So I said it was a security problem. How is it a bandwidth problem?
Allow me to point to the DarkIRC and Nimda security bulletins we have written up by our security.
So you've got a zombie, what do you do with it? A number of things:
1) use the compromised machine in a DoS attack
2) use it as a FTP server
3) use it as a IRC bot
A script kiddie can just use a machine on a fat bandwidth pipe at will to his liking. It's definitely NOT fun when the pipe is already clogged as it is with folks and P2P apps.
So there you have... if you don't think it's a problem, it IS a problem. There are too many calls about this to our helpdesk to have it be a minor issue that everyone else makes it out to be.
http://www.resnet.ucsb.edu
The site that is telling students they cannot use W2K is running IIS.
The student's machines get compromised, and resnet get's compromised so some Admin who would otherwise get fired for not installing HIS updates, scapegoats the student's.
Crap sysadmin and non technical management are the cause of this.
If they were so worried, wouldn't they be running Apache?
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
"I am a student at UCSB and the reason this is being done is because the average user in the dorms does not have the ability to properly secure NT or 2K from its default setup, while the default setup of XP has been deemed more secure."
Oh, boy. You just took that hook, line, and sinker, didn't you? What exploits are running around on a default version of Windows 2000 that would cause problems with your network?
Answer: NONE.
The culprit you're looking for is IIS, which is NOT installed by default on Windows NT Workstation or Windows 2000 Professional. If you install IIS from the Windows 2000 CD, you will be vulnerable until you download the patch -- but to install IIS, you must explictly insert the CD after Windows 2000 is installed, find IIS, and install it. (By the way, this problem could be eliminated other ways, such as not allowing servers on port 80.)
The IIS version that ships with the Windows XP Pro CD is not vulnerable. But to say Windows 2000 is vulnerable to a common remote root exploit out of the box is simply untrue. IIS 5.0 is the scapegoat you're looking for.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
My problem with this is mostly financial. Obviously, they can restrict usage to their network any darn way they please. But there are inevitably going to be students who simply don't have the money to upgrade from NT/2K to XP. They're imposing a burden on those students that they should try to ease in some manner.
A good alternative would be a carefully crafted Linux distribution that they pre-configure and make secure according to their needs, and make it available on a CD-ROM. Again, though, even if the security issues were resolved with such a distribution (which would be relatively easy), they would still have to face the costs associated with supporting these naive users using Linux--which would probably be more trouble than it's worth. Thus, they simply say, "Use XP".
Keep in mind that in some sense, these types of administrators have less control over their networks than corporate admins do. They don't own the licenses to the OSs--they expect the students to supply their own OS. This gives them a lot less control over what's on their network. They don't have a right to lock the machine's configurations down to control security. They probably don't want to have too much involvement with the student's machines, since that would imply a corresponding degree of liability on their part for how the student is using it (meaning: doing illegal things). It's pretty easy for them to identify the OS that a student is using, so their solution (requiring XP) has the biggest benefit for the least cost.
It is completely absurd for anyone to assume that they are doing this because they have a vested interest in seeing more copies of XP sold.
I'm kinda pissed that slashdot completely neglected my submission of the same story (I submitted it 3 weeks ago), but I'll reprint what I said here here. Please give your comments, but I still stand by what I said.
. htm#policy
/ 020211opfoster.xml
8/30/2002 2:49:15 AM
I'm writing this to the people in charge of Resnet policy, but also to people using Resnet. An outright ban on Windows 2000 will prove to be a costly and ineffective policy for increasing the security of Resnet.
1. Software and Bugs
Windows 2000, like any operating system, is a complex bundle of computer code. Like Windows XP, GNU/Linux, or MacOS, people find bugs in the software from time to time. Certain malicious people try to exploit the bugs to damage networks, reputations, etc. Other people develop software patches to fix the bugs.
Oftentimes, bugs are found with application software, like web browsers, web servers, e-mail clients, and the like. The operating system is generally not at fault. In this case, it just so happened that problems with some Microsoft application software were found in 2001 and combined creatively to create a series of rather devastating worldwide attacks.
2. Who is to Blame
It is important to realize that Windows 2000 was not the vulnerable software in these cases. Rather, bugs in Internet Information Server and Internet Explorer were exploited; they were the cause of the widespread effectiveness of the worms called "Code Red" and "Nimda." In other words, there are computers running Windows 2000 that are not and never were susceptible to Code Red, and there are devices not running Windows 2000 that were susceptible. Similarly, there are plenty of computers not running Windows 2000 that helped spread the problem through the Nimda worm.
Thus, these problems cannot be blamed on Windows 2000. Where does the blame lie? Programmers are bound to make mistakes, especially in an environment where a for-profit company is trying to produce and sell a modern operating system. Since few pieces of software are ever bug-free, it is ultimately up to system administrators and everyday users to make sure that their systems are as secure as possible (or practical). One of the ways to help increase the security of a computer is to apply security patches once they are released.
3. Patching Problems
A properly maintained computer is like a properly maintained car. Using a two-year-old unpatched computer on the Internet is like driving a car too fast on a twisting mountain road during an ice storm on bald tires. Using such a system or driving such a car is asking for trouble.
The bug in IIS that made it vulnerable to Code Red was announced two months before Code Red. The bug in Internet Explorer used by the Nimda worm was announced a full 5 months before Nimda. Yet even today, nearly a year after these attacks, thousands of machines worldwide are still unpatched. In other words, they are either infected with Code Red, or vulnerable to it. Unfortunately, many of these machines are likely to remain unpatched forever.
With that in mind, we turn now to the proposed ban of Windows 2000.
4. What problems does it solve?
Windows XP is not vulnerable to Code Red and Nimda. So upgrading to Windows XP does protect against certain problems.
5. What problems doesn't it solve?
It does not change the fact that improperly configured or improperly managed systems are vulnerable. It does not protect against attacks that have yet to be developed. It does not help educate users about ways to make their systems more secure. It does not help users of other operating systems running vulnerable versions of Internet Explorer. It does not protect against the thousands of other vulnerabilities that plague other operating systems. It does not stop denial of service attacks and port scans (that for some reason were blamed on Windows 2000 by the Resnet web page).
6. What problems does it cause?
Bugs that were introduced during the development of Windows XP could conceivably outweigh the bugs that were patched during that time. It would be naive to think that every bug in Windows XP is also present in older Windows operating systems.
The Products Use Rights document for Windows XP now includes a clause saying that Microsoft may access and change the operating system and its components without your agreement, and in fact without your knowledge. Suggesting that users of Resnet upgrade to Windows XP puts them in a position where they agree to relinquish control of their computers. Incidentally, versions of Windows 2000 up to service pack 2 do not contain this clause.
The ban of an operating system creates a dangerous precedent. Nowhere in the Resnet Acceptible Use Policy has there been any mention of the ban of a specific software product. The AUP does state that users cannot interfere with others, or with the proper functioning of the network. However, anyone would be hard put to prove that Windows 2000 was the sole cause of any problems by virtue of any fundamental and uncorrectable security flaws.
7. What are the costs of the upgrades?
As always, these costs are generally borne by the end users. They must acquire and install the software and learn to use it. This costs time and money and doesn't appreciably increase the security of the network.
8. What are the alternatives?
Requiring that users patch Windows 2000 systems would take less time and money. Verifying that a system was patched by probing the computer for the Red Alert vulnerability is no more difficult than fingerprinting the OS and checking that it is not Windows 2000. Certainly, installing a patch is a less intensive operation than upgrading an operating system and dealing with any problems and incompatibilities that may arise, so support problems faced by the RCCs are fewer.
In conclusion, the proposed Windows 2000 ban is both costly and ineffective. It seems as if the Resnet staff has already decided on implementing this "solution," which is lamentable. As there has been no discussion of or opposition to the ban on this forum, I felt it was necessary to provide a different opinion.
9. Resources:
Resnet Policy:
http://www.resnet.ucsb.edu/information/win2k.html
http://www.resnet.ucsb.edu/information/use_policy
Code Red:
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-19.html (exploit)
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-12.html (bug)
Nimda:
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-26.html (exploit)
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-06.html (bug)
Windows XP PUR:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/resources
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/02/11
--
"Extra Anus Kills Four-Legged Chick" -- Headline
We all know that Win2k is a hell of a lot more secure than win98/ME and probably just as secure as XP....that aside...
Why don't they do what my university did.....if your machine was detected trying to propogate nimda or code red, the smart switches disabled your jack. Getting it re-enabled meant calling Information Services Division and proving that you had cleaned up and protected your machine (downloading and installing the free copy of Norton Antivirus they provided).
It really seems to be a good system. Plug in an unregisterd NIC - blam - jack turned off and MAC address added to a blocked hosts list. Plug in a hub with more than one machine behind it...jack turned off. Run an unauthorized web server...jack turned off, mac address added to blocked hosts list. etc. etc. etc.
I'm suprised other large institutions don't do the same thing. It sounds like it would save a lot of headaches.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Here is a fun little prank that I did back when I was in school (1993-1997):
.login). Anyway, one day at the beginning of the semester, I was feeling a bit mischevious. I was in one of the larger labs and it was packed to the gills with students trying to register. I logged on to the REGISTER account and did something that was similar to ctrl-z suspending and suspended the registration app. Now I had a command prompt. Next, I used the VMZ equivalent of write(1) (...gosh, what was it?) and sent a message out to everybody else using the REGISTER account--literally hundreds of students...
:)
When I was a freshman at Vanderbilt University, we used the campus VAX to register for classes. It worked like this: you would go to one of several large computer labs on campus and log onto the VAX as user REGISTER (or something). Once you logged in, the registration program would fire up automatically (via the VMS equivalent of
ALERT: THE REGISTRATION SYSTEM WILL BE CLOSING IN 30 SECONDS. PLEASE MAKE YOUR FINAL CLASS SELECTIONS AT THIS TIME.
The first thing that happened when I sent the message was several hundred PCs beeping loudly all at the same time. And immediately after that...you should have seen the looks of panic on all those sorority girls' faces!