Slashdot Mirror
Killing Others' Malicious Processes
Roland Piquepaille writes "This opinion is not mine, but the one of Tim Mullen, from SecurityFocus Online. In this story, he expresses some strong ideas regarding systems infected by worms. "I believe you should have the right to neutralize a worm process running on someone else's infected system, if it's relentlessly attacking your network. I've even written code to demonstrate the process. Though the initial news coverage of the concept was grossly inaccurate in conveying my ideas, it has stirred up a constructive dialog. I knew my idea was controversial, but I was wrong about something -- I figured everyone in the security biz would "get it" and that the hard part would be convincing everyone else that if they can't or won't secure their machines, we as the defenders would have the right to terminate the process attacking us. It has turned out to be the opposite." The author then looks at the criticisms about this strikeback idea raised by some security experts -- to dismiss them of course. Check this column for a summary or read the original story for more details."
yet again under another pretense.
This will be abused like all the other technology laws.
Exactly who decides what constitutes "relentlessly attacking your network"?
A simple NMAP scan? What about Netbios scans? @Home scans for open NNTP servers... etc etc..
Trolling is a art,
The only problem with this strikeback thing is what if the machine which is infected is business-critical?
If you're going to take it on yourself to fix other people's machines, what if this causes them loss of business? And there's also varying definitions of what "strikeback" or "fixing" could mean. What if someone decides to "fix" your database server by shutting it down? Shouldn't they be held liable for the damages caused, just as someone who does that maliciously can be held liable?
There's just too many holes in this strikeback philosophy. It opens the door to tons of abuse too: "I only broke into this machine to fix it, I swear, gov'nor!"
I think it would also result in pretty dire situations when a machine equipped for strikeback mistakenly decides another machine (also strike-back-enabled) needs to be "fixed", and starts attempting to hack into it - and then the other one detects it as well, and they start concurrently trying to hack into each other... probably saturating the network with crap on the way...
Daniel
Carpe Diem
At least they can act to contain the spread of a virus, but not by killing processes on customer PCs. they can, however, disable service, whether it be a cable, *dsl, or dialup modem account. Shutting off service and forcing customers to take measures to clean their infected computers is allows by the acceptable use, terms of service, and other policies which protect the ISPs rights to take action.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
If parents don't vaccinate their children, the state takes them out of school. If a dog consistently attacks people, the authorities put it down. If someone commits three felonies, they are put away for life. This is because the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the one.
This is an interesting point, because it shows the essential flaw in this logic. In all of these examples, who is acting? "The authorities", namely, the government. In this absurb "strikeback" proposal, who is acting? Vigilante sysadmins. If anything, his examples prove that we need a national cybersecurity enforcement agency, which is responsible for taking machines offline when they get virus-infected. Clearly, this is a bad idea, and that's why strikeback will never work.
So, if they have no rights to the process, there is no infringement against them when we neutralize it. If someone wants to claim that their rights were violated by our taking out the attacking process, then they should be held accountable for the actions of the process from its inception. They can't have it both ways.
That, I think, is a good point. The solution, however, is not to make the counterattack legal, thus continuing to absolve people of responsibility, but to make the owners of the systems legally responsible for their failure to secure their systems. If your system is 0wn3d and used to launch a DDoS attack on AOL (or Slashdot, Kuro5hin, whoever), then AOL should have the right to sue you for damages. Your incompetence caused their loss.
You say you can't afford to pay? Tough. Should have thought of that before you put your insecure system online. You say it's the fault of the manufacturer for selling the insecure system in the first place? Take them to court. Too expensive? Well, if their system is too expensive to use, then people won't use it.
Best Slashdot Co
I think this guy lives in the world of theory, where everything works "in theory".
I don't want some idiot out in the world thinking he knows more about my system than I do going in and thinking he's doing everyone a favor -- when he's actually doing damage to my system. Intentions don't mean a crock of dog doo.
If my system is spewing garbage, then it should be the right of the ISP to pull the plug until I get it fixed. That's the way these things should work.
But there's no way I want fools poking into my computer, no matter what.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I read this the other day when it was posted on "The Register" and I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
Why?
Well it all boils down to an attempt to legitimise hacking. If it was allowed that we could "strikeback" ( which is just a cute word for hack ) and disable the attacking process, then where do we draw the line. I think we can all agree on the extremes, but lets consider another example.
What if a website was posted on slashdot, would all of the rampaging geeks be classed as attacking processes and therefore be liable to be struckback and eliminated. I am certain that the website administrator would consider the massive increase in traffic to be an "attack" as their poor server disappears in smoke.
Personally if you are likely to be attacked get better security. You can't enter somebody's house just to close an open window.
Patriotism is the opium of the masses
What we have here is no accountability and no responsibility. A ship's Master (Captian) is responsible and accountable for the ship in his charge and the actions of his crew. The owners, or administrators should also be responsible and accountable for the machines network in their charge. Hold them to account for their malicous machines - otherwise the problem will just get worse. Who then determines a malicious process on my network? The RIAA and other large political contributors? Remember, in the U.S. at least, money controls everything. Those with it get what they want and those without it suffer.
I also find out that what people think is "if you know someone hacked into my server, then it must have been you that hacked my server". And this brings up the next point, if you start hacking people's computers to stop the worms, they are going to think that it was you who unleashed the worm, it is logical, they just don't know better.
What must happen is not System Administrators "hacking" every computer in the internet infected by code red or nimbda. What must happen is legislation that makes every person running a computer personably responsible for the security of that same computer. If people don't secure their server they must be penalized, instead of letting us fix the problem... even if they want us to.
rm -rf /home/leia
This guy wants to give the power to kill remote processes to everybody. Everybody includes the people that he's saying can't secure their systems to begin with. Do you want them touching your box? Didn't think so.
If parents don't vaccinate their children, the state takes them out of school. If a dog consistently attacks people, the authorities put it down. If someone commits three felonies, they are put away for life. This is because the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the one.
In your country perhaps, but where I live not all of those suppositions are true. And here one sees an inherent problem that such a system would create - you may be operating within the legal framework of (for instance) the US, but does that give you the rights to close down a process on a machine in Iraq, or North Korea, or any other country for that mattter?
A little planning goes a long way...
"Logic dictates that anyone who opposes a bill allowing corporate entities to attack our systems should support a technique to stop worm-ridden systems from doing the same."
This is flawed logic. The correct logic flows like so: Anyone who opposes a bill allowing corporate entities to attack our systems should oppose any technique that allows any other organization or individual to do the same.
Mr. Mullen's proposal is almost identical to the proposal made by the RIAA: let someone legally crack into a computer that is being used to do inconvenient things.
While I sympathize with Mr. Mullen's intent, this approach was wrong when suggested by the RIAA and it is wrong when suggested by Mr. Mullen.
Unfortunately, the best approach I can suggest that both contains the problem (eventually) and protects everyone's privacy to the largest possible extent is to isolate the offending computer from the rest of the Internet (possibly shutting down the user's outgoing Internet feed) until that user fixes the problematic system.
Of course, the details are the killer. How is something like this accomplished quickly enough to minimize the damage done to systems receiving the barrage of data? And does a Slashdotting result in Slashdot's Internet feed being cut?
This type of problem definitely needs a solution, but vigilante attacks are not the solution.
Seems to solve 99% of my problems
Yours, yes. Lots of people, and almost all companies, pay for their internet access, often by traffic. Blocking the crap at the firewall doesn't take care of that problem. In many cases, it makes it worse (due to retries).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Um, and what about the guy who has to wait for days, his network being hammered, piling up and network usage charges, while you take you sweet time in the disconnect process? Do you cut your customers off if you can't reach them in 10 minutes or do you give them a while?
Of course then you also have ISP's that are so backlogged that they don't respond to a security issue for days to begin with, or the ISP's in China that can't read english so just ignore you.
Though rose-colored glasses this is fine. In the real world it fails.
A good example was code-red. It wasn't just one server once in a while trying to infect your server, it was HUNDREDS. Simultaniously. How the fuck do you handle that though notification? How long are you willing to let your business be offline?
Code-red was just another wake-up call. The next worm might be MUCH more malicious and do MUCH more harm to the internet.
his idea is a hell of a lot more invasive and more "wrong" than simply noting an attack, blacklisting the source and sending the ISP an email notifying them of the situation.
I realize that it's frustrating as a sysadmin to see attacks from the same place, by the same virus/worm all the time, but the answer isn't a counter strike. it's to simply contain the virus and let the people that are infected unfuck themselves and learn from their mistakes.
besides, even if it weren't morally and ethically wrong, just who would control such a program? would sysadmins have to be federally or state liscensed, much like concealed weapons holders? who would be there to ensure that the vigilante sysadmins weren't abusing their abilities and crushing boxes left and right, then claiming that they were being attacked.
no, a knee jerk reaction of "wtf! this mother fucker's infected and trying spread it on to me! fuck him! I'll fuck his box up for that shit! stupid dumbass n00b!" isn't going to advance the Internet community, sysadmins or users anywhere. just stick to blacklisting IPs and domains. it works.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
But the situation is not exactly analogous. Imagine two neighbors, each armed with guns. A theif breaks into neighbor 1's house, and the theif and neighbor 1, start shooting at each other. The theif shoots a bullet that travels into your house. Thinking that you are under attack in your own house, you start shootin at neighbor 1's house. Maybe, you even relise that there is a theif in neighbor 1's house and you are trying to shoot the theif, but instead you shoot neighbor 1, killing neighbor 1. I don't think that you can claim self defense in the murder of neighbor 1.
This situation is a much closer analogy.
The Economics of Website Security
Jokes about the RIAA aside, which has indeed asked for laws to allow it to do exactly what you deem jokeworthy, the fact is that most people consider their PCs their own property but not their own responsibility. The view appears to be that it's ok for someone to leave a machine on the Internet available for anyone to take over, that the person who puts it there has no responsibility, and that anyone who complains, tries to get it fixed, etc, is in the wrong.
Friends, I know that we all consider those who crack computers to be the ultimate culprits in any situation where a computer is damaged, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't take responsibility their own parts in allowing this to happen. Someone who quite blatently leaves his or her keys in their car and parks outside bars would not be viewed by most people as completely blameless in the event that a drunk staggers out, takes the car, and drives it into a shop window.
Leaving a machine unsecured and unmonitored on the Internet is a sure-fire way of ensuring it is hacked and used to attack other machines. We know this. Yet people continue to do it. They do not secure their machines once hacked, and they allow their own machines to attack others once hacked. This is negligence, pure and simple.
This quagmire of negligent sysadmins not securing their machines, not allowing their machines to be shut down by victims yet not willing to consider the consequences of their failure to secure their machines and to turn off machines that attack others will not disappear by itself. Unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.
You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that negligent sysadmins who are happy to keep their computers connected to the Internet all of the time but aren't willing to take basic, simple, security precautions to ensure they play with others are a danger to the security of the Internet, a menace to other 'net users, and cause billions of dollars of damage every year. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done by groups like Security Focus, BugTraq, and even the efforts made by Microsoft to secure their systems and provide easy ways of keeping their products secure, but that if those responsible for computers that are on the Internet do not make use of the tools and features made available to them, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how incompetent system administration harms all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on whether or not they are willing to propose laws that provide proper deterents to poor system administratorship and allow those attacked by poorly managed machines to fight back.
You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
No, I don't really think you want to go out shooting anyone that pings your system. I do think most people that want this law want to have their systems running reliably, and don't really care what damage they have to cause to other people's systems for that to happen.
:)
Your comparison of Nimda to a brake recall on a car is actually rather interesting. It allows us to consider a lot of things that might actually make sense here, and some that don't make much sense.
First, your comparison to a brake recall would make more sense if the people driving the vehicle didn't know their vehicle *had* brakes. Many (not most, I believe, but a large minority) of the people that were running non-patched systems when Nimda became a problem didn't know they were running IIS. This is one of the reasons MS switched to services off by default.
Second, the manufacturer found the problem, but didn't actually send out notices, just put a note on a web site somewhere where most people don't even know to look. Unless you make a specific effort to become aware of security issues, you won't know. You either join a mailing list and wade through way too much traffic for people that have real work to do also, or regularly visit a website and, again, read through too much traffic. Yes, I'm assuming these are not dedicated sysadmins, which is the case for most small and medium-sized businesses and homes.
Third, for people that get regular service done at a dealer service center, the driver may not know or care about recall work, the dealer does it for them. That's supposed to be one of the reasons you get regular maintenance done by the dealer. Not just because you like paying horrible prices for an oil change.
This is actually worth thinking about from the point of view of computer services companies. If IBM Global Services has a support contract with your company to maintain computers, and doesn't supply a patch, they are probably negligent. If IGS doesn't do it, is the company that owns the computers negligent, if they though IGS would? (No, I don't work for IBM, they are just a convenient example.)
Does a home user have a requirement to have their computer serviced regularly by a professional? How about a small business owner?
If a small business buys a microwave oven for the break room and that microwave is subject to a recall because it causes fires... If the business never hears about this (never sent in their warranty card so they don't get notices, and they don't check an online recall site) and doesn't replace it, if someone dies in a fire caused by that microwave oven, is the business liable for not exercising due dilligence?
Frankly, I don't know. I just know this is more complicated than we'd like to pretend it is. I'm looking for a quote here, something along the lines of "For every complicated problem, there is a solution that is simple, easy, and wrong."
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?