Slashdot Mirror


MS SQL Server Worm Wreaking Havoc

defile writes "Since about midnight EST almost every host on the internet has been receiving a 376 byte UDP payload on port ms-sql-m (1434) from a random infected server. Reports of some hosts receiving 10 per minute or more. internetpulse.net is reporting UUNet and Internap are being hit very hard. This is the cause of major connectivity problems being experienced worldwide. It is believed this worm leverages a vulnerability published in June 2002. Several core routers have taken to blocking port 1434 outright. If you run Microsoft SQL Server, make sure the public internet can't access it. If you manage a gateway, consider dropping UDP packets sent to port 1434." bani adds "This has effectively disabled 5 of the 13 root nameservers."

906 comments

  1. Who did this I wonder????? by amigaluvr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Kevin Mitnick is allowed back on the net and the net goes fubar

    1. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It was not Mitnick.

      I investigated into this matter, and came up with the following theory.

      Port 1434 = 1+4+3+4 = 12

      12 is the number of the month when Steve Gibson got hired as a consultant. Coincidence? I think not!

      SQL (alphabet numbered) = S(19) + Q(17) + L(12) = 48

      48 is the number of states which are connected together on US map. That means that attack came either from Hawaii or Alaska.

      Using the search on a popular site called Google, I was able to track down the perpetrator.

      So at the end we are left with one answer: Steve Gibson is just hax0ring back, in an elaborate revenge plan to outlaw port 1434 and raw sockets.

    2. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by hatchet · · Score: 1

      Too bad worst attacks happened outside US.. we had 12 hour total internet blockage...

    3. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Feyr · · Score: 1, Interesting

      you guys just dont get it, conspiracy theorists that tries to get anything out of the numbers....!

      personally i think it was george w. bush, in a maniacal attempt to force feed us with laws to protect the internet from terrorists!

    4. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Ilgaz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Man/Woman, whoever you are... Now that was genius work, I have never seen such a thing in my life.

      btw, feel free to "offtopic" me and waste my karma, I give my karma to that!

    5. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no no, this was definitely Sprint just trying to take some heat off of themselves for their router password fiasco.

      Now if only Sprint and Microsoft would get together to make software and hardware, the internet would certainly explode in a fireball shortly thereafter...

    6. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's impressive. You posted the same comment two times in less than two hours, and both got Score: 5, Funny. I hope this isn't a new trolling trend starting...

    7. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Almost certainly the People's Liberation Army's Cyberwarfare division running a test by using an old exploit.

      South Korea was also hit.

      The PLA is probably just waiting for the US to be fully committed in Iraq before they let North Korea attack South Korea, Japan, the Phillipines and Alaska with missiles as a diversion so that they can enslave Free China.

    8. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave it to Mircosoft to crash the internet. Isn't it enough to crash 95% of the desktop computers, all the WebTVs, XBoxes?

      My dumbass is actually running SQL Server 2000...my switch was lit up completely. I've never seen the traffic light glow more solid than the connection light.

      G.D. I hate Microsoft

    9. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by amigaluvr · · Score: 1

      yeah cool hey!

    10. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by TheTomcat · · Score: 3, Funny

      How do we get back??

      I know..

      HACK THE GIBSON

      erm..
      nevermind..

      S

    11. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by MrScience · · Score: 1

      How do you know it wasn't Steve in Alaska? Yeesh.

      --

      You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

    12. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Congratulations! You posted a funny non-troll comment to Slashdot.

      The last "funny" non-troll comment which was actually funny was made around 3 years ago I believe.

    13. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by catch23 · · Score: 1

      We can try a number of the most popular passwords such as love, sex, and god!

    14. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      --I thought this too, but I mean semi seriously. I stayed up real late watching it to make sure it wasn't a 'war' prelude. All the second world potential badguys have a cyber attack part of their assymetrical warfare plans, that's just freely available data you can read about.

      My "oh crap,no internet" communications plans are a heap-o shortwaves and scanners. Better than nuthin. I know all the commercial am and fm and tv stations will all get taken over by the fema boxes, and start spewing dotgov propaganda (moreso than normal), so I'd be more monitoring some more "unregulated" sources.

    15. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the numbers backwards...43 and 41!
      Who could they be??? LOL!
      Perhaps those nasty hackers in the country without the Internet? (.iq)

    16. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're such a rebel, please teach me to be like you.

    17. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      microsoft did this bug.
      btw. there is massive bug in inet routers ignoring
      REJECT udp packets (should block udp traffic for longer while if recieved rejected packet)

    18. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feyr, I hope that your post is a joke.

    19. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by AlgebraicSpore · · Score: 1

      Well I did get a request from a Pac Bell server. Hmmm...

    20. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn you. If you had said, "Love, secret and sex," I could have responded with, "Yeah, but don't forget god. System operators love to use god. It's that whole male ego thing."

      You've ruined my day.

    21. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      Kevin Mitnick is allowed back on the net and the net goes fubar

      Why is this moderated as funny? He has a valid point. Kevin Mitnick gets on the Internet and a few days later we're infected with a huge DDOS'ing worm? I doubt it's a coincidence. Somebody go arrest him immediately and hold him until we figure this out. ;-)

    22. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless we want to "crash and burn" we better find a way to override this zero cool thing, hence, we find it is all the fault of dr.doom

    23. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by MadAhab · · Score: 1

      to all of those worried about the apocalypse: do something be something; stop talking shit

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    24. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by FenderGeek · · Score: 2, Funny

      Aw man, now I went and spit Coke all over my keyboard! Hey wait... Gibson makes guitars. Guitars are played by musicians. Musicians with contracts work for a record company. Record companies are in league with the RIAA! The RIAA is doing this to keep me from my mp3s!!

      --
      One only needs two tools in life: WD-40 to make things go, and duck tape to make them stop. ~G.M. Weilacher
    25. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's an idiot?!? Yours must be a funny plant to live on, what with the lack of humor and everything...

    26. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by 0K+Komputer · · Score: 1

      Look no further - http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=231 141&group=webcast

    27. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by jpop32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My dumbass is actually running SQL Server 2000...my switch was lit up completely. I've never seen the traffic light glow more solid than the connection light.

      Well if you took the time and installed the patches (which have been out for some time, also included in SP3, BTW), you wouldn't have been a part of the problem, you would have been a part of the solution.

      Leave it to Mircosoft to crash the internet.

      Leave it to the lazy and incompetent, I say...

    28. Re:Who did this I wonder????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mitnick couldn't hack his way out of a wet paper bag. Making any reference to Mitnick and hacking is a joke. Now social engineering that is a different story.

  2. Terrorism, must be by isorox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In South Korea internet services were shut down nationwide for hours on Saturday, the country's Yonhap news agency reported.

    It said the shutdown was triggered by "apparent cyber terror committed by hackers".


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2693925.stm

    1. Re:Terrorism, must be by weave · · Score: 5, Funny

      Terrorism? Bill Gates better be detained indefinitely as an enemy combatent then. Finally, some good may come out of this terrorism paranoia!

    2. Re:Terrorism, must be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that is why the number is SPAM I received was light yesterday...

    3. Re:Terrorism, must be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Billionaires can't possibly be terrorists!

    4. Re:Terrorism, must be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't bin Laden worth many millions? His family are certainly billinaries...

    5. Re:Terrorism, must be by LemurShop · · Score: 1

      So noone is disturbed that software makers are not held responsible for the gaping holes in their sofware that are not fixed for months on end after they where first discovered?

      --

      This sig was cut off by the sla
    6. Re:Terrorism, must be by hardcode · · Score: 4, Funny

      In South Korea internet services were shut down nationwide for hours on Saturday, the country's Yonhap news agency reported.

      And every email admin in the western world heaved a sigh of relief

    7. Re:Terrorism, must be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A hotfix came out for this in July, what about the lax admins that don't patch their boxes after 5 months?

    8. Re:Terrorism, must be by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      haha! hacked by chinese!

      oh, wait...

    9. Re:Terrorism, must be by jpiterak · · Score: 1

      Ahah!

      Gotta be them nasty North Koreans!

      ...I can see it now, as if GeorgeW needed an excuse to hop into ANOTHER war!

    10. Re:Terrorism, must be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      and do you still hear anything about him?

    11. Re:Terrorism, must be by nmx · · Score: 1

      Microsoft released a patch. Incompetent admins did not install it.

      --
      "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
    12. Re:Terrorism, must be by j3ss · · Score: 1

      This sig was cut off by the sla

      Wow! Your sig was cut off by the Symbionese Liberation Army, I thought that they had disbanded after that whole Patty Hearst thing. Weird to see them active on slashdot now.

    13. Re:Terrorism, must be by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention every starcraft and diablo player :P

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    14. Re:Terrorism, must be by Alien54 · · Score: 1
      Someone has gone after the spammers.

      maybe as a public service?

      we could only hope.

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    15. Re:Terrorism, must be by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Actually his sig was the victim of the Samoan Lesbian Alliance. They really enjoy cutting things off.

    16. Re:Terrorism, must be by JebusIsLord · · Score: 3, Funny

      What starcraft/diablo players exactly? They said Korea was down for chrissake!

      --
      Jeremy
    17. Re:Terrorism, must be by jcast · · Score: 1

      Um, if you ever watched a real news show, you'd know Bush is working as hard to stay out of war with N. Korea as he is to get into war with Iraq.

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
    18. Re:Terrorism, must be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose it must be convenient to work on an open source operating system or project, by that logic, as there is no software maker to blame or to hold responsible.

      The "Gaping Holes in their software that are not fixed for months on end" actually were patched months ago. As stated later in the posts... Incompetent admins left them open.

      But, to me the potentially worst part of this whole thing is this:

      If this (denial of service attack) were created by some Microsoft hating militant programmer (imagine a militia of programmers! That's a scary thought... geek wars just aren't cool!) they only succeeded in bringing the rest of the Internet to its knees.

      I would at least find the logic consistent, although repugnant, if the people responsible wanted to damage equipment or data running with MS software. This attack was simply a way to attack the Internet and make sure MS gets blamed for it (because everything is their fault, of course).

      I don't buy it. To simply blame Microsoft for this is the easy way out... why didn't routers and gateways automatically block this traffic or at least restrict it? That software mostly does NOT come from MS. So while the initial vulnerability was in unpatched and poorly administered MS servers, what did the rest of the Internet's computers routers and gateways do about it? They let everything go through like swiss cheese until it brought the Internet to its knees and people manually blocked ports.

      I think router and gateway software is to blame for the Internet brought to a crawl. If that software was a bit more intelligent this would never have BECOME a problem.

      Until you realise that, keep right on blaming Microsoft for everything. If it makes you happier to think that the only crappy software design comes from Redmond, so be it.

    19. Re:Terrorism, must be by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Right - because Asians don't run from a fight like Iraqi farmboys as we learned in Vietnam...

      If we EVER fight North Korea, we will take thousands and thousands of casualties and public support for such a war would evaporate, and Bush knows it...(unless of course North Korea attacked us first with some sort of nuke or something - then the public would be behind it - for a while anyway...)

      Iraq is an easy target... It's like a biker beating up a /. geek...(heh, heh)

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    20. Re:Terrorism, must be by Not+The+Real+Me · · Score: 1

      Hacker's Dictionary:

      MCSE - (Microsoft Certified System Engineer) - Synonym for incompetent administrator.

    21. Re:Terrorism, must be by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      are these the same admins who installed MS in te first place?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    22. Re:Terrorism, must be by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1

      No, they had to bring in consultants to do that.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    23. Re:Terrorism, must be by roybadami · · Score: 1

      Microsoft released a patch. Incompetent admins did not install it.

      That's not the whole issue, though. the SQL Server Resolution Service (SRSS) had a couple of buffer ovreflows, which are being exploited by the current worm. Big deal; this is neither the first nor last time something like this will happen.

      What makes it nasty is that SRSS has a keepalive function that echos packets back to the sender, to allow the sender to check if an SRSS is up. The problem is that if you send a packet to one SRSS, spoofed to appear to come from another SRSS, they will obviously bounce the packet back and forth between them as fast as they can. The worm is deliberately triggering this behaviour.

      This is no worse that the traditional UDP Echo service; but in this day and age protocol designers should know better. Microsoft should be held accountable for their negligent design.

    24. Re:Terrorism, must be by gr0ngb0t · · Score: 1

      why yes, just today i read in the newspaper that there is no link between the inevitable war between the US, UK and .AU* and Iraq and bin Laden, and that it is clearly dubbya making amends for "wrongs done" in the past. oh and oil. but dont tell the US administration that. they dont admit to that. yet.

      and to think I had missed this point all along. just WHAT was I thinking?!

      * among other things read in the paper was John Howard saying that no Australian soldiers will be committed to a non-UN sponsored war with Iraq without a parliamentary debate, despite the fact that soldiers/saliors/aircrew have been sent to the Gulf, over a week away from this date?!?!!

      John Howard - do you really take us for idiots? (no need for any follow up posts to this, we all know that JH does indeed take us for idiots. lets just hope that the Liberal party get voted out by a record margin in the next election ;)

      commence heckling.

    25. Re:Terrorism, must be by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      But this is "The most secure windows ever", a "highly secure network operating system". Their advertising talks about their infallible security and tries to sell their software on that basis.. and then they wonder why people dont install the patches?
      "well its already secure, why bother installing patches that might be broken or contain more intrusive EULA`s"

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    26. Re:Terrorism, must be by t · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Uh no. Having a nuke and being able to deliever that nuke are two entirely different problems. The nukes that were dropped on Japan were literally dropped. A plane flew overhead and dropped them. North Korea does not and will not have the ability to deliver a nuke to the US.

      If it is ever proven that North Korea has nuclear bombs, then that will hasten their demise. Probably at the request of Japan and South Korea since they are realistically the only countries close enough to be in danger.

    27. Re:Terrorism, must be by nmx · · Score: 1

      This is no worse that the traditional UDP Echo service; but in this day and age protocol designers should know better. Microsoft should be held accountable for their negligent design.

      I agree; Microsoft should be held accountable for the egregious security flaws in its software. However, how do we decide when (and how) to punish them? GPL software is distributed with no warrantly whatsoever. If all software was forced to have a warranty of some kind, I'm sure developers would be up in arms. It's an interesting issue, and one with no easy answer that I can see.

      However, my original point was that people complain about Microsoft not fixing bugs, when in fact they often do fix them.

      --
      "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
    28. Re:Terrorism, must be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it could also be that Iraq killed millions of people in gas attacks, a lot of that were Iraqis. If someone down the streat from you killed 1 person, would you want them to stay around? Times that by 1M.

  3. As I said in a previous post... by caluml · · Score: 4, Informative

    I find it lucky that the worm writer didn't make the worm fire out random traffic on random udp ports with spoofed addresses.

    It's only the fact the traffic is all destined for a certain destination port that makes it easy to filter.
    You are filtering it out on your firewalls, aren't you?
    /sbin/iptables -I FORWARD -p udp --dport 1434 -j DROP

    This could have been a lot lot harder to filter out. I expect we'll see ThisWorm v2 soon.

    I dread the day someone finds a hole in Apache, Sendmail or something really popular and writes a worm like this...

    1. Re:As I said in a previous post... by bwalling · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's only the fact the traffic is all destined for a certain destination port that makes it easy to filter.
      You are filtering it out on your firewalls, aren't you? /sbin/iptables -I FORWARD -p udp --dport 1434 -j DROP


      Exactly. From the MS Security bulletin:

      The risk posed by the vulnerability could be mitigated by, if feasible, blocking port 1434 at the firewall.

      What the heck was it doing open in the first place?

    2. Re:As I said in a previous post... by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are filtering it out on your firewalls, aren't you? /sbin/iptables -I FORWARD -p udp --dport 1434 -j DROP

      I bloody hope no-one is specifically blocking this port. That's not how firewalls are supposed to be used. First you block everything then only open the specific ports you need. In most cases, these are 80 and 22 and maybe 25. There's no reason a database server's protocol port should ever be exposed to the public Internet!

    3. Re:As I said in a previous post... by caluml · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be nicer if the owners of these machines bother patching the fucking things though?

      As far as I'm concerned, boxes SHOULD be able to stand on their own without firewalls. A firewall just adds another layer.

      Sounds like you're advocating armadillo security to me - hard on the outside, soft on the inside.

    4. Re:As I said in a previous post... by blowdart · · Score: 2, Informative
      What the heck was it doing open in the first place?

      Because sometimes you need to connect to SQL from somewhere outside the local LAN? For example, we have SQL passed logging services running in Sydney that connect back to a SQL server in London. Of course, inbound connections are limited to the correct address range.

    5. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Depends. If you're protecting your network, you are right: "allow required traffic, block everything else". If you're providing network services to others, they probably don't want to beg you everytime they need to open a port. In that case it's "filter bad traffic, allow everything else".

    6. Re:As I said in a previous post... by caluml · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, firewalls are for use as your needs require.
      I, for instance allow no incoming, but don't restrict outgoing. It's not a huge corporation, it's a R + D lab, where the overhead and hassle I'd cause by restricting outbound traffic would stiffle the lab users productivity. Still, I added the block to that specfic port in the slim chance that an internal box was infected (lord knows how) that it would be a localised problem, not contributing.

      I don't think you should tell people what firewall rules they should be running.

    7. Re:As I said in a previous post... by blowdart · · Score: 3, Interesting
      There's no reason a database server's protocol port should ever be exposed to the public Internet!

      No reason? Really? What about distributed servers taking to a central database? Desktop software that queries a remote database? Remote administration of a remote database? All legitimate reasons.

    8. Re:As I said in a previous post... by bwalling · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because sometimes you need to connect to SQL from somewhere outside the local LAN? For example, we have SQL passed logging services running in Sydney that connect back to a SQL server in London. Of course, inbound connections are limited to the correct address range.

      If you limited the IP address range, then you don't have it open. You have controlled access to the resource.

    9. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      What the heck was it doing open in the first place?

      When the SQL Server 2000 client Net-Libraries connect to an instance of SQL Server
      2000, only the network name of the computer running the instance and the instance
      name are required. When an application requests a connection to a remote computer,
      Dbnetlib.dll opens a connection to UDP port 1434 on the computer network name
      specified in the connection. All computers running an instance of SQL Server 2000
      listen on this port. When a client Dbnetlib.dll connects to this port, the server
      returns a packet listing all the instances running on the server. For each instance,
      the packet reports the server Net-Libraries and network addresses the instance is
      listening on. After the Dbnetlib.dll on the application computer receives this
      packet, it chooses a Net-Library that is enabled on both the application computer and
      on the instance of SQL Server, and makes a connection to the address listed for that
      Net-Library in the packet.

      So the UDP 1434 port is open when the SQL Server is started to listen all the clients
      with any IP address on this port. SQL Server only receives the packet from the client
      on this port to determine which instance the client attempts to access and return the
      related information of the SQL Server to the clients. Then, the clients can create
      the connection to the SQL Server with the protocol enabled on the server side.
    10. Re:As I said in a previous post... by tom.allender · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Consider a VPN dude.

    11. Re:As I said in a previous post... by cyb97 · · Score: 1
      Of course, inbound connections are limited to the correct address range.

      Then your firewall isn't "open"...
      (however UDP is fairly easy to spoof ;-)

    12. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Psiren · · Score: 1

      I log all my dropped connections, as most do. But I do have some specific rules that block and don't log anything, simply because I get so many of them and it makes looking for other important information difficult. Ports 137-139 (netbios) and now this one. But you're right, if you are blocking specific ports as the problems come along then you're doing something wrong.

    13. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order: VPN. Maybe VPN would be inconvenient, but possible for the client. VPN.

    14. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But single hull security is no good either. The firewall should be in place, just like the server should be patched.

    15. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not transmitting customer data over the big bad internet without encrypting it, or are you? Company name please...

    16. Re:As I said in a previous post... by caluml · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Firewalls promote softer security.

      "Oh, it's OK because it's behind the firewall..."

      I think firewalls make people lazy. Imagine if we didn't have firewalls. We'd have to keep our passwords good, our services minimal, and make sure we were running the latest, most secure daemons.

    17. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Fembot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actualy I suspect most ISP's probably operate a policy of blocking only problem ports. Imagine how annoying it would be if your ISP/coloc host blocked everything except http, telnet and smtp on the grounds that one day there might be a vunerability in some of the other services that run on other ports... I suspect they wouldnt be my coloc host for long at all

    18. Re:As I said in a previous post... by sql*kitten · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If you're providing network services to others, they probably don't want to beg you everytime they need to open a port.

      That is an excellent point. Moderators, mod parent up please.

    19. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, why would you ever allow anything to go to or from your database through your firewall? Ever? For anybody? IANADBA, but I see no reason why you would want your database accessible to anything outside your network. Remote administration? Fine. SSH into your box and then administer it. Or VPN maybe. Dear God. The end is nigh!

    20. Re:As I said in a previous post... by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No reason? Really? What about distributed servers taking to a central database? Desktop software that queries a remote database? Remote administration of a remote database?

      That's what VPNs are for, my friend.

    21. Re:As I said in a previous post... by lateralus · · Score: 1

      When you build a denial based firewall then you typically wake up in the morning, read /. and look at your Netfilter logs:

      ...a=DROP...DPT=1434 LEN=384...

      Oh well, I guess that there is reason to do things well the first time after all.

      --
      If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws
    22. Re:As I said in a previous post... by sporty · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, then the firewall rules are screwed up. If there is an ISP with billions and billions of servers, the firewall should block all traffic to the servers while routing all traffic to specific subnets. Block first, allow through later.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    23. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say you have a database of available products and prices at your main storage facility. This information is used by the webshop and several real world shops across the country. In a situation like that you want to keep the data(base) in one place and access it from many places. It's a typical VPN scenario: Critical data, real money, visible target.

    24. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2

      Isn't this an unprivledged port? If you block all of those to start many of your inet based programs that open random/rangebound high port #s wont work at all. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable about what to do with ports > 1024 can comment?

    25. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Salsaman · · Score: 1

      Exactly the reason why you should never use default ports.

    26. Re:As I said in a previous post... by nehril · · Score: 1

      no kidding. I can see how some admins would not be patching their boxes on a regular basis (given that ms patches have an unfortunate possibility to wreck your server or application). but I really cant think of any good reason to have a naked production SQL server visible from the internet. wtf??

    27. Re:As I said in a previous post... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 4, Informative

      That depends on what sort of routers they are using. A lot of Cisco gear an others have overhead running ACL's (first Cisco that can do compiled is a 7200 I think) so you want to accept/deny your most common traffic first so your router dosent die when your throughput goes up.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    28. Re:As I said in a previous post... by bwalling · · Score: 4, Informative

      So the UDP 1434 port is open when the SQL Server is started to listen all the clients
      with any IP address on this port. SQL Server only receives the packet from the client
      on this port to determine which instance the client attempts to access and return the
      related information of the SQL Server to the clients. Then, the clients can create
      the connection to the SQL Server with the protocol enabled on the server side.


      There is a difference between a port being open on the machine the service is on and the port being open to the world. You should not leave this port open to the world. If people outside your firewall need access to your internal MSSQL server, you leave TCP 1433 open to selective hosts.

    29. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If there is an ISP with billions and billions of servers

      Ok Carl Sagan, I think you may be exaggerating here.

    30. Re:As I said in a previous post... by sporty · · Score: 0

      I was going for dr evil there.. but carl sagain is close enough. :)

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    31. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Firewalls promote softer security.

      I have argued for many years that people tend to get the idea that a firewall is some kind of +8 amulet of protection they just strap on which will protect them from pretty much anything.

      However there are real benefits to using firewalls and NAT boxes. Unfortunately there are some members of the IESG who are confused on this point but thats because they are blinkered by the end-to-end dogma. I'll note here that Steve Bellovin, the new security AD knows a thing or two about firewalls.

      There are actually two end-to-end principles. Applied to networking it meant put the intelligence at the ends, not in the middle of a communication. This was applied to security to mean the same thing.

      End-to-end is appropriate to the design of network protocols, it is inappropriate as a guide to operational security. Many protocols are not designed securely, most protocol implementations have flaws.

      Another dogma that is inappropriate to operational security is the 'security through obscurity' trope. A design that relies on security through obscurity is broken. This does not mean that operators should divulge all the details of their operations to attackers in the hope this will improve security, it will not. Argument of this type was used to block the introduction of shadow passwords on UNIX for years after the vulnerability to dictionary attacks was widely known and being exploited by attackers.

      A firewall and NAT box provides a significant degree of security at low cost. NAT provides a means of concealing the internal structure of the network. This does not eliminate the possibility of attack but raises the bar significantly. If you are running a site that is considered attractive to hackers a technology that weeds out the knob turners and dimmer script kiddies has value.

      What we need to move to is security in depth, recognizing that design security and operational security are different and that both are important.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    32. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      over the public internet? really? no wonder this is such a problem if there are dolts like you making decisions about setting up database servers!

      What about distributed servers taking to a central database?

      uh, what about something a little more secure than the public internet? For god's sake, at least use a VPN!

      unless there is some reason to allow anonymous public access to a database server (and I can't think of one - I'm not talking about a database connected to a web server), why expose the port to the internet?

    33. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the difference between you and me. I would love for them to be my colo/hosting service. Knowing that my data and the data of my customers/partners is safe is paramount to the terrible inconvenience of having to wait on the phone to get someone to open up a port.

    34. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Dudio · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wouldn't say firewalls make people lazy; it's more a problem of people not understanding security.

      These people are just as likely to say things like "I'm 3DES encrypting my data, so there's no way anybody can read it", because they fail to understand the meaning of statements like "cracking 3DES is computationally infeasible". When you try to explain to them that their webserver and applications are much more likely to be their weakness than their encryption algorithm, they give you blank looks and mutter about the Computerworld article that said 3DES is "unbreakable encryption". It's not a problem with 3DES (or any strong algorithm); it's a problem with people not understanding that any security measure can be negated by poor design in other parts of their architecture.

      It's the same thing with firewalls. Only the unknowledgable would drop in a firewall and then go off to the bar to celebrate their newly "secure" network. That doesn't mean that the firewall is useless; it is still a crucial tool for securing one's network. The problem is the people who have no idea how to use the tool properly, and no concept of what a real-world attack actually looks like.

    35. Re:As I said in a previous post... by DarkZero · · Score: 5, Funny

      Imagine if we didn't have firewalls. We'd have to keep our passwords good, our services minimal, and make sure we were running the latest, most secure daemons.

      Locks promote softer security.

      "Oh, I'm OK because I have locked doors and windows..."

      I think door locks make people lazy. Imagine if we didn't have deadbolts, or doors for that matter. We'd have to sit in front of the front door, with a shotgun, never sleeping for more than a few moments.

    36. Re:As I said in a previous post... by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful
      One of the best thing you can do with a firewall is something it's hard to do with a desktop machine...LOG.

      This adds a third layer of security, in addition to the 'secure firewall' and the 'secure desktop'. If, god forbid, someone gets through your firewall, you'll at least know it.

      And I'm talking about logging outgoing traffic, also. After all, if your firewall is set up correctly you can't have any random incoming traffic...but you'll have lots of outgoing. They have NIDS to detect suspicious traffic, or you can just get a huge dump and start filtering out things you know are okay.

      And it's about the only way you'll ever catch that some idiot is running an ICQ from three years ago with a known buffer overflow or something stupid. Neither firewalls nor updated desktop machines can protect you from your own users, only log files of network traffic can do that.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    37. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh crap, I just remember that the MSDev V7 installed SQL server personal edition on my machine.

    38. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Dr.+Photo · · Score: 2, Funny
      Sounds like you're advocating armadillo security to me - hard on the outside, soft on the inside.

      Mm... sounds like them's good eatin'! :D

    39. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Cramer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slight correction: compiled access lists are a function of the software (even a the lowly 2500 can have compiled ACLs)

      The problem with ACLs on most Cisco gear is where it gets processed. On all but the most recent (and very expensive) hardware requires all the packets to pass through the RSP or NPE if an access list is applied. I forget what the conditions are for ACLs on a 75xx VIP -- everytime I've been forced to filter traffic it's been process switched through the RSP (it isn't designed to move packets -- it's designed to manage routing) If you happen to have a 7400/7600/NSE, then it's a different story; most of the things needed to filter IP traffic are PXF accelerated.

      The next time someone steps up to say "let's just filter..." cut them off at the word filter. Routers are routers; firewalls are firewalls. Routers are designed to move packets (quickly), not block them. Firewalls are designed to block packets, not move them. Switches move millions of packets per second. Routers move hundreds of thousands of packets per second. Firewalls move around 1000 packets per second.

    40. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Servo · · Score: 1

      What the heck was it doing open in the first place?

      Depends on the firewall configuration. I have seen some people use a firewall setup where they have a set of internet facing servers that are out in a DMZ. Ideally you'd want 2 firewalls or two networks for a setup like that, but still block out everything except for "allowed" ports. It is amazing how many sysadmins install a firewall and then don't use it correctly.

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    41. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 3, Interesting
      One of the best thing you can do with a firewall is something it's hard to do with a desktop machine...LOG.

      The problem with logging is that it is usless unless you actually review the logs. This rarely happens until after a site has been compromised.

      Much more useful is to have the firewall connected up to a 24x7 monitoring, or better management service like Counterpane, VeriSign or whatever.

      Over time I expect that cost of high end firewalls to drop significantly. I have two firewalls at home, neither cost more than $200 and they are both pretty adequate for my needs. So why does an enterprise setup cost $80K rather than $4K or so?

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    42. Re:As I said in a previous post... by packnet · · Score: 1

      Can you spell VPN? If you're going to use the public network, you're going to have to find a private way to do it.

      This is database software, even if it's public data the authenticity and integrity of the data must be verified. Databases should never sit directly on the Internet, period. A front-end of some sort must be used.

      If you want an open front end, use port 80/443 with XML if necessary. Right their you've limited your at-risk software to your web server and the client's browser. If you want to run every piece of software under the sun, you're going to get every worm under the sun.

      For back-end type operations, including remote administration, you've got to tunnel. You do add another front-facing service with your VPN, but an IPSec or AES tunnel is going to be much harder to break simply because the worm would have to break the key exchanges first.

    43. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Tassach · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There's no good reason whatsoever for a database server to connect directly to the internet - it should only accept connections from trusted hosts. You never let an untrusted application talk directly to the database - if they need to query the database it should be proxied by a piece of middleware. Any DBA who says otherwise is an incompetent idiot.

      You put your webserver on a DMZ, and let it (and only it) talk to the database server through the firewall. Any 2-tier client-server app should be going through a VPN or other secure tunnel.

      The only way to do security is to have multiple layers, and to ruthlessly apply the priciple of least privilidge (you get only those permissions you ABSOLOUTELY need and nothing more).

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    44. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      caluml (551744) wrote: "Wouldn't it be nicer if the owners of these machines bother patching the fucking things though?" Um, yes. But many cant be bothered. Like MSN...All their databases run on MS SQL (of course), and as of Saturday morning, the people I know who do tech support for them say everything has been completely shut down...which is why Messenger is down. Hotmail still has *nix at it's base, so it's still up.....

    45. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Tassach · · Score: 1

      This should be done over a VPN or SSH tunnel. An even better architecture is to have a daemon or webapp running in London that only accepts log requests coming from Sidney, and only has permission to run a small set of stored procedures on the sql server. Sounds like your DBA needs to be flogged.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    46. Re:As I said in a previous post... by The+Great+Carbunkel · · Score: 1

      Except that many cable providers already block port 25. Because you might use that to host you own domain... They give a rats ass about security, but when they smell revenue, they are all over it.

    47. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Tassach · · Score: 1
      Routers are designed to move packets (quickly), not block them
      Part of moving good packets quickly means that you drop garbage packets on the floor, assuming you can tell if they are garbage quickly. For example, there's no good reason for a public router to forward packets with a source or destination address in the 192.168.0.0/24 range. These are either forged or mis-routed and should be dropped.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    48. Re:As I said in a previous post... by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Yes it is, but "privledged" vs "unprivledged" doesn't really mean anything anymore, especially since Windows ignores the convention (a "standard" that predates Windows 1.0 by the way.) How you handle this is with a connection tracking firewall. Netfilter on the Linux 2.4 kernel does this via the ip_conntrack module. Basically how it works is that access to UDP is denied unless a client machine on the protected side of the firewall has started a conversation first (note that it's not a connection as UDP is a connectionless protocol.) There is a reasonable timeout and then the connection is deleted from the conntrack table. You can see what is in this table via:
      cat /proc/net/ip_conntrack

      The Cisco PIX also uses connection tracking. Most high-end firewalls do.

      This worm is especially devistating and fast spreading due to the fact that UDP is used and no connection setup is needed as with traditional TCP.

      This worm is just another wakeup call. People need to take some personal responsability and keep their software up to date. Doesn't matter what OS you use. ISP's also need to be more proactive so worms like this don't get out of control. Infected hosts need to be immediatly firewalled. Yeah, someone might bitch, but their other customers are going to thank them for being responsive.

    49. Re:As I said in a previous post... by sverrehu · · Score: 1

      And we would have some hell of a time if we were to administer a 500+ computers network used by security-unconscious consultants who needed total control of their machines in order to have their jobs done.

      Be my guest: Shut off your firewall. I prefer having mine up-and-running. Thank you.

    50. Re:As I said in a previous post... by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 0

      I think door locks make people lazy. Imagine if we didn't have deadbolts, or doors for that matter. We'd have to sit in front of the front door, with a shotgun, never sleeping for more than a few moments.

      This has been another Deep Thoughts, by

      Jack Handey

    51. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Harik · · Score: 1
      Actually, this worm is non-spreading, AT ALL. DEspite the millions of packets that were sent by the worm, not a single one got past the router. This isn't even due to firewalls, it's because they're being sent TTL=1.

      Dammed if I know what it was supposed to be doing, but all it did was muck up the local ethernet segments of a few customers who had it. Dropped their port and the world is a ++happyplace.

      I'm guessing the "goal" here was to shut down M$ based websites, since generally the DBserver + the webserver(s) would be in the same network segment, or if firewalled, would have a mapped IP on the local segment. Sucks to be them. 5 nameservers most likely went down due to variants of the worm. Not one of the 3 incidents I saw got a single packet out.

    52. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Cramer · · Score: 1

      ... because we all know the private address ranges are only unsed by end users behind NAT and firewalls.

      Have you ran a traceroute to a Road Runner cable modem lately?

      15 66.26.33.179 33.238 ms 32.589 ms 32.510 ms
      16 24.25.1.101 34.965 ms 33.925 ms 34.576 ms
      17 10.41.96.220 40.359 ms 40.125 ms 39.868 ms
      18 ...


      (Hop 17 is a Cisco uBR925 owned by RR.)

      The same was true for CAIS DSL service too -- they used the 172.16... range.

    53. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a bad analogy. A better analogy is this:


      I don't need to lock any doors in my office building because we have a security guard at the front door.

      Firewalls promote an all-or-nothing way of thinking that I routinely encounter at work. Firewalls only mitigate the risk of running insecure services, but the false assurances of perimeter security they offer frequently lead to a careless internal security posture, vulnerable both to insider attack and firewall failure/misconfiguration.

    54. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Harik · · Score: 1

      Ok, I take that back. One of the servers was sending TTL=1 packets, the rest were 128. Firewall still ate the traffic since it was a well-known amplifier echo attack.

    55. Re:As I said in a previous post... by AlgebraicSpore · · Score: 1

      Armadillos often cary leprosy. Yum YUM!!

    56. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Caluml, you do not know what you are talking about. In a company, two objectives are security, and ease of use. Since ease of use is inversly porportional to security, what options does a company have. You sugest good passwords--that is easy to inforce, but it costs the IS department in other ways, so it is a no in my shop, but ok in others--minimal services--I think that most companies practice that--and run the latest daemons--this takes too much time, is errror prone, and can cause too many problems. So what is the answer? The answer is a hardened exterior, good backups, and logging with smart reporting.

    57. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      It really depends on where you live. In Dallas you'd need a moat, a pit of lava, and one of those logs with 12" spikes sticking out of it in front of the door. In some tiny town across the US, you don't need to lock your doors on anything.

      Transients = anonymity = security threat. The theory is that you know everybody in a small town and everyone is aware of that, so it's a built-in deterrant.

    58. Re:As I said in a previous post... by jelle · · Score: 1

      I actually block outgoing port 25 too from all machines except the mail servers. That way, if someone's Windos box gets a nasty outlook virus that goes out and makes its own port 25 SMTP outgoing mail connections, it won't work. It will only work when it uses the mail server as a relay, and then the logs can tell that it happened and whose PC/laptop needs a virusscanner update...

      And I'm thinking about installing a transparent proxy, so that people don't have to set it up manually to get faster browsing (yes, even on a fast line a proxy will speed it up, because all the images from the more popular websites will be retrieved with only LAN latency instead of WAN latency. I even use a proxy at home for just myself even though it's a cable modem and I notice a slowdown if I switch it off.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    59. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Harik · · Score: 1
      Update #2: I was wrong with the TTL due to the traffic I was seeing. When the edge router melted under the ACL strain, it quit ARPing. When windows loses it's default gateway it sends brodcasts, TTL=1. Those are the packets I was analyzing when I concluded the worm was a dud.

      Re-infecting a test box and watching it confirms: It begins sending and when it loses the ability it broadcasts over the LAN, hoping someone will pass it on.

      In other news, looks like the last server hitting me has stopped. No traffic since 16:54 EST

    60. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Armadillos aren't soft on the inside. They're pretty tough and gristley.

    61. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republican Paradise!

    62. Re:As I said in a previous post... by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is not a dig at you, but since when did DMZ mean "completely unrestricted access to and from the Internet"?

      I'm seeing this a lot lately, I think I first saw it when there were some of those home hardware NAT/router/dhcp boxes, if you put a server in "DMZ", it really means totally unprotected.

      At work, I use a two firewall setup, and I call the area between the two firewalls the DMZ. The computers there have real routable IPs, but most of their ports are filtered, except the ones they need open. Every doc I read about firewall setup a few years back referred to these filtered hosts as DMZ also.

      So when did the meaning change?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    63. Re:As I said in a previous post... by ez76 · · Score: 1
      Still, I added the block to that specfic port in the slim chance that an internal box was infected (lord knows how) that it would be a localised problem, not contributing.


      Well then I guess I am the Lord.

      If you've got no outgoing restriction, all it takes is one bad incoming e-mail and one unscrupulous program execution and then your R&D lab becomes a SYN factory.

      If your gut response is, "none of our lab personnel would be so dumb as to run a program like that" then I'd like to remind you that you posted the message I'm replying to.
    64. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Rain · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There are two reasons an enterprise setup costs so much:

      1. Fear sells.
        Seriously. I would guess that some of the most succesful marketing strategies are based on this fact.
      2. Industrial grade equipment is expensive.
      3. I've worked for a few ISPs, and I can tell you right off that this is another large factor. If you take, for example, Cisco's equipment--The hardware can get
      4. very expensive; however, hardware failures are very rare. This is important when downtime =~ lost money.

      (otoh, IOS isn't always the most stable piece of software, but I tend to run LD/ED releases because I need the features, roughly equivalent to beta versions. A software failure is also much less of a catastrophe than a hardware failure--it's much faster to restart a router than to wait for hardware.)

      While a Linux/BSD box running iptables/ipf is dirt cheap, it's not hard to imagine why it might not sit well with the suits in larger companies. I would wager that PC hardware isn't quite as reliable, either--especially since nearly all hardware firewalls/routers use flash as the primary means of storage rather than a hard drive.

    65. Re:As I said in a previous post... by exspecto · · Score: 0

      hey look guys! it's a case of re-posting an old comment verbatim. so that's how i get a +5 informative!!!

    66. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      However, in your attempt to be absurd, you've touched on something very basic. Far, far too many people rely solely on simple, ineffective door and window locks, and the false promise of law enforcement. In doing so, they fail to learn how to protect themselves, and are then blindsided when someone who isn't too concerned about those measures bypasses them and harms them. It's the very same philosophy that keeps organizations using the "hard shell, soft chewy center" methodology instead of true security-focused design.

    67. Re:As I said in a previous post... by XO · · Score: 1

      My question to all this is why did it have, on it's discovery port, a relatively undocumented option to send data back out?? What would be the purpose of such a thing?!

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    68. Re:As I said in a previous post... by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      If you don't comply, I will bombard you network with...one meeellion packets!

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    69. Re:As I said in a previous post... by CySurflex · · Score: 1

      There's not completely true. My hosting service has a database server "behind" the web server, but for me to manage my database on that server, I have to connect to that database directly.

    70. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Servo · · Score: 1

      The dual firewall setup is what I always recommend when I do any sort of consultanting. To many, the DMZ is loosely defined as the part of the network where you put machines that if they get hacked into, they won't expose your inside network.

      It really all depends on what the configuration is. In some situations, I have had a network config where the DMZ was totally exposed (by design), and in others they put a firewall on each department, and even divided up networks within a department. The first situation was where we were hosting a foreign entity that provided its own security, and the second was at a major Wall Street banking company.

      The biggest problem with the "DMZ" option in SOHO NAT/masq routers is that if that one unprotected box gets taken by an intruder, the rest of the network is now exposed. That's not really a true DMZ.

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    71. Re:As I said in a previous post... by alcmena · · Score: 1

      Far, far too many people rely solely on simple, ineffective door and window locks, and the false promise of law enforcement.

      So what you're saying is that you do sit in front of your door with a loaded shotgun 24/7? Or at least, you always carry a loaded gun with you 24/7? If not, then you are at some point in time the "chewy center". If you are, then you're much more likely to shoot and kill a perfectly innocent person and have a few volts of electricity dance across your skull..

    72. Re:As I said in a previous post... by obiwan2u · · Score: 1
      How about a preemptive innoculation virus? Something which gets distributed a month or two after the patch has been posted, and propagates itself at a slow non-destructive rate. It's payload could send alarm messages to the console.

      ....note to monitoring security agencies. I'm just joking here, really. I'd never do stuff like this.

      --
      Ben in DC
      "It's the mark of an educated mind to be moved by statistics" Oscar Wilde
    73. Re:As I said in a previous post... by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Middleware is another name for "Proxy Server" or "Firewall". Having middleware adds security as long as the application is designed well.

      In general, middleware, firewalls, proxies, and VPNs add to overall security. They do this by pushing the most important piece of the overall system, the database and data as far away from the public as possible.

      In many cases though, a 3-tier or similar configuration adds more needless complexity which creates more problems then it solves. I recently did some work at a datacenter that provides directory services for a large (500,000 user, 350,000 host) enterprise. This datacenter literally has two racks of PIX firewalls providing access to one rack of LDAP servers!

      Whether a "hacker" or an admin makeing a mistake takes down access to a web or middleware server which denies access to data, the application is still down.

      There is no general rule to "secure" services -- you need to make an intelligent decision based on your budget, staffing and application. Multi-layered, locked down configuration cause plenty of grief to regular users and often pose no challenge to intruders, who exploit bugs to get full access to everything anyway.

      In plenty of cases a single, secureed server providing all services is a simpler and affordable solution.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    74. Re:As I said in a previous post... by duffbeer703 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One of the big problems with applying Microsoft patches, is that Microsoft uses patches to push unpopular and/or useless software on people.

      For example, applying security hotfixes to Windows XP causes MSN Messenger to be installed, even if it was previously removed. This practice got a Microsoft infantry mobile-computing solution to be disqualified when Outlook Express and MSN Messenger were installed to Army XP-Embedded machines.

      If you blindly apply MS patches to a mission-critical system, you're nuts. If you have the time to verify the multitude of MS patches as they come, you are probaly soon to be unemployed.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    75. Re:As I said in a previous post... by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      Try not to be too real on Slashdot.

      On Slashdot, you always do things with a Linux/MySQL combination or have an unlimited budget and use an IBM S/390 running Slackware.

      Also remember that the 97th percentile self-described sysadmin on Slashdot has not run anything more complex than the wire between his DSL router and PC. Most of the rest worked on help desks at local ISPs before they got bought out.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    76. Re:As I said in a previous post... by sporty · · Score: 1

      Damnit.. what do i have to do get some sharks with freekin' lasers attachd to their heads.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    77. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Ironica · · Score: 1
      Imagine if we didn't have firewalls. We'd have to keep our passwords good, our services minimal, and make sure we were running the latest, most secure daemons.

      Locks promote softer security.

      "Oh, I'm OK because I have locked doors and windows..."

      I think door locks make people lazy. Imagine if we didn't have deadbolts, or doors for that matter. We'd have to sit in front of the front door, with a shotgun, never sleeping for more than a few moments.


      Our cars are parked in a gated garage beneath the building. I have a convertible with a detachable-faceplate stereo. Once upon a time, I sometimes left my roof off and my faceplate on when at home, because the garage was locked... you couldn't get in without a key or a remote.

      Or however the guys got in and stole my stereo...

      It's true that one security measure, especially one that is poorly understood, may make us more inclined to relax on other security measures. And that's not a good idea. A huge percentage of theft is opportunistic; you eliminate 90% of the folks who might steal your stereo just by locking your car door. Same with hacking... the security measures you can take block out a large percentage of the would-be hackers out there, and the remaining few are probably going to get in no matter what you do (short of severing ties with the outside world completely). You just have to hope that you don't get the attention of those guys.

      Of course, one really big step you can take to eliminate opportunistic worms, viruses, and hacks is to delete the Windows partition... funny that script kiddies don't seem to know much about Linux.
      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    78. Re:As I said in a previous post... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      It's easy to use flash media as the storage in a computer. You can buy a decent bootable flash reader and media enough to install a minimal Linux/BSD gateway/firewall/server/whatever for $50 - $100 depending how much space you need. Take something like a mini-itx 533Mhz board which has everything fully intergrated (including the processor) and is fanless and you have a pretty reliable little server for around $200. The biggest benefit IMO is that since you can use the same basic hardware/software for all the servers you want to run like this somebody trained to handle one of them can easily adapt to handle any of them.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    79. Re:As I said in a previous post... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I would never run an OS anywhere in my business where users could add/remove their own software. It always bothers me to see each user with their own added programs. One guy has ICQ, some lady a little kitty cat program, the next guy some porno game. I've nothing against any of these programs but if they haven't been tested they are a security problem. Email programs are high on my list of shitability. I'd never let a user run Outlook on their desktop because it is easy to email people programs that do nice things like hide in the background and email out logs of daily keypresses. I've tried it (it was my job) at places I've worked and I could use that method to break into otherwise secured databases and such. A script kiddie could easily steal millions of credit card numbers that way. Try emailing someone on your network a program that installs vncserver and runs it in the background and see if it ends up installed. ;)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    80. Re:As I said in a previous post... by GWmailman · · Score: 1

      You make some very good points.. Other things that should be considered is the server OS. M$ sucks when it comes to security. This past Saturday is a good example of this. IT people who make purchases should know what they are getting into, most got into the Gates Pide-Piper ride. They should look into the REAL Network Operating Systems like Linux, Novell Netware and others out there that have perfect track records when it comes to network security..

    81. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Tassach · · Score: 1

      Learn how traceroute works. Just because your connection gets routed THROUGH a machine on a private subnet does not mean that you can connect TO that machine directly - the machines on either side route through it. Just try pinging the IP on hop 17 directly. Didn't work, did it? The fact still remains that a packet on a public link should NEVER have a source or destination IP in one of the reserved private network ranges.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    82. Re:As I said in a previous post... by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Pay attention child. Go learn how spoofing works.

      The 10/8 addresses are perfectly ok within the RR network. However, they should never be allowed to leave that network. In order for me to see those ICMP replies (TTL exceed, btw), they have to leave RR, pass through ATDN, to Sprint, to my provider, to me.

      Pay attention to this part: A packet with a source address in a private (non-routed) IP range, passed through three (3) ISPs (2 of them teir1 providers) which means none of the them are lifting a finger to prevent spoofing.

  4. been watching this all night by h2odragon · · Score: 4, Informative
    the fun's almost over now

    Collected a packet disasembly and some urls here.

    Everyone seems to be assuming this is a new use of an old (July) hole; I'm not certain of that. Any facts welcomed, see above url.

    1. Re:been watching this all night by Dynamic+Drive · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say it's over yet. A site of ours is still down. And it's not even hosted on Windows :)

    2. Re:been watching this all night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The reason that he doesnt think it is the old hole is because the packet doesnt start with 0x04 in his dump because he accidently included the ip/udp headers as well. If you look at the start of the UDP data section, you can see that it does indeed begin with 0x04.

    3. Re:been watching this all night by numatrix · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm relatively sure it ~is~ the old vulnerability. Notice in your very own hex dump.

      It starts off with 04 (the same hex byte as in my IDS signature for the Server resolution service buffer overflow everyone thinks this is) and then a bunch of padding with 0101. I myself am skeptical based on volume alone how this could be an old vulnerability, but remember, Code Red and Nimda were old too, and they didn't have any problem finding lots of new hosts very quickly.

    4. Re:been watching this all night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      You have been watching this all night?

      Man that is sad.

      I have been banging hot chicks all night. Gimme yer phone # and I will hook ya up with some of my hot and slutty ho's.

    5. Re:been watching this all night by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      In fact, its not likely over. On my Agnitum Outpost firewall, I started to see Class A (USA) Ip's probing that post.

      God forbid it it spreads to USA.

    6. Re:been watching this all night by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 4, Funny

      " been watching this all night...
      the fun's almost over now"

      I sincerely thank you, Sir or Madam. I previously thought that I was the most sad, laughable figure in the entire world, but now, having read your post, which conjures up images of someone sitting in front of their monitor, snacks in hand, gasping in amazement at the output of tail -f on their firewall log all night, I know that there is yet hope for me.

      graspee

    7. Re:been watching this all night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure she doesn't block her ports

    8. Re:been watching this all night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I will hook ya up with some of my hot and slutty ho's.

      Ah, yes. Digital infections (ex. MS SQL Server worm) are for child's play. Biological ones are much more interesting! :)

    9. Re:been watching this all night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful - you might get a virus

    10. Re:been watching this all night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more than likely they:

      if0 reject cumguzzling
      if1 deny all, open for 127.0.0.1 only, just her vibrator
      if2 allow all outbound, deny all inbound.

    11. Re:been watching this all night by Fishstick · · Score: 1
      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    12. Re:been watching this all night by Mirlyn · · Score: 1

      I think it already has...from 2-3am CDST my firewall log had 2-3 hits per minute to 1434, half of them from .edu domains (columbia.edu, lsu.edu, etc).

      for what its worth, I haven't had a hit in almost an hour now.

    13. Re:been watching this all night by Hubert_Shrump · · Score: 1

      I previously thought that I was the most sad, laughable figure in the entire world,

      I'll take up position between you two, because I only wish I were that geeky. If I could read the disassembly, I would. Just to learn what-the-hell.

      Why's it not respectible to be curious and passionate?

      Oh, it involves a computer, I forgot. Best to have an obsession with the Tv, get your brain sucked out, and not get teased.

      Living La Verde Lorca.

      --
      Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
    14. Re:been watching this all night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a laugh. I couldn't get almost now where last night even though I have my own DNS. I look at my logs today. What a laugh. Did ya all read the blurb by BillyG on the inquirer yesterday bout computer security? Somethings just never change. Microbugs should be banned from the net. How much brains does it take to keep from getting hacked like this? Never bused in to my puter so there is some really stupid people round writing software.
      Rumor has it it came for the RIAA.

    15. Re:been watching this all night by MattBurke · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and don't forget this thing has been firing itself out at wire speed, not relying on scans or states or anything else which could limit the rate of infection

      I remember the reasonably slow wind-up on the code red/nimda detection graphs, but the wind-up period on this worm was virtually nil

    16. Re:been watching this all night by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      why are you even reading this thread?

      I believe it is far more interesting and justifiable to watch your own machine as the wave hits than it is to read about it in a slashdot thread...

      I mean... he's actually experiencing it! You're living vicariously through his geekiness!!! So it's clear you actually are more pathetic.

      Now I was sad when my logs didn't show anything... where does that put me on the scale. I should be playing Sim City 4 with my daughter.

      --

      -pyrrho

    17. Re:been watching this all night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It entered Prometric, the company, and wreaked havoc on their SQL servers. The company as a whole has been disconnected from the real-world.

  5. The old joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mysql will postegresql yoursql

  6. Patch by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Informative

    Microsoft released a patch for this 24th July, 2002.

    1. Re:Patch by Fastball · · Score: 1
      Yes, at first glance this appears to be a sysadmin fuck up as much as it is a SQL Server bug. Months have passed since this was reported. Hell, we're way past the point of no return for Code Red and I still get default.ida entries in my Apache logs. Motherfucking unnacceptable.

      Who opens their database up for the world to access? I mean who?!

      Does anybody get to be a sysadmin? IANASA, but I keep up with this stuff fairly regularly. It ain't hard. New sysadmin candidates should have to stand in line at the DMV to get a license for sys admins. Those already with a sysadmin gig who allow this kind of attack to proliferate should be sacked forthwith.

    2. Re:Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was being hit very severely last night between 1:00 and 3:00 AM EST and finally resolved the attack by downloading and applying SQL 2000 SP3 that was posted on MS's SQL web-site only 9 days ago. Once I installed it and rebooted, the attacks stopped.

    3. Re:Patch by Fastball · · Score: 1

      Can we expect more of these kinds of attacks from Microsoft software in order to coerce^H^H^H^H^Hencourage us to turn on Automatic Updates?

    4. Re:Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SQL patches are not available with automatic updates or even Windows Update.

      You have to go get them yourself, something any sysadmin or DBA should be able to handle without a problem.

    5. Re:Patch by clifyt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Does anybody get to be a sysadmin? IANASA, but I keep up with this stuff fairly regularly. It ain't hard."

      Sure...in most of the real world, most of us have several duties. I am in charge of programming, system administration, web design, research, and a slew of other things associated with computers. In a sense, M$ makes their servers so that folks CAN be more productive...I know Unix and can admin the machines somewhat (been using it since the mid 80s) but its NEVER point and click like Wind'rs.

      I have a small team of folks that are constantly rotating because we don't have the money to keep them on indefinately, and as soon as they have enough knowledge, they take off for better digs -- which I don't blame them what so ever. These folks have to take care of a lot of the minor details but don't have the big picture that comes from a full time job for several years and experience that comes from this type of activity.

      I personally try to keep up with the systems we have running...but while its not hard, in most of the real world, babysitting a single server will not get you far. If thats all most of us were doing, we'd be able to easily take care of this stuff.

      Luckily enough, I run an ancient version of SQL server and thus this all doesn't apply to me :-) Its all patched and firewalled...

      clif

    6. Re:Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I found it amusing that the two current headlines on the front page under the technology section at CNN are:

      Gates pledges better software security
      Electronic attack slows Net

      Now if they would only address security before they released their products we might not see these issues.

    7. Re:Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, loved it so much, I had to snag a screenshot for posterity. ;)

    8. Re:Patch by rakerman · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's SQL Server 2000 Enterprise EVAL is unpatchable and, I think, vulnerable.

      Trial Software

      I know they say "use in a test environment only" but honestly, how hard would it be for them to release an EVAL that is patchable and/or up-to-date?

    9. Re:Patch by Badanov · · Score: 1
      Sure, I am a Linux system administrator...

      I am also janitor, parts puller, shipping clerk, invoicing clerk and waterboy.

      --
      Dawn of the Dead
    10. Re:Patch by |_uke · · Score: 1

      On my gentoo linux machine... all I have to do to stay current is type:
      emerge sync
      emerge update

      no real need to babysit... hehe

      --
      Luke
    11. Re:Patch by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      However, that patch usually won't work for SQL Server Desktop Engine (otherwise known as MSDE2K), which is distributed as part of the .Net framework, as well as other MS and third-party software, and thus is running on lots of machines.

      Actually, that patch depends on SQL2K SP2 -- the downloadable versions of that patch don't handle MSDE2K very well, so you have to order a special SP2 CD from MS. Not that this is well documented -- it took me a good 30 minutes of poring over the docs to figure that out.

      And to make matters worse, SQL2K SP3 (which includes the aforementioned patch) isn't available for MSDE2K yet.

    12. Re:Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please post that somewhere, I would love to have a copy of that

    13. Re:Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who opens their database up for the world to access? I mean who?!

      Bonehead hosting companies who let their clients use the EM to manage their own databases. Every hosting company that I have looked at for SQL Server support does this.

    14. Re:Patch by finarfinjge · · Score: 1

      I've seen many comments that this is not reasonable and that MS sys admins are responsible. One thing needs to be pointed out:

      Microsoft is agressively targetting the TCO of other operating systems. The difference in the TCO is the cost of competent admins.

      Ergo, Microsoft is saying you don't NEED a competent sys admin. If this is the case, it is because the product is secure out of the box and does not need patches (One of the jobs of a sys admin is to know about and apply patches).
      JE

  7. wow yeah! by matth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Where I work we ended up with quiet the excitement. Around 1am I lost connectivity on my DSL modem at my house.. and I just figured something was up with the DSL so I fooled around with that for a while.... but then I realized the data light on the hub for the DSL modem was blinking a WHOLE lot and nothing else on the hub was (ie broadcasts were coming through)... I couldn't ping our core router, nothing... YIKES! So I hiked into work... only to find that 3 machines had been compromised. A co-lo we have, and some other ones. Nothing bad mind you.. easy to fix.. install Service Pack, and then firewall the ports out.. but still.... it was interesting.. I walked into the server room and was greated with a ton of orange lights (that are normally just blinking!) That thing can really cook out the damage!

    Someone really has carefully crafted this worm to try to bring down the net.. and what better time then on a Saturday morning when all admins are away and not planing to work the next day!

    1. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're call yourself an admin? Most admin's don't get Saturdays off....

    2. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're just pissed because he has a job.

    3. Re:wow yeah! by sporty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Someone really has carefully crafted this worm to try to bring down the net.. and what better time then on a Saturday morning when all admins are away and not planing to work the next day!


      AND verisign will be down for certain hours while .org transitions to PIR/Affilias.
      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    4. Re:wow yeah! by Electric+Eye · · Score: 1

      Yep. I noticed the exact same thing on my cable modem. I was like "WTF????" And at the same time couldn't get to at least 2 of the forum sites I visit very regularly. The shitty thing is, I _still_ can't get to those sites.
      I guess I could say leave it to M$ on this one, but if this is the same attack as last July, then shame on the admins for such sloppy-ass work.

    5. Re:wow yeah! by Gothmolly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you contributed 3 servers to the global pool of zombie boxen, by sheer laziness? Thanks. The patch has been out for 6 months. I think the proper term is "fucktard".

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    6. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      buahahaha, man... thats the best thing i have heard all night. here i am looking through the forums after plugging holes all night and adjusting iptables to block crap from uunet and epoch. thanks man, i needed that.

      *whipes tear from eye laughing so hard*

      the guy is another "flood the market with mcse/comp-sci idiots and take jobs away from the qualified network engineers that have been doing this most of their life" moron. 75% of the so called admins that i have met have never heard of grep for christ sake. and 90% of that %75 just STARTED using a computer in college. geez... 19 hrs and no sleep.... i have 30 more machines to change iptables on.... need to write a script to change stuff like this using the pub/priv ssh key system...

      should go....

      # ./update_hosts.sh

      check for local log file if none...
      touch log file...

      parse a host list...
      ssh connect...
      check for log file if none...
      touch log file...

      exec cmd...
      echo change to remote log file...
      echo same changes to local change log...
      disconnect...
      loop...

      Don't worry guys. It will all be over soon. this internet thing is held up with duct tape, fishing string, and some superglue anyhow. ;)

    7. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Someone really has carefully crafted this worm to try to bring down the net.

      No, by not installing SP2 which has been out for yonks, you assisted in bringing down the net. You should have installed it when the advisories came out. An IT policy of reaction rather than pre-action where I work would get me the sack.

      By the way, SP3 is out, I suggest you install it before you have to hike into work on a Saturday morning this June ;)

    8. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "
      So I hiked into work... only to find that 3 machines had been compromised.
      "

      Congratulations - you've just owned up to being part of the fucking problem.

      I hope you're proud of your stupidity.

    9. Re:wow yeah! by dangermouse · · Score: 5, Funny
      and what better time then on a Saturday morning when all admins are away and not planing to work the next day

      What's it matter? It's not like you people have gone to work since last July anyway.

    10. Re:wow yeah! by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      So your saying you haddent patched MS servers on the internet with a patch thats is over 6 months old? And this is for a business?

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    11. Re:wow yeah! by larien · · Score: 1
      I'm getting problems accessing sites as it can't resolve the DNS. Thought it might be something wacky on my router box, so I rebooted it (well, tried to; for some reason reboot, halt & init 6 didn't work so I had to power-cycle). Still no joy. Check a few sites (including /.) and find out about the problems.

      According to the logs, I've had 123 hits on UDP port 1434 since 5:30am GMT, all blocked and pointless as I don't run MS SQL server.

    12. Re:wow yeah! by wheany · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you doing home already?

      You should go and plug all the other holes in those firewalls and install the other service packs that have come out during the last 6 months!

    13. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the logs, I've had 123 hits on UDP port 1434 since 5:30am GMT, all blocked and pointless as I don't run MS SQL server.

      From my Zone Alarm Log. Originating IP Address only. No MS SQL server here.

      • 209.242.93.4:1372
      • 66.28.206.154:1042
      • 212.133.134.4:1088
      • 66.169.79.10:4769
      • 64.7662.43:1193
      • 130.182.32.202:2171
      • 130.203.243.11:1306
      • 213.9.158.5:1471
      • 129.49.33.60:4034
      • 200.203.183.4:1137
      • 12.231.18.21:1369
      • 160.36.166.202:1419

      All that between 7:11:30 GMT and 7:29:14 GMT on 25 Jan. I only set it to view the last 12 alarms. FWIW, this is on my cable connection.

    14. Re:wow yeah! by StarTux · · Score: 1

      One of two things happen now:

      Admin gets paid a wage, no overtime.

      Admin gets paid hourly rate and is thankful for the extra cash.

      StarTux

    15. Re:wow yeah! by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm, I don't think the parent is funny but rather very serious and very right. The patch for this has been out for 6 moths, there is no excure not to have your systems fixed. It's just laziness and/or stupidity that you would have an unpatched server on the Internet.

    16. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      easy to fix? if it was so "easy to fix" why not fix it before your machines helped to "try and bring down the internet"? It seems to me as a sysadmin you do not take your job seriously, and you *STILL* don't by your attitude! As long as mickeysoft continues to develop buggy code AND sysadmin continue to ignore patches and service packs we will continue to have situations like this continually occur! Myabe mickeysoft should add security as part of their MCSE cert.'s and if they do, then GOD help us all............

    17. Re:wow yeah! by jonbelson · · Score: 1

      At least now Windows Update can nag Windows sysadmins that there's a new patch they should be taking an interest in...

      --Jon

    18. Re:wow yeah! by frigate · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People like this can screw up anything. If we made Linux easy to install, we would end up having a bunch of morons like this install and "configure" that as well. So keep the idiot installs out and we can keep the idiots out. I will go in Monday WILL PROMPTLY FIRE the admin if any of our systems are compromised.

    19. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or caution. Many houses wait until SPs have proven themselves before puting them into servive to avoid SP-of-Death scenarios. SOmetimes it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    20. Re:wow yeah! by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It really shouldn't have to. Part of a sysdamin's job is to stay current patches. It's not hard to check once a day for all the OSes you manage. More, just about every venurability should be a non-issue if you configure your damn server right in the first place. The only venurability that has actually needed to be patched on any of my Windows webservers in the last couple years was the Code Red one. This SQL bug, the NetBIOS bug and so on were all not relivant since those ports are not available to the Internet or the service is simply shut off since it isn't needed. I patched them anyways of course, but still.

      With a good inital security setup and vigilant upkeep system compramises can be basically eliminated. There is always a possability the a bug will slip through and not get patched quick enough, but generally you can stop 99% of problems by securing the system properly and the other 1% through daily patch monitoring.

      Frankly, I consider this the job of a sysadmin and think you are remiss in your duties if you don't do it.

    21. Re:wow yeah! by j3ss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      there is no excure not to have your systems fixed

      The fact that MS patches often break things is one excuse. If you are an overworked admin at a small shop with no test servers to install the patch on, you might simply not want to risk screwing up your machine by installing the patch.

      If there is a 5% chance that not installing the patch will result in your machine getting owned and a 40% chance that installing the patch will screw up your machine then many people will simply not install the patch and pray for the best.

      I am not saying that is how it should be, I am just saying that is how it is.

    22. Re:wow yeah! by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

      I will go in Monday WILL PROMPTLY FIRE the admin if any of our systems are compromised.

      I wish there were more bosses like you. It's frustrating to me that someone like me, who knows what he's doing, can't find work while at the same time lots of ignorami are blissfully employed -- totally unaware of the damage they're doing to the Internet.

      My hat is off to you, sir.

      --
      In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
    23. Re:wow yeah! by rodgerd · · Score: 1

      Would those be the sysadmins working in a climate of record layoffs? With fewer people doing the same work? On a platform where service packs include payloads that can destory your file system (NT SP2) or randomly change your licensing agreements to allow the vendor to access your proprietary information (Win2K SP3, WinXP SP1)?

      WOuld it also be the Security Pack which Microsoft have now announced actually has two different versions - one on CD which fixes all installations, and one from the 'net which will not actually solve this problem, on some installations, when applied (if the latest and greates from Bugtraq is to be believed)?

    24. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some places do not work like that unfortunatly. Some places have at least 4 different versions of SQL server running on dozens of computers (thats just 1 site). MSDE, 7.0, 2k, and 6.5. You are given NO authority to take control of a computer but are expected to be responsible if it all goes to hell. Dev's are not allowed to push for higher service packs for fear of breaking any of the fragil software that was created years before they got there. Even though we have had like 1 bug ever that was exposed because of one.

      Oh I and my fellow devs are going to be reinstalling some boxen when I get back to work monday. We had an AWSOME admin who knew his stuff and why things were configured the way they were. Then some yonk of a boss chassed him off thinking he knew IT stuff because he had hooked up a few wires. Now we have some poor guy who is forever chassing problems and has no idea why things are the way they are. Because he is doing his job (not IT) plus the original IT guys job. And is not allowed to do either compently becuase he is trying to do both. The thing is he could do either job and be great at it. He just can not do both...

      We are actually NOT allowed to install service packs for fear of upsetting people that do not work in the building. They get SO mad they goto the top of the division. We then get yelled at, and punished with overtime work. So long as I have my CYA emails I am happy so long as the checks dont bounce...

      My computer at home? All service packs I can find and nothing open/running that does not need to be...

      My point to this? Managment can be just as big a part of the problem as the underlings (such as myself).

      AC for I do not want to loose my job, or get yelled at, as people from that company read this board. And they feel their shit dont stink, and get rather upset when you tell them it smells worse than a sewage treatment plant. My shit? Oh it stinks I can think of at least 5 boxes that have NO password and service pack 0. But I am not allowed to fix them...

    25. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, man, it's so much work to check for new security updates from each of twenty or thirty software vendors on a daily basis... Manually, it'd take about ten minutes, and you could probably make a script which'd eliminate the need to check 90% of 'em by hand.

    26. Re:wow yeah! by len_harms · · Score: 1

      I have NEVER in the thousands of times I have installed MS patchs, it just up and go 'wrong'. It has always been the ORDER of the patches. You MUST keep that straight. If you do that you will have smooth patching. Its a form of the DLL hell that we have all created.

      SP's and rollups bring all the little ones together. These are good 'first thing to installs', sometimes. Option pack 4 for NT4 needs to go before SP6a. But there is no where that says that. Then you need the security rollup plus the hot fixes to get it to work right. You just need to write it down and follow the list. Keep track of the dates things come out. It is just as important as the service pack number...

      I have only seen a patch break code once. That code was not written correctly. It was because the dev did not read the documentation of the module he was using. I was quite frankly amazed it worked before.

    27. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have ZoneAlarm running and I had tons of hits last night and STILL AM! I get a hit about once every 4 minutes and the attacks started just before Midnight Mountain Standard Time last night. My last log record said that my last attack was at 1:32. Wowie Zowie! I'm not running any SQL servers and ALL of my software is patched... no matter what it is. Now if those infected wouldn't mind doing the same....

    28. Re:wow yeah! by Harik · · Score: 1
      Gothmolly writes
      So you contributed 3 servers to the global pool of zombie boxen, by sheer laziness? Thanks. The patch has been out for 6 months. I think the proper term is "fucktard".
      Actually, sounds like he 'contributed' two the same way I did, by having a colocated customer. Sorry, but unless they're paying me for firewall services it's up to them, and I block on an as-needed basis.

      One of the servers was under my control: a development box used by a programmer. Apparently he got the previous admin to forward the SQL ports through the firewall. Would explain the 'previous' part.

    29. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I will go in Monday WILL PROMPTLY FIRE the admin if any of our systems are compromised.

      Great, just be sure that if YOU overlook anything in the future to FIRE YOURSELF.

      Since it's your company, you're probably mandating Windows, and there have been so many holes (IIS, IE, SQL, NT/2K/XP) you should probably just fire yourself now. Other places use *x/*bsd due to Microsoft's dismal track record.

    30. Re:wow yeah! by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      I've never had an MS patch break a server. Then again, I don't screw with servers, I run only stables, release code on them from apps I know won't break things. Oh, and there is much to be said for securing the system in the first place. The SQL thing should be a total non-issue because there is no damn reason a database server should be publicly accessable. You firewall it off and if it needs remote access it shoudl be all VPN or priavte links.

      If you really find that 40% of MS's patches break your system, then the problem is squarely on your end. You have something deeply wrong and you need to find it and fix it. The only patch form them I've ever seen break something was a 3com net driver. That was written by 3com, but passed their certification. It had an unforseen problem with Tiny Personal Firewall that would cause a BSOD. You needed to either go back to the old 3com driver or remove TPF. When that was brought to MS's attention they yanked the driver's certification and pull it form Windows Update.

      That was not a security patch. Besides, if you are so worried, how hard is it to install something on a test system first? My home desktop is my test system. Anytime a patch comes out it gets installed there first, and then on all my servers and work computers. I've never had a problem, but I like to be careful. After all, we are not talking about a microsecond response time here, the patch has been out for 6 fucking months, more than enough time to check it and install it.

      Your comments lead me to believe that you don't really administer any Windows systems and are just going off of zealot propaganda about MS. Newsfalsh: Their patches don't run around breaking systems. Once and awhile a patch will ahve an unforseen interaction with a specific hardware/software config but this is very, very rare.

      If you do proper securing of a system and tehn keep up with patches, you can keep it secure. I have never, not even once, had a Windows desktop or server that I directly administer hacked. I keep on top of it, so it's not a problem.

    31. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd better fire your software provider. Won't people ever realize that instead of blaming ourselves we (sorry, not me thought!) have to switch the software?

    32. Re:wow yeah! by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1
      and what better time then on a Saturday morning when all admins are away and not planing to work the next day

      Yeah, and on super bowl weekend.

      And no, I do not waste time on corporate sports.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    33. Re:wow yeah! by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      Keeping patches current is of course important, but MSNBC is saying that Microsoft could not confirm that the July patch is sufficient protection!
      http://www.msnbc.com/news/864184.asp

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    34. Re:wow yeah! by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

      You dont 'bring down the net'. It might dissapear for those who think its nothing but eye-candy, but trust me there are those who would have no problem doing what they did yesterday if your browser-centric view of the net crumbled today.

      I wonder how old Im getting when it seems that people are acting like they havent even heard of a dial-up BBS, and Im NOT refering to AOL here.

    35. Re:wow yeah! by friday2k · · Score: 1

      So you are telling me that you did not do your job earlier and did not patch your boxes with patches that are many, many months old?

    36. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or maybe the dumbass supervising such morons will get fired.

    37. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the fact that I seem to recall some
      debacle a while back about a security patch that
      included a nifty little "I authorize Microsoft
      to root my machine in the future, as long as they
      only do it to kill illegal MP3s." clause in the
      contract you have to approve to install it....

      Bah. Anyone using Microsoft products in a
      situation where they care about security is on
      crack, pure and simple. At least with Linux you
      don't have to authorize unspecified future
      rootings to prevent current ones...

    38. Re:wow yeah! by sporty · · Score: 1

      No, it's not "browser centric", and further more, don't make assumptions of me. I know for a fact Affilias/PIR and .org were down for a while.

      The root zones were up, but if they needed to refresh any information, they couldn't.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    39. Re:wow yeah! by fjordboy · · Score: 1

      I've read through all the comments and posts below this one, and a couple of things that Matth hasn't mentioned is that he probably hasn't installed the patches simply because he's been to bloody busy changing servers over to Linux, to PREVENT THESE PROBLEMS! Heck, he even switched all the workstations for the techs and whatnot at this business over to linux. It isn't laziness or lack of preperation that prevented this patch from being installed, he's making sure his network is totally secure by switching a windows network over to a linux network. Also, one admin for a whole PILE of servers, only two of which he would even have any sort of control with (colo? We're not going to install security for them!!). I think it is perfectly understandable if two servers weren't updated...heck, I'm half scared to install any new service pack from MS.

      Stuff happens...matt isn't a "fresh out of college" MS loser, I've known matt for about 5 years, and he's ALWAYS used Linux. Heck, just look at his UID...he isn't new to slashdot or linux. So...everyone can just "step off." :-) Stuff happens, deal.

    40. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm....well, if we were running MS servers that might make sense.......

      Our MySQL machines got nailed (they couldn't handle the number of hits on port 1434). Now I get to spend all next week working up some sort of PTP-Tunnel so some of our users can back up their databases remotely. Yay.

      Can you morons please stop using MS now?

    41. Re:wow yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, fire the admin. It's his fault you chose to run notoriously buggy MS software, load him down with millions of tasks that rightfully belong to some other department, and won't hire additional help. Don't worry, he'll probably quit before you can fire him. And make sure any competent admins will *never* work for you. Then when you're sitting there watching your machines eat themselves because there's nobody to take care of them you'll only have yourself to blame....

    42. Re:wow yeah! by nikmal · · Score: 1

      Just for the record a reference to the namecheck for this article in the UK Independent newspaper.

  8. Ok now tell me by vicviper · · Score: 4, Funny

    how many quries at the root level are unnecessary. :)

    1. Re:Ok now tell me by DarkZero · · Score: 4, Funny

      More today than yesterday.

  9. First hand report by AirLace · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Waking up at 2AM after falling asleep at work on a Friday evening, to be greeted by a wall full of router racks lit up like a wall-shaped christmas tree is a sobering experience indeed. Needless to say I've been working since then to apply appropriate firewall rules accross our network to block port 1434. Once this blows over, it's time to start some real PostgreSQL advocacy..

    1. Re:First hand report by bwalling · · Score: 2, Informative

      Needless to say I've been working since then to apply appropriate firewall rules accross our network to block port 1434.

      What you really need to do is to assess which ports you need to leave open, and to which hosts they correspond. You need to block everything, and then set rules to enable only the ports/hosts that are necessary (open ports 80/443 to webserver, etc).

      Otherwise, you'll be doing the same thing for the next worm.

    2. Re:First hand report by barnsleyBigUn · · Score: 1

      and Firewall / Patch maintenance advocacy...

    3. Re:First hand report by essdodson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, once this blows over it's time to apply the fucking patch. It's been available for six months mind you.

      --
      scott
    4. Re:First hand report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right but it would be less work to use postgreSQL because hackers won't target it as much

    5. Re:First hand report by tshak · · Score: 1

      Once this blows over, it's time to start some real PostgreSQL advocacy..


      And if you haven't applied patches to PostgreSQL within the last 6 months you'd also be vulnerable to remote root exploits.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    6. Re:First hand report by JPriest · · Score: 1

      With Microsoft going through a huge security push and ignoring an obvious solution to 90% of the problem makes me so frustrated I don't know to laugh or kill puppies. Any server should default install to the equivlent of deny any any all All permissions and services needed past that should be added as needed.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    7. Re:First hand report by CTho9305 · · Score: 1

      security through obscurity? tsk tsk.

    8. Re:First hand report by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Considering how illegal and immoral MS has been over the years, I am surprised that somebody from inside of MS has not released repair worms that will close backdoors just to keep the nasty comments down. Admitly, they could not release a worm directly, but if they did one that simply took care of the problem, it would go through once on the net and then we not have to see this over and over.
      And yes, I know it is illegal and unethical, but then again, so is MS.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:First hand report by Dynedain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, once this blows over it's time to apply the fucking patch. It's been available for six months mind you.

      The patch does not affect routers stupid. Just because his routers are all lit up with massive amounts of traffic, does not mean that his servers are unpatched!

      My link was down for 4 hours from the flooding with everything all lit up, and I'm not even running an SQL server.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    10. Re:First hand report by j3ss · · Score: 1

      Yeah! PostgresSQL is much more secure! [/sarcasm}

      28-08-2002: PostgreSQL path_encode() Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

      28-08-2002: PostgreSQL path_add() Buffer Overrun Vulnerability

      20-08-2002: PostgreSQL String Pad Function Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

      20-08-2002: PostgreSQL Repeat Function Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

      19-08-2002: PostgreSQL cash_words Function Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

      19-08-2002: PostgreSQL Circle_Poly Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

      19-08-2002: PostgreSQL TZ Environment Variable Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

      19-08-2002: PostgreSQL Date Parser Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

      19-08-2002: PostgreSQL SET TIME ZONE Environment Variable Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

      10-09-2001: NSS NSS_PostGreSQL Remote SQL Query Manipulation Vulnerability

      23-04-2000: PostgreSQL Cleartext Passwords Vulnerability

      etc.,etc.,

    11. Re:First hand report by Diabolical · · Score: 1

      Or in some cases time to YELL AT THE SERVER ADMINS to apply the patch so that the NETWORK ADMIN doesn't have to do the cleanup....

      In a corporate network with international satelite offices with over 10.000 employees most of the administration is being split up between network, server, system, workplace and communications administrators (and helpdesk fodder). So yelling at the right person might help. Someone who is responsible for the network infra sometimes does not even have the necesary rights to administer the servers.

    12. Re:First hand report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's time to read the post, dumbass. The response was about switching from SQL Server to PostgreSQL because of this. It has nothing to do with routers.

      You make my point with your last line.

    13. Re:First hand report by klaricmn · · Score: 1

      ....that is until somebody crafts an exploit for PostgreSQL. As much as it would be nice to blame MS SQL server for this, the problem is

      1. sys admins that don't install security fixes when need (for windows programs, linux programs, et al) and

      2. network admins that leave a database server out there unprotected for the free world to see.

    14. Re:First hand report by jelle · · Score: 1

      Track record baby. Even though this one could've been patched a long time ago, it makes one think of which other security problems are not yet discovered...

      I like the PostgreSQL suggestion a lot better. It never even needed the ff-en patch to begin with.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    15. Re:First hand report by danro · · Score: 1

      security through obscurity? tsk tsk.

      <rant>
      No, security through diversity.
      A monoculture is always vulnerable, since it has a common weakness, ask any biologist, and that goes for software too.
      MS software may be of dubious quality, but the real threat is their huge honkin' market share.

      That said, a little less sloppy work in Redmond wouldn't hurt.
      And sysadmins across the globe will have to take some responsibility for this too.
      It's been more than six months since the weakness was discovered, for fucks sake!
      </rant>

      --

      "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    16. Re:First hand report by DavittJPotter · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure advocating PostgreSQL over some firewall tuning is the right thing to do.

      MS SQL server is a good product - and is well supported and well documented for 3rd party products. MySQL and PostgreSQL are fine for small-to-medium size applications, but databases such as DB2, SQL, and Oracle handle millions of transactions daily. Migrating away from SQL can be difficult, costly, time consuming, and sometimes impossible.

      If you're going to advocate an alternative to SQL Server, perhaps consider DB2 instead.

      Yes, yes, I know, Open Source Will Save the World (TM), but you're spreading your own version of FUD over this worm.

      --
      "If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
    17. Re:First hand report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reread the original post guy. I'm afraid if you read it correctly, it ends up with you being the dumbass. Nowhere did it indicate that he is running MS SQL Server - just because he's going to advocate another product doesn't he is running MS SQL Server.... it means he's going to* advocate* it, just like he said.

    18. Re:First hand report by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Or bother to keep up with the Patches.
      I don't like SQL server for a great meny reasons, but using your faillins as a reason to go to PostgreSQL just makes you, and every other PostgreSQL advocate, look like an idiot. You are NOT helping.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:First hand report by majss · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that more firewall security folks didn't pick up on this. We noticed alot of junk from asis C Class networks, 61.x.x.x, 210,211,212,218,202,80,195,200,213,62,219,193, etc. and promptly rejected all those C classes 61.0.0.0, etc. at the firewall. This including alot of port scans for the service ms-sql-s.

      Even though we don't have the MS SQL patch, we weren't affected due to the firewall blocking.

  10. One at our site cut itself off from the net... by weave · · Score: 1

    A server at one of our campuses (a college, campuses all over the state) got infected around 0900 UT and started hammering the hell out of our WAN and their local LAN, sending 10.4MB/sec through the router and then 1.2MB/sec out our internet line (bytes not bits). It stopped about an hour later. Turns out it flooded the router so hard it looks like that router has shut down. I can't ping a darn thing inside that campus now.... Fitting justice.

    1. Re:One at our site cut itself off from the net... by cyb97 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That router must be fairly undersized...
      No point in having a router that can't sustain max-traffic on the network it's put on...
      What if your campus get slashdotted ? Kinda boring if the router shutsdown because of legit traffic ;-)

      My guess is that some MSCP caught panic when he saw the load on the mssql-server and pulled the plug...
      It's happened to me... (and he wasn't even MSCP just vanilla dumb...)

    2. Re:One at our site cut itself off from the net... by weave · · Score: 1
      I don't think so, those MS certifiable guys don't have access to the routers at my college, so they couldn't do that. I haven't been able to get hold of the personnel in charge of the routers (it IS the weekend and they don't pay people to be on standby here). One theory is that our upstream provider noticed the problem and did something. Packets going in from outside hit a routing loop at that point. The gated on my internal hosts at another location have turn off all routes to that other campus, indicating they got that route delete info from our campus's router, which chatters to the others.

      At this point, I dunno, just glad it's nuked off the net for now. It was saturating our 10 megabit line to our provider for a while there...

      I pity the poor saps who have hosts at colo facilities that charge for bandwidth. It's fitting if an unpatched victim pays extra, not the innocent victims who get to deal with all the useless traffic from this...

    3. Re:One at our site cut itself off from the net... by weave · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Looks like this post to bugtraq explains why that router at my college died from this:

      "Tier 1 backbones are reporting a bad night: routing instabilities, one major dropped most of its peering for a while, the volume from this triggers the Cisco netflow switching bug and is causing routers to lock up at places, etc."

  11. ZDNet and Yahoo stories by tigress · · Score: 3, Informative

    ZDNet and Yahoo.

    1. Re:ZDNet and Yahoo stories by tigress · · Score: 1

      Yahoo even.

    2. Re:ZDNet and Yahoo stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from the zdnet article


      Mark Read, security analyst at MIS Corporate Defence Solutions, said, "When you install SQL, at no point does it ask you for an administrator username and password -- this is installed as standard, and once it is up and running the password still remains blank." He added, "If the SQL server is accessible from the Internet, people can log in using a blank password and have full access to the database, as well as the underlying operating system."


      That sounds so fucking retarded. Could it possibly be true?

    3. Re:ZDNet and Yahoo stories by blowdart · · Score: 1

      That sounds so fucking retarded. Could it possibly be true?

      No, it's not. SQL2000 has always prompted for a password. SQL2k SP3 also checks for blank passwords. You can override it however.

      SQL7 didn't force you to use a password, but from SP2 up you are warned that SA is blank.

    4. Re:ZDNet and Yahoo stories by doug363 · · Score: 1

      That ZDNet story is a 2001 article. I just checked ZDNet, and they don't seem to have a story on this problem yet.

    5. Re:ZDNet and Yahoo stories by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

      and here on the BBC

    6. Re:ZDNet and Yahoo stories by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      They don't post anything on Weekends. In fact, CNET doesn't post...

      Its real funny if you think they are net companies :)

      ever saw "weekend edition" on News.com? it meeans that :)

  12. Whoever puts their database server by cscx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Outside a firewall for no apparent reason is a tool. That being said, we live in a world of idiots. Why?

    NGSSoftware alerted Microsoft to this problem on the 17th of May 2002 and
    they have produced a patch that resolves these issues.


    This is January 25 2003 if I'm not mistaken. Are these the same people that leave their cars unlocked with the keys in the ignition?

    1. Re:Whoever puts their database server by Xpilot · · Score: 1

      Outside a firewall for no apparent reason is a tool

      You probably meant fool, but tool sort of makes sense too. An idiot like that is the perfect tool for evildoers everywhere to take advantage of! Heh.

      --
      "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    2. Re:Whoever puts their database server by cyb97 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are these the same people that leave their cars unlocked with the keys in the ignition?
      A real idiot would leave the car locked witht the keys in the ignition...
      I guess they learn something at MSCE courses ;-)

    3. Re:Whoever puts their database server by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      I think he did mean tool. Check this dictionary and scroll down to tool.

    4. Re:Whoever puts their database server by Kibo · · Score: 1

      Sir, I'll have you know, I'm not so naive as to leave my car unlock and the keys in the ignition. My keys are tucked above the visor thank you very much!

      --
      --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
    5. Re:Whoever puts their database server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is January 25 2003, which means anyone being hit by this worm has not only ignored the patch, which was publically announced and offered (per usual) for free, and also ignored more than one service pack. Microsoft dealt with the issue. The DBAs didn't.

    6. Re:Whoever puts their database server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is January 25 2003 if I'm not mistaken. Are these the same people that leave their cars unlocked with the keys in the ignition?

      Hey, I leave my car unlocked (and sometimes key in the ignition). My servers on the other hand are patched which is probably why my phone hasn't rang yet this morning. My car on the otherhand is insured for more than it's worth. :) (and yet no one is kind enough to steal and total it for me.)

    7. Re:Whoever puts their database server by johnkoer · · Score: 1

      You are correct to blame the sysadmins for this worm spreading, but you have to remember we are in a really bad economy right now and many corporations have cut back or eliminated their IT departments. Right now Bill from Accounting is not only the payroll clerk, but he is also the sysadmin. He was given the job because he fixed the bosses email one day and everyone assumes he knows what he is doing. So Bill does the best that he can, while maintaining his payroll duties, but he does not know how to setup a firewall or patch SQL server. His philosophy is if aint broke (his definition of broke is down) then dont fix it. Maybe he hasnt even looked at the server in six months.

      I think the spread of this worm and worms like it are a direct effect of companies with a large infrastructure that do not have dedicated IT personnel. I think there are going to be many small/medium businesses that are going to have some big problems come monday morning.

    8. Re:Whoever puts their database server by sheldon · · Score: 1

      I've come to notice a lot more ISP hosting services are offering databases for their clients.

      That means they need to make it available out on the internet so their customers can connect and manage the database.

      This does present a difficult problem then, as I agree, a database should be behind a firewall. Not just MS-SQL, but mySQL, Oracle, whatever. Other than worms, database username/password combos are often pretty easy to crack because databases don't have good intrusion detection or they don't lockout bad password attempts. :(

      The ideal solution here would probably be for the ISP to offer a VPN tunnel into the network where the databases are housed. This would allow clients to maintain, but reduce the number of people with access.

    9. Re:Whoever puts their database server by cscx · · Score: 1

      That's not necessarily true; the ISP could just as easily leave it behind the firewall, and allow access through a proxy box (whether it be a shell account, or some sort of web-based management scheme, which I assume is more popular).

      On another related note, I did some Oracle work for a company with "really high" corporate security... or at least that's that bullshit that they berate us worker drones with. I had set the Oracle passwords to something like fd@3A23$Dw or something similar. The response? "We usually leave them the same as the user." WTF! I'm surprised that scott/tiger didn't work....

    10. Re:Whoever puts their database server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, either you don't know that anti-theft insurance is void if you don't keep your doors locked or you are plotting a fraud?

      Way to go.

    11. Re:Whoever puts their database server by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      So Arnold used YOUR car in Terminator 2...

      You helped save the world from SkyNet!

      You the Man!

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  13. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was being discussed in a previous article talking about XST. The fun is over by now...

  14. Yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why government or at least major Internet bodies and ISP groups should be spending some amounts of money on scanning for vulnerabilities and notifying the owners of such systems. It's a bit like leaving a gun on a table around the house, or for that matter, when considering script kiddies, leaving a bazooka in the toy box at a pre-school.

    1. Re:Yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh BULLSHIT.. this is NOT a good idea.. give the US government MORE sweeping powers to waltz in and scan your servers for vulnerabilities ? might as well hand them your data on a silver platter. think government-ordered backdoors contracted by Microsoft

    2. Re:Yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that once Bush's Dept. of Homeland Security is up and running problems like this will be a thing of the past. Well, once that's going and once we get rid of Sadam that is. And, I guess, once we get rid of N. Korea too. And possibly a few other countries that harbor terrorists and/or allow people to view DVDs without digital privacy controls. Oh, and once people have to raise their hand and to get permission before speaking. Then I'm sure problems like this will be a thing of the past.

  15. how bad is it? by chevelleSS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What does this worm rank compared to other DDOS in the past?

    1. Re:how bad is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Score 3: Interesting?
      How about -1: Read the fucking article?

  16. What's inside ? by koh · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Has someone scanned the UDP packets and reported what's inside ?

    I just want to see with my own eyes that the worm isn't quietly spitting out a SELECT * from a random table, record per record...

    --
    Karma cannot be described by words alone.
    1. Re:What's inside ? by AirLace · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are no SQL commands in the worm. It just initiates a bouncing ping between two MS SQL servers that continues until the network or one of the servers is brought down. An annotated dissection of the worm is provided here.

    2. Re:What's inside ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Here is the snort packetdump of the exploit:
      01/25-14:15:08.249303 128.218.88.115:1102 -> 80.235.37.125:1434 UDP TTL:109 TOS:0x0 ID:48583 IpLen:20
      DgmLen:404
      Len: 384
      04 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ................
      01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ................
      01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ................
      01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ................
      01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ................
      01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ................
      01 DC C9 B0 42 EB 0E 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 70 AE ....B.........p.
      42 01 70 AE 42 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 68 DC C9 B.p.B........h..
      B0 42 B8 01 01 01 01 31 C9 B1 18 50 E2 FD 35 01 .B.....1...P..5.
      01 01 05 50 89 E5 51 68 2E 64 6C 6C 68 65 6C 33 ...P..Qh.dllhel3
      32 68 6B 65 72 6E 51 68 6F 75 6E 74 68 69 63 6B 2hkernQhounthick
      43 68 47 65 74 54 66 B9 6C 6C 51 68 33 32 2E 64 ChGetTf.llQh32.d
      68 77 73 32 5F 66 B9 65 74 51 68 73 6F 63 6B 66 hws2_f.etQhsockf
      B9 74 6F 51 68 73 65 6E 64 BE 18 10 AE 42 8D 45 .toQhsend....B.E
      D4 50 FF 16 50 8D 45 E0 50 8D 45 F0 50 FF 16 50 .P..P.E.P.E.P..P
      BE 10 10 AE 42 8B 1E 8B 03 3D 55 8B EC 51 74 05 ....B....=U..Qt.
      BE 1C 10 AE 42 FF 16 FF D0 31 C9 51 51 50 81 F1 ....B....1.QQP..
      03 01 04 9B 81 F1 01 01 01 01 51 8D 45 CC 50 8B ..........Q.E.P.
      45 C0 50 FF 16 6A 11 6A 02 6A 02 FF D0 50 8D 45 E.P..j.j.j...P.E
      C4 50 8B 45 C0 50 FF 16 89 C6 09 DB 81 F3 3C 61 .P.E.P........<a
      D9 FF 8B 45 B4 8D 0C 40 8D 14 88 C1 E2 04 01 C2 ...E...@........
      C1 E2 08 29 C2 8D 04 90 01 D8 89 45 B4 6A 10 8D ...).......E.j..
      45 B0 50 31 C9 51 66 81 F1 78 01 51 8D 45 03 50 E.P1.Qf..x.Q.E.P
      8B 45 AC 50 FF D6 EB CA .E.P....
    3. Re:What's inside ? by koh · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot.

      So as far as we can see, it is only replicating code, and not replicating _and db dumping_ :)

      However, the worm have access to WIN32 DLLs, so an eventual close cousin may access the physical db vault one day... then ha ha ha.

      Think about it: flooding the network with credit card numbers. Seems like a script kiddie's wet dream, ya ? ;)

      --
      Karma cannot be described by words alone.
    4. Re:What's inside ? by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1
      a bouncing ping ... until ... brought down

      Aha, so all that is happening is some creative guy playing Pong using (the) TCP?

  17. CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by Anonynmous+Cow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was very surprised to discover both AP and CNN beat Slashdot to this story.

    Very disappointing.

    Timely is as important as accurate SlashEditors. Many of us look to you when big events occur...

    Especially considering this all began about 8 hours ago!

    1. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Never mind, it's still not on The Register!

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They always take the weekends almost entirely off, so I'm not at all surprised by that one, anyway.

    3. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by cyb97 · · Score: 1

      But I bet they've got a biting remark prepared for monday morning!

    4. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by BigMe · · Score: 1

      Heh,

      I was watching CNN and heard this, so logged on to get the news. They didn't say much on TV.

    5. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is a metanews site, it provides a forum to discuss news posted elsewhere - they're not supposed to be first.

    6. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was covered by the Slashdot masses on another security-related thread earlier this morning.

      If you want an non-editor-controlled story queue, with story selection subject to user moderation, try submitting/reading here; the capability is now possible on Slashdot. It's not as simple as it could be, and it's only a week old, but it works without you having to leave Slashdot.

      --LP

    7. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by dWhisper · · Score: 1

      Could have something to do with it being real news, and not rumor from a friend.

      If I was to guess, I'd say it was because they were affected by it, and someone keyed someone in to it. My coworkers and I noticed it all night at work, and actually had people calling in to tech support about it.

      I mean, after all, we can help fix that one webpage that said user goes to...

    8. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This was actually brought up in the Cross-Site-TRACE thread, well before CNN and AP even had a clue...

      Next time, use the search box at the top right...

      ;P

    9. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      CNN is part of AOL/TW. ;-)

      ever wonder why msnbc shows the Linux vulnerability news before others?

      btw, I have never seen Slashdot like a breaking news site, its more like, "information from other indivuals too" site for me. I mean on replies etc.

    10. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by OttoM · · Score: 1
      From the CNN article:

      Oliver Friedrichs, a senior manager with Symantec, said the "SQL" worm was taking advantage of a vulnerability detected six months ago in Microsoft sequel servers, used mainly by companies to store information.

      Nice to see they know how to pronounce SQL. OTOH, I still think they do not know what they are talking about.

    11. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      Timely is as important as accurate...

      I think they realize that-- which is why they are equally late and inaccurate at all times... Slashdot!

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    12. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

      I always pronounce it "squeal"....

      --
      In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
    13. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by echucker · · Score: 1

      Not surprised at all. Slashdot merely provides links to and a place to discuss news stories. It doesn't write the storeis themselves.

    14. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by Nigel+Stepp · · Score: 1

      But it really used to. This is exactly the kind of thing that slashdot was great at scooping everyone with. Either Rob would would post it himself, or a reader would submit it, and it would be accepted, all in a very short time.

      Perhaps the editors have too much crap to deal with now, but things definitely used to be different.

      --
      4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
    15. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      And I always pronounce it "sequel" :P

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    16. Re:CNN & AP Beat Slashdot by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Timely is as important as accurate SlashEditors. Many of us look to you when big events occur...
      I disagree. Slashdot is more a place to rehash news from other sites.

      Now, if you were talking about FreeBSD releases, then yes, Slashdot should post them whenever a bit changes on the FreeBSD ftp site.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  18. re: "a hole in something really popular..." by ites · · Score: 1

    Like Kazaa. Oh.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  19. Patches Smatches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, a lot of people will not patch their server, and thats the bite. Youve got to ship it secure in the FIRST PLACE, and very few servers can actaully hold that title.

    So, regardless if the patch was released on 2002-07-24, people will not patch it because people are lazy.

    The biggest security risk is humans, and not even tcpa/paddilum will solve this crap. Your password is 123456, your private key is abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz, and everyone knows your mothers maiden name.

    1. Re:Patches Smatches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your password is 123456

      No, that's my luggage combination.

  20. Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I don't have any instances of MS SQL Server on my network, is there any benefit to me or other people to block the affected port?

    Thanks.

  21. Turn your SQL server off? by blowdart · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you run Microsoft SQL Server, make sure the public internet can't access it.

    What a pathetic overkill response. If you're running SQL server, make sure it's patched. When the last set of bind exploits came out no-one said "Unplug all your DNS servers", why is this any different?

    SQL is easy to secure, and the guidelines are well known

    • Make sure you do not have a blank SA password. You can either run SQL in NT authentication mode (preferred) or mixed mode. Mixed mode exposes you to password attacks.
    • MSDE (The desktop edition) is installed, by default with a few pieces of software, including Visio Enterprise, MacAfee's centralised virus admin thingy (hey, I've only just woken up, I can't remember the name ), FlipFactory (an automated video encoding system) and others. There is no user interface to MSDE, you'd have to install SQL tools from a "grown up" installation, then add it as a new server, then set the SA password.
    • Consider dropping built in stored procedures like xp_cmdshell, xp_regwrite.
    • Run SQL as a limited service account, not as localsystem

    And of course, patch it when patches appear

    1. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What a pathetic overkill response.If you're running SQL server, make sure it's patched. When the last set of bind exploits came out no-one said "Unplug all your DNS servers", why is this any different?

      I guess we should expect this kind of general cluelessness from an MS SQL admin.

    2. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      MSSQL has holes like a swiss cheese. Furthermore, applying hotfixes to the thing is a nightmare involving, among other things, shutting it down and moving files around by hand. Not something you really want to do on a hundred servers every few weeks. As of SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 2 it can be crashed with a single-byte UDP packet. Never expose any of the SQL Server ports on the Internet. Blocking TCP port 1434 is a good start, but not sufficient.

      Do note that just blindly switching to Oracle will not necessarily help. All products that are usually connected to the Internet, such as sendmail or IIS, have had the crap beat out of them by now and are relatively secure (though both sendmail and IIS are secure despite their architecture, not because of it). Now the time has come for those products that are usually not placed in such a hostile environment. Oracle realized this a bit before the MSSQL people did, but both products still have a way to go.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    3. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What a pathetic overkill response.

      No, it's a very reasonable one. Yes, you still need to patch, use non-blank SA passwords and the other things you suggest, but if you have an SQL server (any SQL server) directly visible to the Internet then you are either a fscking moron or have a very abnormal circumstance. A database server is a backend server, and should be completely hidden from the Internet by not one but two layers of firewalls.

      Basically, in this day and age, your setup from the Internet in to your internal LAN, should be (as a minimum):

      Internet router(s) => Firewall(s) => Web servers (HTTP, mail relays, proxies, VPN termination, etc.) => Firewall(s) => backend servers (SQL, internal mail etc..) => Internal network.

      Some of these networks can quite easily be different ports on the same physical firewall, but I'm limited by ASCII. Alternatively, if you have no backend servers, that segment can obviously be omitted altogether.

      Firewall rulesets can, and should, apply to outbound as well as inbound traffic and allowing traffic to flow cleanly accross multiple firewalls should be limited as much as possible. At a pinch, you could put your backend servers (if any) directly on the internal LAN, and get by with a single, three port firewall, but this should be the absolute minimum setup if you are hosting connections from the Internet. Sticking a two port firewall between your network and the Internet is simply not good enough anymore.

      With resonable DMZ capable firewalls available for less than $500, either as a dedicated box, or old PC running the open source apps of your choice, there is no fiscal reason for even the smallest of companies not to be secure. As ever, the real reason is lack of a clue when it comes to matters of security.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by sporty · · Score: 1
      f you run Microsoft SQL Server, make sure the public internet can't access it.


      What a pathetic overkill response. If you're running SQL server, make sure it's patched. When the last set of bind exploits came out no-one said "Unplug all your DNS servers", why is this any different?



      Uh, in the case of sql servers and file servers, you may not want them to be public access as your first line of defense. Your second line should be patching and user accounts on the database. It's where your sensitive data sits. As long as you are firewalled off, running the buggiest version of MS-SQL won't matter.

      FTP, DNS, HTTP should be firewalled but allowed in and patched. They go hand in hand. If one is buggy, it makes no difference if the other isn't.
      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    5. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by bruthasj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the last set of bind exploits came out no-one said "Unplug all your DNS servers", why is this any different?

      Maybe because bind was built with the Internet in mind. Besides, who in their right mind (I know its redundant), would expose a database server to the Internet, whether that be Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, MSSQL or anything of this nature. It should be hidden completely behind an application layer, preferrably behind a firewall.

      Remember to all: This isn't about bashing Micro$oft per se, but rather bashing sysadmins who expose a database out on the net.

    6. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by Curt+Cox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Needlessly exposing a database to the Internet is a security policy so bad that not even Microsoft would recommend it.

    7. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by blowdart · · Score: 1
      Remember to all: This isn't about bashing Micro$oft per se, but rather bashing sysadmins who expose a database out on the net.

      Actually it should be about moron admins who don't subscribe to alert lists for the software they administer, and don't apply patchs that are 5 months old.

    8. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by hqm · · Score: 1

      I want the IP address of your server please. Post
      it here on Slashdot. Then see how much of a
      Internet security jock you are.

    9. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by blowdart · · Score: 1
      Which one?

      4 SQL servers running at hosted environment. All up, and un-affected.

      2 SQL boxes in the office, which talk to remote clients, all up and un-affected.

      And the SQL box at home, up and running.

      Of course the fact there there's a URL beside my username should at least give you one pointer, there's a SQL server in that IP block. But if you can't even work out how to get an IP range from a URL I suggest you go back to script kiddy school.

    10. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by bubbha · · Score: 1

      Yea - we have Wizards...we go fast now...

      --
      I want to be alone with the sandwich
    11. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone has just pointed out what a fucking stupid shit moron you are, blowdart. Go back and read each response to the idiotic post you made. YOU ARE A MOTHERFUCKING DIPSHIT. Keep this in mind, always. You're a fool.

    12. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blowfart: You should never put databases outside of the firewall. Don't you get it? Yes, you patch your buggy microsoft shitware that's inside the firewall, but you don't put a fucking database outside of the firewall. Dumb fuck. You are a perfect example of a fucking clueless micrsoft dipshit.

    13. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by tom+enterprise · · Score: 0

      NT authentication mode (preferred) ahhh straight out of the mcse book. alot of security admins have said NT authentication is not that secure at all. I have linux web servers that hit sql server , Im damn sure mine is more secure than youre all nt setup with NT authentication. sounds like mcse advice to me.

    14. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by Afty0r · · Score: 1

      A database server is a backend server, and should be completely hidden from the Internet by not one but two layers of firewalls.

      This would be nice if:
      1] Our company would pay for a firewall.
      2] Our company would pay for separate database/webserver boxen

      As it is, we have no firewall, and our SQL server is open to the net because the web server has to be. Oh, and obviously we don't have a VPN running because that would be too expensive.

      Fortunately, we run MySQL as a database server. *phew*.

    15. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10.60.0.10

    16. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by biobogonics · · Score: 1


      MSDE (The desktop edition) is installed, by default with a few pieces of software, including Visio Enterprise, MacAfee's centralised virus admin thingy (hey, I've only just woken up, I can't remember the name ), FlipFactory (an automated video encoding system) and others. There is no user interface to MSDE, you'd have to install SQL tools from a "grown up" installation, then add it as a new server, then set the SA password.


      There *is* a user interface to MSDE, it's called OSQL and it *is* usable from the command line.

      osql -U sa -P "" -Q "sp_password NULL,foo,sa"

      see MS KB Q322336

    17. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      As it is, we have no firewall, and our SQL server is open to the net because the web server has to be. Oh, and obviously we don't have a VPN running because that would be too expensive.

      And what prevents you from running for example an iptables or an equivalent for whatever OS you are using on that same machine and only allow inbound traffic into tcp 80, if you really can't afford any external firewall box?

    18. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by taniwha · · Score: 1
      A database server is a backend server, and should be completely hidden from the Internet by not one but two layers of firewalls.

      Well at one level I agree with you - it's stupid .... but it's a server ... why shouldn't people provide access to their server over the net .... that's kind of the point of a networked server. The real problem is with POS code that has no real access security or that's full of exploits like this one .... and then sold as production ready code.

      If I bought a car and people kept kept breaking in because the door locks didn't work, or because you could open the windows just by pushing them down I could get it replaced under the state lemon law ... sadly we have tacky shhrink-wrap click-thru licenses that absolve M$ et al from liability for their crappy code

    19. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by sloth+jr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Basically, in this day and age, your setup from the Internet in to your internal LAN, should be (as a minimum): Internet router(s) => Firewall(s) => Web servers (HTTP, mail relays, proxies, VPN termination, etc.) => Firewall(s) => backend servers (SQL, internal mail etc..) => Internal network.
      I am not in agreement. Two layers of firewall will provide marginally better protection in a standard two-tier layout, but it is not necessary, and is expensive. (digression: your $500 example is suitable only for very lightly loaded networks - it may be able to handle your first layer firewall, but almost certainly will saturate at the second layer: a PIX 525 firewall, at approx $30k for a redundant pair can handle about 370Mbits/second. So, I've got 6 webservers with Gigabit ethernet trying to talk to twelve back-end database servers, also gigabit ethernet. Look into prices for firewalls that can handle even 1000Mbps sometime and you'll see my point.)

      Anyway, unnecessary: a database that has only open ports 22 and, say, 3306 (I like MySQL) is going to look very similar to a a machine behind a firewall that only lets port 22 and 3306 through. There are a few classes of DoS attack that could be stemmed through use of a firewall, but really, the value of your environment is your data. Run a sniffer on a compromised webserver, and you've almost certainly got the information you need to make backend connections to the database servers.

      sloth jr

    20. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should look into the vulnerability history of BIND before holding it up as a golden child of the Internet.

      Diversity in software is the key, properly administered by those with a clue.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    21. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by nightcrawler77 · · Score: 1

      A Linux box running iptables will give you a very good stateful firewall for the cost of an old Pentium or Celeron box. A 300 MHz CPU, 128 mb RAM and a 1 GB HD are perfect (if not overkill!). You can probably have the whole thing running for under $80. I've done this in the past with much success for companies that would otherwise have no protection.

      And don't get me wrong, this is not substandard protection. Configured properly, I consider this to be on par with a standard PIX implementation.

      --

      "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton

    22. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by White_Lightning · · Score: 1
      Besides, who in their right mind (I know its redundant), would expose a database server to the Internet, whether that be Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, MSSQL or anything of this nature.

      Academic computing people? At the university I work at, all db servers, print servers and even the main frame are exposed to the internet.

      I guess people with degrees are not in their right mind.

      I've been trying my best to educate them, but since they have a degree, and I don't, they just won't listen.

    23. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you run Microsoft SQL Server, make sure the public internet can't access it.

      What a pathetic overkill response.
      I want the IP address of your server please. Post it here on Slashdot. Then see how much of a Internet security jock you are. 10.60.0.10

      Gee, sounds an awful lot like you "made sure the public internet couldn't access it" to me. Assuming you're even the original (blowdart) poster, of course, and not just a troll.

    24. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because an msql server is not a car.
      it's refrigerator and you are leaving it out on the street, then you wonder why people are stealing your food.

      put it in the house behind the front door where it belongs

    25. Re:Turn your SQL server off? by Asprin · · Score: 1


      because an msql server is not a car. it's refrigerator and you are leaving it out on the street, then you wonder why people are stealing your food.

      put it in the house behind the front door where it belongs



      Embracing and extending the analogy...

      It's more like a refrigerator in a resturant: the only access to the data should be through the restaurant staff.

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
  22. June 2002? by drfrogsplat · · Score: 1
    It is believed this worm leverages a vulnerability published in June 2002.
    While I don't want to support any attacks on servers, whatever their choice of software, this (once again) brings to the fore the problem of admins who don't look after their systems/networks (read: regularly check for security updates/patches, let alone set it up securely in the first place). From the linked article:
    It is strongly recommended that a rule be added to each organization's firewall such that any packet destined for UDP port 1434 on the 'clean' side of the firewall be dropped and logged. No host, even DNS Servers, should be allowed to send traffic to this port.
    And of course a patch was released by MS to remove the problem... All this 8 months ago and still it manages to have a fairly crippling effect on the InternetAsWeKnowIt(tm)? I don't care what OS or software you use (I won't even say what I use to let this become a flame war about UNIX being better than win32) but pleeeeease care about your network and check for updates and announcements... though i spose i'm preaching to the converted around here...
    1. Re:June 2002? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that with a network consisting of millions of systems running the same software, it takes only one percent of operators not knowing what they to to have tens of thousands of vulnerable systems.

      This is definately a disadvantage of having a single provider of all server software. Nature knew this all the time.

    2. Re:June 2002? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To paraphrase Simon Travaglia:

      Me: There's bad traffic on port 1413/UDP intended to disrupt MSQL servers.

      /. kid: Yes, block it!

      Me: But it might be needed for other things?

      /. kid: Yes, block it!

      Me: But, what about legal return traffic?

      /. kid: Yes, block it!

      Me: But port 1413 is one of the ports with a low enough number above 1024 that it quickly WILL be used for listening by the majority of OS'es out there...

      /. kid: Yes, block it!

      Me: But you can't seriously mean that the port should be blocked at a router/ISP level, when it's used for legitimate non-MSQL traffic?

      /. kid: Yes, block it!

  23. Another look at the worm by valdezjuan · · Score: 3, Informative

    From digitaloffense: A new worm which exploits a vulnerability in MS SQL Server is bringing the core routers to a grinding halt. The speed of the propagation can be attributed to the attack method and simplicity of the code. The worm sends a 376-byte UDP packet to port 1434 of each random target, each vulnerable system will immediately start propagating itself. Since UDP is connection-less, the worm is able to spread much more quickly than those using your standard TCP-based attack vectors (no connect timeouts). Some random screen shots and information about the worm can be found HERE.

  24. Whoever... by wulffi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whoever puts a database outside a firewall? and then leave its external port open???

    Sysadmins like that should be dragged into the street and shot.

    1. Re:Whoever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who puts a microsoft box outside a firewall - period? Almost as bad as a default install of redhat 6.2 for chrissakes.

    2. Re:Whoever... by cyb97 · · Score: 1
      I guess you've never setup a geographically dispersed serverfarm...
      It's usually smart to set up som filtering on incomming traffic, but there are reasons to keep external ports open...

      I'd rather shoot the sysadmins who doesn't keep up with vendor-patches...

    3. Re:Whoever... by wulffi · · Score: 1

      Cant comment on a geographically dispersed server farm. But it would seem that a firewall at both locations could have kept the problem down...

      You never,ever leave an unfiltered port open to the net. 1. rule for any admin.

      But shooting admins that dont patch is okay with me.

    4. Re:Whoever... by KliX · · Score: 1

      Here here!

      For god's sake, Microsoft provide one of the easiest patching systems in the world - WTF are we getting so many outages from this hole?

    5. Re:Whoever... by radish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have three letters for you:

      V P N

      There is NO excuse for leaving BACKEND services like DBs, appservers, or whatever else visible on the public net. NONE WHATSOEVER. I work on a major website with multiple different data servers and backend applications, all distributed (and load balanced) over 4 physical sites on 2 continents. We use private circuits to handle the inter-site traffic, you could use VPN just as well. But everything vulnerable is buried from the internet behind several layers of firewall. Anything else is sheer lunacy.

      Crappy admins bring this kind of attack on themselves, and alas, on the rest of us too.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    6. Re:Whoever... by Querty · · Score: 1

      You are being sarcastic here, are you not?

      With all this caffeine I'm having trouble recognizing it.

      Patching a MS server is IMHO of the worst experiences a sysadmin can go through. Patches and service packs contain many undisclosed "fixes" and changes to (often) many separate systems. You install them with MS basically telling you: "Trust us, we know what we're doing". Invariably, the system has to be rebooted, leading to downtime. Changes are often irreversible. It is an absolute nightmare.

      My systems only require the odd:

      apt-get update; apt-get upgrade

      or

      up2date -u

      Depending on the distribution. Actually I could do without the up2date on Red Hat, since apt4rpm rocks, but I like having all information/management of my desktops and servers available through Red Hat Network.

      The only time I need to reboot is when a kernel is updated, but it is completly optional, as the old kernel+modules are still available and the system will run just fine without rebooting.

    7. Re:Whoever... by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Microsoft provide one of the easiest patching systems in the world
      No, he's right. It's the one degree of separation thing. Patching's easy. He didn't say anything about getting it to work afterwards.

    8. Re:Whoever... by JordanH · · Score: 1
      • Crappy admins bring this kind of attack on themselves, and alas, on the rest of us too.

      Really.

      There should be liability for allowing this to spread. I would imagine that you could bring a civil suit against the owners of unpatched systems, but there are so many it would be difficult to really bring to trial, I would think. I guess you could just make examples of people and make them sue whoever gave them the virus (if they could tell) to recover punitive damages.

      There ought to be laws. If a vulnerability is found and unpatched and your system starts attacking other Internet systems due to the unpatched vulnerability, the ISPs should be required to shut you down, charge you for the work incurred and you should have to pay a fine and swear that you're all patched up before reconnection. The fines could go to supporting CERT activities.

      Second offences would get steeply escalating fines.

      As it stands now, sites really have very little motivation to making sure their systems are patched. I know a lot of sites that were spreading Code Red were still serving up pages just fine (I connected to them with clients).

      This could all be enforced by ISPs. If ISPs refused, like foreign ISPs, then ISPs in whatever country that supports these measures could be required to block their traffic.

      Computer security is somebody else's problem if it costs businesses money to implement. We need to make sure businesses with this attitude are hit in the pocketbook to bring it to their attention.

    9. Re:Whoever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I guess you've never setup a geographically dispersed serverfarm...

      I guess you have, badly.

    10. Re:Whoever... by barryfandango · · Score: 1

      I recently installed Microsoft ASP.NET Web Matrix, one of the several applications that includes MSDE - a no-interface version of SQL 2000. After installing and rebooting, I noticed that the server had been installed and was now running on my computer, connected to the internet by a cable modem. Voila. I knew it was a security issue but there are many non-technical users out there who wouldn't have a clue - they install the software and forget about it. It's not unlike the thousands of windows users who are running IIS and don't know it.

      --
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
    11. Re:Whoever... by Wolfgang · · Score: 1

      My machine (Linux, of course) reveived today only a few hundred such packets. I tried to resolve the IP-Adresses and I found, that ~75% of these packets come from machines which seem to have dynamic IP-Adresses.

      I would say dynamic IP-Adresses are typically used from home users, not from companies.

      According to various sources SQL server and it's children are the volunerable programs. Now, who needs SQL server at home? Actually no one, but it seems that those home users get this nifty piece of software as a present when installing other programs, they do not even know! [[ Some sources say, that eg. Visio installs a cut-down version of M$-SQL ]]

      So lets identify problem #1:
      A USER WHO DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IS INSTALLED ON ITS MACHINE CANNOT IDENTIFY NEEDED PATCHES!

      Of course, there are still ~25% machines affected which hold a name indicating that it is a professional machine in some company/university. So, I agree that these guys should do their work!

      So, problem #2:
      AN ADMIN SHALL DO IT'S JOB AND READ SECURITY ALERTS AND INSTALL PATCHES **BEFORE** SOMETHING BREAKS.

      Good news:
      NOT EVEN ONE PACKET FROM *.MIL domain!

    12. Re:Whoever... by bdan · · Score: 1

      This, or shoot their managers, who insisted on this kind of setup.

    13. Re:Whoever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "Hear, hear!". Now don't do it again.

    14. Re:Whoever... by Querty · · Score: 1

      ROFL!!!!!!

      Good point....

    15. Re:Whoever... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      I like the current set of reliability. Your FIRED!

      Of the places that were hacked, I am sure it will not happen again. Before code red and Ilovyou how many people patched their computers regularly? Now its almost an obsession with most bussiness. I personally never took security seriously before the outbreaks on my home pc. I now patch every couple of days and no longer use apps like outlook and mirc as well as sendmail on my FreeBSD box.

      An admins performance is evaluated on making sure the systems stay up and bring money back to the corporation, university or government. If you fuck up and cause 40k an hour due to lost productivity you got to go! The next admin who comes in will update their systems quite regularly. I am sure the CIO will see that it does. With the poor economy a good admin is quite easy to find over an incompetant one.

    16. Re:Whoever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we spell "government regulation from hell"?

      Patches for at least one operating system in
      common use come with contractual license
      agreements authorizing the manufacturer to
      backdoor the system. If the State can compel
      users to install the software they want, expect
      much more. The Soviet Union used to require
      all ISPs to (at their expense, yet) install the
      KGB's monitoring hardware. Russia kept that
      policy, and the Bush/Poindexter administration in
      the US has spoken of adopting it there, as well.

      And to block all traffic from countries not
      enacting parallel laws? Is this some kind of
      plot to outcompete China after the realization
      that they're winning the Oppression Race? I
      don't want an Internet where the only opinions
      I can get are from within the small handful of
      nations with the near-totalitarian system
      necessary to enforce this...

    17. Re:Whoever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, normally you would use VPN for the traffic and surely in this case you should have used it.

      There is one big problem with VPNs and that's MTU, ever tried to connect to mainframe with stupid terminal emulation client ?
      If your router doesn't support packet fragmentation correctly at the VPN level your only possibility is to use public IPs for the connection ...

  25. Been waiting for this by tigress · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...the Slashdot article, that is. I've been watching this since I got up this morning (about five hours ago, local time). There's been plenty of discussions about this on various mailinglists, including NANOG and NordNOG, as well as several IRC channels I frequent. I'm surprised it took this long for Slashdot to post anything about it.

    According to unconfirmed sources on NANOG, the worm seems to eat up bandwidth at line rate (even at GigE links), is rumored to amplify itself via Cisco routers, and is the creation of Saddam Hussein.

    My journal on the worm.

    1. Re:Been waiting for this by alx.slashdot · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I bet Saddam wrote it and Bin Laden launched the attack.

    2. Re:Been waiting for this by Doobian+Coedifier · · Score: 1

      2003-01-25 10:26:29 New MS SQL worm flooding internet (articles,security) (rejected)

      Submitted this at 23:15 PST.

  26. best writeup by numatrix · · Score: 4, Informative

    Best writeup I've seen is over at iss.net. They were the first to update their internet status homepage alerting of the vulnerability as far as I can tell.

    1. Re:best writeup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bugtraq and Symantec TMS were the first, by far.

  27. So this proves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that there are still way to many slack-assed admins out there. Not that getting nailed by something of this nature is a sign of bad administration, but it had to start with stupidity and laziness at some level. INSTALL THE PATCHES. INSTALL THE SERVICE PACKS. KEEP EVERYTHING UP TO DATE. It's your job, do it. Everyone's internet connection will thank you.

  28. give them a break by chevelleSS · · Score: 1

    even /. editors have to sleep!

    1. Re:give them a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM Trials TCPA Chip Under Linux
      LinuxPosted by michael on Friday January 24, @09:06PM

      Where Are They Now: Q*Bert
      It's funny. Laugh.Posted by michael on Saturday January 25, @12:42AM

      Cross-Site-TRACE
      SecurityPosted by michael on Saturday January 25, @03:17AM

      How High is Your AP?
      The InternetPosted by michael on Saturday January 25, @06:33AM

  29. problem still around by Dynamic+Drive · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been watching this havoc unfold all night as well. I wonder how long it's going to take for the entire problem to clear. Most sites that were previously unaccessible are for me are now, except some of our own. Makes me wonder if something else is going on in these datacenters.

    1. Re:problem still around by TheTomcat · · Score: 1

      A VERY VERY long time. I still get code red hits on my web servers, quite regularly.. and THAT was 2 years ago.

      S

    2. Re:problem still around by kputnam · · Score: 1

      I really doubt this problem will ever go away, like how Code Red still hasn't gone away. I still get Code Red I and II infection attempts to my server despite the thing that was supposed to self-destruct on a certain date (I suppose incorrectly set clocks are to thank for this?)

  30. Collected info: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    There's a stream of related info in the comments of Slashdot's Cross-Site TRACE story.

    Some snippets from there:

    Mabu's message says: Here's what we've been able to learn, at 4:30am Central time.

    We have reason to believe that something called the "SQL Worm" is in play. Some sort of DDOS attack which creates overwhelming traffic on port 1434. This is all preliminary stuff, so take it as such but I have one link up and 3 others down.

    I don't have confirmation or details on what systems are affected but we have information to indicate that the following networks are currently affected: Quest, Cable & Wireless, Broadwing, Sprint (partially). My Worldcom link seems to be unaffected (which is why I can post). Note that the connectivity interruptions may be regional but that's what we are dealing with in the South Central area of the US. This has been going on now for about 4-5 hours.

    What we are seeing is a major outage due to DDOS on port 1434, on portions of the Internet backbone. At this point, the exact pattern of the outage has not been clarified.

    Expect the problem to potentially be addressed when the backbone providers start filtering port 1434. However, it's taken them at least four hours to figure this out.

    We just got notice (a few moments ago) that Quest finally started filtering port 1434 and everything went back up. So now we need to figure out what vulnerability this was. My information indicates that port 1434 is MS SQL server resolution service (see related CERT advisory [cert.org]. My initial impression is that while this vulnerability was discovered awhile back, someone just recently figured out a very effective exploit using the vulnerability. I am looking forward to hearing more about what people find out.

    The issue currently happening, from what anyone can tell at any rate is that a flaw in MSSQL has been found, due to everyone noticing a lot of traffic on 1434.. MSSQL port anyhow, I was running MSSQL earlier and my dns crapped out ctrl+alt+del'd and saw 85% cpu used by mssql server, killed it and boom everything was okay, possibly a worm traveling around, http://internethealthreport.com/ UUnet seems absolutely destroyed ;)

    I'm watching my firewall logs fill up even as I type, and all the 1434 hits are coming from different IPs... no dupes yet that I can see (maybe there are... but I'm not planning on sitting here all night reading logs).

    http://www.nextgenss.com/advisories/mssql-udp.txt is an advisory about port 1434

    http://average.matrix.net/Daily/markR.html shows a vivid picture of overall net health due to this

    SQLServer listens to 1434 to accept incomming connections. SQLServer 7 would then normally transfer these connections to 1433 by default. SQLServer 2000 would transfer the connection to a random port.

    It's best to 'hide' the SQLServer from the internet, and/or disable TCP/IP listening for SQLServer totally when it's connected to the Internet. MS also suggests SQLServer should never be exposed to the Internet directly. You can hide SQLServer (2000) directly, using the Server network utility, shipped with SQLServer. You can there first deselect TCP/IP as a protocol that's active, and if you need it, you can select 'hide' to hide the server on the internet, however it's better to disable TCP/IP totally, since you do not need it when you work with SQLServer from the same box (f.e. a website running on the same box accessing the SQLServer).

    Oh, of course it should be mentioned, there is a patch for this available at MS' technet site.

    http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/370308 may be the CERT article related to this vuln.

    Resent-From: mbac@romulus.netgraft.com
    From: Michael Bacarella Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:11:41 PM America/Los_Angeles
    Resent-To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
    To: nylug- talk@nylug.org, wwwac@lists.wwwac.org, linux-elitists@zgp.org
    Subject: MS SQL WORM IS DESTROYING INTERNET BLOCK PORT 1434!

    I'm getting massive packet loss to various points on the globe. I am seeing a lot of these in my tcpdump output on each host.
    02:06:31.017088 150.140.142.17.3047 > 24.193.37.212.ms-sql-m: udp 376
    02:06:31.017244 24.193.37.212 > 150.140.142.17: icmp: 24.193.37.212 udp port ms-sql-m unreachable [tos 0xc0

    It looks like there's a worm affecting MS SQL Server which is pingflooding addresses at some random sequence. All admins with access to routers should block port 1434 (ms-sql-m)!

    Everyone running MS SQL Server shut it the hell down or make sure it can't access the internet proper! I make no guarantees that this information is correct, test it out for yourself!

    -- Michael Bacarella 24/7
    phone: 646 641-8662
    Netgraft Corporation http://netgraft.com/
    "unique technologies to empower your business"
    Finger email address for public key. Key fingerprint: C40C CB1E D2F6 7628 6308 F554 7A68 A5CF 0BD8 C055

    1. Re:Collected info: by tom+enterprise · · Score: 0

      , since you do not need it when you work with SQLServer from the same box (f.e. a website running on the same box accessing the SQLServer). um yeah..... thats a brilliant idea ....running IIS on the same box as sql server. I think Ill take my chances NOT to do that.

    2. Re:Collected info: by SBrickWork · · Score: 1

      Though all this information...

      They noticed the port...
      check it against /etc/services and got MSSQL...

      but i'm shocked about 2 things...
      1) he didn't check technet to see if MS was aware of this?!?... the PATCH HAS BEEN AVAILABLE SINCE JULY... how hard is that to stress?

      2) if he has as much view as he indicates (broadwing, sprint, etc)... wouldn't he be able to notice maybe a FEW servers that WEREN'T going crazy?!?... because just MAYBE the admin installed SP3 or the patch?!?
      -Based on this a LITTLE bit of research comparing the infected and noninfected can probably bring up quite a bit

      but maybe that's just me.

      food for thought,
      -Scott

  31. The Fix? by Lord+Prox · · Score: 0, Troll

    So wil it be this year that MicroSquash will sell us the fix for this, or will the release date slip.

    Ya know... On a more serious note, one of these days one of these little worms will have a really mean and nasty payload attached. Instead of just swamping us with annoying packets it could do some major harm. Remember Code Red? something like 90% of infectable hosts infected in 26 hours... the thing could have destroyed the server's OS/file system/whatever. It was the kindness of the coder that he/she spared us from that. We should not let the world economy's security be handeled by the kindness of these worm/virii coders!!!

    I say we should shoot l4m3r windows sysadmins on sight... for the sake of the world... and our beloved Internet.

    1. Re:The Fix? by NineNine · · Score: 1

      What exactly does a Net worm have to do with the "world's economy"?

    2. Re:The Fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo idiot. The fix was release about 8 months ago. And to the others, enough with the saddam and bin laden references, OK? thanks.

    3. Re:The Fix? by TheGreek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They'll sell it to us over six months ago.

      For free.

      Asshead.

    4. Re:The Fix? by Lord+Prox · · Score: 1

      My post was an attempt at humor... Sorry. It was trying to make light of the fact that MS tries to use "more secure" as a selling point to keep people upgrading.

      From the looks of things it just wasn't that funny.

    5. Re:The Fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. It SHOULD have been destructive.

      People need to start writing worms that destroy these computers, wipe the drives, etc, no mercy.

      Every time a new exploit is found, maybe 2 months after the patch is out a lethal worm should be released... whoever didn't patch will be wiped out. The stupid admins will be fired and the Internet will be a lot better off.

      IMO

    6. Re:The Fix? by Lord+Prox · · Score: 1

      Finally... someone read more than the first line of the orignal post...

      I would tend to agree with your comments as well...

      Always give em the chance to fix it, if not then burn em...

  32. Al-Qaeda by tigress · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's those darn Al-Quaeda, I tell you! Them and Saddam Hussein! Damn them for retaliating against our Righteous Attacks!

    1. Re:Al-Qaeda by fidros · · Score: 1

      No, it's not Al-Qaeda. It something much much worse...

      AOL-Qaeda. Soon, an AOL user as a sysadmin in a data center near you. :-)

      Gilad

      --
      Gilad.
  33. Re:Why would anyone use anything else? by occamboy · · Score: 1

    Having used Orcle, SQL Server, and PostgreSQL, I'm wondering... why use anything other than PostgreSQL? This attack just further reinforces my belief that 95% of folks using Oracle and SQL Server should switch.

  34. Every Server, eh? by thefluxster · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    "Since about midnight EST almost every host on the internet has been receiving a 376 byte UDP payload on port ms-sql-m (1434) from a random infected server."

    Is anyone else offended that this user thinks that EVERY server runs MS SQL or even Microsoft Anything? Our servers haven't been affected at all by this, FYI.

    --

    Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I.

    1. Re:Every Server, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, if you actually read it you would see that it says "almost every host on the internet has been receiving" not asking for or sending, like it or not you are getting it, does not imply at all that you are running MS-SQL.

    2. Re:Every Server, eh? by DarkZero · · Score: 1

      Is anyone else offended that this user thinks that EVERY server runs MS SQL or even Microsoft Anything?

      Who said anything about running MS SQL? He just said that "almost every host on the internet has been receiving a 376 byte UDP payload...". You don't need to be running MS SQL to receive it or to be affected by it. You do, however, need MS SQL to be infected by it, but what the person said has nothing to do with infection.

      I'm not even running any kind of server and my firewall is logging quite a bit of this crap. It's already logged more incoming infected packets than it did when Code Red was around, but I am not getting infected because I am not running MS SQL.

    3. Re:Every Server, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope, my linux box got hammered to death by it before i woke up :| damn co-lo

  35. Such floods can be easily stopped. by Krapangor · · Score: 2, Funny

    The only problem is that most of responsible people are computer scientists and sometimes even only with a BS in CS and therefore have no clue of harmonic analysis and advanced probability theory.
    If you project your network system in the C^n- space of markovian probability measures and with to the frequency domain, you can easily see that our system represents a compact manifold of superharmonic measures. And malign overflow is just a upper bound in this set, therefore harmonic. It's well known that the only harmonic functions on compact manifolds are constant. So going back into the time domain this means that you must just analyze the frequency of the packets. All packet streams with a constant frequency are malicious by the above calculation and therefore should be dropped. Of course there are some minor points with the frequency reflection on edges etc. but this is very basic stuff and can be easily solved.
    If think there was a paper of Lorgajev and Starniktov in the 80ies about this, but I'm not really sure.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    1. Re:Such floods can be easily stopped. by platypus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot to mention something about algorithms of complexity O(n*log(n)), and the sig:

      Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time


      If I took you for someone else, please accept my apology.

    2. Re:Such floods can be easily stopped. by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1

      If you project your network system in the C^n- space of markovian probability measures and with to the frequency domain, you can easily see that our system represents a compact manifold of superharmonic measures.

      Of course!
      Why didn't I think of that?

      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    3. Re:Such floods can be easily stopped. by yeOldeSkeptic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. However I also suggest that packets streaming into any port under a gaussian bell curve probability and/or a poisson distribution also be filtered out. I heard that the newest version of the linux kernel has mechanisms for thermodynamically analyzing all packets for signs of randomness. As all computer scientists and mathematicians know, humans are not random and it is therefore unlikely that packets sent from a client will arrive at any given server randomly. Richard Stallman in his PhD thesis ``The Statistical Thermodynamics of Software Evolution'' says as much. Please read the paper for details.

      Sorry, I don't have the URL. I'm not a karma whore.

    4. Re:Such floods can be easily stopped. by mookie-blaylock · · Score: 1

      Make it so, Mr. LaForge.

      --
      I am not Herbert.
    5. Re:Such floods can be easily stopped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this up!

      Stoopid moderators.

  36. the problem is monoculture again by g4dget · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While part of the problem is that Microsoft software sucks particularly badly when it comes to security, something like this can happen with other software as well. The real problem is that we have a software monoculture: we need many more, different, independently implemented software systems. They will all have bugs, but as long as they all have different bugs, we are mostly OK. And that's the real reason why Microsoft's market dominance, in particular on large numbers of small machines run by non-experts, is a problem.

    1. Re:the problem is monoculture again by mlyle · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't think it's fair to say this is due to a software monoculture. MS SQL Server only has a 18-19% RDBMS marketshare (38% or so of the Windows database market).

      The argument could be made that with more different types of software, there is a greater risk of DDoS that could cripple the net (although cleanup will be easier in that case, too).

    2. Re:the problem is monoculture again by southpolesammy · · Score: 1

      Nah...the problem isn't entirely with Microsoft, but with lazy admins. The patch has been available for exactly 6 months now, and poor admin practices could be the only reason why this would still exist.

      That being said, it doesn't speak well of the typical MS admin that SQL Server boxes are being put on the outsides of firewalls and with unpatched software. That's grossly sloppy from a design perspective, and just begs for these kinds of things to happen.

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    3. Re:the problem is monoculture again by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that we have a software monoculture

      Even a configuration multiculture would be better than what we have now... why are these database servers all responding on the default port? Is it not possible to set your own choice from the 2^16 available ports, especially if there's only one program (i.e. a webserver) which ever needs to connect to it?

    4. Re:the problem is monoculture again by rseuhs · · Score: 1

      Both IIS and MSSQL are not dominating their fields yet they were the ones affected by mass-infections on a greater scale than any other mass-infection.

    5. Re:the problem is monoculture again by g4dget · · Score: 1
      I don't think it's fair to say this is due to a software monoculture. MS SQL Server only has a 18-19% RDBMS marketshare (38% or so of the Windows database market).

      In biology, a "monoculture" also doesn't mean that the whole world has a single kind of crop, it means that there are very large patches of the same crop. Even 18% market share for any one company or product is way too large (yes, that holds for Apache as well). And an 18% marketshare fo MS SQL server translates into a much larger share of vulnerable installations, because of the generally lower skills required to install and administer it, because of its lower cost, and because of the kinds of installations that are using it; you're probably much less likely to find an Oracle or DB2 server on the open net.

      The argument could be made that with more different types of software, there is a greater risk of DDoS that could cripple the net (although cleanup will be easier in that case, too).

      One can also make the argument that the earth is flat. Neither of those two arguments, however, stands up to reality.

    6. Re:the problem is monoculture again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The real problem is that we have a software monoculture

      You are absolutely right.

      However, another method to slow down the spread of viri and increase overall cyber security is to populate your network with fake services.

      The worms select their hosts randomly and most networks host only a small number of real machines. If all network addresses reply to worm probes, they potentially suck up worm resources and prevent it from spreading quicker. One tool to this might be honeyd.

      On the other hand, the spreading behavior would still be exponential. But it might be something interesting to study.

    7. Re:the problem is monoculture again by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      The patch which was supposed to fix this issue can be undone by other patches......that very much IS Microsoft's fault. Once again we can thank them for wasting tens of millions of dollars of corporate time (if not more). I think a class action lawsuit for this might have some merit (unlike the nimda/code red where a working patch that couldn't be overwritten by a later patch *was* available before the worms hit).

    8. Re:the problem is monoculture again by mlyle · · Score: 1
      I think it's unrealistic and counter to the overall goal to interoperability of the internet to have so many implementations, and such variance in what implementations that are used, that no one has greater than a 15% share.

      As to MS SQL creating a larger share of vulnerable installations-- yes, I had thought of that. Products aimed at low-end installations certainly need more hardening. Of course, you could also argue that the average MS SQL server installation has a lot less bandwidth to throw around than the average Oracle deployment.

      One can also make the argument that the earth is flat. Neither of those two arguments, however, stands up to reality.

      It really doesn't take a whole lot of penetrated systems to perpetuate a targeted DDoS. The ratio of size between common small pipes (1.5mbit/sec) and large pipes (1gbit/sec) isn't that great; and when you're talking about something like specifically attacking the root servers (which this attack didn't do), one can make use of traffic amplification inherent in the attacked protocol (e.g. asking for information that is larger than the DNS request sent). If you're talking about a large market (How many well-connected RDBMS's are there out on the internet?) it doesn't take a very high market share for a vulnerability to be a dangerous one.

      Twin engine piston airplanes have a higher accident rate due to engine failure than single engine airplanes. While there are a lot of complicated reasons for this phenomenon, one of them is that twins are twice as likely to suffer an engine failure, and twins are not always able to climb with one engine out.

      I'd rather have 5-6 well-supported software packages out there than hundreds of fairly-supported ones-- both from an interoperability standpoint and a resiliency point of view.

    9. Re:the problem is monoculture again by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Nah...the problem isn't entirely with Microsoft, but with lazy admins.

      I don't think that is true at all. Microsoft just released SP3 last week - before that you had to use a hotfix to patch this. Hotfixes are not easy to manage. In addition the fact is that any organization that is serious about having their applications run properly is going to run a test/acceptance cycle before putting a patched product into full production. This testing costs real money, and an organization may well make a decision not to apply a patch because of the cost of validation.

      Then there are the people running SQL Server on a box in a non-professional enviromenet - home, academic, whatever. Nobody can expect that they are going to take the care that would be expected of a professional sysop.

      While there are cases where you can argue that a compromise is due to 'lazy sysadmins', I bet that most of the traffic due to this worm is not attributable to sysasdmin failures.

      Where does that leave the blame? At the foot of the company that released grossly vulnerable software in the first place.

    10. Re:the problem is monoculture again by KarMannJRO · · Score: 1

      *smacks AC across the knuckles with a ruler* Pay attention!

      While the honeypot approach might be effective against other worms and such, it wouldn't have made a whit of difference here. The infected hosts only needed to send a single packet to each target, this being UDP, and didn't even bother waiting for a reply of any kind. Wouldn't have slowed this one down a bit.

    11. Re:the problem is monoculture again by g4dget · · Score: 1
      I think it's unrealistic and counter to the overall goal to interoperability of the internet to have so many implementations,

      The Internet is based on interoperability by standards compliance. More implementations foster more standards compliance and interoperability. You are effectively suggesting interoperability having N implementors hack up their systems not to comply with the standard but to work with the N-1 other systems "that matter". That's bad: nobody then knows what the standard really is.

      It really doesn't take a whole lot of penetrated systems to perpetuate a targeted DDoS. The ratio of size between common small pipes (1.5mbit/sec) and large pipes (1gbit/sec) isn't that great;

      Of course, you don't need a lot of compromised hosts to bring down a single target, but so what? That wasn't the problem in this attack. If something cures the common cold, it doesn't also have to cure cancer in order to be useful.

      Furthermore, the effects are not linear: if you increase the density of vulnerable sites, you get a more than linear increase in terms of overall risk and effect: the lower the density, the longer it takes for one compromised host to find the next one, and below a certain density it becomes effectively impossible (in particular, if routers are configured to throttle or block unusual traffic patterns like that). And if compromising the system involves manual interaction at some pointo (as a lot of vulnerabilities do), you get even bigger benefits from reducing the density of vulnerable systems even slightly.

      I'd rather have 5-6 well-supported software packages out there than hundreds of fairly-supported ones-- both from an interoperability standpoint and a resiliency point of view.

      See, and that kind of naive thinking is exactly why we get the huge security problems and poor standards compliance that we have.

    12. Re:the problem is monoculture again by mlyle · · Score: 1

      I think it's important to note that in the real world, besides having great diversity in species, we still have diseases. I agree that having a small amount of immunity can slow down an emerging worm. But RDBMS's are not exactly plentiful on the internet compared to many other software categories, and yet we see a successful worm. Apparently the density of vulnerable hosts can be fairly low to have a nearly instantaneous effect-- computer worms spread a lot faster than viruses in the real world because the diameter of the network (the shortest "direct" path between nodes) is effectively 1.

      The highest estimate I've seen of compromised hosts (which should closely match the number of vulnerable hosts in this case, because every exposed IP on the internet was receiving these packets) is about 22000. That equates to a density of .00000588 vulnerable hosts per valid-looking IP address. That's a really low number to be the base for your exponential growth curve (even Webstar, the #10 webserver with a 0.51% share, has 4x this density. You'd need more than 800 implementations of webservers with equal share to get below the density of MS SQL Server on the net). Basically it appears every vulnerable host on the internet was compromised within a few minutes.

      At only 2500PPS, that's 1 infection per infected host per minute in the early phases of the worm; e.g. the number of infected hosts should be close to 2^t, where t is the time in minutes, at that packet rate. Needless to say, this gets big fast. Halving the vulnerability rate would make this 2^(t/2), which would still make it spread pretty fast compared to the cleanup and response rate. And that assumes that the worm uses a purely random spread method like this one does. Even in a truely heterogenous internet, it's likely that similar hosts will clump together and be able to send each other packets faster, so there are better spread methods available.

      It's really difficult to configure routers, especially core routers, to block unusual traffic patterns. The lack of aggressive filtering, IMO, is why we have these problems.

      Standards are imperfect. Software implementations of the standards, too, are imperfect, for a variety of reasons (deliberate and accidental). Even working to develop software within one company, with specs that are designed to guarantee interoperability can result in surprises. Do we really need a hundred general-purpose RDBMS's in the world? And the resultant specialization in knowledge that will result from different practices in tuning, etc? And the difficulty in keeping all those different kinds of servers patched in real-world operational practice? I don't think so.

      I don't see how avoiding the monoculture makes things safer. Running the numbers, having more kinds of web servers out there makes the internet more dangerous for denial of service-- both as a byproduct of a worm or deliberately. All having more kinds out there does is simplifies the scope of the cleanup operation when the catastrophic does happen-- improves the worst case at the cost of having it occur more often.

    13. Re:the problem is monoculture again by KarMannJRO · · Score: 1

      I think it's unrealistic and counter to the overall goal to interoperability of the internet to have so many implementations,...

      Just to (over)simplify a bit for you...
      interoperability != intercommunication
      Something to keep in mind. Interoperability may not be the goal you think it is.

    14. Re:the problem is monoculture again by g4dget · · Score: 1
      I think it's important to note that in the real world, besides having great diversity in species, we still have diseases.

      Diversity isn't about eliminating diseases, it's about limiting their impact on entire ecosystems.

      I agree that having a small amount of immunity can slow down an emerging worm.

      It's not just about slowing down the spread. If we had had 1/10th the number of vulnerable sites, we would have had (roughly) 1/10th the amount of traffic, and much less impact on overall Internet performance.

      It's really difficult to configure routers, especially core routers, to block unusual traffic patterns. The lack of aggressive filtering, IMO, is why we have these problems.

      Filtering is perhaps too drastic. Good volume based pricing, with premium prices for peak usage, would help. If every MS SQL site that got infected was facing a $50k bill--probably the cost their sloppiness imposed on the rest of us--they'd be more careful next time. And if that fails, you can throttle, rather than filter.

  37. Open the gates... by Tyreth · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...let the mandatory "this wouldn't happen if sysadmins upgraded" comments begin!

    Seriously though, you should have upgraded!

    1. Re:Open the gates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most sysadmins applied the patches, but the majority of MS-SQL servers are not managed by sysadmins, instead they're mismanaged by MCSEs which have no clue. Microsoft wants to have it both ways: on one hand, they claim that Windows is so easy to manage that any idiot can do it, and on the other hand they expect said idiots to act as competent admins.

    2. Re:Open the gates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously though, you should have upgraded!

      Seriously though, your DB server should've been behind a firewall to begin with!

    3. Re:Open the gates... by StarTux · · Score: 1

      LOL. Got insightful, which it was, but it was also funny!

      StarTux

    4. Re:Open the gates... by Adrian+Voinea · · Score: 1

      Open the Gates? This wouldn't have happened if Gates hadn't opened the Windows... ;)

    5. Re:Open the gates... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Talk about it. After code red there is no excuse why this should be happening.

      If I was a bussiness owner or CIO I would fire the admin who was negligent enough to not only put the server directly on the internet but too lazy to patch.

      Patching in this day and age is absolutely essential and should be a regular activity for any admin no matter how much experience he/she has. Even on desktop pc's its essential. Especially if its a windows box and you can just point and click on "Windows update".

      I can hire an experienced admin for 50k a year which is probably the same price as the old one due to the poor economy . Then there is no excuse why not. Its also more fair the great admins who are unemployed and leaving the IT field due to the bad economy. I would love to help out the guys who are looking in the process.

      You know thats an idea. Any unemployed admins reading this should go find out which companies that were infected and send your resumes. I am sure at least some of them now have admin slots open assuming there network went down.

    6. Re:Open the gates... by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      If I was a bussiness owner or CIO I would fire the admin who was negligent enough to not only put the server directly on the internet but too lazy to patch.

      That would be a tough thing to do since you probably laid him off a couple months ago.... ;)

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    7. Re:Open the gates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, my desktop system was affected.

      Why? Because I demo'ed a copy of Sitekeeper (it uses MSDE, but never bothered telling me). And I've run "Windows Update" several times since then, no warning that I needed a MS SQL patch.

      Why would I install SQL patches when I would never touch MS SQL?

      Microsoft says "This is a criminal act ...". I agree with them 100% and expect them to turn themselves in immediately.

  38. How to get control of your box again by rolandbm · · Score: 2, Informative

    It looks like if you stop the proccess sqlservr.exe it will take all of the CPU proccess back down to normal. Obviously you dont want to delete this file, but with it stopped you can at least get the box on the network to trouble shoot this stuff. So far from what we can tell, when you restart SQL the load stays down, but that could also just be that its sitting there idle waiting to be activated again. Hope this helps.

    Alchemy Support
    Alchemy Communications

    --
    It can giggle all it wants. The galaxy's not gettin any of our Bourbon.
    1. Re:How to get control of your box again by current93 · · Score: 1

      Just restarting the SQL service doesn't help, but installing SQL SP3 does.

    2. Re:How to get control of your box again by rolandbm · · Score: 1

      So I'm seeing. Thanks for the info.

      --
      It can giggle all it wants. The galaxy's not gettin any of our Bourbon.
  39. Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Care to offer up one particle of evidence that this was Saddam's doing? Or are you just beating the Bush war drum like a good little puppet?

  40. leaving that port open... by smartfart · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I agree, it ought to be closed. However, our beloved MySQL also leaves its port open, listening on all NICs in a box.

    Gr.... All the more reason to run a host firewall on every machine.

    1. Re:leaving that port open... by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      On Debian machines at least, it will only accept connections from localhost until the admin opens it up. I would assume something like this is done on OpenBSD as well. What are you installing MySQL on that it's listening publically by default when installed?

    2. Re:leaving that port open... by smartfart · · Score: 1
      Me? I'm not. Everything I have is behind a *nix firewall. I'm just making an observation, that's all.

      MySQL listens on every port by default, but unless you specifically tell it to accept connections from X user on Y interface (loopback or ethN, whatever), it will ignore everything you throw at it.

      I certainly didn't count on getting labelled a troll.

      Grr...

    3. Re:leaving that port open... by smartfart · · Score: 1
      Ok, I guess it would help if I actually read your post before responding.

      I run SuSE, mostly, and IIRC it's there by default, on every version I've ever installed:

      bash-2.05$ nmap rahab | grep mysql
      3306/tcp open mysql

      If debian restricts the socket to localhost by default, that's a good thing.

      Troll, indeed... Hrmph.

    4. Re:leaving that port open... by Ilmari · · Score: 1
      If debian restricts the socket to localhost by default, that's a good thing.
      Debian has "skip-networking" by default in /etc/mysql/my.cnf and thus only allows UNIX socket connections on /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock.
      --

      © ilmari. All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

    5. Re:leaving that port open... by yeti+(dn) · · Score: 1

      You should let mysql use only unix sockets at the first place, when you don't want connections from outside (skip-networking in [mysqld] section). Then it won't listen on TCP at all, but will be still accessible on localhost.

      --
      Life is the slowest way to death.
  41. Mitnick... by Zibu · · Score: 1

    Mitnick just received his Alubook from Woz, and here's the result... ;)

    --
    Me no sig.
  42. Who said anything about turning it off? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2, Informative

    Any server that doesn't need to be accessed from the public internet in the course of it's normal use should be firewalled off from it. That's just common sense.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  43. No mention in media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think it's funny that all of the media outlets are talking about "a worm like Code Red has infected the internet and is causing worldwide slowing of the internet" but they don't mention at all that it has to do with a Microsoft product or that it was a known bug that MS has ignored for almost a year.

    1. Re:No mention in media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the patch for this vulnerability was released in june of LAST YEAR (aka 2002). this is a new exploit for the vulnerability.

    2. Re:No mention in media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... it has to do with a Microsoft product or that it was a known bug that MS has ignored for almost a year.
      While it pains me to defend Microsoft, it does appear that they provided a patch for this bug several months ago. The real problem seems to be people inexplicably running database servers on publicly accessible machines.
    3. Re:No mention in media? by demon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I like how they never point out that fact that these worms "only affect Microsoft products". Maybe because they don't know any better - or maybe it's just that they know which side their bread is buttered on, and like those advertising dollars.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    4. Re:No mention in media? by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      http://drudgereport.com/

      mickysoft, front and center.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  44. WARNING ONE LINK IS GOATSE REDIRECT ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Want will they think of next ?

  45. Is anyone seeing a change? by caluml · · Score: 1

    I am now seeing connections from the HTTP ports?

    14:18:44.018023 64.4.30.24.http > 193.128.xxx.xxx.ms-sql-m: FP 537:706(169) ack 334 win 16983
    14:18:44.019965 64.4.30.24.http > 193.128.xxx.xxx.ms-sql-m: . 1:537(536) ack 334 win 16983

    Is this a new variant already?

    1. Re:Is anyone seeing a change? by caluml · · Score: 1

      dig -x 64.4.30.24

      ;; ANSWER SECTION:
      24.30.4.64.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN PTR gfx.pav1.hotmail.com

      I think it's just the replies to a hotmail request that I picked up. (I'm watching tcp and udp 1433, and 1434)

    2. Re:Is anyone seeing a change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just a web browser getting a web page from 64.4.30.24 and it happened to choose 1434 as the source port. Outbound TCP connections will use any available port, and since you're obviously not running MS-SQL, 1434 was available.

  46. Re:US Military Intelligence? by ecalkin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If it hadn't been for a last minute scud that hit a barracks and killed a bunch of US servicemen, the united states would have killed more of its own soldiers than iraq did. friendly fire may be an oxymoron, but it happens...

  47. Re:Why would anyone use anything else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe patch their servers? There is no excuse for not having this patch applied, it's been available for over 6 months....

  48. Voyager Alpha Force, that�s it by dark-br · · Score: 1

    Its human controlled through Internet Relay Chat (IRC) communications. The bots are set up on a password-protected IRC channel, where they monitor any conversations taking place. A DDoS attack is launched when an attacker logs onto the channel and types in a command, which is then recognised and acted upon by the bots. Affected servers will then scan netblocks for other vulnerable SQL servers on port 1433, and will try to log on and run the malicious code.

  49. Dissassembled & annotated by ediron2 · · Score: 2, Informative
    http://www.boredom.org/~cstone/worm-annotated.txt has a great annotated geeks-eye-view of this worm.

    Kudos to cstone@boredom. Interesting & educational, with a nutty crunchy flavor.

  50. Do ya REALLY think all servers have active SA's? by caboosesw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, every colocated server has a system admin checking it?

    All servers that were placed up there years ago to host one silly site get checked regularly?

    All companies (or individuals) who host sites pay to have them maintained?

    All sysadmins are competent and on top of their patches ... outside of their regular duties which may include making coffee or sorting mail (depending on the size of the organization)?

    There are alot of servers and alot of sites. There aren't alot of "great" admins IMHO. And, often, patches are bundled together when you upgrade a server which may be once EVERY TWO TO FOUR YEARS.

    Reality folks.

  51. It's Hit Australia pretty bad too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Large number of ISPs here in OZ have been affected by the worm, it started about 3 and a half hours ago in OZ, and pretty much killed the net here

    Just thought u'd like to know :D

  52. new vulnerability?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shit, Im still getting hit with LAST year's M$ vulnerability.. ;)

    [Sat Jan 25 02:26:01 2003] [error] [client 66.57.128.6] File does not exist: /us
    r/local/www/data/scripts/..Á../winnt/system32 /cmd. exe
    [Sat Jan 25 02:26:01 2003] [error] [client 66.57.128.6] File does not exist: /us
    r/local/www/data/scripts/..À../winnt/system32 /cmd .exe
    [Sat Jan 25 02:26:02 2003] [error] [client 66.57.128.6] File does not exist: /us
    r/local/www/data/scripts/..Á../winnt/system32 /cmd. exe
    [Sat Jan 25 02:26:02 2003] [error] [client 66.57.128.6] File does not exist: /us
    r/local/www/data/scripts/..%5c../winnt/system 32/cm d.exe
    [Sat Jan 25 02:26:02 2003] [error] [client 66.57.128.6] File does not exist: /us
    r/local/www/data/scripts/..%2f../winnt/system 32/cm d.exe

  53. Yes by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    It's like putting up a fence when you're trying to keep out solicitors. Although you only push the solicitors back to the fence, you can walk around your front yard now without anyone harrassing you.

    So although you won't be preventing any infections of your system, you will keep out the traffic caused by external infections from adversely flooding your internal networks. You may take a slight penalty at the border router, as it will have an extra rule in it, of course.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  54. mod down stupid troll by mlyle · · Score: 1

    All packet streams with a constant frequency are malicious?

    What crack are you smoking? Streaming media is malicious, then?. Traffic that is latency-constrained on the window (e.g. bandwidth * delay > window) is also periodic-- I assume it's malicious as well? Not to mention my little ping monitor watching my colo box to be sure it's up.

  55. Bah, nothing big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No Biggie. It's just another indication of problems in IT overall - i.e. IT professionals who are too good at being "professional" and who do not execute their technical responsibilities.

  56. Google news, my friend.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things seemed slow and nasty, so I Googlenewsed for "internet worm" and sure as shit, there it was.

  57. Yow! Good call /. by JasonUCF · · Score: 5, Funny

    I groggily stumble up to my computer, it being a normal enough sort of Saturday AM, and as I sit down I cast a lazy eye at my firewall counter.

    Woah! What's.. uh.. 150 inbound requests.. doing.. today.. worm?

    I start to fire up /. -- a lengthy process due to my dumbass ISP not having reverse DNS entries -- so I sniff around my logs.

    *clickity click*

    1434? The hell is 1434. Worm?

    *slashdot shows*

    Ah ha! Ve haf comprehension.

    *groggily shuffle off to get coffee, oooo black gold*

    For what it's worth, a majority of the packets so far have been mostly US servers -- .edu's with cute names like 'staging3', 'testing1', and, no joke, 'snoogans'.

  58. This is inside... by dark-br · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:This is inside... by numark · · Score: 1

      404 bytes...heh...what the irony

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    2. Re:This is inside... by Black_Logic · · Score: 1

      A suggested name for this outbreak is "Bill's Tapeworm".


      Hehe

      --
      Ansi's and stupid tricks!
  59. haiku for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft software
    Damn, no porn for me today
    Patch it up, admins

  60. Internet Traffic Report by egoff · · Score: 1

    If you don't know about it, this is a good time to know.

    Packet loss reached 14% at 2:20, and the global traffic index dropped to just below 73%. However, according to the many graphs on the site, things have pretty much recovered.

    1. Re:Internet Traffic Report by egoff · · Score: 1

      It looks like this started in Europe? Everything dropped off about 20 minutes earlier over there.

  61. Fox News by avalys · · Score: 5, Funny

    Heh...on the Fox News Channel's ticker, they had the following tidbit of information:

    "The virus spreads using a Microsoft vulnerability known as "SQL Server""

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Fox News by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Heh...on the Fox News Channel's ticker, they had the following tidbit of information:

      Well, on CNN's headline newsticker they have:

      "[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Operation canceled

      [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Timeout expired

      ODBC: Msg 0, Level 16, State 1

      Communication link failure

      Connection Broken"

    2. Re:Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knew MS has problems? Signed, Linux User

    3. Re:Fox News by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 1

      I went to CNN. The front page had a link to this article:

      Gates pledges better software security

      Saturday, January 25, 2003 Posted: 6:40 AM EST (1140 GMT)

      Microsoft's Chairman Bill Gates: "Microsoft has a responsibility to help."

      WASHINGTON (AP) -- Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is pledging to continue improvements to security in his company's products, part of a high-stakes campaign to convince large customers that Windows software is safe.

      http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/01/25/micro so ft.security.ap/index.html

      ( I think his Billness is a little slow on the uptake here! )

      --

      Religion is the main cause of atheism.

    4. Re:Fox News by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Heh...on the Fox News Channel's ticker, they had the following tidbit of information: "The virus spreads using a Microsoft vulnerability known as "SQL Server""

      And on MSNBC, the ticker says:

      ""CyberAttack2003! -- Terrorist Worm spreads using a flaw in certain database software.""

      MSOutlook exploits are similarly called generic "email worms". :)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  62. Re:Why would anyone use anything else? by sporty · · Score: 2, Informative

    Postgresql and oracle are like screw drivers. Do you use one screw driver for all tasks? No. There are some things that oracle really kicks ass at that postgres really plain sucks at. Vice versa as well.

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

  63. Re:the problem is monoculture again [BS] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF?

    How the hell did you get to there being a monoculture of database systems?

    MSSQL is in a pretty serious minority overall on the Internet.

    There's this other company you might have heard of. They're called Oracle and are the second biggest software firm on the planet.

  64. Re:US Military Intelligence? by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

    The only reason the Scud hit the army barracks was because it was "shot down" by a US Patriot missle.

  65. Re:Yow! Good call /. by caluml · · Score: 5, Funny

    This one has surprised me most so far:
    tybclbsqla02.listbuilder.com

    Hmm. Lists equal large databases.
    Large databases usually mean a DBA.
    DBAs should know better.

    whois listbuilder.com

    Technical Contact:
    Microsoft (EJSEHEQUAO)
    msnhst@MICROSOFT.COM
    Microsoft
    One Microsoft Way
    Redmond, WA 98052
    US
    425-882-8080

  66. Sleepy eyed he wakes up ... by bryanp · · Score: 1

    ... and sees all the hubbub. Stops, checks his logs. Yup. That's one helluva lot of hits on 1434 overnight. All dropped just like they should be. He wonders what the problem is? Surely nobody out there is silly enough to leave ports unnecessarily open on the firewall, are they? *yawn* Time for caffeine and comics.

    --
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
  67. Not just your needs... by fmaxwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, firewalls are for use as your needs require.
    I, for instance allow no incoming, but don't restrict outgoing.


    Firewalls are not just for your needs. They are also for the protection of others, too. It's the all-ports-open-on-outgoing stuff that allows worms like this to spread and wreak so much havoc. It's dial-up Internet providers leaving port 25 open on outgoing that allow spammers to use throwaway accounts for spamming.

    I don't think you should tell people what firewall rules they should be running.

    Hey, if it's my network being affected by your lack of rules, I've got a moral right to tell you what rules your firewall needs.

    1. Re:Not just your needs... by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 1

      Kind of messes up your users when they need to access a URL that specifies a port number (other than the default 80), doesn't it? I don't recall any RFC that *requires* TCP/UDP services in general to use particular ports, so this cuts users off from a potentially good part of the Internet.

      Fine for your own users.

      Don't try to tell me I have an obligation to shove it down the throats of mine.

    2. Re:Not just your needs... by Puhtronium714 · · Score: 1

      Firewalls are for use to protect the network the firewall is on. They can protect your network from external hackers by blocking illegitimate inbound traffic. Or they can protect your network from internal loss of productivity by blocking illegitimate outbound traffic. Generally speaking, the network admin doesn't worry about whether or not any other networks will be damaged by traffic generated from within his.

      You do have a right to ask another network admin to change his rules if they're affecting your network, but he has just as much of a right to tell you to get your own firewall and set it up properly.

    3. Re:Not just your needs... by j7953 · · Score: 1
      Firewalls are not just for your needs. They are also for the protection of others, too. It's the all-ports-open-on-outgoing stuff that allows worms like this to spread and wreak so much havoc.

      Umm, no. It's idiots not patching their severs. If everyone had patched their servers, the worm would never have gotten in anywhere. The best way to protect others is to not get infected yourself.

      It's dial-up Internet providers leaving port 25 open on outgoing that allow spammers to use throwaway accounts for spamming.

      So how would you like me to send my mails then? I am not sending it using my ISP's mail server but are using the mail server of the company that hosts my domain. Please explain to me why I should be prevented from connecting to that server.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    4. Re:Not just your needs... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Umm, no. It's idiots not patching their severs. If everyone had patched their servers, the worm would never have gotten in anywhere. The best way to protect others is to not get infected yourself.

      Yeah, that's obviously a real practical solution. Just look at how well it worked to stem the flow of traffic from Code Red and all of the various Outlook-based worms. Face it: end users don't patch stuff when they should. My copy of Apache is completely up to date and all of the security patches available for MS apps are installed on my systems, but I am woefully in the minority.

      So how would you like me to send my mails then? I am not sending it using my ISP's mail server

      Go through your ISP's mail server to send.

      Please explain to me why I should be prevented from connecting to that server.

      Because the potential harm done by spammers outweighs your personal preference of using an outgoing mail server (SMTP) other than the one provided by your ISP.

    5. Re:Not just your needs... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Kind of messes up your users when they need to access a URL that specifies a port number (other than the default 80), doesn't it?

      Such cases are rare and you can adjust your firewall to open holes for those must-access services (e.g., www.im-running-a-warez-server-on-my-cable-modem.co m:8181).

      Don't try to tell me I have an obligation to shove it down the throats of mine.

      You have an obligation to see that your network is not used to propagate worms and participate in DDOS attacks. If you can do that without a firewall, good for you. But if your users piss on my networks, I'll do everything I can to get your upstream provider to shut you down until you resolve the problem.

    6. Re:Not just your needs... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      You do have a right to ask another network admin to change his rules if they're affecting your network, but he has just as much of a right to tell you to get your own firewall and set it up properly.

      If my incoming bandwidth is being wasted by attacks from your network, tell me how changing my firewall rules will get that bandwidth back.

    7. Re:Not just your needs... by Tomble · · Score: 1
      Go through your ISP's mail server to send.
      Because the potential harm done by spammers outweighs your potential preference of using an outgoing mail server other than the one provided by your ISP.
      Piss off! I don't know about the other guy, but I choose to use a separate email service because over the past few years, I (well, my family) have had to change ISP several times for one reason or another- ISPs closing down for instance. I spotted this trend (us changing, I mean) over a year ago and so twigged it was a good idea for me to pay for an address that would stay constant even if we had to change again. For instance I might get broadband one day (I certainly intend to).

      No, the answer you should have given, is that many external email services (such as the one I use), allow an alternative port to connect through, such as 2525, for those users whose ISPs do block the SMTP port (which is both a sane and a reasonable thing to do, I agree). Those companies that don't provide the alternative are the people at fault.

      FWIW, I pretty much agree with you on most of the other things you said though. ISPs should be considerate to people on other networks by restricting the possibility for their users to wreak havoc with their accounts. The exact nature of those restrictions is another matter- blocking everything non-standard is way out of line, for example.

      --
      Be careful! New moon tonight.
    8. Re:Not just your needs... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Piss off!
      {...}
      FWIW, I pretty much agree with you on most of the other things you said though.


      Mighty fine way of letting me know.

      I don't know about the other guy, but I choose to use a separate email service because over the past few years, I (well, my family) have had to change ISP several times for one reason or another- ISPs closing down for instance. I spotted this trend (us changing, I mean) over a year ago and so twigged it was a good idea for me to pay for an address that would stay constant even if we had to change again.

      And there I think is the misunderstanding that is at issue. Normally, your address has nothing to do with the SMTP server you use to send your e-mail. Your return address is unrelated to the server you use to send mail. So you could use smtp.current-isp.com and have your address be me@mypermanentaddress.com.

      For example, one of my employers blocked port 25 outbound but provided their own SMTP servers. When I wanted to send a personal e-mail, I sent it through their servers, but my return/from address was my normal mail server address.

    9. Re:Not just your needs... by Tomble · · Score: 1
      Mighty fine way of letting me know.
      It wasn't really a nasty, kick-in-the-balls kind of piss off, it was more of a watch-it-what-your-saying-there kind of piss off. If you see what I mean. Direct offense was not meant so much as an expression of annoyance, etc at your comments. Anyways...

      Your points on the use of SMTP servers and return addresses are no doubt good, unfortunately I always got bogged down with all that From vs Return to vs X-From vs whatever crap with the reams of headers that seem to be in emails. And I was under the impression that ISPs and email services didn't like people using headers that implied the email was from somewhere else- but I suppose that's the From field instead.

      Yes, in case you're wondering, I have tried reading various documents on the subject of email, trying to track down such information and more, but the search seemed fruitless. A lot of the info seems to be masses of old and irrelevant stuff, you know.

      I often wonder where other geeks/nerds get their information from. shrug

      --
      Be careful! New moon tonight.
    10. Re:Not just your needs... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      I run my own mail server and can tell you just about anything you want to know regarding e-mail. Just ask.

      Generally, the "Reply-To" field is worthless. Some applications use it and some do not. Just make the From: field whatever you want your mail to go to and everything should be hunky-dory. While there are some ISPs that don't want you to have a From: address that's not their domain, most don't care at all.

    11. Re:Not just your needs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to know how it's supposed to work,
      find the standards documents and/or RFCs. For
      email, RFC 822 is particularly relevant. RFC
      1149 is useful if you're interested in a protocol
      resistant to flooding attacks; I hear tell that
      there's a star/LING topology loosely derived from
      it that may counteract worms more actively.

      Port 25 blocking is just an excuse not to have
      a 24/7 abuse contact. When ISPs like Earthlink
      implement it, it's because they're just plain too
      lazy to get a reasonable (~10 minute) response
      time for spam reports set up. It was a Good
      Thing for those lazy/huge dialups of the late
      90s. It is no longer effective, because in two
      years or so the spammers found a few other
      security holes that are harder to exploit.

    12. Re:Not just your needs... by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 1
      Kind of messes up your users when they need to access a URL that specifies a port number (other than the default 80), doesn't it?
      Such cases are rare and you can adjust your firewall to open holes for those must-access services (e.g., www.im-running-a-warez-server-on-my-cable-modem.co m:8181).

      Ooo, you *really* don't like the idea of non-root users being able to run server programs, without kissing your butt, do you? I'd be sure to consider you if I needed someone for the job of Preventer of Information Services, except that I'd have questions about why you seem to have no problems with warez servers on port 80. You're aiming at the wrong target, the port and not what the service is.

      Don't try to tell me I have an obligation to shove it down the throats of mine.
      You have an obligation to see that your network is not used to propagate worms and participate in DDOS attacks. If you can do that without a firewall, good for you. But if your users piss on my networks, I'll do everything I can to get your upstream provider to shut you down until you resolve the problem.

      Shrug. I've worked in the role of resolving threats like that for a backbone provider, everything from legitimate problems like those caused by this worm, to idiots like those livid because they installed their new wonderful protective software and noticed someone maliciously pinging them four whole times, to the guy who was going to sue us for not cutting off someone offering a non-http service on port 80 he didn't want to let his users access.

      No way in hell are you going to get that "upstream provider" of Internet services to impose a "you gotta, in general, firewall outgoing ports from your users' network" condition on their customers. Even if you happened to be a larger customer of the same provider it would probably violate the service contract. You're blowing steam here.

    13. Re:Not just your needs... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1
      Ooo, you *really* don't like the idea of non-root users being able to run server programs, without kissing your butt, do you?

      I really don't care what they run. But I have not seen a lot of HTTP servers on ports other than 80 that provide web pages that professionals need to access. I believe that you're just being a lazy sysadmin and leaving all ports open because it makes your life easier, not because of some overwhelming need by your users to access non-standard ports.

      No way in hell are you going to get that "upstream provider" of Internet services to impose a "you gotta, in general, firewall outgoing ports from your users' network" condition on their customers.

      I never said that they would. Try reading what I said (and what you quoted) again:

      If you can do that without a firewall, good for you. But if your users piss on my networks, I'll do everything I can to get your upstream provider to shut you down until you resolve the problem.

      Was there anything in there that said that I would get your upstream provider to make you block outgoing ports? No.

      P.S. For someone so experienced at this, I'm amazed that you would find the term "upstream provider" so new that you would feel the need to put it in quotes when replying. It's a term that has been in common use for years.
    14. Re:Not just your needs... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Because the potential harm done by spammers outweighs your personal preference of using an outgoing mail server (SMTP) other than the one provided by your ISP.
      God forbid spammers use the ISP's email server...

      I'll accept blocking outbound port 25 is a valid practice when, in addition to your nameserver and IP address, your SMTP server is transmitted as part of the PPP protocol.

      Until then, the "potential harm done by spammers" is outwieghed by the actual harm done to people with more than one ISP.

      (Gah, you idiots. When are you going to actually propose anti-spam measures that are actually effective rather than constantly trying to damage the net in the name of fighting spam? I bet you people think CLI is a good idea and refuse to use a call-screening answerphone on the grounds that such an obvious, intelligent, and reliable way of doing things is infinitely less techie than the privacy invading solutions provided by your phone company. Wake up, just because it's *proposed as a solution* doesn't make it one.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  68. What's the DNS connection? by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this thing directly targetting root/tld servers? Is the worm doing dns lookups as opposed to just picking an ipaddr? Is it the PTR servers which are being hammered by loggers doing reverse lookups?

    Did someone jump to a bad conclusion based on ping stats?

    1. Re:What's the DNS connection? by Gothmolly · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because some of the roots are on very clogged backbones. Welcome to the Internet. What don't you understand today?

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  69. Has this affected Microsoft? by Raven-sama · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know if anyone else has had the same problem, but xxx@msn.com email addresses seem to not be working on Hotmail. I doubt they're related, but has anyone else had the same problem, and is this likely to be the cause? By the way, xxx@hotmail.com accounts work fine.

    1. Re:Has this affected Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/01/25/microso ft.security.ap/index.html

      so M$ is going to get serious about security....for what the 20th time this year?

    2. Re:Has this affected Microsoft? by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "but xxx@msn.com email addresses seem to not be working on Hotmail"

      I think you need to replace the xxx with a username, and then things should work better for you. ;-)

    3. Re:Has this affected Microsoft? by dvanduzer · · Score: 1

      Something is definitely affecting the Windows Product Activation servers right now. I called their hotline and the service rep told me that Microsoft was being trashed by a virus right now and that they were "basically dead in the water."

    4. Re:Has this affected Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Reports from inside had corpnet going offline at ~2200 last night, which gives about an hour from the 2400 EST reported start of the worm.

  70. Glad to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad to see that HP isn't affected. http://www.hp.com Anything is possible.

  71. Pfft! by Necrotica · · Score: 0

    See how Microsoft products enhance one's Internet experience!

  72. Worthless Admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who can't install a bloody service pack fix within even a MONTH of when it comes out.. Let alone 7-8 months after it comes out. My steps for service packs were always install it 3 weeks after the fix comes out after checking the net forums for any major problems reported with it. Always worked for me, and I never had a comprimised server. Then again, I also had our FIREWALL set up properly where I only opened the ports that we needed open. Freaks! Probably some arsehole with a BS in MIS making twice of what I am, but still doesn't know jack because he only entered the computer field to make the $$.

  73. How about some story on open source flaws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2003-02.html

    Yeah, windows is bloated and insecure but geeks here act like *nix is somehow perfect.

    1. Re:How about some story on open source flaws? by croftj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If a unix vulnerability was ever exploited to the levels that this sql one or nimbda or sircam were, I'm sure one of you AC's would let us know!

      It's amazing how many people just don't feal they have to upgrade their machines. Im stil getting nimda hits. The sql exploit is using a vulnerability 6mos old!

      Show's you the real vulnerability is the image the MS has palmed off on the public for 20 years! With our system you don't need to worry about good administration! It just works and works and works! Why pay for an admin when you can by MS Win-X?

      --
      -- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
    2. Re:How about some story on open source flaws? by joshua404 · · Score: 1
      It's amazing how many people just don't feal they have to upgrade their machines. Im stil getting nimda hits. The sql exploit is using a vulnerability 6mos old!

      What's amazing to me is how many people are apparently clueless about how things like change management and patch management work. As an administrator, I would -love- to be able to immediately patch all of my production servers with all of the latest patches the very moment they're released. And in many cases, I do.

      But there are some applications where that just doesn't fly. Databases, particularly MS SQL Server, being one of those. More often than not, we are completely at the mercy of a vendor. We buy a vendor's product, which requires MS SQL on the back end. We configure a Win2k server w/ SQL 2000 running, per their specs. And also within their specs is typically a -very- specific list of what service packs and versions of MDAC are supported for their application. And while their compatibility matrix may be dead current at the time we sign on the dotted line and deploy their product, more often than not there's a pretty significant lag between the release of a given patch, hotfix or service pack and the vendor giving us their stamp of approval to install said patches on the servers. If we apply these patches without their go ahead, we risk not only breaking the application, but we also risk invalidating the support contract with the vendor. And yes, we can poke and prod and cajole the vendors all day long to get their asses in gear and QA their product, but the reality of it is that they're slow.

      Some of the vendors we use are tiny (less than 10 people) shops and others are Fortune 500 companies. No matter how big or small they are, it takes time for them to QA their stuff and get back to us. And that's exactly what happened with this worm. The initial hotfix was released in June. Then a security roll-up that included the fix was released in October. Finally, the fix was included as part of the full release of SQL 2000 Service Pack 3, which was released on January 17th. That was 8 days ago. Most, if not all of our vendors, do not QA for every single patch that comes along. Instead, they QA when there is a major update release, such as a service pack. And applying a service pack to a SQL server in full production is not something taken lightly. Hell, even Microsoft's own article regarding today's outbrreak very specifically notes that a full install of SQL 2K SP3 should not be done without serious consideration, instead they push installing either the individual fix or the security roll-up.

      So, all that being said, whoever launched this worm did us a favor. They sent us a wake up call. They released the worm very quickly after the service pack containing the fix was issued. Obviously the writers of said worm felt their window of opportunity was shrinking. They chose to release the worm on a Saturday, when they knew it would get mass attention and catch everyone off guard. They released it on Super Bowl weekend in the US, a time when our collective guard is down and our thoughts are focused on the big game and the parties that go with it.

      Whoever wrote this worm made it mild. It's memory resident only. A simple reboot of an infected server removes the worm completely. The patch to protect a given server was small and easily obtained as well as well-documented. And the payload of the worm, if you can even call it that, was quite benign. The exploit they used allowed commands to be executed on the server under the same context that SQL Server runs. In most cases, the SQL Server service account is at -least- a local administrator on any given SQL server, if not a Domain Admin. Whoever wrote this virus stuck a loaded shotgun in our collective faces and then proceeded to fire it into the concrete wall behind us rather than kill us with it. It was a warning. A warning, that despite having lost a day of my weekend time, I appreciated. We all need a good wakeup call now and then.

      And I know Slashdot is the nexus of armchair quarterbacking ponytail-laden granola whiners and critics, and I shouldn't let statements like the above one which prompted my reply get to me, but I did feel the need to clearly and concisely state that there's a hell of a lot more to it than what most people are saying.

      Anyhow, if you're one of the fellow IT Slaves who had to duke it out with this worm, enjoy the remainder of your weekend. And be mindful, I'm sure variants and copycats of this worm are already in the chute.

      JL

    3. Re:How about some story on open source flaws? by croftj · · Score: 1

      Waah waah!

      Take a lesson from SuSE. It took a while to fully appreciate the way they do there updates but now that I understand it it makes much more sense.

      Send send out software package xyz at version 1.1.1-1 with their 8.0 SuSE distribution (one previous to their current. When you get their updates fixing a problem found last week, you don't get the latest verson of the package which would break the comatability with the applications using the package, they send you a patched version of the software, 1.1.1-2. This way you get the fix and no more!

      They don't go and roll up 100 fixes and enhancements in 'One easy to down load and install" service pack. The give you a tool that shows what patches they recommend for your system, why the recomend it and let you make the choice.

      Yea, cry how hard they make your life. Then explain to me much better of a venue they offer!

      By the way, they have yet to tell me to edit a file to fix the security of my system, but if they did, I would know enough about what the changes were and how to use an editor to not be intimidated by it!

      --
      -- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
    4. Re:How about some story on open source flaws? by joshua404 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, typical response.

      When did I ever write that I preferred MS SQL or actively chose to use it for a given application? I run the stuff, I am not the sole decision maker on -what- is to be run. If my recommendations are vetoed, then I do my best to cope with what I'm given.

      You obviously completely ignored what I wrote regarding service packs. I never disputed any of what you had to say, but facts are facts - most application vendors don't QA their software on a patch by patch basis, they wait until there's a service pack or at least a roll-up. I can bitch and moan about it all I want, but that's the way it is. And I'm sure that 99% of those patches would not break the application, but if by installing them I'm risking invalidating our support agreement and endangering my job by deliberately ignoring our patch/change management process, do you think I'm going to do that?

      Yes, life WOULD be easier if it was perfect. But guess what, it's not.

    5. Re:How about some story on open source flaws? by croftj · · Score: 1

      Well, now we know why shit like this happens over and over again in the MS world.

      --
      -- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
  74. It is possible to be okay with these things... by voodoopriestess · · Score: 1

    Heya, At our routers and firewalls, we ban ALL traffic both inbound and outbound. Then we only open ports that we need (i.e. 80 and 443) in the directions they are allowed to go! Our MS SQL boxes have not been touched! It's great. Iain Chesworth SysAdmin

    --
    ---- "I would be careful in separating your weirdness, a good quirky quantum weirdness, from the disturbed weirdnes
  75. So that's what's up? by aliens · · Score: 1

    Last night around 12:45, gamespy.com went down. I was just about to start playing BF1942 after a week of hard work!!! Boooo

    Couldn't they have started this on, say a Monday?

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
    1. Re:So that's what's up? by JohnnyBolla · · Score: 1

      No. On Monday I would have been here already, rather than peacefully slumbering in my bed. As far as I'm concerned, anyone that writes a worm or virus that wakes me up should be stapled to a Sun 450 and tossed off a bridge. A bridge over water, not a protocol bridge.

      --
      Carpe Deez
  76. What end of the world ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Despite panicky headlines, and mails to bugtraq with titles such as "MS SQL WORM IS DESTROYING THE INTERNET", reports of "some hosts being hit by as many as ten packets a minute" don't seem too serious to me.
    Take a look at the LINX traffic statistics at
    https://stats.linx.net/cgi-pub/combined?log=combin ed.upps
    and
    https://stats.linx.net/cgi-pub/combined?log=combin ed.bits
    and you won't even see a glitch.

    End of the world? I don't think so.

    1. Re:What end of the world ? by diamondc · · Score: 1

      um, dude.. I work for a small ISP in South Texas and we go thru Level 3 for our internet connectivity. They were hit hard, no ping replies at all. I run an IRC server and that was connecting on and off through the night. I couldn't get anywhere on the net till around 8:30 this morning. Luckily this happened during the night so we won't get that many complaints from customers that 'the Internet is down'.

      --
      "I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
    2. Re:What end of the world ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try ten 376 byte packets per minute, times the number of IP address's that route to/through your network.

      Eg. One class B network.

      255 * 255 * 376 = 24,449,400 bytes per minutes, which is something like 54Mbits/sec.

    3. Re:What end of the world ? by KarMannJRO · · Score: 1

      Actually, the 376 byte part was just the payload; with the usual UDP & IP headers, it was 404. Add in a bit more for encapsulation depending on your transmission medium.

      But, more significantly: 24,449,400 B/min =~ 3.26 Mb/s (decimal M), a far cry from 54Mb/s.

      Also for comparison, I was only getting about 1 such packet per minute on my measly 1 IP address throughout the first 5 or 6 hours. It was rather bursty, just in the way that random events are, so sometimes I'd get 3 or 4 in a minute, followed by 5 minutes of nothing, and such. It could be a matter of the actions of our upstream providers, or perhaps something on your network was infected and not limited by the WAN bottleneck when hitting your own addresses.

  77. Art Bell scooped'em all... by gmezero · · Score: 1

    The old Art Bell show, now hosted by some new guy covered this going on at around 1am MST while I was driving into work... I was surprised when I got in and loaded up /. and there was nothing... till SIX HOURS Later... what the F?

  78. The whole Internet has been Slashdotted by Runny · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is what would happen if /. ever became a search engine.

  79. this reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of companies are now putting at least a database snapshot online for their customers and suppliers, to smooth the flow of business. It's CRM. Now how the hell do you firewall/gate that and sleep easily?

    What about order entry for Lands' End and Amazon? Those are all database queries. Dear God, I hope they're not using MS SQL for that.

    1. Re:this reason by Iamthefallen · · Score: 2, Informative

      That doesn't mean that Amazon's DB servers have public IPs you know. There is no reason to have a DB connected to the internet, unless you just wanna see what happens...

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    2. Re:this reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon runs on oracle, not MS SQL.
      Just check the oracle-l list at fatcity.

    3. Re:this reason by juhaz · · Score: 1

      What about order entry for Lands' End and Amazon? Those are all database queries. Dear God, I hope they're not using MS SQL for that.

      Database queries, yes.

      Database servers on public Internet? NO!

      Those DB servers of amazon etc are in their private intranet, and only their web servers can access them - your browser does NOT do any sql queries directly, the web frontend is responsible for that.

  80. BAAAH HA HA HA HA HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Care to offer up one particle of evidence that this was Saddam's doing? Or are you just beating the Bush war drum like a good little puppet?

    HAW! What are you, French? Or just some wormy American abortion ghoul / assmaster? "Oh, boo hoo, blood for oil, boo hoo hoo hoo..." Fuck you and your mewling plea for "evidence."

    Suppose the Bush Administration (oh yes he IS your President) decides to say it WAS an Iraqi attack? Suppose they claim it was a deliberate attempt to take down the power grid and water lines? Who's going to convince Joe and Jane sixpack that it WASN'T? You? "democraticunderground.com?" HA! Yeah, trust me, we care what you think. Those pathetic anti-war demonstrations really grew your numbers, huh? Sure.

    Get used to it, we're TAKING the fucking OIL, whether you cry about it or not. Then Bush is getting re-elected, Scalia's getting named Chief Justice, and you're getting relegated to the irrelevant fringe, FOREVER.

    And good GOD, is it ever FUNNY.

  81. totally deserved... by smash · · Score: 2, Funny
    Anybody who puts an SQL server of any kind out in the open, let alone one with such a colourful security history as MS-SQL server, deserves whatever they get.

    I'm not justifying behavior of the assholes who release these worms, but leaving the SQL server visible to the public internet is just slightly retarded.

    If these boxes actually have someone employed as admins, they should get fired, plain and simple

    smash.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    1. Re:totally deserved... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people try patching their damn servers in a timely manner...

      Problem Solved

  82. the time has come. by seann · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    all you rebel programmers, join together in a glory of defeat and dishonourment.
    We will create an Anti-worm! It will counter these attacks, patching, disabling, and even illiminating!

    Band together now!!!!!!!!

    --
    I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
  83. Cost... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any estimates of the cost in terms of bandwidth/downtime yet?

    And what are the chances Mirocosft will be forced to pay for it?

    1. Re:Cost... by KarMannJRO · · Score: 1

      Well, based on the number of packets I've gotten, and guessing they might have made it intelligent enough not to try any IP higher than 224.255.255.255 (anyone know one way or the other?), my estimate is it's accounted for about 400 TB so far. Don't know what that amounts to monetarily, but it's certainly a BIG chunk of bandwidth!

  84. 50% from Colleges??? by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    About half of the sources I've seen have been either .edu sites or sites in other countries which belong to colleges (ualberta.ca, etc.). Is there some sinister corellation here? Perhaps colleges get free MS-ware, and let the students run the networks?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:50% from Colleges??? by AWhistler · · Score: 1

      If the students ran the MSSQL servers, they would have been patched. Perhaps students administer the users and tables, but some admin (bureaucratic, not system) is in charge of the software.

    2. Re:50% from Colleges??? by diamondc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      like the posters above said, you can get Microsoft software for less than 20 dollars on college campuses that have deals with Microsoft.

      From my experience, whenever I email a college/university asking them to check out a computer that is packeting they don't reply back (last case being asu.edu).

      --
      "I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
    3. Re:50% from Colleges??? by sean23007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or perhaps the schools have copies of the MS software and the students take it to their dorms and run their own MS servers from their rooms. I saw an article in Business Week about a year ago that said MCSE students are one of the largest reasons for the insecurities of the web and the spread of worms, because they take home the discs for the software they're learning about and install it at home and fail to properly set it up and patch it. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing was happening at these colleges.

      I just hope MS doesn't point out that half of the sources of the worm are pirated copies of the software...

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    4. Re:50% from Colleges??? by Robert+Frazier · · Score: 1

      It also makes sense to target universities and colleges because they usually have fat pipes.

      Best wishes,

      Bob

    5. Re:50% from Colleges??? by Peyna · · Score: 1

      You usually can't get server apps via those deals with MS though.

      --
      What?
    6. Re:50% from Colleges??? by Fishstick · · Score: 1
      but can you get MS SQL Server Personal/Professional Edition ?

      (or whatever its called - seem to remember seeing that there was a single-user desktop version that just limited the # of connections and stuff)

      Indiana U seems to allow this:


      • Microsoft SQL Server Personal will be installed only on machines owned by IU, students, faculty, or staff.
      • This form is a request for only one copy of Microsoft SQL Server Personal.
      • You will not allow illegitimate copies of Microsoft SQL Server Personal to be made or distributed.
      • You will pay $5 per CD requested by providing an IU account number.
      • etc...


      kind of like installing ISS/PWS on a 2000 Professional workstation. not a real server, but real enough to have the same (unpatched) vulnerability. connect that to a nice fat campus pipe and you are all set to wreak some havoc, it seems.
      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    7. Re:50% from Colleges??? by amaiman · · Score: 1

      Nah, the students would remember to apply the patches :-)

    8. Re:50% from Colleges??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Perhaps colleges get free MS-ware, and let the students run the networks?"

      Hah. My college network would run alot BETTER if the students *did* run it lol..

    9. Re:50% from Colleges??? by alfredw · · Score: 1

      If the students ran the MSSQL servers, they would have been patched. Perhaps students administer the users and tables, but some admin (bureaucratic, not system) is in charge of the software.

      Very true. I happen to live with the Sysadmin for su.ualberta.ca (our Students' Union). Number of attacks from other ualberta servers in my logs? Hundreds. Number from the SU subdomain? Zero.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, sig types you!
    10. Re:50% from Colleges??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that MS Visual Studio .net Academic Version comes bundled with a 'lite' version of MS SQL Server, this is not at all surprising. There are probably a whole lot of students with that software package running and students have more important things to do (such as drinking beer and hooking up with cute members of the opposite sex) than patch their boxen. Student admin'ed boxen + big pipes = ripe environment for a worm.

    11. Re:50% from Colleges??? by Peyna · · Score: 1

      I guess they do offer it. I go to IU in Indianapolis, so I guess they must not offer MS SQL in the bookstore, but it is still available. (Or maybe I just never paid much attention since I have no intention on using it =] )

      --
      What?
    12. Re:50% from Colleges??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a MCSE student and you are correct, we do receive evaluation copies of MS software.

      I installed SQL three days ago....what luck, huh?

      Anyway, evaluation copies can not have service packs installed.

      Nice job, Microsoft!

    13. Re:50% from Colleges??? by ToastedBagel · · Score: 1

      I just hope that UCSB (school I went to) is not one of them (again). When Yahoo was under big DOS attack a couple of years ago, UCSB (again my school) was ultimately causing the problem.

    14. Re:50% from Colleges??? by oldpclady · · Score: 1

      The INS system for tracking International stuents is SEVIS. The deadline for having all information about enrolled students into the SEVIS system is January 30th. I have no idea how many software products there are for colleges to interface their data with the SEVIS system but the ones I have found on the internet use a SQL server. I think this is an atempt to delay compliance with SEVIS at the very least. Call me paranoid.

    15. Re:50% from Colleges??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here at U of Florida, they have traditionally not done any port blocking at the internet connection. Netbios ports were just blocked a couple of months ago, and they were going to filter 1433 and 1434 starting today, Sunday. The filters went up early :)

    16. Re:50% from Colleges??? by jeroenvw · · Score: 1
      There's only one reason a lot came from college networks:

      Students have big fat pipes to the internet, so can do a lot more harm than somebody with a mere ADSL line. At my university for example traffic raised from 200MBit/s to 0.9GBit/s when all student flats were connected with 100MBit _each_. And that's 'normal' traffic.

      On saturday, suddenly traffic went up by exactly 300MBit/s for about half 'n hour, so only 3 people were affected here.

  85. within a day of TLD using ProstgreSQL? by SailFly · · Score: 1

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/24/154920 7&mode=thread&tid=95

    what timing...ironic, eh?

  86. This is why I hate telling vendors about bugs by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    Because MS takes this line: "It isn't *our* fault for writing insecure, buggy software. *We've* had a patch out for N days/weeks/months. *You admins* screwed up.

    Should the admin have patched it? Sure. Are they as much at fault as the people that introduced the original vulnerability? Heck, no.

    1. Re:This is why I hate telling vendors about bugs by tshak · · Score: 1

      Because MS takes this line: "It isn't *our* fault for writing insecure, buggy software. *We've* had a patch out for N days/weeks/months. *You admins* screwed up.

      Yes the admins did screw up, because IT's THERE JOB to apply patches and secure their systems. Everyone rights insecure software. If you're an admin and haven't applied a patch from 6 months ago you are NEGLIGANT. The same goes for PostgreSQL - If you haven't applied patches from 6 months ago you'd have a DB server with buffer overflow attacks which can allow the hacker to gain root.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    2. Re:This is why I hate telling vendors about bugs by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Yes the admins did screw up, because IT's THERE JOB to apply patches and secure their systems. Everyone rights insecure software.

      I'll agree insofar as local exploits go -- it's quite easy to do so. However, I think that it's unforgivable to put buffer overflows in code that can be exploited remotely. If you're reading data from a socket, you should be validating that data, plain and simple, and have invariants on that data. It's irresponsible not to do so.

      I'll grant that there are a number of pieces of software that did *not* do so for some time (*cough* sshd). However, that doesn't mean that it's good or acceptable.

      It particularly does not exonerate the vendor from responsibility for a bug. A patch is a small atonement for putting a remotely exploitable bug in software in the first place -- hardly full repayment. Every time I see a vendor with a bug being exploited get interviewed, I see the PR flacks quickly spin it -- "It isn't our fault, because we had a patch out two weeks ago." It damn well *is* their fault -- they sold a defective product in the first place. Is the admin somewhat at fault too? Sure. But certainly not on the level of the software vendor.

      Every time I work with a string in C, especially if it's in one of the servers I've worked on, I keep in mind the goddamn length of the thing. It's not *that* hard -- it's just lazy developers not doing so.

    3. Re:This is why I hate telling vendors about bugs by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Um, writting secure software is fucking hard, which is why all software has bugs. Even in large projects where you have LOTS of REALLY GOOD coders analizing the code, bugs still happen. All a vendor can do is to try their best.

      This said, I strongly believe MS has NOT tried hard enough. They keeping releasing stuff configured in an insecure manor as the default. There is no excuse for this. An example on how to do this right is how debian ships. Squid by default only accepts connections from localhost, and almost every service is disabled. Does debian still have bugs? Sure does. Lots. It is pretty easy to apply the fixes however, and takes very little time.

    4. Re:This is why I hate telling vendors about bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong. The vendor isn't responsible. You are. The cookie-cutter-we-don't-give-a-shit-what-happens EULA you agreed to says to. I belive it is in the last paragraph. You know which one I'm talking about... the one in all caps that you skip over while reading all of the other crap. Someone needs to take one of those EULAs to court so we can have them thrown out like the garbage they are.

  87. A bug in CISCO routers is helping to control this! by weave · · Score: 4, Informative
    A post to bugtraq by George William Herbert, notes that the floods caused by this worm is causing many cisco routers to shut down, which helps contain the damage ironically enough. I've seen this happen at one of my work sites that is admined by someone else. The infected box, according to MRTG, was nailing its closest router at 100 megabits/sec for about an hour, then the router itself went down. Sweet...

    "...the volume from this triggers the Cisco netflow switching bug and is causing routers to lock up at places, etc."

  88. DB vendor more at fault by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    Are these the same people that leave their cars unlocked with the keys in the ignition?

    If this were a fair analogy, the *auto maker* would be at fault for leaving spare sets of keys attached to the outside of the car...and you'd simply be (much less) at fault for not having removed the latest set of spare keys the auto maker decided to tell you about.

  89. ahhh, thats it by h2odragon · · Score: 1

    thanks for pointing that out. I plead lack of sleep and the evil influence of cold medications

  90. not quite free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The MS educational site license is a flat $40 per year for every computer, including Apples and Suns.

    For that, a school can install any and every MS product where ever they please. Not only that, MS supplies training and testing materials and answer keys with that. So the classes are pre-written, too, and a GTA or undergrad can run them.

    So yes, MS SQL is all over the place, and they've got lab assistants and volunteers admining them.

  91. IIS Not Secure by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    This is the same server that's had worms on a regular basis for the past few years?

  92. Seems straightforward to me by 0x0d0a · · Score: 0, Troll

    Having used Orcle, SQL Server, and PostgreSQL, I'm wondering... why use anything other than PostgreSQL?

    Because if you're using PostgreSQL, you don't have the satisfaction of saying "I have so much power than I can waste N hundred thousand dollars of company funds on Oracle." It's a status thing.

  93. I've been online since this thing started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (thanks to the poster in the alleged HTTP Trace vulnerability), and I think it's funny that the government's Infragard website was inaccessible (at least from the West Coast) for several hours.

  94. still getting scanned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After looking at my traffic log, I am still getting packets looking for MySQL....aparently it hasn't realized that I don't have it as it has been trying for a long long time today...

    1. Re:still getting scanned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *cough* s/My/MS /

    2. Re:still getting scanned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey thanks for the correction, was not thinking at the time of writing, nor did i preview...how'd i mess that up, i think its time to go crawl into a dark hole and think about my mistake...

  95. Agggghhhhh! by KliX · · Score: 1

    A few sites I frequent seem to be out because of this [most notably, and annoyingly, http://ojuice.net]. This has been patched for an age [in computing terms]. It's almost shameful that admins haven't applied the patches by now, ESP after spending a whole lot of money on Microsoft Software - you'd bloody think they'd keep it up to date.

  96. UUNET woes? by hyrdra · · Score: 1

    Don't these backbone providers have NOS that monitor for this type of activity? Don't know if it's just because of the job cuts, but my line from UUNET still isn't up (constant activity; can't get a ping out), so I'm stuck with cable that has major upstream from AT&T, whom as I understand it had automatically detected a dramatic increase in traffic on port 1434 and blocked the port.

    Funny thing is when I try to ping my UUNET IP address, or at least traceroute to it, from my cable line I get a destination net unreachable -- wtf this thing is supposed to be more reliable than a cable modem!!

    --


    "I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
    1. Re:UUNET woes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm using Sygate's Personal Firewall (free download, and its pretty damn good)...anyways, you can click on an IP in ur log, do a backtrace, and then even do a whois lookup....and as far as a gui is concerned, this is the best of the free ones....i had the BlackICE defender(lost it when my laptop wound up in a puddle of water on my desk after leaving the window open all night when it was NOT supposed to rain), but BlackICE is also a good one, at least for personal use on windows...as soon as I get sound up and working on the linux side, i'll be there more often (i've followed the ALSA documentation and looked for answers, but can't figure it out...any other options???)

    2. Re:UUNET woes? by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I work for an ISP and I just got home from work where we had to deal with this madness. It was absoultely horrible people. We got word from UUNET that it is port 1434/udp traffic and they are adding that to their egress filters. We just blocked 1434/udp altogether, at least initially.

      We have many many colocated customers, many of whom run msql. This issue is horrible in that it is causing massive packet loss and when packets do get through the latency is around 500ms and up and that is for an all ethernet network segment. Our core router was getting slammed and cpu utilization would hang out at around 100%.

      When we started unplugging switches from the routers, traffic would return to normal. We then pinpointed it down to all of our colo customers and disconnected just the sql servers from the network. Effing pain in the ass though.

      Goddamned MS and their crappy no-password-requirement for the sql admin user and the moron admins who don't patch their system. Are people this trusting of MS that their servers are safe and/or this stupid they just don't apply patches until they get screwed?

      Whatever, I am soooo tired... g'night

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
    3. Re:UUNET woes? by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1

      add an independent box between your machine and your internet connection, then you wouldn't need sound at all; I use OpenBSD this way.

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
  97. Not so bad by csnydermvpsoft · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm not too annoyed about it... I finally got to bed before 3AM because the Internet was so dang slow (and I thought it was my campus resnet, like normal).

  98. Re:Yow! Good call /. by artg · · Score: 1

    I liked this one particularly :

    le1 @0:1 b 207.171.0.104,1221 -> xx.xxx.xxx.xxx,1434 PR udp len 20 404 IN

    bash-2.05a$ host 207.171.0.104
    Name: secure.pacificnet.net
    Address: 207.171.0.104

  99. PostgreSQL keeps .org up /MS-SQL brings down net by HighOrbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What was that about mission critical applications?

  100. "Shooting SCUDs down" is useless, agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    At least that late in its trajectory, anyway. The warhead's going to wind up being about as accurate as it would have been anyway.

    But it makes the majority - your generic non-thinking folks - feel "protected" and a lot less prone to panic.

  101. This will continue by NineNine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Worms that do this sort of thing will continue ad infinitum. The reason is that there's no financial detriment to having one of your own boxes act as a zombie and send out tons and tons of packets. None whatsoever. There's no central accountability. That's the way the Net is set up. I don't see any way around it.

    1. Re:This will continue by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The reason is that there's no financial detriment to having one of your own boxes act as a zombie and send out tons and tons of packets.

      That's true until somebobdy writes a worm that starts deleting files on the servers it infects.

    2. Re:This will continue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true.

      In one of articles about the worm I saw that some servers were sending up to 50mbps of worm data.

      That is enough to saturate almost every company's Internet links! If this was on Monday morning plenty of people would not be able to do their work.

      The NO GUARANTEE clauses of software licenses have to stop!

    3. Re:This will continue by pavera · · Score: 1

      I disagree.
      That would be impossible to police.
      I feel that they will continue ad infinitum until SOFTWARE COMPANIES are held financially responsible for holes in their software. If a company releases a hammer, and then it turns out that using that hammer causes injuries (maybe the head flies off sometimes and hits you in the head, because they didn't secure the head to the hammer properly) say this is the case, the hammer company is responsible for the damages caused. If the software company that released the buggy software were to be held financially liable for lost income/revenues caused by their software (think Bank of America's 13,000 ATM's down for a whole day, those things charge 1.50 per transaction, how many millions of transactions (and dollars) did they lose because of MS!?) They should be able to sue.

    4. Re:This will continue by NineNine · · Score: 1

      And who is financially responsible for a problem with BIND, Sendmail, Apache, or MySQL?

    5. Re:This will continue by pavera · · Score: 1

      how many global internet slow downs and outages have been attributed to flaws in those systems?
      Generally when these software products have flaws, they are patched quickly and easily, and the people running that software know what they are doing and how to update it. This leaves rather few exploitable boxes to take down say a whole banks network for a day by flooding with traffic. Granted, these products do not have the resources to handle being sued. However, they wouldn't be included in the software liability stuff because they don't make any money (well, actually MySQL does... ) It's like my father (he is a lawyer) says: "If they want to be able to charge the ridiculous amounts of money that they charge, and get patents, and copyrights, and attack other people for infringing those patents, then they should be liable for problems with their software." In short, software companies get to reap all of the benefits (artificial monopolies created by patents) without a shred of responsibility/liability whatsoever. That is wrong. They should either be forced into making less money and giving up some of their rights(open source, only charge for service, whatever) or they should be held financially liable when their products don't live up to their billing. Free Software is perfectly covered in this situation because they have given up some of their rights so they are allowed to say "This software may not perform as advertised, if it doesn't we'll fix it for a fee, or someone else will, but you have no legal action to take".

  102. maybe you could provide an example? by CausticPuppy · · Score: 1

    Your security guidelines are good advise, but I'm amazed (concerned?) that you have completely missed the basic, fundamental principles of 2+ tier architecture.

    Perhaps you can provide an example of a situation where a database server would need to be accessible directly over the public internet? I can't think of any. Even for remote administration, that's what VPN's are for.

    --
    -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
  103. Why use MSQL? by FingerBoneHoop · · Score: 1

    Is there actually ANY good reason to use the expensive MSQL over free Mysql or Postgresql? I've been using both free databases for years, and still haven't stumbled on a feature that would make me think about trying out a commercial one.

    1. Re:Why use MSQL? by ellem · · Score: 1

      Yes because A-hole 3rd Party Vendors hire schmucks to write their DB code --

      Well you have to have a DB sir.

      OK I choose MySQL

      Uh It needs to be uh Enterprise

      We have 50 people

      Uh

      OK I choose Oracle

      Uh It has to be Microsoft

      --
      This .sig is fake but accurate.
    2. Re:Why use MSQL? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1


      Is there actually ANY good reason to use the expensive MSQL over free Mysql or Postgresql?

      Pg and mysql have limitations when it comes to failover, load balancing, clustering, etc.

      Otherwise I would choose PostgreSQL every time.

    3. Re:Why use MSQL? by chribo · · Score: 1

      Why use M$ at all?

    4. Re:Why use MSQL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The only reason to use MS-SQL server is price and short sightedness. Site that don't need enterprise class would be better off use postgres or mysql. Sites that want enterprise are better off not using MS-SQL, since it doesn't scale. Any DBA with wide range of experience and has had to provide "real" enterprise level performance knows MS-SQL server does not scale. Think about this for a second. Even in the new super-cool ADO.NET (according to marketing hype) has a default limit of ~250 connections in the connection pool. It gets even better, for concurrency the performance is basically about that 200-250. This is on nice new hardware not some old 350mhz p3. Sure it's an improvement over MS-SQL server 5.x and 6.x when it had a limit of 100 connection in the pool.

      Why the DNS Root server use MS-SQL server is beyond me.

    5. Re:Why use MSQL? by Worf+Maugg · · Score: 1

      Maybe beacuse they don't install with a "next" button.

    6. Re:Why use MSQL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article. The UDP traffic is acting as a denial of serivce on the root DNS servers; they're not being exploited.

      And what does a limit on a /client/ library's persistent connection pool size have to do with database /server/ scalability? Do you really run 250 connections between the same client and server?

    7. Re:Why use MSQL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you need a commercial one, just wait for IBM to come out with the next beta of DB2. While it's in beta, they offer DB2 Enterprise Edition for free. I got 8.1 that way.

  104. please stop ms access to root nameservers by kipple · · Score: 2, Interesting

    given also this previous slashdot story, the root servers must join and sue microsoft for DDOS attacks against them.
    Windows clients send TOO much shit to any dns - check your dnscache log to see that. Don't have a dnscache? Bad! You're flooding your preferred DNS server with a shitload of useless or meaningless queries.
    Looks like they have read some websites some years ago and then decided to steal words like "domain", thus confusing a nt-domain and a REAL domain name. The rest is pure mess because nt-domains are queried with DNS. Pretty crappy isn't it?

    Look at that (dnscache log):
    @400000003e329b973170f1bc tx 0 33 _kerberos._tcp.dc._msdcs.[mydomain]. . 97010201
    @400000003e329b973874c81c tx 0 33 _kerberos._tcp.dc._msdcs.[mydomain]. . 97010201 97010101
    @400000003e329b981c3f8394 tx 0 33 _kerberos._tcp.dc._msdcs.[mydomain]. . 97010101

    this is a laptop trying to find a network share on the server (which is called server2000.[mydomain].it). It is querying [mydomain], not [mydomain].it as I set up the laptop (default domain, network identification). Imagine if I did not have a dnscache but set up all PCs to use an external dns server....

    --
    -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
  105. Perfect example of why we need S/W warranties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This looks just like the Ping of Death.

    Good God, how fucking stoopid is Microsoft anyway?

    What on this good Earth did they do, a gets() in a ping packet? How downright moronic is that when the damned documentation itseld on the gets() function tells you that it's insecure?

    This is a totally unacceptable product from a professional perspective.

    1. Re:Perfect example of why we need S/W warranties by WallaTu · · Score: 1

      No. It's a perfect example why we need SysAdmins that know what security means.

  106. Re:DB vendor more at fault - how bout the DBA� by VJTod · · Score: 1

    NO - if this were a fair analogy, this would be compared to moving into a house and leaving all of the windows open, but only closing a window after you realize that your neighbors have been using this window to pilfer your cheesy poofs. While still leaving the rest of the windows open.

    If you're infected - you're a tool.

    How many of these infections also had SAs with blank passwords

    At least the ^auto makers^ shipped the car in a Semi Locked down state - and only opening the ports that need access [hood/doors/trunk] (though there is much general havox that can be had with just playing under the chassis.)

  107. Re:Yow! Good call /. by gheff · · Score: 1

    Hmm, the one in my log that made me laugh the most--admittedly it was slightly hysterical laughter--was:

    nctamslant.navy.mil

    Yikes!

  108. You forgot about Al Sharpton for President, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Don't that just make you feel good!

    When Trent Lott even implied he might find past racism acceptable, the Republicans dumped him.

    Yet today we have the entire slate of potential Democratic Presidential hopefuls sucking on race-baiting Al "Tawanya Brawley" Sharpton's dick. And Al's going to win the first Democratic primary - the one that's going to be in DC!

    Oh - and about 75% of the American public actually support more restrictions on abortion.

    If you radical left DimocRats want to marginalize yourself by siding with Stalinist-funded anti-war protesters protecting heinous pigs like Saddam Hussein, I'm laughing all the way through the rest of recorded history!

    BWAAA HAAA!

  109. Re:Did you just join the Axis of Weasels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But back then, bombing Iraq would have been a good a noble thing, since it was for the righteous cause of getting Monica Lewinski off the front page, not some frivilous reason like making sure no US cities get hit with a nuclear bomb or biological attack.

  110. Doh! by privacyt · · Score: 1
    Windows security is top-notch. Nothing to worry about, says Bill Gates!

    Somebody should give that fucktard a serious beatdown.

  111. Re:DB vendor more at fault - how bout the DBA� by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    Except the admin cannot know where the windows are until the contractor tells him where they are. Then, suddenly, the contractor tells him that it's *his* fault if he doesn't keep closing the windows within a day after the contractor tells him about the window.

    Firewalls are not a panacea. Software still has to be secure -- trojans getting in through mail, IIS exploits, exploits through SOAP or over VPNs from a remotely exploited location let one zip right past a firewall.

    IT admins tend to think "I'm firewalled -- I'm secure." I'd argue that firewalls have literally *worsened* security, because it makes admins take a casual approach to ensuring that their *software* is secure -- and software developers. The fact that MS doesn't trust their high-end database software to be secure from remote attacks (as they say in their advisory) makes a certain statement.

    The problem is a lack of secure server software (particularly on the part of MS), unrealistic expectations of admins, and a security industry that would rather push easy-to-sell "solutions" like firewalls.

  112. My first infected packet came from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2003-01-25 00:30:41 DROP UDP 66.227.96.24 (XP's built-in firewall caught it, surprise, surprise)

    OrgName: KingComp Systems, Inc.
    OrgID: KINGC

    NetRange: 66.227.96.0 - 66.227.111.255
    CIDR: 66.227.96.0/20
    NetName: YIPS-KINGCOMP-S102802-2
    NetHandle: NET-66-227-96-0-1
    Parent: NET-66-227-0-0-1
    NetType: Reassigned
    Comment:
    RegDate: 2002-10-28
    Updated: 2002-10-28

    OrgTechHandle: PKR-ARIN
    OrgTechName: Kral, Petr
    OrgTechPhone: +1-312-957-0755
    OrgTechEmail: petr@kingcomp.net

    Surely, this can't be Petr from 'User Friendly'... Can it?

    Hrm... Oh well, flame away at the incompetent admin...

    1. Re:My first infected packet came from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea to try and see where it started from.

      I have 3 boxes I can check:

      Box 1: Jan 25 05:36:13 xxxxxx kernel: IN=eth1 OUT= MAC=blah SRC=130.251.167.240 DST=xx.xx.xx.xx LEN=404 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=111 ID=5238 PROTO=UDP SPT=3894 DPT=1434 LEN=384

      descr: Universita' degli Studi di Genova
      country: IT
      remarks: Multiple interconnected LANs of academic institutes
      remarks: located in Genoa


      Box 2: Jan 25 05:30:04 xxxxxx kernel: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=blah SRC=64.62.136.154 DST=xx.xx.xx.xx LEN=404 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=111 ID=34302 PROTO=UDP SPT=3441 DPT=1434 LEN=384

      Send Communications LLC HURRICANE-CE0928-2A1

      Box 3: Jan 26 06:31:10 xxxxxx kernel: IN=eth2 OUT=eth3 SRC=216.26.191.147 DST=xx.xx.xx.xx LEN=404 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=109 ID=38888 PROTO=UDP SPT=1806 DPT=1434 LEN=384

      MaximumASP SDF-216-26-190



      However, I don't think the parent posters idea of retaliation is a good one. Pity is what these people deserve.

  113. Ah the irony..... by dr0n3 · · Score: 1

    If you go to cnn.com in the tech section on the main page, the story is there. It's titled "Electronic attack slows Net".

    Immediately above that is the other tech story, titled "Gates pledges better software security". :P

  114. billg has no uniform; therefore illegal combatant by Swordfish · · Score: 5, Funny

    billg cannot be an enemy combatant because he
    does not wear a military uniform.
    So he must be an _illegal_ combatant.
    Therefore, if guilty, he will have to go to
    Guantanamo Bay for a few years to "help with
    investigations".
    Of course, proof cannot be given for his guilt
    because that might jeopardize national security.
    Therefore no trial until terrorism is defeated.
    Can't afford to take chances with them terrorists!

  115. It can get inside a firewall by codepunk · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes it can indeed get inside a firewall. Say you got bonehead web developer front page dude at home running the developer version. It is no doubt infected with the worm since said developer is using front page and MS SQL on his home xpeeee box. He thanks you by logging in via VPN into your network and spreads the joy. Priceless.....

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:It can get inside a firewall by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      This is why real VPN software includes a firewall that it's configured by firewall admin not the end user. Granted there are ways around this but they should be monitored and offences that can lead to terminiation.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  116. W32.SQLExp.Worm by bfries · · Score: 1

    Here is Symantec and mcafee info about that worm.

    --
    Whfg nabgure EBG-13 unpxre...
  117. *sigh* by athlon02 · · Score: 1

    When will mankind learn to stop doing such things? It's such a lame & petty thing to do.

  118. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    typical M$FT wormware kludge, what else is new...

  119. Re:Yow! Good call /. by artg · · Score: 1

    Don't worry - it'll just be one of .mil's free domains

  120. Ironic timing... by weave · · Score: 5, Informative
    Gates pledges better software security (btw, isn't this basically a repeat of what he spammed out last July?)

    Gates acknowledged that the technology industry must make significant improvements, adding that, "Microsoft has a responsibility to help its customers address these concerns, so they no longer have to choose between security and usability."

    How about easier ways to apply hotfixes remotely to desktop computers? (There are ways apparently, but requires installing IIS and SQL ironically, to run something called SUS.) I'd prefer the hotfix to simply have an option like '-m\\machine' to apply to domain machines in a domain admin context so I can script the installs to my tastes and needs. No need to get overly complex. Besides, I'd rather not have an IIS server at my site if I can help it. Apache runs everything. Just another damn thing to learn for something that should be simple.

    Also, the hotfixes themselves only have about 10 different ways of applying at the command line unattended. How about standardizing the hotfix installers too...

    Example, this is what is run after an XP desktop install with SP1 at our location...

    q329834 -u -n -z
    q323255 -u -n -z
    q329048 -u -n -z
    start /wait q328310 -u -n -z
    start /wait vm-sfix3 /q /r:n
    start /wait q324929 /q /r:n
    q329115 -u -n -z
    q329390 -u -n -z
    q810565 -u -n -z
    It doesn't include latest javavm fix, which for some reason won't install right during the guirunonce part of an install, so I have to script to reboot the machine TWICE before running...

    start /wait msjavwu.exe /q /r:n
    Think that's bad? Here's some pre sp1 hotfix command lines from an earlier script..

    Msjavx86.exe /c:"javatrig.exe /exe_install /l /qq" /q:a /r:n
    vbs56nen /q /r:n
    msxm /q /r:n
    start /wait q318202 /q /c:"dahotfix /q /n"
    And the syntax to install unattended is never easy to find on their site. I usually have to use google to search microsoft.com to find what I need, their search engine really sucks. Others must feel the same way since there is a dedicated google page for this at http://www.google.com/microsoft
    1. Re:Ironic timing... by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      I usually have to use google to search microsoft.com to find what I need, their search engine really sucks. Others must feel the same way since there is a dedicated google page for this at...

      You know, I just use Google to search for information on ANY site these days - it's always faster and more accurate than using the site's own search. Microsoft's site really does have the lamest search engine around though - I've never found anything worthwhile using it - then again, I suppose that's because it searches Microsoft' site ;-).

    2. Re:Ironic timing... by nachoboy · · Score: 1
      I sympathize with those admin'ing Windows boxen. Here's what I've come up with.

      The reason your second javavm fix doesn't work before you reboot is that you're already applying an old fix [vm-sfix3.exe]. This is the patch associated with KB article 329077 and Security Bulletin MS02-052. This patch is superceded by MS02-069. After much back and forth with Microsoft Support, I was able to promise my firstborn son in exchange for the following line, which will install the fix quietly and with no reboot:
      msjavwu.exe /c:"javatrig.exe /exe_install /l /q" /q:a /r:n

      It also seems your list is a little outdated - Security Bulletin MS03-001 came out 3 days ago and applies to Windows XP.
      Q810833_WXP_SP2_x86_ENU.exe -q -n -z

      Oh, and in case that's not enough, Microsoft forgot a patch in Windows XP SP1, so you better get that one as well.
      Q329170_WXP_SP2_x86_ENU.exe -q -n -z
    3. Re:Ironic timing... by weave · · Score: 1
      Duuuuude, who'd think I would get some really useful info on slashdot without even asking for it!

      Thanks. :-)

      btw, I swear I look in the security bulletins to see if a patch supersedes an earlier one and I don't believe I saw that that java fix did. Musta missed it. Thanks!

      Oh, and welcome to my friends list! :)

      p.s. That command line for msjavawu is a sin against humanity. :-(

  121. firewall by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    I agree. a good firewall will do the trick also, but one infected server in your closed circuit and they all be infected.

    and there always is the human factor of error (the existance of the worm is a nice example) so you can never be 100% sure you're safe.

    On the internet, always use some kind of protection.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  122. Attention! You must have SP3 or MS039!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been a call all morning and we are sure now that SP2 does NOT protect your server from this attack...YOU MUST APPLY MS-039 to protect your server

    1. Re:Attention! You must have SP3 or MS039!! by RedWolves2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Full description on NAI web site http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_99992.htm#Removal Instructions

      Need both MS02-034 and MS02-039 MS02-034 must be included on SP3.

    2. Re:Attention! You must have SP3 or MS039!! by John3 · · Score: 1

      And of course MS doesn't yet have SP3 available for SQL MSDE Desktop Edition. There are a TON of apps that use SQL Desktop meaning it affects more than just servers.

      John

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    3. Re:Attention! You must have SP3 or MS039!! by RedWolves2 · · Score: 1

      I was infected with this worm tihs morning I detailed my removal instructions here http://www.mediagab.com/story.asp?id=300.

      Hope this helps someone.

  123. Re:Did you just join the Axis of Weasels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those weapons of mass destruction that nobody seems able to find? Good thing W just *knows* they're there, otherwise you might think they don't exist...

    Also, if the choice is Saddam or endless civil war I know what I'd choose. Remember how we abandoned the Afghans after our little proxy war with the USSR? Remember how we egged on the Kurds to rise up and then left them hanging when we got cold feet at the last minute? Remember how we were supposed to build reactors that could only generate electricity for North Korea and then didn't? It'd be a lot easier to get all righteous about this stuff if we actually held up our end of the bargain once in awhile.

  124. Microsoft, unfortunately, probably won't pay by JonathanF · · Score: 1

    I don't think that Microsoft will be sued for damages in this circumstance. Since the fix was already available for several months, it's the fault of the server admin if they didn't patch it up properly.

  125. Worm killed? by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    My logfiles started reporting the worm at 6:30 (The Netherlands) and after an uninterrupted strean of packages it seems to have stopped at 15:32 :)

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  126. How about a Stupid Admin List? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Put together a website listing all the IP address that sent you port 1434/udp 376 traffic.

    My firewall blocked 167 of these requests before we lost our upstream connection (our co-lo ISP gets its bandwidth from uu.net, which was hosed).

    Write a short script to get whois/admin info, then send automated email to management pointing out the stupidity of running an unpatched server months after the fix was available, and the stupidity of having it available unfiltered to the internet.

    Point out that there are many smart, unemployed tech people who wouldn't allow this kind of stupidity to occur.

    (Yes, I know MS patches sometimes break other things, and you need to test them before deploying them. But it has been many months.)

    1. Re:How about a Stupid Admin List? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put together a website listing all the IP address that sent you port 1434/udp 376 traffic.

      Write a short script to get whois/admin info, then send automated email to management pointing out the stupidity of running an unpatched server months after the fix was available, and the stupidity of having it available unfiltered to the internet.


      Man, that's a great idea!

  127. well? by wobblie · · Score: 1

    Are you sure you want to DROP those packets, or do you want to send icmp-port-unreachable? Which will cause less traffic in the long run?

    Of course the port unreachable adds traffic to this mess, but if the worm stops attacking you once it recieves that (and in my logs I've noticed I only have one attempt per host for this attack ... I send port unreachable by default.) I thinking just discarding the packet may cause it to continually attack you ...

    1. Re:well? by KarMannJRO · · Score: 1

      I've been DROPping, and I also get only one attempt per host. It's the nature of the beast, nothing to do with whether it gets an ICMP-*-unreachable or not. That's part of what makes it so efficient, being UDP, it doesn't waste time waiting for any kind of reply at all, just moves right along to the next target address. Lather, rinse, repeat.

  128. Hey MS.... by StarTux · · Score: 1

    Don't take this as being anti Microsoft, but you need to realise that the "software ecosystem" has to include serious competitors. Survival in an ecosystem also means diversity!

    1. Re:Hey MS.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would hardly say that MS dominates the SQL database server market...

  129. Re:Must... resist... temptation... to... OH NO!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should do what the lemmings did when they shouted OH NO!

  130. I called him ... by DanEsparza · · Score: 1

    I called him. He mumbled something about "Slashdot", "No sleep", "Bill Gates", and then hung up. Weird, eh? I wonder when he'll stop.

    Dan

    1. Re:I called him ... by TunaPhish · · Score: 1

      Apparently the phone number has been slashdotted as well. When I call, I get "This number has been disconnected, or is no longer in service." !!!

  131. Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think that's bad, those fuckers are causing snow in my TV picture! Will they stop at nothing?!

  132. Re:Did you just join the Axis of Weasels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.. the US sold them that.

  133. Red Hat party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet RedHat throwing a party now. I guess we will see more Unix systems, like it happen after Red worm Watch MS stock on Monday Happy hour! heheheh

  134. Hey, lighten up Ricky. by simetra · · Score: 1

    Really, unless you've created a superior alternative, and until you're charged for the services provided by /., why bitch like a little schoolgirl? Try being nicer, like me!

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  135. annotated disassembly by meshko · · Score: 1

    Is here: http://www.boredom.org/~cstone/worm-annotated.txt

    Some more information from digitaloffense here:
    http://www.digitaloffense.net/worms/mssql_u dp_worm /

    --
    I passed the Turing test.
  136. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny stuff...

  137. why just apply a patch? by sirshannon · · Score: 1

    now why just apply a patch that has been available for 6 months when you can instead completely change your database system over to a new one? That way you can pretend it wasn't your fault.

  138. Hmmmmm by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this is why my SMC Barricade firewall here at home lost its mind? Piece of crap.

  139. Re:Why would anyone use anything else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a screwdriver to open my can Ovaltine, cuz otherwise it hurts my fingers. Can PostgreSQL do that? I don't think so!

  140. tcpdump DOES NOT like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    09:05:08.973985 207.194.92.190.1646 > my.network.1434: rad-account-req 376
    [id 1] Attr[ User User User User User User User

    (imagine "User" going on continuously from here)

    If you're trying to sniff this, don't let it pick up stuff on port 1646! tcpdump will flip out!

  141. waiting for patches is hardly good security policy by tom+enterprise · · Score: 0

    how about if there is a worm without a fucking patch? and how about if the patch just came out? you blindly patch servers without a QA process? sounds like msce advice to me.

  142. Report from Europe by skillet-thief · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm in France. I have 1434 in my logs all morning, but nothing since about 11:30 greenwich. The source IP's are about half and half Europe/US.

    A few things are down over here, like my university's network, but haven't noticed any major crashing.

    --

    Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire

  143. question by sirshannon · · Score: 1

    what about shared web hosting companies that run SQL as part of their business?

  144. Firewalls are not a magic elixir by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    While I agree with you that in the land of inexpensive, and easily maintained and used VPNs it is abnormal to have the database server as publicly accessible, I totally disagree that this is some sort of travesty. Indeed in reality the firewall ends up being a crutch that the sysadmins leans on to protect them from their own ignorance and laziness (in this case the patch has been available for some 8 months. Given that the original advisory gave specific instructions on how to exploit it of course there was going to come a worm): Why bother keeping only necessary services running, with the same being actively monitored and administered, when one can just firewall the problem. What's that? The firewall doesn't protect you from the inside? An exploit came through a firewall sanctioned route (email, HTTP, etc) and it proceeded to wreak havoc on your carefully firewalled little world?

    Firewalls are a false sense of security, and anyone should be able to defend their system running without a firewall on the public internet at any time (well this is doubly so because the same moronic admins who look for such a blanket protection are the ones who go "Geee...I can't figure out how to get netmeeting to work through the firewall...I'll just take it down for a couple of hours....".

  145. Re:PostgreSQL keeps .org up /MS-SQL brings down ne by sean23007 · · Score: 1

    Maybe the PostreSQL guys released this worm to demonstrate that their product is better than Microsoft's...

    Probably shouldn't have said that.

    --

    Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  146. postgresql, mysql, slightly offtopic by _outcat_ · · Score: 1

    Yes, this will be slightly offtopic, but I'm currently working on an IT project at my college that involves a MySQL server running off a Linux box, and we will have to potentially have a port open to trusted hosts only to connect to it through ODBC. I'm trying to find comparisons between security on these databases and failing miserably. Is Postgresql inherently better for this kind of thing? I haven't even found MySQL mentioned in this thread. Someone point me in the right direction!

    --T.

    --
    Angry IT woman in big clompy boots. And talking lint!.
  147. 10 packets per minute, my ass !!! by CptMatt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I slapped a line on our access list in our BGP routers this morning at around 8:30 A.M. Even though our firewall was blocking this port, figured it would be better to block in silicon rather than at the O/S level. In almost 2 hours, we have recieved over 190,000 packets from this wurm. I have a feeling its going to get a lot worse before it gets better

  148. hmm port 1434 by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 0, Redundant

    that was the first port I blocked on my firwell at home.. along with the other nasty wiNT and windows ports..

    Pretty soon you will see every firewll and dns server product come defaulted with these ports blocked..

    Always remember Ms sense of design on secuirty is that.. oh we can't do it because the cstmore did not aks for it.. Ms claims it knwos Software Engineering.. I seriously doubt it..

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
    1. Re:hmm port 1434 by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      The first port I blocked was EVERY port,
      I then enabled the things I really needed.

      By default you should always deny everything you don't need, even ssh has had remotely exploitable bugs.

  149. So how come... by Cally · · Score: 1

    Despite the BBC having a story on this (the first place I learned of it: I had a looong lie-in this morning, er, afternoon) that incidents.org which collates scanning activity worldwide has "status: green" showing with a small note that "some scanning by new SQL Server worm causing some slowdowns" - not exactly apocalyptic, huh? And here in the UK (My ISP) everything looks fine. Slashdot's faster than usual if anything... sounds like a storm in a teacup to me.

    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  150. Get Webmin and Usermin by Spoing · · Score: 1
    1. I have a small team of folks that are constantly rotating because we don't have the money to keep them on indefinately, and as soon as they have enough knowledge, they take off for better digs -- which I don't blame them what so ever. These folks have to take care of a lot of the minor details but don't have the big picture that comes from a full time job for several years and experience that comes from this type of activity.

      I personally try to keep up with the systems we have running...but while its not hard, in most of the real world, babysitting a single server will not get you far. If thats all most of us were doing, we'd be able to easily take care of this stuff.

    Webmin will help unify your Unix systems at the administration level, while Usermin is as it sounds; "a simplified version of Webmin designed for use by normal users".

    Secondly, why do you ever have to baby sit a server? There are tools that allow you to keep multiple systems up to date and monitor the health of them automatically. Backups should be checked a few minutes in the morning and adjusted if needed.

    The rest of your day can be on other things.

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    1. Re:Get Webmin and Usermin by clifyt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've used Webmin before (never saw Usermin...have to check that out) but it occasionally screws up as much as it helps.

      Still, I couldn't trust my Window's folks to touch my Unix servers even if its something this simple. For instance, a few months ago the latest version of GCC killed MySQL. I had to go back and recompile quite a bit of crap to use GCC and MySQL STILL didn't work right. It took a few days to get all of this right...

      I don't think Webmin is going to give me the knowledge to fix this kind of problem or even troubleshoot it. Windows is moronic enough that most folks can troubleshoot it enough to get it in a working state...again, most of its point and click. We make fun of that on /. without realizing that most folks can't memorize volumes and volumes of information. Even the little knowledge I have just so I can hit Usenet and troubleshoot from there (not a Unix expert by any means of the word) is more than most Windows admin...and face it, computers are needed everywhere and the average intelligence of the public isn't going to rise any just because of job requirements...thus we will have a very small group of people that are capible of taking care of system administration in a way that is required to manage ALL the computers in the world. Maybe Sun is right...maybe THEY need to be running all of our servers for us :-)

      clif

    2. Re:Get Webmin and Usermin by Spoing · · Score: 1
      Agreed on Webmin -- it can cause problems. It's a good thing those systems were backed up (right?) so restoring them was trivial (right?). (Don't get angry at me for pointing this out...you know better so don't pretend otherwise.)

      Always treat design, test, implementation, deployment, and maintentance as seperate functions.

      Deciding on what the system should contain is a design function. Installing software is a function of deployment and test. Maintenance only involves minor revision software updates and only if required. If you are responsible for each of these functions, treat each seriously and don't blur the lines. While this applies mostly to servers, your client machines should be given similar respect.

      For example, I was reciently responsible for the maintainance of an email system. It was based on MS Exchange 4.x and had known unplugable security holes. Seperately, with my design, test, and implementation hats on, I worked on a replacement system that was (per management) both cheap and secure and had calendaring support for Outlook clients. While I hated maintaining Exchange, it was not my role to swoop in and replace it. Instead, I had to justify the replacement system on it's own merits and it had to work as a totally silent replacement for the existing system ; no lost mail, no lost contact information, no extra requirements for the users. I would also like to get a replacement for Outlook on the client systems, though in the grand scheme of things this is less critical and would have caused a disruption to the existing routine for the users.

      The goal here is familiar to any medical professional; don't cause harm.

      OK...I take it back, if instructed by management to install new software, a major revision or anything else not kosher, I'd do it...with a warning to the manager(s) that it is not a good idea. No argument, just a warning.

      In either case, you should always have a clean way to get back to a known state. For example, on most Unix systems backing up /etc the moment before making system changes is a good idea. If using a package manager, checking dependencies, cleaning the database, and verifying that you have the existing packages somewhere will help considerably.

      Your unskilled assistants should be locked out of being able to perform software updates on any system where you can't do a clean wipe and restore. Everything else is minor configuration, data file, or hardware (printers to network cables).

      I think like this for any systems -- Unix-style or not. If I'm part of a team or working on my own systems.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  151. pfft by exspecto · · Score: 0

    nimda? i have two screens full of "Deny from" rules because i get tons of CodeRed hits every day. yes, people are stupid when it comes to watching their stuff. especially ms admins (and i use the word lightly)

  152. Re:Yow! Good call /. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    I just checked my logs...WOW.

  153. While there are some dumb admins by RodeoBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are a lot of home users/business that have SQL server installed and no firewall set up. Just like code red this thing is infecting personal boxes, therefore adding to the high volumes we see. I have SQL on one of my machines at home, behind two linux based firewalls, and when I use any tool to connect to a database I am given all sorts of choices. Most of the IP addys I see belong to other cable users. I wonder how many have kept up on their patches? The problem is any fool without any training can install this stuff on their computers, I think home users are the main reason that simple worms like this are so successful.

    1. Re:While there are some dumb admins by md27 · · Score: 1

      While I would agree that Code Red benefited extensively from home users who were running 2k Pro or pirated 2k Server boxen that they didn't know had IIS running or didn't understand they were at risk. However, I find it hard to believe that many people have SQL server running on a home machine, even small businesses would rarely run SQL due to prohibitive costs and learning curves associated with client/server database solutions. An Access worm spreading through home users, likely, a SQL one? I'd have to think less likely, but I'd be interested to see examples or numbers to the contrary

    2. Re:While there are some dumb admins by AlphaSys · · Score: 0

      Well, you might think again... the MS Data Engine (a.k.a MSDE) is the redistributable version of SQL Server for developers, and it is freely distributable. It has all the functionality of SQL server (standard), with a few limitations on DB size, etc.

      I personally believe the installer should include a short "aptitude quiz" regarding the administering of the services you're about to install... get at least 80% right or the install aborts. Tired of lazy home luser idiots giving admins a bad name and eating my bandwidth to boot!

      --
      Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
    3. Re:While there are some dumb admins by md27 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know that's the development engine, which once again wouldn't be common in a home environment, that is typcial if stupid users. If you're developing using SQL Server then you'd prob. know to patch.

  154. .org and postgress must be smiling today by endrek · · Score: 1

    This, hot on the tails of the .org nameserver changing to postgress? They're gonna look super cool today. And I don't think anyone can blame them for not using microsoft either. This is attrocious and I hope more of the name servers switch because this is ridicoulous. Why is such an important internet protocol being run on MS boxes? where were they when the internet was being created? No in existance. Keep the interent where it belongs, on unix. (Granted bind does have a bad history, but still, 9.2.1 has given me no problems. :)

    1. Re:.org and postgress must be smiling today by PhreakinPenguin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another ignorant post because people insist on attacking the wrong person. EVERY protocol has vulnerabilities, that's the facts. The patch was release almost a year ago for this same issue. If you want to blame anyone, blame the shitty admins who don't filter out traffic if they must use MSSQL over the internet, or flat out block it if they don't. I know people think it's cool to bash MS, but in this case it's directed at the wrong person. Besides, last time I checked the root-servers weren't running Windows and they went down like a date on prom night.

      --


      My sig of choice is Marlboro
    2. Re:.org and postgress must be smiling today by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Informative

      last time I checked the root-servers weren't running Windows and they went down like a date on prom night.

      Actually NONE of the root nameservers went down, either during this worm incident, or during the Oct 21 incident. The network nameservers are generally highly overprovisioned, and do a very good job of responding to every request they receive, even under abnormal load.

      What happened is that the increase in network traffic staturated some of the feeds to the root name servers making it impossible for requests to reach the name servers. This is the real danger of these attacks.

      And as far as blaming negligent sysadmins for not patching their servers, well, sure. But sysadmins are not the only players in this game. Companies often have policies regarding software patches and validation that restrain what a sysadmin can do. And the fact is that the sysadmin did not put the vulnerability in the software, nor is this the first time a Microsoft product has servered as the vector for something like this.

  155. Re:Did you just join the Axis of Weasels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah nice, when the US and Great Britain bombed Iraq without any backing from the UN and against the will of veto-holding security council members, now they suddenly had authorization. It seems new technology allows changing past facts...
    No wonder there were surveys among young Americans that show that the majority beliefs the US won the Vietnam war.
    A nation so full of ignorant people like the United States should not be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction.

  156. Re:PostgreSQL keeps .org up /MS-SQL brings down ne by tshak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Insightful? How? If you haven't patched PostgreSQL within the last 6 months you are vulnerable to multiple buffer overflow/remote root exploits. If PostgreSQL had the volume of boxes that MSSQL had on the 'net, you can be sure that there'd be a large number of idiot sysadmins who A) don't patch and B) don't know how to use a firewall to protect their systems.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  157. Re:Did you just join the Axis of Weasels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we have weasels of mass destruction instead?

  158. Slightly ironic . . . by aaronhurd · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess even Gates saw this coming. ;-)

    "New security risks have emerged on a scale that few in our industry fully anticipated," Gates wrote in a 1,500-word e-mail distributed late Thursday to about 1 million people. (Full article at CNN.com)

    DOH!

  159. Heh, heh... by Theoden · · Score: 1

    Seems no one's mentioned that SQL Server's going to power the next version of the windows file system...
    heh, heh... :)

  160. Stalin is Risen and Funding Peace! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The George Orwell Party strikes again. Irony or Republican?

  161. Re:Why would anyone use anything else? by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Funny

    And today we are seeing the one thing at which Microsoft products really kick ass...

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  162. hehe by glenstar · · Score: 1
    Installing SQL Server SP3 on SQL Server 2000 under .NET Server, RC1:

    This software has not passed Microsoft Logo Testing and will not be installed.

    Wonderful.

  163. Re:grep -c 1434 log_firewall by anticypher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whoever puts a database outside a firewall

    24,432 fuckwits have done so, counting the hits on my firewall. 1 hit on port 1434 yesterday, 0 on thursday.

    Wait, there are some dups, it seems that each machine hits the same addresses over and over again, about once every 4 to 12 minutes. grep|awk|sort|uniq gives 11,901 unique IP addresses in my firewall logs.

    Quickly scanning a statistical sampling of machines which have probed my IP space, I see that most of them are wide open to the internet. Ports 137/139, 25, 1029, etc. are all available, and 3 of the 11 show BackOrifice on port 31337.

    I have a friend (oracle expert) over trying to set up a vulnerable MS Sqweal server so we can study the worms actions on an isolated test network. I want to see which addresses does it scan, rate of repetition, and other things, since the code is pretty simple and just hashes the addresses (low cyclical rate) over and over again. I've also learned some new bad Vlamsk (dutch) language today.

    I've got a packet that might crash vulnerable MsSqueal server processes using the same buffer overflow technique. Could be a good return packet to send to scanning machines to get them to shut up until the admins get around to patching/rebooting their fucked windoze machines.

    But first I will test it on my own machines, I really don't believe in affecting other's machines on the internet, even if the owners are fuckwits. But after yet another microshit worm fucking things up for everyone else, I've moved my limit closer to their processes.

    the AC
    I'm also waiting for the first few variants with better IP address scanning routines, which will be much more virulent. Monday will be a *fun* day

    --
    Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
  164. Well, I can tell you this much by Featureless · · Score: 1

    I had installed the patch (although patches and SPs are notorious in "looking as though they have been installed), and I got it anyway.

    As I understand it the July 2002 vulnerability has to do with exploiting a weak or null sa password on open TCP with mixed-mode or SQL Server authentication. So if being patched wasn't enough, my server also had a non-guessable sa password.

    The humorous irony is that I had only opened up SQL Server to the internet a few weeks ago to service something specific for a client (who was on a dynamic IP of course), and was about to shut it down again on Monday...

  165. Who's fault? by Zebra_X · · Score: 1

    On january 17th, Service Pack 3 was released for SQl Server. This release included the July release of the patch to address the exploit that the current worm is using. Shame on SQL Server admins for not patching their servers up to the current release. What good are patches and updates if people don't install them?

    1. Re:Who's fault? by HaverOfPeculiarBox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft can patch until they're red in the face, and they do. But it doesn't change the fact that they released a server with a very major and potentially viral vulnerability. Not everyone in the world is going to do their patches the second they're released. Granted, security holes like this are inevitable, but it's just a question of "how much is too much?" Microsoft consistently releases vulnerable products. And if you're going to pay so much more to run an M$ platform, there should at least be some payoff in the area of so-called "trustworthy computing".

    2. Re:Who's fault? by Danborg · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately there have been quality problems with Microsoft Service Packs in the past, therefore many companies do not simply slap new service packs into production as soon as they are released. These things require testing to make sure they do not introduce new problems or unexpected incompatibilities.

      So have some sympathy, okay? Maintaining a stable production environment is a delicate dance between staying current, yet avoiding the "bleeding edge" where one is likely to produce new problems.

    3. Re:Who's fault? by Zebra_X · · Score: 1

      And yet, the fix for the worm exploit has been available for 6 months. That should be enough time for things to be tested.

    4. Re:Who's fault? by mstefan · · Score: 1

      Fine, if you (and I mean the general "you" here) are concerned about "slapping new service packs into production" when they're released, then take the responsibility to quarantine those vulnerable systems.

      Sorry, by my sympathy for anyone's administration problems ends when their unpatched, compromised systems are attacking my network or impeding my ability to access other systems over the Internet.

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
    5. Re:Who's fault? by Junta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but I know a lot of sites that wait on the full service packs. Testing every hotfix that comes out of MS is not time effective. The policies I generally see is that companies first wait a month after release to see if anything bad happens with the SP, then take a couple of weeks in a test configuration to make sure nothing site-specific should happen, then install SP if fine. The SP3 was only released recently.

      The problem is that with MS, there are two levels of fixes, hotfixes and service packs. hotfixes could be anything from a slight cosmetic bug that isn't worth the time to worry about in a professional environment, to a critical vulnerability. There really isn't a huge sense of urgency at the word 'hotfix'. They really need a separate category of 'critically needed patch' for stuff that can cause problems of this scale if left unpatched.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    6. Re:Who's fault? by mstefan · · Score: 1

      You get that kind of information if you subscribe to their security mailing list.

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
    7. Re:Who's fault? by Zebra_X · · Score: 1

      "waiting on the full service pack" is not an acceptable stance.

      as an admin of one or more machines, the ownus is on the admin to identify and correct the security holes that pose a threat to their machines. not every fix needs to be installed, only the ones that clearly represent a danger to the systems being cared for.

      there are places, such as the bugtraq list where major security bullitins are published. simply subscribing to this list can provide the information necessary to identify the vulnerabilities that do pose a danger.

      also, the *nix community has as many or more fixes released for their software packages. they also do not have "service packs" and "cumulative patches" that are so conviently bundled together.

      all that is required is some critial thinking to asses which patches should be put into production and which should not. and that is the solution.

    8. Re:Who's fault? by AlphaSys · · Score: 0

      Good to see balanced discussion on the real issues here, not the general "MS sux" we were getting early on. Yes, these servers should've been patched and yes, they should be firewalled effectively. Put the onus where it belongs... on slacker admins!

      --
      Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
    9. Re:Who's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firewalls are bandaids for defective hosts. The onus is on vendors not to ship software so brain-damaged that it has to be isolated from the network.

  166. Hit Counts From 66.192.31.140 by lanner · · Score: 0, Redundant


    Some info from my perspective;

    I am at 66.192.31.140

    First logged packet at Jan 25 00:30:47 EST
    Last logged packet at Jan 25 12:17:40 EST (15 minutes ago)

    Number of hits, only 136.
    grep PROTO=UDP /var/log/syslog*|grep DPT=1434 |wc -l
    136

  167. Note the code red by tangentman · · Score: 1

    If you follow the link to google you'll see the infamous words "Code Red" ranked third. Perhaps just another coincidence... Or is it?? (/me looks provacatively into the camera)

  168. filtering port 1434 on all hosts causes problems by Marc+Slemko · · Score: 1

    The claim that "no hosts should be allowed to send traffic to this port" is based on a lack of understanding about how IP works.

    If my machine, for example, does a DNS query to port 53 on your DNS server, it can use a more or less randomly assigned source port. If that source port happens to be 1434, then to respond to my query the DNS server will have to send a packet to port 1434.

    Most systems don't use such low numbered ports for anonymous (aka. ephemeral) ports, but they can and some do. Filtering all traffic to udp port 1434 (or any particular udp or tcp port) is _NOT_ a good practice in general without knowing what is running on the hosts in question. However, it is unfortunately necessary at this time on many networks to deal with this worm.

    This isn't limited to DNS, but any UDP query.

  169. Re:Yow! Good call /. by spikestabber · · Score: 1

    lawsqlsrv2.hotmail.com this one suprised me even more. :) dont need to whois that one to know who owns it.

  170. Improving by tmuller · · Score: 1

    Saw this attack start 2 days ago, but just assumed it was another simple M$ SQLServer attack, because I get a 1433 on occasion.

    Jan 23 06:11:41 mail kernel: Shorewall:net2all:DROP:IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:50:04:a9 :01:1e:00:10:67:00:14:7c:08:00 SRC=208.17.213.124 DST=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx LEN=29 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=116 ID=22683 PROTO=UDP SPT=38105 DPT=1434 LEN=9

    Jan 23 06:11:41 mail kernel: Shorewall:net2all:DROP:IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:50:04:a9:01:1e:00:10:67:00:14:7c:08:00 SRC=208.17.213.124 DST=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx LEN=29 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=116 ID=22684 PROTO=UDP SPT=38105 DPT=1434 LEN=9

    Then as the day progressed on the 23rd, things started to coughed and sputtered until this morning. Last night was a bitch, I could hardly resolve a single domain to anywhere.

    I guess the ISP's are just getting the 1434 UDP traffic under control by blocking the port outright.

    I goes to show that M$ software is still 100% hackable and will be used for something like this for years to come. When will people learn?

  171. Re:billg has no uniform; therefore illegal combata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > billg cannot be an enemy combatant because he
    does not wear a military uniform.

    OMG! If he's not wearing his uniform, he's a SPY!! Spies get shot when they're caught!

  172. Secure :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  173. OpenSRS Registrar DB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is Tango Uniform today. Forget about making changes to those domains for awhile...

  174. Did you fetch your trojaned codec yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Was nice to see one coming from 207.46.196.109 which is activex.microsoft.com - used by m$ mediaplayer for codec downloads etc (it connects there first, then to codecs.m$.com or something)..

    Interesting ports on activex.microsoft.com (207.46.196.109):
    Port State Service
    1434/udp open ms-sql-m

    What do you want to own today?

  175. VOIP is the answer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While the Internet is bogging down, my old-fashioned land line phone still works fine.

    Just think how wonderful things will be once VOIP is in place and all of your voice connections are IP based!

    Oh... wait a minute... never mind.

  176. Removal Instructions by RedWolves2 · · Score: 1

    I was infected with this worm this morning. I detailed removal instructions and posted them on my web site here http://www.mediagab.com/story.asp?id=300

    Hope this helps someone.

  177. Re:Open the gates. (Or With MS, Security is Job#1) by croftj · · Score: 1

    My ISP said there was a patch for the problem but a later patch or upgrade broke the original patch.

    It figures in with their new security iniative don't ya know?

    --
    -- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
  178. Gotcha! by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

    Got you, you bastard.

    Jan 25 12:54:33.451077 rule 1/0(match): block in on tun0: 209.186.12.6.3934 > adsl-xx-xx-xxx-xx.dsl.wotnoh.ameritech.net.1434: udp 376

    376 bytes, check
    udp 1434, check
    infected sender, identified.

    1. Re:Gotcha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice work, one down, 26,407 more infected hosts to go.

  179. Given that a patch has ben available for so long.. by constantnormal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... I wonder if evil-doers might be mining the Microsoft patch libraries, looking for exploits that already have fixes, but depending upon the cluelessness of Microsoft site admins to fail to implement them...

    Why go to all the trouble to invent a problem, when there is a large population of targets and a database of vulnerabilities?

  180. Re:Did you just join the Axis of Weasels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't believe we should have enough nukes to wipe your silly litte country off the map, why don't you crawl out from under your tent, jump on your camel, and come your sorry ass over here and take them away from us?

    Ohhh. Right. You Cant.

  181. No, the problem is no monoculture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its idiot admins, who would compromise any system they are given to manage. Just wait until free operating systems reach the same level of usability and market penetration and then watch the absolute hellstorm caused by the exact same idiots, only you won't be able to blame MS. :)

  182. Re:waiting for patches is hardly good security pol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it all depends on the value of the service being provided. if someone is running a large enterprise and a security hole is uncovered, they don't shut it down ("ok folks, no airplane reservations in the entire world...") while you perform rote qa. you probably are not aware of this because they don't give you this particular job.

  183. IExplorer vs. Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone explain why I could not browse the web with IE 5.5 this morning, but I could with Mozilla?

    Running W2K, but no SQL Server (that I'm aware of).

    1. Re:IExplorer vs. Mozilla? by BigFire · · Score: 1

      Not really an explaination. But othre people are experiencing the opposite problem.

  184. Appropriate response by stonecypher · · Score: 1

    So, I'm getting a little bit peeved.

    On the one hand, I do not support penalties for software developers which open security holes. I've seen some good arguments that suggest that the problem would be akin to suing an engineering concern over a faulty building, but I don't believe them to be accurate; these are attacks, committed against studied weaknesses of a design. We didn't sue the people that built the World Trade Centers for the damage caused by the falling buildings (though, in my opinion disgustingly, I did hear a few people rumble about the topic.)

    On the other hand, though, I believe Microsoft to be reprehensible in their behavior here. The weakness was published, according to the Slashdot article (yeah, we know how accurate those are, but still,) in June of '02. Seven months and change.

    Seven months.

    Now, when someone leverages a widespread exploit that broadsides a company, even Big M$, I'm all for fixing it, learning, and moving on with life. But there has been more than enough time for them to patch this.

    They're supposed to be on some trustworthy computing initiative, right? And this is recieving /no/ press coverage outside of independant sites like the 'net?

    We need to do something. It's getting bad; we've seen real, concerted attacks on the 'net a couple of times, lately. This one apparently got to five of the root servers; the one a few months back did the same, and it probably won't be too much longer until they make actual headway.

    We can't do a damn thing to M$. This has been shown: they're convicted monopolists and nothing happened.

    However: the /media/ can do something to M$. The media is basically why M$ exists. M$ got big by being the superior marketer in every way, and I would enjoy arguments otherwise. M$ is our 800 lb. repeating joke for exactly the reasons the jokes suggest: our pointy haired bosses prefer Outlook and Exchange to corporate security, internet stability and good neighbor policies.

    It's time for us to put our weight where it matters. The media doesn't exist on a lark: it's there because we [read|watch|etc] it.

    Why are we still doing this?

    It's time we started really letting people know what's going on. It's time for us to begin to collect and catalog the serious vulnerabilities and risks on the 'net, and in a nonpartisan fashion. We need to log things that have nothing to do with M$. We need to track everything.

    And we need a way to show just how many of the really serious problems - code red, nimda, IIS (which should be called a trojan, IMNSHO); potential things like curious yellow; it's just a mess what would happen if someone tried more than one concurrent attack in more than a haphazard Gargamel-style "this'll get Papa Internet and all his meddling little smurfs" fashion.

    Not all badguys are stupid, and soon enough one of them will figure out how to go about it: don't give them one thing to vaccinate at once, and let each problem propogate the entire set.

    We are sitting ducks for as long as we allow big corporations with both the knowledge of and the resources to fix their problems get away with things like this. Over the last two years, attacks have gotten more and more serious, and we've listened to platitudes about trustworthy computing and focus less on featuritis (doubtless so they can thing up new indispensible widgets) and more on security (which they verifiably have not done; though their product release rates have dropped, their patch release rates haven't even climbed by as fast as their hole discovery rates.)

    We have a lot of intelligent people at slashdot. Unless I'm a loon (well, probably in spite of it, natch) we're looking at one of our last chances to get fixes underway in time.

    I don't have the planning abilities, resources, foresight or time to organize a self-help movement. That said, I firmly believe that it needs to be done. This is my appeal: someone who can, please begin to keep a timeline of the problems, a review of their comparative severities (this, code red, and other things which crippled the 'net should be nicely high on that list), and a running tally of who's responsible for what ratio among each threat level.

    We have places like CERT, which release top ten lists per OS, thinking they're being helpful while muddying the waters for the corporate types who genuinely do not understand the risk by making it look as if other things are as vulnerable as M$ products.

    It's time that we stop whining and start acting. No silly email campaigns where they get mocked in alternating caps and numbers-for-letters, no derision, no humiliation; fun and cathartic as they may be, they would weaken what I feel is nearing on being a desperate purpose.

    Please comment. Maybe I'm overreacting. I'd like to see how you all feel.

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
    1. Re:Appropriate response by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      > ms released a patch for this 6 months ago.

      Nice job completely avoiding the nature of the message.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    2. Re:Appropriate response by mstefan · · Score: 1

      Wait a second here. I understand that it's popular sport to loathe Microsoft here on ./ however, what exactly do you expect them to do? They released information and a patch for this vulnerability in July, 2002 and sent out e-mail alerts to everyone on the security mailing list (and if you're an admin for Windows boxes and you're not on that mailing list, do us all a favor and choose another line of work.)

      The problem isn't that some previously unknown vulnerability was exploited. The problem is that sysadmins didn't do their job, either because of concerns over installing the patch, or sheer incompetence, take your pick. With any system that is on the net, the admin has a responsibility to keep those systems patched. Period. Either patch up (and deal with any potential problems with the patch) or take steps to ensure that your vulnerable systems are quarantined.

      Could Microsoft make the patching process easier, particularly for admins who handle large corporate networks? Sure. Does the fact that it's difficult, complicated and/or time consuming absolve those admins for not applying this patch? Hell no. Put fair share of the blame where it belongs, not solely on the head of Microsoft.

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Appropriate response by Equinox · · Score: 1

      Despite the reasons pointed out above, there's a big one that pretty much shoots your argument down (I agree with you completely, btw.) You ready for this? The Public doesn't care. They don't have to admin anything, they don't have to know how to use it effectively, they can call someone else to fix it when it breaks, they look at it as a glorified toaster with pretty buttons, and they just don't care. As long as they can just reboot, or use "the internet is down" as an excuse to get out of work, they won't care, either. And tomorrow, when this whole thing has blown over, it means nothing more than the guy in the basement that they never see has done his job, and they can go back to burning their bread. And continue to not care.

  185. Will PostgreSQL make you smart by RodeoBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think not. There were three simple things that would have saved your ass, first apply the patch, second don't allow everyone in the world to connect to your database server, and last turn off the box if you don't know how to secure it. I also work for a company that uses SQL Server for the backend of our web apps, but I don't have any interesting stories for you. I think our admin was asleep in bed when this all when down, but that is because he did all the hard work ahead of time.

  186. IBM got hit hard... by domenic+v1.0 · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...and we lost tons of money. We were down for more than 8 hours and no customer could call in to check on their server problem tickets, hospitals needed service and we couldnt get technicians out there...our servers were swamped. This is serious when companies who deal with the lives of idividuals are at risk. Hospitals had ptient databases that couldn't get accessed, nor banks needed techs onsite to install new software or hardware upgrades before the open of business....nothing could get done. This was the first time IBM got hit this hard where it brought down 95 percent of the company globally. Yikes....Now I got back to collecting the hair I've been pulling out for the past 8 hours.

    1. Re:IBM got hit hard... by bmetzler · · Score: 1
      We were down for more than 8 hours and no customer could call in to check on their server problem tickets, hospitals needed service and we couldnt get technicians out there...our servers were swamped

      Please tell me that your are serious and that the problems IBM experienced were simply do to lack of bandwidth available, and not that IBM was using MS SQL Server. Please, please, please...

      -Brent
    2. Re:IBM got hit hard... by domenic+v1.0 · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you, IBM does use them...and lot's of 'em too! :(

    3. Re:IBM got hit hard... by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1

      Well - if there was more competance in the ISP's and more accountability then there wouldn't be the problem.

      Blocking port 1434 is quite trival. We've had it blocked for years. Its line 6 in our pf.conf file. We use OpenBSD firewalls and they are free and easy to configure and if YOU don't know how to configure your god damn firewall then either get your cheap ass server OFF the net or hire a competant systems admin (who probably needs the work) and PAY the guy a few sheckles (Like we did).

      Next, Once the problem occurred it should NOT take the telcomunications industry literally HOURs to block the damn port.

      If there were hospitals and the like incapacitated because of this then BLAME the damn ISP's and BACKBONE operators. Look - there are more than 100 million people on the bloody net. That some will cause a little mischief is to be expected and since we have had MANY MANY prior attacks I presume some of our Dimtwit managers should have figured out that maybe its going to happen again and maybe even get worse - so they better start paying their technical staff better and get better quality people and provide better training for them. These people are available. I know some of them. It is just not acceptable IMHO for a multi million dollar telco such as my upstream to simultaneously lay off competant admins (because they are too expensive?) and meanwhile not be able to deal effectively with this problem for more than 12 hours. Meanwhile we, with a pitance of their resources, had it under control before it started.

      Don't blame the crackers. That is all too simple. It is a head in the sand ostrich approach and it shows a great deal of naivity. Blaming the crackers will accomplish nothing. There are just too many of them and they have virtual total anonymity anywys and this fact of life just ain't going to change anytime soon folks.

      Besides - the crackers collectively do us a favour. The public is pathetically ignorant and if it weren't for the crackers they would be even worse. The pain must increase before people will deal with it. If it is not dealt with (present situation it would seem because the patches have been available for over 6 months) then when a real attack comes it will be no different than what happened at Perl Harbour. We have enemies out there in cyberspace. If the USA attacks Iraq I expect there are many who will want to respond with a real attack in cyberspace and this time they might use real payloads.

      How would those server admins feel if Monday morning they came in to find (1) their crtc registers had been reprogrammed and their monitors were smoked and (2) bad data had been seeded throughout the databases literally for weeks or months and (3) as a final token the EEPROMS holding the bioses were erased? Machines treated like this are virtually unsalvagable. At least most of the techs in this city have no idea how to go about rebuilding a zeroed EEPROM.

      Many of these servers have nice enterprise level automated backup systems in place too... which are vulnerable because they are on-line.

      I hope there are law suits out of this. I hope these are directed at the ISP's that don't pull the plug on cracked Colos and against carriers that can't seem to implement simple firewall regress filters in a timely fashion. Maybe if this happens there will be more attention to having competant technical specialists on board in these organisation so that these bush fires can be put out before they cause real damage.

      JMHO!

      But when Code Red hit last year 2 weeks AFTER my ISP had not yet even advised some of their customers they had a problem and when I suggested to their ppl that perhaps it might be an idea to tell them I was attacked by incompetant customer relations people who wanted to continue to sweep it under the rug!!!

    4. Re:IBM got hit hard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...it will be no different than what happened at Perl Harbour....

      Heh... don't know if it was an intentional misspelling, but if not, that makes it all the funnier. ;)

    5. Re:IBM got hit hard... by technomom · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that IBM occasionally purchases other companies who may, at the time of their purchase, use products not within the IBM portfolio. Also, IBM is an integration services company that makes money integrating not only its own products but those of competitors as well.

      So, yes, we do occasionally need to hold our noses and work with the likes of MS SQL Server.

  187. Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Many folks are blaming admins for not installing patches.

    Why do they assume that the admins are still employed?

    Until the machines choke and die, anyone with a clue is overhead.

  188. Such moderations can be easily stopped. by doorbot.com · · Score: 1

    mechanisms for thermodynamically analyzing

    Who moderated this +1, Insightful?

    Definitely +1, Funny... but insightful? Did the moderator even understand the words yeOldSkeptic was using?

    1. Re:Such moderations can be easily stopped. by kmellis · · Score: 1
      Seriously, out of the enormously huge set of Everything that Can Be Known ("we are all really impressed down here, I can tell you"), we puny humans walk around with itty-bitty subsets of it of Things We Know. But the Things We Know is the easy part.

      The hard part is learning to recognize our own ignorance, especially at the boundary between knowledge and ignorance. I think a good measure of general intelligence is the quality of one's bullshit detector. And, really, we all have our own version of that fuzzy area near the boundary where the mixture of knowledge and ignorance means that we are dangerously ignorant. You know, he who is without sin, blah blah blah.

    2. Re:Such moderations can be easily stopped. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Look, it contained both "thermodynamic" and "gaussian." How could such a post not be insightful? :)

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  189. what a cool domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    military.com? wow that's so cool. i wish i was that cool.

  190. Port 1433? by n-baxley · · Score: 1

    I thought SQL Server used port 1433. What am I thinking of?

    1. Re:Port 1433? by moncyb · · Score: 1

      It does, but it also uses UDP port 1434 (which you can't turn off). Read this report to see how it works.

      Did the service patch for this problem just barely come out a week ago? That's what another poster said. This report says Microsoft was notified on 17 May 2002--several months ago. Not good.

  191. Re:Did you just join the Axis of Weasels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey moron, don't read the news much do you? Or don't get out of the house much, huh?

    The burden of PROOF rests on Saddam Hussein to PROVE that he doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction, according to the UN charter. Forgot about that little detail, huh? And he has failed to meet this burden.

    Also, jackass, remember they found those empty containers of chemical agents? Hans Blix himself said this was "the smoking gun."

    I recommend you try to be less of an idiot, if that's possible, and maybe some sun, and listen to the news now and then. You will find educating yourself about the actual issues will prevent you from sounding like a moron like the above post.

  192. Isn't there a McDonald's in Hanoi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And only myopic American university professors believe in Karl Marx anymore.

    So who really won?

  193. The Blame Game... by j_zero · · Score: 1

    Someone has taken advantage of a KNOWN expoit in Windows again, for which a patch had been released LAST YEAR (if what i am reading is correct). SO, who do you blame? Yes, Microsoft has quite a few serious coding issues with their OS, but how many patches are released for various *nix sustems on a daily basis? I use a mixed environment for my computing needs, and I d/l every patch i find for ALL my environments. Guess what? I have never experienced any vulnerabilities! People need to learn: THIS IS THE PRICE FOR LAZINESS! Point the finger at those who DO NOT keep their systems up to date. Just my $.02 worth......

  194. ... but the solution is ... by constantnormal · · Score: 1

    ... to prosecute those owners of systems that become infected -- at least when the infection is due to their negligence in not applying known fixes.

    If this were done, the internet would become a MUCH more secure place very quickly. And a lot more attention would be given to software that has been demonstrated to be more secure.

    It's a lot like holding the owner of a motor vehicle liable for damages incurred during its use.

  195. Don't think MS is to blame? Read this: by Featureless · · Score: 4, Insightful
    OK, help me out here.
    1. The first and foremost way we should have stopped this worm was with firewall rules and the "Server Network Configuration." You don't want to be running anything like this open to the network. Fine.

      The bad assumption people are making here is that there's "no reason to break this rule." Well, unfortunately, this is just not so.

      In my case, a project involved upsizing a client's access database, and then transferring it from my dev machine to an ISP's SQL Server instance. The client has a dynamic IP address, and they would never even consider the cost of using a VPN. My SQL Server ports were open for only 3 weeks, during the transition period, and would have been shut down next week.

    2. Everyone is saying "it's your fault - you didn't install the patch."

      I kept up on service packs (I was up to SP2), and had installed every SQL Server security patch I could find. I had a non-guessable sa password. I got it anyway.

      So why is that? I'm not sure. But I have some observations about the manner in which you're supposed to keep SQL Server (and other MS applications for that matter) current which bear seriously on the issue:

      1. First, there's the "fine print" phenomenon on Microsoft patches. Aside from service packs, these are usually just utterly simplistic "unzip and spray files" installers, occasionally with a few scripts thrown in. Install them in the wrong order, or fail to obey some other 8pt type caveat (and there can be dozens) and you render yourself unprotected again, while maintaining the appearance of being protected. It's likely this is why I wasn't protected despite believing I was.

      2. Where is the complete list of all patches, with downloaded links? What part of Microsoft's site is it prominently displayed on? Where's the order they need to be installed in, with concise instructions?

        Anywhere? I can't find it today. Maybe it exists and I just didn't notice it. That would be atrocious site design. Or maybe a simple, centralized "MS SQL Server 2000 Security Page" with ordered patch list and instructions doesn't even exist. That's just atrocious.

        All I can find is top-level references to service packs and an unqualified link to an all-microsoft download search page. When you select SQL Server 2000 in it, you get everything, not in order, patches thrown together with samples, evaluation downloads, etc.

        And I'm supposed to check here... every week? Sounds sensible on the surface, but if they really wanted to prevent trouble:

      3. Two words: WINDOWS UPDATE! What the hell is wrong with these people that if they have a patch for SQL Server 2000, they can't just throw it into Windows Update? It does a little check - do you have SQLSvr installed? Yes? Do you have the patches installed?

        IT'S SO BLOODY SIMPLE. Yet they didn't bother.

        Compare this to redhat, where there's one tool, up2date, and it works for everything. And you are trivially notified by email when there's an update.

      4. I believe there's a tool that lets you examine your installation to see what service packs are installed and which aren't. I remember vividly running it last summer and discovering that I was up to date. Tellingly, I can't even find it in their site today.

      5. Yes, the service packs. I notice SQL Server 2000 SP3 protects you against this buffer overflow. I also notice this service pack came out last week.

        At any rate, we can at least tell people a convenient fix - go install SQL Server 2000 SP3.


    What's the bottom line? I had a reason to have the port open. And I had a not-for-nothing false sense of security that I was protected against this vulnerability. And most of all, if this was RedHat (for instance) I would never have had this problem - because I would have been notified the moment the patch was available, and would have installed it in a heartbeat, through their single, consistent, easy-to-use interface; and so would tens of thousands of others.
    1. Re:Don't think MS is to blame? Read this: by nachoboy · · Score: 1
      I believe there's a tool that lets you examine your installation to see what service packs are installed and which aren't. I remember vividly running it last summer and discovering that I was up to date. Tellingly, I can't even find it in their site today.

      The tool you refer to is the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer. The latest version is 1.1, but Russ of NTBugtraq fame recommends you use a custom definition file in this situation:

      mbsacli.exe /hf -x https://xml.shavlik.com/mssecure.xml

      I HIGHLY recommend anyone interested in this read Eric Schultze's post to NTBugtraq.
    2. Re:Don't think MS is to blame? Read this: by Zeddicus_Z · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer has the capability to check for MS-SQL and subsequently check the program's patch level against a current XML definition stored at microsoft.com. Which is nice.

      I will however agree with you that hotfix installation orders are a shit. The last server I setup at work, I was left with inconclusive results for the patching of six vulnerabilities (one critical). I wasted a *lot* of time manually tracking down and fixing the cause of that.

      --
      Janie took my gun...
    3. Re:Don't think MS is to blame? Read this: by AlphaSys · · Score: 0

      And this gets modded +5 insightful? STFU.

      If you have to do that kind of SQL work, wrap it in a web service like a REAL developer.

      You say your client wouldn't consider the COST of using a VPN? If they're running SQL2K, they must also be running an OS fully capable of handling a trivial little PPTP dialin.

      This patch has been out for ages; if you didn't know about it, you're not doing your homework on what is running on your PC.

      It sounds to me like a developer has services on his machine that require the vigilance of an admin, and none was present.

      If you don't play an admin at your job, don't assume to know the opinions of them on /.

      --
      Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
    4. Re:Don't think MS is to blame? Read this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats true but what I would recommend is installing PostgreSQL with ODBC support, it can handle all of the Access requests as long as the datasource is configured to be ODBC (preferably ofcause on redhat or debian machine, that's what I did couple of years a go and haven't had a single problem with it since).

  196. South Africa successfully disarmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So did Ukraine and Kazakstan, IIRC.

    It didn't take years. It didn't take months. I think it happened in a few weeks.

    If the country cooperates it's easy.

    If the country doesn't it's impossible. Think about that. If an entire country is trying to hide evidence of something, and if you squeal you're killed, how hard is it going to be to find something. Never mind recent allegations that the inspectors have been intimidated and/or suborned.

    Also, disarming was part of a surrender agreement where the victors specifically reserved the right to resume hostilities if Iraq did not cooperate in its disarming.

    The legal basis for resuming hostilities is in place. The troops are probably almost in place. And the French will eventually support the war because if they don't the whole world is going to see just how irrelevant the French UN veto and the UN itself really is.

    These are the same French who claimed no UN sanction was needed to remove Milosovic from power.

  197. Re:Why would anyone use anything else? by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1


    The issue is that postgresql doesn't yet scale as well as Oracle does. Postgresql doesn't currently support multimaster replication. The core development team is working on an implementation that will be groundbreaking but it probably won't be done for a year or two. Postgresql also launches one process per connection, which really bites. It doesn't prefork either and there is a fair amount of per-process startup overhead.

    maru

  198. Related attacks (whitehouse) by Spazmania · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Starting around the same time, www.whitehouse.net began receiving about 100 times the normal requests for the home page and its associated graphics. Most of the offending hosts are in China thought at least a few aren't. So far, there are at least 1000 distinct addresses spread accross their entire IP space that reloaded the page at least 30 times.

    I have no direct evidence this is related to the worm, but it begs coincidence.

    www.whitehouse.net is a privately-owned parody of the US White House web site.

    Source samples with counts include:

    3302 61.171.37.209
    2443 218.17.216.111
    2037 218.4.128.50
    1962 218.25.204.219
    1527 61.187.169.160
    1336 61.131.48.222
    1183 218.58.69.26
    1079 68.37.179.107

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  199. 3rd party software part of problem for some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sysadmin for a web app by a 3rd party vendor, using sqlserver as the database, of course. The vendor hasn't certified anything beyond sqlserver patch level 1 with their software. And patch level 2 DOES break their software. They just say "run it behind a firewall".

    Complaining to their support people has gotten nowhere, and they know they have us over a barrel, because our management and user community regard this application as strategic. Stupid, yes. Any suggestions, besides getting another job?

  200. DDOS to some, maintenance window to others by packnet · · Score: 2, Funny

    We were joking, but while the barrage of UDP traffic taxed our front-end, we figured it might a great time to take systems down for maintenance - WTF, we were up, nobody could hit our site, no explanation to management!

    "Our site was down"

    "It was the worm, sir."

    "I like the new layout. Did the worm do that?"

    "Uh... yes?"

  201. Dell's support sites by imuffin · · Score: 1

    Dell's support sites (support.dell.com or "support" link from Dell's home page) seems to be dead due to what looks like a database error. I wonder if they had to kill all their database servers, or if they had to block them internally?

    Can anyone else get to them?

    1. Re:Dell's support sites by angryargus · · Score: 1

      Their sales sites are broken too. It is just a co-incidence that UUnet's problems are particularly bad in Texas (according to http://www.internetpulse.net/1/UUNet_to_UUNet/)?

  202. dissem and NOTES by hfx_ben · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    -- When you look to see how the system works, you usually find that it doesn't.
    1. Re:dissem and NOTES by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      Mod this comment up, this is informative.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
  203. Re:waiting for patches is hardly good security pol by juhaz · · Score: 1

    how about if there is a worm without a fucking patch? and how about if the patch just came out? you blindly patch servers without a QA process? sounds like msce advice to me.

    Sounds like a damn good advice to me. Why the hell should either of those be exclusive?

    You keep your damn boxes patched, and you ALSO keep them behind a firewall. No what's so hard or bad advice in that?

  204. Canadian banks affected by this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I went to buy groceries this morning and was told that the networks of all the major Canadian banks are down except TD. Plus I haven't been able to connect to the toronto star all morning. Now I'm hungry and searching the couch cushions for change to buy myself lunch and a newspaper. It's scary how reliant on the availability of network services i am. Might not be too bad of an idea to stash some cash under the matress just in case something much much worse ever happens.

  205. Re:Why would anyone use anything else? by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

    Oh please. I'm not a fan of MS either, but SQL Server is actually quite good (aside from the security hole of course.) Performance and feature wise it is a top notch product.

    We are seeing this problem due to lazy network / sysadmins. This problem has had a fix for over six months already, and there is no reason network admins leave the front door wide fucking open.

  206. First bad packet on cox.net in Phoenix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My linux machine is on ph.cox.net (Phoenix Cable Modem via Cox). I too couldn't surf the net at about 10:30 PM MST last night. The firewall (iptables) logs every blocked packet. The first packet with a destination port of 1434 came into my machine at 10:31:31 PM MST, if anyone cares. The next one at 10:37:06. The very last packet was received at 3:16:38 AM. I assume Cox shut the port down at that time. It's interesting that the onslaught to my machine came from 112 different IP addresses.

  207. Re:Yow! Good call /. by DarkZero · · Score: 2, Funny

    My funniest, I shit you not, is "isecureserver.smsu.edu". Apparently some "I" at Southwest Missouri State University did not secure their server as well as they thought. At first I actually wondered if it was a practical joke.

  208. FALL DOWN ON YOUR KNEES!!! by Tuckdogg · · Score: 0

    Pray, foul heathens! Thou hast been led astray by years of worshipping the golden calf, i.e. Linux. Your God, Bill, is an angry God, and he hath sent this virus to you as a warning. Thou art dependant upon thy God, thou art reliant upon thy God, and thou shalt not attempt to break up God's monopoly on your life.

    So, give more money to God today by buying a new copy of MS SQL Server 2000, Version 2.0. It doesn't patch the vulnerability, but maybe if you continue to support God and pray for salvation he might send the "Divine Fix" your way in a few months or so.

    You have been warned.

    --
    Tuck
    Tuck's Journal.
  209. The worm blocks my attempt to move phone service. by newdaemon · · Score: 1

    I can't move my phone service with Verizon because the worm knocked out their systems nationwide. The first time I called I asked the rep. I spoke with if it was because of the MS SQL worm. She said,"Yes, how did you know?". The next time I called, with the systems still down, the rep. I spoke with said in a very excited tone, that the systems were being attacked by a worm and that American Express was down too. She said it was pretty scary.

    I just wanted to move my phone service, and the rep. was like MS SQL worm; and I was like bummer; and it was a really good phone service...

  210. Port 1516? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    I am getting pounded on port 1516 from the same address over and over; about 2/minute. It's been going on all night long. Seems to be a Lotus Notes port; is this a totally different attack?

  211. I gotta disagree by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    I bloody hope no-one is specifically blocking this port. That's not how firewalls are supposed to be used. First you block everything then only open the specific ports you need. In most cases, these are 80 and 22 and maybe 25.

    Don't take it personally, but I sure am glad you aren't my IT admin. I'd get pissed in no time.

    1. Re:I gotta disagree by EugeneK · · Score: 1

      Hey, it could be worse. At least he opens 22! :)

    2. Re:I gotta disagree by Bakaneko · · Score: 1

      For incoming traffic, and with a connection tracking firewall, this makes perfect sense.

      This is done in plenty of places, and users complain not at all, because for the most part, they never see its effects.

      Don't take this personally, but I'm sure glad you aren't an employee at my company, if you're saying that you think you need arbitrary ports incoming to be open all the time.

    3. Re:I gotta disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, there is only one set of firewall
      rules that everyone should use.

      80, 22, and 25 are what you leave open on a
      webserver that's supposed to be remotely
      administered and handle mail as well. For many
      of the machines that this particular SQL worm is
      using, that set of rules would be perfectly
      adequate.

      However, arguing that everyone's firewall *should*
      be set up a certain way is meaningless - one MUST
      assume that there will be error and that there
      will be malicious users attached to the network.

  212. Doesn't need to be visible on the 'net by rodgerd · · Score: 1

    All it takes is for someone to have SQL Server running on a laptop. They dial in when they're outside the company LAN, get infected, come to work, and boom!

    There are a *lot* of people out there running server tools on laptops - pre-sales, consultants, contractors, as well as your internal staff.

  213. Got hit hard by SassyDave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My network got hit hard this morning. The article claims 10 packets per minute. We were getting 10 packets in about 1 nano second. It sent our firewall to a load average of 10+ and brought our entire network (inbound and outbound traffic) to a halt. We found a single Windows host causing all the problems _behind_ our firewall. After disconnecting it all was well again. Thank you MS.

    1. Re:Got hit hard by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      You own fault. You have a MSSQL box exposed. You deserve it.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:Got hit hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 30% of the BIND users have STILL not patched their DNS servers. Someone could write a worm tomorrow that could turn 30% of the Unix DNS servers into internet attack vehicles. Thank you UNIX! WRONG! Thank you stupid fsck admins that are too fscking lazy to to their job properly! THIS MEANS YOU!

  214. Buffer overflows a general C/C++ problem by paulko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Buffer overflows as a security hole aren't only a Microsoft problem -- although you would think they could afford better code reviews -- they are an almost universal C/C++ problem.

    First, using fixed-size buffers for strings (and other arrays) seem almost to be encouraged by the language design, or at least by common practice.

    Second, strings (and other arrays) unfortunately do not have a size inherently associated with them in the language, and null-terminated strings can be slow to check for length.

    Third, the stack layout of typical C/C++ implementations makes it *possible* to overwrite the return address. Some other programming languages I have used had implementations with the return address below the local variables, making it essentially impossible to overwrite.

    But then, years ago, nobody ever seemed to think about security issues in language design.

    1. Re:Buffer overflows a general C/C++ problem by epine · · Score: 1


      *sigh* C++ doesn't stop you from playing hockey in your pajamas, but it does offer a dozen new varieties of protective equipment not found in the C language, covering just about every risk category short of programmer incompetence. One can argue that programming shouldn't be a contact sport to begin with, but try not to insinuate that C++ doesn't offer appropriate safeguards for the risks involved.

      If a programmer adopts the STL containers, there are no buffers allocated on the stack. The STL idiom makes it more difficult to write past the end of a container unwittingly (it's very easy to ask a container for the last legal address), you can elect to use range checked implementations, you can structure your code so that there are very few places where the container can be accessed through a non-const pointer/reference (so the lines of code you need to be anal about are few and obvious), in difficult cases you can often use compile time mechanisms to impose compile time range checking (templates), or you can derive your own container objects which impose "non contact" safeguards on every hung-over asterisk with roughly the same time and space penalties as the languages which impose these semantics by default.

      There's one more observation that ought to made here. If the programmer invests the time and energy to master all of the mechanisms which C++ provides, when he goes back to bare naked C (shudder), his C code will be just as correct as his C++ code. Once C++ teaches the proper mental disclipine, the discipline alone resolves 90% of the problems.

      I think the root problem with C is that it doesn't force the programmer to master any concepts. "C with classes" should have been "C with concepts". The ++ stands for "clue".

    2. Re:Buffer overflows a general C/C++ problem by demon · · Score: 1

      On my Linux server systems, I install libsafe, and add it to /etc/ld.so.preload, so that every dynamically-linked program on the system (i.e., everything) is protected by it. If something tries to buffer-overflow a daemon, and happens to succeed, the library kills the program immediately. (It wraps assorted commonly-used C library routines with rigorous extra checking.) Worst case, the daemon dies, and has to be restarted, and I'll see what happened in the system logs.

      Can you do that with Billware? Bet that would have protected a lot of systems...

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    3. Re:Buffer overflows a general C/C++ problem by AlphaSys · · Score: 0

      Now, see, THAT was informative! If you're going to extoll the supremacy of your free OS, do it and don't umm, bash, the other guy. That was an interesting post. Mod that guy up!

      --
      Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
  215. direct result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a direct result of what happens when you let stoopid people operate computers on the internet.
    I blame the likes of MS and AOL for encouraging the the use of the internet by people who don't know and better and don't care to know any better than to keep their systems patched and configured securely.

  216. Microsoft hotfix testing tool by dr_db · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is a program they have for the NT/2000/XP line that lists hotfixes that have not been applied. It certainly is more comprehensive than the windows update site.... Hotfix Checker at MS

  217. Saddam Hussein by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's the ticket, Saddam's been up all night long for weeks in his bunker downloading 'sploits and talking to k1dd1es on IRC orchestrating this attack. He only took time off to praise Allah and to torture a few dissidents; other than that, he's been boning up on MS SQL for the past few weeks.... Sure, he says, the Great Satan might blow me away with their tactical nuclear weapons, but they will feel the mighty wrath of Allah when their unpatched SQL servers go haywire. I will hit the imperialists where it hurts by introducing significant delays in their pr0n downloads and ecommerce traffic....

  218. Re: typo ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > It looks like if you stop the proccess sqlservr.exe it will take all of the CPU proccess back down to normal.
    > Obviously you dont want to delete this file

    I think he meant "Obviously you want to delete this file"

  219. Heh heh heh... by immanis · · Score: 1

    You just got a fan. Or a friend. Or something like that.

  220. School IT did it again by MikeyG79 · · Score: 1

    Well it was nice, around midnight, the network (as in internet) at my college became unusable untill 10 in the morning.
    Turns out the only MS-SQL boxes on campus are under the IT director's desk....
    Hate mail to IT is in the works.

    Thank Tux I run Linux.

  221. No they don't... by kwenda · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hotmail still has *nix at it's base, so it's still up.....

    No
    It
    Doesn't.

    The site www.hotmail.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.

    1. Re:No they don't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually hotmail still uses BSD and the links you provided, if you'd bothered to read the articles they point to, do not state otherwise. They do state that MS would sure *like* to get rid of BSD.

      The hotmail *website* is running W2K, the email backend is still run on BSD.

    2. Re:No they don't... by kwenda · · Score: 1
      Actually, if you had read the article, you might have noticed the following: (I know there were no pictures, but try to stay focused here...)

      What they had:

      Front end web servers, built with dual Pentium systems on racked motherboards, running Apache on FreeBSD (a configuration with no need to install licensed software)

      Back end file stores, built with Sun Enterprise 4500 servers, running Solaris 2.6 (Sun's UNIX) and with all user data stored on RAID arrays, accessed using very simple filing semantics

      Incoming mail listeners, built on Sun Sparc 5 processors, and interacting directly with the back end

      What they did:

      The spell, dictionary, and thesaurus functions were rewritten to use Microsoft technology...

      The SMTP service of IIS was used to handle outgoing mail, replacing a UNIX standard mail service. (Check it yourself, if you want: Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service, Version: 5.0.2195.5600 )

      The Windows DNS service, operating without AD, proved perfectly capable of handling the load, and was able to take up the data from a UNIX BIND server easily. Windows DNS is used at the site for both internal and external name resolution.

      These articles, by way, are 3 years old. They're not even using the Sun servers for backend storage anymore.

  222. Re:Why would anyone use anything else? by sporty · · Score: 1

    All i can say, is to each their own man... to each their own. :)

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

  223. Whats interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... is that our Corporate IT has *outsourced* all control of our firewalls (to a company which recently filed chapter 11, if I recall), and so can't update them on the fly...

    And, on top of this, our "corporate IT security" just sent out an email that some of their *internal* machines were infected (so obviously *something* was accessable through the firewall) and now we who are connected to corporate via a T1 must apply the patches. So much for the firewall.

    This also happened with Code Red two years ago. Big panic, everyone patching their systems, because corporate had holes in the firewall.

    Yet, we have our own firewall to a customer site (which we've managed on our own for years, and which corporate now wants to take over) which we have *never* been infected via. Go figure.

    Not saying that we shouldn't have been up on it, but we have noone dedicated to IT Security (funny, since we do DOD work) in our building, and we are all so swamped with other stuff we rarely have the time to keep up with it.

    At my *last* job, however, we setup a new box and immediately port-scanned it... knew what every service was on the box, and if we didn't, closed it down. And that *wasn't* DOD... e-commerce. And we kept on top of patches.

    So... you credit card number was *really* safe at my old job... but our nation's secrets may not be at the new job.

    Go figure.

    1. Re:Whats interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, umm... you hiring there now? ;)

  224. damages ? by Tom · · Score: 1

    Will M$ be sued for damages due to gross negliegence? With all the bullshit lawsuits around, I simply can't believe that not a single lawyer is seing this as his golden path towards uncountable riches. Especially after the like 4th or 5th time the Internet as a whole suffers.

    I couldn't care less about all the windos dummies if only they would stop damaging me (eating bandwidth, stuffing my inbox with virus mails and whatever).

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:damages ? by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      If you got everybody - I mean *everybody* who reads hti ssite to sue MS over this, you still couldn't get enough lawyer-power to beat them.

      MS has billions of dollars in the bank, with hundreds of lawyers on staff. Defending thier right to pump craptastic software out the door without culpability is the single most important thing they have to defend.

    2. Re:damages ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Of course they have tons of lawyers. But those lawyers want to be paid.
      More often than not, what lawsuits really aim at is a settlement. It works like your favourite protection racket: "Give me $xxx and I'll go away." - if $xxx is considerably lower than the costs of winning the lawsuit, there's a good chance it will be paid. Especially since the defense is never a 100% certain thing.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:damages ? by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      On-staff lawyers draw a salary, and get paid irregardless of the outcome.

      I can certainly be wrong - we're just stating opinions, but I think MS' need to not be held culpable is much higher than our need to punish/get cash from them. The first settlement or judgement in the prosecution's favor would immediately cripple MS with lawsuits, I'd expect.

    4. Re:damages ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      On-staff lawyers draw a salary, and get paid irregardless of the outcome.

      Right, but they are still a finite resource. Since I doubt they sit around all day waiting for a lawsuit, there is a cost involved, namely the cost of either other work not being done or someone else being hired to do it.

      You are, however, right on the 2nd argument. It is unlikely that they could settle, except out-of-court and with zero press. Good point.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  225. We shouldn't blame MS... no wait, yes we should. by strAtEdgE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My intial thought on this was that this isn't MS's fault and we shouldn't be bashing them for this worm; almost every os and daemon out there has had it's holes and exploits and MS has already put out the fix so it's in the admins hands now.

    But on second thought, when I look at the serious impact of the worms that have been created for MS products and their vulnerabilities the last few years, the obvious becomes apparent: admins of MS OS's and processes on them are a LOT slower to patch than any of their counterparts (read: stupider). And the thing is, MS knows this, they specifically market to the stupid/lazy admins. They're the "easy" OS, they sell their products by telling people that you just install them and never worry about them again. I've taken too many MS courses (I am an MSCE and MSCDBA if they haven't expired on me, but I couldn't care less) and not once was patching the operating systems or server processes ever mentioned during all those courses, which is amazing to me.

    And hey, to each their own I guess... apparently there aren't enough intelligent or well read admins around so there is a demand for these products and this approach. But if that's the case, then I think it has to be said that MS has a greater responsibility to create products free from exploits than anyone else, if they're marketing and teaching the idea that you don't need to patch.

    It's by creating that laissez faire attitude towards administration that MS is directly responsible for the proliferation of these worms.

    --
    ----- sXe
  226. MSCE = Microsoft Certifed Solitaire Engineer by Wolfgang · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Or what else does it mean?

  227. Also affects MYSQL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this won't be stopped until the open source community actually admits it and spends a week or two trying to fix it. You can get the patch now from Microsoft if you are using there software.

    1. Re:Also affects MYSQL. by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      You are on crack.

    2. Re:Also affects MYSQL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prove him wrong n00b. Then talk the smack. Otherwise STFU.

    3. Re:Also affects MYSQL. by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      You are on crack as well.

  228. Re:wow yeah! Fucktard... by bubbha · · Score: 1

    ...now we gotta "un-fuck" what you fucked-up.

    --
    I want to be alone with the sandwich
  229. my naked-to-the-net sqlserver2000 box is aok by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Insightful

    two things:

    i run a solitary box at a colo with win2000 advanced server and sql server 2000 on it (not all of us are technical or engrossed enough to deal with linux/ mysql and not all of us have enough $ to have two boxen).

    when i installed sql server, sql server has a server network utility that allows you to control which protocols sql server uses. again, i am not that technical, but without visiting any SANS or other security site, or reviewing any server hardening techniques, or patching anything, it was pretty damn obvious to me to disable the tcp/ip protocol for sql server 2000. it really doesn't take much technical expertise to understand the need for this.

    anyone screaming "apply your damn patches" also doesn't consider another simple statement they should be screaming: "familiarize yourself with the BASICS of your box/ the internet before you run a web server and/ or database."

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:my naked-to-the-net sqlserver2000 box is aok by qa'lth · · Score: 1

      Except that, that apparently doesn't work - From what I've been reading, every configuration of MSSQL always opens 1434 UDP, regardless of the configuration - turning off TCP/IP for the server wouldn't have prevented this.

    2. Re:my naked-to-the-net sqlserver2000 box is aok by Queuetue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhm.. you're probably completely susceptible to this. You see, that little clicky thingie you clicked in the thingie was written by the same people that sent you that software with the bug that causes this problem.

      You, and the rest of you non-engrossed, non-technical people who don't have $15.00 to put a NIC in a 486 firewall that you can pick up at the dump, but plenty of money to shell out system upgrades every few years... You're causing this problem. You, personally.

      First, by buying and deployng a server OS by an untrustworthy organization, followed by not even complying with thier reccomendations of protecting, securing, and updating that server.

      Then, by saying "Whew! Dodged that bullet" after you CLICKED ON A CHECK BOX is not quite the same as.. oh.. patching it, securing it behind a firewall and testing it for packet traffic... THESE are the "basics" of your box and the internet. Not what your manual, the context sensitive help, or what MS' Marketing department tell you.

      Was that non-technical enough for you? Stop being smug, and stop being part of the problem.

    3. Re:my naked-to-the-net sqlserver2000 box is aok by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      Stop being smug, and stop being part of the problem.


      HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

      read your post again, and then say those words again

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      dude! your attitude is the very definition of smug! your attitude is very much a part of the problem! can't you see that?

      there is a larger issue here: is owning a web server a right? or a priveledge?

      i think it is a right.

      i am certain there are hordes of slashdotters who think it is a priveledge.

      one small problem: where is the certification board that licenses people for box ownership?

      exactly

      there ain't none

      nor will there ever be one

      so adjust your "it's a priveledge not a right" attitude to suit reality, not your ivory tower smugness.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:my naked-to-the-net sqlserver2000 box is aok by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      I didn't suggest that *I* stop being smug. It is not smugness in itself that is the offense, but your misdirected smugness that makes you feel immune to standard practices.

      I mentioned neither privelege nor right... I was trying to:

      a) tell you to learn how to do what you're attempting, because you seem to be an idiot

      and

      b) try to make sure no one else blindly followed your advice, because you seem to be an idiot.

      as well as

      c) make it known that you seem to be an idiot.

    5. Re:my naked-to-the-net sqlserver2000 box is aok by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i am an idiot.

      i told you that in my original post.

      i am an idiot about internet technicalities.

      you are the only one who seems to be getting off on the fact, which does kind of make your smugness offensive. lol ;-P

      work on your ego dude, you got some problems, i fear for the woman in your life. ;-P

      btw, this flamefest will end when you admit your a smug condescending asshole. i have already admitted i am an idiot. you have already admitted that your smug. but your the one who felt the need to start this whole thread by getting off smugly about my idiot admission, so end it alread, condescending asshole. HAHAHAHAHA ;-)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    6. Re:my naked-to-the-net sqlserver2000 box is aok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Owning a server is a right, I guess, if you can afford to buy one, you should be able to. However, putting said server into a situation where it can send udp packets across the bandwidth that we all have to share and thus clogging said bandwith is not, IMHO. No fire here, just what came to mind when I read the post. :-)

    7. Re:my naked-to-the-net sqlserver2000 box is aok by Zeddicus_Z · · Score: 1

      Disabling TCP/IP for SQL only works, as in your situation, where the server and its application reside on the same box. If you face heavy load and must therefore have a dedicated DB box, disabling TCP/IP SQL comms is not an option.

      --
      Janie took my gun...
    8. Re:my naked-to-the-net sqlserver2000 box is aok by rawg · · Score: 1

      By the way. What you paid for MSWin and MSSQL, you could have bought three Linux boxes.

      --
      The above is not worth reading.
    9. Re:my naked-to-the-net sqlserver2000 box is aok by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      dude, my win2000 advanced server and sql server 2000 are bootleg ;-P

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    10. Re:my naked-to-the-net sqlserver2000 box is aok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. Go get a job at a movie theater or something before you break something important.

    11. Re:my naked-to-the-net sqlserver2000 box is aok by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you're an asshole

      get back to me when you think your opinion means something or you believe access to the internet should be controlled

      didn't think so

      so think first before you post next time, asshole

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  230. IP scans by AlgebraicSpore · · Score: 1

    Well I am recieving a UDP 1434 request about once every 5 minutes on my homenetwork. Doing so IP whois I have found out that the request have come from: <i>RIPE Network Coordination Centre, Vanderbilt University, Sprint, and Asia Pacific Network Information Centre</i>. So they look to be pretty generic sources and quite possibly spoofed. Just my $0.02.

  231. I work at an edu, Here's why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work at a large University in the US. We have several class B's worth of address space. When Susie Stretchpants from the College of XYZ wants to connect her server to the network, the networking folks activate a jack in the room where she wants her server and give her an IP address. This IP is not in RFC1918 address space. Nor are the IP addresses of every workstation in her building/department. It's all out in the open. The reason for this is that the network infrastructure provides connectivity to a multitude students, staff, and faculty, all of whom are scattered all over the place. Putting a firewall in front of a whole department or college's workstations and servers is a technical nightmare.

    Think "Port A on switch B in building C belongs to College (or department) D, and as such should be on VLAN E, which is behind firewall F".

    Welcome to adminstrative hell.

    You might say that Susie should know enough to install some sort of hardware firewall in front of her server, but guess what? She doesn't want to spend the money, and if she did she'd have no idea how or what sort of packets to allow and block.

    So... What you end up with is some very basic filters on your border routers and a whole shitload of servers and workstations on the public internet. We do security scans on our own networks and try to badger people who aren't keeping up on patches to get with the program. It's about the best we can do.

    That's why.

  232. The Globe and Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    More from The Globe and Mail

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNe ws /front/RTGAM/20030125/wintern/Front/homeBN/breakin gnews

    I especially like the nickname somebody gave it: "SQ Hell" :-)

  233. Yet another reason.... by LinuxPunk · · Score: 1

    ..to use MySQL, instead of proprietary MScrapSQL.

  234. Re:grep -c 1434 log_firewall by cptgrudge · · Score: 1
    24,432 fuckwits have done so, counting the hits on my firewall.

    Ha ha! My boss is one of those fuckwits! I've tried for the entire year I've been there to get him to patch servers and get a fucking firewall up, to no avail.

    Time to send an email to his boss.

    --
    Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
  235. Some more info by mnmn · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Funny how the site www.internettrafficreport.com is being slashdotted right now. In the last 5 min alone, the global traffic index went from 85 to 65, apparently a new wave of attacks as the worm discovers new ground. My 5-domain webserver hasnt received a packet yet, but Im keeping my eye on it. Glad to be using Postgres with its ports blocked from the Internet.

    Holy cow! Israel is completely down according to the site.. all routers with 100% packet loss.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  236. What's in a name? by bobdotorg · · Score: 2, Funny

    SQL Slammer? A worm virus? Sounds more like a shooter at Hooters on geek night.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  237. MSNBC: Fiercely Independent? by hiendohar · · Score: 1

    I just heard about the worm on television on MSNBC. The report was painfully opaque: The worm was said to attack "servers" or "the Internet". No mention of the fact that it was specifically Microsoft software at risk.

    The report on the MSNBC web site is more forthcoming. Still, I can't help but feel that the omission in the broadcast report shows editorial influence at work from MSNBC's parent company.

  238. Re:billg has no uniform; therefore illegal combata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But he is an American citizen, which gives him some protection from being an enemy combatant.

  239. SQL Slammer Worm by issadvisor · · Score: 0, Troll

    Internet Security System (ISS) was the first to discover and name a new worm it is tracking - "SQL Slammer" - that is rapidly spreading across the Internet via Microsoft SQL servers. The worm is responsible for large amounts of Internet traffic as well as millions of UDP/IP probes causing the Internet and online service to be inaccessible. Reports of major Internet Service Providers (ISPs), banking services and telecommunications worldwide have been affected Severe latency in domain name service (DNS) causing Web sites to be completely unreachable Other nations affected include South Korea's Internet infrastructure which has come to a stand still This worm exploits MS/SQL servers vulnerable to the SQL Server Resolution service buffer overflow (CVE CAN-2002-0649). Once a vulnerable computer is compromised, the worm will infect that target, randomly select a new target, and resend the exploit and propagation code to that host. ISS X-Force team responsible for the discovery and naming of this worm are available to provide help at: https://gtoc.iss.net/issEn/delivery/gtoc/index.jsp Impact: The Slammer is generating a damaging level of network traffic when it scans for targets that are vulnerable. Billions of attacks have been detected in the last 12 hours from ISS Global Threat Operations Center (GTOC). Affect Versions: Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Microsoft Desktop Engine (MSDE) 2000 Note: Unpatched or base installations older than SP3 are vulnerable. Description: The Slammer worm propagates via Microsoft SQL installations without patches from Microsoft Security Bulletin MS02-039 or higher. The main function of the Slammer worm is to continue propagation. No Denial of Service or backdoor functionality is incorporated into the worm. Infection can be removed with a reboot, however without protection in place, it is likely that vulnerable servers will be quickly re-infected. The Slammer worm seeks to replicate itself and does not try to compromise servers or retain access to compromised hosts. The Slammer worm does not infect or modify files, it only exists in memory. Warning: Anti-virus programs do not detect nor stop this worm. Recommendations: The ISS Dynamic Threat Protection platform has protected ISS customers for this major vulnerability for 6 months. Protection mechanisms have been available in RealSecure Network Sensor XPU 20.4 and XPU 5.3 and Internet Scanner XPU 6.15 (available as of 7/25/02). ISS X-Force recommends that system administrators immediately take steps to protect their networks. To remove the infection, apply the necessary patches listed below and restart the server. This action will remove the worm from memory. The following ISS updates address the issues described in this alert. These updates are available from the ISS Download center (http://www.iss.net/download) Additionally ISS X-Force recommends blocking UDP port 1433 and 1434 traffic to protect SQL Server databases with a firewall or packet filter. Microsoft SQL Server customers should refer to the following address for information and securing Microsoft SQL Server against this buffer overflow: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /MS02-039.asp. Additional Information: The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) project has assigned the Name CAN-2002-0649 to this issue. This is a candidate for inclusion in the CVE list http://cve.mitre.org), which standardizes names for security problems. Additional Links: ISS: Security Center: X-Force Threat Forecast https://gtoc.iss.net/issEn/delivery/gtoc/index.jsp Microsoft SQL Slammer Worm Propagation http://bvlive01.iss.net/issEn/delivery/xforce/aler tdetail.jsp?oid=21824 ISS Advisor community feedback http://www.issadvisor.com ______ About Internet Security Systems (ISS) Founded in 1994, Internet Security Systems, Inc. (ISS) is a world leader in Dynamic Threat Protection software and services that protect critical information assets from an ever-changing spectrum of threats and misuse.Internet Security Systems is headquartered in Atlanta, GA, with additional operations throughout the Americas, Asia, Australia, Europe and the Middle East.

    1. Re:SQL Slammer Worm by issadvisor · · Score: 0, Troll

      Internet Security System (ISS) was the first to discover and name a new worm it is tracking - "SQL Slammer" - that is rapidly spreading across the Internet via Microsoft SQL servers.

      The worm is responsible for large amounts of Internet traffic as well as millions of UDP/IP probes causing the Internet and online service to be inaccessible.

      Reports of major Internet Service Providers (ISPs), banking services and telecommunications worldwide have been affected
      Severe latency in domain name service (DNS) causing Web sites to be completely unreachable
      Other nations affected include South Korea's Internet infrastructure which has come to a stand still

      This worm exploits MS/SQL servers vulnerable to the SQL Server Resolution service buffer overflow (CVE CAN-2002-0649). Once a vulnerable computer is compromised, the worm will infect that target, randomly select a new target, and resend the exploit and propagation code to that host.

      ISS X-Force team responsible for the discovery and naming of this worm are available to provide help at: https://gtoc.iss.net/issEn/delivery/gtoc/index.jsp

      Impact:
      The Slammer is generating a damaging level of network traffic when it scans for targets that are vulnerable. Billions of attacks have been detected in the last 12 hours from ISS Global Threat Operations Center (GTOC).

      Affect Versions:
      Microsoft SQL Server 2000
      Microsoft Desktop Engine (MSDE) 2000
      Note: Unpatched or base installations older than SP3 are vulnerable.

      Description:
      The Slammer worm propagates via Microsoft SQL installations without patches from Microsoft Security Bulletin MS02-039 or higher. The main function of the Slammer worm is to continue propagation. No Denial of Service or backdoor functionality is incorporated into the worm. Infection can be removed with a reboot, however without protection in place, it is likely that vulnerable servers will be quickly re-infected.

      The Slammer worm seeks to replicate itself and does not try to compromise servers or retain access to compromised hosts. The Slammer worm does not infect or modify files, it only exists in memory.

      Warning: Anti-virus programs do not detect nor stop this worm.

      Recommendations:
      The ISS Dynamic Threat Protection platform has protected ISS customers for this major vulnerability for 6 months.

      Protection mechanisms have been available in RealSecure Network Sensor XPU 20.4 and XPU 5.3 and Internet Scanner XPU 6.15 (available as of 7/25/02).

      ISS X-Force recommends that system administrators immediately take steps to protect their networks. To remove the infection, apply the necessary patches listed below and restart the server. This action will remove the worm from memory.

      The following ISS updates address the issues described in this alert.
      These updates are available from the ISS Download center
      (http://www.iss.net/download)

      Additionally ISS X-Force recommends blocking UDP port 1433 and 1434 traffic to protect SQL Server databases with a firewall or packet filter.

      Microsoft SQL Server customers should refer to the following address for
      information and securing Microsoft SQL Server against this buffer
      overflow: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /MS02-039.asp.

      Additional Information:
      The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) project has assigned the Name CAN-2002-0649 to this issue. This is a candidate for inclusion in the CVE list http://cve.mitre.org), which standardizes names for security problems.

      Additional Links:
      ISS: Security Center: X-Force Threat Forecast
      https://gtoc.iss.net/issEn/delivery/gtoc /index.jsp

      Microsoft SQL Slammer Worm Propagation
      http://bvlive01.iss.net/issEn/deliver y/xforce/aler tdetail.jsp?oid=21824

      ISS Advisor community feedback
      http://www.issadvisor.com

      ______
      About Internet Security Systems (ISS)
      Founded in 1994, Internet Security Systems, Inc. (ISS) is a world leader in Dynamic Threat Protection software and services that protect critical information assets from an ever-changing spectrum of threats and misuse.Internet Security Systems is headquartered in Atlanta, GA, with additional operations throughout the Americas, Asia, Australia, Europe and the Middle East.

    2. Re:SQL Slammer Worm by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      Dumbest. Name. Ever.

  240. Funny, Internet designed to survive nuke attack... by sunking7 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... but it can't survive Microsoft's software

    Does that mean that Redmond is in possession of somehthing *worse* than WOMD???

    We demand IMMEDIATE soure code inspections!!!

    Or there will be severe consequences.

    someone want to start a petition?

  241. The White House commented on this today by Aexia · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Network security is a important front in our war on terrorism.

    "That's why Saddam Hussein is a menace that must be stopped with all due force."

    1. Re:The White House commented on this today by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1, Troll

      I think that Microsoft is a mneace that must be stopped with all due force. :-)

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    2. Re:The White House commented on this today by MadAhab · · Score: 1
      "That is why we MUST CRUSH him!"

      Oh, well, I'm an old-timer now.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    3. Re:The White House commented on this today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saddam Hussein just wants to keep what is truely his. America and its Rockefellers own a lot more then enough Financial Power. They will put their faith in the dollar and go down with it.
      Dont blame Saddam...

    4. Re:The White House commented on this today by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1

      C'mon mods! It was neither troll nor interesting, it was a joke. I took the comment of the parent and twisted it. After all, it seems to me that MS has harmed network security more than Saddam Hussein has. Sheesh...

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
  242. so... would it be possible by Bad_CRC · · Score: 1

    to write a variant of this virus to propagate itself to all these servers, delete the bad virus, then after a few hours, download and install the security fix patch and delete itself?

    1. Re:so... would it be possible by Radical+Rad · · Score: 1
      to write a variant of this virus to propagate itself to all these servers, delete the bad virus, then after a few hours, download and install the security fix patch and delete itself?

      Yes but if the "good" worm were traced back to you, you would still be prosecuted and portrayed in the press as an "evil hacker" who caused (insert any ludicrous monetary amount here) dollars of damage with your 'malicious denial of service attack'. But if you love Bill Gates so much that you would spend time in prison to cover his failures then give it a shot. Hint: a plastic comb can be melted into a very nice shiv, and if you get a job in the Laundry try to stay within screaming distance of a guard at all times.

  243. economy by Lord+Prox · · Score: 1

    Well, it has a lot to do with the worlds economy. It is already in the crapper and if a net worm was really nasty (as noted in my post) it could cause real damage. How many machines were infected with code red? Now what would happen if all of those machines were destroyed (its drives formatted or something) How much would that cost in dollars to repair/restore? hundreds of millions to tens of billions? All over the world...
    A hypothetical Sircam III that erases all emails in your in box, out box, and contact list? That can do major economic damage to business.

    ...and you and I know, nobody runs backups like they should...

  244. M$ Conspiracy? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1
    Quote from McAfee's site:

    This threat has a special Risk Assessment - it is "High" only for unpatched systems (only affects SQL servers not running SP3):


    I wonder how many admins blindly upgraded to SP3 just to get rid of the worm, and of course without reading the terms of SP3, gave M$ unfettered access to pillage and plunder their systems?

    Think about it...

    1. Re:M$ Conspiracy? by goldorak_dan · · Score: 1

      I believe that was Wwin2k sp3 EULA... but point well taken.

      By the way, I'm running linux... do I have to patch my system? :)

  245. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer by Lowca · · Score: 1

    ... may have replaced that tool you mentioned in your point 4. Take a look: MBSA

  246. Re:Why would anyone use anything else? by jelle · · Score: 1
    I wish it was DuckTape, because a lot of people actually do use it for everything.

    I like the duck...

    --
    --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
  247. Re:waiting for patches is hardly good security pol by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like a damn good advice to me. Why the hell should either of those be exclusive?

    It's very BAD advice! What happens when you blindly apply the patch and find out your mission critical app won't run anymore? A little QA testing would show you that on a test system instead of your live servers. If a firewall rule can protect you, use that, then QA the patch and apply if it is safe.

    Consider that sometimes, the 'security patch' just disables a feature that 'nobody uses anyway' (except for your mission critical app, that is). Other times, it doesn't fix the hole, it just changes it's shape a little. In that case, you go from a hole you know about and can guard against at the firewall to one you don't know exists that has less information about it available.

    It's not purely a dig at MS (though their track record for quality patches is spotty), any sudden change to widely deployed software runs the risk of causing a problem for sombody's configuration.
  248. Re:billg has no uniform; therefore illegal combata by isorox · · Score: 1

    OMG! If he's not wearing his uniform, he's a SPY!! Spies get shot when they're caught!

    Feel sorry for the guy in the bath

  249. Slashdot hits Drudgereport.com by jlrowe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A link to this thread has hit drudgereport.com, 2nd link from the top. I think this is the first time I've ever seen that!

  250. English not your 1st language? by whizzmo · · Score: 1

    Look at the title of your post, again, and see if you can find the error :)

    --
    nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
    Whizzmo
  251. ATM's out... by Maditude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Heh, looks like it took out a big portion of Bank of America's ATM (cash) machines! Link

    1. Re:ATM's out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF?????????? ABC news is reporting that many ATM's were affect, not just Bank of America - but who the hell trusts them. They have even mention that this worm (like so many) uses one of the many, many holes in Microsoft programs.

      But dammit, who let Microsoft crap affect ATM? I thought that the banking networks were separate from Internet. I thought that they were secure.

      Damn, I am pissed.

    2. Re:ATM's out... by redwoodtree · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I couldn't agree with you more. This is just bullshit, our economy is now dependent on M$ crap. There's just so many things wrong with that I can't even begin to possibly list them. Why the hell are banks using public interent for ATM connections in the first place? Why would ALL the ATMs be effected? We need answers, answers.

    3. Re:ATM's out... by endrek · · Score: 1

      Bank cards, i believe. Like debit cards... Don't know much about them, but from the looks of 'em, you slide 'em through a reader, enter your pin number, and then they dial into the bank and confirm its you and that you have the money and then transfer it so yeah, they have to be online. the MS SQL server backing that would obviously be the same back end server backing the atms. Thus, they all go down.

  252. Re:billg has no uniform; therefore illegal combata by Theatetus · · Score: 1, Interesting
    But he is an American citizen, which gives him some protection from being an enemy combatant.

    Yeah, it means rather than sending him to Cuba without a trial, the CIA will blow him up from a UAV without a trial

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  253. Re: The patch has to be installed by hand! by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 1

    The patch install is a hand job. Old filed get copied to a backup directory. Then the new files have to get copied into the right places all by hand. It takes 1-2 hours per machine.

    Maybe MSFT will add an install script for this patch!

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7418

    --

    Religion is the main cause of atheism.

  254. Re:spreading the magic elixir by epine · · Score: 1


    While you are at it, you should plug the spill pipe in your toilet tanks (the one with the opening just above the high water line). In a properly engineered toilet, the float will always float and the valve will always valve. And if the float doesn't float, hey, it's not our ceiling that will begin to drip.

    A firewall should not be considered as a wall. A firewall is best regarded as a damping mechanism. My firewall is configured to make it impossible for my internal network to send out bad packets (forged return address, strange TCP/IP bits or fragments, anything addressed to known virus promulgation ports). Those rules function like the spill valve in the back of your toilet tank. Even if something goes terriby wrong (e.g. with a binary patch where I can't even read the source code) and my float doesn't float or my valve doesn't valve, I'm not going to cause a septic disaster for everyone "downstream".

    My suggestion: stop polishing your Brass Testicles ninja sysadmin award and start thinking about reality.

  255. Exactly by Error27 · · Score: 1

    Where is the complete list of all patches, with downloaded links?

    It should be the law that all software companies need to keep a public record of vulnerabilities in their software for a year. If the software is sold in box sets it should include a have a URL printed on the outside of the box where people can find the list. This would provide financial motivation for companies to write secure software.

  256. Re:Why would anyone use anything else? by bwt · · Score: 1

    I have never used SQL Server, but my experience with PostgreSQL leads me to believe it might be competitive in many circumstances with it.

    For enterprise grade solutions, PostgreSQL is not remotely competitive to Oracle. For small operations (the recent story on the .org DNS registry come to mind) it's quite likely that postgreSQL is "good enough", but a brief examination of the oracle documentation will reveal exactly what kinds of enterprise features differentiate Oracle from Postgres. Simply comparing this with the Postgres docs should end the discussion.

    For anyone who thinks of them as comparable, I make the following challenge. Pick one of the core manuals from the above page. Register with Oracle Technet and simply read through the table of contents and mark Oracle features identified in the docs and assess if and how well Postgres implements it. I recommend starting with the Performance Tuning Guide, and the maybe the Data Warehousing Guide.

    By doing this you can quickly fill up pages with Oracle features that PostgreSQL does not have. I chose the two guides listed above because I can say with confidence that the features listed in the Oracle docs are heavily used because I have personally done so.

  257. Microsoft's Alternate Borg plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    It's all an evil plan by Bill and Co: "If they won't take .NET then we'll give 'em !NET."

  258. microsofft doens't allow you to filter based on ip by simul · · Score: 1

    problem is microsoft's crap-ass O/S doesn't come with a filter (like ipchains, iptables) that allows you to block traffic based on ip.

    so you have to install buggy/crappy firewalls like tiny, blackice, sygate, etc. - all of which crash under very high loads

    and their patches often come out too late, as opposed to linux patches - which seem to come out way before....

    if you have a busy MS box, there's no way you can put it on the internet without a separate firewall. they should just let people know that, or warn you when the nic card detects that it's on the net.

    my solution:

    a dirt-cheap linux box with ipchains on it makes a great NAT 1-1 firewall - if you run a bunch of servers. so does the zywall-10.

    if you just run workstations or only 1 server there's a lot of super-cheap firewalls from netgear/linkys/etc.

  259. Re:PostgreSQL keeps .org up /MS-SQL brings down ne by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you haven't patched PostgreSQL within the last 6 months you are vulnerable to multiple buffer overflow/remote root exploits.

    remote root???? Just about EVERY postgresql system runs as a normal user, how the hell do you get root out of that?

    By default postgresql does NOT even support IP connections, you have to turn it on by either the -i option to postmaster or in the config file.

    I think your looking at the Mordred buffer overflows from about 5 months ago. ALL of these require a valid user account to exploit. NONE were remote. Please post the location/posting of a REMOTE for a recent release of PostgreSQL. Versions 6.X, 7.1.X and 7.2.0 do count.

    BWP

  260. Re:spreading the magic elixir by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    I've noticed that this whole discussion is just packed full of ridiculously bad analogies: From cars to houses, and now to toilets. Of course they're all incredibly wide of the mark and offer absolutely no parallel to this situation, but it certainly doesn't stop people from proposing them.

    Installing a patch for a very high visibility piece of software is not rocket science here, and it should have been done long, long, long ago. The parent post to my original supposes that if we were all firewalled then there would be no problem: Hardly. As mentioned there are many ways for one system in your network to be exposed and to then saturate your network (or do you firewall every port on your switch and have zero port sharing? If not then what are you? CRAZY!?)...and even if you're a super kung fu master admin that has the world firewalled, it's likely that UDP DNS and port 80 traffic can still stream out at an unconstrained rate.

    In any case, you totally missed the point. I never said that firewalls should all be turned off (indeed I MOCKED a situation where they did turn it off), but rather that they should be presumed to be a minor moat in the real world of security (instead of the invincible gate that they are often treated as).

  261. Re:microsofft doens't allow you to filter based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "problem is microsoft's crap-ass O/S doesn't come with a filter (like ipchains, iptables) that allows you to block traffic based on ip."

    Sure it does since NT 4 SP4

    Is it as fine grained as ipchains/tables hell no but the basic functionality needed to block traffic by IP is there.

  262. If it isnt broken, dont fix it. by IMNTPC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think that the reason that a lot of these patches do not get applied is due to the "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" mentality. I know that many Microsoft Security patches in the past have caused say 1 out of 10 small volume custom applications to fail in some way after they were applied. The business being conducted by the application may have justified say a 50K dollar initial investment to have it written by a developer. However, the month-to month return does not justify paying a Maintenance fee in order to keep a developer up to speed on your code base. Microsoft has been releasing patches for either IIS, or SQL Server, or OS on roughly a schedule of 2-4 a month. Your average 10-50 man company that had an application written for their specific need is not going to be willing to pay you $4000.00 a month to maintain a secondary system with their application installed, 10-20 hours to test every single function, etc every time Microsoft releases a batch of patches. In their minds it's built, it works, and it's done and they are not going to pay a dime more. If you are lucky, they might do that when something like today's situation comes up. That is why most systems (I will even say Linux/Apache/XSQL systems) don't get every single patch that comes down the pipe applied. In a perfect world you would not accept the work unless there was a good maintenance fee included, but in the real world you take the work that people will give you and deal with the ongoing maintenance on a case-by-case basis. The only contracts where you get that kind of commitment is when there is EXTREMELY good revenue involved and the companies business absolutely relies on the application.

  263. !!!ATTENTION MS ADMINS!!! by spongman · · Score: 2, Informative
    !!!ATTENTION MS ADMINS!!!

    You should be using the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer to ensure that ALL the machines on your network are properly patched and locked down. It's so easy to run there should be no excuse for attacks like this.

    !!!ATTENTION MS ADMINS!!!

    1. Re:!!!ATTENTION MS ADMINS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or use the excellent Microsoft's Vaseline financial recovery plan
      to make ease the pain.

    2. Re:!!!ATTENTION MS ADMINS!!! by Sheetrock · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I fully agree.

      My only question is that if this is so important, why do they banish it to parts unknown (pardon, the depths of their Technet site) rather than placing it in everybody's Start menu? Cheers to their security consciousness, jeers to their halfassed methods of information deployment.

      --

      Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
      -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    3. Re:!!!ATTENTION MS ADMINS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baseline Security Analyzer sucks for SQL Server - I always get "unable to determine if patch is installed"... argg!

    4. Re:!!!ATTENTION MS ADMINS!!! by spongman · · Score: 1

      do you have windows authntication enabled for SQL server, and are you a member of the SQL admins group?

    5. Re:!!!ATTENTION MS ADMINS!!! by jpop32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My only question is that if this is so important, why do they banish it to parts unknown (pardon, the depths of their Technet site) rather than placing it in everybody's Start menu?

      Actually, we already did this bit on Slashdot. It was back when MS released SP3 for Win2k which basically did just that (installed an automated patch collection/installation system, placed it in the start menu and system tray). And, IIRC, back then the consensus was that it's A Bad Thing(tm). :-)

      Anyways, it's there if you want it. Ignorance is no excuse.

    6. Re:!!!ATTENTION MS ADMINS!!! by computer_redneck · · Score: 1

      Please forward this Information to FSIC. Ford System Intergration Center. They feel you only need to start up a couple computers for it to work and the ones that are not therefore they should not be a problem.

      Hrmmm MySql wasnt affected on my Linux Machine.

      Long Live the Stetson.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF
  264. Re:Yow! Good call /. by llin · · Score: 1

    Hmm, perhaps the hostname is missing an 'n'. Would explain it I think.

  265. The early worm gets the late bird. by jfisherwa · · Score: 1

    Notice the quote at the bottom of ./ today. ;)

  266. That's a scary thought... by tubabeat · · Score: 1

    ...but I wonder if it's necessarily true?

    This rather depends on how the worm picks the IP addresses it tries to connect to. If its totally at random then it may never hit your internal servers (or not very soon). If it only hits public address ranges then most internal networks are safe. On the other hand if it primarily targets hosts on the same subnet then Monday's not going to be good for lots of people!

    --
    "Linux is a serious competitor"
    - Steve Ballmer, Chief Executive Microsoft Corp.
    1. Re:That's a scary thought... by rodgerd · · Score: 1

      No idea. But enough time and infected hosts.

      Also, one item which emerged: the embedded database used by all the client-side .NET tools (Visual Studio, for example), is vulnerable, as well, and doesn't have a patch available when I looked a couple of days ago. So any number of what you think of as your client system have this worm, where they're harder to patch, but can infect your servers. Nasty.

  267. Re:microsofft doens't allow you to filter based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    if you have a busy MS box, there's no way you can put it on the internet without a separate firewall. they should just let people know that, or warn you when the nic card detects that it's on the net.

    If you've put a Windows box on the Internet you've already screwed yourself. Windows machines should only be connected (if necessary) to internal LANs protected by a firewall and used for simple office automation tasks. Servers should be based on UNIX. This is really a no brainer.

  268. Another Vulnerability ? by turingsfool · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The current DDOS attack caused by a worm that exploits a known vulnerability (for which a patch was already available) raises the following questions :

    a. Is this a test or preparatory exercise carried out before a serious of massive attacks due during the time US invades Iraq ?
    b. Is there another vulnerability(ies) (probably bigger gaping holes) in the patch available for the current vulnerability which the group is hoping to exploit, during their second phase of attacks ?

    These are just questions. I think administrators should be doubly sure about this patch before they apply it.

    A Massive DDOS attack during the gulf war could cause:

    a. Less or no information
    b. With DNS servers down (5 down this time around) a massive disinformation campaign can be launched (Say the CNN site giving false information for a couple of hours)

    These are just possibilities. So was September 11th.

  269. Source port 53 by Hellcheese · · Score: 1

    You guys forget that a lot of the connections to the SQL port are from a source port of 53. Since there are plenty of firewalls out there which don't do stateful UDP firewalling, the packet filter things the packet coming from port 53 is just an answer to a DNS request the SQL server sent to the internet.

  270. More fun than goonerea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I just got back from an expects trip to my office.

    I work in a little office of a REALLY HUGE company
    (Cosmodemonic Electric). Our office LAN has no direct connection to the internet. But, I started getting alerts from some monitors, tried to connect to servers on the office LAN, couldn't.

    Heard about this virus, put 2 and 2 together

    Went in, found that every light indicating network activity in the place was continuous yellow. I had to hunt around a little, found a Win2000 server some one had setup with SQL Server (and probably forgot about), and SQL Server serive would nto shutdown. So I just shutdown the box, all OK now.

    So, some SQLServer with an internet connection got it, and is passing is around all over CE. More fun than goonerea.

  271. Makes for an interesting day at work... by lecter,hannibal_md · · Score: 0

    I work for an ISP... Our phone lines have been solid... have you ever tried to explain the concept of the internet backbone to a pissed off 90 year old lady who only wants to send her apple crisp recipe to the bridge club? Fun stuff...

  272. Re:waiting for patches is hardly good security pol by juhaz · · Score: 1

    It's a very GOOD advice in general, always! That is, assuming you go and get your brains from wherever they are, and think for yourself. Advice is just that, an advice, and can and must be adjusted to suit the circumstances.

    Nothing in the comment "it would be nice if you would bother to patch the machines" forces you to blindly assume that it says you need to apply any patch nanosecond after it rolls from Microsoft, or if there are known problems with it.

    Go ahead, do your QA, and apply the patch after that. If it was patched six months ago, there is no excuse to not have done that QA by now, if it was only recently as some say, then it may very well be acceptable to still be testing it, but that doesn't negate the fact that generally having patches installed is and will always be a good practice.

  273. RE-elected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Then Bush is getting re-elected

    To be re-elected he would have to have been elected in the first place.
  274. Mod parent up!!!! by moncyb · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was just about to post the same thing! Moderators: mod this one up! People need to read this otherwise they'll think their cracked box is safe!

    From securiteam.com: ..It can be configured such that clients can use named pipes over a NetBIOS session (TCP port 139/445) or sockets with clients connecting to TCP port 1433 or both. Whichever method is used the SQL Server will always listen on UDP port 1434. This port is designated as the Microsoft SQL Monitor port and clients will send a message to this port to dynamically discover how the client should connect to the Server.

    Read further into the report. The exploits use the vulnerability in the code which listens to UDP port 1434. You can't turn this off!

  275. Go easy on the sysadmins by plnrtrvlr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK.... so at least half of the problem is the sys admins, though some of you seem to think it's all their fault for not patching the systems... You must all have nice cushy jobs where they pay you to stay on top of things! The problem is, not every sys admin gets paid to do what he'd like, and not every one of those ppl have been with a company long enough to FIND everything that needs fixing, never mind FIX it all. They don't get paid enough or else told "no overtime" and things just don't get done... Sure blame the admins, the guy who just took over the mess that was left for him when the last guy quit two weeks ago is surely to blame, especially since he's so digusted with the task he's found himself mired in (not to mention the low salary for 24/7 service or else a NO OVERTIME policy) that he's pondering his next resume and cover letter... And no, I'm not a sys admin, I'm a physics student, a self taught computer junkie and a former construction worker, disabled from being a grunt. i just know scapegoating when I see it, and it's all too easy to blame "the man" when in fact, he's getting screwed just like the rest of us.

    1. Re:Go easy on the sysadmins by chribo · · Score: 1

      I know this problem too well, but since I changed into a Unix environment it is out of my sight (not for my collegues adminstering Windows though).
      One point is that mangers think it can't be to hard to control a windows server, since it is the same thing their kiddies are playing with. They don't know that Windows Server are scaling very badly (in contrast to *nix systems).
      On the other hand it is easyer for sys-admins (most of them with higher education) of 'real' computers to get more resources since, the mangement has no idea about 'real' computing.

      Nevertheless the whole problem is for a big part M$'s fault. They make the managment belive that their systems are easy to control. The contrary is the case! Windows is a nightmare for sysadmins and the very expensiv M$ support is worthless.

  276. it's a wonder my site's still up! by t_pet422 · · Score: 0

    i just checked my firewall log. since 4am this morning till now, i've gotten 145 hits on port 1434! 367 bytes * 145 = 53215 bytes! holy crap, 53kB, how did my site manage to stay up with that kind of excess traffic!? :)

  277. Re:MS is to blame? No downloadable MSDE patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Further evidence that MS is continuing to contribute to this problem:

    15 out of 16 available versions of MS Desktop Engine, which is vulnerable to the attack, cannot be patched by any available download. You must purchase a CD-ROM and wait for it to be delivered.

    From Section 2.2 of spreadme.htm from sql2kDesksp2.exe

    When downloading and extracting the Desktop Engine SP2 installation file from the Internet, please use the following guidelines.

    Download and extract the Desktop Engine SP2 file as described above for the Database Components and Analysis Services SP2 files, with the following exceptions.

    If you download the Desktop Engine SP2 file from the Internet, you can apply the service pack only to instances of the Desktop Engine that were installed from sqlrun01.msi. If you attempt to apply the service pack to instances that were created using sqlrun02.msi â" sqlrun16.msi from the Setup.exe file that was downloaded from the Internet, you will receive one of the following errors:

    This installation package could not be opened. Verify that the package exists and that you can access it, or contact the application vendor to verify that this is a valid Windows Installer package.

    -or-

    The upgrade patch cannot be installed by the Windows Installer service because the program to be upgraded may be missing, or the upgrade patch may update a different version of the program. Verify that the program to be upgraded exists on your computer and that you have the correct upgrade patch.

    To upgrade instances of the Desktop Engine that were created using sqlrun02.msi - sqlrun16.msi, you must apply the service pack from the Microsoft CD-ROM. You can order the SQL Server 2000 SP2 CD-ROM from Microsoft by visiting the Microsoft SQL Server Downloads Web site.

  278. Definitive analysis by hfx_ben · · Score: 1

    Actually, I think it is just a matter of basics.
    For a thorough treatment, this is as good as any I've found and far better than most: MSSQL-UDP Analysis

    --
    -- When you look to see how the system works, you usually find that it doesn't.
  279. Earlier start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I started seeing the effects of this attack somewhere between 10:00pm and 10:30pm Central Time, or about 30 to 60 minutes before most reports of "around midnight Eastern time." It was causing some seriously erratic response times through the Minneapolis UUNet/Alternet POP.

  280. Bill Gates wears a uniform by yerricde · · Score: 1

    billg cannot be an enemy combatant because he does not wear a military uniform.

    The business suit is the "uniform" of the American business man. Here's a picture of Bill Gates III in such a uniform.

    Whether Microsoft qualifies as a "military" organization is still an open question. The company does seem bigger than many government agencies.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  281. Re:Funny, Internet designed to survive nuke attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hm, that's something to think about. If Microsoft wanted to for whatever reason, would they have the power to take out the Internet? I bet they could. Or they might just hold it ransom.

  282. Couldn't have said it better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "My advisory

    - If you havn't yet installed SP3 your an idiot
    - If you are running your SQL server live your a
    bigger idiot

    Time to call in the CISSP's

    (double click setup.exe)"

    Taken from a security related mailing list

  283. Windows 2000 site goes over two years without a re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows 2000 site goes over two years without a reboot?
    netcraft is running a story about MS systems that have NOT been reebooted for 2 years. No wonder the SQL Server virus is still around, dumbass MCSEs are trying to run their systems and apply patches without rebooting. What a mistake!!!

  284. Re:Yow! Good call /. by dopefish3 · · Score: 1

    Very interestink.
    I got 149 inbound connections between
    01:01:56AM and 08:08:04AM
    Coincidence? or is it something more?

  285. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  286. Re:My Incomming access logs! by JoshRoss · · Score: 1

    Please not to whome ever mod'd my post down. The last access log did not have any 1434 hits.

    So, no this post is not redundent.

  287. If Microsoft made cars this unsafe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... or ANY product, for that matter, they'd be recalled TOMORROW, wouldn't they?

  288. link corrected by FritzTheSkunk · · Score: 1

    i don't know enough HTML or WTF, so the link automagically acquires a space :-)

    should be:

    http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?

    and appended to link above

    decimatio

    --
    "Writings of mad Lawyers! The Lawyers upon you" - old dwarven alarm cry.
  289. im pissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I told this story to slashdot BEFORE anyone had heard of it. Nobody is going to read this post anyways........

    I had mentioned it a full 3 hours before cnn had it, yes slashdot could have had it first. And to add insult to injury, someone posted it much later and gave me no credit, which wasnt so bad but CNN already had it by then. Slashdot is beginning to suck.
    I explained in plain terms what and why and where, so F U im going back to making www.overclockers.com.au my start page.

    1. Re:im pissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you whining baby, this site would suck if every story were published immediately every time. Sometimes breaking stories (as opposed to link discoveries) need a bit of critical mass before they should break. I couuld make a similar claim right now--should they publish it no questions asked? As for not acknowldging that YOU were the FIRST, you'd probably be surprised at how many others were also writing in, you big dummy. Please do go away. Your continued presence lowers the curve here. I'm sure overclockers is more your speed.

  290. Re:Why would anyone use anything else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because *ANY* monoculture is vulnerable. Even
    if the software's written securely, there *ARE*
    bugs. Sendmail's ubiquity gave us the Morris
    worm. RedHat's popularity gave us a RedHat-only
    worm (some RPC exploit, I think) a while back -
    it didn't get much publicity because the thing
    couldn't *get into* many of the Linux distros.
    (AAMOF, I think that particular one actually
    checked to see if the target was RH, which caused
    it to ignore a couple other distributions that
    the exploit it depended on *did* work on without
    recompiling...

  291. You can not be serious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " In a sense, M$ makes their servers so that folks CAN be more productive...I know Unix and can admin the machines somewhat (been using it since the mid 80s) but its NEVER point and click like Wind'rs."

    We have more than 300 servers affected worldwide, half of them have not been patched yet (in the US most of them folks, not in a far remote place with a part time SA).

    I can apply a patch to 300 machines with a 5 line script, most patches I apply are done after 5 or 6 hours (it could be much less, but we are conservative for some reason too long to explain here). I administer UNIX machines

    The empirical evidence is far to strong for you to be making such comments.

  292. I am sure... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... you have also trained your Admin properly and he is not overwhelmed with 200 different tasks.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  293. Wrong by DarkZero · · Score: 1

    Far too many people assume that you either lock your doors and rely on the police or you carry a gun with you everywhere you go. There are many levels of security between those two. For one thing, you can get a better locking system for your door than a dead bolt that's going into nothing but WOOD. Many people have front or back doors like that that you can just bust right through in one or two attempts. On the other hand, if you have a metal doorway for your deadbolt to slip into, someone is going to have to seriously kick their ass to get in that door.

    You could also get an alarm system. Any thieves that are intelligent enough to use a lock picking gun will be deterred either by the alarm system sticker/sign near your door or by the sound of the alarm going off when they enter your house.

    A tazer is also a possibility. They're legal in many places, some come in baton form so that you can wield them more easily, and any innocent people that you might strike will not be dead or even permanently harmed.

    Obviously, I completely agree with Hieronymous Cowherd, even though I was originally just making a joke.

  294. It isn't the S/W... by AlphaSys · · Score: 0

    Mod that down: ignorant.

    You jack-ass. Microsoft allows you to do whatever you want to short of raw sockets manipulation, and you can get to that in an API if you're abmbitious and malevolent.

    Just because you can't get to it in the GUI doesn't mean you can't do it -- I'd think a true GNU user would know that. If you're using a real Redmond OS (not just a DOS extension), you have the wonderful NetShell (NETSH /? for more) utility to make all your network tasks more straightforward.

    I'm getting a little fed up with the glib attitude of the /. blind faith in OSS and the bash of anything MS. I work for a company that has been a 100% MS shop for years. I was not happy to learn that that was the whole enchilada, but I took the job because of good pay, advancement opportunity and challenge. At the time, there were actually two *NIX servers on the network: an LRP gateway and a box running SENDMAIL and BIND. The admin of those boxes refused to patch them because he had "worked too hard to get them like he wanted". They were owned within months. Since then I have replaced them both with MS products: the gateway now runs MS RRAS (Win2k) and not only does firewall (with just as complete filtering as you favorite piece of free OS software), nat and logging but also provides a nice PPTP dial in point as well. In the three years I have run it, many have tried to own it, but all fail. Why? Because it is locked down tighter than a tick. Over-zealous hacks like you fail to realize the true reason most MS installations are insecure: because corporations have bought the MS "lower TCO" bullshit and think that it means they can hire less-competent admins for their boxes and get away with it. The problem isn't with the software as much as it is with the people managing these boxes.

    For the guy suggesting the patches can't be used because they will break something, ESAD. MS hasn't broken anything significant with a patch to their real OSes (2k, XP) in years. Further, if it has as big a hole as the one that enabled this exploit, it's already broke -- patch the motherfucker!

    And as to the moron who suggests that firewalls make admins lazy, FOAD. Admins are not lazy; some who pretend to be are. Take any of the guys talking here who know what they're talking about, give them a three hour crash-course (no pun) in how MS RRAS works on Win2k, and cut them loose. I guarantee they make it work and they make it safe. Why? Because they know what they're doing. Ask the same task out of your average Windows "admin" and he'll give you something that half works and can be penetrated in minutes. It has nothing to do with the software; it's the user. It really chaps my arse that you guys get so anti-MS, because most of you would make really excellent Windows admins! The side benefits would be that I wouldn't be alone among the AOL-users-turned-admins and my payscale would go up. So what are you waiting for? Come on over!

    --
    Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
    1. Re:It isn't the S/W... by Felinoid · · Score: 1

      Just a few notes in defending the relentless attack of Microsoft by /. users.
      The often stated reasons for using Windows NT include:
      "It's user friendly so I can do it myself"
      This is the attatude Microsoft themselfs are responsable for creating.
      In fighting this preception you have an uphill battle not just against /. but every Microsoft trained MCSE cert and Microsoft itself.
      It's not just the software it's the whole attatude. Not just /. but the Microsoft side of things as well.
      For example just try to get a commertal game for Linux?
      I can... but I'm deep into it. Try and find a sereous text on Windows security... Ok you have. Now what are the odds I'd find exactly the same?
      Book store: Programming includes everything.
      Game code:Windows.
      Security: Unix.
      Thies are the books people buy.
      It's not a matter of can it be done but how much support is behind you when you do it.
      If your using Linux you have the world and god behind you.
      With Windows it's just god and a smart 7 year old.

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    2. Re:It isn't the S/W... by AlphaSys · · Score: 0

      We seem to agree more than we diverge. But you just echoed what I said while trying to make it sound like it's the other way around: let's be clear... the last two iterations of OS from Redmond have been fairly stable and powerful. Like any impressive improvement from a previous version, there have been (and continue to be) bugs found and patches released. If an admin doesn't apply the patch, it's not the OS's fault, or even indirectly Microsoft's, regardless of how "easy" anyone has been led to believe managing critical servers can be. If you skimp when you hire your admin staff, you reap what you sow, regardless of the OSes they'll be handling. Period.

      We definitely are in alignment on the whole MSCE/MSCP/etc. situation. I have met so many of these I could puke. And there are a lot of imbeciles among them. I am fighting the urge to label the whole lot useless, but the temptation is there. But you'll find the same thing among Netware certs, Oracle, Cisco, etc. There are folks who have a piece of paper to demonstrate their knowledge of a subject, and there are those who can show you themselves in no time. The groups are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they are nearly so.

      Your assessment of the publications on security for Windows, while off the mark, has a grain of truth -- most of them are superficial. I imagine part of the reason is because the code is not accessible and few people "play" with securing windows the way they do with the free OSes enough to understand the inner workings. But my assertion stands that all the *NIX security experts can properly secure a Windows box with their eyes closed.

      I also agree that the perception of Windows as being the only viable PC gaming platform is lamentable. But it is in part due to the OSS community's clear focus on invading the server market first. Not to say that it has been misplaced, because it certainly has been the easiest place to get a foot in the door, especially considering the large space of real UNIX which has been ripe for revolution for ages.

      It is worth noting as well that all the free support you refer to in the free OS arena exists in the form of newsgroups and forums, and much of the same reources can be found for Windows if you know where to look. You have to wade through alot of lamerz looking for serialz to their downloaded warez, but that's just the nature of the beast. Personally, I have noticed a growth of losers in the OSS forums too, /. not withstanding. You'll agree with me as time goes on, believe me. Furthermore, as someone who PAYS for my software, I and my developer team have both found MS support to not always be totally unresponsive. Twice we have found verifiable bugs for which no patch yet existed. Both times, MS support was very gracious and was quick to do something about it. That's not to say they are a super-friendly bunch, but they have, on occasion showed redeeming qualities.

      Lastly, before you start slamming the intelligent seven-year-olds of the world, check your own spelling. It's atrocious!

      If you are a moderator, it is understandable how the misconceptions persist.

      --
      Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
    3. Re:It isn't the S/W... by Felinoid · · Score: 1

      But you just echoed what I said while trying to make it sound like it's the other way around
      I appologise...
      If you are a moderator, it is understandable how the misconceptions persist.
      I'm not THE moderator.. one idiot in the croud won't any harm... anywho having THAT in my sig is stupid on retrospect.. Changing it now...

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    4. Re:It isn't the S/W... by Felinoid · · Score: 1

      By the way that wasn't a slam on 7 year olds.
      It was a complament...
      Got a problem NOBODY can solve.. unless you've got a hotline to god.. ask a 7 year old.

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    5. Re:It isn't the S/W... by Felinoid · · Score: 1

      Ug I need to read the whole text before posting...
      Well anyway got my sig fixed.. Good thought...

      I didn't mean to say that Windows security publications were poor or even sparce.
      I mean I never see ANYTHING untill I get so deep in the security arena that I can't see daylight.

      Your dead on the mark as to why OSS has so few commertal games. The Linux community dosen't take it even slightly sereously. Wow we have ONE GAME.. great.. now onward to the servers....
      Thats the same reason Microsoft's got problems in security. They foster the whole "it dosen't realy matter" addatude.

      Your right about certs... I hate saying that... (I'm Linux Admin certified by Bran bench but I don't think I'm really qualified..)
      Part of the problem I think is the whole point of certs to start with.
      You come out of collage knowing how to do it but also knowing your not any sort of expert.
      I've known certs who think they know everything. So thick headed that real experence will never sink in..
      It soo pisses me off.

      I'll not even begin to say bad about Microsofts support side.
      They make a sereous effort I'll give you that.
      However.... Microsoft dosen't even take the e-mail worm issue sereously enough to correct the public when the news calls em VIRUSES.
      After all most *NIX people know if it's a virus it'll never happen on Unix with out doing something dumb.
      But who in there right mind would clame a Unix system is immune to WORMS.
      And "Just don't open file attachments".. Phlese.. Might as well just addopt the whole "If your not an expert you have no business using a computer" addatude Linux only recently dumped for the pure stupidity of it.

      Microsoft isn't responsable for admins who won't patch servers. However with it being such a big deal you'd think they's start dropping hints at the least "Dear Boss man If your admin isn't patching the server he isn't doing his job.. Your friend B.Gates"...
      They do get hot and heavy on the software piracy thing and yes people do it anyway. However Microsoft makes a sereous effort to stop that. And before you misunderstand me I'm TOTALLY behind them on that.
      It's a tottaly bad thing for everyone. It's a loss of money for Microsoft and it's a loss of potental users for Linux.
      Use Linux or pay up.. Thats the choice.. and those who pirate do nither hurting everyone.

      Lastly I know my spelling is bad.. but I don't have a 7 year old around to help me fix it :)

      My whole point however is that it dosen't matter how many good books or e-text exsist to secure Windows if it takes a research expert to find em.

      One key point with any given platform is you almost have to slap people accrost the head to get them to know something exsists.
      Linux "You bytch security"
      Windows "Games baybe"

      Let's go away from the hot and enter in the area where it's nowhere near as personal.

      Amiga... for YEARS I've NEVER been able to get ANYONE to accept that Amiga can do business. A tiny handful of develupers would make business software etc.
      As far as most people were conserned it's games games games. Today people recognise the true power of the Amiga yet it's almost like people have a brain sesure before they realise an Amiga can do business.
      Amiga users knew better. But the rest of the world didn't

      Macintosh. Even today people insist the Mac can't do anything sereous. Apple premoted it hard as "User Friendly" and just never spoke of it's power.

      Palm Os.. How many people realise you can post to Slashdot from a small handspring visor neo? I do.
      (Thats why my spelling sucks.. errr one reason.. let's not forget I could have entered it correctly the first time and just didn't bother or I could fix it and didn't care.
      Why? Editing's just not taken sereously on the PDA and I fall to the trap here..
      Talk tall... and still not walk the walk.. dumb.. anywho gotta take some blame)

      You get my point I hope....
      Check.. No karma bonus.. :)

      --
      I don't actually exist.
  295. Security should be at the edge, not the core by Limax+Maximus · · Score: 1

    For the most part I fully agree. A firewall is useless as it gives people a false sense of security.

    Recently I saw a box that had been routed via ssh and the owner of it asked if we could protect it with a firewall yet he still wanted access to it from his DHCP based dialup without the hassles of using a VPN. This was someone who is highly computer literate however has been sold on firewalls as a perfect solution by many sales droids. He wouldn't have been protected by a firewall in the ssh case.

    This worm got into our network via a DMZ owned by a department that wanted a DMZ for 'research'. Why they ever had an Microsoft box on it is a mystery and why it hadn't been patched for 6 months is something else.

    In my view security should be done at the edge and only very simple security in the core. The only problem is that you need users with clue > 0 who can set up personal firewalls properly. Sadly I am yet to see a decent iptables type firewall for windows.

    Things are getting easier with layer 3 switches becoming affordable. When they are common place they will make moving security closer to the edge much easier. Core routers should route, they shouldn't access control, that way you can keep your wire speed routing and give a more flexible environment for users while keeping security where you need security.

    There is still no substitute for keeping a box patched.

  296. Anti-War Hacktivists Claim Responsibility For Worm by 0K+Komputer · · Score: 1

    .......And promise more is on the way all to protest the war against Iraq and North Korea.

    http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=2 31 141&group=webcast

  297. Re:Anti-War Hacktivists Claim Responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Nothing to report yet." says the link.

    If it is true that this was some sort of anti-war protest I'm disappointed.

    We are at war with Microsoft and we must do everything we can to destroy it. Bringing down all servers running Microsoft software is a start.

    We must never rest until the Microsoft Reich is destroyed and Fuhrer Gates blows his head off in a his bunker.

    If this attack is part of that effort, then I salute them. To quote Winston Churchill, "never have so many owed so much to so few."

    On the other hand, if they are a bunch of script kiddies ... they should be shot.

  298. Re:Anti-War Hacktivists...Correct Link by 0K+Komputer · · Score: 1
  299. Re:microsofft doens't allow you to filter based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmmm,

    thats funny, I thought one of IPSEC's features was the ability to filter/block ips/ports.

  300. Re:Anti-War Hacktivists Claim Responsibility by 0K+Komputer · · Score: 1

    I suspect there is no love for Mr Gates among the crowd mentioned in that article.

  301. New SQL worm scanner, new patch kit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a scanner available to find vulnerable systems. The free version can scan up to a class C address at once.

    Get it here:

    [SapphireSQL]

    Also, Microsoft this morning released an updated patch kit for SQL Server 2000 and MSDE 2000, that allegedly eliminates needing to manually copy files and run manual commands. Supposedly, installing the patch only requires two clicks, so most Windows administrators should be able to handle it (ducking for cover....)

    You can get the new patch kit here:

    [slammer]

    PSS Security Response Team Alert - New Worm: W32.Slammer
    UPDATED: January 26, 2003
    SEVERITY: CRITICAL
    DATE: January 25, 2003
    PRODUCTS AFFECTED: SQL Server 2000 RTM, SQL Server 2000 SP1, SQL Server 2000 SP2, and Microsoft SQL Desktop Engine Version (MSDE) 2000

  302. Re:PostgreSQL keeps .org up /MS-SQL brings down ne by tshak · · Score: 1

    Yes, I am talking about a few buffer overflow attacks from October, and the point is that under certain configurations (even if that config is not the default) that a remote exploit was theoretically possible.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  303. No, it is a real issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I work machines providing all kind of internal services (DNS, NIS+, DHCP) were affected due to the traffic.

    I can't give more details, but it is clear this has been very serious.

    1. Re:No, it is a real issue. by AlphaSys · · Score: 0

      If your internal machines were affected, it might be time to re-think your packet-filtering strategy :-p

      --
      Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
  304. Re:waiting for patches is hardly good security pol by kelleher · · Score: 1

    I've explained this to my Information Security department so many times I should make an mp3 and have it auto-emailed to them everytime CERT sends out an alert...

  305. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  306. Grumble grumble by NaDrew · · Score: 1

    All I know is that it's making me work today. And I'm not exactly happy about that.

    --
    Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
  307. Virtual mod point to you by GCP · · Score: 1

    I agree, except that I think you give the mindless MS bashers too much credit. If they knew their stuff, they wouldn't make such ignorant comments about Windows.

    The most technically sophisticated people I've met in the Unix/Linux world are usually the least dismissive of Windows or Macintosh, because they have a deeper understanding of the issues and tradeoffs. The annoying Slashdot "M$ sux" types are poseurs.

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
  308. So... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Would Ms. God like to change her password?

  309. Be direct by AlphaSys · · Score: 0

    Then blame the admins. Do you blame Mercedes because a lawyer in a convertible is an accident waiting to happen?

    --
    Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
  310. Re:PostgreSQL keeps .org up /MS-SQL brings down ne by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 1

    Huh?

    None of those overflows were triggerable unless you already had an account with the RDBM. Exploit? Yes. Remote? No.

    BWP

  311. Hey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey troll. Do you have a sister? Is she cute?

    1. Re:Hey... by AlphaSys · · Score: 0

      No troll here, n00b. I mean every word of what I say.

      As for my sister, she's 280 hideous lbs. of recovering addict with a contagious immunodeficiency and a serious attitude problem. Methinks you'd make a nice pair. Care to get hitched? I'll bring the shotgun.

      --
      Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
  312. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, how about your mom then?

    1. Re:Hmm... by AlphaSys · · Score: 0

      Sorry, you have to have broadband to meet up with her. AOL does not count. Besides, she's not in your immediate family anyways, so your mating rules will not allow it. Get back in your end of the gene pool.

      --
      Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
    2. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh an AOL joke.

      No, seriously, your mom is cute, right?

  313. pedantic (me); incomplete (your sig) by MegaFur · · Score: 1

    Interesting!=Informative!=Insightful

    Interesting!=Informative!=Insightful && Interesting!=Insightful
    The `!=' is not transitive.

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  314. "STFU" by Featureless · · Score: 1

    Hey, since it's Monday and all, I was just wondering. Could I just skip writing a response, and you just write another ignorant, juvenile post anyway?

    Thanks,
    Featureless

    P.S. - Don't long for a response. You've been filtered.

  315. NKs and missiles by zogger · · Score: 1
    --couple of points, I think if you talk to any spook the consensus is they at least have *some* nukes now, and have the ability to make more rapidly if they choose to. They have been able to literally blackmail the US into giving them aid based solely on that premise, so let's take that as a gimmee.



    As to delivery systems, they have a lot of planes, and here's an overview of their long range missile technology that is known about publically at this time



    They are also stark raving NUTZ. By most accounts the most controlled, closed and brainwashed lock step military regime on the planet. Not the largest, but the most controlled-albeit some other "regimes" are headed that way, including ones large and close, but that's another topic. The thought that people are so desperate there they would risk torture and/or death just to escape to mainland china as a step up should be a serious clue. They also get caught all the time basically committing acts of "mini warfare" against south korea and japan, inserting commandos, etc, kidnapping people, etc, etc. And their only realy exports and R&D of note are armaments, that's it.

    1. Re:NKs and missiles by t · · Score: 1
      I was responding to the allegation that having nukes alone elevates a country to the same status that Russia had during the cold war. That is not true in the least. Iraq or North Korea having nukes may scare the shit out of their neigbors, but not "the homeland" since they lack long range delivery methods.

      If they were ever to try to blackmail the US with nukes, then that would require an immediate pre-emptive strike that would obliterate them. It would be over before the kooks could organize a protest. Also, you seem to think that it is easy to target a long range missile, it is not. Launching a nuke at the US that may not even come close to hitting the target AND detonating is a huge risk for any country. Not to mention that the US also has the advantage of sheer size, it takes a hell of a lot more power to wipe out the US than it would to decimate Iraq and North Korea combined.

      I am puzzled by your comment about them having a lot of planes. Exactly how far do you think they would make it before being gunned down?

      Also, if you'll recall, the last North Korea missile test I remember was a complete failure. I'm thinking of the missile that went shooting over Japan and into the ocean.

      From your response, I get the impression that you have assumed that I am anti-war or something. Quite the contrary, I think we should nuke the shit out of both those countries. (and the Palenstinians since the children have been programmed to kill their "evil oppressors".) But I do think that most of the arguments for war that have been given are inadequate and even counter-productive to that goal since they are so clearly false.

  316. delivery methods by zogger · · Score: 1

    --delivery methods can be as simple as loading one up in a container and having it delivered to the major port city of your target nation perhaps*. Call it an ICCDS, an intercontinental cargo container delivery system. And just suppose-just for grins-that there exists a global long range plan by a group of nations to eliminate what they perceive to be a "threat" posed by the US. Global politics is too complex for simplistic realities, I don't claim to "know it all" on geopolitics, but it has been a major interest of mine for 4 decades now following it, and the concept of a premeptive assymetrical strike combined with conventional and supra-conventional strike is not totally absent from the realms of possibility or even probability for that matter. And their-back to the NKs now- last test wasn't a failure, by most accounts it went further and "better" than what "they" -the international arms watching community- expected. It might not have hit all of it's projected goals, but it got from point A to B, and did it years earlier than all the previous projections had their analysis pegged for.

    I think they are a credible threat, and we'd have a hard time dealing with them short of nukes, and if nukes were used all over the peninsula, japan would be hosed from fallout-more or less, and I got no idea how china would react, call it "most annoyed" to be on the conservativce side. And we aren't even mentioning any other surprises of the biological kind might be hidden inside the US for "just in case" scenarios. And they have blackmailed us, we give them food and until lately oil so they would stop their nuke and export missile projects. The food went to party members and to keep their army fed, and now the scandal is a lot of south korean cash went there as well, that is still developing. It's a complex situation. We also shipped them two reactors gratis of the kind that allegedly can't be used to make weapons with. they didn't even say thanks, just took them. That's blackmail as close as I understand the term, and we paid it. There's no wiggle room there. They threatened to keep working on advanced weapons unless they were paid off, we "trusted' them, paid them off, and surprise! Like most nations they are liars. It was a doomed from the start impractical gambit, so was leaving the war hanging way back when. Yet another subject that would have to delve into the UN and high level traitors in the US and whatnot, another time perhaps.

    I think we are more or less on the same page here, I just tend to give them a scosh more of a + rating as a military force than I would say iraq, and a +++ rating on going batsquat sometime. Not that it would matter if they used it-except for the millions of people who would croak, and what the consequences would be of a major war there, and whether or not other wars might break out once that one started, and if assymetrical warfare hit CONUS, which I would give a 99% probability of happening. International "things" have a past historical reality of getting quite out of hand sometimes, too many wildcards to adequately predict what might happen or how far it would go.

    ** bet this has already happened to the US, and deep (and intelligently) hidden someplace are some nukes, delivered by "some other nation or nations". Another topic, and no, no pure hard evidence (beyond defectors stories)to go on beyond the fact that for the past decades, untold thousands of tons of whatever have gotten successfully smuggled in, and untold millions of completely unvetted humans are waltzing around this nation. I have no idea how many of those millions of folks from various nations are serious badguys and NEITHER do our government agencies tasked with "protecting" us. Our borders have been in the "horse is out of the barn" state for a long time now, and it still hasn't changed much, even after 9-11.

  317. Re:grep -c 1434 log_firewall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I really don't believe in affecting other's machines [slashdot.org] on the internet

    But if you ever have a change of heart, all you need to do is make a daemon that will respond to a 1434 UDP packet with an 04 in the first byte by sending a one-byte UDP 1434 response with an 08 as the data.

  318. SQL Worm by GWmailman · · Score: 1

    Got to love Micro$oft servers. Every virus ever writen attacks M$.... When are IT people going to wake up to the fact M$ servers suck. M$ should stick to workstation operating systems and leave the server OS to Linux, Novell and other REAL NOS programs...

  319. Firewall Blocking by majss · · Score: 1

    I forgot to mention that those port scans for ms-sql-s first started heavily occurring last wednesday. I guess (they) were busy trying to find SQL Servers out there before the weekend's attack. Also, in the past several months we've had heavy port scans from Asia originations, as specified above with all the C Classes. Keep an eye on the LACNIC (Latin America Networks) as there seems to be a slight ramp up of junk from there, such as 200.x.x.x Also the European Union like Romania 209.239.64.0 Lot's of work to do from the firewall perspective.