Slashdot Mirror
Worms Going Further, Faster
Major Byte writes "Rob Kolstad's MOTD (pdf) column in Usenix login; passes along a few distilled factiods from a CAIDA analysis of the 'Sappire/Slammer' Worm. When it was at full blast it was scanning over 3 billion systems per hour--a speed that 'a "better" vulnerability would have enabled infection of the entire internet in 15 minutes, a "flash worm" or a "Warhol Worm."' I think 'better' to mean 'able to infect across a lot of platforms.'"
There's a lot that can't be done about these things because at the very bottom of every system is a human being who will forget to patch the system or stupidly open an executable.
There is no patch for human carelessness.
I have been pwned because my
Where it is the point in this matter nowadays? It really took talent to write malware in the old days, what with having to be able to get the virus in the executables and boot sectors of floppy disks, but now everything looks like a work of the VBScript cut-and-paste. Why is it so hard to find the author of these programs?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
The nice part about Slammer is that it could just spew data - if it hit you, and you were vulnerable, you were infected. It didn't require any complicated TCP sessions, was MUCH nicer on host resources, and the entire hack fit inside a single packet. Hard to improve on this really, perhaps using LZIP to shrink the size of the payload.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
It's not even just that now. The latest rendition of Bugbear would send out an infected file named after a file on the computer it was sending from. I imagine the next generation mailers will check send records, or even incorporate spyware code, and mail themselves out using names of files the user sent recently, or selectively infect shared files to get loose on the network. For computers to be useful you have to have some level of trust, and as worms become smarter they can more easily exploit that fact.
We need to stop stressing prevention quite so much and start dealing with what happens when a virus does get through.
For a world-wide problem with worms, cross-platform worms are not required - just a simultaneous release of single platform worms. The spreading algo would be common, the payload and infection mechanism platform specific.
One for windows, one for linux, one for routers/switches...
Imagine the impact. Would the internet survive?
The only things preventing this might be the fact that no single person has the required experience in all the platforms, and vulnerabilities in non-windows OS's are typically more difficult to exploit.
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
One problem with saying that Slammer or any "flash worm" is that bandwidth and current infastructure isn't taken into account. Any worm taking on activity levels (as seen by how the whole Internet seemed to slow down) of this magnitude tend to self contain themselves at local router or node bottlenecks. As links go to fiber this won't hold, but atleast for now it does.
I would imagine that worms and other viruses are not really a problem to most Windows users that you would find on this site. I know that a vast majority of the viruses are spread using holes in Outlook, which is probably unpopular with this crowd. Also, people here know enough that you really need a virus scanner for full protection. I use Windows XP, and haven't had a virus yet. I also use Mozilla mail instead of outlook.
SIGFAULT
Oh please...
The installed base of Macs is so small compared to Windows PCs, there's no reason to write worms that affect Apple machines.
You can bet your ass that if Macs were as ubiqutous as x86 machines, they'd be getting slammed with worms too....That cocky attitude gets really grating.
in THE Doomsday, those who don't believe will be wiped out.
so if we have this fast-spreading virus, wouldn't it just wipe out those who don't patch and maintain their servers properly?
and what's left are those nicely patched servers which serve the internet better and everyone's happy ever after.
I agree that it's not safe to rely on humans to keep systems patched. But, for one, if most systems are kept patched, a worm like SLAMMER would be useless. This is an obvious point you neglect, but not an interesting one.
More interesting, I think, is the debate over whether there is such a thing theoretically possible as a secure architecture. This is, of course, the idea behind "secure" systems designed to be so from the ground up, such as Palladium. Ethernet, TCP/IP, ARP, and most of the other protocols which make up the 'Net were not designed with security in mind from the bottom up, but rather designed for effectiveness, ease of implementation, and the like. For example, why do Ethernet cards allow promiscuous mode? It makes diagnosing certain problems easier, but it also represents a very big opportunity for all sorts of security vulnerabilities. Or why can MAC addresses be changed so easily? This represents an easy opportunity for mischeif.
But had the entire architecture of the 'Net been designed for security and accountability rather than ease of access and openness from the start (granted, two often-conflicting ideals), would absolute security be possible?
Many say that security is never truly possible without unplugging the computer from the 'Net, turning it off, and embedding it in concrete. This may be exaggeration, but of course it is quite difficult to prove something secure; RSA has not be proven secure, public-key cryptography has not been proven secure, and I don't really see how you could prove any other system secure, either.
This may not be necessary, however. We may not know for certain that RSA is secure, but we assume that the NSA does not know how to factor such large numbers any better than the rest of us, and we assume it to be secure (and such an assumption does appear valid). If enough evidence exists to assume a system to be "practically secure," that is enough for implementaiton.
I have no answers to these questions. But I think to assume such a problem is unanswerable is silly and is itself merely a non-answer. Security may not be an easy goal, but it may be acheivable. At least in some forms, this is clearly the case; it would quite evidently be possible to stop some sorts of attacks, like SLAMMER, in the future, even if theoretical, absolute, security remains un-obtainable.
Your assumption is that true security is a theoretical impossibility. On what grounds?
Not to speak for the previous poster, but that's a pretty good assumption. No technological advance has ever succeeded in remaining secure for long.
(Example: plate armor probably seemed impregnable in practical terms, until the longbow came along. Yeah, okay, a stinking peasant could hamstring a warhorse and beat the knight to death with a rock while he lay helpless on the ground, but these possibilities were probably ignored with the same superstitious enthusiasm that sysadmins ignore the rarer kinds of attacks on their systems.)
I would think that the burden of proof falls on those who maintain that "true security" is attainable. And the minute you propose some system to guarantee that true security, some clever person will come along and propose a way to get around it.
Anyone designing a critical security system should probably start off with the assumption that security will eventually be breached, and make damn sure that when the breach occurs, catastrophe does not result.
Actually, this is exactly where a portion of the security community is currently focusing. With a deep enough level of protocol understanding, it's often possible to write generalized algorithms that detect (and presumably block) novel attempts to exploit a known vulnerability. For example, in the case of SQL Slammer, the buffer overflow vulnerability disclosure came many months before the worm hit, and at least a couple intrusion detection vendors were able to positively identify the exploit attempt without requiring an update -- one of the keys to protection against such a rapidly propagating worm.
I'm no historian, but I bet plate armor was more for intimidation factor than anything else.
:)
I bet a hundred shiny enemy knights on horses really does a lot to demoralize your thousand foot soldiers.
I think a lot of modern security is the same way, deter most attacks with shiny armor, and minimize damage on the inevitable attacks that will get through.
Now the real problem these days is the companies selling cheap tin armor and telling people it's the strongest steel. Some things never change.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Scenario:
This code has not been signed (or is signed by an unknown publisher) Click OK in this box could transmit a virus, destroy your hard drive, subvert your nations economy, summon flesh eating aliens and damn us all to eternal hell.
Yes, checking signatures on code you execute is a good thing, but there are specifics to be concerned about in an implementation. How to you guarantee the signature? Obviously, some sort of authentication, and method of checking the signiture against, perhaps, a public key is needed. And to handle that you need a web of trust that's workable. But none of that matters a whit if users aren't careful about the trust, and don't investigate. Nor is it worth a darn if they ignore warnings. These problems (aka user education, and poorly designed secure systems) have to be taken care of before any of this will be useful.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison