Slashdot Mirror
Possible Cisco Source Code Theft
OmegaBlac writes "According to Ars Technica, a Russian security site is claiming that Cisco's corporate network was comprimised and about 800MB of Cisco's source code for IOS Operating System version 12.3 was stolen. I guess Cisco forgot to implement their own Self Defending Network solutions."
Whats the deal with that!?
if true, this could cause big problems not only for Cisco, but for the entire Internet. Cisco routers are responsible for routing much of the Internet's traffic, and the company has long practiced a policy of "security through obscurity."
We're all screwed.
-Imidazole2
One (of the many) problem(s) with the closed source business model is the fact that the entire company can depend on this intellectual property. The security surrounding that source has to be so huge that the problem quickly becomes intractable.
:P
:/
Open source however, by virtue of it being free (as in Iraq hehe), is worthless. Support contracts are alot harder to steal
Let's not forget that open source provides robust security (in principle) where as for closed source we can never be sure.
Why do we still use so much closed source stuff
Simon.
This did actually happen. A friend in an IRC channel I frequent was pasting large portions of it to show off.
:(
I can't help much see a nearby future full of Cisco-powered site takeovers
Vonal Declosion
CiSCO IOS? .
.
.
SecurityLab, 13 2004 CISCO IOS 12.3, 12.3t, CISCO. 800
, - Cisco System. Cisco System
franz #darknet@EFnet IRC ( 2.5 )
100 ipv6_tcp.c ipv6_discovery_test.c.
Hope that helps!
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
I've worked there as a temp in 2000-2001 and the corporate network resources sure didn't seem to be that well protected... But I won't elaborate.
I use windows RRAS as my router and not the damned (potentially) insecure Cisco kit ;-)
Darl??
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
How can the source code be stolen, when Cisco still has it?
IOS 11.3 source is definitely in the wild - I think there is a copy of it around here somewhere. I've contacted Cisco on it and they're so excited they can't even get someone from law enforcement to come and talk to me about the information on the guy who sent it to me.
11.3 is ancient history, but 12.3 is bad bad bad
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Don't touch it, don't see it, don't breathe near it, if you ever plan on contributing to linux.
Leaked code is very dangerous to open source software.
The rusian site contains samples of the source claimed stolen!
If these are authentic (which I personally begin to doubth more and more) then looking at them may be problematic if you ever intend on working on IPV6 stacks from someone else then cisco. (OpenBSD?)
Now I did have a peek at that code and I can tell it looks very fake (Obiously *don`t* take my word for it and think its safe to ignore my warning!)
Also at the forum of the .ru site there is a post from someone who claim the word on the IRC channel on which the story originates is that this is a fake.... But I am not touching that channel.
... that their remote access software had a default username/password built in that couldn't be disabled. A high-level Ciso executive has threatened to sue the software providers for including such a stupid 'feature' in their product
This is one of the companys that helpped make the Internet what it is today.
(I'm not talking about spam, trolls or worms)
They have the experence to know what can or can not happen.
Sure they use obscurity but I doupt they believe it to be a sereous security layor. Instead they probably have experts pooring over ios every day.
It is possable to have "Many Eyes" while remaining closed. Just have many expert eyes constantly on the code instead of many more untrainned eyes occasionally disecting the code.
It's expensive so don't expect it to happen too often.
Microsoft delutes itself into thinking that is what they have with a team of programmers working on the code. But in reality the only people who actually see the code is the original coder and a code verifier. Just two people for every segment of code.
But I would guess Cisco uses the expensive version of Many eyes that we get for free in open source.
I don't actually exist.
Seriously, A friend of mine, in an icq conversation told me it wasn't true. Plus my mom said so as well.
This reminds me of the buzz that surrounded MS's source code theft/leak. There are a couple of different things being discussed here.
First there are the security implications. Having the source out there for all to see isn't the endgame for the internet people, with MS people thought it was a big issue because their code is, well... crappy. I don't think this is true with Cisco, and unless there are some very obvious and very damaging security holes the internet will live to see another day, so all you doomsayers out there screaming that the world is coming to an end... settle down.
It does highlight once again the shortcomings of a security through obscurity model, but let's not go down that road again.
The second thing, which is where the story really lies, is how this could have happened. It's Cisco after all, how could their network be compromised? Probably someone there really dropped the ball. Any specifics on how this happened?
Surely that's only the case if being covered by software patents... which I think the general consensus in the Linux devlopment world is that's a Bad Thing(tm). Whether they will apply in Europe is still being discussed.
Copyright-protected code is obviously not allowed, but as long as there's a way of implementing the same thing in a different manner (always assuming that European s/w patents don't get ratified) I fail to see any issue in understanding how some other piece of software works.
The whole SCO debacle has done more than just piss everyone off, there's been a remarkable amount of reticence to learn from code that isn't Free. By that very logic authors shouldn't be allowed to read books and composers should be banned from listening to music.
--
This has been a scatterbrained post on behalf of the Poorly Thougt-out Argument Party
the layman's guide to computer science
Cisco's IOS is full of uncdomented commands. An old list is available on my site
http://boerland.com/dotu.
So opening the code might reveal more undocumented commands.
(btw: I will migrated this data towards a real CMS as hosted at home; http://willy.boerland.com/myblog.)
-- for undocumented cisco commands, take a peek @ dotu
How about, " The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but readers of ArsTechnica can beat the rush and see it early!"
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
A quick google search on 'Ole Troan' leads to Cisco Systems, Inc. 250 Longwater Avenue Reading RG2 6GB United Kingdom If this is a fake, then at least these Russians did their homework. :-)
As anyone who works for an ISP of any size and importance will tell you, Cisco routers don't do much when it comes to the big, hard-core routing that takes place at the NAPs or even at aggregation points. Their products have historically not been up to par for the high-end demands in these environments.
If a Juniper bug comes out, then it's time to be concerned about pieces of the Internet falling off. But then this is mitigated because there are relatively few aggregation points that can be upgraded hopefully quickly.
Sure, a large Cisco IOS bug will hit mom and pop and small to medium business, but the big boys just don't use Cisco.
Software is only secure when specific security tests are performed against it. Almost no one does much of this, or even understands it well. I doubt that in 1000 readers, more than 5 could recite the top 5, never mind the top 20 tests you must perform.
Open source is also not inherently better at security because of it must be peered reviewed. If the reviewer doesn't know what to check, then what is the point of the review?
Software must be security certified by professionals, whether open or otherwise.
Mike www.sharecube.com
"I guess Cisco forgot to implement their own Self Defending Network solutions"
No they did implement it. But when it found out that it was outnumbered by the hackers, the self-surrender module(also know as the french module) went into effect.
Cisco had already announced a few weeks ago that version 13 of IOS was coming out and in June they were going to dump IOS fully for a totally new os for their routers that was going to be pluggable and more secure
http://news.com.com/2100-1033_3-5210745.html
Seriously, A friend of mine, in an icq conversation told me it wasn't true. Plus my mom said so as well.
Translation: Accept information only from Official Sources(tm).
Any reports, of any event, not vetted by Your Official Corporate Public Relations Officer(tm) isn't real and has no validity.
Do not accept word of mouth. Healthy kepticism is not sufficient (for the facts may speak for themselves and undermine Our Official Position(tm)); you are to ignore any anectdotes, any word of mouth reporting, completely and utterly.
Indeed, you shall respond to any unofficial information with disparagement and hostility, as is your duty as a drone Consumer(tm).
Accept the Party Line. It is the Truth(tm), all else is Heresy.
Thank you.
Your Cisco Security.
("Stooges R Us")
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy