Slashdot Mirror


Using Layered Defenses to Stop Internet Worms

An anonymous submitter writes "Following last week's release of security configuration guidance for Mac OS X, the National Security Agency has released a paper on Internet worms and how to stop new worms using layered defenses (pdf). A good read - your US tax dollars at work."

53 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Using ggv... by grub · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hrmmm...

    There was an error while scaning the file: /home/grieder/WORMPAPER.pdf

    **** This file has a corrupted %%EOF marker, or garbage after the %%EOF.
    **** The file was produced by Acrobat PDFWriter 5.0 for Windows NT:
    **** please notify the author of this software
    **** that the file does not conform to Adobe's published PDF
    **** specification. Processing of the file will continue normally.

    Do I "notify the author" (malcodeteam@nsa.gov> or just assume that Echelon will do it for me when you read this?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Using ggv... by mbrewthx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Worked for me.. You must have a worm...

      --
      __________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
    2. Re:Using ggv... by pavon · · Score: 2, Informative

      No you should notify the author of the software - the Adobe Acrobat PDFWriter 5.0 team. And possibly gv, since they could possibly be out of date or wrong as well.

      I mean, I know that they government is in bed with the cooporations and all, but I think they have better ways to abuse their power then to waste time skiming the web for bug reports :)

  2. So did you just out yourself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "/home/grieder/WORMPAPER.pdf"? The NSA has you now, grub!!!

    1. Re:So did you just out yourself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny


      They could have just done a whois on my domain name :)

      Hold on, I'm being paged down to the parking garage...

  3. Tax dollars. by The+Old+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny
    What tax dollars?

    I'm rich.

    --
    Proud patriot and republican voter.
    1. Re:Tax dollars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shut up. I'm bitter.

  4. This report cost $2 billion US taxpayer dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Stopping Worms:

    -Patch your systems.

    -Use a firewall.

    -Stop running web servers and other stuff.

    Thank You,

    Uncle Sam

    1. Re:This report cost $2 billion US taxpayer dollars by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Funny
      They could have saved a bundle, but it wasn't politically correct to give out the free advice:

      Don't use Windows.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  5. my guide to avoiding worms by 56ker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1) Always run antivirus software
    2) Automatically filter all emails with attachments into a seperate folder
    3) Only have one user/computer
    4) Always virus scan software first
    5) Always run a firewall
    6) Always have twice as much bandwidth on the website as you need
    7) Block virus/worm emails using filters

    1. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by Red+Alastor · · Score: 3, Funny

      And *my* guide to avoiding worms :

      1) Use Linux

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    2. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by Daedala · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, here's mine:

      Use OS X.
      Run Software Update every once and a while.
      Make sure the firewall stays on.
      Back up.
      Watch Slashdot for malware that isn't just FUD.

      --
      What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
    3. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      And *my* guide to avoiding worms :
      1) Use Linux


      Ha ha!! LOL!! ROFLMAO!!!1!! R0FFl3z!! That is S0 hill-ayreeous! Use Lunix becaz Micr0$0ft iz teh SUXXH0RZ!!!1! Yuo mad teh j0k3 abuot Micr0$0ft s0 u'll g3T m0dd3d UP!!! Lun1X T0rV@ld1s si teh MADMAN!!!1!

    4. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by Wolfger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      3) Only have one user/computer
      Yeah. That works real well. I'll just tell my boss that right now. Which one user should we allow on our server?

      A more useful list would be shorter yet:
      1) Make sure all users are intelligent with regards to computers.
      ...hard to implement, though. That's why IT Security exists.
    5. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by RealAlaskan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And *my* guide to avoiding worms :

      1) Use Linux

      Well, the mods think it's funny, but I've been doing exactly that since 1997, and it's worked wonders for me. Linux was ready for my desktop back then, it was ready for the desktop of most clerical employees, and it's gotten nothing but better in the last seven years. For most folks, there's no reason not to use Linux except inertia.

      Of course, if you don't mind buying Apple hardware, there's always OSX. If your organization has an exclusive contract with Dell, that's not an option, though.

    6. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by Red+Alastor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Worked for my sister too and she is a typical non-technical user. Of course, she didn't installed it by herself and still have very little knowledge of what the system do (same level she had with Windows anyway) but she managed to do everything she was already doing with Windows.

      I switched her since I was tired of reinstalling her Windows system which she always found ways to break. So far, her Linux box works flawlessly.

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    7. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by dfj225 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know this was meant to be funny, but I think it is this type of thinking that could one day lead to other operating systems being exploited or filled with worms as much as Windows is now. I don't care what operating system you run, if you do not patch a hole it is still exteremly dangerous to your system. I think that this problem afflicts Mac users more than linux ones as I've often heard one too many Mac lover say how Apple's machines never get viruses or suffer from security problems. (Don't get me wrong, I love my Mac, but I know the importance of keeping it patched.) If someone honestly thinks that simply running an operating system other than Windows will keep them safe, then I fear the future will be much dimmer.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    8. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by wildBoar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah Antivirus software.

      This is actually the biggest virus I know of. It kills my work machine when I am trying to do anything useful, although I am fine reading /.

    9. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 5, Funny

      8) Don't dig into the ground
      9) Step carefully after it rains
      10) Stay away from bait shops
      11) ....
      12) Profit!

      (Sorry, couldn't resist...)

      Eric
      Why the Vioxx recall reduced spam (humor)
    10. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by Errtu76 · · Score: 2, Funny

      *cough* Ramen *cough*

    11. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by Lost+Race · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I've been using mainly Windows and DOS since 1985 and never had a worm, virus, spyware, or any other sort of computer "infection". I don't even use "anti-virus" software, except maybe once a year or so just out of curiosity.

      Security isn't about the OS, it's about awareness and prudence. I don't run software of unknown provenance or whose capabilities I don't fully understand. I keep Linux-based firewalls between the (mostly unpatched) Windows machines and the Internet. I don't use Internet Explorer or Outlook.

    12. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by raddan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, if you RTFA, several of the advanced worms that this group study affected Linux. Considering how much stuff comes pre-installed on commercial Linux distros, I wouldn't be surprised if a desktop Linux user got hit with one of these:

      ETAP/SIMILE [18] - Cross-platform worm that affects both Windows Portable Executable (PE) and Linux Executable and Linkable Format (ELF) executables. Uses an entry-point obscuring technique and sophisticated polymorphic file infector to avoid detection by anti-virus programs.

      LION [21] - Linux worm that spreads by using a known flaw in BIND.

      RAMEN [22] - Linux worm that bundles together a number of known exploits against Linux services, including: WuFTP, LPRng, and rpc.statd.

    13. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by droleary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know this was meant to be funny, but I think it is this type of thinking that could one day lead to other operating systems being exploited or filled with worms as much as Windows is now.

      Get back to us when "one day" comes, then. Like the people who play the "Windows marketshare ensures it is the most exploited" game, your logic is flawed. Alternatives to Windows all start from a different base and evolve in a different manner, so you can't assume that what trouble 95% of users today will necessarily trouble 95% of users in a mythical Unix-ubiquitious future.

      If someone honestly thinks that simply running an operating system other than Windows will keep them safe, then I fear the future will be much dimmer.

      Your fear is a baseless phobia. The truth today is that, yes, simply running an OS other than Windows will keep them safer. I realize that there is no guarantees for the future, but for today I would get my mom a Mac and fret very little even if she never did a software update unless I was there, whereas I know she'd be bombarded by malware every day if I pushed Windows on her.

    14. Re:my guide to avoiding worms by airConditionedGypsy · · Score: 2, Funny
      Which one user should we allow on our server?

      'root', naturally... just make sure everyone has the password written down in a memorable place.

      --
      I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
  6. what is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    wormpaper.pif?

  7. Tech report by October_30th · · Score: 5, Funny

    Heh. Such a typical government tech report. No pics, just text and tables.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
  8. Just Makes Sense by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously multilayered security is a solution to many problems. A worm would have to exploit problems at multiple levels before being able to do what it wants. This would make it much harder for the average script kiddie to write a worm, and would force an excellent programmer to write a much larger program. It also has the benefit of stopping worm variations by applying a security fix at any one of the security levels, since it's unlikely for that complex a worm to include multiple attacks for every level.

    --
    You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
  9. Actually the real url is by hsmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://www.nsa.gov/snac/support/WORMPAPER.pdf.exe

    But it is good to see the government is adopting some standards that are actually useful. but who wants to guess how much this cost them and how much it should have really cost?

  10. Good greif by jedkiwi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Odviously this is aimed at the average american, as all the IT people and geeks out there already know this. But tell me, what average user is auctually going to take the time to read this?

    1. Re:Good greif by peacefinder · · Score: 4, Funny

      [...] what average user is auctually going to take the time to read this?

      The average user? No.

      The average manager needing justification before buying new security tools? Heck yeah! The clever ones will append the NSA document to their budget proposals.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
  11. What happened to Darwinism? by DeepFried · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish they could just come out and clearly advocate diverstity among OSes. The biggest threat IMO is the ubiquity of holes, not severity.

    In my perfect world they would advocate open standards and address the flaws in the system not just individual "patients." As these plagues come and go, if we all have the same immune systems, our collective odds are not good.

    I am glad they are putting good info out there. I guess I am hoping that in each case they identify the larger problem so we can all keep our eye on the ball.

    --


    Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard disk?
  12. NSA vs. l33t h4x... by Sebastopol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone else find it pretty cool that this battle is NSA vs script kiddies? I mean, a $2B a year cost is equvialent to a small terrorist attack, this is a big problem. I'm glad to see people from all walks of life attempting to combat the little punks.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  13. I Kind of Wish by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Funny
    They'd examined a few more Linux worms. They've looked at like 30 Windows worms and just one Linux worm, which exploited a Bind hole that's been known about and patched for years now. I mean, I know Windows has way more desktops installed so it should get the most scrutiny, but they could have at least chosen a current Linux worm from the multitude of worms that are out there! For example...

    Um...

    Hmm... Nevermind.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:I Kind of Wish by daeley · · Score: 3, Funny

      You think you're miffed, all the OS X worms come out a year later and don't even propagate automatically.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  14. Since you guys killed the server last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...and I'm still upset I haven't gotten to read the OSX paper ;)

    Here's a mirror. Don't hammer too hard, k?

    http://seraphim.ecsis.net/~gregday/WORMPAPER.pdf

  15. /.ing the NSA!!?!?!! by Monf · · Score: 5, Funny
    I can't believe you /.ed the NSA - http://www.nsa.gov/snac/support/WORMPAPER.pdf

    we're all screwed now...

    --
    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
  16. Difficult thing about worms... by OnlineAlias · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They never seem to stay the same. They take advantage of things that no one previously thought of, which is why they are so damaging. Defense in depth is great and all, but the next killer worm will probably blow through all of it...

    1. Re:Difficult thing about worms... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ``They take advantage of things that no one previously thought of''

      From what I can tell, holes exploited by worms are often just common vulnerabilities. Buffer overflows, format strings, cross-site scripting vulnerabilities, are all old news.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  17. Re:What happened to Darwinism? by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wish they could just come out and clearly advocate diverstity among OSes. The biggest threat IMO is the ubiquity of holes, not severity.

    Following the diversity mantra would require me to install Windows on some servers and run IIS. I doubt that this increases security of my systems, especially because I don't know much about Windows server administration.

  18. Why I don't want a "secure" OS by RealProgrammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a regular discussion (or flame war) over which operating system is more "secure": Windows, Linux, the BSDs, Mac OS X, or whatever. Anyone with a bit of understanding knows that there's no answer to that discussion, except if you ask which one is easiest to secure, and even then you have to ask who the securer is and what tasks will be performed. But that's not what I want to talk about.

    Telling less experience users that a particular OS is "secure" leads them to think they don't need to be vigilant. Same thing with telling them a firewall will solve their worm problems, or that as long as they keep up with patches they're safe from attacks. All of these are important, but no single one of them is a panacea.

    I didn't RTFPDF, but it's common wisdom that a multi-layered approach to security is best. No individual step fixes everything, nor usually even stops all of the attacks it's designed to stop. All we do is raise the bar, and hope attackers will go elsewhere.

    So don't tell me that an OS is "secure". I know there isn't such a thing. Tell me what its soft spots are, so I can layer other defenses around them. Maybe the bad guys will pass me by for a while.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
    1. Re:Why I don't want a "secure" OS by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I'm not convinced. Let's take the following fictional setup:


      Firewall box is running something like OpenBSD (or some other heavily-audited OS), with a pro-active NIDS that detects abnormal network behaviour and shuts down the offending connection.


      User box is running some sort of B1-class "Trusted OS". (A1 would be nicer, but there aren't any commercial A1-certified OS'.) The OS has file-integrity checkers, such as Tripwire, to screen for infections. All externally-originating connections are host-authenticated. RSH and other "vulnerable" protocols are totally disabled. All passwords are validated as "strong" and kept in a secure file or database. Again, all software is heavily audited. Anything considered potentially "unsafe" is run with strict bounds-checking and in a highly controlled environment (eg: a chrooted "jail".)


      In practice, I don't know of any user who actually has a setup of this kind, but let's suppose someone did. Would they still need to be vigilent? Is there anything that is likely to be able to bust through that kind of security? Even if a potential exploit existed somewhere along the chain, isn't the chain sufficiently extensive that nobody could ever make use of it?


      And even if someone could bust through and seize control of such a machine, isn't the threshold so high that the only people able to do it would likely not be stopped by anything you as a user could possibly do? No matter how vigilent you were?


      I believe that "secure" computers can exist, that there is nothing fundamentally impossible about having a setup that is, to any practical degree, uncrackable but still useful to users.


      I don't believe any such systems exist for home users. (I don't consider a top-end SGI box, running the latest and greatest version of IRIX, to be a device you could really call a home computer.) However, equally, I don't believe there is any law of nature which prevents such systems existing for home users.


      When (not if) such systems are developed for the home user, I think it would be very safe for such users to cut back on security patches and eternal vigilence. The combination of holes required to breach such a system would be unlikely to exist, so letting a few holes slide shouldn't be a problem.


      And if someone was good enough to get through all those layers of automatic defence, they'd likely be good enough to get past any defence a mere individual could put up, no matter how vigilent they were.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  19. Make MS security a point of nat;l security by gelfling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really don't understand that if the government spends billions of dollars a year on IT products and billions more in house fixing the holes why they don't simply create a master RFP for Microsoft clearly articulating what the security requirements are and that if they are not met they lose pieces of the bid until it is. I mean if the DoD doesn't have the clout to bash these lazy slackers in Redmond upside the head then we're all wasting our time worrying about security.

    MS annnounced yesterday that they are seriously considering ending FREE security patches in order,

    now listen real carefully -

    NOT to provide better or worse security, but to wield an effective blunt object against counterfeiters.

    Microsoft views YOUR security as nothing more than a convenient tool to blackmail the entire known world into paying for MS's product. It doesn't matter that you or I never actually stole any of their product - we WILL be threatened with cyber terrorism for the criminalities of other people until WE ALL cough up more money to pay.

    And at the end of the day MS makes zero warranty that patches that cost real money will be any better than the FREE updates we already get.

    Seriously, in other countries and in other industries this why industries get nationalized by an irate fed up underserviced populace.

  20. I really want to see a proper worm anlysis by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, when you start feeling like a worm?

    Do you feel like people are always looking down on you?

    Do you feel segmented and isolated from society?

    Do you worry about cholesterol given you have 8 hearts.

    Are you always this slimy or are you just pleased to see me?

    This is the sort of stuff we really need to know because to borrow the immortal words of that famous philosopher, John Rambo "To survive worm you must become worm".

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  21. Re:Using ggv...Digest Version by fshalor · · Score: 2, Funny

    Jeeze man... U type like I do. :)

    --
    -=fshalor ::this post not spellchecked. move along::
  22. *BSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FreeBSD and OpenBSD make damn good worm-resistant webservers too.

  23. thank you by dJOEK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I, as a European, would like to thank our American friends for funding this information for the entire world

    It's very nice to see that an organisation such as NSA makes this info Globally Accessible.
    This is important, especially with your current president.

    Of course, the US benefits from the fact that worms do not spread to the nation of freedom

    So once again, thank you for knowing we exist!

    PS Slashdot is America-centric ! ;-)

    --
    Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
  24. Just Wondering... by Jameth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On this topic of layered defenses:

    Is it possible to use the Xen VM that was on Slashdot earlier today to run multiple OSes and use one OS on the machine as a firewall for the other?

    Could you rig the setup of one so that it couldn't crash the hardware, it could at most make itself crash and reboot without the computer going with it?

    1. Re:Just Wondering... by Spoing · · Score: 4, Informative
      1. Is it possible to use the Xen VM that was on Slashdot earlier today to run multiple OSes and use one OS on the machine as a firewall for the other?

      If you mean stacking VMs up to filter traffic...no...that won't work.

      If you mean stacking VMs so that only specific VMs 'see' each other at the network level, yes. That works with VMs or connected systems with properly configured routers.

      The reason? Firewalls are not designed to block the network. Firewalls are designed to allow access for specific ports in specific ways. If you chain systems together, and each hands off the allowed packets to the destination system, you've just punched a hole through the firewall to that final system.

      By isolating systems so that only ones that are required to 'see' each other can 'see' each other, you've added a meaningful level of protection. This does not require a firewall. It requires router configuration even if the router is software running in another VM and routes for VMs on the same machine. It also requires that you design services and apps to work in this environment; seperate the web server from the DB for example. If it is a web server, and you just remap the default web server port 80 to another port, you've done nothing; the data still passes both ways and the destination is still potentially exposed.)

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  25. Re:Good grief by lifeblender · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From their own report, it doesn't look like it:

    "It is unrealistic to assume that users will become cautious about running unknown files."
    p. 6, last line of second paragraph

    Even the NSA thinks ordinary people won't get smart about computer security.

    --
    Playing pornographics games during the day is evil! Play at night!
  26. Re:Alive? by Twanfox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering there is a complete cycle that the worms take to propagate and persist, without user intervention, I would say that you could (not have to) consider them akin to what kinds of life you would find in biological viruses. They're pretty stupid. They generally stick to doing one thing. Once they're known and decoded, a defense can be formed.

    However, reading the article, the advance of programming technology is getting pretty sneaky. Self-decrypting program code (hmm.. similar to DNA, only the parts in use are exposed), Self-modifying code (probably close here, though with VB's capacity to recompile on any windows machine...), Command and Control, built in analytical heuristics (worms using scanners and 'decision making' on how to propogate), and even getting to the point where they start to operate at less than full throttle to avoid the common detection method, interference in the host's performance.

    The similarity between computer worms and viruses and biological viruses is very close, just on different platforms. While these aren't 'alive' in the common sense, they sure have the capacity to act like it on occasion.

    Wonder what's next. Worms that record where it sends itself to in order to form a distributed AI Network?

  27. Re:Using ggv...Digest Version by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Funny

    My.... eyes. They burn!

    --
    How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  28. Why I don't have to be vigilant by RealProgrammer · · Score: 2, Insightful
    [Setup is a firewall and locked-down OS]. Would they still need to be vigilent? Is there anything that is likely to be able to bust through that kind of security? Even if a potential exploit existed somewhere along the chain, isn't the chain sufficiently extensive that nobody could ever make use of it?

    My point is that you need to have that kind of situation, which is a multi-layered approach.

    But to answer directly, yes, they still need to be vigilant. They're still being a client, unless the box is unplugged from the network. Do I download that RPM or MSI and install it, or do I check it out first? Do I log in as root, or do I waste time with a luser account?

    The user who thinks he has a "secure" OS doesn't bother with the basics, or with a virus checker, or checking the signature on a tarball.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  29. Tax Joke? by MicroBerto · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm not sure if "Your tax dollars at work" was a joke or not, but even as a Libertarian, I have no problem with this. If the government spends resources to educate some people and it ends up saving them hundreds of thousands in the long haul, then that is worth my taxdollars if you ask me.

    Then again, they should already know how to do this and learn for themselves, but a dollar saved is a dollar earned. Damn worms!

    --
    Berto