Slashdot Mirror


How Much Harm Can One Web Site Do?

Ben Edelman has written extensively on issues including censorship and spyware. He's got a very interesting piece on his site now about who profits from spyware, and how much spyware can be installed on a Windows XP machine when the user simply visits a single Web site using Internet Explorer.

31 of 501 comments (clear)

  1. not much... by domenic+v1.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    if you use another browser like Firefox?

    1. Re:not much... by willy134 · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would be pretty secure I think.

      No network, no spyware!!!

      --
      Can you ping me now?... Good!
    2. Re:not much... by robslimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You guys on the "don't install SP2!" bandwagon need to wise up.

      I am personally responsible for the software on 67 windows computers at a university. I am jointly responsible for almost 400 of same.

      On the image I created and support, there are 93 applications loaded on top of a base XP install. These range from silly stuff like DivX player to Pro/Engineer. I had to test each and every one of them for SP2 compatibility.

      A grand total of 4 applications wouldn't work at all. 2 or 3 more had minor problems. Every one of those with problems were corrected by getting updated versions of said app.

      Any other usability problems are strictly a function of the firewall and if you (being a /.er) can't deal with that, then you don't need to be using a computer or posting in this forum.

    3. Re:not much... by Rombuu · · Score: 4, Funny

      Current common wisdom if you are an idiot I guess.

      --

      DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
    4. Re:not much... by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 4, Funny


      You guys on the "don't install SP2!" bandwagon need to wise up.

      You straight up office/cube/lab support guys need to wise up. There's more to life than IE/Outlook/Office. Where I work, we use PCs to analyze genomic data and communicate and control robotic devices that gather DNA information. Often, esp the control software, is written specifically for a version of Win2K, let alone be able to update to XP S2. You heard me right--there's still lots of instances of NT, and even some Mac OS 7.5.3. In many cases, the original vendor is non-existent, hard to reach, or they specifically recommend against updating to a newer version. Often, security updates will break functionality that these applications depend on.

      So thanks for the info. I'm sure XP SP2 makes a good kiosk. However, the guy that decided to run a $300K sequencer off a $700 Dell using some bastardized version of Java, and also can't be upgraded to XP or anything reasonably secure needs to have their head examined. I'm looking at you, ABI.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    5. Re:not much... by sadler121 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not all of us can run SP2 -- It just breaks too many things.

      I'm running SP2 and nothing has broken thus far. Normally when people complain about SP2 breaking stuff (like a game that will not play online after patching to SP2) it has to do with the upgraded firewall. Tweaking the firewall is all that is needed to get your game (and 9 times out of 10 X app)running agian.

      All in all, I think Microsoft did a good job with SP2. The security center is something that should have been in the control panel to begin with. Its good to have some centralized location.

      But yeah, SP2 fixed a lot of things in Windows and it really didn't *break* things, it just tighten some bolts that then required the user to go and loosen what he/she wanted to use. (instead of leaving the whole damn computer open)

    6. Re:not much... by Westech · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, SP2 broke my SuperShopper HappySmiley E-Deals toolbar! Luckily, once I uninstalled it everything went back to normal.

    7. Re:not much... by Lordrashmi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Specialized machines should be locked down, no internet access, no right to install anything or run anything other the the specific programs they need. They could only read from and write to a specific network drive. Anything else is nuts.

    8. Re:not much... by deaddeng · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are at least two other IE exploits out there that MS has not patched, and SP2 won't protect you. see: http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2004-11-20 Quote: Two More IE Vulnerabilities Exploit code has been released for two more Internet Explorer vulnerabilities that were released on Wednesday (Nov. 17). This code would enable an attacker to trick users into executing malware. These vulnerabilities affect Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 SP2 and are not prevented by Windows XP SP2. The original advisory is here: http://secunia.com/advisories/13203/ The proof of concept exploit: http://www.k-otik.com/exploits/2041119.IESP2disclo sure.php While on the topic, it is interesting to note some statistics that Secunia has been compiling about Internet Explorer vulnerabilities: IE 5.01 - 42 advisories (7 unpatched) http://secunia.com/product/9/ IE 5.5 - 55 advisories (8 unpatched) http://secunia.com/product/10/ IE 6.0 - 69 advisories (18 unpatched) http://secunia.com/product/11/ If you still think SP2 has mystical properties: http://www.safecenter.net/UMBRELLAWEBV4/ie_unpatch ed/

      --
      --- .085 as cool; proving that a little knowledge is dangerous
    9. Re:not much... by thetoastman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some of us don't install SP2 because we're not using Win/XP or Win/XP Professional. I am currently running Win/2000 Professional when I am on the Windows side of this machine.

      Unfortunately, Windows/2000 Professional is vunerable to these exploits and there is no patch available. I have a fully patched system, run the latest version of Norton's, and sit behind a Linksys router/switch. If I use IE or Outlook I run the risk of getting spyware, viruses, and trojan horses. There are no patches.

      Fortunately, I do not use IE on Windows/2000 except to check my web authoring. I do not use Outlook in any form. In fact, I do not read mail on my Windows/2000 side.

      However, I have real problems with all of this. As far as I know, Windows/2000 Professional has not reached end of life. I didn't find any information on the Microsoft web site, but you never know. Until Windows/2000 Professional hits end of life, I expect to have at least the same level of security that the latest patched Windows/XP Professional has.

      I am comfortable using alternate tools, and in fact I prefer them (Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, etc.). However, I do not think that having my computer exposed to malware that I can do nothing about is reasonable, esepcially when the same fixes are available for Windows/XP Professional.

      I know that one solution is to upgrade to Windows/XP Professional. There are really no advantages to me in upgrading to Windows/XP Professional. I can test ASP.NET, develop C#, run Tomcat/Apache, write Perl, and use MySQL or PostgreSQL quite nicely on Windows/2000 Professional. For my $200 retail price I get an OS with a bigger footprint, menus that purposely hide non-Microsoft software, and a host of other impediments to computer usage.

      Ah . . . but I do get the latest security upgrades from Microsoft, many of which are not available for Windows/2000. This is true even though Windows/2000 Professional is a fully supported product.

      An average user is not going to be aware of these considerations when using a computer. An average user will not be aware that while Windows/XP SP2 is patched properly, the same diligence will not suffice for Windows/2000.

      A lot more can be said about Microsoft's marketing, planned obselence, and deceptive business practices, but that would probably be off-topic.

  2. How much harm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, if it's Slashdot, it can leave your server a smoldering wreck.

  3. In Case It Gets Slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the site.

    I've written before about unwanted software installed on users' computers via security holes. For example, in July I mentioned that 180solutions software was being installed through Internet Explorer vulnerabilities. (See also 1, 2, 3) More recently, researchers Andrew Clover and Eric Howes (among others: 1, 2) have described increasing amounts of unwanted software being installed through security holes.

    How bad is this problem? How much junk can get installed on a user's PC by merely visiting a single site? I set out to see for myself -- by visiting a single web page taking advantage of a security hole (in an ordinary fresh copy of Windows XP), and by recording what programs that site caused to be installed on my PC. In the course of my testing, my test PC was brought to a virtual stand-still -- with at least 16 distinct programs installed. I was not shown licenses or other installation prompts for any of these programs, and I certainly didn't consent to their installation on my PC.

    In my testing, at least the following programs were installed through the security hole exploit: 180solutions, BlazeFind, BookedSpace, CashBack by BargainBuddy, ClickSpring, CoolWebSearch, DyFuca, Hoost, IBIS Toolbar, ISTbar, Power Scan, SideFind, TIB Browser, WebRebates (a TopMoxie distributor), WinAD, and WindUpdates. (All programs are as detected by Ad-Aware.)

    See a video of the installations (WindowsMedia format, view in full screen mode when prompted). The partial screen-shot at left shows some of the new directories created by the security exploit.

    Other symptoms of the infection included unwanted toolbars, new desktop icons (including sexually-explicit icons), replacement desktop wallpaper ("warning! you're in danger! all you do with computer is stored forever in your hard disk ... still there and could broke your life!" (s.i.c.)), extra popup ads, nonstandard error pages upon host-not-found and page-not-found error conditions, unrequested additions to my HOSTS file, a new browser home page, and sites added to my browser's Trusted Sites zone.

    I've been running similar tests on a daily basis for some time. Not shown in the video and screen-shot above, but installed in some of my other tests: Ebates Moe Money Maker, EliteToolBar, XXXtoolbar, and Your Site Bar.

    Installation of 180solutions software through security holes is particularly notable because 180 specifically denies that such installations occur. 180's "privacy pledge" claims that 180 software is "permission based" and is "programs are only downloaded with user consent and opt-in." These claims are false as to the installation occuring in the video linked above, and as to other installations I have personally observed. Furthermore, 180's separate claim of "no hiding" is false when 180 software is installed into nonstandard directories (i.e. into C:\Windows rather than a designated folder within Program Files) and when 180 software is installed with a nonstandard name (i.e. sais.exe) rather than a name pertaining to 180's corporate name or product names.

    What's particularly remarkable about these exploits is that the bad actors here aren't working for free. Quite the contrary, they're clearly expecting payment from the makers of the software installed, payments usually calculated on a per-install basis. (For example, see a 2003 message from 180solutions staff offering $0.07 per installation.) By reviewing my network logs, I can see the specific "partner" IDs associated with the installations. If the installers want to get paid, they must have provided accurate payment details (address, bank account number, etc.) to the makers of the programs listed above. So it should be unusually straightforward to track down who's behind the exploits -- just follow the money trail. I'm working on passing on this information to suitable authorities.

    Note that the latest version of Internet Explorer, as patched by Windows XP Service Pack 2, is not vulnerable to the installations shown in my video and discussed above.
    1. Re:In Case It Gets Slashdotted... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How bad is this problem? How much junk can get installed on a user's PC by merely visiting a single site?

      If you can install 1 piece of spyware you can install 1000 or 1000000. Once you're pwned you're pwned, "how much" is entirely irrelevant.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. Umm... by telstar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Am I supposed to click that link? Finally, we've found the antidote to slashdotting!

    1. Re:Umm... by Zoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, he has writing abilities that would fit right in here:

      ("warning! you're in danger! all you do with computer is stored forever in your hard disk ... still there and could broke your life!" (s.i.c.))

      OK, if you're going to make fun of someone's English, don't turn the Latin word sic into an acronym. Super Intelligent Comment? Sick Internet Creep? Silly Immature Cretin? Sadly Impoverished Credibility?

  5. Windows XP? by cyfer2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    how much spyware can be installed on a Windows XP machine when the user simply visits a single Web site using Internet Explorer.

    Am I safe if I am on a win2k machine?

    --
    There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
  6. What was the actual web page? by lxt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I did (for once...) read the article, but didn't download the video my question might be answered in that (although if it is only answered in the video, that's pretty stupid - I'm sure many people can't view it, and it's WMV, so I wouldn't actually want to...) but does he actually say what the website visited was?

    I mean, I'm guessing most people would visit a reputable search engine, or the default MSN page when they first installed Windows and opened up IE, instead of what I'm guessing must be a fairly dodgy site in order to install so much spyware.

    That's not to discredit what he's done - I'm sure novice users would easily get onto these sort of spyware laden pages by mistake pretty quickly...I'm just interested, that's all.

    1. Re:What was the actual web page? by crimoid · · Score: 5, Informative

      He used xpire.info/fa?d=get which then redirects to a series of other pages on the same site, eventually landing at www.sp2fucked.biz/user28/2DimensionOfExploitsEnc.p hp which in turn prompts him with an error and a dialoge box asking if he wants to continue executing scripts, to which he clicks "yes" after which all hell breaks loose.

  7. How much harm can ONE site do?!! by RiscIt · · Score: 5, Funny

    I LOVE the headline

    Apparently we're forgetting the word "slashdot" as a verb.

  8. No surpises here. by RatBastard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    None of this is a surprise to me. I've been dealing with this crap at work for years now. Spyware is teh single biggest headache the ITS department I work for has to deal with. We spend more time cleaning spyware out than viruses. XP Service Pack 2 has helped a lot, and so has encourgaing the use of FireFox, however, at least 55% of our systems still run Windows 2000 and a lot of the resources we need to access online only work in IE.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  9. s.i.c. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    From TFA:

    "warning! you're in danger! all you do with computer is stored forever in your hard disk ... still there and could broke your life!" (s.i.c.)

    Anyone else find the improper spelling of "sic" (used by an editor to mark improper spelling or usage in a quoted piece of text) to be humorous, or is it just me?

  10. Not impressed by digrieze · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay, let's see, this guy loads up an OS ("fresh", as he writes) that has been targeted by the net scum since it came out, so we know it's vulnerable to every exploit designed for it. Goes to a troll site for 180 and then complains about how awful it is when during installation/first net logon he should have gone straight into the patching process that would have prevented it (in other words, he had to cancel critical patching out intentionally).

    This is akin to throwing matches at a tub of gasoline and writing an expose' when it catches fire. Either this guy had too little to write about, had too much time on his hands, or had to win a bet and is trying to slip this one by someone.

    Even he admitted his lousy methodology in his last sentence.

    This isn't news. It's just a bone thrown out to keep the resident "gotta flame microsofties" happy with a fix for the day.

    --
    It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
  11. Again, sensationalism trumps truth by Swamii · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I RTFA, and hidden away deep in the article, we find this gem:

    Note that the latest version of Internet Explorer, as patched by Windows XP Service Pack 2, is not vulnerable to the installations shown...

    In other words, he's running all this on an unpatched XP machine.

    Now, before the Slashdot horde stabs me repeatedly with a big sharp knife for being a Microsoft apologist, consider this situation. I've got an old version of Firefox with a few exploits in it. I report the exploit, and the response I get is that these exploits are already patched. Yet I decide to write a story about the horrific exploits, post it to Slashdot, and stir up a raucus about how bad FireFox's security is.

    What I'm proposing is that Slashdot report it's stories with less sensationalism and more professionalism. Put in the story that all this was run on an unpatched machine, and that the said security holes have already been fixed.

    Thank you.

    --
    Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    1. Re:Again, sensationalism trumps truth by zulux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other words, he's running all this on an unpatched XP machine.


      The same problem happens on:

      A patched Windows 2000 Machine
      A patched Windows XP SP1 Machine
      A patched Windows XP Machine
      A patched Windows 98 Machine

      To get browser security from Microsoft requirs a user of Windows 98 to spend $100 to get XP and then spend the next two days trying to install it and getting it to work right with his scanner/fax/printer.

      Or our Winodws 98 friend could just download Firefox.

      Why Microsoft wont realease a standaline Internet Explorer for its old systems is obvious: The want to suck more money out of people. And they suck.

      If Slakware can update thier browser - why in the fuck cant one of the largest companies in the world do the same?

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  12. Re:You could always use a Mac. by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Insightful
    They are not "immune", but at the very least is a lot harder to install spyware/virus/etc, and the no-monoculture effect helps too.

    The main defense is their structural strenght, i.e. being thinked from the basis as multiuser, where you have very separated the system admin (the one that have some permission over i.e. what programs are installed) over the user that browses internet.

    And dont forget that here the blame goes both for the operating system author (Microsoft) and the browser author (Microsoft again), both good examples of what happens when security is the least priority.

  13. Another good write-up here: by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 5, Informative
    The "Follow the Bouncing Malware" series at ISC's Internet Storm Center has been quite good, too; it looks at what happened to Ordinary Joe's Windows computer when he surfs:

    Part 4 is coming Real Soon Now (tm). The ISC handler's diary is required daily reading; always a lot of good stuff to be found. (And every now and then, there's a tale that'll make your blood run cold...)
  14. You're missing both points by Old+Man+Kensey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The first point, which we all know, is that Windows sucks. However, his main point has nothing to do with the vulnerabilities per se, and everything to do with the culpability of the sites and software authors that knowingly use security holes to install these programs without notice to or consent from the user, and in fact make it as hard as possible to detect them and remove them because they know full well their business depends on keeping the software there by any means necessary, ethical or not.

    If I leave my door unlocked, I'm an idiot, but if you then walk in and steal my TV while I'm gone and sell it at the local pawnshop you're still just as much a criminal as if you smashed a steel door in with an APC: an unlocked door is not in itself an invitation to enter and make oneself at home. The same principle applies here: the sites and software authors are not the legitimate businesspeople they try to convince everyone they are.

    --
    -- Old Man Kensey
  15. Re:You could always use a Mac. by rainman_bc · · Score: 4, Informative

    IE runs under a user with administrator privileges

    No, IE runs under whatever user you are logged in as. One should definately learn to manage users. No argument there.

    , but I am of the opinion that users have every right to be stupid,

    Yet we all own cars... If you are too stupid to add oil to your car and you burn out your engine... It's not the manufacturers fault. There's a certain level of responsibility the users should bear as well. Users have a right to be stupid, but should pay up when they screw their computers up the same way car owners should pay if they don't maintain their vehicle or use it correctly.

    . If XP needs all of these security patches just to keep going, where a mac or linux box could stand like a column of basalt for years

    Again, Bullshit! There's security holes in Linux and FreeBSD. That's why we have utilities in Fedora like up2date, portupgrade, etc. So you can automate the patching of those security holes.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  16. Win2K is just as bad. by John+Sokol · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I reciently installed a new win2K system and installed the latest service pack 4.

    I also killed all the services. and it never ran a web browser. Just mysql. I didn't have any antivirus software on it.

    So after placing it on an unfirewalled connection in a locked room, withing 2 hours there were over dozens of virus, worm and spyware installed on the system till it crashed and couldn't even boot. Coming up with 100's of DLL errors!

    Again we never open a single web page.

    Specificaly some of what was installed was:

    alte.exe
    beird.exe
    c.bat
    clonzips.ssc
    clsobe rn.isc
    cvqaikxt.apk
    cult.exe
    cygwin1.dll
    dgssx y.yoi
    dual.exp
    emoti.bat
    enotxa2.exe
    explorx.e xe
    ger.exe
    gt.x
    hosts was altered
    knlps.exe
    knlps.sys
    ksat.bat
    medo.dl
    mirc.exe
    nonzipsr.noz
    ntcnsl.dll
    orrl.exe
    Odin -Anon.Ger
    repcale.exe
    riqa
    scheduler.exe
    sysmm s32.lla
    svcshost.exe
    titlex.exe
    w.e
    wshield.ex e
    winguard.exe
    ymnz.exe
    unmt.exe
    vnicmon.exe
    zema
    a qsws directory
    zippedsr.piz

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
  17. My mom by ff1324 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While so many are quick to point out that he used an unpatched machine, that he should know better, that he's just doing it to be difficult, that he can fix it. He know's he should install SP2, he knows he should have his firewall set up. He knows he should practice safe surfing....but my mom doesn't know this stuff.

    For every computer whiz (like most of us that visit /.), there's a thousand users like my mom who know that you turn on the box, move the little mouse around, and she can type emails to the whole family every day. Then she surfs around on the internet, types something in wrong, clicks on the wrong site, and now can't send the emails to the family and can't order my Christmas presents from Amazon.

    Spyware is a pain in the ass for us, but its a nightmare for the computer novices!

  18. virgin install by fishdan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    At our crazy workplace, with around 60k networks PCs, It takes about 20 seconds to get infected with a virgin install. As a result, all the installers now carry flash drives with zonealarm, adaware, and our anti-virus flavor of the month. We install ALL that before connecting to the network.

    It bothers me that some people still install windows while connected to the internet.

    --
    Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm