Slashdot Mirror
DNS Cache Poisoning Spreads Malware
Gamma_UCF writes "As of April 4, 2005 the SANS Internet Storm Center has raised their alert level to Yellow following a rash of active DNS poisonings. The infected DNS servers are re-directing users from popular sites such as Google or American Express to malware infecting advertising sites. According to the ISC presentation on the attack, it is believed to be linked to known spammers and malware distributors. The full presentation of information up until this point can be found here."
- Change the company's DNS server here to map google.com to a private machine here on the network.
- Create a frontend on the internal machines here that looks exactly like google.com
- Map the internal IP addresses on the network to specific people here.
- Inject specific "spooky" messages into the search results based on the IP address of the querying
machine. Examples would be like: "How about looking at some pr0n, Mr. Bridges?" or "You really
should have that bald patch looked at, sir."
- April Fools! HA HA!
- Look for a new job.
Oh well, you only live once./^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Anyone who has been on irc for over 8 years remembers when DNS cache poisoning first started showing up (about 97.)
/dline ipmask :reason."
This is a quote from the "IRC Operators Guide" written in 8/97:
"DNS spoofing is a relatively new hit these days on IRC. You'll generally find spoofs one of two ways - you're watching the connections (usermode +c) and an unusual hostmask appears, or a user reports one. The first thing to do is to get the user's IP address (/stats L nick), and check to see if the DNS lookup matches the IP address. If it doesn't, you know you have a spoof. With this information, you can KILL the spoof, and when it reconnects, see where the real host is and issue a K-line (which won't stop them from spoofing again, but will prevent them from signing on *without* spoofing). Some servers have the capability of D-lines, which allow you to ban by ip mask. A D-line will prevent the client from connecting at all, regardless of whether they try DNS spoofing or not. If the server supports the DLINE command, you can do
It has been a well known problem since way back then and it has still not be dealt with in any real way.
following a rash of active DNS poisonings
:/
Damn internet rashes, they're the worst. Remember, dont surf without protecting your board.
I am sooo glad that SANS uses colored alerts like "Homeland" Security. Its pretty tacky. I guess the first time I heard about it was in the orginal Star Trek. Nothing tacky there.
I give it two years until the sight of a rainbow fills me with abject terror and confusion.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
I've not really looked into it, but how do you go about poisoning DNS?
Get your own free personal location tracker
I didn't think DNS servers needed web browsers.
Then why haven't we hard about it before it got this serious?
I mean, isn't there a way to make people aware of stuff like that? I don't want some script kiddie seeing my google searches for pr0n.
Jay | http://oldos.org
Is this done basically by taking over insecure DNS servers or is something more subtle involved, e.g. making comuters treat your machine as their DNS server instead?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Worse, perhaps, is that all these problems may encourage some horrible proprietary internet standards to arise, claiming safety from ad/spy/malware, phishing, etc. and all the cattle have to do is sign up, abandoning the old internet.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's the malware on the sites that the infected DNS servers redirect to.
--Mike Boos
I've been using Opera for 6 years now and I'm a little confused.
What is "malware"?
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
Oh, wait...
Idiot.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
As a rather well known expert in the field of cybersecurity, I offer the following solutions (sans my standard $450/hr rate) -
Turn the lifetime of all DNS records to 0. This way they will not be cached, hence no poisoning issues
Upgrade everyone to BIND 9.0 - including Windows - and turn on crypto. This will add security so malicious users can connect and poison the DNS cyber buffer!
Implementing these 2 will solve 90% of problems. Free advice from a top security consultant at Foundstone. (you'd know my name)
Has anybody tried to redirect windowsupdate.microsoft.com? That could potentially install malware at massive privilege levels and therefore impossible to remove. And it's done automatically.
That's the reason I don't auto-update. I'll let it download the software but I'm waiting a few days before installing it. Hopefully in the intervening time somebody would say, "For the love of God please don't install update #77439245!"
Isn't this kind of attack on the global Internet exactly the kind of thing that Homeland Security's "Cybersecurity" department is responsible for stopping? What are we paying them billions of dollars, and suspending our liberties, to do? While we're at it, what's the difference between National security, Homeland security, and Defense? Aren't they all just riding a single planebombing to unchecked power and riches, without accountability or results?
--
make install -not war
llamas feed upon themselves!!!
And besides, there are plenty of cross-platform attack you could do with this.
Want a copy of a user's eBay cookie? (Ok maybe eBay doesn't save passwords this way but you get the point, lots of sites do. It's like phishing, but the computer believes it's genuine, not just the user).
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Run Firefox on Gentoo as a non-root user on an AMD64 in 64-bit mode.
Nobody writes software [in binary only form] let alone viruses for that platform...
[Anyone know of a flash plugin that actually works in 64-bit mode? I've tried gflash and the default macromedia ones...]
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I bet that malware is Internet Explorer-specific.
Yes. It's so great to use a web browser that doesn't rely on Microsoft technology like DNS...
Oh, wait...
Yes, the malware is almost certainly designed to install via IE, not other (better) browsers.
Methinks the idiot here is the one who signed
his post "Idiot"
Well, yes, but I meant the malware on the sites redirected to. Obvoiusly, you can't avoid the DNS cache poisoning, so this would be annoyingly effective for phishing.
There's an old saying that says pretty much whatever you want it to.
- "dnscache does not cache (or pass along) records outside the server's bailiwick; those records could be poisoned. Records for foo.dom, for example, are accepted only from the root servers, the dom servers, and the foo.dom servers."
Djbdns"dnscache is immune to cache poisoning."
While I don't think I'm in the clear because of this, I feel better protected from the (unwashed ;)) internet. Anyone care to comment, please do, as I've just started using this and want to know how effective it is.
bo
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
...perhaps a lead pipe would.
The people who perpetrate this kind of thing are nothing short of criminals and these people are not being persued and prosecuted as they should be.
They need the crap beat out of them is what they need. I wonder if/when it will happen though...
If you read down the SANS presentation you come to this:
The following list shows how far-reaching this attack proved to be. The list is a small, categorized excerpt of the 665 domain names from his site (with my short notes) that were being re-directed to hostile web servers. It is very important to note that e-mail, FTP logins, HTTPS sessions, and other types of traffic were also being re-directed to the malicious servers. We do not believe that the attacker was reading e-mail or collecting passwords, but we have no conclusive proof to assert either theory.
Totally browser/machine agnostic attacks, no user intervention. If you look at the names of the sites, many of them are financial institutions! And all of those victims that click okay everytime they get an "invalid certificate" message. Be afraid, very afraid.
I was throwing you the 48, but you made me switch to the 132.
The full presentation of information up until this point can be found here."
But are you really really really sure that it is?
ah, yes... now, i just hope someone just doesn't say firefox "secures" you from dns-poisoning.
--- infoGreG
For the longest time, I've been running Treewalk my Win32 machines, hence I guess I'm immune to this.
http://ntcanuck.com/
what does that have to do with the article? Do you think fly-by-night, get-rich-quick, screw-the-world folks who sneak malware onto your system care about that?
And do you not think the internet will persist regardless, and will instead create another AOL type sub-internet (like China) with filtered content?
You dont have to have DNS poisonning to get redirected to another website or get altered search result.
Download my web search,kazaa,e-donkey and those crapy software that gives you all those neat(sucky) tools for searching the web,,,,just see what the results are when you search for something and it gives you weird asnwers...
OH wait Internet explorer's search engine does the same thing,,forgot to put it in unwanted crapy search engine.
Have you done this lately? I've never seen so much nonsense, rejections, security denials, et al.
Damn, if only I had checked the "turn on security" box!!
b ;en-us;241352)
From MSFT (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=k
NOTE: On Windows 2000, you can perform the same entry in the GUI. Use the following steps to do this:
1. Open DNS Management Console by clicking Start, Programs, Adminstrative Tools, DNS.
2. Right click on the server name in the left window pane.
3. Choose Properties.
4. Choose the Advanced tab.
5. Place a check in the box "Secure cache against pollution".
Everyone should just learn to remember IP addresses...my email is ac+NOSPAM@127.0.0.1
Of course it doesn't, yet.
For context, click Parent.
The "no" part is that virtually nobody does this. All the protection in the world is useless if you don't use it. Further, the protections that do exist (such as those I mentioned) get redesigned a little too often, making wide-scale rollouts a real problem.
Routers are another key part of the infrastructure where there is plenty in place that COULD prevent poisoning, but where actual use in the "Real World" is limited. If DNS ever does improve, then scammers may well simply shift to poisoning router tables to achieve the same results.
The resources spent on producing quality and security are phenominal. The resources spent on actually putting these into practice can barely be detected with the best tunneling electron microscopes.
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)
I for One welcome.........
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Wait, hold on ... Anonymous Coward?! DUDE! I love your work, I read your posts all the time.
do you realize that Star Trek used them because it has been standard practice for a long while? The election of the new Pope - every vote that doesn't pick someone will be signaled with black smoke. One that does pick someone will be signaled with white smoke. Smoke canisters demark certain types of activities. Green light means go, yellow means caution, red means stop. Color has been used as a quick way of alerting people for long before Star Trek.
If this is such a big problem today, why aren't the folks on NANOG (North American Network Operators Group) discussing it?
signature pending slashdot approval
I guess that when this is eventually blocked, and spammers -really- are out of ideas of what to do next, it's time for the ninja-midgets-phase :
A spammer will employ stealth ninja midgets (or clone them), that will roam around the world causing havoc by typing in their master's URL in your browser, while you're out to get a snack.
Even ST has gone off this and tried to retrofit a "reed" alert.
The article is about DNS Cache poisoning, not DNS spoofing. In DNS cache poisoning you're effectively telling the victim's DNS server to query your (fake) server for all of a class of requests (ie *.com), instead of the one it should be querying. DNS spoofing only tries to fool reverse lookups.
From TFA:
The worst part about DNS cache poisoning is that it affects DNS nodes underneath it in the hierarchy. So if you're below a Windows DNS that gets attacked, you yourself may be subject even if your local DNS is in fact secure.
Oh, and fear caching http proxy servers that touch DNS servers that get poisoned. They can keep the bad data around for a long time.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
I submitted this story on Friday, April 1st, but Slashdot was too damn busy with April Fool's pranks to publish it. It got rejected within minutes.
That's when I realized the Slashdot editors are more interested in peurile humor than in actually notifying their readers of important information that could save them headaches, time and money.
Another thought would be to disable DNS Forwarding services. I understand the purpose of DNS is to distribute the service and pull resources off of the root servers, but if DNS servers are getting spoofed packets after querying the root DNS servers, then I think there is an even bigger problem that needs to be addressed.
...(snip..)
Dave Kennedy, director of research services at Herndon, Va.-based Cybertrust (formerly TruSecure), had this to say about the reports: "It's been nearly a month since SANS started ringing their alarm bells over this and maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I'm grading this as hype until I see some independent support."
Russ Cooper, Cybertrust's chief technologist, put it this way: "In my opinion, our industry's creditiblity comes from further reports from multiple sources. We run a very large operation worldwide, and we've looked for signs of what SANS is talking about, but we're just not seeing it."
All of this may seem like an academic debate to those who claim to have been victimized by these attacks.
On March 24, Ken Goods, a computer network administrator for a mid-sized insurance company in Idaho, learned that the company's DNS servers had been attacked when employees began reporting that their Internet browsers were being redirected to a Web site hawking generic Viagra and other prescription drugs.
"I kept trying to go to Google to research the problem, but even though my Web browser said I was at Google.com, the only content that showed up was this pharmacy site," said Goods, who asked that his employer not be named because the company is still in the process of fixing the problem.
John, a systems administrator for a major U.S.-based manufacturing company, said a DNS poisoning attack like the one SANS described last month led to Internet problems for roughly 8,000 of his company's 20,000 employees. John asked that his surname and employer's identity be omitted from this story because the company is trying to determine if it is still vulnerable.
In the following weeks, several more attacks ensued that sent victims at John's company to Web sites advertising penis-enlargement pills.
Marcus Sachs, director of SANS and a former White House cyber-security adviser, said the security industry's response to their alerts about the attacks has been little more than a collective "yawn." Meanwhile, Sachs said, it appears the Internet connection at a San Diego hotel where the organization is holding its annual conference this week also was hit with a poisoning attack (the guy at the hotel who handles Web site security hasn't yet returned my calls.)
"People are waving this off and saying 'This is nothing new, we've seen this kind of thing before, let's move on.' But the consensus amongst the SANS folks is that something doesn't feel right here, and that there's more to this story than meets the eye. We feel like there's something deeper going on here, but the fact is there are not a lot of people out there in the security industry who are willing to dig deep and get to the bottom of this."
...because you never know who you're dealing with.
ah, yes... now, i just hope someone just doesn't say firefox "secures" you from dns-poisoning.
/etc/hosts for sites you want to secure can..
No, but putting entries in your
When I was young, I had a severe DNS poisoning at school, and the teacher allowed me to go home.
Every undergraduate CS program should integrate some secure coding standards. Something like this:
link
smd4985
Yet another badly written /. submission. Was this submitted by a Microsoft fanboy or something? Check out the actual report and you find that the affected servers are.. "Windows NT4 and 2000 DNS servers" and those that run "Symantec gateway products." This is about as newsworthy as "Windows XP/98/2000/whatever has yet another gaping security hole."
This only sucks if you're using the default nameservers and are signed up with an ISP using shoddy insecure products.
Wrote about this today in his blog:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/
He provides some background and comments from companies effected by the attacks. And he offers some opposing views from SANS and Symantec Corp. on whether this is a serious concern or not.
While eating hot grits off Natalie Portman....
For months now, since at *least* the first of January. It's mostly been google.com, redirecting to some odd webpage, but not any of the ones listed.
I figured the problem is that I was pointing to an old DNS server for SBC. They won't give you the IPs of the new DNS servers unless you fire up their awful PPPoE program. We use Linux, and this incident has been an excuse to remove the last few Windows computers from the network. It'll probably also be an excuse to rid ourselves of SBC's horrendous services.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Did a text search on the presentation. There is no mention of Google being targetted. Infact big G is only mentioned in the "What exactly is DNS cache poisoning?" section.
Welcome to
C.E.R.T. (Computer Emergency Response Team) is the agency you're thinking of. They probably have said lots about this and nobody listened. Just like when they warned people to use any browser besides Internet Explorer, yet if you go to any library and check the public access terminals, or into any government agency and check, you'll still see IE on ALL of them.
I myself don't want the US government (or any countries government) in charge of the internet - Governments can't be trusted not to abuse any authority they get. They always have, and until humans are much, much wiser than we currently are they will continue doing so.
Tommy
Open Source for Open Minds
I'm surprised at how few people have pointed out that djbdns is, and always has been, immune to this type of attack.
My DNS server is a soekris box (small form-factor machine) that runs djbdns off a RAM disk (loaded from a CF card).
Besides a UPS battery failure last year, the box has not been rebooted, had a high CPU load, run out of space (thanks, multilog!) or done anything other than it's job for several years now.
Why do people still torture themselves with BIND (or Windows *shudder*). Set up a little PC with FreeBSD, SSH only from the inside LAN, and djbdns. Nothing else. You won't have a single problem with it, and you don't even have to patch it.
considering that Around 22:30 GMT on March 3, 2005 the SANS Internet Storm Center began
/. posted something arround the 5th of march instead of a month later. Cmdr Taco might not care if everbody knows about his Herpes med and Viagra addiction, but other people might.
receiving reports... and one of the sites affected webmd.com (online medical advice) also processes tons of federaly protected (HIPPA) medical and dental claims, and that there are also
Financial Services
------------------
americanexpress.com (credit cards)
citicards.com (credit cards)
billpay.quickbooks.com (financial software/services)
adp.com (data processing)
hrblockemail.com (financial services)
involved it might have been nice if
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Quoting the article:
That might be news to the people who run imdb.com - it's the internet MOVIE database, not MUSIC database :).
"(Basically, the UNIX-based stuff has been secure against cache poisoning for quite some time, but there may always be a bug or design flaw that is discovered. We are not quite sure why Microsoft left a default configuration to be unsecure in NT4 and 2000. (Exercise to reader: insert Microsoft security comment/opinion/joke here, but keep it to yourself)."
mmphm...!
How about a plugin that listens to DNS lookups.
And when the time comes it can display popup that says: The last 2345 times www.yourbank.com was 111.111.111.111 but this time it is 222.222.222.222
are you sure you want to proceed. Possible DNS poisoning. YES / NO
Can your subconcious run linux?
_____
Thank you.
ATTENTION: ALERT LEVEL UPDATE. The authorities at SANS (Sebben-Affilliated Network Security) have issued this network alert update:
The DNS cache poisoning alert has been upgraded from "Yellow" to "Blackwatch Plaid." Repeat: DNS cache poisoning alert level is now at Blackwatch Plaid.
Available information does not yet justify a further upgrade to alert level "Moving Pictures."
And for everyone's safety and security, and to preserve our way of life, SANS is taking a drastic step and installing a network monitor. Just one. For safety, security, and omniscient, unblinking information gathering of everyone's activities.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
When I directed my friends to locate Spybot Search And Destroy via Google, they got redirected to a software site that claimed to be Spybot Search and Destroy - but the software would not CLEAN infected systems unless you paid. What you end up installing, of course, just installs MORE spyware.
So when you point freinds to Spybot Search and Destroy, you've got to give them the actual download link.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
For goodness' sake, guys! +5 Funny, not +4 Interesting!
You'd think people would get suspicious when they read things like "poison the DNS cyber buffer", but that's probably expecting too much of the typical mod-point wielding slashdotter.
Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
Hey, for a good April Fool's hack, have a look at the site for the commune de Walferdange... Browse around a little bit, AFAIK, there are three easter eggs to be found... I wonder how long it will take until they discover them eggs (they've been in place since April 1st), and then how long it will take until they ditch IIS/ASP
Yes.
What was written in that dialog again?
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
Citizenship guarantees Service!
Questions Guarantee GITMO....
Amerika Uber Alles!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Don't know why you modded me flamebait. I misinterpreted the parent's comment. I thought the parent was implying that by using firefox, you won't be directed to fake sites (which isn't the case because the DNS server is the problem). After getting modded flamebait and reading some of the other comments, I now realize that the parent meant that by using firefox you greatly reduce your chances of getting malware from one of the redirected sites.
Does anyone having a working example of using the "view" configuration to restrict access to query the DNS cache to internal clients?
If you become a victom of a DNS poisoning attack or if you want to avoid that in the first place, you can use a DNS server other than that of your ISP. For example, below are the names of Microsoft DNS servers (that can be expected to work reliably and be relatively safe):
DNS1.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.20
DNS2.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.21
DNS3.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.126
DNS4.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.245.230
DNS5.CP.MSFT.NET 64.4.25.30
DNS7.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.14
The IP-addresses may change when Microsoft changes their DNS Architecture.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
is to start using secured, SIGNED encryption for every site. That way, you'll know if you are really on the site you think you're on.
They don't have to be "in charge of the Internet", any more than they have to be "in charge of the US". How about the FBI catching these criminals?
BTW, though CERT is partially funded by DHS (among others), it is by no means an agency of the government. It is part of "a non-academic unit of Carnegie Mellon University".
--
make install -not war
And all of those victims that click okay everytime they get an "invalid certificate" message.
Yahoo mail's "secure login" has an expired certificate.
The user slowly becomes inured to this kind of thing...
i notice the same problem applies to emails i get advertising rude things so eventually that should work itself out too
DNS poisoning is not new. Using it for fraud is new. Defending against it (if you're Google) is difficult, but not impossible.
..
I swear -- Technical people need to stop addressing these problems with solutions that are technically elegant but unrealistic.
Yeah, lets secure all the nameservers on the Net! sure that'll work. Hell, we've only been doing DNS poisoning attacks for what? 12 years or so? hey well at least we finally got sendmail secure. Doh!
The only way we're going to be able to stop bad guys is to start having applications that use more than one protocol to verify integrity AND start building in stronger indepedent crypto behind the scenes making it much much much harder to spoof. You don't have to change the whole protocol stack we just need to share more information across protocols. Right now, when you compromise one protocol, you own the box. Aiiee!
I'm actually happy this happened -- because I've felt the Net needed a big overhaul for a while. My parents can't safely use the Internet, neither can yours. And all us gunslingers who could keep them safe are too busy securing our damn nameserver, and dealing with joe jobs to do anything about it. The solution requires a more comprehensive look at the problem.
If the bad guys are specifically targeting google with DNS poisoning, it's reasonable to assume it will undermine peoples faith in Google. (ATTENTION FLAMERS: YES, I am aware the request was hijacked long before it got to Google -- but the end user won't be because they don't have a clue what DNS stands for or how it works).
Seriously - your mom/dad would take away from an explanation of DNS hijacking was "Go to google, get a virus" (read the previous article posted earlier today about how people don't understand technobabble)
Does anybody else besides me find this whole thing incredibly ironic? People will see Google as being the problem, even though it's almost definitely Microsofts fault. Damn.. sucks to be Google. (Okay, yeah.. honestly i'd love to have Googlesque problems, but also the Googlesque resources to solve them!)
Anyway I think this sort of article hopefully illustrates to Google why they need to start promoting a secure browser WHICH isn't subject to malware attacks such as IE really is in their best interest -- and although it has a minimal cost impact to them, it has a huge long term impact to the net community. Honestly, I believe if Google offered a "safer" online experience -- i'd put my parents on it in a second, I think everybody here would too. I don't trust Yahoo, MSN, Ask Jeeves, etc. or any of those companies with the tender care of my parents Internet experience.
I say Google - rather than just "firefox", because if Google put Gbrowser on their homepage you know it'd have a 30% usershare virtually overnight -- maybe more. They install the google toolbar, it transmits information about where you're surfing to google -- BUT it also checks with Google to make sure you're at a "safe site" --
OKAY so you want a real example -- how about a simple one -- why not a modified robots.txt with an entry that included a list of the valid IP's for the SOA for your root domain for the next 30 days. Boom, they already pick up robots.txt -- BUT now they can authenticate that the DNS wasn't posioned using google toolbar. Sexy huh?
I've got lots of ideas like this -- there are probably 5 things sites could *OPTIONALLY* do, that merge application stacks -- but at the same time it would make it necessary for a phiser to compromise MULTIPLE hosts, across MULTIPLE protocols -- thereby making it *statistically* impossible.
(NOTE: If I seem brilliant it's only because i'm standing on the shoulders of Giants. I love how SPF uses DNS to authenticate mail servers -- it's non-intrusive, but an illustrative example of the types of solutions that we as a technical community need to solve problems)
why doesn't someone 0wn the idiots who fixed this up?
Get the IPs and the times of the attacks and forward them to the FBI. Voila.
A friend of mine was obsessively tracking a fed ex package of his and told us the progress of it a couple times a day. There happen to be a big hurricane happening, but it wasn't quite in the path of his package's travel. So, I wgett'ed (wgot?) fedex's site and made my own modifications. I just changed the hosts file on my friend's machine to point to my webserver. My friend watched his package get closer and closer, then looked in horror as it took a detour to florida. The next day it was in the fedex damaged package center, and we had to let him in on the joke.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
There's no apostrophe required for the plural, moron!
link
He said "Hey, I thought it was supposed to be free, but they're asking me for my credit card number!" He quickly realized it was a scam site, but many others will not.
Perhaps this is also what you friend did. I just googled for Spybot Search and Destroy, and the first sponsored ad is for noAdware.net which itself is spyware.
There's no incentive for Google to prevent this because they're making money. I wonder if slashdotters could nickel-and-dime the scammers to death. Firefox costs ~ $0.10, Spybot ~ $0.20. Let's try, firefox and spybot - click all the scam Sponsored Ads you see. Repeatedly if desired.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
Johannes Erdfelt wrote the advisory that jizz, erect, etc. were based off of. Nice programs they were.
Turn the lifetime of all DNS records to 0. This way they will not be cached, hence no poisoning issues
Indeed, let us destroy the internet with advice we got from an AC on Slashdot! Talk about "nuking the site from orbit", yeehaw.
I know jack crap about DNS, and this didn't sound right. Thank god for clueless moderators!
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Ummm... don't you mean 132?
Don't click that link! I clicked it and got a really nasty porn site.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Easy way to get on the FBI's most wanted list. You try to hijack fbi.gov, and you'll end up on the most wanted list even if you fail.
I told you so!
Time to stop running BIND and Windows, people.
djbdns is easier to set up by leaps and bounds, anyway.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
you may as well run your own recursive resolver and have complete control
also you can make the local resolver act as authoritive for any domains you like. usefull for redirecting stuff or for internal names etc.
It may be a bit of a "nuclear option", but you could always code addresses for google, yahoo, imdb, etc. sites which receive a lot of traffic in a HOSTS file. This can be especially useful for sites where you are especially concerned...the address of your online banking for instance. One downside is that you can only associate one IP address to a name in a HOSTS file as far as I know and a site like google will have several. Then there is the obvious potential problem of the site changing it's IP (although I doubt google does it very often).
Shitty trick. But that said, googling for Firefox gives me a ton of legitimate links, including to mozilla.org, some Firefox evangelism pages, and loads of other "real" sites.
The only sponsored link I get is to the download.com Firefox download page. Did someone bitch Google out? Do they respond to this sort of thing?
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
FreeDownloadHq.com/Firefox
www.FreeDownloadZone.com/Firefox
www.MP3Advance.com
We are maybe just hitting different google datacenters which have slightly different configurations of which ads to serve.
I think people just have to learn that the sponsored links can be risky and are NOT necessarily relevant to their query.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
Why not check two different DNSs servers?
I never you my slandered ISPs DNS servers anyways, it might take a little longer but its safer
funvill.com
---- EveryDayFiction.com - Read short stories daily
Why don't the authors come out and say it: this is mostly a Windows' problem, again.
I still don't see how the credit card company could be irresponsible enough to have LOST it, or just how this "Slashdot" recovery service works, but my browser says I'm at www.americanexpress.com, so here goes...the number is...
That makes sense--I'm coming from a Swiss IP (but going to google.com, not .ch) -- accessing from a .uk IP via nph-proxy on a box there, I get download.com (legit) and freedownload.com (not legit.)
Didn't realize that Google targeted its ads based on source IP, but it does make sense.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
While I'm disgusted at this whole DNS poisoning crap (I've personally seen two exploits at two different locations today using different DNS servers), I echo your thoughts, gru3hunt3r. This sort of attack, once refined, can bring down the entire internet (for some ISPs, it has). More attention needs to be paid to how to secure this incredibly precious resource than is spent on crap politial 'issues' like how to regulate cable/satellite programming (here in the US), and a myriad of other useless pursuits. Perhaps when enough businesses lose enough money, we'll get the technical focus that we need to improve our internet performance and security. Frankly, I'm sick of fixing and securing my entire cadre of friends' and families' PCs, as well as my work servers and PCs, against the latest script kiddie attack. Pete
Interesting, I was talking about aother group who is commonly referred to as CERT. Apparently they are US-CERT to be precise, I didn't know about the Carnagie Mellon group so I simply didn't think to add the US part
In fact, the Carnegie site directly references the US CERT site. I wouldn't be suprised if the Carnegie CERT was the brains behind the stuff on the US CERT site, US CERT certainly is a government agency and even has the .gov tld to "prove" it (like that really means much, I'm sure Verisign would sell me a .gov domain if I bribed, er, paid them enough)
I stand, perhaps not fully corrected, but certainly better informed. Thanks, Doc. I'll try to remember to double check my acronyms in the future.
TommyOpen Source for Open Minds
...the "oh, wait..." part.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.