Slashdot Mirror
SANS Institute Warns of Attack Shift
JamesAlfaro writes "SANS warned of the switch to attacks on applications and network devices in its annual publication of the Top 20 vulnerabilities on Tuesday. The annual SANS Top 20 highlights holes in software programs that are considered the most serious for security professionals. Microsoft shares the spotlight this year with Symantec Corp., Cisco Systems Inc., Oracle Corp. and others, after a year in which warnings about vulnerabilities in antivirus and computer backup software and the surprise publication of information on a hole in Cisco Systems' IOS (Internetwork Operating System) made headlines."
I've had various Chinese hosts hammering on my SSH door for at least seven months with no end in sight. I understand that it isn't a "sexy worm" but rather, a simple brute force password guessing attack but, I rarely see any mention of it anywhere.
Who's behind these attacks and what's being done to put an end to them? I'm tired of seeing Slashdot headlines about "poor Chinese people behind the Great Firewall" when they don't seem to be having any trouble hammering on my SSH door.
The hardware and IOS vulns may not be entirely new, but the *interest* in them probably is. We've gone from recreational hacking that produced interesting viruses to organized crime looking at ways to make money. When the mob gets involved, you can bet they'll take any route they can, all the time.
IMO hardware vulns are best used to extort businesses, and are no good for terrorism. The DOS, which used to be seen as a tool for revenge, is now used as a tool for extortion. Being able to shut down some business' router, and keep it down, is in the end far more effective than trying to build a small army of bots to packet flood the same router. Master Sun Tzu reminds us: "Therefore those who win every battle are not skillful... those who render others' armies helpless without fighting are the best of all."
That's the science of Internet Warfare.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
I disagree, that's like saying an airplane will fall out of the sky if you forget one little thing.
You know how the people who make airplanes avoid this type of situation? They double-check. They triple-check. They fire people who can't do a good job and hire ones who can. They actually, you know, *try*. Can you honestly say the same thing for the average coder?
If you have a network app, and it accepts a finite language of bytes, just how hard is it to secure this? Not very hard. Either you can do it, or your app is too complex, and you need to simplify it.
I don't think software with security holes should *ever* be "the norm". That's a dangerous way of thinking. It just makes software worse and worse. I have no problem with calling any software with holes the result of "bad coding practices". Including my own.
Every single time a flaw is discovered, it's a failure. It's not business as usual. Just because it happens a lot in our industry doesn't change that.