Slashdot Mirror
United Nations vs SQL Injections
Giorgio Maone writes "The United Nations web site has been defaced by 3 crackers who replaced the speeches of the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon with their own pacifist message.
This article briefly analyzes the exploited vulnerability and the technology used on the server, both quite surprising to find in such a high profile site."
The UN was ineffective due to half-assedly fucking up a security detail? That's un-possible!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
It wasn't hacked! Their website clearly states it is down for scheduled maintenance. Honestly, some people need to stop spreading these fake stories!
Maybe it's not such a surprise, considering that
Or the standard page when the web monkey flips the "maintenance mode" switch...
Plus I'm sure they scheduled the downtime (for right now) after they noticed the crack.
Did you not read the article at all? This had nothing to do with patching the system. It had to do with them hiring someone who never bothered to learn about SQL and security. It had nothing to do with the tools/system used. It had to do with incompetence of the person hired to set it up.
I personally would have sneaked in and invented a new UN agency with its own inscrutable and almost-pronounceable acronym, and then sat back and watched.
Just imagine if, halfway down this page, you get an entry like this:
UNCRP: Works in field missions to improve standards in accordance with self-determined metrics. Composed of members elected to permanent positions based on a variety of factors subservient to aforementioned goals, assuming goals have been determined prior to agency initiation. Primary work areas include inter-agency provision of UNCRP-related efforts, with the ultimate objective of improving standards, mainly in the field.
One quick email to follow up:
To: secgen@un.org
From: Agency Coordination and Initiation Subcommittee to the Secretariat
Subject: Need traction on UNCRP agency kickstart
Dear sir:
With respect to the newly established UNCRP agency, we respectfully request formal approval of resources. We expect to be operational within 5 years and will submit the initial statement of work within 3 years from approval.
Thank you for providing the momentum to this newly founded agency; we have dedicated much effort to the realization of the UNCRP, as it is conducive to the eradication of, several things in the UN charter.
Regards,
Rolf Wittigersen
And that should be it. Make yourself some popcorn, and watch the headless wonder of a new UN agency being created. At least with the UNCRP, it would be purposeless by design rather than through the diligent work of its employees.
The Banjo Players Must Die!
http://www.cgisecurity.com/questions/sql.shtmlm l
http://www.cgisecurity.com/questions/blindsql.sht
Many other papers on the subject
http://www.cgisecurity.com/development/sql.shtml
Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
This is pretty much standard for a lot of government organisations, or atleast I've seen it many times myself.
:)
I don't know how to explain it, but a lot of the people I've seen create websites for government or local authority branches are business types lacking on the technical side. Basically the person who the project manager likes most, regardless of reviewing their technical ability on previous sites other than quickly browsing through one or two and going "ohh, thats nice isnt it!".
On one occasion I've seen a company win the contract simply because the paper they sent to the project manager sparkled slightly in the light and was followed up by a long phone call. Their websites were utter trash, but they were very good at making money.
I suspect the same happened here
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/sta tments_full.asp?statID=105'
-jim
I've seen exactly the same in many many companies where I've been called in to clean up the mess. Hiring of incompetent staff is by no means limited to government.
Since when was a UN resolution worth more than the paper it was written on?
Since no one (cough America) listens to the UN anymore. This is hardly the UN's fault. Just like the league of nations, it has no power to enforce its mandates. Blame the countries that refused to empower the UN.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
As a nation, the US has made numerous commitments to the UN, and that includes agreements to follow things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When we *agree* to follow International Law, we ought to, don't you think? Especially when we're heavily involved in creating that law in the first place?
...
The fact is that the UN, while it does have a lot of problems, is also far more effective and dare-I-say-it even important than most people in the US ever give it credit for. It's far from a perfect system, but it's still the best we have. We're one of the rich kids on the playground, and one of the strong kids on the playground, and we don't always enjoy what the student government wants to do--so we turn away from it sometimes. But that doesn't mean that it isn't important, or helpful, or that it doesn't, sometimes, do what's right. And that doesn't mean we shouldn't work with it, sometimes, and give it more credit for what it does and tries to do.
Instead, we tend to discount it. Because sometimes we don't like what it says about us or others in the playground, and because it's politically convenient (and salable) for our leaders to emphasize our strength and autonomy, all of our accomplishments and our not-inconsiderable military and economic muscle, and all of our pride. Some degree of Nationalism isn't a terrible thing, and we do have a lot to be proud of--but we also still have a lot to do, and to accomplish, as a nation and as members of larger world, and pretending the other children on the playground are irrelevant doesn't help us to do those things.
Also, don't you want the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to apply to US Citizens in a US Court or on the streets? The Bill of Rights is getting stretched more thinly every day, and the anti-terrorist effort (though directed in part by well-meaning people) is cutting swaths in our Constitution.
--Me
The subtlest change in New York is something that people don't speak much about but that is in everyone's mind. The city, for the first time in its history, is destructible. A single flight of planes no bigger than a wedge of geese can quickly end this island fantasy, burn the towers, crumble the bridges, turn the underground passages into lethal chambers, cremate the millions. The intimation of mortality is part of New York now: in the sound of jets overhead, in the black headlines of the latest edition.
All dwellers in cities must live with the stubborn fact of annihilation; in New York the fact is somewhat more concentrated because of the concentration of the city itself, and because, of all targets, New York has a certain clear priority. In the mind of whatever perverted dreamer who might loose the lightning, New York must hold a steady, irresistible charm.
It used to be that the Statue of Liberty was the signpost that proclaimed New York and translated it for all the world. Today Liberty shares the role with Death. Along the East River, from the razed slaughterhouses of Turtle Bay, as though in a race with the spectral flight of planes, men are carving out the permanent headquarters of the United Nations -- the greatest housing project of them all. In its stride, New York takes on one more interior city, to shelter, this time, all governments, and to clear the slum called war.
This race -- this race between the destroying planes and the struggling Parliament of Man -- it sticks in all our heads. The city at last perfectly illustrates both the universal dilemma and the general solution, this riddle in steel and stone is at once the perfect target and the perfect demonstration of nonviolence, of racial brotherhood, this lofty target scraping the skies and meeting the destroying planes halfway, home of all people and all nations, capital of everything, housing the deliberations by which the planes are to be stayed and their errand forestalled.
-- E.B. White, from "Here Is New York," 1948
Shame on you, let me explain why: INFO: As a matter of fact Israel is the only real democracy of the area and is sorrounded by enemy nations for religious matters. The last one is Lebanon (a muppet-state with apparently no powers on its own territory). In lebanon there is a "official" army hitting Palestians refugees and another Islamic army (Hezbolla) which is financed by other nations and likes to advocate the death of israelis and send casual ballistic missiles on "enemy" cities. Palestinians like to detonate on public transport, discos and markets, of course even they have a array of missiles. They are thorn between islamic extremism and extreme terrorism. Iranians one day and the next one are treatening the distruction of Israel. They had a workshop on the allerged Sionist control of the world and are opening working on a Atomic Bomb design with the blessing of the idiotic pacifists of half the world. In this context there you go blaming them for disrespecting all those resolutions that basically say "for the sake of peace let the islamics kill you". So i take that applying the same logic no-one can criticise the USA preventive war on terror which basically is "for the sake of peace we kill them first". Also people tend to forget that with Congo and Sudan it is clear that the ONU it's not doing its job. For your consideration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU
Any organization which elects Libya to chair it's "Human Rights Council" automatically loses any right to be taken seriously.
..... it kinda reminds me of Slashdot, actually ;)
Seriously, is it possible any more to even pretend that the UN is anything but a forum for tinpot dictators and other nameless losers to bitch, complain, and blame the west for all of Earth's problems?
Come to think of it
You'll notice that webpages of governments, political parties and other highly bureaucratic systems are usually quite vulnerable. This is due to a few factors.
First of all, whatever they do, use or change needs about a truckload of paperwork and red tape to get done. They're not only vulnerable to 0day exploits, they're usually vulnerable to exploits that have been around for a year or two, simply because they cannot respond quickly to security threats and vulnerabilities.
Then there's that compatibility issue. Especially when dealing with multiple partners, you have to find some kind of way that makes it easy for every partner to incorporate their content into your system. You must not prefer any, you must not use a system that would block certain partners and participants out due to incompatibility. Now, compatibility usually boils down to the lowest common denominator. And that's usually not the most secure one.
And finally the good ol' fact that the people who work there are usually not the creme of the crop, the best of the best and the spearhead of excellence, or they'd be in free enterprise making more money.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
to check for SQL injection like this on a website is to do something like this:
a tments_full.asp?statID=105%20OR%201=1
a tments_full.asp?statID=105
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/st
If they're not using parameter binding and/or properly sanitizing user input, this should return a different record (article in this case) than the original URL. - http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/st
Still vulnerable: SQL error
I'll bite, anon.
You may have noticed that in all of Israel's neighbors, you would be hard-pressed to find ONE secular state, or even a functioning democracy.
Whereas in Israel, fundamentalist nutjobs do get fined or jailed whenever they stir up trouble. They don't get to evade the law when they excise their daughters, slay victims of rape in "honor killings", lapidate adulterers, etc, etc, etc.
You really need to lay off the theory and try living in the real world.
Now let's pretend for a minute that 'positive liberty' is all BS. Let's pretend that the libertarian ideology on liberty is the most moral one. Let's say UN implements your Libertarian Declaration of Human Rights.
Now how will that be a step in the right direction for the freedom and safety of mankind (pretty big words for statement devoid of any arguments)? Do realize that no one will even care about this document, let alone even paying lip service to it's requirements. The vast majority of the earth couldn't give a flying fuck about your rants on positive and negative liberty. Fuck, most of them are so poor that they can't really have a debate on this issue.
Try explaining the dangers of positive liberty to an illiterate African kid. Try telling him that the government should not be building school or hospitals because that means richer people will have to pay more taxes and it increases government involvement in the individual's life. Most people don't care about your Ivory tower rants. People want education and healthcare. People don't want to see their kids dying from something stupid like malaria. People want at least baseline prosperity.
Don't get me wrong, I am not really arguing against libertarian ideology. I am just pointing out that libertarian views on positive liberty issues is a extreme view than is not shared by the majority of the population of our planet. And it doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong.
Okay, forget positive liberty issues. Let's look at social liberalism, you would think there would be more consensus on this one, right? So how are you planning to force all nations on the planet to ratify a document that would essentially legalize the vast majority of illegal drugs (if not all, I guess it depends how hardcore you are about such things, I don't know, I don't really see the point in recreational use of heroin)? Hell, we have troubles legally enforcing the current declaration because many muslim nations like making exceptions (I am beating your wife is right, no? What kind of barbarian would want to ban something like that?), I am not even talking about practical implementation of the current declaration.
The UN isn't about world peace and prosperity and promoting rights. It's about comprising and trying to find a mutually acceptable solution while at the same time trying to advance freedom/prosperity.
I don't even know why I wrote this. You're just a naive little American, with no understanding of the world around him. Your one size fits all attitude is just laughable. It's because of people like you that I don't like libertarians. Libertarians are kind of like communists in a way, flip side of the same coin.
The UNO knows what to do. See my small cartoon: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/08 /strong-uno.html
Bye,
Oliver
The UN is really a complete affront to democracy. It's effectively a five country dictatorship. You have 5 countries which can veto the will of all the world's countries and they can never be removed from their position on the Security Council. They can also veto the appointment of a UN Secretary General, even if the rest of the world wants that person for the role. It's amazing really that the media do not direct their attention at the UN's completely undemocratic structure rather than just its operational failures (which often stem from that structure).
I mean, what's more outrageous. That some UN officials have been corrupt in the past or that the organisation is itself a dictatorship?
What are the things that you are claiming that the UN is effective at? As far as I can tell, there are only two things: (1) giving hand-outs to the desperately poor, and (2) keeping tinpot dictators in power. One could argue that these together are self-perpetuating.
I doubt that very much. The UN couldn't pour sand of a boot even with instructions written on the heel.
How long has the genocide in Darfur been going on? Last I heard, the UN issued a proclamation that said basically, "stop or we'll say top again". How about those times the UN security forces allowed militants and war lords to drive right past them and kill the civilians they were supposed to be protecting? How about all those rape and child sex slave cases being hushed up by the UN?
The only time UN security forces are able to do a damn thing that is useful is when the United States or one of our trusted friends (UK, Canada, Australia, etc) is in charge of it.
The UN may be been created with noble intent, but it now only serves to keep tin-pot dictators in power. Look who's on the commission for human rights. The worse evil dictator bastards on the planet.
Look who the UN just put in charge of the commission on sustainability. The representative from Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe! OMFG! They have about 3000% inflation in that country! Once an exporter of food, now suffering mass famine. All because of the policies of the evil dictator Mugabe. But hey, Mugabe's policies just got the rubber stamp from the UN, so it must be desirable.
Any argument that the UN is useful and/or necessary is both morally and intellectually bankrupt given its past history and current (in)actions.
-- Will program for bandwidth
All the rest of it is just gravy.