FTP Hacking on the Rise
yahoi writes "The disco-era File Transfer Protocol (FTP) is making a comeback, but not in a good way — spammers are now using the old-school file transfer technology to serve up bot malware, and even as a backdoor into some enterprises that neglect to lock down their oft-forgotten FTP servers. Researchers at F-Secure have spotted a new wave of exploits that use FTP — rather than a malicious URL, or an email attachment — to deliver their malware payloads because few gateways scan for FTP attachments these days."
Further proof that FTP is for chumps. :) scp to the rescue!
First off, since when is a 'URL' considered a transport mechanism rather than syntax for specifying a transport mechanism and location? Is ftp://whatever.example.com/badcode/ not a URL because it's ftp now? That's a goofy statement.
And then, this isn't about ftp being hacked, just that bad software is being hosted using ftp as well as http (which I presume is what is meant by 'URL' or being emailed.
And, ftp is not merely an ancient, deprecated protocol. It's still widely used because it does what is intended for well and works under high load readily.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
because few gateways scan for FTP attachments these days.
Er, that's because there's no such thing as an FTP attachment? If you are referring to links, then I'm not aware of any virus checkers that automatically download and check HTTP links either.
Can anybody translate this into something that makes sense?
What the hell is a "FTP attachment"?
Doesn't make sense.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
I'm sorry, but if when setting up server services the admin "forgets" to lock down FTP, they need to be canned. That is all. NEXT.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
"This wasn't done as a sales pitch, but buy our Gatekeeper software!"
So what's the major difference between an FTP hosted file and a HTTP hosted file for most people? Either way it downloads a file from a site that they can be convinced to run. Sounds all about the same to me.
except perhaps for the sloppy authentication in the clear and the awkward use of random ports initiated in the wrong direction (from server to client).
What is wrong is that there are ftp servers allowing anonymous write access. That is how those miscreants work: they put a malicious file up on an anonymous ftp server (that allows write access) and then craft ftp URLs to spam people with.
I remember we warned all ftp server administrators about the issue 10 or more years ago, back when I was a rookie.
Of course scp/sftp is way better, everyone knows that. Or not?
Well, when the username is "guest" and the password is "anyemail@example.com" it hardly needs encrypting.
PS: The typical way to anonymously access and FTP server is using the "guest" or "anonymous" usernames and any e-mail address as password. This is actually the way a browser will access an ftp:// URL.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Actually Lynx, Camino, Konqueror, Firefox, Mozilla/Seamonkey suite, and IE7 can all handle Gopher.