Slashdot Mirror
Breakdowns of Website Defacement by Platform
SkiifGeek writes "Zone-H have recently posted the statistical breakdown of the collected website defacements from the last few years. Surprisingly, in 2007 more Linux servers suffered a successful attack than all versions of Windows, combined. Similarly, more Apache installations were successfully attacked than all IIS versions combined. A day after posting this data, Zone-H have questioned the appropriateness of continuing to operate the archive. Despite the valuable information that can be gleaned from the service, it may soon be lost to the world. The natural successor to the now-defunct Alldas archive of defaced websites, Zone-H's archive maintains records of over 2.6 million defaced sites but may be shut down due to the continuous accusations of impropriety leveled against them any time they disclose and mirror a reported defacement."
Even for slashdot that is terrible........
Websight? I hope that is in TFA, which due to tradition I did not read.
Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
Given the proportion of Apache servers to IIS servers on the Internet, I don't think the ~280% difference is that strange. After all, most websites are vandalised through oversights in custom scripting etc., rather than security holes in Apache.
Actually mention proportions. Clever little summary, it was as if one million slashdot readers suddenly cried out in indignation... "I have to read the article? Nooo"
I record my sleeptalking
Perhaps I missed it in TFA, but I saw no weighting for market share...
To pick an arbitrary statistic, in June 2007 Google reported Apache with a 66% market share and IIS with a 23% share (source). Given that the TFA lists "Attack against the administrator/user" as the most common attack method by a wide margin, and it seems to me that both Apache and IIS would be equally vulnerable to dumb administrators, wouldn't it make sense that the server with the larger market share would see more attacks?
I wouldn't be surprised if most Linux servers were defaced because of poor configurations, by home users. How many have the needed skill to do it well and really secure? How many home users wish to pay for IIS? Probably not many.
I guess IIS users on average are better at maintaining a server, as they probably are employed to do so.
It would be interesting to see a "demographic" breakdown on defaced servers, how many corporate Linux servers have been defaced. I believe the numbers will be different.
When the cure (more often than not these days) involves not having to disturb Apache at all (save for possibly changing something in httpd.conf), but instead fixing/dumping the bad script that let the baddies in, or patching PHP to plug the hole in it, then odds are good that it ain't Apache's fault, no?
To be fair, it would also be like blaming IIS for crap XML or ASP script, and MSFT would certainly waste no time in saying so.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"98% of all statistics are made up"
Of course Apache and linux have more attacks than windows.
There are far more honda civics successfully stolen in the USA than BMW Isetta's Or Smart TwoFours This is because there are well over 5000 civics on the road for every BMW Isetta or Smart TwoFour on the road.
By the summary's mention and what it is alluding to, BeOS servers are the most secure because NONE of them have been compromised on the internet.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
...issue is more serious than it really needs to be?
Using regular backup methods and unauthorized access alarms (access alarms that are either verified or not as a matter of access notification loops).
So when a site gets hacked there is timely notification and backup usage.
In other words, should access happen but not getting verification within a set amount of time, reverts back to the pre-unverified access state of the site.
perhaps we can write this in PHP or python?
Their is no such thing as "X-Windows"
Is exactly why I don't install any 3rd party software. Only my custom BIOS, OS and browser, which I whipe every night and reprogram every morning, just to be absolutely sure nothing has been slipped in by said 3rd parties.
The article says that there were 1,485,280 Apache defacements and 815,119 IIS defacements. This implies a total of 2,300,399 samples, of which 64.6% were Linux. For comparison, other posters here have cited a Google survey reporting that 60% of webservers run Apache. That would seem to imply that, if you pick an IIS server at random or an Apache server at random, each is about as likely to be successfully attacked as the other.
Conclusion: IIS is just as good as Apache (contrary to popular Slashdot opinion). Of course, there's a flip side: Apache is just as good as IIS -- and it's free.
[Take all this modulo the fact that 370% of statistics are, if not made up on the spot, at least full of so much noise as to be meaningless. (Sometimes the Law of Large Numbers really does require large numbers!]
You know it comes across as interesting that whenever statistics come out that show that "Windows had more worms and viruses this year than Linux or MacOSX!" people use that as fuel to the fire to continually denounce Windows as a bad platform, Microsoft is the devil, Microsoft is evil, and any other number of ways of putting down Windows to make themselves feel better.
Then a statistic that comes out that shows Linux/Apache at the top of a security vulnerability list, and it's immediately "Oh it's the users! They don't know how to implement the platform properly! It's the scripting language they used! These numbers are meaningless without marketshare values!"
What we have as facts when it comes to security vulnerabilities:
1. When more people use it, there is a tendency to have more security vulnerabilities since more eyes are scrutinizing what is or isn't possible with that platform.
2. No matter which platform, it is only as secure as the person's implementation. If they don't know how to configure the system properly, it doesn't matter in the end.
So why all the hate against Microsoft for their products if these same problems affect all platforms?
I have to kind of sit back and laugh, since the defense to Apache/Linux comes in the form of "bad scripting" or other holes created by poor admin skills.
And I totally agree.
Then why do we always sit here and blast Windows and Microsoft, when in fact good admins keep their boxes running with an optimal uptime, performance, etc? I will agree with the 95/98/ME era, but coming into XP and 2003 Server, I think that it comes down to the skill of the admin to eek out the performance out of the Windows boxes rather than to expect it like most people here do. It seems quite hypocritical to me, but hey.. I'll probably be modded down for coming to a logical argument that might cast Microsoft in a positive light. I'm not a zealot, but I've seen both sides of the coin and I know that Windows boxes can be stable and bulletproof, if you have a good admin. And those admins get blue screens -- when hardware fails. I don't know what happens in Linux, but last I checked it doesn't deal with a bad RAM chip any better than Windows does.
Just food for thought.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Well,
/etc/passwd), while ASP is a pain in the back with these things ( include($variable) in ASP?? )
When you allow larger flexibility of doing things, you open doors.
PHP allows you to do ANYthing, including remote includes and relative and absolute includes (../whatever.php or
What I am trying to say, is that I am 90 percent sure, most of the defacements came from badly written code, such as index.php?news=page.php, and the include($_GET[page] kind of ignorant coding. Did I do that unthinkingly? OH yes. Everyone does, but then you learn.
Same with linux. Many people I know have servers with ssh and FTP enabled with super safe passes:
My favourite :
Company name: Heartless Buthcers LTD
Login: Heartless
pass: Butchers
Also I write a script in 5 minutes that logs into remote systems that do this and that with scripting, but I am in trouble doing anything on a remote access login to a gui, which is hardly scriptable (OK maybe that is my lack of knowledge of Wintel systems.
Just my 2 cents: with flexibility you open doors, and I think that is where it all boils down in this case.
Last I checked, IIS was at about 35% and Apache at 50%.
--> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/02/06/february_2008_web_server_survey.html
Of course, these are just statistics...
-mverwijs
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
For once that's on topic. I stated to rant like everybody else on how this was skewed by not taking into account the market share of Apache vs. IIS, but that's not the real story here.
Take a look at the "Webserver defaced" table. It's badly formatted in a couple of respects. Here's a copy of the interesting data with defacement numbers sorted by server platform:
nginx 729
IIS (total) 447
Apache 319
Rapidsite 244
SonataServer 178
nginx doesn't run on Windows; I'd expect most sites deploying it would be on Linux or BSD. Rapidsite runs on a customized Apache, and again while I haven't found a definitive statement here I'd expect virtual hosting using Apache is going to be Linux or BSD as well. I'd welcome corrections here if I'm wrong about that.
Combine this with the Netcraft data and the initial conclusion I would reach is that Linux+Apache is still the most secure platform. The only reason the Linux numbers are so inflated is that they include some really crappy web servers with significant vulnerabilities running something other than stock Apache.
I wish I had the raw data so I could ask some more interesting questions, like how things change you take the stupid user/admin data out. I don't care that it's possible to setup a platform up wrong and get simple vulnerabilities, I only care about how vulnerable a good installation is.
They count things like weak passwords as a "hack".
This definitely has no relation to platform.
No sig today...
Why are you even bothering to argue this? The data doesn't tell us anything about Linux vs. Windows security. Just look at the top 5 methods by which the defacement happened:
1. Attack against the administrator/user (password stealing/sniffing): 141.660
2. Shares misconfiguration: 67.437
3. File Inclusion: 61.011
4. SQL Injection: 35.407
5. Access credentials through Man In the Middle attack: 28.046
(Those are the 2007 numbers)
That's a total of 333,561 total intrusions, and not one of those is due to inherent insecurity in anything. They are all configuration problems or bugs in the web apps themselves. And that's about 70% of the intrusions. Plus, many of the other attack vectors were of the same class. Only 13,405 were "web server intrusions" which is about 3%. If you take "RPC Server Intrusion" and "Other server intrusion" together as platform bugs (and I'm guessing most aren't), then you still only end up with another 3%.
Therefore, all this story tells us is that the software industry has to do a lot of work to protect users from themselves. It doesn't tell us that Apache or IIS or Windows or Linux is more secure than something else. It tells us users suck at security and programmers suck at making security simple.