Half a Million Microsoft-Powered Sites Hit With SQL Injection

Titus Germanicus writes to tell us that a recent attack has compromised somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 pages with a SQL injection attack. The vulnerability seems to be limited to Microsoft's IIS webserver and is easily defeated by the end user with Firefox and "NoScript." "The automated attack takes advantage to the fact that Microsoft's IIS servers allow generic commands that don't require specific table-level arguments. However, the vulnerability is the result of poor data handling by the sites' creators, rather than a specific Microsoft flaw. In other words, there's no patch that's going to fix the issue, the problem is with the developers who failed follow well-established security practices for handling database input. The attack itself injects some malicious JavaScript code into every text field in your database, the Javascript then loads an external script that can compromise a user's PC." Ignoring corporate spin-doctoring, there seems to be plenty of blame to go around.

Comments

Microsoft's Official View of the Situation

[eldavojohn]

Ignoring corporate spin-doctoring there seems to be plenty of blame to go around. Well, here's a quote directly from Bill Sisk of Microsoft (seems to be in line with this blogger):

Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) on Friday found itself trying to clarify that it has nothing to do with the poor coding practices that have enabled a massive SQL injection attack to affect Web sites using Microsoft IIS Web Server and Microsoft SQL Server. "The attacks are facilitated by SQL injection exploits and are not issues related to IIS 6.0, ASP, ASP.Net, or Microsoft SQL technologies," said Bill Sisk, a communications manager at Microsoft, in a blog post. "SQL injection attacks enable malicious users to execute commands in an application's database." Sisk said that to defend against SQL injection attacks, developers should follow secure coding practices. So if you want Microsoft's side of the story, they can't help it that people use bad coding practices.

As a coder, I don't agree with that. You make a tool/language/framework for developers, you better make it idiot proof. Example: C is far from idiot proof (seg fault!) but it's fast. Stupid fast. Unfortunately for C, there are more stupid coders out there like me than genuis coders out there like ... Donald Knuth. So you will see Java rise in popularity without ever being able to live up to speed of C.

Wow, for flaim retardant reasons, take the above paragraph as my meager opinion.

Re:Microsoft's Official View of the Situation

[Dekortage]

Well, to quote from the Hackademix FAQ on this issue... "Crackers put together a clever SQL procedure capable of polluting any Microsoft SQL Server database in a generic way, with no need of knowing the specific table and fields layouts. There's no Microsoft-specific vulnerability involved: SQL injections can happpen (and do happen) on LAMP and other web application stacks as well. SQL injections, and therefore these infections, are caused by poor coding practices during web site development. Nonetheless, this mass automated epidemic is due to specific features of Microsoft databases, allowing the exploit code to be generic, rather than tailored for each single web site."

Re:Microsoft's Official View of the Situation

[Sancho]

As others have posted, it's pretty easy to prevent multiple instruction SQL injection. That's a function of the database driver, which Microsoft controls.

It's much harder to prevent injection of additional parameters e.g. typing ' or '1'='1 into the text box--that's something that will be language and developer dependent. From my very brief scan of the details of this vulnerability, it looks like it would have been prevented if Microsoft had disallowed multiple statements in the driver.

This page supports my interpretation. I note, specifically:

Attackers carefully weighted the easiest spot, being a combination of

        * ASP classic, due to the poor coding standards among the average VBScripters who hardly known about prepared statements (even though they are supported)
        * ADO as the DB client layer, allowing stacked queries (multiple SQL statements together in a single string), which are not supported, for instance, by JDBC or by the mysql_query() PHP API
        * Microsoft SQL Server, because its Transact SQL supports a rich feature set including loops, metadata enumeration and Dynamic SQL (crucial for generalization), and because itâ(TM)s the most common ASP database back-end with such high-end features. Apparently, if stacked queries weren't allowed, this wouldn't nearly so easy to exploit.

Dupe?

[TubeSteak]

500 Thousand MS Web Servers Hacked
Posted by kdawson on Friday April 25, @11:48AM
from the scream-and-shout dept.
http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/25/1358234.shtml

Re:Dupe?

[calebt3]

At least this one is more accurate in saying 500,000 web pages and not servers.

Shameless Hibernate Plug

[eldavojohn]

You know, as an incompetent Java developer, I will take the time to explain why none of my web applications suffered from this.

I use Hibernate. I use it with Java, although I know it's now available for .NET.

A feature of Hibernate (aside from some efficient connection pooling and resource management like caching) is that you have to actually call a delete method to delete a row. Something like HibernateSession.delete(myObject); would have to be done. And while this might sound annoying or ruin some tools that are used to generate SQL statements, it protects me time and time again. Now, you can use HQL which is a bastardized version of SQL to generate similar things but, again, I think that you can't drop/delete in it (could be wrong, rarely use it).

Try passing part of an SQL string into an object property and then merge/save it into the HibernateSession. Doesn't do the SQL injection stuff the bad guys want it to. Of course, I still use regular expression common utilities to validate the input, but assuming you didn't do that ...

So why don't other people use Hibernate? Am I missing something about it that's bad?