Slashdot Mirror


"Crimeserver" Full of Personal/Business Data Found

Presto Vivace sends news of a server found by security firm Finjan that contained a 1.4-GB cache of stolen data, accumulated over a period of less than a month from compromised PCs around the world. The "crimeserver," as Finjan dubs it, "provided command and control functions for malware attacks in addition to being a drop site for data harvested from compromised computers. ... The stolen data consisted of 5,388 unique log files including 1,037 from Turkey, 621 from Germany, 571 from the United States, 322 from France, 308 from India and 232 from Britain." Oddly enough, the data was stored in the open, with not even basic auth to protect it. Finjan notes in their press release that this huge trove of data gathered over a short period of time indicates that the crimeware problem is far larger than most observers have been assuming. Update: 05/08 12:29 GMT by T : Note, the security firm involved is spelled "Finjan," not "Finjin" as originally shown.

14 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Why would they need basic auth? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would they need basic auth? After all, the security on the compromised computers was bad enough for them, complete random strangers to the owners of the PCs, to bypass system authentication and authorization controls to grab the data in the first place.

    1. Re:Why would they need basic auth? by kcbanner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because all scammers aren't friends with each other.

      --
      Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    2. Re:Why would they need basic auth? by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if they were planning to sell the pilfered information then it helps if their...ahem...customers cannot simply help themselves.

    3. Re:Why would they need basic auth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe its a free sample?

    4. Re:Why would they need basic auth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What amazes me is how quickly people adopt meaningless buzzwords like "crimeserver".

    5. Re:Why would they need basic auth? by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The slang is "script kiddie".

  2. So you have to a CISSP to run a script now? by mungmaster2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The server was not secure at all. It indicates that these people that are doing the crime today, they are not security experts, they are not computer science experts." Uhhh....So someone knocks over a liquor store with a 9 mm. Does that mean that he's a gunsmith or a sharpshooter, or skilled in advanced war-fighting techniques of some kind? No...Chances are he's a just a guy with a gun. People use whatever they can to take what they want. Film at eleven.

  3. Re:WTF by epiphyte42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know it's just a rehash of a press release, likely taken out of context from what was originally said, but - WTF?

    If it's that easy, I'm gonna try it....

    Did you consider the fact that the stuff that does all the hard work is actually .... software?! In other words, if some black hat makes a nice package with a decent installer and good documentation it could well be that it is less complicated to setup such a server then, say, setting up a decent webserver. The app in question would then do something like: 1: look for vulnerable pc's 2: infiltrate weak ones with preprogrammed stuff 3: send data back to simple integrated webserver 4: goto 1 The components at 2 could even fit into a nice plugin architecture to enable other black hats to extend the functionality. Yes, this stuff exists and yes, this stuff is easy to use.
  4. Security company finds unsecure server by Whuffo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Must be a slow news day for this kind of astroturf to bubble to the top. Notice how carefully they count how many people in each country had their data stolen and stored on this server. Also notice how many of those people these security folks notified of the data breach. Yup, exactly zero.

    So they're not trying to help at all. What they're trying to do is sell their services and using this pseudo-news article to do it. Shame on them.

    1. Re:Security company finds unsecure server by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also notice how many of those people these security folks notified of the data breach. Yup, exactly zero. What are the odds that one of "those people" would sue the security firm?
      Even white hats have to deal with the PHB who wants to blame you for their problem.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  5. HoneyPot by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oddly enough, the data was stored in the open, with not even basic auth to protect it.

    Sounds like they found a honeypot or a decoy to me. Now that the bad guys know that the good guys are on to them, they can disappear into the ether for a while until the heat dies down.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:HoneyPot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First telephone wires carry over 90VAC on them all the time.

      Second 24Ga wire cant carry any current it smokes out right away.

      Thirdly it does in FACT smoke the modems that were made back in the 80's and early 90's Hayes and USR modems back then could be eaten alive easily by 120VAC at any strength inot the phone port, better would be to also run a pair of wires to the modem's power supply side as well.

      Fourthly it also pop's the Telco gear at the Switching station dropping the line off so when you call it it does not ring. A very clever way of setting a tripwire.

      Remember back in the 80's the police and judges were not a corrupt as now. They did not throw in extra added bullshit for fun. Now the scumbag fuckers will add all kind of charges just to show you who owns the populace.

  6. Unprotected maybe for a reason: by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps this data was intentionally left out in the open by whoever had it first?

    If you think about it, if you just hacked into a users pc and nicked something (credit card info, passwords, whatever) and used them quietly to some degree, wouldn't you WANT someone else to use them, perhaps not so quietly? I mean, you want a fall guy right? Let the next script kiddie run through and take the fall. With a bit of luck, they will pin all the activity on the new guy rather than the guy who carefully used this once, then let the information loose on the masses.

    It's not "accidentally" or "stupidly" left unprotected, it's a perfect smoke screen to cover tracks if you ask me.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  7. Maybe our "crimeserver" is really a "harvester?" by yuna49 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless the criminal is a complete idiot there's more than one drop spot...

    Indeed. If I were writing botnet software I'd distribute multiple copies of the collected data across a number of the compromised computers. The press release and article abstract indicate that the botnet control programs and the data were located in the same place. That doesn't seem like a particularly good architecture for this type of system. I'd keep the command programs far away from the harvested data. My hunch is that the data aren't that valuable as I outline below.

    I can accept that buying, installing and running a botnet could be as easy as installing an RPM. What appears more disturbing is the reported "timeframe of less than a month" to harvest over 5,000 records. But what kind of records are these? Finjan tells us that the data "consisted of 5,388 unique log files [my emphasis]. Both email communications and web-related data were among them."

    They go on to list some specific examples:

    Compromised patient data
    Compromised bank customer data
    Business-related email communications
    Captured Outlook accounts containing email communication

    I'd be curious to see how much actual "patient" or "bank customer" data is revealed in "log files." /var/log/maillog on my servers would certainly reveal "business-related email communications" in the sense of senders and recipients. Mail logs might also contain some entries for mail between providers and patients or between banks and their customers. Apache logs wouldn't be so useful, though they do contain the usernames when Basic Authentication is used. But none of those logs would reveal much about the content of those communications. I don't know anything about Outlook so I have no idea how its logs might reveal "captured Outlook accounts containing email communication."

    Still if all they got after a month were logs, I'm not sure how valuable they would be unless the goal was harvesting addresses for spamming or phishing. Capturing the logs of compromised mail servers would certainly yield a pretty high proportion of legitimate addresses, especially recipient addresses. This method seems especially attractive if you're trying to identify targets for "spear-phishing." If you can compromise some corporate mail servers, you can build up a nice list to "spear."

    So I'm guessing Finjan found a machine containing some 5,600 mail server "log files" totalling 1.4 GB. Since the logs are worthless once the addresses are harvested, protecting them isn't much of a priority. I suppose competitive spammers might want to keep these potentially higher-yielding names to themselves, but given the volumes at which spammers operate, they probably don't care.

    I think I'll go take a look at my mail servers now just to ease my mind.