Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Tout New Network Worm Weapon
coondoggie writes "Can Internet worms be thwarted within minutes of their infection? Researchers at Ohio State University believe they can. The key, researchers found, is for software to monitor the number of scans that machines on a network send out. When a machine starts sending out too many scans — a sign that it has been infected — administrators should take it off line and check it for viruses. In a nutshell, the researchers developed a model that calculated the probability that a virus would spread, depending on the maximum number of scans allowed before a machine was taken off line.'The difficulty was figuring out how many scans were too many,' researchers said."
One of the hardest things to account for when it comes to setting the limit for the number of scans a computer can resonably make must be bittorrent, a computer actively seeding files through bittorrent might connect to hundreds of computers for each file.
I suppose the admin of a corperate network will probably frown on active bittorrent use in general though.
Network admins quite often scan large amount of network space especially for vulnerabilities, I know, I do it every day. Device discovery on networks for monitoring, IP address management, the list goes on.
There is the alternative though...
http://xkcd.com/416/
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
...it has been posted on the front page of Slashdot, every future worm author will code their stuff to spread more slowly, so that the increase in scan rate is negligible. Hooray for self-obsoleting discoveries!
(Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of publicly posting computer security information. But this seems pretty easy to circumvent when considered, no?)
Sufficiently intelligent worms can use passive OS fingerprinting to identify hosts likely to be susceptible to infection (as they make their presence known) and then make a single attempt per host (which will, obviously, succeed or fail), keeping track of such attempts so as to avoid duplicates. Alternatively, worms could use a passive approach and not attempt to propagate at all except in response to traffic from other hosts -- that is, piggybacking themselves on the responses to ordinary traffic, say, HTTP requests, or Torrent requests, or IM requests. While use of such approaches might slow the propagation of a worm in a local sense, they won't slow down network-wide propagation appreciably if initial seeding is done in sufficient numbers and with sufficient network diversity.
I've been running the following iptables rules on our routers for at least the last year or two:
iptables -A ssh_attack -m hashlimit --hashlimit 200/min --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-name ssh_attack --hashlimit-htable-size 599 --hashlimit-htable-max 4096 -j RETURN
iptables -A ssh_attack -m limit --limit 1/sec --limit-burst 1 -j LOG --log-prefix "SSH-Attack:"
iptables -I FORWARD -o eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 --tcp-flags SYN,RST,ACK SYN -j ssh_attack
In other words, for each internal host allow them to make 200 outbound SSH connections per minute (tracked individually). If they exceed that limit, log a message.
We then have a nagios plugin that checks for this message being in "dmesg". If it is, we get paged.
We watch the sites we host pretty closely, so we don't often run into them getting compromised. The last one was because a host admin re-enabled password logins in SSH *AND* set up a guest account with a password like "guest". Only the guest account was compromised, but I digress.
The thing is that people who compromise these hosts pretty much always use that host to scan for other hosts to attack. And looking for weak passwords on other hosts via SSH seems to be pretty common.
So, once we saw this it was a no-brainer to set up something to alert us when someone started doing it.
Sean
I've been a network specialist/admin for a few companies including banks and a univeristy, and my personal idea/solution is a quasi-vlan system where each workstation is unable to talk directly to other workstations within the same LAN/Campus. Think about it, allow workstations to talk to servers and necessary resources but not directly to each other.
There is no need anymore. People need to connect to the Internet and file servers, etc. Rarely if ever is it actually necessary or preferable to have people connect to each other. The servers *should* be the best updated and protected systems and much easier to trust than Joe Sixpacks PC.
You stop worms from impacting you locally, and at worst your Internet pipe gets congested by a big outbreak which can be easier traced and combated when you aren't also fighting a spreading fire.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Erm, actually, OSX has been found to be vulnerable to TONS of things, why else the 30 and 40 patch packs released all at once :)
Remote vulnerabilities such as this: http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/29514 would say well, maybe MacOSX IS vulnerable to such types of malware (they only need to cause buffer overflows or exploit remote code vulnerabilities and you can get nailed just like any other OS that is coded by humans).
The question is: Are Macs with their puny marketshare, worth the bother of hacking?
Answer: Some people/groups are starting to show interest in this, yes. But on the whole, no, they aren't worth the bother. Mainly this interest has grown since Apple swapped over to x86 architecture. I find that interesting.
I think the bigger thing to sit and think about is this: No software written, and no hardware designed by humans will ever be perfect. There will always be a weakness somewhere in the system. Deal with it the best you can, like everyone else, and stop spouting stupid nonsense about an invulnerable OS.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
And this is the way "hacker" word lost its meaning.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers