Slashdot Mirror


PC Invader Costs a Kentucky County $415,000

plover recommends a detailed account by Brian Krebs in the Washington Post's Security Fix column of a complex hack and con job resulting in the theft of $415,000 from Bullitt County, Kentucky. "The crooks were aided by more than two dozen co-conspirators in the United States, as well as a strain of malicious software capable of defeating online security measures put in place by many banks. ...the trouble began on June 22, when someone started making unauthorized wire transfers of $10,000 or less from the county's payroll to accounts belonging to at least 25 individuals around the country... [T]he criminals stole the money using a custom variant of a keystroke logging Trojan known as 'Zeus' (a.k.a. 'Zbot') that included two new features. The first is that stolen credentials are sent immediately via instant message to the attackers. But the second, more interesting feature of this malware... is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers, allowing the bad guys to log in to the victim's bank account using the victim's own Internet connection."

192 comments

  1. Windows TCO by harmonise · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't forget to include this in your Windows TCO calculations.

    --
    Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
    1. Re:Windows TCO by Jurily · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But the second, more interesting feature of this malware, the investigator said, is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers, allowing the bad guys to log in to the victim's bank account using the victim's own Internet connection.

      Actually, if you root a *nix box, this part looks kinda trivial.

    2. Re:Windows TCO by clang_jangle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the second, more interesting feature of this malware, the investigator said, is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers, allowing the bad guys to log in to the victim's bank account using the victim's own Internet connection.

      Actually, if you root a *nix box, this part looks kinda trivial.

      Yet we don't see much of that, do we? In spite of the massive *nix share of the server market, it's windows systems that prove easiest to compromise.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    3. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you root a *nix box, this part looks kinda trivial.

      Um... just as trivial (at least from a security perspective) with a Windows, too. Or are you suggesting that *nix is just easier to program in general... that would be a feature, not a bug.

    4. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people are used to using Windows machines, including thieves and bankers.

    5. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      keyloggers aren't used on servers as much...regardless of the OS.

    6. Re:Windows TCO by Evil+Shabazz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your conclusion is debatable, particularly resting on the tenuous footing of your supplied argument. However, that doesn't matter at all. You see, it doesn't really matter whether Unix or Windows is easier to compromise. What matters is that the easiest people to compromise use Windows.

      --
      Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
    7. Re:Windows TCO by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love the thought behind the comment, but I think we are arriving at a kind of plateau where it is not so much the OS as the users being stupid and uneducated while management policy is too lax when it comes to computer use.

      With text-based computer usage, that was rarely if ever a problem simply because the fun things to do were rather limited and certainly didn't involve a live connection to a public internet. But the more connected we became, the more fun things there were for people to do. Suddenly with Windows + Internet access, the door flew wide open with everything from BonziBuddy to Weatherbug to all sorts of other gadgets, games and gizmos. This escalation of extra-curricular activity has never been treated as a threat or as a problem by many and has continued unabated.

      What is needed, whether running Windows, Linux or MacOSX on the desktop, is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data. That is a complicated trick for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the face that the file system doesn't care if a file is data or executable code no matter where it is located in the file system. (This is a problem that should be fixed in ALL OSes) There are effective tools to prevent a lot of such things, but all of them require what should have been done to begin with -- careful system software planning and implementation. There are limits to which the OS itself can be blamed and that's what I am really trying to get at.

      On one hand, there is the threat of running as the superuser on any OS which is unquestionably a problem. On the other, there is running as the user. Running programs as a user, from a user's writeable data space is often enough to give malicious software operators what they are looking for anyway. Many of them seek personal information, so if they can get code running on a remote user's system that will give them access to that user's data, that's enough of a threat. Getting "superuser access" merely gives them a way to infiltrate the system at a much lower level and make removal much more difficult. So merely patching or preventing superuser access from being taken, assumed or otherwise utilized is only a part of the problem and one that is increasingly realized as irrelevant to malware authors.

      In the end, the TCO of Windows, in this respect, is still lower if for no other reason than the likelihood that someone has a quick and easy way to reload the system clean is pretty high up there. There are fewer quick solutions to fixing or cleaning up a compromised system under Linux or MacOSX... with good reason -- they aren't your typical targets.

      But I believe we are close to reaching a plateau at which there is only so much that can be done to secure an OS without proper planning and implementation taking the lead concern as it should have always been.

    8. Re:Windows TCO by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      network snooping is.

    9. Re:Windows TCO by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      But the second, more interesting feature of this malware, the investigator said, is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers, allowing the bad guys to log in to the victim's bank account using the victim's own Internet connection.

      Actually, if you root a *nix box, this part looks kinda trivial.

      The hard part is doing it without rooting. Which happens to be a lot easier in windows. If you rooted the box you could do a lot more useful things easier then what this malware did. Imagine having all the payroll information for the county and the fraud that would enable.

    10. Re:Windows TCO by Mista2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I use Windows, OS X and Linux, and none of my PCs have ever been compromised, but the Windows one sure is harder to protect.

    11. Re:Windows TCO by gd2shoe · · Score: 1, Informative

      That is a complicated trick for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the face that the file system doesn't care if a file is data or executable code no matter where it is located in the file system.

      Please elaborate. You sound more intelligent than this, so I assume I misunderstand you.

      Most filesystems do keep tabs on which files are executable, and which ones are not. Of course, Windows defaults to executable, and the rest of the world defaults to not-executable. On the other end, processors now recognize the no-execute bit on memory. This makes it possible (easier?) to avoid accidentally running data in an executing program (ex: some buffer overflows). Of course, for these things to work properly, the OS bears a lot of responsibility.

      What is needed, whether running Windows, Linux or MacOSX on the desktop, is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data.

      On Linux, the Distros needs to keep their repositories clean (they usually do) and users should generally avoid installing software that isn't in the repository. It's generally a very safe practice, and usually practical.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    12. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why would you include user stupidity into Windows TCO? are you implying that dumb users suddenly become intelligent if they are running OSX or linux and won't run bad stuff?

    13. Re:Windows TCO by cawpin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Knowing which is hardest to protect would require ALL of them to have been compromised at least once. Since NONE of them have been you have no basis for a comparison.

    14. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are 100% correct and that's because Windows is the most familiar OS there is.

      The panacea would be to only hire slashdot level IT for every job requiring any interaction with money.

    15. Re:Windows TCO by MrCrassic · · Score: 2

      Just like they forgot basic security measures, right?

      Yeah, this isn't a Windows problem. You do know that Linux/UNIX boxes can get 0wn3d, right?

    16. Re:Windows TCO by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

      How so?

    17. Re:Windows TCO by Locutus · · Score: 1

      it's the same people who are pretty much computer illiterate and just squeak by using Windows who are Microsoft's best customers. Keep'em dumb, keep'em taking everything shoveled in front of them. The other day, a salesman from a computer shop specializing in Windows asked me to send his wife a link to some pictures. After a few emails, he didn't know the link I emailed him was just something he could use a browser to see. WTF and how to these people get paid for so little ability to use even the simplest parts of the computer software?

       

      LoB
       

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    18. Re:Windows TCO by andy_t_roo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He does have a basis -- the effort (time or cost) required to get the system to a state where compromise was not likely.

      simplified a bit :
      Linux - don't run as root, install updates regularly, think twice before entering root password.
      Windows - attempt to have the logged in user not running as admin, install updates regularly, install run update and monitor virus scanner + firewall software. think twice before entering admin password (if running as non-admin)

      OSX - never had admin on OSX, from what i understand its the same as linux with respect to security.

      the effort to run (pre vista) windows as non-admin is substantially harder than non-admin linux.
      installing updates is approximately the same effort.
      windows (currently) requires extra software installed to be secure.

      Objectively windows is harder to secure (harder on 2 out of 3). (this also assumes that this is the minimum effort required to secure each system to the same level - on any system you could spend much more effort due to a lack of knowledge, or wrong pre-conceived ideas concerning security)

    19. Re:Windows TCO by sentientbeing · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nix users generally have a higher level of tech knowledge in general.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    20. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all kinds of things are used against servers. the article was related to a keylogger that was used, and the parents were talking about rooting a box. Network sniffing is platform agnostic.

      I'd also point out that militaries worldwide have been known to capture and compromise computers of all kinds. Of course none of this has anything to do with the article and placing keyloggers on servers (or even rootkits for that matter). Network sniffing/monitoring, again, is usually platform agnostic and has no place in here within the context of the article's responses.

      btw, I analyze and exploit malware for a living so I'm aware there are 'n' other things you can do to servers that aren't related to the article, including walking out with the source code to software used by the servers (see Goldman Sachs articles of the day). I was merely trying to respond earlier in the context of keyloggers on servers not list all the various things you can do to computers.

      Network sniffing has absolutely nothing to do with the post that I was responding to, nor does it change the fact that keyloggers aren't used on servers much.

    21. Re:Windows TCO by gd2shoe · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Again: "are you implying that dumb users suddenly become intelligent...?"

      In other words, is the user intelligence variable dependant upon the OS variable? if you change the OS, does the user IQ change with it?

      Dispite the GPP being an AC, I think you missed his point (which was valid).

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    22. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's windows systems that prove easiest to compromise

      Easier.

    23. Re:Windows TCO by Nutria · · Score: 3, Insightful

      are you implying that dumb users suddenly become intelligent...?

      No. It's that a regular (not necessarily dumb, just... regular) non-priv users have less (not zero!) chance of having (actively thru stupid clicking, or passively thru a worm) something unwanted installed on Linux/BSD than they do on Windows or OSX. Especially if they don't have the root password.

      IOW, Windows is a slippery pistol with a low trigger pull weight in a fragile holster. BSD & Linux "pistols" have no-slip grips, heavy trigger pull weights and sturdy leather holsters. You can shoot yourself in the foot with either, but Windows makes it a *lot* easier...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    24. Re:Windows TCO by causality · · Score: 1

      Again: "are you implying that dumb users suddenly become intelligent...?"

      In other words, is the user intelligence variable dependant upon the OS variable? if you change the OS, does the user IQ change with it?

      Dispite the GPP being an AC, I think you missed his point (which was valid).

      In the sense that I could not prove it, I cannot tell you about the causation. I can tell you about the correlation, however.

      It's not so much that *nix users tend to be more technically knowledgable. That is true, but I don't think that's the biggest difference. It's that *nix users more strongly feel that you should not use a tool without at least trying to understand it. Among other things, that means you become a little better at it or more skillful with it the more you use it. It's not about assuming that you're an expert; rather, it's about assuming that eventually you might become one. It follows that the difference between average users and advanced users is that advanced users take less time to get there because they have an aptitude for it.

      You just don't see that sort of personal involvement with most Windows installations. In a way it would contradict the "easiest thing to use EVER!" marketing that goes along with it. In another way, that marketing is an attempt to accommodate this (IMHO misinformed) idea that becoming personally involved in what you spend your time doing is some kind of undesirable event to be avoided whenever possible, like some kind of tax. I really think that people who see this as a burden have no idea what they are missing.

      I don't see this as being about pure computing at all. To me it's more like a philosophy of life and involvement. There are also elements concerning the willingness to assume a little responsibility. While the actual "mechanics" of it may be difficult to elucidate, I believe that these abstract, philosophical ideas are reflected in the design and culture of the various OSes and that different users who have different ideas of "how this should be" will gravitate towards different platforms as a result.

      The only thing this assumes is an awareness of the various platforms, which the situation with Windows can complicate because of its overall dominance and subsequent ubiquity. So, this can be seen as limiting my observation to those who are aware of the alternatives. It could also be seen as strong confirmation for the philosophical nature of the point.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    25. Re:Windows TCO by cawpin · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about an objective comparison based on common beliefs. I was simply saying that his statement is not provable for his systems unless they have been compromised. You have to be compromised before you can KNOW what is required to prevent it.

    26. Re:Windows TCO by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I would think the yearly Pwn2Own competitions is a pretty good indicator. A Windows, Mac, and Linux system are all set up with the latest security patches from their respective OSes. The first person to compromise the system gets to keep it. Every year I've read about it, the order from first to last compromised has been Windows, Mac, and Linux.

    27. Re:Windows TCO by scubamage · · Score: 1
      If I remember correctly, this year it went Mac, Windows, Linux as the exploiter made use of an unknown bug in Safari. Point stands, I'm just saying the order was possibly different - I'm feeling a bit too lazy to look it up and check :).

      I think that's an important thing to mention though - see, OSX is still based on BSD. However, even the most secure OS on earth can still be compromised if the software it runs is shoddily programmed.

    28. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, i think what he/she means is that there is a correlation between technical knowledge/intelligence and the use of a Linux OS...

    29. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also mounting the home share no-exec helps a lot. If the user needs to be able to run something (s)he can use /tmp or /var/tmp or can apply for a seperate volume for the project.

    30. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. But you need to be more tech savy to circumvent your administrator's security measures. So if you know how to circumvent the protection he set up for the standard user you already should know enough to not do it.

    31. Re:Windows TCO by overbaud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's more a case of windows machines are the most profitable. If there was a larger profit to be made in *nix boxes it would be done. Theives don't have a technology alliance, they are not fans boys or anti fan boys, they are motivated by the money.

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    32. Re:Windows TCO by overbaud · · Score: 1

      You deserve +10 Undeniably correct.

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    33. Re:Windows TCO by PiSkyHi · · Score: 1

      In most cases, the process of changing the OS means choosing another user. The 2 variables don't have to be dependent, they could be, but they are correlated, which is sufficient.

    34. Re:Windows TCO by overbaud · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Nix users generally have a higher level of tech knowledge" that is inversely proportional to their body odor strength.

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    35. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also from the point of view of exposed services and access requred for various functions.
      OS X shares nothing by default, and allows the firewall to lock out anyone not on the local subnet.

      RPC requires a whole shotgun full og holes in a firewall to allow AD login across secure zones, LDAP directories are realy simple in comparison

      For Linux, I only install the software for services I want, and allows much better control of who can do what as root using sudo, (and the same with OS X too)
      SSH provides a secure remote connection between my boxes. Can be done with Windows too, it just seems to take more effort to locate the software and configure it.
      Want to backup/image a disk - OS X and Linux have dd to duplicate a disk, or rsync to keep folders replicated on network drives. FOr Windows, this all has to be added on.

    36. Re:Windows TCO by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow...that's quite something.

      So you're saying that until they have both been broken into and their car radio's removed, there's no way to prove that it's easier to lock up a tank than it is to lock up a convertible with a cotton roof?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    37. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had a security audit at our site, the audit owned the Windows AD network fairly quickly, but never got near the Checkpoint SPLAT firewalls, the Linux serves we use as proxy servers, or admin access to any of our switches or routers. He got public read SNMP as the config files were stored on a windows server share. 8)
      Note, all the unix/linux boxes use RSA tokens for usernames and passwords, you cannot authenticate remotely as an admin, and all only exposed services they need to. The Windows boxes he mostly got via RDP once he cracked an XP workstation (note no IT system can really protect against physical access).

    38. Re:Windows TCO by Vahokif · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But that's not Window's fault is it? I'm no Windows fanboy but if it was the Year of the Linux Desktop and everyone ran Ubuntu, people could be tricked just as easily to type sudo sh notmalicilousatall.sh.

    39. Re:Windows TCO by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about an objective comparison based on common beliefs. I was simply saying that his statement is not provable for his systems unless they have been compromised. You have to be compromised before you can KNOW what is required to prevent it.

      A car analogy: one takes the fastest car in the world, and let it race a mile against me, me being by foot. So you state that although the car might finish the mile in a few seconds, it is not proven to be faster UNTIL I HAVE CROSSED THE FINISH-LINE?!?

      Go back to school.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    40. Re:Windows TCO by Martin+Foster · · Score: 1

      When mounting a filesystem under OpenBSD you can specify that any file within that mount cannot be executed. I find that this is very much a valuable flag (noexec) when you are mounting /tmp and /home as it pretty much prevents execution of files outside of expected areas.

      http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=mount&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html

      Of course if it is a script, nothing stops the person from calling the interpreter first. e.g. perl script.pl

    41. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hint: www.sandboxie.com

    42. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is needed, whether running Windows, Linux or MacOSX on the desktop, is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data.

      This has existed on Windows for a decade. Using Group Policy you can specify that all applications must be signed with your private key, or provide a whitelist of applications.

      Windows is actually very securable. Corporations with competent admins are immune to the vast majority of Windows exploits.

    43. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *nix machines are just too hard for even hackers to use, lol.

    44. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS.

      Don't turn it on. That's how I protect my windows machines.

    45. Re:Windows TCO by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that's true. I can click on an ok button in windows and it just does it. That is hardly the same as opening a terminal to type some text in. And even if you use the GUI to click on an executable file in linux, if it tries to do something that is outside your permissions, it won't ask for the password, just tell you you don't have permission. Under the command line, it would say only root can do this. Your password and the root password are not the same (or shouldn't be). You would have to have insufficient brain to breathe if you just copied and pasted text from an unknown origin into your computer and then gave it super user permission to ruin your life. You don't see many exploits on windows where people follow a how-to to modify their registry to allow malware to operate.

    46. Re:Windows TCO by Vahokif · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu is still a desktop distribution, meaning that most users will know the root password and you still need to know how to use the terminal to install anything not in APT. Also if you try to do something you don't have permission to from the GUI, it'll pop up the graphical equivalent of sudo asking for the root password. As far as protecting users from themselves goes, Linux isn't any better at all.

    47. Re:Windows TCO by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      What is needed, whether running Windows, Linux or MacOSX on the desktop, is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data.

      That's easy, don't let normal users have root access. That way the only "installing" they can do is to run applications from their home directory.

      That is a complicated trick for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the face that the file system doesn't care if a file is data or executable code no matter where it is located in the file system.

      Maybe I'm being naive here, but don't most modern filesystems support this already? On unix systems you need to set the executable bit before running a shell script or program you download. I suppose if the file is in a tarball or something the permissions could/would be preserved. On Windows files are executable by default. That's something that should probably change.

      In the end, the TCO of Windows, in this respect, is still lower if for no other reason than the likelihood that someone has a quick and easy way to reload the system clean is pretty high up there.

      This is a moot point. I know there are lots of nice imaging solutions for Windows that make reinstalling the OS a very quick process. What you are forgetting is that most of these same utilities support Linux (and sometimes Mac) as well.

      There are fewer quick solutions to fixing or cleaning up a compromised system under Linux or MacOSX... with good reason -- they aren't your typical targets.

      Assuming your users don't have root access--and you should be slapped if they do--it's usually as simple as rm -Rf /home/infectedhomedirectory. If there is important data in there you can always disable executable permissions from recursivly and safely back up any data first.

      At any rate, none of this really affects the TCO at all. When you are running Windows you have to pay extra for AV software. On Linux and Mac you do not. Technical reasons aside, right now there is absolutly no reason to need to be concerned with AV software on Linux and Mac systems. This fact alone makes the Windows TCO higher.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    48. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I would argue that keeping a Linux distro up-to-date if much easier than keeping a Windows box. This is thanks to the good package managers in Linux and the fact that all (almost all) software is handled by it.

      On the Windows side you need to install numerous third party applications to have a functional system, and they do not get updated by Microsoft. Some of them have an auto-update feature (with an annoying upd process running in the background and poping up at random), some do not and rely on the user keeping tabs (which they do not). And I did not even mention the numerous "non-official" Windows installs that are bared from Windows Update.

    49. Re:Windows TCO by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the rules had to be changed, and it was technically a flaw in Flash that worked (and supposedly would have worked against any OS with Flash, and DEP turned off). http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=993

    50. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      As far as protecting users from themselves goes, Linux isn't any better at all.

      What about the protection they get from downloading 99% of their software from trusted signed repositories instead of some random website? Are you seriously claiming that's worth nothing?

      most users will know the root password and you still need to know how to use the terminal to install anything not in APT.

      Your ignorance is showing here. Ubuntu has the root account disabled by default and users are encouraged to do all admin via sudo or gui equivalent. And you don't need to use the terminal to install non-repo applications (assuming that's what you mean by the nonsense term 'not in APT') if they are packaged as debs - you just double click to install.

    51. Re:Windows TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IOW, Windows is a slippery pistol with a low trigger pull weight in a fragile holster. BSD & Linux "pistols" have no-slip grips, heavy trigger pull weights and sturdy leather holsters. You can shoot yourself in the foot with either, but Windows makes it a *lot* easier...

      Ok, you lost me there. Can you put that in a car analogy?

    52. Re:Windows TCO by mhall119 · · Score: 1

      I believe Linux has a similar noexec mount option.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    53. Re:Windows TCO by lamapper · · Score: 1

      note no IT system can really protect against physical access

      Nor based on the exploit mentioned in this post on slashdot could the windows machine protect against an external access.

      --
      Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
    54. Re:Windows TCO by lamapper · · Score: 1

      Nothing personal cawpin, just noting that the first line in his response mentioned time, which certainly is quantifiable.

      He does have a basis -- the effort (time or cost) required to get the system to a state where compromise was not likely.

      --
      Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
    55. Re:Windows TCO by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Windows is a sleek, supercharged Dodge Viper with a flaky brake system, no seatbelts or airbags, and an accelerator that sticks down.

      BSD and Linux are Volvos, with airbags galore, crumple zones bigger than most small cars, 4 wheel ceramic disc brakes, and bodywork that appears stodgy to fashionistas.

      You can crash either one. But the Viper is a lot more dangerous in untrained hands.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    56. Re:Windows TCO by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Let's see....inversely proportional...that would mean, when one is high, the other is low.

      So a high level of tech knowledge, means a low level of body odour strength.

      Good going. You're so stupid you even screw up the simplest flame.

      Do you use Windows, by any chance?

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    57. Re:Windows TCO by overbaud · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I don't have some elite *nix career and work at some huge multinational like cb services who have a website that looks like it was designed in frontpage! Bwaaa... Nice useage of the center alignment you got going on there. Given that my job is networking in the enterprise and I am using the cisco IOS all day no my main OS isn't windows, it's whatever the client provides me to telnet with. But I do have to met with and be involved with stinky *nix guys all day. "CB Services Lowest Price Guarantee" pay peanuts get monkeys... you better run... some people might need saving from that nasty daylight saving time fix. I may have messed my initial insult but you still bit... and any bite is the sign of a successful troll. Owned.

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    58. Re:Windows TCO by Tekgno · · Score: 1

      "thieves and bankers" Slightly redundant isn't it?

  2. Bank hold some responsibility by gd2shoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They set up a system that required multiple credentials to transfer money, but one of those credentials could be used to reset the other? Give me a break! This was a system deliberately setup to look more secure than it actually was. The Controller was relying on that extra protection the bank was offering. It seems the county was scammed twice!

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    1. Re:Bank hold some responsibility by Meshach · · Score: 1

      They set up a system that required multiple credentials to transfer money, but one of those credentials could be used to reset the other? Give me a break!

      To be fair the article says that the malware created the direct connection. The direct connection was probably not there by default.

      --
      "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
      Aldous Huxley
    2. Re:Bank hold some responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm gearing up for an argument tomorrow, with the client, on why only requiring a single answer to a limited set of questions is enough to reset a password is a terrible fucking idea. On a secure network, no less.

      Maybe we should just show a picture of mickey mouse, ask them what his name is, then allow them to reset passwords that way. Or just give them the passwords outright, that way anyone can get theirs if they lose it.

      It's a foolproof plan, if they assume EVERYONE is a fool.

      Jackasses.

    3. Re:Bank hold some responsibility by gd2shoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, I am being fair.

      Direct connection or not, that login shouldn't have been able to reset the other one. There are several reasons why two people needed to approve transfers from that account. Being able to unilaterally reset the Judges credentials is a big fat security hole in its own right.

      Sometimes an attack must rely on more than one vulnerability. This is one of those. Thus, I didn't say that the bank is 100% responsible, only that they hold some responsibility.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    4. Re:Bank hold some responsibility by plover · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My wife has long had to transfer money between various commercial accounts at her jobs. As far back as I can remember, the banks issued her RSA tokens which were required to authorize the transfers.

      I can't imagine a commercial bank NOT using a secure crypto system with an air gap. If the county is concerned about two authorizations, so much the better: issue the judge his own token.

      Even that could be compromised by a hacker who owned the treasurer's computer, but it would have been almost impossible to run the scam 500 times in a few days like this guy did.

      --
      John
    5. Re:Bank hold some responsibility by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Even that could be compromised by a hacker who owned the treasurer's computer

      Basically, he did own the Treasurer's computer, and that was the whole problem. In this case, the "air gap" should have been required to reset the judge's credentials.

      This is akin to a bank which cashes a check requiring 2 signatures, even if the signatures are exactly the same (or a whole bunch of checks, actually). It looks more secure on the face of it, but it is equally secure to requiring one signature only.

      I do like the idea of banks issuing tokens of some kind (or a list of one-use authorization passwords, etc).

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    6. Re:Bank hold some responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No; the bank has all the responsibility. They let through a transaction which was not one which the customer authorised, but one that a hacker authorised. The customer was not aware of this going on and could do nothing. The bank is responsible for choosing the security systems and could have built different ones which would not have allowed this attack. For example that you have to come down in person and sign for a transaction or that you have to do that every tenth transaction or whatever.

      These security measures might cost more, but that's the bank's decision. If they think paying for this loss is fine, then they should pay. What they should never be allowed to do is make the customer pay for their security decisions.

  3. Obligatory: by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    1. Re:Obligatory: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it as 'a complex hack and cron job'

  4. your tax money at work by clang_jangle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Convenient how governments and businesses continue to spend other people's money on insecure systems which allow even more money to vanish.
    Microsoft Windows --because plausible deniability can come in mighty handy!

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:your tax money at work by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1, Funny

      Convenient how governments and businesses continue to spend other people's money on insecure systems which allow even more money to vanish.
      Microsoft Windows --because plausible deniability can come in mighty handy!

      In other news, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) of California told all his debtors, that were expecting over $6 billion by the end of July, that California did have the money after all, the money was on the way, but currently stuck in Outlook. "I press da send key and it says "Netvurk Error" so as soon as that gets sorted out by the boys in the netvurk, da checks vill be on their vay. No need to lower the state's credit score. The money's just stuck in the outbox! Promise!"

      Wow, blaming Microsoft CAN make life easier for governments...

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    2. Re:your tax money at work by sexconker · · Score: 1

      What the fuck kind of accent are you attempting to mock?

    3. Re:your tax money at work by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Funny

      Governatorese.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:your tax money at work by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you go with the normal route, and the normal route gets hacked, you won't be blamed.

      If you setup a server on a system that your boss hasn't heard of, and you get hacked, you're fired.

      The chances of the former are much greater in a lot of ways. But the risk to your job is basically zero. Whereas in the second way, you're fired because you decided to use that silly deamon thing instead of proper, professional, Enterprise-Ready (tm) Windows 7.

    5. Re:your tax money at work by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Truly insightful. This is exactly the reason that you should always hack into the main Windows server and run your programs there when needed.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    6. Re:your tax money at work by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." --> "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft."

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    7. Re:your tax money at work by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      Clara Furse, the CEO of the London Stock Exchange got.

    8. Re:your tax money at work by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Except that's not how Arnold speaks at all. WTF with the "v"s everywhere?

    9. Re:your tax money at work by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Good point. Unfortunately that's still the wild exception.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    10. Re:your tax money at work by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      You mean:

      VTF vith the "v"s everyvhere?

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  5. enh, the criminals we get these days... by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All that work, and they netted less than a half million?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:enh, the criminals we get these days... by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Funny

      No kidding, if they were real hackers, they would have gotten away with $1.337 Million.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    2. Re:enh, the criminals we get these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if the account had access to barely over that amount available. You're not 1337 if you leave thousands behind. Generally, it'd be easier to just leave $13.37 as the final balance!

      (Comment is to be used on humor basis alone, I do not condone electronic theft. Other exclusions and fine print may apply. Use with caution.)

    3. Re:enh, the criminals we get these days... by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      This isn't the first or last place they've hit. Half a million is only a portion of their "net proceeds".

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    4. Re:enh, the criminals we get these days... by causality · · Score: 1

      (Comment is to be used on humor basis alone, I do not condone electronic theft. Other exclusions and fine print may apply. Use with caution.)

      You're making me feel like I need a long disclaimer before the next time that I start talking shit...

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:enh, the criminals we get these days... by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      They could be playing it safe. Once you hit a million, you're in the big leagues and go straight to the top of the Most Wanted list.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    6. Re:enh, the criminals we get these days... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sadly i have to say I DO condone electronic theft. Why? Because it is the only way we'll ever do anything about this "security theater" bullshit, that's why. How many times in the past few years have we seen large corporations or government institutions, where thousands upon thousands of folks CC numbers, identities, records, etc are on the line get totally boned by Dilbert PHB level stupidity?

      All the "security" in the world ain't gonna do jack shit until we have real penalties for all these mouth breathers that allow truly monumental stupidity to go on under their noses. As long as these corps can just go "oops" and get away with dumb shit like letting employees carry out tons of data on unencrypted laptops, or leaving the backup tapes in a Honda, or placing their old PCs complete with data out on the curb then this crap is simply never gonna get better.

      Because actual security planning and best practices cost real money and as long as total dumbasses like these are allowed to keep on doing business and ultimately passing on the costs to us I say the more break ins of truly stupid corps the better. Maybe then we'll get some regulations with teeth and shut down the PHB run corps. But until then they will just keep pushing their "security theater" while we marvel at the total lack of even the tiniest bit of common sense in these large institutions.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:enh, the criminals we get these days... by n00btastic · · Score: 1

      You are partly correct, but I want to believe that exploiting individuals will only justify the security theatre in most people's minds. If people hacked with 'integrity', then their activities would not lend themselves to exageration and manipulation by the press and the government.

      For every dollar stolen there is ten being given to some other corp to secure their systems, fear mongering laws and your tax money being spent.

    8. Re:enh, the criminals we get these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or just have stolen 24 mp3's at a price of 80.000 each!!!

    9. Re:enh, the criminals we get these days... by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > if they were real hackers

      And if they were real criminals, they would have trousered $64.8 billion.

    10. Re:enh, the criminals we get these days... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      ,i>ll that work, and they netted less than a half million?

      You should look at the exchange rate.... That is a LOT of money in FSU.

    11. Re:enh, the criminals we get these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      leetooo!

  6. This is nothing novel. by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

    Malware has been installing proxies and/or phoning home for years. (backdoors to direct-connect to/through your machine, instant messaging keystrokes).

    --
    from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    1. Re:This is nothing novel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. I'd take a peek around /windows/system (yes I've primarily used UNIXes haha), look through files by date, and well, one machine alone had logs from 5 different keyloggers. (The executables had been removed, but those had all been running before that.)

  7. HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC? by davidsyes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the site:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/07/an_odyssey_of_fraud_part_ii.html?hpid=sec-tech

    one reader wrote in:

    "I guess we don't know how the attackers somehow got the Zeus Trojan on the county treasurer's PC (presumably the county doesn't want to say and the FBI told them not to discuss details of the case anyway), but I'm curious whether that PC had security software installed, whether it was up to date, which security software can deal with the Zbot (ZeuS bot) Trojan, etc.

    ---------

    Well, i have an idea, and it's TFO (Totally Frackin' Obvious)... and might be how it happened. A poor old cleanup crew member may have been elicited to put a USB device on a bank manager machine that might not have been watched by a camera. Might have trained the cleaner to surveil the PCs, determine their visibility to cameras, then trained the dupe into deftly/swiftly attaching a USB attack device while feigning scraping something sticky from the floor, or emptying waste bins that were tough to get the bag from....

    Just my eye-dea... and the FBI may not want THAT to get out lest other banks suffering poor camera placement succumb to the same thing...

    Or, a native of the Ukraine/U-area working at the bank might have been subjected to manipulation of some sort, but trained to be deft and not come under suspicion. Just my inflation-deprived-$0.02-cents...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    1. Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      whupps... not "Elicited"... i meant "SOlicited"... OTOH, "e-"....

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    2. Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like they used security measures. If they are anything like what I've experienced just in the last few years, they allow their employee's to take home laptops. The employee's install malware on them as fast as humanly possible to get the latest roller babies video and what not then share crap with each other over internal file servers and email. Just place a bridge with tcpdump & ssldump on their connection to the web and watch. The amount of UDP high port to high port traffic, P2P, makes up 40% of their traffic. The amount of 445 traffic to random outside ip address, conflicker and others, makes up another 25%. The smallest amount is nicely encrypted traffic for secure connections for business purposes. If anyone wants to bet their users passwords for those secure connections are not stored in the registry on their laptops I'll be happy to take your money. Send cash directly to my mailbox. It is probably safer than going through a bank.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    3. Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Find out if the bank manger smokes, or his/her sectary smokes. Note when they go for a smoke and where. Get a few of those USB thumb drives from trade shows and lace them with trojans and place them near the smokers outside break area and wait for them to pick it up and place them back in their machines when they get back inside. Because usually they will just to see what was on the drive.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    4. Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC? by Maestro4k · · Score: 1

      Well, i have an idea, and it's TFO (Totally Frackin' Obvious)... and might be how it happened. A poor old cleanup crew member may have been elicited to put a USB device on a bank manager machine that might not have been watched by a camera. Might have trained the cleaner to surveil the PCs, determine their visibility to cameras, then trained the dupe into deftly/swiftly attaching a USB attack device while feigning scraping something sticky from the floor, or emptying waste bins that were tough to get the bag from....

      More likely the treasurer was running with admin rights and cluelessly visited a link from an E-mail using IE that infected the PC. That or they stupidly downloaded and ran something because it promised a free screensaver/funny video/porn/etc. You don't need complicated scenarios to infect an end-user's Windows PC with a trojan, just bad IT practices and clueless users. As for anti-virus/other security software, this was probably a new variant of the Zeus trojan (considering the article says the direct connection part was new supports this) and said software may have missed it simply because it wasn't in their definitions yet.

    5. Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      No that isn't as reliable as sending them a "scam" email infected with a Trojan Horse program using an exploit in JPG or GIF picture rendering to execute code that installs the Trojan Horse by simply viewing the picture file.

      No doubt they made the email look like a bank customer or another employee by faking the email address and using social engineering to fool them into thinking it is legit and click on it to read it.

      If they left a USB thum drive, Police could get fingerprints off of that and then they would be caught. The email scam worked the best for other crimes of that nature before. Usually an employee or manager falls for it and gets infected.

      When I used to work for some companies, there were always employees who fell for that scam and got virus infected. I'd know it as their email client would send me 8 or more emails with the same name and subject and body of message, and I was too smart to click on it and read it, because I suspected they got infected. One scam criminals tried to use involved greeting cards and clicking on the attached file for the greeting card infected the system with a virus. Once infected the virus uses the email address book (usually Outlook) to send out more infected emails. Most of the time it was a manager or co-worker that was stupid enough to click on the infected email. Me I usually just ignore greeting cards and other email that I suspect of being a virus, and I am right all of the time about that. That is because it does stupid stuff like send the same person 8 copies of the same message, nobody should be stupid enough to click on email that has 8 copies and is virtually the same thing with an attached file or image that looks like some computer program like a virus sent it.

      For example the "ILOVEYOU" LoveBug Virus, I didn't fall for that because I knew that coworkers and managers don't send out messages with the title of "I LOVE YOU!" on it multiple times. Others did, and they were stupid enough to read it and click on the attachment.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    6. Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, a native of the Ukraine/U-area working at the bank might have been subjected to manipulation of some sort, but trained to be deft and not come under suspicion

      Or some native of America might have been subject to manipulation of some sort (such as 'hey, dude, fancy a night with Paris Hilton' or even 'hey, dude, there's a hundred bucks in it and you can keep your grandmother')

      Just my 0.02 renmimbi's worth.

    7. Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC? by jimbob666 · · Score: 1
      http://www.darkreading.com/security/perimeter/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208803634 Social Engineering the USB way is a great read.

      Human nature: Don't you just love it?

      I have been an IT tech for many years and *still* don't know how to do URL links in /. comments :(

    8. Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC? by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      You don't even have to put anything on them. The users will take them home and plug them and copy all those hilarious email forwards they got from other users so they can take them to work and show their coworkers. They'd just fw: fw: from the home pc, but it stopped working right recently...

      Mostly I see security issues occur because the local desktop support gave each user full admin access to their pc's and almost limitless net access. It's either that or they get an even bigger deluge of "the thingy doesn't work" tickets called in. but since we dutifully run and update the whole mcafee schmear, it's all good, right?

      Security software doesn't actually secure anything, educated and motivated admins do.

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    9. Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish people would quit using inflation as an excuse to offer crappier and crappier comments.

  8. Next time try a bigger county by randy+of+the+redwood · · Score: 1

    They tried to steal $415,000 from a county with only 73,000 people? Didn't they think anyone would notice?
    Next time they should try Los Angeles county (9.8 million people).

    'course they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!

    --
    The sun is the same in a relative way, but you are shorter of breath and one day closer to death
    1. Re:Next time try a bigger county by nanospook · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was a test run..

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    2. Re:Next time try a bigger county by Dpaladin · · Score: 0

      I have a feeling it's a little easier to fool Bullitt County than it is to fool LA. After all, they were home to that McDonald's strip search fiasco!

      --
      Bad puns gave me bad karma. =(
    3. Re:Next time try a bigger county by Mordantos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Cali is broke ;)

    4. Re:Next time try a bigger county by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      They're foreign nationals. They don't care if anybody notices. Once they have the money, they're practically untraceable, untouchable. It sounds like they've done this before, and will do this again.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    5. Re:Next time try a bigger county by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Maybe they did do it to LA. And nobody noticed.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Next time try a bigger county by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's the idiot "forwarders" that get the shaft.

      I can't believe that people think it's a regular occurrence that people and/or companies need help transferring money around, or that if they do understand that they are doing something illegal, that it's unlikely they will get caught when they use their own personal bank account/information.

      Dumb Dumb Dumb.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:Next time try a bigger county by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Just like MS marketing :)
      They're a multinational. They don't care if anybody notices. Once they have the money, they're practically untraceable, untouchable. It sounds like they've done this before, and will do this again.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    8. Re:Next time try a bigger county by causality · · Score: 1

      They're foreign nationals. They don't care if anybody notices.

      So if they were foreign locals, they would be deeply concerned?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    9. Re:Next time try a bigger county by plover · · Score: 1

      They stole from someone who had a commercial account who installed their Trojan. It probably didn't matter to the thief if it was a county in Kentucky, a business in Miami, or a police department in New York. It was someone who had a bank balance of at least half a million dollars. And that someone had a crappy authentication scheme.

      It seems like a crime of opportunity, like robbing the first armored car that drives by instead of waiting for one that just came from the Federal Reserve Bank with a load of newly minted money.

      --
      John
  9. Lobsters by kylemonger · · Score: 1

    I could not help but think of the uploaded FSB lobsters from Accelerando when I read the horribly malformed missives the thieves sent to be edited.

  10. How does a keylogger ever spread? by gd2shoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a much more likely scenario. They simply spread their malware everywhere, and waited to see what sensitive systems they'd netted! They needed to dupe people into sending money overseas to them. I doubt they have any non-electronic influence in the states. The story indicates that the fake company name has been repeatedly tarnished... meaning it's very likely that they've done this before and will do this again. It probably got on by worm or trojan. Once there, it sat dormant while the hackers figured out which computers were of value to attack.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    1. Re:How does a keylogger ever spread? by mistahkurtz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a much more likely scenario. They simply spread their malware everywhere

      with drive-by downloads, phony system messages, work attachments from infected friends, lovers, coworkers, etc. just like what happened to a coworker, an above-average computer user for an IT company. all of a sudden he's got (literally out of nowhere) a new, very microsoft-looking anti-virus* (and considering that ms just came out with, or is coming out with a free fully-featured AV app, (which he knows, since he's in charge of enterprise software, including microsoft EA, etc.) he almost leaves it alone, until it asked him for $70 USD) that claimed to have found a nasty trojan that needed to be removed IMMEDIATELY or else the moon falls, internet dies, cthulhu comes a'calling, etc etc etc.

      we've all seen the hokey web popups that claim to have found problems with your PC. this is just the not-new next step. which is all the easier to accomplish with software that you understandably *don't* want the user looking at...


      * note: when i saw the phony AV malware, i, too, thought it was the new MS antivirus, until i poked around in it and found misspellings, grammar mistakes, etc. (all you anti-grammar-nazis out there, this is why people bitch about it - it's very hard to take someone seriously when their thoughts are misspelled, unorganized, and give the impression they're representative of someone uneducated/irrelevant - imagine if you booted into AIX, or Windows, or were poking around in Excel, or your legit AV and were greeted with a screen that said "Weclome, user, our helps desk are for 24/7 hour service".....pardon the flamebait at the end please)

      --
      not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
  11. Learn English by NoobixCube · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, I am a pedantic Grammar Nazi, and I anticipate a great modding down of this comment, but my need to say this is worse than any addict's craving for his next fix. There are few things I hate more than redundant words. "Co-conspirator" is about as redundant as it gets. A conspiracy is a group of people. People conspire to do something like this, and you call those people conspirators. What happens in a hundred years when we forget that "co-conspirator" was being used this way? Do we start saying "co-co-conspirator"?

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    1. Re:Learn English by Dpaladin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, I am a pedantic Grammar Nazi, and I anticipate a great modding down of this comment, but my need to say this is worse than any addict's craving for his next fix. There are few things I hate more than redundant words. "Co-conspirator" is about as redundant as it gets. A conspiracy is a group of people. People conspire to do something like this, and you call those people conspirators. What happens in a hundred years when we forget that "co-conspirator" was being used this way? Do we start saying "co-co-conspirator"?

      Of course! It should be co-nspirator, referring to multiple nspirators working together...

      --
      Bad puns gave me bad karma. =(
    2. Re:Learn English by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      Cocoa conspirator.

    3. Re:Learn English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, your grammar nazi-ing is not even correct. Co-conspirator and conspirator indicate different things, like specificity. If I am involved in a computer conspiracy, and another person is involved in a highway tax conspiracy, we are both conspirators. We are not, however, co-conspirators. We are not partners, we are not involved in the same conspiracy.

      Also, it is possible for a conspirator to have a partner who is not part of the conspiracy. If a conspirator goes to someone and is able to get them to do a job with them, but withhold information regarding the conspiracy or its goals, then the conspirators new partner is not a co-conspirator.

      The use of co-conspirator is used to denote the relation of one conspirator to another. It would actually be improper grammar to remove the "co", as it would imply ownership of one to the other. "His conspirator" and "his co-conspirator" have obviously different meanings. The use of co-conspirator removes ownership from the previous statement, and is therefore not redundant.

      The first rule of the grammar nazi is only to make corrections when they are themselves correct. You, sir, and an epic fail.

      P.S. Feel free to correct the poor grammar in that last sentence as if it were English, so I can call you wrong again. It's fun.

    4. Re:Learn English by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't sweat it dude. You won't be here in a few hundred years. In fact, I just checked with the Ouija board. You only have 24 years, 10 months, and 3 days left. So, don't sweat the petty shit, you weenie. (Yeah, the Ouija board told me that you're a weenie, too - odd, you DON'T live in your mother's basement? Ahhhh, I see now.........)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:Learn English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory Duckman: "Well we don't LIVE in England, do we?!"

    6. Re:Learn English by liquibyte · · Score: 1

      Co-conspirator == cooperative conspirator in other words?

    7. Re:Learn English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also an equality relationship given by co-conspirator. Like the difference between a co-worker and boss/sub-ordinate.

      If I say "John is Mike's conspirator" I imply a degree of ownership or superiority. If I saw "John is Mike's co-conspirator", I am no longer implying John is working for Mike, just with him.

    8. Re:Learn English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if two people are friends with each other do you call them co-friends? I don't think so. Co-conspirator is retarded.

    9. Re:Learn English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. All nouns are exactly alike, and if co doesn't work as a prefix for all of them (friends) it doesn't work for any (conspirator). I completely agree. Why don't we just drop "co" off of everything, co-friends doesn't make sense, therefore nothing with "co" can make sense. No more co-workers, coordinators, or cosigners. Just works, ordinators, and signers.

      In fact, it isn't even necessary to address the GP's points about ownership or multiple conspiracies. Just make blanket statements supported by non-sequitor analogy and you can't lose!

    10. Re:Learn English by causality · · Score: 1

      No, your grammar nazi-ing is not even correct. Co-conspirator and conspirator indicate different things, like specificity. If I am involved in a computer conspiracy, and another person is involved in a highway tax conspiracy, we are both conspirators. We are not, however, co-conspirators. We are not partners, we are not involved in the same conspiracy.

      Also, it is possible for a conspirator to have a partner who is not part of the conspiracy. If a conspirator goes to someone and is able to get them to do a job with them, but withhold information regarding the conspiracy or its goals, then the conspirators new partner is not a co-conspirator.

      The use of co-conspirator is used to denote the relation of one conspirator to another. It would actually be improper grammar to remove the "co", as it would imply ownership of one to the other. "His conspirator" and "his co-conspirator" have obviously different meanings. The use of co-conspirator removes ownership from the previous statement, and is therefore not redundant.

      The first rule of the grammar nazi is only to make corrections when they are themselves correct. You, sir, and an epic fail.

      P.S. Feel free to correct the poor grammar in that last sentence as if it were English, so I can call you wrong again. It's fun.

      Wait, you mentioned the word "conspiracy" or one of its derivatives. That means that whatever you said is automatically invalid and will be dismissed without examination, particularly if it involved or could involve the government!

      Really though, thanks for providing the first real explanation of "co-conspirator" I have ever heard. I admit I did wonder why people used this term, probably because I only ever hear it on the news.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  12. Strange brew that's also good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be kombucha.

  13. Some people think they can outsmart me... by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

    But I've yet to meet the man that can outsmart Bullitt.

    1. Re:Some people think they can outsmart me... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Nobody remembers Steve McQueen anymore...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  14. At least they got the decimal place correct! by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

    The sub-$10,000 transfers was a good way to help avoid attention... but imagine if the decimal place was off, and what should have been "fractions of a penny that get dropped off" and add up over many years becomes a couple hundred thousands or millions over the weekend!

  15. So impressed by basic tech by billcopc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    more interesting feature of this malware... is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers

    I find it hilarious that basic TCP/IP networking stuff gets labeled as "interesting". Any idiot can initiate a connection to a host on the internet.

    What's "interesting" is that the victim's machine was not firewalled to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place. Properly controlling outgoing traffic is of crucial importance, particularly when dealing with such sensitive information. A locked down network should be able to contain unknown connections from within, just as well as those from the great wide internet.

    In my opinion, it's not the invader that cost Kentucky $415,000. The fault rests entirely on their network administrator(s).

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
    1. Re:So impressed by basic tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >In my opinion, it's not the invader that cost Kentucky $415,000. The fault rests entirely on their network administrator(s).

      I don't know anyone who would be competent in that job who could be persuaded to relocate to Kentucky.

    2. Re:So impressed by basic tech by mr+exploiter · · Score: 1

      You don't get it, what they used is the logged in connection to the servers remotely. This is not a TCP/IP level attack, is more like an application attack because they must have used the IE object for the already logged in HTTP or HTTPS connection to the server. This is no rocket science but I think its a notch above script kiddie level.

    3. Re:So impressed by basic tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many modern malware programs create command and control tunnels across ports typically considered safe. The direct connection could have very well been over SSL, so the traffic would look like typical encrypted web traffic. A firewall alone will not save you; you need a layered approach. Sadly, No-Script + firewall probably would have been enough.

      And for those of you dead set on the notion that someone personally installed Zbot using a USB drive, think again. I'd put my money on this being one of the many drive-by installs from an advertisement on a web page - no porn sites, warez, or emails involved. I doubt it was targeted. Most likely, it just happened that the malware user simply got lucky with the machine that he infected.

    4. Re:So impressed by basic tech by plover · · Score: 1

      I don't know anyone who would be competent in that job who could be persuaded to relocate to Kentucky.

      I know plenty of people who are out of work (through no fault of their own) and would relocate just about anywhere for a paycheck. When you've got a steadily growing pile of bills to pay and a kid to feed, you become less choosy.

      --
      John
    5. Re:So impressed by basic tech by mistahkurtz · · Score: 1

      Properly controlling outgoing traffic is of crucial importance, particularly when dealing with such sensitive information.

      agreed, but, (and i do not manage enterprise networks or handle security/compliance) as i understand it, the problem lies in some hardware or software being able to tell the difference between a connection that the user (or legitimate software) intended to initiate (or participate in), and a connection that the user/software did not intend to initiate or participate in.

      even if you had human eyes watching and controlling every connection, that would be tough. connecting to a russian IP address from your Toledo, KS office? probably unintended. unless if it's someone in purchasing buying that SQL extension, or Outlook add-on, from that small Russian software developer. or a chinese IP address, with an encrypted connection? is it one of your designers uploading new schematics to the chinese fab company?

      in talking with folks from the x-force (IBM's ISS team), enterprise networking, networking VARs, and manufacturers, the intent behind the connection is the hardest thing to program for in network security.

      --
      not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
  16. TCO by phrostie · · Score: 1

    is this included in M$'s total cost of ownership?

    1. Re:TCO by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      User Stupidity is not limited to what operating system a person uses and hence is not a MS specific TCO.

    2. Re:TCO by Nutria · · Score: 1

      User Stupidity is not limited to what operating system a person uses and hence is not a MS specific TCO.

      But some OSs (and browsers) are more amenable to stupidity than others.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  17. Lets fix the story: by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft Cost a Kentucky County $415,000 :(
    When will they learn.
    This is my Unix. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My Unix is my best friend.
    It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. My Unix, without me, is useless.
    Without my Unix, I am useless. I must run my Unix true.
    I must admin smarter than any hacker who is trying to own me. I must block them before they hack me. I will....
    My Unix and myself know that what counts on this net is not the scripts we code, the size of our pipe, nor the data we send.
    We know that it is the uptime that counts.
    We will stay up...
    My Unix is human, even as I, because it is my only life.
    Thus, I will learn it as a brother.
    I will report its bugs, share its strengths, upgrade parts, buy its accessories, open its ports and lobby for more bandwidth.
    I will keep my Unix clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready.
    We will become part of each other. We will...
    Before Darl McBride I swear this creed. My Unix and myself are the defenders of the company I work for.
    We are the masters of your script kids.
    We are the saviors of your profit.
    So be it, until victory is America's and there is no competition, but Profit.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Lets fix the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn. Another "UNIX is awesome, blame Windows" comment.

      If everyone was using Linux, the attacks would be targeted at (and work on) Linux. 'nuff said.

    2. Re:Lets fix the story: by Dullstar · · Score: 1

      Yawn. Another "UNIX-based systems suck" post. There are several distributions of Linux, and several types. No guarantees the software would be inter-compatible. 'nuff said.

    3. Re:Lets fix the story: by Windowser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, almost everyone is using Apache, yet the most hacked webserver is IIS.
      You are so wrong, it's not even funny

      --
      Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
    4. Re:Lets fix the story: by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Does anyone actually have up to date statistics on this assertion? Its often brought up, but I've never seen anything to support it - remember, Microsoft improved IIS from version 5 onward, and it has tended to have less issues than Apache since then.

  18. Security audits are important! by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

    Why? Because this is an example of what happens when they're not.

    If I'm not mistaken, most keylogging programs can be kept out fairly easily with decent firewall rules and a good anti-spyware/anti-malware agent. The article does not report that this county's IT department (which I'll guess and say is non-existent or illusory) took preventative measures against these attacks.

    Basically, they had it coming.

    1. Re:Security audits are important! by Shados · · Score: 1

      Anti-spyware/malware maybe. Firewall rules however, useless. What do you do if the software simply does an HTTP Post to a web service with default proxy settings, or if the sysadmin is clever and uses a setup where the default proxy settings are not being used, its not too hard to sniff/autodetect them. Not much to do when the malwares use the same outbound as another important piece of software...

    2. Re:Security audits are important! by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Simple: you set up a list of only 20 or so permitted websites, and if someone needs to look up regulatory information on some obscure county website somewhere they can file form 128-A in triplicate and submit this to their manager, who submits it and F-39 to their manager, who (if they have not exceeded their department-wide quarterly quota on variances) sends it to the head of the IT department across the hall, whose secretary shreds all three copies of 128-A individually then types F-39 into a web form that times out if all 40 fields are not completed in 1 minute, which is then submitted to the IT support queue, where in 4 to 6 weeks it will be considered, and (assuming it is accepted) the IT department will allow a one hour window for accessing that site.

      The IT department will place an interdepartment mail into their outbox as soon as the window opens, letting the submitter know that they have one hour to access the requested site.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  19. Linux is not the holly grail by shemp42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone who is claiming that linux should be used and its those stupid MS users that cause this are missing the point and have never spent one second working in a corporate IT enviroment. The fact is that every single security measure that is put in place is met with overwhelming opposition by the user base as well as the executives. A spam filter is looked at as the unholy antichrist because it blocks .00001% of legitimate emails. I have worked corporated IT for years and have constantly had to fight for just the basic's in security. IT is not given the authority to do its job. I am sure there is some IT guy that worked for the county that is now unemployed because he didnt stop it, even though he has been banging his head againest the wall to get security measures put in place. I for one am tired of hearing that the answer is Linux. Sh*& I cant even upgrade to Office 2007 without getting hundreds of phone calls from users that cant find the print button. You want me to switch them to linux? That is just comical. Rather than constantly blaming the victim we need to get tough on the criminals. If somone is mugged you dont tell them that they should not have walked down the street. You go after the guys that mugged them. You dont tell the convienence store owner that he was robbed because he was open and should not let people enter the store. This stops when we get tough on the criminals and the governments that allow them operate free from risk. How long do you think it would take these countries to stop this if we cut off all trade and aid to them? The fact is that cybercrime is not looked at as real crime. Until we start caring more about it and electing people who understand the risks it wont matter what system is in place, it will be exploited.

    1. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by Dullstar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, Linux usually won't even need security software in the first place. You're right about some points, but not all of them. I'm going to say that your points about the victims in the scenarios you gave are relevant. And the ones who can't find the print button are just idiots. We need to get tough on the criminals, yes, but, however... it helps if people take better measures to make it harder to occur too. So Linux is the answer... but it is the only answer? No. There's Mac OS X.

    2. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by Shados · · Score: 1

      He didn't say security software. He talked about security measures in general. That means making users have strong passwords and change them regularly, not running every application they see, etc.

      You can spout how Linux is more secure by design all day, but usually the current user context is MORE than enough to do damage, no matter how restricted you make it (if a user can read their own email and type in their own browser and read their own instant messages, so can a software, and its all whats needed). There's nothing you can do when a hacker can just CALL the damn user, ask them for their password, and they'll hand it over. So you need to add VPNs, proxies, restrict internet access, force password changes, etc, no matter which OS. But that is met with extreme resistance (hell, even IT people, even I, will resist it...). The software is rarely the problem.

    3. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by pushf+popf · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Everyone who is claiming that linux should be used and its those stupid MS users that cause this are missing the point and have never spent one second working in a corporate IT enviroment. The fact is that every single security measure that is put in place is met with overwhelming opposition by the user base as well as the executives. A spam filter is looked at as the unholy antichrist because it blocks .00001% of legitimate emails. I have worked corporated IT for years and have constantly had to fight for just the basic's in security. IT is not given the authority to do its job. I am sure there is some IT guy that worked for the county that is now unemploy

      I'll admit it's been about 15 years since I was in Banking, but either these bank people were all morons or things have really changed.
      • Why exactly is the wire transfer system even on the same network as the PCs?
      • Why do bank users even have removable drives and active USB ports?
      • Where were the auditors?
      • Where were the security people?
    4. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Onetime passwords?
      No need to remember the passwords and no need have policy to change them after X days... just a thought ... yes I'm in IT and all my (non-local) passwords are onetime ones.

    5. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by Dullstar · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, guess he did. But the software would have to be multi-platform to work.

    6. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by Dullstar · · Score: 1

      The security people were in another galaxy, from the sounds of things.

    7. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most of the onetime password stuff is OS independent ... might need additional gadget / sw installed though, but still ...

    8. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by Nutria · · Score: 1

      we need to get tough on the criminals.

      They're in Kiev, you jackass, or Moscow, and surely kicking back to the police. And I'm not even sure that those countries have extradition treaties with the US. If they can even be identified and located...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by plover · · Score: 2, Informative

      Things have changed, at least for ordinary commercial accounts. Money transfers are done via web browser. And nobody except a couple of imaginative slashdotters said anything about USB drives -- TFA says only that it was a "zbot Trojan" but doesn't identify the infection path.

      The auditors and security people obviously approved the "two people requirement" but failed to identify the weaknesses in the implementation. Yes, that's certainly a failing, but unless you have a CISSP on staff you probably don't even know that you need one. An auditor who learned his trade 25 years ago (and hasn't kept up his education) might not recognize what needs to be secured in this environment.

      --
      John
    10. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by Max_W · · Score: 1

      So what? There are daily flights to Kiev from major European capitals. Some fat law enforcement officer should lift from a chair, buy an air ticket for 500 bucks and go to Kiev.

      There is Interpol office in Kiev. Ukraine is a member of UN.

      It is easy to say "Kiev" and do nothing.

    11. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some fat law enforcement officer should lift from a chair, buy an air ticket for 500 bucks and go to Kiev.

      You really think it's that easy to get a foreign national into your court system????

      Especially if they are clever enough to hide their digital tracks.

      There is Interpol office in Kiev.

      There are also lots of easily-bribed cops in Kiev.

      Ukraine is a member of UN.

      It is easy to say "Kiev" and do nothing.

      Like it's easy to invoke the holy name "UN", and believe that Ban Ki-moon will swoop down and smite the enemy.

      Do you also believe in Santa Clause???

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    12. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Certainly, it is not easy and even impossible if an officer does not speak foreign languages and proud of it. But there are a lot of people living the USA who do speak the language, which is spoken in Kiev. They could do this job better than "pure" Hollywood-style cops. They should be hired and trained.

      Yes, there are a lot of easily bribed cops in Kiev. And it can be well used. If one offers to a Kiev law enforcement general, say, a training program for his digital crime division, he will in return have these criminals caught and shot by a firing squad, speaking figuratively. Still it would cost the international banking and the US government less than doing nothing in the new quickly globalizing world. And it would give lasting results.

      And Kiev law enforcement also have interests in criminals who run away to the USA. But they also think: "Ah, well. There is nothing we can do. We even are not able to explain to the US police what we want and why. We do not speak English. We do not even know a number where to call."

      This is how it is. I know it. But to have an effective cooperation one has to build an international effort, via Interpol, via UN, via seminars, reciprocal training courses, etc. There are armies of UN diplomats in Geneva, including Ukrainian, half-sleeping.

      One has to go in there openly, in good faith (not via secret agencies), get hands dirty, learn languages, culture, people, system. Learn to play it. This is how work done. Sitting in an ivory tower and bombing from time to time around will not do the job. This was my point. Still it would cost less.

    13. Re:Linux is not the holly grail by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      I agree with Nutria. I can speak Russian pretty well (not fluent, but still pretty good) and I've spent a good deal of time in Ukraine. There are a lot of similarities between Ukraine and Russia and some differences. In Russia, the government basically doesn't care at all that criminals steal from the west. Their attitude is "It sucks to be you!" to the victims and as long as the criminals are causing problems for people outside of the country and potentially paying taxes on what they steal, they will continue to look the other way. In Ukraine, the government does not particularly like having citizens rip off people in the west. Russia has proven that it can't be trusted to respect borders where ethnic Russians live (look at Georgia) and Ukraine's population is roughly 40% Russian. (Long story short - Krushchev gave the Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s. That plus the fact that what is now eastern Ukraine is mostly inhabited by ethnic Russians has led to a significant chunk of what is now Ukraine being strongly Russian in character.) The current Ukrainian government is essentially ethnic Ukrainian and they fear the embrace of Mother Russia with good reason. My ex-fiancee was Ukrainian and her great grandparents were murdered by Stalin's henchmen in the 1930s. So the government of Ukraine has pushed forward a pro-EU and pro-NATO policy specifically because it is the only way to guarantee that Russia won't invade on some pretext and annex Ukraine like they did to those regions in Georgia. So the Ukrainian government doesn't like it when people in Ukraine rip off the west because that just hurts the ability of Ukraine to appear stable enough to eventually get into NATO and the EU.

      People in the ex-USSR just got ruined by living there. As a general rule, they are fairly immoral (a good number of people are highly unethical and dishonest) and they are "live for today" to an extreme. They also have a sense of entitlement that is just impossible to understand if you have never been there. They honestly think that the west got rich by essentially holding them back (the Soviet government pretty much convinced them of that) and that robbing the west is just payback for past sins the west committed against them. So this attitude makes it easy to find people who want to steal from the west. Then you have an incredibly corrupt police and judicial system. All you have to do is just pay the judge enough money prior to the trial and you will win - it's guaranteed. And the police can easily be bribed to overlook any crime, botch any investigation, or to go examine your enemies and cause problems for them. You can see that the main government in Kiev has an interest in Ukrainians behaving ethically as such furthers their plans for EU and NATO membership which in turn protects them from Russian invasion. However, the citizens in general (foolishly in my opinion) don't believe that Russia would really invade and they have no concept of delayed gratification, so when given a choice between stealing and immediately profiting from it or being honest, they will choose to steal. Why not? Even if they get arrested, the odds are high that they can bribe their way out of it.

  20. Hmmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens if Autorun and file preview is disabled?

    1. Re:Hmmmm.... by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then they click on either hotsexygal.jpg.exe or hotmanlystud.jpg.exe, depending.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  21. We're talking about Kentucy! by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    "I can't imagine a commercial bank NOT using a secure crypto system with an air gap."

    Dood, remember, this is Kentucky we're talking about here. The same place where an anonymous caller's commands to disrobe and be spanked (and perform other various sexual acts) was enough for a young adult Kentucky female to obey (recall that McDonald's episode?).

    Also, isn't that the same state that moron senator McConnell is from?

    1. Re:We're talking about Kentucy! by quadrox · · Score: 1

      Is this something that actually happened? A quick search on google gets me no interesting results.

    2. Re:We're talking about Kentucy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Kentucy"? "Dood"? Yeah. And if you indict Kentuckians' intelligence based on one of their Senators, you have indicted us all.

  22. Lame story. by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

    That malware is not interesting at all. I remember playing with SubSeven when I was in 7th grade (long long time ago) and it had ICQ notification and reverse bind options.

  23. Tokens are half measures by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    Man in the middle attacks still work, they can just let you use your token to authorize their transfer rather than the one you are seeing on your screen. The calculators which give a response to a challenge suffer from the same problem, unless they use the recipients bank account as part of the challenge (mine doesn't, for large amounts it uses the amount as a challenge but a trojan could still route it to a different account).

    Ideally banks would just give out a USB device which shows the bank account and amount with a big green authorization button ... alas, they don't.

    1. Re:Tokens are half measures by mhall119 · · Score: 1

      SSL should prevent man in the middle attacks, except that you really can't trust the trusted certificates issued by the usual pre-approved CAs anymore. If you really want to be safe, delete all default trusts and only add those for sites you can verify yourself.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
  24. Re:We're talking about Kentucky! by plover · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Idiots live everywhere (and keep in mind the plural of 'anecdote' isn't 'data'.) It might be that Kentucky has less money than other states, but I wouldn't say they're correspondingly "dumber" than other states.

    Also, isn't that the same state that moron senator X is from?

    That pretty much describes all 50 states.

    --
    John
  25. When will online bank understand that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When will online bank understand that the only 100% foolproof method is to mandate the presence of a hardware device on the user's side and to make the bank account number of the recipient you want to transfer the money to part of a cryptographic challenge?

    That is 100% foolproof. You ain't wiring money to an account whose number hasn't been entered on the hardware device (say some www.vasco.com device). Full stop.

    Some lowlife hacks my Windows (I'm not using for my online bank's website works fine under Linux) and intercepts in realtime my opened connection to my bank's website? OK, it's bad, the lowlife can see how much I have on my account. But making a transfer? How's the low-life going to generate the token validating another low-life's bank account without the hardware device... Good luck with that low-life.

    There are already several banks in Europe where it works like that... It only takes a few more low-lifes to succeed stealing petty amounts like in TFA and banks shall start implement this everywhere.

    Then it's "GG low-lifes"

    1. Re:When will online bank understand that... by DanJ_UK · · Score: 1

      Barclays do this in the UK, this is part of the reason I've just moved my accounts from Lloyds to Barclays.

      --
      - Dan
    2. Re:When will online bank understand that... by AtomicJake · · Score: 1

      Yes, or at least require an acknowledgment or signature page that is sent over a different network; e.g. fax, phone, sms.

    3. Re:When will online bank understand that... by verelse · · Score: 1

      BofA offers this option in the US, as well as token key for logins. They also allow one to set a threshold for transfers that generates a requirement for token auth. (You need the token to change this, so there's no workaround). I can limit transactions to $50 (I do) with a token and no more than 3x a day without token at any valuation.
      The problem is, as posters have noted, it's not the OS or the procedures, its the users. Why not teach basic computer hygiene in school?

    4. Re:When will online bank understand that... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      How's the low-life going to generate the token validating another low-life's bank account without the hardware device... By VNCing into the the bank account owner's PC while the hardware device is connected? The only foolproof way is to use a challenge response with a calculator-like device not connected to the PC. Bank issue challenge code, use types it into separate device, then types the response from separate device into computer. It works, but what sane person would want to go through this PITA procedure every time they transfer money? Anybody that has ever tried typing in 20 character activation keys knows that it is impossible to do without making occasional mistakes.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  26. Blame Kentucky? by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

    I live very close to Bullitt Co., KY and I have been in the IT world for about 15 years now. In my 15 years in this area I have witnessed MANY possible security holes in different areas such as medical, accounting, educational...etc. I often wonder, is the general area to blame? Do the people of Kentucky just feel so safe in their ranch homes and open fields that no crook would ever possibly compromise the integrity of semi-southern living? I hope this is a wake up call to the business around here that it could and someday probably will happen to them.

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Blame Kentucky? by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

      Ah... it's just that people feel like "it can't happen to me." To my knowledge, the majority of security issues don't come from Kentucky...

  27. root cause of malware infestation. by viralMeme · · Score: 1

    "Everyone who is claiming that linux should be used and its those stupid MS users that cause this"

    Where does it say that 'everyone' is claiming and it isn't the 'stupid MS users' it's the click and get infected OS known as Microsoft Windows that's the root cause of the malware infestation.

    the second, more interesting feature of this malware... is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers

  28. who modded this garbage up INSIGHTFULL by viralMeme · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Find out if the bank manger smokes .. Get a few of those USB thumb drives from trade shows"

    - The attackers somehow got the Zeus Trojan on the county treasurer's PC, and used it to steal the username and password the treasurer needed to access e-mail and the county's bank account.

    - The attackers then logged into the county's bank account by tunneling through the treasurer's Internet connection.

    - Once logged in, the criminals changed the judge's password, as well as e-mail address tied to the judge's account, so that any future notifications about one-time passphrases would be sent to an e-mail address the attackers controlled.

    - They then created several fictitious employees of the county (these were the 25 real-life, co-conspirators hired by the attackers to receive the stolen funds), and created a batch of wire transfers to those individuals to be approved.

    - The crooks then logged into the county's bank account using the judge's credentials and a computer outside of the state of Kentucky. When the bank's security system failed to recognize the profile of the PC, the bank sent an e-mail with the challenge passphrase to an e-mail address the attackers controlled.

    - The attackers then retrieved the passphrase from the e-mail, and logged in again with the judge's new credentials and the one-time passphrase. Once logged in, the crooks were able to approve the batch of wire transfers.

    1. Re:who modded this garbage up INSIGHTFULL by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      Maybe because the point I was getting across was that the criminals likely used social engineering of some type to get access to the data. Doesn't matter if it's the bank manger or a civil service employee. Could be use email as the technical means. A lot of IT admins focus entirely on things like firewalls, anti-virus software, spam filters, and outside threats attacking the network that they often times fail to take into consideration what might happen if someone manages to get physical access to a machine from the inside.

      Yeah, you could hire or bribe a cleaning crew. Plant someone in the cleaning crew, etc., but that leaves a human trail. There are people for the police to question, maybe video surveillance of them accessing the machine etc..

      If you're careful and leave a couple thumb drives on the ground near the smoking area, an employees likely to take it inside. Afterall, it's in the smoking area. Maybe one of his/her colleagues had it drop out of their pocket. But instead it has a couple trojans set to autorun, and boom, you have control of a machine on the inside. Whether it's the right machine or can provide useful information maybe hit or miss. But once you're on the inside, you can gather intel on the inner workings of the network at the very least making your next attempt, if you're determined to hit a target for a specific purpose, that much more effective.

      Why target smokers? Predictable habits. They are likely to go to the same place around the same time every day.

      If the IT or police come back and do the audit trail, it leads back to the employee. They may have the drive still, they may not. At the very least, they've touched it a few times and contaminated the evidence and they've never seen you, talked to you or any proxy. They don't know anything. The human trail ends there. Now if you're phoning home, there is a whole 'nother set of issues to deal with, but you get the point.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  29. pwn2own says mac easier to pwn than windows by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Every year I've read about it, the order from first to last compromised has been Windows, Mac, and Linux.

    Which year? And which pwn2own contest are you talking about?

    In 2006, there was no pwn to own cansecwest contest.
    In 2007, it was mac first, but only macs were prizes ;).

    In 2008, it was mac first again (out of OSX, Ubuntu and Vista) on day 2 (nobody managed to pwn anything under the day one rules), and vista only on day 3 (due to adobe flash exploit).

    http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2008/03/27/day-two-of-cansecwest-pwn-to-own---we-have-our-first-official-winner-with-picture?info=EXLINK

    Day 1 rules = remote exploit - no user interaction
    Day 2 rules = default client apps
    Day 3 rules = popular 3rd party apps.

    In 2009, it was safari on OSX first again, on day 1, followed by IE8 on Win7, followed by safari on OSX again, followed by firefox on Win7 (however multiple platforms were actually vulnerable to nils' attack[1]). All in day 1.

    http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2009/03/18/pwn2own-2009-day-1---safari-internet-explorer-and-firefox-taken-down-by-four-zero-day-exploits
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2917
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2934

    [1] http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/34235

    Rules:
    Day 1: Default install no additional plugins. User goes to link.
    Day 2: flash, java, .net, quicktime. User goes to link.
    Day 3: popular apps such as acrobat reader ... User goes to link

    And Charlie Miller one of the pwners says OSX is easier:

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

    "It's really simple. Safari on the Mac is easier to exploit. The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don't do. Hacking into Macs is so much easier. You don't have to jump through hoops and deal with all the anti-exploit mitigations you'd find in Windows."

    "For the amount of time he spent to do what he did on IE and Firefox, he could have found and exploited five or 10 Safari bugs. With the way they're paying $5,000 for every verifiable bug, he could have spent that same time and resources and make $25,000 or $30,000 easily just by going after Safari on Mac."

    --
    1. Re:pwn2own says mac easier to pwn than windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a contest, but you can be sure that one million russian codemonkeys
      can find new expoits on any given day.

  30. prevent unauthorized software by viralMeme · · Score: 1

    "What is needed .. is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data"

    Run the software off a readonly USB device and you are safe from the desktop OS.

    --
    mode me up insightful please :)

    1. Re:prevent unauthorized software by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      That prevents your infected OS from writing nasty stuff to your USB drive.

      But that's not what the GP was talking about.

      What he's meaning is some way to prevent the infected USB drive from installing nasty stuff to the OS on the internal hard drive.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  31. I'm skeptical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I didn't think they had the internets in Bullit County!!!

  32. irresponsible "victims" carry some responsibility by ChipMonk · · Score: 1

    Rather than constantly blaming the victim we need to get tough on the criminals. If someone is mugged you dont tell them that they should not have walked down the street. You go after the guys that mugged them.

    I take it you leave your keys in your car, and you never lock your doors at night?

    Give me a break.

    When your boss won't let you implement real network security, and then your up-to-date Windows Vista Premium server gets cracked with a 0-day exploit, throw it back in his face. Or else, find a factory job somewhere and get some sleep at night. Let the boss take the heat and clean up the mess himself.

  33. MOD PARENT UP!!!!!!! by S7urm · · Score: 1

    That is probably the most insightful comment I have seen on this site in years!

    Throw more corporations on *nix boxes, or have more *nix boxes running on top of bank/stock/credit card company dBs, and you would see a huge amount of *nix exploits.

    It's kinda like wondering why you can't find any mechanics who specialize on the Chevy Nova, no one drives em, so no one fixes em.......and they esplode

    --
    "This is the value of a summer spent and a winter earned"
  34. My reaction is unhealthy by pugugly · · Score: 1

    I'm just so happy to have a story about hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen in which it *wasn't* completely inadequate security and general incompetence that enabled it.

    The security precautions seem to have been sanely thought out, at least on the banks side. The judge and the treasurer otoh might decide they want a secure system.

    Pug

    --
    An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media