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."

42 of 192 comments (clear)

  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: 3, Insightful

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

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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?

    9. 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)

    10. 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.
    11. 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
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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.
  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 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.
    2. 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
  3. Obligatory: by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
  4. 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.
  5. 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 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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. =(
  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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 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)
  14. 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 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?
    3. 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
    4. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.

  18. 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."

    --