Slashdot Mirror
Crack LinuxPPC Day 3:It Gets Better
So this ought to amuse ya: Its Day 3 of the Crack LinuxPPC, Win
PPC Contest that Jeff Carr has been doing. During that time, The
Win2k crack box has gone down several times... yet the LinuxPPC box
remains stable. Jeff has decided to make the game more interesting.
The machine is still crack.linuxppc.org, but the world now may know
that the Root Password is "linuxppc". If you can crack the stock
LinuxPPC box in a reproducable manner, you get the machine.
I'm sure if they ask Bill real nice he could shell out some dough for a server and an NT4 license...
The only people stopping Microsoft from putting out a non-beta crack test is Microsoft. We can only guess why they aren't. My guess is that they think that W2K is more secure than NT4.
--The basis of all love is respect
>assuming that the jpeg wasn't put thru the GIMP first...)?
Well, I posted the link straight from crack.linuxppc.org so I can't vouch for how it was created. The link from the main page mentions SheepShaver.
for the rest of this go to whatis.com
..."
"Bogomips is a measurement provided in the Linux operating system that indicates in a relative way how fast the computer processor runs. The program that provides the measurement is called BogoMips. Written by Linus Torvalds, the main developer of Linux,
1:00pm - Tuned IIS' performance options reset application protection to Medium, and rebooted.
8:54am - Changed IIS' application protection to Low and rebooted, site back up
In other words, "Dragged slider bar in IIS window to a different setting, and waited five minutes while the system rebooted and restarted most of the services."
"Tuned" my ass.
Wah!
No, it won't slow down sales a bit. It might improve them. I wasn't even going to think of Win2K before. but if it is released before the first snow, I'll buy half a dozen, grind up the CDs, and scatter them over my lawn. Should come up nice and green next spring;^>
--The basis of all love is respect
On most stock Linux installs you can't log
in directly as root remotely. You'd still
need to get at least a non-root shell somehow.
Basically he is just lowering the barrier of entry from "get a root shell" to "get a shell", but given the number of rootkits out for Linux, these are already pretty equivalent (penetrating a Linux box remotely is a lot harder than getting root once you are in).
>If they want the full range of skilled crackers
Who is 'they'? Lunux/PPC put one of their own boxes on the line for this. You were expecting maybe an PIII-500 running Slackware?
Sure, that would make sense. But I checked at least a half-dozen web sites running LinuxPPC and none of the Apache's matched the behavior crack.linuxppc.org had.
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Of course it is all over if he opens up fingerd.
That doesn't follow. Assuming you aren't talking about exploiting a bug in fingerd itself, simply knowing valid user names won't help much because you must still crack the password for that account (good luck).
Even if you manage to get in (not necessarily by brute-forcing the password), the shell may be a flytrap - a potemkin shell while the system logs everything it can about you while paging the sysop.
Worse, it's trivial to write a potemkin shell that escapes to a real shell only if the client is in a magic IP address range and the user knows the magic command. That means *every* shell could be trapped, but only people on the local subnet could enter the command "O$ks&*%kk1!" and escape to a real shell.
I don't know of any potemkin shells in a standard distribution, but a non-responsive one is trivial to write if you know basic socket programming. Even a responsive one can be quickly built if you use chroot() and are careful what commands you copy into your sandtrap.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
For everything you ever wanted to know about this topic, visit the BogoMIPS mini-HOWTO
If I could post something good about Microsoft I would.
Let me say they are on my mind, but Linux is on my computer. That is good enough for me, was it good for you?
"That's an application, not Windows 2000," he said.
"It's been up for most of the day today," he added.
Now that's comedy.
Ivan.
I don't have an axe to grind against Microsoft. I'm simply a business user looking for a secure and robust operating system for Internet applications. I've run both WinNT and Linux for years.
I look at the Windows 2K log and what I see mirrors my experience with WinNT: a lot of reboots for fairly minor things (tweaking the web server and tweaking tcp/ip). I look at the Linux log and I see stability.
The bottom line is that NT is not as stable as Linux for Internet applications.
I'm a bit confused now. How can it be called "cracking" when you have been given the root password by the owner? I thought the whole point of cracking was to *get* the root password (or some equivalent).
Having the root password isn't useful if you can't get to a prompt to use it.
You can't login as root from a remote machine, you'd have to be able to get into the system *first* and *then* su root for the password to be useful. So some crackery needs to be employed to get that far.
Another damned comic
+++ NO CARRIER
It's not that simple. You can't login as root over telnet/rlogin, ftp, etc. unless you specifically set that to be allowed (an obvious security hazard). Without a user account, it's harder, and some kind of exploit needs to be found. Having the root password only makes it easier once you have some sort of access to the system.
Tell me how to crash a machine by overwhelming it with too many packets. I have a 486/20 Linux box on my ethernet and I can saturate it with complete garbage and only raise its load average. I have even tried injecting raw noise with a pulser and other nonsense and it had no problems. I was unable to find an exploit on one of my boxes. Perhaps you can?
There is a project called lsh with the goal of implementing the ssh protocols in open source. Is anyone familiar with this project or the current quality of the software? This sounds like something that should eventually be in every distribution!
Geeky modern art T-shirts
If you go follow the link that I gave it says that. :P
I've been collating articles and various observations at
:) Please don't confuse them. ;)
www.linuxppc.com/crack/,
which is not the same as the crack target server, crack.linuxppc.org.
-- haaz.
It's just an attempt to be cute. The machine's name is crack, so it's just a cute way of saying - "Break into this machine and you can have this machine" -- "crack crack win crack" :)
:)
If the machine is ever compromised, I can see the winner saying, "Oh, you mean I get this LinuxPPC machine? I thought I was going to get *crack*!"
You forget the sheer hatred of Windows factor. I'd bet there are more people trying to crack the Windows box (or were on the day the test was announced, anyway - today it seems to be up again).
D
----
> and the K in KDE is just "K" now, no longer standing for "Kool."
Actually I was under the impression that it originally stood for "Kalle's Desktop Environment".
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
>So is the server at crack.linuxppc.org.
Not so (at least as of 1:50 Central)
Current Server Statistics:
Uptime and Load Average:
1:49pm up 3 days, 2:11, 3 users, load average: 0.32, 0.37, 0.26
Memory Usage:
total: used: free: shared: buffers: cached:
Mem: 162570240 105615360 56954880 99618816 4542464 55717888
Swap: 69087232 0 69087232
MemTotal: 158760 kB
MemFree: 55620 kB
MemShared: 97284 kB
Buffers: 4436 kB
Cached: 54412 kB
SwapTotal: 67468 kB
SwapFree: 67468 kB
Processor Info:
processor : 0
cpu : 604
clock : 132MHz
revision : 3.3
bogomips : 263.78
zero pages : total 0 (0Kb) current: 0 (0Kb) hits: 0/222364 (0%)
machine : Power Macintosh
motherboard : AAPL,9500 MacRISC
L2 cache : 512K unified
memory : 160MB
I just refreshed and got it (dns doesn't have it but I have the ip)
Just doing some basic tests, the version of LinuxPPC on www.linuxppc.org doesn't match what's on crack.linuxppc.org.
For one thing the Apache server has been modified.
I thought this was supposed to be a clean install?
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Well no, Unix is the OS, Unixen are several instances of the OS. Unix boxen are several boxes running perhaps one flavor of Unix or several Unixen (or "flavors of Unix" if that's your preference).
Unices sounds too much like Unisys.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
I think the answer is that the guestbook wasn't compromised. Instead, someone took advantage of the fact that the guestbook let you put in arbitrary HTML. So they put in a to go to another site after a specified delay. So we had people sending us to crack.linuxppc.org, slashdot.org, etc. This was not a compromise of the system, just a sneaky use of the guestbook. They seem to have finally fixed this problem by stripping characters from the input.
However, I remember reading yesterday that someone got backorifice on it, and that's a genuine crack. I don't know the details, though.
D
----
Well, Win9x sucks.
The question might be why have Microsoft's business customers consistantly chose to run crappy DOS/Win over better alternatives such as OS/2 and Windows NT. (Although, everyone runs as root under OS/2 also.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
EROS sure is secure: it doesn't run on anything and there are no usable apps for it.
My paperweight is pretty secure too.
Nice theory though, perhaps we'll see it in practice someday.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
PermitRootLogin no
IgnoreRhosts yes
PermitEmptyPasswords no
--
...who would have thunk?
This is morbidly cool
screenshot
crack is running LPPC 1999, the current glibc 2.1-based distro. it's a plain installation from the cd-rom, with the X-based installer. only difference is that telnet's been enabled; it's not on in the default install.
-- haaz.
No. According to Intel Payola W2K requires a PII. As a workstation, the beta seems faster than NT4 on my P-133.
As for the 64MB part - try 128MB instead. Maybe the faster processor is an attempt to make up for all of the swapping.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Me thinks you've been using Windows 9x too long. NT has account security.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
According to the virus scanner logs at the mail gateway, we haven't got a Windows virus mailed in for several months that wasn't either a MS Office macro virus or some sort of trojan that attacks IE or Netscape. These viruses all run on NT in user space -- If the workstations are properly set up (of course here they're not), NT is no more vulerable to these sorts of 'viruses' than a unix workstation. We haven't got a boot virus or any of the classic DOS types in a long time.
The attitude in the unix security community seems to be "oh that's only user space - the *system* wasn't comprimised", but that's litte condolence if some VP is pissed because lost all of his porn files and his account spammed the entire company.
Basically the only virus protection advantage that Linux has over NT is that MS Office doesn't run on Linux. You can get the same 'protection' on Windows by running corel, Lotus, Star or something else.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Y'know, I'm hoping that the original post on this thread was a troll, 'cause I'd really hate to think anyone's mind works in this way...
Okay, let me get this straight... In your mind, it's okay to use a DoS to nearly knock another machine down, just so you can spoof it, but it's not right to use a DoS to totally knock a machine off the net?
Riiiiiiiiiigghhhttt....
Did the thought ever cross your mind that Spoofing is just as heinous as a DoS? That neither of them has any real use in an active and productive society?
Here's a buck... go buy a clue.
"You did WHAT to WHO for BEER MONEY?!? Jeez, man - you don't even like beer..."
I can't believe the stats on the Windoze box
s /q142/6/41.asp
:^P
It says memory usage around 114Mbs...
Perfmon info from 8/6/99 10:00am
Datagrams Received/sec Avg: 250
Fragments Received/sec Avg: 4
Total Fragment Reassembly Errors 30000 in the last hour
Connections Avg: 500
% Processor Time Avg: 40
Memory use steady at about 114000K
They also posted a new support document explaining how what is happening to the machine is normal :
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
I would like to learn some more on this mega server, more specs (steady size of the swap file, cpu idle time, if someone can use the machine to play minesweeper right now...)
This really is fun to see... Happy happy joy joy!!