Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS9 Flood Attack
Yoel Inbar writes "John Copeland, a professor at Georgia Tech, has discovered the possibility of using Macs running OS 9 as a distributed DOS tool. Basically, by sending a Mac running OS 9 a custom UDP packet, you can get it to reply with a 1500 byte ICMP packet(these packets are normally sent as part of MTU discovery). Send these UDP packets to a bunch of Macs, spoof the source addresses....voila, instant DOS.
Apparently this is "in the wild"; he reports several scans designed to elicit these packets. "
The fact that you have to send as many packets as the recipient of the DoS attack is true, but from how I interpret the announcement, no matter how small the UDP packet is a 1500 byte ICMP packet will always be returned.
This is a bit odd. Why 1500 bytes? It is the MTU for Ethernet, but I can't really see how that should affect the size of the ICMP error message. Maybe the fellows at Apple made an error in the internal coding of packet length, and the ICMP error-return code included the sent packet and then garbage up until the 1500 byte limit.
However, it can never be as destructive as a smurf attack (unless you have a whole subnet filled with Macs running OS9 _and_ they answer with this ICMP on broadcast packets to the specific port). Also, if it is only one specific UDP port, it is pretty easy to block in firewalls.
Here I have three slaves (199.77.146.20, 199.77.146.103, 199.77.158.61) being stimulated to send 30 1500-byte packets per second to address 24.88.48.47 (my cable modem). The combined bit rate is 3 x 30/s x 1500 bytes x 8 b/B = 1,080,000 bits/s. I could have increased the rate several times, but not much more would have interfered with the network.
-kris
see above..wtf?! you gotta be a hoax! i don't believe you're real.
Actually 9x is avoided. NT is, as you say, used "as little...as possible." I'm not one to vouch for the use of any Windows platform or Linux distribution, but I will say that I have never had a prejudice against MacOS, which seems like a secure enough OS from a network standpoint (notice that I did not include stable, however ;-).
;-)
I, too, find it interesting that such attention is targeted specifically toward OS 9 when all the facts have yet to be laid out. And yes, it is correct that all OSes have the ability to react in the manner as in the original post.
I will differ from you in that I believe OpenBSD is the most secure out-of-box solution. As for "easiest" to maintain, well...
Oh, and these are my views, not the university's. =)
Thanks,
dtc
(who is very pleased with his extremely secure stand-alone TI-30)
Anyone who invests in any publicly traded company owns part of that company. That's the entire concept behind public trading.
If they had just released Rhapsody on time as was promised.
Anyway, I fail to understand why such an obscure bug has propted such heated responses. Bugs happen to everyone - Apple, Microsoft, and even Linux. Unfortunately, they are a fact of life. Programmers are only human after all. What puzzles me is that this story went up within hours of it first being written, while a story that I sent in several weeks ago that was Apple related (the HeaderDoc, Netsprockets announcement) was rejected within minutes only to be posted a while later.
Not that I'm suggesting anyone has a double standard of course, I know it's hard to sift through hundreds of story submissions. Still...
-Rafi Remove the Spanish to email me.
This is not a new thought. Using many machines on many subnets to flood an IP in concert. This particular incarnation of this attack is just another straw in the haystack. Given knowlege if the functionality of a client's stack, you should be able to find a way to make it do similar things. Just spoof an IP and ping it....there's no genius to that. Using false return addresses has been a tool of the malevolent since people hung numbers on their caves. Actually, using one OS to do this is unwise because one patch or fix can foil all your plans. It is tactically more sound to use multiple OS's in such a scheme, so that if one OS fixes the problem, the others may still function properly.
I'm just glad people still think these are ingenious means of attack. There are much more devilish ways to DoS.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
we covered this story at MacWEEK pretty well, i thought.
see for yourself
Apple's servers seem to be down(coincidence?), but the fix should be right here:
n 11559
http://asu.info.apple.com/swupdates.nsf/artnum/
Boy, those guys at Apple are fast. They have posted a fix for this at:S oftware_Updates/English-North_American/M acintosh/Networking-Communications/Open_Transport/ OT_Tuner_1.0.smi.bin.
http:// download.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Apple_
They also put up a Tech Info Article about it at:
http://asu.info.apple.com/swupd ates.nsf/artnum/n11559.
Hi. I've never heard of Windows Update and I eat potatoes with my toes. I think that I'll post on Slashdot and tell everyone that Microsoft's TCP/IP stack hasn't change for 10 years.
I'm a smart man, Charlie Brown.
The difference here is that I can trigger a response much larger than the request. If I send an ICMP ping of 1000 bytes, the response is going to be 1000 bytes.
But with this attack, I can trigger a response of 1024 bytes by sending only 24 bytes. The idea being that I can fill the victims pipeline without filling my own.
But for the most part that's just bogus. The difference in size just isn't that great. A script kiddie will fill his own ppp bandwidth with the triggers long before whitehouse.gov gets overloaded with the payload. Also, much of the bottleneck is due to # of packets rather than # of bytes, and the # of packets is identical for attacker and victim.
Apple should fix the hole, but in the grand scheme of things this isn't huge security news, especially given the paucity of Mac servers on the Net (where this could really do some damage).
I think there would have to be an AWFUL LOT of Mac slaves to actually swamp a DS-3 connection. In fact, I bet it isn't even possible.
You mean a lot of MacOS 9.0 slaves. How old is 9.0 anyhow? Three months? There is already a low enough population of Macs on the live-connected Internet for this to be difficult to exploit, but they also have to be upgraded to a three-month old OS, too! "I don't think so, Tim."
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Don't know if this is related, but here is a link to the Cert Advisory discussing how Mac OS9 can be used as a 37.5 times DoS amplifier.
Hope this helps.
--Remove chicken to e-mail
How big is the ethernet frame that carries the 29 byte packet? 1500 bytes. This is a 1:1 attack. You could probably do twice as much damage if you just ping flooded from the unix box on the large pipe you rooted.
True, you get a bit of a multiplier in the response, but this still isn't an attack with a multiplier. Its not like the mac sends the same packet back out to the broadcast address which then starts all the other macs doing this. It would be more effective just to ping flood them from the rooted box on the big pipe. Think about it, if you have rooted a unix box on a fat pipe to coordinate the attack, why not just attack from there?
--
Mike Mangino Consultant, Analysts International
Mike Mangino
mmangino@acm.org
Funny, consensus so far is that there isn't even a problem.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
This report seems totally bogus being that it is not on a Georgia Tech server, that Dr. Copeland is a physicist who does research on high speed optical networking, and he doesn't mention it at all on his personal webpage.
its a vast, antimac conspiricy to hold down the ultimate computing platform of all time!
As we all know, the mac was perfect in 1984, and has since been getting more perfect. memory protection is for idiots who can't code worth shit.
How is this 'supposed' new DoS attack different from what we've already seen?
Sounds simple in principle:
Pretend to be your target (IP spoof)
Ping a bunch of Macs
Watch real target fall over as all the Macs respond to the ping
How and why is this different? The 1500b packet? Is MacOS 9 unique in this?
Pardon my ignorance, just really curious.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I'm not very familiar with IP spoofing, but isn't this possible with every system everywhere all the time?
If I sent ping packets with spoofed IPs to three hundred machines running any OS, wouldn't they respond with packets to the target machine?
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
2) Look, this paradigm is old news:
3) This is just a tool to be used with next generation, distributed smurf program.
4) Macs are not the problem. Instead, the problem is peeps who don't read carefully.
5) Oh yea, moderate this down, fuckers. It's the truth, so bury it.
6) Anyone get the subject line reference?
well, this might be some 'hoax', but *someone* at apple posted a patch even though they seem to be off...
this is really standard stuff, there are at least as many misconfigured routers out there (on biggger pipes) than static IP OS9 machines... i doubt the existence of ANY Y2K plot using these machines...
anyway, the patch is at:
ftp://ftphqx.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/
Not all Linux people are bright. It's the same kind of shit you bump into everywhere else...& this brings up another issue, Linux is great, blabla...but 10 million idiots don't justify one truth. As I see it, being able to execute a rather complex command on your system is perhaps good for people that demand that level of profundity, but for mere mortals it's rather irritating to use the terminal when you could have done your task otherwise, say a simple way... Most of the stuff you have to learn about Linux (as a nongeek) can be rendered superfluous. & this brings up another issue, Linux is way to much cracked up, for example: Mr. AverageJoe and Mrs. AverageJoe are about to choose a platform. As lucky as it turns out to be, Mr. AverageJoe happens to know about this real peace-love-and-compile-the-kernel guy next door. He asks this fellow about the greatest system and, of course, the answer is Linux, because it has all these advanced features and is free. Well it may be great for this geek because he can do it all by himself (look at me). Mr. AverageJoe returns home and embraces his wife; we are going to have some serious experiances with the CLI, Kernels blabla...and later Mrs. AverageJoe agrees, if it's recommended by a geek it have to be good. No, actually, that's the stupid part because, as it often occurs, the geek recommends what he thinks is exciting, not what's suitable for the given task(in this case, say, a simple tool to do surfing, writing & homework, for example...) I like Linux, but I would not recommend it to everyone, that would be too narcissistic. Well until someone can manage to put an proper UI with some basic Human Interface Guidlines it may be the panacea of all platforms... P.S "composing letters to idiots who don't understand that DoS is not DOS": Come on, give the guy a chance. You are better of learning someone something rather than telling them that they are idiots /JetEye
Those macs are good for something.
j/k
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
Now you can say to someone, 1930's gangster-style, that you're going to iWhack them.
I can see this kind of distributed DOS being called the 'iWhack Attack'.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Many systems, when they receive UDP packets on an unbound port, will reply to the source address with an ICMP Port Unreachable message. One of the RFCs recommends rate-limiting ICMP messages. Apparently, Apple (or their supplier) didn't implement this suggestion.
apparently included in the ms investment, ms gave apple "some really good tcp/ip stack programmers."
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
1. OS 9.0 didn't sell well.
2. There aren't many mac users with cable modems because we are all poor from buying overpriced hardware.
3. See #1 and #2
no big deal.
Wow, I never thought of using an OS's built-in networking code against itself, but heck, this sounds neat-O!
Really, this is a serious security issue. As an admin, I rue the day that OS9 is deployed if such a possibility remains "in the wild." Being stuck in the middle of AOL's subnet doesn't help, either, but at least eliminating this one source will save myself and countless others the hassle of hoping and praying that no script kiddie gets his hands on a tool to exploit this vulnerability.
Millions of potential Win2K users now have a good TCP/IP stack built on time-tested, battle-hardened code. Good. If they used BSD code, they've made computers suck a little less for everybody, and that means we all win.
Wow, you Lunix people must be smarter than I thought! :)
Kudos for catching onto the joke (w/ 100% accuracy -- was using Windoze at that moment). Too many /. readers, unlike you, only have that lame quasi-intellectual wit derived from Piers Anthony, Star Trek, and Asimov, if they have one at all...
I believe that this 3rd party patch may permit you to change your OT settings to prevent this.
Apple engineers and beta teams are on vacation until January 3. I don't know if this has already been addressed in the next patch to MacOS 9, but I guess they'll fix it now that it's known. Does this work in older versions of the MacOS?
bugger.net | MunkAndPhyber.com
Hmmm.. I'm running of the RC2 and 3 in a variety of roles. (I kept the early machines 'cuz I'm lazy and the bugs are pretty much worked around) While I'm not primary support for those machines, I haven't heard of this flaw. As we plan on 'early adopting' W2k, and I'm unlikely to get a straight answer from Microsoft, do you have any further detail?
.sig: Now legally binding!
Apple posted a patch to the Open Transport Stack on its web page at
Open Transport Tuner 1.0. You may also find more information on the Mac Attack FAQ.
"Help! My iMac is on UDP crack!"
have you ever heard someone say: "that was funny the first time?" Now perhaps you understand why your unoriginal post won't be moderated anywhere. But you can keep believing in a vast anti-mac conspiracy if it makes you happy.
I'm glad to see that Amiga Persecution Complex is still alive and well.
No one ever installs those things. If every ISP filtered packets originating in the ISP with source addresses outside the ISP, smurf attacks (And several others) would be eliminated, too. The reasons are the same -- sheer ignorance. Bummer.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I've scanned most of the documents in the various links, but I'm curious: where exactly is the evidence for the 12/31/99 attack?
I mean, is this guy just speculating on the date or is there specific evidence for the New Year's Eve attack?
If he's just speculating on the date, I can't imagine a more irrsponsible thing to do.
This guy's a professor at Georgia Tech? Christ, this guy's a cuckoo. He sounds like one of those wackos determined to author the end-all paper on cold fusion -- or maybe author the end-all paper on a unified theory of everything.
F$^king wacko academics.
yeah, except the ICMP_ECHO_REPLY is the same size as the ECHO_REQUEST you sent. Go read the good prof's write up. It points out that a 29 byte packet gets a 1500 byte reply. So your 33.6 modem could easily fill a T1. Try that with ICMP_ECHO.
Its not as bas as smurf was, but don't write this off.
Aparently this attack is real, at least it is mentioned at cert.org under the distributed DOS attack section. However, all this conspiracy y2k talk on Prof. Copeland's site seems overdone. CERT terms this a 'traffic amplifier' in the sense that a small amount of bandwith can create approximately 37.5 times the bandwith spent. From CERT on Dec 28th: "For the "Mac Attack" Apple is developing a patch, as described in Appendix A. This advisory will be updated when the patch is available. "
The original note is pointing out a weakness in the Microsoft TCP/IP stack??? What, specifically? The only weakness is see there is a miserably failed jump to a conclusion.
BTW, since Windows is not open source, how do you really know it hasn't changed in 5 years? Is that another leap of faith also?
It means "denial of service"...
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Just in case you read this later, my mistake. The 29 byte UDP packet problem is still correct with a min transfer unit of 64 bytes, the smallest you can send is 64 bytes. Too much time looking at ATM : )
Thanks for setting me straight.
--
Mike Mangino Consultant, Analysts International
Mike Mangino
mmangino@acm.org
It's full of misinformation and it's clear that the person didn't read the article, yet some retard moderator(s) thought it contained useful information?
> Seriously, when has Apple's reaction ever been anything but "We have no official comment at this time"?
0 05
when they have something to say.
apple is not going to comment until they know exactly what is going on and have a patch.
if you'll notice and read some of the posts put up after yours, you'll discover that once apple did know what was going on and had a patch.. they commented and released the patch.
as for the apachebench bit, i think they did comment very quickly. i seem to pretty clearly remember reading a technote at apple's website about it. in fact i think that was where i first saw it, linked from macnn. i searched the Tech Info Library just now (which may not be the same as teh technotes) and was not able to locate what i thought i rememebred reading, but i did locate http://til.info.apple.com/techinfo.nsf/artnum/n59
which is a general OS X Server patch that seems to adress the apachebench problem.
i remember when the ping of death became a problem, but it was long enough ago i can't remember how apple handled it.
apple does not like to do anything unless they can be sure of what they're doing. they do not like releasing software before they think it's perfect. they do not like talking about unreleased software until they're certain it's ready to be talked about. they do not like to comment on things they don't know enough about to comment on correctly. this seems pretty reasonable to me-- at least, it's slightly better than vaporwaring and amplifying rumors based on information they haven't personally verified yet.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Apple's patch for the problem is out and the readme claims it's not only for all PowerMacs running MacOS 9 --as well as-- MacOS 8.6 systems --if-- it's running on a PowerMac G4, iBook, or second-generation iMac (with a slot-loading CD or DVD drive). Perhaps stock MacOS 8.6 on those machines contains MacOS 9's TCP/IP stack.
Readme:
http://asu.info.apple.com/swu pdates.nsf/artnum/n11559
If this isn't an example of a need for broader opensource, I don't know what is.
Apple has posted the TO Tuner 1.0 patch.
Ahh..props to Apple. How long would it have taken Microsoft to develop a patch? Linux users around the globe love to brag about how when a major bug is discovered, a patch is made available within hours. Same deal here.. and the engineers were on *vacation*... MAJOR props to Apple.
look, all of the distributed DOS systems require a machine to run on, which makes the fact that it can be used to flood pretty irrelevant compared to what else it can be used as.
The OS9 thing is a networkcode issue, just like smurf attacks was. Whenever you design network code think about this: if the protocol being used does not use a handshake or in some other way verify the recipient, do NOT send large packets in response to small ones.
UDP & ICMP/IP can be used for this sort of attack very easily. if you use a clever DNS request I'm sure you can get a packet back that is a lot larger than your request. connectionless protocols all have that flaw.
On a last note though, this does not sound like a problem worth attention unless it responds to broadcast addrs.
-- gunzip-howto.tar.gz
MacOS 9 can be abused by an intruder to generate a large volume of traffic directed at a victim in response to a small amount of traffic produced by an intruder. This allows an intruder to use MacOS 9 as a "traffic amplifier," and flood victims with traffic. According to [3], an intruder can use this asymmetry to "amplify" traffic by a factor of approximately 37.5, thus enabling an intruder with limited bandwidth to flood a much larger connection. This is similar in effect and structure to a "smurf" attack, described in
http://www.cert.org/advisories/C A-98.01.smurf.html
Unlike a smurf attack, however, it is not necessary to use a directed broadcast to achieve traffic amplification.
and
Appendix A. Vendor Information Apple Computer We've reproduced the problem in our lab and we are working now to create a fix that can be easily distributed to our customers. The problem only affects customers running our most recent release of networking software on machines that are continuously attached to the internet.
While most Macintosh customers are not affected by this problem, we are moving quickly to put a solution in place.
Umm, wrong. First of all, you can't send a 29 byte UDP packet. Second of all, it is carried on an ethernet frame to the cable modem which is 1500 bytes. You would need to have an incredibly thick pipe to actually do much damage. Remeber, the bandwidth is used at the ethernet layer. A 29 byte udp packet still uses 1500 bytes of bandwidth.
--
Mike Mangino Consultant, Analysts International
Mike Mangino
mmangino@acm.org
I got ~ 51x amplification. (1500/29).
And the y2k conspiracy was a joke. better put sarcasmd (8) back in your init scripts.
I'm gonna go out and buy a buncha mac's with OS9 so I can start DoS'ing people!
You had to search the web for this? I clicked on the link given in the article, and then clicked on "MacOS DOS attack"
Either someone updated this story or you're a fucking moron.
Or maybe just trolling for karma.
>What I'm asking is why don't more places prevent 1.1.1.1 from sending out a spoofed 2.2.2.2 packet?
I'm afraid the only answer to that is ignorance. Nothing will break, after all - the protocol suite is intended to work with "real" addrs.
-- gunzip-howto.tar.gz
While you are right in saying that trin00/TFN is a big problem, on has to remark, as you say yourself, the attack you mention needs a cracked box. :)), and I'll give you the IP-Adresses of 20 Macs with OS 9.
Show me ten boxes you have rooted (not your own please
I do tech support for a largeish ISP. Apparently there is something majorly wrong with Open Transport in OS 9.
In fact we have not yet been able to get a single customer connected who is running it.
All of you mac people using modems to connect to the net may want to hold off until they get this one fixed.
"Reality is less than television."-Brian Oblivion
1. Have you looked at the patents referenced, or have you merely decided that they're "obvious" based on the titles? 2. Did you even bother to look at the dates for the patents that you quote? I'd imagine that both of these patents were issued well before you were even born...
I heard about the MacOS X Server/Apache issue too. And if I recall, attempts were made to replicate the problem by numerous third parties, with no results. While I do not deny that an HTTP server locking up an operating system is inexcusable, the fact that few people seem to be able to replicate the issue makes it seem rather less virulent than ApacheBench crashing any MacOS X server it on which it was run.
See here.
Now, that didn't take long, did it?
I am warning you right now this is offtopic, but related.
What methods are avaiable to stopping to slowing down this type of attack towards a Unix server? Would a firewall help, or could it be blocked at the router?
This type of attack has been avaiable to crackers for awhile now, but I haven't seen a decent method of preventing, stopping, or even slowing down this type of attack? Any ideas?
Could this be addressed in a ask Slash? It also burns when I take a piss, could this be addressed also?
some of this is a joke, can you guess which?
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Personally my b&w g3 running OS 9 that I am on right now via modem was a breeze to set up, and I haven't had a problem with it.
Duck`
Doofus. Apparently no one bought you a clue for Xmas. It's called "sarcasm".
Copeland's patents are pretty abstruse, but I still think his Mac warning is way overblown.
What does DOS stand for in this context?
The problem is that the script kiddies crack a few hosts sitting on T1s or better and then run the attack from there.
You might check out CERT's paper on distributed DoS attacks. They don't go into great detail, but it does explain how the kiddies operate.
A modem user could take down a T1 with this. tell your buddy geoff to check his facts and read the prof. copeland's article.
Here's my question: Why aren't more ISPs filtering out IP packets that have a "From" address of a machine not covered by the ISP? If a router services an ip block of... say... 192.168.0.*, why doesn't it drop packets that don't come "from" that address? I suppose the big question is, why is address spoofing even an issue anymore? Is there some sort of roaming technology that might break? Can someone point out what would be back about this?
See above.
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
There I go again, believing things I read. :)
/. ;))
I hadn't considered the size of the ethernet frame, but then again, I'm not the type of guy that has the knowledge to consider things like that.
The reasoning not to just ping flood them from the rooted box is apparently this (from that link):
If the attack computer sends 4000 40-byte trigger packets per second
(bit rate less than 1.3 Mbps), the slave will send 4000 1500-byte packets
to the target (bit rate 48 Mbps).
The target organization (or organizations) is cut off from the Internet
because it's connection, a 1.5 Mbps (million bit per second) T-1 or a
45 Mbps DS-3 digital line is swamped with ICMP packets from forty
different sources. Note that 30 different T-1 connections could be
swamped by varying the return addresses in the trigger packets).
Does this make sense? I'm no guru (or neophyte, for that matter), but it sounds like you're saying this guy's "byte amplification" is a load of hooey because the ethernet frame for the little trigger packet is still 1500 bytes, so you're using up your bandwidth whether or not you fill up the frame. (wonderful feeling to knowingly display a lack of knowledge on
I'd agree that this seems like an odd method to launch a DoS attack. Except that it's kind of cool (if it's true).
-beme
-beme
1971
Could anyone really take that guys site for real? :)
"evidence of a conspiracy to shut down Internet Connections", yeah, right..
It does seem on the page as if he is pro-mac, so I have no idea why he would post this.. but who knows what mental state he is in
I'm not sure about the quality of the stack in Win2K, but I remember reading that it had essentially an identical signature to BSD's. My theory is that the Win2K TCP/IP code is "inspired" by the BSD source code. So maybe that means it's actually decent.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
Seriously, when has Apple's reaction ever been anything but "We have no official comment at this time"? Remember how long Macs were susceptible to the Ping of Death a few years back? Silence from Apple. ApacheBench crashing any MacOS X Server that it touched, possibly pointing to an architectural flaw? No comment. No offense to you, John (I'm not sure if you work for Apple or not), but Apple seems to be near the bottom of the list -- at least they're above Oracle -- when it comes to releasing critical information in a timely manner.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Compounded with the fact that first you have to make a list of several Macs with the bug who's total bandwidth is at least equal to yours, otherwise you are being no more effective than a ping flood.
There's no reason for a sig here.
What the summary doesn't mention is that Apple has already whipped up a patch (took them two days) and it should be available to the public soon.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
John Copeland has 42 patents on things as obvious as "Functionally Static Type Semiconductor Shift Register with Half Dynamic-Half Static Stages" and "Magnetic Bubble Enhanced Propagation Pulse Write for Lateral Displacement Coding". I'm all for patents and all, but not for obvious ones like these. This is as bad as Amazon! I think we should boycott him!
I have read all of John Copeland's links carefully and the summary article referred to in this email and both are very well done. The negative comments about Copeland's research is totally unwarrented and ignorant! Obviouisly Apple is taking this very seriously, since they managed to post a fix during Christmas break, an unheard of speedy response! David Smith Founder/Publisher of MacTutor (now MacTech) magazine.
I noticed the ping problem awhile ago, and UDP is just the tip of the iceberg. A SYN (sent to any port, closed or not) will also prompt unpatched MacOS 9 to send the 1500 byte icmp packet. Stranger still, the OS will send the ping to all connected hosts every 17-22 minutes, but at no regular interval. The data in the packet is empty. However Apple managed to let something this apparent slip beyond alpa testing is beyond me.
You Slashdot people are a bunch of mean and ignorant Macintosh haters. You just think we're stupid, but we're not. Mac users are just as smart and sometimes smarter than you Lunix übergeeks.
Mac people have been able to do DOS for years now -- you can even run Windows with a Mac if you want. Of course, it's not like we'd want to. Lunix and DOS don't have pretty pictures, and doesn't that typing and all those little mouse buttons make your fingers sore? Windows 95 people say it's just as easy to use, but the graphics are better on a Mac.
My dad says people who pick on Macintoshes are stupid assholes. I think I agree with him.
OS9 did run on the TRS-80 Color Computer, though FYI, it was third-party. And the developers (or whoever owns it now) weren't pleased by APple swiping the name.
a relawsuit.html.
See http://ww w.macobserver.com/news/99/september/990903/microw
(sigh) I need to keep up with my TLA's. I spent 5 minutes trying to figure out why being able to emulate a PC command line interpreter using distributed clients on Mac OS9 was anything worth freaking out over. :)
Sure, it's worth style points, but does CERT really need to know about it?
Remeber, the bandwidth is used at the ethernet layer. A 29 byte udp packet still uses 1500 bytes of bandwidth.
I've read this comment a few times now. It is nonsense, ofcourse. Ethernet packet are variably sized.
Living is a horizontal fall
As a Blue G3 owner, I was trying to get info out of Apple about the G4 ROM block, and they kept telling me they couldn't comment on rumors. Finally, when I had kept asking for a while(and they would delete my posts), they contacted my ISP and bitched about me.
Those tech support guys are bastards, especially Todd. And no one else at Apple will comment on anything either.
If you want more info about this, I'd just stay tuned to sites like:
www.macnn.com
www.xlr8yourmac.com
www.maccentral.com/forum/
www.macfixit.com
www.macintouch.com
Apple may keep its mouth shut until it has a fix. Apple might even wait for MacOS 9.0.1 to release a fix(see www.appleinsider.com)
Alright, I've seen enough of this... "OS-9" is an operating system designed by Microware in the early 80's. It's an extremely good, small, fast RTOS. It's also Microware's registered trademark -- hell, it's the product's name! It ticks me off to see people automatically associate "OS-9" as MacOS 9.
I'm now taking bets on how long before Microware wakes up it's lawyers.
OK, this all seemed very strange, but I still had doubts that a mentally healthy professor of a respected university would spread hoax. But this was just too much. Quote:
:)
Apple has developed a patch, but it must be applied by OS-9 Macintosh owners before New Years Eve to be effective.
I guess someone has somehow acquired access to this guy's webpage and put all the BS there (like Mahir
Remeber, the bandwidth is used at the ethernet layer. A 29 byte udp packet still uses 1500 bytes of bandwidth.
I've read this comment a few times now. It is nonsense, ofcourse. Ethernet packet are variably sized. And you can most certainly send a 29 byte UDP packet.
Living is a horizontal fall
The minimum ethernet frame is 64bytes. The actual UDP packet contains 29 bytes of data. Those bytes then get a UDP + IP header attached to it -- that's usually about 40 bytes. The ethernet card (driver, whatever) adds the ethernet MAC header (14 bytes?) and puts it on the cable...
Every layer the packet passes through with add and remove any necessary padding for transmission. For example, if that 69 byte IP frame were to pass through an ATM (AAL5) network, it would need two 53byte ATM cells.
This is just a test on how much readers read this message ... PLEASE give a short reply if you have a threshold1 and actually read this one
.. mark as offtopic if you want (it is :-)) but keep the score below 1 !!
To the moderators: do NOT (i repeat: NOT) increase beyond 0
at least the microsoft poster was funny, being that it's slightly relevant to the topic... Microsoft did invest in apple... the joke is about the programmers...
Redhat's done squat... so far as this discussion goes.
They've updated their statement:
"Since CERT has posted their advisory this afternoon, it does appear to be something real. I still haven't been able to find any further internal information, but when I do, I will pass it along.
John"
http://discuss.info.apple.com/boards/macos.nsf/424 f8fb007a848d1862564c60074f8f1/5B274CA6 954706958625685500635B28?OpenDocument
"We have no official comment at this time.
Remember, we have a policy of not discussing unannounced updates. Once I find out any further
information, I will tell you what I can.
For one thing, it smells like a hoax to me. First, there is already a product called "OT Tuner"
from a third-party company (Sustainable Softworks), so we would be extremely unlikely to use
this name. Second, we would never supply any kind of "patch" software to an outside party
without making them sign a non-disclosure agreement. Third, most of the engineers were on
holiday at the end of last week, and it is very unlikely a patch could have been developed and
tested in such a short time without information going out internally within Apple (which hasn't
happened).
I'm not saying it is indeed a hoax, I'm just saying don't put a lot of validity to it until we know
more.
John Phelps
Forum Leader - Apple Support Discussions"
a) Have a very long list of Mac's running OS9
b) Send out a lot of UPD packets
In fact, you would have to send out as many packets as the attacked server will recieve. So basically, you have to have enough bandwidth to withstand your own DOS attack. Of course it does have the advantage of hiding your IP, but it sounds no more effective than "ping -f".
There's no reason for a sig here.
Maybe I'm completely missing something, but can't you just send it an ICMP ping request with a forged source address and have it send the response? This doesn't sound like anything special. Maybe if we could get some more information about the type of ICMP packet that is sent this could be helpful.
So normally, you send an ICMP response request packet (a ping packet) to a machine and it responds to you. This is a pretty simple concept. The problem is that you flood the connection with your ping requests. I believe ping floods are normally caused when you get the machine to respond on a broadcast or multicast address. If the mac just responds with a ping response, this isn't a very important discovery.
However, there are other kinds of ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol) packets. Maybe this isn't a straight ping request or ping response flood. Unfortunately, there isn't more information provided about it. Can someone post more information?
--
Mike Mangino Consultant, Analysts International
Mike Mangino
mmangino@acm.org
apparently included in the RHAT open source investment, RHAT gave apple "some really good tcp/ip stack code".
Looking forward to seeing this moderated up, just like its parent...
Is there something peculiar to OS9 that leaves it vulnerable to this attack? What about other OSs? Can they detect a spoof?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I mean, first the guy can't even properly spell OS 9 (there isn't a dash). Then he says that the attack can be easily perpetrated by people with root access to a large university system, as long as they can then erase all logs of their activity.
Yup. Sounds easy as pie to me.
Then there's some of his "proof", like the CERT email. From which he removes a paragraph with no indication what it used to say, and removes the PGP signature. It also merely talks about a completely different attack, and says "if we get time to look at this alleged OS 9 thing, we'll try."
Just smells fishy to me.
ryan
This page presents evidence of a conspiracy to shut down Internet Connections. Zero-hour is probably New Years Eve, EST.
And how exactly is this more dangerous than trin00 / Tribe Flood Network? For those who haven't heard of trin00/TFN, it is networks of hundreds of r0043d machines on the Internet, each running daemons with the sole purpose of flooding any IP from widely scattered machines, all under the control of 5kr1p4 k1dd3z.
I suppose if the trin00/TFN code were updated to support this new kind of DoS as an option, it could be bad, but a bug like this can not be easily exploited to disrupt the internet itself, since Macs make up such a small population of the "live" Internet.
This is not to say that the DoS can't be launched against the MacOS 9.0 machines themselves, but the potential for widespread 1/1/2000 mischief is limited.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I'd mark both as funny, especially since the author said "j/k" at the end. Of course, most moderators... never mind, don't hurt me.
Yay! Now that OS9 is available on the Mac,
I can run all of my old Color Computer III software. Now if I can just get a Mac with
a 35 track single-sided floppy...
His whole page is about his Y2K Arabian DOS conspiracy theory, genius-boy. Maybe he should sell HIS story to Oliver Stone.
Master P's a punk ass. You must be too, wasting your time reciting an entire crappy rap with a few minor modifications. Here's a clue: Don't listen to pop 40 rap. Bustah.
My home network is all g3's running OS9. Personally I have no desire to attack any DOS boxes. Does anyone actually use DOS anymore?
Their earning should skyrocket as all the little hackers/crackers rush to buy iMacs and/or OS 9 upgrades before Apple releases a fix... Years from now those babies will still be useful!
Imagine tomorrow on News.com:
Mac OS 9 deemed OS of choice for crackers... The rush is on to buy before 9.0.1 arrives!
Uhh, maybe I am mistaken, but the Linux TCP/IP stack is pretty damn good. The Windows TCP/IP stack has not changed since windows 95. (Read the documentation on nmap to see this: Phrack 54)
:)
I am uncertain about the stack in Win2k.
So, how has Red Hat changed the TCP/IP stack in Linux? The post is only partially MS bashing, its pointing out a weakness in the Microsoft TCP/IP stack. I would ask that you clarify your post and explain how the Red Hat reference is relevant.
Thanks.
Only slightly on topic...
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
...to bestow a solution upon us.
CERT Advisory
37.5x traffic amplication. Wheeeeeeee.
Although that is incredibly dangerous, this guy is actually making a claim of an expected international y2k attack on the basis of two foreign port scans. hmmmm. Someone had a bit too much coffee.
Anyhow, I can't seem to find any reference of this on Bugtraq. He appears to have only informed CERT and his local network admin.
matt
Just up on versiontracker *HEH*
Apple Open Transport Tuner - OS 9 & some 8.6 users for denial of service issues - 175k
Apples servers seem very slashdotted of course...
Yeah, we really believe you're a Mac user. Probably some windoze luser impersonating a Mac luser...
Guess it's not a hoax, and I have to give props to Apple for the quick response...
n 11559
http://asu.info.apple.com/swupdates.nsf/artnum/
Description
OT Tuner 1.0 switches off an option in Open Transport that would cause a Macintosh to respond to certain small network packets with a large Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) packet. This update prevents Macintosh computers from being the cause of certain types of Denial of Service (DOS)
issues.
To install, drag the OT Tuner 1.0 file to the System Folder (the tuner will be put in the extensions folder for you). Then restart your Macintosh.
http://asu.info.apple.com/swupdates.nsf/artnum/n11 559
The Mac Resource Page had the best coverage of this DoS attack, imho. They cover it a lot better and in more detail than I could, so instead of repeating their words, I'll just post a link to them here: http://www.macresource.com/. Apple did indeed release a patch today by the name of "Open Transport Tuner". You can find it at the Apple Software Library (http://asu.info.apple.com/) on the "Recent Changes" page.
He's just jealous that they ended up not naming their OS after him.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You only need to send a 29 byte packet to elicit a 1500 byte response.
Radio Shack should sue. These are identical sames for an identical product (an OS).
I defer to a recently-received email from Geoff Duncan, technical editor of Tidbits.com:
*****
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:06:31 -0800
From: Geoff Duncan
Subject: Re: Mac DoS Attack
While the attack outlined by Copeland is feasible, it's worth noting the 1500-byte ICMP responses he describes are not isolated to Mac OS 9, and are more-or-less standard practice in a number of networking implementations, regardless of whether those are based on Mentat's STREAMS. Macs running Mac OS 9 are by no means the only systems which demonstrate this behavior; in fact, I can easily make a number of dedicated routers behave the same way. If I were a cracker intent on causing damage with this sort of attack, why would I bother to locate Macintoshes on DSL or cable modem networks when I can utilize the same behaviors in thousands of routers all over the Internet, each of which is presumably easy to locate and has reasonable (or excessive) amounts of bandwidth at its disposal?
The amplification attack Copeland describes involved gaining root access to a box with a big pipe - probably something running a flavor of Linux, Unix, or NT - and creating home-make forged packets. There are a number of potentially devastating attacks that can be launched under those circumstances that have nothing to do with Macs. TidBITS has been treated to a small selection of these sorts of attacks for the last several weeks. Calling for Mac OS 9 computers to be patched or taken off the net is not going to solve the problem or eliminate the feasibility of the attack Copeland describes.
Also, Copeland's speculation that the datagrams he detected are probes pursuant to Macintosh-specific News Year's Eve attacks are best described as unsubstantiated speculation. At worst, they might be described as irresponsible. I would hope any further coverage this report gains in the Macintosh press will be more objective than what's currently playing on the standard "rumor" sites.
*****
The purpose of this scheme, which I call a "Mac DoS Attack," is to generate a large amount of ICMP Internet traffic going to a specific target. This scheme can be replicated to attack many different targets, with little chance that the perpetrators will be caught. Phase I - Scanning The attackers run computer programs that sends UDP packets to every Internet address in the address ranges assigned to CATV cable modem and ADSL modem providers. Addresses that have Macintosh computers attached and operating will respond with a 1500-byte ICMP packet. These addresses are kept in a list for Phase 2. I will refer to the Macintosh computers at these addresses as "slaves."Phase 2 - Attack A computer at a location like a University is "root compromised." This means the aggressor group has used one of the many well-known techniques to gain the administrator password so they can load their own programs, which may be scheduled to run at a later time (like Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve). The compromised computer is given a list of addresses for 40 slaves, and the address of a specific target. The log files are erased so that no one will later be able to tell who installed the attack program. When the attack program starts running, it sends trigger packets in rotation to the forty or more slaves on its list. The source (return) Internet address is forged to be that of the target. The slaves then send a 1500 byte ICMP packet to the target each time they receive a 40-byte trigger packet. If the attack computer sends 4000 40-byte trigger packets per second (bit rate less than 1.3 Mbps), the slave will send 4000 1500-byte packets to the target (bit rate 48 Mbps). |-------------> Slave ------------>| Control |-------------> Slave ------------>| Computer ------->|-------------> Slave ------------>|-------> Target |-------------> Slave ------------>| | * * * | 4000 1500-byte 4000 40-B pkt/s 100 40-B pkt/s 100 1500-B pkt/s ICMP pkts/s to each slave from each slave = 48 Mbps This figure shows the process of "byte amplification." The target organization (or organizations) is cut off from the Internet because it's connection, a 1.5 Mbps (million bit per second) T-1 or a 45 Mbps DS-3 digital line is swamped with ICMP packets from forty different sources. Note that 30 different T-1 connections could be swamped by varying the return addresses in the trigger packets).
Had to search the web site a little to find this, so I thought I'd post it to make people's lives easier. The problem I see with the theory above is that: what ADSL/Cable connection could support 48 Mbps of data from the Macs? I think there would have to be an AWFUL LOT of Mac slaves to actually swamp a DS-3 connection. In fact, I bet it isn't even possible.
CA-99-17 Denial-of-Service Tools
A new denial-of-service tool known as Tribe FloodNet 2K was released; a weakness in certain versions of MacOS allows intruders to use MacOS 9 as a "traffic amplifier."
Yes! First gangster rap, now ... script kiddie rap. It will bring the community together. Some will laugh at it, some will find it inspirational... Anyone that doesn't understand it can excluded.. Dodgin' beowulf clusters..
--- Where's my X.400 protocol decoder?