Specifically, it looks like the FBI may have several ready-made exploits, each targeting a different OS/web browser combination. An interesting question, then, is what they would do if they encountered a system that is fully patched and running a more secure browser such as Firefox. Does the FBI have access to their own zero-day exploits that they can whip out to install this trojan? If so, is it possible they have their own team of hackers set out to find such exploits?
Theo de Raadt announced that his personal machine now has the foot-in-mouth sensor activated when the NIC detects any email being sent to a DARPA address.
So this guy creates a web site, and puts copyrighted images on it. For good measure he then plasters the site with Google ads to make money off it. (Or maybe that was his intention from the get-go?) Then he complains when the copyright holder wants him to remove the copyrighted images for which he has no license from his ad-driven web site? Right...
This was already done in remote parts of Soviet Russia. The problem is that the devices went without supervision and were subsequently plundered by scrap metal thieves. See http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/05/24/sto ry13735.asp for an article about the problem.
My company sells TrojanHunter, a trojan scanner for Windows. I can say that we most definitely WILL be detecting this one if the RIAA go ahead with their plans. There was a big flap about an FBI-created trojan called the Magic Lantern a few years ago, and my reply was the same then: If it's a trojan, we will add detection for it.
don't know that Sweden and Schwitzerland aren't the same countries
Perhaps you should learn to correctly spell "Switzerland" before you make derogatory comments to the effect that an entire population is clueless regarding pointing out locations of countries. It makes you look utterly stupid, really.
3. Have high-quality audio cables.
You sir, obviously don't know what you are talking about. Audio cables are used for one (1) reason: to conduct an electrical current. As long as the cable kernel is made out of something that does this job (such as copper) then that is as good as it'll get. Buying $200/meter cables with gold coating isn't going to improve sound quality a bit (no pun intended). What it will achieve though, is make you look like a fool for buying them, and make the manufacturers of said rip-off cables laugh all the way to the bank.
While on the subject of gaping holes in logic; are you saying that 997 out of 997 people who look through source code to find buffer overflows are doing so solely to share the knowledge of that hole to the security community, in the hopes of improving overall security? Sounds a bit naive if you ask me...
My point exactly; that's why it is even harder for the average person wanting to find buffer overflows to find it when he/she has only a binary available. And yes, I know that the truly "1337" aren't your "average person", but there are still many fewer out there who can find exploits in binaries. And for the record, I'm sure a script kiddie can find a buffer overflow if he knows some C and gets lucky;). Not that he'd know how to exploit it after he found it...
The idea that you need source code to find BO's if fucking stupid, and shows how little you know about being l33t.
I know that you don't need the source code to find buffer overflows. I also know that of 1000 people who can find a buffer overflow by examining the source code, maybe 2 or 3 know how to use SoftICE or IDA to find the same exploit by working on the binary. So basically, although you are correct in that you don't need the source code, it makes it much more difficult for the average script kiddie to find it, and thus less likely that it will become public knowledge.
I am asking You All: What ways could we make sure that "patches" had been applied across the board?
There is no way, other than to do you job as a sysadmin and follow Bugtraq mailing lists et. al. Specifically, a system to automatically download patches from a server and apply them is far too vulnerable to exploit by crackers. However, and I know I will get flamed for this, if I were to maintain a web server, I would go with an alternative that is not open source. Why? Because open-source software is far more vulnerable to buffer overflows - not because non-open-source software is less buggy - but because the source code isn't there for every cracker to scrutinize. I'm not saying this is an invitation to stop checking code for exploits, but as I see it, it is (sadly) the way to go if you want to minimize the risk of being cracked.
I don't live in the US, but here in Sweden, we have something called free speach. It's a "fundmental law", somewhat like the amendments in the US. I can't see how publishing exploits would not be an issue of free speach. What's next, making it illegal to publish information on how to create gun powder because it could help in manufacturing guns?
Furthermore, shouldn't someone also issue a treaty to ban and make illegal badly written software containing eg. buffer overflows as it might aid crackers? I think the legislative branch in the US is so afraid and unknowledgable of technology that they'd rather create laws against it than inform themselves of where the real dangers lie.
A switch prevents traffic which does not need to be broadcasted from being broadcasted.
And you are claiming that this does not lower the effective bandwith available to a user on a non-switched Ethernet? If that is true, then available bandwith would be independent of the traffic on the line. How convenient, maybe you can use the same reasoning to prove that the risk of getting in a traffic jam is not related to the number of cars on the road?
In Sweden, I don't know any ISP that charges extra money for bandwith usage; they all offer flat rate (usually it's a 10MBit/s connection) and unlimited usage. Wouldn't you rather have that instead of paying for bandwith usage? I don't know about the US, but if i could choose between flat rate, no restriction, and flat rate, restricted, i'd choose the former.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to post advice, at least make an effort to get it correct. Your configuration blocks all visitors.
This is what you should have done:
order deny,allow
deny from all
allow from iprange
allow from iprange
Some more speculation on installation methods of CIPAV can be found here:
http://blog.misec.net/2007/07/31/3/
Specifically, it looks like the FBI may have several ready-made exploits, each targeting a different OS/web browser combination. An interesting question, then, is what they would do if they encountered a system that is fully patched and running a more secure browser such as Firefox. Does the FBI have access to their own zero-day exploits that they can whip out to install this trojan? If so, is it possible they have their own team of hackers set out to find such exploits?
Theo de Raadt announced that his personal machine now has the foot-in-mouth sensor activated when the NIC detects any email being sent to a DARPA address.
I'm going to be modded down for this, but...
Theo de Raadt is an arrogant asshole. Not exactly the type you're falling all over yourself to support with donations.
So this guy creates a web site, and puts copyrighted images on it. For good measure he then plasters the site with Google ads to make money off it. (Or maybe that was his intention from the get-go?) Then he complains when the copyright holder wants him to remove the copyrighted images for which he has no license from his ad-driven web site? Right...
What I'd like to know is how he plans on staying awake for the 75+ hours the flight will take. Amphetamines like the Navy jet fighters do it?
In what way is comparing two memory addresses considered an innovation? Doesn't the i386 CMP operator constitute prior art?
I'm guessing that when you get this you've hit a machine in the round-robin/load-balancing cluster that hasn't been updated with the new article yet.
This needs to be modded up. Most of what this guy posts is an accurate description of a large percentage of the /. crowd.
Here's a very nice PDF giving actual code examples of the new language features:
- Ti ger.pdf
http://www.javasig.com/Archive/lectures/JavaSIG
This was already done in remote parts of Soviet Russia. The problem is that the devices went without supervision and were subsequently plundered by scrap metal thieves. See http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/05/24/sto ry13735.asp for an article about the problem.
My company sells TrojanHunter, a trojan scanner for Windows. I can say that we most definitely WILL be detecting this one if the RIAA go ahead with their plans. There was a big flap about an FBI-created trojan called the Magic Lantern a few years ago, and my reply was the same then: If it's a trojan, we will add detection for it.
Google's mirror: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:dDSV8GMMeDM:w ww.satirewire.com/features/poetry_spam/spam_winner .shtml+&hl=en
I was making fun of the fact that americans seldom understand more than one language
Right. Of course you were.
Liar.
Uh. What pun? Please explain to me.
And also, Schweden is the german spelling of "Sweden" (Sverige), and Switzerland is the correct english spelling. Was there a point to this?
You still look clueless to me.
don't know that Sweden and Schwitzerland aren't the same countries
Perhaps you should learn to correctly spell "Switzerland" before you make derogatory comments to the effect that an entire population is clueless regarding pointing out locations of countries. It makes you look utterly stupid, really.
3. Have high-quality audio cables. You sir, obviously don't know what you are talking about. Audio cables are used for one (1) reason: to conduct an electrical current. As long as the cable kernel is made out of something that does this job (such as copper) then that is as good as it'll get. Buying $200/meter cables with gold coating isn't going to improve sound quality a bit (no pun intended). What it will achieve though, is make you look like a fool for buying them, and make the manufacturers of said rip-off cables laugh all the way to the bank.
While on the subject of gaping holes in logic; are you saying that 997 out of 997 people who look through source code to find buffer overflows are doing so solely to share the knowledge of that hole to the security community, in the hopes of improving overall security? Sounds a bit naive if you ask me...
My point exactly; that's why it is even harder for the average person wanting to find buffer overflows to find it when he/she has only a binary available. And yes, I know that the truly "1337" aren't your "average person", but there are still many fewer out there who can find exploits in binaries. And for the record, I'm sure a script kiddie can find a buffer overflow if he knows some C and gets lucky ;). Not that he'd know how to exploit it after he found it...
I know that you don't need the source code to find buffer overflows. I also know that of 1000 people who can find a buffer overflow by examining the source code, maybe 2 or 3 know how to use SoftICE or IDA to find the same exploit by working on the binary. So basically, although you are correct in that you don't need the source code, it makes it much more difficult for the average script kiddie to find it, and thus less likely that it will become public knowledge.
There is no way, other than to do you job as a sysadmin and follow Bugtraq mailing lists et. al. Specifically, a system to automatically download patches from a server and apply them is far too vulnerable to exploit by crackers. However, and I know I will get flamed for this, if I were to maintain a web server, I would go with an alternative that is not open source. Why? Because open-source software is far more vulnerable to buffer overflows - not because non-open-source software is less buggy - but because the source code isn't there for every cracker to scrutinize. I'm not saying this is an invitation to stop checking code for exploits, but as I see it, it is (sadly) the way to go if you want to minimize the risk of being cracked.
And even then I wouldn't bet any money on being sure the data couldn't be recovered...
Furthermore, shouldn't someone also issue a treaty to ban and make illegal badly written software containing eg. buffer overflows as it might aid crackers? I think the legislative branch in the US is so afraid and unknowledgable of technology that they'd rather create laws against it than inform themselves of where the real dangers lie.
A switch prevents traffic which does not need to be broadcasted from being broadcasted. And you are claiming that this does not lower the effective bandwith available to a user on a non-switched Ethernet? If that is true, then available bandwith would be independent of the traffic on the line. How convenient, maybe you can use the same reasoning to prove that the risk of getting in a traffic jam is not related to the number of cars on the road?
In Sweden, I don't know any ISP that charges extra money for bandwith usage; they all offer flat rate (usually it's a 10MBit/s connection) and unlimited usage. Wouldn't you rather have that instead of paying for bandwith usage? I don't know about the US, but if i could choose between flat rate, no restriction, and flat rate, restricted, i'd choose the former.