The error is making a technical distinction, which conflicts with actuality.
For all intents and purposes the nachi worm wiggled its way unimpeded, from random spots on the internet into so described 'private' network. Therefore it this network was clearly exposed to the entire internet, how could you possibly argue otherwise?
This is the problem with the 'experts' who think so narrowly as to imagine that when the light is turned on; that the thing they see just came into existence!
The implication here are grave, and important, Additionally it should be questioned is:
For how many years have ATM terminals been exposed to the entire internet? The 2003 nachi worm exposed the fact that important financial networks have been susceptible to exploitation for a long time.
It's the more embarrassing to realize that none of the so called Analysts, Gartner Analysts (a $9 billion advice giving outfit), or so called security experts, who now have the gall to pontificate (http://www.securityfocus.com/), had anything useful to say prior.
No it took some script-kiddy with too much time on her hands to post a worm to mirc networks (perhaps) to bring the real issue to the fore.
The dangerous ones are not the worm writing script-kiddies, it's the smart ones who notice the vulnerability and exploit them quietly.
Simply: Prior to nachi, know one can account for what went on [skimmer], except that your accounts were unsafe and exposed, after nachi you at least have the opportunity know it.
IBM recommends OS/2 users migrate off OS/2 to either Linux or Windows 2000. Thats whats wrong with it, probably nothing technically (yes OS/2 developers are relics), more comercial.
Given than Wells Fargo, is a substatial entity, it would be interesting and credible to know how/why they decided to go the windows route since it is possible to maintain a large number networked Linux nodes for remote updates/admin as is cited in the article about windows.
Are windows embedded ATMs really the only game in town?
I'm afraid you are very wrong rewt66, the NT based OS was designed from the beginning to be multi-user capable system. To be clear on this, NT has very a very capable multi-user model, infact it relies on this fact, combined with a very fine grained security model (read here and here: ftp://shell.shore.net/members/w/s/ws/Support/OS/W2 K.pdf).
Security problems exist with all operating systems.
Shatter, you mentionned it, is confined to single session userspace code, and it relies on badly written privaliged code - think drivers,... thus your citation of the shatter just demonstrates you lack of knowlege. If you want to know what is dangerous in a multiuser system then here are some examples of privalege escalation, look: here and here.
And no Windows NT was not a ground up rewrite of Windows 1.0 it is infact a entirely different design, only sharing a subset of user-space application API.
So the dude is not stupid, but he would be if he were asking you for advice
Re:what about plotting waypoints on the map?
on
Mapping Google Maps
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
http://map.search.ch/ is more similar to Keyhole (on the dynamics) and and even more interesting use of dhtml than googles first attempt.
I think you need to investigate how these people are becoming infected. I suspect that vast majority of such infections have more to do with the social aspects rather than the technical.
As for the household appliances, where have you been, see the following:
Before the MySQL bashers start, it should be noted that this is not a problem with MySQL
This is not a bash but... A server should not (by default at least) allow remote access to administrative or root accounts where no password has been specified.
I would also add Hard Drive performance to the list of things glossed over, OSX performs terribly in anything less than 512mb and even worse when its swpapping out to a sub-5000 RPM storage.
This sounds a little hysterical to me, Brian Hook, should understand that a.OCX is just as much an appplication as a.EXE. I mean, my point is spyware, malware whatever... just consider how many millions of people actively downloaded and installed kazaa.exe or other programs...
Come to think of it, theres nothing to stop a signed java applet running amok on your linux hard-drive either (if you disable the security or) accept the activex style security prompt.
You can install and run this:Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer instead of doing what you did. It also tests your system against security best practices for windows systems.
Actually "Windows XP" isn't a Kernel. The kernel of Windows XP is called the actually called the "NT Executive" - which is composed of the Hal (Hardware abstractiomn..), Microkernel and kernel services ( device drivers,.. ).
having a Win2k fully patched machine hacked within 2 hours
Seriously. It would be interesting to know the attack vector here. I have a w2k server fully exposed to the internet with no firewall on the internet now for over a year without problems.
Just a Note: If you read the report, you can see they have probably counted attempts to compromise the "Windows File sharing" protocol as Mac OS attacks, justified because Apple OS supports the "Windows file sharing" protocols, invalid because such malicious code designed for an x86 would be incompatible.
Macintosh are clearly not subject any level of systematic attack. Windows machines are. I suspect the authors knew this, which would explain why they came to the conclusions that they did.
Slashdot Mirror
I searched on 'c#' google, and i searched on '.net' in. Both came up with the relavent pages.
I believe you are being facetious at best, at worse indirectly casting dispersions on the capabilities of google.
Well, they weren't exposed to the entire internet
The error is making a technical distinction, which conflicts with actuality.
For all intents and purposes the nachi worm wiggled its way unimpeded, from random spots on the internet into so described 'private' network. Therefore it this network was clearly exposed to the entire internet, how could you possibly argue otherwise?
This is the problem with the 'experts' who think so narrowly as to imagine that when the light is turned on; that the thing they see just came into existence!
The implication here are grave, and important, Additionally it should be questioned is:
For how many years have ATM terminals been exposed to the entire internet? The 2003 nachi worm exposed the fact that important financial networks have been susceptible to exploitation for a long time.
It's the more embarrassing to realize that none of the so called Analysts, Gartner Analysts (a $9 billion advice giving outfit), or so called security experts, who now have the gall to pontificate (http://www.securityfocus.com/), had anything useful to say prior.
No it took some script-kiddy with too much time on her hands to post a worm to mirc networks (perhaps) to bring the real issue to the fore.
The dangerous ones are not the worm writing script-kiddies, it's the smart ones who notice the vulnerability and exploit them quietly.
Simply: Prior to nachi, know one can account for what went on [skimmer], except that your accounts were unsafe and exposed, after nachi you at least have the opportunity know it.
Given than Wells Fargo, is a substatial entity, it would be interesting and credible to know how/why they decided to go the windows route since it is possible to maintain a large number networked Linux nodes for remote updates/admin as is cited in the article about windows.
Are windows embedded ATMs really the only game in town?
I'm afraid you are very wrong rewt66, the NT based OS was designed from the beginning to be multi-user capable system. To be clear on this, NT has very a very capable multi-user model, infact it relies on this fact, combined with a very fine grained security model (read here and here: ftp://shell.shore.net/members/w/s/ws/Support/OS/W2 K.pdf).
Security problems exist with all operating systems.
Shatter, you mentionned it, is confined to single session userspace code, and it relies on badly written privaliged code - think drivers, ... thus your citation of the shatter just demonstrates you lack of knowlege. If you want to know what is dangerous in a multiuser system then here are some examples of privalege escalation, look: here and here.
And no Windows NT was not a ground up rewrite of Windows 1.0 it is infact a entirely different design, only sharing a subset of user-space application API.
So the dude is not stupid, but he would be if he were asking you for advice
http://map.search.ch/ is more similar to Keyhole (on the dynamics) and and even more interesting use of dhtml than googles first attempt.
I think you need to investigate how these people are becoming infected. I suspect that vast majority of such infections have more to do with the social aspects rather than the technical.
As for the household appliances, where have you been, see the following:
* Home Entertainment
* Sega Dreamcast
* the Windows Embedded Bernina Sewing Machine
The author of the article is not smart, and the article is not clever, and i suspect you know that too, he just astroturfing for a**le computers...
Clearly you have no idea that this flaw has nothing to do with Windows Security. That is another debate.
This is a flaw in Windows version of MySQL. Your comment is entirely beside the point.
Before the MySQL bashers start, it should be noted that this is not a problem with MySQL
This is not a bash but... A server should not (by default at least) allow remote access to administrative or root accounts where no password has been specified.
The employee need not be spiteful, they could simply encrypt important data and die of a heart attack or somthing !!!
I would also add Hard Drive performance to the list of things glossed over, OSX performs terribly in anything less than 512mb and even worse when its swpapping out to a sub-5000 RPM storage.
Come to think of it, theres nothing to stop a signed java applet running amok on your linux hard-drive either (if you disable the security or) accept the activex style security prompt.
Theres a video demo here:
:
l 9.Avalon
Daniel Lehenbauer - Demo of Avalon 3D #
and here
Avalon Layout Basics
and info here:
http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/Channe
You can install and run this: Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer instead of doing what you did. It also tests your system against security best practices for windows systems.
... and given the current unavailability of the said technology, one could easily be forgiven if someone said it needed fixing.
Of course since you had the Linux source code you could have fixed the problem yourself.
Interesting...
Job postings might give some insight: Comair, Inc. jobs into what they are using.
Consider ...
<HTML>
<HEAD><title>fake citibank.com</title></HEAD>
<frameset rows="*" frameborder=0 border=0 framespacing=0>
<frame src="http://www.citibank.com/" scrolling=yes frameborder=no>
</frameset>
<body leftmargin="0" rightmargin="0" topmargin="0" bottommargin="0">Hello!</body>
</HTML>
Actually "Windows XP" isn't a Kernel. The kernel of Windows XP is called the actually called the "NT Executive" - which is composed of the Hal (Hardware abstractiomn..), Microkernel and kernel services ( device drivers,.. ).
Windows XP Architecture
I suspect it has something to do with this:
* Feb2004: Apple's Market Share Dips Below 2% According To Merrill Lynch
* Oct2004: Apple Q3 Global Market Share Falls to 1.8%. Everyone else Post Strong Gains
Take a look thread immediately below this one, by ryanr. Which refers to sharing being switch on.
Clearly you didn't read the article, yet you felt confident enough to comment!
It's has been clearly stated that windows filesharing was enabled.
FYI that standard issue of WinXP comes with SP2 as standard.
having a Win2k fully patched machine hacked within 2 hours
Seriously. It would be interesting to know the attack vector here. I have a w2k server fully exposed to the internet with no firewall on the internet now for over a year without problems.
Just a Note: If you read the report, you can see they have probably counted attempts to compromise the "Windows File sharing" protocol as Mac OS attacks, justified because Apple OS supports the "Windows file sharing" protocols, invalid because such malicious code designed for an x86 would be incompatible.
Macintosh are clearly not subject any level of systematic attack. Windows machines are. I suspect the authors knew this, which would explain why they came to the conclusions that they did.
Might be of some interest:
http://weblogs.asp.net/duncanma/archive/2004/03/ 02/82953.aspx
Paul Vick on two new operators in VB Whidbey