Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

SANS Releases Top Ten Exploits 149

Posted by emmett from the security-through-intelligence dept.
Lizard_King writes: "System Administration, Networking and Security (SANS) Institute published a list of exploits most often used to gain illegal access to network servers. View the list here." This is really a very good list, compiled from the viewpoint of fixing the potential forthcoming breach. Good work!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SANS Releases Top Ten Exploits More

SANS Releases Top Ten Exploits

Comments Filter:

  • Re:What /. wanted to see.... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    NT admins without a driver's license.

    What does having a driving license have to do with sysadmin ability? I do not have a driving license and until they (a) invent an environmentally friendly car and (b) make it possible to park in my city and (c) make it possible to drive faster than 10 mph in my city and (d) make car collisions no more fatal than bicycle collisions, I never will.

    Bow down and worship the god of petroleum.

  • That's a nice command, but really, if someone is smart enough to get in, get root, and replace bins. Don't you think they'd include a hacked rpm too? Sure your low-level script kiddie wouldn't, but for serious cracks you cannot trust a single thing. That's why security has to be kept in the forefront from the time you build a machine.
  • My personal favorite article submission was this:

    2000-05-04 19:49:50 Best way for Slashdotters to feel sorry for me? (askslashdot,ed) (rejected)

    I had a nice write up put in for that. Too bad ya can't get it back...
  • A few days ago I submitted my résumé to a temp agency, in PDF format. They sent it back, saying "I was unable to read your resume, since it's in Acrobat format. Could you please send it again in MS Word?" I obliged (I'd actually composed it with Word 98/Mac), but was somewhat disgusted by this sorry state of affairs.

    --

  • 5. Using a modem while connected through a local area network.

    Hmm? What's wrong with being connected, as long as you don't allow incoming connections from the Internet? Setting all your daemons to only bind to eth0 isn't that hard, once you've disabled the ones you don't need anyway.

    --

  • Assuming we're talking about Windows here, if all services are turned off and File & Printer Sharing is not bound to DUN (granted, most lusers don't take this precaution), simply being connected to the 'Net via a modem SHOULDN'T be a security risk, because it shouldn't be possible to access the LAN from the 'Net.

    I suppose if you can get the luser to run a "trojan" like BO2k [bo2k.com], Sub7, etc. then this would be a problem in the scenario you describe. Any modern up-to-date virus scanner should find the more popular ones, though.

    --

  • Yes, but they are only concerned with problems that can be fixed. Enntee usually can't, so there's no use in reporting and tracking the problems. If you sign with the devil and use enntee, you just have to accept that you're going to get 0wn3d sooner or later.
  • Use qmail or postfix instead of Sendamil.

    That's right, q***l and postfix are fairly obscure, so the kiddies don't have sploits for them. Of course, if everyone used them, then this advantage would disappear. This is really just personal bias against Sendmail, so I'm calling you on it. :)

  • They only allow code into the main tree that they have audited. this includes BIND. obsd still uses bind 4

    while bind is important, not sure it deserved to be number one.

    the docs and the man pages are also carefully maintained. almost all the man pages have examples.
  • Hmm... it may be possible to create a PS virus, after all, it is a real programming language. It may be possible to make a specific printer "catch on fire"!
  • Read the blurb on security at this page: http://www.postfix.org/goals.html [postfix.org]

    -l

  • Wrong again. The good sysadmins ignore CERT, and spend their time groking the cracker sites. Their servers don't touch a net wire until the box is secure. The good sysadmins realize that over 90% of system crack attempts come from internal employees who have at least some level of legitimate access to the system. The good sysadmins work closely with the C?O's of the company, making falling for most common social engineering pranks grounds for immediate termination.

    Good sysadmins have their own private networks where they abuse their own systems. They don't believe a word of market-speak about any product unless they can verify it in testing and with common sence (market speak such as OpenBSD being secure "out of the box". Secure - and running NFS and sendmail OUT OF THE BOX BY DEFAULT. Very dumb.).

    Good sysadmins are differentiated from the really good crackers only by ethical choice. They are just as dedicated to the security and integrity of their systems as the hardcore cracker is dedicated to exploiting them.
  • Not to be a troll, but why do you recommend qmail or postfix over sendmail? It is true that in the past sendmail has had a ton of security problems, but so have most daemons that existed at the dawn of the internet.

    Since then it appears to me (perhaps naively) that sendmail has been patched appropriately and is probably the most battle-tested MTA out there.

    Maybe you could argue that sendmail is harder to configure than qmail or postfix, and thus more susceptible to security-compromising misconfigurations, but is there more to it than that?
  • There is a $500 reward [cr.yp.to] for anyone who can find a security hole in qmail.

    If you are that confident in sendmail, why don't you put up the same amount for sendmail?

  • OpenBSD is by all accounts the most secure UNIX system out there. It's not used as much as Linux. By your reasoning, we would find as many security holes in it as we would find in Linux, if it had been used just as much. Does that make sense?

    A program is either designed to be secure or security is an afterthought. qmail was designed to be secure. Bernstein doesn't even trust the standard C library.

    He also designed it with the "UNIX" principle in mind, i.e. KISS. The biggest executable, qmail-send is 60k. Each executable runs with their own UID.

    You're saying sendmail is secure? Last sendmail bug is dated 2000-4-23 on bugtraq. It makes it possible to corrupt a local user's mailbox. The vulnerability is in the version that comes with Redhat 6.2 (8.9.3 and down) One of the things everybody is warning you about when using sendmail is, check for new versions.

    Do a search on qmail on bugtraq. There are only one entry, in a program that doesn't even come with qmail.

    Both OpenBSD and qmail has been audited. sendmail wasn't designed to be secure. Security was an afterthought as the internet became more popular.

    You wouldn't trust Windows because of its records in security matters. Why would you trust sendmail? Because lots of people are using it and it is the oldest? sendmail has had how many years to tighten things up?

  • The 'High Priority Bonus' pretty much covers what's wrong with NT. In and of itself NT isn't bad, but all of it's 'conveniences' defeat an otherwise decent security model. That coupled with global sharing of files, drives and peripherals... Running as Administrator, the 98/95 open file system available to all users.

    I guess the authors found it hard to write a paragraph outlining sheer idiocy.. :) The article is about technical problems, for the most part, while most of the problems with NT result from poor administration and ignorance.
  • The only virus that I can think of (don't quote me on this, its been awhile since I was studying this stuff) was the Bubbleboy virus, which caused little damage. Link to article about it below http://www.zdnet.com/zdhelp/stories/main/0,5594,23 90955,00.html I just skimmed it, but it seemed generally accurate.
  • scp is to rcp what ssh is to telnet. There are a few implementations of ftp through ssh but no standard that Ive heard of. The solution of course is to open a ssl tunnel and use ordinary ftp through it.
  • Did you try turning on auditing?
  • Linux(aggr) is misleading. If there is a root exploit in bind it would get reported and fixed in redhat, mandrake, suse, debian, slackware, etc. That is one root exploit but it gets counted 5 times.

    There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
  • Unix doesn't "run" the internet. If you're looking for one particular target to assign such blame, it would probably be Cisco. Anyway, Unix is hardly homogenous
    That's true about Cisco. With regard to UNIX not being homogeneous: it doesn't matter that AIX is not the same as SunOS which is not the same as Linux. The very thing which makes a UNIX server interoperate so well is the thing that makes it so vulnerable. Standards (in the form of RFCs [ohio-state.edu]). You don't care what version of UNIX you're talking to, you're pretty sure if someone answers on port 110 that they will be adhering to a standard protocol [ohio-state.edu].

    IMHO,
    DeanT

  • "This consensus Top Ten list represents an unprecedented example of active cooperation among industry, government, and academia.

    I was trying to think of some comments about things like the Manhattan Project, but I think the quote stands on it's own.
    --
    Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
  • I submitted that problem as a bug report to Red Hat.

    http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i d=11876 [redhat.com]

    Cheers.

  • What?

    This is what I see when I ftp to my nearest Red Hat mirror:

    dir bind*
    -rw-rw-r-- 2 johan ftpadm 1672369 Mar 8 20:40 bind-8.2.2_P5-9.i386.rpm
    -rw-rw-r-- 2 johan ftpadm 405796 Mar 8 20:40 bind-devel-8.2.2_P5-9.i386.rpm
    -rw-rw-r-- 2 johan ftpadm 656849 Mar 8 20:40 bind-utils-8.2.2_P5-9.i386.rpm

    And these packages aren't even updates, they're the packages shipped with Red Hat 6.2. So, no, the current Red Hat packages are safe in this sense, and I think you're wrong.

  • A list of things that network people know about, so that the crackers can use this as a baseline. Odin's left eyeball, is this a first post? I'm so honoured! -TBHiX-
  • never mind... maybe next time. ;) -TBHiX-
  • Basic checking would be to run an rpm verify if you're using an rpm based system. Better would be if you'd run a tripwire session in the beginning and you had correct checksums stored elsewhere.

    Otherwise, scan the logs, run a find through your system for any suid files and check if they are what they're supposed to be, check all .history files on the system (heh, some guy who hacked a user account on one of my machines many years ago missed cleaning that one). Run COPS or similar tools. Check all security related config files.

    Any of which can show you that you have been compromized, none of which will prove you havent.

    All of which will take far far longer than reinstalling.
  • Meanwhile, the good admins will patch their systems and at least they will now be protected.

    Wrong. The good admins patched their systems before this list came out. The good admins subscribe to the CERT mailing list, or at least keep up on the CERT webpage, and they respond appropriately to ALL advisories. And good sysadmins use good passwords.

    -----

  • Because he isn't from L0pht any more, but from @stake, and the signatories are in reverse alphabetical order by organization.
  • Sendmail is slower, more complex, and less secure than qmail. Only advantage I think sendmail has is its flexablity. Qmail isn't perfect but in my experience its a lot better than sendmail. When you get sick of patching sendmail check out www.qmail.org. And if you don't think Qmail is battle tested, go ahead and try finding *any* exploits for it.
  • There is an alternate authentication method for
    pop3 named apop (see rfc1725).

    This involves a salt from the server (usually
    timestamp) which client concatenates with passwd
    and then runs through md5. Server does the same
    operation and then compares. md5 (see rfc1321) is a oneway hash function believed to by cryptographically secure (the fastest way to break it is brute force) so this is very good at on the wire password protection.

    Enforcing this at the server also has the nice
    effect that people can't use outlook (without
    a middle shim layer converting from pop3 to apop)
  • 11. Anything, even if it's vaporware, about Apple.
  • "7h3 n@m3z n30!"
  • I did not know that. Thank you. Unfortuneately at school here we use plain test. I like saying things like 'oh me, I didnt put that packet sniffer on the machine. oh by the way, your extra-marital boyfriend is busy tonight.' hehe
  • pop is plaintext too.

  • Basically the difference between telnet, and ssh is the way in which the characters are sent between your machine and the remote one.

    With telnet each of your keypresses is send plain text, whereas SSH uses encryption which stops people from sniffing your connection.

    If the remote machine runns SSHD, (the ssh server), then you really should be using SSH.

    For a free SSH client for windows do a search on : http://www.gnusoftware.com [gnusoftware.com].


    Steve
    ---

  • RCP is to FTP what SSH is to Telnet.


    Steve
    ---
  • The Ponds Institute just released a list of top cosmetics that cause wrinkles.
  • The ones shipped with 6.1 were vulnerable, though.
  • SANS is well known....Obviously you are not in the know.

    jas
  • Really you can never know if you are currently vulnerable with a system that's been active for ages. As Rootprompt.org's Cracked! series of articles shows, the first thing script kiddies and crackers do is start replacing standard system utilities. I've seen on Linux various hacks to hide processes, kernel modules, etc. So just doing lsmod suddenly means very little. :)

    Your best bet is to start with a fresh install. I'd say there's 99.99% chance that your standard Mandrake, Redhat, Debian, etc don't have these rootkit bins on their CDs. I have taken to running tcpdump on my little ppp connection (damn phone company refuses to put DSL here) whenever I am online. It is quite interesting seeing just how many attempts people make to various things, SMB is the most common, telnet, linuxconf, imap, etc are all attempted.

    Perhaps the best method would be to find an old 486, P90 or whatever, and run one of those floppy setups like the Linux Router Project. Poke a couple holes for the services you need to pass through to a full Linux server (web, mail, etc). With the system running fully in memory, any bins a cracker replaces get restored by a mere reboot. And by having a very limited number of bins on the system, that gives crackers vastly less chance to successfully getting into your system. You will still have to keep abreast on security notices for the things you do have.
  • A good read on the damage one cracker can cause with a sniffer, check RootPrompt [rootprompt.org]'s Cracked! series of articles.
  • I never said I was. In fact, for all you know I might be a raving postfix fan, or maybe I've written my own mailer in 80 lines of awk and refuse to use anything else. The point is that the post was based on personal bias. To get back on topic somewhat, it should be noted that the sendmail exploit described in the list is for a version that shipped years ago and has since been superceded many times. Invulnerable? Surely not. But I am willing to trust the recent versions. I'm certain that if another mailer was as widely used as sendmail the reward would have been paid many times over by now.
  • One workaround for this is to use ssh tunnels for things like an IMAP connection. Although, obviously the long-term fix is for all sensitive daemons to use encryption. I hope the expiration of the RSA patent in September makes this easier to implement.

    --
  • Your best bet is a Virtual Private Network.

  • kindbud wrote:

    I can hardly say enough good things about Dan's suite of DNS servers and client programs.

    Having gone through the annoyance of administering a qmail site, I don't suffer from this disability.

    dnscache, dnsfilter, tinydns, pickdns, walldns, rbldns, axfrdns, axfr-get, and the sundry associated libraries are just yet more screwball non-free [cr.yp.to] software from Bernstein: He can keep 'em, and all his other non-FHS-compliant offerings. If I switch to anything, it'll be the GPLed Dents [dents.org] package.

    Rick Moen
    rick@linuxmafia.com

  • I found out when I noticed that /root/.bash_history was linked to /dev/null. DOH!
  • Winged Cat wrote:

    Ok, ok, a more realistic danger: not caring about security. It's one thing to say, "yeah, we're secure," just because you don't think you've ever been hacked. It's something completely different to actually have someone look around for exploits to use against your site or products...

    More often security is perceived to be "costly". Companies that are slaves to the accounting department see what looks like a lot of money spent on a non-revenue source, so the budget gets cut.

    Then the admin(s) don't have the manpower and/or tools to do the job properly, so when something bad happens the finger gets pointed at them as "inefficient" and they're fired en masse.

    Then a whole new crop of freshly-minted "security experts" come in, with no idea where the grue in the system is lurking and waiting to eat the unwary who insist on pressing ahead into the darkness.

    (This is obviously an extreme case, but companies run by beancounters do essentially this kind of stuff all the time.)

    Then something really nasty happens and the company gets a lot of bad press over it, after which the severed heads end up stacked chest-deep at the main gates and the drains are clogged with the blood of the accounting department. OK, the last part never really happens, no matter how much the original team wishes it would.

    An alternate scenario is a company whose marketing department or top management is actively antagonistic to strong security, perceiving it as a stumbling block to customers or themselves, respectively.

    And sometimes you get management who, despite having zero actual knowledge of security practices, think their rank in the organization translates into authority to set security policy. This is a recipe for disasters that make the other two possibilities look like playtime on Romper Room.

  • Bind (Score:2)

    by QuMa ( 19440 )
    Hmm, the 8.22-P5 bind can be found on rpmfind.net [rpmfind.net], if you want rpms... Made by redhat.
  • This has to be one of the most accurate and well thought out posts on the realities of NT vs *nix.

    I have seen *good* NT admins who understood the strengths and weaknesses of the system do some great things. And the same with *good* *nix admins. I think the reason NT gets such a bad namme is that the GUI makes it too easy to *think* you know what you are doing without understanding what is really going on in the background. There are a lot of mediocre NT admins who don't know that there is more to the system then rebooting it.

    The second problem is that most (not the good ones) NT admins believe that the box can run an infinite number of services all at the same time without effecting the system. Hah. NT is very stable if you do a default install, patch it , run 1 service, and leave the monitor disconnected so it is harder for a junior admin to try to install a new screen saver :-)

    BTW, before the coyotes nip at my heals I am a Sun/Linux/AIX admin, not NT... just work in the real world where you use the best tool for the job.

  • It's incredible to see the 8th reason is:
    8. User IDs, especially root/administrator with no passwords or weak passwords.

    The worst of this is, if an admin uses a blank or weak password for the admin user or install services with pre-installed passwords, it's very possible that this admin will never take care about patching or fixing the other affected services in the list, so their hosts can be a real mess.

    Another thing to note is the more or less common proposed fixes in propietary systems (disable the service, like in IIS) and the solutions offered for free systems (upgrade to bar version or use foo patch).
  • Destination unreachable can be used to confuse some routers ... check on bugtraq archives for more info (dynamic routing?)

    ICMP is generally a bad idea, as it is not necessary for core services to run, and can be used to sniff system settings out .. if you dont need it, why enable it?

    --
    Anil Madhavapeddy, http://recoil.org
  • The Five Worst Security Mistakes End Users Make
    5. Using a modem while connected through a local area network.

    Hmm? What's wrong with being connected, as long as you don't allow incoming connections from the Internet? Setting all your daemons to only bind to eth0 isn't that hard, once you've disabled the ones you don't need anyway.

    I readded the heading from that section (I should have put the headings in bold, but I didn't think of it in time :). If this was in the IT section, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, end users tend to use a modem for one of two reasons - to connect to Internet resources their firewall blocks, or to get them into their system without a VPN or sanctioned dial-up.

    In the former case, they typically don't do anything to protect themselves or the corporate network - they just use DUN to connect to their ISP of choice.

    In the latter case, they will usually stick PCAnyware or something similar on their system and set it to auto-answer, with a poor (or no) password.

    In either case, the end user has made the network security like a chain link hospital gown - string from in front, but baring all.
  • They forgot the social engineering aspect of "hacking."
    "Hi, I'm calling from the security division of and am trying to run a on our network. It looks like my records here doesn't have your machine name and password. Do you think you could provide it to me?"
    Also, even if people choose "good" passwords, how many of them write it down on a Post-it note and put it into their drawer? How many of them use that same password on several different machines?
  • Mention two Linux companies merging.

    Mention Microsoft acquiring anything, even if Bill Gates just acquired a box of cereal for his morning breakfast.

    Mention the words "Open Source." Anywhere. (Note -- this has worked. I've posted two articles, one that mentioned Open Source and one that didn't, on the exact same topic. Guess which got accepted =P)

    Use a three-letter acronym, such as RMS or ESR. It doesn't matter if it has any relevance to anything you're talking about.
  • This breaks down the # of known vunerabilities, not the number of unpatched ones. Linux is open source, and new exploits are pointed out, discussed, and patched almost daily. Searching the source is the easiest way to find an exploit, so what I'd like to know is why NT/95 show equivalent numbers? There must be far, far more potential exploits for them.
  • But there are fewer and fewer exploits in the 'stable branches' For crying out loud, there are currently two activly patched stable trees and one unstable! I'd doubt you could even find a working exploit in 1.2.xx or 2.0.xx!! (Unlike Windows 95, which is of the same vintage, and still has some nagging exploits from as far back as 1997.)

    BSD and Debian are different. They've been sitting in 'beta' forever, feature frozen, much like their commercial counterparts. The same commercial counterparts who can't keep their numbers below a known unstable..

    And all those counting on the new kernels to be bug free are fools. You need secure, use the LAST stable branch.
  • >I also think sendmail seemed out of place on the
    >list. There hasn't been a root exploit on
    >sendmail in what, three years?

    The problem is there are still 10's of thousands of systems out there (mostly old Sun workstations and the like) still running vulnerable versions.

  • >ICMP is generally a bad idea, as it is not necessary for core services to run, and can be used to sniff system settings out .. if you dont need it, why enable it?

    Because its an essential part of the protocol. As said before ICMP unreachable is used for MTU discovery. If you block it all, things will break. Furthermore it can be very usefull to see if a host is up with ping. Like all things with system/network administration you must know what your doing. Filtering out suspicious/dangerous ICMP is good (you don't want your network to become a smurf amplifier for example). Blocking everything is bad.

    What you are saying sounds to me like: "Power steering in cars is generaly a bad idea, it can break at the wrong time.. if you don't need it, why enable it ?

    Because it's fscking usefull
  • I saw this list last night, and my first thought was that it couldn't possibly be right, as most of the compromises on this list are UNIX related. NT accounts for twice as many web server compromises as every other OS combined, even though it holds only 21% of the Internet web server market. (look at http://www.netcraft.com and http://www.attrition.org for verification of these figures) Therefore, the most popular attacks should almost all be NT related. I brought this up to a friend, and he proposed that only the good sysadmins (read:mostly unix) actually either detected the intrusions, or bothered to report them. I can accept that, but I'm interested to hear other opinions.


    A big part of this is that places like L0pht make programs for the Windows exploits, which means any kiddie can use a simple program to find and exploit the problem. There are far less of these programs for *NIX exploits (either because the *NIX exploits would be harder to create a program for, or because more people hate MS and focus on them). Just because it's popular to bash MS doesn't make it a fact everything said about MS is true.

  • Huh. Now all they need is to post the sploits. Then we'd have even more ereet kiddies running around.

    Any halfway-competant script kiddie knows to read Bugtraq and NT Bugtraq. SANS didn't need to produce the exploit. Anyway, they were pretty vauge in places (especially about the POP/IMAP vulnerabilities).
  • Last time I tried an exploit, it was a real mess. People screaming, parents covering their kids' eyes, the embarassing arrest by the cops....
    Wait, I'm thinking 'exhibition'. Nevermind.

  • Read this [cr.yp.to] before deciding to use postfix.
  • Is that these holes still exist on systems because admins are being LAZY. Lazy thinking 'I am running a *nix-based system and therefor I am more secure than Winblowze.'

    Here's a nice reminder: if you aren't constantly working on your security, SOMEONE ELSE IS! And I am not refering to your assistant admin, either.

    Maintaining box/network security is a full-time job. And its a case of constant vigilence. You cant operate on the rules of it 'cant happen to me.' One look at Attrition.org's mirror site should prove you otherwise.

    So take this as a wake up call. Before you get woken with a call ...

    *more ramblings - can you tell its a slow day at work?*
  • These are a problem only because most OS security sucks. This is why a mandatory security model is needed.
    • 1. Opening unsolicited e-mail attachments without verifying their source and checking their content first.
      It should be safe to run untrusted executable code because such code should be run in a sandbox enforced by the operating system and the hardware. By this I mean a set of restrictions similar to those applied to sandboxed Java code.
    • 2. Failing to install security patches - especially for Microsoft Office, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Netscape.
      Browsers don't need much in the way of privileges. The worst that should happen because of a security hole in a browser is that the browser's current state and cache are messed up. Restarting the browser and flushing its cache should cure any problems. Preferences should be changed through a separate program that the user can invoke, but the browser itself can't, and should be stored in a compartment the browser can't write.

      Office has to do more, but only a few parts of Office need to be trusted at all.

    • 3. Installing screen savers or games from unknown sources.
      Neither a screen saver nor a game needs much in the way of privileges.
    Sigh. We've been losing this battle for twenty years now.

  • If you are worried about rootkits (like a fake version of top, who, users, w, etc) you can reinstall those program from you read-only installation medium (ussually a cd-rom) or download and compile them directly from the site (ftp.gnu.org is a great place to start) and turn on a hell of a lot of logging and see if anything pops up.

    If you aren't sure or not, backup your data (not programs or config) and reinstall, get lastest patches, configure, secure, test then bring back online

    Ussually with linux, if you had your system online for a year, you might want to upgrade any way to your current distro lastest version, just to get the newest and coolest feartures. (Note newest and coolest feartures will have bugs (Note some bugs can be exploited for malice purposes))

    If you are unsure, check it out. It is better to find no security holes, then "think" there is no security holes.

  • There was notice sent to Bugtraq several weeks ago. The text of it is below.

    Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 18:37:31 -0700
    From: "http-equiv@excite.com"
    To: BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS.COM
    Subject: MICROSOFT SECURITY FLAW?

    Saturday, May 13, 2000=20

    MICROSOFT SECURITY FLAW?

    Silent delivery and installation of an executable on a target computer. No
    client input other than opening an email or newsgroup post.

    1. Using the following this can be accomplished with the default
    installation of Windows 95 and 98 and Internet Explorer 5 browsers and
    accompanying mail/news clients

    2. The key component from Georgi Guninski=20

    http://www.nat.bg/~joro/wordpad-desc.html

    3. Secondary component comprises a pre-installed ActiveX control directly
    from Microsoft. This control and a variety of similar demonstrations have
    been shown to Microsoft over 18 months ago

    What to do:

    A

    (a) Manufacture a *.chm file. The following kit from Microsoft is free and
    very easy to use Microsoft=AE HTML Help:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/tools/htmlhelp /wkshp/download.htm

    (b) Construct a new *.chm file inputting the ActiveX link control as
    follows:

    AA.Click();
    =20

    (c) The control itself is quite sensitive to manipulation, the above
    represents the bare minimum to run.=20

    (d) Input the path of the executable you intend to run as in PARAM
    name=3D"Item1" above. In order to disguise the running of the executable it=
    is
    suggested to not to give it a silly name, rather something that is familiar
    to the operating system e.g. microsoftagent.exe etc.=20

    (e) While constructing the *.chm, it is possible to both minimise and offse=
    t
    the location of the *.chm file once opened. For example while under
    construction you can set the size of the help window and its location -
    using the auto resizer in Microsoft=AE HTML Help, drag the sizer to the
    smallest possible size. Although setting the size requires clicking OK
    inside the autosizer, dragging to minimal size and hitting ENTER will
    register the setting. Secondly offset the location of the file by inputting
    say 2000 , 2000, this should suffice in it opening off-screen on any size
    monitor.=20

    (f) Once you have compiled the *.chm test its functionality by placing the
    executable in your temp file and open the *.chm - it should run the
    executable.=20

    Now how do we place this on the target computer?

    B.

    (a) Simply by opening an email message or newsgroup post. The client does
    nothing. They receive an email open it or read a newsgroup post and that i=
    s
    all. Both the *.exe and *.chm are transferred silently and immediately to
    the temp folder once the email or newsgroup post is open.

    How so?

    (b) It is possible to embed almost anything in both html email and html
    news. Current versions of Outlook Express 5 inspect what is being embedded
    is in fact the correct file e.g. will not embed becau=
    se
    a *.doc is obviously not an image file. Internet Explorer 4 and accompanyin=
    g
    Outlook Express 4 does allow for this, similarly Netscape Messenger also
    allows for this. Nevertheless, through proprietary JavaScript and VBscript,
    it is possible to deliver an intact file to the target computer's temp
    folder, however with a file name given by the computer e.g. 000321.doc. Thi=
    s
    does not serve the purpose of running the *.chm with the file name explicit
    as above.=20

    (c) The Microsoft Active Movie Control (AMC) pre-registered and
    pre-installed on all Internet Explorer 5 computers does. The very simple
    scripting to do this is as follows:=20

    =20

    (d) This control too is very sensitive and the complete path must be
    inserted in order for it to embed in the html email message or html news
    post.

    (e) Finally, in the body of the html email or html news post the following
    simple JavaScript is required to set off everything:

    setTimeout('window.showHelp("c:/windows/temp/MAL WARE.chm");',15000);

    Sufficient delay must be allowed for the news post or email message and
    transference of both the executable and *.chm files to be delivered to the
    target computers temp file before execution is called.

    What will happen?

    When the email or news post is opened, the embedded *.chm and *.exe will
    automatically and silently be transferred to the client temp folder, intact
    and with the given names. Default locations on all machines calls for the
    temp folder to be at C:\windows\temp. The AMC control, will deposit the two
    files to wherever the temp folder is located, if you have changed the
    location, these two files will still be delivered there, however because th=
    e
    *.chm file is constructed to seek out the *.exe in the default location, it
    will fail. Likewise so will the script in the html email message or news
    post. Hence, this will only work on default OS installs.=20

    Once the news post or email has been opened or even previewed via Outlook o=
    r
    Outlook Express preview pane, the two files are delivered to the temp
    folder, sufficient time elapses when the script in the html message calls
    the *.chm which opens silently and minimised in the task bar (because we
    have instructed it to open at the minimum size and off-set 2000, 2000), onc=
    e
    opened it, the ActiveX link control in it, runs the executable.=20

    Everything is instantaneous, no need for a reboot and no need for user
    interaction other than opening the email (or simply previewing it) or the
    newsgroup post. Needless to say once the executable is running, the damage
    is done. And no Windows Scripting Host (WSH) involved.=20

    The only solution is to relocate the temp folder and/or set scripting and
    ActiveX controls to the highest possible settings. The default settings do
    not ask for permission.=20

    Below represents a working example. The executable incorporated is a
    harmless joke program. In order to run it, save the entire example as eithe=
    r
    *.nws or *.eml and click on it:=20

    note: 1/ on high speed machines and i-connections with IE5, clicking the
    links below will allow for viewing of these news and mail files in the
    browser (technically known as mhtml), with the same effect. Slower machines
    and i-connections might want to save to disk and open from there.
    Additionally saving to disk and opening will allow for viewing in the mail
    or news client.

    note: 2/ it is not necessary to run this through html mail or news, applyin=
    g
    all the above directly on the web results in the same.

    Right-click and save to desktop

    Mail: http://members.xoom.com/malware/help.eml 89KB

    News: http://members.xoom.com/malware/help.nws 89KB
    =20

    =2E

  • Hmm. I have two problems with your argument.

    First, the Netcraft survey you cite makes no attempt to correlate IP address to MAC address. The vast majority of IP addresses are on multi-addressed boxes in ISP server farms; those boxes tend to run Unix or Linux. This has two consequences: first, we can't determine the relative frequencies of NT boxes and *n.x boxes on the net, and, second, we can assume that the ISP farms are reasonably well-secured. (After all, that's what they do full time.) This would tend to indicate that NT sites would be more likely to be administered by people who aren't quite as attuned to keeping up with the necessary patches, and hence would be more likely to be vulnerable.

    Second, though, these vulnerabilities refer to machines on the network generally, and not to web servers in particular. So the frequency with which IIS-based servers are compromised has little or nothing to do with the vulnerabilities of the systems on the Web. How many people still run naked Win98 boxes with always-on connections? Similarly, how many people run unhardened Linux on the network? These vulnerabilities are still there, even if they're not visible on attrition.org.

  • This list is a bit misleading. You'll notice that they give a BSD(aggr) and Linux(aggr). That means that they're lumping together all flavors of BSD into a single category, and all Linux distributions into a single category (although they do count an exploit only once if it appears in multiple distros).

    That means that if RedHat has vulnerability A but not B or C, Suse has vulnerability B but not A or C, and Debian has vulnerability C but not A or B, Linux(aggr) is counted as having three exploits. In reality, if you're using just one distribution you'll only experience one of the three, and Slackware might not have any of those exploits.

    The following looks a lot more favorable for Linux:
    OS 97 98 99 00
    Debian 2 2 29 5
    RedHat 5 10 38 17
    Slackware 3 8 10 0
    Suse 0 0 21 5
    Win NT 4 6 99 37

  • An excellent point. There is only one problem, however. I have been an NT admin for 5 years. Currently I work for a consulting company, and am one of the few NT people willing to do tech reviews. In the last year I have done over 100 tech reviews for NT admins, with probably 50% of them having an MCSE. Out of that 100, only two have I recommended for hire. My point is only that while I agree that a quality NT person can get an NT box running pretty reliably and securely, there are VERY FEW quality NT people out there. Most of them, as you said, are just too comfy with the GUI to learn anything about the system. (and here is a simple question for all of you hiring types: What is the difference between regedit.exe and regedt32.exe? answer: regedit.exe enjoys a better search engine, but only regedt32.exe can edit the registry key permissions. - if someone can't answer this, they haven't a clue about NT security) The two I recommended for hire were the only two able to answer that question. I would say about 30% didn't even know what patch level their servers were at. And just in case you didn't know, the MCSE teaches NOTHING that is important (hot fixes and security are NOT part of the curriculum, although I think this is starting to change for 2000).

    I hope my point was obvious, even though my grammer sucked.
  • What ever happened to sheer user stupidity? Calling employees in a company and asking them for their username and password... Especially in a university/educational setting with poorly trained and underfunded technology groups.

    Hello?
    Yes, this is (technology support group name) calling, we're currently working on testing a (fancy acronym here) upgrade, and we were wondering if you could help us. We'll need your username and password...
  • It's very slow (don't slashdot it please) but you may want to check out
    http://www.securityfocus.com/frames/?content=/vdb/ stats.html

    What they've done is count up the number of root level compromises on a per OS level on the bugtraq mailing list and ordered them up on a per year basis. Most /. Linux freaks will be suprised as to where Linux sits in (hint pretty much the same as Windows). Here's a small snippit before everyone slashdot's the poor website...

    OS 97 98 99 00
    -------------------
    BSD (aggr) 8 8 26 7
    Linux (aggr) 10 23 84 30
    Win 3.-98 1 1 46 13
    Win NT 4 6 99 37

    Further down the page Linux gets some better positioning as it breaks down categories, etc.
  • posting these isn't going to hurt security meaures at all. crackers already know all these holes, thats why their crackers, and most network security sites(and hacker/cracker sites) maintain a list of exploits far more comprehensive and specific than this. However, taking the advice in this article will make 90% of those exploits useless, making it that much easier for sysadmins who dont spend a lot of time securing their systems and just want a few tips to help secure their systems. Very good job by sans.org i think.

  • biggest omission - wuftpd (Score:3)

    by opus ( 543 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:54AM (#1029609)
    The biggest omission from the list was wuftpd <2.6.0 (and derivatives). This deserved to be number 2 on the list, after BIND, as it shipped enabled by default on every RedHat up to 6.0.

    I generally recommend that Linux users replace wuftpd with ftpd-BSD [eleves.ens.fr], the Linux port of OpenBSD ftpd. It's not as featureful, but it's a lot easier to use, and the code has been audited.

    I also think sendmail seemed out of place on the list. There hasn't been a root exploit on sendmail in what, three years?
    --

  • OpenBSD (Score:3)

    by vinn ( 4370 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @10:13AM (#1029610) Homepage Journal

    Up until a few months ago I was doing some sys admin work. At the time I was pretty happy with the way I set up systems, and I still think they were reasonably secure. However, articles like this have convinced me the best way to have peace of mind is to set up OpenBSD firewalls.

    Is Linux more secure than other operating systems? Yes. Is it easy to shoot yourself in the foot and make the system easy to exploit? Definitely. There's an excellent article [securityfocus.com] over at Security Focus that every Linux sys admin must read.

    Of course if there were no users, user accounts, or traffic on the wire I'd feel even better.

  • MS Word Document? How secure. . . (Score:3)

    by GeorgieBoy ( 6120 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @10:02AM (#1029611) Homepage
    I find it amusing that I saw ">Download this document in MS Word format" on that page. I mean, there's a security risk right there!

    More amusing is that I often see electronic resume requests for that "universal" document format, known as MS Word ".doc", rather than something not subjectable to macro virii, like PDF, Postscript, or good old PLainText.

  • How to know if it's too late? (Score:3)

    by Booker ( 6173 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @10:43AM (#1029612) Homepage
    Ok, so let's say (hypothetically, of course....) that you've been running a low-profile Linux system on the 'net for a while. At first, you just got IP Masqing up and turned off unused services. Later, you did some better firewalling. Then you started using SSH... added back in some services you needed...

    But the thing is, it's been out there, in various states of lockdown, for at least the better part of a year.

    How to know if you've already been compromised? Is there any way? Or is a fresh, secure install the only way to go?

    I'm scared by the root kits that replace top, who, users, etc to make the intrusion undetectable. (Yeah, time to make that read-only floppy...)

    ---

  • Solution: OpenBSD (Score:3)

    by Luke ( 7869 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:45AM (#1029613)

    "Secure by Default"

    The default installation of OpenBSD is secure - it takes a careless sysadmin to mess it up. If anyone is truly concerned with security, this is the easiest and best choice.

    Features:

    • Proactive Security - a team of programmers audits the software for bugs which may or may not be exploits. In this way problems are fixed before they are serious problems.
    • Integrated strong crypography in passwords, secure shell, pseudo-random number generation (even the process IDs are random!), etc...
    • Included security technologies like IPFilter (true stateful firewalling) and IPSec.

  • Re:How to secure your Linux system (Score:3)

    by Dionysus ( 12737 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @11:39AM (#1029614) Homepage
    And considering there is a reward to anyone who finds a exploit in Qmail, you can actually make money on it (if you can find any).

    Now, does anyone feel secure enought to put up a reward for sendmail exploits?

  • Security through obscurity doesn't work. (Score:3)

    by jabber ( 13196 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:13AM (#1029615) Homepage
    The article is a bit self-agrandizing, but putting the most common holes out where everyone can see them is not a bad thing.

    Now, Network Admins have no excuse but to fix things, rather than hoping no one 'figures out' where the holes are. The fixes for the 'ten most common' problems are not hard, and they're readily available.

    Exposing security holes and avenues of attack to public review does make it a bit more possible that a cracker will learn something new, but the dangerous guys already know about all of this. Hiding this sort of information is like installing a car alarm - you'll keep the amateurs away, and you'll give the pros a chuckle while they make off with your goods.

    If there is some unique set of conditions that make YOUR system vulnerable, and these conditions are very obscure and virtually impossible to 'guess', AND expensive to fix - by all means, keep them a secret as long as you can - but be ready when the hammer hits.

    The problems outlined in the article are common-place, and in most cases common-sense. What 'advantage' does a cracker get from knowing that easily guessed passwords are a weakness? What does he gain from an Admin being educated to remove sample CGI scripts and default accounts off of commercial products??

  • Re:Password Sniffing (Score:3)

    by sporty ( 27564 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @11:51AM (#1029616) Homepage
    That doesn't help if someone breaks into a machine on the vpn...

    stunnel or using ssh as a tunnel is your better bet

    ---

  • Re:The good, the bad, and the ugly (Score:3)

    by StenD ( 34260 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:24AM (#1029617)
    The plan is for this to be a living document - as responsible admins (and vendors) close these holes, new items will go into the Top Ten list. If you check out the Top Ten [sans.org] page, you'll see that there have been three revisions today.
    Most of the vulnerabilities listed have beed known for years, and have easy fixes available, but admins haven't known what ones were most important. This is an attempt to help prioritize things.

  • Re:Password Sniffing (Score:3)

    by StenD ( 34260 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @10:23AM (#1029618)
    This list completely ignores one of the most common security flaws in computer systems: Cleartext passwords sent over the wire.
    It does and it doesn't. This list focuses on exploits, but there is an associated list, mentioned by the CNN [cnn.com] article, of IT mistakes. Among the IT mistakes are using telnet and other unencrypted protocols.

  • Re:This looks inacurate... (Score:3)

    by StenD ( 34260 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:11AM (#1029619)
    I saw this list last night, and my first thought was that it couldn't possibly be right, as most of the compromises on this list are UNIX related.
    Several of the compromises are multi-platform, not specifically NT or *nix. Categories like the CGI/ColdFusion exploits make up a large percentage of the NT attacks. However, it is probably fair to say that most of us who were asked to participate probably have a *nix background, and are therefore more familiar with *nix exploits. Also, we were looking for remotely exploitable, directed attacks, and the background of *nix as a multi-user, network operating system gives more avenue of attack than an operating system with a single user, stand-alone heritage. Our list of end-user security mistakes (not yet released), on the other hand, is much more Microsoft-heavy.

  • Re:Maybe apples and oranges? (Score:3)

    by infodragon ( 38608 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @12:07PM (#1029620)
    ISP farms are reasonably well-secured.

    I'm not going to mention the name of the ISP, a pretty big one, but they are running a Linux box that is servicing over 60 web sites that hasn't been backed up in 3 months and has absoutly no firewall on it.

    All of their servers are wide open, i.e. NO FIREWALL! I've just started to administer them (only in extreme circumstances) and I keep pushing for a firewall. Their disregard for security is alarming. They have telnet wide open on every unix machine.

    I'm being sub-contracted right now and reciently they were cracked by a script kiddy. They are now finally replacing telnet with ssh but SLOWLY. So in my experience ISP farms are not well-secured they only try to make you feel that way.

  • Re:How to know if it's too late? (Score:3)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @12:52PM (#1029621)
    Quick & Dirty: run

    rpm -Vf /sbin/*

    (or /usr/sbin or whatever)

    on any rpm-based system. It does a quickie RC5 checksum check on the executables (which shouldn't change from installation). Obviously this only works for rpm-based systems, but there are a lot of them.

    And, no, this is not a substitute for real tripwire-type watchdog security. But don't knock it, either.

  • SUID programs are not the problem... (Score:3)

    by thogard ( 43403 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @05:27PM (#1029622) Homepage
    Programs running as root are the problem.

    Due to the stupid requirement that you have to root to bind to a port <1024 is a major problem. Its nailed bind, sendmail, ncsa httpd, poper, ftp....

    Its time this stupid stuff stoped.

    The fix is very simple. In 2.2.15 about line 543 of net/ipv4/af_inet.c put make the following change and it will allow group 53 to open port 53. So you can put bind in group 53, run it as a user with no other access and then the exploits won't have root.


    //--thogard this will allow any user to open any port which cooresponds
    // to a group they belong in. apaches user should be in group 80 and 443
    // this should be linked moreinto capabile(CAP_NET_BIND_???)
    if (snum && !in_group_p(snum) && snum < PROT_SOCK && !capable(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE))
    return(-EACCES);

  • Re:Bad statistical reasoning (Score:3)

    by Macphisto ( 62181 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:16AM (#1029623) Journal
    That's simplistic. Unix doesn't "run" the internet. If you're looking for one particular target to assign such blame, it would probably be Cisco. Anyway, Unix is hardly homogenous, and in the case of cross-platform attacks, modern firewalling practice means that the sites that end up getting attacked generally deserve to be. If you're going to be secure, either limit access with a firewall or hire someone competent to hover over exposed servers. Unix should generally not be exposed to the outside world. The same goes with any other featureful server. Smart sites know this and use either turnkey firewalls or homebrew ones.

  • 7. Design a computer case someone made out of something weird. Suitcase, plant pot, cow skin, matchbox, etc.

    8. Claim to have instructions for playing DVD's on your linux box.

    9. Port yet another windows game to Linux.

    10. Claim BSD is better than Linux.

  • The problem with these reports.. (Score:3)

    by thesparkle ( 174382 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:43AM (#1029625) Homepage
    Generally are put out by some publication like Computer World or a web site like ZD. You know what drives me crazy? There is usually some 40-something, bearded yahoo in a suit whose weekly/monthly articles are all about how MegaCorp just decided to move from their IBM mainframes purchased in 1978 to NT servers running IIS.

    And then they go on with and interview with some reject from a barnyard with bright red hair in a bowl haircut whose title is CIO/Chief Technologist who describes the methodology for choosing these systems based upon vendors taking them to lunch, boardroom pitches, white papers and indepth studies of competing megacorps' IT organizations.

    And it always boils down to a two page ad for MS with a singular paragraph busting Unix as being unscalable and unsupportable and too hard for the desktop users to understand (like they do anything else besides making Excel spreadsheets and Project reports).

    The next year, there is an article about how MegaCorp' IIS servers crapped out when a DOS took place or when more than 2 people decided to buy one of their widgets online and the whole system died.

    They all learn in the end.

  • Bad statistical reasoning (Score:4)

    by FascDot Killed My Pr ( 24021 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:07AM (#1029626)
    Don't think of this list as being "most widely used cracks" but as "cracks that have the worst effect". Unix runs the Internet, therefore Unix cracks 0wn the Internet.
    --
    Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?

  • DJB's dnscache server/client suite (Score:4)

    by kindbud ( 90044 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @12:00PM (#1029627) Homepage
    You know Dan Berstein as the author of Qmail. Perhaps you did not know that he has also written a secure alternative to BIND, which is quite capable of handling the largest and most active domains on the net. See cr.yp.to [cr.yp.to].

    Important security features in its design:

    1. Client resolver is a separate process from the authoritative NS. Reduces damage potential should cache poisoning occur.
    2. Client resolver does not cache out-of-zone additionals. For a dot-com domain, it only believes answers from the root servers, the com servers and the auth NS for the dot-com domain, and only if those answers are in the zone it's asking about. More proof against poisoning.
    3. Client resolver sets TTL in responses to zero. Helps prevent client mischief. Does not return additionals or authorities to clients.
    4. All programs run chrooted as a non-priv uid.
    5. Discards all queries in classes other than IN. No CHAOS or HS classes. No "version.bind" stupidity.
    6. Its "hints" file is not really taken as "hints". It believes you when you tell it who the roots are, it does not go ask the servers in the hints file who the real roots are.
    Design features that are admin-friendly:
    1. Authoritative server gives immediate feedback in the event of typos or syntax errors. No grepping log files looking for problems.
    2. Erroneous data is rejected. Previous data is used until the error is corrected.
    3. Reads zone info directly from a fast database, memory requirements are very small compared to BIND.
    4. All zone data is contained in a single database file, which is easily rsync'd to slaves. Zone transfers are supported for compatibility with BIND, but it's not necessary to use it.
    5. Client resolver can be set to ask certain servers about certain domains, ignoring the roots. This is great for split DNS setups.
    I can hardly say enough good things about Dan's suite of DNS servers and client programs. I will be BIND-free very soon.

  • This looks inacurate... (Score:4)

    by null_session ( 137073 ) <ben&houseofwebb,com> on Friday June 02, 2000 @08:57AM (#1029628) Homepage
    I saw this list last night, and my first thought was that it couldn't possibly be right, as most of the compromises on this list are UNIX related. NT accounts for twice as many web server compromises as every other OS combined, even though it holds only 21% of the Internet web server market. (look at http://www.netcraft.com and http://www.attrition.org for verification of these figures) Therefore, the most popular attacks should almost all be NT related. I brought this up to a friend, and he proposed that only the good sysadmins (read:mostly unix) actually either detected the intrusions, or bothered to report them. I can accept that, but I'm interested to hear other opinions.

  • Good old social engineering (Score:5)

    by Old Man Kensey ( 5209 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:20AM (#1029629) Homepage
    ...as seen all the time in movies where intruders gain access to the military compound by barking orders and threatening to call superior officers. See also the recent reports of "high security" government installations that were penetrated by a security task force purely through social-engineering their way through the front door.

    A friend of mine claims to have had a lot of fun during "interview day" on his college's campus. He was wearing a blue suit and the interview hall was right next to the Naval ROTC building. Apparently NROTC middies (?) don't take chances -- when some guy in a blue suit says "Drop and give me 50!" they figure better safe than sorry.

    Half of social engineering is attitude. If you act like you belong there, people will usually assume you do. It's just taking advantage of most people's fundamental desire not to cause trouble. Conversely, running across the office's cranky senior staffer, who's had a bad day and is looking for a reason to take it out on someone, can be really bad news for a would-be penetrator.

    Even today, people send spam to AOL customers asking for the user's name and password "so we can repair damage to your account that occurred during a server upgrade" and net thousands of logins, giving them access to that many credit cards, despite the text at the top of the AOL mail window that says "REMINDER: AOL staff will never ask for your password or billing information."

    As long as there are newbies, there will be trouble with social engineering. The best you can do is make sure that anybody who administers a system you're dependent on understands the concept of verifying identity.

    That all said, social engineering isn't really an "exploit" in the classic sense -- it's merely overly lax granting of access rights, akin to leaving your root account passwordless.

    My favorite examples of overly permissive systems were the RS/6000's at UVa, on which all the tty's were permissioned -rw--w--w- (I think this was AIX 3.2 - they upgraded to 4.0 later on with a new crop of boxen and I don't know what they're up to now). That's right, anybody could write to any terminal. I didn't do anything truly damaging with it, just pranked a friend into thinking he was getting a talk request from another person who wasn't logged on at the time...

  • How to secure your Linux system (Score:5)

    by Kiwi ( 5214 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:16AM (#1029630) Homepage Journal
    Since we are talking about security here, here are some things Linux (and other UNIX) admins should keep in mind to keep their systems secure:
    • Use qmail [qmail.org] or postfix [postfix.org] instead of Sendamil.
    • Make sure you have all security patches for your system installed. Redhat [redhat.com] users, for example, can find those patches here [redhat.com].
    • Linux users can read Linux weekly news [lwn.net] for security updates.
    • Manage your SUIDs. Make sure you keep a close eye on all your suids. For example, I use this script to put all my suid in the directory /suid/bin:

      #!/bin/sh

      find / -type f -perm +6000 > /root/suids

      for a in `cat /root/suids` ; do

      mv $a /suid/bin
      ln -s /suid/bin/`echo $a | awk -F/ '{print $NF}'` $a

      done
    • Obviously, turn off all unneeded network services in /etc/inetd.conf and (usually) /etc/rc.d/rc3.d. You can see what services are running on your machine with netstat -na.
    • For a UNIX that is free and (hopefully) secure out of the box, check out OpenBSD [openbsd.org] or Trustix [trustix.org].
    The advantage of an open-source solution is that we have greater control over our systems, and can better optimize our systems for security.

    - Sam

  • Password Sniffing (Score:5)

    by The Dev ( 19322 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:20AM (#1029631)
    This list completely ignores one of the most common security flaws in computer systems: Cleartext passwords sent over the wire.

    Even using ssh is not enough if you still use ftp or imap. Assume those accounts are compromised.

  • And here are the other lists. (Score:5)

    by StenD ( 34260 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @10:49AM (#1029632)
    I've been told that they will be on the SANS web site Real Soon Now.

    Mistakes People Make That Lead To Security Breaches

    Technological holes account for a great number of the successful break-ins, but people do their share, as well. Here are the SANS Institute's lists of silly thinks people do that enable attackers to succeed.

    The Five Worst Security Mistakes End Users Make

    1. Opening unsolicited e-mail attachments without verifying their source and checking their content first.

    2. Failing to install security patches - especially for Microsoft Office, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Netscape.

    3. Installing screen savers or games from unknown sources.

    4. Not making and testing backups.

    5. Using a modem while connected through a local area network.

    The Seven Worst Security Mistakes Senior Executives Make

    1. Assigning untrained people to maintain security and providing neither the training nor the time to make it possible to learn and do the job.

    2. Failing to understand the relationship of information security to the business problem-they understand physical security but do not see the consequences of poor information security.

    3. Failing to deal with the operational aspects of security: making a few fixes and then not allowing the follow through necessary to ensure the problems stay fixed

    4. Relying primarily on a firewall.

    5. Failing to realize how much money their information and organizational reputations are worth.

    6. Authorizing reactive, short-term fixes so problems re-emerge rapidly.

    7. Pretending the problem will go away if they ignore it.

    The Ten Worst Security Mistakes Information Technology People Make

    1. Connecting systems to the Internet before hardening them.

    2. Connecting test systems to the Internet with default accounts/passwords

    3. Failing to update systems when security holes are found.

    4. Using telnet and other unencrypted protocols for managing systems, routers, firewalls, and PKI.

    5. Giving users passwords over the phone or changing user passwords in response to telephone or personal requests when the requester is not authenticated.

    6. Failing to maintain and test backups.

    7. Running unnecessary services, especially ftpd, telnetd, finger, rpc, mail, rservices

    8. Implementing firewalls with rules that don't stop malicious or dangerous traffic- incoming or outgoing.

    9. Failing to implement or update virus detection software

    10. Failing to educate users on what to look for and what to do when they see a potential security problem.

    And a bonus, number 11:

    Allowing untrained, uncertified people to take responsibility for securing important systems.

  • Top Ten Ways to Get Slashdotted (Score:5)

    by levendis ( 67993 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:15AM (#1029633) Homepage
    1. Claim to be running a web server off a Palm Pilot, furby, Commodore 64, or even a bunch of potatoes. (Bonus points if its a port of Apache).

    2. Write an article on DeCSS, Napster, MPAA, RIAA, and/or Metallica.

    3. Publish a benchmark comparison of Linux and Windows, making sure that Windows scores best in all categories. (Bonus points if your test team is made up of 12 MCSEs and 1 dude who installed Red Hat 5.2 once before).

    4. Title your article "X Violating the GPL?" It doesn't matter what the article actually says; it could just be a description of ancient Bulgarian goat herding. You're sure to get all the Slashdotters riled up regardless.

    5. Write something about "Geek Sex".

    6. Produce blurry, unenlightening satellite pictures of a secret government compound. Bonus points if the site mysteriously disappears in a few hours - the paranoid Slashdotters will have a field day with that one.

    ... all out of ideas... anyone else?

  • What /. wanted to see.... (Score:5)

    by blogan ( 84463 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:03AM (#1029634)
    While alot of items on the list were UNIX/Linux, they did have a few Windows problems. I think it's probably because they would've felt ashamed to put what the slashdot community wants to hear.

    1. MCSE.
    2. NT admins without MCSE.
    3. NT admins without a driver's license.
    4. NT users.
    5. VBScript.
    6. .bat files opened without examining content.
    7. Running files from http://www.geocities.com/..../3488/kewlstuf.htm as "admin" on NT systems.
    8. Giving out admin password on Comic Chat to "AdminDood283" to help you out with constant down time.
    9. Innovation anal probes.
    10. Putting NT server in a kiosk and still logged in as "admin".

  • Re:This looks inacurate... (Score:5)

    by jbarnett ( 127033 ) on Friday June 02, 2000 @09:41AM (#1029635) Homepage

    Personally (myself included in this) *nix system admin starting working for a complete *nix server farm, management buys into Microsofts PR engine and decides to bring NT into the picture. These *nix system admins (my self included in this) ared pushed into an NT envoriment without an formal or unformal training and have to try and port their "unix skills" over onto NT adminastoration, some unwilling to expect change and re-learn things for this new NT system, and then that is where the shit hits the fan.

    The same thing happens if you put an NT admin in front of a Unix box, or a VMS admin in front of a MVS system. They where trained and self-studied and focused on this "type" of system, then for stupid or illogical reasons (read: managment) the admin is forced into a computer envoirment s/he was never trained or studied in, or even claim to know.

    I didn't put NT on my resume, because I don't know it that well and I really don't want to or even work with it. When I was hired for the job is was %100 Unix, they asked me "Do you know how to work with NT?" "Nope", "Would you be willing to learn", "Nope"

    I know this is close mind but I am a zealot and have a hard on for Unix or Unix like systems. When put in front of an NT machine I don't know the first thing to do, and have you ever tried to configure an NT box though `command.com` and `vim` (Win32 edition)?

    If companies would be highly trained and CLUED NT admins (not *nix admins ported to NT admin) in front of the NT boxes and trained *nix admins in front of the *nix boxes, less exploits would happen across the board.

    This happens alot, my freinds old college roomate is an NT admin (and a dam good one) and was working for a company with all NT boxes. He did a good job to, everything worked and it had a tight config. Then management decided to throw in 5 Sun Solaris boxes, and didn't hire a *nix admin for it. This NT Admin (which never put any *nix experince on his resume) was required to maintain these boxes. He got a "Unix for dummies" book and installed Red Hat on his home computer. Now lets think about this, when you where first learning your OS of choice, it was hard and you screwed up a lot, right? Everyone does this ... now put them in a productive envoriment and that is where it starts going down hill.

    royally fscking your home PC is one thing, but taking down a productive server in peak hours without a back up is another thing...

    For some reason managment has a hard time understanding things like:

    NT admins work on NT boxes. Unix admins work on Unix boxes. Perl programers, program in Perl. Visual Basic programmers, program in VB.

    It gets messed up in managements head and comes out all messed up.

    J(ust)MHO

Slashdot Top Deals

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine

Close