Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

MSNBC: Stealing Credit Card Numbers Online is Easy

Posted by Roblimo on Sun Jan 16, 2000 05:22 PM
from the getting-out-of-hand dept.
tiny69 writes "This is the reason why I don't use my credit card on the internet. The people I give it to may not be as responsible as I would like them to be. It's easy to point the finger at Microsoft and the MCSE's running the systems on this one." [Irony alert!] Yes, MSNBC says all the servers they cracked were running MS SQL. [/irony alert]
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3 | 4
  • But do you use a cordless phone, or a cell phone? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:33PM
  • No firewall? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:10PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:58PM
  • Fer Cryin' Out Loud by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:16PM
  • Suggestion by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:43PM
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16 2000, @01:12PM (#1366775)
    This looks like a job for...

    WHOOSH!

    Bill Gates, Chief Software Architect! (Dah-da-da-DAH!)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16 2000, @01:04PM (#1366776)
    OK, the second security related story in two hours, it has to be a SIGN .. ;)

    Posted via Anonymizer [anonymizer.com] as an AC for reasons which will become obvious ...

    This is off-topic as far as this story is concerned, but I'm posting because there are (I think) lots of people in a similar position & I really would like to hear some fresh thinking about how to wake my employers up.

    I'm employed as an intranet developer by AMegaCorp.,Inc., a business services firm. With the thrill of anonymity I can name a client to give you an idea of how big they are : Ford Motor Co.

    Our people have daily access to insanely sensitive stuff. Stock prices moves would be the tip of the iceberg. There's a fair amount of, um, politically sensitive stuff in there, too; let's just say defense, nuclear ... that kind of thing.

    • We have no corporate IT policy.
    • We issue staff with Win 95 laptops; it's also on all the desktops. (Yes folks, even NT would be safer than 95 :) )
    • We have no IDS.
    • We have 'a firewall'.
    • We have a reasonable virus protection package.
    • We have fast desktop net access; I'm no expert, but I can see a LOT of ports on external boxes.
    • I actually had a support call from a user who's "internet is broken, yeah, since I disconnected this modem I was using to access hotmail, could that be it ?"
    • We are about to embark on a major rollout of RAS ...

    I've tried raising these issues in various ways, with no effect. Should I just run away ASAP ? Or am I morally obliged to do something about this ?

    Seriously, any suggestions ?? This is doing my head in !

    --

    healing bex

  • CC# security - 40-bit SSL is common in UK. by dwmw2 (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @11:35PM
  • Re:Good tactic by Tony Shepps (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:00PM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by Trepidity (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:56PM
  • Re:Typical misinformation... by Simon (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:31PM
  • Obvious solution: (Score:3)

    by pb (1020) on Sunday January 16 2000, @01:22PM (#1366781)
    This isn't a problem, it's a solution:

    Let's sue MS-NBC for stealing 2,500 credit card numbers!

    These sorts of lawsuits are brought against [cr|h]ackers all the time. The defense? "Um... I wasn't going to use them, I was just... just wanted to see if I could get them! Yeah, that's it!" Yeah, right. And that's what MS-NBC wants you to believe too. So either we'll have a precedent for being able to collect information on the grounds that it's cool, or we'll get to sue MS-NBC back into the dark ages. Sounds good to me.

    (all you have to find is one of these companies who actually knew they got hacked... um... never mind. :)
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
  • Re:This Is Probably A Good Thing... by sjames (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:45PM
  • by heroine (1220) on Sunday January 16 2000, @05:00PM (#1366784) Homepage
    If you haven't already noticed, most of the servers which are used by businesses are Win NT. Maybe if businesses used UNIX instead you'd see UNIX SQL installations getting cracked. UNIX owns the college and hobbyist world for 50% of the internet, but Win NT clearly owns the part of the internet that deals with business. Just read Alan Cox's diary. Every business server he deals with is running Win NT whether it's catalog orders or metro stations. Not a single business server he mentions is running UNIX. Not a one. Just because colleges and hobbyists account for over 50% of the internet doesn't mean that businesses are flocking to UNIX, which they obviously aren't.
  • Re:MS servers get cracked more because there are m by Frodo (Score:1) Wednesday January 26 2000, @08:52AM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by jafac (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @09:20AM
  • Re:You work for Microsoft, don't you? by jafac (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @09:30AM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by jafac (Score:1) Wednesday January 19 2000, @01:59PM
  • I find it odd ... (Score:3)

    by Frater 219 (1455) on Sunday January 16 2000, @04:05PM (#1366789) Journal
    ... that Bob Sullivan and Anatoliy Prokhorov would admit, in a news article published worldwide, to having committed several counts (possibly 2500 counts, to judge by the example of Kevin Mitnick) of a few major felonies. Plus, of course, listing the names of the sites from which they stole the credit card numbers ... is this reportage, or script-kiddie-age? "Gimm3 y3r k0d3z, d00d!!!!"

    MSNBC may be a touch more honest than Microsoft proper, but that doesn't mean they entirely have their clue on straight. Yes, tell the world that MS SQL has security holes in its defaults ... Yes, tell the world that hiring a Microsoft Certified-Clueless Database Administrator is a bad idea ... but no, don't publicly admit committing felonies like that. At least, not under your real name, Bob and Anatoliy.

    Clues?
  • They should ask before storing the number by Malc (Score:2) Monday January 17 2000, @04:10AM
  • Re:It *was* fixed by longspur (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:37PM
  • Re:Typical misinformation... by alexsh (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:51PM
  • Designed for and used by morons. by Colin Smith (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:03PM
  • Experience tells us M$ usually is to blame. by Colin Smith (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:17PM
  • It *was* fixed by Matt Lee (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:40PM
  • Someone's missing a big point here... by PiMan (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:12PM
  • Rubbish by Zemran (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:12PM
  • Is credit card theft really that great a threat? by Skim123 (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:46PM
  • Re:Thus, NT is not "easy to use" by Skim123 (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:51PM
  • Sneakernet by Mawbid (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:36PM
  • Thus, NT is not "easy to use" by Loundry (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:39PM
  • Administration by laertes (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:36PM
  • Bull shit by RelliK (Score:2) Monday January 17 2000, @07:20AM
  • Re:Good tactic by datazone (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:16PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by myconid (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:39PM
  • Moderate this up by ewhac (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:34PM
  • by Booker (6173) on Sunday January 16 2000, @12:26PM (#1366807) Homepage
    I mean - people are willing to call a complete stranger on the phone, and give them their credit card number. Same goes with a waiter in a restaurant, for example. I guess there's more potential for abuse online, since a list of 1000's of numbers might be available... but using a credit card in almost *any* fashion has the potential for abuse or theft.
    ----
  • Re:Your own Win2K problems by Jerry (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @06:13AM
  • Flames on the Operating System used are completely by trog (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @08:26PM
  • Linux based companies have been guilty as well by somnambule (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:46PM
  • For people who would egg Bill's grandmother by Ashen (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:32PM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by Thrakkerzog (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:58PM
  • Real risk and an idea by Da VinMan (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:12PM
  • Re: It was fixed (as in NEUTERED) by leonbrooks (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:42PM
  • Re:Typical misinformation... by fidros (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @07:47PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by Noke (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:24PM
  • Re:Windows 2000: A solution to a non-existing prob by Noke (Score:2) Monday January 17 2000, @02:58AM
  • Win2k Install Times by Noke (Score:2) Monday January 17 2000, @03:20AM
  • Re:Typical misinformation... by chicken (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:16PM
  • Why give the CC# to the merchant ? by styxlord (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @09:37PM
  • by trims (10010) on Sunday January 16 2000, @02:46PM (#1366821) Homepage

    I've read through alot of these posts, and there seems to be two common threads to most of them:

    1. It's the product's fault for shipping with stupid defaults.
    2. It's the admins fault for not fixing things tightly.

    I think both of these need to be addressed to see the underlying reasons for the problem, of which neither of the above are.

    First off, I'm a professional SysAdmin, and have spent most of the last 4 years doing System Architect and Security stuff. The last two at E-commerce places.

    People, the problem is threefold, none of which is easy to fix:

    Virtually nothing is designed with security in mind. That includes all our favorite UNIX OSes, Windows, and virtually all applications. The few apps that seem to have some reasonable security setup often sacrifice this by using stupid defaults to aid "ease-of-use". The sad fact here is that nothing we are using these days is decently secure (no, not even OpenBSD). UNIX is stuck with the all-or-nothing model of security, while Windows actually has a good model that is horribly implimented. Apps tend to be the same. Given that the systems are poor to begin with, hardening them is more than difficult. And compromises tend to do massive damage.

    Business is not taking security seriously. Right now, time-to-market is king, and everything else is sacrificed to that great Idol. This is primarily the public's fault, as people seem to reward cheap and first rather than more expensive and well-designed. The miserable state of software quality is a prime example of this mentality. And bugs are a leading cause of security problems.

    Also, companies have limited resources. Right now, spending the extra money to shore up security (or maybe even - gasp - do it Right) is about as likely as giving the entire staff a free vacation to Tahiti. They simply have no reason to do it - there isn't much real PR problem, the public doesn't seem to reward companies that spend the extra on security, and there aren't really any legal liabilities yet for failing to do so. So why spend money on something that doesn't have any real returns?

    Security is an ongoing battle. This is related to both the previous problems (lack of proper resources, and poor security to begin with). In order to keep a site even basically secure, it's far more complex than simply keeping an eye on BugTraq and watching for vendor security updates. A typical mid-size e-commerce site probably has at least 100 different products (remember, each script is a different product) to keep an eye on, covering at least a dozen (nowdays, with ASPs, likely several score) machines. Just keeping up to date is a daunting task, and like fighting a really war, the opponent isn't stupid, and adapts rapidly. You will suffer defeats. Security is a massively complex and difficult job. Don't let anyone kid you otherwise.

    The knee-jerk reaction to fire the admin is merely a Management-covering-their-ass mentality. Blaming the product overlooks the reasons why the product is that way, and also doesn't say anything about the state of the market as a whole.

    Until there is a concentrated demand from the public for security, things will continue to be as they are. If the public can stand it, well, then that's the shape of the world we live in. If they don't like it, give business the incentives to buckle down - make them legally responsible for breakins, buy only properly-designed software, etc. Until that happens, blaming the admins and the software is stupid.

  • Re:Real risk and an idea by Detritus (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:59PM
  • Gee, its pretty bad when the reporters can 'hack' by RAruler (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:26PM
  • Stolen without using the net by opse (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:20PM
  • Re:Typical misinformation... by cjs (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @09:00PM
  • Re:Gaping holes, clueless management : help ! by tregoweth (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:31PM
  • by Robotech_Master (14247) on Sunday January 16 2000, @06:01PM (#1366827) Homepage Journal
    At my K-Mart, the cash register prints out two receipts: one for the customer to keep (with full number printed thereupon) and one for the customer to sign (also with full number & other data printed thereupon) which then goes into our till. I am led to believe that we need that copy in order to be able to charge the customer for the merchandise. I don't think we could have the number blacked out and still process the charge.

    The fact of the matter is, there are lots of people who could steal your card number...and not just in the places you use it. People at the bank who issued it could get ahold of it, too...people could (and have in times past) take rubbings through the envelope in which it is delivered to you. The only way to keep your number a complete secret is not to use it at all...and what would be the point of that? :)

    Thankfully, many of the places where one could potentially use a stolen credit card number are becoming more watchful about getting verification of details, such as billing address. It won't stop fraud completely, but will help cut it down.
  • Re:Windows 2000 by Cassandra (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:34PM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by Cassandra (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:45PM
  • Re:Is this really a new problem...? by Cassandra (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:02PM
  • Re:It *was* fixed by Cassandra (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:11PM
  • Re:Rubbish by Jeremi (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:09PM
  • Re:::$DATA by jelle (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:39PM
  • ::$DATA by jelle (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:27PM
  • by jelle (14827) on Sunday January 16 2000, @12:52PM (#1366835) Homepage
    I don't think it's about quality of the software.

    I think the basic problem here is what you mentioned yourself, that system administrators forget to remove (unnecessary) default accounts, or forget to patch for security bugs.

    What always has been part in the equation used as for why the MS solution would be best (beating Unix), was the ease of use, and the resulting lower cost of ownership because you could hire cheaper people for administering your systems, and that those cheaper people would require less time per server to administer, because the OS was to userfriendly.

    That part of the equation has now, repeatedly, been proven to be faulty.

  • Re:I used to worry about my CC info ... by Tech (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:37PM
  • Re:MS servers get cracked more because there are m by Tim C (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @11:26PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by sherms (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:37PM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by eyeball (Score:1) Tuesday January 18 2000, @04:16AM
  • Instructions for being Paranoid by wavelet (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:41PM
  • Re:Is this really a new problem...? by Surak (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:22PM
  • credit cards easily availible by Pyromage (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:10PM
  • Re:Trust Based Method Open to Abuse by mindstrm (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:22PM
  • Re:Shooting the Messenger? by mindstrm (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:36PM
  • Re:Is this really a new problem...? by mindstrm (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:51PM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by mindstrm (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:53PM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by mindstrm (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:55PM
  • by mindstrm (20013) on Sunday January 16 2000, @04:09PM (#1366849)
    Yes.. and the CC companies have standards of conduct for merchants. What to do with receipts, etc.... There is a code of conduct with regards to dealing with plastic.

    On the online front, at one point, Visa said 'We will not give you a merchant account for online work unless you meet certain requirements.'
    These requirements included providing information about your firewall, your security policies, who has the passwords, etc... which made perfect sense. They were protecting the consumer.

    The problem is.. this gets abstracted. ONe company gets a merchant accounts, and then sells transaction 'services' to others, and at that point, security is questionable.
  • by mindstrm (20013) on Sunday January 16 2000, @04:46PM (#1366850)
    Why?
    It's not the consumer's problem. The whole reason for using a credit card is BECAUSE Of fraud protection.

    The merchant is held responsible. The consumer does not have to pay unless the merchant can PROVE that it was them who initiated the transaction. If the consumer says 'I didn't do this' and the merchatn can't prove it, VISA doesnt' pay the merchant...
    So.. VISA is protected.. and the consumer is protected.
    And it's up to the merchants to protect themeselves.


    So if someone steals the AOL customer databse.. who gives a hoot? It won't put any customers out any..
  • by mindstrm (20013) on Sunday January 16 2000, @04:49PM (#1366851)
    Actually, many already do.. the problem is, they are too easy to circumvent.
    ie: if you already have a storefront, and a merchant account, and then decide to do things online.. you don't need to tell visa.
    That, or some third party farms out transactions.. making it so you don't have to deal directly with visa.

    And all that aside.. VISA is not responsible... they clearly state that they do not have to honor any statement unless the MERCHANT can prove that the customer used the card legitimately (signature, basically). If a cardholder says 'I didn't do this' and visa says to the merchant' can you prove they DID?' and the merchant says 'no' then the merchant doesnt' get paid.period.
  • by mindstrm (20013) on Sunday January 16 2000, @04:33PM (#1366852)
    Not to cloud the issue.. but I think there is a simple cause and effect here that we need to remember.

    1) You are not responsible for fraudulent use of your credit card. Technically, and I forget the exact terms, you can be held liable for up to $50 of debt.. but this is never enforced. It may only apply if you know about the theft but do not inform the card issuer immediately (kind of makes it your fault then anyway..)

    2) The Credit card companies are the ones who bear the brunt of the financial burden for fraudulent use of cards. If their merchants are irresponsible, and cause them to lose money, it is up to them to deal with it. They are fairly lax about it, though, as if it was difficult to get a merchant account, then nobody would accept credit cards, and they would be out of business.

    3) It is between the Credit issuer and the authorized Merchants to deal with this issue, it is not up to the consumer/cardholder. Yes, the cardholder should behave responsibly, but at the same time, who tells us this? The CARD COMPANIES tell us this.. why? Because it lessens the burden on them.

    Remember.. one of the things card issuers use to get you to use their card instead of good old cash is FRAUD PROTECTION.. and that is the very beauty of credit (if there is such a thing..). You can buy online, and not get ripped off. If you buy with cash... ha.. you have no recourse.
  • Re:Typical misinformation... by CerebusUS (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @06:18AM
  • My mistake -- you're a troll by DragonHawk (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @06:12AM
  • Backups by DragonHawk (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @01:24PM
  • Your own Win2K problems by DragonHawk (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:48PM
  • You work for Microsoft, don't you? by DragonHawk (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:35PM
  • The Linux kernel and monolithic programs; more by DragonHawk (Score:2) Monday January 17 2000, @06:51AM
  • Re:You need to have standing by Mr. White (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @11:06AM
  • Re:Fer Cryin' Out Loud by dieMSdie (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:20PM
  • Security Models by dieMSdie (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:45PM
  • Re:Don't be a moron.. by dieMSdie (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:59PM
  • Re:Don't be a moron.. by dieMSdie (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @05:17PM
  • MS Bashing by tomreagan (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:24PM
  • and don't even start me... by Robert S Gormley (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:04PM
  • Re:Flamebait? Moderators are Morons by Robert S Gormley (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:38PM
  • kernel graphics by delmoi (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @05:47PM
  • Re:Your own Win2K problems by delmoi (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @05:50PM
  • Re:cause it is by delmoi (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:02PM
  • Re:::$DATA by delmoi (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:04PM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by delmoi (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:07PM
  • Linus and his minions by delmoi (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:17PM
  • Rather funny (possibly redundant :) by kubrick (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:00PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by SEWilco (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:45PM
  • Re:::$DATA by SEWilco (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:47PM
  • Windows 2000 (Score:3)

    by SEWilco (27983) on Sunday January 16 2000, @12:26PM (#1366876) Homepage Journal
    Well, Windows 2000 will surely fix all these network security problems.

    :-)

  • Re:Typical misinformation... by Nodatadj (Score:2) Monday January 17 2000, @05:15AM
  • Re:CC# security - 40-bit SSL is common in UK. by Awel (Score:2) Monday January 17 2000, @02:27AM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by Wonko42 (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:46PM
  • Re:Rubbish by Wonko42 (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:30PM
  • Re:Your own Win2K problems by Wonko42 (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:54PM
  • Re:The Linux kernel and monolithic programs; more by Wonko42 (Score:2) Monday January 17 2000, @10:43AM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by Wonko42 (Score:2) Monday January 17 2000, @10:47AM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by Wonko42 (Score:2) Monday January 17 2000, @10:56AM
  • by Wonko42 (29194) <ryan+slashdot @ w o n ko.com> on Sunday January 16 2000, @12:40PM (#1366885) Homepage
    Yet again, Slashdot spews out anti-Microsoft FUD with as much fervor and skill as Microsoft spews out anti-Linux FUD.

    People, the credit card numbers that MSNBC stole were not stolen through a "cracked" database. MSNBC did no cracking of any kind, and therefore the security of MS SQL Server is not the issue. The issue is, once more, the people who stupidly set the sites up and left the default "sa" account active. The "sa" account is included in SQL Server merely to allow the software to be set up. It is not meant to be left active on a server connected to the web.

    Try cracking a Microsoft SQL Server that's been configured correctly, by someone who actually has half an idea what they're doing. It's just as impossible as cracking any other database solution...in fact, I'd venture to say MS SQL Server is even more secure than most other database servers.

    Furthermore, the "::$DATA" vulnerability was only in IIS4. Microsoft patched that bug over two years ago, and anyone stupid enough to still be running an unpatched IIS4 server is just asking for trouble.

    --

  • Re:2 questions about CC's by JatTDB (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:28PM
  • Right on. by Tony-A (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:43PM
  • What we really need... by seibed (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:45PM
  • Re:What we really need... by seibed (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @12:27PM
  • Re:Shooting the Messenger? by dolphineus (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @04:51AM
  • Re:And then we accuse MS of FUD ? by blowdart (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @08:13PM
  • Re:Big deal. by blowdart (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @11:48PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by blowdart (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @12:49AM
  • Re:Shooting the Messenger? by topham (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @08:06PM
  • Re:Your own Win2K problems by x0 (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @10:21PM
  • Re:Good tactic by Breace (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @10:20PM
  • Re:Online checks are still worse by Breace (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @10:35PM
  • Re:Typical misinformation... by ajs (Score:2) Monday January 17 2000, @05:21AM
  • by ajs (35943) <ajs&ajs,com> on Sunday January 16 2000, @01:01PM (#1366899) Homepage
    Every product on the market gets this kind of PR hit when it ships with a blaringly stupid default (like an sa account that you don't have to go out of your way to leave open). People break in, and the product is blamed. This can be said for many FTP servers under UNIX/Linux, MS SQL and a gob of others.

    MS deserves bad press for such a stupid blunder as would any other company or development effort.
  • by coyote-san (38515) on Sunday January 16 2000, @12:46PM (#1366900)
    Some sites are now offering "online checks" for people who aren't willing to trust their credit card to the net.

    As others have pointed out in different responses, it's *worse* since credit cards have fraud limits - and that limit applies to all fradulent charges. Checks, in theory, will be fully refunded if you file the paperwork to claim fraud. In practice, most banks have quietly changed their fine print to say that if someone has your account number the presumption is that you have authorized *any* access, and it is damn hard to get them to stop honoring debits. In practice you must close the account, something that's far more disruptive with checks than with a credit card.

    I can understand why the banks did this - they probably got tired of being caught in the middle between customers and health club finance companies - but the practical effect is that checks are now far less secure than credit cards.

    I mention this only because I've already seen some sites advertising that they offer "online checks" as a "secure" alternative to credit cards, and stories like this will only make things worse.
  • Re:Small curiosity - SQL server 6.5 or 7? by chazR (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @10:28AM
  • by chazR (41002) on Sunday January 16 2000, @01:55PM (#1366902) Homepage
    I agree entirely. Particularly...

    The issue is, once more, the people who stupidly set the sites up and left the default "sa" account active.

    I usually work with Oracle databases. I am still astonished every time I find a can log in to an Oracle database as either SYS or SYSTEM. Given that the default SYS password is ChangeOnInstall, you have to wonder about the people running the systems. I guess that more than 10% of Oracle databases are misconfigured like this.

    Don't even get me started about the DB2 database I found on a net-facing S/390 that still had the default admin password.

    Is this Oracle's (or Microsoft's, or IBM's) fault? NO - it is the fault of the halfwit DBAs who bullshit their way into jobs that are way beyond their ability. The 'differently intelligent' managers who hire these people should also be held to account, except their mental age relieves them of criminal culpability.

    PS - I actually quite like SQL Server. Every time a client specifies a really slow, memory intensive RDBMS, I specify SQL Server. It hasn't happened yet.

  • Re:Why give the CC# to the merchant ? by alecto (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @03:22AM
  • Re:cause it is by SquierStrat (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:25PM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by AME (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @07:37PM
  • Windows 2000: A solution to a non-existing problem by iserlohn (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @07:29PM
  • Re:Windows 2000: A solution to a non-existing prob by iserlohn (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @06:25AM
  • 40bit RSA encryption. by jlcooke (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:18PM
  • Re:But do you use a cordless phone, or a cell phon by Betcour (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @02:17AM
  • by Weezul (52464) on Sunday January 16 2000, @12:43PM (#1366910) Homepage
    From our point of view this is just unprofessionalism in a very high degree that's not explainable

    They hit the hail on the head andthis problem should be easy to fix, but there are more programmer orented problems that are not so 3easy to fix:

    These script langauges which deposite form variables in the global namespace (like PHP and VBScript) there is a god chance of programmer created problems which are not so easy to track of fix. Example: programmer keeps copy of web site PHP code at home.. Programmer gets fired.. Programmer paws through code and finds a weakness since the code was in PHP and allowed form submits to mess wit the global name space.

    Also, VBScript has the problem that most people using it do not know how to protect the strings that are going into an SQL query.

    I know these problems seem milder because the exploits may need to be diffrent for diffrent web sites, but I would expect to see tools (maybe even AIs) which manage to automate some of the process of exploiting these holes. Government funded hackers (like in China) may have access to profesors and people who could do the research to find statisticaly probable weaknesses in custom software.

    I'm not really tring to slam PHP and VBScript, but I do see a lot more potential for PHP and VBScript programmers making the same mistake over and over then with other langauges.

    Jeff
  • Re:Windows 2000 by TheTomcat (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @03:09AM
  • Re:Is there really a problem? by gewalker (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @06:59AM
  • by mochaone (59034) on Sunday January 16 2000, @12:43PM (#1366913)
    Stories exactly like this will spur PHB's to run out and purchase Win2000 and all the 2000 certified software in the hopes that it will absolve them from security problems. Microsoft should be excoriated for releasing insecure systems and keeping them closed, yet Microsoft is in a win win situation. The people running these sites are probably married to the idea of a Microsoft platform and will no doubt move up to its latest incarnation.

  • Re:MS servers get cracked more because there are m by phidipides (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @09:28PM
  • Re:Why does the media overlook the bigger point he by phidipides (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @09:45PM
  • Re:::$DATA by Ekapshi (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:22PM
  • by Get Behind the Mule (61986) on Sunday January 16 2000, @11:36PM (#1366917)
    To support the argument that this is not just a Microsoft problem, let me point out that the security measures built into Oracle databases are ignored at very many sites I have encountered. The problem is that many administrators do nothing -- and I mean nothing whatsoever -- to change the default state of the database installation. Oracle is a popular choice for e-commerce, and I'm sure that someone, someday, will manage to steal data because of this.

    Over the past year or so I have done DBA consultancy for some of our customers, going into sites and helping with their database administration. Very often, I find that the default passwords of privileged database users have never been changed. Try it sometime: the user system, who can read and change any data in the database, has the default password manager, and the user sys, who can start up and shut down the database, has the default password change_on_install. (Some people apparently don't notice that the latter password is a hint.)

    Oracle installs a default "listener" that is open on port 1521. Many e-commerce sites have their web and DB servers on the same machine, and don't need any external TCP/IP connections to the database. Even those that do can be set up so that connections are only permitted from a limited number of IP addresses. But this, too, is almost never done. So there's your opening: get an Oracle client to connect to port 1521 on your target machine, log in as system/manager, and in many cases you'll own the whole database.

    Another thing: many people routinely do their Oracle admin work by logging as the "oracle" user, the owner of the Oracle software. Few seem to understand that this user is like root: you don't log in under that name unless you absolutely have to, because any mistake you make can be disastrous. What you do is make users with DBA responsibilities members of the group "dba", so they can run the admin software but can't delete anything critical. In fact, you need to be "oracle" far less often than you need to be root -- after installation, you should never log in as "oracle" again. And yet there are admins who work as "oracle" all day long. Even worse: it seems that the most common password chosen for the "oracle" user is, you guessed it, "oracle"!

    We could accuse the administrators of laziness and cluelessness. But the real blame lies with management, who want to set up a cheap e-commerce site without paying the price for DBA's who know what they're doing, or for the training that their current admins need. Many of the admins I've worked with have told me that the boss stuck the Oracle CD's in their hand one day and told them to go run a database. That's a surefire formula for an insecure site.
  • Re:Typical misinformation... by SpaceCadet (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:09PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by SpaceCadet (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:46PM
  • And then we accuse MS of FUD ? by hernick (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:53PM
  • Re:Good tactic (Score:3)

    by hernick (63550) on Sunday January 16 2000, @01:08PM (#1366921)
    My method to detect e-mail spam is to use give companies companyname@mydomain.com as my email address. Of course, that only works if you have your own domain and a catchall account. But it allows you to know who put you on a spam list, and to ignore them easily by forwarding their spam to /dev/null.

    Your middle name method is pretty clever...

    One of the things that one can do to limit the value of the credit card he uses, and therefore defend against most fraud, is to use a card without anymore money than you wish to spend.

    Three possibilities I can think of.

    First, an Incentive Card if you can find any. Those come with fixed values, they're not credit cards, but you can spend up to their fixed value anywhere that takes credit cards. www.aies.com sells them, I believe. That way, you keep changing CC# very often.

    www.webcertificate.com offers a similar product, and you can add money with your real credit card (processing fee of 1.50$ by 50$ you add). You don't get a physical card, but only a mastercard number you can use to make purchases. It works great for me.

    The third method is to use a Visa Debit Card and deposit the amount you wish to use before every transaction... That's a bit of trouble, but combined with online banking it can be made easy. I use www.x.com to do that. You open an account with them, and they send you a visa debit card you can use like a credit card. But the balance availaible is only what you deposit in it. You can deposit up to 500$/6 months with another credit card, and as much as you want by check.

    Any of those ways, you have a "credit card" without credit. It only has as much money as you want. I'm sure you can understand the implication of that.. Even if somebody steals it from you, you don't lose anything more than the value that you put on it, which is probably only the value of the item that was there in the first place. And as they're issued by banks, they will let you contest charges as well as with a real credit card.

    Hope this has been helpful.

    ---
    P.S. If you sign up for x.com, you have the option of referring somebody. If you feel generous, refer francois@bradet.com . You don't lose anything if you don't refer me. If you feel this whole thing sounds like a commercial endorsement and you don't like such things, please let me know by moderating me down. If you really what I just wrote is bad, let me know at francois@bradet.com and I'll apologize. I'm just trying to share my knowledge.
  • Good tactic (Score:5)

    by konstant (63560) on Sunday January 16 2000, @12:43PM (#1366922)
    I won't go quite as far as the poster about abstaining from online credit card purchases, but I do have a method by which I can at least identify the culprit company if anything goes wrong.

    Whenever I make an online purchase, I use the name (or first initial) of the company as my own middle name. That way, if someone steals my personal info, emails me spam, or any number of invasions, I will know instantly from the name on the billing which I company I should never use again.

    Of course, this does nothing to prevent your information from actually being stolen in the first place...

    -konstant
    Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by Convergence (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:02PM
  • Re:first German post (offtopic) by cdlu (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:01PM
  • slashdot? (Score:3)

    by cdlu (65838) on Sunday January 16 2000, @12:35PM (#1366925) Homepage
    Can I use CODs to buy slashdot hats and tshirts now? :)

    But more seriously, what this shows us is that people don't pay attention to what they are doing before they do things. If you don't do something as simple as set a password on your database, it should come down to the same thing as leaving the key in the ingition, the car running, and noone in the car, in the third lane of a four lane highway in rush hour. Insurance won't cover it. People have to be careful when they start up a business that they are doing everythign right.

    If you are thinking of starting an ecommerce site, then higher a security professional to come in and take a look at it. They are out there, they are there for a reason. Credit card numbers are a very personal thing, and having them publically available is just plain bad, even if its not on purpose.

    In legal terms, if you kill someone and didn't mean to, its called 'involuntary manslaughter' and you still go to jail.
    #include <signal.h> \ #include <stdlib.h> \ int main(void){signal(ABRT,SIGIGN);while(1){abort(-1); }return(0);}
  • Re:Is this really a new problem...? by agravaine (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:32PM
  • Re:Why give the CC# to the merchant ? by TCook (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @09:58PM
  • Database == Web ??? by Brecker (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @08:28PM
  • Re:This problem is easy to fix.. by rtaylor (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:27PM
  • Card Companies need to get wise. by cgarrity (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:08PM
  • Re:Instructions for being Paranoid by grantdh (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @07:34PM
  • by grantdh (72401) on Sunday January 16 2000, @01:03PM (#1366932) Homepage Journal
    OK - so maybe the credit card companies need to send out a bunch of instructions for people who are too dumb to figure it out for themselves (sort of like those "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear" messages - like, DUH!!!!! :)

    Here we go with some simple instructions for how to use your credit card and not get burnt:

    1. Make sure you can check your credit card statement on-line as required.

    2. Record all purchases in a database (Quicken, MYOB, MS-Money, text file, spreadsheet, whatever!)

    3. Check your credit card statement on-line as often as you can (once per day is good :)

    4. If you find anything you didn't write down, start screaming to your card issuer!

    Even if you never travel over seas, purchase from catalogs or purchase from the 'net, you should be doing this. If you don't, you're just asking for trouble. At the least, you should check your monthly statements - doing it daily makes it quicker to get the dispute resolution process started :)

    I frequently travel to "worrying" places, use my card at cafes/restaurants, purchase over the 'net and so on. I check things and (touch-wood :) haven't had any problems. I did find a couple of entries that were charged incorrectly and was able to resolve them by contacting the vendor directly. No problems, everyone happy.

    Stop whining, stop expecting the government/corporations/mommy & daddy/whatever to protect you. Get off your ass and take responsibility for your actions.

    Same goes for those setting up e-commerce sites. One of my companies does it and we get third-party security reviews (we charge more, but we don't want penny-pinchers as clients - they always come back to haunt you :)
  • Re:Roblimo Paronoia by Duxup (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:48PM
  • Roblimo Paronoia (Score:3)

    by Duxup (72775) on Sunday January 16 2000, @12:59PM (#1366934) Homepage
    I use my CC online all the time. I've never been burnt but a friend of mine was. He just called the CC company and they refunded his $. It is that simple.
    It's good to be careful like Roblimo and careful whom you give it too. However it's more important to know your rights and that your not responsible for such charges.
  • Re:This Is Probably A Good Thing... by jesser (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:23PM
  • Re:Security Models by jesser (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:43PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by nicodmus (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:28PM
  • Re:slashdot? by jedrek (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:38PM
  • Re:Roblimo Paronoia by cotopaxi (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:44PM
  • Isn't this really the site operator's faults? by Hieronymous (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:57PM
  • Re:Good tactic by Super_Frosty (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:37PM
  • Re:Good tactic by Super_Frosty (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:05PM
  • by Super_Frosty (82232) on Sunday January 16 2000, @12:30PM (#1366943)
    I can't understand why people refuse to buy things over the internet.

    First of all, if someone makes a purchase with your credit card, but you haven't actually lost the card, then you are liable for nothing. You have nothing to use!

    Credit card theft and fraud occur without the internet. Your wallet/purse can get stolen. In that case, you are liable for up to 50 dollars. A waiter or clerk can copy down your numbers.

    The risk isn't any greater at all, but fear tactics from the media like this MSNBC story don't give a sense of proportion.
  • cause it is by TummyX (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:09PM
  • Re:Your own Win2K problems by TummyX (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:13PM
  • Re:You work for Microsoft, don't you? by TummyX (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @10:08AM
  • Re:My mistake -- you're a troll by TummyX (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @09:13PM
  • Re:You work for Microsoft, don't you? by TummyX (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @05:18PM
  • Re:::$DATA by LocalYokel (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:30PM
  • NOT Microsoft's fault (for a change) by LocalYokel (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:41PM
  • Card Issuers or Visa/MC Holding The Numbers...? by slykens (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @05:57PM
  • Re:Shooting the Messenger? by jkorty (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:01PM
  • Re:Is this really a new problem...? by Paolo (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:21PM
  • This is not just an ONLINE problem... by _blueboy (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:12PM
  • Re:Typical misinformation... by god_of_the_machine (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:17PM
  • Re:Why does the media overlook the bigger point he by bigdogs (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:55PM
  • Re:Why does the media overlook the bigger point he by bigdogs (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @05:22PM
  • Re:Your own Win2K problems by mattACK (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @11:30PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by blakestah (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:21PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by blakestah (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:10PM
  • So you don't use SSL then? by Codex The Sloth (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:07PM
  • Another Good tactic-- preventative, even by Savage Henry Matisse (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:14PM
  • Re:Is this really a new problem...? by Mister Attack (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:31PM
  • Re:Why does the media overlook the bigger point he by VAXman (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:10PM
  • by VAXman (96870) on Sunday January 16 2000, @01:38PM (#1366965)
    eBay's servers are NOT Microsoft. Their front end web servers are Microsoft, but the back end databases are Solaris. All of the problems which eBay has had are bugs in Solaris. When eBay had problems there were SUN engineers on site to fix the problems.

    Of course, since Microsoft is the scapegoat of the computer industry, people will blame the company if any of their software is involved in any way. eBay is a prime example; when the people who blame eBay find out that it was Sun's and not Microsoft's fault for the problems, they do not shift the blame to Sun, but rather shrug off the problems, and pretend to play down the incident. eBay's outage in the summer, which cost well over one and a half BILLION dollars in market capitalization, is one of the biggest industrial blunders in history, and was 100% to blame on a bug in the Solaris operating system. Yet Microsoft continues to receive the blame for it.

    It is really getting out of control. There are people who really think Microsoft is to blame for the Year 2000 problem the Year 2038 problem, the Internet worm, et cetera, ad nauseum. It is so incredibly trendy to blame Microsoft that any industrial problem whatsoever is blamed on them if they had any involvement whatsoever - without even GLANCING at what the real problem was or who really was to blame.
  • The real problem by guran (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @10:25PM
  • 2 questions about CC's by tomson (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:15PM
  • Re:slashdot? by Punto (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @08:14PM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by nerdguy0 (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @05:42PM
  • Re:Administration by ZenShadow (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:43PM
  • Re:Typical misinformation... by Erchie (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:13PM
  • M$ releases hot new cracking tool - SQL Server by MrBlack (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:12PM
  • Re:cause it is by RoninM (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:27PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by Sadfsdaf (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:30PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by Poppa Squirl (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:10PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by thetbone (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @05:57PM
  • Shortsight of the e-generation. by Sarin (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:58PM
  • Re:2 questions about CC's by p-k4 (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:50PM
  • I used to worry about my CC info ... by p-k4 (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:05PM
  • Re:Let's get a few things straight. - correction by wilcoxon (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @06:34AM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by unDees (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @10:11AM
  • by mckyj57 (116386) on Sunday January 16 2000, @02:59PM (#1366982)
    The problem here is not so much the database server as the database design.

    Any time you can get a credit card number via a normal database query it is a security hole.

    I will say it again -- anytime you can query your database and get a credit card number it is a security hole. If you are not saving the information to a non-internet connected system, or encrypting with strong encryption before writing it to disk, you are playing fast and loose with customer information.

    The simple rule should be this -- an unencrypted credit card number should never be written to disk, not even for a moment.

  • Re:Typical misinformation... by e7 (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @02:52PM
  • Hey you pessimists... by TangoChaz (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @10:45AM
  • This is less likely to happen under Linux. by bnolan (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:32PM
  • RBL for E-Commerce sites... by SsC (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @05:37PM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by destrago (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:34PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by fsck (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @05:35PM
  • Re:Flamebait? Moderators are Morons by Kaiwen (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @10:48PM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by 348 (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:47PM
  • Re:Is this really a new problem...? by jallen02 (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:34PM
  • Saying this once. by jallen02 (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:41PM
  • Re:Fer Cryin' Out Loud by wanrat (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:35PM
  • by wanrat (127429) on Sunday January 16 2000, @03:12PM (#1366994)
    Someone above posted the correct answer which is: these guys just stripped the info out of 1)MS SQL's enterprise manager using either the default login, 2) by exploiting an extended stored proc., or 3) by stripping login info out of the .asp page or from the global.asa file at the root of the asp distribution directory. ALL of these holes are patchable, and were required fixes by MS. ANY site who has a DBA on staff should be aware of these things and should already have them patched. MSNBC likely used the extended url hack on IIS to read the global.asa file which has the u/p embedded in it. This is not really MS's fault, as hacks will be created on every platform... this is the fault of the folks who hired second rate, underqualified DBA's and network engineers. Even given a local login and straight access to the site, the SQL Server can be made inaccessable simply by implementing application specific security (under 7). This is, once again, a foresight and planning problem and is not necessarily the fault of the technology. My Redhat/Oracle box winds up with many many security patches as well, so we in the Linux community are not immune to this kind of stuff. Actually, I'm surprised that the people who skimped on their network weren't hacked up until now. (the frightening thing is... maybe they have been muhahahahaha)

    -Wanrat

    hehe it's 10pm, do you know where your credit card is?

  • Re:Shooting the Messenger? The consumer pays... by dcd (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @09:06PM
  • Re:Flamebait? Moderators are Morons by nlamsben (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @06:04AM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by Toothpic (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @06:42AM
  • Re:Shooting the Messenger? by Toothpic (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @07:20AM
  • Re:Typical misinformation... by VelvetHammer (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:11PM
  • Re:Typical misinformation... by dillinger44 (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:07PM
  • Re:And then we accuse MS of FUD ? by mdb31 (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:01PM
  • by mdb31 (132237) on Sunday January 16 2000, @12:51PM (#1367002)
    I'm not sure why everyone is suddenly so excited about the fact that you can easily steal credit card numbers "over the Internet" -- heck, you can easily steal credit card numbers anywhere . Guess someone feels they have to make up for their Y2K media fiasco...

    But anyway, all the attention to this issue is probably a Good Thing. Popular Internet e-commerce servers are bound to have quite a bit of credit card numbers, along with other goodies such as the name of the owner and the expiration date, floating around, and it's time that a people became more clueful about how to handle this situation.

    Face it: any setup where both your webserver and database server are available from the Internet is a major security risk. The way most e-commerce shops, especially those running at hosting companies, are set up today (webserver and database server on the same machine, or at least the same network without any access controls) is simply asking for trouble.

    Here are a few reasons why:
    Software bugs - and no, not running any Microsoft products won't get you off the hook. In fact, I guess the cozy little MySQL password security exploit that was discovered recently is way worse than the ::$DATA issue, although most clueful providers will fix it quickly.
    Untrusted staff - how easy is it for a rogue operator at your provider, or a lowly-paid temp working for the shop itself, to run a complete copy of the credit card file?
    General data security - in other words: hey, do you know who else has access to your shared database server, or where the backups go at night?

    All of the above leads to a few conclusions:
    1. Partitioning - Web and database server functionality should be separated as much as possible: having your database on a separate machine and fitted with proper access controls (i.e. only accepting connections from trusted hosts and using proper authentication in addition to that) is pretty much a requirement.
    2. Encryption and access controls - Even with proper partitioning in place, most of your customer details need to be encrypted using a non-trivial scheme, and proper access controls need to be put in place. Make sure only the right people have access to your data, and log every access. Disable bulk commands, except during the backup window, if possible.

    Now, which percentages of sites is operating as described above today? My guess would be less than 10%, leaving enough room for on- and off-line crackers to steal whatever information they want. It's not consumer problem per se (since credit card companies have pretty extensive consumer protection from fraud...), but still a lot needs to be done before the general public will truly get a warm fuzzy feeling about on-line shopping...

  • secure transactions by BhodiLi (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @06:14PM
  • Trust Based Method Open to Abuse by RuntimeError (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @12:40PM
  • MS created this problem in the first place. by Etam (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @05:27PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by aliebrah (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @03:52AM
  • Not always quite that simple by augurist (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @11:18AM
  • A simple, elegant solution.. by Ogerman (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @05:43PM
  • A simple, elegant solution.. by Ogerman (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @05:40PM
  • Re:neophytes by A.Gideon (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @04:35PM
  • Re:Real risk and an idea by robhancock (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @03:22PM
  • Is there really a problem? by type2 (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:35PM
  • Re:Why Not Use Credit Cards over the Net? by type2 (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:51PM
  • Database Design for E-Commerce/Client-Server Apps by Tassach (Score:1) Monday January 17 2000, @11:26AM
  • Re:Is this really a new problem...? by deep_magic (Score:2) Sunday January 16 2000, @08:48PM
  • neophytes by ereoc (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @01:57PM
  • Re:Windows 2000 by VoodooBird (Score:1) Sunday January 16 2000, @07:47PM
  • 84 replies beneath your current threshold.
(1) | 2 | 3 | 4