Related Posts Related Websites

Tags: , , ,
Filed under Tech Trends : Comments (0) : Jan 28th, 2010 by Wyatt Walter

No Dig on Ubuntu 9.10 Minimum Virtual Machine

Well, I guess Canonical has taken the idea of “minimum virtual machine” to the extreme. The 9.10 version of Ubuntu Server JeOS (F4 + select “Minimal Virtual Machine” at install time) apparently doesn’t include dig in the default installed packages.

I was shocked when my new virtual machine was having problems with connecting to the Ubuntu repositories and I couldn’t do a dig as a test:

-bash: dig: command not found

I’ve never seen a Linux distro without dig installed by default, but apparently it’s not as necessary to others as I would have thought..

Anyway, the package comes with the dnsutils package:
sudo apt-get install dnsutils

Related Posts Related Websites

Tags:
Filed under How-Tos / Tips : Comments (0) : Jan 26th, 2010 by Wyatt Walter

IE Is The Only Secure Browser? Please

It’s no secret that Microsoft’s Internet Explorer has been taking a beating over the past week. After all, Google, the world’s most popular search engine company has blamed a vulnerability in IE for allowing attacks on its systems. After Microsoft admitted it was indeed a flaw in IE that made the attacks possible, the German government released a statement urging people to switch browsers and a similar statement from the government in France soon followed. Microsoft obviously came back with a statement urging users that those governments’ advise was far too strong of a reaction.

Part if Microsoft’s message was spot-on. Switching to a different browser due to a single flaw is a really over-dramatic reaction to the situation. If I immediately stopped using any product that had a vulnerability, I would communicate with no one. Even physical mail can be stolen and has been stolen in the past, therefore one would be forced to live in a hole in the ground, not communicating at all. I would recommend not using IE for far bigger reasons than this single vulnerability, but switching solely because of this is purely sensationalism.

On the other hand, the rest of Microsoft’s message was taken to the opposite extreme. They responded by informing users that switching to a different browser would lead them to an even greater threat. Quoting from Cliff Evans at Microsoft (via TechRadar.com):

The net effect of switching [from IE] is that you will end up on less secure browser

The risk [over this specific] exploit is minimal compared to Firefox or other competing browsers… you will be opening yourself up to security issues.

I’m not aware that the vulnerability exists in other products, but those products may have other vulnerabilities.

As much as I want to say that was intended as a joke, it’s not. Yup, instead of using products that might have vulnerabilities that Microsoft’s UK Security Chief “isn’t aware of”, users should feel comfortable using a browser that has known vulnerabilities used in a real life attack. No, I’m not switching up my stance that users should switch purely for this one incident, but to claim IE as the only secure browser in the world is absolutely ridiculous and laughable. IE’s history doesn’t help it much, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one and let that part go.

Related Posts Related Websites

Tags: , ,
Filed under News : Comments (0) : Jan 19th, 2010 by Wyatt Walter

Insecurity by Non-Obscurity

I was a bit shocked and disheartened tonight to discover that my WordPress version was being broadcast to the world without me knowing it. It’s something that I hadn’t ever really given much thought to, mostly because I always assumed that a piece of information like that wasn’t being given out. What was even more disheartening to me was what I discovered as the method for disabling this broadcasting of my version number. The easiest way, by far, was to just install the Secure WordPress extension (or I could dive into a bit of their PHP code and have to make the change with each upgrade, not so much fun). Not so long ago, there was a huge ordeal about a vulnerability in WordPress 2.8.3 that allowed an attacker to reset an admin password very easily. No wonder they urged us to upgrade so quickly – your vulnerability was being broadcast.

The sad part is, broadcasting this version number isn’t something that can be disabled using the built-in settings. I don’t know what the rationale is, but one either has to edit the functions.php file in WordPress directly, or install the plugin mentioned above.

Anyway, this got me thinking about plenty of other open source softwares that I’ve disguised over the years.. For instance, perform a fresh install of Ubuntu 8.04 with the LAMP stack and you’ll see the version listed in the headers as detailed as this:

Apache/2.2.8 (Ubuntu) PHP/5.2.4-2ubuntu5.9 with Suhosin-Patch Server

Yup, there it is, script kiddies. Bust out Metasploit and eat your hearts out. In this case, if one leaves the defaults enabled, the server major version, minor version, PHP version, OS, and WordPress version all are exposed. That leaves a pretty nice little attack vector.

Of course, hiding these things doesn’t mean that anything is secure. On the contrary, one must go far deeper than that. I am just disappointed in so many open source projects that cut down the time needed for any script kiddies to start playing with my public services.

Related Posts Related Websites

Tags: , ,
Filed under Tech Trends : Comments (1) : Jan 18th, 2010 by Wyatt Walter

The Business of Full Disclosure

I’ve been enjoying reading an interesting conversation at krebsonsecurity.com surrounding news that a security firm in Russia that is disclosing a number of vulnerabilities to a number of web and database server applications. They are releasing details over this week and the next two.

For as long as I’ve cared, I’ve always considered myself more of a “responsible disclosure” kind of a person. That is, until I heard an interesting argument that I’ve never seen very clearly articulated before. As a sysadmin, when a vulnerability in a web server (for instance) is disclosed, one can monitor for someone trying to exploit that vulnerability and stop it (or at least log what happens). Without that disclosure, one has no idea what software is vulnerable and known only to some black market somewhere. It’s odd, but humans are comforted in that way. It’s kinda like knowing that a $500 repair is coming for one’s car. It’s a lot easier pill to swallow when one knows about it, say a month or so in advance rather than being surprised by it.

However, there’s still a piece of the rationale behind Intevydis’s stance on immediate full disclosure that I still don’t quite grasp. Quoting from their blog:

You – ABCD company, making N millions per year selling your buggy XYZ product all over the world, why are you asking to give the results of the hard work during many years for free? Instead of wasting your and our time would not it be better to allocate resources to enforce good coding practices for all your amateur software developers?

Okay, so the main argument here is that they don’t want to give away their research for nothing. That is absolutely a fair thing to ask for. Knowledge and research isn’t cheap, so it’s not something that many people want to give away for free. I get it. However, I have to ask: How is full disclosure better than “responsible disclosure” (I’m using the quotes because I’m not sure how responsible so-called “responsible disclosure” is anymore) in that respect? Seriously, you don’t get paid for posting a blog entry about the latest exploit in [insert your favorite CMS here] that allows others to break into those CMSs quite easily every time one is found on the web.

And another thing, exactly who’s time are we wasting here? The developers of the software are obviously not wasting their time since they’re drawing in ‘N millions’ of dollars for the software they created. Yet, the research group is the one disclosing that they’ve found a vulnerability in the software, but they won’t tell anyone what exactly the flaw or bug is. Wait. Who’s time have we wasted now? My time for reading the report and yours for researching, finding, and sort of disclosing the vulnerability? Yes, that’s exactly who’s time was wasted. Of course, if one gets to this point in the game and are wanting money, they’re likely going to be written off as a blackmailer, but let’s be real. Either do work for pay or don’t complain about someone wasting your time for wanting you to backup claims with proof.

I really can’t grasp why full, immediate disclosure of vulnerabilities helps the problem of a revenue stream for this security company over “responsible disclosure”. There are a few indirect ways that these kinds of things can help their revenue such as consulting jobs due to exposure for finding a vulnerability. Of the ways that I can think of, though, there’s still room for a bit more of a “responsible disclosure” strategy than they are acknowledging. Not only that, but they’ve essentially burned a bridge with any software company that might hire them to do a penetration test on their network when they piss off said company.

There a ton more angles to this discussion that I simply don’t have time, nor do I suspect anyone would read much of it. However, I would like to hear from anyone who disagrees or has more to add to the discussion in the comments below.

Related Posts Related Websites

Tags:
Filed under Tech Trends : Comments (0) : Jan 12th, 2010 by Wyatt Walter

« Older Entries