|| ||"Karsten M. Self" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|| ||Re: [linux-elitists] MS SQL WORM IS DESTROYING INTERNET BLOCK PORT 1434!|
|| ||Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:17:57 +0000|
on Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 01:26:39PM -0800, Don Marti (email@example.com) wrote:
> begin Michael Bacarella quotation of Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 02:11:41AM -0500:
> > All admins with access to routers should block port 1434 (ms-sql-m)!
> Anybody who has _any_ relational database server directly connected
> to the Internet please save some of whatever you're smoking for me.
A few further points on this issue.
Looking over the BUGTRAQ and NANOG lists, a few trends start to emerge.
Apologies if this is fundamental knowledge -- if I'm duplicating
well-known summaries, please post links as followup as I'm unaware of
- Attacks worldwide appear to start at 05:29:30 UCT, give or take a
few seconds. The launch of this attack *does* appear to be highly
coordinated. I've seen reports of up to several minutes later, but
- University of Dartmouth registers 10k independent sources within the
first 30 minutes of the attack, and a peak of 16k independent
sources, speaking for extremely rapid propagation. Early
propagation appears to be from many widely dispersed sites, though
large colo facilities (e.g.: Hurricane Electric) appear in several
reports. Other references speak of ~19k distinct sources. Whether
or not this represents the maximum scope of the attack isn't clear,
but let's presume that the total number of infected hosts were <
100k. Current estimates of total Internet nodes tend to range in
the 200m - 400m range, though I don't have good numbers on this.
I'd be interested in same if anyone has a reference.
- Another number I've been pulling out of /dev/ass (mostly because
nobody's provided anything more useful) is that there are 10m Win2K
systems in existence.
- This means that the infected hosts were on the order of 1% of all
potential hosts. That is, Microsoft users were attaining a 99%
patch and/or secure rate of systems publicly visible to the worm.
This is a pretty good compliance rate. It was also wholly
inadequate in preventing this attack.
- Several NANOG sources report prior scans of the 1434 port across
systems earlier in January, particularly on the 16th and 19th. This
may have been preparatory work for the sort of rapid-propagation
exploit attack that was hypothesized last summer.
- The MS SQL engine is incorporated into a large number of MSFT
products. While not absolving guilt, it does help to explain why
so many exposed systems existed. The overhead of knowing what
services exist on a given system, and of keeping these systems
patched, increases consequently.
- In balance, the level of infection for this attack was *small*, not
large. The effects were disproportionate to the number of directly
infected systems. Calling this the result of a widespread software
monoculture may not be appropriate (IMO it is, for complex reasons,
but that's a longer discussion). A similar vulnerability in a
widely deployed free software utility could produce similar results,
and the GNU/Linux & free software communities shouldn't enjoy
excessive schadenfreude over this incident.
I recall (but can't locate) a reference, possibly following the
Mindcraft Apache / IIS rigged shootout, in which it was observed that
raw webserving capacity was a poor performance metric, as a score or
so Sun workstations would be more than sufficient to flood major
Internet backbone links.
While it's fun (however unsporting) to blast away at Microsoft for its
security deficiencies, IMO the free software world should view the
Sapphire / Slammer worm as more a cautionary tale. This is the sort of
attack which _could_ potentially hit GNU/Linux or another 'Nix. I feel
that the likelihood is lower than that for legacy MS Windows, though
there are a large number of likely poorly maintained GNU/Linux and other
'Nix systems live on the Net.
Karsten M. Self <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
The truth behind the H-1B indentured servant scam:
to post comments)