Snort mailing list archives
RE: Code Red attacks - a warning.
From: Tom Rowan <tom.rowan () securityalchemy net>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:29:43 +0100
Something like that MIGHT work. But, are you not opening yourself up to being seen to commit the same offense(s) that the original author of Code Red is? You are using someone elses system without their permission... which is illegal! While it is an honourable thought, I think you've got to be careful here. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Franki [mailto:franki () gshop com au] Sent: 18 September 2001 09:55 To: snort-users () lists sourceforge net Subject: RE: [Snort-users] Code Red attacks couldn't we just write an upload a bat file for the server to run ??? ie: update.bat ftp www.update.microsoft.com/yada/yadda/yadda get /updates/something/iisupdate.exe c:\somewhere\iisupdate.exe shutdown -r now #couldn't remember the windows version of that so I substituted the *nix version,, you get the idea. would that not work?? and since the patch gets downloaded from a MS server, its less likely to get detractors... you could also have it email the admin of the server, something to the effect... After hours of sustained requests from your server to one of ours, our server response has activated,, and has responded to YOUR servers REQUEST by telling it to download the patch from microsoft... if you are reading this, there is a good chance it was sucessful, and you are no longer suseptable to Code red and its variants. however, this does not exclude the possibility that sometime in the period that you were infected, your server did not have "back doors" installed. you should look into this and take the necessary steps. I think thats a nice solution, and it makes it clear that the other server requested the info, and that the patch was the response...(its just like manually downloading stuff from the web, if you download a dodgy program and install it, you can't blame the guy who wrote it legally because he didn't force you to install it.... you requested the download..... see what I mean? rgds Frank -----Original Message----- From: snort-users-admin () lists sourceforge net [mailto:snort-users-admin () lists sourceforge net]On Behalf Of Jason Withrow Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2001 8:33 AM To: 'Jason Withrow'; 'Greg Wright' Cc: snort-users () lists sourceforge net Subject: RE: [Snort-users] Code Red attacks I think we should write that. The world will be a better place. So the question now is how can we upload the patch? WE know that there will most likely be a cmd shell living in c, which has been shared out thru IIS and has been given execute permissions by Code Reds infection process. I guess we would have to send a carefully crafted url response back, passing parameters back to cmd.exe to invoke the ftp.exe??? - Jason -----Original Message----- From: snort-users-admin () lists sourceforge net [mailto:snort-users-admin () lists sourceforge net] On Behalf Of Jason Withrow Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:23 PM To: 'Greg Wright' Cc: snort-users () lists sourceforge net Subject: RE: [Snort-users] Code Red attacks I like it. It makes complete sense to me. - Jason -----Original Message----- From: snort-users-admin () lists sourceforge net [mailto:snort-users-admin () lists sourceforge net] On Behalf Of Greg Wright Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 7:56 PM To: 'snort-users () lists sourceforge net' Subject: RE: [Snort-users] Code Red attacks I liked the idea of configuring the server to return data to an exploited system that will patch the hole, however the potential legality issues frighten me, however I wonder... Isn't it possibly a little convoluted in that the exploited system that you are 'putting' data on is actually requesting *something* from your server initially. The action of 'putting data' is the serving of a request initiated by the infected system. If you were to put data on your web server system that stops CodeRed, and an affected box attempted to scan for and pass a request to your server, then the data that it passes back was not sent directly, but sent in response to a request. What is the general opinion on this? Regards, Greg Wright -----Original Message----- From: Erek Adams [ mailto:erek () theadamsfamily net] Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2001 8:22 AM To: Jason Withrow Cc: 'Gordon Ewasiuk'; snort-users () lists sourceforge net Subject: RE: [Snort-users] Code Red attacks On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Jason Withrow wrote:
What is the legal issue, it is a purely defensive mechanism.
Well... I'm not a lawyer, but: You're doing _something_ to someone elses machine--Uninvited. That in and of itself can put you in a lot of legal hotwater, depending on the remote sites security policy. Now, I'm not arguing the morality of what you're doing, or what you intend to do, but the act of accessing someone elses stuff without consent puts you into the same class as a 'hacker' in a lot of corportate security policy eyes. Instead, "Do the Right Thing". :) Anyone from your local subnets, give them a call. Most of the CR{I,II,III} tend to target the local subnets over remote ones. A quick use of whois and traceroute will usually give you a fair idea of where someone is at physically. Or simpler, block them at the router. ;-) ----- Erek Adams Nifty-Type-Guy TheAdamsFamily.Net _______________________________________________ Snort-users mailing list Snort-users () lists sourceforge net Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-users Snort-users list archive: http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=snort-users
Current thread:
- RE: Code Red attacks - a warning. Tom Rowan (Sep 18)
- RE: Code Red attacks - a warning. Franki (Sep 18)