ie8 fix
madison

Zero Day

Ryan Naraine, Emil Protalinski and Dancho Danchev

Thousands of web sites compromised, redirect to scareware

By | November 17, 2009, 12:12pm PST

Summary: Security researchers have detected a massive blackhat SEO (search engine optimization) campaign consisting of over 200,000 compromised web sites, all redirecting to fake security software, commonly referred to as scareware.

Updated: Thursday, November 19 - According to eSoft who contacted me, they’ve been monitoring the campaign since September, with another 720,000 affected sites back then.

There are now over a million affected sites serving scareware, with only a small percentage of them currently marked as harmful. Google has been notified. As always, NoScript and your decent situational awareness are your best friends.

Security researchers have detected a massive blackhat SEO (search engine optimization) campaign consisting of over 200,000 compromised web sites, all redirecting to fake security software (Inst_58s6.exe), commonly referred to as scareware.

More details on the campaign:

The compromised sites are hosting legitimately looking templates, using automatically generated bogus content, with a tiny css.js (Trojan-Downloader.JS.FraudLoad) uploaded on each of them which triggers the scareware campaign only if the visitor is coming a search engine listed as known http referrer by the gang - in this case Google, Yahoo, Live, Altavista, and Baidu :

“Cyveillance has discovered a complex attack vector that uses Google search results to distribute malicious software (malware) to unsuspecting Internet users. Using this attack vector, users click on links within Google search results and are routed to sites that attempt to download malware to their computers. The attack method also relies on inattentive webmasters who do not update the software on their sites and often unknowingly provide the material that appears in the search results.

The common string albums/bsblog/category is found in the URLs for all these blogs. By simply using the Google search parameter allinurl, along, you can see how many other sites contain the same string. As can be seen in the image above, more than 260,000 URLs are presented in Google’s search index leading to blogs similar to the ones illustrated in our example.

As you can see, only a small portion of sites in the search results carry a warning provided by Google. The reason for the small number of warnings is likely because the actual attacks do not take place on the website URLs in the search results, but on the sites you’re redirected to thereby decreasing the chances that Google will designate the destination sites as harmful.”

At first, it would appear that the campaign is an isolated one and is maintained by a cybercrime enterprise yet to be analyzed. However, analyzing it reveals a rather anticipated connection - the massive blackat SEO campaign has been launched by the same people who operate/or manage the campaigns for the Koobface botnet. For instance, the domains mentioned by Cyveillance, as well as the newly introduced ones over the past couple of hours, are the very same domains currently embedded on Koobface infected hosts.

How did they manage the compromise the sites? Through web application vulnerabilities as the attack vector, with OWASP’s recently updated Top 10 most critical web application security risks, highlighting some of the riskiest ones.

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?
257
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Thousands of web sites compromised, redirect to scareware
efsane Updated - 8th Apr 2011
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
sesli sohbet sesli chat
0 Votes
+ -
This would only apply to Windows users.
AdventTech67 17th Nov 2009
I can only imagine what the payload would be?
Hackers take notice.

Except it only applies to the "smart" Windows users that turn off automatic updates, doesn't even bother to install one of the good, free anti-virus packages (MSE), or pirates Windows.

The rest of the 1.19 billion Windows users are safe.

Hackers don't particularly care about the loser OSes. So what is your point?
0 Votes
+ -
Nope
AzuMao 17th Nov 2009
It's what happens when your OS is full of holes,
and depends on security through obscurity (hides
all of its code from the public eye), so that by
the time a patch comes out the vulnerability has
been in use by malicious hackers for at least a
few months.
0 Votes
+ -
I will not hide my disdain for you people who spout off unsubstantiated anti-microsoft trash. I have been an IT expert for over 12 years and using Windows all along I am also a Microsoft Partner and if it was not for their awesome partner support program would not have been as sucessful as I am in business. I agree with some people but I also do my homework and research Linux distros as well as Apples Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard, They all have security vulnerabilities too!!! You just don't hear that much about them because combined they only account for 5% of the desktops deployed worldwide. Most computer users that are compromised are ID 10 Ts and would get themselves infected no matter what OS they used!! I recently had a customer pc infected irregardless of the security software installed as follows ( AVG Free 8.5, Ad-Aware Aniversary Edition, Webroot Spysweeper, AVG also had the security toolbar which keeps track of search results and classifies them, McAfee Site Advisor which is free, Spyware Blaster which blacklists thousands of sites, and lastly Microsofts Windows Defender, OS Was a fully patched Windows Vista Machine. Here is the reason it got infected end user turned off UAC, I had auto scans sheduled to all take place at night while user not using pc told them to leave it running so maintenance would take place but they shut it off anyway so scans never happened, they ignored windows updates and only patched when it was a forced install, They used 2 different file sharing programs and downloaded gobs of pirated music and even a couple software titles ILLEGAL!!! and surfed the internet for porn, they also think they know how to use a computer but in reality they are clueless like 70% of end users in the world. The Point is this no matter how much security you put in a pc it is only as good as the user behind the mouse and keyboard. If you know what security software you use you would not be duped by the scareware and all you need to do is use ALT/CTRL/DEL and kill your browser instance and clear your CACHE and it won't get in but the malware writters are good the page is designed so that no matter what you click the X to close, the NO button or anything else the nasty trojan is designed to drop it's nasty payload and I have recently seen an apple Leopard OS using Safari get infected. Sorry to spout but I deal with this stuff everyday and in 12 years my pc has never been infected all it takes is a little COMMON SENSE and do not participate in unsafe online habits and you will be ok. Microsofts new Windows 7 with IE8 just happens to be the best they have ever produced and is also the most secure OS in a long time and oh by the way it is awesome and runs flawlessly.
0 Votes
+ -
I would agree with your post
914four 18th Nov 2009
in it's entirety except for "and is also the most secure OS in a long time and oh by the way it is awesome and runs flawlessly.".

While the rest of what you've written is pretty accurate, Win7 still will not be able to play in secure environments like the hardened Linux distros or Solaris 10 with Trusted Extensions. That statement is the same sort of BS that gets Mac users in trouble and makes people believe that their OS can't be compromised. It is simply more secure than previous versions, but the malware writers aren't sitting around either and exploits do exist for unpatched Win7.
0 Votes
+ -
UMM ever hear of this thing called paragraph's
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 18th Nov 2009
You start one when you change thoughts. It is ok to use the Enter key every once and a while.

As seen in the article this isn't necessarily a browsing habit like, "while I was out surfing porn, I got this popup", no it is getting nailed with this crap when you are even doing research. As and IT person I know enough to run FF with Noscript installed and active, average Joe is not likely going to do that.

Another notorious place for this stuff, is Myspace, which is why I avoid Myspace like it's the plague.

But there are also things like Koobface where social engineering, and like this attack takes place where a user that doesn't know better clicks it and says "Fix me", or your Flash Player is out of date, "fix me".

Pressing Control+Alt+Del works for people like you and I who know WTF we are doing, but not so much for the average user who really think that they may be infected, and don't know that by clicking the "fix me" that they are inviting the infection in. Common Sense does not apply, because if it was really common there wouldn't be a need for you or I.

*cheers.
0 Votes
+ -
Infected Leopard?
zdnet-gregc 18th Nov 2009
"... no matter what you click the X to close, the NO button or anything else the nasty trojan is designed to drop it's nasty payload and I have recently seen an apple Leopard OS using Safari get infected."

Unless I misread the original article this blog post is based on, the trojan in this case is a .exe file. How does an OS X system get infected by one of those? Perhaps it was something else?
0 Votes
+ -
Walls of text
richmichken 18th Nov 2009
You may have had something useful to say but I'll never know.

It's very uncomfortable to read a wall of text.
0 Votes
+ -
Unsubstantiated?
AzuMao 18th Nov 2009
Go call them yourself and ask if you can review
their source code. They will not let you. They
will not let anyone. You can see this for yourself
first hand by asking them.
0 Votes
+ -
rebuttal
Opcom_ 18th Nov 2009
"Microsofts new Windows 7 with IE8 just happens to be the best they have ever produced and is also the most secure OS in a long time and oh by the way it is awesome and runs flawlessly."

Even with the huge time of 12 years as an IT expert under the belt, one can't think that win7 et. al. is the most secure OS in a long time because 12 years is not a long time at all. Consider O/S that run for decades without rebooting. VMS is an o/s that is better than its users, because id10ts are not given priveleges except for the required applications, which then run with the id10ts' privelege levels. It might have been better to say it's no better than it's system managers (that's admins to the MS hordes). Right out of the h/p box however, things like "buffer overruns" and running random commands in arbitraty memory don't happen. The hat won't know where his hole in virtual memory is, and it will vanish in a puff of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| smoke along with whatever process was holding it open. Assuming a process was compromised in the first place. Unlikely if properly written.

There are reasons VMS is used in certain unseen places and some of them have very much to do with crufty "windows security". And the security of some other OS's as well, not just rebutting MS here but since the Grand Tout was to MS, let the quadwords fall where they may.

see here for a funny:
http://www.bunkerofdoom.com/computers/vhm/index.html

I have not tried it with win7, only 2003 but probably the same result would ensue with VMS and the other O/S barenaked playing in traffic. apples to apples test to be fair.

Also another somewhat lengthy account of apples to apples, truly and verily impartial according to real live hackers whom are not to be taunted:
http://www.bunkerofdoom.com/defcon/defcon9.html

Of course MS products are OK for home use and for business if you have an IT staff to watch everything and fascistly police all the Lusers. Good luck on that last one.

I feel as though Windows is a bit overpriced. VMS is priced according to its value (but is free if you get a non-commercial hobbyist license). So the above has been the rebuttal to the "(win7)...is also the most secure OS in a long time" party line. VMS 8.4 is in field test now.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree
914four 19th Nov 2009
I can't believe I forgot VMS, the as yet unhacked OS. In terms of invulnerability it's right up there with Solaris 10 Trusted Extensions.
0 Votes
+ -
All compromised servers are running Linux/Apache
honeymonster Updated - 17th Nov 2009
So much for Linux/Apache security.

EDIT: Almost all. Some are on BSD/Apache.

They may be trying to trick users into
downloading the malware. Malware where they'll
target Windows users because, well, rather go
after 92% of the worlds users than 5% Macs or
less than 1% Linux?

but how did these sites get infected in the
first place? Does Linux or Apache have
exploitable vulnerabilities. I have been told
in these talkbacks again and again that because
of the superior security by "design" of Linux,
vulnerabilities are not exploitable.

And yet here we evidently have a mass
infection which has compromised thousands
of websites without social engineering.
I.e. the infections came through the network
with no user interaction.

0 Votes
+ -
(.exe) does not WORK on a Linux distro
Use_More_OIL_NOW 17th Nov 2009
You are dreaming, it is really hard to run an (.exe) on a Linux/Unix system when it is NOT compatible.

Second, your CLAIMS are false, look at www.netcraft.com and see the stats yourself.

Lastly, the Windows BOT network numbers in the MILLIONS of infected/hacked Windows Servers/Desktops used by criminals/spammers/hackers they got the world at their finger tips.

P.S.
Your PC is probably being used as a BOT right now...

happy
0 Votes
+ -
I can back up my claims. Can you?
honeymonster Updated - 17th Nov 2009
So you want to play games? How about we take
that first page of links to infected sites from
google.

WARNING: DO NOT VISIT ANY OF THE SITES
BELOW
(http strings have been intentionally
obfuscated to avoid web addresses to appear as
links)

This is the sad result:

horse-n-around4h.com
Server: Apache
X-Powered-By: PHP/5.2.6
X-Pingback: hxxp://horse-n-
around4h.com/xmlrpc.php
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Conclusion: Apache + some *nix

www.vozdemonteria.com
hxxp/1.1 302 Found
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:53:55 GMT
Server: Apache /2.0.63 (Unix)
mod_ssl/2.0.63 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips- rhel5
mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4
FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.8.8
Location: hxxp://www.vozdemonteria.com/home.php
Content-Length: 438
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Conclusion: Apache + RedHat Enterprise
Linux

hxxp://www.lrcser.net
hxxp/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:56:25 GMT
Server: Apache /2.2.3 ( CentOS )
Last-Modified: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:39:59 GMT
ETag: "130db3-f12-67595c0"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 3858
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Conclusion: Apache + CentOS (a RedHat
derived Linux)


stantoinedepadoue.com
hxxp/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:57:49 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:43:03 GMT
ETag: "7143a0-4b54-429e6f1cfffc0"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 19284
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Conclusion: Apache + some *nix


www.pleinepuissance.com
hxxp/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:58:50 GMT
Server: Apache
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.4.9
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Conclusion: Apache + some *nix

www.jakegumbleton.com
hxxp/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:59:57 GMT
Server: Apache /2.2.14 (Unix)
mod_ssl/2.2.14 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips- rhel5
mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4
FrontPage/5.0.2.2635
Last-Modified: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:21:20 GMT
ETag: "26d04fe-412-43a2ef62ea000"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 1042
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Conclusion: Apache + RedHat Enterprise
Linux


opel-team-koblenz.de
hxxp/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:01:17 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:44:02 GMT
ETag: "409cdd7-987-474ba1f2e023f"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 2439
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Conclusion: Apache + some *nix


www.leo-club-krefeld.net
hxxp/1.1 403 Forbidden
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:02:26 GMT
Server: Apache
Content-Length: 623
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Conclusion: Apache + some *nix


polrelax.pl
hxxp/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:03:58 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:03:44 GMT
ETag: "cb1a2e-88-463f0282a3c00"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 136
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Conclusion: Apache + some *nix


www.smuglittleman.com
hxxp/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:04:53 GMT
Server: Apache
X-Powered-By: PHP/5.2.11
X-Pingback: hxxp://smuglittleman.com/xmlrpc.php
Location: hxxp://smuglittleman.com/
Content-Length: 0
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Conclusion: Apache + some *nix


Ugh! 10 out of 10 infected sites are running
Apache and some form of Linux/BSD.

But thanks for playing.
0 Votes
+ -
This is exactly what happens when an admin who does not properly configure the OS and applications with security in mind, or do not know how to do so.

To quote the article:

"The attack method also relies on inattentive webmasters who do not update the software on their sites"

That is exactly why I would not let a windows admin configure my linux web server & applications - they would install it once, and never touch it again. Eventually it would make a great honeypot to attract malware authors.
0 Votes
+ -
I think it's pretty safe to assume that compromised Windows servers are a result of letting a Linux/Unix admins configure the systems.

But I will bet that those Linux servers he talking about are administered by Linux admins.

So the only thing it DOES prove is that alot of Linux admins are just as lazy as alot of Windows admins.
0 Votes
+ -
not all drivers are good drivers...
~doolittle~ 18th Nov 2009
Just because someone has a motor vehicle and a driver license, it does not automatically make them a good driver. Hopefully they will strive to be good drivers.

I have seen many a experienced windows admin install/configure LAMP servers, without linux experience, and have noticed most are done incorrectly since only the basic research on how to perform the install was done - some so badly it needed to be redone from scratch.

Conversely, I (and others on my team, who are primarily *nix admins), help out the windows team very frequently and no windows server has been mis-configured let alone compromised.

Maybe someone has seen your assumed theoretical scenario, I sure have not. It could be since I am in the banking/finance industry, and the standards are quite high.
0 Votes
+ -
Ha!
Raid6 Updated - 18th Nov 2009
So do the administrators at GoDaddy lack experience, training and ability?

A friend of mine owns a retail computer shop, a small one store operation. His store was hosted by GoDaddy - the server was hacked, though not through his store from what he is told.

In fact he told me that every site an that server was DELETED. Yes, I know all about permissions, and ROOT access and so on, and someone clearly obtained ROOT access and poof, all the vhosts were just gone! In each of them was a replacement home page, what a nice touch.

Regardless, it was a Linux server, and if Linux is so strong and if you are claiming it had to be the administrator then I defy you to back that up.

Maybe it was a whole in some open source technology?

They never happen though, do they?
0 Votes
+ -
are you serious?
~doolittle~ Updated - 18th Nov 2009
Since I have no experience with them I really can't comment - but I will say you will get what you pay for.

It is not linux itself that gives it strength - it is the user behind the keyboard. Both can be said for the desktop and server, regardless of the OS it is running on.

Ponder on this for a moment - which user is more likely to fall for a social engineering scam, a linux user or a windows user?

With that in mind, ask yourself "who can better install and configure a linux web server"...

Amen.
0 Votes
+ -
Are you serious "DooLittle"
kaninelupus 19th Nov 2009
With Ubuntu pushing Linux to the masses, it is getting just as likely that Linux users would just as likely fall for the same scam. With Ubuntu pushing out into the "masses" as the more secure option, if they are not careful, they'll end up breeding a common user-base with the same ignorant sense of invulnerability that Mactards seem to suffer from.
0 Votes
+ -
dead serious
~doolittle~ Updated - 19th Nov 2009
At least you realize it is the user and not the OS that is to blame, thank you for having a brain and actually using it. I really can't say the same for the other users who blame the OS (be it windows, linux or whatever).

Anyway, I do have extensive experience with users that are willing to run linux, and have found most do have a security focused perspective, and willing to learn - which is a very good start.

On the other hand, the "typical windows user", can go either way. Some are careful and don't install things without doing some research while others simply bypass all security measures and end up with a compromised system.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually
AzuMao 17th Nov 2009
*.exe programs work fine on Linux if you use WINE.
Although they'll be too sandboxed to cause any
harm.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes indeed...
rustek 18th Nov 2009
Definition: binfmt-support: Support for extra binary formats The binfmt_misc kernel module, contained in versions 2.1.43 and later of the Linux kernel, allows system administrators to register interpreters for various binary formats based on a magic number or their file extension, and cause the appropriate interpreter to be invoked whenever a matching file is executed. Think of it as a more flexible version of the #! executable interpreter mechanism. This package provides an 'update-binfmts' script with which package maintainers can register interpreters to be used with this module without having to worry about writing their own init.d scripts, and which sysadmins can use for a slightly higher-level interface to this module. From Debian 3.0r0 APT
0 Votes
+ -
a .com file is executable
jdbukis@... 17th Nov 2009
.exe is just a file extension for windows its basicly just a header. Windows reads the data in the way specified by the header.

For Example look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Executable_file_formats

.com and a number of others are executable file formats for a non windows OS.
0 Votes
+ -
Bad example.
AzuMao Updated - 17th Nov 2009
.com is executable under Windows, and commonly
used to trick people into running trojan horses,
since it is associated with websites rather than
programs.


p.s.
In case I wasn't clear, I meant associated in
peoples' minds, not to Windows. Windows sees
them as programs.
0 Votes
+ -
You don't get it
Spats30 18th Nov 2009
The hacked websites that are redirected are
running on *nix/Apache, but the sites they are
redirected to are trying to load an .exe onto
(most likely) Windows boxes (you the end viewer).

This involves more than one computer.
0 Votes
+ -
E X A C T L Y
Raid6 Updated - 18th Nov 2009
That is the point exactly. So what if the payload is intended for Windows. The executable programs are delivered from one of hundreds or possibly thousands of compromised Linux servers, the SOURCE of the problem is Linux based. The DESTINATION is the Windows machine.

Any to another author's point, Windows is at least 95% of the total market world wide. Even though the target was very likely Windows, the source of the attacks was from Linux.

My god, is it that difficult to comprehend!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong
AzuMao 19th Nov 2009
Try actually reading the article.

The problem is not with Linux, it is with a third
party script called Coppermine, which will run on
any pretty much any OS with that has a webserver.

It does not involve compromising the host
operating system in any way.
0 Votes
+ -
OIC
Raid6 Updated - 19th Nov 2009
Because a 3rd party application is not properly secured by the OS and the Web Server then it is free to do what ever it wants. But that is not a problem with the server, Apache, or Linux?

OIC.

Annecdote time: In an office operating a Windows domain, it is possible to prevent nearly every single exploitation by malware through accessing the Internet simply by configuring policies properly - AD policies that is.

Through AD the administration and rights can be drilled down to a gnats @$$. Custom policies can be created to even ignore when a user plugs in a USB device, such as their iPod, or a HD - it just doesn't exist.

The point being that if through simply managing access rights, permissions, and so on a Windows workstation can be made so secure, why can we not expect the legendary security of Linux to be at least as good?

Granted, yes granted that the administrator must do a really good job. That being said, what do you think the administrators are typically paid that administrate Linux servers?

It always boils down to proper configuration. But it goes beyond that.

Testing, testing and testing.

I mean penetration testing (kids don't get excited), running all sorts of "white hat" hacking utilities for which Linux users ought to be aware of.

There is no reason why so many Linux servers are hacked - exploited, what ever you want to call it.

If I can hack one website on a server through a compromised FTP account, as an example, then I am not even suggesting that Linux is the issue. But when you install a 3rd party application that then can gain root access to the server then there is a problem with the permissions with that 3rd party software.

Are you seriously not seeing this?

0 Votes
+ -
Re: Raid6
AzuMao 20th Nov 2009
"Because a 3rd party application is not
properly secured by the OS and the Web Server
then it is free to do what ever it wants.
"

Sorry, I know you put a lot of time into the
rest of your post, but the premise is wrong so
there's not much to say to it.

Okay basically the OS (Linux, Unix, Windows,
OSX, Solaris, the *BSDs and any other operating
systems with network connectivity) is not at
fault here.

Nor is the application (Apache, or IIS, or
lighttpd, or any other webserver supporting
ISAPI or CGI/FastCGI).

Nor is the extension to it (PHP).

None of these are at fault here.

It is the fault of the script running under PHP,
and has nothing to do with the OS (it isn't even
dependent on any one OS to be exploited).

Now do you understand why this isn't a Linux vs
Windows problem?
0 Votes
+ -
Just had to keep reading and found this.
0 Votes
+ -
You didn't read the article.
AzuMao Updated - 17th Nov 2009
They were compromised by vulnerabilities in their
web apps (most likely PHP or ASP scripts), not
vulnerabilities in the OS or webserver.
isn't compromised in any way?

boy is that a relief.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm saying some dumbass web-app dev made
vulnerabilities in their scripts, meaning that
whatever OS they are ran on, the website is
vulnerable.
0 Votes
+ -
Windows BOT Network to the rescue
Use_More_OIL_NOW 17th Nov 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
to be impervious to end user/developer errors.

Is that not the case?
0 Votes
+ -
Impervious Linux?
zdnet-gregc 18th Nov 2009
"... impervious to end user/developer errors."

Nice strawman ...

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of linux developers and users (I'm neither) would freely admit that linux is not impervious to end user /developer errors.


0 Votes
+ -
haha...
MikeDevenney 19th Nov 2009
NOTHING is impervious to end user/developer errors... absolutely NOTHING. As we developers do our best to build better apps, the world keeps building better ID10Ts.
0 Votes
+ -
This has nothing to do with Linux.
AzuMao 19th Nov 2009
Nor with Apache.
Nor with PHP.

It is solely a bad script called Coppermine, which
will run on any webserver supporting CGI, FastCGI,
or ISAPI, and all operating systems with internet
connectivity have at least one such webserver.
0 Votes
+ -
Are you smoking something?
Raid6 Updated - 18th Nov 2009
Think about what they hell you are saying...you are saying that a Linux server can be hacked through a PHP script, whether it is intentional or otherwise.

That is very interesting. If true that means every single Linux server on earth that offers PHP and/or other vulnerable technologies would be at risk.

That is insane!!!

WAMP all the way!!!

Ha ha ha (go look up what WAMP means, chucklehead).

For starters, click here for more info:

Linux users love this site

0 Votes
+ -
Wrong. Try again.
AzuMao 19th Nov 2009
This has absolutely nothing to do with the
underlying OS or even the Webserver or even PHP
itself. The vulnerability is solely in the script
known as Coppermine, which is OS-independent.
Also, the only way it could compromise the OS,
would be if you didn't chroot your webserver,
which is trivial to do on *nix and *BSD based OSs.
0 Votes
+ -
W R O N G A G A I N
Raid6 Updated - 18th Nov 2009
You are wrong again, PERMISSIONS and SECURITY are granted through the OS, not PHP or Apache.

My god, can you imagine if the security for a server had to be "rooted" in PHP?

And there is no "native" ASP support on a Linux server.

Go have another pop-tart when you are finished popping your pimples.....
0 Votes
+ -
wow you really are clueless...
~doolittle~ 18th Nov 2009
http://www.apache-asp.org/index.html

"Apache::ASP provides an Active Server Pages port to the Apache Web Server with Perl scripting only, and enables developing of dynamic web applications with session management and embedded Perl code."


Do yourself a favor, and please don't try to configure a linux web host - unless you want to be on a blacklist.
0 Votes
+ -
Native support
Raid6 Updated - 18th Nov 2009
IIs offers N A T I V E support. As in a part of IIs and Windows Server.

In order to get any level of ASPx support for Apache one must install and rely upon an open source (3rd party freebie) solution.

I was wondering how long it would take some idiot mention that module. Yes, I know about it, who the hell cares, it isn't native support.

For that matter, Apache offers no native support for any server-side processing whereas IIs does.

Oooops, I forgot about SSI...shame on me.

Next matter, that being blacklisted.

How the hell can I get blacklisted by applying an improper configuration to my Linux Server?

Are you referring to Apache, as in my WEB server...LOL?

Of course you must be thinking of something like Sendmail...or maybe Exchange, or any number of others, right?

To be blacklisted one would have to improperly configure and SMTP, thus making it an open relay (for example), or it is otherwise compromised. Of course I do know how to configure an SMPT, in fact a handful of SMPT platforms, including Exchange. It really is quite easy to properly configure ANY server if one strives to.

So hey, Dolittle, do yourself a favor and do a little reading... ha ha ha!
0 Votes
+ -
that was a very sad rebuttal
~doolittle~ 19th Nov 2009
The fact that anyone uses ASP pretty much says they don't care very much about cross-platform support. Do I really need to comment further?
0 Votes
+ -
DoLittle avoides the issue...again...
Raid6 Updated - 19th Nov 2009
The issues I presented in a rebuttal were not responded to.

What about your statement of being black listed, and how that relates to administrating a web server?

LOL...

"The fact that anyone uses ASP pretty much says they don't care very much about cross-platform support. Do I really need to comment further?"

What the [blank] are you talking about? It is the output of the webserver that determines cross browser compatibility (as in viewing compatibility), the web server platform itself makes NO DIFFERENCE what-so-ever — its the output you lame brain!!!

Hell yes, you need to comment further. Don't put that shovel down just yet, I'm enjoying the show!

And regarding "anyone who uses ASP"?

Huh? Anyone? As in a person, an individual?

Let see, just off the top of my head these corporate giants use ASP/X and IIs:

www.citrix.com
www.dell.com
www.barnesandnoble.com
www.starbucks.com
www.abbott.com
www.comcast.com
www.msnbc.com
www.myspace.com

Hmmmmmm......

0 Votes
+ -
another /facepalm for raid6
~doolittle~ Updated - 21st Nov 2009
Although that was a good twist of words, I would still question a linux based host configured by you - and BTW there are quite a few ASP hosts that don't run on firefox alone let alone on linux, or anything outside of IE.

But once again, that depends on the skill of the web programmer - which I am not sure you are convincing anyone that you actually are one. Or a good one at least.
0 Votes
+ -
*facepalm*
AzuMao Updated - 19th Nov 2009
The OS doesn't generate webpages. The PHP
scripts (or ASP or whatever language is being
used) do.

If they have vulnerabilities and are
compromised, then the website can be defaced.

This does not involve compromising the operating
system in any way, and since these scripting
languages are OS-independent doesn't even
require that they are ran on any particular OS.

Also, there is no "native" ASP support on
Windows, either. It is provided by the IIS
webserver, just like on Linux it is provided by
the Apache webserver. Among many others.
0 Votes
+ -
Uhhhhhggggg!
Raid6 Updated - 19th Nov 2009
All IIs servers have ASP support.

All Windows Servers have IIs.

Don't strain so hard to try to make yourself believe that such is not the case.

I did not state that a defaced website is a hack of the server. But I did state that if I can access anything outside of the folder for the account that I am gaining access through, then I am hacking the that server.

Permissions come from where exactly?

Apache can restrict access to folders, locations, and define MIME associations. But that is not the same thing as the operating system permissions, now is it?

So where does the Web server get its permissions from?

Say it with me...from the OS.

Exactly.
0 Votes
+ -
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
sesli sohbet sesli chat

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