MASSIVE DDOS ATTACKS ALL OVER U.S.

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: ndee
I have to agree, the patches has been available, it's really a problem with lazy admins.

So basically you are saying it is the Admins fault ?

And if I get shot tomorow walking down the street it is MY fault for not wearing a bullet proof vest ?

wow, that's a terrible analogy, I can't see the relation with the current situation.

It is reality. Computer security is a full time job. If it is not treated as such companies will keep getting hit hard by it.

So which fault was it do you think? (I don't understand your last post )

Well microsoft has fault for not releasing a bug free product. But admin are majorly at fault for applying a patch that has been available for 8months. Admins are also at fault for needlessly exposing sql servers to the outside world. Admins are also at fault for keeping the default ports the same.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Anyone else got a competent ISP? Not a single one of those packets reached my firewall, my ISP rocked them all from the start.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: ndee
I have to agree, the patches has been available, it's really a problem with lazy admins.

So basically you are saying it is the Admins fault ?

And if I get shot tomorow walking down the street it is MY fault for not wearing a bullet proof vest ?

wow, that's a terrible analogy, I can't see the relation with the current situation.

It is reality. Computer security is a full time job. If it is not treated as such companies will keep getting hit hard by it.

So which fault was it do you think? (I don't understand your last post )

Well microsoft has fault for not releasing a bug free product. But admin are majorly at fault for applying a patch that has been available for 8months. Admins are also at fault for needlessly exposing sql servers to the outside world. Admins are also at fault for keeping the default ports the same.

Well I don't blame them for using the default port, what would happen if every http server would use a different port?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: ndee
I have to agree, the patches has been available, it's really a problem with lazy admins.

So basically you are saying it is the Admins fault ?

And if I get shot tomorow walking down the street it is MY fault for not wearing a bullet proof vest ?

wow, that's a terrible analogy, I can't see the relation with the current situation.

It is reality. Computer security is a full time job. If it is not treated as such companies will keep getting hit hard by it.

So which fault was it do you think? (I don't understand your last post )

Well microsoft has fault for not releasing a bug free product. But admin are majorly at fault for applying a patch that has been available for 8months. Admins are also at fault for needlessly exposing sql servers to the outside world. Admins are also at fault for keeping the default ports the same.

Well I don't blame them for using the default port, what would happen if every http server would use a different port?

Ah the trade offs between security and ease of use. Very few people directly use an sql server, so changing the default port will affect the few, not the many.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: charrison
Name me 1 product that has never had an exploitable bug? I will give you all the time you need.

Why? We are obviously not discussing that. All software has some sort of bugs/holes in it. But the fact remains that MS-software gets hacked more even though there are other servers out there with bigger market-shares (like IIS vs. Apache)

If all software has bugs, but only MS software hacked more often, does this mean MS has lower quality software or more people spend time and effort to make MS look bad?

IMO no. It just means that MS has more bugs, more severe bugs and more bugs that are easy to exploit.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Anyone else got a competent ISP? Not a single one of those packets reached my firewall, my ISP rocked them all from the start.

It seems that I have been spared . So kudos to Netsonic!

 

[db]

It's only a fabulous coincidence that this happened when Secy Powell arrived in Davos, Switzerland to give a speach at the World Economic Forum, where he hopes to convince influencial world economic and government leaders of the importance of taking down Sadam and related terrorists.
Thank goodness it happened on a weekend when commerce wouldn't be too badly affected.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: element®

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Don't blame microsoft too hard, almost every platform has programs with buffer overflow errors. You only see the Microsoft servers get hit because they are the most popular platform, and they are easy to target. Buffer overflow is a VERY common thing, and it just so happens that MS's SQL is the target this time. If you run a MS Server, look out. Personally I am glad both my servers run unix.

No I don't blame Microshaft for this. I blame them for making it difficult for me to uninstall Windows Messupinger on my WinXP box. EAT IT MS!

Btw I uninstalled it eventually but what a pain.

Yes, you download the script, doublecklick it... that is so damn hard to do... :|

The point isn't the level of difficulty in uninstalling the product. It is in Micrshaft's DELIBERATE intention to make it difficult to do. By the way, was it so simple that you figured out that line by yourself? Or did you have to research it and use someone elses intellect to figure out how to uninstall it?

Yeah I thought so.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: charrison
Name me 1 product that has never had an exploitable bug? I will give you all the time you need.

Why? We are obviously not discussing that. All software has some sort of bugs/holes in it. But the fact remains that MS-software gets hacked more even though there are other servers out there with bigger market-shares (like IIS vs. Apache)

If all software has bugs, but only MS software hacked more often, does this mean MS has lower quality software or more people spend time and effort to make MS look bad?

IMO no. It just means that MS has more bugs, more severe bugs and more bugs that are easy to exploit.

Or maybe just a blind eye to exploits that happen on open source products that no one write worms/trojans for. The other fact could be the unix world could have better admins. I know i have worked at a few shops were I was a developer and network admin. I did network security when time allowed, usually after something like this happened.

This particular bug was the fault of admins since the patch has been available for 6+ months.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: charrison
Or maybe just a blind eye to exploits that happen on open source products that no one write worms/trojans for.

I don't think open-source guys turn a blind eye to security. They are usually pretty hardcore about it, whereas MS has publicly stated that "security has not been high on our priorities". They have been working to improve it, but it's not good enough. Fact is that MS-software seems to be alot more easier to exploit than OS-software is (I'm talking about widely used OS-software such as Apache, Samba etc.). Also, the fixes usually take longer time to appear than on OS-software.

The other fact could be the unix world could have better admins.

According to some studies, that is the case. Unix/Linux-admins are more expensive but they are generally more productive and competent than their MS-counterparts. I think part of the reason for that is that Windows has nce GUI for all admin-jobs, so any moron can change the settings. They start to feel that they are real administrators, when in reality they have no idea what they are doing. Faking it like that in Linux/unix isn't really possible.

 

[DanFungus]

Originally posted by: ReelC00L

Originally posted by: flot
Hmm.. guess I need to actually wake up before I start reading OT... I could have sworn the headline said "Massive DOGS attack all over us"

I was like "whoa, cool, massive dogs..."

HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Anyone else see AT + forums have some downtime a little while ago?

yeah, it said Maintenence...maybe they were hit too..*shrug*

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: charrison
Or maybe just a blind eye to exploits that happen on open source products that no one write worms/trojans for.

I don't think open-source guys turn a blind eye to security. They are usually pretty hardcore about it, whereas MS has publicly stated that "security has not been high on our priorities". They have been working to improve it, but it's not good enough. Fact is that MS-software seems to be alot more easier to exploit than OS-software is (I'm talking about widely used OS-software such as Apache, Samba etc.). Also, the fixes usually take longer time to appear than on OS-software.

The other fact could be the unix world could have better admins.

According to some studies, that is the case. Unix/Linux-admins are more expensive but they are generally more productive and competent than their MS-counterparts. I think part of the reason for that is that Windows has nce GUI for all admin-jobs, so any moron can change the settings. They start to feel that they are real administrators, when in reality they have no idea what they are doing. Faking it like that in Linux/unix isn't really possible.

The basics of administering any MS product almost anyone can do. So almost anyone gets assigned to take care of it. Companies tend to save a few bucks by not hiring real admins and just letting someone do until they have a need to call a pro in.

Plus I think the hacker community has much less interest in making unix/open source products look bad.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: charrison

The other fact could be the unix world could have better admins.

According to some studies, that is the case. Unix/Linux-admins are more expensive but they are generally more productive and competent than their MS-counterparts. I think part of the reason for that is that Windows has nce GUI for all admin-jobs, so any moron can change the settings. They start to feel that they are real administrators, when in reality they have no idea what they are doing. Faking it like that in Linux/unix isn't really possible.

very true, BUT, there are still TONS of idiot unix admins out there with unpatched machines.

but on the same token, lots of good ones too

i remember not too far back hearing that 50% of all apache web servers were running the latest release. can we say that for IIS?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: charrison
Plus I think the hacker community has much less interest in making unix/open source products look bad.

I don't know about that one. I don't think that hackers (well, crackers really. Hacker is a different breed altogether) really have any Windows/Unix/Linux-bias. They just do whatever it takes to get their fame. For example, viruses aren't nearly as effective on Unix/Linux than on Windows, and that's because of the philosophy of the system (users only have limited rights).

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: element®

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: element®

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Don't blame microsoft too hard, almost every platform has programs with buffer overflow errors. You only see the Microsoft servers get hit because they are the most popular platform, and they are easy to target. Buffer overflow is a VERY common thing, and it just so happens that MS's SQL is the target this time. If you run a MS Server, look out. Personally I am glad both my servers run unix.

No I don't blame Microshaft for this. I blame them for making it difficult for me to uninstall Windows Messupinger on my WinXP box. EAT IT MS!

Btw I uninstalled it eventually but what a pain.

Yes, you download the script, doublecklick it... that is so damn hard to do... :|

The point isn't the level of difficulty in uninstalling the product. It is in Micrshaft's DELIBERATE intention to make it difficult to do. By the way, was it so simple that you figured out that line by yourself? Or did you have to research it and use someone elses intellect to figure out how to uninstall it?

Yeah I thought so.

Everytime you do something for the first time and read up on it you use someone elses intellect, does that mean that everything has been made hard to do?

Actually, i removed it manually when i did it, later on someone told me about a script that does it...

If you want something done, find a way to do it and don't whine about how hard it is... how hard is it to make a google search, the info has been out there before the release...

Otherwise you have to figure out which keys in the registry that are related (which if you look at active processes isn't all that hard) to the software and which files, then you just delete them...

Why not mention something that IS hard to remove, like IE...

And as always, if you don't like the OS, there are alternatives...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: charrison
Plus I think the hacker community has much less interest in making unix/open source products look bad.

I don't know about that one. I don't think that hackers (well, crackers really. Hacker is a different breed altogether) really have any Windows/Unix/Linux-bias. They just do whatever it takes to get their fame. For example, viruses aren't nearly as effective on Unix/Linux than on Windows, and that's because of the philosophy of the system (users only have limited rights).

Well this particular point is rapidly fading away. Virus's were particulary bad with win9x products, however nt/2k/xp product are not really affected by viruses. However the virus have been replaced with trojans. Trojans are just as bad, but running trojans is a failure of the user, not the system.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: charrison
Plus I think the hacker community has much less interest in making unix/open source products look bad.

I don't know about that one. I don't think that hackers (well, crackers really. Hacker is a different breed altogether) really have any Windows/Unix/Linux-bias. They just do whatever it takes to get their fame. For example, viruses aren't nearly as effective on Unix/Linux than on Windows, and that's because of the philosophy of the system (users only have limited rights).

Yup.. It's kind of reversed compared to Windows... The user account handling in XP is amazingly idiotic...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: charrison
Plus I think the hacker community has much less interest in making unix/open source products look bad.

I don't know about that one. I don't think that hackers (well, crackers really. Hacker is a different breed altogether) really have any Windows/Unix/Linux-bias. They just do whatever it takes to get their fame. For example, viruses aren't nearly as effective on Unix/Linux than on Windows, and that's because of the philosophy of the system (users only have limited rights).

Well this particular point is rapidly fading away. Virus's were particulary bad with win9x products, however nt/2k/xp product are not really affected by viruses. However the virus have been replaced with trojans. Trojans are just as bad, but running trojans is a failure of the user, not the system.

as nt/2k/xp aren't really affected by viruses i assume it is your recommendation not to use any resource hogging AV program?

 

[Descartes]

The only reason this was able to propagate at all was because of COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT admins.

The patch has been out for months and it's included in the service pack. And honestly, how many servers need to have their MS SQL Servers externally accessible? Very few. Someone said they were worried about placing any orders online because a lot of e-commerce sites use MS SQL Server. That is asinine. Any quality site is not going to leave their entire MS SQL Server externally accessible.

So... lets blame all the idiots. We support clients with hundreds of MS SQL Servers and not a single one was exploited.

 

[Azraele]

Wohoo, first time I've been able to hit a site all day.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: charrison
Plus I think the hacker community has much less interest in making unix/open source products look bad.

I don't know about that one. I don't think that hackers (well, crackers really. Hacker is a different breed altogether) really have any Windows/Unix/Linux-bias. They just do whatever it takes to get their fame. For example, viruses aren't nearly as effective on Unix/Linux than on Windows, and that's because of the philosophy of the system (users only have limited rights).

Well this particular point is rapidly fading away. Virus's were particulary bad with win9x products, however nt/2k/xp product are not really affected by viruses. However the virus have been replaced with trojans. Trojans are just as bad, but running trojans is a failure of the user, not the system.

as nt/2k/xp aren't really affected by viruses i assume it is your recommendation not to use any resource hogging AV program?

I have not used any AV software in years.

 

[etech]

Just posting to let someone see what the outage looked like.

average.matrix.net

 

[ReiAyanami]

i thought microsoft buried DOS a long time ago.

 

[Eli]

Things seem a lot better now..

It was pretty insane during the heat of it.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Ive got a lot to learn. Lots of cool sites in this post. Thanks.