....And luck only gets them very far, if you don't know what you're doing. Sort of a catch-22. But, you're right, someone has to find an unknown/dangerous exploit, and that's usually done when someone's targeting someone else and trying things people might not have thought to. However, there's very few people in the world with those skills to even get lucky using such a method. Again, for my major services that are remotely accessible, I use software that either has no history of exploits (I.e., qmail, djbdns) or no history of anything major or that would compromise the server.
Finally, I rarely run a service in the default manner and usually drop the privileges and jail it and the processes, not to mention underlying kernel modifications. That's not to say that "no one could ever get in somehow", since there's several different services running using different software, just only (and specifically) that I've not had it happen (perhaps "yet"), simply because I've not been hit by any zero day exploits (maybe one day that will be another story and I won't know about it ahead of time), and that how I run the programs and services may play a role in that (i.e., if I ran BIND and didn't chroot it and have it drop the privileges of the "named" user and someone exploited it--that is after all why a lot of people had their servers cracked running it a couple of years ago, because they didn't take measures to prevent or minimize the damage--just an example). Few people have the skills to do anything significant, I've seen and been involved enough to see. If that sounds arrogant to anyone, they are free to contact me and I'll send them a signed FAX and give them permission to try and compromise a specific system and I will find a new line of work if they can get in... that's how confident I am about my system, my knowledge and the rarity of such large exploits that no one else but the attacker would know about and they'd manage to still also bypass all the methods I have in place to prevent any major exploits. Out of all the people I've seen running servers, the one's that keep up to date on software and implement a minimal amount of additional configurations and security, have also never (likely) had their systems compromised. Any checks on their systems show they've not been, though many I didn't confirm with md5sums and such to know for sure (thus, I say "likely"). The point being, even with very little knowledge from an administrator's point of view, there are very few system crackers that could get in. People that have a lot of experience and take measures beyond what they are told or know is an existing problem to prevent this from being an issue, will have a pretty solid system. Of course, that depends on the person, what methods they use, how skilled they are and so on. Also, I'm mainly speaking about remote exploits, though these are all multi-user systems that I speak of, with the works. That, indeed, requires more work and is the most important factor (preventing local exploits), but I do many things to prevent that as well. -- Regards, Tim Greer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Server administration, security, programming, consulting. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Meritt James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tim Greer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Erik !" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:13 AM Subject: Re: Ten least secure programs > I would make no claims for omniscience, which is what that appeared to > be. Your stated confidence appears to be more than I would claim. > > They don't have to be good, just lucky. > > Tim Greer wrote: > > > > You know, knowing you've not been compromised and you know what you're > > doing, doesn't always equate to arrogance or being over confident. And no, > > that's not to be construed as saying that "I'm the best" or any such thing. > > I am just tired of seeing the "if someone wants in, they'll get in". That > > is utter nonsense, I would never trust someone's qualifications that > > believed that (barring (yes) zero day exploits you had no way of knowing > > about--though it's rare you couldn't know in this field--and that you didn't > > have it running, configured or use some other method to minimize or prevent > > it from being a problem on your own system).. > > > > It's not all about how much will power a cracker has, after all, and few > > have those sort of skills (very few, about the same odds as the lottery) and > > they too, still have to find a way in, and depending on your platform, how > > it's set up and so on. I don't tend to just install programs and services > > and just think I'm okay as long as I keep up to date on patches. They > > (crackers) can only use certain methods, and are using the same technology > > as you can, you are also in control. Again, provided you know how and where > > to check, use tools that will alert you of any files that have their sum's > > changed, dates, etc. and monitor the system, you would know if you're been > > compromised. > > -- > > Regards, > > Tim Greer [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Server administration, security, programming, consulting. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Meritt James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Tim Greer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: "Erik !" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:56 AM > > Subject: Re: Ten least secure programs > > > > > I would not express the copnfidence that you just did. > > > > > > Tim Greer wrote: > > > > > > > > No, it's never happened. This is definitely a possibility for many > > > > instances, but if you know how and where to check, use tools to alert > > you if > > > > anything has changed, and have the experience, you'd know. Anyway, > > that's > > > > not the case, and it's not exactly a rare thing to not have been > > > > compromised, as if it's inevitable. Provided you don't get hit with any > > > > zero-day exploits that you couldn't have prevented by what you run, > > filter > > > > or how it's configured, or just don't use software/services that are > > > > vulnerable to them--or you just aren't targeted, it's not really > > > > unreasonable to hear. > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > Tim Greer [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Server administration, security, programming, consulting. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Meritt James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "Erik !" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 6:45 AM > > > > Subject: Re: Ten least secure programs > > > > > > > > > Recommended modification: "Do not know ever been hacked." You very > > well > > > > > may have been but do not know that you have been. Only the inept get > > > > > caught. > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > "Erik !" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > 1. I'm glad you have never been hacked ... 8) > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. ever hear of: > > > > > > > > > > > > a. social engineering, and > > > > > > b. zero-day exploits > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. *... I'll find a new line of work* > > > > > > > > > > > > WHEN that time comes, I hear barbers enjoy nice long relaxing > > careers. > > > > > > > > > > > > erik > > > > > > > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > > > > > From: "Tim Greer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > To: "Erik !" > > > > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > yfocus.com> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Ten least secure programs > > > > > > Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:44:01 -0700 > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, I never bought the "if someone wants in, they will get in" > > line. > > > > :-) > > > > > > There's not enough conditionals to that claim. There's not just > > > > inevitably > > > > > > a way in, no matter what and that a sys admin can't do anything > > about > > > > it, as > > > > > > if that's "just the way it is". if you believe otherwise, I'll set > > up a > > > > > > system and you can manage to "just get in" and I'll find a new line > > of > > > > work. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Tim Greer [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Server administration, security, programming, consulting. > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Erik !" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 3:20 PM > > > > > > Subject: Re: Ten least secure programs > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's what the experts use (for starters - bigger cos. develop > > their > > > > own > > > > > > > list, based upon their own internal consensus). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.sans.org/top20/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this is broken out by windows and unix centric apps/services. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It really pegs the most comman apps/services that sysadmins > > overlook > > > > and > > > > > > > hence end up causing the most problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A determined hacker could get into most any network, it gets back > > to > > > > the > > > > > > old > > > > > > > adage: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are going to be hacked at some point, it's just a matter of > > how > > > > soon > > > > > > you > > > > > > > want that to happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Balance your LAN security against your business needs. > > > > > > > Erik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > > > > > > From: Ansgar Wiechers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Ten least secure programs > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:52:23 +0200 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if this discussion will be productive in any way, > > since > > > > you > > > > > > > seem to concentrate too much on the software and ignore layer 8, > > > > which > > > > > > > is (IMHO) the major problem. But anyway, here you go: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2003-06-28 Chris Berry wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm putting together a list of what seem to be the ten least > > > > secure > > > > > > > > computer items in use today with the idea of having a set of > > > > things to > > > > > > > > recommend AGAINST people using, probably to be posted on the > > IT > > > > room > > > > > > > > door with a note like "NO, you cannot use the following!!". > > Here > > > > is > > > > > > > > what I have so far, I'm looking for additions and comments. > > The > > > > list > > > > > > > > is in order from with the worst offender being number one. > > These > > > > > > > > should be products whose inheirent design is flawed, not that > > are > > > > just > > > > > > > > difficult to secure. I expect vigorous discussion. *putting > > on > > > > flame > > > > > > > > retardent garments* Oh, and leave Operating systems out of > > this > > > > one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if this discussion will be productive in any way, > > since > > > > you > > > > > > > seem to concentrate too much on the software and ignore layer 8, > > > > which > > > > > > > is (IMHO) the major problem. But anyway, here we go: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Microsoft Outlook > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I beg to differ on this one. Outlook is a groupware client and is > > > > > > > therefore *designed* to be insecure. It's a behaviour I would > > expect > > > > > > > from a groupware client. Of course one should *not* use Outlook > > as an > > > > > > > internet mail client (at least not without taking further > > > > precautions). > > > > > > > Also I would like to mention that AFAIR all vulnerabilities in > > > > Outlook > > > > > > > are vulnerabilities of the Internet Explorer (which I suggest to > > put > > > > on > > > > > > > this list instead). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Telnet > > > > > > > > 3) Sendmail > > > > > > > > 4) IIS Server > > > > > > > > 5) Wireless networking > > > > > > > > 6) PHP > > > > > > > > 7) ? > > > > > > > > 8) ? > > > > > > > > 9) ? > > > > > > > > 10) ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You might want to add FTP in general and BIND (at least earlier > > than > > > > > > > version 9) here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > Ansgar Wiechers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > - > > > > > > > Evaluating SSL VPNs' Consider NEOTERIS, chosen as leader by top > > > > analysts! > > > > > > > The Gartner Group just put Neoteris in the top of its Magic > > Quadrant, > > > > > > > while InStat has confirmed Neoteris as the leader in marketshare. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find out why, and see how you can get plug-n-play secure remote > > > > access in > > > > > > > about an hour, with no client, server changes, or ongoing > > > > maintenance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit us at: http://www.neoteris.com/promos/sf-6-9.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > > > > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > - > > > > > > > Evaluating SSL VPNs' Consider NEOTERIS, chosen as leader by top > > > > analysts! > > > > > > > The Gartner Group just put Neoteris in the top of its Magic > > Quadrant, > > > > > > > while InStat has confirmed Neoteris as the leader in marketshare. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find out why, and see how you can get plug-n-play secure remote > > > > access in > > > > > > > about an hour, with no client, server changes, or ongoing > > > > maintenance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit us at: http://www.neoteris.com/promos/sf-6-9.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > > > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > - > > > > > > Evaluating SSL VPNs' Consider NEOTERIS, chosen as leader by top > > > > analysts! > > > > > > The Gartner Group just put Neoteris in the top of its Magic > > Quadrant, > > > > > > while InStat has confirmed Neoteris as the leader in marketshare. > > > > > > > > > > > > Find out why, and see how you can get plug-n-play secure remote > > access > > > > in > > > > > > about an hour, with no client, server changes, or ongoing > > maintenance. > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit us at: http://www.neoteris.com/promos/sf-6-9.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA > > > > > Booz | Allen | Hamilton > > > > > phone: (410) 684-6566 > > > > > > -- > > > James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA > > > Booz | Allen | Hamilton > > > phone: (410) 684-6566 > > -- > James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA > Booz | Allen | Hamilton > phone: (410) 684-6566 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evaluating SSL VPNs' Consider NEOTERIS, chosen as leader by top analysts! The Gartner Group just put Neoteris in the top of its Magic Quadrant, while InStat has confirmed Neoteris as the leader in marketshare. Find out why, and see how you can get plug-n-play secure remote access in about an hour, with no client, server changes, or ongoing maintenance. Visit us at: http://www.neoteris.com/promos/sf-6-9.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
