Estimating the Time-To-Own of an Unpatched Windows PC 424
An anonymous reader notes a recent post on the SANS Institute's Internet Storm Center site estimating the time to infection of an unpatched Windows machine on the Internet — currently about 4 minutes. The researcher stipulated that the sub-5-minute estimate was valid for an unpatched machine in an ISP netblock with no NAT or firewall. The researcher, Lorna Hutcheson, called for others to post data on time-to-infection, and honeypot researchers in Germany did so the same day. They found longer times to infection, an average of 16 hours. Concludes the ISC's Hutchinson: "While the survival time varies quite a bit across methods used, pretty much all agree that placing an unpatched Windows computer directly onto the Internet in the hope that it downloads the patches faster than it gets exploited are odds that you wouldn't bet on in Vegas."
How is this measured (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this measured (Score:5, Informative)
I know that last time I put a new install of XP SP2 straight onto the internet without firewall or antivirus (A tiny oversight - plugged in the wrong cable) it was owned in under 5 minutes without any interaction on my part.
Re:How is this measured (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this measured (Score:4, Funny)
Funny thing is that Zone Alarm has had vulns (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Funny thing is that Zone Alarm has had vulns (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have a clean system AND don't go screwing with the system's settings the Windows firewall will do just fine at getting you online safely
I'm confused then. If what you say is so, and Microsoft's firewall is rock solid, then how could an unpatched Windows installation be pwned in less than four minutes as the summary says? I guess I need to RTFA (grumble mumble).
How hard would it be for Microsoft to add a patch CD to the box, or when patches are released to ship patch CDs to retail outlets like Best Bu
Re:Funny thing is that Zone Alarm has had vulns (Score:4, Informative)
Article isn't clear but they didn't say what version of Windows they put on Internet. If you install slipstreamed XP SP2 or greater, the firewall would be on by default and I imagine time to owned would be much higher then 4 minutes. If you put XP no SP on internet, yea, owned in 4 minutes. Server 2003 SP2 R2 locks down all incoming connections till you say go ahead and open them up after install to let you have time to patch.
As for shipping with patches, they do. All the new Dells at work have been coming with XP SP3 on reinstall CD and there is directions on how to create your own slipstream install CDs. Try googling "XP Slipstream" . Ditto for Windows 2003 Server.
Lastly, they do continue to fix it. Windows Update still has patches for XP as needed. The rate of required patches has slowed down but that's a good thing. They haven't had OMG WE MUST PATCH NOW patch in a while.
Re:Funny thing is that Zone Alarm has had vulns (Score:4, Funny)
How hard would it be for Microsoft to add a patch CD to the box, or when patches are released to ship patch CDs..... to people that ask nicely for them?
It seems that it's not that hard, seeing that they already do.
Your homework for today is to find the link at Microsoft's site that lets you get a copy of the SP3 security update CD mailed to you, and post it below. Extra points if you can write a script that goes through your local phone book and orders a CD for each person.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the first bit of the first article:
The survivaltime is calculated as the average time between reports for an average target IP address. If you are assuming that most of these reports are generated by worms that attempt to propagate, an unpatched system would be infected by such a probe. ...
With the help of honeypots, we can measure the survival time. For example, we can use low-interaction honeypot such as nepenthes or amun that emulate common network-based vulnerabilities and deploy them at different locations. The average time it takes to download the first binary is an estimation of the survival time: The honeypots emulate known vulnerabilities and are thus exploited by different kinds of autonomous spreading malware - similar to an unpatched system.
Honestly, this is FUD. They weren't putting a live Windows system on the net, they were putting a honeypot and counting any attack traffic. Default Windows defensive measures (such as the firewall) wouldn't count in this experiment, nor would new OS releases. An unpatched SP2 is a lot more secure, even with the firewall off, than an unpatched SP0.
How hard would it be for Microsoft to add a patch CD to the box, or when patches are released to ship patch CDs to retail outlets like Best Buy and Circut City for their existing stock? AOL used to send me coasters every damned week, why can't Microsoft?
You can request CDs with patches, but I don't know if that includes the whole OS. Microsoft does ship out SP2 to vendor
Exploring The Windows Firewall (Score:3, Informative)
.
This is what Microsoft's Steve Riley had to say about outbound protection:
There's an important axiom of security that you must understand: protection belongs on the asset you want to protect, not on the thing you're trying to protect against. The correct approach is to run the lean yet effective Windows firewall on every computer in your organization, to protect each one from every other computer in the world. If you try to block outbound connections f
Re:Funny thing is that Zone Alarm has had vulns (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't play WoW. I do, however, run Zonealarm. Now, a fresh Zonealarm install will tell you that loads of Windows services are asking to open ports on to the big bad internet. All of these are open by default on the Mickey Mouse Microsoft firewall, because "they're Microsoft services and none of them could possibly be a security risk".
No, they're not. A default Windows XP SP2 install doesn't even respond to pings.
Re:How is this measured (Score:5, Informative)
And from the article "This older guide was written based on Windows XP pre SP2. One of its main feature
was step by step instructions on how to enable the Windows XP firewall."
XP SP2 was released in August of 2004. Why are we talking about 4 year old software? Heck, Firefox 1.0 hadn't even been released yet. And Ubuntu's first release was in October 2004.
Why is an OS older than Ubuntu or Firefox being tested? And I mean 4 years older then Ubuntu - even with SP2 it would still be older then Ubuntu or Firefox.
Re:How is this measured (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is an OS older than Ubuntu or Firefox being tested? And I mean 4 years older then Ubuntu - even with SP2 it would still be older then Ubuntu or Firefox.
It could be that there is a lot of pre-SP2 install-disks out there. In the likely event of needing a reinstall you are faced with having to put a pre-SP2 XP on the net to retrieve SP2.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The best thing to do would be to download and burn an offline [microsoft.com] SP3 [microsoft.com] updater on a good PC, and install that before connecting to the net.
Sadly this is not very well known especially amongst those who need it the most, and MS doesn't go out their way to make it very clear either. So geeks, do your duty and inform those who you suspect could use it.
"What is Service Pack 3?" (Score:3, Informative)
.
I don't think it gets much easier than this:
What Is Service Pack 3? [microsoft.com]
Read the XP SP3 white paper.
Steps to take before you install SP3
Download SP3 from Windows Update
Order SP3 on CD-ROM
Download and deploy SP3 to multiple computers [Network Installation for the IT Professional]
Free [basic] unlimited installation and compatibility support
---your choice of e-mai
Re:How is this measured (Score:5, Funny)
Everybody who would be reading this article?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
if everyone was computer savvy like most of us here then there would be hardly any need for The Geek Squad, and others.
Are you sure there is a need for geek squad? People can steal porn [slashdot.org] off of computers without professional help....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That, and it was on pretty much every magazine cover DVD for months.
And how many people really don't have access to at least an SP2 DVD anyway? If the average lifetime of a PC is, say, somewhere in the 3–5 year range, then almost all PCs in use today would have come with such a disk.
This entire article is (-1, Troll). It's like asking the average time to crack an Ubuntu box if you install it with a direct, unfirewalled connection to the Internet, disable all the security settings, and post the root pa
Re:How is this measured (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
XP SP2 was released in August of 2004. Why are we talking about 4 year old software?
For people like me, TFA was highly relevant.
I'm now using Linux (Ubuntu) for more than 95% of my work. But I still have WinXP on dual boot since I've got a couple of image processing workflows in PaintShop Pro that I haven't developed Linux equivalents for as yet, and since my 8 color Canon i9900 only achieves its full potential (13"x17" photorealistic posters) when I use the proprietary Windows driver.
I have not had to do a re-install of WinXP for more than 5 years. Back then, I re-installed from the o
Re:wholesale jewelry (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot the spammers!
Re:How is this measured (Score:5, Interesting)
That was the last time I installed with the CAT/5 still plugged in (and yes, it was my first job)....
Re:How is this measured (Score:5, Informative)
Once the installation finished (now with the cable unplugged), sure enough, the box was infected with Code Red. No doubt because IIS installs by default (set to on) and my leaving the cable in allowed it to get infected.
I was then embarrassingly the reason for a new policy stating all installations must be done with the network cable unplugged.
Re:... and if you leave your car key in the igniti (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually forgot my car keys in my car overnight once and nothing happened. Well, this isn't LA downtown. I live in one of the cities with the least crime overall.
The problem is, with the internet space means nothing. You essentially automatically live in all the worst cities at once, they're all right in front of your doorstep.
That's what most people forget when they deal with the internet, especially if they live in a sheltered community where it's safe to walk the streets at night. They're not used to pondering being mugged any second. But that's exactly what happens on the internet, you live in the worst kind of neighborhood, anyone out there who wants to do something bad to you is camping right in front of your door.
Don't feel special, though. They camp in front of every else's door at the same time.
Re:How is this measured (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh please. This is why I love Slashdot. I'm as big of a MS hater as the next guy, but those who ignore MS's progress from the Blaster days are just spewing FUD. A default Windows SP2 installation, with non-executable buffers (DEP) left enabled for Core windows services, running on supporting hardware will not get owned by just sitting on an infected network. I challenge any Slashdoter who thinks otherwise to prove it. Of course, when people start browsing porn sites with the default browser things get tricky, but that's no longer a remote, automated attack.
TFA counts *ALL* forms of attack. Even scans for obscure webserver or game vulnerabilities, Blaster type scans and ssh brute force attempts. I fail to see how these "attacks" can have any impact on a computer running a fresh install of a recent version of Windows like XP SP2, SP3 or Vista.
You can argue about security track-record all you like, and talk about why Windows is not secure by design, and how it should not be used for life support systems and ATMs [networkworld.com], and I would agree. But this is getting ridiculous.
Re:How is this measured (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly.
Everybody's long since upgraded to the Storm worm.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How is this statistic measured?
How long is a piece of string?
Pretty short in this case...
Just connected (Score:2)
Re:How is this measured (Score:4, Informative)
I did exactly the same kind of "research" (for a documentation about online threats for our local TV network), here is what I did.
I installed XP SP1 (bear with me, it was the pre-Vista days), the way you got it delivered on a CD. I did nothing else (XP SP1 came without the firewall preinstalled). I turned on a network monitor to document and show what happens. Then I patched in an Ethernet cable to the local network which had unfiltered access to the internet (pretty much what the average cable user, or the average DSL user has after dialup).
Time to infection through the RPC hole was less than 2 minutes.
I did essentially NOTHING to faciliate it (besides, well, not having the machine patched at least to SP2), I just let the machine sit there, connected to the internet.
In a nutshell, if you're using XP and have one of those SP1 install discs, download SP3 before you kick the system in the gutter, put the service pack on a USB stick or external drive and install it before you connect that machine anywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then I patched in an Ethernet cable to the local network which had unfiltered access to the internet (pretty much what the average cable user, or the average DSL user has after dialup).
The average DSL user, at least, is sitting behind a device which at the very least does NAT and probably has a firewall enabled as well.
It's been some time since I had a cable connection and modem, but I'd be surprised if they weren't the same, these days.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I made a monumental screwup and broke the firewall (iptables on a Linux machine) in such a way that there was no filtering to one of our /24 IP addresses. The IP address belonged to a Windows server running an unpatched version of MSSQL, and Blaster was at it's peak. It took no less than 10 seconds from the time I activated the updated (broken) firewall rules to me scratching my head wondering why the router appeared completely dead.
Blaster had infected the machine within about 10 seconds and the traffic ha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Yonah, if you read the blog posting things should be more clear: "For example, we can use low-interaction honeypot such as nepenthes or amun that emulate common network-based vulnerabilities and deploy them at different locations."
Thus we did not use native machines, but low-interaction honeypots that emulate different kinds of exploits. You can find more information about these tools at http://nepe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it a problem if you need 4 minutes to install all windows patches and updates?
It's not a problem at all if you just turn on the firewall that comes with every version of XP, or in pretty much every consumer-level cable/ADSL modem/router.
It would be interesting to see how long default, unpatched installs of OSes like RH7 and Solaris 8 last as well.
These sorts of articles are just flamebait. Pretty much any version of Windows XP acquired since 2004 has SP2 integrated, and this the firewall enabled by
Honeynet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that the time-to-pwn has not fallen over the past four years...
Pray tell what has happened to the base Windows installation over the past for years? Those security fixes you mention aren't counted in this time, so you can't claim that they aren't contributing to overall security. From the article (sort of ) it sounds like this is still the time for XP and not Vista (though since neither the summary nor either linked article actually says or anything, so I'm not sure). So why, exactly, should we hav
Re:Honeynet (Score:4, Insightful)
How can you say this shows no improvement over the last 4 years when the test subject was an UNPATCHED version of Windows?
The article wasn't even particularly clear if it was good ol' Vanilla XP or XP SP2 or whatever.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Honeynet (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Saying an unpatched OS is vulnerable to attack is like saying an unlocked Car is liable to be stolen.
I'm not even sure what it is they're trying to prove - that Microsoft can't bend time and space and retroactively patch ALL XP disks every time they release an update?
This actually got me thinking, even Linux has it's vulnerabilities from time to time, but I could argue it's MORE vulnerable because of all those Ubuntu Live CD's people have lying around. I've known a few people that have resorted to one of these Live CD's in times of dire need (i.e. when windows has decided to break) and one guy even used one for a few months because his HDD died on him - but how do you patch THOSE?
Luckily, Linux is pretty good at not getting owned so it's a bit of a non-issue at the moment, but I dare say it's only a matter of time before someone starts targeting them as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying an unpatched OS is vulnerable to attack is like saying an unlocked Car is liable to be stolen.
No, it's more like saying that a car is likely to be stolen before the locksmith has a chance to install locks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you bother? A live CD can only be infected upon creation. After that, any infecti
Re:Honeynet (Score:4, Insightful)
One question though - why exactly would I face out a machine with an unpatched OS (the "article" doesn't even mention the version), any OS?
Especially since a $20 Linksys router solves my problems, assuming I'm unable to splipstream service packs or errata or whatever?
If this is Windows XP, why isn't there an article on the time-to-own for an unpatched RedHat 8 install? Do I not have to go online to download the errata for that one as well? Or even the new version?
Even with the larger number of exploits for Windows vs Linux, that doesn't mean there are no exploits for Linux. So I have 20 minutes to download my patches, instead of 5? And that's some sort of median, right? Wow, that sure sounds a lot safer. I hope I make it.
This "metric" is like measuring how deep a machete can cut into your leg, or how much chlorine bleach you can chug before doubling over. Useful? Sure. Should you try it? Nope. With *any* operating system. Not even with any of the *BSDs, which I tend to trust a hell of a lot more than most Linux distros nowadays.
Looks like a slow news night for Slashdot, as usual.
Re:Honeynet (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you still buy Redhat 8?
Re:Honeynet (Score:5, Funny)
If this is Windows XP, why isn't there an article on the time-to-own for an unpatched RedHat 8 install?
Can you still buy Redhat 8?
Can you still buy Windows XP?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't make sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Man this doesn't make sense. So what, are they saying that as soon as you plug in your modem to the PC thousands of different sources are already trying to infect you? Even if you don't browse? Because the point is you can download Windows Updates and you can install and update your AV with only two connections. Not sure how you're going to get infected that way.
Of course it could just be "Windows users can't resist dodgy porn sites for more than 4 minutes". Which makes more sense. I mean, when you've just
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:5, Informative)
No, this type of infection is sent to random computers all over the Internet.
If one computer on the same IP range as you if infected, it will try to infect all computers on the same IP range and continue to try until someone either turns off the PC or formats the harddrive.
Try installing a firewall, connecting a computer directly to the Internet (don't -do- anything, just connect it) and then Wireshark to look at your Network Interface.
You'll be surprised at the stuff you get without asking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These days, you turn on the firewall on XP SP2 or 2003 and don't have the problem. (As the OP said, just don't browse the web while you're doing a server install.)
cheers,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As the OP said, just don't browse the web while you're doing a server install.
Yeah, let's see YOU install Gentoo without browsing the web.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if my netblock is relatively quiet or active, but got 14 test of 9 different ips to 9 different ports in a random chosen 10 minutes interval. If any vulnerability was there, i had no need to browse or do anything more than just get connected to get infected/exploited/botnetted.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wasn't measuring recently.
In worst times, I had seen one exploit attempt per 10 seconds on average. Since I have seen this all from pov of Linux router/firewall for sub-C net with 30 IPs, the logs were pretty messy and I had to do special script to clean syslog.
Right now my friend was setting up for himself firewall too and was seeing about 1 exploit attempt per 1-2 minutes.
That's Windows side.
On Linux side this isn't much prettier. In past some botnets from South Korea were dumbly scanning who
Re: (Score:2)
What doesn't make sense to me is the editorial standards on /.
The title should be "Estimating the 71m32pwn of an Unpatched Windows PC.
Really, the standard is slipping.
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to jump in, because I don't think anyone explained this.
Windows runs lots of services (server programs) by default, some of which have vulnerabilities. Some of which can't be turned off, because of the way MS programmed them. If you wonder why they are there, this is how things like filesharing works: it has a server program which will reply when someone else on the lan broadcasts asking for other shares. If someone creates specially formed packets, they can break into those vulnerable services, and you are rooted.
There could also be vulnerablilities in the kernel (main system), but they are rare. You could also be infected if you opened up a shared folder, and someone / a program uploads a hostile program to it, and you run that program.
This is in addition to getting infected by visiting a hostile site with an insecure browser.
I may not have explained this very well, but hopefully you get the idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's cooking here is worms. Those pesky little things that don't wait for you to click on an infected program but use security holes in your RPC to infect you. XP pre-SP2 was notorious for such a security hole, and my firewall logs tell me that such machines are still widely in use on the internet.
As I stated above, it took less than 2 minutes with SP1 in 2004. I should repeat that test, I wonder if it changed in the past 4 years.
Bottom line of it all, a router for 20 bucks can already solve that problem
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes! Iinstall a firewall and just watch the log file. Your machine is probably scanned around once every 20 seconds by some botnet or other.
Offline updates (Score:5, Informative)
Back in '04 the time to live was (claimed to be) around 20 minutes. I wonder what the time is for an unpatched Vista (the figures in the article are for XP). Heh - I bet '98SE survives forever (nobody would want to exploit that).
Andy
Re: (Score:2)
You could buy one of those Walmart Ubuntu CDs and download the patches from the LiveCD.
In the words of a Corellian... (Score:2)
"I like those odds."
Time-to-0wn with dumb NAT firewall (Score:2)
The article recommends using a NAT firewall and a correctly configured personal firewall, and of course that's a good start (NAT is evil, but is generally a good starting place for devices that aren't running servers, and until you've got your system running the current patches, you don't want to be running servers at all, and even after that many client-like things work adequately behind NAT.)
But does anybody have any estimates of how long an unpatched machine will last behind a dumb NAT firewall? Are yo
Re:Time-to-0wn with dumb NAT firewall (Score:5, Informative)
You should be perfectly safe, as a dumb NAT firewall won't be sending your PC any traffic that it didn't originate. The only possible vectors would be: a) if its connection tracking code gets confused and lets in traffic which it thinks is associated with another connection but really isn't, b) bugs in the NAT firewall device (pretty much the same thing), or c) an attacker gets very lucky with spoofing connections that happen to be in the NAT table (tremendously unlikely).
All up, the chances of anything getting through are pretty much negligible.
The caveat is that stuff on your PC may be making connections without your knowing; and in particular, some programs may use UPnP to open a listening port for incoming traffic. This shouldn't be an issue with an out-of-the-box install.
This is of course assuming the common NAT device setup, where you have your modem/router which gets a public IP address and then NATs all outbound traffic. Inbound traffic will hit the router and not go any further unless the user has explicitly set up forwarding rules on it.
Pretty much everyone with broadband in Australia will be behind such a device, as this is the kind of device most every ISP recommends or sells. Not sure what the norm is elsewhere in the world.
Typical /. Hypocrisy! (Score:5, Funny)
I keep hearing on /. about how slow Windows is. Now it turns out that Windows is very fast.
Re:Typical /. Hypocrisy! (Score:5, Funny)
Kinda like a high priced callgirl...and just as expensive to purchase.
But you only get to use windows for a couple of hours before you get a virus ... oh, wait ...
College Network (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the Time to Infection on a college network is like... 45 seconds.
That's why you slipstream (Score:4, Informative)
You can bundle all the patches & service-packs you want into a slipstream image and install everything at the same time.
Otherwise, there's WSUS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_Update_Services).
(Not that I disagree XP was horribly insecure when it came out)
Improved odds in XP/2003 SP2 and Vista/2008 (Score:5, Interesting)
When a SP2 system is first brought up, after running through Mini-Setup or the OOBE, it will open a "Post-Setup Security Update" wizard. Until the user clicks the "Finish" button on the wizard, the firewall blocks all incoming traffic. The wizard also has links to Microsoft Update, etc. This gives the user a chance to download all the patches before opening up the firewall.
In Vista/2008, the firewall is on by default and fairly locked down, only allowing certain traffic through. In Server 2008, the firewall rules are also grouped into categories to make it easier to configure so the user doesn't get frustrated and just turn it off completely (and if a user tries this by just stopping the firewall service, they lose their 'net connection completely... one must instead set a firewall policy to allow all traffic, which then shows the firewall status as "off").
Re: (Score:2)
Based on a.. diary post? (Score:4, Insightful)
The source for this post seems to be lacking on quite a few fronts when explaining how they arrived at this data.
- (As pointed out already by numerous posters) Which version of Windows are they using?
- What activity are they using the computer for?
- Who are the "all" in "placing an unpatched Windows computer directly onto the Internet in the hope that it downloads the patches faster than it gets exploited are odds that you wouldn't bet on in Vegas" ?
- How unpatched is unpatched? Is this a version of the OS that one needs to deliberately search for or if I go and buy a boxed version of the OS there is a pretty good chance it will be just as "unpatched" ?
The "piece" raises more questions than the answers it provides.
And these techs tell you... (Score:4, Insightful)
These tech people from Comcast or SBC tell you to plug your machine directly. Maybe they work for the people who run botnets?
A spit on them. They seem to be as incompetent as the 'Geek Squad'
Obvious misspelling in title (Score:2)
7 months and counting (Score:4, Informative)
While the laptop itself has very little internet presence (just downloading patches, drivers and s/w updates) I've occasionally remote-mounted it's disk to another box that runs Norton. I've never detected any spam, viruses, trojans or other nasties.
My conclusion is that with some basic precautions and common-sense (plus no email and only visiting "well known" websites) it's quite feasible to run a windows box for dedicated applications 24*7 without the overheads of virus protection.
another nonsense MS bashing piece (Score:2, Interesting)
unpatch systems with no protection are easy to infect - this is not news.
Re:another nonsense MS bashing piece (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering that the average Linux distro from 5 (or rather, if you want to make a real comparison since they're obviously using XP SP1 to "prove" their point, 7 years) already came with an iptables/ipchains firewally built in and rather few, if any, remotely accessable services running if you don't want them to run (they ask you if you want to have SSH running and yes, should you enable a 7 year old version of SSH then you're vulnerable), I'd think XP would still lose.
The problem is that even if you KNOW that the RPC is a deadly remote exploit vector in XP, you CANNOT turn it off during install. With Linux, at least I have the option to avoid enabling SSH or other services that I know are no longer safe.
But in practice... (Score:2)
Who ever sets up a windows PC with a direct internet connection? Being behind a NAT will cover the drive-by attack issue perfectly adequatly, and whilst it was it was common a few years ago for consumer broadband companies to supply USB broadband 'modems' which did connect directly, in practice now this is rare as most now use a pre-configured (generally wireless) router.
What about Vista? (Score:2)
Whether we like it or not MS is slowly but surely on their way to strong-arming everyone into running Vista. I don't care about XP anymore. What is the TTO (time to ownage) for Vista?
I'll believe Windows is getting more secure when I start getting less spam in my inbox.
ha! (Score:4, Interesting)
Any OS will get owned post-install (Score:3, Informative)
You can't lay all this at Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
If the internet is so f--- up that plugging a new computer onto it brings it under immediate attack, then, well, the good guys have -lost-.
It's really time to start unplugging bad guys from the internet period, applying stricter filtering at the ISP level, and more rigidly filtering countries who don't police their networks.
Five minutes to be attacked? The internet is LOST.
Ever tried that with Red Hat 7.3 (Score:4, Interesting)
There are still hosting companies that offer virtual machines and even complete servers with Red Hat 7.3
So I would be interested in the time it takes for that one to be infected.
Do they even give patches for that any more?
I am not trying to say Linux or Windows is safer. I am just trying to say it might not be wise to put an unpatched machine on the net without a firewall to download patches. Regardless of the os.
Make Them Default Closed Except to Microsoft.com (Score:3, Interesting)
If Microsoft set every fresh Windows install to connect to only Microsoft.com on the Internet until either Microsoft.com, or the console, or some other specific named/numbered host said that Windows is "safely* patched", then this race condition would not be a problem. They could allow the "patch lock" on network access to be released by the installing operator at the console, or that operator could set a pointer to some other machines allowed access, or Microsoft.com's patch servers could send a list of servers. All other network access would be locked out until someone authorized said the machine was ready to connect to the general network/Internet access.
Such a revision should take a couple of Microsoft programmers a week or so to implement and test. Of course, if Windows were OSS, then anyone in the Microsoft developer community could patch Windows to work right. And anyone could inspect that patch to ensure that it worked right, before trusting it not to be just another security hole.
But of course, Microsoft is so far from anything approaching real openness or modern security practices that its fundamental insecurity in an Internet environment is one of its basic features. Its most prized feature on the hundreds of millions of machines compromised worldwide, many the first time they're connected to the Internet, among the bad guys out there who love Microsoft's closed and counterproductive "security" practices even more than Microsoft loves them.
(* OK, Windows is never "safely patched", but it's a start.)
Re:Um, what version? (Score:4, Funny)
Would be interesting to compare with Vista.
They tried. They ran into some obscure bug with Vista that prevents it from accessing the internet while the machine is powered on.
Re:Um, what version? (Score:4, Informative)
XP SP2 comes with a firewall on by default. Vista comes with a firewall on by default.
This is only seems interesting if you're installing from your vintage 2001 XP disk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which is exactly my point. We know those machines get pwned quickly, so why is this news? The /. summary presents it as if it's a current measurement of a current OS and not one that was superseded almost four years ago? (Assuming they are using a pre-SP2 install. Which, since the site doesn't give any actual information, I don't know.)
Re:Um, what version? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is exactly my point. We know those machines get pwned quickly, so why is this news?
Because it's about Windows and in the current trend, you don't have to bother on /. with little annoyances like facts and the truth if it's to do with Microsoft - any old shite will do if it is trying to make Microsoft look bad.
Yet you'll notice that the /. crowd isn't bleating on about the 33 year old Unix bug that's only just been fixed this week.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes they did [slashdot.org].
And you're seriously trying to compare a bug in a largely obsolete parser generator that only runs on one version of BSD, with an entire OS that's so poorly written that it can't even last 5 minutes without being pwned?
You evangelists are getting desperate. No wonder Microsoft is having to spend +$300 million [zdnet.com] to try to persuade MVPs not to abandon ship...
The time of worry is over.
Lol...
Re:Baloney (Score:5, Funny)
Fools, don't you know that all you have to do is make sure you scan any flopp
Buy Viagra Cheap at http://myipaddres/viaga [myipaddres]
Re:Baloney (Score:5, Funny)
Haha, no problem for me with my Linux dis
Buy Viagra Cheap at http://myipaddres/viaga [myipaddres]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well, once again, me and my Mac have been proven to be superi
Buy Viagra Cheap at http://myipaddres/viaga [myipaddres]
Re:I have to call BS (Score:5, Funny)
I never patch my windows unless its a service pack and I run just fine... Always have my Antivirus running and Windows defender with a router with built-in firewall... No complaints for the 7 years since I built my pc....
Indeed, your computer is a valued member of our botnet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Point release for OS X is more like "Patch Tuesday" for Windows than a Service Pack. The GP is basically saying he goes years between patches, which I hope no Mac user would consider.
Re: (Score:2)
Always have my Antivirus running and Windows defender with a router with built-in firewall...
Good for you, that's not what the article is about, though. The point is, a system NOT protected by a firewall or antivirus will get owned in about 4 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you, that's not what the article is about, though. The point is, a system NOT protected by a firewall or antivirus will get owned in about 4 minutes.
Which is kinda moot since you can't buy Windows without firewall on by default.
Re:I have to call BS (Score:4, Insightful)
I never patch my windows unless its a service pack and I run just fine... Always have my Antivirus running and Windows defender with a router with built-in firewall... No complaints for the 7 years since I built my pc....
Would you even know if your PC was a Botnet client?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How about a VM on NAT in a firewalled host mach (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true at all. It's a common misconception that NAT protects anything at all. Why so?
NAT uses translation routing based upon multiple inside computers to one outside address. The key here is the NAT device does NOT reconstruct packets if they are heavily fragmented. Even upper end Ciscos and Junipers are vulnerable to fragment based attacks.
The key is you construct a IP-IP tunnel to target victim, try to guess the internal IP addressing scheme, and then use a program called Fragrouter to properly "make mal-fragmented packets". Once you do this, it will hop over damn near every router.
I think there's a setting in IPF that forces reconstruction before passing packets. That's the only defense, along with a proactive filtering in both directions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There really isnt any "manual" you can learn about this kind of stuff. However, we all have the toolkit to test and investigate with it at our homes.
1. Search fragrouter in google first. All hits on front page are on topic. Get it and compile cleanly. I prefer Debian, but works for all Linux.
2. Go buy a router from any ol box store. I prefer the WRT54G ones that can be modded to run either DD-WRT or OpenWRT.
3. Get some test machines up and running, including a separate machine running DHCP on the "Internet"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what you think...until the day you reboot and say "Why is my machine loading an mIRC client at startup?"
I've got a Windows 2003 SBS machine on the bench right now, only even that question wasn't sufficient for the inhouse IT staff to realize they had a problem!
Personally installed blinders can be a powerful thing.