Honeymonkeys Discover Undisclosed Vulnerability 140
spafbnerf writes "Securityfocus is running an article on Microsoft's honeymonkey project, previously covered on Slashdot. In early July 2005, this project discovered its first exploit for a vulnerability that had not been publicly disclosed, the JView profiler vulnerability which Microsoft announced later that month. "
Big respect to the guys behind this. (Score:5, Funny)
BUT....Damn "Honeymonkey" is such a cool codename. I'm going to name my firstborn after it!
Re:Big respect to the guys behind this. (Score:5, Funny)
At last, my search for a new nickname for my penis is over.
-Eric
Honeymonkey (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, MS has set up a bunch of machines that actively surf the web trolling for vulnerabilities. I guess it's the "If we can't code securely, at least we can find the holes to plug." theory. Considering IE, it's not a bad idea.
It would be nice if they shared the exploits with everyone, at least once a patch exists, though.
OK, good job Microsoft: Now if you could implement a "least privileges" model by defau
Re:Honeymonkey (Score:2)
I'd have called them canaries.
Re:Honeymonkey (Score:3, Funny)
If the bird dies, you get nothing.
If the sheep dies, you get a new pair of Napoleon Dynamite sheepskin boots!
I bet the guys back then were hunkered down, saying, "come on...just a little further...sniff it out buddy...that's right", meanwhile they were placing bets on how far the sheep would go. It sounds like a fun win-win situation!
Re:Honeymonkey (Score:1)
Re:Honeymonkey (Score:2)
Windows Vista. It's called "User Account Protection".
Honeymonkeys and typewriters... (Score:5, Funny)
Explains a lot...
Re:Honeymonkeys and typewriters... (Score:1)
Actually they didn't make their riches by buying an infinite ammount of monkey. They just hired some to be CEO's. And if my calculations are correct, they only have a couple of thousand, at most, coding. Which I believe explains more.
Re:Honeymonkeys and typewriters... (Score:1)
Re:Honeymonkeys and typewriters... (Score:1)
The key word is unpatched. (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think I have a stronger word than DUH!
Re:The key word is unpatched. (Score:1)
More info in MS's full report (Score:3, Funny)
The approach we took was to collect an initial list of 5000+ potentially malicious URLs by doing a Web search for Windows "hosts" files [HF] that are used to block advertisements and bad sites, and lists of known-bad Web sites that host some of the most malicious spyware programs
Kinda like testing condoms with hookers.. only your condom is made by MS...
Re:Another one? (Score:3, Interesting)
As part of the software development lifecycle, there is a part normally called something like Testing/Debugging. I'm suggesting that maybe they should spend some more time in that stage, rather than using the major
Re:Another one? (Score:3, Insightful)
So let's say that Microsoft tests Windows Vista in this way.
What information do they learn? Remember - the bad guys don't have access to Windows Vista, so they can't know about exploits in the new code in Windows Vista.
It's a chicken and egg problem - the bad guys can't know about 0day Windows Vista exploits because they don't have access to Windows Vista to exploit it.
If they find exploits in Windows Vista, it's because they're also in XP. If they're in XP, they can simply test with XP.
A honeymonk
Re:Another one? (Score:1)
Re:Another one? (Score:2)
Maybe too late now, but all you had to do was rename win.com to something else and the full version would install. The upgrade version will install if win.com exists and the full version refuses to install if win.com exists. And if I remember ri
This is a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
It was public. They learned it from a hacker (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:1, Interesting)
But as the HM project detected this vulnerability because it was being actively exploited by the bad-guys, *and* this vuln. was previously unknown, this is in fact a zero-day exploit.
These are bad things in anybodies OS.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2)
By not telling the blackhats that they've been found out, Microsoft gains the ability to spy on their activities. This means the next time one of them finds a zero day vulnerability, Microsoft will know about it within hours w
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2)
Actually they (MS) searched the net, found what other people were using as their hosts file and then visited those sites. So this is actually the opposite of what you are suggesting. MS is using other people's host files to find out what they considered
Re:This is a good thing (Score:1)
That would avoid having vulnerabilities in the wild, such as the one refered to in the article, before the authors of the OS are aware of it.
I want the Good Guys to find them first.
KFG
Re:This is a good thing (Score:1)
It just occurred to me. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not build a virtual machine into the browser itself?
Sort of a special purpose virtual machine that has
just enough of an OS to run the browser.
If Microsoft refuses to remove IE from Windows, at least IE could be isolated from the rest of the operating system.
Re:It just occurred to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like Java ?
MS has already killed that idea because it commoditized the desktop and broke their API lock-in.
Re:It just occurred to me. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, he doesn't know it, but he's talking about OS-level Mandatory Access Controls. More like Trusted Solaris.
Windows Vista will supposedly have this.
Re:It just occurred to me. (Score:2)
Re:It just occurred to me. (Score:2)
Re:It just occurred to me. (Score:1)
This is the sort of engineering "paradigm" that results in so much of our software being so fucked up.
KFG
Re:It just occurred to me. (Score:1)
Sort of a special purpose virtual machine that has
just enough of an OS to run the browser.
Because that's exactly the problem. IE is only that vulnerable beacuse it is integrated with every single feature of the operating system. So, to build a VM to support the browser would be to build the whole OS into it.
Re:It just occurred to me. (Score:2)
Good news is, they have application layer firewalls... dunno about chroot on a windows core service.
Re:It just occurred to me. (Score:2)
Re:It just occurred to me. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I will not make this gripe again. (Score:2)
Re:I will not make this gripe again. (Score:1)
Re:I will not make this gripe again. (Score:1)
I was bitching about it on the phone to a friend of mine, and he made a very good point, along the lines of "Slashdot is lame, anyway".
Is it me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously Microsoft copied the idea from the aptly named Honeypot [wikipedia.org].
Honeypot makes sense.
Why ever would anybody in their right mind come up with something as lame as 'Honeymonkey'?
Is it because Microsoft is 'getting old'? It's like the old guy saying "In my day, we used to say 'Whizzo!' when something was really neat", and the teenager laughs, and comments that it doesn't sound half as good as 'cool'.
Re:Is it me... (Score:4, Insightful)
A honeymonkey goes swinging around the net looking for someone to attack it.
Now if MS would compile a database of offending sites and allow me to use it as a blacklist for my browser, that'd be even better. Unfortunately they'd probably only make it available for IE.
Re:Is it me... (Score:3, Funny)
I can't imagine that there is any real attraction, seeing a monkey swinging through the trees, whereby people would line up to attack it. And how does it mix with honey?
I suppose that if you dunk the monkey in honey then some people may want to grab it and suck it - only if they're ravenous, I would have thought.
Re:Is it me... (Score:2)
No. I know about Microsoft's reasons why the name 'honeymonkey' came into existance - the project has been going for a while now. The name honeymonkey doesn't make sense. It sounds absurd. I've never heard of a honeymonkey.
I find the image of a monkey made of honey, and people going after it, quite worrying.
If Microsoft had made sense, the project would be named "Monkey Swinging Around Holding A Honeypot", or MSAHAH. Perhaps it could have been be the 'Roaming Honeypo
Re:Is it me... (Score:2)
Now you know what a monkey is:
Monkey [softtest.org]
And now you should understand the name.
Re:Is it me... (Score:2)
Re:Is it me... (Score:2)
A honeypot sits there waiting for something/someone to attack it.
A spider or bot runs around the 'net gathering stuff: Pages for search engine databases, email addresses to spam, whatever.
So honeyspider or honeybot would have made a lot more sense than honeymonkey. WTF does a monkey have to do with the Internet? Other than "Punch the f@#$^%ing monkey to get absolutely jack shit."
Re:Is it me... (Score:2)
Maybe it does make sense [macboy.com] in a Microsoft sorta way..
Re:Is it me... (Score:2)
Re:Is it me... (Score:2)
Re:Is it me... (Score:1)
Which makes sense, as the large majority of the exploits only work on IE anyway.
Re:Is it me... (Score:2)
Actually, what they would do is make it an active X control that silently overwrites your host file.
I keed, I keed
Oh for pete's sake (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh for pete's sake (Score:1)
Coincidence? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Coincidence? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Coincidence? (Score:2, Informative)
And it has a valid license. Automatic updates
worked until that 'genuine advantage' thing, when
I had to run it manually (to install the new update wizard). Only after that the genuine advantage installed and only after that
security updates have been installed.
HoneyMonkey vs HoneyPot (Score:1)
This is just CmdrTaco's way of giving some credit to MS for actually showing some initiative...
I get it... (Score:1)
Disclosure (Score:2)
Mmmmm Honeymonkeys... (Score:1)
honeymonkeys... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:honeymonkeys... (Score:2)
And they don't have monitors. So, if you're sitting in front of them doing "nothing", then you're just watching the lights on the panel blinkulate and flashify.
Re:honeymonkeys... (Score:2)
All I see now is blonde, brunette, redhead....
Re:honeymonkeys... (Score:1)
I need to go back to sleep, I completely misread that as "flatulate".
More Misdirection from the Masters (Score:5, Informative)
I can't believe that people are lapping this up.
The so-called vulnerability that Microsoft claim to have found a 0-day for in the second week of July was actually discovered by SEC-Consult, and first published [sec-consult.com] on June 29, having discovered it, and notified Microsoft on June 17. There was effectively nil response from Microsoft (they claimed to have not been able to reproduce the issue...).
While many people believe that the sample object used, the javaprxy.dll, was the flaw itself, the first paragraph of the advisory (the background) indicates that it is a COM level issue, and they identified at least 20 vulnerable objects on a standard XP installation.
It was this issue that Microsoft ignored until the recent Black Tuesday updates, and then claimed ownership of via the honey monkey project.
Sorry, guys, you can't claim something that has already been published openly, and ignored when notified.
Re:More Misdirection from the Masters (Score:4, Interesting)
If you read the SecurityFocus article you'll notice that MS is claiming they found the first 0-day exploit for this vulnerability *in the wild*. You are absolutely correct that a proof of vuln was published by SEC-Consult. However, no known exploit yet existed to take advantage of the vuln. And the SEC-Consulting page does note that MS was finally able to reproduce the problem.
You and I both know that it's a matter of semantics and the MS PR machine is in full effect here in the way this announcement was worded. However, that doesn't negate the interesting aspects of the honeymonkey approach. By actively trolling the net for "in the wild" exploits and vulnerabilities they're increasing the chances of finding and (hopefully) addressing security issues in a proactive manner.
Despite the fact that MS is indirectly responsible for my paycheck from my day job, I've never viewed them as a particularly security-focused company and I'll be the first to admit their track record blows goats. But the honeymonkey project is a step in the right direction and could be a useful approach for other OS's and security-minded orgs [1]. It's a neat concept and I'm frankly surprised it's MS doing it.
[1] I'm currently the moderator for SecurityFocus' penetration testing mail list. I don't get to see as much discussion of these types of things as say, the vuln-dev list, but it would be great discussion material to see if a similar approach could be utilized for pen-testing.
Sorting Wheat from Chaff (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not deny that the Honeymonkey project is useful, and will be in the future (although the figures listed for number of sites with malware seems low).
Because there was a lot of contrary reporting and postings which appeared around the start of July, it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff in order to obtain accurate information, but I do remember reading that proof of concept code definitely existed, and was published, at the start of July, with one example being reported on the ISC Diary [sans.org]. I a
Obligatory.... (Score:3, Funny)
Security Risk (Score:3, Insightful)
bwahahaha (Score:2, Funny)
What Makes Reading /. Hard Some Times ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If an indepedent, third party security company were performing these web site audits, the company wouldn't be admonished, but readers would still attack the "unfinished product" which was Windows XP unpatched. However, how can you fault a company that is trying to correct tens of years of security ignorance with new pro-active efforts?
MSFT is basically performing external penetration testing of their software while security teams are writing vulnerability scanners and focusing on individual aspects of an application's design. In fact, one could argue that this is one of the more effective ways of performing security testing since exploits in the wild can exist in the wild for months before any security company diagnoses the vulnerability and this method will identify areas of the Internet that seem to disseminate these exploits between web sites.
If you want to comment on the lack of security focus in the past, definitely. Are they playing a major game of catch up? Definitely. Should IE be so tightly meshed with the OS? Of course not. But can some of you just grow up and get past the MSFT bias and stop doing childish crap like making fun of the "honeymonkey" term or accusing workers of just sitting in the room not doing anything?
Re:What Makes Reading /. Hard Some Times ... (Score:1)
If they were doing actual research/work on these issues there would be a larger list of sites...
zero day exploit?! (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you call it a zero-day exploit with a straight face when you found it in the wild??
They could just analyze attacks on own servers (Score:1)
Why do they need a whole own setup for this? Should think analyzing what must be constant attacks on their own servers would give plenty of clue of what's going on.
Perhaps more extensive research into own source-code and a rethink of the security model in Windows would have yielded better results, blocking these attacks at the doorstep. After all, a more secure Windows would put these attackers out of business faster and more efficient, and be far easier to manage than such a hunt on the net where the att
Re:They could just analyze attacks on own servers (Score:1)
Please, enlighten me, what's wrong with the Windows security model?
It's largely based on VMS, and uses Access Control Lists to secure many types of system resources, and it's got an excellent LDAP-based directory system for managing resources across machines and organizations (Active Directory), as well as the ability to delegate control over these resources on a fine grained level. It's got a great single-sign on domain model that allows users to access resource acro
Re:They could just analyze attacks on own servers (Score:1)
Yeah, you're right. It is not the security model as such that is at fault, but the enforcement of it. It is no good when every process and user on the system can do the equivalent of setting
It'd be better for us all if did get to see it
Re:They could just analyze attacks on own servers (Score:1)
Re:They could just analyze attacks on own servers (Score:1)
Should we start a HoneyTux project? (Score:1)
Install a the newest beta of your distro of choice on whatever old hardware you have laying around and join it to a distributed network. Someone put together a list of "questionable sites". Monitor the file systems with tripwire or AIDE or something similar. Post the logs and such to the distributed network for review.
New Cert (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft Certified HoneyMonkey
What happens when sites block Honeymonkey IP's (Score:2)
Wha? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I am trying to figure out what someone who has lived in a cave since the Eisenhower era would make of this headline, "Honeymonkeys Discover Undisclosed Vulnerability".
"Honey... monkey? Vulnerability? Undisclosed? uuuuh?" *HEAD EXPLODES*
(Full text of In the Beginning... is on Stephenson's site [cryptonomicon.com])
honeymonkeys get hacked by webservers (Score:1)
Vanishing dup -- revisionist history (Score:2)
I made a post there [slashdot.org] but it seems to be lost at this point.
so... (Score:1)
Re:First or second post, Linux sucks, I rule (Score:1)
On the other hand, most remote exploits for Linux depend on SSH. Want a secure desktop Linux? Turn off SSH. And remove sudo.
Besides, those flaws are in specific applications, not the OS itself, in many cases.
Also, most flaws found in Linux are patched within days of discovery, announced upon verification, and less serious than the Windows counterparts. Given those facts, I'd say that less work goes into finding Windows exploits. Perhaps
Re:A step in the right direction (Score:1)
Microsoft has a not-so-reputable past, perhaps, but at least they are making clear efforts to bring about change.
Like you said, no company is perfect. This goes for OS's, too. Anyone who claims Linux is perfect, is a damn fool and knows it. Trouble is, due to MS's wide user base, and the fact that most places downplay anything negative about Linux, has lead to MS's problems being continually headlined. It's like a world full of idiots turning minor problems into 9/11-style ordeals.
And hones