Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Security Operating Systems Software Windows The Internet

500 Thousand MS Web Servers Hacked 332

andrewd18 writes "According to F-Secure, over 500,000 webservers across the world, including some from the United Nations and UK government, have been victims of a SQL injection. The attack uses an SQL injection to reroute clients to a malicious javascript at, or, which use another set of exploits to install a Trojan on the client's computer. As per usual, Firefox users with NoScript should be safe from the client exploit, but server admins should be alert for the server-side injection. Brian Krebs has a decent writeup on his Washington Post Security Blog, Dynamoo has a list of some of the high-profile sites that have been hacked, and for fun you can watch some of the IIS admins run around in circles at one of the many IIS forums on the 'net."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

500 Thousand MS Web Servers Hacked

Comments Filter:
  • ob... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 25, 2008 @11:49AM (#23198614)
    Does it run on linux.
    • Re:ob... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ArcherB ( 796902 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:02PM (#23198802) Journal

      Does it run on linux.
      That is actually a good question and the first thing I thought of. While I'm not worried about my little webserver being hacked as it runs on Linux without MySQL, I am worried about my browser.

      If I run Firefox on Linux without NoScript, is there a danger?

      • Re:ob... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RobBebop ( 947356 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:30PM (#23199212) Homepage Journal

        In other words, you can't rely on the site you are visiting to be safe.. so the onus is on the end user to make sure their PC is fully patched and as secure as possible.

        The above quote is from the article link which lists "important sites that have been compromised". I think the important thing is that any site running MSSQL could potentially be compromised in a way that would affect a reader of that site who (a) does not have an updated web browser, or (b) doesn't have script disabled.

        In 2008... why is it really so easy to put a damned single or double quote into a SQL form and then make it possible to execute your malicious code on that server? Shouldn't disabling this be a fundamental security rule for databases?

        • Re:ob... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by keithjr ( 1091829 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @01:11PM (#23199740)
          In 2008... why is it really so easy to put a damned single or double quote into a SQL form and then make it possible to execute your malicious code on that server? Shouldn't disabling this be a fundamental security rule for databases?

          It is fundamental. It's called secure input handling, or sanitizing input. Just because it's a rule doesn't mean it is followed.
          • Re:ob... (Score:5, Funny)

            by steelclash84 ( 1129221 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:25PM (#23200830)
            Did you really name your kid "Robert'); DROP TABLE Students; --"?
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by jsebrech ( 525647 )
            It is fundamental. It's called secure input handling, or sanitizing input. Just because it's a rule doesn't mean it is followed

            Just because there are rules, doesn't mean people know about them. I frequent a flash forum where people often ask how to integrate flash with mysql via a php script. The vast majority of the code posted there is open to sql injection. This is not a matter of laziness, it is ignorance.

            And this is perfectly understandable if you look at the tutorial sites out there. Take for example
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by AlecLyons ( 767385 )
      SQL Injection? Yes.
  • Bias? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jmpeax ( 936370 ) * on Friday April 25, 2008 @11:50AM (#23198632)
    SQL injection is a result of poor data validation on the part of the web application - not, as the blurb implies, an indicator of an insecure web server. LAMP installations are also susceptible to SQL injection [] (PDF). From TFA:

    Unless [...] data is sanitized before it gets saved you can't control what the website will show to the users. This is what SQL injection is all about, exploiting weaknesses in these controls.
    As for the fact that Firefox + NoScript prevents the problems, that really isn't a surprise seeing as these specific exploits rely on executing a JScript. Any browser with scripting disabled would be immune.

    The tone of the blurb is not only biased but also counter-productive to promoting open source (as this appears to be its intention): by trying to criticise closed technologies not by highlighting their actual deficiencies but instead by spreading FUD, the whole community is done a disservice.
    • Re:Bias? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ischorr ( 657205 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @11:54AM (#23198678)
      Also, is it 500,000 web *sites* identified so far, or 510,000 web *pages*?
      • Re:Bias? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mia'cova ( 691309 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:04PM (#23198838)
        The blurb completely misquotes the article. The article clearly states pages as reported by google. Plus, Google is hardly a live metric for the state of the internet. It really gives us a very poor estimate of how much impact this is having.

        Also, which browsers are affected? It sounds like most of the exploits being used against the browsers have already been patched. Is there a new one there?
      • by Binestar ( 28861 )
        I believe it's 520,000 web *links*.
    • Re:Bias? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shados ( 741919 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @11:55AM (#23198700)
      I agree, and that was my first reaction: "Wtf does IIS have to do with SQL injection". If nothing else, a LAMP stack would be more susceptible, not because of the servers, but because PHP didn't have mainstream prepared statements as part of a default standard install in its earlier versions, and now that it DOES have it, a lot of script kiddies or peanut gallery programmers aren't using them, as opposed to Java/.NET/Whatever which, while still having some issues with the same group of newbie developers, are prepared-statement centric in their development paradigms and documentation, thus reducing the amount of possible SQL injection significantly, unless the apps are made in legacy environments too.

      Its such a rediculous flamebait, I don't know what to say.
      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by MrMr ( 219533 )
        I don't know what to say.
        That's pretty obvious.

        How is the alledged fact that a LAMP stack would have been more vulnerable to this IIS directed attack relevant to this story? No claims of superiority for any server software in the blurb. Are you just trolling?
        • Re:Bias? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Shados ( 741919 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:12PM (#23198954)
          No, i'm not trolling. My point is that the story itself is trolling. This isn't an IIS directed attack, it is a "bad programming" directed attack. The -same- attack, exactly, would work -regardless- of the server. You don't even need to CHECK which server is running on the machine for this attack to work, since the server is IRRELEVENT, and I was trying to demonstrate that. Nothing more.

          It is NOT an IIS directed attack. At best, its a loose corelation statistic, and one thats pretty useless without comparing it to other references, such as other web servers.
          • Re:Bias? (Score:5, Funny)

            by Stellian ( 673475 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @01:51PM (#23200308)
            In fact, the attack enumerates all ASP variables and tries to force a SQL payload in them, that in turn if executed adds the link to the malicious script to every textfield in the database. A very simple vulnerability scanner, if you like, targeting only ASP applications - thus the ISS spin.
            Since we don't see the LAMP version spreading I think we can safely conclude that no web application written in PHP with a MySQL back-end is currently vulnerable to any type of SQL injection.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by willyhill ( 965620 )
          This is not an IIS attack, it is an application attack. No more IIS specific than this [] one is Apache's fault, correct?

          I love the difference in tone between the two submissions, and especially the "haha this is all a big joke, relax" tone of the comments on the other one.

          It's unfortunate that Slashdot is becoming one big FUD-spewing machine.

      • Re:Bias? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:27PM (#23199174)
        > "Wtf does IIS have to do with SQL injection". RTFA:

        the attackers looked for ASP or ASPX pages containing any type of querystring
        This specific attack, of which google has found over half a million affected pages, is targeted at IIS.
        • Re:Bias? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Shados ( 741919 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:38PM (#23199314)
          Doesn't change that IIS doesn't have anything to do with it. If you take aside that both ASP and ASP.NET (more ASP though) aren't IIS specific by a long shot, the attack is targeting specific technologies, then targetting specific software development flaws within the boundaries of those technologies. If I'm running PERL/PHP on my server, it won't see it. If I'm running an ASP page on Apache, it will, and even if my server hasn't been patched for the last 5 years, I'm no more or less vulnerable to that attack.

          If the attackers looked for servers that were advertising themselves as IIS, and/or attacked IIS vulnerabilities or bad administration practices, you'd have a point. But the fact that the servers were running IIS was little beyond a strong corelation.
          • Re:Bias? (Score:5, Informative)

            by Facetious ( 710885 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @01:44PM (#23200166) Journal
            The admins on the ground seem to disagree [] with you. From that page, "Our initial investigations are pointing at an attack through IIS using ASP in an overload."
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              The admins on the ground are so clueless it hurts to even read the posts. They actually think they can close the hole by searching for strings such as "EXEC", "SELECT" or "NVARCHAR" in all query parameters and rejecting the request if anything similar is found. The words "escaping" and "parametrized queries" are not found once in the whole thread.

              If you actually bother to read the thread, anyway, it's clear that the problem is indeed with applications that use queries like "SELECT * FROM Users WHERE Name

      • by jd ( 1658 ) <> on Friday April 25, 2008 @01:55PM (#23200362) Homepage Journal
        ...the first person to google for attacked pages only turned up ASP pages as cracked. Later on, they say that the javascript attempts to use an ActiveX control. If I am exceedingly generous, I'll allow for the possibility that the story was written by someone who saw just these two comments and assumed that since both of these are generally run on Microsft OS', that this was an IIS problem. (Actually, more than a few people using Microsoft OS' run other web servers. There's quite a selection to choose from. Also, both ASP and ActiveX are usable under Linux, well, ish.)

        However, it is now abundantly clear that the attack is NOT ASP-specific, and just because one of the vectors it tries is based on ActiveX does NOT mean it doesn't try other methods. It only means that the people who spotted it early spotted it trying that method. Although it's unlikely to have an attack library for multiple OS', it would be surprising if it didn't have some alternative action for when ActiveX isn't available.

        I'm concerned about the number of Government sites that have been shown to be vulnerable, especially (as has been commented by others on Slashdot) a Canadian site dealing with national security. This attack is unlikely to cause any particular lasting harm, but stop and think. These are the sorts of sites that actually need to be secure. Even if not directly connected to internal secure networks (and I'd be willing to bet that far more are than are supposed to be), they are high-profile and for that reason alone are likely to be much more at-risk than other sites.

        Most smaller websites are just point-of-presence and information sites. It's an irritant if they vanish for a while, but it's unlikely to hurt anything. Nobody is going to die if a blog site isn't available for an hour or so, unless they're a serious addict. No small vendor is going to lose business if their PDF datasheets aren't reachable for a little while. Adult sites risk making a one or two percent loss of webcam income out of their steady stream of millions. I seriously doubt anyone from the United Methodist church will suddenly become Mormon or Catholic because their primary website was hit.

    • Not really (Score:4, Informative)

      by Scareduck ( 177470 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:00PM (#23198772) Homepage Journal
      PHP has pretty much fixed SQL injection hacks, at least for MySQL, something TFA you quote mentions on page 74. Given that this is the majority combination on web-facing machines, shouldn't that blunt the "LAMP installations are also susceptible to SQL injection" if only by quantity? I mean, I agree with your counter-FUD reasoning, but it seems to me that this blunts your whole sentence, MySQL+PHP being two pillars (and the last half) of LAMP.
      • That's still pretty new; I've been using php for a while, and it's only been recently that I stopped feeling the need to use my home-rolled anti-injection methods over the new code methods.

        There are still plenty of examples of bad php out there; I'd hardly call it fixed when the problem has never really been a problem of the language, but instead a problem of lazy programmers.
        • by Sancho ( 17056 ) *
          Pear with prepared statements has been around for a while. What method are you guys talking about that prevents SQL injection without that?
      • by jmpeax ( 936370 ) *
        The features they discuss were only introduced in the most recent version of PHP, and many, many servers are still running older releases.

        Furthermore, note that these safeguards are only a basic defence and programmer awareness is still required to ensure SQL injection can't happen:

        But, magic quotes is a generic solution that doesn't include all of the characters that require escaping, and the feature isn't always enabled (for reasons outlined in the first chapter). Ultimately, it's up to you to implement safeguards to protect against SQL injection.

      • Re:Not really (Score:5, Interesting)

        by weicco ( 645927 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:48PM (#23199486)

        As so has ASP.NET. I write (almost) all my database queries parametrized like this

        SqlConnection conn = ...
        SqlCommand cmd = ...
        cmd.CommandText = "SELECT * FROM Foo WHERE Bar = @bar";
        cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("bar", barValue);

        This way I'm pretty safe from SQL injection attacks. Add all the HTML encoding/decoding stuff to that and you can rest your nights peacefully.

        Then enter the PHB. Now a days we stuff all the parameters straight to the DB procedure where they aren't sanitized at all. We build SQL query inside the stored proc by concatenating strings and call sp_execute to execute them. So all my earlier input validation and parameterized queries went down the drain. PHB's reasoning? - We trust our users.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by geekoid ( 135745 )
          Build an exploit for it and use it in front of your PHBs boss.

          If you are under SarBox, remind them that this is an security audit issue.

          This all can be done in a professional manner and not a 'get my stupid boss' manner.

          IF you deal with any personal information, in your report you will make before the meeting, show the PR and legal nightmare that happens when data gets out.

          Your boss should not be telling you how to program.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 )
      '); drop table users; --Yea this is a microsoft problem. That wouldn't be the cause of poor website development.
      • by Splab ( 574204 )
        That will only work on languages supporting multiple statements. PHP/MySQL which is the most commonly used will just throw an error at you.
    • by Splab ( 574204 )
      Well lamp isn't as vulnerable as MS SQL is - not because of better security mind you, but due to lack of support for multi queries in PHP.

      When injecting in PHP/MySQL environment you are limited limited to what you can do inside the query provided by the server (or of course if some retard has put the whole query as an get/put you got free pickings.)
    • Re:Bias? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:09PM (#23198910)
      Agreed. I *hate* Microsoft and am as rabid a Free Software advocate as you will find, but code injection attacks are neither the fault of nor prevented by the OS or web server.

      If users of open source software want to protect our largely well-deserved right to be smug, we have to be no less vigilant against these attacks than the proprietary chumps. This particular attack may only have hit MS servers, but this category of attack in general is frighteningly equal-opportunity.

      We can't take our superiority for granted; we have to earn it every day.
    • Re:Bias? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by toby360 ( 524944 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:14PM (#23198980)
      I have to agree that this is highly Biased.
      This has nothing to do with IIS, SQL or ASP, coding against SQL injection is the responsibility of web designer. Also it should be noted that ASP was originally released way back when with NT4.0 in 1996(v1) , 2.0 in 1997 and 3.0 in 2000 [].

      With the newer ASP.NET MS was kind enough to provide several layers of protection against attacks such as SQL injection with both server side and client side validation applied to controls when built in the designer (by default).
    • FUD proliferation. One must spread FUD before Microsoft spreads FUD. Just the other day, Bill Gates himself stated that you cannot make money with GPL'd products (while Redhat and SUSE and IBM and MYSQL and others continually make millions). So while we do ourselves a disservice, the only way to fight FUD is with FUD.
    • This is a terrible title, IANAWebDeveloper, hell i dont even know how to code, but as soon as i read the summary it was clear that this had nothing to do with MS.

      And ofcourse your safe using FF + NoScript, but then again your safe from anything, if people keep posting about how safe FF + noscript are, i might start talking about how secure lynx is, it would be much more useful to talk about browsers without NoScript.
      Do all articles about adverts contain a disclaimer saying that people using adblock are unaf
    • by samantha ( 68231 ) *
      I though tha javascript was rather limited in what it could do on a client. But I guess all it needs for some types of SQL injection is the ability to rewrite URLs and html data pages which it pretty much has to have. Or is it more specific than that?

      NoScript is a pain.
  • Anyone surprised?
  • LOL (Score:3, Funny)

    by ThePhilips ( 752041 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @11:56AM (#23198714) Homepage Journal


    I once spend an hour trying to explain IIS/MS SQL Server admin what PHP/MySQL addslashes()/mysql_escape_string() do - all to no avail. He was absolutely sure it is sufficient to like in VB surround any string with single quotes and it all will be fine.

    Now seeing that it's real fun for guys, I can only laugh.

    • To which he replied: "Don't use mysql_escape_string(), it's a deprecated function. Use mysql_real_escape_string() instead."
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Shados ( 741919 )
      I'd personally laugh at you. Escaping sql strings, what the hell? the 1980/90s called and they want their obsolete methodologies back.

      In any semi-advanced programming language or framework (including PHP, even more so since PHP5 as it doesn't require any extension or whatever), you just use prepared statements. Maybe that MS SQL Server admin was a bozo, but in VB, you'll almost always be using prepared statements (even in VB5-6, pre-.NET), or at worse, stored procedures, which act as prepared statements.

  • This is a SQL injection attack. IIS just happens to be the front-end of a poorly written web app.

    Thus, if I'm running a web app that doesn't rely on IIS for anything more than presentation, and am not using SQL in my authentication (say something like Terminal Services or GraphOn), I should be fine.


    • by Shados ( 741919 )
      Yup. Heck, even if you are using SQL on every last thing... if you're using prepared statements (or stored procedures), which MUST be done for performance reasons and code maintainability ANYWAY (sql strings concat is such a rediculous anti-pattern...), you're immune.

      SQL Injection is by far the stupidest security vulnerability there is... Worse than buffer overflows, cross site scripting, etc... Because you have to go -out of your way- to make them possible. You have to make your code slower, take more time
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by kisrael ( 134664 )
        I agree there's no excuse for it, but in your second paragraph I don't agree with your logic 'til the final parenthetical remark.

        In development, it often IS simpler to start with a single hardcoded SQL query (probably cut and paste from your DB tool, and then if your language supports + or . for string concat, it's easier to just do a "+variablename+" where the hardcoded value was -- plus, it keeps the flow of the SQL 'sentence' in correct order, rather than that kind of weird "sprintf()"ness you get when y
        • by Shados ( 741919 )
          I don't know, personally. You need all those concat symbols, the parameters aren't obvious...

          "select * from blah where stuff = " + var1 + " and lol = '" + var2 + "';";

          It gets messy when you have strings, dates in special formats, xml literals, multiline queries... look at this around var2, the single quote followed by a double quote... messy messy. And depending on the language, you have to escape the quotes, etc. Crazy. How can you guys even read that? Nevermind debug it when it gets complicated.

          Then when
    • There are several smart things that need to be done to protect yourself.

      Restrict the account that is used to access the database to the absolute minimum permissions it needs to run; using one set of credentials for insert/update/delete and another for selects is enough to foil a lot of exploits (I actually never allow deletes, just out of paranoia...I just update the record with an "inactive" flag, and purge them later with a local account).

      For gods sake, don't allow a single account to access multiple databases, and even within the database make sure it only has access to the tables you're going to be using. I've seen more than a few MySQL injections that just dump the user table to the screen because some joker didn't think he needed to restrict access for "SELECT" statements.

      Escape ALL data that comes from userland. This is your first line of defense, and it's where most people screw up. If you let an escape character past without it being escaped, your only protection is the privileges associated with the user account.

      Abstract your data methods. If you just throw out random SQL queries all through your code, you're going to make a mistake somewhere. Make a single method that does your selects. Make a single method that does your inserts, etc. If it's only in ONE PLACE you can go over the code in extreme detail. If the queries are scattered through the code, you can't.

      This is all just best practice stuff. The most important thing is to PAY ATTENTION and remember that one unsecured account can screw your entire server.
  • by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:02PM (#23198804)
    This site makes me sick sometimes. If this were a problem with PHP (which, mind you, it IS), we wouldn't be calling it a "vulnerability". has lots of built-in features to prevent SQL injection attacks (like bind parameters) and the DB documentation specifically warns about this type of attack.

    Anyone still getting hit with this in 2008 needs to be whacked on the head.
    • by MrMunkey ( 1039894 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:08PM (#23198890) Homepage

      Anyone still getting hit with this in 2008 needs to be whacked on the head.
      This is true of any language, not just ASP. You can easily prevent SQL injection with Perl, Python, PHP, etc.
      • Fair enough - my comment wasn't intended as a criticism of PHP or any other web framework. I just wanted to point out that SQL injection attacks are a stupid novice mistake, one that's far too common in "professionally-done" code.

        Note, though, that PHP has a number of issues that make SQL injection more likely:
        • "mysql_escape_string" vs "mysql_real_escape_string"
        • Documentation that encourages building SQL queries by concatenation
        • "Magic quotes" which may or may not actually work, and shouldn't be used anyway
        • No
  • IIS bashing (Score:2, Insightful)

    I've read a similar article on Web infection attacks more than 100,000 pages []. There are also some interesting discussions over there.

    This is a SQL injection, which is not specific to IIS. Any server-side program that fails to validate the input is subjected to this kind of exploit.

    • I think the point is that this particular attack only targeted IIS, and appears to be a bit of a biggie. So it's news. There is still a slight bias of course, and there will be plenty of bashing here and elsewhere, but it's noteworthy nonetheless.
  • ok, story 1 is a sql injection

    there seems to be a story 2 here: what the trojan will do in a few weeks to all of the IE users who visit these half a million sites

    and, reading some of the links and finding that these trojan hosting domains are registered in china, there also seems to be a story 3: chinese hackers are pissed off

    i got hacked shortly after the hainan island incident [] in 2001. that is when the us spy satellite was bumped a chinese fighter, and was forced to land on hainan island (china). there was much chinese nationalist anger then, and it was taken out by hacking western sites with "f**k usa!" and the chinese flag replacing the main page

    obviously, this hack is contemporaneous with the whole tibet riots/ olympic torch protests. that's the meat of this story, and that avenue seems unexplored as of yet. similar to the russian ddos of estonia due to the deprecation of a war statue in 2007 []: the lesson is that, much like al qaeda and terrorism, cyber warfare is not so much a tool of any state government, but chest-thumping activity for ultranationalists and religious bigots and other organizations of cultural or national or religious chauvinism. the theme of the 21st century seems to be shaping up as partisan tribalism and extreme ideology reaching beyond the notions of sovereignty, statehood to go to war with each other in a novel ways
    • I got hacked shortly after the hainan island incident in 2001. that is when the us spy satellite was bumped a chinese fighter, and was forced to land on hainan island (china).

      Is that the fighter plane with warp drive and photon torpedos?

      Sorry to pick on ya dude... it was a US spy plane, not a spy satellite :)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bjourne ( 1034822 )

      obviously, this hack is contemporaneous with the whole tibet riots/ olympic torch protests. that's the meat of this story, and that avenue seems unexplored as of yet. similar to the russian ddos of estonia due to the deprecation of a war statue in 2007 []:

      Please don't spread this unsubstantiated rumour. The only one who ever was found guilty of the dos attacks was an Estonian Russian script kiddie. The other allegations about Russia launching a cyber attack on Estonia were just that, allegations with no evidence what so ever.

    • by Deanalator ( 806515 ) <> on Friday April 25, 2008 @01:57PM (#23200404) Homepage
      Please do not perpetuate hysteria.

      The "Russian DDoS attacks of Estonia" were done by a few Estonian kids mad about some statues being moved around. []

      There was no cyberwar, the Russian government had nothing to do with it, and every media source that mentioned it really needs to update their articles because the misinformation is causing far more harm than good.
  • by Robotron2084 ( 262343 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:21PM (#23199076) Homepage
    Before you post such a headline, perhaps it would be a good idea to check your facts. I RTFA'ed and checked those links and there is no mention of how many servers were attacked. There were 510,000 pages mentioned, but pages do not equal servers. This a sensationalistic headline based on a sensationalistic interpretation of a Google web search.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Unnngh! ( 731758 )
      Yep...too bad there's not a firehose or some other way to vote to pull existing posts. This is wrong through and through and is just confusing and misleading.
  • by Guppy ( 12314 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:39PM (#23199324)
    Hmmm.... "Ni Hao" is a greating, like "Hello" in Chinese. Anyone figure out any meaning behind the other names?

    (Other meanings are possible as well, due to the large number of homophones in the language, but this is by far the most obvious meaning.)
    • by Intron ( 870560 )
      Don't know about meaning, but its easy enough to track where its coming from:

      host has address

      person: Jinneng Wang
      address: 17/F, Postal Building No.120 Changjiang
      address: Middle Road, Hefei, Anhui, China
      country: CN
      phone: +86-551-2659073
      fax-no: +86-551-2659287
      nic-hdl: JW89-AP
  • OK, so SQL Server prior to 2005 wasn't secured well by default, and xp_cmdshell() is like inviting a system-level compromise. But, as others have pointed out, ASP.NET/IIS isn't the only platform affected. In fact, this platform makes it easy to secure your scripts against most attacks, ans SQL Server 2k5 and IIS 6 and ASP.Net have added protections as well. On top of that, this platform has never been vulnerable to attacks due to superglobals, of file open functions which allow you to import remote files, e
  • A Google search for "" brings up as an affected site.
  • Could someone please tell me what "as per usual" means? Does it mean, "as usual," or "per Usual"? Who is this "Usual" guy?
  • The forum is full of very interesting posts by windows admins. One guy was hacked no less than 3 times! Each time he just restored his database and thought all was well, and wondered how those dang hackers kept getting in. He even changed his passwords!

    This is definitely not how most unix admins would react. If a machine is compromised (via whatever source) then a simple data restore is never good enough, unix admins know. The original vector must be identified and stopped. It's quite the cont
  • Just a few months ago we had to build a small custom CMS for a client, that had to be PHP/MySQL. The specs were very specific so it had to be custom-built. Since it was a relatively small work and we were involved in some bigger projects, we hired a contractor. Good references, a few years of experience, knew javascript, so we handled the project to him.

    To his credit, the site actually worked and seemed fine, until you had a peek at the PHP code, which was truly horrific. I could overlook the nonsensical us
  • ... so update from 7.5 if you're using the free version. 8.0 has been available here [] since yesterday.

    Interestingly (and I've been looking at this attack all day) it seems to overwrite itself in the middle.


Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling