FBI, US Marshals Hit By Virus 156
Norsefire writes "The FBI and US Marshals were forced to shut down part of their computer network after being hit by a 'mystery virus.' FBI spokesman Mike Kortan said, 'We are evaluating a network issue on our external, unclassified network that's affecting several government agencies.' Nikki Credic, spokeswoman for the US Marshals, said that no data has been compromised but the type of virus and its origin is unknown."
We have to hit back and hit back HARD (Score:2, Funny)
You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they hit you with a virus, you pull a gun. He sends one of your servers to the IT department, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?
There's a name for that virus (Score:3, Funny)
It's known as the "fastlead" virus, and it's frequently game over if you get infected.
Linux... (Score:1, Insightful)
UNIX email virus (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
While most users will jump through hoops to see dancing pigs/bunnies, if you make it easier, more of them will do it.
Re:UNIX email virus (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or recompile the module for my kernel.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
They (IT) would have to work closely with a vendor, such as RedHat or Novell to manage patch rollouts.
Good bye quick and timely security updates.
Re: (Score:1)
BSD would be too hard and expensive to implement. Why not a commercial distro with SELinux to make sure it is an extremely hard nut to crack? I think that would be the best way to spend tax-payer monies.
There is many consultants and support vendors for Linux and many people to create and run the systems. Linux admins are generally much more aware of how systems work so with good admins, enterprise grade distro and SELinux I think Linux can run "nation-critical" systems just fine... Just as long as you don'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyday I have to run apt-get update && apt-get upgrade to keep my system secure. Not everyday it is a possible remote exploit, but there is always some security related bug to fix. Linux may have a better implementation to keep those risks from escalating quickly compared to windows, but I would not run nation-critical apps on it. Not at this point in time.
I think you're making the classic mistake of equating the number of patches seen with the actual number, and severity, of vulnerabilities. Of course Debian gets more patches more often than Windows: the Debian security team sends out fixes for security vulnerabilities as soon as they're discovered, rather than leaving users exposed by waiting up to a month and fixing (some, but often not all) of the most critical known vulnerabilities in monthly roll-ups. And of course Debian sees more patches, when nearl
Linux is not the ultimate in security (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, maybe some hardened versions but not the run of the mill version.
If you want hardened computing, you want:
*A hardened network, with hardened human access
*A hardened computer, with hardened human access
*A hardened OS or one that comes pre-hardened by design. SELinux, OpenBSD, some specialty flavors of MS-Windows, some small/embeded-systems OSes, some Unix-style OSes, and some mainframe-type OSes qualify
*Hardened sofware all the way around
*People who are trained in security in general and trained how t
Re: (Score:2)
You seemed to have forgotten something: You don't want it connected to the internet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They rather get infected every now and then. After all it's your money they are spending.
Re: (Score:2)
Geektas are too elitist to design a comfortable desktop for people switching from winodws. If it all "Just worked" like windows no one would give a fuck in a locked down environment. Same look and feel, same hot keys in every app.
FUCKING CUT AND PASTE THAT FUCKING WORKS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've complained about cut and paste for more than a decade. It's not been fixed, it's never been fixed and I'm sure it won't be fixed.
Linux is secure. All the crap you see is overlay and that does not much effect security. Linux has so many security tools that you have to work to create an insecure system.
I let a friend use Ubuntu the "zOMG KILLAH OS", they're now running Pista. The Luddites will never come to a Linux desktop unless you cater to them. No one gets that and they piss themselves when you sugge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Linux... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Did you even think that before posting it?
Re:Linux... (Score:4, Insightful)
Step 2: Choose a better open-source alternative notorious for its security and stability
Step 3: close the source
Re:Linux... (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 4: watch a lower ranking employee click on the HappyFunTime executable in their mail
Step 5: Priceless.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are using linux, the worst they can do is hose their local settings and local files, not the files/settings of the whole network.
Just don't give them admin rights, and you are good.
Re: (Score:2)
does your user work with important documents? Now they're hosed.
does your user work with other people using a shared network resource? Now those are hosed.
( yes, I'm sure they keep backups. But do they keep live, instant backups? )
does your user use e-mail? Great, that machine is now a spam service zombie.
does your user have access to the internet at large? Now that machine is part of a DDoS network, too. In addition, those important documents just got sent do the hoodlums' stashing place.
Congratulati
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SELinux Background
Researchers in the National Information Assurance Research Laboratory of the National Security Agency (NSA) worked with Secure Computing Corporation (SCC) to develop a strong, flexible mandatory access control architecture based on Type Enforcement, a mechanism first developed for the LOCK system. The NSA and SCC developed two Mach-based prototypes of the architecture: DTMach and DTOS. The NSA and SCC then worked with the University of Utah's Flux research group to transfer the architecture to the Fluke research operating system. During this transfer, the architecture was enhanced to provide better support for dynamic security policies. This enhanced architecture was named Flask. The NSA integrated the Flask architecture into the Linux® operating system to transfer the technology to a larger developer and user community. The architecture has been subsequently mainstreamed into Linux and ported to several other systems, including the Solarisâ operating system, the FreeBSD® operating system, and the Darwin kernel, spawning a wide range of related work.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but as far as I can tell the only thing SELinux accomplishes is to make the Operating system virtually useless as anything other than a desktop. The first thing most admins I know do upon installing a new server is disable SELinux. It's possible (possible) to use SELinux on a server, but it usually requires days of tweaking settings, and winds up eliminating a good part of the benefit of the hardening.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, Linux is vulnerable but it isn't targeted, the diversity in distros, kernel versions, browsers, etc. help keep the target moving.
1. If the Government switches to Linux, there will not be a diversity in distros, kernel versions, browsers, etc.
2. Assume that, like the current windows installation, there will be gaping security holes due to mismanagement and misconfiguration.
3. The US government is an awfully big target and if they switch, you will see significant, concentrated effort on exploiting whatever distro and apps the Feds chooses.
Re: (Score:2)
Then contract the NSA to train a bunch of people to properly configure SE Linux with targeted policies.
Develop targeted policies for the various government departments and offices. Create proper images so machines are correctly locked down from the install.
It isn't *hard* to configure systems to be secure, it is unpopular and time consuming. Apply the same logic used with firewalls -- default deny -- and you're much further along the path of secure computing. That is, explicitly allow only needed binarie
Re:Linux... (Score:4, Interesting)
Especially 2. I work for a government contractor. The amount of stupid pointless shit we have to do in the name of "security" while leaving HUGE GAPING HOLES untouched just hurts my head. It's like our security policy is designed by ADD addled five year olds. They read about something in a magazine and think "Oh, shiny!" They quickly write some insane, over the top, policy to "solve" the "problem" and keep reading the magazine. It's great assuming that the article covers all possible security problems ever, or that it contained actual solutions instead of stuff that kinda sounds like it ought to fix a problem.
The latest brainstorm is that we are switching to 12 character passwords which change every 60 days. This is almost certain to result in:
a) People forgetting their passwords, requiring continuous password resets
b) People writing down their impossible to remember, constantly changing, password
c) Both (a) and (b)
Meanwhile, we still have a number of systems that use rsh (No, not Kerberized rsh, the plain 30 year old version with .rlogin files.). Granted this is an isolated network, with no Internet access at all. We're not likely to be attacked by outside entities. But if you trust the users of the isolated network enough to assume that they are not going to take advantage of the multiple and well published rsh vulnerabilities, why don't you trust them enough to assume that they are not running password crackers?
Re: (Score:2)
Twelve character passwords?! That's fucking crazy.
I've spent the past few minutes trying to come up with a rationale for long-ass passwords that get transmitted in plaintext over the wire, but am utterly unable to...
Here are my thoughts:
* Given that you have an isolated network, your machines are probably in a reasonably secure building.
* Folks who aren't employees are probably escorted around by someone who's involved with building security.
* Given that "untrusted" "visitors" are escorted, there wouldn't b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sensitive networks should be treated as such (Score:5, Interesting)
More and more, sensitive corporate and government networks will need to be isolated or at least mostly isolated from non-sensitive networks and the Internet.
They may not need an air gap [wikipedia.org] but they will need to be isolated enough to prevent general problems like viruses.
They also need to be run with the philosophy of "every other machine or user on my network could become compromised (infected or bribed) at any time."
A couple of possible solutions:
*Give employees 2 computers with a KVM, one for surfing the web and access to non-secure data, one to access secure data.
*Give employees a multi-homed, ROM+read-only-USB-stick-for-configuration-data-boot "thin client" that's stripped down and hardened, with no copy-and-paste, no network bridging, and other designed way for one remote server to influence the other. Then have them connect to different servers on different networks for different needs.
If your security requirements are extreme, use an air gap.
In either case, don't forget to take countermeasures against human idiocy, ignorance, and bribery/blackmail.
Re: (Score:2)
Security regs in the USG mandate this sort of stuff for Classified information.
classified vs sensitive (Score:3, Interesting)
True, US-government-classified material does have to be regulated.
But what about the human resource database of the United States Postal Service, with its employee birth dates and social security numbers? What about the customer database at American Airlines, with its juicy collection of credit card numbers? What about your medical insurer, which may have lots of information about your or your children's health you don't want entering the public domain? What about the bank teller whose terminal let's her
multilevel security (Score:1, Interesting)
*Give employees 2 computers with a KVM, one for surfing the web and access to non-secure data, one to access secure data.
Or use one operating system that allows different levels of security on one system, with different applications each running at different levels, and with access to variously segmented networks spanning from unclassified to top secret:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Solaris
It's called multi-level security, and the DoD already uses it.
US Marshals! (Score:2)
What I want from each and every one of you is a hard-target search of every JPEG, MPEG, EXE, PXE, hard drive, flash drive and floppy drive in that area. Firewalls go up on every computer. Your fugitive's name is Neeris. Go get him.
Bold claim (Score:5, Insightful)
"said that no data has been compromised but the type of virus and its origin is unknown."
How do they know that there was no data compromised if they don't even know the type of the virus?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps the network is reasonably self contained?
The article says they shut down internet access, but it doesn't really make it clear if the computers in question have any connection to the internet or not.
Typical Bold Claim, Scenario A14 (Score:5, Insightful)
Libel (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DCS 1000, dood!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Compromised can mean various things, according to the context. Flexible English is wonderful, isn't it?
In the mental context of a person who deals with valuable data (like criminal scenes and such), compromised data is missing data. And what would you know, the FBI and the US Marshal's offices both deal with valuable data.
In the mental context of say... a spy, compromised data is known (copied) data. The FBI isn't a spy agency, and the US Marshal's office isn't either, even if they can be secretive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The FBI isn't a spy agency...
Actually, they are. The FBI is largely responsible for intelligence gathering and counter-intelligence within the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How do they know that there was no data compromised if they don't even know the type of the virus?
For the same reason that if I got a virus, none of your data would be comporomised. Seperate network, like it said in the summary. :P
quick! (Score:2)
Maybe they recently bought some new computers? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/news.asp?id=53225 [itbusiness.ca]
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
If they aren't dropping their own image on new computers they get, there's something wrong with their IT department.
How do they know ? (Score:4, Interesting)
The spokeswoman said :
"no data has been compromised but the type of virus and its origin is unknown"
That is an extraordinary statement. How would they know ?
If I was head of IT there I would assume that that was not true. Even if there was a completely different computer system for any sensitive information, data has a way of leaking to where it shouldn't be. Of thousands of people, not one put notes or passwords or whatever on the insecure side of the line ?
Regardless of what they tell the press, I hope that internally they are assuming that this is a breach, and acting accordingly.
Re: (Score:1)
Compromised data isn't always copied data; sometimes it's missing data.
To someone who forgot some of the meaning of their college English lessons, they may have also forgotten there's a difference between the two.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well exactly. What their spokeperson says doesn't necessarily have any correlation to what their head of IT thinks.
The spokesperson's job is to put the best spin on things. Saying "We lost loads of public data" would not be doing their job well.
Re: (Score:2)
What their spokeperson says doesn't necessarily have any correlation to what their head of IT thinks.
From my experience, what the PR people say is correlated with what the IT people think. However, the correlation is negative.
The government should retaliate in force (Score:4, Funny)
US Air Force General Kevin Chilton, head of US Strategic Command, has said that attacks on the United States via the Internet could merit a conventional military response [today.com].
"I don't think you take anything off the table. We're particularly looking toward one group in Seattle."
The Seattle-based insurgent group is thought to have seeded American government and military computers with millions of copies of malware that allows attackers easy access to any data stored on the computer, or indeed to take complete control of the computer and use it for their own ends as part of a massive "botnet" to mount further attacks. The malware, "Windows," makes securing a computer running it almost impossible.
"Turning Seattle into a glass crater would only be undertaken strictly as the minimum required surgical military action," emphasised Chilton, "and not in any way out of twenty-five years' bitter resentment and frustration at computing machinery."
Chilton stressed that members of the US military must begin to think of their computers as the front lines. "Do you realize that in addition to adding Windows to computers, why, there are studies underway to Windowsize salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk ... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream! I can no longer sit back and allow Windows infiltration, Windows indoctrination, Windows subversion and the international enterprise licensing conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!"
The Obama administration is currently reviewing the United States' cyberspace defense policy. "We're considering all options thoroughly," said the President, closing his MacBook and looking lingeringly at the red button on his desk.
Am I completely paranoid (Score:2)
Sure some mysterious virus. (Score:2, Insightful)
Merely a virus? It could be worse, much worse. (Score:1)
This is sounding more and more like Plan Nine from User Space [swtch.com].
In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
700,000 desktops in the US Army are going to be upgraded to Vista. [slashdot.org]
Any comments from the WHO on this topic ? (Score:1)
Hmmm Cui Bono or could be the sibling rivalry... (Score:1)
virus and the urinals (Score:1)
Simple Solution (Score:2)
I wonder if... (Score:2)
I wonder if Microsoft and some of the organizations it has hired to produce Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) reports take things like this into account.
If we're betting, I'll take "no."
Re:They should use macs (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Which, of course, is because Dell and Apple are sponsoring the show. This has been happening for years; Amiga used to sponsor the Neighbors soap, and so people had Amigas on the show. They went with Macs later, probably because they got better/alternate sponsorship from Apple then.
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot. You don't have to miss the point of something to take the topic further anyway. It's called conversation. You should try learning it sometime.
Re: Triple Whooosh (Score:2)
*whoosh*
See? I can do it too. Are we done yet, or would you like to play at 2-year-olds some more?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mac is in no way less vulnareble than Windows, specially in targeted attacks. It seems most people have been brainwashed quite good. Yes, the amount of malware for mac's is lower than Windows, but so is mac userbase. However there are many OSX malware circumventing already and it seems to be just going up.
And no, not all malware require root to run. They can easily run under your user account aswell and still steal lots of data, passwords and keylog etc. If they require root, then social engineering attack
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct, zero is a tad less than ~ninety-three thousand.
Considering that UNIX-like systems are ubiquitous in the server world (and OS X is a UNIX-variant), that is a really lame argument.
[citation needed]
Re:They should use macs (Score:4, Informative)
That's a mighty low [bbc.co.uk] estimate.
Re:They should use macs (Score:4, Informative)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9808489-37.html [cnet.com]
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/11/21/new-mac-os-x-malware-osx_lamzev-a/ [tuaw.com]
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/trojan_osx_dnschanger.shtml [f-secure.com]
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/inqtana_a.shtml [f-secure.com]
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2418 [zdnet.com]
to begin with a few.
Re:They should use macs (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, most mac users think and they're told that theres no malware and they're secure, so they have the mentality of "nothing can hit me" and even tho theres a few mac av's, almost noone runs them.
Hell, there's botnets running inside _routers_. What makes it think that mac is somehow some bulletproof solution. You dont need root to send spam or ddos either.
Mac is also a standardized os, so its a lot easier to make malware for it than the tons of different linux os's. And its already true, but because of this mentality Apple and Mac users have given to everyone, they think they're safe. It's really stupid from Apple's part, because the problem keeps just rising and one day it gets hit badly and no one has prepared because of their assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to forget here that most of the exploits now a days are from third party programs. These exploits are just aswell possible on mac/linux once the userbase is just there. Some windows services have been exploitable, but thats because like 90-95% of desktop computers use Windows, so its better idea to try to find exploits on them. However aswell as Windows, both Mac's and Linuxes have had their share of exploits to third party programs.
Whatever else we may think about Apple, they made a sound, pragmatic decision when they threw out the old OS 9 architecture and replaced it with what is essentially a BSD-like system with their own work on top to make it pretty. Unix, by its very nature, is actually quite hard to crack if sensible operating defaults are followed.
Most malware work just enough good when run under user account asw
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They should use macs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree with the general principle that *nix OSes (including Macs) are more secure than Windows, viruses are just as possible on other operating systems.
That said, the government could save shit-tons in licensing fees by switching to a free OS like Ubuntu, and they wouldn't have to worry about something like this happening nearly so often.
Re: (Score:2)
And then they'd have to pay shit tons to VMWare or Citrix so that they'd have some way of running all the Win32-only stuff they depend on and still end up paying for Windows licences. Ubuntu is not a drop in replacement for Windows just because Open Office can read and write .DOC and .XLS files.
Re: (Score:2)
What Win32-only stuff? My guess is you mean internal apps that are coded to only be read through IE, in which case, they can run IE on Ubuntu through various means. If you legitimately mean apps coded strictly for Win32, I doubt there are that many, and likely they can run through Wine without any trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
You doubt there are that many? What planet do you live on? And they can run through WINE without any trouble? Again what planet do you live on?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so you don't have any actual evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
And only Windows can be infected by simply visiting a web site.
Apparently not. Unless Apple have fixed it in the last 48 hours, there's an open serious issue on Macs in relation to Java. OTOH, it's unclear how prevalent the exploits for this are in the wild; things that stay in the lab aren't stuff to panic over.
Alas, it seems that Win-targeted exploits are fairly common. But let's not pile on unwarranted FUD...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every example in your list is a social engineering trojan. They all require the user to literally INSTALL the malware and enter their admin password to do it. No system can defend against that. There are proof of concept viruses and worms on the Mac, but pretty much everything in wild is a trojan and requires significant user intervention to work. That's hardly fair. Of course stupid Mac users are still stupid users. That doesn't make the system itself less secure. I'm not one of the "OMG, it's compl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This should be modded up.
Generally, I also recommend Mac for brain-dead users whose computers I don't want to fix every 3 days. There is simply less chance of such problems... randomly. Most exploits target Windows and MSIE, simple as that. But that is only GENERALLY...randomly...blindly.
More and more, we are seeing targeted attacks. The targetted attack is most successful when the contents of the network are known. So get one machine compromised (advanced scout), survey the network to see what's out t
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, my, yes.
Linux and UNIX are not immune: the Morris Worm proved that in 1988, and many of the flaws it revealed about people using bad passwords and not doing security updates remain true today in most personal and corporate environments. I just had a lot of fun explaining to a corporate partner that they _will not_ run VMware ESX in the exposed network network because it is RHEL 3 based, and VMWare basically refuses to provide access to RedHat registration to get updates or install necessary tools to man
Re:They should use macs (Score:4, Informative)
The reason windows systems are more vulnerable than Unix-like OS's is because in Windows, the default status of the computer is that the end user is running an administrator-type account, with full privileges to install new system software and replace drivers. In a properly administrated Unix system, only a few root-level processes are running, and the logged-in user does _not_ constantly have access to such privileges except when they are specifically requested by the user, and only then within the process that the end user specifically escalated privileges on. This leaves social engineering as the only real means by which a unix-type of machine is liable to be compromised, and avoiding that is also a matter of maintaining established sound system-administration practices.
Of course, maintaining such practices on windows systems would cause a significant (HUGE, even) drop in viruses on that platform as well (possibly even to the point that a resident virus scanner could be considered wasteful, and regular on-demand checks for compromises alone would likely be adequate). However, most windows users simply are not interested in learning how to be sysadmins, so the problem remains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mac (and linux, bsd, and probably the rest) are not invulnerable to malware, specially if you count what is run by the user. But the ladder you must climb (both in social and software engineering) is far higher for those cases than for the average windows installation, where the culture teaches you to install/run things from open internet without even worrying if there is a source that could be checked and is pretty documented how easy is to get i
Re: (Score:2)
The smaller number of exploits targeting Mac does make it a more secure platform, even if a big reason for that is a smaller user base. As far as I am aware, there are only three Macs in existence: a laptop owned by my boss, my idiot cousin's G5, and the one I've seen on House. I am sure there a few I am missing.
But I agree with your point regarding targeted attacks. If you ask the so-called Unix geeks on Slashdot if Unix platforms are susceptible to, say, Internet worms or other malware, I am certain a hig
Re: (Score:2)
So comes along one of those many fake websites that say 'you need to update your codec to watch this video'. User thinks its a new codec installed = your new program. Lots of malware seem to have changed to social engineering tactics instead of just trying to exploit some hole, and lots of users seem to fall to those.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard, the FBI was embarrassingly under-tech'd. They probably use paper and pencil a lot of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Houston's Hobby Airport (Score:3, Funny)