[Snort-users] Code Red attacks - a warning.

Tom Rowan tom.rowan at ...3394...
Tue Sep 18 03:21:02 EDT 2001


Something like that MIGHT work.
But, are you not opening yourself up to being seen to commit the same
offense(s) that the original author of Code Red is? You are using
someone elses
system without their permission... which is illegal!
 
While it is an honourable thought, I think you've got to be careful
here.
 
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Franki [mailto:franki at ...2492...]
Sent: 18 September 2001 09:55
To: snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Snort-users] Code Red attacks


couldn't we just write an upload a bat file for the server to run ???
 
ie: update.bat
 
ftp www.update.microsoft.com/yada/yadda/yadda
 
get /updates/something/iisupdate.exe
 
c:\somewhere\iisupdate.exe
 
shutdown -r now #couldn't remember the windows version of that so I
substituted the *nix version,, you get the idea.
 
would that not work?? and since the patch gets downloaded from a MS
server, its less likely to get detractors... 
 
you could also have it email the admin of the server, something to the
effect...
 
 
After hours of sustained requests from your server to one of ours,  our
server response has activated,, and has responded to YOUR
servers REQUEST by telling it to download the patch from microsoft... if
you are reading this, there is a good chance it was sucessful, and you
are no longer suseptable to Code red and its variants.
however, this does not exclude the possibility that sometime in the
period that you were infected, your server did not have "back doors"
installed. you should look into this and take the necessary steps.
 
 
I think thats a nice solution, and it makes it clear that the other
server requested the info, and that the patch was the response...(its
just like manually downloading stuff from the web, if you download a
dodgy program and install it, you can't blame the guy who wrote it
legally because he didn't force you to install it.... you requested the
download..... see what I mean?
 
 
 
rgds
 
Frank
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: snort-users-admin at lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:snort-users-admin at lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Jason
Withrow
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2001 8:33 AM
To: 'Jason Withrow'; 'Greg Wright'
Cc: snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Snort-users] Code Red attacks


I think we should write that.
 
The world will be a better place.
 
So the question now is how can we upload the patch?

WE know that there will most likely be a cmd shell living in c, which
has been shared out thru IIS and has been given execute permissions by
Code Red’s infection process.
 
I guess we would have to send a carefully crafted url response back,
passing parameters back to cmd.exe to invoke the ftp.exe???
 
 
- Jason
 
-----Original Message-----
From: snort-users-admin at lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:snort-users-admin at lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Jason
Withrow
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:23 PM
To: 'Greg Wright'
Cc: snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Snort-users] Code Red attacks
 
I like it.
 
It makes complete sense to me.
 
- Jason
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: snort-users-admin at lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:snort-users-admin at lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Greg
Wright
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 7:56 PM
To: 'snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net'
Subject: RE: [Snort-users] Code Red attacks
 
I liked the idea of configuring the server to return data to an
exploited system that will patch the hole, however the potential
legality issues frighten me, however I wonder...
Isn't it possibly a little convoluted in that the exploited system that
you are 'putting' data on is actually requesting *something* from your
server initially. The action of 'putting data' is the serving of a
request initiated by the infected system.
If you were to put data on your web server system that stops CodeRed,
and an affected box attempted to scan for and pass a request to your
server, then the data that it passes back was not sent directly, but
sent in response to a request.
What is the general opinion on this? 
Regards, 
Greg Wright 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Erek Adams [ mailto:erek at ...577...] 
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2001 8:22 AM 
To: Jason Withrow 
Cc: 'Gordon Ewasiuk'; snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net 
Subject: RE: [Snort-users] Code Red attacks 
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Jason Withrow wrote: 
> What is the legal issue, it is a purely defensive mechanism. 
Well...  I'm not a lawyer, but:  You're doing _something_ to someone
elses 
machine--Uninvited.  That in and of itself can put you in a lot of legal

hotwater, depending on the remote sites security policy.  Now, I'm not
arguing 
the morality of what you're doing, or what you intend to do, but the act
of 
accessing someone elses stuff without consent puts you into the same
class as 
a 'hacker' in a lot of corportate security policy eyes. 
Instead, "Do the Right Thing".  :)  Anyone from your local subnets, give
them 
a call.  Most of the CR{I,II,III} tend to target the local subnets over
remote 
ones.  A quick use of whois and traceroute will usually give you a fair
idea 
of where someone is at physically. 
Or simpler, block them at the router.  ;-) 
----- 
Erek Adams 
Nifty-Type-Guy 
TheAdamsFamily.Net 
 
_______________________________________________ 
Snort-users mailing list 
Snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net 
Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe: 
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-users 
Snort-users list archive: 
http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=snort-users 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.snort.org/pipermail/snort-users/attachments/20010918/9f0b15cf/attachment.html>


More information about the Snort-users mailing list