On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 00:45 +0800, Alex Nordstrom wrote:
Friday, 11 November 2005 00:13, Moderator wrote:
Linux worm overrated
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/368
That may well be, but I've seen two attacks in the last week, one from
an Indonesian host and one Taiwanese, so it's definitely out there. It
looks more active at the moment than Nimda, which has declined a lot
since this time last year (although that might have more to do with the
fact that I since decided to drop all packets from China and South
Korea).
A very, very cursory look (egrep 'xmlrpc|hints|awstats' * |wc -l) at the
logs of an apache box which has been sitting online for ~2 weeks gives
286 lines of related activity - there are no pages on this server with
any of those three strings in them, so these are all (probably)
automated attacks.
Looking a little more carefully, it seems that there have been 7 unique
attacking addresses (quite a few lines for so few clients, thanks to a
mod_security log dropping most of this traffic as well as access_log
entries for the error 500s).
It is obviously overrated - but the "novelty of a bi-annual Linux worm"
does indeed tend to generate some hype. Especially funny though, since
this isn't really a linux worm - it just has a platform-specific
payload. ;)
Actually, what strikes me as interesting in this particular instance is
the fact that the worm exploits web applications - given the complete
commoditization of web hosting (and, thanks to the low profit margins,
the lack of effort which frequently goes into shared hosting
environments), I'd hazard that this and more web-related intrusions &
worms is a sign of a growing shift bringing web apps alongside socket
apps as targetable.
I have to say, I wonder how many of thousands of freely available
webapps that are out there (especially PHP ones, seemingly) even realise
that such considerations exist - I remember talking to a developer on an
(actually fairly large) LAMP app 12 months ago and being shocked when
he'd never heard the term "SQL Injection" before. ;)
- James.
