MUSLIM HACK ATTACK ON WESTERN WEB SITES

NY Post ^ | 2/20/2006 | NILES LATHEM

[adamsjas]

It doesn't take very many people to hack that many websites. It just takes website administrators who don't secure their websites and keep their servers updated with the latest security patches. With the automated vulnerability scanning and exploitation tools available today and so many unpatched, unprotected websites, it is not too hard to hack and deface a large number of them.

It relies on the web masters to use Microsoft products. That much seems believable.

But mounting this level of attack requires planning, and multiple attackers, and would have happened much earlier (years ago) if it was as easy as you indicate.

There are automated bots out there which would have long since discovered these vulnerable machines if they were simply cases of unpatched machines.

The problem of unpatches machines largely affects ma and pa polyester, but most businesses either a) don't host their own site, or b) use automatic patching which even lethargic Microsoft has finally taked seriously.

Note he attacks were not random, they were targeted toward Danish and western sites. Picking vulnerable servers randomly would not yield such fine control.

So either the story is overblown (which one can never discount these days) or they had help. Rampaging muslims running up and down the streets just don't have the methods, knowledge or resources.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Does this include practicing safe hex?

[VeniVidiVici]

"A full-blown e-jihad is a real possibility."

Oh brother. Let's not give these idiots too much credit.

[Spiff]

It relies on the web masters to use Microsoft products. That much seems believable.

Zone-H's own stats state differently:

By Operating System:
Linux	57.3%
Win 2000	19.6%
Win 2003	9.6%
FreeBSD	3.8%
Win NT9x	2.8%
Unknown	2.4%
SolarisSunOS	1.6%
Windows	1.4%
MacOSX	0.3%
AIX	0.2%
IRIX	0.2%
BSDOS	0.1%
Remaining	0.7%

It is just as easy to hack an unprotect, unpatched Linux-based webserver as it is to hack an Windows-based one. The difference is that once you own a Linux box, you really own it as you can do everything from the command line. With a Windows box there's a great many things that can't be done from the command line so it can actually be a more complex operation to do whatever you want on an exploited Windows box. I also think that the misconception about Linux somehow being more secure leads many administrators to go with Linux but not keep it properly patched and secured. I think this has contributed to the high number of defaced Linux systems compared to Windows systems.

I use both Windows and Linux. My notebook is dual-boot with Windows XP and Suse 10.0 (just changed it over the weekend from Mandriva Linux). Plus, I use a number of LiveCD Linux Distros for various purposes.

[conservativecorner]

Prophet Mohammed? How about just just plain old Mohammed because we don't believe he's a prophet?

[Spiff]

I did some checking at Zone-H, and in your favor I found that almost all of the defacements in the Danish top level domain .DK were done against Windows boxes.

I also found that many of the e-Jihad type stuff was done pretty randomly to systems all around the world and I did identify one group doing it who claimed to be Turkish.

[observer5]

Just cut off the net to these muslim countires. Waht do they need the Internet for anyway?

To secretly watch porn and then go out and rape?

[USF]

Do honest people have the capability of hacking websites?

Yes, especially if you have run an anti-terrorist forum before and have seen and just about every dirty trick in the book and have had to learn to counter them. ;o)

[USF]

There are not enough educated muslims in the world to mount an attack this large all on their own.

Trust me, there are.

[Uncle Jaque]

"Counterhacking" seems like a fair tactic to me - especially against E-Jihhad.

Take 'em down HARD!

[Uncle Jaque]

Re your #16 - "since reasonable companies control the wired connections to the Muslim world - just flip the switch."

"Reasonable", eh?

Was it "reason" that prompted Google and MS to block any sites not approved by the Chicom Politbureau and turn internet bloggers and dissidents over to the Chinese KGB?

Does it bother their CEOs or stockholders in the least that the web users they ratted out who had crossed the communist party lines are probably having or have had their organs harvested?

I doubt it... the "Bottom line" is sacred, it seems, and whatever sacrifice - including human - it takes to maximize profits seems to be fair game to the big weblords.

So with all of the oil money that Saudi Arabia has to throw around and do it's "talking" for it, who's to say that it won't be US who end up being shut out of the WWW, huh?

And it'll be our own bloody "providers" who will flip said switch, too!

[DoNotDivide]

Hunt them down and paint their toes with stars and stripes, then put panties on their heads.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Was it "reason" that prompted Google and MS to block any sites not approved by the Chicom Politbureau and turn internet bloggers and dissidents over to the Chinese KGB?

AFAIK, these companies need a license to operate their system in China. Part of that includes censoring websites via keyword and DoS to sites and people who are known to be involved against the government--they have to succumb under the Great Firewall of China.

Do I believe it's right? Absolutely not.

Obviously, there's enough of a market for Google and MS to advertise their wares, and the possibility of high profit compared to having to kowtow to the Communist Party of China just to operate seems a tad miniscule to these companies.

[adamsjas]

I did some checking at Zone-H, and in your favor I found that almost all of the defacements in the Danish top level domain .DK were done against Windows boxes.

Glad you were big enough to admit that after posting that bogus hit piece on linux.

[Spiff]

Glad you were big enough to admit that after posting that bogus hit piece on linux.

I posted no "bogus hit piece" on Linux. I posted Zone-H's actual numbers for systems hacked and defaced and Linux is by far the most hacked according to Zone-H.

Your statement that Windows was the most hacked was not based upon any analysis of the eJihad-hacked websites. It was purely anti-Windows bias. It was made in ignorance. I did further checking and from what I saw there was a preponderance of Windows systems involved in eJihad-like hacks, but overall the most hacked OS is still Linux. However, there is no really good way to filter to see only the eJihad hacks so my analysis is very anecdotal and may not truly reflect that actual breakdown of hacks on Windows vs. Linux systems. In fact, it is likely that in-depth analysis would actually show that the eJihad-hacked systems' number of Windows vs. Linux systems breaks down very similarly to the overall hacks and defacements that Zone-H has tracked. That would 57% Linux.

I'm telling you the truth and I am not affected by any stupid anti-Linux or anti-Windows bias either way. I would not have posted my finding from further analysis if it was going to prompt you to be such an ass. I will refrain from helping you out in the future.

# sudo rm -r /asshats/adamsjas