Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Software flaw threatens Linux servers
C|Net ^ | November 28, 2001, 1:50 p.m. PT | Robert Lemos

Posted on 11/28/2001 1:28:10 PM PST by Don Joe

Software flaw threatens Linux servers
By Robert Lemos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
November 28, 2001, 1:50 p.m. PT

A vulnerability in the most widely used FTP server program for Linux has left numerous sites open to online attackers, a situation worsened when Red Hat mistakenly released information on the flaw early, leaving other Linux companies scrambling to get a fix out.

"Other vendors didn't have a patch," said Alfred Huger, vice president of engineering for network security information provider SecurityFocus. The company has been working with vendors to fix the vulnerability after computer security company Core Security Technologies alerted them to the problem Nov. 14.

"The fix is not rocket science," Huger said. "But we weren't working at a breakneck pace to get a patch out, because everyone was working together."

The software flaw affects all versions of wu-FTP, a program originally created at Washington University at St. Louis for servers running FTP (file transfer protocol) functions for transferring files over the Internet.

While the exact number of active FTP servers on the Internet is not known, the software is the most commonly installed file server and accompanies most major Linux distributions, including those from Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera International, Turbolinux, Connectiva, Cobalt Networks, MandrakeSoft and Wirex.

The problem, known in security circles as the wu-FTP Globbing Heap Corruption Vulnerability, allows attackers to get remote access to all files on a server, provided they can access the FTP service. Since most such servers provide anonymous access to anyone on the Internet, a great number will be vulnerable.

Huger called the flaw "serious."

The impact of the software vulnerability was exacerbated because many Linux software companies were caught flat-footed by a surprise early release of information regarding the vulnerability.

While the group that discovered the flaw, Core ST, informed Linux software companies and the open-source group that manages development for wu-FTP of the flaw, Red Hat mistakenly released a security advisory to its customers on Tuesday.

Normally, an advisory is a good thing, but other Linux software sellers had expected any advisories to be published Dec. 3, giving them time to work on fixes. Instead, the surprise announcement left the customers of other companies' products vulnerable.

"We were releasing some advisories on the same day, and an overzealous administrator pushed this out as well," said Mark Cox, senior engineering director for Red Hat. The company is adding new safeguards to its publishing system to avoid similar problems in the future, he said.

"We put a stop to this," Cox said. "This will not happen again. It was a bad mistake."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-354 next last
To: stainlessbanner
Good question. I know RedHat is #1 in the U.S., and SuSE is #1 in Germany and much of Europe, but I do not know which is #1 world wide.
121 posted on 11/28/2001 3:13:34 PM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: kd5cts
If this is showing up, it's because wanna-be admins don't know squat about security. It happens with all os's. You wouldn't believe the number of people running windows that share their hard disk via DSL. Idiots will be idiots.

You are so right on the money. The problem is people who accept the default installation on any OS (Windows, Linux, OS/2, whatever).

The issue that I have is that a lot of the Unix crowd states that this can NEVER happen on their OS.

122 posted on 11/28/2001 3:13:43 PM PST by oc-flyfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I just saw a NUMA presentation by the IBMers in Redmond yesterday.
123 posted on 11/28/2001 3:14:22 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: danneskjold
If one were to be less generous than I, one might say "security through obscurity."

The point is, I suppose, to provide a "window" for vendors/authors/etc. to fix bugs before the skr1pt k1dd13s get their hands on the latest 31337 skr1tpz.

But that has never worked as a viable strategy, and if the window is too big, only encourages slackage, and extends the period of actual vulnerabilty for Joe SysAdmin.

124 posted on 11/28/2001 3:15:28 PM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: lelio
In the rules I state to log each packet that is dropped. Since I don't allow incoming stuff I don't want it logs those.

Purely technical question: What dropped packets are you recording if you are not logging dropped incoming packets? Do you have a security problem on your internal network?

125 posted on 11/28/2001 3:16:35 PM PST by oc-flyfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
"... Red Hat is actually not the #1 linux distribution - I believe it's mandrake or SuSe..."

It's Mandrake. The one with the InstallShield-like setup program that's so simple that even a 15-year old 'l33t /-/4><0R' can set it up.

126 posted on 11/28/2001 3:16:53 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Red Hat is actually not the #1 linux distribution - I believe it's mandrake or SuSe...

Define "distribution". Are you talking about retail ... or just some ISO that a bunch of dorks downloaded from the Web?
127 posted on 11/28/2001 3:17:05 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Whew! I bet all those Linux admins are really relieved! For a while there, I bet some of them actually believed their systems were susceptible to being compromised.

How relieved they must be to know that Linux remains utterly impregnable!

I can't believe how irresponsible that article is, giving people the idea that a security issue could affect Linux systems. What nerve!

128 posted on 11/28/2001 3:17:09 PM PST by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: oc-flyfish
Well, the other side of that is vendors providing lame defaults. RedHat and Microsoft have both been repeatedly guilty of this.

And, I would argue, lame, supposedly "user-friendly" defaults encourages poor system administration/installation/security.

129 posted on 11/28/2001 3:18:26 PM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Uh -- ya'll are trumpeting this as a Linux bug? Priceless. Maybe that's why ya'll defend MS -- can your understanding of technical issues really be *that* poor?

If IIS bugs are "Windows bugs", then this is certainly a "Linux bug".
130 posted on 11/28/2001 3:18:57 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: oc-flyfish
Blaming Linux for wuFTP's problems is like blaming Microsoft for ICQ's vulnerabilities.

I run Mandrake, Conectiva and Beehive Linuxes and have never even seen wuFTP as an installable option, i.e. it's not included in any of those distributions. Besides, any critical system utility like mail or ftp will have multiple programs to choose from. If you don't like one you pop in the CD and select another.

When was the last time a MS OS came bundled with alternative mail and ftp programs?

131 posted on 11/28/2001 3:19:14 PM PST by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Got any stock tips for me that I can purchase now to roll over in five years?
132 posted on 11/28/2001 3:19:19 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I'm beginning to understand *why* they defend MS in the first place. It doesn't take much technical knowledge to understand this is related to Linux like WS-FTP is related to Windows. Believing this is a 'Linux' bug takes a certain special lack of technical understanding . . .

I think the broader picture is the open source community versus commericial. I can't tell you how many times I have heard that these types of things NEVER happen in open source (ala Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris).

133 posted on 11/28/2001 3:19:56 PM PST by oc-flyfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
What is a real unix system? Did you know that linux runs on sun sparc machines? Much faster than sunos?

Unix boxes can be secured to C2 level. The spec is called the Orange Book by the people that do that kind of thing for a living.

/john

134 posted on 11/28/2001 3:20:02 PM PST by JRandomFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Blade
Trust me buddy, when it comes to serious design flaws, you don't want to count the score between Micro$oft and Linux.

Congratulations! You win the "Moral Relativism Award"!
135 posted on 11/28/2001 3:21:10 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Justa
Blaming Linux for wuFTP's problems is like blaming Microsoft for ICQ's vulnerabilities.

Tell that to your fellow Linux trolls who like to pile-on Microsoft IIS bugs as "Windows bugs".
136 posted on 11/28/2001 3:22:25 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
You're too funny.

Just f.y.i. -- there is a *ton* of buggy software for Linux. If all you're looking for is buggy software on Linux, you could point to a lot of it.

The 'security' issue is about the OS itself.

For example -- this security flaw wouldn't allow someone to affect the OS. That's what 'Linux and Unix are secure' means. Not that there has never been buggy software *for* it.

Interesting that you don't know that. I wonder if your lack of technical understanding has anything to do with your support of Microsoft?

You sound *so* uninformed right now. You really make me feel good about opposing you!

137 posted on 11/28/2001 3:23:19 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

Comment #138 Removed by Moderator

To: Bush2000
The diference is Microsoft is actually responsible for IIS, whereas they are not responsible for ICQ.
139 posted on 11/28/2001 3:23:52 PM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Will you cut back you trolling? You shrill posts are starting to sting my eyes.
140 posted on 11/28/2001 3:25:02 PM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-354 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson