Home

"Significant Number" of win2K attacks stump Microsoft: news.com

Thu, 09/05/2002 - 07:13 — charlie.collins

This is some scary stuff, exactly the kind of stuff that I feel highlights the weaknesses in proprietary closed security models.

Microsoft has apparently had a rash of server compromises all over the place with Windows 2000. Its not a worm they say, rather it is hackers. Microsoft Product Support Services (PSS) told system administrators to be on the lookout for Trojan horses.

Yet all the while Microsoft apparently cant figure out how the attacks are being pulled off and or how to stop them! Microsoft states that they do no know if this is a "new flaw or "just because Windows 2000 system patches are out of date." (Someone explain to me why the hell they cant figure that out, cant we CHECK one of the compromised systems and see if it had been patched or not?)

This is BAD enough, there is some exploit out there that is working but is unknown, but add to that the fact that Microsoft has decided NOT to release this to their security team and publish official advisories. THEY ARE KEEPING QUIET ABOUT IT (yeah they answer when asked, but they are not being proactive and providing the information to customers).

Ridiculous, DONT USE WINDOWS, DONT USE MICROSOFT, CASE IN POINT.   Server attacks stump Microsoft : news.com

Comments

Fri, 09/06/2002 - 07:27 — Andy (not verified)

Re:

We have had a large amount of comprimised w2k systems here on campus. They end up hosting warez and pirated movies on IRC (hehe). The funny part is, we also have a large amount of UNcomprimised systems on campus hosting warez and pirated movies...so how do you tell the difference? Hmm...

But seriously, we found that the LARGE MAJORITY of these were comprimised because there were BLANK administrator passwords. This isn't so much MS's fault as it is stupid administrators.

Fri, 09/06/2002 - 13:06 — atrox (not verified)

Re:

agreed. most computer system compromises, windows are not are related to the setup and maintenance. i recall years back being able to "crack" many MS SQL servers one day just to demonstrate it to my boss because I knew a percentage of them (large percentage that day) still had "sa" as the admin and blank or very weak passwords. same all around there, linux boxes arent immune to negligent setups.

still the issue of win2k being more prone to more frequent and more dangerous exploits is a valid one. its a real point. also the Microsoft not sending it to the security team is great. as for telling the difference, i just meant comparing binaries, etc, to identify exploits. of course you have to KNOW about the exploit first.

they let you back in for another year eh? good luck up there.

Fri, 09/06/2002 - 20:49 — Andy (not verified)

Re:

Yea, there is no question that windows vulnerabilities are probably more bad MS code than they are poor configuration...but smarter sysadmins can make a difference in the lack of GOOD support from your OS vendor.

Yea, I guess as long as they still get my check...hehe

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.