Honeynet Delineates Web Application Threats 40
An anonymous reader sends us to a technical white paper written by the Honeynet Project & Research Alliance: Know Your Enemy: Web Application Threats. Based on analysis of malware collected by the project, the paper outlines a number of HTTP-based attacks against web applications and some ways of protecting Web servers. Included are code injection, remote code-inclusion, SQL injection, cross-site scripting, and exploitation of the PHPShell application.
Re: (Score:1)
There are also cases where people crash entire operating systems by using up all the video card's memory, see ha.ckers.org/imagecrash.html (WARNING: may crash you, though latest version of IE is not affected).
You could also use th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not malware or a bot, but still an attack-WMB (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
So I decided to teach this jackass a lesson and use a rewrite rule that turns those image requests into humiliating messages about himself. [...] If you're going to do something like this, don't do it from your real account./i>
What makes you think he did? For all you know, he goaded you into attacking somebody he doesn't like.
Re: (Score:1)
So so many nasty internet images, so few myspace morons to mess with.
Uh . . (Score:1)
chroot and run it as nobody?
Install mod_security?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If it's the apps being attacked and not the server, the first line of defense is to sanitize user input.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Web applet security is certainly an important matter, just not one that stirs up a great deal of controversy.
Hear that understanding? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
But for the other part of
-register globals - 'nuff said
-SQL injection (rather crappy explanation, and an extremely basic one here - there's FAR better articles on this!)
-people not validating stuff before they use it
-XSS
etc.
Along with
Re: (Score:1)
<voice="theatrical">Ohhh yes it does!</voice>
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
What I got out of it was... (Score:1)
Patch! Patch! Patch! (Score:4, Informative)
The three rules of running a web app you didn't write:
- Greg
Related work (Score:5, Interesting)
Michal Zalewski pointed out a cute hack some years ago. Search engine spiders have to follow links that end in queries, like "toparticle.php?page=1". Barring extraordinary and ultimately impossible care in the coding of the spiders, they could also follow URLs that include attack code after the question mark. In _Silence on the Wire_, he imagined a crook building a long list of links to potentially vulnerable systems, appending attack code to each, and leaving the list someplace where Googlebot and its colleagues will find it. Googlebot could twist the doorknob on 1.5 million PHPBB systems a lot faster than the crook possibly could.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As GP stated, you could publish on any webpage a list of links that contain malicious code in them. When Google, Yahoo, and other spiders crawl the links, *THEY* end up doing the attacking. That is rather dangerous, I'd say - it'd be very difficult to track down the person responsible, especially if the original webpage was posted on a zombie server.
It reminds me of this DailyWTF story: http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/The_Spider_of _Doom.aspx [worsethanfailure.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The spider wouldn't see that until AFTER they followed the link to http://www.sucker.com/admin.php?user=default&pass
A Real web attack honeypot project (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
you're not too far along are you?
Don't forget Cross site request forgery (Score:2)
Compromised server (Score:5, Informative)
Take your eye off the ball and lose your server, it's as simple as that.
If you have a server with a lot of PHP applications running, you need to watch them all. I forgot about a CMS installation on my server that was being preserved for historical reasons (not even linked from the front page, but obviously visible to google), and sure enough, it got exploited via a remote inclusion attack and was used for nefarious perposes for a while without being noticing.
Checking the logs, the definite path of attack was a google for a known vunerable version of the CMS system, and then application of a perl script to perform the hack. Clearly the vunerable system goes into a database of known vunerable systems that gets shared, because to this day, despite the CMS system being backed up and taken offline, my server get attacks about once every 20 minutes from perl scripts targeting that CMS.
I also regularly see bots automatically filling in registration forms with spam, and wikis getting referrer comments added to them or even the content changed by bots.
Looking after even a smallish webserver has proven to be a royal pain in the proverbial.
Regarding PHPShell, I'd hope most people hash their password in the config file rather than leaving it plain-text, and also hide it away somewhere non-obvious (maybe behind another level of protection to keep the webcrawlers from spotting it). But even with hashed passwords, logging in still uses a plaintext password, and is thus equally vunerable to good old ftp and telnet password sniffing. The Joomla extension to provide a plugin PHPShell is a worrying development, and I'm sure will lead to more PHPShell discoveries on servers.
Really the only way to avoid being compromised if you have a semi-busy site, is to learn how to compromise websites yourself, and try it on your own site (and it also teachs you what to look out for in logs). This in combination with regular patching seems to be the best way to stay one step ahead.
And yes, keeping the evidence is good - it gets stupid kids kicked off their ISPs when you send them the proof.