Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the a-pictures-worth-a-thousand-lines-of-malware dept.

El Reg reports

Penetration tester Marcus Murray says attackers can use malicious JPEGs to pop modern Windows servers, to gain expanded privileges over networks.

In a live hack set down for RSA San Francisco this week, the TrueSec boffin shows how he used the hack to access an unnamed US Government agency that ran a buggy photo upload portal.

A key part of the stunt is achieved by inserting active content into the attributes of a jpg image, such that the file name read image.jpg.aspx. "I'm going to try to compromise the web server, then go for back end resources, and ultimately compromise a domain controller," Murray said, adding the hack is not that difficult.
video

This is by no means a new attack vector.

Why are we still dealing with this over ten years later?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:16PM (#173529)

    Which part of "Microsoft product" did you not understand?

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:57PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:57PM (#173541) Journal

      You should know the rules by now, AC. When you assign blame where it actually belongs, you get modded out of sight. Why don't you try again? Blame it on that gang of hoodlums over at BSD. Doesn't matter which gang, Free, Open, any of them will work. And, we'll blame all those Adobe exploits on Linus Torvalds. That should make things right, and get you and I modded up real high! Just don't make the mistake of blaming Apple for anything!

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @04:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @04:26PM (#173577)

      Which part of "Microsoft product" did you not understand?

      "Micro". I always thought that meant "small", not "bloated".

      • (Score: 2) by VortexCortex on Tuesday April 21 2015, @06:40PM

        by VortexCortex (4067) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @06:40PM (#173621)

        It's only micro when it's soft, babe.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by GlennC on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:18PM

    by GlennC (3656) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:18PM (#173530)

    The reason we are still dealing with this problem is that the blame can be easily and quickly shifted to Somebody Else.

    Between the outsourcing, offshoring, contracting and going "to the cloud", no one group has their feet held to the fire for very long.

    Conversely, no one group is holding Microsoft's feet to the fire, so the Caucus Race goes on.

    --
    Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:33PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:33PM (#173533)

      Also, most of those affected by the problem are completely unaware that the problem even exists. My experience so far in dealing with organizations in relation to security is that there are basically 2 security stances that most spend most of their time in:

      (A) Meh, we don't need to worry about it. Everything's fine.

      (B) OMG, we were just hacked! PANIC! Throw lots of money at the problem until it goes away!

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fadrian on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:33PM

    by fadrian (3194) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:33PM (#173532) Homepage

    Security of these systems is nothing but smoke from the bottom to the top. For years, we have pushed the "first to market" button over every other consideration. I hope someone eventually figures out that, if you're building your world on software, maybe the base ought to be be a bit more secure and we should take a bit of time and effort to work on that?

    Naaaahhh! Bright and shiny beats safe any day. Right, fellow primates?

    --
    That is all.
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:55PM (#173536)

      OMG... the Galaxy S6 has been out more than a week! My S5 is obsolete - it barely functions as a paperweight! Hey [ATT/Veririzon/T-Mobile] - Take my money!

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by rts008 on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:45PM

      by rts008 (3001) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:45PM (#173557)

      Maybe my POV comes from doing construction work most of my life, but I try to keep always in mind that a good foundation is essential to building a good building that serves well for ages.

      That could also explain why I've never been a MS fan once I learned the basics of computers(around 1996?), and their networks. :-)

      Win 7 is the first MS OS that has not had me wanting to nuke Redmond within an hour of using it. I would have settled for a few strategically placed MOAB's for Win 7, but changed my mind with Win 8/Metro. Nukem 'til they glow!!! ;-)

      Yes, bright and shiny wins overwhelmingly.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by gnuman on Tuesday April 21 2015, @05:02PM

        by gnuman (5013) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @05:02PM (#173583)

        Maybe my POV comes from doing construction work most of my life, but I try to keep always in mind that a good foundation is essential to building a good building that serves well for ages.

        Right. And when you ask almost all residential construction workers (and "foundation experts"), they'll tell you that all foundations crack within a decade and that the basement floor cracks after a year too. And both are solved problems but are deliberately sabotaged by the construction companies and building codes so they save $1-5k in rebar. They also tell you that "all basements are damp" - another complete bullshit, but hey, it saves you a day of work to waterproof the construction (and move the dewpoint to the outside wall, not the inner wall. Anyway ....

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 22 2015, @12:09AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 22 2015, @12:09AM (#173750) Journal

          Yes, and no. Buildings settle. Foundations shift. Crap happens. But, the problem isn't the rebar. The problem, if any, is created BEFORE the rebar is tied, the concrete is poured, or any later stage of construction. It's the GROUNDWORK!

          Dig down to bedrock. If that is not possible, drill piers down to bedrock, ensuring that those piers are large and strong enough to support the entire structure. Any job I did for the state of Texas required that the ground be dug out at least three feet below the foundation, then backfilled. That backfill must be compacted to at least 95%. Travel the highways in Texas, and you'll notice roadbeds being dug out, filled, dug again and filled, and dug yet again and filled. The inspectors weren't satisfied with the compaction, so the construction company does it over and over until the inspectors are happy.

          I don't mean to minimize the importance of the rebar, but the groundwork has to done right, or everything else is wasted.

          You don't see many residential home builders doing that kind of groundwork ahead of construction. It's more common to see idiots dumping sand into the low spots to make the entire floor level with the high spots on the ground, and instead of a real foundation, pouring what I would call a "heavyup" around the edges. And, you're left with pourous soil under your home, which moves with the seasons.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:11PM

    by VLM (445) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:11PM (#173544)

    The problem with bugs like this is a simple software patch doesn't fit the culturally dominant security theater model.

    How can we strip search people or walk them thru a scanner or racial profile them or trade lucrative contracts for election contributions if the problem is something in software? If the only good security is offensive and obnoxious security (which means anything offensive or obnoxious is also good security) then a simple patch isn't good security unless its delivered by a SWAT team or the discovering researcher is jailed or something.

    We can fix "sneaking an ounce of liquid onto an airplane" or "racial profile suspected terrorists" but the biz model doesn't know how to handle "write software that isn't crap" or "try code review" or "issue a patch".

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @05:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @05:08PM (#173584)

      So we need a dude in a tac vest and a gun with a black usb drive :)

  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:27PM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:27PM (#173550)

    ...for using Microsoft products. Their track record has been like this for decades.

    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:48PM (#173561)
      To be fair: Linux fanboys see vulnerabilities like this as an example of how great OSS is. They've been grading MS on a curve all this time.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 21 2015, @05:10PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @05:10PM (#173585)

        No, it is an example of how great OSS is. Every single time some vulnerability like this is discovered in OSS, it's fixed quickly (sometimes within hours), and a patch is issued immediately. No, OSS isn't perfect, and has vulnerabilities too, but when they're found, they're immediately fixed. The same simply can't be said for proprietary software. There, the companies even want to restrict people from disclosing these vulnerabilities publicly, and if they could, they'd make it illegal to EVER disclose them, because they really don't care to fix them since that affects their bottom line. This simply doesn't exist in OSS, where the creators of the software actually take pride in their work and want to fix it when problems are found.

        How else do you explain a vulnerability in Windows going for 10 years without a fix?

        • (Score: 2) by nukkel on Tuesday April 21 2015, @06:27PM

          by nukkel (168) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @06:27PM (#173614)

          How else do you explain a vulnerability in Windows going for 10 years without a fix?

          It got promoted to 'feature'?

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by panachocala on Tuesday April 21 2015, @08:06PM

            by panachocala (464) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @08:06PM (#173649)

            Because of cooporation with NSA which was using it to infect Iranian centrifuges, etc.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 21 2015, @08:43PM

          by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Tuesday April 21 2015, @08:43PM (#173665) Homepage
          It's not necessarily the same bug? The same kind of wrongthink (let's execute data from an untrusted source!) can just as easily be added two or more times as it can once.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:31PM

    by RobotMonster (130) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:31PM (#173551) Journal

    Why would you need servers for your windows?
    To show jpegs on your windows?
    Is this part of some home automation thing?
    Windows are a thing, right? Is it too soon?
    (I'll get my coat)

    Seriously though, the TFA references a JPEG attack from 2004 (as does all I could find with a quick search), but I'm pretty sure there was a JPEG of Death floating around in the Windows NT days, say ~1998; it took your otherwise pretty solid (for Microsoft at the time) machine to a BSOD instantly. Good times.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @05:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @05:52PM (#173596)

      but I'm pretty sure there was a JPEG of Death floating around in the Windows NT days, say ~1998

      Hmm, you must be referring to the Windows logo.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:32PM (#173553)

    Linux servers on their critical systems.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:32AM (#174173)

      LOL word.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by WillR on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:34PM

    by WillR (2012) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:34PM (#173554)
    Because we spent the last 10 years adding features and building new things, instead of rewriting all of 2005's computing infrastructure in a way that's immune to buffer overruns and pointer fuckery?
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Tuesday April 21 2015, @04:27PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @04:27PM (#173578)

    In a related question, why are people still going to theRSA security conference when RSA demonstrably is not an organization that believes in security. I could understand people attending if they gave a conference related to "Capitalism for short term profit" or something similar.

  • (Score: 2) by Subsentient on Tuesday April 21 2015, @06:07PM

    by Subsentient (1111) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @06:07PM (#173602) Homepage Journal

    What's wrong with PNG?

    --
    "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @07:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @07:09PM (#173634)

      Nothing is wrong with .PNG--as long as you don't mind larger file sizes.

      PNG is ideal for line drawings.[1]
      PNG is good for images with few colors.
      When you get into photos or images with lots of colors, PNG loses its luster.

      A suggested replacement for JPG is WebP.
      It became as good as JPG after improvements were made to it. [wikipedia.org]
      Its owner (Google) has licensed it as gratis and libre aka an open protocol.
      Good luck getting a Google competitor to support it.

      Another replacement for JPG is BPG.
      It is also claimed to be an "open" protocol.
      It may be covered by patents that don't expire until 2033. [wikipedia.org]
      (A curse on patent clerks who have approved patents on mathematics.)

      [1] Please, people, stop using JPG for these.

      -- gewg_

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by gishzida on Tuesday April 21 2015, @08:02PM

    by gishzida (2870) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @08:02PM (#173647) Journal

    Let's see...

    What kind of idiot takes a server that sits in a DMZ and attaches it to a domain controller? A MS Admin because they are not trained that "Internet facing" servers are a danger to their local network and should be isolated... and besides Management won't sit still for adding additional security costs. Better yet just outsource the whole thing, authentication and all...

    What kind of security admin allows that? One that is so busy attending to other things (certification classes, hacker conventions, and soothing poor over worked management) that they never actually do any kind of security work. Oh wait it's too expensive to have a dedicated security admin... Outsource that position...

    What kind of IT management or company management allows it? The one that can ignore the danger, work to keep costs down to increase the chance of a higher salary, and then blame and fire the lowly admins when the systems are over run by "black hats" [which might be everything from a script kiddy to their own government].

    It was once said [circa 1995/6] that NT 3.51 workstation or server was secure so long as you didn't plug it into a network switch.... Windows [and management] has not changed all that much.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @08:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @08:11PM (#173651)

    Near direct quote from To Sail Beyond the Sunset: The answer to any question beginning with, "Why..." is, "money."
    It costs less to continue to allow intrusions to continue and pay scads of people to write detection/decontamination routines and software patches, than it does to re-engineer the entire operating system or software to disallow that class of flaw.

    Also, because the economy of the United States is now inextricably tied to making systems dumb enough and multifunctional enough that average people can use them. ("But I've GOT to have my streaming / face timing / Facebooky Picturing / fad of the year!")

  • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday April 22 2015, @05:29PM

    by darkfeline (1030) on Wednesday April 22 2015, @05:29PM (#174057) Homepage

    A better question is why is this relevant? No one worth their weight in non-recyclable trash would be running a (public facing) Windows server in this day and age.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!