Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
It was only a matter of time until ransomware groups that wiped data from thousands of MongoDB databases and Elasticsearch clusters started targeting other data storage technologies. Researchers are now observing similar destructive attacks hitting openly accessible Hadoop and CouchDB deployments.
Security researchers Victor Gevers and Niall Merrigan, who monitored the MongoDB and Elasticsearch attacks so far, have also started keeping track of the new Hadoop and CouchDB victims. The two have put together spreadsheets on Google Docs where they document the different attack signatures and messages left behind after data gets wiped from databases.
In the case of Hadoop, a framework used for distributed storage and processing of large data sets, the attacks observed so far can be described as vandalism.
That's because the attackers don't ask for payments to be made in exchange for returning the deleted data. Instead, their message instructs the Hadoop administrators to secure their deployments in the future.
According to Merrigan's latest count, 126 Hadoop instances have been wiped so far. The number of victims is likely to increase because there are thousands of Hadoop deployments accessible from the internet -- although it's hard to say how many are vulnerable.
The attacks against MongoDB and Elasticsearch followed a similar pattern. The number of MongoDB victims jumped from hundreds to thousands in a matter of hours and to tens of thousands within a week. The latest count puts the number of wiped MongoDB databases at more than 34,000 and that of deleted Elasticsearch clusters at more than 4,600.
A group called Kraken0, responsible for most of the ransomware attacks against databases, is trying to sell its attack toolkit and a list of vulnerable MongoDB and Elasticsearch installations for the equivalent of $500 in bitcoins.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday January 22 2017, @07:36PM
You'd think that people would be clever enough to keep stuff like this off the open internet and access it through SSH at least. Oh well, I guess it's a learning experience, for both access and backup technologies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @08:28PM
Not necessarily even backups. Ready only snapshots would do the trick for restoring.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by EvilSS on Sunday January 22 2017, @08:46PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @08:49PM
What is worse is you basically have to learn most of this junk the 'hard way'. You end up having to be come an expert at security just so you can write a stupid simple damn app.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @09:22PM
if you're too stupid not to control access to your database from the web then you need to take your dumb ass back to your windows/mac laptop.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday January 22 2017, @10:04PM
I'd think that they would not be so incompetent as to not back their data up. Hard drive failure or hacker, with backups it's little problem.
Fools pay ransom on ransomware, the wise have backups.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday January 22 2017, @11:59PM
I wonder if most of these aren't needed to feed public websites and stuff like that.
I seriously can't imagine anybody putting up a huge dataset like that spread around a boatload of servers without a single thought about security. Otoh, we had at least one candidate for the highest of the land who couldn't be bothered to secure several different servers, because they could just pass a law against hacking and solve all those problems.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday January 23 2017, @02:19AM
Even for public sites, these sit behind a firewall and are only accessed by the middeware servers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday January 22 2017, @08:47PM
In the case of Hadoop, a framework used for distributed storage and processing of large data sets, the attacks observed so far can be described as vandalism.
That's because the attackers don't ask for payments to be made in exchange for returning the deleted data.
Why wouldn't it be vandalism if they had asked for a ransom?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday January 22 2017, @10:14PM
It's rather that vandalism+ransom is a superset of vandalism implying* that some recovery method exists under control of the opposing force. Saying simply vandalism doesn't imply any forthcoming recovery and doesn't imply anyone asking for a ransom.
In car terms, it's sort of like the difference between putting a secret chemical in the fuel tank that stops use of the car, and demanding payment for a neutralizing counteragent ("ransom"), vs. simply putting sugar in the gas tank and tacking a note to the windshield saying "hey secure your fuel tank next time" ("vandalism").
Both include vandalism as critical steps in the method, but if the method is only that one step, then calling the method by that step is convenient shorthand.
(* implying doesn't mean guaranteeing, of course)
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Monday January 23 2017, @06:13AM
...because in my experience, deleting any data from a Hadoop cluster is p.a.i.n.f.u.l.l.y. slooooow. Clearly designed for accumulating as much data as possible, never ever giving it up.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Monday January 23 2017, @02:26PM
I should drive around throwing paint-balloons at houses because, after all, the outsides of the houses aren't secured. And then I'll start throwing at people because they didn't have the forethought to wear protective gear. Does this logic disturb you? If so, good, thank you for supporting civilization. This is not just vandalism; this is "poisoning the well" of the entire concept of openness and public information.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23 2017, @11:58PM
They really are doing a service to these platforms. Security shouldn't be an afterthought. Also, if you use free software, pay for its development. One would think these rules would be simple as don't shit where you eat but it seems otherwise...