ThreadBoard ArchivesSite FeaturesActiveworlds SupportHistoric Archives |
New Worm Rocking the Internet - UDP Port 1434 (General Discussion)
New Worm Rocking the Internet - UDP Port 1434 // General Discussiond a nJan 25, 2003, 2:20pm
UDP port 1434 - SQL Server Monitor worm - likely using a known buffer
overflow to install itself on the server. Then came a name: Sapphire. http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Flash/AL20030125.html And Symantec seems to be calling it "W32.SQLExp.Worm" (if this is the same thing): http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.sqlexp.worm.html This all was going on the GRC Newsgroups, so that why the internet was chaos this morning >_< -- D a n bowenJan 25, 2003, 2:24pm
[View Quote]
Not many people run SQL servers on their PC. This would be classified as a low
priority to most users. --Bowen-- ananasJan 25, 2003, 2:43pm
This one affects only the microsoft SQL server, just one more in
a long row of microsoft based worms/trojans/viruses. [View Quote] bowenJan 25, 2003, 3:01pm
[View Quote]
WindowsME never crashed on me... I don't know what everyone's problems are with it.
In fact, it worked better than 98 on my other partition. --Bowen-- strike rapierJan 25, 2003, 3:28pm
the joker ssJan 25, 2003, 3:35pm
i have ME , and its the best OS i ever had , XP is too slow for me , and too
fashy bowenJan 25, 2003, 3:41pm
[View Quote]
Guess I'm not the only one who had better success with ME. I've had to disable so
much trash on XP to get it to perform on the same level. For example, that filled in click/drag/highlight box is such a performance killer. --Bowen-- chianaJan 25, 2003, 5:10pm
ME and XP are both good Operating Systems, and anyone with any techie PC
savvy would know that some PC's will run perfectly on a certain OS and others wont, it is all hardware related, my server runs 100 % stable on ME and get rebooted maybe once every 2 or 3 weeks for maintenance ( defrag etc ) yet the same server will not run on Server 2000 or XP it constantly crashes right from the start. yet my other PC's on the LAN run XP pro and 2000 without a glitch. jstone2004Jan 25, 2003, 6:19pm
XP is an infernal pestilence to this earth and should be destroyed with fire
and brimstone in the pits of hell -_- My buring hate for XP came from having it on my computer for 6 months... J [View Quote] d a nJan 25, 2003, 6:49pm
Acording to everyone, microsoft are in trouble.
http://www.internetpulse.net/ Recovering now though, was critical --- D a n bowenJan 25, 2003, 7:14pm
[View Quote]
Both were "designed" for their OS. The machine designed for ME crashes far less than
the machine designed for XP. --Bowen-- bowenJan 25, 2003, 7:14pm
[View Quote]
Hardly, it would actually mean he's overqualified to use it. You know, like if you
have a college education you're too smart to work for McDonalds. --Bowen-- baron sweetmanJan 25, 2003, 7:37pm
"chiana" <stonkingv8 at hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3e32e121$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com: > ME and XP are both good Operating Systems, and anyone with any techie > PC savvy would know that some PC's will run perfectly on a certain OS > and others wont, it is all hardware related, my server runs 100 % > stable on ME and get rebooted maybe once every 2 or 3 weeks for > maintenance ( defrag etc ) yet the same server will not run on Server > 2000 or XP it constantly crashes right from the start. yet my other > PC's on the LAN run XP pro and 2000 without a glitch. > > > it's mostly the drivers/bios combo that will make it stable/unstable on 1 or the other puter. I have an Award bios, if i switch on Fast Command win98 will run smoothly, and XP will crash within minutes. Best is to first set bios to lowest performance settings and then work upwards. The more complex the OS the bigger change it will need more 'standard' hardware settings, especially one written by MS as they use the age old tradition of the 'ostrich' algorythm in their os's jstone2004Jan 25, 2003, 7:59pm
ananasJan 25, 2003, 8:43pm
Here's some more about it, scroll down for English :
http://www.kryptocrew.de/home/index.php?newsid=197 This worm must be a good thing I guess, it attacked mostly services in Korea - and I got nearly no spam mails today, while my web connection was not affected at all :) We need more of those! [View Quote] bowenJan 25, 2003, 8:58pm
[View Quote]
I know that feeling. Instead of 200 spam messages, I got 3... that's a damn record.
--Bowen-- jermeJan 26, 2003, 3:22am
Yes, I recieved several "urgent" messages from the NOC where my server is
co-located. It's too bad the server is running linux, and I'd never put anything M$ on a server (that's franky very stupid). I've seen a little bit of a slow down today, but nothing major. Guess it sucks for those MS SQL people. -Jeremy -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jeremy Booker - Owner JTech Web Systems www.JTechWebSystems.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." -Mathew 5:34 [View Quote] bowenJan 26, 2003, 3:53am
[View Quote]
I know, that's an "in your face" to how sequre windows servers really are. I haven't
seen a linux worm anywhere near this bad yet. --Bowen-- baronJan 26, 2003, 5:09am
In article <3E32BE2A.E103857C at oct31.de>, vha at oct31.de says...
> This one affects only the microsoft SQL server, just one more in > a long row of microsoft based worms/trojans/viruses. > > Actually this one (like so many other) affects only some clueless windows admins, those with a clue have patched since July 2002 and were able to enjoy their weekend. -- Baron strike rapierJan 26, 2003, 9:08am
And if course you know the complexities of programming an OS to know how how
challanging it is? :) - Mark [View Quote] stecloudJan 26, 2003, 11:15am
The sad fact is, no matter how much time or work goes into programming
something - it makes no difference to the average user if it is causing them trouble. agent1Jan 26, 2003, 12:27pm
[View Quote]
Not really. Many people use Microsoft server software without incident. In fact, Microsoft sent a Security Bulletin in July that described this very problem and provided a patch. Anything that happened after that is the fault of lazy system administrators.
-Agent1 jstone2004Jan 26, 2003, 6:16pm
lol, same with crap :-) the molecular, cellular, and bacterial complexities
are very challenging... J [View Quote] jermeJan 26, 2003, 6:17pm
Well, there have been several well known bugs with linux servers.
ie: the mod_ssl/Apache web server with the linux.slapper worm which struck my server However, if you read up on this bug, you'll find the the problem was not in Apache itself but in a SSL crypto library from OpenSSL that the Apache server used. This library is in use with many program, all of which need to be patched with the latest version of the SSL library. Of course, the programmers were aware of the bug for over a month before the worm took off. There have also been root exploits with Sendmail and the wu-FTP server. All in all, much more secure than Windows. Where as Microsoft releases at least 1 securty bullitin every week, Apache has had so few security issues that I can count them on my figers. Moral of the story: Got Linux? -Jeremy -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jeremy Booker - Owner JTech Web Systems www.JTechWebSystems.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." -Mathew 5:34 [View Quote] kahJan 26, 2003, 8:56pm
"agent1" <agent1 at shatteredplatters.com.nospam> wrote in
news:3e33f066 at server1.Activeworlds.com: > Not really. Many people use Microsoft server software without > incident. In fact, Microsoft sent a Security Bulletin in July that > described this very problem and provided a patch. Anything that > happened after that is the fault of lazy system administrators. Well, MS products are so full of bugs and exploits that MS release patches and advisories every day, so it's rather hard to keep up with... I would never even think of using an MS server, using their OSes is insecure enough for me. KAH |
