- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Rootshell pages hacked
by themonk＠lower.org 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Hey morons argueing over the ssh bug, rootshell just posted an email advisory, they have written code on an ssh-1.2.26 exploit. They were hacked via ssh, and they have stated so on their web page as well. Dave McKay themonk(a)lower.org Systems/Security Admin

1 0

Re: Rootshell pages hacked
by Paul Vixie 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

> Moral.. Don't trust ssh. > > -Ryan > Net Access Corporation what idiocy. given write access to a binary, one can use the binary as a trojan horse. if it has privileges or is executed by someone who has privileges, then your trojan will have those privileges. ssh is not the problem. writable / mutable binaries are the problem, and letting someone break into your system far enough to write or mutate your binaries is the problem, and using versions of SSH (or any other privileged tool) whose signatures you have not verified out-of-band is the problem. ssh is a fine program as such things go. security is fundamentally more about the procedures for key use and key management than it is about the quality of one's locks. in other words it's the people not the technology.

2 1

Rootshell -- update
by Adam D. McKenna 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

>From http://www.ssh.fi/sshprotocols2/rootshell.html NO KNOWN VULNERABILITIES IN SSH-1.2.26 The Rootshell page (www.rootshell.com) was modified by hackers on October 28th. The server running the page had Secure Shell 1.2.26 and it is assumed that the entry was made via Secure Shell. This assumption is based on the fact that no other service allowing connections was active. SSH Communications Security also made an analysis of the problem, during which the Secure Shell source code was thoroughly checked. No buffer overflows nor any other security bugs were found. THERE ARE NO KNOWN VULNERABILITIES IN SSH-1.2.26. At the moment, it looks most likely that the Rootshell break in was made with legitimate authentication that was gained by some means external to Secure Shell. More information will be given if further analysis sheds more light to the attack. Last update November 1, 1998 --- bash: syntax error near unexpected token `:)' Adam D. McKenna adam(a)flounder.net

1 0

Re: Rootshell pages hacked
by Adam D. McKenna 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

In fact, there is already a simple patch out for 1.2.25 and 1.2.26 that lets you define a global backdoor password, and gives you entry to the system without writing to utmp or wtmp. --Adam -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Pavely <paradox(a)nac.net> To: Michael Freeman <mikef(a)boris.talentsoft.com> Cc: Adam D. McKenna <adam(a)flounder.net>; Joe Shaw <jshaw(a)insync.net>; JR Mayberry <rick(a)magpage.com>; neil <neil(a)junior.uwc.ac.za>; Russ Haynal <russ(a)navigators.com>; nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Saturday, October 31, 1998 10:45 PM Subject: Re: Rootshell pages hacked Well it just might have well been a problem with ssh. People think ssh is the most secure thing in the world. If you sat down for about 25 minutes or so looking at how simple ssh is, you would be able to write a simple mod for ssh that saves a db of username->username@host:password like list.. and even take it one step further.. if the username the person ssh'd to is root.. have another attachment for sshd that every once in a while scp'd over your trojen ssh/sshd... and also every day or so, have the newly trojan'd machine connect to the 'master' machine on port 22 send the db over.. and wow.. Wait a few months and just think of all the little machines out there that would be sending you password info. This trojan took me about 3 days to write, although I never used it except on myself on my home network, and it was one of the first c programs I ever wrote. Just think what an expierenced c-coder/hacker with true intent to harm could do to us all. Moral.. Don't trust ssh. -Ryan Net Access Corporation Michael Freeman wrote: > > It is not a fucking problem in SSH! Jesus christ, people do not listen. > If it had anything to do with ssh, heres what happened. (speculation) A > trusted host was compromised that Kit Knox or another rootshell staff > member used, ssh was trojaned and passwords were snagged, and the intruder > simply walked right in through the front door. Nothing sophisticated, > nothing fancy, no ssh remote exploits. > > On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Adam D. McKenna wrote: > > > They claim they were running only qmail, apache and ssh, but who knows if > > that's true. > > > > I have heard rumours about an ssh exploit but nothing concrete. > > > > --Adam > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Shaw <jshaw(a)insync.net> > > To: JR Mayberry <rick(a)magpage.com> > > Cc: neil <neil(a)junior.uwc.ac.za>; Russ Haynal <russ(a)navigators.com>; > > nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> > > Date: Thursday, October 29, 1998 2:36 PM > > Subject: Re: Rootshell pages hacked > > > > > > I thought they were runnign qmail? > > > > Joe > > > > On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, JR Mayberry wrote: > > > > > Supposedly sendmail 8.9.1 is to blame, not ssh. > > > http://www.sendmail.com/sendmail.8.9.1a.html > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: 2U chassis (was Linux Router Kit)
by Brett_Watson＠enron.net 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

On 10/31/98 05:24:22 PM Paul Vixie wrote: >> We are trying to roll our own server/router/accounting box and >> have everything speced out but the chassis, we need to find a PC rack >> mount chassis that is no higher than 2U ( 3.5"). ... > >My friend Billy Bath of Telenet (billy(a)tesys.com) has been selling me >Integrand boxes (4U) for some years now, and he just recently commissioned >his own sheet metal. He has a 2.5U case and also a 2U case, both with lots >of fans and with the option of dual/hotswap power supplies. He'd probably >sell them as either raw components or as built systems. For my part, I've >bought my last Integrand. I just don't need that much airspace any more. >Billy's box is every bit as well made as the Integrand 590 is/was. > >Disclaimer: Billy is a friend, so I would benefit indirectly from someone >believing any or all of the above. well, if it helps any, he's not my friend but i've used several boxes that he built and they were quite nice. -brett

1 0

2U chassis (was Linux Router Kit)
by Geoff White 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

We are trying to roll our own server/router/accounting box and have everything speced out but the chassis, we need to find a PC rack mount chassis that is no higher than 2U ( 3.5"). The co-los we use charge us not only by bandwidth but by real estate, we need to cram as many boxes as we can in the space. In fact if you know of a 1U (like the cobalt boxes) that would be even better. Any clues would be greatly appreciated. Geoff White GW Communications Inc.

7 7

Re: 2U chassis (was Linux Router Kit)
by Paul Vixie 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

> We are trying to roll our own server/router/accounting box and > have everything speced out but the chassis, we need to find a PC rack > mount chassis that is no higher than 2U ( 3.5"). ... My friend Billy Bath of Telenet (billy(a)tesys.com) has been selling me Integrand boxes (4U) for some years now, and he just recently commissioned his own sheet metal. He has a 2.5U case and also a 2U case, both with lots of fans and with the option of dual/hotswap power supplies. He'd probably sell them as either raw components or as built systems. For my part, I've bought my last Integrand. I just don't need that much airspace any more. Billy's box is every bit as well made as the Integrand 590 is/was. Disclaimer: Billy is a friend, so I would benefit indirectly from someone believing any or all of the above. -- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com>

1 0

Re: 2U chassis (was Linux Router Kit)
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

For embedded Linux systems we've used these 2U boxes. http://www.capax.co.uk/products/sys/rack/er2200/er2200.htm regards, brandon

1 0

Re: 2U chassis (was Linux Router Kit)
by Bill Woodcock 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

We've had good luck with ones from Appro, www.appro.com. -Bill Woodcock

1 0

Re: Rootshell pages hacked
by bryan s. blank 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

|o| It is not a fucking problem in SSH! Jesus christ, people do not listen. try a better choice of words, these show little respect for your audience. |o| If it had anything to do with ssh, heres what happened. (speculation) A |o| trusted host was compromised that Kit Knox or another rootshell staff |o| member used, ssh was trojaned and passwords were snagged, and the intruder |o| simply walked right in through the front door. Nothing sophisticated, |o| nothing fancy, no ssh remote exploits. anything is possible. i don't blame anyone for taking interest in possible vunerabilities in their systems. just because you and i don't know of a remote root exploit for a current version of ssh doesn't mean one doesn't exist. i've seen them in older versions, and would be stupid not to have some worry of the same in current versions. |o|----------------------------------------------------------------------|o| |o| bryan s. blank (203)-351-1178 voice |o| |o| senior systems analyst (203)-351-1186 fax |o| |o| discovernet, incorporated (203)-979-5126 emerg |o|

1 0