Why bother pounding at a website in search of obscure holes when you can
simply waltz in through the front door?
Hackers have recently done just that, turning to Google to help simplify
the task of honing in on their targets.
"Google, properly leveraged, has more intrusion potential than any
hacking tool," said hacker Adrian Lamo, who recently sounded the
alarm.
The hacks are made possible by Web-enabled databases. Because
database-management tools use canned templates to present data on the
Web, typing specific phrases into Internet search tools often leads a
user directly to those templated pages. For example, typing the phrase
"Select a database to view"
-- a common phrase in the FileMaker Pro database interface -- into Google
recently yielded about 200 links, almost all of which lead to FileMaker
databases accessible online.
In a few cases, the databases contained sensitive information. One held
the addresses, phone numbers and detailed biographies of several hundred
teachers affiliated with Apple Computer. It also included each teacher's
user name and password. The database was not protected by any form of
security.
Another search result pointed to a page served by the
Drexel University College of
Medicine, which linked to a database of 5,500 records of the
medical college's neurosurgical patients. The patient record included
addresses, telephone numbers and detailed write-ups of diseases and
treatments. Once Google pointed the visitor to the page, the hacker
merely needed to type in an identical user name and password (in short,
the name of the database) in order to access the information.
Both databases were Web-enabled using the FileMaker Pro Web Companion, a
component of the $299 FileMaker Pro
application, which is primarily targeted at beginning users. According to
FileMaker, the Web Companion promises to "convert a single-user
database into a multi-user networked solution in one simple step....
Authorized users can search, edit, delete and update records using most
popular Web browsers."
Apple did not return calls requesting comment, but the teacher database
was apparently taken offline on Friday afternoon.
Drexel University immediately shut down its database upon being informed
of the vulnerability. Spokeswoman Linda Roth said university officials
had not been aware that it existed online, as it was not a sanctioned
university site. Drexel's dean also sent a memo to all employees
reiterating the university's policy against unapproved databases. The
school is canvassing its network to ensure no other databases have been
posted online, Roth said.
A FileMaker spokesman said the company tries its best to make users aware
of security issues.
"We're critically aware of security and the need for it," said
Kevin Mallon. "We publish white papers and
software updates on our site, and we
send updates to our registered users about the need for security."
But Mallon suggested that configuring access rights and selecting
appropriate passwords are ultimately the user's responsibility. "We
constantly emphasize with our users to be aware of the extent of the
exposure they want -- or more importantly, the exposure they do not want
-- for all databases published on the Web."
Regarding the vulnerable Drexel database, Fred Langston, senior principal
consultant of Guardent, an
information security services company, said part of the reason the
incident occurred might have been because such institutions typically
encourage openness with regard to knowledge sharing.
"We've done a lot of work at universities and teaching hospitals,
and it's the hardest environment to impose security, because they tend to
have an open information-sharing model," Langston said. "It
makes it very difficult to impose restrictions on data: In a teaching
environment, that's how people learn and extend their knowledge.
"Even if (the vulnerability) hadn't been exposed through Google, it
would have been exposed eventually."
A Google spokesman said the company was aware of the situation, and that
it provides tools that let webmasters remove inadvertently published
information from Google's index within about 24 hours. Tools that allow
for even speedier removal are in the works.
Removing links after the fact, though, isn't a very elegant solution,
Lamo said.
"When your medical records are indexed in Google, something's
wrong."
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,57897,00.html
