Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Dion Mendel
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 05:19:06AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > So what to do now? If /tmp was mounted ro, then none of the attacker's > > tools could run (from this attack anyway) > > Read Only tmp? :) Now that is a funny idea. I can understand to

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > So what to do now? If /tmp was mounted ro, then none of the attacker's > tools could run (from this attack anyway) Read Only tmp? :) Now that is a funny idea. I can understand to restrict tmp to root or to remove it totally, but why would one want to ha

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Alex J. Avriette
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:11:34PM -0600, Tom Goulet (UID0) wrote: > If you have register globals off *or* safe mode on, this particular > exploit is useless. > If you had register globals on and safe mode off then he could run > arbitrary programs as your Apache user. It's possible he could run

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Dion Mendel
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 05:19:06AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > So what to do now? If /tmp was mounted ro, then none of the attacker's > > tools could run (from this attack anyway) > > Read Only tmp? :) Now that is a funny idea. I can understand to

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > So what to do now? If /tmp was mounted ro, then none of the attacker's > tools could run (from this attack anyway) Read Only tmp? :) Now that is a funny idea. I can understand to restrict tmp to root or to remove it totally, but why would one want to ha

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Carlos Eduardo Araujo Vieira
> If you have register globals off *or* safe mode on, this particular > exploit is useless. > > If you had register globals on and safe mode off then he could run > arbitrary programs as your Apache user. It's possible he could run a > local root exploiting program, but that's not as likely. > > >

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Carlos Eduardo Araujo Vieira
Our Firewall policy is very restricted. Outgoing connections are blocke, only a few ports are possibly to connect and the incomming connections are very restricted. On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Dion Mendel wrote: > A quick analysis. > > * After testing that the php hole works (id;uname -a) and (c

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Alex J. Avriette
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:11:34PM -0600, Tom Goulet (UID0) wrote: > If you have register globals off *or* safe mode on, this particular > exploit is useless. > If you had register globals on and safe mode off then he could run > arbitrary programs as your Apache user. It's possible he could run

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Dion Mendel
A quick analysis. * After testing that the php hole works (id;uname -a) and (cd /tmp;ls), the attacker downloads an executable 'c4'. This executable is then run. A quick reverse of this executable shows it to simply exec a shell and bind to port 5678. Googling gives us this link to equi

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Carlos Eduardo Araujo Vieira
> If you have register globals off *or* safe mode on, this particular > exploit is useless. > > If you had register globals on and safe mode off then he could run > arbitrary programs as your Apache user. It's possible he could run a > local root exploiting program, but that's not as likely. > > >

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Carlos Eduardo Araujo Vieira
Our Firewall policy is very restricted. Outgoing connections are blocke, only a few ports are possibly to connect and the incomming connections are very restricted. On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Dion Mendel wrote: > A quick analysis. > > * After testing that the php hole works (id;uname -a) and (c

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Tom Goulet (UID0)
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:10:00PM -0200, Carlos Eduardo Araujo Vieira wrote: > Today the server was attacked using php+apache. Some user had a > 'require $area.php' in his index.php file. The attacker using this he > could execute some commands like entering the /tmp folder and downloading

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Dion Mendel
A quick analysis. * After testing that the php hole works (id;uname -a) and (cd /tmp;ls), the attacker downloads an executable 'c4'. This executable is then run. A quick reverse of this executable shows it to simply exec a shell and bind to port 5678. Googling gives us this link to equi

Re: Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Tom Goulet (UID0)
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:10:00PM -0200, Carlos Eduardo Araujo Vieira wrote: > Today the server was attacked using php+apache. Some user had a > 'require $area.php' in his index.php file. The attacker using this he > could execute some commands like entering the /tmp folder and downloading

Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Carlos Eduardo Araujo Vieira
Today the server was attacked using php+apache. Some user had a 'require $area.php' in his index.php file. The attacker using this he could execute some commands like entering the /tmp folder and downloading some files. Then he tried to execute a telnetd daemon with no success. In the attac

Attack using php+apache

2003-11-15 Thread Carlos Eduardo Araujo Vieira
Today the server was attacked using php+apache. Some user had a 'require $area.php' in his index.php file. The attacker using this he could execute some commands like entering the /tmp folder and downloading some files. Then he tried to execute a telnetd daemon with no success. In the attac

Re: Mail server

2003-11-15 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:16:24AM +0200, Martynas Spokas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hello, Hi. Please set your mailer/editor linewrap to 68-75 characters. I strongly recommend 72 as a good default. Thank you. > I have a mail server and I'm trying to keep it total secure. I don't > think I

Re: Mail server

2003-11-15 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:16:24AM +0200, Martynas Spokas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hello, Hi. Please set your mailer/editor linewrap to 68-75 characters. I strongly recommend 72 as a good default. Thank you. > I have a mail server and I'm trying to keep it total secure. I don't > think I'