From: CSBVAX::CSBVAX::MRGATE::"SMTP::KL.SRI.COM::NEUMANN" 7-NOV-1988 06:39 To: MRGATE::"ARISIA::EVERHART" Subj: RISKS DIGEST 7.71 Date: Sun, 6 Nov 88 23:34:02 PST From: RISKS FORUM (Peter G. Neumann -- Coordinator) Subject: RISKS DIGEST 7.71 Sender: NEUMANN@KL.SRI.COM To: RISKS-LIST@KL.SRI.COM Message-ID: <12444582622.9.NEUMANN@KL.SRI.COM> RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Sunday 6 November 1988 Volume 7 : Issue 71 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator Contents: Send us your Arpanet Virus War Stories (Cliff Stoll) Suspect in Virus Case (Brian M. Clapper) Internet Virus (Mark W. Eichin) RISKS of getting opinions from semi-biased sources (Brad Templeton, PGN) Worm/virus mutations (David A. Honig, PGN) Worm sending messages to ernie.berkeley.edu? (Jacob Gore) Re: "UNIX" Worm/virus (Peter da Silva) Comments on vote counting ("Bill Stewart and/or Shelley Rosenbaum") Re: A320 update (Henry Spencer) The RISKS Forum is moderated. Contributions should be relevant, sound, in good taste, objective, coherent, concise, and nonrepetitious. Diversity is welcome. CONTRIBUTIONS to RISKS@CSL.SRI.COM, with relevant, substantive "Subject:" line (otherwise they may be ignored). REQUESTS to RISKS-Request@CSL.SRI.COM. FOR VOL i ISSUE j / ftp kl.sri.com / login anonymous (ANY NONNULL PASSWORD) / get stripe:risks-i.j ... (OR TRY cd stripe: / get risks-i.j ... Volume summaries in (i, max j) = (1,46),(2,57),(3,92),(4,97),(5,85),(6,95). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 6 Nov 88 04:29:26 PST From: cliff@Csa4.LBL.Gov (Cliff Stoll) Subject: Send us your Arpanet Virus War Stories COLLECTING ARPANET VIRUS WAR STORIES I'm collecting information about the Nov 3 Arpanet virus, trying to determine: > How many sites were infected > How many were not > How quickly it spread SO: If you were infected, please send me a note describing your experiences. Please include: > Where are you? What type of computers? > What times were stamped on the /usr/tmp/x files? > Which of your computers were infected? All of them? Please send your anecdotes & stories, such as: > What time did you discover it? > What tipped you off? > How did you and your colleagues respond? > What would you differently? > Did you call anyone? Or did anyone call you? > Where would you turn for information next time? > When did you finally eradicate it? > Any weird wrinkles or strange effects? I'm interested in hearing from you even if you were not infected! Please pass this message on to others: I would rather have multiple responses from a site than none. Thank you very much for your time & trouble. In return, I'll mail summaries to everyone that contributes. If you want this, please include your address. Thank you very much for your time & troubles! Cliff Stoll Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 617/495-7147 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 Cliff@cfa200.harvard.edu ( or on bitnet, Cliff@lbl ) [Nov 5, '88] [Cliff is presumably referring to the relevant UNIX systems only. I doubt he is interested in responses saying that your TOPS-20 or your PRIME or whatever was not hit, since the worm/virus was specific to certain DEC and Sun versions. (Thanks to Cliff for offering this service, although it further distracts him from his attempted pursuits of astronomy.) PGN] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Nov 88 14:55:20 EST From: clapper@NADC.ARPA (Brian M. Clapper) Subject: Suspect in Virus Case Reprinted (without permission) from the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday, November 6, 1988: (From Inquirer Wire Services) ITHACA, N.Y. - A Cornell University graduate student whose father is a top government computer-security expert is suspected of creating the "virus" that slowed thousands of computers nationwide, school officials said yesterday. The Ivy League university announced that it was investigating the computer files of 23-year-old Robert T. Morris, Jr., as experts across the nation assessed the unauthorized program that was injected Wednesday into a military and university system, closing it for 24 hours. The virus slowed an estimated 6,000 computers by replicating itself and taking up memory space, but it is not believed to have destroyed any data. M. Stuart Lynn, Cornell vice president for information technologies, said yesterday that Morris' files appeared to contain passwords giving him un- authorized access to computers at Cornell and Stanford Universities. "We also have discovered that Morris' account contains a list of passwords substantially similar to those found in the virus," he said at a news conference. Although Morris "had passwords he certainly was not entitled to," Lynn stressed, "we cannot conclude from the existence of those files that he was responsible." FBI spokesman Lane Betts said the agency was investigating whether any federal laws were violated. Morris, a first-year student in a doctoral computer-science program, has a reputation as an expert computer hacker and is skilled enough to have written the rogue program, Cornell instructor Dexter Kozen said. [ ... omitted details concerning Morris' unavailability for comment ... ] Reached at his home yesterday in Arnold, Md., Robert T. Morris, Sr., chief scientist at the National Computer Security Center in Bethesda, Md., would not say where his son was or comment on the case. The elder Morris has written widely on the security of the Unix operating system, the target of the virus program. He is widely known for writing a program to decipher passwords, which give users access to computers. [ The remainder of the article basically restates information which has already been reported. ] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Nov 88 21:52:58 EST Sender: Virus Discussion List From: "Mark W. Eichin" Subject: Internet Virus A team at MIT and a team at UCB worked Thursday evening through until Friday morning both examining the Virus in isolation and reverse engineering to create C code that could produce the binary output we had in hand. MIT had a Press Conference at 12Noon Friday, 4 November; about 20 minutes earlier, we had determined that with the modules we had received from Berkeley and the work we had done at MIT we indeed had a complete knowledge of the inner workings of the Virus, permitting us to declare that there was no code in the virus designed to harm files. The Berkeley group was lead by Keith Bostic (I don't have details on his group); the MIT group was a collection of programmers from various organizations including Project Athena, LCS, SIPB, and Telecom. Stan Zanarotti and I led a group of around 6 in the reverse engineering effort, while others worked on using Netwatch on an isolated testbed machine. The Virus uses three possible paths to transmit itself from one machine to another: 1) finger (via a bug in /etc/fingerd which turned out to be difficult for the Virus to exploit) 2) sendmail (via the `debug' command, which should be turned off in a production server, but apparently was turned on by default in the binary BSD distribution) 3) password guessing and shell/rexec/rsh/telnet logins. Whichever method used, it attempted to run a /bin/sh on the remote machine, and then feed it a set of commands which caused it to build a new program and suck over an unlinked VAX or Sun image. It then linked this with the system's local libraries, and executed it. Once the virus was running on the new site, it chose a variety of paths to find new hosts to propogate to: 1) routing tables 2) interface tables 3) user .forward files 4) user .rhosts files 5) /etc/hosts.equi Note that it did *not* make any use of the inherent security problems commonly involved with .rhosts files, it merely used them as a source of hostnames. [I'll cut this short now, I need the sleep...] Project Athena was not vulnerable to the finger attack at all; one or two private machines were vulnerable to the `debug' attack, but at least one was an IBM RT/PC (which the Virus could `live' on.) What did hit several Athena machines was the use of password guessing; this is really more of a Human Security problem than a Computer Security problem. Other MIT machines were hit by various combinations of the several attacks. There were several bugs in the Virus itself, which Keith Bostic suggested posting patches for. It also seems clear that the original design did not intend for it to hog resources as it did, but merely to propagate quietly, which would have certainly been interesting. Very little effort was made to actually hide the behavior of the code (it even had a reasonably large symbol table, making it easier to identify subroutines.) It *did* attempt to hide at a higher level, for example by calling itself "sh" and destroying its argument list (to make it appear in the process table as ``some random shell script''). I will try and post more details as I have time to write them up. Mark Eichin SIPB Member & Project Athena ``Watchmaker'' ------------------------------ Date: Sun Nov 6 15:50:07 1988 From: Brad Templeton Subject: RISKS of getting opinions from semi-biased sources It's rare for the net to make the evening news, but I'm noting some interesting things. Most of the media are jumping to "computer security experts" for comment on the matter. No offense, folks, but people who make their living from consulting on computer security are bound to perceive (and expound on) this as worse than it actually is. People are talking as though there's some surprising end-of-the-world potential in this event, when it really comes as no surprise to any RISKS reader, Internet or UNIX user. University systems are designed, and should be designed as low-caution, high convenience systems. Such flaws *will* exist, and events like this only make us wiser. Remember the original unix documentation which detailed "how to bring UNIX to a halt if you're joe user" on page 1? Funny, but it never happens. [ "What, Never?" "No, Never." "What, Never?" "Hardly ever." (Thanks to W.S.Gilbert) PGN ] The press will want sensationalistic answers, but if you're talking to them, try to steer them away from all the comments about "War Games." And clear up the use of the word "hacker" now that things are in the public eye! Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Nov 88 22:01:17 PST From: Peter G. Neumann Subject: Semi-biased sources This episode has given system administrators and users the opportunity to recall that there are many lurking vulnerabilities. But to assume that university computing should be relatively wide open would be a serious mistake. Unethical and other abuses are not uncommon. There is plenty of proprietary research, and there are serious integrity problems. NASA contemplates permitting a professor sitting at his workstation to up-link via network to the space station and control his experiments in real-time. So can anyone else who happens to subvert the local system or its communications. Intruders might even be able to bring down the space station itself by penetration techniques. Also, students writing theses would not like to see their files deleted and their backups made unretrievable by premeditated contamination resulting from a long-standing but not yet detected Trojan horse. Note that many problems could arise accidentally rather than maliciously. In some cases accidental damage can be just as severe as intentional damage. (See my comments on the 1980 ARPANET fiasco, below.) It seems that the valuable lessons that should be derived from the worm/virus would be totally lost if we continue with business as usual (although presumably at least the flaws already exposed will have been patched, now that they are suddenly more widely known). Furthermore, significant improvements in security are in the offing -- including various considerably more secure versions of UNIX. (And amazingly, performance and ease of use need not be seriously compromised!) I think that a university computing administrator would be strung up after an installation known *a priori* to be badly flawed was attacked, especially if much better systems or better operational procedures had been available and commonly used elsewhere. Perhaps I am flogging a straw herring in mid-stream, but in the light of what is known about the ubiquity of security vulnerabilities, it seems vastly too dangerous for university folks to run with their heads in the sand. [It is not ostrich of the imagination to contemplate future attacks that are really malicious. And yes, they do happen and have happened.] So, despite the the worm/virus having caused considerable pain, it does have the potential for having been a useful exercise -- if anyone is listening and thinking. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Nov 88 14:24:09 -0800 From: "David A. Honig" Subject: Worm/virus mutations The resource-hungry arpanet worm was supposedly a mistake: it was not supposed to use resources as fast as it did. This was a design (programmer's) error, I think. I'm interested in how difficult it would have been for the intended mild worm to "mutate" into the system-stopping one. In particular, what would a mild version look like, and what kind of error in reproduction would transform from the hungry worm into the milder one? Would simply removing a line of text from one of the scripts have worked? Would a single undetected bit error in one character have made a difference? (What if that error commented-out an entire line of a file?) I expect most mutations would be fatal or sterilizing at least, but if a net-infection were to persist uncured for a while, it is possible (and as time progresses, probable) that mutated strains would occur, and some fraction of these would be nastier than their ancestors. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Nov 88 21:27:39 PST From: Peter G. Neumann Subject: Re: Worm/virus mutations In general, the difference between killer and benign could be one bit. The ARPANET crash of 27 Oct 1980 resulted from bits accidentally being dropped in the time stamp of one status word. The resulting multiplicity of three versions (two corrupted) of the same status word (with different time stamps) broke the garbage collection algorithm, and degraded the ARPANET to ZERO. (See ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes Jan 1981 for discussion of the data retrovirus.) The UNIX worm/virus would have been relatively harmless (and much less detectable) had its creator not attemped to make it survivable even after detection and removal. The choice of a parameter invoking a one-in-ten reinfection was what made it degrade each attacked system. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Nov 88 16:36:52 CST From: Jacob Gore Subject: Worm sending messages to ernie.berkeley.edu? From The New York Times (National), Sunday, Nov. 6: Mr. Morris learned of his replication error through a monitoring mechnanism [sic] he had built into his program. Each second each virus broadcast its location to a computer named Ernie at the University of California at Berkeley, said a computer researcher who has analyzed the virus. Is this true? If so, what account were the logs sent to? Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,gargoyle,att}!nucsrl!gore ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 88 19:31:58 CST (Sat) From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: "UNIX" Worm/virus (RISKS DIGEST 7.70) News-Path: texbell!killer!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!purdue! decwrl!ucbvax!KL.SRI.COM!RISKS I realise that for most of the people in the Internet UNIX == 4.2, but people should be more careful of referring to bugs in the UNIX operating system. While there may be bugs in any operating system, this virus didn't exploit any UNIX bugs. First, the actual bug is implicit in a mailer program, sendmail. This isn't "The UNIX operating system", and it's not even found on most systems. Secondly, the other "bugs" are security holes deliberately left open to make network operations more convenient when dealing with other trusted machines. Again, this isn't a bug in UNIX. Finally, a channel like this can't be used to infect non-BSD systems without the debug version of sendmail, unless individual users choose to set up "shell deamons" to watch their mailboxes. This falls under case 2 above. Referring to this is a UNIX virus is going to give naive users the idea that UNIX is particularly susceptible to penetration over a network. Our management has expressed concern, for example, that our own Usenet feed could be used to infect us. Yes, it could... given a sufficiently subtle trojan horse hidden in, say, a comp.sources distribution. But that's not a *UNIX* or *Network* problem... we're more susceptible to people bringing in diskettes. The last thing we need now is the UNIX equivalent of the "Audi sudden acceleration" panic. Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Nov 88 23:24:33 EST Return-Path: From: wcs@alice.att.com Subject: Comments on vote counting Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Several people have commented on the risks of computerized vote tabulation, but there's another RISK here - inaccurate and fraudulent reporting. The National Election Service, which is the joint election reporting group funded 20% each by CBS, NBC, ABC, AP, and UPI, has announced that they will not report any third-party results for the presidential elections this year. Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party candidate, asked how they would report a 45%-45%-10% vote (if he gets 10% of the vote in Alaska, an LP stronghold) - they replied "We'll call that 50-50". This sort of thing has a major effect on voters' perceptions of the elections - if they never hear about alternatives to the status-quo parties, they're unlikely to vote for them in the future. This could get especially interesting if Lenora Fulani's New Alliance Party succeeds in their lawsuit to keep the Democratic and Republican parties off the Indiana ballot (where they filed late) - they may get all the electoral votes unless there is substantial write-in voting. # Bill Stewart, att!ho95c!wcs, AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 # and/or # Shelley Rosenbaum, att!ho95c!slr, 1-201-949-3615 ho95c.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Nov 88 02:08:09 EST From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: A320 update >Henry Spencer's recent article on the A320's first six months in >service states that the fly-by-wire system has "behaved perfectly." >It should be noted, however, that the article he was referring >to clearly pointed out that there were failures of the primary >flight guidance computer, which were rectified by backup systems. Hardware failures, dealt with by backup systems, happen even in non- computerized aircraft. With substantial frequency, in fact. This did not seem worth mentioning. As nearly as I can tell from that article, and the later ones, there have been no major *software* problems in the flight-control software... which is what everyone was worried about. Hardware failures are to be expected. >I find Ziegler's rationale for the failures of the A320 somewhat >disturbing. With only a handful of airplanes in service, for any >significant percentage of in-flight or on-ground failures to occur, >and then say it should be compared to the massive fleets of existing >aircraft, is to obfuscate the issue. How so? Note that he is citing *percentages of flights* delayed, not absolute counts; fleet size is irrelevant except insofar as statistics over a small fleet are less precise than over a large fleet. His comments about media attention are more dubious in this regard, since occasional failures in a small fleet are indeed more significant than the same failures-per-day rate would be in a large fleet, but even there I think he's got a point: if ten 747s fail per day, nobody cares, but if an A320 fails once every two weeks, it's a scandal. >His confidence in the A320's backup electrical systems is also rather >odd, considering the airplane's susceptibility to transient controls, >and his company's failure to provide even a mediocre cabin lighting >control system. Notice that the transient problems are (as far as I've heard) all in non-critical support systems, and the cabin-lighting-control problem is with a subcontractor, presumably not the same people who did the main electrical system. Agreed that Airbus is responsible in the end, but the implication that these problems spill over into more critical systems seems unjustified. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 7.71 ************************ -------