[Dshield] DShield vs. Symantec: new features?

Erwin Van de Velde erwin.vandevelde at ua.ac.be
Thu Jan 8 15:33:36 GMT 2004


On Thursday 08 January 2004 15:49, Johannes B. Ullrich wrote:
> > Assume a large scale attack is launched (new virus like blaster or
> > slammer), wouldn't it be great if the local security system could be
> > automatically warned?
>
> We do have an RSS feed, that may be useful:
> http://isc.sans.org/rssfeed.xml
>
> it does include the infocon.

Yes, but again as an image... <url>http://isc.sans.org/images/status.gif</url>
This is not very useful to a parsing program, which can not look at the 
picture, unless of course it is programmed to compare images, but that's not 
a very handy way to do it.
There should be a tag for the severe cases too, as only those should cause 
measures to be taken, and thus one should be able to automatically distinct 
them from the 'usual' alerts.

> I would be careful with automating a response based on this.
> Maybe the response should be to wake the sysadmin? Not to
> shut down any port?

That's just what I have to look at, but for the moment, I think it is not so 
bad to close ports when a new virus is hitting thousands of machines in its 
first hour. That's why I would like to have the infoCon in easyly readable 
format. Only under severe conditions, automatically shutting down ports 
should be allowed.
The services on that port aren't much of use if they are infected anyway, and 
hiding till it passes, or till patches are available can be a viable 
solution, certainly if there is danger of data getting deleted by the virus.

> Even if we would offer a https or signed version of this feed,
> the response will still depend on your local network. It is
> hard to predict what any change will do ("close port 80", "shut down
> mail server" ?).

Most publicly available services run on default ports, and the most dangerous 
viruses try to attack them there.... So, again, closing port 80 for a new 
attack on webservers can be a good protection measure.
Following cases are possible:
- You have no webserver running on port 80 and no other services too: closing 
the port is just the way to go, it should not be open if there is no service 
(or if the service is only for local access) anyway.
-You have a webserver running of the type that is being attacked: closing the 
port protects you, till you have taken appropriate measures
-You have a webserver running of another type: the sysadmin can open the port 
again as quickly as possible, only short interruption of service has occurred
-You are running another service than a webserver on this port.... This is in 
my opinion never going to do you any good, if you want to use non-standard 
ports, ports > 1024 should be used.

So, only when the sysadmin is rather lazy or absent, a long interruption 
(without good reason) can happen. But in that case, closing the port is good, 
in the sense that, if the attack targets your webserver too, the lazy or 
absent sysadmin does not cause your webserver to be infected (the system 
takes care of itself). A good sysadmin can be late for stopping an attack 
(viruses can get in quickly), but can open ports quickly enough to ensure 
that service isn't interrupted for to long.
There are pro's and cons, but I think the pro's on this matter outweigh the 
cons.

Greetings,
Erwin Van de Velde
Student of University of Antwerp
Belgium




More information about the list mailing list