|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2001 : 02:51:01
|
Let's say you needed the patch to the dreaded Code Red worm and so you surfed over to microsoft.com to download it. You searched for "Code Red" and came up with no hits, but finally after reading lots of text for a few simple words you find it. here's what it was called:
This update resolves the "Unchecked Buffer in Index Server ISAPI Extension Could Enable Web Server Compromise" security vulnerability in Windows 2000 computers running Internet Information Service (IIS) 5.0
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 03:13:08 [Permalink]
|
Code Red, lol.
Who got infected by that?
W32.Sircam.Worm@mm is worse then whatever that code red thing is.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
 |
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 07:18:52 [Permalink]
|
Goddamn FSCKING media sensationalism did. That's it.
It only affects MS IIS servers. General populace will only be affected in inability to get to sites dropped by bandwidth hogging or infection. Try telling people that after all the hype that's been shoved down their throats.
*grumpy face*
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement. |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 08:33:18 [Permalink]
|
Ummm...there was a HUGE number of unpatched Windows servers (NT/2000 systems outnumber Linux & Mac combined) on the internet, and they were all attacking the Whitehouse. Though I know King George doesn't use a computer, the DDoS attack was interupting Cheney's Quake games.
The expliot has be patched by a majority of the users, so this event is rather mild in nature. The original attack was quite nasty.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 11:31:20 [Permalink]
|
The last attack of the Code Red worm lsted not even 6 hours because of when it was launched. This next attack is scheduled, IIHIC, to hit the White House website on the 19th of August. So a couple more weeks to infect more web servers. Just gotta hope and wait.
The way I see it, christians are godless too...they just don't know it yet. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 11:55:06 [Permalink]
|
I am hopeful that by then nearly everyone will have the patch. It still amazes me how many people have not patched or at least hadn't patched their systems. This was completely avoidable. As soon as I hear about something like this I am all over it even though I am not a server administrator. I just want to be damn sure that the sites i work on are safe.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 03:05:11 [Permalink]
|
According to netcraft ~ 26% of web servers run an NT specific web server.
Over 60% run Apache, whilst they don't state the OS I would be willing to assume that most of them are UNIX boxes although there are probably some NT boxes running it.
For NT/2000 I would put a maximum of 40% of the net running on them, with pretty much no backbone sites using it.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 08:44:04 [Permalink]
|
You forget, IIS is by default is "on" on Windows machines (NT/2000), whether or not they are used as a web server.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 13:36:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You forget, IIS is by default is "on" on Windows machines (NT/2000), whether or not they are used as a web server.
You sure about that? From what I've heard, IIS isn't even installed during a standard installation. A user must manually go to the CD and install it separately. So in this case, of course it would default to "on".
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 14:03:16 [Permalink]
|
I had to manually install IIS 5 on Wondows 2000 Professional
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 14:03:24 [Permalink]
|
I had to manually install IIS 5 on Wondows 2000 Professional
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 14:03:26 [Permalink]
|
I had to manually install IIS 5 on Wondows 2000 Professional
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 15:02:55 [Permalink]
|
Hmmm...It could be the edition of the disks I use. I wouldn't doubt that we have a special version (lots of nifty contracts and partnerships we have with MS).
ahh..I use Server and Advanced Server.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture.
Edited by - Bozola on 08/02/2001 15:05:15 |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2001 : 02:51:33 [Permalink]
|
Win2k server uses IIS by default so that ms can claim an increase in market share.
Of course it didn't seem to work very well considering they only went up a little.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
