Related Post

Spread the word

Digg this post

Bookmark to delicious

Stumble the post

DZone This Post

DotNetKick This Post

Add to your technorati favourite

Subscribes to this post

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

7 users responded to this post

John Dowdell said in May 30th, 2008 at 12:28 am    

Thanks for reminding people to keep their internet software current, but you might wish to research the incident a bit more.

20,000 mainstream website domains were indeed apparently hacked, but with HTML injections. These good sites were carrying bad instructions… unpatched servers were the main way the gang infected thousands of websites’ HTML.

What did that HTML do? Point to two servers in China, which hosted malformed SWF which, in back versions of Adobe Flash Player, could take advantage of a novel null-reference injection popularized in the blogosphere two months ago. Those two SWF-hosting servers were taken down pretty quickly, so all the infected HTML on websites was rendered useless. The goal? Apparently, to steal World of Warfare passwords, to then steal virtual equipment, for resale in realworld capital markets.

What you wrote here is inaccurate… can you research and correct?
“What the flash file will do is install a Trojan on your machine, and send the server passwords, and possibly other data.”

tx, jd/adobe

David Kenedy said in May 30th, 2008 at 12:35 am    

I am actually a Macromedia Flash fan, but I have to say I find your comment funny. first of all, It’s World of Warcraft… I’ve never heard of this “Warfare” game you speak of. Second, the exploit could be used to do exactly what the blogger talks about, it’s a good thing it wasnt bad. Third, IBM published the vulnerability weeks ago. Forth, ya SQL Injection attacks are up.

And last, there is nothing inaccurate in this post… lol… There is however a few things inacurate in yours.

Miguel Carrasco said in May 30th, 2008 at 1:09 am    

Hi John,

Thanks for the comments. I have clarified the comments. Keep up the great work with Air/Flex! Nice to see where you are taking the technology, especially Actionscript.

Miguel Carrasco

John Dowdell said in May 30th, 2008 at 11:14 am    

Sorry, you really do need to research more.

1) Mark Dowd held back his null-reference paper until after Player 9.0.124 addressed it. I wish he had held it back a few months more, so the population could be updated, but sic transit gloria mundi. His paper was cited as the blueprint for this China attack, but as Symantec has clearly backtracked, the attack fails in current software.

2) Yes, SWF files are downloaded before being played in the browser. HTML files work the same — you need to download it before it is locally rendered. No, that does not make either of them “a trojan”.

3) Yes, if you used unpatched software and visited one of the 20,000 infected HTML websites, and did so before the two SWF-serving sites in China were shut down, then it might have downloaded an additional file to your machine. That would be less a trojan than a drive-by download, such as Safari currently enables from straight HTML. But the two Chinese servers were the chokepoint, and were efficiently removed from the web. Your practical exposure was zip.

4) And yes, I typo’d “warfare”, as I later noted in my Twitter citation. Horrors.

We’ve still got a problem of lots of compromised webservers out there, hosting HTML instructions without their owners’ knowledge.

We’ve also got a problem of journalists and bloggers popularizing a story without thinking about it, investigating it, confirming it for themselves. Adobe Flash Player does not “grab your files”. But the headline certainly grabs your attention.

jd/adobe

Miguel Carrasco said in May 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pm    

Thanks John,

By the way I read you blog and follow your twitter. There seems to be a lot of confusion around what really happened, even Symantec and McAfee have “changed” their stories. Bottom line, nothing is secure, we just need to be able to inform our users quickly when they should patch. I’m sure the same thing could happen in Silverlight and Flash. Hopefully Microsoft and Adobe both figure out a way to deal with these kinds of threats better. Would be awesome to have the ability to force patch these kinds of things.

Truth be told, Silverlight and Flash, along with Air/Flex and WPF are at the forefront and I believe to be the future of the cloud computing internet. I just hope we all figure out better ways to patch users quickly, when threats like these are identified. Being in software development for nearly 15 years myself, I know it’s easier said than done.

Pleasure to chat about this by the way!

Miguel

John Dowdell said in May 31st, 2008 at 1:26 pm    

“There seems to be a lot of confusion around what really happened, even Symantec and McAfee have “changed” their stories.”

Yes, agreed, thanks. But even today I’m seeing fresh news headlines with only the older, incorrect information. And lots of people never read beyond the headline. Significant problem. :(

jd/adobe

Michael said in June 12th, 2008 at 4:49 pm    

Well given the pro-Silverlight view of this site(which I almost wonder if they aren’t being paid by MS to drone on and on), it’s no wonder they are critical of Flash.

Leave Your Comments Below