What's New!

Chat with
Hackers

How to Defend
Your Computer 

The Guides
to (mostly) 
Harmless Hacking

Happy Hacker 
Digests (old stuff) 

Hacker Links 

Hacker
Wargames 

Meet the 
Happy Hacksters 

Help for 
Beginners 

Hacker 
Bookstore 

Humor 

It Sucks 
to Be Me!

How to Commit
Computer Crime (not)! 

What Is a 
Hacker, Anyhow? 

Have a 
Great Life! 

News from the 
Hacker War Front

Carolyn's most
popular book,
in 4th edition now!

For advanced
hacker studies,
read Carolyn's
Google Groups
Subscribe to Happy Hacker
Email:
Visit this group

Happy Hacker Digest Feb. 20, 1997
____________________________________
This is a moderated list for discussions of *legal* hacking. Moderator is
Carolyn Meinel. Please don't send us anything you wouldn't email to your
friendly neighborhood narc, OK? Send posts to . Better
yet,
To subscribe or unsubscribe, use the subscribe boxes on the menubar. If you decide you just want to
use the forum and not get these mailings, I promise my feelings won't get
hurt if you unsubscribe from this list.
Happy hacking! "Nature has buried truth at the bottom of the sea" -- Democritus
---------------------------------------------------------
URL 'O the Day: http://www.dgl.com/docs/antispam.html

Table of Contents

IRC GTMHH Update
Urgent Active Server Pages Security Alert!
Sue Spammers!
Social Engineering Dissed
IRC 7th Sphere Question
Hints for Crackers
More on Mac

IRC GTMHH UPDATE

Moderator: We have gotten some really great additional information as well
as corrections (and flames) on the GTMHH on IRC. Hang on, I'm wearing
asbestos and trying to verify and sort out the conflicting information.
Since so many people contributed to the writing of that Guide, to print the
flames would violate our rules for no flaming unless people consent. But
when we have agreed upon the improved version, we'll send it out again. We
also have two Beginner Series Guides in the works on how to get and start
using a shell account and how to hack from Windows.  If I could only figure
out how to get along without sleep we'll get soem more advanced guides out,
too. Remember, any one who wants to write tutorials of their own is welcome
to submit them to this list, or to collaborate with me.

MICROSOFT IIS AND ACTIVE SERVER ADVISORY
                 Security Hole in ASP Discovered in Microsoft ASP
                                February 20, 1997
Description:

A serious security hole was found in Microsoft's Active Server Pages (ASP)
by Juan T. Llibre <j.llibre@codetel.net.do>. This hole allows Web clients to
download unprocessed ASP files potentially exposing user ids and passwords.
ASP files are the common file type used by Microsoft's IIS and Active Server
to perform server-side processing.

How it works:

To download an unprocessed ASP file, simply append a period to the asp URL.
For example: http://www.domain1.com/default.asp becomes
http://www.domain1.com/default.asp. With the period appendage, Internet
Information Server (IIS) will send the unprocessed ASP file to the Web
client, wherein the source to the file can be examined at will. If the
source includes any security parameter designed to allow access to other
system processes, such as an SQL  database, they will be revealed.

Defense:

There are two known ways to stop this behavior:

1.Turn read permissions off of the ASP directory in the Internet Service
Manager. This may not be a practical solution since many sites mix ASP and
HTML files. If your site mixes these files together in the same directories,
you may want to segregate them immediately. Now and in the future, treat
your ASP files like any other Web based executable, and keep them in
separate directories wherein permissions can be adjusted accordingly.

2.Download this filter written by Christoph Wille
Christoph.Wille@unileoben.ac.at which can be located at
http://www.ntshop.net/security/tools/sechole.zip or from
http://www.genusa.com/asp/patch/sechole.zip

SUE SPAMMERS!

(Taken from http://www.ca-probate.com/faxlaw.htm)

Broadcast Fax and Junk Email Illegal

Under United States law, it is unlawful "to use any telephone facsimile
machine, computer, or other
device to send an unsolicited advertisement" to any "equipment which has the
capacity (A) to
transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over
a regular telephone line
onto paper." The law allows individuals to sue the sender of such illegal
"junk mail" for $500 per
copy. Most states will permit such actions to be filed in Small Claims Court.

Here is the text of the federal law:

>From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [Laws in
effect as of January
24, 1994] [Document affected by Public Law 103-414 Section 303(a)(11)]

[CITE: 47USC227]
         TITLE 47--TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS
                CHAPTER 5--WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION
                     SUBCHAPTER II--COMMON CARRIERS
Sec. 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment

     (a) Definitions
     As used in this section-- * * *
          (2) The term ``telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment which
has the capacity
          (A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an
electronic signal and to
          transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or (B) to
transcribe text or images (or
          both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone
line onto paper. * * *
          (4) The term ``unsolicited advertisement'' means any material
advertising the
          commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or
services which is
          transmitted to any person without that person's prior express
invitation or permission.
     (b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment
          (1) Prohibitions
          It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States -- to
use any telephone
          facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an
unsolicited advertisement to a
          telephone facsimile machine; * * *
     (c) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device
to send an unsolicited
     advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine; * * *
          (3) Private right of action
          A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or
rules of court of a State,
          bring in an appropriate court of that State--
               (A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or the
regulations
               prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,
               (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a
violation, or to
               receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is
greater, or
               (C) both such actions.
          If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly
violated this subsection or the
          regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in
its discretion, increase
          the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3
times the amount
          available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. * * *
     (e) Effect on State law
          (1) State law not preempted
          Except for the standards prescribed under subsection (d) of this
section and subject to
          paragraph (2) of this subsection, nothing in this section or in
the regulations prescribed
          under this section shall preempt any State law that imposes more
restrictive intrastate
          requirements or regulations on, or which prohibits--
               (A) the use of telephone facsimile machines or other
electronic devices to send
               unsolicited advertisements; * * *

[ Amended 1992: Subsec. (b)(2)(C). Pub. L. 102-556 added subpar. (C). ]

SOCIAL ENGINEERING DISSED

From: jericho@dimensional.com

> From: Bernz <bernz@ix.netcom.com>
>
> Maybe it's just me. It probably is. Remote exploits (unless you discover
> them yourself) aren't a really good way of getting into a system. They
> are fixed damn quick. I'm relatively experienced at this and I have to

I would dare say you aren't relatively experienced. Right now I can tell
you of a certain college system that has just over a dozen machines
vulnerable to 'froot'. Some systems keep up to date with advisory info and
patch those holes. More often than not, they go untouched.

> say that social engineering is the only way to absolutely get into a
> remote system. I always see that people have questions about how to get

What?! Fine. Call me up and social engineer your way into my system since
it is "the only way to absolutely get into a remote system". When you are
banging your head against the wall in frustration because I won't give you
what you want, then reconsider your thoughts.

> into systems and this aspect is continually overlooked. Sneaking in
> through a dumb security guard is just as good as sneaking in through a
> sendmail bug. People should realize that. There's a world of

No it isn't. Physical trespassing is a world apart from a piece of email
exploiting a weak sendmail.

> scamming/hacking that's hardly been explored.

Hardly been explored?! Come on! I haven't run into a hacker that doesn't
know the value of SE attacks. And I think you will find that most Tiger
Teams not only do it, but push it as an essential part of security
testing. I know my team does.

> it is running. It may say something like 8.6.4, or 8.7.5.. Those two versions
> mentioned are both well known for bugs/exploits which are commonly used to
gain
> illicit access to system.. Do another web search for "hacking sendmail" or
> something
> similar, and check whether the system is running an exploitable version. If
> so you should,
> as always, let your sysadmin know..

You really should mention that with sendmail, versions like 8.7.5 are good
as a LOCAL way of getting increased access. Remote 8.7.5 vulnerabilities
are basically unheard of to the 'underground' as well as security
consultants.

IRC 7th SPHERE QUESTION

From: Redington <nemesis@minot.com>

I went to 7th sphere the other day a downloaded their sphere.zip file.
I unzipped it and tried to open in and to install it inside of my mIRC
app, but it keeps giving me error messages like "Setup is unable to
find_SETUP.DLL, which is needed to complete the installation, Error
103."  What is that? The thing is that the SETUP.DLL file is right
there.  If anyone can help me out on how to set that up it is very much
appreciated.

neMEsis

HINTS FOR CRACKERS

From: Tim Cilibrasi <raptor@top.monad.net>

>From: k1neTiK <samk5@idt.net>
>Subject: RE: passswd file question

>>Anonymous:
>>Hi,
>>I've found a server that allows for it's passwd file to be
>>read/downloaded with an anon. ftp connection.  Is this unusual, or
>>standard?  Is it illegal for me to download the file to my home computer?
>> What would one do with the passwd file?
>It is not unusual for a server to allow it's passwd file to be downloaded,
>but you will find that 99 times out of a 100, it will be shadowed.  Open it
>with a text file, and if you see something like this:

>root:*:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash
>bin:*:1:1:bin:/bin:
>daemon:*:2:2:daemon:/sbin:
>adm:*:3:4:adm:/var/adm:
>lp:*:4:7:lp:/var/spool/lpd:
>
>Then it is shadowed.  Normally you would see encrypted characters where the
>* was.  Oh yeah, and after running it through a passwd cracker, you
>hopefully would get some valid passwords and then you could use them to login.

The passed file is NOT shadowed. The * in the password field marks that
login has been disabled for that account. Have you noticed that when you
view a password file on some systems (not through ftp), some accounts
have * and others have jumbled text? And in the case that you download
the file, it is useless. You can not "decrypt" the passwords, nor can
you log into the accounts.
--
rewt@mindless.com       tim.cilibrasi@cereal.mv.com
rewt@bigfoot.com        raptor@top.monad.net
root@cereal.mv.com      r3wt@hotmail.com

From: " Intergalactic  <--" <intergalactic@hotmail.com>

>From: Bernz <bernz@ix.netcom.com>
>
>Maybe it's just me. It probably is. Remote exploits (unless you >discover them
yourself) aren't a really good way of getting into a >system. They are fixed
damn quick. I'm relatively experienced at this >and I have to say that social
engineering is the only way to >absolutely get into a remote system. I always
see that people have >questions about how to get into systems and this aspect
is >continually overlooked. Sneaking in through a dumb security guard is >just
as good as sneaking in through a sendmail bug. People should >realize that.
There's a world of scamming/hacking that's hardly been >explored.

It's not just you. I find that social engineering and "physical" hacking are
the best ways in. Without a doubt, the human interface is the weakest link in
almost all systems I have ever seen. We recently had a friendly competition in
the CIS department at my school (professor approved) to see if any one could
gain root access to our experimental server. Being quite green in the area of
exploits, I opted for a "physical" hack. I "found" my professor's briefcase and
after sifting thru loads of junk, found scribbled on a post-it note

user: duke
pass 68 81 85 77 65 88 73 70

...gee I wonder. Well, no one else was able to gain access, but everyone said I
cheated. Is there a moral? Sysadmins, sometimes hackers cheat, patches aren't
everything.

Moderator: I decided to approve the following post because Rogue Agent gives
better hints for people who need to secure their systems than he does for
those who want to break in. A big plus with RA is that he encourages his
readers to think and learn for themselves -- just enough to tantalize, but
not so much that you could immediately land in jail trying this stuff out.
And, for those of you new to the list, when you see the flames below, don't
worry. We only allow flames against people who *like* to get flamed on this
list.

From: Rogue Agent <agent@l0pht.com>

I'm taking a whack at several posts here; see if you can detect a common
thread.

| From: k1neTiK <samk5@idt.net>
| Subject: RE: passswd file question
[...]
| p.s.s Are there any known bugs/vulnerabilities in Identd?

I did a websearch at www.excite.com with "identd AND security AND hole"
and came up with 469 hits.  There's some overlap, duplicates and false
positives, but still more than enough valid hits to satisfy you.

| Moderator: I made this one anonymous. Sheesh, guys, please remember what I
| have in the header of every digest: "Please don't send us anything you
| wouldn't email to your friendly neighborhood narc, OK?" Sure, this guy has
| an explanation for why he is trying to crack into this box, but if he is
| fibbing, anyone who helps him would be in danger of being charged as an
| accessory to crime.

Oh please.  They would not, any more than you would if a bank robber asked
you for the fastest way to the next town because his wife had an accident
there, and you gave him directions.

To answer his question, here's hints on some potential holes in his
friend's machine:

|      echo on port 7
|      discard on port 9

echo kicks out a constant stream of characters.  discard takes in any
characters you feed it.  Figure out how to hook one into the other, and
you've got an excellent denial of service attack as his machine and
network overload on feeding stuff to itself.

|      exec on port 512
|      login on port 513
|      shell on port 514

exec is for rexec, login is for rlogin, shell is for rsh.  All 3 have
abusable trust relationship problems ("+ +" in .rhosts or /etc/hosts.equiv
and anyone anywhere on the Net can do anything they want on the machine).
All 3 also have other problems, including hostname spoofing, buffer
overflows, inherited environment variables.  Don't forget the classic
rlogin -froot linux/AIX hole.

There's a world of possibility here, if you know how to exploit it.

|      finger on port 79

Hey, now you know some usernames for use with the last 3.  Always a bonus.

|      ftp on port 21

wu-ftpd has had several problems, for instance the infamous SITE EXEC
hole.

|      smtp on port 25

sendmail -is- a hole.  It gets a security upgrade once a month, on
average.

|      sunrpc on port 111

RPC stands for Remote Procedure Call.  It's a way to run part of a command
on a remote machine.  NFS and NIS are the two best-known services that use
RPC.  Both have holes you can drive a truck through.

|      telnet on port 23

telnet's had a few problems too; accepting environment variables, buffer
overflows.

|      uucp on port 540--

What with all the increase in speed and connections all over, UUCP's kind
of a dinosaur.  But it's got its share of holes too.  Lots of way old ones
written up years ago in g-philes and Phrack, and probably some of the same
newer ones every other service is prone to (overflows, env vars, etc).

| What direction should I head in next?

First off I'd stop listening to Carolyn's blather about how neat "ports"
are, and start looking at the services behind them.  She's given the false
impression that finding a port that accepts connections is central to
breaking security on a machine.  "Hey, you've got ftp open.  ftp has
holes.  I can break into your machine!", "Hey, you've got ssh open.  ssh
has holes.  I can break into your machine!", "Hey, you've got finger open.
finger has holes.  I can break into your machine!".

Do you notice that she never says -how- to exploit ftp, ssh or finger to
break into machines?  She says it's an ethics thing, that telling newbies
would be irresponsible.  But what she doesn't tell you is that SHE DOESN'T
KNOW HOW.  Carolyn Meinel is a clueless newbie of the first order.

If you want to learn security (defensive or offensive), stop piddling
about with "ports" and start learning services; how they work, what they
do, what resources they use, what the known problems with each are.  The
most effective way to do that is to play with the program itself, both
client and server, on a machine you have full (root) access to.  Then do a
websearch for security FAQs and mailing list archives (bugtraq,
linux-security, best-of-security, etc.) and read up on the security
problems it has, taking note of what versions are vulnerable in what OS.
Finally start building a collection of exploits, from those same
websearches.

If you've done all that, you can start calling yourself a hacker.  You've
studied the thing, played with it, understand how it works & how to break
it.

[...]
| Moderator: Here's another one I figured I'd better make anonymous:
|
| I got into a system running Unix System V.The victims password was the same
| as his username, is this stupid or what? So I went to the /etc directory and
| tried the "cat" command:
| cat - views the inside of a file.
|
| But I was given a message something like "Permission Denied"
| SH**.
| Could this be that the victim's password is just a user right?
| What command do I give to know my rights in Unix? (in novel it's simply
| "rights"maybe, if my memory serves me right) What tricks do I do so that I
| can manipulated the passwd file?

Hacking isn't "tricks".  I know Carolyn's given you that impression, but
she's wrong.  Hacking is knowing, because you looked at it yourself,
played with it yourself, studied it yourself.  Buy a book on Unix, get it
from the library or do a websearch for online tutorials (there's plenty
out there, some of them quite good).

DIY.  You can if you want to.

[...]
| From: Bernz <bernz@ix.netcom.com>
|
| Maybe it's just me. It probably is. Remote exploits (unless you discover
| them yourself) aren't a really good way of getting into a system. They
| are fixed damn quick.

Depends on where you look.  Some places have old versions of important
services and even OSes that are literally years out of date.  There is a
definite trend towards increased security awareness on the part of admins,
but it's by no means universal.

| I'm relatively experienced at this and I have to
| say that social engineering is the only way to absolutely get into a
| remote system. I always see that people have questions about how to get
| into systems and this aspect is continually overlooked. Sneaking in
| through a dumb security guard is just as good as sneaking in through a
| sendmail bug. People should realize that. There's a world of
| scamming/hacking that's hardly been explored.

SEing takes b****, imagination and quick thinking.  Not everybody can
think on their feet fast enough to do it effectively.  But if you can
muster up the guts to give it a go, it'll amaze you how much people will
do for you if you just ask them.

        RA

agent@l0pht.com (Rogue Agent - r00t/attb) - pgp key on request
--------------------------------------------------------------
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.

Anonymous post:

What does the program modem jammer do exactly does anybody know?
I ran it then called my friend with caller I.D.  He knew who I was when I
called so it don't work against ESS or caller ID.  It's supposed to prevent
your call from being traced.  But I have not observed this happening. I
could mail you a copy but it's all over the place on hack pages everywhere,
so being conspiracy minded......I was just wondereing.....need I say more?

MORE ON MAC

From: Strider <Strider@baka.com>

>I heard somewhere that Macs make up 20% of the servers on the Internet,
>which is quite large considering that they have such a small market share.
>I think that Macs may be hackable in the ways that NT is, with
>denial-of-service attacks, freezing the machine, etc. Unlike Unix, the Mac
>OS is not a group-oriented OS. It is a personal setup, where once you're
>in, you're in, but it is much harder to GET in. You can't use little
>loopholes like finding unshadowed passwords from a password file you get
>off FTP. Macs don't have password files to check groups and such. So, in
>this way, the Mac is a tougher nut to crack.

True. Although Macs are as easy to DS as others, they also have the
conventions of not having been hacked much, and not having conventional
interfaces, conventional meaning UNIX. =) Lots of people spend their time
on UNIX or DOS based systems- the Mac file system and file sharing system
are VERY different from them, no matter how it might seem. The easiest
way to hack a Mac is FROM a Mac.

>>     Without trying to start any OS wars, I think it is safe to claim that
>> most technical people move on to other OSes rather than stick with MacOS
>> and due to this there is a lack of real Mac hackers.  Give people a few
>> months, when the become bored with Unix, WinNT and Novell and you'll
>> start hearing about some more Mac exploits.
>
>I don't think that anyone will get bored with Unix, but I understand your
>point. If Apple launched a major "secure server" publicity campaign, there
>might be a lot of interest from hackers who want to prove them wrong.
>Although Apple has a disproportionate "server share," Macs are so low
>profile that they haven't brought any major hacking attention. Perhaps
>after NT gets picked over...

Think, though, how long NT has been out compared to the Mac. Apple was
selling Mac server solutions years ago... and it's still doing it. With
the new system, I could see sales going even higher. All apple needs to
do now is buy Quarterdeck, and make webstar part of the OS... =)

-Strider
 

-Strider

"A mighty storm is rising,
 a darkness in the land,
 but surely this must be a light,
 to those who understand..."
 

http://www.baka.com/webpages/strider/
Carolyn Meinel
M/B Research -- The Technology Brokers

More--->>

 © 2013 Happy Hacker All rights reserved.