|
Incidents
SSH attacks? Jul 26 2004 10:59PM Robin (robin kallisti net nz) (10 replies) Re: SSH attacks? Jul 28 2004 04:33AM brandy (brandy klammeraffe org) (2 replies) Re: SSH attacks? Jul 29 2004 12:22AM Andrew J Caines (A J Caines halplant com) (3 replies) Re: SSH attacks? Jul 27 2004 09:12PM buzz (reitenba fh-brandenburg de) (2 replies) Re: SSH attacks? Jul 27 2004 08:46PM Adam Young (adam vbfx com) (1 replies) Re: SSH attacks? Jul 28 2004 08:19AM Christine Kronberg (Christine_Kronberg genua de) (3 replies) Re: SSH attacks? Jul 29 2004 09:21AM Pieter-Bas IJdens (pieter-bas ijdens com) (2 replies) |
|
|
Privacy Statement |
> Hi again!
>
> It seems that at least one host has been rooted somehow relating to the
> scans we're seeing:
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10854834~mode=flat~days=9999~star
t=60
>
> I'm pretty sure there is a new SSH exploit around. At least this clearly
> isn't a brute force attack.
I don't see anything at that URL to show that. In fact, it shows:
ul 12 22:26:51 server sshd[12868]: Accepted password for test from 130.15.15.239 port 1954 ssh2
Jul 12 22:42:35 server sshd[13998]: Accepted password for test from 216.55.164.10 port 56454 ssh2
Which pretty much tells me that it's far more likely that they actually
guessed the password to a badly secured userid than there is some SSH
bug that make the password check succeed.
If that post had anything like "The userid was disabled" or "The userid
had a password that pam_cracklib allowed through", then I'd be more likely
to think there was an exploit.
Scan several hundred thousand Linux boxes, you're sure to find a few that
are unpatched, or have stupid userids/passwords....
If there *WAS* an actual exploit, we'd be seeing more postings of "I got
r00ted by something" and less "anybody know what this is trying to do?"...
[ reply ]