Re[2]: what is this?
Jamie,
the servers are definately 'rooted' - as in, root access required for
what the exploit does ie. it's dug itself deep into the kernel and you
can't even compile a new kernel on the infected machine or even create
files or directories that start with a digit. So yeah, the servers are
rooted in every sense of the word (even the Aussie slang interpretation)
I don't believe the exploit would be nearly as damaging or dangerous if
it didn't involve root compromise.
Scott.MC explains it better on the webhostingtalk.com link posted
earlier. Cheers
Denis
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:28:32 +0000
"Jamie Riden" <jamie.riden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
---> On 15/01/2008, Denis <sp23@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
---> > This is a very serious new threat affecting Linux servers and thousands
---> > of boxes have been compromised since December 2007.
---> >
---> > Each box serving the nasty javascript has been rooted. One person has
---> > found a way to CLEAN the infection (ie. stop your server from serving
---> > the bad javascript), however not the root hole ie. the servers in
---> > question are still rooted as nobody so far has found what hole is being
---> > exploited to gain root access in the first place.
--->
---> You don't need root to deface web servers in general. Even if the
---> attackers want to run bots, they often stay as the unprivileged user
---> they get in as. Sometimes a few privilege escalation exploits are
---> tried, but even then people seem willing to make use of normal users
---> if they can't get root.
--->
---> (Unless you meant 'root' as in 'root cause', or the Aussie sense of
---> rooted, as in 'f**ed' :)
--->
---> cheers,
---> Jamie
---> --
---> Jamie Riden / jamesr@xxxxxxxxxx / jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---> UK Honeynet Project: http://www.ukhoneynet.org/