Case Study from SecuriTeam
Everyone loves a case study! Don't we love to read when someone posts what they did when they responded to an incident? It's great, as it gives us a view into what others are doing. SecuriTeam has not one, but two such posts...well, one post that contains two case studies.
The first is a PDF of the incident write-up for a compromise that occurred in July 2006. The second is a follow-up, and both are very interesting.
I'm going to take a process-oriented view of things. Please don't ask me if someone who defaces web pages and knows some PHP code qualifies as a "cyber-terrorist". I don't want to get mixed up in semantics.
This whole thing seems to have started on or about 11 July 2006 with a web page defacement. Evidently, the bad guys gained access to a vulnerable system (found via Google) and installed a PHP 'shell'. Page 8 of the write-up specifies the need for a "real-time forensic analysis", due to the fact that not only did the good guys need to "stop the bleeding", but they had to counter the bad guys, who were not only deploying their own counter-measures, but attacking the good guys, as well. What's interesting about this is that on page 8, the authors mention having to battle active attacks from the bad guys, saying it was a "fight between the attackers...and the incident response personnel." Oddly, pages 9 - 11 included the 12 steps that the IR personnel went through, yet nothing was mentioned about having to battle an attack. The document continues into "Attack Methodology" and "Conclusions" with no mention of IR personnel being hammered by attacks from the bad guys.
Another interesting point is that the authors mention that the user-agent found in some web logs included the term "SIMBAR", and concluded (with no supporting info) that this meant that the attacker's system was infected with spyware. While I'm not discounting this, I do find it odd that no supporting information was provided. I did a search and found references to adware, but I also found a reference to the SIMS game, as well.
Continuing along into the follow-up report, "SIMBAR" is mentioned again, and this time the authors seem to believe that this user-agent indicates that the same computer was used in multiple attacks. IMHO, this is perhaps dubious at best, particularly if it is indicative of adware...adware can be fairly widespread. Also, beyond that, I'm not sure how significant this information really is to the overall incident.
Overall, both write-ups seem to indicate that the attackers used known exploits to gain access to systems, and used relatively known and easily available tools to gain their foothold. It also seems that the authors made several unsupported assumptions. At first the write-ups are interesting read, but when you really try to dig into them and get some meat, IMHO, it just isn't there.
But hey, who am I? What do you think?
Addendum 18 Nov: Besides the comments here, there's been corresponding posts over on TaoSecurity. I just want to say that I'm not trying to grill the authors of the documents, nor am I trying to point out every little detail that I think was mishandled...not at all. What I am saying is that I think the authors did a great job, but there are things that could have been handled a bit better. Richard Bejtlich mentions "focus and rigor" in one of his recent posts...just because something is done by volunteers, does that mean that quality should suffer?
The first is a PDF of the incident write-up for a compromise that occurred in July 2006. The second is a follow-up, and both are very interesting.
I'm going to take a process-oriented view of things. Please don't ask me if someone who defaces web pages and knows some PHP code qualifies as a "cyber-terrorist". I don't want to get mixed up in semantics.
This whole thing seems to have started on or about 11 July 2006 with a web page defacement. Evidently, the bad guys gained access to a vulnerable system (found via Google) and installed a PHP 'shell'. Page 8 of the write-up specifies the need for a "real-time forensic analysis", due to the fact that not only did the good guys need to "stop the bleeding", but they had to counter the bad guys, who were not only deploying their own counter-measures, but attacking the good guys, as well. What's interesting about this is that on page 8, the authors mention having to battle active attacks from the bad guys, saying it was a "fight between the attackers...and the incident response personnel." Oddly, pages 9 - 11 included the 12 steps that the IR personnel went through, yet nothing was mentioned about having to battle an attack. The document continues into "Attack Methodology" and "Conclusions" with no mention of IR personnel being hammered by attacks from the bad guys.
Another interesting point is that the authors mention that the user-agent found in some web logs included the term "SIMBAR", and concluded (with no supporting info) that this meant that the attacker's system was infected with spyware. While I'm not discounting this, I do find it odd that no supporting information was provided. I did a search and found references to adware, but I also found a reference to the SIMS game, as well.
Continuing along into the follow-up report, "SIMBAR" is mentioned again, and this time the authors seem to believe that this user-agent indicates that the same computer was used in multiple attacks. IMHO, this is perhaps dubious at best, particularly if it is indicative of adware...adware can be fairly widespread. Also, beyond that, I'm not sure how significant this information really is to the overall incident.
Overall, both write-ups seem to indicate that the attackers used known exploits to gain access to systems, and used relatively known and easily available tools to gain their foothold. It also seems that the authors made several unsupported assumptions. At first the write-ups are interesting read, but when you really try to dig into them and get some meat, IMHO, it just isn't there.
But hey, who am I? What do you think?
Addendum 18 Nov: Besides the comments here, there's been corresponding posts over on TaoSecurity. I just want to say that I'm not trying to grill the authors of the documents, nor am I trying to point out every little detail that I think was mishandled...not at all. What I am saying is that I think the authors did a great job, but there are things that could have been handled a bit better. Richard Bejtlich mentions "focus and rigor" in one of his recent posts...just because something is done by volunteers, does that mean that quality should suffer?