The Challenge

The Challenge

Post by Kelsey Bjarnaso » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:09:25



One T. G. Reaper issued a challenge to comp.os.linux.advocacy.  The
challenge ran as follows:

A specific person was asked to run a binary executable file containing one
or more "exploits" of the Linux operating system and attendant tools,
applications, servers and the like.  The actual content of the executable
was unknown to the "victim" and in fact, remains uknown to anyone but T.
G. Reaper.

The conditions were fairly simple: run the exploit until it exits or
aborts, on a stock or reasonably stock Linux machine for which no
particular security measures were taken - that is, no file alteration
monitoring, no anti-virus software, no "hardening" and so forth; a system
essentially out of the box, although (presumbaly) updated versions of
software, bug fixes, patches and the like could be applied.  The
application should be run in your normal user account.

Of the (at last count) 7 Linux machines participating in the challenge, 5
were immune to the exploits, 1 suffered demonstrable failure and 1
suffered results which do not appear, at this point, to indicate a success
but which T.G. Reaper assures us were a successful exploit - a claim which
cannot be verified without either external evidence of this or access to
the source code, which would at least tell where the various logged
messages occured in relation to successful or failed hacks.

So we have either 5 or 6 out of 7 machines being immune to T.G. Reaper's
exploits and either 1 or 2 being susceptible.  This gives us a certain,
albeit minimal, metric for our next phase.

Our next phase consists of supporting the claim made by T.G. Reaper, to
wit, that Linux is _not_ more secure than Windows.  This means that Linux
can be at best _as_ secure, although his comments strongly suggest he
regards Linux as being less secure.

Thus we propose to do exactly what he did, but for Windows boxes.  That
is, I will put up a web page containing an exploit binary of unknown
contents.  Said binary should be run on any released 32-bit version of
Windows - 95, NT, Me, XP, whatever.  It should be run in the user's normal
user account, without anti-virus, file alteration monitoring, or other
security software in place, nor other security measures apart from a
firewall (if necessary) and any patches/fixes/updates to the software
which are available, if the user chooses.

The application should be run until it exits, until it aborts, or until
the challenge is complete, whichever comes first.  It will log all its
results to a file, which can subsequently be mailed to the challenger
(i.e. me), whence it will be put on the website.

Once the challenge is complete, the results will be tallied and posted,
whatever they show.

Side note: the deliverable will likely be a .zip file consisting of
several files; the user is expected to unzip them and run the executable
from the directory into which it was unzipped.

This challenge will commence with the uploading of the exploit to the web
site and run for approximately 48 hours; a notice will be made first when
the site is selected and subsequently when the exploit file has been
uploaded, which will commence the 48-hour countdown.

Any and all are welcome to participate, but only the first 1,000 returned
responses will be recorded; I don't need to be swamped with thousands of
e-mails.

So, the question before us, then, is this: can a Windows system, without
any security measures beyond a firewall, resist such an exploit or series
of exploits?  Can Windows in fact do this with a success rate of better
than 5 in 7 machines?

Only time will tell.  However, there is one caveat to all this: since it
was T.G. Reaper who posted the initial challenge, set the initial rules
and deployed the original binary, the entire challenge is contingent upon
his willingness to run the exploit on his system, under these conditions,
just as we did on our systems.

Given that we are taking steps to support _his_ claims about Windows
security, it is only reasonable to expect him to step up to the plate to
help out.  While any and all are welcome to participate, unless _he_
agrees to participate, the largest impetus of the challenge, namely to get
him to put up or shut up, is missing and the challenge will not proceed.

Will he step up to the plate?  Or will he dodge?  

--
http://rkc.silversapphire.com
Managed Migration from Windows to Linux

 
 
 

The Challenge

Post by Peter K?hlman » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:21:15



> One T. G. Reaper issued a challenge to comp.os.linux.advocacy.  

< snip windows challenge >

Quote:> Will he step up to the plate?  Or will he dodge?

He will weasel out of it, naturally. He will insult you as twit and dimwit
and give some totally bogus reason why he won't do it

If not (highly unlikely), I will run the exploit on Win98, NT4, W2K and
WinXP, all of which are available here.
Seems fair, since I was the person who took up the challenge of TeeGees
silly exploit. So I will willingly root all my windows boxen, since they
are very likely susceptible

Peter
--
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!

 
 
 

The Challenge

Post by Rob Hughe » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 14:01:59


Peter K?hlmann is alleged to have said in comp.os.linux.advocacy:


>> One T. G. Reaper issued a challenge to comp.os.linux.advocacy.

> < snip windows challenge >

>> Will he step up to the plate?  Or will he dodge?

> He will weasel out of it, naturally. He will insult you as twit and dimwit
> and give some totally bogus reason why he won't do it

> If not (highly unlikely), I will run the exploit on Win98, NT4, W2K and
> WinXP, all of which are available here.
> Seems fair, since I was the person who took up the challenge of TeeGees
> silly exploit. So I will willingly root all my windows boxen, since they
> are very likely susceptible

> Peter

I'll offer up my (lab) win2k and XP boxes for sacrifice. It should be noted
that I have taken some hardening measures on these boxes, in some cases
rather extreme ones. It'll be interesting to see if any of my measures were
effective in this scenario.

--
begin  664 .sig
Standards are wonderful. There's enough for everyone to have their own.

Remember: the only difference between being the champ and the chump is u.
end

 
 
 

The Challenge

Post by Jim Richardso » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:38:18


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:09:25 -0700,

Quote:> One T. G. Reaper issued a challenge to comp.os.linux.advocacy.  The
> challenge ran as follows:

> A specific person was asked to run a binary executable file containing one
> or more "exploits" of the Linux operating system and attendant tools,
> applications, servers and the like.  The actual content of the executable
> was unknown to the "victim" and in fact, remains uknown to anyone but T.
> G. Reaper.

> The conditions were fairly simple: run the exploit until it exits or
> aborts, on a stock or reasonably stock Linux machine for which no
> particular security measures were taken - that is, no file alteration
> monitoring, no anti-virus software, no "hardening" and so forth; a system
> essentially out of the box, although (presumbaly) updated versions of
> software, bug fixes, patches and the like could be applied.  The
> application should be run in your normal user account.

> Of the (at last count) 7 Linux machines participating in the challenge, 5
> were immune to the exploits, 1 suffered demonstrable failure and 1
> suffered results which do not appear, at this point, to indicate a success
> but which T.G. Reaper assures us were a successful exploit - a claim which
> cannot be verified without either external evidence of this or access to
> the source code, which would at least tell where the various logged
> messages occured in relation to successful or failed hacks.

> So we have either 5 or 6 out of 7 machines being immune to T.G. Reaper's
> exploits and either 1 or 2 being susceptible.  This gives us a certain,
> albeit minimal, metric for our next phase.

> Our next phase consists of supporting the claim made by T.G. Reaper, to
> wit, that Linux is _not_ more secure than Windows.  This means that Linux
> can be at best _as_ secure, although his comments strongly suggest he
> regards Linux as being less secure.

> Thus we propose to do exactly what he did, but for Windows boxes.  That
> is, I will put up a web page containing an exploit binary of unknown
> contents.  Said binary should be run on any released 32-bit version of
> Windows - 95, NT, Me, XP, whatever.  It should be run in the user's normal
> user account, without anti-virus, file alteration monitoring, or other
> security software in place, nor other security measures apart from a
> firewall (if necessary) and any patches/fixes/updates to the software
> which are available, if the user chooses.

> The application should be run until it exits, until it aborts, or until
> the challenge is complete, whichever comes first.  It will log all its
> results to a file, which can subsequently be mailed to the challenger
> (i.e. me), whence it will be put on the website.

> Once the challenge is complete, the results will be tallied and posted,
> whatever they show.

> Side note: the deliverable will likely be a .zip file consisting of
> several files; the user is expected to unzip them and run the executable
> from the directory into which it was unzipped.

> This challenge will commence with the uploading of the exploit to the web
> site and run for approximately 48 hours; a notice will be made first when
> the site is selected and subsequently when the exploit file has been
> uploaded, which will commence the 48-hour countdown.

> Any and all are welcome to participate, but only the first 1,000 returned
> responses will be recorded; I don't need to be swamped with thousands of
> e-mails.

> So, the question before us, then, is this: can a Windows system, without
> any security measures beyond a firewall, resist such an exploit or series
> of exploits?  Can Windows in fact do this with a success rate of better
> than 5 in 7 machines?

> Only time will tell.  However, there is one caveat to all this: since it
> was T.G. Reaper who posted the initial challenge, set the initial rules
> and deployed the original binary, the entire challenge is contingent upon
> his willingness to run the exploit on his system, under these conditions,
> just as we did on our systems.

> Given that we are taking steps to support _his_ claims about Windows
> security, it is only reasonable to expect him to step up to the plate to
> help out.  While any and all are welcome to participate, unless _he_
> agrees to participate, the largest impetus of the challenge, namely to get
> him to put up or shut up, is missing and the challenge will not proceed.

> Will he step up to the plate?  Or will he dodge?  

He'll dodge, but if you put up the 'sploit, I'll run it on the W98 box I
use for games. It's about due for a rebuild anyway.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+6f36d90bcYOAWPYRAnnxAKDbv2DhkjgKr53iNJzFeztcckwtZACgmOOb
z8AlAbZMufWx6vrI37XSVaU=
=NzU9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson         http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock

Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()

 
 
 

The Challenge

Post by cybea » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 19:13:44



> One T. G. Reaper issued a challenge to comp.os.linux.advocacy.  The
> challenge ran as follows:

> A specific person was asked to run a binary executable file containing one

                                              ^^^^^^^^^^
An executable file was never delivered. The exploit was run on my machine
but because it was not executable It failed. Linux does not make downloaded
file executable so there is no way that the file can be accidentally
executed. This is a security feature of Linux.
 
 
 

The Challenge

Post by Kelsey Bjarnaso » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:07:10


[snips]


> I'll offer up my (lab) win2k and XP boxes for sacrifice. It should be noted
> that I have taken some hardening measures on these boxes, in some cases
> rather extreme ones. It'll be interesting to see if any of my measures were
> effective in this scenario.

Yeah, I've got a Win2K box here I can use, too.  Thing is, this is
*entirely* about getting The Goofy Riddler to put up or shut up.

Once he figures out in what specific manner he feels like dodging, we'll
see about chucking the exploit around amongst ourselves. :)

--
http://rkc.silversapphire.com
Managed Migration from Windows to Linux

 
 
 

1. James Zepeda... I challenge you! (was Re: The OS flavor challenge!)

: Oh how I love your unbiased opinion.  Just because Microsoft has some
: incredible marketing skills, and a nice face to a really horrid operating
: system, which in many ways is more than MacOS will ever be, doesn't mean
: it "tastes like warm cow piss..".  I just love how you glorify your Linux,
: and make everything else look pale or inedible in comparison.  You realize
: that just about anybody could pick apart any argument you have for Linux,
: and your blind faith in Linux & Linus is nothing more than childliek
: stupidity don't you?

Oh, you stepped into it now, boy-oh!!!

Questions:

1.)  This was posted to c.o.l.a... my negative views on Windows was
     seen by Linux users, and trollers.  Who the fsck cares what you
     think?

2.)  If you think you can out-argue me, then why don't you?  Probably
     because you have seen how stupid I have made so many other NT
     ranters look.

Tell you what, James.  You pick a topic to argue about, and I will
argue.  Your choice... I don't care.  In other words...

I ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE!  Now, you have to put up or shut up,
because I am crossposting this, so that I can show the others
what a fool you are acting like.
--
QUOTE:  Some people steppeth, where they should not.

------------------------------------------------------------------
[JA207030-TRON-RAM-FLYNN] <- leave this line in your e-mail reply

2. how to get getty to generate login

3. JOB: US-MN Unix System Admin Manager--- Up to $80k ----UNIX/HP/AIX Daily Challenges ! !

4. Need help with my Matsushita CD-ROM.

5. The 1.44M Web Challenge

6. How is "sum -r" calculated?

7. Profitability of Linux being a challenge

8. help needed for dos emulator

9. A Unique Challenge

10. DES Challenge.

11. term(inal) challenge: Mutt, SecureCRT, and color

12. X11 / TVTWM Challenge

13. Challenge-response programs