<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>

<rss version="2.0" 
   xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
   xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
   xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
   xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
   xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
   xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
   >
<channel>
    <title>Niels Provos (Entries tagged as sql injection)</title>
    <link>http://www.provos.org/</link>
    <description>systrace, spybye and other things.</description>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <generator>Serendipity 1.3.1 - http://www.s9y.org/</generator>
    
    

<item>
    <title>Lizamoon SQL Injection Campaign Compared</title>
    <link>http://www.provos.org/index.php?/archives/92-Lizamoon-SQL-Injection-Campaign-Compared.html</link>
            <category>Hacking</category>
            <category>Malware</category>
            <category>News</category>
            <category>Security</category>
            <category>SpyBye</category>
    
    <comments>http://www.provos.org/index.php?/archives/92-Lizamoon-SQL-Injection-Campaign-Compared.html#comments</comments>
    <wfw:comment>http://www.provos.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=92</wfw:comment>

    <slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.provos.org/rss.php?version=2.0&amp;type=comments&amp;cid=92</wfw:commentRss>
    

    <author>nospam@example.com (Niels Provos)</author>
    <content:encoded>
    Malware infections such as &lt;a href=&quot;https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/SQL_injection&quot;&gt;SQL injection&lt;/a&gt; are a well known security problem.  Over the past two years we have seen several large-scale infections on the web, e.g. &lt;i&gt;Gumblar.cn&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;Martuz.cn&lt;/i&gt;.  Recently, a new SQL injection campaign called &lt;a href=&quot;http://community.websense.com/blogs/securitylabs/archive/2011/03/31/update-on-lizamoon-mass-injection.aspx&quot;&gt;Lizamoon&lt;/a&gt; has gained a lot of attention. I had expected web sites would become more secure over time and less susceptible to simple security problems, so it is surprising that SQL injection is still a prevalent problem.  That let me to wonder:  Was &lt;i&gt;Lizamoon&lt;/i&gt; as successful as previous infections?  In a discussion about this problem, my colleague Panayiotis Mavrommatis suggested that &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.isovitis.com/2011/03/estimating-web-malware-infections.html&quot;&gt;comparing the size of campaigns via search engine result estimates&lt;/a&gt; might not be very accurate measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That begs the question of how to assess the impact of infections.   While the number of infected URLs is one possible measure, it is skewed by many different factors, e.g. a single vulnerable site contributes a large fraction of the infected URLs and overstates the impact.   Instead, counting the number of infected sites might be a better metric.   Even so, to judge the relative scale of an infection campaign, it might be helpful to compare it to previous incidents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Below is a comparison of the &lt;i&gt;Gumblar.cn/&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Martuz.cn/&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;Lizamoon&lt;/i&gt; infections based on &lt;a href=&quot;https://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/&quot;&gt;Google&#039;s Safe Browsing &lt;/a&gt;data.    The graph shows the number of unique infected sites over a 30 day sliding window.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a class=&#039;serendipity_image_link&#039; href=&#039;http://www.provos.org/uploads/LizamoonCompared.jpg&#039; onclick=&quot;F1 = window.open(&#039;/uploads/LizamoonCompared.jpg&#039;,&#039;Zoom&#039;,&#039;height=2224,width=2974,top=-579.5,left=-639.5,toolbar=no,menubar=no,location=no,resize=1,resizable=1,scrollbars=yes&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;&lt;!-- s9ymdb:15 --&gt;&lt;img class=&quot;serendipity_image_center&quot; width=&quot;600&quot; height=&quot;448&quot; style=&quot;border: 0px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px;&quot; src=&quot;http://www.provos.org/uploads/LizamoonComparedSmall.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, I counted the sites that had a functioning reference to it, e.g. a &lt;i&gt;script src=&lt;/i&gt;.   Sites that escaped the &lt;i&gt;script&lt;/i&gt; tag rendering it harmless were not counted.  For &lt;i&gt;Lizamoon&lt;/i&gt;, I aggregated the sites provided by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://community.websense.com/blogs/securitylabs/archive/2011/03/29/lizamoon-mass-injection-28000-urls-including-itunes.aspx&quot;&gt;websense blog&lt;/a&gt; into a single measure:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://lizamoon.com/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://tadygus.com/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://alexblane.com/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://alisa-carter.com/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://online-stats201.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://stats-master111.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://agasi-story.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://general-st.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://extra-service.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://t6ryt56.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://sol-stats.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://google-stats49.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://google-stats45.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://google-stats50.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://stats-master88.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://eva-marine.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://stats-master99.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://worid-of-books.com/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://google-server43.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://tzv-stats.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://milapop.com/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://pop-stats.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://star-stats.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://multi-stats.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://google-stats44.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://books-loader.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://google-stats73.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://google-stats47.info/&lt;br /&gt;
hxxp://google-stats50.info/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The graph shows two interesting facts.&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;The Lizamoon campaign started around September 2010 and actually peaked in October 2010 with &lt;b&gt;~5600&lt;/b&gt; infected sites.  At the moment, it seems to be undergoing a revival.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;If we compare the number of infected sites, &lt;i&gt;Gumblar.cn/&lt;/i&gt; is still clearly the winner with &lt;b&gt;~62,000&lt;/b&gt; sites, followed closely by &lt;i&gt;Martuz.cn/&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;For future studies of malware infections, I suggest taking the number of infected sites as a more reliable measure than counting the number of infected URLs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Update 2011-04-04:&lt;/strong&gt; The blog post incorrectly referred to &lt;i&gt;Gumblar.cn&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;Martuz.cn/&lt;/i&gt; as SQL injection attacks.   These attacks used stolen FTP credentials.&lt;br /&gt;
 
    </content:encoded>

    <pubDate>Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:24:20 -0700</pubDate>
    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.provos.org/index.php?/archives/92-guid.html</guid>
    <category>malware</category>
<category>security</category>
<category>sql injection</category>

</item>
<item>
    <title>SQL Injection Redux</title>
    <link>http://www.provos.org/index.php?/archives/53-SQL-Injection-Redux.html</link>
            <category>Malware</category>
            <category>SpyBye</category>
    
    <comments>http://www.provos.org/index.php?/archives/53-SQL-Injection-Redux.html#comments</comments>
    <wfw:comment>http://www.provos.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=53</wfw:comment>

    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.provos.org/rss.php?version=2.0&amp;type=comments&amp;cid=53</wfw:commentRss>
    

    <author>nospam@example.com (Niels Provos)</author>
    <content:encoded>
    &lt;a class=&#039;serendipity_image_link&#039; href=&#039;http://www.provos.org/uploads/sql-injection.png&#039;&gt;&lt;!-- s9ymdb:8 --&gt;&lt;img class=&quot;serendipity_image_left&quot; width=&quot;200px&quot; height=&quot;103px&quot; style=&quot;float: left; border: 0px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px;&quot; src=&quot;http://www.provos.org/uploads/sql-injection-small.png&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;During my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usenix.org/events/sec08/tech/tech.html#provos&quot;&gt;invited talk&lt;/a&gt; on web-based malware at USENIX Security, I mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection&quot;&gt;SQL Injection&lt;/a&gt; as one of the more popular means of compromising web servers.   Although I did not have a chance to post my slides, here is one graph that shows how many URLs with drive-by downloads due to SQL injection were found by Google&#039;s infrastructure in July 2008; it&#039;s over 800,000 URLs.   Curiously, most of these were due to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://msmvps.com/blogs/harrywaldron/archive/2008/05/16/asprox-botnet-installs-sql-injection-tool.aspx&quot;&gt;Asprox botnet&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The situation has slightly changed since then, Asprox has become quiet and most of the SQL Injection attacks seem to originate from Chinese sites.   One way to determine if a site has been injected with malicious content is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2008/05/safe-browsing-diagnostic-to-rescue.html&quot;&gt;Safe Browsing diagnostic page&lt;/a&gt; which shows infection domains and also how many sites they compromised.   Here is an example of a Chinese SQL injection domain, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=ko118.cn&quot;&gt;ko118.cn&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To help web application developers, OWASP has published detailed guidelines on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Guide_to_SQL_Injection&quot;&gt;preventing SQL injection&lt;/a&gt; attacks.  More importantly if your web site was SQL injected, its database needs to be cleaned to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=cleaning+sql+injection&quot;&gt;remove the injected content&lt;/a&gt;. 
    </content:encoded>

    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:59:35 -0800</pubDate>
    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.provos.org/index.php?/archives/53-guid.html</guid>
    <category>malware</category>
<category>security</category>
<category>sql injection</category>
<category>usenix</category>

</item>

</channel>
</rss>