Tech Insider					   Technology and Trends

			   USENET Archives

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!MITRE.ARPA!mckee
From: mc...@MITRE.ARPA
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <8609261313.AA07678@mitre.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 14:12:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: mitre.8609261313.AA07678
Posted: Fri Sep 26 14:12:29 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Sep-86 05:16:54 EDT
Sender: dae...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The MITRE Corp., Washington, D.C.
Lines: 247

Marshall Abrams, a Security guru here at MITRE, sent me a copy of the
following note by Brian Reid.  The note has little to do with TCP and
IP, but it is instructive to learn how our networks are being used for
nefarious purposes, and besides, there is a certain lascivious pleasure
in reading about somebody elses troubles.  H. C. McKee

From: r...@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid)
Date: 16 Sep 1986 1519-PDT (Tuesday)
To: Peter G. Neumann <>   [FOR RISKS]
Subject: Massive UNIX breakins at Stanford

    Lessons learned from a recent rash of Unix computer breakins

   A number of Unix computers in the San Francisco area have
   recently been plagued with breakins by reasonably talented
   intruders. An analysis of the breakins (verified by a telephone
   conversation with the intruders!) show that the networking
   philosophy offered by Berkeley Unix, combined with the human
   nature of systems programmers, creates an environment in which
   breakins are more likely, and in which the consequences of
   breakins are more dire than they need to be.

   People who study the physical security of buildings and military
   bases believe that human frailty is much more likely than
   technology to be at fault when physical breakins occur. It is
   often easier to make friends with the guard, or to notice that he
   likes to watch the Benny Hill show on TV and then wait for that
   show to come on, than to try to climb fences or outwit burglar

Summary of Berkeley Unix networking mechanism:

   The user-level networking features are built around the
   principles of "remote execution" and "trusted host". For example,
   if you want to copy a file from computer A to computer B, you
   type the command
             rcp A:file B:file
   If you want to copy the file /tmp/xyz from the computer that you
   are now using over to computer C where it will be called
   /usr/spool/breakin, you type the command
             rcp /tmp/xyz C:/usr/spool/breakin
   The decision of whether or not to permit these copy commands is
   based on "permission" files that are stored on computers A, B,
   and C. The first command to copy from A to B will only work if
   you have an account on both of those computers, and the
   permission file stored in your directory on both of those
   computers authorizes this kind of remote access.

   Each "permission file" contains a list of computer names and user
   login names. If the line " reid" is in the
   permission file on computer "B", it means that user "reid" on
   computer "" is permitted to perform remote
   operations such as rcp, in or out, with the same access
   privileges that user "reid" has on computer B.

How the breakins happened.

   One of the Stanford campus computers, used primarily as a mail
   gateway between Unix and IBM computers on campus, had a guest
   account with user id "guest" and password "guest". The intruder
   somehow got his hands on this account and guessed the password.
   There are a number of well-known security holes in early releases
   of Berkeley Unix, many of which are fixed in later releases.
   Because this computer is used as a mail gateway, there was no
   particular incentive to keep it constantly up to date with the
   latest and greatest system release, so it was running an older version
   of the system. The intruder instantly cracked "root" on that
   computer, using the age-old trojan horse trick. (He had noticed
   that the guest account happened to have write permission into a
   certain scratch directory, and he had noticed that under certain
   circumstances, privileged jobs could be tricked into executing
   versions of programs out of that scratch directory instead of out
   of the normal system directories).

   Once the intruder cracked "root" on this computer, he was able to
   assume the login identity of everybody who had an account on that
   computer. In particular, he was able to pretend to be user "x" or
   user "y", and in that guise ask for a remote login on other
   computers. Sooner or later he found a [user,remote-computer] pair
   for which there was a permission file on the other end granting
   access, and now he was logged on to another computer. Using the
   same kind of trojan horse tricks, he was able to break into root
   on the new computer, and repeat the process iteratively.

   In most cases the intruder left trojan-horse traps behind on
   every computer that he broke into, and in most cases he created
   login accounts for himself on the computers that he broke into.
   Because no records were kept, it is difficult to tell exactly how
   many machines were penetrated, but the number could be as high as
   30 to 60 on the Stanford campus alone. An intruder using a
   similar modus operandi has been reported at other installations.

How "human nature" contributed to the problem

   The three technological entry points that made this intrusion
   possible were:

      * The large number of permission files, with entirely
          too many permissions stored in them, found all over the campus
          computers (and, for that matter, all over the ARPAnet).

      * The presence of system directories in which users have write

      * Very sloppy and undisciplined use of search paths in privileged
        programs and superuser shell scripts.

Permissions: Berkeley networking mechanism encourages carelessness.

   The Berkeley networking mechanism is very very convenient. I use
   it all the time. You want to move a file from one place to
   another? just type "rcp" and it's there. Very fast and very
   efficient, and quite transparent. But sometimes I need to move a
   file to a machine that I don't normally use. I'll log on to that
   machine, quickly create a temporary permission file that lets me
   copy a file to that machine, then break back to my source machine
   and type the copy command. However, until I'm quite certain that
   I am done moving files, I don't want to delete my permission file
   from the remote end or edit that entry out of it. Most of us use
   display editors, and oftentimes these file copies are made to
   remote machines on which the display editors don't always work
   quite the way we want them to, so there is a large nuisance
   factor in running the text editor on the remote end. Therefore
   the effort in removing one entry from a permission file--by
   running the text editor and editing it out--is high enough that
   people don't do it as often as they should. And they don't want
   to *delete* the permission file, because it contains other
   entries that are still valid. So, more often than not, the
   permission files on rarely-used remote computers end up with
   extraneous permissions in them that were installed for a
   one-time-only operation. Since the Berkeley networking commands
   have no means of prompting for a password or asking for the name
   of a temporary permission file, everybody just edits things into
   the permanent permission file. And then, of course, they forget
   to take it out when they are done.

Write permission in system directories permits trojan horse attacks.

   All software development is always behind schedule, and
   programmers are forever looking for ways to do things faster. One
   convenient trick for reducing the pain of releasing new versions
   of some program is to have a directory such as /usr/local/bin or
   /usr/stanford/bin or /usr/new in which new or locally-written
   versions of programs are kept, and asking users to put that
   directory on their search paths. The systems programmers then
   give themselves write access to that directory, so that they can
   intall a new version just by typing "make install" rather than
   taking some longer path involving root permissions. Furthermore,
   it somehow seems more secure to be able to install new software
   without typing the root password. Therefore it is a
   nearly-universal practice on computers used by programmers to
   have program directories in which the development programmers
   have write permission. However, if a user has write permission in
   a system directory, and if an intruder breaks into that user's
   account, then the intruder can trivially break into root by using
   that write permission to install a trojan horse.

Search paths: people usually let convenience dominate caution.

   Search paths are almost universally misused. For example, many
   people write shell scripts that do not specify an explicit search
   path, which makes them vulnerable to inheriting the wrong path.
   Many people modify the root search path so that it will be
   convenient for systems programmers to use interactively as the
   superuser, forgetting that the same search path will be used by
   system maintenance scripts run automatically during the night.
   It is so difficult to debug failures that are caused by incorrect
   search paths in automatically-run scripts that a common "repair"
   technique is to put every conceivable directory into the search
   path of automatically-run scripts. Essentially every Unix
   computer I have ever explored has grievous security leaks caused
   by underspecified or overlong search paths for privileged users.

Summary conclusion: Wizards cause leaks

   The people who are most likely to be the cause of leaks are
   the wizards. When something goes wrong on a remote machine, often
   a call goes in to a wizard for help. The wizard is usually busy
   or in a hurry, and he often is sloppier than he should be with
   operations on the remote machine. The people who are most likely
   to have permission files left behind on stray remote machines are
   the wizards who once offered help on that machine. But, alas,
   these same wizards are the people who are most likely to have
   write access to system directories on their home machines,
   because it seems to be in the nature of wizards to want to
   collect as many permissions as possible for their accounts. Maybe
   that's how they establish what level of wizard that they are. The
   net result is that there is an abnormally high probability that
   when an errant permission file is abused by an intruder, that it
   will lead to the account of somebody who has an unusually large
   collection of permissions on his own machine, thereby making it
   easier to break into root on that machine.


   My conclusions from all this are these:
      * Nobody, no matter how important, should have write permission
          into any directory on the system search path. Ever.

      * Somebody should carefully re-think the user interface of the
          Berkeley networking mechanisms, to find ways to permit people to
          type passwords as they are needed, rather than requiring them to
          edit new permissions into their permissions files.

      * The "permission file" security access mechanism seems
        fundamentally vulnerable. It would be quite reasonable
          for a system manager to forbid the use of them, or to
          drastically limit the use of them. Mechanized checking is

      * Programmer convenience is the antithesis of security, because
          it is going to become intruder convenience if the programmer's
          account is ever compromised. This is especially true in
        setting up the search path for the superuser.

   I mentioned in the introduction that we had talked to the
   intruders on the telephone. To me the most maddening thing about
   this intrusion was not that it happened, but that we were unable
   to convince any authorities that it was a serious problem, and
   could not get the telephone calls traced. At one point an
   intruder spent 2 hours talking on the telephone with a Stanford
   system manager, bragging about how he had done it, but there was
   no way that the call could be traced to locate him. A few days
   later, I sat there and watched the intruder log on to one
   Stanford comptuer, and I watched every keystroke that he typed on
   his keyboard, and I watched him break in to new directories, but
   there was nothing that I could do to catch him because he was
   coming in over the telephone. Naturally as soon as he started to
   do anything untoward I blasted the account that he was using and
   logged him off, but sooner or later new intruders will come
   along, knowing that they will not be caught because what they are
   doing is not considered serious. It isn't necessarily serious,
   but it could be. I don't want to throw such people in jail,
   and I don't want to let them get away either. I just want to
   catch them and shout at them and tell them that they are being

Brian Reid
DEC Western Research and Stanford University

			   USENET Archives

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or 

Electronic mail:			      WorldWideWeb: