The numbers come mostly from porn sites that use a low brow ad network that is inserting the graphics into the sites. If you really want to see one, go to 600pics[dot]com, but be forewarned of hardcore porn.
I haven't seen any reports of innocent sites being affected by this. Larry Seltzer eWEEK.com Security Center Editor http://security.eweek.com/ http://blog.ziffdavis.com/seltzer Contributing Editor, PC Magazine [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Brady McClenon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:29 AM To: Drew Simonis; Thor (Hammer of God); Erin Carroll; [email protected] Cc: Larry Seltzer; [email protected] Subject: RE: New article on SecurityFocus Just curious. I hear media reports and people saying that there's hundreds or thousands of compromised web site from this, but I have ask where these numbers come from? Where is this data, or is it pure speculation? I'm also curious how one could compromise a web server with this exploit. Putting files on a web server to dole out and compromise other computers I can see, but is the web server really compromised in this case? If so, was it by way of the WMF exploit? One last question: Has anyone here experienced or know anyone that has a "legitimate" web server compromised (or serving out) by the WMF exploit. I'm trying to determine if there are those with actual knowledge that the sky is indeed falling, or if we are all shaking over unsubstantiated media hype. > -----Original Message----- > From: Drew Simonis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:22 AM > To: Thor (Hammer of God); Erin Carroll; [email protected] > Cc: Larry Seltzer; [email protected] > Subject: Re: New article on SecurityFocus > > > > > Overall, I think community's coverage of wmf has been delivered with > > an ounce of perception, and a pound of obscurity. It's almost as if > > people *want* it to be worse than it is. I'm not surprised, of > > course. But regardless, my call is that we'll see a little > > activity here and there, the patch will come out, most will install > > it (or have it installed automatically) and the whole issue will > > fade away. But that's all. > > > > We'll know for sure shortly, either way. > > > > Thor, > I think your path of thought is stuck a bit in the past. > Worms are neat as a technical exercise, but we see more and more that > the attackers are increasingly aware of the value of these > vulnerabilities from a financial perspective, not merely for > notoriety. As such, it benefits the attacker to have a less subtle > attack, one that does not sensationalize the vulnerability. > Complacency is their ally. > > That said, there are already numerous (hundreds+) "legitimate" web > sites that have been compromised and had exploit images injected into > their content. There are also already hundreds of thousands of > machines that have been infected with Trojans or bots. These infected > machines will patch, but they won't be safe, and the problem gets > worse. > > So no, there won't be some catastrophic worm event. But I posit that > what there will be could be much worse. > > -- > ___________________________________________________ > Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
