News location:

Canberra Today 6°/11° | Friday, April 26, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

Griffiths / Beware the old, blinking modem

LAST month a guy called Stéphane Chazelas discovered a really fundamental security problem in the software that would let bad people remotely take over computers.

John Griffiths
John Griffiths.
System administrators rushed to patch their machines, hostile port scanners started lighting up security systems probing for a way to use the bug, the first patch wasn’t a complete fix so another one had to be issued.

It was all very chaotic, but when the dust settled inconvenient voices started asking: “But what about all the devices running Bash?”

Back in 1977 the Bourne shell was released, named after a guy called Stephen Bourne and, while not revolutionary, it allowed operators of the big, scary UNIX computers to input text-based commands into their machines, and also to write batches of commands.

It was significantly better than anything that had come before so it became very widely used.

In 1988 the Free Software Foundation decided it was so important to have a like-for-like replacement (able to run those batches of commands built up by operators over the previous decade without modification) that they paid a guy called Brian Fox to write a replacement, which he cheekily named “Bourne Again Shell” or Bash to its friends.

Bash has been picked up and stuck in systems all over the world ever since for those times when someone needs to talk to a machine without the weight of graphical user interfaces (which can require significant design time).

It’s used in Linux systems today, in Apple’s OS X, and in a bewildering array of cheaply made embedded systems such as network routers.

That ADSL2 router you bought at Dick Smith for $140 five years ago that’s been quietly running your WiFi and internet so blamelessly you forgot almost certainly has a shell for techies to configure and debug with. Is it using Bash? Which version? How would you go about updating it? Does it allow remote access to its shell? (It probably shouldn’t but…)

This is why a lot of big ISPs these days such as Telstra and iiNet offer to supply the modems which they maintain and can remotely upgrade as needed.

Corporate environments have network attached storage boxes, many of those have Bash installed.

Your set top box and your smart TV could all have Bash installed.

To hunt the problem down, techies have had to turn to the same tools the hackers use, software called port scanners.

A port scan of your network should turn up all the vulnerable machines which are turned on, they can then be updated, or replaced. A painful process all around.

The terrors of home security don’t end there though. Last year the Russians claimed to have intercepted a batch of tea kettles with WiFi-snooping systems built into the base.

As for your bluetooth keyboard the US National Security Agency offers this advice:

“The use of Bluetooth-enabled keyboards and mice introduces an avenue of attack for an adversary to capture keystrokes and spoof a user to gain access to a host machine. It has been shown that a Bluetooth connection can be made from distances of up to one mile.”

We’ve been here before. We all have to take security seriously. Apply every patch and update however painful, as quickly as possible, and use strong passwords as painful as they may be. Finally, when buying anything that will be attached to the internet ask who will be upgrading it and how?

John Griffiths is the online editor of the daily news service citynews.com.au

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Share this

8 Responses to Griffiths / Beware the old, blinking modem

harvyk says: 8 October 2014 at 10:54 am

Whilst there is nothing in this article I disagree with, if a user has a choice between security or convenience the user will typically pick convenience every time.

Perhaps now is the time which we insist that all appliance device manufacturers include some sort of secure remote updating for all their internet connected devices as a standard and treat any buggy embedded system as no different than a product recall, except without the need to return the device to the manufacturer.

Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen, in the world where the dollar is king, and adding actual real security and update ability to that internet connected light switch is an expensive exercise for a $29 device, we’ll no doubt start seeing people’s curtains being opened in drive by “hacker attacks”. (using the common terminology rather than cracker). The problem is the vast majority won’t see the problem (until they are dancing around in their underwear near the curtain they thought was closed).

I guess this leaves us as the consumer in one of two positions, accept that we have no real security and learn to live with a fridge who’s door can be opened by a guy in India, or be left behind still stuck in a world where you need to get up and walk over to the wall to control that light in the roof.

Reply
John Griffiths says: 8 October 2014 at 11:07 am

It could be there’s going to be a growing market in home IT security audits

Reply
harvyk says: 8 October 2014 at 11:17 am

My money is on a consumer backlash against insecure products, not because they are insecure, but because they will appear faulty. If my lamp turns on and off at random, I’m not going to assume it’s been hacked, I’m going to assume it is faulty and return said product and complain about it on internet forums.

Reply
John Griffiths says: 8 October 2014 at 11:23 am

Hackers don’t generally want you to know they are there though.

First thing most people will know is someone’s borrowed $30,000 in their name and then they’ll have to wonder if it was the new lamp to blame or that funny game the kids installed on the ipad.

Reply
harvyk says: 8 October 2014 at 1:29 pm

Some do, some don’t. Some are satisfied with the knowledge that they got into a network / computer system, others aren’t happy until they’ve drained every last cent from a targets bank account without getting caught. However with the current trend of internet enabling just about everything from a TV to a toaster I’d be very surprised if we don’t get the home automation crackers whom get their kicks from simply being annoying.

John Griffiths says: 8 October 2014 at 1:55 pm

It’s an interesting thought that electronic warfare (EW) is about to enter everyday life.

One would imagine an aircraft like the RAAF wedgetails could look out for the EM signature of a port scanning channel hopping hacker.

Are we going to need overhead police EW platforms looking for intrusive behaviours?

harvyk says: 8 October 2014 at 2:48 pm

“War driving” has been going on for quite a long time, ever since home wifi networks became a common enough thing. Part of it’s nice advantage is that for the most part the attacker is anonymous and very difficult to trace and most people don’t know the first thing about securing their home network.

Of course, if through other means the attacker is identified, they had better hope that they have put their laptop through a shredder, since there will be more than enough electronic evidence linking their laptop / internet device to the crime if it’s ever found.

Reply
John Griffiths says: 8 October 2014 at 3:14 pm

War driving to get out on the internet is a different kettle of fish to what the future promises mind you.

If you can war drive onto someone’s network now if they have a mac with an unpatched Bash you can, as well as cleaning out their bank account, be turning on their webcam.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Opinion

Why respect is a two-way street in law

Legal columnist HUGH SELBY offers a spirited response to an opinion column by Kelly Saunders in which she posed the question over a defendant's right to silence in a sexual assault prosecution. Selby argues she's wrong... 

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews