ZDNet UK


Skip to Main Content

ZDNet.co.uk - Winner of Best Business Website 2007
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Blogs
  4. Reviews
  5. Prices
  6. Resources
  7. Community
  8. My ZDNet

 

ZDNet UK RSS Feeds


IT Jobs

Security threats Toolkit

SQL Slammer worm wreaks havoc on Internet

Matt Loney ZDNet.co.uk

Published: 26 Jan 2003 10:58 GMT

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly
  • Post Comment

A worm that attacks Microsoft's database software spread through the Internet over the weekend, causing cash machines to stop issuing money, taking most of South Korea offline, and slowing down the Internet.

The worm, known as SQL Slammer, takes advantage of a bug that was discovered last July in Microsoft's SQL Server database software. Although a patch has been available since then, many system administrators have failed to install the patch, leaving their computers vulnerable.

The result: chaos.

Bank of America said 13,000 of its ATMs refused to dispense cash. In South Korea, the country's largest ISP KT Corp said all almost all its customers lost their connections during the attack. Chinese computer users saw sites freeze and a dramatic slowdown in download speeds, as the worm's effects hit the Internet's nameservers -- the computers that translate Web addresses into numerical Internet Protocol addresses. And all this in just 376 bytes of code, meaning the entire SQL Slammer worm code is about half the length of this paragraph.

Antivirus firm F-Secure said the effects were so marked because the worm generates massive amounts of network packets, overloading servers and routers and slowing down network traffic. "As many as five of the 13 Internet root nameservers have been downed because of the outbreak," said the company in an alert.

SQL Slammer's code instructs the Microsoft SQL Server to go into an endless loop, continually sending out data to other computers, in effect performing a denial of service attack, F-Secure said, comparing the slowdown to the impact of the Code Red virus, which brought internet traffic to a halt in the summer of 2001.

The worm has been rated as critical by Microsoft and by antivirus companies because of the damage it has caused, although it is not thought to damage data on infected machines. It does not spread through email and will not affect most home users' computers directly, said experts, although PCs that use the Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Desktop Engine, such as Visual Studio .Net and Office XP Developer Edition, are also vulnerable, according to Microsoft chief security strategist Scott Charney.

The first reported attacks of SQLSlammer were recorded around 05:30 GMT on Saturday morning, and it has been subsequently reported in many countries across the globe, said antivirus firm Messagelabs. Unlike mass-mailing worms, SQL Slammer does not write files to a computer's hard disk, but resides in memory. While this makes it easy to remove -- a computer simply has to be rebooted -- it also makes it difficult for antivirus software to detect it, said Messagelabs. And as soon as a rebooted computer is reconnected to the Internet, it will be vulnerable to reinfection unless it has first been patched.

Microsoft said it became aware several hours later at 00:30 Pacific time "of an Internet attack causing a dramatic increase in network traffic worldwide." Calling the release of the worm a criminal act, Microsoft said it was "working around the clock to ensure our affected customers are protected."

But even as some Microsoft executives urged companies to download patches, others admitted that this was not as easy as it sounded. Microsoft spokesman Rick Miller was quoted in USA Today as confirming that Internet congestion was interfering with administrators trying to download the patch. "The same congestion also completely prevented consumers from contacting Microsoft over the Internet to unlock the anti-piracy features of its latest products, including the Windows XP and Office XP software packages," said the paper.

System administrators who are unable to download the patch should block UDP port 1434, said experts. This will prevent external attacks from exploiting the vulnerability. UDP port 1434 is used by the SQL Server Resolution Service, which provides a way for clients to find a particular instance of SQL Server on a machine.

It is this Resolution Service that contains the flaw exploited by SQL Slammer. SQL uses a keep-alive mechanism to distinguish between active and passive instances, but the flaw means that if a particular data packet is sent to the SQL Server 2000 keep-alive function, it will reply to the sender with an identical packet. Under normal circumstances this is not a problem, according to Microsoft, but by spoofing the source address of such a packet, it would be possible to cause two SQL Server 2000 systems to start an endless cycle of packet exchanges.

This is how SQL Slammer operates. In its original description of the flaw, Microsoft explained the sequence of events:

"Suppose there were two SQL Servers with the vulnerability, Server 1 and Server 2. Now suppose the attacker created the needed keep-alive packet and modified the source address so that it contained Server 1's address, then sent the packet to Server 2. This would initiate the exchange, because Server 2 would reply to Server 1, which would reply to Server 2, ad infinitum."

However, system administrators do appear to have acted quickly -- at last. By late Saturday, the worm appeared to have passed its peak, said antivirus firms.

Charney said the widespread effects of SQL Slammer could have been avoided. "The unfortunate thing about this is when you know that this was a problem and they (customers) hadn't updated," Charney said, "That's a bit frustrating."

"It was a vulnerability. We knew about it, but someone is exploiting it. We want our customers to be as secure as possible and install the patches."

Click here to find out more about how to protect your system from the worm.

Reuters contributed to this report.


For all security-related news, including updates on the latest viruses, hacking exploits and patches, check out ZDNet UK's Security News Section.

Let the editors know what you think in the Mailroom.

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly Print with HP

Did you find this article useful?
61 out of 110 people found this useful


Full Talkback thread

0 comments


Company/Topic Alerts

Create a new alert from the list below:






Related Jobs

Senior Test Manager - Cash & Trade, Tier 1 Banking

Working specifically on the Cash & Trade portfolio applications in the Global Transaction department, you will be responsible for the system and ...

Security Consultant Ethical Hacking / Penetration Testing - London

Responsibilities: - Deliver security assessment services including network scanning, vulnerability testing, penetration testing, search engine ...

Business Analyst - Cash Liquidity / Treasury - Investment Banking

The candidate will be working within the design and development team for cash liquidity for the treasury business area. You will be responsible for ...

Sentry Posts Blog

Mobile Linux Better For Mobile Busines...

Mobile Linux Better For Mobile Business Apps? Author: Eric Everson, MyMobiSafe.com As mobile Linux is carving it’s footprint on the future of mobile application development, the... More

Post a comment

DWP downplays security breach

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted that some of its staff have been forwarding passwords with password protected material. An email that was leaked on the 'Dizzy... More

Post a comment

How many headshots does one chairperso...

We got a strange request last week from the head of PR from Russian security experts Kaspersky. It seems although the company was very happy with the interview we recently carried with... More

Post a comment

Featured Talkback

On the contrary, if vendors were forced to stand behind their products it should increase innovation. It would force more, and better , testing before hitting the sales floor, resulting in fewer updates and less downtime for the consumer. At present the EULA removes responsibility from the vendor, and moves it to the user, which is a step backward. Make the vendor responsibility for their code.

By: ator1940

Read full story:
RSA: Vendor liability may stifle innovation