Suspecious statd error messages on 2.5/2.5.1 machines

Dear Sun Managers,

Thanks for all the responses from the following people:

        Bob Rahe

        Casper Dik

        Chris Liljenstolpe

        David Mitchell

        Gregory Coleman

        Heidi Burgiel

        James Hsieh

        Jamie Lawrence

        Joel Lee

        Marc Newman

        Marc S. Gibian

        Mark Bergman

        Nikos George

        Rachel Polanskis

        Ronald Loftin

        Thomas Anders

        foster@bial1.ucsd.edu

(excuse me if I miss anyone)

My Original Question:

>> A couple of our 2.5/2.5.1 machines got the following in /var/adm/messages

>> yesterday. When I compared it with another 2.4 machine, I got a similar

>> but slightly different message. Has anyone seen this before?

>> On Solaris 2.5/2.5.1 machines:

>> /var/adm/messages:Apr 5 06:20:21 machine1 statd[145]: attempt to create

>> "/var/statmon/sm/////////////////////////////http:////////////////////////////////tmp/.nfs09 D H $ $ $ $ ` O * * * * # # P *` c 6) # # ; # XbinXsh tirdwr "

>> On a Solaris 2.4 machine:

>> /var/adm/messages:Apr 5 16:46:24 scis statd[131]: statd: open of

>> /var/statmon/sm/////////////////////////////http:////////////////////////////http://.., error Invalid argument

>>

>> P.S. 103468-03 statd patch has been applied on these 2.5/2.5.1 machines.

>> Are there some other patches that I need to install too?

In short almost all of the replies mentioned that our system is under

attacked by the buffer overflow bug in statd. :( The patches for this

statd exploit for sparc are 104166-03 for 2.5.1, 103468-03 for 2.5

and 102769-04 for 2.4.

A few recommended that I should read www.cert.org for advice and

the readings from:

        ftp.cert.org/pub/cert_advisories/CA-97.26.statd

Casper mentioned that the patch I installed (103468-03) should protect us

against the attack.

Also, as pointed out by James Hsieh in section IV.B of

        http://www.sdsc.edu/Security/public_bulletins/96.03.rpc.statd

it described the exact same error message that I posted. This section

mentioned that only those who has tcp_wrappers and the 'logging portmapper'

(?) will see the attack in the normal log files like /var/adm/messages.

Otherwise, you might never see the attack in any normal system logs.

Thanks again.

- James.

+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+

| Unix System Administrator | James Kwong 954-262-4906 |

| Nova Southeastern University | kwong@solar.acast.nova.edu |

+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+

[4219 byte] By [CodeProf.com] at [2007-12-25 10:00:00]