main

Counting the cost of Slammer

Arnaudt   on 31 January 2003 - 22:05 · 9 comments & 929 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Analyst firms have begun to weigh in with initial estimates of the damage done by the SQL Slammer worm, the virulent program that spread quickly throughout the Internet a week ago.

On Thursday, London-based market intelligence firm Mi2g said that the worm caused between $950 million and $1.2 billion in lost productivity in its first five days worldwide. That puts the worm at No. 9 on the company's list of the most costly malicious code, behind the likes of the Code Red worm, with its average of $2.6 billion in productivity loss; the LoveLetter virus, with $8.8 billion; and the Klez virus, with $9.0 billion.

"For all the hype of Slammer, it is not as dire as many people think," said D.K. Matai, CEO of Mi2g. "Just in case you think the sky fell down on Saturday, it didn't."

The estimates are the first to try and measure the effects of the latest worm to hit systems. The SQL Slammer worm spread throughout the Internet late on Jan. 24, and the sheer quantity of data produced by infected servers clogged the electronic arteries of company networks, downed banks networks and ATMs and slowed some people's access to the Internet.

News source: c|net


Another analyst firm came up with similar estimates that measured the cost of cleanup rather than of lost productivity. Technology market researcher Computer Economics estimates that the worm cost between $750 million and $1 billion to clean up, said Mark McManus, vice president of technology and research for the Carlsbad, Calif., firm.

"The labor costs, although significant, weren't as bad as Code Red," McManus said. Analysts at Computer Economics had estimated that the LoveLetter virus cost almost a billion dollars in cleanup and more than $7.7 billion in lost productivity.

Many security experts argue, however, that while SQL Slammer is easier to clean up, the worm was worse overall than Code Red--which attacked more servers but didn't affect infrastructure, such as financial systems.

"This worm did something that we have not seen before," said Peter Allor, director of operations for the Information Technology Information Sharing and Analysis Center (IT-ISAC). "In this case, the customer was affected," he said. "People weren't getting dial tones, airplanes couldn't fly, ATMs weren't giving cash."

Data on computer viruses has always been lean. Putting a dollar figure on the losses incurred by malicious code is difficult at best, said Michael Gartenberg, research director for Internet industry watcher Jupiter Research.

"It is a billion soft dollars, and that is an important part of an equation," he said, stressing that the losses weren't actually coming out of companies' wallets. "Measuring productivity and translating it into dollars is a hard thing."

In the past, analysts have tried to bill a variety of events to lost productivity. Last May, outplacement service Challenger Gray and Christmas estimated that the first day of "Star Wars: Episode II--Attack of the Clones" would cost firms $319 million in lost productivity from workers calling in sick and taking days off. In addition, Internet monitoring software maker Websense estimated in May 2000 that a Webcast by underwear retailer Victoria Secret would cost businesses $120 million in lost productivity.

Mi2g's Matai said there is a big difference between those numbers and the losses incurred by malicious code.

"I don't think we are looking at productivity loss like that at all," he said. "We are looking at how many servers went down, what was the utilization of those servers and what kind of traffic didn't get through," he said. "The administrators could do nothing until they sorted all that mess out. So it is a different measure of productivity loss."

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 9 additional comments
(6 replies) #1 nic on 31 Jan 2003 - 23:48
Just another reason why anti-virus software is worth the bills.
#1.1 Tom Servo on 31 Jan 2003 - 23:51
Ah yeah. Then tell me how AV software detects brand new viruses!
#1.2 JaggedFlame on 01 Feb 2003 - 00:36
Heuristics?
#1.3 zzkj7w on 01 Feb 2003 - 02:31
I'm not sure how AV software could have prevented this worm. Tom Servo from sHuGa ?
#1.4 JaggedFlame on 01 Feb 2003 - 03:40
A firewall could have prevented it. If you're only using one instance of the data engine anyway, port 1434 should be blocked. And in more cases than not, the database machine should be completely disconnected from the Internet, anyway. This stuff is all in the white papers. If only certain admins read them. It takes five minutes.
#1.5 Eric Ferleman on 01 Feb 2003 - 04:02
Indeed, it all goes back to Data Base Admin laziness when it comes to installing the patches, that have been available for quite awhile.
#1.6 jizness on 01 Feb 2003 - 06:52
The SQL Slammer worm can't be detected by AV because it runs in the RAM of the computer.
#2 FuhrerDarqueSyde on 01 Feb 2003 - 06:42
add $10 to that ammount cause my site is down :'(
#3 jizness on 01 Feb 2003 - 06:54
If people would learn to patch there servers, there would be no damage. Personally i think if your server got infected and your the ADMIN, it was YOUR fault. The patch for this flaw was relased a long time ago. If you are not the admin and your companies server got infected, yell at the Admin because it was his fault. Learn how to secure your server, and this wouldn't happen!

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)