WinXP Security Flaw 628
Many readers have submitted word of the newest security hole in Windows XP. joshjs, for instance, writes: "Don't know if this is common knowledge at this point or not, but apparently some security researchers discovered that Windows XP's universal plug and play features contain a huge security flaw: 'A Microsoft official acknowledged that the risk to consumers was unprecedented because the glitches allow hackers to seize control of all Windows XP operating system software without requiring a computer user to do anything except connect to the Internet. ... Microsoft made available on its Web site a free fix for both home and professional editions of Windows XP and forcefully urged consumers to install it immediately.' Read more at the Washington Post's story." No OS is perfectly secure, but I bet a lot of new XP owners won't be too happy about this. Update: 12/20 20:05 GMT by T : fcrick submits a link to the same AP story at Wired, and several readers have pointed out that a patch is available. Update: 12/20 21:31 GMT by T : And as banuaba writes: "This hole also affects versions of 98 with XP File sharing installed and all versions of ME."
PNP (Score:5, Funny)
Plug your XP box to the internet and pray for the hackers not to find it.
Re:PNP (Score:3, Funny)
Plug and Let Someone Else Play.
Re:PNP (Score:4, Insightful)
The OS allows access to raw sockets and, therefore, the entire kernel.
Go read it again. Raw sockets is not a security flaw. Unix (including Linux and OSX) has them too. All it means is that it's easy to spoof packets. That's it.
Re:PNP (Score:4, Informative)
Re:PNP (Score:2)
Steve Gibson rather enjoys making mountains out of molehills. His rants are often accompanied by much apocalyptic hand-wringing. XP is no less secure than any previous Microsoft OS wrt raw sockets.
Well.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, he did "stay quiet". Notice that Scott Culp is practically peeing his pants in admiration of how he didn't publish details on how this is exploited.
Microsoft info (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Microsoft info (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Microsoft info (Score:5, Funny)
And the "XP Dramatically More Secure" article from a few months ago:
http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s%253D701%2526 a%253D16895,00.asp [eweek.com]
Quoting Jim Allchin is fun:
D'oh...
First security hole? (Score:2, Troll)
HAHAHAHAHAH.. Oh man what rock has he been under?
Re:First security hole? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First security hole? (Score:3, Informative)
So, what crack pipe have you been puffing on?
Technically true? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now granted, IIS comes with Windows so, is that really a seperate component? Also, by the same logic, Linux has never been exploited either has it? I mean, does Linux run any network daemons on it's own? No. So Linux, itself is bulletproof, it's just all those other things you put on top of it that can cause problems.
I just find it amusing how Microsoft keeps changing where they want to split their hairs when distinguishing between the OS and the applications. IE is part of the OS until it gets compromised and then suddenly it's a seperate application.
Technically false. (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, does anyone remember a little thing called Outlook Express? Sure, most of the popular worms exploited the unpatchable "Stupid User" bug, but there have been at least two that left your computer remotely compromisable from just the Preview pane of the email (thanks to HTML buffer overflows) and one that would let your computer be compromised as email was downloaded (thanks to email header buffer overflows). Of course, the preview pane bugs were really Microsoft HTML component bugs, so could be triggered by Internet Explorer hitting a malicious page even if you didn't use Outlook.
And if there's one thing that Microsoft has taught us, it's that Internet Explorer is an essential part of the Windows(TM) Operating System eXPerience.
Re:Technically true? (Score:5, Informative)
The syncookies bug a few months ago is a kernel bug.
Also the ip_conntrack_ftp bug in 2.4.3 and older is a kernel bug.
Re:First security hole? (Score:3, Funny)
"desktop system" means not running any servers
"compromise" doesn't include DoS (ping of death, etc)
"remote" apparently means the user doesn't have to do anything. I mean, come on, when you try to read your mail with Outlook Express, everyone knows that your system is as good as cracked already.
I have know idea why he used the phrase 'network-based, remote' Is there some other remote way of talking to Microsoft computers? Some radio signal you can send that instantly gives you full access?
Re:First security hole? (Score:2, Funny)
Well, with Windows 95, you don't have to do anything. Just wait, and it'll go down by itself.
Re:First security hole? (Score:2)
but Microsoft gets it now - (Score:5, Funny)
"Oh, you wanted a DOOR to hang that lock on.... Sure, I guess we could do that..."
Bug counter on the web (Score:3, Troll)
Is there any MS Windows XP bug counter on the web? Something like:
I think it would be funny, we could also compare with Linux 2.4.x bugs. And maybe we can also have a Score thing, or something like /.
Any suggestion? Any website that already do this?
Re:Bug counter on the web (Score:2)
Re:Bug counter on the web (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, those statistics were higher than for a clean Windows install. Counted separately they were lower, last I checked. And if you'd lump similar software in Windows as is usually included in a Linux dist, you'd get a far far far worse record for Windows.
Re:Bug counter on the web (Score:3, Funny)
Here's how the MS build team could find out:
#!/bin/sh ./*.h ./*.cpp | grep total
cd win32/src
echo "Bugs found: " wc -l
Just pipe that out to some place where a web server could get to it and you have numbers.
They have shell on Win32, right? Or maybe they build on *nix... :-)
-B
FINALLY, slashdot wakes up and posts this (Score:2, Informative)
As far as the security hole goes I've heard even worse things are possible since XP now allows "raw" socket access to non-administrators.
There's a good article by Grieder that explains all about this at www.grc.com .
Kinda serious? (Score:2, Interesting)
Christmas Hacking Fun! (Score:2)
Damn Spell Checker :) (Score:2)
That won't matter at all (Score:3, Insightful)
People who know this is just the latest symptom of Microsoft's general neglect for security won't be buying XP anyway. Those who believe Microsoft deserves their dominant position because they are the best will see that there is already a patch. Those who don't know enough to know why they should care
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
This speaks for itself
Not only Windows XP (Score:2, Informative)
It's time for new marketing... (Score:3, Funny)
When the big virus/worm/... that exploits this hole is announced, maybe we can print up stickers to apply to all those nice shiny new XP boxes.
but what about the Internet Connection Firewall??? (Score:5, Funny)
Now Windows XP offers strong security to home computer users through Internet Connection Firewall protection, which makes your information, computers, and family data safer from intruders as soon as you start using Windows XP.
I guess that helped a lot.
Re:but what about the Internet Connection Firewall (Score:2, Funny)
> Here's a little gem from the MS XP site [microsoft.com] That's a typo. It's supposed to say "makes your information safer for intruders as soon as you start using Windows XP."
Re:but what about the Internet Connection Firewall (Score:3, Funny)
But is it faster and more fun? I'm still waiting for that promised Windows 95 feature to be implemented in ANY version of Windows.
Re:but what about the Internet Connection Firewall (Score:5, Informative)
Shit, I thought it was a feature.... (Score:3, Funny)
And now, this is a security hole. Man, nowaday, you can't know for sure if it's a bug or a feature anymore.
Does someone here know what U p&p is? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does someone here know what U p&p is? (Score:5, Informative)
The first vulnerability is a buffer overrun vulnerability. There is an unchecked buffer in one of the components that handle NOTIFY directives - messages that advertise the availability of UPnP-capable devices on the network. By sending a specially malformed NOTIFY directive, it would be possible for an attacker to cause code to run in the context of the UPnP service, which runs with System privileges on Windows XP. (On Windows 98 and Windows ME, all code executes as part of the operating system). This would enable the attacker to gain complete control over the system.
The second vulnerability results because the UPnP doesn't sufficiently limit the steps to which the UPnP service will go to obtain information on using a newly discovered device. Within the NOTIFY directive that a new UPnP device sends is information telling interested computers where to obtain its device description, which lists the services the device offers and instructions for using them. By design, the device description may reside on a third-party server rather than on the device itself. However, the UPnP implementations don't adequately regulate how it performs this operation, and this gives rise to two different denial of service scenarios.
In the first scenario, the attacker could send a NOTIFY directive to a UPnP-capable computer, specifying that the device description should be downloaded from a particular port on a particular server. If the server was configured to simply echo the download requests back to the UPnP service (e.g., by having the echo service running on the port that the computer was directed to), the computer could be made to enter an endless download cycle that could consume some or all of the system's availability. An attacker could craft and send this directive to a victim's machine directly, by using the machine's IP address. Or, he could send this same directive to a broadcast and multicast domain and attack all affected machines within earshot, consuming some or all of those systems' availability.
In the second scenario, an attacker could specify a third-party server as the host for the device description in the NOTIFY directive. If enough machines responded to the directive, it could have the effect of flooding the third-party server with bogus requests, in a distributed denial of service attack. As with the first scenario, an attacker could either send the directives to the victim directly, or to a broadcast or multicast domain.
I think it would be interesting to keep a running (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be interested to see captured on a yearly basis the bug count of Microsoft products versus some open source products including how long each bug took to get fixed and the severity of each bug.
Microsoft is good a spreading FUD-- but facts are hard to beat and gobbled up by the media.. I'd be willing to volunteer my time to anybody with a server and some bandwidth for a project like this: just tell me what you need me to do.
Windows XP leaks like a sieve (Score:2)
What's with them burying this info in the TechNet section anyhow? "Security by Obscurity" does not work! Now that it's on AP and the lead story on Boston.com they have to own up to it.
Not just Windows XP... 98, ME as well! (Score:5, Informative)
If you are running Windows 98 or ME, you should immediately go to Microsoft's website [microsoft.com] and download the patch for your system.
A more technical description can be found here [eeye.com].
Windows 2000 is not affected.
Catch 22 (Score:2, Interesting)
You need to connect to the net so you can get the patch from MS website....hmmmmmm...catch 22
So to safely get the patch from MS you have to find a non XP computer with a zip disk or a cd burner.....
good think there are 0.25 % of the desktops out there running linux, so XP users can grab the patch they need off a secure netenabled desktop....assuming MS lets no-IE browsers connect to the MS site to grab the patch.
-jef
Catch-22 (Score:2)
"... most secure ever ..." (Score:3, Redundant)
Activated Whether You Use It Or Not (Score:2)
Microsoft standard "Take Me, I'm Yours" default settings strike again.
Reset the slogan timer again (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reset the slogan timer again (Score:2)
Over 100,000,000 customers reamed.
You gotta love it... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh the fun you could have with BackOrificeXP right now... User tries to get patch, Evil haX0r-d00d shoots out a pop-up and mp3: a little Strauss music and a MsgBox reading, "I don't think I can let you do that, Dave."
woof.
[1] As opposed to that Win95 "fix" they called Win98 that you had to pay for.
How do you forcefully urge people?
Re:You gotta love it... (Score:2)
Or nothing at all. Muahahahahaha!
-Legion
A side issue... (Score:2, Interesting)
If Microsoft can force an automatic download, what's to stop anyone else?
How long til someone finds this "feature" and REALLY gives it to XP users?
Microsoft has come out with a new book recently... (Score:4, Funny)
Wait for it, wait for it...
"Writing Secure Code" [amazon.com]
Re:Microsoft has come out with a new book recently (Score:2)
Do not hire programmers that wear kaftans, turbans, long tangled beards, do not bathe, ride donkeys to the interview, speak with a thick Afghan ruling class accent, and repeat slogans like, "Death to capitalist war-mongers that allow their women to read!" or "Cover your face, you Hell-bound Satan's whore!"
Re:Microsoft has come out with a new book recently (Score:2)
Wriring... hm...
Reminds me of that Dilbert cartoon where the MSFT lackey has to leverage Microsoft's market dominance to make an typo in the Word dictionary a new industry-standard word, plus, kill himself in their Comdex booth as an example to others...
This should not surprise you. (Score:3, Funny)
-JDF
Here's some stats. (Score:2, Interesting)
Now all that's required is that somebody take the total number of XP users, multiply it by 5 minutes, and then multiply it by some made-up figure for what the average IT workers makes per minute, and then the zealots will have some fuel for their fire. "Look, this latest bug cost the country a billion dollars!". While in actuality it didn't cost the country anything, and only cost each corporation a percentage of their annual revenue, small enough to be measured in millionths of a percentage point.
Gee, I think I just wasted more time posting this comment than it took to install the update
Security Bulletin from MSFT (Score:2)
Date: 20 December 2001
Software: Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows XP
Impact: Run code of attacker's choice
Max Risk: Critical
Bulletin: MS01-059
---
The hole is in more than XP as you can see.
---
Re:Security Bulletin from MSFT (Score:2)
Re:The full Security Bulletin from MSFT (Score:2, Informative)
-----
Title: Unchecked Buffer in Universal Plug and Play can Lead
to System Compromise
Date: 20 December 2001
Software: Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows XP
Impact: Run code of attacker's choice
Max Risk: Critical
Bulletin: MS01-059
Microsoft encourages customers to review the Security Bulletin at:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulle
Issue:
The Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) service allows computers to
discover and use network-based devices. Windows ME and XP
include native UPnP services; Windows 98 and 98SE do not include a
native UPnP service, but one can be installed via the
Internet Connection Sharing client that ships with Windows XP. This
bulletin discusses two vulnerabilities affecting these
UPnP implementations. Although the vulnerabilities are unrelated,
both involve how UPnP-capable computers handle the
discovery of new devices on the network.
The first vulnerability is a buffer overrun vulnerability. There is
an unchecked buffer in one of the components that handle
NOTIFY directives - messages that advertise the availability of
UPnP-capable devices on the network. By sending a specially
malformed NOTIFY directive, it would be possible for an attacker to
cause code to run in the context of the UPnP service,
which runs with System privileges on Windows XP. (On Windows 98 and
Windows ME, all code executes as part of the operating
system). This would enable the attacker to gain complete control over
the system.
The second vulnerability results because the UPnP doesn't
sufficiently limit the steps to which the UPnP service will go to
obtain information on using a newly discovered device. Within the
NOTIFY directive that a new UPnP device sends is
information telling interested computers where to obtain its device
description, which lists the services the device offers
and instructions for using them. By design, the device description
may reside on a third-party server rather than on the
device itself. However, the UPnP implementations don't adequately
regulate how it performs this operation, and this gives
rise to two different denial of service scenarios.
In the first scenario, the attacker could send a NOTIFY directive to
a UPnP-capable computer, specifying that the device
description should be downloaded from a particular port on a
particular server. If the server was configured to simply echo
the download requests back to the UPnP service (e.g., by having the
echo service running on the port that the computer was
directed to), the computer could be made to enter an endless download
cycle that could consume some or all of the system's
availability. An attacker could craft and send this directive to a
victim's machine directly, by using the machine's IP
address. Or, he could send this same directive to a broadcast and
multicast domain and attack all affected machines within
earshot, consuming some or all of those systems' availability.
In the second scenario, an attacker could specify a third-party
server as the host for the device description in the NOTIFY
directive. If enough machines responded to the directive, it could
have the effect of flooding the third-party server with
bogus requests, in a distributed denial of service attack. As with
the first scenario, an attacker could either send the
directives to the victim directly, or to a broadcast or multicast
domain.
Mitigating Factors:
General:
- Standard firewalling practices (specifically, blocking ports
1900 and 5000) could be used to protect corporate networks
from Internet-based attacks.
Windows 98 and 98SE:
- There is no native UPnP support for these systems. Windows 98
and 98SE systems would only be affected if the Internet Connection
Sharing Client from Windows XP had been installed on the system.
- Windows 98 and 98SE machines that have installed the Internet
Connection Sharing client from a Windows XP system that has
already applied this patch are not vulnerable.
Windows ME:
- Windows ME provides native UPnP support, but it is neither
installed nor running by default. (However, some OEMs do
configure pre-built systems with the service installed and
running).
Windows XP:
- Internet Connection Firewall, which runs by default, would make it
significantly more difficult for an attacker to determine the IP
address of an affected machine. This could impede an attacker's
ability to attack a machine via unicast messages. However, attacks
via multicast or broadcast would still be possible.
Risk Rating:
Buffer Overrun:
- Internet servers: None
- Intranet servers: None
- Client systems: Critical for Windows XP, moderate for Windows 98,
Windows 98SE and Windows ME
Denial of service:
- Internet servers: None
- Intranet servers: None
- Client systems: Moderate
Aggregate risk:
- Internet servers: None
- Intranet servers: None
- Client systems: Critical for Windows XP, moderate for Windows 98,
Windows 98SE and Windows ME
Patch Availability:
- A patch is available to fix this vulnerability. Please read the
Security Bulletin at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulleti
for information on obtaining this patch.
Acknowledgment:
- eEye Digital Security (http://www.eeye.com)
Re:Security Bulletin from MSFT (Score:2)
Well now. Let's get it in gear and get the whole Windows-using world playing Solitaire [slashdot.org] at once.
isnt the amount of time it takes to fix this... (Score:3, Funny)
maturity (Score:3, Funny)
Why company would switch to ANY OS that is less then 3 years old is beyond me.
How many WinXP users will even know about this? (Score:2, Interesting)
No doubt many would be, if Microsoft would contact each and every registered user and explain it to them. As it is, most will never realize that the new computer they bought for Christmas is wide open for anyone to steal personal information, plant trojans, etc.
I think Microsoft should be required to mail a CD with the fix to every registered user of Windows XP, and explain in clear non-technical language what the security flaw is and why the patch is important. Hell, make 'em overnight it, too.
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz....
Oh, hey, I must have dozed off... what a weird dream that was...heh...
People don't care about security flaws because (Score:2, Interesting)
OK, argue with me, but I've been using Linux since before the birth of RedHat. Last month I spent a full day configuring my CD-ROM burner because of incomplete or wrong documentation. In windows it just works. Today I found a nifty software package, downloaded, unzipped, untarred, and it wouldn't run because of incompatible libraries. I try to update libraries and discover I'll break dependencies. Do I want to hassle with that? NO! Does Jane Doe want to hassle with that? Hell NO! Not when she can, using windows, double-click on Setup and let the install shield work -- which it does, most of the time.
We can gloat over how insecure windows is and how dumb the people who use it are, but that won't make more people use Linux. Many people want to ditch windows, but don't because they think, correctly, that Linux is too gear-headed. What will make them switch is if they see an alternative to windows that is at least as easy to use. The major distributors know this, and they have improved installation and the desktop environment fantastically in the past couple of years. But Linux needs an equivalent to windows' install shield so that application installation and removal is simple, transparent, and reliable.
It's the front end, stupid!
priorities (Score:5, Interesting)
The flaw, discovered five weeks ago threatened to undermine widespread adoption of Microsoft's latest windows software...
The company sold 25 million copies of Windows XP in the two weeks after it hit stores Oct. 25...
The company released a free fix thursday.
So beyond consideration that MS delay releasing XP until this hole is fixed. The best thing to do is keep it secret (responsible reporting) until they get around to writing the patch sometime. In fact, the biggest threat here is that it will "undermine the adoption" of XP -- i.e. they might not sell as many copies if people know there is a huge hole in the OS. No mention of threat to users, etc.
For reference, look at the motorola exploit in the jargon file [tuxedo.org].
I wonder how many times this has to happen before people are convinced that making bugs available and publicly releasing exploit code is the only way that the big vendors will make security a top priority.
The exploit (Score:5, Informative)
Comments: First, don't mod me up as "informative"; I didn't write any of that. If you're considering modding me up as informative, consider unchecking "willing to moderate" or at least read the moderator guidelines. Second, does MS put out products with such glaring, horrible security flaws *on purpose*? As far as I know, the UPNP feature is brand new, so it shouldn't be based on any existing code base, yet MS programmers are *still* using unsafe commands (presumably) and not doing bounds checking. This is a buffer overflow vulnerability in a new product, for fuck's sake.
-Legion
Re:The exploit (Score:4, Insightful)
I daresay you're right. Now please explain to me why a free kernel which was written for motives other than profit and with no obligations to the user base, manages to produce code that is NO WORSE than an expensive piece of software from Microsoft that has gone through a proper software engineering process.
This is even more damning when you consider that Jim Allchin said
So Microsoft is even admitting that they went to extra effort this time to improve the quality of their code and they STILL can't beat the free software. Microsoft has all the funding to do security audits and all the facilities for code review yet they STILL produce software that is only just on-par with freeware!
Yes, Linux has problems. My incredulity stems from the fact that Microsoft has them too. If Microsoft wants to distinguish themselves from the freeware then they're going to have to offer something MORE than the freeware. Their history with security proves that they have nothing more to offer than something I can download for free.
Just wondering... (Score:3)
The best way to secure a Windows box is to take a pair of scissors to the ethernet cable.
- A.P.
Whoa, Nice shootin', Tex (Score:4, Insightful)
For all you Linux-heads that haven't installed XP, the installer determines by asking you if you are connected directly to the Internet or if you are connected to a LAN --- if you're directly connected, YOUR CONNECTION IS AUTOMATICALLY FIREWALLED. Which means, that if MS did its math correctly, most people connecting to the Internet should already be protected, patch aside.
Now, what if you're on a LAN? You should already be behind a firewall. So theoretically the only people vulnerable are corporate users vulnerable from attacks INSIDE the company. That narrows it down, doesn't it?
Ooooh, it's a bug!! So what?!? I believe "security by obscurity" has proven to work this time. When did /. hear about this bug? Today. When was the patch released? Prolly before we heard about it. Nuff said.
But then, you know, Linux doesn't have bugs (eyeroll). Why is it that when Win* has bugs, it's headline news on /., but all the bugs in the 2.4 kernel go unnoticed? Oh yeah, heh, I forgot, this is Slashdot. Honestly, guys, grow up.
Like all the Linux boxen running pretty much any version of wu-ftpd and vulnerable versions of BIND (and there are A LOT) are safe. Hah. Why don't you look at the fact before you start posting flamebait......
The next buggy product? (Score:2, Interesting)
This issue is the second major *known* problem with UPnP in as many months, both involving buffer overflows of some kinds (MS01-059 & MS01-054).
Since UPnP runs as a service with a SYSTEM level authority, rooting it gives you god-like control over the system, so this falls under the heading of a bad thing. I seem to remember that it is installed by default (currently running w2k so i cant check if it is or not).
So what we have here is a service that seems to be exploitable, running a protocol similar to http, that is installed by default and will be a total pain to turn off, assuming of course that johnny average user even realises it is turned on!
Getting the average user convinced to download patches for this sort of thing are going to be a hard sell as there is no perceived benefit from downloading a file which corrects a fault in something you don't know is running, and even if you did you don't fully understand the purpose of.
IIS had similar problems, not to mention a raft of exploits (i imagine these UPnP exploits are just the tip of the iceberg) and look what that became - one of the more popular webservers - both to host sites and to write worms for...
chief hacking officer (Score:2)
The vulnerabilities were discovered by three young security researchers with eEye Digital Security of Aliso Viejo, California, led by Marc Maiffret, a 21-year-old former hacker. In recent months, Maiffret, who calls himself the firm's "chief hacking officer," has advised the FBI and the White House on Internet security questions and testified before Congress.
How'd you like to have that on your business card?
The next XP security hole... (Score:2)
Microsoft said a new feature of Windows XP, known as "drizzle," can automatically download the free fix, which takes several minutes to download, and prompt consumers to install it.
I bet a dollar that "drizzle" will be the next big virus backdoor...
Microsoft also is working with other software companies, such as leading antivirus and firewall vendors, to build protection into their products.
...implying, perhaps, that there hasn't been any protection up until this point? :-)
Plug & Play port 5000 (Score:5, Interesting)
Turns out that Microsoft picked the same port for its Plug and Play architecture, which listens on it for a connection coming (presumably) through the local TCP/IP stack. The protocol is XML (maybe SOAP, can't remember). You can receive and send configuration information by using that port (the schema is somewhere on microsoft.com) and it occurred to me even then that this looked like a potential security hole. But, I thought, this is too blatantly obvious and surely Microsoft is not so stupid as to allow access to the PnP internals from nonlocal IPs. Right? So we simply moved our software's default port setting to another port and forgot about it.
Predictions:
The scandal will flow off MS in a day or two, like water off a duck's back.
The downloadable security patch will be bundled with the latest updates to Microsoft's digital rights management crap.
Every script kiddie will have a tool within the week that scans IP ranges on port 5000 in search of the machines that have remained unpatched.
The guy who publicized the flaw will be tried in a secret military tribunal as a cyberterrorist.
Re:Plug & Play port 5000 (correction) (Score:3, Funny)
:-)
Techy Details (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Advisories/AD20
Just a question (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, it's OK for you and me, we read techie web sites like slashdot, and I'm subscribed to bugtraq. But 99.9% of the public out there aren't.
So, somewhere informative should be yelling and screaming about a problem like this that affects pretty much everyone with WinME or XP.
So, I check MS's website.
Top article with the biggest link? No. That goes to 'Give the gift of Internet for Christmas', an advert for MSN.
Ah, there's a Windows section just beneath - surely it'll be there? Nope. "Music, movies and more".
Maybe it counts as 'News'? "Test Results In - Windows XP more reliable" (at least if its getting your computer rooted you're after).
Downloads perhaps? An item at least for a security fix - the Internet Explorer one discussed last week, but no mention of any XP patches. Not even if I click "More downloads".
Maybe if you click on the 'Windows' section? No mention. But that's for the Windows XP Home edition. Maybe the Pros think it's more useful? No. "Turn your computer into an entertainment center" - very professional.
Aha - finally found it; chose a link from the Windows XP Home page to the Windows XP home page (note capitalisation difference) and theres a small link there "Important! Security patch for Windows XP and Windows ME users" on a page that apparently has the main intention of allowing people to choose whether they want the home edition or the professional edition sites, neither of which has the link.
Oh, and as an aside, is it just me, but I'm using Internet Explorer 5 with default font size settings, on Win NT 4 with default font size settings, and some of the text on the security bulletin is only about 6 pixels tall and is utterly unreadable because of this?
Re:Just a question (Score:3, Informative)
A lot of users run Critical Update Notification (I know I do), that pops up an alert box when you go online saying there are new patches to install. Also, using Windows Update (easily available from your Start menu!) will let you know what needs to be installed for your particular setup.
Agreed, it is still very easy for people to be unaware, but it's not quite as easy as you make out
The speed of reportnig in other media (Score:3, Funny)
Nobody would break into my system anyway ... (Score:3, Insightful)
"No OS is perfectly secure, but I bet a lot of new XP owners won't be too happy about this."
Perhaps fewer than you might think, because first they have to know about the hole, then they have to care . In my experience, the average joe doesn't understand the implications at all, and asks "why would anyone want to break into my system anyway? I have nothing of interest or value there."
As Slashdotters we tend to highly over-estimate the level of understanding of the average joe with regard to security issues and YRO in general. Sad, but all too true 8^{
Subscribe to MS Security notification! (Score:3, Informative)
I think at least Microsoft has done something to immediately close this security hole.
If you want to get notification of any security patches for any Microsoft product, their security web page (www.microsoft.com/security) allows you to sign for for an email notification service that gives email warnings about possible security problems and available patches to correct said problem.
It's also a good practice to regularly visit the Windows Update web page (windowsupdate.microsoft.com). That page has Critical Updates that includes security patches.
Re:Where's the update? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where's the update? (Score:2)
And as the bulletin states, it also impacts 98 and ME users if they have the Universal Plug and Play service installed and running.
Re:Where's the update? (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft's spin... (Score:2)
Re:XP Owners (Score:2, Troll)
Linux is owned by Linux Tordvals and others.
FUD (Score:5, Informative)
"Linux" as a trademark is owned by Linus. Not the software.
The GNU affects you only if you wish to redistribute GNU copyrighted software. It is not an EULA, and no one is "licensed" to use or install GNU Software. Anyone can install/configure/run/modify it however they want.
Not FUD (Score:2, Troll)
"Linux" the copyright is owned by Linus and others.
The GPL is a EULA which assigns you specific rights regarding distribution & modification. It is no different legally than a Microsoft, Oracle or IBM license. It's contents are obviously different.
A copy of the GNU General Public License is available here. Please read it.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
Yes, FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
EULA = "End User License Agreement". They are a way of taking away user's first sale rights. The GPL does not try to foist any license agreement on end users. In fact it states
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.
So you are confusing a license to redistribute something (which is required for all copyrighted works) with a license to use a copyrighted work. Microsoft has the latter in the form of EULA. Linux doesn't. Microsoft has the former in the form of often secret agreements with OEMs. Linux has the former with the publicly available GPL. Apples and oranges.
Re:Not FUD (Score:3, Informative)
From memory:
"You do not have to agree to this license, because you have not signed it. However, nothing else gives you permission to redistribute or modify the software. Therefore, by redistributing or modifying the software, you indicate your agreement to this license."
(I'm sure I've got the wording wrong, but equally sure that I have the meaning correct[1]).
Note specifically that it does *not* say "nothing else gives you permission to USE the software" or "by USING the software". The GPL does not restrict use of the software in any way.
By contrast, every MS or Oracle license includes restrictions on the use of the software and requires you to agree to it (usually by a click-through) before using the software at all.
Did it honestly never occur to you that there might be a reason that you don't have to click-through the GPL before using linux or other GPL'd software?
Stuart.
[1] Sure, I could have gone to that URL and copy'n'pasted the appropriate text. I deliberately didn't do so, in the hope that the fact that I can quote the relevant section almost-verbatim from memory indicates that I know the contents of the GPL pretty well. Feel free to compare my version with the actual text - if there's any substantial difference in meaning, I'll eat my hat.
Apply the patch. Oh THAT'll work (Score:2, Funny)
**cough** code-red **cough**
Re:May not be (quite) as bad as it sounds (Score:3, Insightful)
what about those "idiots" that aren't computer literate and that dont know what a firewall even is?
Re:FoxNews has a writeup also---THIS IS NUTZ!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Just last week, Microsoft's corporate security officer, Howard Schmidt, expressed frustration about continuing threats from overflows. "I'm still amazed that we allow these things to occur," he said at a conference of technology executives. Schmidt is expected soon to resign from Microsoft to work for President Bush's top computer security adviser.
...what is this...the Twilight Zone?
Re:Excellent, I'm enjoying this coverage (Score:2, Informative)
Ummm....
Solaris, AIX login hole [slashdot.org]SSH and OpenSSH Comparisons [slashdot.org] (note the Update about SSHv1 security bulletin...)
Running BIND 4 or 8? Upgrade! [slashdot.org]
The Twenty Most Critical Internet Security Holes [slashdot.org] (Includes "General," "Windows," and "Unix" vulnerabilities)
Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Cautionary Tale [slashdot.org]
Debian 2.2 "Has Major Security Issues"? UPDATED [slashdot.org]
Vulnerability In SSH1 [slashdot.org]
SSH Secure Shell 3.0.0 Remote Hole [slashdot.org] ("is a gaping remote hole on various unixes.")
Garfinkel Warns Of Linux Virus "Epidemic" [slashdot.org]
ProFTPD, Wuarchive Ftpd Compromised [slashdot.org]
Looks like the DO post a big announcement when holes are found in Linux or software usually bundled with. Fancy that.
Re:Well, that's cheese (Score:2)
Your post made me conceive this hypo:
Maybe someone else has already thought of the same thing. What would the ramifications be? M$ has survived anti-trust action; its sheer size has served to prevent any class-action lawsuits for manufacturing incomplete, defective products. All empires must fall, though. Tick, tick, tick,...Re:Microsoft Passport vs. Liberty Alliance... (Score:3, Insightful)
You aren't bugged as much if you uninstall Windows Messenger [ntcompatible.com] (ignoring that Microsoft says you're SOL [microsoft.com] if you're not running Home Edition.) Then again, you also aren't bugged if you take Windows XP off the system completely, which also helps you with today's little bug as well. I'm glad I did last week, even though I only used it for games and DVDs...
Re:Magic Lantern (Score:4, Insightful)
>
>You don't think the Feds dropped the antitrust case for nothing, do you?
I may have misadjusted my tinfoil hat this morning, but it struck me that a PC configured to send out unicast malformed NOTIFY messages to exploit the previously-undisclosed UPnP hole on a specific target machine... well, it'd look to the UPnP service like piece of hardware. Hardware like a lantern, if you will, shining a light on the suspect's machine... *evil grin*
This would be a nasty one as well... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. your off-the-cd version of windows XP is vulnerable.
2. You connect to the internet to download all of the security patches.
3. WAMMO! you get struck by this code red XP exploit.
4. It get's installed before you have had a chance to install the patch.
5. It recognises the security update patch and silently/secretly ignores it.
6. Your system is still rooted, you believe you have patched your system, you don't realise until you run your favourate virus checker, Code Red XP notices and nukes your system.
7. You blame your virus software for destroying your computer and reinstall windows XP off the CD...
8. goto 1
Believable scare-mongering?
Re:This would be a nasty one as well... (Score:3, Insightful)
2. You connect to the internet to download all of the security patches.
3. WAMMO! you get struck by this code red XP exploit.
Come on, that would be too hard. Windows XP is so user-friendly, it does that automatically:
1. your off-the-cd version of windows XP is vulnerable.
2. Windows Product Activation connects to the internet to download your activation code.
3. WAMMO! you get struck by this code red XP exploit.
Re:NO EXPLOIT AVAILABLE (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that full-disclosure means "immediate disclosure" is simply not true.
TWW
Re:There's no exploit (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you know there hasn't already been one. After all, security through obscurity means not telling users how bad things really are.
TWW