PDA

Bekijk Volledige Versie : Microsoft and Security



http-equiv@excite.com
26/06/04, 04:55
Where is Microsoft now "protecting their customers" as they love
to bray? Should not someone in authority of this public company
step forward and explain themselves at this time?

All of sudden panic is being created across the WWW with "IIS
Exploit Infecting Web Site Visitors With Malware", "Mysterious
Attack Hits Web Servers", "Researchers warn of infectious Web
sites" all stemming from all news accounts from an
unpatched "problem" with Internet Explorer now two weeks old and
counting, which in fact in reality stems from 10 months ago,
that being the adodb.stream safe for scripting control with
write capabilities.

What exactly is being done about this? Nothing. What does
multiple billions of dollars buy you today. Nothing. However for
$20 million you can almost fly to the moon.

Someone ought to step forward and explaini what exactly is
happening at this public company. The great "protector of their
customers". One might even suggest that their entire "security"
mandate be re-examined. What exactly do they consider a
vulnerability? Something that suits them or something that's
cost effective to fix. So what, a few people lose their
identities, have a few dollars extracted from their bank
accounts, have their home pages reset, we'll fix it when it
suits us as we have to be on budget this quarter. The Big Boss
says $40 billion isn't enough this year.

A vulnerability:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/community/columns/securi
ty/essays/vulnrbl.mspx

"A security vulnerability is a flaw in a product that makes it
infeasible – even when using the product properly—to prevent an
attacker from usurping privileges on the user's system,
regulating its operation, compromising data on it, or assuming
ungranted trust."

what this gibberish? For the past 10 months the adobd.stream
object is capable of writing files to the "all important
customer's" computer. It has real world consequences. It rapes
their computer. Does it fit into the gibberish custom
definition. Plain and simple: "A security vulnerability is a
flaw in a product that makes it infeasible". What kind of
language is this. Reads like the financial department conjured
it up.

Disabling scripting won't solve it. Putting sites in one of the
myriad of "zones' won't solve it. Internet Explorer can
trivially be fooled into operating in the less than secure so-
called "intranet zone" and it can be guided there remotely.

What's happening here. Where is the Microsoft representative
explaining all of this to the shareholders and "customers" they
so dearly wish to protect. This is unacceptable. Someone must
be held accountable.


--
http://www.malware.com

Drew Copley
26/06/04, 10:55
=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: http-equiv@excite.com [mailto:1@malware.com]=20
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 11:53 AM
> To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com

> Subject: Microsoft and Security

<snip>

> A vulnerability:
>=20
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/community/columns/securi
> ty/essays/vulnrbl.mspx
>=20
> "A security vulnerability is a flaw in a product that makes it=20
> infeasible - even when using the product properly-to prevent an=20
> attacker from usurping privileges on the user's system,=20
> regulating its operation, compromising data on it, or assuming=20
> ungranted trust."
>=20
> what this gibberish? For the past 10 months the adobd.stream=20
> object is capable of writing files to the "all important=20
> customer's" computer. It has real world consequences. It rapes=20
> their computer. Does it fit into the gibberish custom=20
> definition. Plain and simple: "A security vulnerability is a=20
> flaw in a product that makes it infeasible". What kind of=20
> language is this. Reads like the financial department conjured=20
> it up.

LOL. Very well said...

I think the point is not being pushed home, though.

Ten month old vulnerability. Common denominator for all of these
attacks. This latest one is using the same flaw we saw in one
this past Spring. It is not the latest zero day, according to
Symantec's latest paper.

In fact, even they state up front "to deploy the workaround for
the adodb stream issue". Workaround.=20

This adodb stream issue - found by Jelmer - is unfixed by Microsoft.

I do not know why. I suppose it fits into their competitive "motif"
somehow. They like to do these sorts of things.

It is a "bar lowering" vulnerability. Otherwise, these other attacks
would not work. They never would have worked.=20

The workaround kill bits the activex. There is no reason for it,
not enough of one. I think some IIS systems may use it. I am sure
it provides some sort of piece in their competitive marketing
strategy. But, kill the dying horse already.

Here is the free fix I made (ten months ago, re-released):
http://www.eeye.com/html/research/alerts/AL20040610.html

There is a reg file or an exe file. Whichever one prefers. We=20
find the exe file is most handy for doing mass fixes across=20
corporate networks.

Clue, people: Likely, you have been affected by one of these
holes. If you are an administrator, your domain has almost
surely been affected.

There is a huge market for identities. Do not be naive.



>=20
> Disabling scripting won't solve it. Putting sites in one of the=20
> myriad of "zones' won't solve it. Internet Explorer can=20
> trivially be fooled into operating in the less than secure so-
> called "intranet zone" and it can be guided there remotely.
>=20
> What's happening here. Where is the Microsoft representative=20
> explaining all of this to the shareholders and "customers" they=20
> so dearly wish to protect. This is unacceptable. Someone must=20
> be held accountable.
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> http://www.malware.com
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20

Radoslav Dejanović
27/06/04, 07:25
On Friday 25 June 2004 20:53, http-equiv@excite.com wrote:
> What's happening here. Where is the Microsoft representative
> explaining all of this to the shareholders and "customers" they
> so dearly wish to protect. This is unacceptable. Someone must
> be held accountable.

Although I do agree on most of your words, I hardly find this list=20
appropriate for such rants. You're talking to people who already know=20
this, and do not forget that Microsoft doesn't play security game like=20
Open Source people do. It is two different worlds, really. While OS people=
=20
might just sit down, write a patch and publish it, MS people would have to=
=20
write patch, submit it to QA, see that it doesn't break something else,=20
see that it doesn't make the end-user experience less comfortable, and=20
only then release it to the public (takes time, doesn't it?).

The latter is a really good discussion point: while OS people in most cases=
=20
do care about making end-users life easier, in cases like that it is=20
always "shut up and patch up" stance coming from OS developers, which does=
=20
turn some end-users away from using OS software, but improves in overall=20
security. However, MS would think twice if they have to do something that=20
would make end-users uneasy because it would force them to change the way=20
they do with their computers - XP service pack 2, if it is true that it=20
might break a lot of existing applications due to severe changes in the=20
kernel, is a good example. Customer satisfaction plays a great role for MS=
=20
(this is just how it should be in any business), but it seems that they're=
=20
willing to sacrifice a lot to keep customers belive they're using the most=
=20
comfortable software in this part of Universe.=20

Technically, it wouldn't be too hard to do very few steps that could=20
eradicate worms/viruses issue as it is present today: if MS would stop=20
shipping MSIE and OE to force people to use third party software, and if=20
they disable some of the features of scripting language used in MS Office,=
=20
they would disintegrate this monoculture and provide harsh ground for new=20
malware. It isn't so hard to do, but there's this question of end-user=20
experience. People do love to have all those nifty features, although they=
=20
use 10-20% of them (but "let it just sit there, you never know..."); take=20
most of that unneeded features away, and your customer satisfaction starts=
=20
to slip. They might be more secure, but they wouldn't like it. End-users,=20
that is. You have to keep them happy, in one way or another.=20
Now, why MS failed to fix this problem is beyond my comprehension, but it=20
isn't first time it took them a lot of time to provide a fix. However, it=20
seems that this doesn't hurt their sales. This might be because all that=20
customers care about is if they can do something with some tool, not how=20
secure (and reliable) it is. If it wasn't that way, we would talk about=20
majority of people using Linux or MacOS and OpenOffice, wouldn't we?

Ah, and apropos your accountability question - haven't you read your=20
EULA? ;-)


=2D-=20
Radoslav Dejanovi=C4=87
founder and director
Operacijski sustavi d.o.o.
http://www.opsus.hr

Justin Wheeler
28/06/04, 21:25
On Friday 25 June 2004 20:53, http-equiv@excite.com wrote:
>> What's happening here. Where is the Microsoft representative
>> explaining all of this to the shareholders and "customers" they
>> so dearly wish to protect. This is unacceptable. Someone must
>> be held accountable.
>
>Although I do agree on most of your words, I hardly find this list
>appropriate for such rants. You're talking to people who already know
>this, and do not forget that Microsoft doesn't play security game like
>Open Source people do. It is two different worlds, really. While OS people
>might just sit down, write a patch and publish it, MS people would have to
>write patch, submit it to QA, see that it doesn't break something else,
>see that it doesn't make the end-user experience less comfortable, and
>only then release it to the public (takes time, doesn't it?).

*snip*

Perhaps that'd be a better argument, if there weren't countless patches
from MS in the past that broke other things..
(http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/OF6CB1254D.22B27464-ON85256E89.004FB
436-85256E89.0050E58D@seba.com/2004-06-25/2004-07-01/0 for example).

And I'd also be more likely to believe that if there weren't MS patches out
there that fix one particular bug, but completely ignore other ones that are
nearly IDENTICAL to it.

Justin