Likes Likes:  0
Resultaten 16 tot 20 van de 20
Pagina 2 van de 2 Eerste 1 2
Geen
  1. #16
    David Hayden
    After Ms patches last Wed ...
    Gast
    n/a Berichten
    Berichten zijn liked



    Thread Starter

    RE: After Ms patches last Wed ...

    For those of you that had problems with the MS Patch...

    Microsoft (Quote, Chart) confirmed that disruptive bugs in a recently
    issued Windows security patch could cause systems to freeze or lead to
    system usage overload.

    The buggy patch, issued earlier this month to plug numerous "critical"
    vulnerabilities in the Windows operating system, has caused problems for
    IT admins because of conflicts with installed drivers.

    "[It] causes Microsoft Windows 2000 to try repeatedly to load drivers
    that do not load successfully," the software giant said Wednesday,
    identifying the drivers as Ipsecw2k.sys, Imcide.sys and Dlttape.sys...

    http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news...le.php/3347221

    DH


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Greg Kujawa [mailto:greg.kujawa@diamondcellar.com]=20
    Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 3:40 PM
    To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
    Subject: Re: After Ms patches last Wed ...

    In-Reply-To:
    <2DF52978DE0D854F9435C7AA7DD51F9801F4A12D@atlmaiex cp01.iss.local>

    Don't know if this is duplicate info from another message, but there are
    two different issues with the KB835732 update. Specifically on Windows
    2000 machines.=20



    The first issue involves cached data in RAM. If a machine is rebooted
    immediately after applying the update there is a chance that the BSOD
    will come up. The STOP error is described as
    DRIVER_IRQ_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL. A hard reboot will eliminate this
    transient error.



    The second issue involves problems with the IPSec Policy Agent Service.
    This is enabled to start automatically with the update and it can lead
    to the CPU pegging. Stopping the service and disabling it will elimiate
    this issue.



    Can't say that Microsoft can claim these issues were the result of
    updates being rushed to market. Most of the vulnerabilities were brought
    to their attention 6 months ago. At least the issues aren't as bad as
    Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 6. That broke the TCP/IP stack and really
    had me scrambling back then resuscitating my servers!



    >Received: (qmail 25226 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 18:05:58=20
    >-0000


    >Received: from outgoing3.securityfocus.com (HELO=20
    >outgoing.securityfocus.com) (205.206.231.27)


    > by mail.securityfocus.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2004 18:05:58 -0000


    >Received: from lists2.securityfocus.com (lists2.securityfocus.com=20
    >[205.206.231.20])


    > by outgoing.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP


    > id 6453B236FE4; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:36:44 -0600 (MDT)


    >Mailing-List: contact bugtraq-help@securityfocus.com; run by ezmlm


    >Precedence: bulk


    >List-Id: <bugtraq.list-id.securityfocus.com>


    >List-Post: <mailto:bugtraq@securityfocus.com>


    >List-Help: <mailto:bugtraq-help@securityfocus.com>


    >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bugtraq-unsubscribe@securityfocus.com>


    >List-Subscribe: <mailto:bugtraq-subscribe@securityfocus.com>


    >Delivered-To: mailing list bugtraq@securityfocus.com


    >Delivered-To: moderator for bugtraq@securityfocus.com


    >Received: (qmail 29580 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 11:30:38=20
    >-0000


    >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1


    >content-class: urn:content-classes:message


    >MIME-Version: 1.0


    >Content-Type: text/plain;


    > charset=3D"iso-8859-1"


    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


    >Subject: RE: After Ms patches last Wed ...


    >Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:33:53 -0400


    >Message-ID:=20
    ><2DF52978DE0D854F9435C7AA7DD51F9801F4A12D@atlmaie xcp01.iss.local>


    >X-MS-Has-Attach:=20


    >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:=20


    >Thread-Topic: After Ms patches last Wed ...


    >Thread-Index: AcQmMmxSjtFxm8gHTOi27BhiHtRdWQAASwgw


    >From: "Brito, Nelson (ISS Brazil)" <NBrito@iss.net>


    >To: "T.H. Haymore" <bonk@webchat.chatsystems.com>,


    > <bugtraq@securityfocus.com>


    >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2004 17:33:54.0535 (UTC)=20
    >FILETIME=3D[7CB10F70:01C42634]


    >


    >(As usual, and obviously: not speaking on behalf of my employer.)


    >


    >I didn't see anything unusual, neither with my Win2k nor with my WinXP=20
    >=3D


    >boxes.=3D20


    >


    >It'd be a machine specific or something conflicts with some =

    DLL(s).=3D20

    >


    >It is usual to replace some DLL(s) when install some program(s).


    >


    >Cheers.


    >


    >Nelson Brito


    >


    >> -----Original Message-----


    >> From: T.H. Haymore [mailto:bonk@webchat.chatsystems.com]


    >> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 5:29 AM


    >> To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com


    >> Subject: Re: After Ms patches last Wed ...


    >>=3D20


    >>=3D20


    >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, phaser-X wrote:


    >>=3D20


    >> > I had a different issue after Wednesdays updates. Two=3D20


    >> win2k computers in


    >> > my office were rendered useless after the patch. They were=3D20


    >> fine before,


    >> > but as soon as the patch finished and the PC was rebooted,=3D20


    >> the CPU usage


    >> > was 100% and nothing could be done. I left both PC's=3D20


    >> sitting for about 20


    >> > minutes and the 100% CPU usage never came down. Another=3D20


    >> coworker said he


    >> > had the same issue with his home PC and he was eventually=3D20


    >> able to get into


    >> > the task manager and noticed that the system process was=3D20


    >> taking up 99-100%


    >> > of the CPU.


    >>=3D20


    >>=3D20


    >> I have run into the same thing with 2K workstations as well=3D20


    >> as 2K server.


    >> On a side note, an XP 'goof off' box I use will no longer=3D20


    >> connect to the


    >> online card games or anything else. (Thank goodness for BSD).


    >>=3D20


    >>=3D20


    >> >


    >> > Anyone else experience this issue?


    >> >


    >> > -pX


    >>=3D20


    >>=3D20


    >>=3D20


    >>=3D20


    >> =3D


    >=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3 D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D=

    3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3
    >D=3D3D=3D


    >=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3 D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D=

    3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3
    >D


    >> Travis


    >> www.cyberabuse.org/crimewatch


    >> Email: Bonk@chatsystems.com | Bonk@cyberabuse.org


    >> =3D


    >=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3 D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D=

    3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3
    >D=3D3D=3D


    >=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3 D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D=

    3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3
    >D


    >> /"> \ /


    >> X ASCII Ribbon Campaign


    >> / \ Against HTML Email


    >>=3D20


    >>=3D20


    >




  2. #17
    InfoSec@seba.com
    After Ms patches last Wed ...
    Gast
    n/a Berichten
    Berichten zijn liked



    Thread Starter

    RE: After Ms patches last Wed ...

    I've been following this thread and the stated instabilities of the
    MS04-011 security update, I had determined to delay deployment of this
    patch until it was stabilized but it seems it wasnt stabilized fast enough
    to beat the worms to market.

    Now of course this same LSASS vuln addressed by MS04-011 is the target of
    the Sasser worm....

    undeployable/unstable patch + critical vulnerability = the even greater
    threat of the sasser worm(s)... good job.

    I read in a article on this patch that the instability is only present if
    the "Nortel Networks VPN client is installed and the IPSec Policy Agent is
    set to manual or automatic startup type", does anyone have any further
    input on MS04-011? Stable on a standard Win2k server install or not?

    Thanks,
    Michael





    "David Hayden" <dahayden@clubhayden.com>
    04/30/2004 01:36 PM

    To: "Greg Kujawa" <greg.kujawa@diamondcellar.com>,
    <bugtraq@securityfocus.com>, "Michael Ooi" <michael@imr.com.sg>,
    "phaser-X" <px@zeroday.net>, "T.H. Haymore"
    <bonk@webchat.chatsystems.com>, <plasmahh@informatik.uni-bremen.de>, "Andy
    Shaw" <andy@east.no>, <aborg@mca.org.mt>
    cc:
    Subject: RE: After Ms patches last Wed ...


    For those of you that had problems with the MS Patch...

    Microsoft (Quote, Chart) confirmed that disruptive bugs in a recently
    issued Windows security patch could cause systems to freeze or lead to
    system usage overload.

    The buggy patch, issued earlier this month to plug numerous "critical"
    vulnerabilities in the Windows operating system, has caused problems for
    IT admins because of conflicts with installed drivers.

    "[It] causes Microsoft Windows 2000 to try repeatedly to load drivers
    that do not load successfully," the software giant said Wednesday,
    identifying the drivers as Ipsecw2k.sys, Imcide.sys and Dlttape.sys...

    http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news...le.php/3347221

    DH


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Greg Kujawa [mailto:greg.kujawa@diamondcellar.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 3:40 PM
    To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
    Subject: Re: After Ms patches last Wed ...

    In-Reply-To:
    <2DF52978DE0D854F9435C7AA7DD51F9801F4A12D@atlmaiex cp01.iss.local>

    Don't know if this is duplicate info from another message, but there are
    two different issues with the KB835732 update. Specifically on Windows
    2000 machines.



    The first issue involves cached data in RAM. If a machine is rebooted
    immediately after applying the update there is a chance that the BSOD
    will come up. The STOP error is described as
    DRIVER_IRQ_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL. A hard reboot will eliminate this
    transient error.



    The second issue involves problems with the IPSec Policy Agent Service.
    This is enabled to start automatically with the update and it can lead
    to the CPU pegging. Stopping the service and disabling it will elimiate
    this issue.



    Can't say that Microsoft can claim these issues were the result of
    updates being rushed to market. Most of the vulnerabilities were brought
    to their attention 6 months ago. At least the issues aren't as bad as
    Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 6. That broke the TCP/IP stack and really
    had me scrambling back then resuscitating my servers!



    >Received: (qmail 25226 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 18:05:58
    >-0000


    >Received: from outgoing3.securityfocus.com (HELO
    >outgoing.securityfocus.com) (205.206.231.27)


    > by mail.securityfocus.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2004 18:05:58 -0000


    >Received: from lists2.securityfocus.com (lists2.securityfocus.com
    >[205.206.231.20])


    > by outgoing.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP


    > id 6453B236FE4; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:36:44 -0600 (MDT)


    >Mailing-List: contact bugtraq-help@securityfocus.com; run by ezmlm


    >Precedence: bulk


    >List-Id: <bugtraq.list-id.securityfocus.com>


    >List-Post: <mailto:bugtraq@securityfocus.com>


    >List-Help: <mailto:bugtraq-help@securityfocus.com>


    >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bugtraq-unsubscribe@securityfocus.com>


    >List-Subscribe: <mailto:bugtraq-subscribe@securityfocus.com>


    >Delivered-To: mailing list bugtraq@securityfocus.com


    >Delivered-To: moderator for bugtraq@securityfocus.com


    >Received: (qmail 29580 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 11:30:38
    >-0000


    >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1


    >content-class: urn:content-classes:message


    >MIME-Version: 1.0


    >Content-Type: text/plain;


    > charset="iso-8859-1"


    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


    >Subject: RE: After Ms patches last Wed ...


    >Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:33:53 -0400


    >Message-ID:
    ><2DF52978DE0D854F9435C7AA7DD51F9801F4A12D@atlmaie xcp01.iss.local>


    >X-MS-Has-Attach:


    >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:


    >Thread-Topic: After Ms patches last Wed ...


    >Thread-Index: AcQmMmxSjtFxm8gHTOi27BhiHtRdWQAASwgw


    >From: "Brito, Nelson (ISS Brazil)" <NBrito@iss.net>


    >To: "T.H. Haymore" <bonk@webchat.chatsystems.com>,


    > <bugtraq@securityfocus.com>


    >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2004 17:33:54.0535 (UTC)
    >FILETIME=[7CB10F70:01C42634]


    >


    >(As usual, and obviously: not speaking on behalf of my employer.)


    >


    >I didn't see anything unusual, neither with my Win2k nor with my WinXP
    >=


    >boxes.=20


    >


    >It'd be a machine specific or something conflicts with some DLL(s).=20


    >


    >It is usual to replace some DLL(s) when install some program(s).


    >


    >Cheers.


    >


    >Nelson Brito


    >


    >> -----Original Message-----


    >> From: T.H. Haymore [mailto:bonk@webchat.chatsystems.com]


    >> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 5:29 AM


    >> To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com


    >> Subject: Re: After Ms patches last Wed ...


    >>=20


    >>=20


    >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, phaser-X wrote:


    >>=20


    >> > I had a different issue after Wednesdays updates. Two=20


    >> win2k computers in


    >> > my office were rendered useless after the patch. They were=20


    >> fine before,


    >> > but as soon as the patch finished and the PC was rebooted,=20


    >> the CPU usage


    >> > was 100% and nothing could be done. I left both PC's=20


    >> sitting for about 20


    >> > minutes and the 100% CPU usage never came down. Another=20


    >> coworker said he


    >> > had the same issue with his home PC and he was eventually=20


    >> able to get into


    >> > the task manager and noticed that the system process was=20


    >> taking up 99-100%


    >> > of the CPU.


    >>=20


    >>=20


    >> I have run into the same thing with 2K workstations as well=20


    >> as 2K server.


    >> On a side note, an XP 'goof off' box I use will no longer=20


    >> connect to the


    >> online card games or anything else. (Thank goodness for BSD).


    >>=20


    >>=20


    >> >


    >> > Anyone else experience this issue?


    >> >


    >> > -pX


    >>=20


    >>=20


    >>=20


    >>=20


    >> =


    >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
    >D=3D=


    >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
    >D


    >> Travis


    >> www.cyberabuse.org/crimewatch


    >> Email: Bonk@chatsystems.com | Bonk@cyberabuse.org


    >> =


    >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
    >D=3D=


    >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
    >D


    >> /"> \ /


    >> X ASCII Ribbon Campaign


    >> / \ Against HTML Email


    >>=20


    >>=20


    >






  3. #18
    James Riden
    After Ms patches last Wed ...
    Gast
    n/a Berichten
    Berichten zijn liked



    Thread Starter

    Re: After Ms patches last Wed ...

    InfoSec@seba.com writes:

    > I've been following this thread and the stated instabilities of the
    > MS04-011 security update, I had determined to delay deployment of this
    > patch until it was stabilized but it seems it wasnt stabilized fast enough
    > to beat the worms to market.
    >
    > Now of course this same LSASS vuln addressed by MS04-011 is the target of
    > the Sasser worm....
    >
    > undeployable/unstable patch + critical vulnerability = the even greater
    > threat of the sasser worm(s)... good job.
    >
    > I read in a article on this patch that the instability is only present if
    > the "Nortel Networks VPN client is installed and the IPSec Policy Agent is
    > set to manual or automatic startup type", does anyone have any further
    > input on MS04-011? Stable on a standard Win2k server install or not?


    We've just seen issues with some USB storage devices after applying
    MS04-011. No good details yet I'm afraid, but you might want to test
    the patch on a few machines first.

    It's been stable on all the servers (just over 100) I've applied it
    to.

    cheers,
    Jamie
    --
    James Riden / j.riden@massey.ac.nz / Systems Security Engineer
    GPG public key available at: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~jriden/
    This post does not necessarily represent the views of my employer.


  4. #19
    Nicholas Weaver
    After Ms patches last Wed ...
    Gast
    n/a Berichten
    Berichten zijn liked



    Thread Starter

    Re: After Ms patches last Wed ...


    This brings the question: Are Mondo-sized patches like
    MS04-011 a good idea or a bad idea?


    On the one hand, they correct a lot of problems, in a way very
    friendly to most users. One of the big headaches is the ignorant
    users, who end up worm-bait, botnets, spam relays, stepping stones,
    etc. Allowing them to easily be up to date is a good thing.

    Additionally, it removes some of the judgement calls on patch
    severity/urgency, because there is probabyl going to be at least one
    "you better patch it now", so there is less likely to be an "Microsoft
    only rates this as important because you have to be authenticated in
    the domain..." moment.


    But on the other hand, the probability of the superpatch
    causing problems is exacerbated. If each normal patch has a
    probability P of causing problems, then an N-fold patch has
    probability (1 - P)^N of NOT causing a problem. Thus the probability
    is 1 - (1 - P)^N that the N-way patch will have an issue.

    For real-world numbers, if P = .1 (10% chance the patch may be
    problematic) and N is 10, then the patch has a 65% chance of being a
    problem. Even if P is .01, there is still a nearly 10% chance of
    problems from a 10-way superpatch.


    This is now worse as the attackers have finally started waking
    up to the reality of worms. With vulnerabilities like the ones in the
    superpatch, and with attackers demonstrating a <48 hour turnaround
    time between disclosure and worm (Witty) or exploit and worm (Sasser),
    these superpatches leave an adminitrator in a bind: Apply the
    superpatch immeditely and accept the significantly increased
    probability of failure, or don't apply the patch and accept the vastly
    high probability of a worm in the near future.


    --
    Nicholas C. Weaver nweaver@cs.berkeley.edu

  5. #20
    Nick FitzGerald
    After Ms patches last Wed ...
    Gast
    n/a Berichten
    Berichten zijn liked



    Thread Starter

    RE: After Ms patches last Wed ...

    InfoSec@seba.com wrote:

    > I read in a article on this patch that the instability is only present if
    > the "Nortel Networks VPN client is installed and the IPSec Policy Agent is
    > set to manual or automatic startup type", does anyone have any further
    > input on MS04-011? Stable on a standard Win2k server install or not?


    I suspect you mis-read, or the article was badly written/edited. That
    combination _is_ specifically mentioned by Microsoft as a configuration
    known to exhibit problems post-MS04-011:

    http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;841382

    However, my reading of that KB article is not that that is the only
    configuration that may cause trouble. In particular:

    Note This problem may occur if other drivers or services do not
    load successfully. This workaround is specific to the Nortel
    Networks VPN client drivers.

    Also, as the hotfix that is now available to address this issue
    replaces these core files:

    Mountmgr.sys
    Ntkrnlmp.exe
    Ntkrnlpa.exe
    Ntkrpamp.exe
    Ntoskrnl.exe

    it seems quite unlikely that this problem would be specific to just one
    common VPN client configuration...


    Regards,

    Nick FitzGerald


Pagina 2 van de 2 Eerste 1 2

Webhostingtalk.nl

Contact

  • Rokin 113-115
  • 1012 KP, Amsterdam
  • Nederland
  • Contact
© Copyright 2001-2026 Webhostingtalk.nl.
Web Statistics