Slashdot Mirror
WinXP Security Flaw
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."
The information from Microsoft regarding this can be found here, as well as a patch.
What the article doesn't mention is that Windows 98 with XP sharing is also affected, and that any version of Windows ME is affected as well.
If you are running Windows 98 or ME, you should immediately go to Microsoft's website and download the patch for your system.
A more technical description can be found here.
Windows 2000 is not affected.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
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.
Mmmmmmm
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
"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.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
I hate to say so, but the linux kernel had security problems too.
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.
Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
At risk of losing all my karma, but here goes.... if you enable XP's built in firewall on a network interface, you'll discover that you can no longer connect to the universal plug and play service on that interface. So yes, it helps a lot actually!
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
How are *users* supposed to know about this?
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?