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."
Plug your XP box to the internet and pray for the hackers not to find it.
Pedro Côrte-Real.
It's not really Microsoft's fault, if this guy would've stayed quiet then WinXP would still be secure today.
The information from Microsoft regarding this can be found here, as well as a patch.
"This is the first network-based, remote compromise that I'm aware of for Windows desktop systems," said Scott Culp..
HAHAHAHAHAH.. Oh man what rock has he been under?
"Oh, you wanted a DOOR to hang that lock on.... Sure, I guess we could do that..."
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?
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
I first heard about this from the drudgereport and was just about to submit about this.
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 .
In the past, Microsoft has shrugged problems like this off extremely easy, great PR ya know. For some reason this one seams more severe to me. Will this one actually hurt MS on a larger scale? I'm doubting it, but I would like to see something rumble the giant. Wouldn't be funny if the companies product ended up ruining the company? WHEEE =)
Can all fish swim?
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-059.asp
Since Christmas is one of the most popular times to buy a computer for the family, I am sure this will give new Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and HP buyers some pause find before Santa arrives. Is the gift you give your family going to end up being a hacker's plaything instead of theirs? Too bad you can't walk into a Best Buy or Circuit City and buy a Linux option -- though you can get a Mac powered by Mac OS X which has a few security issues.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
"This is the first network-based, remote compromise that I'm aware of for Windows desktop systems," said Scott Culp, manager of Microsoft's security response center."
This speaks for itself
Burn Hollywood Burn
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-059.asp
And as the bulletin states, it also impacts 98 and ME users if they have the Universal Plug and Play service installed and running.
This seems to affect Windows 98 and ME, not just Windows XP!! The Universal Plug-and-Play system has to be running though. Get the patches for those 3 OS'es and read up on the details here.
Oh great, that should be real easy for your average XP-using dum dum. When will they just release security fixes straight to Windows Update? I guess they still don't get it.
cat
That should be "buyers some pause five days before Santa arrives". Typoed five days and spell checked it to find. Doh! :)
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
It's so neat to see "Intel Inside" and "Windows" stickers on all these nice software boxes. With Microsoft's new dedication to security, I'm thinking its time we print up some nice "RedCode Enabled" or "Nimda Friendly" stickers. Then all I anyone needs to do is make a visit to the local computer outlet to upgrade the Windows OS boxes they have out on the shelves to buy.
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.
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.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
And now, this is a security hole. Man, nowaday, you can't know for sure if it's a bug or a feature anymore.
Well technically this is probably true. There have been compromises of IIS, MSSQL, and other Microsoft products but the OS itself hasn't been vunerable to such attacks until now.
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I would not mind a decent explaination of what Universal Plug and PLay is, what it takes to shut it off, and what it would affect.
Open Source Identity Management: FreeIPA.org
tally of said security issues as they pop up and then document how long it takes Microsoft to fix them-- before and after the bug is publically exposed.
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.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
That was the headline in my version of the story (rejected). I thought it had a bit of pizzazz. Oh well.
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.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
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!
Win XP has a security problem which opens you up to attack the moment you connect to the net...
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
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Microsoft standard "Take Me, I'm Yours" default settings strike again.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Note the careful phrasing "for Windows *desktop* systems." By default, most "desktop" installs of Windows have historically had file and print sharing not installed by default. Though about 7 times out of 10 people install it anyway, MS can claim that a file sharing system is not really a "desktop" system. Sneaky and underhanded, but valid.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
"Over four hours without a remote hole in the default install!"
You don't own Linux either. It is licensed to you under the GNU General Public License.
Linux is owned by Linux Tordvals and others.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
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?
Drizzle allows Microsoft to automatically download a fix to the user's machine and forcefully ask them to install it? WTF?
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?
Along similar lines of "Writing Solid Code".
Wait for it, wait for it...
"Writing Secure Code"
Haven't you seen the commercials? A huge multi-media advertising blitz to tell us all that _Everything_ is easier in XP.
-JDF
By following the link on the MS Security Bulletin I received in my e-mail, and going through the update process, it took a whopping 5 minutes including the reboot.
:P
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
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
---
The hole is in more than XP as you can see.
---
"Anyone with any kind of "always on" connection would have to be an idiot to not engage some kind of firewall for their connection."
what about those "idiots" that aren't computer literate and that dont know what a firewall even is?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
about the same amount of time that MicroSoft said that installing XP would save?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
XP is an inmature OS. There are going to be tons of problems, just like any other new OS.
Why company would switch to ANY OS that is less then 3 years old is beyond me.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"No OS is perfectly secure, but I bet a lot of new XP owners won't be too happy about this."
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...
most of the time Windows does what they want it to do, without hassles. The security risks and the threat of MS abusing their personal freedoms are remote problems that don't impinge on the daily experience of web browsing, word processing, emailing, gaming, playing CDs... Sure, once in awhile you get bit by a virus. And the cost is increasing. But there isn't an alternative that is as easy to use.
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!
This is for those who are sympathetic to the MS responsible reporting policies:
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.
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.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
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?
I want to be alone with the sandwich
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
I am sure this will give new Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and HP buyers some pause
... well, they don't know enough to care. Who does that leave?
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
Nope, no sig
> 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."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
**cough** code-red **cough**
m00.
...what makes this any different from any other version of Windows?
The best way to secure a Windows box is to take a pair of scissors to the ethernet cable.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
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......
Ummm....
Solaris, AIX login holeSSH and OpenSSH Comparisons (note the Update about SSHv1 security bulletin...)
Running BIND 4 or 8? Upgrade!
The Twenty Most Critical Internet Security Holes (Includes "General," "Windows," and "Unix" vulnerabilities)
Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Cautionary Tale
Debian 2.2 "Has Major Security Issues"? UPDATED
Vulnerability In SSH1
SSH Secure Shell 3.0.0 Remote Hole ("is a gaping remote hole on various unixes.")
Garfinkel Warns Of Linux Virus "Epidemic"
ProFTPD, Wuarchive Ftpd Compromised
Looks like the DO post a big announcement when holes are found in Linux or software usually bundled with. Fancy that.
...safer from intruders as soon as you start using Windows XP
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.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Looking at this I do have to wonder will UPnP (Universal Plug and Play) be the next IIS in terms of exploits, viruses and worms?
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...
Well, the full posting minus the PGP sig and un/subscribe information to get around the lameness filter.
t in /MS01-059.asp.
n /ms01-059.asp
-----
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)
"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.
Don't forget the "errata" section for updated info that came up after printing:
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!"
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
There have been a number of remote exploits in Win9x filesharing, first of all. I don't know of anything affecting an "out of the box" installation, but if you had a Win95 box that had any writeable shares, even password protected ones, even deeply nested in the filesystem ones, your computer could have been remotely compromised.
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.
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?
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,..."What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
"Linux" the trademark is owned by Linus
"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
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
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? :-)
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
Amazon has it listed as "Wriring Secure Code (With CD-ROM)"
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...
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
You aren't bugged as much if you uninstall Windows Messenger (ignoring that Microsoft says you're SOL 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...
We ran into this several months ago when we were testing some server software that we wrote. We were using port 5000 as a default. As soon as XP came out, we tested the software on it and found that we could not bind a server to port 5000 at all because it was taken. So naturally, we wondered, what in XP is listening on port 5000?
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.
Since the article is virtually useless as far as explaining what the security problem really is, here is the complete explanation from eEye0 11220.html
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Advisories/AD20
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
>
>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*
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
What an idiot! He thought that R14 tires were the right size for his dakota! I mean, we shouldn't let these idiots drive.
And speaking of idiots, did you here about the guy who put 5w30 in his 95 Berretta? *Sigh*
I mean, because people don't know anything about a simple, basic piece of technology they use every day, we have poorly designed cars that are best sellers, which ends up going to the junkyard years early because of poor, if any care.
(I feel sorry for people reading this as a thread, instead of nested. This will make no sense then...)
The GPL is a EULA..
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.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Imagine this scenario:
:-)
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?
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?
thanks for the 411 i was wondering about that.
just so everyone knows, the built in firewall in XP is very simple. it's a checkbox that essiencially says "enable firewall stuff", and then another dialog is enabled that lets you say what ports are open.
This is very good thing as i doubt very few users are interested in having ports open to the wild.
-Jon
this is my sig.
The idea that full-disclosure means "immediate disclosure" is simply not true.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Considering the number of Windows users that actually bother with updating their system, I have a feeling that Microsoft Tech Support is going to be getting quite a large number of calls.
Taco, you might want to tell the guys at ThinkGeek to send over a case or two of their Demotivator calendars to the Microsoft Quality Assurance people; maybe you can get them to quit and go find jobs more their speed, like selling their collective ass for cheap booze or working for a sewage taste-testing company or something.
I really don't think this is the Microsoft coders' fault either; this is likely one of those features that management insisted upon...I'd almost place a bet that there is some engineer at Microsoft laughing manically and chanting, "I told you so..." from the inside of his cell^Wcubicle.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
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
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The LWN coverage is here. The ruling contains the interesting phrase " the Court finds that there is only assent on the part of the consumer, if at all, when the consumer loads the Adobe program" (my stress).
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Tired...
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I don't believe anything like this is malicious, obviously, nor do I think this is an MS-specific problem. But to everyone who takes closed-source peer-review and QA procedures a little to seriously, please take note: a piece of brand new code in a flagship product of a multi-billion dollar software firm released in 2001 has a buffer overrun exploit. Which any teenage coder wannabe would have been able to catch had they simply had access to the code.
Isn't this an oxymoron akind to 'military intelligence'?
I mean really, who hasn't heard of the NSA? Or read a Tom Clancey novel....
For those who don't know what I'm talking about... read the freaking WP article!
Who does the code review on all those buggy 2.4.x kernels?
Answer: No one!
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
This was not reported before WinXP was launched.
We are now 3 weeks into December. This was reported to MS 5 weeks ago, or about 2 weeks into November. WinXP "hit stores Oct. 25" or about 3 weeks before this was reported.
Not that I like this sitting unpatched for 5 weeks, but it would be a bit hard for MS to delay releasing an OS for a bug that has not been found yet.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
BIND is just ONE of hundreds of programs, demons and kernel(s) that are installed in a standard linux install. Of ALL of them there is about one security or catastrophic bug per week. About the same as Widnows taken in it's entirety. Do not compare "BIND" to "Windows". Compare the standard Linux install to the standard Windows install. Both have terrible bug records. Linux is a glass house and /. throwing stones at MS is completely absurd.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
According to the eeye coverage:
The SSDP service also listens on Multicast and Broadcast addresses. Therefore gaining SYSTEM access to an entire network of XP machines is possible with only one anonymous UDP SSDP attack session.
Someone's gonna have a lot of fun with this one!
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
BIND, sendmail, lpr, all had holes you could drive a truck through. But that was probably back before your time, back when 'SVR4' meant something. Microsoft isn't doing anything that the commercial UNIXes didn't do ten years ago. 'debug' and 'nuff said.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
According to http: // www .eeye.com/html/Research/Advisories/AD20011220.html this particular vulnerability exists on port 1900, not 5000.
:)
5000 is a different vulnerability.
Someone else posted this link about the technical info:
2 00 11220.html
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Advisories/AD
Best Quote:
Credit:
Discovery: Riley Hassell
With extra help from:
Ryan Permeh - for technical advice and exploitation analysis for those difficult reverse engineering situations that Ryan has wet dreams about.
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Have you seen how long it takes Microsoft to release a piece of software? You must not remember Windows 95. ;)
Ha! I heard this on AM radio before I heard it on Slashdot.
_______
2B1ASK1
..for some reason I've been in a time freeze. Have yet to buy presents, too. But I think the general point stands, in that security has taken a back seat to marketing with release dates of software. When major bugs are found in linux, they are fixed and a new version is released (sometimes a week within a previous version). Putting pressure on the security crowd to keep holes secret just gives MS more time to delay and reinforces the primacy of marketing. This is not just an MS problem. But MS has been at the forefront in trying to keep on lid on vulnerabilities.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
That's almost scarier than the fact that the exploit is there in the first place. Buffer overflows just shouldn't be possible in well-written software. The fact that MS continues to get them betrays the fact that the languages, tools and/or libraries they're using to write these products are not suitable for the job, and that means there could be any number of other problems (security or otherwise) with the same products.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Yes, I agree. Bug counts alone are meaningless. Rather what I had wondered would be possible was whether it is possible to bring some manner of quantitative analysis forward that would demonstrate that public disclosure of security bugs lead to faster response and more attention from vendors.
....
Microsoft of course claims that public disclosure makes no difference whilst many good articles have demonstrated to me disclosure makes a huge difference.
I have a lot of arguments with professionals who claim open source code is badly written/buggy/un-maintainable and most often the argument boils down to a "where are the stats?"
Anyways, I had imagined a public site where people would submit known bugs for products (in a fashion akin to the way slashdot works) and keep track of how long the makers of the software take to fix the bugs.
Anyways, just an idea....
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
I would rate it "obvious" -- not informative, but the poster I was replying to was wrong and so I pointed out the obvious thing. Blatantly incorrect? Yes, Linus + friends have copyrights on linux. My bad. The thread was discussing user's rights, so I was focused on what a user can do with linux. Namely, right of first sale is not abridged, no EULA, but the name "linux" is a trademark. Thanks for pointing out the copyright thing. I am not responsible for how others moderate my rants. Read with caution.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
I'm just daydreaming of rewriting the lyrics to a couple of old songs in light of this, namely the PeterPaulMary tune that ends each verse with "When will they every learn" and Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in the wind"....
How many times must the hackers break in
Before they buy something secure?
How many times must an email infect,
before they just dump their Outlook?
How many times must they reinstall Win,
before they realize it's just crap?
The answer my frind, is blowin in the win,
the answer is blowing in the win.
[ or something like that, that's just off the cuff but you get the idea ]
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
"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."
;)
They're being nice this time. Asking the current user. Anyone out there have XP installed? Go and look in your local users. 'Microsoft' is a local user. The installation configures it automatically. So that Microsoft I guess can run software on your computer without your knowledge to 'help' you. Wanna bet any local user could say yes to the drizzle request? Wanna bet they could fix this remote access hack by remotely hacking into your box and running code?
I was right the first time, sorry. :) SSDP (Simple Service Discovery Protocol) lives on port 5000.
This is how MS was going to get the states on board -- log into their XP boxes and rewrite the legal docs. =)
Well, who needs FBI's "Magic lantern" when Bill is already sitting in the box, operating his full stadium light show at port 1900 ?
:-)
Windows is for people who can't wipe their own asses. You expect someone who can not change their homepage to implement a firewall?
War is necrophilia.
"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^{
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Windows is for people who can't wipe their own asses. You expect someone who can not change their homepage to implement a firewall?
Good thing it's enabled by default, huh?
NO CARRIER
Should read, "The answer my friend, is --- win blows."
-next we'll see an exploit that redirects a user to "auto-update" (or "drizzle" ??) to a nefarious website (rather than MS) that installs all sorts of back doors and vulnerabilities, leaving the box wide open!
BTW- whenever I hear the word "appliances," I envision a nightmarish world of tying to get the dishwasher to work amidst a storm of DOS attacks... or the house burning down because hackers made it into the oven (where I hid all those dirty dishes)... or all the wasted food from the email virus that defrosted the fridge, or waking up in the middle of the night in a sweat because someone turned the heat to 95
Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
What did Periclese compare Athen's newly glorified acropolis to? Jewels on a whore. History is instructive indeed, thank you Thucidities.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Folks,
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.
It's a shame that we all have to wait for 'issues to be resolved...' before using an 'new' OS, driver, or application. Common phrases heard in a real environment. (real as in work/production, not home desktop or hack machine) "We're not upgrading until SP3 is available." "We advise you not upgrade to RedHat 7.0 , "Please wait atleast until redhat 7.1 is available." , etc..
As maybe your atypical programmer, I take great care in my programming. If my name is going to be assoiciated with it, I'm not realeasing shit code. I work and have worked with programmers that knowingly code flawed code and rely on QA catching the problem to buy some time. How can someone do that? Turns my stomach. So what happens if you've got a careless programmer and careless QA? Big known bug-a-boo slips out the door.
All I really would like to say is take pride in your work. Be careful and don't realease shit code. No, I don't write bug free code. Yes, I have missed deadlines, but only by days, not weeks/months. No I've never gotten slack from missing a deadline b/c I spend less time in post support. I'd rather deal with issues up front while it's fresh in the head than to fuck with code several months after the fact.
*hops off soapbox*
Not according to MS.
War is necrophilia.
Actually, the technique for securing a windows box is much more complicated than snipping a few cables; it involves a chainsaw and a small amount of plastic explosive.
If that dosn't do it you will need in addition 10kg of Pu239 and be sure to stand well back.
"The Windows XP problems affect a little-used feature that eventually will allow consumers to control high-tech household appliances using their computers. Called "universal plug and play," the feature is activated by design in every copy of Windows XP and can be added manually to Microsoft's earlier Windows ME software, also used by millions of consumers worldwide."
This kind of thing probably accounts for the majority of security issues. Little used (and poorly documented) "features" which are enabled by default. As opposed to having them switched off by default and providing a decent manual.
You can argue that it's not a very good idea to give too much information of a hole before a patch exists. Especially if the software is widely used. But this was new software which Microsoft has been happily selling for the last five weeks knowing that there is a big security hole.
The minimum they should have done is to tell right away that XP has a security hole and that it's unsafe to connect it to the internet.
If they acted responsibly, they should have stopped the sales, fixed the hole and rereleased. It's expansive but the security of all those clients should be more important. Especially as Microsoft has the money to do that.
Can you sue if you get attacked thanks to this hole and you have bought XP within last five weeks? Microsoft knew about the risk but ignored your safety? I sure hope some will as I'd hate see any company get away with this.
You ought to round it UP, to $18 million. Microsoft's servers must have been getting slammed last night by thousands of people trying get the update-- the normally speedy Windows Update downloads were absolutely glacial, even on a cable modem. Probably be much the same way today.
~Philly
I don't have XP installed but my co-worker does and he showed it to me. Do some more digging.