Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Refuses To Fix NT 4.0 Exploit
shmigget writes "The Register is reporting that Microsoft is throwing in the towel as far as NT 4 is concerned on the latest security flaw to affect Windows 2000, XP, and NT 4. They quote Microsoft as saying 'The architectural limitations of Windows NT 4.0 do not support the changes that would be required to remove this vulnerability.'" There still is a workaround for NT 4.0. Instead of patching the problem, it's advised to firewall off port 135 on an affected machine.
So in effect, ZoneAlarm could be considered as a patch for this problem??
No, I don't like it... but support for NT4 is dropped at 30 june 2003 and that's not really far away.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Don't they promise to support products for a given amount of years for some enterprise customers? What will happen in these cases?
It seems strange on the surface for them to admit that their product is 'unfixable,' but really, doesn't it make sense as an upgrade-inducer? Granted that in a more competitive market people would be put off by this, but some people don't regard the other choices with which we are so familiar as acceptable options, leaving them sending their checks to Redmond no matter.
Then again, people still buy new models of cars which have had huge saftey problems in the past, even though other choices are availble; perhaps the real phenomenon is that marketing is sometimes more powerful than good judgement.
You have to wonder how long a company can support an operating system. You have to remember that NT was released in the the mid-90s so its 7+ years old. Microsoft is beginning to put NT4 to end of life and that the people who will really know the code may of left Microsoft or moved on.
I'm mean we all go on about how bad MS is but you can expect them to support everything forever can you?
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I was going to say they had stopped supporting NT4 anyway so were within their rights, but I looked it up and it appears they are providing NT4 hotfixes until the end of 2004. Either way, a service pack or something equally dramatic for one flaw I think is overkill and blocking port 135 on a firewall is a better option.
It's their right to do so. I don't see a reason how they are doing something "wrong". It's their product, and they have said they have discontinued it. It's up to the users to find a suitable fix for the system.
Kinda makes one think of benefits of open source; if something like this happens, you can always hire some hacker to fix the hole, wherever it is, for the right amount of money.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
What other operating systems from back then are still "supported" now ?
Solaris 2.6 maybe ? (Rapidly approaching EOL/EOS)
What else ?
Point is: NT4 is so old (and so BS), I can see why they want it to die (apart from the reason that they want to sell the new OSs)
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
They're not saying (publicly, anyway), "hah, we're not supporting this ancient operating system any more, go away."
The article quotes them saying they can't fix it, there's too much stuff to do.
Using your firewall to block port 135 is fine, unless you actually need RPC for something useful. In that case, I'd say that a firewall that discards all malformed packets (more complicated) is in order. Or an upgrade to Win2K. After all, it's been out for, what, 4 years now?
Get off my launchpad!
After running this through the honesty filter, we come out with:
"Windows is fundamentally insecure. Suck it up."
Gotta love the honesty.
-Waldo Jaquith
You're kidding, right? The clients I work with are predominantly NT based because the of the license/security issues surrounding Microsoft and they don't want to be lead deeper into the licensing pit that is Microsoft. Granted, NT is very old, but if you have to pay that much for an NT server license, you're going to want to get your moneys worth for it (if that's at all possible).
"Windows XP Professional is built upon the rock-solid reliability of Windows NT technology, the architechture that is so fundamentally limited that it does not support the changes required to remove significant vulnerabilities."
Doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Plus, why are people so irksome in not upgrading to ever newer and more expensive operating systems like they're supposed to? Constantly forcing Microsoft to keep looking back over legacy code. It's ugly, dirty and scary back there, not like in candy XP land.
at least in terms of PR.
Microsoft: "Um, we don't want to fix this. But here's the kernel source, so why don't you fix it for us?"
Beady-eyed kernel hacker: "OK!"
It's not such a silly idea with a practically end-of-life'd product; bugs and exploits would get found and fixed and since Microsoft doesn't seem to want to support certain OS changes, we'd do it for them. And it would be a great PR boost. "Microsoft supports freedom to innovate!". Hm.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
NT4 came out in September 1996, just three months after Linux 2.0. The last 2.0 version is 2.0.39, which was released January 2001, over two years ago. Both groups have moved on, and aren't willing to spend much effort on the old versions. It's true there are more recent 2.0 pre-patches, but if you're willing to use one of those, simply adding a port to your firewall block list should be cake.
And yes, with Linux, you have the source, so you could fix this yourself, right? Microsoft says this requires a large architectural changes. I think any person or group willing to re-architect NT4 or the 2.0 kernel would better spend their time and effort upgrading to a newer OS version.
I find it interesting that the "Windows" topic has finally been used. This is the first time I can remember seeing it
Me too. However, since we're discussing a Windows security hole, shouldn't one of the glass panes be broken?
Except that the source code to Red Hat 3.0 is publicly available, so a fix could be made by anybody. The problem here is that the only people who could fix NT4 is Microsoft and they are refusing to do so. Worse, we can only take their word for it that a fix would be nearly impossible.
I'm not a big proponent of open source, but this is a case where there are clear advantages.
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
Way to go MS. Take the port used by the DCE endpoint mapper, use it in your own broken, buggy, and insecure version of DCE RPC (also known as DCOM), then refuse to fix it.
My University uses DCE all over the place, from a financial application to the distributed filesystem. Now people are going to start blocking this port (135) to protect against then start complaining when some of the applications they use and their file system access stops working.
Finkployd
How are we to expect objective news from a site that has these types of things?
/.? Seriously, you are out of your flaming gord to even imagine that /. has any thoughts on the objectivity forefront.
Why in the world are you expecting objective news here on
Of course, Red Hat is also phasing out earlier versions of Red Hat Linux, but due to its open source nature you could get security updates from another source (apt-rpm repositories for instance) or make your own patches. Windows users are forced to rely on Microsoft for timely security updates, which they frequently fail to provide even in recent versions of Windows.
NT 4.0 *is* 7 years old now (released 1996) and supporting it is probably a major headache for them, at least until June when it reaches end of life (bear in mind that end of life for most software is 5 years).
I'm always suprised in how much volatility we've come to tolerate in software. In other industries, the customers would be fleeing in hordes.
I take all this as just more evidence that the software industry won't reach maturity for at least several more decades.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
More like :
Sorry, but due to the design limitation of your 1965 Ford, we are unable to retrofit your car to fix a recently-found problem in the braking system. Third-party companies may provide small fixes that can help alleviate (but not completely fix) the problem. This problem is not present in our current line of products.
Windows NT 4.0 hit end-of-life back on December 31, 2002. An IT department should know that commercial software companies, MS included, routinely EOL software and drop support for them. A 7-year-old OS is going to have moth holes in it. If your company cares about security, upgrade to something more modern and (theoretically) secure. If you can't afford it, then evaluate migrating to OSS solutions. If you can't afford that, well, you're in big trouble.
MS makes it clear on their Product Life Cycle pages what support they plan to give for all products. Anyone caught surprised by this probably shouldn't be making IT decisions for an organization any larger than 1.
The Windows NT 4.0 architecture is much less robust than the more recent Windows 2000 architecture, Due to these fundamental differences between Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 and its successors, it is infeasible to rebuild the software for Windows NT 4.0 to eliminate the vulnerability. To do so would require rearchitecting a very significant amount of the Windows NT 4.0 operating system, and not just the RPC component affected. The product of such a rearchitecture effort would be sufficiently incompatible with Windows NT 4.0 that there would be no assurance that applications designed to run on Windows NT 4.0 would continue to operate on the patched system.
Sure it's idiotic that their system couldn't handle a patch. But if that's how it is, then it's a good thing they made their more recent versions dynamic enough to be fixable!
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
(Another) security bug is discovered on Microsoft software, which affects Windows NT 4. It also affectes Windows 2000 and Windows XP, which clearly means that the later two are direct derivates of NT 4 (which we all already know).
So now Microsoft is refusing to issue a fix for NT 4, arguing that there is no way they could make it so that no other existing apps stop working. But a fix for 2k and XP has already been done. That's because of the great differences between NT 4 and 2k/xp, nonetheless they are based on the same product.
So how come that, being 2k and xp SO different from NT, that they can still run the same apps without needing any modification? How come there is no way to patch a NT4 system so that it can still run the same apps but they can surely do it over 2k and XP, and the same applications will still run without a problem over the same system.
This is clearly a move from Microsoft to force their customers to either upgrade their NT 4 installations, or else they are left to their own luck. Many people WON'T upgrade their NT 4 because that just works for them, because their hardware is not powerful enough for a 2k/xp system, or because any other reason they can think of.
Windows NT 4 has been in the market for about seven or eight years now (if my memory isn't failing it was released almos alongside with Win95). This recently discovered vulnerability has always been there since then. What would have happened if someone discovered before w2k was released? Would still Microsoft be unable to release a patch for it because it would break the whole system down?
I've seen many posts saying that noone should have port 135 open to the world. That port shouldn't be listening for request from the whole world, in the first place. There is no way you can know which ports that (for some obscure reason, valid for Microsoft of course) are listening represents a threat to the security of the system. Sure, the same could be said (no) about Linux and other systems, but there's always a way to shut them off and not let the system in a non working state.
And that's all I have to say about it.
Articulos para gente geek: Poleras, linux, libros y mas
NT4 came out in September 1996, just three months after Linux 2.0. The last 2.0 version is 2.0.39, which was released January 2001, over two years ago. Both groups have moved on, and aren't willing to spend much effort on the old versions.
If I install a machine with 2.0.39, is there any known big vunerability? If one was discovered would there *then* be a 2.0.40? With free software there's not much interest in backporting features, since upgrading to the latest version is free, should you need those features.
Anything that has outlived it's time as the mainstream stable branch wouldn't normally be updated except for security fixes, so I expect both 2.0 and 2.2 to have very slow release cycles now. Unlike Windows, where you expect some feature creep (for example DirectX upgrades) without having to pay for an OS upgrade.
Anyway, this isn't really about that either, but it's about the EOL date Microsoft has set. What do you think would happen if RedHat said "Uh RedHat 8 is fundamentally flawed, so we won't fix this bug even though its still under support. Block this service, or upgrade to RedHat 9, oh and you'll need a new support contract for that version." Would you find that acceptable?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings