Slashdot Mirror
New IE Holes Discovered
joelt49 writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that 7 new security holes for Internet Explorer have been discovered by a Chinese researcher; however, there apparantly aren't any attacks on IE yet." The part about this story that gets to me is that the researcher didn't alert Microsoft before posting to a public mailing list. Sure, a lot of people don't like Microsoft, but that's no reason to make it worse for the millions of people who are forced to use Microsoft products, especially for security holes which have yet to be exploited.
Yep, not ideal. But it'll be interesting to see whether MS's claims of having a faster response time to security incidents that the Linux community stands up. Will they have a patch available withing the next day or so? You can guarantee that the Mozilla or Konqueror communities would have in the same circumstances...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
I don't blame this guy for not going to Microsoft first. Given thier track record, more than likely, they would have ignored him until someone publicly announced the problems.
P.S. Is it news anymore that IE has holes?
Sure, a lot of people don't like Microsoft, but that's no reason to make it worse for the millions of people who are forced to use Microsoft products, especially for security holes which have yet to be exploited.
If OSS people can fix the bugs in less than half a day, it should be a piece of cake for a giant software company with lots of programmers to do the same. Sure, a days warning would have been nice, but if there isn't a fix by tonight, it only shows badly on Microsoft.
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
A spokesman was quoted as saying, "It's the only way we can release a product with more holes than IE".
It is unconfirmed if StringVest will be integrated into Windows XP SP2 or if we will have to wait until LongHorn is released.
...from IE. I tell people about the built-in pop-up blocker, and the adaptive spam filter in Mozilla. I also tell people about the nice long list of IE vulnerablities like the ones in this article, I've gotten quite a few to switch away from IE, to either Mozilla, Mozilla Firebird, or Opera. It's all about using the big words when you persuade them to switch.
The part about this story that gets to me is that the researcher didn't alert Microsoft before posting to a public mailing list.
Believe me, in these days that is the only way to report bugs AND making sure they'll get fixed.
Dream world scenario:
1) Report bug to company
2) Company will announce the bug to the public
3) Company will fix the bug as soon as possible
Real World scenario 1:
1) Report bug to company
2) They don't report it to the public and they don't fix it
3) You report it to the public
4) Company sues you for IP violation or any other shit they can pull out of their asses
Real World scenario 2:
1) Report it to the public (anonymously).
2) Company will fix it
Seriously - AS SOON AS THERE IS A VULNERABILITY, I, as a sysadmin, want to know about it. I don't give a flying fuck about Microsoft's reputation, or whether "vendors need time to patch the hole" - while there is a known hole, I DON'T WANT MY FUCKING SYSTEM ONLINE. If a nice guy can discover it, the bad guys probably already have.
The "give us time to fix the hole/do a P.R. coverup" fiasco is WHY I DON'T USE MICROSOFT SOFTWARE ANYMORE.
Russ Cooper made some good points.
I think MS has the responsibility to address their customers concerns immediatelly (naive, I know), especially IE's overly close integration with the OS which causes most of these exploits.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
I just downloaded the latest IE patches this morning and now IE wouldnt even start....its doing nothing. Time to move my bookmarks to the firebird....tonight.
the millions of people who are forced to use Microsoft products
I'm not forced to use Windows - I use it by choice. So does everyone else I know who uses Windows. As you may know, there is a viable alternative to Windows: OS X.
Oh wait, actually at my last job I was forced to use Windows. When the company purchased a new computer for me (I'm a software developer) I requested an Apple but was turned down. They didn't want to spend the money and didn't want to deal with integration on the network. I doubt the number of people being "forced" to use Windows numbers in the millions though. Besides, there was a benefit to the Windows box that the company certainly never intended - a wider variety of LAN games to play head-to-head against my office mate.
i installed fedora core 1 on her machine on thanksgiving... everything's been great, and her p4 1.8ghz is actually behaving like a machine with that sort of speed, not the slow as poo windows she had before... she was nervous at first, but all her banking/mail stuff works just fine under mozilla.
maybe it's stuff like this that we need, and more people should get their families exposed to it...
momentum, people, momentum.
The part about this story that gets to me is that the researcher didn't alert Microsoft before posting to a public mailing list.
Thats because Microsoft's past record is to ignore people who have contacted them privately regarding security issues, or take legal action against them.
If you really wanted something fixed by MS, and the last 15 times you'd contacted them they'd ignored you, but you've seen someone else release information into the wild and get MS's attention re: a fix within hours... WWYD?
On Windows XP.. stock up to date installation... these remote EXE exploits he posted don't seem to do anything.
I like this release.
Disable Active Scripting and find an alternative to IE ("use another product"). Not very realistic unfortunately, when companies have invested so much in integrating (and accepting) some of the flawed functionality in IE.
I do find that people are starting to be a lot more receptive towards MS-alternatives, especially when the mass media is now jumping on the bandwagon as well. Now techies find themselves explaining their choice of MS over and over again, to hype-induced managers.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
This is not like Windows-Linux, where there is a steep learning curve.
Mozilla (or Phoenix) is a slick alternative with an almost zero learning curve to pick up the same level as IE. It also takes almost no time to learn features _that aren't in IE anyway_ that help you see the internet in a much more useful way (ad blocking etc).
No one is forced to use IE with very few exceptions:
People who have it mandated at work, but that's work's problem not yours - they could change too.
People on dialup who have a very slow net connection - but they probably have it on a dial up CD.
People who use it's integrated rendering engine for OE/HTML email - but you can change that easily too.
People who _must_ access IE only websites - but there are very few of these any more, and you can always use IE just for these to lower your exposure.
Microsoft Zelots who refuse to believe that Free software can be any good - but they deserve everything they get.
Beep beep.
While my firm is a strong supporter of full disclosure, this is rather over the top.
What makes it worse is the timing, over a holiday weekend (States side), where most systems staff will be unable to apply patches or mitigate risks.
Now this is an Internet Explorer exploit, hence, few people using IE at work over the weekend. It still provides 48 hours for a few unsavory individuals to develop exploits for Monday morning.
We need to exercise better judgement when dealing with vendors and security issues, this isn't the first time things like this have happened, and won't be the last.
Perhaps we should consider spending more effort creating a Security Researchers Organization as has been discussed on BugTraq .
Until we have a strong unified organization I believe we will continue to see unresponsive vendors and poorly timed vulnerability releases.
hey folks, this was posted to bugtraq some two months ago.
Microsoft has claimed time and again that their response times to security alerts are sterling, as opposed to the "slow" response times for OSS. They make these claims without telling consumers that they have known about the exploit for months and are publicly releasing knowledge right before they release the fix.
This is a case of people letting Microsoft's boastful ways catch up to it. If they are as fast as they have claimed, time and again, there won't be a problem for those people who are diligent in patching.
Additionally with the advent of companies using the DMCA to try and stifle this behavior, it is more important than ever to engage in it and further show the flaws with this absolutely off the wall piece of legislation. See this article.
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
"I'd like to know who the editor thinks are "forcing" people to use Microsoft products."
People at work who have to use Windows because it's work mandated.
Their's millions of those type of people...
Jason Lotito
it wouldn't have been 'a known hole', but to the Microsoft developers
Prove it. Anything that can be found by a white/gray hat can be found or was already found by a black hat.
What irks me is that MS did not discover these themselves. After all, the closed source, security by obscurity, we can do it all ourselves model of software development is so superior, that we can only draw one of two conclusions. Either their superior technicians found the problems already, but the management decided not to put in the resources to fix it, or their superior technicians did not find the bug, in which case they need to not only fix the problem, but understand why their process so routinely fails.
This is not an issue of hating MS, any more than the other recent alert was an issue of hating Apple. It is an issue of knowing there is a problem out there, but having no power in the official process to correct the problem. The only power the might be had is that of public relations. This is very different from OSS, in which one can potentially affect the development process and at least see that something is being done.
This whole issue of course assumes that dozens of other people have not already found the bug and are exploiting it on small scales not easily detectible by the common methods. And of course does not take into account the ability for people to switch browsers. Just imagine how many lives would have been saved if people had been fully aware of the incompetent design of the Explorer and bought other cars instead.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I don't understand the "forced to use Microsoft products" part.
Even when you need to work on Windows, why should you be _forced_ to use Internet Exploder?
Mozilla is the first thing I always install on Windows.
There are organizations where people are indeed forced to use a fixed set of software. In this case, if there's a security hole, the responsability belongs to the sysadmin who forced people to use broken and out of date software.
{{.sig}}
I wrote this above and I"ll post it again, using an alternate browser does not always protect you from IE holes. I cannot comment on these new holes because I'm not sure how they work, but some previous IE holes left the computer vulnerable whether or not you actually used IE at all! An unfortunate consequence of the browser integration with the OS.
So the fact that I'm using Mozilla on Win 98 right now, doe not mean I'm guarenteed immunity from these new holes.
These big companies have their mouth full of punishing people that tell they found holes in applications.
Also I find that MS is so bold and arrogant to ask money for everything and tells others to stop doing things for nothing...
Let them pay for the info on security problems...
No payment, no bug reports, period.
They can take care of themselfs? ok let them solve their own problems...
What I'm wondering is why the poster of this story didn't do a tad more research before posting. As of yesterday, an exploit for these security holes has been available.
Exploit code, anyone? A simple google search or a Bugtraq archive browse should do it.
These security problems were publically known in September.
What was released recently was sample exploit code.
If you are a Microsoft spokesman then, of course, you have to say that, "Hey, if we don't have a fix then it must mean we didn't know about it." So it's not even lying to say that you weren't told. It's the only logical thing.
The spokesman was not aware that Microsoft had released unmarked patches for some of the problems.
The part about this story that gets to me is that the researcher didn't alert Microsoft before posting to a public mailing list.
Guess you would've preferred that he either:
a) keep it to himself and use it to root your box
b) tell M$ about it, who will as usual drag it out for a few months before even acknowledging that he found a problem.
If you were reading any of the security mailing lists, you'd know that the general experience researchers have with M$ is that it's a big waste of your unpaid time to contact them.
Frankly, if they neither pay you nor treat you with some courtesy, then why exactly should you bother?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The part about this story that gets to me is that the researcher didn't alert Microsoft before posting to a public mailing list.
Truth. But here's the problem. Microsoft's reputation for responsiveness (that is, not!) and collegiality (that is, not!) in these situations is awful. Nor does Microsoft treat those who report such problems with any degree of warmth. Having established its Chinese wall as it has, Microsoft has lost its standing to whine about non-collegiality of the world it has created.
This is the entire point about open systems, or at least openness about security -- it leverages what happens out there. Frankly, I feel more secure knowing what are the leaks, whether they are addressed or not, than I do knowing there are secret leaks out there for someone to exploit without my knowledge.
If Microsoft had a reputation: (i) for assuring that a report of a leak would be responsibly handled and escalated promptly and without agonizing pain on the part of the reporter -- who is doing Microsoft a favor; and (ii) for responsibly, promptly and professionally addressing the problem, I would feel much more sympathetic.
The problem is that they don't. Maybe they will change as they said they would. But until they do, I'd rather hear the news in time to know for what I have to watch out than to have it buried while others who have discovered the leak exploit it.
Here's the thing, it is highly unlikely that any leak that is discovered by me was discovered only by me. Others, less responsible than I, will disover a leak, find the exploit, and either keep it in their "bag of tricks," trade it or what have you. In any case, if I find it, the exploit is likely out there in someone else's hands. I'd rather know the problem than wait for the solution.
Yes, the kiddies are more likely to play if it is readily "out there." But guys, that happens anyway, one way or the other. Beside, Microsoft seems far more responsive to public leaks than private ones -- maybe this kind of report is more likely to assure that the bug will be repaired than otherwise.
And you spend much less time on hold . . .
Programmer 1: "Hey, guys, we've really got to do something about the security problems we've been having with IE lately. Any ideas?"
Programmer 2: "I've got an idea! My CS prof used to joke that you could solve any problem by adding one more layer of abstraction. In this case, it's true. Imagine how totally cool it would be if IE was just a regular application. Right now we've got it tangled up in the OS, but if you think about it, there's really no good reason for that. I mean, why does IE need special priviledges just to load files and render some HTML? If we pull it out of the OS, it'll still work fine, and it'll just naturally be subject to all the OS-level protection mechanisms we've got."
Programmer 1: "What?! You're talking madness, man! Are you saying that we should subject one of our own applications to the same forces we use to prevent third parties from gaining too much market share? Egads, that's brilliant! I'll bet we can even patent that..."
Programmer 3: "Guys, the idea certainly sounds cool, but it won't work. Bill said it's impossible. Don't you remember that Netscape trial thing? I know we're not supposed to ever talk about it, but he said it was impossible during his taped deposition. If Bill says it's impossible..."
Programmer 2: "...then it must be impossible. You're right."
Porgrammer 1: "Damn, you're right. Seemed like such a good idea."
The part about this story that gets to me is that the researcher didn't alert Microsoft before posting to a public mailing list.
The part about this story that gets to me is that a single person finds 7 (!) holes/exploits by himself. Makes one wonder just how many things are left open simply because no one has looked at them yet. Scary.
And you don't know anything about gzip vulnerability and instead generalize your ideas of how it should be to how it is actually done.
Lots of applications were using customized version of gzip, e.g. Linux kernel used a trimmed down version of gzip. They could not be simply recompiled with new library - the bug had to be fixed in every copy of the source code - yet, it was code reuse via copy/paste as much as it could possibly be. Too little applications used shared library, so even those application that used standard gzip had to be rebuild with new static library.
And if *nix world moves to using shared libraries more, it will face the same problem Microsoft has - a single security fix in a single shared library can potentially break any of hundred applications that use this library, and all these applications has to be tested with patched version. Which is still better than patching hundred applications independently.
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install