Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Releases Changelist for Upcoming XP SP2

kylef writes "As we know from independent sources, Microsoft is busy readying Service Pack 2 for Windows XP. They have published on their website a changelist document (link goes to TechNet download page) detailing the nature of the security-related fixes and updates. The document is targeted towards XP admins and covers some interesting things such as the new Internet Explorer Pop-up Manager and various security policy changes. Some other juicy tidbits from the document: Internet Connection Firewall will be enabled by default, and there will be new support for something called "Execution Protection" which allows developers to make use of the NX (no execute) page guard flag on Intel's Itanium and newer AMD processors. An interesting read."

24 of 524 comments (clear)

  1. Quick, call the cops! by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 5, Funny

    > detailing the nature of the security-related fixes

    DMCA violation.

    1. Re:Quick, call the cops! by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's an interesting point and Microsoft must be torn over this issue. On one hand, they could take this as an opportunity to lock out a few more dodgy copies of Windows XP... for the few days it takes for the inevitable patch or workaround. On the other hand, by waiving that, they potentially get to vastly improve the security of deployed Windows XP installations. Given the amount of bad press that Microsoft gets each time some Internet worm is doing the rounds I wonder which way they will go...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  2. Smart. by starfurynz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looks like MS is finally doing somethin intelligent for once. We'll have to wait to see how intelligent though.

    --
    We tend to become like the worst in those we oppose. --Bene Gesserit Coda--
  3. Re:All this work by ottawanker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did you RTFA? (I hate saying that, it makes me feel .. like all the other assholes who say that)

    Internet Explorer Pop-up Manager
    Q. What does Pop-up Manager do?

    A. Pop-up Manager blocks most unwanted pop-up windows from appearing. Pop-up windows that are launched when the end user clicks a link will not be blocked.

    End users and IT administrators can let specific domains launch programmatic pop-up windows. Developers will be able to use or extend the pop-up functionality in Internet Explorer for applications hosting Internet Explorer.

    Q. Who does this feature apply to?

    A. For end users, browsing the Web will be less annoying, because unwanted pop-up windows will not automatically appear.

    For Web developers, Pop-up Manager affects the behavior of windows opened by Web sites, for example, by using the window.open() and showHelp() methods

    For application developers, there is a new user interface: InewWindowManager.

    Applications that use the rendering engine in Internet Explorer to display HTML can choose to use or extend the Pop-up Manager functionality.
    ...

  4. Program Error by rehabdoll · · Score: 5, Funny

    "wordpad.exe has generated errors and will be closed by Windows.
    You need to restart the program.

    An error log is being created."

    nice.

    1. Re:Program Error by ObviousGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

      It opens in StarOffice just fine.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    2. Re:Program Error by melevitt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhh yeah, but it still shouldn't just crash!

  5. I just hope by -noefordeg- · · Score: 5, Interesting

    this Service Pack doesn't break anything 'useful'... *sigh*

    With WinXP I got into some serious trouble with my computer and trying to play games. At first everything worked as it should then after a weekend not a single game would play, black screen on launching a game.
    After A LOT of work the conclusion was that quickfix 'SP2 Q328310', which had been auto download from MS, did something which stopped a lot of games which need 3D support from working.

    Now I always gets a message when I start windows, about 'new updates available': -Yeah sure! It's still buggering me to download the patch.

    This really helps MS too, I'm so much more willing to download updates/patches when I know that a quickfix to lets say notepad, might break something totally unrelated; like the ability to shut down WinXP >:(

    1. Re:I just hope by David+McBride · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Yeah sure! It's still buggering me to download the patch."

      Well, I'm pretty sure that isn't going to work..

  6. *POOOF* by MagerValp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Was that the sound of the personal firewall market dying?

    --

    READY.
    #
    1. Re:*POOOF* by Tim+Browse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not unless they up the feature set - when I looked into XP's firewall, it only blocked incoming connections, not outgoing. I use outgoing blocks as a matter of course to catch spyware, etc, and to prevent Outlook Express/MSNIM from fetching images/ads from web servers, etc. I was looking at the XP firewall for my laptop, because Kerio made my laptop's suspend/sleep functions stop working (grrr) so had to find an alternative. As it turned out, I tried Norton Personal Firewall, which was actually quite good, and not nearly as bad as I had feared. None of them are particularly great at config UI though. Norton especially requires a lot of clicks to set rules up.

      It's just occurred to me that maybe MS don't want to implement an outgoing firewall, given that the number of Windows components that randomly connect to MS servers is quite high, and it would highlight this fact if they did outgoing connection blocking. Hmm.

    2. Re:*POOOF* by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Taking a hit maybe, but not dying (at least not to the power user). Here are some of the features I get from my Windows personal firewall of choice (Agnitum's Outpost Pro) that are not offered by ICF:
      • Outgoing connection filtering
      • Application checksumming (with MD5)
      • Protocol level mail attachment scanning
      • *Really* detailed logging
      • Pop-up ad blocking (OK, this is going to be in IE but is off by default)
      • Banner ad blocking (not in SP2 IE at all as far as I can see)
      • Cookie control
      • Policies for pop-ups, scripting, ActiveX and so on handled on a per-site basis
      And the list goes on... This is not the first time this kind of thing has happened; Microsoft used to bundle an Anti-virus product with DOS and Windows, and that didn't kill the market. It still does bundle a disk defragmenter, yet Diskeeper seems to be be doing just fine.
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:*POOOF* by graf0z · · Score: 5, Insightful
      when I looked into XP's firewall, it only blocked incoming connections, not outgoing

      They are definitly intruding the personal fw market: Look into "Appendix B: Netsh Command Syntax for the Netsh Firewall Ipv4 Context" for the "add allowedprogram" command - finally, they realized that there is something like trojans...

      They're still far away from other packetfilters like netfilter/pf/..:

      • no match against source or dest ip
      • nothing beyond TCP/UDP/ICMP (like GRE, ESP, AH)
      • no subchains (or whatever You wanna call conditional ramifications/jumps)
      • no rate-limiting (e.g. against SYN-flood)
      • no NAT
      • it's not clear how stateful it is (i.e. does it verify TCP sequence numbers?)
      • protocol helpers for RPC/DCOM, but not for FTP, IRC, H.323
      • no tweaky guru stuff like TCP-MSS mangling for tunnels (like VPN or PPPoE)

      There's still a lot of work waiting for the ms devel team ...

      /graf0z.

  7. Just another angry Linux zealot post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks again for the .doc format.

    Why not put such documents in a more Portable Document Format? Even assuming I have Word Reader or Openoffice, why on earth would you dissemante information via a word processor document format?

  8. Undocumented Security fixes? by Raindeer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I really wonder if there will be undocumented securityfixes included in this Service Pack. I recently heard a director of Microsoft say that when Microsoft finds a security vulnerability, they don't disclose it, but just fixed it in a service pack. I hope I misinterpreted him, but it makes me wonder if a pre SP build of some Microsoft products might have something under the hood for bad guys to use.

  9. I could not resist... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Executio Protection

    Old man Saddam could use feature that right about now.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:I could not resist... by MullerMn · · Score: 5, Funny

      >Executio Protection

      Old man Saddam could use feature that right about now.


      Why? In case Harry Potter tries to kill him?

  10. Re:All this work by phalse+phace · · Score: 5, Funny
    Did you RTFA?"

    You must be new here.

  11. Re:Internet Explorer Add-on Crash Detection by Com2Kid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bleh, troll, or did you just skim the file? Either way. . . .

    What this new feature does (and it IS rather nifty) is detects which piece of spyware loaded up with IE is causing crashes, and lets the user disable said spyware.

    Nice actually. ^_^

  12. Re:MSFW / MSFWE / MSFF - Request by BenjyD · · Score: 5, Funny

    Preferences->Homepage->exclude stories->Microsoft.

    I'm sure an enterprising geek could write a script to do that for them. You could even cron job it to give MS free days/weeks.

  13. Re:Wow. by FrostedWheat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For one, they've apparently made a lot of changes to IE that will make it less of a pain in the ass to use.

    Biggest pain for me (as a non-IE user anyway) is that they *STILL* haven't added proper PNG transparancy support! Every other browser on the planet handles it fine, even IE on the Mac.

    It's not like it's a big secret everyone's hiding from MS :)

  14. Re:who cares about ie blocking popups, still insec by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Who cares about pop-up blocking in IE? How about: _you_ will care, when you start seeing pop-ups in Mozilla or Opera.

    The whole "IE is inferior because it can't block popups" charade existed only _because_ the dominant browser didn't block those. Most people were content to make their pop-ups IE only.

    Now that IE has changed, let's think like one of those dishonest marketers. So you were making money serving on-load pop-ups. They no longer work. What next?

    How about looking at a little detail: IE, just like Mozilla and Opera, will not block stuff resulting from a user click.

    Does it give you ideas yet?

    If still not: Want to bet how long until you'll see sites where all links are done with JavaScript that also opens a pop-up window? Where every single drop-down and button and link is accessible only through JavaScript, which incidentally also opens a pop-up or three?

    But wait, surely people will start blocking pop-ups completely, right?

    Again, let's think like a slimeball some more. Remember, the goal of this exercise is to think not like the user annoyed by those pop-ups, but like the slimeball who pushes them onto you.

    He doesn't care if you're annoyed, nor how annoyed. He just wants to make a buck. That's all that matters. He's really got the same moral standards as the spammer filling your inbox with V14GR4 ads.

    So in that state of mind: Hmm... what to do against those users still blocking your valuable pop-ups, even when they're triggered by a click?

    Well, blimey, make the whole site unusable or crippled without pop-ups. E.g., if you have to log in or fill a form, stuff it in a pop-up window. E.g., all the links to other sites are surely best opened in a separate window, via JavaScript. (All in the name of convenience for the user, of course;) E.g., the site-map, search, articles, etc, surely are best viewed in a separate window opened through JavaScript.

    So there you go. Now the whole site is unusable unless the user disables pop-up protection.

    Fat lot of good did that pop-up blocking do, eh?

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  15. pop up blocker by Apreche · · Score: 5, Informative

    I read the document and apparently the pop up blocker is crap. Here's why

    ustomers will still see pop-ups launched in the following cases:

    The pop-up is opened by a link which the user clicked.

    The pop-up is opened by software that is running on the computer.

    The pop-up is opened by ActiveX controls that are instantiated from a Web site.

    The pop-up is opened from the Trusted Sites or Local Intranet zones.

    I sense an increased use of ActiveX by ad-ridden websites in the future. What this is really, is not a way for MS to help out the user by eliminating annoyance. It is a strategy to get everyone who wants pop up ads on their site to use ActiveX. And hopefully when they're using ActiveX they'll make important parts of their site with it. Like say, the navigation bar. I'll stick to Firebird tyvm.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  16. Some thoughts on this stuff by jonwil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Firstly, the firewall stuff is good.
    Especially things like "by default, only local machines can talk to the windows network messenger (a.k.a. winpopup), windows file sharing and etc ports".
    But, its still not a good substitute for a server-based firewall solution (e.g. a linux box with ipchains/iptables) or for a firewall box like the "firewall+DSL modem+router+switch/hub+nat+etc boxes" that are popular with home broadband networks.

    Execution Protection is a good feature, I am surprised that intel didnt add support for marking pages as "execuatble" or "not execuatble" way back when with the 386,486, pentium or whatever.

    Given the number of Internet Explorer addons in the lists of Spyware programs like Ad-Aware and Spybot Search & Destroy, the Add-on Manager is something thats long overdue. This should at least prevent those who are clued up enough to check it once in awhile from being hit with Spyware addons.

    As for the Java stuff, I think the best thing would be for MS to modify all future operating systems and service packs to completly remove the MSJVM if it is present and to install the sun Java VM instead (I expect that as long as they were shipping it unmodified and shipping as recent a version as possible, sun would just love this)

    The MSJVM is a piece of garbage that should disappear for good, along with any lame-braned sites/content/software designed to work with it and only with it.

    Now, the MIME type handling stuff.
    IMO, the best solution is for IE to completly ignore the file extention and contents if it has a MIME type.
    Basicly, if it gets a MIME type, it uses that and ignore both the extention and the content. If it doesnt have a MIME type (e.g. local disk file or FTP server, it should use the extention only and ignore the content).

    If the MIME type it has is for something like text/plain or image/png or text/html or something else that IE can handle, it should handle it.
    If the MIME type is one for which a system program has regisered itself (for example, ms word could register itself for application/x-msword-document), it gets handed off to that.
    Otherwise, windows will display a dialog box asking the user to select from:
    1.open with the application registered to handle the extention passed in (for example, if its a .rar file, winrar might be specified, if no applocation is registered to handle this, it wont display this option. Also, anything thats executable e.g. *.bat, *.pif, *.scr, *.exe, *.com wont be allowed to execute and must be saved to disk and/or opened with a seperate application. And, certain things like the program that runs *.vbs scripts would be banned so that they dont appear in this list and you cant say "open with this app by default")
    2.open with an application of the users choice.
    or 3.save to disk
    With an option to save this as the default action for this file extention (and the case of no mime type) and a way to remove that "save as default" and re-specify later on, this would be the ideal solution. Plus, unlike what the MS proposal says, it would actually force web-servers to do away with the "send text/plain as default for anything we dont understand" features and configuractions. The right response (IMO, I havent read the RFCs or anything) is to send no MIME type at all for files that you dont have a specific MIME type for.

    As for pop-up manager, here is what MS should do:
    1.turn off any features in HTML that allows the changing of the "z-order" of windows (e.g. to make a window move to the back like with a pop-under)
    and 2.turn the pop-up blocker on by default

    But personally, I think the fault lies with the idiot that invented window.open() in the first place. What legitimate use is there for being able to open a new browser window in this maner?
    Many web-sites use links that use the TARGET attribute of the tag to create a new window with content in it and thats pefectly fine.
    The only uses for window.open() that I know of are:
    1.popups, popunders