Slashdot Mirror


Exploit Based On Leaked Windows Code Released

mischief writes "A post to Bugtraq from SecurityTracker.com reports an Internet Explorer 5 exploit that has been released based on the Win2K code leak: 'It is reported that a remote user can create a specially crafted bitmap file that, when loaded by IE, will trigger an integer overflow and execute arbitrary code.' Only affects IE 5 apparently, but still - it didn't take long!"

78 of 952 comments (clear)

  1. Open Source More Secure... maybe not by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oops... we just gave MS a chance to say keeping the source secret keeps flaws like this secret as well. :)

    1. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Oops... we just gave MS a chance to say keeping the source secret keeps flaws
      > like this secret as well. :)

      Yeah, but if Windows were truly open source then there's not chance it'll just be sat on for six months...

    2. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by The+Unabageler · · Score: 5, Funny

      OTOH M$ should thank the code thiefs for expediting their QA process :-)

      --
      perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees; print'
    3. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by aborchers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny, yes, but in the interest of full disclosure it's worth noting for the credulous that this code was perhaps only vulnerable because it had not been open for audit before.

      In other words, had the source code for IE been OSS from day one, then the bug might very well have been found and fixed before the application was widely distributed.

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    4. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by 1010011010 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Finally, Microsoft's "Trustworthy Computing" exercise begins in earnest.

      Hehe

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    5. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Open-source security doesn't come from having the source available. It comes from lots of people actively working on the source. Tell me, how many random hackers do you think will work on the Windows codebase?

      This is one of the reasons why "open source" is more than "source available"

    6. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by aborchers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A valid observation, but how many exploits were found without access to the source? If that number were low, the security-through-source-obscurity would be valid, but unfortunately for MS's credibility, it isn't low.

      It just turns out this one was extra easy to find because the code could be read. It would have been equally easy to fix as to exploit (had non-assholes been reading the source, but fear of contamination is keeping most credible OSS engineers from touching that stuff with a 10-ft debugger), bringing us right back around to the superior security of open-source position.

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    7. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems so obvious to someone who's been using OSS for years.

      Linux source code has been around for how long? An how many exploits have been released for it?

    8. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by yamla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What evidence do you have that this bug was not found until the code was leaked? It is entirely possible that some people did indeed know about this bug and had used it to exploit Windows systems for quite some time. Of course, I have no evidence of this either but as I'm not a black-hat (or indeed a hacker at all), I wouldn't expect to hear about it.

      --

      Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
    9. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by malfunct · · Score: 5, Interesting

      These "easy to find" bugs were probably fixed in the huge code audit that MS did as part of thier security initiative that happened AFTER the date of the leaked code.

      Not to say your point isn't valid, just that the real question is how do you get more intelligent eyes reading the code looking for this stuff. OSS isn't necessarily better, its just that highly popular projects have lots of eyes. I know plenty of projects that get far fewer eyes and have TONS of bugs. Now that MS is being forced to be secure they are having lots of eyes so we will see in longhorn if this improved anything.

      I will say this, its easier to trust something that you can look through yourself, it may not be safer but you like it better because if you wanted you could see what was wrong. Its like driving a car vs riding with someone. You are often more at ease when you are behind the wheel because you can see/make/correct the mistakes whereas with another person driving you just have to trust. It has nothing to do with which driver is better.

      I will say that linux and apache are just great projects with hoards of great developers. Its a testament to the possiblities of the open source model, but its not proof that the model is better. There are plenty of OSS projects that just suck, and those don't show me that the model is broken.

      Finally I will say there isn't the same incentive to make perfect code in a corporation that there is in the OSS community. The corporation is only going to do enough to get th money rolling in because the money is the reward. The OSS programmer is going to write to the very best of his ability because the code itself is the reward. Still doesn't make one model necessarily better than the other. The way we will make microsoft improve its products is quit upgrading until they can prove they have a superior product. It seems from the press releases that the pressure of Linux may actually be forcing MS to improve.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    10. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by OsCarJ · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's like seeing your sister naked. Ack!

      I don't know. I always thought your sister was pretty hot.

    11. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by GlassHeart · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Just because it doesn't occur in future releases, doesn't mean its been fixed. Unless your arguing that staying current is the only way to avoid exploits, then your making a strong argument that the TCO of Open Source should be sung from the moutain top.

      You're right, but open source software don't all conveniently provide security updates for old versions, either. It is definitely better, because if nobody else (package maintainer) does it for you, you can do it yourself. However, let's not sing from the mountaintops, because the TCO for insisting on running Red Hat 5.0 today is probably considerable.

      Both forms of development obey the same equation: cost versus benefit. The difference is that the cost in commercial software is entirely calculated based on the perspective of the source code owner. While open source is better, it can still be "too expensive" to fix relative to just upgrading.

    12. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by ajs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's make this clear: the value of open source to security is not that there are this passive pool of eyes waiting to look at all code, but rather that when you have the eyes, they already have the code.

      How is this practical? Look at Linux, and more specifically Red Hat. There was a period of a year or two where Red Hat was finding a TON of bugs and fixing them. Why? Because they paid an external auditing firm to find them.

      This seems like business as usual until you think about the SuSE user... he gets a security update to openssh and sendmail even though HIS vendor didn't do the audit. This idea that everyone benefits whenever ANYONE in the community does the right thing means that the right thing gets done far more often. It's not that Linux vendors are more security conscious, it's that there are more of them.

      When Microsoft gets around to doing a security audit that's great, but they don't benefit when Red Hat does one or when FreeBSD does, etc., and that's hurting them and their reputation.

    13. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by imnoteddy · · Score: 5, Interesting
      What evidence do you have that this bug was not found until the code was leaked?

      I worked at MS once (hated it, quit) and the bug tracking system had a category of "won't fix" bugs - bugs they knew about but had no intention of fixing.

      --
      No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
    14. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by KReilly · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But I think the point is that it was leaked. That nobody can keep an eye on their code if it is used this widely. If the code had been under public scrutiny since day one, more flaws would be found, but the overall code would be stronger, not weaker. This is why everyone can complain about tons of holes in linux, but miss the fact that just as many (if not more) exist in windows, and its just a matter of time before they get found out. With Linux, you have to take the additude, the sooner, the better.

    15. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by G.+W.+Bush+Junior · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know plenty of projects that get far fewer eyes and have TONS of bugs.


      it's a pretty moot point

      The impact of a bug i probably inversely proportional to the amount of people auditing the code in an open source project...
      Sure, there are a lot of small projects that nobody really uses, so there aren't that many eyes for auditing the code... but so what?

      The projects are unpopular, so if somebody found a security bug it wouldn't affect that many people (and is it really worthwhile spending the time making an exploit that will affect 1000 users worldwide?)

      As long as the popular projects are safe then I don't really care.

      --
      "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
    16. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by Paleomacus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My company has one of these lists as well. I'd bet most companies do.

      Just because someone claims something is a bug doesn't mean that it _is_ and must be fixed.

      A lot of our bug reports are just user preference/pickiness.

    17. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by Eric+Savage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that's just Linux. There have been gobs of them for the various popular software packages out there (Apache, Samba, PHP, etc). I try to stress to other developers that OSS isn't necessarily more secure, its more prone to security, a fine line that can be very significant. I am hugely in favor of OSS, but the idea that opening crappy source means other people will fix your bugs is as false as the idea that opening unfinished source means other people will finish it.

      --

      This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
    18. Re:Open Source More Secure... maybe not by 1010011010 · · Score: 5, Funny

      60% Funny
      20% Troll
      10% Insightful

      Welcome, Microsofties!

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  2. so THATS why it was leaked by SlashDread · · Score: 5, Funny

    to fix it...

    "/Dread"

  3. well, the source is out there by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wouldn't it be interesting to see the patch come out later today, from an anonymous source!

    --
    I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
  4. And counting by millahtime · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, what is this... like the 10,000 IE security hole reported in the last couple years. Why write another IE virus? Is there really any challenge left?

    1. Re:And counting by RomikQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even, for an IE hole, this is pretty severe - now worms just have to send html emails with an img tag that points to a specific bitmap and voila: anyone who uses an mshtml based email client(including webmail) and hasn't updated for a while gets infected just by opening the message.

      Sure, sooner or later hotmail will stop showing bmps in messages and issue a warning like "if you get a message, do not open it, but delete immediatly", but hey, I bet the amount of worm emails in my Junk mailbox will increase drastically in the next couple of weeks.

      --
      Join the elite! Post at score:2! Ghostwheel is online.
  5. It may not of been a secret to everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just to those that couldn't get access to the source code. Some people with access before may have known about this for a while. Not that we'll ever know.

  6. No Problem by Jedi1USA · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft just needs to get a copy of the leaked code and look it over for potential exploits.

    Oh wait. :^)

    --
    My old sig was REALLY stoopid.
  7. I'll be first to say it by MicroBerto · · Score: 5, Interesting
    IF this is true, the release of the source is the nail in the coffin for Microsoft.

    An exploit this quick? There's going to be some serious happenings going on at Microsoft. Also look for another Longhorn delay sometime due to everything that is found out.

    I'm not sure what to think. I'm not happy that when I get back to work this summer, I'm going to spend way too much time fighting these problems/viruses and patching things up. I'm not happy businesses are losing money. I am, however, happy that Microsoft is forced to clean up their act even more, or they are going to lose market share.

    Open source isn't 'communistic' -- it's capitalistic. Why? It increases competition.

    We have an interesting 6 months ahead of us, folks.

    --
    Berto
    1. Re:I'll be first to say it by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IF this is true, the release of the source is the nail in the coffin for Microsoft.

      Actually I think that, if Microsoft doesn't lose it's customer base to all the exploits found, it's going to make Microsoft stronger. Think about it, right now Microsoft is receiving the same kind of security review that makes OpenSource products so strong in the first place. Granted, it's coming at a very high cost, but their source code will have much fewer bugs when this is over.

    2. Re:I'll be first to say it by lacrymology.com · · Score: 5, Funny

      "We have an interesting 6 months ahead of us, folks."

      I can see the headlines now;

      "New exploit found in IE5"
      "Yet another exploit found in IE5"
      "Exploit found in Minesweeper"
      "Expolit found in Notepad"
      "Yet another exploit found in Minesweeper"
      "Yet another exploit found in Notepad"
      "New exploit found in IE5"
      "God damn! Another exploit found in Minesweeper"
      .
      .
      .
      "Exploit found in taskbar"
      "Exploit found in Times New Roman"
      "Exploit found in bootstrap"
      "Exploit found in Wingdings"
      "Exploit found in ...."

      Sounds pretty redundant and boring to me. ;)

      -m

      --

      #
      # Modus Ponens
      #
    3. Re:I'll be first to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Granted, it's coming at a very high cost, but their source code will have much fewer bugs when this is over.

      There is only one problem: the source code is ilegal.

      Most people who find and report bugs will probably never see this code, and if they do see it, they'll deny it. This means that most people looking at the source code for bugs are doing so for their own benefit.

      It'd be very naive to believe that these black hats will release information about the bugs they found. In the case of this IE5 bug we can say that the guy who found it is probably a young fellow looking for m4d pr0pz.

      IMO, this source leak is very bad for MS, for it will get the worst part of both, closed source and open source, worlds. In one hand, every bad guy out there can, and will, see the code, in the other hand every white hat is legally and ethically forbidden to look at the source.

      Unless MS is trying to pull an SCO, I can't imagine a worst scenario.

  8. Well I got IE6 by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Funny

    So I should be all set for the next 2 days until the next major security flaw is found.

  9. Re:huh by LocoSpitz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Do not mod parent down. He's pointing out text found in the article link. That is not flamebait.

  10. Re:Funny comment by the bugtraq submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This means that the exploit is so obvious that even a 14 year old can figure it out.

  11. Bugs by Agent_Number_4 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is just the tip of the ice-berg, just imagine what could be done if the whole code was released, and included source for XP.

    I for one am truly alarmed and cannot wait for Microsoft to start the repairs; but then again this is good news for MS programmers looking for OT.

  12. Re:You thought Microsoft were tardy with by cgranade · · Score: 5, Funny

    And here I was thinking it was called Mozilla.

    --

    #define DRM chmod 000

  13. Re:You thought Microsoft were tardy with by Lifewish · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mine's called "Linux". Seems to fix a whole host of problems.

    --
    For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
  14. Leak a good thing for MS by kyndig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was only 15% of the source code which leaked out, yet it will show MS in the weeks to come just how the Open Source community operates. I forsee them working over time to provide updates to the numerious vulnerabilities which will arise due to the leaked code. This here is just one example. There were some what, 3 million lines of code in the leaked source. It is just a matter of time. Hopefully folks will report the vulnerabilities which they find, opposed to exploiting them.

    --
    My Thoughts, Kyndig
    1. Re:Leak a good thing for MS by Savant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet those who contact Microsoft with patches for the leaked code are marking themselves as individuals who've read that code. As such, they are now fair game for Microsoft should they ever work on a piece of open source or commercial software that duplicates in some way functionality present in Windows.

      I'm staying away from the code, and if I were ever tempted to look at it and did discover a vulnerability, I certainly wouldn't release a patch with my name attached.

  15. Re:Smells by Xeth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They can if the tool you use to open them is ridiculously poorly designed and permits buffer overflow (i.e. IE).

    --
    If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
  16. A quick look at the source code by Jacco+de+Leeuw · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Kuroshin has an article about the source code:

    "In short, there is nothing really surprising in this leak. Microsoft does not steal open-source code. Their older code is flaky, their modern code excellent. Their programmers are skilled and enthusiastic. Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility."

    But this IE exploit shows that the author was wrong on at least one account:

    "The security risks from this code appear to be low. Microsoft do appear to be checking for buffer overruns in the obvious places. The amount of networking code here is small enough for Microsoft to easily check for any vulnerabilities that might be revealed: it's the big applications that pose more of a risk. This code is also nearly four years old: any obvious problems should be patched by now".

    --
    -------
    Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
    1. Re:A quick look at the source code by W2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But this IE exploit shows that the author was wrong on at least one account.

      Wrong. He was right. This particular IE exploit has been fixed; it only affects an old version of IE. And IE is free, so there's no real excuse for not upgrading it. If I found a bug in an older version of an open-source app, and filed a bug report on it despite the fact that it had been fixed AGES ago in a newer version, I think I would be told to shut the fuck up and upgrade with little or no delay.

      --
      Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
  17. Re:What the fuck? by vontrotsky · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think it went more like

    1. load int from char array
    2. check int against sizeof(yourbuffer)
    3. user=root if greater

  18. Outlook by eth00 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So does that mean that all the users that use outlook could also fall prey to this? Send out spam with image and if the outlook user has auto preview on, which they probably do they now can be exploited by whatever code. That would be an interesting concept that would lead to alot of trouble. Sure IE5 is old...but lots of people still use it.

  19. Re:Smells by Paladine97 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well it's not really the image file running the commands. It's the browser that is loading the image. The browser reads bad image data and gets overwritten.

    It's no hoax.

  20. Gone.. But Never Forgotten by halo8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    a specially crafted bitmap file

    Good thing all thoes Goatse pictures where in .jpeg .gif and .tiff

    --
    The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
  21. The lessons learned by PierceLabs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No system is 100% secure be it Windows or Linux.

    When people have access to the source they can more readily find exploitable mechanisms in your code. This is a GOOD thing because you want to know that your system is exploitable, how it is exploitable, and (which is the case in many open projects) how to prevent that exploit.

    Any form of content (not just scripts and ActiveX controls) can be used to exploit a weakness in a system. A security strategy that involves simply filtering content is a weak one.

    The open source community can be a powerful friend to any organization willing to take the chance on their code being available to others.

  22. Tad Sad. by His+name+cannot+be+s · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a bit confused.

    I mean, I've been doing C for almost 20 years. One of the first lessons I learned --And not for 'security' so much as crash free programs-- was not to do such things.

    I mean, holy crap, it's too damn simple to see the bug. What kindof idiots do they have working at MS?

    "The Very Best Kind" :p

    --
    "...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
    1. Re:Tad Sad. by Boing · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I mean, holy crap, it's too damn simple to see the bug. What kindof idiots do they have working at MS?

      Well let me ask you this... look at this brick wall. Now tell me which one of the bricks is actually a rusty piece of metal that just looks like a brick.

      It's pretty simple to see this bug now that we're looking right at it. And it obviously was not too hard to find when specifically looking for index-checking bugs. But it's even easier to let something like this slip when you're a tired microserf adding code at 4am trying to meet a deadline. And with the limited resources at Microsoft (huge as it is), that have to be divided into all the different parts of all the different software projects, it's really a hard sell to convince someone to look through all the gazillions of lines of code that have "Just Worked" in the past.

      It's easy to judge, but since we really don't know the environment in which this particular bug was introduced, I think we should cut the original programmer a little slack. (not completely, though. Some culpability is appropriate seeing as Microsoft took our money and should be somewhat responsible for the damages caused by the vulnerability of their faulty products)

  23. Re:huh by Dalcius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You really are going to try and blame this guy for "possibly [exposing] thousands of users to a root exploit"?

    There are certainly other ways to go about reporting bugs (not that Microsoft will listen to any of them), but blaming the messenger for pointing out that the castle wall is full of holes is a bit misdirected if you ask me.

    Cheers

    --
    ~Dalcius
    Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
  24. Ha Ha Only Serious by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Insightful
    More proof that code who's source is open is less secure!

    You laugh, but I won't be the least bit surprised when this very logic finds its way to the receptive ears of less-than-tech-saavy corporate officers...

    "Linux? Good god no, man! Didn't you see what happened when just a bit of the Microsoft source code got leaked? I thought you were up on these things!"

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Ha Ha Only Serious by DJ+Rubbie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The counterargument(s) to that point is...

      - Since the Linux kernel got started it was open, and it had a lot LESS flaws than Windows during the same time period.
      - With code open to everybody, the credibility of the writers depend on the quality they were assessed, and so they must write good code.
      - Windows, being closed in nature, can hide their flaws to an extent, until they were opened like so. Still, when it was closed it didn't stop hackers from finding holes.

      --
      Please direct all bug reports to /dev/null
  25. Re:Smells by Oscaro · · Score: 5, Informative

    Smells like you shoud read some documentation on buffer overflow techinques. Of course image files cannot run commands, but you can do some nice tricks if the program that is loading the file fails to check where the data is loaded. If the data is bigger than the allocated space, you can garble the stack in some funny way and actually craft a picture that gets to be executed (in some parts at least). Of course, doing something other that crashing the process is NOT easy, but...

  26. Re:What the fuck? by SlashDread · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the old days, when I was young system admin, it was called "Monkey Testing".

    It went something like this:
    You position yourself behind a functional input screen, and start hammering viciously and blindly. The latter is important, the more blind the better, it invokes he Holy Random God. Repeat for 5 minutes. You repeat this for each input screen.
    If the screen showed anything similar to "ERROR: OTHER INPUT EXPECTED" it passed.
    If it showed anything similar to "OK, 98zxc3v4^DD^C^Z NEW CUSTOMERS ADDED" or failed to read at all due to overly blinkeyness or so, it failed.

    I understand MS needs more monkeys.

    "/Dread"

  27. occurances of " Don't Care " in MS code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    i wanted to post this in the first MS leak story, but oh well, here it is now.

    $ grep -ir " don't care " /win2k/* | wc -l
    332

    check it yourself

  28. Re:huh by iso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That was interesting to read. It made me wonder who the people are who come up with these exploits. This person is obviously very immature, but also very knowlegable about programming to spot something so quickly in so much code. The question is, is this a ridiculously knowledgable 13 year old, or a well-seasoned older programmer who has the social skills of a 13 year old?

  29. Well sucks but by Tobias+Luetke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It also shows that ms does their job.

    When microsoft declared security as their main goal ie5 was the current browser. ie6 has it fixed so they obviously wen't trough their stuff to fix it.

    Its very true that bounds checking errors are very easy to prevent but if you say its sloppy programming to have errors like this in your code you either work in java or .net or you don't programm at all. Its the price you pay for native compiled code and the main reason people are turning their backs on it.

  30. Re:What the fuck? by DjReagan · · Score: 5, Informative

    That wouldn't work in this case. Overflowing a signed integer so that it wraps around to negative won't be picked up by checking if the value is greater. Using the correct datatype (unsigned int) would have been better.

    (in fact, looking at the code snipped in the vulnerability notification, they do check against Offset > size of buffer)

    --
    "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
  31. Now is a good time to Burn CDs by rjamestaylor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Burn some Live CDs to hand out to friends,
    family, co-workers. Introduce them to Linux and
    warn them of the dangers of LOOKING AT IMAGES
    using Internet Explorer 5.0.

    There are many good ones*. Personally I fell in
    love with the Knoppix 3.4 c't edition with the
    2.6 kernel -- using it gave me my first
    experience of non-stuttering KDE with heavy
    loads, looping MP3s and lots of useable features
    (except detecting the Dell Inspiron 5150's on
    board WiFi -- not Centrino).

    Pick several, spend a few bucks on good CD-R
    discs, make a nice label with "do exactly these
    steps" instructions on the label.

    It's not about world domination, it's about
    stopping the theiving cracker spammers from
    gaining more zombie Windows boxes to do their
    bidding and ruin the Internet for the rest of us.

    * start here:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=live+cds+lin ux

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  32. Re:What the fuck? by david.given · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In the old days, when I was young system admin, it was called "Monkey Testing".

    This is moderated as funny... but it's true. You can even get software to automate the process. It just sends random keypresses and mouseclicks to the application under test, very very fast. You leave it running overnight. If you're application is still stable the next day, it passed.

    It's scary how many bugs a simple test like this can throw up...

  33. Re:What the fuck? by MoneyT · · Score: 5, Informative

    IIRC early Apple computers actualy had a memory location called "MonkeyLives" or something like that, which was used for a program they called the monkey. The monkey program randomly entered commands and clicks and such for as long as the program was running. The problem was, sometimes it would shutdown the computer (by executing a shutdown, not by crashing it) so they created a memory location that when shutdown was called, it first checked that location to see if the monkey program was running, and would cancel the shutdown if it was.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  34. Re:Get the source code from Freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You bastard! That's my IP address!!!

  35. This reminds me of "The Ring" by MetaMarty · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did you hear about the image that kills your computer whenever you view it?

  36. Re:But the question is... by lintux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, but I don't expect the Microsoft PR-team to talk about that in their anti-OSS campaigns...

  37. Re:huh by j-turkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There are certainly other ways to go about reporting bugs (not that Microsoft will listen to any of them), but blaming the messenger for pointing out that the castle wall is full of holes is a bit misdirected if you ask me.

    Maybe there's something that I'm misunderstanding here. You're suggesting that he's just a messenger -- nothing more? I completely disagree. This person posted an exploit. I'm not sure how it is where you're from, but from where I sit, posting an exploit is on an entirely different level from simply telling someone that their software is full of holes (including how and where).

    To use your analogy, rather than being a messenger telling the king that his castle walls are full of holes, this is a little more like designing a weapon to destroy your castle walls, and posting the plans in every neighboring town (which somehow manage to automatically build the weapon, provided you have the right tools). All the recipients have to do is tell the device to build itself, point, and fire.

    The point is that this guy was downright irresponsible and should be treated as such. Any sane king would have beheaded this person in a royal heartbeat.

    --

    -Turkey

  38. Re:Ignore it! by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're absolutely right that it should be ignored, but for the wrong reasons other than the fact that we shouldn't give MS free labor/programming services.

    Why don't you want to see MS software improve? My guess is that you think of your OS choice as a religion or a political statement, which makes you just as bad as pro-MS zealots.

    If MS code gets stronger and less buggy, everyone benefits. Remember how many worms have caused major Internet congestion problems? How many spammers now use trojan's/worms to create relays for themselves? I don't think I'm the only advocate of Open Source who thinks that it would be a good thing to see more quality come from Microsoft.

    I'm not fan of MS, but I am a fan of quality software. If MS can improve the stability and security of their products then it's a Good Thing(tm) for everyone, even those who don't use said products.

    The real reason to ignore the code is so that MS can't try to pull a SCO and claim that OSS projects are steaing their code.

  39. Re:Text of advisory by AstroDrabb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You are allowed to use copyrighted information to some extent for certain purposes such as educationl, parady, etc. You can use a small clip from a song, you can display a paragrahp from a book, etc. I doubt anyone would consider showing 10 lines or so of source code out of millions a copyright violation. The grandparent post is obviously for education purposes only : )

    --
    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
    it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  40. Re:Text of advisory by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    I doubt anyone would consider showing 10 lines or so of source code out of millions a copyright violation

    SCO does. :)

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  41. Re:Outbreak and email renderer by Phillup · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Congrats... you are the first post I've seen that gets one of the very important points.

    I've seen everyone say that IE 6 isn't vulnerable... and all I keep thinking is: Not to this particular instance of the exploit. That doesn't mean it is free of problems from this class of exploits.

    But, you can bet that the person that wrote this one little bit of code wrote a lot of other code. So, what you have in front of you is a class of problem that can be tried over the entire binary code base. You now know that one image handling routine is succeptible to this flaw... and now you can start targeting them all. Without needing access to the source code for that part of the software.

    Know how many times Windows (a graphical user interface) handles bitmapped files? Every one of those is a possible point of failure that you don't need the source code to find... simply start feeding something like this bmp to each of them.

    Automated testing at it's finest.

    --

    --Phillip

    Can you say BIRTH TAX
  42. Re:off topic, but orthogonal kind of prompted this by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Funny

    By the way, does anyone know why the bitmap formap [sic] is writte [soc] upside down?

    It's an obscurity that provides extra security against exploits like buffer overflows. ;)

  43. Re:huh by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Funny
    a well-seasoned older programmer who has the social skills of a 13 year old?

    You say that as if it were unusual. ;)

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  44. Re:What the fuck? by prockcore · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Fuck MSFT it's called bounds checking. e.g.

    1. load int from char array
    2. check int against sizeof(yourbuffer)
    3. reject if greater


    AHahahaha, you know you just made the exact mistake MS did. You're using ints, not unsigned ints. Reject if greater does nothing if it's less than 0, which would still cause an overflow.

  45. Re:huh by SloppyElvis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It isn't all that difficult to narrow the search when looking for exploits like this. Its surprising (or maybe it isn't) that M$ never looked for them. At our shop, its common practice to detect dangerous code.

    Just search for all stack arrays in the source...

    $ egrep "\[[:digit:]+\]" ...

    ...then inspect the code for ways to read/write past the bounds. That narrows the search field quite a bit (ok, you'd miss arrays defined with #define symbols, but you'd catch the sloppy ones, which is what you want in the first place).

    Combine a search as above with one for calls to strcpy(), strcmp(), sprintf(), [or any other C runtime/misc. function that fails to check input], and you have an even smaller lump of code to inspect.

    So, the 13 year old wouldn't need extensive knowledge, just what you could glean from reading an article or two on buffer overflows. Still, I'd bet its a seasoned socially backward individual.

    Anyway, good question to ponder.

  46. Just one little thing... by gexen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody knows how old the sourcecode actually is! Several people have used IE 5 and the exploit code does not work. The things in the code could have, and in this case, has, been fixed long ago!

  47. Re: of been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wish that I would of thought have that.

    It could of been me that was modded insightful for of-ing no grammatical skills.

    Well, you know the old saying... birds have a feather, etc.

    Of a nice day! :)

  48. eh... its not really an IE problem... by MattyCobb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i dont see why everone is going crazy over this exploit. i mean really... microsoft actually has already done something about this... its called get the NEW version of IE. Don't get me wrong, I am a big open source supporter, but seriously... oss would have made no difference here. Basically people just have to keep up to date with IE and patches to get around this. Same as if someone, however unlikely, found such a exploit in a mozilla product... or some other open source browser. the fact that it is open source and someone could find the bug faster means nothing if you dont keep your software up-to-date. And no, most casual Windows users don't. and no getting them to switch to a 'nix OS wouldn't change that.

    its really more of an education problem than a software problem. most computer users (not the /. crowd have no idea what they are doing....

    at least thats my 2 cents.

    --

    Matt
    You have 1 Moderator Point! Use it or lose it! Is that a threat? -vapid
  49. Re:Text of advisory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Could someone explain exactly what happens in this code that causes the overrun?

    Yes. I'll assume you're familiar with the basic ideas of programming, but are unfamiliar with C, especially on x86. I'll also assume you're familiar with hexadecimal/binary notation, as I'll be using it.

    on x86, a negative integer is represented somewhat oddly. In C, the 'int' datatype is signed, meaning it can represent 'negative' integers. Specifically, the way a 16 bit signed integer is represented on x86 (and hence, how C compilers for x86 are going to handle them) is this:

    Convert -3 to positive, so we have 3.
    3 is represented as this (16 bit signed integer) :
    0x0003
    or in binary - 0000 0000 0000 0011

    to get the negative representation, we flip every bit and add 1. so, the representation of -3 in a 16 bit signed integer on x86 is:
    1111 1111 1111 1100 + 1 = 1111 1111 1111 1101
    which in hexadecimal is 0xFFFD. note that, 0xFFFD is large (relative to the max value 16 bits can hold). if treated as unsigned, specifically represents the number in base 10 as 65533.

    now with that aside, we can easily spot the problem.

    /* cbSkip represents a signed integer */
    int cbSkip;

    /* bfOffBits is supposed to be unsigned. */
    cbSkip = _bmfh.bfOffBits - cbRead;

    /* if bfOffBits say, contains 0xFFFF (-1)
    than cbSkip _wont_ be greater than 1024,
    note that this is supposed to prevent
    too many bytes to be read! */
    if (cbSkip > 1024)
    cbSkip = 1024;

    /* Since cbSkip contains 0xFFFF, which is '-1',
    Read will attempt to read 0xFFFF bytes into
    the buffer, which can only store 0x400 bytes.
    Oops. */
    if (!Read(abDummy, cbSkip))
    goto Cleanup;

    The technical reasons of why overwriting a buffer is bad, are beyond the scope of this post. Just know that it is one of the worst things that can happen ;)

  50. Re:off topic, but orthogonal kind of prompted this by grozzie2 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    By the way, does anyone know why the bitmap formap is writte upside down?

    This is really easy. Back in the good old days, when developers measured memory in kilobytes rather than megabytes, and cpu speeds were expressed in single digit mhz rather than single digit ghz, performance was a BIG issue. The layout of the data inside a bitmap was set up to mimic the memory layout of a video card, so that you could literally just copy the data with no transforms.

    Over time, video memory layouts changed, computers got faster, and now have more on cpu cache than they used to have memory. The rage in software development has come full circle. Instead of trying to optimize things to see how efficient they can be written, it seems to be a goal to see how much overhead one can put into a given application before it actually starts to do something useful. Some things tho seem to be trapped in thier legacy heritage, and the format of a bitmap is one of them.

  51. use it for change! by tau_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, where's the .bmp I can link to my web site that makes IE5 remotely execute Mozilla Firefox installer?

    --
    Ask a silly person, get a silly answer.
  52. Who Runs IE 5 anyway? by vwjeff · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean really, who runs IE 5 anyway. I'm sure that most corporate network admins keep up with updating IE. Let me check on a random company machine...

    Help-About Internet Explorer-.....Never mind my previous comment.