Slashdot Mirror


IE Download.Ject Exploit Fixed

Saint Aardvark writes "Just in time for the weekend, the Internet Storm Center is reporting that Microsoft is providing a fix for the Download.Ject vulnerability that hit IE late last month. The press statement says that it'll hit Windows Update later today..."

32 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. FYI by arieswind · · Score: 4, Informative

    This configuration change to the Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows 2000 operating systems improves system resiliency to protect against the Download.Ject attack.

    In addition to this configuration change, which will protect customers against the immediate reported threats, Microsoft is working to provide a series of security updates to Internet Explorer in coming weeks that will provide additional protections for our customers.

    Please note that this isnt a fix, it is only a configuration change to help defend against the problem and nullify the threat from the known places it is spreading from. No doubt that within a short time, whoever is behind the virus will find other places to have the virus attack from. This is just another "this will help for now, please wait for the real fix" incident from Microsoft.

    1. Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nope:

      Critical Update for Microsoft Data Access Components - Disable ADODB.Stream object from Internet Explorer (KB870669)
      Adodb.stream provides a method for reading and writing files on a hard drive.

      Quick Info
      File Name:
      Windows-KB870669-x86-ENU.exe

      Download Size:
      104 KB

      Date Published:
      7/2/2004

      Version:
      870669

      Overview
      Adodb.stream provides a method for reading and writing files on a hard drive. This by-design functionality is sometimes used by web applications. However, when combined with known security vulnerabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer, it could allow an internet web site to execute script from the Local Machine Zone (LMZ). This occurs because the ADODB.Stream object allows access to the hard drive when hosted within Internet Explorer.


      It has nothing to do with known threats.

    2. Re:FYI by quadra23 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is just another "this will help for now, please wait for the real fix" incident from Microsoft.

      I think I lost count at about 1000 when it comes to these "this will help for now..." When it comes to IE most fixes end up as patches that can actually break more than they fix. I think the Dept. of Homeland's Security recommendation of not using IE speaks loud and clear to this.

      Microsoft could start but not allowing web sites to automatically run malicious code, just as Outlook has the same tendency with emails (which incidently, most email viruses spread rapidly with).
    3. Re:FYI by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > This by-design functionality is sometimes used by web applications. However, when combined with known security vulnerabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer, it could allow an internet web site to execute script from the Local Machine Zone (LMZ).

      Ah, once again, "Security Zones" rears its ugly head. Wasn't integrating the browser into the operating system a brilliant move?

      Ah, once again, the assumption that users are using Web-based apps in a trusted environment such as the office LAN, rather than the Real World(tm), rears its ugly head. Services listening on 135? 137? 139? 445? 5000? But how will you share files, printers? Doesn't everyone want to share every file with every other user on their network segment? Doesn't everyone want to automatically sniff out and configure their machine to work with every network-attached peripheral?

      Open Letter to Windows design team, in monosyllables so you get the fucking point, because you sure as fuck haven't over the past nine years

      Code. Code belong on hard drive. Code tell a C.P.U. to do stuff. You get code, you save code, you tell box to run code! O.S. do what code say, so if you get owned, is your fault cuz you tell O.S. to run code! This just fine!

      Web Pages. Made of H.T.M.L. You get by click link. to make words and pics on screen. You got H.T.M.L.? I.E. for turn the H.T.M.L. into pics on screen. I.E. good for show text. I.E. good for show click link. I.E. good for show boobs.

      Heap Big Clue: I.E. MADE OF CODE. I.E. CODE RUN ON LOCAL MACHINE. THEREFORE ALL ZONE ARE LOCAL. You no grok? Here two by four. Hit self in head until you grok, dumb ass.

      This isn't chocolate and peanut butter. Executables and Web Content are not two great tastes that taste great together. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

      Security "zones" are one of the dumbest fucking ideas ever to come down the pipe.

    4. Re:FYI by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're making claims that are untrue and short sighted. I call FUD.

      First, to release a patch to a commercial application used by millions of people is inherently troublesome. You've got to make sure you test it thoroughly...because unlike Open Source, the liability is on YOU if people can't get their work done. If there is a change to an existing setting that can defray the effect of the vulnerability and give you more time to test, it would be remiss of you not to inform customers of it. Would you rather they ask customers to wait a few days until the patch is thoroughly QA'd?

      Second, I have never -- that means NOT EVER -- seen an IE fix that broke my machine worse than a virus would. The fix might cause problems with IE, but it wouldn't cause my machine to send spam email against my will. And the VAST majority of IE fixes have had no ill effects whatsoever. On the other hand, emerging the latest from gentoo causes something to break a substantial percentage of the time.

      I do agree that IE isn't the best browser ever, but this doesn't excuse you from putting blame where it doesn't belong. If you're going to fault Microsoft for anything, fault them for not being up front about the patch process. They should let us know at every step of the way what the problem is, how to patch it for now, when a fix will be ready and how to defray such bugs from allowing exploits in the future. That's one cue from OSS they'd be smart to heed. All software is buggy. Pretending it's not is tantemount to pretending you aren't going to fix it.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    5. Re:FYI by nate1138 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the liability is on YOU if people can't get their work done

      Now I call FUD on you. MS's EULA clearly states that they aren't liable for ANYTHING that their software does or does not do. Face the facts, IE is broken by design, and the only realistic alternative is to switch to another browser.

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
    6. Re:FYI by Kent+Recal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because unlike Open Source, the liability is on YOU if people can't get their work done.

      Oh, really now?

      So where do I have to send my bill on lost work hours due to MS exploits to get a refund?

    7. Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "What makes an environment "unsandboxable"?"

      follow along, because perhaps you're a clueless MS programmer and don't get it.

      1) IE really is integrated into windows. Sure, delete that icon on the desktop, but the entire help system is based around IE, the email client is based around IE, in fact every feature of the GUI is based around IE. You can't swing a memory mapped file without hitting a couple of IE API's.

      2) IE itself contains provisions called BHO's and ActiveX controls that let you add new functionality to IE.

      3) Therefore if IE is part of the operating system, and IE can be significantly altered either in advertantly ("Hey buddy, click here to win 1 million dollars!") or through a buffer overflow or similar trick, then you've given untrusted code a relatively easy path to alter the core OS.

      4) Lets go through this again, because you're slow.

      5) IE is core to OS, IE can be easily corrupted by executables on the web, therefore, the core OS is subject to security breaches simply by a user browsing the web.

      I don't know how to make this clearer. The things I've seen IE do to Windows XP in the past 4 weeks make my hair stand on end. A simple click by a friend, who tried to close a popup, missed by 1/4" and basically allowed an ActiveX control to run rampant, cost us an entire two days work.

      * The virus protection saw the problem but wasn't fast enough to fix it
      * Spybot S&D 1.3 with latest patches was *BLIND* to this infection
      * SpySweeper was able to kill things off, but only after we disabled system restore because guess what, every new piece of malware hijacks system restore and the system continuously reinfects itself.

      Lets step by and see what's happening.

      By design, IE has set up the entire Windows OS so that one inadvertant click in a user process can completely corrupt the OS.

      *AND ITS DONE ON PURPOSE*

      Honest to god, if someone told me that MS was that stupid 10 years ago, I'd laugh. But I've seen it with my own eyes. IE is so awful that it should not be used. The US government now recommends you shouldn't use it.

      I like Windows XP, but IE is fatally flawed and must be rewritten. But hey, its so integrated in the OS that guess what... you have to rewrite the OS.

      Holy cow, open your eyes. Its BAD out there!

  2. That reminds me... by DaHat · · Score: 5, Funny

    That assumes I remember to run Windows Update... Why do I have to do it myself Microsoft! I want automatic and forceful patch downloading and installation! Sure, you could throw in an extra DRM patch here or there... but I don't care, I'm lazy!

    1. Re:That reminds me... by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I know your post was taken as FUNNY, but I lost several hours last week installing, then uninstalling, an "important security patch" that took down the my client's Exchange Server. Had it been done automatically, the server would have simply stopped working for unknown reasons, at some MS-selected random time...

      I, for one, do NOT look forward to the coming mandatory auto-patching, but I suppose it is inevitable with Microsoft.

  3. Got it, but.. by Dynamoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Got it, but in the meantime I switched to Mozilla Firefox and I honestly don't see any reason to go back to IE apart from a handful of aggressively IE-only sites.

    --
    Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
  4. In Other News... by Snagle · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Department Of Homeland Security said it is safe to go back to using Internet Explorer as your main browser...for about 10 minutes, when the next exploit will be released.

    1. Re:In Other News... by chris_mahan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I notice that MS releases a "fix" of some sort when DoHS says: use another browser.

      Can somebody at DoHS recommend switching to another browser every day so MS will start working on the backlog of bugs?

      Another question: Are there enough of those high-flying MS developers still working on the IE codebase to make the changes in a timely manner or is there an aging skeletton crew to fix the vulnerabilities, not too motivated since they were passed up for work on .NET?

      I wonder.

      Somebody probably lit the proverbial fire under their bums this morning.

      (They know how hard it is to get people to switch browsers. It took a while (2 years) with Netscape, and NS Communicator was a POS). I guess they are at the edge of the cliff and realized there's nowhere but down.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

  5. The Vulnerability by lousyd · · Score: 5, Funny
    the Download.Ject vulnerability that hit IE late last month. The press statement says that it'll hit Windows Update later today..."

    So, the vulnerability will hit Windows Update later today? How do they know? (Other than the fact that Microsoft is running security at the Windows Update site, of course.)

    --
    If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
  6. All right!!! by k4_pacific · · Score: 5, Funny

    That means all the sys-admins will have to work late on a Friday night making sure its installed.

    Excellent timing.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  7. Loaded terminology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Late last month"

    vs.

    "A week or so ago"

    I know Microsoft is not one for timely updates, but this wording makes it sound like Microsoft has been sitting on this particular problem a lot longer than they have.

  8. Re:Um by Zed2K · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can make it completely automatic on 2000 also.

  9. What about ActiveX? by jZnat · · Score: 4, Informative

    They might've found one way to prevent the auto-download, but there are still plenty of ways to force a download using ActiveX. Even with that, there are still a few ways to run them too; methods that are still unknown to most assholes trying to get you to buy their pills that give you bigger penis-breasts-ego-wallet-spyware-car-wife-mom-WMDs .

    --
    'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  10. late last month means by Zed2K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Late last month actually means June 25th. Which by my count was only 1 week ago. But it wouldn't be a bash microsoft topic without a little twisting and manipulation.

  11. Coming soon... by sleighb0y · · Score: 5, Funny

    Download.Ject.A
    Download.Ject.B
    Download.Ject.C
    Download.Ject.D..............

  12. IE Features by johnhennessy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What use are IEs extra features if they have to be turned off by default.

    ActiveX should never have been embedded into a browser in the way it has been. Yet most of the sites that I have to use IE for is because of ActiveX controls.

    Microsoft tricked a lot of the world into using ActiveX and now they're paying the price.

    I can hear the support conversations already -
    "Yes, if your security zone is set to high your computer won't be vulnerable. But if you want to view anything with ActiveX (read: multimedia) you'll have to turn these vulnerabilities back on."

    Does anyone else find this mildly insane ?

    --
    [ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
  13. Re:Um by sid+crimson · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't need the Euro conversion utility. I don't need windows media player 9.


    Autoupdate only installs "critical" patches. WM9 and the Euro tool are not such updates.

    -sid
  14. Microsoft released a fix a long time ago by Sheepdot · · Score: 5, Informative
    Ever wondered how IE exploits get a whole executable to your computer?

    Wonder no more. 11 months of IE exploits and at least a year or two's worth of future exploits can be avoided with one simple registry change. The problem that MS has isn't that they are incompetent, it's that they insist on leaving default features that are used by 1% of administrators like myself.

    98% of spyware released since January 2004 can be avoided with the above registry fix. If you think that statistic is outrageous, I challenge you to find one piece of malware installed without using ADODB.Stream in one way, shape, or form. Be forewarned, I make and research IE exploits for a living and wouldn't make this kind of a claim without having the data to back it up.

    1. Re:Microsoft released a fix a long time ago by jesser · · Score: 4, Informative

      11 months of IE exploits and at least a year or two's worth of future exploits can be avoided with one simple registry change.

      The registry change you point to only affects the ADODB.Stream object. While holes involving ADODB.Stream may have made up a large porportion of successful exploits by spyware (as you claim), there have been other arbitrary-code-execution vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer during the time period you mention.

      I'm guessing that there have been several zone-jumping holes, and ADODB.Stream makes all zone-jumping holes into arbitrary-code-execution holes. Is that what you mean by "using ADODB.Stream in one way, shape, or form"?

      I make and research IE exploits for a living and wouldn't make this kind of a claim without having the data to back it up.

      I find and fix Mozilla security holes as a hobby and I think you're making stuff up.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
  15. Yippee! by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Despite all our whining and moaning, (and the fact that this bug was the straw that broke the Camel's Back and I switched to mozilla and thunderbird) Microsoft did act pretty fast here. It was less than a week, wasn't it?

    And, while it's unfortunate that many people don't (or can't) run Windows Update, it works well for people with fast connections who are behind firewalls so their systems don't get screwed up before they can patch them!

    1. Re:Yippee! by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was less than a week, wasn't it?

      Nope

  16. I'm already patched! by SnarfQuest · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft e-mailed me the patch some time ago, like they do with all their other security updates. I install them all as they come in, and keep my system virus free!

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  17. Dear Microsoft, by stienman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Microsoft,
    I am writing concerning downloading the most recent Windows Updates. I am unable to obtain them as your site requires IE, and the government recently suggested that users cease use of IE.

    Please help!

    -Adam

  18. Attack and solution known since Aug. 2003 by weld · · Score: 5, Interesting
    See Full Disclosure list for an attack that used same technique back in Aug. 2003:

    FullDisclosure: ADODB.Stream object

    Any attack vector that relies on an ActiveX control can be stopped by setting the killbit. This is IE security 101.


    -weld

  19. IE Patches no worse than viruses? by MooseByte · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Second, I have never -- that means NOT EVER -- seen an IE fix that broke my machine worse than a virus would."

    Hmmm. Well THERE's a ringing endorsement....

  20. IE Download.Ject Exploit *not* fixed by yeremein · · Score: 4, Informative
    ... this update is actually just a configuration change that disables the ADODB.Stream object from within Internet Explorer.
    The stream object contains several methods for reading and writing binary files and text files. When this by-design functionality is combined with known security vulnerabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer, an Internet Web site could execute script from the Local Machine zone.

    No security vulnerabilities have actually been fixed here; all that's happened is that some functionality (which exacerbated existing security holes and was probably a bad idea to begin with) has been disabled.

  21. Security and MS "Getting it" by geomon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Okay, everyone has had a great deal of fun at Microsoft's expense today with the stories of Dept of Homeland Security dumping IE, and Microsoft taking nearly a month to fix a BIG exploit in IE. But I wonder if Microsoft's problems are less a function of them 'getting it' as much as it is a case of them being a 'victim of their own success'. Follow along with me for a minute.

    When MS started its rise to the top, they hired as many of the brightest minds as they could to make their software the best of class. While many of us probably find the corner-cutting a bit too much to take, it is possible to have both world-class software while meeting a marketing deadline. It happens, but less frequently than MS or its defenders/supporters would like to think it does (lightning striking the same point twice *without* a lightning rod).

    They continued to compete heavily in the OS market despite the fact that they initially wanted to be nothing more than a computer language business. The OS was to be the cash cow that would allow them to be a more effective language business. But now they own the OS business and are driving their business model into other ventures (consoles, entertainment centers, telephones, automotive brainboxes, etc). They just follow the same formula that lead to their smashing success in moving into the OS and office app market: buy the best brains in the field and use their project management skills and VOILA!, they are the new masters of the [insert market segment].

    But consider the sandbox their bright minds play in: a homogeneous computing environment with computer scientists guarding the facility from outside intrusion. As has been noted in another slashdot article, Microsoft's products work wonderfully inside of Microsoft's campus.

    They have extremely talented people working with the highest-end equipment in an environment where everything works nearly 100% of the time. Is it so surprising that they do not view the world the way we do?

    After all, most of the companies that I have worked for are staffed with (largely) computer-illiterate people and whose firewall is maintained by a PFY with a high-school diploma.

    Perhaps it would be better for Microsoft if they force their developers to create their products in environments that their customers use. In fact, maybe they should send their developers to test their products in the heterogeneous environments of their customers for a month or two.

    Let them work the bugs out on their time for a change.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"