Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP SP2 Impressions
A roundup of concerns and problems with Windows XP SP2 from the early adopters: Many, many users are reporting problems with SP2 limiting outbound TCP/IP connections. This appears to be nailing anyone who makes heavy network use of their machine, including especially users running P2P applications. A Microsoft blog rounds up some reports, as does SANS. Microsoft has objected to people helping them distribute SP2.
Your list of 'impressions' is nothing but bad things people are saying. Any links to the other views?
If not, simply change the title to "Bad things popping up with SP2" or something to that effect.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Just so there isn't a bunch of FUD being spread, the limit is on INCOMPLETE outbound connections. There is no limit on COMPLETED connections. This should only affect network scanners such as nmap.
XP SP2: Are P2P, Port Scanning, and Port-Opening Programs Slower?
Check for the error code!
By design SP2 limits the number of simultaneous incomplete outbound TCP connection attempts. Who cares? This mostly stops trojans.
Run the event checker as described in the article above. You'll prove to yourself that you don't have a problem.
... you can disable it with this.
I read through some of the "reviews" linked through a MS employee's? blog. They were mostly people saying that the install went well but they have minor issues with it (ie slow downs).
Personally I have installed it and have been using it since I learned of its release on Slashdot a couple weeks ago. It's nothing impressive for me but I didn't notice any slow downs.
I griped about my personal issues with the updated "features" and the nagging it causes.
YMMV.
The BBC has a pretty good article about it, entitled "Concerns over key Windows update". Seems like there are plenty of things going wrong..
CHANGES DUE IN SP2
Pop-up ads blocked
Revamped firewall on by default
Outlook Express, Internet Explorer and Windows Messenger warn about attachments
Origins of downloaded files logged
Web graphics in e-mail no longer loaded by default Some spyware blocked
Users regularly reminded about Windows Updates
Security Center brings together information about anti-virus, updates and firewall
Protection against buffer over-runs
Windows Messenger Service turned off by default
The "Origins of downloaded files logged" feature troubles me a little. What do they mean by "downloaded files"? Do HTML files count as "downloaded files"? What do they want to keep track of and log my downloaded files? How will they know if I use another browser and download files using that instead of IE? What about the other files I download through File sharing applications?
What log "origins of downloaded files" at all? Does it improve security in any way? If they were logging keys/certificates of software updates (to AV software for example), it would make a little sense (but not a whole lot, it shouldn't concern the OS at all), but this feature sounds a heck lot more like a Big Brother OS thing, something like IE tracking all websites visited in a hidden+undeletable folder for the suits.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
the only safe way is straight from microsoft
Did you just say that?
The limit is enfored if a previous connection attempt to a host has failed.
There is no limit if connection if the connection attempt was sucessful.
Licences have no effect.
There is no limit on the number of connections.
You will probably reach the memory limit of your system before you reach the maximum number of connections that XP can support.
This was from the HTBugTraq mailing list a few days ago.
To: NTBUGTRAQ at LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM
Subject: XP SP2 - Statement of the NTBugtraq list
Ok, so I feel like I need to do this, hopefully its understandable.
1. XP SP2 is the most significant security effort Microsoft has ever produced. Granted, it may not be a "silver bullet", or solve all problems, but it is significant in so many ways that we as a security community cannot fail to acknowledge it. I admire "discoverers" as much as the next, but before XP SP2 can be written off it will take many, many, vulnerability announcements.
a) IMO, this is the first time that Microsoft has put security over existing, and frequently used, features.
b) IMO, this is the first time that Microsoft has accepted the fact that their choice is going to lead to "some" incompatibilities.
c) IMO, this is the first time that Microsoft has taken a stand against ISV who are definitely making money out of some features they (MS) made available to them.
2. I, at least, as NTBugtraq Editor, believe we, as the NTBugtraq community, need to stand behind Microsoft's efforts. That means we need to continue to endorse XP SP2 despite what problems have arisen or may arise (within obvious reason.) The media is only going to state the problems. They cannot appreciate, nor do they believe their customers are willing to pay for, stories about XP SP2 successes.
So, I want to hear from you, every one of you, regarding XP SP2 success or failure. Obviously, I want those stories in as much detail as you can provide.
There are, no doubt, some (many?) applications which will not be compatible with XP SP2. I say they represent Vendors who are not prepared to accept the responsibilities we've always felt they should have as reasonably security-minded Vendors. They've had lots of time to figure out how to make their apps compatible, and have *chosen* not to.
I offer any Vendor who feels Microsoft left them "in the lurch", regarding their problems with XP SP2. a forum to express their problems.
Equally, I offer all NTBugtraq subscribers a place to state the problems they are encountering with an ISV application.
It is extremely important for corporate environments to get XP SP2 deployed to all home systems running XP. Let's make sure the media has the right information.
Cheers, Russ - NTBugtraq Editor
I have a view. It hasnt caused a problem on any machine in my office, and I can only say that my personal machine at least "feels" more responsive.
Look, this is slashdot. They aren't going to be objective. For years the whine has been "MSFT default security is teh suck". MS releases a service pack that locks the boxes down reasonably well. Now that's something to complain about: "my kazaa is teh broked!"
Limiting outbound TCP connections to something sane make sense. Let the extreme P2P kiddies relax the rules manually. On the majority of desktops (not SERVERS) out there, an inordinate amount of outbound traffic is a sign of something bad, like a backdoored spam relay or the machine has been taken over as a DDoS drone.
SP2 crashed a lot of machines that were already exploited. Good. They were already broken. Now those guys can go to Best Buy, who will format and reinstall for them, juice them up with SP2, and there's one less source of SPAM/DDoS/Worms/stupidness.
IMO, SP2 was a huge step in the right direction, and confirmation to me that MSFT is doing more than paying lip service to security.
Of course, this is slashdot, and everything they do is wrong.
It's worth noting that I've never borked a windows box installing a service pack, all the way back to win 95. On the other hand, I've lost track of how much time I've spent cleaning up after typing "emerge -uD world". I thought I'd mention that so I can ensure I'll be modded troll. It's true, though, I swear it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
...even if it isn't true.
Ya'll complain that Microsoft doesn't care about security, but when they release a MASSIVE security patch, you try to find (and if that fails, fabricate) any and all tiny inconveniences it causes.
As others here have pointed out, it doesn't block ALL outbound TCP connections, just incomplete ones. Would it kill an editor to come out and say for once that "Microsoft did a pretty good job here."?
And no, I'm not new here.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
From the Microsoft doc mentioned in the article:
What new functionality is added to this feature in Windows XP Service Pack 2?
Restricted traffic over raw sockets
Detailed description
A very small number of Windows applications make use of raw IP sockets, which provide an industry-standard way for applications to create TCP/IP packets with fewer integrity and security checks by the TCP/IP stack. The Windows implementation of TCP/IP still supports receiving traffic on raw IP sockets. However, the ability to send traffic over raw sockets has been restricted in two ways:
TCP data cannot be sent over raw sockets.
UDP datagrams with invalid source addresses cannot be sent over raw sockets. The IP source address for any outgoing UDP datagram must exist on a network interface or the datagram is dropped.
Why is this change important? What threats does it help mitigate?
This change limits the ability of malicious code to create distributed denial-of-service attacks and limits the ability to send spoofed packets, which are TCP/IP packets with a forged source IP address.
John
- Things truely do seem to be snappy. I am not sure where to attribute this, but it is welcome.
- My notebook has wireless which had the annoying habit of showing that there wasn't a wireless connection (the disconnected red x) coming out of hibernation even though it was fully operational. That appears to be fixed.
- I was afraid that the firewall would prove to be annoying, but it actually works pretty well. When I load ICQ, Activestate Komodo, or other applications that try and used blocked ports, it pops up asking if I want to unblock things. The old SP1 firewall didn't do this.
- IE's popup blocker is pretty slick. It will show a little dropdown area above the current page asking about the popup, if it should be displayed, etc. Neat. I do wish Firefox would do this instead of the small icon in the lower right of Firefox's window. It isn't enough to make me stop using Firefox, though.
Now, for the stuff I find annoying.- Their Windows Security Alerts interface isn't compatible with my corporate Norton I have from my work place. It isn't a big whoop, but I am surprised they don't work together.
- Some of my folder settings have changed. I am not sure why, but Microsoft feels the status bar shouldn't be on by default. To hit this point home, it changed it back to disabled after the install. Come on.....
- Along those lines, they decided to mess with my sound scheme. I normally turn all of that off, but sure enough after reboot it is back in all its glory!
- A lot of the wireless stuff has been funneled into wizards, need to find a way to turn that stuff off.
- IE and PNG is still pretty broken. Alpha doesn't work, and that problem where the colors are slightly off of what they actually are is still there. You would have thought that they would have addressed some of that stuff!
There you go, a user's point of view. Take it for what it's worth....Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
Other than that it's fine; I turned off the firewall; I'm already NAT'd and have limited ports of entry anyway.
The nice thing about the firewall is that every program that isn't signed that wants to become a server (listen on a port) has to get your permission first. That makes it more likely that you'll catch a malicious program like spyware before it starts sending your browsing activities off to the deep dark jungle of the internet.
Your standard off-the-shelf router from BestBuy won't do that for you.
Unless you run something equivalent like ZoneAlarm, I would suggest you turn it back on.
Of course. But Microsoft warned everyone that SP2 was more concerned with security than it was with compatibility. The fact that some custome written software breaks should not be a surprise to anyone.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I'll give you my impression, because mine is positive. I've not noticed the limited tcp connection problem, the firewall works and doesn't completely suck (as basic as it may be), and overall stability is pretty good. The anti-virus reminder thing is obnoxious, which is probably good for the average user. The wireless network stuff screwed up my wep settings, but the wireless config tool is a huge improvement. I haven't used IE on that machine yet, but I didn't use it before, so I wouldn't know what to say is improved. I am planning on stress testing it this weekend before setting it up on a few other machines. I've seen one sp1-related crash not happen in sp2, so something is different. It has not broken any of my applications and I do use p2p programs daily (though only shareaza, bittorrent, and direct connect). I've criticized MS many times before regarding Windows XP, but I do believe they've made some steps in the right direction, and despite the SP2 problems, MS did specifically warn that SP2 will break programs.
Of course Microsoft does not want people to distribute sp2. Any number of backdoors or things of the like may be removed at any step along the way.
SP2 has been fine for me, but it's turned slashdot puke yellow!
It must be a Microsoft conspiracy.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Security by definition must limit functionality. The best you can hope for is that the functionality limited is less valuable than the security gained.
Microsoft management has finally realized that in order to avoid the gigantic fiascos of the past year's worms, they have to limit some functionality. My guess is Microsoft engineers have been telling their management this for a long time, and finally, they were heard.
M: Is our product secure?
E: The only way to improve security is at the expense of features.
M: No way. Features sell the product.
M: We need to patch this security hole.
E: The only way to improve security is at the expense of features.
M: I still can't accept this.
M: Please, dear god, do ANYTHING to fix these security problems!
E: The only way to improve security is at the expense of features.
M: All right, all right! Do it!
I have not experienced absolutely any problem with SP2, perhaps with the exception of the terribly long install time -- it took 1-2 hours on my relatively fast machine (the backing up of files is not fast at all).
For the normal "Joe Average" user there won't be too much of a difference -- a simple reboot and the system looks just the same. IE has the pop-up blocker, which has a semi-intuitive way of adding a sites to the white-list and is a bit imperfect, IMHO (if the pop-up displays a page which has a different URL than the originating page, then the "normal" user will be confused why adding the URL of the originating site doesn't work and the pop-up still doesn't display... this is the case even for subdomains of the same principal domain).
The firewall is pretty nice, the default being to ask when some program is trying to access "the internet". BitTorrent works very fine with me and I haven't had any problems with IM programs.
So, overall, after 2 days of SP2 experience, I can only recommend it to people who still use XP.
Doomie
Let's wait until we have some real data, as in definitive reports that particular applications break.
I hate to play Devil's Advocate, but DUH... look at this from Microsoft's perspective. Having non-Microsoft sources distributing SP2 has two huge negative aspects for them:
1) Unthrottled Rollout
Having P2P'ers flooding the patch to "everyone-and-their-monkey's-uncle" destroys any potential throttle control that Microsoft might have had. Microsoft's initial plan was to trickle the rollout of SP2 out at only 25,000 downloads a day, exclusively via Windows Update. This is extremely practical due to the scope of the patch -- it makes a lot of sense for them to control the release in case a catastrophic show-stopper pops up, and also to allow developers some extra update time.
2) P2P Security Liability
Let's face it, Microsoft has a right to have their skivvies in a knot over people downloading any Windows patches from 3rd party sources. The infamous "Average Joe" (they guy who opens email viruses twice a week) isn't going to do an MD5 checksum comparison on a patch from a P2P net before running it -- who's to prevent someone from hacking up their own little "SP2" cocktail exe and distributing it? Ultimately the shit would hit the fan and Microsoft would take it in the face.
Even those who do check MD5 digits on a P2P-downloaded patch need a trusted source for the correct checksum... again, Microsoft doesn't want to be liable. Sure, it could be argued that Microsoft could provide the MD5 checksum themselves, but then "Average Joe XP User" would never check it anyway because "Microsoft says it's ok, so it must be safe!"
-----
"Cogito Eggo Sum: I think, therefore, waffle."
This guy drives me nuts. I can't stand FUD and lies.
I'm talking about the "shields up" thing. It claims if you're in "stealth mode" then your machine is invisible. This is idiotic.
Dropping incoming packets doesnt make you "invisible". If you were "invisible" and I tried to ping you, I'd get a "destination unreachable" error. If I get timeouts, I know you're there and dropping my packets. If you replied to my pings with "destination unreahables" you might trick me, unless I noticed that the destination unreachable messages were coming from the IP I was pinging (duh!).
It's as false as the "your machine is broadcasting an IP!" popups.
Fuck him and his crusade to break the internet by trying to convince people there's something to be gained by dropping incoming packets, instead of responding with a proper RST packet or ICMP message.
Linux folks, set your default firewall properties to DENY, and not DROP. It doesn't make you vulnerable, it doesn't allow SYN floods (which attack by spawning multiple server threads on a local port - an application vulnerability not a TCP/IP one).
It doesn't "hide" you from scanners, as he claims.
It doesn't prevent DDoS attacks, if I have enough bandwidth to clog your downstream, it doesnt matter what you do with all the crap I flood you with.
Actually, heh, he is doing a spin on the old "your machine is broadcasting an IP address" scam:
Many Internet connection IP addresses are associated with a DNS machine name. (But yours is not.) The presence of "Reverse DNS", which allows the machine name to be retrieved from the IP address, can represent a privacy and possible security concern for Internet consumers since it may uniquely and persistently identify your Internet account -- and therefore you -- and may disclose other information, such as your geographic location.
Uhhh, I can get that from the numeric IP, who cares about the reverse DNS. Do the RIAA do reverse DNS lookups when they launch all those suits against IPs?
This machine does have a static IP and proper DNS, so I dont know why his tool says it doesnt. Though, I don't really care.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
> How is it that there are plenty of things going wrong?
From the article: "Although 43% said the SP2 installation had gone without a hitch, 49% of those contributing had problems ranging from minor to severe. A few contributors said they had to completely rebuild a system before they could get the update to work."
I bet most of that can be chalked up to simple carelessness in installation. Simple things that people should do, but may often not, is closing all applications, temporarily disabling the on-access scanning of their anti-virus software, and also temporarily turning off a 3rd-party software firewall if possible. Worst of all is the crazy people who try to install it over an SP2 beta. They should have the good sense to uninstall the beta service pack first and go back to the SP1 they had before, then install SP2.
GET THEM INSIDE THE VAULT!
Here's a good impression:
I installed SP2 on three systems, and it worked flawlessly on all three. On my main system before SP2, XP would not allow me to install my SATA driver. I installed the SATA driver when I installed the OS, but once the OS was loaded, it referred to my SATA device as an "unknown device". Attempts to load the correct driver only caused the system to not boot.
I've been living with no driver officially installed for the device, which basically means that all the caching and performance increases that one would normally have (DMA, write caching, etc) for their hard drive were not activated on mine. Now with SP2, it let me install the driver and it booted fine without any problems. As a result, my computer runs twice as fast on almost every application and about 20 times faster when using virtual disk drivers (www.jetico.com) for container file encryption.
Their security center which monitors antivirus, firewalls, and automatic updates, as well as their HUGE automatic update selection box on startup are all good things too. I worked at a helpdesk for 6 months and 90% of the problems were users who had automatic updates turned off or set to install on notification (which they never selected).
Overall I've been very happy with it.
-=Lothsahn=-
And don't forget that people who can't send in reports after applying XP SP2 are too, to some extend, self-selecting.
Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs -> Windows Components -> Networking Services -> Peer-to-Peer "Enable Peer-to-Peer Networking Services."
It's been a while so I might have the numbers wrong...NT 4 SP4 was issued to fix NTFS which was horribly crippled by NT 4 SP3. I suffered through that.
Um, I got news for you: NT4 was released around 1996. The service pack in question was released prior to the year 2000. The product you're speaking of isn't available for sale, isn't current, and isn't even officially supported any longer. We're more than halfway through the year 2004. Isn't it time people quit judging the quality of Microsoft software by what happened almost ten years ago? Would it be fair if I judged Linux's fitness for a particular task based upon a bad experience I had with the 1.x kernel back in 1997? No, but I constantly hear Slashdotters harp about how awful Win95/NT4 was and how nice Linux kernel 2.4/2.6 is when Linux clearly has the benefit of several more years of development under its belt. If you're going to castigate Microsoft for something, castigate current products by comparing them with current alternatives. Doing anything else is comparing apples to oranges.
If such stuff came from Microsoft, it'd be called FUD, but since it comes from Linux lovers on Slashdot, it gets modded +1 Insightful. What a way to be fair and unbiased, huh?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Nope. Didn't read the article? Its not even about blocking or unblocking a port at your firewall.
Its about two things, raw sockets go bye-bye, and TCP/IP stack based limits to simultaneous outbound connections:
"The Windows implementation of TCP/IP still supports receiving traffic on raw IP sockets. However, the ability to send traffic over raw sockets has been restricted in two ways:
*TCP data cannot be sent over raw sockets.
*UDP datagrams with invalid source addresses cannot be sent over raw sockets. The IP source address for any outgoing UDP datagram must exist on a network interface or the datagram is dropped."
Also, "The TCP/IP stack now limits the number of simultaneous incomplete outbound TCP connection attempts."
Please note that this last is *not* the firewall, but the TCP/IP stack.