Slashdot Mirror


Extremely Critical IE6/SP2 Exploit Found

Spad writes "Secunia is reporting on three vulnerabilities in IE6 running on XP SP2. Any of these, in combination with an inappropriate behaviour where the ActiveX Data Object (ADO) model can write arbitrary files, can be exploited to compromise a user's system. Moreover, the vulnerability can be used to delete files from the user's system. Secunia says 'Solution: Use another product.'"

595 comments

  1. Test site by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Funny

    They've also posted a test site.

    No, you click it first.

    1. Re:Test site by Sirch · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hooray for Windows 98!

      Never thought I'd be saying that... *sigh*

    2. Re:Test site by MarkRose · · Score: 5, Funny

      I click it but nothing happens. When are site designers going to learn there are other browsers besides IE? Don't they know that Firefox's market sharing is growing? Clueless idiots!

      --
      Be relentless!
    3. Re:Test site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think that was supposed to be an intentional joke
      it didn't come off as one too well though

      i would have rephrased it in a more sarcastic way
      good luck w/ your moderation though

    4. Re:Test site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They also don't know what "Extremely Critical" means. If an exploit can delete arbitrary files from my systems, so what? I have backups. Annoying, yes...critical, no. I'm not surfing the web from critical machines.

      "Extremely Critical" is an exploit that can read arbitrary files on my systems, in particular, those systems that I'm not surfing with.

    5. Re:Test site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because as we all know, explorer.exe and cmd.exe aren't important files at all.

      What a tool.

    6. Re:Test site by m50d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, you find me a more critical vulnerability. One that allows nuking the bios maybe, but other than that I can't think of such a thing.

      --
      I am trolling
    7. Re:Test site by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Is it possible to nuke the bios from software? I assume you could at least nuke the firmware of a few of the devices (as that definitely can be done from software). But anything that can be done like that, can be done by this flaw.

    8. Re:Test site by skraps · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You could flash the BIOS, but the way to do that is pretty vendor-specific. I think what the GP really meant was "nuke the CMOS" - erase the settings. That can be done from software, and is generally not vendor specific. However, you will need admin privileges to do it on windows NT, 2000, XP, and 2003.

      --
      Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
    9. Re:Test site by ashot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      what a clueless idiot

      --
      -ashot
    10. Re:Test site by farnz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It allows a malicious web page to do anything on your system that you can do locally; if the user you run IE as can do it, the attacker can do it too. So, if you can read these critical files, the attacker can, too. If you can modify them, guess what? The attacker can change them too.

      If I were a black-hat planning to exploit this vulnerability, I'd put a remote control program like Back Orifice and a HTTP tunnelling program onto the web for BO to use for connectivity. Then the exploit downloads and installs them, and I have full control of your system whenever I want it.

    11. Re:Test site by Omniscientist · · Score: 1
      However, you will need admin privileges to do it on windows NT, 2000, XP, and 2003.

      Well, the attackers are in luck, since admin privileges are the default.

    12. Re:Test site by strider44 · · Score: 1

      Sorry but I've got to say that that comment is perhaps the best of the type I've seen ever. Since that was so off-topic I've disabled karma bonus, but that had me giggling for quite a while.

    13. Re:Test site by CerebusUS · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is NOT a new vulnerability. This is an upgraded severity on a vulnerability that was reported almost 3 months ago:

      From the article:
      Secunia Advisory: SA12889 Print Advisory
      Release Date: 2004-10-20
      Last Update: 2005-01-07 ...

      Changelog:
      2004-10-21: Updated advisory.
      2004-10-28: Added another workaround in "Solution" section and linked to Microsoft Knowledge Base article.
      2004-11-02: Updated with additional information in "Description" and "Solution" section.
      2004-11-29: Updated "Description" section with additional information from Paul.
      2004-12-23: Added link to US-CERT vulnerability note.
      2004-12-25: Updated "Description" section with additional information from Paul and Michael Evanchik.
      2005-01-07: Increased rating. Added link to test. Updated "Description" and "Solution" sections.

      So they upped the severity rating and added another workaround. This isn't really news. You've been vulnerable to this for almost 3 months now.

    14. Re:Test site by Chrax · · Score: 1

      "If I were a black-hat planning to exploit this vulnerability, I'd put a remote control program like Back Orifice" You misspelled script-kiddie.

    15. Re:Test site by m50d · · Score: 1

      Most modern bioses are flashable to allow them to be upgraded, you just reflash with random data and you have a really nasty virus. But it requires executing custom code, normally assembly code. Just having access to the files on the machine wouldn't be enough.

      --
      I am trolling
    16. Re:Test site by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      If Firefox is going to have any chance at competing then the developers are going to have to get on the ball and implement fully compatible functionality. It is absolutely unacceptable that the Secuna test site does not function as intended.

      I know we all want to blame Microsoft for breaking compatibility, but face it, IE is the de facto standard. It is up to us to ensure that if it works in IE then it will work in Firefox just as well, if not better.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    17. Re:Test site by Stalks · · Score: 1

      I guess pretty much anything could be done. You could download a program using the standard ftp command and then execute it, so there is nothing stopping you from doing anything at all.

    18. Re:Test site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I clicked it, but nothing happened. Maybe because I'm using Firefox on Mac OSX? ;-)

      The Microsoft spin machine will probably be having their Internet article writing peons calling this an "Internet Exploit", in order to avoid the truth, which is that it is solely a Microsoft software security problem. Heh.

    19. Re:Test site by l3v1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also, please keep in mind that Firefox has had more high/critical security vulnerabilties in the last year than IE has

      Uhmm, without checking, just remember that most of the holes IE has are years old. Who cares whether Firefox had more bugs in a time period, if those get damn quickly corrected, and btw most of last years' FFox holes are only pre-1.0.

      And one more thing: the dogs ass, maybe that's not the worst place one can be :) At least FFox users are out of that ass, while those with IE... well use your imagination :D :P

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    20. Re:Test site by sonicattack · · Score: 1

      Just having access to the files on the machine wouldn't be enough.

      Real operating systems treat devices just like files, and I do believe Microsoft has something similar to this in their products.

    21. Re:Test site by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 2, Interesting


      What you mean is that we have been vulnerable to this since IE6 was available waaayyyyy back, but it wasn't known until 3 months ago, and that they just realised how easily exploitable it is 2 days ago.

    22. Re:Test site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slow down there buddy, no matter how true it is, you should never talk about yourself like that.

    23. Re:Test site by flynns · · Score: 1

      Deleting files is for sissies!! I've got a patch I'm ready to submit that formats the user's drive instead!!

      Firefox will ALWAYS be leaps and bounds ahead of IE, and it's people like me that're here to PROVE IT!! :D

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
    24. Re:Test site by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know we all want to blame Microsoft for breaking compatibility, but face it, IE is the de facto standard.

      I think that the Firefox developers should give credit where its due. They should organize another pledge campaign to raise $10,000.00 to give to Microsoft as a token of good will for all of the advertising that Microsoft has done for Firefox. Although the actual advertising contribution of Microsoft is at least a thousand times greater, this would help coax Microsoft toward continuing their generous support and [this is the serious part] the press would eat it up, contributing another $5M worth of free advertising.

    25. Re:Test site by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Actually it didn't work for me either and I'm running IE6 SP1. Perhaps they shouldn't code it in javascript. I am concerned about this vulnerability but I can't test for it because those idiots decided to use javascript for the test. Grrr.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    26. Re:Test site by timothyf · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Interesting... While I don't think that giving the money directly to Microsoft would fly (Microsoft is for-profit after all), perhaps a donation to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would work. I'd say the net effect would be nearly the same.

    27. Re:Test site by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      While I don't think that giving the money directly to Microsoft would fly (Microsoft is for-profit after all)

      Well, that's the double-dip media angle--the first story is about collecting the money, and then when Microsoft refuses to accept it, the Firefox team can donate it to a charity in the name of Microsoft & Bill Gates--to the EFF, for instance. The press will explode.

    28. Re:Test site by Stinking+Pig · · Score: 1

      Try 14 days ago -- it hit Bugtraq on 12/25/2004 12:31 PM.

      In other words, Slashdot continues to fall farther and farther behind on the "news" aspect of that "news for nerds" thing, which must be why they've changed the slogan to "It is what IT is".

      --
      "Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
    29. Re:Test site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Doesn't do anything under Lynx.

    30. Re:Test site by POLAX · · Score: 1

      What sort of complete rubbish is this? IE is more of a "de facto" nuisance rather than any sort of "standard"!

    31. Re:Test site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're taking slashdot posts a tad too seriously.

    32. Re:Test site by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      I tried it in WINE and it didn't work either. Is this a known issue with WINE, is my setup fubar, or should I be reporting this as non-working functionality to the developers?

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    33. Re:Test site by rjahrman · · Score: 1

      The whole point of the test is that it SHOULDN'T open a window . . .

    34. Re:Test site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, whenever I try to experience these new flaws in Mozilla and Firefox they never show up in IE?

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/07/mozilla_ fl aws/

      When will you people stop acting as if any software is secure. You live in a small minded world.

    35. Re:Test site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you review how the parent post was moderated.

    36. Re:Test site by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No, I think he actually meant flash the BIOS because that really is more severe (i.e., turn the hardware into a brick) than erasing data or whatever, and the difficulty of actually doing it is irrelevant to hypothetically discussuing its severity.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    37. Re:Test site by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      The whole point of the test is that it SHOULDN'T open a window . . .

      Are you saying IE is broken??? With 90% of the market share, IE can't be broken. It's the other browsers that are wrong!

      Hehe.

      --
      Be relentless!
    38. Re:Test site by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Now that is a great idea! You ought to go suggest it on SpreadFirefox.com (maybe they can schedule it for April Fools day or something, too).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    39. Re:Test site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You really think Firefox is secure. What a moron. The only reason Firefox isn't exploited is nobody uses it.

    40. Re:Test site by e7 · · Score: 1

      Funny, but don't forget that Transmeta had to make their processor bug-compatible with Intel, to the point that they were verifying BSODs ...

      --
      Corollary to Moore's Law: The IQ of new computer owners is declining.
    41. Re:Test site by strider44 · · Score: 1

      that's the IT slogan on it.slashdot.org. The www.slashdot.org slogan is still "news for nerds, stuff that matters".

    42. Re:Test site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is NOT a new vulnerability.

      If you haven't seen it, it's new to you!

    43. Re:Test site by Faunus · · Score: 1

      I would, but Firefox doesn't work, and since my main drive is H (H:\windows), doesn't work for me either...

  2. But can it be used to... by FullCircle · · Score: 5, Funny

    delete IE?

    or maybe install Firefox?

    --
    If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
    1. Re:But can it be used to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That would be such a hilarious exploit ;

      Joe Schmoe gets infected, and without him knowing, IE gets deleted and instead a copy of Firefox is installed...
      Ofcourse the Firefox icon being replaced by an IE-one ;)

    2. Re:But can it be used to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And finally Open Source would be truly viral :-)

    3. Re:But can it be used to... by l0b0 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Recipe for an IE-free world:
      1. Install Firefox
      2. Install an IE look-alike theme
      3. Replace the IE executable with sth pointing to FF
      4. Rejoice
    4. Re:But can it be used to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be such a hilarious exploit ;

      But you forgot to mention the part that makes it hilarious: users cannot delete IE, if I recall correctly.

    5. Re:But can it be used to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously not an MCSE.

      Also, doesn't Firefox actually leverage IE for some of it's tasks?

    6. Re:But can it be used to... by amembleton · · Score: 1

      No, otherwise it would have some trouble running on Linux.

      Stupid 20 second rule...... kill some time typing.

    7. Re:But can it be used to... by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      I'm working on it and it comes together :-D The problem is that for each version you need to make another exploit that places a script in the start menu that downloads firefox installer (in the startup directory) Now almost ready with the dutch version

    8. Re:But can it be used to... by BitchKapoor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a matter of fact you can delete IE, but Windows quickly restores a backup copy of it from somewhere. However, if you copy another file over C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IEXPLORE.EXE or even just delete it and quickly rename another file to IEXPLORE.EXE before the backup is restored, Windows doesn't seem to revert your changes (this is probably to allow upgrades). I'm not sure how Windows decides when and how to make a backup. When I replace IE by a simple text file, after deleting the text file, the original IE is restored. But when I replace IE by a copy of HMMAPI.DLL, it seems to stick -- in fact, if I then re-replace this with the real IEXPLORE.EXE, wait a while, and then delete it, IEXPLORE.EXE gets reverted back to the backup copy of HMMAPI.DLL!

    9. Re:But can it be used to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't use FireFox since the tabs can't be at the bottom of the window.

    10. Re:But can it be used to... by thechink · · Score: 1

      Yes they can, just install this extension.

      http://www.pryan.org/mozilla/site/TheOneKEA/tabpre fs/

    11. Re:But can it be used to... by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      Windows/DOS is rather stupid and easily fooled. The way I do it is by creating a directory with the name of the file I don't want 'restored.' It's prefectly acceptable for there to be a directory named IEXPLORE.EXE.

      Not that I get into that sort of wrassling match with Windows these days. The Windows boxes here aren't used much for online stuff.

    12. Re:But can it be used to... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      How about just turn off ActiveX for untrusted sites?

      I always have IE ask before running ActiveX stuff from anywhere. I almost always say no.

    13. Re:But can it be used to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So did you recommend abandoning Linux a couple of days ago when a root exploit was found?

  3. Not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm... I tried the Secunia site and IE just blocks the activex control, saying it's unsafe.

    The jmcardle site gets past IE, but Norton detects it and immediately blocks access. Nothing happens.

    1. Re:Not working by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

      I tried the Secunia site and nothing happens. No really, nothing at all happens.

      I run FireFox. :)

    2. Re:Not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't get to the site. lynx complains about
      unsupported URL Scheme. Running lynx on Solaris. :)

    3. Re:Not working by ashot · · Score: 1

      I have a fully pathched SP2, and it worked on me.. however I've disabled most of the ActiveX and other precautions because I don't use IE.

      --
      -ashot
    4. Re:Not working by weicco · · Score: 2, Funny

      Internet Explorer Script Error

      An error has occured in the script on this page.

      Line: 2
      Char: 324
      Error: Unterminated string constant
      blaablaablaa
      Do you want to continue running scripts on this page?

      Hell no!

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    5. Re:Not working by TheBurningDog · · Score: 1

      I just tried it on an up to date but stock configuration IE (because I never use it outside of testing vulnerabilities ;))

      After clicking the link a help window opened, then a command prompt, and finally the security warning page.

    6. Re:Not working by NewWaveNet · · Score: 1

      While this has been said numerous times already, the simple answer is Firefox/Mozilla. To address the Norton issue, in my humble opinion you shouldn't be forced to pay a 3rd party company a subscription fee just because you refuse to use a different browser. When I graduate I May, my school disables updates for the Enterprise Edition of NAV they provide currently enrolled students. Most of the time I have NAV disabled though...have you ever tried to play WoW on a laptop with it running? Or music production...you can nix the almost non-existant delay with multiple midi instruments. While I do turn it on when I don't wholey trust the source of files I'm dealing with, it's just not worth the noticably large decrease in my run-of-the-mill activities. Oh, and since I'm a poor, broke, almost graduate, you better believe I'm not forking over money when -- atleast in this case -- there are free solutions to avoid the vulnerability altogether and, when needed, just makes my T42 Thinkpad a word processing only machine. I'm not familure with the older vulnerability others have mentioned -- the one Norton blocked for you -- but again, if this is a known vulnerability, why isn't there a fix? Paying another company to cover Microsoft's incompetency isn't my bag.

    7. Re:Not working by gnuyarlathotep · · Score: 1

      I went to the test page (I have XP SP2, all patches installed, up to date Norton AV, spybot, I have IE6 set on HIGH security, and a I am NAT'ed and firewalled) and the exploit worked totally as described. Maybe if the user turns EVERYTHING off in IE you might be safe, but the above precautions are more than 999,999 out of a million users take and I was still vulnerable. This is one of the worst holes in internet history. 93% of the internet users in the world can be affected by it ... this is HUGE. Active X needs to be scrapped and IE's useless hooks into the Windows kernel need to be removed. A defect this bad would get GM, Ford or Maytag sued for billions.

    8. Re:Not working by Zorilla · · Score: 2, Funny

      I couldn't get the site to work on my 1936 Stutz Bearcat. I tried attaching an onion to my belt. It was a yellow onion because those were the style at the time...

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    9. Re:Not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I'm running on Opera right now, (cause of my preference for tabbed browsing, not security related) I was curious and tried it out on my IE browser.

      Nothing happened.

      I have SP2 installed, IE6. Any help?

    10. Re:Not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks... This is the funnies post I've read on Slashdot in a month. Mod this one up!

  4. Heh by tektek · · Score: 3, Funny

    Even a fully patched sp2 is in danger. Good news for Firefox fanboys?

    1. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      A fully patched and left wide open XP/SP2 might be in danger.

      But one with proper security controls put in place like a good virus scanner/firewall/IE settings/anti spyware and creating a non-admin user for web browsing will not be affected. If you're hit by this one, you have only yourself to blame. All of the above should be installed and working before you go online.

      Common sense is the biggest protection, people.

    2. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > But one with proper security controls put in place like a good
      > virus scanner/firewall/IE settings/anti spyware and creating a
      > non-admin user for web browsing

      Funny. I don't have any of those in place on my Linux, Amiga or OSX boxes and I'm not having any security problems.

      I'm browsing the same internet as everyone else. I don't care to stop myself going to a sight because it might contain spyware either. Might be something else that's problematic for the rest of the world, like say... insecure Windows? Yeah that's the ticket!

    3. Re:Heh by Owndapan · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The exploit worked on my fully patched WinXP SP2 box, running EZ Firewall/Antivirus suite, and running as a non-admin user.

      I think this exploit deserves a bit more attention than "serves clueless n00bs right". Although to be fair my default browser (FireFox) was unaffected ;)

    4. Re:Heh by yRabbit · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the Opera, Lynx, Konqueror, Links, Netscape, Mozilla, Mosaic, Safari, Galeon, NeoPlanet, and telnet fanboys ;)

    5. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's amazing how the WinFanboys can live in such denial. It's like people you know who live in a really bad neighbourhood and deny there's anything wrong. "Oh we're OK, we live in a safe area. As long as you put bars on all your windows, don't leave the house when it's dark, put up bullet proof windows, and don't make eye contact with the neighbours like sensible people you're perfectly safe". It's the old "Apart from how it's broken, it works perfectly" line. Used car salesmen use similar techniques. "She blows a bit of smoke and rattles some, but you know this was one of the best models made. They don't make 'em like they used to (watch out for the leaky floorpan too)"

      The blame-the-users mentality also serves to protect MS itself. If the general consensus is that users are at fault for succumbing to vulnerabilities then MS has no responsibility to fix it, and is under no pressure to do so.

      Keep sucking it up will you. There's a good boy.

    6. Re:Heh by Koohoolinn · · Score: 1

      But one with proper security controls put in place like a good virus scanner/firewall/IE settings/anti spyware and creating a non-admin user for web browsing will not be affected. If you're hit by this one, you have only yourself to blame.

      Your absolutely right but how many ordinary users have enough knowledge to configure it correctly?
      Besides running AV, firewall & anti-spyware programs really take a lot of resources and lots of programs need admin privileges to even run.

      --
      Deze sig is in 't Nederlands geschreven.
    7. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, if your grandma hasn't spent at least $50 on third-party security software plus a yearly antivirus subscription fee, plus made sure to configure her firewall correctly and run virus and spyware scans weekly, plus made sure to create a restricted user account that she runs IE under, why then she has only herself to blame. Obviously Microsoft is doing everything in its power to protect her.

    8. Re:Heh by mattcasters · · Score: 1

      I agree, the exploit works on my machine too. It has IE6/SP2, Norton AV 2005 software firewall, extra hardware firewall and all the latest patches installed (including Firefox ;-).

      I'd expect this machine to be fairly safe.

      Oh well, I'm not using IE6 anyway.

      Matt

      --
      News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
    9. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      neoplanet==iefrontend

    10. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but the fact is you did click on a site that has vulnerabilities to prove. If you hadn't done that then you wouldn't have had any problems. I realise it's a false situation in this case trying to try out a vulnerability, but in the real world if you avoid clicking on the types of sites that are likely to try exploits on you then you're perfectly safe

      end of story. Use common sense

    11. Re:Heh by m50d · · Score: 1

      And what about when a trusted site gets cracked? Don't pretend it won't happen, because it does.

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Yeah, if your grandma hasn't spent at least $50 on third-party
      > security software

      Huh??????

      Yearly antivirus subscription
      Firewall
      Virus Scanner
      Spyware Scanner
      Restricted User Account
      IE

      All of the above can be gotted free. Sayeing it's for cost is only throweing a red herring into the mix.

    13. Re:Heh by RWerp · · Score: 1

      What about skipstone and dillo?

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    14. Re:Heh by tilk · · Score: 1
      Funny. I don't have any of those in place on my Linux, Amiga or OSX boxes
      You are running the browser as root? You're screwed.
    15. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You are running the browser as root? You're screwed.

      Done it for years. It's never hurt a thing, despite the scare stories.

    16. Re:Heh by putaro · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't consider myself a Firefox fanboy, but the last round of security holes in IE caused me to junk it finally and switch to Firefox. This is crap news for everyone who uses IE for any reason. If you haven't gotten off it yet and you're able to, you should!

    17. Re:Heh by sydb · · Score: 1

      Still, I'd suggest you stop running everything as root, that's just asking for trouble.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    18. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trusted sites get cracked anyway, usually by employees.

    19. Re:Heh by R.Caley · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...But one with proper security controls put in place like a good virus scanner/firewall/IE settings/anti spyware and creating a non-admin user for web browsing will not be affected.

      And a car with the wheels nailed to the ground, the doors welded and all the windows painted over is pretty safe from theves. When you saw those precautions advised in the manufacturer's literature, would you buy the car?

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    20. Re:Heh by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But one with proper security controls put in place like a good virus scanner/firewall/IE settings/anti spyware and creating a non-admin user for web browsing will not be affected"

      Right - and Granny isn't supposed to be able to run Linux, but she can do all that security stuff on Windows, right?

      Well, I actually believe she can IF someone tells her she needs to...

      And she can learn Linux, too, if she decides Windows is a piece of bloated, unreliable, unstable, expensive, insecure CRAP...

      How many YEARS past the last "security initiative" from Microsoft are we now?

      Why don't they just spend some of that $30 billion they pissed away on their stock prop PR stunt and just BUY the entire computer security INDUSTRY and integrate it?

      Does anybody REALLY believe Longhorn is going to be secure?

      Gimme a break...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    21. Re:Heh by real_smiff · · Score: 1

      the AC was funny & insightful. "throweing a red herring into the mix"? mixed metaphores. being free has nothing to do with it. its a level of understanding that most people don't have, and shouldn't be expected to have, and will in fact never have. being free is more likely to just make grandma think its worse...

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

    22. Re:Heh by molnarcs · · Score: 5, Informative
      Bad news for everyone - except for some open source advocacy. Gives a nice opportunity to show how MS talks bullshit - when they talk about security. Did anyone notice the date when Microsoft was notified?

      Provided and/or discovered by:
      1) Discovered independently by:
      * http-equiv
      * Andreas Sandblad of Secunia Research (reported to Microsoft on 2004-10-13).

      That's right, Microsoft "we take security very seriously" Corporation has known about this vulnerability for almost two months, yet they leaved it unpatched? Why?

    23. Re:Heh by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Although to be fair my default browser (FireFox) was unaffected ;)"

      p.s. we got the exploit to upload a trojaned copy of firefox onto your machine. Best regards!

    24. Re:Heh by legirons · · Score: 1

      "And a car with the wheels nailed to the ground, the doors welded and all the windows painted over is pretty safe from theves."

      You don't live in Manchester, do you?

    25. Re:Heh by Mike+O'Hara · · Score: 1
      But one with proper security controls put in place like a good virus scanner/firewall/IE settings/anti spyware and creating a non-admin user for web browsing will not be affected. If you're hit by this one, you have only yourself to blame. All of the above should be installed and working before you go online.

      Most anti-virus software wants to go online to check for an update - and may not protect you from the latest exploit/virus before it has downloaded the update.

      I have suffered in exactly this situation when installing Windows/etc from scratch on new machines.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    26. Re:Heh by ettlz · · Score: 1

      Quite. He forgot the flameproof coating.

    27. Re:Heh by l3v1 · · Score: 1, Troll

      [...]they leaved it unpatched? Why?[...]

      Questions, questions. Patching doesn't bring money fast you know, like buying up an antispyware company, giving away their/our software then charge for the updates.

      Microsoft brains doesn't work like our humble ones. We seek logic, practicality, usability, security, they seek revenue. These don't always overlap.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    28. Re:Heh by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, right.
      My 80 year old mother used to use WebTV (MS),
      but every time something happened to the system,
      the "vendor lock-in" caused big problems. For
      example, her ink jet printer died: only certain
      manufacturers and models are supported, and such
      printers are no longer available. MS WebTV's
      solution: buy a brand new WebTV and printer.

      She was tired of the MS tax, but was interested
      in a new Dell/HP computer. From a security
      standpoint (XP/SP2/IE6 problems), I argued
      against her decision. She is now learning
      about the joys and frustrations of computers,
      albeit safely, with a new Apple Mac.

      The price differential, system wise, pretty much
      disappears when the constant series of security
      updates, system patches, virus signature updates,
      and scanning for viri and spyware are taken into
      account. (There was just no way that I could
      get her onto a used Wintel box running OpenBSD.
      I live 1000 miles away, and there would be no
      one locally to support her, training, etc.)

    29. Re:Heh by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      Yeah, and your linux box is just oh so secure..

      Er, what linux box? .

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    30. Re:Heh by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      He forgot the flameproof coating.

      Fire? I thought Manchester was still at the `bang the rocks together guys' stage.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    31. Re:Heh by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      Insightful? Mods, it's not insightful if it's BS.

      Your virus scanner, firewall, anti-spyware software and possibly even a non-admin user aren't going to stop this vulnerability. Your IE-Settings can, but only if EVERYTHING is turned off, which is not really feasable as it disables any sort of functionality that people are looking for from a web browser. Also, are you going to explain to all of the computer illiterate people that they need to create a second user just for browsing the web? No, of course not. This model works on other operating systems because a non-admin user can actually use programs effectively. Unfortunatley, many programs for windows are written like crap and require administrative rights.

      Safe computing habits are VERY important, but don't try to take the blame for security holes and throw it on the end user.

    32. Re:Heh by Legodude522 · · Score: 1

      that's my grandmom! But she is interested in firefox but i'm not sure if it works completely well with pogo.com

      --
      Because I have low karma, I need pills.
    33. Re:Heh by Boggild · · Score: 1

      Because a patch would brake compatility with it's own defacto standard? Maybe it was harder than they thought to patch this and keep all the features they want.

    34. Re:Heh by Bachus9000 · · Score: 1

      Wait, isn't Neoplanet based off IE and thus susceptible to its flaws? I thought it used to be, but maybe that's changed.

    35. Re:Heh by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      You forgot Camino and OmniWeb :-)

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    36. Re:Heh by geekboy642 · · Score: 0

      A question for you, Mr. Marthisdil:
      Do you know of an exploit for any *nix system that gives an attacker full root permissions, simply by browsing to a web page?

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    37. Re:Heh by spitefulcrow · · Score: 1

      /. posted a Firefox arbitrary code execution exploit on all platforms a few days ago. I suggest you stop running user applications as root.

      --
      Sorry, my karma just ran over your dogma.
    38. Re:Heh by geekboy642 · · Score: 0

      Stop running as root? Hah! My root shell is /bin/false.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    39. Re:Heh by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Sorry but not all IE users are affected by this. Only the clueless ones who run IE with Javascript and/or ActiveX enabled. There's no excuse for that, and I have no sympathy for such people. If you run IE you just have to run with ActiveX and Javascript disabled. End of story. Nothing to see here...

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    40. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, Microsoft "we take security very seriously"

      Security is and has always been their top priority...financial security for shareholders, that is.

      This is a good thing. Really. Corporations that never lose sight of this goal are trustworthy, insofar as they are predictable.

      The corporations I don't trust are the ones that claim to "do no harm" or "police themselves", as these concepts are antithetical to a corporation's very existence. It's a suckers ploy to try to leave the fox guarding the henhouse.

      Do I trust Microsoft? I trust them more than any other corporation to serve their own interests. Their efficiency is exhibited by their success. Ensuring they don't cross certain lines remains the job of consumers and society.

    41. Re:Heh by SunFan · · Score: 1

      Why?

      Imagine working in a factory, where there is a "to do" bin to your left and a "finished" bin to your right. You can assemble widgets at a rate of 50 an hour (good for you!). However, the management has decided, based on productivity research, to put the widgets into your left bin at a rate of 55 per hour. You keep up for two days, you try your hardest, but you just can't do it. You try to finish out the week, but your energy has been fully tapped. You quit the following Monday to work at the gas station convenience store.

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    42. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This has GOT to be the most insightful and valuable comment I have ever, ever read here at Slashdot. Did you hear that everybody? You SHOULD!

      Write it down.

    43. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Microsoft brains doesn't work like our humble ones.

      Oh, fuck right off. THE LAST term that will ever, ever be used to describe the Slashdot mentality is humble. The fact that you used it with, presumably, a straight face, goes to show exactly how hilariously warped this place is. The misplaced ego of Slashdot users has become an Internet legend, and here you are extolling the humility of FOSS zealots.

      Humble. Hah! That's rich. There are rap "artists" who are more grounded than any FOSS fanboy.

    44. Re:Heh by geekboy642 · · Score: 0

      I suppose you mean this?
      That's already fixed, thus proving GP's point.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    45. Re:Heh by flossie · · Score: 1
      You don't live in Manchester, do you?

      :o) Ouch!

      I used to. Great place, but I often had cars stolen. I even started leaving all the doors unlocked so that there would be less damage to repair if I got the car back. They still broke the windows to get in! Installing a car alarm only attracted attention to the car and increased the risk of attack.

      Removing the HT leads when you park can help, but there are kids who go around with a spare set. The only effective measure was to install a hidden switch in the LT wires to the coil. It made the car seem to have a flat battery when they tried to steal it. That way, I only had to go for a walk around the block when they tried to steal my car - they didn't usually push it far until they gave up.

    46. Re:Heh by Khazunga · · Score: 1
      She blows a bit of smoke and rattles some, but you know this was one of the best models made.
      Sorry but not all IE users are affected by this. Only the clueless ones who run IE with Javascript and/or ActiveX enabled.
      I don't know if you're trying to be funny. If you aren't, please add two and two together from the above snippets. If you are, congratulations :-D
      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    47. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the original post implied about what authority the browser was running with, was that they hadn't created a "non-admin account" for web browsing. Running a browser as admin is a far cry from root.

    48. Re:Heh by sootman · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      How is the average user going to know where to find the few *good* free AV, firewall, spyware scanners, etc. among the thousands of malicious products that claim to do the same? Explain me that, genious-boy.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    49. Re:Heh by cortana · · Score: 1

      Untill you want to go to Windows Update in order to download, say, the vendor patch for this issue.

      Oh wait! No need to worry--there's no patch available from the vendor for this issue in the first place!

    50. Re:Heh by Valar · · Score: 1

      Of course, generally vulnerabilities in open source software get patched faster than _two months_. That's right, this was reported months ago, and there is still no patch.

    51. Re:Heh by neonmagic · · Score: 1

      I seriously hope that your post was in jest. Your average user doesn't know what an administrator is, what ActiveX is, what a firewall is and doesn't care. They might run anti virus software only cos it's now sold to them, but they rarely update it. They are promiscious in their surfing habits, they generally are point and clickers, they click without thinking. Spyware scanners, what's that? Most average users know nothing about spyware, what it is, why it exists and if they're vulnerable. Try it - go out and ask people if they'v heard or and used spybot, adaware, zonealarm etc. See how many say yes. You'll be surprised at how low the percentage is.

      Microsoft is most certainly not doing everything it its power - if the problem is 3 months old and hasn't been patched then there is an issue. Of course it would be nice if fair trading bodies allowed you to hammer Microsoft for being slack. This is true of all proprietary software vendors - they take their time with updates and security patches.

      As to IE - Secunia advises to use another product (something that I endorse). Internet explorer is reknowned for having security issues, and most of that is due to the fact that Microsoft have created ActiveX, tied the browser so closely to the kernel it isn't funny, all in the attempt to create vendor lock in to their product. The US DOJ had the opportunity to force Microsoft to remove the hooks and didn't. The last time I used Windows I asked it to remove Internet Explorer and it didn't. It removed it from my start menu, the desktop, the quickstart area but the executable was still there, as were the registry entries etc. That is not removing in my eyes, as they were told to do by the US DOJ decision. It's hiding it. Not removing.

      It doesn't help that by default Microsoft Windows runs a user account with administrative rights. And that the system is inherently broken (in abilities) without this enabled. Your average user is not going to know what administrative rights mean, or even care. They won't know what the "run as" menu means, or where to find it even.

      Your average person is a pointer and clicker - and therein lies the root of the problem. If we actually controlled the quality of the people using computers, we'd find that issues go down. People who neglect their cars (ie mechanically or by poor driving skills) do not stay on the road for a long time - they are removed from the roads, by the system. Whilst cars can and do kill people, I realise that PCs do not. I'm using an analogy here to simply demonstrate that the permission to use something should be governed by you being able to show that you are competent. Many Windows users are not. And it is this that causes a lot of problems. User Stupidity is rampant and needs to be curtailed. Microsoft is pro actively feeding this stupidity by making each version of Windows easier to use, at the expense of security.

      Dave

      --
      Slashdot can go and get fucked.
    52. Re:Heh by Dogers · · Score: 1

      Where the hell did you used to live?! Mosside??

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    53. Re:Heh by flossie · · Score: 1
      Where the hell did you used to live?! Mosside??

      Well, I actually lived in Salford but my car was stolen from Manchester city centre as often as it was from Salford.

    54. Re:Heh by Dogers · · Score: 1

      Mmm.. I dont like Salford, I stay away from it, its full of scummers :(

      I've only been here 6 years but the whole place has changed immensely, you might be surprised if you visit again :)

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  5. Delete files? by lachlan76 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One would assume that any vulerability that could run arbitary code would be able to delete files.

    1. Re:Delete files? by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 0, Redundant

      This should be modded redundant. Anyone who saw that redundantcy (except the poster) didn't have to comment on it because it is obvious that it was said because not everyone knows that.

    2. Re:Delete files? by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 3, Funny
      Exactly. Even on vulnerabilities that can execute arbitrary code, they always list a bunch of other silly little things they can do, like cross-site scripting or my personal favorite "view the content of arbitrary files in known locations".

      If they reported the evening news the same way it would sound like this: "Today terrorists announced they have armed an atomic bomb in the middle of Los Angeles. They also announced that they have control of several hand grenades and also some water balloons and cap guns, and they're not afraid to use them!"

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    3. Re:Delete files? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Re:Delete files? (Score:0, Redundant)
      by Neuroelectronic (643221)
      This should be modded redundant. [...]

      Priceless :-)

    4. Re:Delete files? by kfg · · Score: 1

      . . .and also some water balloons and cap guns, and they're not afraid to use them!"

      Aha! So they're in league with the Andorran Liberation Front. I knew it!

      KFG

    5. Re:Delete files? by lachlan76 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, I would have said it was more like "Today terrorists have announced that they have armed an atomic bomb in the middle of Los Angeles. If it goes off, it may burn you!"

    6. Re:Delete files? by wfberg · · Score: 2, Informative

      One would assume that any vulerability that could run arbitary code would be able to delete files.

      Not necessarily. If the arbitrary code is run in a restricted security context (e.g. Guest User, sandbox, restricted zone/role/capability) it shouldn't be able to delete files it has no acces to. The exploit would need to run a second exploit for privilege elevation.

      Thankfully, in Internet Explorer's ActiveX security model none of all that is necessary, greatly speeding up the development of worms.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    7. Re:Delete files? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it actually deletes files? Can I finally get my recycle bin emptied? I've been unable to do it ever since I dragged IE's icon into it - Windows said "You can not delete Internet Explorer shortcut", but put it in the recycle bin anyway and I've been unable to delete files in recycle bin ever since. Can not even restore IE shortcut.

      Woohoo, maybe it will actually delete files from my recycle bin now!

    8. Re:Delete files? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use a Linux CD or similiar and delete the Recyled directory of the partition you're having trouble with.

      Windows should recreate it for you. Hell, it's created one on every single FAT32 partition I have..

    9. Re:Delete files? by Chicks_Hate_Me · · Score: 1

      Have you ever considered applying as a reporter for Fox News?

      FAIR AND BALANCED!!!111

  6. A worm that deletes everything. by caluml · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need a worm/virus that deletes everyones files. That would make keeping your computers patched a high priority for most of the users. At the moment, viruses are just something that affects and annoys "other people"

    1. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Such a worm wouldn't spread very far...

    2. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by LewsTherinKinslayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We need a worm/virus that deletes everyones files. That would make keeping your computers patched a high priority for most of the users. At the moment, viruses are just something that affects and annoys "other people""

      Similarly, we need a firebug to go around lighting people's houses on fire to show how having smoke detectors should be a high priority.

      I realize you're not being 100% serious, but this reasoning is stupid.

    3. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Arngautr · · Score: 1

      I know what ever happened to the good ol'fashioned fry the hard drive type viruses?

    4. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by ashot · · Score: 1

      You could have it run and spread itself for a few days, and then delete all the files. Or delete all the files only after it infected X other computers.

      --
      -ashot
    5. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by eofpi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, there's always hoping for this to happen....

      --
      Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
    6. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by caluml · · Score: 1

      Mmm, not quite the same. Smoke detectors don't prevent the setting on fire. They just warn after the fact.

    7. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by tom1974 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would make keeping your computers patched a high priority for most of the users.

      What has that to do anything with this story? RTFA and please stop blaming the user for everything.

      Running WinXP SP2 and fully patched system. I run Norton anti-virus, spybot, Ad-aware and now MS Antispyware and enabled autoupdate.

      Checked out Secunia, ran their test and my system was found vulnerable.

      What more should I patch?

    8. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by tomjen · · Score: 1

      correct, for the worm to spread, it most use its host.

      That is why such a worm would need some time to spread - then delete the users files.

      --
      Freedom or George Bush
    9. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by caluml · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or just used Windows file encryption to encrypt a load of stuff, and then change the passwords for all the accounts. Chances of people backing up their encryption key, but not patching their boxes are very small.
      Change a few fields in spreadsheets too might be fun.
      Post stored usernames and passwords to newsgroups..

    10. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      install firefox and patch it as well ;-)

    11. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by kswtch · · Score: 1

      So someone writes a worm/virus that uses some of the 45624837906 recently found IE exploits that can and will delete as many user files as possible.
      Who will be blamed?
      Well, users blame Microsoft, Microsoft blames the Linux community because we hate Microsoft and its products more than anything else. The common mainstream will associate Linux with Open Source. And because Linux users are evil (they wrote a worm/virus that has deleted their data) OSS is evil too....
      I don't think we need bad press.

      But i would enjoy looking in their faces right after they recognized all their data has been deleted.

    12. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by CrackedButter · · Score: 1


      Your comparision is wrong, a lot more people are aware of firehazards in the home. Compare the number of burning houses to systems infected worldwide daily.

      When it comes to computers, people are generally ignorant other than to learn what they need to, knowing somewhat that computing as a whole is huge, they just want to get their work done and who can blame them?
      Parent is right, we need something really destructive for people to be really pissed off and think about what they are doing or not doing. You watch how many tech writers, when they get back online, express their views after having all their work formatted by a virus or newspaper agencies for that matter. The big push will come from the big companies, watch how they might get pissed the most.
      Explain to your boss how using IE will format your PC if you go to the wrong website, you think they are still going to use IE?
      [Insert witty Fight Club quote here]

    13. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What more should I patch?
      The OS! I'm serious, when will people realize this: You are running a fully-patched system, with an antivirus, 3 spywares detectors and enabled autoupdate. I have Li**x and I need nothing, I work with it, and it works as expected.
    14. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      wouldn't be a worm or virus then, unless it somehow propogated. If would be a worm though if it _first_ looked for local web servers with write permission allowed from the current user (eg on same intranet), infected those, then deleted files from the users computer.

    15. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Running WinXP SP2 and fully patched system. I run Norton anti-virus, spybot, Ad-aware and now MS Antispyware and enabled autoupdate.

      Checked out Secunia, ran their test and my system was found vulnerable.

      What more should I patch?

      If your system was vulnerable, then you still missed one critical patch to your hard disk partition. You can download it here.
    16. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by caluml · · Score: 1
      Running WinXP SP2 and fully patched system. I run Norton anti-virus, spybot, Ad-aware and now MS Antispyware and enabled autoupdate.

      You're Microsofts wet dream, aren't you? :)
      I admit, this flaw isn't patched. But most of the time, the worm/virus uses old exploits.
      Anyway, my point was that it would illustrate the fact that many many people (90%?) are using a flawed OS and browser combo.

    17. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by skiman1979 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a shame that Windows users need to install antivirus, spybot, ad-aware, and other scanners (and run them on a monthly...weekly...daily basis to keep their computers clean. Also, don't forget about regedit. Seems Windows registry likes to corrupt itself. I dread the day that Linux gets to that point.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    18. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by tom1974 · · Score: 1

      Realise that its the only Windows system I have to look after and the fact that I can't remove IE.

      If it was up to me i'd throw it out the window. Serious.

    19. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by caluml · · Score: 1

      I'm genuinely curious. Why isn't it up to you?

    20. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "We need a worm/virus that deletes everyones files. That would make keeping your computers patched a high priority for most of the users. At the moment, viruses are just something that affects and annoys "other people"

      Heh. Too bad dead machines don't make for very good hosts.

      What they should do instead is detect that you're searching for naughty pictures and pop up a message saying "I'll tell everybody you're into water sports if you don't patch your computer."

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    21. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Ghostgate · · Score: 1

      Similarly, we need a firebug to go around lighting people's houses on fire to show how having smoke detectors should be a high priority.

      Forget a firebug, we need a firefox!

      (ducks)

    22. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by tom1974 · · Score: 1

      I don't own the thing.

    23. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by caluml · · Score: 1

      Who does then?

      And why would you be worried if it got busted by a virus then?
      Personally, I would only trust my data to a machine that I was confident in.

    24. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by moshez · · Score: 1

      Ummmm....you could do what the site suggested, and use a browser which receives weekly-monthly security updates (like, say, Firefox) rather than one which has bi-yearly updates (like IE).

    25. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They erased themselves.

    26. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.3v1l0.com/omgwtflol.html

      not guaranteed to delete everything, but might do something bad.

    27. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by js7a · · Score: 1
      Eh. I think we would be much better off with the suggestion from elsewhere, simply replacing the IE home page with a frameset comprised of a local file indicating that IE is vulerabe swiss-cheese trash, above the Firefox download page.

      Most people's computer files are highly boring. It would take hard AI to make an interesting espionage trojan. Caveat: general chaos isn't really interesting, and is understood to be much easier.

    28. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      "I realise you're not being 100% serious, but this reasoning is stupid."

      I would say the people not patching are so stupid that his reasoning fits quite well.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    29. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by tom1974 · · Score: 1

      Part of my job is to look after the system thats running MSSQL server with stock inventory and billing with the secretary using it to surf the net.

      I have a sad job.

    30. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by strider44 · · Score: 1

      I doubt it will. Vulnerabilities aren't made by people looking for them, they are just found.

    31. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      Well, your favorite coder boys in the Gnome project is working damn hard to give you a Windows Registry experience. Just like they gave you the nostalgic feel of Windows 3.x Explorer.

      I'm sure they will not sleep, nor eat, drink or fornicate until the whole Windows registry debacle has been "ported" (including flaws) to Gnome... Why should Gnome users sit there and watch Windows users have problems? The Gnome boys can fix that easily for you!

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    32. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Since you claim to know, what did ever happen to them all. I await your answer...

    33. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >We need a worm/virus that deletes everyones files.

      No, what you're really asking for is
      Tuxissa --- A worm that uses the flavor of
      the week exploit of Microsoft OSes and
      bittorrent to do a massive install of Linux
      (Ubuntu? Mandrake? SuSe?) on all unpatched
      boxes -- the bandwidth would go up for a while,
      but then it would go down after the installs are done.

    34. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by gmuslera · · Score: 1
      Or give a webmin like access to the infected machine, something that enables the receiver of the virus to browse the infected machine thru any web browse, upload/download/look/modify/delete what he wants, or even administrative tasks on windows (i.e. registry editing, process management, program installation, etc). And the most important (as some worms/trojans already do something similar) give the IP/port/password/etc in the mail so the one that receives the worm could do whatever it considers bad or good regarding to this.

      There is an old saying like "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer", well, this kind of worm will make that a reality.

    35. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Taladar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So why are you allowed to install a dozen third-party apps to deal with IEs flaws but no alternative to it?

    36. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by theCoder · · Score: 1

      While I agree that the gconf registry thing can be troubling, the idea of the Windows registry isn't all that bad. It's an incedibly easy way for Windows applications to store configuration information. Its biggest problem, IMO, is that it's one (actually two, but who's counting) big binary file that is hard to read and even harder (impossible?) to fix.

      Gnome's gconf has more flexible and supports different types of backends. The default (I think) is a XML file based backend. So, in essence, gconf is a nice wrapper around the same old text configuration files we've been using for years (though the format is XML, which isn't as common in most configuration files). Just go look in ~/.gconf if you don't believe me. Hopefully, it will be what the Windows registry should have been.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    37. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by tepples · · Score: 1

      So once I've patched my OS to replace Windows with OpenBSD, how do I patch my scanner software (Microtek Scanmaker 4850, listed as unsupported in SANE) to become compatible with OpenBSD?

    38. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Nikker · · Score: 1

      What I think parent is trying to say is the computer industry has made many people comfortable with being ignorant. Go back 10-15 years (if you can) and remember when was the last time you or a member of your family would put $1500 on a box bring it home hire some one to plug it in and publicly claim they have no idea what its about?

      Computers can be complicated machines but have you noticed that from their inception into our lives over 10 years ago people still claim ignorance like they are some magical being. This is why Microsoft et al can screw the end user around by leaving flaws and remotes in the OS becuase the consumer doesnt know any better and vendors make it complicated if they ask, to get them back into their cubby.

      I think what parent is trying to say is if all computers were greatly effected then people would take attention and realize what they have been ignoring and start trying to find out what the hell is going on. That is when these viruses stop or at least only effect those who have been social engineered.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    39. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      the people not patching are so stupid

      It's not stupidity. It's a different way of viewing computers than the way that we around here do.

      "You need to install this patch so your refrigerator will continue to work properly." Are you going to drag your refrigerator out from the wall so you can crawl behind it and follow a set of complex instructions when your fridge is still working fine and shows no sign of stopping?

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    40. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Unordained · · Score: 1

      One thing that MacOS got "right" was how easy it is to move and/or delete software from a computer -- just delete a single file or folder that contains everything. You can move your settings from one computer to another by just moving your configuration files over, which are (always?) in your home directory. You can copy software from one computer to another by copying a file, from what I've seen, and installations are a snap. If you back up your entire home directory on a regular basis, you've got everything you care about. Linux has had individual configuration files per-program -- that makes it fairly easy to back up the configuration (piecemeal) of a server, for example. I know it's saved me a lot of trouble on occasion to keep backups of config files around.

      Users often don't understand the difference between software and data (admittedly, it's all binary to me.) They ask us to just transfer everything from their old computer to their new one (I was about to say "to their new Dell" -- shows how common that is) -- when you tell them you need the installation CD for stuff, and that their settings might not transfer but their documents will, they just don't get it. Why isn't it easy to transfer? Why can't you hunt down every last little chunk of what they had and transfer it? You transferred documents -- that should be "it", right? And when they don't have the CDs anymore, they get all bitchy about how sucky you are. Because obviously you're going to charge them to spend all day and night finding every last .dll file needed, checking versions manually, hunting down registry keys and exporting them individually and re-importing them on the other side (note that most software won't tell you that you've only transferred -some- of the registry keys, so being sure you got it all is difficult at best.)

      In other words, splitting configuration files up (or having an easy tool to do so) makes sense in a lot of cases. Having them in a readable format makes sense. Storing them in home directories if the settings are per-user makes sense. Having some assurance that you got it "all" makes sense, no more hunting and guessing. Making software be as compact and easy-to-move (in compiled form, if necessary) as possible makes sense. I'm not sure what the "good" solutions for shared libraries are, though. I like the idea of updating in one place (particularly in the case of vulnerabilities,) but there's also the problem of version compatibility, of moving a program over and wanting all of its required libraries to follow ... and the fact that some people may ship their software with libraries statically compiled in just because they want to, and you won't realize it (thus updating a single library might not be enough to patch a problem.) It's not like we don't have disk space for it. I realize there's a RAM gain too, but there's got to be a solution that gives us everything.

    41. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that would be the NewEgg patch where your scanner turns into one supported by sane.

    42. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by MicroBerto · · Score: 1
      That's what it's going to come to, and I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

      But realize that a worm that deletes everything won't work - unless it's on a delay, spreads itself around as much as it can, THEN deletes. Like a 12 hour delay or something.

      I would have thought it happened already - and I'm not looking forward to when it happens.

      --
      Berto
    43. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by tepples · · Score: 1

      True, replacing my scanner would make it compatible with your suggested Free operating system, but I thought patches were supposed to be available at no charge to residential end users.

      No wait, Microsoft has already broken that rule by suggesting an upgrade to Windows XP as a patch to the unfixed vulnerabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1 for Windows 2000.

    44. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Just ditch GNOME altogheter and go for XFCE 4. Looks like Gnome, smells like Gnome, but without the unnecesary crud and bloat. It's growing to be an excellent DE, lightweight and to the point.

    45. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by BeerCat · · Score: 1

      when was the last time you or a member of your family would put $1500 on a box bring it home... and publicly claim they have no idea what its about?

      People frequently spend more than that on cars, and have no more idea of how it works than "fuel goes here. switch it on there". At what point is "the knowledge" sufficient? Basic knowledge of the 4 stroke cycle, or detailed like the compression ratio required with the octane rating of the fuel and the cylinder head swirl to ensure the best mixture?

      Similarly, with computers now as pervasive in society as cars, what is the "reasonable" amount that people should know? Just the basics like the instructions in the application are loaded into memory and handled by the processor, or knowing the correct length of wires to avoid synchronisation errors of parallel bit streams?

      True, the best answer is somewhere in the middle, but defining the "where" is the hard bit.

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    46. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Deleting all the files is better because the goal is to force the users to notice. Changing random spreadsheet fields won't do that -- you need a BIG, OBVIOUS thing instead.

      Interestingly, I read somewhere a while back that viruses and worms are less severe than they used to be. Back in the day, there were ones that deleted all your files, but they aren't around any more. Why? Because they were invasive enough that people actually bothered to get rid of them, they died out. Viruses and worms have evolved to be relatively benign because stealth is a superior trait and allows a them to spread further before people start defending themselves.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    47. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by ryanjensen · · Score: 1
      I don't think there would be any incentive for your usual virus/worm author to encourage computer users to patch. Most of what we're seeing today are worms that create zombie machines to be used for spamming, DDOS attacks, etc. The fewer fully-patched machines out there, the more potential for virus writers to make money and/or further their cause.

      That is, of course, unless a truly selfless programmer was willing to spend several years in prison to make everyone's computer experience more enjoyable in the future. Everyone's but his own, of course, since he would never be allowed to touch a computer again.

    48. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Refrozen · · Score: 1

      "A worm that deletes everything. (Score:5, Insightful) "

      +5 Insightful? Maybe +1 Funny....Meta-Mod's where are you?

    49. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Refrozen · · Score: 1

      "What more should I patch?"

      Well, this site seems to have a good solution to every problem you've ever had regarding Internet Explorer... but, I'unno.

    50. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by caluml · · Score: 1
      my scanner software (Microtek Scanmaker 4850, listed as unsupported in SANE) to become compatible with OpenBSD?

      I never buy hardware now that isn't supported under Linux, full stop. I always check before buying something. If it's not supported, I don't get it, no matter how much I want it. It's a matter of principle.

    51. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      'It's not stupidity. It's a different way of viewing computers'

      When I say stupid I mean stupid ignorant not stupid IQ lower than 20. A lot of non-techie people can quite haply update their computer. Think of this, your friend is so 'lazy' that they get you around to cook their food, so one day you decide that it's better for then to stay hungry so that they actually bother to do something for themselves.

      Most of the people I know who don't cook, don't because they are too ignorant to bother finding out how to, just like most computer uses who don't patch their PC.

      They won't really starve if you delete all their files[probably spy-ware, porn and a few flash games] and they may start to learn a bit more about the computer.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    52. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux WON'T get to that point. Different mindset, different architecture.

    53. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Similarly, we need a firebug to go around lighting people's houses on fire to show how having smoke detectors should be a high priority.

      Agreed. There is no point in doing real harm in order to warn people about the potential for real harm. Writing a virus or worm that makes users type the word "vagina" in order to do anything, would probably provide as much warning about their insecurity, and put just as much pressure on MS to fix things, all without doing any real, intentional damage.

      Of course any virus or worm potentially causes serious, unforeseen problems so the ethics are very questionable.

    54. Re:A worm that deletes everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick fix:
      Change Internet zone security rating to High.
      Tools->Internet Options->Security - Make sure that "Internet" is selected at the top - click "Custom Level..." in the list find "Script ActiveX controls marked safe for scripting" and select "Prompt" (or "Disable").

      With "Prompt" selected when you get test page and click link you will get question message box - selecting yes will not help ;)

      You will, however get a lot of these warnings while surfing the net.

  7. Nothing to see here.... by still_sick · · Score: 0, Troll

    Secunia Advisory: SA12889
    Release Date: 2004-10-20
    Last Update: 2005-01-07

    [...]

    2005-01-07: Increased rating. Added link to test. Updated "Description" and "Solution" sections


    OH MY GOD, THEY INCREASED THE RATING OF A THREE MONTH OLD BUG!!!! THIS IS TOTALLY FRONT-PAGE NEWS AND NOT AT ALL FLAMEBAIT!!!!

    --
    ...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
    1. Re:Nothing to see here.... by LewsTherinKinslayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      This post is both insightful and flamebait at the same time. I love how objective people are(n't.)

    2. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You explain to me why a three month old bug deserves Front Page status, and I'll apologize for feeding the trolls.

    3. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because this is /. and there's been no IE flaming for today yet. ;)

    4. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

      You explain to me how Front Page Slashdot is above posting three month old news, and I won't mod you flamebait.

    5. Re:Nothing to see here.... by aixou · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe there are now exploits in the wild, or exploits poised to get out in the wild -- which is why the rating was increased.

      Having a vulnerability is like having a broken lock on a window. An exploit of that vulnerability is a burgular who is going around your neighborhood using windows as the entry point. In my opinion, exploits are a more serious concern than the vulnerability itself and warrant the increased amount of news on the topic.

    6. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You raise a valid point.

      However, The headline for this Front-Page Slashdot article does not say "Old Bug now being Exploited in the Wild".

      It says "Extremely Critical IE6/SP2 Exploit Found". As in just now, somebody found a brand new bug.

      Totally bullshit article. If they were doing what you were saying, I wouldn't complain.

      But they're not. So I am.

    7. Re:Nothing to see here.... by NanoGator · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "I love how objective people are(n't.)"

      Right, because Slashdot always has front page news about serious vulnerabilities on non-MS products.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pondering:

      Flamebait because it's an intentional attempt to cause an eRiot, or flamebait because it's sickeningly true?

    9. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend, look at the sentence you took the time to copy and paste (and in which you emphasized the wrong word). They found a new exploit, by putting together a scenario linking known bugs.

      The headline is literally correct, your interpretation isn't:

      As in just now, somebody found a brand new bug.

      The statement (properly emphasized for your reading comprehension enjoyment):

      Extremely Critical IE6/SP2 Exploit Found

      RTFineA. Fully patched, firewalled, etc., you're still vulnerable (and have been, some white hackers just realized this now however, prompting headlines as we're informed about a newly discovered, nasty, permission-upgrading, vulnerability that's existed for some time).

      Now, will you stop yer whining! :)

  8. Re:liars! by djplurvert · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, you've been lucky, one of these days you are going to run afoul of one of the more dangerous internets.

  9. Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Green+Salad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was mandatory for us to switch to Mozilla. Problem is all our financial vendors make use of Active-X.

    Result: Now we use Mozilla for casual browsing and use insecure products only when conducting important business!

    1. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by davids-world.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't deal with the financial sector professionally, but all my private homebanking with 4 banks in three different European countries and a broker work just fine without IE (I use Safari = KHTML). No ActiveX there - I believe it's state of the art not to use IE specific stuff. (But I guess I wouldn't choose a bank in the first place that requires stuff like IE or even Windows...)

    2. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if the only active-x you come to contact with is that of your financial vendors, then the risk of infection from active-x is very low.

      i believe the idea was to lower your chances of infection through web browsing by making you switch to mozilla.

    3. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should switch banks.

      Over here in Australia, my bank is Java, so completely cross platform.

    4. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Wells Fargo online banking has been working flawlessly for me, I run Firefox 0.9 (just recently upgraded to 1.0 and that runs fine too)

    5. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Switch to providers who don't lock you in with crappy service. And tell them clearly "Supporting only insecure Microsoft products you don't meet our security standards. Good Bye!"

      I'm not a big company, I'm just a private user. I very recently switched banks I use for personal finances. I left a "common" bank with its units in in several thousands of locations, and introducing new fees and increasing old ones now and then to maintain them all, and with quite crappy and really expensive Internet service, that was supposed to work in Mozilla/Firefox but it more often didn't than did, and I signed up for an Internet bank. Reduced costs of maintenance resulting in zero fees on all operations and account maintenance, no other fees, (except of withdrawal from ATM, very cheap too), and as they are an Internet bank, finally a REALLY professional Internet service. Working flawlessly in any browser, probably including Lynx :)

      I don't know how it works for big companies but I strongly encourage you to leave your old-fashioned banks and move to "Internet banking". Reducing number of channels where money flows lets them focus on keeping the channels they maintain highest quality.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    6. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Mine (The National Australia Bank) works just great in Mozilla 1.7.5
      It does give me a small "warning" about using something that isnt on their "list" (probobly just a CYA move in case someone uses something that doesnt work 100% and something goes wrong somewhere) but it works just great.

    7. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      What's it do? Java or normal HTTPS?

    8. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by jonwil · · Score: 1

      regular HTTPS with some javascript.

      In this day and age with good high strength HTTPS readily available on the server and available on most client machines, using java, ActiveX or other such technologies on a bank site doesnt make sense.

    9. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Schugy · · Score: 0

      lol
      lol
      lol
      -dead-

    10. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your financial vendors are completely irresponsible, I even would say dumb for depending on a propietary, non-portable, insecure platform.

    11. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Turmio · · Score: 1

      Why don't you switch your financial vendors then?

    12. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by rseuhs · · Score: 1
      Here in Europe all banks work in all browsers. (Probably because Netscape wasn't killed so fast around here)

      I've heard that recently American institutions also started to support standards better, maybe switching to such institution would be possible?

    13. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Cleaner UI, and you don't have to worry about how it renders in IE.

    14. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all banks... I've heard of at least ING Direct being IE-only. And not all browsers of course... try banking with lynx or amaya :-)

    15. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Homo+Stannous · · Score: 1

      And what internet bank is that? Don't hold out on us, throw us a bone!

    16. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      isn't that kind of backwards, using ie for the sites that would need most securing? but of course you know that already..

      the solution is to change banks.. the bank i use has _always_ worked with other browsers than ie, from the beginning of web to now(hell.. works through wap too).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    17. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      I think there should be some questions to ask before we get those ActiveX stuff zooming around.

      question 1, why should I trust them?

      question 2, why should they trust me?

      question 3, would they like to look into my computer?

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    18. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      In most businesses, not using IE is essentially the same as "don't do business". There are way too many web applications out there - the vast majority - for a slew of different things which won't work on anything but IE, let alone work and simply not be supported.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    19. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by jackbird · · Score: 1
      And what internet bank is that?

      presidentialbank.com works under firefox, although they pop up warnings about the browser being insecure. And if you route your direct deposit to them, you get nice interest on your checking account balance.

      Not an employee, just a satisfied customer.

    20. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALL that is necessary is to set IE's Internet zone to high security. Linsudz zealots spreading FUD should be pointing this out, but it's oh so much "cooler" to keep bashing MS/IE. Anyone using the internet these days should have internet security set to high. And to so many others, my banking, financial and work software, etc, work just fine with this setting. The secunia site does nothing when IE is set this way. It all comes down to having the software set properly. With Linsudz's limited capabilities, it's no wonder the settings are simple and exploits (so far) rare (though more security related holes in the last year than IE).

    21. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      ALL that is necessary is to set IE's Internet zone to high security.

      Unplugging the ethernet plug from the computer has a similar impact on usablity of IE, while improving your security much better.

      And to so many others, my banking, financial and work software, etc, work just fine with this setting.
      Your...

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    22. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I've found that Citibank and E*Trade both work normally with Firefox. They use HTML forms and a bit of Javascript, no ActiveX garbage that I've seen. Neither give very good interest rates, though.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    23. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      I don't think you'd profit from the info as the bank is located in Poland (vwbankdirect.pl) but just google for opinions about different banks, sooner or later you'll find a discussion on some forum where many people confront their opinions and the best solution goes afloat. You will find a bank that suits your needs. (i.e. sometimes it pays to pay $1/month or so and have some extra service instead of going with $0/month and some limitations...) Also before you decide, make a websearch for opinions about that bank on the net. Like, I was just about to pick one bank with really great offer, but "just to be sure" I looked and found that the offer looks great on paper but the bank notoriously ignores customers' requests, cheats on them and generally is something to be avoided. Stuff like that surfaces on the net quickly and you easily find Millennium is great for maintaining your account but sucks at loans, Lucas rips you off in hidden costs, EuroBank is just "bare bones" and can't provide anything except simplest service (no network access), mBank is generally okay but takes ages to perform anything beyond standard, Intelligo gets rapidly very expensive if you want anything but the most basic stuff, etc.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    24. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I have 3 different banks, and all of them, even my 3rd rate B&M bank, work with Firefox. One good internet bank is www.netbank.com

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    25. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by ATN · · Score: 0

      In Canada PC Financial (http://www.pcfinancial.ca) is the way to go. Zero fees, free checks, free interact, and free abm's (only cibc brand ones are free) and their site works like a charm in firefox on linux. :) I've payed $0.00 in fees ever since I've been with them and have never had a problem. You can have as many accounts as you like, checking, savings(higher interest). Whatever you like. If your 18 it's pure gold.

    26. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Green+Salad · · Score: 1

      They're not big and not in the continental United States. Sorry, for the lack of a name --They are a strategic "partner."

    27. Re:Now we use IE6 and XP only for banking by Green+Salad · · Score: 1

      We can't reasonably switch because they are a "strategic partner" with my employer. That'd be bad politics. On the other hand, we have more than usual influence with the bank. I'd feel great if we could get them to switch away from Active-X for their corporate to corporate business services.

  10. Whoa by FractusMan · · Score: 4, Informative

    I use Mozilla. I tried that test link, nothing at all happens. I have SP2 installed and all configured proper - except IE, which I didn't bother to touch at all since installation. I figured, hey, I've got an 'untouched' copy of IE here. I open it, I go to the test site, I click that link: WHOA. Holy crap. Help document pops up, and then (the scary part) a command prompt flicks open, does SOMETHING, and then a new window is up. Yikes. I guess some part of me always hoped these exploits were exaggerated in their swiftness and ability to bypass your input.

    1. Re:Whoa by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

      My situation, exactly.

    2. Re:Whoa by cillasri · · Score: 1

      You should configure IE properly. Maybe you will never use it, but its malicious code is sitting on you disk waiting for something to invoke it.

      So, you'd better configure it to disable everything, from Passive Scriptin, to PassiveX and PassiveWorms. You can set the Insecurity Level to "High" in all zones (Internet, Restricted, LAN, Trusted, etc.).

    3. Re:Whoa by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      So you don't use IE, have not invoked it since you installed XP?

      What is you IP? I mean you have a machine that is the biggest security hole in the neighbourhood and I'd like to use it for a few days ...

      Either you are not telling the truth or your machine is totally unpatched. You can not use the stupid Windows Update site unless you use IE.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    4. Re:Whoa by ElaineN · · Score: 1

      Good point. We use Linux here at home, and I think I've trained those people (Friends and Family) whose Windows systems I support to use Firefox, but I suppose on my next round of maintenance I had better lock down IE as much as I can.

      --
      Confused at a higher level, about more important things.
    5. Re:Whoa by puppet10 · · Score: 1

      You can update a number of ways besides the Windows update site - most of those do not require you to use IE, though usually IE gets patched as a byproduct even if it isn't used.

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
    6. Re:Whoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALL that is necessary is to set the Internet zone to high security. Linsuz zealots spreading FUD should be pointing this out, but it's oh so much "cooler" to keep bashing MS/IE. Anyone using the internet these days should have internet security set to high. And to so many others, my banking software, etc, works just fine with this setting. The secunia site does nothing when IE is set this way.

    7. Re:Whoa by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      but I suppose on my next round of maintenance I had better lock down IE as much as I can.

      Actually you can lock it down completely by turning off javascript ("active scripting") and activeX and a few other switches like I-frame etc. It should be at least as secure as Firefox if you do that.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    8. Re:Whoa by oconnorcjo · · Score: 1
      Either you are not telling the truth or your machine is totally unpatched. You can not use the stupid Windows Update site unless you use IE.

      1. you can download sp2 with mozilla
      2. Windows update can download without openning IE.

      3. I would suggest you get a clue before you go into sarcastic mode/flame mode...

      --
      I miss the Karma Whores.
  11. Mac by Pretendstocare · · Score: 1, Redundant

    /hug ibook

    1. Re:Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'd hug mine but i'm enjoying the blowjob it's giving me at the moment.

    2. Re:Mac by northcat · · Score: 2, Funny

      /hug Browsers-other-than-IE
      /hug Linux
      /hug FreeBSD
      /hug OpenBSD
      /hug NetBSD
      /hug All-the-other-BSDs
      /hug All-OSes-and-architectures-that-are-not-windows-on -x86

    3. Re:Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my lord I wish I had mod points...

      Though it'd be a tough decision. After all, being without girlfriend as we all here are, it could be moderated as insightful, informative or funny.

    4. Re:Mac by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Heh, right, because Help+Browser==LocalAccess exploits have never ever happened on MacOS X.

      Oh, wait ... they have.

    5. Re:Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dammit, i knew i should of not posted as AC for that one

    6. Re:Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW! So you can be funny without trolling...

    7. Re:Mac by this+takes+too+long · · Score: 1

      speak for your self. i get laid all the time, with my girlfriend and other women. sometiems both at the same time.

    8. Re:Mac by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 1

      Except on Mac OS X your user isn't a system administrator by default.

      --
      Error 404 - Sig Not Found
    9. Re:Mac by bezza · · Score: 1
      Who cares? I would much rather it deleted anonymous.dll rather than Completed_Tax_2004.xls...you can always re-install your OS.

      --
      WARNING: This sig does not contain a joke
    10. Re:Mac by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 1

      Yes but it's not so much if it deletes everything you own, as takes over your system in a subtle and not immediately apparent way. A user account cannot do that (discounting local exploits), whereas an administrator most certainly can. Never mind that it's not necessarily an either/or proposition. It could just delete anonymous.dll AND Completed_Tax_2004.xls. That's worse, I'd say.

      --
      Error 404 - Sig Not Found
  12. Re:liars! by tektek · · Score: 1

    We'll all be lucky, because IE won't be updated to handle the newer internets until many years later. ;)

  13. it's not a vulnerability... by i+3+joo! · · Score: 3, Funny

    it's an IE feature.

  14. But... by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 0

    Isn't it possible that this could be used to download and execute files from predetermined locations on the 'Web - I.E. CoolWebSearch hijackers?

    Secondly, why in the HELL is anyone using HTML files for help documents? Why not just put it into .hlp files like it used to be? I don't recall any security issues with those.

    --

    Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
    1. Re:But... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why not just put it into .hlp files like it used to be? I don't recall any security issues with those.

      Not since December 27 2004, anyway...

      "XFocus also reported a hole in winhlp32.exe, the Windows .hlp file parsing program. The vulnerability is forged from a decoding error within the .hlp header. A perpetrator can exploit the flaw by triggering a heap-based buffer overflow."
      http://www.esecurityplanet.com/patches/article.php /11778_3452081

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC most Windows help files today are in CHM format, which IS HTML. I don't mind HTML, it's pretty and you (as a developper) don't need to know how .hlp works inside, it was a real mess. Now, you write your HTML files (everyone knows how to do this) and compile them.

    3. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are so many things wrong with your second pharagraph that I have to respond.

      HTML is not the issue, IE is the issue here. .hlp are Windows only, html is universal accross OS's

      A quick google for .hlp security issues also brings back a few pages of results...

    4. Re:But... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Informative

      ``Secondly, why in the HELL is anyone using HTML files for help documents?''

      Why not HTML? Windows help is hypertext, and HTML is the standard for exactly that. I'm all the happier when people use standard formats rather than proprietary ones.

      And for the record: HTML is completely secure. It's just data that gets rendered. Security holes are always either in the code that processes the HTML (which is a problem with that code, not with HTML) or in extensions (which is a problem with the extension and the program that uses the extension).

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    5. Re:But... by Spacejock · · Score: 1

      I used to send out chm files with all my programs, then I discovered they were useless under Wine. (The apps were fine, but users couldn't view help because it uses the IE engine.)

      So, all my help files are now html files in the HELP folder, with images in a subfolder. From within the program, they open in your default browser but you can also open them manually in any browser. While indexing isn't possible you can still use Ctrl-F to search. (When the help file resides on the local computer, there's no problem sticking it all in one big file with a TOC and lots and lots of 'return to table of contents' links.)

    6. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember a trojan in a windows .hlp file posted to usenet about 7-8 years ago and then there are these:

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=trojan+wind ow s+.hlp&btnG=Google+Search

    7. Re:But... by Pedrito · · Score: 1

      ``Secondly, why in the HELL is anyone using HTML files for help documents?''

      Why not HTML? Windows help is hypertext, and HTML is the standard for exactly that. I'm all the happier when people use standard formats rather than proprietary ones.


      Actually, windows has 3 helps systems. The old .hlp format which has been around since the dinosaurs. Newer applications usually don't use this anymore for any number of reasons, not least of which is that the help compiler uses .rtf documents as the source.

      The more common help format these days is the HTMLHelp format which is based on yes, you guessed it, HTML. The advantages of using this are obvious: You can create your help files from HTML which you can also use on a web site. Also, there are a lot more tools for building HTML than RTF. HTML has more functionality, you get scripting support, and so on and so forth.

      Then Microsoft also has the format that the MSDN uses. This is sort of an upgraded version of HTMLHelp and like HTMLHelp, it's based on HTML as the source. The files have a different format that allows for more extended functionality, better support for grouping of separate files and better support for very large files, among other things.

    8. Re:But... by tepples · · Score: 1

      The more common help format these days is the HTMLHelp format which is based on yes, you guessed it, HTML. The advantages of using this are obvious: You can create your help files from HTML which you can also use on a web site.

      I tried to hex-edit the .chm files, and I couldn't find any readable text. Why didn't Microsoft stick to standard HTML in a standard packaging format (MIME or PKZIP)?

    9. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE is not the issue. You just want very badly to make it the issue. This exploit is only an issue for improperly configured browsers.

    10. Re:But... by value_added · · Score: 1

      A bit off-topic, but I have to admit I am a big fan of htmlhelp aka CHM files. At least in principle.

      The idea that one can "compress" a bazillion html files into a single indexed file (single or double paned window) that is easily both indexed and easily searchable file seems, at least to me, the cat's meow.

      Not sure what you mean by the MSDN format. The so-called MSDN menu you can add at compile time, but as far the "features/standards" promulgated by Microsoft for the designing of CHM files, I think they're mostly rubbish.

    11. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to hex-edit the .chm files, and I couldn't find any readable text.

      there are .chm decompilers... check google.

    12. Re:But... by Pedrito · · Score: 1

      There are a few sites that provide the format. There's no visible text because all the text is compressed in CHM files. One of the many advantages over using raw HTML for your online help.

    13. Re:But... by tepples · · Score: 1

      There's no visible text because all the text is compressed in CHM files.

      Still doesn't answer why Microsoft didn't use a de facto standard data compression and container format such as PKZIP.

  15. Solution by MPHellwig · · Score: 1

    Solution: Use another product. At least that is what their site said. They also mention workarounds, but that would imply that I have to work... hmmm, no I'll accept the risk and reimage the machines who are affected.

  16. It fries Safari by kiddailey · · Score: 5, Informative


    Pardon the technical terminology :)

    With Safari 1.2.4 (v125.12), I get a "Safari cannot find the Internet plug-in." error dialog and then the beachball of death. Joy. Well, at least it's not opening the terminal.

    1. Re:It fries Safari by mj_1903 · · Score: 1

      I did not get the beachball of death but a similar and expected result with the ActiveX plugin.

    2. Re:It fries Safari by coyotecult · · Score: 5, Funny

      Beachball of death is just so much more fun and sunny sounding than blue screen of death! MS should've reworked their PR on that one.

    3. Re:It fries Safari by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

      and then the beachball of death.

      Beachball of death? Are you referring to the 'Pinwheel of Eternity'?

      --
      __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    4. Re:It fries Safari by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      No, I think he's referring to Roseanne...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    5. Re:It fries Safari by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ohhh geez, I can just imagine the image:

      Blue sky
      Bright yellow sun
      White fluffy clouds
      Cheezy rainbow across the sky, and under the arc of the rainbow:
      A FATAL EXCEPTION 0E HAS OCCURRED AT 0157:BF7FF831
      Green grass
      Smiling happy sunflowers
      Pink fluffy bunnies hopping around and singing happy happy songs and dancing with the sunflowers.
      PRESS CONTROL+ALT+DELETE TO RESTART YOUR COMPUTER. YOU WILL LOSE ANY UNSAVED INFORMATION IN ALL APPLICATIONS.
      HAVE A HAPPY DAY!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    6. Re:It fries Safari by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it's not really equivalent. The equivalent problem on OSX to the BSOD would be a kernel panic, and while it is prettier most of the time, it can sometimes be even nastier than the windows BSOD (if it's in verbose mode).

      For the most part, however, I would say that OSX fails much more gracefully than Windows.

    7. Re:It fries Safari by wheezl · · Score: 1

      Hmm I just tried it on 3 different macs running the same version of Safari... No pinwheel of beachy eternal dirtnap here.

      --
      -- oh.... so..... sleeeeeepy.
    8. Re:It fries Safari by Xyde · · Score: 1

      I get a couple of those dialogs but then the page works fine (minus the exploits, of course) in Safari 2.0 on Tiger 8A294

    9. Re:It fries Safari by wkitchen · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is a much nicer image than the BSOD. Amiga's also had a colorful error message with their very introspective "Guru meditation" errors.

    10. Re:It fries Safari by coyotecult · · Score: 1

      I make a joke and you get all technical on me? You must be great at parties. ::wink:: My Powerbook seems to handle things a bit better than Windows overall, I will agree. I have not yet had to deal with the beachball of death, although it has frozen a couple of times. Poor kernel panics, poor poor kernel having a panic attack.

    11. Re:It fries Safari by coyotecult · · Score: 1

      So that would be...blue screen of bunnies? Or dancing bunnies of death?

    12. Re:It fries Safari by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Chuckle. I guess they would be the blue-screen dancing vorpal bunnies of death.

      Does anyone have a Holy Handgrenade of Antigates?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  17. Surfing with IE by The+Bringer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have made my own little extreme sport out of it. I fill my old box with all of my financial information, and surf around using IE. I think Microsoft is pretty impressed, because they keep sending me boxes of Viagra and dog crap.

  18. check if your vunerable by blackest_k · · Score: 1, Redundant

    http://secunia.com/internet_explorer_command_execu tion_vulnerability_test/
    is a test page containing a link if you left click on it and a window opens your vulnerable (it didn't do anything in Firefox)

    1. Re:check if your vunerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shucks redundant in 15 minutes, I guess i should have just avoided reading the article. guess I am getting old just like the exploits.

      I think the time is way over due when we prepare for the bigone the exploit which is going to knock our systems over. how fast can you recover from the bigone

      ask yourself if in a minutes time you found yourself with a dead OS how much would you lose and how long before you could claim your system was back to "normal"

  19. comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe I'm safe. On one of them, eTrust Antivirus picks up on them. And on one of them, it doesn't write that folder to my drive. But then again, I think I have some stuff disabled.

    Oh, and concerning that spyware/adware program Microsoft came out with lately. Ever wonder why it outperforms other programs?

  20. Phew, Slashdot's back to normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    #!/microsoft/bash

    After today's pro-Microsoft articles, its about time we got back to bashing!

    1. Re:Phew, Slashdot's back to normal by doshell · · Score: 1

      After today's pro-Microsoft articles, its about time we got back to bashing!

      I live in a different timezone, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Score: i, Imaginary
    2. Re:Phew, Slashdot's back to normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't pro-Microsoft comments the normal ? ;)

  21. Is anyone still using IE? by Chromodromic · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yeah, well, I guess corporate IT depts are probably struggling with mgmt to implement company-wide changeovers, especially for all those companies that are Microstooges and have big service and standardization contracts, yadda yadda yadda. But for all you individuals out there who aren't experiencing the Browsing Bliss that is Firefox, preferring IE to downloading a small file and doing a simple install, well, I don't pity you any more than anyone who walks into a dynamite factory and says, "Man, it's dark, anyone got a match?"

    --
    Chr0m0Dr0m!C
    1. Re:Is anyone still using IE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Avant and Maxthon. Firefox has nothing that they don't have. They actually have more features out of the box. Plus all sites display correctly in them. Yeah yeah, it's the fault of the page's creator if sites don't conform to W3C. But guess what? Not even Slashdot is compliant to the so-called standards. And as far as spyware goes, I've had about 3 cases in about 4 years. And 1 virus in 8 years (which was mine own fault for foretting to scan a file). So it seems that all the Firefox fanboys can do is spread FUD to promote their "product." I've tried Mozilla, Opera, Firefox, K-Meleon, etc., etc. I always come back to an IE based core. It just works better.

    2. Re:Is anyone still using IE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the article that made me switch to FireFox.

    3. Re:Is anyone still using IE? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      I'm still using both IE and Firefox. Firefox does a number of things better than IE, a number of things different than IE which I can get used to, and a few things that are just plain annoying. As well, there are a few sites which don't work with Firefox and avoiding them usually isn't an option.

      One of the annoying things is Firefox's handling of text edit boxes like the one I'm typing in right now. I haven't sat down and made a definitive list of repeatable annoyances, but mainly involving text-wrap and spaces at the end of lines. (And like a watched pot, it's not doing it right now. Figures!)

      As for this exploit, I haven't tried it yet, but MS Help doesn't have automatic Internet access on my Win box. Most likely I'd get a dialog asking for permission along with a "Beware, I live!" sfx from the old Sinistar arcade game. I'd probably notice that.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Is anyone still using IE? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I'm stuck with IEEEE (scream intentional) at work. It's either that or NS4, and NS4 chokes on too many sites. Some people are still using it at home, but I've talked a few people into switching, usually after IEEE foobared their machines.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  22. Pff, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know what? I'll just stop using the internet. I'll just .................

  23. No explanation about what the test does... by kiddailey · · Score: 5, Insightful


    What's scary is that page doesn't even detail what the test will do on your machine! Clicking the link is risky enough even if you did know what it was going to do (ie. how do you know their server hasn't been compromised and the test altered).

    All it says is "The test requires that you have Windows installed in 'c:/windows/'." Uh... Why? is it actually doing something in there? Does it just need to access cmd.exe?

    Click at your own risk, indeed. I suggest running it on a machine that you plan to reformat or under an emulator like VPC.

    1. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by typhoonius · · Score: 4, Informative

      Click at your own risk, indeed. I suggest running it on a machine that you plan to reformat or under an emulator like VPC.

      It opens an HTML Help document, then a command console that quickly closes (dunno what that did), then opens an IE page with this helpful document.

    2. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by beelsebob · · Score: 2, Informative

      Probably because cmd.exe (and iexplore.exe) are found in C:/windows, and it needs the full path to lauch one in the first place.

    3. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by beelsebob · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It opens an HTML Help document, then a command console that quickly closes (dunno what that did), then opens an IE page with this helpful document.
      It didn't do this on my computer. Safari can't be rendering the page correctly.

    4. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 5, Informative
      The Secunia test uses the ntshared.chm MS-HTML help file, via ActiveX, to call this script, which, in turn, starts a new IE which goes to this site.

      The JMCardle test does something similar, but calls this script instead, which just runs
      mkdir C:\\ie6vulnerability.jmcardle
      in Command Prompt
    5. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by js7a · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is a pretty good security advisory. It looks like it was actually meant to be understood by end users, and not just other security professionals. Then again, it seems to be taking a measurement without obtaining explicit permission first, and I'm sure that makes people nervous. But under the circumstances, it's probably not a bad decision to just go ahead. I mean, why not?

    6. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't get that, and I'm running IE 6 on XP SP2. I guess I'm secure :) Sweet.

    7. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cmd /c start /max iexplore http://secunia.com/you_are_vulnerable/

    8. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by Kris_J · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is why I didn't bother to "fix" it when my system drive set itself up as E: the last time I rebuilt a home PC.

    9. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, it seems to be taking a measurement without obtaining explicit permission first

      You mean, apart from the text that says "Secunia has constructed a test, which can be used to check if your browser is affected by this issue" and the string "internet_explorer_command_execution_vulnerability _test" in the URL? It seemesd pretty obvious to me.

    10. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, come on.
      It's Secunia.

    11. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by Stalks · · Score: 1

      your iexplore.exe is in c:\windows? I'd check if that isnt a virus/trojan because it doesnt belong there! :D

    12. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, internet explorer belongs here:

      \Program Files\Internet Explorer\Iexplore.exe

      Sounds like youve got a virus

    13. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Informative

      The test requires the C:\windows folder because it directs the Help display control(hhctrl.ocx) to a default help files stored within the windows folder:

      "c:/windows/help/ntshared.chm"

      Once this help object is loaded, it can be activated, and malicious code can be injected using a second instance.

      Without a known help file location, the script is useless.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    14. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by JeffZakaib · · Score: 1

      why not just "%systemroot%\..."? shouldnt that do the same thing?

    15. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

      Probably because cmd.exe (and iexplore.exe) are found in C:/windows, and it needs the full path to lauch one in the first place.

      I don't know anything about this subject but I guess that IE doesn't have access to any system variables like %windir% and the code can't do %windir/cmd.exe and thus also exploit Win2k or NT4 with IE 6 installed?

    16. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I think the % replacements are only for use within a dos box, this is simply a filename parameter to an activeX control.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    17. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by Lusa · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good plan..

      1. Discover IE6/SP2 exploit
      2. Create genuine report
      3. Create genuine example that loads backdoor app of choice
      4. Post on slashdot with url of example
      5. ...
      6. Profit!

      I mean, how many people actually click on that with IE6 and go "ooooo it works"?

    18. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by adeydas · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is much to be scared about. The link just activates a javascript function by the name start. I took a sneak peak in the code and found this: `function start() { locate.HHClick(); setTimeout("locator.HHClick()",300); }` Nothing scary, is it?!

    19. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by kiddailey · · Score: 1

      lol - sadly, it looks like quite a few ;)

    20. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is.
      If you read the whole thing, it says "if clicking on the link causes a new browser to open up displaying the Secunia page, you are vulnerable"

      And if you click it in IE, exactly that happens.

    21. Re:No explanation about what the test does... by wkitchen · · Score: 1
      What's scary is that page doesn't even detail what the test will do on your machine! Clicking the link is risky enough even if you did know what it was going to do (ie. how do you know their server hasn't been compromised and the test altered)
      How would you know that even if they did fully describe what the test would do? And how would you know that about any link on any server?
      Click at your own risk, indeed. I suggest running it on a machine that you plan to reformat or under an emulator like VPC.
      Would you suggest taking that precaution before clicking any link at all?

      I'm not necessarily saying that doing that would be a bad idea. It's just that the site where the exploit has the highest visibility is probably not the most important one to defend against.
  24. Fairly simple solution by jazman · · Score: 4, Informative

    although it requires a bit of messing around. IE - Tools - Options - Security.

    select Internet Zone; click Custom Level; set just about everything to Disable or Prompt.

    select Trusted Sites; click Sites; remove https requirement (because the use of https is no guarantee of safety). Then go to Custom Level, then set some items to Prompt, most to Enable.

    This way, anything that isn't in your Trusted Sites list can't get up to any substantial shenanigans. When a page doesn't work, add the site to the Trusted Sites list.

    Then, even if the page is one that attempts to initiate a cascade of pr0n sites that only open more up each time you close one, it may be able to open the first level of the cascade, but unless the cascaded ones are also on your Trusted list that's where the cascade will stop.

    Some pages redirect you to another site; some have frames on different sites and so on, and this can get a bit tedious, but for the most part this makes IE6 invulnerable to Secunia's tests.

    Also I only use IE for secondary browsing, where something REALLY won't work in Firefox, which is also protected by Proxomitron.

    1. Re:Fairly simple solution by gnarlin · · Score: 1

      Hummm... or just install firefox !
      It always amazes me how people cling to their
      precious non-free software like you were ripping out their hearts. "Oh please for the love of god don't take away my stolen propriatery software!".
      What the hell is wrong with people? I'm not asking a retorical question here. Please anwser it, because I sure as hell don't know.
      Why are people so histerical and scared of using free software ?

      --
      A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
    2. Re:Fairly simple solution by ssj_195 · · Score: 1
      Why are people so histerical and scared of using free software ?
      I think it might be more a case of the "different" rather than the "free".
    3. Re:Fairly simple solution by nagora · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What the hell is wrong with people?
      1. People really do fear change,
      2. Microsoft has succeeded in producing a massive lock-in with their products,
      3. Many people, wrongly, think that a "big name", whether in computers or cars or whatever, means big support and that small companies can not have the resources to make "fully functioned" products. The trick here is that many of the extra functions were added to push the upgrade sales, not for any utility,
      4. Many people are stupid,
      5. Large companies get quiet "bonuses" for standardising on third-rate crap from Microsoft (and Intel, for that matter - I was offered free hardware if I would make our company website slower, to encourage upgrading of machines),
      6. Many many people have too little time to bother finding out about the alternatives.

        That's part of the answer, anyway.

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    4. Re:Fairly simple solution by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Why are people so histerical and scared of using free software ?

      Cause some people are very hysterical about writing software that runs on free browsers. I mean there's quite a few pieces of the Windows system and quite a few external programs that are just HTML+Javascript, running in Explorer "kiosk", but of course being dependent on IE bugs they can't be written portably without significant effort... which the authors aren't willing to provide. So you're stuck with some silly application like some "network manager" which looks and feels like a Windows application but is in fact just a webpage running locally, pulling some content from hosts it "manages" and getting your whole system vulnerable to exploits installed on the remote systems.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    5. Re:Fairly simple solution by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      (and Intel, for that matter - I was offered free hardware if I would make our company website slower, to encourage upgrading of machines),

      Where do I sign in for this program?! :P~~~~~

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    6. Re:Fairly simple solution by jazman · · Score: 1

      What a bizarre response, given the last part of my statement (that my use of IE is secondary to Firefox). I wasn't aware that I was clinging to IE as if it were precious, and it certainly isn't stolen in any sense of the word (actual theft or the misuse of "theft" called piracy).

      Unless you're referring to Proxomitron, rather than IE, which I use cos it's a damn good piece of software even if it isn't open source. If you know of an OSS alternative, I'll be happy to try it out. However Proxo still isn't stolen, so I really can't work out where you got that part from.

      Ultimately I can't answer your last question. I use Firefox and Thunderbird, Emacs as my preferred editor and Linux, even if I do also use Windows and IE. So I'm neither hysterical nor scared of using free software.

    7. Re:Fairly simple solution by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      If you're not asking a retorical question, why do you use the word stolen?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    8. Re:Fairly simple solution by gozar · · Score: 1
      select Internet Zone; click Custom Level; set just about everything to Disable or Prompt.

      select Trusted Sites; click Sites; remove https requirement (because the use of https is no guarantee of safety). Then go to Custom Level, then set some items to Prompt, most to Enable.

      If I'm reading the advisory correctly, this won't help you because this exploit tricks IE to think it is running from the "Local Computer" zone, not the Internet zone. You would need to set everything for the "Local Computer" zone to disable or prompt also.

      --
      What, me worry?
    9. Re:Fairly simple solution by jazman · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's right, but the trick requires some form of scripting that's blocked by the Disable/Prompts in the Internet Zone. If you get the prompt and say no, then it can't do anything.

      If a whitelisted site has the exploit, then yes, you're stuffed, but in general these sorts of exploits would be found on spamvertised or cascaded/pr0n sites and therefore not whitelisted. It's not a completely watertight fix by any means, but this approach has kept my IE surfing trouble-free for several years.

    10. Re:Fairly simple solution by nagora · · Score: 1
      Where do I sign in for this program?! :P~~~~~

      It was during the .com boom and the offer came via our Venture Capitalists, I think Intel met them at some VC convention thing.

      See your VC for details...

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    11. Re:Fairly simple solution by ssj_195 · · Score: 1
      Unless you're referring to Proxomitron, rather than IE, which I use cos it's a damn good piece of software even if it isn't open source. If you know of an OSS alternative, I'll be happy to try it out. However Proxo still isn't stolen, so I really can't work out where you got that part from.
      Not tried it myself, but maybe you could check this baby out:

      http://proximodo.sourceforge.net/

      The developer of Proxomitron apparentl died last year, so I don't know whether we'll ever see the sourcee. :(
  25. Heh. by BJH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, similar thing here - I use either Mozilla or Firefox at work and at home for pretty much everything, but the company timesheet site and internal website (including things like the phonelist) refuse to work under anything other than IE.

    Good work guys, it wouldn't have taken any more than a couple of days to figure out how to get your frigging menubar to work in a way that didn't require the security equivalent of a gigantic Swiss Cheese.

    1. Re:Heh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly the same here - we use SharpOwl for timesheets, and that has a load of dodgy scripting that does nothing in Firefox, although it doesn't use and ActiveX which is a relief!

      We also use perhaps the worlds worst document management system called DocMan - this has a retarded web interface called CyberDocs. CyberDocs uses a combination of ActiveX and Java to implement it's web interface, and the funny thing is that the code is so broken, that the Java only runs properly in the MS JVM, throwing exceptions and stopping if the Sun JVM is used instead. In short, it's completely non-standard, and the functionality isn't great either.

      It's just a shame that out dumb-ass IT department pick these packages for us, even though they aren't the ones to end up using them :(

    2. Re:Heh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, SharpOwl here too. What a piece of crap that thing is.

  26. Sophos Anti-virus detects pages using this exploit by kasihan · · Score: 4, Informative

    I use Sophos Anti-virus - and it alerts on the cached copy of the test page as containing a virus/exploit EXP/Phel-A:

    http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/expphela. html/


    EXP/Phel-A detects files that exploit the HTML Help Control Vulnerability which affects systems installed with Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2.

    This vulnerability allows arbitrary code execution on the vulnerable system by bypassing security constraints established by the operating system.

  27. I don't recall any security issues with .hlp... by kiddailey · · Score: 1

    Why not just put it into .hlp files like it used to be? I don't recall any security issues with those.
    Yet.
    1. Re:I don't recall any security issues with .hlp... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      http://channels.lockergnome.com/windows/archives/2 0041230_windows_help_vulnerability_target_of_newly _released_trojan.phtml

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  28. in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Scientists have determined that water is wet.

  29. BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I don't see what the big deal is. Provided that all of your users are rocket-scientists that never, ever do anything stupid that allows any hostile code access to their machines, then all your company's intranet sites should be safe and aren't going to include this IE exploit. IE will remain safe to use.

    As for the internet, let's be serious. Anyone who, since 1995 (when ActiveX was introduced), has used MSIE on the internet, is just plan stupid, and has never had a reasonable expectation of either security or privacy. This has literally been known for nearly a decade now. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 621498 times, shame on me."

    1. Re:BFD by Ghostgate · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 621498 times, shame on me."

      GWB said that, right?

    2. Re:BFD by ashot · · Score: 1

      parent is refering to this.

      --
      -ashot
    3. Re:BFD by imroy · · Score: 1

      Right. The "everyone knows not to do that" excuse. Except, that 99% of the ordinary windows users out there that don't know this little pearl of wisdom. Look, you and your MSCE buddies might know this and other "obvious" ways to secure your PC, but most people don't. That's why this is so serious. And it affects XP SP2, the update that was supposed to make everyone safe and secure. So far, "BFD" is my response to XP SP2.

    4. Re:BFD by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      http://clients.loudeye.com/imc/melbourne/bushfoolh r.wmv

      It's a good one. The laughter from The Daily Show's crowd only makes it better.

    5. Re:BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Democrats said that to Michael Moore and Hollywood.

    6. Re:BFD by Alsee · · Score: 1

      GWB said that, right?

      No, it couldn't been. He still can't think of a single example where he's been wrong or made a mistake.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:BFD by SunFan · · Score: 1


      "GWB said that, right?"

      He did, but when the developers attached the debugger, it was just a matter of an array overstepping its bounds. They corrected the for loop, recompiled, and the president is running perfectly, now.

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    8. Re:BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And it affects XP SP2, the update that was supposed to make everyone safe and secure.

      Wrong. SP2 was not supposed to make everyone safe and secure. Everyone knew that Windows would still be insecure after that patch. And whatever the next patch is, things will still be the same, unless that patch is completely eliminating ActiveX and a hundred other really, really, really stupidly designed things in Windows.

      Again, it's the "fool me 621498 times, shame on me" principle. Windows will never be safe and that company's Intranet Browser will NEVER be a suitable or sane application for accessing anything on the internet. Never. Anyone who still hasn't learned it, I guess they'll be given another opportunity to learn after they've been fooled 621499 times.

      And you don't need to be an MSCE or anything like that. You just have to have used the products at any time. Or even if you haven't used them, you just have to have heard what ActiveX is -- any mere description of it is enough for anyone to know that it is something that doesn't belong in a web browser. If you're one of the 99% of ordinary Windows users, and you watch reality TV shows, buy Coca Cola, listen to Britney Spears, shop at Walmart, and voted for Bush, you're still probably not stupid or ignorant enough to think that piece of software could possibly be safe. A person can be a Microsoft fanboy with their lips sutured to Bill's anus, and even so, they're still know that IE is unsuitable for internet use. It's not a question of whether Microsoft is a good company, has competent programmers, or is able to produce secure software -- it's a question of what this product was designed to do. You can have utmost confidence in Colt, but if you point a loaded Colt45 at your head and pull the trigger, you will die. Your death isn't a reflection of a defect in the product; it's a reflection of what the product is meant to do. And IE is meant to give content providers the ability to run arbitrary binary code on your system with no restrictions, no responsibility, no sandboxing, no sanity. That's all a "99% person" needs to know, and they know it nowdays.

      Or even if someone didn't figure it out in 1995, it was blindingly obvious by 1998, when Microsoft basically explain it to the whole world, with their "integrated desktop": IE IS A PROGRAM LOADER. That's what it DOES!!! That's what it's FOR!!! It's not a fucking web browser, and nobody, I mean NOBODY -- still thinks it is.

    9. Re:BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 621498 times, [I] can't get fooled."

      It only takes 621498 times to not get fooled.

  30. WARNING! - second link is bad for your PCs health! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    in the article up there...
    the link to

    http://www.jmcardle.com/?postid=77

    is a VERY BAD PUPPY. tried to crack my browser's head.

    Scan type: Auto-Protect Scan
    Event: Threat Found!
    Threat: Bloodhound.Exploit.21
    File: C:\Documents and Settings\User\Local Settings\Temporary Internet

    Files\Content.IE5\41AJW52F\jmcardle[1].htm
    Loca tion: C:\Documents and Settings\User\Local Settings\Temporary Internet

    Files\Content.IE5\41AJW52F
    Computer: MYPC
    User: User
    Action taken: Clean failed : Quarantine failed : Access denied
    Date found: 9 ianuarie 2005 12:45:25

  31. Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, another IE only website. It just shows that OSS doesn't have an alternative to IE.

    1. Re:Bummer by randallpowell · · Score: 0

      Or is it that Microsoft does have an alternative to OSS?

  32. Isn't this a dupe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vuln seems to explout a .hlp file, I thought that was posted earlier?

  33. If I had a dollar for every time... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

    ... I heard of an IE/Windows vulnerability, I'd be as rich as Bill Gates.

    1. Re:If I had a dollar for every time... by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1

      How do you think he got rich?

  34. Re:Secunia? by BenjyD · · Score: 1

    Are you saying the exploit doesn't work? Certainly seems to for many posters here.

  35. Re:But...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And neither does anything else!

  36. Re:Secunia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What does this information got to do with the bugs he found on Internet Explorer? You know, even if you dig up his mother's name it wouldn't change the fact that he actually found some serious flaws in IE SP2.

  37. Ya I pretty much have to recommend no IE now by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a Windows guy, and generally I think MS does good work (please no retarded flames on this I won't respond). However IE is just not worth using as a web browser these days. I have switched to Firefox, switched all lab systems I control, and recommend to everyone that they switch. It is just as fast, in my experience, has support for more of the W3 standards, and is more customizable. The only area it falls behind in it rendering broken code, and that's rare enough it's not a big deal.

    The security issues are another consideration as well. Active X controls in a webpage were a nice idea, as a way to add neat funtionality, however it simply opens up the possibility of too many exploits. It's not a matter of doing better checking of code or such, it's just too much power for a website to have.

    So, even liking MS generally, I have to recommend against IE. Firefox is currently better in all the ways that really matter.

    Also, I've noticed some people mention online banking as a problem. Bank of America works fully with Firefox and has generally been a deceant bank. Though I imagine if Firefox grows much more banks will have little choice but to support it.

    1. Re:Ya I pretty much have to recommend no IE now by coyotecult · · Score: 1

      USBank also works perfectly with FireFox. Citibank's credit card stuff also works with Firefox.

    2. Re:Ya I pretty much have to recommend no IE now by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Is there a list somewhere of the banks and such that DONT work with mozilla/firefox?
      Having a "name and shame" list of all the banks that dont work with mozilla/firefox would be a great way for FF users looking for a bank to know which banks to avoid.

      If National Australia Bank online banking stopped working with browsers other than IE and started requiring IE, I would probobly switch banks.

    3. Re:Ya I pretty much have to recommend no IE now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you still like M$ when they are robbing you nearly three hundred dollars for an operating system that is, nowadays, mainstream and commodity? Do you still like M$ when their most basic product XP Home costs more than a television that has to be manufactured and uses plastic, metal, semiconductors? You must be kidding!

    4. Re:Ya I pretty much have to recommend no IE now by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      My bank, Wachovia, doesn't require IE. I don't understand why banks would want to use ActiveX. They get screwed and waste time and money when someone gets phished, so they'd have a lot to gain if all their customers switched to IE.

      If other banks are like my bank, then people probably get something in the mail about once a week from them. They could replace a few of those with Firefox ads and probably switch some people over.

    5. Re:Ya I pretty much have to recommend no IE now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll alert the media that Sycraft-fu recommends no IE now.

    6. Re:Ya I pretty much have to recommend no IE now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ahem...

      "Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing."

      You're not paying for 'software'. You're paying for the convenience. I don't like Windows much, but for people who have better things to do with their time (alas, not I), it might still be a better option.

      Mac OSX seems like a good middle ground between convenience and security, but it comes with some rather nice and rather expensive hardware.

    7. Re:Ya I pretty much have to recommend no IE now by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Firefox is not perfect either.

      Ther are at least 4 exploits that Mozilla is trying to fix as I type this. But its at least alot better.

      There has to be a way to prevent things like buffer overflows and stack protection. Its the 21st century and things need to be done.

      I fear drm might be the only way to prevent unauthorized executables and the software industry including MS would love it since it could be used to end piracy.

    8. Re:Ya I pretty much have to recommend no IE now by omicronish · · Score: 1

      I think I'll be in the same boat as you. I switched from IE to Firefox back when it was at 0.8, but later switched back to IE after a variety of Firefox bugs made for an annoying browsing experience. One of those bugs was improper HTML editing, and I haven't switched back to 1.0 because it still exists. However, with a vulnerability like this in IE that lacks a patch, I think I'll have to switch back. It's simply too dangerous.

    9. Re:Ya I pretty much have to recommend no IE now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you still like M$ when they are robbing you nearly three hundred dollars for an operating system that is, nowadays, mainstream and commodity? Do you still like M$ when their most basic product XP Home costs more than a television that has to be manufactured and uses plastic, metal, semiconductors? You must be kidding!

      I use Windows, or at least I USED to, before I found out that they robbed me. I called the cops and reported the crime, and they wouldn't do anything! Does Microsoft own the police, too??????

      PS. You are a dumbass.

  38. So... by NanoGator · · Score: 0

    ...does it run on Linux?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:So... by Bilange · · Score: 1

      Not really, but im sure there's a way to make this flaw install linux instead :-)

      --
      "...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
  39. MOD PARENT DOWN! TROLL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent down. It's a troll.

  40. Awesome Feature by rhennigan · · Score: 1

    Moreover, the vulnerability can be used to delete files from the user's system

    Maybe someone can write a worm that will exploit this "feature" that will delete IE for the user.

    1. Re:Awesome Feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately Microsoft already foresaw "the good Samaritan" worms and integrated Internet Explorer so tightly into Windows that it cannot be deleted.

    2. Re:Awesome Feature by BitchKapoor · · Score: 1
  41. What did Microsoft do to SP2 by Nuskrad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm running XPSP1 with all critical updates installed. To get the exploit to run with IE on my computer I have to manually change the security level to low, allow an unsigned ActiveX control to run when it warns me I shouldn't, and confirm the overwriting of files. What the hell did Microsoft do in SP2 to make it vunerable?

    1. Re:What did Microsoft do to SP2 by Joel+from+Sydney · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Looks like this only works under SP2. I'm also running XP SP1 and had the same problems getting the exploit to work :)

  42. Use Another Product ? by aoptik · · Score: 1

    I use firefox to begin with only because it is as close to W3C standards as you can get now a days. IE6 like all the IE products released by Microsoft have had these problems with security. I have been using Linux (9 years) and Mac OS X( 3 years) and unfortunately because of my job and school had to use Microsoft. If anyone is surprised about this they should wake up. More people need to complain to Microsoft because as a business they will continue to slack unless consumers put them in there place.

    Speaking about consumers my girlfriend and all her friends are not computer savvy all of them refused to delete IE and use firefox. [Note: 2 months got gf to switch from IE to firefox! Next step Linux...]. So telling people to use another product lets be realistic the majority of people that use MS and not computer savvy tell them to change is like pulling teeth.

    1. Re:Use Another Product ? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      So telling people to use another product lets be realistic the majority of people that use MS and not computer savvy tell them to change is like pulling teeth.

      So why should we give a shit if they switch or not? If they're in a business situation and required to switch, they don't have a choice in the matter; if it's their personal computer then that's their choice and their's alone.

      Don't really see what the fuss is about. I run Linux with Opera and I really could give a rat's ass if Windows users are slammed by some vulnerability. Fuck 'em, it isn't my problem. Eventually they'll learn and try to do something about it, or they won't and they'll suffer every time some new worm comes along. Either way it doesn't affect me one little bit, other than the occasional 'net slowdown when some worm takes the Windows world by storm.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    2. Re:Use Another Product ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely dead wrong. Of course it matters what browser other people are using. We already have problems with incompatible websites; think how much worse things would be if 99.9% were using IE.

    3. Re:Use Another Product ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely dead wrong. Of course it matters what browser other people are using. We already have problems with incompatible websites; think how much worse things would be if 99.9% were using IE.

      And now we see the point of all this Firefox conversion hysteria.

  43. A lot of people, actually by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Mostly due to inertia. Some jsut don't know about Firefox (remember Joe Avverage doesn't read /.) however many don't want to switch. We've had this fight at work with Firefox and Thunderbird vs Netscape/IE and Eudora. Used to be (like 5+ years ago) that Eudora was the recommended e-mail client. Not the case anymore, Eudora bites, IMO, and the new versions cost money or have ads, so the people are using v3. Users got to choose their own browser so it's split between IE and Netscape 4.

    Well, all computers accounts are being upgraded, and most computers are being replaced, so this is a perfect time to switch. I mean why wouldn't you? The tech staff does all the setup, will answer any questions, and the programs are better. Well, there are a number of people that are just set in their ways and refuse to change. No good reason is given. Basically, they don't wnat anything to change.

    For that matter we've had to force computer upgrades on come people. I mean most people would love to get a faster computer, however some are so set in their ways they don't want to change. We are forcing the issue on anyone with an NT4 or Solaris 8 computer and some of them are NOT happy.

    It seems inconcevable to geeks, that ALWAYS want somethign faster, better, newer, but it's more common than you might think.

    1. Re:A lot of people, actually by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Well, I personally like Eudora for mail (5.2 - not too impressed with 6.x). I'm not afraid to pay for good software, so maybe that's it...

      Then again, I also use Opera which I paid for.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  44. Windows 2003 Server? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    We keep hearing of new exploits, of new security vulnerablities in XP at least twice a week and at least 10 times more often than we hear about Linux.
    But I just haven't seen a single vulnerablity report about Windows Server 2003. Maybe I missed them. Maybe the system is so little known that people don't use it and don't find bugs. Maybe the cases are swept under the carpet too fast... and maybe the system is just secure?

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Windows 2003 Server? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Most of the windows vulnerabilities are in user level programs like IE, OE, WMP, MSN etc.

    2. Re:Windows 2003 Server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Vulnerabilities do exist. I installed 15 patches on a pair of new 2003 servers yesterday. Only 2 of these were IE patches.

    3. Re:Windows 2003 Server? by CerebusUS · · Score: 1

      NEWS ALERT folks: Not a new vulnerability:

      From the article:
      Secunia Advisory: SA12889 Print Advisory
      Release Date: 2004-10-20
      Last Update: 2005-01-07 ...

      Changelog:
      2004-10-21: Updated advisory.
      2004-10-28: Added another workaround in "Solution" section and linked to Microsoft Knowledge Base article.
      2004-11-02: Updated with additional information in "Description" and "Solution" section.
      2004-11-29: Updated "Description" section with additional information from Paul.
      2004-12-23: Added link to US-CERT vulnerability note.
      2004-12-25: Updated "Description" section with additional information from Paul and Michael Evanchik.
      2005-01-07: Increased rating. Added link to test. Updated "Description" and "Solution" sections.

      So they upped the severity rating and added another workaround. This isn't really news. you've been vulnerable to this for almost 3 months now.

  45. XP with no SP by kyoko21 · · Score: 1

    I am using XP with no service pack and still on IE ver: 6.0.2600.0000.xpclient.010817-1148 and the exploit did not work... :-/

    boohoo for me :-(

    1. Re:XP with no SP by FullCircle · · Score: 1

      See what you get when you don't stay up-to-date on security patches?

      --
      If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
  46. Regular users have given up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a freelance PC repairman and get calls from average Joes running Windows machines. I'm devastated to see that regular users have given up. They are too tired to keep up with these security issues and have literally given up. They just let trojans invade their computers and have accepted the fact that it is just 'normal'.

    1. Re:Regular users have given up by randallpowell · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I, too, am a freelance PC repair technician. People now think that spyware/worms/viruses/browser-hijackers are a normal part of using the Internet with Windows. Some try to use security software but it's never updated and never configured right.

      I did get a bunch of Ubuntu CDs while their free and give those out to anyone that is interested in Linux. Especially after I answer the question, "How do you deal with it?" with "I don't. I use Linux."

    2. Re:Regular users have given up by biobogonics · · Score: 1

      "How do you deal with it?" ... "I don't. I use Linux."

      Ah, security through obscurity!

      Unless you want to argue that Linux applications are inherently more secure, the main source of protection for Linux users is that it is not as common a target as Windows. All software has bugs, even open source.

      Even Multics, which was designed to be secure and to run on hardware which supposedly was more secure had vulnerabilities. Just Google up the Air Force report on Multics holes.

    3. Re:Regular users have given up by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but with grsecurity and selinux, the amount of damage anything can do automatically is pretty small.

    4. Re:Regular users have given up by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Of course, I would argue that open source is more secure - for 2 reasons.

      1. The "many eyes" phenomenom, as everyone points out lots of people look through the code for security holes - and many even report them. College students are even required to look for them to pass some classes! The more closely the code is examined the less errors it has, and the less significant the errors. For example, say someone on Mozilla figures out a new vulnerability in Mozilla's use of some function. Because the code is open, the problem is open, etc. other developers will check their own projects for that particular problem. This type of psuedo-calaboration can't happen without open source and open reporting.

      2. Open source inherently leads to a more diverse operational set. How many versions of sendmail are there? Each one has it's own stack offset, etc. Sometimes even a recompile on a different system can break an attack vector! That means that for many exploits, the target audience is greatly reduced.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    5. Re:Regular users have given up by Refrozen · · Score: 1

      "Ah, security through obscurity!

      Unless you want to argue that Linux applications are inherently more secure, the main source of protection for Linux users is that it is not as common a target as Windows. All software has bugs, even open source.

      Even Multics, which was designed to be secure and to run on hardware which supposedly was more secure had vulnerabilities. Just Google up the Air Force report on Multics holes.
      "

      Aha! Correct, you just hit the nerve of many Slashdotters, however, you are not completely right,

      Maybe with Linux, but definately not with Firefox, critical/security-related bugs are dealt with quickly, and on a regular basis, granted, some seemingly critical Firefox bugs have sat in Bugzilla for a LONG time without being fixed, that is not the case with most of them, I am quite willing to say: Firefox has LESS bugs then Internet Explorer, even if it would appear the lack of problems comes from the fact Firefox is less used, I believe that is not the whole case.

      [/rant]

  47. Help me!! by Piranhaa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey can someone please tell me how I can find out where my windows is installed? It says here http://secunia.com/internet_explorer_command_execu tion_vulnerability_test that windows needs to be installed in c:\windows\ for their test exploit to work 'properly'

    Computer specs: iBook g3 800mhz...

    I hope that helps a little

    1. Re:Help me!! by coyotecult · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't you be paranhaha?

    2. Re:Help me!! by frogger01 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Your windows directory should be in /dev/null/

      --
      /* No Comment */
    3. Re:Help me!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look for a largish grey metal box in the basement or in the attic. May be covered with dust.

    4. Re:Help me!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try looking in /mnt/c/windows

    5. Re:Help me!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try looking in /mnt/c/windows

      No, in OSX the default mount points are in /Volumes. So that would be /Volumes/c/windows :)

    6. Re:Help me!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iBook G3 800Mhz?
      Bohoo! What an ancient machine!
      I'm running a PowerBook G4 17" 1.5Ghz!

    7. Re:Help me!! by tmika · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey can someone please tell me how I can find out where my windows is installed? It says here http://secunia.com/internet_explorer_command_execu tion_vulnerability_test that windows needs to be installed in c:\windows\ for their test exploit to work 'properly'

      Computer specs: iBook g3 800mhz...


      In that case, you're windows installation is probably along an exterior wall of your house or office. Its where you'll notice sunlight coming in during daytime hours, and be careful, it is a huge security vulnerability.

      BTW: Thanks! Your comment was the first time I really picked up the irony that Microsoft Windows is named after the weakest point of physical security and the cause of most unnecessary energy loss in most buildings. I'm sort of a Microsoft guy, and I still think that's extremely funny and more than a little prescient.

  48. That's exactly my point... by kiddailey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thanks for the description.
    ... then a command console that quickly closes (dunno what that did)...
    And that is exactly what I'd like to know.
    1. Re:That's exactly my point... by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 5, Informative

      Launches the new IE window using cmd /c iexplore.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    2. Re:That's exactly my point... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's too bad -- they ought to change it so that it downloads Firefox via FTP (Windows does come with a command-line ftp program, right?).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  49. Re:But...... by Griim · · Score: 1

    In that case, you'll have to use the honour-system, and manually delete some stuff, and maybe write some arbitrary files.

    Thanks in advance.

  50. SP2 - any effect? by rseuhs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It looks like SP2 was just the usual patch-collection and the crackers just needed a little bit time to adapt to it.

    1. Re:SP2 - any effect? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Even better. SP2 was your usual "upgrade" (fix 1000 old bugs, introduce 2000 new ones.) The exploit affects only patched systems. Those running without Service Packs (1&2) are unaffected.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  51. Mod parent explanation of script up, please... by kiddailey · · Score: 1


    Ah... even scarier than I imagined :) Exactly the type of information that should be on the page. Thanks.

  52. Re:But...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know, i tried it. ;) Wine/IE6. Oh am I disappointed or what...

  53. Can I sue them? by BillsPetMonkey · · Score: 1

    I just clicked the link and it downloaded the EXP/Phel-A virus (only when I use IE, not Firefox). Sophos Anti-Virus picked it up and gives this advisory.

    If Sophos isn't mistaken, the Secunia site is infecting visitors with viruses?!

    --
    "It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
    1. Re:Can I sue them? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Secunia is a very well known and respected IT security company.

      You somehow didn't make full system scan for a long time, HTML help application isn't very much used, demo launched it and your clever AV finally figured the infected file.

      It happens. Won't even mention a friends machine running Norton AV for years and poor guy updated it everyday on 56k modem and I uninstalled it, installed AVG free and System was like a damn Virus lab.

      I won't suggest any other antivirus or comment about Sophos like companies since I don't want a off topic AV fight.

    2. Re:Can I sue them? by sgt101 · · Score: 1

      I have a work PC so I have a commercial AV tool. I have a lot of friends though, who are home users only and don't have much cash. I have often helped them set open office and other foss programs, but virus protection has been a problem.

      Could you give more information on AVG and could anyone else who reads this who has used it and has an opinion also give some information?

      Thanks.

      --
      --------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."
    3. Re:Can I sue them? by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      Actually, what's happened here is this exploit takes advantage of other exploits, similar to how a local root can be made to become a remote root under many conditions. This demo actually is the EXP/Phel-A trojan, only invoked in an interesting way.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    4. Re:Can I sue them? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Well, best is to try I'd say. I am really, really impressed.

      Being a mac convert for 1 year, I didn't test latest free version (AVG 7) but it was the one hunted all those evil trojans on norton 24/7 running machine.

      http://www.grisoft.com/

      Its Czech coded, no fancy gfx like Symantec but does the job.

      For commercial installations I'd suggest it, also I'd suggest F-Prot which is a legend already.

      Karpersky can be real real bad on some configurations but I'd also suggest it AFTER trying http://www.karpersky.ru/

    5. Re:Can I sue them? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I got OS X here only but it seems the parent was confused and was blaming Secunia for installing a virus to his machine.

      So, I replied to that.

    6. Re:Can I sue them? by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      I use it at home. It's pretty good. At least I have no encountered obvious problems with an XP machine connected to a DSL line. Having a free for Home use verion is good, since it saves worrying about the the "will I or won't I pay for 6 more months antivirus" issue.

    7. Re:Can I sue them? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      oh yes its offtopic!

  54. HAHAH!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're so clever. no one ever thought of such a witticism.

    try this: why did the chicken cross the road? to get to the other side!!! hahahha!!! now i'm just as clever as you.

    P.S. you're a faggot

  55. Spybot S&D blocked the Test site by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1
    My IE refuses to run the vulnerability test... says "Your current security settings prohibit running ActiveX controls on this page." Apparently Spybot S&D did something good when I had it immunize my system?

    FYI I pretty much never use IE so everything is on default setting.

    1. Re:Spybot S&D blocked the Test site by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      It wasn't spybot, or spyware blaster for that matter (don't know if you have that installed, but I do). I've kept up to date completely and the immunizations didn't protect against this attack. You must be running something else that helped you out.

    2. Re:Spybot S&D blocked the Test site by damiam · · Score: 1

      That's what I got too, even though I've never changed IE's default security settings. Maybe it's because I'm using Win2k3?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    3. Re:Spybot S&D blocked the Test site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry about anonymity (asking for password).

      Here is what happened at my computer: I use the simple little Easy Cleaner program to look at my startup files, and sometimes I remove something that I think doesn't need to start up -- I have used this little program for years. After installing the newest Spybot SD program, I tried to remove an entry with Easy Cleaner, but the Spybot "teatimer" program popped up and required verification first.

    4. Re:Spybot S&D blocked the Test site by Bigman · · Score: 1

      Sounds like enough is enough (which just locks down IE's security settings) which I installed on all the PC's in my company. Most of the users have no problem with the idea that they must say sites are "trusted", and EiE adds a couple of menu items that make it easy. Well worth a look for those of you to who find themselves supporting PC's for IE addicts.

      --
      *--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
  56. Quick Fix for IE users... by zz85 · · Score: 2, Informative

    is to disable ActiveX

    1. Re:Quick Fix for IE users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the Windows Update site use ActiveX?

  57. C:\Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I moved Windows from D:\Windows to C:\Windows, and it is indeed a critical error - now my machine won't even boot!

  58. Dear editors. by TapeCutter · · Score: 0

    Dear editors,

    You are doing us all a dis-service. Surely there were more interesting posts than an minor update to a 3 month old bug report. If people want this kind of trivia then let them subscribe to a security alert service. Why don't you limit these stories to say a once a week bug round-up listed by O/S and vendor. Posting it as front page news is way to nerdy and troll like, even for me.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  59. Re:Dear reader by frogger01 · · Score: 0

    There was nothing going on today, and we're quite bored. This was our only form of entertainment, and it has served us well. Please continue to post on this thread, as we laugh while playing you with our marionette. /. editors

    --
    /* No Comment */
  60. What about Moz flaws The Register has as top story by Dr.Knackerator · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Mozilla and Firefox flaws exposed

    "The most serious flaw involves a buffer overflow bug in the way Mozilla processes the NNTP (news) protocol. The bug creates a means for hackers inject hostile code into vulnerable systems, providing they trick users into executing maliciously constructed news server links"


    Of course half the problem with these kinds of 'update your software now' fixes is that so many people dont, even when its a no brain operation like using windows update.

  61. Firefox by Alien+Venom · · Score: 1

    And this is why I use Firefox.

    1. Re:Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty original. Way to go against the grain and fight corporate... Oh, wait, this is slashdot and 75% of posts are about firefox.

  62. Shh, you'll wake the zealots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They only care about criticizing Microsoft.

    Note to zealots: if a Linux distro provided even half the usabilty (I.E. end user friendliness) of 98, much less XP, then I'd use it daily and install it on the computers of everyone I know. Unfortunately none of them do. So stop whining about "M$" and get your own shit in order. As it is you're already about a decade behind.

  63. Kind of, it seems. by coyotecult · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://www.starnix.com/banks-n-browsers.html VERY comprehensive list of banks who will work with Linux -- which is basically the same thing. If you're browser agnostic, the OS shouldn't be a deal.

  64. According to their own test... by gatkinso · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...this unpatched XP laptop is not vulernable to the exploit.

    Guess it isn't as extremely critical as they say.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:According to their own test... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      While my patched system is vulnerable. What now? Everyone uninstall their updates and service packs, please?

    2. Re:According to their own test... by Mordaximus · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's why they say "IE6 running on XP SP2?" There's nothing to say MS didn't introduce a ton of new eploits with a service pack.

    3. Re:According to their own test... by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing that Microsoft wasn't stupid enough to indicate in the User Agent String for MSIE whether the computer has SP2 installed.

      Oh, hold on a second.... never mind.

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  65. ahhhhhh fuck secunia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are a bunch of asshats

  66. Pull the switcheroo by phorm · · Score: 1

    I had a similar issue at work. Happily, setting ffox up with the IE icon left many who didn't realize that a change had been made (they've just assumed it's an upgrade)

  67. Re: Dear clueless person, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a working exploit on a fully patched system capable of deleting files on your system is news, even if, or rather because it is appearantly three months old. The fact that it sheds a bad light on a Microsoft product is, IMO, well deserved.

  68. McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a way! by PommeFritz · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have McAfee virusscan 9.0 installed.
    Clicking the test link with IE proved that my system is vulnerable (if using IE, which I'm not, ofcourse). I had expected McAfee to block this web page, but it didn't. So I went to the internet security options panel in IE, and disabled all ActiveX controls.
    But lo and behold, McAfee virusscan stopped working!
    All their dialogs and panels seem te be using IE's HTML engine for display, and all I get now is first an error "your current security settings prohibit running ActiveX controls on this page. As a result, the page may not display correctly" and then an empty window when trying to access any of McAfee's information or settings dialogs!!
    What a load of crap. I will send them a complaint, and remove their product from my computer right now, to replace it with a good, free virusscanner. Any recommendations? Thanks.

  69. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What moron modded this flamebait? The parent makes an excellent point. The average person is still worried about viruses and attacks that damage a computer. He worries a virus could delete his Quicken files, but thinks it's safe to send his PIN to his bank's site because the little padlock appears.

    Users need to be educated that real damage happens when their data are read by someone else, like phishing, datamining, and whatnot. Simple data loss can easily happen without malice.

  70. Re:liars! by agraupe · · Score: 1

    Troll? How is this a troll? At worst, I would say it's a poor joke. Mind you, I laughed. So, to the mods of /., take the broomstick out of your rectum and laugh at funny jokes.

  71. Re:Dear reader by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Dear editors,

    I am glad I have provided some entertainment on a slow day. Now could you please return the favour.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  72. still some idiots out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like there are still some idiots out there who continue to use Internet Explorer to browse the web. Well, being dumb doesn't hurt but perhaps this hurts... Fortunately humans have the ability to learn from their mistakes...

  73. Activex vs. Plugins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    What's the difference between Activex and plugins which have full write privilege to system files. Especially when the plugin's have plugins, e.g. difference codecs for the streaming media plugins. Its hard to keep track where everything is coming from.

    Plugins pretty much bust the browsers sandbox model. If I was a cracker that's what I'd be concentrating on, writing rogue plugins or trying to break the current ones. Plugins probably have the security as the lowest priority, expecially the spyware ones.

    1. Re:Activex vs. Plugins by tepples · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between Activex and plugins which have full write privilege to system files.

      Plug-ins typically require more of an affirmative action[1] by the user before they get installed into the browser's memory space.

      [1] Here, it means clicking yes, rather than discriminating against white males.

  74. Re:WARNING! - second link is bad for your PCs heal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It downloads a malicious file to your IE cache. Unless you execute binaries in your cache often, I wouldn't worry about it.

  75. Re:Linux cheapstakes by agraupe · · Score: 1

    Well, that really should only concern you if you have users on your computer that you don't fully trust. Internet Explorer, on the other hand, is used by 90% of the population, and can be exploited by almost any website. Which is worse, I wonder?

  76. Re:Sophos Anti-virus detects pages using this expl by cillasri · · Score: 1

    Absurd! What will do you when a new exploit appears that your Sophos antivirus doesn't detect yet?

    Let me tell you: you will be screwed.

    Switch browsers immediately! :-)

  77. Reported to Microsoft ... by un1xl0ser · · Score: 4, Informative

    In case anyone missed this, it was reported to Microsoft on 2004-10-13.

    Three months later, no sign of a patch.

    --
    v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
  78. Another on the pile.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    In other news eating dog shit can make you ill..

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  79. Non-admin won't help you much by MarkByers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    creating a non-admin user for web browsing This assumes that there are no local exploits to promote users to superusers. It is a much better idea to use a secure product, rather than hoping that there are no security vulnerabilities in the Windows kernel.

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
  80. good reflexes by camcorder · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...(reported to Microsoft on 2004-10-13).
    That's almost whole 3 months. And since then no vendor patch for such a critical bug found in a major product. Not even a warning or anything. That must be the service that any microsoft software user would expect. Wondering if this is a promotion campaign for their new virus and spyware tools.

    This bug and some recent others again proved that Microsoft embedded Internet Explorer in such a way that you can't distinguish it from Windows Explorer.

  81. LOL-been surfing enough porn to come up with a cus by budword · · Score: 0

    Been surfing enough porn to come up with his own solution to this mighty problem. :)

  82. Use the source! by MarkByers · · Score: 1

    The source code for the exploit is all there. Use view-source.

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
  83. Re:McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a w by eraserewind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AVG Antivirus.

  84. Say what you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ignoring the obvious biases, I would like to point out that IE/Windows is the only product combination that gets put through this kind of scrutiny with respect to security. The software has, and likely will always have, new bugs / exploits to be discovered, mocked, and patched. Other browsers / OSs will inevitably contain bugs / exploits as well, but the chance that they will undergo this kind of public scrutiny and rapid distribution of a fix is nill.

    1. Re:Say what you want by MacDaffy · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree with you on this. The most scrutinized combination right now is Windows/Firefox because it's starting to take a bite out of IE's market share. If you don't think there's a team of Microsoft-funded gremlins whacking the bejesus out of Firefox in a dungeon somewhere, you haven't been paying attention.

  85. Hahaha by Surye · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think this came just in time to remind those who got too smug regarding the recent linux local exploit? ;)

  86. Re:What about Moz flaws The Register has as top st by strider44 · · Score: 1

    I think the main difference is if you run version 1 of Firefox you aren't affected at all. It is also extremely difficult to exploit this bug, if you, indeed, can. This IE vulnerability, on the other hand, is valid on a fully patched system, and easily exploitable.

    The other hole, by the way, doesn't work so well if you've resized your download window (since Firefox keeps the old download window size and position) at any time, or you have a different theme installed.

    I think this is just a case of "RTFA", though you're the one who supplied the article.

  87. um? by fforw · · Score: 1

    There was an article about those flaws.
    which only one was nearly as dangerous as this but was fixed in the current mozilla, firefox versions.

    --
    while (!asleep()) sheep++
  88. Rendering broken code is bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The only area it falls behind in it rendering broken code, and that's rare enough it's not a big deal.

    In fact, rendering broken code is bad. If no browser rendered broken pages, all pages would be correctly built, and all browsers rendering engines would be 50% smaller and more efficient.

    1. Re:Rendering broken code is bad! by iluvcapra · · Score: 1
      rendering broken code is bad

      Respectfully, I don't think this is an adequate solution. One of the things that makes the Internet content-rich and broadly opinionated medium is the accessibility (and forgiving nature) of HTML to the average user, and each browser's relative tolerance to malformed code. I think an important part of keeping HTML free (as in speech) is keeping it readable with the eyes and writable with the fingers in its source format, without a required authoring program acting as intermediary.

      When you let people markup their own text, you will run into some non-spec pages, but the alternatives for a non-pro seem pretty poor:

      use Word to make your web pages (we're talking beginners, here)

      Try to hand-hack it, get XML PARSING ERROR 5 or six times (darn you Safari, even if you're right), and eventually give up because you never see that paragraph tag you forgot to close.

      To specifically respond to your point, IF no browser rendered broken pages, all pages would be correctly built, BUT, only about a quarter of them would exist, only professional ones would look nice, and the pages extant would represent the views of far fewer numbers of people.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  89. So it's OK if you don't use IE? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    Secunia says 'Solution: Use another product.'"

    Sometimes these exploits can target you even if you don't use IE due to the integration. Hopefully not the case here. :-/ Otherwise it'd be scary to use XP for gaming...

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:So it's OK if you don't use IE? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you almost certainly _are_ vulnurable if you're using products that use mshtml to render webpages, for ui or adverts or such.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  90. corepirate nazi debt/disruption devices broken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what a surprise?

    that's ok. they're not needed to complete the creators' newclear powered (this stuff is unbreakable, & wwworks on several (more than 3) dimensions) planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

    what is alarming/dismaying, is the length of time that we've allowed the nazi execrable, aka, the walking dead, to increase the panet/populations' crisis mode, by continued glowbull warmongering. it certainly would appear to have the creators peaced off? lookout bullow.

    take heed. consult with/trust in yOUR creators, disempowering (usually with yOUR help/cooperation) unprecedented evile since/until forever. see you there?

  91. Just a note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with what you're trying to say, but why do you think Antivirus or firewalls or anytispyware would be helpful to a security exploit since:

    a) this isn't a virus
    b) this is using port 80 (i.e. http)
    c) this isn't spyware.

    I think you're trying to say "I have every bit of security I can think of installed, and still, its trivial to get past every defense".

    At least I *hope* that's what you meant.

  92. Some People Will Never Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Take my younger 18 year old brother for instance. He's hooked into Internet Explorer and MSN like a Great White on a bloody fishing line... no matter how many trojans he seems to pick up - the last one was very nasty, lots of random .exe's dotted around his system - he still won't change. I say "You shouldn't have to reinstall XP every 2 months", he says "I like a clean system!". Talk about banging your fucking head against a brick wall

    1. Re:Some People Will Never Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talk about banging your fucking head against a brick wall

      The same could be said of anyone putting up with all the annoying complications / lack of compatibility associated with running firefox, mac, *nix, etc. Everyone has their own preferences, live and let live.

    2. Re:Some People Will Never Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take my younger 18 year old brother for instance. He's hooked into Internet Explorer and MSN like a Great White on a bloody fishing line... no matter how many trojans he seems to pick up - the last one was very nasty, lots of random .exe's dotted around his system - he still won't change. I say "You shouldn't have to reinstall XP every 2 months", he says "I like a clean system!". Talk about banging your fucking head against a brick wall

      So your 18yr old brother hasn't started dating yet?

      He'll get bored once he starts dating some ubergeeky chick who runs Linux, wears a Firefix T-shirt, and whops his ass on the Game Console of her choice....

    3. Re:Some People Will Never Switch by amgqmp1 · · Score: 1

      He has time to bang his head into a wall? This must to pass the time when not doing clean OS installs... ;-)

  93. Yes, Microsoft themselves are recommending... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...Telnet from a CMD.EXE prompt, since even HyperTerminal has vulnerabilities and most of the alternative products are communists (although maybe that's just how Bill pronounces "communities").

    If you want to poke fun at the whole idea, buy one of these (buttons coming when I can figure out what to fit in a 2.25" circle).

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  94. Re:liars! by SinaSa · · Score: 1

    I'd mod that up if I could. AVG rocks. No bloat. Also you might want to try clamwin, but AVG is better imo.

    --
    --
    The last digit of pi is four.
  95. Re:McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a w by zerocool^ · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am sorry that I cannot reccomend any free virus scanners. The *only* virus scanner that I ever reccomend to anyone now is TrendMicro. After working with it for a while now, I almost refuse to fix problems with McAfee and Norton. Both of them drastically slow down a computer, and both of them miss viruses that TM finds regularly.

    If you'd like to see it in action, go to Trendmicro.com/download and click on "Damage Cleanup Engine", download "sysclean", then go back and click on "Virus Pattern File" and download the latest (currently lpt335.zip). Unzip this into the same directory as sysclean and run it.

    This solution won't stay in memory and scan everything that accesses your computer or HDD, but it will find viruses if you have any.

    ~Will

    --
    sig?
  96. Obligatory Penny Arcade by Zorilla · · Score: 1

    He's not an MSCE yet. He failed TCP/IP - he's not even bipedal!

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    1. Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade by tepples · · Score: 1

      He failed TCP/IP - he's not even bipedal!

      My friend Gus doesn't have legs at all, you insensitive clod!

  97. Re:McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://free-av.com/
    http://www.avast.com/eng/down _home.html

  98. No luck with Safari, either by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just e-mailed Steve Jobs basically the same thing about the Safari Browser. If Apple ever hopes to make it into the enterprise, they're going to have to include at least equivalent functionality for developers to, er, exploit.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    1. Re:No luck with Safari, either by jurv!s · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that, but Safari had a similar exploit around last May. While I love my PowerBook and OS X (I've even achieved mythical "fanboy" status in several forums), let's not forget that all software has bugs and more will invariably be found. The best thing that we can do is promote a healthy software ecosystem so that those without their head up their asses can switch to the alternative when any one piece of software has a dangerous exploit in the wild. I personally use Safari, Firefox and Camino regularly. If MS had continued updating IE for the Mac, I might consider using it still. But without tab support, it's dead to me...

      --
      sigs are for fools and trolls. no signature is *always* appropriate. you should turn them off in your preferences.
    2. Re:No luck with Safari, either by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      But didn't Apple release patches within 3 days? And this MS vulnerability is 3 months old with no patch in sight? Sounds like we proprietary Apple software users do have a healthier ecosystem. So by that measure, your reputed "fanboyism" is promoting a healthy software ecosystem. =)

      Those are the same browsers I use, with Safari seeing the most use. Interestingly, I recently found that my bank and Safari have problems when I want to transfer funds from one account to another, but Firefox works fine. I can still check my balances with Safari.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  99. Idiotic alarmist reaction - Fixed BY DEFAULT by njyoder · · Score: 0, Troll

    I just tested on IE6 SP1 which hasn't been patched for a year or so and the DEFAULT SECURITY SETTINGS prevented the exploit from running. Microsoft wins, moronic linux zealots who have no idea what they're talking about lose. Really, are you going to fault a company for the default security settings, the settings which most people have set, for WORKING PROPERLY?

    1. Re:Idiotic alarmist reaction - Fixed BY DEFAULT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is because it ONLY works on SP2. YFI.

    2. Re:Idiotic alarmist reaction - Fixed BY DEFAULT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The exploit works in SP2 only dumbass... Read before you spout shit.

    3. Re:Idiotic alarmist reaction - Fixed BY DEFAULT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      njyoder: What did you expect the replies to be...

      I tried the test with two machines with XP and without SP2, both with reasonably lax security settings. One did nothing when I clicked the link, the other asked me if I wanted to download and run a .ocx file (if you can't click 'no', your machine deserves to be compromised).

      I then tried with a machine with sp2 on it, a new window popped up, but IE didn't go to the URL.

      I recognize that the exploit exists, and can be a serious problem, but it seems to me that it is by no means going to affect every machine. Perhaps the "Extremely" is not necessary.

    4. Re:Idiotic alarmist reaction - Fixed BY DEFAULT by njyoder · · Score: 0

      Well you're right, I should expect slashdot to be alarmist. I mean God forbid Slashdot accurately report something concerning Microsoft. They could have said "easily fixed vulnerability affects only SP2." But no, that wouldn't allow them to feed into their zealotry.

  100. Re:McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a w by SpinJaunt · · Score: 1

    Alwil Avast antivirus http://www.avast.com - I've been using the free version for about a year now, and decided to start buying there Professional version it is that good! avast! 4 Revision History: http://www.avast.com/eng/av4_revision_history.html

    --
    /. is good for you.
  101. Way to suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IE exploits were changed from "Critical" to "Extremely Critical" after those exploits discovered in Linux's kernel just the other day.

  102. Donkey to Shrek.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I tried attaching an onion to my belt.

    Not everyone likes onions - Now a parfait, now were talking. everyone likes parfaits!

  103. 2004-10-13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, I can see the exploit being news, but essentially nothing has changed since it was reported on 2004-10-13 other than some updates to the description and a new ranking of 'extreme'.

  104. Another day, another exploit by HangingChad · · Score: 1
    And five million more people who will finally say, "I'm tired of all these spyware things." And try something else.

    What's really funny is I warned a vendor last year that security issues related to IE were going to be an ongoing problem and they should look at moving away from the IE only application they were providing. They told me, less than politely, that IE was the number one browser in the world and I could basically STFU.

    Sure glad I saved those emails....

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  105. Pinwheel of death by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1

    I'd combined those two some time ago to make pinwheel of death. Hadn't thought about it in terms of a beachball before...

  106. Bandwagon? by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 1

    Secunia says 'Solution: Use another product.'

    It seems like everyone is on the "Switch to Firefox" (I realize they didn't specifically name Firefox) bandwagon. Which I cannot be wholly sure if I like? Blind allegience to what happens to be my favorite doesn't make me any happier because the real goal is to educate.

    If everyone mass-switched I fear it will belittle the point. I believe people need to SEE why they should do something, not just do it blindly. If it takes for them to be affected seriously, so be it.

    i.e. You never truly understand the power or usefulness of saving every few lines of code until it saves you. :)

    --
    When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
  107. Use another browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I use Firefox or Mozilla and am in the process of weaning myself off of Windows... but am I wrong in noticing that a certain amount of open-source propaganda has found its way into these security advisories?

  108. thx, but the main point is... by PommeFritz · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've decided to try Anti-Vir (free-av.com) for a while, I heard good comments from other people too about this one. At least it seems to work fine with thunderbird too.

    But the main point of my original comment was that McAfee decided to use Internet Explorer itself, one of the main sources of leaks and infections, as part of their own anti-virus product!
    This must be the result of someone having some serious brain damage over at McAfee's.

  109. So what you're telling me is that by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Interesting
    this has been known for 3 months and there are still no patches available from microsoft? According to windows update, I'm fully patched, according to their test page, IE is still vulnerable. I think that's even worse than it being a new vulnerability.

    Lucky me that I use firefox, and just got IE out to try out that test. And don't give me stuff about "turn off activeX" or some bs like that. The point is, how many non-tech savvie people think they're safe because they've done what we told them to do and kept their computers patched?

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    1. Re:So what you're telling me is that by CerebusUS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, What I'm telling you is that this article was written and posted to provide fodder for a flame war.

      You are still vulnerable because Microsoft has determined that this vulnerability is:

      a) unpatchable without ruining the functionality of the product

      and / or

      b) not a large enough threat to worry about.

      Now I'm _not_ going argue whether either of these points is correct or not. But to present these as "New exploits" is typical Slashdot anti-journalism. they did the same thing when they announced the "New" vulnerabilities for Firefox a few days ago. Those were not new either, but neither the submitters or editors bothered to read the articles that were submitted.

    2. Re:So what you're telling me is that by strider44 · · Score: 1

      The main difference is the Firefox vulnerabilities were released they had already been fixed. The IE vulnerabilities still f*ck up your computer.

    3. Re:So what you're telling me is that by CerebusUS · · Score: 1

      The main difference is the Firefox vulnerabilities were released they had already been fixed. The IE vulnerabilities still f*ck up your computer.

      Actually, one of the three hasn't yet been fixed, and my not be. Here's the bug. and here is the Secunia advisory.

      But this is all beside the point, as you've once again tried to make this thread about a Mozilla vs Microsoft Browser Flame War. The _point_ is that these exploits are NOT new. If you pay attention to Slashdot (or any one of another of security-related websites) and happen to run IE, you've already been notified about this problem, and if you're smart, you've already done something about this.

      Again. This entire article was posted only because no one bothered to actually read the article and realize that it was a minor update to a known vulnerability. If the article was worded that way, I wouldn't be here ranting about it, but it's made out to be a new vulnerability.

    4. Re:So what you're telling me is that by strider44 · · Score: 1

      Sorry I only skimmed your post before replying, and thus misinterpreted what you are saying, mostly because I had only just replied to someone who was making the case that the firefox vulnerabilities were worse because he saw the "unpatched" secunia advisory, even though it wasn't valid for the latest versions. This article was posted (if you read the article more carefully than I read your post :P) because there was finally a test available to show how easy it is to just execute code. The test is new, not the advisory. The shocking nature of how easy the test is made the advisory step up in level.

  110. Your solution breaks McAfee virusscan by PommeFritz · · Score: 3, Informative

    As you can read in my comment below about McAfee Virusscan 9.0, disabling activex in internet explorer breaks every settings and information panel of that virus scanner.
    Great. A virus scanner that contains IE.
    (I deinstalled McAfee an hour ago).

  111. Yawn by Kythe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Only if your default is to not have SP2 installed. RTFA.

    Since Microsoft recommended everyone upgrade to SP2, and since SP2 INTRODUCED the vulnerability, I'd say your system isn't "default", and most people, by default, are vulnerable.

    "Linux zealots", indeed.

    --

    Kythe
    1. Re:Yawn by njyoder · · Score: 0

      That's the most retarded logic ever. On the one hand, you're going to say people are stupid and don't patch their systems. Then you're going to assume that most people upgraded to SP2? Please. Most people are not going to be running SP2, so don't give me that load of bull.

    2. Re:Yawn by njyoder · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see ONE, just ONE, reasonable explanation of why this "extremely critical" vulnerability warrants alarmism and WHY MS deserves to be so heavily bashed. Spare me the disconfirmation bias and apply equal standards to all vendors. This is just another vulnerability, one that doesn't apply to most and is easily fixed. Yeah, that that warrants MOMGMSISSOEINSECUREWTFLOLZ@!!!!!!

    3. Re:Yawn by njyoder · · Score: 0

      Damn, this is a sad reflection of Slashdot. I give a perfectly logical refutation and the zealous comment stays higher ranked. Not to mention me getting labelled as a troll for being a dissenter.

  112. The expliot is specifically coded to target SP2 by WD · · Score: 2, Informative

    The code for the web page is designed to specifically target Windows XP SP2. The code modification required to make it target multiple versions of Windows is trivial.

    1. Re:The expliot is specifically coded to target SP2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      source plz?

    2. Re:The expliot is specifically coded to target SP2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The code modification required to make it target multiple versions of Windows is trivial...

      ...and is left as an exercise to the reader.

  113. Firefox-IE users switching back to Firefox?? by smahesh · · Score: 1
    A few days back vulnerabilities were reported for Mozilla/Firefox and people posted comments saying that they were switching back to IE. Does this mean that they are now switching back to Mozilla/Firefox? :-)

    This reaffirms the adage that no software is "absolutely" secure/bugfree - just relatively better/worse than other software. Pick the one you feel is more secure. Both Firefox/IE-SP2 will have flaws.

    Btw, I must admit that I use Firefox as my primary browser and this did not affect me.

  114. New headline writer, please by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

    I don't think something can be "extremely critical." That's like calling something "very unique."

    1. Re:New headline writer, please by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      We'll start looking for new headline writers very promptly

  115. Proxomitron by stripe42 · · Score: 1

    LOL. Assuming they don't live under the bridge, I think someone jumped to conclusions. That never happens on Slashdot thank god. <grin>

    Your use of Proxomitron caught me attention. I use it regularly at work. (Probably typical scenario: developers use Firefox for regular use, but company mandates IE, so we target for IE... slowly getting all developers to `test` in Firefox too.) The log window has helped the team debug some odd session issue. There seem to be some good Linux progs to do the same thing, but I haven't found a Windows program that holds a candle to Proxomitron. Real gem. Did the programmer ever release the source?

    1. Re:Proxomitron by jazman · · Score: 1

      No, as ssj says below, the programmer passed away last year aged 30-something, I know no details but it sounded rather unexpected. He never released the source so my guess is his family (if they care) will probably honour that and keep it closed. Also there were some bad vibes over the software, someone pi**ed him off or something so he stopped working on it. Damn shame IMHO. Scott Lemmon, wherever you are, thanks for this great software.

  116. What I'd like to know is... by koali · · Score: 1

    What's the user-agent stats for views of this news item?

    If I'm not mistaken, not long ago, IE was still the browser of choice for slashdotters....

    (submitted using Firefox :)

  117. Or... by JeffDaMan · · Score: 1

    Or just use Maxthon, which adds tabbed browsing popup blocking etc to IE. And I tried the vulnerability test with Maxthon and wasn't vulnerable. See, you don't have to use Firefox, you can stick with IE and just get Maxthon. Microsoft all the way!

  118. Re:McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a w by kryptkpr · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  119. Computer Insurance by technix4beos · · Score: 1

    With all these exploits and viruses/worms out in the wild, would it be practical to provide computer insurance?

    --
    user@host$ diff /dev/urandom /dev/uspto
  120. Firefox flaws already fixed and have been by Solr_Flare · · Score: 1

    The flaws posted on Firefox/Thunderbird are, and have been, fixed in the current versions. Those flaws only affect the non-1.0 versions of both pieces of software.

    Now, knowing that one could say "Well why on earth was that a big deal then if its already fixed?". The answer is a lot of businesses tend to stick to something they know works. Which means they sadly tend to not update as often.

    So, it was a recent enough flaw that, despite having already been fixed, needed to be made known. All that said, a lot of the articles on the flaw were misleading because few clearly mentioned that if you had the latest version, you didn't have that problem.

    As for IE, its real problems these days are:

    1) ActiveX
    2) Integration with OS opens up too many potential pitfalls

    That's it really in terms of security. And, as has grown increasingly obvious over the last few years, this isn't a problem that is going away despite this endless patching. Until MS comes up with a new and viable alternative to activex, and until they seperate the browser out from the operating system, they will never be able to truly secure IE.

    Is anything ever perfectly secure? No, everything has some sort of flaw somewhere that has any level of complexity to it. But, as in the case of many alternative browsers, you can make them secure enough so that any secondary watchdog programs(spyware catchers, anti-virus, etc) can nail anything that slips through the cracks.

    --
    You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
    1. Re:Firefox flaws already fixed and have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flaws posted on Firefox/Thunderbird are, and have been, fixed in the current versions.

      What about the table rendering flaw? Why can't this simple problem be corrected? If a software application is secure, yet doesn't function correctly as intended, is it even useful? I can craft a completely secure web browser as one that doesn't access the internet, but that wouldn't be very useful, would it?

  121. Re:McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a w by kosmosik · · Score: 1

    Try AVAst - it has free "home" version for home/uncomercial use. Free version goes without some advanced stuff (like vorking with MS Active Directory, reporting etc.) suitable mostly in networks of installations not single computer. AVAst interface is a bit ugly (but can be skinned), but at least it does not depend on retarded mshtml.dll controls. And it's detection engine is one of fastest (I cannot remember article with test right know, just belive me :))...

    http://www.avast.com/eng/down_home.html

  122. IE-specific apps will stop working by tepples · · Score: 1

    Then watch as people bitch (or sue!) because IE-specific ActiveX apps such as Windows Update and CartoonNetwork.com's Kids Next Door: Operation BEST stop working. I'll take an educated guess that at this point, it'd be too much of a pain for Cartoon Network developers to reprogram a 3D game such as Operation BEST to 1. be written in Java rather than C++ and 2. work with Java 3D's scene graph model rather than the Direct3D model that the current client uses.

  123. Here's an idea... by carambola5 · · Score: 1
    Here's an idea:

    Someone modify the white-hat code into some other white-hat code...except instead of just doing a mkdir or opening IE, show a typical joe-blow user exactly how dangerous this really is. I don't know how... perhaps display a dialog box that says something to the effect of:
    Windows and Internet Explorer have a very large security problem between them. So great is this hole that the webpage you just visited is capable of shutting down your computer. If you don't believe me, wait one minute. If you don't want the shutdown to occur, click "Cancel." Oh, and by the way, check your desktop...

    And have the program put a Firefox link on the user's desktop.

    Now I realize that this may make some people cringe: "But you're making people think that Firefox users are hackers!" The idea is not to send anyone the link to this quasi-malicious page. The idea is to put a link to it in your AIM/Yahoo! Messenger/forum sig/etc. Show it to friends. Word of mouth is incredibly powerful, as you may know.
    --
    IWARS.
    People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
    1. Re:Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea,

      Leave people who want to use IE alone. Nobody likes a stupid promotion for some other piece of software, especially one that leaves icons on your desktop. Look at AOL or RealPlayer.

  124. what do you think happens Tuesday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft already indicated they will release 3 extremely critical bug fixes on Tuesday.

    And now we have 3 extremely critical vulnurabilities that were told to Microsoft months ago announced today.

    I personally find it despicable that Secunia felt they needed to release this info before the path comes out Tuesday. They expose a lot of people to potential attacks just to get a little press.

    1. Re:what do you think happens Tuesday? by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have always had a very low opinion of Secunia. Hopefully Microsoft sues them.

    2. Re:what do you think happens Tuesday? by un1xl0ser · · Score: 1

      Mods,

      Any reason not to bump the above post up?

      I thought it was very informative.

      --
      v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
  125. Extremely Critical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The linux exploits posted a few days ago are just as critical, seems like the editor just wanted to lash out at MS after linux getting some flaws. What is this, gamefaqs?

  126. just turn off ActiveX controls then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't think that was rocket science.

    I can easily see why you would be concerned about ActiveX in your browser. But why do you need to switch browsers to alleviate those concerns when you can just switch off ActiveX in IE instead?

    1. Re:just turn off ActiveX controls then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why do you need to switch browsers to alleviate those concerns when you can just switch off ActiveX in IE instead?

      Because saying that wouldn't help add to the tiny Firefox userbase :).

  127. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez. People are so quick to jump on IE for being insecure... The workaround for this "critical" flaw is to a) disable drag and drop in the browser, or b) up your security level. More features == More insecure. Duh.

    I'll keep using IE, just the same.

  128. Direct deposit? You insensitive clod! by tepples · · Score: 1

    And if you route your direct deposit to them

    I make most of my money from doing odd jobs for individuals or contract jobs for small businesses. If they write me checks, I can't deposit them in any ATM in town. How can I get people who typically write me checks to set up direct deposit?

    1. Re:Direct deposit? You insensitive clod! by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Same with me (freelance illustrator), but I have a tiny teaching gig that has a real HR/payroll setup.

  129. Delete the help file by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

    This exploit uses the the following file: c:/windows/help/ntshared.chm. Maybe a quick solution would be to delete or rename this file?

  130. Amazing that most banks require IE by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
    And claim its because of security.

  131. mod UP! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Same here. Scary shit.

    Many slashdotters reading this at work could have their jobs on the line or could infect their pcs.

    I think emailing cmdtaco and perhaps puting an update on this story saying the site will upload a virus to your system might not be a bad idea too. After all slashdot could be sued as a result.

    Nasty stuff.

  132. But the site could be hijacked by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    There was another advisory about a month ago mentioned here on slashdot with hijacking someone visiting a site using activeX.

    my guess is a cracker saw this story on slashdot and is hijacking the communication with the activeX controls with the virus.

    This bug should have been fixed already.

  133. Better colours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  134. which bank is this? by tungwaiyip · · Score: 1

    Please let us know.

  135. Script? Written -- Enjoy! by Pavan_Gupta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.people.virginia.edu/~pg8p/

    It downloads firefox, and begins the installation -- that's it.

    I could've very easily move iexplore.exe and adjusted icons and everything, but let's play this the white hat way. Enjoy amigos!

  136. Re:liars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, but who wants to waste a mod point on an AC? It's not like his karma was damaged or anything.

  137. Answer, given home computers by tepples · · Score: 1

    Why are people so histerical and scared of using free software ?

    Because they have kids who play PC video games, and there aren't nearly as many free A-level PC video games as proprietary A-level PC video games.

  138. Daft headline too... by doodlelogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's either critical or it isn't. "Extremely" is redundant.

    1. Re:Daft headline too... by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Critical means another day at the office if you're using micros~1 products. Extremely critical is more like every other day.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
  139. Re:McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a w by omicronish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's pretty amusing. A virus scanner that relies on a component that may be a vector for viruses and trojans, and a known vector for spyware.

    Embedding IE is simple for the programmer, but the security settings are so confusing for the user that it's possible to inadvertantly tighten security too much for local applications, which causes the errors that you speak of. After the existence of security holes themselves, I think the next worst part about IE is its incredibly confusing set of security settings, especially on the Group Policy side. It's difficult to secure something when you don't understand how its security works.

  140. Re:McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a w by sdibb · · Score: 1

    For a good virus scanner -- my best suggestion would be to bootup on a Helix Linux LiveCD and scan it using clamav.

    open a terminal:
    sudo su; mount /dev/hda1/; clamscan /dev/hda1/*

  141. hmm by hillg3 · · Score: 1

    Symantec AntirVirus Corp edition caught this no problem. Symantec had this one taken care of since Dec 25th.

    Bloodhound.Exploit.21 is a heuristic detection for files that have been designed to exploit the Microsoft Internet Explorer HTML Help Control Local Zone Security Restriction Bypass Vulnerability (BID 11467). The vulnerability is still unpatched by Microsoft as of December 25, 2004.

  142. you mean, "Stupid Fix" by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

    ActiveX is the only real thing keeping anyone intelligent using IE *at all*! And let's face it, only someone who knows what they're doing even knows *how* to disable ActiveX.

    Because some essential but stupidly-designed sites refuse to work without ActiveX.

    So if you're going to run a browser that won't work with some sites, why not just switch to another browser altogether?

  143. Java by tepples · · Score: 1

    There has to be a way to prevent things like buffer overflows and stack protection.

    Yes. It's called Java technology, and it does so without any sort of digital restrictions management. However, the Firefox team still wants to target machines that are too slow or have too little RAM to run Java programs effectively.

  144. Re:McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a w by Twintop · · Score: 1

    There is also a Windows wrapper for ClamAV called ClamWin over at SourceForge:

    http://sourceforge.net/projects/clamwin/

  145. Re:McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a w by cgenman · · Score: 1

    Which has recently been renamed AVG Free Edition

  146. You too can have exploits and instability! by twitter · · Score: 1
    Hey can someone please tell me how I can find out where my windows is installed?

    It might be in your bochs. If it works on OS/2, it's got to work for you!

    Don't forget to save an image before you blow it up.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  147. Microsoft and IE by mstefan · · Score: 1

    The real issue, as I see it, isn't that Internet Explorer is fundamentally flawed. The problem is the way that Microsoft installs the thing by default. The security zones and options give you a lot of flexibility, and allow you to take advantage of ActiveX controls but that should obviously only be done on sites that you explicitly trust.

    The default configuration for IE should be that the Trusted Sites zone should be setup like the Internet zone is now; the Internet zone should not have ActiveX enabled in any form, and scripting should be limited. Any site accessed by IP address and not a domain name should be automatically considered to be in the Restricted zone where everything is disabled. No changes to IE itself, just how the security settings are configured by default, and you'd have 99% of these types of exploits go away. If a user wants to access a site that has all sorts of ActiveX scripting and so forth, then they can decide if they want to add it to the list of trusted sites.

    Why Microsoft refuses to do this, I have no idea.

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
  148. Patch coming 1/11/2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/12186/discussion/ :

    "Microsoft has released advanced notification that they will be releasing three security bulletins for Windows on January 11th, 2005. The vendor has not enumerated how many vulnerabilities will be addressed by these security bulletins, nor what specific components or platforms may be affected."

    Microsoft itself has announced this as well: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /advance.mspx/. No explicit details have been posted, obviously to prevent script kiddies from taking advantage of the vulnerabilities.

    If you're concerned about the time for these vulnerabilities to be addressed, remember that the SMB vulnerability in Linux was not patched for over three months. Patches take time, particularly when faced with a huge user base (something Linux developers need not worry about) and a huge existing software base (again, something Linux developers need not worry about).

  149. lol by k3rnl · · Score: 1

    Microsoft takes security very seriously. Come on, patching IE is against their needs. Their entering the AV and AS market!

    --
    eKlode your senses.
  150. Re:Sophos Anti-virus detects pages using this expl by jesser · · Score: 1

    Even better, what will he do when someone modifies the exploit so that Sophos misses it? I assume Sophos only sees the original HTML, not every intermediate call to e.g. eval(), so it should be easy.

    --
    The shareholder is always right.
  151. 'Arbitrary Code' by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    to me always implied deltree /y c:\*.*, so deleting files is nothing new, we are just lucky that most computer vandals are not complete computer anarchists.

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  152. Oh, no, not again... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Just when I switched back to IE after learning the 3 new mozilla vulnerabilities... *cries*

  153. MSIE Health warning by GtKincaid · · Score: 1

    I keep telling freinds and family about the danger of MSIE use , Do they listen ? no. Ive wasted Countless hours fixing peoples systems and clearing out mounds of malware,Straight after i give them a little talk about why they should only use MSIE when They have no other choice(Win update or some sites). I go into depth about why its a Simply a bad idea Do they listen... No. So i continue waisting many many hours of my life sorting out peoples PC's Whats worse is these people have children And the kids see the parents using the software and slowly they become addicted to using it, weening them onto firefox gum is tricky they dont want all the benifits(plus some) with non of the major risks I go into depth about the many pc health risks such as Impotent conections and High bug presure 'Its time to think of the children MSIE may make you look big and cool but lets not give in to peer presure. Remember people if you want your conection to live to see your grandchildren on your messenger service and not have your zombie windows pc corpse choking at the first sign of a animated gif Well i better stop my rant on doing things that are bad for your health*Lights up a cigar , and downs a beer* Ahh now thats good hipocracy

  154. big problem? not really by jaywarrietto · · Score: 0

    I have a SP1 system with whatever ie version comes with it with only the default settings in it and I couldn't run the active x things at all because if the *deafault* security settings
    I do use FF though so I'm just peachy

  155. What if it was... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

    To prevent it from spewing rotten eggs all over the neighbourhood ? Hmm, I'd really have to think about that.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  156. MS slyly pulling out of browser market? by kcwatx · · Score: 1

    possibility?

    --
    -The Royal Jugglist
  157. Nice execution of Mozilla Arbitrary code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be nice to maybe build a mozilla install using something like WinInstall LE, and when someone browses to your malicious (?) website, install mozilla and remove IE, since they're not smart enough to have a secured browser anyway!..

    Making the web a safer place!

  158. Calm Down! The link provided a simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Solution:
    Use another product.

    This solves a lot of problems.

  159. Banking?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Problem is all our financial vendors make use of Active-X.
    And that is just fine, and perfectly sane. Why? Because your company does not value financial matters. Having a foolish and irresponsible vendor is no big deal.

    Just like I don't care if my food has rat droppings in it, or my air has chlorine and mercury vapor in it. I mean, a person's health, a company's finances -- these things just aren't important enough to worry about.

    HOLY FUCK, DUDE! FINANCIAL VENDOR?!?! Just how much borderline criminal-irresponsibility do people have to put up with, before they get the idea to .. oh, I don't know .. CHANGE VENDORS?! Your vendor has basically said that as a term of doing business with you, they need to have the ability to run arbitrary code on your system, have access to all your files, and have the power to destroy anything on your machine. You financial vendor says they won't do business with you, unless you give them the ability to flash your computer's BIOS. They won't do business with you, unless you give them the ability to read all your stored emails, and send email from your machines.

    Sane?

    So um .. perchance could you please share the name of your company? I need to make sure their stock isn't in my mutual fund, since this company obviously isn't in the business of making profit.

    1. Re:Banking?! by Green+Salad · · Score: 1

      Switch? They're a strategic partner! Kind of like a regularly cheated on spouse (Viruses, anyone?), we hope they'll change so we don't have to leave them.

  160. Yep, you're exactly right by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    ...except that you're not.

    There has been a vulnerability, but it was never an exploit because no one ever actually made an attack with it.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:Yep, you're exactly right by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall seeing proof of concept exploits out there for sure, in fact it was so easy there wasn't really any need for one. So on what basis are you claiming nobody ever got exploited? Just because you don't see it happening doesn't mean it didn't happen, that's 2 year old thinking.

    2. Re:Yep, you're exactly right by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      If it was as easy as you say, then it would have spread like wildfire through the entire Mac community. What proportion of Mac users do you think have virus scanners, anwyay? I sure don't.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  161. no surprise there by cg0def · · Score: 1

    Was anybody surprised that some other bug was found in M$'s swiss cheese?

  162. Contrast this to recent linux local root exploit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I run linux and windows. Looking back to the nyah-nyah-told-you-so game going back and forth about linux vs. windows vulnerability. I think this is another point for the linux side. Remote exploit where hacker can delete files and trash o/s is much worse than local root privilege escalation.

    People made a point about Linus being made aware of the problem and the inaction for 3 weeks. But this apparantly is 3months old, patched already, and still a vulnerability.

    I'm not trying to say linux is so far superior. It's evident both platforms have issues. But it looks like the Windows side it much more dicey. That said myself and everyone I know has not suffered problems in Windows. Don't run IE. Duh. It's not impossible to run a secure Windows box, and it may still be easier to do than run a secure linux box. I'm not going to pass judgement. I've had major headaches and complaints about every computer platform I've ever run. Doesn't matter what choice you make, you will have issues and they will suck. Apple zealots don't lie. Mac has issues too.

  163. Firefox falls behind? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
    The only area it falls behind in it[sic] rendering broken code, and that's rare enough it's not a big deal.
    That's not a bug, it's a FEATURE!
    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  164. Nice idea? I don't think so. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
    Active X controls in a webpage were a nice idea, as a way to add neat funtionality...
    No, they weren't, and here's why: Active X is proprietary. Proprietary software can be acceptable, but proprietary web "standards" never are (let alone that "proprietary standard" is an oxymoron). Why? Because not only does it mean sites don't work with Firefox, it also means that they don't work with Lynx and a Braille display so blind users are SOL. It also means that the company that owns the "standard" can break it at any time and for any reason, and screw over everyone who wishes to (or must) use the old version.

    And most ominously, it means that that company has control -- they could use their vendor lock-in to kill actual open standards (by not supporting them), create other proprietary standards to lock people in even more, and maybe even acquire enough power to get laws passed to legally require the use of their software! That would open the door to even more fun little horrors, the least of which would be taxing the use of the standard.
    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  165. Extremely Critical vs. Critical Vunerabilities by bulkmailforyou · · Score: 1
    Critical update

    Security Update for Windows XP (KB123456) A security issue has been identified that could allow an attacker to compromise your Windows-based system and gain control over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this update from Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer.

    Extremely Critical update

    Security Update for Windows XP (KB123456) A security issue has been identified that could allow an attacker to compromise your Windows-based system and gain control over it and subsequently gain full control of your mind. You can help protect yourself and your computer by installing this update from Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer.

  166. Re:WARNING! - second link is bad for your PCs heal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That link infected me also. I don't have SP2 installed because it doesn't work with some Athlon 64's. Any suggestions about dealing with the virus? I haven't rebooted yet.

  167. Exploits for everyone by Punchinello · · Score: 1

    This looks pretty serious too:

    http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10248

    Why no headlines?

    --

    Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

  168. Not vulnerable by canuck57 · · Score: 1

    But I use Mozilla... not IE. Snicker

  169. ClamAV is Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.clamav.net/

    Its database only has 29k+ definitions, so don't expect too much. Hoewever, it's Open Source, and could use the support. Clamwin is the Windows version.

    http://www.clamwin.com/

  170. Re:McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a w by tmika · · Score: 1

    I am sorry that I cannot reccomend any free virus scanners. The *only* virus scanner that I ever reccomend to anyone now is TrendMicro. After working with it for a while now, I almost refuse to fix problems with McAfee and Norton.

    I really, really agree. I remember the gold old days when McAfee was an excellent product and a lot closer to being actually free. Norton was always up and down, but used to be better. But for a long time, I've found them both really disappointing in both how much they miss and how many hassles and slowdowns they create.

    TrendMicro products are great by comparison.

    They also excel versus a lot of startups. A while back I tried a Panda anti-virus package (so I like to check different products, don't flame me for it). It was a fair/mediocre anti-virus product, not dramatically better or worse than Norton, for example.

    But, I made the mistake of testing their firewall product that came with the install. I keep hoping for a software fireall that actual works without breaking everything or causing tons of hassles to use on client sites (but never have).

    Anyway, my system started slowing down, hanging, and blue-screening at random. I thought I had a virus. I didn't have a virus. I had a firewall. After about 12 hours of hell, I eventually diagnosed the firewall as the source of the problems. What a piece of crap! Inspite of all of the anti-Microsoft retorhic, its pretty rare that I find anything remotely reputable that will consistenly bluescreen 2k or XP, excepting really crappy device drivers.

    Anyway, that's sort of a tangent, but the point is that there is a lot of crappy AV software out there, and you're TrendMicro recommendation is excellent.

    Oh, one other thing, has anyone else notices how many anti-virus programs no longer include a memory scan? What the heck is up with that? Why even bother trying to find and clean files on disk when there could be something in memory working against you. Especially since a lot of spyware isn't fair from a virus in action or effects, and so many anti-virus programs skimp on checking for spyware and adware installations, including old, common ones that really interfere with system usage.

  171. Linux kernel root exploit found... by KMSelf · · Score: 1

    ...and patched the same day.

    The difference between free software and the proprietary stuff: if you've got no plausible deniability over faults, you tend to own up to them quickly. Not quibble over whether it's a bug or not, or how critical it is. And you fix it.

    If you really want to kill a long, rainy afternoon, buy Jeremy Allison some beers and ask him about the undocumented bugs the Samba team knows about in CIFS, but, because they're nice guys, they're not holding MSFT's feet to the fire over.

    IHBT, IHL, HAND.

    --

    What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

  172. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...welcome our virus-finding, dump that rat bastard microsoft overlords!

  173. Re:Linux cheapstakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The local exploits effect me exactly how? Nobody uses my system locally but me. Now since I don't "contribute to the cause" I'm a cheapskate? Wow. I would have thought that term applied better to people that run warezed copies of windoze, not to me, who actually wants to run a better system. I've probably actually spent more $$ on Linux than most have on windoze (Caldera was my distro of choice some years back, and it wasn't cheap).

  174. Ahem... by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
  175. Re:Sophos Anti-virus detects pages using this expl by kasihan · · Score: 1

    I have been using Firefox as my default browser for 6 months. I should have mentioned that in my post - but I guess I take for granted that self respecting slashdotters would not use IE :-)
    Sophos saw the cached page even though the code was never going to be executed. I believe in a multi-layered defence - I count 5 between my filesystem and the net: firewall, http proxy (privoxy), a better browser (FF 1.0) running without admin privledges & anti-virus. All of these bits help.

  176. testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vnxcwvcs wovxm muxw xosxmn voouvcs ssvrnns awrsmwa e
    xcrmmam uswoea exnxe nerw cruancv ver oxunro acnmes
    mawnvw uscr xmmsxur wmuoser rwnrne wn cucacar wrcus
    uvawar rmsso vnae s u x mcsesru
    xwwenx ewwusmwx x o w w nossxve
    aesrurm ccaexuu w a a u vmcvvnm
    wucecnw wsccea ewxau eerrcuw unuu vvvcn erxxnxa
    cvcxvorm auvsv vosnu rawccx vceamw uvacencr mnxu
    nexaxw xsaxweac vnuev csmo ouxwwm rerso eevoau ooso
    vvemcow mxvmnoo smuou sswen maemomv urrerc aewssnw
    ewareacu surar ssm naaxro acvnx rvrvmns vromwr usxse
    uevaeou suxenu ucssuom nwrcvcua aeoccos vmueom
    ncwnn weumcwv nauas o m xuwcrm waer wouwsw
    munnmcs ocvvo rnc v m ocevne ccoc wrvme
    rarna xeecox rcn e a ewaxw mxew xsmw
    svcxc nesccue a usavce soeexce uneoxr amrwrne
    ucscu cnvrcma a usuwucur xuruwnuee waruc nwcawcae
    ewxmm xseuurva rraomrman aeowun svv voseac ccvmeu
    ucamn cvrcnnwu eoxscavcr wcscm semc wxuxcoex unao
    uuwxsa coamsmx eewcnexem arrnwmawe novonsmu xaov
    xnmamve xooouss vcsnsoxno rnaouaoa neuoxw rssausv
    xxmrua xavuxawa ervsvsvx wcen vvnsu mxan vwoc
    vwncu ancesuw cn vomoms w ncwaxaxx auwannu
    urcun nnwnnus norw vuera u mrmcewu vnesmw wa
    acswwax meavw mocnevo new c ccemce senaxs acxsx
    xcswuw cuvru erecsnr aoruo cansew nwrawxs vvuuo nmxm
    rowxvcwo rceau cuvxvurw v awnccmm sexevuv vmr
    meecrovs vaaam ecocmuo o mmocvu eonso wevw
    uuvwv mrev ueme ccxenxx s rwoasc morawnnc
    cmavmmmr nenrnx vrxwavv r ovrmxaaaa awucm
    mrvxom umwnexso erscmmwn xrnon rcwua oeacraem
    caawe mxnavwvc xwxeouna uaoasas nvvvx omaexae
    vwmssuo sawxcs usvnurvu nvcemco ncevrr rnocwr
    mcsoac wsmeuxn rmewvrv umvuewn xmcrxrv wswnr
    manncu vxnwnmx ceeuswn cawosw ueruowcw easru
    ccvrnovo svurnu soour wcoexs soxnc wmrcvuxr
    acsxv vnrmsx na w nvsac svuwnu msvmec
    vnrrunxa oovrmuo v erwcne vveacxw nrmrn
    vxurws wourwv eurn scosans veaaer axasem eavos
    sxorruwc swvawso xrwer vuwmw rnmxxue uaxrxne ammrvvs
    ruuwmc smrwo ecenw cvssw asvr naemaes xmosraer xuao
    eeuwex easaue vnens xxneaa rseeurm mu xowvx nwaexns
    ecsxec crarvcr on w a c neoxava
    vemacm uuwovmvs n a s v ewccvve
    oosvemum aaorxc m c m x avnureo
    rcvvcos urnmxs neasocve uvevm nuu vcnnexx vacxa
    eevouu nrarrox amrsw vrusao aamsxw nnnesm cwaxer
    rwxacarc mwumxn crmcw seannx rcucrwm wearmx vvcosva
    wsmsmwax wuaoav cesuwemx wnex rnxumua oscrx awuuxa
    uvmuns xvxsr cuenu usnwcox wennw xamv raon xmaow rxa
    xvwcov oxneonx aoacre eewr swrnsu ee sevecrmx cvce
    xvosmmx uerrcm s a a nsssax vv
    vwaaxe mmvncas e u c cmasx wm
    nwcwvmx vausma o s m uxswv xe
    vcxsv rvcxeuvn a m v nnmoww sc
    enwnnnv momosn mwaessx xesmunm vaem wcam sxcr wcsmn
    saasve mmumwws evvvwe wexvmns areves avecs xaxsevw
    sxcser awasmwu n m c xossuenx oumv
    xossmn aemwuew r w o uecur wxnoxmu
    srewc vncsmscr c m v ovvroseo xucv
    axumoumo uussc e c a rooaeca aanrr
    nnwwsecv naesa ooecxm urmawv urrc soomomsm srswcvr
    uvwsawo nnerev vxerxx easc ewcuvruu xewscse wcxnmxw
    aaeovvo mmsua vromam cowm waxew rsm xeaxeevn uuwre
    sxsnea rowrwo ewrxva naurn svaawxco onmuue vcssow
    arvnxr uxco snuo crcwue msumxxn xcm swusx umwwwvx
    wevxocs oxvmum s e a cnuucro aswcm
    ammov rweravmw a m o mccxmsow ssmsm
    nxummmum neeea u r r enrnwvn excxoos
    ruuxxsm acwsva v e v wrwuamsm orsnxunm
    csxrca vuvvoaw emsexno mncsrwv venv wsevwr xuxwxrrw
    xxwxww wsweouo ovrv avrv nmmecnmn rscc unsmwx
    xunu v rewuxa vxxxw o csrons ecuwsm nnv
    ev cmrraco meee u scusam xorxrr re
    a wowvwwwso vr e c uruunvum nnnwwv
    o xxnenronm w nnxvcr uoaom scwvumse
    u onxvwxanm xuu rrmnxxw sucwr voxesoo uasue
    e omnxaaxr sanx usxucca rruuxw onawewar xwms
    c reonoonv vwmu xnnsunc monxwn srevcw smrmeu
    r vcoreu xanev amaueecn ws nasrn cxrmame
    e vereo crwcem wcrnru aoavxvex eunxw
    aw c wrsencwn e vvuencr voecaaav
    vsu s vmacrn rxo x e se smwom

  177. Hypocrites. by JThundley · · Score: 1

    Remember when the United States Computer Emergency Response Team (US CERT) recommended using against using Internet Explorer? When that happened Secunia issued a statement essentially defending IE, saying it's problems aren't that bad. I promptly fired off an email (mainly an angry rant) about "How can you say that? You of all people should know that using a different browser is a good idea! It's in your interest that your customers use IE and have troubles!"

    I got an email back saying that there are always vulnerabilities in everything, CERT went over the top with their advisory.

  178. Re:McAfee virusscan itself is also affected in a w by Harassed · · Score: 1

    Definitely go with Trend if you don't mind paying! The best free one I think is AVG (www.grisoft.com)