Slashdot Mirror


Zero-Day IE Exploit Takes Control of PCs

anethema writes "A remote IE exploit with implementations is currently in the wild. From the article: 'Exploit code for a critical flaw in fully patched versions of Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer browser has been released on the Internet, putting millions of Web surfers at risk of computer hijack attacks.' Aparently all you have to do is browse the page to be affected. There is no patch, but since it is a JavaScript exploit, you can work around it by disabling JavaScript."

567 comments

  1. This is why... by wpiman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I use Firefox.

    1. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      This why I use a mainframe. Micros are just toys, bad enuff they have crummy hardware but their software is crap too.

    2. Re:This is why... by msdschris · · Score: 5, Funny

      I use telnet and render the HTML mentally.

    3. Re:This is why... by buswolley · · Score: 2, Funny

      I use CowboyNeal. --oops.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    4. Re:This is why... by ZiakII · · Score: 3, Funny

      I use lynx....

    5. Re:This is why... by csgames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why, if you try the PoC with FF1.0.7 or 1.5RC3, FF CPU usage will rise to 100%, DoS'ing it. These stupid FF r0x0rs comments are becoming more and more dull every day.

    6. Re:This is why... by aicrules · · Score: 3, Funny

      Only to be stricken by sloppy internal perception code causing random synapse firings building to a pace that you suddenly just start breakdancing.

    7. Re:This is why... by buswolley · · Score: 1
      I thought this was a poll....

      instead it was a pole.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    8. Re:This is why... by Scoth · · Score: 5, Funny

      You say that in jest, but imagine the possibilities for exploits when/if we get the point of direct neural implants for communications and such. Just imagine, instead of porn popups, lockups, and reboots we'll have people suddenly yelling about viagara at the top of their lungs, freezing up and falling over mid-stride, and suddenly forgetting where they are.

      Maybe anyway :)

    9. Re:This is why... by krewemaynard · · Score: 1

      There are ways to get around it. Try the NoScript extension to create a whitelist of sites that use javascript. It's a bit of work at first to train it, but once you get the sites you use regularly, it's pretty handy.

      Oh, and FF r0x0rs.

      --
      I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
    10. Re:This is why... by buswolley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can get those anywhere these days for next to nothing...Why do normal consumers buy PC's with such a deal on the market.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    11. Re:This is why... by Fx.Dr · · Score: 1

      You see what happens when you buy a browser at IKEA? I told you those weren't "spare parts"...

    12. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You've met my grandfather, I take it.

    13. Re:This is why... by andreMA · · Score: 5, Funny

      Two of those three would apply to the current crop of US politicians. All three if you count Bob Dole.

    14. Re:This is why... by HairyCanary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the FF r0x0rs comments are redundant. Even more so are the responses to those comments that suggest that FF crashing has anywhere even approaching the same level of impact as an IE exploit that allows remote control to be taken of the affected computer.

    15. Re:This is why... by nyc_paladin · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke
    16. Re:This is why... by oKtosiTe · · Score: 1

      That's odd, I already see that happening quite regularly... Maybe it's time to move.

    17. Re:This is why... by lordofthechia · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I use telnet and render the HTML mentally."

      You get used to it. I don't even see the code. All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    18. Re:This is why... by Janitha · · Score: 1

      http://www.computerterrorism.com/research/ie/poc.h tm Proof of Concept, Haven't tested since didn't have access to any machine with IE at the moment, but seems all it does is open up calc.exe

    19. Re:This is why... by aicrules · · Score: 1

      Perhaps something like this Human Browser Interface Error?

    20. Re:This is why... by iambarry · · Score: 1

      I blame the victim.

      I'm assuming that Firefox (and all non-IE browsers) are not vulnerable. Has anyone confirmed this?

    21. Re:This is why... by lordofthechia · · Score: 5, Funny

      I phone the webmaster and ask him to read me the webpage.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    22. Re:This is why... by Quevar · · Score: 1

      Are you sure your brain doesn't have any vulnerabilities? I'd much rather my computer get a virus than my own brain....

    23. Re:This is why... by HogynCymraeg · · Score: 2, Funny
      I use telnet and render the HTML mentally.

      IRCers who talk to "Babes" have been using this technique for years!!!
    24. Re:This is why... by SpectralDesign · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't use javascript

      --
      Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
    25. Re:This is why... by glebd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Asylums are full of crashed brains.

    26. Re:This is why... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It kills firefox, but doesn't open up calc.exe, so that's something at least.

    27. Re:This is why... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Also it does *not* work on IE6 - it merely does the same as firefox.. goes 100% CPU.

    28. Re:This is why... by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I have a Faraday cage (a la Enemy of the State).

    29. Re:This is why... by loconet · · Score: 1

      You kids are spoiled. I read /. by grabbing the cable and interpreting signal.

      --
      [alk]
    30. Re:This is why... by Cunk · · Score: 1

      Neal Stephenson's Snowcrash uses this idea. Show a particular image to someone in the virtual world and they turn into a vegetable.

      --

      I am the inventor of the hilarious refrigerator alarm.
    31. Re:This is why... by OakDragon · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is an exploit that my computer suffers from every day. It's called the 'Slash.ORG' worm, and it doesn't matter what kind of browser you use. Once the browser navigates to a certain website, it tends to stay there, refreshing as needed. It's called a DoPE attack, or 'Denial of Productivity for Employer.'

    32. Re:This is why... by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      You are quoting Snowcrash and I claim my five pounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash

    33. Re:This is why... by mcbagpipes · · Score: 1

      I have a tin foil hat...

    34. Re:This is why... by MS-06FZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I tried the PoC with FF1.0.7 and the DoS didn't NMS on any of my PCs, instead the FUHB BYKJFN MJNAJH on the NBoRX and your post is so dense with acronyms I have no idea what you're saying. I wish there were a moderation option for "-1: Unintelligible"

      --
      ---GEC
      I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
    35. Re:This is why... by orangesquid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why not just put your IE and web stuff in a special subtree and chroot before fork+exec'ing?

      Oh, wait, does windows even have anything like that...?

      I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm honestly wondering.

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    36. Re:This is why... by MattWhitworth · · Score: 1

      Ah, you mean chroot jails. Nope, as far as I'm aware, Windows doesn't have even chroot abilities.

    37. Re:This is why... by The+NPS · · Score: 1

      NoScript is great. I wouldn't surf without it again. Also, what the hell is this site supposed to do? 'Cause it didn't do a thing for me.

    38. Re:This is why... by tholomyes · · Score: 1

      I think it had something to do with Final Fantasy and the Power of Chocobos.

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
    39. Re:This is why... by Kieranishere · · Score: 1

      Even if this option was available in Windows, your average user would be unaware and just as vunerable.

    40. Re:This is why... by angusmci · · Score: 1

      I think this is - or should be - known as the "snowcrash" phenomenon, in homage to Neal Stephenson.

      Let's hope that the state-of-the-art in network security advances faster than the state-of-the-art in neural implantation, otherwise we risk seeing problems that make having your PC co-opted into a botnet look trivial by comparison.

    41. Re:This is why... by onepoint · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tin Foil Hat's have been proven to increase the range of reception and transmission.

      go with the F-cage

      Onepoint

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    42. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my opinion, the question you should be asking is not why windows does not have jailing ability, which in unix is really not the best form of security protection, but why there is no form of "secure-Windows" type implementation. Actually I am quite intrequed why MS has not created a seperate secure API feature set, and secure only run mode. It would be quite easy to do, and the standard windows messaging engine is, by far, its biggest security "hole".

    43. Re:This is why... by mallardtheduck · · Score: 1

      Actually it does. Microsoft says so and I just tried it. In my case, a messed up text prompt appeared and it sucked up CPU when I clicked 'OK'. When I clicked 'Cancel' however, calc popped up and IE closed.

    44. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason IE is attacked is because it has the largest market share. Not because its an inferior product. If FF had as large of a market share you would be saying "this is why I use IE"

    45. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need to upgrade then. Is mentally on SourceForge? I'm tired of using wget, cat and grep to view my pages.

    46. Re:This is why... by Pope · · Score: 1

      It's the same whether repairing your car or assembling IKEA furniture: anything left over is profit!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    47. Re:This is why... by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      Hmm. Guess my version of IE isn't fully patched. That site just caused IE to crash.

      Wow! I'm SO glad my company won't let me install Firefox on my machine. It's much safer to use an out-of-date version of IE...

      It is their network and their computer, so I really don't mind using IE that much. Besides, the sites that I browse while at work aren't likely to cause any serious problems (CNN, slashdot, gmail). I just wish I could add tabbed browsing functionality to my version of IE.

    48. Re:This is why... by flamingweasel · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're using the PHONE? Fool!

      --
      Cthulhu loves you.
    49. Re:This is why... by m50d · · Score: 1

      If it needs an extension to do something as basic as decide which sites are allowed scripting, it's a flawed browser.

      --
      I am trolling
    50. Re:This is why... by MCraigW · · Score: 1
      Oh, wait, does windows even have anything like that...?

      You could make a separate username with only guest privileges and only use IE from there. I don't know if that would necessarily help with this particular exploit. If you are really that fearful that you will fall victim to some IE vulnerability, then just don't use IE.

      I use different browsers for different things. Most of the time, at home, I use Firefox. But I also have and old version of Netscape, Opera 5.0 and 8.0, and IE 6 installed, so I can "test" web pages that I create on all of them. Also, some types of files, like .mht, can only be decoded by IE.

    51. Re:This is why... by byolinux · · Score: 1

      What do you do for a living? If they won't LET you install it, maybe consider working for a better company? :)

    52. Re:This is why... by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know the Firefox fanboys won't care, but Opera opens the proof of concept page without a DoS.

      Yes, I realize that saying this makes me an Opera fanboy.

      --
      Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
    53. Re:This is why... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Which is why I use the wires up chocobos butts browser and have them pantomime the internet to me.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    54. Re:This is why... by galego · · Score: 2, Funny
      I use telnet and render the HTML mentally.

      In Soviet Russia, the HTML render you!

      --

      Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas

      [May God give you double that which you wish for me]

    55. Re:This is why... by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      Isn't that wonderful. You found one offending website. OTOH, I've been running my copy of FF 1.0.7 for over a week straight (in Ubuntu) with 30+ tabs and I haven't had a single issue. I really don't understand why people bitch about FF crashing or otherwise freaking out. I've never seen it happen on my Linux desktop. Maybe it's an issue with the Windows port...

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    56. Re:This is why... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      The FF 1.5 beta I'm running on seems to be fine with it, no adverse effects.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    57. Re:This is why... by smeenz · · Score: 1

      Heh.. I read that as "it's called a Dupe attack".

    58. Re:This is why... by Akoma+The+Immortal · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute. Are you surfing the same pr0n site than I do ?

      --
      assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump
    59. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use wget and cat... sometimes I simply collect the bits off the wire and look at those!

    60. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Agree.

      FF does NOT, in fact, r0x0r. It barely suffices.

      On Windows, it still constantly gets itself into a state where it just stops responding to all input (autistic mode maybe?) It still crashes out for no reason at all.

      On the Mac, even now after all this time, IT STILL RUNS TOO DAMNED SLOW. Safari runs rings around it without even trying.

      And on Linux, as we all KNOW if you're not running GNOME the FF/Linux team has basically said you can go to hell. Sure, we can install a specific theme to re-arrange the fucked-up Mac-like button order but why should we? Why can't this be a configuration option open to all? Ah but hell no--Firefox caters to everyone, except on the Linux platform where they've basically told KDE users they don't count.

      So no, Firefox does NOT r0x0r. All I need is something like "adblock" on my Mac for Safari, or in Konqueror on Linux (coming soon, I understand), and I'll have no reason to ever use it.

    61. Re:This is why... by Toutatis · · Score: 1

      Mental!

    62. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a lightweight browser, fully custumisable to ones needs, if you wan't a browser wich can do everything you will have startup times 10x more than FF, so be glad it is done that way, it's much better ;)

    63. Re:This is why... by vettemph · · Score: 1

      >>> Tin Foil Hat's have been proven to increase the range of reception and transmission.

        That is a flaw in hat design. You can't shape the hat like a dish or bowl and not expect it to have a focal point.... in your head.
        The hat needs to be formed with five parabolic dishes, joined together at the edges, with the dishes(concaves) pointed outwards from each other. The "front" dish can have two small cutouts for your eyes.

        This isn't fashion, It's protection!

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    64. Re:This is why... by towsonu2003 · · Score: 1
      oh that's scary (is it?) I'll give ubuntu a try in my brain-

      :p

    65. Re:This is why... by coronaride · · Score: 1

      Didn't work for me, either. In fact, I got a security warning at the top of my IE screen stating that it detected potentially harmful controls in the page. I should add, however, that I was viewing the page with the IE7 beta. This could be a sign that Microsoft is moving in the right direction...

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
    66. Re:This is why... by krygny · · Score: 1

      What are all these web page things I keep hearing about?

      --
      Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    67. Re:This is why... by aconbere · · Score: 1

      maybe it's time to pop over to get a copy of Portable Firefox and start carying your firefox with you? ~Anders

    68. Re:This is why... by flewp · · Score: 1

      But if you look at a reflective surface, it'll just beam the signal straight into your eyes and through your optic nerve. The key of course, is to cut out your eyes.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    69. Re:This is why... by Agrippa · · Score: 1

      Don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.

      .agrippa.

    70. Re:This is why... by zachdms · · Score: 5, Informative

      Check out DropMyRights - should be exactly what you want.

    71. Re:This is why... by caulfield · · Score: 3, Funny

      The phones are tapped.

      US Mail, baby.

      Didn't anyone see The Postman

    72. Re:This is why... by v1 · · Score: 1

      I use lynx

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    73. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why not just put your IE and web stuff in a special subtree
      > and chroot before fork+exec'ing?
      >
      > Oh, wait, does windows even have anything like that...?
      >
      > I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm honestly wondering.

      tar -xpf, obviously.

      The handful of buffoons^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hwisened, capable souls like yourself are not sufficient in number to interest the virus writers. Similarly, were Opera or Firefox used daily by hundreds of millions of users, they'd be under assault, and more likely than not, would have far more exploits needing closing simply because they are not under heavy assault at the moment, while IE has been for years.

      So the correct subject line to your posting should be "This is why...Firefox doesn't seem to have too many holes at the moment."

      Let's see if I get modded as a troll of flamebait!

    74. Re:This is why... by SeventyBang · · Score: 1



      Read the article, wiseguy.

      <source-excerpt>

      THE FOLLOWING PROOF OF CONCEPT IS PROVIDED EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY...

      <snip>

      //
      // Harmless Calc.exe
      //
      shellcode = unescape("%u5053%u5053%u9090%uC929%uE983%uD9DB%uD9 EE%u2474" +
      "%u5BF4%u7381%uA913%u4A67%u83CC%uFCEB%uF4E2%u8F55" +
      "%uCC0C%u67A9%u89C1%uEC95%uC936%u66D1%u47A5%u7FE6" +

      </source-excerpt>

    75. Re:This is why... by ahauser · · Score: 1

      I agree that Firefox is MUCH better than IE. However, if you follow one of the links in the above article, you are taken to a Security Advisory by Computer Terrorism (UK). In their Advisory, they offer a proof of concept that seems to not only crash IE, but crashes Firefox as well. Of course, this proof of concept seems to prove that the exploit can be used for DOS attacks, so it is unclear whether or not Firefox is vulnerable to arbitrary code execution.

    76. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, one thing it doesn't make you is cool.

    77. Re:This is why... by loose_cannon_gamer · · Score: 1
      I use firefox too, but I think it fair to point out that it is a mathematical certaintly that eventually a similar 0-day exploit will be found in firefox.

      Point of note, I think that the firefox development model may be more robust / better able to deal with it / reduce the likelihood of such issues in the first place. But firefox isn't immune to this sort of thing, either.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.
    78. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Perhaps that's why it's called an "IE Exploit"?


    79. Re:This is why... by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1

      I use Linux.

    80. Re:This is why... by Jack+Taylor · · Score: 0, Redundant

      From the slashdot faq:

      Redundant -- Redundant posts are ones which add no new information, but instead take up sace with repeating information either in the Slashdot post, the attached links, or lots of previous comments. For instance, some posters cut and paste otherwise legitimate comments in multiple places in the same discussion; the pasted versions are Redundant.

      So FF r0x0rs comments may be lame, but the first one at least is not redundant -- a fact which many moderators appear not to have grasped. One of the other moderation options should be used in this circumstance. I think that there should be a new negative moderation label so that this doesn't have to be "overrated", but I haven't convinced myself of what it should be yet.

      --
      One good turn - gets all the covers.
    81. Re:This is why... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I don't use javascript

      Good idea. Now if we could just get all other browser users to understand this. It's never a good idea to take code from strangers and run it automatically.

      If browser makers were responsible citizens, they'd all supply their browsers with javascript and all other scripting tools turned off by default. There are cases where they're useful, with sites that you know are trustworthy. But enabling scripting by default is just asking for trouble.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    82. Re:This is why... by achacha · · Score: 1

      I drive to the person who wrote the web page and ask for a print out (preferable a dot matrix version on green and write lined and perforated paper).

    83. Re:This is why... by psyon1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Man, you people and your technology. I send a request to the web master via carrier pigeon, and he sends the contents of the site back.

    84. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      I used to be a systems programmer in the mainframe world.

      I saw the revolution of the smaller machines coming in the early 90s, jumped ship, and look back at my days working on boat anchors with a fond memory, and remember to be polite when I say, "No, thank-you." to the headhunters.

      That was then, this is now.


    85. Re:This is why... by MPHellwig · · Score: 1

      Do you surf the web as root on your Linux/Solaris/*BSD/other unix-like? No, then why not the other way around, only use admin rights when you need them, aka MakeMeAdmin.
      http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/archive/2005/ 03/11/394244.aspx

    86. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.
       
      .agrippa.


      Don't sign your posts! It is unecessary and obnoxious!

    87. Re:This is why... by daniel_newton · · Score: 1

      Muh-Muh-Muh-Monster Joke!!!!! Weee! I love these

    88. Re:This is why... by buanzo · · Score: 1

      ... I am a webmaster :P

      --
      Buanzo Consulting - 15 Years of GNU/Linux experience, for you.
    89. Re:This is why... by lindi · · Score: 1

      Be careful :)

      Netcat will happily output control characters to your terminal so you might be vulnerable to various terminal emulator bugs described in

      http://www.digitaldefense.net/labs/papers/Termulat ion.txt

    90. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tested it based on the test code provided.
      First I had to fix several errors in the code.
      Second, it ran on 2 out of 5 PCs. One a Win2k the other WinXP. The other 3 PCs one Win2k and 2 WinXP.
      On the 3 PCs that it wouldn't run, I got IE errors because IE crashed.
      The 2 PCs that it did work on, it only worked once. Every time after that first time I got the same IE crash errors as the systems that just crashed.
      In Win2k the IE crash resulted in IE being shut down completely. In WinXP the IE crash only crashed the IE pop-under that it created.
      Does only running one time constitute a serious threat? I'll leave that to the experts. For my office I would say this is minimal risk as I had to search for PCs that would actually run the exploit.

    91. Re:This is why... by Stinky+Cheese+Man · · Score: 1

      Don't be so smug. A crash is often a sign of a potentially exploitable buffer overflow or other programming flaw. FF is just lucky that nobody has bothered figuring out the details for this one. Yet.

    92. Re:This is why... by FragHARD · · Score: 1

      I used 3 whole rolls of tin foil to wrap my entire computer including cables monitor and keyboard!, I had to make up keyboard cabinet similar to a sand blast cabinet so I can still type. The next step is to cover all of the interior walls and windows of this room with tin foil.

      Ps. I actually did lower the interference threshold on my shortwave about 3 db woohoo!!!

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
    93. Re:This is why... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      ... DropMyRights [microsoft.com] - should be exactly what you want.

      There's a joke there, I just know it.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    94. Re:This is why... by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Didn't anyone see The Postman

      Sorry, the total costner of 0wnership was too high.

    95. Re:This is why... by kalpol · · Score: 1

      I am the webmaster, you insensitive clod!!!

      --
      12:50 - press return.
    96. Re:This is why... by FragHARD · · Score: 1

      <>
      Attack the weak,undefensible, and just plain badly coded software... It's a strategy that has worked for many years -- why change it now?

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
    97. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, Firefox is teh r0x0rs!!!11!!!one11

    98. Re:This is why... by FragHARD · · Score: 1

      <
      US Mail, baby.

      >>

      Yeah right and it is just a matter of time before someone fashions a "snail mail virus" that routes to computer via slashdot server system.

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
    99. Re:This is why... by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      I use lynx and festival to read me the web page:
      $ lynx -dump http://slashdot.org/|festival --tts

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    100. Re:This is why... by Hymer · · Score: 1

      You should change your employer. I am paid for keeping myself ajour with everything I need to know... and that includes reading /.

    101. Re:This is why... by WiFiBro · · Score: 1

      Well my Firefox Release Candidate (3) did react (on Windows XP). First i noted the square outline of (maybe) a popup, for a split-second, then it disappeared.
      Then my computer kept making noises, and the memory line went to 100%.
      However no sign of calc.exe. I was able to close all programs, and start them again.
      I don't know how the exploit works, maybe it uses a memory jam to be able to sneak past the security?

    102. Re:This is why... by curious.corn · · Score: 1

      I especially love the file location of that little script... "C:\warez\" what other software do we have in that folder? Call the feds...

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    103. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is a Jave exploit then it is not an IE fault it is a Java problem. Since Windows no longer carries a native java program then It is sun's problem.

    104. Re:This is why... by Rupy · · Score: 1

      i used to do this until i read some sloppy javascript and my brain went into an infinite loop

    105. Re:This is why... by oddfox · · Score: 1

      I'm just a little curious as to what you're referring to when you say "fucked-up Mac-like button order" because, well, as far as I've been able to notice, the UI is not only themable but fully supports customizing the toolbars quite extensively, and as far as I can tell the dialogs follow the standard UI procedures (Read: It looks pretty much the same as IE). What theme do you have to install to change any button orders? I'm genuinely curious as both a Linux and Windows user (Gentoo. And by the way, yes, Konqueror 3.5 has an adblock feature built-in, and it functions the same as the Firefox extension, now if only Konqueror didn't suck in terms of performannce with scripting, and hard. Yes, it bothers me greatly and I refuse to use it as my primary browser for that reason).

      That said, it's been a long time since I've had any problems with Firefox crashing on me, and I use unofficial nightly community builds (I'm crazy, I like to see how fast I can finish BenchJS [joke], and try out new features and functionality not present in the current official release). Usually, when Firefox does give me grief, it's around the same time I either exit a video game after playing it for a real long time, or I alt-tab out of the game directly to Firefox. Again, this hasn't happened for some time, and it's not like Firefox is the only piece of software on my computer that crashes every now and then.

      P.S. - A crash never happens "for no reason at all" so you probably meant "for no apparent reason at all".

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    106. Re:This is why... by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      A good thing it's _not_ a Java exploit then.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    107. Re:This is why... by emmaussmith · · Score: 1

      Currently, that's the only thing keeping the Borg away from Earth...

    108. Re:This is why... by jinxidoru · · Score: 1

      I use telnet and render the HTML mentally.

      Yeah, and run the risk of a buffer overflow error in my frontal lobe? No thanks.

    109. Re:This is why... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      If they had that much control, they would take control,
      have the person go buy the product...

      Er ah, wait...

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    110. Re:This is why... by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Unix style application isolation is being implemented properly in Vista. Of course, this vulnerability won't affect anyone running IE from a non-priveleged user account anyway, which is the case in many corporate environments, and is a recommended best practice from Microsoft (even if it is not the default under the current versions of Windows on the market).

      On the home front many end users who are not tech-savvy enough to run Linux and not wealthy enough to pay Mac-tax will be running Windows as administrators for usability purposes.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    111. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I checked I was an AC, not my 18,000 or so UID. You are an asshole :)

    112. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using Windows under a non-priviledged account other then for office and some well-behaved business apps is completely unpractical. And Microsoft does not even follow their own best practices, either. Check out this gem Microsoft saying you should be admin and lower browser security settings to chat on their stupid site.

      Also Windows and Microsoft's programs tend to degrade very badly if they encounter access denied errors. For example I tried to run SQL Server once under a limited account, it was a total nightmare with unclear errors all over the place.

    113. Re:This is why... by Flendon · · Score: 1

      So someone has finally found a practical use for IP over Avian Carriers?

      --
      chown -R us ./base
    114. Re:This is why... by m50d · · Score: 1

      I use Konqueror and it starts up far faster, can do everything I've ever tried to, and is very customizable, far more so than firefox seems to be. The whole extensions thing ultimately works against firefox as far as I can see - good, useful things get pushed out to extensions, and the codebase is that much smaller so they don't feel as much need to speed it up.

      --
      I am trolling
    115. Re:This is why... by mojine · · Score: 1
      Try MyIE2 !

      http://www.myie2.com/index2.htm

      I use 0.9.27.68 and I love it!- very customizable

      BTW the exploit failed also (crashed)

      Plugin Go Up is extremely useful

      --
      "It's not how many people I've killed - it's how I get along with the ones that are still alive."
    116. Re:This is why... by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Running things with restricted privelege isn't so hard (actually I just moved into the DBA group here and they do it all the time). You just need to do all the obvious things like make sure the service account has all the particular rights it needs. Delegation is actually quite good under Windows, very granular, so if you're willing to put in the effort it can be done. Especially with MS products, they tend to be quite good, although the MSN example is an unusual one. I certainly wouldn't be recommending MSN messenger to anybody though, probably even less than I would recommend MSIE to anyone (which I wouldn't).

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  2. Work around it? by jackcarter · · Score: 0

    How about I "work around it" by not using IE?

  3. Firefox by jsmucker · · Score: 0, Informative
    1. Re:Firefox by buswolley · · Score: 1

      For thinking the same as millions will think after you. shhes.. Didn't you pass your time traveling class?

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  4. Ouch. by Pxtl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember when web browsers were just for viewing HTML pages, and not as a platform agnostic instant-rollout applications platform?

    Yeah, me neither.

    1. Re:Ouch. by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, actually, yeah. I remember back in the early 90s when a secretary showed my this Mosaic thing she'd found. I told her it looked interesting, but that I could get anything I needed off of gopher. It didn't seem like anything that would take off. Fast forward a year or so, and I remarked to a couple of friends, after starting to use mosaic and looking at HTML, that in a couple of years you'd see web addresses instead of 800 numbers in advertising pretty soon. They looked at me like I told them computers would grow legs and walk around the office. 0.500 isn't too bad, right?

      No real point to this post - just an old fart trying to avoid real work by surfing slashdot...

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We wouldn't have this problem if we'd stuck with Netscape 1.0! But nooo, everyone wanted to see the fancy-pantsy javascript-based animations. Why in my day, javascript animations were called flip books, and we had to walk 15 miles in the snow to buy one. uphill. both ways.

    3. Re:Ouch. by Malc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I remember all those white pages with black text and blue links. Back when every nerd had to have a personal web site.

      Thanks goodness browsers and the WWW got beyond academia because even with all the shit we have to put up with today (like this JScript exploit), the experience is far better and vastly outweighs the problems. Of course, there will always a small number of irrelevant people who like to portray themselves as elite by complaining about how the concept of the browser has changed. I really don't miss the early web with Mosaic downloading slowly and Netscape with its pulsing N, and lots of very bad personal web pages. I really don't need to use Lynx either.

      Oh, and no I'm not forgetting that there are people trying to browse the web on mobile devices with ridiculously small screen. Good luck to you! But, I don't see why every web page should cater to the lowest common denominator.

    4. Re:Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Random mumblings...

      MS developed this exploit to try and get users to disable JavaScript and therefore nip this whole AJAX thing in the bud until they have a chance to catch up.

      Microsoft Office Live and the security patch for IE will be released on the same day.

      Teh ninjas trained by Jimmy Hoffa implanted radios in my fillings to transmit my thoughts to the CIA satellites.

    5. Re:Ouch. by s20451 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I remember all those white pages with black text and blue links. Back when every nerd had to have a personal web site.

      I may be a nerd, but I like to think of my page design as "clean" and "fast-loading", thank you very much.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    6. Re:Ouch. by pen · · Score: 2, Funny

      I read that address as "awreckedford.com".

    7. Re:Ouch. by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 5, Funny
      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    8. Re:Ouch. by ms1234 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I remember when only the cool guys in the university had web pages...that was in 1994.

    9. Re:Ouch. by timeOday · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gettin' kinda fancy with the horizontal rule, ain't ya?

    10. Re:Ouch. by Yartrebo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure is fast I must say. About 200-250 ms load time vs as long as 10 seconds (mostly rendering time, not download time) for some news sites and other ill-designed sites.

      And I have a fast (1.8 GHz processor running Konqueror) setup and broadband. I can just imaging the difference if I was on an old sub-GHz machine or on dial up. I'm also using Konqueror. For the odd site that doesn't work (forcing me to resort to Firefox), the render time is substantially increased.

    11. Re:Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


      I wonder if you would have been so quick to share your website if this was your job.

      It must be very difficult to be humble for people who are as great as you.

    12. Re:Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's important to have a job that makes a difference, boys. That's why I manually masturbate caged animals for artificial insemination.

    13. Re:Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, I remember all those white pages with black text and blue links. Back when every nerd had to have a personal web site. ...
      But, I don't see why every web page should cater to the lowest common denominator.


      http://www.google.com/

      ^^^NERDS! Obviously their business will fail.
    14. Re:Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and ya just got /.ed (evil laughter)

    15. Re:Ouch. by yourlord · · Score: 1

      You can never post your website on slashdot without someone trying to find how it's broken. I'll confess. Mine is broken. But, it works in FF!

    16. Re:Ouch. by cloudmaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You have a strange definition of "better" if you think that using flash and graphics where text makes sense is "better". Hooray for wasting bandwidth in roder to provide a "media-rich" experience, when utilizing actual valid HTML would work just as well *and* provide a means of formatting for a variety of different output devices.

      You don't have to design to the "lowest common denominator" if you use proper HTML 4.1 with CSS, but you do have to think about making a page that degrades gracefully. It's not really even hard - but thanks to IE and Netscape adding their own screwy tags + cheerfully accepting ill-formed HTML, web developers are among the laziest, worst informed developers around. Yeah, things sure are better now.

    17. Re:Ouch. by koekepeer · · Score: 1

      ceci n'est past un page design

    18. Re:Ouch. by springbox · · Score: 3, Informative
      I may be a nerd, but I like to think of my page design [andreweckford.com] as "clean" and "fast-loading", thank you very much.

      Import a CSS on every page and you can get a nicer looking layout with little cost. "Small in size" and "fast loading" does not necessarily mean "default color scheme."

    19. Re:Ouch. by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      I just wish that in the early 90s I knew about domain registrations. At the time (13 yrs old), I was too busy trading GIFs on AOL rather than thinking about how to make some money.

      Just imagine if I would have bought a bunch of commercial domains before those squatter laws were written!

    20. Re:Ouch. by m50d · · Score: 1

      Just use links. You don't miss out on anything really useful, and you get less of the junk.

      --
      I am trolling
    21. Re:Ouch. by igny · · Score: 1
      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    22. Re:Ouch. by pv2b · · Score: 1

      Luxury!

    23. Re:Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, well, that makes everything OK then, I guess. Because you know, who needs standards when you can tagsoup your way onto the Web?

    24. Re:Ouch. by greed · · Score: 1
      And I have a fast (1.8 GHz processor running Konqueror) setup and broadband. I can just imaging the difference if I was on an old sub-GHz machine[....]

      I can. I'm putting together the scraps of old Macs and PCs in the basement and finding which go to landfill (2 Macs), which go to eBay (1 Mac), and which go to Freecycle (2 PCs).

      Part of testing was checking out various NuBus Ethernet cards, so I loaded up iCab, normally a lightweight quick and snappy browser. I haven't watched a jpeg render line-by-line in a l-o-n-g time.... Granted, the NuBus machine is a 40 MHz 68040, so one shouldn't expect... well, anything, really.

      I know there was a time when I thought 40 MHz was pretty impressive, but for the life of me I cannot remember it....

    25. Re:Ouch. by Malc · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the people who make GMail. The browser is now used for more things than documents. Get used to it.

    26. Re:Ouch. by objekt · · Score: 1

      Just imagine if I would have bought a bunch of commercial domains before those squatter laws were written!

      Bought? Heck, they used to give out domain names free!

      Yeah, I'm kicking myself for not taking initiative too.

      --
      -- Boycott Shell
    27. Re:Ouch. by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 1
      I may be a nerd, but I like to think of my page design as "clean" and "fast-loading", thank you very much.
      You forgot "boring", "plain", and "ramshackle" (you're welcome very much). Look at gnu.org. That is boring and plain as well, but at least it isn't ramshackle. Making something simple and compelling at the same time is very, very difficult.
    28. Re:Ouch. by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Tell them what? I'm not sure I understand, though with insightful comments like that, I'm sure you're used to people responding with "huh?".

      You might go check out gmail someday and find which textual parts (other than their logo) are done with graphic text, and which parts use flash or anything else which does not add a significant functionality/usability improvement. You might also check out anything Google does, and notice that one of the big reasons they're so popular is precisely *because* they don't use excessive junk when simple elegance will do. It's amazing to a dumb web developer like yourself, presumably, how Google's simple and well thought-out interfaces work fine on most any browser, degrade nicely, and even work on cell phones.

      It's almost as if Gmail and Google in general is a shining example of what I said needs to be done. So tell me, what is it that I need to tell them? Should I tell them that Malc thinks web pages all need midi files with no way to stop, and 1600x1200 images scaled using the img tag's width/height features? Or should I just tell them that Malc failed "reading comprehension skills" in grade school?

      Excess and laziness are not the best way to create web content. "Get used to it".

    29. Re:Ouch. by Malc · · Score: 1

      Before you start throwing around ad hominems, you might like to take a breath and think about it lest you make yourself look exceptionally foolish and ignorant.

      Anyway, this is a story about a JScript exploit, and a thread about "when web browsers were just for viewing HTML pages, and not as a platform agnostic instant-rollout applications platform", or did you overlook that in your rush to try to put me down? In the same vein, many many people complain about JavaScript and DHTML, which is exactly what GMail is all about. The fact that GMail pages degrade well is irrelevant because the things most people are excited about are due to the full thing.

      If you presume to know somebody based on some comments on a site like /., then you have a lot to learn about the world.

    30. Re:Ouch. by pen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you are remembering white (instead of gray) pages, you're obviously new to the WWW. ;-)

    31. Re:Ouch. by cloudmaster · · Score: 1
      Yes, the thread and article are about a variety of things, including your opinion that web pages are generally better now than before. The post you replied to was about not using flash or graphic text where HTML works just fine, not about using a web browser as an application platform - or did you overlook that in your rush to get another post logged under your account? Here's what you replied to, since you obviously haven't read it yet (or maybe that failing grade in reading comprehension is just coming back to bite you now):


      You have a strange definition of "better" if you think that using flash and graphics where text makes sense is "better". Hooray for wasting bandwidth in order to provide a "media-rich" experience, when utilizing actual valid HTML would work just as well *and* provide a means of formatting for a variety of different output devices.

      You don't have to design to the "lowest common denominator" if you use proper HTML 4.1 with CSS, but you do have to think about making a page that degrades gracefully. It's not really even hard - but thanks to IE and Netscape adding their own screwy tags + cheerfully accepting ill-formed HTML, web developers are among the laziest, worst informed developers around. Yeah, things sure are better now.


      In response, you said that I should tell that to Gmail. If your response was not to my post, perhaps it would have been better stated in some way other than replying to the quoted post. I don't think you're *that* stupid, though, and therefore presume that you were intending to "reply" to what I typed when you clicked "reply".

      So, I'll ask again, which part of what I typed does Gmail not already do? Gmail 1) designs to the lowest common denominator that they choose to support, 2) uses actual valid HTML, and 3) doesn't waste bandwidth. Glancing at gmail.com, they even roughly use HTML 4.1 and CSS (validation problems with the login page mostly stem from some quoting/javascript issues). I think that, if I told them to do those things, they'd say "you're an idiot, we already do that".

      Furthermore, if you think that you can make statements which make absolutely no sense in context - on a public forum - without people judging you to be as slow-witted as your comments make you sound, then you may well have a lot to learn about the world, or at least about how "threading" and "replies" work. Also, it would behoove you to learn about Ad Hominem attacks, as part of that learning. I claimed that you're wrong *and* confused, I don't think that you're wrong *because* you're confused. My reply does not in any way lose validity if the reader doesn't buy into my claim that you're a lazy, dull-witted web developer who only responded without thinking because your feelings were hurt by the claim that web developers are generally the bottom feeders of programming. Ergo, there's no ad hominem in there.
  5. Where is everyone? by EmperorKagato · · Score: 1

    Wow. Everyone must have had their computers infected by a virus that utilizes the exploit.

    --
    ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
  6. This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I use Opera.

  7. And as usual... by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Funny

    From eWeek: The group that published the exploit said Microsoft has been aware of the Javascript Window() vulnerability for several months but was mistakenly treating it as a low-priority denial-of-service flaw.

    Because anything that allows a malicious user to exploit your system and hijack isn't a flaw... it's a feature!

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:And as usual... by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Funny
      Because anything that allows a malicious user to exploit your system and hijack isn't a flaw... it's a feature!

      This kind of thinking is extremely $sys$profitable irresponsible.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:And as usual... by zootm · · Score: 5, Funny

      This kind of thinking is extremely $sys$profitable irresponsible.

      My god, Sony have provided a viable Windows alternative to the old ^W^W^W^W *nix joke... it's worse than we thought!

    3. Re:And as usual... by tehshen · · Score: 1

      You're nearer to Microsoft's business plan than you think, there.

      1) Microsoft creates horribly insecure software with a lot of features. 2) People buy software, use it, and standardise on it. 3) Flaws are uncovered, but people can't move away from software because they need the features. 4) Profit!

      Seriously, it's worked for IE (sites testing for IE only and declaring anything else as broken) and Office (people not moving away because Office has some random esoteric thing that they so badly need)

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
    4. Re:And as usual... by knightf0x · · Score: 1

      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a remote IE exploit, so why should they care about it?"

    5. Re:And as usual... by mazarin5 · · Score: 5, Funny
      My god, Sony have provided a viable Windows *nix joke

      Huh?

      --
      Fnord.
    6. Re:And as usual... by Ibix · · Score: 4, Funny
      This kind of thinking is extremely $sys$profitable irresponsible.

      "I have seen the fnords..."

      I

    7. Re:And as usual... by MullerMn · · Score: 1

      And a new Slashdot meme is born...

    8. Re:And as usual... by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      I intended to give you +1 Funny but a slip of the click and it ended up -1 Overrated so I am posting here to remove that negative moderation.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    9. Re:And as usual... by Ruie · · Score: 1
      Ahh.. so that's how they work !

      $sys$fnord

      Just shows there is rightfully more than one level of membership in A.A.

    10. Re:And as usual... by roertel · · Score: 1

      Technically, a hijacked computer is a denial of service, right?

    11. Re:And as usual... by MadMoses · · Score: 1

      This kind of thinking is extremely irresponsible.

      Huh? What's so funny?

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    12. Re:And as usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of thinking is extremely irresponsible.

      Why is parent modded funny? More like insightful!

    13. Re:And as usual... by Bloater · · Score: 1

      I see it! I see it! I see the "fnord". Oh no, they're everywhere!

    14. Re:And as usual... by flazz · · Score: 0
      My god, Sony have provided a viable Windows alternative to the old ^W^W^W^W *nix joke... it's worse than we thought!

      don't you mean VAIOble?

      sorry I couldn't resist

    15. Re:And as usual... by karnal · · Score: 1

      Would that be a "Freudian Click"?

      --
      Karnal
    16. Re:And as usual... by objekt · · Score: 1

      And already it's being overused on /.

      --
      -- Boycott Shell
    17. Re:And as usual... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Because anything that allows a malicious user to exploit your system and hijack isn't a flaw... it's a feature!

      Don't worry, even if the courts make them distribute a version of Windows with out this feature bundled with it, it will still be rich enough in features that the normal user generally won't notice the difference.

      --Neth

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  8. Wouldn't a better workaround be.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    To just not use Internet Explorer?

  9. get the fax.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone tell the MS apologists two threads down, please :)

  10. I'm glad to see that by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft's total time of 0wnerzship continues to decrease.

    Its important for MS to keep ahead in this area.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    1. Re:I'm glad to see that by xtracto · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:I'm glad to see that by Stachel · · Score: 1
      Microsoft's total time of 0wnerzship continues to decrease.
      ...while the total time that it's clients are pwn3d continues to increase.

      --
      Stachel
    3. Re:I'm glad to see that by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

      Did you mean: total time to 0wnerzship?

    4. Re:I'm glad to see that by Cally · · Score: 1

      The PoC exploit hangs Firefox for some time, too. (not permanently - it comes back eventually - but it's definitely exposed a weakness in Gecko.) However the ffx hackers are hard at work as you can see at Bugzilla.mozilla.org in Bug #317334 ... [that number looks kinda weird to me... "elteea"? ha!]

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  11. ...or by not using Internet Explorer by LoaTao · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously. I know that IE's market share is still huge, but for the life of me I can't understand why.

    --
    The smartest man in the whole, wide world really don't know that much. - Mose Allison
    1. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by dwandy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      IE's market share is still huge, but for the life of me I can't understand why.

      Take Preinstalled Browser,
      Add to Lazy User,
      and mix in a healthy dose of Ignorance.

      Alternate Receipe:
      Take Preinstalled Browser,
      Add Fear Of Change.

      Despite having Firefox installed at home, my wife insists on MSExploder .... I think the linux migration time-table is getting shortened.

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    2. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by vlad_grigorescu · · Score: 1
      Gee, this one's really hard. Let's think about the average user:
      • Isn't aware there are alternatives out there,
      • is afraid to switch to something they don't know how to use,
      • thinks something else will be hard to setup,
      • doesn't know if they can transfer their current settings,
      • with IE so tightly integrated with Windows, probably doesn't know exactly what a web browser is,
      • trusts Microsoft or their ISP to protect their computer,
      • doesn't know there are all these exploits out there,
      • thinks spyware, pop-ups, and a slow computer are just a fact of life,
      • and, lastly, buys every word from Microsoft's highly successful marketing department.
    3. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Darth+Maul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but for the life of me I can't understand why.

      It's very, very simple. People are stupid and lazy.

      --
      --- witty signature
    4. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by dallask · · Score: 5, Funny

      solution:
      Buy sony cd,
      install rootkit
      rename Explorer to $sys$explorer.exe

      --
      The Code Ninja is swift with his tool, precise in his delivery, and deadly accurate in his execution.
    5. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by PurpleXanathar · · Score: 1

      Apart from the reasons you'll find in the other replies, here are more : - people needing (or thinking they need) ActiveX support - people using IE only intranets - people afraid/lazy/uninformed/etc to try FF just because they *THINK* their intranet is IE only or has ActiveX

    6. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by GweeDo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Despite having Firefox installed at home, my wife insists on MSExploder

      I don't understand this. You aren't the first person to tell me their Wife doesn't wanna run Firefox. You know what I did. I said to my wife "Wife. IE will break the computer and then I will have to spend all night fixing it rather than doing whatever else it is you wanted me to do.". My wife actually respects that I know what the crap I am talking about (just as I respect what the crap she is talking about in her area of expertice...which isn't IT) and goes with what I say.

      Why don't you people just try explaining the problems to your wife and get over it?

    7. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1

      When just about every new computer (and every vanilla, I'll take model X computer) ships WITH IE installed, and I'd say at least 75% of the users don't know/care enough to change, that's how it stays on top.

      Dont worry, as soon as Firefox (which I'm using as we speak, this ain't flamebait) gets popular enough, people will turn their attention to it, and we'll see a higher level of exploits.

      The easiest solution? If you're worried about your computer dieing, don't browse the web on an unexpendable system. This here is my "Internet and games" system. It's got Windows, and if it dies, there's nothing on it I need to backup, I just reinstall whatever I'm playing at the moment.

      If you want to feel secure about your system, run it seperate from whatever is online, have a private (no crossover) LAN for work computers, and one for pleasure computers.

      That's the real solution

      *Disclaimer, most people think I'm extreme in my security measures

    8. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by johnkoer · · Score: 1

      Just change the FireFox icon to the blue E, she won't know the difference.

    9. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Maian · · Score: 1

      ...yes she will. IE and Firefox look different.

    10. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Siffy · · Score: 1

      Add "if it isn't worth paying for then it isn't worth using" to your list. I've actually had a friend tell me he assumed Linux wasn't worth using because they don't charge for it. Sure that line of thought falls under ignorance and buying ever MS word, but it also goes under some rules I must have missed in 3rd grade capitalism class.

    11. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by drpimp · · Score: 0

      86 the exploder from the system, skin Firefox with an IE lookalike, and change the Firefox Icon to the IE one she'll never know.

      --
      -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
    12. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mom is so scared of technology that she would rather not install firefox and stay with IE, and actually feels more secure since she "doesn't have to install a new program".

    13. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1

      I had my wife using Firefox alomst exclusively... for about a day. Then she went to check her work email (Outlook Web Access) and found that "it wasn't right". MS serves up a cripled site to anything that isn't IE that's functional, but just barely. She started out using IE just to check work email, but when it's already open it's hard not to use it for those other sites, too.

      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
    14. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You address her as "Wife"? Or do you normally parenthesize your statements with HTML tags http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169045&cid= 14090208? Are you in the holodeck?

    15. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Davorama · · Score: 1

      Woman! You use firefox from now on 'cause I wear the IT pants around here and I SAY you use firefox! Now quit yer bitchin' and get in the kitchen!

      Seriously, I have a wife that listens too. We are lucky gents, you and I. I am so lucky that my wife would consider the above statement facecious and funny. You wanna roll the dice and see how well it goes over at your house?

      --

      Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.

    16. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Took me almost a year to get mt gf/fiance to switch... And I did explain it... finally got the message through after the image exploit showed up.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    17. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by jason777 · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute, how are you guys getting wives?

    18. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by dwandy · · Score: 1

      I debated putting that bit on there; I knew I'd take some flak ... but it just seemed a perfect fit - my own personal experience, showing that some people, despite all the facts just don't see the big deal, or don't want to change.
      My wife just doesn't even care to try to get it ... To her, computers are a mystical black box that just work and she doesn't care how, and for her Exploder has always worked.
      She's had quite the opposite experience (of ie vs ff) actually - in the the couple of times she's used Firefox she discovered that some pages don't load the same, or don't load properly... don't try and tell her that it's MSs fault, or a bad web-page, or poor standards, or unsafe controls, scripts, or whatever; she doesn't care ... it looked/worked right under Exploder, and back she goes.

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    19. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      "I don't understand this. You aren't the first person to tell me their Wife doesn't wanna run Firefox. You know what I did. I said to my wife "Wife. IE will break the computer and then I will have to spend all night fixing it rather than doing whatever else it is you wanted me to do.". My wife actually respects that I know what the crap I am talking about (just as I respect what the crap she is talking about in her area of expertice...which isn't IT) and goes with what I say.

      Why don't you people just try explaining the problems to your wife and get over it?"


      So this is relevant to, what - maybe five Slashdot readers in total?

      (Fortunately I'm one of the five)

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    20. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      explorer.exe? that's not a nice thing to do to a windows user...
      now iexplore.exe, that'd be funny, as long as they've got Firefox.

      Nah... go ahead, rename explorer.exe to %sys%explorer.exe... that'd be mean, but quite funny.

    21. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife uses Firefox exclusively (when she's at home). But that's because she doesn't like Konqueror. Once you switch from Windows ME (shudder) to Debian (or whatever), the windows install CD disappears quickly...I mean there's no going back.

    22. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      I have to use IE for accessing my work e-mail remotely too. However, I find it VERY easy to not use IE for anything else. I simply set my default browser to Firefox and the nifty tabbed browsing feature makes going back to using IE for random stuff painful and unwelcome.

    23. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

      Set IE for the 'High'est possible level of security and only trust the work email to any degree. This will make IE little better than lynx for most sites.

    24. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by crazyjimmy · · Score: 1

      My wife's a bigger geek then me, but that's a whole 'nother story. Her solution to the IE -> Firefox problem was to have the IE icon load up FireFox instead. Then, when she installed her sister's computer, she did it again (except this time she didn't bother telling her) she rocks.

    25. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by PitaBred · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And she doesn't understand when you say "Yes, but with IE it will let people take control of the computer, steal our information, and possibly cause lots of damage to other people's computers"?
      How's it feel being married to an idiot? Even my mom and dad get it, and my dad still types with two fingers.

    26. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by johnkoer · · Score: 1
    27. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Why don't you people just try explaining the problems to your wife and get over it?

      HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!! funniest thing I've read all day... explain it to the wife...

      *sigh* damn, that's why I'm still single.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    28. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Despite having Firefox installed at home, my wife insists on MSExploder
      Withhold sex until she gets the point. It's for her own good, and it's your duty to protect her from the internet.
    29. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Roadstar · · Score: 1
      Why don't you people just try explaining the problems to your wife and get over it?

      It's not always easy. Although I'm a lucky person considering that my gf prefers our Macs and the Linux box before the Windows box (actually, back in the days before we had OS X boxes, I had just upgraded the GPU on our desktop machine but had to go to a meeting before I got the Linux side configured for X. So I said to my gf that to use a graphical desktop she'd have to boot to Windows. Her comment to that is not suitable for printing), there are masses of people reluctant to ditch IE, let alone Windows.

      Some of these reluctant persons are my relatives, but I found a good way to get them to use alternative browsers. I just said "fine, just keep on using IE, but it's not going to be me who's cleaning up your computer afterwards. OR you can stop shooting yourself in the foot , switch to Firefox, AND keep the free support". In fact, once they got used to Firefox, they realized it was far better browser anyway, and thanked me for the switch. Sometimes scare tactics do work.

    30. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone with a wife that talks out of place should beat them, period.

    31. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by bcarl314 · · Score: 1

      You mean you want BOTH /. readers to talk to their wife?

    32. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      RTFM!
      As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last beat them lightly; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means of annoyance.
      The source is somewhat suspicious, though, so try and share the experience ;)
    33. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      It's very, very simple. People are stupid and lazy.

      To refine that a bit: people are lazy.
      Most people do have the mental capacity to run an alternative browser. But they cannot muster up the effort to kick their brain into gear.

    34. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

      I'll keep this in mind when I finally get this "wife" thing installed. Man, all these dependencies are making building this thing from source way too hard. Is there an .rpm or .deb package for this?

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    35. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only have two fingers, You Insensitive Clod!

    36. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Lurkingrue · · Score: 1

      I agree, assuming you trust your spouse's competence...

      My wife is the IT specialist in the house...it's what she does for a living. I'm just a doctor who doesn't want to be bothered with this stuff, and I leave the big-brain decisions up to her. Areas of expertise...if she says "Use Firefox on Windows boxen", and explains to me that its bad/unsafe to use IE, then I'm not gonna argue with her any more than she'd argue with me about antibiotic therapy when she got pneumonia.

      That's why we have a Macintosh. She gets her *nix CLI, and I have pretty pictures that don't confuse me. ;-)

    37. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Chapter80 · · Score: 1
      I said to my wife "Wife. IE will break the computer and then I will have to spend all night fixing it

      But isn't IE an integral part of the operating system, as Microsoft told us a few years back?

    38. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by iopha · · Score: 1

      Do what I did for my technophobe parents: install FF, rename it to IE, use the icon and tell 'em it's an upgrade. After a few weeks, I explain the truth to them.

    39. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your divorce is coming sooner too.

    40. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, my parents where wandering where and why those viruses came from...now that they know (show them the spam bot threads using all cpu), they use firefox and thunderbird...

    41. Re:...or by not using Internet Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cacls iexplore.exe /E /R USERS
      net localgroup administrators wife /del
      net localgroup "power users" wife /del

  12. Is there a tenor in the house? by MikeMacK · · Score: 5, Funny
    The SANS ISC's Ullrich said IE users should consider switching to Firefox of Opera.

    Ah, the Firefox of Opera - who is that, Pavarotti?

    1. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Naaah Pavarotti would be the Waterbear of Opera.

    2. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 2, Informative

      Could have been written by a dutch guy since of=or in dutch :)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    3. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by josh.loomis · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he'd be singing about the lacrymosal loss of IE all the way to the bank.

      --
      I know, deep inside me, there's a Linux nut just waiting to be let out.
    4. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by dr_d_19 · · Score: 1

      No, Pavarotti would the Internet Explorer of Opera :)

    5. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by Trip+Ericson · · Score: 1

      I think it's a new ripoff of 'The Phantom of the Opera' only with Firefox instead of a phantom.

      SNL or Mad TV?

    6. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by idokus · · Score: 1

      just like the Phantom of the Opera

    7. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, give the man _some_ credit! He may be morbidly obese, but at least he isn't goatse as well.

    8. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by Comboman · · Score: 1

      No, "Firefox of Opera" is the broadway musical version of an old Clint Eastwood movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    9. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by beakburke · · Score: 1

      And when you say that, all that comes to mind is that pavarotti is the tenor, paganini is the composer.

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    10. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by SpeakerToManagers · · Score: 1

      If there is, I'll give you two fivers for him.

      SpeakerToManagers

    11. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean Watercow?

    12. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Could have been written by a dutch guy since of=or in dutch


      It'f feally amafing the fheef numbef of thingf that an 'f' charactef haf been ufed to fepfefent in diffefent languagef.

    13. Re:Is there a tenor in the house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No I meant Waterbear, but you might be thinking of Moneycow?

  13. This is why... by MartinG · · Score: 5, Funny

    I use netcat.

    --
    -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
  14. How long will I be without E-Porn?! by milktoastman · · Score: 1

    You mean unless I get with the program and use Firefox, I can't browse questionable free porn sites until this gets fixed?! Well, perhaps this is a good thing. If anything can get me over my inertia against change, it will be threat of no 'self-amusement' on these lonely, chilly northern nights. Firefox, here I come!

    1. Re:How long will I be without E-Porn?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox has the additional virtue of being able to clear your history, your cache, your cookies, etc. with the press of a single button.

  15. Oh no.. by Dynamoo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Oh no.. here we go again. No, it's not that there's another flaw in IE that I say that because some things are inevitable.. death, taxes and IE flaws. But any self-respecting IT professional or geek won't be using IE anyway. Sure.. users do, but they're much further down the food chain.

    No, the reason I'm saying it is that this being Slashdot we'll get the usual set of arguments about browser and OS supremacy. Again. It's like Groundhog Day!

    Shucks, everything has security flaws. Yeah, some more than others. To be honest, I found it more of a shock that Lynx has a security flaw. If you can't trust Lynx to be secure, then really nothing is secure. Except unplugging your computer and putting it back in the box, perhaps.

    --
    Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
    1. Re:Oh no.. by John+the+Kiwi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You must be new here.

    2. Re:Oh no.. by ralph1 · · Score: 1

      You better secure the room the box is in else someone will pretend they are playing mission impossible.

    3. Re:Oh no.. by Tlosk · · Score: 1

      It's relative risk, not a yes or no situation.

      Some things are riskier than others, the decision is to avoid behaviors that exceed your risk tolerance threshold. For me that's the case with IE, it's just too risky for me to use it. Firefox on the other hand is currently tolerable, the benefit outweighs the risk.

    4. Re:Oh no.. by glsunder · · Score: 1

      If you can't trust Lynx to be secure, then really nothing is secure.

      I use wget and vi, you insensitive clod!
      (damn those bastards who use word to create web pages)

    5. Re:Oh no.. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I know people who just won't switch away from IE, even though they know of all the security advantages, and even though they've seen the tabs in FF. Some people have been using IE for so long that it really is hard for them to switch. When you've been getting the job done without tabs for so long, its hard to change your entire working method and start using tabs.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:Oh no.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't trust Lynx to be secure, then really nothing is secure.

      FTFA:

      The followingvendors include Lynx packages that are not susceptible to exploitation as the "lynxcgi" feature is not compiled into Lynx by default:

              * The FreeBSD Project
              * OpenBSD


      If you need secure, use the *BSD's. Security is not a feature, security is a mindset.

    7. Re:Oh no.. by TheTilde · · Score: 1

      damn those bastards who use word to create web pages

      remind me of a friend of mine who created web pages with Publisher, exported as a bitmap, et hop!

      arf!

      (so sorry for my bad angliche)
      The Tilde

    8. Re:Oh no.. by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      a company with the resources of MS should not allow a browse-pwn exploit to exist for months without fixing it.

      Um, won't this vulnerability have been present since (at least) the release of Internet Explorer 6 in 2001? I could cut them a bit of slack if Internet Explorer was alive instead of being the undead zombie that continues to haunt web developers, but the world's biggest software company are still fixing vulnerabilities after four years of it being released. How much time do they actually need to produce a secure browser?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    9. Re:Oh no.. by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      It's times like these I wish I could find the MS official who admonished the entire world that there is no such thing as a 0-day exploit.

      I get laughed at all the time but I'm still saying the same thing that I was saying 11 years ago when Chicago Beta (Win95) was put on store shelves as production quality software,"Every bug is a potential exploit you fools!" Somehow the EULA manages to sheild them from listening. It's the software equivalent of singing "la-la" with their fingers in their ears.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    10. Re:Oh no.. by Mesaeus · · Score: 1
      .. users do, but they're much further down the food chain.
      Are you suggesting we *eat* the users ? A novel idea, but the sight of some of my users makes me want to go the vegetarian route...
    11. Re:Oh no.. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      The problem is these down the foodchain are still significant. Not directly, not as single instances, but a botnet, an army of zombies is not something you want as your enemy. There's still no defense against a DDOS attack whatsoever, 200 or so zombies can kill any medium-sized site, five thousands are a major threat to the giants. And with an exploit that affects 90% of a webpage visitors, gathering an army of five thousand zombie computers may be a matter of hours, days at most.
      Now how happy would you be if some script kiddie bloated your bandwidth bill to a 6-digit figure while bringing your network down to its knees for a week?
      The fact we are high in the food chain does only mean we are more likely a target of actual malicious attack, not just a tool.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    12. Re:Oh no.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know you can disable tabbed browsing in Firefox, right?

  16. Thank you by steveo777 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that you've read the comments, your Windows box belongs to OSTG. Please stand by while we load Linux.........

    --
    This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    1. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't someone please exploit this flaw and install a copy of linux on the user's computer?

    2. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that you've RTFA

      You must be new here. No one got infected :)

    3. Re:Thank you by lahvak · · Score: 2, Funny

      It didn't work!

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:Thank you by cciRRus · · Score: 1

      Now that you've read the comments, your Windows box belongs to OSTG.

      Obligatory: All your Windows boxes are belong to us... erm OSTG,... erm nevermind.

      --
      w00t
    5. Re:Thank you by djflipstarx · · Score: 1

      Javascript has been disabled. HA!

      --
      Y helo thar
    6. Re:Thank you by WinterpegCanuck · · Score: 1

      Try this. Sorry there is no BSD foundation yet.

  17. Give it 5 by intmainvoid · · Score: 4, Funny
    We have also been made aware of proof of concept code that could seek to exploit the reported vulnerability but are not aware of any customer impact at this time

    Well, there might be no customer impact at this time, but seeing as the exploit is published now, can I ask you again in about 5 minutes?

    1. Re:Give it 5 by Quarters · · Score: 1

      Free AJAX Calendar, and not like a paper calendar moved online either. You're right! My paper calendar doesn't send my information off to Google Analytics.

    2. Re:Give it 5 by intmainvoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Have you had a look at the source on a slashdot page recently?

              _uacct = "UA-32013-5";
              urchinTracker();

    3. Re:Give it 5 by thewils · · Score: 1

      I hadn't either, but I have now and have just updated my Adblock to include this one.

      Thanks for pointing it out.

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    4. Re:Give it 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is the code for Google Analytics. http://www.google.com/analytics/ There's nothing to see here.

    5. Re:Give it 5 by RPoet · · Score: 1

      Care to share the adblock rule please?

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    6. Re:Give it 5 by MemeRot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting. I know Slashdot breaks their million page view per month limit (like in a couple hours), and I thought only users of AdWords were exempt from that limit? What's the deal guys? Anyone know anything else about Google Analytics?

    7. Re:Give it 5 by Quarters · · Score: 1

      I have no need to look at the source. NoScript informs me that google-analytics.com is currently blocked. NoScript is how I discovered your calendar is using it.

  18. In other news by epsalon · · Score: 3, Funny

    The sun has risen this morning, and the Earth is rotating around its axis.

    Nothing to see here - move along.

    1. Re:In other news by slashflood · · Score: 1

      The sun has risen this morning, and the Earth is rotating around its axis.

      The big wheel keeps on turning
      On a simple line day by day
      The earth spins on its axis
      One man struggle while another relaxes

      -- Massive Attack

    2. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 4AM here and the sun has not risen, yet.

    3. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure? I think the axis rotates around the Earth.

  19. This is why... by BushCheney08 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't browse the web.

    --
    Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
  20. I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have a dual boot system:

    1. Windows for games and the occasional Windows-only software. Nothing sensitive there. Rootkit me all you want.

    2. Linux for the serious stuff.

    Everyone should do the same.

    1. Re:I don't care by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I have a dual boot system: 1. Windows for games and the occasional Windows-only software. Nothing sensitive there. Rootkit me all you want. 2. Linux for the serious stuff.

      So... an attacker who's pwnz3d your Windows installation can't then access the MBR, futz with your bootloader and pass the options of his choice to your Linux kernel at next boot time? He can't install rfstool on the sly and mount your Linux partitions and plunder your personal information you keep there?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:I don't care by RingDev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Take off the tin foil hat. The amount of work it would take to write such an exploit would be huge and would only get a tiny fraction of the market. There's no profit in it, there's no notoriety for it.

      Why rob a bank? Because that's where the money is.

      Why write viri for Windows/IE? Because that's where the users are.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    3. Re:I don't care by 73 · · Score: 1

      Why choose the liquor store with no locks on the doors instead of the one with chains and a really nasty guard dog?

      Because the first choice is ridiculously, brain-dead easy. That's why.

      Where's the notoriety in this? Oooh. I hacked a windows box. I'm so l33t.

    4. Re:I don't care by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      Take off the tin foil hat. The amount of work it would take to write such an exploit would be huge and would only get a tiny fraction of the market. There's no profit in it, there's no notoriety for it.

      Would a worm do all that, or a clueless script kiddie? Probably not. As you say, there are too few dual-boot systems around. Bear in mind however that the Linux partition is still at risk from a malicious kiddie letting rip with fdisk.

      But would a hacker do it? Yes, I think so. Especially if he'd just been directly challenged to do so by someone who thinks the wall between Windows and Linux in a dual-boot system is so impenetrable...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    5. Re:I don't care by RingDev · · Score: 1

      "But would a hacker do it? Yes, I think so. Especially if he'd just been directly challenged to do so by someone who thinks the wall between Windows and Linux in a dual-boot system is so impenetrable..."

      True, it is possible, and significantly more likely if you go pissing off the guy with the knowledge (weapons) to pull it off.

      Similar to getting killed in a big city. Is there a chance you could get hit by stray gun fire from uncheck street warfare between color clashing gangs? Yes. But you are significantly more likely to get shot if you piss off your drug dealer.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    6. Re:I don't care by RingDev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Because the first choice is ridiculously, brain-dead easy. That's why."

      You are implying that the person breaking the law has an average level of intellegence. Haven't you seen "Maximum Exposure", "Real Police Videos", or any of the other caught on tape shows. They prove one thing, most criminals are dumb. True, there are a few gems in the rough, but by and large, the criminal element of society is not the brightest bulb in the box.

      "Where's the notoriety in this? Oooh. I hacked a windows box. I'm so l33t."

      Try, I hacked 3.4 million Windows boxes. I'm so l33t. I now have a bot network that can cripple massive pipes. Spam emails to millions of people per hour. Shut down major media outlets. Decimate online services (sales/games/gambling). Run distributed key cracking engines, etc.

      Compared to: I hacked 20 debian boxes. I can flex my online epeen and spam an IRC channel!

      CNN doesn't care about 20 nuebs who left their systems unsecured. CNN doesn't even care about Windows vulnerbilities. CNN cares about the monitary impact. So CNN will report on the person who creates a huge botnet and attacks high profile online organizations with it.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  21. I hope this gets into a doubleclick ad by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    /evil on

    That'd be SO funny

    Someday, an IE exploit is going to come along that wipes your HD. Then we'll see sparks fly. /evil off

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    1. Re:I hope this gets into a doubleclick ad by Xarius · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know he's considered as a bit of a prick, but ESR explains exactly why this would be one of the worst things that could happen here.

      Make of it what you will.

      --
      C17H21NO4
    2. Re:I hope this gets into a doubleclick ad by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      That would be trivial to create, however the reason it`s not done is.. The people writing this malware want to keep the machines they infect for future use (furthur infections, ddos, spamming etc) it`s simply not in their interest to destroy the machines.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:I hope this gets into a doubleclick ad by ErroneousBee · · Score: 1

      Slightly more evil:

      • Lie in wait for any backup processes to run, and corrupt any Itunes keys/registries/etc as the get backed up.
      • Flash the DVD region a few times, hopefully locking it so that it only plays Region 4 DVDs.
      • Download some illegal pictures onto as many devices as possible.
      • Start thrashing the drives, maybe cause a head crash.
      • Write to the same few locations on any flash cards/USB keys, causing the card to fail after a few 1000 writes.
      • Post any personal data to everyone in the address book: browser history, last spreadsheet, word doc, etc.
      • Flash the BIOS, but do it subtly.
      • Stick the monitor resolution into some mode that will damage it.
      • 10 *MOTOR 1; 20 *MOTOR 0; 30 GOTO 10. Just for old times sake.
      • NOW you can format the hard drive.
      --
      **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
    4. Re:I hope this gets into a doubleclick ad by johno.ie · · Score: 1

      I've got a question about mandatory hardware DRM. How the hell is anyone supposed to develop and test software on a platform like this? Even under windows? Suppose I write a brand new Hello Planet program. I compile it with my government sanctioned compiler, but it won't run until I fill out 20 forms in triplicate and pay $??? to get it certified and signed. How the hell are schools and colleges gonna teach anyone to program? Anyone got a clue how this plan is ever supposed to work?

      --
      872835240
    5. Re:I hope this gets into a doubleclick ad by davecb · · Score: 1

      Most PC drives allow one to download new contents for the on-drive eeprom. A colleague once suggested downloading all zeroes would be a data-preserving simulation of erasing the disk.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    6. Re:I hope this gets into a doubleclick ad by KrispyKringle · · Score: 1

      He's not a prick; he's a troll. What he says makes no sense, but he manages to get people to pay attention to him anyway.

      The thing I really love about ESR is that he claims to be the "unofficial spokesman for the open source community." Well, shit! There's a community? And he's my spokesman? I didn't get the memo!

      And yet the only source code I remember seeing from him is fetchmail and a tiny Python script to automatically submit to Freshmeat. Could it be that it's a lot more fun to rant and rave about open source than to sit down and actually write some?

    7. Re:I hope this gets into a doubleclick ad by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The Russian Mafia wants to control zombie PC's, but Al'Qa'eda would be happy to launch 'Final', preferably aimed towards Washington, Wall Street, and scattered safety systems (nuclear power plants, chemical plants, utility grids, etc). Collateral damage is bonus.

      Fortunately for them, Windows already makes you chose your country when you set it up, so they can read that registry value and destroy the computer or self-destruct at will.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  22. set an ACL to stop this by r00t · · Score: 1

    The sure way to prevent IE from causing trouble is to set an ACL on the executable. If you remove or overwrite the executable, some sort of "helpful" feature may restore it.

    Set access to deny permission to "everybody". Since "everybody" is special, that prevents even the admin from doing anything.

    (then, of course, you use firefox)

    1. Re:set an ACL to stop this by atta1 · · Score: 1

      Then, of course, you can't run windows update to fix all the other problems you may be having.

      --
      "The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -- Kosh
    2. Re:set an ACL to stop this by Daath · · Score: 1
      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
    3. Re:set an ACL to stop this by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1
      But an ACL on the executable file won't be of any help, since the executable file isn't modified. Not even is the text section of the process' address modified.

      I haven't read the details of this exploit, but I assume freely that it's yet another buffer overflow from Microsoft. Buffer overflow exploits usually modify the stack of a process, not its text segment, and you would be rather ill advised to deny write permission on the stack. ;)

      More info

    4. Re:set an ACL to stop this by r00t · · Score: 1

      The problem is that IE is so easy to use by mistake. Windows pretty much shoves it at you. To avoid these problems, you must overcome this.

      This is why the ACL is useful. The ACL makes sure that nothing will start IE. You'll no longer have to worry about some lame app (or user) running IE.

    5. Re:set an ACL to stop this by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Great. First the plugin requests to get a bunch of registry keys, then bombs out with an illegal operation (WinXP,FireFox 1.5RC3).
      Keep working on it guys, because I do like being able to update without using IE.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    6. Re:set an ACL to stop this by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Except for Ms-Help, Outlook Express, Winamp Browser, and any number of other utilities that use IE's rendering engine internally.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    7. Re:set an ACL to stop this by r00t · · Score: 1

      Fine, put an ACL on the DLL file.

      If that breaks Outlook Express, good! There goes another severe security risk.

  23. The facts please by bogaboga · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Slashdotters, let me put this out early.

    On story like this, we need the facts, period. No hype, rhetoric or personal opinions. Only the facts please, because I know members are going to tout the "other browser" as the safer one.

    Now, mod me whatever you want, but the info you provide should be FACTS.

    1. Re:The facts please by Sockatume · · Score: 1, Funny

      Fact: The other browser is the safer one. *runs*

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:The facts please by buswolley · · Score: 0

      Fact. You are not my ruler, nor my king. But firefox is my right hand man.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    3. Re:The facts please by Prospero's+Grue · · Score: 4, Insightful
      On story like this, we need the facts, period. No hype, rhetoric or personal opinions. Only the facts please, because I know members are going to tout the "other browser" as the safer one.

      Now, mod me whatever you want, but the info you provide should be FACTS.

      Fact: A critical security flaw has been found in IE, and the SANS ISC is recommending that people use one of the "other browsers".

      Howzat?

      --
      The opinion above is fiction. Any similarity to real opinions, including facts and logic, is purely coincidental.
    4. Re:The facts please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What "fact" did you provide in your post? Your post looks like a "personal opinion" to me.

    5. Re:The facts please by bogaboga · · Score: 1
      > What "fact" did you provide in your post? Your post looks like a "personal opinion" to me.

      Did I claim I was putting forward facts? No. And yes, it's a personal opinion, not to the main story but to what people like you would post. Read the post again.

    6. Re:The facts please by Xarius · · Score: 1
      I just asked my grandmother what she thought of the SANS ISC recommendation and she said:
      "What the fuck you talking about boy, you been at the waccy baccy or something?"

      Or something to that effect. Point is, regular people are the ones this will affect, and they are the ones that don't know about it.
      --
      C17H21NO4
    7. Re:The facts please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      FACT: Dolphins are Mammals.

      FACT: China is big.

      FACT: You're attempt to steer a slashdot discussion is like herding cats.

      FACT: My inappropriate use of "you're" in the above sentence has ticked off a grammer nazi.

    8. Re:The facts please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read your own post:

      "On story like this, we need the facts, period. No hype, rhetoric or personal opinions. Only the facts please"

    9. Re:The facts please by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Fact: the 'proof of concept' does not work on a currently patched IE6. At all.

      It DOSs the browser, in the same way it does for firefox... presumably it's going into some kind of infinite loop in javascript and that's supposed to run calc.exe.. doesn't work.

    10. Re:The facts please by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fact: this bug was reported six months ago, but it is only now that someone has publicly shown how to use it to run arbitrary code.

      Who knows how long other people have been exploiting this bug - potentially in ways not involving Javascript as well?

    11. Re:The facts please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FACT: Your use of "grammer" in the above sentence has ticked off a spelling nazi.

    12. Re:The facts please by ThereCanBeOnlyOne007 · · Score: 0

      Since when is using another browser is an acceptable answer.

      Wasn't Slashdotters to tell the banking companies that....oh wait.

    13. Re:The facts please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worked on my fully-patched XP installation. Are you sure you have Javascript turned on?

    14. Re:The facts please by Mia'cova · · Score: 1

      When I read the exploit description, it relies on specific memory offsets. One working case is running the vulnerability with just one IE window loaded. If you have other stuff open, the desired offset for injected code might not be accessible. I'm not sure how much stuff you actually need open before the exploit will be rendered useless... So load up a few dozen apps before browsing or just maybe don't use IE? :)

      And no, I don't consider disabling JavaScript as any real solution. We're trying to advance the web, aren't we?

    15. Re:The facts please by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      potentially in ways not involving Javascript as well?

      The bug is in Javascript, so it'd be rather hard to exploit it without using JS.

      The first part of your statement, however, is quite correct. It's entirely possible (even probable) that a black hat saw this report and realized the potential implications. The only contrary point is that none of the white hats did so -- and they're not stupid either.

      I often think that there are more black hats than white hats though... at least at the very top of the hierarchy.

    16. Re:The facts please by Ian+Peon · · Score: 1

      Fact: A critical security flaw has been found in IE, and the SANS ISC is recommending that people use one of the "other browsers".

      Howzat?


      Well, according to your sig, it's just coincidental:


      The opinion above is fiction. Any similarity to real opinions, including facts and logic, is purely coincidental.
    17. Re:The facts please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only when searching for left-handed websites, though...

  24. DOS's Firefox too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just tried to run the POC on a 1.5rc2 Firefox install - crashed it to hell...

    1. Re:DOS's Firefox too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically to the rest of this thread all jumping on the "hah, I use (insert low market share browser, typically firefox here)" bandwagon - "you were saying?"

      HAHAHAHAHAHA

    2. Re:DOS's Firefox too... by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

      I just tried to run the POC on a 1.5rc2 Firefox install - crashed it to hell...

      A crash beats remote hole any day. But Firefox 1.0.7 just shows the page, no calc.exe, no crash, no nuthin.

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
  25. Bam! by Chayak · · Score: 1

    The key thing here is not to use IE. That seems to come up a lot, wonder if that is a hint that a multibillion dollar company with an army of programmers can't manage to write a good browser while an open source browser has had less problems, but by no means no problems just not problems that let people take control of your computer thats all.

    1. Re:Bam! by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Unless you happen to be using it on windows, where an overflow exploit *could* pwn the computer... Beyond this, for the most point ownage isn't necessary.. a worm doesn't need to own it to use it as a spam gateway.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  26. good example of why Microsoft is bad at security? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This exploit exploits a vulnerability on a already found denial-of-service attack which Microsoft classified six months ago as "low-priority"...

  27. But if you disable Javascript... by csoto · · Score: 1

    you won't be able to implement Microsoft's great new idea.

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  28. Zero-day? No. by MoNickels · · Score: 3, Informative

    The original article and the Slashdot headline are wrong. It's not a "zero-day exploit." The article itself says, "The group that published the exploit said Microsoft has been aware of the Javascript Window() vulnerability for several months but was mistakenly treating it as a low-priority denial-of-service flaw." A zero-day exploit is one that is discovered or revealed the day software becomes available, be it brand-new software, an update, a patch, or a service pack.

    --

    Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect

    1. Re:Zero-day? No. by MoNickels · · Score: 1

      PS: I understand that a zero-day exploit can also refer to the use of a vulnerability discovered before the release of software, but the software affected here is not new.

      --

      Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect

    2. Re:Zero-day? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It is a 0day exploit. The vuln was previously released months back, but at the time it was thought to DoS(not a remote exploit). But information released today shows that this vuln can be exploited remotely. So it is 0day.

      BTW the POC is here
      http://www.computerterrorism.com/research/ie/poc.h tm

      Start the slashdotting....

    3. Re:Zero-day? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      urm no, that's the definition for "zero day" in the warez scene.

      In the security world any exploit for a vulnerability which is unknown to the community (be that a commercial or a foss community) is a zero day exploit. Admins have zero days to patch their systems.

      Be that as it is, it's still not a zero day exploit, but that's because the vulnerability was known, not because it's existing software.

    4. Re:Zero-day? No. by rapid_snail · · Score: 1

      Actually it is a 0day exploit. Though it uses the "javascript window()" vulnerability release months back, at the time it was thought to be a DoS exploit. The information released today shows that it is remotely expoitable. The PoC is here. http://www.computerterrorism.com/research/ie/poc.h tm

    5. Re:Zero-day? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No.

      A zero-day exploit is one that takes advantage of a security vulnerability on the same day that the vulnerability becomes generally known. Ordinarily, after someone detects that a software program contains a potential exposure to exploitation by a hacker, that person or company can notify the software company and sometimes the world at large so that action can be taken to repair the exposure or defend against its exploitation. Given time, the software company can repair and distribute a fix to users. Even if potential hackers also learn of the vulnerability, it may take them some time to exploit it; meanwhile, the fix can hopefully become available first.

    6. Re:Zero-day? No. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It's still not zero day.

      PoC does not work - they have not proved that it's a vulnerability yet.

    7. Re:Zero-day? No. by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      To be more specific, it's been known since May, says one of our largest newspapers, interestingly catching on and writing an entire article about it.
      I couldn't see that coming just a few years ago. Unfortunately for MS, security is big business now...

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    8. Re:Zero-day? No. by m50d · · Score: 1

      No. There is no patch, it is a zero-day.

      --
      I am trolling
    9. Re:Zero-day? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The parent's statement is mostly false. The "zero-day" in "zero-day" exploit refers to a software bug of which the vendor and the networked public at large are unaware. It has nothing to do with the date of release of the software. However, the parent is correct in stating that the exploit is not zero-day because it is described as "known".

    10. Re:Zero-day? No. by burns210 · · Score: 1

      No. Zero-day doesn't depend on a patch being released. Zero-days are exploits that are unknown to the publisher, as in "Microsoft has known about exploit XYZ for zero days." This is not the case, Microsoft has known about the hole. So it is just an exploit, nothing too terribly special about it beyond being able to ram a large rod up Window's backside if you view a rogue website in IE.

    11. Re:Zero-day? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite simply, 'Zero day exploit' means any exploit which is released *before* the patch to render the exploit ineffective.

      A 'one day' exploit would be an exploit which had a patch to fix it released the day before.

      The N in 'N day exploit' referrs to the number of days you had to apply the patch before an exploit was discovered in the wild.

  29. Re:Link to a copy? by buswolley · · Score: 1

    Exactly.. And could you convince them to up the monitor's refresh rate from the mininum to something that won't kill this poor student's eyes?

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  30. "Zero day" refers to publication of the exploit... by csoto · · Score: 1

    not when the code maintainer was notified of it. Basically, M$ says "oh, here's a bug" then whammo, an exploit. Still sucks to be them...

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  31. Re:Fastest Fix Around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, dumbass. Nice try at getting a couple of dollars out of a few people. Perhaps you could have linked to the real website instead of being stupid about it.

  32. Re:good example of why Microsoft is bad at securit by mrtroy · · Score: 1

    This exploit exploits a vulnerability on a already found denial-of-service attack which Microsoft classified six months ago as "low-priority"... Well at least Microsoft is shown in studies to have far less serious bugs, and therefor require less patches.

    Haha, low priority...

    --
    [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
  33. CVE link by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

    http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name= CAN-2005-1790

    "Phase: Assigned (20050601)"

    IE hackers too busy trying to play catch up with firefox to fix non-critical bugs, maybe?

    The good thing of all this is that since Microsoft only releases security patches on thursday - you know, "admins want predictability" and all that shit that some companies use and that lots of shitty admins believe - so you have a full week as minimum to exploit this on your web pages. Enjoy, IE users!

    1. Re:CVE link by Agelmar · · Score: 1

      /set evil bit

      Considering that Thursday is a holiday in the US (Thanksgiving), you might actually have a bit longer than that to play around. (Or a bit less if MS releases on Wed. instead of Thu.)

      /unset evil bit

    2. Re:CVE link by Hymer · · Score: 1

      Ecuse me... SAY WHAT ??? you know, "admins want predictability"
      Real SysAdmins does not care about this kind of "predictability"... we care about our systems predictability and a system is not predictable if it is not secure.
      Managers, beencounters etc. wants on-paper "predictability" and that has NOTHING to do with real life...
      This is a fucking "We lost the war but our paperwork was good" mentality...
      --
      Dead men don't need excuses.

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Re:Link to a copy? by artifex2004 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I want to use it on school computers - they wwould just be getting what they deserve for flat-out refusing requests to get Firefox installed.

    So you'd deliberately and maliciously cause problems, just to prove you were on some imaginary moral high ground?

  36. This code by paranode · · Score: 4, Informative

    Will DOS Firefox. Not as bad as an exploit but they have issues to fix as well.

    1. Re:This code by vear · · Score: 3, Funny

      MS-DOS or DR-DOS? I don't know which one is worse.

    2. Re:This code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably PC-DOS has them both beat.

    3. Re:This code by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      MS-DOS or DR-DOS? I don't know which one is worse.

      Since it's Firefox, surely it would have to be FreeDOS?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    4. Re:This code by byolinux · · Score: 2, Funny

      You insensitive clod, I have to use Arachne with FreeDOS.

    5. Re:This code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It won't exactly DOS Firefox - it just takes gecko an inordinantly long time (1-2 minutes) to render the 200,000 unicode characters on screen in this specific instance. The mozilla devs have already traced down the cause and are working on a fix. (Bug 317334 for those interested.)

  37. Gah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    users do, but they're much further down the food chain

    Except that regular users comprimise a greater number of Internet users. So if Joe Average uses IE, more people are going to be affected by this flaw.

    we'll get the usual set of arguments about browser and OS supremacy.

    If something has fewer security problems, isn't it "superior" in that respect?

    If you can't trust Lynx to be secure, then really nothing is secure.

    Right. Because if something has one flaw, then you might as well not even bother trying, because everything has flaws. I mean, just because IE has had double-or-triple-digit flaws, clearly this one flaw in lynx makes all arguments against IE moot.

    What an inane comment.

  38. DUPE! by andreMA · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh, wait... it just seems that way. Carry on...

  39. lazy story submitters by mapmaker · · Score: 5, Funny
    Aparently all you have to do is browse the page to be affected.

    What, no link?

    1. Re:lazy story submitters by tpgp · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      My pics.
    2. Re:lazy story submitters by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Tried it on Windows XP (no service packs, I think), not recently updated, IE 6.00.2800. Doesn't launch "calc" as claimed; only hangs the browser.

      It's even better on Mozilla; it doesn't even hang.

    3. Re:lazy story submitters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. On my box with IE6 on XP SP2 all I got was an access denied error on line 62, with both xp and universal versions. Firefox froze.

  40. Re:Link to a copy? by tomasvilda · · Score: 4, Informative
  41. Say goodnight, AJAX by ptomblin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just when I'm considering using more AJAX stuff on my web site, along comes another in a long line of Javascript vulnerabilities. Maybe it's not time to do AJAX. Or to make it lock out IE browsers.

    --
    The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    1. Re:Say goodnight, AJAX by hockeyschtick · · Score: 1

      Just when I've _already done_ a bunch of cool AJAX stuff on my website. As if cross-browser issues with AJAX weren't pain enough already, we have to contend with a pandemic of IE visitors with Javascript turned off.

      Back to the drawing board...

    2. Re:Say goodnight, AJAX by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 1

      the flaw is in the implementation, not the standard.

    3. Re:Say goodnight, AJAX by ptomblin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So? When 90% of your "customers" are being told that they either turn off Javascript or get a virus, it doesn't matter whether the problem is with Javascript or IE - either way, there is no return for adding AJAX features to a web site. I'd rather spend my precious development resources on non-AJAX features that benefit everybody.

      --
      The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    4. Re:Say goodnight, AJAX by chez69 · · Score: 1

      don't let facts get in the way of a standard slashdot cliche post.

      --
      PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
    5. Re:Say goodnight, AJAX by dallask · · Score: 1

      You think the common user knows how to disable javascript? Or as M$ calls it... active scripting?

      Tell your mother/friend/avg. user to go into her control panel and disable javascript... then just let her run with it. It will give you somthing to fix over Thanksgiving.

      --
      The Code Ninja is swift with his tool, precise in his delivery, and deadly accurate in his execution.
    6. Re:Say goodnight, AJAX by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1
      I have an image of the Microsoft flag with green/grey mold starting to fill in the four color patches. The caption reads "Microsoft Live". In the backgropund, we need a team of Open Source mascots approaching with a can of AJAX and brillo pads. Of course, Puffy doesn't even need a Brillo pad, he could just lather up and get to work. Does any semi-competent artist what to try? I think now is the perfect time to do AJAX :-)

      But seriously, how is Microsoft or Google going to move the world to AJAX if they cannot count on a browser to implement Javascript? I suppose Google can say "Firefox", but what is Microsoft going to do?

      --
      Think global, act loco
    7. Re:Say goodnight, AJAX by TodLiebeck · · Score: 1

      So? When 90% of your "customers" are being told that they either turn off Javascript or get a virus, it doesn't matter whether the problem is with Javascript or IE - either way, there is no return for adding AJAX features to a web site. I'd rather spend my precious development resources on non-AJAX features that benefit everybody.

      Disclaimer: I'm a bit biased on this one (e.g., see my homepage URL).

      JavaScript isn't going to go away over security flaws in the IE implementation. People continue to use Internet Explorer, Outlook, and other programs with sordid security track records. I can certainly see the current AJAX frenzy causing a good deal of attention toward JS security, but the industry's answer won't be to simply give up.

    8. Re:Say goodnight, AJAX by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Non-sequitur, IMHO. Javascript is a great tool for user interface design.

      The problem is that it should not be possible to execute arbitrary code that has nothing to do with the user interface!

    9. Re:Say goodnight, AJAX by ekhben · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is, or will be, pushing XAML, not AJAX. It will greatly help them if too many people have JS off for AJAX solutions to be practical in the future.

  42. What we need now is... by null+etc. · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...one more study to show us how much more secure Windows is vs. Linux. Notice how the announcement of those studies never coincides with the announcement of a critical IE or RPC exploit?

  43. I’m safe! by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

    I don’t have to worry about JavaScript exploits because I use the new super safe IE7! It utilizes Microsoft’s super new language, JScript! Download this super new web browser today and keep your Windows safe from all those evil hackers*!

    *and other assorted open source terrorists

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  44. Browser? by cloudkiller · · Score: 2, Funny

    IE? I don't have that; I use Windows.

    --
    [an error occurred while processing this sig]
    1. Re:Browser? by bmalia · · Score: 1

      never heard of that. I use AOL.

      --
      There's no place like ~/
    2. Re:Browser? by cloudkiller · · Score: 1

      Any idea how I could get a copy of this AOL?

      --
      [an error occurred while processing this sig]
    3. Re:Browser? by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Easy :)

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  45. Thank you by nealfunkbass · · Score: 4, Funny

    The holidays are a time for giving.

    Now that you've RTFA, and you are now looking at the comments page, the staff of Slashdot and EWeek would like to thank you for visiting our web pages and giving us full control of your windows PCs.

    Happy Holidays!

    --
    - Donny was a good bowler, and a good man.
  46. Proof of Concept Code by lbmouse · · Score: 0

    Computer Terrorism Ltd. published the proof of concept code on Monday. Their example even seems to hang my copy of Firefox.
     

  47. Re:Link to a copy? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    On another point, why doesn't Microsoft default windows to some better refreh rate. Surely there's ways to determine what refresh rates the monitor accepts when you install the OS. If you can see this, click ok, works pretty well in most situations.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  48. no patch by NthDegree256 · · Score: 1

    "There is no patch,"

    Am I wrong in guessing that, had this been a Firefox exploit, this particular phase would have been worded more generously? Say, "There is no patch yet"?

    I mean, surely something as severe as a JavaScript hack will be as high on Microsoft's list of priorities as it would be on the Mozilla team's...

  49. MS reasserts it's dominance by MyOtherUIDis3digits · · Score: 0

    They must have hated the press Firefox received over it's first security issues. "No one takes over our exploit vulnerability market! This is MY HOUSE, bee-otch!!!"

    My Powerbook and Linux server look better every day.

    --
    Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
  50. I hope this gets into a SQL server site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Or better: into lots of SQL server sites.

    Too bad it's multifile, or else we could even make it self-propagate...

  51. that IE nightmare again??? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    you can work around it by disabling javascript
    or by using firefox instead of IE!

    "ghost in the machine"

    1. Re:that IE nightmare again??? by ninja_assault_kitten · · Score: 1

      I believe it actually causes a DoS condition in Firefox.

    2. Re:that IE nightmare again??? by bmalia · · Score: 1

      I believe it actually causes a DoS condition in Firefox.

      Source?

      --
      There's no place like ~/
    3. Re:that IE nightmare again??? by ninja_assault_kitten · · Score: 1

      Bugtraq posting yesterday by admin@dbtech.org.

    4. Re:that IE nightmare again??? by ninja_assault_kitten · · Score: 1

      I also just validated it myself.

  52. MS anti-spyware utility will stop this by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am pretty sure MS anti-spyware will stop this from launching

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  53. lynxcgi? Good grief. by achurch · · Score: 1
    To be honest, I found it more of a shock that Lynx has a security flaw.

    When I first came across the lynxcgi: settings in lynx.cfg, I was amazed such a "feature" even existed. IMHO, if you get screwed over because you had lynxcgi enabled, you deserve what you get.

  54. How to disable JavaScript by Rinnt · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, for most it may be extremely easy. But in case you haven't had to do it for some time:

    To disable JavaScript in IE, click Tools, Internet Options and choose the Security tab. Click the Internet icon, click the Default Level button, and move the slider to High.

    ...Shamelessly stolen from here.

    1. Re:How to disable JavaScript by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      To disable JavaScript in IE, click Tools, Internet Options and choose the Security tab. Click the Internet icon, click the Default Level button, and move the slider to High.
      I guess that's why people are always complaining about Windows being hard to use. You have to configure everything before you can do anything with it. Can't they just make it work right out of the box without the user having to be a rocket scientist? Someone at MS should be trying to make Windows as easy to use as Linux.

      [This post stolen from 1999 with certain pieces of text replaced.]

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  55. Stay Strong Microsoft Freaks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Stay strong guys!

    Don't let anyone or anything stop you from running IE. It's part of your identity.

    The security nightmare of surfing with IE is a small price to pay for keeping up your image as a "Microsoft Guy"

  56. If a problem like this was found in Firefox... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...There would already be a fix available for it.

    1. Re:If a problem like this was found in Firefox... by Maian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, you must be one hell of a Firefox fanatic to completely ignore the fact there have been serious published and previously unpatched (but now patched) vulnerabilities in Firefox before. Why the hell was this modded insightful? Now it may be true that Mozilla fixes vulnerabilities faster than the IE team, but this is an outright lie.

    2. Re:If a problem like this was found in Firefox... by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 1
      If a problem like this was found in Firefox...There would already be a fix available for it.

      This gets modded as "Insightful"? What nonsense.

      Looking through this thread, it looks like I'm far from unique in getting essentially identical results with IE and FireFox. IOW, FireFox needs a patch just as much (or little) as IE. In neither case does work as intended, but in both cases I get roughly the most trivial possible denial of service -- i.e. it takes roughly 5 seconds to kill the browser and (if you want) start up a new copy. I realize that if the attack really worked it would be serious, but as it stands right now, I'm probably in more danger from the possibility of accidentally hitting the wrong key in the debugger (not that it's dangerous either, but sometimes I have to do twice as much work: kill both the debugger AND the debuggee -- wasting 10 seconds instead of 5...)

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
    3. Re:If a problem like this was found in Firefox... by dreamer-of-rules · · Score: 1

      Don't just count vulnerabilities. Every month (except, I think, one in the last couple years) Microsoft has patched vulnerabilities that would allow a remote attacker to "make your system their bitch

        can remember only one Firefox vulnerability this year that allowed the running of arbitrary code. Examples of other serious vulnerabilities in Firefox include: faking the site address (phishing), reading cookies in other windows, reading files on your hard drive. These are serious, but none of them require reformatting your hard drive for exploit recovery.

      Firefox vulnerabilies just tend to be safer than IE vulnerabilities.

      --
      Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
    4. Re:If a problem like this was found in Firefox... by joelito_pr · · Score: 1

      MS fans will start spreading FUD

  57. SoNy ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something tells me Sony is involved in this exploit.

  58. Hmm.... by Lonath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't Google's master plan to take over the world dependent upon people using AJAX? If IE has a critical flaw using javascript, and everyone has to turn it off, then nobody will be able to use Google's new products and... Hey wait a minute.

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

      Damnit, you figured it out. Now you must be shut up. Balmer is on his way over to take care of you right now.

      Signed,
      Bill Gates

    2. Re:Hmm.... by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

      It's pretty sad that someone on /. has NO IDEA how to configure a browser. Or if you do, to convieniently ignore the fact that you can configure JS on a per site basis just to make a stupid joke.

      The fact is that FF or IE users shouls have JS turned off by defualt and enabled ONLY for the few sites that they really need it for.

      If we as a community really meant anything to anyone, then we'd be trying to help by disseminating real help and information and not making inane comments.

      In IE, go to Tools, Internet Options, Security. Click on the "Internet" icon, click "Custom Level" and disable everything "Java" "Scripting" and "Active X".

      Then go back and click on the "Trusted Sites" icon and the "Sites" button and add Google (if necessary).

      There, completely safe as long as google doesn't get into the buisness of trying to hack its user's machines...

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    3. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really it ought to be easier. IE has a "prompt" option for JS. What they really need to do is have a button on that prompt window that asks if you'd like to add the current site to your list. Then if you click yes, on successful add it should let you know how many sites are on your list so you can verify that the number hasn't skyrocketed into the millions due to some worm.

    4. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny? Should be Insightfull. IE ain't done till Gmail wont run!

  59. WINDOWS HAS "OPEN DOORS" DAY, ANYONE WELCOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Windows has yet another "Open doors day - everyone warmly welcome" day! Jesus Christ, why do we let this happen?

  60. Now that I think of it..... by curtisk · · Score: 1

    Windows is actually quite an open OS, you just have to work for it a bit more :) But you can pretty much bend it to your will.

    --

    Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!

  61. Importance of opensource by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    This story (I suppose is true) shows how important is that things like the browser or the operating system should be opensource!
    None is perfect and (software) mistakes are very common among Humans! At Microsoft have practiced a lot this.
    But with an opensource Javascript engine this damned bug could be fixed in few hours.
    We can bet it will take a couple of days just to see the announcement in the Microsoft site and a full week for a real fix. And related side bugs. That in turn will take more time for fixes and side bugs ...

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    1. Re:Importance of opensource by freewaybear · · Score: 0

      At Microsoft have practiced a lot this.
      ???

      --
      Registered Linux User #404114 [url=http://www.punkoiska.com][img]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4379/posbannercf5.g
  62. It's a time for giving thanks, here's some of mine by Sierpinski · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I am thankful, in light of this article, for Firefox.

    I am thankful that I am smart enough to not have used IE for over a year.

    I am thankful that I have convinced my wife and my parents to also use Firefox as well.

    I am thankful that things like these keep happening to IE, but only with respect to the fact that it might make those last few businesses that I deal with (re: bank) to modify their pages to support non-IE browsers.

    I am thankful for retaining the hope that there are still intelligent people out there.

  63. HTML in Outlook Affected? by Evil+W1zard · · Score: 1

    If a user isn't using IE as their primary browser and someone sends a malicious page via email and it is opened within Outlook will it make a call to IE and still run the exploit? I would think yes.

    --
    News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
    1. Re:HTML in Outlook Affected? by DCheesi · · Score: 1

      Not sure about Outlook, but I do know that Lotus Notes insists on spawning IE for web links, even if you've set another browser as your default...

    2. Re:HTML in Outlook Affected? by GuanoTO · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sadly yes, it will use IE extensions to display the html (and associated) code. It is a hardcoded call to IE, not the default browser.

      Much like following the HotMail link in MSN Messenger will launch a new IE window, despite having FF set as the default browser.

  64. sony rootkit exploit by quokkapox · · Score: 1
    Someday, an IE exploit is going to come along that wipes your HD. Then we'll see sparks fly.

    The same exact thing *could* happen to firefox. Maybe only on windows, but still... running under your username even in linux an exploit could seriously fuck with your ~/.

    I'm waiting for the Sony rootkit exploit that only destroys vaio machines running windows.

    It's only a matter of time folks. Many rootkit-infected CDs will be floating around out there for years to come. Somebody somewhere ought to nail 'em. Maybe not wipe the drive, but it could intermittently disable windows and tell the bewildered user how to sign up for the impending class action suit (while blasting out Neil Diamond at max volume).

    Fortunately my other PC (a used Sony Vaio) is running linux.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  65. Blocking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The SANS handler on duty has linked to a BleedingSnort rule for this. Anyone have a way to block this from a Squid proxy server? That would be most useful....

    Thanks

  66. Opera affected too? by DoddyUK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since this exploit is critical in IE, and DoS's both Safari and Firefox, does anyone know if this bug also affects Opera 8.5?

    --
    Some think the Internet is a bad thing. I just think that AOL is a bad thing.
    1. Re:Opera affected too? by porneL · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not affected. I've tested <body onload="window();"> and nothing happens besides JS console logging "Statement on line 1: The Object does not implement [[Call]]".

    2. Re:Opera affected too? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      It doesn't DOS in Safari, at least version 1.3.1(v312.3.1) (Man, that's a weird naming convention.

      Didn't see anyone else saying it did or did not, but it just popped open a new java window for me. That's it. No 100% CPU, etc.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Opera affected too? by DoddyUK · · Score: 1

      Some versions of Safari have been affected.

      http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2005-11-21
      We have received reports that Safari suffers from a DOS condition, but I have not been able to replicate it with Safari running on 10.3 or 10.4 series OSX machines.

      It's ok for Panther or Tiger, but looks like users of OSX 10.2 and below could fall victim.

      --
      Some think the Internet is a bad thing. I just think that AOL is a bad thing.
  67. Lynx by Frankie70 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To be honest, I found it more of a shock that Lynx has a security flaw.

    Why? I haven't looked at Lynx recently, but Lynx used to be a very insecure
    browser - Lynx code had lots & lots of Buffer Overflows.

    1. Re:Lynx by Betabug · · Score: 1

      > Why? I haven't looked at Lynx recently, but Lynx used to be a
      > very insecure browser - Lynx code had lots & lots of Buffer Overflows.

      Lynx is part of the base install of OpenBSD, which gets code audited very heavily. I somehow doubt that these guys leave a browser with lots of Buffer Overflows in their default install. So now for me the only question is wheather those fixes got upstream and fixed in lynx too. Very likely they were.

    2. Re:Lynx by lahvak · · Score: 1

      I didn't follow lynx development lately, but the grandparent is correct, lynx used to have tons of buffer overflows. I remember that at one point of time, there was some major cleaning effort going on, and if I recall correctly, yes, the OpenBSD folks did have a major part in it. Still, several months ago, there was this guy who wrote a program that dumped bunch of bad html onto browsers (I remember he claimed that IE with sp2 was the only browser that didn't crash), I tested lynx, and while it fared pretty decently compared to other browsers (ehm, links, ehm), it still crashed every once a while. Very rarely, but it did.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Lynx by m50d · · Score: 1

      Because it's so much simpler, and the codebase is so much smaller than more popular browsers, one would expect it to have far fewer security flaws.

      --
      I am trolling
  68. Duh! (+1, informative) by hummassa · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sony's CD copy protection installs in your Windows machine a rootkit that renders invisible any file whose name starts with '$sys$'.
    The *nix joke "word^Wother" (also written "word^H^H^H^H") meant: i wrote "word", but repented and erased it (with one control-w or N control-h keys) and substituted it for "other".
    The newly made Sony/Windows joke "$sys$word other" means: "word" becomes invisible and, just as in the unix case, I am saying "other" (when I really mean the harsher "word").
    Funny thing is, it's not as funny when I explain it. :-(

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by Omega697 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What he meant was that there were 4 ^W's and when you erase 4 words you wind up with the nonsensical statement in his post.

    2. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Way to over-explain the joke that everyone already got, chuckles. He was just pointing out that there were only 4 ^W characters instead of the 5 that would be required for the statement to make sense.

    3. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by mazarin5 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Oh, I got it.

      The "^W" control character deletes the preceding word, not character. This distinguishes from "^H", which deletes only the preceding character, thus they aren't interchangable.

      If you notice, I quoted you with the four words preceding "^W^W^W^W" deleted, as if the "^W"s had actually had an effect on the sentence. That made your sentence incomplete, and therefore nonsense.

      Therefore "Huh?".

      Granted, it wasn't worthy of Mark Twain, but it was meant to be humorous.

      --
      Fnord.
    4. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ahhhhh.... anal-retentive nerds and humor....

      Here's a nice math joke you might like:

      Q: Why do programmers confuse Halloween and Kwanza?

      A: Because 31 (hex) == 27 (dec)!

    5. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the un-funny thing is everyone got it the first time.

    6. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Funny
      A: Because 31 (hex) == 27 (dec)!

      I always get depressed as the nights draw in towards the end of Hextober; how about you?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    7. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      R - Tape loading error.

      0x31 == 25, not 27.

    8. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you people talking about? 0x31 is 49 dec. Do you mean octal? Jesus, call yourselves nerds.

    9. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by Phae · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, it's not as funny when I explain it.

      Funny thing is that it's not even that funny that it's not as funny when you explained it.

    10. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up funny! I may be a little punchy right now, but I just about wet myself.

    11. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was Mark Twain who said that explaining a joke is like disecting a cat. You learn alot, but the cat is still dead.

    12. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this fucking stupid joke for retards?

    13. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot today: stupid kiddies abusing memes without even knowing where they come from or how to use them properly.

      To other stupid kiddies this may seem witty, to old farts this just looks retarded.

    14. Re:Duh! (+1, informative) by zootm · · Score: 1

      Err, yeah, and thanks for glossing over the fact I wrote "^W" instead of "^H"....

  69. Someone please... by dallask · · Score: 1

    Now all we need to do is have a nice Zero day windows exploit that is self spreading and code it to go out and install Fire Fox (and remove IE) on every windows computer.

    'course, before one does that, one should sign up for the $1 google promotion...

    We would need someone to mod the FF build and make it install seamlessly with defaults... no point in a bug if you get prompted by the install software...

    and we need someone to write the shell code to install and spread the whole package...

    So, who's good at writing shell code? Sony? Are you listening?

    --
    The Code Ninja is swift with his tool, precise in his delivery, and deadly accurate in his execution.
  70. This isn't 0Day anymore... by ninja_assault_kitten · · Score: 1

    It was 0day yesterday morning.

  71. What by MarkNijhof · · Score: 1

    No link to the affected page(s)?

    -Mark

  72. Re:Link to a copy? by Trip+Ericson · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google for Portable Firefox and give it a try. Works just fine for me on all the school computers, without the hassles of getting the Microsoftophiles upset.

  73. We deserve it by superid · · Score: 1

    I work at a lab of over 2000 engineers and scientists and computer professionals. I'm appalled at the number of people that use IE here, despite our allegedly high computer security stance....it's pathetic, I hope we get infected and badly.

    As far as my family/friends go, they've all been warned that if they use IE I will not fix their computers.

    1. Re:We deserve it by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      2,000?? I could name an IT company with over 100,000 and a policy to use only MS products on every desktop... I didn't let that stop me installing Gentoo on my laptop, but I made it dual-boot so I can access the internal sites that go out of their way to be nasty to non-IE users.

  74. He he...I know I'm perfectly safe... by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1

    I'm wearing a tin-foil condom. There's no way I can catch a virus through this thing.

  75. Thanks Sony! by WolfZombie · · Score: 1

    Surely this is another RIAA approved "feature" released by Sony!

  76. Re:Link to a copy? by circusboy · · Score: 1

    You're surprised at this kind of attitude? In a world where even some of the major religions (supposed bastions of moral high-ground,) ignore some of their fundamental tenets in the name of expediency?

    And before anyone feels hurt about this, allow me to quote a billboard I saw in the midwest recently.

    "What part of 'thou shalt not kill' don't you understand?"
    --God

    --
    -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
  77. The truly scary part is by RedneckTek · · Score: 1

    not the fact that browsing to a particular website would infect a single user. I would think that most people don't go to those websites.

    However, if a malicous person were to couple an exploit like this with a website infecting worm, the potential is enormous. You're no longer concerned with the individual site or user being taken offline or corrupted, you have the potential vistors to a site possibly helping spread the infection. Imagine a large e-commerce site infected with exploit code. I can foresee large infection rates from anyone who figures out how to automate this type of "two-pronged" attack.

    I'm surely not the first person to think of this.

    --
    I gave up thinking of a cool sig
  78. your mom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, your parent's computer is running slowly and there are popups everywhere.

  79. Now you're for it by samjam · · Score: 0

    You'll cop it now! You shouldn't see the fnords, oh deary deary.

    Sam

  80. By the way... by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    By the way:
            - Firefox 1.5rc3 is out
            - Download my holiday classic Jingle all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  81. My IE not at risk by MandoSKippy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In my network, we use group policies to enforce all computers browse the Internet at the high level. What happens when a user needs JS? Well they send the admin a email, and if the site is legit, we add to the global trusted sites...

    Block all, only allow what is legitimate.

    A security principal we should be using... Whitelists are much better then black lists.

    This vuln will only affect my network if one of the trusted sites gets infected, but that is a much reduced risk from the phishin emails etc with links to bad sites... I.e., like anything is only as secure as how the administrator configured it.

    Now for home users.. Microsoft WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING /shrug felt good to say at least.

    1. Re:My IE not at risk by towsonu2003 · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I'm not working in your company...

    2. Re:My IE not at risk by MandoSKippy · · Score: 1

      Because it's secure?

    3. Re:My IE not at risk by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is a house with no doors or windows secure? Only if you're an idiot. Security is the ratio of difficulty of access by authorized vs. unauthorized users. Adding a process that makes it more difficult for both adds no security, it merely makes your users hate you.

      The damn data janitors around here forget their job is first to provide a useful network.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:My IE not at risk by MandoSKippy · · Score: 1

      How is anything that is not business realted useful? every site they need is accessible via the trusted sites. yes, the first time they need it, there is a small delay as the admin adds it, but generally, the list is pretty static. So far I have a network with no spyware on it... 4 years now.. no anti spyware solution, but no spyware. Users aren't suppose be playing games etc anyways, are you saying the network would be more useful if they coudl play games, download spyware, and be exploited by this vuln? Your definition of useful is serious flawed. Who is the iddiot? The one who implements a process like this which is proven to be working, and accepted by users (after an initial complaining period) or the one whos is constantly cleaning up the mess his poor implemntation caused?

    5. Re:My IE not at risk by lgw · · Score: 1

      I'd have to be payed a lot more to work at a company that restriced my internet access so completely. Heck, they'd probably be that same sort of company that would look at a list of every phone number I called from work to check for forbidden personal calls, then outlaw cell phones because they can't be audited and thus represent a "security" risk (and yes, I've worked for such a company, back before I had useful skills). Clearly the cost for such a policy is payed by the company in the form of a lack of skilled workers.

      You don't provide security, you provide a totalitarian wet dream.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:My IE not at risk by MandoSKippy · · Score: 1

      Wrong, I am controlling a risk to a comapny network. Throwing around words like "totalitatian" doesn't make you right! The resources in question belong wholely to the employer, the risks of allowing this traffic are to the employer, and the right to control traffic is also on the employer. We are not talking about a evil regime, we are talking about a company that provides wonderful flexibility for employees including hours that employees get to set and time off on a whim for childrens emergencies etc, but also controls costs by controlling the websites allowed in the trusted sites list. You are making many assumptions about the company based on the IT staff making the right decision (for once) in using white lists for trusted sites. Utilizing black lists is a wasted effort, putting on loads of anti-spyware just slows computers and doesn't catch everything. No employee complains, they can still read news sites, go to sports team sites, etc etc. We are not blocking websites, we are just disabling active code. Yes... some stuff doesn't work, but everything else on the network does cause it isn't infested with anti-totalitatianism (You know... Bonzi buddy) What do you work for Spyware companies or something? Trying to wrap the security of a network with being a nazi? Ha... nice try....

    7. Re:My IE not at risk by lgw · · Score: 1

      So your argument is "it's OK to reduce the freedom of the workers becuase the company paid for the equipment"? Slavery is fine if the price is right? OK, OK, you probably wouldn't go that far, but I've worked for people who *would*, so pardon my dismay.

      In any case, network guys in my experience are far too willing to reduce the usability of the network because letting the users get full use out of it means more work for the network guy. The job of the network guy isn't (primarly) to reduce his own workload, it's to provide a useful network. It's so bad around here sometimes that we just switch to sneakernet. When the easiest and fastest way to get an executable to a coworker in a different city involves FedEx, why do we have a network here again?

      But too many companies these days shut off all the USB ports, so it's hard even to use sneakernet as a fallback.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:My IE not at risk by MandoSKippy · · Score: 1

      If there is a business need for something then it should be evaluated nad secured. And yes... if the employer paid for the equipment, and reducing the freedom of the workers helps eliminate viruses, spyware, and vulnerabilities then it is more then ok. People talk about the "clueless" home users... most of them have the same amount of a clue while at work. Yes you could use training and such, but the resoures involved are worth the result. i.e. people are still the ones making the decision. No employer is required to give Internet access so users can go hit gaming sites. That is a waste of money, and if you want to trade that for less flexibility with working hours or lower slaaries be the company has to pick the added expenses of tons of crappy software that mostly works to protect the network then so be it. "In any case, network guys in my experience are far too willing to reduce the usability of the network because letting the users get full use out of it means more work for the network guy." What is useability? Is useability using hte network for bunsiness purposes? Then no, network guys should not do that, and I never condoned that. Is usability allowing users to waste and employers money for "freedom"? Ha... As for the USB port comment... they should be controlled... if your company works in banking or health care, then they have a goverment mandate to control the information that leaves the network. If the company has trade secrets, then it is in the best interests of the company to restrict the freeflow of those trade secrets as if they don't some lawyer will point out that since they didnt attempt ot protect their trade secrets, that the comapny can't sue the former employee for taking that info. It baffles me to think that employees somehow think they have "rights" on someone elses network... it's laughable.

    9. Re:My IE not at risk by lgw · · Score: 1

      The harder you make it for legitimate users to engage in activites that *they* consider legitimate, the easier you make social engineering attacks. This is why adding restrictions does not, in practice, increase security, unless you create *far* more hassle for the attacker than for the legitimate user.

      And, you know, there's surprisingly little point in (as so many companies do) shutting down USB ports, but not restricting access to printers, or encrypting backup tapes. Anything that frustrates legitimate users but doesn't significantly hinder attackers is the *opposite* of security. Isn't it interesting that most of the stories of large amounts of personal information reaching places it shouldn't are inside jobs?

      If only I could maim one data janitor for each new password (with different, mutually exclusive creation rules and expiration cycles) I had to create to access some new internal resource, I'd be a busy man.

      It baffles me to think that employees somehow think they have "rights" on someone elses network... it's laughable.

      I'm sure it does baffle you that other people think they have rights. You're probably equally OK with employers who refuse to hire smokers, or parents of small children, or the disabled. I'm a big believer in property rights, but property provided for an employee to conduct busines with is a different moral equation.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:My IE not at risk by Big_Al_B · · Score: 1

      Wrong, I am controlling a risk to a comapny network.

      Sure. But a wise admin at least periodically asks, "What opportunity is the company missing due to my particular risk management techniques?" Risks and rewards often correlate.

      If you, for example, have a senior executive who is exploring a new or potential vendor's online training resources, but can't use them due to your policy, then the company may have missed an opportunity. If the vendor was offering something that seriously improved a manufacturing process, your employer could forfeit several millions in profit to avoid employing a single helpdesk employee dedicated to removing spyware from employee machines.

      Throwing around words like "totalitatian" doesn't make you right!

      Man up and don't get so defensive. I don't think anyone means to imply that totalitarian network administration policies and totalitarian governments are morally equivalent.

      The resources in question belong wholely to the employer, the risks of allowing this traffic are to the employer, and the right to control traffic is also on the employer.

      That's the right answer, but the wrong question. Better than asking, "Who's network is this," is, "Why is this network here?" It's there to improve workflow, increase productivity, and more precisely, reduce the cost of operating the company and make it more profitable.

      If your well-intended security policies are counterproductive to this goal, then what real benefit are they? BTW, I'm not assuming they are counterproductive; I'm just offering a pragmatic perspective.

      We are not talking about a evil regime, we are talking about a company that provides wonderful flexibility for employees including hours that employees get to set and time off on a whim for childrens emergencies etc,

      More unnecessarily defensive hoopla...

      but also controls costs by controlling the websites allowed in the trusted sites list.

      Empirical operating costs can be easily measured, but other costs, such as productivity reduction, can't.

      For example, my company has online timesheets. We changed from a very employee friendly system a couple years back to a system with a very clunky, inefficient, and time-consuming employee interface, so that our small HR staff could do their work more easily and save processing time. So we slowed hundreds of employees down drastically to speed less than half a dozen employees up drastically. Good idea? Probably not.

      You are making many assumptions about the company based on the IT staff making the right decision (for once) in using white lists for trusted sites. Utilizing black lists is a wasted effort, putting on loads of anti-spyware just slows computers and doesn't catch everything.

      For your company, whitelisting may be a perfect solution. For others, it may not be. How do you guess it would scale if your company grew 10x? Whitelisting and scalability are not good friends.

      Sometimes anti-spyware, especially FOSS anti-spyware, is very cost effective and can scale quite well. And "catches enough" may be a more useful criteria for many companies than "catches everything".

      No employee complains,

      Just because you don't hear it doesn't mean...

      they can still read news sites, go to sports team sites, etc etc. We are not blocking websites, we are just disabling active code.

      Sounds perfectly reasonable, which is why your defensive posture is so funny.

      Yes... some stuff doesn't work,

      Uhoh. Time to tune your solution. Everything worthwhile should work.

      but everything else on the network does cause it isn't infested with anti-totalitatianism

      Yep. Keeping people from using resources generally keeps resource utilization low.

      (You know... Bonzi buddy)

      Mmm'K.

      What do you work for Spyware companies or something? Trying to wrap the security of a network with being a nazi? Ha... nice try....

      Awkward and clumsy, but good-natured ribbing? Or ridiculus ad hominem insult? Too close to call, from here.

    11. Re:My IE not at risk by MandoSKippy · · Score: 1

      I don't care what they think is legtimate. If there "legitimate" activity causes downtime for the company, or forced man-hour wasting... then it's not legitimate. There are plenty of good workers who can abide by that. Matter of fact most employees are long time employees. I exaplain WHY I am doing it, and they all agree that it makes sense considering the risk of a compromise of any time could mean the business loses customers and that could affect thier job. I am not unreasonable, but if they want an IT resource, they have to tell me why they need it. What you are saying in a sense is white listing computer functions, and only blocking those that cause problems. That makes no sense.. .the default should be deny, and then permit. You have control then, defualt allow = no control of your computing resources. Check out the CSI/FBI studies... most attacks come from inside. I am not saying you do one thing and not the other (ala Backup Tapes) ya they should be encrypted as well. So what? Printers? Another issue. Everything has to have the risk/reward. Printers (at least in our enviroment) are needed. USB keys are not... Users know this as well, so why bother allowing them? "You're probably equally Ok with..." what a silly statement. Because I follow good security practices that the employees of my company can tolerate and make our network more secure? Because I recognize that the employers resources ARE the employers resources? Since we are going to make genrealizations... let me try ... You are probably the type of person who thinks it's ok to trespass on someones land... I mean they are not using it... why not? Do you think that for moment that if the employee does get a computer compromised by being a typical User (tm) that it's not the employee who has to answer the ISPs phone call that their machine is trying to hack others computers.. but the responsibility is actually the employers? You have no grasp of the world beyond what rights you think you are "owed"

    12. Re:My IE not at risk by MandoSKippy · · Score: 1

      Sure. But a wise admin at least periodically asks, "What opportunity is the company missing due to my particular risk management techniques?" Risks and rewards often correlate. If you, for example, have a senior executive who is exploring a new or potential vendor's online training resources, but can't use them due to your policy, then the company may have missed an opportunity. If the vendor was offering something that seriously improved a manufacturing process, your employer could forfeit several millions in profit to avoid employing a single helpdesk employee dedicated to removing spyware from employee machines. Sure. But anytime someone needs to do somethign, the email comes in, they say why and we add it. We don't have a formal process to enable something. If it's obviously something they need no questions, if it's not obvious (i.e. texasholdem.com) then we make them answer. No one has been unable to perform a business function because of it. Man up and don't get so defensive. I don't think anyone means to imply that totalitarian network administration policies and totalitarian governments are morally equivalent. Fair enough... I did get defensive. That being said, many assumptions were also made about my network and my style of administration... That's the right answer, but the wrong question. Better than asking, "Who's network is this," is, "Why is this network here?" It's there to improve workflow, increase productivity, and more precisely, reduce the cost of operating the company and make it more profitable. Yes it is. And there is responsibility by the owner to ensure that happens. The questions are more related then you think. Empirical operating costs can be easily measured, but other costs, such as productivity reduction, can't. For example, my company has online timesheets. We changed from a very employee friendly system a couple years back to a system with a very clunky, inefficient, and time-consuming employee interface, so that our small HR staff could do their work more easily and save processing time. So we slowed hundreds of employees down drastically to speed less than half a dozen employees up drastically. Good idea? Probably not. I agree probably not in your case. In our case, having just one PC down, and the time for IT to fix, could be hugely costly. (how's that for grammar) The small time cost to get a site added helps prevent software that slows, prohibits, and discourages productive workflow. For your company, whitelisting may be a perfect solution. For others, it may not be. How do you guess it would scale if your company grew 10x? Whitelisting and scalability are not good friends. Sometimes anti-spyware, especially FOSS anti-spyware, is very cost effective and can scale quite well. And "catches enough" may be a more useful criteria for many companies than "catches everything". Whitelists not scaling well is FUD put out by companies that would be out of customers if they were used. Think about process control. If it were easy to whitelist processes... (I actually am looking into it) AV would be obsolete... you take a known good process, and MD5 it... if it's on the list, and the MD5 is correct it gets to run, otherwise it doesn't The time up front will be higher, but in the longrun, PCs running faster due to no signature based rulse.. it would be great... now I admit that there is no easy solution at this time for the whitelisting of processes. We found an sufficently easy solution for websites, but even some (obviously) think it is too much. Well.. so be it. Whitelist are great... more people should consider default deny instead of defauilt allow... things would be much better. (Not a single piece of spyware in 3 years of having it implemented mush show something is working) Uhoh. Time to tune your solution. Everything worthwhile should work. It's tuned. some things = gaming sites etc Everything needed at this point for legitimate business uses works. Only those things that may be considered non-busine have soem problems. And

  82. Oh, man, double-duh!! for me!!! by hummassa · · Score: 1

    No comments.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  83. Insecure.. firefox.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So please remind me again why I can't set javascript policy on a site by site basis in firefox?

    You know, javascript on for some sites, off as the default.

    1. Re:Insecure.. firefox.. by DoktorSeven · · Score: 1

      Two words: Noscript Plugin.

      --
      This is a sig. Deal with it.
    2. Re:Insecure.. firefox.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do exactly that by installing the "NoScript" extension http://www.noscript.net/whats

    3. Re:Insecure.. firefox.. by pushf+popf · · Score: 1

      You could if you used the FireFox NoScript plugin.

      Javascript is off on all sites, unless you specifically allow it on a per-site basis.

    4. Re:Insecure.. firefox.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks! I'll give it a try.

      Though my point still stands that this should be configurable in browsers and not require a plugin.

      And I am kinda disappointed that someone didn't flame me because Firefox isn't vulnerable to this bug. I mean, the helpful replies were nice and all but jeez..

  84. Re:Link to a copy? by prothumian · · Score: 1

    Dunno about the rest of you - on Firefox (win & linux) this created numerous windows and pegged my cpu.

  85. The Google Service I'd Like Most! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Google is constantly spidering the web for content, and far faster than I can. The service I'd like most from them is a constantly updated list of sites they've found with malware on them that my Google Taskbar can warn me against visiting, should I be about to go there. Something like this would likely protect me against this threat far faster than AV vendors or MS patches.

    Are you listening, Google?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:The Google Service I'd Like Most! by towsonu2003 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure msn and windows update would be in that list...

    2. Re:The Google Service I'd Like Most! by ProfFalcon · · Score: 1

      The hard part for Google is that if they implemented this, people would immediately think that just because Google didn't say "HEY, DUMMY! This site is not safe!" they are safe. If Google doesn't catch a specific exploit or doesn't crawl a site soon enough, people would assume it's OK.

      People wouldn't take this feature as a last-ditch safety net. They'd believe it is a complete endorsement of the safety of sites that haven't been caught yet.

      Google has to assume people will think the worst and decide if it is good for them to offer anything at all if they are not able to offer 100%.

      --
      Simply stating [Citation Needed] does not automatically make you insightful or brilliant.
  86. no "yet" by Schwartzboy · · Score: 1

    I was willing to concede that a "yet" could have been added to the end of that sentence until I read

    "The group that published the exploit said Microsoft has been aware of the Javascript Window() vulnerability for several months but was mistakenly treating it as a low-priority denial-of-service flaw."

    After that, my view of the exploit got just a little bit dimmer.

    --
    "Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
  87. Re:Link to a copy? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Informative

    Same on IE. Didn't seem to do anything on opera.

    Not sure if crashing the browser can really be called an 'exploit'. Slashdot headline writers on crack again...

  88. Advice for not getting this virus by mmalove · · Score: 1

    Internet : Disable Active X, javascript. Trusted : Enable Active X, Javascript. Maintain a trusted sites list. Oh, and never, ever, install Norton. Even if you don't get a virus, your computer will run like c**p. It's not that hard people.

    --
    You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
    1. Re:Advice for not getting this virus by lgw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Older versions of Norton AV leaked memory like crazy, but only when you ran a scan. The realtime protection was fine. You did need to reboot after a scan, however. Newer versions are either fixed or not so bad that I notice.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  89. Firefox & IE by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    I tried the http://www.computerterrorism.com/research/ie/poc.h tm">Proof of Concept with IE6 & Firefox 1.0.2

    Both the browsers hung when I clicked on the link on the page.

    So what's the story?

    1. Re:Firefox & IE by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

      Sorry that should have been

      I tried the Proof of Concept with IE6 & Firefox 1.0.2.
      Both the browsers hung when I clicked on the link on the page.

      So what's the story?

  90. I got a comment... by jred · · Score: 1

    hahahahhaahahahahahahahah!!!!

    Don't feel too bad, I didn't catch it either.

    --

    jred
    I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
  91. Re:Link to a copy? by cocoamix · · Score: 1

    So you'd deliberately and maliciously cause problems, just to prove you were on some imaginary moral high ground?

    He wouldn't have to. Normal use of IE by others would do that nicely.

  92. 3-step /. solution by SmellTheCoffee · · Score: 1

    1. Post the link
    2. /. it
    3. Game over...
    Keep using that wonderful blue-e and you should be fine.

  93. If you could chroot... by dhasenan · · Score: 1

    If I could chroot into Windows, then I'd use it. From Linux, of course, but it'd be nice to be able to use one of the new Express Editions of MS Visual Studio in Enlightenment with XMMS playing. I guess that I essentially want a desktop version of Xenix.

  94. Ah, maybe that explains it by mixonic · · Score: 1

    Maybe this explains the 8333% increase in email virii on our (relativly small) hosting cluster yesterday?

    -mix

  95. FireFox by Hanthus · · Score: 1

    I tried the link some user provided here ( and appears to be deleted ) and it locked my Firefox, its not a security vulnerability but it is sure stupid to lock the damn thing.

  96. Better than package-manager by jc87 · · Score: 0

    This is a area where i must admit that windows is better than gnu/linux. In a gnu/linux distro you have to use the package-manager to install a program , you can do it in the bash or with a GUI , in windows you just have to surf the web and software is installed without you even notice.

    --
    def greetings(x): return {'friend': 'Howdy', 'enemy': 'Dye [sic]'}.get(x, 'g0 4w4y, l4m0r')
  97. OMG teh n00bs by scrwvwls · · Score: 1

    but seriously, regarding the average consumer I really think him/her would benefit from installing mandrake or ubuntu provided the hardware available is supported, or at least dual booting for particular needs like ms access and games...is it not less hassle to do than running ad-aware, spybot, etc and doing regular registry repair and defrags, or in the latter case minimizing maintanance on the ms side? Those distros run most things out of the box already and you may as well save the exorbitant licensing fee. Oh what the heck, all this has been noted ad nauseum on /. and the status quo recursively treads onwards.

  98. Mod up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the correct one.

    It's when a vulnerability comes out that was not previously known by anyone. Thus the maker of the affected software has no chance to patch their security hole.

    The grandparent's definition of "A zero-day exploit is one that is discovered or revealed the day software becomes available," is completely wrong.

  99. In Other News... by design+by+michael · · Score: 1

    Firefox users went about their business, unaffected by more supporting reports of just how inferior Internet Explorer really is.

    --
    401 - Attention span not found
  100. Yeah.. but by then we won't need Viagra.. right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, just set your implant to "erect".

  101. You don't have to visit a suspricious site by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    For starters, anyone could ad this code in an in their blog and achieve the same exploit.

    For that matter,someone could email you a .html and when you open it have the same exploit.

    So, be wary. Disable Javascript or (preferably) upgrade to Firefox.

  102. Always last by denjin · · Score: 1

    Why do us redheads always get rendered last. :((

    1. Re:Always last by daft_one · · Score: 1

      ...saving the best for last?

  103. Re:Link to a copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes :)

  104. You mean.... by alan.briolat · · Score: 1

    ... this one? http://www.frsirt.com/exploits/20051121.IEWindow0d ay.php

    Nice to see Slashdot on the ball. I was reading this yesterday, not last week!

    --
    I swear we should be allowed to give mod points to sigs... "-1, Offtopic"
  105. Who's using IE anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't everyone on earth using Firefox yet?
    Too bad for them.
    Some people never learn

    1. Re:Who's using IE anyway? by Nex · · Score: 0

      No reason to, since there's a better, safer, free browser: Opera. Nex

  106. Re:Link to a copy? by tomasvilda · · Score: 1

    I think you have to wait some time, because IE stopped on my computer too, but after about 0.5-1 minutes calc.exe was launched.

  107. [ot] -1, denigrating by wild_berry · · Score: 1

    You couldn't help that Marzipan needed that. But it will remain a clever $sys$"& irritating" phenomenon.

  108. POC not even working. by Dan_Bercell · · Score: 1
    http://www.computerterrorism.com/research/ie/poc.h tm


    I cant seem to get the Proof of Concept to work... All I get:


    Windows XP fully patched: Prompt box, but it never actually loads, its just white after 5 min I kill IE in the Task Manager.


    Windows 2000 SP4, missing last 30 critical upadates: Same as XP, but the prompt box actually gets loaded so I can read the text, but it locks up if I click ok or cancel. Then I kill IE In the task Manager after a few minutes.



    Could my firewall be blocking this type of attack? (WatchGuard)

    Right now it doesnt seem like a Proof of Concept, rather just bad website design.

    1. Re:POC not even working. by Whyzzi · · Score: 1

      Well, the one on thier website does work, although I needed to remove IE pop-up blocker before it would. It takes a while, but eventually did cause IE to crash and launch calc.exe. The page referenced from the article, I copied the source into notepad, but cannot get work with from IIS in XP Pro (not that it matters, this is a javascript vunerability after all), not sure why...

      --
      "BSD is about people pissing each other.." (Moid Vallat)
    2. Re:POC not even working. by Dan_Bercell · · Score: 1

      How long is awhile?

    3. Re:POC not even working. by Whyzzi · · Score: 1

      Not too long actually, maybe 15-30seconds tops. Although I do wonder about window focus, I mean, I saw the extra window in my task bar. But it wasn't the open window, but it wasn't until I brought that window up when I saw the javascript buffer fill prompt.

      --
      "BSD is about people pissing each other.." (Moid Vallat)
  109. Aw, Heck! You Gave It Away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Used AJAX on our corporate sites for years now since cookies and URL rewriting is so restrictive.

    With AJAX we hijack the disk drive and store whatever we want on the user's PC, our "rich client"! Bwahahahaaah!! (Evil Laughs!8-))

    Now that the world knows, we must rewrite our apps.

  110. Linux anyone? :) by vettemph · · Score: 1

    >>There is no patch, but since it is a javascript exploit, you can work around it by disabling javascript."

    Dear Mr. Taco,
      Would it be that hard to say "You can work around it by using linux instead of windows."?

    (This way they would already be protected from the NEXT zero day exploit.) :)

    --
    The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
  111. Setup a Webcam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always wondered how long it takes to beat someone to death with a chair.

  112. Almost accurate... by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 1

    Now that you've RTFA, and^W^W^W you are now^W looking at the comments page, the staff of Slashdot and EWeek would like to thank you for visiting our web pages and giving us full control of your windows PCs.

    Corrected.

    --
    Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
  113. Dot Com Bubble by Dareth · · Score: 1

    We snagged them during the dot com bubble.... women flocked to techies/geeks in colleges due to our high earning potential....

    Some of us even managed to keep them after the bubble burst....

    *Hint, we mastered the 3 C's, Computer, Cooking, and Cleaning.*

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  114. Win98SE + FireFox Prove Superior Once Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The exploit doesn't work with Win98SE using FireFox.

    Once again proving that the heap of steaming dog shit called "Windows XP" remains inferior to Win98SE.

  115. Transmetropolitan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out the graphic novels called Transmetropolitan ... somewhat cyberpunk-ish, they've explored these and similar themes. Imagine seeing a TV advertisement that lasts half a second ... and which proceeds to decompress in your subconscious so that you see the ads in your dreams. Ick!!

  116. IE users ARE to blame by Secrity · · Score: 1

    I have absolutely zero sympathy for anybody getting hit by the $IE_EXPLOIT_OF_THE_WEEK. The security problems with IE have been publicised ad-nauseum in the popular media and anybody who still allows IE to be used on a computer that they administer deserves all of the crap that they get from using IE.

  117. Re:Link to a copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Firefox 1.0.7
    Windows XP SP2
    Extensions: IETab, Web Developer Toolbar

    Nothing visible happened. No slowdown occurred. No programs were launched. The Javascript console logged an error: "Error: runpoc is not defined".

  118. Re:Yeah.. but by then we won't need Viagra.. right by vettemph · · Score: 1

    I'll stick with the low tech option:
    Sandwich your beef between two popsicle sticks, held together with rubberbands.

    --
    The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
  119. Hey! by Kuku_monroe · · Score: 1

    And thats exactly why i use Multitorg

    --
    //WR
  120. It's called job security by William-Ely · · Score: 1
    As a PC tech I often go out to people's houses and remove spyware and other crap that IE seems to pick up after a few weeks of use. One repeat customer of mine asked me how he could avoid the problem in the future. I told him about Firefox (since telling him about that was a lot less uncomfortable that telling him to stop looking for free porn) and the problem went away.

    I know that I did the right thing ethically but I lost $75 a month in income. Think about it, if all software was completely secure then the computer repair industry would crumble.

    Disclaimer: I wrote this post on 1.5 hours of sleep. I probably should have simply closed this browser window and crawled off to bed but I didn't and for that I am truely sorry.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  121. You can install Firefox without Admin rights... by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1

    At least I was able to. At my work for some strange reason I'm able to "run" an exe from IE, but if I save it and then try to run it then it won't work. So what I did was when I went to the firefox website and I just ran it from that location and I was able to get it up and running. Then I just copied the proxy settings from IE to Firefox and everything worked! :) My IT guy just said that I can do what I can with my computer and the rights that are given to me, but if there's a problem and it's not one of their company specific applications (i.e. Word, excel, SAP, etc) then they will just format my computer, so in a way that's how I'm liable (if I install something that breaks my computer). Anyway give it a try!

    1. Re:You can install Firefox without Admin rights... by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

      Being able to and being allowed to are two different things. I'm able to install FireFox, however having any software on my machine that's not 'approved' can get me into a little trouble (probably just a slap on the wrist for a first offence). I like my company a lot (they treat me well)- and I understand their restrictions from a SysAdmin's point of view. Even in a big company full of experienced Electrical and Software engineers, there are still a lot of idiots who don't know how to detect something bad for your computer.

  122. Who benefits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The flaw in ESR's reasoning is the bizarre conclusion to the "who benefits?" question. It's not Linux, it's everyone except Microsoft. (Even Microsoft's customers benefit, if you take a long-term view.) But in the short-term, the winner is everyone who competes with Windows. It's pretty arrogant for ESR to assume that the only competition with Windows happens to be Linux. And even if Linux benefits, just who the hell is this Linux company, and what is the volume of their sales so that we can express their "benefit" in dollars?

    It doesn't make sense.

  123. Windows 98 SE? by ccherlin · · Score: 1

    Unaffected. Well, IE crashes whenever I view the proof-of-concept, but I chalked that up to coincidence.

  124. Interesting... by Rihahn · · Score: 1

    Anyone notice that Windows, which is a single-user OS by all accounts, runs multi-user really well once it's infected with something?

  125. I disagree about OWA by MemeRot · · Score: 1

    When I used to use outlook web access with IE I hated it. It tried to emulate the outlook interface and popped up new windows with the email you wanted to see, with the predictable delay in opening a new window. Why there was any delay is beyond me, if you're writing an IE only web app you should use window.showModalDialog instead of window.open, but there was the normal 1-2 second delay while your message opened. Whereas with Firefox, it acts like normal webmail and is infinitely faster.

    BTW, MS didn't serve up a 'crippled' version of the app to non-IE browsers on purpose. When the app was written, IE was the first and only browser to support XMLHTTP requests (albeit thru an ActiveX control), so they literally couldn't expect other browsers to support that method, hence the normal webmail interface for other browsers. I doubt they've done any significant modification to the app since then. Once they revamp hotmail to be an AJAX style interface I certainly hope they roll that into outlook web access, or they'll be giving away free email service that's better than what you can buy from them.

  126. Let's try to remember by BSquirrel · · Score: 1
  127. I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "(just as I respect what the crap she is talking about in her area of expertice...which isn't IT)"

    I'm curious, just what *is* the area of expertice of your wife?

    Anything the GeekNerds on slashdot would be thrilled about?

    1. Re:I'm curious by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      Well, it is an odd mix maybe. Cosmotology and Early Elementry School Education :)

      So free haircuts and smart kids!

  128. Summary... by mritunjai · · Score: 1

    Effect of this code:

    MS IE : Shell code execution exploit/DOS
    Firefox : DoS
    Mozilla : DoS
    Safari : DoS (Some versions reortedly unaffected)
    Opera : *Totally Immune*

    Gosh, I'm wasting time here. Ever since I switched to Opera, I *never* had to deal with any of this browser DoS or exploit nonsense. (Yeah its immune to even "while(1) alert('haha');" type of DoS, [CTRL-W] takes care of it.)

    --
    - mritunjai
  129. Get the facts! by Xerp · · Score: 3, Funny

    Have you people not got the facts? Browsing the web using Microsoft Windows - and especially when using the excellent Microsoft Internet Explorer is proven to much more secure than using those namby-pamby, tree-hugging, communist hippy programs you can get, like that Linux thing and Firefox. I mean, no-one uses those things anyway, do they? I always make sure that I am fully patched, and that my anti-spyware and anti-virus programs and up to date. Every morning I check through my root-kit and trojan scanner reports, right after my defrag has finished. I know for a fact that this so-called exploit hasn't affected me in th [NO CARRIER]

    1. Re:Get the facts! by Celsius+233 · · Score: 1

      Firefox is NOT a communist! It may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but it is NOT a porn star!

      --
      Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dandy Dental Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice Dentrifice Dentrifice.
  130. AJAX by realkiwi · · Score: 1

    No javascript no AJAX Bill...

    Ho Hum...

    --
    realkiwi
  131. If this is a JavsScript exploit... by Eastview · · Score: 1

    ... is it confined to just IE, and what, if any, implications does this have for the entire AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript And XML) stack that is being touted as the Next Big Thing? This would appear to be a problem that lies at a deeper level than just IE, since JavaScript can be used in a number of other places besides this. Is it just the MS version of the JavaScript engine that is at fault, or does it run deeper than this? Anyone care to comment on this?

  132. I always loved the word "workaround" by shenpen · · Score: 1

    "Workaround", this is such a nice word... There is a pizza vendor in my city (Budapest, Hungary) called Don Pepe, where the online order requires JavaScript. I have no other way to order pizza from them. And they have really good food. What MS is suggesting is to drop ordering pizza from them. So, to see it clear: Microsoft does have bugs in their software. The solution they recommend is to stop ordering my dinner from the place I want to, and do otherwise (go to a restaurant, or whatever). So, what they suggest is changing the way I live is a correct solution to a bug in their software... it means people should adapt to software, not the other way around... amazing...

  133. K-Meleon is immune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently K-Meleon is immune to this kind of flaw?

    Just tried it with WinXP (no service packs installed) and it gives me a Java window and continues to try to load, but doesn't lock up anything, or use much proc time.

  134. There is no patch... by Macdude · · Score: 1

    There is no patch, but since it is a javascript exploit, you can work around it by disabling javascript.

    Or by not using IE in the first place.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  135. Shove it, Trev. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of us are still on mainframes and are very happy we didn't switch. Unlike yuo, we didn't cross over to the toy side.

    1. Re:Shove it, Trev. by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      Hell yeah! *hugs the Z890*

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  136. I don't buy it by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    I am not compelled to believe his doom scenario. He basically states that if a virus is produced that wipes out Windows users' data, this will lead to the introduction of legislation that will mandate hardware security features that make it impossible to run Linux (under the guise of improving security). This theory has one thing going for it: the hardware security features have already been proposed by Microsoft.

    Where it breaks down is that Congress won't pass a law that makes it impossible to run Linux, and even if they do, it won't be enforced. Linux is too firmly entrenched in the business world nowadays for such legislation to be viable.

    I seriously think that a virus that wiped out people's data would be a good wake-up call to finally convince people that security _is_ a problem and it _does_ affect them. Now, before you all start coding, you have to ask yourself - do you have a solution? Do you know for a fact that there is an operating system that would not be susceptible to a similar attack? I, myself, would answer that question in the negative.

    Remember: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." -- Gandalf

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  137. Adblock for Safari? by pomo+monster · · Score: 1
  138. IE7 beta 1 not affected by MatsPalats · · Score: 1
    Actually I was kind of impressed, got an javascript error message that said:
    'Access is denied'

    Firefox 1.5 rc3 instantly crashed

    go figure...

  139. Why is popup blocking so crap? by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

    A popup blocker should stop any new windows opening, ie. disable anything that can be done with the window() function. How hard is this? IE claims it has popup blocking in its latest version.

    Even with the latest stable Firefox, and popup blocking enabled, I still get popups appearing from time to time.

  140. As always by Trogre · · Score: 1

    ... remember to take a good supply of OpenCDs for the relatives at the thanksgiving table this year.

    They're a useful response to nearly every IE-related question you'll be asked.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  141. You'll notice this was put out Thanksgiving Week by wizkid · · Score: 1

    To make sure that either:
    1) Nobody patches it till next week
    Or
    2) Someone has to work on a holiday.

    I'll bet some Mozilla.org hacker writes a fix in the next day or so though, just fer fun! I wonder if the DoS is a windows only or Windows and Linux DoS. I may have to read the FirSt report again just to find out.

    --
    I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
  142. Re:You'll notice this was put out Thanksgiving Wee by wizkid · · Score: 1


    Yep, it dos's linux's firefox :(
    Oh Well. I guess I can't bash $M on this one, although I've noticed everyone else is. Maybe I'll Bash $M anyway, just outta principle! LOL

    --
    I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
  143. Why is this IE only? Here's why... by argent · · Score: 1

    Because IE is the only browser using a display library which has a security model of "wait until you're deep in the system's shared libraries and THEN try and figure out where the code you're about to run came from" instead of "don't implement a mechanism to allow code out of the sandbox, leave that decision to the application that called you".

    This was such an obviously bad idea even back in 1997 that I'm still boggled by the fact that anyone with any understanding of programming runs IE or allows their users to run it.

    1. Re:Why is this IE only? Here's why... by argent · · Score: 1

      Ah, no, it's a buffer overflow. So it's a bug specific to Microsoft's implementation of Javascript (Jscript). Separate code base from other implementations.

  144. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  145. This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I use NoScript.

  146. Re:You'll notice this was put out Thanksgiving Wee by NullProg · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the DoS is a windows only or Windows and Linux DoS.

    It locks up mozilla under Linux. It doesn't crash, 100% cpu usage. strace shows it stuck in a mremap() loop.

    Enjoy.

    --
    It's just the normal noises in here.
  147. +6 Funny by jekk · · Score: 1

    Very few posts deserve a +6, Funny, but the parent may be one of them.

  148. How to explain it to her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Listen, honey, Internet Explorer leaves the computer vulnerable to hackers who will sneak disgusting pornography onto our computer. . ."

    That way, if you slip up and don't cover your tracks carefully enough, if she insists on using IE anything she finds on the computer is HER FAULT!!!

  149. Does this flaw affect users not running as admin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see so many IE exploits that everyone says are so horrible. It's getting to the point where I don't see anyone even mention if the exploit causes a problem if the user running IE is signed into Windows as a non-administrative user.

    Unix guys avoid getting screwed a LOT by not running as root. They consider people who run as root idiots. Well, people who log into Windows as an administrator on their home machine (or any machine where they don't have to do funky stuff with the OS all the time like engineer and test software) are idiots. Even if they don't know any better.

    So, tell me, if someone is logged into windows as a non-administrator user, runs IExplore with no patch, and goes to one of these web pages, does it toast their machine?

  150. firefox closed tabs by clarkie.mg · · Score: 1

    I use firefox 1.0.7

    It opened a pop up that closed everything when I closed it :( without the usual warning.

    will try rc3

    --
    Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
  151. News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A remote IE exploit with implementations is currently in the wild

    I can hardly see why this is considered as "news".

  152. I wonder... by __aalwyc6372 · · Score: 1

    if bill gates is reading any of this.

  153. Re:I use lynx.. by BarryLoper · · Score: 1

    I guess you're safe then. Oh wait..

    [DSA 874-1] New lynx packages fix arbitrary code execution
    October 27th, 2005
    Ulf Härnhammar discovered a buffer overflow in lynx, a text-mode
    browser for the WWW that can be remotely exploited. During the
    handling of Asian characters when connecting to an NNTP server lynx
    can be tricked to write past the boundary of a buffer which can lead
    to the execution of arbitrary code.
    ---

    Of course, at least there's a fix before the exploit on this one.

  154. Re:Link to a copy? by alphamugwump · · Score: 1

    I know, that drives me crazy too. I have often been accused of "hacking" the public computers at my library while turning up the refresh rate. As a side note, Ubuntu doesn't get the refresh rate right either, though Suse seems to work fine.

  155. Re:Link to a copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a very good Onion article on this subject.

  156. lolzerplasters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use crystal meth..