Slashdot Mirror


MS Security Patch Blocks Net Access For ZoneAlarm Users

An anonymous reader writes "Users of Check Point ZoneAlarm security products, including the extremely popular, free-of-charge software firewall, have discovered that a Microsoft security update released on Tuesday has blocked their internet access. The firewall manufacturer is 'investigating the issue,' and so far the workaround seems to be to uninstall the recent DNS spoofing vulnerability fix MS08-037 (KB951748), and not reinstall it until Microsoft or Check Point have come up with updated versions of their products."

19 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. And this is a bad thing how? by trolltalk.com · · Score: 4, Funny

    a Microsoft security update released on Tuesday has blocked their internet access.

    ... it certainly makes their computers less prone to being hacked on the net ...

    1. Re:And this is a bad thing how? by Floritard · · Score: 5, Funny

      So the headline should have read:

      "MS Security Patch perfects ZoneAlarm firewall"

    2. Re:And this is a bad thing how? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... it certainly makes their computers less prone to being hacked on the net ...

      I know you wrote it as a joke, but it gets me thinking on the proprietary software problem again (yeah yeah, I know, more anti-MS babbling). The risk of having your operating system suddenly lose internet access completely is inadmissible. Since Windows is a closed-source product, only the maker (Microsoft) knows how to fix vulnerabilities. And if they screw up, like in this case, we have to depend on them to fix the problem. Either you lose internet access, or still are vulnerable to the DNS exploit.

    3. Re:And this is a bad thing how? by SQLGuru · · Score: 5, Informative

      You make the immediate assumption that it was a problem with the MS Patch. I'll wait until the final news release about the subject, in case it's an issue with Zone Alarm. Why is Zone Alarm the only firewall with this problem (so far)? Is Zone Alarm firewall released as open source? Free != Open Source. Your same argument against MS can just as easily be applied to Check Point.

      Layne

    4. Re:And this is a bad thing how? by quonsar · · Score: 3, Funny

      The risk of having your operating system suddenly lose internet access completely is inadmissible.

      They should have gotten a warrant?

  2. other workaround by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Informative

    Set Zonealarm's security level to "medium".

  3. BTW-for those unsure if you're broken by faloi · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you're reading this article from a machine in question, you're not broken.

    Now please don't call me asking if it's something you should worry about.

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    1. Re:BTW-for those unsure if you're broken by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm pretty sure the computer I'm on right now is affected by this problem. Tell me what I need to do to fix it. It's a G5 iMac running Microsoft Tiger. The problem started when I updated Internet Safari. Please help!!!

      --
      This guy's the limit!
  4. In all Fairness to Microsoft by docstrange · · Score: 5, Informative

    This patch was not designed to patch a Microsoft flaw, but instead a vulnerability in nearly all implementations of DNS. So far over 100 vendors have patched their products and coordinated the release of this workaround. If zone alarm is broken because of this change they need to adjust their product to work with this change, not the other way around.

    I've taken this snippet from: http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=4687 which explains things in a little more detail. Full details won't be disclosed until Blackhat in vegas this August.

    The root cause is a fundamental, well known, weakness in the DNS protocol. DNS uses UDP, a stateless protocol. A DNS server will send a request in a single UDP packet, then wait for a response to come back. In order to match request and response, a number of parameters are checked:

    who sent the response? Was it the DNS server we sent the request to?
    for this particular response, do we have an outstanding request?
    each request uses a unique and random query ID. The response has to use the same query ID.
    The response has to be sent to the same port from which the request was sent.
    Only if all this matches, the response is accepted. The first valid response wins. If an attacker is able to guess the query id and the source port, the attacker is able to send a fake response, which will be cached by the DNS server.

    --
    Remember that you are unique, just like everybody else.
    1. Re:In all Fairness to Microsoft by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 4, Informative

      I haven't taken the time to see what this new recommended fix does. Anyone have details on how it makes the query response harder to fake?

      Sure. The security update addresses the vulnerabilities by using strongly random DNS transaction IDs, using random sockets for UDP queries, and updating the logic used to manage the DNS cache.

      --
      I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
  5. Another workaround by martinw89 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why not take this time to try out something new?

  6. Why are we blaming Microsoft? by Alereon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why are we assuming that this is a defect in the Microsoft patch, rather than a defect in the security software? I think it's much more likely that the software firewall application (which tend to be pretty skeevy in general, see Norton Internet Security) is inappropriately blocking access than that Microsoft screwed up the patch. From my (admittedly vague) understanding of the issue, I'm guessing that the firewall software whitelists outgoing UDP requests from port 53, and the new randomized ports are being blocked, preventing DNS queries from succeeding. I know blaming Microsoft is fun, but blaming even crappier software vendors is more fun :)

    1. Re:Why are we blaming Microsoft? by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why are you assuming that we're assuming? Vista got a lot more heat than it really deserved, often by people who know better. However, much of the public at large believed the complaints. Most non-technies I know, when the subject comes up, cite something along the lines of "I heard Vista sucks." No explanation why (often because they don't think they'd understand, they just don't care). Similar here: plenty of people will purposefully make stupid anti-MS statements, irrelevant of if they believe it or not or even care whose fault it is, in the hopes that if done sufficiently, it'll sink into the public mindset. Maybe they feel justified in giving MS back what it deserves after all the bad stuff they've gotten away with. Now mod me -1 Insightful so Joe Sixpack doesn't see this and we can continue our conspi^H^H^H^H^H^H vigilante fight for software freedom!

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
  7. A lot more than Microsoft by suso · · Score: 4, Informative

    We have a Cisco ASA at work for a large enterprise and about 2 hours after I applied the patch to our DNS servers running BIND, they the ASA device blackholed the DNS servers. Wasn't a fun day really.

  8. Software FW..sigh, hold bridge of nose, shake head by GlL · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ahh the great security blanket called the software firewall. I like to use the following analogy in regards to them. Having a software firewall on your computer is like having a security guard in your bathroom. If something gets to the guard it's too late, your network is already compromised.

    I work for an ISP in Tacoma WA, and Software firewalls cause many more problems then they solve. I don't care which company makes it.

    If you are really concerned about security then you will have a dedicated hardware firewall. These are inexpensive and common, even built into most SOHO routers.

    So I know there will probably be flames, but if you write software firewalls, remember that the overwhelming majority of people who use them don't usually know they have one, and just ignore those little messages and click allow on everything until they actually read something and say "msimn.exe, what's that? I'm gonna block it!" And then they call me because their e-mail doesn't work.

    --
    I'm a happy pessimist. I expect and prepare for the worst, when it doesn't happen I am pleasantly surprised.
  9. One program breaks and it's an M$ issue? Nah. by Behrooz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...or instead of complaining to Microsoft, you can disable ZoneAlarm and enjoy having your connection work again. Cheap firewalls failing to perform exactly how you'd like them to is an old, old story.

    Given the ridiculous profusion of budget 'security' software swarming around, it hardly seems fair to lay the blame on M$ when ZoneAlarm is the only program that this patch appears to conflict with.

    Of course, if ZoneAlarm wasn't proprietary, we could go see where they screwed up. Maybe you should go harass them for being closed-source instead?

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  10. Par For the Course by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Insightful
    OK. Microsoft has once again put a bunch of users off the air -- tying up the clever and the lucky for a few minutes, and probably crippling many users for days. Not the first time. Won't be the last.

    And what do Slashdot readers have to say? In about equal numbers:

    1. Blame Microsoft
    2. Blame the "Application"
    3. That old favorite -- Blame the user.

    OK geniuses. What, realistically, is the industry supposed to do in order to stop doing this sort of thing?

    I don't know what the answer is. If I did, I'd be lining up staffing, capital, etc. But I'm 100% sure that it is not:

    1. Install Ubuntu
    2. Don't worry, be happy
    3. Blame the User
    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  11. Re:Ok, a little help here by punissuer · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't worry. Removing the patch was easy once I knew that was what needed to be done. Just go to Add/Remove Programs, check the box for "Show updates", scroll down to KB951748, click the Remove button, and reboot (again).

  12. Re:Software FW..sigh, hold bridge of nose, shake h by Elrond,+Duke+of+URL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The may be a big headache for somebody at an ISP who needs to help out users, but as somebody who uses ZoneAlarm, I find it to be very useful.

    I've got an actual firewall in my router, but that only protects me from what comes in. And I run Linux, so that counters most other random garbage. But, on occasion, I use Windows and ZoneAlarm is very handy because it alerts me when any program is trying to send data out.

    *This* is where software firewalls in Windows shine. So many programs in Windows phone home or access the Internet for completely unknown reasons. So, I block it. If it breaks and I really need that particular program, I can unblock it. It's hard to measure how much this really helps, and, of course, I'm sure there are ways to transmit in Windows without the firewall knowing about it. Still, it's nice to be able to say apps X and Y, you get to access the Net. Everybody else has to ask first.

    --
    Elrond, Duke of URL
    "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max