Attack Code Found For Recent Windows Bug

CWmike writes "Just a day after downplaying the vulnerability that caused it to issue an out-of-cycle patch last week, Microsoft warned customers late yesterday that exploit code had gone public and was being used in additional attacks. 'We've identified the public availability of exploit code that now shows code execution for the vulnerability addressed by MS08-067,' said Mike Reavey, operations manager of Microsoft's Security Response Center, in a post to the MSRC blog. 'This exploit code has been shown to result in remote code execution on Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, and Windows 2000.'"

Comments

Hotpatching

[nmb3000]

For those interested, there was a really cool hack of hotpatching the files and services that are affected by this exploit. The Microsoft patch isn't designed to be hotpatched, instead requiring a reboot to replace the needed files. However, by using a binary diff and DLL injection you can apply the patch on the fly without rebooting.

I wish Microsoft would put more effort into making the official patches not require a reboot. Consumer operating systems are one thing, but rebooting Windows servers gets annoying really fast.

Re:Hotpatching

[TubeSteak]

However, by using a binary diff and DLL injection you can apply the patch on the fly without rebooting.

Is that something you would want to do on a production server?
And if you were MS, is that something you would want to support?

Re:Hotpatching

[vux984]

No, I've managed to have a single Linux box reach 99.999%

"Managed to have"? You are talking about 5 9's as something that you can reach. People who demand 5 9's consider that the minimum they will accept. They don't want systems that can reach 5 9's they want systems guaranteed not to be less than 5 9's. That's a HUGE difference.

So if we sign an SLA, how certain should I be that you can deliver 5 9's? ... From one box? Not very.

That fact that you might 'manage it' simply isn't good enough. What happens when a piece of hardware fails? or if an update doesn't go smoothly? With a single box you have no contingency and 5 minutes to resolve any problems and perform any updates that might be needed for the entire year.

My point stands: anyone serious about delivering 5 9's simply isn't using a single box, because you simply can't depend on it. MAYBE you'll get 5 9's out of it, but getting 5 9's from a single box is like winning a prize from a scratch and win. Its not exactly a miracle, but its hardly something you can rely on.

Hell, even promising 4 9's from a single box is taking on some heavy risk. It's not hard to envision an unexpected hour of downtime on a box over the course of a year.

But not everyone has installed the update.

[khasim]

This is added incentive to complete YOUR testing of this patch ASAP.

Remember, only incompetent admins apply patches without testing them.

In our environment, the patch would have been put into testing the day after it was released (no sense getting caught by a brown paper bag bug) and then into production NEXT Sunday.

With a known exploit out there, we'd be getting more people to test the test systems TODAY. With the goal of putting the patch into production TOMORROW evening.

Re:But not everyone has installed the update.

[DigiShaman]

Remember, only incompetent admins apply patches without testing them.

Cool.

Sounds like your part of an internal IT department of a big corporation. Well, I'm not. I admin several small businesses network which contain 5 to 20 users. Each company has one server which runs Windows SBS. So, testing isn't an option. Should there be a problem, I have no choice but to pull it out via the Add/Remove program list.

So, do you think I'm an incompetent admin given what I have to work with?

I'm not Microsoft lover, but

[dkleinsc]

I'll give them credit for patching this quickly. This could have been Yet Another Windows Worm (TM) that brings all legitimate network traffic to a halt. And us Slashdotters have been after them for years for taking too long to patch things, so it would be completely hypocritical to get pissed at them for doing what we'd want them to do.

I'll hate them for having the exploit possible in the first place, I'll hate them for requiring reboots, I'll hate them for forcing crappy software down our throats, but every once in a while they do something right.

Re:Hmmm...

[Venik]

Why should anyone bother submitting a bug report? If it's a minor issue and I have a workaround - sure, I'll submit a bug report. But if a system is completely unusable with Ubuntu, I will better spend my time finding a working alternative. Having said that, as a Unix sysadmin I have nothing against Ubuntu, other than using it on a server is not the best idea: there are many far more stable alternatives. The problem with most Linux aficionados out there is that few of them worked in a real production environment of a big datacenter. These guys may know how to configure Apache and MySQL on their Ubuntu PC, but they don't see a difference between getting something to work and getting it to be fast and reliable under constant heavy load.

Re:Hmmm...

[CrazedWalrus]

But it does make a damn fine server. The software is reasonably up to date, the administration is dead-simple, and I'm already familiar with it from my desktops.

I've got other things to concentrate on besides server administration -- like coding my project management and billing system, or working for my clients so I have something to bill them for. Ubuntu makes that easy for me.

I've recently vetted Slackware, Debian (stable), and Ubuntu Server 7.04, and settled on the latter because it strikes the balance I need between stability and up to date software. You may legitimately disagree with my choice, but I have my reasons and I'm sure you have yours. Most Linuxes make great servers, so it's really choosing your favorite incarnation of "awesome."