Oops! Missed One Fix — Windows Attacks Under Way
CWmike writes "Microsoft says attackers are now exploiting a critical Windows bug that it didn't get around to fixing in its biggest batch of security patches in more than five years, issued yesterday. Microsoft said that 'limited and targeted' attacks are in progress by hackers exploiting an unpatched vulnerability in the WordPad Text Converter, a tool included with all versions of Windows. If Microsoft patches the WordPad problem on its monthly schedule, the first opportunity for fixing the flaw would be Jan. 9, 2009." Update: 12/10 22:28 GMT by T : OK, there might have been more than one: reader Simon (S2) writes "There is an even more serious flaw ... From SANS: 'There is a 0-day exploit for Internet Explorer circulating in the wild. At this point in time it does not appear to be wildly used, but as the code is publicly available we can expect that this will happen very soon. This is a brand new exploit that is *not* patched with MS08-073 that was released yesterday. I can confirm that the exploit works in a fully patched Windows XP machine. The exploit is a typical heap overflow that appears to be exploiting something in the XML parser.'"
How can code in the wordpad text editor leave a machine vulnerable? Can someone explain this in a way that's not super technical? Faulty code in a browser, or similar, I can understand.
Holding back your zero day exploits until directly after the MS Patchday...if your bug hasn't been removed, then you have up to a full month of time to abuse it.
Clever.
Pffff. What could possibly happen in only a month?
This guy's the limit!
From the article (i know I know, slashdot...), Windows XP SP3, Vista, and Windows Server 2008 aren't vulnerable. I didn't read how the exploit actually works to see if it can realistically be used to attack Windows Server 2003 (which is quite popular), but for people at home, if your machine is up to date, you're fine.
So seriously, whats the big deal?
I will shortly be posting more details on this exploit in Wordpad format. Stay tuned!
Its not remotely exploitable. From the article, a user has to open a maliciously crafted file. So its just the fairly typical exploit where a document viewer poorly handles documents it can open.
It needs user interaction to work, someone has to open a file that they don't trust (I guess it MAY be possible to trick a user into opening the file from the web, since there is a Word viewer that potentially use the same file converter that is responsible for the exploit).
Also, XP SP3, Vista and WinServer 2008 aren't vulnerable at all.
Word files are not binary executables. They are (pre OOXML) binary file formats. I don't know what the exact exploit is (probably some sort of buffer overflow) but the idea is to craft a Word document such that it contains executable code and exploits the flaw in wordpad that causes the executable code to execute.
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
People know not to open executable files (.exe) and even for more obtuse executables (.scr, .cmd) most systems and mail clients are smart enough to warn that it's executable content.
For data files like .jpg or .wri, neither the user or the system probably consider the file dangerous. So these type of exploits should be considered more dangerous than the completely-idiotic "e-mail people virus executables".
Especially considering many of these viruses propagate through address books (ie: trusted contacts)
But yes, at least it's not a completely automatic remote exploit.
Wordpad does not have the capability to execute those macros, because it does not have an embedded VBA interpreter. The macros are binary gibberish without the VBA runtime, much like a Perl file is just text without the Perl interpreter.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
You mean all someone has to do is click on an attachment called "biggest breasts ever.wri"? Oh, NOBODY would be that dumb!
-- Wondering how long until the internet becomes fully corporatist, like television.
I'd put a notice at the top of the file. "This naughty image is only compatible with the following versions of Windows: ..."
I'm sure many victims would kindly downgrade as needed to make my exploit work.
"Strangers have the best candy" -Me
If you have an MSDN Subscription and are a developer, thats actually your best bet (well, now its Windows Server 2008, which is superior in every way, but...)
Windows Server editions have been better desktops than their actual "home" or "professional" editions for a while. The only drawback is they are harder to setup initially (2003 and 2008 are fairly locked down by default), and that they have higher hardware requirements (but use the hardware better). Oh, and the price, of course (but if you use it for development purpose, you can use the MSDN version. Even without that, its expensive, but its not 10 grands either)
Add that some stuff only works on Windows Server (let say, Sharepoint), and unless you feel like running Windows XP or Vista, only to spend 99% of your time in a VM, Windows Server is a vastly superior option.