Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Experts Say To Switch Browsers In Light of IE Vulnerability

Posted by timothy on from the here's-my-number-if-the-place-burns-down dept.

It appears that the exploit in IE briefly mentioned a few days ago is causing a serious reaction: SteveAU writes "Microsoft has begun flooding media outlets with information advising users to switch to an alternate browser while a serious security flaw is being patched. The flaw, which affects all versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer, is manifested via malware and has infected over 6,000 sites thus far. Microsoft states: 'The vulnerability exists as an invalid pointer reference in the data-binding function of Internet Explorer. When data binding is enabled (which is the default state), it is possible under certain conditions for an object to be released without updating the array length, leaving the potential to access the deleted object's memory space. This can cause Internet Explorer to exit unexpectedly, in a state that is exploitable.'" According to the BBC report, though, Microsoft itself is only asking that users be "vigilant while it investigated and prepared an emergency patch"; it's outside experts who say to dump IE (at least for now).

Update: 12/16 21:11 GMT by KD : Microsoft will issue an emergency critical update for IE tomorrow.

43 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. In other news ... by elronxenu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Water still wet.

    Pope still Catholic.

    1. Re:In other news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      and chairs still fly

    2. Re:In other news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      last time I checked, *my* pope was orthodox. or to be more precise, Pope and Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Throne of Saint Mark the Evangelist and Holy Apostle.

      happy flamebait!

    3. Re:In other news ... by geekmux · · Score: 4, Funny

      and chairs still fly

      Not this week, I heard the chair budget got cut on account of increased costs from the United Union of Broken Windows.(Look hard for the double meaning there)

    4. Re:In other news ... by Pollardito · · Score: 5, Informative
      that's all news that is true, this article is not actually true:

      Said [Trend Micro's] Mr Ferguson: "If users can find an alternative browser, then that's good mitigation against the threat."

      But Microsoft counselled against taking such action.

      "I cannot recommend people switch due to this one flaw," said John Curran, head of Microsoft UK's Windows group.

      He added: "We're trying to get this resolved as soon as possible.

      so it's not actually Microsoft that's suggesting that people switch browsers, Microsoft has only "urged people to be vigilant while it investigated and prepared an emergency patch to resolve it."

    5. Re:In other news ... by funehmon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think shoes flying is more accurate.

    6. Re:In other news ... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

      last time I checked, *my* pope was orthodox. or to be more precise, Pope and Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Throne of Saint Mark the Evangelist and Holy Apostle.

      Otherwise known as "Leroy".

    7. Re:In other news ... by Facetious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Q: What's worse than a grammar-nazi?

      A: A physics-nazi that feels compelled to scrutinize the minutia of jokes.

      --
      Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
    8. Re:In other news ... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is what Microsoft always says: You're gonna get screwed if you use our crappy browser, but at least we warned you.

      No software is perfect, and everything has security flaws, but it seems to me, even 8 years after Microsoft (claimed they) took a serious position on security, they still seem to have an order of magnitude more problems than everyone else. Yeah, I know, they're the biggest target, but for crying out loud, Google wrote chrome from scratch* in less time than IE7 was in beta (or if not, it wasn't too far off) and came up with a browser that blows away IE in every single way except the number of desktops that have it installed.

      Microsoft is at the point where they can do little but admit that there's nothing constructive they can do any more. It's been obvious for years to people in the know, but they've reached a point of diminishing returns: It obviously takes more effort to keep their bloated corpse of an operating system (and its 10-years-out-of-date browser) just working and free of 0-day exploits (leave alone catching up with the competition) than it would be to start over like Apple did with OSX.

      How much longer will it take for MS to wake up? When the amount of effort needed for them to keep Windows limping along exceeds to man-power of the entire planet? It probably won't begin until the chair-tosser-in-chief is gone, and then it take years for them to recover. It used to be that Microsoft put as much effort into maintaining their monopoly as they did in their software. Now it seems maintaining their monopoly receives all but the smallest fraction of attention. The rest goes to plugging holes in the about-to-collapse dyke.

      * For certain values of "from scratch"

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  2. Those that haven't already changed... by celardore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...probably won't. Most uneducated users that read the article will probably be of the mindset "oh, it won't happen to me".

    1. Re:Those that haven't already changed... by Andr+T. · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think that most people that read news about IT don't use IE already.

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    2. Re:Those that haven't already changed... by SkankinMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea but the ones that they support and frequently think it's a good idea to click on the 'Hit the target to get a free iPod' ad is a good idea.

    3. Re:Those that haven't already changed... by denis-The-menace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corps won't change either, cause their most computer-illiterate users happens to be their CIO and his/her underlings.

      If something huge happens, FF may actually get into corps even without a Mozilla-created, Corp-approved MSI package.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    4. Re:Those that haven't already changed... by joelholdsworth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was listening to BBC Radio 1, and they had a news item about it this morning. But I think GP is right - I can't imagine it will make many users switch. However, as more and more people within the technical community become jaded with the consistent poor quality in Microsoft's offerings, MS will inevitably loose mind-share, and hence their strangle hold on the industry will loosen.

      It's this sort of thing that made me switch over to Linux a year ago. I haven't looked back.

    5. Re:Those that haven't already changed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yea but the ones that they support and frequently think it's a good idea to click on the 'Hit the target to get a free iPod' ad is a good idea.

      I won one of these a few days ago. Just to let you know, they don't actually give you an iPod directly. Instead, they ask for your bank account information and deposit $250 (they say it's for tax purposes). I should be getting my money any day now!

    6. Re:Those that haven't already changed... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Speaking as an institutional IT underling, a Mozilla created MSI for Firefox would be really, really handy. As would a mechanism for installing extensions and updates in a more manageable way. Here, at any rate, there is no real opposition to FF per se; but deployment has, thus far, mostly foundered. "Well, IE updates can be deployed within the system with WSUS, FF updates will happen per machine and be blocked by the firewall, and there is no way in hell we'll be able to keep all the machines updated manually." Which is largely true.

      Now, this mostly comes down to the fact that Windows doesn't have anything nearly as nice as real package management(WSUS for MS apps and drivers only is the closest they really come), so apps end up rolling their own with varying degrees of success, which sucks. If we were running *nix this wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, that isn't really my option. If FF had a decently manageable MSI option, I'd probably install it on all user machines tomorrow; but until then I'll have to stick with using it on a more limited scale(You think I would use IE for anything beyond the broken intranet stuff?)

    7. Re:Those that haven't already changed... by notaspunkymonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      My wife has just come over to me (she listens to Radio 1) and told me that I need to install another browser on all our machines.. I guess she has never noticed that we are a Ubuntu household!! At least the message is getting across to normal non techie users at the moment that IE is bad..

    8. Re:Those that haven't already changed... by Shikaku · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/

      Like this?

    9. Re:Those that haven't already changed... by minerat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but it's often many days out of sync with the official releases. In more bureaucratic organizations you're not going to get some random 3rd party build of an application that handles as much sensitive data as a web browser approved. Mozilla needs to realize that wider corporate adoption requires easy manageability. MSI + Group Policy Template FROM MOZILLA would be huge.

      --
      ...and you've eaten your pen. simply stunning.
    10. Re:Those that haven't already changed... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Really it's not that simple. I was a supporter of firefox in my organization, and to my surprise I pretty much won. We use Firefox for nearly everything. Nearly. I have content adviser turned on for each of the machines which for the most part cripples IE and makes it nearly impossible to actually browse the web. IE is still very necessary for many sites which are required for our operation. Not internal "we developed in house badly designed pages", but actual corporate sites to manage various accounts on the Internet. That's surprising in 2008 that companies could have their head stuck in the sand that badly, but they seem to be all over the place... and unfortunately in places required for essential function.

      I'm fortunate that the medium sized company goes along with this, because in any other organization we'd just use IE and that would be the end of it. Just managing the work arounds has actually been a lot of work, although in my mind it comes out to a wash in being a bit more proactive in preventing the vulnerabilities that flood IE.

      You can do much better than that. I duct tape huge boxing gloves to my users hands, that way they can't type malware in using a notepad and Alt key codes. I've also banned people carrying in USB peripherals (might have malware), laptops (might have malware), mobile phones (distracting and pointless) and A4 binders (might have malware written out as a long list of Alt key codes). I've also removed all the phones (someone might whistle malware down the phone to a 56K modem). Though I've covered all the ports, USB, network, modem and so on with epoxy resin. Still I believe in defense in depth.

      Some of my users have found out how to remove the gloves with their teeth, even though my security guards will beat anyone they see trying to do that. I've asked the CEO if I can amputate their hands and leave them with bandaged stumps but he obviously was too 'non technical' to understand. He just shook his head and walked off. Maybe muzzling persistent rule breakers after the third beating would be a acceptable. Actually I want to muzzle and blindfold everyone all the time and cut off the power. Still, even though the solution I have is not perfect it is very secure.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    11. Re:Those that haven't already changed... by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Informative

      sounds like a stereotypical trojan/adware/malware infection. at least all you're getting are pop-ups. the last one i had to deal with at work also used DNS-hijacking to redirect any webpage request to their spam (porn) site, preventing any web surfing. to make things worse, it wouldn't even allow the user to run certain programs, like notepad, Hijack This!, Internet Explorer (this malware targeted Firefox).

      a fresh install is probably the easiest/quickest way to fix it, but it's not the only solution. with a little sleuthing (Windows Task Manager & Hijack This!) you can usually identify the file & process name(s) of the malware. all the times i've had to deal with that sort of thing, i found the solution in forum discussions on tech support sites (found by googling the file/process name of the trojan). if you're lucky, someone will have made a cleaner program for that particular malware program.

      one of the more frequently encountered malware/adware programs is SmitFraud. that's one i've encountered several times. it cannot be removed by AV programs or spyware/malware removers (though it'll try to get you to purchase and install rogue AV/Anti-Spyware programs). if you do have SmitFraud, then your best shot is SmitFraudFix.

  3. Vulnerability by conureman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only way to open iexplore.exe in my home computers is through the "run" tab. This is to prevent unfit users from not using one of the other browsae. I seldom format & install windows now, unlike before I took that measure.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    1. Re:Vulnerability by kv9 · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is to prevent unfit users from not using one of the other browsae.

      for everyone's sake, I hope that's a fucking typo.

      --
      Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
    2. Re:Vulnerability by cerberusss · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is to prevent unfit users from not using one of the other browsae.

      for everyone's sake, I hope that's a fucking typo.

      No it's not a typo, there are many wordae like that.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  4. Re:Red header by jadrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I used to spend all day on Slashdot and now I only check it occasionally.

    I guess some good came out of it after all.

  5. Is any browser safe? by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Personally I don't use IE for most things, but I don't use FireFox for reasons of security at all; just because the extensions rock.
    To my mind, all browsers have more or less the same number of security problems; name me a single mainstream browser that's not had a vulnerability this year for example.

    So in other words, we should find ways to seal off browsers from the normal desktop; lock it down in some low-rights, sandboxed safe environment planning that when it is hacked, it at least will be very limited in scope.

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why if I had to choose my browser on purely default security scope, I'd go for IE7/Vista or some customised FireFox setup that nailed it to the floor.

    Just a thought.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:Is any browser safe? by Raenex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So in other words, we should find ways to seal off browsers from the normal desktop; lock it down in some low-rights, sandboxed safe environment planning that when it is hacked, it at least will be very limited in scope.

      Except the browser is an excellent application to hack, even if sandboxed, because it has network access and is used for nearly everything these days, including online banking. If you want to be safer you'll have to use separate sandboxed browsers for finance vs email vs ... vs random browsing.

    2. Re:Is any browser safe? by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Few browsers enable privilege escalation like IE does on a regular basis.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    3. Re:Is any browser safe? by LtGordon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Running web content in a sand boxed environment is exactly one of the features Google emphasized with Chrome. Web content is inherently untrustworthy so this is a smart move. It's sort of like wearing a web-condom: used to be that going bare-browser was mostly safe as long as you were careful who you interacted with, but nowadays even the pretty ones can burn you, so your best bet is to just wrap your tool ... with a sandbox. (I'm still working on the analogy)

    4. Re:Is any browser safe? by chrisgeleven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Firefox to me is more secure in a way because it usually has security patches released within 48 hours or so after a 0-day exploit, sometimes even within 24 hours. Microsoft on the other hand has been known to leave 0-day exploits unpatched for months.

      Also, Microsoft patches have to wait for their nightly automatic install or when a user shuts down their PC. I believe Firefox checks every time it is launched for updates and installs them. The odds are, you are going to get patched quicker using Firefox then IE.

    5. Re:Is any browser safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Neither is Internet Explorer. There is nothing about IE that has anything to do with the kernel. You confusion lies in the fact that you confuse "operating system" specifically with "kernel" which is not completely correct. Absolutely no part or component of Internet Explorer resides in privileged memory.

      Internet Explorer, however, is a part of the operating system in that a number of the libraries used in Internet Explorer the browser are modular and can be used through other applications, both first party and third party. Various components of the Explorer shell, such as Active Desktop, are accomplished through hosting the HTML renderer of Internet Explorer. Many applications also rely on those libraries are a variety of functions from rendering HTML to performing simple FTP commands. They could use other means to accomplish the same tasks, but the Internet Explorer API makes it exceedingly easy.

      So, no component of Internet Explorer is hosted within the kernel at all. However, Internet Explorer is a part of the operating system in that it is a constituent component of the platform API expected to exist for applications. Removal of those components will break scores of applications.

      Note that this vulnerability also does not impact Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows Vista running within Protected Mode. Yes, the vulnerability can still be exploited and the arbitrary code executed but that code will be contained within a fairly tight sandbox which lacks the privileges to write data to any location, including the user's own profile, even if the current user is running as Administrator. Google Chrome on Windows Vista is the only other browser to use this functionality. No browser can completely prevent buffer overruns in loaded native plug-ins, but browsers may mitigate the effects by sandboxing themselves. Other browsers should take note and follow suit.

    6. Re:Is any browser safe? by Z34107 · · Score: 4, Informative

      IE never was "welded to the kernel."

      IE exports a COM object, which lets developers add HTML rendering to an application with one line of code. So, that's one reason why they don't want you uninstalling it - HTML rendering is something a lot of Windows applications are expecting the OS to export.

      The closest it came to "welded to the kernel" was Active Desktop where the Windows shell used it to render a web page on your desktop. I think it was also used if you had an HTML background for folders, too. Not sure what happened to it in XP or Vista.

      About the only things that count as kernel-welded in Windows land are device drivers and services, of which IE is neither.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    7. Re:Is any browser safe? by Kozz · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...use separate sandboxed browsers for finance vs email vs ... vs porn browsing.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
  6. Wrong summary by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Microsoft has begun flooding media outlets with information advising users to switch to an alternate browser while a serious security flaw is being patched.

    I don't see anywhere in TFA that Microsoft has advised people to use another browser. It's other experts. So this is a "dog bites man" story, not the other way around.

    Now, if you don't mind, I'll go back to my nap.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  7. No, Microsoft did NOT say to use another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    RTFA.

    Said Mr Ferguson: "If users can find an alternative browser, then that's good mitigation against the threat."

    But Microsoft counselled against taking such action.

    "I cannot recommend people switch due to this one flaw," said John Curran, head of Microsoft UK's Windows group.

  8. Uhhh, no... by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 4, Informative
    FTS:

    Microsoft has begun flooding media outlets with information advising users to switch to an alternate browser while a serious security flaw is being patched.

    FTA:

    But Microsoft counselled against taking such action.

    "I cannot recommend people switch due to this one flaw," said John Curran, head of Microsoft UK's Windows group.

    Not trying to downplay the clear reasoning behind switching browsers, but the summary is just blatantly incorrect in this case.

  9. Re:Microsoft should just scrap IE by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They won't, because there are only two things shoring up their critical desktop OS monopoly in the enterprise at this point: Office and IE.

    User and developer dependencies on IE's peculiarities makes not having access to Windows inconvenient. Microsoft's own web software are designed to provide users of alternative browsers with inferior experience.

    Keeping those "poor schmucks" dependent on IE is worth a great deal of money to MS.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  10. Re:Microsoft should just scrap IE by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, believe me, I've done a lot of corporate consulting, and there's plenty of places with stuff that they'd have to recode to move off IE. Stuff that uses client side VBScript and extensive ActiveX controls. Sometimes it's 3rd party apps from a timesheet system vendor or whatever.

    It already works. So why recode just to make the computer geeks happy?

  11. Re:Red header by mhall119 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For all Slashdot's leanings toward open source and hatred of all things microsfot or proprietary, does anyone else find that Slashdot itself acts like a closed source company?

    You mean like how they host the code that runs their site on a publicly available CVS server and FTP site? Open source means that you can modify the code however you want, not that other people will modify the code however you want.

    --
    http://www.mhall119.com
  12. Re:Red header by Fastball · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, but I think the more valid point (the one the parent was trying to make) is that ./ would do well to have some sort of Changelog page that also includes changes to come. This way, folks aren't "adjusting their television sets" when the feature de jour makes an appearance. They'll have a place to RTFM.

  13. Re:Red header by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obama performs stupid /. changelog tricks with Ubuntu!

    Frontpage material

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  14. Non technical users are getting the message. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In BBC Radio 5 Live an MS representative was giving the suggested steps to protect Windows machines, the full 4 of them.

    The newsreader and presenter, Anita Anand asked if it would not be easier just to switch to another browser.

    The MS guy replied with the platitudes to be expected, the important point is that mainstream non technical media are getting the idea.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  15. Re:Red header by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have nothing against "AJAX", I just have this thing against "ugly."

    Slashdot had a huge competition to design a new look only a couple of years ago, and it actually looked pretty good for a long time. Then, relatively recently, they've decided they wanted to add dynamic features, and the look has gone into the crapper. The only recourse is to keep Slashdot set to "Classic" appearance, which is less vomit-inducing, but the "version 2" appearance keeps leaking in.

    See, for example, these bugs:
    https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2144813&group_id=4421&atid=104421
    https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2159787&group_id=4421&atid=104421
    https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2348173&group_id=4421&atid=104421
    https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=1939546&group_id=4421&atid=104421
    https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=1939531&group_id=4421&atid=104421

    and probably a dozen others I've noticed but not bothered to submit. (BTW, if anybody at Slashdot tells you to submit your issue as a bug report to get it looked at, they're lying. They never look at bug reports.)

    --
    Comment of the year