Widespread Attacks Exploit Newly-Patched IE Bug
itwbennett writes "The first widespread attack to leverage the Internet Explorer flaw that Microsoft patched in an emergency update Thursday morning has surfaced. By midday Thursday Symantec had spotted hundreds of Web sites that hosted the attack code. The attack installs a Trojan horse program that is able to bypass some security products and then give hackers access to the system, said Joshua Talbot, a security intelligence manager with Symantec. Once it has infected a PC, the Trojan sends a notification e-mail to the attackers, using a US-based, free e-mail service that Symantec declined to name."
Relatedly, reader N!NJA was among several to point out that Microsoft has apparently been aware of this flaw since September.
in TFA: The flaw was in the Microsoft Security Response Center's (MSRC) queue to be fixed in the the next batch of patches due in February but the targeted zero-day attacks against U.S.
Kinda makes you wonder just how many of these critical security bugs IE currently has in their queue to be fixed "sometime in the near future"?
And at the same time you have to wonder just how nasty some of the others are that haven't made the cut yet, just waiting to become the next "zero day we own your computer, again"? We see how big of an issue this is, and MS was clearly in no hurry to fix it, so you'd have to assume that there are at least a few more of these that they know about and aren't fixing yet.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
What protocol is used to search the system? sure the attacker can get in but once inside just how much access do they have.
Do they get returned an FTP / HTTP view of the computer folder by folder. Do you get kicked into a telnet terminal / ssh terminal maybe even a NFS terminal.
Correct me if I'm wrong (but I do have a CCNA cert) Why not block the access ports that get opened, unless it's port 80 and then filter the traffic.
Yes it's microsofts problem to roll out a patch and fix the bug but it seems like theres a lot that the user could do before the patch is ready.
So someone or a project team writes some code. The code is later found to be used as part of an exploit that further harms the reputation of the company. Does anyone ever go back and say "hey, you wrote this crappy code! You're fired!"?
It almost seems there are more vulnerabilities (both patched and unpatched) than there are lines in the Windows source code. I know there will be no end to the finger pointing where developers decry the problem of deadlines while management points to the lack of skilled coders. But seriously, how much of all this can be attributed to poor programming practices? I remember from the earliest days of coding C that there were a few functions that existed that wise programmers should avoid as the use of those functions would immediately make your programs vulnerable. Further, it seems that bounds checking and other data validation needs to go on more often as well. How is it that the top dog in the software game can't keep up with these very simple principles?
And what of public disclosure? Some people try to say that public disclosure is what is responsible for most of the hacking that goes on out there. Meanwhile, this was essentially a -1 day vulnerability that didn't get disclosed until after the damage was done... or was it? Was this yet another of the reported bugs that Microsoft sits on rather than acts on? While following the bugtraq and other mailing lists, I observe that Microsoft tends to ignore or disregard a great many of the bugs reported to it, so I have to wonder.
It is rather telling that the same type of buffer trouble is showing up in other peoples software. I am just wondering if the flood "Gates" are about to open and we will wind up seeing multiple trouble with things like WMP, Silverlight ...there was already the same update happening for RealPlayer
Just maybe there is a system xml call that is easily exploited in all versions of Windows....I can just see it now some lazy MS exec using old legacy system xml that is written using the gets and puts function. I would not put it past Microsoft to use old garbage code without even checking the old source then including the pre-compiled executable
So you are saying that any windows machine that doesn't run IE is safe-ish? Because it's not, there are countless flaws in other Microsoft code any one of which could cause a major security problem. If you don't start with a good design you have NOTHING.
You don't really trust a software firewall written by Microsoft do you? If you want a firewall use a proper ( i.e. not software ) one.
3 billion dollars in profit a quarter. Just think about that. That is 120k software developers paid 100k a year. That's how many more people they could have fixing any bug you have. It may be unreasonable to ask a public company to not make a profit, but it is quite reasonable, that, even with the mythical man month, they could hire 5k more developers and testers and fix this BS. This was the size of the Windows 2000 team, when I was there that year.
I knew IE 6 was going to be bad though - people from the QA team came to me and asked if managers in other teams tell you to stop entering bugs because it makes the dev team look bad. Seriously. Trident was even worse.
I've seen many compromised Linux machines sending out spam. Especially prevalent in Germany, where 1&1 and similar mass hosters provide hosted very cheap rental of Linux servers.
Of course, the issues are the same as those of compromised Windows systems:
* Not up to date on security patches
* Admin doesn't know what he's doing
* Using insecure legacy versions of software