Microsoft Says, Don't Press the F1 Key In XP

Ian Lamont writes "Microsoft has issued a security advisory warning users not to press the F1 key in Windows XP, owing to an unpatched bug in VBScript discovered by Polish researcher Maurycy Prodeus. The security advisory says that the vulnerability relates to the way VBScript interacts with Windows Help files when using Internet Explorer, and could be triggered by a user pressing the F1 key after visiting a malicious Web site using a specially crafted dialog box."

Comments

MS was concerned about how this was exposed?

[Meshach]

From TFA:

Microsoft is concerned that this new report of a vulnerability was not responsibly disclosed, potentially putting computer users at risk. We continue to encourage responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities. We believe the commonly accepted practice of reporting vulnerabilities directly to a vendor serves everyone's best interests. This practice helps to ensure that customers receive comprehensive, high-quality updates for security vulnerabilities without exposure to malicious attackers while the update is being developed.

I find the idea that Microsoft is angry at the people who found a problem in Microsoft software not telling Microsoft about it hilarious.

Re:MS was concerned about how this was exposed?

[timeOday]

Angry or not angry, the point is that disclosing security bugs directly to the vendor first minimizes harm to end users - assuming, that is, the vendor feels sufficiently motivated to fix the bug. You can't argue that "security researchers" who sell 0-day vulnerabilities on the black market are helping anybody but themselves (not that Prodeus fits this description).

Re:MS was concerned about how this was exposed?

[causality]

Angry or not angry, the point is that disclosing security bugs directly to the vendor first minimizes harm to end users - assuming, that is, the vendor feels sufficiently motivated to fix the bug. You can't argue that "security researchers" who sell 0-day vulnerabilities on the black market are helping anybody but themselves (not that Prodeus fits this description).

I frequently hear this type of reasoning. It should be listed as a known/cataloged talking point so we can all absorb it once and move on, instead of seeing it rehashed every time this sort of discussion comes up. Sorry but old and well-worn arguments aren't contributing much. They don't have much power to convince anyone who doesn't already subscribe to that viewpoint.

What I don't hear so much about is the incentive provided by full public disclosure. If you know that security vulnerabilities will be disclosed to the public, that this will result in security problems for your customers, that it will cause public humiliation for your company, is this not a strong incentive to secure your software in the first place? Confidential disclosure to the vendor only seems like it lets them off the hook a bit too easily. I'd normally be slow to view it that way, but Microsoft has a long history of such problems despite having tremendous resources it could dedicate to proactively eliminating them. They have the expertise, they have the money, they have the ability; what they lack is the will. There's simply no excuse for allowing a browser to influence bulilt-in OS functions. I view this more like negligence on Microsoft's part and less like an unforeseeable event that could have happened to any vendor.

As far as causing the least harm to the end users, should we be concerned about this in the long run? In the short term this can be quite unpleasant, and I don't enjoy the idea that someone who just wants to get their work done might have problems because of something beyond their immediate control. But it's not entirely beyond their control. Microsoft could not possibly exist were it not for the users who purchase its products.

When its products malfunction in preventable ways, they make the Internet a worse palce for everyone. I may run a relatively secure *nix machine, but I can still receive spam e-mail delivered by compromised Windows machines. So can everyone else. Since the situation could not possibly exist if not for Microsoft's users, is it really an injustice that they catch some flak when the entity they keep financially supporting fails to do its job? If they dislike this, should they not be a bit more careful about how they vote with their wallets and for whom they vote? I know the victim mentality is popular these days, but if you either know or could have known what you're dealing with, and continue to behave as though you do not and cannot know, should you cry fowl when there are negative consequences?

Microsoft has a long history of problems like this. Anyone who deals with them and doesn't know that has simply failed to do their homework. The real "accomplishment" of Microsoft is that they, through their widespread presence, have convinced the general public that exploits, malware, and other security problems are a normal part of operating a computer. I'm not claiming that Microsoft's products are without merit; if they were, even the non-technical masses would not use them. I am merely skeptical of any notion that their positive contributions to this industry have outweighed their business practices and their negative contributions to this industry.

Re:Well, at least the important keys still work.

[c 0xFF]

Just now, for the first time in my life, I pressed F1 in Windows on purpose.

Lots of interesting information is in there, and I even learned a few things (I didn't know XP had a private character editor). But I don't know anybody who uses the windows help system on purpose.

Google already provides good help for Windows.

Wishful thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft is concerned that this new report of a vulnerability was not responsibly disclosed, potentially putting computer users at risk. We continue to encourage responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities. We believe the commonly accepted practice of reporting vulnerabilities directly to a vendor serves everyone's best interests. This practice helps to ensure that customers receive comprehensive, high-quality updates for security vulnerabilities without exposure to malicious attackers while the update is being developed."

Call me a cynic, but I've got to be honest: The net effect may be positive, but I don't believe that Microsoft's idea of 'responsible disclosure' results in high priority investigation and timely patching of MS products.

Re:Yet another reason

[Anonymous Coward]

This is yet another reason why MS' idea of a tax to deal with malware tax is stupid.

It's almost amusing that a Web browser is so tightly integrated with the operating system that scripts run by it can influence core system functions without actually rooting the machine. I guess this is what happens when you ignore decades of computer security history and discard the principle of least-privilege. Hopefully Windows 7 (and Vista) is not defective enough to allow a userspace application to screw around with a built-in OS function like help files.

Look, if we're honest, the only reason why IE is so tightly integrated with the OS in the first place is because Microsoft wanted to abuse its desktop OS monopoly by using it to dominate the browser market. If not for that, IE would be a standalone browser and would be separate from any built-in HTML rendering that's part of the core Windows system, like help files in this case. This is one reason why I use Linux: Microsoft obviously cares about its marketshare more than my security, and I cannot in good conscience use my money to support a company with such backwards priorities. I'm sure someone will chime in with talk about how useful Windows is, and I won't argue (much) with that.

This is really a moral issue. Anyone with decent principles wouldn't want to reward a company with such questionable business practices, not even if they made the finest software available. I'm sure the rest of you who don't have such principles will have a million excuses for why you continue to support Microsoft with your wallets, and that's fine. Every dishonest organization has its useful idiots without which it could not continue existing.