Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Issues Advisory For Internet Explorer Vulnerability
jones_supa (887896) writes "Neowin reports how Microsoft made a rare weekend post on its Security Response Center blog to announce an advisory that affects all currently supported versions of Internet Explorer (versions 6 to 11). The issue is based on a newly discovered exploit that could be used against the web browser. The vulnerability exists in the way that IE accesses an object in memory that has been deleted or has not been properly allocated. Memory may be corrupted in a way that could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. Microsoft is aware of 'limited, targeted attacks' that have used the exploit. IE 10 and 11 are protected against attacks using this exploit if they have their Enhanced Protected Mode turned on. Also, PCs that have either the Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit 4.1 or the EMET 5.0 Technical Preview installed are also secured against this security hole. Microsoft will take the appropriate action to protect its customers by delivering a security update."
I wonder if this is going to be one of the first big exploits that will affect Windows XP and leave the masses of users still using it vulnerable.
http://www.pressthered.com/atm...
Be glad it's solid commercial software developers were paid for.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
To paraphrase Ballmer...
"Linux, Linux, Linux!"
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
How else are you supposed to download Chrome or Firefox on Windows?
Uh... yeah... People use banks, pay their mortgages, file insurance claims, and occasionally use work intranet sites.
If those things were updated, IE marketshare would probably plummet.
I still *need* to keep a Wine bottle with IE simply so that I can pay my mortgage, and that is even though I also have a Windows 7 laptop since the webpage just doesn't work under anything newer thanks to some badly written ActiveX.
Wait...IE6 is still supported? WTF?!
Browsers other than IE are not affected and/or can pe patched.
Can someone remind me how to uninstall IE from Windows?
>How else are you supposed to download Chrome or Firefox on Windows?
wget.
Oh no. That's Linux.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Why do you support people who do that?
Maybe
/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/ ... ...
ftp.exe -A ftp.mozilla.org
cd
ls
binary
get
I did a re-image of a computer and saw this
Since corporations like my own use IE 8 with low rights mode with sandboxing and protected mode turned off so they can run compromised certificates for ancient java I wonder if we will get patched?
This is much scarier as we handle HIPPA and credit card information and can be hacked.
http://saveie6.com/
Another vulnerability due to C's poor handling of pointers.
people lap it up when Microsoft make a statement like "we've rewritten product X from the ground up to be more secure, responsive, etc.".
Inevitably, at some point in the near future there is another statement about a bug that affects the previous six versions of the product, in the same way.
That would work for someone dead-set on avoiding loading IE at all costs. But in practice, I imagine that most people aren't going to discover the hostname "ftp.mozilla.org" or the path string "/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/" very easily, especially without using either IE or another computer.
How is the median user (not an outlier technophile like much of the Slashdot population) expected to parse out a download URL from the result of wget http://getfirefox.com/ or wget http://mozilla.org/ without using IE?
To avoid a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, I'd like to know what definition of "real distro" you plan on using.
Also very interesting is WHY it can't removed. According to Microsoft's testimony, IE is "deeply integrated with the OS" and removing it would make the OS not longer work. If it's deeply integrated into the OS and it's full of huge security holes ...
Quite apart from the number of bugs, I'm very glad that Firefox is just a web browser. All it does is display web pages. So Firefox bugs basically just affect web pages. Any problems with Firefox are not problems that go deep into the OS.
wget.
Oh no. That's Linux.
It's not integrated with the NT kernel anymore than Konqueror a browser in KDE is in Linux distros yet does file mgt.(as does IE/Explorer.exe in Window) raymorris. You've claim to be a coder and you don't know that? Are you really just a web page designer claiming that? Sounds it.
As above
Does Microsoft still create patches for MSIE 6? I thought Microsoft discontinued support for MSIE 6 on April 8, 2014. Just asking. Or maybe I misread the article.
I don't see where raymorris claimed that IE was somehow integrated with the NT kernel. That seems to be the illogical conclusion that you jumped to. The transcripts are available online, experts, maybe even billg himself claimed that IE was so integrated that it could not be removed from Windows. An academic somewhere managed to do it (assemble a version of Windows without IE), but that was not allowed to be shown in court.
You can always use FTP, though its pretty miserable.
I suspect this exploit has existed for many years now, probably used by NSA too.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Powershell can download via http. So can vbscripts.
If it's not integrated with the kernel then it's easily detectable (taskmgr.exe or processexplorer.exe) is what. Can't do much damage when you can knock it out easily.
A) Konqueror is not the system shell. Explorer is.
Still, as I said "I'm glad Firefox is just a web browser ...". Do you see the words Konqueror or KDE in that sentence? I'm comparing IE and Firefox. The fact that Konqueror does something else silly isn't really directly relevant.
B) As I said, Microsoft execs testified that IE is deeply intertwined with the Windows OS. I guess you're not aware that an OS is more than just a kernel, so you think Microsoft was committing perjury when they testified to those facts.
It's amazing how far delusional fanbois will go to defend Microsoft, "they didn't make a big security blunder, they all just systematically perjured themselves for several months". Even if you believe that, is perjury somehow better than screwing up?
So what. If it's not part of ring 0 operation (rootkit driver) it's easily detected + removed by processexplorer (or even taskmgr many times) and can't do damage. Even if it were a rootkit, a bootup from the installation cd using recovery console or Win7's more modern version of it makes mincemeat out of those too (DEL, DISABLE commands). Since you seem such a webboy fanatic (not a programmer by any means), well, seems Open sores people did such a wonderful job of OpenSSL and Apache struts patches recently too eh? Not. The years of lies of "Windows != Secure, and Linux = Secure" around here? A joke. Look at Android (yes, it's Linux) being torn up daily. Once you get a top spot on any hardware platform, you open sores fools now see that you have to eat your words.
Oh, and you can stop probing and supporting yourself by ac replies too raymorris http://it.slashdot.org/comment... since I know that was you for a fact.
> it's easily detected + removed by processexplorer
IE is easily removed? I guess Microsoft was lying.
What you don't seem to get is that IE is the exploitable process, and it's essential to the system. It's a readily exploitable process that can't be removed mainly because if you do remove it, the system stops working.
Haha, I can tell you for a fact, that post was by me, not an anonymised raymorris. I wasn't directly supporting him, but ended up feeding a troll anyway. Here have some more sustenance ...
You seem to love taskman.exe and processexplorer.exe and you're so sure these can dig into anything in the NT kernel. Search around, they can't, there are parts of Windows they cannot get into, especially the DRM parts, so if they cannot get into there there are likely other parts they can't get into. For giggles, why don't you remove all traces of IE from your system, including all the support DLLs?
Then you bring up OpenSSL. Because the code was open, the bug was found and fixed. Can you, oh great expert prove that the Microsoft SSL libraries don't also have the same problem or backdoor? Oh, what's that, you can't read the code to verify the (non)existence of such a bug? Bummer.
Any threats running in IE = easily removed using tools I noted or simpler ones (msconfig or Internet Options).
On my stating killing kernelmode threats is done easily you need to learn to read (recovery console) http://it.slashdot.org/comment... all those eyes for OpenSSL didn't stop it from being exploited for years did it? Notice you won't touch the years of bullshit that went on here on slashdot of "Linux = Secure, Windows != Secure" though. Android showed you all you had to eat your words on that that crap. As far as having to prove anything on my end? I don't have to. I did. See OpenSSL security issues and no fix in sight galore as well as Apache struts java framework.
Wasn't you raymorris? Ahem (excuse me): *cough* (bullshit) *cough* and you may want to read my other post (you messed up big on kernelmode tools I noted to remove rootkits at ring 0/kernelmode) http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
How about giving XP users the ability to uninstall IE? That would probably solve 70% of the web vulnerabilities out there, the other 30% being Acrobat/Flash and Java.
On my stating killing kernelmode threats is done easily
Internet Explorer, is not a kernel mode threat is it? It's a vector for an exploit that may get there eventually though. The discussion is about being able to remove all traces of Internet Explorer from a Windows system, which is something that Microsoft's expert witnesses testified could not be done.
"Linux = Secure, Windows != Secure" though. Android showed you all you had to eat your words on that that crap.
Except, OpenSSL and Apache Struts != Linux, so having a problem with either of those in no ways makes Linux insecure. In fact, it's very possible to build and run a Linux installation without either of those two components installed or running. As for Android, are these exploitable vulnerabilities present in the Linux kernel level or the proprietary Android level -- you of course know they are two different things?
So, what's the point of explaining that things like OpenSSL, Apache Struts and Android are separate from the Linux kernel? A vulnerability in any one of those does not equal a vulnerability in the Linux kernel and because they can be removed they also don't equal a vulnerability in a Linux system. Unlike IE in Windows, which Microsoft experts testified under oath, is integral to Windows and could not be removed, so when there is a vulnerability in that, then there is a vulnerability in the Windows system. But you know more about Windows than Microsoft's own experts right?
As far as having to prove anything on my end? I don't have to. I did. See OpenSSL security issues and no fix in sight galore as well as Apache struts java framework.
Oh, so now the bug in OpenSSL that was discovered as being present for two years, in the latest version of the library which in reality was not the most widely used version -- that honour goes to the 0.9.x brach, has been exploited for all that time? Nowhere else have I read that it has been exploited for that long. You're right that you don't have to prove anything, because you cannot prove or disprove the presence of a similar bug in the closed source Microsoft SSL libraries.
Infector threats running in IE = easily identified + cleared (Internet Options) or using processexplorer.exe (usermode tools do the job). No muss. No fuss. Ez. As to the rest of what you said. I've been here a long time and know the general sentiments of the open SORES crowd, and I do know they have to eat their words on "Windows @= Secure, Linux = Secure" crap. Android proves it. You're being an apologetic fanboy (projecting on your part eariler in fact) for open sores messes. Not the reverse.
it's easily detected + removed by processexplorer (or even taskmgr many times) and can't do damage
Once something has actually installed itself and running at that depth, damage has been done, nothing you do after the fact can stop damage that has already been done.
... oh crap ... APK?!?!?!
By the way http://slashdot.org/story/06/0..., since then can you really trust those tools to tell you about everything that goes on inside a Windows box?
If there was a little more formatting to your posts and mention of a HOSTS file once or twenty times
Why remove IE? Use other browsers. There goes your 'argument' ray.Recovery console = read only media (installation media). You can trust that (better than Linux sorescode repositories http://linux.slashdot.org/stor... ).
As to the rest of what you said.
You didn't even read, because you cannot respond to it.
I've been here a long time and know the general sentiments of the open SORES crowd, and I do know they have to eat their words on "Windows @= Secure, Linux = Secure" crap. Android proves it. You're being an apologetic fanboy (projecting on your part eariler in fact) for open sores messes. Not the reverse.
Again, you're having trouble unlinking the idea that a problem in an optional library or application is a problem with the underlying kernel. OpenSSL and Apache Struts are available for Micro$oft (you used SORES so I'm using $) Windoze (again, SORES) and many Open Source projects have fully supported build targets for Micro$oft Windoze, because of this does it keep Windoze in the !Secure set?
I've been in a professional support capacity long enough to have endured Melissa, Blaster, Slammer and everything in between as well as some pretty interesting Solaris ones. Would you mind, on behalf of all the closed source Windoze fans mind apologising for messes that have actually happened?
Yet the Windows shell still embeds mshtml.dll and a host of other IE components. Imagine that!
Because it's a local privilege escalation vulnerability and not a remote visit-this-website-and-get-fucked vulnerability? Fuckwit.
Can someone remind me how to uninstall IE from Windows?
I have a PC and is missing the "Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit", what am I doing ... ;)
Perhaps I should install Windows instead of my current KUbuntu on my PC?
Ninite can. Why bother. Use other browsers. Getting rid of malware on Windows is cake too for any type rootkit to usermode crap using 2-3 tools (best one's in read only install media for WIndows OS' plus processexplorer and other native tools like msconfig or Internet Options). Tools you already have and it takes minutes to scan and so manually, faster than automated scanners in antivirus or antispyware, and is very accurate against either usermode or kernelmode threats. It works.
You're having trouble linking with the idea there's other browsers you can use. You must've missed the trustworthiness of your LInux kernel since before August 2011 too http://linux.slashdot.org/stor... ninite's something I noted in another reply here. It can remove ie. There's the gpppp's answer too.
Care to provide a simple/one-liner as an example?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Actually Windows does come with a command line FTP client that can be used to download Firefox/Chrome. You just need a Linux user to execute it for the clueless Windows user...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Invoke-WebRequest http://www.google.com/ -OutFile c:\google.html
From a PowerShell:
Am I doing something wrong?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Powershell defeats the point. Powershell doesn't come with WinXP, so it must be downloaded, which probably shouldn't be happening until after Chrome or Firefox are downloaded.
WSH (JScript or VBScript) can be used as an option to get a file using HTTP, without needing to download another program. However, needing to type lines of code doesn't really count as a workable method that relies exclusively on code that comes with WinXP.
http://technet.microsoft.com/e... Using an old version of powershell?
Care to provide a simple/one-liner as an example of how to read that link?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
..the government* would have had to implement it for their nefarious "cyber war" purposes.
Boy, here's a nickel, get yourself a proper language:
http://sourceforge.net/p/sappeurcompiler/code-0/HEAD/tree/trunk/
http://sourceforge.net/p/sappeurcompiler/code-0/HEAD/tree/trunk/doc/SAPPEUR.pdf?format=raw
*say, the U.S. post and telecom office
The problem in this special cases seems to be "use after free". In other words, human software engineers (and of course "programmers") cannot ensure 100% of time they properly use all the pointy things which are in the C toolbox.
C is actually something like a "portable Assembler" and way too dangerous except if it is targeted by software code generators. C is a strong regression from the days of Algol, when this sorts of of faults had already been (effectively) abolished.
But hell, yeah, it gave some martian folks the "cyber war space".
Here's my attempt to fix this:
http://sourceforge.net/p/sappeurcompiler/code-0/HEAD/tree/trunk/doc/
http://sourceforge.net/p/sappeurcompiler/code-0/HEAD/tree/trunk/doc/SAPPEUR.pdf?format=raw
Ha! I'd give you mod points for that if I could. That's the first time I have ever tried to post using the new Beta interface on a mobile and it munted the link badly.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh849901.aspx is the link.
That requires powershell 3. Prior to that you could use: System.Net.WebClient but the Invoke-WebRequest is far easier.
I was trying it on an old XP virtual machine and it looks to be version 2 of PowerShell.
Isn't there an easy one-line that would work on XP and above? (i.e. an analog of wget for windows).
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
$client = new-object System.Net.WebClient
.NET framework installed. Powershell wasn't that good until later versions. I have to say, current versions are actually extraordinarily powerful, when working with other Microsoft technologies, like Hyper-V or Exchange but the early versions were no reason to leave VBScript.
$client.DownloadFile( $url, $path )
Probably works on Powershell 2 however I think it requires the
"IE".
Interesting that 2-3 weeks ago Heartbleed is out to hack server, then now ie* exploit is out so those exploited servers can serve exploited content to windows users. Interesting timing on both.
C:\>wget
'wget' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
C:\>
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Be sure to go Program Features to enable FTP, because it's not available in Windows by default.
XP comes with a perfectly good command line ftp client, ported from BSD.
Thanks, that works.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
WGET is available for Windows and it runs fine.
http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.ne...
And how are you supposed to get it if you don't have a browser?
wget?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Has been on every version of Windoze which I've tried it on for ... I don't know how long. Going back into the 1990s at least. I honestly can't remember if it was in Win 3.11, which I was using until about 2000.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
You wish you were APK. At least he creates decent things in programs or security guides. You by comparison haven't ever done a damned thing and you never will. Accept it.