Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Patches OLE Zero-Day Vulnerability
msm1267 writes: Microsoft today released a patch for a zero-day vulnerability under active exploit in the wild. The vulnerability in OLE, or Microsoft Windows Object Linking and Embedding, enables a hacker to remotely execute code on an infected machine, and has been linked to attacks by the Sandworm APT group against government agencies and energy utilities. Microsoft also issued a massive Internet Explorer patch, but warned organizations that have deployed version 5.0 of its Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit (EMET) to upgrade to version 5.1 before applying the IE patches. Version 5.1 resolves some compatibility issues, in addition to several mitigation enhancements.
why is it red?
This anonymous guy is right, at least with Microsoft you're paying for top vulnerabilities versus with Linux, you just get the vulns which people half heartedly create... I know where my money is going!
Or can I disable OLE?
It's Patch Tuesday falling on Veteran's Day this year... so this may catch some IT staff sleeping. Everybody checking Slashdot at home who maintains one of these things... log in an apply the update!
"Zero day" means the first exploit hasn't been spotted... Microsoft announced the patch and the problem at the same time, and did so on its designated day of the month (2nd Tuesday) so it looks like they had it right.
Yep, you pay for Microsoft becomes it comes with the promise they're paying people to set mistakes right... you can't get that with Linux unless you pay somebody like Red Hat/
"Zero day" means the first exploit hasn't been spotted
What?
Microsoft announced the patch and the problem at the same time
Did you even read the summary?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Good catch... the summary has wrong use of the term "zero-day"... please count the number of days this has been out!
In many cases, XP vulnerabilities are minimal. Don't use Internet Explorer. Every user should have limited rights. Users should be trained not to open files that haven't been arranged in advance. Use a software firewall that monitors outgoing traffic.
Most writers for technical publications have limited technical knowledge. What is not said in the article linked by Slashdot is that computers that run software firewalls that monitor outgoing traffic are far more protected.
Quoting from the article: "For this attack scenario to be successful, the user must be convinced to open the specially crafted file containing the malicious OLE object. All Microsoft Office file types as well as many other third-party file types could contain a malicious OLE object."
Another quote: "A successful exploitation could lead to the attacker gaining same user rights as the current user, and if that means administrative user rights, the attacker can install programs; access, modify, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights."
This article explains some of the issues: Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest.
how is this zero day.. ithe summary says -> released a patch for a zero-day vulnerability under active exploit in the wild. - how the heck is that a zero day ploit? more like shudda beeen paytched looooong time ago.
In opposition, OLE has been a zero-day since at least two years after it was introduced.
Anything using OLE, or any of the later labels for OLE, should have assumed that it, somehow, was infected.
It could have been done securely, I assume, but I can't tell you how. I can say that every OLE book has told me, indirectly, how to fuck up a dude's 'puter.
Not really. The summary says it was an ole one.
Are you really this stupid?
At first glance, the headline read "Microsoft Patents OLE Zero-Day Vulnerability". My bad.
this was a zero day vulnerability... THREE WEEKS AGO.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
You seem to have missed the "under active exploit in the wild" part...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Newsflash: bug fixing is work too, and is greatly accelerated by paid developers.
But only a hacker. So just round up all those cyberbogeymen, lock'em away, and the world is safe again.
No? That not how it works? Why do you keep saying it like that, then?
That's a refreshingly honest description of a Windows computer.
#1 #1 #1 #1 #1
From the summary
100% wrong, the exploit is of the trojan type and needs either code to be run by a user or an MS Office document to be opened locally before the machine is pwned.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
See subject-line: For OLE to be actually REMOTELY marshallable, it's got to be DCOM (vs. COM/OLE)... correct?
APK
P.S.=> IIRC, That's the MAIN DIFFERENCE between straight (interchangeable terms in OLE/COM) COM-OLE & DCOM (distributed COM)... apk
"IBM corp's cybersecurity research team discovered the bug in May, describing it as a 'significant vulnerability' in the operating system.
"'The buggy code is at least 19 years old and has been remotely exploitable for the last 18 years,' IBM X-Force research team said in its blog on Tuesday."
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/se...
I know you guys recently made a big deal out of attacking free software projects, and tried to exploit a couple of recent bugs in them to evangelize for paid development, so this reminder of how bad bugs frequently are in paid development software is pretty embarrassing. But in context, pretending this somehow demonstrates how good paid development models are just looks silly.
Kythe
If you're talking about the IE vulnerability: according to IBM: 6,935.
Of course, if you want to count from the time IBM found the bug and reported it: roughly 180.
Kythe