Slashdot Mirror


Google Discloses An Unpatched Windows Bug (Again) (bleepingcomputer.com)

An anonymous reader writes: "For the second time in three months, Google engineers have disclosed a bug in the Windows OS without Microsoft having released a fix before Google's announcement," reports BleepingComputer. "The bug in question affects the Windows GDI (Graphics Device Interface) (gdi32.dll)..." According to Google, the issue allows an attacker to read the content of the user's memory using malicious EMF files. The bad news is that the EMF file can be hidden in other documents, such as DOCX, and can be exploited via Office, IE, or Office Online, among many.

"According to a bug report filed by Google's Project Zero team, the bug was initially part of a larger collection of issues discovered in March 2016, and fixed in June 2016, via Microsoft's security bulletin MS16-074. Mateusz Jurczyk, the Google engineer who found the first bugs, says the MS16-074 patches were insufficient, and some of the issues he reported continued to remain vulnerable." He later resubmitted the bugs in November 2016. The 90-days deadline for fixing the bugs expired last week, and the Google researcher disclosed the bug to the public after Microsoft delayed February's security updates to next month's Patch Tuesday, for March 15.

Microsoft has described Google's announcements of unpatched Windows bugs as "disappointing".

25 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. Control vs. Security by ZP-Blight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what happens when control overtakes security as a priority.

    --
    Zoom Player Lead Dev.
    1. Re:Control vs. Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Microsoft could always, you know, fix their goddamn bugs.

    2. Re: Control vs. Security by jackspenn · · Score: 2

      An honest question, why does Google drop bugs about MS at or before 90 days, while giving Apple 1+ year to fix bugs in past. I'm arguing what position Google should take, but rather suggesting Google be uniform in the standard they apply to everyone. Whatever they do regarding OS X, iOS or the Linux kernel should be the same way they treat Windows and vis versa.

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    3. Re: Control vs. Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      My perception is that, for the prior MS bug and this one, the difference between Apple and Microsoft was that Microsoft didn't ask Google to delay disclosure.

      If you look at, say, this one: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=837#c3

      You'll see that Apple had to request an extension, get denied it, then set up meetings to explain why they needed it, get denied a partial disclosure extension AGAIN, and then it escalated before they got a further extension.

      I would have expected that MSFT could have at least gotten the 14d extension on the 90d disclosure deadline, even if they couldn't push it all the way to the next Patch Tuesday.

    4. Re:Control vs. Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Yes, because users don't have the right to know what is wrong with their operating system so that they can take action to defend against it.

      Blissfully ignorant people like you are the reason why viruses and worms get spread around.

    5. Re: Control vs. Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      10 months isn't long enough to fix something?
      Specially something Microsoft supposedly fixed 8 months ago?

    6. Re: Control vs. Security by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      How is Google being a dick? They're following common industry practices. Public disclosure does two things:

      - Deadlines put pressure on the software vendor to patch their shit sooner rather than later (without a deadline, or an unenforced deadline, they tend to just sit on bugs for a long time.)
      - If the software vendor fails to patch their product, then at least the end users can come up with their own countermeasures (i.e. adding IDS signatures, switching to different software, suspending services, creating workarounds, etc) before some rogue actor takes advantage of them.

      If Google didn't stick to these timelines, and/or delayed them on a whim, then there may as well be none.

    7. Re: Control vs. Security by Zaelath · · Score: 2

      How far in the past? https://arstechnica.com/securi...

  2. Wrong Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shouldn't the headline be "Microsoft fails to fix exploit for months"?

    1. Re:Wrong Headline by moronoxyd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Microsoft was first informed about these bugs in June 2016. That is a lot more than 90 days. They didn't manage to fix all the bugs and basically got an extension when Google resubmitted the still open bugs in November. Yet they still didn't manage to fix the bugs.

    2. Re:Wrong Headline by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      TFA (which summary quotes) implies the fix was in the February update which Microsoft delayed. So the courteous thing to do would've been to extend disclosure beyond 90 days until after the March update.

      OTOH, the entire reason Microsoft had to delay the February update was because they insisted on lumping all the patches into one huge mega-update. If they'd stuck with individual updates as before, then the crucial security patches would've gone out on time, while only the problem patch would've been delayed. So it's still Microsoft's fault.

  3. Microsoft deserved it by bongey · · Score: 5, Informative

    The bug was actively being used to exploit windows. Letting people know there is active exploit is more important than bad PR for Microsoft.

    1. Re: Microsoft deserved it by chaboud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is why a 90 day disclosure to public announcement deadline is a reasonable measure. If a bug can be discovered by a nice engineer, it can also be discovered and exploited by a malicious one.

      People being mad about this announcement would be akin to people being angry about leaks from Trump's administration rather than the malfeasance uncovered, which would be, you know... Ludicrous.

      Or Snowden, etc...

    2. Re:Microsoft deserved it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because Google does such a great job ensuring the same for their Android users. /sarcasm

      If patches can't make it to end users, they're just as culpable. They created their situation.

  4. Disappointing? by danhuby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Microsoft has described Google's announcements of unpatched Windows bugs as "disappointing".

    I would describe Microsoft's ability to patch these bugs within a reasonable timeframe as "disappointing".

    1. Re:Disappointing? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      I would describe Microsoft's pattern of constantly distributing deeply flawed software as "inexcusable".

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Disappointing? by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Funny
      The correct verbiage now is as follows:

      So-called tech company releases fake news. SAD!

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
  5. Poor spin on what actually happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a pretty disappointing spin on what sounds like actually happened.

    So... March 2016 they found it and suggested a fix. The June patch by Microsoft was insufficient, so they told them (again) in November 2016 they need to fix it. Microsoft had an additional 90 days to patch the bug (which is pretty standard practice in the industry), and didn't fix a YEAR OLD bug

    What was Microsoft expecting here? I would expect the same to happen to Google, Apple, or any other big company if it took them that long to fix a bug that's been known for that long.

  6. Re: They dont wanna fix bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's a design flaw that affects all platforms. Microsoft can't single handedly fix SSID spoofing. This article however describes a bug in Microsoft code.

  7. LibreOffice? by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It would be interesting to see if this security issue also affects LibreOffice on a Window$ system since it also opens docx files. Anyone know? I'm a Linux user (duh), but even I will admit to how much nicer M$ Office is. I like Apple's iWork stuff too, but having to save a document in a strictly Apple format to keep the cool stuff it'll do isn't work it vs. practicality. The day LibreOffice supports Google Drive out-of-the-box and has a mobile version, Office 365 doesn't have a chance. Also, something to note on Linux and LibreOffice, there are a whole bunch of command line cheats you can use with LibreOffice, so no GUI needed if you have enough patience. Type a doc with nano or pico and convert to a PDF with "soffice --headless --convert-to : file_to_convert.xxx" There's a lot more you can do with LibreOffice than you can M$ Office, but eye candy gets people every time.

    1. Re:LibreOffice? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can definitely embed Windows Metafile images in LibreOffice on Windows; but I'm not entirely sure if that is enough to make it vulnerable. WMF is dangerous because it is basically a package of GDI function calls, which might be good for efficiency or compactness; but has led to a number of creative and executable things being shoehorned in(as in this case; and repeatedly over the years).

      However, there are several image handling libraries that can render or convert WMF images without access to GDI; so in those cases GDI bugs wouldn't be a problem(though you probably have other things to worry about).

      This Libreoffice VCL documentation suggests that LibreOffice uses its own VCL WMF filters; but I sure wouldn't bet anything remotely important on that without testing it first; or knowing rather more about how LibreOffice is put together.

  8. Committed to the least they can get away with by jbn-o · · Score: 2

    Microsoft, owner of Skype (which Microsoft changed specifically for spying, not that Skype was trustworthy under its previous owner either as The Guardian tells us, "Eight months before being bought by Microsoft, Skype joined the Prism program in February 2011.") and NSA "provider" since 2007-09-11 (the NSA's first PRISM provider) wants us to understand their "commitment to our customers' security". Apparently that commitment is as little as they can get away with.

    That's true of every software proprietor, Google included. The problem is the lack of software freedom which is designed to leave users at the mercy of the only programmers allowed to inspect, alter, and publish improvements to the proprietary software—these are the very programmers users couldn't trust with their security in the first place.

  9. 'Disappointing', eh? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, yet another exploit in GDI; an initial attempt at a fix that didn't actually work; a second attempt that was delayed a month(along with a reasonably juicy SMB issue; and probably some other stuff); and the disclosure is the 'disappointing' part? How eminently plausible.

    1. Re:'Disappointing', eh? by gweihir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      MS needs to be either kicked hard until they get that they have a responsibility, or they need to be made completely obsolete. 90 days is plenty. I say we call not fixing reported security-bugs in 90 days gross negligence and make them per default liable for all hacks of their "OS" that happen afterwards until they patch and with no possibility to prevent that liability in the TOU.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  10. So MS is still unable to patch within 90 days? by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why are we are trusting these people to provide widely-used software, again?

    A reasonable time-frame to patch security vulnerabilities is like 2...4 weeks. 90 days is already stretching it considerably and they still are too incompetent or uncaring to make that long deadline. Google is doing the right thing here. If incompetent and lazy vendors are not forced to fix security vulnerabilities, they will never do it. It is just utterly pathetic that we allow MS to be one of these worst offenders.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.