Just when you thought the insanity was over, researchers claim that two new WMF exploits (along with proof of concept code) have been identified in the wild. This news comes just days after Microsoft released an 'out of cycle' patch for a newly discovered WMF exploit. The new flaws affect fully patched versions of Windows 2000, Windows XP (SP2 included) and Windows Server 2003.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-23
Member since:2005-10-19
Member since:2005-06-29
"I'm not sure how it gets much faster than last time"
Someone takes it more seriously this time around. You honestly can't be telling me that a company as big as Microsoft needs that long to patch a problem in the very same code that they've only just finished working on fixing days earlier.
Member since:2005-10-19
"Response speed
Microsoft's fix for the flaw was the quickest turnaround ever for a Microsoft patch, released only 10 days after the vulnerability was made public,"
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39246273,00.htm
Member since:2005-12-31
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:
2005-12-04
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-10
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-11-05
This is sad for MS to get a black eye twice within one patch period. What normal user is going to actually use something like a hypertext application (.hta file)? Files like this should default to open in notepad or wordpad and the world would be a safer place. That is one of the first things I do on any windows box I am forced to install.
Member since:
2005-07-06
A Microsoft spokesperson insists the publicly released code can simply cause a denial-of-service crash.
So no executing malicious code. But still, crashing that browser/mail client can be pretty annoying. These new exploits also beg the question what's next. Obviously hackers went looking after the last vulnerability was found and came up with these two in a very short time indeed.
Ofcourse MS may still exploit the situation by using these holes to promote Vista as an upgrade that is also an investment in security, but that could blow up in their face if Vista proved just as insecure.
Member since:2005-11-15
Member since:2005-11-10
Please? Hummmmmm, the WHM hole goes all they way back to the first versions of Windows! It wasn't complex then!
On top of that Windows is no more complex then the Mac OS, some versions of Linux and all the major versions of Unix.
Give me a break! Facts are facts! Windows is crap!
And like I said before it would be one thing if like everyone else they were putting out stuff on a regular, but 2000 has been out for 6 years and XP for almost 5 and yet week after week after week new problems crop up in the same ole code!
Member since:2005-07-13
Flaw in your argument: at the time of early Windows, the Internet then wasn't the same it is now, and these kind of security holes weren't as important as they are now, if any awareness existed at all then.
MacOS probably has a different code for WMF, if any; same applies to Linux/Un*x.
Even as I think that MS Windows is still quite "crappy", I also think Microsoft has made great strides on last versions (2k and XP), and a genuine effort to make it more secure, as shown by the results of XP SP2 and the time they took to launch a patch to the 1st WMF flaw. So, some credit where it is due.
You're right in one point, though. If the code were properly written and checked then, it would have lot less vulnerabilities.
Member since:2005-11-10
Man, with 50 Billion in the bank, they should be sellin the fort knox OS. LOL!
But we are talking about a 15 year old hole! And they are just finding it? I mean it was there in Windows 95 which was 11 years ago. (And that was internet ready!)
The sad part is that MS doesn't really open their code, yet OTHER people keep finding the holes! LOL!
Member since:2005-10-02
The difference is how long it takes to solve them and how often they occur on Windows.
Windows isn't the only complex system in the world. It's just designed to be unsafe, and this is why Microsoft is fighting so hard.
ActiveX is an example of technology - developed when security was a must - and still being extremely unsafe.
There are other systems in this world equally complex as Windows without the same amount of security holes.
Member since:2005-11-10
You like yours George Bush style, where they tell you 2 years before the war is even half way done that the mission is complete and like with Windows they are still working and still fixing and still fighting. LOL!
The funny part is the "beta" os keeps Bill Gates up at night trying to figure out if XP runs faster on old hardware then the "Beta" os. LOL!
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-10-02
It's the kernel then.
The kernel is under constant development as is the kernel in most OS'es.
You do not have to upgrade the kernel to get full functionality from a GNU/Linux system. Usually the kernel is pretty much unimportant in that regard. So if it's in beta stage it's because you chose to put it in beta stage. Besides that each kernel revision has it's own level of developlment. Like 2.6.x.y and the higher y is the more stable it is (usually).
Do like me. Don't update unless you really need it.
The fact that software is constantly being updated does no equal being in beta stage.
And no. Mac OS X is not prettier, nor more stable. Usability however, I'll grant you that one (with the exception of a few bugs in the desktop implementation).
Member since:
2005-07-18
Member since:
2006-01-10
"So no executing malicious code. But still, crashing that browser/mail client can be pretty annoying."
Well on heise.de they came up with this:
If the WMF "only" crashes the application showing it, but doesn't allow execution of code, this could still be dangerous. Imagine a user downloading such a WMF to the Desktop (the default setting in most browsers) this would cause explorer.exe to show this WMF, making it crash, which basically makes the whole desktop & the taskbar crash. explorer.exe will automagically be restarted, showing the WMF on the desktop again, crashing again ... You'd end up with a pretty useless computer probably.
Tom
Member since:2005-07-06
Imagine a user downloading such a WMF to the Desktop (the default setting in most browsers) this would cause explorer.exe to show this WMF, making it crash, which basically makes the whole desktop & the taskbar crash. explorer.exe will automagically be restarted, showing the WMF on the desktop again, crashing again ... You'd end up with a pretty useless computer probably.
Well that's fixable with Knoppix or something like ERD Commander ( http://www.winternals.com/Products/AdministratorsPak/ ) , one of either should be in every computer users recovery toolbox. Basically boot from cd delete file and your done, annoying but definately not as dangerous as the first exploit.
Member since:2005-07-13
Well that's fixable with Knoppix or something like ERD Commander ( http://www.winternals.com/Products/AdministratorsPak/ ) , one of either should be in every computer users recovery toolbox. Basically boot from cd delete file and your done, annoying but definately not as dangerous as the first exploit.
Well, that's all well and good for more savvy users (who are least likely to be hit), it is not a viable solution for the majority of computer users. Most users are at the limit of the comfort zone using their standard apps. Expecting them to be able to (or want to) fix their OS when things go wrong is expecting too much. Just like everyone that drives a car is not a mechanic, everyone that uses a computer is not a tech.
Member since:2005-07-06
Well, that's all well and good for more savvy users (who are least likely to be hit), it is not a viable solution for the majority of computer users. Most users are at the limit of the comfort zone using their standard apps. Expecting them to be able to (or want to) fix their OS when things go wrong is expecting too much. Just like everyone that drives a car is not a mechanic, everyone that uses a computer is not a tech.
I don't believe explorer would even render the WMF on the desktop. It would instead show whatever icon is associated with WMF files. However, if it did actually render the file, you don't need Knoppix or other 3rd-party tools to fix this. You can use cmd to go to the desktop and delete the file or move it to another directory. You could also open Task Manager and do the same from it's "New Task (Run...)" dialog. There are a few possible ways of doing this as well using just what is available in the OS.
The overall scenario also discounts that such exploits would likely be stopped by AV/AS software if it is on the system and up to date, just as it did with the previous exploits.
Edited 2006-01-10 19:10
Member since:2005-08-19
Com'on people, do not make case from this thing. Who does need all these tools here.
You have infinite loop of Explorer.exe crash due to a file... what's the problem?
ctrl-alt-del (or Ctrl-Shift-Esc) fires up task manager, select new task, run cmd, enter the file path, enter del or erase command of the file. then new task explorer.exe and all is done!!!
For Linux fanboys: do you forget how instable are Gnome and KDE???
Member since:2005-07-09
Then you just log in as Adminstrator and delete the offending file from the "Desktop" directory in the said user's profile. Um...unless you happen to be doing your web browsing as Administrator. In that case write this off as a lesson learned and a fine opportunity to play with a Linux live CD (as the other reply suggested) to fix the problem (hmmm, do I sense irony here?). Although this could be a royal PITA if somebody got an offending Email in Outlook and had the Preview pane enabled (heaven help us all). Crash...re-open Outlook...crash...ad nauseum. Forced removal of the entire offending .pst I guess.
Member since:
2006-01-10
Member since:
2006-01-02
Member since:2005-10-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-10-06
You mean the voting goes on merit? Hey - I mever noticed that! - Wow! Thanks for enlightenment!
biteydog by name - biteydog by nature 
(Edit) Just excuse me - brainburn from spending a couple of hours rebuilding a Windows XP box for a client who was .wmf***ed - and I haven't touched a Windows machine since W98.
Edited 2006-01-11 10:44
Member since:
2005-08-26
http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2006/01/09/417198.aspx
They had already identified these new "holes", so I don't see what the big issue here is.
Member since:
2006-01-04
While it must be rather embarrasing for Microsoft to have another WMF related flaw appear so quickly, it shouldn't be that surprising. This is not because Microsoft is bad at what they do, or because Windows is a fundamentally flawed OS. It is simply because WMF is like a scripting language for Windows GDI calls.
This means that patching WMF issues requires updates to and analysis of the implementation of the GDI API. This API has hundreds of calls, and probably tens of thousands of lines of code implementing it. I wouldn't be supprised if the patch to the last WMF flaw was in a completly seperate portion of the GDI from the portion that has this flaw. I also won't be surprised if several more flaws of this nature are found and patched in the next few months. The result of all of this fixing will be a much more stable GDI, which is hardly a bad thing.
In any case, this issue will not become a real problem until someone comes up with a way to cause malicious code to execute rather than just crashing the application. Most malware these days are written for profit, rather than annoyance. Malware typically is written so that the distributer can use thier victims machines for DDoS extortion, spam distribution, or other unpleasant activities. In order for this flaw to be useful in this manner, the malware author must be able to cause a machine execute code. My hope is that Microsoft will have this patched before malware appears which uses this particular attack vector.
Member since:
2005-07-06
