[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Full-disclosure] 3rd party patch for XP for MS09-048?



Yeah, I know what it is and what it's for ;)  That was just my subtle way of trying to make a point.  To be more explicit:

1)  If you are publishing a vulnerability for which there is no patch, and for which you have no intention of making a patch for, don't tell me it's mitigated by ancient, unusable default firewall settings, and don't withhold explicit details.  Say "THERE WILL BE NO PATCH, EVER.  HERE'S EVERYTHING WE KNOW SO YOU CAN DETERMINE YOUR OWN RISK."  Also, don't say 'you can deploy firewall settings via group policy to mitigate exposure' when the firewall obviously must be accepting network connections to get the settings in the first place. If all it takes is any listening service, then you have issues.  It's like telling me that "the solution is to take the letter 'f' out of the word "solution."

2)  Think things through.  If you are going to try to boot sales of Win7 to corporate customers by providing free XP VM technology and thus play up how important XP is and how many companies still depend upon it for business critical application compatibility, don't deploy that technology in an other-than-default configuration that is subject to a DoS exploit while downplaying the extent that the exploit may be leveraged by saying that a "typical" default configuration mitigates it while choosing not to ever patch it.    Seems like simple logic points to me.

t

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susan Bradley [mailto:sbradcpa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:16 AM
> To: Thor (Hammer of God)
> Cc: bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 3rd party patch for XP for MS09-048?
> 
> It's XP.  Running in RDP mode.  It's got IE6, and wants antivirus.  Of
> course it's vulnerable to any and all gobs of stuff out there.  But
> it's
> goal and intent is to allow Small shops to deploy Win7.  If you need
> more security, get appv/medv/whateverv or other virtualization.
> 
> It's not a security platform.  It's a get the stupid 16 bit line of
> business app working platform.
> 
> Thor (Hammer of God) wrote:
> > P.S.
> >
> > Anyone check to see if the default "XP Mode" VM you get for free with
> Win7 hyperv is vulnerable and what the implications are for a host
> running an XP vm that get's DoS'd are?
> >
> > I get the whole "XP code to too old to care" bit, but it seems odd to
> take that "old code" and re-market it around compatibility and re-
> distribute it with free downloads for Win7 while saying "we won't patch
> old code."
> >
> > t
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: full-disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:full-
> >> disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of
> God)
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:00 AM
> >> To: Eric C. Lukens; bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Cc: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 3rd party patch for XP for MS09-048?
> >>
> >> Thanks for the link.  The problem here is that not enough
> information
> >> is given, and what IS given is obviously watered down to the point
> of
> >> being ineffective.
> >>
> >> The quote that stands out most for me:
> >> <snip>
> >> During the Q&A, however, Windows users repeatedly asked Microsoft's
> >> security team to explain why it wasn't patching XP, or if, in
> certain
> >> scenarios, their machines might be at risk. "We still use Windows XP
> >> and we do not use Windows Firewall," read one of the user questions.
> >> "We use a third-party vendor firewall product. Even assuming that we
> >> use the Windows Firewall, if there are services listening, such as
> >> remote desktop, wouldn't then Windows XP be vulnerable to this?"
> >>
> >> "Servers are a more likely target for this attack, and your firewall
> >> should provide additional protections against external exploits,"
> >> replied Stone and Bryant.
> >> </snip>
> >>
> >> If an employee managing a product that my company owned gave answers
> >> like that to a public interview with Computerworld, they would be in
> >> deep doo.  First off, my default install of XP Pro SP2 has remote
> >> assistance inbound, and once you join to a domain, you obviously
> accept
> >> necessary domain traffic.  This "no inbound traffic by default so
> you
> >> are not vulnerable" line is crap.  It was a direct question - "If
> RDP
> >> is allowed through the firewall, are we vulnerable?" A:"Great
> question.
> >> Yes, servers are the target.  A firewall should provide added
> >> protection, maybe.  Rumor is that's what they are for.  Not sure
> >> really.  What was the question again?"
> >>
> >> You don't get "trustworthy" by not answering people's questions,
> >> particularly when they are good, obvious questions.  Just be honest
> >> about it.  "Yes, XP is vulnerable to a DOS.  Your firewall might
> help,
> >> but don't bet on it.  XP code is something like 15 years old now,
> and
> >> we're not going to change it.  That's the way it is, sorry. Just be
> >> glad you're using XP and not 2008/vista or you'd be patching your
> arse
> >> off right now."
> >>
> >> If MSFT thinks they are mitigating public opinion issues by side-
> >> stepping questions and not fully exposing the problems, they are
> wrong.
> >> This just makes it worse. That's the long answer.  The short answer
> is
> >> "XP is vulnerable to a DoS, and a patch is not being offered."
> >>
> >> t
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: full-disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:full-
> >>> disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric C. Lukens
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:37 PM
> >>> To: bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Cc: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 3rd party patch for XP for MS09-048?
> >>>
> >>> Reference:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138007/Microsoft_No_TCP_IP_patc
> >>
> >>> hes_for_you_XP
> >>>
> >>> MS claims the patch would require to much overhaul of XP to make it
> >>> worth it, and they may be right.  Who knows how many applications
> >>>
> >> might
> >>
> >>> break that were designed for XP if they have to radically change
> the
> >>> TCP/IP stack.  Now, I don't know if the MS speak is true, but it
> >>> certainly sounds like it is not going to be patched.
> >>>
> >>> The other side of the MS claim is that a properly-firewalled XP
> >>>
> >> system
> >>
> >>> would not be vulnerable to a DOS anyway, so a patch shouldn't be
> >>> necessary.
> >>>
> >>> -Eric
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original Message  --------
> >>> Subject: Re: 3rd party patch for XP for MS09-048?
> >>> From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> To: nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Cc: bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Date: 9/15/09 3:49 PM
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Aras,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Given that M$ has officially shot-down all current Windows XP
> >>>>>
> >> users
> >>
> >>> by not
> >>>
> >>>>> issuing a patch for a DoS level issue,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Can you cite a reference?
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless Microsoft has changed their end of life policy [1], XP
> >>>>
> >> should
> >>
> >>>> be patched for security vulnerabilities until about 2014. Both XP
> >>>>
> >>> Home
> >>>
> >>>> and XP Pro's mainstream support ended in 4/2009, but extended
> >>>>
> >> support
> >>
> >>>> ends in 4/2014 [2]. Given that we know the end of extended
> support,
> >>>> take a look at bullet 17 of [1]:
> >>>>
> >>>>     17. What is the Security Update policy?
> >>>>
> >>>>     Security updates will be available through the end of the
> >>>>
> >>> Extended
> >>>
> >>>>     Support phase (five years of Mainstream Support plus five
> years
> >>>>
> >>> of
> >>>
> >>>>     the Extended Support) at no additional cost for most products.
> >>>>     Security updates will be posted on the Microsoft Update Web
> >>>>
> >> site
> >>
> >>>>     during both the Mainstream and the Extended Support phase.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I realize some of you might be tempted to relay the M$ BS about
> >>>>>
> >> "not
> >>
> >>> being
> >>>
> >>>>> feasible because it's a lot of work" rhetoric...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Not at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy
> >>>> [2] http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselect
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Aras "Russ" Memisyazici
> >>>> <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello All:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given that M$ has officially shot-down all current Windows XP
> >>>>>
> >> users
> >>
> >>> by not
> >>>
> >>>>> issuing a patch for a DoS level issue, I'm now curious to find
> out
> >>>>>
> >>> whether
> >>>
> >>>>> or not any brave souls out there are already working or willing
> to
> >>>>>
> >>> work on
> >>>
> >>>>> an open-source patch to remediate the issue within XP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I realize some of you might be tempted to relay the M$ BS about
> >>>>>
> >> "not
> >>
> >>> being
> >>>
> >>>>> feasible because it's a lot of work" rhetoric... I would just
> like
> >>>>>
> >>> to hear
> >>>
> >>>>> the thoughts of the true experts subscribed to these lists :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No harm in that is there?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Aras "Russ" Memisyazici
> >>>>> Systems Administrator
> >>>>> Virginia Tech
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> --
> >>> Eric C. Lukens
> >>> IT Security Policy and Risk Assessment Analyst
> >>> ITS-Network Services
> >>> Curris Business Building 15
> >>> University of Northern Iowa
> >>> Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0121
> >>> 319-273-7434
> >>> http://www.uni.edu/elukens/
> >>> http://weblogs.uni.edu/elukens/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> >>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> >>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> >> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> >> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> >>
> >
> >