:)
Thank you all for your valuable comments... Indeed I appreciated
some of the
links/info extended (Susan, Thor and Tom) However, in the end, it
sounded
like:
a) As a sysadmin in charge of maintaining XP systems along with a whole
shebang of other mix setups, unless I deploy a "better" firewall
solution, I
seem to be SOL.
b) M$ is trying to boost Win7 sales... Whoopdee-@#$%#^-doo... As was
stated
earlier, they did the exact same thing back in Win2K days... Nothing
new
here... :/ As Larry and Thor pointed out, what sux is that despite M$
"PROMISING" that they would continue supporting XP since they didn't
exactly
state WHAT they would support, they seem to be legally free to
actually get
away with this BS *sigh* gotta love insurance-salesman-tactics when
it comes
to promises...
So... with all this commentary, in the end, I still didn't read from
the
"big'uns" on whether or not a 3rd party open-source patch would be
released... I sure miss the days that people back in the day who
cared would
:) In the end I realize, it sounds like a total over-haul of the TCP/IP
stack is required; but does it really have to? Really?
How effective is what Tom Grace suggests? Unless I'm
misunderstanding, he's
suggesting switching to an iptables based protection along with a
registry
tweak... ahh the good ol' batch firewall :) Would this actually work
as a
viable work-around? I realize M$ stated this as such, but given their
current reputation it's really hard to take their word for anything
these
days :P
What free/cheap client-level-IPS solutions block this current
attack? Any
suggestions?
Thank you for your time and look forward to some more answers.
Sincerely,
Aras "Russ" Memisyazici
arasm {at) vt ^dot^ edu --> I set my return addy to /dev/null
for... well
you know why!
Systems Administrator
Virginia Tech
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Seltzer [mailto:larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday,
September 16, 2009 5:03 PM
To: Susan Bradley; Thor (Hammer of God)
Cc: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] 3rd party patch for XP for MS09-048?
Yes, they used the bulletin to soft-pedal the description, but at the
same time I think they send a message about XP users being on shaky
ground. Just because they've got 4+ years of Extended Support Period
left doesn't mean they're going to get first-class treatment.
Larry Seltzer
Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
larry_seltzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/
-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan
Bradley
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:26 PM
To: Thor (Hammer of God)
Cc: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 3rd party patch for XP for MS09-048?
It's only "default" for people running XP standalone/consumer that
are not even in a home network settings.
That kinda slices and dices that default down to a VERY narrow sub
sub sub set of customer base.
(Bottom line, yes, the marketing team definitely got a hold of that
bulletin)
Thor (Hammer of God) wrote:
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/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/