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

["Larry Seltzer" <larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that the FAQ explanation in the advisory is vague about what
protection the firewall provides. One clue I would infer about it is
that they rated this a "Low" threat. If it were vulnerable in the
default configuration, with the firewall (or some other firewall) on,
they probably would have rated it at least Medium. If I'm wrong about
that then the "Low" rating is misleading.

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 Thor
(Hammer of God)
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:00 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/