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

["Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hey Larry- hope everything's going well... 

When you've got a systemic vulnerability, in this case the TCP/IP stack itself, 
exploitation information must be explicit and definitive.  I'm fine with risk 
classification, and I appreciate efforts to categorize risk into manageable 
exposure metrics, but we shouldn't have to infer potential vulnerability 
information from vague disclosure data.  I know many response teams base patch 
paths on the published severity, but one also has to be able to make decisions 
on their own.  For me, no big deal.  But it's not that simple for others.   

But there's not enough information for me to make that call.  Is it for ANY 
"listening service?"  TCP or UPD?  Does the "statefull" firewall introduced in 
subsequent versions stop it?

The answers are "yes," "yes," and "no."  They should just say that.  Is it 
"low" because the firewall doesn't have any exceptions by default?  If so, 
that's silly.  Everyone using XP for anything has incoming connections for 
something, and well known if on a domain.  I feel sorry for Diebold and NEC 
with all the ATMs out there running XP, but fortunately, I'm not responsible 
for clients using their systems anymore :) 

Anyway, the DoS suxx0rz, but I'm more irritated with the lack of real, 
straight-forward, no-nonsense information and technical sleight of hand.  The 
information should be painfully obvious, not obviously painful.

t 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Seltzer [mailto:larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:21 AM
> To: Thor (Hammer of God); Eric C. Lukens; bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] 3rd party patch for XP for MS09-048?
> 
> 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/