Message-ID: <4AB24EC9.8080905@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:59:21 -0700
From: Susan Bradley <sbradcpa@...bell.net>
To: nowhere@...null.com
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: 3rd party patch for XP for MS09-048?

<jaded mode off>

I know too many of the gook geeks behind Microsoft and I do trust that 
this IS NOT a plot to sell more Win7.  Granted the marketing folks spun 
this bulletin WAY WAY TOO much.  It is what it is.  I do believe the 
architecture in XP just isn't there.  It's a 10 year old platform that 
sometimes you can't bolt on this stuff afterwards.  Even in Vista, it's 
not truly fixing the issue, merely making the system more resilient to 
attacks.  Read the fine print in the patch.. it's just making the system 
kill a session and recover better.

I am not a fan of third party because you bring yourself outside the 
support window of the product.

It is just a DOS.  I DOS myself after patch Tuesday sometimes with mere 
patch issues.  Also the risk of this appears low, the potential for 
someone coding up an attack low... I have bigger risks from fake A/V at me.

Is this truly the risk that one has to take such actions and expect such 
energy? 

I don't see that it is.  Give me more information that it is a risk and 
I may change my mind, but right now, I'm just not seeing that it's worth it.



Aras "Russ" Memisyazici wrote:
> :)
>
> 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@...ryseltzer.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:03 PM
> To: Susan Bradley; Thor (Hammer of God)
> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk; bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
> 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@...fdavis.com 
> http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
> [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Susan
> Bradley
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:26 PM
> To: Thor (Hammer of God)
> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk; bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
> 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@...bell.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:16 AM
>>> To: Thor (Hammer of God)
>>> Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com; full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>> 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@...ts.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-
>>>>> disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>> God)
>>>     
>>>       
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:00 AM
>>>>> To: Eric C. Lukens; bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
>>>>> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>>>> 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@...ts.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-
>>>>>> disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Eric C. Lukens
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:37 PM
>>>>>> To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
>>>>>> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>>>>> 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@...il.com>
>>>>>> To: nowhere@...null.com
>>>>>> Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>>>>> 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@...null.com> 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/
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists