ie8 fix
madison

Zero Day

Ryan Naraine, Emil Protalinski and Dancho Danchev

Microsoft says Google was hacked with IE zero-day

By | January 15, 2010, 8:46am PST

Summary: According to Microsoft, the vulnerability is still unpatched and can lead to remote code execution attacks if a target is lured to a booby-trapped Web site or views a malicious online advertisement.

Hackers linked to China used a zero-day vulnerability in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser to compromise corporate systems at more than 30 U.S. companies, including Google, Adobe and Juniper Networks.

According to Microsoft, the vulnerability is still unpatched and can lead to remote code execution attacks if a target is lured to a booby-trapped Web site or views a malicious online advertisement.

Microsoft’s confirmation, in the form of a security advisory, follows public statements from Google and Adobe that their corporate networks were breached by coordinated, sophisticated attackers based in China.

[ SEE: Adobe confirms 'sophisticated, coordinated' breach ]

Google said the attacks were very targeted and resulted in the theft of intellectual property.  Adobe confirmed its network was also breached in the same attacks but did not provide any details on what was stolen.

In a statement, Juniper Network said it was investigating “a cyber security incident involving a sophisticated and targeted attack against a number of companies.”

According to public chatter, the attackers originated in Taiwan and included a hijacked Internet addressed owned by Rackspace. The hosting firm has confirmed that its systems “played a very small part” in the attacks.

Details on the cyber-attacks are beginning to trickle out.   According to Dan Kaminsky, a security researcher who was briefed on the IE vulnerability used in one of the attacks, the exploit was targeted at a Windows XP machine running Internet Explorer 6.

This was confirmed by a Mike Reavey, a director in the Microsoft Security Response Center.  “To date, Microsoft has not seen widespread customer impact, rather only targeted and limited attacks exploiting IE 6,” Reavey said.

Here’s the skinny from Microsoft’s advisory:

The vulnerability exists as an invalid pointer reference within Internet Explorer. It is possible under certain conditions for the invalid pointer to be accessed after an object is deleted. In a specially-crafted attack, in attempting to access a freed object, Internet Explorer can be caused to allow remote code execution.

The flaw affects Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, and Internet Explorer 6, Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8 on supported editions of Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 R2 are affected.

Here’s the danger:

To exploit, an attacker could host a specially crafted Web site, or take advantage of a compromised website, and then convince a user to view the Web site. In all cases, however, an attacker would have no way to force users to visit these malicious Web sites. Instead, an attacker would have to convince users to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link in an e-mail message or in an Instant Messenger message, that directs users to the attacker’s Web site. It could also be possible to display specially crafted Web content using banner advertisements or other methods to deliver Web content to affected systems. The Microsoft investigation concluded that setting the Internet zone security setting to “high” will protect users from the vulnerability addressed in this advisory.

Microsoft is considering an out-of-band emergency IE patch to fix this vulnerability.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ryan Naraine is a journalist and social media enthusiast specializing in Internet and computer security issues.

Disclosure

Ryan Naraine

The most important disclosure is of my employment with Kaspersky Lab as a member of the global research and analysis team. Kaspersky Lab is a global company specializing in anti-malware and secure content management technologies. I do not own stocks or other investments in any technology company.

Biography

Ryan Naraine

Ryan Naraine is a journalist and social media enthusiast specializing in Internet and computer security issues. He is currently security evangelist at Kaspersky Lab, an anti-malware company with operations around the globe. He is taking a leadership role in developing the company's online community initiative around secure content management technologies.

Prior to joining Kaspersky Lab, Ryan was Editor-at-Large/Security at eWEEK, leading the magazine's and Web site's coverage of Internet and computer security issues and managing the popular SecurityWatch blog, covering the daily threats, vulnerabilities and IT security technologies. He also covered IT security, hacker attacks and secure content management topics for Jupiter Media's internetnetnews.com.

Ryan can be reached at naraine SHIFT 2 gmail.com. For daily updates on Ryan's activities, follow him on Twitter.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
179
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft says Google was hacked with IE zero-day
efsane Updated - 8th Apr 2011
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
sesli sohbet sesli chat
0 Votes
+ -
Um, question
Joe_Raby 15th Jan 2010
Why is Google using IE?
0 Votes
+ -
XP and IE6
Earthling2 Updated - 15th Jan 2010
More precisely, why it was XP and IE6? Why not test Chrome? Why use XP where majority of the work can be done only from an administrative account and there is no protected mode for IE?

What are the internal IT security policnes in the company that wants us to feel secure using its software and services in general and secure in its cloud, storing our data, in particular?
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly my point
Joe_Raby 15th Jan 2010
Why was Google using anything other that Chrome and/or Chrome OS?

Seems hypocritical on their part - make your own browser and not even use it.
0 Votes
+ -
What a BS response.
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 15th Jan 2010
If your in the business of running a company
that was making web based apps, content, and
the likes, you would use all kinds of browsers,
not just your own.

When I develop a webpage, or web content, I
test to see how it will be rendered in the
major 4 browsers, not just my favorite one to
use. If your consumer base uses IE or FF predominately, you are going to make sure your
stuff works, on the widely used browsers.
0 Votes
+ -
There is a difference between testing your software and allowing IE6 on XP to access company's sensitive data.
0 Votes
+ -
Not everyone knows how to though. Most people just
expect that as long as they apply all of the
updates for a browser as soon as they come out,
that they aren't going to get hacked. Sadly this
isn't the case with IE.
0 Votes
+ -
It's called "sandboxing", and IE in Protected Mode already provides that.

When you're talking about isolating applications in total virtual operating system environments, if a piece of malware is well-written, it could easily spread over open network connections between the guest and host OS. A virtual machine has certain benefits in regards to restoring previous versions by having a management OS running below it, but OS's have a lot of backtrack and restoration functionality in them anyway. If you have a VM that gets infected badly, you still have to rebuild or restore that VM. That's not much less work than having to reimage an OS on hardware. If your backups are in order, it could take about 5 minutes to restore a backup on hardware. It'd take at least as much time to copy a VHD back for a VM or use an Undo disk.
0 Votes
+ -
It offers..
AzuMao 15th Jan 2010
.. consistent hardware-level virtualization,
regardless of any bugs in the specific
implementation of the specific version of the
specific browser on the specific OS.
You should know better about web browser security, and the ramifications of doing day-to-day browsing (and clicking on unknown links) on a less secure browser than is current. If you're a real business, your IT environment should be locked down too, and if you need legacy applications for compatibility, security risks need to be mitigated by alternative measures, not just ignored altogether.
0 Votes
+ -
That's what Virtual Box is for [NT]
tripolitan 15th Jan 2010
[NT]
0 Votes
+ -
I guess because..
AzuMao 15th Jan 2010
..they let their employees use whatever
browsers/OSs they feel like? Kind of like how some
prominent members of the IE team use Firefox?
The W3C doesn't dictate how a web browser produces every single tag or CSS function, so obviously a dev team designing a web browser will want to compare the presentation of websites between their browser and the competition.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes
AzuMao 15th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
As quoted in the article
use_what_works_4_U 15th Jan 2010
and Internet Explorer 8 on supported
editions of Windows XP, Windows Server 2003,
Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows
7, and Windows Server 2008 R2 are
affected.

I added the bolding, but I've seen at least 3
responders today insist that this has to ahve
been a result of Google using IE6 with XP.
What I just quoted came from Microsoft. The
idea the using IE 8 and Windows 7 would have
avoided the problem is just as idiotic as those
of my fellow Mac users who insist that the Mac
is immune to malware.

Unless you were working for Google in China,
you don't know what version of IE or Windows
was in use. Why is it so important to blame
this on old software? The truly important
thing is knowledge that a threat exists.
0 Votes
+ -
Difference between XP and Win7
Earthling2 15th Jan 2010
All we know so far is that Microsoft spokesman said it was IE6, so allegedly it must have been XP, since Vista and Win7 do not ship with IE6.

Now, there is a big difference between XP and Win7 (or Vista).

First, in Win7 there is no excuse for an ordinary user to run under an administrative account. This should have prevented the exploit from gaining system-wide access.

Second, IE protected mode should have prevented the malicious code from accessing most of the user files and registry settings.

Thus, the impact of this vulnerabilty on system other than XP could have been smaller.

Yes, other browsers are not susceptible to specifically this vulnerability, but were it an undiscovered flaw in FireFox, the result could have been the same on XP: full system access.

Again, there would be less impact if they were using FireFox in Vista or Windows 7: no system access. If FireFox had protected mode or at least had been configured to run at the low integity level, ther would be no access to most of the user files and registry settings.

Of course if they run Linux, that would have been a whole different story, but they didn't.

So my question, based on what Microsoft spokesman said, was: why Google allowed machines with the widely known least secure combination of OS and browser access to sensitive data?
0 Votes
+ -
Hmm..
AzuMao 15th Jan 2010
All we know so far is that Microsoft
spokesman said it was IE6, so allegedly it must
have been XP, since Vista and Win7 do not ship
with IE6.


IE6 can't be installed on Windows 7?

Now, there is a big difference between XP and
Win7 (or Vista).

First, in Win7 there is no excuse for an
ordinary user to run under an administrative
account. This should have prevented the exploit
from gaining system-wide access.


In Windows 7, you get logged in an admin account
by default, not a restricted account. Yet not
too long ago the MS fanboys were harping on
Google for not having HTTPS by default. Can't
have it both ways. Which is it; do defaults
matter, or don't they?

Second, IE protected mode should have
prevented the malicious code from accessing most
of the user files and registry settings.


You assert it was IE6, and then you also assert
IE protected mode should have prevented the
attack.. so you are asserting that IE6 has
protected mode? And also that the attack must
have accessed registry settings or user files
that the browser can't have access too (i.e.
that nothing important could be accessed by the
browser)? So whatever it was was stored and
worked on offline?
How do you know all this?

Thus, the impact of this vulnerabilty on
system other than XP could have been
smaller.


Maybe, maybe not.

Yes, other browsers are not susceptible to
specifically this vulnerability, but were it an
undiscovered flaw in FireFox, the result could
have been the same on XP: full system
access.


Other browsers tend to fix their critical
vulnerabilities before widespread pwning
of systems occurs.

Again, there would be less impact if they
were using FireFox in Vista or Windows 7: no
system access. If FireFox had protected mode or
at least had been configured to run at the low
integity level, ther would be no access to most
of the user files and registry settings.


Except that with Firefox (or almost any other
browser, except IE) the vulnerability is much
more likely to be fixed before you get
bit by it.

Of course if they run Linux, that would have
been a whole different story, but they didn't.


Yet if Google required all their employees to
use Linux, you'd hold that against them,
wouldn't you?

So my question, based on what Microsoft
spokesman said, was: why Google allowed machines
with the widely known least secure combination
of OS and browser access to sensitive data?


I'm glad that Microsoft agree with me that
Google would have been more secure had they used
Google's products instead of Microsoft's
products. It feels good to be in agreement with
them for once. Disagreement gets old.
0 Votes
+ -
In response
Joe_Raby 15th Jan 2010
"IE6 can't be installed on Windows 7?"

Nope. Not in Windows 7. In XP Mode, sure, but that's Windows 7. I can load IE 4 on "Windows Vista" if I use Virtual PC and Windows 98, but it's still not IE5 on Windows Vista. There is a difference.

"You assert it was IE6, and then you also assert IE protected mode should have prevented the attack.. so you are asserting that IE6 has
protected mode?"

You're using the "a banana is a fruit, and an apple is a fruit, so a banana is an apple" defense. Learn English.

"Except that with Firefox (or almost any other
browser, except IE) the vulnerability is much
more likely to be fixed before you get
bit by it."

It's semantics. Firefox has holes (and many more of them) with more days of insecurity than IE. The fact that malware writers don't take advantage of it won't make a big difference when you get stung. It's the same with Apple. They have a target on their back, but coders aren't aiming at it.
0 Votes
+ -
In response to response
AzuMao 15th Jan 2010
"IE6 can't be installed on Windows 7?"

Nope. Not in Windows 7. In XP Mode, sure, but
that's Windows 7. I can load IE 4 on "Windows
Vista" if I use Virtual PC and Windows 98, but
it's still not IE5 on Windows Vista. There is a
difference.


Hmm. That's weird. Did Microsoft use
undocumented APIs for IE5/IE6? If not, there is
no excuse for them to run fine on Windows 2000
but not on Windows Vista and Windows 7.

"You assert it was IE6, and then you also
assert IE protected mode should have prevented
the attack.. so you are asserting that IE6 has
protected mode?"

You're using the "a banana is a fruit, and an
apple is a fruit, so a banana is an apple"
defense. Learn English.


No, I'm using the "you say it's IE6, but you
also say protected mode should have prevented
the attack, so are you saying IE6 is protected
by protected mode?" question. Just to clarify,
it is a question, and that is why I put a
question mark on the end of it, instead of a
full stop like I would if it was a statement.
This is because I do not agree with it, and want
you to explain why I should. Learn basic
punctuation that is common to English as well as
many other languages.

"Except that with Firefox (or almost any
other
browser, except IE) the vulnerability is much
more likely to be fixed before you get
bit by it."

It's semantics. Firefox has holes (and many more
of them) with more days of insecurity than IE.
The fact that malware writers don't take
advantage of it won't make a big difference when
you get stung. It's the same with Apple. They
have a target on their back, but coders aren't
aiming at it.


If you think the difference between leaving in a
vulnerability after it has become known by the
public and had working exploit code for it
posted to public websites and fixing a
vulnerable before it is even known outside of
the development team, or immediately after it is
known to the public, is only semantic, good for
you. We'll just have to agree to disagree on
this.
0 Votes
+ -
The majority of Win 7 users I know
Intellihence 15th Jan 2010
run their machine with full administrative rights. That sure sounds like a
windows user to me. They believe they can run as administrator because
they believe they are a Power User. --- Big joke huh?
  • Flagged
and Firefox doesn't have the sandboxing capability of Protected Mode in Vista/7, and it also had malware attacks. I wouldn't say Firefox is any more secure than IE in that matter.

IE on Vista and 7 has Protected Mode, and that seriously limits the ability of malware from taking total control of the machine. That is, unless a user is tricked into doing something, but you can easily do that on any system and that argument has little merit either way. If you count the ability to trick the user into doing anything, then you might as well forget about any kind of security updates whatsoever. Antimalware warnings should be considered your last line of defense against the user allowing something bad to run.

The point is, Protected Mode won't allow malicious software to instantly take control of the system *automatically*. Possibly only the current browser session, but that's about it. Chrome is supposed to have that ability, but we'll see how well it fares. Google certainly doesn't seem to be the company that cares too much about security.
0 Votes
+ -
Firefox has AppArmor though.
AzuMao 18th Jan 2010
And Protected Mode only works in Windows (which is
the worst modern OS).
0 Votes
+ -
You forgot to add
Joe_Raby 15th Jan 2010
Protected Mode IE on Vista and 7 would've sandboxed the issue within IE and not let a piece of software compromise more of the operating system - unless the user clicked on something stupid. Also, the fact that this is a social engineering attack puts it more in line with those websites that try to install fake WinFixer clones (ie WinAntivirus xyz 20xx). If the user clicks a particular link on the page, they can agree to have software installed on the machine.

I haven't seen too many common in-the-wild threats lately that can automatically install that kind of software on Vista or 7's Protected Mode IE without the user actually clicking something on the page - even if the page was pushed forward to the users browser by a JS auto-refresh. Microsoft's own antimalware engine picks up a lot of that fraudulent software too.

"the problem is just as idiotic as those
of my fellow Mac users who insist that the Mac
is immune to malware"

We know that's not true now that botnets have taken over some 200,000+ Mac's anyway.

"Why is it so important to blame
this on old software?"

Because it's proof that sticking with such old software is more hazardous to your PC's health, and newer systems have stronger protection in place that reduces attack vectors and makes it more difficult for someone malicious to take total control of your machine. Older code is harder to patch because it was designed when hackers weren't as advanced. Starting from the ground up with more advanced security measures is always easier the easier platform to patch.
0 Votes
+ -
Unless..
AzuMao 15th Jan 2010
..you accessed anything important using your
browser. In which case any compromise of the
browser would compromise your important data,
regardless of it being quarantined from the OS.
0 Votes
+ -
Except that that isn't what happened
Joe_Raby 15th Jan 2010
The code allowed internal access to Google's systems. That means it wasn't a cross-scripting attack or a keylogger. This was something that attacked their network and tried to steal information from within their systems.
0 Votes
+ -
How do you know..
AzuMao 15th Jan 2010
..that the information that was stolen, wasn't
available to the browser? Do you think they
transferred it from computer to computer on thumb-
drives? Or that only one person ever worked on it
and never released it?
0 Votes
+ -
But is it exploitable on those systems?
NonZealot Updated - 15th Jan 2010
Security flaws exist in all software. Of that, there can be no doubt. The question is: can it be exploited?

Having a flaw in a piece of software isn't dangerous, it is having an exploitable flaw that is dangerous. If Protected Mode takes this from an exploitable flaw in XP / IE6 to a non exploitable flaw in Vista/7 / IE7/8, and I've seen no indication that this flaw can bypass Protected Mode, then it isn't in the least bit idiotic to suggest that simply moving to Vista/7 would have avoided the problem. Remember, the flaw isn't the major problem, it is the "exploitable" part of the flaw that is the major problem. When MS says the flaw exists in 7/IE8, they aren't saying it is exploitable in 7/IE8 with its default security enabled.
0 Votes
+ -
If by not exploitable..
AzuMao 15th Jan 2010
..you only mean not exploitable in a way that
compromises the entire operating system instead of
just whatever the browser is used for, sure, not
exploitable at all.
0 Votes
+ -
But this is true of ALL flaws
NonZealot 15th Jan 2010
What you just wrote is true for all OSs and all
applications. And in this case, there are
huge differences between the permissions
given to the browser in XP and in Vista/7. So
to suggest, as has been done, that this flaw is
equivalent on all Windows OSs is simply not
true. The flaw exists on all Windows OSs but is
hardly equivalent. The great thing is that by
default, Protected Mode drastically
restricts what the browser can do and
therefore, what any exploit can do. Empirically
speaking, 100% of all exploits that were
written to take advantage of flaws that exist
in all Windows versions, fail under Protected
Mode because all these exploits assume
Administrator privileges. Could someone create
one that didn't? Yes. It hasn't happened yet.
happy
0 Votes
+ -
I'm pretty sure that it doesn't..
AzuMao 15th Jan 2010
..disallow the browser (and any infection in it)
from being used to.. you know.. browse, so
unless you don't do anything important online,
the sense of security provided is false.

Even if you don't, guess what happens when you
download anything? That's right, it comes
through your browser. So also make sure to never
download any programs. Protected mode won't
prevent whatever crap is in your browser from
messing with files downloaded in your browser.


It's better than nothing, sure, but the
vulnerability is still huge.
0 Votes
+ -
Ultimately boils down to Apple apology
NonZealot 15th Jan 2010
Perhaps malware authors could do fancy things to bypass Protected Mode but the Apple defense holds true here. Until they do, I'm not going to worry about it. happy
Also, if you're saying such an apology is valid,
does that mean you retract all of your previous
claims against it? Or do you want to have it both
ways?
0 Votes
+ -
C'mon flamer
davidhite 18th Jan 2010
Any system can be hacked. Get over yourself.
0 Votes
+ -
I ask because nobody in this one was flaming
(except you just now, as well as most of your
posts in other stories), and nobody said anything
about perfect systems.
0 Votes
+ -
Any system can be hacked...
casse_couille 25th Jan 2010
But some only after too much effort to be worth it...

Try hacking a standard installation untweaked OpenBSD and compare that to other (popular) OS's, even with ALL possible security measures and tweaks done to them.

OpenBSD is the only OS build up from the ground with security in mind.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: casse_couille
AzuMao 25th Jan 2010
Actually, there are others.
0 Votes
+ -
Because..
AzuMao 15th Jan 2010
..if he added that, it would mean MS was the one
who screwed up big time, not Google?
0 Votes
+ -
"The flaw affects Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, and Internet Explorer 6, Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8 on supported editions of Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7 , and Windows Server 2008 R2 are affected."
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
See mitigation factors
Earthling2 Updated - 15th Jan 2010
Microsoft spokesman said they've seen exploit *used* on IE6 only and my question was, based on this statement, why Google allowed the least secure combination of OS and browser to access sensitive data.

It also may mean that for the exploit to be effective, it must be used with XP+IE6, because on other systems, even if the malicious code run, it could not get access to the data they wanted.

Yes, the flaw affects IE8 on all systems. However there are important mitigation factors:
- users in Win7 do not run (should not run) under an admin account
- Win7 (and Vista) run IE in protected mode that restricts access to user files and registry settings.
0 Votes
+ -
and like most people they are not shelling out hard earned cash on win7 just because M$ says so.

People and companies who invested on hardware that came with XP have the right to use for as long as they see fit. M$ is failing on them.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
I would be sorry
Earthling2 Updated - 15th Jan 2010
You said: People and companies who invested on hardware that came with XP have the right to use for as long as they see fit.

I would be sorry for Google if they still saw XP+IE6 as "fit" to access company's sensitive data.

A company to which users trust with their sensitive data has an obligation to spend as much many as necessary to protect users' data.
those same flaws exit in win7 too so I can't see what difference it makes running XP or win7.

Just wait enough and you'll see the win7 version of the exploit popping everywhere.

They couldn't see any benefit in moving from XP to 7 and I, as most people, can't see it either.
0 Votes
+ -
@Mentalist
dvm 15th Jan 2010
"They couldn't see any benefit in moving from XP
to 7 and I, as most people, can't see it either"

Are you sure there is no security benefit in
moving to Windows 7 / Vista? Maybe you have not
read the MS advisory yet,

"Protected Mode in Internet Explorer on Windows
Vista and later Windows operating systems limits
the impact of the vulnerability."

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/adviso
ry/979352.mspx
I can't see what difference it makes running XP or win7.

If you can't see how running with full administrator privileges is different than running with restricted privileges then you just explained most of your previous posts: you know nothing about computers.
0 Votes
+ -
and it is that they trust IE on XP more then they do firefox on Linux.

Facts are facts, correct?
0 Votes
+ -
I even used to set up machines for friends, configured their accounts to run with restricted privileges and instructed them to use their nachines in a secure manner.

I've been doing that until July 2008 when I just said enough of windows.
0 Votes
+ -
@The Mentalist Nobody in Google reads ZDNet
Earthling2 Updated - 15th Jan 2010
You wrote: >> Problem is they hardly suspected how serious windows flaws are

Are you serious? Nobody in Google must read ZDNet then. That's improbable.

>> besides... those same flaws exit in win7 too so I can't see what difference it makes running XP or win7.

I would recommend reading reading less of ZDNet comments and more of real technical literature. For example this one They couldn't see any benefit in moving from XP to 7 and I, as most people, can't see it either.

This wasn't my point. I think I said that Google should not have allowed access to sensitive data to computers running XP+IE6 access to both: random Internet sites and sensitive data. It is their direct responsibility to evaluate threats and take appropriate measures. The combination of XP+IE6 is the most dangerous one as of now.

Have fun.
0 Votes
+ -
Hmm..
AzuMao 15th Jan 2010
..first the Google haters act like Google didn't
even have HTTPS support until recently just
because it wasn't enabled by default, and now
they go on and on about how Windows might be
less insecure if admin accounts weren't used,
even though the default account you log in with
on Windows 7 is admin.

Can't have it both ways. Make up your minds.

And protected mode doesn't protect anything you
do in the browser. So if you do anything
important through your browser, you aren't
protected.
0 Votes
+ -
Um you missed it
davidhite 18th Jan 2010
Flaw vs. exploit look it up
0 Votes
+ -
Exploit in this context..
AzuMao 18th Jan 2010
..refers to a known vulnerability in a piece of
software that can be used to attack it. Flaw is
much more broad and would also apply to things
such as spelling errors.
0 Votes
+ -
0 Votes
+ -
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
sesli sohbet sesli chat

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix