Microsoft probing Windows 7 zero-day hole
Summary
Microsoft said it is looking into a report of a vulnerability in Windows 7 and Server 2008 Release 2 that could be used by an attacker to remotely crash the computer.
Topics
Microsoft said on Wednesday it is looking into a report of a vulnerability in Windows 7 and Server 2008 Release 2 that could be used by an attacker to remotely crash the computer.
The company is investigating claims of a "possible denial-of-service vulnerability in Windows Server Message Block (SMB)," the Microsoft spokesperson said, adding that the company was unaware of any attacks trying to exploit the hole.
The bug triggers an infinite loop on the Server Message Block (SMB) protocol used for sharing files in Windows, researcher Laurent Gaffié wrote in a posting on the Full-Disclosure mailing list and on a blog.
For more, read "Microsoft probing Windows 7 zero-day hole" on CNET News.
Just In
because he probably won't be getting much in the near future.
is there anything worse than being MS security programmer?
poor bastards.
poor bastards.
I seem to remember that Mac put out an OSX update that covered over 50 security fixes. Just think if they had a user base world wide bigger than the PC base in New York. A hackers dream!
Yeah ... this Windows flaw only effects hundred of millions!
The hackers ultimate dream is already here, its Windows.
So explain how the Mac OSX patches makes this major Windows security
flaw more acceptable?
The hackers ultimate dream is already here, its Windows.
So explain how the Mac OSX patches makes this major Windows security
flaw more acceptable?
So how does the Mac update make this MS flaw acceptable?
I saw no such claim.
I saw no such claim.
As usual...
unlike you
Must've been those glasses you supplied him...
lol...
lol...
adding that the company was unaware of any attacks trying to exploit the hole.
So its not a problem yet and Microsoft is taking the steps to ensure it doesn't become a problem in the future. I love this proactive approach to security by Microsoft!
So its not a problem yet and Microsoft is taking the steps to ensure it doesn't become a problem in the future. I love this proactive approach to security by Microsoft!
"So its not a problem yet and Microsoft is taking the steps to ensure it doesn't become a problem in the future."
"Remote SMB Exploit: Crashing Windows 7 and Server 2008"
Demonstration
Our victim targets are:
1. A Windows 7 Professional workstation with latest patches.
2. A Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard Core Edition with latest patches.
^o^
"Remote SMB Exploit: Crashing Windows 7 and Server 2008"
Demonstration
Our victim targets are:
1. A Windows 7 Professional workstation with latest patches.
2. A Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard Core Edition with latest patches.
^o^
?And why would you surf the net from a production server anyway!?
To download patches on Tuesday!
^o^
Posted by n0neXn0ne
Really, that's your response? you're mistaken. there is no need to go to any sites to get the latest ms updates, security or otherwise.
the Windows Update (inside Control Panel) requires no such web browsing for updates.
To download patches on Tuesday!
^o^
Posted by n0neXn0ne
Really, that's your response? you're mistaken. there is no need to go to any sites to get the latest ms updates, security or otherwise.
the Windows Update (inside Control Panel) requires no such web browsing for updates.
They are reacting to a risk that was brought to their attention.
If you hired a house keeper that left your front door open when leaving, you would say its no problem?
I am not taking a shot at MS as this is bound to happen with any OS. I'm taking a shot at you for not holding MS to the same standard you would hold the other OSes.
It is too soon to say it is or is not a problem until they discover whether the claim is real or not. If the vulnerability is real, then it is a real problem that will need a fix. If it can be done prior to any incidence, congrats to MS for fixing a PROBLEM prior to it being exploited.
If you hired a house keeper that left your front door open when leaving, you would say its no problem?
I am not taking a shot at MS as this is bound to happen with any OS. I'm taking a shot at you for not holding MS to the same standard you would hold the other OSes.
It is too soon to say it is or is not a problem until they discover whether the claim is real or not. If the vulnerability is real, then it is a real problem that will need a fix. If it can be done prior to any incidence, congrats to MS for fixing a PROBLEM prior to it being exploited.
Thanks in advance for letting me know how a "bad guy" can make it past my NAT router, past my firewall, and then crash my machine through a service that is off by default.
You've gotten past the NAT router. Now you just need to make it past the default firewall and into a service that is off by default. Surely you didn't reply without reading my whole post, right?
YOu don't need to jump through hoops at a public WIFI.
You are trying to make yourself the subject. You keep your Win7 boxes behind a firewall and never use an Airport or Hotel's wifi and YOU should be safe. Okay?
Security through obscurity works for some but not all. That's why some folks use Linux for the fact alone.
^o^
You are trying to make yourself the subject. You keep your Win7 boxes behind a firewall and never use an Airport or Hotel's wifi and YOU should be safe. Okay?
Security through obscurity works for some but not all. That's why some folks use Linux for the fact alone.
^o^
You are trying to make yourself the subject. You keep your Win7 boxes behind a firewall and never use an Airport or Hotel's wifi and YOU should be safe. Okay?
The default is that file sharing is off. The default firewall profile is Public so that even if you turned on file sharing and let it through the Home profile for the firewall, it will be blocked by the Public profile for the firewall. Wait, Linux has default Private and Public firewall profiles that are activated based on the network you have just joined, right?
When your Windows 7 netbook connects to a public WiFi spot, it will, by default, use the Public profile firewall which blocks every single port. That isn't me, that is the default.
Thus concludes your Windows lesson of the day. I accept PayPal.
The default is that file sharing is off. The default firewall profile is Public so that even if you turned on file sharing and let it through the Home profile for the firewall, it will be blocked by the Public profile for the firewall. Wait, Linux has default Private and Public firewall profiles that are activated based on the network you have just joined, right?
When your Windows 7 netbook connects to a public WiFi spot, it will, by default, use the Public profile firewall which blocks every single port. That isn't me, that is the default.
Thus concludes your Windows lesson of the day. I accept PayPal.
... for a proof of concept? What's your netbook ip? 
^o^
^o^
So giving you my current public IP wouldn't do you much good.
But if you'll give me your email address and your bank account info (for verification purposes), I'll be more than happy to email you my IP address the next time I'm using public WiFi. Deal?
But if you'll give me your email address and your bank account info (for verification purposes), I'll be more than happy to email you my IP address the next time I'm using public WiFi. Deal?
My IP is: 127.0.0.1
I am awaiting your attack.
I always thought you were kinda loopy.
lol...
I am awaiting your attack.
I always thought you were kinda loopy.
lol...
http://www.appscout.com/2008/11/security_in_windows_7_firewall_1.php
For starters Windows 7 makes it easier to manage your home and public networks, so the firewall doesn't interfere with your home network and stiffens up when you're using public Wi-Fi for instance.
Did you write this comment to that article?
I have always been an Anti-Microsoft voice, but I believe they have it right this time. The security measures that can be implemented within a domain are equal if not superior to free and commercial products.
For starters Windows 7 makes it easier to manage your home and public networks, so the firewall doesn't interfere with your home network and stiffens up when you're using public Wi-Fi for instance.
Did you write this comment to that article?
I have always been an Anti-Microsoft voice, but I believe they have it right this time. The security measures that can be implemented within a domain are equal if not superior to free and commercial products.
When you connect to a public wifi network, the user is prompted to select the location... and if they select public, the server service is unavailable for exploit.
Is this an issue? Yes.
Are ignorant, biased fools trying to twist it instead of helping? Yes.
Sometimes I think that the craziest of the anti-MS group are actually paid by MS to make those who oppose MS look like juvenile idiots.
Sometimes I think the craziest of the pro-MS group are actually paid by Microsoft's competitors to make pro-MS people look like idiots.
Every product has flaws. Every products requires patches. No process or product is perfect.
We spend as much time patching our Linux servers as we do our Windows servers... and both systems are reliable, and our overall security posture is very resilient to attack.
...Now back to your regularly scheduled juvenile "mine is bigger than yours" arguments...
Is this an issue? Yes.
Are ignorant, biased fools trying to twist it instead of helping? Yes.
Sometimes I think that the craziest of the anti-MS group are actually paid by MS to make those who oppose MS look like juvenile idiots.
Sometimes I think the craziest of the pro-MS group are actually paid by Microsoft's competitors to make pro-MS people look like idiots.
Every product has flaws. Every products requires patches. No process or product is perfect.
We spend as much time patching our Linux servers as we do our Windows servers... and both systems are reliable, and our overall security posture is very resilient to attack.
...Now back to your regularly scheduled juvenile "mine is bigger than yours" arguments...
"Are ignorant, biased fools trying to twist it instead of helping? Yes."
Only if someone is ignorant enough to run Starter edition.
Now who is ignorant enough to run Starter Edition? YOU?
"We spend as much time patching our Linux servers as we do our Windows servers... "
Interesting how Linux always comes up for no reason when Windows get zero-dayed..
^o^
Only if someone is ignorant enough to run Starter edition.
Now who is ignorant enough to run Starter Edition? YOU?
"We spend as much time patching our Linux servers as we do our Windows servers... "
Interesting how Linux always comes up for no reason when Windows get zero-dayed..
^o^
All of our desktops are being migrated from XP Pro to Win7 Enterprise... and even our XP systems have always had the server service disabled... we haven't needed it on our desktops or laptops in years. Heck, even some of our servers have it disabled (SQL servers and IIS servers especially).
... that disabled and usb. Eventually you won't have anything else left to disable expect the keyboard and mouse.
^o^
^o^
With no firewall? No?
Oh, then I guess it is fair to say that Linux is totally disabled and soon you won't have anything left to disable except the keyboard and mouse!!
Ironically, my Linux server didn't have a keyboard or a mouse. Or a graphics card.
Oh, then I guess it is fair to say that Linux is totally disabled and soon you won't have anything left to disable except the keyboard and mouse!!
Ironically, my Linux server didn't have a keyboard or a mouse. Or a graphics card.
Write a bug report or turn it off, it's not needed.
^o^
^o^
My Linux server worked perfectly well.
I was laughing at your suggestion that only the keyboard and mouse could be disabled next because, ironically enough, I did disable the keyboard and mouse on my Linux server. It was actually a compliment to Linux.
I was laughing at your suggestion that only the keyboard and mouse could be disabled next because, ironically enough, I did disable the keyboard and mouse on my Linux server. It was actually a compliment to Linux.
...you don't have a Linux server, so there's your first lie for this thread.
Next.
Next.
This will happen on the client machine when it is directed to connect to a rogue remote "file server".
Good explanation here:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/182093/protect_your_pcs_from_windows_7s_zeroday_exploit.html
Demo here:
http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2009/11/how-to-crash-windows-7-and-server-2008/
Good explanation here:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/182093/protect_your_pcs_from_windows_7s_zeroday_exploit.html
Demo here:
http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2009/11/how-to-crash-windows-7-and-server-2008/
At a computer security conference a few years ago and one speaker
stated that Windows security was like "waterproofing a screen door one
hole at a time". He classified the occupation of 'Windows Security Tech'
as the ultimate in job security because the major weakness is deeply
rooted in the OS.
stated that Windows security was like "waterproofing a screen door one
hole at a time". He classified the occupation of 'Windows Security Tech'
as the ultimate in job security because the major weakness is deeply
rooted in the OS.
So what is so inherently insecure about Windows that's better on *NIX?
These same types of problems exist on *NIX.
These same types of problems exist on *NIX.
"So what is so inherently insecure about Windows that's better on *NIX?"
1. I'm sure he/his answered that question during the lecture.
2. Why compare Windows security to *NIX? Is *NIX the security standard in which Windows is judged by? OR is it the other way around?
^o^
1. I'm sure he/his answered that question during the lecture.
2. Why compare Windows security to *NIX? Is *NIX the security standard in which Windows is judged by? OR is it the other way around?
^o^
XP Was 6 years old at the time, how many security updates will Mac OS X have after 6 years considering they released *50 updates* YESTERDAY? Oh, I forgot, apple cheats, they stop supporting their old OS after 3 years or so...
Second, Windows is compared to unix security, because unix is what most of the anti-MS Crew drools over, and also because it's the only other real alternative to Windows unless you want to dig up OSes with like 500 users total.
Second, Windows is compared to unix security, because unix is what most of the anti-MS Crew drools over, and also because it's the only other real alternative to Windows unless you want to dig up OSes with like 500 users total.
XP Was 6 years old at the time, how many security updates will Mac OS X have after 6 years considering they released *50 updates* YESTERDAY? Oh, I forgot, apple cheats, they stop supporting their old OS after 3 years or so...
Really? Gee wasn't OSX 10.4 Tiger released in 2004? They're still supporting it, ya know.
No I guess ya don't.
Second, Windows is compared to unix security, because unix is what most of the anti-MS Crew drools over, and also because it's the only other real alternative to Windows unless you want to dig up OSes with like 500 users total.
Wow, that is impressive logic!
Really? Gee wasn't OSX 10.4 Tiger released in 2004? They're still supporting it, ya know.
No I guess ya don't.
Second, Windows is compared to unix security, because unix is what most of the anti-MS Crew drools over, and also because it's the only other real alternative to Windows unless you want to dig up OSes with like 500 users total.
Wow, that is impressive logic!
Really? Gee wasn't OSX 10.4 Tiger released in 2004? They're still supporting it, ya know.
where he said
OS after 3 years or so...
(meaning it?s a general principle not an infallible fact)
Or does that not show up on a Mac?
where he said
OS after 3 years or so...
(meaning it?s a general principle not an infallible fact)
Or does that not show up on a Mac?
C'mon, you can do better than that. We're hitting 6 years with Tiger now. That's hardly an "or so".
lol...
lol...
Tiger was released (public) 4/29/2005 not '04.
Apple says was "supported" until November 2007. As of November 2009, no more security updates will include Tiger. The last Security Update "2009-006" did not include Tiger.
My math says 4 years and done if you include updates after they were officially no longer supported, not 6 years and counting... 4 is pretty close to 3 in the math books I read.
Just my opinion, I'm not taking sides, just saw the exaggeration and had to comment.
Apple says was "supported" until November 2007. As of November 2009, no more security updates will include Tiger. The last Security Update "2009-006" did not include Tiger.
My math says 4 years and done if you include updates after they were officially no longer supported, not 6 years and counting... 4 is pretty close to 3 in the math books I read.
Just my opinion, I'm not taking sides, just saw the exaggeration and had to comment.
New news to me since it appears my source was updated yesterday.
Oh well... I stand corrected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSX_10.4#cite_note-4
Oh well... I stand corrected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSX_10.4#cite_note-4
Always had security built in this design not added on as an afterthought,
like Windows. Windows 7 though is way better in this regard than XP.
There are, after all, a few things Microsofties have learned since they
came out with XP.
like Windows. Windows 7 though is way better in this regard than XP.
There are, after all, a few things Microsofties have learned since they
came out with XP.
Wow, a lot of security updates in 2007 for a 7 year old OS at the time. Dumb video.
Read all of the previous post. Lots of flame, not a lot of substance.
My only issue is that this possible hole exists in the SMB, a very mature, if not to say ancient technology.
This hole should have been found during code analysis. Any process that can cause an infinite loop should have been flagged during the debug process. If not then, then definately SRT (Systems Reliability Testing) or UAT (User Acceptance Testing) phases even before the product went public beta.
I'm afraid that once again a coding provider (MS) failed to use the simple expedient of using a network sniffer and a packet injector to throw every possible packet configuration at this service port.
Peace
My only issue is that this possible hole exists in the SMB, a very mature, if not to say ancient technology.
This hole should have been found during code analysis. Any process that can cause an infinite loop should have been flagged during the debug process. If not then, then definately SRT (Systems Reliability Testing) or UAT (User Acceptance Testing) phases even before the product went public beta.
I'm afraid that once again a coding provider (MS) failed to use the simple expedient of using a network sniffer and a packet injector to throw every possible packet configuration at this service port.
Peace
ZDNet has persisted in using this pseudo-term for years with no explanation.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
