Microsoft's Urgent Security Update

17 replies
Microsoft's urgent security update: What it means | News - Security - CNET News


Earlier today, Microsoft did something unusual. The company made an exception to its normal security processes and issued an "out-of-band" urgent update.
#microsoft #security #update #urgent
  • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
    Okay, I'm updating my PC (XP) right now.

    If for some reason Microsoft destroys my system with this update (yes, I
    am quite petrified it will) how can I revert back to where I was JUST before
    the update?

    Remember, I am a techno dunce so simple English please.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[196811].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Darth Executor
      Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

      Okay, I'm updating my PC (XP) right now.

      If for some reason Microsoft destroys my system with this update (yes, I
      am quite petrified it will) how can I revert back to where I was JUST before
      the update?

      Remember, I am a techno dunce so simple English please.
      start -> all programs -> accessories -> system tools -> restore

      create restore point, install. if computer craps out, just go to the same program and restore to the settings you just saved.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[196825].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Just go to the urgent out of band link which will show you the bulletin Microsoft Security Bulletin MS08-067 - Critical: Vulnerability in Server Service Could Allow Remote Code Execution (958644)

    Then choose which version of Windows you have and download the patch.

    It will create a restore point when it is doing the process.

    So - I just did it to my desktop and it was simple and nothing blew up. It is just clicking links and nothing technical.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[196823].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John M Kane
    Thanks, just updated my Wynndoozle just fine other than for the sparks flying out the back and setting off the sprinklers in my condo.Hope the guy downstairs doesn't mind his drywall ceiling no longer being dry.
    It's NOT supposed to do THAT is it?

    Boy I hate when it does that.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[196889].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    You are welcome!

    Is this a coy way to bump this up to the top or what?

    It's important - don't shine it.

    Now that the word is out the hacker-demons will jump on it - don't be a sitting duck!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[197791].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Grossman
    Yep, it's a critical update, so unless you explicitly disabled Windows Update, it downloaded it for you today. Both my desktop and laptop, running Vista Ultimate and Vista Home Premium, installed the update and asked me to reboot a few hours ago.

    Good thing to know this is one bug MS found themselves, not something they found someone exploiting or reported by an outside security company.
    Signature
    Improvely: Built to track, test and optimize your marketing.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[197883].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author John Rogers
      Ah, that must be the update that rebooted me in the middle of the night.

      John
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[198441].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
        I'm happy to report that my PC did NOT blow up from the update.

        However, I have a few of Kevin Riley's hamsters running around my living
        room singing "The Chipmunk Christmas Song"

        Can somebody please tell me how I send them back to Kevin.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[198490].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Greg Cooksley
          Hey patrician,

          Thanks for the heads up on this....

          Since yesterday, my wife's PC has been hit by hundreds of repeat
          emails from reputable companies....similar to the email attacks
          a few years ago...

          Obviously, some hackers were very wide awake....

          Regards

          Greg
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[198666].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GrantFreeman
    Maybe NOW would be the perfect time for a bake sale or sing a song..


    Enjoy!

    Grant
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[198688].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Grossman
    Mac OS X and Linux have just as serious security flaws.

    There's no such thing as bug free software once the code reaches a certain complexity. And it's mathematicallly provable there's no way to prove such software is bug-free, as any program that proved another bug-free would first have to solve the uncomputable halting problem.
    Signature
    Improvely: Built to track, test and optimize your marketing.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[198874].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author David Neale
      Truth is, if you talk to the real pros, Mac OS is by FAR the most vulnerable OS of the three.

      CanSecWest Applied Security Conference: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

      PacSec Applied Security Conference: Tokyo, Japan

      There is a very good reason Apple never attends or sponsors.

      Originally Posted by Dan Grossman View Post

      Mac OS X and Linux have just as serious security flaws.

      There's no such thing as bug free software once the code reaches a certain complexity. And it's mathematicallly provable there's no way to prove such software is bug-free, as any program that proved another bug-free would first have to solve the uncomputable halting problem.
      Signature

      David Neale

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[200190].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GrantFreeman
        Originally Posted by David Neale View Post

        Truth is, if you talk to the real pros, Mac OS is by FAR the most vulnerable OS of the three.
        Ok. I'll bite..but first, what's YOUR definition of a 'real pro'?

        The venders who make all those virus, trogan, and spyware software programs..(for ehem..WINDOWS) I don't think you'd like their coffee-spewing responses to your statement.

        They would fry-out their keyboards before they hit the ground laughing.

        Grant
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[201216].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author David Neale
          Hi Grant,

          By "pro" I mean the people who work in the software security industry, the people who spend time looking for vulnerability in software, sometimes even hardware like the computer chip itself.

          And you are right I exaggerated to make a point, the truth is neither Mac or Windows has an inherently less or more secure OS than the other. At the end of the day it will depend on which company takes security more seriously and responds the quickest.

          With respect I believe that is Microsoft at this time. They are far more involved in security events such as CanSec and even invest millions in sponsoring events that actually finds the vulnerabilities.

          For example the Vancouver event in 2007 found a serious exploit in the Mac OS. Without Microsoft sponsoring the event Apple users could have been vulnerable for who knows how long and Apple would have had no clue or worse not taken steps to fix the problem.

          This is hardly a feather in Apples cap for security, rather its' one for Microsoft and other CanSec sponsors and supporters.

          TippingPoint | DVLabs | Apple issues patch for QuickTime flaw

          At both Vancouver events (2007,2008) a "competition" was setup to see what OS would fall first with "hackers in the house". This year Mac fell on day 2, Vista day 3 and Linux.. well that's a long story.

          I think Apple is a great company. Exceptional design, usability and of course marketing. BUT if you actually believe their ads?.... well not sure what can be said about that.

          Perhaps you remember what they had to say about x86 architecture while they were clearing out their G4/5 based units prior to they themselves switching over to x86.

          Regarding the people who write software to catch viruses, trojans, spyware etc. and those that actually write the malicious stuff itself.

          Well I'm sure you know the answer to that. You can write for 85-90% market share or 10-15% market share.


          Originally Posted by GrantFreeman View Post

          Ok. I'll bite..but first, what's YOUR definition of a 'real pro'?

          The venders who make all those virus, trogan, and spyware software programs..(for ehem..WINDOWS) I don't think you'd like their coffee-spewing responses to your statement.

          They would fry-out their keyboards before they hit the ground laughing.

          Grant
          Signature

          David Neale

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[201324].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Microsoft Bug: Patch Now, Patch Fast


    By Stefanie Hoffman, ChannelWeb
    3:11 PM EDT Fri. Oct. 24, 2008

    If there's anything that Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT) is telling its users, it's to patch their systems, and fast.

    After Microsoft released an out-of-band update for a critical Windows vulnerability that allows hackers to execute a malicious Internet worm on users' computers, security experts are strongly recommending that users apply patches immediately.

    Specifically, the remote execution vulnerability allows hackers to write worm code--malicious self-propagating code that doesn't require any user interaction--by crafting a special RPC request. A successful attack would enable the hacker to take complete control of a victim's computer, and ultimately steal sensitive financial information from their victims. In addition, once a user's system is affected, the malicious code has the ability to rapidly self-propagate and infect every other unpatched computer in the network.

    The flaw, which affects almost every Windows operating system, is rated "critical" for many of the earlier versions of Windows, including Windows 2000, XP and Server 2003. However, the bug was given the less severe rating of "important" for Windows Vista and Server 2008.

    Security experts maintain that the exploit code has actively been used in the wild, with exploits stemming from hackers who have already reverse-engineered the patch.

    "The frightening thing to me is just how quickly the bad guys were able to turn out an exploit," said Paul Henry, security and forensic analyst at Lumension Security, Scottsdale, Ariz. "I really think that speaks volumes about the necessity to deploy your patches very quickly, and very widely."

    Henry said that researchers detected malicious code designed to grab user credentials before encrypting them and sending them to a New Jersey-based server. Henry said that the malware has so far affected at least 3,600 users, but said that the number would likely increase significantly over the weekend.

    Meanwhile, an advisory by San Diego-based Websense also alerted users that hackers have unleashed attacks by installing the Trojan Gimmiv. The alert noted that only 25 percent to 36 percent of antivirus vendors could detect the malicious exploit code.

    In a blog posting, Microsoft security researcher Michael Howard contended that that the bug, which stems from a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability, was difficult to detect due to its complexity.

    "I'll be blunt; our fuzz tests did not catch this and they should have. So we are going back to our fuzzing algorithms and libraries to update them accordingly," he wrote. "In my opinion, hand reviewing this code and successfully finding this bug would require a great deal of skill and luck."

    Howard said that in the last year he had noticed that many Windows bugs, like the recently detected Internet worm, fell into the category of "onesey-twosies"--that is, complex derivatives of existing vulnerabilities.
    "First the good news; I think perhaps we have removed a good number of the low-hanging security vulnerabilities from many of our products, especially the newer code," he said. "The bad news is we'll continue to have vulnerabilities because you cannot train a developer to hunt for unique bugs, and creating tools to find such bugs is also hard to do without incurring an incredible volume of false positives."

    Henry added that the severity of the flaw, emphasized by the out-of-band patch, underscores the need for enterprises to consider automated patch management technologies. "The big gotcha is, unless you have automated methodology enterprise wide, you could be caught up in this because you're not going to have enough time to patch your systems."

    Microsoft Bug: Patch Now, Patch Fast - Security - IT Channel News by CRN and VARBusiness
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[200096].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John M Kane
    Hi David,

    Your links just go to conference info.
    I'm interested in reading why Mac is more vulnerable.
    Can you please share any links concerning this discussion?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[200633].message }}

Trending Topics