RE: Microsoft and Security

["Burnes, James" <james.burnes () gwl com>]

Well, this is an predictable, but interesting quote from IDefense...

[IDefense linked the malicious attacks to a group by a different name
called the hangUP team, also from Russia and also believed to be
responsible for the recent string of Korgo worms, Dunham said.

"These are hackers for hire and they commoditize every piece of
information they capture. This was a very complicated and sophisticated
attack," he said.

Security experts were still trying to determine Friday how IIS servers
were compromised and whether applying the latest patches for IIS and
Internet Explorer would protect users from the attacks.

"My gut feeling is (patching) doesn't protect you," Dunham said. "If I
were a home user, I'd consider using another Web browser, like Mozilla,
until a patch comes out," he said.]  (nwfusion - 06/25/2004)

Well, of course.  By why go back to IE unless someone wrote apps that
only run on IE and what's the point of that.  Might as well write them
in VB.

jim burnes
security engineer
great-west, denver
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com [mailto:full-disclosure-
> admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of http-equiv () excite com
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 9:41 AM
> To: bugtraq () securityfocus com
> Cc: NTBugtraq () listserv ntbugtraq com; full-disclosure () lists netsys com
> Subject: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft and Security
>
>
>
> Where is Microsoft now "protecting their customers" as they love
> to bray? Should not someone in authority of this public company
> step forward and explain themselves at this time?
>
> All of sudden panic is being created across the WWW with "IIS
> Exploit Infecting Web Site Visitors With Malware", "Mysterious
> Attack Hits Web Servers", "Researchers warn of infectious Web
> sites" all stemming from all news accounts from an
> unpatched "problem" with Internet Explorer now two weeks old and
> counting, which in fact in reality stems from 10 months ago,
> that being the adodb.stream safe for scripting control with
> write capabilities.
>
> What exactly is being done about this? Nothing. What does
> multiple billions of dollars buy you today. Nothing. However for
> $20 million you can almost fly to the moon.
>
> Someone ought to step forward and explaini what exactly is
> happening at this public company. The great "protector of their
> customers". One might even suggest that their entire "security"
> mandate be re-examined. What exactly do they consider a
> vulnerability? Something that suits them or something that's
> cost effective to fix. So what, a few people lose their
> identities, have a few dollars extracted from their bank
> accounts, have their home pages reset, we'll fix it when it
> suits us as we have to be on budget this quarter. The  Big Boss
> says $40 billion isn't enough this year.
>
> A vulnerability:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/community/columns/securi
> ty/essays/vulnrbl.mspx
>
> "A security vulnerability is a flaw in a product that makes it
> infeasible - even when using the product properly-to prevent an
> attacker from usurping privileges on the user's system,
> regulating its operation, compromising data on it, or assuming
> ungranted trust."
>
> what this gibberish? For the past 10 months the adobd.stream
> object is capable of writing files to the "all important
> customer's" computer. It has real world consequences. It rapes
> their computer. Does it fit into the gibberish custom
> definition. Plain and simple: "A security vulnerability is a
> flaw in a product that makes it infeasible". What kind of
> language is this. Reads like the financial department conjured
> it up.
>
> Disabling scripting won't solve it. Putting sites in one of the
> myriad of "zones' won't solve it. Internet Explorer can
> trivially be fooled into operating in the less than secure so-
> called "intranet zone" and it can be guided there remotely.
>
> What's happening here. Where is the Microsoft representative
> explaining all of this to the shareholders and "customers" they
> so dearly wish to protect.  This is unacceptable.  Someone must
> be held accountable.
>
>
> --
> http://www.malware.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html