Skip to comments.Patch Tuesday: Microsoft raises alert for dangerous IE, Windows flaws
Posted on 06/13/2012 9:39:00 PM PDT by OldEarlGray
Summary: Microsoft expects to see exploit code targeting at least one of the vulnerabilities within the next 30 days.
Microsoft today warned that cyber-criminals could soon aim exploits at critical security flaws in Internet Explorer browser and Windows to hijack and take complete control of vulnerable machines.
The warning comes as part of this months Patch Tuesday where Microsoft released 7 bulletins with fixes for at least 26 documented vulnerabilities affecting the Windows ecosystem.
The company is urging users to pay special attention to MS12-037 and MS12-036, which provides cover for remote code execution vulnerabilities that could be used in worm attacks and drive-by downloads without any user interaction.
MS12-037, which affects all supported versions of the IE browser, fixes 13 vulnerabilities that expose users to computer hijack attacks if a user simply surfed to a rigged web site. Microsoft expects to see exploit code targeting at least one of the vulnerabilities within the next 30 days.follow Ryan Naraine on twitter
The company warned that information on one of the browser flaw is already publicly available which means that hackers have already gotten a head start on preparing attacks. [ Exploit code published for RDP worm hole; Does Microsoft have a leak? ]
The second high-priority bulletin is MS12-036, which covers a dangerous flaw in the way Microsoft implements the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) in Windows. Attack vectors for this issue include maliciously crafted websites and e-mail, the company warned.
This is the second major RPD flaw haunting Windows in the space of a few months.
According to Marc Maiffret, CTO at BeyondTrust, the Internet Explorer and RDP issues present the more immediate exploitable threats.
Given the value of Remote Code Execution on RDP there will surely be a lot of folks trying to weaponize that vulnerability. Only time will tell if people are successful with this RDP flaw where they were not with the one in March, Maiffret added.
Windows users and administrators will also want to treat the MS12-038 bulletin with the highest possible priority. From the bulletin:
This security update resolves one privately reported vulnerability in the Microsoft .NET Framework. The vulnerability could allow remote code execution on a client system if a user views a specially crafted webpage using a web browser that can run XAML Browser Applications (XBAPs). Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less impacted than users who operate with administrative user rights. The vulnerability could also be used by Windows .NET Framework applications to bypass Code Access Security (CAS) restrictions.
Microsoft also expects to see exploit code for this vulnerability within the next 30 days.
In addition to the security bulletins, Redmonds security response team is also releasing an automatic updater feature for Windows Vista and Windows 7 untrusted certificates.
The new automatic updater feature provides a mechanism that allows Windows to specifically flag certificates as untrusted.
With this new feature, Windows will check daily for updated information about certificates that are no longer trustworthy. In the past, movement of certificates to the untrusted store required a manual update. This new automatic update mechanism, which relies on a list of untrusted certificates known as a Disallowed Certificate Trust List (CTL), is detailed on the PKI blog. We encourage all customers to install this new feature immediately.
In August, Microsoft is also planning to release a change to how Windows manages certificates that have RSA keys of less than 1024 bits in length. Once this key length update is released, we will treat all of these certificates as invalid, even if they are currently valid and signed by a trusted certificate authority, Microsoft explained.
These changes follow the incredible discovery that attackers with nation-state backing hacked the Windows Update utility to spoof certificates and spread the Flame malware within Windows networks
“All your base classes are belong to us, hahaha” ping.
That means that your next automatic “Windows Update” could come all the way from North Korea.
It means you should be using Firefox.
Wouldn't you notice if your computer was hijacked?
And wouldn't you then just unplug it?
>>it means you should be using firefox.
The compromise of(or the ability to spoof/fake) Microsoft’s signing certificates is much more than just a browser issue.
>>Wouldn’t you notice if your computer was hijacked?
Not if the attacker is operating “low and slow”.
This has been a topic of discussion here at Microsoft’s TechEd all week.
I never do auto updates, I want to see what it is
I haven't allowed anything shorter than 2048 bits to be generated in our shop in a couple of years. It's not hard -- just specify the number when making the key.
How tough is that? WTF?
Say hello to the WU Man in the Middle.
Queue the apple evangelics 1...2...3...
Naw, it’s the EUNUCHS boys we’re expecting!
Some shops have development tools that are more than just a couple of years old.
Dunno how many bits those dlls were signed with, but I’d expect good FR SA folks might want to inventory their legacy software artifacts post haste.
It's cheap and it works. I started using it after I got sick and tired of having to clean up malware. A lot of times, you sit around wondering if you are infected and don't even know it. Are you? anyway, I got sick of it and I won't use a web browser anymore unless it runs in a sandbox. I highly encourage people to investigate and use this. There is a 30 day free trial... just google the program name.
This is no substitute for keeping your PC patched up to date, but it takes all the worry out of using email or web browsers.
You don’t have to use a web browser to be infected with malware.
Also, if you actually looked at the program, you would see that ANY executable program can be ran sandboxed, not just web browsers.
>>This is no substitute for keeping your PC patched up to date
Keeping your PC patched up to date is important but that’s not enough.
How many folks are reading this whilst [needlessly] logged in using a UserID that has Administrative privileges [by default] assigned to it?
Or without a firewall and up to date virus protection?
Or without the most recent OS security patches applied by the Automated Updated Utility, that’s signed by Microsoft... or not?
SQL injection uses neither “Web Browsing” nor “Email”.
If I want a sandbox, I’ll use a VM.
>>I never do auto updates, I want to see what it is
“Microsoft” Update notifies you that security patches need to be applied. What will you do?
I offered the home user a very useful program that can prevent infection of their PC when used properly.
Home users read the news, email and download music. Some, but fewer, use the PC for creating and managing files of various form. for those who meddle with pirated software.. well, they get what they deserve.the use of a sandbox program can prevent malicious software from escaping and altering system files, registry keys or anything else for that matter. When a sandbox is used properly, your PC stays clean. Period. You can launch a virus on PURPOSE in a sandbox and then laugh at it because it cannot do any damage unless you release it manually.
I am currently logged in with an administrator account while reading this... and I have no worries because this browser runs in a sandbox. It cannot call external programs without my interaction. The point is, your everyday user has no interest in a deep understanding of what is happening, they simply don't want to deal with an infection. A sandbox will all but prevent that when used properly. This is good, sound advice for the everyday user.
I've been in this business for over 20 years and this is one of the most useful applications of it's kid that I have ever seen. Nothing else even compares in value and performance. It does what it says and it does it well. Only on one occasion did a MS patch break the program, and they released a fix for that rather quickly on the sandboxie website.
I'm having a hard time understanding why you would baulk at someone recommending a simple and effective solution to preventing machine infections.
What I’m balking at, Wiley, is your laughably pretentious assertion that 100% of cyber attacks exploit either a web browser or an email.
Oh and, were the assemblies in your Sandie Box built with a tool like, say, Microsoft Visual Studio - and signed with a certificate?
Did you read the article between downloading “Music” into your sandboxie?
I’ve got a couple thousand files on my iPod. Never needed a SandBoxie for that. NO SALE.
I agree with and appreciate your point. But..
The time when most all computer users had a minimal level of technical knowledge is long gone. It seems to me a bit like requiring all motorists to be quasi-mechanics in order to be safe drivers.
Something is out-of-whack in this scenario.
It means you should be using Firefox.
I HATE Microsoft Internet Explorer and never use it....ever!
However, we are a UPS shipper and have been so for many, many years. We use the online UPS system only.
A month ago I tried using the UPS World Ship program and quickly found out that their system was based upon all Microsoft programs and SQL databases....including Internet Explorer.
We have switched back to the internet system needless to say.
I did find it conflicted with AVG and a couple of other anti-virus programs. Those programs started incorporating a variant sandboxing capability that messed up Sandboxie. Solution: MS Essentials, it works compatibly with Sandboxie.
I also recently added another program that my bank website recommends. It is Rapport. It basically creates a ‘tunnel’ between your computer and any specified website (banking or other password websites).
I also use an add-on/extension that works with Firefox and IE. The pay versions work with additional browsers. It is Keyscrambler. It encrypts most of what you type into your browser.
I also recently installed DoNotTrack Plus. It blocks many of the tracking cookies various websites put on one’s computer. It works with both Firefox and IE.
Besides "code Red" (10+ years ago), what percentage of virus/trojan/exploits in total have been problematic that were NOT user invoked?
Well, I'll tell ya, ELMER... next to nothing. With very few and isolated exceptions, exploits are EXECUTED by the user either on purpose inadvertently... be it from opening files that are infected or by viewing "specifically crafted" web content. I never said exploits were carried via music files, I told you that's what many home users are doing with their computers and MANY of them acquire said music through unscrupulous means (websites run and built by people of questionable character). Personally, I don't download music. I have no use for it.
I can't give you an exact number, but I can tell you from experience that if home users did nothing more than run their browser in a sandbox and use it properly, nearly all exploits to date would be rendered ineffective.
Personally, I just think you're full of yourself and like to argue. You laugh off a very effective application because theoretically, there is a POTENTIAL that it is not 100% effective or that it could possibly have bugs in the code. That's not very sound thinking and I've got some news for you sparky; ALL code has bugs in it. I've had to fire people in the past with such a mindset and attitude. Now goodbye to you, go nitpick somewhere else.
Have you switched completely away from avg to ms essentials entirely?
After being an avg user for many years, I am considering doing that.
Any issues in the transition?
When I bought a new Win7 laptop and later a Win7 desktop, I went with Essentials, due to a recommendation from
AVG and AVAST! conflicted with Sandboxie on my old XP, so I went with Essentials the last year before the XP died.
Sadly, both AVG and AVAST! grew into bloatware. AVG made the XP so sluggish. AVAST! 6 (IIRC) added its own sandbox that was rather clumsy and interfered with Sandboxie.
In addition to MS Essentials, I frequently do scans with SuperAntiSpyware to clean out tracking elements.
Thanks, I might also make that transition.
AVG started out great and grew to unnessesary size.
My latest beef w/ avg is that it installs a firefox add-on with out asking me if I want to or not;
and the add-on is uninstallable without making fairly extensive registry edits.
Those are both two big no-nos from my perspective as a user.
It means you should be using Firefox.Really?
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey Use-After-Free Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Thunderbird CVE-2012-1947 Heap Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey CVE-2012-1939 Memory Corruption Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Thunderbird CVE-2012-1941 Heap Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey CVE-2012-1937 Memory Corruption Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey CSP's Inline-Script Blocking Feature Security Bypass Weakness
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey '.lnk' Files Information Disclosure Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Thunderbird CVE-2012-1940 Use After Free Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey CVE-2012-1938 Memory Corruption Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/SeaMonkey/Thunderbird NSS Parsing Multiple Denial of Service Vulnerabilities
Multiple Browsers WebGL Implementation Linux NVIDIA Driver 'glBufferData()' Security Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox SeaMonkey and Thunderbird CVE-2012-1943 Local Privilege Escalation Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox SeaMonkey and Thunderbird CVE-2012-1942 Local Privilege Escalation Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey CVE-2012-0477 Cross Site Scripting Vulnerability
Google Chrome prior to 10.0.648.127 Multiple Security Vulnerabilities
OpenType Sanitizer Off By One Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey CVE-2012-0474 Cross Site Scripting Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/SeaMonkey/Thunderbird Site Identity Spoofing Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey CVE-2012-0475 Security Bypass Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/SeaMonkey/Thunderbird CVE-2012-0478 Denial of Service Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey CVE-2012-0467 Memory Corruption Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey IDBKeyRange Use-After-Free Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey CVE-2012-0473 Out of Bounds Memory Corruption Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey CVE-2012-0468 Memory Corruption Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Thunderbird CVE-2012-0470 Heap Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey CVE-2012-0471 Cross Site Scripting Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey 'cairo-dwrite' CVE-2012-0472 Memory Corruption Vulnerability
SSL/TLS Protocol Initialization Vector Implementation Information Disclosure Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/SeaMonkey/Thunderbird CVE-2012-0458 Security Bypass Vulnerability
Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey nsDOMAttribute Use After Free Memory Corruption Vulnerability
I remember when people who used 1024-bit keys were considered hopelessly paranoid. In real life it really wasn't all that long ago. In internet time, it was ages of course. I wouldn't be suprised at all by legacy installations that still had smaller keys. It still takes quite a bit of computational power to crack 768-bit keys. I don't believe even 512-bit keys can be cracked in anything approaching real-time, though they are within easy reach of someone with a bit of spare change, time, and a high-value target. Marking 768-bit keys as completely invalid is a bit excessive IMO. A warning for small keys would be sufficient for most of the few remaining organizations using them to have incentive to update to more secure keys.
I’m getting ready to try Keyscrambler on my Win 7 PC. Any words of wisdom/experience before I install?
How do you determine what is and is not a valid update from the list?
I don’t always apply them.as I have time I check what is being asked to be applied,take my time. but then this is a home computer not a work computer.
OK I have a windows 7 vm, windows 7 on a laptop and windows 7 on a netbook. i used firefox on all of them and don’t read email on them, email is all done on either and OS/2 computer or a linux box. am I save enough?
Evidently you still haven’t read the article.
Tell the class Wiley, how will your freeware sandboxie deal with certificates of trust, that appear to be signed by MicroSoft - whose signing can no longer be trusted?
Oh and - how do we know your freeware “solution” isn’t itself a vector for malware?
The game Wiley, is Trust.
Do we Trust that the folks who compromised the trustability of MS’ certificate are operating under the direction of a calibrated moral compass which directs their behavior in alignment with the purpose for American governance that is specified in our Declaration of Independence — “TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS” — or not?
Do you want to be totally safe for free with minimal skill and little fuss? Boot your Windows PC from a Linux demo CD to browse the web or check your webmail. Yeah, it will be kind of slow. Just don’t mount your hard drive while running Linux. If you must download a file, use a memory stick to save it.
how does anyone determine which update are vaild or not??? I guess I wonder just how invaild updates would get into the microsoft update server in the first place
[OK I have a windows 7 vm, windows 7 on a laptop and windows 7 on a netbook... am I save enough?]
If you/we were, would MS have re-engineered the process between bios-boot and OS load for Windoze 8?
Horses out. Check.
Barndoor closed. Check.
Same Ol’ MS, the geniuses who thought enabling Email with VB Script was a good idea. Check.
>>Something is out-of-whack in this scenario.
You mean like how the McSheeple may not be able to change the pads on their Hundai’s disc brake, or identify a suspicious process in a task list on the PC they use to surf por err “download music” with, but at least they can tell us who’s winning American Idol and Dancing with the Starz in between commercials for Viagra and sleeping pills -— that kind of out-of-whack?
|Serial number||3a ab 11 de e5 2f 1b 19 d0 56|
|Signature hash algorithm||md5|
|Issuer||CN = Microsoft Root Authority,OU = Microsoft Corporation,OU = Copyright (c) 1997 Microsoft Corp.|
|Valid from||Thursday,10 December 2009 11:55:35 AM|
|Valid to||Sunday,23 October 2016 6:00:00 PM|
|Subject||CN = Microsoft Enforced Licensing Intermediate PCA,OU = Copyright (c) 1999 Microsoft Corp.,O = Microsoft Corporation,L = Redmond,S = Washington,C = US|
|Public key||30 82 01 0a 02 82 01 01 00 fa c9 3f 35 cb b4 42 4c 19 a8 98 e2 f4 e6 ca c5 b2 ff e9 29 25 63 9a b7 eb b9 28 2b a7 58 1f 05 df d8 f8 cf 4a f1 92 47 15 c0 b5 e0 42 32 37 82 99 d6 4b 3a 5a d6 7a 25 2a 9b 13 8f 75 75 cb 9e 52 c6 65 ab 6a 0a b5 7f 7f 20 69 a4 59 04 2c b7 b5 eb 7f 2c 0d 82 a8 3b 10 d1 7f a3 4e 39 e0 28 2c 39 f3 78 d4 84 77 36 ba 68 0f e8 5d e5 52 e1 6c e2 78 d6 d7 c6 b9 dc 7b 08 44 ad 7d 72 ee 4a f4 d6 5a a8 59 63 f4 a0 ee f3 28 55 7d 2b 78 68 2e 79 b6 1d e6 af 69 8a 09 ba 39 88 b4 92 65 0d 12 17 09 ea 2a a4 b8 4a 8e 40 f3 74 de a4 74 e5 08 5a 25 cc 80 7a 76 2e ee ff 21 4e b0 65 6c 64 50 5c ad 8f c6 59 9b 07 3e 05 f8 e5 92 cb d9 56 1d 30 0f 72 f0 ac a8 5d 43 41 ff c9 fd 5e fa 81 cc 3b dc f0 fd 56 4c 21 7c 7f 5e ed 73 30 3a 3f f2 e8 93 8b d5 f3 cd 0e 27 14 49 67 94 ce b9 25 02 03 01 00 01|
|Enhance key usage||Code Signing (126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.3)
Key Pack Licenses (184.108.40.206.4.1.3220.127.116.11)
License Server Verification (18.104.22.168.4.1.322.214.171.124)
|Authority identifier||Certificate Issuer: CN=Microsoft Root Authority, OU=Microsoft Corporation, OU=Copyright (c) 1997 Microsoft Corp.| Certificate SerialNumber=00 c1 00 8b 3c 3c 88 11 d1 3e f6 63 ec df 40|
|Subject key identifier||6a 97 e0 c8 9f f4 49 b4 89 24 b3 e3 d1 a8 22 86 aa d4 94 43|
|Key usage||Digital Signature
Off-line CRL Signing
CRL Signing (86)
|Basic constraints||Subject Type=CA
Path Length Constraint=None
|Thumprint||2a 83 e9 02 05 91 a5 5f c6 dd ad 3f b1 02 79 4c 52 b2 4e 70|
What percentage of Stuxnet was installed via neither WebBrowser nor Email?
Does your freeware prevent Sand from getting in the Boxies of folks who play with their funky “musical” thumbdrives whilst doing their chores at the local nuclear facility?
I’ve never needed a VM to download music files. But then, all of the music on my devices was obtained via legitimate methods and sources. Why are your experience and prophylactic requirements so different?
Meanwhile, in USB-enabled, non-mathimaticaly impaired reality land:
Flame can also move the target informationalong with a copy of itselfonto a USB memory stick plugged into an infected machine, wait for an unwitting user to plug that storage device into an Internet-connected PC, infect the networked machine, copy the target data from the USB drive to the networked computer and finally siphon it to a faraway server.
Yeah, that is an accurate description. Internet devices have become like more appliances, but still require a fair level of technical knowledge to operate securely. And the security risk affects others. Or to paraphrase you: a lot of idiots are out there oblivious to risk.
So it's out-of-wack in my opinion. Two obvious possible solutions are to either make them not require the skill level or not allow their use by those without the skill level.
The second I think is impractical and the first still doesn't seem to be happening.
A third option would be to secure them on a different level not involving the user. Government would love to do that, with a high price and low effectiveness. Some have suggested ISPs. Or maybe some type of secure internet neighborhood, the equivalent of a gated community.
I dunno the answer.
Thanks for your reply.
>>Some have suggested ISPs.
Aye, isn’t that the emperor strolling down the internet in his clouded (fancy ISP) underwear?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.