Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Patches VML Vulnerability

Posted by kdawson on Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:33 AM
from the not-a-moment-too-soon dept.
Uncle Rummy writes, "Microsoft has quietly released an official patch for the zero-day VML vulnerability. The patch was publicly available yesterday, But Microsoft has just added it to the Security Bulletin Index." Eight days from time of first report to patch is pretty fast for Microsoft, and is almost two weeks ahead of their normal patch schedule. This security flaw was being aggressively exploited out in the wild.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Zero-Day IE Exploit In the Wild 239 comments
Eric Sites writes to tell us that a new zero-day IE exploit has been found in the wild. It looks to be a bug in VML in IE. The Sunbelt blog notes, "This exploit can be mitigated by turning off Javascripting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by jimstapleton (999106) on Wednesday September 27 2006, @11:36AM (#16216067) Journal
    How did it affect DRM such that it encouraged MS to do this?
    • How did it affect DRM such that it encouraged MS to do this?

      Well just guessing but:

      A) These people who write these patches, and the people who work on the DRM and probably not the same.
      B) This probably has alot more code that needed to be changed then the DRM fix.
        • I know he might have been saying that sarcasticly, but there's alot of people on /. who think there is a conspiracy about MS putting the DRM before security patches.
        • The kicker though, there's been zero day exploits that weren't patched before Patch Tuesday anyway. I can fully understand the desire to test it as thoroughly as possible, so I'm not too concerned about the 8 day delay (given the quagmire of code they have to work with)

          What the surprise here is they DID release it early. This has happened only twice before, once with the Windows Meta File (back at the start of the year, http://www.informationweek.com/windows/showArticle .jhtml?articleID=175802202 [informationweek.com] ), which
  • by kf4lhp (461232) on Wednesday September 27 2006, @11:36AM (#16216069) Homepage
    Now to see how long it takes my vendors to say "OK, you can safely apply this patch."
  • Sometimes, I feel like security researchers are intentionally disclosing their new vulnerability information as close to the "Patch Tuesday" as possible in an attempt to force Microsoft to release an out of cycle patch. This time they were successful.
    • by LurkerXXX (667952) on Wednesday September 27 2006, @12:02PM (#16216483)
      Umm, here's a big clue for you...

      The virus/worm writers are the ones releasing the exploit into the wild the day after patch Tuesday.

      That way they are more likely to have it expand for an entire month before MS patches it and messes up their fun.

      Security researchers generally want things secure. Virus/Worm writers don't.
      • Security researchers generally want things secure.

        Disclosing vulnerabilities at the least convenient time for Microsoft accomplishes this - in the long run - by discouraging Microsoft from continuing their inane scheduling. If every security researcher published straight after Patch Tuesday, Microsoft would have no option but to give it up.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I don't think the patch tuesday was a microsoft idea. The released individually as they finished the review process for years. I think they got feedback from their large corporate customers saying it would be much easier for their admins to only have to certify and install patches in regular batches, rather than haphazardly as each became available. So I think it's microsoft's large customer's inane scheduling idea. Microsoft just accomodated what their largest customers requested. Not that I think it
  • I had no idea what VML was, so I did a little digging and found the following links.

    W3C's introduction to VML: http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-VML [w3.org]

    Microsoft's brief introduction to VML: http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/vml/defa ult.asp [microsoft.com]

    Interestingly, the MS page includes a demo "oval with red background" which doesn't work in my Firefox browser.
    • Of course it didn't work in Firefox. MS is not interested in creating webpages that will work in other people's browsers.
        • Some clarification. (Score:5, Informative)

          by hullabalucination (886901) * on Wednesday September 27 2006, @12:38PM (#16217023) Journal

          VML is a standard from almost a decade ago.

          It isn't a standard, it was a submission to the W3C for consideration, by Microsoft and some of its useful idiots (HP, Macromedia, Autodesk, Visio). Submissions don't automagically get the thumbs up from the W3C. According to Wikipedia, Adobe, Sun and others submitted a proposal for a competing technology called PGML. Best features of the two technologies were then merged and improved upon to produce:

          SVG: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG10/ [w3.org]

          SVG became a W3C recommendation on September 4, 2001. Later versions of Opera, Firefox and some other browsers implement at least limited support for SVG. It's also a standard vector graphics creation/exchange format for many open source graphic apps like Inkscape and Scribus. Adobe Illustrator and CorelDraw also support SVG fairly capably. Guess whose browser pointedly doesn't support SVG?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_Markup_Languag e [wikipedia.org] Check out the code samples. The SVG code is quite a bit more compact than its VML equivalent.

          Folks on SVG-rendering browsers (Firefox 1.5.x, Opera 8 and above) will possibly enjoy this little demonstration: http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml [isthis4real.com]

          * * * * *

          It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
          —Stephen Wright

            • but the implementations should get better, much better (think Flash-like performance and possibilities; it's all in the standard)

              I think Opera is way ahead of the Mozilla folks on the SVG implementation. That being said, I understand Firefox 2.x will implement SVG 1.1 stuff, like scripting. How well will it implement the new features? Pretty poorly at first, I'm sure. My needs are for basic multimedia implementations, like getting SVG to animate and sync with an audio file. Which is why I'm particularly

    • "Interestingly, the MS page includes a demo "oval with red background" which doesn't work in my Firefox browser

      Interesting enough the page layout is displayed correctly if Firefox changes User Agent ID to Internet Explorer 6. Under default Firefox ID it displays as a drap one page layout. Why does Microsoft mangle its own pages if viewed under a non MS browser.

      if ($browserid!=IEXP) { mangle.page(); else display.page(); }

      was: Firefox not vulnerable because VML not supported?
  • by shoolz (752000) on Wednesday September 27 2006, @11:41AM (#16216159) Homepage
    ...the unofficial patch [heise-security.co.uk] that was release by independant security specialits? A bit of a black eye for MS, no?
    • Probably not (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday September 27 2006, @12:04PM (#16216503)
      They release patches for critical, out in the wild, flaws as soon as they get them certified. You have to realise that they can't just release a patch right off, by their own policy and as a matter of practise. They have to go through a rather extensive certification procedure to make sure it won't cause computers to blow up. It's similar to patches you see for other OSes like Solaris. You'll hear of a bug and they'll be a patch out, but not one form Sun. That comes a bit later, after they've had time to test it.

      You might not agree with the policy but that's how it is, and there are reasons for doing it that way. People already whine about patches breaking systems when at present it's an extremely rare occurrence (in all the cases I've encountered, said system was spywared and that was the problem). If they rushed patches out without testing and they ended up breaking things, it could easily get to a state where people refused to patch because they were more scared of the patch than the problem.

      We are dealing with non-technical users here, remember. A patch can't include a page of instructions of things you need to check first, nor can it be assumed that if it causes a problem the user can troubleshoot and fix it. It pretty much has to work straight off, and has to do so on literally tens of millions of permutations of software and hardware configurations.

      Personally I'd like to see a compromise where they'd release an unofficial, untested patch for power users as soon as they could and the full patch later after testing. However the likely problem would be the unofficial patch would get in the wild, people would tout it as the official MS patch, something would go wrong, and they'd get blamed anyhow.
      • / it could easily get to a state where people refused to patch because they were more scared of the patch than the problem.

        that's already the case, even if they HAVE improved in recent years. there's still the stigma associated with patches that seriously broke systems in nt4 and 2k

        the only reason i don't worry about patches breaking my (windows) systems is because they're not critical enough to warrant it just let the auto update do its job. my linux servers, on the other hand, get tested thoroughly before
  • by HaeMaker (221642) on Wednesday September 27 2006, @11:52AM (#16216329) Homepage
    Installing the patch crashes svchost on my system.
  • The Internet Explorer patch was released early because Microsoft was concerned of the critical risk to users. The vulnerability involves the way that the browser handles Vector Markup Language (VML) graphics. Malicious hackers can exploit the flaw by creating a Web page that can download spyware or keyloggers onto a user's system.
    • The Internet Explorer patch was released early because Microsoft was concerned of the critical risk to users.

      I see by your ID (over 1 million, congrats /.!) that you're new here. So we'll let this comment go with just a laugh. Microsoft... caring about... users... hahaha....
    • It's more likley that they found a way to use the exploit to bypass their DRM, which gives it more of a priority...
  • Good for them, doing the right thing here and all.

    It's kind of funny how the security bulleting reads "Vulnerability in Vector Markup Language Could Allow Remote Code Execution". We're not saying that it does, but we think it's possible.

    Gee. Ya think?
      • Of course, even that's still better than "Vulnerability in Vector Markup Language Used For Malicious Remote Code Execution", which is equally true.
  • XP SP2 problems (Score:5, Informative)

    by BenEnglishAtHome (449670) * on Wednesday September 27 2006, @12:11PM (#16216603)
    I work in a large organization that push-deployed the patch asap. The result is that any XP machine sitting at Service Pack 1 level for the OS can no longer be successfully updated to SP2 without first deleting a file (c:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\VGX\vgx.dll on our image). Then we can install SP2, then re-install the 0-day.

    What a pain in the ass. Is everybody seeing the same trouble?
    • Why oh why in the world do you still have machines at SP1?

      What's the name of your organization. I'd like to make sure I don't have any of your stock.
      • You don't have any stock in us [irs.gov].

        Why do we have any left at SP1? I could be flip and say it's because we relied on Tivoli to update them, but I won't go there. Basically, we updated about 100K machines and are hunting down the last few hundred, mostly laptops belonging to people who spend all their time in the field and try to never come into the office where they can be updated. (Among our old-timers, it's a real badge of honor to brag that they haven't been in the office in 6 months.) Internal politics

        • Nice to know that the IRS has the same Tivoli issues that we do at Bank of America :-)

          We *finally* got a GateKeeper system up and running on our VPN for AV and critical patches. Took an act of the CIO to get the traders to agree to this...

          Now please don't audit me :-)
          • Interestingly, we have two software distribution systems here. One is Tivoli. The higherups have spent millions and it's damn well gonna get used, whether it works or not.

            The other is a little program named M2 that runs at startup, checks a list in a specified directory, compares it to a local server, and applies anything available on the server that applies to your type of machine. You don't start work until it finishes. Works like a charm. Solid as a rock. Cost us nothing because it was written by o
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Is everybody seeing the same trouble?

      The only trouble I am seeing is why it has taken you so long to put SP2 on [some of] your machines.
    • Why are you trying to update SP1 to SP2? If it's for new installations, you really should learn about Slipstreaming. It's really easy to do.

      In fact, here is a script that will not only splipstream in SP2, but all critical updates automatically:

      http://smithii.com/?q=node/12 [smithii.com]
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Wednesday September 27 2006, @12:14PM (#16216637) Journal
    MSFT fixes a bug. Then it fixes the patch. Patches the patch. So is that dead bug a good choice as an icon? Please change it to phoenix bird. It is supposed to die and come back alive from its ashes.
  • For some reason this and 3 other "Critical" patches refuse to install on my system. I've been verified genuine and gone through the MS tech support hoops to no avail. The install always fails and gives me a generic error code. Here are the patches I need but cant get no matter what I do, if anyone knows a possible solution I wont complain.

    Security Update for Windows XP (KB917344)
    Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer for Windows XP (KB918899)
    Security Update for Windows XP (KB925486)
  • ...they release their operating systems as quickly as they do their security patches. Eight days from the first report to a working patch? That's working fast!
  • Why is it that every time a patch is announced nowadays, it's announced as "X quietly releases a patch"? What? do they need fanfare or something?
  • I knew it! It's Vulnerable Markup Language!
    • and only if tyou use IE6. If you have IE7 beta installed, you're safe.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        Wow your so cool.. you throw in those nice alternate browser references nice and early on - sure to be modded insightful.


        What's even cooler is that one of the browsers he mentions (Koqueror) is just as much "embedded into the OS" (i.e. uses shared libraries that if removed affect other userland programs) and IE.

        Ten bucks says he still gets modded up for it.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          From what I understand, being embedded into the OS is not a matter of shared libraries in this case. Some of the IE code is actaully running in kernel mode. The Konqueror broswer runs entirely in user mode from what I understand. Konqueror does call external libraries and those external libraries may enter kernel mode for a few well-defined tasks, but nothing on the level of what IE does if what I've read about IE's internals is true.
          • No, IE does not run in kernel mode in any way shape or form, its a common misconception. khtml is a lot more like mshtml.dll than people would like to admit.
            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              "The "integration into the OS" is that Internet Explorer is tied to Explorer, the Windows Shell."

              Which is part of the window manager which according to this image from microsoft.com [microsoft.com] has been run in kernel mode since NT 4.0 (Article ref [microsoft.com]). If that weren't the case, then Explorer could not hang the window manager (which it sometimes does).
            • I enforced normal users for all desktop users. Myself included. Some poorly designed apps like quickbooks still require Power User. Some other poorly developed apps still require admin e.g. UPS Ship.

              I've looked @ the nonadmin site (yours????) before and I don't see the dll security setting you reference (to neuter IE).

              Would you mind spoon feeding me?

              Thanks,

            • Since most Windows users run as administrator, the priviledges are generally unlimited.

              Actually, the Administrator is a highly priveleged account but it doesn't have unlimited access (e.g. cannot get into the SAM part of the registry). The account with the most privileges (and the closest equivalent to root on UNX/Linux) is the NTAuthority/System account. Keep this in mind when checking which account services are running under. Think about e.g. your web server running with more access to the system than e

        • What's even cooler is that one of the browsers he mentions (Koqueror) is just as much "embedded into the OS" (i.e. uses shared libraries that if removed affect other userland programs) and IE.

          I think Microsoft is partly to blame for this misconception - the way they claimed in their anti-trust case that IE was part of the OS wasn't exactly helpful. (However, note that all the libraries that Konqueror uses that if removed affect other parts of KDE are in a completely separate package - kdelibs - and have
      • Your comment was a waste of energy - it was an IE fix - and everyone here.. even the editors know that you don't have that problem unless your running windows.. idiot.

        Wow, ur so kewl 2! You can point out when someone is making an obvious point, but then completely blow it when you refer to running windows as if the OP had commented on it being a Windows-only vulnerability... when the OP only referred to other browsers, not other OSs.

        Flame on, if you like, but having something more useful or amusing to add