Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Won't Offer Patch Before Worm Strikes?

Posted by Zonk on Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:35 AM
from the i-object? dept.
Microsoft Security Worms
techmuse writes "According to an article in Information Week, Microsoft is aware that the 'Kama Sutra/Blackworm/MyWife' worm will hit on Friday, overwriting office documents, but will not release a patch until its regular monthly patch release on February 14th. Unless, that is, you subscribe to one of Microsoft's pay security services, in which case your machine will have the worm removed in advance." From the article: "The blog offered no explanation why the tool wouldn't be updated earlier, nor did Microsoft immediately respond to questions. Each month, Microsoft pushes a revised tool to Windows users who have Automatic Update enabled for Windows Update or Microsoft Update. The Redmond, Wash.-based company has released the Malicious Software Removal Tool off-schedule once before, in August 2005, shortly after the Zotob worm began striking Windows 2000 systems."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived.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.

Microsoft Won't Offer Patch Before Worm Strikes? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • All should not be lost... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DaHat (247651) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:38AM (#14616631) Homepage
    So Microsoft wont help out the unwashed masses with an early patch... what about the anti-virus publishers? Can they detect and remove the worm?

    • Re:All should not be lost... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:56AM (#14616857)
      Just FYI...
      Microsoft is not distributing the patch out of cycle because it is not a vulnerability, it is a mass mailing worm. It has been categorized as low risk. The "unwashed masses" can get the removal tool from

      http://www.microsoft.com/security/encyclopedia/det ails.aspx?name=Win32%2FMywife [microsoft.com]

      • Re:All should not be lost... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ShamusYoung (528944) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @12:51PM (#14617456) Homepage
        How hard is it to not run software mailed to you by a stranger? If I mailed you a syringe labeled "everlasting life", would you jam it in your arm and shoot it? No? Did I mention it's FREE and that you are our LUCKY WINNAR? Cuz you are.

        What we really need is for MS to release a patch to repair the stupid and irresponsible users out there. Why haven't they fixed this obvious security loophole?

        The problem with these viruses is that they do not kill the victims. If they did, then at least we could look forward to the point when Darwinisim fixed the problem for us. :)

        • How hard is it to not run software mailed to you by a stranger?

          Not hard.

          How hard is it to not run software mailed to you from a (forged) sender you do know?

          Apparantly much harder.

          • Re:All should not be lost... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by LurkerXXX (667952) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @01:28PM (#14617877)
            It shouldn't be, but apparently it is. People keep coming to me after they've trashed their systems. I ask way they opened an unknown attachment and they always say the same thing "But it was from my co-worker/friend/family member X. They wouldn't send me anything bad!". That's after I've told them literally dozens of times that modern viruses spoof the name of the sender and that person X's machine may be infected, or someone who has both person X and them in their address book may be infected. Don't ever open any attachment unless you know what it is. If your not sure what it is it only takes 2 seconds to hit the reply button and ask "What's this".... It never sinks in. Even after the "I love you" virus, etc. They just can't be educated.

            And no, I don't think that moving to *nix is the answer either. I've had users follow instructions included with an email virus to type in a password required to unzip the payload, then run it. Those users will certainly be willing to type in "rm *" or whatever instructions come along with a virus. Their user files, the only thing of value on the machine, are toast either way. These are the same folks that will never back up their data either, so they really are toast.

            • Even people who should know better make mistakes (Score:5, Interesting)

              by kalirion (728907) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @02:26PM (#14618595)
              I remember receiving a "security patch" from the Microsoft Security Center on my college email account. I almost executed it too, before thinking "why in the hell would microsoft be sending security patches over email???" Later I found out that several professors in the university's Computer Science department fell for it....

        • Re:All should not be lost... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @01:47PM (#14618136) Homepage
          How hard is it to not run software mailed to you by a stranger? If I mailed you a syringe labeled "everlasting life", would you jam it in your arm and shoot it? No? Did I mention it's FREE and that you are our LUCKY WINNAR? Cuz you are.

          What we really need is for MS to release a patch to repair the stupid and irresponsible users out there. Why haven't they fixed this obvious security loophole?

          Well, experience has told us that not all of these Microsoft vulnerabilities have anything to do with 'stupid and irresponsible' users.

          Thanks to Microsoft, there's so many viruses that don't even require user intervention; some products will simply decide that it should both hide the extension and automatically run it for you.

          I don't know the specifics of this worm, but times have come a long way from where you'd have to click on at attachment, select save, and then run. Nowadays the infection can happen automatically, instantly, and completely unobserved -- all because Microsoft figures it should automatically execute anything that looks executable (or that you're not really mature enough to see the extension of this file, so it looks like a JPG, or just simply because it's fun.)

          I think it's far more irresponsible of Microsoft to effectively say "Well, between now and when we release the patch, you could lose all of your data. But if you've paid extra, you can have the patch now."

          Time was when someone would send you an e-mail warning you that should shouldn't even click on an attachment since it could be a virus, you would politely tell them it was impossible. Nowadays, that's simply not true any more.

          I think blaming the users 100% for this is absurd.
          • How the hell is pointing out that it's not always "stupid and irresponsible users" a friggin' troll?

            • Re:TROLL???? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @03:55PM (#14619621)
              If you haven't noticed, Slashdot has been invaded in recent years by a pro-Microsoft contingent who thinks Windows is great, outrage over its ridiculous security flaws is overblown, and who mod down those who point out how much time and money Windows has forced people to waste. For Christ's sake, you have to diaper Windows today with a hodge-podge of anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall, registry cleaner, defragmenter, etc. just to keep it running smoothly for longer than six months, and even then, Windows naturally slows down after a year and requires a complete reinstall to regain its speed. Simply amazing.

              At least CBS News pointed out in their report on the worm that Mac users were unaffected.
          • Setting up your own server is not the same as using a public store and forward delivery system. In fact the two are quite distinct. Email and ftp both have their places. If I am going to widely distribute something, or if I am sending out large files (>10MB) I use ftp, otherwise I use email. Hell I have my email client open all the time, I almost never have an ftp client open.

          • Re:Simple fix (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Dare nMc (468959) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @01:34PM (#14617965)
            > You want to give someone a file, send them a link to your ftp server.
            get with the times, should be a tracking link to your torrent.
            ftp works for the 2% of people who have their own non nat, static ip address with a ftp server that hasn't been blasted off the face of the internet. I am even in the small percent that do have a static ip, but the people I send files to don't have VPN access to any of my servers, and having ftp openly accesable to the net would just be stupid (and which windows users have sftp client installed? ok I do have port 80 access to a webserver that could serve the file, but thats probably not average or easier than attach either.)

              • Re:Simple fix (Score:5, Insightful)

                by diersing (679767) <gdiersing.gmail@com> on Wednesday February 01 2006, @02:54PM (#14618934)
                Haven't you ever heard of iptables and port knocking for friends with dynamic IPs? --reject-with tcp-reset is your friend

                Clearly a solution for the unwashed masses. We can't seem to get people from double clicking every email attachment, I'm sure their ready to setup, configure and tweak their own IPTables.

      • Re:All should not be lost... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BkBen7 (926853) <bkben3@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 01 2006, @12:17PM (#14617091) Homepage
        Or maybe they should sue their brain for non-support after being told hundreds upon hundreds of times.

        Attachments from unknown people? Delete!

        Scan Attachments before clicking!

        Ask sender if they meant to send attachment!



        Microsoft has no responsibility to cover a users idiocy.


        Ok, bring the bad karma.

  • Prior art for this MS business plan. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:38AM (#14616637)
    Nice Windows machine you've got there. Wouldn't want anything to, um, happen to it. You need insurance, and we happen to sell insurance. Capiche?

    • Re:Prior art for this MS business plan. (Score:5, Informative)

      by HankB (721727) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:48AM (#14616753)
      The last line in TFA is
      Both the company's free online security service, Windows Live Safety, and its in-beta OneCare Live software, however, will disinfect compromised computers, Microsoft said.


      This includes the URLS http://beta.windowsonecare.com/ [windowsonecare.com] and http://safety.live.com/site/en-US/default.htm [live.com]

      I'm guessing that's free as in beer. I like to bash Microsoft at least as much as the next guy, but I think they've provided a free solution for this one.

      -hank
      • That's nice, but it still doesn't address the primary issue: If MS has a patch that they know works, they should release it. Period. There is no reason to have to pay to avoid the hassle of going to their sites to get the worm cleaned (and letting it do it's initial damage in the process).
        • (1) it is a trojan, not a worm. If you have 100 stupid users then you have bigger problems.

          (2) there is a standalone patch available from Microsoft. Download it, put it on a network share or push it using SMS.

  • New Microsoft Chief of Software Security (Score:3, Funny)

    by ackthpt (218170) * on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:38AM (#14616639) Homepage Journal

    What, me worry? [wikimedia.org]
  • Unless, that is, you subscribe to one of Microsoft's pay security services, in which case your machine will have the worm removed in advance.

    This is what is commonly referred to as "extortion". Pay them now or something bad might happen. You wouldn't want something bad to happen would you?

    • Re:A simple word for it... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CXI (46706) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:47AM (#14616734) Homepage
      Wrong. The entire content of this story is that Microsoft isn't releasing a malicious software removal tool until the 14th, as usual. So, go use any virus checker on the planet instead, including Microsoft's, to solve the problem now.
    • I would not say it is extortion, but a new business strategy. Big businesses which can afford to pay for updates now will. All others will get them on the monthly plan. It is setting up a division of resources, depending on how much you are willing to pay. This could be very lucrative for Microsoft.
    • Not quite.

      Extortion [wikipedia.org] is when someone says "pay or do this, or something bad could happen later", and the person saying that is the one that will make the bad happen later.

      In this case, it's Microsoft saying "We'll take care of this problem sooner for a little money", but someone else will make the bad thing happen regardless. Microsoft is just offering clean up/prevention, not "assured safety". Your lack of acceptance will not make the problem better or worse; it will stay exactly the same.

      An analogy might be that there's a gang of kids going around defacing houses, and Company XYZ says "We'll stick a security guard in front of your house for a little extra money, so you'll be ready when those kids show up, and won't have to wait for the police to show up when you do get hit." XYZ is offering an enhanced service; if you turn them down, your house will likely get defaced, but not because of anything XYZ did.

      (If you can show that XYZ/Micrsoft is in cohorts with the kids/virus writer, then that is indeed extortion, but at face it's mislabeling.)
  • Friday is also the 30th anniversary of the "Homebrew Letter" that Gates wrote complaining about copying basic on the altair. And also my 30th birthday.

  • Try to be a little fair (Score:5, Informative)

    by bushidocoder (550265) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:42AM (#14616683) Homepage
    Unless, that is, you subscribe to one of Microsoft's pay security services, in which case your machine will have the worm removed in advance.

    Or, if you had read the very article you're posting, "Both the company's free online security service, Windows Live Safety, and its in-beta OneCare Live software, however, will disinfect compromised computers, Microsoft said."

    • will disinfect compromised computers, Microsoft said."

      After the damage is done to your files?

    • Re:Try to be a little fair (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nologin (256407) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @12:07PM (#14616982) Homepage
      Unfortunately, the effort here by Microsoft here won't save the users most likely affected by the virus. Those users who don't know how to protect themselves adequately probably rely on Windows Update to keep their computer safe. How many of them will be informed in time to use Live Safety, or for that matter, how many of them know that it exists?

      At least I know how to protect my computers. So the impact to me would be none regardless of what Microsoft does. It is those users that don't even know the definition of malware that are most at risk, and will be the least likely to use Microsoft's proposed remedy.

      • Re:Try to be a little fair (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ocbwilg (259828) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @01:43PM (#14618086)
        Unfortunately, the effort here by Microsoft here won't save the users most likely affected by the virus. Those users who don't know how to protect themselves adequately probably rely on Windows Update to keep their computer safe. How many of them will be informed in time to use Live Safety, or for that matter, how many of them know that it exists?

        Dude, what are you smoking? Those users who don't know how to protect themselves adequately probably don't even know what Windows Update is, let alone rely on it to keep their PC safe.

  • Incorrect Story (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CXI (46706) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:44AM (#14616699) Homepage
    Come on people. This story is completely wrong. Microsoft is not withholding anything. They simple do not have a Malicioius Software Removal Tool currently ready because the system is built around deploying it on the 14th. The reference to Microsoft's pay services are the same as if you used Symantec or any other virus scanner out that which already detects the worm. It's not extortion, it's not even a story.

  • Happy Valentine's Day! (Score:5, Funny)

    by digitaldc (879047) * on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:44AM (#14616708)
    Microsoft is aware that the 'Kama Sutra/Blackworm/MyWife' worm will hit on Friday, overwriting office documents, but will not release a patch until its regular monthly patch release on February 14th.

    How ironic that a patch for the Kama Sutra/MyWife worm will be released on February 14th.
    Happy Valentine's Day - Love, Microsoft.

  • Or if you don't want to pay (Score:3, Informative)

    by Shimdaddy (898354) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:45AM (#14616717) Homepage
    If you can't / don't want to pay, but you still want to be secure, you still have an option. You see, if you read the full article, and go to the knowledgebase post about it, Microsoft says that up-to-date anti-cirus will take care of it. Don't have up to date anti-virus? That's ok too! Just visit the onecare part of safety.live.com, and Microsoft will scan your computer for viruses (including this one) in addition to all the other crap that builds up on computers.

    Now, speaking as someone who has tried the online virus scanner, I have to say it works really quite well. It's just the tool to clean your computer of viruses, spyware, malware, unused/unneeded files -- and even knocks out those MICRO$OFT haters on /.!

    • Re:Or if you don't want to pay (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:59AM (#14616896)
      Your argument reminds me of something a friend said. We all have seen those "hardest American football hits ever" sports reels, right? Now they look nice and pretty, and they knock the ball carrier down, right? Now here's the problem: in almost every case, the guy had already caught the ball and picked up yards.

      Do you see what I'm getting at? All those viruses and spywares and worms on your computer have already done damage when you get them removed. The goal is to keep them from getting on your computer or at least keep them from running. And MS is deliberately charging for that feature. Their online virus-removal thing is nice, and can mitigate some damage, but the horse already left the barn.

  • Haha... (Score:2, Informative)

    by gru3hunt3r (782984)
    Yet another reason i'm glad our IT department decided to standardize on open office. Doesn't appear opendoc files are targeted.

  • The constant hate... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Last_Available_Usern (756093) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:47AM (#14616743)
    I know this is probably redundant, but is it possible for people to make a story submission relating to Microsoft without drawing imaginary horns and a "666" on their logo every time? I will grant that Micrsoft should probably release the patch to everyone right now for secuirty reasons, but I'm sure there are ample folks who use Oracle, and they won't give you *any* patches at *any* time, or allow you to peruse any of their Metalink site, without first paying.
  • ... Why would they hold back on the patch? If they have it available and ready to push out, why not just do it? I don't understand, its as if this is their way of raising their right hand and flipping everyone off.

  • "I would like to return this car" (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:51AM (#14616799)
    "Why do you want to return it?"

    "Because there's a car bomb on it set to go off on Friday."

    "Sorry, that's not our car bomb."

    "No, but when I bought the car, there was a modular plug next to the engine with PLACE CAR BOMB HERE written on it!"

    "Sorry, not our problem. You knew this car was prone to car bombs when you bought it, and your purchase agreement specifically spells out that we're not responsible for car bomb damage."

    "Can you at least remove the car bomb?"

    "Sorry, but your contract specifically states that we're under no obligation to remove any car bombs attached to your car. Now, if you would be interested in purchasing our special Car Bomb Insurance..."

    - Crow T. Trollbot

      • Re:More like this (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ivan256 (17499) * on Wednesday February 01 2006, @01:09PM (#14617641)
        Your analogy is more accurate than the parent, but still faulty. The problem is with this part:

        Our car is as car bomb proof as we were able to make it

        I'm fairly certain that Microsoft engineers were fully capable of making Windows more secure. They have smart people working there. Reality is that they made it as secure as they were willing to make it. It's like cars in the '60s. Safety didn't sell if it was an inconvienience. Adding more security to Windows would have meant less ease of use and less backwards compatability. Both are important to maintain the customer base and prevent people from considering alternatives. Were they right or wrong? That depends on how you look at it, but you certainly can't say they implemented security to the limits of their ability.
  • The story and summary are confused; This is not a worm, and what is discussed is not a patch for it. Blackworm is a regular old "run this fine file I have emailed you!"-trojan, so as long as people don't randomly run email attachments they are safe. What is not scheduled for release until the regular patch-cycle is the "removal tool" which is included in every patch-cycle. It just removes malicious software which has already sneaked onto the computer, in this case through user carelessness.

    Some may argue

    • Some may argue that Microsoft should release a removal tool before the patch cycle anyway, and there is some credibility to the idea, though the logical extreme is that Microsoft should include an anti-virus program for free with Windows.

      And some may argue that more time needs to be spent at Redmond in thwarting these things outright, rather than having to patch them or update the malicious software removal tool every cycle. It's not like this Trojan is old news.

  • You get what you pay for (Score:5, Insightful)

    by analog_line (465182) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @11:52AM (#14616804)
    Check the license agreement for Windows XP. Nothing in there says that Microsoft will ever provide fixes, period. If you don't like their service-after-the-sale, get off the upgrade treadmill and stop buying licenses from them or buy an expanded service agreement from them. They aren't

    Software licenses are agreements that should have the full weight of contract law. There is no other way that the licenses I prefer, like the GPL, BSD, Mozilla, MIT, etc, get any legal weight. If you can't abide by the terms, take a stand, show some guts, and click "Cancel" on the install. Find some software that is licensed under terms you can accept. Don't be a sheep and agree just because it would be too hard, or make you go look for other software if you disagree.

    THIS STUFF IS IMPORTANT.

  • A few more facts to throw water on the fire (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sixpaw (648825) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @12:03PM (#14616940)
    • Despite the eagerness to imply that this is something roaming the net randomly looking for computers to infect, it's pretty much your run-of-the-mill e-mail worm that actively requires opening an executable (.scr) attachment to infect a system. Under normal circumstances (i.e., without the free opportunity to bash Microsoft attached), how many IT pros would say that anyone opening a random attachment e-mailed to them deserved what they got?
    • McAfee rates this one as low-risk [mcafee.com] for both home and corporate users.
    • Symantec gives it a run-of-the-mill threat assessment [symantec.com] (low geographical distribution, easy containment).

    AFAICT this is as run-of-the-mill as virus threats get, and I'm grateful that MS is maintaining a level of software discipline and not jumping all over themselves to instantly respond to every stupid little worm that crosses the net. I'd much rather see meaningful updates once a month than frantic, possibly-buggy scramble fixes three times a week.

  • how about reading TFA? (Score:4, Informative)

    by teslar (706653) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @12:03PM (#14616946)
    from the summary:
    According to an article in Information Week, Microsoft is aware that the 'Kama Sutra/Blackworm/MyWife' worm will hit on Friday, overwriting office documents, but will not release a patch until its regular monthly patch release on February 14th. Unless, that is, you subscribe to one of Microsoft's pay security services,

    from TFA:
    Both the company's free online security service, Windows Live Safety, and its in-beta OneCare Live software, however, will disinfect compromised computers, Microsoft said.

  • Patch timing not the problem... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slackmaster2000 (820067) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @01:17PM (#14617743)
    The problem is the Malicious Software Removal Tool itself. It's a half-assed product that just sort of does "some stuff." I'm not sure who it's intended for. As someone in IT I certainly have never once used it professionally. There's no point because we're already using better tools. As a PC user at home I have never bothered to use it because, again, there are already better (& free) tools out there.

    A program that removes some stuff that Microsoft decides is significant enought to be called "malicious" isn't much of a tool to begin with, and then to factor in that it's only updated once per month makes it even less valuable. Oh, I might also mention that the program only detects an underwhelming 54 "malicious programs?" Wow, gimme summa that.

    There's really no issue with Microsoft not releasing an update for the removal tool. It's expected, standard behavior. It's right there in the documentation, second paragraph. This is not an anti-virus program that updates daily, this is some kind of other tool that exists in an awkward dimension all of its own.

  • Missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SComps (455760) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @01:21PM (#14617791) Homepage
    Microsoft is aware that the 'Kama Sutra/Blackworm/MyWife' worm will hit on Friday, overwriting office documents,


    Realizing this is ./ I fully expect to be laughed at here, but why do these submitters feel a need to place half-truths in their writeups to make MS look worse than it already does? This particular worm affects MANY files by extension, not just office documents. Writeups such as this only attract the anti-ms zealots and lull the uninformed into thinking they're just fine as long as they don't use Office. Even the link referred to in the article stated that it affected many files *including* office documents. Not exclusively office documents.

    *pop!* That was my karma. It was good karma but it's gone now. I've offended the fanboys.

  • Trial/free anti-virus that remove Win32/MyWife (Score:5, Informative)

    by Aryeh Goretsky (129230) on Wednesday February 01 2006, @02:01PM (#14618301) Homepage
    Hello,

    A bit of searching came up with the following free or trial versions of anti-virus programs which are capable of detecting and removing Win32/MyWife [microsoft.com] (née CME [mitre.org]-24 [mitre.org]):

    Alwil [alwil.com] - Avast! 4 Home Edition [avast.com] (free for personal non-commercial use)
    ESET [eset.com] - NOD32 trial version [eset.com] (30-day evaluation)
    Grisoft [grisoft.com] - AVG Free Edition [grisoft.com] (free for personal non-commercial use)
    Kaspersky Lab [kaspersky.com] - Anti-Virus Personal 5.0 [kasperskyusa.com] (30-day evaluation)
    McAfee [mcafee.com] - VirusScan [mcafee.com] (30-day evaluation)
    Microsoft [microsoft.com] - Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool [microsoft.com] (KB890830 [microsoft.com]) (free)
    Panda [pandasoftware.com] - Titanium Antivirus 2006 [pandasoftware.com] (30-day evaluation)
    Sophos [sophos.com] - Anti-Virus [sophos.com] (30-day evaluation)
    Symantec [symantec.com] - W32.Blackmal@mm Removal Tool [symantec.com] (free)
    Trend Micro [trendmicro.com] - PC-cillin Trial Version [digitalriver.com] (30-day evaluation)

    I'm certain other readers will look up and post links to additional vendors, too. Ob-disclaimer: I happen to work for one of the companies listed above, so there.

    Regards,

    Aryeh Goretsky

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.