Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security Internet Explorer Microsoft The Internet Technology

Microsoft Warns of New Video ActiveX Vulnerability 146

ucanlookitup writes "Microsoft has warned of a 'privately reported' vulnerability affecting IE users on XP or Windows Server 2003. The vulnerability allows remote users to execute arbitrary code with the same privileges as the users. The vulnerability is triggered when users visit a web site with malicious code. 'Security experts say criminals have been attacking the vulnerability for nearly a week. Thousands of sites have been hacked to serve up malicious software that exploits the vulnerability.' The advisory can be found at TechNet. Until Microsoft develops a patch, a workaround is available."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Warns of New Video ActiveX Vulnerability

Comments Filter:
  • Isolate! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sopssa ( 1498795 ) * <sopssa@email.com> on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @09:34AM (#28607013) Journal

    Once again the problem here is too tight integration with other part's of the OS. Yeah, IE is the most used browser and as such a major target for exploits, but some separation from other parts of OS wouldn't do any harm. Or atleast make it optional to use such; You won't be automatically affected by Flash or PDF exploits if you choosed not to install those. Just another reason to use alternate browsers like Opera [opera.com] or Firefox [mozilla.com], seeing it only affects IE users.

    That being said, you dont need admin priviledges for some malware to do its job, botnets and such easily run within user priviledges aswell. Funnily, this issue is exactly the same in Linux and Mac OS too, which their users always seem to forget and go about how malware couldn't get the admin rights. They dont need it.

    The fun thing is, there always seem to come exploits for IE and Firefox. Very rarely for Opera. That makes me think they've made some good fundamental decisions on design and programming and know how to secure code from exploits, specially because they have major marketshare (better than IE actually) in CIS countries like Russia and Ukraine [opera.com] and you would be thinking the local hackers would be trying to break it apart and exploit every possible thing on it. Hats off to them, really.

    With these ages, isolating browser from the OS and even virtualizing it in its own environment that's cleaned when browser is closed starts to be a must, and I dont really see why they aren't doing it already. It would save people from so many trouble, and wouldn't affect performance at all.

  • Re:Isolate! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @09:45AM (#28607181)

    Internet Explorer 7.0 and 8.0 already do this in Vista. By default it runs in a double sandbox where even if the current user has admin privileges the process runs as a standard user that is further constrained to only be able to read certain parts of the file system but not write. Anything beyond that requires negotiation via a specific broker process just to attain a level of security equal to that of a standard constrained user.

    These types of vulnerabilities affect all browsers. ActiveX in Internet Explorer in this case is really no different than NSAPI in Firefox or Opera. It is simply an object model for loading native plug-ins into the process. That plug-in runs in-process with the same rights and privileges as the hosting process. If there is a vulnerability in a PDF plug-in on Linux then it can be exploited through Firefox and there is nothing Firefox or Opera can do to prevent it and it would likely affect all browsers equally.

    I agree that the answer appears to be to isolate and constrain. That is what Microsoft has done and Google is following suit. That is why this vulnerability does not affect Vista or Windows Server 2008, or rather an exploit for the vulnerability is neutered by the fact that once it has broken in it cannot do anything malicious.

  • Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by that IT girl ( 864406 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @10:49AM (#28608175) Journal
    Does bring one question to my mind, though. In our office we have been told not to upgrade to IE7, though a few people "accidentally" did anyway. On their machines, even if they use Firefox, the security/Internet settings that IE7 made carry over to Firefox and affect it. One example is a certain java applet we have to access here that wouldn't even work in FF after my coworker upgraded. I had to go in and change settings in IE for it to work in either browser. I didn't upgrade and I'll admit my knowledge is a bit fuzzy in this area, so I haven't really looked into this too much, but... If a vulnerability can use IE to get into the OS, couldn't it do so even if you haven't opened IE yourself?
  • by Otto ( 17870 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @01:30PM (#28610649) Homepage Journal

    And exploit code: http://downloads.securityfocus.com/vulnerabilities/exploits/35558.rb [securityfocus.com]

    Basically, it's exploiting a buffer overflow in the MSVidCtl ActiveX control. It has it load a malformed GIF which causes a buffer overflow somewhere, which then loads in shellcode.

    Not much to it, really. You could make this into a static exploit if you so desired and pop it on any webpage you liked.

Always try to do things in chronological order; it's less confusing that way.

Working...