ZDNet UK


Skip to Main Content

ZDNet.co.uk - Winner of Best Business Website 2007
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Blogs
  4. Reviews
  5. Prices
  6. Resources
  7. Community
  8. My ZDNet

 

ZDNet UK RSS Feeds


IT Jobs

Security threats Toolkit

New Windows flaw similar to MSBlast bug

Michael Kanellos CNET News.com

Published: 11 Sep 2003 10:57 BST

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly
  • Post Comment

Microsoft identified three vulnerabilities in Windows on Wednesday that could have a similar effect to that of the dreaded MSBlast worm of August.

The flaws, which affect Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP and the 64-bit versions of Windows XP, are the latest in a string of critical weaknesses identified in Windows recently. The company has issued a patch that can be downloaded from its Web site.

The first two flaws are buffer overruns, which allow a hacker to take over a computer by swamping it with data.

The third is a denial-of-service flaw that affects a component known as the remote procedure call (RPC) process. The RPC process facilitates activities such as sharing files and allowing others to use a computer's printer. By sending too much data to the RPC process, an attacker can cause the system to grant full access to its resources. By using the flaws in tandem, a hacker could load unwanted programs onto computers through the buffer overrun flaws and then use the infected computers to launch a denial-of-service attack.

The MSBlast worm, also known as W32/Blaster and W32.Lovsan, exploited a similar vulnerability that allowed a group of unknown hackers to load data on computers worldwide in an attempt to knock out servers that run Microsoft's update services.

"An attacker who successfully exploited either of the buffer overrun vulnerabilities could gain complete control over a remote computer," Microsoft stated in a bulletin released on Wednesday. "This would give the attacker the ability to take any action that they wanted on the system, including changing Web pages, reformatting the hard disk or adding new users to the local administrators group."

The bulletin released Wednesday, MS03-039, supersedes bulletin MS03-026, which in July first warned of the vulnerability MSBlast exploited. The vulnerability revealed on Wednesday is similar in nature and in its potential for damage, but it affects the RPC function differently.

"It is a different vulnerability, but they have the same impact, and they affect the same ports," said Stephen Toulouse, security program manager at Microsoft's Security Response Center. "In terms of impact, it is the same."

Ports are standardised software addresses that allow applications to exchange data. Firewalls routinely prevent illicit access to such services from the Internet by blocking the specific port used by a computer to offer those services.

Tightening security
Microsoft is urging customers to apply the patch immediately. The company is also revisiting its overall security patching policy, Toulouse said. Now, patching is mostly left up to customers, a problem that has helped viruses spread.

Although the flaws were announced Wednesday, researchers at the CERT Coordination Center, a clearinghouse for information on Internet threats, said in August that they had detected the potential for a second denial-of-service flaw with the RPC process.

The actual flaw was first discovered by eEye security, NSFocus and Tenable Network Security.

Mike Cherry, an analyst for research firm Directions on Microsoft, said that although weekly disclosures of new software vulnerabilities may be hard on Microsoft's image, they represent a new attitude about security.

"It would be nice to go a couple of weeks without there being a new security bulletin," he said. "But one of the things they promised with Trustworthy Computing was to do bulletins on a regular basis and deliver better patches, and they've followed through on that... The old way was to try to ignore everything and hope security wouldn't be a problem."

CNET News.com's David Becker contributed to this report.

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly Print with HP

Did you find this article useful?
45 out of 73 people found this useful


Full Talkback thread

2 comments

  1. So whats new? Ismee Japaneese
  2. Until we all learn to block unwanted executable co... Andy Campbell

Company/Topic Alerts

Create a new alert from the list below:






Related Jobs

Systems Administrator/ MCSE/ Server2003/ AD/ Exchange/ London/Retail

Systems Administrator/ MCSE/ Server2003/ AD/ Exchange/ MOM/ WINS/ TCP/IP/ Shift Work/ Patch Management/ Print Server Management. My client is looking ...

Desktop support & Network support - Bristol

I have an exclusive client in Bristol actively looking for a Windows XP, Windows 2003, Exchange 2003 & Citrix support professional. The Citrix ...

Security Consultant - Immediate start

The desired candidate will have the following skillset: * Network Vulnerability Internal & External Testing * Configuration of Cisco switches / ...

Sentry Posts Blog

How many headshots does one chairperso...

We got a strange request last week from the head of PR from Russian security experts Kaspersky. It seems although the company was very happy with the interview we recently carried with... More

Post a comment

Google sponsors open source security p...

Google has announced it is to sponsor oCERT, an open source computer emergency response team. In a blog post on Monday, Google security engineer Will Drewry said that one of the... More

Post a comment

Indian officials accuse China of cyber...

China is actively engaged in mapping India's computer networks, according to the Times of India. China is mounting "almost daily" attacks against Indian Government computer systems,... More

Post a comment

Featured Talkback

On the contrary, if vendors were forced to stand behind their products it should increase innovation. It would force more, and better , testing before hitting the sales floor, resulting in fewer updates and less downtime for the consumer. At present the EULA removes responsibility from the vendor, and moves it to the user, which is a step backward. Make the vendor responsibility for their code.

By: ator1940

Read full story:
RSA: Vendor liability may stifle innovation