Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Internet Explorer The Internet IT

Another MS Internet Explorer Security Hole 18

Posted by timothy from the ever-onward dept.
chkorn writes "Michal Zalewski detected another security issue in Microsoft's Internet Explorer. With a well formed FRAME or IFRAME tag a Buffer Overflow happens and you can execute bad code on the stack. In his announcement on Bugtraq, he added a proof of concept and explained that all Internet Explorer 6.0 versions are affected, except Windows XP SP2 installations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Another MS Internet Explorer Security Hole More

Another MS Internet Explorer Security Hole

Comments Filter:
  • I guess MS saw that one coming.
    • I assumed you're being sarcastic, but my guess is that it is prevented by the _software_ DEP in SP2. Since I have an athlon 64 (at home), I actually have hardware DEP support which is really cool.

      AKA NX.

      Chris

  • implementation (Score:5, Informative)

    by alatesystems ( 51331 ) <chris AT chrisbenard DOT net> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @10:48AM (#10710048) Homepage Journal
    I tried it on an xp SP1 box and it just freezes it.

    I tried it on Mozilla 1.7.3 and it freezes it for about a minute, and then unfreezes and shows a blank IFRAME.

    If you want to try it w/o extracting and all that stuff, click here [chrisbenard.net].

    Chris
  • ...already patched by Microsoft. Really, I swear half their security problems just come from clueless users not keeping up to date on patches. How hard is it to turn on Windows Update for chrissakes?

    I think this artificially inflates Linux et al.'s security record to some degree, as Linux / other OSs administrators are more likely to be up to date, being generally more technically savvy.

    • Re:Another MS security hole... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by eyepeepackets ( 33477 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:52AM (#10710656)
      "...half their security problems just come from clueless users..."

      Yes, but isn't that one of Microsoft's main selling points with Windows, that users don't need a clue, just run it and MS takes care of the rest, the great Toaster Oven of operating systems?

      "How hard is it to turn on Windows Update..."

      Most of the Windows users I run into who aren't updated are afraid to update because the last time they tried that it hosed their systems. Some few have never heard of Windows Updates.

      "...Linux / other OSs administrators are more likely to be up to date..."

      Well yeah, but some of us are just plain lazy too. *inn*

      Ciao.

    • OK We have a 256kbps DSL link. If we turned on Automatic updates and had every PC downloading an update every time there was one released our net connection would be maxxed out a hell of a lot of the time.

      THAT is why it is unfeasible.

      Actually I'd be interested to hear from other sysadmins who do this successfully. What's the best way to keep a network of about 20 Wintel PCs updated off a 256kbps pipe?

  • not so important these days (Score:4, Informative)

    by swright ( 202401 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:03AM (#10710155) Homepage
    Over 30% of web traffic is from XP SP2 now (UK traffic at least).*

    SP2 is meant to stop this kind of stuff happening. People are installing SP2.

    This is good, and a step forward - in a few weeks it's looking like it'll be over 50%.

    I don't mean to winge, but pre-SP2 security holes don't seem newsworthy to me...

    (* the company I work for runs tracking/surveying code on lots of UK commercial/retail web sites - we're seeing 3-5% per week increase in SP2 traffic, last week it went over 30% of total traffic)
    • About 70% of your users are vulnerable and you don't see it as "newsworthy"? Anyone named Shane Wright who applies for a job with me will now have a much harder time, just from the negative association you have created for me.

      • grr. ok point taken.

        but I don't think it's a reason for more MS-bashing and more IE-bashing for another hole in an old version of a browser. Newer versions are not vulnerable and people are deploying the newer versions at a substantial rate.

        Yes it is [yet another] vulnerability, but it's not another 'all IE users get rooted' one.

        <nitpicking> - the article says IE6 - so presumably not IE 5 and earlier; so the vulnerable portion is 50% rather than 70%. </nitpicking>
        • Ok, I can understand the dislike of the bashing that goes on around here. My biggest concern when people think that SP2 is a cure-all is that many people are on 2000 (or earlier, sadly), and can't get SP2 without making the investment in licensing *and* application testing to move to XP. I have a client that uses a construction management software piece that doesn't work under XP unless you jump through some absurd hoops with file permissions (and then it is still crippled: looking forward to a patch *event
  • SWICH TO FIREFOX OR OPERA OR MOZILLA COME ON ITS NOT THAT HARD

    If you ask me IE is like swiss chese full of holes and leaves a bad taste in your mouth
  • I clicked the ad for Doom 3 that appeared with this article, and spotted this in the readme for the download...

    D. Admin Rights Needed To Load and Play On Windows(r) 2000 or XP

    If you are running Windows(r) 2000 or Windows(r) XP, you must have Administrator rights to properly install and play the game. ... Why should you need Admin/root style access to play a game?, Does DirectX require it?, or is iD doing something retarded?

    One of the biggest security 'Don'ts' is to run applications without access restric

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close