Microsoft to Issue Emergency Patch For File-Sharing Hole 348
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft said late Wednesday that it plans to release a critical security update today to plug a security hole present in all supported versions of Windows. The company hasn't released any details about the patch yet, which is expected to be pushed out at 1 p.m. PT. Normally, Redmond issues security updates on Patch Tuesday, the second Tuesday of each month. The Washington Post's Security Fix blog notes that each of the three times in the past that Microsoft has departed from its patch cycle, it was to fix some really nasty vulnerability that criminals already were exploiting to break into Windows PCs."
Reader filenavigator points out an article which describes the hole as an SMB vulnerability, and says it "allows anyone to access a Windows machine remotely without any user name or password. Any machine that exposes Windows file sharing is vulnerable." Update: 10/23 17:42 GMT by T : Reader AngryDad adds a link to Microsoft's more detailed memo.
This is why... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is why... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is why... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is why... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is slashdot! If he's capable of listening, he would have gotten a girlfriend, and would have a real life instead, but here he is, posting on slashdot, so, obviously he is not capable of listening.
Re:This is why... (Score:4, Funny)
Who are you replying to?
Re:This is why... (Score:5, Funny)
Simple: Call up your ISP and make the correct noises. Real men don't use modems.
Re:This is why... (Score:5, Funny)
Simple: Call up your ISP and make the correct noises. Real men don't use modems.
Whistling in to a phone?! REAL men use butterflies [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can even get DSL if you have a good enough falsetto.
Re:This is why... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah but you only get half-duplex unless you learn circular breathing...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you don't use computers, how did you post on /.?
Maybe he was dictating his response to someone who does have aaaaaaaaa...
Re: (Score:2)
He might be like Don Knuth and have a secretary read all his email and print out the ones to which he should reply, pen his reply, then give it back to the secretary to type and send.
This man, however, takes that a step further, and perhaps has his secretary print out every /. story and comment so that he can choose which to reply to.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, you got the joke wrong. The correct line is:
First, he asks his secretary to print the Internet. Then, the secretary prints a bunch of random crap pages. Then, he types up a response on his Underwood No. 5 and sends it to her through a pneumatic tube. Then, the secretary rekeys the information in and sends a printed copy to him via a pneumatic tube for approval, which he then initials and sends back through the tube. Upon receipt of the initialed printed copy, she initials the electronic copy and cl
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let's hope (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's hope (Score:5, Interesting)
It was probably the shared Samba experience that gave them the idea on how to fix the bug.
I don't understand how the bug works, but I know one has been around. You can find hack tools for script kiddies out there that will exploit this automagically for people. I have even used it in the past to get some files from a computer that no one knew the password to and the key to the server room was broken off in the lock making physical access imposible until a locksmith was available.
Thankfully, the old tech (who broke the lock on his way out after resetting everyone's password) kept all the passwords in scripts that I could recover and use to change passwords to something usable. The owner of the company wanted me to testify in court to the old Techs actions and even offered me a permanent contract, I told him all I wanted was a check, I don't want anything to do with a company that pissed their old tech off that bad after 5 years of service.
Re: (Score:2)
and they modded me +5 funny for 'it's a feature' http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130544&cid=10893558 [slashdot.org] when smbfs (now samba) had a remote execution of attacker supplied code bug.
i am so proved right.
Or maybe ... (Score:5, Funny)
Samba Guy: Hey dude, look, when I open a connection _this way_ I get strange replies. There is nothing similar in the docs
MS Interoperability Officer Sir, the protocol is just to complex. I wouldn't care. How about putting little hears into the password dialog, I don't like the asterisks, anyway.
Samba Guy: Dude, come on, I want to understand how the stuff works...
MS Interoperability Officer: Sir, hmm, must be part a proprietary, essential, internal routine framework. It's in there since ages. The software works, we make billions from it.
Samba Guy: But what does it do? Why do you need it?
MS Interoperability Officer: Don't know. The guy who coded it left the company.
Samba Guy: Can't we just call him?
MS Interoperability Officer: Don't think so. He must be cleaning his Yacht somewhere near Tanzania right now.
Samba Guy: Well dude, then let's see what's gonna happen if I keep going on...
MS Interoperability Officer: Sir, I'm bored. I don't like your black console anyway. It feels so 50ths.
MS Interoperability Officer: Sir, I'm in the position to offer you a free trial for Microsoft Visual Studio 2009 with Ribbon TM included.
Samba Guy: Look dude, I just got root on your machine.
MS Interoperability Officer: Sir, which idiot gave you my password?
Samba Guy: No password, dude. I just opened the connection, look here
Samba Guy show 4 lines of code.
MS Interoperability Officer: Sir, please hold on, I need to call my chief security officer.
MS Interoperability Officer talking on the phone (next door).
Minutes later the door is opened violently. Gates and Balmer enter the scene guarded by five NSA officers.
Gates: Sir, I'm sorry, you found one of the many backdoors we built into all versions of Microsoft Windows TM released after 1999. I suppose you will perfectly understand that all algorithms concerning that matter is our intellectual property which is protected by American Law.
NSA Officer (in monotone voice): Sir, I'll now use this Neutralizer TM device to erase your memories of the last twenty-four hours. You've never been in this building and you never knew about the federal data acquisition program.
A bright flash of light gets emitted from the little device.
Samba Guy: Shit, my eyes. What the fuck is wrong with you guys. That code is so freaking stupid. You can't be serious...
Another NSA Officer (in aggressive voice): Shut up criminal bastard!
First NSA Officer (in same monotone voice): Sir, you might have consumed a critical cumulative dose of THC during adolescence. The resulting altered brain circuity is resistant to portable neutralizer devices. I'm sorry to inform you're temporally arrested under federal law.
Samba Guy: Bull shit, you have no idea what you're talking about. Look I've got a hock running that sends every command I type on the console directly to twitter. Everybody does it, it's lot's of fun. Nothing I do is secret. I believe in sharing of ideas.
Ballmer (in rage): Motherfucking communists
Ballmer, well, throws chairs.
Gates (calling the still governing president of the United States): My president, sir, I'm sorry to inform you, due to certain circumstances, details concerning the federal data acquisition program might just have been leaked to the public.
Samba Guy: Hey dude, the story is already on digg. I think you should issue a patch before it is on slashdot.
Curtain gets drawn, applause.
Off stage voice: Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Please don't forget to visit windowsupdates.microsoft.com
Maybe.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What would it have to do with Media Access Control?
Damn Fossies (Score:3, Funny)
Those damn FOSSies can gain access to SMB shares
Quick, patch it....
More info already posted... (Score:5, Informative)
Useless Windows Update (Score:5, Interesting)
Why hasn't this been caught in the 3,000 previous security issues patched for Windows? It seems like kind of a biggie. In that list you linked to (thank you) it's present in all service packs for XP (the only Windows I use).
I don't have any of the affected services enabled so it doesn't affect me, but I think a lot of that stuff is on or can be easily activated by default.
Again, why did it take so long to catch this one? The tinfoil hat backdoor NSA spook theories seem almost believable.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people block port 139 at the firewall, so it shouldn't be an issue.
Re:Useless Windows Update (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
The vulnerability lies with the Windows Server service, and more specifically with Microsoft's implementation of "remote procedure call" (RPC),
a communications technology deeply embedded in the Windows operating system that allows a program to execute another process on a remote system.
From the looks of it, simply blocking SMB won't do the trick.
Remember Blaster? That was also a RPC trick.
Killing the RPC service might work, but you'd be surprised at how Windows reacts to that.
(hint: shutdown -a is
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: Set the service to restart.
(One of ol' workarounds back in the blaster days)
Re:Useless Windows Update (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you mean, "most people"? Most people don't even run firewalls for gods sake! God knows nobody I know would be if I hadn't battered it into their useless skulls that they were to never come crying to me if their computer got wrecked due to their stupidity. (I may have worded it more politely. In most cases anyway.)
Re:Useless Windows Update (Score:5, Informative)
Explanation of how the exploit slipped through [msdn.com]
Mod parent up! Great "bug hunt" article (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod this AC up, the link is an interesting read.
I'm no coder, I didn't understand most of what the article says, but I got the gist of it:
In my opinion, hand reviewing this code and successfully finding this bug would require a great deal of skill and luck.
Our present toolset does not catch this bug.
First the good news; I think perhaps we have removed a good number of the low-hanging security vulnerabilities from many of our products, especially the newer code. The bad news is, we'll continue to have vulnerabilities because you cannot train a developer to hunt for unique bugs, and creating tools to find such bugs is also hard to do without incurring an incredible volume of false positives.
I'll be blunt; our fuzz tests did not catch this and they should have. So we are going back to our fuzzing algorithms and libraries to update them accordingly.
My opinion is Microsoft should have been taking the money they were getting from charging for tech support and put it into more testing and reviewing code.
I love how at the end of the article he turns it into an ad for Windows Vista.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As you appear to need severe help; here; but next time read the KB article, it tells you alternative locations to download from, including the Update Catalog Site [microsoft.com] which even uses a shopping basket metaphor. Errr. If you're using IE.
Windows 2000 SP4: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/de...=E22EB3AE-1295-4FE2-9775-6F43C5C2AED3 [microsoft.com]
Windows XP SP2: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/de...=0D5F9B6E-9265-44B9-A [microsoft.com]
Re:Critical vs Important (Score:5, Informative)
No, if you RTFA article, on newer versions the overflow will still work, but require authentication, making it Important. On older versions the exploit can work with no authentication making it Critical. Microsoft has always used this labeling convention for patches.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Additionally, Vista and Server 2008 will only restart the service twice after it crashes, so an attacker only gets two tries (failed attempts result in a crash). Earlier versions have no limit on how often they restart the service, so you can ha
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I find it amusing that we geeks can be so anal retentive about redundancy, spelling and grammar, then invent words like "boxen" and "borked".
Re:Critical vs Important (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
FREEOWW!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
allows anyone to access a Windows machine remotely without any user name or password. Any machine that exposes Windows file sharing is vulnerable
Yet this comment [slashdot.org] in the "Can You Trust Anti-virus Rankings?" thread, where I noted that a dual boot with internet for linux and with networking disabled in Windows was better than AV was modded down. Of course, a lot of MSCEs and Microsoft employees come to slashdot, and I'm sure a few get mod points once in a while. No matter, my karma's fine.
And yes, kiddies, you
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:FREEOWW!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
At my office we have a few Windows computers just for testing. Those dedicated machines, connected to the internet and with anti-virus, have had a fair amount of issues (suspicious background processes, excessive network usage, etc.). I test with Windows running inside of Parallels, typically only "networking" to localhost, and my copy with no anti-virus has had no problems at all.
So I completely agree with you... even if your post has already been modded flamebait.
The public doesn't know that (Score:2)
windows file sharing has to my knowledge absolutely nothing to do with any P2P program.
True, which is why I tagged the article !p2p, but the public doesn't know that. The news media, owned by the proprietary entertainment industry, have associated "file sharing" with programs such as LimeWire, eMule, and BitTorrent.
Re: (Score:2)
there was an old one, back in 2000-ish that had a web interface, and downloads were basically just copying from other open windows shares. cant remember what the same of it was though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Would those people even read about this vulnerability to begin with?
Re:FREEOWW!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they're not astroturfers. Maybe you're just annoying.
Pretty serious (Score:5, Informative)
Access Vector: Network exploitable
Access Complexity: Low
Authentication: Not required to exploit
Impact Type:Provides administrator access, Allows complete confidentiality, integrity, and availability violation; Allows unauthorized disclosure of information; Allows disruption of service
In other words: any idiot on your network can gain admin access to any attached Windows-based system with file-sharing enabled. I'm really glad that they're releasing an emergency patch for this, because that's a pretty fucking crazy description of an exploit, especially since it affects all versions of their last 10 years of operating systems.
Re:Pretty serious (Score:5, Informative)
That's not the scary part. The scary part is that this can be made into a worm which uses a service which is installed by default on almost every windows system, and does not require user interaction to exploit. It's the perfect worm-bait. It's like a von neumann machine near the galactic core.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it is rather more like the Zotob vuln than the Blaster vuln. It is a crit on earlier systems, but requires authenticated privledges on Vista and 2K8 server due to the implementation of the integrity level defenses in Vista and 2K8. That said, the potential for damage with this vulnerability is high and there were reports of attacks in the wild. Thus, Microsoft released out of the standard release cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Does this mean . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Does this mean . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps if you're going to do that you might want to dust off your typing skills, as well...
135 (Score:4, Insightful)
Has been windows' stink hole for the last 10 years. Lets hope that most people have learned they need to cover it up.
When is enough, enough? (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft has had something like this occur regularly enough that I found myself already skipping to the next story without even reading the complete heading.
I still cannot understand why major corporations run Windows of any version in enterprise server farms. They've had so many warning signs, so many high security breaches, so many alarms, and they're still very "ho-hum" about it.
If you read the post slowly and actually acknowledge what it says, it's saying that ever since the incarnation of Windows eli
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When is enough, enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has had something like this occur regularly enough that I found myself already skipping to the next story without even reading the complete heading.
Not any more they don't. This is the first major exploit for MS in several years that will enable trivial worm creation. The last notable one was Zotob in 2005, which was really comparatively minor - the last really big one was Sasser in 2004. Thus, this is important news.
If you read the post slowly and actually acknowledge what it says, it's saying that ever since the incarnation of Windows elite hackers from Russia (or anywhere else) have been able to steal files on any machine with no problem.
The same thing can be said about OpenSSL, BIND, Apache, Sendmail, Samba, and pretty much every major piece of software.
The underground top hackers have exploits that they guard with top secrecy and keep in their box of tricks when nothing else "known" is working.
That's why people who need to worry about top hackers also need to worry about defense in depth.
I still cannot understand why major corporations run Windows of any version in enterprise server farms.
Because it's non-trivial to completely switch platforms. Windows gained the desktop and office software marketshare and whether you think that MS did bad things to get there is irrelevant. Computers are simply a tool to most businesses. If the vast majority of the business software you need as a tool runs on one platform, you use that platform. And you develop your specific tools, generally for that platform. Thus, to support the desktop systems, you get the servers that support them.
And while I don't use them, the integration of the server, database, and programming environment that Microsoft provides is an incredibly good value proposition for some companies. Other than perhaps IBM, no one else can offer that level of coordination for development and server tools.
Microsoft never feels any repercussions of any of these incredible security holes. They don't even loose business over it!
Microsoft has invested heavily in improving their security. Vista is a far more secure piece of software than XP was. And MS has lost business over it - that's part of why Linux and OS X have been able to penetrate the professional and home computer worlds.
I am not a Microsoft fan but your statements don't really add anything to the dialog. Mindless MS bashing does no good.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not any more they don't. This is the first major exploit that I know about for MS in several years that will enable trivial worm creation.
There, fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is the first major exploit for MS in several years that will enable trivial worm creation.
I believe the second definition [reference.com] is the relevant one. If an exploit is trivial - any moderately skilled script kiddy can create a worm and it's been added to metasploit, it is by definition known.
Slashdot, I think we've uncovered a mole (Score:2)
Mindless MS bashing does no good.
HERETIC! IMPOSTOR!
Please turn in your slashdot ID card at the door!
Re: (Score:2)
Enough will be enough when there are viable alternatives for ALL of the functionality that Windows provides. ALL might be a bit of a stretch but not too much of one. The OSS world continues chugging along but if you look closely they are spending a lot of time recreating the wheel, or improving the wheel in ways that don't change the fact that it is still a wheel... a wheel that has been spinning for a while on the Microsoft platform. You can whine about how Microsoft sucks all day long but the harsh rea
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, there's really no clear measuring stick proving these vulnerabilities would be circumvented by switching to another OS.
Microsoft OS's (especially on the desktop) are in such wide use compared to anything else, there are bound to be more people discovering and reporting flaws than in the alternatives.
I'm definitely not a "Microsoft apologist", as anyone who knows me very well can attest. But I also think much can be said for running an OS that receives very regular security patches and fixes,
Re:Security administration? (Score:4, Informative)
do a search for LDAP.
Here's a comparison [daasi.de] of some options:
IBM SecureWay Directory,
Messaging Direct M-Vault,
Microsoft Active Directory,
Netscape Directory Server,
Novell eDirectory,
OpenLDAP.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you asking if there is something like LDAP of which AD is composed of that runs on Linux boxes?
Re:Security administration? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Security administration? (Score:5, Interesting)
it really aggravates me when people say that AD=LDAP. LDAP is the protocol used to access AD, and then beyond that there is the actual Active Directory system, which is way fucking more than just an LDAP server.
I agree. LDAP is a protocol; AD is an LDAP-capable directory. A very weak, vendor-locked, OS-version-specific, poorly performing directory that in many ways compensates for corresponding weaknesses in the Windows OS, so that together AD and Windows add up to a reasonably usable system, almost as capable as a standards-compliant system.
If that sounds like a troll or flamebait it's certainly not meant to be. It's just an honest appraisal - I've worked with directories since the late 80s, and AD is not a particularly good example of a directory since it is so specialized for dealing with MS-windows problems that other platforms don't necessarily have (they have completely other problems, of course).
I have around 600 systems running from OpenLDAP these days. Most of these are windows desktops that think they are talking to AD, but I've also got HP-UX, Solaris, 3 flavors of linux, a single mac, and we used to have AIX too. All running from a single, massively replicated OpenLDAP directory that requires far less maintenance and hardware than AD does.
So yes, you're quite right. AD is much more than an LDAP server. It's an enterprise directory, and may someday evolve into a good one... it's still a young product and has a lot of catching up to do before it can compete with eDirectory.
Is file sharing even open across most networks? (Score:2)
It's been years since I've tried, but doesn't SMB get dropped by some / all of the major residential carriers at this point? I know AT&T was dropping port 139 last time I tried leaving a machine wide open and exposed.
It's a nasty vulnerability and all, I'm just wondering if this could go all blaster / sasser.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a bad one (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow! (Score:2)
And you Winders users - please DON'T forget to REBOOT after you apply this security patch (with no doubt extra luggage attached)!
I can see 5% of the Internet blinking on/off/on/off..... {6 hours}.... on again tonight.
swiss cheese (Score:2)
Windows, it is.
Known about this for years (Score:3, Funny)
My friends and I have known about this hole since high school. Every version of Windows with SMB has underlying, invisible, "root" accounts which cannot be removed without a great deal of diligence. These accounts have no password and give full access to the SMB share. I'm shocked that it has taken Microsoft this long to address the issue.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Buffer underrun permitting arbitrary code execution != "invisble root account"
You don't know what you're talking about.
Re:Known about this for years (Score:5, Insightful)
What may I ask does this have to do with a smb buffer overflow which is what this vulnerability is about? You know, like overwriting a fixed size buffer allowing one to perhaps overwrite a return pointer with a jmp esp. This in turn executing malicious code on the stack.
I am sure that such a accomplished HaCkZ0r as yourself already knew this.
Does it run Linux? (Score:2)
Any machine that exposes Windows file sharing is vulnerable.
When will the Ubuntu patch come out?
This is going to be a field day for the RIAA... (Score:4, Funny)
... and their "making available" theory. They could soon be raking in $Trillions in statutory damages from the public.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Samba Interoperability? (Score:3, Funny)
Why patch? Looks like they went a long way to achieve this [slashdot.org] already!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I agree!
Every time that a new software bug or vulnerability is uncovered, I feel better and better about my choice to stick with an abacus instead of using these computer things.
Yes, it would be convenient to have it in my home or office, but you never know when some giant glaring exploit is going to appear and leave you open to pwnage due to some software company drinking a cold frosty can of fail.
Days like this justify my paranoia.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I agree!
Every time that a new software bug or vulnerability is uncovered, I feel better and better about my choice to stick with an my fingers and toes instead of using these computer things(20 bits ought to be enough for anyone).
Yes, it would be convenient to have it in my home or office, but you never know when some giant glaring exploit is going to appear and leave you open to pwnage due to some software company drinking a cold frosty can of fail.
Days like this justify my paranoia.
Re:Samba Interoperability? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose, by your logic, that Debian should ship with ssh turned off as well, because it had a hole. Sure, it would be convenient to have on your network, but you never know when the OSS community has been drinking from the cold frosty watercooler of fail. Sounds dumb when it's put that way, doesn't it?
As for the "90% of users wouldn't need it anyway": [citation needed]. Even my parents and friends without a clue often need to use file sharing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a bit ugly, not very consistent, almost completely undocumented, but it's very secure by design. Please don't take my word for it. Read this [umich.edu] and then look at the source code.
Now have you looked at the Windows SMB server source code? I rest my case.
Re:Samba Interoperability? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder how you can claim that ugly, inconsistent, undocumented code is "secure by design" versus code you can't see. You're asserting that it must be bad because you don't see it and that openssh must be good because you can see it, a logical fallacy (especially considering your comment that it's ugly, not consistent, or documented...how can one vet something like that?).
As for looking at the SMB server source code... not in my area of Windows (I'm in desktop graphics technology), but I suppose I could look at the diff for the patch. One thing I do know is that, by and large, code is a bit ugly, consistent, and documented well here, though.
The comment regarding ssh (a service I consider a necessity on any Linux box) with Debian was because there was a huge problem ( http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/13/1533212 [slashdot.org] ) introduced into Debian's ssh stream. Secure by design or not, the scheme was broken because of a human mistake. Those kinds of mistakes can happen in OSS or closed source, and I don't think treating one as specially exempt from the problem is an honest view of the world.
Re:Samba Interoperability? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having spent a large amount of time looking into (the lowest layer of) OpenSSH, I can say it is very secure. Ugly, inconsistent, and uncommented together do not imply that the code is bad - that's your logical fallacy. (Besides, ugly and inconsistent are subjective.)
That does not change the fact that anyone (even me!) can look at OpenSSH, find problems in it, and fix it. Microsoft's code is secret, may or may not have glaring bugs in it, and nobody else can fix a problem even if it's known.
The link you posted is a testament to this. The problem was found and fixed extremely quickly. I can't trust Microsoft with the same response, and nobody else should trust them either.
Human error can happen to every code. But the open source ones we can fix.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Debian does ship with ssh turned off. By the way, it ships with no ssh server even installed.
Ssh is a dangerous piece of software, that will can make your machine quite vunerable if you don't know it is running and don't protect it accordingly (good passwords or only key autentication).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html [nizkor.org]
I request you don't make special pleading for Linux when not providing sources or even anecdotal evidence. People using a certain OS don't automatically get a free pass as being "more knowledgeable" - especially considering the advocacy of Linux users trying to turn their friends on to the product. The fact you call out the corporate environment shows that there's a huge market that needs/uses file sharing (and the associated network services: pr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
In Sony Russia, CD-ROM burns you!
Re:Samba Interoperability? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us "muppets" are happy to block 139 and its cousins at the firewall and be done with it. It's a LAN service. Assuming your network is secure from the outside, you can have your cake and eat it to.
If in your paranoia you somehow neglected to secure your WLAN, you *do* need to worry about this.
Either way, shutting off useful parts of the OS because you're afraid of an exploit is more cargo cult thinking than paranoid thinking. If you can't tell at any given time who's on your LAN, you need to get that under control. No OS is immune to the workings of a bad administrator.
I see your later post is an example of the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Plenty of people with a clue use windows file sharing, because they know what's going in in their network and at what layer(s) their security needs to be applied. People who have a clue avoid the "I automatically do X because Y is automatically bad" approach.
I happen to be of the opinion that open source software is more secure by virtue of its openness, which is an opinion that not everyone here shares. But that doesn't mean that I refuse to use Windows file sharing because it may or may not have an exploit. Again, this is not critical if every Tom/Dick/Harry isn't hanging out on your LAN, (or you aren't at a college, hotel or what have you). That said, this *is* ridiculous on MS's part and I have this update deadlined right now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's only the *direct* vector of exploitation from external. There's quite a few indirect There's already a trojan in the wild trying to leverage this issue. And users are users. As in "muppets" may not be to far off. I work in a very large environment and we are setting a 3 day deadline for test
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not just add a "do you want to enable file sharing" the first time a user tries to use it?
Chances are if you have more than one machine (thus needing file sharing), you have a firewalled router between you and the internet anyways.
The part that pisses me off the most about windows filesharing is that you use the same controls to share files with other users on the same computer as you do to share them with other computers? Why are these the same service at all?!?
I remember in high school, we took a look
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how many people run un-patched, i don't think there is any hurry.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet college, files serve you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like this phrase:
Disable the Server and Computer Browser services
In the section titled: "workarounds".
Yeah, it would be great if they would share that with us.
Re: (Score:2)
idiot
Someone always clicks "allow". (Score:5, Funny)
Because on Vista you get a prompt: "Your computer is being hacked. Cancel or Allow?"