Windows IT Pro is the leading independent community for IT professionals deploying Microsoft Windows server and client applications and technologies.
  
  
  Advanced Search 


February 02, 2005

Microsoft Disputes Claim of Flaw in XP SP2

RSS
Subscribe to Windows IT Pro | See More Security Articles Here | Reprints | Or get the Monthly Online Pass—only $5.95 a month!

Late last week, a Russian security company called Positive Technologies claimed that it had discovered two minor "mistakes" in Microsoft's implementation of a security feature in Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) that could allow hackers to sidestep the feature. The announcement was widely reported at the time as a major security flaw in XP SP2. However, Microsoft this week says that there is no vulnerability because the method described by Positive Technologies cannot be used to let a hacker run malicious code on a user's system.

"Customers are not at risk from the situation," a Microsoft statement reads. "There is no attack that utilizes this [method]." Furthermore, Microsoft says that the security feature in question, called Data Execution Protection (DEP), was designed only to prevent errant code from overwriting memory, preventing a common type of flaw called a buffer overrun. Even if a hacker were able to somehow bypass DEP, the company says, that wouldn't be enough to compromise the system.

Positive Technologies first reported the flaw to Microsoft in late December 2004, but decided to go public with the information after the software company refused to categorize it as a vulnerability. That doesn't mean that Microsoft won't fix the flaw, however. Microsoft representatives say the company will modify DEP and other SP2 features over time as needed, and will examine ways to seal off the bypass methods discovered by Positive.

After Microsoft denounced Positive's claims, Positive CTO Yury Maksimov acknowledged that the DEP vulnerability wasn't enough to open up users to an attack, but noted his frustration with Microsoft's inability to deal with the issue. "Such a vulnerability cannot cause a new worm or virus (to appear)," he wrote in an email to CNET. "But it is much better to know about the problem, than not."

End of Article



Reader Comments
hahaha he's a microsoft basher. why doesn't he just admit it.

Anonymous User February 02, 2005 (Article Rating: )


There is no vulnerability.

The issue reported is that the heap management code does not perform a sanity check on pointers in memory blocks marked free, which live on a lookaside list, before handing those blocks out to an application. If the attacker has managed to overwrite a particular pointer in a free memory block, they could potentially coerce a future write to happen at a particular location once the corrupted block has been allocated.

The attacker has to exploit an existing heap overrun defect to overwrite a following block. This block must be marked free and be on a lookaside list. After the heap code returns the bad pointer, the attacker must supply malicious data for the program to execute. The program must then use the buffer as a table of function pointers, or as a pointer to such a table, in order to jump to the attacker's code.

If hardware DEP was available and enabled for this process, it would kick in at this point.

The chances of success depends on the application. If the application uses the heap in a particular way, it might be vulnerable to the issue, IF it already contains a vulnerability. This will only ever allow an exploit; it is not, in itself, a vulnerability. SP2 is still less likely to allow a successful exploit than previous versions of Windows.

At most it is a design defect or an oversight. Microsoft could implement a fix but I don't expect them to do so: the risk of modifying a fundamental part of the system far outweighs the limited additional protection that might be gained.

Mike Dimmick
http://mikedimmick.blogspot.com/

Anonymous User February 02, 2005


Great explanation Mike. And, adding an extra sanity check would have a likely-noticable negative performance impact on applications that allocate and free memory frequently.

Anonymous User February 02, 2005


Using Microsoft software, period, is a security problem. It doesn't matter what version or what patches you have, there will always be some hole waiting to be exploited.

Anonymous User February 03, 2005


I think you meant to say "Using software, period, is a security issue.

Apple releases quarterly updates to their OS that contain numerous security fixes every time. Linux distros update continuously and there is an average of about one security fix per week.

Simple user behaviors can keep you secure no matter what OS/Software you are running. Assuming that only Windows is insecure and anything but Windows means security (in other words, hiding your head in the sand) is exactly NOT the way to remain secure on Mac, Linux or any other OS.

Anonymous User February 03, 2005


"Using Microsoft software, period, is a security problem. It doesn't matter what version or what patches you have, there will always be some hole waiting to be exploited. "

Translated: I don't understand all the big words Mike used, so I will just criticize Microsoft.

Anonymous User February 03, 2005


The errata list for the RedHat system is longer than my arm. People who don't know any better assume 'few viruses written against to date' translates into 'secure'. It does not. Linux wouldn't fair as well as Windows in the heat of a coordinated onslaught.

You can run Windows relatively securely if you turn on patching and use a bit of sense. Linux, on the other hand, is unproven. The future of Linux code is more of the same buffer-overrun C, the future of Windows code is managed code which precludes the buffer overrrun altogether and is much more secure.

msgstephen February 04, 2005 (Article Rating: )


In related news, Paul Thurrott is NOT BIAS at all.
[wink wink]

Anonymous User February 07, 2005 (Article Rating: )


In related news, Paul Thurrot is just honest - some people do not like that - tough.

msgstephen February 07, 2005 (Article Rating: )


You must be a registered user or online subscriber to comment on this article. Please log on before posting a comment. Are you a new visitor? Register now




Top Viewed ArticlesView all articles
Confirmed: Battery Life Issues Not Windows 7's Fault

Microsoft on Monday issued a lengthy statement about the recent Windows 7 battery controversy, echoing my assessment from earlier in the day, but backing it up with hard, cold evidence. ...

Battery Life Issues Almost Certainly Not Windows 7's Fault

While Microsoft is still investigating a notebook battery life issue that was supposedly caused by Windows 7, some interesting trends have emerged. ...

Microsoft Warns of Windows Version Expirations

Microsoft warned that this year will see three out-of-date Windows versions slip into retirement. ...


Security Whitepapers Reducing the Costs and Risks of Branch Office Data Protection

Solving Desktop Management Challenges in Healthcare

Solving Desktop Management Challenges in Education

Related Events The Increasing Threat of Financially Motivated Data Theft

Introduction to Identity Lifecycle Manager "2"

SQL Server Security: How to Secure, Monitor & Audit Your Databases

Check out our list of Free Email Newsletters!

Security eBooks Spam Fighting and Email Security for the 21st Century

Understanding and Leveraging Code Signing Technologies

A Guide to Windows Certification and Public Keys

Related Security Resources Introducing Left-Brain.com, the online IT bookstore
Looking for books, CDs, toolkits, eBooks? Prime your mind at Left-Brain.com

Discover Windows IT Pro eLearning Series!
Clear & detailed technical information and helpful how-to's, all in our trademark no-nonsense format


Windows IT Pro Home Register FAQ for Windows WinInfo News
Europe Edition About Us Contact Us/Customer Service Media Kit Affiliates / Licensing  
SQL Server Magazine Office & SharePoint Pro DevProConnections IT Job Hound
Left-Brain.com Technology Resource Directory asp.netPRO ITTV Windows SuperSite 
 
 Windows IT Pro is a Division of Penton Media Inc.
 © 2010 Penton Media, Inc. Terms of Use | Privacy Statement