<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.thestandard.com." xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>The Industry Standard - Microsoft admits it knew of critical IE bug in early &amp;#039;08 - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.thestandard.com./news/2009/07/09/microsoft-admits-it-knew-critical-ie-bug-early-08</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Microsoft admits it knew of critical IE bug in early &#039;08&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft admits it knew of critical IE bug in early &#039;08</title>
 <link>http://www.thestandard.com./news/2009/07/09/microsoft-admits-it-knew-critical-ie-bug-early-08</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;!--paging_filter--&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Microsoft on Thursday confirmed it has known about a bug behind widespread Internet Explorer (IE) attacks for more than a year, but defended its security process against critics.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Mike Reavey, director of Microsoft&#039;s Security Response Center (MSRC), the company first got word of a critical flaw in an ActiveX control in early spring 2008. The bug can be exploited through &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135210/Hackers_exploit_second_DirectShow_zero_day_using_thousands_of_hijacked_sites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IE6 and IE7&lt;/a&gt; on Windows XP. Two researchers, Ryan Smith and Alex Wheeler, reported the bug to Microsoft when they worked together at IBM&#039;s ISS X-Force in 2007. Smith is now a vulnerability researcher at VeriSign iDefense, while Wheeler manages 3Com&#039;s TippingPoint DVLabs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although both Smith and Wheeler have declined to say when they reported to vulnerability, the bug&#039;s CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) number pointed to an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135259/Microsoft_may_have_known_about_critical_IE_bug_for_months&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;early 2008 reporting date&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 16- to 18-month stretch between early 2008 and now is too long for Microsoft&#039;s customers to go without a patch, said John Pescatore, Gartner&#039;s primary security analyst. &quot;That&#039;s just not an acceptable timeframe,&quot; Pescatore said. &quot;It shouldn&#039;t take a year, not [for] a company the size of Microsoft.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It&#039;s really hard to think of some technical reason why it would take 18 months. That means it must be for other reasons, business reasons or product reasons or priority reasons,&quot; he said. &quot;But this had to have been pretty high-priority.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;We kicked off our investigation as soon as the vulnerability was reported to us,&quot; countered Reavey. &quot;When a vulnerability is reported, we not only look at that, but also investigate other issues around it to provide as much protection as possible.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 16- to 18-month time span, however, is certainly above average, Reavey agreed. &quot;The timeline is not the norm,&quot; he said. &quot;The vast majority of vulnerabilities are patched before there&#039;s ever an attack.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What, then, took so long?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although Reavey declined to get specific today, Smith, one of the researchers who reported the vulnerability, hinted at reasons. &quot;The nature of this flaw is sort of unique,&quot; he said. &quot;The mechanics of this are sort of unique as well. It was those unique qualities that required more time than Microsoft would normally need.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Smith refused to criticize Microsoft for not patching sooner. &quot;All along the way, they&#039;ve told me how far things have progressed,&quot; he said of Microsoft&#039;s security team. &quot;They would ping me every time they reached a milestone on the fix.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even so, he admitted that patching quickly is better than fixing slowly. &quot;As a security researcher, you always want to see a patch the day after you report a bug,&quot; Smith said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In fact, Microsoft has not yet wrapped up work on a fix, Reavey acknowledged. &quot;We&#039;ll release something that will block all known attacks next week,&quot; he said, referring to Tuesday, July 14, when Microsoft rolls out its monthly security updates. But it won&#039;t be a full-fledged patch.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Instead, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135354/Microsoft_promises_to_stymie_hackers_next_week_with_new_patches?taxonomyId=17&amp;amp;pageNumber=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;next week&#039;s updates&lt;/a&gt; will set 45 &quot;kill bits&quot; in the Windows registry, disabling the ActiveX control. On Monday, Microsoft published a free tool that did the same thing, but the tool required someone to sit at each PC, browse to a support site, download the tool and then run it. &quot;That just wasn&#039;t realistic for enterprises,&quot; said Gartner&#039;s Pescatore. &quot;It was &#039;high touch,&#039; and certainly not something that, say, Procter and Gamble could do.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Microsoft did consider issuing the &quot;kill bit&quot; update earlier as a protective measure, both Smith and Reavey said. &quot;They did, but they wanted to deliver the best patch,&quot; said Smith.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reavey gave essentially the same reason why Microsoft didn&#039;t take action earlier. &quot;We always want to give customers a complete solution,&quot; Reavey said, alluding to a patch rather than the automated workaround it will issue next week. &quot;If we had tried to do something earlier, it wouldn&#039;t have been as clean for customers.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He also denied that Microsoft had known that attacks were out and about last month, as others have claimed. IBM&#039;s X-Force, where Smith and Wheeler worked when they discovered the vulnerability, said Monday that attacks had been recorded as early as June 11.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;We were made aware of the attacks the day before we released the advisory,&quot; Reavey said, which would mean the company knew of attacks on July 5, nearly a month after IBM said attacks had started. &quot;Once we saw the attacks, we took a look at the current status [of our work] and what&#039;s being attacked, [and] put things on a fast track.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On a &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2009/07/08/july-2009-advance-notification.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Microsoft blog&lt;/a&gt; today announcing the security updates slated for release next week, an MSRC spokesman said, &quot;...our engineering teams have been working around the clock to produce an update.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Microsoft also denied that vulnerability details had leaked to hackers at some point during the last 16-18 months, perhaps through the Microsoft Active Protection Program (MAPP), a program that gives security software companies early information on bugs. &quot;Microsoft did not share any information with MAPP partners about the reported Video ActiveX Control vulnerability until immediately before the advisory posted,&quot; a company spokesman said today.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hackers are exploiting the ActiveX vulnerability by getting users to visit malicious sites, or planting drive-by attack code on legitimate sites. The number of compromised sites serving up the malware to IE6 and IE7 users has skyrocketed, and number in the millions, according to ScanSafe.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At some point, Microsoft will release a true patch for the problem, Reavey said. He declined to say whether that patch would be delivered &quot;out-of-cycle&quot; -- outside the normal monthly update schedule -- when it is ready, however.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.thestandard.com./news/2009/07/09/microsoft-admits-it-knew-critical-ie-bug-early-08#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com./taxonomy/term/1573">Antispam</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com./taxonomy/term/1402">IDGNS</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com./taxonomy/term/1556">Operating systems</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com./taxonomy/term/1428">Security</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com./taxonomy/term/1520">Software</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com./taxonomy/term/5667">Software &amp;amp; Web</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com./taxonomy/term/1431">Windows</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com./taxonomy/term/98">Breaking News</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:45:50 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>IDG News Service</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">137153 at http://www.thestandard.com.</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
