Last Updated: 2007-11-13 22:31:38 UTC
by Swa Frantzen (Version: 3)
Overview of the November 2007 Microsoft patches and their status.
|#||Affected||Contra Indications||Known Exploits||Microsoft rating||ISC rating(*)|
|MS07-061||An input validation failure allows remote code execution.
Note that MS07-006 also replaces MS06-045, but that MS07-061 does not replace MS07-006.
|Windows shell - exposed via IE7, skype, acrobat, ...
||Well known problem, exploit in the wild||Critical||PATCH
|MS07-062||Lack of entropy in pseudo random number generation results in weak transaction IDs and therefore in DNS spoofing vulnerabilities. DNS spoofing can lead to man-in-the-middle attacks and more.
|KB 941672||No publicly known exploits||Important||Important(**)||Critical(**)|
We appreciate updates
US based customers can call Microsoft for free patch related support on 1-866-PCSAFETY
- We use 4 levels:
- PATCH NOW: Typically used where we see immediate danger of exploitation. Typical environments will want to deploy these patches ASAP. Workarounds are typically not accepted by users or are not possible. This rating is often used when typical deployments make it vulnerable and exploits are being used or easy to obtain or make.
- Critical: Anything that needs little to become "interesting" for the dark side. Best approach is to test and deploy ASAP. Workarounds can give more time to test.
- Important: Things where more testing and other measures can help.
- Less Urgent: Typically we expect the impact if left unpatched to be not that big a deal in the short term. Do not forget them however.
- The difference between the client and server rating is based on how you use the affected machine. We take into account the typical client and server deployment in the usage of the machine and the common measures people typically have in place already. Measures we presume are simple best practices for servers such as not using outlook, MSIE, word etc. to do traditional office or leisure work.
- The rating is not a risk analysis as such. It is a rating of importance of the vulnerability and the perceived or even predicted threat for affected systems. The rating does not account for the number of affected systems there are. It is for an affected system in a typical worst-case role.
- Only the organization itself is in a position to do a full risk analysis involving the presence (or lack of) affected systems, the actually implemented measures, the impact on their operation and the value of the assets involved.
- All patches released by a vendor are important enough to have a close look if you use the affected systems. There is little incentive for vendors to publicize patches that do not have some form of risk to them.
Swa Frantzen -- NET2S
Last Updated: 2007-11-13 18:14:07 UTC
by Swa Frantzen (Version: 1)
Mike sent us an interesting twist on a phishing scheme. The victim receives a message from a credit union associated in name with the victim receiving the email, and it asks to call the credit union on a provided phone number.
It's well targeted, so we're obfuscating the parts that identify the victim all too easy:
From an awareness point of view to your customers/users/... the key message here is to:
- not only to teach your users not to follow links in (possible) phishing messages, but to use bookmarked URLs instead
- but to also tell them to use only contact data from a safe location (and especially nothing originating directly or indirectly from the email message itself)
We've checked out the phone number itself. When doing this, make sure calls to scam artists don't get traced back to you, they tend to become aggressive every so often. It seems this number is used more in scams like these: http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-877-228-0944.
One of the fellow US based handlers called the number to validate it's not a joe-job to discredit a real institution. He found it's an automated system on the other side and it indeed asks credit card numbers, PIN, expiration date etc. It'll also tell you your card is now activated (read: if you entered valid data they will now use your card actively). Interestingly it doesn't identify the institution it's supposedly working for.