Re: Internet explorer 6 execution of arbitrary code (An analysis of the 180 Solutions Trojan)
From: Gadi Evron (ge_at_linuxbox.org)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:47:03 +0200 To: Jelmer <email@example.com>
> Just when I though it was save to once more use internet explorer I received
> an email bringing my attention to this webpage
> http://22.214.171.124/ei2/installer.htm that according to him used an
> exploit that affected fully patched internet explorer 6 browsers. Being
> rather skeptical I carelessly clicked on the link only to witness how it
> automatically installed addware on my pc!!!
So, you just clicked on the link which was reported as unsafe, did you? :)
Those protocol handlers always seem to cause problems and it's not just
on Windows, Apple has had just as many problems in dealing with these
for OS X. If it's not a lack of input validation then it is a lack of
zone restrictions, perhaps the entire concept of higher privileged zones
of any kind should be abandoned.
Are these really new vulnerabilities or just variants of old? The
"Location: URL:" proxy really just looks like the "Location: File:"
proxy that Liu Die Yu reported and the object caching stuff really just
looks like a variation of the advisories from GreyMagic back in 2002
those 2, the only real vulnerability on the page is the Ibiza chm stuff
which still works on plenty of fully patched machines.
> Now there had been reports about 0day exploits making rounds for quite some
> time like for instance this post
Why is this a 0-day? Are you trying to start a holy war here? Please
explain why this is a 0-day if you make such claims.
> However I hadn't seen any evidence to support this up until now
> Thor Larholm as usual added to the confusion by deliberately spreading
> disinformation as seen in this post
Thor? Spreading disinformation?
> Attributing it to and I quote "just one of the remaining IE vulnerabilities
> that are not yet patched"
That sounds about right.
> Iíve attempted to write up an analysis that will show that there are at
> least 2 new and AFAIK unpublished vulnerabilities (feel free to proof me
> wrong) out there in the wild, one being fairly sophisticated
I, personally, appreciate any serious research work, but why put down a
colleague while you're at it?
> You can view it at:
> Additionally you can view a harmless demonstration of the vulnerabilities at
> Finally I also attached the source files to this message
If this really was a 0-day, isn't that a tad irresponsible?
As to Thor...
You are claiming that he is deliberately spreading disinformation, but
then you proceed to verify his claims.
Are you sure you don't just have a personal vendetta against him?
I don't see what's wrong with him pitching his product (Quik-Fix (?))
when reporting his research. That's how the industry work.
You do research and advertise the company that did it, and what solution
Working for free doesn't put food on the table and he has a product that
might actually protects against such issues. What's next, you will
complain about AV companies who say they detect a virus or security
researchers that get paid to work instead of living off the street
credit from the security mailing lists? Maybe you just don't like
companies of any kind.
As to the research itself...
Thor went through the hnc3k.com website and listed all the pages and
vulnerabilities on it, which sounds like an exhaustive task to me. But
didn't you do the same and when analyzing the 180 solutions Trojan
pages? It sounds pretty exhaustive as well.
The difference is that Thor also told you how to protect against this,
by locking down the My Computer zone. I can't see anywhere that Thor was
referring to the object caching vulnerability you are listing as new. In
my mind, he was referring to the old Unpatched page that he used to
maintain and that would mean he said some of those are still not patched.
I miss that page. It was very good.
We know that Ibiza still works and that there are still problems with
the SSL certificate handling in IE, don't you think he was just
referring to those? From this side it really just looks as if you are
trying to deal a low blow against Mr. Larholm because you have some
personal grudge against him.
I hope I provided you with information to re-think your claims. Also,
please try and keep your grudges to yourself where 50K plus busy people
need to sift through vital information?
-- Email: firstname.lastname@example.org. Work: email@example.com. Backup: firstname.lastname@example.org. Phone: +972-50-428610 (Cell). PGP key for attachments: http://vapid.reprehensible.net/~ge/Gadi_Evron.asc ID: 0xD9216A06 FP: 5BB0 D3E2 D3C1 19B7 2104 C0D0 A7B3 1CF7 D921 6A06 GPG key for encrypted email: http://vapid.reprehensible.net/~ge/Gadi_Evron_Emails.asc ID: 0x06C7D450 FP: 3B88 845A DF1F 4062 E5BA 569A A87E 8DB7 06C7 D450