RE: Question: Buffer Overrun in Microsoft Data Access Components Coul d Lead to Code Execution (Q329414)
From: Hayes, Bill (Bill.Hayes@owh.com)
Date: 11/27/02
- Previous message: auto473105@hushmail.com: "Embedded NT/XP security"
- Maybe in reply to: Harris, Ken: "RE: Question: Buffer Overrun in Microsoft Data Access Components Coul d Lead to Code Execution (Q329414)"
- Next in thread: Fraser Hugh: "RE: Question: Buffer Overrun in Microsoft Data Access Components Coul d Lead to Code Execution (Q329414)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:24:21 -0600 From: "Hayes, Bill" <Bill.Hayes@owh.com> To: "Harris, Ken" <KHarris@HIPUSA.com>, <focus-ms@securityfocus.com>
Before you upgrade to MDAC 2.7, check with your vendors, even ones you
don't think would have a problem. You might be surprised.
For instance, I've heard ClearSwift is not supporting MAILsweeper
installations with MDAC 2.7. Does anyone know if this is true? Is it
just a temporary situation?
Out of curiosity, has anyone attempted back out of MDAC 2.7 and go to
MDAC 2.6 with patch? How bad was it?
Bill...
-----Original Message-----
From: Harris, Ken [mailto:KHarris@HIPUSA.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:16 PM
To: 'Kolde, Jennifer E.'; 'focus-ms@securityfocus.com'
Subject: RE: Question: Buffer Overrun in Microsoft Data Access
Components Coul d Lead to Code Execution (Q329414)
Hello,
Thanks to all on focus-ms who replied, very good information indeed. It
looks like the best practice is to upgrade across the board to MDAC 2.7
(with proper testing) /unless/ there is a known inoperability requiring
2.6,
in which case the patch is our best (albeit weak) hope.
Thanks again for your help,
Ken Harris
-----Original Message-----
From: Kolde, Jennifer E. [mailto:jkolde@nosc.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 1:21 PM
To: Harris, Ken; 'focus-ms@securityfocus.com'
Subject: RE: Question: Buffer Overrun in Microsoft Data Access
Components
Coul d Lead to Code Execution (Q329414)
Hello Ken,
Sorry, trying again minus the digital signature.
Microsoft also (quietly) lists upgrading to MDAC 2.7 as another fix. The
information in the security bulletin is a bit confusing when you try to
figure out just what is going on and where the vulnerability lies. The
way I
read it, the problem lies both the version of MDAC used AND a specific
ActiveX control that is vulnerable. You are correct that even if you
patch
your current version of MDAC, the vulnerable ActiveX control could still
be
introduced.
MDAC 2.7 is not vulnerable to the problem according to Microsoft, so if
you
upgrade to 2.7, the ActiveX issue becomes moot.
A possible concern is that, because MDAC brokers your database requests,
the
upgrade may affect your application based on any differences between the
older MDAC components and 2.7. I'm not a database guru (IANADBG???) so
you'd have to research/test this on your own.
MDAC can be downloaded from http://www.microsoft.com/data/, which also
includes documentation / changelogs for different versions. I did
install
MDAC 2.7 on a Win2K Server with no ill effects, but the Server is not
doing
anything specifically database-related.
Regards,
Jennifer
-----Original Message-----
From: Harris, Ken [mailto:KHarris@HIPUSA.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:39 PM
To: 'focus-ms@securityfocus.com'
Subject: Question: Buffer Overrun in Microsoft Data Access Components
Coul d
Lead to Code Execution (Q329414)
Hello all on focus-ms,
Was wondering if anyone had figured out the best practice fix to the
security flaw described here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/secur
ity/
bulletin/MS02-065.asp
The reason I ask is that Microsoft does not seem to show much confidence
in
this patch; e.g. in the Caveats section, it is implied that if a webpage
references the older, pre-patch RDS control, dependent upon the IE
security
settings they will either be prompted to install the control, or it will
be
installed silently if Microsoft is added to the Trusted Publishers list.
We happen to have a mission-critical custom webapp used internally which
does use RDS, and is in the Trusted Sites zone on our workstations.
However,
I can't guarantee that the developers of this solution will get around
to
patching the server on which this runs, or changing the references in
the
ASP pages. Microsoft is NOT in the Trusted Publishers list on our
workstation build, although there is nothing keeping our users from
clicking
"Always trust content from Microsoft".
Am I right in assuming that even if we deploy the patch to our
workstations,
unless the patch is also applied to the webapp and the code is changed,
the
vulnerable control could be reinstalled and the workstation would be
again
vulnerable to this attack from a malicious website? Is there a better
option? The client/server nature of this vulnerability makes me think
that
we may see a worm written to exploit it soon.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Ken Harris
**********************************************************************
This message is a PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL communication, and is
intended
only for the individual(s) named herein or others specifically
authorized to
receive the communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify the sender of the error
immediately,
do not read or use the communication in any manner, destroy all copies,
and
delete it from your system if the communication was sent via email.
**********************************************************************
- Next message: Kent Hundley: "RE: Secure / Encrypt Terminal Services"
- Previous message: auto473105@hushmail.com: "Embedded NT/XP security"
- Maybe in reply to: Harris, Ken: "RE: Question: Buffer Overrun in Microsoft Data Access Components Coul d Lead to Code Execution (Q329414)"
- Next in thread: Fraser Hugh: "RE: Question: Buffer Overrun in Microsoft Data Access Components Coul d Lead to Code Execution (Q329414)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|