Commentary

George Hulme
 

Microsoft's Emergency Patch

I've received a number of e-mails, and held a few conversations, today with admins upset with Microsoft's atypical out-of-cycle patch. Newsflash: This was the right thing for the company to do.

I've received a number of e-mails, and held a few conversations, today with admins upset with Microsoft's atypical out-of-cycle patch. Newsflash: This was the right thing for the company to do.First, it's been relatively rare for Microsoft to release one of these emergency patches. The last time it had to do this was April of 2007

Second, this flaw is just nasty, affects nearly every running version of Windows, is remotely exploitable, and could very well end up seeing a worm developed to target it. Time was of the essence for Microsoft to release this patch, and now time is of the essence for you to deploy it.


More Security Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

Microsoft Security Bulletin MS08-067 explained that this vulnerability resides in its Server service, and attackers could create specially crafted remote procedure call requests either for one-off exploits or an outright self-replicating worm.

According to Thomas Claburn's story from earlier today, attacks were already in the wild. Quoting Jason Miller, security and data team manager at patch management software maker Shavlik Technologies:

"This vulnerability is pretty nasty," said Miller. "It affects every version of the Windows operating system. Attackers don't need to have any credentials or access to the machine. They don't have to trick the user into doing anything."

His biggest fear, he said, is that a worm will be developed to take over vulnerable machines en masse. And he fully expects that to happen. "You're talking about a vulnerability that does not need user interaction," he said. "That's a gold mine if you're trying to build a botnet."

Sounds like a good enough reason for an emergency patch to me, and a great reason to test and apply ASAP.


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links