A tale of two patches

Update: The point of this post is not “Firefox sucks, too.” The point is that patching complex programs takes time. I’ve posted another example that makes the same point here.

In the comments to yesterday’s post about SANS and the WMF exploit, a visitor remarks:

Bear in mind that when popular open source (such as Firefox) vulnerabilities have been exposed, there were patches available in about 48 to 72 hours. It’s been more than a week since the WMF vulnerability was exposed. The problem is pretty well known by now, and it’s telling that users themselves have managed to generate a fix before Microsoft has.

My, what selective memories people have. Patches in 48-72 hours? Maybe if you’re a developer, but not for mere mortals.

Remember the Firefox IDN exploit? Working exploit code was released on or before February 7, 2005. The updated version that fixed the underlying vulnerability was released on February 24, 2005. That’s 17 days later, for those who don’t have a calculator handy. And on top of that, the Mozilla group didn’t make this available through its auto-update mechanism until roughly a week after the new version was ready.

And yet a chorus of doomsayers are ready to throw Microsoft to the wolves because they plan to release a patch for the WMF exploit via Windows Update 13 days after it was first reported. Based on the Firefox experience, that seems to be about how long it takes to produce a reliable, safe, well-tested patch.

A high-definition year

The one thing you need to know about CES: Getting from point to point in Las Vegas takes more time than you can imagine. Everything’s spread out, and the traffic is nightmarish. That, in a nutshell, is why I didn’t make it to Bill Gates’ keynote last night. Fortunately, Joe Wilcox watched the webcast and provided an excellent summary:

The longest single chunk of his keynote focused on Windows Vista. What bothered me: how little new there was in the Windows Vista demonstrations. I’m beginning to realize that there may not be much more new for Microsoft to reveal about Windows Vista.

Windows Media Center got about as long a demonstration as Windows Vista. … this is the first event where I saw Microsoft really show off the new Windows Vista Media Center user interface.

I found to be most interesting part of the Media Center demo: Windows Live Messenger and the concept of “activities” that are not necessarily related to people. The demonstration revealed how an automated TV advisor could make program recommendations, show TV previews and even remotely schedule recordings on a Media Center PC via instant messaging.

The Media Center demo also focused on high definition, whether HD DVD or HD content downloaded to the PC–all capabilities coming later this year.

Digital media, especially HDTV, is going to be the big story of 2006, a fact that was abundantly clear from a short walk around one press event last night. The biggest crowds were gathered around booths showing off digital video solutions and display hardware.

Update: Robert Scoble and Engadget did play-by-play coverage. Thomas Hawk notes that 6.5 million Media Center PCs have now been sold, with 5 million of those going out the door in the last year. The official Microsoft release is here.

SANS jumps the shark

This rant from Tom Liston at SANS is disgraceful to see on a serious security site. You got problems with Microsoft’s decision? Make your case. Give your readers some evidence. Get angry if you want. But juvenile satire that ignores the business realities of the situation is just stupid, and it’s double-plus-stupid when the rant is completely free of facts or analysis.

My collective opinion of SANS has dropped severely.

OneCare users, you’re safe

In an earlier post, I reprinted a list of which antivirus programs had been successful at blocking the WMF exploit early. (By now, of course, almost everyone has caught up.) One name that was noticeably absent from both lists was the beta release of Microsoft’s Windows OneCare Live, which I’ve been using for a couple months now.

According to Microsoft’s updated Security Advisory 912840, OneCare works:.

If you are a Windows OneCare user and your current status is green, you are already protected from known malware that uses this vulnerability to attempt to attack systems.

That’s a relief.

Help is on the way for the WMF vulnerability

Microsoft has updated Security Advisory 912840, which provides details of the WMF exploit that was sprung on an unsuspecting world last week. The good news? A patch will be available in one week:

Microsoft has completed development of the security update for the vulnerability. The security update is now being localized and tested to ensure quality and application compatibility. Microsoft’s goal is to release the update on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, as part of its monthly release of security bulletins. This release is predicated on successful completion of quality testing.

The update will be released worldwide simultaneously in 23 languages for all affected versions of Windows once it passes a series of rigorous testing procedures. It will be available on Microsoft’s Download Center, as well as through Microsoft Update and Windows Update. Customers who use Windows’ Automatic Updates feature will be delivered the fix automatically.

Based on strong customer feedback, all Microsoft’s security updates must pass a series of quality tests, including testing by third parties, to assure customers that they can be deployed effectively in all languages and for all versions of the Windows platform with minimum down time.

The level of hysteria over the WMF exploit is getting a little silly. Yes, it’s a zero-day exploit, which is a very bad thing. But the drumbeat that this will be “the mother of all Internet worms” has been spreading. Even the normally down-to-earth crew at SANS has melted down. And yet, as Larry Seltzer at eWeek points out, Microsoft’s deliberate pace seems correct. Major antivirus software vendors, who are usually ready to hit the panic button (and sell a lot of software) at the slightest provocation, are surprisingly low-key:

[I]t’s Monday morning, Jan. 2, and none of the major anti-virus has a serious alert up. McAfee, Symantec, Trend and Panda all show no alarm, and the ones that have a general level of alertness are all showing a low level. Panda can usually be counted on for some hysteria at a time like this, and Computer Associates doesn’t even seem aware of the threat on its site.

There is F-Secure, who is showing a Level 2 (out of 3) alert. F-Secure has been on top of this situation from the very beginning …

As I pointed out in an earlier piece, actual testing of 73 variants of this threat shows excellent protection common among anti-virus vendors. As of Saturday morning, the 100 percent list included AntiVir, Avast, BitDefender, ClamAV, Command, Dr Web, eSafe, eTrust-INO, eTrust-VET, Ewido, F-Secure, Fortinet, Kaspersky, McAfee, Nod32, Norman, Panda, Sophos, Symantec, Trend Micro and VirusBuster. If you’re a user of one of these products and you keep your anti-virus updated, odds are good that you’re protected against any exploits you’re likely to see.

And as one of the anti-virus vendors pointed out to me, there may be dozens of variants out there and a first attempt at an IM worm, but there is no major attack yet. In other words, there may be a major vulnerability, but there is no major exploit, and you’re unlikely to encounter one unless you spend a lot of time on porn sites or already are running adware.

So let’s review:

  • Disabling the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer is a proven workaround for all variants to date.
  • If you’re running auto-updating antivirus software from a major vendor, it’s able to detect and block all known variants of this exploit.
  • The average person is extremely unlikely to get hit with this thing in everyday browsing.
  • No one has come up with an e-mail-based vector yet, aside from the usual spammy attempts to entice you to a shady Web site.

In short, it’s not time to panic. I directly support about a dozen users – family and friends. None of them are shy about calling for help, and none of them have encountered this exploit. I have an extended family of correspondents who reach out when they encounter viruses and spyware. I haven’t heard a word from them. In fact, although lots of security sites are finding examples of this exploit in the usual dark corners of the Web, no one has reported widespread infections. The updated security bulletin confirms what the antivirus companies are saying:

Microsoft has been carefully monitoring the attempted exploitation of the WMF vulnerability since it became public last week, through its own forensic capabilities and through partnerships within the industry and law enforcement. Although the issue is serious and malicious attacks are being attempted, Microsoft’s intelligence sources indicate that the scope of the attacks are not widespread.

In addition, anti-virus companies indicate that attacks based on exploiting the WMF vulnerability are being effectively mitigated through up-to-date signatures.

One skilled and apparently trustworthy coder has released an unauthorized patch for this vulnerability. SANS recommended that everyone install it. I haven’t recommended this patch, because in my view the risk is greater than the benefit. I think Microsoft has made a perfectly reasonable trade-off in developing and testing this patch. A seemingly small change can have a ripple effect in unexpected places. The nightmare scenario is a poorly tested patch that renders a system unstable or causes data loss.

If this had been the Slammer worm, which spread like wildfire over the Internet back in 2003, a more aggressive approach would be called for. In this case, I think the response from Microsoft has been appropriate.

The phony metadata scare

Gartner Group is out trying to stir up some controversy from a meaningless issue. eWeek explains:

A feature expected in the next version of Windows that will allow users to tag documents and other files with “metadata” could lead to embarrassing information disclosures if companies are not careful, according to research from Gartner Inc.

[…]

Gartner’s research note, “Plan to deal with metadata issues with Windows Vista,” published Wednesday, takes Microsoft to task for not designing security into the upcoming versions of Windows, code-named Vista, and Microsoft Office.

Those programs make it easy to attach keywords to documents, but they don’t make it clear that the keywords and other metadata can be viewed by anyone.

Sheesh, what planet have these guys been living on? Metadata issues have been around for years. (This long Knowledge Base article covers the nine-old Word 97.) Any company that hasn’t put policies and procedures in place to minimize the risk of sensitive data leaking out into the world just hasn’t been paying attention.

Gartner was trying to take advantage of a slow news week to try to manufacture a controversy where none should exist.

By the way, I read somewhere that Office 12 actually has some tools built in that allow you automatically scan document files for metadata, comments, deleted text, and other stray bits of data that can inadvertently reveal information you would prefer to leave private.

PC Magazine and PC World both got to write about these Office 12 features and even show screenshots. Unfortunately, I can’t do that because of an NDA agreement I signed. I wrote this a few weeks ago:

As I pointed out yesterday, the terms of the Office 12 confidentiality agreement prohibit me from discussing any aspect of the product. This information blackout applies to everyone except Microsoft employees, apparently.

And selected media outlets, too. Different rules apply to a handful of people and publications, most of them still in the dead-tree business.

Scoble agrees:

I’ll talk to the team about that. I think NDAs are often too restrictive and are ultimately counterproductive.

Hope they return your calls this week.

Update: Bruce Schneier had some interesting thoughts on the subject back in November.

How effective is your antivirus software?

eWeek points to an authoritative analysis of how security software companies have responded to the WMF exploit:

AV-Test, which tests anti-malware products, has been tracking the situation closely and has, so far, analyzed 73 variants of malicious WMF files. Products from the following companies have identified all 73:

* Alwil Software (Avast)
* Softwin (BitDefender)
* ClamAV
* F-Secure Inc.
* Fortinet Inc.
* McAfee Inc.
* ESET (Nod32)
* Panda Software
* Sophos Plc
* Symantec Corp.
* Trend Micro Inc.
* VirusBuster

These products detected fewer variants:

* 62 — eTrust-VET
* 62 — QuickHeal
* 61 — AntiVir
* 61 — Dr Web
* 61 — Kaspersky
* 60 — AVG
* 19 — Command
* 19 — F-Prot
* 11 — Ewido
* 7 — eSafe
* 7 — eTrust-INO
* 6 — Ikarus
* 6 — VBA32
* 0 — Norman

The difference for the more effective products is likely to be heuristic detection, tracking the threat by identifying the basic techniques of the exploit, rather than looking for specific patterns for specific exploits.

I know a lot of people who use various free antivirus programs, especially AVG. I don’t recommend them, and this study is one giant data point in my argument.

Anyone with an updated subscription to any of the AV programs on the first list above is fully protected from the WMF exploit. Anyone using a program on the second list should ask themselves whether it’s time to switch.