Newsgroup: it.comp.os.win.win2000
Titolo: Microsoft ammette:win xp vulnerabile!

La Microsoft ha ammesso che win xp presenta un serio e grave problema di
vulnerabilitŕ. Gli hackers possono facilmente utilizzare il so per entrare
nei pc di ignari utenti e utilizzarli per scopi illeciti come l'attacco a
siti federali USA. La notizia č apparsa nelle ultim'ora del Televideo Rai.
La notizia č preoccupante. Seria involuzione rispetto a Win 2000
professional?
La notizia merita un commento soprattutto perchč pare che il problema sia
davvero serio, non i soliti bug fino ad ora conosciuti.
Tower32

 La notizia merita un commento soprattutto perchè pare che il problema sia


Parli di questo?
Se sì, ecco la patch:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms01-059.asp
Issue:
======
The Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) service allows computers to
discover and use network-based devices. Windows ME and XP
include native UPnP services; Windows 98 and 98SE do not include a
native UPnP service, but one can be installed via the
Internet Connection Sharing client that ships with Windows XP. This
bulletin discusses two vulnerabilities affecting these
UPnP implementations. Although the vulnerabilities are unrelated,
both involve how UPnP-capable computers handle the
discovery of new devices on the network.
The first vulnerability is a buffer overrun vulnerability. There is
an unchecked buffer in one of the components that handle
NOTIFY directives - messages that advertise the availability of
UPnP-capable devices on the network. By sending a specially
malformed NOTIFY directive, it would be possible for an attacker to
cause code to run in the context of the UPnP service,
which runs with System privileges on Windows XP. (On Windows 98 and
Windows ME, all code executes as part of the operating
system). This would enable the attacker to gain complete control over
the system.
The second vulnerability results because the UPnP doesn't
sufficiently limit the steps to which the UPnP service will go to
obtain information on using a newly discovered device. Within the
NOTIFY directive that a new UPnP device sends is
information telling interested computers where to obtain its device
description, which lists the services the device offers
and instructions for using them. By design, the device description
may reside on a third-party server rather than on the
device itself. However, the UPnP implementations don't adequately
regulate how it performs this operation, and this gives
rise to two different denial of service scenarios.
In the first scenario, the attacker could send a NOTIFY directive to
a UPnP-capable computer, specifying that the device
description should be downloaded from a particular port on a
particular server. If the server was configured to simply echo
the download requests back to the UPnP service (e.g., by having the
echo service running on the port that the computer was
directed to), the computer could be made to enter an endless download
cycle that could consume some or all of the system's
availability. An attacker could craft and send this directive to a
victim's machine directly, by using the machine's IP
address. Or, he could send this same directive to a broadcast and
multicast domain and attack all affected machines within
earshot, consuming some or all of those systems' availability.
In the second scenario, an attacker could specify a third-party
server as the host for the device description in the NOTIFY
directive. If enough machines responded to the directive, it could
have the effect of flooding the third-party server with
bogus requests, in a distributed denial of service attack. As with
the first scenario, an attacker could either send the
directives to the victim directly, or to a broadcast or multicast
domain.

 La notizia merita un commento soprattutto perchè pare che il problema sia


 > La notizia merita un commento soprattutto perchč pare che il problema


 > > La notizia merita un commento soprattutto perchè pare che il problema
