OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
From: Luke Smith (luke.smithmember.sage-au.org.au)
Date: Tue Apr 23 2002 - 17:51:00 CDT

  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    I've have been playing with MBSA recently and have found it very useful,
    if a little inaccurate. I too have found that it reports some manually
    installed patches as missing on some machines, specifically-

    MS02-001 Trusting Domains Do Not Verify Domain Membership of SIDs in
    Authorization Data
    MS01-022 WebDAV Service Provider Can Allow Scripts to Levy Requests as
    User
    MS02-008 XMLHTTP Control Can Allow Access to Local Files

    MBSA insists these hotfixes are missing even though I have
    installed/removed/installed them again and again.

    I get the same results from HFNETCHK.

    MBSA goes far beyond the functionality of HFNETCHK. Having the ability
    to scan my user's machines and check them for dubious MS Office security
    setting is excellent. For example it found 4 users that had set Excel's
    macro security to Low. I'm not too keen on enforcing a macro policy
    making this a great passive security tool.

    It also checks SQL Servers, IIS configurations (IISLockDown etc)..

    I like it; it just needs some bugs cleaned up (or bugs in the hotfixes,
    as the case may be), and needs to have its features kept up to date with
    new products.

    Luke.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: H C [mailto:keydet89yahoo.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2002 12:09 AM
    To: focus-mssecurityfocus.com
    Subject: MS defends MBSA

    Link to IDG article:

    http://idg.net/ic_849313_4394_1-3921.html

    The article author, Brian Fonseca, describes the MBSA
    as "a more user friendly version of HFNetChk built
    around a new GUI". However, the article says that
    "users should be aware that differences occur in the
    manner notes -- an advisory indicating no patch is
    present -- and warnings are posted by each." That
    came from Steve Lipner, director of security assurance
    at Microsoft.

    The article continues:
    "Lipner said hotfixes could also lead to MBSA
    misinterpretation." Aaaahhhh. Okay. The thing that
    got me was the following statement from Lipner: "If a
    hotfix was applied to plug a code exploit that did not
    come directly from a Microsoft security bulletin, MBSA
    will "guess" a system update has occurred".

    That being the case...why would a patch be on an MS
    system that did not come directly from an MS Security
    Bulletin? Would this then provide a means by which a
    malicious admin could fool the MBSA reports?

    It sounds as if the author is also leaning toward the
    usual journalistic FUD with this statement:
    "Available for free download, MBSA is designed to
    unearth Microsoft product holes". The tool doesn't
    unearth holes...it reports patches/hotfixes, and a few
    other things.

    I, for one, would be interested in hearing anything
    anyone has to offer about using this tool...the more
    specific ("it rocks" or "it sux" is *not* specific)
    the better.

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
    http://games.yahoo.com/