OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
From: Fred T. Langston (Fred.LangstonGUARDENT.COM)
Date: Fri Sep 21 2001 - 09:50:41 CDT

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

    If the signature is good, but the signing key is invalid, it's because you
    haven't signed the key yourself to make it valid on your keyring.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mobeen Azhar
    To: win2ksecadviceLISTSERV.NTSECURITY.NET
    Sent: 9/20/01 10:04 PM
    Subject: Re: FW: New vulnerability in IIS4.0/5.0

    Does anyone else get warnings about invalid signing keys on this
    advisories from the ever-vigilant Microsoft Security Response Center or
    is it just me?

    --Moby

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Microsoft Security Response Center [mailto:secureMICROSOFT.COM]
    Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 11:38 AM
    To: win2ksecadviceLISTSERV.NTSECURITY.NET
    Subject: Re: FW: New vulnerability in IIS4.0/5.0

    *** PGP Signature Status: bad
    *** Signer: Microsoft Security Response Center <securemicrosoft.com>
    (Invalid)
    *** Signed: 9/20/2001 11:38:24 AM
    *** Verified: 9/20/2001 8:59:12 PM
    *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***

    Hi All -

    We've investigated this report, but it appears to be a false alarm.
    We have been unable to reproduce any of the claims on IIS 4.0 or 5.0
    with the latest cumulative patch applied
    (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-044.asp), or
    on the latest beta version of IIS 5.1. The results from other
    security organizations are the same -- none report any ability to
    reproduce the claims in the report.

    This is a good example of the wrong way to handle a security
    vulnerability report. We didn't receive this report until mid-day on
    19 September, well after it had been published on BugTraq and we'd
    already begun an investigation. There is simply no rationale for
    sending a vulnerability report to the world first, and to the vendor
    -- the only party that could build a patch -- last.

    If this had been a bona fide vulnerability, the irresponsible way it
    was reported would have put a weapon into malicious users' hands,
    thereby putting users needlessly at risk. Even though the report
    turned out to be false, there still was a cost to the user community.
     Because the authors chose to create an emergency, Microsoft and
    other organizations investigating the Nimda worm had to divert
    resources into checking the new report. This cost all of us valuable
    time, and hindered our efforts to help users defend their systems
    against Nimda.

    We established the Microsoft Security Response Center to make it easy
    for people to report potential security vulnerabilities to us. We
    monitor the securemicrosoft.com email address seven days a week, 365
    days a year, and we investigate every report we receive. Sending a
    report to the vendor first makes sense, both from the perspective of
    protecting users and ensuring that the researcher's name is only
    associated with valid, reproducible reports.

    Regards,

    Scott Culp
    Microsoft Security Response Center
    Microsoft Corporation

    -----Original Message-----
    From: ALife // BERG [mailto:buginfoinbox.ru]
    Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 3:38 AM
    To: Bugtraqsecurityfocus.com
    Subject: New vulnerability in IIS4.0/5.0

    -----[ Bright Eyes Research Group | Advisory # be00001e
    ]-----------------

                 Remote users can execute any command on several
                   IIS 4.0 and 5.0 systems by using UTF codes

    -------------------------------------[ security.instock.ru
    ]--------------

    Topic: Remote users can execute any command on several
                        IIS 4.0 and 5.0 systems by using UTF codes

    Announced: 2001-09-19
    Credits: ALife
    Affects: Microsoft IIS 4.0/5.0

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    ----
    

    ---[ Description

    For example, target has a virtual executable directory (e.g. "scripts") that is located on the same driver of Windows system. Submit request like this:

    http://target/scripts/..%u005c..%u005cwinnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir+c: \

    Directory list of C:\ will be revealed.

    Of course, same effect can be achieved by this kind of processing to '/' and '.'. For example: "..%u002f", ".%u002e/", "..%u00255c", "..%u0025%u005c" ...

    Note: Attacker can run commands of IUSR_machinename account privilege only.

    This is where things go wrong in IIS 4.0 and 5.0, IIS first scans the given url for ../ and ..\ and for the normal unicode of these strings, if those are found, the string is rejected, if these are not found, the string will be decoded and interpreted. Since the filter does NOT check for the huge amount of overlong unicode representations of ../ and ..\ the filter is bypassed and the directory traversalling routine is invoked.

    ---[ Workarounds

    1. Delete the executable virtual directory like /scripts etc. 2. If executable virtual directory is needed, we suggest you to assign a separate local driver for it. 3. Move all command-line utilities to another directory that could be used by an attacker, and forbid GUEST group access those utilities.

    ---[ Vendor Status

    2001.09.19 We informed Microsoft of this vulnerability.

    ---[ Additional Information

    [1] RFC 1642 UTF-7 - A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode. RFC 2152 [2] RFC 2044 UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO 10646. RFC 2279 [3] RFC 2253 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished Names.

    ---[ DISCLAIMS

    THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS RELEASED BY BRIGHT EYES RESEARCH GROUP (BERG) "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. BERG DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, EXCEPT FOR THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY. IN NO EVENTSHALL BERG BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER INCLUDING DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF BERG HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUTION OF THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED THAT THE ADVISORY IS NOT MODIFIED IN ANY WAY.

    -------------------------------------[ security.instock.ru ]-------------- -----[ Bright Eyes Research Group | Advisory # be00001e ]----------------- << File: be00001e.txt >>

    *** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***

    _____________________________________________________________________ ** TO UNSUBSCRIBE, send the command "UNSUBSCRIBE win2ksecadvice" ** FOR A WEEKLY DIGEST, send the command "SET win2ksecadvice DIGEST" SEND ALL COMMANDS TO: listservlistserv.ntsecurity.net

    _____________________________________________________________________ ** TO UNSUBSCRIBE, send the command "UNSUBSCRIBE win2ksecadvice" ** FOR A WEEKLY DIGEST, send the command "SET win2ksecadvice DIGEST" SEND ALL COMMANDS TO: listservlistserv.ntsecurity.net