main

Microsoft Investigates New XP SP2 Flaw

Steven Parker   on 16 July 2005 - 10:38 · 63 comments & 8260 views

Advertisement (Why?)
I came across this news while surfing the NTCompatible website.

Microsoft has acknowledged that it is working on a patch for a potentially serious security hole in fully patched versions of Windows XP Service Pack 2.

The software maker's confirmation follows public disclosure of the vulnerability by a private security researcher who goes by the moniker "badpack3t."

In an advisory posted at SecurityProtocols.com, the researcher described the issue as a remote kernel denial-of-service flaw affecting XP SP2, with the default firewall turned on.

"I have been working with Microsoft to get a patch out for this. I notified them 5/4/2005 about the flaw, and they have been working on it since then. Microsoft told me the patch was going to be released in August," he added in the advisory.

Security alerts aggregator Secunia Inc. has flagged the issue as "moderately critical" and confirmed the reports that the integrated firewall does not protect against the flaw.

View: Full Article @ eWeek


Features of X-Setup Pro:
  • Covers and works on all available Windows 32-bit platforms: Windows 95, Windows 98 (SE), Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows ME, Windows XP and Windows 2003 Server
  • X-Setup Pro is the most complete "hacker" ever available: more than 850 hidden functions can be controlled with some simple button clicks (e.g. Windows, Internet Explorer, Instant Messaging, Office, Explorer appearance, Server options, Network settings, Security...)
  • By using an Explorer-like layout and the famous back and next buttons (you already know from your Internet browser) navigation is very simple.
  • It's extremely easy to use: With wizards you can change your system in a step-by-step process - that's as easy as A-B-C
  • With Record Mode activated, nearly all changes from a plug-in or wizard are recorded to a REG file. This file can then be easily applied to thousands of machines without needing to install X-Setup Pro on them.
  • If you often change the same settings, you can easily define Favorites for as many plug-ins as you wish. With Favorites, you simply pick the item from the Favorites menu and X-Setup Pro will directly active it.
  • With Version History, it's easy to determine the changes between the different versions of X-Setup. It will exactly tell you which plug-ins have changed and with a click, you will jump directly to that plug-in.
  • Clutter free: X-Setup Pro is ready for your wishes in about five seconds and needs only at about 5 MB RAM. Also, it does not install any automatically launched "helper" apps like many other programs. If you exit X-Setup Pro, it is gone and there's nothing running in the background that would bog down your system.
  • With the Search function you can easily search all plug-ins for the setting you are looking for. If you think you found what you are searching for, just click on it and X-Setup will directly activate that plug-in for you.
  • Because you can do a lot, but not everything with X-Setup Pro, it includes a configurable Programs menu. X-Setup Pro brings a lot of useful programs links with it, but you can also define your own.
  • X-Setup Pro can also write a very detailed log file that includes every change it has made to your configuration and you can choose where to store this file.
  • Because the settings X-Setup Pro controls change often and fast, it's entirely driven by plug-ins. They are very small and don't have a user interface, instead they use the user interface of X-Setup Pro. Using this technique, X-Setup Pro is infinitely extensible and expandable and you can even integrate your own plug-ins or wizards.
  • X-Setup Pro includes Automatic Updates that allows you to download the newest plug-ins directly from our server to your X-Setup Pro installation with some simple clicks - you don't need to download and unzip any files to stay updated.
  • You can view the source code of ANY plug-in directly from X-Setup Pro, before the the plug-in is allowed to change anything. This way, you can always see what the plug-in will do.
  • It is wherever you need it: either in Start -> Programs or Settings -> Control Panel
  • Contains an detailed explanation how to install it on a network share - entire setup only takes five seconds in this case.

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 63 additional comments
(12 replies) #1 Midnight Mick on 16 Jul 2005 - 10:44
You mean people actually use the firewall built into XP Sp2?!
#1.1 todd` on 16 Jul 2005 - 11:09
Well, it is on by default. Whether or not the user actively uses it doesn't matter.
#1.2 bush on 16 Jul 2005 - 11:47
well i use it. it's the only security thing that i have. no antivirus, no adaware stuff, nothing. and haven't cought nothing yet.
#1.3 bucko on 16 Jul 2005 - 11:53
except viruses and spyware
#1.4 theyarecomingforyou on 16 Jul 2005 - 13:31
I use the XP SP2 firewall with NOD32 - I know it's not ideal but have never taken the time to do research into it.

Can anyone recommend to me a good firewall? My main concern is that it doesn't need to be constantly fiddled with through normal usage (i.e. if a program needs access a window pops up, like the XP firewall).
#1.5 VikingStorm on 16 Jul 2005 - 14:43
I use NOD32 with Netveda (because it works, it's fast, and it's free for personal use).

http://www.netveda.com
#1.6 TheSarge on 16 Jul 2005 - 15:14
Check http://www.sygate.com/ for a good range of firewall solutions. For personal use, I recomend their Sygate Personal Firewall or Sygate Personal Firewall Pro.

IF that's a little to advanced for you, try something from www.zonelabs.com
I personaly don't recomend ZoneAlarm, but it is very popular with the beginer-to-intermediate crowd.
#1.7 PseudoRandomDragon on 16 Jul 2005 - 15:34
Actually I found ZoneAlarm Pro to be much more complicated than Sygate, mostly because it has a lot more features.
#1.8 CaKeY on 16 Jul 2005 - 21:44
QUOTE
well i use it. it's the only security thing that i have. no antivirus, no adaware stuff, nothing. and haven't cought nothing yet.


How would you know? Oh, you must not be connected to the internet.
#1.9 rm20010 on 16 Jul 2005 - 23:30
QUOTE
How would you know? Oh, you must not be connected to the internet.


Oh wait. Then how did he type up that post if he ain't connected to the Internet?

He probably browses sites that aren't full of spy crap and viruses.
#1.10 DaveXT on 17 Jul 2005 - 06:48
Well if he doen't have any anti-virus or anti-spyware installed, then of course he's gonna think he doesn't have them because he doesn't have any programs to tell him otherwise
#1.11 bush on 17 Jul 2005 - 18:50
exactly. it is probably not necessary to have whole bunch of security related software installed on your computer, if you can follow some simple rules. like going to unsafe web places with safe browser, opening only files which you are aware of and stuff like that. and, yes, i'm regulary scanning my computer with online virus scanners/spybot to know if it's clear or not. yet i don't say that i wont get anything bad ever, what i was trying to say, is that windows built-in firewall does it's job and does well.
p.s. dave, could you tell me please, the name of your antivirus software which tells you about viruses only when your computer has already been infected?
#1.12 DaveXT on 17 Jul 2005 - 23:47
I'm not saying that it only detects them after it's been infected, I'm saying that if the only protection he's using is the Windows SP2 Firewall, which, as shown by this article, has flaws in it, he's not going to know if he has a virus or spyware that uses this exploit or not unless he has some third party software scan his computer for stuff that uses said exploit.
(2 replies) #2 thenay on 16 Jul 2005 - 10:45
The integrated firewall in Windows is crap compared to 3rd party firewalls.
#2.1 Avi on 16 Jul 2005 - 11:26
Yet, it is more than enough for me.
#2.2 Z3r0 on 16 Jul 2005 - 13:22
yeah it seems fine to me, maybe it wasn't pretty enough for this user? as he/she hasn't given a specific reason for not liking the windows xp firewall I can only assume so
(4 replies) #3 diabulos on 16 Jul 2005 - 10:50
I was under the impression that SP2 was to make XP more secure...how bad is MS at getting security that their 'security' patch makes XP more insecure?...scary
#3.1 Deviate_X on 16 Jul 2005 - 14:27
This flaw affects Remote Desktop, the article fails to mention that Remote Desktop is not enabled by default, this means most people will be safe from any attack which could arise from any premature full-disclosure/poc.

If you have enabled Remote Desktop, then you are likely competent enough to reconfigure the XP firewall to only allow Remote Desktop connections from known Subnets, IP ranges, or even specific IP addresses. This will keep you safe.

Link: How to use the Remote Desktop feature of Windows XP Professional

Link: How to configure the Windows Firewall feature in Windows XP Service Pack 2

#3.2 Miran on 16 Jul 2005 - 17:57
Thanks for the information Deviate. We need more posters like you on Neowin.
#3.3 DOGglee on 17 Jul 2005 - 04:03
yea.. i agree
#3.4 shao on 18 Jul 2005 - 10:52
considering the amount of critical, and widely abused security flaws since microsoft's security drive of late, i'd say that windows xp is more secure. the title doesn't hint that windows is less secure because of sp2, but rather because sp2 is the lastest 'version' of xp it is often referred to when meaning a fully patched (sp2 + all updates) installation of windows. in most cases security flaws affect all previous versions too.

if you want to be pedantic and talk numbers, compare the amount of bugfixes and security patches resolved in sp2 to the one new flaw outlined here.
(6 replies) #4 Jason on 16 Jul 2005 - 11:29
Every bug found is a bug fixed.
#4.1 David R. on 16 Jul 2005 - 11:42
Unless the bug is in a Microsoft product.
#4.2 Jason on 16 Jul 2005 - 11:44
If that was the case then there wouldn't be regular monthly updates.
#4.3 Z3r0 on 16 Jul 2005 - 13:23
you have to praise microsoft for the regular security fixes, all software has bugs, even in linux, which in fact is updated much more than windows, you just don't hear about it.
#4.4 mr_demilord on 16 Jul 2005 - 17:05
Or it is by design, or it is a feature
#4.5 CaKeY on 16 Jul 2005 - 21:47
QUOTE
even in linux, which in fact is updated much more than windows, you just don't hear about it.


Thats right. Updates are available daily. No waiting until the convenient time of the month like microsoft.
#4.6 SquareSoft0 on 16 Jul 2005 - 22:09
Microsoft used to release patches as they were finished as well, but their corporate customers didn't take too kindly to it so they were forced to go with a release schedule model.
#5 bucko on 16 Jul 2005 - 11:56
Well as most of you are on broadband now go and use the firewall on your adsl box, it's much more secure and not only does it protect your computer but any others on the network to. Also look at smoothwall for turning an old pc into a decent linux firewall for free.
(2 replies) #6 cork1958 on 16 Jul 2005 - 12:26
Windows built in firewall does what it's supposed to do. No more, no less. For the nOObs and other jerks that don't know anything about security and related stuff, it is better than nothing.

Now, I have to ask. How many of you actually thought XP and then SP2, were actually going to be bug free with no security risks. How many of you are thinking the same thing about LongDong, I mean Longhorn? It isn't going to ever happen!! So, get used to having to constantly update/patch!!
#6.1 Z3r0 on 16 Jul 2005 - 13:24
thank you for your elitist comment, it really was an insite into the reasons for and against using the windows firewall
you have really instructed us newbies
please continue
#6.2 mr_demilord on 16 Jul 2005 - 17:10
Wow a really smart comment you made
#7 Ely on 16 Jul 2005 - 12:28
XPs Firewall is very good, sure they might have discovered an issue with it, JUST like MANY other firewalls out there which also have had issues in the past, what's the big deal?
#8 Shannon on 16 Jul 2005 - 12:35
I myself don't use XP's Firewall as I have a hardware firewall with my router which does a good enough job. But XP's firewall is pretty good. At least it provides some sort of protection for mum and pop users who have no idea about internet security.
(4 replies) #9 Christopher Jackson on 16 Jul 2005 - 12:40
I don't like SP2. I don't like the firewall. everytime I or my wife try to install SP2, it borqs our windows installation
#9.1 Z3r0 on 16 Jul 2005 - 13:26
lol that's pretty unforunate, if you are able to: try slipstreaming SP2 into your windows installation CD and then you can install windows with SP2 integrated
#9.2 Octol on 16 Jul 2005 - 14:29
QUOTE
...try slipstreaming SP2 into your windows installation CD...

ROFLMAO!!
#9.3 TheSarge on 16 Jul 2005 - 15:23
What's so funny, Octol? Z3r0 is actualy giving good advice: Make an XPsp2 Slipstream CD and then use that to re-install Windows.
Check Paul Thurrott's site for details on how to make a XPsp2 Slipstream CD.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2_slipstream.asp
#9.4 Octol on 17 Jul 2005 - 04:18
QUOTE
What's so funny, Octol? Z3r0 is actualy giving good advice

It is good advice. What I found funny is that it's advice that's nearly impossible to follow by the people most in need of it: your ordinary citizens who have a hard enough time installing a video game without triggering a complete system failure.

Slipstream a service pack into an OS and then reinstall that OS? For most people that's like telling them that if their car is burning oil they should tear down their engines and replace their piston rings and valve guides. While that would almost certainly fix the problem, how many non-mechanics are actually capable of doing it?
(2 replies) #10 VikingStorm on 16 Jul 2005 - 14:41
Wonder why this "private security researcher" doesn't use his real name? I don't see why you would have to go under a moniker for something like this.
#10.1 dismuter on 16 Jul 2005 - 15:56
Because they could be watching...
#10.2 Vaichilds on 16 Jul 2005 - 21:56
His name is TOM FERRIS people, just go to THE GUYS "EMPLOYERS" SITE
#11 Kushan on 16 Jul 2005 - 16:08
Anyone know if this affects XP x64?
#12 soypowered on 16 Jul 2005 - 16:46
QUOTE
"moderately critical"


I love oxymorons.
(1 reply) #13 NimrodUK on 16 Jul 2005 - 16:56
Why did badpack3t even release this information to the public?

Hes just putting home users in danger, just so he can get some fame?
If that is the case, I quite frankly think hes a moron.
#13.1 CaKeY on 16 Jul 2005 - 21:50
Well if HE knows about the issue you know hackers must know too. He's just putting some pressure on microsoft to do something about it.
(1 reply) #14 SVT on 16 Jul 2005 - 17:56
As soon as the 'ploit source code is released, let the pWning begin!
#14.1 Vaichilds on 16 Jul 2005 - 22:00
It is in the wild, and on my drive....so i must be part of the wild bunch of crazy guys? eh?

Originally Tommy boy, AKA Badpack3t was not going to release the POC (Proof of Concept) until the second week of Aug., that's when Microsoft said they would have a patch for it. But someone cunning may have already known about half of the possiblity, put two and two together, and viola, POC. Hopefully not many folks will be affected by this, so if you get asked to start a remote session... deny, deny, deny. The only thing we have to worry about now is what some1 else will figure out.
(2 replies) #15 PsykX on 16 Jul 2005 - 18:07
XP SP2's firewall doesn't even work here anymore. When I try to turn it on, it gives me an error.
#15.1 MajinDark on 16 Jul 2005 - 18:19
The service is probably disabled.
#15.2 TheSarge on 17 Jul 2005 - 02:41
There's actualy a hierarchy of services that ICS/Windows Firewall depends on.

Start>Settings>Control Panel>Admin Tools>Services
^will list the services installed on the local machine. From that list you can chack to see which ones are enabled, which start automaticly, which are unable to start becasue of a broken dependencyies chain, and so on. Well, it's supposed to work like that, anyways; it doesn't always work like it's supposed to, but that's usualy due to a malicious peice of code or a messed up registry hack.
I sometimes like to blame small furry gremlins that like to chew on the kernal, but that's only after I've had way too much coffee and not enough sleep.
(1 reply) #16 jubber2002 on 16 Jul 2005 - 20:24
Future website I will build:
www.microsoftflaws.com
#16.1 Sub on 16 Jul 2005 - 21:04
ha.
#17 Andareed on 16 Jul 2005 - 21:57
There is now an MS advisory article about it: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/904797.mspx. Also a KB article: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/904797?
#18 eilegz on 16 Jul 2005 - 22:20
easy solution to this its disable the ICF service so no more windows firewall get a real firewall like agnitum outpost
(2 replies) #19 EduardValencia on 16 Jul 2005 - 23:57
stop trolling,it gives me a headache

flaws are in all firewalls around the world,so stop bitching!
#19.1 Jugalator on 17 Jul 2005 - 16:38
Yes, when it's about problems in Microsoft software, everyone should SHUT UP!
#19.2 EduardValencia on 17 Jul 2005 - 18:40
i don't go bitching at other forums my friend,so i'm in a right position to yell out loud lol
#20 JOEWARE on 17 Jul 2005 - 00:31
this is like the very first flaw that has to do w/ the windows firewall ever?


patch!!!
(1 reply) #21 TheSarge on 17 Jul 2005 - 02:57
It's not actualy a problem with the firewall, it's a problem with the "Remote Desktop" feature.
Unless you're a complete noob, one of the first things you do after a new install of XP is to turn off the Remote Desktop feature. (becasue it is [1] semi-useless and [2] a huge security risk)
However, since the article said "...the integrated firewall does not protect against the flaw." a whole lot of you seem to have stoped reading at that point and started your Trolling.
You should have continued to read to the point where it says "...the flaw resides in the Windows "Remote Desktop" feature..."
Now look sad and say "Duh'oh!"
#21.1 Octol on 17 Jul 2005 - 04:33
So sorry, Remote Desktop is not enabled by default.

I use it all the time, but whenever I install (or reinstall) an OS, half the time I forget to enable it, and then wonder why I can't connect to that desktop. Which is the point where I slap myself in the forehead for being such a noob and then drive back across town to the remote site to turn the damned thing on.
#22 Staind on 17 Jul 2005 - 14:44
This one may be the first flaw that doesn't affect all the users.
#23 bsharp on 17 Jul 2005 - 19:34
Every firewall has its week points. If you forget to lock your house door when you go out you may get robbed! Same as a computer only with a computer you can be robbed wile your still at home and wouldnt know it till it's to late. I personally dont like windows built in firewall and dont use it. But I only run windows behind a linux Server with a verry good firewall. But even so I still need good Antivirus. And if you use IE you need verry good anti spyware. Total computer security is a myth. Anyone know of a firewall that will block a reverse tunnel on port 80?

Last edited by 115639 on 17 Jul 2005 - 19:46

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)