Login:
Password:

Microsoft Patches 28 Security Flaws

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

October 10, 2006, 5:36 PM

Microsoft scaled back its October patch event by one on Tuesday, electing to release ten patches. Five patches are intended for Windows, the highest rating of those being critical; four for Office, with the highest rating also being critical; and one moderate patch for the .NET framework.

As is typical with information surrounding Patch Tuesday releases, Microsoft did not specify the nature of the dropped patch.

Altogether across the ten patches, a staggering 28 security issues have been fixed, with a large portion of them yet again coming from the Redmond company's Office productivity suite.

The delivery of those patches may be delayed for some consumers and enterprise customers due to technical difficulties with the update servers delivering the patches. Downloads would be delayed until at least Wednesday for customers using Microsoft Update, Automatic Updates, Windows Server Update Services (WSUS), and Windows Update v6.

"To be clear, it's a delay due to the networking for these systems: there are no issues with the security updates themselves," Craig Gehre of the Microsoft Security Response Center said. "Technical teams are engaged and have been working around the clock to resolve this problem."

Of the critical updates, two are intended for Windows. Both fix remote code execution vulnerabilities - one in XML Core Services and the other in Windows Shell. Of the Office flaws, remote execution issues are fixed in PowerPoint, Excel, Word, and general issues were resolved across the entire suite.

One important flaw was repaired: a Windows Server Service bug that could result in a denial of service issue within the operating system. In both cases a specially crafted network message could either result in a system becoming unresponsive, or in the worst case scenario an attacker could take complete control of the affected system.

Rounding out October's Patch Tuesday were two moderate risk flaws, one in ASP.NET that could allow for information disclosure, and the other in the Windows Object Packager that allows for remote code execution. However, unlike the more severe code execution issues described earlier, in order for the flaw to be exploited, user interaction is required.

Finally, the least serious of the flaws, one rated as low risk, involves several vulnerabilities with the TCP/IP protocol within Microsoft Windows. Microsoft says the worst of the issues could result in a denial of service issue for users.

Security solutions company PatchLink recommended that users and IT departments apply the XML Core Services patch immediately before any of the other issued patches.

"This particular patch should be prioritized above the other critical patches from today because there are no temporary workarounds for this particular vulnerability and an IE exploit could be built that executes remote code simply by viewing a page," PatchLink director of solutions and strategy Don Leatham said.

Leatham recommended that all other patches be applied within 72 hours, especially in light of the multiple issues fixed Tuesday in the Office productivity suite.

"It is very simple to create a link in a web page can entice a user to unknowingly open a malicious Microsoft Office document," he said. "If the user doesn't have their Microsoft IE security set to 'high' they can end up automatically opening a Word, Excel or PowerPoint document that can allow an exploit run on their computer."

Add a Comment (63 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By GCoder

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 11:49 AM

So, from a "time-is-money" standpoint, when I reinstall the XP+SP2 cd (I wont even begin to rant about the time it takes to update an original XP installation), it takes another 80 individual updates and patches. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!!?!
MS needs to rethink its entire OS format. As XP and VISTA stands now, it is completely unacceptable.

I'll stick with my tri-boot Ubuntu/Fedora/OSX and keep on the green side of the fence.

Score: 0

By Buffo

edited Oct 11, 2006 - 8:29 PM

...

PC_Fool (aka John Karr)
wrote:

"Sorry, It's BetaNews,
not WinBetaNews"

...

The PC Rat replies:

Ha ! John 'PC_Fool' Karr: Neither is it the
"Man / Pre-teen Girl Love Association".

Get a grip on yourself you pencil-necked pervert !

You dodged prison this time because the cops
misplaced your computer with all the Kiddie Porn
on it.

Once the police link you to JonBonet, it's all
over for ~you~ in BetaNews !

...

The Computer Rodent

...

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 10:37 AM

Buffo,

lol
:-p

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 8:19 AM

hey you are really intelligent, lets carry on crap from another thread huh? lets all talk in third person. lets all annoy the rest of the betanews community as a whole. lets all be like 13 year old my-name-has-been-banned pc_rat. Didn't realize that when they ban you they no longer want your input?

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Oct 12, 2006 - 12:30 AM

Go die alone in a ditch.

Score: 0

By RingMaster

edited Oct 11, 2006 - 12:38 PM

Microsoft should go back to patching the day they find out a problem instead of once a month.

For those of you who didn't patch the VML exploit, run the command to turn off that feature.

regsvr32 -u "C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\VGX\vgx.dll"

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 1:09 PM

That's about a patch and possible reboot every 25 hours. You think their customers would like that?

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 3:26 PM

What is so terrible about having to reboot? "OMG the horror!" How many average computer users run their computers 24 hours a day anyway? It just takes a minute to restart, and you don't HAVE to right away if you don't want to. Turn off auto updates if it upsets you so much. Personally I'd like to have the updates as soon as they are available.

"Hey everyone, there is a horribly critical flaw in Windows and we have a patch for it. Since this is not Tuesday though we are not going to let you have it yet. Hope you don't get hacked in the next six days."

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 5:42 PM

How many average computer users run their computers 24 hours a day anyway?

Businesses, corporate networks.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

edited Oct 11, 2006 - 6:57 PM

I said average computer users, people at home not some corporate network. How many corporations use the plain old update service anyway? They have special tools for corporations, like:

http://www.microsoft.com...teservices/default.mspx

Home users should be able to get the patches as soon as they become available, instead of being forced to wait up to a week while their machine remains vulnerable to known exploits. Of course they have a OneCare service where you can pay to do just that. Seems like BS to me, having to pay extra to get patches for a product you already bought ahead of everyone else.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Oct 12, 2006 - 12:32 AM

It doesn't matter how they distribute the patches. They still require a restart. That was the whole point. Remember?

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 1:10 AM

Who cares? That's what I've been trying to say the whole time. Yeah you have to restart, big deal. That's no reason to make everyone wait for a certain day to be able to patch their systems. If my system is at risk I want the patch immediately, not next Tuesday.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 1:31 AM

Restarting every computer in a corporate network is a BIG deal. Your comment reveals you've never been in such an environment, nor can you even grasp the concept.

Score: 0

By fewt

edited Oct 12, 2006 - 2:46 AM

for item in net view; do
shutdown /r /t:0 /f \\$item;
done

Well, needs a little tweeking in cygwin to actually work but it's not so tough ;-)

I used to have a real script that made some mandatory reg edits to every system in a domain, it was pretty ugly but it worked pretty darned good. Of course, it was one domain on a flat network so that makes it vastly easier than every computer in a corporate network.. Still, if you know what subnets you manage and get a result from netstat -a it's not impossible.

heh

Disclaimer: I agree with your comment, please read my comment with the utmost level of sarcasm.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 5:08 PM

"What is so terrible about having to reboot?"

It is the single worst thing about computing today, IMO. It's intrusive and stupid. Vista supposedly will have much less of it, if so, it'll be worth it. They said the same thing about XP versus W2K, but so far that is not the case.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

edited Oct 11, 2006 - 6:55 PM

For home users rebooting the computer is not a terrible ordeal. I would much prefer taking a minute or two to restart the computer than having to wait a week to get an important update. If you want to wait and install updates once a week or month it's simple, turn off automatic updates and go by your own schedule.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 2:42 AM

Oh, then why do they all complain so much when they have to?

Everyone I know gets pretty irritable with their computers when they have to reboot.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 8:26 PM

I have a home machine and I never purposefully turn off my PC, I suspend. 5 seconds to desktop versus 1+ minute for hourglass to turn off. hmmm, which will I choose?

I'd much rather have MS test them, especially the interaction of all the patches, for me, and delay them all. I don't use IE and no windows machine faces the net without a fwall in front, so 99% of these patches are fairly worthless.

I just don't want to reboot. It's stupid. Espoecially in a corp environment where people are trying to get crap done, and yes, people do work at 3 in the a.m. upon occasion, so as a sysadmin I can't just force them off if they have work to do.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 1:12 AM

You don't have to, wait as long as you want. That doesn't mean the rest of us should have to wait until Tuesday to update our OS. Personally taking a minute or two to restart isn't going to affect me a great deal, or at all in fact.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 4:40 PM

Servers rebooting every day? Forget it. A corporation with thousands of computers with different configurations with not enough time to test patches? Chaotic. There are pros and cons. If you think Microsoft shouldn't release patches only once a month, tell it to the organizations that told Microsoft that they only wanted patches once a month. Seems the average person doesn't really care one way or the other.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

edited Oct 11, 2006 - 6:57 PM

A corporation with thousands of computers is not going to be relying on Windows Automatic Updates in the first place. I am not talking about big corporations here.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Oct 16, 2006 - 1:28 PM

Who said anything about Windows Automatic Update? Even with WSUS (which I use), it's still an issue whenever a computer (especially a server) needs to reboot. People don't like to reboot a computer because it disturbs their workflow. When a server reboots, those who use that server are denied its use. When I reboot our server here at work, my coworkers lose network and Internet access for up to 10 minutes and they can get grouchy.

Score: 0

By lordgibbness

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 7:10 PM

Almost all companies will update windows whether via winupdate or other means. If patches are released all the time then exploits for those vulnerabilities are likely to appear and the companies which have been unable to test their environment against the (possibly) daily updates will fall behind on their updating and hence become vulnerable to the attacks. Ideally from a business PoV the fewer patch releases the better as this requires less testing - that's why service packs are much more welcome. But obviously as we all know it's not safe to hold back on the patches for that long...

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 7:37 PM

I didn't mean they don't update, but they have other methods that are more suited to their environments (see link above). Corporations and home consumers shouldn't be expected to use the same source of updates.

Score: 0

By lordgibbness

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 8:17 AM

But the crux of the argument is not where you download/install from but the fact then as soon as MS release a patch for a vulnerability, the likelihood of that being exploited is greatly increased. Therefore if MS were to release patches every day for example, then businesses would be forced to test/update constantly. I can only assume that you don't work in the industry from the way that you speak...

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 8:15 AM

oh? and why should microsoft waste their time making two completely different sources of updates just to make you happy?

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 10:38 AM

That's all fine and good, but when is IE7 going to get pushed out? That old IE6 is like the box in the office fridge that is so old and fuzzy nobody will touch it to throw it away.

I know there are a ton of Web 2.0 apps waiting for IE 6 to be history before they launch.

Score: 0

By RingMaster

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 12:31 PM

Plenty of Web 2.0 apps already in production regardless of IE 7 being released. A good developer makes their apps work on all browsers. Its not that hard.

IE 7 RC1 is already out.

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

edited Oct 11, 2006 - 12:26 PM

"but when is IE7 going to get pushed out"

Depends on how long it takes for Bill Gates' laxatives to kick in.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 12:58 PM

rofl

that...was...funny!

but honestly, i use ie7 beta and actually like it. (except for the stupid popup telling me i can use google as the search engine.)

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 1:11 AM

Yeah IE7 is definitly an improvement, I'll give them that.

Score: 0

By THZGryphon

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 11:21 AM

Those admins are pretty stupid then.

Score: 0

By husky87

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 6:39 AM

have the patches been released yet? no sign of them on microsoft update

Score: 0

By THZGryphon

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 12:35 PM

Patches showed up for me before the news post.

Score: 0

By The_Zeroorez

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 9:25 AM

Yes, they have.

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 11:33 PM

has any one tried out
www.autopatcher.com

great resource

or just use linux like me

:-)

Score: 0

By jp_ext

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 1:46 AM

THEN WHY ARE YOU AT BETANEWS?
Go to some g-y Linux hangout instead.

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Oct 11, 2006 - 1:06 PM

i wasn't aware betanews was only for homophobes using windows.

Score: 0

By RingMaster

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 12:29 PM

g-y stands for GAY.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 3:23 PM

I thought it meant GOODY.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 9:33 AM

???

Sorry, It's BetaNews, not WinBetaNews.

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 11:31 PM

www.autopatcher.com

has anyone checked out this great resource?

just a thought

enjoy

btw i use linux :-)

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 11:44 PM

"btw i use linux :-)"

My condolences.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 7:54 AM

he is clearly just a spammer

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 9:33 AM

Actually, autopatcher has proven quite useful on a number of occasions.

It's like a completely up-to-date service pack. No need to network the computers to get them up-to-date. Just pop this baby in and you're done.

Score: 0

By itanshi

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 9:14 PM

nice of them, but their site was broke most of the day, they ever fix that?

Score: 0

By THZGryphon

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 10:34 PM

rofl

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 6:01 PM

As mentioned repeatedly: The singular vulnerability of Microsoft is it's centralized, monogamous nature of it's software.

And we can't patch easily now. wonderful.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 6:04 PM

monogamous
chuckle, I think you meant "homogeneous".

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Oct 11, 2006 - 4:26 PM

I think he meant monolithic.

Windows has had a Monolithic kernel, whereas the Linux kernel is "micro".

Monolithic kernels tend to contain an enormous amount of outdated and unused code. Micro-kernels tend to remain smaller or get smaller, since the emphasis on micro-kernels is compactness and efficiency.

Micro vs. Mono:
http://www.google.com/ur...=4K448iHDrBEn27MFXy73hQ

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 2:44 AM

The Linux kernel is monolithic..

http://www.oreilly.com/c...nsources/book/appa.html

This should be a good refresher.

heh

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 6:28 PM

Because Microsoft networks are meant to be monogamous, they break stuff if 3rd party apps are used on them, say, CRM systems, or a particular plug-in that Microsoft doesn't like to pay patent royalties on.

Score: 0

By Win123

edited Oct 10, 2006 - 7:05 PM

I really think you mean homogeneous. Last time I checked, computers don't have exclusive sexual relationships.

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 7:14 PM

some would argue....

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 7:02 PM

Do you know what monogamous means?

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 7:36 PM

Yes. I know *you really* want to say homogeneous. THAT, however, is a cliché, and a dull one at this point.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 7:36 PM

Using the correct word for something is a cliche?

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Oct 11, 2006 - 7:55 AM

these days one can only wonder.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Oct 10, 2006 - 7:29 PM

I don't think you do. Monogamous doesn't only have to apply to sex. That's just the only definition you ever remembered apparently.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Oct 10, 2006 - 7:43 PM

It's the only definition Merriam-Webster has...or you are like me and have been married for awhile ;)

Score: 0

By hiltonM

edited Oct 11, 2006 - 3:12 AM

My how did this degenerate into a cacophony over mono verus homo. Personally Im against homo :)

Score: 0

By gliderflyboy

edited Oct 12, 2006 - 12:17 PM

Reading this blog confirms that most of you nerds deserve the ridicule that you get. It's so obvious that your brains are badly flawed. Your output works, but your input is disabled. How many times can you ignore being told that a statement is not intended for business or institutional networks? If the people that Bill Gates has working for him are like you, then it's no wonder computer usage is so user unfriendly!

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Oct 16, 2006 - 1:22 PM

Look up "logical fallacy". And the original poster needs to state that their statement "is not intended for business or institutional networks". We can't read their minds. If the poster is not specific enough, we'll assume that they mean all computers and networks. So think before you rant.

Score: 0