The Microsoft Update mechanism has been used to spread malware

http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002377.html

by k33l0r • 14 years ago

225 61 14 years ago

f-secure.com

leephillips• 14 years ago

So it's working as designed.

fidotron• 14 years ago

It really was an unbelievable oversight to use the same certs in the Terminal Services activation system.

Quite a demonstration that even if you go to great pains to secure the code if you aren't careful with your credentials then it's for nothing.

rbanffy3• 14 years ago

A very similar thing happened with France during WW2.

I always remind myself I'm not as smart as I think I am.

sillysaurus• 14 years ago

What happened with France?

debacle• 14 years ago

This is like finding out the zombies have made it into the compound.

I wonder how big this hole is to fix. I also wonder, as many have, if this was written by an Intelligence agency and, if so, if they had access to Windows' source code.

tobias3• 14 years ago

My Windows already fixed it. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2718704

Animus7• 14 years ago

The awesome part is how they force you to download an additional signed WGA validator exe before the site coughs up the patch, which itself is signed. If I was the attacker, I'd definitely be MITM'ing this page.

Zombies in the compound indeed.

exDM693• 14 years ago

How can you tell whether the fix was genuine? What if you were already infected by the Flame virus or similar that intercepts your Windows update traffic?

I hope Microsoft can deliver the revoked certificates in a trustworthy manner.

Achshar2• 14 years ago

The idea of Microsoft willingly giving windows source code access to government does not make alot of sense.

What could have however happened is that the said "Intelligence agency" first created a malware to infect MSFT engineers' computers and get access info of the code repository and then spoofing themselves as MSFT employees to download the source code. This is alot more plausible considering what stuxnet and flame can already do. (Assuming they were made by same "Intelligence agency")

MSFT should really check the systems of their employees first.

gaius4• 14 years ago

Nah, anyone can get hold of Windows sources http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx

Microsoft licenses product source code to qualified customers, enterprises, governments, and partners for debugging and reference purposes

Drop 'em an email if you're curious.

mxyzptlk• 14 years ago

It makes sense to someone.

Microsoft shared source initiative

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx

In 2003 MS gave China access to their source

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2003/feb03/02-28gs...

MiguelHudnandez5• 14 years ago

Here we have an example of complexity arising from copy protection/licensing. It so happens that this complexity caused a security vulnerability which, when exploited on any one computer, affects close to a billion computers.

Is anyone else infuriated that a vulnerability like this exists in what is analogous to copy protection code?

In other words, if Microsoft had been spending more of their resources on making software work, instead of making software work only when you've proven you've paid for it, this particular issue would not exist.

y0ghur7_xxx• 14 years ago

The same would happen on ubuntu if someone steals the repository keys. This has nothing to do with copy protection.

dmboyd• 14 years ago

Well... No, it'd be like if ubuntu required you to sign up to corporate licensing in order to use Ubuntu. Then handing out misconfigured keys to corporate customers which could also be used to sign repos as an unfortunate side effect.

MiguelHudnandez5• 14 years ago

But my point is that more teams needed access to signing keys because some of those teams were dedicated only to licensing issues. If they didn't need signing keys, those keys wouldn't have been compromised.

I suppose I can break it down another way.

Complexity introduces vulnerabilities.

Some complexity is necessary for the software to accomplish what the customer wants.

Some complexity is arguably necessary to protect the interests of the vendor. This is arguable because it varies between open source and proprietary software.

To me, it is upsetting when the code to protect the vendor's interests is where a critical security vulnerability exists. I don't think this is a controversial statement.

gaius4• 14 years ago

Let's not forget that kernel.org itself was hacked. Nor that Firefox et al update themselves. People who live in glass houses...

rbanffy3• 14 years ago

Yes.

But you can always get the source and build the package yourself. Can you do that with Windows?

jcdrepair• 14 years ago

Microsoft has over 90,000 employees, and no doubt some of those people were hired specifically to protect their software licensing. They're probably not pulling their top OS developers to work on this. So the idea that they should have been "spending more of their resources on making software work..." is not really valid.

In fact, there is no company or software community anywhere that writes highly complex and bug free software. It's not possible.

MiguelHudnandez5• 14 years ago

I agree with you that they are not necessarily removing developers from other projects to work on licensing. However, a percentage of code in Windows is dedicated to validating licensing and preventing piracy.

> In fact, there is no company or software community anywhere that writes highly complex and bug free software. It's not possible.

I agree with this point. For this reason, the point I'm trying to make is that reducing complexity is a key way to make software more secure. And when reducing complexity, we should look at what is in the user's best interest.

Code has bugs--that is an unescapable fact for the foreseeable future. Therefore, any code running on your computer makes you slightly less safe. Therefore, any code on your machine which is not accomplishing something in your best interests could be considered an unnecessary security risk.

I am arguing that it is not in your best interest to insure that you bought a little certificate from Microsoft before your computer operates the way you have configured it to.

After all that, of course it is in your best interests to have Microsoft grow its war chest and be a healthy company that can employ tens of thousands of smart developers to write good code (which we choose to keep using year after year).

But, every time a product breaks because they have to make sure I'm not a criminal, and the way they do it is sloppy, I get upset, and I think it's rightfully so. Usually it is small, proprietary CMS or CRM software that drives me crazy. But today it's this issue.

Spooky23• 14 years ago

This sort of thing (certificate compromise) has happened with open source projects as well.

The downside of trusting certificates is that you're abstracting trust to a point that you (where you == the IT industry) stops questioning who can do what. You trust something absolutely, but that trust is based on lots of people whom you don't know doing the right thing without making mistakes.

Arare2• 14 years ago

Oh look, another scaremongering and purposely misleading article from F-Secure. This is starting to become a regular thing isn't it; I guess the recession must have hit them particularly hard.

bastardsage2• 14 years ago

I'm curious, could you please quote some of the points you thought were purposefully misleading in the article?

Arare2• 14 years ago

And here come the shills, one or perhaps two at a time to defend the article from any critique. I'm afraid I've grown bored of this dance, entertaining as it may have been I've become listless.

runn1ng• 14 years ago

Frankly, I don't have an idea of what are you trying to say or imply.

wrekkuh• 14 years ago

I actually feel Mikko & the folks at f-secure are very good at explaining things to people who aren't everyday "virus fighters," but i felt the exact same way you did (like they were scaremongering) when they said "The Nightmare Scenario."

I'm on the fence about this issue, honestly. Part of me feels like they believe passionately that we're stepping into new, dangerous territory. The other part of me indeed feels like this is great advertising for not only them, but their industry (And they're going to push it all they can).

But the fact of the matter is they admit they can't protect you, whoever you are, from these types of targeted attacks. I've seen well respected speakers from Defcon go back and forth with Mikko on Twitter about the efficiency of AV.

It sucks you're (the parent) being downvoted but this is an issue, what with the incredible amount of FUD that comes with every serious attack.

EDIT: My mistake in misspelling Mikko's name. Sorry about that.

mahmud• 14 years ago

Mikko, Mikko Hyponnen. Not "Mykko".

DigitalSea• 14 years ago

Cue the sound of a thousand palms hitting faces at Microsoft HQ.

meatsock• 14 years ago

let this be a lesson to you: run windows update frequently for maximum security.

ktizo• 14 years ago

Now available with new and faster bugs.

dholowiski• 14 years ago

You realize, you already have to be infected with the flame virus to work, right?

caf• 14 years ago

No, you just have to be sharing a network with a host already infected with Flame.

smackfu• 14 years ago

Apparently the other tricky bit is that Windows can be set to auto-configure network proxies (presumably for enterprise support), so the infected host pretends to be the source of auto-config info in order to direct the other systems to connect through it to get to Windows Update. At which point the infected system can infect the package, which has been signed so it will auto-install.

semenko• 14 years ago

The SecureList summary was much more detailed: http://www.securelist.com/en/blog/208193558/Gadget_in_the_mi...

Flame took advantage of WPAD, a little-known magical hostname (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Proxy_Autodiscovery_Protoco...) to do MITM attacks on the Windows Update servers.

Flame then installed 'WuSetupV.exe' with the description "Desktop Gadget Platform" "Allows you to display gadgets on your desktop".

What's amazing is that Windows Update doesn't require explicit validation of an update-only certificate chain. It seems like any certificate from the Microsoft root can certify updates (!).

sev• 14 years ago

> I guess the good news is that this wasn't done by cyber criminals interested in financial benefit. They could have infected millions of computers. Instead, this technique has been used in targeted attacks, most likely launched by a Western intelligence agency.

You mean the bad news.

Achshar2• 14 years ago

They apparently were only thinking of monetary losses, but a government malware on my computer is alot worse than credit card malware. At least we know what credit card malware can do at best (or worst).

joewee• 14 years ago

"Western Intelligence" agencies really seem to be good at mucking stuff up.

billpg• 14 years ago

I saw the headline and thought "Oh (expletive) I let update run last night!", but it turned out to be the revoked cert update.

rsynnott• 14 years ago

But does it refuse to install the malware if it arbitrarily decides that your Windows is not genuine?

The Microsoft Update mechanism has been used to spread malware

Related Stories