Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Michael Horowitz's picture
Michael Horowitz

Defensive Computing

A cheat sheet for fixing the latest Windows security flaw

Here we go again. Users of Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows 2000 can get infected simply by viewing a web page. If you use Vista or Windows Server 2008, you're safe.

To get infected, the DirectShow component of Windows needs to process a malicious QuickTime video file. The easiest way for the malicious file to get on your computer is via a web browser (not just Internet Explorer) but it can also arrive via email, shared network folders, sneaker-net, etc.

There is, as yet, no fix for the problem, but Microsoft does have a work-around - a registry zap that breaks the association between QuickTime files and DirectShow. That is, you can tell the operating system not to invoke DirectShow to process QuickTime files.

For more on the problem, see Hackers exploit unpatched Windows bug.

Perhaps you're thinking, why not install QuickTime and let it process its own files? Or, if you have QuickTime installed, won't it already process its files and thus bypass DirectShow? According to the Microsoft Security Research & Defense blog

... whether you’ve installed Apple’s QuickTime or not, the vulnerability is in the Microsoft’s quartz.dll and it’s possible to craft an attack to call that DLL on the system regardless of whether Apple’s QuickTime is present.

Microsoft offers a number of work-arounds, but the one described in the cheat sheet below was recommended in the same blog posting:

This is the best workaround because it’s the most surgical. It only disables QuickTime Parsing in DirectShow. DirectShow's other functionality is not affected. This workaround covers all known attack vectors. Therefore, if you are not concerned about QuickTime content playback via DirectShow, this is the workaround we recommend you apply.

CHEAT SHEET

To zap the registry, start at the Microsoft Security Advisory: Vulnerability in Microsoft DirectShow could allow remote code execution.

Scroll down and look for the two Fixit buttons shown below.

Click on the one to enable the workaround. This downloads a small file (113KB) called EnableAdvisory971778.msi.

Before running the file, right click on it, view the properties and check the Digital Signatures tab. It should indicate that the file was digitally signed by Microsoft on Thursday May 28, 2009 at 7:54:08PM as shown below. If there is no Digital Signatures tab, do not run file.

 

Update June 8, 2009: The timestamp in a digital certificate is done in UTC, so everyone will not see the exact same time. When asked to confirm the timestamp, a Microsoft representative said it was 4:54PM rather than the 7:54PM that I was seeing. This is because they were in the Pacific time zone whereas I was viewing it in the Eastern time zone.

 

Run the program by double-clicking on it.

You have to agree to the license terms first.

Then the program runs

i

and finishes in a few seconds

The program makes a restore point called "Installed Enable advisory 971778", presumably before the registry zap. If System Restore is disabled, the program still runs.

There is, unfortunately, no simple test that it worked. If you care to verify it, then you have to peruse the registry looking for a long ugly entry that should no longer be there.

As noted above, this simply disables QuickTime processing in DirectShow and thus should not interfere with Apple's QuickTime software handling QuickTime files. I verified this on a Windows XP machine, with QuickTime version 7.6 installed. The zap did not interfere with viewing the latest QuickTime formatted ads from Apple.

What People Are Saying

Vista more secure

"If you use Vista or Windows Server 2008, you're safe."

Another example of Vista being more secure than WinXP.

Just use Linux

Yawn! Another Windows problem.

I solved it by installing Kubuntu.

Long and ugly

Excuse me, but how do you "peruse the registry looking for a long ugly entry that should not be there" if it's not there and you can't tell if the twenty other seemingly pretty "ugly" entries are as "long" as the bad entry? Got any more helpful and more informative parameters like "long" and "ugly?" This must be geek gab, unfathomable by mere mortal beings.

The only way really to verify it is to go to a known infectious website--if you survive, it took; if not, the universe will collapse into itself (and hopefully take with it all of the bloggers writing in geekese).

Buddy, before you start

Buddy, before you start trashing others' good advices, try clicking on the link after "... long ugly entry..." The link brings you to a Microsoft page, describing what entries to look for.

Geekese? That's cute. Perhaps it's time for YOU to pick up a second language. Uncultured & ignorant &*%#.

Already speak 4 languages

Wow, this is one severe case of "blog-reply rage". The post I wrote did not trash good advice; if you took the time to read and understand it before soiling yer shorts, you'd have seen it criticized how the info was communicated. The blog was about a security flaw and while the blogger referred several times to MS advisories--NOT ONCE did he just copy and paste (what I think he was referring to) that "long" "ugly" entry into his article which I do now for the sake of the reader:

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{D51BD5A0-7548-11CF-A520-0080C77EF58A}

(not all that "long" or "ugly" IMHO)

Nowhere does MS cite "long" and "ugly" as parameters. I'm 5'3", freckled and very overweight; I've never been called "cute", but this blogger fantasizes he is. The bottom line is he is not communicating and not being very informative, using "cutesy" terms like "long" and "ugly.". My post was sarcastic, while this reply is straightforward for those who are sarcasm-challenged or who have a tough time beating out turtles on IQ tests. [no insult to turtles intended]

OBTW what prompted my original post was the very fact that I went to the link "after long ugly entry" and found nothing "describing what entries to look for," but still more links. I had gone to the other links and they were not directly useful either. The reader has to dig deep, read twice and then, maybe, he'll figure out what the blogger is talking about. If I have to go to the links, I didn't need the blog in the first place. The blogger might just have wrote "Read Advisory 91778;" he has no idea what it means to inform rather than just cut and paste. Instead of attempting to be cutesy, the blogger should be empathizing with his reader and trying to figure out how best to distill what he might know and make it easy for his audience to comprehend. That is the essence of non-fiction writing. Cyberspace is full of bloggers full of themselves, but devoid of writers.

Those who complain about my geekese reference probably enjoy politicians' double talk, lawyerese, and corporate obfuscation. There is no need for computer people to confuse others and invent yet another jargon filled language. I personally have neither the time nor inclination to decipher what each ex-keypunch card sorter turned blogger thinks is cute. I speak German, French, Italian and English--but I don't know what a "&*%#" is. Kindly translate, mon ami.

Polly, your mom must have

Polly, your mom must have thought you were cute. But, what is really "long" and "ugly" is your post. There's no need to respond to every little insult; just read the the signoff on the insulting post and you can easily see the sender was the really "uncultured, ignorant" one.

Relax, can't we all just get along?!

1. So we all know that there are a bazillion ways to allow malware to infest your computer. This is just a new one. That includes every manufacturer.
2. Every computer system has flaws. Even the 6% solution was broken into in less than a minute.
3. Name calling sure is getting us no where fast!

Solution: We keep saying that we want a safe internet, but what are we doing about it? Maybe a consortium of all manufacturers should get together and start using a legal solution against the people who have such websites. Also, maybe we could pass some tough laws that give these cretins 5 to 10 without computers and a couple million hours of community service to assist those with infected computers. Why argue about platforms? Let's take down the source!