Last Updated: 2009-03-12 21:46:28 UTC
by Swa Frantzen (Version: 3)
Overview of the March 2009 Microsoft patches and their status.
|#||Affected||Contra Indications||Known Exploits||Microsoft rating||ISC rating(*)|
|MS09-006||Multiple input validation vulnerabilities in the windows kernel allow random code execution though the GDI component (WMF and EMF files yet again), and privilege escalations that allow random code to be run in kernel mode.
No publicly known exploits
|MS09-007||Secure Channel (SChannel) implements SSL and TLS. When using client certificates (X.509) the server implementation fails to properly validate that the client has access to the private key and allows impersonation using only knowledge of the public key of the client.
|Secure Channel (SChanne)l
|KB 960225||No publicly known exploits.||Severity:Important
|MS09-008||Multiple vulnerabilities in the DNS and WINS server implementation. DNS spoofing is made easier by allowing a more predicable transaction ID, possible causing DNS cache poisoning. The update also fixes the problem with WPAD (Web Proxy Auto Discovery) a DNS. A similar problem is fixed for WINS with the WPAD and ISATAP (IPv6: Intra Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol) names
Replaces MS08-037, MS08-034 and MS08-066.
|DNS and WINS server
We appreciate updates
US based customers can call Microsoft for free patch related support on 1-866-PCSAFETY
- We use 4 levels:
- PATCH NOW: Typically used where we see immediate danger of exploitation. Typical environments will want to deploy these patches ASAP. Workarounds are typically not accepted by users or are not possible. This rating is often used when typical deployments make it vulnerable and exploits are being used or easy to obtain or make.
- Critical: Anything that needs little to become "interesting" for the dark side. Best approach is to test and deploy ASAP. Workarounds can give more time to test.
- Important: Things where more testing and other measures can help.
- Less Urgent: Typically we expect the impact if left unpatched to be not that big a deal in the short term. Do not forget them however.
- The difference between the client and server rating is based on how you use the affected machine. We take into account the typical client and server deployment in the usage of the machine and the common measures people typically have in place already. Measures we presume are simple best practices for servers such as not using outlook, MSIE, word etc. to do traditional office or leisure work.
- The rating is not a risk analysis as such. It is a rating of importance of the vulnerability and the perceived or even predicted threat for affected systems. The rating does not account for the number of affected systems there are. It is for an affected system in a typical worst-case role.
- Only the organization itself is in a position to do a full risk analysis involving the presence (or lack of) affected systems, the actually implemented measures, the impact on their operation and the value of the assets involved.
- All patches released by a vendor are important enough to have a close look if you use the affected systems. There is little incentive for vendors to publicize patches that do not have some form of risk to them
Swa Frantzen -- Section 66