Attention WINDOWS Users... Exploit Update

[john smith]

From http://www.grc.com/sn/notes-020.htm

*A special (short) edition of "Security Now!" ‹ On Sunday, January 1st,
I phoned into Leo Laporte's KFI "Tech Guy" radio program to inform him
and his radio audience of the availability of Ilfak's new patch and real
solution. Leo produced a special edition of our weekly "Security Now!"
audio podcast. Since this was by telephone the audio quality is not
great, but the high-quality and lower-quality MP3 audio files are
available here:

*Ilfak has produced a WMF Vulnerability Checker ‹ Many users want to
verify that their "exploit suppressed" systems are now safe to use. And
others want to see whether their anti-virus A-V systems are now
detecting some WMF exploit code. So Ilfak has produced a simple WMF
Vulnerability tester:

****Download Ilfak's WMF Vulnerability Checker (3.6 kb)
http://www.hexblog.com/security/files/wmf_checker_hexblog.exe

You can read more about his checker, and users' experiences, on his
Vulnerability Checker blog page.
http://www.hexblog.com/2006/01/wmf_vulnerability_checker.html

*An important Note about A-V signatures: As useful as anti-virus
protection is as a first line of defense, new WMF exploits are
succeeding at bypassing them. So A-V cannot be relied upon. The only
safe measure is to install Ilfak's vulnerability suppression solution
until Microsoft has updated the GDI32.DLL file and permanently resolved
this problem.

*Windows 98/SE/ME users: Microsoft's original advice to "unregister the
shimgvw.dll" (shell image viewer) was never correct or useful on those
platforms. The good news is that all current WMF exploits appear to be
non-functional on the older Win9x vintage platforms*.*.*. so you will
likely be okay until Microsoft has updated your system with the next
security patches. There is no short-term workaround for Windows 9x users.
*Other new links: See the bottom of the RED box below for many "original
discovery" links.

****SANS "Handler's Diary" update for January 1st, 2006
http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?rss&storyid=996

****F-Secure's ongoing coverage and updates
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/archive-012006.html
*Get generic WMF Vulnerability news ‹ from GoogleNews:

[Jose]

> So A-V cannot be relied upon. The only
> safe measure is to install Ilfak's vulnerability suppression solution

.... and we should trust Ilfak, why?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > So A-V cannot be relied upon. The only
> > safe measure is to install Ilfak's vulnerability suppression solution
>
> ... and we should trust Ilfak, why?

Check the references in my posting.
Do you trust Symantec?
Check the Symantec Website:
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/security/Content/13799.html

[Jose]

> Check the references in my posting.
> Do you trust Symantec?
> Check the Symantec Website:
> http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/security/Content/13799.html

There are no references to "Ilfak's vulnerability suppresion solution"
on that site. Why should we trust Ilfak?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans]

"john smith" > wrote

> Do you trust Symantec?
> Check the Symantec Website:
> http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/security/Content/13799.html

I have no proof of what I am about to say, or an explanation.

I have never had as much problem with my OS being unstable, as when I was
running Symantec. I wiped my hard drive, installed AVG, and have had a
stable platform, since then. YMMV
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> I have never had as much problem with my OS being unstable, as when I was
> running Symantec. I wiped my hard drive, installed AVG, and have had a
> stable platform, since then. YMMV

Just curious: Which OS?

I had the same issues with Win 3.1 and Win 95. Dumped Symantec stuff after
that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Just curious: Which OS?
>
> I had the same issues with Win 3.1 and Win 95. Dumped Symantec stuff
> after that.

Win 95.

Stability was _much_ improved, and when I later went to Win 2000, pretty
much all problems were gone.
--
Jim in NC

[john smith]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> > Just curious: Which OS?
> >
> > I had the same issues with Win 3.1 and Win 95. Dumped Symantec stuff
> > after that.
>
> Win 95.
>
> Stability was _much_ improved, and when I later went to Win 2000, pretty
> much all problems were gone.

I only offerred up Symantec because that is what most home users are
familiar with. If you haven't tried GRC's free utilities, you haven't
learned how vulnerable your system is.