[Infowarrior] - Microsoft's Security Disclosures Come Under Fire

[Richard Forno]

http://www.eweek.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=175694,00.asp
Microsoft's Security Disclosures Come Under Fire
April 13, 2006
By  Ryan Naraine

Is Microsoft silently fixing security vulnerabilities and deliberately
obfuscating details about patches in its monthly security bulletins?

Matthew Murphy, a security researcher who has worked closely with the MSRC
(Microsoft Security Response Center) in the past, is accusing the software
maker of "misleading" customers by not clearly spelling out exactly what is
being patched in the MS06-015 bulletin released on April 11.

That bulletin, rated "critical," contained patches for a remote code
execution hole in Windows Explorer, the embedded file manager that lets
Windows users view and manage drives, folders and files.

However, as Murphy found out when scouring through the fine print in the
bulletin, the update also addressed what Microsoft described as a "publicly
disclosed variation" of a flaw that was reported in May 2004
(CVE-2004-2289.)

In an entry posted to the SecuriTeam blog, Murphy noted that the
vulnerability that is documented was privately reported, but the "variation"
that was also patched has been publicly known for 700+ days.

"In that case, the issue that is truly the 'variation' is the issue that was
discovered and reported privately after the public disclosure," he said.

"[The] information as published is extremely misleading and Microsoft's
choice not to document a publicly reported vulnerability is not one that
will be for the benefit of its customers' security," Murphy said.

In an interview with eWEEK, Murphy said another "throwaway line" in the
bulletin also raised questions about whether a flaw he reported in August
2005 was silently fixed.

The bulletin refers to a "Defense in Depth change" that ensures that
consistent prompting occurs in "Internet zone drag and drop scenarios."

That wording, Murphy said, "sounds suspiciously like an attempt to plug the
vulnerability I reported publicly in February, which is CVE-2005-3240."

Murphy originally reported that vulnerability to the MSRC in August 2005,
but held off on publishing the details for six months. During that time,
Murphy and MSRC officials haggled over the severity of the bug and Microsoft
made it clear it had no plans to issue a security update to provide a fix,
Murphy said.

The company said the fixes would be included in Service Pack 2 of Windows
Server 2003 and Service Pack 3 of Windows XP. "Microsoft's internal risk
assessment concluded that this issue was not sufficiently serious to be
fixed in a security bulletin. This conclusion appears fundamentally
inconsistent with the way related issues were handled by Microsoft," Murphy
said.

"I disagree with the technical conclusion behind Microsoft's decision and I
further find the time frame of delivery and deployment for maintenance
releases to be largely unsuitable for security fixes of any significant
magnitude," he said.

Murphy has not yet tested the patch to determine whether the drag-and-drop
issue was actually fixed, but, even without testing, he argues that the way
the information was released leaves everyone guessing.

Read more here about Microsoft's April batch of security bulletins.

"Microsoft needs to be much more transparent about the real nature of the
threats customers are facing. Microsoft doesn't patch phantom
vulnerabilities that don't exist or unrealistic science-fiction attack
scenarios. Microsoft's under-documentation of these vulnerabilities leaves
those charged with deploying patches in a tough spot," he said.

"You simply don't know what the patches are for. It's virtually impossible
to make a determination about a deployment time frame if not deploying a
patch has the potential to place you at an additional, unknown risk. As a
result, administrators may deploy patches unnecessarily, erring on the side
of caution (and risking compatibility problems in the process), or they may
choose not to deploy based on incomplete information. Individuals making
these kinds of decisions deserve better information," Murphy said.

Murphy said the MS06-015 bulletin "should be revised or completely
rewritten, with the objective of providing sensible, coherent and complete
information to customers."

Microsoft, based in Redmond, Wash., declined requests for an interview to
discuss the issue. Instead, the company sent a statement to eWEEK to stress
that all the publicly disclosed vulnerabilities fixed by MS06-015 are
addressed in the bulletin documentation, listed under the "Vulnerability
Details" section and denoted by their individual CVE numbers.

"[We] have a working relationship with Matt and, based on our ongoing
discussions with him, view his blog posting as welcome feedback for how we
can continue to improve our security bulletins," the statement read.

The statement said "all publicly disclosed vulnerabilities" excludes
Murphy's report, but even that claim is "false," Murphy said.

"The bulletin patches a CVE that doesn't have its own individual denotation.
The bottom line is, Microsoft's claim that every 'publicly disclosed
vulnerability' is denoted specifically is bizarre, because they've yet to
answer one of the criticisms in the blog post, which is that they don't
provide meaningful information about this 'variation' that's allegedly
patched," he said.

Regarding Microsoft's statement, Murphy added, "That still doesn't answer
the question of where this other 'Defense in Depth' change was originated.
There's no specific threat that it's identified as correcting, so it seems
almost random."

Ironically, these questions about transparency and disclosure come less than
a month after an MSRC official criticized Apple for the way it handles
security guidance to customers.

"Look, the only way you can tackle security issues is by getting out ahead
of them and clearly communicating to your users the threat, and the clear
guidance on how to be safe," MSRC program manager Stephen Toulouse said in
response to what he described as the "recent trials and tribulations of
Apple in the security space."

Now, Murphy said, the shoe is on the other foot and Microsoft is just as
guilty as Apple. "Every time Microsoft seems to be getting the security
pitch right, one gets thrown in the dirt. Microsoft needs a new ball," he
said.

Check out eWEEK.com's Security Center for the latest security news, reviews
and analysis. And for insights on security coverage around the Web, take a
look at eWEEK.com Security Center Editor Larry Seltzer's Weblog.
Copyright (c) 2006 Ziff Davis Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.