Win XP slays buffer overflow bugs

Source code security audit


Microsoft has eradicated buffer overflows with Windows XP, following a source code security audit, group veep Jim Allchin claimed during a keynote at the Intel Developers Forum in San Jose.

A buffer overflow, which may cause a system or process to crash, happens when a program or process attempts to store more data in a buffer than intended. This is very useful for hackers because it enables them to create specially formatted malformed requests which will overflow a buffer and leave their code at parts on the system where it might subsequently be executed.

Buffer overflows first came to prominence with the Morris worm in 1988 and are still causing trouble even now. Variants of the Code Red worm exploited a buffer overflow flaw in the indexing service DLL of Microsoft's IIS Web server.

As a CERT advisory explains, IIS Web server on beta versions of Win XP were among those vulnerable to the problem.

It could be assumed elementary testing or code review would pick up buffer overflow problems in practice it is much more difficult.

A quick search revealed few published references on the prevention of buffer overflow problems, an occupational hazard of software programming that is not peculiar to Redmond. For that reason it'll be interesting to see the results of Microsoft's work." ®

Related Stories

Unique ID is built into WinXP final build
Sun cries wolf over Windows XP
Serious Outlook hole patched
Buffer the FTP Slayer
BIND holes mean big trouble on the Net


Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022