FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released

[Kayman]

Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:19:54 -0700, Anthony Buckland wrote:

> "Kayman" <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:e1JqD046IHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:22:07 -0700, Paul (Bornival) wrote:
>> ...
>> Don't know (can't locate) any technical reasons re incompatiblity. My
>> guess
>> is that ZA just did not realize the impact KB951748 would have to their
>> software. For the ZA users, this actually would be an interesting question
>> to ask in their forum.
>
> Believe me, it's been all over the ZoneAlarm forum. The first thing
> you see now when you enter the forum is a
>
> G R E A T B I G W A R N I N G
>
> about the situation and its fix.

Okay, okay, okay; I believe you! I have no reasons for visiting that
particular forum. What have/had the *moderators* (not the posters) to say
in relations to the DNS issue?

 

[Paul (Bornival)]

Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released

"jen" wrote:

> Microsoft patch knocks some ZoneAlarm users offline:
> **Firewall's hooks into Windows XP kernel the cause, says ZoneAlarm**
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9108298
>
> -jen
>

Thank you. Interesting and makes sense, even if technical details are not
given.

 

[Root Kit]

Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:48:44 -0400, "jen" <jen@example.com> wrote:

>Microsoft patch knocks some ZoneAlarm users offline:
>**Firewall's hooks into Windows XP kernel the cause, says ZoneAlarm**
>http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9108298

<quote>
The quickest way to regain Internet access, said the company, is to
uninstall the security update tagged as KB951748 using Windows' Add or
Remove Programs utility. Alternately, users could tweak ZoneAlarm's
firewall settings or reduce the security level of the machine.
<end-quote>

How responsible.....


<quote>
"We filter network traffic at the kernel, where malware can't avoid
us," said James Grant, a ZoneAlarm team lead. "If you filter traffic
in user mode, malware can see what we're doing."
<end-quote>

Yearh, right. As if malware wouldn't compromise the kernel as well....


<quote>
The problem notwithstanding, she defended kernel hooking. "It's
undocumented, but it's in widespread use. Every major security vendor
makes use of it," said Yecies.
<end-quote>

So does any serious malware writer....


<quote>
"This isn't about finger-pointing," said Yecies, when asked which
company was responsible for the snafu, ZoneAlarm or Microsoft. When
pressed, however, she acknowledged that Microsoft should have caught
the problem before issuing its security update.
<end-quote>

Yearh, right. "Don't make changes to your kernel without making sure
we didn't mess with it.".....

 

[Kerry Brown]

Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released

> At this point some versions of Zone Alarm barfed. I don't use Zone Alarm
> so the rest of the story I gleaned from reading Zone Alarm forums and
> official announcements. The Zone Alarm application noticed that some
> Windows files had changed and decided not to allow these files to
> communicate to the Internet. It wasn't anything in the way the files
> worked, merely that they had changed, that caused the problem. Because
> these are system files Zone Alarm doesn't ask about them. Clearing the
> Zone Alarm database so that it would not think the files were changed
> fixed the problem. How is an OS supposed to update itself if it can't
> change files? The way that Zone Alarm monitors and responds to system file
> changes is flawed.


It looks like this may not be quite the whole story. There are conflicting
reports about exactly what caused Zone Alarm to barf. Some stories say it
was Zone Alarm's heuristics causing the problem. Others say the update broke
the way Zone Alarm uses unsupported methods to hack the kernel. Zone Alarm
hasn't commented officially that I can find. It doesn't really change
anything. It's merely a technical point of interest. The fault lays with
Zone Alarm if either reason is the cause.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

 

[Harry Johnston [MVP]]

Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released

Root Kit wrote:

> <quote>
> "We filter network traffic at the kernel, where malware can't avoid
> us," said James Grant, a ZoneAlarm team lead. "If you filter traffic
> in user mode, malware can see what we're doing."
> <end-quote>
>
> Yearh, right. As if malware wouldn't compromise the kernel as well....

Well ... if the user isn't an administrator, it won't. But what it *can* do is
hook itself into a program that's already allowed access, like your web browser.

Harry.

 

[Root Kit]

Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:40:05 +1200, "Harry Johnston [MVP]"
<harry@scms.waikato.ac.nz> wrote:

>Root Kit wrote:
>
>> <quote>
>> "We filter network traffic at the kernel, where malware can't avoid
>> us," said James Grant, a ZoneAlarm team lead. "If you filter traffic
>> in user mode, malware can see what we're doing."
>> <end-quote>
>>
>> Yearh, right. As if malware wouldn't compromise the kernel as well....
>
>Well ... if the user isn't an administrator, it won't.

That's correct. Unless the firewall is so badly designed it allows the
malware to exploit it to gain SYSTEM credentials, that is.

But unfortunately running as administrator is what the vast majority
of windows users do.

 

[Kayman]

Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:28:16 GMT, Root Kit wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:40:05 +1200, "Harry Johnston [MVP]"
> <harry@scms.waikato.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>>Root Kit wrote:
>>
>>> <quote>
>>> "We filter network traffic at the kernel, where malware can't avoid
>>> us," said James Grant, a ZoneAlarm team lead. "If you filter traffic
>>> in user mode, malware can see what we're doing."
>>> <end-quote>
>>>
>>> Yearh, right. As if malware wouldn't compromise the kernel as well....
>>
>>Well ... if the user isn't an administrator, it won't.
>
> That's correct. Unless the firewall is so badly designed it allows the
> malware to exploit it to gain SYSTEM credentials, that is.
>
> But unfortunately running as administrator is what the vast majority
> of windows users do.

That is sadly true!
A timely reminder and friendly advice for all the lurkers out there running
on WinXP, please take notice
The most dependable defenses are:
1. Do not work as Administrator; For day-to-day work routinely use a
Limited User Account (LUA).
2. Secure (Harden) your operating system.
3. Don't expose services to public networks.
4. Keep your operating (OS) system (and all software on it)updated/patched.
(Got SP3 yet?).
5. Reconsider the usage of IE and OE.
5a.Secure (Harden) Internet Explorer.
6. Review your installed 3rd party software applications/utilities; Remove
clutter, *including* 3rd party software personal (so-called) firewall
application (PFW) - the one which claims: "It can stop/control malicious
outbound traffic".
7. If on dial-up Internet connection, activate the build-in firewall and
configure Windows not to use TCP/IP as transport protocol for NetBIOS,
SMB and RPC, thus leaving TCP/UDP ports 135,137-139 and 445 (the most
exploited Windows networking weak point) closed.
7a.If on high-speed Internet connection use a router.
For the average homeuser it is suggested blocking both TCP and UDP ports
135 ~ 139 and 445 on the router and implement countermeasures against
DNSChanger.
8. Routinely practice Safe-Hex.

Also, ensure you do:
a. Regularly back-up data/files.
b. Familiarize yourself with crash recovery tools and re-installing your
operating system (OS).
b. Utilize a good-quality real-time anti-virus application and some vital
system monitoring utilities/applications.
c. Keep abreast of the latest developments.

And finally:
Most computer magazines and/or (computer) specialized websites are *biased*
i.e. heavely weighted towards the (advertisement) dollar almighty!
Therefore:
a. Don't fall for software applications touted in publications relying on
advertisement revenue.
b. Do take their *test-results* of various software with a *considerable*
amount of salt...!
c. ...Which also applies to their *investigative* test reports related to
any software applications.
d. Investigate claims made by software manufacturer *prior* downloading
their software; Specialized Newsgroups and/or Fora are a great way to
find out the 'nitty-gritties'.

Wanna know details? Go ahead and ask

--
Security is a process not a product.
(Bruce Schneier)