Why are third party patches a bad thing?
They force Microsoft to rush out a patch before
Q.A testing has been fully completed in the time scale
Microsoft would have initially hoped.
Is it responsible for eEye to release a third party patch before Microsoft?
No, its very bad because it confuses the consumer and brings up the issue of trust
in the mind of the consumer. Once you start dangling multiple vulnerability fixes infront of
consumer, it opens the door for malicious hackers, script kids and phishers to compromise
security.
What do you mean "irresponsible"?
Yes, because the delivery of a third party patch cannot reach a world wide audience if the
news of third party patch avaiability is only on that of U-S based news media outlets.
Microsoft since service pack two have automatic update functionality on its software, allowing
a patch to be delivered essentially to all of its customers world wide, eEye just don't have that kind of reach available to them.
How could a third party patch be used against people?
Script kids compromise systems, and then patch them with the third party patch.
If the trend of third party patches continue, malicious users can play upto the multiple patch sources available, and setup fraud scams to compromise a user system with bogus patches, which have inserted malicious code. A lot of the time the malicious code will have additional vulnerabilities attached. The third party patch merely acts as a deliver system to socially engineer the mind of the consumer. Once the consumer gets the idea of patches being available from multiple sources, then thats where the problems will spiral out of control, and that element of trust really comes into play.
Should Microsoft take legal action against third party patch developers like eEye?
Yes, I think so. The idea of thrid party patches being released by big companies like eEye is very irresponsible and offers a grave danger to the public at large, by making the patch available to the worlds malicious users, where then, the magnitude of the situation is blown up and makes the situation more intense because fixes are being made available for 0-day before Microsoft has had the chance to fully develop a secure realible patch and deliver it to world wide customers.
Should Micorsoft release a patch for critical public 0-day before patch tuesday?
Yes, and no. No, If it wasn't for eEye compromising security by forcing Microsoft to push out a patch before
the required time frame, then there would be no need to release a patch early. Yes, because since the WMF flaw, third party developers are releasing patches and Microsoft must get ontop of the trend before consumers start to trust third party sources in place of the legitimate Micrsoft patch.
What can consumers do to protect themselves from third party patches?
Never download a third party patch, even if its from a "trusted" source. Real patches will only ever come from Microsoft and the Automatic Update functionaility on Microsoft products. Remember, Microsoft can offer you support if their patch becomes faulty. If you download from a third party source, your system may become corrupt with errors, or in the worst case scenario, you may be victim to a malicious patch claming to fix a vulnerability.
Should the industry get behind the idea of making third party patches an unacceptable alternative to a Microsoft patch?
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
