Very good points and references. I'll reply later today. MSIE vulnerability is Extremely Critical SA38209 now: http://secunia.com/advisories/38209/2/
Juha-Matti Paul Ferguson [[email protected]] kirjoitti: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Juha-Matti Laurio > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/979352.mspx > > > > This is the 0-day vulnerability used in Google China attack. > > > > Minor Correction: This is the 0-Day used in *some* of the Chinese targeted > attacks. > > This appears to be a multi-pronged attack -- other organizations in the > past week or so have also been targeted via e-mail with malicious > attachments. > > I would be hard-pressed to say that *all* of the targeted attacks *only* > employed the IE heap-spray 0-Day vulnerability/exploit, since it appears > that some of the other targeted organizations were targeted with e-mail > containing malicious attachments, e.g. the law firm (Gipson Hoffman & > Pancione) that is suing China over the CyberSitter code theft being used in > Green Dam: > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=29533 > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/15/cybersitter_law_firm_attack/ > > Also, we have seen these same tactics used (malicious attachments in e-mail > disguised as legitimate communiqués) before when targeting Tibetan support > groups. It is quite possible (although not all the details are yet known) > that this was also recently used against a local (to me) Stanford student > is a regional coordinator of Students for a Free Tibet : > > http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14195105 > > So, it is *quite possible* that this was a series of attacks, where the IE > 0-Day discovered by McAfee was used on *some* of the targeted victims and > others were compromised by malicious e-mail attachments we have seen > several undetected, booby-trapped .PDF exploits in the past week, including > this one described this morning over at the SANS Internet Storm Center: > > http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=7984 > > And also Julia @ FireEye has this excellent post up tonight: > > http://blog.fireeye.com/research/2010/01/pdf-obfuscation.html > > I think it is dangerous, from a defense perspective, to say "This is > responsible for that" when there are clearly several different things > happening here -- instead of looking for quick explanation, everyone should > step back and observe that there are several critical paths to compromise > at work here. > > $.02, > > - - ferg > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003) > > wj8DBQFLUDgDq1pz9mNUZTMRAq6UAJ9LTD94zBMBm/1XpiH89PnO/Ok45gCdEhWq > nDMfkF9noJ91vueOk8Bj6kI= > =rfh4 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- > "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson > Engineering Architecture for the Internet > fergdawgster(at)gmail.com > ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
