Vulnerabilities that are widely known and/or actively exploited are of great interest to our readers, here we try to keep an overview of them
| Affected | Known Exploits | Impact | Known since
| ISC rating(*) |
| clients | servers |
Powerpoint
CVE-2007-0913 | Used in a Trojan.
| remote code execution | Feb 13th, 2007 | Critical
| Important
|
Word 2000 DoS
CVE-2007-0870 | Used in targeted attacks.
| DoS | Feb 9th, 2007 | Less Urgent
| Less Urgent
|
Internet Explorer msxml3 concurrency problems
CVE-2007-0099 | Publicly posted exploit | Remote DoS / code execution considered too difficult to control
| Jan 4th, 2007
| Less Urgent
| Less Urgent
|
NetrWkstaUserEnum() memory allocation exhaustion
CVE-2006-6723
| Publicly posted exploit | Remote DoS
| Dec 25th, 2006
| Less Urgent
| Less Urgent
|
MessageBox() / csrss double free vulnerability
CVE-2006-6696
| Publicly posted PoC exploits for XP, 2003 and Vista
MSRC blog
| Privilege Escalation
| Dec 15th, 2006
| Important
| Less Urgent
|
RPC in Windows 2000 SP4 UPnP and SPOOLS
CVE-2006-6296
CVE-2006-3644
| Multiple publicly available exploits.
| DoS
| Nov 16th, 2006
| Less Urgent
| Important
|
Microsoft Windows NAT Helper Components
CVE-2006-5614
| Publicly available exploit.
| DoS
| Oct 20th, 2006
| Less Urgent
| Important
|
PowerPoint 2003
CVE-2006-5296
| MSRC blog #1
MSRC blog #2
Publicly available exploit.
| DoS
| Oct 20th, 2006
| Less Urgent
| Less Urgent
|
(*): ISC rating
- We use 4 levels:
- PATCH NOW: Typically used where we see immediate danger of exploitation. Typical environments will want to deploy these patches ASAP. Workarounds are typically not accepted by users or are not possible. This rating is often used when typical deployments make it vulnerable and exploits are being used or easy to obtain or make.
- Critical: Anything that needs little to become "interesting" for the dark side. Best approach is to test and deploy ASAP. Workarounds can give more time to test.
- Important: Things where more testing and other measures can help.
- Less urgent: Typically we expect the impact if left unpatched to be not that big a deal in the short term. Do not forget them however.
- The difference between the client and server rating is based on how you use the affected machine. We take into account the typical client and server deployment in the usage of the machine and the common measures people typically have in place already. Measures we presume are simple best practices for servers such as not using outlook, MSIE, word etc. to do traditional office or leisure work.
- The rating is not a risk analysis as such. It is a rating of importance of the vulnerability and the perceived or even predicted threat for affected systems. The rating does not account for the number of affected systems there are. It is for an affected system in a typical worst-case role.
- Only the organization itself is in a position to do a full risk analysis involving the presence (or lack of) affected systems, the actually implemented measures, the impact on their operation and the value of the assets involved.
--
Swa Frantzen -- Section 66