| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS02-072: Unchecked Buffer in Windows Shell Could Enable System Compromise (Q329390) | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
The Windows Shell is responsible for providing the basic framework of the Windows user interface experience. It is most familiar to users as the Windows Desktop, but also provides a variety of other functions to help define the user's computing session, including organizing files and folders, and providing the means to start applications. An unchecked buffer exists in one of the functions used by the Windows Shell to extract custom attribute information from audio files. A security vulnerability results because it is possible for a malicious user to mount a buffer overrun attack and attempt to exploit this flaw. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 234 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:41:59 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/19/2002 12:28:48 AM |
|
Well, I'm all patched up... but this is getting kinda silly.
I mean, I've written a lot of C and C++ code in my time, and from day one I've coded certain things certain ways... forming habits that I couldn't shake if I wanted to. On of those is ALWAYS checking my buffers. If I ever use a function that takes in a pointer and copies stuff to that memory location, I ALWAYS declare a nice constant at the top of the function that has the max length of stuff I will copy into that array. I use that constant when I declare the array, and when I pass it anywhere. Furthermore, if I'm doing dynmaic sizing of an array, I take similar precautions. Microsoft needs to find the people responsible for this, give them a second chance, but if it ever happens again... fire them. It's as simple as that. If you're so careless as to leave an unchecked buffer in your code... even after this big MS security crackdown (although this was before that... so many you should get 2 extra chances... eheh), then you don't deserve to work at Microsoft. Thankfully, I've long since left the world of unmanaged code... I can be blissfully ignorant of such matters when coding Java or any .NET language... or VB for that matter. |
| #2 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 12/19/2002 7:03:59 AM |
|
No, Jagged, that's .NET.
XP is still unmanaged C/C++ code. The tech relevant to catching many, but not all, buffer overruns for C++ was the /GS compiler switch added in Visual C++ 7. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vccore/html/vclrfGSBufferSecurity.asp This post was edited by n4cer on Thursday, December 19, 2002 at 07:24. |
| #3 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/19/2002 9:09:28 AM |
|
#3 - "I guess Windows would be very slow if every single buffer was checked all the time?"
No. A buffer "check" typically consists of using constants to define the boundries of an array. It makes almost no difference for performance. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 234 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:41:59 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
