<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>MS08-078 and the SDL</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/12/18/ms08-078-and-the-sdl.aspx</link><description>Hi, Michael here. Every bug is an opportunity to learn, and the security update that fixed the data binding bug that affected Internet Explorer users is no exception. The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) entry for this bug is CVE-2008-4844 .</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>Now its Firefox&amp;#8217;s and Opera&amp;#8217;s turn (Updated) &amp;laquo; InfoSec Philippines</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/12/18/ms08-078-and-the-sdl.aspx#9245573</link><pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:56:35 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9245573</guid><dc:creator>Now its Firefox&amp;#8217;s and Opera&amp;#8217;s turn (Updated) &amp;laquo; InfoSec Philippines</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;PingBack from &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://infosecphils.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/now-its-firefoxs-and-operas-turn/"&gt;http://infosecphils.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/now-its-firefoxs-and-operas-turn/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>Microsoft explains how it missed critical IE bug</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/12/18/ms08-078-and-the-sdl.aspx#9247963</link><pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:55:21 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9247963</guid><dc:creator>infoworld.com</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Microsoft Corp.&amp;amp;#39;s developers missed a critical bug in Internet Explorer because they weren&amp;amp;#39;t&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>Ejemplo Practico – Cuando los testers no están capacitados… o al menos no lo suficiente</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/12/18/ms08-078-and-the-sdl.aspx#9251879</link><pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:25:11 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9251879</guid><dc:creator>El Ddaz</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Este post esta adelantado a su tiempo&amp;amp;#160; - porque tenia que salir antes otro post - , pero la situaci&amp;#243;n&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: MS08-078 and the SDL</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/12/18/ms08-078-and-the-sdl.aspx#9252799</link><pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2008 02:24:58 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9252799</guid><dc:creator>Kieran Tully</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The fix was to check the maximum iteration count on each loop iteration rather than once before the loop&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But does this actually fix the issue or just reduce the time window in which it can be exploited? Surely the correct fix is to make the check and action atomic with respect to the array?&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: MS08-078 and the SDL</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/12/18/ms08-078-and-the-sdl.aspx#9253859</link><pubDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2008 00:04:57 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9253859</guid><dc:creator>Kieran Tully</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Actually looking again the fix is fine; I thought the array update was happening in another thread.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Though surely Size() is 2 at the start, so MaxIdx is 1?&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>MSDN FLASH IRELAND - INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES - 15 JANUARY 2009</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/12/18/ms08-078-and-the-sdl.aspx#9320796</link><pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:21:12 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9320796</guid><dc:creator>Microsoft Ireland Blog</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;a {color : #0033CC;} a:link {color: #0033CC;} a:visited.local {color: #0033CC;} a:visited {color : #800080;}&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>One Tool Does not Rule them All</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/12/18/ms08-078-and-the-sdl.aspx#9415935</link><pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:44:08 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9415935</guid><dc:creator>The Security Development Lifecycle</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hello, Michael here... Over the last couple of years, I've released information about various Microsoft&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: MS08-078 and the SDL</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/12/18/ms08-078-and-the-sdl.aspx#9471519</link><pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:06:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9471519</guid><dc:creator>Tanveer Badar</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I agree with Kieran on this, moving the check closer will only shorten the time window but not prevent the exploit form happening.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another correct fix, in addition to what Kieran suggested, would be to make a copy of array and act on it. I believe that's how CreateFile works, where it makes a copy of file name parameter before doing anything with it.&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>