mostlylucid

scott galloway's personal blog...
posts - 897, comments - 697, trackbacks - 11

My Links

News

Archives

Post Categories

Misc. Coding

The ASP.NET vulnerability...not!

So, Slashdot got a hold of the story about the ASP.NET vulnerability (the backslash bug), as usual they're loving it over there. What I haven't seen much of though is mention of the fact that many sites were never affected by this - reason? URLScan for IIS 5 and IIS 6 (which incorporates much of URLScan already) have always blocked this type of attack - remember, URLScan was released in 2001 and it blocks a host of malformed URL type attacks (there've been a bunch before).
The current Microsoft advice is to add some code to each ASP.NET application, fine - but if you have a properly configured URLScan or IIS 6.0 - you've never been at risk of this attack. Whilst I'm pretty disgusted that such a simple error got through testing (and let's face it this will probably cost a few companies developing with ASP.NET a bit of business) it does reinforce the fact that you should never rely on a piece of code you can't inspect personally for your application's security.

UPDATE: The piece below has some new info - including an HttpModule which can patch all your apps...

Today we posted updated information to http://www.microsoft.com/security/incident/aspnet.mspx with additional information about the nature of the reported vulnerability and an additional mitigation best practice.  Our additional guidance is an HTTP Module that you can install onto a server that will mitigate all ASP.NET applications on the box and protect them against canonicalization issues we knew about at the time of publication.  This is easier then updating the global.asax for each application and if you are dealing with a whole lot of servers much easier to deploy.  You can grab the MSI installer for the HTTP Module at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=DA77B852-DFA0-4631-AAF9-8BCC6C743026.  There is also a new KB posted at http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=887289 that describes how to deploy the MSI and HTTP Module.

We will continue to update the landing page as new information or guidance becomes available, so keep checking back.

posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 5:34 PM

Print | posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 6:29 PM | Filed Under [ ASP.NET Security ]

Feedback

Gravatar

# re: The ASP.NET vulnerability...not!

I think Microsoft is in part to blame for this reaction. Their posting of the warning was vague and threatening-sounding. It would have been better had they given a good, concrete example, explained the issue, mentioned URLscan, and so forth.
10/7/2004 6:46 PM | Scott Mitchell
Gravatar

# re: The ASP.NET vulnerability...not!

Another good reason for "defense in depth." I wouldn't worry too much about slashpot, they gloss over their own issues all the time.
10/7/2004 8:56 PM | Darrell
Gravatar

# re: The ASP.NET vulnerability...not!

Scott: Agreed, not mentioning URLScan and not mentioning that IIS 6.0 in it's DEFAULT configuration was not affected was pretty unconscionable - and I have no doubt has worried a lot of developers unnecessarily; actually, has anyone tried IIS 6.0 without URLScan configured to block this - I remember someone over on weblogs.asp.net mentioning that they wrote part of http.sys to specifically handle canonicalization issues; even that word makes this issue obscure!

Darrell: Absolutely, this has always been my position on issues such as ValidateRequest and the more recent issues with the 'HTTP Split' stuff - simply I don't trust them because I don't know how exactly they do what they do; and in what cases they don't do what they're meant to do (I'm damn well going to find out though - time to break out reflector :-)). And Slashdot - the problem there is that the moderation will always favour negative reactions to this type of thing - let's compare and contrast the coverage of this issue and the Mozilla bugs (some 3 years old and affecting millions of people now!). Oh and this one in Realplayer - where any unscrupulous individuals can execute anything on a client machine: http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/44143/44143.html
10/7/2004 11:36 PM | Scott Galloway

Post Comment

Title  
Name  
Email
Url
Comment   
Please add 2 and 6 and type the answer here:

Powered by: