mysec
Premium
join:2005-11-29
| reply to mysec
Update
Maarten Van Horenbeeck of sans.org has updated the diary I referred to:
Overview of cyber attacks against Tibetan communities
»isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=4177
You don't often find thorough analyses of attacks, so it's worth a careful reading.
This particular attack is described as "targeted."
The term Targeted has been used in a couple of ways in the security community:
1) attacks aimed at a particular group of people, such as the organization described in the diary; or, a company or corporation
2) those aimed at specific people in an organization. This requires compromising an email list.
This example uses both types of targeting.
While targeting has been used in the past, this example shows a sophistication in technique often missing:
==> A good command of the English language;
==> thoroughly researched details of the subject of world condition (Tibet in this case) which make the "social engineering" part of the exploit more convincing - here, including published articles in different formats (.doc, .pdf, .ppt) which embed the packed trojan.
Note that some victims have been home users.
Note again that use of a msjet40.dll exploit first surfaced in 2005.
----
rich |
|
daveinpoway
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA | Some new info regarding the problem: »www.computerworld.com/action/art···&nlid=37 |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
| Microsoft admits it knew about, didn't patch, bugs
From your link: said by CW :
Microsoft Corp.'s security team today acknowledged that it knew of bugs in its Jet Database Engine as far back as 2005 but did not patch the problems because it thought it had blocked the obvious attack vectors.
A researcher at Symantec Corp. said Microsoft should have fixed the flaws years ago.
In a post to the Microsoft Security Research Center (MSRC) blog late Monday afternoon, Mike Reavey, the MSRC's operations manager, admitted that outside researchers had notified Microsoft in 2005 and 2007 of separate bugs in Jet, a Windows component that provides data access to applications such as Microsoft Access and Visual Basic.
In both cases, Microsoft told the researchers that it would not fix the flaw because it considered users safe.
Wrong. |
|
