Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Was the Windows Metafile "vulnerability" actually an intentionally created backdoor?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,621
    Rep Power
    24

    Default Was the Windows Metafile "vulnerability" actually an intentionally created backdoor?

    Could the recent Windows metafile "vulnerability" actually have been a "feature" and not a bug? Was it in fact a backdoor intentionally placed in Windows to allow code execution by those knowledgeable about it? This is the question which Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte explore in Episode 22 of the Security Now podcasts

    Talk about conspiracy theory.

    It sounds plausible though, and it's a scary prospect. Another strike against closed source operating systems and another 1Up for OpenSource OS?


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    428
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    This is what I know...Microsoft Windows is vulnerable to remote code execution via an error in handling files using the Windows Metafile image format. Exploit code has been publicly posted and used to successfully attack fully-patched Windows XP SP2 systems. However, other versions of the the Windows operating system may be at risk as well
    Microsoft Windows Metafiles are image files that can contain both vector and bitmap-based picture information. Microsoft Windows contains routines for displaying various Windows Metafile formats. However, a lack of input validation in one of these routines may allow a buffer overflow to occur, and in turn may allow remote arbitrary code execution.

    Well that about says it You may draw your own conclusion

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    13,269
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Microsoft says the WMF flaw wasn't intentionally as Steve Gibson thinks.
    Here is a response on Microsoft Blog by Stephen Toulouse about it: http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archiv...13/417431.aspx
    "The best software is the one that fits your needs." - A_A

    Virus free since: date unknown
    Anti-virus free since: August 2008

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,546
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    i have always thought that the worlds most favourite OS would have a loop hole for the nsa.....
    and have treated it thus......bring on the firewall.....corporate espionage is big money.....

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,621
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Episode 23 of Security Now follows up on the question of the Windows Metafile vulnerability being an intentionally planted back door.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,621
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch_Angel
    Microsoft says the WMF flaw wasn't intentionally as Steve Gibson thinks.
    Here is a response on Microsoft Blog by Stephen Toulouse about it: http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archiv...13/417431.aspx
    Read Steve's comments. He's not the only one convinced that this thing was "a feature and not a bug". The consensus is that while it may not have been maliciously placed there, the design was intentional.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    13,269
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCryptoKnight
    Read Steve's comments. He's not the only one convinced that this thing was "a feature and not a bug". The consensus is that while it may not have been maliciously placed there, the design was intentional.
    I dunno about you BCK, but knowing Steve from back in the ScreenSavers days, he seemed to be someone who jumps the gun when it comes to exploits and backdoors etc. I was skeptical when he mentioned MS intentionally did it that way. Now MS has downplayed it, and said that's not the case. So Steve corrected himself.

    He even said in his podcast that it was wrong to think that Microsoft would put in a backdoor into thier code, after all these years and millions of people using and trusting thier code and products.

    I'm gonna put my doubt on Steve on this one for the time being.

    I'm sure some anti-Microsoft persons are going "AH HA!! I KNEW IT!" lol
    "The best software is the one that fits your needs." - A_A

    Virus free since: date unknown
    Anti-virus free since: August 2008

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,621
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch_Angel
    I dunno about you BCK, but knowing Steve from back in the ScreenSavers days, he seemed to be someone who jumps the gun when it comes to exploits and backdoors etc. I was skeptical when he mentioned MS intentionally did it that way. Now MS has downplayed it, and said that's not the case. So Steve corrected himself.

    He even said in his podcast that it was wrong to think that Microsoft would put in a backdoor into thier code, after all these years and millions of people using and trusting thier code and products.

    I'm gonna put my doubt on Steve on this one for the time being.

    I'm sure some anti-Microsoft persons are going "AH HA!! I KNEW IT!" lol
    My take on it, is that a whatever the intention, or lack thereof, it's still a nasty piece of code. Of course Microsoft is going to downplay it. Can you imagine what would happen if they said "Yes folks, we planted a backdoor in every copy of Windows (recent versions)." ?

    It highlights concerns about the retention of legacy code in new products. Is proper QA being done on old code that is being incorporated into new OS?

    Steve may be a bit jumpy, but the concerns as to what really goes on in a closed source system are quite valid.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,270
    Rep Power
    0

    Exclamation FUD and MALARKY !

    I do not think MS would put a back door in their code for the NSA/CIA/Uncle sam.

    Windows by itself is a huge back door.

    But anybody who wants to secure their data would use pgp or gpgp encryption for their files which are pretty much "tight" and hard to crack.

    Not impossible just hardddddd

    There are always third part methods to securing a windows computer that would mitigate any alleged back door that MS "could install".

    The way I see it, unless these security pundits have documented proof or actual access to MS source code then they should not make these allegations. Their credibility will be damaged... and they will start undue panick.
    Last edited by Gillion; Jan 20, 2006 at 10:07 AM.
    Those who do not understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it poorly.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    13,269
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillion
    The way I see it, unless these security pundits have documented proof or actual access to MS source code then they should not make these allegations. Their credibility will be damaged... and they will start undue panick.
    I couldn't agree more.
    "The best software is the one that fits your needs." - A_A

    Virus free since: date unknown
    Anti-virus free since: August 2008

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •