September 2010 Microsoft Black Tuesday Summary
Overview of the September 2010 Microsoft Patches and their status.
# | Affected | Contra Indications | Known Exploits | Microsoft rating | ISC rating(*) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
clients | servers | |||||
MS10-061 | Vulnerability in Print Spooler Service Could Allow Remote Code Execution | |||||
Microsoft Windows CVE-2010-2729 |
KB 2347290 | This vulnerability is currently being exploited. | Severity:Critical Exploitability: 1 |
Critical | PATCH NOW! | |
MS10-062 | Vulnerability in MPEG-4 Codec Could Allow Remote Code Execution | |||||
Microsoft Windows CVE-2010-0818 |
KB 975558 | no known exploits. | Severity:Critical Exploitability: 1 |
Critical | Important | |
MS10-063 | Vulnerability in Unicode Scripts Processor Could Allow Remote Code Execution | |||||
Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office CVE-2010-2738 |
KB 2320113 | no known exploits. | Severity:Critical Exploitability: 2 |
Critical | Important | |
MS10-064 | Vulnerability in Microsoft Outlook Could Allow Remote Code Execution (Replaces MS06-012 MS10-045 ) | |||||
Microsoft Office CVE-2010-2728 |
KB 2315011 | no known exploits. | Severity:Critical Exploitability: 2 |
Critical | Important | |
MS10-065 | Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) Could Allow Remote Code Execution (Replaces MS08-006 ) | |||||
Microsoft Windows, IIS CVE-2010-2730 CVE-2010-2731 CVE-2010-1899 |
KB 2267960 | This vulnerability has been disclosed publicly CVE-2010-2731. | Severity:Important Exploitability: 1,1,3 |
Critical | PATCH NOW! | |
MS10-066 | Vulnerability in Remote Procedure Call Could Allow Remote Code Execution (Replaces MS09-026 ) | |||||
Internet Explorer CVE-2010-2567 |
KB 982802 | no known exploits. | Severity:Important Exploitability: 1 |
Critical | Important | |
MS10-067 | Vulnerability in WordPad Text Converters Could Allow Remote Code Execution | |||||
Microsoft Windows CVE-2010-2563 |
KB 2259922 | no known exploits. | Severity:Important Exploitability: 1 |
Critical | Important | |
MS10-068 | LSASS Heap Overflow Vulnerability (Replaces MS09-066 ) | |||||
Active Directory CVE-2010-0820 |
KB 983539 | no known exploits. | Severity:Important Exploitability: 1 |
Important | Important | |
MS10-069 | Vulnerability in Windows Client/Sever Runtime Subsystem Could Allow Elevation of Privilege (Replaces MS07-021 ) | |||||
Microsoft Windows CVE-2010-1891 |
KB 2121546 | no known exploits. | Severity:Important Exploitability: 1 |
Important | Important |
We will update issues on this page for about a week or so as they evolve.
We appreciate updates
US based customers can call Microsoft for free patch related support on 1-866-PCSAFETY
We appreciate updates
US based customers can call Microsoft for free patch related support on 1-866-PCSAFETY
(*): ISC rating
- We use 4 levels:
- PATCH NOW: Typically used where we see immediate danger of exploitation. Typical environments will want to deploy these patches ASAP. Workarounds are typically not accepted by users or are not possible. This rating is often used when typical deployments make it vulnerable and exploits are being used or easy to obtain or make.
- Critical: Anything that needs little to become "interesting" for the dark side. Best approach is to test and deploy ASAP. Workarounds can give more time to test.
- Important: Things where more testing and other measures can help.
- Less Urgent: Typically we expect the impact if left unpatched to be not that big a deal in the short term. Do not forget them however.
- The difference between the client and server rating is based on how you use the affected machine. We take into account the typical client and server deployment in the usage of the machine and the common measures people typically have in place already. Measures we presume are simple best practices for servers such as not using outlook, MSIE, word etc. to do traditional office or leisure work.
- The rating is not a risk analysis as such. It is a rating of importance of the vulnerability and the perceived or even predicted threat for affected systems. The rating does not account for the number of affected systems there are. It is for an affected system in a typical worst-case role.
- Only the organization itself is in a position to do a full risk analysis involving the presence (or lack of) affected systems, the actually implemented measures, the impact on their operation and the value of the assets involved.
- All patches released by a vendor are important enough to have a close look if you use the affected systems. There is little incentive for vendors to publicize patches that do not have some form of risk to them
Cheers,
Adrien de Beaupré
Intru-shun.ca Inc.
×
Diary Archives
Comments
ie http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/S10-066.mspx instead of http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS10-066.mspx
Justin
Sep 14th 2010
1 decade ago
Techvet
Sep 14th 2010
1 decade ago
Adrien de Beaupre
Sep 14th 2010
1 decade ago
Bob Doyle
Sep 14th 2010
1 decade ago
Jack Russell
Sep 15th 2010
1 decade ago
Thanks to ISC handlers for delivering a consistent format every time, I always start here when there is a "new batch" out.
Would it be useful / possible to add voting behind each bulletin, to get a measure on how many that have implemented workarounds, the number of companies that ran this as an emergency deployment, how many this did not apply to and so on?
Or to keep it simple just an "average ISC Reader Rating" to compliment the Microsoft / ISC ratings?
dotBATman
Sep 16th 2010
1 decade ago