Microsoft security patches for September 2006

Published: 2006-09-14. Last Updated: 2006-09-14 17:37:15 UTC
by Swa Frantzen (Version: 5)
0 comment(s)
Overview of the September 2006 Microsoft patches.

# Affected Known Problems
Known Exploits Microsoft rating ISC rating (*)
clients servers
re-released MS06-040 Server Service

CVE-2006-3439
Re-released to fix known problems

KB921883
Multiple botnets actively exploiting this. Critical
PATCH NOW
PATCH NOW
re-released MS06-042 Internet Explorer (MSIE)

CVE-2006-3280
CVE-2006-3450
CVE-2006-3451
CVE-2006-3637
CVE-2006-3638
CVE-2006-3639
CVE-2006-3640
CVE-2004-1166
CVE-2006-3869
new:

CVE-2006-3873
Re-released to fix  the known problems with MSIE6SP1

KB918899
Well known vulnerabilities
Critical
PATCH NOW
Important
MS06-052 Microsoft Queue System (MSQS) -
Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM)

CVE-2006-3442
No reported problems

KB919007
No known exploits yet
Important
Critical Critical
(**)
MS06-053 Indexing Service

CVE-2006-0032
No reported problems

KB920685
No known exploits yet Moderate
Less urgent
Important
MS06-054 Publisher

CVE-2006-0001
No reported problems

KB910729
No known exploits yet Critical
Critical Less urgent

We will update issues on this page as they evolve.
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 leaisure 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.
(**):  Please note that in accordance with the above this rating assumes your machine used in a typical server role is affected. This has nothing to do with Microsoft's marketing names or product lines. Server applies to the use of the machine. The rating assumes the machine is affected. So yes we consider it a critical problem if you use a MSQS enhanced XP as a server. Please resolv any licensing issues directly with Microsoft, we do not condone violating copyright or licencing agreements.
The key is that the separation between server and client is how you use the machine, we rated the MSIE issues in MS06-042 lower due to most administrators being smart enough never to surf the web on a server. Still, if you installed a windows server license on your laptop and surf the web with it, it is at high risk even if it is a "server" licensed version of the OS.


--
Swa Frantzen -- Section 66
0 comment(s)

Comments


Diary Archives