VML exploit still unpatched in XP SP2 and IE6/7

VML exploit still unpatched in XP SP2 and IE6/7

Secure Home | Search | About
 Microsoft Antivirus Discussions    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
VML exploit still unpatched in XP SP2 and IE6/7 James Hawkins 12-06-2006
Posted by James Hawkins on December 6, 2006, 11:34 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I feel I must be wrong here so someone please contradict me. Yesterday
I was running a fully patched XPSP2 system with IE6. I visited a
particular website and sure as eggs was infected with the UrSnif
(a.k.a. Troj/DwnLdr-FSA) Trojan. I removed it and re-infected myself
so I know it was purely from visiting the site in question.

I then installed IE7, re-ran MS Update to ensure I was fully patched,
assumed that must plug it, but no - a fully patched (as in using MS
Update) XPSP2 machine with IE7 will still be infected with this trojan
as of right now.

I'm amazed that such a serious vulnerability has not been patched yet
when there has been discussion about it for a few months. Can anyone
enlighten me?

---

Some refs:

The site in question (I reported this earlier to a site linking to it
so if it was unintentional it may no longer host it very soon):
www.webhostmagazie.com (correct the spelling mistake to get to the
actual site, but be warned that you almost certainly *will* be
infected if you go there).

MS's security bulletin about this:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms06-055.mspx
(nearly 3 months ago)

Google "9129837" for much more info.

Posted by =?Utf-8?B?UGFuZGFfbWFu?= on December 6, 2006, 4:41 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
"James Hawkins" wrote:

> I feel I must be wrong here so someone please contradict me. Yesterday
> I was running a fully patched XPSP2 system with IE6. I visited a
> particular website and sure as eggs was infected with the UrSnif
> (a.k.a. Troj/DwnLdr-FSA) Trojan. I removed it and re-infected myself
> so I know it was purely from visiting the site in question.
>
> I then installed IE7, re-ran MS Update to ensure I was fully patched,
> assumed that must plug it, but no - a fully patched (as in using MS
> Update) XPSP2 machine with IE7 will still be infected with this trojan
> as of right now.
>
> I'm amazed that such a serious vulnerability has not been patched yet
> when there has been discussion about it for a few months. Can anyone
> enlighten me?
>


Hello . Why do you think that this particular pages exploites this
vulnerability? The VML exploit is definitely patched.To me , personally ,
this name (Troj/DwnLdr-FSA) means nothing . It can be regular trojan
downloader

--
Panda_man
Silver level Contributo

Posted by James Hawkins on December 6, 2006, 5:18 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 13:41:00 -0800, Panda_man

>Hello . Why do you think that this particular pages exploites this
>vulnerability? The VML exploit is definitely patched.To me , personally ,
>this name (Troj/DwnLdr-FSA) means nothing . It can be regular trojan
>downloader

I am not completely certain, as you should be able to tell from my
note. However, visiting the page causes the installation of a service
named !!!!, which installs a driver called hide_evr2.sys, which does
the rootkit part. It copies a file called 9129837.exe to c:\windows
and adds entries to the registry to run the service and the exe on
startup. The driver hooks the system sufficiently to make the
registry entries and the two files invisible to Explorer and Regedit,
but not to cmd.exe (probably a bug in the rootkit part).

The reason I suspected the VML exploit is this:
http://www3.ca.com/blogs/posting.aspx?id=90744&pid=93273&date=2006/9

Regardless of whether this is specifically a VML exploit, it almost
certainly illustrates a current Windows vulnerability. I was hoping
someone could point so some MS documentation on this as I can't find
any.

Posted by antioch on December 7, 2006, 6:53 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Reply contextualised/clipped


> I am not completely certain, as you should be able to tell from >my note.
> However, visiting the page causes the installation of a >service named
> !!!!, which installs a driver called hide_evr2.sys, >which does the
> rootkit part. It copies a file called 9129837.exe to

I am researching Romemaster.com hijacking Google and Yahoo browsers - I
thought the above file rang a bell.
Read 'morbius 163'

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/spyware-removal/browse_thread/thread/d860a7712955583e

Rgds
Antioch




Posted by =?Utf-8?B?UGFuZGFfbWFu?= on December 8, 2006, 10:41 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
"James Hawkins" wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 13:41:00 -0800, Panda_man
>
> >Hello . Why do you think that this particular pages exploites this
> >vulnerability? The VML exploit is definitely patched.To me , personally ,
> >this name (Troj/DwnLdr-FSA) means nothing . It can be regular trojan
> >downloader
>
> I am not completely certain, as you should be able to tell from my
> note. However, visiting the page causes the installation of a service
> named !!!!, which installs a driver called hide_evr2.sys, which does
> the rootkit part. It copies a file called 9129837.exe to c:\windows
> and adds entries to the registry to run the service and the exe on
> startup. The driver hooks the system sufficiently to make the
> registry entries and the two files invisible to Explorer and Regedit,
> but not to cmd.exe (probably a bug in the rootkit part).
>
> The reason I suspected the VML exploit is this:
> http://www3.ca.com/blogs/posting.aspx?id=90744&pid=93273&date=2006/9
>
> Regardless of whether this is specifically a VML exploit, it almost
> certainly illustrates a current Windows vulnerability. I was hoping
> someone could point so some MS documentation on this as I can't find
> any.
>



Sorry for the late response . It seems you know more that me about this
threat

I noticed you have discusses the problem with David , you are in good hands
:) :)


--
Panda_man
Silver level Contributor

Similar ThreadsPosted
Possible New Exploit??? August 15, 2005, 3:45 pm
MSO..?..exploit / Well REALLY !! February 12, 2006, 2:36 pm
Help ANI exploit April 23, 2007, 7:56 pm
XML RPC Exploit Attack December 20, 2005, 3:41 pm
Re: WMF Exploit question January 5, 2006, 3:31 pm
Re: WMF Exploit question January 5, 2006, 4:33 pm
Exploit.Win32.WMF-PFV February 22, 2006, 9:35 am
Java/ByteVerify!Exploit May 29, 2006, 8:15 pm
MS05-002!exploit on Windows XP Pro SP2 June 11, 2006, 11:23 pm
Trojan Exploit.yim.CYFT August 28, 2008, 9:35 am

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy