Intel revealed Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability that it will not be issuing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability Spectre patches to a number of older Intel processor families , potentially leaving many customers vulnerable to the security exploit . Intel claims the processors affected are mostly implemented as closed systems , so they aren ’ t at risk from the Spectre exploit , and that the age of these processors means they have limited commercial availability . The processors which Intel won ’ t be patching Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability include four lines from 2007 , Penryn , Yorkfield , and Wolfdale , along with Bloomfield ( 2009 ) , Clarksfield ( 2009 ) , Jasper Forest ( 2010 ) and the Intel Atom SoFIA processors from 2015 . According to Tom ’ s Hardware , Intel ’ s decision not to patch Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability these products could stem from the relative difficulty of patching Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the Spectre exploit on older systems . “ After a comprehensive investigation of the microarchitectures and microcode capabilities for these products , Intel has determined to not release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability microcode updates for these products , ” Intel said . Because of the nature of the Spectre exploit , patches for it need to be delivered Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability as an operating system or BIOS update , and if Microsoft and motherboard OEMs aren ’ t going to distribute Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the patches , developing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability them isn ’ t much of a priority . “ However , the real reason Intel gave up on patching Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability these systems seems to be that neither motherboard makers nor Microsoft may be willing to update Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability systems sold a decade ago , ” Tom ’ s Hardware reports . It sounds bad , but as Intel pointed out , these are all relatively old processors — with the exception of the Intel Atom SoFIA processor , which came out in 2015 — and it ’ s unlikely they ’ re used in any high-security environments . The Spectre exploit is a serious security vulnerability to be sure , but as some commentators have pointed out in recent months , it ’ s not the kind of exploit the average user needs to worry about . “ We ’ ve now completed release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability of microcode updates for Intel microprocessor products launched in the last 9+ years that required protection against the side-channel vulnerabilities discovered Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability by Google Project Zero , ” said an Intel spokseperson . “ However , as indicated in our latest microcode revision guidance , we will not be providing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability updated microcode for a select number of older platforms for several reasons , including limited ecosystem support and customer feedback. ” If you have an old Penryn processor toiling away in an office PC somewhere , you ’ re probably more at risk for a malware infection arising from a bad download than you are susceptible to something as technically sophisticated as the Spectre or Meltdown vulnerabilities .

Intel revealed Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability that it will not be issuing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability Spectre patches to a number of older Intel processor families , potentially leaving many customers vulnerable to the security exploit . Intel claims the processors affected are mostly implemented as closed systems , so they aren ’ t at risk from the Spectre exploit , and that the age of these processors means they have limited commercial availability . The processors which Intel won ’ t be patching Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability include four lines from 2007 , Penryn , Yorkfield , and Wolfdale , along with Bloomfield ( 2009 ) , Clarksfield ( 2009 ) , Jasper Forest ( 2010 ) and the Intel Atom SoFIA processors from 2015 . According to Tom ’ s Hardware , Intel ’ s decision not to patch Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability these products could stem from the relative difficulty of patching Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the Spectre exploit on older systems . “ After a comprehensive investigation of the microarchitectures and microcode capabilities for these products , Intel has determined to not release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability microcode updates for these products , ” Intel said . Because of the nature of the Spectre exploit , patches for it need to be delivered Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability as an operating system or BIOS update , and if Microsoft and motherboard OEMs aren ’ t going to distribute Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the patches , developing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability them isn ’ t much of a priority . “ However , the real reason Intel gave up on patching Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability these systems seems to be that neither motherboard makers nor Microsoft may be willing to update Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability systems sold a decade ago , ” Tom ’ s Hardware reports . It sounds bad , but as Intel pointed out , these are all relatively old processors — with the exception of the Intel Atom SoFIA processor , which came out in 2015 — and it ’ s unlikely they ’ re used in any high-security environments . The Spectre exploit is a serious security vulnerability to be sure , but as some commentators have pointed out in recent months , it ’ s not the kind of exploit the average user needs to worry about . “ We ’ ve now completed release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability of microcode updates for Intel microprocessor products launched in the last 9+ years that required protection against the side-channel vulnerabilities discovered Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability by Google Project Zero , ” said an Intel spokseperson . “ However , as indicated in our latest microcode revision guidance , we will not be providing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability updated microcode for a select number of older platforms for several reasons , including limited ecosystem support and customer feedback. ” If you have an old Penryn processor toiling away in an office PC somewhere , you ’ re probably more at risk for a malware infection arising from a bad download than you are susceptible to something as technically sophisticated as the Spectre or Meltdown vulnerabilities .

Intel has issued Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability fresh `` microcode revision guidance '' that reveals it won ’ t address Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the Meltdown and Spectre design flaws in all of its vulnerable processors – in some cases because it 's too tricky to remove the Spectre v2 class of vulnerabilities . The new guidance , issued April 2 , adds a “ stopped ” status to Intel ’ s “ production status ” category in its array of available Meltdown and Spectre security updates . `` Stopped '' indicates there will be no microcode patch to kill off Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability Meltdown and Spectre . The guidance explains that a chipset earns “ stopped ” status because , “ after a comprehensive investigation of the microarchitectures and microcode capabilities for these products , Intel has determined to not release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability microcode updates for these products for one or more reasons. ” Those reasons are given as : Micro-architectural characteristics that preclude a practical implementation of features mitigating Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability [ Spectre ] Variant 2 ( CVE-2017-5715 ) Limited Commercially Available System Software support Based on customer inputs , most of these products are implemented as “ closed systems ” and therefore are expected to have a lower likelihood of exposure to these vulnerabilities . Thus , if a chip family falls under one of those categories – such as Intel ca n't easily fix Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability Spectre v2 in the design , or customers do n't think the hardware will be exploited Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability – it gets a `` stopped '' sticker . To leverage the vulnerabilities , malware needs to be running on a system , so if the computer is totally closed off from the outside world , administrators may feel it 's not worth the hassle applying messy microcode , operating system , or application updates . `` Stopped '' CPUs that won ’ t therefore get Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability a fix are in the Bloomfield , Bloomfield Xeon , Clarksfield , Gulftown , Harpertown Xeon C0 and E0 , Jasper Forest , Penryn/QC , SoFIA 3GR , Wolfdale , Wolfdale Xeon , Yorkfield , and Yorkfield Xeon families . The new list includes various Xeons , Core CPUs , Pentiums , Celerons , and Atoms – just about everything Intel makes . Most the CPUs listed above are oldies that went on sale between 2007 and 2011 , so it is likely few remain in normal use . There ’ s some good news in the tweaked guidance : the Arrandale , Clarkdale , Lynnfield , Nehalem , and Westmere families that were previously un-patched Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability now have working fixes available Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability in production , apparently . “ We ’ ve now completed release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability of microcode updates for Intel microprocessor products launched in the last 9+ years that required protection against the side-channel vulnerabilities discovered Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability by Google Project Zero , '' an Intel spokesperson told The Reg . `` However , as indicated in our latest microcode revision guidance , we will not be providing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability updated microcode for a select number of older platforms for several reasons , including limited ecosystem support and customer feedback. ” Now all Intel has to do is sort out a bunch of lawsuits , make sure future products don ’ t have similar problems , combat a revved-up-and-righteous AMD and Qualcomm in the data centre , find a way to get PC buyers interested in new kit again , and make sure it doesn ’ t flub emerging markets like IoT and 5G like it flubbed the billion-a-year mobile CPU market .

Intel has issued Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability fresh `` microcode revision guidance '' that reveals it won ’ t address Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the Meltdown and Spectre design flaws in all of its vulnerable processors – in some cases because it 's too tricky to remove the Spectre v2 class of vulnerabilities . The new guidance , issued April 2 , adds a “ stopped ” status to Intel ’ s “ production status ” category in its array of available Meltdown and Spectre security updates . `` Stopped '' indicates there will be no microcode patch to kill off Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability Meltdown and Spectre . The guidance explains that a chipset earns “ stopped ” status because , “ after a comprehensive investigation of the microarchitectures and microcode capabilities for these products , Intel has determined to not release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability microcode updates for these products for one or more reasons. ” Those reasons are given as : Micro-architectural characteristics that preclude a practical implementation of features mitigating Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability [ Spectre ] Variant 2 ( CVE-2017-5715 ) Limited Commercially Available System Software support Based on customer inputs , most of these products are implemented as “ closed systems ” and therefore are expected to have a lower likelihood of exposure to these vulnerabilities . Thus , if a chip family falls under one of those categories – such as Intel ca n't easily fix Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability Spectre v2 in the design , or customers do n't think the hardware will be exploited Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability – it gets a `` stopped '' sticker . To leverage the vulnerabilities , malware needs to be running on a system , so if the computer is totally closed off from the outside world , administrators may feel it 's not worth the hassle applying messy microcode , operating system , or application updates . `` Stopped '' CPUs that won ’ t therefore get Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability a fix are in the Bloomfield , Bloomfield Xeon , Clarksfield , Gulftown , Harpertown Xeon C0 and E0 , Jasper Forest , Penryn/QC , SoFIA 3GR , Wolfdale , Wolfdale Xeon , Yorkfield , and Yorkfield Xeon families . The new list includes various Xeons , Core CPUs , Pentiums , Celerons , and Atoms – just about everything Intel makes . Most the CPUs listed above are oldies that went on sale between 2007 and 2011 , so it is likely few remain in normal use . There ’ s some good news in the tweaked guidance : the Arrandale , Clarkdale , Lynnfield , Nehalem , and Westmere families that were previously un-patched Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability now have working fixes available Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability in production , apparently . “ We ’ ve now completed release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability of microcode updates for Intel microprocessor products launched in the last 9+ years that required protection against the side-channel vulnerabilities discovered Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability by Google Project Zero , '' an Intel spokesperson told The Reg . `` However , as indicated in our latest microcode revision guidance , we will not be providing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability updated microcode for a select number of older platforms for several reasons , including limited ecosystem support and customer feedback. ” Now all Intel has to do is sort out a bunch of lawsuits , make sure future products don ’ t have similar problems , combat a revved-up-and-righteous AMD and Qualcomm in the data centre , find a way to get PC buyers interested in new kit again , and make sure it doesn ’ t flub emerging markets like IoT and 5G like it flubbed the billion-a-year mobile CPU market .

The chipmaker says the patches will arrive Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability within a few weeks and AMD device owners shouldn ’ t worry about the reported flaws Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability . AMD is addressing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability several vulnerabilities discovered Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability in its Ryzen and EPYC chips , and rolling out Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability updates for millions of devices `` in the coming weeks . '' The 13 vulnerabilities came to public Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability attention clouded in controversy . The security company CTS Labs gave AMD less than 24 hours notice before releasing the information to the public . Standard vulnerability disclosure Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability practices call for giving companies at least 90 days ' notice so they can fix Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the flaws before researchers go public Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability and hackers can start causing trouble . Had CTS Labs given AMD that same courtesy , the issues would have been addressed Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability within a week of the notification . `` Each of the issues cited can be mitigated Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability through firmware patches and a standard BIOS update , which we plan to release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability in the coming weeks , '' said Sarah Youngbauer , AMD 's senior spokeswoman . `` We believe this provides a good example of why the more standard 90-day notification window for such notifications exist . '' In the original vulnerability report Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability , CTS Labs said that it would take `` several months '' to fix Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the issues and that some hardware flaws `` cannot be fixed Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability . '' AMD disagreed with that timeline , and said it would provide more information in several weeks . The chipmaker said the issues were not with its hardware , but with firmware , or software that 's embedded in hardware . It 'll be sending Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability fixes for all 13 vulnerabilities through patches and BIOS updates . According to AMD 's technical assessment , each of the flaws required administrative access . `` Any attacker gaining unauthorized administrative access would have a wide range of attacks at their disposal well beyond the exploits identified in this research , '' Papermaster said in a statement . Critics also took issue with another aspect of the CTS Labs report , pointing out the legal disclaimer on the company 's website : `` You are advised that we may have , either directly or indirectly , an economic interest in the performance of the securities of the companies whose products are the subject of our reports . '' Last Wednesday , CTS Labs ' chief financial officer and co-founder , Yaron Luk-Zilberman , a former hedge fund manager , said it did n't have `` any investment ( long or short ) in Intel or AMD . ''

AMD has acknowledged Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability the Ryzenfall vulnerabilities discovered Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability by CTS-Labs , though the chip company believes the flaws can be patched Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability via BIOS updates issued Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability over the next few weeks . In a blog post authored by AMD ’ s chief technical officer , Mark Papermaster , AMD confirmed that the four broad classifications of attacks—Masterkey , Ryzenfall , Fallout , and Chimera—are viable , though they require administrative access to the PC or server in question . Third-party protection , such as Microsoft Windows Credential Guard , also serve to block unauthorized administrative access , Papermaster wrote . In any event , “ any attacker gaining unauthorized administrative access would have a wide range of attacks at their disposal well beyond the exploits identified in this research , ” AMD ’ s Papermaster added . But AMD also provided the answer to consumers ’ most pressing question : What , if anything , needs to be done ? For each of the first three classifications of vulnerabilities , AMD said it is working on firmware updates that the company plans to release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability during the coming weeks . The fourth category of vulnerability , known as Chimera , affected Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability the Promontory chipset , which CTS-Labs said was designed with logic supplied by ASMedia , a third-party vendor . While AMD said patches for that will also be released Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability via a BIOS update , the company said it is working with the Promontory chipset maker on developing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the mitigations , rather than supplying its own . AMD has neither confirmed nor denied whether the attacks can be executed remotely , or require local access . AMD did deny , however , that the attacks have anything to do with Meltdown or Spectre , the two side-channel attacks that rival Intel has worked to patch Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability . About a week ago , CTS-Labs issued a press release as well as a website outlining the vulnerabilities , which the company provided to AMD less than 24 hours before CTS-Labs went public , AMD said . But CTS-Labs also drew fire over boilerplate copy on its website that implied a potential financial interest in the subjects of its reports . PCWorld attempted to interview CTS executives , but later rescinded that request after CTS-Labs representatives demanded a list of questions in advance , and also forbade us from asking about the timing and the company ’ s financial motivations . In the meantime , however , the vulnerabilities were confirmed Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability by two independent researchers , Trail of Bits and Check Point . Both expressed doubts that attackers would be able to exploit the vulnerabilities that CTS-Labs had originally discovered Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability .

Microsoft has seen Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability its share of issues as of late , and now a seemingly simple patch is causing serious issues to certain laptops running the 2016 Anniversary Update . The update was originally released Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability to prevent a zero-day attack on IE . Per Microsoft , this was the issue being fixed Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability : A remote code execution vulnerability exists in Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability the way that the scripting engine handles objects in memory in Internet Explorer . The vulnerability could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user . An attacker who successfully exploited Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user . If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights , an attacker who successfully exploited Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability the vulnerability could take control of an affected system . An attacker could then install programs ; view , change , or delete data ; or create new accounts with full user rights . In a web-based attack scenario , an attacker could host a specially crafted website that is designed Attack.Phishing to exploit the vulnerability through Internet Explorer and then convince Attack.Phishing a user to view the website , for example , by sending Attack.Phishing an email . The security update addresses Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the vulnerability by modifying how the scripting engine handles objects in memory . But now that fix is causing a pretty big problem of its own : it ’ s preventing certain laptops from booting . The affected machines are part of a pretty small bunch—only Lenovo laptops with less than 8 GB of RAM running the 2016 Anniversary Update ( 1607 ) —but it ’ s still a pretty bad problem to have . Fortunately , there ’ s a way to bypass the failed boot by restarting into the UEFI and disabling Secure Boot . It ’ s also noted that if BitLocker is enabled that you may have to go through BitLocker recovery after disabling Secure Boot . On the upside , Microsoft is working with Lenovo to correct Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the issue and will release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability a fix sometime in the future . I just wouldn ’ t count on it before the end of the year . Until then , be careful when updating devices , especially if they happen to be Lenovo laptops with limited RAM .

Researchers have discovered Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability some serious security flaws threatening Linux . These vulnerabilities exist in Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability Linux systemd component . According to the researchers , the vulnerabilities pose a risk to all systemd-based Linux distros . Allegedly , researchers at Qualys have disclosed Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability some bugs targeting the Linux systemd component . Systemd provides the core building blocks for Linux and handles major processes after booting . As revealed Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability , three vulnerabilities have targeted the systemd-journald , which is responsible for data collection and log storage . The vulnerabilities let an attacker gain root privileges on the target device . The researchers state Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability that these vulnerabilities threaten all Linux distros based on systemd except a few . As stated in their report , “ To the best of our knowledge , all systemd-based Linux distributions are vulnerable Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability , but SUSE Linux Enterprise 15 , openSUSE Leap 15.0 , and Fedora 28 and 29 are not exploitable because their user space is compiled with GCC ’ s -fstack-clash-protection. ” The three bugs include two different memory corruption flaws ( CVE-2018-16864 and CVE-2018-16865 ) , and an out-of-bounds flaw ( CVE-2018-16866 ) . At first , the researchers accidentally discovered Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability CVE-2018-16864 while working on an exploit for a previously disclosed vulnerability , Mutagen Astronomy . Then , when they were busy on its PoC , they spotted Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability the other two bugs . “ We developed Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability a proof of concept for CVE-2018-16864 that gains eip control on i386… We developed Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability an exploit for CVE-2018-16865 and CVE-2018-16866 that obtains a local root shell in 10 minutes on i386 and 70 minutes on amd64 , on average. ” Interestingly , the bugs had been around for quite a few years . For now , Red Hat has patched Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the bugs CVE-2018-16864 and CVE-2018-16865 . Whereas , Debian has fixed Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability CVE-2018-16866 in the unstable systemd 240-1 release . Other distros will also supposedly release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the fixes soon . In November 2018 , a Google researcher also highlighted Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability a critical flaw in Systemd that induced system crashes and hacks .

Most CISOs like a challenge . Matthew Maglieri faced more than a challenge when he agreed to become the chief information security officer for Ruby Life Inc. , parent of the Toronto-based Ashley Madison and other dating sites which in 2015 saw hackers release Attack.Databreach records of some 36 million members , plus application code and corporate email . Even Maglieri says the company suffered a “ tremendous loss of consumer trust , ” and “ users relied on discretion using the service , and that discretion was violated. ” When he tried recruiting security staff this year a number balked when hearing who their employer would be . In fact , he admitted Wednesday at the monthly meeting of the Toronto Area Security Klatch ( TASK ) , a group of infosec pros and students , that a headhunter he consulted flatly told him to decline the offer . “ Absolutely not , your personal brand is at stake , ” he recalled being told . And that ’ s why he said yes . “ I thought about it ‘ If I don ’ t do this there isn ’ t going to be anybody fighting for the users , ” he said . “ I wanted to dive in and take on the challenge. ” Now the company is recovering , Maglieri says , because it is signing up 550,000 users a month . He didn ’ t say if the overall number of users is down from the breach , which captured headlines around the world . The Ashley Madison site claims over 56 million members have joined since 2002 . Maglieri explained over some 60 minutes how Ruby Life has tried to build a leading data privacy and information security program to regain trust . That includes having a full-time red team for penetration testing , building a “ hypersegmented network , ” extensive use of multi-factor authentication on the corporate servers to limit outside access by stolen credentials , decentralized and segmented directory services for employee login , controls to prevent lateral movement through the network , advanced threat detection and an around-the-clock security operations centre run by a consulting firm . Former federal interim privacy commissioner Chantal Bernier was hired at the end of 2016 as special privacy advisor to guide the privacy remediation program “ to the next level. ” It also includes a mission statement Maglieri drafted , saying his goal is “ to build a leading intelligence-led threat-based program capable of defending against the most advanced threats. ” Asked in an interview if after nine months that has been achieved , he replied , “ The thing about mission statements is they ’ re objectives , and as a security professional [ would say ] , it ’ s a journey . It ’ s about risk management and I think we ’ re doing some things we ’ re proud of , we ’ re making significant progress , and we ’ re continuously pushing forward. ” Attackers come up with new techniques , he added , and his team has to get better as defenders . “ It ’ s a constant process. ” While he wants a resilient secure environment “ to prevent something like this happening again , ” he admitted that as a company that runs several dating sites , we “ will remain a very high profile target. ” The company wants to take privacy “ to the next level , ” Maglieri says . While there is no obligation for users to register with their real names or occupations he did describe the alleged occupations of users and why the company will continue to be a target , particularly for nation states looking for evidence for blackmail . ” The Ashley Madison user base spans a cross-section of society – there ’ s police , military , government , research , medical , corporate , education — you name it , those people are in there . These are people that could be targets , and data that could be used to target those individuals. ” As a result , he said , the company now has “ zero risk tolerance ” for security and privacy problems .

A broad array of Android phones are vulnerable Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability to attacks that use booby-trapped Wi-Fi signals to achieve full device takeover , a researcher has demonstrated Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability . The vulnerability resides in Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability a widely used Wi-Fi chipset manufactured by Broadcom and used in both iOS and Android devices . Apple patched Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the vulnerability with Monday 's release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability of iOS 10.3.1 . `` An attacker within range may be able to execute arbitrary code on the Wi-Fi chip , '' Apple 's accompanying advisory warned Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability . In a highly detailed blog post published Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability Tuesday , the Google Project Zero researcher who discovered Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability the flaw said Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability it allowed the execution of malicious code on a fully updated 6P `` by Wi-Fi proximity alone , requiring no user interaction . '' Google is in the process of releasing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability an update in its April security bulletin . The fix is available Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability only to a select number of device models , and even then it can take two weeks or more to be available as an over-the-air update to those who are eligible . Company representatives did n't respond to an e-mail seeking comment for this post . The proof-of-concept exploit developed by Project Zero researcher Gal Beniamini uses Wi-Fi frames that contain irregular values . The values , in turn , cause the firmware running on Broadcom 's wireless system-on-chip to overflow its stack . By using the frames to target timers responsible for carrying out regularly occurring events such as performing scans for adjacent networks , Beniamini managed to overwrite specific regions of device memory with arbitrary shellcode . Beniamini 's code does nothing more than write a benign value to a specific memory address . Attackers could obviously exploit the same series of flaws to surreptitiously execute malicious code on vulnerable devices within range of a rogue access point . Besides the specific stack overflow bugs exploited Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability by the proof-of-concept attack , Beniamini said Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability a lack of security protections built into many software and hardware platforms made the Broadcom chipset a prime target . `` We ’ ve seen that while the firmware implementation on the Wi-Fi SoC is incredibly complex , it still lags behind in terms of security , '' he wrote . `` Specifically , it lacks all basic exploit mitigations—including stack cookies , safe unlinking and access permission protection ( by means of [ a memory protection unit . ] ) '' The Broadcom chipset contains an MPU , but the researcher found that it 's implemented in a way that effectively makes all memory readable , writeable , and executable . `` We can conveniently execute our code directly from the heap . '' He said that Broadcom has informed him that newer versions of the chipset implement the MPU more effectively and also add unspecified additional security mechanisms . Given the severity of the vulnerability , people with affected Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability devices should install Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability a patch as soon as it 's available . For those with vulnerable iPhones , that 's easy enough . As is all too often the case for Android users , there 's no easy way to get Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability a fix immediately , if at all . That 's because Google continues to stagger the release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability of its monthly patch bundle for the minority of devices that are eligible to receive it . At the moment , it 's not clear if there are effective workarounds available for vulnerable devices . Turning off Wi-Fi is one possibility , but as revealed in recent research into an unrelated Wi-Fi-related weakness involving Android phones , devices often relay Wi-Fi frames even when Wi-Fi is turned off

In November 8 , 2016 Microsoft released Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability a security update for Windows Authentication Methods ( MS16-137 ) which included 3 CVEs : Talking specifically about CVE-2016-7237 , this fix was applied Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability to `` lsasrv.dll '' , which affected the LSASS service . The vulnerability affected Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability all Windows versions , either 32 or 64 bits , and was reported Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability and later described Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability in more detail by Laurent Gaffié ( @ PythonResponder ) the same day that the fix was published Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability . He also published proof-of-concept ( PoC ) code triggering the vulnerability . When the LSASS service crashes , the target is automatically restarted after 60 seconds , which is not very nice when it 's a production server . As this allocation is close to 4GB , this will probably fail.If the allocation fails , one of the necessary conditions to reproduce the NULL-Pointer dereference will be reached . There was a misunderstanding here about the vulnerability , because according to the PoC released by Laurent Gaffié , the problem WAS N'T in the structure pointer , but rather in one field of the CRITICAL_SECTION object pointed by this structure , which is NULL when the huge allocation fails ! To be clear , the check of the NULL pointer should probably have been here : Although the public PoC does n't trigger the vulnerability in Windows 8.1 or Windows 10 , the researcher and Microsoft declared these Windows versions as vulnerable . As I said before , the `` NegGetExpectedBufferLength '' function reads the evil size from the SMB packet . Now , this function has to return the 0x90312 value ( SEC_I_CONTINUE_NEEDED ) to produce the fail in the huge allocation . Unfortunately , in the latest Windows versions , an extra check was added in this function which compares the evil size against 0xffff ( 64KB ) . If the evil size is greater , this function wo n't return the 0x90312 value , but rather this will return the 0xC00000BB value ( STATUS_NOT_SUPPORTED ) , which wo n't produce any allocation fail resulting in the vulnerability not being triggered . On the other hand , if we use the evil size with a value less or equal than 0xffff ( 64KB ) , the allocation wo n't fail and again , the vulnerability wo n't be triggered . So , why are Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 vulnerable ? Although the bug is triggered when a memory allocation fails , that does n't mean that the allocation has to be giant , but rather that the LSASS service does n't have enough available memory to allocate . I had been able to confirm Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability that this vulnerability can be triggered in Windows 7 and 2008 R2 by establishing several SMB connections and sending evil sizes with values like 0x1000000 ( 16 MB ) . The problem is that in the case of the latest Windows versions , it 's not possible to use this kind of sizes , because as I said before , the limit is 64KB . So , the only way to trigger this vulnerability should be by producing a memory exhaustion in the LSASS service . It may be possible to do so by finding a controllable malloc in the LSASS authentication process , creating multiple connections and producing a memory exhaustion until the `` LsapAllocateLsaHeap '' function fails . Maybe , this memory exhaustion condition could be easily reached in local scenarios . I realized that the fix was n't working when I tried to understand why the public PoC was n't working against Windows 10 . It 's surprising to see that nobody else noticed that –that we know of- , and that a considerable amount of Windows users have been unprotected for more than 2 months since the public exploit was released . As of January 10th , Microsoft decided to release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability a new security bulletin including a patch for the affected systems ( MS17-004 ) . If we diff against the latest `` lsasrv.dll '' version ( v6.1.7601.23642 ) , we can see that the vulnerability was fixed Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability by changing the '' NegGetExpectedBufferLength '' function . Basically , the same 64KB packet size check used by Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 was now added to the rest of the Windows versions

A remote hijacking flaw that lurked in Intel chips for seven years was more severe than many people imagined , because it allowed hackers to remotely gain administrative control over huge fleets of computers without entering a password . This is according to technical analyses published Friday . Further ReadingIntel patches Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability remote hijacking vulnerability that lurked in chips for 7 years . As Ars reported Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability Monday , the authentication bypass vulnerability resides in Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability a feature known as Active Management Technology . AMT , as it 's usually called , allows system administrators to perform a variety of powerful tasks over a remote connection . Among the capabilities : changing the code that boots up computers , accessing the computer 's mouse , keyboard , and monitor , loading and executing programs , and remotely powering on computers that are turned off . In short , AMT makes it possible to log into a computer and exercise the same control enjoyed by administrators with physical access . AMT , which is available with many vPro processors , was set up to require a password before it could be remotely accessed over a Web browser interface . But , remarkably , that authentication mechanism can be bypassed by entering no text at all . According to a blog post published Friday by Tenable Network Security , the cryptographic hash that the interface 's digest access authentication requires to verify someone is authorized to log in can be anything at all , including no string at all . `` Authentication still worked '' even when the wrong hash was entered , Tenable Director of Reverse Engineering Carlos Perez wrote . `` We had discovered a complete bypass of the authentication scheme . '' A separate technical analysis from Embedi , the security firm Intel credited with first disclosing Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability the vulnerability , arrived at the same conclusion . Embedi e-mailed the analysis to reporters , but did n't publish it online . Making matters worse , unauthorized accesses typically are n't logged by the PC because AMT has direct access to the computer 's network hardware . When AMT is enabled , all network packets are redirected to the Intel Management Engine and from there to the AMT . The packets bypass the OS completely . The vulnerable management features were made available in some but not all Intel chipsets starting in 2010 , Embedi has said . In a blog post published Friday , Intel officials said they expect PC makers to release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability a patch next week . The releases will update Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability Intel firmware , meaning patching Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability will require that each vulnerable chip set is reflashed . In the meantime , Intel is urging customers to download and run this discovery tool to diagnose potentially vulnerable computers . Systems that test positive should be temporarily secured using this mitigation guide until a patch is supplied Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability . Computer makers Fujitsu , HP , and Lenovo , have also issued advisories for specific models they sell .

Last week , Intel revealed Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability that a serious security flaw in some of its chips left potentially thousands of devices vulnerable to attackers . Then , security researchers revealed Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability the problem was way worse than anyone initially thought as the vulnerability could allow attackers to remotely `` hijack '' affected machines . It 's still not clear just how many devices are impacted Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability as Intel has't said , but some in the industry have put the number as high as 8,000 . Here 's a look at what you need to know and how to protect yourself . The vulnerability stems from something called Intel Active Management Technology , ( AMT ) , a technology that allows devices to be remotely managed to make it easier to update software and perform maintenance remotely . It 's a feature typically used by businesses that may be responsible for many devices that may not all be in the same place . Since the technology is integrated at a chip level , AMT can do a bit more than other software-enabled management tools . Using AMT 's capabilities , for instance , a system administrator could remotely access and control a computer 's mouse and keyboard , or turn on a computer that 's already been powered down . While those can be helpful capabilities for corporate IT departments to have , it 's obviously the type of access you 'd want locked down pretty tightly . And that 's just the problem . Security researchers found that AMT 's web portal can be accessed with just the user admin and literally any password or even no password at all . That 's why some have labeled it a `` hijacking '' flaw since anyone who exploits the vulnerability would be able to remotely control so many processes . Most importantly , the flaw does n't impact Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability every Intel chip out there . Since it 's rooted in Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability AMT , the vulnerability primarily affects Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability businesses , though , as Intel points out , some consumers use computers made for businesses . One of the easiest ways to check if you might be affected is to check that Intel sticker that comes on so many PCs . Look for a `` VPro '' logo as that indicates the presence of AMT . Of course , looking for a sticker is hardly foolproof . Intel has also released a downloadable detections guide , which will guide you through the process of checking your machines . You can find the detection guide here . Though Intel has long supplied Apple with chips for Macs , AMT is only present on processors in Windows-based machines , so all Macs are safe from this particular exploit . If you do have a machine that 's impacted by the security flaw , you 'll need to update your firmware as soon as possible . Intel has already created Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability a patch and is now waiting on manufacturers to make it available Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability . Some , including Dell , Lenovo , HP , and Fujitsu , have already rolled it out . You can find links to those over on Intel 's website , which will be updated Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability as more manufacturers release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability updates .

SEATTLE — When malicious software first became a serious problem on the internet about 15 years ago , most people agreed that the biggest villain , after the authors of the damaging code , was Microsoft . As a new cyberattack continues to sweep across the globe , the company is once again at the center of the debate over who is to blame for a vicious strain of malware demanding ransom Attack.Ransom from victims in exchange for the unlocking of their digital files . This time , though , Microsoft believes others should share responsibility for the attack , an assault that targeted flaws in the Windows operating system . On Sunday , Brad Smith , Microsoft ’ s president and chief legal officer , wrote a blog post describing the company ’ s efforts to stop the ransomware ’ s spread , including an unusual step it took to release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability a security update for versions of Windows that Microsoft no longer supports . Mr. Smith wrote , “ As a technology company , we at Microsoft have the first responsibility to address Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability these issues. ” He went on , though , to emphasize that the attack had demonstrated the “ degree to which cybersecurity has become a shared responsibility between tech companies and customers , ” the latter of whom must update their systems if they want to be protected . He also pointed his finger at intelligence services , since the latest vulnerability appeared to have been leaked from the National Security Agency . On Monday , a Microsoft spokesman declined to comment beyond Mr. Smith ’ s post . Microsoft has recognized the risk that cybersecurity poses to it since about 2002 , when Bill Gates , the former chief executive , issued a call to arms inside the company after a wave of malicious software began infecting Windows PCs connected to the internet . “ As software has become ever more complex , interdependent and interconnected , our reputation as a company has in turn become more vulnerable , ” Mr. Gates wrote in an email to employees identifying trustworthy computing as Microsoft ’ s top priority . “ Flaws in a single Microsoft product , service or policy not only affect Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability the quality of our platform and services overall , but also our customers ’ view of us as a company. ” Since then , the company has poured billions of dollars into security initiatives , employing more than 3,500 engineers dedicated to security . In March , it released Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability a software patch that addressed Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the vulnerability exploited by the ransomware , known as WannaCry , protecting systems such as Windows 10 , its latest operating system . Yet security flaws in older editions of Windows persist . The company no longer provides Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability regular software updates to Windows XP , a version first released in 2001 , unless customers pay for “ custom support , ” a practice some observers believe has put users at risk . Late Friday , Microsoft took the unusual step of making patches Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability that protect older systems against WannaCry , including Windows XP , free . “ Companies like Microsoft should discard the idea that they can abandon people using older software , ” Zeynep Tufekci , an associate professor at the school of information and library science at the University of North Carolina , wrote in a New York Times opinion piece over the weekend . “ The money they made from these customers hasn ’ t expired ; neither has their responsibility to fix defects. ” But security experts challenged that argument , saying that Microsoft could not be expected to keep updating old software products indefinitely . Providing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability updates to older systems could make computers more insecure by removing an incentive for users to modernize , Mikko Hypponen , the chief research officer of F-Secure , a security firm . “ I can understand why they issued Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability an emergency patch for XP after WannaCry was found , but in general , we should just let XP die , ” Mr. Hypponen said .