Stan Beer
Monday, 02 October 2006 13:33
Business IT -
Security
The debate has flared up once again about whether users should wait for an official Microsoft patch to a vulnerability in its software or take their chances with a third party patch as a temporary measure.
The highly publicised actions of a group of
security professionals calling themselves ZERT (Zeroday Emergency
Response Team) have brought the issue to the fore by issuing fixes for
two separate vulnerabilities within two weeks.
The first patch issued by ZERT for an Internet Explorer and HTML email
flaw involving Vector markup anguage (VML) may well have embarrassed
Microsoft to issuing an official patch ahead of time last week, instead
of waiting until Patch Tuesday on October 10.
ZERT then followed its initial patch with another patch this week for a
vulnerability in the Windows Shell, which affects Windows 2000, Windows
XP and windows 2003 Server. If exploited by visiting a malicious
website using Internet Explorer the vulnerability could allow remote
code execution on the user's computer.
With the number of exploits mounting and a third party again issuing
its own fix to the flaw, Microsoft is once again considering issuing an
official patch ahead of its normal Patch Tuesday cycle.
Both user and security communities are divided over whether third party
vendors issuing patches to Windows and other Microsoft software is a
good idea, with some saying a third party patch could itself introduce
more problems than it fixes.
However, many agree that the increasing involvement of third party
security vendors is putting increasing pressure on Microsoft to release
patches faster and outside its usual monthly cycle.
Some say the monthly patching cycle is enabling attackers to time their
zero day exploits to be released in the days immediately following
Patch Tuesday, knowing that they have nearly a full month of a patch
free vulnerability to work with.