Re: Microsoft Jet Engine MDB File Parsing Stack Overflow Vulnerability Nov 17 2007 11:58PM
Juha-Matti Laurio (juha-matti laurio netti fi) (1 replies)
Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Jet Engine MDB File Parsing Stack Overflow Vulnerability Nov 18 2007 08:27AM
jf (jf danglingpointers net)
is it? If I recall correctly, the hexview advisory was the result of
something like a word-to-byte truncation followed by a byte
sign-extension (but its been long enough that I may be misremembering

In this advisory it was not entirely clear what
the condition was, from what I remember reading of it the other day, it
didn't get into how/why, it just like used ecx or a register as a counter
but didn't show how it came to that value?

Whats interesting is that the hexview patching the bug itself is trivial
from the assembly (not taking into account the work encountered from bin patching
itself) and I know many organizations attempted to put a lot of pressure
to get it patched and failed to do so

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Juha-Matti Laurio wrote:

> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:58:02 +0200 (EET)
> From: Juha-Matti Laurio <juha-matti.laurio (at) netti (dot) fi [email concealed]>
> To: CaseArmour.net Security Administrator <security (at) casearmour (dot) net [email concealed]>,
> bugtraq (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed], frankruder (at) hotmail (dot) com [email concealed],
> full-disclosure (at) lists.grok.org (dot) uk [email concealed]
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Jet Engine MDB File Parsing Stack
> Overflow Vulnerability
> There is a well-known unpatched code execution type vulnerability reported originally in msjet40.dll version 4.00.8618.0 too.
> This issue reported by HexView is known since March 2005:
> http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/12960
> http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-0944
> We probably don't see a fix for this issue.
> - Juha-Matti
> "CaseArmour.net Security Administrator" <security (at) casearmour (dot) net [email concealed]> kirjoitti:
> > It would be useful to know if this is also an issue with msjet40.dll
> > 4.0.9510.0 (Windows Server 2003 SP2 + hotfixes). I have an installer
> > for Windows XP SP2 that -- seems -- to cleanly apply Windows Server 2003
> > SP2's MDAC 2.82. I haven't been able to give it a serious, hard testing
> > because I don't have many apps that still use MDAC.
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:25:29 +0800, "cocoruder" <cocoruder (at) gmail (dot) com [email concealed]>
> > said:
> > >
> > > (C:\Windows\System32\msjet40.dll, version is 4.0.8618.0)
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

[ reply ]


Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus