Ohh - - - And by the way, if you don't recall, these were the
vulnerabilities (amongst others) that the NSA and GCHQ had been
holding close to their chests for a good long time, and were only
made public relatively recently when information of was them
"leaked"...........Whether those vulnerabilities were known to the
people at Redmond ahead of the leak, I will leave for others to
ponder.......................
I think you will find, that the following will be at the core of
the current day's problems, which of course will doubt be
exacerbated by the fact that XP and 2000-Server and 2003 Server
did not have patches issued for them, plus of course the
previously mentioned all-but non-existent security practices.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/ms17-010.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396
Overview of risk
A vulnerability in Microsoft
Server Message Block 1.0 (SMBv1) server. This service (SMB) is
utilised to present shares, printers and more on a Microsoft
Domain network.
This vulnerability exposes core
Active directory components to Remote Code Execution from
unauthenticated attackers. They would be able to execute any
code they wished to potentially gain access to the entire
network. The patches Microsoft have provided should be tested
installed as a matter of urgency.
Specific Security reports of the
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) are below -
Vulnerability title - CVE
number
Windows SMB Remote Code Execution
Vulnerability - CVE-2017-0143
Windows SMB Remote Code Execution
Vulnerability - CVE-2017-0144
Windows SMB Remote Code Execution
Vulnerability - CVE-2017-0145
Windows SMB Remote Code Execution
Vulnerability - CVE-2017-0146
Windows SMB Remote Code Execution
Vulnerability - CVE-2017-0148
The released patches target the
SMBv1 service and the way it handles the particular requests
that can be used to exploit it.
On 12/05/17 18:57, Joseph Bennie
wrote:
On 12 May 2017, at 18:49, daniel Phillips <danielphillips50@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Forgive me for not knowing the current IT circumstances within government and the NHS. But wouldn't switching to an OSS alternative in fact save them millions and still be a little more secure then the systems they have in place at present? I have read other countries are leading the way and switching to OSS and standards. Do you think our government should have got on this band wagon a long time ago?
no
The $ cost per os licence is trivial compared with the over head of installs, patching and app compatibility.
and thats why enterprises choose MS ... the release cycle is 5-10 years, which means the test and redow cycle is 5-10 years. With opens source is't 6-12 months.
Can you imagine the cost of having to do full environment testing for custom apps every 6 months?
... I don't think the NHS even knows what continuous integration is. I'd put money on some critical apps are still COBOL.
