Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-016:
Vulnerability in Windows Shell that Could Allow Remote Code Execution (893086)
Bulletin URL:
<http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS05-016.mspx>
Version Number: 1.0
Issued Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Impact of Vulnerability: Remote Code Execution
Maximum Severity Rating: Important
Patch(es) Replaced: This bulletin replaces several prior security updates. See
the frequently asked questions (FAQ) section of this bulletin for the complete
list.
Caveats: None
Tested Software:
Affected Software:
------------------
* Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 and Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack
4
<http://tinyurl.com/4lusc>
* Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 1 and Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2
<http://tinyurl.com/47bds>
* Microsoft Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Service Pack 1 (Itanium)
<http://tinyurl.com/5wn5u>
* Microsoft Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 (Itanium)
<http://tinyurl.com/53h9t>
* Microsoft Windows Server 2003
<http://tinyurl.com/3m3kf>
* Microsoft Windows Server 2003 for Itanium-based Systems Microsoft Windows 98,
Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (SE), and Microsoft Windows Millennium
Edition (ME) - Review the FAQ section of this bulletin for details about these
operating systems. Windows Server 2003 (all versions)
<http://tinyurl.com/53h9t>
Technical Description:
----------------------
* Windows Shell Vulnerability - CAN-2005-0063: A remote code execution
vulnerability exists in the Windows Shell because of the way that it handles
application association. If a user is logged on with administrative privileges,
an attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could take complete
control of the affected system. However, user interaction is required to
exploit this vulnerability.
This email is sent to NTBugtraq automagically as a service to my subscribers.
(v4.01.1928.12470)
Cheers,
Russ Cooper - Senior Scientist - Cybertrust/NTBugtraq Editor
--
NTBugtraq Editor's Note:
Most viruses these days use spoofed email addresses. As such, using an
Anti-Virus product which automatically notifies the perceived sender of a
message it believes is infected may well cause more harm than good. Someone who
did not actually send you a virus may receive the notification and scramble
their support staff to find an infection which never existed in the first
place. Suggest such notifications be disabled by whomever is responsible for
your AV, or at least that the idea is considered.
--
