-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title:      Buffer Overruns in SQL Server 2000 Resolution Service 
            Could Enable Code Execution (Q323875)
Date:       24 July 2002 
Software:   SQL Server 2000
Impact:     Three vulnerabilities, the most serious of which could
            enable an attacker to gain control over an affected 
            SQL Server 2000 installation
Max Risk:   Critical
Bulletin:   MS02-039

Microsoft encourages customers to review the Security Bulletin at: 
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-039.asp.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue:
======
SQL Server 2000 introduces the ability to host multiple instances of
SQL Server on a single physical machine. Each instance operates for
all intents and purposes as though it was a separate server. However,
the multiple instances cannot all use the standard SQL Server session
port (TCP 1433). While the default instance listens on TCP port 1433,
named instances listen on any port assigned to them. The SQL Server
Resolution Service, which operates on UDP port 1434, provides a way
for clients to query for the appropriate network endpoints to use for
a particular SQL Server instance. 

There are three security vulnerabilities here. The first two are
buffer overruns. By sending a carefully crafted packet to the
Resolution Service, an attacker could cause portions of system memory
(the heap in one case, the stack in the other) to be overwritten.
Overwriting it with random data would likely result in the failure of
the SQL Server service; overwriting it with carefully selected data
could allow the attacker to run code in the security context of the
SQL Server service. 

The third vulnerability is a denial of service vulnerability. SQL
uses a keep-alive mechanism to distinguish between active and passive
instances. It is possible to create a keep-alive packet that, when
sent to the Resolution Service, will cause SQL Server 2000 to respond
with the same information. An attacker who created such a packet,
spoofed the source address so that it appeared to come from a one SQL
Server 2000 system, and sent it to a neighboring SQL Server 2000
system could cause the two systems to enter a never-ending cycle of
keep-alive packet exchanges. This would consume resources on both
systems, slowing performance considerably. 

Mitigating Factors:
====================
Buffer Overruns in SQL Server Resolution Service: 
 - SQL Server 2000 runs in a security context chosen by the
   administrator at installation time. By default, it runs as
   a Domain User. Thus, although the attacker's code could take
   any desired action on the database, it would not necessarily
   have significant privileges at the operating system level if
   best practices have been followed. 
 - The risk posed by the vulnerability could be mitigated by, 
   if feasible, blocking port 1434 at the firewall. 

Denial of Service via SQL Server Resolution Service: 
 - An attack could be broken off by restarting the SQL Server 
   2000 service on either of the affected systems. Normal 
   processing on both systems would resume once the attack ceased. 
 - The vulnerability provides no way to gain any privileges on the
   system. It is a denial of service vulnerability only.

Maximum Risk Rating:
============
 - Internet systems: Critical
 - Intranet systems: Critical
 - Client systems: None

Patch Availability:
===================
 - A patch is available to fix this vulnerability. Please read the 
   Security Bulletin at
   http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms02-039.asp
   for information on obtaining this patch.

Acknowledgment:
===============
 - David Litchfield of Next Generation Security Software Ltd.
   (http://www.nextgenss.com/)
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE MICROSOFT KNOWLEDGE BASE IS PROVIDED
"AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. MICROSOFT DISCLAIMS ALL
WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT
SHALL MICROSOFT CORPORATION OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DAMAGES WHATSOEVER INCLUDING DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF
MICROSOFT CORPORATION OR ITS SUPPLIERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION
OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES SO
THE FOREGOING LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.1

iQEVAwUBPT810I0ZSRQxA/UrAQHfeggAl7tzuykuTyoNZy2FMvMVcs+5e6PqijaG
IB3rDbN0y3O+YLitDD7EGUVWNmRjfcFnZsAELmRwTtVNWXCKnhEuW6hNBIHa4x9V
U7KXsnv4aasoUX0477x7EekyTFhLCqit1vHKb46mAr4LhYdqbDF3qWwPhmPgiJWk
BV4QR78fdpKFx6RkKof5wMDBG9AFMC1UlD0jEP1LsTeOXkCUL3XEfWjCYnQ+bd2x
/NKN4tAszJC/NW0Lq9L7HkPkCUDYRpXLwLmj4qxym+LQiFdVFUgUh/AAI/8j9hUX
bPCLvizUwTDnJiZZTo2L4louG1XaEiAJSGJru2eVVEX0EtUgICfKJQ==
=6ANq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Information security executives need to be strategic thinkers

Posted on 17 June 2013.  |  George Baker, the Director of Information Security at Exostar, talks about the challenges in working in a dynamic threat landscape, offers tips for aspiring infosec leaders, and more.

Large orgs in denial about own security breaches?

Posted on 14 June 2013.  |  Over two thirds (66%) of large organizations said they either had not experienced a security incident in the last 12-18 months or were unsure if they had.

Vulnerability scanning with PureCloud

Posted on 12 June 2013.  |  nCircle PureCloud is a cloud-based network security scanning product built upon the companies' vulnerability and risk management system IP360.

To hack back or not to hack back?

Posted on 12 June 2013.  |  If you think of cyberspace as a new resource for you and your organization, it makes sense to protect your part of it as best you can. But is it a good idea?

Reactions from the security community to the NSA spying scandal

Posted on 11 June 2013.  |  Read on for comments on this scandal that Help Net Security received from a variety of security professionals and analysts.