Well that didn't take long.

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

DaveB replied

16 November 2009, 15:07
Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post

No, your noddy anti-virus will save you.

And that made sense in which universe?
Leave a comment:
DimPrawn replied

16 November 2009, 15:02
No, your noddy anti-virus will save you.
Leave a comment:
DaveB started a topic Well that didn't take long.

16 November 2009, 14:58
Well that didn't take long.

Posted on Slashdot, which I only have indirect access to here, so no linky.

The first Microsoft-confirmed Windows 7 zero-day vulnerability, with a demonstration exploit publicly available.

The problem is in SMBv2 and SMBv1 and affects Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2, but not Vista, XP, or Windows Server 2003. A maliciously crafted URI could hard-crash affected machines beyond any remedy besides pushing the white button.

"Microsoft said it may patch the problem, but didn't spell out a timetable or commit to an out-of-cycle update before the next regularly-scheduled Patch Tuesday of December 8. Instead, the company suggested users block TCP ports 139 and 445 at the firewall."

"As important as this the mentioned article is, it should also be pointed out that any IT staff worth their pay packet should already have port 139 blocked at the firewall, and probably port 445. too."
Tags: None