HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & YES, even VISTA

Seshomaru Samma · March 23, 2009

http://www.thenewtech.com/forums/attachmen...mp;d=1234540101

you need to subscribe to read see this attachment

APK · March 23, 2009

http://www.thenewtech.com/forums/attachmen...mp;d=1234540101
you need to subscribe to read see this attachment

Correct, but, nothing I can do about that... but, you CAN (or should) be able to see it, here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/show...8430&page=3 , as an alternate place since I can't do attached photos here...

APK

APK · October 28, 2009

To anyone using VISTA, Windows Server 2008, or the new "Windows 7" (which rocks, especially in 64-bit form)? Don't use the point I noted as this in its first sentence:

6.) USE Tons of security & speed oriented registry hacks

Not unless you ABSOLUTELY KNOW what you're doing.

(See, the older registry .reg file 'hacks' won't work that worked FINE on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, albeit (not all of them @ least) with VISTA, Server 2008, or the new Windows 7. So, "Steer Clear" of those on the newer MS' OS!)

Thanks!

APK

P.S.=> On that "note"? I like Windows 7, very much (again, especially in its 64-bit build), & it amazes me how F A S T it is, even with its large number of services resident + running, by default - &, when you "trim them down" even more? You get THAT MUCH FASTER! The services are now also secured better, by using "lesser privelege" user SID entities "built-in" types vs. LOCAL SYSTEM, such as NETWORK SERVICE or LOCAL SERVICE which I go into HOW TO DO IT on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 here (Server 2003 has much of it, as does XP, after MS did service packs + hotfixes, & Windows 2000 lacks a few "built in" entities, but you can "mock up" a lesser priveleged one easily enough to do that there also - this has put Windows on level with the likes of the BSD based MacOS X in that respect, which is GOOD!

Now, IF only MS would fix up HOSTS files being unable to use the FAR MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER "0 ip address" (pings resolve it back to 0.0.0.0 though on Windows 2000 (after service packs though, MS put it in there around SP#1-4 somewhere, so it was seen as a GOOD THING by them, because the original OEM version did not allow that, & only allowed as good as using 0.0.0.0 in a HOSTS file (which IS better than 127.0.0.1 by 2 bytes per line) but, using 0 beats them both, by large margins (making for a faster load up into RAM (be that the local DNS cache (disable that on larger HOSTS files), or, the local diskcache kernel mode subsystem)?

Windows 7 would be THAT MUCH BETTER, for both security and speed!

Well, in this case, ONLY for those that have the good sense to use a HOSTS file for added speed & security!

(FOR SPEED? BLOCK ADBANNERS (they too have been found to have malware in them for years now), & "hardcode" in your fav sites IP Address-to-DomainName/HOSTName? Well, doing that, you avoid calling out to potentially downed or compromised DNS servers (see Dan Kaminsky online for the latter, the Domain Name System has problems, even the "allegedly invulnerable" DJBDNS was found to have holes in it for security this year in fact))!

Thus, saving you between 30-x ms queries to those remote DNS servers (which CAN be logged no less as well), & instead using the speed of MEMORY/RAM (many, Many, MANY orders of magnitude faster) once the HOST file is loaded (which still occurs faster, because it would be using diskspeeds of today, which are 3-10 or more orders of magnitude faster than calling out to remote DNS servers). HOSTS use no CPU cycles, vs. DNS programs + they are EASILY EDITED vs. even other filters like IPTables in Linux (easier in notepad imo & ANYONE can do it, we all have text editors is why on ANY OS), & cost you NOTHING (many good sources for good ones too, like -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file for starters, or SpyBot "Search & Destroy" for updates to it that block out KNOWN bad malscripted sites, or bad servers used to control "botnets" too! I could go on & on on MORE of the benefits of HOSTS, but that'll do, for now (I hope MS fixes this removal of 0, as a blocking "ip" in HOSTS in Windows 7 @ least, because it is more efficient & faster).

What worries me some though even more on SECURITY though?

This, on Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7's Firewall:

http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952

PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:

"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."

That was a DIRECT QUOTE from said URL I just posted from rootkit.com ... & it 'worries me' some. I have confronted MS tech people & mgt. on this, to no avail... I don't know WHY they won't answer either - I am only asking WHY the thing with HOSTS was done, no answers, & pointed out to them what ROOTKIT.COM said above, many times (on MSDN, @ INTEL, @ /. with a user there named "Fordecker" who is a senior MS development mgr. for Windows no less, & also on the "Engineering Windows 7" blog by S. Sinofsky, a "Big Man" @ MS on Windows no less)... apk

APK · November 1, 2009

Worried about being 1 of the 7++ million PC's infected/infested by the "CONFICKER" worm, per this article today @ /. (SLASHDOT)?

----

After 1 Year, Conficker Infects 7M Computers:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/30/223238

----

Ok then, so you are apparently concerned, if you have read this far already!

Well, then here is a way to test yourself to see if you are infected/infested. Click on the URL below, & just literally see for yourself, here:

----

http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/infec...cfeyechart.html

----

(And, good luck, hope you're not infested/infected (I wasn't thank goodness!)).

APK

P.S.=> ... & it truly is, as EASY as it gets (it's called the "conficker eye chart", & IF you can see all 6 pictures, then you are NOT infected, but if you cannot? It means it is quite possible you have been infected by this machination known as "conficker")... apk

APK · November 2, 2009

Worried about being 1 of the 7++ million PC's infected/infested by the "CONFICKER" worm, per this article today @ /. (SLASHDOT)?
----
After 1 Year, Conficker Infects 7M Computers:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/30/223238
----
Ok then, so you are apparently concerned, if you have read this far already!
Well, then here is a way to test yourself to see if you are infected/infested. Click on the URL below, & just literally see for yourself, here:
----
http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/infec...cfeyechart.html
----
(And, good luck, hope you're not infested/infected (I wasn't thank goodness!)).
APK
P.S.=> ... & it truly is, as EASY as it gets (it's called the "conficker eye chart", & IF you can see all 6 pictures, then you are NOT infected, but if you cannot? It means it is quite possible you have been infected by this machination known as "conficker")... apk

NOW, if you cannot reach that site (which has happened to folks today per this exchange I had on another forums -> http://amazingtechs.com/index.php?showtopi...30&start=30 )

It only means that the testing site has been "/.'d" (too many requests by users to that server, it happens, almost like a DOS/DDOS really, every website server has limits, which yes, can be RAISED by most site admins in fact, in the board engine's config files (usually)).

Still, if you show up "infested" Guys, there are cures, such as this list:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sou...G=Google+Search

:)

* Hope you're not, & hope if you are, you can remove it via said lists of removal tools is all!

APK

P.S.=> Onwards & upwards... apk

APK · November 2, 2009

I HAD A GOOD QUESTION FROM A USER TODAY, & HERE WAS MY ANSWER, IN CASE YOU CANNOT REACH THIS SITE TO CHECK YOURSELF (as it may be blocked by a malware, or even yourself, via various means, instead of just being flooded by users requesting on it, effectively "slashdotting" (almost DOS/DDOS'ing) said site to check yourself vs. CONFICKER)

So... he we go as to the possibles!

FROM -> http://www.hftonline.com/forum/showthread....6049#post116049

--------------------

I did try, and failed to even generate a 404 ... so I'm happy that it wasn't something at my end.
P

HOPEFULLY, it isn't, because there IS A POSSIBILITY that the site to check yourself I noted? IS BLOCKED, & blocked in your HOSTS file (make sure this is ALWAYS "READ ONLY" (write protected) attributes applied) OR via bad browser addons, or in browser filtering lists (internal to individual browsers)...

So, check it for that site being in there/those, blocked as follows (a few possibles):

I strongly DOUBT you did any of these, yourself, but... one never knows, so, here goes:

=====

POSSIBLE #1 - That the site to check yourself, is actually BLOCKED in YOUR HOSTS FILE

That file typically found under %Windir%\System32\drivers\etc, or if you moved it, check the registry for the value here ->

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\Tcpip\Parameters & check the DataBasePath value

(That STRING VALUE SZ stores your HOSTS file location, TRUE ONE your system will be using & you CAN move it if you like... but, so can malwares):

0 www.confickerworkinggroup.org

0.0.0.0 www.confickerworkinggroup.org

127.0.0.1 www.confickerworkinggroup.org

(ANY OF THOSE WILL BLOCK OUT SITES, GOOD SITES, or KNOWN BAD ONES, so, check your HOSTS file, first! Conficker MIGHT ACTUALLY TRY TO PULL THIS LITTLE TRICK, mind you!)

=====

POSSIBLE #2 - bad "hardcode" of a site address (which a malware might do, or, it just 'went stale' & the website found a NEW "hosting provider" & their IP addy changed - & YES: Sites DO, do this, simply because they found better prices on hosting their sites for example, OR better services, but, they usually let you know when they do)

See if you, yourself, "hardcoded it as a favorite" (which you CAN DO, to speed up access to your fav sites by avoiding the 30-x ms traveltime for resolution of domainnames/hostnames to IP addresses with remote or local DNS servers)?

Your "hardcode for speed" (as well as reliability IF a dns server you use goes down OR is poisoned (see Dan Kaminsky on this online in regards to this)), well... it can 'go stale' or change (because the website found a new hosting provider for instance, because they're cheaper or better etc. et al as noted above earlier)...

(I.E.-> You CAN "mess this up", esepcially over time, with the wrong IP address (yours may vary on what you get as a return IP address from your DNS server too, than my example here is, be aware of that too)):

----

A.) E.G.-> RIGHT IP ADDRESS EQUATION FOR HARDCODE (for me, not same for you possibly - remove any hardcodes, if any in your HOSTS file, reload it (edit & save it in Windows XP/2000/Server 2003/VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 since they have a "dynamic PNP" loaded IP Stack) or reboot (you MUST in Windows 2000 - IP stack FULLY LOADED prior to bootup is why ONLY, not only when users request on it like in later Windows' versions)):

149.20.20.82 www.confickerworkinggroup.org

B.) E.G.-> WRONG IP ADDRESS EQUATION (something CONFICKER Might actually do in fact, IF you are "hit" by it/victim to it OR if the site you hardcoded changed hosting providers etc.):

10.1.1.1 www.confickerworkinggroup.org

(10.x.x.x, & iirc, 172.x.x.x ESPECIALLY WILL NOT GO "OUTBOUND" TO THE INTERNET, & ARE MUCH LIKE 192.168.x.x is... only for internal networks/LANS & DHCP on the last one, the others are for static internal addresses!)

HOW TO GET THE RIGHT IP ADDRESS FOR YOU, FROM YOUR DNS SERVERS YOU USE? PING THE SITE FROM A DOS CMD.EXE WINDOW PROMPT/TTY CONSOLE!

E.G.->

C:\> ping www.confickerworinggroup.org

BUT, only after you remove it from a HOSTS file & save it to reload it (or reboot after edit + save, on Windows 2000 & below). That command WILL return the correct IP address, once it is not found in your HOSTS file (IF it is @ all that is).

----

(These (POSSIBLE #1, & POSSIBLE #2A & #2B)? THEY are the ONLY 'downsides' of using a HOSTS file, it CAN be "used against you too", by malwares... so, be aware of this little tidbit too!)

=====

POSSIBLE #3 - in BROWSER INTERNAL BLOCKLISTS THEMSELVES (this too can be "misused" by malwares against you, OR, it can help you too (spybot s&d populates these along with HOSTS for example, for "the good"):

NOW, if it is NOT blocked there/THOSE above?

1.) Check your IE "restricted sites" list (IE 7-8 have easy facilities for this, in "INTERNET OPTIONS" or MSCONFIG (iirc on the latter here), & IE6 you have to search the registry for here -> HKCU,"Software\ Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Zones\4

2.) Opera has its FILTER.INI &/or URLFILTER.INI which can do the same (block sites, ONLY @ THE BROWSER (opera) level though, not globally like HOSTS do or can)

3.) FireFox/Mozilla variants also have "internal to FF/Mozilla only" blocked lists-restricted sites as well.

Any of these also can "go stale" due to sites changing hosting providers, OR, due to a malware 'bushwhacking' them...

4.) AND, CHECK YOUR IE "browser addons" (possibly even FF ones too) that are malwares possibly, because THEY CAN "intercept" calls to GOOD SECURITY SITES TOO, so check your addons for bogus ones in your webbrowsers too!

5.) ONCE ALL OF THAT IS CHECKED (hosts, browser addons, & browser block lists/restricted zones)?

CLEAR YOUR LOCAL WEBBROWSER CACHE, RELOAD YOUR HOSTS (if you use it & editing it + saving it will do that on Windows XP/Server 2003/VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 or, a reboot after edit will on Windows 2000), & try the site again, once ALL OF THOSE AREAS "CHECK 'ALL CLEAR'"...

====

SO - be aware of ALL of the above, & their mechanics involved. Malware makers are, & so should you be, as a "security conscious" user of Windows systems @ least! With that all above? You SHOULD be, on this account.

Good luck!

APK

P.S.=> Odds are though, they've been "SLASHDOTTED" by too many users requesting on them, because /. is such a HEAVILY travelled/used website... especially if "NONE OF THE ABOVE", holds true... apk

APK · November 3, 2009

A possible point noted by another user @ another forums, for those interested in securing their Windows NT-based OS PC:

FROM -> http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/showthrea...41#post13641341

----

Quote:Originally Posted by Srivas

Btw. CIS tool is not a freeware, is there any other program to benchmark your level of security?

----

It used to be free, I guess it's not now (I am taking this gent @ his word, I have not tested this by going to the download site in years, but still)... as alternates, you may use/can try:

1.) BELARC ADVISOR (free, & works VERY well) -> http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html

or

2.) "SCW" (security configuration wizard) which is an addon for Windows Server 2003, possibly VISTA, & for sure Windows 7 (you add it in CONTROL PANEL, Add-remove WINDOWS components).

OR

3.) Microsoft ALSO OFFERS "Microsoft Baseline Security ADVISOR" -> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en

... but, iirc, the latter in #3 depends on various services running!

(I am no longer EXACTLY sure which services those are anymore, but iirc, they are one that use NTLM networking based or AD services based (e.g.-> lanman/netbios type sharing being working & Client for MS networks active in your network connection, + File & printer sharing AND server service + workstation service active & POSSIBLY the NetBIOS over TCP/IP helper service as well - but, don't "quote me" on this, I just know it will not run IF you trimmed off various services...))

APK

P.S.=> ALSO, IN THIS THREAD? Well - I believe I noted SCW, but only for Windows Server 2003 earlier in this post (I did) but it exists for Windows 7 now, standard, apparently (I installed it on Windows 7 64 bit pro so it does exist for it too)...

So, there are some "alternate options/tools" to use for better security online (and speed too, especially from SCW)... apk

APK · November 9, 2009

OK, for those of you that have "moved on" to VISTA (or Windows Server 2008 & Windows 7), as I have recently, in my now using Windows 7 64-bit here?

(For around 2++ weeks now or so, in using Windows 7 here, & doing well thusfar, @ least)

WELL - here is what I have done so far to help secure Windows 7 more:

BACKGROUND: Since this guide was originally intended for folks with a SINGLE SYSTEM online (or many via a router, but NOT "networked together" via Active Directory (or, otherwise) for File/Folder & Print Sharing for example/for instance), this too is intended for that SAME kind of "audience", albeit, in regards to Windows 7 (again - I use the 64-bit model of Windows 7 here, but this ought to be fine for 32-bit users as well)

====

Start up SERVICES.MSC (You will need this for turning on/off various services is why)

1.) Turn off the SERVER service (this also aids in making you less vulnerable to the CONFICKER bug out there too, because this service "publishes" shares on your system) - in turn in making you more secure, this also lessens another service that you DO NOT NEED TO BE RUNNING, period, when you are a "standalone single machine @ home connected to the Internet" - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically

... I also run this .cmd "batch file" on Windows 7 @ my startup (via a shortcut that loads it & runs it minimized):

echo off

NET SHARE C$ /DELETE

NET SHARE B$ /DELETE

NET SHARE D$ /DELETE

NET SHARE E$ /DELETE

NET SHARE F$ /DELETE

NET SHARE G$ /DELETE

C:

NET SHARE ADMIN$ /DELETE

NET SHARE IPC$ /DELETE

NET SHARE DFS$ /DELETE

NET SHARE COMCFG$ /DELETE

NET USE * /DELETE :REM last line is to force complete read of HOSTS file into RAM, that domainname/hostname is the last line in it... apk

ping zzzz.hostindianet.com

That removes shares (just in case, overkill yes, but still, just being safe) & FORCES my system to load my HOSTS file in its entirety too (into my local diskcache kernel mode subsystem's arrays/buffers/structures, because that is the last entry in it & pinging it SHOULD force my system to look into that HOSTS file of mine (more on THAT below, lots more) & since it is the LAST ENTRY, it will read the entire file into RAM @ that point, to do so, effectively caching my HOSTS file, right then & there) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically

----

2.) Turn off the TCP/IP over NetBIOS service (this is not needed by a person who does not have a home LAN either, or needs to share his files/folders/disks out to others remote to the system in question also, much like SERVER service above) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically

----

3.) I have also been able to turn off the WORKSTATION service as well on Windows 7, albeit, ONLY AFTER I BOOTUP & LOGON in test so far, not sure if you can DISABLE it & still logon, so... keep that in mind!

(This service deals in SMB (server message block iirc) networking)

Turning it off, like any service you don't really need, results in YOUR saving more CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O also, + even electric power really... as you're not running a program & using power, just like ANY of the above or below recommendations for turning off programs of most anykind really do (albeit, this isn't as much of a "security gain" as the top 2 above are imo) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically.

----

4.) I have also turned off (set disabled) the SSDP Discovery Service (don't need it here is why)

----

5.) I have also turned off (set disabled) the Function Discovery Provider Host Service (don't need it here is why) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically (well, in this case, POSSIBLY only).

----

6.) I have also turned off (set disabled) the Net.Tcp Port Sharing Service (don't need it here is why & this MIGHT be somewhat of a 'security risk' too, imo @ least, in leaving it "on" & running 24x7) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically (well, in this case, POSSIBLY only).

----

7.) I have also turned off (set disabled) the SSDP Service (don't need it here is why & it "ties in" with UPnP below (read that one))

----

8.) I have also turned off (set disabled) the UPnP Service (don't need it here is why & UPnP has been KNOWN to have vulnerabilities over time, in OS & in routers even, which IS noted in this guide as to how/when/where/why/what can be 'dangerous' about it...)

----

9.) I have also turned off (set disabled) the WinHTTP Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Service (don't need it here is why) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically (well, in this case, POSSIBLY only).

----

* THAT'S THE END OF SERVICES TRIMMINGS (more on that & a GOOD SOLID CURRENT GUIDE FOR THAT? It's in my "P.S." below... for even more speed & possible security gains you get by turning off services you do NOT need possibly, running in the background when you really do NOT need them to be, soaking up CPU cycles, memory, & other types of I/O your programs you actually USE, could use, instead! Just common-sense, imo...)

ANYHOW - onto the LOCAL AREA NETWORK CONNECTION"

10.) Turn off Client for Microsoft Networking, QoS, + File & Print Sharing in your LOCAL NETWORK CONNECTION (avoiding the potential for shared disk/file/folder access even more, & do this ONLY IF YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CONNECT TO A LAN/WAN (local or remote) for disk/folder/file sharing only, or if you are NOT part of a HOME or WORK LAN/WAN)... & really, any others, other than TCP/IP (this you need for online access).

While you are there, in your LOCAL AREA CONNECTION?

Well - Additionally, You can DISABLE TCP over NETBIOS as well in the LOCAL AREA CONNECTIONS' properties for Tcp/IP, & the ADVANCED button, then click on the WINS tab & check "DISABLE NetBIOS over TCP/IP"... &, there are a few more too, read on:

Extra protocols &/or services that Windows 7 has, such as "Link Layer Topology Discovery Mapper I/O Driver" &/or "Link Layer Discovery Responder" can also be "cranked off" & apparently to NO DETRIMENT EITHER (I have been running for weeks now without it & I am here posting, aren't I? If that doesn't say or prove it for me, not much will I guess... lol!)

I also add in OpenDNS' servers there in the DNS tab (advanced Tcp/IP properties) & their IP addresses are:

208.67.220.220

208.67.200.200

(They are a FASTER DNS system, & respond to fixes + patching faster than any other did when Mr. Dan Kaminsky found the holes & security vulnerabilities he did last yr. in the Domain Name System (DNS)).

LASTLY (though this is more of a "speedup" than a securing tip)? Try this:

Create/paste this into notepad.exe & save it with a .cmd extension (32/64-bit batchfile really, just ends in .cmd rather than .bat, as 16-bit command.com driven ones did in DOS & Windows too)

@echo off

echo Setting TCP/IP flags...

echo -----------------------

echo This only succeeds when run as an administrator,

echo when run as a user it only shows the current settings.

echo.

pause

echo.

netsh int tcp set global rss=enabled

netsh int tcp set global chimney=automatic

netsh int tcp set global netdma=enabled

netsh int tcp set global dca=enabled

netsh int tcp set global autotuninglevel=normal

netsh int tcp set global congestionprovider=ctcp

netsh int tcp set global ecncapability=enabled

netsh int tcp set global timestamps=disabled

pause

cls

echo Current settings:

echo -----------------

netsh int tcp show global

pause

Then, lastly, run it... (create a shortcut to it, & use the ADVANCED button in the shortcut to "RUN AS ADMINISTRATOR"). This is supposed to speed up & help your IPStack perform better/faster, in Windows 7. I just tried it today, seems to work ok (no detrimental effects so far @ least that is).

Anyhow: "Onwards & Upwards!"

----

11.) IF you use a "largish" custom HOSTS file? TURN OFF THE DNS CLIENT SERVICE (which is just like the ones in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, which this guide covered MOSTLY as to how to secure those)... - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically, especially on an "AD Network" on a LAN/WAN (Active Directory is HEAVILY dependent on DNS is why).

* NOW, if you do not do this (turn off the DNS cache local client service), & you use a larger HOSTS file? You will LAG, & badly... amazingly badly in fact!

(I have written MS on this, only to have it "fall on deaf ears" really, so this IS the 'workaround' for that, rather unfortunately, because I believe it can be fixed for larger HOSTS files too, by altering how much can go into the C/C++ structure for records that DNS uses, based on reference BSD designs @ least (I don't have MS' sourcecode so... well, I can only guess on their designs, though they, like most others, tended to use the BSD model to start from @ least for TCP/IP)).

----

12.) USE A CUSTOM HOSTS FILE (for BOTH added SPEED, but more importantly FOR BETTER SECURITY ONLINE):

Custom HOSTS files can literally double your speed online via blocking adbanners (good & bad ones) + having the option to "hardcode in" your favorite websites IP Addresses into a HOSTS file next to its HOSTNAME/DOMAINNAME, avoiding having to call out to remote DNS servers (many of which have been found exploitable, even the allegedly "invulnerable djbdns system", by Mr. Dan Kaminsky & others in case you are interested in specifics here on this note), saving a GOOD 30-N ms roundtrip traveltime per call to remote DNS server to resolve a URL to an IP address...

BUT, their best benefit? Even better than "double your normal internet surfing speed online" (it will get faster, read here in fact):

----

RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE:

(by Mr. Oliver Day)

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES:

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now."

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

----

So reiterating this: Even BETTER THAN THE SPEED GAINS HOSTS FILES PROVIDE, ARE the SECURITY GAINS!

I.E./E.G.-> I have a pal named Jack, a PI by trade & license/degree, who used to get (no joke) 200++ viruses a week... NOT ANYMORE! He is CONVINCED, as am I, that a good current HOSTS file that blocks out known BAD SERVERS is the key here... as well as his saying literally "my intenet goes TWICE AS FAST with a HOSTS file"...

(FOR GOOD RELIABLE/REPUTABLE HOSTS FILES? There are many good ones!)

Try here ->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file

& you can use sites like Mr. Dancho Danchev's security blog to update them even more for securiity (i.e. - for the latest in listings of botnet "Command & Control Servers" or bad sites with malware on them in general, here -> http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ )

OR

Just use "Spybot 'Search & Destroy'" instead, as it updates your HOSTS vs. known bad websites (& your webbrowser of choice's private block lists, such as IE "Restricted Zones" here -> HKCU,"Software\ Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Zones\4 or via Internet Options in CONTROL PANEL, & others like Opera maintain private .ini files (URLFILTER.INI &/or FILTER.INI) for the same general purpose))

E.G.-> Over the past 10 yrs. or so now, those sites have helped me build upt a custom HOSTS file version that has over 660,000++ entries in it, of KNOWN BAD SERVERS OF ALL KINDS...

Mine COMBINES mvps.org's & the one I built up myself since 1997, alongside all those @ the wikipedia site for HOSTS files above, that is completely free of duplicate entries (via a program I wrote & posted of here, "APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++") & uses the SMALLEST + FASTEST POSSIBLE INTERNAL FORMAT for them on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 (0 blocking "ip address", e.g.-> 0 www.knownbadmalwaresite.com ) OR for Windows VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 (using 0.0.0.0 which though larger than 0, is the only thing that still works on those most modern versions of Windows)

(ODD THAT, that diff. in blocking IP address used, but the dual layer IPv4/IPv6 tcpip driver in VISTA onwards must have facilitated this, but it too, up until 12/09/2008 could ALSO USE THE SMALLER & FASTER 0 BLOCKING "IP ADDRESS", but after that "Patch Tuesday", even VISTA no longer could... so, I am not sure of WHY MS has pulled this though I have confronted them numerous times on it, repeatedly, & I noted it above also).

I mean, hey - Windows VISTA/Server 2008/& Windows 7?? They're ALL/EACHl based off Windows Server 2003 code, which still can use 0 though oddly, making for smaller & faster HOSTS files - so why doesn't MS allow this now?? Boggles my mind, but worse, is the fact they have evaded answering me on it several times (on their own forums, & on ones like SLASHDOT too + more).

----

PRACTICAL e.g. in the case of mine?

a.) Using 0 gets me a 14mb sized HOSTS file, same line entries as the ones below, just using 0 as "blocking IP address" (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 which ARE larger & thus, slower to read)...

Whereas, by way of comparison:

b.) Using 0.0.0.0 on Windows 7 is up to 18++mb in size...

c.) However, & WORST OF ALL for both speed & efficiency? 127.0.0.1, the default blocking address used, ends you up with a 22++mb sized HOSTS file!

So, as you can see? I save 30% or so using 0 vs. 0.0.0.0 (have to use THIS latter one though, on VISTA/WinSrv2k8/Windows 7 though, what a shame) in filesize & thus loadspeed of my HOSTS file, AND approximately ALMOST 50% in size vs. using 127.0.0.1 - to any "naysayers" on this account, I can only say:

"Argue with the numbers", & GOOD LUCK (you'll need it, more like a miracle really).

----

(This turning away of being able to use 0 in a HOSTS in VISTA onwards (again, wasn't always this way in VISTA mind you) is "bloated", because 0 &/or 0.0.0.0 do the same valuable blocking, & are smaller + faster to load because of the size diff.... so, "do the math" yourself, & realize also that smaller files load & parse faster (line by line, in a WHILE loop, with each line terminating in a CR+LF (carriage return + linefeed/enter keypress), & eventually when the "EOF" (end-of-file trailer record-marker) is hit signalling the end of the file & thus the read loop in the File Open/Read-Write/Flush-Close I-O cycle)...

----

13.) Look @ your TCP/IP rules "INBOUND" tables in the "ADVANCED FIREWALL CONNECTIONS" section of your Windows Firewall (Run this command for a quick link to it -> %windir%\system32\WF.msc )

There?

Well, I have personally successfully turned off /BLOCKED an ENTIRE ARRAY OF DEFAULT ALLOWABLE PROTOCOLS I JUST PERSONALLY DO NOT NEED & I am again, here posting, just fine (after reboots & all mind you).

(ALSO - this section here? WELL - This may vary by what you yourself need to do though, so bear that in mind)...

PERSONALLY - I only left the "Core Networking" sections/lines as ALLOWED IN (& I am certain I can block out a couple of those too, but this is all what I have done "so far", successfully, only... more will come in the future I am sure on this one from myself, or others too).

----

14.) A good run of secpol.msc (using its Account Policies &/or Local Policies Left-Hand Side tree items/folders).

(& on secpol.msc, I applied "AnalogX's IP Security Policy", in the IP Security Policies section also (which I mention in this guide here earlier, & in AnalogX, & WHERE TO GET IT, with directions to install it (cake-easy) & it works great still, too!)

PLUS I added myself as an ADMINISTRATOR user to nearly EVERY category in "User Rights Assignment"! I removed AND DENIED out the following users/groups in my DENY sections (the toughest ones really) in the secpol SECURITY OPTIONS section:

DIALUP

TERMINAL SERVER USER/GROUP (I don't use OR allow this here, you may)

GUEST

ANONYMOUS LOGON (especially this one)

Remote Desktop Users (I don't use OR allow that here either)

REMOTE INTERACTIVE LOGON

IIS Users (I don't host a website here is why on this note)

(STEER CLEAR OF THE DCOM RELATED SETTINGS GUYS - I DID THAT & CAUSED MYSELF A LOT OF "PAIN" (not really - Windows7 recovery bootup from install DVD or System Repair CD let me restore from a Restore Point perfectly once, & a System Image once, & those are the only other times I redid or had to redo this system on Windows 7, which happened the first day, while I was learning more (during tuning tests like these, or checking which boards/cards still worked for me here on Windows 7)... I'd try to help YOU avoid that, though it was not bad!

I do this, this way, here... simply because I have run for the past 15++ yrs. now that way (beyond "STD. ADMINISTRATOR" or "SYSTEM" level rights even)... I do so, successfully!

& despite the 'common belief' it's 'dangerous to do'? Well... I do that, & have not gotten infested/infected since, oh, around 1996-1997 that I know of @ least, but then I know to avoid using the "main malware delivery tools" in IFRAMES + JAVASCRIPT mostly, online, & also what sites I use that have proven reputable too (which some of you may or MAY NOT wish to elect to do on the elevated ADMIN/SYSTEM-LIKE rights assigned to yourself... &, epsecially if you believe in & espouse the UAC "least privelege principal", because its theory is SOUND, but it's not always that way in practice (per folks still getting infested in VISTA, & of course, the antivirus-antispyware test I note here in THIS POST, too))

E.G.-> There, in the I gave myself every right possible under the sun almost (those who believe in the principal of "least privelege is safer" disregard this, & it's so UAC keeps "protecting you" (though it's not that great vs today's threats, it did stop 3/10 of the ones thrown @ it here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/08/0233248 , it's still NO "Cure" for a user that does not give a hoot & just downloads + opens/runs any email attachment or binary executable from online that he finds, either)

----

15.) GET MICROSOFT SECURITY ESSENTIALS (especially if you do not have a Windows 7 compliant/compatible antispyware + antivirus program)... it has been rated + reviewed VERY WELL online in antivirus/antispyware competitions-contests/ratings, & I have been using it and it is fair FAST @ scanning files/folders plus, it is VERY LIGHT & operates QUITE "transparently" too... not much lag, IF any, is perceptiable from it & it updates, daily too AND IS 100% FREE and WORKS!

----

16.) Do the "FileSystem" & "Registry Hives" ACL security tip I noted here, adding yourself + SYSTEM (& any user groups YOU are part of, & removing other users that do NOT need to be there right out)... it works for security too.

----

17.) Doing the above, on Windows? Between ALL THAT ABOVE should "do the job" & between that + running a tool like Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer 2.1.1 (there are 32 &/or 64 bit models out there now mind you too + I posted the download links to them above here earlier a couple posts up from this one)!

====

Doing ALL that to a Windows 7 System that is a "stand-alone" single system hooked to the internet only (not a LAN/WAN or home network)? You SHOULD be "OK"/Fine, for now @ least, on a secured Windows 7 setup...

(NICE PART IS, imo thusfar @ least? Well, that is that it really SEEMS you do not have to do NEARLY ANYWHERE AS MUCH as what you had to do for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 though really, for security)

... Especially since MS has really, REALLY done a GOOD JOB of securing services for instance, so you don't really have to do that step anymore as I outlined in this guide early on, for securing services & for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 for the "utmost in security" even @ the services level, like MacOS X has for example... especially since MS has even helped THOSE older models of Windows do better there, via service packs + hotfixes for them altering the "logon SID entity indentifier" services use (LOCAL SYSTEM, vs. LOCAL SERVICE or the least priveleged in NETWORK SERVICE).

ANYHOW/ANYWAYS: Well - That's my "Top 17", so far @ least, for Windows 7, for now... IF I find more?

I'll put them up for your reference (and do pay attention to points in this guide too, as more than a few STILL APPLY to Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 still too)...

APK

P.S.=> NOW - For even MORE "speed-enhancing" services tunings (the above are for SECURITY mostly, but also help you gain speed by plain jane just not running them (pretty common-sense nowadays, & generally accepted as OK, even since the days when I authored what is probably the FIRST publicly noted guide for "Speedup & Securing Windows NT-based OS'" over @ NTCompatible.com as their "Article #1", which Neowin noted back in 2001 when they finally "got wind of it", here -> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/a...--security-text & they rated it very well also))?

Well, you may wish to check out "BLACK VIPER'S GUIDE", here:

http://www.blackviper.com/Windows_7/servicecfg.htm

It's GOOD, & VERY CURRENT + ACCURATE (& flexible)!

Amazes me, that ENTIRE SITES 'sprang up' out of the guide I did ages ago & based on the SAME PREMISE as my original guide was @ NTCompatible.com (circa 1997-3002) for NTCompatible.com as their "Article #1"....

... & I am glad because spreading good information around that makes the world a better place if just fine by me @ least... (& Black Viper's is particularly OUTSTANDING in this regards, & he "kept up on it", keeping his website running & chock full of CURRENT INFORMATION on this topic, on more current OS (I stopped doing those around the time Windows VISTA came out is why, because it has a LARGELY "self-tuning IP stack" (when I did tunings for TCP/IP networking) & by that point, I had moved onto other areas (programming MOSTLY, vs. networking/tech stuff))... apk

APK · November 14, 2009

Per this security notification from SECUNIA.COM:

http://secunia.com/advisories/37347/

Microsoft Windows SMB Response Denial of Service Vulnerability

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

----

"Description:

Laurent Gaffié has discovered a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows, which can be exploited by malicious people to cause a DoS (Denial of Service).

The vulnerability is caused due to an error when processing SMB packets received from an SMB server.

This can be exploited to hang an affected system by tricking a user into connecting to a malicious SMB server via e.g. a specially crafted web site opened in Internet Explorer.

The vulnerability is confirmed on a fully patched Microsoft Windows 7 and reported in Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2."

AND:

'Solution:

Block outbound connections to untrusted SMB servers via a firewall."

----

So, that evidence as "said & aside"? Well...

THIS OUGHT TO SERVE, "in the meantime @ least" (until a patch from MS is issued next "Microsoft Patch Tuesday" I suppose) to "FIX" that problem:

(If it works, it's by pure luck & I posted it above as more of a "speed boost" by not running a service you do NOT really need (as a 'standalone single system logged into the internet only' but not attached to a home or work LAN/WAN), but the WORKSTATION service does function to provide SMB services, & cutting it off SHOULD technically "do the job here" to protect one's self vs. this "bug/possible exploit"....

So, quoting myself from above:

OK, for those of you that have "moved on" to VISTA (or Windows Server 2008 & Windows 7), as I have recently, in my now using Windows 7 64-bit here?
====
Start up SERVICES.MSC (You will need this for turning on/off various services is why)
3.) I have also been able to turn off the WORKSTATION service as well on Windows 7, albeit, ONLY AFTER I BOOTUP & LOGON in test so far, not sure if you can DISABLE it & still logon, so... keep that in mind!
(This service deals in SMB (server message block iirc) networking)
Turning it off, like any service you don't really need, results in YOUR saving more CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O also, + even electric power really...
As you're not running a program & using power, just like ANY of the above or below recommendations for turning off programs of most anykind really do (albeit, this isn't as much of a "security gain" as the top 2 above are imo) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically.

I guess, now, in this case, vs. this "bug?" Well, it IS a security patch too, & not just a "speed booster"... per the bolding I just did above, where I said it's really only a 'speed boost'.

So give this a go, alongside the firewall rules table vs. outbound SMB connections, for now @ least until MS patches it, for securing AND SPEEDING UP, a Windows 7 system!

(Once more -I did WORKSTATION SERVICE stalling, albeit, only for speed, but I wager, again, by luck, it should work vs. this bug also, just because of what WORKSTATION service provides (i.e.- SMB services)).

APK

P.S.=> Some work in IE may be needed also, but, this is all I have, for now, vs. this exploit possibility thusfar, so 'turn off' WORKSTATION SERVICE (once you have logged on that is, because I am NOT 110% sure you can & still logon to your Windows 7 systems is all) & do a firewall rule for outbound SMB connectivity...

(Albeit @ this point, I am NOT sure if you can do that AND still LOGON to Windows, so only turn it off in services.msc once you have logged yourself in, & DO PAY ATTENTION TO CREATING A FIREWALL RULE FOR OUTBOUND SMB BASED CONNECTIONS, BLOCKING THEM FROM GOING "OUTBOUND" FROM YOUR SYSTEMS TOO)... apk

APK · November 15, 2009

Good news on setting WORKSTATION SERVICE to manual, in SERVICE.MSC, vs. this new flaw in Windows VISTA/Server 2008/VISTA:

(Albeit @ this point, I am NOT sure if you can do that AND still LOGON to Windows, so only turn it off in services.msc once you have logged yourself in, & DO PAY ATTENTION TO CREATING A FIREWALL RULE FOR OUTBOUND SMB BASED CONNECTIONS, BLOCKING THEM FROM GOING "OUTBOUND" FROM YOUR SYSTEMS TOO)... apk

Well, good news:

Upon testing this here, & on Windows 7? You CAN still logon to your system, even IF WORKSTATION SERVICE is set to "MANUAL" startup type in SERVICES.MSC (this also holds true all the way down to Windows 2000 SP #4, as I had my pal Jack the PI test it for me upon my request, & he too can logon to his Windows 2000 rig no problems, with WORKSTATION effectively disabled (via MANUAL, not DISABLED setting, for startup type on said service)).

Thus, again, since WORKSTATION SERVICE provides & manages SMB (server message block iirc, as to this acronym's expansion) services, & the single flaw in Windows 7 &/or Windows Server 2008 are exploited thus by a flaw in SMB? This SHOULD "take care of that too", lickety-split, no "SHEET"...

APK

P.S.=> Well, now that that's been "said & aside"? 'Onwards & UPWARDS!"... OH - & again: This is for machines that are "standalone systems" hooked to the internet via a DSL or Cable router (or even dialup), or thru a home Router/modem, that are NOT "ACTIVE DIRECTORY" or otherwise (SMB/NetBIOS/LanMan networking or NetBEUI even (or otherwise)) system: You will need to keep WORKSTATION service up & running in those environs, especially for shared disk/folder/file access in LAN/WAN environs... apk

APK · November 18, 2009

Another great point by another user from another forums today, for Windows 7 folks (VISTA too, & of course, Windows Server 2008), from a fellow named "AlphaAlien" here -> http://www.hardwaregeeks.com/board/showthr...0440#post410440

(LOL! Oddly, it's one I overlooked from my OWN GUIDE here, that I applied to Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, but had "overlooked" in my tips about Windows 7 just above, specifically... &, it IS a good idea, + one I ended up "expanding on" so, I have to thank AlphaAlien for "getting the ball rolling" in my brain here, lol, once more so I could suggest his point (one I suggested here again, no less, for the OLDER MS' OS of Windows NT-based ancestry) & expand on it even more... probably wouldn't have done it w/out he, so, credit goes, where credit is due imo).

This is a good point too, so... here goes:

Open up gpedit.msc (you can do this from the "Windows Start button" (is it STILL called that now, in Windows 7/VISTA etc. I wonder?) & the RUN or search command). In it, follow its left-hand side pane's tree items down THIS path:

Computer Configuration

Administrative Templates

Network

Network Connections

Windows Firewall

Domain Profile (only use this one IF you are not part of a LAN/WAN or connect to them, & you don't need to do some of what is suggested to turn off there - & you can though, if you don't need to do the stuff we're going to 'crank off' here, especially if you are a single system home user)

Local Profile (this one users with a single system @ home that's not part of a home LAN should do)

NOW, once there? Use the RIGHT-HAND SIDE PANE items of (now quoting our exchange from the URL above, saves me time, & I have programming assignments in JAVA to do so, excuse the use of this DIRECT quote from the URL above):

Prevents administrative remote management services.

Looks good to me, especially for most folks (which, face it, most folks don't have home "LAN/WAN" setups (mainly people who are way, Way, WAY "into computing" do imo & experience)).

Since they're mainly single system users, & @ home (which I found professionally on a job in 2006 that they're the most "abused" typically as well by malware etc. et al) - they're the folks I put this out for mostly, if they want to take the initiative & time to do it is all. They need it the most, from what I've seen, so... here 'tis.

As long as you don't perform remote administration tasks? You should probably turn the ability for "remote administration" off as AlphaAlien points out.

I'd have to add this point of AlphaAlien's now though: This same idea/technique/tip/trick can also be done for the DOMAIN and LOCAL profiles there too, and, it also points out a couple others to remove, possibly too (such as UPnP, Remote File & Printer Access, Remote Desktop, setting them as DISABLED there, & possibly to even ICMP also (ping basically))

The PING & UDP ones may affect other wares though, so, test @ your leisure on those 2.

(Sounds like a good move, as imo @ least, it really supplements cutting off:

A.) Server (allows shares) + Workstation (provides SMB services, in services.msc (& an outbound BLOCK rule in the firewall vs. TCP/UDP for PORTS 139 & 445 (this one mainly, will stall this newly surfaced "bug" noted above in Windows 7 & Server 2008))

B.) Terminal Services/Remote Desktops

C.) Cutting out Client for MS Networks + File & Print Sharing in your local area network connection (clients & protocols sections) & also NetBIOS over TCP/IP in the WINS section of the local area connection too.

D.) Disabling TCP/IP over NetBIOS in services.msc as well

E.) "Stalling out share$", via a batch or .cmd file (possibly even a powershell script as well) & I mean, any shares: Even default ones like in the batch above

F.) Setting secured ACL's on the filesystem + registry as well via explorer.exe OR cacls possibly, & regedit.exe

(Then, your firewall can do the rest, as far as "inbound intrusion attempts" - I don't think there's much other than that to "get ahold of", & even a nullsession attempt ought to be stalled between this, & the secpol.msc work (plus HOSTS & AnalogX's IP Security Policy as well)))

Thanks for the solid point AlphaAlien: It got my "wheels rolling" on a couple of others in gpedit.msc (which I did suggest for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 already earlier in this guide), but, I overlooked here, so I added on the rest.

APK

P.S.=> Oh, AlphaAlien: I am going to credit you with this & put your points out, in your name of course, in regards to this setting in Group Policy Editor on the other 20 or so forums I can still edit this post on as well, hope you don't mind (it's a good solid point, & I do credit others where/when/how/why credit is due they, for solid points) - I am not sure if linking to your photo will work or not (depending on where YOU store it that is), so I may have to "expand" the tree items in gpedit.msc manually in text, so... in any event, there you are... apk

APK · November 28, 2009

Microsoft Security Advisory: Vulnerability in Internet Explorer could allow remote code execution:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/977981

The new bug in IE6 & IE7 can be patched above (allowing IE6/7 to "opt-in" to DEP (data execution prevention)) using the "FIX IT" button noted there (which applies a database of apps to support DEP apparently, inclusive of IE variants).

The original article explaining the nature of the attack is here:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...ory/977981.mspx

As well as it listing what Operating System versions are affected adversely thus, there.

APK

P.S. => This is the 2nd URL's list of affected IE versions, & on which Windows NT-based OS variants also:

PERTINENT EXCERPT:

Microsoft is investigating new public reports of a vulnerability in Internet Explorer. This advisory contains information about which versions of Internet Explorer are vulnerable as well as workarounds and mitigations for this issue.

Our investigation so far has shown that Internet Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 4 and Internet Explorer 8 on all supported versions of Microsoft Windows are not affected, and that Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, and Internet Explorer 6 and Internet Explorer 7 on supported editions of Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, and Windows Server 2008 are affected.

The vulnerability exists as an invalid pointer reference of Internet Explorer. It is possible under certain conditions for a CSS/Style object to be accessed after the object is deleted. In a specially-crafted attack, Internet Explorer attempting to access a freed object can lead to running attacker-supplied code.

At this time, we are aware of no attacks attempting to use this vulnerability against Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 and Internet Explorer 7. We will continue to monitor the threat environment and update this advisory if this situation changes. On completion of this investigation, Microsoft will take the appropriate action to protect our customers, which may include providing a solution through our monthly security update release process, or an out-of-cycle security update, depending on customer needs.

We are actively working with partners in our Microsoft Active Protections Program (MAPP) and our Microsoft Security Response Alliance (MSRA) programs to provide information that they can use to provide broader protections to customers. In addition, we’re actively working with partners to monitor the threat landscape and take action against malicious sites that attempt to exploit this vulnerability.

Microsoft continues to encourage customers to follow the "Protect Your Computer" guidance of enabling a firewall, applying all software updates and installing anti-virus and anti-spyware software. Additional information can be found at Security at home.

Mitigating Factors:

• Internet Explorer 8 is not affected.

• Protected Mode in Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista limits the impact of the vulnerability.

• In a Web-based attack scenario, an attacker could host a Web site that contains a Web page that is used to exploit this vulnerability. In addition, compromised Web sites and Web sites that accept or host user-provided content or advertisements could contain specially crafted content that could exploit this vulnerability. In all cases, however, an attacker would have no way to force users to visit these Web sites. Instead, an attacker would have to convince users to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link in an e-mail message or Instant Messenger message that takes users to the attacker’s Web site.

• An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less affected than users who operate with administrative user rights.

• By default, Internet Explorer on Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 runs in a restricted mode that is known as Enhanced Security Configuration. This mode sets the security level for the Internet zone to High. This is a mitigating factor for Web sites that you have not added to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone.

• By default, all supported versions of Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Outlook Express, and Windows Mail open HTML e-mail messages in the Restricted sites zone. The Restricted sites zone helps mitigate attacks that could try to exploit this vulnerability by preventing Active Scripting and ActiveX controls from being used when reading HTML e-mail messages. However, if a user clicks a link in an e-mail message, the user could still be vulnerable to exploitation of this vulnerability through the Web-based attack scenario.

General Information

Overview

Purpose of Advisory: To provide customers with initial notification of the publicly disclosed vulnerability. For more information see the Mitigating Factors, Workarounds, and Suggested Actions sections of this security advisory.

Advisory Status: The issue is currently under investigation.

Recommendation: Review the suggested actions and configure as appropriate.References Identification

CVE Reference

CVE-2009-3672

Microsoft Knowledge Base Article

977981

----

This advisory discusses the following software.Affected Software

Windows XP Service Pack 2

Windows XP Service Pack 3

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2

Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Windows Server 2003 with SP2 for Itanium-based Systems

Windows Vista

Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2

Windows Vista x64 Edition

Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2

Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems and Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems Service Pack 2

Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems Service pack 2

Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4

Internet Explorer 6 for Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows XP Service Pack 3, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2, Windows Server 2003 with SP2 for Itanium-based Systems, and Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Windows XP Service Pack 3, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2, Windows Server 2003 with SP2 for Itanium-based Systems, and Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista, Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and Windows Vista Service Pack 2, and Windows Vista x64 Edition, Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 1, and Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems and Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems Service Pack 2

Non-Affected Software:

Internet Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 4 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4

Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Windows XP Service Pack 3, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 8 for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 and Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows Vista, Windows Vista Service Pack 1, and Windows Vista Service Pack 2, and Windows Vista x64 Edition, Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 1, and Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems and Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows 7 for 32-bit Systems

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows 7 for x64-based Systems

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows Server 2008 R2 for x64-based Systems

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows Server 2008 R2 for Itanium-based Systems

----

... apk

APK · January 23, 2010

I picked up on some information that you guys MAY wish to know about (especially IF you use Internet Explorer (all models/versions)):

GET THE PATCH FOR IE 5.01 - IE 8.0 (on ALL Windows versions of NT-based origins (2000/XP/Server 2003/Server 2008/VISTA/Windows 7)) FOLKS!

It was issued "Out-Of-Band" (meaning MS didn't wait for "Patch Tuesday" to roll around again (2nd Tuesday of every month)).

(&, you can do that via "Windows Update" of course, but that takes MORE TIME for that to "take" typically, than nabbing it directly, here would do for you, since you can install it yourselves, directly & immediately):

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms10-jan.mspx

:)

This isn't a joke people & it's NOT THE SAME BUG IN MY LAST POST ABOUT IE EITHER!

So, please... See here:

Widespread attacks exploit newly patched IE bug:

/>http://www.itworld.com/security/93670/widespread-attacks-exploit-newly-patched-ie-bug

It's seriously being exploited, & that's only what they KNOW about.

APK

P.S.=> AND, "there ya are" - Enjoy!... So, after all? It's YOUR MONEY & TIME folks! (that's all)... apk

APK · January 23, 2010

IF you are having trouble FINDING the link to the download for this IE 5-8 patch, for most ALL Windows NT-based OS' by Microsoft?

Try this:

MS10-002 Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (978207)

Look for THAT on the page...

(There you go, per FloppyBootStomp, a moderator @ this website -> http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-3511888-7.php where this security guide is also hosted, who had noted it was a bit difficult to find there, per the IE security vulnerability I noted above in my last post...)

APK

P.S.=> Well, to save you time? The DIRECT linkage is here -> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms10-002.mspx so, "have @ it" folks, & enjoy... apk

APK · January 28, 2010

A security vulnerability exists in, and has existed in since 1992-1993, the emulation subsystems for DOS &/or Win16 applications under 32-bit versions of Windows NT-based OS:

Microsoft Security Advisory (979682)

Vulnerability in Windows Kernel Could Allow Elevation of Privilege:

/>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/979682.mspx

----

THE "FIX":

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\SubSystems

(via removing support for said subsystems by blanking out the files they point to.)

These excerpts will help you identify each component used:

The NTVDM:

16 bit DOS and older 16 bit windows applications are supported by the NT virtual DOS machine (NTVDM) which runs in the Client/Server Runtime (CSR) subsystem. Since each copy of the NTVDM is given its own thread of execution, if it fails, it will not affect the operating system or other programs.

The following components support the NTVDM:

NTVDM.EXE - Starts the NTVDM and emulated the DOS environment.

NTIO.SYS - Emulates the DOS IO.SYS system file.

NTDOS.SYS - Emulates the DOS.SYS file.

Virtual Device Driver (VDD) - Used to allow DOS to interface with system devices on various ports such as the mouse, keyboard, serial ports, parallel ports, and video devices. This component is required since DOS expects to access hardware devices directly, but cannot do so when running on Windows NT.

VDMREDIR.DLL - Redirects file system input/output requests to the Win32 subsystem.

AUTOEXEC.NT - Replacement for AUTOEXEC.BAT.

CONFIG.NT - Replacement for CONFIG.SYS.

NT always loads a PIF for MS-DOS based applications. You can create a PIF to define requirements of the DOS application such as memory needs. In Windows NT 4.0, the PIF settings can be accessed by right clicking on the DOS executable file and selecting properties. On RISC based systems, an instruction execution unit (IEU) works with the NTDVM to emulate I383 Intel processor instruction sets.

Win16 Application support (Windows 3.1 and Windows for workgroups)

The Win16 on Win32 (WOW) subsystem:

It allows 16 bit Windows applications that run on Windows 3.1 and Windows for Workgroups to run on Windows NT 32 bit architecture. This is because the WOW uses a process called thunking to intercept and translate 16 bit system calls to 32 bit system calls. The WOW system components are:

KRNL386.EXE - Modified 16 bit Windows kernel that uses thunking to translate many system service call into Win32 services.

WOWEXEC.EXE - Emulates Windows 3.1 providing the Windows 3.1 16 bit virtual machine.

GDI.EXE - Modified 16 bit Windows GDI.EXE, that uses thunking to translate API calls to Win32 services.

USER.EXE - Modified 16 bit Windows USER.EXE file, that uses thunking to translate API calls to Win32 services.

WOW32.dll - Emulates the DLL portion of the 16 bit Windows environment.

Each NTVDM requires up to 2M of page file memory and 1M of additional RAM.

Applications using OLE and DDE may need to run together if they must communicate. Only one NTVDM may have multiple 16 bit applications running. NT 4.0 workstation loads the WOW when it is booted, but the NT 4.0 Server only loads the WOW when required by a 16 bit Windows application.

----

What this "fix" (hopefully only needed temporarily) does, is remove the subsystem for DOS/Win16 applications.

It is the ONLY "work-around" I am aware of for this until it is fixed, IF ever, and it is very similar to a recommendation that others "tear out" the POSIX subsystem for the same potential reasons: Security vulnerabilities issues.

(The only people that need to be concerned here, are those running 32-bit versions of Windows NT-based OS (NT 3.x, NT 3.5x, NT 4.0, Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003/VISTA/Server 2008/7), because 64-bit versions of Windows OS do not have a 16-bit subsystem emulator present in them)

APK

P.S.=> Many, if not MOST, people today can do without these entries, UNLESS they have legacy applications from DOS or 16-bit Windows applications they need for "mission critical" purposes... those folks will have to leave these in place until a fix is created by Microsoft (the same can go for those who don't need this as well, but you "take your chances" until MS fixes this)... apk

APK · January 28, 2010

To help users automate this fix for the security issue in the NTVDM DOS 16-bit emulation subsystem present in 32-bit Windows NT-based OS (all of them & since 1992-1993 no less) that was noted in my last post above, You can do this far faster/easier/simpler, by using something Microsoft themselves devised to make it easier & simpler than registry editing, see the URL below:

/>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/979682

(It's easier/faster/simpler than wholesale disabling via renames or deletions of the files the NTVDM DOS 16-bit emulation subsystems components as shown above OR via registry edits, & thus, you can use what's in that URL above instead (and enable it again easily enough when a fix arrives IF you choose to do so as well)).

APK

APK · March 29, 2010

IF A WEBSITE PROMPTS YOU TO PRESS THE "F1" KEY? DON'T!

Here is why:

/>http://secunia.com/advisories/38727/

Secunia Advisory SA38727

Microsoft Windows "MsgBox()" HLP File Execution VulnerabilitySecunia Advisory SA38727

Track and eliminate the complete Vulnerability threat lifecycle

Release Date 2010-03-01

Criticality level Moderately critical

Impact System access

Where From remote

Solution Status Unpatched

Operating System(s):

Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server

Microsoft Windows 2000 Datacenter Server

Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional

Microsoft Windows 2000 Server

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Web Edition

Microsoft Windows Storage Server 2003

Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Description

Maurycy Prodeus (my fellow "polish person") has discovered a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows, which can be exploited by malicious people to compromise a user's system.

The vulnerability is caused due to the VBScript "MsgBox()" function allowing the execution of arbitrary HLP files. This can be exploited to execute an HLP file from e.g. an SMB share by tricking a user into pressing F1 when viewing a specially crafted website.

Successful exploitation allows execution of arbitrary commands via HLP macros.

The vulnerability is confirmed with Internet Explorer 7 on a fully patched Windows XP SP3, and additionally reported in Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003.

Solution

Avoid pressing F1 on untrusted websites. Disable Active Scripting support.

APK

P.S.=> I was a "wee bit" slow on posting this one, but, here tis (around 28 days later than I ordinarily would, sorry about that, "busy boy" here is all)... apk

APK · March 31, 2010

MS Issues Emergency IE Security Update:

/>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms10-018.mspx

----

Microsoft has issued an emergency patch for 10 IE security holes. 'The cumulative update, which Microsoft announced on Monday, resolves nine privately reported flaws and one that was publicly disclosed. Software affected by the cumulative update addressing all the IE vulnerabilities includes Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Server 2008, Vista, and Windows 7.

----

:)

* This one closes a LOT of "security holes" in Internet Explorer, through ALL of Microsoft's 32 & 64 bit Windows NT-based Operating Systems of "modern variety"...

APK

P.S.=> Well, "have @ it folks", & that's "hot off the presses"... enjoy! apk

APK · April 7, 2010

For those of you who are aware of the advantage of using a custom HOSTS file, for both noticeable added speed, AND NOTICEABLE ADDED SECURITY ONLINE (this latter being via the SIMPLE PRINCIPLE of "You can't get burned, if you can't go into the 'malscripted site kitchen'")?

I have just edited my post point #5 here with the list below (of reputable & updated sites that keep lists of KNOWN BAD SITES &/or SERVERS, or entire HOSTS files too) so you can integrate their entries into YOUR CUSTOM HOSTS FILE (as I have been doing for years now, with approximately 814,000 entries of known bad sites &/or servers in it):

RESULTS USERS WHO HAVE USED MY HOSTS FILE ARE SEEING? OK - THIS TESTIMONIAL SHOULD SERVE THE PURPOSE AS A "NUFF SAID":

----

/>http://forums.theplanet.com/index.php?showtopic=89123&st=60&start=60

"the use of the hosts file has worked for me in many ways. for one it stops ad banners, it helps speed up your computer as well. if you need more proof i am writing to you on a 400 hertz computer and i run with ease. i do not get 200++ viruses and spy ware a month as i use to. now i am lucky if i get 1 or 2 viruses a month. if you want my opinion if you stick to what APK says in his article about securing your computer then you will be safe and should not get any viruses or spy ware, but if you do get hit with viruses and spy ware then it will your own fault. keep up the good fight APK."

- Kings Joker, user of my guide @ THE PLANET

----

So, as you can see?

Someone who used to get HUNDREDS of malware infestations a month, by stumbling into bad malscripted websites or those that serve up malware executable downloads, etc./et al, is now FAR BETTER PROTECTED by the version of my HOSTS file I use, & NO LONGER SEES THAT LEVEL OF INFESTATION, no less!

(He gets it each day from me, via email, because I keep up on it everyday via the lists below (And, via a program I wrote to integrate the entries, alphabetize them (helps with DNS client cache loads, or B-Tree populations in diskcache), & lastly, to "normalize it" via duplicated entries removal (so file is smaller & faster to load/read too))

It just works!

Additionally, Kings Joker above runs Windows 2000, no service packs, no hotfixes, no antivirus, & NO SPYWARE:

For direct reply on his findings & results? Write he here -> [email protected]

He can "fill you in" on the rest, as to his results &/or findings (which basically state that all you need, is to run a protective custom HOSTS file that's kept current, & be judicious about your usage of javascript (both points are covered in this article/guide, extensively, AND THEY WORK!)

----

ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them, while HOSTS files only really consume "CPU cycles" during their loads (a programming data storage construct, which is an analog to a PASCAL record). Then, the IP stack uses the DNS client C/C++ structure, or possibly an object (not sure anymore, I'd have to see the BSD reference code again to be sure) to do the rest (that, or the local diskcache, because if you have a LARGE hosts file, you have to turn off the DNS Client Cache service, or your system will lag badly (I have notified Microsoft of this occurrence in fact, directly))!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file [wikipedia.org] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOt just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)

10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...

(Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security")

APK

P.S.=> To keep "ontop of the latest known malicious sites" online? See these sites (1 I mentioned here already, this is the rest of the list I use, & others too):

START OF WEBSITES & SOURCES + TOOLS I USED TO POPULATE THIS LIST + MY ORIGINAL LIST OF BLOCKED ADBANNERS SERVERS

/>http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
/>http://www.malwareurl.com/listing-urls.php...urls=off&rp
/>http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
/>http://securitylabs.websense.com/content/alerts.aspx
/>http://www.stopbadware.org
/>http://blog.fireeye.com/
/>http://mtc.sri.com/
/>http://www.scansafe.com/threat_center/threat_alerts
/>http://news.netcraft.com
/>http://www.shadowserver.org/
/>https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file
/>http://www.mvps.org/
/>http://someonewhocares.org/
/>http://hostsfile.mine.nu/hosts0
/>http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
/>http://www.stopbadware.org/home

Between they, & SpyBot "Search & Destroy"? You have most of, if not ALL of what a "body needs" for these purposes. if you know of others? Please list them, & thanks! apk

APK · April 8, 2010

In addition to the results others have seen above in success using a HOSTS file for both added speed & security? I am posting the revised version of the "how/when/where/why" of WHY to use a HOSTS file for better speed AND SECURITY ONLINE today (especially nowadays, lol) since I cannot edit the original post point #5 here anymore. Here goes:

(Reason for this, is Per Kings Joker's quoted testimonial above - which upon my corresponding with he, I found out he runs Windows 2000, no service packs or hotfixes either, no less, & he has done THAT WELL per his quoted testimony to that effect, above)

He uses a SLIGHTLY edited/altered version of my PERSONAL custom HOSTS file (he is my "Lab Rat #1" in fact), & he was out to test just how effective HOSTS files are, vs. malware infestations mainly since he told me he loves the extra speed they gave he (especially when he tried hardcoding his favs. into his version of my personal HOSTS file too above just adbanner blocking), but he values the security more. To test it? He ran an OLDER version of Windows, in 2000, minus service packs/hotfixes, AND with no AntiVirus or AntiSpyware resident running either... (that was for 6++ months now in fact, & he only loaded an antivirus + antispyware recently to see how well this worked for he & apparently per his quote above?? It certainly has!))

I.E.-> He has gone from 200++ infestations a month to almost NONE @ all, just by using a HOSTS file that's current (mine, edited by he though) & being a BIT MORE "judicious" in his use of javascript?

So, again - Since I cannot edit the original post point #5 in this thread on HOSTS files, I am doing its revised & enhanced version here now:

CUSTOM HOSTS FILE USAGE (for speed, AND SECURITY)

5.) The use of a CUSTOM ADBANNER BLOCKING HOSTS FILE (my personal one houses, as of this date, 823,891 known adbanner servers, OR sites known to bear malicious code & exploits)

Custom HOSTS files work in combination with Opera adbanner blocks & the usage of .PAC filering files + cascading style sheets for this purpose.

(As well as speeding up access to sites I often access - doing this, acting as my own "DNS Server" more or less, is orders of magnitude faster than calling out to my ISP/BSP DNS servers, waiting out a roundtrip return URL-> IP Address resolution. It may take some maintenance for this @ times, especially if sites change HOSTING PROVIDERS, but this is a rarity & most sites TELL YOU when they do this as well, so you can make fast edits, as needed (and, on Windows NT-based OS since 2000/XP/Server 2003 & VISTA? A reboot is NOT required upon edits & commits of changes in the new largely near fully PnP IP stacks!))

For a copy of mine, write me, here -> [email protected]

And, I will send it to you in .zip or .rar format (with sped up sites # UNIX comment symbol disabled, enable the ones you use AFTER you 'ping' them first from my list, & add ones YOU PERSONALLY USE to it as needed after determining their IP address via a PING of them)

----

An example of WHY you'd want to use one of these for security's sake? Read here:

Why block out adbanners, for security then (not just for added speed)? Well, because they have been found as bearing malware in them, per these articles:

HACKERS USE ADBANNERS ON MAJOR SITES TO HIJACK YOUR SYSTEM -> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick

THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS -> http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER -> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS -> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm

Additionally, there IS the FACT that downloading adbanner content takes up bandwidth you pay for, and CPU time (& thus, electricity) + RAM in processing adbanner code (for animations & the like) within your webbrowser programs also... HOSTS files stop all of these happening, per this list of adbanner "downsides"...

ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218

ADDITIONALLY, WATCH IT USING JAVASCRIPT "EVERWHERE/INDISCRIMINATELY", per this article:

/>http://news.cnet.com/JavaScript-opens-doors-to-browser-based-attacks/2100-7349_3-6099891.html?part=rss&tag=6099891&subj=news

(OPERA offers native 'site-by-site' preferences for this & other things like cookies, FireFox has NoScript & Adblock addons)

----

ADDITIONALLY, because on Windows Server 2003 (however, no others I have seen @ least so far), sometimes, the HOSTS file precedence vs. say, local DNS servers on a LAN, gets overridden by them? You MAY have to implement this:

/>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/139270/EN-US"]How to change name resolution order on Windows 95 and Windows NT

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\ServiceProvider]

"LocalPriority"=dword:00000005

"HostsPriority"=dword:00000006

"DnsPriority"=dword:00000007

"NetbtPriority"=dword:00000008

(LOWER NUMBERS HERE = GREATER PRIORITY)

As you can see, I give my LOCAL DNS Cache the greatest priority (because it has my HOSTS file loaded into it @ system startup (IP stack startup, actually)), & THEN, my custom adbanner blocking/speedup fav sites (which this post is showing folks how to do, & yes, it works) is next, & then my ISP/BSP's DNS servers, & lastly NetBios/WINS stuff (which I just plain do NOT use, because I have no LanManager style network running here, ONLY Tcp/IP)

----

IMPORTANT NOTE: IF your system seems to "lag" while the HOSTS file is in use (this typically does not occur with 1mb or less sized HOSTS files in my experience), especially IF it is a relatively LARGER SIZED one (in the case I saw where this happened, it was a 12mb sized one I use, & it was applied on a Windows XP Home Edition system w/ 256mb of RAM on an AMD Athlon64 3200mhz system), YOU MAY HAVE TO DISABLE YOUR DNS Client Service!

* This is achieved via going to the START button, RUN command, type in SERVICES.MSC & once it comes to the screen, find the DNS Client Service in the list of services & right-click on it (or, doubleclick) & use the PROPERTIES screen, & use the STOP button (to stop the service) & then set its startup type to DISABLED, & this 'lagging' goes away (reboot is recommended, especially on Windows 2000 systems, for the HOSTS file to reload... otherwise, changes may take up to 5 minutes to take, so reboots make that quicker & assured on ANY Ms Windows-NT based OS (2000/XP/Server 2003 & VISTA).

----

DIRECTIONS FOR USE (also in my downloadable CUSTOM HOSTS file above, with MORE on how to really use them to get even more speed than blocking adbanners mind you is in its internal documentation):

You replace your:

%windir%\system32\drivers\etc

Original version of HOSTS with this one (overwrite it, but, first copy your original OR rename it to keep it around IF ever needed), & have @ it (HBO internet, no commercials + thus MORE SPEED (and, you WILL notice it) by not calling out to ad servers, loading their data, & running it... & certainly NO possibility of being infected by adbanners that bear RBN (Russian Business Network) malware javascripted/FLASH bearing adbanners that infect you as has been seen lately/very currently in fact - between this, and stalling out Java/JavaScript + ActiveX/ActiveScripting globally in your browsers as noted in the last step & why? You are "proof" against MOST attacks today (& consider disabling IFrames too, an oft used attack today as well!)).

Now, like I do? It IS possible to alter the default location of the HOSTS file, & to take away I/O from your main disk to load it by using another one... like a 2nd HDD you may have IF you have one for example!

(E.G.-> I move mine to my CENATEK RocketDrive SSD (solid state RamDisk), for F A S T access since seek times on it are 1000's of times faster than on std. mechanical disks, & doesn't matter WHAT kind - & here I also place my pagefile.sys on its own partition (first) & then webpage caches, %temp% environmental variable ops, logging (even eventlogs, which like HOSTS file, can be moved in the registry to another disk, & applications often have the ability to move their logs in their configuration screens as well)) via this registry key, should you elect to do the same:

In regedit.exe's right-hand-side pane, follow this path:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters

& in the left-hand-side pane of regedit.exe, you change the DataBasePath path value there to the disk & folder you wish to place your HOSTS file in (which makes for faster OS & IP stack initialization since it is on another drive, in my case an SSD so it is THAT MUCH QUICKER since seeks on them are so fast, to load the HOSTS data into your RAM (local DNS cache)).

----

ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file [wikipedia.org] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOt just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)

10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...

:)

(It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security")

APK

P.S.=> To keep "ontop of the latest known malicious sites" online? See these sites (1 I mentioned here already, this is the rest of the list I use, & others too):

START OF WEBSITES & SOURCES + TOOLS I USED TO POPULATE THIS LIST + MY ORIGINAL LIST OF BLOCKED ADBANNERS SERVERS

/>http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
/>http://www.malwareurl.com/listing-urls.php
/>https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
/>http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
/>http://securitylabs.websense.com/content/alerts.aspx
/>http://www.stopbadware.org
/>http://blog.fireeye.com/
/>http://mtc.sri.com/
/>http://www.scansafe.com/threat_center/threat_alerts
/>http://news.netcraft.com
/>http://www.shadowserver.org/
/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file
/>http://www.mvps.org/
/>http://someonewhocares.org/
/>http://hostsfile.mine.nu/hosts0
/>http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
/>http://www.stopbadware.org/home

Between they, & SpyBot "Search & Destroy"? You have most of, if not ALL of what a "body needs" for these purposes. if you know of others? Please list them, & thanks! apk

Sign In

HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & YES, even VISTA

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Important Information