Internet Ransomware attacks reported in Europe.

[Urwumpe]

Are regular users getting hit at all or is it just business / institutions?

Not sure. I mostly get institutional reports here. Initial attack by email, later by SMB.

 

[Andy44]

Also, if you want an idea of how bad this is, Microsoft have released a patch for Windows XP.:

Wow.

 

[RisingFury]

Just a reminder: If you disable your SMBv1 server, don't forget to restart your computer for the change to take effect.

 

[Notebook]

Related to jangofett283 in#13 above.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39907049

N.

 

[RisingFury]

Microsoft confirms that the exploit does in fact utilize the exploit developed by the NSA and stolen from them:

https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-...cyberattack/#sm.001m44a8p145bf9vzgn1g5uhft6kb

Early Friday morning the world experienced the year’s latest cyberattack.

Starting first in the United Kingdom and Spain, the malicious “WannaCrypt” software quickly spread globally, blocking customers from their data unless they paid a ransom using Bitcoin. The WannaCrypt exploits used in the attack were drawn from the exploits stolen from the National Security Agency, or NSA, in the United States.

 

[SolarLiner]

For those who wish to see the ransomware in action (plus check out the channel full of viruses and old old OSes!)

 

[Artlav]

Microsoft have released a patch for Windows XP.

I'm not the type for conspiracy theories, but there is something fishy about that patch.

Take a look at the XP SP3 update file.
As necessary, it is digitally signed by Microsoft.
Take a look at the timestamp in the signature.
It's February 11th, 2017.

The embedded one is 17th, the 2003 server one is 12th, Win 8th one is 13th.

That's a full month before the official update was released, on March 17th.
For comparison, Win 10 one is dated March 6th.

This is suspicious.
Doesn't really prove anything - they might have known the severity of the vulnerability and prepared for it in advance.

But it's still suspicious - why prepare such updates beforehand, but not release them?
It's as if they expected something big to happen to then produce a quick fix.

 

[jedidia]

But it's still suspicious - why prepare such updates beforehand, but not release them?

One month from final versioning to deployment doesn't seem excessively long to me, at least not for a company like Microsoft.

 

[Urwumpe]

But it's still suspicious - why prepare such updates beforehand, but not release them?

Acceptance testing.

After compilation and packaging, the build artefacts are no longer changed. They remained signed with their build date - despite now getting deployed into increasingly larger and more real world-like installations.

Microsoft made a lot of bad experiences with poorly tested security updates, of course they want to make sure everything operates fine. The bad security updates in the past have caused a lot of damage alone by reducing the acceptable of Microsoft updates as whole.

 

[Artlav]

Acceptance testing.

Huh? The updates for Win 10 were released, the ones for Win XP weren't, but they were prepared.

Why prepare an XP update long in advance, but not release it until after the hole was exploited?

 

[Urwumpe]

Huh? The updates for Win 10 were released, the ones for Win XP weren't, but they were prepared.

Why prepare an XP update long in advance, but not release it until after the hole was exploited?

Well, XP is no longer supported at all, so testing it was very likely lowest priority - without the exploit going wild, releasing the package would not even have been necessary.

 

[Notebook]

Maybe Microsoft wants to see XP dead and buried? If they keep patching it, its supporters may think it will go on forever...

N.

 

[jangofett287]

I have read some people pay for a custom support plan for Windows XP which continues to supply "Critical patches".

 

[Urwumpe]

I have read some people pay for a custom support plan for Windows XP which continues to supply "Critical patches".

Yes - even a serious lot of money. Its pretty stupid, too often the only reason for paying this money is, that they failed to execute the transition away from XP when there had been years of time left to do this. Nothing prevents you from fixing custom software or find a replacement if you know for years that XP will run out.

 

[JMW]

Also, if you want an idea of how bad this is, Microsoft have released a patch for Windows XP.: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/msrc/2017/05/12/customer-guidance-for-wannacrypt-attacks/

What is for XP here....
Nothing earlier than Vista, is there?......

OK, disregard this - I'm blind :facepalm:



OMD !
Got an old setup that is XP (x86) but it crashed completely some time back and had to do a complete re-install from an old backup.
Apparently it only had SP2 on it.
Now, this patch says it requires SP3.

Where can I get that ?..........

 

[Notebook]

Some update for this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39997581