symantec corporate edition hacked

B

badgolferman

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/antivirus.flaw.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Symantec Corp.'s leading antivirus software, which
protects some of the world's largest corporations and U.S. government
agencies, suffers from a flaw that lets hackers seize control of
computers to steal sensitive data, delete files or implant malicious
programs, researchers said Thursday.

Symantec said it was investigating the issue but could not immediately
corroborate the vulnerability. If confirmed, the threat to computer
users would be severe because the security software is so widely used
and because no action is required by victims using the latest versions
of Symantec Antivirus to suffer a crippling attack over the Internet.

Symantec has boasted that its antivirus products are installed on more
than 200 million computers. A spokesman, Mike Bradshaw, said the
company was examining the reported flaw but described it as "so new
that we don't have any details."

Researchers from eEye Digital Security Inc. of Aliso Viejo, California,
discovered the vulnerability and provided evidence to Symantec
engineers this week, said eEye's chief hacking officer, Marc Maiffret.
He demonstrated the attack for The Associated Press.

eEye said it appeared consumer versions of Symantec's Norton Antivirus
software -- sold at retail outlets around the country -- were not
vulnerable to the flaw, though consumers who are provided Symantec's
corporate edition antivirus software by their employers for use at home
may be affected.

Maiffret's company -- which has discovered hundreds of similar flaws in
other software products -- also produces intrusion-protection software,
called "Blink," that he said already blocks such attacks and can
operate alongside Symantec's antivirus products.

Maiffret published a note about the company's discovery on its Web site
but pledged not to reveal details publicly that would help hackers
attack Internet users until after Symantec repairs its antivirus
software. eEye said it intends to describe the problem in detail
privately for some of its largest customers.

"People shouldn't panic," Maiffret said. "There shouldn't be any
exploits until a patch is produced."

The reported flaw comes at an awkward time for Symantec. Its chief
executive, John Thompson, has campaigned in recent months to convince
consumers they should trust Symantec -- not Microsoft Corp. -- to
protect their personal information.

Maiffret said eEye's testing showed the problem affects Symantec
Antivirus Version 10, including its corporate editions. He said
Symantec's consumer antivirus product, known as Norton Antivirus 2006,
and its current security suite -- which includes both antivirus and
firewall features -- did not appear to be vulnerable.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
G

Gabriele Neukam

On that special day, badgolferman, ([email protected])
said...
Researchers from eEye Digital Security Inc. of Aliso Viejo, California,
discovered the vulnerability

There is is a *difference* between the *existence* of a vulnerability,
and the *making use of* said vulnerability.

Symantec products haven't been *hacked*, at least not yet, they are
only *prone* to be hacked.


Gabriele Neukam

(e-mail address removed)
 
D

David H. Lipman

From: "Gabriele Neukam" <[email protected]>

| On that special day, badgolferman, ([email protected])
| said...
||
| There is is a *difference* between the *existence* of a vulnerability,
| and the *making use of* said vulnerability.
|
| Symantec products haven't been *hacked*, at least not yet, they are
| only *prone* to be hacked.
|
| Gabriele Neukam
|
| (e-mail address removed)
|

I agree and was going to piost that using the word "hacked" was NOT apropos.

While eEye says this vulnerability is capable of being exploited by Internet worms, none
have been noted and there are have been no specifics given in where the vulnerability is in
the software.
 
B

badgolferman

David said:
California, >> discovered the vulnerability

I agree and was going to piost that using the word "hacked" was NOT
apropos.

Well, you guys may be right about the word "hacked" being too strong,
but if some researcher finds a flaw and demonstrates how the antivirus
program can be compromised that seems like it has been hacked to me.
Regardless, at least the right person did it.
 
D

David H. Lipman

From: "badgolferman" <[email protected]>


|
| Well, you guys may be right about the word "hacked" being too strong,
| but if some researcher finds a flaw and demonstrates how the antivirus
| program can be compromised that seems like it has been hacked to me.
| Regardless, at least the right person did it.

Hacked means penetrated.

No reports of exploitations, penetration, have been reported.
No specifics of the vulnerabilities have been disclosed either.
 
K

kurt wismer

David said:
From: "badgolferman" <[email protected]>


|
| Well, you guys may be right about the word "hacked" being too strong,
| but if some researcher finds a flaw and demonstrates how the antivirus
| program can be compromised that seems like it has been hacked to me.
| Regardless, at least the right person did it.

Hacked means penetrated.

No reports of exploitations, penetration, have been reported.
No specifics of the vulnerabilities have been disclosed either.

strictly speaking, cracked means penetrated... hacked means something
more like "cobbled together" (which may arguably apply)...
 
D

David H. Lipman

|
| strictly speaking, cracked means penetrated... hacked means something
| more like "cobbled together" (which may arguably apply)...
|

Oy vay !
 
E

edgewalker

Gabriele Neukam said:
On that special day, badgolferman, ([email protected])
said...


There is is a *difference* between the *existence* of a vulnerability,
and the *making use of* said vulnerability.

Symantec products haven't been *hacked*, at least not yet, they are
only *prone* to be hacked.

It is more like the vulnerability provides a vector by which the machine running
the program can be hacked. The faulty program itself is not being hacked, it
is the means by which the machine gets hacked or more correctly 'cracked'
(intruded upon).

The subject line is wrong on so many levels... :))
 
E

edgewalker

kurt wismer said:
strictly speaking, cracked means penetrated... hacked means something
more like "cobbled together" (which may arguably apply)...

:))

I like the purported original definition of 'one who makes furniture with an axe'.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top