July 2010 Microsoft Black Tuesday Summary

Published: 2010-07-13
Last Updated: 2010-08-12 18:45:40 UTC
by Jim Clausing (Version: 1)
4 comment(s)

 Overview of the July 2010 Microsoft Patches and their status.

Important: with today's patches, support for XP SP2 officially comes to an end.  There will be no more patches for XP SP2 after today.

# Affected Contra Indications Known Exploits Microsoft rating ISC rating(*)
clients servers
MS10-042 Vulnerability in Help and Support Center Could Allow Remote Code Execution
Windows XP SP2 and above, Windows Server 2003 SP2
KB 2229593 actively being exploited Severity:Critical
Exploitability: 1
PATCH NOW! Critical
MS10-043 Vulnerability in Canonical Display Driver Could Allow Remote Code Execution
Windows7 x64, Windows Server 2008 R2 x64
KB 2032276 no known exploits. Severity:Critical
Exploitability: 2
Critical Critical
MS10-044 Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office Access ActiveX Controls Could Allow Remote Code Execution
Access 2003 SP3, Access 2007 SP1 and above
KB 982335 no known exploits. Severity:Critical
Exploitability: 1,1
Critical Critical
MS10-045 Vulnerability in Microsoft Office Outlook Could Allow Remote Code Execution (Replaces MS09-060 )
KB 978212 no known exploits. Severity:Important
Exploitability: 1
Critical Critical


We will update issues on this page for about a week or so as they evolve.
We appreciate updates
US based customers can call Microsoft for free patch related support on 1-866-PCSAFETY
(*): ISC rating
  • We use 4 levels:
    • PATCH NOW: Typically used where we see immediate danger of exploitation. Typical environments will want to deploy these patches ASAP. Workarounds are typically not accepted by users or are not possible. This rating is often used when typical deployments make it vulnerable and exploits are being used or easy to obtain or make.
    • Critical: Anything that needs little to become "interesting" for the dark side. Best approach is to test and deploy ASAP. Workarounds can give more time to test.
    • Important: Things where more testing and other measures can help.
    • Less Urgent: Typically we expect the impact if left unpatched to be not that big a deal in the short term. Do not forget them however.
  • The difference between the client and server rating is based on how you use the affected machine. We take into account the typical client and server deployment in the usage of the machine and the common measures people typically have in place already. Measures we presume are simple best practices for servers such as not using outlook, MSIE, word etc. to do traditional office or leisure work.
  • The rating is not a risk analysis as such. It is a rating of importance of the vulnerability and the perceived or even predicted threat for affected systems. The rating does not account for the number of affected systems there are. It is for an affected system in a typical worst-case role.
  • Only the organization itself is in a position to do a full risk analysis involving the presence (or lack of) affected systems, the actually implemented measures, the impact on their operation and the value of the assets involved.
  • All patches released by a vendor are important enough to have a close look if you use the affected systems. There is little incentive for vendors to publicize patches that do not have some form of risk to them


Jim Clausing, jclausing --at-- isc [dot] sans (dot) org
FOR408 coming to central OH in Sep, see http://www.sans.org/mentor/details.php?nid=22353

4 comment(s)


What Tavis Ormandy did was cyber terrorism.
I think it's worth mentioning that windows 2000 extended support expired today as well...

Effective today, July 13, 2010, the following products and service packs will no longer be supported by Microsoft:
• Windows 2000 Professional
• Windows 2000 Server
• Windows XP Service Pack 2
• Office 2007 Service Pack 1
• Project Server 2007 Service Pack 1
• SharePoint Server 2007 Service Pack 1
• Visio 2007 Service Pack 1

Whoa! I beg to differ.

Vulnerabilities are not like passwords. Revealing them is not so inherently unsafe, especially when many manufacturers are playing hide and seek.

To me, vulnerability finding is like sculpture. Rodin once said the statue was inside the stone, all he had done was to bring it out. Vuln's are *already* there, the researcher is only making it come out.

But, anyone finding a vuln does not guarantee he/she is first to do so... At least not in the security field, anyhow.

So, if the underworld is now fueled by money, how can we be so sure they will *wait* for vuln's to come out in order to exploit them for cash?

I believe the unethical, or cyber-terrorist if you want, is the researcher that works for the dark side.
@n3td3v; Great! Thanks for further diluting those two words... Cyber and Terrorism.

Diary Archives