3 ms·

EternalBlue CVE-2017-0144 was [edit:allocated/reserved instead of "assigned" per tweet] 2016-09-09. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-0144

by j_s 9y ago

EternalBlue CVE-2017-0144 was [edit:allocated/reserved instead of "assigned" per tweet] 2016-09-09. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-0144 https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-0144 Source: https://twitter.com/_supernothing/status/864021595303456768 https://twitter.com/_supernothing/status/864021595303456768 > MS has known about this bug since 09/2016 (when CVE was assigned) and patched in 03/2017. 240day

belltaco 9y ago
From the source that that tweet gets the "date" from: >Date Entry Created 20160909 >Disclaimer: The entry creation date may reflect when the CVE-ID was allocated or reserved, and does not necessarily indicate when this vulnerability was discovered, shared with the affected vendor, publicly disclosed, or updated in CVE. Do you have a better source for the 240day claim?
- j_s 9y ago
  I included a link to the tweet's source. AFAIK, this CVE's "Date Entry Created" is an interesting metadata artifact without any additional significance currently (no futher background info publicly available at this time). I don't know if MITRE makes any additional info (such as "who") public, though I'm sure it is stored somewhere. I haven't had a chance to review the same value for other CVE's to determine how "normal" it is for the create date to be so long before when the CVE goes public, nor how things correlate for the associated Shadow Brokers fixes. -- https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/853142591289802752 https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/853142591289802752 > There are no acknowledgements for MS17-10 which patched most of the big bugs from the ShadowBrokers drop. https://www.renditioninfosec.com/2017/05/call-to-microsoft-to-release-information-about-ms17-010/ https://www.renditioninfosec.com/2017/05/call-to-microsoft-t... > Microsoft has not disclosed how it came to know about the vulnerabilities included in the MS17-010 patch. Microsoft also has not disclosed any information about “in the wild” exploitation of these vulnerabilities.

by j_s 9y ago

belltaco 9y ago

From the source that that tweet gets the "date" from: >Date Entry Created 20160909 >Disclaimer: The entry creation date may reflect when the CVE-ID was allocated or reserved, and does not necessarily indicate when this vulnerability was discovered, shared with the affected vendor, publicly disclosed, or updated in CVE. Do you have a better source for the 240day claim?

j_s 9y ago
I included a link to the tweet's source. AFAIK, this CVE's "Date Entry Created" is an interesting metadata artifact without any additional significance currently (no futher background info publicly available at this time). I don't know if MITRE makes any additional info (such as "who") public, though I'm sure it is stored somewhere. I haven't had a chance to review the same value for other CVE's to determine how "normal" it is for the create date to be so long before when the CVE goes public, nor how things correlate for the associated Shadow Brokers fixes. -- https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/853142591289802752 https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/853142591289802752 > There are no acknowledgements for MS17-10 which patched most of the big bugs from the ShadowBrokers drop. https://www.renditioninfosec.com/2017/05/call-to-microsoft-to-release-information-about-ms17-010/ https://www.renditioninfosec.com/2017/05/call-to-microsoft-t... > Microsoft has not disclosed how it came to know about the vulnerabilities included in the MS17-010 patch. Microsoft also has not disclosed any information about “in the wild” exploitation of these vulnerabilities.