full-disclosure - Re: Abusing Windows 7 Recovery Process

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:39:18 +0200
From: Fabien DUCHENE <f.duchene@...-online.fr>
To: s3cret.squirell@...il.com
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Abusing Windows 7 Recovery Process

There may be an Active Directory domain policy which only allows a
configured set of groups/users to be admin of your workstation.
Keep in mind domain policies are applied at startup and periodically.

> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 15:16:45 +0100
> From: some one <s3cret.squirell@...il.com>
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Abusing Windows 7 Recovery Process
> Message-ID:
>         <CA+1kKf460FE0uo7ps780N3f=gFh8G=i0+o1yR5w1uPocZUbVwg@...l.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I tried this out onsite today. Got the cmd.exe as described and added a
> user into local admin group... Restart the box try and login as new user
> and it isn't there...
>
> Logged in as a legit admin and ran net users and no mention of my created
> account... Weird...
> On Jun 30, 2013 10:54 AM, "Cool Hand Luke" <coolhandluke@...lhandluke.org>
> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> On 06/29, Grandma Eubanks wrote:
>> > However, I think this is still interesting. It's been a while since I've
>> > played with Windows boxes and won't have access to one for a couple days,
>> > but isn't this triggering off of vendor supplied recovery partitions?
>> This
>> > is a regular Windows 7 sole partition box you tried this one?
>>
>> from a first look, i don't think a vendor-supplied recovery partition is
>> necessary. it appears that it would also be possible if the "system
>> restore" setting was enabled (but don't quote me on that).
>>
>> i'm not sure how likely that is in your average large, corporate
>> environment. the ones i've seen have system restore disabled and opt to
>> reimage systems instead when issues occur. i'm sure there are some
>> environments where this could be useful, however.
>>
>> - -chl
>>
>> - --
>> cool hand luke
>>

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/