bugtraq - Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Windows Vista/2003/XP/2000 file management security issues

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

Message-ID: <20070309161958.GC2791@sentinelchicken.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:19:58 -0500
From: Tim <tim-security@...tinelchicken.org>
To: "Roger A. Grimes" <roger@...neretcs.com>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Windows Vista/2003/XP/2000 file management security issues

Roger,

> But we'll have to agree to disagree. Your security scenarios are just
> bizarre. It's a lot easier to hack people then going through all the
> interations you suggest.
>
> For one, I've been a sys admin for 20 years and NEVER created a
> private folder under a public folder. Not in my Novell days, not in my
> Windows days. The only time I've seen a private folder created under a
> public folder is the \Users folder, and in that case, the users only
> have Read and List access to the parent \Users folder, and then Full
> Control to their own folders.

I find your assessment somewhat short-sighted.  I have conducted code
reviews on several commercial apps which use C:\TEMP in very insecure
ways to store sensitive data.  It seems some of these attacks would be
possible in those situations.

Sure, Windows is already pathetically insecure against an attackers
already on the local system, but this would be yet another attack
vector.

tim