full-disclosure - Re: Question for the Windows pros

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: <dqo9nq$d6e$1@sea.gmane.org>
Date: Thu Jan 19 15:10:53 2006
From: davek_throwaway at hotmail.com (Dave Korn)
Subject: Re: Question for the Windows pros


Paul Schmehl wrote in news:81C38B0596641FE18D090A87@...59514.utdallas.edu

  Oh, alright, just one more, then I'll leave it until I've finished my 
essay.

> The spyware has to bring the credentials with it.  The user doesn't *have*
> the credentials.  It *gets* them from the process in question.  That's a
> bit different.  The user has the right to impersonate within the context
> of a process.  The process must already have the credentials to elevate,
> or the user gets nothing (if I'm understanding impersonation correctly.)

  You aren't, sorry!  This is in fact almost exactly back-to-front: the user 
*does* have credentials, and processes inherit their credentials from the 
user who launches the process.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....