full-disclosure - Re: Windows Command Processor CMD.EXE Buffer Overflow

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: <453DEE87.9238.3F6E69AB@nick.virus-l.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:44:23 +1300
From: Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk>
To: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Windows Command Processor CMD.EXE Buffer
	Overflow

Brian Eaton wrote:

> Is there a reason that a buffer overflow in cmd.exe matters?
> 
> If the attacker is sending arbitrary input to cmd.exe, haven't they
> owned the box anyway?

Without trying to test anything, it just may be exploitable via a 
"shortcut" file or a Packager "package", either embedded or in the form 
of a standalone (.SHS or similar) file.  If so, that potentially opens 
up a few "assisted remote" (i.e. the user has to double-click an 
attachment, click a URL link, etc) exploit options...

Regards,

Nick FitzGerald

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