[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62296.1282914621@localhost>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:10:21 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Larry Seltzer <larry@...ryseltzer.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: DLL hijacking with Autorun on a USB drive
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:20:22 EDT, Larry Seltzer said:
> Why wouldn't eliminating the CWD from the DLL search order fix the problem?
> I asked Microsoft about this (
> http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2010/08/list_of_dll_vulnerability_wind.php)
> and they said the obvious answer, that it would break too many customer
> installations. And I guess it would break a bunch of them, but there really
> isn't a good reason for anyone to load a DLL from the CWD, is there?
The mentality that "Our program only works with version 1.14 of the DLL so
we'll ship a copy of it in the directory" is too entrenched. That's why you'll
see a box that has 4 or 5 different copies of the Java RTE on it. Of course,
on a *sane* system you'd use a variable like LD_LIBRARY_PATH to say where to
find the libraries (and maybe apply some W^X exclusion to path components).
But there's just too many 3rd party packages that would have to be updated to
make it palatable.
Remember - Microsoft doesn't have any real committment to deliver a truly
secure system to you. It has a committment to deliver just enough security
and other features so it can deliver dollars to its shareholders. We all *know*
what it would take to secure it - and it won't happen because the resulting
paradidm shits will torpedo sales.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists