full-disclosure - Re: DLL hijacking POC (failed, see for yourself)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <AANLkTikHa6M_iSNPV0Cs1VDT+JaNmcxAdjyBQkjR2dnB@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 11:13:25 +0200
From: Darren McDonald <athena@...donald.net>
To: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: DLL hijacking POC (failed, see for yourself)

I think that depends if its installed and on how the setting is
configured. Some environments are going to require DLLs to be loaded
from remote shares, others not. This isnt a 'patch' to a software
security flaw, its a security setting. Im guessing the default
configuration maybe messing around with the mentioned PoC, that was my
only point.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com> wrote:
> Uh, what I was asking, is, with this patch in place, the issue is fixed,
> forever?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris.
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Darren McDonald <darren@...donald.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> We're not, Microsoft have decided to make it the system administrators
>> problem through this registry setting. Which is fair enough IMO :)
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Thanks Darren, that was very enlightening.
>> > Considering those facts, where are we at in fixing this whole issue?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Chris.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Darren McDonald <athena@...donald.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2264107
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Christian Sciberras
>> >> <uuf6429@...il.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > As I said above, it was tested on Windows 7 64bit.
>> >> > As to the dll as far as I know, I'm not sure about that, however, it
>> >> > should
>> >> > be an easy matter of checking the binary file.
>> >> > Currently, I'm not on a terminal which I can do that, though.
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> > Chris.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2010/9/2 YGN Ethical Hacker Group <lists@...g.net>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is your Windows 7 64-bit ?
>> >> >> Your DLL is  64-bit compatible?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> >> > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> >> > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> >> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> >> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>> >
>> >
>
>

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