[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <C2586EAE-DA96-4B9A-84D8-CCFA9033D29F@grsee.co.il>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:27:23 +0300
From: Moshe Israel <moshe.israel@...ee.co.il>
To: "Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Abusing Windows 7 Recovery Process
My response was to "how many system implement such controls".
You could however (since u have access) disconnect the network cable, replace magnify wt cmd etc. add admin, replace the cmd back and reconnect.
Solved?? :)
On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:49 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:13:38 +0300, Moshe Israel said:
>> All secured/regulated systems as required by most certifications/standards/best practices.
>
> You're new in the industry, aren't you? :)
>
> The point you're missing is that the vast majority of computers aren't covered
> by said certifications and standards. And most of the certifications are
> merely a money grab by the auditors - the last numbers I found, something like
> 98% of breaches of systems that were covered by PCI were of systems that at
> the time of the breach were PCI-compliant. In other words, being PCI compliant
> didn't actually slow the attackers down one bit.
>
> You social engineer your way into the 5th office building you pass, pick a
> random PC on the 4th floor - I'll bet you that PC is probably *not* running
> sufficient monitoring to detect an intruder rebooting it and messing with
> the system.
_______________________________________________
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