Hrmm that sounds abit to good to be true :P id love to see what it involves...ie, the PoC.. and, i dont use googleupdate,so,why would this affect non chrome users.. i dunno.. still seems like not enough there to convince me yet, sorry. xd
On 26 September 2011 11:18, Madhur Ahuja <ahuja.mad...@gmail.com> wrote: > I havn't sent this email without doing a Proof of concept. It actually > works with *Google Update Service*. > > The restricted user can replace GoogleUpdate.exe to execute malicious code. > This service is installed by any of Google component such as Picasa, Google > Talk etc. > > http://www.google.com/support/installer/bin/answer.py?answer=98805 > > Madhur > > On Monday, September 26, 2011, GloW - XD wrote: > >> Haha , too good and too true thor ! >> >> Maybe he can trick the user into installing on a FAT32 partition first, >> and THEN get the to execute from a remote share! >> >> Rofl x10. >> >> Agreed , this kind of attack, is NOT deasible in 2011, try maybe, 2006. >> >> Anyhow it has been a pleasure, ending this BS i think once and for all, >> lookup how winlogon works for one thing, then look at how windows creates >> and maintains a service_table, and then at the dlls, wich are protected ofc, >> you cannot touch msgina.dll,without ALOT of help from a rootkit or something >> similar, in wich case, why would you need to ? >> You could add an admin, hidden, and in simple batfile script (yes i do >> have my own code but no it is not for kids..), this is 10seconds and hidden, >> so when you have gotten that far, why would you bother to hijack a dll ? >> >> You CANNOT do crap,without complete ADMIN not SYSTEm, ADMIN$ share, and >> total axcs to all sockets, meaning, all pipe control and thats where half of >> windows exchanges smb shares for one thing, you guys dont seem to know CRAP >> about windows to start with, then have the gall to raise such a frigging >> ridiculous topic about a non happening, YOUTUBE ONE 'real' event, of this >> being useful, or, even just working, and i would look but, you wont, cannot, >> and will never be able to, especially on newer systems of windows7-8. >> As i said earlier, enjoy your bs DFLL hijacking, but ms, dont care for it, >> and whatever patches they instilled, dont touch even service_table.. so, >> they have not given it a high prio,and why shuld they. >> >> This is simply a case of a secteam gaining notoriety, to try and make this >> a 'big bug!!' , to try and gain brownie points from MS. Even tho, i dont >> believe in many things MS, I know windows system, and how to break it, >> better than many people, and i can tell you now, this whole DLL hijack, is a >> complete and utter waste of your times. >> But... keep on going, maybe MS will send you another 'thankyou' email ;) >> xd / crazycoders.com / #haxnet@Ef >> >> >> >> >> On 26 September 2011 10:52, Thor (Hammer of God) <t...@hammerofgod.com>wrote: >> >> Maybe he can trick the user into installing on a FAT32 partition first, >> and THEN get the to execute from a remote share! >> >> On Sep 25, 2011, at 5:30 PM, "Travis Biehn" <tbi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It might be a fun experiment to see what DLLs they're looking for :.) >> >> >> -Travis >> >> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:57 PM, <kz2...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> To replace a service executable you usually need administrator access >> anyway. >> >> >> ------Original Message------ >> From: Madhur Ahuja >> Sender: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk >> To: security-bas...@securityfocus.com >> To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk >> Subject: [Full-disclosure] Privilege escalation on Windows using >> BinaryPlanting >> Sent: 25 Sep 2011 19:31 >> >> Imagine a situation where I have a Windows system with the restricted >> user access and want to get the Administrator access. >> >> There are many services in Windows which run with SYSTEM account. >> >> If there exists even one such service whose executable is not >> protected by Windows File Protection, isn't it possible to execute >> malicious code (such as gaining Administrator access) simply by >> replacing the service executable with malicious one and then >> restarting the service. >> >> As a restricted user, what's stopping me to do this ? >> >> Is there any integrity check performed by services.msc or service >> itself before executing with SYSTEM account ? >> >> Madhur >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >> Charter: <http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html> >> http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - <http://secunia.com/> >> http://secunia.com/ >> >> Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at >> any moment >> _______________________________________________ >> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >> Charter: <http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html> >> http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - <http://secunia.com/> >> http://secunia.com/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | >> LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn>| >> GitHub <http://github.com/tbiehn> | <http://www.travisbiehn.com> >> TravisBiehn.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >> Charter: <http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html> >> http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >> >>
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/