Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows is 100% self-modifying assembly code? (Interesting security theory)
On 12/9/2010 8:39 PM, John Jester Wilham Patrick III wrote: > >From Andrew Auernheimer's Diary / irc memories: > >Windows is written in pure, self-modifying assembly >code. Notice how you can install 15 gigs of data from >a >single Windows install DVD, which can only hold 5 >gigs? >This is because the code is dynamically generated >to > >minimize attack vectors. Any attempt to observe the >static files on the disk will change how it looks in >runtime. This is also why Windows needs to be updated >so > >often, so the running code never looks like it did >before. > >Does this sound true to you guys? Windows does seem to >have >updates that take forever and speed wise it always felt >there was something going on. Whenever I leave my laptop >alone, even when it's offline, indexing off, the computer >is > >always working on stuff and you new know what it is. > >Maybe all applications with Windows compile on runtime for >dynamic binaries, yet through .net's open, user-friendly >API > >are still compatible? > >Balmer said he wanted to make Vista and 7 an OS that would >not slow down after usage, but instead speed up. Windows >is >constantly reprogramming itself to suit the behavior of >it's > >users and performing security and performance auditing. > >This is likely true - Think about it: > >All viruses are just malicious scripts. It's like saying >*nix is insecure because script kiddies compile binaries >and > >bash scripts that rm /. > >No one ever has ever had an attack vector against Windows >7 >or Vista. Please confirm. > Rofl!!! Do you seriously think that something that cool would be so crappy? Ive heard of several attack vectors against windows 7 and vista, they are just 'new' and the whitehat scene hasn't caught up quite yet. As for the inconsistent storage size with installation, there is this nifty little thing called compression, and most operating systems I know of have to dynamically create certain files needed for post-installation, but that doesn't mean that it's 100% dynamic code. Just some of it is necessary dynamic data. Afterall any c program can get 'fat' during runtime by calling malloc one too many times :P Not to mention the documentation on PE would totally screw with the whole constant self-modification, you risk the chance of fucking with the binary portability windows loves to bed with so much. And it has to be updated so often cause of two reason 1.) It sucks and needs fixin or 2.) Operating systems simply go through lots of change. Didn't linux used to be called the 'kernel-of-the-month operating system'? End point: you fail, commit seppuku. Sincerely, Some Kid ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows is 100% self-modifying assembly code? (Interesting security theory)
On 12/9/2010 8:39 PM, John Jester Wilham Patrick III wrote: From Andrew Auernheimer's Diary / irc memories: Windows is written in pure, self-modifying assembly code. Notice how you can install 15 gigs of data from a single Windows install DVD, which can only hold 5 gigs? This is because the code is dynamically generated to minimize attack vectors. Any attempt to observe the static files on the disk will change how it looks in runtime. This is also why Windows needs to be updated so often, so the running code never looks like it did before. Does this sound true to you guys? Windows does seem to have updates that take forever and speed wise it always felt there was something going on. Whenever I leave my laptop alone, even when it's offline, indexing off, the computer is always working on stuff and you new know what it is. Maybe all applications with Windows compile on runtime for dynamic binaries, yet through .net's open, user-friendly API are still compatible? Balmer said he wanted to make Vista and 7 an OS that would not slow down after usage, but instead speed up. Windows is constantly reprogramming itself to suit the behavior of it's users and performing security and performance auditing. This is likely true - Think about it: All viruses are just malicious scripts. It's like saying *nix is insecure because script kiddies compile binaries and bash scripts that rm /. No one ever has ever had an attack vector against Windows 7 or Vista. Please confirm. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ Whoever wrote this is on something. All you have to do is look at any decent security list to see the attack vectors that have been found..:) ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows is 100% self-modifying assembly code?(Interesting security theory)
On 12/10/2010 10:10 AM, John Horn wrote: > Is this a joke? > > > -- > > John Horn > > City of Tucson, IT Department > > Network Services (Network security) > > Phone: (520) 837-6036 > > -- > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this email in error, > please immediately notify > > the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This email transmission > may contain confidential information. > > This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or > entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. > > Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended > recipient. Thank you for your compliance, time and attention to this > matter. A top-post, bogus "legal" notice AND an office phone #. Social engineers - unite! Might want to think about that a little. And if you have to ask whether something is a joke, then the troll was successful. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows is 100% self-modifying assembly code?(Interesting security theory)
Or the worst kind of trolling to have ever walked these newsgroups On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:10 PM, John Horn wrote: > Is this a joke? > > > -- > John Horn > City of Tucson, IT Department > Network Services (Network security) > Phone: (520) 837-6036 > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this email in error, please > immediately notify > > the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This email transmission may > contain confidential information. > > This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity > to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. > > Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. > Thank you for your compliance, time and attention to this matter. > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:39 PM, in message < > 8cd662233c10c95-230c-4...@web-mmc-m02.sysops.aol.com>, John Jester Wilham > Patrick III wrote: > > > From Andrew Auernheimer's Diary / irc memories: > > Windows is written in pure, self-modifying assembly code. Notice how you > can install 15 gigs of data from a single Windows install DVD, which can > only hold 5 gigs? This is because the code is dynamically generated to > minimize attack vectors. Any attempt to observe the static files on the disk > will change how it looks in runtime. This is also why Windows needs to be > updated so often, so the running code never looks like it did before. > > Does this sound true to you guys? Windows does seem to have updates that > take forever and speed wise it always felt there was something going > on. Whenever I leave my laptop alone, even when it's offline, indexing off, > the computer is always working on stuff and you new know what it is. > > Maybe all applications with Windows compile on runtime for dynamic > binaries, yet through .net's open, user-friendly API are still compatible? > > Balmer said he wanted to make Vista and 7 an OS that would not slow down > after usage, but instead speed up. Windows is constantly reprogramming > itself to suit the behavior of it's users and performing security and > performance auditing. > > This is likely true - Think about it: > > All viruses are just malicious scripts. It's like saying *nix is insecure > because script kiddies compile binaries and bash scripts that rm /. > > No one ever has ever had an attack vector against Windows 7 or Vista. > Please confirm. > > > > ___ > 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/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows is 100% self-modifying assembly code? (Interesting security theory)
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:39:21 EST, John Jester Wilham Patrick III said: (What the heck. It's Friday, and I've got this 50 pound bag of Purina Troll Chow I'm trying to get rid of.. ;) > Windows is written in pure, self-modifying assembly code. Notice how you > can install 15 gigs of data from a single Windows install DVD, which can > only hold 5 gigs? Nope, that's just because files are compressed on the DVD. > This is because the code is dynamically generated to minimize attack vectors. > Any attempt to observe the static files on the disk will change how it looks > in runtime. This is also why Windows needs to be updated so often, so the > running code never looks like it did before. Note that loading a program is *also* an attempt to observe the static file on the disk - which would imply that how it looks in memory would depend on how many times the program gets run. Of course, hooking up a debugger to the program, and noticing that the debugger disassembles it the same way each time, would dispel the "dynamic self-modifying" theory. Also, if it was dynamic self-modifying, you wouldn't need to do updates so the running code looks different - each run would do that by itself. However, shipping patches to install on machines when you can't predict what the current version of the self-modifying code looks like would be a bear. > Maybe all applications with Windows compile on runtime for dynamic binaries, > yet through .net's open, user-friendly API are still compatible? This would come as a big shock to all those 3rd-party application programmers who thought they were using a compiler that generated code that stayed put, even when they looked at it in their debugger. Unless you're suggesting that all the 3rd party programmers are in on the conspiracy? That would be right up there with NASA managing to keep quiet all 400,000 people involved in faking the moon landing. > Balmer said he wanted to make Vista and 7 an OS that would not slow down > after usage, but instead speed up. Windows is constantly reprogramming itself > to suit the behavior of it's users and performing security and performance > auditing. This doesn't require self-modifying code. It only requires some performance tuning code that's able to do some introspection. For instance, if you keep track of what files are used, and how often, and which files are used together, you can use that information to do a better job of defragmenting the disk - one user may have Microsoft Word moved to the fastest part of the disk because that's their most-used app, while somebody else gets a disk optimized for Outlook and Firefox. > All viruses are just malicious scripts. Only true if you consider binary code a "script" (cue outcries about microcoded CPUs in 5..4..3.. ;) > No one ever has ever had an attack vector against Windows 7 or Vista. There have been security advisories and patches against both Vista and 7. You don't seriously suggest that *none* of those patches had a weaponized exploit for them, do you? (Remember the *vast* difference between "No one has ever..." and "I have heard no reports of anybody ever...") pgpfMupew620M.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows is 100% self-modifying assembly code?(Interesting security theory)
Is this a joke? -- John Horn City of Tucson, IT Department Network Services (Network security) Phone: (520) 837-6036 -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This email transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance, time and attention to this matter. >>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:39 PM, in message >>> <8cd662233c10c95-230c-4...@web-mmc-m02.sysops.aol.com>, John Jester Wilham >>> Patrick III wrote: >From Andrew Auernheimer's Diary / irc memories: Windows is written in pure, self-modifying assembly code. Notice how you can install 15 gigs of data from a single Windows install DVD, which can only hold 5 gigs? This is because the code is dynamically generated to minimize attack vectors. Any attempt to observe the static files on the disk will change how it looks in runtime. This is also why Windows needs to be updated so often, so the running code never looks like it did before. Does this sound true to you guys? Windows does seem to have updates that take forever and speed wise it always felt there was something going on. Whenever I leave my laptop alone, even when it's offline, indexing off, the computer is always working on stuff and you new know what it is. Maybe all applications with Windows compile on runtime for dynamic binaries, yet through .net's open, user-friendly API are still compatible? Balmer said he wanted to make Vista and 7 an OS that would not slow down after usage, but instead speed up. Windows is constantly reprogramming itself to suit the behavior of it's users and performing security and performance auditing. This is likely true - Think about it: All viruses are just malicious scripts. It's like saying *nix is insecure because script kiddies compile binaries and bash scripts that rm /. No one ever has ever had an attack vector against Windows 7 or Vista. Please confirm. Notice of Confidentiality: This communication may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and may not be disclosed to anyone other than the intended addressee. Any other disclosure is strictly prohibited by law. If you are not the intended addressee, you have received this communication in error. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy the communication, including all content and any attachments. Thank you. ___ 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] Windows is 100% self-modifying assembly code? (Interesting security theory)
From Andrew Auernheimer's Diary / irc memories: Windows is written in pure, self-modifying assembly code. Notice how you can install 15 gigs of data from a single Windows install DVD, which can only hold 5 gigs? This is because the code is dynamically generated to minimize attack vectors. Any attempt to observe the static files on the disk will change how it looks in runtime. This is also why Windows needs to be updated so often, so the running code never looks like it did before. Does this sound true to you guys? Windows does seem to have updates that take forever and speed wise it always felt there was something going on. Whenever I leave my laptop alone, even when it's offline, indexing off, the computer is always working on stuff and you new know what it is. Maybe all applications with Windows compile on runtime for dynamic binaries, yet through .net's open, user-friendly API are still compatible? Balmer said he wanted to make Vista and 7 an OS that would not slow down after usage, but instead speed up. Windows is constantly reprogramming itself to suit the behavior of it's users and performing security and performance auditing. This is likely true - Think about it: All viruses are just malicious scripts. It's like saying *nix is insecure because script kiddies compile binaries and bash scripts that rm /. No one ever has ever had an attack vector against Windows 7 or Vista. Please confirm. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
