OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
From: John Howie (JHowie_at_securitytoolkit.com)
Date: Wed Aug 07 2002 - 11:33:16 CDT

  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    Chris,

    You misunderstand (I think). Interactive services are a *bad idea*.
    There is no need to have them. If you do have them they should not run
    under the context of LocalSystem. A good developer will not use them as
    there are alternatives. Microsoft does not recommend using interactive
    services.

    The Windows API has always allowed any window or user to send a message
    to any window on the same desktop. That is how Windows works. I do
    advocate Microsoft tightening this up but the problem still lies with
    bad developers.

    Regards,

    John

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Chris Calabrese [mailto:chris_calabreseyahoo.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 6:38 AM
    To: bugtraqsecurityfocus.com
    Cc: cloderacm.org; Chris Paget; Florian Weimer; John Howie
    Subject: Re: White paper: Exploiting the Win32 API.

    So let me get this straight.

    Allowing unpriveleged processes to send control messages to priveleged
    processes is not a flaw in the Win32 API because there is a mechanism
    for applications to protect themselves from this type of attack
    (alternate Windows Stations/Desktops).

    But the mechanism effectively prevents the priveleged processes from
    providing a GUI because the user won't be able to actually see the
    alternate Windows Stations/Desktops without some kind of Station
    switching tool, and/or extra training in how to do this.

    So, the result is that no applications actually use this mechanism.

    What part of "this is broken" doesn't make sense?

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
    http://health.yahoo.com