|
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
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_calabrese
yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 6:38 AM
To: bugtraq
securityfocus.com
Cc: cloder
acm.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
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]