Crack Windows XP With... Windows 2000

An anonymous reader writes "According to this story seen on Brian's Buzz on Windows, access to a Windows 2000 CD is all that is needed to bypass all (well, most) Windows XP security features. An attacker can boot up XP and start the Windows 2000 Recovery Console which allows them to operate as any user, even Administrator, without requiring them to enter a password. This method even allows someone to copy files to removable media, something which normally the Administrator can't even do in the Recovery Console."

Comments

So what?

[nweaver]

It is generally assumed that if you have console access to the machine, you can breach the security and acquire root. Many systems allow you to do this, deliberately.

You can make a nice Linux boot-floopy or boot-cd to do the same thing.

Re:So what?

[NineNine]

Yes, which is why this flaw supposedly exists in XP. It does not exist in W2K.

Re:So what?

[Forgotten]

At best you can slow someone down. You have to have the key somewhere in order to mount the filesystem. If I have access to the media, I can find it. If it's in flash ROM somewhere, I can still find it. If it's in the CPU itself, TCPA-style, with physical access I can still eventually find it. Unless the system's only access to its own key is some sort of quantum-encrypted optical fibre, I can eventually reproduce the same access required to actually use the data. And there's an important point here which pervades all of information security - the system cannot discern the difference between legitimate and illegimate uses, because the illegitimate user can imitate the legitimate one to any degree required (further because the difference between them is social, not technical). This is true of a buffer overflow as of breaking in to a hosting facility and removing a hard drive.

Physical access means complete access, particularly where the attacker has the ability to interrupt the system's operation (as here, where a reboot is implied). This is why information security necessarily comprises physical security (and lets not even get into social engineering attacks while the system is already running.

Encrypted filesystems are useful for archival storage and transport of data, though. The problem starts, as always, when you want to take them out of the vault in the concrete block at the bottom of the lake and actually use them. ;)

Re:So what?

[afidel]

No it is NOT assumed that partitions can not be mounted, in fact it has been possible to use NTFS for DOS drivers from sysinternals to mount partitions since NT4. That is why if you want security you turn on EFS and encrypt any important directories.

Re:So what?

[shamilton]

This is nothing more than a red herring. If somebody has physical access to your box, then your security has been breached. Passwords aren't going to protect you from having your hard drive removed. An encrypted filesystem, however, will.

sh

Re:So what?

[Kinthelt]

Because then you'd have to keep the user's password in memory. Somebody bad could then look at the memory location and determine the user's password.

How does this have anything to do with Security?

[tsmit]

Anyone in the security industry worth their salt knows that physical security is the FIRST step to securing a box. If someone (hacker) can walk up to a machine a press the power button to force a reboot, you've already got a denial of service (if the machine is processing something important, that is). Anything beyond is just icing on the cake.

Different Uses

[Peridriga]

I see alot of "I can boot linux into matnience mode and do whatever I want" and physical access restrictions etc...

All true but, the application of XP was for desktop use -> Server Use. Linux (don't flame) is being primarily used for backend server systems. I don't see many secretaries choosing what boot level to start up in the morning.

XP was supposed to provide a secure desktop enviroment for a networked organization (Enterprise Offices, Schools, Universities, Etc..)

The fact that I can walk up to any (supposedly) secure desktop (that access isn't always tightly safegaurded) and gain Administrative Access (usually meaning also access to your entire network behind the firewall) is a big deal. Especially since it requires nothing less than the previous version of the software.

Look more carefully at the big picture before spouting off the party line....

Hey look everybody, Linux has a hole too!

[His name cannot be s]

Hey look everybody, Linux has a hole too!

At the grub prompt:

boot: linux single

duh!

Seriously, how is this news? Nearly every system I've worked with can be comprimised with access to the physical box.

*yawn*

Sigh.

[NetJunkie]

This gives you LOCAL administrator access. Meaning, you can do what you want on THAT system. It doesn't give you the keys to the whole network. Just like rooting a Linux workstation doesn't mean you just rooted everything on the network.

Re:Sigh.

[sean23007]

Having root access on one machine on the network is a good first step for someone who wants to gain more access all over the network. With root access, keylogger services can be installed and run on that computer, logging everyone's username and password who uses that computer. Additionally, packet sniffers can be installed that can do the same for neighboring computers. Just because this doesn't give a hacker total access to the network immediately doesn't mean it isn't a security concern for the network...

-1 Overrated

[Sanity]

Come on, we know you love Linux but give it up! - Windows is no more or no less vulnerable than Linux when you have console access as has been pointed out repeatedly. If you can gain access to a computer, be it Linux or Windows XP, you can access the data on that computer.

By trying to claim that this is somehow a win for Linux, you are simply proving your that you are willing to ignore facts when advocating Linux. This makes you just as bad as Microsoft's marketing drones.

Easy enough fix

[VirexEye]

Simply disable cdrom and floppy boot in the BIOS and set a password so these settings can't be changed. Sure people can still get at data by taking apart the box but that becomes a bit more obvious in a public or office environment.

Re:well

[Xtraneous]

You might have a little trouble doing that, because XP prefers (and usually forces you,) to use the NT file system.

I have seen NTFS read support in linux, but I have yet to see reliable NTFS write support. --Xtraneous

Oh my -- my Mac too

[krray]

Wow -- as much as I'm, well, a Mac man now (w/ Linux holding all the keys and data :) ...

I too just booted my Mac into single user mode and can access EVERYTHING. Oh my!

Give me any Mac and putting it in 'T'ransfer mode ... wow, I can COMPLETELY copy somebody elses computer. Oh my! ...we *all* know how seriously flawed Windows security it, but come on -- this is a non-issue. Put me on the console of a Cray and I can "hack" into it too in about 5 minutes.