Slashdot Mirror
Tricking Vista's UAC To Hide Malware
Vista's User Account Control, love it or hate it, represents a barrier against unwanted software getting run on users' computers. A Symantec researcher has found a simple way to spoof UAC and says that it shouldn't be completely trusted. The trick is to disguise the UAC warning dialog in the color associated with alerts generated by Windows itself.
With every release of Windows, Microsoft seems to devise some new, overly-complicated scheme to try to protect Windows users. The scheme they came up with may sound great, but then it falls flat on its face because of some minor flaw or workaround.
So maybe what they need to do is to get back to the fundamentals. We only need to look as far as OpenBSD to see how keeping things simple and intelligent results in a very secure operating system. Instead of writing new (and probably buggy) code to try and prevent things like malware, they just repeatedly go over the code they already have, to try to ensure that it is exploit-free. And it works. OpenBSD is a damn secure system.
That pops up a UAC dialog, but because RunLegacyCPLElevated.exe is set to run those Control Panel plug-ins with full administrative privileges, the dialog is bordered by Vista's own greenish color to signify the file is part of the operating system.
So we make fun of Homeland Security for their meaningless color-coded threat levels, but take the colored borders of confirmation dialogs on Vista as gospel?
Sorry, this does not constitute a threat. Just one more indication that we need some form of licensure before letting people anywhere near a computer.
I'll gladly join in on the MS bashing - when appropriate. In this case, any blame rests solidly with users who have no idea what they should or shouldn't let run on their computers.
These guys are pointing this out, because they want to sell symantec products. Thats the only reason why this article came out. It's the only reason why Symantec released this statement. They want to put the message out there that "You're not secure without Norton"
This is a corporate propaganda directive, possibly directly from the CEO him/herself. "Find something, and lets use it to make us money"
The old anti virus company making viruses, just to fuel sales... has come true. They dont have to release the viruses though, but simply they figured something out, and to tell the world that something.
Profit at all costs.
I would be interested in what you consider would protect the user. You have three options here.
1/ No-one decides what goes on your computer. It's an open free-for-all.
2/ Microsoft decides what goes on your computer. Corporate lock-down.
3/ You decide what goes on your computer. You're the boss.
We've already seen what happens with option 1. It's a security nightmare for everyone. I can imagine just how popular the second option there would be, people already have plenty to bitch about the controlling nature of Microsoft without adding to it.
So it's got to be option number 3. The only other thing Microsoft can do then is to warn the user what's happening to their computer, provide as much useful information as possible (in as much a user-friendly manner as possible) and then let the user decide.
Which is pretty much what is happening here. And still people complain.
The main problem I have seen with Vista since the first RCs is the monotonous regularity that these messages pop up with during regular system use. The old adage that practice makes perfect is incorrect; Practice makes permanent is the real outcome and microsoft is basically forcing their customers to practice hitting that continue button while still trying to concentrate on the tasks at hand.
I have found myself clicking continue at the same time my thought registers to *not* click because of something not looking quite right. Since I am no longer developing software for a living, the only OS on my system is Ubuntu! Thank God for Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat, et al. for their tremendous efforts to give everyone a reasonable alternative; whether we choose to use it is certainly a choice, but we do have the choice.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
UAC doesn't actually protect the user, but it enables Microsoft, in response to any virus/worm/trojan/botnet/class action lawsuit to say "well, you clicked allow. It wasn't our fault."
It wouldn't be their fault. Nor should it be their fault.
Microsoft shouldn't be required to take the blame for harm that results to their installation or data because of third party programs that they themselves didn't supply. You allowed the program to run, you deal with the consequences; it isn't Microsoft's fault at all that you decided to allow NastyShitware.exe to run. Why should it be? If you shoot yourself, are Smith and Wesson liable?
If Microsoft was held liable for the actions of third party applications, it would open up the way for lawsuits against pretty much every other OS provider that gave their customers a chance to run nasty programs on their OS. Imagine the lunacy that would result from that. Imagine the ass-covering lockdown that would most likely result. Not very nice at all...
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
People use non free OSes these days because they honestly dont know how things work, and wont spend the time to. Its the same reason why anyone can build a car, but noone really does.
No.
People don't build their own cars for the same reason they don't write their own OS from scratch: it's too much work, and they don't need to.
People use free OSes for the same reason they don't buy cars with the hoods welded shut. The difference is that there's no auto manufacturer with sufficient monopoly that that they'd ever sell any cars with the hood welded shut.
-- Alastair
And if you are just blindly clicking "Allow" without ever reading or thinking about what you are doing, how is it anyone else's fault but your own?
"But this one goes to 11!"
I don't know what world YOU live in, but ignoring security recommendations, not researching anything, and just clicking "Allow" without a clue to what you are allowing is not Microsoft's fault.
Will it happen all the time? Absolutely. Are a significant number of computer operators basically shaved apes without a clue about security? Absolutely. Does that make it Microsoft's fault? Absolutuely not.
How do you suggest Microsoft cures the world of dumb computer users who won't do what they are told, and what go against what common sense would dictate? Say someone bought a car, drove it until it died and then brought it to a repair shop where it was discovered there was no oil or engine coolant in it. ("Well, I saw some lights go on, but there are so many lights on the dashboard I just ignored them and kept driving.") Would it be the fault of Chevrolet because the operator couldn't be bothered to RTFM or understand how to properly operate a car before doing so?
"But this one goes to 11!"