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.

Comments

We need to cut down on the complexity.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

C'mon, give MS a break here!

[pla]

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.

Re:C'mon, give MS a break here!

[stokessd]

"Computers seem to be heading in the direction of becoming more like appliances; "

True, and we are in a dangerous "middle-ground" between a complex tool that only knowledgeable people use, and a true appliance that anybody uses.

The problem is that the operating system is too brittle and vulnerable to be considered an appliance. Do you ever think about how you use your toaster? If I put this new organic untrusted bread in the toaster will my toaster be taken over and corrupt the blender and waffle maker and start a kitchen rebellion? If I put in this DVD of "Ishtar" in my DVD player will it require a weekend to reinstall it's OS and useful applications?

No, that doesn't happen because appliances are robust and there isn't much a user can do to hurt them when used in their intended ways.

Now the current computers (particularly windows) are becoming appliances but haven't gotten to the critical point where they really become appliances. that transition will happen when a big chunk of the OS is hidden from the user and the user works in a Sandbox. It will be a lot less useful because it will only do what it was designed to do, but it will be safe and reliable for it's intended purpose. Then it will be an appliance.

The problem is that computers are sold as the answer to lots of the average user's non-problems. Like any good for sale in a capitalistic society, it's jammed down the throats of everybody the seller can get their hands on. So lots of people who maybe shouldn't be using computers (in their current unrestrained form) are using them (they are the ones who you get your spam from).

This is a windows problem not only because of shoddy engineering, but also because of Microsoft's position in the market. Let's look at the three major OS's:

Linux (BSD et al): It's a computer hobbiest's paradice, lots of great code, well defined heirarchy. Plus in general hard to get your hands on if you are "Joe User" who just wants to get a computer to e-mail the kids at school. This means that the people who are using this os WANT to use it for some reason (insert long list here), and they are going out of their way to use it. This means that this segment is typically very computer savvy and not likely to be pwned as a group.

Macintosh: This is also a "Harder to get" computer for two reasons. First, they are very expensive compared to the best-buy special. Second they are only sold in a few places. These two reasons make the Mac a sought-out computer rather than what the sales droid told you to buy. The average user is probably less computer savvy than the average Linux user, but in the case of the Mac, apple also "has your back" to some degree with frequent patches and a well designed core OS that minimizes your risk to begin with.

Windows: This is the default OS you get if you close your eyes and pick a computer. This means that if you have no clue about computers, chances are you get a windows box. Its fertile ground for stupid users to take advantage of (can I interest you in a free screensaver?). And in addition to that, MS has huge legacy issues that they can't change or they break business apps. MS has painted itself into this corner by selling to the lowest common denominator.

Change the borders to any color you like, there are still a huge amount of computer users that shouldn't be computer users under the current OS choices.

Anti-Virus makers, make Virus.... same old scare

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

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.

Re:UAC is not there for *user* protection

[gsslay]

UAC doesn't actually protect the user,

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.

No tricking involved

[LinuxGeek]

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.