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.
While it may be true that different colored borders are supposed to mean varying levels of "trust", as in what component is running, I don't think any user would know that. The text in the dialogs doesn't appear to be different (that I can tell), so why would a border color make me go "Oh, I should let that action happen, I bet that's some Control Panel action", especially when I wasn't working with the control panel.
To be honest, Vista's UAC saved my butt recently. I have no idea what application was vulnerable -- but it somehow tried to run exec.exe, which was downloaded into one of my temp folders. The file was deleted after it failed to run (because I said "no"), and then would appear back in a few seconds and try to run again. I'm happy that whatever application was vulnerable wasn't able to do anything to my system.
<tangent> Anyway, while some people may say it's annoying, I'm not sure exactly how many actions a typical user would take that would require UAC prompts. After the first few days of configuring, installing apps, etc..., I have little need to do anything that requires UAC prompts. Defrag is set up to run every night, anti virus is set up to download updates, my resolution settings don't change, etc... </tangent>
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.
Better listen up; this is coming from Symantec, the guys that brought us Norton Internet Security. These guys KNOW how to really mess computers up.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
Just get it to vibrate around like those horrible "you're the 99999th visitor!" pop-ups, and anyone would click whatever to get rid of it. Furthermore, you could change it to one of those "are you stupid?" pop-ups, that the "no" button moves around. There are a zillion ways to get someone to click the button you want.
stuff |
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.
UAC prompts are NOT that common, and UAC prompts when copy and pasting is a myth. Please, let it die.
My sig can beat up your sig.
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.
So, Vista is gonna prevent me from winning Ipods?
Screw that, if i'm the 999,999th vistor I deserve a prize and I dont care what no washington computer fatcat wants to do with my internet windows.
The problem is that while we may actually read those warnings, most users are going to see it as an extra step they need to do in order to get their free ipod/car/vacation/porn. It wouldn't surprise me if directions to help users "get rid of those annoying uac popups permanently" soon show up on a few malware-providing websites. Just look at the firewall rule set on some people's computers.
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. --
I don't use Vista so I don't fully understand. Do the colours of the popups provide security-related information? Seems pretty ridiculous and unfair, considering I'm not the only person in the world who is colourblind...
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!"
My problem with UAC is that I bought a new computer recently, with Vista pre-installed and during the initial setup it prompted me to create a user account. The user account had full admin privileges. I immediately set up a lower privilege account for general webbrowsing etc, and when using that account not only do I have UAC confirmation messages, but I also have to enter a password. That is a good thing - rather like 'su' in Unix like operating systems or Ubuntu's locked screed admin method. Users just aren't going to realise the importance of what they're doing with just binary yes or no security questions. If anything with the initial account defaulting to admin, Pavlov's dog like, they're going to be conditioned to hit yes without thinking. People aren't paranoid even though people are out to get them.
To rectify this problem Microsoft should make it clear during installation that the initial admin account shouldn't be used as the main account. This is not clear during the installation.
Good things:
- Internet Explorer's protected mode.
- Making sure the heap is in a different place on each computer.
- UAC is good for experienced or computer literate users (nobody else.
Bad things:
- UAC, in its present form, is just training computer illiterate people to click yes. There is an emphasis with a consumer operating system to educate the user. Not necessarily enforce (that would restrict freedom) but it should educate. All or nothing is not good.
- Idiot reviewers thinking that an operating system is the largest contributory factor in the speed of a computer. Saying Vista is faster than XP when it's been run on a new, much faster computer, is a little like trading a saloon car for an Aston Martin and saying that the Aston Martin is faster because of the upholstery.
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!"