Slashdot Mirror
New Windows Kernel Vulnerability Bypasses UAC
xsee writes "A new vulnerability in the Windows kernel was disclosed Wednesday that could allow malware to attain administrative privileges by bypassing User Account Control (UAC). Combined with the unpatched Internet Explorer vulnerability in the wild this could be a very bad omen for Windows users."
this could be a very bad omen for Windows users.
Only if Microsoft doesn't fix it. Of course, somebody sharp could submit a patch ... oh wait.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I run everything with Administrator privs... oh snap!
Well, as long as you know everything you run is malware free, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
They bypassed the UAC? We're DOOMED!
No, it's better. It's like browsing that goes all the way to 11. Much of the suck just magically disappears.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Developing an entirely new os is about the worst thing microsoft could possibly do from a business perspective...
Currently their single biggest selling point is compatibility, sure as you point out compatibility with something that has a fundamentally flawed design but still compatibility... If they were to ditch compatibility, then users would have to ditch all their existing apps (especially legacy apps which may be abandonware) and learn a completely new system thats not been tried and tested...
In other words, they would now saddle themselves with the biggest disadvantages associated with other platforms while offering none of the advantages of those platforms...
Microsoft ditching compatibility with all their legacy cruft would probably be the best news apple and linux distros could ever receive.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Seriously, let's hear this brilliant idea that a number of geeks on Slashdot seem to have as to how to design an OS that is perfectly secure against Malware and so on, yet still gives the user full administrative control over their system. So show us a framework or example of some kind where users have the full control they must over personally owned systems, yet the system is 100% secure over bad code. Also then show the design methods that can be used to ensure that there are zero bugs, anywhere, ever, in the design or the implementation and that allow a product to be produced in the timescales demanded by the consumer world (as in it can't take 10 years of validation).
If you put any real thought in this, you'll realize it can't be done. There is no power without responsibility, there is no perfect system that is 100% bug free.
That being the case, stop whining.
For this particular thing, this is a local privilege exploit. It is a bug, a mistake, one that will be fixed. If you Google around you'll find that Linux has had plenty of these through out its history. Something is done wrong such that a program can elevate when it isn't supposed to. They are bugs to be patched, but not super critical since you still have to get malicious code on to the local system and get it to execute. They are more of a concern on multi-user systems but even then it is rarely a panic situation.
So seriously, enough with this "OMG MS just needs to make a 100% perfectly secure OS!" shit. It shows massive ignorance of how complex and OS is, and what all you have to balance. No problem with that, you needn't learn about it if you don't want, but then don't argue from a position of ignorance and assume that they could make a perfect OS if only they wanted to bad enough.
No security is perfect. People who do security in the real world, physical security, have always known this. For some reason many people who do virtual security delude themselves in to thinking it is different. No it isn't, there is no perfect security. So have defense in depth. Be mindful of where you visit on the web, don't download random shit, run a quality virus scanner that checks data as it comes in from the web, use a deprivileged browser (somethign in protected mode, if your browser supports it), have a firewall, have UAC turned on, think before you execute a program. None of that is perfect, none of that is something that can't ever fail, but with layers of protection if one fails, you've others to fall back on.
"The flaw is related to the way in which a certain config file is interpreted..."
"I'm hard pressed to decide if Microsoft is unwilling, or just unable, to ever fix it."
Microsoft top managers achieve vulnerabilities by not allowing Microsoft programmers to finish their work, apparently. Since Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on operating systems installed on computers you can buy, the vulnerabilities make Microsoft more money because the average person cannot fix an infected computer and buys a new computer with another copy of Windows. See the New York Times article: Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster.
The solution is to make computers with Linux already installed available. Unfortunately configuration of Linux is quirky and poorly documented, slowing adoption.
Another solution is to use anti-trust law to make Windows more fair for buyers. Should users of Windows Vista pay for an entirely new version of Windows, when Vista was troublesome and a court case showed that Vista was knowingly released before it was ready? There are only small differences between Windows Vista and Windows 7. Why should users pay for an entirely new copy of Windows?
It is my opinion that the present practices of selling something almost everyone with a computer must have are unfair and against the common welfare. Microsoft lost an anti-trust case, but there was never any penalty.
And that, my friend, is why I find the contention that 'Linux and Mac OS will be just as bad when they get popular' to be inane, misleading and, frankly, intellectually lazy.
Just because I didn't elaborate doesn't mean I haven't thought about it.
Personally, I'm pretty confident that the majority of malware infections are PEBKAC.
Drive by / remote exploit malware certainly do exist out there, but its not THAT prevalent. You can go months, even years using a Windows PC without an infection with just windows firewall, and keeping your PC up to date. I've done it. Countless others have too.
The clusterfucks of malware ridden pcs that some people routinely turn their computers into are, in my opinion primarily at least initially installed by the end user. They fall for the social engineering, go for the shiny offer, and escalate the installer so that it can have its way with the PC and bring all its friends...
You make osx or even linux the dominant OS, where all that social engineering, and shiny crapware will start targeting OSX and linux. The same users who try to install the britney spears naked screensaver will click on the brintey_spears_naked.dmg and enter their computer password in os x.
Right now its not worth it for that class of malware writers to do it today. So britney_spears_naked_screensave.dmg malware isn't constantly thrown in your face. Its simple economics.
a) First, OSX and Linux combined is still single digit marketshare. Right out of the gate, Windows is where the ROI is.
b) Second, what little marketshare OSX and Linux have are disproportionately more sophisticated users that won't fall for the bullshit anyway.
If you are likely to be sucked in by malware bullshit then you are likely ignorant, unsophisticated when it comes to computers... and you walk into a BestBuy or Walmart... you are exactly the demographic being targeted by malware, and you'll walk out with a windows PC.
Move all --those-- people onto linux or OSX and I have no doubt the malware will follow them, and they'll happily install it.