RE: Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-005: Unchecked Buffer in Windows Redirector Could Allow Privilege Elevation (810577)

From: Jason Coombs (jasoncat_private)
Date: Thu Feb 06 2003 - 10:03:41 PST

  • Next message: Carolyn Meinel: "Re: Preventing exploitation with rebasing"

    John Howie wrote:
    > I disagree. From a risk perspective you need to know mitigating factors.
    > To kill the hype that accompanies a newly discovered vulnerability you
    > need a cool, dispassionate, overview of the problem. Your sample
    > 'aggravating' factor was anything but, and would be more likely to add
    > to the hype.
    
    You're in favor of vendors publishing false statements as a means of
    mitigating the threat of hype?
    
    Microsoft, after reading their own security bulletins, mistakenly concludes
    that privilege elevation vulnerabilities like MS03-005 "cannot be exploited
    remotely."
    
    A privilege elevation threat is in some ways more critical than a buffer
    overflow. The reason is that there are attackers out there (especially
    insiders) who have been sitting in a position to execute arbitrary code
    under unprivileged user account security contexts for years, looking for a
    way to elevate privileges. MS03-005 may unleash those pending threats,
    because employers routinely "share between users" Windows boxes deployed
    within the organization. By design an Active Directory-based network is
    "shared between users".
    
    And you should be aware that Windows is not just for the desktop anymore.
    Windows is being used as the foundation of Web hosting providers' commercial
    services, and Web hosting under Windows is designed to be extensible and
    programmable; a privilege elevation exploit that can be mounted by your
    neighbor on a shared Web hosting box directly impacts your security. The
    entire threat in this case is remote, because it happens on somebody else's
    server box where you rent space. To claim that a privilege elevation attack
    cannot be exploited remotely is to fail to consider the real world usage
    scenarios in which attacks really occur.
    
    I'm sure you've seen as many examples of vendors believing their own
    propaganda as I have over the years. A vendor who habitually misstates and
    mischaracterizes the risk posed by their products does a lot of harm, and
    guarantees that incidents will occur in the future that create far more hype
    than would emphasizing the extreme possibilities for exploitation of each
    vulnerability in the first place.
    
    Besides, I thought our collective infosec goal was to prevent incidents, not
    work together to prevent hype.
    
    Jason Coombs
    jasoncat_private
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Feb 07 2003 - 08:49:21 PST