Re: How vulnerable is a 'Limited" account on XP?

From: xenophi1e (oliver.laveryat_private)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 11:32:32 PDT

  • Next message: Paul Vet: "RE: Generic way to exploit an insecure /tmp file creation - Red Hat 7,8,9 (Re: Red Hat 9: free tickets)"

    
     ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
    In-Reply-To: <200307081708.h68H8MPo017830at_private>
    
    
     Please don't infect your system with viruses. That's not a good idea.
    
    A limited account on XP is very much like a limited account on any other 
    OS. It is somewhat secure, but as soon as you have access to a machine 
    that machine has been opened up to local priviledge elevation 
    vulnerabilities.
    
    If Windows doesn't contain any of these holes, then it seems to follow 
    that a limited account should be secure. However these vulnerabilities 
    are pretty common on other platforms and who knows, there might be a few 
    buried in windows somewhere.
    
    Cheers,
    ~ol
    
    >I've been wondering: are there exploits/vulnerabilities that can burrow 
    >into a system through a limited account on XP?  I've tried playing 
    around 
    >a little bit [but I'm really not very much of an XP-hacker] and it sure 
    >seems hard to get a toehold on the system from my limited account.  With 
    >the entire system drive essentially read-only, and with its not being 
    >able to mess with ADMIN or SYSTEM processes, I wonder just how 
    vulnerable 
    >XP is...  [for example, I"ve been tempted (but too chicken) to try 
    >intentionally infecting myself with one or another of the email-borne 
    >viruses just to see how far they could penetrate into my system].
    >
    >  /Bernie
    >-- 
    >Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
    >mailto:bernieat_private     Pearisburg, VA
    >    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--       
    >
    >
    >
    >
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jul 11 2003 - 11:05:33 PDT