I agree. I am only talking of the scenario where this service is pre-installed.
On Monday, September 26, 2011, Thor (Hammer of God) wrote: > You'd have to be admin to install as a service, and the service would > obviously need to then be running as local system to be of benefit (beyond > what a normal user could do anyway) AND the installer would have to grant a > normal user rights to overwrite it. > > Certainly possible, but the developer would have to go out of their way > to screw that up. And if they did, it still wouldn't be because of the OS... > > T > > > On Sep 25, 2011, at 6:18 PM, "Travis Biehn" <[email protected]> wrote: > > GloW: there's a lot of 3rd party software that installs itself as > windows services. > > -Travis > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:15 PM, GloW - XD <[email protected]> wrote: > > Haha , too good and too true thor ! > > > Maybe he can trick the user into installing on a FAT32 partition first, and > THEN get the to execute from a remote share! > > Rofl x10. > > Agreed , this kind of attack, is NOT deasible in 2011, try maybe, 2006. > > Anyhow it has been a pleasure, ending this BS i think once and for all, > lookup how winlogon works for one thing, then look at how windows creates > and maintains a service_table, and then at the dlls, wich are protected ofc, > you cannot touch msgina.dll,without ALOT of help from a rootkit or something > similar, in wich case, why would you need to ? > You could add an admin, hidden, and in simple batfile script (yes i do have > my own code but no it is not for kids..), this is 10seconds and hidden, so > when you have gotten that far, why would you bother to hijack a dll ? > > You CANNOT do crap,without complete ADMIN not SYSTEm, ADMIN$ share, and > total axcs to all sockets, meaning, all pipe control and thats where half of > windows exchanges smb shares for one thing, you guys dont seem to know CRAP > about windows to start with, then have the gall to raise such a frigging > ridiculous topic about a non happening, YOUTUBE ONE 'real' event, of this > being useful, or, even just working, and i would look but, you wont, cannot, > and will never be able to, especially on newer systems of windows7-8. > As i said earlier, enjoy your bs DFLL hijacking, but ms, dont care for it, > and whatever patches they instilled, dont touch even service_table.. so, > they have not given it a high prio,and why shuld they. > > This is simply a case of a secteam gaining notoriety, to try and make this > a 'big bug!!' , to try and gain brownie points from MS. Even tho, i dont > believe in many things MS, I know windows system, and how to break it, > better than many people, and i can tell you now, this whole DLL hijack, is a > complete and utter waste of your times. > But... keep on going, maybe MS will send you another 'thankyou' email ;) > xd / <http://crazycoders.com>crazycoders.com / #haxnet@Ef > > > > > > On 26 September 2011 10:52, Thor (Hammer of God) <[email protected]>wrote: > > Maybe he can trick the user into installing on a FAT32 partition first, > and THEN get the to execute from a remote share! > > On Sep 25, 2011, at 5:30 PM, "Travis Biehn" <[email protected]> wrote: > > It might be a fun experiment to see what DLLs they're looking for :.) > > > -Travis > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:57 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > To replace a service executable you usually need administrator access > anyway. > > > ------Original Message------ > From: Madhur Ahuja > Sender: > >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
