Scott,

Shatter exposes two different issues:

* VNC induced buffer / heap overruns 
* WM_TIMER and other Win32 API issues

VNC-induced shatter:

I think the best way to avoid giving up SYSTEM is to divorce the systray
and its UI from the bits that really must be running as SYSTEM.

Thus Rudi De Vos' kernel mode driver is a good idea (and in fact, the
only reasonable solution) - it basically means that the UI runs as the
user. Using shatter to compromise the UI then doesn't allow escalation.
The communication between the kernel mode driver and the UI needs to be
carefully gated, but this can be done by using the registry, and using
the registry notify API (winnt 3.1 or later, Win 98 or later) to update
the preferences on the fly along with a RegNotifyChangeKeyValue() call.
Obviously, the kernel mode driver, being where it is (can cause a blue
screen) will need to carefully screen the data to ensure its safety. 

Then we need to go through the remaining UI code to find and eliminate
any potential methods which could lead to a buffer / heap overrun. 

WM_TIMER induced shatter:

One of the modes is the range of messages that we don't even get to see
that could execute code as the user the UI runs as. Again, by divorcing
the UI from the bits that actually need privs, the escalation
possibility decrease.

Going to another window library will just add bloat, and substitute a
different set of bugs into the equation. 

Thanks,
Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Scott C. Best
Sent: Friday, 16 August 2002 9:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "shatter" vulnerability

Chris:

        Heya. While I agree that the 'shatter' attack is something
every user should bring to Microsoft's attention (which I can see
in your email headers that you did), at the same time I don't
consider it a VNC problem. <duck>
_______________________________________________
VNC-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list

Reply via email to