Re: Windows logoff bug possible security vulnerability and exploit. Jan 23 2007 01:28PM
Bart .... (need4angel hotmail com) (1 replies)
Dear Rage Coder,

I think this is a now problem, see Microsoft knowledge base article 837115:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837115

Microsoft recommend to use "User Profile Hive Cleanup Service":
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1B286E6D-8912-4
E18-B570-42470E2F3582&displaylang=en

Can you tel me of this helps solving your problem?

Greetz
Bart

Rage Coder wrote:
>The problem only occurs at times. To reproduce the problem, I just use the
>computer normally, and at each logon check the event viewer and running
>processes to see if a profile unload failed. I don't have any special
>terminal software or other logon software installed.
>
>I find that if I wait for a little bit after logging off before logging on
>again, no running programs from the previous logon are present, but if I
>log on just after logging off, they will be if the profile unload fails.
>That still shouldn't be the case. My brother frequently goes on his
>account right after I go off; there shouldn't be a time limit to wait in
>order to prevent this.
>
>I noticed an interesting thing about XP and fast user switching which would
>likely stop this problem. When logging on, the first logged on user is
>given session ID 0, as shown in task manager, but if I 'switch' to another
>user, the user is given a different session ID. It seems that no two users
>are given the same session ID when using fast user switching. But when
>logging off all users and then back on, it is back to session 0. And if I
>just log on as a user, log off, and then on as another user without using
>the 'switch user', they both are session ID 0.
>
>The same thing happens when using classic logon and on 2003. All logons
>are given session ID 0. I did some reading in the platform SDK and some
>sites about stuff, and it seems that these sessions literally create an
>isolation. Messages sent from a process in one session ID are not visible
>to processes in another, windows created only appear on the desktop
>associated with that session of the process that created the window, etc.
>
>Ideally, running classic logon always as session 0 'should' work because
>ideally when logging of, the processes ran 'should' close, so the next user
>to log on would have nothing to access. But this does not appear to be the
>case at all times.
>
>A few moments ago I logged in as administrator to do some minor changes,
>and I ran EPIM to take some notes of things. When I logged of and back on
>as a regular using, 'explorer.exe', 'essentialpim.exe', 'seamonkey.exe'
>were still running as Administrator, event viewer showed the usual UserEnv
>messages, and EPIM appeared on the system tray. My guess is something like
>this happens:
>
>Logon Administrator : Session ID 0
>Run EssentialPIM : Session ID 0
>Do some stuff
>Logoff Administrator : Profile unload fails, a few programs continue
>running
>Logon Normal User : Session ID 0
>Explorer runs, and at startup broadcasts 'TaskbarCreated' message
>All processes in session 0 get this message, EPIM adds system tray icon
>like it is supposed to
>
>If each logon, even in classic mode, is given a separate session ID as is
>done in fast user switching, this would not happen, even if the profile
>unload fails and the programs continue to run waiting for the profile to
>unload:
>
>Logon Administrator : Session ID 0
>Run EssentialPIM : Session ID 0
>Do some stuff
>Logoff Administrator : Profile unload fails, a few programs continue
>running
>Logon Normal User : Session ID 1
>Explorer runs, and at startup broadcasts 'TaskbarCreated' message
>All processes in session 1 get this message
>Programs that may continue to run in session 0 are isolated
>
>If I log on as administrator again, it would be ok to reuse session 0, but
>for a given boot, no two users should be assigned the same logon session
>ID. I.E. if I log on as Normal User again, it would be session 1, etc.
>
>This would not prevent a profile from failing to unload, and would not
>prevent the processes from continuing to run, but it will prevent a user
>from a later logon from accessing the processes in the current logon.
>
>3APA3A (at) SECURITY.NNOV (dot) RU [email concealed] wrote:
>>Dear Rage Coder,
>>
>> I've seen unloaded profiles for many times, but I never saw application
>> still running after logoff. Profile itself doesn't create security
>> vulnerability, since it can not be accessed by another user.
>>
>> What do you use to reproduce this vulnerability?
>>
>> Are you sure you do not use some different software which affects
>> logon/logoff process, e.g. 3rd party terminal software or some security
>> enhancement?

_________________________________________________________________
Valentine?s Day -- Shop for gifts that spell L-O-V-E at MSN Shopping
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8323,ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24095&
tcode=wlmtagline

[ reply ]
Re: Windows logoff bug possible security vulnerability and exploit. Jan 28 2007 03:51AM
Rage Coder (ragecoder aim com)


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus