BugTraq
RE: Re[2]: Microsoft Windows Vista/2003/XP/2000 file management security issues Mar 09 2007 03:49PM
Roger A. Grimes (roger banneretcs com) (2 replies)
RE: Re[2]: Microsoft Windows Vista/2003/XP/2000 file management security issues Mar 09 2007 05:43PM
M. Burnett (mb xato net) (1 replies)
RE: Re[2]: Microsoft Windows Vista/2003/XP/2000 file management security issues Mar 09 2007 06:14PM
Roger A. Grimes (roger banneretcs com)
Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Windows Vista/2003/XP/2000 file management security issues Mar 09 2007 04:19PM
Tim (tim-security sentinelchicken org) (2 replies)
RE: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Windows Vista/2003/XP/2000 file management security issues Mar 09 2007 06:12PM
Laundrup, Jens (Jens Laundrup METROKC GOV) (2 replies)
Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Windows Vista/2003/XP/2000 file management security issues Mar 09 2007 06:46PM
Tim (tim-security sentinelchicken org)
RE: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Windows Vista/2003/XP/2000 file management security issues Mar 09 2007 05:42PM
Roger A. Grimes (roger banneretcs com)
So, let me get this. An app storing sensitive data doesn't make its own
temp storage folders in a secure location, and instead relies upon one
of the few folders in Windows that all users have Full Control to, and
this is a Windows problem? In Linux, if an app uses \tmp, is that a
Linux issue?

Sounds like a developer issue to me.

Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim [mailto:tim-security (at) sentinelchicken (dot) org [email concealed]]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 11:20 AM
To: Roger A. Grimes
Cc: bugtraq (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]; full-disclosure (at) lists.grok.org (dot) uk [email concealed]
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Windows Vista/2003/XP/2000 file
management security issues

I find your assessment somewhat short-sighted. I have conducted code
reviews on several commercial apps which use C:\TEMP in very insecure
ways to store sensitive data. It seems some of these attacks would be
possible in those situations.

Sure, Windows is already pathetically insecure against an attackers
already on the local system, but this would be yet another attack
vector.

tim

[ reply ]


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus