BugTraq
Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft's Binary Planting Clean-Up Mission Sep 16 2011 09:27AM
Jeffrey Walton (noloader gmail com)
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Michael Schmidt <mschmidt (at) drugstore (dot) com [email concealed]> wrote:
> Someone?s just not reading the bulletins ? Note the term ?Remote? ?
> including webdav, so a share that could be fully controlled by the
> exploiter. At least that is what I am understanding.
>
>
>
> Updates released on September 13, 2011
>
> Microsoft Security Bulletin MS11-071, "Vulnerability in Windows Components
> Could Allow Remote Code Execution," provides support for vulnerable
> components of Microsoft Windows that are affected by the Insecure Library
> Loading class of vulnerabilities described in this advisory.
>
> Microsoft Security Bulletin MS11-073, "Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office
> Could Allow Remote Code Execution," provides support for vulnerable
> components of Microsoft Office that are affected by the Insecure Library
> Loading class of vulnerabilities described in this advisory.

In addition, this looks like it could be ripe for abuse (if it is true):
Even more interesting is the fact that you can specify a
UNC path in the import section of the PE file. If we specify
\\66.93.68.6\z as the name of the imported DLL, the Windows
loader will try to download the DLL file from our web server.

See http://www.phreedom.org/solar/code/tinype/.

> From: full-disclosure-bounces (at) lists.grok.org (dot) uk [email concealed]
> [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces (at) lists.grok.org (dot) uk [email concealed]] On Behalf Of adam
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:27 PM
> To: security (at) acrossecurity (dot) com [email concealed]
> Cc: full-disclosure (at) lists.grok.org (dot) uk [email concealed]; bugtraq (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft's Binary Planting Clean-Up Mission
>
>
>
>>>I'm afraid you don't fully understand the issue. This is not about placing
>>> your own
>>>DLL on a local machine so that a chosen application will load it (i.e.,
>>> user
>>>"attacking" an application on his own computer).
>
>
>
> I'm not sure you understood the point. That being, whether the user
> knowingly or unknowingly loads the "malicious" DLL - the application will be
> effected the same either way. To that point: it's been possible for over a
> decade (and perhaps even longer) so pretending that it's some brand new
> threat that needs to be dealt with immediately is foolish.
>
>
>
>>>possibly on a remote share - and executing its code (i.e., attacker with
>>> zero
>>>privileges on user's computer executing code on that computer).
>
>
>
> Zero privileges? So having write access to a share that the user
> accesses/loads files from - what do you call that? This is a social
> engineering attack - absolutely nothing more.
>
>
>
> On a related note: have you also contacted Linus about LD_PRELOAD?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:05 PM, ACROS Security Lists <lists (at) acros (dot) si [email concealed]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> I'm afraid you don't fully understand the issue. This is not about placing
> your own
> DLL on a local machine so that a chosen application will load it (i.e., user
> "attacking" an application on his own computer). It is about an application
> running
> on your computer silently grabbing a malicious DLL from attacker-controlled
> location
> - possibly on a remote share - and executing its code (i.e., attacker with
> zero
> privileges on user's computer executing code on that computer).
>
> I hope this helps a little.
>
> Cheers,
> Mitja
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: iarethebest (at) gmail (dot) com [email concealed] [mailto:iarethebest (at) gmail (dot) com [email concealed]] On
>> Behalf Of adam
>> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:26 PM
>> To: Thor (Hammer of God)
>> Cc: security (at) acrossecurity (dot) com [email concealed]; Christian Sciberras;
>
>> full-disclosure (at) lists.grok.org (dot) uk [email concealed]; bugtraq (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]
>
>> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft's Binary Planting
>
>> Clean-Up Mission
>>
>> Plus: pretending that you're on the same page as Microsoft
>> (from a security standpoint) to further your own argument is
>> more damaging than it is beneficial. The entire "binary
>> planting" concept was flawed from the very beginning. If you
>> can drop a binary file on a user's machine - make it an
>> executable and be done with it. There's nothing fancy or
>> innovative about forcing applications to use specific DLLs -
>> script kiddies have been doing it for over 10 years to inject
>> custom code in multiplayer games.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Thor (Hammer of God)
>> <thor (at) hammerofgod (dot) com [email concealed]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>       I'm curious.  Who is your contact at MSFT?  Who is it
>> that has told you they have a "Binary Planting Clean-up
>> Mission" and where do they mention you as having anything to
>> do with it?
>>
>>       If you are going to claim MSFT's actions as substantive
>> to your agenda, how about provide some details?
>>
>>       t
>>
>>       > -----Original Message-----
>>       > From: ACROS Security Lists [mailto:lists (at) acros (dot) si [email concealed]]
>>       > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 1:41 PM
>>       > To: 'Christian Sciberras'
>>       > Cc: Thor (Hammer of God); full-disclosure (at) lists.grok.org (dot) uk [email concealed];
>>       > bugtraq (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]
>>
>>       > Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft's Binary
>> Planting Clean-Up Mission
>>       >
>>
>>       > Hey Chris,
>>       >
>>       > > I bet Microsoft actually like stating they just
>> fixed yet another
>>       > > severe bug.
>>       > > Zero-day fixing is big business, you know....even if "zero"
>>       > > is past a few "days".
>>       >
>>       > I don't think Microsoft gains much from being able to
>> say they fixed yet
>>       > another bug
>>       > - maybe if it were a bug they found internally and
>> fixed proactively, but not
>>       > like this. And I'm sure they'd rather be doing
>> something else than fixing:
>>       > fixing a product costs a lot, and it generates no revenue.
>>       >
>>       > Cheers,
>>       > Mitja
>>
>>       _______________________________________________
>>       Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>>       Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>       Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

[ reply ]


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus