microsoft

Vista's Security Rendered Completely Useless by New Exploit

Jason Kelley   on 08 August 2008 - 00:30 · 109 comments & 147733 views

Advertisement (Why?)
This week at the Black Hat Security Conference two security researchers will discuss their findings which could completely bring Windows Vista to its knees.

Mark Dowd of IBM Internet Security Systems (ISS) and Alexander Sotirov, of VMware Inc. have discovered a technique that can be used to bypass all memory protection safeguards that Microsoft built into Windows Vista. These new methods have been used to get around Vista's Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), Data Execution Prevention (DEP) and other protections by loading malicious content through an active web browser. The researchers were able to load whatever content they wanted into any location they wished on a user's machine using a variety of objects, such as Java, ActiveX and even .NET objects. This feat was achieved by taking advantage of the way that Internet Explorer (and other browsers) handle active scripting in the Operating System.

While this may seem like any standard security hole, other researchers say that the work is a major breakthrough and there is very little that Microsoft can do to fix the problems. These attacks work differently than other security exploits, as they aren't based on any new Windows vulnerabilities, but instead take advantage of the way Microsoft chose to guard Vista's fundamental architecture. According to Dino Dai Zovi, a popular security researcher, "the genius of this is that it's completely reusable. They have attacks that let them load chosen content to a chosen location with chosen permissions. That's completely game over."

According to Microsoft, many of the defenses added to Windows Vista (and Windows Server 2008) were added to stop all host-based attacks. For example, ASLR is meant to stop attackers from predicting key memory addresses by randomly moving a process' stack, heap and libraries. While this technique is very useful against memory corruption attacks, it would be rendered useless against Dowd and Sotirov's new method. "This stuff just takes a knife to a large part of the security mesh Microsoft built into Vista," said Dai Zovi to SearchSecurity.com. "If you think about the fact that .NET loads DLLs into the browser itself and then Microsoft assumes they're safe because they're .NET objects, you see that Microsoft didn't think about the idea that these could be used as stepping stones for other attacks. This is a real tour de force."

While Microsoft hasn't officially responded to the findings, Mike Reavey, group manager of the Microsoft Security Response Center, said the company has been aware of the research and is very interested to see it once it has been made public. It currently isn't known whether these exploits can be used against older Microsoft Operating Systems, such as Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, but since these techniques do not rely on any one specific vulnerability, Zovi believes that we may suddenly see many similar techniques applied to other platforms or environments. "This is not insanely technical. These two guys are capable of the really low-level technical attacks, but this is simple and reusable," Dai Zovi said. "I definitely think this will get reused soon."

These techniques are being seen as an advance that many in the security community say will have far-reaching implications not only for Microsoft, but also on how the entire technology industry thinks about attacks. Expect to be hearing more about this in the near future and possibly being faced with the prospect of your "secure" server being stripped completely naked of all its protection.

Link: Black Hat Security Conference
Link: How To Impress Girls With Browser Memory Protection Bypasses
Download: Example Code and Tech Paper

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 109 additional comments
(1 reply) #1 EduardValencia on 08 Aug 2008 - 00:46
Ok attacks evolve like this one,that doesen't mean that MS did a bad Job in security for Vista.

Since for the standard vulnerabilities Vista has shown to be the most secure.

Unfortunatley this is a breakthrough.
#1.1 brent3000 on 08 Aug 2008 - 01:44
Noting is un-hackable... MS tryed and someone found a way around... MS do a good job of security... but with the 1,000's trying to hack it... stuff like this is bound to happen...
(2 replies) #2 Marshalus on 08 Aug 2008 - 00:53
I'm going to go cry in a corner now.
#2.1 +warwagon on 08 Aug 2008 - 01:12
Aww
#2.2 EduardValencia on 08 Aug 2008 - 03:09
Use the clown hat,and look to the wall please
(1 reply) #3 abcdefg on 08 Aug 2008 - 00:57
ZOMG! But I Gotz UAC?
#3.1 Laser_iCE on 08 Aug 2008 - 22:14
(abcdefg said @ #3)
ZOMG! But I Gotz UAC?


hahahahahahaha cute
(3 replies) #4 xpgeek on 08 Aug 2008 - 01:04
Sounds pretty frighteningly serious.
#4.1 +Brandon Live on 08 Aug 2008 - 02:37
More like... sounds pretty sensational(ist) to me.
#4.2 vetmarkjensen on 08 Aug 2008 - 03:33
If true, defeating ASLR and DEP are significant. Don't know what steps must be taken to exploit, like what pre-conditions or user actions.

Will need more information before you can say one way or another how serious it is or isn't.
#4.3 +Brandon Live on 08 Aug 2008 - 04:19
(markjensen said @ #4.2)
If true, defeating ASLR and DEP are significant. Don't know what steps must be taken to exploit, like what pre-conditions or user actions.

Will need more information before you can say one way or another how serious it is or isn't.


It's unclear whether they've really "defeated" ASLR or DEP. Those technologies only help protected against a very specific class of attack, and it sounds like maybe they're just talking about a different class of attack (which isn't really a huge deal in of itself, there are tons of different kinds of attacks and vulnerabilities).

Then again, it's all speculation until they actually reveal what the heck they're talking about.
#5 Neoauld on 08 Aug 2008 - 01:06
i think people over exagerate all this
im sure av/firewall software will help
im not gonna sweat this
(6 replies) #6 dhan on 08 Aug 2008 - 01:06
Why do I think that it requires
1. Disable UAC
2. User intervention
to work in the first place.

IBM and VMware - not closest friends of MS anyway.
#6.1 FlishFun on 08 Aug 2008 - 01:37
I'm not so sure about that, since it said "since these techniques do not rely on any one specific vulnerability, Zovi believes that we may suddenly see many similar techniques applied to other platforms or environments." So whatever this is, it might be very, very bad.
#6.2 +/ -Razorfold on 08 Aug 2008 - 01:47
(FlishFun said @ #6.1)
I'm not so sure about that, since it said "since these techniques do not rely on any one specific vulnerability, Zovi believes that we may suddenly see many similar techniques applied to other platforms or environments." So whatever this is, it might be very, very bad.


Nope. For the .dll to run within internet explorer, it has to be marked as safe to run...otherwise you get that nice little yellow window.

Also IE runs by default in protected mode, hence no dll can access anything but IE. If UAC is disabled you won't get that yellow window, and nor will you get IE protected mode.
#6.3 Deviate_X on 08 Aug 2008 - 09:19
(dhan said @ #6)
Why do I think that it requires
1. Disable UAC
2. User intervention
to work in the first place.

IBM and VMware - not closest friends of MS anyway.


You are probably right. The article is very carefully written to hide the fact that you probably have to disable browser isolation (diabale UAC and whatnot) to enable this type of exploit.

What i know is DEP is basically disabled for .NET and Java, this is because Java and .NET need to be able to compile and execute code. Of course for .net or Java to work on XP (or any other OS) they also have to also enable code compiliation and excution.

The exploit: Therefore if you can compromise the .net or java runtime then you can generate any code you want and excute that in the context of that runtime.

Of course this does not enable you to get around 1. UAC or 2. IE protected mode (the default).

However if you use Firefox and have disabled UAC....


#6.4 n_K on 08 Aug 2008 - 20:03
Can I just say the ISS guy is a plank and should not be entitled to an opinion because of him they have scrapped blackICE and screwed thousands of us others, thanks lamer.
#6.5 The_Decryptor on 09 Aug 2008 - 09:20
(Deviate_X said @ #6.3)
...
However if you use Firefox and have disabled UAC....

Firefox doesn't use Active Scripting, that's an IE thing.
#6.6 Deviate_X on 11 Aug 2008 - 11:17
(The_Decryptor said @ #6.5)
(Deviate_X said @ #6.3)
...
However if you use Firefox and have disabled UAC....

Firefox doesn't use Active Scripting, that's an IE thing.


The problem is with java and .net nothing to do with scripting ...
#7 +/ -Razorfold on 08 Aug 2008 - 01:36
Lol what an exageration..

Just like post number 6 says.
#8 mocax on 08 Aug 2008 - 01:52
I'll worry if the server gets compromised just by being switched on.

And I'll also worry if the system administrator uses a server to surf porn and download warez.
(5 replies) #9 Chugworth on 08 Aug 2008 - 02:04
No worries here. I'm running with UAC enabled, and I don't give Admin access to strange code. I think most people don't realize just how powerful UAC is (if used properly).
#9.1 m-p{3} on 08 Aug 2008 - 02:44
(Chugworth said @ #1)
No worries here. I'm running with UAC enabled, and I don't give Admin access to strange code. I think most people realized just how annoying UAC is (if activated).

There, fixed.
#9.2 MioTheGreat on 08 Aug 2008 - 06:11
(m-p{3} said @ #9.1)
(Chugworth said @ #1)
No worries here. I'm running with UAC enabled, and I don't give Admin access to strange code. I think most people realized just how annoying UAC is (if activated).

There, fixed.


Oh. I get it. You're one of those people who think that they're cool 'power users' because they run as Admins all the time, right?
#9.3 ViperAFK on 08 Aug 2008 - 13:51
(MioTheGreat said @ #9.2)
(m-p{3} said @ #9.1)
(Chugworth said @ #1)
No worries here. I'm running with UAC enabled, and I don't give Admin access to strange code. I think most people realized just how annoying UAC is (if activated).

There, fixed.


Oh. I get it. You're one of those people who think that they're cool 'power users' because they run as Admins all the time, right?

Yeah, He has to be doing sonethign strange to get prompts very often... I can go weeks without getting one. And OSX and *Nix do the SAME THING.
#9.4 tiagosilva29 on 09 Aug 2008 - 01:49
(MioTheGreat said @ #9.2)
Oh. I get it. You're one of those people who think that they're cool 'power users' because they run as Admins all the time, right?

Admin accounts get UACed? Is this for real? Aren't admins supposed to do stuff without getting bitched by the system, because were assuming that they are competent?
#9.5 MioTheGreat on 09 Aug 2008 - 02:04
(tiagosilva29 said @ #9.4)
(MioTheGreat said @ #9.2)
Oh. I get it. You're one of those people who think that they're cool 'power users' because they run as Admins all the time, right?

Admin accounts get UACed? Is this for real? Aren't admins supposed to do stuff without getting bitched by the system, because were assuming that they are competent?


It's called Admin approval mode. It causes all code under an Admin account to be executed with "Limited" privileges unless it explicitly asks for Administrative privileges at process launch.

It's proven to be a pretty good exploit mitigator thus far, for both Microsoft and 3rd party security issues.
(1 reply) #10 A Clockwork Lime on 08 Aug 2008 - 02:53
1. Nothing in the article states that it requires UAC to be disabled. That's an assumption on your part.

2. Even if it does, it's a basic principle of security: If you make the security features too restricting, annoying, or unweildly, people -will- disable it. And that makes it a flaw in that security feature, not the people disabling it.
#10.1 +/ -Razorfold on 08 Aug 2008 - 04:23
(A Clockwork Lime said @ #10)
1. Nothing in the article states that it requires UAC to be disabled. That's an assumption on your part.

2. Even if it does, it's a basic principle of security: If you make the security features too restricting, annoying, or unweildly, people -will- disable it. And that makes it a flaw in that security feature, not the people disabling it.


Nope. For the .dll to run within internet explorer, it has to be marked as safe to run by the user or at least has to be installed by the user...otherwise you get that nice little yellow window.

Also IE runs by default in protected mode, hence no dll can access anything but IE. If UAC is disabled you won't get that yellow window, and nor will you get IE protected mode.
(4 replies) #11 Tikitiki on 08 Aug 2008 - 03:00
Wow, they almost make it sound like the world is going to end.

(Waits for response that says the world is going to end)
#11.1 Triliaeris on 08 Aug 2008 - 03:02
(Tikitiki said @ #11)
Wow, they almost make it sound like the world is going to end.

(Waits for response that says the world is going to end)

The world IS going to end now.
#11.2 Mike Frett on 08 Aug 2008 - 03:47
(Tikitiki said @ #11)
Wow, they almost make it sound like the world is going to end.

(Waits for response that says the world is going to end)


I don't know that the world will end, however, Humans will face an uphill battle in the years to come, if they are going to survive.

The future isn't bright, it's quite dim. No shades needed.
#11.3 Tikitiki on 08 Aug 2008 - 04:57
(Mike Frett said @ #11.2)
(Tikitiki said @ #11)
Wow, they almost make it sound like the world is going to end.

(Waits for response that says the world is going to end)


I don't know that the world will end, however, Humans will face an uphill battle in the years to come, if they are going to survive.

The future isn't bright, it's quite dim. No shades needed.


And that's why I got Transitions™
#11.4 +shakey_snake on 08 Aug 2008 - 05:41
(Tikitiki said @ #11.3)
And that's why I got Transitions™

ROFLMAO

Funniest thing I've read all day.
(1 reply) #12 MochiFX on 08 Aug 2008 - 05:13
i sense SkyNet . . .
#12.1 Skynetfuture on 08 Aug 2008 - 11:29
yea ^^ i am here , to end humanity hahah
(1 reply) #13 devHead on 08 Aug 2008 - 06:08
What are these highly reputable companies doing writing code to hack into Windows security features? Now they'll post their findings and how they did it, and truly bad people will start using it.
#13.1 vetmarkjensen on 08 Aug 2008 - 11:32
What are they doing??? Their jobs.

They are supposed to find problems, and responsibly disclose them to the vendor. If they announce that they have found "something", then it also gets them attention, and they can still be in the vendor's good graces, by not releasing the details in a nasty "full disclosure" type situation.
#14 Relativity_17 on 08 Aug 2008 - 06:21
What kind of security expert even thinks the phrase "That's completely game over"? It's never over.

Provides good job security though.
#15 +rm20010 on 08 Aug 2008 - 06:34
Interesting. So somehow this exploit is capable of breaking out of IE's sandbox?
#16 creamhackered on 08 Aug 2008 - 06:35
Ouch, lets see the public exploit though, I bet it has heavy conditions.
(6 replies) #17 guruparan on 08 Aug 2008 - 07:44
There are literally LOTS of HOLES in IBM Softwares too...if MS has team to exploit those..what will happen?
#17.1 vetmarkjensen on 08 Aug 2008 - 11:33
Ah, yes... The "you, too" logical fallacy. If there is a point made, avoid the issue by saying "but so-and-so has problems, too!".
#17.2 ZombieFly on 08 Aug 2008 - 13:20
(markjensen said @ #17.1)
Ah, yes... The "you, too" logical fallacy. If there is a point made, avoid the issue by saying "but so-and-so has problems, too!".


he wasn't avoiding the issue, he was asking a question. albeit a lame one, but your retort was lamer
#17.3 vetmarkjensen on 08 Aug 2008 - 13:40
(ZombieFly said @ #17.2)
(markjensen said @ #17.1)
Ah, yes... The "you, too" logical fallacy. If there is a point made, avoid the issue by saying "but so-and-so has problems, too!".


he wasn't avoiding the issue, he was asking a question. albeit a lame one, but your retort was lamer
Are you not familiar with "Tu Quoque" or other logical fallacies?
Reference: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...-tu-quoque.html

It would be like if there were a news article about an Apple flaw, and an Apple fanboy posted "well Windows has lots of flaws, too!". It is a deflection of the issue, serving only to avoid discussion.

"lame", indeed.
#17.4 thenonhacker on 08 Aug 2008 - 15:01
(markjensen said @ #17.3)
(ZombieFly said @ #17.2)
(markjensen said @ #17.1)
Ah, yes... The "you, too" logical fallacy. If there is a point made, avoid the issue by saying "but so-and-so has problems, too!".


he wasn't avoiding the issue, he was asking a question. albeit a lame one, but your retort was lamer
Are you not familiar with "Tu Quoque" or other logical fallacies?
Reference: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...-tu-quoque.html

It would be like if there were a news article about an Apple flaw, and an Apple fanboy posted "well Windows has lots of flaws, too!". It is a deflection of the issue, serving only to avoid discussion.

"lame", indeed.


"Tu Quoque" <-- It works, especially when mixed with sarcasm!
#17.5 guruparan on 08 Aug 2008 - 20:09
(markjensen said @ #17.1)
Ah, yes... The "you, too" logical fallacy. If there is a point made, avoid the issue by saying "but so-and-so has problems, too!".


I said my view..and i asked how it will be if MS starts to run into others product and show there bugs!?
#17.6 vetmarkjensen on 08 Aug 2008 - 22:40
(guruparan said @ #17.5)
I said my view..and i asked how it will be if MS starts to run into others product and show there bugs!?
Your "view" was just to point to someone else. What a discussion we can have on THAT!

You are free to post whatever you like. But your post was only slightly more relevant than saying "pickles are green".
(1 reply) #18 link8506 on 08 Aug 2008 - 10:03
Wow... this news would fit perfectly in a tabloid!


In fact, it is far to be as serious as it sounds like. It's not a 0day flaw!

This article forgot to say explicitely that there need to be a known flaw in the browser (or any other software) that is ready to be exploited : what these hackers just discovered is a way to make sure the flaw is exploited "successfully" even under vista which was supposed to prevent every buffer overflows exploits with the help of DEP and ASLR. (as opposite to windows xp where these kind of flaw could always be successfully exploited)

So, what does this mean?

if you use vista as an administrator with UAC disabled (no protected mode in IE), if there is a flaw in IE or Firefox, the flaw will be as successfully exploited as under Windows XP

So, Windows Vista with UAC enabled and IE protected mode enabled is still more secure than Windows XP, and users are not more at risk than before.

UAC and Protected mode are still efficient, so these hackers are clearly lying when they say that vista security systems are now completely useless since UAC and protected mode are the two best protection features in vista. Those who have been defeated were only minor protection features.
#18.1 UAC on 08 Aug 2008 - 17:35
(link8506 said @ #1
as opposite to windows xp where these kind of flaw could always be successfully exploited


+1

Last edited by UAC on 08 Aug 2008 - 17:48
#19 DonC on 08 Aug 2008 - 10:06
So the claims of the article are:

  • Multi-browser
  • Works with various scripting technologies
  • Could be reused on other Operating Systems
  • "load chosen content to a chosen location with chosen permissions"

I reckon this is a CPU bug they're utilising. I vaguely recall an article recently about people trying to use scripting languages in the browser to do just this (sorry, I can't remember exactly where - still looking).

EDIT: Found the article at Researcher to demonstrate attack code for Intel chips

Last edited by DonC on 08 Aug 2008 - 10:19
#20 thealexweb on 08 Aug 2008 - 10:47
Microsoft will look at the patch and fix it and also they say there a lots of security holes is all OSs but how many people have ever been affected by them If you have all the necessary security software your pretty much safe.
(4 replies) #21 cork1958 on 08 Aug 2008 - 11:16
I told you Vista flat out sucked!!
#21.1 thealexweb on 08 Aug 2008 - 11:22
Erm no it doesn't all operating systems have security bugs. If you compare the number of bugs Leopard averages more of them.
#21.2 +GreyWolfSC on 08 Aug 2008 - 13:40
(cork1958 said @ #21)
I told you Vista flat out sucked!!

Vista can't force its user to grow a brain.
#21.3 ViperAFK on 08 Aug 2008 - 13:54
ugh, would you stop with the retarded anti vista spam?
#21.4 +rm20010 on 08 Aug 2008 - 16:37
...
(1 reply) #22 andy2004 on 08 Aug 2008 - 11:43
just stop using the internet, cut your internet off and it wont be a problem, can i get neowin delivered by post please ?
#22.1 Xeta on 08 Aug 2008 - 22:28
Sign me up! *puts on tin foil hat*
(1 reply) #23 RanCorX2 on 08 Aug 2008 - 11:50
wouldn't be a problem if people didn't waste their lame lives hacking and creating viruses.
#23.1 vetmarkjensen on 08 Aug 2008 - 13:18
"If there were no malware, or malicious people, the world would sing in joyous harmony and we would all be secure."
(3 replies) #24 ManMountain on 08 Aug 2008 - 12:03
A BIOS update will render the flaw useless.
#24.1 RAID 0 on 08 Aug 2008 - 18:45
Source?
#24.2 vetmarkjensen on 08 Aug 2008 - 18:51
(RAID 0 said @ #24.1)
Source?
Aww, c'mon! This is the internet.

We don't need no steenkin' sources!

Not when people can state items totally outside their realm of knowledge and try to pass it off as fact.
#24.3 ManMountain on 08 Aug 2008 - 23:10
Was referring to possibility that hack circumvents the OS's safeguards via a CPU bug.

E.g http://www.geek.com/images/geeknews/2006Ja...01_21__full.gif

Last edited by ManMountain on 08 Aug 2008 - 23:32
#25 andy2004 on 08 Aug 2008 - 12:04
the more i read this article the more it is scaremongering, and reading this part specifically:

"If you think about the fact that .NET loads DLLs into the browser itself and then Microsoft assumes they're safe because they're .NET objects, you see that Microsoft didn't think about the idea that these could be used as stepping stones for other attacks. This is a real tour de force."

leads to me to believe its a flaw in the way windows handles .net objects ? or a flaw in the .net framework ? why cant you disable .net for internet zone but leave it enabled for trusted sites and local intranet ? that way if you come across a website which uses .net and you trust the website add it to the safe zone ?
(2 replies) #26 ZombieFly on 08 Aug 2008 - 13:14
wtf. could this article be any more sensationalist? it appears to have been written by someone who's been waiting for the day that someone breaks into vista.

It's software, therefore it can always be broken. It's a constant game of cat and mouse and if anyone thought differently of ANY OS out there then basically they are an idiot.

Exploit/Fix/Exploit/Fix x infinity

Bottom line is that vista is the most secure that Windows has ever been. This discovery does not mean everyone should immediately run out and buy a Mac
#26.1 +GreyWolfSC on 08 Aug 2008 - 13:42
(ZombieFly said @ #26)
wtf. could this article be any more sensationalist? it appears to have been written by someone who's been waiting for the day that someone breaks into vista.

It's software, therefore it can always be broken. It's a constant game of cat and mouse and if anyone thought differently of ANY OS out there then basically they are an idiot.

Exploit/Fix/Exploit/Fix x infinity

Bottom line is that vista is the most secure that Windows has ever been. This discovery does not mean everyone should immediately run out and buy a Mac


It's definitely a crap article. It'll be interesting to see what the 'hackers' actually reveal. I'd like to see how they're going to bypass DEP, which is built into the processor. If they can do that, OSX and Linux aren't safe either.
#26.2 vetmarkjensen on 08 Aug 2008 - 13:47
(ZombieFly said @ #26)
Bottom line is that vista is the most secure that Windows has ever been.
Agreed.

(ZombieFly said @ #26)
This discovery does not mean everyone should immediately run out and buy a Mac
No one even mentioned "Apple" or "Mac" until you did.
#27 Xenomorph on 08 Aug 2008 - 13:50
Wow, how can an article say so much, yet say so little?
(1 reply) #28 1759 on 08 Aug 2008 - 14:05
All I really saw were ActiveX, Java, .Net mentioned- not exactly new holes in Windows, and Java is just bad IMO, but ActiveX and .Net strike me as more IE technologies.
#28.1 Fanon on 08 Aug 2008 - 21:36
.NET has nothing to do with being an "IE technology", and it's very rarely ever found to have security problems.

Last edited by Fanon on 08 Aug 2008 - 21:50
(1 reply) #29 thenonhacker on 08 Aug 2008 - 15:03
* Waits for Linux Zealots to do the hard-sell *
#29.1 FrozenEclipse on 10 Aug 2008 - 00:13
The worst zealots are the XP zealots.
(3 replies)