Re: Microsoft Firewall vs ????
- From: Rat River Cemetary <dead@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:19:57 GMT
Volker Birk wrote:
Hi,
for my part: first I wrote http://www.dingens.org/breakout.c (for IE6)
and http://www.dingens.org/breakout-mozilla-firefox.c (for Firefox 1.x).
After that, at least Zone Alarm and Comodo tinkered again. Then I wrote
breakout-wp.cpp - and they lost again.
This topic is somewhat boring now.
Yours,
VB.
Man on the inside says this.
"Neither the batch commands, nor the .c programs are remote exploits of a firewall. The batch files just seems to copy prefs.js around the system, it doesn't attain Admin from a limited user nor does it execute code on remote sysems, so it's not an exploit. Ditto for the .c programs, they just send messages to other windows, windows is designed to allow that. That is not demostration of a remote exploit or local privilege escalation exploit.
Also, in Vista you can't send a high integrity process (admin services and programs with admin privileges) a message from a lower integrity processes, like say medium integrity (non-UAC prompting programs) processes or low integrity processes (sandboxed programs like IE7). And neither can low integrity processes send message to medium integrity processes.
Ergo, something like this might work in XP but not in Vista if you run as the system was designed to run (with UAC on).
What you asked about is Vista, and these are not Vista exploits."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Microsoft Firewall vs ????
- From: Volker Birk
- Re: Microsoft Firewall vs ????
- References:
- Re: Microsoft Firewall vs ????
- From: Victek
- Re: Microsoft Firewall vs ????
- From: Sebastian G.
- Re: Microsoft Firewall vs ????
- From: Rat River Cemetary
- Re: Microsoft Firewall vs ????
- From: Volker Birk
- Re: Microsoft Firewall vs ????
- Prev by Date: Re: Microsoft Firewall vs ????
- Next by Date: Re: Microsoft Firewall vs ????
- Previous by thread: Re: Microsoft Firewall vs ????
- Next by thread: Re: Microsoft Firewall vs ????
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|