Tespia
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
cm0002@lemmy.world to cybersecurity@infosec.pub · 12 days ago

Windows User Account Control Bypassed Using Character Editor to Escalate Privileges

cybersecuritynews.com

external-link
message-square
17
link
fedilink
1
external-link

Windows User Account Control Bypassed Using Character Editor to Escalate Privileges

cybersecuritynews.com

cm0002@lemmy.world to cybersecurity@infosec.pub · 12 days ago
message-square
17
link
fedilink
A sophisticated new technique that exploits the Windows Private Character Editor to bypass User Account Control (UAC) and achieve privilege escalation without user intervention, raising significant concerns for system administrators worldwide.
alert-triangle
You must log in or register to comment.
  • frongt@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    Lol “carefully crafted sequence”. This is just like back in early versions of Windows where the login screen let you open a help menu, which let you open a file picker, which let you open any file.

    Windows is a pile of shit stacked way too high.

    • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      Brah, other OS’s are full of holes too.

      • That Weird Vegan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        tbh, there’s no decent OS. They all have issues.

        • devfuuu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 days ago

          Clearly haven’t used TempleOS. It was literally given to us by god. It’s perfect.

      • wischi@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        Whataboutism

    • Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      That sounds dangerous. I’ll keep my distance lest that pile topples.

  • mvirts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    Lol I never knew Microsoft considers uac a convince feature not a security boundary

    • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      Then you never thought about it - at least not in relation to who was responsible for it. I mean… because who would think that but Microsoft?

    • ramble81@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      Eh, I kinda see that point. I never considered it a boundary anyway since it didn’t require any additional authentication or authorization. It always felt more like a “here be dragons” warning for people who may not know what their doing, but if you think about it your user context never changes.

      • Nighed@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        It has some level of additional security I think? some remote access apps have issues with them.

        • ChaosMonkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          Yes, by default windows launches UAC prompts in the supposedly isolated “secure desktop” instead of the classical “interactive user desktop”.

          • clb92@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 days ago

            You can also up your UAC security level, so it requires your password, like most Linux distros do. This can (disregarding bypasses like this one) thwart keystroke injection attacks like that from a USB Rubber Ducky.

  • Trapped In America@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    TIL that ResHacking a manifest is “sophisticated” lol

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      They don’t edit the manifest at all?

    • ChaosMonkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      It is not necessary for the attack and was used to illustrate the vulnerable app manifest configuration.

      • Trapped In America@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        Oh, I assumed they edited the manifest to enable the flags. Nvm then.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 days ago

          I thought so as well.

cybersecurity@infosec.pub

cybersecurity@infosec.pub

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !cybersecurity@infosec.pub

An umbrella community for all things cybersecurity / infosec. News, research, questions, are all welcome!

Community Rules

  • Be kind
  • Limit promotional activities
  • Non-cybersecurity posts should be redirected to other communities within infosec.pub.

Enjoy!

Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 7 users / day
  • 21 users / week
  • 87 users / month
  • 188 users / 6 months
  • 0 local subscribers
  • 4.82K subscribers
  • 327 Posts
  • 230 Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • shellsharks@infosec.pub
  • tweedge@infosec.pub
  • BE: 0.19.11
  • Modlog
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org