Re: [Full-disclosure] DLL hijacking with Autorun on a USB drive

[Dan Kaminsky <dan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Charles Morris <cmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Dan Kaminsky <dan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> Again, the clicker can't differentiate word (the document) from  
>> word (the
>> executable).  The clicker also can't differentiate word (the  
>> document) from
>> word (the code equivalent script).
>>
>> The security model people keep presuming exists, doesn't.
>>
>> Even the situation whereby a dll is dropped into a directory of  
>> documents --
>> the closest to a real exploit path there is -- all those docs can be
>> repacked into executables.
>>
>
> What?
>
> I can differentiate my coolProposal.doc from msword.exe just fine..
>

Uh huh. Here, let me go ahead and create 2010 Quarterly  
Numbers.ppt.exe with a changed icon, and see what you notice.


> If your statement is that the windows defaults should be changed,
> including the "hide extensions" default, then I wholeheartedly agree
> as I detailed in my first post. It's the first thing I turn off.
>
> Many people who think the same way have considered that a
> vulnerability in windows for years, I wouldn't consider it part of
> the "DLL Hijacking" fiasco.

Imagine if the browser lock meant arbitrary code could run.

I find your faith in small collections of pixels hilarious.

>
> Cheers,
> Charles

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/