Comments on: Hyperlink insecurity
Exploit Prevention Labs co-founder Roger Thompson has a message for Web surfers: Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Exploit Prevention Labs co-founder Roger Thompson has a message for Web surfers: Be afraid. Be very afraid.
December 2, 2009 1:20 PM PST
December 2, 2009 1:02 PM PST
December 2, 2009 11:51 AM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
Please in future before using passages like "world in grave danger" mention that problem is M$ Windows & Internet Explorer specific.
Not all of us are using Wind0ze. And more and more Windows users come to sense and install Firefox or Opera.
Does the Windows Metafile vulnerability allow the installation of a rootkit when the web browser (which browser?) is run without system administrator permisions?
First, the WMF exploit specifically targets a vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Other browsers, such as Firefox and Opera, are not as vulnerable.
Please keep in mind that exploits are not what we call well-behaved programs. They don't have to play by standard rules. By their very nature, they succeed by blowing up some application (IE in this case) and using it to poke a hole in the OS so that they can do whatever they want.
Hadaso is correct, it is _always_ best to surf the Internet with a lower privilege account. There is little on the down side, except that you may not always be able to easily install software that you _do_ want to install.
In the case of the WMF exploit, being logged in on a lower privilege account probably stops the install because the _common_ payload is just a downloader - but there are others. If the payload were a rootkit, or if the exploit payload involved privilege escalation, anything would be possible, including unwanted installations - even when those privileges aren't expressly allowed by your account.
The best defense, in our estimation, is to never let the exploit into the machine at all, thus keeping computers completely safe from this kind of harm.
Joe Chiarella
Product Manager, Exploit Prevention Labs
with additional insight from Roger Thompson, CTO
Oh, sorry, those were two separate sentences. ;)
Although Mac is hardly free in either sense of the word, it's still built to be more secure than Windows.
And it's a good thing I have Firefox on all my platforms (I'm actually on an MS Windows desktop right now).
When you were doing your testing of how easy it is to be infected were you running under these conditions? Or were you using a more secure method like Firefox, Windows fully updated, and under limited user account.
I understand the WMF exploit you mentioned could have bypassed many of these security practices.
Interesting article. A great shot of paranoia keeps everyone in the IT security field going in the morning. Thanks! :-)
- In response
- by jdgill June 2, 2006 7:13 AM PDT
- To my knowledge the WMF exploit bypassed any permissions and security software (anti virus/anti malware) and caused code to be executed as a high level user (administrator). There are methods of embedding exploit code into a "harmless" jpeg image on a website. The viewing of this jpeg image under any browser compromised the system without the users input. No AV warnings, no certificates, no asking of permission to execute.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(6 Comments)