Windows 7 UAC flaw silently elevates malware access

Back to the article

Anonymous Coward

so #

Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 23:03 GMT

"bypassing the operating system's UAC, or user access control"

it simply involves waiting a week until they get so pissed off with it, that they disable it :)

vincent himpe

cake ? #

Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 01:56 GMT

should have called it 'pie.exe'. As in: use 'catapult' to apply 'pie' to 'face' ...

Brian

@SO #

Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 03:06 GMT

That is so true. All these stories about bypassing UAC and we are all going to turn it off anyway.

Dan Podeanu

Oh dear is +setuid time again #

Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 06:31 GMT

Haven't we been through this since Unix has had the setuid flag on executables ? "A suid program must be careful not to execute anything with elevated privileges" (or write files really carefully, sanitize arguments and so on). Do we really have to go through it again, until MS learns ?

I wish they would hire a couple of Unix guys to help them get a clue. Seriously.

Anonymous Coward

Back to Vista UAC? #

Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 10:30 GMT

It seems that by trying to make UAC prompt less, it is making it a lot less secure. Should Windows 7 revert to Vista's type of UAC by default?

Having said that, users still shouldn't be running those dodgy applications - no safeguards in the system that protects users from themselves should be relied upon.

Nano nano

User friction #

Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 10:30 GMT

They should try it the other way round - make non-admin tasks a hassle under an admin account.

Then people might use a non-privileged account for everyday stuff. (Ok, sysadmins ...!)

But it's hard to change people's mindset - I still come across developers brought up on Windows, when using Linux, logged in to 'root' for their normal work.

Alexis Vallance

Here we go again #

Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 10:30 GMT

So, another version of Windows which is about as secure as the last. Which is as secure as Windows 95.

Microsoft will never ever release an OS which is just secure out of the box.

Steven Raith

Cake.dll #

Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 10:39 GMT

It was DLLicious cake, and it had a CPU timeslice.

(Sorry.)

IGMC - it's the one with the copy of Portal in the pocket.

Steven R

Shakje

Oh dear #

Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 12:55 GMT

Someone found a vulnerability in a beta? Isn't that the whole point?

The Fuzzy Wotnot

B-E-T-A! Let me repeat that. B-E-T-A! #

Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 13:19 GMT

Hey, I'm no Windows fan but it does say on the "box" when you download it "Windows 7 BETA"! You are MS guinea pigs, it is for MS to test if it works. This is exactly the sort of thing they want to come out. So if you're stupid enough to rely on a beta O/S to run you production stuff and keep your important info safe, then sorry but you deserve everything you get quite frankly!

Play with it by all means, but please don't think you're getting a free copy of Vista Ultimate SP2 for nothing, it comes at a price.

I am looking forward to the day the beta program closes and all those people who loaded W7 and got used to it won't be able to get to their files unless they punch in a credit card number first! Mwahhahahah! "All your data is belong to us!".

Dominik Mierzejewski

Why not just make the initial user account unprivileged? #

Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 14:10 GMT

In my limited testing, working as a regular unprivileged user is pretty smooth. When I want to do an administrative task, UAC asks me for Administrator password. I don't understand why that can't be the default.

TeeCee

Re: setuid #

Posted Thursday 5th February 2009 14:10 GMT

Or, in other words: It's a piece of piss to do this on a UNIX system as well, once you've got your calling program installed with the correct owner and flags set.

The only thing left to work out is whether that's a harder exercise than getting the trusted, digitally signed calling program onto Win 7........

Matthew