IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Yes you can and it is a weak security system
that allows it. If you can run CMD.EXE in the NT/2K/XP/2003 schedule program, it will be run as Admin access. Any program you open from that CLI will get run with Admin access inculding NET.EXE, horror of horrors!

Users can bypass the program install block by installing certain software to their Documents directory which has write access. A real secure system wouldn't even let them run the install program. Some programs check for Admin rights before installing, but some like OOo does not. It is up to the install program to check for access rights before installing.

If the user has access to the Notepad or Wordpad, they can give themselves access to almost anything. Usually by "Viewing Source" in IE, they get a Notepad program, even if their policies and rights disable it. All they do is clear out the HTML source and write in a batch file and save it somewhere writable, like their start menu or documents folder. Then click on it. Create a command to add CMD.EXE to the scheduler, and they can get Admin access or whatever the system runs those programs as.

Also IIS and other programs run as certain users and have a certain level of access that the logged in user may not have. So an ASP web page can be used to write to a file or database, when the user cannot, via IIS.



"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

New Re: Yes you can and it is a weak security system
If you can run CMD.EXE in the NT/2K/XP/2003 schedule program, it will be run as Admin access.
Wrong. The CMD.EXE process will be run as the user that started it, and security will work accordingly.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
     NET SEND to all except a few systems? - (SpiceWare) - (42)
         Send to group -NT - (Silverlock)
         If you send not to machine names, but... - (CRConrad) - (6)
             Re: If you send not to machine names, but... - (deSitter) - (5)
                 "Messenger" != "NET SEND" ? - (CRConrad) - (4)
                     NET SEND Help - (orion)
                     Re: "Messenger" != "NET SEND" ? - (deSitter) - (2)
                         Alternatively... - (pwhysall)
                         So if Darrell's gang use W2K or later, they could try my way -NT - (CRConrad)
         update - (SpiceWare)
         Re: NET SEND to all except a few systems? - (qstephens) - (32)
             ROFL - (deSitter) - (31)
                 It inspires me - (orion) - (30)
                     Re: It inspires me - (deSitter) - (22)
                         On this we agree - (orion)
                         Windows has no user context? - (Arkadiy) - (20)
                             process-level user context - (deSitter) - (19)
                                 I am still at a loss as to what you mean -NT - (Arkadiy) - (18)
                                     A login is a profile - (orion)
                                     Re: I am still at a loss as to what you mean - (deSitter) - (16)
                                         You're much mistaken - (Arkadiy) - (15)
                                             Can you be logged in as two people at once? - (ben_tilly) - (7)
                                                 Not log in, no. - (admin) - (3)
                                                     I'll tuck that away in case I ever need it -NT - (ben_tilly)
                                                     Yes you can and it is a weak security system - (orion) - (1)
                                                         Re: Yes you can and it is a weak security system - (pwhysall)
                                                 Certainly - (Arkadiy) - (2)
                                                     Re: Certainly - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                         You keep hearing yourself, not me - (Arkadiy)
                                             Re: You're much mistaken - (deSitter) - (6)
                                                 What does hiererchy of processes have to do with it? - (Arkadiy) - (5)
                                                     Re: What does hiererchy of processes have to do with it? - (deSitter) - (4)
                                                         I am not sure what NT_AUTHORITY is - (Arkadiy) - (3)
                                                             Except: - (FuManChu) - (2)
                                                                 RIght you are -NT - (Arkadiy)
                                                                 Bottom line - (pwhysall)
                     Careful there . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (5)
                         Does it really? - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                             I don't remember all the details . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                                 The licenses are more forgiving than you think - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                     Really interesting issue - (orion)
                         Bah! I'll make it freeware then. - (orion)
                     that's what I did - (SpiceWare)

Thank you, drive through.
102 ms