Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Fri 8th Aug 2008 13:14 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 326285
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Article leaves out a couple of things ...
by Windows Sucks on Sat 9th Aug 2008 01:13
in reply to "RE: Article leaves out a couple of things ..."
According to everything I have read it does not depend on a vulnerability
"It currently isn't known whether these exploits can be used against older Microsoft Operating Systems, such as Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, but since these techniques do not rely on any one specific vulnerability, Zovi believes that we may suddenly see many similar techniques applied to other platforms or environments."
So it looks as if all you have to do is get a user to run something like a rouge active X control or other scripting function and you are good!
This is BAD, real BAD!
(Edit for spelling)
Edited 2008-08-09 01:15 UTC
RE[3]: Article leaves out a couple of things ...
by casuto on Sat 9th Aug 2008 08:23
in reply to "RE[2]: Article leaves out a couple of things ..."
"It currently isn't known whether these exploits can be used against older Microsoft Operating Systems, such as Windows XP and Windows Server 2003
older operating systems have NOT these extra memory protections, in XP every flaw is always exploitable!
Edited 2008-08-09 08:25 UTC






Member since:
2006-06-03
As far as I can tell...
1. Vista was marketed as having lots of shiny new security features that meant if someone found a vulnerability, they wouldn't be able to use it as a working exploit.
This research shows that once a vulnerability has been found, the extra protections offered by Vista/XPsp3 etc.. can be disabled.
2. Yes