To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No. For this (the proposed exploit) to even propagate on the system, he'd need to authorize it to run, which would trigger UAC.
That's the angle from which it's looked at by Microsoft: It cannot be remotely exploited without social engineering, the user needs to have already run the program (And consented with UAC) before any of this is allowed to happen.
You're talking about the program already executing on the users machine, which means UAC has one way or the other already been defeated.
Like I said, in cases of social engineering, if the user is gullible, not one UAC dialog, or ten UAC dialogs will be able to stop him from being exploited.
My understanding was:
The user gets a file such as see_girl_naked.vbs The file runs a script that emulates some key strokes and poof no UAC. But you could have a nice new mail server installed
What should happen is a warning see_girl_naked.vbs wishes to modify your system files click yes to allow. Obviously if you say yes your an idiot and very little can save you.
That's the angle from which it's looked at by Microsoft: It cannot be remotely exploited without social engineering, the user needs to have already run the program (And consented with UAC) before any of this is allowed to happen.
And how do you suppose most malware gets on a user's machine, through osmosis?
If it promises nude pics of Angelina Jolie, they WILL run it! MS needs to make UAC prompt if there are any changes to its setting under ANY circumstances.
Edited 2009-01-31 16:53 UTC





Member since:
2005-06-29
Ah, I see you don't get what this flaw is about.
The problem is that the in the default setting for Windows 7, changes to Windows' settings DO NOT trigger UAC - and this INCLUDES the slider for UAC.
In other words, on admin accounts, with Windows 7's DEFAULT UAC settings, you can maliciously disable UAC without the user ever seeing any prompt whatsoever.
Get it now?