Researcher Finds Simple Way of Backdooring Windows PCs and Nobody Notices for Ten Months (zdnet.com) 94
A security researcher from Colombia has found a way of gaining admin rights and boot persistence on Windows PCs that's simple to execute and hard to stop -- all the features that hackers and malware authors are looking for from an exploitation technique. From a report: What's more surprising, is that the technique was first detailed way back in December 2017, but despite its numerous benefits and ease of exploitation, it has not received either media coverage nor has it been seen employed in malware campaigns. Discovered by Sebastian Castro, a security researcher for CSL, the technique targets one of the parameters of Windows user accounts known as the Relative Identifier (RID). The RID is a code added at the end of account security identifiers (SIDs) that describes that user's permissions group. There are several RIDs available, but the most common ones are 501 for the standard guest account, and 500 for admin accounts.
Castro, with help from CSL CEO Pedro Garcia, discovered that by tinkering with registry keys that store information about each Windows account, he could modify the RID associated with a specific account and grant it a different RID, for another account group. The technique does not allow a hacker to remotely infect a computer unless that computer has been foolishly left exposed on the Internet without a password. But in cases where a hacker has a foothold on a system -- via either malware or by brute-forcing an account with a weak password -- the hacker can give admin permissions to a compromised low-level account, and gain a permanent backdoor with full SYSTEM access on a Windows PC.
Castro, with help from CSL CEO Pedro Garcia, discovered that by tinkering with registry keys that store information about each Windows account, he could modify the RID associated with a specific account and grant it a different RID, for another account group. The technique does not allow a hacker to remotely infect a computer unless that computer has been foolishly left exposed on the Internet without a password. But in cases where a hacker has a foothold on a system -- via either malware or by brute-forcing an account with a weak password -- the hacker can give admin permissions to a compromised low-level account, and gain a permanent backdoor with full SYSTEM access on a Windows PC.
Cite please? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can we have a link to material that might verify this claim?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Cite please? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Linux has a similarly catastrophic security hole :
Once you get root access, edit /etc/passwd and change the uid for your username to 0.
Persistent root access for your unprivileged user!
Re:Cite please? (Score:5, Insightful)
Precisely.
"Hey everyone I have a Windows backdoor!!! Just give me admin access and let me edit your registry file."
Where is the news?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is to retain administrative access while not being detected, the extra complication is not useless if it reduces the chance of the backdoor being detected (and thus removed, resulting in you losing administrative access).
Re: (Score:2)
Any admin worth their salt is just going to monitor usage of administrative privileges, so if a user who is not supposed to have those privileges suddenly uses them, it's pretty clear what is going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the whole point, many people are simply monitoring users who are in the administrators group - and this attack creates a user with administrative privileges while not being a member of the group. If your monitoring depends on such criteria, then this attack defeats it.
No monitoring strategy is flawless, there are so many things you could keep track of but you also need to eliminate the noise generated by legitimate activity. If you just log everything you'll be flooded with data all day long, if yo
Re:Cite please? (Score:4, Informative)
Can we have a link to material that might verify this claim?
A search of "RID Hijacking" revealed (among other things) a commit to metaploit on Feb 20. [github.com] (likely merged in from a fork)
Git commit dates can be faked so there is also an announcement from @BlackHatEvents about it from June 24. [twitter.com]
I'm quite inclined to believe their claim.
Re:Cite please? (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Remote Access (Score:2)
But in cases where a hacker has a foothold on a system -- via either malware or by brute-forcing an account with a weak password
If that's the case, I don't think the hacker needs to worry much about mucking around in the Registry to get administrative access.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing I can think of is that you could allow an application "registry access" when you're looking at the requested permissions.
So like a phone says "This application wants access to your GPS location" you might be willing to grant it GPS location but not microphone data. So you could grant a user registry access thinking that it's a one time limited permission of the installer to modify the registry but instead you end up with an application creating an admin level account.
Then again... a keylogge
Re: (Score:2)
You don't grant an installer just registry access, you grant it all access.
There's nothing stopping the installer from using the regular API's for modifying local users after you've given it local admin access.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're missing the point of the back door. Sure, it doesn't enable the attacker to anything he couldn't otherwise do right now, but you don't necessarily want to do anything right now. This could be because the machine doesn't have the information you want to steal yet, or because you want to interfere with something the user may be involved with in the future (e.g., conducting a military or political campaign).
The problem is just because you can get in now doesn't guarantee that the system won't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you want guarantees, hacking isn't for you.
If you can add someone to the administrator group. (Score:5, Funny)
"Oh yes, I thought of something," panted Ford.
Arthur looked up expectantly.
"But unfortunately," continued Ford, "it rather involved being on the other side of this airtight hatchway."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could be thought of as a very slight issue.
Someone could combine a privilege escalation attack with this to persist a user that is an admin, without visibility. E.g. they would essentially be in the "Administrators" group without showing up in that group.
Yes, this is incredibly sensationalized for what it is. There are far bigger risks if some rogue process or actor has administrative privileges to begin with. Once you're owned, you are already owned.
Why bother granting admin privileges (Score:1)
What I would really like to see (Score:1)
is a worm/virus that installs linux on a target system (overwriting windows) with a background that says something like:
"You're too stupid to be allowed to run windows"
Re: (Score:3)
"You're too stupid to be allowed to run windows, so here's something that's harder to use and easier to fuck up"
Good one.
There is nothing to notice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If I could force one change on Linux, I would make the root uid random/settable per system.
It's too easy to fuckup having the uid be the default value of unused memory.
For example, when I was first learning Linux I setup a fax-to-web server with every step under its own user. Fax modem to raw image was FAXRCV, raw image to pages/thumbnails/ocr processing was FAXIMG, images/data to intranet site was FAXSRV; each only had access to the programs/paths needed for their job.
But I launched them all using a progra
Re: (Score:2)
and now you've learnt to validate your inputs.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that would work the way you expect. Under *nix, there's nothing special about the username "root". You can change it to anything you want and it still works the same. The magic is in the userid of 0 and changing it the way you suggest would require that every program that needs elevated privileges would have to be rewritten to find out what that userid is on this system every time it's invoked, add
Re: (Score:2)
Or can change UIDs in /etc/passwd. That's the Linux equivalent of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Except /etc/passwd is an easily human readable text file, making such a change trivially easy to notice.
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing their job fantastically.
That being "post click-bait headlines to increase ad revenue"
Stupid (Score:2)
This is dumb. The exploit requires you break into the system by other means. And if you're successful with that, why the hell would you need this after you've already compromised the system?
Millenial discovers user and group permissions? (Score:2)
Bit of a lack of detail (Score:2)
But it doesn't say a low privilege account can run this exploit.
Sounds more like "admin level account can give admin access to non-admin account" issue. Which you can do anyway...
Now if the guest account had permission to alter those registry keys, that would be more serious. No where do they say that's the case.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have admin rights, you can grant them (Score:2)
Once again... (Score:1)
With UEFI one can hide a root kit (Score:1)
If no one can see the problem here, they're avoiding it.
https://blogs.technet.microsof... [microsoft.com]
for an encore (Score:2)
he went on to show that `sudo passwd root` was a privilege elevation exploit.
welp (Score:1)