Newly-Found Windows Bug Affects All Versions Since NT 393
garg0yle writes "A researcher has found a security bug that could allow privilege escalation in Windows. Nothing new there, right? Well, this affects the Virtual DOS Machine, found in every 32-bit version of Windows all the way back to Windows NT. That's 17 years worth of Windows and counting. 'Using code written for the VDM, an unprivileged user can inject code of his choosing directly into the system's kernel, making it possible to make changes to highly sensitive parts of the operating system. ... The vulnerability exists in all 32-bit versions of Microsoft OSes released since 1993, and proof-of-concept code works on the XP, Server 2003, Vista, Server 2008, and 7 versions of Windows, Ormandy reported.'"
Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (Score:3, Funny)
cue hahaha I switched to 64bit the moment I could in....er, now.
Re:Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (Score:5, Funny)
Cue the "cue the" comments in 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3....
Free time. (Score:1, Funny)
This bug was discovered by Tavis Ormandy.
Tavis, you need a girlfriend.
64 Bit (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Free time. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:64 Bit (Score:1, Funny)
Oh, damn! I thought I was saving electricity by using a 32 bit OS.
"OSs released since 1993" (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot makes me sick. It's just not fair to go digging 14 years prior to the date when Microsoft finally starting taking security seriously.
Re:I was RIGHT ! (Score:1, Funny)
I don't know about you, but I don't want all those unemployed former MS-programmers to get down to Linux.
I'm helping to keep the Linux codebase clean and pragmatic by running Windows once in a while and giving a false sense of userdemand.
But seriously though, I have seen alot of "opensource windows clones", they all look like clowns to me in usability and aesthetics.
WOWEXEC is still in use? (Score:3, Funny)
I found it funny that the Google ad displayed next to the article was for Microsoft forefront touting the security features.
http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2010/forefront.jpg
Re:Backward compatibility (Score:3, Funny)
There, fixed that for ya. :)
Re:Free time. (Score:5, Funny)
There's an app for that?
Re:How do we know it's not already in use? (Score:3, Funny)
True. For home users you just pop up a window saying "Click here to install keylogger".
Re:Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (Score:3, Funny)
Cue the "cue the" comments in 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3....
-1? Looks like you just found a bug that's been in Microsoft's Meta Countdown tool. This one goes all the way back to Windows 2.0.
I told you! (Score:4, Funny)
Windows 98SE rules!
Re:How do we know it's not already in use? (Score:1, Funny)
This shows one of Linux's biggest weaknesses, no support for legacy exploits.
Re:Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How do we know it's not already in use? (Score:3, Funny)
Ahhh, Gcc doesn't like the smiley face at the end of line 20
Re:How do we know it's not already in use? (Score:3, Funny)
Windows users are in the dark and fucked.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Re:Only 32-bit Windows builds? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, fuck me for not even reading the summary properly. :p
Nice try, dude. If that really worked, we'd all be getting laid like rock stars.
Re:Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How do we know it's not already in use? (Score:3, Funny)
Since it was a display driver, all you had to do to exploit it was be able to see the screen.
Re:Cue "Windows Sucks" comments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (Score:5, Funny)
More like cue the comments in 3, 2, 5 days, 3 hours, 23 minutes, 8 minutes, 2 hours 15 minutes, 15 seconds, 'Any moment now', 2 years.