Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy

[Abe Getchell-2]

When the security option "Shutdown: Allow system to be shutdown without
having to log on" (in the local security policy) is set to "Disable", and
the power management setting "When I press the power button" is set to "Shut
Down", it is possible for an unauthenticated user to press the power button
at the Windows logon screen and gracefully shutdown the system. The
explanation of this security option, taken from the local security policy,
is as follows:

"Shutdown: Allow system to be shut down without having to log on

This security setting determines whether a computer can be shut down without
having to log on to Windows.

When this policy is enabled, the Shut Down command is available on the
Windows logon screen.

When this policy is disabled, the option to shut down the computer does not
appear on the Windows logon screen. In this case, *users must be able to log
on to the computer successfully and have the Shut down the system user right
before they can perform a system shutdown*.

Default on workstations: Enabled.
Default on servers: Disabled."

Note the text between the asterisks. While this bug isn't necessarily a
software flaw allowing for an intrusion into the system in a traditional
sense, it does set a bad precedence in that power management has a free pass
to bypass local security policy and perform actions expressly against the
defined policy. It appears that the only impact the use of this security
option actually has is enabling or disabling the display of the "power
button" on the Windows logon screen (locally only - this setting has no
affect on remote desktop connections - the "power button" is not displayed
in either case), not actually preventing anyone from (gracefully) shutting
down the system without logging in.

I reported this to the MSRC on 6/25/2008 and their stance was that this
wasn't a security vulnerability, but was likely a bug, and was passed
directly to the product team to investigate through their normal bug triage
process. After some back and forth, there was silence, and I let them know I
was going to release this information to the community.

This was tested on Windows Vista SP1 (32-bit).

--
Abe Getchell
me@...
https://abegetchell.com/

[Jim Harrison]

Abe,

Other than a denial-of-service from the console (is the power switch now a security vuln, too?), what can you do with this bug?  It's absolutely, unquestionably a "bug"; the user should see behavior as dictated by logic and described in the documentation, but a "security vulnerability"?

I think that's stretching things juuuuuust a bit.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:39 PM
To: bugtraq@...
Subject: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy

When the security option "Shutdown: Allow system to be shutdown without
having to log on" (in the local security policy) is set to "Disable", and
the power management setting "When I press the power button" is set to "Shut
Down", it is possible for an unauthenticated user to press the power button
at the Windows logon screen and gracefully shutdown the system. The
explanation of this security option, taken from the local security policy,
is as follows:

"Shutdown: Allow system to be shut down without having to log on

This security setting determines whether a computer can be shut down without
having to log on to Windows.

When this policy is enabled, the Shut Down command is available on the
Windows logon screen.

When this policy is disabled, the option to shut down the computer does not
appear on the Windows logon screen. In this case, *users must be able to log
on to the computer successfully and have the Shut down the system user right
before they can perform a system shutdown*.

Default on workstations: Enabled.
Default on servers: Disabled."

Note the text between the asterisks. While this bug isn't necessarily a
software flaw allowing for an intrusion into the system in a traditional
sense, it does set a bad precedence in that power management has a free pass
to bypass local security policy and perform actions expressly against the
defined policy. It appears that the only impact the use of this security
option actually has is enabling or disabling the display of the "power
button" on the Windows logon screen (locally only - this setting has no
affect on remote desktop connections - the "power button" is not displayed
in either case), not actually preventing anyone from (gracefully) shutting
down the system without logging in.

I reported this to the MSRC on 6/25/2008 and their stance was that this
wasn't a security vulnerability, but was likely a bug, and was passed
directly to the product team to investigate through their normal bug triage
process. After some back and forth, there was silence, and I let them know I
was going to release this information to the community.

This was tested on Windows Vista SP1 (32-bit).

--
Abe Getchell
me@...
https://abegetchell.com/

[Abe Getchell-2]

As stated in my original e-mail to the list, I definitely don't think that
this is a security vulnerability in a traditional sense. I completely agree
with you. Think about it this way... When you press the power button on the
machine and it performs a graceful shutdown, stuff happens inside of the
operating system. That stuff happens at an elevated privilege level. If
there were some way to hook into the stuff that happens, you (as an
unauthenticated user), could do bad things (besides simply shutting down the
system) using that hook simply by pressing the power button at the logon
screen. For example, if Jim wants to know what Nancy is working on, he could
write a program which e-mails him the contents of her "My Documents" folder
that is triggered by a hook into that process. All Jim needs to do is get
Nancy to run that program on her system (not hard) and walk by her office
when she's not there and hit the power button (also not hard). So what can
_I_ do with this bug? Not much, I'm not that great of a programmer... but I
think someone out there could do some nasty stuff.

--
Abe Getchell
me@...
https://abegetchell.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Harrison [mailto:Jim@...]
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:36 AM
> To: 'me@...'; bugtraq@...
> Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
>
> Abe,
>
> Other than a denial-of-service from the console (is the power switch
> now a security vuln, too?), what can you do with this bug?  It's
> absolutely, unquestionably a "bug"; the user should see behavior as
> dictated by logic and described in the documentation, but a "security
> vulnerability"?
>
> I think that's stretching things juuuuuust a bit.
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:39 PM
> To: bugtraq@...
> Subject: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
>
> When the security option "Shutdown: Allow system to be shutdown without
> having to log on" (in the local security policy) is set to "Disable",
> and
> the power management setting "When I press the power button" is set to
> "Shut
> Down", it is possible for an unauthenticated user to press the power
> button
> at the Windows logon screen and gracefully shutdown the system. The
> explanation of this security option, taken from the local security
> policy,
> is as follows:
>
> "Shutdown: Allow system to be shut down without having to log on
>
> This security setting determines whether a computer can be shut down
> without
> having to log on to Windows.
>
> When this policy is enabled, the Shut Down command is available on the
> Windows logon screen.
>
> When this policy is disabled, the option to shut down the computer does
> not
> appear on the Windows logon screen. In this case, *users must be able
> to log
> on to the computer successfully and have the Shut down the system user
> right
> before they can perform a system shutdown*.
>
> Default on workstations: Enabled.
> Default on servers: Disabled."
>
> Note the text between the asterisks. While this bug isn't necessarily a
> software flaw allowing for an intrusion into the system in a
> traditional
> sense, it does set a bad precedence in that power management has a free
> pass
> to bypass local security policy and perform actions expressly against
> the
> defined policy. It appears that the only impact the use of this
> security
> option actually has is enabling or disabling the display of the "power
> button" on the Windows logon screen (locally only - this setting has no
> affect on remote desktop connections - the "power button" is not
> displayed
> in either case), not actually preventing anyone from (gracefully)
> shutting
> down the system without logging in.
>
> I reported this to the MSRC on 6/25/2008 and their stance was that this
> wasn't a security vulnerability, but was likely a bug, and was passed
> directly to the product team to investigate through their normal bug
> triage
> process. After some back and forth, there was silence, and I let them
> know I
> was going to release this information to the community.
>
> This was tested on Windows Vista SP1 (32-bit).
>
> --
> Abe Getchell
> me@...
> https://abegetchell.com/
>
>

[Thor (Hammer of God)]

If Jim is going to get Nancy to run a program, and that's "not all that
hard," then why not just have that program do what you want in the first
place rather than worrying about the power switch nonsense?  This is the
one million and fourth time:  "If your 'vulnerability' begins with 'if I
can get the user to run code' then whatever comes after the 'then'
doesn't matter.  Period."

t

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 12:33 AM
> To: 'Jim Harrison'; bugtraq@...
> Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
>
> As stated in my original e-mail to the list, I definitely don't think
> that
> this is a security vulnerability in a traditional sense. I completely
> agree
> with you. Think about it this way... When you press the power button

on
> the
> machine and it performs a graceful shutdown, stuff happens inside of
> the
> operating system. That stuff happens at an elevated privilege level.
If

> there were some way to hook into the stuff that happens, you (as an
> unauthenticated user), could do bad things (besides simply shutting
> down the
> system) using that hook simply by pressing the power button at the
> logon
> screen. For example, if Jim wants to know what Nancy is working on, he
> could
> write a program which e-mails him the contents of her "My Documents"
> folder
> that is triggered by a hook into that process. All Jim needs to do is
> get
> Nancy to run that program on her system (not hard) and walk by her
> office
> when she's not there and hit the power button (also not hard). So what
> can
> _I_ do with this bug? Not much, I'm not that great of a programmer...
> but I
> think someone out there could do some nasty stuff.
>
> --
> Abe Getchell
> me@...
> https://abegetchell.com/
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Harrison [mailto:Jim@...]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:36 AM
> > To: 'me@...'; bugtraq@...
> > Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
> >
> > Abe,
> >
> > Other than a denial-of-service from the console (is the power switch
> > now a security vuln, too?), what can you do with this bug?  It's
> > absolutely, unquestionably a "bug"; the user should see behavior as
> > dictated by logic and described in the documentation, but a

"security

> > vulnerability"?
> >
> > I think that's stretching things juuuuuust a bit.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:39 PM
> > To: bugtraq@...
> > Subject: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
> >
> > When the security option "Shutdown: Allow system to be shutdown
> without
> > having to log on" (in the local security policy) is set to

"Disable",

> > and
> > the power management setting "When I press the power button" is set
> to
> > "Shut
> > Down", it is possible for an unauthenticated user to press the power
> > button
> > at the Windows logon screen and gracefully shutdown the system. The
> > explanation of this security option, taken from the local security
> > policy,
> > is as follows:
> >
> > "Shutdown: Allow system to be shut down without having to log on
> >
> > This security setting determines whether a computer can be shut down
> > without
> > having to log on to Windows.
> >
> > When this policy is enabled, the Shut Down command is available on
> the
> > Windows logon screen.
> >
> > When this policy is disabled, the option to shut down the computer
> does
> > not
> > appear on the Windows logon screen. In this case, *users must be

able

> > to log
> > on to the computer successfully and have the Shut down the system
> user
> > right
> > before they can perform a system shutdown*.
> >
> > Default on workstations: Enabled.
> > Default on servers: Disabled."
> >
> > Note the text between the asterisks. While this bug isn't

necessarily
> a
> > software flaw allowing for an intrusion into the system in a
> > traditional
> > sense, it does set a bad precedence in that power management has a
> free
> > pass
> > to bypass local security policy and perform actions expressly
against

> > the
> > defined policy. It appears that the only impact the use of this
> > security
> > option actually has is enabling or disabling the display of the
> "power
> > button" on the Windows logon screen (locally only - this setting has
> no
> > affect on remote desktop connections - the "power button" is not
> > displayed
> > in either case), not actually preventing anyone from (gracefully)
> > shutting
> > down the system without logging in.
> >
> > I reported this to the MSRC on 6/25/2008 and their stance was that
> this
> > wasn't a security vulnerability, but was likely a bug, and was

passed
> > directly to the product team to investigate through their normal bug
> > triage
> > process. After some back and forth, there was silence, and I let
them

> > know I
> > was going to release this information to the community.
> >
> > This was tested on Windows Vista SP1 (32-bit).
> >
> > --
> > Abe Getchell
> > me@...
> > https://abegetchell.com/
> >
> >
>

[Abe Getchell-2]

So, you guys don't think it's an issue that power management in Vista
(apparently) has a pass to bypass local security policy?

--
Abe Getchell
me@...
https://abegetchell.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thor (Hammer of God) [mailto:thor@...]
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 6:20 PM
> To: me@...; Jim Harrison; bugtraq@...
> Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
>
> If Jim is going to get Nancy to run a program, and that's "not all that
> hard," then why not just have that program do what you want in the
> first
> place rather than worrying about the power switch nonsense?  This is
> the
> one million and fourth time:  "If your 'vulnerability' begins with 'if
> I
> can get the user to run code' then whatever comes after the 'then'
> doesn't matter.  Period."
>
> t
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 12:33 AM
> > To: 'Jim Harrison'; bugtraq@...
> > Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
> >
> > As stated in my original e-mail to the list, I definitely don't think
> > that
> > this is a security vulnerability in a traditional sense. I completely
> > agree
> > with you. Think about it this way... When you press the power button
> on
> > the
> > machine and it performs a graceful shutdown, stuff happens inside of
> > the
> > operating system. That stuff happens at an elevated privilege level.
> If
> > there were some way to hook into the stuff that happens, you (as an
> > unauthenticated user), could do bad things (besides simply shutting
> > down the
> > system) using that hook simply by pressing the power button at the
> > logon
> > screen. For example, if Jim wants to know what Nancy is working on,
> he
> > could
> > write a program which e-mails him the contents of her "My Documents"
> > folder
> > that is triggered by a hook into that process. All Jim needs to do is
> > get
> > Nancy to run that program on her system (not hard) and walk by her
> > office
> > when she's not there and hit the power button (also not hard). So
> what
> > can
> > _I_ do with this bug? Not much, I'm not that great of a programmer...
> > but I
> > think someone out there could do some nasty stuff.
> >
> > --
> > Abe Getchell
> > me@...
> > https://abegetchell.com/
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jim Harrison [mailto:Jim@...]
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:36 AM
> > > To: 'me@...'; bugtraq@...
> > > Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
> > >
> > > Abe,
> > >
> > > Other than a denial-of-service from the console (is the power
> switch
> > > now a security vuln, too?), what can you do with this bug?  It's
> > > absolutely, unquestionably a "bug"; the user should see behavior as
> > > dictated by logic and described in the documentation, but a
> "security
> > > vulnerability"?
> > >
> > > I think that's stretching things juuuuuust a bit.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:39 PM
> > > To: bugtraq@...
> > > Subject: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
> > >
> > > When the security option "Shutdown: Allow system to be shutdown
> > without
> > > having to log on" (in the local security policy) is set to
> "Disable",
> > > and
> > > the power management setting "When I press the power button" is set
> > to
> > > "Shut
> > > Down", it is possible for an unauthenticated user to press the
> power
> > > button
> > > at the Windows logon screen and gracefully shutdown the system. The
> > > explanation of this security option, taken from the local security
> > > policy,
> > > is as follows:
> > >
> > > "Shutdown: Allow system to be shut down without having to log on
> > >
> > > This security setting determines whether a computer can be shut
> down
> > > without
> > > having to log on to Windows.
> > >
> > > When this policy is enabled, the Shut Down command is available on
> > the
> > > Windows logon screen.
> > >
> > > When this policy is disabled, the option to shut down the computer
> > does
> > > not
> > > appear on the Windows logon screen. In this case, *users must be
> able
> > > to log
> > > on to the computer successfully and have the Shut down the system
> > user
> > > right
> > > before they can perform a system shutdown*.
> > >
> > > Default on workstations: Enabled.
> > > Default on servers: Disabled."
> > >
> > > Note the text between the asterisks. While this bug isn't
> necessarily
> > a
> > > software flaw allowing for an intrusion into the system in a
> > > traditional
> > > sense, it does set a bad precedence in that power management has a
> > free
> > > pass
> > > to bypass local security policy and perform actions expressly
> against
> > > the
> > > defined policy. It appears that the only impact the use of this
> > > security
> > > option actually has is enabling or disabling the display of the
> > "power
> > > button" on the Windows logon screen (locally only - this setting
> has
> > no
> > > affect on remote desktop connections - the "power button" is not
> > > displayed
> > > in either case), not actually preventing anyone from (gracefully)
> > > shutting
> > > down the system without logging in.
> > >
> > > I reported this to the MSRC on 6/25/2008 and their stance was that
> > this
> > > wasn't a security vulnerability, but was likely a bug, and was
> passed
> > > directly to the product team to investigate through their normal
> bug
> > > triage
> > > process. After some back and forth, there was silence, and I let
> them
> > > know I
> > > was going to release this information to the community.
> > >
> > > This was tested on Windows Vista SP1 (32-bit).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Abe Getchell
> > > me@...
> > > https://abegetchell.com/
> > >
> > >
> >

[Jim Harrison]

It's about reality & priorities.

What we're both saying is:
1. it's a bug and should be fixed in accordance with its impact on real (not imagined) functionality & security
2. unless this provides some exploit that doesn't start with "if I can install software on the host", it's not more than "a bug in a security mechanism"

If someone can demonstrate an actual vulnerability or exploit on the basis of this bug _alone_, then they may have something to make noise about.  There are enough real bugs and security vulns in software to deal with.  Not every security issue spells doom and damnation or warrants immediate corrective response from the vendor.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:32 PM
To: 'Thor (Hammer of God)'; Jim Harrison; 'Johan Beisser'
Cc: bugtraq@...
Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy

So, you guys don't think it's an issue that power management in Vista
(apparently) has a pass to bypass local security policy?

--
Abe Getchell
me@...
https://abegetchell.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thor (Hammer of God) [mailto:thor@...]
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 6:20 PM
> To: me@...; Jim Harrison; bugtraq@...
> Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
>
> If Jim is going to get Nancy to run a program, and that's "not all that
> hard," then why not just have that program do what you want in the
> first
> place rather than worrying about the power switch nonsense?  This is
> the
> one million and fourth time:  "If your 'vulnerability' begins with 'if
> I
> can get the user to run code' then whatever comes after the 'then'
> doesn't matter.  Period."
>
> t
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 12:33 AM
> > To: 'Jim Harrison'; bugtraq@...
> > Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
> >
> > As stated in my original e-mail to the list, I definitely don't think
> > that
> > this is a security vulnerability in a traditional sense. I completely
> > agree
> > with you. Think about it this way... When you press the power button
> on
> > the
> > machine and it performs a graceful shutdown, stuff happens inside of
> > the
> > operating system. That stuff happens at an elevated privilege level.
> If
> > there were some way to hook into the stuff that happens, you (as an
> > unauthenticated user), could do bad things (besides simply shutting
> > down the
> > system) using that hook simply by pressing the power button at the
> > logon
> > screen. For example, if Jim wants to know what Nancy is working on,
> he
> > could
> > write a program which e-mails him the contents of her "My Documents"
> > folder
> > that is triggered by a hook into that process. All Jim needs to do is
> > get
> > Nancy to run that program on her system (not hard) and walk by her
> > office
> > when she's not there and hit the power button (also not hard). So
> what
> > can
> > _I_ do with this bug? Not much, I'm not that great of a programmer...
> > but I
> > think someone out there could do some nasty stuff.
> >
> > --
> > Abe Getchell
> > me@...
> > https://abegetchell.com/
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jim Harrison [mailto:Jim@...]
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:36 AM
> > > To: 'me@...'; bugtraq@...
> > > Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
> > >
> > > Abe,
> > >
> > > Other than a denial-of-service from the console (is the power
> switch
> > > now a security vuln, too?), what can you do with this bug?  It's
> > > absolutely, unquestionably a "bug"; the user should see behavior as
> > > dictated by logic and described in the documentation, but a
> "security
> > > vulnerability"?
> > >
> > > I think that's stretching things juuuuuust a bit.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:39 PM
> > > To: bugtraq@...
> > > Subject: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
> > >
> > > When the security option "Shutdown: Allow system to be shutdown
> > without
> > > having to log on" (in the local security policy) is set to
> "Disable",
> > > and
> > > the power management setting "When I press the power button" is set
> > to
> > > "Shut
> > > Down", it is possible for an unauthenticated user to press the
> power
> > > button
> > > at the Windows logon screen and gracefully shutdown the system. The
> > > explanation of this security option, taken from the local security
> > > policy,
> > > is as follows:
> > >
> > > "Shutdown: Allow system to be shut down without having to log on
> > >
> > > This security setting determines whether a computer can be shut
> down
> > > without
> > > having to log on to Windows.
> > >
> > > When this policy is enabled, the Shut Down command is available on
> > the
> > > Windows logon screen.
> > >
> > > When this policy is disabled, the option to shut down the computer
> > does
> > > not
> > > appear on the Windows logon screen. In this case, *users must be
> able
> > > to log
> > > on to the computer successfully and have the Shut down the system
> > user
> > > right
> > > before they can perform a system shutdown*.
> > >
> > > Default on workstations: Enabled.
> > > Default on servers: Disabled."
> > >
> > > Note the text between the asterisks. While this bug isn't
> necessarily
> > a
> > > software flaw allowing for an intrusion into the system in a
> > > traditional
> > > sense, it does set a bad precedence in that power management has a
> > free
> > > pass
> > > to bypass local security policy and perform actions expressly
> against
> > > the
> > > defined policy. It appears that the only impact the use of this
> > > security
> > > option actually has is enabling or disabling the display of the
> > "power
> > > button" on the Windows logon screen (locally only - this setting
> has
> > no
> > > affect on remote desktop connections - the "power button" is not
> > > displayed
> > > in either case), not actually preventing anyone from (gracefully)
> > > shutting
> > > down the system without logging in.
> > >
> > > I reported this to the MSRC on 6/25/2008 and their stance was that
> > this
> > > wasn't a security vulnerability, but was likely a bug, and was
> passed
> > > directly to the product team to investigate through their normal
> bug
> > > triage
> > > process. After some back and forth, there was silence, and I let
> them
> > > know I
> > > was going to release this information to the community.
> > >
> > > This was tested on Windows Vista SP1 (32-bit).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Abe Getchell
> > > me@...
> > > https://abegetchell.com/
> > >
> > >
> >

[Abe Getchell-2]

I understand all of that, which is precisely the reason I put it out there.
The example I put forth might have been a bad one (given that it relies on
an additional piece of code to be installed on a target machine), but
there's probably more to this issue than I can deduce. I'll let those more
versed in that area of security figure it out. As a side note, check out
some of the conversations on the Linux Kernel mailing list about power
management and security. Interesting stuff.

--
Abe Getchell
me@...
https://abegetchell.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Harrison [mailto:Jim@...]
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:33 PM
> To: 'me@...'; 'Thor (Hammer of God)'; 'Johan Beisser'
> Cc: bugtraq@...
> Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
>
> It's about reality & priorities.
>
> What we're both saying is:
> 1. it's a bug and should be fixed in accordance with its impact on real
> (not imagined) functionality & security
> 2. unless this provides some exploit that doesn't start with "if I can
> install software on the host", it's not more than "a bug in a security
> mechanism"
>
> If someone can demonstrate an actual vulnerability or exploit on the
> basis of this bug _alone_, then they may have something to make noise
> about.  There are enough real bugs and security vulns in software to
> deal with.  Not every security issue spells doom and damnation or
> warrants immediate corrective response from the vendor.
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:32 PM
> To: 'Thor (Hammer of God)'; Jim Harrison; 'Johan Beisser'
> Cc: bugtraq@...
> Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
>
> So, you guys don't think it's an issue that power management in Vista
> (apparently) has a pass to bypass local security policy?
>
> --
> Abe Getchell
> me@...
> https://abegetchell.com/
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thor (Hammer of God) [mailto:thor@...]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 6:20 PM
> > To: me@...; Jim Harrison; bugtraq@...
> > Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
> >
> > If Jim is going to get Nancy to run a program, and that's "not all
> that
> > hard," then why not just have that program do what you want in the
> > first
> > place rather than worrying about the power switch nonsense?  This is
> > the
> > one million and fourth time:  "If your 'vulnerability' begins with
> 'if
> > I
> > can get the user to run code' then whatever comes after the 'then'
> > doesn't matter.  Period."
> >
> > t
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 12:33 AM
> > > To: 'Jim Harrison'; bugtraq@...
> > > Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
> > >
> > > As stated in my original e-mail to the list, I definitely don't
> think
> > > that
> > > this is a security vulnerability in a traditional sense. I
> completely
> > > agree
> > > with you. Think about it this way... When you press the power
> button
> > on
> > > the
> > > machine and it performs a graceful shutdown, stuff happens inside
> of
> > > the
> > > operating system. That stuff happens at an elevated privilege
> level.
> > If
> > > there were some way to hook into the stuff that happens, you (as an
> > > unauthenticated user), could do bad things (besides simply shutting
> > > down the
> > > system) using that hook simply by pressing the power button at the
> > > logon
> > > screen. For example, if Jim wants to know what Nancy is working on,
> > he
> > > could
> > > write a program which e-mails him the contents of her "My
> Documents"
> > > folder
> > > that is triggered by a hook into that process. All Jim needs to do
> is
> > > get
> > > Nancy to run that program on her system (not hard) and walk by her
> > > office
> > > when she's not there and hit the power button (also not hard). So
> > what
> > > can
> > > _I_ do with this bug? Not much, I'm not that great of a
> programmer...
> > > but I
> > > think someone out there could do some nasty stuff.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Abe Getchell
> > > me@...
> > > https://abegetchell.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jim Harrison [mailto:Jim@...]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:36 AM
> > > > To: 'me@...'; bugtraq@...
> > > > Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security
> Policy
> > > >
> > > > Abe,
> > > >
> > > > Other than a denial-of-service from the console (is the power
> > switch
> > > > now a security vuln, too?), what can you do with this bug?  It's
> > > > absolutely, unquestionably a "bug"; the user should see behavior
> as
> > > > dictated by logic and described in the documentation, but a
> > "security
> > > > vulnerability"?
> > > >
> > > > I think that's stretching things juuuuuust a bit.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:39 PM
> > > > To: bugtraq@...
> > > > Subject: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
> > > >
> > > > When the security option "Shutdown: Allow system to be shutdown
> > > without
> > > > having to log on" (in the local security policy) is set to
> > "Disable",
> > > > and
> > > > the power management setting "When I press the power button" is
> set
> > > to
> > > > "Shut
> > > > Down", it is possible for an unauthenticated user to press the
> > power
> > > > button
> > > > at the Windows logon screen and gracefully shutdown the system.
> The
> > > > explanation of this security option, taken from the local
> security
> > > > policy,
> > > > is as follows:
> > > >
> > > > "Shutdown: Allow system to be shut down without having to log on
> > > >
> > > > This security setting determines whether a computer can be shut
> > down
> > > > without
> > > > having to log on to Windows.
> > > >
> > > > When this policy is enabled, the Shut Down command is available
> on
> > > the
> > > > Windows logon screen.
> > > >
> > > > When this policy is disabled, the option to shut down the
> computer
> > > does
> > > > not
> > > > appear on the Windows logon screen. In this case, *users must be
> > able
> > > > to log
> > > > on to the computer successfully and have the Shut down the system
> > > user
> > > > right
> > > > before they can perform a system shutdown*.
> > > >
> > > > Default on workstations: Enabled.
> > > > Default on servers: Disabled."
> > > >
> > > > Note the text between the asterisks. While this bug isn't
> > necessarily
> > > a
> > > > software flaw allowing for an intrusion into the system in a
> > > > traditional
> > > > sense, it does set a bad precedence in that power management has
> a
> > > free
> > > > pass
> > > > to bypass local security policy and perform actions expressly
> > against
> > > > the
> > > > defined policy. It appears that the only impact the use of this
> > > > security
> > > > option actually has is enabling or disabling the display of the
> > > "power
> > > > button" on the Windows logon screen (locally only - this setting
> > has
> > > no
> > > > affect on remote desktop connections - the "power button" is not
> > > > displayed
> > > > in either case), not actually preventing anyone from (gracefully)
> > > > shutting
> > > > down the system without logging in.
> > > >
> > > > I reported this to the MSRC on 6/25/2008 and their stance was
> that
> > > this
> > > > wasn't a security vulnerability, but was likely a bug, and was
> > passed
> > > > directly to the product team to investigate through their normal
> > bug
> > > > triage
> > > > process. After some back and forth, there was silence, and I let
> > them
> > > > know I
> > > > was going to release this information to the community.
> > > >
> > > > This was tested on Windows Vista SP1 (32-bit).
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Abe Getchell
> > > > me@...
> > > > https://abegetchell.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
>

[James C. Slora, Jr.]

So is this the bottom line?

This is a security mechanism bug that might lead to privilege escalation
for arbitrary user processes. The OP has left it for others to determine
exploitability.

[Jim Harrison]

You can't waste your time chasing things that "might lead to cats & dogs living together in sin".  Specifically, there's no "privilege escalation" beyond that which began with "if I install..."  It's pretty well understood that once you have the ability to place your own code on a machine, it's "game over".

Don'tet me wrong; I think it's quite valid for someone to report something they feel is a vuln; even (or maybe even especially) if they can't demonstrate an exploit based on it.  There have been plenty of reports herein and without that were actually proven by others.  This is one of the things that makes open discussion so valuable.

So far, no one has demonstrated an exploit that depends on this behavior _alone_.

Jim

________________________________________
From: James C. Slora Jr. [james.slora@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:15 AM
To: bugtraq@...
Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy

So is this the bottom line?

This is a security mechanism bug that might lead to privilege escalation
for arbitrary user processes. The OP has left it for others to determine
exploitability.

[Abe Getchell-2]

Correct. Power management in Windows Vista is apparently given a pass to
bypass local security policy, which is a bad thing, and sets a bad
precedence. I will leave it to others to exploit this security issue, given
that I know little about the programmatic aspect of power management in
Windows. There are people out there much more capable than me who, if they
feel it warranted, can research the issue further. I don't consider it, as
Jim Harrison would say, "wasting your time chasing things that 'might lead
to cats & dogs living together in sin'", but rather "security research" and
"sharing information". I don't consider Jim's reaction surprising at all,
though, as he works for Microsoft.

--
Abe Getchell
me@...
https://abegetchell.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James C. Slora Jr. [mailto:james.slora@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:15 AM
> To: bugtraq@...
> Subject: RE: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy
>
> So is this the bottom line?
>
> This is a security mechanism bug that might lead to privilege
> escalation
> for arbitrary user processes. The OP has left it for others to
> determine
> exploitability.
>

[Good Securitypractice]

People in this discussion have been focusing on the technical aspects
rather than the people aspect.

The current power management system is MUCH more secure because people
do not have to be given an account on the machine for them to shut it
down.

This is helpful when an admin can not get to a machine that has to be
gracefully shutdown because of an impending power outage or
thunderstorms.  This can be a home computer, a computer in a dorm
room, a server in a hosting environment etc.

This is also very helpful in a kiosk environment where no one at the
place can be trusted with usernames and passwords to the computer.

As an example the computer operators in our server room do not have a
username or password on the servers but can gracefully bring them down
by pressing the power button.  Not having a username and password
shared amongst multiple operators or giving multiple operators access
to a server is not a good security practice either, especially on
sensitive computers.

Some people will say physical access is enough to compromise security
but we have cameras that record any unauthorized physical tampering.

[Greg-157]

-----Original Message-----
From: Abe Getchell [mailto:me@...]
Sent: Friday, 18 July 2008 12:39 PM
To: bugtraq@...
Subject: Windows Vista Power Management & Local Security Policy

> When the security option "Shutdown: Allow system to be shutdown without
having to log on" (in the local security policy) is set to "Disable", and
> the power management setting "When I press the power button" is set to
"Shut Down", it is possible for an unauthenticated user to press the power
> button at the Windows logon screen and gracefully shutdown the system. The
explanation of this security option, taken from the local security policy,
> is as follows:

I came into this late but I just had to comment on the above - apologies if
it already happened.

Since Win ME, you have been able to push the power button to gracefully shut
down the computer (note I am not talking about servers that may have been
altered by people with a clue but just home computers, terminals in an
office that don't have someone looking after them who knows what they are
doing etc). In some cases where, for whatever reason, the computer goes
crappy and loses contact with the keyboard and mouse, this has been the way
to shut it down without risking data by turning the power off or hitting the
reset button.

Personally, I don't feel that scenario is a risk because the person is there
to begin with to press the button. There comes a point where the person to
blame for a security issue must be the person who hired the one pushing the
button to shut the machine down. Not everyone is honest but if you hire
staff you have to assume they are going to do something stupid, even if
accidentally, from time to time. I would prefer someone able to shut the
machine down by pushing the button. I can't see why I would have to get up
and drive 90 minutes to do that to a machine that is playing up when the
person reporting that problem to me is presumably standing in front of it.