BetaIT-Hub is in early access — your feedback helps us improve. Use the chat or email [email protected]

Latest
Suspicious Polyfill login prompts pop up on Toshiba, Muji websitesBleepingComputer · 1h agoFormer cyber executive turned whistleblower accuses IBM of covering up several data breachesTechCrunch Security · 3h agoCISA: Hackers now exploit SolarWinds Serv-U flaw to crash serversBleepingComputer · 4h agoMiasma Malware Hits 32 Red Hat Packages via Compromised GitHub AccountHackRead · 4h agoChinese APT deploys new malware to keep access to hacked networksBleepingComputer · 5h agoIronWorm and New Miasma Worm Variant Hit npm in Supply Chain AttacksThe Hacker News · 5h agoDark web Nemesis Market vendor gets 26 years for selling drugsBleepingComputer · 5h agoAtlas Menu Data Breach Exposes 64,000 GTA V and CS2 Cheat Service UsersHackRead · 6h agoWeekly Metasploit Update: Apache ActiveMQ RCE, Gogs Rebase RCE, and Windows Kernel Pointer EnumRapid7 · 6h agoSecuring CI/CD in an agentic world: Claude Code Github action caseMicrosoft Security · 6h agoGoogle and FBI warn of ransomware group that sends fake IT workers to hack victims in personTechCrunch Security · 7h agoAndroid Spyware Asin Targets Arabic Users via Fake News, PDF and War Map AppsThe Hacker News · 8h agoOver 900 US gas station tank gauge systems exposed to attacksBleepingComputer · 8h agoNSA said to be readying Anthropic’s Mythos for use in cyber operationsTechCrunch Security · 9h agoWhat 2026 DBIR Confirms: Attacks Are Living in the BrowserBleepingComputer · 9h agoSuspicious Polyfill login prompts pop up on Toshiba, Muji websitesBleepingComputer · 1h agoFormer cyber executive turned whistleblower accuses IBM of covering up several data breachesTechCrunch Security · 3h agoCISA: Hackers now exploit SolarWinds Serv-U flaw to crash serversBleepingComputer · 4h agoMiasma Malware Hits 32 Red Hat Packages via Compromised GitHub AccountHackRead · 4h agoChinese APT deploys new malware to keep access to hacked networksBleepingComputer · 5h agoIronWorm and New Miasma Worm Variant Hit npm in Supply Chain AttacksThe Hacker News · 5h agoDark web Nemesis Market vendor gets 26 years for selling drugsBleepingComputer · 5h agoAtlas Menu Data Breach Exposes 64,000 GTA V and CS2 Cheat Service UsersHackRead · 6h agoWeekly Metasploit Update: Apache ActiveMQ RCE, Gogs Rebase RCE, and Windows Kernel Pointer EnumRapid7 · 6h agoSecuring CI/CD in an agentic world: Claude Code Github action caseMicrosoft Security · 6h agoGoogle and FBI warn of ransomware group that sends fake IT workers to hack victims in personTechCrunch Security · 7h agoAndroid Spyware Asin Targets Arabic Users via Fake News, PDF and War Map AppsThe Hacker News · 8h agoOver 900 US gas station tank gauge systems exposed to attacksBleepingComputer · 8h agoNSA said to be readying Anthropic’s Mythos for use in cyber operationsTechCrunch Security · 9h agoWhat 2026 DBIR Confirms: Attacks Are Living in the BrowserBleepingComputer · 9h ago

Security & IT News

Live

Real-time news from 13+ trusted sources — BleepingComputer, The Hacker News, Krebs on Security, Dark Reading & more.

63 results in Research

🧪 ResearchGoogle Project Zero·113d ago
Bypassing Administrator Protection by Abusing UI Access

In my last blog post I introduced the new Windows feature, Administrator Protection and how it aimed to create a secure boundary for UAC where one didn’t exist. I described one of the ways I was able to bypass the feature before it was released. In total I found 9 bypasses during my research that have now all been fixed. In this blog post I wanted to describe the root cause of 5 of those 9 issues, specifically the implementation of UI Access, how this has been a long standing problem with UAC that’s been under-appreciated, and how it’s being fixed now. A Question of Accessibility Prior to Windows Vista any process running on a user’s desktop could control any window created by another, such as by sending window messages . This behavior could be abused if a privileged user, such as SYSTEM, displayed a user interface on the desktop. A limited user could control the UI and potentially elevate privileges. This was referred to as a Shatter Attack , and was usually fixed by removing user interface components from privileged code. As UAC encouraged running processes at different privilege levels on the same desktop, Microsoft introduced an additional feature, User Interface Privacy Isolation (UIPI). This used the Mandatory Integrity Control feature in UAC to limit what windows a process could interact with. If the integrity level of a process was lower than the process which created a window then it would be blocked from operations such as sending messages to that window. As an additional protection, Vista no longer ran user processes on the “service” desktop so that even if UIPI was inadequate a user interface exposed by a service process was not accessible to limited processes. To take an example, a limited user process has an assigned integrity level of “Medium” while a UAC administrator process is “High”. In this case UIPI would block the limited user process sending messages to any window created by the administrator process, excluding a small set of explicitly permitted messages. It would also block other UI functionality such as windows hooks . This introduced a problem for any user who relied on accessibility technology, such as screen readers. If the accessibility process was running as the limited user it could no longer interact with administrator processes created on the desktop. It would be blocked from both reading the contents of windows as well as performing operations such as clicking a button. This was not an acceptable compromise, so Vista needed a way to allow these applications to continue to work. The solution Microsoft chose was to allocate a flag for the access token of a process called UI Access. If the process’ access token had this flag set when it initialized its connection to the Win32 subsystem, the process would be granted special permissions to bypass many of the restrictions imposed by UIPI. Enabling this flag through a call to NtSetInformationToken with the TokenUIAccess information class was gated behind a check for SE

🧪 ResearchGoogle Project Zero·171d ago
Welcome to the new Project Zero Blog

While on Project Zero, we aim for our research to be leading-edge, our blog design was … not so much. We welcome readers to our shiny new blog! For the occasion, we asked members of Project Zero to dust off old blog posts that never quite saw the light of day. And while we wish we could say the techniques they cover are no longer relevant, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to protect users against zero days. Our new blog will continue to shine a light on the capabilities of attackers and the many opportunities that exist to protect against them. From 2016: Windows Exploitation Techniques: Race conditions with path lookups by James Forshaw From 2017: Thinking Outside The Box by Jann Horn

🧪 ResearchGoogle Project Zero·171d ago
Thinking Outside The Box [dusted off draft from 2017]

Preface Hello from the future! This is a blogpost I originally drafted in early 2017. I wrote what I intended to be the first half of this post (about escaping from the VM to the VirtualBox host userspace process with CVE-2017-3558 ), but I never got around to writing the second half ( going from the VirtualBox host userspace process to the host kernel ), and eventually sorta forgot about this old post draft… But it seems a bit sad to just leave this old draft rotting around forever, so I decided to put it in our blogpost queue now, 8 years after I originally drafted it. I’ve very lightly edited it now (added some links, fixed some grammar), but it’s still almost as I drafted it back then. When you read this post, keep in mind that unless otherwise noted, it is describing the situation as of 2017. Though a lot of the described code seems to not have changed much since then… Introduction VM software typically offers multiple networking modes, including a NAT mode that causes traffic from the VM to appear as normal traffic from the host system. Both QEMU and VirtualBox use forks of Slirp for this. Slirp is described as follows on its homepage: Slirp emulates a PPP or SLIP connection over a normal terminal. This is an actual PPP or SLIP link, firewalled for people’s protection. It makes a quick way to connect your Palm Pilot over the Internet via your Unix or Linux box!!! You don’t need to mess around with your /etc/inetd.conf or your /etc/ppp/options on your system. Slirp is a useful basis for VM networking because it can parse raw IP packets (coming from the emulated network adapter) and forward their contents to the network using the host operating system’s normal, unprivileged networking APIs. Therefore, Slirp can run in the host’s userspace and doesn’t need any special kernel support. Both QEMU and VirtualBox don’t directly use the upstream Slirp code, but instead use patched versions where, for example, the feature for setting up port forwards by talking to a magic IP address is removed. Especially in VirtualBox, the Slirp code has been altered a lot. This post describes an issue in VirtualBox and how it can be exploited. Some parts are specific to the host operating system; in those cases, this post focuses on the situation on Linux. The packet heap in VirtualBox The VirtualBox version of Slirp uses a custom zone allocator for storing packet data, in particular, incoming ethernet frames. Each NAT network interface has its own zone ( zone_clust ) with nmbclusters=1024+32*64=3072 chunks of size MCLBYTES=2048 . The initial freelist of each zone starts at the high-address end of the zone and linearly progresses towards the low-address end. The heap uses inline metadata; each chunk is prefixed with the following structure: struct item { uint32_t magic ; // (always 0xdead0001) uma_zone_t zone ; // (pointer to the zone; uma_zone_t is struct uma_zone *) uint32_t ref_count ; struct { struct type * le_next ; // (next element) struct type ** le_prev ; /