Danger Sampei Nihira Security Config WinXP (POS Ready2009) 2020

[Andy Ful]

Sampei Nihira,

Although you have made a big effort in securing Windows XP, some things cannot be covered:

1. Unpatched Windows XP exploits (especially kernel exploits).
2. The web browser does not have a sandbox.
3. Some applications can be outdated on Windows XP (so have unpatched vulnerabilities). The user has to have additional knowledge to cover these vulnerabilities.

The user's security on such a system (even with additional protection) can highly depend on habits and activities.
If the user has bad luck or does not perform only safe activities, then he/she can be easily redirected to the malicious web page with an exploit kit and finally get a rootkit.

So, this security setup cannot be recommended for most users.
It can be slightly more secure on SUA.

 

[valvaris]

Thank you very much for your considerations.
It will probably amaze you but I would be very interested in a better explanation of:



You can write comfortably, after this post unfortunately I have to unplug until almost certainly Sunday afternoon.
The usual commitments, the family, wife .....

Thanks a lot again.

That is easy to explain @Sampei Nihira -> Collision & broadcast domain

Just to remember a (OSI Layer 2) Switch has per port a collision domain and a (OSI Layer 3) Router separates/connects Broadcast Domains [Depends on manufacturer and build in features] - In real life it is simple to explain (Broadcast Domain) = The smaller the echo the faster the response. (Collision Domain) = [HUB] no real queue and thats why packets can collide on a [Switch] each port is its own Collision Domain and has a queue refereed in technical terms buffer. That is the reason why switches have allot of price points on packet throughput/bandwidth.

Best regards
Val.

 

[Sampei Nihira]

Sampei Nihira,

Although you have made a big effort in securing Windows XP, some things cannot be covered:

1. Unpatched kernel exploits.
2. The web browser does not have a sandbox.
3. Some applications can be outdated on Windows XP (so have unpatched vulnerabilities). The user has to have additional knowledge to cover these vulnerabilities.

The user's security on such a system (even with additional protection) can highly depend on habits and activities.
If the user has bad luck or does not perform only safe activities, then he/she can be easily redirected to the malicious web page with an exploit kit and finally get a rootkit.

So, this security setup cannot be recommended for most users.
It will be more secure (but still not recommended as secure) on SUA.

2) It is irrelevant.
The sandbox with Windows XP does not have 100% functionality as in the post-XP Operating Systems:

Chromium Docs - Sandbox

2a) A kernel exploit also bypasses the sandbox.

3) It is advisable to choose updated softwares which is not subject to a historical bugs that can be exploited remotely.
I follow this methodology.

1) Unpatched kernel exploits - remotely exploitable in the OS.
All my risk softwares are protected by MBAE + OSA.
All Exploit Test Tool (HPA) tests are passed.
(Windows Defender on Windows 10, for example, does not pass all tests.)

However if you know at least 1 exploit kernel exploitable in the wild of remote on Windows XP (after May 2019) please list it.
TH.

.....It will be more secure (but still not recommended as secure) on SUA......

I start the browser + email client with limited-user privileges through PsExec.

________________________________________________

Guys now I really have to disconnect ...

 

[BoraMurdar]

I understand your thinking.
The subforum has as its title:

"Computer Security Configuration"

therefore it is obvious that a judgment on the security configuration of the pc is expected.
When the security configuration is OK ......

Your security configuration is good but made on unsupported OS
It's like building a fort on a landslide. No security solution can help you with flaw in the kernel of the OS or unpatched hole where something may freely exploit whatever you throw on it as it will run on System level.

 

[Sampei Nihira]

Your security configuration is good but made on unsupported OS
It's like building a fort on a landslide. No security solution can help you with flaw in the kernel of the OS or unpatched hole where something may freely exploit whatever you throw on it as it will run on System level.

The only remote access port is the browser.
Do not be influenced by the exploits that act on I.E.8.
My I.E.8 is closed, nothing enters.
And my New Moon only because started in "SUA mode" + Noscript (settings not by default) is able to stop almost everything.
Then there are also the other mitigations.

 

[BoraMurdar]

The only remote access port is the browser.
Do not be influenced by the exploits that act on I.E.8.
My I.E.8 is closed, nothing enters.
And my New Moon only because started in "SUA mode" + Noscript (settings not by default) is able to stop almost everything.
Then there are also the other mitigations.

There are dozens of other pathways where something can go wrong. But you know better. It's your system and you have the free will to use it as it pleases you. Just as MalwareTips have a free will to mark your system RISK: DANGER. May you virtualize your system completely from your data, or just put AVG from 2010 on it, it will be marked the same.

 

[Andy Ful]

2) It is irrelevant.
The sandbox with Windows XP does not have 100% functionality as in the post-XP Operating Systems:
...

1) Unpatched kernel exploits - remotely exploitable in the OS.
All my risk softwares are protected by MBAE + OSA.
All Exploit Test Tool (HPA) tests are passed.
(Windows Defender on Windows 10, for example, does not pass all tests.)

However if you know at least 1 exploit kernel exploitable in the wild of remote on Windows XP (after May 2019) please list it.
TH.





I start the browser + email client with limited-user privileges through PsExec.
...

Sandbox could protect you against the web browser exploits and some Windows XP userland exploits, so the chances of infection would be smaller (still not recommended as secure setup). The same is true for SUA.
Limited user privileges can be easily elevated via Windows userland exploits. Some Windows userland exploits can work even from the web browser with anti-exploit protection.
The danger of possible XP kernel exploits is real even if MS would already patch the known examples. Can you be sure of that for the next exploits?

If you like, then I can say that your setup is secure, if the user can avoid Windows XP exploits.

Edit.
MalwareBytes Anti-Exploit can probably do good work to protect popular web browsers, but it is an open question of how well it can protect your web browser, which is based on the outdated project.
There is no proof that your config will be so vulnerable in the wild, because Windows XP is not as popular target as Windows 7 or Windows 10. But, there are too many questions to accept it as secure and recommended.

 

[bribon77]

The XP Operating System is not safe, but this does not mean that you will be infected by using it.
My two Centimos.

 

[Prorootect]

Hello Sampei Nihira, maybe use these extensions:
Whitelist JavaScript Websites from legacycollector archive: whitelist javascript websites
..and Redirect Control v0.1.3 from github: hjgwmvya/redirect-control

 

[valvaris]

By carefully reading the posts... There is a reason for Enterprises to block [Psexec]!

Here is just an example: PSExec Pass the Hash | Offensive Security

Plus SMBv1 is one way to attack Windows XP "EternalBlue" that was patched of course but you never know -> rapid7/metasploit-framework

That is the reason I suggested a layered approach of network segmentation or even go Firewall Appliance with IPS/IDS, Application Control and so on... Grab stuff before it hits your system. The PC System it self should be the last line of defense!

Sincerely
Val.

 

[ichito]

@ to all Security Staff

Well you have changed the rating of the security configuration of Ichito.

Thanks you guys...I appreciate your efforts

 

[Andy Ful]

Thanks you guys...I appreciate your efforts

I inspected the setup:

Danger - ichito's Setup for Vista 2019

This is my daily security setup on Vista from my laptop...sometime I'm using/testing new (if possible) apps or old ones what happenes quite often (just for fun...sentiment...to remind something). ---------------------------- BTW - SpyShelter and Shadow Defender are the vital components of...

malwaretips.com

It has important advantages over Sampei Nihira setup.

1. Most of Windows Updates can still be made manually.
2. The system is protected by ShadowDefender, which can automatically get rid of all known rootkits (after reboot).

 

[Lenny_Fox]

The discussion about the 'upgraded Windows XP' security label is hilarious. It is like someone putting a roll cage in a Citroen deux chevaux and arguing that his upgraded 2CV is as safe as any modern car and therefore should receive a five star NCAP security label

 

[Andy Ful]

Ha, ha. I think that the author can see it as an old car after a complete renovation and wants to drive on side roads only.
He thinks (probably right) that he can be as safe as driving the modern car in the city. Of course, it does not mean that his car is as secure as modern cars, and additionally, he must know well all the roads.

 

[Sampei Nihira]

Sandbox could protect you against the web browser exploits and some Windows XP userland exploits, so the chances of infection would be smaller (still not recommended as secure setup). The same is true for SUA.
Limited user privileges can be easily elevated via Windows userland exploits. Some Windows userland exploits can work even from the web browser with anti-exploit protection.
The danger of possible XP kernel exploits is real even if MS would already patch the known examples. Can you be sure of that for the next exploits?

If you like, then I can say that your setup is secure, if the user can avoid Windows XP exploits.

Edit.
MalwareBytes Anti-Exploit can probably do good work to protect popular web browsers, but it is an open question of how well it can protect your web browser, which is based on the outdated project.
There is no proof that your config will be so vulnerable in the wild, because Windows XP is not as popular target as Windows 7 or Windows 10. But, there are too many questions to accept it as secure and recommended.

I could enter SandboXIE 3.76 but it is not necessary.

Andy do you know the difference mentioned directly by the old Tzuk developer regarding my operating system and this version of S. compared to the latest operating systems?

....MalwareBytes Anti-Exploit can probably do good work to protect popular web browsers, but it is an open question of how well it can protect your web browser, which is based on the outdated project......

You're talking nonsense.
MBAE has a specific rule for Pale Moon.
The New Moon executable is identical to the Pale Moon executable.
Not to mention that OSA also has a specific anti-exploit rule for Pale Moon.

See the comparison between the "obsolete project" and Firefox:

Mozilla Firefox : Security vulnerabilities, CVEs

Security vulnerabilities of Mozilla Firefox : List of vulnerabilities affecting any version of this product

www.cvedetails.com

Palemoon Pale Moon : Security vulnerabilities, CVEs

Security vulnerabilities of Palemoon Pale Moon : List of vulnerabilities affecting any version of this product

www.cvedetails.com

My version of MBAE Premium was sent to me by Pedro Bustamante in person who confirmed that it is the best performing version for my OS.
Regarding the version that I use of OSA, it is the one that I contributed to make better with the same developer Andreas.
That is, the best one for my OS
You can read the specific 3D in the forum of W.

 

[Sampei Nihira]

By carefully reading the posts... There is a reason for Enterprises to block [Psexec]!

Here is just an example: PSExec Pass the Hash | Offensive Security

Plus SMBv1 is one way to attack Windows XP "EternalBlue" that was patched of course but you never know -> rapid7/metasploit-framework

That is the reason I suggested a layered approach of network segmentation or even go Firewall Appliance with IPS/IDS, Application Control and so on... Grab stuff before it hits your system. The PC System it self should be the last line of defense!

Sincerely
Val.

PsExec is blocked by a specific OSA rule, I wrote I inserted only 2 exceptions.
SMB1 protocol (XP only has that) has been disabled, that too is written in the configuration.

 

[Sampei Nihira]

Hello Sampei Nihira, maybe use these extensions:
Whitelist JavaScript Websites from legacycollector archive: whitelist javascript websites
..and Redirect Control v0.1.3 from github: hjgwmvya/redirect-control

Redundants with Noscript.

 

[RKRN3]

The configurations one shares here are available for many to be viewed (I guess it's visible for non-members as well). Now, you know much more about your system that's why you have 100% faith on your security configuration, but newbies (like me who don't have that much of knowledge here) won't be able to secure like what you have done with your PC. They will just screw their PC in one way or the other. Moreover, new PCs come with Windows 10. Even if someone manages to install XP, it won't activate which will lead them to use pirated software which just defeats the purpose of your security configuration. That's why your configuration has been tagged as Risky since if something happens, you can fix it since you know the stuff but not the newbies like me.

 

[Sampei Nihira]

The configurations one shares here are available for many to be viewed (I guess it's visible for non-members as well). Now, you know much more about your system that's why you have 100% faith on your security configuration, but newbies (like me who don't have that much of knowledge here) won't be able to secure like what you have done with your PC. They will just screw their PC in one way or the other. Moreover, new PCs come with Windows 10. Even if someone manages to install XP, it won't activate which will lead them to use pirated software which just defeats the purpose of your security configuration. That's why your configuration has been tagged as Risky since if something happens, you can fix it since you know the stuff but not the newbies like me.

You are definitely right.
It is a well-known saying that which asserts that the best antimalware is the one that is in front of the PC.

 

[Andy Ful]

Sampei Nihira,
Please ask yourself.

1. Are there unpatched Windows XP vulnerabilities?
2. Can this setup be used without invoking Windows XP exploits?
3. Can OSA + MBAE be very effective for covering Windows XP exploits?

If you will be satisfied with answers, then simply use this setup.
If you want to convince others, then you should prove that the answers to points '2 and 3' are 'Yes and Yes'. Nothing in your posts is close to proving this. Most of your arguments follow from the faith in OSA + MBAE protection.
Some your arguments are evidently false, like for example:
(I have the best version of something) --> (I should be safe).

By the way, some FireFox exploits can possibly work for Palemoon, too. The small number of known Palemoon vulnerabilities, follows from the fact that no one bothered to seek for them.