UAC Bypassable or not?

[ifacedown]

I got a white screen with the UAC-bypass sample, is that what's supposed to happen?

To be honest, I don't know. as I said, I am getting my conclusions from a friend who develops an anti-executable software.

I will soon give the link to the video when finished.

 

[nissimezra]

Applies to all software. For example; Firefox can be installed without administrative rights on a standard user account. Doesn't mean it has bypassed UAC, the software just doesn't require those rights. Correct me if I'm wrong. @cruelsister


IMO, while UAC isn't fool-proof, it should serve you fine if you use UAC as part of layered security (ie. AV), with an updated OS including any third-party software. A reckless user will probably run everything they download without checking online resources, ie. VirusTotal etc.

Thnx for the video
In my case i never received any warning at all, i didn't ask to approve anything, within a seconde i hade fake av running on my system even on safe mode,mse was gone.

 

[Ink]

@nissimezra That's doesn't mean UAC was bypassed in your case, as there were many other factors;
- Unpatched Windows OS and IE browser
- Unpatched Java and possibly other browser plugins
- Possibly unpatched other browsers.
Users fault.

Any unpatched software is vulnerable and can be exploited with the right tools. Have you been keeping up with the Java news for the past few years?

 

[nissimezra]

@nissimezra That's doesn't mean UAC was bypassed in your case, as there were many other factors;
- Unpatched Windows OS and IE browser
- Unpatched Java and possibly other browser plugins
- Possibly unpatched other browsers.
Users fault.

Any unpatched software is vulnerable and can be exploited with the right tools. Have you been keeping up with the Java news for the past few years?

yes my friend thats why in all other pc i am not installing java.

 

[Koroke San]

Just use a free firewall with HIPS like online armor/comodo & UAC with common sense together. No need to pay for anti-executable. It's better that i buy a vpn with that money

 

[ifacedown]

Just use a free firewall with HIPS like online armor/comodo & UAC with common sense together. No need to pay for anti-executable. It's better that i but a vpn with that money

Yep, a free firewall with good HIPS like Online Armor Free and PrivateFirewall detects a much wider range of processes than anti-executables.

BUT...

Voodooshield version 2 will include a FREE (totally free) version! Watch out!

 

[Koroke San]

Voodooshield version 2 will include a FREE (totally free) version! Watch out!

good for free users. I have NoVirusThanks EXE Radar Pro but still i don't feel to use it.

 

[nissimezra]

@nissimezra That's doesn't mean UAC was bypassed in your case, as there were many other factors;
- Unpatched Windows OS and IE browser
- Unpatched Java and possibly other browser plugins
- Possibly unpatched other browsers.
Users fault.

Any unpatched software is vulnerable and can be exploited with the right tools. Have you been keeping up with the Java news for the past few years?

let me put it this way, there is no guarantee that UAC will ask for your permission to make changes even if everything is fully update.

 

[Ink]

To the point, though you didn't answer my previous question, when you were infected with a Fake AV (you said), your PC was not up to date (you admitted). Therefore, it does not mean you were infected with a malware that bypassed the UAC. It could have been a Java exploit, or another vulnerability in the OS.

So what are you saying, you'll run the risk of an unpatched Windows, because "there's no guarantee UAC will prompt me"?

PS: In this thread Page #3, there are 2 samples that can bypass the UAC. Tried and tested. - For anyone that missed this.

 

[Nico@FMA]

To the point, though you didn't answer my previous question, when you were infected with a Fake AV (you said), your PC was not up to date (you admitted). Therefore, it does not mean you were infected with a malware that bypassed the UAC. It could have been a Java exploit, or another vulnerability in the OS.

So what are you saying, you'll run the risk of an unpatched Windows, because "there's no guarantee UAC will prompt me"?

PS: In this thread Page #3, there are 2 samples that can bypass the UAC. Tried and tested. - For anyone that missed this.

Exactly as i said earlier (Is this topic still going? <facepalm>) UAC can be bypassed indirectly without user intervention using one of the many exploits available to a unpatched windows, if the OS is uptodate then direct UAC bypass can only happen by tricking the user.
Other then that there are no proven UAC bypass exploits.
Also one has to realize that UAC a exploit does not corrupt a OS like a traditional malware, however most exploits are made to exploit the system when its already penetrated and hooked to a C & C network.
So yes UAC can be bypassed (Which has been proven) but there are a few criteria that must be in place for this to work.
So on a patched windows UAC cannot be bypassed directly without user intervention.

 

[Littlebits]

Users tend to ask the wrong question about UAC which gives the the wrong answer.

Can UAC be bypassed is what most users ask- the answer is yes, there are some hack tools that can bypass UAC but they are remote and are not used in combination to malware infections. Which leads to other questions- can CIS, Sandboxie, AV's and other security products be bypassed?- the answer is yes, any security product can be hacked and bypassed. It is much easier to hack a security software compared to hacking a Windows component like UAC as long as you keep Windows Updated. Hacking a Windows component like UAC requires more work and time so that is why most malware writers will not bother to mess with it.

Does malware use bypassing methods to get around UAC?- the answer is NO- There have never been any reports to Microsoft Malware Research Center that has found one single malware sample that used hacking bypasses. Microsoft Malware Research Center is the largest malware research center in the world with developers from all other AV vendors who share data to stop the spread of malware. The research uses the shared data to add detections to Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool which runs on Windows Updates monthly.

So if someone happened to find a malware sample that actually did bypass UAC, it would have to be remote and not distributed in the wild or it would have been caught by Microsoft Malware Research Center. The most common form which many users call a bypass it actually user error (the user approves the notifications, then forgets). The only exception is a simple password stealing Trojans or keygens that doesn't try to make system changes will sometimes not prompt UAC notifications but still will be blocked by Windows Firewall if they try to sent out data.

Enjoy!!

 

[Nico@FMA]

Users tend to ask the wrong question about UAC which gives the the wrong answer.

Can UAC be bypassed is what most users ask- the answer is yes, there are some hack tools that can bypass UAC but they are remote and are not used in combination to malware infections. Which leads to other questions- can CIS, Sandboxie, AV's and other security products be bypassed?- the answer is yes, any security product can be hacked and bypassed. It is much easier to hack a security software compared to hacking a Windows component like UAC as long as you keep Windows Updated. Hacking a Windows component like UAC requires more work and time so that is why most malware writers will not bother to mess with it.

Does malware use bypassing methods to get around UAC?- the answer is NO- There have never been any reports to Microsoft Malware Research Center that has found one single malware sample that used hacking bypasses. Microsoft Malware Research Center is the largest malware research center in the world with developers from all other AV vendors who share data to stop the spread of malware. The research uses the shared data to add detections to Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool which runs on Windows Updates monthly.

So if someone happened to find a malware sample that actually did bypass UAC, it would have to be remote and not distributed in the wild or it would have been caught by Microsoft Malware Research Center. The most common form which many users call a bypass it actually user error (the user approves the notifications, then forgets). The only exception is a simple password stealing Trojans or keygens that doesn't try to make system changes will sometimes not prompt UAC notifications but still will be blocked by Windows Firewall if they try to sent out data.

Enjoy!!

You said it in exactly the right way and it proves my previous post as i was saying exactly this.
Now i wonder you, me and several others have said exactly the same thing but then in different words...how long does it take before people get it.
As i read back the topic and see the same question like 5 times...

 

[ifacedown]

Hello.

Here's the UAC-bypass video.

 

[Ved]

You said it in exactly the right way and it proves my previous post as i was saying exactly this.
Now i wonder you, me and several others have said exactly the same thing but then in different words...how long does it take before people get it.
As i read back the topic and see the same question like 5 times...

I am being off-topic here; My apologies.

@n.nvt : how is your health condition? I wish you say "good, better, and best"

 

[Littlebits]

Hello.

Here's the UAC-bypass video.

I don't see the bypass, where is it located on the task manager, also task manager should have run as administrator to see all processes, malware will not appear unless "Show Process from All Users" is running.You should use Microsoft Process Monitor to record all process instead using task manager and have it running before Server.exe is started to show that nothing was running before you click Server.exe.

I tried to run this Server.exe on Windows 8.1x64 and it does not run at all. No UAC prompts displayed. Nothing at all was running on the system and no network connections or anything. I had to disable Windows Defender which detected it as a hack tool, SmartScreen also blocked it. I used Process Hacker and Microsoft Process Monitor to record all running processes and nothing at all was recorded. There was no changes made to the system either probably the reason why UAC didn't display a prompt.

So I disabled UAC, SmartScreen and Windows Defender then rebooted and tried to run it again without any protection.
Still nothing it would not run and gave no errors at all no matter how many times that I tried to run it.

So I'm thinking either it is blocked by a recent Windows Update patch or doesn't support x64 systems.
I even tried to load it in a debugger and nothing was displayed.

So I downloaded the file again to make sure I didn't get a corrupted file and extracted it without any protection and still it would not run.

Enjoy!!

 

[Koroke San]

Voodooshield version 2 will include a FREE (totally free) version! Watch out!

when voodoshield gonna make a free version? Isn't they already have a 2.0 version? hmm

 

[ifacedown]

when voodoshield gonna make a free version? Isn't they already have a 2.0 version? hmm

Version 2 is not yet out, I just checked their website.

I think the Free version will come out at the same time version 2 is released.

Just wait, I will tell it to you.

 

[Nico@FMA]

I am being off-topic here; My apologies.

@n.nvt : how is your health condition? I wish you say "good, better, and best"

Going to find out, 14:30 today as i will get all the results of the many tests i did have.
But ill keep you guys updated the moment i got news.

 

[Nico@FMA]

I don't see the bypass, where is it located on the task manager, also task manager should have run as administrator to see all processes, malware will not appear unless "Show Process from All Users" is running.You should use Microsoft Process Monitor to record all process instead using task manager and have it running before Server.exe is started to show that nothing was running before you click Server.exe.

I tried to run this Server.exe on Windows 8.1x64 and it does not run at all. No UAC prompts displayed. Nothing at all was running on the system and no network connections or anything. I had to disable Windows Defender which detected it as a hack tool, SmartScreen also blocked it. I used Process Hacker and Microsoft Process Monitor to record all running processes and nothing at all was recorded. There was no changes made to the system either probably the reason why UAC didn't display a prompt.

So I disabled UAC, SmartScreen and Windows Defender then rebooted and tried to run it again without any protection.
Still nothing it would not run and gave no errors at all no matter how many times that I tried to run it.

So I'm thinking either it is blocked by a recent Windows Update patch or doesn't support x64 systems.
I even tried to load it in a debugger and nothing was displayed.

So I downloaded the file again to make sure I didn't get a corrupted file and extracted it without any protection and still it would not run.

Enjoy!!

Nicely said.
Thing is that as i mentioned in the previous posts that UAC cannot be bypassed from the internet.
So imagine some malware on a webpage, which is loaded with a bypass kinda like payload, then this malware cannot penetrate the system like a drive-by. In nearly 95% of all the cases the code needs to be injected (Merged) within a legit file to gain entree to the victims pc. So here you got your second example that a user needs to facilitate the infection itself in order for it to work.
Also the victims pc needs to fit a certain criteria to be able to be infected in the first place, because action number 3 a user needs to do before their pc can get infected is actually opening the file (or the carrier file).
So thats 3 actions a user needs to take inorder to have ANY bypass work and still this is not a 100% thingy.

There simply is not malware out there that spreads over the net capable of bypassing the UAC without user intervention.
However there are several ones that can bypass it, in a specific scenario and according to specific criteria.
The video shown by ifacedown shows that the "user" activates the "file/malware" which again is a user based action.
Windows has never been designed to protect itself from dangers within, the whole point of UAC is to warn a user against most foreign dangers (considering the pc domestic) and to some critical actions internally.
So any fool can write a exploit to shut down UAC, and execute it by hand, but if you are the hacker and you want to bypass the UAC from your victims pc 2000 miles away... good luck with that.
As its not going to happen anytime soon, unless the person is running stone age windows, on a flinstone config and indian raindance protection ..lmao.

That being said lets assume that there would be a malware on the net that could bypass the UAC core and policy engine, then i can guarantee that this would NOT be possible on a computer running the latest updates, internet security and common sense.
No in order for this to work, you need a person that pickes up a pen to write a email, on the screen while their keyboard is in front of them lmao.
So if you can find that person? then he deserves to be bypassed.
But hey thats just me saying it... but then again what do i know...^^

 

[nissimezra]

To the point, though you didn't answer my previous question, when you were infected with a Fake AV (you said), your PC was not up to date (you admitted). Therefore, it does not mean you were infected with a malware that bypassed the UAC. It could have been a Java exploit, or another vulnerability in the OS.

So what are you saying, you'll run the risk of an unpatched Windows, because "there's no guarantee UAC will prompt me"?

PS: In this thread Page #3, there are 2 samples that can bypass the UAC. Tried and tested. - For anyone that missed this.

Yep admitted, it was around 2 years ago and i can't remember what was up to date, the OS probably not fully up to date and probably java was not, flash i think was.

As I said and from what happened to me I know that it is not 100% that UAC ask for your permission.

Anyway believe in what you want people it's up to you, I was just trying to share something.

Regards