 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Irregular Expressions &#187; vulnerabilities</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/Irregular-Expressions/tag/vulnerabilities/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/Irregular-Expressions</link>
	<description>Insight into current security related events and exploits, including virtualization security and tips.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:00:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Working With Packed / Protected Executables</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/Irregular-Expressions/working-with-packed-protected-executables/</link>
		<comments>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/Irregular-Expressions/working-with-packed-protected-executables/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Aug 2012 05:39:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan O'Connor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[code packer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[packed code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vmware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vmware malware detection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vulnerabilities]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/Irregular-Expressions/?p=873</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First I have to say that I dislike having to do this. My main problem is that if you are going to take the time to pack and attempt to protect your EXE, it&#8217;s obvious that you are up to no good. For legitimate applications there is times when you would want to do this, [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First I have to say that I dislike having to do this.  My main problem is that if you are going to take the time to pack and attempt to protect your EXE, it&#8217;s obvious that you are up to no good.</p>
<p>For legitimate applications there is times when you would want to do this, but if it&#8217;s some random EXE from a payload&#8230; </p>
<p>In my cases I try to avoid working with the source file, I will do as much as possible by running it a lab.  But you can miss timed actions and other types of triggers.  Also there is hardly a magic bullet to deal with these, as a start I use PEiD.  After that is all about what packs that EXE and you tracking it down.  If a generic tool won&#8217;t unpack it you are in for a fun day looking for something.</p>
<p>In other cases if the file is packed all at once, but it does not have any defense mechanisms you can dump the running EXE from memory. Sometimes you can have a file that has multiple sections packed, then you can mix in some anti-analysis tools and its not a enjoyable process.</p>
<!-- wpms-network-global-inserts -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/Irregular-Expressions/working-with-packed-protected-executables/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Windows UAC by-pass</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/Irregular-Expressions/windows-uac-by-pass/</link>
		<comments>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/Irregular-Expressions/windows-uac-by-pass/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:16:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan O'Connor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vulnerabilities]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/Irregular-Expressions/windows-uac-by-pass/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have been reading about this for a little, but this one takes the cake. http://www.pcworld.com/article/211765/microsoft_downplays_nightmare_windows_kernel_flaw.html MS is downplaying the severity of the vulnerability because its not a remote vulnerability in itself and would have to be combined with another vulnerability. That&#8217;s kinda disturbing, its not like it&#8217;s hard to come up with remote execution [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been reading about this for a little, but this one takes the cake.</p>
<p>http://www.pcworld.com/article/211765/microsoft_downplays_nightmare_windows_kernel_flaw.html</p>
<p>MS is downplaying the severity of the vulnerability because its not a remote vulnerability in itself and would have to be combined with another vulnerability.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s kinda disturbing, its not like it&#8217;s hard to come up with remote execution code for windows based system, I bet there has been at least one every two months for who knows how long.</p>
<p>Read it your self and come up with your own opinion.</p>
<p>Enjoy.</p>
<!-- wpms-network-global-inserts -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/Irregular-Expressions/windows-uac-by-pass/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
