Risk

3/29/2010
10:44 AM
50%
50%

Windows 7 Less Vulnerable Without Admin Rights

Most Windows 7 vulnerabilities can be mitigated by administrative rights limitations, report from BeyondTrust finds

Taking away the administrative rights from Microsoft Windows 7 users will lessen the risk posed by 90 percent of the critical Windows 7 vulnerabilities reported to date and 100 percent of the Microsoft Office vulnerabilities reported last year.

It will also mitigate the risk of 94 percent of vulnerabilities reported in all versions of Internet Explorer in 2009 and 100 percent of the vulnerabilities reported in Internet Explorer 8 during the same time period.

Finally, it will reduce the danger posed by 64 percent of all Microsoft vulnerabilities reported last year.

These findings come from a study conducted by BeyondTrust, which perhaps unsurprisingly sells software that restricts administrative privileges. The company argues that companies need its software to protect themselves, particularly during the time between Microsoft's publication of vulnerability information and the application of Microsoft's fixes.

"Enterprises continue to face imminent danger from zero-day attacks as new vulnerabilities are exploited before patches can ever be developed and deployed," said BeyondTrust EVP of corporate development Steve Kelley in a statement. "Our findings reflect the critical role that restricting administrator rights plays in protecting against these types of threats."

The risks poses by unchecked administrative rights aren't exactly new.

Here's what Microsoft had to say about such privileges in 1999: "Unauthorized or unknowledgeable people who have administrator privileges can maliciously or accidentally damage your organization if they copy or delete confidential data, spread viruses, or disable your network. It is vitally important to properly manage the users and groups that have administrative control over the servers and domain controllers in your network."

More than a decade later, that point evidently bears repeating. Indeed, BeyondTrust was saying as much a year ago.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
What We Talk About When We Talk About Risk
Jack Jones, Chairman, FAIR Institute,  7/11/2018
Ticketmaster Breach Part of Massive Payment Card Hacking Campaign
Jai Vijayan, Freelance writer,  7/10/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-14084
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for MKCB, an Ethereum token. If the owner sets the value of sellPrice to a large number in setPrices() then the "amount * sellPrice" will cause an integer overflow in sell().
CVE-2018-14085
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for UserWallet 0x0a7bca9FB7AfF26c6ED8029BB6f0F5D291587c42, an Ethereum token. First, suppose that the owner adds the evil contract address to his sweepers. The evil contract looks like this: contract Exploit { uint public start; function swe...
CVE-2018-14086
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for SingaporeCoinOrigin (SCO), an Ethereum token. The contract has an integer overflow. If the owner sets the value of sellPrice to a large number in setPrices() then the "amount * sellPrice" will cause an integer overflow in sell(...
CVE-2018-14087
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for EUC (EUC), an Ethereum token. The contract has an integer overflow. If the owner sets the value of buyPrice to a large number in setPrices() then the "msg.value * buyPrice" will cause an integer overflow in the fallback functio...
CVE-2018-14088
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for STeX White List (STE(WL)), an Ethereum token. The contract has an integer overflow. If the owner sets the value of amount to a large number then the "amount * 1000000000000000" will cause an integer overflow in withdrawToFounde...