body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScript is not available.

We’ve detected that JavaScript is disabled in this browser. Please enable JavaScript or switch to a supported browser to continue using twitter.com. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Imprint Ads info © 2023 X Corp.

Conversation

Had some fun with this - exploiting the Process Explorer driver for kernel code execution. Will msft ever add to their own blocklist? 🤔 elastic.co/security-labs/

15

212

641

Do you mean \Device\PROCEXP152? It seems that this device can't be opened without a high privilege? I think MSRC may not confirm a LPE if you trigger it with a high privilge🤔

1

2

Yes, that rule is there to not pay researchers. In practice they consider such things vulnerabilities enough to add to their vulnerable drivers blocklist. Well, as long as your name isn't Microsoft.

9:38 AM · Sep 20, 2022