A brief discussion of Windows Vista’s IE Protected Mode (and user/process level security)

I was discussing the recent QuickTime bug on Matasano Chargen, and the question of whether it would work in the presence IE7 + Vista and protected mode came up. I figured a more in depth explanation as to just what IE7’s Protected Mode actually does might be in order, hence this posting.

One of the new features introduced with Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista is something called “Protected Mode” (or “IE Protected Mode”). It’s an on-by-default security that is sold as something that greatly hardens Internet Explorer against meaningful exploitation, even if an exploitable hole in IE (or a component of IE, such as an ActiveX control) is found.

Let’s dig in a little bit deeper as to what IE Protected Mode is (and isn’t), and what it means for you.

First things first. Protected mode is not related to the “enhanced security configuration” that is introduced in Windows Server 2003 in any way. The “enhanced security configuration” IE included with Srv03 is, at its core, just a set of more restrictive (i.e. locked down) default settings with regard to things like scripting, downloading files, and soforth. Protected mode does not rely on locking down security zone settings to the point where you cannot download files or run any scripts by default, and is completely unrelated to the IE hardening work done in the default Srv03 configuration. I’d imagine that protected mode will probably be included in Longhon Server, but the underlying technologies are very different, and are designed to address different “market segments” (“enhanced security configuration” being just a set of more restrictive defaults, whereas protected mode is a fundamental rethink of how the browser interacts with the rest of the operating system).

Protected mode is a feature that is designed to make “surfing the web a safer experience” for end users. Unlike Srv03, where a locked down IE might fly because you are ostensibly not supposed to be doing lots of fancy web-browser-ish things from a server box, end users are clearly not going to take kindly towards not being permitted to download files, run JavaScript, and soforth in the default configuration.

The way protected mode takes a stab at making things better for the end users of the world is to build upon the new “integrity level” security mechanism that has been introduced into the Windows NT security model starting with Vista, with the goal of making the web browser an “untrusted” process that cannot perform “dangerous” things.

To understand what this means, it’s necessary to know what these new-fangled “integrity levels” in Vista are all about. Integrity levels are assigned to a token representing a user, and tokens are assigned to a process (and can be impersonated by a thread, typically something done by something like an IPC server process that needs to perform something on behalf of a lesser-privileged caller). What’s meaningful about integrity levels is that they allow you to partition what we know of as a “user” into something with multiple different “trust levels” (low, medium, high, with several other infrequently-used levels), such that a thread or a process running as a certain integrity level (or “trust level”) cannot “intefere” with something running at a higher integrity level.

The way this is implemented is by an additional level of security check that is performed when some kind of access rights check is performed. This additional check compares the integrity level of the caller (i.e. the thread or process token’s integrity level) with a new type of field in the security descriptor of the target object (called the “mandatory label“) that specifies what sorts of access a caller of a certain integrity level is allowed to request. The “mandatory label” allows an integrity level to be associated with an object for security checks, and allows three basic policies (lower integrity levels cannot request read access, low integrity levels cannot request write access, lower integrity levels cannot request execute access) to be set, comparing the integrity level of a caller against the integrity level specified with an object’s security descriptor. (Only these three generic access rights may be “guarded” by the integrity level in this way; there is no granularity to allow object specific access rights to be given specific minimum caller integrity levels).

The default settings in most places do not allow write access to be granted to processes of a lower integrity level, and the default minimum integrity level is usually “medium”. The new, label/integrity level access check is performed before conventional ACL-based checks.

In this respect, integrity levels are an attempt to inject something of a sort of process-level security into the NT security model.

If you’re at all familiar with how NT security works, this may be a bit new to you. NT is based upon user-level security, where processes (and threads, in the case of impersonation) run under the context of a user, and derive their security rights (i.e. what securable objects they have access to – files, directories, registry keys, and soforth) and privileges (i.e. the ability to shut down the system, the ability to load a driver, the ability to bypass ACL checks for backup/restore, and soforth) from the user context they run under. The thinking behind this sort of model is that each distinct user on a system will run as, well, a different user. Processes from one user cannot interfere with processes (or files, directories, and soforth) running as a different user, without being granted access to do so (i.e. via an ACL, or by special, administrator-level privileges). The “operating system” (i.e. the services and programs that support the system) conceptually runs as yet another “user”, and is thus ostensibly protected from adverse modifications by malicious users on the system. Each user thus exists in a sort of sandbox, unable to interfere with any other user. Conversely, any process running as a particular user can do anything to any other process (or file or directory) owned by that same user; there is no protection within a user security context.

Obviously, this is a gross oversimplification of the NT security model, but it gets the point across (or so I hope!): The security system in NT revolves around the user as the means to control access in a meaningful fashion. This does make sense in environments like large corporate settings, where many users share the same computer (or where computers are centrally managed), such that users cannot interfere with eachother, and ostensibly cannot attack their computers (i.e. the operating system) because they are running as “plain users” without administrator access and cannot perform “dangerous” tasks.

Unfortunately, in the era of the internet, exploitable software bugs, and computers with end users that run code they do not entirely trust, this model isn’t quite as good as we would like. Because the user is the security boundary, here, if an attacker can run code under your user account, they have full access to all of the processes, files, directories (and soforth) that are accessible to that user. And if that user account happened to be a computer administrator account, then things are even worse; now the attacker has free reign over the entire computer, and everything on it (including all other users present on the box).

Clearly, this isn’t such a great situation, especially given the reality that many users run untrusted code (or more generally, buggy or exploitable code) on a frequent basis. In this Internet-enabled age, user-level security as it has been traditionally implemented isn’t really enough.

There are still ways to make things “work” with user-level security; namely, to give each human several user accounts, specific to the task that they are doing. For example, I might have one user account that I use for browsing and games, and another user account that I use for accessing top secret corporate documents. If the user account that I use to browse the Internet with gets compromised somehow, such as by my running an exploitable program and getting “owned”, then my top secret corporate documents are still safe; the malicious code running under the Internet-browsing-and-games account doesn’t have access to do anything to my secret documents, since they are owned by a different account and the default ACL protects them from other users.

Of course, this is a tough pill to expect end users to swallow; having to switch user accounts as they switch between tasks of differing importance is at best inconvenient and at worst confusing and problematic (for example, if I want to download a file from the Internet for use with my top secret corporate documents, I have to go to (comparatively) a lot of trouble to give it to my other user, and doing so opens an implicit trust relationship between my secret-documents-user and my less-trusted-Internet-browsing user, that the program I just downloaded is 1) not inherently malicious, 2) not tampered with or compromised, and 3) not full of exploitable holes that would put my documents at risk anyway the moment my secret-documents-user runs it). Clearly, while you could theoretically still get by with user level access in today’s world, as a single user, doing so as it is implemented in Windows today is a major pain (and even with everyone’s best intentions, few people I have seen really follow through completely with the concept and do not share programs or files between their users in any way whatsoever).

(Note that I am not suggesting that things like running as nonadmin or breaking tasks up into different users are a lost cause, just that to get things truly right and secure, it is a much more difficult job than one might expect initially, so much so that most “joe users” will not stand a chance at doing it perfectly. I’m also not trying to knock on user-level security as just outright flawed, useless, or broken, but the fact remains there are problems in today’s world that merit additonal consideration.)

Whew, that’s a rather long segway into user-level security. Anyways, protected mode is Microsoft’s first real attempt to tackle this problem – the fact that user level security does not always provide fine enough granularity, in the fact of untrusted or buggy programs – in a consumer-level system, in such a way that is palatable to “joe users”. The way that it works is to leverage the integrity level mechanism to create an additonal security barrier between the user’s web browser (i.e. Internet Explorer in protected mode) and the rest of the user’s files and programs. This is done by assigning the IE process a low integrity level. Following with what we know of integrity levels above, this means that the IE process will be denied access (by the security manager in the kernel) to do things like overwrite your documents, place malicious programs in your “startup” Start Menu directory, overwrite executables in your system directory (of course, if you were already running as a plain user, it wouldn’t be able to do this anyway…), and soforth. This is clearly a good thing. In case the implications haven’t fully sunk in yet:

If an attacker compromises a low integrity process, they should not be able to destroy your data or install a trojan (or other malicious code) on your system*.

(*: This is, of course, barring implementation errors, design oversights, and local privilege escalation holes. The latter may prove to be an especially important sticking point, as many companies (Microsoft included) have often “looked down” upon local privilege escalation bugs as relatively not important to fix in a timely fashion. Perhaps the introduction of process-level security control will help add impetus to shatter the idea that leaving local privilege escalation holes sitting around is okay.)

Now, this is a very important departure from where we have been traditionally with user level access control. Combining per process access control with per user access control allows us to do a lot more to protect users from malicious code and buggy software (in other words, protecting users from themselves), in a fashion that is much easier to deal with from a user perspective.

However, I think it would be premature to say that we’re “all the way there” yet. Protected mode and low integrity level processes are definitely a great step in the right direction, but there still remain issues to be solved. For example, as I alluded to previously, the default configuration allows medium integrity objects to still be opened for read access by low integrity callers. This means that, for example, if an attacker compromises an IE process running in protected mode, they still do have a chance at doing some damage. For instance, even though an attacker might not be able to destroy your data, per-se, he or she can still read it (and thus steal it). So, to continue with our previous example of someone who works with top secret corporate documents, an attacker might not be able to wipe out the company financial records, or joe user’s credit card numbers, but he or she could still steal them (and post them on the Internet for anyone to see, or what have you). In other words, an attacker who compromises a low integrity process can’t destroy all your data (as would be the case if there were no process-level security and we were dealing with just one user account), but he or she can still read it and steal it.

There are other things to watch out for, too, with protected mode. Don’t get into the habit of clicking “OK” on that “are you sure you want this program to run outside of IE Protected Mode” dialog box, or you’re setting yourself up to be burned by clever malware. And certainly never click the “don’t ask me again” check box on the consent dialog, or you’re just begging for some piece of malware to abuse your implicit consent without you even realizing that something’s gone wrong. (In case you’re wondering, the mechanism in IE that allows processes to elevate to medium integrity involves an appcompat hook on CreateProcess that requests a medium integrity process (ieuser.exe) to prompt the user for consent, with the medium integrity process creating the process if the user agrees. So user interaction is still required there, though we know how much users love to click “OK” on all those pesky security warnings. Oh, and there is also some hardening that has been done in win32k.sys to prevent lower integrity processes from sending “dangerous” window messages to higher integrity processes (even WM_USER and friends are disabled by default across an integrity level boundary), so “shatter attacks” ought not to work against the consent dialog. Note that if you bypass the appcompat hook, the new process created is also low integrity, and won’t be able to write to anywhere outside of the “low integrity” sandbox writable files and directories.)

So, while running IE in protected mode does, in some respects limit the damage that can be done if you get compromised, I would still recommend not running untrusted programs under the same user account as your important documents (if you really care that much). Perhaps in a future release, we’ll see a solution that addresses the idea of not allowing untrusted programs to read arbitrary user data as well (such should be possible with proper use of the new integrity level mechanisms, although I suspect the true difficulty shall be in getting third party applications to play nicely as we continue to try and place control of the user’s documents more firmly in the control of the actual user instead of in any arbitrary application that runs on the box).

9 Responses to “A brief discussion of Windows Vista’s IE Protected Mode (and user/process level security)”

  1. […] wrote a nice introductory article on the new integrity controls in Windows Vista. It is nice to see Mandatory Access Control, of […]

  2. Kyhwana says:

    See http://www.sandboxie.com for something that will let you run apps in their own sandboxes? I think you can setup each sandbox so that it can’t read files/etc..

  3. Skywing says:

    Haven’t heard of it before (or given it a try), so I can’t say whether it’s actually implemented in a secure fashion or not. It does sound like the default configuration still allows read access to everywhere, though, from what the front page on the site says.

  4. ddebug says:

    Thanks, Ken! a very useful reading while the docum is still lacking…

    Does the integrity concept cover also “protected processes” and other DRM stuff?

  5. Skywing says:

    It also plays a part in some of the DRM stuff on Vista, yes. I’m planning on revisiting that in particular at a later post…

  6. […] Recently, I discussed the basics of the new “process-level security” mechanism introduced with Windows Vista (integrity levels; otherwise known as “mandatory integrity control“, or MIC for short). […]

  7. […] with respect to how the user interface operates is also a significant part of how UAC and Internet Explorer Protected Mode can claim be to be reasonably secure, despite displaying user interfaces from differing security […]

  8. Javier says:

    Greetings from Paris

    After removing spyware in my Vista Home edition machine I have the following side effect on my machine. Just to say if I run IE7 as an administrator all works properly so I suppose it is a permission problem.

    Any file downloaded from any site vanishes upon completation. I have installed firefox and it works just fine. I have run all the adware, spyware, virus software to no avail. I think this is an IE problem since firefox works. I would, however, like to find a solution for this.
    Thanks you very much for any help

    I have done without success the following:
    1. restore the initial options of IE7
    2. from the command line I used the utility to restore the dammaged system files.

    Yours sincerelly
    Javier

    pd. I looked on the net and I can see they are more people with this problem of disappear downloaded files!

    I looked on the entire hard disk for the files without success!!

  9. John Smith says:

    Thanks for this. I use Vista business but find if I turn on protected mode the ie7 browser will not open. Is this me or the system?

Leave a Reply