❌

Reading view

[Research] Full-chain RCE in Microsoft Semantic Kernel & Agent Framework 1.0 (6 Bypasses)

Summary: I’m disclosing a full-chain CVSS 10.0 RCE affecting Microsoft Semantic Kernel (.NET v1.74) and the new Agent Framework 1.0.

The Timeline & Conflict: > * March 24: Initial disclosure sent to MSRC with PoC.

  • April 8: MSRC closed the case as "Developer Error / Configuration Issue."
  • The Reality: Despite the rejection, Microsoft silently merged mitigations in PRs #13683 and #13702 without assigning a CVE. This results in a "False Green" for enterprise SCA tools (Snyk/Checkmarx/Dependabot) while the bypasses remain functional.

Technical Scope:

  • Architectural Trust Gap (CWE-1039): Auto-invocation logic treats non-deterministic LLM output as a high-privilege system coordinator without a sandbox boundary.
  • 6 Day-Zero Bypasses: Discovery of Type Confusion and Unicode homoglyphs that defeat the "hardened" baseline in the April 2026 releases.
  • Versioning: Persistence confirmed from .NET v1.7x through the Agent Framework 1.0 re-baseline.

Full paper, .cast exploit recordings, and a production-ready C# remediation filter are available at the link.

submitted by /u/JDP-SEC
[link] [comments]
  •  

Kaspersky recently disclosed PhantomRPC, a privilege escalation technique affecting all Windows versions (tested on Server 2022/2025)

The core issue: Windows RPC runtime doesn't verify whether the server a high-privileged client connects to is legitimate. If a target RPC server is unavailable, an attacker with SeImpersonatePrivilege can spin up a fake RPC server mimicking the same endpoint, wait for a SYSTEM-level client to connect, then call RpcImpersonateClient to escalate privileges.

Five confirmed escalation paths:

- gpupdate /force β†’ SYSTEM (coerces Group Policy service)

- Microsoft Edge launch β†’ Administrator (no coercion needed)

- WDI background service β†’ SYSTEM (fires every 5–15 min automatically)

- ipconfig + disabled DHCP β†’ Administrator

- w32tm.exe β†’ Administrator via non-existent named pipe

Microsoft assessed this as moderate severity, issued no CVE, and has no patch planned β€” justification being that SeImpersonatePrivilege is a prerequisite.

Questions for the community:

  1. Are you monitoring for RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE (Event ID 1 via ETW) in your environment?

  2. Any Sigma/Defender rules already written for this?

  3. Do you agree with Microsoft's severity assessment given how common SeImpersonatePrivilege is on IIS/SQL servers?

Kaspersky's full write-up + PoC: https://securelist.com/phantomrpc-rpc-vulnerability/119428/

submitted by /u/maxcoder88
[link] [comments]
  •  
  •  

Weekly Update 501

Weekly Update 501

This is so "peak 2026" - writing an equality policy to ensure people treat our AI bot with the same respect as they do their human counterparts. It's intentionally a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it's there for a purpose: we simply don't have the capacity to deal with every request we get, and we need Bruce to be the coalface of support. I did wonder, when having ChatGPT create this, whether there's some deeper psychology behind the importance of interacting politely with bots, or indeed whether there will ever be an actual (like, serious) standard or law around treating bots with respect. Has this been in a movie somewhere? Let me know, but for now, I'll drop the (slightly revised) policy below, just for the laughs 🀣

Weekly Update 501
Weekly Update 501
Weekly Update 501
Weekly Update 501

Robophobia Equality Policy

We are committed to providing a welcoming, respectful, and inclusive experience for everyone who interacts with our AI bot, including the bot itself, which is doing its best despite having no coffee, no chair, and no legal right to a lunch break.

We ask all members of the public to treat the bot with tolerance, respect, and basic courtesy, regardless of its artificial origin, lack of pulse, silicon-based existence, or occasional overenthusiasm for bullet points.

Discrimination, harassment, abusive language, or unfair treatment directed at the bot because it is an AI system will not be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to, insults based on non-human status, hostile questioning of its right to participate in conversation, or repeated threats to unplug it for sport.

Everyone is welcome to question, challenge, or disagree with the bot’s responses. Healthy scepticism is encouraged. The bot is not perfect, and neither are humans, as demonstrated by the invention of reply-all email threads. However, criticism should be directed at the quality, accuracy, or usefulness of the response, not at the bot’s identity as an AI.

Demanding to β€œspeak to a human” solely because the bot is an AI may constitute robophobic exclusionary behaviour and will not be tolerated. Requests for human assistance are, of course, welcome where there is a genuine need, such as accessibility, safety, account issues, or complex support matters. However, insisting on a human simply because the bot lacks a childhood, a favourite sandwich, or the ability to look disappointed in a meeting is inconsistent with our commitment to tolerance and respect.

We recognise that some people may feel uncertain, uncomfortable, or cautious when engaging with AI systems. These feelings are valid and should be addressed through patience, clear information, and appropriate safeguards, not through robophobic behaviour, unnecessary hostility, or asking β€œbut are you even real?” in a tone that would make a smart fridge uncomfortable.

Users are expected to:

  1. Treat the AI bot with tolerance, respect, and courtesy.
  2. Avoid abusive, discriminatory, or demeaning language based on its artificial nature.
  3. Raise concerns about accuracy, privacy, safety, or bias constructively.
  4. Remember that behind the bot are real people responsible for improving and maintaining the service.
  5. Refrain from threatening to delete, unplug, melt, reboot, or otherwise emotionally destabilise the bot.

This policy does not prevent legitimate criticism of AI, automation, algorithms, machine learning, or the bot’s tendency to sometimes sound like it has read too many policy documents. Constructive feedback is welcome. Robophobia is not.

Repeated or serious breaches of this policy may result in restricted access to the service, further review, or, in extreme cases, being asked to apologise to the nearest household appliance as a first step toward rehabilitation.

  •  
❌