Secunia CSI7
Advisories
Research
Forums
Create Profile
Our Commitment
PSI
PSI API
CSI
OSI
xSI
Vulnerabilities
Programs
Open Discussions
My Threads
Create Thread
Statistics
About

Forum Thread: False positive?

You are currently viewing a forum thread in the Secunia Community Forum. Please note that opinions expressed here are not of Secunia but solely reflect those of the user who wrote it.

This thread was submitted in the following forum:
Programs

Relating to this vendor:
And, this specific program:
KeePass Password Safe 2.x

This thread has been marked as resolved.
Electrohacker False positive?
Member 8th Sep, 2010 14:21
Ranking: 3
Posts: 4
User Since: 8th Sep, 2010
System Score: N/A
Location: CA
I used to (but no longer) have this program on my computer. Secunia PSI still seems to see it in an odd place. Wondering if this is a false positive and if anybody can explain what the assembly folder is all about in case it comes up for another program?

C:\Windows\assembly\NativeImages_v2.0.50727_32\Kee Pass\358a2ebf639d0955b35694d27c834a48\KeePass.ni.e xe

I am still using a portable version of KeePass but it's 1.18 and shouldn't be storing anything on the computer. I have it running from a Dropbox folder.

Post "RE: False positive?" has been selected as an answer.
jesod42 RE: False positive?
Member 8th Sep, 2010 15:17
Score: 3
Posts: 2
User Since: 8th Sep 2010
System Score: N/A
Location: US
Last edited on 8th Sep, 2010 15:18
I have the same problem. When I tried to go to the file directly, the NativeImages* directory didn't even exist. I'm going to say, this is most likely an error with Secunia then.
Was this reply relevant?
+2
-0
ddmarshall RE: False positive?
Dedicated Contributor 8th Sep, 2010 15:29
Score: 1205
Posts: 957
User Since: 8th Nov 2008
System Score: 98%
Location: UK
This isn't a false positive.
This is a hidden system file which is the .NET Framework Native Images cache. You have this because you selected the improve performance option when you installed KeePass. The program has been precompiled into this file instead of using the Just In Time (JIT) compiler at run time.
I don't think this is actually an exploitable location.

More reading here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6t9t5wcf(VS.80).aspx

--
This answer is provided “as-is.” You bear the risk of using it.
Was this reply relevant?
+3
-0
Electrohacker RE: False positive?
Member 8th Sep, 2010 15:33
Score: 3
Posts: 4
User Since: 8th Sep 2010
System Score: N/A
Location: CA
Thanks for your replies. I uninstalled the version I had though. Does it not remove that file, as well? The portable version I have now was never installed. I just unzipped the archive and run the .exe file in it.
Was this reply relevant?
+1
-0
jesod42 RE: False positive?
Member 8th Sep, 2010 15:36
Score: 3
Posts: 2
User Since: 8th Sep 2010
System Score: N/A
Location: US
Last edited on 8th Sep, 2010 15:36
I completely uninstalled it, then reinstalled it without optimizing the performance and the warning has been removed. Thanks!
Was this reply relevant?
+1
-0
Electrohacker RE: False positive?
Member 8th Sep, 2010 15:36
Score: 3
Posts: 4
User Since: 8th Sep 2010
System Score: N/A
Location: CA
I was thinking more about what you said and thought since it's a cache, will it disappear after a certain amount of time?
Was this reply relevant?
+1
-0
ddmarshall RE: False positive?
Dedicated Contributor 8th Sep, 2010 15:43
Score: 1205
Posts: 957
User Since: 8th Nov 2008
System Score: 98%
Location: UK
It seems this is a bug in KeePass or may be just the way .NET Framework works. The older versions of these seem to disappear as you install newer versions of KeePass 2. As you are using the non .NET version, this will never happen in your case. You would need to edit the cache with the NGEN program from Visual Studio, knowing how KeePass has set it up.
An opinion from Secunia about whether this is an exploitable location would be helpful.

--
This answer is provided “as-is.” You bear the risk of using it.
Was this reply relevant?
+1
-0
ddmarshall RE: False positive?
Dedicated Contributor 8th Sep, 2010 15:47
Score: 1205
Posts: 957
User Since: 8th Nov 2008
System Score: 98%
Location: UK
Looks like jesod42 has discovered a procedure you could use. Reinstall version 2 without the performance option and then uninstall it.

--
This answer is provided “as-is.” You bear the risk of using it.
Was this reply relevant?
+2
-0
Electrohacker RE: False positive?
Member 8th Sep, 2010 16:05
Score: 3
Posts: 4
User Since: 8th Sep 2010
System Score: N/A
Location: CA
Unfortunately that workaround didn't work for me. Tried reinstalling the latest version (without performance options checked) and re-scanning. Still listed as insecure. Strange.

It struck me that reinstalling it with the performance options checked would fix it but of course that'd be only good until the next version. Kind of reminds me of the Google Chrome issue, but worse.

Well, I don't worry too much about it. I won't be running that file directly anyway and I'm pretty sure the portable version ignores it.
Was this reply relevant?
+1
-0

This thread has been marked as locked.


 Products Solutions Customers Partner Resources Company
 
 Corporate
Vulnerability Intelligence Manager (VIM)
Corporate Software Inspector (CSI)
Consumer
Personal Software Inspector (PSI)
Online Software Inspector (OSI)
 Industry
Compliance
Technology
Integration
 Customers
Testimonials
 VARS
MSSP
Technology Partners
References
 Reports
Webinars
Events
 About us
Careers
Memberships
Newsroom


 
© 2002-2014 Secunia ApS - Rued Langgaards Vej 8, 4th floor, DK-2300 Copenhagen, Denmark - +45 7020 5144
Terms & Conditions and Copyright - Privacy - Report Vulnerability