Attack Techniques: Fake Literally Everything! (Escrow Scam)

The team recently got a false-negative report on the SmartScreen phishing filter complaining that we fail to block firstline-trucking.com. I passed it along to our graders but then took a closer look myself. I figured that maybe the legit site was probably at a very similar domain name, e.g. firstlinetrucking.com or something, but no such site exists.

Curious.

Simple Investigation Techniques

I popped open the Netcraft Extension and immediately noticed a few things. First, the site is a new site. Suspicious, since they claim to have been around since 2002. Next, the site is apparently hosted in the UK, although they brag about being “Strategically located at the U.S.-Canada border.” Sus... and just above that, they supply an address in Texas. Sus.

Let’s take a look at that address in Google Maps. Hmm. A non-descript warehouse with no signage. Sus.

Well, let’s see what else we have. Let’s go to the “About Us” page and see who claims to be employed here. Right-click the CEO’s picture and choose “Copy image link.”

Paste that URL into TinEye to see where else that picture appears on the web. Ah, it’s from a stock photo site. Very sus.

Investigating the other employee photos and customer pictures from the “Customer testimonials” section reveals that most of them are also from stock photo sites. The unfortunately-named “Marry Hoe” has her picture on several other “About us” pages — it looks like she probably came with the template. Her profile page is all Lorem Ipsum placeholder text.

I was surprised that one of the biggest photos on the site didn’t show up in TinEye at all. Then I looked at the Developer Tools and noticed that the secret is revealed by the image’s filename — ai-generated-business-woman-portrait. Ah, that’ll do it.

I tried searching for the phone number atop the site ((956) 253-7799) but there were basically no hits on Google. This is both very sus and very surprising, because often Googling for a phone number will turn up many complaints about scams run from that number.

Moar Scams!

Hmm…. what about all of those blog posts on the site. They’re not all lorem ipsum text. Hrm… but they do reference other companies. Maybe these scammers just lifted the text from some legit company? It seems plausible that “New England Auto Shipping” is probably a legit company they stole this from. Let’s copy this text and paste it into Google:

I didn’t find the source (likely neautoshipping.com, an earlier version of the scam from October 2024), but I did find another live copy of the attack, hosted on a similar domain:

This version is hosted at firstline-vehicle.com with the phone number (908-505-5378) and an address in New Jersey. They’ve literally been copy/pasting their scam around!

Netcraft reports that it’s first seen next month 🙃. Good thing I’ve got my time machine up and running!

The page title of this scam site doesn’t match the scammers though. Hmm… What happens if I look for “Bergen Auto Logistics” then?

Another scam site, bergen-autotrans.com, this one registered this month and CEO’d by a Stock Photo woman:

There are some more interesting photos here, including some that are less obviously faked:

It looks like there was an earlier version of this site in November 2024 at bergenautotrans.com that is now offline:

Searching around, we see that there’s also currently a legit business in New York named “Bergen Auto” whose name and reputation these scammers may have been trying to coast off of. And now some of the pieces are starting to make more sense — Bergen New York is on the US/Canada border.

Searching for the string "Your car does not need be running in order to be shipped" turns up yet more copies of the scam, including britt-trucking.net with phone number (602) 399-7327:

Another random Stock Photo CEO is here, and our same General Manager now has a new name:

…and hey, look, it’s our old friends, now with a different logo on their shirts!

Interestingly, if you zoom in on the photo, you see that the name and logo don’t even match the scam site. The company logo and filename contain Sunni-Transportation, which was also found in the filename of Marry Hoe on the first site we looked at.

The same "Your car does not need be running in order to be shipped" string was also found on two now-offline sites, unitedauto-transport.com, and unitedautotrans.net.

Not a Phish, but definitely Fishy

I went back to our original complainant and asked for clarification — this site doesn’t seem to be pretending to be the site of any other company, but instead appears to be just entirely manufactured from AI and stock photos.

He explained that the attackers troll Craigslist[1] looking for folks buying used cars. They put up some fake listings, and then act as if the (fake) seller has chosen them as an escrow provider. After a bunch of paperwork, the victim buyer wires the attacker thousands of dollars for the nonexistent car. The attackers immediately send a fake tracking number that goes to an order tracking page that’s never updated. They’re abusing people who are risk-averse enough to seek out an escrow company to protect a big transaction, but who not able to validate the bonafides of that “escrow company”… aka, smart humans. (Having bought houses thrice, I can say that validating the legitimacy of an escrow company is a very difficult task). Escrow scams like this one are only one of several popular attacks — this guide and this one describe several scams and how to avoid them.

The Better Business Bureau had a writeup of vehicle escrow scams way back in 2020, and the FTC a year before. Reddit even has an automatic bot to explain the scam. In 2021, an Ohio man was sentenced to 14 years in prison for stealing over $10M via this sort of scam.

Unfortunately, creating a fake business almost entirely in pixels is a simple scam, and one that’s not trivial to protect against. In cases where no existing business’ reputation is being abused, there’s no organization that’s particularly incentivized to do the work to get the bad guys taken down. Phishing protection features like SafeBrowsing and SmartScreen are not designed to protect against “business practices scams.”

The very same things that make online businesses so easy to start — low overhead, no real-estate, templates and AIs can do the majority of the work — make it easy to invent fake businesses that only exist in the minds of their victims. After the scammers get found out, the sites disappear and the crooks behind them simply fade away.

I advised the reporter to report the fraud to the FTC, the Internet Crime Complaint Center, and also to Netcraft, who do maintain feeds of scam sites of all types, not just phishing/malware.

Stay safe out there!

Update: As of September 12th, 2025, a new version of the escrow scam site is live:

https://fl-trans.com/

They’re using the same mix of stock photos and slightly edited media as the earlier versions:


This one appears to be hosted in Brazil:

-Eric

PS: Holy cow. https://escrow-fraud.com/search.php

Looking through here, most of the sites are dead, but not all. Some have been live for years!


[1] In college, a friend fell victim to a different scam on Craigslist, the overpayment scam. They’d rented a 3 bedroom apartment and needed a 3rd roommate. They were contacted by an “international student” who needed a room and sent my friends a check $500 dollars larger than requested. “Oops, would you mind wiring back that extra? I really need it right now!” the scammer begged. My kind friends wired back the “overpayment” amount, and a few days later were heartbroken to discover that the original check had, of course, not actually cleared. They were out the $500, a huge sum for two broke young college students.

This same overpayment scam is used in fake car sales too.

Vibe-coding for security

Recently, there’s been a surge in the popularity of trojan clipboard attacks whereby the attacker convinces the user to carry their attack payload across a security boundary and compromise the device.

Meanwhile, AI hype is all the rage. I recent had a bad experience in what I thought was a simple AI task (draw a map with pushpins in certain cities):

The generated map with wildly incorrect city locations

… but I was curious to see what AI would say if I pretended to be the target of a trojan clipboard attack. I was pleased to discover that the two AIs I tried both gave solid security advice for situation:

ChatGPT and Gemini both understood the attack and the risk

A few days later, the term “vibe-coding” crossed my feed and I groaned a bit when I learned what it means… Just describe what you want to the AI and it’ll build your app for you. And yet. That’s kinda exactly how I make a living as a PM: I describe what I want an app to do, and wait for someone else (ideally, our dev team) to build it. I skimmed a few articles about vibe coding and then moved on with my day. I don’t have a lot of time to set up new workflows, install new devtools, subscribe to code-specific AI models, and so forth.

Back to the day job.

Talking to some security researchers looking into the current wave of trojan clipboard attacks, I brainstormed some possible mitigations. We could try to make input surfaces more clear about risk:

… but as I noted in my old blog post, we could be even smarter, detecting when the content of a paste came from a browser (akin to the “Mark of the Web” on downloads) and provide the user with a context specific warning.

In fact, I realized, we don’t even need to change any of the apps. Years ago, I updated SlickRun to flash anytime the system clipboard’s content changes as a simple user-experience improvement. A simple security tool could do the same thing– watch for clipboard changes, see if the content came from the browser, and then warn the user if it was dangerous.

In the old days, I’d’ve probably spent an evening or two building such an app, but life is busier now, and my C++ skills are super rusty.

But… what if I vibe-coded it? Hmm. Would it work, or would it fail as spectacularly as it did on my map task?

Vibe-coding ClipShield

I popped open Google Gemini (Flash 2.0) and told directed it:

> Write me a trivial C++ app that calls AddClipboardFormatListener and on each WMClipboardUpdate call it scans the text on the clipboard for a string of my choice. If it's found, a MessageBox is shown and the clipboard text is cleared.

In about 15 seconds, it had emitted an entire C++ source file. I pasted it into Visual Studio and tried to compile it, expecting a huge pile of mistakes.

Sure enough, VS complained that there was no WinMain function. Gemini had named its function main(). I wonder if it could fix it itself?

> Please change the entry point from main to WinMain

The new code compiled and worked perfectly. Neat! I wonder how well it would do with making bigger changes to the code? Improvements occurred to me in rapid succession:

> To the WM_CLIPBOARDUPDATE code, please also check if the clipboard contains a format named "Chromium internal source URL". 

> Update the code so instead of a single searchString we search for any of a set of strings.

> please make the string search case-insensitive

> When blocking, please also emit the clipboard string in the alert, and send it to the debug console via OutputDebugString

In each case, the resulting code was pretty much spot on, although I took the opportunity to tweak some blocks manually for improved performance. Importantly, however, I wasn’t wasting any time on the usual C++ annoyances, string manipulations and conversions, argument passing conventions, et cetera. I was just… vibing.

There was a compiler warning from Visual Studio in the log. I wonder if it could fix that? I just pasted the error in with no further instruction:

> Inconsistent annotation for 'WinMain': this instance has no annotations. See c:\program files (x86)\windows kits\10\include\10.0.26100.0\um\winbase.h(1060). 

Gemini explained what the warning meant and exactly how to fix it. Hmm… What else?

> Is there a way to show the message box on a different thread so it does not block further progress?

Gemini refactored the code to show the alert in a different thread. Wait, is that even legal?

> In Windows API, is it legal to call MessageBox on another thread?

Gemini explained the principles around the UI thread and why showing a simple MessageBox was okay.

> Can you use a mutex to ensure single-instance behavior?

Done. I had to shift the code around a bit (I didn’t want errors to be fatal), but it was trivial.

Hmm…. What else. Ooh… What if I actually got real antivirus into the mix? I could call AMSI with the contents of the clipboard to let Defender or the system antivirus scan the content and give a verdict on whether it’s dangerous.

> Can you add code to call AMSI with the text from the clipboard?

It generated the code instantly. Amazing. Oops, it’s not quite right.

> clipboardText.c_str() is a char* but the AmsiScanString function needs an LPCWSTR

Gemini apologized for the error and fixed it. Hmm. Linking failed. This has always been a hassle. I wonder how Gemini will do?

> How do I fix the problem that the link step says "unresolved external symbol AmsiOpenSession"?

Gemini explained the cause of the problem and exactly how to fix it, including every click I needed to perform in Visual Studio. Awesome!

By now, I was just having tons of fun, pair programming a combination of my knowledge with Gemini’s strengths.

> Please hoist a time_point named lastClipboardUpdate to a global variable and update it each time the clipboard contents change.

> Please rewrite GetTimestamp not to use auto

I like to know what my types actually are.

> Please monitor keystrokes for the Win+R hotkey and if pressed and it's within 30 seconds of the clipboard copy, show a warning.

I see that it's using WM_HOTKEY. 

> The RegisterHotKey call will not work because Windows uses that hotkey. Instead use a keyboard hook.

Gemini understands and writes the new code. It's a little kludgy, watching for the keydown and up events and setting booleans.

> Rather than watching for the VK_LWIN use GetAsyncKeyState to check if it's down.

Gemini fixes the code.

I’m super-impressed. Would the AI do as good a job for anyone who didn’t already deeply understand the space? Maybe not, and probably not as quickly. But it was nice that I had the chance to feel useful.

I’ve published our code up at https://github.com/ericlaw1979/clipshield. Maybe I’ll sign it and package it up into an installer at some point. Here’s a tiny test page.

Heck, pretty much all that’s left is a cool icon for the .EXE. Maybe Gemini can help?

Ah well. I’ve gotta add value somewhere. 😂

-Eric

Understanding SmartScreen and Network Protection

The vast majority of cyberthreats arrive via one of two related sources:

That means that by combining network-level sensors and throttles with threat intelligence (about attacker sites), security software can block a huge percentage of threats.

Protection Implementation

On Windows systems, that source of network threat information is commonly called SmartScreen, and support for querying it is integrated directly into the Microsoft Edge browser. Direct integration of SmartScreen into Edge means that the security software can see the full target URL and avoid the loss of fidelity incurred by HTTPS encryption and other browser network-privacy changes.

SmartScreen’s integration with Microsoft Edge is designed to evaluate reputation for top-level and subframe navigation URLs only, and does not inspect sub-resource URLs triggered within a webpage. SmartScreen’s threat intelligence data targets socially-engineered phishing, malware, and techscam sites, and blocking frames is sufficient for this task. Limiting reputation checks to web frames and downloads improves performance.

When an enterprise deploys Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (MDE), they unlock the ability to extend network protections to all processes using a WFP sensor/throttle that watches for connection establishment and then checks the reputation of the IP and hostname of the target site.

For performance reasons (Network Protection applies to connections much more broadly than just browser-based navigations), Network Protection first checks the target information with a frequently-updated bloom filter on the client. Only if there’s a hit against the filter is the online reputation service checked.

In both the Edge SmartScreen case and the Network Protection case, if the online reputation service indicates that the target site is disreputable (phishing, malware, techscam, attacker command-and-control) or unwanted (custom indicators, MDCA, Web Category Filtering), the connection will be blocked.

Debugging Edge SmartScreen

Within Edge, the Security Diagnostics page (edge://security-diagnostics/) offers a bit of information about the current SmartScreen configuration. Reputation checks are sent directly through Edge’s own network stack (just like web traffic) which means you can easily observe the requests simply by starting Fiddler (or you can capture NetLogs).

The service URL will depend upon whether the device is a consumer device or an MDE-onboarded. Onboarded devices will target a geography-specific hostname– in my case, unitedstates.smartscreen.microsoft.com:

The JSON-formatted communication is quite readable. A request payload describes the in-progress navigation, and the response payload from the service supplies the verdict of the reputation check:

For a device that is onboarded to MDE, the request’s identity\device\enterprise node contains an organizationId and senseId. These identifiers allow the service to go beyond SmartScreen web protection and also block or allow sites based on security admin-configured Custom Indicators, Web Category Filtering, MDCA blocking, etc. The identifiers can be found locally in the Windows registry under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows Advanced Threat Protection.

In the request, the forceServiceDetermination flag indicates whether the client was forced to send a reputation check because the WCF feature is enabled for the device. When Web Category Filtering is enabled, requests must hit the web service even if the target sites are “safe” (e.g. Facebook) because a WCF policy may demand it (e.g. “Block social media”).

If the target site has a negative reputation, the response’s responseCategory value indicates why the site should be blocked.

Verdict for a phishing site
Verdict for a site that delivers malware

The actions\cache node of the response allows the service to instruct the client component to cache a result to bypass subsequent requests. Blocks from SmartScreen in Edge are never cached, while blocks from the Network Protection filter are cached for a short period (to avoid hammering the web service in the event that an arbitrary client app has a retry-forever behavior or the like). To clear SmartScreen’s results cache, you can use browser’s Delete Browsing Data (Ctrl+Shift+Delete); deleting your history will instruct the SmartScreen client to also discard its cache.

Debugging Network Protection

In contrast to the simplicity of capturing Edge reputation checks, the component that performs reputation checks runs in a Windows service account and thus it will not automatically send traffic to Fiddler. To get it to send its traffic to Fiddler, set the WinHTTP Proxy setting from an Admin/Elevated command prompt:

    netsh winhttp set proxy 127.0.0.1:8888 "<-loopback>"

(Don’t forget to undo this later using netsh winhttp reset proxy, or various things will fall down after you stop running Fiddler!)

Unlike Network Protection generally, Web Content Filtering applies only to browser processes, so traffic from processes like Fiddler.exe is not blocked. Thus, to debug issues with WCF while watching the traffic from the nissvc.exe process, you can start a browser instance that ignores the system proxy setting like so:

chrome.exe --proxy-server=direct:// https://example.com

When a page is blocked by Web Category Filtering, you’ll see the following page:

If you examine the response to the webservice call, you see that it’s $type=block with a responseCategory=CustomPolicy:

Block response from unitedstates.smartscreen.microsoft.com/api/browser/edge/navigate/3

Unfortunately, there’s no indication in the response about what category the blocked site belonged to, although you could potentially look it up in the Security portal or get a hint from a 3rd party classification site.

In contrast, when a page is blocked due to a Custom Indicator, the blocking page is subtly different:

If you examine the response to the webservice call, you see that it’s $type=block with a responseCategory=CustomBlockList:

As you can see in the response, there’s an iocId field that indicates whether the block was targeting a DomainName or ipAddress, and specifically which one was matched.

Understanding Edge vs. Other Clients

On Windows, Network Protection’s integration into Windows Filtering Platform gives it the ability to monitor traffic for all browsers on the system. For browsers like Chrome and Firefox, that means it checks all network connections used by a browser both for navigation/downloads and to retrieve in-page resources (scripts, images, videos, etc).

Importantly, however, on Windows, Network Protection’s WFP filter ignores traffic from machine-wide Microsoft Edge browser installations (e.g. all channels except Edge Canary). In Edge, URL blocks are instead implemented using a Edge browser navigation throttle that calls into the SmartScreen web service. That service returns block verdicts for web threats (phishing, malware, techscams), as well as organizational blocks (WCF, Custom Indicators, MDCA) if configured by the enterprise. Today, Edge’s SmartScreen integration performs reputation checks only against navigation (top-level and subframe) URLs only, and does not check the URLs of subresources.

In contrast, on Mac, Network Protection filtering applies to Edge processes as well: blocks caused by SmartScreen threat intelligence are shown in Edge via a blocking page while blocks from Custom Indicators, Web Category Filtering, MDCA blocking, etc manifest as toast notifications.

Block Experience

TLS encryption used in HTTPS prevents the Network Protection client from injecting a meaningful blocking page into Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers. However, even for unencrypted HTTP, the filter just injects a synthetic HTTP/403 response code with no indication that Defender blocked the resource.

Instead, blocks from Network Protection are shown as Windows “Toast” Notifications:

In contrast, SmartScreen’s direct integration into Edge allows for a meaningful error page:

Troubleshooting Network Protection “Misses”

Because Network Protection relies upon network-level observation of traffic, and browsers are increasingly trying to prevent network-level observation of traffic destinations, the most common complaints of “Network Protection is not working” relate to these privacy features. Ensure that browser policies are set to disable QUIC and Encrypted Client Hello.

Ensure that your scenario actually entails a network request being made: URL changes handled by ServiceWorkers and via pushState don’t require hitting the network.

If your scenario is blocked in Edge but some sites are not blocked in Chrome or Firefox, look at a NetLog to determine if H/2 Connection Coalescing is in use or disable Firefox’s network.http.http2.coalesce-hostnames using about:config.

Ensure that Defender Network Protection is enabled and you do not have exclusions that apply to the target process.

Test Pages

A older test page for SmartScreen scenarios can be found here. Note that some of its tests are based on deprecated scenarios and no longer do anything.

Network Protection test urls include Phishing and Malware.

A Solid 10K

After last year’s disappointing showing at the Capitol 10K, I wanted to do better this time around.

We left the house at 6:47; traffic was light and we pulled into my regular parking spot at 7:09. It was a very chilly morning at 42F with a bracing breeze, so I wore my running tights, making sure to Body Glide everywhere to avoid a repeat of the miserable Austin Half chafing. I headed over to the start line and had a productive stop at the porta-potties on the way. The B corral was completely packed by the time I arrived so I had to wait outside of the queue until it drained up to the start line. My Coros watch successfully streamed music to one earbud for the whole race.

Compared to last year, I started out slower: this year, my pace to the 2 mile split was 9:18 while it was 8:58 last year. But this time, I kept running throughout and finished the first 5K 1:26 faster, and finished the overall race 6:33 faster; still 7:17 below my fastest, but under my goal.

I probably should’ve been running a bit faster throughout, but by far the most important factor was that I only dropped to a walk a few times, and usually for only 30 seconds or so. This year, I didn’t recognize the start of the “KQ Hill” (usually there’s an obvious counting cable you run over) so I didn’t run as hard as I might have otherwise. But I ran the whole hill, and the following hills as well.

Over the years, I’ve gotten in the bad habit of dropping to a walk when things seem hard (“Oh, I’ll walk until the next street light“) but I battled that in this race in two ways — by delaying myself by setting the start-target in the distance (“I’ll start walking when I pass the next street light“) and by avoiding excuses by keeping my heart rate under control for the whole race:

Unlike most past races, my pace was more consistent throughout:

All in all, it wasn’t my best performance, but I had fun with it. After the race, I wandered around the post-race expo (which I had entirely overlooked last year, oops) and tried a few non-alcoholic beers– they’d’ve been much more refreshing if it wasn’t in the low 40s and windy.

I’m excited to try to get an even better result in the Sunshine 10K in just 27 more days.

Defensive Technology: Exploit Protection

September 2025 tl;dr: You probably should not touch Exploit Protection settings. This post explains what the feature does and how it works, but admins and end-users should probably just leave it alone to do what it does by default.

Over the last several decades, the Windows team has added a stream of additional security mitigation features to the platform to help application developers harden their applications against exploit. I commonly referred to these mitigations as the Alphabet Soup mitigations because each was often named by an acronym, DEP/NX, ASLR, SEHOP, CFG, etc. The vast majority of these mitigations were designed to help shield applications with memory-safety vulnerabilities, helping prevent an attacker from turning a crash into reliable malicious code execution.

By default, most of these mitigations were off-by-default for application compatibility reasons– Windows has always worked very hard to ensure that each new version is compatible with the broad universe of software, and enabling a security mitigation by default could unexpectedly break some application and prevent users from having a good experience in a new version of Windows.

There were some exceptions; for instance, some mitigations were enabled by default for 64-bit applications because the very existence of a 64-bit app during the mid-200Xs was an existence proof that the application was being maintained.

In one case, Windows offered the user an explicit switch to turn on a mitigation (DEP/NX) for all processes, regardless of whether they opted-in:

But, generally, application developers were required to opt-in to new mitigations by setting compiler/linker flags, registry keys, or by calling the SetProcessMitigationPolicy API. One key task for product security engineers in each product cycle was to research the new mitigations available in Windows and opt the new version of their product (e.g. IE, Outlook, Word, etc) into the newest mitigations.

The requirement that developers themselves opt-in was frustrating to some security architects though– what if there was some older app that was no longer maintained but that could be protected by one of these new mitigations?

In response, EMET (Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit) was born. This standalone application provided a user-friendly experience to enabling mitigations for an app; under the covers, it twiddled the bits in the registry for the process name.

EMET was useful, but it exposed the tradeoff to security architects: They could opt a process into new mitigations, but ran the risk of causing the app to break entirely, or only in certain scenarios. They would have to extensively test each application and mitigation to ensure compatibility across the scenarios they cared about.

EMET 5.52 went out of support way back in 2018, but had since been replaced by the Exploit Protection node in the Windows Security App. Exploit Protection offered a very similar user-experience to EMET, allowing the user to specify protections on a per-app basis as well as across all apps.

If you dig into the settings, you can see the available options:

You can also see the settings on a “per-program” basis:

…including the settings put into the registry by application installers and the like.

IFEO Registry screenshot showing the “Mandatory ASLR” bit set for msfeedssync.exe

While built into Windows, Exploit Protection also works with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (MDE), enabling security admins to easily deploy rules across their entire tenant. Some rules offer an “Audit mode”, which would allow a security admin to check whether a given rule is likely to be compatible with their “real-world” deployment before being deployed in enforcement mode.

Beyond the Windows UI and MDE, mitigations can also be deployed via a PowerShell module; often, you’ll use the Export link on a machine that’s configured the way you like and then import that XML to your other desktops.

Notably, the Set-ProcessMitigation command should be run as an admin (since it needs to touch systemwide registry keys, and silently ignores Access Denied errors). If you choose to import an XML configuration file, the importer’s parser is extremely liberal (ignoring, for instance, whether the document is well-formed) and simply walks the document looking for AppConfig nodes that specify configuration settings per app.

The Big Challenge

The big challenge with Exploit Protection (and EMET before it) is that, if these mitigations were safe to apply by default, we would have done so. Any of these mitigations could conceivably break an application in a spectacular (or nearly invisible) way.

Exploit Mitigations like “Bottom Up ASLR” are opt-in because they can cause compatibility issues with applications that make assumptions about memory layout. Opting an application into a mitigation can cause the application to crash at startup, or later, at runtime, when the application’s (now incorrect) assumption causes a memory access error. Crashes could occur every time, or randomly.

When a mitigation is hit, you might see an explicit “block” event in the Event Log or Defender Portal events, or you might not. That’s because in some cases, a mitigation doesn’t mean the operation is just blocked, instead Windows terminates it. You might look to see whether Watson has captured a crash of the application as it starts, but typically debugging these sorts of things entails starting the target application under a debugger and stepping through its execution until a failure occurs. That is rarely practical for anyone other than the developers of the application (who have its private symbols and source code). If excluding an application from a mitigation doesn’t work, it may be the case that the executable launches some other executable that also needs an exclusion. You might try collecting a Process Monitor log to see whether that’s the case.

Other Problems…

Beyond the problem that turning on additional mitigations could break your applications in surprising and unusual ways, mitigations are also settable by both admins and developers, but there’s no good way to “reset” your settings if you make a mistake or change your mind. Various PowerShell scripts are available to wipe all of the EP settings from the registry, but doing so will wipe out not only the EP settings you set, but also any IFEO (Image File Execution Options) registry settings set by an application’s own developers, leaving you less secure than when you started.

Developer Best Practices

In the ideal case, developers will themselves opt-in (and verify) all available security mitigations for their apps, ensuring that they do not effectively “offload” the configuration and verification process to their customers.

With the increasing focus on security across the software ecosystem, we see that best practice followed by most major application developers, particularly in the places where it’s most useful (browsers and internet clients). Browser developers in particular tend to go far beyond the “alphabet soup” mitigations and also design their products with careful sandboxing such that, even if remote code execution is achieved, it is confined to a tight sandbox to protect the rest of the system.

Thanks for your help in protecting users!

-Eric