Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Case Study] BinJumper side-effects #1938

Closed
arcanis opened this issue Oct 7, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1939
Closed

[Case Study] BinJumper side-effects #1938

arcanis opened this issue Oct 7, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1939
Assignees
Labels
case study Package compatibility report

Comments

@arcanis
Copy link
Member

arcanis commented Oct 7, 2020

What package is covered by this investigations?

Binjumper, that we use to spawn processes without triggering the abort confirmation prompt.

Describe the goal of the investigation

#798 (comment)

Our company has some process-monitoring software installed, and while it's not 100% all-encompassing, it frequently blocks "unknown" executables from executing at all. In this case, the .exe files in the temp folder are all getting killed before they can start, so the post-install steps all fail.

@markerikson
Copy link

@arcanis : was literally just about to open a new issue for this :)

@merceyz: I don't know all the heuristics the corporate security software uses. FWIW, this particular tool is CarbonBlack/Bit9. In this case, the error message that pops up indicates that it sees the original path of node.exe, and that the process is signed. But, something about the fact that there's a binary being executed out of the user temp folder triggers it and it gets blocked.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
case study Package compatibility report
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants