MS Security: On A Path As Clear As It Is Reliable

bobthemonkey13 writes: "It appears that Microsoft's 'secure' E-Book system has been cracked. MIT Technology Review is reporting that an anonymous programmer has figured out how to bypass the 'advanced antipiracy features' in Microsoft Reader. This sounds a lot like what Dmitry did except for two things: The MS E-Book hacker has (wisely) decided to remain anonymous, and he's not publishing his program. God bless the U.S., where moving a book from your home to your office is a federal offence." Along similar lines, an Anonymous Coward indicates this story at USA Today titled "Expert Hacks Hotmail in 1 Line of Code." "I'm in awe! Unless someone can figure out how to execute pseudocode or half a line this isn't beatable. I hope this get's fixed or the whole future of pay-per-view web services could be impacted. :-q" Good thing Microsoft isn't quite sure what to do with all this universal-password stuff. (Thanks to Sacha Prins.)

Jamie adds:

In other news about poor security where you least expect it, Kitetoa informed Veridian a little while ago that: "Any script kiddy can root your web site. And... By the way... Someone already did it (as you should have seen at www.veridian.com/upload/ if you knew anything about internet security)."

I don't know what that URL gives you now, but as of this writing, and for the last several hours, it's read:

fuck USA Government
fuck PoizonBOx
contact:sysadmcn@yahoo.com.cn

This is the same Veridian that the Defense Department picked to track computer network attacks on DoD systems, specifically attacks coming from China.

Comments

this is what freenet was made for!

[ywwg]

this guy should upload the code to freenet where, hopefully, it is impossible to remove the program or discover the author. This is the exact kind of thing freenet was designed for, so if the author is out there in slashland, go for it! Civil Disobedience ra ra ra!

Re:this is what freenet was made for!

[AntiFreeze]

Civil Disobedience is done in the name of change, and therefore *requires* accountability. Doing this like an anonymous coward, distributing it and not letting yourself be known is lame, and will be seen rightly as an act of cowardice. Granted, the cowardice is justified as a certain russian programmer can tell you.

You are mistaking cowardice with discretion. One must be very careful under today's laws with what one releases. Not wanting to fight is not cowardice, it is picking your battles. If source is released, or a name is released, there are serious legal reprocussions - which cost millions of dollars to fend off - while, on the other hand, just letting people know it is possible creates the same community sentiment without ending up in jail for the rest of your life.

Re:this is what freenet was made for!

[drift factor]

If the author is out there in slashland email me, and I will publish the app for you publically and with my name. I will accept all responsibility for writing the program and distributing.

No, don't email to him, he's using hotmail! :)

Re:this is what freenet was made for!

[delong]

Umm, civil disobedience REQUIRES submitting oneself to the legal repurcussions of one's actions. Otherwise, its just vandalism.

Try reading Martin Luther King Jr.'s papers. "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" is textbook legal philosophy on civil disobedience.

http://www.almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

Derek

Re:this is what freenet was made for!

[jdcook]

"Civil Disobedience is done in the name of change, and therefore *requires* accountability. Doing this like an anonymous coward, distributing it and not letting yourself be known is lame, and will be seen rightly as an act of cowardice. Granted, the cowardice is justified as a certain russian programmer can tell you.

If the author is out there in slashland email me, and I will publish the app for you publically and with my name. I will accept all responsibility for writing the program and distributing.

I think yours is a reasonable but incomplete view of "civil disobedience." If emulating the campaigns (or at least the non-violent parts) of King and Gandhi and Biko is what someone wishes to do, then they do need to be willing to face the consequences.

OTOH, a single person cannot succeed. All of the civil rights campaigns that succeeded did so because of their numbers. The campaign takes a long time and needs to pile small victory upon small victory.

If you do it by yourself, you stick up like a nail and get hammered down. So instead of one person publishing it, try to get hundreds. Perhaps the EFF or EPIC or some such group can help lay the strategy for a test case. It may be that reader software is not the appropriate vehicle to bring a DMCA challenge. These sorts of changes don't just happen, they are made. The landmark Brown v. Board of Education was the ultimate school desegregation case but dozens of earlier cases were brought at the lower levels to lay the groundwork that made the Supreme Court decision inevitable.

Finally, anonymous action is not the same thing as cowardice. It isn't traditional civil disobedience, but it isn't cowardice either. Similarly, rushing in may be foolish rather than brave. Pick the fights you have a chance to win and then prepare as thoroughly as you can. You need to be able to risk failure, but you don't have to seek it out.

Security: Antonyms: See Microsoft

[UnknownSoldier]

The unfortunate thing is, that while it seems "M$ software gets hacked every other month", the general consumer isn't making security (or I should the lack of it? :) a big deal.

Re:Security: Antonyms: See Microsoft

[TOTKChief]

Actually, they are.

The other day, I was on the hall where a good chunk of my professors have offices. I got into a discussion with a few of them, and the gist was this:

"We've been telling folks around here for a while that we don't like Microsoft products, but because they're the de facto standard, we're forced to use them. Thank God for all the hackers that find holes and the real jerks that exploit them.

Of course, I got to wondering about that; we talk about White Hats and Black Hats, but even the Black Hats serve a purpose, if your goal is to rid the world of Microsoft. I'm not sure that it is for me--I'd be happy to use their products if they would code good stuff. [Posted from IE6 on Win2K, but only because I have to have a Windows box to do my school crap...]

But to the point, the end users are getting frustrated with all the security holes. In this case, these guys don't want their research exposed by something like SirCam, which could very easily happen. I think they'd happily go for a switch if solid interoperability with those Left Behind in the Microsoft world could exist.

And hey, remember that these are aerospace engineering professors, who aren't always at the vanguard of computing technology. I mean, I've had to do research with them using F77...

Mommy,I'm Scared

[notext]

Everytime I read about hailstorm, I am in shock but at the same time scared.

First, off I can't believe that Mircosoft thinks they should be in control of so much personal information.

Second, that Microsoft thinks they can somehow keep it safe.

Third, and this is what scares me. A lot of John Q. Public will give them all this information.

Better them than me I guess.

Re:Mommy,I'm Scared

[FlyingDragon]

Third, and this is what scares me. A lot of John Q. Public will give them all this information.

Indeed. I was helping some neighbors with a computer issue a couple weeks ago and noticed they had a gator.com utility in the toolbar (Slashdot search seems hosed at the moment, but they came up recently). I asked them about it.

Basically you enter all of your details (name, mailing address, phone number, etc) and it will automatically fill them in on web forms. Now, ignoring the cross-site scripting fun you could have with this little toy, I just had to ask...

"So, basically, you give them every marketable piece of information they could want so they can provide it to others automatically?"

"Yup."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The MS hack

[MobyDisk]

It sounds like they used a well-known technique of adding javascript/java/some other active code that nabs information such as URL & cookies into an email. It then uses that info to do something like sending it to an anonymous collection account.

With new forms of active content being added to web pages all the time, it is amazing that anything with dynamic content. I know that's vague, but that sounds like the gist of it.

Releasing the program is easy.

[Restil]

Freenet is not really the only solution if the programmer chose to release the program and not reveal his identity. There are numerous other channels available which will let him preserve his anonymity. The only advantage to freenet is that is at least has a somewhat legitimate charter, where as other methods are typically underground and shady.

But still, if done properly, it could be released and spread without anyone finding out who the author is. The danger is if that person ever told ANYONE about it. If he did, then he's not truely anonymous, and given enough of an incentive, someone might be tempted to talk. At least, without releasing any code, then its technically all heresay and a lot less likely to be in violation of some strange law.

I fear however that this is how it will have to be done in the future if the silly laws don't get overturned. Either that, or some REALLY important sensitive document will have to be cracked and released publicly to the embarrasment of a large organization with a lot of people chanting "we told you so" before those in power might take a second glance and realize that perhaps peer review for security is a good idea after all.

-Restil

Re:Releasing the program is easy.

[DreamingReal]

The danger is if that person ever told ANYONE about it. If he did, then he's not truely anonymous, and given enough of an incentive, someone might be tempted to talk.

Am I the only one who is reading posts like this parent and mistaking this for a discussion about China? Distributing documents anonymously via FreeNet, fear of identity disclosure, friends turning you in? When the hell did America start to embody everything it is supposed to stand against?

Cheap testing...

[Halster]

Did anyone ever wonder whether M$ do this deliberately?

Recently they've had some holes (much like this) that you'd have to be out of your head smoking crack to miss.

Quality assurance at Microsoft is better than this when it comes to other areas. Could it just be that it's easier and cheaper to have somebody else find the holes and then, as the mega-funded publicity department goes into top gear issue a patch (where appropriate)?

Either that or Microsoft buys a lot of crack! ;)

Shooting ourselves in the foot?

[phalse phace]

Oh, great! Looks like what people have been saying will come true -- The DMCA will stifle innovation, quality, security,.... etc. Now whenever there's a flaw in something, people will be too afraid to report it, for fear of being prosecuted under the DMCA. Back to the Dark Ages for us!

MS Liability

[4n0nym0u53 C0w4rd]

So, let's say that MS Hailstorm is implemented and within a couple of years, a good portion of users have their data and software settings stored on .Net servers, and can access it with their Passport login and password.

Now let's say that someone finds another flaw in passport (I know, hard to believe, but go with me here). Needless to say, Hailstorm users will be left vulnerable. The question is, will the Hailstorm and Passport EULA protect MS when it comes to legal liability for a) lost data, and b) copied or stolen data (loss of intellectual property, etc...)

My guess is that even if they are to blame, MS won't be legally liable. Doesn't sound like a good choice for users...

Re:3 == 1 ?!

[evilquaker]

The headline clearly reads, "Expert hacks Hotmail in 1 line of code". Then in the second sentence of the first paragraph, "It took just three lines of code for Grossman to breach Hotmail filters..."

And the line after that reads:

The second time it took just one line.

Well, at least you tried to read the article... that's more than most of the Slashbots.

What's American Express thinking?

[krmt]

I don't really know why any large company would sign on for Hailstorm. No one really wants to be tied to any specific vendor for such an important part of their business. Granted, they're already tethered via their desktop PC's, but incorporating Hailstorm in to your business plan? You're basically putting your chance of profit in the hands of MS, who has a well known history of screwing over its own partners.

The problem, as I see it, is that American Express and others can beat their competitors to the punch by being a part of Hailstorm, providing services no one else does, but that goes with extreme risk. I guess that's why they haven't signed a contract with MS yet. It's a tough one for any company.

Re:What's American Express thinking?

[krmt]

I was thinking less about people getting their cards #'s stolen than about providing a service. When you tie yourself to another company to survive, you're pretty much dependant on them to keep doing whatever it is they're doing. I know less about the history of PC's, but Apple has screwed over a ton of businesses based on them (the clones, Quickdraw GX, etc.) in the past. These companies got screwed because they were too dependant on Apple.

Now, AMEX isn't going down because of MS or anything, but what they are doing is putting themselves in a very vulnerable position. They are basically hitching their entire online effort to Hailstorm if they go through with this, which will be a pretty big chunk of revenue someday.

Say MS decides to screw them out of Hailstorm 3 or 5 years down the line, what do they do then? AMEX may be big, but they're certaintly not capable of deploying their own version of Hailstorm. Getting in to bed with MS is a risky proposition at best, even if you're a big company.

Worm at Cracked Veridian?

[Ferd Lamarche]

Well, this is strange. I'm sitting on a Windows 98 box with McAfee VShield v4.0.3 installed and virus definition files from 2001/06/13. Whenever I try to go to http://www.veridian.com/upload/ with either IE 4.01 or Netscape 4.70, McAfee pops a warning dialogue saying I have just downloaded a worm called "SunOS/BoxPoison.worm". I also have a small Perl program I can use to perform command-line HTTP downloads, and with it, I can download the page at http://www.veridian.com/upload/ without any problems.

I'm probably getting the warning because something in the HTML code matches the signature for a known worm. But still, if the message on the site isn't enough to scare people, the warning from their virus scanner certainly will!

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Content-Location: http://www.veridian.com/upload/index.htm
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 03:51:47 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Last-Modified: Wed, 09 May 2001 12:53:30 GMT
ETag: "6a8163c87d8c01:943"
Content-Length: 289

(Slashcode has inserted a few spaces into the following HTML... I hope this doesn't trip your virus scanner...)

<html><body bgcolor=black><br><br><br>&lt ;br><br><br><table width=100%><td><p align ="center"><font size=7 color=red>fuck USA Government</font><tr><td><p align="cen ter"><font size=7 color=red>fuck PoizonBOx<tr><td><p align="center"><font size=4 color=red>contact:sysadmcn@yahoo.com.cn</htm l>

Why does anyone bother with e-book encryption?

[The Milky Bar Kid]

I thought one of the golden rules of any sort of engineering is that before you try to do something, work out whether you can do it or not. Then try. Otherwise, it's all just wasted effort.

Am I the only person who thinks the whole concept of e-book encryption with the goal of stopping dedicated piracy is pointless?

Encrypting the contents of a transmission between two parties so that no 3rd party can read it is do-able, and has always been the main thrust of encryption. But what people like Adobe and Microsoft are essentially trying to do is make it impossible for the second party to read the message - because as soon as you read the message, you can reproduce it.

Assume that Adobe/Microsoft encrypt this with something that will provably take an untenable amount of time to crack - say 1024-bit public key encryption (sorry, IANACryptologist, I don't know the proper term.). I won't be able to crack the book itself, but since it appears on the screen at some point, I'm going to be able to read it sooner or later - and I can copy it.E-book encryption is the equivalent of the club lock - it'll stop casual copiers, not the dedicated copier - and this approach will only work until the first dedicated copier writes a program to let everyone else do it.

The same is true of sound files, though maybe not to the same level, as the concept of digital watermarking can be applied. I still think the same rules apply. As a result, I can't help but think of the whole e-book and sound-file encryption push as smoke and mirrors, meant to convince people that bits can be made uncopyable.

Microsoft Security Model - implemented via DMCA

[hillct]

Microsoft's favorite security model - security through obscurity - has vary little to do with Hailstorm and everything to do with the DMCA. Not only does the producer of the security mechanism simply not publish the details of that mechanism, but through the wonders of the DMCA, Microsoft is empowered to enforce their security model by preventing the publication of holes discovered in the security system, thereby maintaining the obscurity.

Sarcasm aside, does it really matter how secure hailstorm really is, ig Microsoft can sue into oblivion anyone who publicizes or even researches security exploits related to the system...?

--CTH

Re:Microsoft Security Model - implemented via DMCA

[ichimunki]

Yes, it does matter. The most important issue here is that the DMCA protects bad security. I can't wait for MS to say "there have been no published or known exploits to XYZ Security Package, so it is secure", then later selling the US Government some NT-based, web-based nuclear missile launcher running off IIS. Or they sell systems to Citibank or the Federal Reserve.

Then some well-paid foreign hacker can crack the server, launch the missile at Canada and all heck breaks loose. Or some terrorist sympathizer can funnel money to his buddies, or simply cause havoc in major US financial systems.

Do you really think the best hackers in the world are all boring enough to work for the NSA, or even born in the US? Are we really supposed to feel secure knowing that the main obstacle preventing our "secure" systems all over from being cracked is the danger of being cracked? Talented hackers are not script kiddies. Talented hackers won't be leaving little notes like "j00 4r3 0wn3d". Talented hackers just might not care about the things the rest of us care about-- and they may be largely immune to legal action.

I think it's important that we consider the DMCA not only an affront to our traditional rights as consumers (i.e. Fair Use), but a danger to national security.

The whole thing is a bit like making it illegal to publish reviews of various locks from the hardware store. Yeah, it will keep consumer reports from telling shoppers which locks are high grade titanium or alloys and which locks are flimsy plastic, but it won't keep crooks from figuring out which is which and having a field day breaking into houses secured with the plastic locks.

Internal MS security problems

[jon_c]

I used to work as Microsoft, MS Press and MS Research. While at research I needed to hack IE so it would forget about ActiveX security, I managed to reckon the registry settings but still had some questions.

The place to ask questions to other developers internally is via Outlooks groups (like usenet), it's surprising there isn't a better channel to converse with other Microsoft developers, maybe there is, but that's all I knew about. Anyway, so I posted a question to the IE-dev group about my problem. The response was surprising, the lead PM of IE started flaming me, telling me about how Microsoft can not have any more exploits in IE, how I my manager would be informed etc..

I guess I should have mentioned that what I was doing was only going to go out to a few select terminal ill users.

The point I'm trying to make is that Microsoft is a large company made up many small groups which don't necessarily talk to each other, I'm not saying this in there defense, but it helps explain how so many problems can arise over and over again. Even if I had just went ahead and implemented this IE hack into something major I don't who would have held me accountable, as far as I know software does not need to go through a standard security audit, each group has there own QA which will vary wildly.

-Jon

Cross-site scripting??

[phutureboy]

Can anyone clearly explain cross-site scripting?

I've seen a few explanations of it but they didn't make any sense. I'm slow like that.

Re:Cross-site scripting??

[Ramses0]

A lot of interactive websites can take user input (like slashdot did when you typed in your comment). A lot of times, they'll even redisplay it for you (like when you click preview).

Most of the time, when you let users type something, you don't mind showing it back to them (they typed it after all). But with cross-site scripting, when you visit www.haxor.com, they'll provide you a link to www.phpnuke.org, but take advantage of the fact that phpnuke.org will display whatever that user has typed in.

Normally this isn't a problem, but there are people who are really good with javascript that can basically email your cookies to somebody@haxor.com after you've clicked that link. Once they've got your cookies, they can usually pretend to be you- submitting comments, stories, etc. Changing passwords. On PHPNuke, this isn't such a bad thing, but I wouldn't want anybody messing with me on my online banking site.

Take a look at the previous example. I mailed the Nuke authors about 3 months ago telling them about the above problem. No response. Don't use Nuke for anything you want to be secure. The explanation of what just happened is that search.php displayed whatever "query" contained. I stuck a few special bits of html (ie a close bracket) into their search box. When it got re-displayed, I prematurely exited their input field. This gave me free reign to put nifty red font tags onto their page. Imagine that it was evil javascript instead.

To prevent cross-site scripting attacks, you must remember to escape all untrusted data before displaying it to a user. For PHP, it would be something like: [input type=text value="[?PHP echo htmlspecialchars($their_input); ?]"]

The htmlspecialchars function automagically kills all dangerous characters before writing the data, making it much more difficult to attack.

--Robert

Re:I'm normally not one to hate on Microsoft stori

[Black Parrot]

> > There's plenty of security holes in every stock Linux distro too, you know.

> But, unlike with M$ products, you can plug them, since you have the SOURCE.

And increasingly important, you can talk about them without fear of drawing a Go To Jail card.

I suppose what you are trying to say is...

[nyet]

Using the Jim/Carol/Bob terminology...

If Jim wants to send Carol some information that they BOTH don't want Bob to see, no problem. This is the intent of crypto.

However, as soon as Carol decides that she doesn't mind Bob also getting the information, it is all over. No amout of crypto can prevent that transaction.

Given this quite obvious fact, it suprises me that ANY real crypto guy would even bother touching this problem.

Re:I suppose what you are trying to say is...

[Hobbex]

Well,

Jim = Publisher
Bob = Your computer
Carol = You

It works fine as long as your computer is not allowed to work for you, but instead works for the publisher - which is what the DMCA is all about: making it clear who your computer/DVD player/ebook reader actually belongs to and works for, and that you are merely a servant to it (What? You say you bought it? HAHAHAHAHAHA - you probably paid more for it to install the functionality so it would obey us!).
If the forces of evil thought that these technologies could work, they wouldn't have needed to buy the DMCA and WIPO (legislation costs!) Their agenda is very clear - to wrestle the control of the agents away from the users, so that those agents can act against and control them, returning customers (those things that used to be people when they were capable of cognent thought) into their rightful position as passive money pumps in the global economy.

Actually, this brings up an interesting point.

[nyet]

While I agree with you in principle, this does tickle something in the back of my brain. If the DMCA causes so many people to wish to remain anonymous when they discover a vulnerability, why not FLOOD the media with bogus exploit reports? Just claim you won't release it due to the DMCA. Eventually, if enough random hackers do this, and enough people buy it, there will be so much paranoia of "hidden" exploits, that eventually somebody will call for mass disclosure. And the only way this can happen is for global DMCA amnesty.. similar to what brought about whistle blower legislation.

Re:History of screwing over partners?

[krmt]

Most prominent is IBM. Enough said there.

Intel. Remember Wintel? Why is Intel so pro Linux now that they're bailing out SuSE?

Another is Apple. Yes, they were very much in bed together during the development of the Mac. These days it's knife the baby.

Sun. Java got twisted by Microsoft quite nicely.

There was also the bootloader story the other day, in which the article talked about the OEMs who got preassured by MS in to only having Windows on their computers.

I'm sure there are others, I'm not so up on the history of MS (I know more about Apple). But I hope this justifies things to you enough.

The fact is, all the companies you mentioned are small fish, and the small fish are what MS plays nice with or buys out. They're no threat. But when it's a big company that could potentially hold some power over MS, they get fucked over big time. American Express is a big company that's rolling in both money and brand name. As such, they actually have something to worry about in a partnership with MS.

Example:

[gnovos]

My company (nameless for now). We are a MS "partner". A few weeks ago, they suddenly decided to tell us that they were developing the exact same software as our product, and they thanked us for all the help we had given them. If we want, they will let us continue to be a "partner" and give them our great ideas for as long as we still have funding (which runs out in December).

Keep in mind:

[alewando]

Keep in mind not everyone agrees with that sentiment. Some would argue that, if you discount the numerous security issues, Microsoft has perhaps the strongest track record of innovation in the industry. <----- Read it and see what I mean.

We know it's bunk. They ought to know it's bunk, and yet they don't.

sigh.

Evidence?

[purplemonkeydan]

Is there evidence to prove that MS Reader has actually been cracked? I mean, he hasn't shown any code, he haasn't posted an cracked e-book.

Hell, I could claim that I just broke into the CIA. I know where Elvis is and I know who killed JFK, but the DMCA won't let me tell you.

Up close and personal with the WIPO treaties

[hillct]

From the cover sheet of the DMCA legislation:Basically, the DMCA is simply the mechanism withing the United States, of implementing the WIPO treaty. Any country that is a signatory to this treaty will be implementing DMCA-like legislation. Just give it some time...

For those, who are unfamiliar with the history of Intellectual property law, the EFF has a good primer.

--CTH

I'm hopeful

[Baki]

Once the public in general trusts their personal data, credit card numbers etc to MSFT (including politicians), sooner or later they will feel betrayed by this company (when, not if, someone steals their data and misuses it).

This might just be what's necessary to once and for all turn public opinion against this evil empire.

Civil Disobedience?

[why-is-it]

this guy should upload the code to freenet where, hopefully, it is impossible to remove the program or discover the author. This is the exact kind of thing freenet was designed for, so if the author is out there in slashland, go for it! Civil Disobedience ra ra ra!

No. The whole point of civil disobedience is that a law or regulation is openly defied in a very public manner, and the transgressors challenge the authorities to enforce the law. The belief is that should the larger public become aware of the law and the inappropriate punishment that comes from breaking it, the government will feel compelled to change the law. As well, if enough people are openly breaking this law, the system will get clogged up with trivialities.

Civil disobedience is not hiding in the shadows and skulking around under cover of anonymity.

And this gets a +5 insightful? WTF?