Slashdot Mirror
Security Flaws May Be Microsoft's Undoing
tarpitt writes: "According to this article in the LA Times, repeated software flaws in Microsoft products has begun to raise concerns that they 'threaten the stability of a major piece of the world economy and to raise questions about Microsoft's future.' Flawed security is seen as a stumbling block to accepting Microsoft sponsored on-line services. It is also driving discussion about making software manufacturers liable for damages caused by flawed products." This piece in eWeek on troubles with XP's automatic updates is an interesting companion; releasing often doesn't seem to be enough.
Update: 01/15 15:00 GMT by J :
Bruce Schneier's
January Crypto-Gram
came out this morning, and is also topical: "Microsoft treats security vulnerabilities as public relations problems. Until that changes, expect more of this kind of nonsense..."
Just a thought... If they dominate the market... Most software is Microsoft... Microsoft software is buggy and insecure.... Most software is buggy and insecure! They're right on par for the course!
What's in a Sig?
Add in a Gartner analyst casting doubts on MS and raising the trust issue in terms of
A failure to execute (on security) could get Microsoft executed.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Insofar as it's true that software is flakier and more vulnerable than other products, the questions we might ask are the extent to which liabiliy has motivated other product manufacturers to be a lot more careful in their manufacturing processes, and the extent to which software is "inherently" impossible to get right. Is that perception that software should be exempt from the sort of standards that other goods have accurate, or has that perception been constructed by years of poor software and a lack of accountability?
Begun to raise concerns?! That's like saying, "In other news, repeated appearances of the star Sol on an approximate 24 hour basis have begun to raise concerns that it may do so tomorrow."
Microsoft never built operating systems with security in mind. The last time I checked, the security testing group at MS consisted of two Norwegian Black rats, a four-year-old, and a blind, deaf, chimpanzee with a drinking habit. It still hasn't occurred to them that improving their security might, in fact, be a good thing.
There, I feel better.
They that would sacrifice their
A blue-ribbon panel of technology experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences said lawmakers should consider ending Microsoft's and other software companies' special protection from product liability lawsuits, which have long forced makers of cars, medical devices and just about everything else to pay closer attention to the safety of their wares.
Interesting, but in the case of free software, what would this mean for the developers? We all want Microsoft to be held responsible in some way for their security holes and such, but would we want to be treated the same way ourselves? What would happen when an author of a piece of free software was dragged to court because the software was buggy? And what would happen if it was Microsoft who did the dragging?
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Has shoddy security caused Microsoft any grief so far? A month after a hole is found, they fix it, and no one seems to care after that. Sure, people that don't like Microsoft remember it and add it to their encyclopedia of Microsoft holes to whine about, but people that like Microsoft fix it and go on with life. Who do they place the blame on? The "evil hacker", not the poor software.
People are so accepting of insecurity that they are even willing to spend cash money on antivirus suite after antivirus suite every year. It's just become a part of the cost of owning a PC.
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
...except instead of 'security' it was 'stability.' Now Win2K/WinXP can stay up and running for weeks and months on end, and you don't hear too much about Windows stability problems for users of the new OS versions.
Windows has been unstable for years. Did it threaten Microsoft even one iota? Nope.
Dream on, sorry...
"And like that
Hard to establish liability for free software. But shareware authors who charge a small fee (and hence make a direct profit) might be easier to target should this liability idea take hold. Shareware would become enough of a liability for small-time authors that they would be forced to either give up and find a publisher with deep pockets, or else give up revenue all together and just give their software away for free. Perhaps a threshold could be established to determine when liability kicks in?
Why aren't we told when an Editor moderates our posts?
Removing the limits on liability would not only affect Microsoft, but the GNU GPL. Would you want to be personally responsible for any GPL'ed code you wrote? Perhaps the solution would be to form a corporation and assign GPL copyright to it.
Anyway, at the very least, this sort of law would light a fire under the ass of the software engineering community. Maybe it cause some actual progress!
Ok, since when is Microsoft's troubles with security flaws being bad for business news? Anyway ....
/. users [those brave enough to admit they run XP on at least one box] seen these problems?
XP users said the updates cause systems to become unstable and some device drivers to stop working. [companion article]
I'll note that I haven't seen any problems recently on my XP box - in fact thanks to a BIOS update and a new video driver it's running smoother than ever (for what that's worth). Have any
Either way, I certainly always like to know what's going on in my system - so I never have it automatically install updates. For those interested in turning off the automatic downloads (highly recommended) - go to Control Panel, System, and the Automatic Updates tab. I have it set on the middle option (to notify, but not download/install automatically). Of course, I have a *legal* version of the OS, you warez kiddies will probably be a little more paranoid about any notifications. *grin*.
Groove Salad -- a nicely chilled plate of ambient grooves and beats.
There are hundreds of quicker ways to have your windows box become unstable...
:)
Installing programs --> unsupported
Installed additional hardware --> unsupported
System booting --> unsupported
Using a monitor --> unsupported
Bypassing a circumvention device --> unsupported
DVD Playback --> unsupported
ever try to get help from MS, or esculate a real bug with them for any of the above?
How much worse could the software be without updates?
I recently had to rebuild a web server after a machine crashed, and getting NT4, IIS Option pack, etc. up and running with all patches was a _very_ long task.
It's not enough that Microsoft patches their products -- they are still shipping CDs of NT4 and win2k with the original 'release' of the product, so installing it means the original install plus a dozen or more service packs, hotfixes, etc. This makes it very tempting for internal corporate PC usage to just skip most of the patches to save time, and makes the process of securing Microsoft software that much more difficult.
They should just release new 'point' versions of the OS with every service pack, and stop selling the out of date CDs! Maybe this would cut down on the useless churn of moving from NT4 to 2K to XP to whatever -- and that would have to be good.
"But actually trying to use m4 as a general-purpose langage would be deeply perverse" --ESR
Yes, Microsoft products have security faults, whose doesn't? Microsoft's get more notice because of the insane amount of marketshare they have, also Microsoft's software is less mature than the UNIX offerings people often compare it to in terms of tight security.
I remember back in the late 80s and early 90s how much of a joke UNIX security in general was. Back then you could pretty much root any non-.gov UNIX system on the Internet, remotely, at will.. (thanks in large part to SENDMAIL though many other pieces of software had problems as well). People who bitch and moan about how long it takes Microsoft to fix bugs compared to UNIX vendors must not have been around when you could change the IFS under SunOS and easily root the box using any SUID program that did a system() or exec() call (quite a few, at the time)...Even after Sun, etc, fixed that bug it remained unpatched in a huge number of systems for years....
Unix security is better now, but that's in large part due to maturity...Microsoft software will improve as well..Look at how much they've improved stability already when compared to Win95...It will happen...slowly, perhaps.
That a majority of people do not trust MS is not surprising. I don't trust my government, my bankers, my customers, hell... I doubt the guy at the supermarket.
I maybe trust my mum and dad, and aunt jemima for her tasty pancakes - but a software company???
People are cynical enough that they just bumble through life looking over their shoulder bitching about stuff.
I just bought a new laptop - it came with XP pro - already I'm having problems with it. But I bitch about it over coffee and just get on with things. I had to register the software - something I bitched about. IIS won't work properly - bitch bitch bitch. Norton seems to be checking every file every 2 minutes making the thing unusable for the first hour in a day - bitch bitch bitch.
Would I buy another the same - probably.
The trust issue won't hurt MS as much as we'd like to think. And it won't help the alternatives much either.
The movie industry sucks - but a good percentage of you reading this will run out and give them 30 dollars for Tron someday soon.
The nightmare scenario.. Three hours from when a widespread bug (like the recent XP one) and having millions of windows machines trashing everything they touch.
That is the future, and it will happen someday.
Use the warhol worm spreading technique. Read it and be frightened. He claims 8 MINUTES from first infection to millions of infections.
I'm not quite as confident as he is in that number. But I'll definitely agree that 2 hours is more than enough time. (1 million vulnerable hosts, 5 scans/sec. Start with 1000 hosts, each second, 5000 probes, finding one vulnerable host. Thus, after 15 minutes, 2000 hosts, and doubling every 15 minutes.)
And, the more vulnerable hosts, the faster it spreads.
Now imagine a truly destructive payload. One which does not delete files, but corrupts them, starting with the fileservers. It restores datestamps to make it impossible to identify what files are corrupted.
Three hours from exploit to millions of computers corrupting thousands of files. Antivirus won't keep up, hell, warninsgs won't even reach most people until after its demolished their fileserver. With obfuscation techniques, the worm could survive 3 hours without being reverse-engineered.
It spreads so fast, there's no defense. It spreads so fast, you won't be aware its trashing all files until its already started. The only reason we've survived this long is that nobody really competent has worked on a worm.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. The only question is when it will occur, and whether you will be running Windows when the time comes. I hope you keep good backups.
In the "Great OSS Boom of '99" the press was all awash with Linux this, Linux that. MS stayed true to its course, kept on with the updates, and got XP out the door.
/. bias, we're nothing. An article a week like this, even as a back-page editorial, is enough to cost them how many customers?
Now it seems things have changed: more and more, I am seeing articles that are negative of MS. "XP isn't stable", "too many updates", "XP isn't secure", "W2k was fine, why did they change it?" is what I see more and more of. Red Hat gets decent nods, and now even Apple of all people is selling a Unix operating system, albeit one that is packaged in a lamp.
Is MS at risk of losing the press?
Articles like this must drive them absolutely BONKERS. Forget the
How many of the system integrators like the guy in the article will just give up and stop dealing with XP, or worse yet, call Big Blue?
If MS loses the appeal of the popular press - promoting every new release as stable and secure - then they're screwed, even without the class action suits and liability claims. Any more FBI warnings will serve as months of fodder for the rags to hammer on them.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Hello! I'm sure everyone will be glad to know that currently IE (even
a fully patched IE6) can currently...
* Run any command or program off the hard disk
* Monitor the users clipboard, and steal the contents
* Read or steal any file off the local disk
* Check existence of any local file
* Access the DOM, cookies, or read the content of any other website
regardless of domain, protocol or security zones
* Fake the file name in a download dialog
..although most of those only work if active scripting is enabled.
These security holes are all *proven* to work, and could easily be
used to create a devastating worm. Some of them are about a month old,
and still not patched by MS. Delightful.
The two latest exploits are http://tom.vpwsys.co.uk/clipboard/ (mine!)
and http://www.osioniusx.com - see http://www.securityfocus.com for
more.
Dare Microsoft to even think about this. Their worst fear is a world where people choose software based on quality.
Seriously, we don't need to whine about what some legislators are doing about the big bad wolf's coding practices. What we need to do is start setting the example. Say "I write good code!" and stand behind those words. Somebody who knows how should create a version of the GPL that includes appropriate warrantees for Free Software. The "Quality GPL" (GQL?). You don't have to use it, if you think your code is buggy or is a development version. Right now we just click on "Stable Branch" and that sends a message to those in the know, but how much better if you go visit a software repository and find piles of code that are stamped with a license that guarantees that the product is free from defects in workmanship (modifying the source code voids the original warranty, of course, and people who re-release modified code are under obligation to change the license to reflect that).
We want people to get the idea that software that claims to be stable yet comes with the phrase "NO WARRANTY" is probably a steaming turd. Especially if they paid good money for it.
Naturally, you can't predict how some people will use your product. "No, sir, the VCR does not function under water." Your code might not work on an SGI, either, if you developed it under HPUX. Using the product in a manner not intended will void the warranty. Sometimes it's not a bug, it really is a feature (or the lack of one). But if somebody finds a bug, you WILL fix it, won't you? Why not put that in writing? Even offer a monetary reward to the first finder (how about $2.56?) of every bug.
Note that agreeing to fix bugs, or claiming that your product is bug free, is completely different from assuming liability if the user uses your program to kill himself. That's a completely different story.
So, it is actually in their best interest to do shitty software, in order to prompt lawmakers for such a change in law. Once the law is passed, they clean up their act, and watch with glee as OSS developers get sued into oblivion by liability lawyers...
Such law should have a provision that it only applies to commercial software (i.e. software that is sold for a price, or on the base of signed license contracts). Free (as in speech) software should be excluded from such liability. Free (as in beer) software would still be covered, by considering it as promotional material to sell commercial software (i.e. give away Internet Explorter to sell Windows).
Say no to software patents.
Yet Another Microsoft Apologist
What about Apple? Are we forgetting the fact that the original Mac was relatively secure for over a decade, despite granting full root access to whoever? Yes, there were virii and trojans and whatnot (can't really be prevented) but the design of the system prevented a lot of problems for the average user. These are the same average users who are going to be affected by the XP problems, not UNIX admins.
MS-DOS and its descendants were around for even longer than the Mac, and the NT system is very mature. Why can't they match Apple's security?
I'm sick of MS apologists. Microsoft makes shit. It's shit that's getting better, but it's still shit. Don't whine and say it's unfair. They have the money, the power, and the resources to make what is far and away the best software in the world. And yet we get articles like this, and we get people like you whining about how MS is being treated unfairly. Forget it.
As the market leaders who the majority of the world depend on for their computing needs they deserve heavy criticism.
As predatory monopolists they deserve heavy criticism.
As people who promise security they deserve heavy criticism.
As people who would like nothing better than to see Windows everywhere, and the GPL and Linux and Apache and SAMBA wiped off the planet they deserve heavy criticism.
So fuck whining about how MS is treated unfairly. If we complain enough then maybe they'll listen for a change.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
that's the most stupJ00 4r3 0wn3d!id thing I've ever heard! My Windows XP box h45 b33n h4x0rd h4h4h4h4h4! sorry, I don't know what's wrong with my keyboard10wn3dj00 it keeps messing up.. but anyway, Microsoft security is perfectly fine here
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
In a previous comment on another article, I noted that Unix has spent its time "in the trenches". Infosec history is full of Unix and its exploits... and its eventual improvement. But it is too easy to look at this history and learn the wrong lesson.
Unix's history of security flaws is less about Unix and more about infosec awareness. Unix changed as the understanding of infosec and security principles changed. While time has allowed more of these flaws to be discovered and removed from the Unix code base, the process over the years has been more about knowing what to look for (or even to bother looking). And as this understanding of infosec principles, concepts, and procedures has increased entirely new chunks of unix code has materialized - sometimes to fill a void, but often to replace another project's functionality with a new design that has taken security issues in consideration during its inception.
In short, Unix does benefit from its maturity. But the greater lesson is the infosec mind set. The tao of security, if you will. And these are concepts that can be applied to any project / OS.
The claims that Microsoft will "get there" with maturity are misleading. Microsoft may indeed improve. But its not maturity of their code base that's at issue. The issue is whether Microsoft will begin to understand Security and design systems based on that understanding.
Microsoft has shown signs of improvement with a sudden handful of security tool offerings. But unfortunately, these are really superficial afterthoughts to an already flawed environment.
Microsoft's problem is not technical; its cultural. Microsoft is a technology company that excels at marketing. Articles by Microsoft coders talk about the push from Marketing to add additional features at the cost of bug-hunting and resolution.
This kind of environment clashes with two infosec concepts. The first is that vulnerabilities are bugs - something malfunctions in an unexpected way, leaving the system vulnerable to intentional manipulation of this bug. The second is that there is an inverse relationship between functionality and security. Increasing the number of features, and the ease of using these features, often threatens a system's security.
Marketing at Microsoft will first have to care about infosec issues (this may be happening as Microsoft gets more and more negative press). Then Microsoft will have to strive to design secure systems even at the cost of features (and possibly even abandoning or severely restructuring current systems).
It will take a maturity of a different kind.
To really implement tight security (the only kind that will prevent 95% of viruses) means a drastic change in microsoft's entire line of products. The fact is most people know better, but when they sit down at a computer their brains turn off and click everything. Only way microsoft can prevent all these email viruses isn't to turn off "launch attachment", because people will turn it on the first time they get an attachment. It's to require users save the file, scan the file and limit user account in windows. That means users have to login as the administrator to install programs and do updates. I'm sure people are saying, "just like unix."
Will people put up with less convienance after they've had it for 8 years? My guess is probably not. In the best case scenario, people will slowly get used it and take 25 years to replace all the old software. Short of giving away their software, microsoft will have a huge headache of replacing all the outdated version with hacker friendly features.
I disagree. Many of the virus problems that have plagued MS are because they included features along with brain-dead defaults that made it easy for viruses to propagate.
For example, hiding known file name extensions by default often tricks users into launching an executible attachment when they think it's a jpg or somesuch.
For example, executing code automatically, especially in preview windows was a stupid default.
The list goes on and on. The bottom line is the features and defaults were seemingly determined by marketing personel.
Come on, that list is more than 6 months out of date. No objective stats of occurrences of incidents are provided (try the CERT site for that). Many of the references to advisories/bug reports etc are even older than 6 months (a quick scan shows two or three that appear to have been logged in the year 2000, the rest seem to be mainly 1999). The newest CERT advisory on sendmail for instance was raised in 1997 on version 8.8.4. In fact, basically the whole list comes under the categories a) running out-of-date software, b) running software on machines that don't need it. e.g. DNS on a machine that isn't a DNS server.
In fact there is a more up to date and better structured list here:
http://www.sans.org/top20.htm
Even on this page, taking the sendmail example (ref U2) again, the most recent bug report they quote is on 8.8.4 which is ancient (8.8 was release before any of sendmail's current Open Source competitors were even written). Which means that this vulnerability is really an instance of not keeping your software up to date (included in G1).
Use your common sense, the biggest computer security problem at the moment is viruses and worms which affect mainly Windows systems mainly because of the popularity of Windows, particularly amongst non technical users.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
MS Support Link on this
Needless to say, if you live 5 states away and have ever tried to talk your parents or friends through support over the phone: "No.. don't click that one... click on the ADVANCED button... now what do you see...?" -- this is much better.
First:
And then:Director of Security Assurance ??!?!
If you can imagine a more Dilbertified position within a company....
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
On most modern PCs, the BIOS is flashable. The control chips on the IDE drives are flashable. The CPU has flashable instructions. These are all there to deliver upgrades in case of a bug.
Now, imagine a virus that destroys the IDE control chips on each drive (no accessing the data again, short of mechanically removing the platters), destroys the BIOS (no booting again short of physical replacement of the BIOS chip), and destroys the CPU (instructions are broken, starting with the ability to update the instructions).
Cross this with Warhol propogation techniques. While you're at it, delay the payload long enough to maximize propogation rates, but not long enough to allow antiviral reaction.
This could lead to *hardware kill rates* on the order of 10%-50% (or more) of the computers on the Internet. None of those computers would ever work again, and data stored on them could not be easily recovered.
All of this is doable from publicly documented information, crossed with the Microsoft wormhole-of-the-week.
Are you frightened? I am.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
Depends entirely on the laws (or lack thereof) that would replace the current regime.
If the law were structured that you were liable for all amounts incurred on your credit card, even after theft, victims of card theft would be broke.
If the law were structured that the credit card company was liable, even for the first $50, all credit cards would be secure, and using a stolen card or automatically-generated credit card number would be impossible.
The crux of the debate is that if software companies were legally liable for more of the damages arising from security holes in their products, there'd be a hell of a lot less security holes.
The cost of Fucking Up when writing software for nuke plants and hospitals and spacecraft is Very High. Such software developers rarely Fuck Up.
The cost of Fucking Up when writing the operating system with a 90% market share is Very Low. Such software developers Fuck Up on a daily basis.
Seems pretty clear how to get less Fucking Up to happen. (What's remains to be seen is whether or not the consumer is willing to pay the cost of having less Fuckups. Sadly, the 90% marketshare of one particular bunch of Fuckups is indication that the consumer isn't willing to pay that much for security.)
I see. So it's OK for people to run around advocating Linux or Apache as a serious alternative to WinXP or IIS, but the former are not to be subject to the same liability and the contributors not subject to the same incentives? Realistically, these two claims are not compatible.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
As to whether it actually meets said standard -- yes, it would be good to have an independent testing team, but who's going to fund it? Do you only get to have a rating if you can afford to help support the test process?
That being the case -- I'd suggest a twofold system: a rating the software author agrees to meet, and a number assigned by independent review when that is available. So if I claim a 3 rating but actually manage a 4, I get a 4/3 rating. Consumers have caught onto similar systems quickly in the past (such as gas mileage ratings on new vehicles).
To extend the idea another step, the penalties for failing to meet said standard should also be set on the same scale, so there will be no question how heavily any breach of performance standards will be penalized. Frex, if you claim to produce grade 5 software, but it's actually only grade 4, you get one increment worth of penalty. If you claimed grade 4 but it was really grade 1, you get 3 increments worth of penalty. And so on. That way someone who tries but didn't quite get it right doesn't get penalized as much as someone who really screws up and doesn't care.
If you can't afford the liability, then don't claim the reliability. Simple.
Occurs to me that liability insurance for software (both individual and corporate products) could quickly become reality under such a scenario, with premiums set apace with the reliability claimed for said software.
Perhaps it could start as a voluntary system, which develops coercive force on the software industry as consumers become accustomed to the concept and as more funding for independent testing becomes available -- the system would make it in the publishers' best interest to support it, perhaps with some charity testing for free software.
Anyone else have ideas for how to extend the concept?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Destroying a computer is not the worst you can do.
Corrupting the data on the computer is MUCH worse.
Think of a database for an ecommerce server. A virus that understands the database format, and turns every 7 into a 3 in the database. Credit card numbers (I'm sorry, sir, your card has been declined), prices, product IDs, addresses, zip codes, telephone numbers (hope this doesn't happen to your phone company), social security numbers. Everything on that database.
Then it transmits itself to another host, and removes itself from that machine, attempting to cover its tracks.
Destroying the computer is *nice* compared to letting it run for the next month with incorrect data. You just corrupted the next 7 million transactions that system processes. And how much does it cost to correct that? Restoring a nuked server is cheap by comparison.
Which would be worse for a serious ecommerce business? Being down for a day? Or having to check every transaction that was processed for the last 30 days, and dealing with mischarged customers, fraud charges from CC#s billed incorrectly, incorrect products shipped, lost packages that were misaddressed...
Destroying a system is bad for a home user... corrupting it can be deadly for a business.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Actually most flashable cards have a backup non-flashable ROM, mainly in case the power goes during a BIOS flashing or similar. Also, chips can't turn off write access to themselves so if you just have a valid ROM to boot it, you can overwrite the BIOS again with a working version. When there was this BIOS-overwriting virus some years ago, there were a few laptops that didn't have a backup chip, probably to save space, and they choked permanently. The remaining ones were just to reflash, problem solved. After that, they've learned.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings