Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's Goal, Security Through Obscurity?

dave cutler writes "Salon has an amusing little wire article claiming that Microsoft argues that were they to provide any greater technical detail about protocols and APIs, it would make computers running their operating system far more vulnerable to cracking attacks." Update: 05/09 13:59 GMT by M : The benefit to customers of Microsoft integrating internet services into the operating system, as well as Microsoft's commitment to security, are exemplified in this article which notes yet another remote root hole in Microsoft's code.

6 of 374 comments (clear)

  1. Re:WTF???? by Merlin42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is an overstatement. This bug can be triggered from a web page that references the MSN Chat ActiveX Control, so if at some time in the past you installed the control then you are vulnerable even if you use trillian. The advisory states that the chat control is not installed by default with any other software so you are probably safe. Of course a better course of action for trillian users would be to verify that the control is not installed and uninstall it if it is installed.

    This leads to a couple questions I do not personally know the answer to:
    Is there a way to uninstall ActiveX controls?!?
    Can I get a list of the ActiveX controls installed on my machine??!?

  2. Read the article by Mordaximus · · Score: 4, Informative
    IF you spent the time to read the article, instead of looking for sentences that outrage you, you might realise that the vulnerability affects the MSN Chat OCX.

    In an advisory today, Eeye warned that the flaw in the "MSN Chat OCX control" enables an attacker to "supply and execute code on any machine on which MSN Messenger with the ActiveX is installed."

    In other words, if those components are installed, even if you don't use them, you are at risk. You're right, it has nothing to do with Trillian.

    The author is right, completely right. Try reading next time.

  3. Re:WTF???? by Software · · Score: 4, Informative
    Is there a way to uninstall ActiveX controls?!? Can I get a list of the ActiveX controls installed on my machine??!?
    I believe that c:\winnt\Downloaded Program Files is a fairly comprehensive list of the ActiveX controls downloaded to your machine. You can delete them from the same folder. However, ActiveX controls can also be installed by Setup programs, etc. You have to run the uninstall program and hope for the best, or do some Registry fiddling.
  4. Security Focus - Microsoft Anti-Disclosure Plan by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 5, Informative
    For some more technical coverage of Microsoft's views, take a look at

    Microsoft Reveals Anti-Disclosure Plan

    (emphasis in original)

    Five computer security firms join Microsoft to set an official standard for limiting disclosure of software security holes

    By Kevin Poulsen, Nov 9 2001 3:04AM

    MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--Microsoft and five major computer security companies rounded up the three-day Trusted Computing Forum on Thursday by formally announcing a coalition against full disclosure of computer vulnerability information, ending a week of intense speculation, and immediately sparking controversy.

    ...

    A chief objective of the group is to discourage 'full disclosure,' the common practice of revealing complete details about security holes, even if publication might aide attackers in exploiting them.
    'If it becomes hard to release vulnerabilities, that's a good way for Microsoft to get rid of some embarrassment.'
    -- Marc Maiffret, eEye Digital Security

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

  5. Re:not so crazy? by thelexx · · Score: 5, Informative

    "For one thing, it doesn't explain the frequent security flaws in Linux and Apache. To continue the analogy, there are so many holes, it looks like a golf course."

    From the SecurityFocus vulnerability db:

    IIS since 5.0 - 56 entries
    Apache since 1.3.17 - 7 entries

    Your argument is flawed at best, outright FUD at worst.

    LEXX

    --
    "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
  6. Every crash is probably another exploitable hole by tz · · Score: 5, Informative

    And Microsoft still crashes a lot.

    You are running some program and do something interesting, like accidently pasting a text document onto a URL and something crashes. Ah. Try it again. OK, if it is over 4800 or so bytes it crashes, bring up the debugger. Ah, at 4894 is the stack where the IP...

    Here is the specific difference between closed and open models.

    If I find it on Microsoft, about the only thing I can do is write a sploit for the skript kiddiez. Of course I can contact Microsoft, but they won't respond for the shorter of 4 months, or when the skript kiddiez get going. Even then it usually takes two weeks for a hotfix that breaks half the software on the server, and then another two weeks for a fix for the fix that I can apply. [Don't worry, I haven't run anything from Microsoft for several months and hope to stay Microsoft Free as much as possible].

    If I find it on GNU/BSD/Linux, I pull up the source, add a test or whatever I deem appropriate and send a patch with a description of the problem and fix to the maintainer along with a little chiding about how embarrassing it should be to have such a hole. And the minor version is incremented the next day, so everyone doing apt-get regularly won't be affected, and in a few days every distribution will have it added to the security update section.

    Even if I had the source to Micros... I probably wouldn't have enough to recompile or fix things. I could find the line of code causing the problem, but anyone who can write a sploit can read disassembly.

    Microsoft's integration makes the problem worse since any problem with what should be middleware runs in the OS. A Netscape flaw on Linux wouldn't get you root (at least not directly - you would have to find a suid flawed program). But any problem with Outlook and/or IE gives you more than enough to cause problems.

    Again, and to summarize, any software defect has a good potential to be exploited, without the source, so simply running something until it crashes (at least on MS) is a much more productive way to mine for exploitable security holes than reading through the source. The integration within MS software (the browser is part of the OS) makes the OS vulnerable because it includes the middleware, making it much larger and more complex (a flaw in IE thus *IS* a flaw in the OS), and as such cannot be sand-boxed easily.