Slashdot Mirror
Windows Security Through Annoyances?
techmuse writes "According to News.com,
Microsoft's next version of Windows will let you know that you are looking
at (supposedly) secure data by putting personalized text, such as the names
of your dogs (a null list in my case), in window borders, and will also hide
the data unless the window has no others on top of it. That should make it very usable, and speed adoption of security features -- especially among
people who need to be able to see the data in two partially overlapping
windows at once."
How is that more secure than the little combination lock icon?
"Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
Graphics cards are a security problem, because they contain their own pool of memory.
MS could just drop support for all video cards that have their own memory in favor of ones with integrated or shared memory (a la i810 family). Then the OS can have direct control over every aspect of the cards memory because it actually resides in main memory.
the window borders thing isn't a bad idea, but as for making content disappear in the background... "hullooo, earth to microsoft"
All I know is, I'm not buying Longhorn; I don't need MS holding my hand wherever I go. This seems like just another "feature" where something can go wrong...
Not much now, because people aren't expecting everything to be so secure. In the future, when it's expected that what you're looking at is secure, attacks like this could be come more widespread.
While I agree that security should be easy, you can only dumb it down so much. If the entire knowledge that the user has is that a window is "secure", they are only getting a warm fuzzy feeling, not real security.
For real security, you need to know WHAT has been secured. Examples include:
Data was encrypted in transit.
Data is authenticated to come from XXX source, according to YYY certificate authority.
This window is protected from being viewed by PCAnywhere.
This data has DRM, and is protected from being copied to another computer.
Unless you tell the user WHAT the security is, they will make poor decisions about what to do with the data. Putting the name of their dog on the window doesn't provide that information.
A lot of things about the technology formerly known as Palladium scare me, but if it could be implemented in an open architecture where the machine owner has the keys, I think good things could happen.
Just my $0.02.
A hack is just an idiom waiting for wider use.
How does vanishing data from a secure window when its not on top anymore makes the data substansially more secure? If anyone has allready hacked into that system it maybe safely assumed that he has access to memory... I agree it is safer in case you are watching porn and someone walks into the room...but in real business world people view confidential information when they know that there is no one to look upon their shoulders. IMHO this is just another gimmick ....."OH look I have a secure window!! I dont care if I open this strange looking attachment that came by email .....ZAP!!!"
All your pets' names are belong to Microsoft?
Seriously, given the number of people who use a pet's name for a password, displaying a list of them on the screen seems like a huge security risk.
Why not secure the interface so hackers CAN'T pop up a new window outside the client window area!!
Oh wait, that would deprive MS of ad revenue...
No no, much easier to put up a purty border of your kids middle hyphenated names because malicious hackers would never figure out where that configuration information is stored (regedit).
"Honey, why does Thomas-Clark's name keep appearing in the border of my window underneath this ad for a web cam?"
...from Microsoft. Pay no attention to what's going on behind the software curtain, just watch something soothing and comfortable like pet names on your window borders and trust someone else to be your data security nanny. Just more dumbing down of computer users, if you ask me (Score:5, Pessimistic)
Furthermore, I think that this could turn out to help security much more than some obscure feature. It is this low-level, "no shit sherlock" kind of basic security that is much more needed.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
It is fundamentally possible to target the weakest link of any security system. If I cannot create a lookalike window, then I just have to trick Windows into doing that for me. For example, the mere fact that I have an SSL certificate does not mean that you are safe submitting your credit card to my site, although it means you know who I am and can contact me or my company if something happens. SSL requires, in order to be effective, a visible address, and a popup window with no address bar has no way of verifying the address for the customer ;-) So I already have a way of attacking this trust and at least making it hard for the user to track me down.
;-)
Tricks like these are not addressed by this approach which means that Microsoft still hasn't learned that con artists are probably the most likely to be able to get your confidential information
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Hmm, okay, so let's say I make a Microsoft-ish spoof page with a border that has "king", "snoopy" or "brutus" all around, and half the visitors will recognise their page with their unique pooch's name on it, and will give me their credit card number in total confidence. Hmmm ....
I was thinking that too. Then I read the article:
"A hacker can create a spoof page with dogs' names running along the border but, in all likelihood, not one reading "Buffy, Skip and Jack Daniels--and in that order," Biddle said."
True, but anyone could just create a similar-looking window, and just put words "Secure Window" instead of "Buffy, Skip and Jack Daniels". Guess which one will look to be secure and which one will not.
Also, if this system is not clearly explained to non-savvy users (and I am guessing it will not be), then there will be other implications as well - such as people typing in their passwords, or realizing their pet name *is* their password, etc. I look forward to how they implement this and confuse users.
Yeah, I'm getting sick and tired of companies asking for personal information (Mother's maiden name, birthday, social security number) as proof of who I am. Some of the information is public record anyway. Now I have to protect my pets names as secret -- and hope the vet doesn't want to hack into my information.
There are technical means to do this much better, but society seems to be afraid of using cryptographic means.
Think about this for a minute:
The computer has to come with some text built in from the start. Let's say it will be "this is a secure window". Ok, great. Now think of the 99% of computer users out there. How many of them will actually bother to change that default text to something more original? 10%? 5%? 1%?
Now put yourself in the shoes of a typical computer user and think about this: you're out there surfing the web, when out of nowhere comes this window with the text "this is a secure window" running around the border all fancy-like. And what do you know, the window claims to be from a sysadmin, saying they need you to enter your password. How many average users would happily comply? 50%? 80%? 95%?
Great idea Uncle Bill, more zombies for me to command!
Small correction if I might. The great wall of China cannot be seen from space. This is a common misconception. Recall that at its best the Wall is no wider than an American two lane highway, which also cannot be seen from space. ("from space" defined as at least orbital altitude)
Secondly, as far as security is concerned the wall, which is not one wall but a series of interlocked fortifications, stopped nothing that really wanted over it. Like computers, Wall security is only as good as the people that have the keys. As the guard had the keys, not the Emperors, sufficient bribes got anyone through that wanted through.
Please, in future diatribes get the incidental facts straight. Thank you.
Now, Microsoft wants you to give them the keys. Being that they do not see fit to obey the law of the land, a simple thing, are you trusting them with you computer security? Something that is at least as "important" as the law, and to my mind even more so.
Garry AKA -Phoenix- Rising Above the Flames
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
And now for something completely different...
/. runs a story about cracked private keys.
What about a emulation that runs NGSCB? E.g. some kind of Wine or Bochs? You could easely compromise secured connections (and windows) because for the host OS they're running in normal, unprotected memory.
Even worse: What about a NGSCB client that pretends to be a real NGSCB-aware OS but is a fake in reality? You say asymmetric encryption? I say: Once these NGSCB-ready computers are out, it's only a matter of days until
Won't this feature require close integration between the operating system and the browser?
...that inconvenience makes any system less secure, because lazy people will do stupid things to alleviate the inconvenience. This seems like a step in the wrong direction.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Ah yes, but the new Windows is *supposed* to protect you, remember?
The whole point of it is, if someone can get 60 seconds alone with your box, you're SOL..
And even if they can't get physical contact with your box, if they really want in, they will get in.
There are a lot of ways. With all the miniture cameras out now, well, you know the rest of the story..
I used to sell Tempest PC's to the gubmint a number of years back and learned a few things about physical security in the process.
They used isolated power supplies, fiber optic for any lans, faraday caged buildings and rooms, you name it.
And the really secured machines were DEEP underground in a faraday cage in a concrete bunker and ran on battery banks that were disconnected from the charge source before the systems were powered up. And to prevent tampering, guards were posted with M16's..
Now THAT was security.. They went from that, during the cold war, to losing hundreds of laptops in the post cold war era.. Some security eh??
If you don't maintain physical control of your box then you can not be certain of privacy and integrity of your data. Most people think that with the stupid password on their W2k or XP box that their stuff is private. Wrong. I can boot up Knoppix and your hard drive is mine to do with as I please.
I can email your private data out, FTP it out, http upload it anywhere I want, burn it to a CD or RW, FTP it all into a laptop with an ethernet x-over cable, dump it to zip disks, I could go on and on.
A person that can get to a box in the middle of the night and has a few hours to spare can have a real playday with your box and a Knoppix CD. I've shown this to customers and they crap all over themselves when they discover that that dipstick password "security" is utterly useless.
Knoppix+Windows box+ethernet+time alone=b0xen_0wnership..
Of course this is no concern to M$, they just care about you listening to music on your PC and paying per listen. And they have to stop those EVIL LINUX people from watching movies on their LINUX BOXES. All of these new proposals are not about security, they are about THEM controlling YOU..