Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Plans An Overhaul For Patch System
sckienle writes "ZD-Net has an article about Microsoft's plans to overhaul their patch system. 'Ninety-five percent of attacks happen after a patch for a known software vulnerability has been issued' says Scott Charney, chief trustworthy computing strategist at Microsoft. Basically, Scott is promoting the idea that Microsoft can do a better job, in many ways, so people will trust and be able to install patches quickly. Microsoft has a transcript of Scott Charney's talk on their site."
As reader sweeney37 summarizes, " Microsoft's plan is to reduce the patch installers from eight to two, they want to have one patch installer specifically for the OS side and one specifically for the applications." Sweeney37 points out this InformationWeek article on the planned change.
What about the recent patch that "broke" peoples net connections... I don't want something like that automatically applied.
It's so difficult for Administrators to manage all these patches.
We take a risk by delaying patches, we take an even bigger risk by patching without decent amounts of testing.
The last thing we want is to have tested the patch and find out we rolled it out incorrectly. MS appears to be going some way to help us good guys out.
.. I sincerely doubt that their reputation for releasing patches that break as much as they fix will be affected very much by this move. I think most business users will see it as an attempt to appear as though they're trying to address the issues instead of actually doing anything.
It's kind of like a balding man with a really bad comb-over. It looks okay from a distance, but it doesn't really fool anyone.
Users who do not patch their default Linux installs are the ones to blame when they get hacked, but Windows users who turn off automatic updates are off the hook because Microsoft didn't roll out a patch correctly?
Double standard, anyone?
After i just go through hell with m$s last patch to fix a security problem... connection problems. That thing took 5 hours to remove and still i see side effects of it (like aim wont connect and stay connected for long). But hey, that's how they make their killing: tech support. Sadly I'm not (dumb|smart) enough to (write|call) them on this one. Maybe its time for a patch system that simply removes the files they over wrote and stores the old ones somewhere.... that'd be really nice..
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Hi, A good idea to improve the speed of patch adoption should be not to use patches to sneak in system "enhancements". I use XP for some tasks at home and once I applied one "cumulative security patch for Internet explorer" I found out Windows was keeping me from watching my region 1 DVDs ( I live in Spain ). Of course I re-installed windows and I stop installing whatever patch and I am trying to move all my desktop needs to Linux; anyway I believe this behavior is shameful if not criminal. I have since advise all my clients to plan an exit-strategy from Microsoft products. The belief from Microsoft they can restrict product features set, after you already bought it makes dangerous to "bet" your business on their good faith as they do not have any
Come on, that's hardly reasonable.
How is a user supposed to trust a patch being issued by a company that is known to release vulnerable software in the first place?
Yes, it's not a reasonable standpoint for a user to have, but it's still valid!
Take this example: My system works. Apple releases Quicktime 6.3, iMovie 3.0.3, iSync 1.1, and Bluetooth 1.2.1 today. You expect me to update all of them?
Why? Just because? Because there are new features? Because they fix bugs? Because they improve performance? Just because Apple decided to release them?
But the difference is that I do trust Apple. Having used their OS and system for 2 years, now, I have found that Apple updates don't introduce more problems, do increase functionality, performance, and reliability, so I *will* update just because.
However, there *are* pieces of software I haven't updated. I haven't updated my base station software, yet, because it works and I don't want to restart it. I haven't updated my iPod software, again for the same. I haven't updated my IE because I don't use it, and have deleted it.
But I *don't* trust Microsoft. I've been using them for 10 years, and I won't update until there's feedback on whether there are new instabilities, problems, crashes, etc.
That... and did I mention I don't trust Microsoft?
GPL Deconstructed
Not only do they need to standardize the patch installers more, they also need to put into patches the ability to slipstream them with new installations, like you can do with a service pack. The number of critical updates we have to install after every new installation of XP is ridiculous when they could just provide us with an easy method of integrating the changes into the source files.
Sorry, Charney, it's not the patch installation software that's the problem. Sure the changes you suggest will make things a lot easier, but their absence isn't why people don't install your patches. The problem is the patches themselves.
Yes, the patches themselves. People don't install them because they break critical production software which must not be broken. And in some cases those patches can't be backed out without a complete wipe and reinstall of the system, witness the recent VPN protocol "fix". As long as this is the case, people will still not install the patches no matter how easy the installation process is.
If MS wants to improve their patch process, they need to do a few things:
Any time something wrong with Linux is pointed out, you are then reminded that somehow, this is a good thing. Linux is always perfect.
Not so with MS. They can do no good ever. According to Slashdot, MS has NEVER come out with anything decent. They could compile an exact duplicate of Linus' personal kernel, and somehow, the Zealots would find something wrong.
It's amazing how MS is slagged as not having an ounce of innovation, what about Linux itself? This is not an OS that was developed independently, with no legacy ties. In fact, it was written to be a substitute for Unix, a copy, a clone. Linux could not exist with Unix.
This is the thinking of the supplicants who recently touted "Feet of Fury" as innovative.
Of course, this will be modded down. Contrarian opinions are not tolerated here (the supposed bastion of free thinking). You think Bill is the Borg? You haven't met a Zealot.
I see this as Microsoft taking a much needed step towards addressing the #1 security problem plaguing the Internet: Joe User.
Joe User doesn't even know what Windows Update is, so never installs any patches for the operating system. Joe User clicks on any E-mail he gets that says "L@@K NEW WINDOWS SECURITY PATCH!" or "ANNA KOURNIKOVA NAKED!!1" As a result, Joe User is running several different trojans, and his system is being used as a DDoS attack drone whenever it is online.
As much as we might decry a percieved invasion of our right to run our own systems, forcing Joe User to keep his system up to date with the latest patches is a good thing for all of us. Fewer packet floods, fewer lamers on compromized hosts, and possibly less spam. It's likely that Joe User doesn't even CARE that Microsoft is installing whatever it wants, whenever it wants, on his box. In the end, as long as those of us who know what we're doing can disable this feature (and those of us who don't CAN'T), I can only see this being a good thing for everyone concerned.
So if you have a pirated copy, and you constantly get infected by worms because you can't get any security patches, wouldn't that make you more inclined to BUY THE SOFTWARE?
story of a billion dollar company, run by a 10 cent brain, i.e. Bill Gates
Out of curiosity, if you're so much smarter than Mr Gates, why haven't you started your own billion dollar company?
Come on now, we don't need to resort to petty ad hominem attacks--stick to actual problems with microsoft please (which you did allude to), not your jealousy over one man's incredible success. Not to be a grammar troll either, but if you're going to call someone stupid, you might want to spell correctly as well..
peace
That critical production software NEEDS a patch, f.e. it has a security hole, or runs on top of an OS that has a security hole. THerefor it IS already broken and thus needs patching. THere is NO excuse for not patching your software, like there is also no excuse for having security holes in your software.
That's a rather simplistic view. In practice you have to decide if the odds of being affected by the bug the patch fixes are greater than the odds of the patch screwing up the system in some unknown way. Sometimes it comes down to "the devil you know vs. the devil you don't"
There is NO excuse for not patching your software, like there is also no excuse for having security holes in your software.
To quote Morpheus, "welcome to the real world". What if your choice is between these two:
1) running software with a security hole, but being able to bill your customers, and
2) not running software because the patch breaks the application that allows you to bill your customers, thus not making any money and going out of business.
Unfortunately, sometimes this is a real situation, and not just with microsoft software.
While a patch system overhaul is long overdue given the number of affected legacy systems, Microsoft should see this as an oppurtunity to save themselves some serious money (and, as a side effect, do some actual good). If they can learn from this experience, and use this as a learning experience on the importance of writing good code, this could be a great oppurtunity for them.
Instead of having the large full time support staff they do, as well as the crews of people scanning the web for new exploits, how much time, effort, and money could they save by hiring a couple of full time people to check _all_ buffers on all code after it's been committed to sourcesafe? Also, it would reduce data loss due to crashes and other problems. Wow, Microsoft increasing their bottom line in a way that actually helps consumers. What a thought.
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
Hmm, they're separating out patches for the OS and its applications? Interesting, considering their recent move to make the latest version of IE the last 'standalone' one... How will they differentiate OS and applications if they keep doing this? (Real question, not sarcastic/rhetorical)
you (the admin) still have to hunt down all the non-MS patches yourself. RedHat does this for you :-)
Redhat provides patches for everything it distributes.
Microsoft provides patches for everything it distributes.
I fail to see the problem.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Funny, I always thought the key to software security was to write good code in the first place. Automating a patch system to improve software security is like building automatic bandaid dispensers into children's clothing to make playgrounds safer. It's an extension of security-through-obscurity, at the expense of user freedom.
The majority of hack attacks happen immediately after a patch is announced, implying that announcing the patch announces the vulnerability. So MS is saying the problem isn't the vulnerabilities themselves, it's that hackers respond more quickly to the announcements than ordinary users do. Microsoft's solution is to speed up the response. So what if the users have to give up control of their computers? They're going to have to turn over the keys anyway when Palladium gets shoved down their throats, right?
Casting users as the weak link is ultimately a lame defense for the fix-it-later commercial software development philosophy. Rushing software out the door because the marketing dept has promised it to retailers who want to sell it before Xmas is not the only possible way to do development.
The free software world may not be perfect but it doesn't suffer from that particular disadvantage. One way to make your system more secure might be to run code that was released when the developers decided it was actually ready.
Oh, I'll hapiily pay! ... For quality software against a reasonable price, that is. Now if Windows XP didn't cost me a kidney but 50 euros or something OR MS would drastically improve/cough up some versions of their OS worth the money, (stable*, secure*, fast*, bloat-free, no evil licensing schemes/integrated crap) then I'd happily pay! Unfortunately, right now, I'm not going to fork over 300 euros for Win XP Pro only so I can have one huge piece of bloat slow down my computer while MS monkeys/lawyers are constantly trying to think up the holy grail of licenses which in legal terms state that MS will own my house, car, wife, first born and have the right to sell my soul to Satan for favours.
* = Surprisingly, they already managed this. A windows machine CAN be made fairly stable if properly taken care of, same with security. And XP Pro boots pretty fast on my Celeron 300, faster then 2k on an AMD XP 1900 :\ Remember kids, while MS is still evil, most faults can be attributed to human error/incompetence still!
Hate me!
Oh, I'll hapiily pay! ... For quality software against a reasonable price, that is. Now if Windows XP didn't cost me a kidney but 50 euros or something OR MS would drastically improve/cough up some versions of their OS worth the money, (stable*, secure*, fast*, bloat-free, no evil licensing schemes/integrated crap) then I'd happily pay! Unfortunately, right now, I'm not going to fork over 300 euros for Win XP Pro only so I can have one huge piece of bloat slow down my computer while MS monkeys/lawyers are constantly trying to think up the holy grail of licenses which in legal terms state that MS will own my house, car, wife, first born and have the right to sell my soul to Satan for favours.
:\ Remember kids, while MS is still evil, most faults can be attributed to human error/incompetence still!
/, and other geek sites make all geeks look like a bunch of whiney little children who are just looking for everything for free...
* = Surprisingly, they already managed this. A windows machine CAN be made fairly stable if properly taken care of, same with security. And XP Pro boots pretty fast on my Celeron 300, faster then 2k on an AMD XP 1900
So let me get this straight. You'll pay if the software is stable, secure, fast, bloat-free, and has licensing you like. You admit Windows XP is stable, secure, and fast (even though you later go on to contradict yourself and say that it will slow down your computer). If it is stable, secure and fast (as you admit it is), bloat just means it has extra features you don't use, which don't affect any of the previous 3 apparently. So because you don't like the licensing terms (but apparently approve of the rest of the product) you will pirate the software. This seems like the whiniest protest I've ever heard. The software is great, but until they change their licensing and price (which I can afford, since I can afford a computer) I'm going to steal their software. Jesus, and people wonder why non-geeks think
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read. If you think Windows is such a bloat-ridden insecure piece of crap, why are you still using it? The truth of the matter is, you can get away with not paying for it, so you will. You're a thief, end of story.
UNIX has been around for a decade longer than even the earliest efforts from MS and it still works really nicely.
That's besides the point. Microsoft is stuck with what they have right now, which is this giant, semi-monolithic applications platform. The best they can do is try to audit it for security and hope they don't break anything, and even that is a trying job. Give credit where credit is due, because for all its clout Microsoft lacks much of the flexibility of its competitors.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Here's something to think about. Microsoft's patch system authenticates you before it will give you patches (not you specifically, but the Activation Code you're using, I believe).. with the last service pack they made a whole lot of pirated corporate editions not able to use Windows Update.
:)
This doesn't mean all the pirates are going to say "gee, guess I'll go legit and buy a copy", it more likely means they'll stay unpatched.
It would be interesting to know how many systems that are participating in DDoS attacks are not patched because they can't patch because they're illegal copies of Windows...
(Yes, patches are available in other ways than Windows Update, but Microsoft is doing all their work to make Windows Update easy - maybe what we need is a "rogue Windows Update" for the pirates
- Steve