Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Apologist Apologizes for Microsoft
hillbilly1980 writes "Internet Week has published a counter article in response to the number of anti-monoculture security papers recently published. Unfortunately the author starts out by writing off the other papers as simply anti-Microsoft, unfortunate because his paper never gets past being more then just pro-Microsoft. One of his suggestions to secure your enterprise... turn off port 80." Probably the best thing to do to prevent disinformation from entering your company is to block articles by Rob Enderle. Update: 10/11 00:54 GMT by M : Note for the record that the original version of the article referred to blocking port 80; the article has now been edited to refer to port 135.
One of his suggestions to secure your enterprise... turn off port 80
That's nothing. To be *really* secure I just don't even turn my computer on!
Yeah lets all turn off port 80; its like having e-business without the "e"!
-On ones tombstone there will be 2 dates, Make the dash between them count!
The article advocates restricting port 135, not port 80.
~Phillip
That's because he's got the wrong focus.
The monoculture risk is real when you're looking at the 64,000 view -- the entire population. They're not really all that much of a risk when you're dealing with, say, an enterprise's systems, and there's not that much benefit to them in that kind of environment (disregarding things like security devices for the moment).
We've used the agriculture analogy before to describe the issues around monocultures, so to continue to use it, we can say that his point is that monoculture isn't really an issue because when you're tilling a single field, it's a pain in the ass to put multiple crops on it. True, but that's not the point -- it's when you've got one crop on *ALL* the fields (all the enterprises) or at least a substantial portion of them that you get into a problem.
You make several accusations about the article's bias. But instead of giving us the articl and letting the readers make that judgement, or even making a logical argument for why he is wrong, you instead attack the author, and tell us how we should feel about the article. Anyone that reads slashdot can probably pick out the (alleged) MS bias by themselves. Keep your opinions to your damn self if you arent willing to back them up.
Let's look at some of these...
- Accelerated adoption of patches.
Ok, yes you do have to stay patched. But this is like blaming people with flawed cars for not going to the car dealer each week to check for recalls. Microsoft's abundance of patches indicates poor design and methodology, period.
- Locking down desktops so users cannot make changes and viruses and worms can't install themselves and run.
Ok, so rather than design the apps safely out of the box, we need to handcuff the users and do the dirty work ourselves. I guess all those Outlook viruses were our fault.
- Restricting ports, such as port 135, which effectively stopped the latest virus attack.
Wow! What a concept! I never thought of this! Now I know where all my problems are coming from! It's not from the software, it's my fault for actually allowing connectivity!
- maintaining "hot sites," or duplicates of key elements of the IT infrastructure, so if the main infrastructure is compromised, users can quickly switch to backup systems.
Sounds like a way to sell licenses. Ok, since we can't make our product stable, buy 2 copies and hope one works.
- Developing the capability to rapidly restore compromised software and data from backups.
Right. Key word is, develop. Why does an end user, paying hundreds of dollars per seat need to 'develop' something as common as this.
- Adding security staff or outsourced services.
Right. Keep sending us your licensing fees, and then spend more money to make up for the gaps in our software. Don't trust any of that 'free software' crap you read on the internet - those Linux guys are a bunch of hacks. Hire an MSCE. Preferably from another country.
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
What exactly does "anti-Microsoft" mean?
Back in 97, I was working at a startup where we were using the usual array of Microsoft tools to create web-based applications: IIS, ASP, Visual Basic (COM controls), and SQL server. The more I learned, the more I grew not to like it. The straw to break the camel's back was finding a significant bug in MDAC (which was acknowledged by a high-level tech once the ticket was escalated), and then having to wait 6 months for a fix. We thus moved away from the MS platform to Java/Linux, a combination that we found to be superior for our needs. I haven't looked back since.
I think I thus fall into the anti-Microsoft camp. I'd prefer to think of myself as being in the "pro-well-written-software" camp though. If Microsoft started writing good, secure, and interoperable software, I'd welcome them with open arms. My problem with MS is that in my "learned-the-hard-way" opinion, they don't.
The author does not define the term "anti-Microsoft". So my question is, what connotation do people try and draw up with the term "anti-Microsoft"? In my opinion, fabricated terms that begin with "anti-" tend to be used to describe an irrational hatred of something, and that's what I'm seeing here.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
The last time one of Rob Enderle's stories hit Slashdot, I went and did some googling around. An hour later, I had absolutely no evidence that the set of analysts comprising the Enderle group was any larger than the set composing Rob Enderle himself.
He probably has a stuffed penguin as a technical advisor, and I'd also bet that his technical advisor frequently gets pins stuck in him.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
It may be funny, but sadly some people do really think that firewalling port 80 (or 8080, or 21, or 20, or 22, or 443 -- et cetera, ad nonsensum) is the answer indeed. Some people may be surprised (not Slashdot readers though, mind you) but there simply is no simple answer. There is no working snake oil. The buzzword of the week alone will not save you. What are my answers then? Simple. Read Security Focus. Read Crypto-Gram. Read Phrack. Read the underground IRC discussions. Read encrypted Usenet posts. Read the articles posted on Freenet. Read the books for god's sake! Read about systems. Read about networking protocols. Read about cryptography. Read about cryptanalysis. Employ honeypots in every network. Learn C. Learn Assembly (Intel as well as AT&T syntax, for different CPU architectures). Learn executable binary formats. Learn how to see polymorphic shellcodes in network packets hex dump, just looking at tcpdump output scroling on your terminal. Learn how to speak different protocols (http, smtp, pop3, etc.) with netcat, then making your own tcp packets, then your own hand-made ip packets, then ethernet, ppp and slip. Learn. Read. Then learn some more. Read. Read. Read. And learn the one most important thing: security is not easy. When everything fails, you are on your own.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
You can just even use the other articles he has written for Internet Week:
PREVIOUSLY BY ROB ENDERLE:
- Microsoft: Hated Because It's Misunderstood
- Reasons To Shun Open Source-ry
- Linux Is Not Ready For the Enterprise
Those are all "Opinion" columns, btw.
Here's a little bit more (at the end of the current article):
PREVIOUSLY BY ROB ENDERLE:
- Microsoft: Hated Because It's Misunderstood
- Reasons To Shun Open Source-ry
- Linux Is Not Ready For the Enterprise
Further, in the article, after presenting a general statement (that he tries to critique) that diversity is good for security, he claims:
These arguments were put forward by Gartner and, separately, a panel hosted by the anti-Microsoft Computer & Communications Industry Association.
But there is no evidence that either party has actually analyzed the cost of diversity or quantified the risks of diversity.
As opposed to who? Himself? He presents no cost or risk analysis of anything either, including diversity, or any of the arguments that he is trying to put forward. But based on his previous articles and general sentiment, it is obvious that he doesn't need to. It's clear what his conclusion is going to be anyway.
The article advocates doing actual *STUDIES* to backup the call for diversity. It also calls for other methods that are basically best practices for a business: a disaster recovery plan, proper backups, firewalls & IDS and managed desktops.
There is nothing wrong with anything he advocated in this article. Getting supporting evidence and adding diversity to a proper BC/DR plan is 100% correct.
What he fails to acknowledge is that Microsoft has, for its entire history, made security an afterthought that always lost to convenience.
Windows 95, 98 & Me were designed as *consumer* OSes, not corporate clients. Consumer OSes had no need for all those network services and ports being open by default. These systems were designed for home users, not businesses. WinNT, 2000 and XP Pro are different animals and are designed to be used in LANs where many of those services are going to be needed.
The DUN 1.4 update should have patched those Win95/98 systems to lock down almost every incoming port short of DHCP, NTP and DNS returns.
While MS has made noise recently about an emphasis on security, their actions speak louder than words. WinXP, while more stable than Win98/Me, seems to be just as vulnerable to security problems as other versions of their OS.
Even though Win95 and Win98 are no longer officially supported, MS needs to release one last patch that locks many of those ports down.
Unfortunately, no patch in the world will stop clueless users from clicking attachments without looking.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I agree that any business should think through the liabilities of any piece of software that the are going to deploy, (like maybe think for a second about distributing copies of Windows throughout your buisness, an OS that includes a piece of software that was found to be illegally infringing on a legal patent, unlike the SCO case which is merely in progress, much like all the lawsuits against MS), but what the hell does "Besides, many Linux supporters are a bunch of potty-mouthed malcontents", have to do with a consultant's article on the weaknesses of Linux? Should I write an article about "Why Windows sucks on the Desktop", and then state "Besides, many Windows users are nothing more than software pirates and they download the vast majority of illegal mp3s".
Here's a good one from the article "Reasons to Shun Open-Source-ry" -
If you actually read this guy's articles you start to get a pretty good idea of the amount of FUD that he is spreading. Check out his consulting group, do some googling, and check out his bio - GigaWeb . This guy is a marketroid consultant who seemingly only works with and promotes MS products, (according to his own information!). His arguments are also generally full of holes and he often uses ad hominem attacks while bashing anti-MSers for doing the same thing. The only platforms that seem to draw his ire are non-MS, check out all he has to say on OSX and Linux, (If you can stand it). He even asks if OSS supporters have "ever heard of capitalism?", and says that he does not want to go back to the days of cheap software. I've read about a dozen of his articles now, (know thy enemy), and I suggest that anyone who has some questions on this guy do the same.
Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
I particularly like the GNU operating system approach to improving the Unix security. Of course I mean the Hurd kernel, not Linux. We all know ACLs, MAC, POSIX capabilities and even the Hurd auth servers are not the final solution, but one has to admit it's a good start which will surely lead to quite an interesting research during the following decades.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Just after Blaster started clearing up, Microsoft released MS03-039 which is essentially the SAME vulnerability as was -026. They blew it. They didn't fix the problem with the -026 patch, so admin's now had to re-patch all their machines.
Well, here we go again - only this time the exploit code precedes the MS anouncement and corresponding patch. Yes kids, the hacking underworld has perfected the exploit code for MS03-039 and in doing so uncovered yet another hole in the RPC/DCOM service for which there is NO PATCH AVAILABLE!!! (As of 11 Oct, 2003 0100)
And for those of you who think that this is just FUD... here's the exploit soucre code. Simply compile under Linux, then change your shorts.
Network admins: May I suggest you take your sleeping bag and pillow and put it in your car - theres going to be a lot of late nights at the office coming up.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.