Slashdot Mirror
Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for Security
securitas writes "ITBusiness has an interview from the Microsoft Professional Developers Conference where Bill Gates says 'You don't need perfect code to avoid security problems.' Instead he suggests that users acquire and properly configure firewalls and make sure that they keep their software patches up-to-date. Considering that Microsoft says it is focused on security, the comments from the Chief Software Architect aren't inspiring, especially beacuse the underlying attitude seems to contradict the idea of well-written, secure code. What kind of message does that send to the developers who work for Gates?"
This is a typical problem, that was discussed a few days ago. People
are confusing microsoft's success in general with Technological
superiority.
I find it interesting that *anyone* would care what Bill Gate's
opinion is on security. The volume of critical problems reported, and
of actual viruses and worms that have spread across the internet
lately should've been enough to indicate that microsoft doesn't have a
good understanding of security in general.
His argument is an interesting point of view though. It sounds to me
like he's saying microsoft doesn't need perfect code because people
can just install firewalls. What if the code in the firewalls in turn
isn't perfect though? Doesn't that leave us in an insecure position
again? What about the e-mail scanning software? What if it misses a
virus? Shouldn't you have layers of protection, instead of an outer
layer of protection and a soft underbelly?
Of course he is shifting the burden back to the users of the software
again. If only they had our firewall product and a good e-mail
scanning software package, and if they kept their software up to date
none of this would've happened.
Of course if they didn't ship their software with nearly every service
turned on by default, and everyone running as root this wouldn't have
happened either, but let's not trifle with details.
I really liked the part at the end where he comments that all the
viruses and attacks on microsoft's os are really a compliment.
You keep telling yourself that Bill.
Doug Tolton
"The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
and he's absolutely right. We could just unplug our computers and leave them in a cold, dark room all by themselves, with no power.
For the rest of us, however, security starts with the code.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
If we are not going to rely on perfect code but expect firewalls to catch the problems, then what do we do if the code in the firewalls aren't perfect?
Do we string together a series of firewalls in the hope that the code problems don't overlap?
It makes sense to me. Don't rely on someone else to keep your computer secure. Take steps yourself.
Look at me, I'm just going to get the latest debian iso and install it and not worry about anything!
Look at me, I'm just going to go buy a car and not worry about locking the doors or using a club, because I expect that the ignition system is tamper proof.
Don't blame the architect when someone comes through an unlocked window in your home and steals your stereo.
No, you don't need perfect code. Linux has no "perfect code". If it did, Linus et al would be finished and have moved on to other things.
I dont rely on Linus for security, I don't rely on Bill Gates for security. At the end of the day, it's my system, and it's up to me to take steps to protect it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Blame the user, not the developer, is the message.
Its not the users responsibly to compensate for poor design, regardless of the product. Be it an unsafe car, or insecure OS.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'd say two things to him. First, the only completely effective firewall is the one where I unplug my computer. Assuming you leave a port open, that's a possibility for an attack. Second, all a hacker needs is a proper buffer-overflow in a user program that employs that port, and it's fun time. I'm sure Internet Exploder etc wouldn't apply there. No, not at all.
He has a point in that firewalls have to be a large part of the solution. However, the idea that I can write the world's shittiest code and this is OK because I have a firewall is ludicrous.
Naturally, all this assumes you don't buy your firewall software from MS. That would be pretty funny.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Of course they are. They tend to be trusting and don't realize that perfect strangers are more than willing to screw them into the ground. But the OS doesn't need to be a welcome mat for these problems. There are some very basic things that MS could have done to make Windows secure enough that being a trusting user doesn't put the entire system at risk.
To make a analogy that fits users of this level and background, your point is like saying that cars are less likely to get stolen if the doors are locked and blaming said car owners for because their Fnords are getting stollen because they haven't locked the doors that Fnord didn't bother to install in the first place.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
seriously.
I don't understand why no one raises the patch size issue. To fix a buffer overflow, you've got to need what, 2K of modified code, tops? But the patch is like 2MB? Or 20MB?
In the US, where most people are still on dialup, how can anyone reasonably expect that people are going to download tens of megabytes of patches?
Microsoft should be mailing out free CDs with the latest patches.
I can't agree with that. If the default behavior of all common mail programs so discourages people from executing attachments, I think the worm problem (at least as it exists today with things like sobig) would be effectively solved.
That's not to say that nobody will find a way to execute such a program. The problem with sobig, though, was that so *many* people ended up running it, because of how easy it is to do in mail programs.
Except many worms are spread through more than one means.
A real case I dealt with: the I LOVE YOU virus.
The ILY virus spread through local network shares and e-mail attachments. The parent office of a corp I worked for (2,000 PCs) was hammered with it. It took them two days to clean up.
Then, the next day, some idiot who originally *thought it was a real love note and saved the attachment to his desktop* executed it again -- out of the context of an e-mail attachment.
The shame and humiliation heaped upon him was enough to ensure he wouldn't ignore IT memos again. However, it brought the e-mail servers down a second day while it was fixed. Again.
In a LAN environment, all it takes is one idiot.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
That a computer system's administrator should be fairly intelligent, able to read and learn how to do new and complex things and stay up to date with technology.
What the hell were we thinking....??
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Your thinking is one of the reasons that security is often breached. It is not possible to think about computer security without securing the computer physically. The security process requires holistic thinking. You cannot just dismiss ways to bybass security with a "well, of course somebody could do that". A cracker may find it easiest to get in via the wire, but a determined cracker won't stop at that. Unless you are thinking of every way to break in, just like an attacker would, you have vulnerabilities.
There are other ways around the wire as well. What if your mother (child, significant other, friend, employee) were using your computer (you let them while you aren't home), and somebody calls you and impersonate you or claims to be a friend calling on your behalf. The attacker has her go to a website, download a program, and run it. The program reads your private data and sends it. Do you expect Microsoft to prevent this type of attack? There are some things you can do to lock a system down so users can't install and run software, or upload to the internet, but it is a hard problem to solve.