Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Monocultures, Security FUD & Other Fun
techiemac writes "Dan Geer, who has been mentioned on Slashdot before due to his warnings about Microsoft's "monoculture" has just been written up by AP for his warnings about the widespread use of Microsoft products and the serious security flaws that are being discovered. This story is quickly becomming big news (Yahoo is currently carrying it on their front page). For those who don't know, Dan Greer was fired from @Stake Inc for his criticism of Microsoft (they are a big client of @Stake Inc). " Somewhat related, there has been interesting reaction pieces on ORA and OSDN to a recent, some say ill-informed article run on DevX.
Now part of MS Windows source code is open on Internet so is "MS Open Source Is Fertile Ground for Foul Play"
... the old adage "No one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft" is true after all. Look what happens when you actually try speaking ill of the beast...
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
And they are wrong about "duoculture". Linux, having many parties behind it(many distros, different kernel versions) has much mure internal variety than all versions of Windows out there.
Once I thought I had mono. They took a culture and it turns out I just had Windows.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
... on why the Microsoft monoculture is so important; from the AP article:
True diversity, Charney said, would require thousands of different operating systems, which would make integrating computer systems and networks virtually impossible. Without a Microsoft monoculture, he said, most of the recent progress in information technology could not have happened.
Really? Could someone more familiar with Microsoft and their products kindly give me examples?
As much as I dislike the company, there are too many critical systems that are relying on Windows Servers. The release of a kernel crippling virus or worm could result in loss of human life.
A great example of what can/will happen with the Microsoft monoculture can be found in the potato blight of Ireland. For those that lack any historical reference here, Ireland had a booming population due to the introduction of a nice, hardy breed of potato. For years, everything was going great, everyone had food, the potato became the staple of the diet. Everyone ate potatos, it is estimated to have been between 20-40% of all food consumed during this period.
Then a viral attack that affected only this particular breed of potato struck. Within less than a year, whole crops failed, the economy collapsed as people literally starved to death.
Yet, other breed of potatos were completely unaffected. It wasn't the reliance on potatos that was to blame, it was the reliance of one strain of potatos that was Irelands achilles heel.
That is our economys achilles heel, Windows.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
"Once you start down the road with that analogy, you get stuck in it," said Scott Charney, chief security strategist for Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft.
One you start down the road with it, you get stuck in it. Sounds like a perfect description of the lock-in aspects of their products, though I think "Roach Motels for your data" is catchier.
This is not the first time that A. Russell Jones has made controversial claims about Linux on DevX. At the end of august last year this story was run here on /. where he claimed that there should be a standard desktop for Linux.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Clippy: "It looks like you are trying to write..."
Diversity != incompatibility. One standard, many implementations. What the M$ guy says is pure FUD.
This neglects that fact that Linux itself has internal diversity that makes it less vulnerable to "disease".
It's also not necessary to have "thousands of different operating systems" to gain some resilience. If (for example) half of all computers were Type A and the other half Type B, the rate of transmission of type-specific malware would be slowed dramatically. It wouldn't prevent pandemics, but it would slow them down.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I have thought about this whole monoculture thing recently, and here is my take on it...
Microsoft made a conscious decision, a long long time ago, to make sure that everything in its Office applications (starting with Word) would be scriptable with VBA. And that the VBA scripts would have access to the entire underlying OS.
At the time, it made perfect marketing sense: the king of word processors was Word Perfect, and it offered advanced scripting functions. Microsoft had to duplicate this functionalities if it wanted to kick WordPerfect ass and establish Windows and Word as the desktop champions. And it worked -- when was the last time you used WordPerfect on your PC?
The only problem is, of course, that Windows security (3.x was a single user, single task operating system) was absolutely broken from the very beginning. After all, if you are the only user on your machine, you don't need a lot of security, do you? Wrong. You may need a different kind of security, but you still need some sort of framework to protect your resources. Windows never provided any kind of security at all.
Then came the Internet. And, with it, a virus transmission vector of incomparable speed. The rest, as they say is history. Microsoft never bothered to create proper security and, because it completely ignored the Internet before 1995 (remember the Gates memo?), they were caught unprepared by the hordes of yahoos who write VBA viruses. VB is easy to use, viruses are easy to program in VB and, thanks to MS stupid decisions, they were allowed to run wild.
In effect, most users and sysadmins are, today, paying the price of a marketing decision: Microsoft decided to design VBA, all the while ignoring the research that proved that application scripting needed to be severely limited and controlled. Emacs LISP scripts and shell files in the UNIX world were prohibited a loooooong time before VBA was even created.
They kicked a competitor out of the field and, in doing so, created more problems for themselves (and for us!) than they solved...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
You know, there was, at one time, a long running joke about Microsoft tech support. The answer to any problem, according to MS support (and I heard this directly from them on more than a few occasions) was "We suggest you reboot to fix this problem" OR, Shut up and re-install.
And now, here is the "Chief Security Strategist" for MS saying (regarding the monoculture analogy) "Another difference: computers can be unplugged from the network and rebooted; organisms cannot."
So, is he really implying (God I hope not) that most exploits can be solved by unplugging the computer from the network and rebooting???
I hope not, and maybe its just the way the AP story was written, but it sure sounds like a dismissal of most of the Windows security flaws.
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
Without a doubt, online security is a major concern. The idea of monoculturism may be applicable to the computer industry due to the prevalence of MS operating systems. This, of course, assumes everyone has the same version of an MS operating system, with a single, universal exploitable flaw. The fact that not everyone has the exact same operating system nor the exact same component and software configuration tends to undermine the argument of 'monoculture' somewhat more.
However, diversity of computers fosters a much higher learning curve to a machine that is already far more complex than 80% of the people using them understand. I'm a proponent of unity in the field of computers in that the UI of any OS should be the same as EVERY OTHER UI. This promotes a uniform learning curve for everyone so that learning one machine or OS does not restrict a person to that particular product or platform for life.
People want to learn as much as they need to - and not have to constantly relearn it - in order to do the things they want to do with the computer. Imposing 'bio-diversity' on the operating systems of the world will only create sub-monocultures between which comparability issues and cross learning would be difficult for most to handle unless the UI for each system is essentially the same.
I'd REALLY like to see Linux be available to anyone without having to have any knowledge of Unix protocols, have the same driver support and always be able to run ANY program regardless of the original OS requirements without having to constantly tweak everything into compliance. If anyone knows a way of doing this, or if it's already been done and you know how, PLEASE post it here.
One solution to the monoculture problem is multi-OS architectures in which a single process is executed on multiple independent codebases within each box.
On high-reliability systems (Space Shuttle & X-29 flight controls), multiple redundant subprocessors attempt to compute the same answer. If the subprocessors get different answers, the majority-rules and the system logs the exception. If each processor ran independent code, then exploits of any one codebase would be detected and disinfected. A multi-system with one exploited/infected codebase would continue running while ignoring the output of the infected subprocessor.
The system would still have some vulnerabilties. Simultaneous attack on a majority of the codebases might succeed in redefinig the majority to suit the malware. Also, codebase independence is very hard. More than likely several codebases might share the same fault (e.g. a buffer overrun bug). Attacks on the overseer/majority-rules system might also succeed. Finally, if the standard has an exploit (e.g., decrypting WiFi WEP), then all codebases implementing the standard are vulnerable.
The biggest downside is bloat and cost. But at least it would give people a reason to buy the latest greatest chips from Intel, AMD, IBM, etc.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
different operating systems, which would make integrating computer systems and networks virtually impossible.
... in the good ol' days, an "OS" was all you needed in order to get some basic work and programming done on some hardware.
...
This is such utter bollocks I can't even handle it.
The reason integration is difficult is because it is made difficult by those who do it.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with 'operating systems'. It seems to me that 'operating systems' don't mean what they used to mean
Nowadays, it seems that an "OS" == "all the crap I think I'm gonna need one day, bundled into a single directory structure".
If the OS is doing its job then integration is not impossible, it is 100% feasible and easy.
An OS which doesn't do its job, doesn't allow integration. Its very telling to me that Microsoft choose to redefine the task of an OS rather than actually make their OS do the job its supposed to do.
Integration between OS's is supposed to be easy. That is what an OS is all about, after all. Maybe someone should tell that to the 'gurus' from Redmond that mouth off about operating systems all day long
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
If you read the paper that was published, listened to any of the news accounts (including the conference call press conference), and read CCIA's disclaimers, you would know that he made it perfectly clear that this was something he was doing on his personal time, and had nothing to do with @stake. He went pretty far to disclaim any @stake connection to the paper.
I can deny it.
What has microsoft actually created that anyone is intested in?
The browser? no Netscape developed that.
Graphic interface? No Xerox and Apple developed that
digital music? no MP3 and Napster developed that
Plug and Play? no Apple developed that
desktop publishing? once again Apple
multitastking? Unix
desktop video? Amiga
DOS? bought from another company
Perhaps MS developed some business apps, but I suspect that eveything in the Office suite was developed by some one else first.
Please give me some examples of any tech, that is worthwhile, that MS pioneered. I think virii and adware are the only techs that MS truly owns.
Nature deals with breakdowns in a complex system with evolution, and a very important part of evolution is the extinction of particular species. It's a sort of backtracking mechanism that corrects an evolutionary mistake. The Internet is an ecology, so if you build a species on it that is vulnerable to a certain pathogen, it can very well undergo extinction. By the way, the species that go extinct tend to have limited genetic diversity. -Atrributed to Bill Joy - Had preserved in my Blog Dan Greer's writings bear the same too.
Senthil
In the long run (think the next 10-25 years), Microsoft will be forced to go along with open standards or get left behind as Open Source picks up more momentum. As IBM, Novell, large countries, and other big gorillas put their weight behind Linux and Open Source, the standards they use could become "the standard". This isn't going to happen likely anytime soon, but it definately has to start with the corporate world. If XYZ Inc. decides to use Open Office and Linux to save money (and we know businesses aren't doing anything radical to save money these days), and suddenly their employees must use it, guess what software package could end up on their home computers? As I said, it's not going to be a fast process, but it is possible.
ce n'est pas un Sig.
than good. yes, this is not a new idea, but the fact that M$ continues to do it is to me, evidence that they are not serious about security.
.v
Last week a client of mine wanted me to do some work on his computer and to remove M$ IM on WinXP. You try it, it will tell you that WinXP depends on some functionality of IM. What? The OS needs this crummy application you can get for free somewhere? If that is really true, then no wonder their system is so freaking vulnerable to all kinds of things.
just about anyone who write large software knows that u have make it modular design and if possible striving independent modules as possible to reduce risk and propagation of faults. consider this, even after the trial, M$ still continues to bind unrelated OS functionality with applications. Apps and OS services are completely different.
while M$ tries to give you a big bloated piece of software with OS and THEIR apps tightly integrated. look at what the people doing micro-kernels are doing. they are trying to make the kernel as simple as possible (hence easier to debug, understand, etc.). Then, the OS services are just apps (again, very independent form each other--though they may use the services provided by the other). but their is no need for that particular app, just any app providing that service.
I have to disagree, Apple dropped certain technologies when they were replaced by superior ones, and were thus 'not that useful any more.'
PC manufacturers dropped certain technologies when they were finally perceived not to be useful any more.
Apple can act as the gentle motivational herder, because they have complete control over their flock, as long as they make sure they replace the things they phase out with generally superior technologies, and they have (floppy > email, legacy ports > USB).
PC manufacturers have no choice, as there is less unity and it is human nature to be wary of new things, and to want to stick to what is tried and tested. In this scenario where it is impossible to move the flock forward as a whole (as the direction of the industry is dictated by many) it must first be shown and proven that the newer technology is superior.
So I would hardly call this scenario a 'blunder' on Apple's behalf! Quite the opposite in fact - I'm sure it was of great benefit to both Apple and their users to make a swift concerted step forward.
This sig has been deprecated.
Q:What is the single protocol used by all computers
connected to Internet in the world?
A: IPV4
Q:What is the single mail protocol used by all
computers connected to the internet?
A: SMTP
Q:What is the single protocol used to search the
Internet and exchange most information over the
Internet?
A: HTTP
According to evolution, diversity is the
consequence of adaptation.
Specialization, Mutation, Adaptation.
Adaptation is the
consequence of a changing environment. A
changing environment is the consequence of a
finite amount of resources and competition.
The Internet in it's current stage resources are
plenty and competition is little.
Internet is currently in the specialization
stage. The Internet has not being forced(YET) to
depart from it's standard protocols (mutate) to
survive an attack.
Forcing diversity (by mandate rather of natural
competition) not only makes the system less
robust, it slows down evolution.
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
Monoculture (or, the problems associated with it) are not a new concept. When I was studying at U of Mi in 1992-93 (or thereabouts) we discussed the internet worm in my system administration class. The instructor pointed out that U of M was only moderately affected because of the variety of Unix systems comprising the network. The lesson was that a diverse network makes one less succeptible to attack affecting a single platform.