Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP SP2 Could Break Some Applications
Denver_80203 writes "An article from InfoWorld states that the upcoming Windows XP Service Pack 2 could break some 'unsecure applications.' In a quote from Tony Goodhew, a product manager in Microsoft's developer group says 'It doesn't really matter how long it is going to take you to do the work; security is an important issue and developers need to start doing that work now.' Or: 'The great bulk of applications will not be affected by memory protection. The number one that leaps to mind is execution environments with just-in-time code generation. The .Net Framework is one.' Fortunately for us, they are offering a course to guide the unsecure masses."
Yeah. When the open source guys break insecure applicications at least they get fixed in minutes, or it just takes a recompile. :0
How are you suppose to correct these apps? I bet some don't even have company's behind them anymore.
I really like the direction Microsoft is heading.
Granted it was needed as their reputation, in regards of security, has always been low to none.
I really hope this will rid Windows XP of future remote exploits, since that's still the biggest threat Windows is facing.
Having said that, this wont fix all security problems, there will always be the luser that executes whatever is mailed to him/her, but it's still a step in the right direction.
...when one realises that most of this effort is fruit of a tiny 5kb worm which actually had asked mr gates to repair his software... I'm still working on my sig
First, they decided to postpone Longhorn "Until it's done", rather than releasing a shoddy product early.
Second, they've gone so far as to break application compatibility in order to clean up a number of deeply embedded security holes in Windows.
Personally, I think this is a Very Good Thing(tm). Microsoft may finally be "Getting it"
It's hardly new for Windows to drop backwards compatibility in areas. Many applications which are partly 16-bit and partly 32-bit won't run on Windows XP, but do run on Windows 95/98/ME for example
Windows XP has application compatibility features which allow you to set the OS version to previous releases and provide compatibility with older registry layouts, for example. That kind of compatibility feature is unlikely to help with stricter security controls of course (unlesss there's an option simply to turn off the new security features).
My operat~1 system unders~1 long filena~1 , does yours?
In the past, MS has broken Windows 95/98 applications, but Windows XP/2000 had compatibility modes available for the older applications. If it is as they say, and newer apps will be intentionally broken without any way of going into a compatibility mode, this will be bad.
I have difficulty believing MS would not include some kind of compatibility mode, however. It'll be interesting to see what they do. It won't really affect me though, I don't use XP and can't stand that OS (Windows 2000 is still my favorite Microsoft OS; Windows XP is just 2000 with some pretty GUI changes and some compatibility fixes.)
Upgrading to 2.6 was not a forced security upgrade, but simply an option. Patching security with linux is a quick patch and restarting the affected service.
Does this Service Pack allow itemized upgrading? A reboot? Uninstalling broken patches? More than one reboot?
Actually, only the Itanium and AMD K8 are affected by this immediately; Microsoft isn't yet marking memory nonexcutable by default on the good old x86 processors that we all use.
Regardless, it is trivial for developers to update their code for things like JIT compilers, with a simple function like this:
I added that piece of code to my company's JIT compiler some years ago, just to ensure that the proper flags were set. I figured Microsoft would eventually switch to nonexecutable data and stack segments, much like the OpenWall project has done with their Linux patches. Glad to see Microsoft is finally taking the first steps.
It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Microsoft has pandered to broken applications for far too long. Maybe if they finally get over their "backwards compatibility at all costs" attitude, they'll get around to fixing some of the fundamental flaws in their OS.
I highly doubt that Linux authors would think twice about breaking buggy apps to force the issue.
Windows adds NX security to prevent buffer overflows, Slashdot bags on Microsoft for breaking a few apps in the process (apps which were arguably broken in the first place, just the spec was never enforced).
I understand there's a slight bias on this site, but Jesus Christ you guys.
I don't see how Visual Studio .net and .Net Framework users can be considered a small minority. The thing is, Microsoft releasing a service pack that breaks everything is very different from a linux distribution breaking when the use decides to try to compile and install new software completely on their own--Microsoft is the equivalent of the whole open source community of programmers and distributors combined, so a new service pack isn't analagous to a new major release of the Linux kernel, it's more like a new minor release of a Linux distribution. And I'm not sure it's even like that, since a service pack upgrade is supposed to be a lot easier to do then installing a Linux distribution release--so it's more like an distro-released security fix. Which isn't supposed to break everything.
I don't know anything about the specifics, but there are memory-protecting kernel patches out there for linux, like PAX and grsecurity and probably a bunch of others. You have to disable them when running Java and X, so I imagine Java will be effected by this update.
This is a good thing that OSes like Solaris have had available for years. OpenBSD has recently changed their default memory page allocation permissions on architectures where it's possible for a similar effect. Patches exist under Linux to do it. However, I believe in all these cases that you can still REQUEST memory allocations that do NOT have the restriction if you are doing JIT compilation or whatnot.
/' string somewhere in memory).
Microsoft isn't stupid. I'm sure they'll figure out a way to allow old apps to run with the old allocation behavior. Their entire business relies on legacy compatability. At worst you'll need to set some flag on the application launch.
The other thing to note is that crackers have also had ways to defeat execution-protected memory for years as well. It makes a buffer overflow exploit a bit more difficult, but where there is a will there is a way.
For example, even if the protection prevents you from writing executable code directly into memory, you can still typically do things like overwrite the stack and hijack the program's execution to a system call with malicious parameters (in Unix, the classic call to hit is system()...no custom code execution required, just a 'rm -rf
Braddock Gaskill
You evidently don't understand how Microsoft works as a business. Unlike most software shops, they take the long-term perspective. Many of their competitors have learned this the hard way. (E.g., "Internet Explorer is a failure." As of version 3, it was a failure in terms of market penetration, but MS didn't care.) Full Microsoft product cycles typically take about ten years.
Every major new Microsoft product or technology takes the better part of a decade to take over the desktop. By about 2007-2008 or so, once there starts to be a large installed base of Longhorn machines (which will have .NET preinstalled), .NET will really start to take off for shrinkwrap applications. Five years down the line from there, it will be just about ubiquitous. In the meantime, programmers are learning it and it's becoming a familiar feature of Visual Studio (an excellent IDE).
Microsoft Windows is, fittingly, the official Desktop OS of Olig
You don't realize how true this is after the W2K source leak. Microsoft has to take drastic measures if they are to stem the flood of exploits.
Making sure nothing can buffer overrun to execute with even user privileges is a neccessity now that countless local holes are known (Overflow on loading a bitmap? How in the hell did they manage to screw that up?).
No, it's soooo 2004. Anti-MS/pro-Linux bias was restricted to very small groups of hackers in the 1990's, but it's progressively growing into the collective conscience, as more and more security failures in MS software get more and more people pissed-off.
Think of apple, they were never to worried about backwards compatibility and their os is more stable because of it. All those programs that weren't compatible with osx had to be updated to ensure they'd work with the changed operating system. True, the change was big because they went to a unix varient, but they still had the balls to tell developers to adjust or lose customers.
.NET, this is very smart for them. It makes it easier and cheaper for developers to make consistant apps in current and future versions of windows. If developers rely on ms code to handle the grunt work and they just do the stuff that makes their program, then they have a lot less overhead. And with microsoft grabbing it's balls and betting on security and stability, they can handle the backend bugs with their updates. True, that requires them to actually patch, but if they start with a much more stable and efficient groundwork, you'll see a lot less patches then now.
Now microsoft has always tried to make it easy to run old programs. Think of how long dos lasted so businesses could use their old proprietary programs. This caused a lot of problems with windows crashing. Windows xp was supposed to fix that shit, but now a new slew of shit has come about. Now what they're saying with sp2 is that they recognize their customers want security and stability over backwards compatibility.
The reason they're finally starting to do this is probably to compete with linux since those people most likely had to leave their old familiar apps with new ones. They see that people would rather deal with the adjustment of a new look and feel over constant reboots.
Now while everyone can point fingers and laugh at
Remember guys, microsoft isn't stupid.
Which is what happens when you let a product manager talk about technical issues.
There applications that will break are _not_ (necessarily) insecure. They just behave in a way that makes it impossible for Windows to tell isn't somebody trying to execute some code in an overflowed buffer.
Typical MS press relations, blame everyone else.
You have to bag on MS for this?
Ok, imagine this alternate Slashdot headline:
MS sales buries secure XP
Itoldyouso writes - A leaked memo indicates that the Microsoft developers created a much more secure version of their flagship operating system. However, because it would have caused problems with a small number of applications that were designed insecurely, the Sales & Marketing teams vetoed the new secure version, in an attempt to avoid a customer backlash. It is now official - Microsoft's commitment to trustworthy computing is a complete joke.
I have a feeling that post would rile a lot more people here.
I've seen the format. I've seen worse, and bmp is hardly bad enough to mess up an implimentation for.
I don't feel it's harsh at all to criticise over this. The Apache Group should also be embarassed for the same.
(what, you assumed I'm yet another anti-MS/pro-OSS zealot?)
Integer overflows are easily avoided, and the very fact that they crop up so often is the reason programmers keep such a sharp eye out for them (at least where I work, anyway).
Let me get this straight: Microsoft is making XP more secure in a way that could break some programs (sort of like the grsecurity linux kernel patches break some programs), and you're against that? Sure, it would be nice if it was optional---but it's Microsoft! Doing something about security! Even if it means actually announcing that some programs may be broken!
Finially, they're biting the bullet and doing the right thing. A sensibly configured default firewall - it's one of the things they should've been doing for years. The memory protection is also interesting - and probably a good move, so long as developers don't start using it as a crutch.
Now, if we see built-in virus protection, tainting or sandboxing of executable code recieved by email, proper MIME handling, and flagging of double extensions, AND AUTOMATIC UPDATES THAT ARE ON BY DEFAULT, it'll be mostly there.
Even forcing users to take an extra step (like the 'chmod u+x' required on *NIX) to make emailed and downloaded files executable would help a _lot_. Sure, viri would just start saying "click properties, then tick 'executable'" in the messages; but it'd stop a lot of the worst offenders from viewing things without thinking.
So now MS and 3rd party programmers will think to themselves "aw well, if my pointer arithmetic is poor the CPU will catch any over runs".
Give me a break. You might as well say that we should get rid of memory protection and preemptive multitasking, because having them makes the programmers lazy, thinking the OS will catch their errors.
The NX feature is very good for security and stability. All people including programmers make mistakes, and if you design your security policy on the basis that no one will ever make a mistake you are bound for trouble. The only sensible approach is to have multiple layers where mistakes in one will be caught in the next and prevented from becoming a bigger problem than it should.
If the OS+hardware completely disallow you from writing to code memory, or executing application memory, then any attempts to do so will be killed on the spot and the blame will be placed squarely on your application. The user will know that your program screwed up (or was being malicious) instead of blaming it on windows. So not only will this close off an entire class of exploits, it will provide incentive for programmers to do a better job!