A Taste Of Computer Security

andrew_ps writes "Amit Singh has published on his KernelThread.com a paper (mini book really) on computer security. A Taste of Computer Security is a VERY comprehensive paper in what it covers, but is remarkably easy to read. This is not some list of "sploits" though! Topics covered include popular notions about security, types of mal-ware, viruses & worms, memory attacks/defences, intrusion, sandboxing, review of Solaris 10 security and plenty of others. Most notably it includes probably one of the most fair and intelligent analysis of the Unix-Vs-Windows security issue that I have ever seen."

Comments

Interesting "book", great read for PHBs!

[mindhaze]

Looks like an interesting read, and if nothing else, something we should be slipping onto our PHB's desks!

Re:Interesting "book", great read for PHBs!

[x0n]

Not meaning to point this directly at you, mindhaze, but it _is_ an interesting read, and if nothing else, _we_ should be reading it before slipping it into our PHBs' desks.

I would go so far as to say this should be made the must-read EULA for joining Slashdot. It might cut down some of the pointless conjecture and idiotic jibber that so clutters every discussion that mentions Windows, security or anything related. Hell, Slashdot may even grow still and quiet once in while. Not.

- Oisin

Re:Interesting "book", great read for PHBs!

[Walterk]

12345? Thats the code for my suitcase!

Re:Interesting "book", great read for PHBs!

[wayward]

This actually would be a good book for management types, because the writing is clear and not overly technical. I like the way he makes the point that security is about more than a "grab bag of exploits."

Amit Singh, thank you!

[CharAznable]

Kernelthread is by far the best source of information about OS X, barring Apple itself.

The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[plover]

I specifically was looking for one of the biggest problems with Windows -- Administrator authority is too easily doled out (by default, every home user is also an administrator.) This is exacerbated by the fact that so many Windows applications require the user to have Administrator authority.

For example, the bottom of this page shows a list of games that require Administrator authority to play. Why should administrator authority need to be granted to play a game? And to suggest granting Administrator access to people just so they can play them?

I have found no more powerful example of Microsoft's lack of commitment to security than this. I think this philosophy more than anything else contributes to the proliferation of destructive worms and viruses.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[nb caffeine]

Funny how the games listed there are all microsoft games. You'd think that MS would know how to get a game to run without Admin access... Well, I'd like to think anyhow :)

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[Klar]

Isn't it the game writers fault, not M$'s? From what I've heard(not sure how valid I am on this though) the reason they need admin rights is because the program stores info in the admin parts of the registry. Perhaps they should start enforcing software companies to keep away from doing this, and make it easier to run windows while not being an admin user.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[abb3w]

Why should administrator authority need to be granted to play a game?

Obviously, to make low level system calls for direct hardware access in a copy protection scheme.

I have found no more powerful example of Microsoft's lack of commitment to security than this.

While some blame attaches to Microsoft, since they choose to use such a copy protection method with their games, the real culprit is Macromedia, who made the SafeDisc copy protection system at fault.

So, what do you think will happen if it can be proven that the copy-protection methods the Content lobbies (RIAA/MPAA/BSA) are using are a threat to Homeland Security?

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[Proaxiom]

I have found no more powerful example of Microsoft's lack of commitment to security than this. I think this philosophy more than anything else contributes to the proliferation of destructive worms and viruses.

This is not a fair criticism. The 'security initiative' thing is still relatively new, and they are burdened by a large number of legacy security problems from the many years of development with any regard for security problems.

Most of the games in that list, for instance, were originally intended to be played in the 9x series of OS's, which had no notion of anything that was not administrator access (actually, 95/98/ME users had more access than NT admins do!).

There are certainly areas where Microsoft's commitment has been lacking, but the least privilege principle is one of the better areas. Michael Howard et al have been pushing hard for this within Microsoft, and more importantly, pushing for better developer education on how to write code that adheres to least privilege.

Because when you get down to it, if an application requires administrator access to run, it is not the fault of the Operating System.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[fireduck]

I second this complaint. As I recall, one of the recent Blizzard games (fairly sure it has to be Warcraft 3, but it might have been Diablo 2) required admin rights in order to play online through battle.net. Took me a while to figure out why online wasn't working for me, until I switched to admin account, and then voila. I complained in their forums about this (with the predictable response from other players, "why don't you just switch your setting?"); few patches later Blizzard made the game playable with normal user setting. So, it's good that some companies get it, althought it would have been nice if they had gotten it from the start.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[Anonymous Coward]

...the real culprit is Macromedia, who made the SafeDisc copy protection system at fault.

Minor knitpick, but Macrovision makes SafeDisc, not Macromedia...Macromedia is the company that gave us that other monstrosity (aka, Flash).

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[tomknight]

"i like how all the games listed are microsoft games"

That's probably because this is the Microsoft knowledge base.

Sheesh.

Tom.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[Kristoffer Lunden]

I'm not so sure. Here, at home, I am running my Linux box as a normal user, firewalled and everything setup according to the rules. Still, what would malware want with my root access for? If I would execute something malicious, the virus/trojan/whatever would already have access to what is important: the desktop user.

Ok, so it can't erase the *whole* HD or meddle too much with the system, but it can do everything I have the right to do, such as finding and using mail clients and start spreading if that is what it is about.

It could also simply sit idle and log keystrokes until I enter my root pw if that is needed, or just any banking info, or whatever. What it can't do would be stuff like opening a spam mail relay. Until it gets the root pw, that is. Or maybe it is enough to capture your normal pw and use sudo? Did you set it up without restrictions?

Other possibilities include invading lots of local config scripts that are run when starting applications, and oh, when was the last time you checked what was in your KDE autostart? Or any of all the other files that are usually run?

Most things don't matter if root/Administrator access is available - that is for servers.

Actually, I could have something like this running since a long time ago, maybe some russian is watching me type this. After all, I've allowed outgoing connections and I don't do real security audits. After all, this is my home desktop user system. I think it is lots better of than most, but it is not a server.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[finkployd]

Macromedia is the company that gave us that other monstrosity (aka, Flash)

Which brought us homestarrunner, so it can't be ALL bad :)

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[schon]

Obviously, to make low level system calls for direct hardware access in a copy protection scheme.

Sounds like a cop-out to me. 'low-level' system calls are just that - *system* calls, and the system should have a way to allow processes run under non-admin accounts.

At the very least, why can't the installer put a 'setuid' (or whatever the windows equivalent is) program that does the bit-banging? Does the 'system' not allow it? (If not, then the system is indeed broken.)

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[peragrin]

Of the Games Listed the Bulk are Microsoft made games. So it is the game writers fault, but since MS is the game writer you can just skip a step and blame MS.

for you who didn't click on the link

* Microsoft Age of Mythology
* Microsoft Age of Mythology: The Titans
* Microsoft Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings 2.0
* Microsoft Age of Empires II Expansion: The Conquerors
* Microsoft Age of Empires II Gold Edition
* Microsoft Baseball 2001
* Microsoft Casino
* Microsoft Classic Board Games
* Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 2: WWII Pacific Theater 1.0
* Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 3: Battle for Europe
* Microsoft Crimson Skies
* Microsoft Dungeon Siege 1.0
* Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 - Century of Flight
* Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002
* Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002 Professional Edition
* Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000
* Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000 Professional Edition
* Microsoft Freelancer
* Microsoft Golf 2001 Edition
* Microsoft Halo: Combat Evolved
* Microsoft Impossible Creatures
* Microsoft Links LS 2000
* Microsoft Links 2001
* Microsoft MechCommander 2.0 1.0
* Microsoft MechWarrior 4: Vengeance
* Microsoft MechWarrior 4: Mercenaries
* Microsoft Metal Gear Solid
* Microsoft Midtown Madness 1.0
* Microsoft Midtown Madness 2 2.0
* Microsoft Motocross Madness 2 2.0
* Microsoft NBA Inside Drive 2000 1.0
* Microsoft NFL Fever 2000 1.0
* Microsoft Pandora's Box 1.0
* Microsoft Rise of Nations
* Microsoft StarLancer 1.0
* Microsoft Train Simulator 1.0
* Microsoft Zoo Tycoon
* Microsoft Zoo Tycoon: Complete Collection
* Microsoft Zoo Tycoon: Dinosaur Digs Expansion Pack
* Microsoft Zoo Tycoon: Marine Mania Expansion Pack

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[jedidiah]

Actually, it's quite trivial to install most software on Unix as a "mere user". It has been this way for decades.

If Vendors choose not to allow for this, it is certainly not due to a lack of functionality in the underlying system.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[plover]

A fault of Microsoft it may be...but a fault of windows it isn't...

No, this is a fault of Windows. We don't know how these games run or why they require admin authority. It might be to access the sound card, or the video drivers, or DirectX or something similar. But in all those cases it's a fault of Windows for not providing non-admin-level access to the required resources.

It may have something to do with backwards compatibility with Windows 9x. In that case, yes, the application probably could have littered itself with millions of 'if (WindowsVersion >= 4) SafeFunction() else UnsafeFunction() calls, each of which would have killed performance dead. They also could have shipped fat binaries or even two binaries, and had the installation program make the right choice up front. All those solutions add their own problems to an already complex product, though, and if those types of bad solutions are required, I'd say it's the fault of the OS for requiring them.

I would also think that if it were something they could easily fix at the application level, Microsoft's newest releases would not make this list. However, since it includes "Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 - Century of Flight" I'd say that in these days of Microsoft waving the "Security First" flag, they have never actually addressed the root problem. And the root is Windows, not the application.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[badriram]

The words over there when you read the games list were "you may experience". It does not happen for all users. I run halo all the time with a unprivildged user account, and trust me it works.

Also if you look at every major application made by MS, all of them run in user space, I run enough machines in my university to know what application do and what do not work in Windows user space. The one major problem we do run into is Visual Studio, but that is because of the debugging features, which can also be granted easily.

There are enough opensource apps in windows that have this problem.

• Firefox, first run after installation requires Admin to run it, otherwise crashes over and over again
• MySQL, if you enable innoDB, Which is by default, it likes to crash in user space

But yes this problem is more pronounced with other third party windows applications.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[stratjakt]

Windows does provide non-admin access to all those low-level resources. It's called DirectX. I've never had to be Administrator to run any game under XP, and really, not even to install them (unless the game decides that it needs to install the latest DirectX for you, then it needs Admin rights, and that's why installshield likes to ask for it by default)

It's no more fair to criticize XP because legacy games designed for Windows 95 were poorly written and need to be run as root, no more than it is to criticize the new Gentoo 2004.2 because the original linux Doom and Quake ports required svgalib, and thus had to be run as root.

And there were exploits, oh boy, were there ever. Those were my asshole script-kiddy days. Camping, huh? Well just wait until you load the next map, complete with buffer-overflow giving me root access, etc.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[einhverfr]

I have found no more powerful example of Microsoft's lack of commitment to security than this [common requirement that the user have Administrator privilages]. I think this philosophy more than anything else contributes to the proliferation of destructive worms and viruses.

You know, you have pointed out one of the two major failings of Windows security-wise. The other is at least as bad, however.

People often think of UNIX being a nightmare of dependencies, but from a security perspective, the dependency nightmare is actually far worse on Windows. Some of this I can understand, but some I cannot. For example, it is true that copy and paste in Windows depend on RPC. This is understandable (in Gnome, they depend on CORBA). But last time I tried to secure a Windows box by turning off RPC on the PPPoE interface, it would not authenticate until I re-enabled it. Apparently the PPP authentication mechanisms require that RPC is running (works if firewalled) on the same network interface, or at least that is what I was told when I finally called technical support (Microsoft). Granted this was Windows 2000 and I was using a third-party PPPoE extension, but still...

At least with GNOME, I don't have to have CORBA listening on my network interfaces....

If I am securing Linux or UNIX, there is generally it is usually clear what can be turned off whithout adverse results to the rest of the software. This is NOT true with Windows, and I have generally found disabling unnecessary services to be extremely difficuly on Windows because it is difficult to determine what is actually necessary.

I find Windows security to be a complicated headache compared to UNIX security.

Of course, real security depends on the admin, not the OS.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[jafomatic]

I may be mistaken, but I believe that these games were published or distributed by microsoft. Not "written" or "made by" microsoft. Age of Empires (II) was made by uh, Ensemble Studios or something.

That said, you'd still hope they'd find a more-secure spot to write down the user's config. Wasn't there a branch on the root of the registry that was writeable without administrator permission? Is an ini-file impossible to consider as the settings store of a freakin' game?

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[Ytsejam-03]

I specifically was looking for one of the biggest problems with Windows -- Administrator authority is too easily doled out (by default, every home user is also an administrator.) This is exacerbated by the fact that so many Windows applications require the user to have Administrator authority.

Application developers deserve just as much blame for this as Microsoft. It's a catch-22: practically everyone who uses Windows logs on as Administrator, so making sure non-administrative users can run your app is generally not a requirement.

To make matters worse, Windows allows developers to store global variables in a shared memory segment, which IIRC is located in the dataseg of a given .exe or .dll. This provides an easy way to do IPC. IIRC, usage of shared memory segments is the reason that Office 97 and other apps require write(!) access to the System32 directory. Of course when I've seen shared memory segments mentioned in the MSDN documentation, I've never seen any mention of the security implications.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Administrator authority is too easily doled out

I'd argue that that's a symptom and not a cause. Behind all the technical errors there's a mindset that causes them.

For example, somebody thought it was a good idea to have web server plugins run in the address space of the web server. It's only a good idea if you place more value on speed than on reliability and security. Somebody thought it was a good idea to speed up the system by moving more and more functionality into Ring 0. Somebody thought it was a good idea to have Turing-equivalent programs execute when you open an Office document, placing features above security. Somebody thought Javascript in email was a good idea.

The same mindset, until recently, valued rapid code development over security.

Everthing came together in Slammer. The philosophy of feature-richness put a SQL database into products whose buyers didn't even know they had it. The philosophy of convenience had it listening on the network by default. And so on.

By now the old Microsoft attitudes and assumptions have been baked into the foundations and built on by ISV's. Change will be slow and painful even with firm commitment by Microsoft.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[plover]

The security initiatives have been going on a lot longer than just their "global security mobilization" of October 2003. For example, this "Secure Platform" document was authored in December 2002. And since they seem to be able to put out the "hot fix of the week" to handle the "virus of the previous week," I should think they have had plenty of opportunities to get OS patches released, driver patches, or whatever is required to the computers that need it.

Given that, explain why "Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 - Century of Flight" should still make the list? If software they've released years after they've been aware of these problems still demands bad security practices, who is to blame? The application programmers or the environment in which they must work?

You said, "if an application requires administrator access to run, it is not the fault of the Operating System." Explain how a train simulator could possibly require admin authority except in a poorly architected environment? Then answer, 'who provided that poor architecture?'

This is Microsoft -- author of both these applications as well as the OS. They've had the chance to address it, they've had the incentive to address it, but they have not done so. I stand by my comment.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[Minna Kirai]

Why should administrator authority be needed to play a game?

So the game can have "root"-level control over your machine, to ensure that you're not cheating with 3rd-party apps running on the same machine. It must be able to inspect all applications and drivers in memory, comparing them against a list of "cheat signatures" rather like a virus-scanner does.

Seriously. This is exactly what's happening. Evenbalance.com licenses cheat-prevention software modules to several major game publishers, and they've started disallowing players on XP machines unless they're running under the "administrator" account.

Just read the FAQ here:

1. Why does PunkBuster now require players to run the game as an administrator under WinXP/2K?
   
   Because some cheats/hacks cannot be detected otherwise

The reason you give is obselete- mistrust of the end user is the new, upcoming explanation.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[Tony-A]

Well, I'd like to think anyhow :)

Yesterdays article on "Phish" scams links to a "test". One of the examples has the marks of a scam but is considered "legitimate". It is from MSN.

I think a lot has to do with expectations and attitudes. I would expect many if not most games on Unix to just refuse to run as root. An intentional segfault is even more fun. NT may have more elaborate security mechanisms but they are too hard to get at. With Unix you tend to get a mess of rwx in your face. Anybody know how to put group permissions to their limits?

Hiding file extensions probably does much more damage than administrator access.

Unix has an unfair advantage with the name "root". "Administrator", just by the name, makes a much more attractive target. I was smart enough to rename the domain admin to "root". If I leave some user's machine logged on as root their natural reaction is to get their stuff back as fast as possible.

Unix software tends to be as informative as it can as to where the problem resides. Microsoft software tends to try to shift the blame elsewhere if at all possible. The latest XP did not allow me to assign LPT1 to a remote printer. Kept coming with login prompt for the remote resource which never works. Finally disabled the hardware port in the bios. If you can confuse your enemy as to what the problem is, seems like you've got a considerable advantage.

Re:The UNIX vs MS Windows discussion is lacking

[Tony-A]

Good insight. The root/administrator bit is mostly a red herring.

You still tend to put a bit better protection around the small amount of root-stuff, primarily because it's relatively simple to do.

The fat non-root stuff, even on servers, is really the important stuff.
The stuff that actually helps with security is that Unix things tend to think that it's a good idea if the user is aware of what is going on, and will go to a bit of extra trouble to be informative whenever and wherever possible.

[ ] Always trust Microsoft
[ ] Always trust Red Hat
[ ] Always trust OpenBSD
Reactions?

Sure..

[stratjakt]

Most notably it includes probably one of the most fair and intelligent analysis of the Unix-Vs-Windows security issue that I have ever seen."

Ok, so his thesis seems to be that Windows is insecure because it's too hard? Is this guy on crack?

There are too many "knobs." The exposed interfaces are either too complicated, even with documentation, or too weak and limited. Security on Windows is hard to configure correctly (try setting up IPSEC).

This guy can't seriously expect me to buy his argument that properly configuring a unix box is "easier", can he?

This isn't a fair analysis, it's just more "MS is teh gay linucks is awwwwsome!!!!!11!" tripe.

It's really not hard at all to secure Windows, and you can lock it down every bit as tight as any Unix if that's what you want to do. Just because people don't doesn't make it the OS's fault.

How about all the newbies running their X sessions as root because it's the only way they can get the soundcard/dvd-r/tv-tuner/misc hardware to work?

Is it Linux's fault that once you start piling OSS layers onto ALSA and jam the whole pile of shit into Gentoo's default devfsd setup, that it's a huge pain in the ass to get a non-root user to be able to play sounds? Cuz it is. Don't give me the bullshit about "all you have to do is add the user to the audio group" stuff.

What about lazy fucks like me who quit trying to have their daemons chroot and su to another user, because every fucking time they type emerge -u world portage decides to change all the file permissions and ownerships around, so now all of a sudden slapd cant read or write it's data directory, hosts.allow and hosts.deny are no longer world-readable, etc, etc.. Fuck it, the only way to guarantee my LDAP server stays up is to have it run as root. And, of course, it has to stay up, else noone could log in.

I can't remember which distro now, but it shipped with a single * in the xdm's Xaccess file - ie; anyone anywhere could get a local X session on it.

What about every app that uses svgalib having to be suid root, or run as root. Those mythTV boxes and advanceMAME cabs are just big fat fuckin backdoor waiting to be exploited.

The only point I'm trying to make is, any PC out there is no more secure as it's user/owner/admin and the apps they run. Most normal people dont enjoy spending 8 hours a day doing nothing but configuring their systems.

Re:Sure..

[wwest4]

> Ok, so his thesis seems to be that Windows is insecure because it's too hard? Is
> this guy on crack?
> This isn't a fair analysis, it's just more "MS is teh gay linucks is
> awwwwsome!!!!!11!" tripe.

His thesis is actually more along the lines of (and I'm quoting from the Win v Unix section of the article):

"Current Windows systems have some of the highest security ratings (as compared to other systems)... However, the number of documented security issues and the real-life rampant insecurity of Windows are not speculations either! The problems are real, both for Microsoft, and for Windows users."

Nowhere here is he saying that MS sucks, or that linux r0x0rs. Again, from the sam part of the article:

"We stated earlier that UNIX was not even designed with security in mind. Several technologies that originated on Unix, such as NFS and the X Window System, were woefully inadequate in their security."

The argument that explains the paradox is along the lines of what many of us already know - that MS is more prevalent, has a wider spectrum of users (inexperienced to experienced) and exists in a wider range of vulnerable environments - not just cozy, isolated research labs.

So while your arguments are valid, they don't really go against the overall opinion of the article.

Re:Sure..

[Azrael Newtype]

You do realize that this is a direct quote from Aqua Teen Hunger Force, when Carl steals the Foreigner belt from Ignignoct in season 1 episode 8. He then proceeds to invoke the powers of "Hot Blooded," heating Ignignoct and Err and causing them to leave the pool, and subsequently Earth.

God, why am I responding to someone responding to a damn sig, espcially an AC...

Re:Sure..

[stratjakt]

The problem is deeper than that, don't ask a RHCE to tighten down a Slackware or Gentoo box. Linux distros can be worlds apart. For instance, Slackware doesn't have /etc/init.d, it uses rc.d scripts, etc.

They store config files in different places, with different names (ldap.conf vs nss_ldap.conf, etc). They install apps to different places, and so on and so on. Now we can deal with XFree vs X.org (migrating to X.org on Gentoo also broke, well, almost freakin everything I use, and I still don't know how to properly configure the new font paths for tightvnc)

For that matter, don't ask a guy who's RHCE is a year old to secure a RedHat box, because for all you know, he doesn't know shit about, as an example, Samba 3.0's new config options or iptables (since he was taught ipchains). The OSS world likes to completely reinvent apps between revisions, for some reason.

Whereas, one XP box is pretty much the same as the next, and not far removed for Win2k.

I've had the same problems with both. I installed PuTTY in Windows as Administrator, tried to run it as a user, oops.. No user rights.. This is when you find out what kind of user you are. Do you switch to Administrator, screw around with permissions, and test until it works and you feel it's secure, or do you just go "fuck it" and add your username to the Administrators group so you don't have to deal with that kind of shit every day.

I'm not ashamed to admit I'd put myself in the latter category. Screwing around with filesystem ACLs and group memberships isn't what I like to spend my time doing. My firewall/router is about the only "secured" box on my home lan, which is fine, since I lock the doors when I leave so the likelyhood of a script kiddie sitting down at one of my machines is low.

There is a point to be made, and it's that it's nearly impossible to have the best of both worlds. It's either simple and painless to use (desktops), or super-hardcore secure (servers). Both OS's can function in both roles.

Re:Sure..

[Amoeba]

Ok, so his thesis seems to be that Windows is insecure because it's too hard? Is this guy on crack?

There are too many "knobs." The exposed interfaces are either too complicated, even with documentation, or too weak and limited. Security on Windows is hard to configure correctly (try setting up IPSEC).

This guy can't seriously expect me to buy his argument that properly configuring a unix box is "easier", can he?

You are purposefully misunderstanding his point. He was not stating that Windows is "harder" than unix to secure, merely that the "average" unix user will generally have a deeper understanding of how the underlying OS works as opposed to an "average" Windows user. Think about it.

Unix has a larger barrier of entry in terms of learning the OS and understanding how it works until you get to a point where it is "usable". Windows on the other hand has a much lower barrier of entry and a deep understanding of the underlying actions of the OS are not required in order to utilize the system. As a result the complexity of securing unix systems is not as complex to the average unix user since they already have overcome that initial large barrier whereas Windows is more complex to the average windows user because they are faced with a magnitude of complexity they normally do not see.

I do agree with you that Windows can be locked down thoroughly and be just as secure as a unix machine.

Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows enables things by default that enable exploits. This is done for ease of use. Users can make Windows secure.

*NIX disables things by default. This is done for security. Users could make *NIX insecure.

The number of different *NIXs makes it tedious to create viable exploits.

In spite of what the guy says, I think most of us already knew this stuff. Have I missed anything?

Re:Summary

[jimicus]

Redhat 7.2

Play fair. The article discusses Win2K and XP. RedHat 7.2 is a few years older than XP, and predates RedHat deciding not to enable everything by default.

Re:MS Bob

[Short Circuit]

Because "Bill" brings to mind a redneck driving a truck with a gun rack. At least, it does for me. :)

The core security problem with Windows.

[argent]

The core security problem with Windows is that Microsoft has been unable or unwilling to take advantage of the core security capabilities of Windows.

It's more than just the fact that there are existing applications that expect to have write access to system directories and do other dengerous things, it's that Microsoft doesn't seem to be able to respond appropriately. For example, our early Citrix-based server showed the path to solving the problem of writing to system directories... it mapped system write access into the user's profile, and you had to switch to an explicit "installer" mode to actually modify things in the system.

Microsoft owns that code now, it's surely in Terminal Server, but instead of implementing it they created a high level workaround... the sort ofthing you'd expect to see coming from a third party... that monitors the system and puts files back when they change. This not only breaks more applications than the old Citrix-style code did, but it provides another hiding place for viruses that manage to infect the repository or trick the system into backing them up.

Similarly, the whole protocol/handler problem in Internet Explorer... or rather the Microsoft HTML control... (and being inexplicably copied by Apple and the KDE people) could be almost completely prevented by simply making the protocol and helper application binding the responsibility of the application calling the control instead of making the control guess whether the application it's calling is hardened for use by untrusted pages, and if not then it has to guess whether the page it's displaying is trustable or not.

A better article on Solaris 10 security

[sczimme]

is here.

As an aside, items like ASET and RBAC are not new for S10; IIRC they have been included since S8.

Or instead of reading about these things, individuals can download the Solaris 10 Beta 5 ISOs and try them out. Go to this page and scroll to the bottom to Solaris Express.

CC evaluation? Orange book?

[winchester]

I more or less disagree with him on his treatment of the Windows adherence to the CC and Orange book standards.

Even though Windows 2000 is EAL 4+ certified, that doesn't mean it is a secure system. On the contrary, the protection profile Microsoft chose to use specifically states that the threats Win2k should guard against do not include either malicious outsiders or malicious users.

A more or less similar situation exists when we regard the C2 certification for Windows NT. That certification is obtained only when using a NT 4 system with several subsystems removed and no network access.

Both certifications sare the facts that a very specific hardware-software combination has been audited. This is so extreme that EAL 4+ is only valid for a Windows 2000 system with a very specific set of patches applied (SP2 and 1 patch IIRC). In other words, totally useless for any serious real-world application.

Re:CC evaluation? Orange book?

[arivanov]

These evaluations are evaluations on procedures in handling data. They are not evaluations on system breakability and security against unauthorized break-in as such. They are evaluations on suitability of a system to handle confidential data according to some predefined requirements.

Basically a EAL or Orange book certified system will not allow casual transfer of data from a higher security level to a lower security level. That is the core of the qualification concept. All the stuff about admin roles, etc is just fluff oriented towards managing the concept and the granularity to which it is managed.

After the wave of buffer overrun hacks that followed the publishing of Alef1's paper "Smashing the Stack for Fun and Profit" in 1996 I had a conversation with the security head of a bank-to-bank transfer house head of security. We were discussing what can we do about intrusions like this. His first suggestion was to raise the security level to B1 or higher. At which point I had to point to him that all intrusions were circumventing the security mechanisms, not breaking through a problem in them so the Orange Book level of security did not bloody matter at all.

On a similar note, Old SCO OpenServer 3.x which had C2 certification was quite hard to hack in its normal mode of operation. Raising the system to C2 and the enabling of roles required to do so made the system a walkthrough. It took me around 5 minutes to get root on it by doing casual operations, no real hacking involved.

frustrated with "anti"-virus on Windows

[spoonyfork]

I'm still getting MyDoom.o emails. It spread like wildfire inside the company I work at. No update pushed to McAfee on workstations until the next day after the infection. After... the barn door is already open and horses are gone. Be sure to shut that barn door after everything is compromised.

On this Windows box at work I'm protected from thousands upon thousands of viruses except the one that gets written tomorrow and the idiot that opens its brilliantly socially-engineered email attachment.

This is rhetorical and wishful: when are we going to get some anti-virus software that protects us before an outbreak?

(please don't say don't run Windows, it is realistic but not realistic today right here)

Mac security circumstances?

[Anonymous Coward]

The security "philosophy" of the Mac platform, and of the Mac community, is immature yet. While Mac OS X has a good amount of circumstantial immunity against malware, it is significantly lacking in its security paraphernalia as compared to the cutting edge feature-set found in its competitors. The difference is more stark on the server side, where the competition is stiffer.

Isn't this argument sort of like saying that Macs are only secure because they are obscure?

I have read OS penetration has little to do with security. Additionally, with Mac OS X there is a BSD underpinning that utilizes ipfw. OS X is shipping with a strong firewall built in, that doesn't seem circumstantial to me. Does this mean the the BSD's are also circumstantially secure?

I am not saying OS X is completely secure, I have seen the recent exploits, but certainly Mac OS X security is methodical and planned since its roots are from a relatively secure BSD.

Maybe I am reading too far into the above statement. I am not more educated in this subject than the author, but it certainly seems like an unfair treatment of a relatively secure OS.

Games can run without Admin - Example here

[gfecyk]

Quake II XP? You better believe it.

All I did was change where Q2 stored its saved games, downloads and configs. The result not only works just fine as a non-admin, but supports different settings for each user.

Game developers, in fact all developers, have no excuses.

Same tired old arguments

[MECC]

In the "Unix .vs. MS Windows" part, all I saw was a re-hashing of common miscomceptions, and little substantive on interesting info, and some revealing logic stumbles.

"Windows is supposed to be an easy-to-use platform, while Unix is supposed to be cryptic and hard-to-use." - good grief. An ad-hoc conclusion like this pretty much points to a lack of actual logical analysis.

"Microsoft's success, as reflected in their incredible market share, amplifies their security problems". So, giving an email client the ability to infect a system has nothing to do with it? The article seems to gloss over MS's efforts to graft its applications into its OS as part of the problem. By this logic, killing turkeys causes winter.

"A potentially relevant issue is the phenomenal amount of resentment against Microsoft and Microsoft products that is seen in many circles." So, Microsoft's security issues are because people hate them. Get my violin.

"'Security' is hard to formalize, hard to design (and design for), hard to implement, hard to verify, hard to configure, and hard to use. It is particularly hard to use on a platform such as Windows, which is evolving, security-wise, along with its representative user-base." ! He seems to be saying that windows security is evolving and its users are also 'security-evolving', and as as a result, windows security is getting worse. Well, wait a minute. Maybe he's right on that one...

Ditch McAfee, get Trend.

[Anonymous Coward]

We were a McAfee shop for years and it only worked half-assed most of the time, despite what you read in all the trade rags about who's got the best antivirus software. Last year we ran out of patience, and obtained eval copies of all the big name antivirus suites (email, fileserver, desktop, web filter, the usual corporate antivirus bundles), and set up a test lab with a Windows Server and 10 workstations in our training room to serve as a clean test bed to throw about 1000 different virii we'd collected at the test network and see how it handled it. We're actually a govt organization with 35 servers and 500 workstations, but the test setup was sufficient to prove what we wanted to find out. The top four products were: McAfee, Symantec, Trend Micro and Sophos.

McAfee exhibited all the issues and problems we'd already known in our live environment.

Symantec/Norton had so many install problems that we could even install it successfully. This was on plain vanilla, fresh installs of Windows 2000 Server and XP workstations. Their tech support expected us to go thru a bunch of troubleshooting nonsense, but when the damn installer keeps crashing, that speaks volumes about what kind of quality control (or lack thereof) that this company's products go thru. No thanks! Norton goes in the trash.

Sophos seemed to work alright except for lack of support for all our email platforms, but their licensing practices and costs are complete bullcrap. Literally double the purchase and annual maintenance of the others. Not worth it.

Trend Micro's "NeatSuite" bundle just simply worked. Correctly. The first time. Right out of the box. Plopped the cdrom in, clicked thru the default setup configs, and whammo -- smooth running antivirus solution with easy browser-based management of the server, "push" install to all the clients, that detected and uninstalled pre-exisiting McAfee and Norton, auto-updating that's invisible to the end users. Over-the-Internet updates of the scan engines and virus definition files to the local server, and then pushed out to the desktops works perfectly. We bought Trend and have been running it for almost 2 years now. Not one single virus has ever gotten thru since. Annual maintenance is a small bit pricier than McAfee or Norton, but not too bad. With the latest updates we even got a new feature that adds powerful attachment filtering capabilities, and spam and porn blocking to the email system. I wish we would have changed to Trend much sooner. Oh, and by the way, their stuff is available for Linux severs too. We can get updates for virus definitions scheduled every hour too, Trend's record for getting updated definition files published is exemplary, compared to what we had with McAfee.

He says: No mirrors.

[EvilStein]

"This document is copyright © 2004 Amit Singh. All Rights Reserved.

It is illegal to republish this document in any form (where "form" includes, but is not limited to, online publishing). You are allowed to make hard copies of this document if you so desire, provided it is for your own personal, non-commercial, and non-business related use. "

Dunno, but I think that kind of sucks. "Hey, it's online, but it's illegal for you to mirror it."
Oh well.

MS exploits explained...

[gillbates]

In this context, a rule-of-thumb definition of security is often cited: a system is considered secure if its "secure-time" is greater than its "insecure-time." Secure time is simply the time during which a system is protected, that is, free of "incidents". Insecure time is the sum of the time it takes to detect an incident and the time it takes to react to the incident (summed over all incidents in a given interval):

I've never heard such a naive definition of security. Apparently, regardless of how many security holes my system has, or how many times I get hacked, I can call it secure as long as it can be recovered quickly.

So, by this definition, my system is still secure even when:

• A hacker exploits IIS and downloads all my customer names and CC numbers.
• A hacker destroys all of my data from the last backup; as long as I can recover it quickly, data loss doesn't matter, right?
• A hacker DDOS' our server and we lose several days worth of business. Our system is still up, so obviously it's not secure.
• A hacker installs a rootkit on our server. You see, it doesn't matter if the box is owned, as long as its up and running, right?
• A hacker zombies the machine and uses it to send SPAM, or worse, host illegal content.

Need I go on?

I don't think I could come up with a better explanation of why Microsoft will never design secure software than this one: they're definition of what constitutes a secure system is simply out of touch with the requirements of running a business.