Microsoft Claims Linux Security a Myth

black hole sun writes "Microsoft bigwig Nick McGrath claims that Linux security is highly exaggerated, and that the open source development model is 'fundamentally flawed.' The gist of his argument appears to be his claim of lack of accountability among distributors, coupled with generic statements short on facts. 'Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel? Does Red Hat, for example, take responsibility? It cannot, as it does not produce the Linux kernel. It produces one distribution of Linux.' He goes on to say that 'Linux is not ready for mission-critical computing. There are fundamental things missing,' pointing out the lack of a development environment and no single 'sign-on system' giving reference to Microsoft's foundering .Net passport program." I guess Linux can only aspire to the greatness of Windows when it has such secure applications as Outlook and Internet Explorer. Historically those have been proven to be of a caliber all their own.

Comments

*COUGH* sendmail *COUGH*

[Staos]

Twenty years of buffer overflows.

Questions?

Re:*COUGH* sendmail *COUGH*

[Anonymous Coward]

even if it didn't do the same search replacing sendmail with the following and compare the counts:

sendmail counts: 54,800

windows counts: 193,000

now we know that windows hasn't been around nearly as long as sendmail, and yet it has nearly FOUR times the buffer overflow matches.

now let's do -

Internet Explorer: 349,000

Outlook Express: 57,700

Outlook Express has been in use for under 8 years and has 300 more matches for buffer overflow than sendmail.

according to your logic for deducing how secure something is, I'd still pick sendmail over anything microsoft makes.

Re:*COUGH* sendmail *COUGH*

[einhverfr]

A lot of things have changed since 2001, yes? It's 2005 now, correct? Qmail is in the process of overtaking Sendmail, and for good reason.

Sendmail is still the standard-bearing monster that everyone loves to hate. Mostly, I think because of the fact that everyone *knows* it. Even two years ago, it was still required on many Linux job apps.

Secondly, never underestimate the number of legacy systems out there. I have sendmail running on at least two of my legacy systems. Of course they only function as an MTA and don't actually listen on any exposed address.... Of course qmail is on my production systems.

Here is the issue. Open source or proprietary software re: security? Security a matter of design rather than something revealed by a simple litmus test. Open source and proprietary software can be secure or insecure. But the way we find this is by discussing the structure of the program and determining whether it is resistant to attack and fails gracefully without exposing the rest of the system. This is easier with open source software.

Oh, and anyone who trusts whatever Microsoft has to say re: security is going to get what is comming to them.

Re:*COUGH* sendmail *COUGH*

[Doctor Crumb]

There's also exim. I'm amazed that anyone would bring up sendmail considering the shitheap that is Exchange. Which, incidentally, there are no alternatives for. And microsoft is somehow trying to pass that off as a feature, now. "but linux has so many *choices*! It can't be ready for the enterprise!"

Re:*COUGH* sendmail *COUGH*

[slavemowgli]

Yes, one. What does sendmail have to do with linux?

Indeed

[SilverspurG]

"Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel?"

Tell me. Of the 60,000 some (give or take whatever) viruses, worms, and trojans available for Windows, how many of them even needed kernel level access? I suppose he can simply blame that on others.

There are bits of the Linux software stack that are missing

Care to elaborate? Just what part of the software stack is missing?

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to use logic and reasoning in the face of this style MS FUD is just going to make for a long winded argument.

Here, MS is starting out with claims that don't have a thing to do with reality. They're stating nothing more than equivalents to 'what if's. Making a reasonable sounding argument that in the absence of proof sounds like it could have some backing behind it.

When MS says "The biggest challenge we need to face centres on the myth and reality. There are lots of myths out there as to what Linux can do. One myth we see is that Linux is more secure than Windows." it's just an outright lie. It sounds like he's taking the position of a firm stand against a very real problem. "the open source development process creates fundamental security problems." furthers it, by attempting to put an explanation on just what's wrong with Linux.

It's theorising, and it's the kind of logic a bunch of guys down the pub will bullshit on about for hours, talking about cars or government or whatever, things they really don't know about, but can sound knowledgeable about.

Sounding knowledgeable doesn't stand up to Reality though.

Microsoft's comments about Linux security in the face of the passing of their least secure year is the equivalent of them arguing that drink driving is actually safer, by stating "Alcohol slows you down. It would make you drive slower, therefore be safer. You'd be less likely to do anything silly cos you'd be trying to concentrate harder on driving well". On the surface to someone who knows no difference, it sounds like an argument that has merit.

But again, The Real World jumps up and gets in the road, and that's where real security issues for MS exist, and not in their false construct of marketingspeak.

Re:Indeed

[tdemark]

'Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel? Does Red Hat, for example, take responsibility? It cannot, as it does not produce the Linux kernel. It produces one distribution of Linux.'

Who is accountable for the safety of drinking water? Does Evian, for example, take responsibility? It cannot, as it does not produce water. It packages one distribution of water.

Re:Indeed

[prandal]

Care to elaborate? Just what part of the software stack is missing?

DRM.

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the EULA for Windows.

Microsoft isnt responsible for the security of windows either!

Re:Indeed

[timeOday]

Accountability is a complete red herring in the first place. Microsoft explicitly disclaims any liability for whatever may go wrong with Windows. Just like everybody else - but then MS has the gall to slam others for lack of accountability!?

They can make accountability an issue right after they start taking the blame for virii and worms, and reimburse business for all the expense and inconvenience Windows holes cause.

Re:Indeed

[theCoder]

Actually, it was a great analogy. Just a Evian doesn't take responsibility for drinking water as a whole, but just it's bottled water product, Red Hat doesn't take responsibility for the Linux kernel downloaded from kernel.org or other places, but does for its particular version of the kernel (and the other software it includes).

At least as much as Microsoft does for Windows, anyway.

Re:Indeed

[brianosaurus]

Even more basic,

accountability != security

When one of those 60,000 viruses, etc, attacks your Windows box, you know exactly who is accountable for the security hole: Microsoft.

But what good has that done any of us? I still see the worms trying to infect my system daily (fortunately I run Apache on FreeBSD, not IIS on Windows). When I visit my relatives with Windows boxes, I have to clean up hundreds of pieces of spyware and adware. Knowing who to point your finger at doesn't stop the thousands (or whatever) of compromised machines from constantly spamming us.

Not to mention M$'s latest announcements limiting security updates to only non-pirated copies. That's a tough call. On the one hand, the pirates get what they deserve; they didn't buy the product, so they are not entitled to support. That's fine.

The problem is that its not just the pirates who are penalized. Having thousands of unpatched Windows machines is bad for everyone. The worms and viruses don't care if its a legal copy or not. They'll infect and add the pirate machines into the spam-cluster. Who is accountable for those, now that MS has washed that one off their hands? I still say Microsoft.

Re:Indeed

[Master of Transhuman]

This reminds of the guy in the Bush administration that said something to the effect that "reality-based people" don't have any effect in the "real" world - just all those "faith-based people" in the administration.

Which is actually true. Even Seymour Hersh said it on the Daily Show interview I just watched a few minutes ago - that regardless of what he writes, or the NYT writes or anybody else - the administration is going to do whatever they want - including invading Iran and getting hundreds of thousands more people killed.

And that's true about Microsoft and anything Microsoft says - it's all going to be total bullshit and deliberate lies and that's the caliber of the people working there - but they're going to do it anyway.

Time to ignore them and just get on with it. As Abbie Hoffman once said, "Do Your Own Thing and Only Your Own Thing".

Or as William Burroughs said, "Never let the critic teach you the cloth" (as they say in bullfighting).

Not A Myth, Just Not Inherent

[the_mad_poster]

Fact: Much of what winders suffers from is incompetent users. Nothing is really stopping the developers from writing spam bots for windows because idiot users on Linux could run bad code just as easily as idiot users on windows.

OTOH, you don't have such dumbass tricks ass tying your browser right to the OS or ActiveX, so you make spyware and whatnot less of a factor.

On yet another hand, however, you have the problem of moron users running sendmail daemons that listen for connections from the Internet and other stupid things. Plus, Linux has security holes. If stupid people don't patch them just like they don't path winders, what good is the security?

Again: You can protect the stupid people from the world if you want, but you can't protect them from themselves.

Re:Not A Myth, Just Not Inherent

[ggvaidya]

IMHO, the biggest problem is that Windows has remained relatively unchanged since Win95. Win95 was a single-user application, only just beginning to explore the Internet. The biggest risk your computer could face - viruses - could be handled by being very careful about which floppy disks you used. People who used BBSes were competant enough to use antiviral programs.

With the coming of the Internet, all that changed. Windows needs to be secure enough to prevent web-based attacks, such as through badly created web application frameworks like ActiveX, as well as prevent attacks on vulnerabilities in the networking function of the OS. Stuff like using a restricted user mode, frequent updates, using a secure browser, etc. are necessary to stop such attacks.

A Windows computer is probably as secure as a Linux machine if adequate measures are taken: antivirus programs, firewalls (generally included in the former), secure passwords, not running as Admin and most importantly, frequent updates.

All this is new stuff that people have to learn. Atleast if you use Linux, somewhere down the line you *have* to learn the basics of stuff like this (I've found "rm -rf" is the best tool for teaching people to NEVER run as root!). With Windows, you can remain painfully oblivious to the most basic security techniques because the OS will *let* you - and your computer becomes the next hub for Joe Spamboss.

Hopefully, SP2 will improve things - I've found the firewall a real PITA, particularly on university-administered computers, but atleast it makes people a little more aware and careful.

I don't think branding everybody as "stupid" is the way to go about it. They're not stupid, they're just not aware. And I blame Microsoft as their enabler, atleast for these last few years.

Re:Not A Myth, Just Not Inherent

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact: Much of what winders suffers from is incompetent users.

NO! This is fiction. Let's look at the history:
1. Blaster - all you have to do is hook up an unfirewalled system to the Internet and you got it. Up until recently, all Windows systems were unprotected until patches were downloaded from the 'net which required... you guessed it! connection to the Internet.
2. SQLslammer - all you have to do is have SQLserver running on your machine and connected unfirewalled to the Internet. The biggest problem is that many people who didn't use SQLserver thought they were safe. Wrong! By defayult, Microsoft installed and started SQLserver whether it was needed or not by the end user. I saw many SBS users compromised by this who were mystified - "But we don't even use SQLserver! How did we get infected?"
3. Outlook viruses - many of them did not require you to even read the damned e-mail with a virus; just preview it!
4. Vulnerabilties in viewer - all you had to do was browse to a web-site and view a specially malformed picture and you get infected.
5. Vulnerabilities in IE - many of the vulnerabilties in IE do not reuire any user action. Just browse to specially crafted web-site and you get infected automatically!

Now, I expect lots of flaming on this; use a firewall, don't enable ActiveX, etc, etc. But, damnit, this lead was about responsibility! and the fact is, that until recently, Windows shipped with all the hole needed to infect a machine automatically enabled/open/vulnerable. No one eems to think that Microsoft is responsible for this. No, instead, it is all stupid user's fault for taking a system that Microsoft bills as "Internet ready" and connecting it to the Internet! As the above examples illustrate, it doesn't take any user action to corrupt a Windows machine; just one that trusts Microsoft!

Well..yeah..he would say this

[grasshoppa]

You see, it's called marketing. He is saying exactly what big wig CIO/CEO/C[A-Z]{2} understand and like to hear. Accountability. That's a big thing to most corporations.

Now, him saying that Redhat can't improve the kernel is simple BS, and could either be a fundamental lack of understanding on his part, or just a flat out lie. Given his position, I'm guessing it's a lie. Redhat ( as have most distributers ) patches the kernel with it's own magic, and will often update it on it's own.

Cliff notes: MS marketting with head in sand. News at 11.

Re:Well..yeah..he would say this

[daviddennis]

How is Microsoft accountable when their own license agreements say clearly that they are not liable for any consequences resulting from use of their systems?

If they were genuinely accountable, they'd be bankrupt.

I have to say, this is a pet peeve of mine - pretending to take responsibility when there is, in fact, no responsibility taken is just plain wrong.

D

Ho-hum

[twilight30]

Move along, people. Nothing to see here. There's no point in getting pissed off about this; Microsoft shills are liars and exaggerators.

I will never forget -- seeing as how it happened only on 19 December just gone -- about my broadband installation. Not wanting to rock the boat nor confuse the cable installer guy, I rebooted into XP just prior to his arrival. He hooked my old beater celery up with DHCP and I surfed for about ten minutes. I thanked him and he left.

So I figured I'd do the decent thing and do the security updates. ...

Eight hours later, I cleaned off the last of the spyware, adware, malware horseshit.

To Nick McGrath: Fuck off and die, you wanker. How much you want to bet your router at home runs a Linux variant for firewalling purposes?

Who is accountable for Windows?

[nharmon]

From Windows XP's EULA:

LIMITATION ON REMEDIES; NO CONSEQUENTIAL

OR OTHER DAMAGES. Your exclusive remedy for any breach

of this Limited Warranty is as set forth below. Except

for any refund elected by Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED

TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT

LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if

the Product does not meet Microsoft's Limited Warranty,

So, are we believe that if Windows crashes my data, that I can hold Microsoft accountable?

At least with Linux I have access to the source code, and can hire programmers to scratch my itches for me. Somehow, I don't think microsoft would give out source code if they went under.

Not a technical argument

[Malfourmed]

McGrath is not making a technical argument, but a management/legal one. In business, security (ie peace of mind) is not defined by the tightness of a piece of code but by who you can make accountable for any failure.

Microsoft at least is the clear and sole owner of its product. Though any single customer's ability to make it responsible for product deficiencies is slight at best, a statement of "we're here and responsible for our stuff" is superficially reassuring.

Microsoft takes responsibility for Windows Bugs?

[Taladar]

Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel? Does Red Hat, for example, take responsibility?

From these words I conclude that any business that lost time/money from Security Holes or Bugs in Windows they can go to Microsoft and present a bill which Microsoft will gladly pay.

Let's keep the bias out of the submission..

[Staplerh]

Come now. This is rediculous:

I guess Linux can only aspire to the greatness of Windows when it has such secure applications as Outlook and Internet Explorer. Historically those have been proven to be of a caliber all their own.

This is true, I will agree.. in my humble opinion. Let's save the editorializing for the comments. This is 'News for Nerds' - this sort of snide comment has a place in an Op/Ed page, but certainly not the 'front page' of a news site. I suppose there are divergent ideas of what Slashdot really is, but I think that endeavouring to be unbiased would be great.

I'm not meaning to troll or to be 'flamebait' here, just to point out a disturbing trend I've noticed in biased story submissions.

Just personal experience

[agraupe]

Here's my personal evaluations of security differences:

Spyware:
Windows: I run a spyware checker every week or two, and it almost consistently finds new spyware.
Linux: Is there a spyware checker for linux? Does there need to be? I know that my Linux box runs consistently fast, and has no search bars.
Edge: Linux

Default Habits:
Windows: The Windows XP install, by default, seems to create an Administrator account with no password, no User account, and no suggestion that there should be a user account. Also, there's many services that are on by default, that really shouldn't be.
Linux: All linux distros I've used require a root password, and strongly emphasize that root is not to be used for day-to-day computing. Depending on the distro, most unnecessary services are off by default.
Edge: Linux

Updating:
Windows: Use an insecure browser, tied to the OS itself, to browse to Windows Update, wherein the system is updated. Note that these updates have a nasty habit of breaking things, and this does not update third-party software which may be vulnerable.
Linux: sudo apt-get update; sudo apt-get OR upgrade
sudo emerge sync; sudo emerge --update world
Edge: Linux

Do I need to go on?

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[jonastullus]

i really don't want to play down the problems linux has with its development model and i sure have heard great things about the microsoft development process!

but i'd rather have a more secure system now, which lacks in development stringency, then a provenly unsafe system which can prove exactly when, why and how their bugs came into the system...

microsoft is just far too lax concerning their outward security policy (like not caring about the blatant RC4 exploit). their "patch day" with all those patches that never quite close the exploits is just a farce!

well, gnu/linux with all its applications has had a bad streak of exploits as well recently and i would strongly recommend a stricter development process, but if i were microsoft i'd definitely tone down on the linux-is-insecure-and-lacks-accountability bashing and instead invest some serious effort in making my own product look a little more convincing and less like the bug-ridden security hole that it is!

jethr0

Development Environment?

[Roguelazer]

"there is no single Development Environment for Linux as there is for Microsoft"

Yes, what a good point. There are multiple DE's for linux. This is a bad thing, because it means developers have a choice. There should only be one piece of software for each category, and it should be manufactured by Microsoft. Choice is bad, people!

Hm

[Lisandro]

Microsoft bigwig Nick McGrath claims that Linux security is highly exaggerated, and that the open source development model is 'fundamentally flawed.

Why, of course he does. That's his job.

In other stories, water's wet, sky is blue and women have secrets. More news at 10!

Re:Linux Security vs Microsoft AntiSecurity

[Omnifarious]

*nod* Judging from the number of ssh attempted login scans, there are a fair number of comprimised Linux boxes out there. :-(

I'm starting to get really annoyed with Open Source people patting themselves on the back over security when stuff like that last thing where the people tried to get someone responsible for Linux kernel development to accept a security related patch, and ended up having to get an article on Slashdot before it happened.

Security doesn't just magically happen. The Open Source development model is the only way to go if you want real security, but it actually requires effort on the part of maintainers to make it happen.

Who is accountable for the security of the Windows

[CharonX]

Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel? Does Red Hat, for example, take responsibility?
Er... and who is accountable for the Security for Windows?
Microsoft?
Internet-swiss-cheese-security-Exlorer Microsoft?
And will Microsoft take responsiblity for their security holes? Will they pay for the damages caused by crashes and exploits for their buggy software?
Maybe if they get their software quality up to a reasonable level they can START asking questions, but as long as they are as bad as now, they better keep their mouths shut, or they'll have to stuff their own feet in them.

Re: Linux Security vs Microsoft AntiSecurity

[Black Parrot]

> I'm starting to get really annoyed with Open Source people patting themselves on the back over security when stuff like that last thing where the people tried to get someone responsible for Linux kernel development to accept a security related patch, and ended up having to get an article on Slashdot before it happened.

Hey - maybe if Slashdot carried an article about Windows security problems now and then, they would get fixed too!

Lack of what?

[kidlinux]

This "lack of accountability" argument is bullshit. Why does Microsoft have an EULA for its software? To cover their asses so they can't be held accountable for damages caused by their shitty software. When was the last time Microsoft was taken to court over losses due to poor software? If they could be held accountable, they'd get sued right out of business!

Re:MS Development tools pwn everyone

[NamShubCMX]

Please elaborate HOW they are superior, because I always found them to be quite equivalent...

I'm actually serious, you were moderated informative but I am really wondering where the superiority of the MS tools come from..?

Profitable Insecurity

[Doc Ruby]

Because the way they do it at MS, they're raking in about $40B:y. Good security would cost them more money than just talking about it. They're smart enough to know how to turn insecurity into a marketing triumph, without paying the cost.

Re:Profitable Insecurity

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

No, I don't think so. I think they are very much like a cult and at high levels have deluded themselves into thinking that these issues don't really exist if they don't talk about them. I think at lower levels, there are Probibly many who do want to talk about it, but like their jobs more.

Re:Profitable Insecurity

[einhverfr]

Do you have any facts to support your assertion that IIS6 is in any way less stable/secure because of its kernel-mode component?

When I look at the relative security of a software package, the questions I ask (going back to design) are:

1) How exposed is this to attack? How necessary is that exposure?

2) If it is compromised, how deep is the compromise?

Now, the inclusion of http.sys affects question 2 in the following way:

If a compromise occurs in http.sys (which is directly exposed to the network), then the exposure level is deeper than any usermode program running as any user. I.e. the fact that the exploit occurs in the kernel (ring 0) means that the system is fundamentally compromised in a way that it would not be if it were in usermode (ring 1 or 4 usually depending on the processor architecture).

There have been no explots to date in either http.sys or TUX but that does not mean that they are secure by design. More likely, they have not been directly targetted yet due to people sensibly not running them.

Who is accountable for Windows?

[analog_line]

'Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel? Does Red Hat, for example, take responsibility? It cannot, as it does not produce the Linux kernel. It produces one distribution of Linux.'

And who, pray tell, is accountable for the thousands of holes that have left Windows users open to viruses, trojans, and other malicious uses of their hardware? Billions of dollars in money throw into the toilet fixing the results of nonexistant to pathetic securty in Windows, with an EULA that specifically absolves Microsoft of all blame if anything goes wrong using their software, and they have the gall to claim that they are accountable for Windows?

Should I be submitting my bills to Microsoft instead of my clients when their poorly designed, poorly implemented software causes them to need my services for hours on end, making them unable to do work, let alone pay my fees?

Microsoft are you Accountable?

[mnmn]

I entered the address of a website, it wasnt a particularly nasty site, just something resulting from a google search.

And it automatically installed a spyware application. No YES/NO dialogues just installed it. After that I saw attempts at outbound port 6667 to various external servers.

Now I do manage servers that hold financial data, and servers with ERP software that run the company.

I ask you, Microsoft, can you be held accountable if our company melts down should malicious spyware enter the system with their authors intending to corrupt our backups and bring everything down?

Will you pay us the millions that we lose as we lose our customers?

Will you as a result of such a catastrophe give us an OS that does NOT allow such breaches of security?

I understand IE in Windows 2003 is more secured, and we should never browse for anything on the server itself... etc. However Windows2003 has not been matured enough to bring out the bugs while Windows2000 has issues even after SP4, and after Microsoft will cease to provide bugfixes for it.

We replaced our firewall with OpenBSD. We simple cannot find a reason to upgrade it from the 3.4 version, since the older version is so secure. Hell yeah we've had attacks of all kinds, to almost all ports, syn cookies even ddos type attacks that slowed the Internet connection, but we're still up, and without ever having an issue for over two years of OpenBSD operation.

Coming back to Linux, which is also a UNIX clone, and which has more eyeballs on it, and more companies taking responsibility for it, tell me, should I pay for a crappy OS with someone behind it you can point fingers to, or a nice OS with no person behind it simply because youll never have to point fingers?

responsibility

[belmolis]

If Microsoft is so concerned about responsibility for security flaws, why is it that they don't offer indemnification for users hurt by their software?