Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Offers New Data-Security Scheme

Posted by timothy on from the now-press-this-button dept.

bingly_beep writes "The BBC is reporting Microsoft's new user security measure, whereby users sensitive information is stored on their PC rather then online, as in their previous offerings, such as Passport. This sounds like a good idea, but any such system would surely require that the user definitely erases the HD on any machine they sell. Perhaps Microsoft should include an option, like 'Prepare this computer for resale,' which utterly destroys all data."

18 of 309 comments (clear)

  1. Aw hell... by werewolf1031 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Perhaps Microsoft should include an option, like 'Prepare this computer for resale,' which utterly destroys all data."

    Yeah, like THAT won't be hacked all to fvck by virus-writers. Great suggestion!

    1. Re:Aw hell... by rbarreira · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Virus writers don't need that to destroy the data of a windows pc...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    2. Re:Aw hell... by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You know what, I actually really like the idea. Maybe it shouldn't be too simple, but in theory, all user data SHOULD be kept in the user's profile. I hate when some application developer doesn't follow this, but it really should be kept there, and every user should have full access to their own profile anyway.

      So, if you had some user-friendly (but clearly labeled, and with warning messages) option to "secure delete" user profiles, it seems like it would be a nice security measure. It's not technically difficult, and not anything a virus/trojan couldn't do on it's own, and if all user data really is being stored in the user profile, it's not complicated.

    3. Re:Aw hell... by werewolf1031 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      and not anything a virus/trojan couldn't do on it's own

      Not quite. Think about it: In this particular scenario, we're keeping all our personal/important/sensitive data in one place, and more dangerously, a place that's standardized, ie. easy to find. At least with users scattering their personal stuff all over the hard drive, it's easier to "mask" from a virus/trojan looking for that data.

      But with this new setup, the data's all in one spot. In the SAME spot, regardless of the machine or the user. (Cuz you just know that MS is gonna create a standard folder for this.)

      So, by doing this, it'd actually make the malicious program writer's job easier.

    4. Re:Aw hell... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if it were made completely secure (let's say it could be done, for argument's sake) how many users would be willing to wait for 120GB+ to be randomly overwritten 5+ times? I know that using the '8 way random write' option on my OSX install CDs to nuke a 120GB drive before I sold my old Mac took one hell of a long time to run (multiple days, the kind of time a regular user is not going to enjoy waiting).

      AFAICS they simply wouldn't bother waiting for this unless it was made significantly faster, and since I assume it's a pretty simple task I don't really see how that could be done.

    5. Re:Aw hell... by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All that sort of data should be kept in a standard place anyway. Scattering it about the hard drive only means that users need higher access levels to more directories, which INCREASES the damage a virus is able to do (assuming users aren't running as admin, which they shouldn't be, and assuming a virus isn't exploiting a security hole to elevate its privileges, which there isn't much you can do to prevent it from wreaking whatever havoc it wants at that point).

    6. Re:Aw hell... by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You're absolutely right, they shouldn't be. But they are, a great many of them, because unfortunately many 3rd-party apps, especially games, require admin rights to run properly -- and who wants to exit and login as a different user every time they want to play a game? (Which in itself is a separate rant.)

      With so many users running with admin rights, it'll be a no-brainer to compromise this particular setup.

      I guess that, when Microsoft talks about their future plans for "improving security", I assume that the first assumed step is to rectify that particular problem. Perhaps I'm naive to attribute even this small measure of care and competence to Microsoft's developers. However, any other security steps are pointless until this issue is rectified. Frankly, it's obscene that Windows has been encouraging users to run as admin for so long, and failing to discourage developers from requiring administrator access to run simple applications. It's pointless and it's stupid.

  2. Either solution is flawed by Jailbrekr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you either store the information locally, and run the risk of a local exploit thanks to the latest and greatest security hole, or you store the information online, and run the risk of the central site being compromised. The first will be more common but limit the data theft to only a single person, whereas the second will be much less frequent but will limit the data theft to the entire customer base.

    In the grand scheme of things, they are both as flawed, just in differing ways.

    --
    Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    1. Re:Either solution is flawed by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Very insightful post. I think part of what turns people off about a centralized server, however, is the possibility of snooping by the very people running the server. Also, whenever you talk about storing data on a remote server, there's the question of the up-time of that server (which is something users don't have control of themselves.

      On the other side, data stored in a centralized server is more readily accessible anyway. Also, data-redundancy and backups are usually more cost/time efficient when done on a large scale.

      So again, there are trade-offs between the two methods.

  3. Dupe by The+Bungi · · Score: 1, Insightful
    dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe.

    Dupe.

    [Your comment violated the "dupe" compression filter. Try less repetition. Article aborted.]

  4. Is it just me, or... by FlyByPC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...is there something fishy about trusting Microsoft to manage confidential data?

    Yeah, it's better than Passport, where they not only manage the data but store it too -- but for true privacy, shouldn't the relevant code be open for all to see? At least the encryption algorithm, anyway...

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
  5. Insecure Cookies by The+Amazing+Fish+Boy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Read the article. Sounds like they've made cookies, but more than one site can read them. My guess is you'd have to authorize the site to read them, but this is bad news.

    If a site can trick you into hitting "OK," they could get your info.

    Of course the site probably has to be registered with MS in some way. Maybe this is a way for Microsoft to offer a "secure browsing experience" that is also convenient. IE7 will likely view MS-approved sites as "higher security" than SSL approved sites.

  6. Re:The assumption being by SilentChris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Now if data is compromised fault could arguably lie with mom and pop rather than a Microsoft server."

    It's a classic situation of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

    Microsoft releases Passport, "secure online identity system", onus on MS not to screw things up (legally liable). Everyone hates it.

    Microsoft releases new system, "secure offline identity system", onus on user not to screw things up (legally liable). Everyone hates it.

    I don't think there's anyway for MS (or any other company) to "win" this battle. Personally, I think the onus of responsibility should be on the computer user. MS, Apple, etc gives you the tools to be secure (as long as you stay up-to-date with the patches), and people continue to ignore them.

    Just the other day someone said their home computer was flashing "notes by the clock" that "their system needed to be updated". Did they update, I asked. No. Did they want MS to install things without asking? No. Now who's responsibility is it here when the machine gets hacked?

  7. Utterly destroying all data by Ars+Dilbert · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "Perhaps Microsoft should include an option, like 'Prepare this computer for resale,' which utterly destroys all data."

    They are probably afraid of getting customer support calls from people who used that option to "see what it did", or from people who changed their mind and wanted their data recovered, or folks who thought that MS didn't really mean it when they said (with a huge red bold and blinking disclaimer no less) that all data would be erased. Ahd then they'd sue MS, OEM, and CompUSA for the emotional distress caused by the loss of their data.

  8. The most practical way to permanently erase a HDD by karlandtanya · · Score: 4, Insightful
    is with thermite.

    You can use a 5/7/9 pass DOD overwrite. Or a 39-step Gutmann overwrite. Or the ultrasuperduperTFH method of... You get the idea. It takes a looonng time.

    HDDs are cheap, especially one you've used so long you're going to sell the computer.

    Take it apart & melt the disks. If you have a lot of them, just use a fish cooker.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  9. Re:Cleaning up HD by mboverload · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All that does is write over your data with a 0. It is complicated, but it is VERY easy to recover formatted data. What you need to do is white is 7+ times with random data.

  10. Update on This by flithm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just wanted to update and say that, you can safely erase an entire hard drive (even with a journalled filesystem) if you unmount it, and wipe it (ie side step the filesystem driver). This is pretty easy to do in Linux, not sure about Windows... although I know one good method would be to use the hard drive manuacturers low level formatter (running it 3 or 4 times should be enough).

    But once again, be wary of any file erasure programs like the one mentioned by the grandparent post. You need to take care that your usage of them is not in vain!

  11. Prepare this computer for resale by rodgster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sledgehammer followed by a bonfire or wood burning stove ought to do it. Ever wonder why there are no harddrives at government auctions?

    --
    Who will guard the guards?