Security Patch Creation at Microsoft

devonshire writes "Officials at the Microsoft Security Response Center have provided a detailed look at the process used to create security patches. From the time the first vulnerability data is received from grey hats to the time a bulletin is shipped, it's a pretty interesting look at how they handle the information flow and patch testing and why it takes so darn long to release an IE update."

Comments

Typical corporated programming

[guruevi]

Instead of just believing the people that there is a problem, they have to test it out and develop a plan and then reprogram the piece. I hate that. In my company they have implemented such system too and if you have a problem you have to wait a month before it is planned in (if it is accepted by a group of non-technical managers) and then another month before it is fixed making a problem sometimes last for over 6 months and after an endless amount of pointless meetings there is finally some kind of fix. Programmers in corporation are under a lot of (time) pressure and that is not good as it makes them make mistakes. But they have to be able to make quick fixes (as is with most Linux projects) without any corporate meetings or managers.

Re:Typical corporated programming

[Atrax]

Your company just seems to have a problem of balance. Your company may have a slow process, but equally they'd be insane to lean too much the other way and just let the techies spin out patches willy-nilly without fear or favour.

Striking a balance is the trick, and non-technical managers will tend towards the extremely cautious end of the scale without their caution being necessarily grounded in a realistic appraisal of the problem. They don't realy understand it, so they go slowly and have accountability at every step.

Sounds like you might want a shorter chain of command, with technically knowledgable managers making the calls.

How you get that to happen, well, I really don't know. A new CEO might be a start (it's worked at my old company)

Re:Typical corporated programming

[Tune]

Either you have no idea about how (software) project management works or you have seen some worst-in-class examples at your company. Testing and reproducing a bug is *very* important. Bypassing that step is a guarantee to waste valuable programmer's time on non-issues. In a healthy organization with averagely skilled testers, this part of testing takes a couple of hours at most.

Next is bug fixing. This is by far the most variable and unpredictible part, requiring the best of any programmer. It may take minutes or it may take weeks. Besides good programmers, good process can be of great help here.

Finally comes the release testing, which is what the article is talking about. This phase is essential: *never* trust a programmer if he says its "fixed and I tested it". Generally, programmers are simply incapable of testing their own stuff. I know as a programmer. Release-testing takes a considerable, but predictable amount of time, assuming the programmer did a good job. Skipping this phase will sooner or later lead to disasters like the recent Netscape 8 release.

Now I agree with your complaint on workload and lack of tech-savvy managers, but it's nonsense to say that the process as a whole sucks.

UDP Floods

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think there's a single service on a windows box that can withstand a UDP flood. This has been known to be an effective DoS method for years...roommate using all the bandwidth with bittorrent? Playing Doom3 in the middle of the night with the volume jacked up?

Send a UDP flood to ANY of the services which are actively listening by default, problem solved. Where's the triage team on that one? I guess 99.9% resource consumption isn't a vulnerability in their eyes.

Re:Testing is only a priority on closed source app

[Dancin_Santa]

As an Open Source developer, I'm not in this for the money. If I were, you can bet the project would be Closed Source.

Rather, I want this project to be open and usable for all. To that end, I license it under the GPL and anyone is free to use it.

So my users are partners with me. They are not my guinea pigs. Though I maintain control over the project, there is no set-in-stone law that no one else may fork the project. In fact, they are encouraged to, if they feel it necessary.

I release the patches, and they accept them or reject them, depending on their own circumstances. I don't rule them with an iron fist. I consider them my Knights of the Round Table where they all have the right to say what they want and none is any greater than the other.

So maybe you think that users are passive slugs, but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Testing is only a priority on closed source app

[Atrax]

Was I talking about IE? Was the OP? Surely we were debating the patch process in general, not specifically IE?

Besides which, a hell of a lot of corporates consider their intranet (extranet/web) apps 'critical'. IE (or other browser) is a major component in that mission-critical situation, wouldn't you say?