OpenOffice.org Security 'Insufficient'

InfoWorldMike writes "IDG News Service's Robert McMillan reports that researchers at French Ministry of Defense say vulnerabilities with open source office suite OpenOffice.org may rival those of Microsoft's version. With Microsoft's Office suite now being targeted by hackers, researchers at the French Ministry of Defense say users of the OpenOffice.org software may be at even greater risk from computer viruses. "The general security of OpenOffice is insufficient," the researchers wrote in a paper entitled In-depth analysis of the viral threats with OpenOffice.org documents. "This suite is up to now still vulnerable to many potential malware attacks," they wrote. The OpenOffice.org team has already fixed a software bug discovered by the researchers, and the two groups are in discussions about how to improve the overall security of the software. "The one real flaw in the programming logic has been fixed," said Louis Suarez-Potts, an OpenOffice.org community manager. "The others are theoretical.""

Comments

"theoretical"

[dmiller]

It is disappointing to see a free software project dismissing threats as "theoretical". Today's "theoretical" vulnerabilities are tomorrow's exploits. Worse, the article hints that these threats are fundamental design flaws - the developers should be working to fix these and not issuing PR speak to cover them.

Re:"theoretical"

[morgan_greywolf]

The PDF presentation that the group gave was en Français, but I got the gist. I'd post a translation, but my French is a little rusty. ;) Anyway, they seem to be saying that because OOo doesn't support authentication certificates for documents or macros, and because OOo has an API that allows you to program in several different languages (Python, VBScript, Perl, C++, etc.) and that OOo has no solid verifiable security model, that the suite is fundamentally insecure.

I can see where some of this gets dismissed as "theoretical" -- for instance, while OOo has such an API, this isn't any more secure or insecure than the fact that other applications, like MySQL, for instance, have a similarly flexible API. Ditto for Microsoft Office or any operating system.

The information on authentication certificates seems a little outdated -- OOo 2.0 supports digital signatures for documents and macros and even security settings that prevent macros from being run that are not signed. I think that as for a solid, verifiable security model, OOo 2.0 seems to have one based on digital signatures.

Re:"theoretical"

[Red Alastor]

I speak French, let me translate.

1. "Official" MS Office competitor.
2. Share of the market rising.
3. Cheap but...
4. What about the real security of OpenOffice ?
5. Viral analysis by proof of concept
6. Numerous integrated programming languages : script shell, VBScript, Python, Perl, Asp, Java.
7. Rich macro developing.
8. Numerous existing hijackable execution points
9. No protection mecanism for macros
10. zip format is makes virus penetration easy.
11. Macro security is easy to bypass. "Trusted" folders are defined. Any macro placed in those folders is by definition, trusted.
12. Document signature do not really consider macros. Bypassing possibilities
13. Macros can be linked to events or services.
14. Other mechanisms : macro chaining, hypertext links, inter-application execution, OLE
15. Many mechanisms are usable for an infection
16. All known viral techniques known for Microsoft Office can be translated under OpenOffice.org
17. Every kind of infection is doable. (Infection and auto-reproduction)
18. Globaly, OpenOffice's suite is a bigger infection risk than Microsoft's suite.
19. No real security concepts.
20. Many functional viral roots were made as proof-of-concept
21. Infection successful no matter the security setting of the user.
22. Some senarii can act without alerting the user in any way (scenarii is a stupid plural in French too but they used it in the original)

Then they go on to explain (still in powerpoint bullets) that they managed to write a macro that sends an e-mail with an attached file which then executed C code which modified dicOOo.

And they conclude that infection risk under OOo is MAXIMAL and its use should be discouraged for security reasons.

Re:"theoretical"

[Red Alastor]

I'm replying to my own post but the other was the translation and this is what I think of it. I think it's bullshit.

Point number 10, what the fuck ? zip is just a comression format. Point number 11, trusted folders are defined by YOU. So most people don't even have them. But if it's convenient to you to define a folder where all macros are trusted how is it different from accepting every macro while you open the document ? It must be quite convenient for developers who want to test their macros. Most other points ? Way too vague to mean anything. Beside, if the danger for an office suite which isn't really attacked right now is "maximal", how should be classify MS Office ?

And their famous proof-of-concept... they won't even tell us how they got it to run. My guess is that they defined a trusted folder and put it in.

Until they reveal that, this document is worthless. Like that other proof-of-concept from I don't remember which AV vendor. Their macro (if you accepted it) would download a porn picture from the net and put it in the document. I guess it's much more dangerous than sending documents with the picture already in.

Re:"theoretical"

[TheRaven64]

I've never worked in a big office that actually uses the macro and scripting features of productivity software.

I worked for a little while for a (very large) organisation that made heavy use of scripting in Office. Every single type of document had an official corporate style. It had a (scripted) wizard that went through and added the sections you want, automatically filled in various bits of it, etc. After five minutes with the wizard you would have a multi-page skeleton document which would then just need text adding.

If I had been implementing the system from scratch, I would have made it intranet-based, with a TeX backend for generating PDFs, but they had an enormous amount invested in the it, and a team working on updating and fixing the templates. It was sometimes a problem ensuring that you had the right version installed (which is why I would go for a client-server model), but even that could probably be fixed by scripting (simply have the wizard check it was the latest version and fetch / install it if now).

Thats a cool thing with open source

[CrazyJim1]

If someone finds a bug or flaw, it doesn't take someone else very long to fix it. Now when it comes to corporations, they have to wait to bill you for the next release, and you pay it too because the fix of bugs alone justifies buying the new version.

Re:Thats a cool thing with open source

[daniil]

The cool thing about corporations is that it takes them longer to produce new bugs and set them loose in the wild.

Let me think...

[DumbSwede]

which should I use, hmmmm...
Microsoft's Office Suite IS being attacked.
OpenOffice could, possibly, theorectically, be attacked.

Many eyes at work. Sounds like a + not -

[MCRocker]

This sounds like a strength of the open source model. Many eyes can include security auditors too. The weaknesses get reported and fixed.

The closed source model doesn't offer the same level of opportunity to find flaws. Even when people do find flaws in closed source products the publishers are as likely to bury the report, deny the flaw it exists or use DMCA to sue the people who disclose the problems.

Chalk this up as a win for the open source model... at least for large high visibility projects like Open Office.

The Bad News Is...

[RobotRunAmok]

...that OpenOffice has security flaws.

The Good News is that in the time it takes the suite to open and load an infected document the malicious hacker has been captured by the FBI, brought to trial, convicted, and a patch made available.

What makes them think MS Office isn't vulnerable?

[foreverdisillusioned]

I'm assuming that the vast majority of these alleged vulnerabilities came about as a result of them examining the source code. Since Microsoft Office is closed source, it may have just as many potential exploits or more. The difference is OO.o's vulnerabilities are known and thus can be guarded against or even patched by a third party. MS Office's potential exploits are unknown and thus may be released as zero-day exploits, and even when they are known we're at the mercy of MS to release a timely and effective patch.

I fail to see how this is a black mark against OpenOffice.org.

MMKay.. Interesting, but..

[wwiiol_toofless]

OpenOffice.org is FREE! FREE I tell you! Given the choice between a known-to-be-vulnerable $200 suite and a hypothetically-vulnerable Freeware suite, I'll take the latter. The day I discovered OO still ranks in the top 10 of my favorite computing moments of my life.

leaked MS Expense Report

[Gothmolly]

From: sballmer@microsoft.com
To: accounting@microsoft.com

Attached find my receipts for the recent meetings I had with the French Ministry of Defense:

First class plane ticket to Paris: 2100 USD
Swank hotel in Paris: 1800 USD
Dinner for 2 at a spiffy restaurant: 800 USD
Hookers and blow for MoD officials: 5000 USD

Business Justification For Expense: I believe that we will sell ONE MILLION copies of Office to the French MoD.

--Steve

PS If you get a bill from the hotel about a broken chair, it was like that when I got the room, so I don't think we should pay it. Bill said it would be OK.

Gentle Reminder About the Ministry

[mpapet]

This is the MINISTRY OF DEFENSE where draconian access control and accounting should be routine.

It's very difficult to go from that environment back to the real world where security is measured by successfully implementing long passwords in a company.

Making the inductive(?) leap that OpenOffice.org is insecure is a really long leap of faith. Are there holes? Probably.

In many ways, this is good news because the open source application is being picked over with a fine tooth comb by a large ministry.

Bring it on!

The imporant news here

[andreMA]

... is that France has a Ministry of Defense.

Re:The imporant news here

[Harmonious Botch]

I disagree. The important news is that they have finally overestimated a threat.

Insecure by association?

[quantaman]

My understanding is that a lot of the security problems in MS Office comes from bad design wrt things like macros which make it very hard to secure the system. If OpenOffice is working towards compatibility with MS Office they may be having to deal with the same types of security issues in trying to secure bad macros and such. Thus it makes sense that OpenOffice would be just as, or even more, insecure than OpenOffice, not only do they have many of the same classes of exploits, but they also have greater pressure to rush these features out (for compatibility reasons) and up till now haven't had the motivation of attackers actively exploiting them to force them to spend the necessary time on security.

CVE-2006-2198

[tetromino]

I think that the flaw they are talking about is CVE-2006-2198, which was fixed in OOo-2.0.3. It was pretty nasty, executes arbitray macro without alerting or prompting the user. However, given that the mistake was already found and fixed, what else does the French Ministry of Defence have to complain about?

Re:CVE-2006-2198

[truthsearch]

I submitted this story to /. a month ago and it was rejected. Back then the MoD stated they were already working with the OpenOffice.org developers to have the appropriate changes made. Apparently it's been completed within the last one or two months. This is old news (by internet standards).

Maybe we need to take a step back...

[Harker]

a decade or more, at least.

How about we stop writing word processors and spreadsheets that are capable of running code (other than its own)?

I remember back when I was big on a certain usenet news group, we had a discussion about an email virus. The claim was, when you opened the email (don't recall the name off hand), it would do all sorts of nasty things to your computer, and possibly to your girlfriend/wife/sister/etc. The entire thing was a hoax that preyed on ignorant computer users, and urged them to spread the word.

My argument at the time was basically that an email client could not, or should not execute the text within the email itself, and any client that did, shouldn't be used.

Now I use Outlook on a daily basis, and guess what?

So, let's take a step back to simpler, less efficient applications. Get rid of what causes the vulnerabilities in the first place.

Now where did this box come from?

H.