Slashdot Mirror
Vista Security — Too Little Too Late
Thomas Greene of The Register has a fairly comprehensive review of Vista and IE7 user security measures. The verdict is: better but not adequate, and mostly an attempt to shift blame onto the user when things go wrong. From the review: "[Vista is] a slightly more secure version than XP SP2. There are good features, and there are good ideas, but they've been implemented badly. The old problems never go away: too many networking services enabled by default; too many owners running their boxes as admins and downloading every bit of malware they can get their hands on."
.. A Dialog box asking if you wish to run the exploit or not.
And it is the first thing to be disabled for sure.
can't believe I'm speaking up for Vista but ...
User security, is like car safety. It's nice to design for "in case shit happens" but if you drive like a lunatic, you're likely to get hurt.
I think a large part of security involves the self. People don't do enough thinking, and are too lazy to follow simple security procedures. No automated tool or system, that allows some freedoms can protect people entirely. Think about it, the OS'es solution to malware? Only allow MSFT signed binaries to run. But this is horrible as it means only MSFT can authorize binaries and it cuts out 3rd party developers.
At some point the users themselves have to stop and learn how to use their computers properly, if they want to use them. If they're too lazy to figure it out, *and* demand security, they should not use a computer.
Of course it's largely MSFT's fault for breeding a culture of contempt for knowledge. Oh look it's so easy anyone can use it with zero training.
Imagine if MSFT made automobiles (but with the a yolk instead of a wheel/pedals, and other "standard improvements"). No training required!
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
"and downloading every bit of malware they can get their hands on."
Come on. More than anything, Microsoft is in a no-win situation to try and protect people from themselves. If everyone ran Linux instead of Vista there'd be the same damn problems.
If a thirteen year old wants to download smileys for their IM client, the kid is going to do it. If the software has spyware, then that spyware would do what it takes to open up or break the system. It's pretty damn hard to code against human behaviour.
This is exactly what Vista security is.
My main problem with Vista security is that it is an OS that cries wolf. When I installed Vista, I had to click no less than 50 security confirmation dialog boxes (it's important to note that these were security dialog boxes) within the first hour or so in order to do simple, stupid stuff that clearly should not have needed confirmation. Stuff like changing my desktop background. Stuff like moving some documents around on a removable hard drive. Stuff like copying a line of text from an IE7 edit box. Stuff like pasting that line of text into a different IE7 edit box. Stuff like creating a new text file on my removable hard drive. And so on, and so on, ad nauseum.
This isn't security. This is constant aggravation, and yes, I cannot imagine any normal user calling their geek friend after five minutes and saying, "How do I turn this damn thing off?" Even if they don't, they "mentally" disable it by simply clicking Allow without thinking. Hell, I'm a computer expert, and I did it. "You are installing the pwnzj00 virus." Allow. "You are sending your bank account numbers to Nigeria." Allow, allow, allow, dammit! Leave me alone!
I try to give Microsoft the benefit of a doubt. I'm not a zealot or a Microsoft basher, seriously. I think they've put out some good software, but on this point, I have to agree with the folks who are saying that Microsoft isn't serious about security, they're simply trying to push the blame for when things go wrong onto the users.
There's no way in hell that they could have conducted any usability tests and found the currently scheme acceptable. But they still let it out the door, most likely to meet some sort of artificial management deadline to keep the OS from shipping any later than it already had.
So now, we've gone from OSes that never alert you to potential security risks to an OS that is even worse because it alerts you to everything, security risk or not.
I'll be interested to see how Microsoft tries to fix this mess, both from a technical standpoint and a PR standpoint.
So changing the desktop wallpaper is a security issue in Linux too?
The problem is not that Vista asks for permission where admin is required, it's that it asks for permission everywhere.
So, point by point:
While referring to IE's Protected Mode feature:
However, there is a brokering mechanism that enables users to download files to any location they have access to, or to install browser plugins and extensions, and the like. So users are still invited to make a mess of their systems, and no doubt many will, while Microsoft has a chance to shift blame away from itself.
Uh huh. First, you can't install plugins/extensions (with the exception of signed ActiveX) without admin privs. Period. Second, how, exactly, would you propose the user be able to save files to their Documents folder, or do any other file operation in their profile (or basically anyplace on the system) without this brokering mechanism? Would you prefer that Microsoft not allow users to download *any* files via the browser? Ya, that would work out well.
However, IE7 on Vista does still write to parts of the registry in protected mode.
IE7 is running as an extremely low-rights user. This does *not* mean that it doesn't have the ability to write to any part of the registry. It means that the register's ACLs must explicitly allow write access to the IE's low-rights user. Certain locations have been explicitly marked as write-safe for the low integrity process. The example given by The Register is one of them. In other words, it's not an issue.
However, DEP, when full on, may cause a number of applications to crash, or interfere with their installation. I'm betting that a majority of users will opt for the more conservative setting, and this of course means less defense for everyone.
You're betting that the majority of users, most of whom think "DEP" is an actor's last name, will go and hunt down the DEP setting and turn it off because it will supposedly cause lots of applications to crash? Really? You mean they won't selectively turn it off via the dialog box that comes up after a DEP-related crash that asks if you want to turn it off just for this application? Oh, and what quantitative study are you sighting that shows that lots of commonly used applications will crash because of DEP? Give me a break.
User Account Control (UAC) is another good idea, because it finally, finally, finally allows the machine's owner to work from a standard user account, and still perform administrative tasks by supplying admin credentials as needed on a per-action basis. You know, the way Linux has been doing it forever.
Windows has supported running individual processes as admin (or any other account) since NT4. It was integrated into the GUI in Windows 2000. That is not the point of UAC, and it's not how Linux does it at all. If you try and run an application or perform an operation on Linux or Unix that requires admin access, it will fail. It doesn't prompt you. It's a subtle, but big difference. And it's a critical difference in the Windows world where that vast majority of applications won't work without admin privs.
Of course, it only works if everyone stays out of the admin account as much as possible, and if everyone with an admin password knows better than to install a questionable program with admin privileges. And there's the catch: "Windows needs your permission to install this cleverly-disguised Trojan nifty program. Click Yes to get rooted continue."
Wrong. It works regardless of what user you *think* you're running as. An admin account on Vista (with UAC enabled) is NOT AN ADMIN ACCOUNT. It's a limited user. The *only* difference is that an admin account isn't prompted to t