Slashdot Mirror
Users' Admin Logins Make Most Windows Malware Worse
nandemoari writes "A new analysis claims that over 90% of the Windows security vulnerabilities reported last year were made worse by users logged in with administrative privileges — an issue Microsoft has been hotly debating recently. According to BeyondTrust Corp., the result of the analysis of the 154 critical Microsoft vulnerabilities indicated that a full 92% could have been prevented if users were not logged into their systems with administrator status. BTC believes that restricting the number of users who can log in with these privileges will 'close the window of opportunity' for attackers. This is particularly true for users of Internet Explorer and Microsoft Office."
Would you like to install a virus? [Cancel/Allow]
Not running as a fully-privileged user reduces your security risk? Who knew!
This is not news. The question is why it hasn't been meaningfully addressed in Windows for such a long time.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
What they need to do is limit all users to not be administrators. They should create the admin account so that it can ONLY do admin tasks. It cannot run programs like office or games. It can only run security and diagnostic apps, adding-remove apps. If they restricted admin users from using their account for daily use and only for admin use, that would significantly reduce the attack surface for crackers.
Lame blogs aside, The Fucking Article is damn near worthless. Highlights include:
In conclusion: Running everything with admin privileges is bad, which is why Microsoft fixed this 2 years ago with UAC. It's a lame PR piece about an equally lame study from a company that wants to sell you stuff to do things that MS did years ago. If you are here reading Slashdot, there's nothing here you didn't already know.
Problem is that they assume that when the security bulletin says that successful exploitation will allow the attacker to run as the current user, this does not mean that the attacker will be able to run as admin, even though the user is an admin.
Indeed (with UAC on) IE7 runs in protected mode which is a "sandbox" where the users' security tokens have very limited rights, thus intrinsically protecting the OS.
The Vista protected mode effectively runs the process as a limited user, even though it preserves the users identity.
Even if the attacker can somehow trick the browser or user into downloading a malicious file and start it, it will still need elevation (yes, the cancel/allow thingy) to assert admin privileges.
So, another way to spin this would be "Vista UAC protects against exploitation of 92% of vulnerabilities".
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
I am sure this is not news to anyone whether you love or hate Microsoft. The fact is the coding practices commonly followed under DOS and then under Windows have been rather poor. The reasons for it are many, but largely because of a thirst for performance. But in order to keep people hooked on Windows, they have to keep supporting the mistakes of others as well as their own. This is what they call "backward compatibility."
But there is a way out of it and for some reason they seem unwilling to do it. Write a new OS, virtualize old Windows for "legacy support" and eventually all the software vendors will port their code to work with the new Microsoft OS natively just as they did with Mac OS X. I can't imagine why Microsoft is unwilling to do that... got any suggestions anyone?
I have been suggesting this for years. Enterprise (Microsoft's most important customer base), in general, does NOT want it. Seemingly they want the 'good ole' x86 to live forever and Windows to run programs written for DOS 5.0 even in 2009 and beyond. Ridiculous, but it is true.
If you are a business who relies upon some certain software to get work done and do NOT have the time, money or resources to switch to something else, it is in your interest to demand your software vendor (in this case Microsoft) NOT to remove compatibility for X application.
If you look at the Windows 2000 leaked source code, you can find plenty of comments about VERY specific application fixes. Yes, XP broke stuff. Vista broke more. But it probably did not break what the enterprises care about (Vista likely did break many things, hence why 7 is being rushed and so many enterprises skipped Vista and will go to 7 after some extensive testing).
Today I experienced a game that does not work on Vista. Microids' Corsairs from 1998, made for Windows 9x. Tried compatibility modes, the latest patches, etc. It just kept crashing. Microsoft does not care about your 'classic' games at all. All they care about is the enterprises who actually buy the expensive volume licenses Microsoft is always trying to sell.
A Mac fan extolling the merits of the command line.
It's going to take some time to get used to. Forgive me.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
But Valve will go after you for trying.
My question:
Customer 06/11/2006 04:15 AM
I am not willing to play (and let other people play) HL2 using the Admin account on my computer because of the obvious security implications (I don't want my computer infested with malware).
Is there any way to run it without admin privileges? I installed it using admin privileges and went back to my unprivileged account but turns out it needs to write data to the install folder (bad programmer - no donut for you).
Which are the files STEAM tries to write to in the install folder?
If it turns out to be too complicated I'll just download the no-steam version with BitTorrent ;-).
Their response:
Response (Josh) 06/13/2006 01:34 PM
Thiago, It cannot be run without admin privileges. I know you were probably joking, but I would also encourage you to avoid any product that claims to get around Steam. We take cheating and hacking very seriously.