Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Delays Stirling Security Suite

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the what-an-exciting-morning dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's long-awaited integrated security suite, codenamed Stirling, has been delayed by months and will now not be available until the fourth quarter 2009. According to Microsoft, the delay is due to the further development of the firm's behaviour based technology, the Dynamic Signature Service, 'to help deliver more comprehensive endpoint protection for zero-day attacks,' and efforts to add interoperability with third-party solutions, as per customer requests. When completed, the suite will combine a number of tools, such as the ISA Server and multiple Forefront products."

13 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. In other words by NaCh0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't work yet.

    There is so much legacy cruft in Windows I doubt it will ever be secure. MS has too many conflicting priorities.

    1. Re:In other words by saleenS281 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, in other words they've got so much extra work to make sure they don't violate anti-trust they've had to go back to the drawing board 30 times to satisfy symantec, mcafee, etc.

      Because hey, it's horrible that I have to buy anti-virus software, but it's even worse if MS gives me something to replace third-party for free!

    2. Re:In other words by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where do you get "free" from? You are paying for it.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    3. Re:In other words by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're both missing the point that it isn't free because of anti-trust law. I didn't realize I was going to have to spell it out.

      In my opinion this entire thread misses the point because plenty of operating systems manage to maintain security without any sort of anti-virus or anti-spyware scanner. Those things are forms of damage control and are not actually security at all. With Windows they are used as a substitute for a proper security system because they are much better than nothing. That is, real security is about prevention; damage control is about detection and removal.

      So how about if Microsoft makes the OS itself inherently more secure? If they made something comparable to the Unix security system (even if its mechanisms are quite different) then you would not need all of these scanners to double-check every last action taken or file opened or e-mail viewed etc. That would neatly avoid any anti-trust issues that might be raised by the likes of McAfee or Symantec and would be a significant performance boost as well. Of course such cottage industries may complain for a different reason, in that a more secure Windows could put them out of business, but if they really are obsolete then this is what should happen.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    4. Re:In other words by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually - my operating system offers an anti-virus package with the installation media that is pretty damned reliable, gratis as well as libre. Starting with a decent security model, and reliably enforced security policies, and ending with an anti-virus software, which I never even use. When Microsoft can offer all of that, I may consider paying a couple hundred dollars for their operating system. Oh - wait - uhhh - why would I want to pay MS for what I already have at no cost? Ooops, I think I had a blonde moment! :-(

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:In other words by ivucica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm an active Debian user on desktop, so I think I am pretty unbiased when I put these few things out:

      • NTFS provides pretty neat ACLs, and Windows Exploder provides a nice way to configure sharing/security. Much more detailed than three octal digits specifying R-W-E. (More confusing, too, but if someone needs it...)
      • People going through with the default of running their desktops as administrators is not Microsoft's fault.
      • Third party developers requiring users administrative privileges to install any kind of software (e.g. games which can be otherwise ran under non-admin privileges) are at fault as well.

      I don't like Vista one smokin' bit, but the problems people are having with UAC are not only coming from improperly written Microsoft software; I'm pretty sure many times it comes from improperly written third party software as well.

      Please give concrete examples of how you would improve Microsoft's security model. I, for one, would prohibit the simple means of obtaining access to other process' memory space... but I'm not competent to speak about that either, since I have zero idea how other OSes have that solved.

      So don't just bash Microsoft and say "they did something wrong". I know this is Slashdot, but still, say what can be improved. Don't just bash around. It's what makes FLOSS users look bad.

    6. Re:In other words by CarpetShark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they've got so much work to do to make sure they don't violate anti-trust

      Yeah, right, because they've always worked so diligently on that.

      it's even worse if MS gives me something to replace third-party for free!

      You have that backwards, bub. Third-party was charging to cover microsoft's glaring omissions.

    7. Re:In other words by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with making the OS more secure is the dancing bunnies which is of course a PEBKAC problem. No matter how secure you make the OS ultimately it comes down to the user. If the user happily clicks through your warnings and does something stupid, well stupid is as stupid does. Unless you are ready to allow MSFT to hand out thin clients that THEY control and manage then extra security just won't work. I have many customers as well as this going on 9 years old Win2K box I'm typing on that has NEVER had a bug. Not one. Zilch nada squat. Why? Because I don't open email attachments, or go to warez or pron sites, or allow stupid folks on my machine, that's why.

      And all the security in the world won't save MSFT from the seriously fucking dumb users you have out there. Believe me, as a Windows repair man, I know this. I have found this can be broke up into 3 main categories. 1-The "my BFF Jill sent me this so I know it is safe" 2- The "I'll click on anything that'll give me teh hot lesbos" guy, and 3- The "Kid running some P2P that will click on any .mp3.exe if it is labeled as whatever trashy pop hit of the day they want to hear".

      Notice a pattern there? In all 3 of those major cases of Windows pwnage extra security would NOT help. They would bitch and moan and keep right on clicking through warnings until they got the dancing bunny and a nice infection to boot. But I do know the feeling, I too once believed that "if it was just made secure" but then I learned the hard way. I have a customer that is one of the "I'll click on anything for teh hot lesbos" types, so i talked him into trying Linux. I can't remember which distro off hand but I think it was either PCLOS or Mepis. Whichever one had released a new version later. Anyway, Linux is more secure, right? Surely that will fix the problem, right? WRONG. He STILL managed to completely bone the system to beyond bootability in less than a week. How? Because he didn't like getting software through the package manager so he typed in "Linux Software" into Google and downloaded a bunch of stuff off Freshmeat and ended up in dependency hell. So now I just keep him in a locked down XP account and clean it out a couple of times a year when he fills it with malware.

      The point is you just can't build foolproof anything, much less a foolproof OS where the users have the right to install software, because the fool will out dumb you every single time. It doesn't matter about education level either, as I had a buddy that manages a fairly big company have to go to the regional head because his PHB was threatening to fire him because "You WILL stop blocking my emails from Melissa right this instant! I am your boss and you have NO RIGHT to tell me who I can talk to!". And the simple fact is more and more attacks on Windows is using the SOCIAL engineering tricks to get installed. because you will never write a virus that will be able to jump through as many hoops as a user trying to see the bunny. All you can do is try to clean up the mess. Just as I think JavaScript is a mistake of ActiveX proportions but I can holler that on the roof tops until hell freezes over but it ain't gonna keep places from using it. And if you look up "JavaScript infection" in Google the amount of hits you get is simply staggering. But as long as places like Youtube use it I can't block it on my customers because they want the bunny. All the security in the world ain't gonna help if the user happily turns it off.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:In other words by Joe+U · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So how about if Microsoft makes the OS itself inherently more secure? If they made something comparable to the Unix security system (even if its mechanisms are quite different) then you would not need all of these scanners to double-check every last action taken or file opened or e-mail viewed etc. That would neatly avoid any anti-trust issues that might be raised by the likes of McAfee or Symantec and would be a significant performance boost as well. Of course such cottage industries may complain for a different reason, in that a more secure Windows could put them out of business, but if they really are obsolete then this is what should happen.

      Like forcing the users to run under limited accounts and then prompting them when they need elevated privileges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control. Or locking down the kernel http://www.toptechnews.com/news/Vista-Security-Still-Issue-for-McAfee-/story.xhtml?story_id=11300C1NIA8R

      Good ideas, might get some complaints though.

  2. OneCare for Business? by KBlommel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It looks like this is Microsoft's security suite for the business/enterprise environment, much like their OneCare is for the consumer market.

    I'd be careful buying any security software from Microsoft, not only because of their "track record" when it comes to security, but because it's not their main focus. When you've got such big priorities as Windows, Office, xBox, ect, you can't expect them to produce and support a security suite very well.

    They need to learn to leave the security products to those companies who specialize in it. They're the ones who do it day in and day out, and they're the ones who you can trust in an enterprise environment.

  3. Reading between the lines by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "efforts to add interoperability with third party solutions, as per customer requests"

    Is this spelled "DRM"?

  4. Actually The Problem Is Dancing Bears by EXTomar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The actual problem is that Windows is a "dancing bear" ala "The Inmates Are Running the Asylum". The real problem is Windows is the bear and it shuffles around never really dancing well at all but people are amazed by its activities instead of questioning the entire endeavor in the first place. Asking the users to make sound decisions about permissions and other settings given way Windows works is like asking people at the circle to critique the dancing bear.

    Stop blaming the user. Users of other electronics devices are not required to understand intricate security feature yet apologists for Windows continue to blame "the dumb user" for not recognizing dangerous security situation. Browsing a web page, looking at email, clicking on items on a desktop are normal user activities. A user shouldn't have to know ahead of time a link is bad news nor how would they really know before they get there and inspect the page. Asking them "Is this okay?" is a dumb question anyway.

    We really need to stop blaming the user for all the security issues on home pc desktops and put the blame back on the system design. Expecting a user to activate functionality, then ask them "Is this okay?" is insanity that is a feignt for shifting the blame from the poorly designed system back to the user.

    1. Re:Actually The Problem Is Dancing Bears by Your.Master · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only possible way to account for the user's actions is to set up what amounts to a very strict DRM scheme where the entire system is controlled by one party (Microsoft, or perhaps some blesséd parter of Microsoft) and the licenses to let other users install this software are doled out with barriers to entry so high that typical users cannot cross them on their own. This strictly-controlled system is why video game consoles, or DVD players, etc., rarely get infected.

      Other than that, for all of your grandstanding you literally ask the impossible and declare reality to be an insane apology.

      Only by utterly eliminating the user's ability to do things, can you eliminate the user's ability to do bad things. It doesn't matter what OS you use.

      Now, that said, a responsible OS maker should do what it can to knock out every vulnerability that does not rely on the user, and should even put into place what barriers to entry that it can without making computing an immensely frustrating experience and without violating the law.

      Here's a car analogy: you can make the safest car in the world, and you're still in a heap of trouble if the user drives it off a cliff into the ocean. It's not blame-shifting, it's a driver going off a cliff. The only way you're going to avoid that is by putting all the cars on railway tracks, that is, eliminating the user's ability to drive. And we have that too.