Microsoft Says Two Basic Security Steps Might Have Stopped Conficker

Re:Two basic steps by hackula · 2012-04-25 07:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Troll much? Windows has nothing to do with it when you set all of your passwords to "123456".

Applying security patches is a good idea? by Gothmolly · 2012-04-25 07:23 · Score: 5, Funny

So basically they're saying if you had better passwords and applied patches, you'd avoid security problems?

Nice to see MS on the cutting edge of security research.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Re:Applying security patches is a good idea? by Cro+Magnon · 2012-04-25 07:47 · Score: 2

Which is more than you can say for too many of its customers.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Applying security patches is a good idea? by operagost · 2012-04-25 09:27 · Score: 1

I assume you'd be OK with them forcibly pushing updates, then... because that would be the next step.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Applying security patches is a good idea? by PNutts · 2012-04-25 13:23 · Score: 1

So basically they're saying if you had better passwords and applied patches, you'd avoid security problems?
Nice to see MS on the cutting edge of security research.
Apparently the owners of 1.7 million PCs need to hear it. And since those machines are throwing malware at mine I support that advice from any source.
Re:Applying security patches is a good idea? by FoolishOwl · 2012-04-25 16:17 · Score: 1

Given how many times I've seen people in IT complain that they consider patching software, without extensive internal testing, to be an unacceptable security risk, and how often I've seen the same people deliberately use weak, shared passwords, I'd say there's some need to keep reinforcing the basics.

Why are we still using passwords? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-04-25 07:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

We have better authentication methods, we are just not bothering to deploy them. How many times do passwords have to fail before we acknowledge that they do not provide the sort of security that we need?

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:Why are we still using passwords? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-04-25 07:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

We were waiting on you to implement it since it's so easy of a change to make.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-04-25 07:29 · Score: 1

Did I say it was easy? Yes, it will take work, but we are not even trying right now. Does your bank offer anything better than passwords?

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by DdJ · 2012-04-25 07:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

We have better authentication methods...
Would you kindly name three?
(Please be specific. Then, we can explain how for a given set of reality-based situations, they're not in fact actually "better".)
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by Desler · 2012-04-25 07:35 · Score: 1

They must be since otherwise what was the point of your snotty post? They might not be 'bothering' to deploy them because they aren't ncessarily better nor easy to deploy.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by hackula · 2012-04-25 07:36 · Score: 2

Did I say it was easy? Yes[.]
Sorry, I could not resist.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by hackula · 2012-04-25 07:41 · Score: 1

Requiring a lower case, an upper case, a symbol, disallowing dictionary attack prone words, and a minimum password length of 12 would probably go a long way. Most companies do not do this because they care a lot less about the customer's security than they care about their checkbook (Mine included. Most customers complain if you give them more security.).
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by Desler · 2012-04-25 07:46 · Score: 2

I hope you aren't referring to SecurID tokens...
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by houghi · 2012-04-25 07:48 · Score: 2

People always talk about passwords without looking at the other part: usernames.
Often I am not able to select my username. I have more usernames then passwords. At work I have one password, which is less secure then it could be, because I need to change it every month.
I have at least 7 different usernames.
first letter first name up to 8 characters total with the last name
first letter and full last name
3 letters first name upt to 8 for the last name
last name only
first name only
department name
company name
This is at work. That does not imply that it is all from the company I work at. Several are from external companies. And I also did not count the usernames I need to share and thus are not really mine.
And this company is not that bad. With another I had also 3 different digipass machines and for 1 application I needed 3 differnt logins and passwords.
The reason that passwords are still used is because security is seen as a problem that involves only one user on one server with one access. It does not take into consideration the fact that people have many places they need to access.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-04-25 07:48 · Score: 2

That's a bit extreme for normal users. The more complexity you force on them, the more likely they are to just write the password down. It's generally accepted to force 8 characters minimum, 3 character types (between lower-case letters, capital letters, numbers and symbols) and not allow them to use any of their last 5 passwords or change the password again on the same day. Now admin accounts, 15 characters is reasonable.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-25 07:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

That kind of policy is the reason why people use P@ssword0000001 as their password, and then increment it by one every time they're forced to change.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by arth1 · 2012-04-25 07:51 · Score: 5, Informative

My European bank used a one-time pad in addition already 13 years ago. They replaced it with a code generating card a while ago, for improved security (no one can make a copy of a code that's not generated yet).
My US bank still uses plain passwords.
It also uses debit and credit cards with just a magnet strip (which European stores won't accept anymore), and offers cheques (which the rest of the world stopped using in the 80s). And forget about having a giro system or SWIFT. It's truly like the dark ages over here.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by arth1 · 2012-04-25 08:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Indeed.
And not only that, but by imposing published restrictions on the password, you reduce the number of possible passwords, making brute force attacks easier.
Just by saying "at least one digit", you reduce a brute force attacker's job by at least a factor of 9.5 (given you use ASCII; even more if you allow ISO-8859-x or Unicode). You reduce the time until any random password is cracked by about an order of magnitude. Or, put another way, the cracker can use a partial rainbow table that covers almost ten times as much of the total space.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by jedidiah · 2012-04-25 08:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's only necessary if you are forced to change your password frequently.
Then you're stuck with coming up with new passwords all the time and something that you will actually remember. (assuming you don't just start writing them down)

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by Desler · 2012-04-25 08:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

And when you start doing that the user will then just write their password on a sticky note since it'll be complex to remember. And if other sites have the same policies they will just duplicate that password around. So, you've just made things more insecure.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by b0bby · 2012-04-25 08:17 · Score: 2

That's a bit extreme for normal users. The more complexity you force on them, the more likely they are to just write the password down.

I have to say, in a small office environment, I'm less worried about people writing down passwords than having easy passwords which can be brute forced remotely. But I agree that 8 random characters with upper, lower & numbers should be enough for normal stuff.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by Opportunist · 2012-04-25 08:22 · Score: 1

My bank offers text messages with one time password. After they found out that even printed OTPs can be abused.
Believe it or not, I've analyzed a trojan that got by OTPs myself. Really clever. Relies on the fact that what you see and what gets transmitted isn't necessary the same in the average browser.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by Opportunist · 2012-04-25 08:34 · Score: 2

I guess you're barking up the wrong tree. The problem isn't that people can find out your passwords. The problem is that people hand them over willingly. They actively aid trojans and bank frauds. Unwittingly, of course, but because they don't know crap about the machines they are using.
The biggest attack vector today isn't even faulty software, it is user action. Opening attachments without wondering why a .pdf file prompts a "you really want to execute this attachment from 'unknown'?" from their system, rubber stamping "yes" on every UAC request, no matter whether it was for the installation of a new device driver or opening a questionable webpage.
I guarantee you, they will without delay hand over any kind of credentials you could come up with. How about Digipass keys, the thingamajigs that you sometimes get with games these days? Here's the trojan for this: Slip a trojan into the target computer and wait 'til the user tries to log on to the game the next time. Then, quickly, transmit the Digikey information the user typed in to the controlling server (which then instantly tries to log in to the game server with those credentials) while at the same time tearing down the user's internet connection to the game server. If the bot controller is successful, it tells its trojan client to shut down any and all communication from the infected machine to avoid getting kicked by the rightful player and keep him busy with the search for the reason (preferably without internet, where he might learn that this trojan exists). If not, let the client time out (or, if the game client allows itself to be hijacked, send a wrong key to the game server to make it answer "wrong key, try again"). The usual user will try again and give you another try. You should not try that more often than, say, three times or he might get suspicious. Try again when he logs in next time.
This does, of course, not work for most games that use Digipass because I left out a key element (this ain't "hacking MMO accounts 101"), but it should illustrate nicely how easily you can foil alternative authentication methods as long as you have the holder of the auth key as your (unwitting) aide.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by Opportunist · 2012-04-25 08:40 · Score: 1

This is great as long as whoever could hack you cannot get physical access to the machine. People don't easily remember passwords like Q4Rny$u(lZ, and hence write them down on Post-Its.
Seriously, this "security requirement" can backfire very, very easily, depending on what attacks are easier to execute against you. If you're a company where the servers are in a secured and inaccessible place, with no interaction with the outside world, this is probably not the best security system. If I know about that policy and want your data, I'll go get hired for your maintenance crew.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by Peeteriz · 2012-04-25 08:41 · Score: 2

I have around a hundred places online where I have been requested to "make an account" so I have one there. For almost all of them, "123456" and "password" would be too complex passwords - I'd prefer to use a blank one. I don't care about those accounts - and I don't want to care. I don't even want to have those accounts - they're usually a stupid marketing decision by the site owners to offer personalization (that I don't care about) and fight spam (which is somewhat understandable).
Would it really be appropriate to force me to fake caring by choosing "Pas$w0001234567rd", and writing it on a post-it on my monitor and also in a text file on my desktop folder?
I have good passwords for my bank account, my e-mail account and my dropbox account. For other accounts, anything more complex than 'password' is overkill that decreases my security because I won't easily remember the important passwords.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by ion++ · 2012-04-25 09:10 · Score: 1

They replaced it with a code generating card a while ago, for improved security (no one can make a copy of a code that's not generated yet).
yes, people can "copy" a code that is not generated yet if the method of generating the code is known. Like a pseudo random number generator that given the same input always will return the same output.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by JonySuede · 2012-04-25 09:14 · Score: 2

You can also copy the generating function and it's initialization vector unless the generator repose on the recursive measurement of a series of QBit... The injection of the initialization vector might be complicated but it is theoretically doable with entangled QBit. Therefore, unless your bank gave you a quantum cryptpo card, the only way the security is improved is through the added obscurity.

--
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by operagost · 2012-04-25 09:21 · Score: 1

ACH is the North American equivalent of giro and has been around for decades. Do you think we're still pushing paper around behind the scenes? Heard of Check 21? Please learn about the topic before you start bashing other countries.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by Siberwulf · 2012-04-25 09:28 · Score: 1

Do you really need three?

Um, how about a simple rewording of "Password" to "Passphrase" and make the minimum required length 20 characters.

If you take the utterly easy passphrase of "My favorite password is the word password.", you're talking about 7.1 x 10^61 years to crack it. A measly 20 character phrase would take 1 sextillion years.

And really, from a development side of the coin, implementation doesn't get much simpler. You should already be storing hashes of the passwords, not the passwords themselves. Don't over-think this. Nobody else will.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by camperdave · 2012-04-25 13:17 · Score: 1

Like a pseudo random number generator that given the same input always will return the same output.
That's done on purpose. It is used in simulations quite often, for example when you want to compare before and afters. Say you want to know the effect of sprinklers in a building. You simulate a fire using the random number generator and a specific seed. Then you add in the sprinklers, and reset the simulation, and re-burn the fire based on the same sequence of random numbers (produced from the same seed). That eliminates any side effect that might be caused by the particular string of random numbers that happen to be in play from one simulation to the next.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by camperdave · 2012-04-25 13:22 · Score: 1

Requiring a lower case, an upper case, a symbol, disallowing dictionary attack prone words, and a minimum password length of 12 would probably go a long way.

I just have four things to say about that: correct horse battery staple

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by zedmelon · 2012-04-25 19:48 · Score: 1

I had a bowl of Insensitive Clods this morning.

--
Mom says my .sig can beat up your .sig.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by arth1 · 2012-04-25 21:38 · Score: 1

yes, people can "copy" a code that is not generated yet if the method of generating the code is known. Like a pseudo random number generator that given the same input always will return the same output.
Yes, but not as in a hidden camera or someone looking over your shoulder, which was the problem with the pre-printed CC-sized cards with a list of single use keys.
For a token card, you need access to the method as well as the initial seed for that user - that's information he doesn't even have himself.
The only way a token card is useful for an impostor is by stealing it, and using it before it's reported stolen. So in most ways, it's a step up from a one-time-pad, and a mile up from the typical US security of no "something you have" component at all.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by ion++ · 2012-04-25 21:51 · Score: 1

The only way a token card is useful for an impostor is by stealing it, and using it before it's reported stolen. So in most ways, it's a step up from a one-time-pad, and a mile up from the typical US security of no "something you have" component at all.
No, you could also break into RSA and steal the SecurID codes like it was done here: http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/10/12/0051220/rsa-blames-nation-state-for-cyber-attack
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by arth1 · 2012-04-25 21:54 · Score: 1

ACH is the North American equivalent of giro and has been around for decades.
No, it is not, from a customer perspective.
ACH and Check 21 are just ways of doing cheques electronically - they're still cheques, and nothing like giro.
I can not instantly deposit money into your account, nor send out a bill which the payer can pay directly at any bank (or online), no matter what bank he uses, and get a receipt that I already have the money.
It's such a far cry from a giro equivalent that it's ridiculous to even mention it.

Please learn about the topic before you start bashing other countries.
What, you mean my five years as a banker and S.W.I.F.T. certification doesn't count?
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by chrish · 2012-04-26 00:47 · Score: 1

Making the users change their passwords every 60 days is the reason why people use passwords like that.
On services where you never change your password (most web services) you should definitely use a strong passphrase. But if you're stuck changing it frequently, using a strong passphrase punishes you.

--
- chrish
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by hackula · 2012-04-26 00:49 · Score: 1

That password is far more secure than most passwords created in more lenient environments. The 2nd most common facebook password is predicted to be "password". It only goes up from there.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by arth1 · 2012-04-26 02:17 · Score: 1

True, but do the other password rules make up for the loss by that rule? For example, if you remove the 10 ascii numeric symbols, but add an additional 52 ascii alpha (lower and upper) by requiring a password 1 character longer, do you get a stronger password?
By requiring a longer password, no.
By allowing a longer password, yes.
(Unless I'm too low on caffeine, there are the same amount of passwords 0-N characters in length as there are passwords N+1 characters in length.)
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by DdJ · 2012-04-26 03:09 · Score: 1

You consider "passphrase" to actually be different from "password"? I just consider it "training people to be less stupid about passwords" -- it's not a fundamentally different method.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by Siberwulf · 2012-04-26 03:14 · Score: 1

From a purely "secure from brute force attacks"... yeah, I do think it's a lot different. The main point is to make the length greater than 16. You're never going to fix the social engineering aspect of it, like leaving it on a sticky note on your monitor.

I'm simply addressing the issue from the article - Five Character Passwords Suck.
Re:Why are we still using passwords? by Siberwulf · 2012-04-26 03:21 · Score: 1

I was also keying off the fact the parent wanted to a reality-based situation. There's relatively little change involved.

Han Solo said it best by swm · 2012-04-25 07:26 · Score: 5, Funny

It's not my fault!

Re:Han Solo said it best by Opportunist · 2012-04-25 08:41 · Score: 1

But he sure would have had every patch installed, for we all know he does not tardy. After all, he shot first!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

biometrics are not that much better and don't to w by Joe_Dragon · 2012-04-25 07:26 · Score: 2

biometrics are not that much better and don't to well for say a sheared admin or other maintenance password.

Re:Two basic steps by yuhong · 2012-04-25 07:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

True, but there are targeted attacks even in the Unix world, and if you don't keep it up-to-date, you could be owned by one of them

Re:Two basic steps by jedidiah · 2012-04-25 07:31 · Score: 1

It does on any reasonably well managed corporate machine.

Why can't that be the default in the consumer OEM copy?

Although the service in question likely has no business being anywhere it can be exploited anyways.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:Two basic steps by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-25 07:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

there are targeted attacks even in the Unix world, and, if you don't keep it up-to-date, you will be owned by one of them.

FTFY

Re:Two basic steps by hackula · 2012-04-25 07:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Fanboy? No, I actually run Mac and Linux at home and I program cross platform at work. The fact that Conflicker happened to be for Windows has nothing to do with this. Running old software with weak passwords is a recipe for disaster on any existing OS.

Re:biometrics are not that much better and don't t by Sique · 2012-04-25 07:33 · Score: 1

If possible and if the systems in question allow for it, you could still authenticate the admin with RADIUS+, and have the access to the RADIUS+ server done with two factor authentication or biometrics.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

Patching existing vulnerabilities by damn_registrars · 2012-04-25 07:34 · Score: 2

We had the conficker worm run wild at my work not long ago. Even systems that were well secured by passwords ended up falling victim to the worm due to unpatched vulnerabilities. Yes, bad passwords don't help, but Microsoft needs to own up to the fact that a worm such as conficker is perfectly capable of infecting well-secured (password-wise) machines if they are not patched for the vulnerabilities that Microsoft left behind.

And being as some patches and updated break compatibility with critical software, patching is not always a trivial matter. Some systems need to stay essentially frozen in time with regards to updates, while still being on the network. Of course then an infected system is added to the network and away we go again.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re:Two basic steps by YodasEvilTwin · 2012-04-25 07:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

If everyone stops using Windows then there will be no Windows worms, and the next popular OS will be targeted. That's economics. It's been shown repeatedly that Windows is more secure than Mac OS, just for example. Let's not argue about Linux. In fact, let's not argue about the fact that people should stop being stupid about security. The platform is really not as relevant.

Two simple steps by XiaoMing · 2012-04-25 07:36 · Score: 1

If only:
1. Everyone were meticulous in following the guidelines which require passwords being more shift+number than letters, and capable of memorizing new ones on a regular schedule.
2. Everyone kept better care of their computers (regular updates) than they do for their own bodies (regular physicals, anyone?).
Then we could have prevented this whole thing!

Real world implications of having to remember numerous non-dictionary passwords, and expecting those who see the computer as a magic box to the interwebs to treat it better than many of them probably do their cars as far as maintenance goes, is far beyond simple.

They might as well be saying that mentally wiring humanity differently is simple. And that's just silly for Microsoft to say (because that's Apple's mindset!).

Re:Two simple steps by QuantumRiff · 2012-04-25 14:39 · Score: 1

And if only people would drive 55, and leave a 3 second gap between them and the car in front of them, most traffic accidents would be prevented..
But seriously, I just had to setup some Windows XP and Windows 7 systems. (been in the linux world for a while).. with Centos, to update i type
#yum update
then I type Y. maybe a reboot if there is a new kernel
For the windows 7, I had to run windows update 5 or 6 frickin times.. each installing a few more updates.. then, I installed some applications that were needed from some file shares we had (java, adobe reader, flash installer for firefox, etc) each of them had their own updates needed.. Holy crap, you need to really focus and think to stay up to date on that thing!

--

What are we going to do tonight Brain?

Like autorun? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-25 07:36 · Score: 3, Informative

Which wasn't even properly disabled when you tried to disable it through the UI in Windows. Who were the idiots not following security best practices when they came up with that idea? Infected flash drives and non-disabled autorun were the main vectors for Conficker around here.

Re:Two basic steps by farrellj · 2012-04-25 07:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Please name a Unix based attack that is equivalent to the malware being discussed.

--
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h

Re:Two basic steps by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-25 07:38 · Score: 2

1) Get rid of Windows

2) Never use it again

Because if we get rid of Windows, all the malware writers in the world will give up and stop trying to steal money from people who don't update software and use "pa55word" as their password...

Re:biometrics are not that much better and don't t by Joe_Dragon · 2012-04-25 07:39 · Score: 1

what about local admin / laptops that may not be linked to the sever?

Re:Conversely, by Desler · 2012-04-25 07:41 · Score: 2

Because you can't use poor passwords on Linux or any other *nix system? Oh wait, you can. And when I've set my password using anything from Ubuntu to Slackware there was no educational text telling me not to use bad passwords or anything of the sort. But don't let facts get in the way...

having to change passwords all the time leads to w by Joe_Dragon · 2012-04-25 07:42 · Score: 1

having to change passwords all the time leads to weak ones or the password being put on a post it note.

Passing the buck? by Ichijo · 2012-04-25 07:43 · Score: 1

...exploiting software vulnerabilities for which updates existed.

Seeing as Microsoft wrote it in the first place, I think it's fair for them to share some of the blame.

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.

Well, kinda. There is flawed reasoning here. by shumacher · 2012-04-25 07:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

The assumption here is that an attacker choosing the easiest way has no other route. It would be safer to say that the route used by the worm would have been unavailable if basic preventative steps had been taken.

It's like the old joke. "Ever wonder why whatever you're looking for is always in the last place you look?" "Well, sure, once you've found it, why keep looking?"

Microsoft seems to think the authors would have stopped looking without finding an exploit route. Instead, they found one, and stopped looking.

Better authentication? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-04-25 07:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Each and every site admin comes up a different idea for more secure authentication. Then clueless management insists on dumbing it down shredding what little remains.

For example E-trade will give you the RSA key fob. Am I supposed to get a dozen key fobs from each of my bank, brokerage, mutual fund, anf 401-K administrator? Schwab would not let me use special characters in passwords. I think they also have a ridiculous 8 char limit. In this day and age where GPUs are being used for dictionary attacks? 8 char? Fidelity wanted an all numeric password because they wanted the phone based log-in used by their older customers to work in web too. On top of all that they have the password reset procedure which asks for stuff that you can find on the facebook profile.

Then there are idiotic Paychex which will lock you out after two failed login attempts. There is this site securetransfer.com that requires some 16 char password with at least two capitals two numerals and two special characters to get 100% strong password quality rating. Then there are clueless admins who tell you "never write down the password". Hello! Is there any end to this password madness?

Why can't they give me two levels of access? Read only access that lets me see account balances and verify that the check has cleared. And the write access that requires one more password that allows me to transfer funds and trade securities. May be even a third level password to send cash out of that institution to outside.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Re:Better authentication? by jonwil · 2012-04-25 13:49 · Score: 1

My bank has a second layer of authentication (either one-time-use SMS codes or a second password) that is used any time you want to transfer to someone not on your "approved payees" list.
They also have password entry done (both the main password and this extra password) through an on-screen keyboard where you have to click the letters and the keyboard moves slightly when you click it.
On the minus side, they have a stupid limit of 10 characters for the passwords.

Re:How many can't patch? by chill · 2012-04-25 07:44 · Score: 1

Herring. Thank you Android auto-correct.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.

Re:Two basic steps by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-25 07:44 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes, because it's completely impossible to turn that feature off. Oh wait...

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Turn-automatic-updating-on-or-off

If you don't want them "forced down your throat", maybe you should change the setting to instead notify you that they exist and then let you pick and choose which ones you want to install as well as those you want to ignore permanently? How is that any different from any of the automatic update services in Linux distributions bugging you to update and you continually ignoring them?

Prompt passing by sjames · 2012-04-25 07:46 · Score: 1

I just got caught up on some of my reading. One of those articles was about how people who 'foolishly' applied their black Tuesday patches were unable to print out their tax forms. I think that might just explain why so many systems are so far out of date.

Re:Two basic steps by jedidiah · 2012-04-25 07:47 · Score: 1

Even if you do keep it up to date, you could get potentially "owned" by someone. That's why it's a better idea to be more proactive and keep track of likely attacks and black list the attackers.

It also helps not to leave things in a state where they can be exploited to begin with.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:How many can't patch? by CanHasDIY · 2012-04-25 07:48 · Score: 1

Ah, "smart" phone auto(in)correct - making reasonably intelligent people sound like complete morons since 2006.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Two basic steps by g0bshiTe · 2012-04-25 07:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

The difference is that unless it's a kernel update Linux doesn't really need a reboot on update.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!

Re:How many can't patch? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-25 07:53 · Score: 1

I seem to recall that Microsoft allows everyone to install security updates, even if their license doesn't pass validation. I know a couple people running pirated Windows 7 and they're fully up to date, Windows Update doesn't complain at all about licensing.

Re:Two basic steps by dkf · 2012-04-25 07:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

The difference is that unless it's a kernel update Linux doesn't really need a reboot on update.

A C library update is pretty noticeable too; you might be able to keep the kernel up, but there's not a lot of point given that virtually every user process is entangled with the library being updated. OTOH, if you're having to update the C library on a regular basis, you've got pretty serious problems anyway...

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"

Re:Two basic steps by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-04-25 07:57 · Score: 5, Informative

It's nothing like the Windows situation where you get a bag of critical patches forced down your throat every Patch Tuesday, and then your Windows box loves to reboot right in the middle of whatever you are doing. Sheesh.

1) Just as a point of clarification, Patch Tuesday is only once a month. And there's usually only about a dozen or so, only some of which are genuinely "critical". Obviously that varies though. 2) Windows Update has been a lot better for years, ever since Vista. There's nothing wrong with it now. You might be able to complain about the default settings, but they're right there and they're pretty straightforward. If you're logged in and it's set to restart automatically, it prompts you to restart or postpone it. And, obviously, you can shut down the automatic reboots or the automatically downloading/installation of updates. Besides, since moving Windows Update to an actual program after XP, there's also been a lot fewer updates that seem to require restarts. With XP, it seemed like you had to restart every single time you ran updates. Vista/7's a lot better with that.

Re:having to change passwords all the time leads t by CanHasDIY · 2012-04-25 07:57 · Score: 1

having to make up your own passwords, then having to change them all the time leads to weak ones or the password being put on a post it note.

FTFY.

I used to work for a public university; when I started there, our passwords were auto-generated random strings of 8-12 alphanumerics and symbols, and we received new passwords every fiscal quarter. Our security team would run various password cracking apps on the systems, and only once did an auto-generated password get cracked.

Two years after I started there, they changed the password policy - users had to make up their own passwords. Still minimum 8 characters, at least 1 capitalized letter, 1 lower case letter, and 1 number, still changes every quarter.

With a faculty of about 150 users, we cracked approximately half of the user-defined passwords within 5 minutes of firing up JtR. My personal favorite was cracked in less than half a second:

Dolphin1

My experience is, it's less about how often the passwords change, and more an issue of users not having a good sense of what it takes to secure their data.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Two basic steps by toadlife · 2012-04-25 07:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Microsoft gets to say, "hey we patched that before it was a problem". That's an unusual position for them to be in.

It's actually not an unusual position for them to be in at all. The vast majority of major Windows worms exploited vulnerabilities that had long been patched.

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.

Updates are a big part of the problem, really .... by King_TJ · 2012-04-25 08:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's nice to keep telling people "you wouldn't have the security issue if you did all the updates right away". But to that, I'd like to tell the OS developers something else:

You wouldn't have the concerns about unpatched systems if you designed the OS so it could apply the downloaded updates without requiring system reboots!

And yes, though I'm not a software developer, I do know a little bit about this, and why it's a "tall order" (core services you can't just delete and replace with updated versions while they're in use, etc.). But I guess I'm saying this doesn't seem impossible to overcome, if someone wanted to make the functionality a priority in a new OS's design?

Unless we reach that point, people will always be delaying installation of new updates because it interferes with work they need to get done, or they're afraid an update could potentially break something they rely on and don't have time to deal with, if it goes wrong. System patches/updates need to become a less intrusive, more seamless process -- and one that can easily "roll back" any new update that turns out to cause issues. It should automatically notify the developer when this happens, and should flag the problem update so it doesn't get re-installed (but subsequent, supposedly corrected versions DO get installed ASAP).

With today's multi-core CPUs, maybe it's even possible to design systems so two instances of the OS/application environment can be run in tandem during an update process? Hand off the running processes to a parallel copy of the current environment, invisibly to the user, when an update is about to take place. Then patch the first environment, which now has no "core services" in use by apps anymore, and shuttle the apps back over to the patched environment when it's ready?

Re:Two basic steps by Opportunist · 2012-04-25 08:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

For this to work, companies would first of all have to agree to run their update process through said package manager. You don't think this will ever happen, do you?

What bugs me about Windows is that there is very often no way to do an unattended update at a certain time for many "packages". Windows being the notable exception. The average Windows day for the average customer runs a bit like this:

"Ok, I'd like to play a game. Let's double cli... huh? Oh, Acrobat update. Ok.... yes, accept license... wait ... download patch, watch download bar move... installing... watching bar move ... ok, we're set. Now lemme... huh? Oh, virus killer. Ok, 'tis important, go ahead and update yourself. Yes, license agreement... waiting for download (because experience taught us that you better NOT try to do anything as system critical as starting a game while something is being patched. Could upset the copy protection trojan). Huh? Failed? Oh, because the Acrobat update didn't finish yet. Ok, it's finished now insta... restart."

"And we're back after the break. Now, for the antivirus. download ... update... huh? New version? Ok, install it. Yes, I agree with the license... installing... reboot."

"Finally! Ok, first of all, let's take a look at some porn. Open Browser... oh, new version? *sigh* Ok, download and install it. ...waiting... Ok, now... huh? What happened to my plug... oh. Of course. Incompatible. Fine, but I'm not going to visit any porn pages without a decent ad blocker, so first of all, update the plugins."

(half an hour of browsing, finding them, or not finding them and searching for a replacement later ... And another few minutes later including washing your hands...)

So. Game time! Fire up Steam... updating... Ok, restart steam... While it's doing that, let's start Teamspeak... Oh. Updating... must be patch day all over the world...

Finally a good game of $whateverfps. Huh? Patch? I don't wanna, not again! Oh, no multiplayer without, huh? Ah, anti cheat stuff. Ok, make it so...

And so on, and so forth. THIS is what actually bugs me about Windows. The piecemeal updating process. You can't just keep your machine running to have it update its stuff and actually, you know, USE it when you are sitting in front of it. It seems to be critical to steal the user's time and show him that they actually patch their half baked software.

And it's not like the software (and its patchers, launchers and oh-so-important taskbar tools) wouldn't run anyways and could technically do a daily check for updates. Dear Adobe, care to inform me why you insist that your launcher is running (and turning it off only means it gets reinserted into the Run key as soon as I dare to open an Acrobat document) and steals my ram for zero return, yet STILL require me to be present for every damn update you might want to run? Why is there no option in Steam to automatically patch and restart Steam if I'm not currently playing a game?

Rolling that all into a single package handling goodie would be a blessing. And MS actually manages to do just that with their updates, the kicker is that of all the various companies that have their fingers in my system, MS bugs me the least!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Two basic steps by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-25 08:05 · Score: 1

Sure, you can choose to update at your leisure (as you can on a Windows box, btw), and that includes not updating, which is the condition the article describes, and then your Linux system is in a better position.. how?

Re:Conversely, by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-04-25 08:07 · Score: 1

you generally don't have to tell a nix user because they already know

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.

Re:having to change passwords all the time leads t by clarkn0va · 2012-04-25 08:07 · Score: 1

And MS knew that.

--
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen

Re:Conversely, by arth1 · 2012-04-25 08:10 · Score: 1

Ubuntu and Slackware doesn't use pam_cracklib.so or similar?
That's news to me.

Re:Conversely, by Locutus · 2012-04-25 08:10 · Score: 1

so where did the parent say anything about Linux or *nix being better, worst or anything? Since you brought it up, are you now saying that Linux and/or *nix are consumer OS's? Strange because that's not what we usually hear from the Windows lemming crowd.

Besides, I've seen and used *nix systems which wouldn't allow weak passwords so it's doable.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus

Re:biometrics are not that much better and don't t by Pope · 2012-04-25 08:14 · Score: 3, Funny

Severed and sheared? Your workplace sounds way too violent.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.

Re:Two basic steps by Opportunist · 2012-04-25 08:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's really hard for me to say that, but getting rid of Windows isn't going to do jack. Idiots using computers will be vulnerable to malware, no matter what kind of OS they use. Unless the OS is secured away from its user, there is no safety if the user himself is the biggest security hole.

The key to the whole issue is the Dancing pigs problem. In a nutshell:

"Given a choice between dancing pigs and security, users will pick dancing pigs every time."

People don't even notice the warning message, and they don't care. Why? Because they got way too used to it. UAC pops up and wants you to say yes to something, and people will click yes without thinking what's going on. Why? Because they learned the wrong lesson. They lesson they SHOULD have learned is that this window tells them to go and think whether what they are about to do should really require administrative privileges. Should displaying some childish webpage require the rights to dig into your system's bowels?

What they learned is "if I click no, it does not work". That's pretty much it, this is the way people work and think. They don't WANT to know what this window means. For them, it could as well not exist and if anyone ever tells them how to turn it off (and yes, you can), they will without thinking twice and be grateful that they got rid of that nuisance. And, bluntly, it doesn't make a lick of a difference for them anyway!

Why the heck would this be different with, say, SE-Linux? You know SE-Linux? Allegedly one of the more secure and hardened Linux flavors in the world. Hand it to Mr. Moron now using Windows 7 and it will be "pwned" in minutes. Allow me to illustrate.

Let's assume he is using Linux, even properly configured by a good friend of his who made the horrible mistake of telling him the root password. In comes my trojan, disguised as some kind of, say, torrent speed enhancer. I'll even be blunt and forward in the reasoning just why he has to install it as root.

"The software needs elevated privileges to install and properly configure the device driver needed to establish a secure connection with the controlling server to maximize the success and streamline the process. This also allows the software to work without any user interaction necessary, you will not have to enter the password ever again for this software to function properly"

In short, let me install my rootkit and hook up a connection to my bot herder server.

What will Mr. Moron read in this sentence. He doesn't understand it, at least not all of it, but he knows a few words out of that and here's what he puzzles together from this:

"The software ... technobabble ... install and properly configure (ok, it does that by itself, I guess, but only if I type in the password. If I don't, it probably won't work properly)... more technobabble ... server (server is good, I want to connect to one. I think) to maximize the success, streamline process (yeah, I want that!). No user interaction necessary later on. Never have to type the password again (great, so just once and then it works on its own. 'k, no problem, once doesn't count, right?)

He WILL hand over his credentials. Without thinking twice. And he will have forgotten about it before the trojan makes his first report to his controlling server.

It doesn't matter what system you give him. Security is the minimum of the system's capabilities and its user's capabilities. Not the average. The minimum thereof.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Conversely, by Desler · 2012-04-25 08:21 · Score: 1

I didn't say that, but the default behavior especially in both Debian and Ubuntu, which I just checked, didn't stop me from setting my password to 'password' or '123456'.

Re:Updates are a big part of the problem, really . by coolmoose25 · 2012-04-25 08:22 · Score: 1

Updates are worse than just the hassle of them. Many of the updates take away, or fundamentally change, the way the underlying software works. IIRC, iTunes had a great example of this early in their release schedule... At some point, Apple wanted to stop people from doing something with their files...like being able to turn them into MP3's or something like that. They released an "Update" that stopped that ability. (I may be remembering some other similar functionality)... Anyway, I remember consciously NOT upgrading, even though it nagged every time it started up, so that I wouldn't have this functionality removed. At some point, one of my kids clicked "Yes" and the functionality I was trying to preserve disappeared. I abandoned iTunes at that point because Amazon had finally come up with a viable music store that sold MP3's directly. About a year later, after Amazon started eating their lunch, Apple allowed "unprotected" files, but they were still AAC files, not MP3... Like I said, I never went back.

The point is that as long as companies use updates to make things that used to be free cost something now, or otherwise preclude you from doing certain things, the "safe" thing to do from a users point of view is adopt the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, thus opening their systems to unpatched and potentially dangerously out of date software. My main point is that this isn't all the user's fault.

--
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!

Re:Two basic steps by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-25 08:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Thats a false argument. You give me equal amounts of clueless users using Linux as they are with Windows and I'll name one.

The vast vast vast majority (I'd say 90+%) of Linux PCs are (1) servers that are administered professionally or (2) locked down cell phone OS or (3) desktops that geeks use. There is no way you're going to be in the same situation as Windows is with that kind of demographics.

Re:Two basic steps by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-25 08:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

A C library update is pretty noticeable too;

ELF, ld.so, and dynamic library versioning pretty much eliminated that. Or are you one of the few that actually manually removes an old C library version and then rebuilds every single executable that complains it can't find the old version?

Re:Two basic steps by cpu6502 · 2012-04-25 08:26 · Score: 2

>>>shown repeatedly that Windows is more secure than Mac OS

I've never heard that before. Where has it been shown? Where does Linux fall? More or less secure than Mac?

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:Two basic steps by Tough+Love · 2012-04-25 08:28 · Score: 1, Troll

It's nothing like the Windows situation where you get a bag of critical patches forced down your throat every Patch Tuesday, and then your Windows box loves to reboot right in the middle of whatever you are doing. Sheesh.

No possible way to construe that as a troll, it is a fact. About Windows. The worst operating system ever forced on the world by illegal means.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

Re:Two basic steps by stephanruby · 2012-04-25 08:30 · Score: 2

Part of the problem is also running unlicensed Windows, since those people that do -- don't get the security updates (or they may just turn off updates because they don't want to be tracked, or have some of their functionality remotely shut down). At least with Linux, there isn't much of an issue there. If someone wants to stop paying RedHat/Fedora, they can just switch to Cent OS. That's it.

And really, this wouldn't be a problem for the rest of us, except that those zombie PCs can affect the rest of us, even those of us that run legitimate copies of everything. This is just like when some parents decide to not vaccinate their children, or decide to use antibiotics for every little cold (without finishing the prescription). This is technically their decision, but then again, their decision can adversely affect the rest of us.

Re:having to change passwords all the time leads t by tlhIngan · 2012-04-25 08:31 · Score: 2

I used to work for a public university; when I started there, our passwords were auto-generated random strings of 8-12 alphanumerics and symbols, and we received new passwords every fiscal quarter. Our security team would run various password cracking apps on the systems, and only once did an auto-generated password get cracked.
Two years after I started there, they changed the password policy - users had to make up their own passwords. Still minimum 8 characters, at least 1 capitalized letter, 1 lower case letter, and 1 number, still changes every quarter.
With a faculty of about 150 users, we cracked approximately half of the user-defined passwords within 5 minutes of firing up JtR. My personal favorite was cracked in less than half a second:
Dolphin1
My experience is, it's less about how often the passwords change, and more an issue of users not having a good sense of what it takes to secure their data.

Or there's a mismatch between IT's perception of security with the user's. What did the password to your accounts control? If it was just access to a PC in the lab, most users would just go "meh" as they have their own PCs. And if it had any data, it would be schoolwork, work not regarded as super-secret.

OTOH, if it actually was important to them, say, it held the meal plan credit or something, they'd pick more secure passwords (if someone breaks in, I could starve).

Ditto grades and transcript - for a lot of people ,they don't care if a determined hacker sees their grades - big whoop.

You'll find the same thing applies to corporate users as well - they feel the stuff they do isn't as important as the company makes it out to be, and thus end up going "why bother - what can a hacker do with my data?".

One of IT's jobs is to stress how important the data is, and why. The HR person may not care about the data (it's not THEIR data), but they should because all the employee information is in there. What IT needs to stress is that aspect - that so few people have access to that information, should it get out, suspicion would fall on them

Re:having to change passwords all the time leads t by CanHasDIY · 2012-04-25 08:48 · Score: 1

Or there's a mismatch between IT's perception of security with the user's. What did the password to your accounts control? If it was just access to a PC in the lab, most users would just go "meh" as they have their own PCs.

Faculty and staff network access; pretty major stuff.

If I'm not mistaken, it was someone in the financial office (which handles not only student accounts, but payroll as well) who had the wonderfully secure password 'Dolphin1'

I wish it had been something as benign as lab computer access, would have made my job of patching up the holes created by user generated passwords a hell of a lot easier.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Blame the user... by mr_lizard13 · 2012-04-25 08:50 · Score: 1

Instead of blaming the user, perhaps the *biggest and most successful software company in the world* can do something to help.

1) Bake-in a password-generator tool into IE (along the lines of 1Password).

2) Don't make the software update system suck balls so people want to turn it off.

On the former point, I know this isn't a magic bullet solution. You still need to remember a password. But it's one password, not 37. It at least makes it easier.

On the latter point, I have automatic updates turned on. Two things happen: the updates don't always download and install automatically (I am often bugged by security center telling me there are critical updates available - sometimes they just don't install automatically) and I often have to wait at log off and logon while updates are configured. That's beyond annoying.

I know 1 & 2 above won't solve the issue for everyone, but. The biggest software company in the world. C'mon. You can do better. Try harder. If we still suck at computers after that then fine, blame the user.

--
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman

Re:Two basic steps by nschubach · 2012-04-25 08:55 · Score: 2

20 seconds, plus waiting for your email to load back up, may as well update your local source code for the project you are working on since you have to recompile and relaunch your local dev environment in debug mode, plus waiting for your local test environment to compile and fire back up so you can continue dev-ing, plus having to log back into all your services, re-open any documents that explain what X interface is supposed to do ... it's a pain in the ass, not just 20 seconds. That popup dialog telling me to postpone for (arbitrary time) or "Reboot now!" is probably the most annoying dialog I can think of right now (thanks to the subject matter at hand.)

I've never had to kill my sessions or restart anything on my Debian machine unless it was a kernel update.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.

Re:Two basic steps by Opportunist · 2012-04-25 08:55 · Score: 1

Steam is pretty much this for games. Does it look like it works?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Two basic steps by Ihmhi · 2012-04-25 09:01 · Score: 1, Informative

1) Start.

2) Run.

3) sc stop wuauserv

4) And now Windows stops bugging me to restart my computer when I'm trying to read my webcomics.

(Of course, I install the update at a later time, but some of the "idiot-proofing" has made things a major pain in the ass for people who know what they're doing sometimes, such as the lack of easy customization in certain programs.)

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)

Re:Two basic steps by Opportunist · 2012-04-25 09:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Again. Just in case I didn't make my point clear.

The user hands over the password.

It's not a trojan reading the file where the password is stored. It's not a hacker getting in from the outside using some supersecret backdoor account. It's not any kind of hack whatsoever. How the heck do you want to keep a password secure from its rightful owner and user?

The USER is the problem. Not the system. And unless Linux has some magical ability that I didn't notice yet, namely the ability to know what the user WANTS, instead of just what he DOES, there is exactly zero chance to protect the password. No matter the system.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Two basic steps by 0ld_d0g · 2012-04-25 09:06 · Score: 1

Well, believe it or not, there is actually a valid reason for the reboot. Any executable code running in memory is typically not patched by most operating systems. They will update the file stored in the filesystem but not the executable code already loaded in memory. For e.g. Shared libraries loaded in memory with ASLR and other OS protections will be untouched. (And no, KSplice is not even remotely relevant here). This means that you are at a risk of running a vulnerable piece of code. Real bad news if you're a server process that has to handle a ton of potentially unsafe external data.

Even otherwise, I wish MS would create some general infrastructure that software developers could plug into to update their software. They already have an OS component that is capable of dependency checks and other stuff, but they only use it for their OS updates and service packs. It will be used by small dev shops that will find it easy to let someone else manage updates, but a lot of big companies would not use it. So many of them use their shitty updaters to show advertisements for new products and as a way to bundle some toolbar or other unwanted crap. Oh .. and thats not even taking into account the shit tray apps and other BS they install during the first install. Sigh.. the windows world is a mess, its too late to fix it now IMO.

not rebooting leads to memory leaks and stuck soft by Joe_Dragon · 2012-04-25 09:07 · Score: 1

not rebooting leads to memory leaks and stuck software.

Even with a system to update stuff with out a full reboot what happens when it hits some thing stuck in the background or updates some thing that is leaking ram?

Re:Two basic steps by Opportunist · 2012-04-25 09:28 · Score: 3, Informative

MS is in a bind here. They are very much aware of this problem, but there is very little they can actively do against it.

It's not even MS that is the problem here, it's the way some companies (notably game companies) abuse the system and don't write to spec. In Linux, you get ravaged (to avoid a less pleasant word) if your software required more privileges than it absolutely minimally needs, and you better have a GOOD reason to ask to run as root. Hell, most packages say explicitly that you should NOT run this as root.

It's exactly the other way 'round for MS Windows. With both, old legacy reason and newer, at least as bad reasons.

The legacy reasons come from the times of the Win9x systems who arguably had zero real protection. Likewise, it didn't matter just what Registry tree you cluttered with your keys. And because it's easier and works for all users to simply slap it into the HKLM tree instead of the HKCU (aside of other, more serious, problems that you have to take into account when using HKCU), software creators didn't even think twice before sprinkling the Registry liberally with their crap. Of course, this flies right in the face of anything resembling security where HKLM or even HKCR are off limits for "user" privileged accounts. So every time this legacy junk was supposed to run, UAC throws a hissy fit.

The less acceptable reason and the one that irks me way more is that the various DRM schemes and anti-cheat crap make games require administrative privileges, not only for installation (where I could at least accept that, due to installing a device driver, these privileges are required) but also to run them. Again: To run a stupid, insignificant game, you have to bring out the big admin guns. And this is simply NOT ok.

But there is very little MS can actively do against that. As long as people buy those games despite the need for admin privs, companies will continue using DRM schemes that don't give half a crap about the system's security. And as long as this is the case, MS cannot do anything about it. What should they do?

As soon as a program requests permissions that can somehow harm the system, a sensible security watchdog function should report that something is happening that could be damaging. Else, what is it good for? The security of the system is the security of the weakest link. One link broken, the security breaks down. You can't simply "not ask just this one time". If you do that, disable it altogether. But if it really asks every time something could possibly be amiss, you get what UAC is today, along with its "allow and deny" jokes.

So please tell us, what should MS do?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Two basic steps by gl4ss · 2012-04-25 09:28 · Score: 1

that's the most annoying thing ever! have steam download a game and updates..

then you go start it. AND IT UPDATES SOME MORE "PREPARING TO..".

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

So like, where is "User.education.microsoft.com"? by bmo · 2012-04-25 09:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sure, sure, blame the users again, Microsoft.

How about educating them for once? You own, according to some metrics, 90 percent of the desktop market. Your operating systems in retail boxes don't even come with quickstart guides to basic security. No, you just leave your users to flounder about without any guidance at all, and if they want it, they have to pay extra for it.

At least when I was paying for boxed sets of SuSE Linux, it came with two well-written manuals, a user's manual, and an administrator's manual. I suspect that boxed sets still include these. It was in the grand old tradition of "when you get this software, we'll give you the manual too" like what you got when you bought DOS or CP/M.

But these days, I guess that user education is viewed as "intimidating" to users, because *shock* *horror* computers might be revealed as the complicated, useful, and powerful devices they actually are and heaven forfend users get any ideas beyond clicking on the pretty pictures. Microsoft does its damnedest to not give the user *anything* that might resemble common sense lessons in security.

There is a lot of energy pointed at the education of developers, but none that I can see at day-to-day users from Microsoft.

I just dealt with a user who has become so paranoid, she considers technet.microsof.com "foreign" because she's been so abused by the utter lack of guidance in the past with computers that she can no longer tell what's legitimate or not, wrt software. I was merely pointing out a sysinternals tool. This makes me a sad panda, and I don't blame her. I can't. Because I've seen it too many times to think it's just "dumb users" anymore.

Microsoft's blaming of the user is utter bollocks. It is entirely their fault now.

Yes, this makes me mad. Deal with it.

--
BMO

Re:Two basic steps by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-25 09:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

Where do you think the term "Root"kit came from?

Before NT Unix was the laughing stock off security seriously. Like Windows it is also written in C and uses the same apis for buffer overflows, stack over runs, and other crack attacks.

My old World Almanac from 1990 had an editorial on the first ever Worm which nearly took down the internet. Hint ... it was all Unix based.

Re:Two basic steps by owlstead · 2012-04-25 09:44 · Score: 1

Was a lot better than that, somehow that always seems to water down with Windows. With Ubuntu, I can at least keep my computer on (or, most of the time, sleeping or hibernating) more often than with Windows.

Re:Two basic steps by Tough+Love · 2012-04-25 09:45 · Score: 1

You did not get my meaning, or you intentionally denied it. Linux/Unux have a user culture that understands strong passwords and much infrastructure to support that. Windows has the opposite.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

Get rid of IE 6 & XP! by Billly+Gates · 2012-04-25 09:47 · Score: 2

Save this article and email it to the idiot bean counters at work who say IE 6 is perfectly fine and so is XP so why upgrade until 2014?

I thought Conflicker came out in like 2004? It should not be infected machines today and this is stupid.

The problem is not IE and Windows. Windows 7 and IE 9 have been secure for awhile with ASLR, DEP, and sandboxing. The idiots are not the users (well most are not), but IT and CIOs and CEOs who refuse to look at things like computers as anything but cost centers. It is gray and not black and white like the CPA rules on GAAP are the golden rules for any business decision.

Use Windows Update and stop worrying if software will break. I have never heard of a piece of software not working with Windows Update for home users. If IT is looked up as tools and investments and people ran Windows Update, had proper staffing levels, and ran Windows 7 the problem wouldn't exist and it is purely preventable.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:Two basic steps by Tough+Love · 2012-04-25 09:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yes, because it's completely impossible to turn that feature off. Oh wait...

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Turn-automatic-updating-on-or-off

If you don't want them "forced down your throat", maybe you should change the setting to instead notify you that they exist and then let you pick and choose which ones you want to install as well as those you want to ignore permanently? How is that any different from any of the automatic update services in Linux distributions bugging you to update and you continually ignoring them?

I use Windows maybe twice a year and I am not going spend hours fiddling with settings just for that. On Linux it Just Works[tm] and I usually do not have to reboot, even on the rare occasions there is a critical patch.

That comment could only be a troll in the mind of a Microsoft Spinbot.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

Re:biometrics are not that much better and don't t by Sique · 2012-04-25 09:49 · Score: 1

In one company I worked for, local admin laptops were not used for networking gear once it was up and running. Only if something failed, then there was the occasional factory reset and reuploading the last known good config.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

Re:Two basic steps by Billly+Gates · 2012-04-25 09:56 · Score: 1

Really?

What platform was the first worm written for? What platform for the first "Root"kit written on? Infact, I wonder how the word Root got in rootkit? Hmm

So if you run your Unix boxens with 10 year old, unpatched versions of Redhat 6.2 with passwords that are mediocre then it would be perfectly secure right?

Such a system would be hacked within 30 minutes if not behind a firewall. Maybe a few hours if it ran PHP or Mysql versions from 10 years ago unpatched. Why am I making this bizaare scanario? It is because all the mahcines infected ran XP (10 years old), IT failed to keep them updated, all used ancient versions of IE (like PHP/Mysql from 2002 are vectors), and users had some weak passwords. The culture is the same in corporate America today in unix platforms as good admins are let go because they are expensive cost centers that can be replaced by help desk interns for cheap.

If your network has great management that ran Windows 7, IE 8/9, and kept Windows up to date with the newest patches you were fine. Some of the passwords would be an issue but you would be fine overall from Conflicker.

Windows and IE have both come a long way as unpopular as they are on slashdot in 10 years. If you have not ran these pieces of software in many years your bias is outdated. I am not saying its supurb but top security and performance are great reasons to leave XP and ancient IE behind. Not to mention the webmasters can celebrate with a bottle of champaign.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:not rebooting leads to memory leaks and stuck s by King_TJ · 2012-04-25 09:58 · Score: 1

Well, you can't avoid the need to reboot when things crash. Nothing new there. But people have a need to apply updates far more often than they encounter stuck software and memory leaks crippling things, right?

With a seamless update process like I was suggesting, the need to *eventually* reboot probably doesn't go away. But uptimes would certainly improve over what you'd have if you applied, say, every Microsoft update on the day it was released. My experience with those is you get at least 3-5 of them every single week, and the vast majority of times, at least one in each set requires a system reboot to complete.

Re:Two basic steps by aztracker1 · 2012-04-25 10:00 · Score: 1

Microsoft could create an API, that applications (during install) can register with (requiring an ActiveX, or .Net control, with an interface implemented). The windows API simply calls the application, which then self-checks for updates, and notifies the update manager that it, does/doesn't have updates... and upon user selection, or classification runs the updates via the update manager. It doesn't need to be tight integration, just an API with rules for the various apps to follow. MS *COULD* have done that back in the mid-late 90's.

--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info

Re:Two basic steps by Doctor_Jest · 2012-04-25 10:00 · Score: 2

Or you can just run Debian....

--
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.

Re:biometrics are not that much better and don't t by Joe_Dragon · 2012-04-25 10:07 · Score: 1

what about in the field or where you may not have a good remote link.

Re:Two basic steps by toadlife · 2012-04-25 10:07 · Score: 1

lol.

"Show me the examples! And no, the examples that I can think of don't count!!"

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.

Re:Two basic steps by Billly+Gates · 2012-04-25 10:08 · Score: 1

Maybe if the IT departmentd did just that they wouldn't get infected.

Stay with XP and IE 6 and obsolete versions of Symantic to save money and you are asking for trouble. CIOs and accountants forget this at work and only look at GAAP rules for what is a cost center and a profit center and what looks nice in Excel to show a cost. This article shows the hidden costs. Most businesses are moving to Windows 7 this year thank God.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:Two basic steps by Billly+Gates · 2012-04-25 10:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

You hit the nail there.

ASLR and the other OS protections are untouched because most corporations still use XP and a 10 year old kernel. The reason most software doesn't use these things and tap into them is because they wont run on XP. Corporations wont leave XP because software doesn't use things and tap into them. Cost savings are on top of this.

This is a great reason to upgrade to Windows 7 and keep your systems patched. This was totaly preventable and IT departments got what they deserved for their short sightedness on only cost savings.

--
http://saveie6.com/

More obvious solution? by fahrbot-bot · 2012-04-25 10:20 · Score: 1

Isn't Conficker a Windows-only issue?
If so, wouldn't the obvious one basic security step be to stop using Windows?
Just sayin'...

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Re:Two basic steps by 0x537461746943 · 2012-04-25 10:22 · Score: 1

It doesn't even need a reboot for that. I have been using ksplice on my CentoOS servers for awhile now.

Re:Two basic steps by amRadioHed · 2012-04-25 10:52 · Score: 1

I use Linux, but you sound like a troll to me too. You claim you only use Windows twice a year, and yet you complain about the number of updates that are supposedly forced on you?

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace

Re:Two basic steps by Tough+Love · 2012-04-25 11:10 · Score: 1

Right. Windows updates and reboots every time I use it, because I use it rarely. And with that kind of crap I am highly unlikely to increase my Windows usage. I feel genuinely sorry for the unlucky folks who do not have the option.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

Re:Two basic steps by amRadioHed · 2012-04-25 11:26 · Score: 1

I have to use Windows regularly and I can tell you I don't have the problem you do. Disabling automatic updates is trivial, in fact I'm pretty sure the option is stuck right in your face when you first setup windows so you can't miss it. It's really your own fault if you left it on.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace

A unified package manager by dgharmon · 2012-04-25 11:33 · Score: 1

"For this to work, companies would first of all have to agree to run their update process through said package manager. You don't think this will ever happen, do you?

Ubuntu manages to do this through Synaptic and Update Manager

--
AccountKiller

Re:Two basic steps by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-25 11:50 · Score: 1

If you haven't restarted your session, you haven't fixed the vulnerability. Your false sense of security is probably exactly why MS & Apple force a reboot.

Yes, monolithic LAMP servers are nice and simple: update Apache, restart, done. However, there's no *nix magic which saves you with complex library dependancies, background tasks, etc.

Re:Two basic steps by VoidCrow · 2012-04-25 12:56 · Score: 1

I had a manager once who set his password to ch0pper... that's wood-related brit slang.

Re:Two basic steps by PNutts · 2012-04-25 13:02 · Score: 1

Yes, because it's completely impossible to turn that feature off. Oh wait...

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Turn-automatic-updating-on-or-off

If you don't want them "forced down your throat", maybe you should change the setting to instead notify you that they exist and then let you pick and choose which ones you want to install as well as those you want to ignore permanently? How is that any different from any of the automatic update services in Linux distributions bugging you to update and you continually ignoring them?

I use Windows maybe twice a year and I am not going spend hours fiddling with settings just for that. On Linux it Just Works[tm] and I usually do not have to reboot, even on the rare occasions there is a critical patch.

That comment could only be a troll in the mind of a Microsoft Spinbot.

Forget the instructions at the link. If it takes him hours for four clicks, make a selection, and then one final click I don't think being considered a troll is his biggest problem.

Re:Two basic steps by PNutts · 2012-04-25 13:19 · Score: 1

getting rid of Windows isn't going to do jack. Idiots using computers will be vulnerable to malware, no matter what kind of OS they use. Unless the OS is secured away from its user, there is no safety if the user himself is the biggest security hole.

Linux/Unix have a well established culture and plenty of infrastructure to support the concept of strong password protection. Unlike Windows.

u mad? I agree my mom (and probably most of the people at Costco buying PCs) don't have a concept of strong password protection. If I put her on Linux/Unix how does that change?

Re:Two basic steps by Tanktalus · 2012-04-25 13:43 · Score: 2

If you haven't restarted your session, you haven't fixed the vulnerability.

True. You will be fixed when you restart, though. I do the updates, and then, periodically, when it is safe to do so, restart daemons that have been updated. That is the point where I'm running with the fix, not merely updating the code. It's not instantly, but it does allow me to update the code even under load and defer the outage to a less sensitive time.

Reloading the desktop? That's more work as then I have to close down everything except the daemons. More of a headache. But still no reboot.

Your false sense of security is probably exactly why MS & Apple force a reboot.

No. MS forces a reboot for historical (hysterical?) reasons: they could not update files that are "in-use" because FAT, FAT32, and early versions of NTFS couldn't handle hardlinks the way that unix filesystems do. (NTFS probably could, but NT didn't use it.) Files that were "in-use" could only be updated during the reboot before they were first loaded. There was no way to get the updated code without the reboot.

Apple probably forces a reboot because their users used to use Windows where it was expected, and because it's far easier to document "reboot" than how to figure out which processes need restarting and how to restart them (safely).

Re:Two basic steps by sqrt(2) · 2012-04-25 13:57 · Score: 1

This might have been true at one time, but it's not anymore. You can download a Windows 7 ISO and install it and it'll activate and be indistinguishable from a boxed copy with a legitimate license.

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org

Re:Two basic steps by sqrt(2) · 2012-04-25 14:00 · Score: 1

Those are all flaws in 3rd party add-ons, or the default browser, Safari. Pwn2Own just proves that using the default browser on a platform with scripting enabled is unsafe regardless of platform. You shouldn't use IE on Windows, you shouldn't use Safari on OS X (at least without scripting disabled). So don't do that, and all the tricks used at Pwn2Own on the Macs will be rendered ineffective.

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org

Re:Two basic steps by belthize · 2012-04-25 14:55 · Score: 1

There were certainly some that were worse. SGI shipping all boxes with hosts.equiv set to '+' for a while. There was a period in the 90's when an awful lot of the big name Unices (IRIX/Solaris/HP-UX) had some huge gaping holes that shouldn't never been there (passwordless accounts like lp, broken uucp installations). There were also numerous services like rpc.mountd that were perennial favorites for zero day buffer overruns.

Granted that was a long time ago and modern BSD/Linux distros are much more secure by default and even more secure through proper installation but the argument then was it was no big deal, just fix them at install time unless you were a clueless git. For windows it's the same deal just a much larger set of gits.

Re:So like, where is "User.education.microsoft.com by davidshewitt · 2012-04-25 15:01 · Score: 1

I'd consider technet.microsof.com to be untrusted. Hackers love to take advantage of URL typos to post fake sites. This is just one more thing that users need to be aware of. Some DNS servers will auto-correct a mis-typed URL (by redirecting to the correct one), but until this practice is standardized, this will be a problem.

Re:biometrics are not that much better and don't t by Fnord666 · 2012-04-25 15:09 · Score: 1

for say a sheared admin...

Is that what you get when you shave off his beard?

--
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables

Re:So like, where is "User.education.microsoft.com by bmo · 2012-04-25 16:22 · Score: 1

i made a typo and you're a fuckwad.

Have a nice day.

--
BMO

Re:Two basic steps by kyrio · 2012-04-25 16:39 · Score: 1

Your story is a pile of bullshit. Windows' auto update software has always asked you to click a button before rebooting. If you don't click the button, you don't reboot and you continue on with what you're doing.

Re:Two basic steps by zedmelon · 2012-04-25 19:41 · Score: 1

Not to mention that they allege this was the case six months ago. Curious--albeit not enough to RTFA--as to why they sat on such a golden nugget of PR for so long. My inner cynic is tempted to envision this:

Hrm... Okay, next security vulnerability. This one was submitted 2011/09/29.
(several minutes of analysis pass)
Hey! We fixed this one already. Hey boss! Come here! I GOT ONE!!!

--
Mom says my .sig can beat up your .sig.

Re:Conversely, by rastos1 · 2012-04-25 20:24 · Score: 1

Slackware does not come with PAM in fact. Though you can install PAM (and update dozens of dependent packages in the process) from 3rd party.

Re:Two basic steps by Opportunist · 2012-04-25 20:36 · Score: 1

Uhhuh. Great idea, if you want to have a "new coke" OS. Let's play the scenario, shall we?

Let's imagine for a moment that MS pushes Win8 with these ideas in place. You can only make changes to the system in some kind of "safe mode" where you can't run any consumer software.

Cue the reviews that talk about incompatibilities and how 90% of legacy software won't run. People who care not about security but about a system that "works the way they want" (read: 99.9% of the customer base of MS) will avoid the system like the plague. The blame will not fall on the makers of games that broke standards, MS will be blamed because hey, it worked in Win7, so it has to be MS' fault that it doesn't in Win8.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Two basic steps by Opportunist · 2012-04-25 20:45 · Score: 1

I'm not aware of the way phone apps work, but I don't really see a sensible way to identify the plans of a PE file just by looking at it without running it. There is simply no telling what is going to happen before the system requests the rights by calling the relevant API functions. The way this could be done is by blocking the program when it tries to access some sensitive system areas (install a driver, launch another program, write to sensitive parts of the registry...), but that opens a completely different can of worms, especially with legacy programs that don't really expect to be blocked.

To be fair, it is easier for phone OSs to do that. They were developed after security became an issue.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Two basic steps by Opportunist · 2012-04-25 20:48 · Score: 1

Yes, yes they do.

But your original request to get rid of Windows will move these users over to Linux (provided you can "force" them to abandon Windows, which is highly unlikely to succeed since they do NOT have "the Linux culture", and hence the understanding of the importance of security and how it is more important than ease of operation). And then you have the user problem over in Linux.

Changing the system does not change anything. People would have to change.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Two basic steps by nschubach · 2012-04-25 23:23 · Score: 1

Yeah, because if I don't reboot on Tuesday at the exact moment the updates are complete instead of Friday the world will collapse in on my system and it will all come to an end!

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.

Re:No, it was Microsoft's decision by HBI · 2012-04-25 23:27 · Score: 1

No, they just annoy the shit out of people who still accept the updates with Genuine Windows bullshit. The default way to fix is to turn them off. Voila, zombie systems. It's all about revenue, after all, and fuck the rest of the world.

Who is the cocksmoker here? That'd be the AC Microsoft shill.

The paid shills have ruined this site. I wonder how that is working out for Microsoft.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

I like it when the company is lax on patching. by setrops · 2012-04-25 23:36 · Score: 1

And not following any of my recomendations. It keeps me employed.

Re:Two basic steps by dskzero · 2012-04-26 01:17 · Score: 1

Apparently, someone has no idea how to use Windows. (And you guys want everyone to *learn* Linux?)

--
Oblivion Awaits

Re:Two basic steps by drsmithy · 2012-04-26 01:24 · Score: 1

The difference is that unless it's a kernel update Linux doesn't really need a reboot on update.

If a scheduled restart causes you any problems, your system architecture is broken.

Re:Two basic steps by lipanitech · 2012-04-26 02:53 · Score: 1

To me this Conflickr virus was the new blaster. Microsoft patched this vulnerability long before the virus hit the problem is a lot of IT professionals and home users do not realize the important of patching and a good anti-virus.

--
http://thetechnologygeek.org/

Re:Two basic steps by Ihmhi · 2012-04-26 03:13 · Score: 1

This is just a temp fix - it kills the Update service for just that session. (You can restart it, stop it, change settings, etc. via Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Services). If you want to kill the service permanently you would do it via this menu.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)

When you've got a monopoly ... by lwriemen · 2012-04-26 04:01 · Score: 1

... you don't have to care about users getting upset when you blame THEM!

Currently re-reading Alan Cooper's The Inmates Are Running The Asylum, so the blame the users apologist stance seems especially unsteady right now.

Re:Two basic steps by Dinghy · 2012-04-26 04:09 · Score: 1

getting rid of Windows isn't going to do jack. Idiots using computers will be vulnerable to malware, no matter what kind of OS they use. Unless the OS is secured away from its user, there is no safety if the user himself is the biggest security hole.

Linux/Unix have a well established culture and plenty of infrastructure to support the concept of strong password protection. Unlike Windows.

Does that mean members of the Linux/Unix community use stupid and easy to guess passwords on websites? We've seen that most people do, so I'm just trying to determine if the strong password protection is due to the operating system or due to the actual user.

Re:Two basic steps by nobaloney · 2012-04-26 05:23 · Score: 1

The difference is that unless it's a kernel update Linux doesn't really need a reboot on update.

Rebooting is obsolete.

http://www.ksplice.com/

Re:So like, where is "User.education.microsoft.com by bmo · 2012-04-26 08:56 · Score: 1

>didn't read a goddamned thing I wrote
>put myself out of your misery

Get fucked. Don't like me? Login, set your foes setting to -6 and never see me again. It's that simple. It seems to me that your inability to perform this simple operation means that you are mentally deficient.

--
BMO

Re:Two basic steps by cbhacking · 2012-04-26 09:55 · Score: 1

Look up the Pwn2Own contests. They're specifically designed to remove both the economic advantage of targeting the widely-used platform, and the issues of patching frequency and amount of vulnerable third-party software.

Apple typically does worse than Microsoft, who in turn are behind "Linux" (typically Ubuntu, which consists of software written by a wide range of groups).

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...

Re:Two basic steps by stms · 2012-04-26 13:42 · Score: 1

That's why my passwords are all set to 012345. That's way more secure.

Re:Two basic steps by darkpixel2k · 2012-04-27 07:50 · Score: 1

Do you not sleep, or do you just like wasting electricity? Turn off windows updates, and you can keep it running for as long as you like. Keeping your computer on 24/7 is not a badge of honour my friend....

Yeah--I love it when the internet shuts down in the evening at 8 PM (9 PM Central) when all the engineers go home for the evening and decide to stop 'wasting electricity'.

--
There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Says Two Basic Security Steps Might Have Stopped Conficker

154 of 245 comments (clear)