Security Flaws May Be Microsoft's Undoing 505
tarpitt writes: "According to this article in the LA Times, repeated software flaws in Microsoft products has begun to raise concerns that they 'threaten the stability of a major piece of the world economy and to raise questions about Microsoft's future.' Flawed security is seen as a stumbling block to accepting Microsoft sponsored on-line services. It is also driving discussion about making software manufacturers liable for damages caused by flawed products." This piece in eWeek on troubles with XP's automatic updates is an interesting companion; releasing often doesn't seem to be enough.
Update: 01/15 15:00 GMT by J :
Bruce Schneier's
January Crypto-Gram
came out this morning, and is also topical: "Microsoft treats security vulnerabilities as public relations problems. Until that changes, expect more of this kind of nonsense..."
They're no worse than the average... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Actually, they're better (Score:3, Informative)
In fact there is a more up to date and better structured list here:
http://www.sans.org/top20.htm
Even on this page, taking the sendmail example (ref U2) again, the most recent bug report they quote is on 8.8.4 which is ancient (8.8 was release before any of sendmail's current Open Source competitors were even written). Which means that this vulnerability is really an instance of not keeping your software up to date (included in G1).
Use your common sense, the biggest computer security problem at the moment is viruses and worms which affect mainly Windows systems mainly because of the popularity of Windows, particularly amongst non technical users.
Windows Update Down Again ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Add in a Gartner analyst casting doubts on MS and raising the trust issue in terms of
A failure to execute (on security) could get Microsoft executed.
Re:Windows Update Down Again ? (Score:2)
MS is liable for nothing. Your computer could spontaneously blow up and level your house because of the Windows Exploding Computer Feature, and you wouldnt get a dime from them.
Re:Windows Update Down Again ? (Score:3, Informative)
Liability. (Score:5, Interesting)
Insofar as it's true that software is flakier and more vulnerable than other products, the questions we might ask are the extent to which liabiliy has motivated other product manufacturers to be a lot more careful in their manufacturing processes, and the extent to which software is "inherently" impossible to get right. Is that perception that software should be exempt from the sort of standards that other goods have accurate, or has that perception been constructed by years of poor software and a lack of accountability?
Re:Liability. (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who yell and scream that Microsoft should be held liable should be careful what they wish for...liability laws would kill off most all of OSS/FS faster than they would kill Microsoft.
Re:Liability. (Score:2)
Re:Liability. (Score:2, Insightful)
So, having the source is not a panacea..The damage could already be done before you have a chance to fix it, even with an OSS/FS solution.
Re:Liability. (Score:2)
Between poor chance and no chance, I'll take poor chance.
Re:Liability. (Score:5, Funny)
Your mistake is wanting to fix the problem rather than litigating a solution. Silly rabbit, you must be some kind of Canadian or something!
Re:Liability. (Score:2)
And what impact does it have for software developped before that change in law? What about old (obsolete) versions? Certainly, you can't be liable for sth you developped before the rules were changed, can you?
Re:Liability. (Score:2)
There is the free price thing too. While I agree with you that if you give something away, you can still be liable, but if you give a friend your old car that you think is fine shape, only to have it blow up his mother, are you liable? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the answers to these questions, I'm just posing them. There is a distinct difference between what MS does and what Debian does (Redhat may be another matter though).
Re:Liability. (Score:2)
What I think should apply, are Lemon Laws [cars.com], to protect a customer from what is, inherintly, a piece of junk. I'm fairly certain no major version of Linux or BSD falls into that category.
At any rate, these laws protect buyers, not users.
Re:Liability. (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft has artificially created a single point of failure in security.
That means that Microsoft is a single point of blame - something which cannot exist in the OSS world. This is more fundamental than "many eyes make all bugs shallow" - if there's a hole then you are as responsible for fixing it as the original maintainer. You have the chance to do something about it even if the maintainer isn't interested.
In that way, an opensource project (even one with just one developer) is, in theory, a collaboration between every user of that system. They have a choice whether to take the good with the bad - they can fix the bad (given time and effort). But Microsoft, through proprietary liscencing of sourcecode has taken all the profit and with it all the risk.
Re:Liability. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've heard the joke about the first woodpecker destroying civilization if buildings were built the way that software was written. There's a fundamental truth here. Coders, for the most part, are sloppy. Why? Because they CAN be. However, there are examples of cases where software was done correctly the first time. It takes careful planning and controls and peer review, and in most cases the end result is clean code in less time than it would have taken to do it sloppy and spend lots of time cleaning up bugs.
There SHOULD be accountability here. But people don't hold Microsoft accountable. And I don't blame the monopoly factor either. People have just been brainwashed to believe that its NORMAL that computers crash. Its NORMAL that there are viruses. These things are just a part of life, and there can't be anything done about it. And as long as they believe that, they will keep buying into Microsoft.
These things generally don't bother the individual. They bother a large corporation as a whole that has to deal with the cleanup after one of the messier outlook viruses goes around. But, the corporation, run by people, simply look past the problem. The sys admins might be screaming bloody murder about it, but everyone else just considers it to be the status quo and goes on with their lives as best they can while the servers are being reloaded.
In my opinion, Sircam was the first windows virus/worm that had the potential to have a real effect on how people looked at Microsoft. If the virus was somewhat more malicious and made the data that was being sent out easily readable (as well as passing along a virus) and a few big corps had a lot of confidential internal memos sent all over the world.... THEN maybe people would start to reconsider the value of Microsoft
brand products, as soon as it is made clear to them, that its Microsoft and their software that made all this possible.
-Restil
Re:Liability. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm, we've been building permanent dwellings for thousands of years. We've been building software for fifty, and doing so on a large scale for about thirty.
Not to mention that the complexity and novelty of the average piece of software dwarfs that of all but the most unique and large-scale building projects.
And you think that planning, control, and peer review comes free, and without a lot of pain getting it wrong first?
Software is still relatively new, and the most complex design task humanity undertakes. It's no wonder we haven't perfected the engineering of it.
Re:Liability. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he doesn't. The previous poster stated, IMO correctly, that *including* the time it takes to do proper planning, controls and peer review, you get clean code for less time *in total* than it takes to create and subsequently clean up sloppy code. Or do you think cleaning up bugs comes free and involves no pain for the coders? (Nobody's even considering the end users at this point, who are also experiencing pain and cost).
See Dave Parnas, Software Fundamentals, for some of the classic papers behind this analysis.
Plan it properly, do it properly, document it properly, and you have saved a whole *load* of wasted time and effort. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." And so on.
Re:Impossible? (Score:2)
Like the houses in inland Florida when Andrew hit?
Impossible, maybe not. But highly improbable.
The key question is how good is good enough? A car at 155 is not the same as a car at 55.
You're very right about Sircam. Follow the progression since Melissa (Remember Melissa? Melissa was nice!). Now extrapolate
Re:Liability. (Score:3, Insightful)
This perception is only apparent in the PC industry. There are a whole range of areas where software has to be 'good quality', and the consequences of failure are huge. For example:
The trouble is, the PC industry has come to accept the usual disclaimers ("No liability for any damage
You would expect increasing reliability as the market moves more to (dumb) consumers - but, of course, everything is slightly screwed by one company having a monopoly
(Just noticed - should the subject of this post be 'Re:Liability' or 'Reliability'?)
Re:Liability. (Score:2)
But much software doesn't have to be written to such a high quality requirement, so it isn't. As, for example, document production isn't safety critical, market forces will decide the level of quality required, and the resulting market profile is a direct result of the care with which purchasing decisions are made.
Sorry to say this, but we get the software we choose, and the poor state of the market now reflect that we will pay loads of money for something which we buy effectively sight unseen, and where we accept licence agreements which take away our rights to complain.
Dunstan
Re:Liability. (Score:5, Insightful)
- level-0 is the software provided as-it-is or whith disclaimers that nullify any liability (that is 99% of today commercial and free software)
- other levels could be defined for software which promises (and therefore is liable for) a well-specified level of accuracy/data integrity/security.
Companies would price their software accordingly with the quality level they warrant, and people and company could make their own cost/quality/risk trade-off analysis and freely use whathever they want.Note that in theory an open-source redistributor could achieve quality level > 0 by submitting the products it distributes to rigorous qualification tests and patching the software accordingly. A problem could be that they should publish their patches, making easier for the competition to do the same. But this is nothing new, being the same dilemma that open-source distributors already face for the works which goes in packaging/integrating the free software.
Re:Liability -- extending the concept (Score:3, Interesting)
As to whether it actually meets said standard -- yes, it would be good to have an independent testing team, but who's going to fund it? Do you only get to have a rating if you can afford to help support the test process?
That being the case -- I'd suggest a twofold system: a rating the software author agrees to meet, and a number assigned by independent review when that is available. So if I claim a 3 rating but actually manage a 4, I get a 4/3 rating. Consumers have caught onto similar systems quickly in the past (such as gas mileage ratings on new vehicles).
To extend the idea another step, the penalties for failing to meet said standard should also be set on the same scale, so there will be no question how heavily any breach of performance standards will be penalized. Frex, if you claim to produce grade 5 software, but it's actually only grade 4, you get one increment worth of penalty. If you claimed grade 4 but it was really grade 1, you get 3 increments worth of penalty. And so on. That way someone who tries but didn't quite get it right doesn't get penalized as much as someone who really screws up and doesn't care.
If you can't afford the liability, then don't claim the reliability. Simple.
Occurs to me that liability insurance for software (both individual and corporate products) could quickly become reality under such a scenario, with premiums set apace with the reliability claimed for said software.
Perhaps it could start as a voluntary system, which develops coercive force on the software industry as consumers become accustomed to the concept and as more funding for independent testing becomes available -- the system would make it in the publishers' best interest to support it, perhaps with some charity testing for free software.
Anyone else have ideas for how to extend the concept?
Re:Liability. (Score:2)
Not that a stock install of Redhat 7.2 is what I would call efficient, but at least you can remove what isn't necessary.
Ahem... (Score:5, Funny)
Begun to raise concerns?! That's like saying, "In other news, repeated appearances of the star Sol on an approximate 24 hour basis have begun to raise concerns that it may do so tomorrow."
Microsoft never built operating systems with security in mind. The last time I checked, the security testing group at MS consisted of two Norwegian Black rats, a four-year-old, and a blind, deaf, chimpanzee with a drinking habit. It still hasn't occurred to them that improving their security might, in fact, be a good thing.
There, I feel better.
Re:Ahem... (Score:5, Funny)
This allegation you're making is both hurtful and untrue. That chimpanzee is a friend of mine, and I'll have you know that he only drinks socially, and conducts himself with the utmost professionalism.
Re:Ahem... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ahem... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ahem... (Score:2, Interesting)
Last time MS security has been interviewed ( Interview With Microsoft's Chief of Security [slashdot.org]) their chief did talk rather about their physical security like locking a door at night and obfucating their product to be protected (hence word security) againts their concurrency.
So whats the big deal? (Score:2)
So if anyone wants to see my website, please send me some email first.. be prepared for a little delay, that epoxy is tough to dig out of that little hole.
Re:Ahem... (Score:3, Funny)
Typical anti-MS FUD. When I asked Microsoft PR to verify this, they assured me that the "rats" are in fact Siberian hamsters [teenink.com]
Product liability (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting, but in the case of free software, what would this mean for the developers? We all want Microsoft to be held responsible in some way for their security holes and such, but would we want to be treated the same way ourselves? What would happen when an author of a piece of free software was dragged to court because the software was buggy? And what would happen if it was Microsoft who did the dragging?
Re:Product liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it good? I don't know, I guess it depends on what your priorities are. If what you really want is rock solid quality software, then yes it's good.
If you want rapid innovation, then probably not.
It'd definately kill off free software because you'd need to be trained, licensed and bonded in order to write software. Just like engineers who design bridges, etc.
Perhaps it is the natural progression of the market. If you look at other industries, over time they concentrated their power into the hands of a few large companies. Oil, Automobiles, Televisions, Radio, etc.
That's why it's always important to see both sides of an issue. The title of this article as posted to
The only one I can think of is Microsoft. This wouldn't be their undoing, it'd only make them stronger.
Microsoft isn't going anywhere, time to get used to that.
Re:Product liability (Score:2)
Seriously- I don't buy most of what he's saying here, I'm just reading the 'nooooooo! i'm meltiinnnngg!' between the lines. The REAL prospect upsetting Sheldon is the prospect of product liability _eviscerating_ Microsoft.
They're awfully vulnerable around about now, can't continue their geometric progression that props up their stock, and I don't believe in the myth about their piles of cash- I suspect that is a useful lie. Everyone wants to believe that is true, but who has seriously done the accounting work? Microsoft lie, you can't forget that.
Re:Product liability (Score:2)
And Rome will never fall, Martin Luther will get nowhere. and I hear great things about Enron.
Companies fail. Its a fact. Yes, I agree that MS has the $40billion or so lying around to keep any legal actions in circles for decades, and is smart enough to keep the public and the press off the issues, as well as fix the bugs when they can. But they're a company like any other, companies fail. Deal with it.
Conspiracy theory! (Score:3, Interesting)
So, it is actually in their best interest to do shitty software, in order to prompt lawmakers for such a change in law. Once the law is passed, they clean up their act, and watch with glee as OSS developers get sued into oblivion by liability lawyers...
Such law should have a provision that it only applies to commercial software (i.e. software that is sold for a price, or on the base of signed license contracts). Free (as in speech) software should be excluded from such liability. Free (as in beer) software would still be covered, by considering it as promotional material to sell commercial software (i.e. give away Internet Explorter to sell Windows).
Reality theory (Score:3, Insightful)
I see. So it's OK for people to run around advocating Linux or Apache as a serious alternative to WinXP or IIS, but the former are not to be subject to the same liability and the contributors not subject to the same incentives? Realistically, these two claims are not compatible.
Re:Product liability (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Product liability (Score:2)
radically different in that you, your neighbor,
and I all possess (or ostensibly are) the "means
of production" for software. Until humans are
legally "owned" by companies, free software will
continue to flourish, and at a much faster rate
than
Just like free literature has flourished and the big publishing houses have crumbled? Same goes for free music too, right?
I think you are too optimistic. There are already a number of things that "Joe Blow" can create, and there are still big companies selling those things to us. Why will software be any different than fiction?
Free software is safe - how about shareware? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Product liability (Score:2)
The point is that Proprietry software comes without source, and you are expected to live with the quality that is shiped to you.... Even if it takes your company down when your ERP database crashes!! Linux (and other free software) - Is offered with source, and you are invited to examine / amend the source to suit your needs - If your companys database fails under this setup - You only have yourselves to blame!
Put this another way, You could sue a TV Manufacturer, should a TV blowup your house, but if you opted to put together a TV from parts purchased from Maplins, I doubt if you could take them to court should things not work as expected.
Re:Product liability (Score:2)
Note that some "free" software comes in binary only form too. So you need to distinguish between software where you have the source (which could include various proprietry licences) and software where you don't.
Re:Product liability (Score:2)
What I'm trying to say is that this should have no effect on authors of free software. Besides, with the source you do have recourse. If all else fails, you can fix it yourself.
Re:Product liability (Score:4, Funny)
Not evident so far... (Score:3, Interesting)
People are so accepting of insecurity that they are even willing to spend cash money on antivirus suite after antivirus suite every year. It's just become a part of the cost of owning a PC.
the unkindest cut of all (Score:2)
Now THIS is what could really get them; forget about breaking them up, this could obliterate them totally. They could probably beat most lawsuits with enough lawyers, but they'd run up such a huge tab doing so that it could easily threaten the survival of the company. Look at what happened to Dow Corning.
This is even better than breaking 'em up! (Score:2, Insightful)
Nailing them with the FBI, IT professionals, and security experts may actually do real damage to sales.
The greatest part is, I bet most of the people challenging Microsoft are Slashdotters. Their arguments sound like +5 moderated posts, IMHO.
We should plan for this... (Score:2, Interesting)
So what we should do is plan and prepare for this eventuality. If we have the equivalent of backup generators and emergency equipment in the digital arena, we can take over when the main system stumbles. It's not going to be long until someone devises a way to seriously crash a significant portion of the machines in the world - all the recent virii have been relatively harmless - it would not take much at all to program a relatively smart virus that would do serious damage (IE hit network drives first, destroy files that are heavily used, only strike at night, morph code, etc.)
Ah, well. This is just a bunch of blathering, but we should thing about how to use the "enemy's" weakness against it. We need to make sure that linux is seen as more stable and more secure because it is BY DEFAULT - if people start using it and get burned, they'll go back to Microsoft.
I've heard this argument before... (Score:5, Informative)
Windows has been unstable for years. Did it threaten Microsoft even one iota? Nope.
Dream on, sorry...
Re:I've heard this argument before... (Score:2)
Blunders vs. Criminal Negligence (Score:2, Interesting)
Reasonable diligence should be exercised to protect security, but no large, complex piece of software can be bug-free. Building software ain't the same as building bridges, boy!
The more F-ups the better the internet will end up (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? Because the more these things happen, the more the people who REALLY need to know about them will find out.
Mr dot-com who pays others to run his damn site, will think twice about paying people to host his site on such garbage.
And the end result will be one (or more) less vulnerable sites out there.
Bring it on, damnit.
Effect on GNU GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Removing the limits on liability would not only affect Microsoft, but the GNU GPL. Would you want to be personally responsible for any GPL'ed code you wrote? Perhaps the solution would be to form a corporation and assign GPL copyright to it.
Anyway, at the very least, this sort of law would light a fire under the ass of the software engineering community. Maybe it cause some actual progress!
Re:Effect on GNU GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
Absolutely... all my GPL'd software comes with a money-back guarrantee.
Re:Effect on GNU GPL (Score:2)
A better solution would be to have a law which distinguished between "you can see and modify the code as much as you like", "You can see the source code, but cannot change it", "all you get is the binary".
Biting the big one, patches & stability (Score:3, Insightful)
XP users said the updates cause systems to become unstable and some device drivers to stop working. [companion article]
I'll note that I haven't seen any problems recently on my XP box - in fact thanks to a BIOS update and a new video driver it's running smoother than ever (for what that's worth). Have any
Either way, I certainly always like to know what's going on in my system - so I never have it automatically install updates. For those interested in turning off the automatic downloads (highly recommended) - go to Control Panel, System, and the Automatic Updates tab. I have it set on the middle option (to notify, but not download/install automatically). Of course, I have a *legal* version of the OS, you warez kiddies will probably be a little more paranoid about any notifications. *grin*.
Re: (Score:2)
hilarious! (Score:2)
your sig! Now I understand the reason for the auto update feature.
Re:I sort have seen it (Score:2)
Why are they worried about autoupdate? (Score:4, Funny)
Installing programs --> unsupported
Installed additional hardware --> unsupported
System booting --> unsupported
Using a monitor --> unsupported
Bypassing a circumvention device --> unsupported
DVD Playback --> unsupported
ever try to get help from MS, or esculate a real bug with them for any of the above?
How much worse could the software be without updates?
Patches not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not enough that Microsoft patches their products -- they are still shipping CDs of NT4 and win2k with the original 'release' of the product, so installing it means the original install plus a dozen or more service packs, hotfixes, etc. This makes it very tempting for internal corporate PC usage to just skip most of the patches to save time, and makes the process of securing Microsoft software that much more difficult.
They should just release new 'point' versions of the OS with every service pack, and stop selling the out of date CDs! Maybe this would cut down on the useless churn of moving from NT4 to 2K to XP to whatever -- and that would have to be good.
Re:Patches not enough (Score:2)
Re:Patches not enough (Score:2)
Nevertheless, I actually do do this to some extent -- I have a couple of "NT 4" cds where I've whacked some of the useless stuff (e.g.: Alpha support and other languages), and used the space for useful things (e.g.: Option pack, Service Packs, IE5 install etc.). But this doesn't address the core problem -- Microsoft should stop distributing broken versions of it's operating system. Maybe have a quarterly release with a subscription (now there's a way for MS to suck the lifeblood out of corporate America).
Ghost is OK, but only for identical machines, and then there's the whole SID problem. This can be made to work, but it tends to be extremely time consuming.
Interesting to note the official response here (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting to note the official response here (Score:2)
I would expect their no worries mate person (expression graciously stolen from here [slashdot.org]) to say that the sky is green and the clouds are pink if he tought that would help MS image.
Re:Interesting to note the official response here (Score:2)
I despise XP (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'm buying a powerbook tomorrow, I swear to Bob..
Re:I despise XP (Score:3, Informative)
MS Support Link on this [microsoft.com]
Needless to say, if you live 5 states away and have ever tried to talk your parents or friends through support over the phone: "No.. don't click that one... click on the ADVANCED button... now what do you see...?" -- this is much better.
YAMBA (Score:4, Troll)
Yes, Microsoft products have security faults, whose doesn't? Microsoft's get more notice because of the insane amount of marketshare they have, also Microsoft's software is less mature than the UNIX offerings people often compare it to in terms of tight security.
I remember back in the late 80s and early 90s how much of a joke UNIX security in general was. Back then you could pretty much root any non-.gov UNIX system on the Internet, remotely, at will.. (thanks in large part to SENDMAIL though many other pieces of software had problems as well). People who bitch and moan about how long it takes Microsoft to fix bugs compared to UNIX vendors must not have been around when you could change the IFS under SunOS and easily root the box using any SUID program that did a system() or exec() call (quite a few, at the time)...Even after Sun, etc, fixed that bug it remained unpatched in a huge number of systems for years....
Unix security is better now, but that's in large part due to maturity...Microsoft software will improve as well..Look at how much they've improved stability already when compared to Win95...It will happen...slowly, perhaps.
Re:YAMBA (Score:2)
YAMA (Score:3, Interesting)
What about Apple? Are we forgetting the fact that the original Mac was relatively secure for over a decade, despite granting full root access to whoever? Yes, there were virii and trojans and whatnot (can't really be prevented) but the design of the system prevented a lot of problems for the average user. These are the same average users who are going to be affected by the XP problems, not UNIX admins.
MS-DOS and its descendants were around for even longer than the Mac, and the NT system is very mature. Why can't they match Apple's security?
I'm sick of MS apologists. Microsoft makes shit. It's shit that's getting better, but it's still shit. Don't whine and say it's unfair. They have the money, the power, and the resources to make what is far and away the best software in the world. And yet we get articles like this, and we get people like you whining about how MS is being treated unfairly. Forget it.
As the market leaders who the majority of the world depend on for their computing needs they deserve heavy criticism.
As predatory monopolists they deserve heavy criticism.
As people who promise security they deserve heavy criticism.
As people who would like nothing better than to see Windows everywhere, and the GPL and Linux and Apache and SAMBA wiped off the planet they deserve heavy criticism.
So fuck whining about how MS is treated unfairly. If we complain enough then maybe they'll listen for a change.
Re:YAMA (Score:2)
It's a long time since I was a teenager. And I was never pimply-faced. For funzies, imagine Unix before fsck.
Unix, Windows, and the Secure Tao (Score:5, Insightful)
In a previous comment [slashdot.org] on another article, I noted that Unix has spent its time "in the trenches". Infosec history is full of Unix and its exploits... and its eventual improvement. But it is too easy to look at this history and learn the wrong lesson.
Unix's history of security flaws is less about Unix and more about infosec awareness. Unix changed as the understanding of infosec and security principles changed. While time has allowed more of these flaws to be discovered and removed from the Unix code base, the process over the years has been more about knowing what to look for (or even to bother looking). And as this understanding of infosec principles, concepts, and procedures has increased entirely new chunks of unix code has materialized - sometimes to fill a void, but often to replace another project's functionality with a new design that has taken security issues in consideration during its inception.
In short, Unix does benefit from its maturity. But the greater lesson is the infosec mind set. The tao of security, if you will. And these are concepts that can be applied to any project / OS.
The claims that Microsoft will "get there" with maturity are misleading. Microsoft may indeed improve. But its not maturity of their code base that's at issue. The issue is whether Microsoft will begin to understand Security and design systems based on that understanding.
Microsoft has shown signs of improvement with a sudden handful of security tool offerings. But unfortunately, these are really superficial afterthoughts to an already flawed environment.
Microsoft's problem is not technical; its cultural. Microsoft is a technology company that excels at marketing. Articles by Microsoft coders talk about the push from Marketing to add additional features at the cost of bug-hunting and resolution.
This kind of environment clashes with two infosec concepts. The first is that vulnerabilities are bugs - something malfunctions in an unexpected way, leaving the system vulnerable to intentional manipulation of this bug. The second is that there is an inverse relationship between functionality and security. Increasing the number of features, and the ease of using these features, often threatens a system's security.
Marketing at Microsoft will first have to care about infosec issues (this may be happening as Microsoft gets more and more negative press). Then Microsoft will have to strive to design secure systems even at the cost of features (and possibly even abandoning or severely restructuring current systems).
It will take a maturity of a different kind.
Who do you trust, Who do you trust... (Score:4, Insightful)
I maybe trust my mum and dad, and aunt jemima for her tasty pancakes [auntjemima.com] - but a software company???
People are cynical enough that they just bumble through life looking over their shoulder bitching about stuff.
I just bought a new laptop - it came with XP pro - already I'm having problems with it. But I bitch about it over coffee and just get on with things. I had to register the software - something I bitched about. IIS won't work properly - bitch bitch bitch. Norton seems to be checking every file every 2 minutes making the thing unusable for the first hour in a day - bitch bitch bitch.
Would I buy another the same - probably.
The trust issue won't hurt MS as much as we'd like to think. And it won't help the alternatives much either.
The movie industry sucks - but a good percentage of you reading this will run out and give them 30 dollars for Tron someday soon.
Liability. (Score:2, Interesting)
This is supposed to be a huge world economic product - they can get this way without any consequences? No worries?
The software costs money. They push a license agreement on you when you pick the product up at the store, when you buy a computer with windows pre-loaded, you are making a contract.
Okay, so in the agreement they sneak in some language that keeps them out of trouble. The problem is before you agreed to that 'contract' you were promised certain things. The product is defective.
Data problems, in most cases, won't affect someone's well-being. But there is data at stake. Their data costs $99 and up. Is your data worth any less? They promise to provide a secure and somewhat stable operating system.
This isn't always the case. It's only becoming an issue because they make so much money in the business. Shouldn't we ask more of Microsoft?
Well, if we can't sue, the gov't does nothing, and products continue to be shipped while 'broken' then something needs to be done.
Simply say it with your pocket book. Pass up on upgrading to XP. Do what ever you think is necessary. Buy an Apple.
I know it's not easy; but don't you feel that many other M$ customers - if not yourself - feel as if Windows is needed? It is in certain situations, but does everyone need it? No.
There are options. Not every option will work for all the people, but let's start to choose something else.
OR! Hold them liable
The Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
The nightmare scenario.. Three hours from when a widespread bug (like the recent XP one) and having millions of windows machines trashing everything they touch.
That is the future, and it will happen someday.
Use the warhol worm [berkeley.edu] spreading technique. Read it and be frightened. He claims 8 MINUTES from first infection to millions of infections.
I'm not quite as confident as he is in that number. But I'll definitely agree that 2 hours is more than enough time. (1 million vulnerable hosts, 5 scans/sec. Start with 1000 hosts, each second, 5000 probes, finding one vulnerable host. Thus, after 15 minutes, 2000 hosts, and doubling every 15 minutes.)
And, the more vulnerable hosts, the faster it spreads.
Now imagine a truly destructive payload. One which does not delete files, but corrupts them, starting with the fileservers. It restores datestamps to make it impossible to identify what files are corrupted.
Three hours from exploit to millions of computers corrupting thousands of files. Antivirus won't keep up, hell, warninsgs won't even reach most people until after its demolished their fileserver. With obfuscation techniques, the worm could survive 3 hours without being reverse-engineered.
It spreads so fast, there's no defense. It spreads so fast, you won't be aware its trashing all files until its already started. The only reason we've survived this long is that nobody really competent has worked on a worm.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. The only question is when it will occur, and whether you will be running Windows when the time comes. I hope you keep good backups.
How's this for a destructive payload? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, imagine a virus that destroys the IDE control chips on each drive (no accessing the data again, short of mechanically removing the platters), destroys the BIOS (no booting again short of physical replacement of the BIOS chip), and destroys the CPU (instructions are broken, starting with the ability to update the instructions).
Cross this with Warhol propogation techniques. While you're at it, delay the payload long enough to maximize propogation rates, but not long enough to allow antiviral reaction.
This could lead to *hardware kill rates* on the order of 10%-50% (or more) of the computers on the Internet. None of those computers would ever work again, and data stored on them could not be easily recovered.
All of this is doable from publicly documented information, crossed with the Microsoft wormhole-of-the-week.
Are you frightened? I am.
You're not evil enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Corrupting the data on the computer is MUCH worse.
Think of a database for an ecommerce server. A virus that understands the database format, and turns every 7 into a 3 in the database. Credit card numbers (I'm sorry, sir, your card has been declined), prices, product IDs, addresses, zip codes, telephone numbers (hope this doesn't happen to your phone company), social security numbers. Everything on that database.
Then it transmits itself to another host, and removes itself from that machine, attempting to cover its tracks.
Destroying the computer is *nice* compared to letting it run for the next month with incorrect data. You just corrupted the next 7 million transactions that system processes. And how much does it cost to correct that? Restoring a nuked server is cheap by comparison.
Which would be worse for a serious ecommerce business? Being down for a day? Or having to check every transaction that was processed for the last 30 days, and dealing with mischarged customers, fraud charges from CC#s billed incorrectly, incorrect products shipped, lost packages that were misaddressed...
Destroying a system is bad for a home user... corrupting it can be deadly for a business.
Fearmongering. (Score:3, Interesting)
Kjella
Read the paper next time. (Score:2)
Yeah, like it's just windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Reports from places like cert [cert.org] and bugtraq [securityfocus.com] show that there are just as many exploits out there for *nix based systems.
Network security of this nature is clearly not working when being applied at the OS or software levels, and a more flexible solution than the standard firewall is needed.
What would your opinion be of a 'mini-firewall' included as standard on all new network cards. The firewall would have packet filtering rules filtering out 'generic suspicious traffic' (such as bar an IP address for a day if something containing default.ida and a hell of a lot of 'N's comes through). The rules would be held on a flash ROM, which could be updated when necessary with software from a trusted source such as CERT [cert.org] and digitally signed by a non-trusted one such as Verisign [verisign.org].
Software could also be written to instruct the card to open certain ports and update the rules so that safe traffic for that software can pass through.
Unfortunately, the extra $20-30(?) would probably sink it dead in the water, not to mention the hassle of having to reprogram all network software to work with it. How does the idea stand in theory, though?
Losing the press? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now it seems things have changed: more and more, I am seeing articles that are negative of MS. "XP isn't stable", "too many updates", "XP isn't secure", "W2k was fine, why did they change it?" is what I see more and more of. Red Hat gets decent nods, and now even Apple of all people is selling a Unix operating system, albeit one that is packaged in a lamp.
Is MS at risk of losing the press?
Articles like this must drive them absolutely BONKERS. Forget the
How many of the system integrators like the guy in the article will just give up and stop dealing with XP, or worse yet, call Big Blue?
If MS loses the appeal of the popular press - promoting every new release as stable and secure - then they're screwed, even without the class action suits and liability claims. Any more FBI warnings will serve as months of fodder for the rags to hammer on them.
Re:Losing the press? (Score:2)
Once the magic aura is gone and they start looking,
Unpatched IE security hole list (Score:5, Informative)
a fully patched IE6) can currently...
* Run any command or program off the hard disk
* Monitor the users clipboard, and steal the contents
* Read or steal any file off the local disk
* Check existence of any local file
* Access the DOM, cookies, or read the content of any other website
regardless of domain, protocol or security zones
* Fake the file name in a download dialog
..although most of those only work if active scripting is enabled.
These security holes are all *proven* to work, and could easily be
used to create a devastating worm. Some of them are about a month old,
and still not patched by MS. Delightful.
The two latest exploits are http://tom.vpwsys.co.uk/clipboard/ (mine!)
and http://www.osioniusx.com - see http://www.securityfocus.com for
more.
Go ahead and take the lead (Score:5, Interesting)
Dare Microsoft to even think about this. Their worst fear is a world where people choose software based on quality.
Seriously, we don't need to whine about what some legislators are doing about the big bad wolf's coding practices. What we need to do is start setting the example. Say "I write good code!" and stand behind those words. Somebody who knows how should create a version of the GPL that includes appropriate warrantees for Free Software. The "Quality GPL" (GQL?). You don't have to use it, if you think your code is buggy or is a development version. Right now we just click on "Stable Branch" and that sends a message to those in the know, but how much better if you go visit a software repository and find piles of code that are stamped with a license that guarantees that the product is free from defects in workmanship (modifying the source code voids the original warranty, of course, and people who re-release modified code are under obligation to change the license to reflect that).
We want people to get the idea that software that claims to be stable yet comes with the phrase "NO WARRANTY" is probably a steaming turd. Especially if they paid good money for it.
Naturally, you can't predict how some people will use your product. "No, sir, the VCR does not function under water." Your code might not work on an SGI, either, if you developed it under HPUX. Using the product in a manner not intended will void the warranty. Sometimes it's not a bug, it really is a feature (or the lack of one). But if somebody finds a bug, you WILL fix it, won't you? Why not put that in writing? Even offer a monetary reward to the first finder (how about $2.56?) of every bug.
Note that agreeing to fix bugs, or claiming that your product is bug free, is completely different from assuming liability if the user uses your program to kill himself. That's a completely different story.
Re:Go ahead and take the lead (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I do, but is your compiler equally well written? How about the port of glibc to your hardware platform?
Application software sits on an operating system and depends on OS libraries. Open source software is often compiled from scratch, and you do not have control over which compiler is used or which build of the libraries.
I would never make a guarantee that my software would operate as I expected 100% of the time, unless I had control of the deployment environment.
For example, look at the stability of games console software compared to most PC-based games. It is a genuine shock if your console game hangs on you - I can count the number of times its happend to me on the fingers of one hand, going back to my SNES-using days. The reason is that the developer is able to test in the exact environment the software will be used. This is a luxury not available to most, and I believe stability (unavoidably) suffers as a result.
Cheers,
Ian
Security flaws in XP? (Score:5, Funny)
Software Liability (Score:2, Insightful)
Many of you should think twice before hailing Microsoft's downfall should it happen to stem from software fault liability.
Read the article - part of the major point is that a legal precedent could be set that would allow for far greater liability on the part of software developers that deliver flawed code.
Think about that for a second - all of the software that *you* have developed for clients that have pushed the boundaries on budgets and timelines is *totally free of bugs*? Even totally free of bugs that might eat their data one day? Myself, I occasionally lose sleep thinking about a bug that I *know* is in code that I delivered to a client that has no more funding to pay me with to clean up the system.
I personally feel that I have legitimate protection from liability for loss in those situations given that I expose the problem to the client, honestly tell them how much it will cost for me to fix it, and explain that the coverage for corner cases wasn't there given the budget they provided.
Are you ready to stand in court against precedent that you are liable for the business cost of a bug in your code? I'm not.
I am not a MS loyalist in the least (yes, I'm posting this from Win2k, my work platform for clients that I do Win work for) - in fact I wish to see serious stipulations on their bundling and BIOS issues mainly - but I don't think this is the right angle to crucify them on because it will come down and affect me.
From what I understand of the current
-astro
Thoughts on liabity (Score:2, Interesting)
Commercial vendors are responsible for what they produce. After all they sell the work for money. Programs should work as advertised. If Win98 is advertised as faster than 95, then it must be faster. If it's better for playing DOS games, then it should be indeed better. If MS says it's secure (*snort*), then it should be secure. The vendor shall be responsible for serious security bugs, but not user stupidity. Not preventing you from doing an 'rm -rf /' doens't qualify.
GPL should remain as it is. That's logical, many GPL works are *in progress*. Open Source applications take advantage of the openess, which lets them be released early, in an incomplete state. For example, suppose I am a technician and make my own TV. A friend comes to my house.
Friend: Whoa, what's that?
Me: The TV I've been making
Friend: Can I try it?
Me: Sure, but it's not finished. Be very careful with it.
Now, should I be liable for damages if the TV that I already said is experimental catches fire? Of course not! I didn't make it as a professional work, it's just a toy I let somebody try.
An useful addition would be the QGPL (Quality GPL somebody mentioned). Standard GPL, but with additions. How about:
The software must be reasonably secure. That is, it won't let people break into computer, and won't delete all the data on your hard disk. The bug that doesn't render correctly HTML for site foo.com doesn't qualify.
All the reported bugs will be fixed in the next stable release
Perhaps as some people do, like D. J. Bernstein (the author of djbdns) offer a reward for serious bugs.
Maybe something else
Ideas? Comments?
Register article (Score:2, Informative)
TWW
It's not just a problem of code but of monopoly (Score:2)
While Microsoft has a shocking attitude towards security, the real problem is not their software itself. The problem is that they are a monopoly. If everyone runs the same software, even a small vulnerability can bring the entire network down.
Microsoft should be more security conscious but that really does not solve the core problem.
Unfortunately, most people do not see security as enough of a priority to deal with the cost and hassle of changing software. The only solution I can think of is to encourage people to make backups. Backups do not help when a virus destroys hardware but they are better than nothing.
Eventually, there will be a truly devastating internet virus. We have gotten lucky this far but our luck will not carry us indefinitely.
On-line demo of Microsoft security (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:On-line demo of Microsoft security (Score:2)
implication of security (Score:4, Insightful)
To really implement tight security (the only kind that will prevent 95% of viruses) means a drastic change in microsoft's entire line of products. The fact is most people know better, but when they sit down at a computer their brains turn off and click everything. Only way microsoft can prevent all these email viruses isn't to turn off "launch attachment", because people will turn it on the first time they get an attachment. It's to require users save the file, scan the file and limit user account in windows. That means users have to login as the administrator to install programs and do updates. I'm sure people are saying, "just like unix."
Will people put up with less convienance after they've had it for 8 years? My guess is probably not. In the best case scenario, people will slowly get used it and take 25 years to replace all the old software. Short of giving away their software, microsoft will have a huge headache of replacing all the outdated version with hacker friendly features.
Quote of the day (Score:5, Funny)
First:
And then:Director of Security Assurance ??!?!
If you can imagine a more Dilbertified position within a company....
Re:Impossible (Score:2, Insightful)
If Linux (etc) were as widely used *by inexperienced* people as Windows, it would face just as many problems.. but at least the code would be there for patches to come out. Then again, how would Mr. Schmoe get the it without some kind of auto-update?
I fear that it will be easier for Microsoft to address most security issues (as they finally have wrt stability) than for Linux, etc. to become fairly user friendly.
Re:Impossible (Score:3, Offtopic)
For example, hiding known file name extensions by default often tricks users into launching an executible attachment when they think it's a jpg or somesuch.
For example, executing code automatically, especially in preview windows was a stupid default.
The list goes on and on. The bottom line is the features and defaults were seemingly determined by marketing personel.
Re:Impossible (Score:2, Funny)
Having a degree does not make a good programmer necessarily. I say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In this case, MS programmers eat alot but produce very little - a sure sign they have worms.
"Legislation" (Score:2, Insightful)
Liability means holding someone responsible for a cost: if the failure of software that shouldn't have failed costs company X $1 million, then liability is a matter of having the responsibility for that failure taken by someone who provided a good or service that didn't meet the reasonable expectations of the consumer. One doesn't wait until the invisible hand fixes things "in the long run;" like Keynes noted, "in the long run we're all dead." (Another Keynes quote: "the market can be irrational longer than you can be solvent.")
Re:"Legislation" (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends entirely on the laws (or lack thereof) that would replace the current regime.
If the law were structured that you were liable for all amounts incurred on your credit card, even after theft, victims of card theft would be broke.
If the law were structured that the credit card company was liable, even for the first $50, all credit cards would be secure, and using a stolen card or automatically-generated credit card number would be impossible.
The crux of the debate is that if software companies were legally liable for more of the damages arising from security holes in their products, there'd be a hell of a lot less security holes.
The cost of Fucking Up when writing software for nuke plants and hospitals and spacecraft is Very High. Such software developers rarely Fuck Up.
The cost of Fucking Up when writing the operating system with a 90% market share is Very Low. Such software developers Fuck Up on a daily basis.
Seems pretty clear how to get less Fucking Up to happen. (What's remains to be seen is whether or not the consumer is willing to pay the cost of having less Fuckups. Sadly, the 90% marketshare of one particular bunch of Fuckups is indication that the consumer isn't willing to pay that much for security.)