Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Ask Microsoft's Security VP

Posted by Roblimo on Wed Jan 18, 2006 01:15 PM
from the My-OS-is-better-than-yours dept.
There's always lots of discussion on Slashdot about Microsoft's security problems, and whether Windows is or isn't more secure than other popular operating systems. In a "Let's clear the air" move, Mike Nash, Microsoft Corporate Vice President, Security Technology Unit, has agreed to answer 12 of the highest-moderated questions you submit here. (You can skip the "Microsoft and security in the same sentence?" comments we've all heard 1000 times, and ask actual questions, since Mike is answering for himself instead of having PR do it for him.) We'll post his answers next week.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • What has changed? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by suso (153703) * on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:16PM (#14500849) Homepage Journal
    Besides the same old PR scripted answers that corporations like to give in order to obscure or downplay what is really going on. What assurance can you give us that Microsoft is more focused on security and that Vista is going to be any different from the previous incarnations of Windows? What proof can you give us? Information like "We have a new team doing X" or "our process for reviewing changes has gone to X" are helpful pieces of information to answer this question. What else have you seen in the way MS is developing Vista that is different from how you've developed previous products?

    From what I've heard, even though most of Vista is being rewritten from the ground up with more scrutiny on what code goes into it, it will still have major flaws generated by the way Microsoft works internally as a company.
  • by no_pets (881013) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:19PM (#14500874)
    Are you afraid that if Microsoft Security isn't greatly improved in Vista that a chair will be thrown at you?
  • Mr. Nash, what are the greatest differences and similarities between Microsoft Corp. and Data General Corp., your two most recent employers? Most importantly, how drastic were the changes you saw (not necessarily changes due to job function but changes in general)? What do you like the most and what do you hate the most?
  • by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:20PM (#14500892) Homepage Journal
    What is the status of the Windows OneCare program? Is a released product expected soon?
  • by VitaminB52 (550802) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:21PM (#14500897) Journal
    What is the Windows / Internet Explorer design decision that MS does, from a security point of view, regret most?
  • Patch Release Cycle (Score:5, Interesting)

    by skywalker107 (220077) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:22PM (#14500919)
    Did the WMF Patch now set a standard that severly high risk problems will be patched out of the standard patch Cycle? How did Microsoft come to the conclusion that is was important enough to go against what it promised it's corporate customers?
  • by dada21 (163177) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:22PM (#14500922) Homepage Journal
    As a Microsoft product user, it has always made me wonder what the User:Bug ratio might be. Do we see more bugs found BECAUSE more users are using a product?

    Has Microsoft tracked the "security bug" to user ratio on their products and found that products with fewer users seem to have fewer bugs? If that is the case, I wonder if it is the normal process of higher supply leading to more people spending time looking for bugs.

    It is like the population:innovation ratio -- as a population goes up, the amount of innovators being born goes up, too, leading to more innovations.
  • by qwijibo (101731) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:22PM (#14500927)
    Is there a general policy within Microsoft to help product teams make consistent security decisions? There are frequently issues where the decision has to be made between being more secure or more user friendly.

    For example, file and printer sharing defaulting to off prevents people from unknowingly sharing their resources, but requires non-technical users who do wish to set up a small network to know more about the process than in previous versions.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:23PM (#14500941)
    Given that security is a major topic on IT manager's minds these days with security flaws and patches practically making front page news of some publications, What do you feel is going to be the main focus for security in 2006 for yourself and the industry as a whole?
  • by kalpol (714519) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:25PM (#14500976) Homepage
    Has open-source software such as Linux influenced the way you think about security in Windows, and if so, how?
  • Question (Score:5, Funny)

    by specialbrad (884393) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:26PM (#14500981)
    Did you honestly expect to get 12 serious questions from a group like slashdot?
  • by kickabear (173514) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:27PM (#14501003) Homepage
    Does Microsoft lean more towards rigidly enforced coding standards as a way to prevent exploitable bugs, or does the company focus more on brute-force bug detection during testing?

    I know the easy answer is to say "both, of course" but a 50/50 split is unlikely. So, does testing take the backseat, or does the code?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:28PM (#14501010)
    Hello, Mr. Nash.

    I'm from China and I was wondering [remainder of message censored by People's Center For Internet Enhancement - Powered by Microsoft]

  • Audit of Software (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WebHostingGuy (825421) * on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:32PM (#14501062) Homepage Journal
    Certain open source projects such as OpenBSD have routine audits of the software to search and remove potential security problems. While I understand Microsoft Operating Systems are very complex Microsoft does have an enormous amount of talent and resources at its disposal. Is it possible that Microsoft will review all new operating systems in the future with the same sort of audit performed by others? Wouldn't you think this would be worth it to prevent mistakes which could be costly to end users?
  • by Caspian (99221) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:34PM (#14501087)
    Time and again, I've seen average end-users-- grandmothers, "soccer mom" types, businessmen-- whose computers are positively clogged to the gills with spyware, viruses, and other sorts of malware, the overwhelming majority of which they were infected with via the exploitation of security flaws in Microsoft software. I'm often tasked with disinfecting their computers.

    How often do you (and the members of your team) spend time with average end-users-- not just in large corporate settings but in small businesses and (just as importantly) in real-world home settings? I believe that if you would spend time with Joe Average and see just how badly his computer's performance (not to mention his personal privacy and the integrity of his data) is suffering from the exploitation of certain bugs and design decisions (e.g. the fact that most end-users run with Administrator privileges) in Microsoft software, it would cause a significant shift in Microsoft's security strategy.

    No matter how often $LATEST_WINDOWS_VERSION is touted as more secure than its predecessors, I still keep getting called to average homes to remove countless items of spyware which infected Windows systems via holes (and/or poor design decisions, e.g. the handling of ActiveX controls and the abilities they can have to alter files on the system) in Internet Explorer, and to this day (despite the wide use of antivirus software) most end-user systems I examine do contain at least a few viruses (which entered the system via Microsoft Outlook).

    What are you doing to secure Joe Average's PC? Do you have any interaction with average end-users? And if not, why not?
  • by tz (130773) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:34PM (#14501094)
    The XP Embedded version can be created with or without IE or WMP, but I don't know how many DLLs have chunks of code designed to launch or provide IE or other MS product functionality (designed to give Netscape Users "a jarring experience" in the words of a Microsoft person). Is Microsoft ever going to sort and layer things so that there will be an isolated kernel, application layer, GUI, device drivers, (and if so, when), or is "Windows" going to continue to integrate things, e.g. "The Spreadsheet and Editor are now 'part of the operating system'"?

    Rationale: Many security problems are due to everything running as Administrator, with privileges, or as part of the OS. One thing I like about GNU/Linux is that each part is separate, so Firefox runs on X which runs using services, which runs using the kernel, with only the kernel having privileges. Generally a buffer overflow problem in X, or Apache doesn't let someone format my hard drive. Also you can put something to analyze or intercept things between such layers - even things like ltrace or strace.
  • Dear Microsoft Security VP:

    I know a person who doesn't have his copy of Windows registered. His PC got infested by spyware, so my deduction is that his computer was probably used to send SPAM, spread viruses and whatnot. When He called me for tech support, I told him to download the Microsoft Anti-spyware from Windows update, but his answer was that it required a registered copy.

    My question is this: If Windows updates make the Internet SAFER from hackers, spyware and viruses, why limit them to registered copies of Windows? (IMHO this is analogous to not giving the vaccine of the bird flu to illegal aliens)

    What do you plan to do about this?
  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:35PM (#14501106) Homepage
    On January 17, 2002, p. 1, the New York Times reported, "Stung by Security Flaws, Microsoft Makes Software Safety a Top Goal" and quoted Jim Allchin said "Every developer is going to be told not to write any new line of code until they have thought out the security implications for the product" and that "the company was trying to change the culture of its software developers, who have been putting their emphasis on adding features to the company's software to increase its value."

    In your opinion, has Microsoft succeeded in changing its culture so that every developer now considers security first, features second?
  • WSUS Release Dates (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr.Fork (633378) <forkmiester@nospAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:36PM (#14501121) Homepage Journal
    As a Service Desk manager and network guru for my organization, I am responsible for ensuring that all workstation desktops are kept up-to-date and secure. Currently, Microsoft releases patches once a month, usually on the second Tuesday of the month.

    With the current advances in smart viruses and malware, that release schedule seems unrealistic. OS security threats have been addressed with emergency patches, but that does not seem like a sustainable methodology.

    What is Microsoft's long-range vision on OS patches to ensure that our Server and Workstation Operating Systems are secure, safe, and patched in a timely manner?
  • by teklob (650327) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:36PM (#14501131)
    I'm honestly not trying to troll here, but wouldn't it be easier to rewrite IE from the ground up? Have you guys considered this and ruled it out, or have you just not contemplated it. Not to vaguely bash microsoft, but a large percentage of PC and/or Windows power users would probably consider Internet Explorer 6 a write-off. Any thoughts?
  • Application software (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cro Magnon (467622) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:36PM (#14501132) Homepage Journal
    I realize that Microsoft cannot control what 3rd party software does, but will Microsoft's applications and games run under a limited account, or will they still need Admin access?
  • Spyware (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PetyrRahl (880843) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:39PM (#14501168)
    Mr. Nash,

    In regards to spyware MS has already taken some steps to try and stem the flow (asking about running exe files, the Spyware Removal Tool, etc), however as a consultant I find many of my clients are still infested with the stuff. From my perspective it appears that many users are affected still by these programs and that they are either unaware of how to prevent them in the first place, or how to get rid of them. Many times it is significantly faster and easier (and in some cases, safer) to just format the machine in question and start from a clean slate. Does MS feel that spyware is still a major problem, and if so, what new measures MS doing in order to combat it?

    Regards,
    Petyr Rahl
  • User privileges (Score:5, Interesting)

    by azpenguin (589022) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:40PM (#14501183)
    Many users still don't understand the importance of creating user accounts instead of using the default administrator account. Will Vista work "out of the box" in a manner that will encourage those who are not technically savvy to work under a user account instead of an admin account?
  • by ZiZ (564727) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:40PM (#14501188) Homepage
    Mr. Nash,

    There are a number of industry best-practices that any system administrator will tell you are vital for proper security. I will not claim to provide a complete list, but the two that seem to have the most frequent effect on an OS's percieved security are:

    • Minimizing the number of services and processes running (preferrably via a service opt-in rather than opt-out policy)
    • Performing all activities as an unpriviliged user, with some method of securely and briefly authenticating to higher permissions when required

    Windows has been steadily improving on the first point, but the second point has long been a problem for administrators; there is no generally-used near-transparent way for a program to request higher privileges, for instance.

    Worse, many third-party (and, for that matter, some Microsoft) programs will fail silently or with obtuse errors if you run them as less-privileged users because they demand the ability to, say, write to system areas - often without warning - and require heroic gymnastics by administrators to resolve (if a resolution is even possible).

    Is this issue of least-privilige being difficult to acheive being addressed in future versions of Windows? What changes can we expect to come down the line soon and in the near future?

    • by Caspian (99221) on Wednesday January 18 2006, @01:41PM (#14501205)
      I don't know the exact number of coders in Microsoft, but it must be above 300,000.

      Yeesh. This sort of quote reminds me of when I was a naive little proto-geek, wondering what sort of supercomputer my favorite MU* ran on.

      Microsoft has only 60,000 employees [wikipedia.org] TOTAL.

      Of that count, surely no more than 50% (and probably much less than that) are programmers. Remember, that count includes not only the veritable hordes of management types and marketroids, but the guys who clean the toilets and the ladies who answer the phones. (And the ladies who clean the toilets, and the guys who answer the phones. And the guys who clean the phones, and the ladies who answer the toilets...)

      So you're off by at least a factor of ten.