Ask Microsoft's Security VP 543
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.
What has changed? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:What has changed? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What has changed? (Score:5, Interesting)
What is Microsoft's plan for eliminating this problem? How will Vista address the tasks that require higher levels of privileges? What restrictions does this place on normal users? How do focus group users respond to these restrictions? Has there been communication with applications vendors to ensure that they are making the necessary changes?
Re:What has changed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the most glaring Windows XP security problems (being in the Admininstrators group by default, being allowed to write anywhere by default, having the firewall off [pre-SP2] by default) were there to preserve compatibility with previous versions of Windows.
Will Vista comprimise on security, or compatibility?
Re:What has changed? (Score:5, Interesting)
What are you doing to prevent buffer overflow and similar attacks in the future?
Are you afraid? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Are you afraid? (Score:2)
Re:Are you afraid? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Also: is/was Microsoft lying? (Score:3, Informative)
Differences Between Windows & Other Employers? (Score:5, Interesting)
WIndows OneCare status? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WIndows OneCare status? (Score:2)
Most regretted design decision (Score:5, Interesting)
Patch Release Cycle (Score:5, Interesting)
Security versus Quantity? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Security versus Quantity? (Score:5, Interesting)
moo (Score:3, Funny)
*swats tail*
Vista (Score:2, Interesting)
Security/user friendly tradeoff (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Security/user friendly tradeoff (Score:3, Informative)
WMF bug in Vista (Score:2)
after happening WMF bug, which is (according to Microsoft own statement) from Windows 3.1 (!!!) - even if it was hardly-happening in Windows 9x - what exactly you changed in your security process to prevent these happening?
Re:WMF bug in Vista (Score:4, Interesting)
My biggest concerns about MS today surround this process, which is completely invisible to the world, but which we rely on for having greater confidence in MS products. Understanding how MS approaches these reviews might make us feel better (or might depress us beyond reason).
Tim
Top priority for security in 2006 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Top priority for security in 2006 (Score:5, Interesting)
security && usability (Score:2)
-russ
Proof (Score:2)
The Credibility gap (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How is that perjury? (Score:3, Informative)
Similarly, Lots of stuff in OSX is designed around WebKit. Take away WebKit and tons of stuff breaks.
IE is no more or less "integral to the OS" as either of those. There's nothing magical about it.
Patch Schedule (Score:3, Interesting)
Post questions question (Score:3, Funny)
Speed factor (Score:2, Interesting)
As an aside, great job Roblimo! What a catch for an interviewee! Not going through a PR person, either. Can't wait to see his replies.
Outside influences on security (Score:5, Interesting)
Question (Score:5, Funny)
What is the basic approach to Microsoft security? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
SP vs Vista (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SP vs Vista (Score:3, Informative)
Check out Microsoft on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. They have approximately 60000 employees, and while it doesn't say the number of contractors, I would be shocked to find it is four times that amount. Also, remember that a large amount of these employees are *NOT* coders but managers, marketing and sales (that's a biggy), accounting, secretarial/administrative, researchers, and HR.
Question from China (Score:5, Funny)
I'm from China and I was wondering [remainder of message censored by People's Center For Internet Enhancement - Powered by Microsoft]
Pre-installed (Score:3, Interesting)
I know when I bought my Gateway laptop it came with a default login as Administrator and to identify itself on the network, it used the OEM key as its name. I knew enough to change these options and many others myself, but many users do not.
Why is it that Windows offered pre-installed on machines doesnt at least come with some sort of brochure or pamphlet explaining the least a user can do to add any level of security?
Defaults (Score:2)
Legacy Security Issues (Score:2, Interesting)
Audit of Software (Score:5, Interesting)
Home vs Pro (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Do you ever spend time with "average users"? (Score:2)
Will you ever sort and modularize Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Windows updates to unregistered machines? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Did MS culture change as promised in 2002? (Score:5, Interesting)
In your opinion, has Microsoft succeeded in changing its culture so that every developer now considers security first, features second?
security through obscurity & the many eyes (Score:2, Insightful)
WSUS Release Dates (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Security holes and MS image. (Score:2)
This kind of business, in addition to Bill Gates' wildass (and often incorrect) speculation about future technologies and sweat-dancing, chair-throwing antics of Ballmer has jaded our image of MS.
How does MS plan on restoring a serious security image with Vista, which does not see
Rewriting Internet Explorer (Score:5, Interesting)
Application software (Score:5, Interesting)
Beyond Bugs: User Interface? (Score:4, Interesting)
However, even when a security system doesn't have any bugs, it can still be very insecure. We can define "security" in a more general sense as "the extent to which a system is doing what the owner or user expects". The problem is not that the system is capable of malice so much as that the system is capable of malice of which the user is unaware.
How is Microsoft in the future going to design their systems so that users know what is really going on?
Whatever (Score:2, Insightful)
interactions with the corporate side of Microsoft (Score:2)
Spyware (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Why not improve the default permissions? (Score:2)
So, my question... When is microsoft going to tighten up the default configuration of windows and make application vendors stick to good practice?
I'll make a wild guess at never, howeve
Re:Why not improve the default permissions? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, it seems to me that Windows' dual focus on consumer
Marketplace (Score:2, Interesting)
Security decisions are usually dominated by economic and business considerations; it's often been said that Microsoft will stop making insecure software shortly after customers stop buying it.
Let's say I'm a shareholder, explain to me why you should be spending money on security. Where and how much is the return on investment?
You will also have to balance many considerations when determining what security to implement. What are the major security tradeoffs/decisions you anticipate making this year?
It's funny that /. has this article today... (Score:2)
User privileges (Score:5, Interesting)
ActiveX and user permissions (Score:2)
Industry best-practice out-of-the-box? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
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?
Biggest security threat? (Score:2)
Comparisons with open-source (Score:4, Insightful)
Product Activation (Score:3, Insightful)
Current code base review/analysis (Score:2)
Inhouse security auditing and patching (Score:3, Interesting)
Bug submission policy (Score:5, Interesting)
And why does the phone number on this "report a bug" page:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/contactbug [microsoft.com]
call a generic technical support & sales line, which ultimately will tell you that you must either open (and pay for) a support case, or submit your bug by snail mail to 1 Microsoft Way?
Is it Microsoft's stance that the inability of its users to report bugs makes its OS more secure?
-Tommy
XP's firewall (Score:5, Interesting)
VISTA users must still be administrators? (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Shake a Legacy and move into the 1990s (Score:5, Interesting)
When will we have actual symbolic links?
When will you ship with everything possible disabled until needed or manually enabled?
When will defragging a disk or some obscure network function not lock up every task?
When will you not install by default two thousand modem or other
When will you not keep asking to insert a driver disk when the files are already in c:\windows\system32\ (and will "install" if I just point the directory there)?
When will you disable autoplay features by default, or at least make them prominent in a security area (instead of editing obscure system setting panels)?
When will you get rid of, split, or otherwise do something reasonable with the trash "heap" otherwise known as the registry?
Are you ever going to allow me to change my hardware and do autoconfiguration (Both MacOS and Linux will let me boot from a disk in another system, a CD, etc. and manage to find all the necessary and most of the exotic hardware)?
Home Vs Business Security (Score:3, Interesting)
Business PC's usually live in live in administrated, controlled networks, which hopefully have someone in charge of security on those networks. They also live behind firewalls, proxies and have shrinkwrapped as well as in house answers to security threats. Users have much reduced privilages, security policies are in effect and companies backup data and can even use imaging to secure against vunerabilities.
Contrast with Home PCs which live in small, largely unadministored networks. Many are still directly connected to the internet. These PCs may have no anti-malware technology at all. On top of that, users are uneducated and often do not even realise they have been the victims of security breaches. Typically, security involves extensive suites of specialist software that gobble ever more resources.
There are also intermediate security enviornments. Small to medium sized businesses may have sizeable networks, but fail to implement any real security policy due to time and budget constraints. Home users can also have sizable networks, with a multitude of internet capable devices in the one home becoming more commonplace.
Typically, Microsoft has offered essentially the same software framework for both Home and Business computers. Will Microsoft offer a one size fits all security framework also?
Why add DRM? Also, why not decouple IE? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, I think you could dramatically improve security by decoupling Internet Explorer from Windows. Have it be a separate program similar to Opera, FireFox, Safari, etc... Is there really a valid reason that Windows Explorer has to be driven by Internet Explorer?
Legacy Code (Score:4, Interesting)
-Charles
users and auditing (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite whatever SU-like features you have, on XP I still can't reliably install, or in some cases even run(!), programs under restricted user accounts, forcing me to give most of my clients admin accounts and just hoping for the best. How seriously do you treat this issue and what work is being done towards getting an OS that can be used in the real world with restricted user rights?
Auditing - finding, say, if user X has any write rights anywhere on a server, who has done what on the system in the past day, what files were modified by a program's install, etc. all these things are do-able but not easily, and not using just MS supplied tools. How about a toolset for administrators that give us (especially the part-time admins like myself who don't just live and breath security) easy access to the reporting, auditing, and security tweaking we need to do our jobs well. And no, configuring and interpreting the security logs in the event viewer doesn't count as an easy to use auditing tool.
What OS do you consider the most secure? (Score:5, Interesting)
Please name a specific answer for both questions, and please don't name something useless like DOS. Your answer must be something that a sane network administrator might choose for an internet-connected server and desktop deployment.
Separately, do you think that Mac OS X is a more secure _desktop_ operating system than Windows XP? Obviously there have been far fewer worms, trojans, and viruses for OS X than Windows. Is that really solely due to OS X's lesser popularity, or is it truly a fundamentally more secure system?
If you think Windows XP is more secure, why? What security features does it have that OS X doesn't?
Is it really a secure system? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why no AES in SSL yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
(OpenSSL - including the Mozilla browsers - and Java SSL have all had AES support for a while. Most SSH implementations have also had it for a while.)
Will Compatibility ever be rejected for Security? (Score:4, Interesting)
Next big thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Culture and Security (Score:4, Interesting)
I would like to think that Microsoft has finally "got the religion" about reliable code, unit testing, defensive programming, etc. (it seems that many historic decisions were made on disputable performance grounds instead of a long-term view of security implications, and now Microsoft is paying the price).
Is this the case (do you even agree with the premise) and if not, what is Microsoft's strategy for evangelizing safe and robust programming practices (as well as overall architecture) *inside* Microsoft? It seems that the best laid plans of kernel and system architects can be ruined by some guy working on the shell that is getty pressured by marketing to Hurry Up and implement that gee-whiz feature that will "impress" the customer.
(extra cheat question: Raymond Chen has recently posted about "decoy" windows and other hacks that MS has implemented to compensate for badly written application code - as a user, this does not seem to serve my interests. Instead of quiety accepting the misbehavior, I would like Microsoft to make these sorts of problems apparent in some manner to make the user aware of their software and demand better behavoir from developers of the software they purchase, and also to shame software developers into behaving well. Continually accommodating intentionally bad software seems to be a bad long-term strategy. Any comment on that?)
2008 expiry of WinXP Home updates (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand that MS has recently decided to extend the deadline to abandon official support of Windows XP Home to 2008. While many applaud this 1-year extension, others feel this deadline is insufficient. Considering this is the most popular operating system in the history of personal computing, will MS take responsibility for any damages caused by this deadline? (e.g., unpatched vulnerabilities resulting in spam and DDoS zombies, virus proliferation, identity theft, etc.) Is MS willing to reconsider this deadline?
MSFT employee here (Score:5, Insightful)
I have just one question for you. Why do we STILL ship products with KNOWN security issues?
I'll even tell you how it works in the trenches. Folks build the product. At the end of it all a "Security Push" gets declared. For two to three weeks people pretend they care about security by coming up with potential security issues and assigning DREAD+VR scores to them. Then management arbitrarily sets the "bar" below which we don't fix potential and real security issues. This bar is usually very high, sometimes at around 8, because hardly anyone has time in the schedule to fix all issues found. Now, DREAD score 8 means that flaw will affect a ton of customers and cost Microsoft significant litigation. Some of very severe bugs slip under the bar just because they don't affect more than 10% of customers. Now, even this exercise is a joke, because most developers don't know what DFD is and how to put one together.
This wasn't even the most ridiculous part of the exercise. The most ridiculous part is security "code reviews". It's when feature owners walk into a room with a huge stack of printouts and pretend they can be reviewed in a couple of hours they've allocated for this. You can barely glance through this much code in this much time, 90% of security issues remain unnoticed during this "code review".
After all is said and done, product is only slightly more secure (SOME of the most ridiculous things have been fixed), and management gets delusional saying that product is now Fort Knox secure.
If you ask me, that's abomination, not a proper security process. Are there any plans to change it?
The separation of code and data (Score:3, Interesting)
Does Microsoft have any regrets regarding its historical strategy of designing software that mixes code in with data (E.g., ActiveX, IE, VB Office, etc.) to make life easier for developers, despite the security implications and risks of such a strategy?
DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
Security & Education (Score:3, Interesting)
However, to me, this seems only half of the real battle when it comes to spyware (and other security issues). The other half, in my experience (And in GI Joe's, apparently), is knowledge. Education. I have noted that some systems, even heavily used systems, without tools like MSAntiSpyware, AdAware, and Spybot installed can have very little spyware, whereas even some systems with such tools can become heavily infested.
So my question is this: especially given that many of the users of Windows are less tech savvy than would be preferable, are there any plans to address the other side of the equation in Vista (or elsewhere), for security issues like spyware? A Security Tour, recommendations, help features, tutorials, etc?
Security for Morons (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot bites? (Score:3, Interesting)
realtedly: Do you believe the anti-Microsoft bias of Slashdot is peculiar to this forum or does it reflect a general antipathy in tech circles? Why do you care what the community at Slashdot thinks?
Is the new limited privileges IE mode vulnerable? (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the most important innovations in Vista regarding security is the revised user/privileges system, including the new "limited" mode IE (and potentially other web apps) will run in.
The basic goal is that even if IE has a flaw which allows malicious code to run from the browser, that it will not have the privileges to read/write/execute code, with the exception of writing in the IE temp files folder (the cache).
However to allow the IE plugins and IE itself to go on its business (such as download files to where the user wants), special 'broker' processes were introduced IE to talk to.
Apparently those processes have higher privileges. So if IE can command them to download code, doesn't it render the point about the privileges protection moot. If not why.
And another such concern. I suppose the limited IE mode applies only when the mshtml engine is launched from within the "official" IE shell.
However many apps use that shell, and since the malicious code retains the ability to write to the Temp Files, won't it be possible the reuse of "infected" cache via embeded IE to raise the privileges for execution and infect the system anyway.
Thanks.
If you had to store your Credit Card Number ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are known issues not fixed? (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's Rephrase That (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I have a question for you (Score:3, Informative)
That was not a troll , I was inquiring into how someone with a track record like this is able to keep his job in a very competitive environment .
Microsoft's Security situation has hardly improved , yet there is little change beyond mere words and new slogans
A genuine question , perhaps asked a little abruptly .
Re:behold (Score:2, Funny)
Dear President Nash, how are yuo SO AWESOME?!!`1 Can I offer myself to you for free schexx0rings? CAN WE NAEM OUR BABY XBOX 360?!?211!
Re:Flamebait I guess (Score:2)
Re:New Browser? (Score:2)
Of course they won't. Firefox doesn't support a lot of proprietary things that lots of intranet applications depend on. Can Firefox run HTAs? Does Firefox support VBScript? If Microsoft were to drop Internet Explorer for Firefox, they'd be leaving a lot of customers high and dry, requiring them to rewrite applications before upgrading to Vista.
Personally, I'd like to have an explanation as to why, despite the fact that it hasn't been in active development for ~4.5 years, people are still finding vul
Re:Usability and Security (Score:5, Insightful)
The revised mantra of Microsoft application security has been "Secure by default", a strategy that was applied with varying degrees of success to many of your products in recent memory. In security circles, this might seem like a no-brainer, but for consumer-level applications the strategy can be a nightmare. For a company that spends so much on usability and ease-of-use for end-users, the act of explicitly prohibiting certain operations or features seems to fly in the face of that investment. The users get what is perceived as a broken product, and the administrators get the headache of decreased security (say, after they install a patch that break "secure by default"). For various reasons, these two contradictory approaches seem to serve neither usability nor security.
In that vein, what other effective strategies have been considered? For years, the NSA has provided a unique service to the users of various products, including Microsoft Windows operating systems. They produce "hardening" guides for these products in an effort to ensure their continued security and viability in the wilds of the Internet. Has Microsoft ever considered producing guides like these, seeing as how they're the authors of their own products? In that vein, has Microsoft considered redacting the secure by default to enhance usability, yet instead produce tools or wizards that electorally enable hardening for your applications and OS'?