11 ms·
Windows and Security: Setting the Record Straight
- tptacek 16y agoIt's going to be very hard for people here to take, especially after wading through the tone of this article or the bogus reference to the Yale GMail story, but this guy is right. Hold your nose and suck it up, Microsoft is in fact doing a better job with software security than any other large company in the industry.
- eli 16y agoAgreed. All I could think when reading the Google article was, "They really think OS X is inherently more secure?" Surely it just benefits from having fewer attackers bother to target it.
- thwarted 16y agoSometimes that's all it takes. I don't need to run faster than a hungry bear, I just need to be able to run faster than you.
- Niten 16y agoHowever, this only helps if you're a typical desktop user whose primary threat is a random virus or other malware attack. If you're like Google, on the other hand, you have to worry about highly developed targeted attacks -- to stretch the analogy, a large bear that has specifically picked you out of the crowd. When that's the case, all the random scattershot viruses in the world become irrelevant, and your platform's inherent security mechanisms and development practices are the only things that matter.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoThat may be "all it takes" for J. Random Hacker worried about his personal system being compromised. But when it comes to a large corporation with a metric shit-wad of extremely sensitive and potentially very sought after data finding themselves in the digital targeting reticule of hostile corporations and even the intelligence services of first world governments that level of "security" is about as useful as a bullet-proof vest made of single ply toilet paper.
- thwarted 16y agoYeah, I'm sure the powers that be at Google never thought about that. If interested parties are using off-the-shelf attack software, this gives Google a leg up, however temporary, because there is less off-the-shelf attack software for OSX. So while everyone is scrambling to find holes in OSX to exploit in order to grab Google's data, Google secretly converts to plan9, never having intended to use OSX anyway. It's the greatest misdirection in history!
- InclinedPlane 16y agoGoogle is a big company, they are subject to a lot of the same dumb-itude (though hopefully less so) as other big companies. They are capable of making poor choices for all the wrong reasons just like anybody else (see also: buzz, wave, knol). Personally, I hope they are making smart security choices behind the scenes. Nevertheless, my point was a counterargument to the idea that merely switching to windows and being "faster than the other bear bait" was enough for google, as it's not.
- eli 16y agoSure, as a home user. Not if you're guarding against well-funded hackers looking, specifically, to steal your documents.
- waterlesscloud 16y agoOS XI ain't done til Android won't run. :-)
- naner 16y agoThey don't really have a choice.
- fname 16y agoare you implying that other companies do?
- btilly 16y agoOf course OpenBSD does better still. (If Google offered OpenBSD as an option, I'd take it. Just because.)
- Niten 16y agoThis is true. However, I'll settle for Microsoft following OpenBSD's lead and implementing ASLR and DEP in the world's most widely used desktop operating system.
- alecco 16y agoThat's only a tiny part of what OpenBSD does for security. Most of their work seem to be on auditing code and creating new secure tools when there's nothing fixable or with a good open source license (like OpenSSH, OpenCVS, OpenBGPD, and OpenNTPD.)
- Niten 16y agoDon't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against OpenBSD's superiority here in the slightest. In fact, except for my FreeBSD VPS, my general rule is that none of my Internet-facing machines run anything but OpenBSD. I'm just saying that if Microsoft can duplicate even a little of those good practices and bring them to the masses, more power to them.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- stefanp 16y agoOn the subject of OpenBSD's approach to security, check this out: http://allthatiswrong.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-insecurity-of-openbsd/ http://allthatiswrong.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-insecurit... The title is a little provocative, but the article is really worth it.
- tptacek 16y agoI was nodding at this article until I got to the part that said that OpenBSD should have used "Exim or Postfix and MaraDNS or NSD" to replace Sendmail and BIND, and then decided that the author didn't in fact know what he was talking about. It is however a real critique of OpenBSD's security model that they haven't pursued enhanced access control (Niels had to bolt it on with Systrace because Theo doesn't agree with the concept).
- alecco 16y ago> Microsoft is in fact doing a better job with software security > than any other large company in the industry No. They did some good changes with Vista+, sure. But their code base for most of their products is still a huge pile of crap, security-wise. IIS, Exchange, Outlook, and even Windows itself. Not all remote exec bugs are mitigated by the new OS features. Also, with typical Microsoft attitude, usability is neglected and many users just end up opening security settings permanently after being hassled dozens of times. That's counter-productive. A great example recently on their legacy of bad code is Hernan Ochoa's vulnerability find: Vulnerable systems practically every Windows OS including 2000, XP, Vista, and 7. http://www.hexale.org/advisories/OCHOA-2010-0209.txt http://www.hexale.org/advisories/OCHOA-2010-0209.txt > Impact: An unauthenticated remote attacker without any kind of > credentials can access the SMB service under the credentials > of an authorized user. Depending on the privileges of the authorized > user, and the configuration of the remote system, an attacker > can gain read/write access to the remote file system and execute > arbitrary code by using DCE/RPC over SMB. EDIT: Formatting.
- alecco 16y agoWould the down-voters at least state why? Is it forbidden to have a different opinion with examples? Sure, the "pile of crap" was a bit juvenile. But that doesn't invalidate my point.
- acqq 16y agoTthe parent article complains: "The Financial Times article states that: 'Windows is known for being more vulnerable to attacks by hackers and more susceptible to computer viruses than other operating systems.' The facts don’t support the assertion." Both parent article and parent post switch the topics: Though Microsoft did a lot of work to improve security, Windows as a platform (when you include anything installed on Windows like Adobe Flash and Reader) is certainly "more vulnerable to attacks by hackers and more susceptible to computer viruses." I don't think I have to provide examples, anybody is able to count. That's why I actually like that iPhone and iPad don't allow "anything goes" with the native apps. That's the biggest improvement in approach to the security in the last decades.
- desigooner 16y agoAs far as your platform argument goes, Flash and Reader are as inherently insecure on Mac OSX as on Windows ... maybe even worse as exploited at Pwn2Own. That Platform argument kind of falls on its face.
- acqq 16y agoOf course it doesn't fall. Try to count the number of IE toolbars for Windows, then try to count for Mac. Try to count the number of antivirus programs for Windows, then for Mac. Try to count how many shell extensions are installed with different programs. How many file handlers etc. On every Windows computer the attack surface is unbelievably bigger, unless you're very untypical user. But even more important reason for increased "Windows platform insecurity" is the economy -- evildoers can control much more computers (and make more money) if they invest the time to make Windows trojans. On the other side, I believe that if we just look at the Apple software for Mac delivered by default and the Microsoft software delivered with the OS, Apple is more vulnerable -- Microsoft really does much more security work on the core (in invested man hours per lines of code of the core) and delivers less functionality than Apple by default -- even a mail client is not an official part of Windows 7, that's good trick to have more secure default OS package. Still if you use Windows you're much more likely to fall victim, and it will remain so for a quite while.
- wooster 16y agoWith Windows 7, we added improvements to BitLocker for disc encryption (we also introduced BitLocker-to-Go for external USB devices), and added enhancements to the built in Windows Firewall for better protection. OS X equivalent is encrypted disk images and FileVault (and the firewall, but whatever). Windows 7 has Parental Controls built in that can be combined with Windows Live Family Safety to create a safer experience on the PC for children. Yeah, OS X has that too. I wrote large parts of it. His most compelling point is ASLR. It'd be nice if OS X had that.
- Niten 16y ago> OS X equivalent is encrypted disk images and FileVault Calling FileVault an "equivalent" of BitLocker is too generous. BitLocker provides several important things currently lacking from OS X's built in disk encryption facilities: * Strong encryption: If you use FileVault, you're essentially gambling that your hypothetical attacker can't break a 1024-bit RSA key. That isn't such a good bet these days. * Trusted boot path in conjunction with a TPM; defense against the "evil maid" attack * Support for full disk encryption, not merely encryption of home directories * Enterprise key management and recovery, so that full disk encryption can conceivably be used within a large organization You'll want to buy PGP or similar if you're on a Mac and you want good disk encryption. (But that still won't give you anything like BitLocker's boot path verification.) But yeah, the whole parental controls thing is not only a moot point (didn't OS X actually have that first?), but pretty much irrelevant to security in the sense intended in this discussion...
- blasdel 16y agoApple can't use a TPM without people going apoplectic, even now years later. After the first couple shitstorms when the Intel Developer Preview Mac and a few other early models had TPMs, they just stopped including them with any of their hardware, despite (or perhaps because) they're essentially the only outfit that could pull that off. Only a few models had them, and Apple doesn't like to ship features like that, especially with the way they'd get shat on over it.
- tptacek 16y ago
- grandinj 16y agoMicrosoft started from a point of having such terrible security that was practically impossible __not__ to improve. The point is that, despite all of the work they have done (and they have done a lot) they still have a very long way to go to make up for 20 years of completely ignoring security engineering.
- sid0 16y agoThey're ahead of Apple, and Google isn't stopping you from using OS X, therefore Google's view is inconsistent with reality.
- shadowsun7 16y agoScenario: Google runs Microsoft software, is attacked by hackers. Google has to wait on Microsoft for knowledge/patches to security holes, even though Windows has great security. Logical reaction: move away from Microsoft products due to nature of platform. That I get. Google runs Linux, is able to patch things up whenever holes occur due to the open source nature of the OS. A move to Linux makes sense to me. What I don't get, however, is the bit where OSX is allowed. My theory is that Google made the switch not because OSX and Linux have better security per se (that is, as compared to Windows - because tctacek is right, Windows is rather good with security) but because having a userbase of so many different flavours of Linux and a spattering of OSX is going to be hell for future hackers. Does this make sense?
- peter01 16y agoHey this peter.Would the down-voters at least state why? Is it forbidden to have a different opinion with examples? Sure, the "pile of crap" was a bit juvenile. But that doesn't invalidate my point. ================= peter011 <a href="http://in.linkedin.com/in/croissancesystems1rishiagarwal http://in.linkedin.com/in/croissancesystems1rishiagarwal " rel="dofollow">CROISSANCE SYSTEMS</a>
- motters 16y ago> The facts don’t support the assertion. Unfortunately, the facts do support the assertion. I've been involved with computers since the early days of Windows 3.1, and if I tally up the number of times I've had to deal with Windows security flaws compared to security flaws on Linux or Macs there's really no doubt at all that Windows is less secure by design, and also more expensive and complex to maintain an adequate level of security.
- norswap 16y agoWindows is less secure than other OS. But windows is better secureD than other OS. The only difference is that having 95+% market share, they are targeted by an awful lot more attacks.