Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Microsoft's Real Test with Vista is Vulnerabilities
From: James Tucker <jftucker () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:12:25 +0100

Brate Sanders wrote:

Honestly, do you believe MS would care too much about security in Windows or their applications? If they did, would 
they come out with the One Live subscription based solution to protect against their design/implementation 
vulnerabilities? Once One Live subscription becomes more wide spread you can expect press releases like, if you are 
using One Live this vulnerability will not affect you. If not we are working on a solution for your problem, which may 
be available in your next monthly patch cycle.
Not interested in a mass discussion, however you clearly know nothing about the difference between a 'security product' and an 'operating system' and it's related libraries. Your rant here is like a *nix user claiming they will never ever need an anti-virus program. I suppose you shouldn't really need an IDS either?

Where did the OneCare application set come from? Why is it coded the way it is? Why is this method of scanning condusive to prevention of otherwise available exploits on a local machine? Is it therefore reasonable that something may be prevented by a third party application even if it's not created by a third party? Is this unusual in non-MS worlds?


Microsoft has tried multiple times in the past to come out with a subscription model for Windows, which has failed 
every time. So now they have another oppurtunity to get into the subscription based model. They may even give away 
Windows OS for free and just charge you for the OneLive solution, since it is a better business model any way you 
consider it.
If you've been testing Vista Beta 2, and not being overly unnecessarily paranoid (despite the clearly written privacy policies and so on) then you'd have probably noticed that application error reports are even while in beta, being looked at directly by humans. The perfect example being the customised responses I have had to several application failures, one of which provided me with a suitable fix and added a bug ticket for the next release. This is completely seperate from the Live services.

So if they can earn more from the subscription based security solution where is the incentive to make the OS more 
secure? Eventually they are a corporation aimed at maximizing their shareholder value.
All US coroporations are bound BY LAW to do as you suggest there. Campaign against US Law if you have an issue with that. If you fight a battle on the wrong field you'll never meet your enemy.

With regard to incentive to secure the OS, the OS is still being secured, as it has been with XP, the reason the distinction exists can be clearly seen by the following example:

A customer reports that the elevate priviliges request is exploitable by providing it with excess data. The function filter system in a random system defender app can filter this immediately, thus an update for the FILTER system is released immediately, all 'defender' based machines are now secured. The core function change requires the arguments of the function to be changed, the type of one argument is altered - this requires a wrapper function, and FULL common usage bounds checking for ALL applications using that function. - The easiest way to do this is to collect demographics to see how often it is used, easiest to collect through the function filter. Testing for the above CORE OS CHANGE is going to take some time, in order to maintain backwards compatibility, including supporting some odd applications where programmers decided to use the 'exploit' for productive purposes. To change this immediately without providing a wrapper or checking common usage is likely to break legitimate software, to prevent the use of one piece of malware. In terms of productivity in the wild, such things are only destructive - see professional gentoo deployments for examples.

Brate Sanders
The man who should clearly be writing YOUR update policies.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]