Information Security News
mailing list archives
Microsoft once again takes the low road...
From: InfoSec News <isn () c4i org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:10:50 -0500 (CDT)
Forwarded from: "Jay D. Dyson" <jdyson () treachery net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
My comments follow:
Microsoft Rallies Industry Against Bug Anarchy
By Brian McWilliams, Newsbytes
REDMOND, WASHINGTON, U.S.A.,
16 Oct 2001, 1:37 PM CST
Pushed to the brink by recent Internet worm outbreaks, Microsoft hopes
to rally the computer industry against those who improperly publish
information about security vulnerabilities.
In an editorial at Microsoft's site, Scott Culp, head of the company's
Security Response Center, announced the initiative against what he
called "information anarchy."
If anyone wants to talk anarchy, let's talk about the business
that totally ignores STANDARDS and bends protocols to fit their will.
Let's talk about a business that continues to reinvent the wheel; only
their wheel is square.
According to Culp, the damage caused by worms such as Code Red and Nimda
can be blamed in part on computer security professionals who discovered
the software flaws exploited by the malicious, self-propagating
Nonsense. The blame for Nimda rests largely on those admins who
didn't patch their systems when there was loads of information on what
they could do to mitigate the risk. Sure, there's something to be said
against the notion of blaming the victim, but let's face it: who among us
defends the fool who habitually flashes huge wads of money and ends up
"The people who wrote (the worms) have been rightly condemned as
criminals. But they needed help to devastate our networks ... It's high
time the security community stopped providing blueprints for building
these weapons," he said.
And people seriously expect Microsoft to "lead the way" on
security measures? Give me a break. They've gone out of their way to
downplay genuine security risks for years. Those who remember the old
l0pht web site will recall Microsoft's poo-poohing a l0pht advisory as
"highly theoretical" (to which the l0pht crew had their saying, "Making
the theoretical practical").
According to Culp, recent worms have relied on techniques and even
specific software instructions published by security firms in their
advisories about software bugs.
"Clearly, the publication of exploit details about the vulnerabilities
contributed to their use as weapons ... It's simply indefensible for the
security community to continue arming cybercriminals," he said.
Microsoft's editorial is the latest salvo in the debate between security
experts and software vendors over what is called "full disclosure."
Not to mention their open hostility to Open Source.
In Microsoft's view, the only prudent policy is to work with vendors and
not disclose vulnerability information to the public until a patch is
available - and then only to disclose enough information so that
administrators can decide whether to apply the fix without being at risk
if they don't.
Thus leaving the regular admin with no way to test the security of
their networks. Lovely. And I'll bet if such a "standard" were adopted,
Microsoft would soon start *SELLING* "security services." I can see it
now... Why get something for free when Microsoft can line their pockets
with your money? Sign up right here!
"This is not a call to stop discussing vulnerabilities. Instead, it is a
call for security professionals to draw a line beyond which we recognize
that we are simply putting other people at risk," said Culp.
How about a call for software manufacturers to stop releasing
faulty products that put people at risk? Oh wait, that'd be unreasonable,
To exert economic pressure on security consultants to adopt this
approach, Microsoft recommends that customers ask consultants for their
policy on disclosing information about security bugs they discover.
How about we recommend to our customers that they ask Microsoft
about its long and crappy record on security instead?
"The biggest problem system administrators have is not that people are
giving out detailed blueprints on how to attack vulnerabilities; it is
that many of the vulnerabilities that come out in IIS and other software
are so huge that minimally skilled hackers can exploit them on their
own," said Pescatore.
Richard Forno, chief technology officer for Shadowlogic, an information
assurance firm, said software vendors have a vested interest in keeping
vulnerability information private.
"Without such widespread public knowledge and awareness of these
problems, vendors can take their time addressing these concerns, if they
even address them at all. Microsoft is by far the most notorious in
their vulnerability announcements, legalese and cover-their-tail
security alerts," said Forno.
Microsoft's editorial is aimed squarely at Eeye Digital Security, the
security software firm that discovered the bug in Microsoft's IIS
Webserver that was exploited by Code Red a month later.
Talk about an about-face. What happened to the Microsoft that
publicly *thanked* eEye for their help in the original advisory?
"We believe that they provided information in their advisory that was
specific enough to help the people who wrote Code Red," said Culp.
And how does Herr Culp explain the vast difference in the attack
methodology of Code Red and the attack methodology as detailed by eEye?
Representatives of Eeye, which never released an exploit for the IDA
vulnerability, were not immediately available for comment.
Hopefully consulting their lawyers for a pretty damned serious
Discussions by security professionals of eEye's advisory on security
mailing lists such as Bugtraq contained additional information on how to
exploit the so-called "IDA" buffer overflow bug, according to Culp, who
said editors of such lists should consider blocking messages that
contain exploit code.
Censorship is such an ugly thing. I should be surprised that
Microsoft is calling for such, but I'm really not.
Besides acknowledgments in its security bulletins, Microsoft plans to
develop additional means of encouraging security professionals to adopt
its limited-disclosure stance.
Count me out. Full disclosure uber alles. Anything less is
reliance on security-through-obscurity.
"It's time for the security community to get on the right side of this
issue," he said.
Microsoft isn't exactly leading the way. I encourage them to get
on the "right side" of the issue and throw support to open source and full
disclosure. It's pretty obvious that their closed source and minimal
disclosure stance hasn't afforded anyone any meaningful security at all.
The editorial on responsible disclosure is at
Microsoft's policy for acknowledging security professionals in its
bulletins is at
Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com .
( ( _______
)) )) .-"There's always time for a good cup of coffee."-. >====<--.
C|~~|C|~~| (>------ Jay D. Dyson - jdyson () treachery net ------<) | = |-'
`--' `--' `- Peace without justice is life without living. -' `------'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: See http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/ for current keys.
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org
To unsubscribe email majordomo () attrition org with 'unsubscribe isn' in the BODY
of the mail.
- Microsoft once again takes the low road... InfoSec News (Oct 17)