Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk
From: Frank Knobbe <frank () knobbe us>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:07:02 -0600
On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 07:06, joe wrote:
[...] They weren't correcting a single self-contained program like W3SVC or Apache or netdom, they were correcting functionality in a core component used widely across the OS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ But it's just that -- A core component. Not hundreds of core components. It was ONE DLL that needed fixin', not a multitude of them. I think the Windows source code has grown to a size that is hard even for Microsoft to manage. I'm not surprised if the very developers are starting to lose trust in their own code because it has grown to galactic proportions... hence the need to extra long test cycles. Regards, Frank
If the next slammer virus came through and started formatting hard drives, I would say the same thing I did when the last one came through and that would be "How come you weren't patched with a patch that had been out that long?". It doesn't matter how fast MS produces patches if admins and users aren't getting them applied. The issue isn't simply one of technology, it is also one of process. A vast number of people don't want automatic updates of their systems either because they don't trust the source or simply don't' want their machines updating automatically but DON'T go back to do it in a conrolled fashion. They wait until someone says they need to go do it. I don't let MS update my PC automatically but I do make it a point to go back and check every couple of days to see if something has been released and I watch several notification streams as well. Most people will not do this so they either need to go with some form of automatic updates or unplug. MS sent many many people through the code. People outside are going through the code. Again this isn't one program that one person could go through and have a strong handle of. I don't think 10 more people could add much if any value. Not sure 100 outside people could. If this were the case we wouldn't be finding old holes in other open source now, we would only be finding stuff in the newly released code. I would however like to think that MS is working on better automated scans of the code to find holes, that would be more value than trying to find 10 excellent security programmers. I am someone who has access to the current source and have walked through large sections of it, it isn't like the holes jump out and say "HI, here I am". Also the code I have had a chance to walk through in the last 8 months is pretty decent, I definitely am not going, oh my god oh my god. It seems more rigorous than the code I have walked through say for Samba however that is an objective opinion and am not going to enumerate items I think one does better than the other. BTW, how many zero day exploit based worms/viruses have been beating up on MS in the last year or two... Not being flip here. joe -----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of Richard Hatch Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:10 AM To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com Subject: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk Hi all, Microsoft have stated that to make the source code for Windows publically available would be a risk to National Security. Microsoft also took 9 months to produce a fix for the ASN.1 problem. As much as some people may regret it, Western civilisation runs on Microsoft software. Imagine the panic that would ensue if the next slammer worm infected 10 machines then formatted hard drives, or scrambled random parts of random files. This is not news, some old DOS viruses set file lengths to zero, rather than deleting files that could be recovered. So my idea is this: Take a team of really really good C/C++ coders with excellent security vulnerability knowledge and have them go through the source code for windows (starting with the core functionality and internet facing functionality maybe). Find these bugs (including methodical black-box testing against the binaries) and fix them. These people would be fully supported by Microsoft (including full access to all technical documentation, Microsoft technical advisors, etc), and backed by the NSA or other Government agency. Microsoft could impose whatever NDA's they want, but they should fund the bug hunt. Not only can they afford it, they created the problem code. Fresh insight into how Windows functions is required to identify the less obvious vulnerabilities. Microsoft Windows is not just another piece of software, it has become a fundamental part of businesses and governments. Oh, can anyone suggest a reason why disclosing the source to Windows would be a National Security risk, yet Microsoft is happy to provide the same source code to ceratin third-parties (I assume this means any company that has enough cash and signs the right paperwork). Folks, simply reacting to 0days just doesn't work. R. Hatch --- 'The mirrors have grown vast and beautiful and very very *hungry*' The views and comments expressed in this email are the personal views and opinions of the author and should in no way be considered an official statement/release of QinetiQ. Neither the author or QinetiQ can be held liable for actions taken based on the information contained within this email. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Current thread:
- Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk Richard Hatch (Mar 24)
- Re: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk Luke Norman (Mar 24)
- RE: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk joe (Mar 24)
- RE: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk Frank Knobbe (Mar 24)
- RE: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk joe (Mar 26)
- RE: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk Frank Knobbe (Mar 24)
- Re: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk John Sage (Mar 24)
- RE: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk joe (Mar 26)
- Re: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 26)
- RE: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk joe (Mar 26)
- Re: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 24)
- Re: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk martin f krafft (Mar 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk borg (Mar 24)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk joe (Mar 26)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk madsaxon (Mar 26)
- Re: Re: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk Szilveszter Adam (Mar 29)
- RE: Re: Microsoft Coding / National Security Risk joe (Mar 26)