RE: Experts: Microsoft security gets an 'F'

[InfoSec News <isn () c4i org>]

Forwarded from: "Hoodye, Morris" <Morris.Hoodye () hp com>

As for the nonstop enterprise division of HP goes I would like to
chime in, since the question was asked...Our systems are used to run
90% of the stock exchanges world wide. The stock exchanges have chosen
our platform because of it's reliability. One key part of reliability
is our enterprise operating system (NonSTOP Kernel) does not allow
user processes to escalate their privileges levels.

The architecture is a true secure message based operating system that
has a 25+ year history. I have implemented the Nonstop Himalaya
Platform in some to the most secure and vital parts of our critical
infrastructure, where the system has NOT been compromised.

When we make changes to the operating system we review each line of
code change for reliability and security issues, Our customers expect
nothing less, so we go through great efforts to insure the reliable
operation of the customers environment...Our customer consider
downtime unacceptable, we understand this...It is not uncommon for
customers to 5+ years of constant uptime.

Our systems can be upgraded while running the customers application,
so I think customers would give us a A.

Get the complete picture at:
http://nonstop.compaq.com/view.asp?PAGE=HimalayaServers

   

-----Original Message-----
From: InfoSec News [mailto:isn () c4i org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 23:16
To: isn () attrition org
Subject: RE: [ISN] Experts: Microsoft security gets an 'F' 


Forwarded from: Pete Lindstrom <petelind () comcast net>

This whole "grading Microsoft" discussion is completely ludicrous. If
Microsoft gets an 'F,' then who got the A's, B's, C's, and D's? If
upwards of 100,000 sites were infected with Slammer, does that mean
that everyone who was infected gets an 'F' too? Or does Microsoft get
their grade because it was their software? Who gets the 'F' for
Slapper?

Can we legitimately grade Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing
initiative, designed to create more secure software, by assessing
their own internal practices? Can we grade it if there is nothing to
compare to? How is IBM doing? SAP? Oracle? Siebel? Novell? Computer
Associates? Sun? HP? PeopleSoft? How about the custom stuff from
Accenture? EDS? CSC?

Do we really know the difference between what equals "secure" and what
equals "luck" in the security space? Is there anyone out there who has
a foolproof method for determining an appropriate level of security
that is guaranteed to eliminate risk?

You can't blame obesity on McDonald's for serving quarter pounders and
you can't blame insecurity on Microsoft for serving buggy software
that the whole world decided to buy because of the functionality and
backward compatibility - both qualities that create complexity and its
sister, insecurity. And let's not forget that a large number of our
security problems are due to poor configuration and not buggy software
(e.g. SQL Spida attacked null passwords).

There is no doubt that from a security perspective, our existing model
has been unsuccessful due to its reactive nature and the built-in
latencies involved. But I talk to companies every day with better
solutions (check out www.spiresecurity.com/IntrusionPrevention.htm for
some ideas).

It is far too easy to blame Microsoft (give them an 'F') for the
world's security woes. But you get a completely different perspective
when you take a look around at all the potential alternatives and
existing poor security practices in place.

There, I said it. Please flame me at bill.gates () microsofty com (just
kidding).

Regards,

Pete

Pete Lindstrom, CISSP
Research Director
Spire Security, LLC
P.O. Box 152
Malvern, PA 19355
phone: 610-644-9064
fax: 610-644-8212
www.spiresecurity.com
Briefing Requests: 
http://www.spiresecurity.com/briefingrequest.asp?p=briefingrequest


[...]



-
ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org

To unsubscribe email majordomo () attrition org with 'unsubscribe isn'
in the BODY of the mail.