![Security Security](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/security_64.png)
![IT IT](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/it_64.png)
Microsoft Offers New Data-Security Scheme 309
bingly_beep writes "The BBC is reporting Microsoft's new user security measure, whereby users sensitive information is stored on their PC rather then online, as in their previous offerings, such as Passport. This sounds like a good idea, but any such system would surely require that the user definitely erases the HD on any machine they sell. Perhaps Microsoft should include an option, like 'Prepare this computer for resale,' which utterly destroys all data."
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In future headlines... (Score:4, Informative)
This Does Not Work on Modern Computers! (Score:4, Informative)
For more information check out this link [infoanarchy.org].
For the lazy, here is a summary:
Many modern operating systems such as Windows XP (NTFS), Mac OS X ( [[HFS+]] ), and GNU/Linux with a kernel version greater than 2.4 (Ext3, JFS, ReiserFS, and XFS) have the ability to use a journaling filesystem that makes complete erasure of data unlikely.
There are several ways to securely wipe files when using journaling filesystems:
Store data that needs to be wiped on a partition (slice, volume, or drive) that uses a non-journaling filesystem. For example, users of Windows can use a Z: drive formatted with FAT32, and users of GNU/Linux can use a partition formatted with Ext2.
Store data that needs to be wiped on a partition that is encrypted using Hard Disk Encryption. This eliminates the need to use a secure wiping mechanism for individual files.
Store data on a temporary partition using any journaling or non-journaling filesystem. When it is time to wipe all files, use a tool such as Eraser or Wipe to securely wipe the entire partition.
Physically destroy the hard drive after use by melting the hard drive. (Passing a magnet over the hard drive will not work.)
So, basically... there is no proper way of protecting yourself from undelete data recovery methods, if you use a journalled file system, aside from keeping some thermite handy!
If you ask me, we should all be encyrpting our data partitions by now!
Update on This (Score:4, Insightful)
But once again, be wary of any file erasure programs like the one mentioned by the grandparent post. You need to take care that your usage of them is not in vain!
Re:This Does Not Work on Modern Computers! (Score:2, Informative)
Data stored on a hard disk (or floppy disk, or any other magnetic-based medium) uses the polarity of a tiny portion of the disk (eg. a "sector") to determine if that portion contains data equating to a one or a zero.
When the write head of a HDD applies a magnetic charge to a portion of the disk, it has just enough strength to change the surface polarity to the intended bit value. If it uses too much, it'll spill over onto adja
Re:This Does Not Work on Modern Computers! (Score:3, Interesting)
What you are saying is true. If you only overwrite the data a single time, it is easy to determine what the previous value was.
However secure erase tools will
Re:This Does Not Work on Modern Computers! (Score:3, Interesting)
CAUTION: Note that shred relies on a very important assumption: that
the filesystem overwrites data in place. This is the traditional way
to do things, but many modern filesystem designs do not satisfy this
assumption. The following are examples of filesystems on which shred
is not effective:
* log-structured or journaled filesystems, such as those supplied with
Re:This Does Not Work on Modern Computers! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not entirely correct.
Journaled file systems by default only use the write ahead log or "journal" for metadata changes, and not for data itself.
This means, when you overwrite the file 35 times in place, the journal is not involved in this operation.
When the secure delete program, then issues a DELETE, that operation is logged. Some time shortly thereafter the directory structure is updated to reflect that deletion. However, the data would have been overwritten 35 times (using the defaults in the eraser program) notwithstanding that the delete may be deferred.
As long as the filing system allows software to bypass the write-behind disk cache this works.
If your disk controller hardware has its own cache this may very well interfere.
a journaling filing system makes it more difficult to hide the fact that a deleted file ever existed, but it typically will not interfere with writing data into that file.
Additionally the article expresses concern that a journaling system may move a file to a new location on a write.
You will want to confirm for your specific filing system, but typically this would be very very inefficient on a hard disk.
AFAIK ext3, reiser, NTFS, BeFS (the only journaled filing systems I have much experience with) do not move files around on the partitian simply because the data within the file is modified.
Since hard drives support random access, on a hard drive there is very little likelyhood that a superior location to store that file will be found than the original location chosen (and there is no reason to NOT use the original location). Hard drives fill up over time. The overhead in choosing a better location in very expensive.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
In fact, (with those FSs that I mentioned) unless you defragment or something, files are left in the original locations they were allocated, and any modifications occur on the same disk locations.
Another factor to consider. The journal is typically implemented as a fixed size circular buffer, and it is overwritten frequently.
If you want to help insure this happens soon perform the following operation.
1: create a directoy X.
create a 0 byte file Y inside inside directory X.
2:
open Y. append 1 byte.
close Y.
move Y to the parent directory of X.
open Y. append 1 byte.
move Y back inside X.
rename Y to some random name.
rename directory X to some random name.
touch X
touch Y
copy Y to a new file Y!
delete Y
let Y! now be the new Y (for future iterations)
3: repeat all steps from 2: until 3: a hundred thousand times or so.
Do that with your disk cache turned off (or a sync operation between every step) and that will probably irradicate whatever is in the journal.
This loop causes a ton of meta data changes which must be written into a write ahead log. Moving and renaming the file may or may not be considered a metadata change depending on the FS, it may simply be a data change to data in a directory (I believe this is the case in ext3; but if I recall, in BeFS file renaming and moving is a metadata change.
Finally.. since the journal doesn't track data itself, the only thing it may contain are filenames, paths and perhaps filesizes. Your data is not there.
in any event, while there is merit to the concerns expressed in the article, they are somewhat overstated.
If you ask me, we should all be encyrpting our data partitions by now!
I agree with you there.
Storing plain text is absurd.
Aw hell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, like THAT won't be hacked all to fvck by virus-writers. Great suggestion!
Re:Aw hell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Aw hell... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Aw hell... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if you had some user-friendly (but clearly labeled, and with warning messages) option to "secure delete" user profiles, it seems like it would be a nice security measure. It's not technically difficult, and not anything a virus/trojan couldn't do on it's own, and if all user data really is being stored in the user profile, it's not complicated.
Re:Aw hell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. Think about it: In this particular scenario, we're keeping all our personal/important/sensitive data in one place, and more dangerously, a place that's standardized, ie. easy to find. At least with users scattering their personal stuff all over the hard drive, it's easier to "mask" from a virus/trojan looking for that data.
But with this new setup, the data's all in one spot. In the SAME spot, regardless of the machine or the user. (Cuz you just know that MS is gonna create a standard folder for this.)
So, by doing this, it'd actually make the malicious program writer's job easier.
Re:Aw hell... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Aw hell... (Score:3, Informative)
You're absolutely right, they shouldn't be. But they are, a great many of them, because unfortunately many 3rd-party apps, especially games, require admin rights to run properly -- and who wants to exit and login as a different user every time they want to play a game? (Which in itself is a separate rant.)
With so many users running with admin rights, it'll be a no-brainer to compromise this particular setup.
Re:Aw hell... (Score:4, Insightful)
With so many users running with admin rights, it'll be a no-brainer to compromise this particular setup.
I guess that, when Microsoft talks about their future plans for "improving security", I assume that the first assumed step is to rectify that particular problem. Perhaps I'm naive to attribute even this small measure of care and competence to Microsoft's developers. However, any other security steps are pointless until this issue is rectified. Frankly, it's obscene that Windows has been encouraging users to run as admin for so long, and failing to discourage developers from requiring administrator access to run simple applications. It's pointless and it's stupid.
Re:Aw hell... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with games is that they use low level access for copy protection tests, and need admin level to do that.
Re:Aw hell... (Score:3, Interesting)
On another note, I'd like Windows to have simple profile switching. No, not the user profile, but the system settings. 1 gaming profile with all the systray stuff out of the way except for AV-software and the firewall, no background services bloat etc. Another profile for strictly browsing and e-mailing with super-restricted access to the low
Re:Aw hell... (Score:2, Informative)
To put it bluntly, you don't know what you're talking about.
As a software developer, I know firsthand that Microsoft is trying to get application developers to stop writing programs that require the users to be Admin level. If you know anything about
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Aw hell... (Score:2)
Re:Aw hell... (Score:2)
Perhaps Microsoft should include an option, like 'Prepare this computer for resale,' which utterly destroys all data."
Of course, "preparing for resale" would include erasing the OS....the seller wouldn't have rights to transfer the licence.
Prepare this computer for resale (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cleaning up HD (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Cleaning up HD (Score:2)
Most of the data recovery software around today cost little compared to the return on the information. Fdisk only changes the drive ability to detect the partition so it is still there in tacts and all that needs tobe done is the sectors read, analized and put together.
Re:Cleaning up HD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Aw hell... (Score:2)
I suggest Sygate Personal Firewal (free but I encorage you to buy it too) and AVG Antivirus (free but I suggest you to buy it because it is such a great product).
Windows already has such a feature... (Score:3, Funny)
The problem with the feature right now is that it happens when you least expect it, rather than when you'd actually want it to occur.
Re:Windows already has such a feature... (Score:2)
Re:Windows already has such a feature... (Score:2, Funny)
Ready for sale (Score:2, Funny)
MS coverup? (Score:2, Interesting)
it seems to have disappeared and been replaced by this advert for MS doing good things for security?
Both sides of the coin (Score:5, Interesting)
And, as stated in the article, there had better be a way to destroy all sensitive data if the user wishes to sell the computer.
Re:Both sides of the coin (Score:2)
Either solution is flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
In the grand scheme of things, they are both as flawed, just in differing ways.
sorta (Score:2)
If it's on the machine, it seems to be a use at your own risk proposition.
From a companies POV, one of these options is slightly more attractive. Plus, it can be spun as letting users have controll of their own data, and not some big evil corporation.
Re:Either solution is flawed (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other side, data stored in a centralized server is more readily accessible anyway. Also, data-redundancy and backups are usually more cost/time efficient when do
Re:Either solution is flawed (Score:4, Interesting)
* and i would say unlikely threats, for any one individual, and compared to all the risks everyone faces in life. imho.
rather then (Score:5, Funny)
rather THAN damnit
please continue
Thanks (Score:2)
WHY THE FUCK is it so hard to master using Then and Than appropriately?????!!!!!!!
Re:Thanks (Score:2)
Re:Thanks (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
ok so i will spoof (Score:2, Interesting)
wouldn't that lead to easyer spoofing?
The assumption being (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure that this is necessarily true.
When you consider that the vast majority of computer users have no idea what a "firewall" is, and that MSFT's track record for security is poor to say the least -- its not obvious that storing sensitive data in designated locations on PC's is the safer route at all.
Some might say this is MSFT's way of passing the buck of responsibility to the end user rather than fixing the problem. Now if data is compromised fault could arguably lie with mom and pop rather than a Microsoft server.
Re:The assumption being (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a classic situation of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
Microsoft releases Passport, "secure online identity system", onus on MS not to screw things up (legally liable). Everyone hates it.
Microsoft releases new system, "secure offline identity system", onus on user not to screw things up (legally liable). Everyone hates it.
I don't think there's anyway for MS (or any other company) to "win"
Re:The assumption being (Score:2)
It's like SSL protection - I dealt with people who were paranoid about someone building one of those single purpose cracking machines and being able
Re:The assumption being (Score:2)
Re:The assumption being (Score:2)
Microsoft's assumption is that people believe data stored on personal computers is more secure than data stored on servers. That is all.
Is it just me, or... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, it's better than Passport, where they not only manage the data but store it too -- but for true privacy, shouldn't the relevant code be open for all to see? At least the encryption algorithm, anyway...
What happens if I press this button? (Score:2)
Just running any Windows box online is a security risk, and until Microsoft figures out that our "precious" data can only be secure by having absolutely no connection to it, will anyone have no breakins. It would make more sense for Microsoft to offer some sort of "data security lock-box" on their own machines, where their data is stored on disconnected machines, where if needed, a dir
Insecure Cookies (Score:5, Insightful)
If a site can trick you into hitting "OK," they could get your info.
Of course the site probably has to be registered with MS in some way. Maybe this is a way for Microsoft to offer a "secure browsing experience" that is also convenient. IE7 will likely view MS-approved sites as "higher security" than SSL approved sites.
Re:Insecure Cookies (Score:2)
Cookies can already be read by more than one site. Furthermore, the restrictions on cookie domains/sites that do exist can be circumvented by having a common cookie domain that manages cookies from web bugs.
In addition to cookies, we have had auto-fill, password vaults, and client certificates. People already use auto-fill and password vaults when it ma
Erasing the HD? (Score:5, Informative)
If you're going to sell a computer, swap out the drive containing your data for a new one. They're cheap. Hold onto the drive that houses your data.
SiO2
Re:Erasing the HD? (Score:2)
Hard Drive Forensics (Score:2)
Keeping the disk, pulverizing it completely, or throwing it into Mount Doom would seem to be the most reliable methods of ensuring security.
Re:Hard Drive Forensics (Score:3, Funny)
Frodo tosses hard disk into volcano. Not very far away, a tower in Redmond crumbles as a giant bespectacled eye glaces around in terror. Outside the Gates of mordor, a troll-like figure is about to stomp on the penguin's head. When the hard drive melts, Ballmer lifts his mishapen head, takes his foot off the penguin, and shambles confusedly into the night.
Re:Erasing the HD? (Score:2)
Because "Passport" was a failure & security ri (Score:2)
Fox has designed new security measures for chickens.
The big upside for Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Prepare for resale? (Score:2, Funny)
Prepare Computer For Resale (Score:2, Funny)
Utterly destroying all data (Score:3, Insightful)
They are probably afraid of getting customer support calls from people who used that option to "see what it did", or from people who changed their mind and wanted their data recovered, or folks who thought that MS didn't really mean it when they said (with a huge red bold and blinking disclaimer no less) that all data would be erased. Ahd then they'd sue MS, OEM, and CompUSA for the emotional distress caused by the loss of their data.
just shred it (Score:5, Interesting)
Think again! (Score:3, Informative)
CAUTION: Note that shred relies on a very important assumption: that
the filesystem overwrites data in place. This is the traditional way
to do things, but many modern filesystem designs do not satisfy this
assumption. The following are examples of filesystems on which shred
is not effective:
* log-structured or journaled filesystems, such as those supplied with
AIX and Solaris (and JFS, ReiserFS, XFS, Ext3
No, you Think again! (Score:3, Informative)
Keep reading that man page. That only comes into play if you are shredding a mount point/filesystem. Just shred the device file and you are golden.
Re:No, you Think again! (Score:2)
The thing is that there's lots of these utilities out there that claim to be doing something when they're not. I just wanted to throw that out there and make sure people know.
Re:No, you Think again! (Score:2)
Not in this case (Score:2)
Re:Think again! (Score:2)
Re:Think again! (Score:2)
Faster yet (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Faster yet (Score:3, Funny)
"Prepare computer for resale" (Score:3, Funny)
We've seen it before (Score:2)
To utterly destroy all data... (Score:3, Interesting)
Resale? (Score:2, Funny)
Or, as we like to call it, 'Prepare this computer for confiscation.'
Selling a PC (or HDD) (Score:2)
If your data needs more protection than that, consider removing the disk drive prior to sale and either keeping it (the HDD) or destroying it.
Let me guess - it's called "Microsoft Keyfob" (Score:2)
At least the candy is tasty.
Nah (Score:2)
The most practical way to permanently erase a HDD (Score:5, Insightful)
You can use a 5/7/9 pass DOD overwrite. Or a 39-step Gutmann overwrite. Or the ultrasuperduperTFH method of... You get the idea. It takes a looonng time.
HDDs are cheap, especially one you've used so long you're going to sell the computer.
Take it apart & melt the disks. If you have a lot of them, just use a fish cooker.
Doesn't 'format' do this already? (Score:2)
Maybe I'm missing something here, but doesn't the format command do this already?
IMHO, if you're reselling a pre-built PC and have system recovery disks but don't wipe the HD and use the recovery disks to restore the system to the original condition, you're not doing it right.
In any case, there are free tools http://www.thefreecountry.com/security/securedele t e.shtml/ [thefreecountry.com] to do the wiping.
Distributed Insecurity (Score:2)
Puff stuff (Score:2, Interesting)
We can probably assume that Microsoft's previous "Safe ID" a.k.a. Passport can account for a portion of the high-tech (i.e. non-"other means") ripoffs. 200 million potential vulnerabilites and it's "popularity suffered". A masterful understatement.
If they hav
April 1 yet? no, not yet. (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe this whole story is an attempt to create the false impression that this is new, breakthrough technology so that Microsoft can then patent "local disk storage of personal information"? Or maybe it's just an April's Fools joke.
Resale (Score:2, Interesting)
Which would probably wipe the harddrive so that M$ would have to sell the new schmuck a new Windows license.
JMD
Local storage isn't safe, either (Score:2)
Haven't there been JavaScript breaches that allow web sites to gain access to local filesystems? No one can predict what security holes remain in Windows, so it's hard to say any new approaches would make personal data safer.
I don't even use Windows, have a BSD firewall, etc. but I still don't put account numbers in my finance program, for example. While I do use mailorder websites, at least my CC number is revokable. My checking account is not!
insert disk (Score:2)
'Prepare computer for resale' option (Score:2)
Apart from the obvious benefits, unless you have a full version of XP (most people only have OEM), the licence is non-transferrable.
Excuse me, but I like what MS is doing here (Score:2)
Control comes back to me. I dig that.
I do believe that MS would find some way to screw it up, though.
windows XP filevault equivalent? (Score:3)
-bloo
Re:windows XP filevault equivalent? (Score:2)
Not to reply to myself but if people used the wonderful magic otherwise known as encrypted file systems this would not be an issue and have the obvious advantage that it would no longer matter as much if your computer got stolen as well (w/ the obvious hop
Re:windows XP filevault equivalent? (Score:5, Informative)
But just like Mac (now) and Linux it is off by default.
One main reason is that in order to use it (on any OS) you have to use your brain. Basically you have to rememeber to properly handle your user data before mucking about with user accouts or you can permanetly lose everything. This problem has already been demonstrated repeatedly in the Mac user space WRT iTunes downloads which are pinned to used accounts. Destroy a user account before transferring ownership of the data and yo ulose your songs.
Of course, this is the point. But what happens is, 99 out of 100 people that lose everything do so in situations where they didn't really want to.
Thus, use of the systems by people that don't know how they work or what the drawbacks are are more likely to have problems with their data by using the system than by not using it. So, in all cases, the EFS remains turned off by default.
Data loss? (Score:2, Funny)
Perhaps Microsoft should include an option, like 'Prepare this computer for resale,' which utterly destroys all data.
Consider data loss guaranteed
Even better idea: (Score:2)
The only downside, I would imagine, would be physical loss of the device.
Why not use a USB thumb drive? (Score:2)
If you sell the old PC, remove the USB thumb drive and use it with the new box.
Only disks - Attack of the clueless accountant (Score:3, Funny)
Either that, or he really hated the thing and wanted to destroy it, or hated the techno geeks that wanted to take it home.
Re:this is a duplicate people (Score:3, Informative)
Have you even looked at both links? They're entirely different.
I even believed you for a minute... it's not like dups are uncommon on slashdot, but WTF has storing data on your own hard disk got to do with a dodgy research paper?
Re:Permanent Data Deletion Tool (Score:3, Informative)
-n' switch to any number you want), and then write zeros to the disk.
Re:May I elucidate something ? (Score:2)