Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Microsoft Opens Its Security Research Cookbooks

Posted by Soulskill on Thursday December 27, @09:31PM
from the now-cook-me-up-some-pie dept.
greg65535 writes "Today Microsoft launched a blog about the internals of their IT security research and patch development process. There are already some posts that you will not find in the official security bulletins or KB articles. One of the posts says, 'We periodically identify workarounds or mitigations like this that we can't use for official guidance because they're either too nuanced or have some exception cases. When we discover something potentially useful but are uncomfortable listing it in the bulletin, we'll do our best to describe it here in this blog.' It looks like Microsoft is making an effort to become more 'open' in the area of security research and communication."

Related Stories

Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Microsoft Security Protocols (Score:5, Funny)

    by andy314159pi (787550) on Thursday December 27, @09:37PM (#21836134) Journal

    Microsoft Opens Its Security Research Cookbooks

    Chapter 1.

    If someone knocks on the door, use the little peep hole.
    • Re:Microsoft Security Protocols by RuBLed (Score:3) Thursday December 27, @10:00PM
    • BAMF! by Torodung (Score:3) Thursday December 27, @10:01PM
      • Re:BAMF! by spec8472 (Score:1) Thursday December 27, @10:26PM
      • Re:BAMF! by cmacb (Score:2) Thursday December 27, @11:41PM
        • Re:BAMF! by Torodung (Score:2) Friday December 28, @01:33AM
          • Re:BAMF! by jam244 (Score:1) Friday December 28, @08:14AM
            • Re:BAMF! by Torodung (Score:2) Friday December 28, @07:41PM
          • Re:BAMF! by dave87656 (Score:1) Saturday December 29, @03:31AM
      • Re:BAMF! by metamorfoza (Score:1) Friday December 28, @12:06AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • The virtues of knowing what you are talking about by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday December 28, @02:43AM
    • Re:Microsoft Security Protocols by RuBLed (Score:2) Thursday December 27, @10:04PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Microsoft Security Protocols (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 27, @11:16PM (#21836626)
      No, you're not. This comment reads like a total troll for "big-ups".

      Security is about the best tool for the job and it's not always the Open Source tool, with the "street cred". When you say you're an IT professional, do you by chance mean you work for a small business, supporting other small businesses, (with pirated copies of Windows)?

      No one avenue is the correct choice for security. You should chose the complete set of tools from a variety of vendors, who offer total support. Good luck getting official support with tripwire on Debian.

      Cisco are a proprietary vendor - are you telling me they have no quality solutions? I suppose you don't use Symantec or another vendors AV, on your client desktops? Microsoft ISA actually offers a very robust and powerful firewalling system, for exampling, allowing you to internally spoof/proxy SSL certificates to domain members so you can even inspect encrypted packets on the network. Maybe not a polite thing to do but clearly useful in some organisations.

      And while we're on it, Domains... Active Directory is a security tool in itself. Locking down desktops and client machines is a key security method and AD offers about the best way to do this on the market - I suppose you use Samba and about 500 perl scripts, instead, do you?

      What utter garbage...
    • Re:Microsoft Security Protocols by palegray.net (Score:1) Friday December 28, @12:20AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • yeah but (Score:4, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Thursday December 27, @09:41PM (#21836162) Homepage
    It looks like Microsoft is making an effort to become more 'open' in the area of security research and communication.

    That's just because they haven't found a way to launch chairs at people through the internet.
    • Re:yeah but by ubrgeek (Score:2) Thursday December 27, @09:53PM
      • Re:yeah but by palegray.net (Score:1) Friday December 28, @12:23AM
    • Patience... by this great guy (Score:1) Thursday December 27, @11:28PM
  • Not now Kato you fool!!!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Picass0 (147474) <shadowman99&levania,org> on Thursday December 27, @09:54PM (#21836234) Homepage Journal

    Microsoft Security Research: Do you know what kind of a bomb it was?
    Clouseau: The exploding kind.
  • Now its public ? (Score:1)

    by garphik (996984) on Thursday December 27, @09:56PM (#21836250)
    Don't give out new ideas.
  • Can we revisit the tag thing? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 27, @09:57PM (#21836252)
    Why is it that people feel the need to put in 35 character long tags? Isn't that defeating the purpose of it all?
  • by knorthern knight (513660) on Thursday December 27, @10:06PM (#21836308)
    Question: Mr. Ghandi, what do you think of Microsoft security?

    Answer: I think it would be a good idea.
  • Ahh...Slashdot! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by bogaboga (793279) on Thursday December 27, @10:06PM (#21836312)

    It looks like Microsoft is making an effort to become more 'open' in the area of security research and communication.

    It does not just look like...it definitely is the case that Microsoft *is* making an effort...not just looking like.

    Question is: Who is being sensational here?

  • depends on the meaning (Score:2, Offtopic)

    It looks like Microsoft is making an effort to become more 'open' in the area of security research and communication.

    That depends on what the meaning of is is.
  • ...in exchange for all of the help that they get? Probably not. Seeing that most developers want their free labor to at least result in open source code, I can't imagine that this effort is going to be all that popular with the best developers.

    Microsoft likes to throw around the word "open" a lot these days, but most smart people in the industry remain skeptical. Take, for example, what open standards advocate Russell Ossendryver has to say about Microsoft's supposed open OOXML format [fanaticattack.com]:

    The legacy binary formats remain closed. If a file is one which was converted from an older format of Microsoft Office by DIS29500 and allowed to wrap the old file in xml, it remains unreadable for everyone else. OOXML is still a closed spec tied into to many proprietary formats.
    So how open is open? Unless the code is considered open under OSI standards or Free under FSF guidelines, it's really still just a pig with lipstick and a dress.
    • by El Royo (907295) on Thursday December 27, @10:39PM (#21836474) Homepage
      There are different types of open. Your point is hardly at all related to the article. Just revealing some of their process will no doubt be very useful to developers who also develop code that needs to be secured. Also, providing more details on vulnerabilities might be useful to people who are protecting corporate networks. Obviously, what you meant is that this effort won't be popular with the best developers with a chip on their shoulders.
    • Re:But will they release source code... by rhenley (Score:1) Thursday December 27, @10:47PM
    • by nrgy (835451) on Thursday December 27, @10:51PM (#21836520)
      Ugh I hate to defend Microsoft but I have to be one to disagree with you.

      When I provide code for people, projects, or even companies who's software I use, I could really give a rats behind if its open source or not. Sure it would be NICE but hardly REQUIRED by me at least.

      If you don't like what will be done with your free labour then don't provide it, no one is forcing you to. I like people who contribute and provide there free time, but I don't like it when those same people feel that since its so called FREE LABOUR that they can start imposing what can and should be done with there FREE LABOUR. It just doesn't work that way

      Yes you are providing a service, yes it is welcome by the recipient and community, NO you shouldn't have a say in what way your contributions are disseminated because it was your choice to provide the service and no one else's.

      I don't know about you but I provide my code because I want a better end product, not because I want it to be free in the open. If the code I provide will make my life easier then do with it as you will. Just because its not OPEN SOURCE like you say doesn't mean that it doesn't perform any good for the community of users for software X. Besides you wrote the stuff, unless you signed a legal waver to your code then nothing is stopping YOU from releasing it OPEN SOURCE style.
    • Re:But will they release source code... by TheSkyIsPurple (Score:2) Thursday December 27, @11:42PM
  • Too nuanced? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Thursday December 27, @10:27PM (#21836410) Homepage Journal

    There is actually another mitigating factor present here that we didn't include in the bulletin because we could not authoritatively say that it was true in every case. The vulnerable code path only executes if your machine has a primary DNS suffix. Most of the time, only domain-joined machines have a primary DNS suffix. So it would have been great to say in the bulletin: "Machines not joined to a domain are safe" but that is not 100% accurate so we did not include that. Technically, an administrator could manually set a primary DNS suffix on a non-domain-joined machine.
    Okay...

    We periodically identify workarounds or mitigations like this that we can't use for official guidance because they're either too nuanced.
    How, exactly, is this 'too nuanced'? Why not just say "if your machine doesn't have a primary DNS suffix, you are not vulnerable"?

    I'll tell you why...because they assume that Windows administrators are idiots. Now, I've known some stupid Windows administrators in my day, but I wouldn't go so far as to think that most of them are idiots.

  • Blog tuesday! (Score:2)

    by GrumpySimon (707671) <email AT simon DOT net DOT nz> on Thursday December 27, @10:28PM (#21836416) Homepage
    Let me guess, the blog only gets updated on the second tuesday of every month [wikipedia.org]?
  • So what... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by krycheq (836359) on Thursday December 27, @10:50PM (#21836510)
    Microsoft isn't the only one researching vulnerabilities in their products, and in fact, if it wasn't for the effort of a lot of third-party researchers uncovering vulnerabilities, Microsoft probably wouldn't make the effort that they are just now showing us and exposing to public scrutiny.

    The real problem is twofold... first, denial; for so long Microsoft (as well as many other mainstream software companies) refused to admit that there was a problem and didn't spend any time or money on the problem. This is a mindset that still needs to be addressed and was never present in open-source software development. Second, the time-to-acknowledgment has to come down. Microsoft is not making vulnerabilities that they discover public knowledge in a timely fashion to allow people who use their products to address these vulnerabilities through work-arounds and other techniques, and in fact, their approach to patch development is prioritized using marketing, not security awareness, as the primary driver behind which vulnerabilities are addressed and when.

     
  • Wireshark (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cibyr (898667) on Thursday December 27, @11:05PM (#21836586) Journal
    Anyone else find it interesting that they had screenshots from Wireshark (previously known as Ethereal) on the page?
    • Re:Wireshark by daveb (Score:3) Friday December 28, @01:11AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by SeaFox (739806) on Thursday December 27, @11:26PM (#21836674)
    Aren't Easy-Bake Ovens fun!
  • Openness (Score:2)

    by jeffmock (188913) on Friday December 28, @12:12AM (#21836884)
    It makes me so glad that anyone can read the source code for the OS I use. I don't know how I would get by if one company was the only trusted agent to decide whether some issue was too "nuanced" for me to know about. I don't know how people get through the day running that stuff.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by fabu10u$ (839423) on Friday December 28, @12:41AM (#21836998)
    "It looks like Microsoft is making an effort to appear more 'open' in the area of security research and communication."
  • by AHuxley (892839) on Friday December 28, @12:52AM (#21837034)
    Marketing.
    MS can fool you into spending your free time on its blogs.
    Microsoft Security Research: the first book is free.
  • by tristian_was_here (865394) on Friday December 28, @04:46AM (#21837884)
    Security hole discovered:
    Step 1 - Say Open Source Software is insecure and mock Linux
    Step 2 - Think about security hole
    Step 3 - Promise fix will be done in next service pack
    Step 4 - Mock Linux a bit more and claim open source is comunism
    **** 5 Months later security fix
  • by hydertech (122031) on Friday December 28, @05:41AM (#21838046) Homepage
    What a COMMUNITY! I log into the new MS R&D Blog and I cannot read the comments nor can I post.

    Jesus.
  • by JackMeyhoff (1070484) on Friday December 28, @06:28AM (#21838190)
    Because most connections are in the clear and unencrypted. If you encrypt, you would be much more secure. Period.
  • Why... (Score:1)

    by AZScotsman (962881) on Friday December 28, @11:42AM (#21840284)
    Why does MS's "Security Cookbook" look like an 8-Ball with a little window in the bottom?
  • Securitry Research (Score:1)

    by jesse285 (1145913) on Saturday January 05, @02:47PM (#21925602) Homepage
    Thank God that there is someone on our side in this, the little peoples, who don't have all the money, it make me feel good that freedom is working.
  • 6 replies beneath your current threshold.