Reliance On MS A Danger To National Security 465
An anonymous reader writes "A panel of leading security experts Wednesday blasted Microsoft for vulnerabilities in its software, and warned that reliance on the Redmond, Wash.-based developer's software is a danger to both enterprises and national security." (Even OpenBSD might be bad if it was the only game in town.) M : The report (pdf) makes good reading.
I for one, (Score:5, Funny)
"We always consider security to be our absolute top priority," - Microsoft spokesman Sean Sundwall
You mean their proclivity to collect the worlds cash is a secondary mission? Wow, Windows must be like the most impregnable fortress ever, and more.
Re:I for one, (Score:5, Funny)
You mean their proclivity to collect the worlds cash is a secondary mission?
He was talking about Financial security.
Computer Security 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
However, even though Linux servers are the most attacked/breached or whatever, when mom and pop ISP #1231 gets '0WNZORD', it doesn't cause the gigantic ripple effect of every server on the 'net falling over, unlike a Windows box. When a Windows box gets '0WNZORD', entire countries get swamped off the 'net. You know, ala the Slammer worm, which knocked South Korea off the 'net, and swamped damn near everyone, no matter what their box was running.
This is what true computer security personnel take into consideration. Not just how many systems are attacked, but what the effects of those attacks are. You know, if one Linux box gets taken over, does it automatically take over more? Very unlikely. Each box usually needs the individual attention of the cracker, and then, when successful, it is usually only with the permissions of the logged in user, i.e. not root. Compare this with most Windows boxes, which, when one is cracked, it automatically turns and attacks more, and way more Windows boxes run as Administrator, either by default, or because some shit-ass program requires it.
So, yes, more Linux boxes are attacked, but the overall effect of these attacks are orders of magnitude less than the overall effects of the attacks on Windows boxes.
Re:Computer Security 101 (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if you're old enough to remember it, but "boxen" comes from "vaxen," plural of DEC VAX minicomputers. The size of your closet, with the computing power of your palm pilot, and we were damn glad to have them.
I don't remember if it was Digital or somebody else who started "vaxen" instead of the more awkward and easily mispronounced "vaxes."
Re:Computer Security 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Computer Security 101 (Score:4, Informative)
That said, it's nice that companies like Redhat have learned from their past mistakes, and now disable network services by default, and really push a personal firewall onto you.
There is no need to listen to network ports by default. If someone needs to share something, make them take the concious effort of turning it on themselves.
Anyway, Microsoft is most certainly guilty of not paying enough attention to security issues, and they deserve to be blasted for it, just as Redhat deserved to be blasted by enabling ftp severs and such by default in the pre Redhat 7.1(2?) days..
Re:Computer Security 101 (Score:3, Informative)
"This is not the default", not sure what version of "windows" your using, but every version I've ever seen DOES default to full administrative privs, In fact the
Re:Computer Security 101 (Score:3, Funny)
Really, wow. Slashdot does that to sites almost every day. :p
Re:Computer Security 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a few of Message Labs "Top Ten" Viruses they've determined as the most active for the last 28 days. Klez and SirCam?!?! Man, those are old! WTF are they still doing on the "Top Ten"? Should I be concerned, and patch my Linux box against the Morris Worm?!?
1. No, I do remember the Morris worm, and the Lion. So, to be fair, I'm mentioning them now.
2. Actually, with Windows 2000, it is not normal to run as 'admin'. I work on customers PCs all day long, and, with the advent of Windows XP it is. Even if they have setup individual accounts, they have given 'admin' privledges to each user, as Windows XP is a bitch to install, modify, or network, etc. as a normal user. The workarounds for this (right-click and run as, or logout/in as admin) are not intuitive at all. Mandrake will pop a window asking for the root password as needed, no need to even run chown anymore. And yes, it is default to run the user accounts with admin privledges on Windows XP.
3. I realize your point, and yes, I do blame the programmers, for that is a very poor implementation to use to get a program to run.
4. Yes, the main way to crack any system is by attacking Internet accessible services/daemons, and Microsoft claims Internet Explorer, Media Player, MS Messenger and Outlook Express (all Internet accessable 'services') are an integral part of the underlying OS, and cannot be removed without destroying the enitre OS. Google for "Microsoft Anti-Trust" if you don't believe me.
Now, search for "top ten viruses", and peruse the lists you find. The Klez worm, well over a year old, is still up around 5 on most lists. Most of the others are old viruses/worms, or just new revisions of prior ones. The thing about this is, these viruses (some of which were in the wild before Windows XP was even released) are still alive and well. There is a patch or a fix for all of them, but still they persist. How the FUCK does a virus written for Windows 98 infect Windows XP? The number one reason you said yourself, "Internet accessible services...". Now tell me, why, why, why is Media player, IE, OE, and a god forsaken chat program imbedded into an OS?? Why, why, why does a mail program execute code, blindly, and by default? Why, why, why does a server OS (2000 Server) have a Media Player embedded into it, with full access to the Internet?
Okay, before I start frothing at the mouth, suffice it to say, yes, Linux does get hit by worms occasionally, and cracked often, but rarely due to MONUMENTALLY STUPID designs of an OS that is developed by the marketing department, instead of the programmers.
Re:"Linux most attacked server" (Score:5, Funny)
That's why I'm here.
Why are you here?
Re:"Linux most attacked server" (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a difference between being biased and shooting yourself in the foot. The truth is that when you look at the numbers from real web reporting engines and any firm that is not funded by microsoft (pretty sure apache funds NONE how about you?), the numbers show microsoft is something on par to apache in web servers what apple is to microsoft in the desktop market, I'm refering to share gap of course.
It's About Time (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, putting this kind of pressure on MS may really make them work harder. Imagine the government turning its back on MS, in the interest of national security. Wake up, Microsoft, before it's too late.
Re:It's About Time (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, this is the Bush administration we're talking about. Besides, the CIA and the Army are probably telli
Re:It's About Time (Score:4, Funny)
Allegations that the new Diebold touch screen voting systems are insecure, because they store votes in an easily modifiable Access
"People love the systems", said a representative for Diebold. "Security and accuracy are guaranteed by pretty flashing lights."
Re:It's About Time (Score:2)
Re:It's About Time (Score:4, Insightful)
How many computers was Iraq's government relying on? (that's a serious question, I really don't know)
Re:It's About Time (Score:2, Informative)
Quite a few.
They even had mobile server racks. [afunworld.com]
Re:It's About Time (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, if you actually read the article, you'd see that there were seven authors of this "gates-bashing" report. Two of which stand out: Dan Geer and Bruce Schneier. Dan Geer being the chief technology officer of @Stake, a security consulting firm. (Ever heard of L0phtCrack?) And Bruce Schneier is famous for his work with cryptography research (ever heard of twofish? blowfish, maybe?), but works for Counterpane Security Consulting firm.
These guys probably detest MS, but I'm sure they're not willing to sacrifice their credibility just to produce a stupid report just to bash gates.
Re:It's About Time (Score:5, Interesting)
The political angles aside, what they are saying is just common sense. They are talking about the vast majority of computing power being at the periphery of the network. That means at home, on your desk, in your plamtop and cell phone. The number of vulnerable servers, of whatever stripe, is just swamped by the vast numbers of desktop devices. And 90-97% (depending on whose stats you believe) of those systems run Microsoft OSen. When a worm is turned loose targeting those systems, it spreads like wildfire. They call it "cascade failure." These systems then turn around and attack systems at the core of the network. At that point, it doesn't matter what OS those core systems are running. They are very likely to be toast, regardless.
They also make the point that Microsoft systems are uniquely vulnerable because of the malodorous pile of layered marketing driven technology decisions, and the tight integration of Microsoft's applocations and OS software. That last point should be obvious, too. If your interfaces are loosly coupled, it's easier decouple them when malware hits.
Re:It's About Time (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, yeah, and look at what the panel actually said rather than the slashdot headline interpreting it. The effect is kind of like Fox News commenting on Wes Clark running for president, headlined 'Hilary to run in 2004?', by the end of the piece they were discus
Re:It's About Time (Score:3, Insightful)
The APIs of the standard C runtime are not much better, look at the way that functions like atoi s
Re:It's About Time (Score:3, Funny)
Was he responsible for Swordfish too? Because if so, I've just lost all professional respect for him.
Re:It's About Time (Score:3, Insightful)
With Bush in office, what's the difference?
An interesting factor highlighted by the report (Score:2)
Re:An interesting factor highlighted by the report (Score:3, Insightful)
forget the fluff... (Score:5, Insightful)
"And simply patching the vulnerability--as Microsoft has increasingly had to do on the fly as vulnerabilities are disclosed--only exacerbates the problem."
Finally someone realizes its not enough to just fix the problem, problems should be avoided in the first place! (I know, I know, easier said than done, {insert OS here} isn't perfect either).
Re:forget the fluff... (Score:5, Insightful)
The major difference between something that might go wrong and something that cannot possibly go wrong is that when something that cannot possibly go wrong eventually goes wrong it usually turns out to be almost impossible to get at or repair
-Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
SkArcher
Re:forget the fluff... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oranges-to-oranges I do agree though, for the same machine, Open Source OSs do have security advantages.
Re:forget the fluff... (Score:2)
Microsoft has a big advantage here -- it is actually possible for them to test their patches with some sense of completeness. (They don't always do so, but that's a different matter.) With open source software, a security officer can release a patch and say "well, this patch works for me", but it's impossible
Re:forget the fluff... (Score:2, Insightful)
They seem to test their patches the same way a headless chicken tests for the ground - "It's there, lets go!"
As well as the ASAP patches, the maintenance patches, which have a greater time-span for testing, have occasionally been disasterous (NT SP 6)...
My experience with OSS indicates to me a solid development method with a fast, reliable response to bugs/vulns. My experience
The article should read... (Score:3, Funny)
diversity (Score:5, Insightful)
(It's harder for virus makers to affect more computers at once if less computers use the same OS)
Re:diversity (Score:5, Insightful)
There are downsides as well: tougher administration, increased chance that any particular vulnerability will be present in your organization, etc.
Its easy to blame the product (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Its easy to blame the product (Score:5, Funny)
What would be their fair share? According to MS, it's zero [microsoft.com].
Because it has little to do with them. (Score:5, Insightful)
A single MS RPC exploit would make all machines vulnerable until patched.
A single WMA buffer overflow makes all machines vulnerable until patched.
No matter how perfect, the problem isn't the administrators, but the monoculture. If one in 3 machines was Mac, and one in 4 were Linux, you'd have enough diversity that a virus would slow down drastically enough to be contained.
Re:Because it has little to do with them. (Score:5, Insightful)
I.e. the fact that MS is fairly quick to patch doesn't get them a free right, the fact that they produce an OS with so many vulnerabilities means that someone, somewhere, right now, is being hacked via a vulnerability they don't know they have, and since MS OSes tend to have more than their fair share of remotely expoitable vulnerabilities, AND there are scads of those machines around, it is far more likely than not that the box being hacked as we speak, is a MS box.
And in other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And in other news... (Score:2)
The Real Problem Is... (Score:5, Insightful)
So the problem, as I see it, is that the US government has some severe, indemic, structual problems relating to IT policy which makes citizen privacy, national security, and proprietary knowledge at risk.
Of course, put Microsoft on top of the quagmire and you've simply opened the door to the vault for every hacker in the known universe.
I have a hard time blaming the problems of US IT policy on an OS; it's hard to fathom.
Re:The Real Problem Is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except (Score:2)
Nearly every sector of the US economy suffers from the Microsoft monoculture, and is therefore vulnerable to the same problems every other sector has...
Once one gets it, all will get it. That's kind of the inherent danger of monoculture.
Overstating Their Case (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, it is true that the combination of Windows' lack of interoperability, closed-source nature, tight integration, and near-monopoly status make it uniquely qualified to spread damaging viruses quickly, better than other operating systems. If you don't take great consideration to how you set up your IT infrastructure, you're going to get burned.
As you say, the problem is ultimately one of policy, not technology. If you know what you're dealing with, if you know what you're doing, you can establish and enforce policies in your IT infrastructure that prevent the spread of viruses. Every time a virus strikes, we hear about it from the ones that don't. We aren't hearing about the places that haven't had problems. They are out there!
Is Windows adoption by itself a danger to national security? Hardly. Bad IT policy is, regardless of OS. So when a group like this overstates their case, it really damages the valid point that Windows IS more difficult than other OSes, that certain things about Windows DO make it dangerous to adopt by a government.
I'd rather hear them talking in more moderate and modest terms. Making overblown claims that aren't easily and obviously supported by the evidence is going to make people think that the pro-OSS/anti-Windows folks are a bunch of frickin' loonies when the slightest bit of investigation can find flaws in the claims.
Re:The Real Problem Is... (Score:3, Insightful)
NMCI (Score:5, Interesting)
This is I believe a very dangerous approach for the reasons discussed in the article.
In addition to inefficiency of restricting a solution to a small set of tools. How many large organization standard on a single environment for all computing and IT needs?
Re:NMCI (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:NMCI (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, most of them. Standardizing on a single platform makes the Information Technology crowd's life easier, although there is a price to pay for that convenience. Your point is well-taken that no operating system is optimal for every possible application or use: permitting some variety is a good thing in terms of both safety and productivity. The IT folks themselves are generally unaware of the costs incurred by their monomaniacal focus on a single environment, whatever that may be.
Problems ensue when you are a corporate user with specific needs that don't fit the mainstream. Then exceptions have to be made, IT drones get irritated and unco-operative
Motherhood statements (Score:3, Funny)
Prediction: most of the counters to this will come from the observation that it was sponsored by the CCIA, which contains many of Microsoft's would-be competition. Of course, the CCIA contains just about everyone -- but then I repeat myself.
The problem with monoculture (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not Microsoft, specifically. The problem is monoculture. No matter what the dominant OS - Windows, Linux, Mac OS, BeOS - the number one guy gets picked on the most, and exploited the most. That creates weakness all the "trustworthy computing" in the world can't fix.
What I fear is some kind of mathematical "reduction" of the problem. "OK," they'll say, "we'll mandate that 30% of stuff move to Linux". OK, great idea: which 30%? "Hmm, you're right. We'll say 10% of web servers, 10% of desktops, and 10% of back-end (DB, etc) stuff." Getting warmer: which 10% of the web servers? Which 10% of the DB servers? Can you get rid of some of your MSSQL on W2k and replace it with Sybase on Linux (easily, with not serious cost and porting problems)? Etcetera, etcetera. I call that "going nowhere fast".
I guess what I'm trying to say here is, I don't really see how to undo the monoculture, when it is backed by 1)such amazing industry power and 2)such entrenched mindset. Figure out how to get people to seriously believe they can run Linux, or Mac, or whatever, and you've gone a long way to solving the problem; but isn't that what people like Microsoft are working just as hard to undo?
Re:The problem with monoculture (Score:2)
Doesn't having different parts of your infrastructure spread over a smorgasbord of different operating systems just increase your exposure? All it takes is a single unpatched exploit on any one of your operating systems, and suddenly
Re:The problem with monoculture (Score:2, Interesting)
Force MS to pay for their crimes. If they had played fairly, they could never have grown like they did. We should hit MS with fines equivalent to about 2/3 of their market cap. Most of the money should be used pay back people who were forced to pay too much for sw and stockholders of companies that were illegaly eaten by the beast. The rest of it should be given as grants to develop free sw.
Alas, this could only happen over dubya's dead body.
Re:The problem with monoculture (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really need fault tolerance, having two redundant systems running different software is an excellent idea if you're willing to pay for that level of support.
You can also avoid the monoculture effect by making your "strain" subtly different, for instance prelink lets you randomise the addresses in memory of dynamically loaded libraries making automated exploits harder (since all the addresses changed), or using something like gentoo where you compile everything from scratch with subtly different USE lines, or optimisations.
Even recompiling your kernel with certain options can change the machine enough that common automated exploits won't work.
This is why the proliferation of Linux distros are a good thing, you can have some level of diversity by installing different distros without getting so much diversity that you your support costs go through the roof.
Portability of Linux means you can run Linux on intel and powerpc chips causing almost all automated exploits to fail, but only requiring a recompile as far as software is concerned. This can be a good solution for having two servers in a load balanced, failover cluster by having each server running on a different architecture.
In general, Windows doesn't have these advantages, Windows isn't portable across platforms. Windows doesn't let you recompile large chunks of the OS with different options, Windows only has a limited range of "Editions" and different editions are usually unsuitable for running the same task. Windows is often lacking equivilent software (How many replacements for exchange are there? How many Linux MTA/MDA/MAA's are there?)
Re:The problem with monoculture (Score:3, Insightful)
If only this applied to IIS. Not even nearly the dominant player and still defaced/cracked/prised open ten times more often than all the others put together. Defacement sites eventually stopped keeping mirrors of IIS hacks because there were so many.
What about Apache vs IIS? (Score:3, Informative)
I think that's arguably not true in the web server market, in which Apache pretty clearly dominates. I've been curious for a while to see if anyone would do a study between Apache and IIS comparing rates of security hole discovery, average time to patch/update release, and average time between release and install. My suspicion is that despite being the clear market leader, Apache's stats in this regard are competetive with IIS.
I think Micr
No shit, Sherlock (Score:2, Insightful)
from the article (Score:3, Funny)
That's it! Get the National Guard surrounding Redmond immediately! Shut 'er down!
Not that bad on MS (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I like MS, but this situation would pertain to any other OS if 90% of machines were using the same OS. Even it it was an OS you liked or felt was secure it is a big issue.
Bad enough on MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes and no. For example, I'm running the same OS (SuSE Linux) on several of my machines, but they're not a monoculture: one's a Sparc, one's a PPC, the rest are x86s. Of the latter, no two are running the same set of services, nor necessarily the same executable for the same service on different machines.
The former (different architectures) isn't even possible with MS (not since NT4, anyway), and the latter (differen
National security 'R us! (Score:5, Interesting)
We rely upon half-baked right wing Dr. Strangeloves to choose the foreign countries that will welcome our invasions...
We rely upon deregulated billionaires to keep our stock market and investment firms honest...
We rely upon greedy employers not to send our jobs overseas in order to ratchet up the stock value and buy themselves extra homes and diamonds...
So why shouldn't we rely on a convicted monopolist with a track record of utter failure behind it to keep our national computer infrastructure secure, too?
bogus report (Score:2, Troll)
This "analysis" is just a load of crap from Microsoft's competitors l
Re:bogus report (Score:4, Informative)
Imagine for a moment that you were right[1] about the author's credentials. That would make him the IDEAL spokesman for a very valid idea: that a software monoculture (even if it were a good one, rather than a MS monoculture) is BAD.
Think about this: who listens to lobbyists? Why, Senators and Congresscritters do! The very people we're going to have to convince on this issue, to have a prayer of overcoming the bureaucrat's resistance to change. If the authors include some lobbyists, that would be a great thing.
Imagine that! IBM, Oracle and Sun bashing Microsoft.
The idea that software monocultures are bad, and MS's products are insecure, is correct. It's true, even if SCO, or Satan say it. You should avoid ad hominem attacks; they make the attacker look silly.
[1] The authors, by the way, were (from the pdf):
Some of these people know what they're talking about. Some are respectable in political circles. That's all good.Monoculture == Bad (Score:2)
Moncropping (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I cannot agree with the recommendations that require MS to do this, that, and the other thing. Recommendations such as releasing Office for other platforms at the same time as for Linux and MacOS for example. The only recommendations I could see supporting would be those that explicitly break up the company into OS and application divisions - in order to shatter their monopoly.
The recommendation that they must release their apps onto different platforms is, IMO, dangerous. It means that they will then unleash their "user friendly" nonsense on OSes such as Linux, and we'll end up with the absurdity of the Windows platform paradigm trying to seed its ugly crop of security problems in a new field instead.
For National Security purposes Governments should insist on only using applications that they can also purchase the source code to. They should insist on using applications that are proven to be secure, not just popular. And they should insist that software companies be held liable for flaws that cost them security.
Pierre
Other OS's Much Better? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that M$ shouldn't be held liable for the craptastic OS that it spews out all the time but really, how much worse is it security wise
Re:Other OS's Much Better? (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Microsoft's OS is ubiquitous.
2) Its a user-friendly desktop OS which people plug straight into the Internet
3) You have no choice but to wait for Windows Update to supply you with a patch for any holes
4) Everything is intigrated to such an extent that a hole in one part can lead to exploits system wide and patches can just as easily break one thing as they
Overall contribution of SSH is huge (Score:4, Insightful)
The equivalent in win32 is to throw a bunch of poorly implemented and largely documented controls at the world and let the kiddies run wild. A big piece of the evolution of windows is the increase in ways for strangers to do stuff to your machine. Dcom? What the hell is that? Why is it running? Why does it take a registry hack to eliminate it?
Yes, but its going to change WHAT? (Score:2, Insightful)
How about open standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if the various departments and branches of the U.S. government would stop exclusively using MS Word as their ubiquitous document exchange format, that would make a big difference. Right now, if you want to do business with the U.S. government, you pretty much have to purchase and use MS Word. Then your office needs to purchase and use MS Word. Well, as long as your Washington office is using MS Word, I guess that field office that decided to save some money by using Word Perfect ought to "upgrade" to MS Word as well. Seems the import filters for Word Perfect don't quite get the latest version of MS Word just right.
OK, you can use Open Office or Word Perfect to create your documents, but will the pagination, headers, footers, and other tid bits come out right? No. These software products cannot make a "perfect" MS Word file because they don't know how. Microsoft has not published the specs for such a file. When the import filters get close, the MS Word format (the default format that the latest version saves to) changes ever so slightly.
How about the U.S. standardize on an open document format (egads-- not SGML but maybe even Microsoft's own RTF... anything!). Then, make sure their e-mail systems, VPN protocols, encryption formats, etc. remain based on open standards. Where Microsoft (and to be fair, others) "embrace and extend"... don't allow such non-standard extensions for dealings with the government.
Copyrights - a danger to national security (Score:3, Insightful)
Any false property right is a danger to societies security. Just look at how slavery led to the civil war. Today many are betting trillions of dollars on a false premise, that works of knowledge can or should be owned without any understanding of what that implies. Because information is becomming so easy to copy, change, and manipulate - the "middle" gound is quickly evaporating, either all information will half to be controlled or none of it.
Re:Copyrights - a danger to national security (Score:4, Interesting)
How would you define a false property right? In your view, are there any property rights that are not false? If some property rights are false, and others true (or legitimate) what criteria are we to use to distinguish between the two? Clearly, there is no right to have slaves, so any claim of that as a right is a false claim; but what is it about copyright that is similar to slavery that makes it also a false property right -- especially if there is such thing as a true property right?
Is it really even that bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
Think of the locks that are used for locking the doors of government buildings. Are they all from one vendor? What happens when it is discovered that locks form that vendor are more vulnerable to being kicked in? I don't imagine a bunch of engineers get together to design better locks in their spare time, however there is the chance that might happen if the most popular lock company was constantly making locks that were more vulnerable than neccessary.
However there is still a key difference between locks and computer security that must be considered: location. A locked building in Washington, DC isn't going to be compromised by someone in China. Anything that is so important that obtaining it can be considered compromising national security should not be stored on a computer accessible to the internet.
The government should realise this (they probably do) because this isn't the first time this has been an issue. Long distance communications during wars before the internet used various means of encryption to keep national secrets secure. Why can't they do the same for electronic communications? Create the electronic message on a machine that isn't connected to the internet, encrypt it, and burn it to a CD. Either mail the CD or send it using a computer connected to the internet. Then destroy the CD.
The government likely knows this and almost certainly has national secrets under more heavy protection than a sneakernet. When they complain about insecurity, whether it be from terrorists flying planes or chinese youths, what they really want is money and laws. They're not actually so clueless as to leave valuable lying around, but it's useful to let citizens think they do.
Re:Is it really even that bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
And there is no way to prosecute modern warfare with a sneakernet.
Real-time imagery, intel, decisions, and targeting cannot happen without real-time communications.
The ability of the Chiefs in the Pentagon to see exactly what a tank commanders sees is invaluable. And for them to tell him that there are in fact enemy tank
News must come a little late for the State Dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
WASHINGTON A virus seriously disrupted computer systems at the State Department this week, including the database for checking every visa applicant for terrorist or criminal history. The failure left the government unable to issue visas worldwide for nine hours.
The virus, which struck Tuesday, crippled the department's Consular Lookout and Support System, which contains more than 15 million records from the FBI, the State Department and immigration, drug enforcement and intelligence agencies. Among the names are those of at least 78,000 terror suspects.
A State Department spokesman said the virus, known as Welchia, did not affect any data on the name-checking system, and the agency's classified computer network - used to send its most sensitive messages and files - was not affected.
Re:News must come a little late for the State Dept (Score:3, Insightful)
Only so much one can do... (Score:5, Interesting)
Saw that coming (Score:2, Funny)
In a post [slashdot.org] from last week.
Somebody should hire me to predict the future of various aspects of I.T. ;-)
I wonder if... (Score:4, Insightful)
JaredSyn.
Honest Skepticism (Score:2)
I find it a little suspicious that the story refers to an anonymous group of "leading" security experts with no credentials listed. One needs to be skeptical of these things, especially when it appears that much of it is backed by Microsoft's competitors. Could they be an objective panel? Possibly. Could it be FUD? Possibly.
What monoculture? (Score:4, Funny)
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition
Windows XP Media Center Edition
Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition
Windows Server 2003, Web Edition
Windows Small Business Server 2003
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Windows 2000 Datacenter Server
Windows Me
Windows 98
Windows 95
Windows NT Workstation
Windows NT Server
Next On The Front Page (Score:2, Funny)
This is easy to fix (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My favorite quote from the article: (Score:5, Funny)
"Ironically, Microsoft's efforts to deny interoperability of Windows with legitimate non-Microsoft applications have created an environment in which Microsoft's program interoperate efficiently only with Internet viruses," said Geer.
Gotta love it.
You're underestimating them (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Information which has military and security significance is not kept on Microsoft based computers. And before you go off and say that this VISA system contains top secret information, or whatever....first, this system isnt internet connected. Second, this worm was probably introduced via poor security practices. Third... BIG F*CKIN DEAL...so your cousin cant get his visa issued for a few days. Like I said, this is not a critical system, and they just send everyone back home, and new visas are able to be issued in a few days. If nothing else, we should be happy this happened, as it reiterates the security problems in Microsoft's OS. The high level thinkers here aren't idiots, far from it. Remember, the government employees you interact with on a daily basis aren't necessarily representative of the intellect on high.
2. There is a good general practice of not connecting these networks together. Not only that, but anyone slightly familiar with places like the NSA and CIA will tell you that there are separate networks for classified, secret, and top secret. Even when these computers all sit on the same desk, they are not allowed to move information between them, since there is theoretical possibility of data leakage.
3. Anything deemed secret or higher is run on things like virtual vault, trusted HPUX or Solaris. NSA has some stuff with Linux, but this isnt widespread yet.
Remember, the big thinkers in the Govt, arent in the fucking post office, VA, IRS, etc...
Geez people, do you think we got this far by being a nation of morons. Why do most wealthy foreign nationals send their kids here to the US to be educated?
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
GOOD GOD, MAN! Get a hold of yourself! Do you HEAR what you're saying?
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:2)
Of course, I'm *at* work
Re:Oh really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ed Black, the CEO and president of CCIA, whose members include Microsoft competitors such as Sun and Oracle, was even more blunt.
Always like an unbiased opinion, too. Slow news day, I guess.
Re:Here we go again! (Score:2)
OpenBSD does *not* have a variety of mostly unused ports open by default. Windows does.
OpenBSD does *not* release "features" that few people need (or even use), that later are exploited by worms or viri. Windows does (e.g. messenger service, RPC, etc.).
OpenBSD does *not* come with a built in mail client that will execute any random code sent to an inbox. Windows does.
Re:Here we go again! (Score:2)
But Longhorn will ship with a secure code environment (Dotnet), where, as with Java, potential security flaws such as the use of pointers or unchecked code have been eliminated.
Meanwhile, Linux will be staggering on with C/C++. There's good reason to fear that then the shoe will be firmly on the other foot.
Re:Here we go again! (Score:5, Insightful)
***
I also wrote that Mac OS X and Linux are virus-free because
they offer virus writers a much smaller "audience" than
Windows -- a notion that's been much repeated in the press,
most recently last week's BusinessWeek cover story.
That, as it turns out, is a myth, no matter who repeats it.
There's a much bigger reason virus writers don't like Mac OS
X and Linux.
"Unix [which underlies Mac OS X] and Linux ARE more secure,"
wrote one reader. "They have been developed, open-source
style, by people who know exactly what they are doing. Unix
and Linux have had at least 10 years of battling hackers to
better themselves. This leads to an extremely secure
environment."
Many of you also pointed out simple design decisions that
make Mac OS X and Linux much more secure than Windows XP.
For example:
* Windows comes with five of its ports open; Mac OS X comes
with all of them shut and locked. (Ports are back-door
channels to the Internet: one for instant-messaging, one for
Windows XP's remote-control feature and so on.) These ports
are precisely what permitted viruses like Blaster to
infiltrate millions of PC's. Microsoft says that it won't
have an opportunity to close these ports until the next
version of Windows, which is a couple of years away.
* When a program tries to install itself in Mac OS X or
Linux, a dialog box interrupts your work and asks you
permission for that installation -- in fact, requires your
account password. Windows XP goes ahead and installs it,
potentially without your awareness.
* Administrator accounts in Windows (and therefore viruses
that exploit it) have access to all areas of the operating
system. In Mac OS X, even an administrator can't touch the
files that drive the operating system itself. A Mac OS X
virus (if there were such a thing) could theoretically wipe
out all of your files, but wouldn't be able to access anyone
else's stuff -- and couldn't touch the operating system
itself.
* No Macintosh e-mail program automatically runs scripts
that come attached to incoming messages, as Microsoft
Outlook does.
Evidently, I'm not the only columnist to have fallen for
this old myth; see
http://www.sunspot.net/technology/custom/plu
for another writer's more technical apology. But the
conclusion is clear: Linux and Mac OS X aren't just more
secure because fewer people use them. They're also much
harder to crack right out of the box
***
Face it (Score:2)
Re:Here we go again! (Score:2, Insightful)
For reference, look at the recent discussion here about all ATM's moving to a hacked down version of Windows because it would be compatible with the rest of the banks' networks.
Microsoft is a company. It's reason to be is profits... as much profits as possible. Just like every other company.
The problem is that the
Re:Here we go again! (Score:2)
Re:Here we go again! (Score:2, Informative)
It's already running a hardened Apache, Sendmail, and OpenSSH and has PF installed and ready to go. What else would you plan on using an OpenBSD box for?
Personally, I'd guess that those programs probably perform 90% of the functions that people use OpenBSD for.
Re:Here we go again! (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, welcome to Slashdot, where prejudices are as regular as the sunrise (or moreso). If you want a prejudice-free environment, go elsewhere.
As to the security of OpenBSD (and I suppose everyone should take my comment with a grain of salt, since I run it on my servers), show me another OS with privilege separation, practically no suid programs, a chroot()'ed Apache, integrated ProPolice support, etc., ad nauseum. For heaven's sake, with 3.4 they're
Re:unable to start GUI in Linux 8 (Score:2)
Re:but reliance on open souce is bad for the econo (Score:2)
How is this logic different from that of a pyramid scheme?
S
Re:Yes But..... (Score:2)
PDF is an open standard, there are many ways to produce content in it for free.
Re:Yes But..... (Score:2)