(continued from previous page)
(continued from previous page)
"That was a very painful experience," said Snyder, who at the time was part of Microsoft's security outreach team, but has since left Microsoft and now serves as "chief security something-or-other" for Mozilla. "It was pretty intense."
Slammer was followed by Blaster and others. Snyder recalls a sense of dread that permeated the team during 2002 and 2003.
"It kind of seemed at that point like it would never end," Snyder said.
But things did shift. Mass mailers gave way to the rise of botnets--networks of computers taken over by hackers for the purpose of sending spam, harvesting credit card information or clicking on online ads. Widespread attacks fell out of favor with criminals who found there was more money to be made from targeted attacks. The moves forced Microsoft, again, to shift its approach as security threats no longer merely opened customers to the prospect of headaches and lost productivity, but also to financial loss.
As threats became less a random crisis and more a fact of life, Nash realized the security team needed its own space. "It used to be we'd take over a conference room and people would say, 'We need the conference room,' and we'd say 'No, we need the conference room.'"
Although communications is an important part of emergency response, Nash decided it was necessary to build two "war rooms," allowing the engineering team to brainstorm separately from the employees who were communicating with customers and the media. The Microsoft Security Response Center was completed in June 2005. A door connects the two rooms, making it easier for people in both areas to get together when need be.
Microsoft also began to realize that it simply couldn't afford for everyone in the company to learn security lessons the hard way. It needed more people to get exposure to the threats that were out there.
The need for more dialogue with the security community prompted Snyder to suggest the idea for Blue Hat, an internal Microsoft conference where hackers would present in front of the company's engineers. The idea was controversial at first, with not everyone thinking it was such a good idea to put Microsoft's engineers face to face with the folks they blamed for many of their headaches.
Among those initially opposed was then-chief of Windows Jim Allchin, who didn't like the idea of having to sit face to face with the people who poked holes in the products his team created. Nash recalls Allchin saying to him, "Let me get this straight, you want the people hacking us and telling us the problems in our system and you want me to listen to them." Yes, Nash said, that's exactly what we want you to do.
Uncertainty among outside researchers
The outsider researchers, too, were skeptical about Microsoft's motives and commitments.
But, it proved to be a hit in both camps. Blue Hat, which was first held in March 2005, is now a twice yearly event, with the most recent one taking place over a two-day period in September. As usual, Microsoft's engineers were confronted by hackers showing a range of techniques that can be used to attack Microsoft's products. In perhaps its most confrontational invitation of the year, Microsoft invited the team from WabiSabiLabi, a group that operates an auction site where people can bid on vulnerabilities, much like collectors bid for trinkets on eBay. The enterprise is happy to sell to vendors who can patch the hole, or to people who might have other purposes in mind.
Although the presence of WabiSabiLabi's Roberto Preatoni at Blue Hat in September was unnerving, Cushman says that it's important for Microsoft's engineers to understand the current threats. (In November, Preatoni was arrested in Italy in connection with a spying investigation at Telecom Italia, where he previously worked.)
"I don't want every team to have to learn those painful lessons first-hand, but yet I want each of them to get that visceral understanding of how important this is," Cushman said. And there's nothing like having a hacker come in, he said, before correcting himself, "having a security researcher come in and demonstrate vulnerabilities in your product to bring that lesson home."
More recently, the company has started an exercise called "Defend the Flag," in which IT pros and security newbies get a day of training on setting up a Windows network before having to build and protect one themselves.
"If the network you've set up and are defending (gets) compromised because of misconfiguration or some vulnerability, you are going to remember that," Cushman said.
While many of the lessons surround ways that Microsoft needed to do more or move faster, one of the strongest lessons for Shostack was a story he heard at a previous Blue Hat about the need to proceed with caution. At the event, a colleague talked about Microsoft trying to prevent bitmap art exploits by more narrowly defining what could be in such a file. In trying to shore up security, Microsoft had also broken some files, which meant that companies that used a bit-mapped logo in their invoices couldn't print bills.
"Once a system administrator has gone though that experience, they become much more hesitant to patch," Shostack said. "It's very important when we build an update that it won't break anything."
Day 1: From pain to progress
Remond's security practices have been transformed since
threats like Slammer and Blaster first wormed their way onto the
scene.
Day 2: Inviting the hackers inside
Aiming to be more open, company reaches out to the security research community it once kept at a
distance.
Day 3: Emerging security threats
Forget widespread worms. Nowadays, limited-scale threats like targeted e-mail
attacks are causing the most concern.
Day 1: Inside the war room
After years of having to scramble whenever an outbreak hit, Microsoft builds adjoining situation rooms to coordinate its response efforts.
Day 2: Off to the Limo Races
In what might seem an unlikely pairing, Microsoft employees and security researchers team up to go on a scavenger hunt through Seattle.
Day 3: Meet the bug hunters
One talks a mile a minute, another dresses like a bug. Meet some of the people who have helped lead a massive culture change at the company.
Microsoft's lessons from the desktop
'MSBlast' echoes across the Net
Microsoft gathers hackers in Redmond
Microsoft puts key security under Windows umbrella
Microsoft gets good reception at Black Hat
Gates: End to passwords in sight
Bug hunters, software firms in uneasy alliance
Microsoft wants to meet more hackers
Is there method in Microsoft's security buys?
Microsoft's blast from the past
Gates: Security is top priority
Inside the war room
Painful episodes lead to the creation of a security response center, where teams take on the task of hunting bugs and keeping customers informed.December 3, 2007
The bug hunters
Just who are the people charged with the task of keeping code secure at
Microsoft? They're risk takers, whether donning silly costumes or swimming with
sharks. December 5, 2007
Editors: Anne Dujmovic, Mike Ricciuti
Design: Andrew Ballagh
Production: Kendra Dodds
No comment.
...
So - what happened? The base operating system has to allow for faulty "application" software in such an untrusted world as the Internet and that is exactly what the Intel architecture was designed to do from the start of the 286/386!
Finding and fixing/patching software bugs is NOT the only sign of true integrated security at all! A true secure system, based around well researched security design for the last 30 years or more, creates a properly layered architecture that can cope with faulty applications and middleware and even foreign device drivers. It does not put, for example, device drivers inside the critical access reference monitor/kernel structure for just a start.
This article should look more closely at the real security story. The background to Windows'NT vs OS/2 and the RISC (DEC Alpha, MIPS 4400 processor siuation vs Intel IA-32 design and the role of Microsoft), the underlying security design of Windows'XP/VISTA, the story behind the apparently largely aborted Microsoft "Palladium" or Next Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB) activity and its "NEXUS"/ Ring -0 design, the story of XENIX and so on.
What we need is in-depth, investigative reporting that does not confuse software quality concerns, the main Microsoft stance, with true robust computer systems security design such as NSA's Secure LINUX, the GEMSOS system, etc. coupled with underlying hardware resources such as Intel's segmentation and ring structures.
love the whole waiting months for patches (on Tuesday) only to have a virus release on Wednesday.
Keep up the good work Microsoft.
Vista has been out over a year and has had NO MAJOR SECURITY RELATED ISSUES...even though Mr Jobs probably wished it did.
http://www.databasesecurity.com/dbsec/comparison.pdf
This is about the secutity patches between SQL Server and Oracle. This is amazing!!
I'll stick with my Mac, thank you. PC apologists can scream that it isn't secure all they like, but I still don't know any Mac users with virus problems. In fact, I still haven't heard of anyone infected with a documented virus, outside of a "security researcher's" office.
I know lots of PC users who have been and continue to be infected.
Every little single thing they do is BLOATED off the charts. No wonder the crap software they produce is not secure.
I wanted to use OneCare, I bought OneCare, I tried to use and like OneCare. OneCare nearly killed my machine. It became like a blue screen light show. So I dumped the Microsoft junk and got NOD32. Now we are talking REAL security.
Also every IT pro I know is not going to move to Vista. EVERYONE KNOW beyond any doubt this bloated piece of crap is tech's biggest and most costly joke!
It is wake up time Microsoft. You make CRAPPY OS and are even worse at security.
Walt
- Some people just amaze me
- by xscottr February 15, 2008 4:44 PM PST
- I have been using Microsoft products since the early 90?s and I am way too familiar with the problems faced on the long road to security faced by Microsoft. However, no system or network is any more secure then the individuals assigned to install, configure and secure them. I have worked extensively on very critical Microsoft networks as well as Linux networks and networks running both Linux and Windows. The pure amount of engineering that goes into Microsoft products is phenomenal and while Linux designers and engineers are worth their weight in gold they lack two very important things in the IT world that are often over looked; clarity and consistency. For the most part a Linux server is cheap to build set up and as far as network management is concerned very reliable. However, when it comes to higher end functionality it is often the realm of some third party software designer who cost the company using Linux server about 40 to 50% more in time and money then it would had they gone a similar route with Windows 2003. This is not my opinion this is reality. When it comes to security I will be the first to agree that there are vulnerabilities inherent in Windows, but I guarantee you that in a mission critical environment ALL Microsoft products can be secured without the loss of productivity. The bottom line is that this is not possible in a Linux, Novell or MAC environment, simply because they lack productivity features. So, quit confusing the security of these operating systems with the security of the network. Also, it is the work of companies like Adobe and Microsoft that are keeping the Mac afloat in the market, or are you all blind as well as ignorant? What productivity applications are there for Mac? I mean something used in the corporate world designed by apple? Indeed, you got it, nothing! Now as far as Linux and the open source community is concerned I have to hand it to the devs that put together open office they really did a good job with that product and I was really impressed to find the ODBC, JDBC and OLE DB drivers available for SQL Server (yes the Microsoft Database).
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(58 Comments)