Version: 2008
  • On GameFAQs: What causes the Red Ring of Death?

(continued from previous page)


"Blue Hat" summit meant to reveal ways of the other side

(continued from previous page)

adding that he doesn't plan to change his practice of giving companies 30 days before going public with issues. "I still have no desire to play e-mail tag with the (security response team) for a year for every bug that I find."

But Moore did gain a better understanding of why it takes Microsoft so long to create patches and said his impression of the people who create the products have changed. "I still may not agree with their security policies and how they handle bug reports, but at least I know they actually believe what they are saying," he said.

"Things are different when a group of programmers watches their actual code exploited. It kind of hits people in the gut."
--Matt Thomlinson
Director of security
engineering, Microsoft

Others agreed. "They are taking this subject seriously. It was really cool to see," said Kaminsky, a security researcher who does work for telecommunications company Avaya. "At some point, there was a shift at Microsoft."

That shift began in earnest with a well-publicized memo written by Gates on the concept of "trustworthy computing" in 2002. Security had long been a concern at Microsoft, but the issue became imperative after several high-profile attacks exposed the degree of its vulnerabilities.

"The security faults we are seeing could end up bringing an end to the era of personal computing," Kaminsky said. "The ability to customize our computers is under attack from those who are customizing it against our will."

It was this kind of impassioned rhetoric that won respect even among some of the more wary Microsoft participants.

Noel Anderson, a wireless networking engineer on Microsoft's Windows team, became suspicious as soon as he walked into the hacking demo--and saw the giant wireless antenna at the front of the auditorium.

Anderson decided that he should leave his laptop turned off, an instinct that saved him the embarrassment of falling into the hackers' trap, even though the hackers focused on a demo laptop. But under different circumstances, he thought to himself, "I might have even fallen for that."

As a result, Anderson and his team walked away with some concrete ideas on how to make sure future versions of Windows are more resilient to wireless attacks. He also left the room with a new respect for the hackers behind the demonstration.

"It's not just a bunch of disaffected teenagers sitting in their mom's basement," he said. "These are professionals that are thinking about these issues."

The hackers, for their part, seemed equally impressed with the technical knowledge of the senior executives they encountered.

At one point, researcher Matt Conover was talking about a fairly obscure type of problem called a "heap overflow." When he asked the crowd, made up mostly of vice presidents, whether they knew about this type of issue, 18 of 20 hands went up.

"I doubt that there is another large company on this planet that has that level of technical competency in management roles," Moore said.

Yet regardless of the mutual admiration, some tense moments were inevitable during the confrontation.

Microsoft developers, for instance, were visibly uncomfortable when Moore demonstrated Metasploit--a tool that system administrators can use to test the reliability of their systems to intrusion. But Metasploit also includes a fair number of exploits, as well as tools that can be used to develop new types of attacks.

"You had these developers saying, 'Why are you giving the world these tools that make it so easy to do exploitation?'" Kaminsky said. They calmed down, he said, once the researchers were able to state their case.

"We do regression testing in the real world of software development," Kaminsky said. "If we say, 'This thing isn't going to break,' then we need to test that. What these tools give is the ability to do this kind of testing, to be able to say not just, 'We did the best we could,' but 'We tried stuff and nothing worked.'"

Nevertheless, he understands why not all Microsoft developers were satisfied with the explanation.

"I'm also sure Ford wasn't too happy with (Ralph) Nader's reports in the late '60s," he said. "What do you mean you are telling people our cars can blow up?"

"The ability to customize our computers is under attack from those who are customizing it against our will."
--Dan Kaminsky
Security researcher

By the end of the two days, those on both sides felt they had just scratched the surface and were more than willing to meet again.

And executives such as Toulouse and Anderson said they came to a better understanding of what makes hackers tick.

"We have conversations where we say an attacker might do this or an attacker might do that. Now there is a face to some of those guys," Anderson said. "They were just as much geeks as we were."

The next time a Blue Hat event is held, as promised by Microsoft, Kaminsky said he would jump at the chance to return--assuming Microsoft lets him back.

"I'll be there next time, no matter what," he said. "I have some really interesting and devious plans coming up." End box

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (38 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
Bluehat event
by June 16, 2005 4:53 AM PDT
I think that Microsoft had a great idea there. The US government has been blackmailing hackers for years for research purposes - but this is a much friendlier environ.
Reply to this comment
monkey coders
by June 16, 2005 7:00 AM PDT
so they held a conference and brought in hackers as such, to tell
them where they've been going wrong..

i sure as hell feel safe, knowing monkeys are coding.

why did they have to regularly be given talks to produce safer code;
obviously not listening.
Reply to this comment
Beneficial, but.....
by vox365 June 16, 2005 7:56 AM PDT
"consensus" has never been the mode of change or advancement for any technology. Consensus satisfies a few immediate problems but ultimately leads to stagnation. Hackers, unpleasant as they are, force critical thinking and demand change from the potentially complacent mind. Good intentions pave... etc.
Reply to this comment
Ah, Mister Anderson...
by katamari June 16, 2005 8:25 AM PDT
...you are sadly mistaken. Hackers *ARE* a bunch of teenagers living in their moms basements.

I'd like to introduce you to the world of IRC, Mr. Anderson. Please, step into the Internet's biggest cess pool -- where you will find the source of every single "hack", virus, worm, or scam.

I'd also like to inform you that Microsoft Security regularly monitors their gateways for any outbound traffic to ports 6660-6667. Hmmm, could I be simply talking smack, or is there an actual POINT to Microsoft's concern with IRC?

Good day, Mr. Anderson.
Reply to this comment
waste of time...
by PLDK June 16, 2005 8:52 AM PDT
What blows me away is that Microsoft actually thought they would get the most talented and serious hackers to come in and show the tools of the trade.
What are you guy's thinking.....a true hack never gives away the juciest of secrets. hmphf
Reply to this comment
But I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas!
by June 16, 2005 6:35 PM PDT
all too familiar
Reply to this comment
I resent two things
by devanjedi June 16, 2005 7:06 PM PDT
I resent two things in this article:
First, the word 'hacker' is here just to draw readers, inspire fear and awe and to mislead.
Second, why are we supposed to be impressed if the guy in charge of Windows knows about MD5? OF COURSE, he's supposed to know about MD5- but Ina Reid seems to imply that we should be impressed because he does!
Reply to this comment
You've Just Won A New Car!
by dejo June 16, 2005 10:17 PM PDT
Reminds me of when the cops tell criminals they've won a raffle
in order to lure them in...
Reply to this comment
Hackers???????????/_*Buzzwords_Bah
by June 17, 2005 12:54 PM PDT
Since 1962 I've been working through international sources to protect my own intellectual rights.

Never been hacked or infected.

Do you thinnk giving away something called "economic security" and golden parachutes can buy loyalty?

Too big is too big!

Want real security? Stop paying salaries to security people.

Remember Bin Laden?

How about the Chinese, North Vietnamese, North Koreans, Iranians and Arabians.

Cultural differences engender secrecy

Sanskrit, Ancient Hebrew, and the unwritten languages using verbal analogies, implications, and time based iflections top mention few variables which change each time they are used?
Reply to this comment
interesting ....
by June 17, 2005 5:13 PM PDT
It would have been assumed the guys who do research on security at MS, would have known about this :-)
Reply to this comment
Give them food and they will sell it!
by Blazer2008 June 17, 2005 9:38 PM PDT
MS is just up to getting ideas (from blue hatters) in order to program the public into thinking they are working on security to release a New OS with top notch security "built in" for a new price. HA. They themselves speak of the "HACKERS" they met as being Grey Hatters - so they are marching to level 2 observationists, nevertheless - better than their own. From the top down you can smell bloatware. Let them waste their time on fixing the stuff that will only be thrown in the trash for future generations. Spend the billions...keep'em coming.
Reply to this comment
Interesting...
by June 19, 2005 7:35 PM PDT
Now honestly, all of you talk about this as though its a new thing. Fact is, things like this have been going on for years. For every dissolusioned teenager that hacked as a youngling, there is a dissolusioned adult willing to sell the information to the proper party. Microsoft really does work their behinds off to make sure that everything they sell is secure. The fact is, a new exploit comes out almost every day, thats how it should be. with every program there is a hole, there is no foolproof system, it just takes a mind willing to take the time to find the flaw. This is about people understanding on a broad level - technology is there for us as a whole to grow. People are driven by conflict, through breaking their own limits. Hack away as far as im concerned. someone will always be there with a better hack, and with a better fix.
Reply to this comment
Great write up.
by June 20, 2005 11:17 AM PDT
I enjoyed reading the technical article. Great
coverage. Keep it up.
Reply to this comment
MD5 was the fault?
by June 20, 2005 1:43 PM PDT
People, do you even know what MD5 actually is?!

The idea behind ANY sort of 'hashing' is to be a 'one-way' encryption. For instance if you divide two numbers and toss the remainder or the quotient and keep the rest, you just lost data! You can't get back to the original input of the method. Keep applying this over and over and before long the output is so 'mangled' that it's unique.

Now, MD5 has been proven and tested to the point where it would take a hell of a lot longer than 3 minutes (the time it took to take over that laptop), to generate an identical MD5 for a file with identical filesizes as a legit file.

Microsoft's using MD5 as the 'scapegoat' to this step in their lack of security, goes to show you just how much they hate Open Source Software, the GNU.org GPL (General Public License), and how much they use FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) attacks to point the finger of blame onto others.

How Linux programmers around the world who don't all speak English and barely break the language barrier with translation tools like Altavista's BableFish engine, can beat a team of over paid all English speaking idiots who claim this and that.

I for one question the existance of all this Anti-Virus software for Windows... If you could simply fix the exploits at the root of the problem. Why doesn't Microsoft just do that then? If they cared so much about increasing their monopoly, make a better Operating System than Linux! Instead of buying out the parts of the Linux community that'll give in and partnering with hardware companies so they don't make software drivers in Linux. Only instead, they create a market out of EXPLOITS for companies like Panda/Macafee/Norton/and ofcourse MICROSOFT! Where the fixes are always 'RE-ACTIVE' not 'PRO-ACTIVE' like Linux. Where the system has to constantly scan everything for 'viral' activity. When the system could simply check for this stuff on the fly internally to prevent exploits from occurring.

Actions should speak louder than words people, and if that's the case here then, CLEARLY, Microsoft sucks! Wake up people!
Reply to this comment
It was...
by June 20, 2005 5:45 PM PDT
Any software in the world, open/closed source is possibly a target or has already been exploited. But here's the catch! MD5 hashes are so unique in result that it would take a hell of a lot longer than 5 minutes to generate identical hashes. I suppose if you ran bots around the clock 24/7 for a few years, even with a cluster of distributed processing on a private network you could calculate up a binary file that was malicious in nature with a few extra junk bytes randomly placed throughout the file to generate an identical MD5, equal or unequal in filesize it would take way too much effort. Nothing is impossible, but don't think for a moment that something that could take so long would be the point of entry for an attack. When there are so many other ways to exploit a Windows user's machine that can take so far LESS time!

I've never known webpages to use MD5 on the actual page content. Most client/servers use ETags, which are based off the INode (location of the hard drive), filesize, and last modified date/time in Unix Epoch relative timestamp form.

I think Microsoft just made the claim of MD5 being the cause because it's Free Software, and Linux/GNU/Free Software (Foundation) is their biggest competitor.

As close to PROOF as you can possibly come to this, the Halloween Documents (memoes from Microsoft to it's employees) http://opensource.org/halloween/
And the links spread out on this page http://microsuck.com/content/whatsbad.shtml
Are all excellent reads. You will learn just how Microsoft manages to make Linux and Free Software in general look 'evil' and 'costly', with lies that are believable, so that you 'obey' like a slave to their Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt (FUD) attacks. For when you compete with Microsoft, there is no level playing field!
Reply to this comment
State of Security
by Darby Weaver August 22, 2005 7:39 PM PDT
I've administered networks from mostly every venue at this point in my career and can say that most networks are poorly prepared.

They have been more prepared by virtue of security threats and outright attacks than they ever were from simply an honest technical need.

I still find that most every network is vulnerable. I know some people will say this publicly and follow it up with comments along the lines of a computer unplugged and submerged in concrete, etc.

I don't mean vulnerable in that sense...

I mean vulnerable in the sense that a "hacker/cracker/attacker/etc." is reading your e-mail and contemplating what to do with that list of passwords and credit card info deom some list on your computer.

This is only the first skin of the onion and when any company is faced by a thorugh determined mind that is resolved to attack it by any means necessary, then that company will simply be at the mercy of said assailant.

Now, this sounds like talk. And actually it is written words, but do not discount my words as "warning" for a warning they are not. A truth is a truth in that it can simply be proven "true" or "false".

With that said, I would remind everyone from Redmond to Washington to tighten your own borders and do so in a thorough scorched earth fashion.

I typically build a concentric network defense from a layered model with keypoints that observe other selected keypoints.

I suggest the same approach by taken but also with physical security, biometrics if available, policy and training.

These items should be mandatory, too often they are not because they conflict with corporate policy or they upset the executives in one manner or another.

Someone once told me "There are ways to protect a network, software, code, etc. ...".

To whom I replied, "They better be some good ones"

Think about it...

In defense, the networks of today are more secure than they have ever been.

However, are they as secure as they could be?

Let your consience be your guide...

In the end each company is as secure as someone reports it is...

Who reports to whom?
Reply to this comment
knowing thy enemy
by Michael00360 October 19, 2005 6:27 AM PDT
It is good to know your enemy inside out. This will ultimitly help Microsoft to better their programming techniques. ( I hope)
Reply to this comment
Zealot yes, but not just for Linux.
by November 24, 2005 4:04 PM PST
I consider myself a Zealot for freedom and open source. So I'll support (BSD) Unix, Linux, and ReactOS. Because as long as we have idiots who support tyrants like Bill Gates, the human race will merely think it's free, while it lives under the guise of ignorance and slavery.

Perhaps the ultimate problem with Windows is they strive most of all to make it so easy any moron can use it to do simple things, (ex. play games/check email/etc.). For it's when you remove challenge from people's lives that they often become the most lazy! Whether it's mental or physical laziness, it still leads to dependency.
Reply to this comment
(38 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement