ie8 fix
madison

The one security tool every Windows user should know about

By | January 10, 2011, 8:27am PST

Summary: Microsoft’s Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit (EMET) is a simple but powerful configuration utility that allows you to harden applications that weren’t originally designed to take advantage of Windows security features. Here’s how it works.

A new zero-day security hole in all versions of Windows is the subject of “targeted attacks,” Microsoft says. The flaw, according to Microsoft Security Advisory 2488013, occurs when an attacker exploits “the creation of uninitialized memory during a CSS function within Internet Explorer.” The result? “It is possible under certain conditions for the memory to be leveraged by an attacker using a specially crafted Web page to gain remote code execution.”

Similar holes have been spotted in the past in applications such as Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, and Apple’s QuickTime.

The definitive fix for a vulnerability like this is a vendor-supplied patch. But what do you do while you’re waiting for the patch? And how do you deal with vulnerabilities in legacy applications that can’t be easily repaired?

That’s the goal of Microsoft’s Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit (EMET), a simple but powerful configuration utility that allows you to harden applications that weren’t originally designed to take advantage of Windows security features. EMET version 2 was released a few months ago and runs on all currently supported Windows client and server editions, including Windows 7, Windows Vista (Service Pack 1 or later), Windows XP (Service Pack 3), Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2003 (Service Pack 1 or later).

Although it’s possible to configure some of these settings in other ways, EMET offers a straightforward, clean interface that works identically across multiple Windows versions. It’s not a magic bullet, but it is an extremely potent addition to a thorough, in-depth approach to Windows security.

EMET gives you more granular control over Data Execution Prevention (DEP), a security feature that has been a part of Windows since XP Service Pack 2. Hardware-enforced DEP blocks the execution of code in memory locations that should contain only data, such as the stack or the heap, preventing a common form of exploit. Using EMET, you can turn on DEP for applications that were not originally compiled to be compatible with the feature. (For more on how DEP works, see the two-part “Understanding DEP as a mitigation technology series on the Microsoft Security Research & Defense blog: Part 1, Part 2).

You can also use EMET to overcome a limitation of Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR). This feature is designed to prevent attackers from jumping to predictable memory addresses to exploit vulnerabilities in code. The problem with ASLR is that it works on a per-process basis; dynamic-link libraries (DLLs) associated with that process can still be located at predictable addresses, where vulnerabilities can be exploited. That’s the attack vector used in the unpatched zero-day vulnerability I mention at the beginning of this post. EMET supports mandatory ASLR, which forces the relocation of DLLs associated with a process and thus blocks this entire class of exploits.

Other features in EMET mitigate against common tricks that hackers use to exploit flaws in code, by blocking common “heap spraying” techniques and validating exceptions before calling an exception handler.

The EMET documentation acknowledges that these are stopgap fixes:

Please note this is a pseudo mitigation designed to break current exploit techniques.  It is not designed to break future exploits as well.  As exploit techniques continue to evolve, so will EMET.

In fact, that’s one of the promises of EMET. It exists outside the Windows code base, so it can be updated more aggressively. As the official user’s guide explains:

EMET is a living tool designed to be updated as new mitigation technologies become available.  This provides a chance for users to try out and benefit from cutting edge mitigations.  The release cycle for EMET is also not tied to any product.  EMET updates can be made dynamically as soon as new mitigations are ready.

EMET is distributed as a very small (4.7MB) installer and can be downloaded here. On the next page, I walk you through some of the basics of installation and setup.

Page 2: Hardening Windows with EMET –>

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

97
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: The one security tool every Windows user should know about
Narg 3rd Jan
Best security you can buy? Unplug your computer from the internet. Period.
0 Votes
+ -
I used it a couple of weeks ago. One of the applications I used it on (VideoRedo Plus 3) stopped working -- it would not start up. The event log gave no information that was useful. I used the tool to eliminate the application from the list, and all is now well.

Well, sort of. The Windows Explorer icon is Windows 7 task bar no longer has any locations pinned to it, and you can't add any. Is this a known bug in the tool?
FANtastic...

lol.. grin
@easson

So don't put that app in EMET. Big deal, I've been using it since version 2.0 came out last October and I have all my browsers guarded by it. The reality is, the manner by which most malware gets onto people's systems is their browser. Your experience shouldn't mean you shouldn't use it for the apps it DOES work on.

-M
@easson
0 Votes
+ -
EMET: A good start. LSM AppArmor: The safest solution.
Dietrich T. Schmitz, ~ Your Linux Advocate 10th Jan 2011
Windows Folks keep getting bitten.
I am not going to say Ubuntu's AppArmor is 'user friendly' but system Admins should have NO difficulty (or they shouldn't be Admins) configuring Ubuntu with it.

The default configuration of AA on Ubuntu 10.10 has AA enabled, but not for Firefox.

There is a default profile present that requires opening a terminal window and typing in a short (one-time) command to have your Firefox session sandboxed:

$sudo aa-enforce /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox

Having at least your browser session sandboxed alleviates the worry of addressing 0day attacks.

Canonical usually turns around a bug report marked critical in a matter of hours and your pc will automatically receive needed security updates from the Ubuntu GPG keyring-protected repository in due course.

In the meantime, you can relax and enjoy using Ubuntu Linux and Firefox sandboxed with AA. No exploit gets by AA.

Ubuntu Desktop Linux. The safest operating system on the planet.

Ubuntu Security Feature Matrix:
h-t-t-p-s://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features

I stake my reputation on it.
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate I use both Ubuntu and Windows, but this is relevant how?
0 Votes
+ -
Ubuntu picked up where Novell left off and...
Dietrich T. Schmitz, ~ Your Linux Advocate 10th Jan 2011
@statuskwo5 ...
based directly on Canonical's programming contributions, AppArmor is now part of the Linux Main Line kernel, effective with version 2.6.36:

h-t-t-p://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/7203/1/

You can get stung using EMET. Not so with AA.
0 Votes
+ -
@statuskwo5 It's not, but that is typical.
@statuskwo5 - I think DTS is pointing out that EMET provides a limited version of a subset of the kinds of security possible with Mandatory Access Control tools, like AppArmor or SELinux. EMET is more of a way to enable a potpourri of specific protection techniques, built in reaction to specific exploits ... AppArmor or SELinux are more comprehensive, integrated security measures, offering fine grained security control of every aspect of the system, for every system service and application.

And he's right about it being a better approach. There'll be whining and complaining from Windows (and Mac) fans that it's overkill, etc. -- until eventually, inevitably, Windows and Mac OSes include comparable capability (at which point it'll turn into "see what an incredibly great feature that makes our OS more architecturally secure!" and the same fans will manage to forget that they argued that Linux wasn't more architecturally secure, whenever it was brought up before their pet OS had it).

I know for a fact (from interactions with the MS research group) that mandatory access control approaches are very much on the table for the Windows OS ... it's a matter of priorities, balanced against the difficulties of reverse-engineering it in compatibly.

So it's relevant because he's pointing out that there IS a better way, and it's available today.

All that said ... that doesn't mean that EMET doesn't have value. We're exploring baselining it for a large gov't agency.
@daboochmeister: While not as fine grained as MAC it offers a form of MAC for Windows. IE takes advantage of MIL in the form of Proected Mode. MIL seems a reasonable compromise between the complications of MAC and enhanced security.

OS X also has MAC built in (since Leopard). While there's no GUI interface it exits (for example it protects Time Machine backups from being erased...even by the root user).
@ye - thanks, didn't know that OS/X had adopted the FreeBSD MAC approach.

I can respect that opinion, that protection/integrity levels are enough - but I really don't agree. MIC/MIL definitely is an improvement over XP. But without going into a dissertation - I think it was a mistake for MS to make the concept of integrity levels part of the DNA of the controls, instead of just an admin/presentation layer over fine-grained controls. Iow, you can build an admin approach/view over a fine-grained MAC implementation that uses the advantages of the integrity levels abstraction to make administering the system easier -- but you CAN'T go the opposite direction, achieving fine-grained control (when appropriate and needed - and I'd argue there are cases where the flexibility is needed, in the real world) if integrity levels are burned into how the protections work, at the "kernel" level.

Lot more to discussion possible here, but not the right context -- thx for an informed reply!
@statuskwo5 It's relevant because it's similar product.
0 Votes
+ -
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate
I have to take extra steps just to have a secure linux? No thanks, I prefer my OS secure out of the box.
0 Votes
+ -
I believe 'extra steps' is today's topic LD.
Dietrich T. Schmitz, ~ Your Linux Advocate 10th Jan 2011
@Loverock Davidson
EMET is not installed, much less enabled by default.
To avail yourself to EMET, I am afraid you have no choice but take extra steps.

AppArmor is part of the Linux kernel and running by default on Ubuntu 10.10.

Care for some more DayQuil?
0 Votes
+ -
just wow
catseverywhere@... 10th Jan 2011
@Loverock Davidson so you use OS/2? Why didn't you say so? One would think you use windows, from some of your posts.

Now everything you've said makes sense. You were talking about OS/2 all along.
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate: AppArmor is part of the Linux kernel and running by default on Ubuntu 10.10.

It may be running but it's not enforcing so the benefit is???
0 Votes
+ -
AA is running in enforce mode. Only not by default for FF.
Dietrich T. Schmitz, ~ Your Linux Advocate 10th Jan 2011
@ye
Canonical chose to make the AA profile for FF user optional.
See the link I provided to their security matrix to see which processes are running in a sandbox ootb.

Feel free to obfuscate and be your old argumentative self ye bing.
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate: Canonical chose to make the AA profile for FF user optional.

...out that it's enabled by default is???

Feel free to obfuscate and be your old argumentative self ye bing.

Feel free to begin addressing what is asked instead of completely tangential arguments.
0 Votes
+ -
Let's see now...is EMET enabled by default?
Dietrich T. Schmitz, ~ Your Linux Advocate 11th Jan 2011
@ye
Save it ye for the uninitiated. You have no point. Just inane pointless argumentative blather.
@Loverock Davidson
What OS are you talking about?
Don't feed the troll.

And readers, (this is not reply to Loverock) remember how many extra steps (and how much cpu power/memory) does one have to sacrifice with win to have a secure Windows - all the while linux being more secure withOUT apparmor.
0 Votes
+ -
@choyongpil & catseverywhere
thx-1138_@... 13th Jan 2011
As hard as the idea might be for you to digest (..or rather stomach), you will *astoundingly* get used to LD. Being obviously fairly new here, here's the heads-up, if you'll just bear with me.

Once upon a time there was this guy that went by the pseudonym: Mike Cox. This guy, i.e. Mike Cox, also used to be a regular blog commentator (much like yours truly) on ZDNet. He has since long departed this scene.

(.. the plot thickens)

MC was widely accepted as ZDNet's very own, resident satirist. He possessed a razor sharp wit and tongue (..to boot) and more sarcasm, cut-and-thrust cynicism and tongue-in-cheek comebacks than you could point a ... pointy thing at ..

Now that i've catched you up - and you now have a barometer to measure against (for want of a better term) - than you will now have an inkling of how LD compare(zzzzzz) to MC.

So anyway, cutting right to the chase, LD is MC's brain malformed, mentally deficient, semi-illiterate, half brother - to an (..as yet) unknown father.

Yes, in reflection .. his affliction is pretty evident via his ramblings .. err, posts.

So! There ends ZDNet Basic History 101.
@Loverock Davidson

Ah, another OpenBSD fan... right? :-p
0 Votes
+ -
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate

..it's also cheaper and just as effective as using a computer loaded with Linux.
0 Votes
+ -
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate: The default configuration of AA on Ubuntu 10.10 has AA enabled, but not for Firefox.

It's called "Protected Mode" and it's installed, configured, and enabled for IE 7 and 8 on Vista and Windows 7 by default. No need for Linux.
0 Votes
+ -
Protected mode doesn't protect against dll injection
Dietrich T. Schmitz, ~ Your Linux Advocate 10th Jan 2011
@ye
Even Google engineers admit their sandbox technology in chrome is not impervious to such injection.

Id cite a link but why bother. You will argue to the pointof absurdity.
Just go to the chromium site and search for 'caveats'.

Its all spelled out in black and white for sane individuals unlike yourself.
0 Votes
+ -
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate: Even Google engineers admit their sandbox technology in chrome is not impervious to such injection.

Id cite a link but why bother. You will argue to the pointof absurdity. Just go to the chromium site and search for 'caveats'.

Its all spelled out in black and white for sane individuals unlike yourself.

So your response is a non-starter. FWIW I've never thought the sandboxing in Chrome was anything to write home about. It seems you're in agreement with me. Since we're in agreement does that make you insane along with me?
0 Votes
+ -
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate

Any tool that requires me to run a command line on 54 different systems is completely useless. Not that EMET is any better since it also is intended to be run on each affected machine but MS acknowledges that.

Where is Ubuntu's equivalent to group policy?
@cornpie
NIS or LDAP
@cornpie
Suprisingly no reply to comment below...?
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate

Yeah.... right... no exploit gets past that.... YET. Why? Because Linux is an ALSO-RAN OPERATING SYSTEM and NO ONE BOTHERS to try to hack it yet! N O O N E! Got that?

Linux is NOT a good operating system for the A V E R A G E user. Never will be, until they get rid of the damned having to punch in your admin password to install stuff!
0 Votes
+ -
That's a GOOD thing!
ye 10th Jan 2011
@Lerianis10: Never will be, until they get rid of the damned having to punch in your admin password to install stuff!

This is a great security measure.

As for Linux not being good for the average user...well, Linux itself is just fine. The problem with Linux is lack of applications and not much with Linux itself.
@ye

It's a 'great security measure' if you don't have more than one person in your home, who might want to install software on your machine.
Not so much if you have MORE than one person, to be blunt.

The best solution to security problems, that I have found, would be for Microsoft to have directories called "Applications", "Games", etc. for those categories of programs, where NOTHING is allowed to start up on boot from, without a specific exception.
Everything else that does need boot-up permissions? Given on a case by case basis in those directories, as I said, or has to be installed to a 'trusted' directory that only Microsoft applications and pre-cleared programs can install to.

Microsoft has taken the road between pestering users every time they try to install things (the suggestions I made above could make things better) and protecting users, which I personally think is the right road to take.

Actually, come to think of it..... most applications should be installed (unless they are user-wide applications like office suites) in a user's Appdata directory, with no interaction with the registry or anything else outside of that directory.

That is the route that Google Chrome went down for Dev releases, and it's the right road.
0 Votes
+ -
How did this go from Linux to Windows?
ye Updated - 10th Jan 2011
@Lerianis10: It's a 'great security measure' if you don't have more than one person in your home, who might want to install software on your machine.

If it's my machine why would I want others to install software on it? And if I should want to give them that ability I can.

The best solution to security problems, that I have found, would be for Microsoft to have directories called "Applications", "Games", etc. for those categories of programs, where NOTHING is allowed to start up on boot from, without a specific exception.
Everything else that does need boot-up permissions? Given on a case by case basis in those directories, as I said, or has to be installed to a 'trusted' directory that only Microsoft applications and pre-cleared programs can install to.

I'm not quite clear on what you're trying to say here but I'll take a stab at it: Microsoft provides a number of ways for which software can automatically start. An entry can be made in the HKLM||run key or as a service to name a couple of places. For users lacking privileges to modify these entries (i.e. anyone lacking administrative rights) there's the HKCU||run key along with the startup folder. You have quite a bit of flexibility in how things automatically start. Microsoft also provides white listing and black listing capabilities capabilities through AppLocker:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd548340(WS.10).aspx

AppLocker is an enhancement on Software Restriction Policies (SRP) which were introduced in Windows XP...nine years ago.


Microsoft has taken the road between pestering users every time they try to install things (the suggestions I made above could make things better) and protecting users, which I personally think is the right road to take.

That's a GOOD thing. That is if you're attempting to install it in a system area. If you're trying to install something in your home directory you will not be "pestered" (unless the program attempts to write to system registry keys). The framework is there. Microsoft need do nothing more.

Actually, come to think of it..... most applications should be installed (unless they are user-wide applications like office suites) in a user's Appdata directory, with no interaction with the registry or anything else outside of that directory.

All possible today...assuming the application developer follows security best practices. Unfortunately too many do not. But Microsoft has provided the means...dating all the way back to Windows NT 3.1.

That is the route that Google Chrome went down for Dev releases, and it's the right road.

So did MS...back in 1993.
@Lerianis10 You could put Linux on your mom's machine, and stop getting calls except for the occasional invite to dinner.

I'm an average user myself, and not having games doesn't bother me. Everything else I can do fine. Well, I can't run IE Malware Client...
@vandamme@..

With all due respect, if you are not doing games on Windows, at least CASUAL games.... you are not any 'average user'. You sure as heck are not the average 6-16 year old, who plays at least casual games on computers quite a bit.

To be blunt, most parents don't want to have to look over their children's shoulder and come running when their children wish to install a game or other program on their computer, especially if they do it quite of to 'trial' games using BigFish, GameHouse, etc.
0 Votes
+ -
@Lerianis10 You mean so that click-by installs work on Linux like they do on Windows?
@vandamme@
>I'm an average user myself, and not
>having games doesn't bother me.
>Everything else I can do fine. Well, I
>can't run IE Malware Client...

I run games, and I run IE (with IE's4Linux), but IE's just locally on testing server to make sure my website looks ok on IE too...

Lack of games? Linux, especially accompanied with Wine has no lack of games. Sure there are people why cry out loud if a certain game does not work - yet there are loads of games, so many that I will never be able to even just do a test run on all of them - so if a game does not work then I'll choose another one - and wine gets better, it now can run games that couple years ago it could not, just as an example.
@Lerianis10
"It's a 'great security measure' if you don't have more than one person in your home, who might want to install software on your machine.
Not so much if you have MORE than one person, to be blunt."

At least on systems that use sudo, it's perfectly possible and easy to give a second user administrator permissions...
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate
Mr. Schmitz, I put Ubuntu on two old laptops for my kids and pretty happy with it. However, not really knowing the system and not being a sys admin, could you tell me if the default user has admin rights such that a Linux exploit would work? Can you tell me how to set up a separate less-powerful user to prevent this if so? Thanks much!
0 Votes
+ -
By default it does not.
ye 10th Jan 2011
@JimboNobody: could you tell me if the default user has admin rights such that a Linux exploit would work?

Default user is non-privileged. The recommended way to use privileges is through "sudo".

As for the rest of your questions I'm not sure what you're asking so I cannot comment.
0 Votes
+ -
@JimboNobody - for Ubuntu, @ye is right, until a user runs "sudo" to run a command-line with admin privileges (or "gksudo", to run a graphical app with privileges), anything they do isn't running in admin mode.

A related question is what users can run sudo - they can only do so if they are in the "admin" group. So for even more protection, simply take a user out of the "admin" group.

I always have 2 accounts for myself - admin and non-admin - and for our family, no one else is in the admin group. Easy peasy. On my kid's machines, they have an account without admin, I have one with - and they have to ask me about installs. It slows things down, but it's worth it.

That said - even for an account with sudo privileges, most exploits won't work - the account doesn't have admin rights until the enter their password, when prompted via a gksudo or sudo command.
Dear: @Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate
Say hello and ask modesty from you.
Linux (ubuntu) is in baby papers, by honest. you can not use linux on no one brand machine only run 50% cos its not have "drivers" to most modern harware you can not work or enjoy nothing. in canonical software the best is it for free, maybe in 2030 or 2035 "linux free editions software ca be good choise" . now all is about money and business. linux not have exploit cos nothing is interested in. but thanks.
keep dream Mr. Linux Advocate
pd: sorry the true hurts sometimes.
@vinilmaniacs
Ignorance is a bliss...
0 Votes
+ -
what the...
Dietrich T. Schmitz, ~ Your Linux Advocate 11th Jan 2011
@vinilmaniacs
never mind. what everrr..
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate

Did you not notice this was about Windows?
0 Votes
+ -
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate

-> Windows Folks keep getting bitten.

You should fix that statement, as in it's current form, it's a blanket statement. In my household we run Windows, Linux and OSX and the Windows systems don't get "bitten". Maybe it's because I'm not a foolish user, but your blanket approach to everything is "Run Linux". Sorry DTS, "Run Linux" is NOT the answer to everything no matter how much you wish it were.

The right tool for the job, Windows where appropriate, OSX where appropriate and Linux where appropriate. In some cases, all three are good enough, in other cases, not so much.

Your Linux colored glasses are giving you tunnel vision, and it's disturbing (as well as annoying as it's the only tune you know).
0 Votes
+ -
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate

I sincerely hope ZD charges you for the ad space as*ho*e. Only a low level, low life hack would take advantage of a discussion post to blatantly plug another product. Even MS haters have more class.
.
0 Votes
+ -
Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your COMMENT SPAMMER
dgurney Updated - 14th Jan 2011
"Windows Folks keep getting bitten.
I am not going to say Ubuntu's AppArmor is 'user friendly' but system Admins should have NO difficulty (or they shouldn't be Admins) configuring Ubuntu with it."

So this protects Windows users then? Or can you not read? Yeah, this article is about WINDOWS security. But you knew that. You just enjoy being a spamming jagoff.
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, Your Linux Advocate:

With all due respect, I think your foot is in your mouth. All anti-Windows advocates talk about the same thing like it's a magic bullet... the concept of least privileges. What you fail to understand is that, if remote code manages to execute on your system in the first place, the battle is already lost. At that point, a determined hacker can find a way to elevate privileges, so long as there is no discrete "deny" entry on ACLs. And in Ubuntu, unless I'm mistaken, you only have POSIX ACLs, which are like a chastity belt made of paper. Anyone could remote it if they wanted to.

The reason people aren't taking you down like flies is because you're too small to be important. Even Mac OS X, the least secure OS on the market today, is of little interest because cybercriminals would stand to score about 1/18 the amount of hits on Macs they can get on Windows boxes. Linux servers, on the other hand, are more prevalent than Windows servers, and get pwned every day; so hackers can plant Windows-targeted drive-by downloads there. Ever read this one? http://4sysops.com/archives/iis-websites-are-14-times-more-secure-than-apache-sites/

In stark contrast to your claim, Windows folks don't keep getting bitten. Especially not since Vista SP1, when ASLR was activated. When was the last time you saw a drive-by download in the wild that works on Windows 7? I've seen vulnerabilities and PoCs, as well as ItW samples that exploit vulnerabilities found on XP's successors but only work on XP. Linux has ASLR, but apparently only a weak implementation. If there is an operating system that is more secure than Windows 7, then I would wager that is OpenBSD, not Ubuntu Linux.

Bottom line, NO platform is secure out of the box. If you want to be 100% safe from remote attacks (or think you are), then you have to implement measure yourself, no matter what platform you use. And if you think permissions are a magic bullet, then best you take a look at NTFS, which allows for explicit "deny" ACL entries that take precedence over "allow" entries and cannot be overridden (thereby foiling SQL Slammer, Conficker, and other parasites that employ privilege escalation exploits). A word to the wise: don't tell everyone how tough your Kevlar vest is until someone actually fires at you. As a Windows user, I get fired at every 4 minutes or so. And each shot bounces off of me.

P.S.: You don't know Utopia, because I live there, and your kind are nowhere to be seen.
Best security you can buy? Unplug your computer from the internet. Period.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix