Microsoft: Third party apps killing our security
Summary: Why would hackers target Microsoft directly when there is so much low hanging fruit hanging from the Windows operating system?The short answer is that hackers won't attack Microsoft directly because they have plenty of alternatives via third party applications such as QuickTime, RealPlayer and WinZip.
Why would hackers target Microsoft directly when there is so much low hanging fruit hanging from the Windows operating system?
The short answer is that hackers won't attack Microsoft directly because they have plenty of alternatives via third party applications such as QuickTime, RealPlayer and WinZip. That's the big takeaway from Microsoft's Security Intelligence Report (January to June 2008), which will be unveiled Monday. Microsoft prebriefed a few folks including me and The New York Times on the key findings of the report, but the real interesting data will appear in the full blown document, which will be dissected by Ryan Naraine at Zero Day later.
This version of the Security Intelligence Report looks at the evolution of emerging threats and focuses on botnets. While the key findings highlight a few interesting threads--vulnerability disclosure continues to fall; disclosure of Microsoft software vulnerabilities continue to fall and Chinese are victims of more than 46 percent of browser-based exploits--the big item is that the software giant is being buffeted by attacks via third party applications.
Microsoft's data confirms the findings of other security vendors such as Kaspersky. For instance, hackers are attacking Vista almost entirely through third party applications.
Microsoft then goes into the top 10 browser vulnerabilities and notes that its software accounted for half of the biggest flaws on XP. On Vista, Microsoft software accounted for none of the top flaws. Here's the breakdown:
Top 10 browser-based vulnerabilities on XP:
And the top 10 browser-based vulnerabilities on Vista (click to enlarge):
The tale: RealPlayer, Apple QuickTime, various toolbars and other tag-along applications are vulnerable.
These statistics leave one question hanging: Is Vista really more secure or is it just that third party applications are easier to exploit? The truth is that we may never know about Vista's security level--unless third party application developers suddenly get security religion. Chances are that won't happen.
George Stathakopoulos, general manager of Microsoft product security for the Security Engineering and Communications Group, roughly agreed with my theory. He maintains that Vista is more secure--and I don't think that take is a big stretch--but the degree of security over XP may be skewed by third party applications. Simply put, Vista isn't the primary target of attackers, which are opting for easier prey.
"I think Vista is better on security. Microsoft products better on security and I think our focus is paying off. The numbers say third party applications are an issue. What we need to do as community is figure out how to solve this problem," says Stathakopoulos, reiterating his common theme. I told him that insecure third party applications may skew how secure Vista looks and he generally agreed. "Absolutely, third party applications affect the magnitude of how secure Vista looks."
Indeed, Microsoft is working on getting the ecosystem to cooperate more. Earlier this year, Microsoft launched its trusted Internet initiative, which is still in the whitepaper stage.
Among other nuggets of Microsoft's findings that stood out:
- Brazil is the global king of password stealers and monitoring tools. More than 60 percent of the computers cleaned in Brazil had password stealers on them. Globally, Trojan Downloaders and droppers are the most popular mean of attack.
- China is dominated by pop-up ad toolbars and browser modifiers. This malware usually stays in China since they are in Chinese.
- Viruses still work in Korea relative to the rest of the world. Most of these infected files are swapped via peer-to-peer networks. Stathakopoulos says gaming is a primary target for attackers in Korea. Cybercrime is localized to each unique characteristic of a country.
- The infection rate for Windows Vista is lower than Windows XP at any service pack level. Vista 64-bit infection rates are lower than the 32-bit versions.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.



Talkback
Interesting...
It's also no surprise to see badly coded monstrosities like QuickTime and Real Player in there. Anyone using these pieces of crapware - unless they really have to - needs to have their head examined.
QT and Real
Not so easy
Apple - Insidious Security Attack?
Actually that was sarcasm. I suspect it's instead an attempt to bundle their media player to make it more ubiquitous, and take share from Real / WinMedia / Flash.
But that would be a different thread <g>
This probably is Apple's intent
Amazing that MS lets them get away with it
Are you suggesting ...
Can anyone else hear the black helecopters of the DOJ whispering in the sky outside?
Uh.. Right...
Ok... I can just see it now... Microsoft starts dictating what can and can't run on Windows and how it can run (beyond the usual [b]PUBLISHED[/b] programming advisories and guidelines)... I can see the DOJ coming down on them like a 100 mile per hour pyroclastic flow coming out of a volcanic event - fast, devastating and overwhelming. Just ask the folks from Pompeii in AD 79.
Actually... Microsoft already make changes like that. It's called Vista. And with Vista they removed most all 3rd party drivers from the kernal level down to a user level. And there was much whining and gnashing of teeth from SOME vendors. In fact, just as Vista was RTM'ed, Symantec chose to start their whine about how Norton AV would no longer work properly (not that it ever did, but that's another rant) because they couldn't attach their process' to the kernal like they did with previous versions of Windows. You'd think they could have done their whiny bit much earlier - like during the Alpha or Beta phase of development when there could have been changes made. NOT at the last minute after everything's been set in stone.
Of course, other antivirus vendors managed to overcome this issue and were still able to produce antivirus products to work properly with Vista. So it would seem Symantec's whining was moot.
But for Microsoft to stop applications like Quicktime from doing something potentially harmful.. The accusation would be quick and obvious. Microsoft is out to destroy Apple. And the DOJ's response - rip Microsoft a new one - regardless of if it's for the good of the end user or not.
Toy OS?
Toy OS
Ha ha ha [smiling like Enzyte Bob].
Yeah, right.
RE: hanks to Apple, my windows PCs are less secure today
Quicktime has been a security sieve since days of yore
I'm not an enthusiastic Apple-basher by any means.
RE: Thanks to Apple, my windows PCs are less secure today
QT, Real et al...
Way less bloated and most likely not vulnerable, and if so, patched quicker since they're both opensource IIRC.
Both are available at www.filehippo.com
Restrictive environments
The foundation always has been the problem. You can't build a big castle with thick walls on quicksand.
Typical blame game propaganda by the sounds of it.
Firm Foundations
True, but you can build a straw hut on a concrete foundation. If Vista is told to allow a program to run, it's going to run, security holes and all.
I use Youtube often
It was a horrid thing. Aside from which platform it was run on.
Tell That To Some Web Seminars
No RealPlayer, yes codecs...
Use Real Alternative . . . . . (nt)