ie8 fix
madison

Zero Day

Ryan Naraine, Emil Protalinski and Dancho Danchev

Microsoft's Michael Howard: Sure we have security problems, but we're fixing em

By | February 22, 2008, 3:00am PST

Microsoft Security guru Michael Howard gave a spirited defense of Jeff Jones’ research and had one big message: Microsoft has admitted it has security problems. What about the rest of the industry?

Give Howard props for passion–his post displays a lot of it.

First, he notes that Jones’ vulnerability counts aren’t perfect, but they’re the best metric we have. From there he proceeds to deliver a few choice quotes. Among them:

  • Let’s go back to Jeff’s recent analysis. Cover up the Mac OS X and Linux stats for a moment so you can only see the Windows XP SP2 and Windows Vista bars. Windows Vista has had fewer security vulnerabilities than Windows XP SP2. Conventional wisdom (which is often wrong, especially when it becomes urban legend) tends to suggest that the more lines of code you have the more bugs you have. That might very well be true, and Windows Vista is certainly larger than Windows XP SP2; yet right now, we are on track for an approximately 50% reduction in vulnerabilities compared to Windows XP SP2. Think about that figure for a moment: about a 50% reduction (and that does not account for the reduction in vulnerability severity) despite the increase in code size.
  • The reason you’re seeing a reduction in vulnerabilities across major Microsoft products is simple:

Microsoft recognized it needed to improve security.
Bill said so (as did the rest of senior management)
Our group swung into action and helped the rest of the company come up to speed on security issues.
The Microsoft development processes changed to adopt the SDL

  • Referring to Ubuntu and Mac OS X Howard wrote:

How many people involved in the development of these other products have you heard say, “Wow, we have a lot of security bugs, we really should do something systematic to fix this problem.” I’ll be very happy to be proved wrong, but all I hear is crickets. I see no-one else in the industry standing up and saying, “Let’s fix this.”

I just hear emotion, excuses and dogma.

Is Howard biased? Sure he is. But he may also have a point. Funny how a message delivered without Jones’ baggage is more effective.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
74
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Sure they are.
ShadeTree 25th Feb 2008
We sell thousands of computers to the department of defense every month with Windows 2000 preloaded. You had better check your assertions.
0 Votes
+ -
Worst in IT history
Mikael_z 22nd Feb 2008
Microsoft is the worst kid in class and should be ashamed of what they've
accomplished. No other platform comes even close to the abysmal security in
Windows, to even try to compare it with the alternatives is a joke and disingenuous
indeed of you bloggers.

The truth is that Microsoft has never been the visionary it'd like to be and almost
missed the internet revolution entirely. They've thus built the Windows platform
with a typical closed and safe office as the assumed environment.

No wonder Windows is no better than this, but with cheerleaders like you, they
don't really need to be.
0 Votes
+ -
When comparing vulnerabilities which is what this blog is about Microsoft is far from the worst kid in the class. There have been more patches for Linux and OSX. The truth is that the article is correct. The only one with an active program to improve the vulnerability count is Microsoft.
"The only one with an active program to improve the vulnerability count is Microsoft."

Does that mean they are trying to increase their count happy


NOTE: This is not a serious post.
0 Votes
+ -
How about comparing consequences!
Mikael_z 22nd Feb 2008
The summed up cost of the malware plague on the windoze platform was $13.3
billion worldwide. The word "abysmal" is a too weak word to describe it, and you call
that secure?

The Mac platform, for example, on the other hand has zero malware on the loose to
worry about. The cost? $0.

http://www.computereconomics.com/article.cfm?id=1225
0 Votes
+ -
Don't confuse not attacked with secure.
ShadeTree 22nd Feb 2008
You may leave all your doors and windows open on your house and still not have a break in. That doesn't mean your home is secure.
0 Votes
+ -
Strawman
Mikael_z 22nd Feb 2008
It doesn't matter how you try to distort it, it's still a documented fact that windoze is
the overwhelmingly most expensive platform because of crappy security.
0 Votes
+ -
uh...
evilkillerwhale@... 22nd Feb 2008
Windows has the #1 security in operating systems. It's just the most exploited. It doesn't have the most exploits, it's just the most exploited. Get your facts straight you troll.
0 Votes
+ -
This home protected by ......
devlin_X 24th Feb 2008
" You may leave all your doors and windows open on your house and still not have a break in. That doesn't mean your home is secure."


When it comes to theft, just like home burglars they tend to go after the unprotected places first because the chance of success is much higher ( e.g. the path of least resistance.)....

Yes, for purely random attacks those making malware just to be malicious will go after the majority.

The thing to ask is of targeted machines where theft of information was the goal who was successfully compromised the most often? Look at what departments of the government were the first to switch to Linux...NSA and the Department Of Defense. Hmmmm...could that be because of security?
Security is likely why many governments with-in the US and abroad are moving away from Windows. :
http://www.linux.org/info/linux_govt.html
0 Votes
+ -
The US government
rtk 24th Feb 2008
is compromised by incompetence far more often than by vendor choice.

I wouldn't trust them to secure my dog's house.

Is today an orange or red day? wink
0 Votes
+ -
Sure they are.
ShadeTree 25th Feb 2008
We sell thousands of computers to the department of defense every month with Windows 2000 preloaded. You had better check your assertions.
0 Votes
+ -
correction
JamesDoyle 22nd Feb 2008
the cost: triple or quadruple the cost for the same hardware.
0 Votes
+ -
The only way you could really compare is if you had another OS with a comparable number of installations. The people who write malware, crimeware (whatever you want to call it) are not kids. This malware is there business, and if you're going to put the effort into writing this software, you want to target the one that can make the most money. Windows has 90-95% of the market...you'd have to be a complete idiot to target Linux (with maybe 1% of the desktops) or the Mac (maybe 5%...maybe).

If the criminals are only successful in infection 5% of the windows machines they encounter, that's almost as many wins as infecting EVERY Mac. If they compromise 1-2% of the windows machines, that's more than ALL of the linux desktops.

With linux, however, the biggest problem is that most people that run linux desktops are far more computer literate than the average Mac or Windows user. There are plenty of people that run windows without any AV software and have no problems....but in the hands of someone who picked up a computer at walmart, you'll find a machine that's riddled with viruses, adware, bots and so on.....why? because some people don't have any concept of safe computing.....I kinda think these people download every attachment that comes in the mail.

These people would find a way to compromise any OS they were on....that's just the way it is.
0 Votes
+ -
O.O
evilkillerwhale@... 22nd Feb 2008
LEOPARD HAD MORE EXPLOITS FOUND ON DAY 1 THAN ANY WINDOWS.

You know how much 13.3 billion dollars is to companies that make trillions? Put it this way:
you use Linux: you make 0 dollars. You find 100,000 dollars worth of exploits, and your house is repossessed.

You use OS X: No one loves artists, except movie studios. You make 50,000 dollars, but have to deal with Michael Moore. Net value? -5 dollars.

You use Windows: you sell for every major system in the world, including pcs, cash registers, home users, cell phones, pdas, and music players. You make 300,000,000,000 dollars, and are Bill Gates. Windows makes for Mac products because IT CAN. Mac's programmers are still trying to make AppleScript not suck eggs, and Linux users are trying to find a driver for their 8 year old printer, and power for the LEDs on their tin foil hats.

Linux has it's uses, Mac has it's uses, Windows has it's uses. For most people, Windows is BY FAR the best choice, and therefore you should just realize that places like computereconomics.com can use any results they want. I can say this minute it cost 300,000,000,000,000 dollars in exploits on the English language last year for Apple. They lost that much for not making their system in Swahili. Yup. My statistics? Random site #7, found while googling "Why Apple sucks"
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
bmerc Updated - 22nd Feb 2008
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
By any count, ....
ShadeTree 22nd Feb 2008
... Microsoft is still not the worst.
0 Votes
+ -
Virus ???? Then we can talk about who is worse.
0 Votes
+ -
The good old days weren't
Yagotta B. Kidding 22nd Feb 2008
The truth is that Microsoft has never been the visionary it'd like to be and almost missed the internet revolution entirely. They've thus built the Windows platform with a typical closed and safe office as the assumed environment.

MS was never safe, even before the Internet. I well remember MS_DOS viruses making their way around offices with nothing but Sneakernet as the the vehicle.
0 Votes
+ -
You aint kidding!
Ole Man 22nd Feb 2008
Yagotta B. Kidding? No you don't!
0 Votes
+ -
Time to move on
ParrotHeadFL 22nd Feb 2008
There's no point in badgering MS over their past behavior. If you have a comment to make on the CURRENT state of security within MS, that's fine.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, maybe, no
zkiwi 22nd Feb 2008
The past is generally the key to the future.

Please note that you can break Vista in a number of new and improved ways as well as using a few "old standard" ways as well. As the guy said in essence, "we're trying to fix it." That's a good thing, but it doesn't wipe away the historical foundations of the security problems Windows (and Windows apps) have.
0 Votes
+ -
let's see...
evilkillerwhale@... 22nd Feb 2008
Linux: infinite vulnerabilities. You have to use someone's (who has no good reason to write quality code, other than boredom), and therefore, every time you update your system, they could be key logging you, they could be stealing your passwords, they could be destroying your system. You've just been lucky. All 8 programs that run on Linux are utterly useless to anyone not running a server, and the fact that you have to use the abysmal open office is an even bigger joke. Linux is not a real solution, and that's why it's still in the dust. OS X Leopard is the single worst program I have EVER used. It's buggy, slow, crashes EVERY DAY, and doesn't run the programs I want it to. I've never had a program that was made for windows that won't run in Vista. Frickin' X-Wing (a MSDOS/Win95 game) runs no problem in Vista, using DosBox. Yes, there is an emulator you have to use... for a decade plus year old game. OS X? You can't use their previous 2 versions. Nice. Linux? Things that run on one system won't run on another that came out at the same time. Nice. I have a macbook, I have several windows pcs, I have Linux machines, and I've got machines that are used solely for MAME. You know the system that crashes the least? Windows. I suggest, before you go spouting incessant untruths you try to use the system beforehand.

Windows Vista: 1 sort of exploit for the operating system itself in over a year. Leopard? 20 in day 1. # patched for windows: 1. Number patched for Leopard 20+. Linux? Linux IS an exploit. You're exploiting someone else's kernal from someone who exploited other code repeatedly. So just do 15 seconds of research, and learn what you're talking about.

Good day to you, sir.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista built on top of patched XP.
bjbrock 22nd Feb 2008
It should have less vulnerabilities. It's not like they started from the ground up.
have been in the new code and not the legacy code.
0 Votes
+ -
ignoraeis bliss eh?
JamesDoyle 22nd Feb 2008
under the hood its completely different. go read up on it, then feel free to post.
0 Votes
+ -
are you serious?
evilkillerwhale@... 22nd Feb 2008
It's a completely different kernel, was being built at the same time as XP was, and by a completely separate team. They started completely from the ground up.

DO 15 SECONDS OF RESEARCH BEFORE SPREADING IDIOCRACY.
0 Votes
+ -
New converts
Yagotta B. Kidding 22nd Feb 2008
Ah, the zealotry of the newly converted.

The reason that others aren't gushing about having discovered that they have security issues and are Now Going To Fix Them is that everyone else has been doing it day-in and day-out for years and years.
...Windows NT 3.1. Aside from SE Linux/Trusted Solaris types of operating systems (which are generally too complicated for consumer operating systems) Windows has been secure for a long time.
0 Votes
+ -
=}
...for a long time with the Windows NT line.
0 Votes
+ -
Lousy security then. [NT]
Mikael_z 22nd Feb 2008
=}
0 Votes
+ -
Define your terms
bmerc 22nd Feb 2008
This statement is meaningless because you are unwilling to explain what you mean by "just as secure."
If you mean "has the same security-oriented features" then you might have a point. If you mean "provides fundamental separation of user space from system space" then clearly you're wrong for every version prior to Vista, which means your "since 1993" argument is nonsense.
0 Votes
+ -
@bmerc: I mean both.
ye 22nd Feb 2008
Windows, since NT 3.1, has had essentially the same security model as other consumer based operating systems. It has also had the concept of least user privilege since that time too (which I think you're confusing with user/system space).
0 Votes
+ -
Redefining your terminology in mid argument is a logical fallacy. Your entire argument is invalid because of this fallacy, regardless of the truth of any premises.
0 Votes
+ -
There was no redefinition no matter how much you'd like that to be so.
0 Votes
+ -
better than...
evilkillerwhale@... 22nd Feb 2008
...the no security in Linux. Oh wait... it's highly secure... nothing will run on it...

My rock collection doesn't get viruses either. Does that make it secure?
0 Votes
+ -
virii
kri$ 22nd Feb 2008
[Yeah right, and viruses don't exist]
They don't?
0 Votes
+ -
You forgot to mention...
zkiwi 22nd Feb 2008
Microsoft have not been doing it very well at all since 1993, and the jury is still out on Vista in terms of how well they are doing now.

To abuse a car analogy, would you keep buying from a company that had as many problems as Microsoft has had? And to add, I really do believe that the world has been short-changed by the software industry. Microsoft is the biggest and worst offender, but the "others" do not get a pass.
...consumer based OS. I've been using Windows since NT 3.51 days and have never had a security problem. Not one piece of malware in all my years using it. How did I achieve this? Simple: I don't run with administrative privileges unless I'm performing administrative tasks. Unfortunately, until the release of Vista, running this way was not easy for the typical user.
0 Votes
+ -
********.
0 Votes
+ -
??? (nt)
ye 22nd Feb 2008
.
0 Votes
+ -
I guess you could have...
zkiwi 22nd Feb 2008
Made billions by patenting your approach to security then. It's a pity you didn't. It's a pity the world in general doesn't conform to what passes as your reality.

So, do tell, how'd you survive the drive-by bots and the flaws that never required an admin user to be logged in then? Luck?
0 Votes
+ -
One word...
zkiwi 22nd Feb 2008
ActiveX. There are so many historical exploits for that it's less than funny.

Other than that, if you want a specific example, try http://xforce.iss.net/xforce/alerts/id/192

And then, seeing you are too lazy to bother, also try http://www.securityfocus.com/swsearch?sbm=%2F&metaname=alldoc&query=windows+remote+exploits&x=0&y=0

There's about 65 pages of remote exploits for you there. Does that perhaps refresh your memory?
0 Votes
+ -
Indeed!!
morph000 22nd Feb 2008
Yes ... the software industry has a great thing going . For them!
0 Votes
+ -
Logical fallacy
bmerc 22nd Feb 2008
You're using the fallacy known as equivocation. You claim that Windows has been secure for a long time, but you're using "is secure" to mean "has security features like authentication." However clearly, the term "is secure" is NOT being used in this sense in this discussion.

We know you're not stupid, so this is unlikely to be an error. More likely it's a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.
...based OS. And so far I have seen no evidence to support that it's not.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, it IS a fallacy.
bmerc 22nd Feb 2008
The FALLACY is your taking ONE meaning of a phrase, then applying that same phrase with a DIFFERENT meaning and claiming that they're the same.
This is a fallacy. You committed it. You admitted you did it.
Your argument is dismissed because it fails the test of logical validity. Please try again without the deliberate spin-jockey talk-radio nonsense.

Not every participant is incapable of critical thinking.
Apparently you cannot be honest in your debating so I see no reason to discuss this further with you.
0 Votes
+ -
re: Yes it IS a fallacy
Badgered 22nd Feb 2008
The FALLACY is your taking ONE meaning of a phrase, then applying that same phrase with a DIFFERENT meaning and claiming that they're the same.This is a fallacy. You committed it. You admitted you did it.Your argument is dismissed because it fails the test of logical validity.

As I read talkbacks I generally appreciate that a person's point of view isn't always expressed completely in the first post. Quite often it gets refined as the thread moves along. Perhaps what someone typed isn't 100% what they were thinking or meaning when he/she pressed the "Submit" button.

I won't pretend to know if "ye" mislead you on purpose or not, but it seems like you're saying "since you've changed what you originally said, I no longer consider you worthy of a reasoned reply". That seems like an easy way out to me. It seems as though you're more concerned with proving that it "IS a fallacy" than discussing the issue.

That being said, I think "ye" is only partially correct. While the security features may have been available... they didn't often work, and weren't the default setting. It wasn't always Microsoft's fault though. I remember a piece of ERP software that wouldn't run unless it had Admin privileges. Making the built in security measures useless.

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
Click Here
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