BearItAll <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> McAfee: Microsoft completely unrealistic on Vista
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Windows Vista does not ship with antivirus software installed and
>> | active, but for the first time Microsoft will be promoting their own
>> | antivirus service in Windows OneCare. Alex Eckelberry, CEO of Sunbelt
>> | Software, has already called Microsoft's plans predatory based on
>> | pricing. McAfee is focusing its critique on operating system design,
>> | arguing instead that Microsoft's decisions with Vista will simply make
>> | the operating system less secure.
>> |
>> | In the advertisement, McAfee CEO George Samunek is quoted as saying,
>> | "Microsoft is being completely unrealistic if, by locking security
>> | companies out of the kernel, it thinks hackers won't crack Vista's
>> | kernel. In fact, they already have." The advert continues: "With its
>> | upcoming Vista operating system, Microsoft is embracing the flawed logic
>> | that computers will be more secure if it stops co-operating with the
>> | independent security firms."
>> `----
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061002-7875.html
>>
>> The back the claim that Vista has /already/ been hacked (even at kernel
>> level):
>>
>> Black Hat Takes Vista to Task
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | She demonstrated two potential attack vectors. One could allow unsigned
>> | code to be loaded into the Vista kernel. The second vector involved
>> | taking advantage of AMD's Pacific Hardware Virtualization to inject a
>> | new form of super malware that Rutkowska claimed to be undetectable.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3624861
>>
>> Symantec highlights Windows Vista user vulnerabilities
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Symantec has shed more light on potential vulnerabilities in Windows
>> | Vista that could circumvent new security measures and leave users
>> | vulnerable to attack.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/02/symantec_windows_vista_security/
>>
>> Symantec continues Vista bug hunt
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | After poking around the Windows Vista networking stack, Symantec
>> | researchers have tried out privilege-escalation attacks on an early
>> | version of the Windows XP successor.
>> |
>> | "We discovered a number of implementation flaws that continued to allow
>> | a full machine compromise to occur," Matthew Conover, principal
>> | security researcher at Symantec, wrote in the report titled "Attacks
>> | against Windows Vista's Security Model." The report was made available
>> | to Symantec customers last week and is scheduled for public release
>> | sometime before Vista ships, a Symantec representative said Monday.
>> `----
>>
>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6097976.html
>>
>> Symantec Finds Flaws In Vista's Network Stack
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Researchers with Symantec's advanced threat team poked through
>> | Vista's new network stack in several recent builds of the
>> | still-under-construction operating system, and found several bugs
>> | -- some of which have been fixed, including a few in Monday's
>> | release -- as well as broader evidence that the rewrite of the
>> | networking code could easily lead to problems.
>> |
>> | [...]
>> |
>> | Among Newsham's and Hoagland's conclusions: "The amount of new
>> | code present in Windows Vista provides many opportunities for
>> | new defects."
>> |
>> | "It's true that some of the things we found were 'low-hanging
>> | fruit,' and that some are getting fixed in later builds,"
>> | said Friedrichs. "But that begs the question of what else
>> | is in there?"
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/190700049;jsessionid=MWLALDT21M1...
>>
>> Symantec Says Windows Vista Will be Less Secure than XP
>>
>> ,----[ Snippet ]
>> | Symantec said earlier last week that there were no viruses for Apple's
>> | OS X.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3389
>>
>> Symantec sees an Achilles' heel in Vista
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Some of Microsoft's efforts to make Windows Vista its most stable and
>> | secure operating system ever could cause instability and new security
>> | flaws, according to a Symantec report.
>> |
>> | [...]
>> |
>> | "Microsoft has removed a large body of tried and tested code and
>> | replaced it with freshly written code, complete with new corner cases
>> | and defects," the researchers wrote in the report, scheduled for
>> | publication Tuesday.
>> `----
>>
>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6095119.html
>
> This is a bit of a tricky one, because anti-virus and security would
> undoubtedly be better integrated into the kernel. It would certainly be
> faster.
No it wouldn't. Anti-virus has no place in the kernel.
Anti virus is required at the point of entry : see Customs for an
explanation.
>
> Norton wanted to be more deeply ingrained into the MS OS system several
> versions ago. There was even an agreement of some kind at one time
> with
Of course they did : because then they would be on the gravy train for ever.
> Symantec, I don't know what came of that. Norton also wanted to properly
> secure an area of the system so that the anti-virus code itself could be
> invisible to the virus (as in a Linux system). But neither was given
> by MS.
Could you explain this some more please?
>
> Whether MS are capable of putting in the necessary security plus their
> current record with virus's and holes we have to all be doubtfull of, could
> they really come up with a viable solution when they have ignored the
> problem for so long. Then when you concider all the years Vista has been in
> development and it seems the idea of adding security only came about
> through preasure from outside of MS in the last half year or so. I think it
> was just pre-xmas when developers who had ever been on MS mailing lists or
> job books were getting messages asking for help with security. We were
> invited to a forum, simmilar to a forum many years ago when Win98 and NT
> were in development.
You're on a soapbox I believe.
>
> I attended that previous one and MS went against the vast majority who took
> part in the very detailed discussions, we could have had a great deal less
> virus/hacking on the release of Win98 had MS gone with the majority. I
> wasn't going to enter into this current one because MS only have themselves
> to blame for the current mess (besides I hardly ever do development these
> days), even past the XP work, Vista had enough development time to be made
> fully clean and safe, but they obviously didn't bother.
Hmm Hmmm. Thanks for that detailed analysis.
>
> I would have thought that with the current situation they would have been
> much better off selecting one of the security/anti-v vendors and letting
> them build right inside the MS code. Ok, that would have meant that the
> other security vendors would be out of the picture, but the main thing we
> need as soon as possible is that MS gets secure, as I have said in here
> before, we All need MS to get secure whether we use their computers or not.
> Until they do we are all going to struggle to move on in the computing
> world.
The security vendors do nothing more than trap this shit at point of
entry as far as I can see.
--
So in the future, one 'client' at a time or you'll be spending CPU time with
lots of little 'child processes'.
-- Kevin M. Bealer, commenting on the private life of a Linux nerd
|
|
