This is a discussion on Microsoft refuses to cooperate with security experts - Leave OS vernable. Use GNU/Linux to be secure - Linux ; http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=21679 Microsoft, Security Vendors Get to the Kernel of the Matter Source: IT Business Edge | Priority: Fortifying Network Security | Topic: Application Planning and Implementation Date Published: 11/3/2006 With Joe Wilcox, senior analyst, JupiterResearch [ www.jupiterresearch.com] . Microsoft and ...
Microsoft, Security Vendors Get to the Kernel of the Matter
Source: IT Business Edge | Priority: Fortifying Network Security | Topic:
Application Planning and Implementation Date Published: 11/3/2006
With Joe Wilcox, senior analyst, JupiterResearch
[www.jupiterresearch.com]. Microsoft and other security vendors are
discussing what level of access should be provided to the kernel of the
64-bit version of the coming Windows Vista operating system.
Question: What is the issue?
Wilcox: The technology, which is referred to by one of two names:
PatchGuard or Kernel Patch Protection. The bottom line is that Microsoft
wants to minimize the amount of changes made to the kernel. This
technology right now is available for the 64-bit versions of Windows XP
and Windows Vista. There are a number of security companies that have
[traditionally accessed] the kernel as part of the protection mechanism.
Some of that may be logistical or preventative, depending on the vendor.
The vendors say that they need kernel access as the best way for them to
ensure that they protect the entire OS, including the kernel, from
intrusion. Microsoft takes the position that the kernel should be
basically unalterable. They want to keep everyone out, the bad guys and
the good guys. So as part of its response to the EU [European Union],
Microsoft says it will release APIs — application program interfaces —
that will allow the security vendors to have some access around the kernel
and to take information out of the kernel, but not direct access to the
kernel. Microsoft claims its software security software would also be
blocked from the kernel.
Question: Why is this contentious?
Wilcox: Here's the analogy I use: If the kernel is like the summit of a
mountain, then the security vendors have been able to scale up there any
way they want. They can pick the side, pick the path, and get up to the
kernel. Under the new mechanism — which won't be available for several
years — they will have to follow Microsoft's path, what I call the
"Apian Way" — the play is on "API" and the Roman Appian Way — up the
mountain. But they can't reach the summit. That's okay as long as the
hackers don't have access. But if [the hackers] find their own path up the
mountain and reach the summit, they can plant anything they want there,
and there is no one to stop them. Right now, there is no access to the
kernel. Future APIs will allow this path up the mountain, but not up to
the summit. If I was an IT manager, I would stay the course with 32-bit
Windows. With 32-bit, everyone has access to the kernel. 64-bit is in the
future, but it's a ways off. The transition will not be the same as it was
for 16-bit to 32-bit. The 32-bit offers a lot of power and performance
already. [For 64-bit], there are a lot of issues to resolve in terms of
supporting applications and software drivers. IT mangers want them to run
smoothly and 64-bit already was a stretch. Now the controversy over the
kernel is probably a good reason to stay the 32-bit course for a while
until it shakes out.
Question: Microsoft now has a separate security software business. It
seems that it could take advantage, even though it says that its own
security developers won't have an unfair advantage over outsiders. Wilcox:
Let's talk about how security vendors may be judging Microsoft. They can
listen to what Microsoft says or may want to look at Microsoft's behavior.
They were fined twice by the EU, the second time for failure to disclose
information in a way that satisfies the EU. In the U.S., Microsoft has
agreed to a two-year extension to Justice Department oversight largely
because of problems with information disclosure. So I'm not going to make
a judgment either way, but I assume security vendors will be looking at
actions rather than words. There will be no resolution in the near future,
that's for sure. Microsoft said it will not allow access to the kernel and
are sticking firmly to that approach. By the way, Microsoft's right to
block access to the kernel from the security perspective. It's a good
move. There are two caveats that would [make it okay]: A would be if
Microsoft can keep the bad guys out of the kernel; B is if Microsoft
wasn't competing with its security partners.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."
"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."
© Copyright for the Digital Millennium