05.11.10

Gemini version available ♊︎

Despite Security Lies and Security Failures, Microsoft Instructs Worldwide Cybersecurity Summit

Posted in Microsoft, Security, Windows at 8:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Protect your money
Billions or trillions of dollars are lost or saved based on one’s security

Summary: Microsoft is telling lies about the number of flaws in its software, it admits failing to secure its software (statistics indicate exacerbation), and yet, Scott ‘Windows zombie tax’ Charney gets to tell participants of the Worldwide Cybersecurity Summit what to do next

IN OUR most recent post about Windows insecurity news we showed that nothing is improving at Microsoft when it comes to security. It’s only the messages (engagements with the public) that seemingly change. Last week we wrote about Microsoft pretending that it supports standards, which is an utter lie only PR can buy. Here is part of the PR where Microsoft joins Apple [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] in its attack on Flash, not just its attack on Theora, which we covered in:

Microsoft — like Apple — is being denounced for the hypocrite that it is:

MS criticises Adobe over security and performance. Physician, heal thyself!

Let’s not forget that Microsoft does exactly the same thing as Adobe (only with limited platform support) whenever it markets Silver Lie. Microsoft went further than that when .NET toys got secretly injected into Firefox without permission, thus creating security and performance issues without users’ consent.

Microsoft is also being somewhat hypocritical when it makes some statements as covered in the article “Adapt or die, Microsoft warns business”.

Microsoft has failed to adapt to a connected world and a world of computing mobility. Now it has debt to repay.

Addressing the subject of security, Microsoft spreads lies with its secret patches, which probably mean that there are fake figures in this latest ‘security’ report where Microsoft is conveniently blaming “ISVs” for security problems in Windows. The ‘Microsoft press’ plays along with this talking point and other publications are trying to make it an excuse for expensive Microsoft “upgrades”, which Microsoft urges/advocates using withdrawal of support. How ruthless and deceiving. Here is an example of Microsoft’s tactics:

The bottom line comes down to this: if your company plans to stay with XP well into 2011 and you’re still using IE6, you’ve got to upgrade that browser. Knowing that IE9 won’t support XP, you can safely move to IE8 knowing it’s the end of the line for IE on XP. Or, you can move to Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or Opera — but a company that’s still stuck on IE6 isn’t likely to be that adventurous. The web developers of the world will be happy with anything that gets you off IE6.

It is a “bait and switch” manoeuvre in a sense. Microsoft did the same thing to Windows 2000 users some years ago, for no practical reasons except the profit motive.

Going back to the hidden patches scam, can anyone believe that Microsoft is patching with just two “critical” bulletins? For several years Microsoft has been hiding its flaws and patching them silently for vanity purposes.

Microsoft on Tuesday will issue two critical bulletins that will fix vulnerabilities in Windows and Office, which if exploited successfully, could allow a remote attacker to take control of the computer, the company said Thursday.

There were also some broken patches which needed to be re-released.

Let’s consider this news in light of last week’s reports, such as:

The allegations are so serious that Microsoft could not afford to keep quiet without a carefully-crafted piece of spin. Here are the latest excuses from Microsoft (it’s the psychology of lying without technically lying):

Note that a policy such as this implies that Microsoft will not patch known, internally-discovered vulnerabilities if an externally-sourced vulnerability of the same or lesser severity is not available for the silent patch to piggyback on. They’ll sit on it, and we won’t know for how long because they don’t document it.

Utter spin. Groklaw has just found this new article which nicely explains Microsoft’s lies in this case:

#3 Tell the truth, misleadingly. The hardest lies to catch are those which aren’t actually lies. You’re telling the truth, but in a way that leaves a false impression. Technically, it’s only a prevarication – about half a sin. A 1990 study of pathological liars in New York City found that those who could avoid follow-up questions were significantly more successful at their deceptions.

Microsoft has also added a formal statement to The Register’s article on the subject (silent patching) because it received a lot of attention. Apologists of Microsoft also left comments trying to defend what Microsoft did there. It means it’s extremely damaging.

“Microsoft’s security record continues to be poor simply because Microsoft does not handle security issues properly, having for example ignored known flaws for 5 months until a disaster came.”In other insecurity news, SharePoint 2007 has a 0-day vulnerability (meaning that it’s already under attack). Microsoft has confirmed this [1, 2] and only issued a “workaround” rather than a solution [1, 2, 3]. As this one blogger puts it, there is “no SharePoint fix” and it says nothing about Microsoft’s hiding of patches and flaws (clustering them is possible if one wants to crunch the numbers). How many flaws does Microsoft patch in SharePoint silently? In this case, Microsoft had no choice but to publicise it (someone beat Microsoft to it).

Microsoft’s security record continues to be poor simply because Microsoft does not handle security issues properly, having for example ignored known flaws for 5 months until a disaster came [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. That’s just negligence [1, 2, 3].

As a result of such negligence, IDG reports that “Conficker found on 25% of enterprise Windows PCs,” according to Microsoft.

Conficker was far and away the most prevalent threat found on Windows machines in the second half of 2009 in the enterprise, Microsoft says. The company’s security tools cleaned the Conficker worm from one quarter of enterprise Windows machines.

“25% of enterprise Windows PCs” is a lot of computers. But then again, for several years now we have known that hundreds of millions of Windows zombies were out there waiting to be commandeered. Google says that fake antivirus software is 15 percent of all malware. That’s what happens when Windows refuses to implement repositories like GNU/Linux does. GNU/Linux has had that for ages and it keeps it more bulletproof.

Going back to Microsoft’s own figures, even Microsoft admits that it’s getting worse for Windows in practical terms:

Microsoft Sees Infected PC Numbers Climbing

[...]

The numbers of PCs cleaned by Microsoft’s anti-malware software worldwide during the second half of 2009 continued to trend upward, suggesting that more PCs are getting infected in total, according to the company’s latest Security Intelligence Report (SIR).

More here.

It’s interesting that even Microsoft admits that it’s failing to tackle the problem it created (or helped create).

Microsoft’s Charney, the former government (ish) person who wants charge Mac and GNU/Linux users for Microsoft to clean up its own mess [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] is now intervening in international affairs, based on this AP report:

“Lots of times, there’s confusion in these treaty negotiations because of lack of clarity about which problems they’re trying to solve,” said Scott Charney, vice president of Microsoft Corp.’s Trustworthy Computing Group, before a speech at the Worldwide Cybersecurity Summit.

[...]

Charney, of Microsoft, believes cyber threats should be better differentiated. He proposes four categories: conventional computer crimes, military espionage, economic espionage and cyberwarfare. That approach, he argues, would make it easier to craft defenses and to discuss international solutions to each problem.

What is Microsoft doing in a Worldwide Cybersecurity Summit? And why does it tell the world how to address these issues that it itself helped create? Microsoft cannot even issue disclosures of its own flaws (because it lies pathologically), so why should anyone believe Charney and maybe implement his outrageous idea of taxing all computer/Internet users for damage caused by Windows botnets? Microsoft should be held liable for knowingly refusing to patch known flaws.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

5 Comments

  1. Yuhong Bao said,

    May 12, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    Gravatar

    “Addressing the subject of security, Microsoft spreads lies with its secret patches, which probably mean that there are fake figures in this latest ’security’ report”
    Or more precisely that at best the figures include only the externally-reported ones.

  2. Yuhong Bao said,

    May 13, 2010 at 7:46 pm

    Gravatar

    “Note that a policy such as this implies that Microsoft will not patch known, internally-discovered vulnerabilities if an externally-sourced vulnerability of the same or lesser severity is not available for the silent patch to piggyback on. They’ll sit on it, and we won’t know for how long because they don’t document it. ”
    Yea, MS seems to be trying hard to pretend like that the internally-discovered vulnerabilities do not exist, with nasty side-effects like this one.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Yes. it is important to show that they are doing this.

    Microsoft rarely gets caught because it’s hard to review binary-only patches.

    Yuhong Bao Reply:

    Yea, one reason why this can be nasty is that the security patches can be reverse-engineered using for example the BinDiff plugin of IDA, which would provide all necessary info that would be needed to exploit them.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    That’s still an excuse for telling fake numbers.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. 2023 is the Year Taxpayers' Money Goes to War and Energy Subsidies, Not Tech

    Now that a lot of powerful and omnipresent ‘tech’ (spying and policing) companies are rotting away we have golden opportunities to bring about positive change and maybe even recruit technical people for good causes



  2. Getting Back to Productive Computer Systems Would Benefit Public Health and Not Just Boost Productivity

    “Smartphoneshame” (shaming an unhealthy culture of obsession with “apps”) would potentially bring about a better, more sociable society with fewer mental health crises and higher productivity levels



  3. Links 04/02/2023: This Week in KDE and Many More Tech Layoffs

    Links for the day



  4. Dotcom Boom and Bust, Round 2

    The age of technology giants/monopolies devouring everything or military-funded (i.e. taxpayers-subsidised) surveillance/censorship tentacles, in effect privatised eyes of the state, may be ending; the United States can barely sustain that anymore and raising the debt ceiling won't solve that (buying time isn't the solution)



  5. Society Would Benefit From a Smartphoneshame Movement

    In a society plagued by blackmail, surveillance and frivolous lawsuits it is important to reconsider the notion of “smart” phone ownership; these devices give potentially authoritarian companies and governments far too much power over people (in the EU they want to introduce new legislation that would, in effect, ban Free software if it enables true privacy)



  6. IRC Proceedings: Friday, February 03, 2023

    IRC logs for Friday, February 03, 2023



  7. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, February 02, 2023

    IRC logs for Thursday, February 02, 2023



  8. Links 03/02/2023: Proton 7.0-6 Released, ScummVM 2.7 Testing

    Links for the day



  9. Links 03/02/2023: OpenSSH 9.2 and OBS Studio 29.0.1

    Links for the day



  10. Links 03/02/2023: GNU C Library 2.37

    Links for the day



  11. Sirius Finished

    Yesterday I was sent a letter approving my resignation from Sirius ‘Open Source’, two months after I had already announced that I was resigning with immediate effect; they sent an identical letter to my wife (this time, unlike before, they remembered to also change the names!!)



  12. The Collapse of Sirius in a Nutshell: How to Identify the Symptoms and Decide When to Leave

    Sirius is finished, but it's important to share the lessons learned with other people; there might be other "pretenders" out there and they need to be abandoned



  13. Links 03/02/2023: WINE 8.1 and RapidDisk 9.0.0

    Links for the day



  14. Links 02/02/2023: KDE Gear 22.12.2 and LibreOffice 7.5

    Links for the day



  15. Linux News or Marketing Platform?

    Ads everywhere: Phoronix puts them at the top, bottom, navigation bar, left, and right just to read some Microsoft junk (puff pieces about something that nobody other than Microsoft even uses); in addition there are pop-ups asking for consent to send visitors’ data to hundreds of data brokers



  16. Daily Links at Techrights Turn 15, Time to Give Them an Upgrade

    This year we have several 15-year anniversaries; one of them is Daily Links (it turned 15 earlier this week) and we've been working to improve these batches of links, making them a lot more extensive and somewhat better structured/clustered



  17. Back to Focusing on Unified Patent Court (UPC) Crimes and Illegal Patent Agenda, Including the EPO's

    The EPO's (European Patent Office, Europe's second-largest institution) violations of constitutions, laws and so on merit more coverage, seeing that what's left of the "media" not only fails to cover scandalous things but is actively cheering for criminals (in exchange for money)



  18. European Patent Office Staff Votes in Favour of Freedom of Association (97% of Voters in Support)

    The Central Staff Committee (CSC) at the EPO makes a strong case for António Campinos to stop breaking and law and actually start obeying court orders (he’s no better than Benoît Battistelli and he uses worse language already)



  19. Links 02/02/2023: Glibc 2.37 and Go 1.20

    Links for the day



  20. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, February 01, 2023

    IRC logs for Wednesday, February 01, 2023



  21. Links 01/02/2023: Security Problems, Unrest, and More

    Links for the day



  22. Links 01/02/2023: Stables Kernels and Upcoming COSMIC From System76

    Links for the day



  23. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 31, 2023

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 31, 2023



  24. Links 31/01/2023: Catchup Again, Wayland in Xfce 4.20

    Links for the day



  25. Links 31/01/2023: elementary OS 7

    Links for the day



  26. Intimidation Against Nitrux Development Team Upsets the Community and Makes the Media Less Trustworthy

    Nitrux is being criticised for being “very unappealing”; but a look behind the scenes reveals an angry reviewer (habitual mouthpiece of the Linux Foundation and Linux foes) trying to intimidate Nitrux developers, who are unpaid volunteers rather than “corporate” developers



  27. Links 31/01/2023: GNOME 44 Wallpapers and Alpha

    Links for the day



  28. Free and Open Source Software Developers' European Meeting (FOSDEM) and KU Leuven Boosting Americans and Cancellers of the Father of Free Software

    The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its founder, Richard M. Stallman (RMS), along with the SFLC one might add, have been under a siege by the trademark-abusing FSFE and SFC; Belgium helps legitimise the ‘fakes’



  29. Techrights in the Next 5 or 10 Years

    Now that I’m free from the shackles of a company (it deteriorated a lot after grabbing Gates Foundation money under an NDA) the site Techrights can flourish and become more active



  30. 60 Days of Articles About Sirius 'Open Source' and the Long Road Ahead

    The Sirius ‘Open Source’ series ended after 60 days (parts published every day except the day my SSD died completely and very suddenly); the video above explains what’s to come and what lessons can be learned from the 21-year collective experience (my wife and I; work periods combined) in a company that still claims, in vain, to be “Open Source”


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts