NOW that one in two Windows PCs is believed to be a zombie PC Microsoft becomes a national and international problem. The latest Vista 7 vulnerability is a sign that things are not improving and Microsoft will start working privately/secretly with government in its disclosure of vulnerabilities [1, 2, 3, 4]. Will hidden/silent patches also be shared with governments? Last week there was an erroneous suspicion in Slashdot citing a blog with a semi-false alarm about a new security hole.
If you're relying on the password encryption in Microsoft Dynamics GP -- formerly Great Plains -- to meet your PCI requirements, stop what you're doing and listen up. It's been revealed that its encryption algorithm is about as simple as it can be: a substitution cypher.
Microsoft, the software giant based in Redmond (USA), released two critical security updates on May 11, 2010, patching vulnerabilities within its e-mail applications as well as the Visual Basic for Applications designed to implement software programming language built into Microsoft Office.
"This is definitely very serious," said Alfred Huger, vice president of engineering at Immunet, a Palo Alto, Calif.-based antivirus company. "Probably any security product running on Windows XP can be exploited this way." Huger added that Immunet's desktop client is not vulnerable to the argument-switch attacks because the company's software uses a different method to hook into the Windows kernel.
According to Matousec, nearly three-dozen Windows desktop security titles, including ones from Symantec, McAfee, Trend Micro, BitDefender, Sophos and others, can be exploited using the argument-switch tactic. Matousec said it had tested the technique on Windows XP SP3 and Vista SP1 on 32-bit machines.
The British High Court ruled that a software vendor's EULA -- which denied all liability for poor software -- was not reasonable.
Comments
Needs Sunlight
2010-05-24 19:01:31
The burden of software liability is something that M$€ wants. It's a variation of the usual extortion or 'indemnification' marketing. Like any other tool, the burden is on the user. Or in this case, the user is not the end-user who sits at the screen trying to get some other job done but the IT departments or consulting.
Few other tools require liability worries by the maker -- except in the case of standards. The failure with standards is also small part of the failure with security. However, there is a model already for regular tools to have liability requirements to comply with specific industry standards.
Forget suing Microsoft for these security failures. It's products acting as they have been designed: buggy, bloated, and fatally insecure. Sue the socks off of the managers that signed off on the Microsoft roll outs and the 'IT' staff that went along with it.