01.20.08
Gemini version available ♊︎How Jim Allchin, Gartner and Enderle Lied to the Whole World
If you say it often enough, people will believe it
We have developed a habit of keeping track of analysts who are obviously paid or compensated for serving corporate agenda (e.g. [1, 2, 3]). This is very relevant in light of the recent OOXML propaganda that came from IDC and the Burton Group.
Here is another fine example from the news. We wish to debunk the said analysts using compelling evidence and fact. One of the predications which certain people made is this:
5. Windows Vista will be secure
Analysts were: WrongWhen Windows Vista was launched, Microsoft platforms group vice president, Jim Allchin, described a platform where its “safety and security” will be the “overriding features” for which most people will want Windows Vista.
Analysts from Gartner and the Enderle Group further touted Vista’s security features, highlighting in particular its spyware-fighting prowess.
Enderle and Gartner have been caught many times before. The former is a one-man, attention-seeking ‘consultancy’ whose major client is Microsoft. The latter, Gartner, is funded by Bill Gates and plenty of its revenue stream comes from work it does for Microsoft. Jim Allchin, by the way, escaped Microsoft as soon as Windows Vista was released. It truly make you wonder, does it not?
The people above claimed that Vista will be secure, but let us take a look at some headlines which cover separate incidents that occurred in the past year (sorted reverse chronologically for the most part).
The latest round of patches revealed that Vista could be hijacked by merely sending a packet to it.
Microsoft’s first set of security bulletins for 2008 may be slim, but will include a fix for a critical vulnerability in XP and Vista.
More information about this incident can be found here.
One of the updates is considered critical for Windows Vista and XP users because the flaw it fixes could be used by attackers to install unauthorized software on a victim’s computer.
As we showed before, especially when Microsoft’s Jeff Jones was lying to the public, Microsoft redefines and reinvents the science of security in attempt to show that Windows is more secure. Seconia was accused of playing similar games just days ago. Here is what needs to be pointed out:
1. Critical Vulnerability in Microsoft Metrics
For Microsoft this makes sense because these fixes get the benefit of a full test pass which is much more robust for a service pack or major release than it is for a security update.
2. Skeletons in Microsoft’s Patch Day closet
This is the first time I’ve seen Microsoft prominently admit to silently fixing vulnerabilities in its bulletins — a controversial practice that effectively reduces the number of publicly documented bug fixes (for those keeping count) and affects patch management/deployment decisions.
3. Beware of undisclosed Microsoft patches
Forget for a moment whether Microsoft is throwing off patch counts that Microsoft brass use to compare its security record with those of its competitors. What do you think of Redmond’s silent patching practice?
4. Microsoft is Counting Bugs Again
Sorry, but Microsoft’s self-evaluating security counting isn’t really a good accounting.
[...]
The point: Don’t count on security flaw counting. The real flaw is the counting.
Getting back to Vista, let us look at some of the flaws we have seen:
1. Microsoft fixes 11 flaws in 7 patches; 5 affect Windows Vista
Microsoft on Tuesday released its December 2007 security bulletin, which includes seven updates: three are designated as critical by the software giant and four are deemed important.
2. December 2007′s Patch Tuesday’s Going to Be Big – Really Big
A Trio of Critical Patches
First up is a remote code execution patch for DirectX versions 7.0 (Windows 2000) through 10.0 (Windows Vista).
3. Security hole in MS-Windows Vista on Thanksgiving
Microsoft, although late, but did acknowledge that it is a flaw even in the latest OS (Vista) which should have been fixed long back.
4. Thirty-Six Updates Later—and Counting
Over the Thanksgiving holiday, I refreshed one of my Windows Vista test machines. Oh my, there were so many Windows Updates.
5. Vista security threats to rise in 2008: McAfee
Microsoft’s Windows Vista operating system will face increasing security threats, according to McAfee Avert Labs predictions for top 10 security threats in 2008.
6. Microsoft issues 6 ‘critical’ patches
The updates affect many versions of Windows, Server and Office software — including Windows XP and Windows Vista — and are meant to prevent hackers from breaking into Web surfers’ computers using specially crafted Web pages.
7. Buffer the Overflow Slayer v. the ActiveX Files [Vista included]
The vulnerability was discovered by Krystian Kloskowski and is rated “highly critical” in this posting on Secunia. It’s also discussed here on the US-Cert website. Proof-of-concept code can be found on MilW0rm here.
8. Microsoft plans six critical patches
At least one of the critical vulnerabilities involves Internet Explorer 7 and Windows Vista, both of which were conceived under new and highly vaunted development rigors designed to produce more secure products.
9. Patch Tuesday: Critical IE, Vista patches on deck
Of the four criticals, two will include high-severity patches for Windows Vista. The bulletin rated ?moderate? only affects Vista.
10. June Patch Tuesday to deliver Vista fixes and more
Four of this month’s bulletins are labelled ‘critical’ and relate to vulnerabilities that may allow remote code execution.
11. Microsoft Plugs Critical Vista Hole
Microsoft has just patched another critical hole in Vista that it knew about as long ago as last Christmas. The delay was similar to its lag in patching the serious (and heavily targeted) animated-cursor flaw I told you about last month.
12. Microsoft Patches Not One, But Three Vista Holes
Microsoft today released an update for the recently popular ‘animated cursor’ vulnerability. The update was originally scheduled for April 10th, but due to recent exploits, was rushed out today. The update wasn’t just for this one vulnerability though, in Vista, it addressed two others, and in all covered seven vulnerabilities in Vista, XP and 2000.
13. Windows Vista’s Built-in Rootkit
This poor implementation of the permissions structure can be exploited by malware to make files that are undetectable to Anti-Virus products.
14. More Windows cursor patch trouble [Vista included again]
A new issue with the fix has also come up. Some customers have experienced trouble when printing from SQL Reporting Services to a Printer Command Language (PCL) printer, Microsoft said.
15. Windows cursor patch causing trouble
Installing Microsoft’s Tuesday patch for a “critical” Windows vulnerability is causing trouble for some users.
16. MS Patch Tuesday: Vista dinged again
For the second time this month, Microsoft has shipped a security bulletin with patches for a “critical” Vista vulnerability that puts millions of users at risk of code execution attacks.
17. Security Researchers Say Windows .ANI Problem Surfaced Two Years Ago
Security researchers say the Windows .ANI bug that has been plaguing users for the past week first surfaced — and was patched — in early 2005.
18. Week in review: Cursing Windows’ cursor flaw
The software giant broke with its monthly patch cycle to fix a bug that cybercrooks had been using since last week to attack Windows PCs, including those running Vista.
19. ANI takers for Asus website virus?
Asus.com.tw, the website of Taiwanese motherboard maker Asustek, has been spraying visitors with the .ANI virus, security software makers confirmed today.
20. Will Next Tuesday’s 3 Updates Effect Vista?
I would suspect that one will be a patch for the Windows MessageBox exploit, so Vista should get it. Might another be for the Vista ‘Timer/2099 Crack’? I wouldn’t consider it critical, but Microsoft probably does.
21. Windows Vista now has its first exploit spotted in the public
Security experts have confirmed that a proof of concept code for an unpatched vulnerability in Windows Vista has been released on the internet.
There were warning signs in advance. Windows Vista was not made to have a considerable impact, security-wise, but hype was a key driver. It happens to be the same case with DirectX 10, whose hype was generated by faking images which create a false perception that it is a big jump compared to DirectX 9 (that is another shocking story about deception, but it’s worth a separate post). Here are some more articles of interest:
1. Windows Vista: It’s More Secure, We Promise
Well, allow me to take a moment to remind everyone of something that you might not remember – XP was also touted as being ultra secure. Seriously, can anyone honestly look themselves in the mirror and say this is the gospel truth? You have got to be kidding me. Similar to XP, Microsoft promises to have the most secure Windows version to date yet again.
2. Cisco exec: Windows Vista is scary
“Parts of Vista scare me,” Gleichauf said at the Gartner Security Summit here on Monday. “Anything with that level of systems complexity will have new threats, as well as bringing new solutions. It’s always a struggle in security, trying to build for what you don’t know.”
3. Symantec Finds Flaws In Vista’s Network Stack
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?”
With so many incidents out there, there remains this Big Lie that Vista is secure. Paid analysts do not help here. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
DOUGman said,
January 20, 2008 at 2:46 am
You know after running with Ubuntu linux for little over a year now, I can say that all this BS from M$ does not worry anymore.
I often get asked about how I manage spyware, defragging, virus’s, adware, etc. i just say that your OS of choice requires special software to deal with all that. Linux doesn’t period.
Vista is fools gold, to appease the DRM folks at the expense of the licensee, as by agreeing to EULA, you do not own the copy of Windows nor its associated software.
D.
Dave said,
January 25, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I just recently dumped Vista for Ubuntu, and curse Dell for shipping Vista on my notebook in the first place. The first thing I HAD to do was spend $200 on ‘upgraded’ system utility software because it broke everything, including both older versions of Visual Studio that I had been using and VMWare.
It ran the hard drive constantly to ‘defrag’ or ‘index’ things while I tried to work, even when on battery power, and it put clicks and pops into every kind of audio, even after installing new drivers, and M$ shuffled the configuration interfaces to the point where Linux seemed comfortable and familiar by comparison. So I switched.
Carl Das Goat said,
January 26, 2008 at 10:17 pm
A year ago I decided to make the switch to Ubuntu. I have never regretted it. Quicken is the only application that can not be crossed over at this time, so I run an old copy of WinXP inside Virtual Box to do my banking. I keep a partition with XP on it so I can play video games that are only made for MS. But these things too shall pass.
I am on a project now to convert my small ($2 million in sales) business over to Fedora 8. It seems that my custom application DB vendor will only compile for RPM. Small price to pay, Fedora is a good product as well, if not as easy to customize since it lacks Ubuntu’s Synaptic Package Manager to simply “search and get” applications. But I have found that WINE will run my custom 3rd party Windows interface to the DB application, so I am (hopefully) just a few tweeks away from converting my 15 workstations and two servers over to a fully Linux enviorment. Then I can banish MS to the dust bin it truly deserves.
Long live Open Source, the way things should be.
{You can’t patent the wheel, how long can you continue to try to patent code and free thought?}
Yuhong Bao said,
January 27, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I’d say that the theoretical security across Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X is equal. But practical security is a different matter.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 27, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I beg to differ. Here you will find evidence that Windows was never built with the Internet or security in mind.
http://www.boycottnovell.com/comes-vs-microsoft/addenda/demonstrate.NTServer%20as.THE.Internet.platform/
It wasn’t designed for a networked environment and no lessons were taken from decades of UNIX evolution. Moreover, back in 1993 Bill Gates said that they (Microsoft) did not care about the Internet.
For additional readings consider:
Linux vs. Windows: Which is Most Secure?
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/views/article.php/3665801
Linux Security: A Big Edge Over Windows
http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/54742.html
The problems with Vista laid bare – What might have been
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38419
Why Windows is less secure than Linux
http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=311
Linux more secure than Windows, national survey shows
http://www.xomba.com/linux_more_secure_than_windows_national_survey_shows
Microsoft Windows: Insecure by Design
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34978-2003Aug23?language=printer
If Only We Knew Then What We Know Now About Windows XP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092300510.html?nav=rss_technology
Why Windows is a security nightmare.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/21/1085120110704.html
Yuhong Bao said,
January 27, 2008 at 11:50 pm
To be honest, Windows NT’s security was designed for a LAN, not for the Internet. That is for example why the Messenger service was enabled by default. It was not a problem in the pre-Internet days, when LANs were common. But Unix’s security was also not built for the Internet either. It was designed for a time-sharing system with multiple terminals attached to a minicomputer. But they are still quite good, the problem lies in the practical security of NT. I mean, NT nowadays have more viruses than Unix. BTW, by “NT” I also mean to Windows 2000, XP, and later because 2000 is NT 5.0, but not to 95/98/Me which is Windows 4.0, nor 3.x. Unix was not completely free of viruses either, however. The Morris worm was a famous worm targeting Unix.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 27, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Back then, there was a Unix monoculture, like today’s Windows monoculture.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 27, 2008 at 11:54 pm
By then I mean when the Morris worm spread.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 27, 2008 at 11:55 pm
So Unix is not fundamentally more secure than Windows.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 27, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Yes, NT was inspired by UNIX by the way. Gates openly said so. As for viruses, the last time I checked (2 days ago) there were over 5,000,000 pieces of known malware for Windows, including variants I presume. AV software is becoming ineffective, based on many recently articles that I’ve read in the past few months.
For Windows, security issues will get worse before they get any better. Most PCs (>50%) are now believed to be infected by malware and about 1 in 4, according to some estimates, are controlled remotely by a criminal. This leads to a surge in cybercrime (stolen passwords, ransoms, etc.) and also to SPAM and DDOS attacks. We are all paying the price because it’s spread collectively.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:00 am
I know that, that is why I said in theory. BTW, NT’s kernel is more inspired by VMS. I am sure there are parts of NT which were inspired by Unix however.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:04 am
Comparing Morris to a more chaotic state that you have nowadays is a tad iffy, in my humble opinion. Morris affected and targeted some mission-critical equipment, which even /today/ rarely runs Windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm
“The critical error that transformed the worm from a potentially harmless intellectual exercise into a virulent denial of service attack was in the spreading mechanism.“
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:05 am
It does make you wonder about all those patent claims that are brought against Linux, doesn’t it?
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:06 am
Running with least privilege however will at least isolate malware, and that applies to Unix as well. No, it won’t prevent the Sasser, Blaster, Morris, or SQL slammer worm from spreading, but it will prevent email worms from installing itself inside the system beyond the user you are logged on to. And if the user can’t access a file, macro viruses can’t infect it.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:07 am
>Comparing Morris to a more chaotic state that you have nowadays is a tad iffy, in my humble opinion.
I agree but don’t forget there were a Unix monoculture back in 1989.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:12 am
Unix has its variant and Linux — oh boy — does Linux have variants! Seemingly easy-to-exploit flaws like buffer overflows become very harder to exploit based on a monoculture hypothesis. There are also more dynamic (or random) allocations, which can be used to prevent this. Schneier wrote about it a couple of years ago when he praised Red Hat for security. He had something to say also about diversity (separately).
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:13 am
BTW, I am mentioning the Morris worm just to show Unix was not completely free of worms.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:17 am
Yep, more common in Unix are attackers that target against one system in order to gain access to that system. That is why it is important to have a plan in case a system is compromised.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:27 am
No system can ever be ‘bulletproof’, especially when handling complexity that’s measured at hundreds of millions of LOCs brought together. Heck, just making 100 lines of code as elegant, as efficient and as secure as possible would take ages. It’s a science. That’s why age (maturity) and exposure (visibility) have a lot to offer.
Having 15 people hacking on some Windows kernel in isolation (with employees going in and out) is the route to code spaghetti.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:28 am
>Having 15 people hacking on some Windows kernel in isolation (with employees going in and out) is the route to code spaghetti.
Not by itself. 15 people that designed something properly won’t.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:30 am
However, I do know that more common in Unix are attackers who target against one system in order to gain access to that system. That is why it is important to have a plan in case a system is compromised.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:41 am
Based on the recent Apache/Linux incidents, it seems natural to assume that compromise of Windows boxes is enough to permit a great deal of pain to ‘pass on’ to other systems. If 25% of the Windows PCs out there are essentially zombie PCs, then how can you ensure those PCs do not upload mischievous scripts to the GNU/Linux servers? That’s just what happens when there is poor password control (or endless leaks). The problem that we have at the moment is that very relatively few are actually the sole owners of their PCs. That’s why I referred to it as “chaos” earlier on.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 12:53 am
Fortunately in the case where the user that is not an admin runs an exe to install a zombie program, the zombie programs can only last while the user is logged on and only have the privilege of the user, thus running with least privilege helps here. In the case the zombie program exploit a vulnerability in a service to install itself, the zombie program only have the privilege of the service, thus least privilege helps here as well. These things I just said in fact all apply to Unix as well.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 28, 2008 at 1:01 am
You brought up an interesting topic here because Windows Vista has had privilege escalation issues and it’s natural to expect the same from Longhorn (or WS08). Patches were slow in terms of delivery, so the assertion above stands.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 1:03 am
Yep MS have a Patch Tuesday and one of the disadvantages is that any patches would not be released until the next Patch Tuesday. To be fair there are advantages as well, such as when you should check for patches, but still…
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 1:18 am
MS just did another count, BTW:
http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsvistasecurity/archive/2008/01/23/windows-vista-security-one-year-later.aspx
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 1:20 am
Interestingly one of these articles came from a person who you rated low credibility in your charts.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 1:23 am
BTW, Vista’s UAC is similar to sudo, only that it does not prompt for a password by default.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 28, 2008 at 1:47 am
Jeff Jones is just doing his job, which is to redefine metrics in such a way so that Windows is seen as secure. Then, Microsoft pushes its ‘studies’ onto journalists (I am quite initimately familiar with the process), some of whom will neglect to say that those ‘facts’ are in fact coming from Microsoft. I could provide more examples which show that this behaviour has a long history and one particular antitrust exhibit, sometimes referred to as “Effective Evangelism”, reveals Microsoft’s plan to deceive in this fashion.
About UAC — yes, it’s like sudo. What’s most amusing/obnoxious about it is that Microsoft recently patented this idea and even recommended that Apple and GNU/Linux should ‘copy’ the idea from Microsoft. We wrote about this at the time.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 1:58 am
“very relatively few are actually the sole owners of their PCs.” What do you mean?
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 1:59 am
BTW, I am quite neutral in the Windows vs Linux vs Mac OS X war.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 28, 2008 at 2:08 am
Oops. I had a little typo there.
From what i can gather (based on the writings of Geer, Cerf and others), over 100 million PCs (running Windows) are part of one botnet or another. The media does not give this proper coverage because it would incite panic.That’s the way I view this anyway.
Harmony is a wonderful thing and I’m all in favour of it. What bothers me personally are the attempts to rewrite the laws and set precedence (a la Novell deal) in order to destroy a long-time rival known as Free software, which is highly attractive to more and more businesses. Some parties just don’t play by the rules. In other cases, they simply change the rules.
Have you read the Halloween Documents any time recently, Yuhong?
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 2:12 am
But you mentioned one of the areas of the war, so I just want you to tell you that.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 28, 2008 at 2:48 am
Which part are you referring to here? I think you are trying to suggest that “Effective Evangelism” is a war of words…? I’m not sure I’m following…
Either way, be aware that “Effective Evangelism” states that “evangelism (sophisticated word for astroturfing) is war” and it also uses words like Jihad (holy war). It’s a truly appalling leak from Microsoft. Here is a bunch of quotes of interest:
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/08/05/honour-competition-not/
Always remember that Microsoft is not an innocent party that comes under attacks. Despite the secrecy, it’s clearly attacking all of its rival as it ‘innovates’ new ways to undermine competition (again, I urge you to re-read the Halloween Document and see this for yourself).
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 2:50 pm
You know the Windows vs Mac OS X vs Linux war I am referring to? One of it’s points is security
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 28, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I rarely think of security as “war”.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 28, 2008 at 10:06 pm
No I don’t either. I am talking about OS advocacy.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 28, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I don’t think about it as war, either. I advocate very passionately, but it’s a matter of freedom. As I stressed before (can’t recall where), there might be a “war” between Apple and Microsoft because both very similar, but with GNU/Linux or BSD you’re looking at escaping digital shackles. In other words, I think of Apple and Microsoft as a couple of ‘clans’ battling for vanity just as football teams compete. With Linux, it’s sometimes about trend-setting.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 29, 2008 at 12:00 am
Yep, the primary reason for using free software is freedom in my opinion. Freedom from a single vendor, in particular.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 29, 2008 at 1:50 pm
On the matter of the Morris worm, there was one part that executed only on 2 system, VAX and Sun.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 29, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I don’t know much about Morris (it predates my time somewhat) but I hear about it occasionally because I’m aware of many misconceptions about. It is sometimes used by Microsoft to make false statements.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 29, 2008 at 11:47 pm
On the matter of Windows Vista, I am kind of neutral about the Vista upgrade.
I am not saying that MS is innocent of crimes, in fact I do dislike the MS-Novell deal, because that deal can make Linux non-free software.
Yuhong Bao said,
January 29, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Many of the people who have low credibility in the Free Software Credibility List are simply the wrong person anyways for free software related matters. They are OK for Microsoft software related matters.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 30, 2008 at 12:16 am
Yes, but when a journalist published an article in a seemingly-neutral publication (no such thing), then the biases and business relationship must have no effect. Rob Enderle comes to mind as an example because people think of him as an analyst and journalists quote him. He is paid by Microsoft (fact) and he spreads lies about Linux adoption (last seen this yesterday).
Felis silvestris said,
February 19, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Hi, the “Effective Evangelism” document(s) are not available on Groklaw, or see the original document at:
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX3096.pdf
Felis silvestris said,
February 19, 2008 at 2:51 pm
s/not/now/, sorry. The Groklaw link is http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 19, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Yes, I know. I sent some fragments of text to PJ a day before she published this. It was timely and it will hopefully generate a lot of discussion ahead of that corrupt (as in stacked) BRM.