10 ms·

Am I wrong in wishing for Microsoft to take a step toward sandboxing/code signing instead of playing the cat-and-mouse (and sometimes snake oil) game of antivir

by d_r 15y ago

Am I wrong in wishing for Microsoft to take a step toward sandboxing/code signing instead of playing the cat-and-mouse (and sometimes snake oil) game of antiviruses and antimalware products? Admittedly, this is probably not feasible by definition since the Windows ecosystem gives developers infinite freedom. And sandboxing is not trivial to get right. "Bad" applications will just go out of their way to entice the user to allow "read and write all my files." And sadly, users don't really read or understand warning dialogs. But one could wish, right? Signed, someone who has seen too many friends' computers slowed down with said antiviruses, defenders, and always a plethora of toolbars.

MarkSweep 15y ago
I believe the Metro-style apps do run in a sandbox. It's conceivable that Microsoft could make a version of Windows 8 that did not support old style apps, so in that case all apps would be sandboxed.
- Santas 15y ago
  Yes, Metro apps will be sandboxed and downloadable "only" from app store.
bad_user 15y ago
I wrong in wishing for Microsoft to take a step toward sandboxing/code signing IMHO, these are tools to keep a tight control of your platform and it won't keep the mallware/viruses out, even if mallware authors will have to be more creative. It creates a false sense of security (i.e. security theater). If you don't believe me, see http://www.jailbreakme.com/ http://www.jailbreakme.com/ ... a hack that can jailbreak your iPhone just by visiting a webpage and clicking on a link. If you have a recently upgraded iPhone, it probably won't work, but the author of this has already upgraded it to use a new unpatched exploit at least once. And I'm pretty sure that Microsoft cannot do a better job securing Windows than Apple did with iOS, mostly because iOS is a seriously restricted platform. You could also argue that the area of attack becomes smaller and that in general this is a good thing. However, personally I'm not concerned with script kiddies that are just trying to have fun on other people's expense, as based on my own usage patterns I could never be infected, because such people do not have the capability of distributing such mallware to me (as I'm only getting software from reliable sources). The threats I'm worried about come from the people with in-house expertise and that are earning money from this activity, as they do have the means for mass distribution and the potential for real damage to your bank account and online identity.
- sandboxed 15y ago
  Maybe its a PR move for Microsoft more than anything. "Windows 8 has a built-in anti-virus and is more secure than ever!" I feel like Windows gets targeted the most because there are just so many computers running it. If 80% of computers out there ran OSX I wonder if anyone would give a shit about the next vulnerability in Windows.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    Ideally no operating system should dominate the market as Windows does. A monoculture is a problem by itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture However, speaking about Windows, historically has been pretty insecure by default. Microsoft started giving a shit only recently, after the failure that was Windows Vista and the bad press associated with it.
    - contextfree 15y ago
      Huh? Security was a focus of Vista, not a reaction to Vista. (It was a reaction to Blaster and other widespread infections from the early XP era)
      - bad_user 15y ago
        Pff, if that annoying and totally ineffective UAC dialog is the best they could do in more than 5 years of development, I shudder to think what happens when increased security is not the goal of a release. And btw, I don't know what you mean by the early XP era, but you're probably referring to a timespan of at least 20 years.
        contextfree 15y ago
        Yeah, I was being sloppy. There was and is malware on Windows for a long time but it only became a widely recognized "epidemic" in the late 90s - early 2000s. as for Vista ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_ne... but the real point is that it's just nonsensical to say that Microsoft has been more focused on security as a reaction to bad press of Vista - whether you like or hate Microsoft or Windows or Vista, there's just no interpretation of the timeline under which that makes any sense.
cek 15y ago
Nope, you're not wrong at all in wishing that. I was one of the folks in charge of defining and building the Windows Phone 7 application platform. I pushed extremely hard to ensure that when WP7 shipped the app sandbox was tight, tight, tight. So much so that I pissed enumerable people off because we refused to open it up to anything but managed code. I always argued that the product would be better off in the long term with a real reputation for being solid & secure. It was hard to do, but we were able to do it because WP7 was basically a v1 product and we had no backwards compatibility requirements (or existing customers <g>). For Big Windows, it's a lot harder. A LOT HARDER. But I have read that Win8 will have a sandbox for new apps. That should help a lot, but it really is just a start. AV software will still be a necessity for most users. Note that I find it highly ironic that Android failed to keep their sandbox tight early on and as a result that platform is suffering significant malware problems. Timely: http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/20/mcafee-nearly-all-new-mobile-malware-in-q3-targeted-at-android-phones-up-37-percent/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/20/mcafee-nearly-all-new-mobil...
- d_r 15y ago
  Thanks for the reply. Definitely interesting to hear what it is like on the "other side" of the drawing board. Android is actually an interesting case. Android applications are sandboxed. It's just that applications can request some very dubious permissions ("read all your SMS messages") and users don't know any better and don't read the fine print. The flexibility does allow for some excellent customizations (e.g. Swype keyboard replacement), but the risk of shenanigans is also there. TechCrunch says: One of the most popular forms of trickery in Q3 was SMS-sending Trojans that collect personal information and steal money. Another new method of stealing user information is malware that records phone conversations and forwards them to the attacker. These are not classic viruses in the purest sense. These are not, say, buffer overrun exploits. These originate from apps the user downloaded that do other, sneaky things. How do you protect the user from the user? The other flip side is iOS where almost everything is heavily locked down, except perhaps for the AddressBook API. The user is not very trusted, and essentially has no way of opting-in to anything really dangerous. This does severely limit the interesting cross-app interaction cases. But I can sleep safely knowing that my iPhone-holding non-techie family members can't download anything that would cause harm. Since educating users across the board is likely impossible, does this mean the tough Apple approach is the way of the future (loosely speaking)?

by d_r 15y ago

MarkSweep 15y ago

I believe the Metro-style apps do run in a sandbox. It's conceivable that Microsoft could make a version of Windows 8 that did not support old style apps, so in that case all apps would be sandboxed.

Santas 15y ago
Yes, Metro apps will be sandboxed and downloadable "only" from app store.

bad_user 15y ago

I wrong in wishing for Microsoft to take a step toward sandboxing/code signing IMHO, these are tools to keep a tight control of your platform and it won't keep the mallware/viruses out, even if mallware authors will have to be more creative. It creates a false sense of security (i.e. security theater). If you don't believe me, see http://www.jailbreakme.com/ http://www.jailbreakme.com/ ... a hack that can jailbreak your iPhone just by visiting a webpage and clicking on a link. If you have a recently upgraded iPhone, it probably won't work, but the author of this has already upgraded it to use a new unpatched exploit at least once. And I'm pretty sure that Microsoft cannot do a better job securing Windows than Apple did with iOS, mostly because iOS is a seriously restricted platform. You could also argue that the area of attack becomes smaller and that in general this is a good thing. However, personally I'm not concerned with script kiddies that are just trying to have fun on other people's expense, as based on my own usage patterns I could never be infected, because such people do not have the capability of distributing such mallware to me (as I'm only getting software from reliable sources). The threats I'm worried about come from the people with in-house expertise and that are earning money from this activity, as they do have the means for mass distribution and the potential for real damage to your bank account and online identity.

sandboxed 15y ago
Maybe its a PR move for Microsoft more than anything. "Windows 8 has a built-in anti-virus and is more secure than ever!" I feel like Windows gets targeted the most because there are just so many computers running it. If 80% of computers out there ran OSX I wonder if anyone would give a shit about the next vulnerability in Windows.
- bad_user 15y ago
  Ideally no operating system should dominate the market as Windows does. A monoculture is a problem by itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture However, speaking about Windows, historically has been pretty insecure by default. Microsoft started giving a shit only recently, after the failure that was Windows Vista and the bad press associated with it.
  - contextfree 15y ago
    Huh? Security was a focus of Vista, not a reaction to Vista. (It was a reaction to Blaster and other widespread infections from the early XP era)
    - bad_user 15y ago
      Pff, if that annoying and totally ineffective UAC dialog is the best they could do in more than 5 years of development, I shudder to think what happens when increased security is not the goal of a release. And btw, I don't know what you mean by the early XP era, but you're probably referring to a timespan of at least 20 years.
      - contextfree 15y ago
        Yeah, I was being sloppy. There was and is malware on Windows for a long time but it only became a widely recognized "epidemic" in the late 90s - early 2000s. as for Vista ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_ne... but the real point is that it's just nonsensical to say that Microsoft has been more focused on security as a reaction to bad press of Vista - whether you like or hate Microsoft or Windows or Vista, there's just no interpretation of the timeline under which that makes any sense.

cek 15y ago

Nope, you're not wrong at all in wishing that. I was one of the folks in charge of defining and building the Windows Phone 7 application platform. I pushed extremely hard to ensure that when WP7 shipped the app sandbox was tight, tight, tight. So much so that I pissed enumerable people off because we refused to open it up to anything but managed code. I always argued that the product would be better off in the long term with a real reputation for being solid & secure. It was hard to do, but we were able to do it because WP7 was basically a v1 product and we had no backwards compatibility requirements (or existing customers <g>). For Big Windows, it's a lot harder. A LOT HARDER. But I have read that Win8 will have a sandbox for new apps. That should help a lot, but it really is just a start. AV software will still be a necessity for most users. Note that I find it highly ironic that Android failed to keep their sandbox tight early on and as a result that platform is suffering significant malware problems. Timely: http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/20/mcafee-nearly-all-new-mobile-malware-in-q3-targeted-at-android-phones-up-37-percent/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/20/mcafee-nearly-all-new-mobil...

d_r 15y ago
Thanks for the reply. Definitely interesting to hear what it is like on the "other side" of the drawing board. Android is actually an interesting case. Android applications are sandboxed. It's just that applications can request some very dubious permissions ("read all your SMS messages") and users don't know any better and don't read the fine print. The flexibility does allow for some excellent customizations (e.g. Swype keyboard replacement), but the risk of shenanigans is also there. TechCrunch says: One of the most popular forms of trickery in Q3 was SMS-sending Trojans that collect personal information and steal money. Another new method of stealing user information is malware that records phone conversations and forwards them to the attacker. These are not classic viruses in the purest sense. These are not, say, buffer overrun exploits. These originate from apps the user downloaded that do other, sneaky things. How do you protect the user from the user? The other flip side is iOS where almost everything is heavily locked down, except perhaps for the AddressBook API. The user is not very trusted, and essentially has no way of opting-in to anything really dangerous. This does severely limit the interesting cross-app interaction cases. But I can sleep safely knowing that my iPhone-holding non-techie family members can't download anything that would cause harm. Since educating users across the board is likely impossible, does this mean the tough Apple approach is the way of the future (loosely speaking)?