Security Incidents mailing list archives
RE: Releasing patches is bad for security
From: "Dozal, Tim" <tdozal () cisco com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:42:25 -0800
I have seen SUS and SMS they are both great along with using AD to push patches and various other methods like login scripts systems. Smaller patches with bits technology, less reboots, all of these are steps along the path. MS is making progress but as they have the largest install base they are the largest target. Open source can argue all they want but if an open source OS becomes as large as Windows it will become a target and god forbid every company who decided to use the open source OS has to rely on their internal teams to write a patch (or trust one written by somebody who has to take no accountability for it) and then go repair the damage of a widespread virus. Security is at the front of every hi-tech company's priority list and MS is no exception. They are a smart company responsible for the bottom line. If the bottom line is affected by security issues in it's products they will enhance the security. To circle back to the original topic: Releasing patches is bad for security Valdis, Patches are a fact of life, full disclosure in reference to a vulnerability is a bad thing as it opens the door for those people not smart enough to find the exploit on their own to take advantage of another persons discovery and cause harm. Regardless of the OS Windows, Linux, Free BSD, AIX, HPUX, IOS I don't care, they all release patches and they always will. It's the way software works...... Tim -----Original Message----- From: James P. Saveker [mailto:james () wetgoat net] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 11:17 AM To: Dozal, Tim Cc: incidents () securityfocus com Subject: RE: Releasing patches is bad for security My word, you are brave Tim. I said something similar on Full Disclosure and got quite a telling off. I have to fully support your comments and also make another point. The new patch model for longhorn will not require reboots. They are investing a great deal of money in security now as before they had valued functionality over security. Current patches are getting smaller as with large enterprises bandwidth can be at a premium. For large business they offer SMS as a great tool for patch deployment, including being aware of remote users and making use of the "bits" technology. For smaller business they offer SUS for FREE!! I am not saying that MS have always got it right in the past, quite frankly they have not. Things are changing with MS, time will tell. James Saveker www.wetgoat.net "The only thing which helps me maintain my slender grip on reality is the friendship I share with my collection of singing potatoes..." -----Original Message----- From: Dozal, Tim [mailto:tdozal () cisco com] Sent: 03 March 2004 01:19 To: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu Cc: incidents () securityfocus com Subject: RE: Releasing patches is bad for security After sitting in on some of the discussion at the security conferences on the MS campus their strategy is as sound as any I have scene proposed. They are only releasing out of cycle patches for things that are wormable. Other vulnerabilities as they are discovered, no matter the source of the discovery, are released in scheduled patches. This is to aid their large customers, the ones who usually take the longest time to deploy patches, have strict IT policy and also pay a TON of $$$ to MS for their software. You miss MS intent with: I mean.. *really*.. apply a few neurons. What black hat who didn't just fall out of a tree is going to reveal his 0-day in a worm before it's usefulness has dried up? Those are things they patch in cycle as they are discovered, and trends show the largest impacting virus threats from these occur AFTER the patches. The smart hackers who have early 0-day exploits will always exist, they are the needle in the haystack not the atomic bomb MS is trying to deal with in their recent patch changes and policy changes. 2003 and longhorn will be quite a different story, MS has learned turning everything on for ease of use is not smart or secure so the next gen stuff is more secure in the idea that if it's not turned on specifically by the customer it's not turned on at all. This will make for a huge reduction in the attack surface of the hosts, again a step in a long line of steps that are needed to make the entire solution secure. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:51 AM To: Dozal, Tim Cc: incidents () securityfocus com Subject: Re: Releasing patches is bad for security On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:40:40 PST, "Dozal, Tim" <tdozal () cisco com> said:
The question to ask yourself is do the vulnerabilities get exploited before or after MS releases the patches. I think for code red/Nimda MS posted a patch and some 300ish days later the worm hit. Then move ahead
Note that there's a major logic flaw in here - "vulnerabilities exploited" is *NOT* the same thing as "worm". Microsoft *wants* you to make that logical error, because they don't want you thinking about all the unpatched holes in IE, and they don't want you thinking about how many black hats have 0-days that they're not attaching to worms because then they'd lose the use of that 0-day. I mean.. *really*.. apply a few neurons. What black hat who didn't just fall out of a tree is going to reveal his 0-day in a worm before it's usefulness has dried up? If anything, the fact that Nimda was 300 days and Blaster was only 18, is proof that: a) The percentage of people patching quickly is going up, *and* b) this means that throwing away your 0-day on "diminishing returns" is happening faster. Obviously, whoever released Nimda was using their 0-day for months after the patch before enough p[eople closed the hole that they said "screw this, this one's gotten lame" and launched a worm. It only took 2 weeks of concentrated patching before the owner of the Blaster 0-day threw in the towel.... Remember why we originally *started* the full-disclosure movement - without it, the vendors won't move and the 0-days will circulate for *years*. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- Free 30-day trial: firewall with virus/spam protection, URL filtering, VPN, wireless security Protect your network against hackers, viruses, spam and other risks with Astaro Security Linux, the comprehensive security solution that combines six applications in one software solution for ease of use and lower total cost of ownership. Download your free trial at http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/Astaro_incidents_040301 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free 30-day trial: firewall with virus/spam protection, URL filtering, VPN, wireless security Protect your network against hackers, viruses, spam and other risks with Astaro Security Linux, the comprehensive security solution that combines six applications in one software solution for ease of use and lower total cost of ownership. Download your free trial at http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/Astaro_incidents_040301 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- RE: Releasing patches is bad for security Mike Barushok (Mar 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Releasing patches is bad for security Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 01)
- RE: Releasing patches is bad for security Dozal, Tim (Mar 02)
- RE: Releasing patches is bad for security Jerry Shenk (Mar 02)
- Re: Releasing patches is bad for security Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 03)
- RE: Releasing patches is bad for security Davis, Kyle (Mar 02)
- RE: Releasing patches is bad for security Dozal, Tim (Mar 03)
- RE: Releasing patches is bad for security James P. Saveker (Mar 03)
- RE: Releasing patches is bad for security Dozal, Tim (Mar 03)
- Dead Thread: Releasing patches is bad for security Dan Hanson (Mar 03)