Following Up "Beware the Microsoft Shell Game!"

About an hour after I posted "Beware the Microsoft shell game!", the company that wants you to trust your digital identity and your vital business data to its .NET application servers admitted there is an easy root crack in the standard build of Windows 2000 running the IIS web server. Code for this exploit has been sighted in the wild.

What this means is that unless a knowledgeable sysadmin has taken explicit action to prevent it, any 15-year-old who can copy code off the Internet, can use Microsoft's IIS to bypass your firewall, bypass your password system and gain administrator-level access to the machine that hosts your web server. They can inspect, alter or delete files at will, no matter how you have them secured. They can also use root-level access to that machine as a springboard for attacks on other systems inside your firewall.

A writeup on this latest in the apparently unending stream of gaping holes in Microsoft's security is at http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Advisories/AD20010501.html.

This is about bad as it gets, folks. It's a big, nasty problem even by Microsoft's security-bug-of-the-month standards.

At Craig Mundie's anti-open-source sermonette in New York Thursday, I hope someone will have the temerity to ask him a few simple questions:

1. Should Microsoft's record on security inspire confidence in customers considering entrusting their digital identities to Microsoft's Hailstorm system and their critical business data to .NET?

2. Even the most cursory inspection of sites that specialize in tracking security bugs (such as CERT and BugTraq) suggests that open-source operating systems such as Linux and the BSDs have a far better security record than Microsoft Windows, both in having fewer vulnerabilities and in more rapid deployment of fixes. How does Microsoft propose to close the technology gap and catch up to the quality level of these systems?

3. How can potential operating-system customers with millions (perhaps billions) of dollars riding on the security of their computer systems form a rational estimate of their exposure if they cannot inspect the source code of those systems?

4. If the answer to question 3 is "You can see the source code if you're a big enough company to pay us for the privilege", then why should customers have to pay for the privilege of doing the job Microsoft's own QA teams so frequently bungle?

5. How would you respond to the following statement: "Any engineer or executive who, disregarding best practices, entrusts security-critical functions to closed-source software is committing an actionable breach of their responsibility to their employer?"

Eric Raymond can be contacted at Eric S. Raymond.

______________________

Webinar
One Click, Universal Protection: Implementing Centralized Security Policies on Linux Systems

As Linux continues to play an ever increasing role in corporate data centers and institutions, ensuring the integrity and protection of these systems must be a priority. With 60% of the world's websites and an increasing share of organization's mission-critical workloads running on Linux, failing to stop malware and other advanced threats on Linux can increasingly impact an organization's reputation and bottom line.

Learn More

Sponsored by Bit9

Webinar
Linux Backup and Recovery Webinar

Most companies incorporate backup procedures for critical data, which can be restored quickly if a loss occurs. However, fewer companies are prepared for catastrophic system failures, in which they lose all data, the entire operating system, applications, settings, patches and more, reducing their system(s) to “bare metal.” After all, before data can be restored to a system, there must be a system to restore it to.

In this one hour webinar, learn how to enhance your existing backup strategies for better disaster recovery preparedness using Storix System Backup Administrator (SBAdmin), a highly flexible bare-metal recovery solution for UNIX and Linux systems.

Learn More

Sponsored by Storix