Windows Security Through Annoyances? 401
techmuse writes "According to News.com,
Microsoft's next version of Windows will let you know that you are looking
at (supposedly) secure data by putting personalized text, such as the names
of your dogs (a null list in my case), in window borders, and will also hide
the data unless the window has no others on top of it. That should make it very usable, and speed adoption of security features -- especially among
people who need to be able to see the data in two partially overlapping
windows at once."
So...... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So...... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So...... (Score:5, Funny)
What about public computer terminals though?
No problem, it will be safely available everywhere from MS.Passport. What do you mean it isn't safe? [theregister.co.uk]
Re:So...... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah! (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen a lot of smart ass posts from people who say, "Big deal, I never put any of that information into my passport. It's just for hotmail." Because this "service" is supposed to work everywhere, is it possible vendors have filled in the missing information for you? After all, because my wife has a hotmail account she was given a passport she never asked for that contained all the information demanded by hotmail. She also makes web purchases from time to time. A participating vendor could have already loaded her and me by association. Someone tell me it's not so or how I can verify it without an M$ OS.
"One name one login." how utterly M$. That shit won't work anywhere that has a clue. Are you going to take Microsoft's word that someone is who they claim they are and just let them romp around your systems?
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Eine Name, eine Login, ein Fuehrer!
(Just to ensure that the old adage becomes true, the one that says that when a discussion becomes longer the chance that a comparison to Nazis pop up becomes 100%
Re:So...... (Score:5, Interesting)
How can a website possibly fake the lock-icon which happens to be on the toolbar?
But those dog names will be stored somewhere secure, that they can't access, so you know if you see them that your own computer is generating that data.
Actually I think it's either a desperate try to distract users from real security problems (like the millions of servers that get infected each year despite MS being only a minor player on SQL and webservers, or the even more desktops...) or it's a clever plan to complete the big database in Redmond with the last thing they don't know about you yet: The names of your dogs.
So far, I haven't heard about any "websites faking lock icons and doing nasty stuff", but even though Apache is a much larger target, all big worms hit IIS.
I think somebody at Redmond still treats security as a 100% pure PR-problem. Just do anything about security, no matter how stupid the idea is, as long as it's from Microsoft, there will always be simple minds that will say:
Makes sense
Mod parent up: +1 funny please.
Re:So...... (Score:5, Informative)
Due to the special "features" of IE, it is possible to eliminate the status bar (not task bar) where the lock icon usually resides. By then creating a page using frames it would then be possible to replicate the look of the status bar without much trouble at all, even including the text of the page loading sequence using something so simple as an animated gif.
Re:So...... (Score:2)
You don't need an IE "feature" to do this, you could accomplish it using a desktop app that looks like a browser. Or, heavens forbid, a simple XUL app for Mozilla. So how's IE "less secure" than anything else out there?
Re:So...... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not just prevent them from doing that, then?
Hey, I've got a wacky idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh wait, that would deprive MS of ad revenue...
No no, much easier to put up a purty border of your kids middle hyphenated names because malicious hackers would never figure out where that configuration information is stored (regedit).
"Honey, why does Thomas-Clark's name keep appearing in the border of my window underneath this ad for a web cam?"
Doesn't make sense to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Tricks like these are not addressed by this approach which means that Microsoft still hasn't learned that con artists are probably the most likely to be able to get your confidential information
Re:So...... (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking of spoofing and different borders.... (Score:5, Informative)
So far, most of the comments are about a spoofed status bar or the boraders that look different on the secured windows versus the unsecured ones. Anybody whose done work as a bench tech for a company servicing the general public for any length of time has surely had the conversation about porn dialers that the customer never even knew they had installed. With Active X controls, JavaScript, Macros, CGI sripts, or whatever the
Prevent attacks? (Score:5, Funny)
What kinds of attacks would those be? The over the shoulder snoop sort?
Re:Prevent attacks? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Prevent attacks? (Score:4, Funny)
Only if your porn is on a secure website.
Re:Prevent attacks? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Prevent attacks? (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder how MS will handle cutting and pasting information between secure and insecure windows? Or even between secure windows, for that matter?
it's not your data that's protected. (Score:5, Funny)
What kinds of attacks would those be? The over the shoulder snoop sort?
This is classic "protection". It will remind you that Bill Gates knows where you live and the names of your cats just in case you get funny ideas about infringing on copyrights or alternte software. "Yes sir, I'll pay the windoze tax. Thank you so much for all you do for me!"
Is it true? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Prevent attacks? Boss key? (Score:5, Funny)
E.g., wife/girlfriend/SO walks in the room, you scramble to hide a "secure" window
Re:Prevent attacks? Boss key? (Score:5, Funny)
Like anyone on slashdot will have that problem.
Re:Prevent attacks? Boss key? (Score:5, Funny)
No. You have the opposite problem.
Why redefine a working metaphore? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why redefine a working metaphore? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why redefine a working metaphore? (Score:2, Insightful)
The point of this new UI element is that it needs to be
Re:Why redefine a working metaphore? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Part of Palladium/NGSCB, as well as Trusted Computing, is having a special chip to hold encryption/decryption keys. The whole point of this idea is to have information on this secure window that is only available via the keys in the chip. Any static icon (like a lock) can be faked. Showing your choice of data (like pet names) that indicate a trusted window is proof that the program is connected to the trusted chip.
Re:Why redefine a working metaphore? (Score:2, Funny)
Red and black borders (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at any spy movie - classified material is in folders with red or black borders, the pages are marked, etc.
I've done the same with some SSL-aware custom JSP tags. If you browse to the page over an unencrypted channel you don't see the material at all (it's blocked at the server), if you have an SSL connection there's a thick black border, and if you have an authenticated and recognized SSL connection there's a thick red border. The actual appearance is controlled by CSS stylesheets, so it could easily faked... but that's not the point. What's important is that the symbol is obvious enough to be clearly seen even if partly obscured, while subtle enough that it doesn't get in the way.
In contrast, Microsoft's ideas are things that should be rejected out of hand by anyone with even a bit of security awareness. "Out of sight, out of mind" definitely applies here - if somebody sees a thick red or black border out of the corner of their eye they'll stop to lock the screen before walking away. But under Microsoft's oh-so-brilliant plan, there won't be any visual indication that they must lock their screen before dashing to the bathroom or to the coffee machine. Or joining a friend for lunch. Yet the confidential material will be available to anyone who cycles through the frames to see if there's anything interesting on the system.
its called... (Score:2, Funny)
Why does this sound like an april fools joke....
Now if this isn't a "form" story what is... (Score:4, Funny)
For example:
Windows ____________ through Annoyances~
or
It's a great new __________ but can it run _______?
And the all time favorite, In _______ the ________ ___________s onto you!
One problem solved (Score:3, Insightful)
Graphics cards are a security problem, because they contain their own pool of memory.
MS could just drop support for all video cards that have their own memory in favor of ones with integrated or shared memory (a la i810 family). Then the OS can have direct control over every aspect of the cards memory because it actually resides in main memory.
Re:One problem solved (Score:5, Funny)
I'd have no clue how to wipe out my video card's memory. (No, shutting off the computer won't do it. I've seen plenty that when they turn back on, the last screen visible is there for a split second.)
Re:One problem solved (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask any computer user, from a home web surfer to an IT manager, what they consider to be the worst security threats. My guess is they would list things like MS Outlook viruses, buffer overflows, ActiveX controls, spam and Gator. Would anyone but the MPAA mention graphics cards?
Re:One problem solved (Score:2)
Only a few things, like BO and the viruses/worms that installed VNC, did much of anything with reading the video, but at that point, they were well past getting control of the system.
It sounds like M$ is trying to push a bunch of video hardware manufacturers out of the business too.. Not nice...
Re:One problem solved (Score:5, Insightful)
What this allows is secure playback of DRM-protected material, in such a way that it is impossible for the user to grab the data.
Once manufacturers jump on the bandwagon, you'll end up with a PC with "Palladium-enhanced" components, such as the DVD drive, hard drive, video card and sound card, where you are unable to do anything at all with data streams from sources (the HDD or DVD drive) to sinks (the video or sound card) that's not permitted by the supplier of that data. In other words, forget ripping your DVDs or CDs.
Re:One problem solved (Score:4, Informative)
Video cards therefore need to be modified to be secure and support access control on their memory, the way the CPU's privileged mode (and whatever hardware they're going to tack on to make palladium work 'better') allows the OS to control what can access certain parts of main memory.
USB: Handled by the OS. Easy to deal with. Monitors: would require hardware tapping, much harder to do (Especially remotely). Keyboards: Again, MOSTLY handled by the OS. (Windows passes most every key combination through hooks, except ctrl+alt+del. They'll probably change this so that if a secure window is on top, no hooks grab the data.)
Etc. etc. I don't argue that it's a bad idea (that there needs to be changes to the video card hardware to support this properly), it's just very poorly worded in the article.
I wonder if maybe the 3d support being used helps this? If you define everything as a texture, then you only need to secure certain textures (the secure ones), not the entire screen. Therefore things running unmanaged still work just fine. 2d accelerated blits might also do the trick, but probably not as well. (Do the 2d accel blits have a concept afterwards of what a window is, and therefore to hide a certain one? Probably not..)
Re:One problem solved (Score:2)
Is this really true? To get access to video RAM you would need high privileges (i.e. be a video driver / X-server / root privileges).
Surely that's "wrapped into the security model".
Re:One problem solved (Score:4, Insightful)
How will this help? (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, I dont think this will be as annoying as the story submitter claims.
Re:How will this help? (Score:4, Informative)
Under NGSCB, you won't necessarily have access to certain files on your system -- therein lies the security; it basically uses the data in that secure file as proof that "hey, if the OS lets me show you this, then I'm trustworthy!"
Re:How will this help? (Score:3, Informative)
You're absolutely right, NGSCB (a.k.a. Palladium) and Trusted Computing can result in data stored on your computer that is inaccessible by you - this isn't a userlevel/root issue, it's a hardware level protection. And some "trusted" authority with the appropriate key sitting so
Re:How will this help? (Score:3, Interesting)
It has a possibility to be. And much more. I'm sure at some point MS will introduce a "security option" to not open any "insecure" windows for locked down machines. This option will not be a default at first, users will have an choice to make themselves "secure". MSN shopping, Hotmail, MS Office, etc. will all be "secure" by default; other companies such as EBay, Yahoo!, Amazon, AOL/ICQ, EA, etc. will pay Microsoft mont
How does Microsoft know my dogs' names? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How does Microsoft know my dogs' names? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How does Microsoft know my dogs' names? (Score:2)
Re:How does Microsoft know my dogs' names? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, given the number of people who use a pet's name for a password, displaying a list of them on the screen seems like a huge security risk.
a half good idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this type of attack really that prevalent (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Is this type of attack really that prevalent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this type of attack really that prevalent (Score:3, Interesting)
I use Opera and Firebird and neither would ever let this sort of stupid attack fly. In fact, in Firebird, you can specifically disable some forms of window-resizing/moving script.
Re:Is this type of attack really that prevalent (Score:2)
Re:Is this type of attack really that prevalent (Score:2)
By and large Apple's choices aren't really all that innovative, just common-sense smart. Why can't others do the same?
Re:Is this type of attack really that prevalent (Score:2)
"Common sense" isn't.
Re:Is this type of attack really that prevalent (Score:2)
When it comes to security, you should account for all the possibilities for circumventing it, not just the most common ones.
Though I have to wonder about the way they're going about doing all this. Windows already has a whole security infrastructure around the concept of desktops as securable objects, why not just use the existin
Vanishing Windows (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft is finally doing the
Secure data? (Score:4, Funny)
Besides, I've always found that the little lock in the Mozilla window works fine.
It Could Be Worse (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't wait for Microsoft to rediscover that feature.. B2 systems were great from an engineering point of view, but as far as usability went, it was so much complexity that users tended to try to defeat the security measures placed on them.
Wow this is...So...Great....? (Score:4, Insightful)
All I know is, I'm not buying Longhorn; I don't need MS holding my hand wherever I go. This seems like just another "feature" where something can go wrong...
A Trusted Path IS Great (Score:3, Interesting)
Shouldn't they be concentrating on other things, such as actual security vulnerabilities? Seems like they're trying to say "look we're paying attention to security
I'll tell you why it's great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, I think that this could turn out to help security much more than some obscure feature. It is this low-level, "no shit sherlock" kind of basic security that is much more needed.
Re:Wow this is...So...Great....? (Score:2)
Exactly, everybody is buying into security.
Microsoft on the other hand is "Window(s) Shopping".
Ba-dum-ching!
Ahem.
Not so secure (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, okay, so let's say I make a Microsoft-ish spoof page with a border that has "king", "snoopy" or "brutus" all around, and half the visitors will recognise their page with their unique pooch's name on it, and will give me their credit card number in total confidence. Hmmm ....
Sounds like a crappy idea actually.
Re:Not so secure (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thinking that too. Then I read the article:
"A hacker can create a spoof page with dogs' names running along the border but, in all likelihood, not one reading "Buffy, Skip and Jack Daniels--and in that order," Biddle said."
True, but anyone could just create a similar-looking window, and just put words "Secure Window" instead of "Buffy, Skip and Jack Daniels". Guess which one will look to be secure and which one will not.
Also, if this system is not clearly explained to non-savvy users (and I am guessing it will not be), then there will be other implications as well - such as people typing in their passwords, or realizing their pet name *is* their password, etc. I look forward to how they implement this and confuse users.
They should use audio (Score:4, Funny)
A Page from Lucas (Score:2)
They will also happily let you know which information they think you ought to keep secure I'm sure;-)
The Ultimate Security (Score:5, Funny)
The solution is obvious: don't display the data at all!
I do this already! (Score:5, Funny)
I've discovered this feature of windowed GUIs a long time ago - you cake take virtually any window, place it over your current window and POOF! the data vanishes, completely obsucred by the new window on top of it. Isn't it neat?
Realy? Then here's an idea... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Realy? Then here's an idea... (Score:5, Funny)
But what does "Security" mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
For real security, you need to know WHAT has been secured. Examples include:
Data was encrypted in transit.
Data is authenticated to come from XXX source, according to YYY certificate authority.
This window is protected from being viewed by PCAnywhere.
This data has DRM, and is protected from being copied to another computer.
Unless you tell the user WHAT the security is, they will make poor decisions about what to do with the data. Putting the name of their dog on the window doesn't provide that information.
Re:But what does "Security" mean? (Score:2)
This is not security, this is anti-security.
Remember 99,9% of the data on your computer is not your data, so it will be secured *from* you, even though you paid for it.
This will have two effects : first, ms will be abl
You call those annoyances? (Score:5, Funny)
Neil Stephenson says (Score:2, Interesting)
Expect your wife to receive hard copies of that 'questionable' pornography you enjoy so much from the van Eck'ing P.I. she hired (he looks like Tom Selleck :-)
Paranoia Strikes Deep
-boi
No good for me (Score:2)
Re:No good for me (Score:2, Funny)
Come on, Fluffy! We're switching to Linux!
Not how it works, but how it looks. (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless of how much security this, in reality, will provide, it will provide a tremendous APPEARANCE of security.
Sure, it may work. It may even work well. But the important thing from a sales standpoint is that it will look very secure. And that sells better than actual security. Given their posturing over security in the past year, this is right in line.
This is like "inventing" a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
com.com (Score:5, Funny)
Right up there with the LA Times [latimes.com], The National Enquirer [nationalenquirer.com], and the Weekly World News [weeklyworldnews.com].
More McSoftware... (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, come again? (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me, but I can't see how preventing the very thing you need could possibly be considered making it more usable... but then again I guess this *is* Microsoft we're talking about.
Re:Um, come again? (Score:2)
Kind of along the lines of "I was looking for a stable and flexible operating system so I sold my kid and bought copies of windows ME for all my computers."
In case you missed it again let me explain: while I did sell my kid, there's no way I nor anything with respirating lungs and a spinal column would consider windows ME a stable and flexible operating system. Therefore the above sentence illustrates parabole or more generally heavy
Best thing about Windows are the turn of options (Score:3, Funny)
I still wish they would just sum them up in one "I'm not retarded or anything like that." checkbox. With every new windows version it takes me longer and longer to find the switches to turn off the silly features.
Hostage Data (Score:2, Interesting)
I find myself thinking that if I were to decide to put all my important data in their vault, what might I do if they tell me I have to pay the $1000 upgrade fee for the next version of their software if I want to continue to have access to my data in their vault?
Re:Hostage Data (Score:3, Funny)
And if you don't want it, that's ok, I've got *lots* of customers.
KFG
Security? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok. Let me get this straight. There are people in some African country that send out emails with schemes like, "We need to transfer 500 million dollars into a bank account but we need your help! Give us all of your private information, including your name, SSN, bank account numbers, etc., and we will open an account in your name to perform this transfer. To compensate you, we will give you 20% of the money." And people answer emails like that and give out their personal information. Or, someone sticks a sign on a bank drop box that reads, "Out of order. Leave deposits with guard." And obviously dresses like a guard and stands next to the drop box with a cart, collecting deposits. (As if a BOX can be out of order!!!!!) There are thousands of schemes like this... these two come from Frank Abagnale's book The Art of the Steal. He jacked millions of dollars himself, so he should know: People are unconscious! They don't think about security. Heck, America can't figure out how to secure its borders when thousands of years ago, China came up with a solution that can be seen from space. If people can't figure out how to secure a border, which is a physical thing that is well documented and understood by everyone (just look at a map), how the heck do you expect to secure computer networks when people don't understand (or want to understand) the complex computer internals that need to be understood in order to combat this problem?
Let me ask you a question... When was the last time you were rooted? On your desktop? Running Windows? I honestly doubt that anybody here has ever been compromised, even if running Windows 24x7 with an Internet connection and no firewall of any kind. You know why? Because most folks here understand what security means, at least conceptually, and wouldn't be stupid enough to enter their password (not that it secures anything under Windows) into some bogus window. Do you honestly think that putting your dog's name (or any other information, for that matter) into a window is going to solve any security problems for Joe Shmoe? NO WAY!
The way I see things is simple: Market security to corporations. Sell them computer security services in which their entire network is secured against attack, and more importantly, their data is backed up. But the home Joe Shmoe users... let them screw up their computers with the biggest security threats: All these stupid screensavers, cursors, sounds, graphics, clutter, junk, crap, downloads, viruses, MS Outlook, and all the crap they download and execute without thinking... When their computer crashes and they come crying to me, I'll continue saying what I've been saying for the past ten years, "Where are your backups? Oh, you didn't make any?! Well, the only way I can fix this computer is by blowing everything off and reinstalling. Oh, well... Maybe you should take it to [insert name of a computer repair shop that charges outrageous prices to reinstall Windows for you] and have them fix it. They understand these things better than I do."
If Microsoft really wanted to combat security problems, and I am 100% serious about what I am saying here, then they would forget all this B.S. and convince users to keep the clutter and the CRAP off their computers. Secondly, they would convince people to back up their data. Windows might suck, but I'm always more concerned about the mechan
Re:Security? (Score:3)
Do banks look forward to this Microsoft ideal world? No. Because money talks, insurance is expensive, and they lock it down very hard. It's not perfect, but why go with a company with security on the backburner for the first 20 years of it's existence?
Secret data within window borders for tracking? (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope I explained this adequately...
Scary stuff, IMHO.
I can see it now: (Score:5, Funny)
FIDO
WARNING: Dogs name too short, should be 6-8 characters long and
use combination of numbers and UPPER and lowercase letters.
Enter Dogs Name:
FiDo1234
Dogs name accepted...
Got back from WinHEC...this article is bullshit!! (Score:3, Informative)
MS is trying to bolster the overall security for their OS (called NGSCB...rtfa for the acronym def). A noble cause, but one that will be very tough for them to completely achieve. The author is focusing only 1 small portion of NGSCB, which is securing the graphics subsystem. I'll do the author's job and list a few more relevant points:
1) NGSCB is an opt-in type of program. If the hardware doesn't support it, or the user doesn't want it, it will be disabled.
2) Only "trusted apps" will fall under the jurisdiction of the NGSCB. Things like Quicken or IE could fall into this category. They would then be protected by the OS so that other non-trusted apps can't get at the data generated by the trusted apps. So the majority of windows apps that you'd run on a day-to-day basis (games), would not be affected by this.
3) The "trusted graphics" portion of NGSCB really only applies *** IF EVERYTHING ELSE IN WINDOWS IS SECURED ***. The thought being that if everything in the Windows OS is secure, hackers will look for the next most vulnerable target outside of the OS...the graphics device. Two of the most obvious ways to exploit it would be by sniffing the graphical info stored in the framebuffer, or by mimmicing a "trusted" window and having the used just give the evil app the info it wants.
4) The "dogs names" window is just an example of something that MS is kicking around. What they want to do is add something unique that the user provides to the trusted windows. This way an end user will see an evil app trying to pretend it's a trusted app. The idea here is that it will be almost impossible for a hacker to generate a window that looks exactly like a trusted window (unless they hack the OS to find out the unique quality of the user's trusted window...for now assume that the new Windows NGSCB can't be hacked...**snicker**). In any case, I seriously doubt "dogs names" will be the unique identifier.
5) The "dissappearing data" is done for a reason. When another untrusted app takes control of the OS (by being the top window), it has access to the framebuffer. So it would be simple to start an app, position the window so it doesn't completely obscure the trusted app, then read the framebuffer. Whatever info you want is right there in a bitmap. It would be nice if there were a better way to protect the framebuffer when a trusted app is alive, but it may not be possible in Windows.
I may not agree with some of their logic/ideas in this area, but it's unfair to judge it on this article alone. If you want a little more info, try looking here [microsoft.com]. Then again, this is Slashdot...there doesn't need to be a real reason to bash MS...carry on...
dog names? (Score:5, Funny)
This is fake multilevel security (Score:3, Informative)
In systems like that, each window appears with a border that shows the security level, typically SECRET, UNCLASSIFIED, etc. Communication between programs and windows at different levels is prohibited, except in some very controlled ways. Appliations can't even detect that stuff at higher levels exists. NSA Secure Linux has the underlying security machinery for this, although nobody has written a secure window manager for it.
It sounds like Microsoft is adding the window decoration without the underlying machinery.
Sadly, the few systems with security like this are antiques.
Another MS Security measure... (Score:3, Funny)
This way the data keeps secure!
If you steal this data.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:CRT Monitors (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MS security? (Score:2)
Re:Wait a second ... (Score:3, Funny)
Didn't I have to give up morals with Licensing 6.0?