64-Bit Vista Kernel Will Be a "Black Box" 402
ryanskev writes with news from RSA Europe, where a Microsoft VP spoke bluntly about the lock-down that will apply to 64-bit Vista. From the article: "Microsoft will operate 64-bit versions of Windows Vista as a tabernacle, with the kernel as the holy of holies, where only its own high priests of security may venture." While Microsoft has seemed to be making some concessions to the likes of Symantec and McAfee, considerable doubt remains as to their ultimate future.
Sounds like the right plan (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sounds like the right plan (Score:5, Insightful)
If the new model seems to be secure, Mcafee and Symantec will boast about how they've kept the next generation of Windows safe.
If the new model is less secure, McAfee & Symantec will "point out" the need for their products.
Win win for AV companies...
Re:Sounds like the right plan (Score:4, Interesting)
If the category becomes profitable, Mr. Softy can "find the principle, and buy him[1]"
You see this in tools, as Redmond pushes a Visual Studio release, and little third-party vendors groan as thier value-added kits have their coolness reduced by new chrome and tailfin on the library widgets. I'm guessing that there will be suffiecient room to put some polish on 'Doze.
Too, there are going to be plenty of people that puke at the odious licensing policies, and stick with the tools that have helped them limp along thus far.
[1] To quote my personal favorite Redmond Sales drone, on the consumption of Groove Networks.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Either OpenSource or a MAC solution. I think that it will be mac.
We just bought an iMAC and its the best of both worlds, in-my opinion.
reasonably stable, yet pretty enough for the Chicky.
Mac has years of marketing, and a slow build. Maybe if they did forget about the hardware and just license the OS, as some have suggested, it would push MS away.
firefox kicked their assess with the better browser. Mac could do the same with the better platform.
Just to be pedantic... (Score:3, Insightful)
And Apple makes most of its money from selling hardware, so I sincerely doubt they'll drop that and try to squeeze money out of selling an operating system exclusively.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
firefox kicked their assess with the better browser. Mac could do the same with the better platform.
How has Firefox "kicked their ass"? I'm not trying to defend IE, but last I saw, it still had nearly 90% of the marketshare. That's the kind of market domination that many companies would kill for.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sounds like the right plan (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sounds like the right plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats exactly what I want. I do not want to have any software patch the kernel.
If there is no way for the spyware to patch the kernel I don't need McAfee or Symantec there at all. First thing I do with a new home machine is to strip off the AV software provided by Dell as cramware. Machines run so much faster and more reliably without. Then I turn off AutoRun and hook it up to my internal network which has twin SPI firewalls.
I have never had a virus but I have had machines go wonky because of buggy AV code.
I want to have as few kernel mode device drivers as is possible. Printers should not require kernel mode, nor should video cameras etc. Only the bare essentials talking directly to the DMA interfaces should ever use kernel mode.
I don't need to run my code in kernel space and I don't think anyone else does either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's your choice, and since it is your computer you should have the right to decide what gets loaded into the kernel and what doesn't. But what Microsoft is doing is different to that. They are saying that they get to decide what gets loaded into the kernel and what doesn't. So if you or anybody else want to load your own device drivers, you can't. On the other hand, if Microsoft decide that some kernel feature is needed - say, blocking the ability
Re:Sounds like the right plan (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Zeinfelds world view is entirely sane and very defensible. I agree with him.
Let's review a few facts:
The foundation of any security system is the kernel. If the kernel is not running in a known state, you have no security system - period.
There is absolutely zero point in having user accounts, authentication, file permissions and so on if programs can load code into the kernel ... which they can, because for historical reasons Windows programs require admin rights, and even if they didn't, ultimately any program can ask the user to do something on its behalf and most will.
The solution is clear - forbid any unknown code from loading into the kernel. Only then can you have a sane system built on solid foundations. It is not a "right to read" scenario, because you can still mark individual drivers as loadable in Vista IIRC if you put it into developer mode (which makes it clear that you are in a special mode), but even if it wasn't, it'd be a price worth paying to help fix the internet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately that's not the solution Microsoft chose. What they did is make a kernel that will only load code that has been approved by and paid a toll to Microsoft the amount of which is determined by Microsoft. That's vastly different than what you presented as the solution. On my Linux box unknown code is not permitted to load in the kernel but I'm the one who determines what is loaded into the kernel not Microsoft and there i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Having kernel hooks wouldn't help AV programs detect this if the malware was well written and had already attached itself - you often need to get out of the environment to detect such problems, as with a live CD. After it was infected, anything the kernel reported would be suspect.
The trick to catching malware is covering the vectors through which it enters the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A compromised kernel allows you neither: dir contents are inaccurate, mal
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Device drivers must, at some level, have a kernel component; because nothing in userland is allowed to talk to I/O ports. Only the kernel can do that. At the very least there must be a kernel component which accepts an instruction
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yeah, so you can do it, but it is a hundred times harder. Those kind of bugs do get patched, and the hackers need to constantly look for new ways in, lest their code be obsolete. The XP core you could just modify willy-nilly without anyone caring, but this time it is atleast protected.
This feels like one of those issues that MS just can't win in the geek-community. If they left it open, you'd be complaining that it is insecure. If they lock it down, you complain that their locking third parties out.
Re:Sounds like the right plan (Score:5, Interesting)
Agree with parent, why all the fuss? (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, this lockdown only applies to the 64-bit versionof Vista, and that in the 64-bit version of XP the kernel is locked down in a similar fashion? If so, I don't see why Symantec and Mcaffe are making such a fuss?
Furthermore, 64-bit vista looks like it will have the same enterprise level demographic (db/web servers and such). So it's not like Symantec's core business is being threatened. It looks like they're just playing this up so for the EC to leverage over MSFT.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But two questions come to mind:
1) If other A/V companies can do A/V software without kernel access, why do McAffee (or as some other slashdotter erroneously called it, McCafe) and Symantec need kernel access? Why are they so special?
2) Does Windows Defender/OneCare have kernel access, Microsoft?
I would expect that the clear best answers in a perfect world that we probably won't get are:
1) They don't, they're bastard parasites with
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In case people are wondering, yes, 64-bit Vista anti-virus software exists. See this post [microsoft.com] for details.
I think MS is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's enough trouble writing solid modules for the Linux or FreeBSD kernels, and the source code to those is open and widely available. When your module code runs into problems, you can easily see what's going on in other portions of the kernel. It's a very, very useful debugging tool.
Now take this Vista kernel API you speak of. It'll end
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the difference between the 32 bit and 64 bit kernel? And what does a 'tabernacle of security' mean?
I don't think there's a significant difference in DRM hardware between 32bit and 64bit systems. Why make the distinction? If they're going to secure Windows - why not secure Windows?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Funny)
It makes sense if you think of it in the typical French Canadian usage of the word Tabernac!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However, I think non-Quebecers need an explanation, so here goes:
Quebec French Profanity [wikipedia.org]
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
This has more to do with system stability than it does for security. Many syscall interceptors are not multiproc safe or do bad things: if the computer bluescreens because of a poorly written syscall interceptor, Microsoft gets blamed for writing unstable software. The syscall interface is considered an internal interface, not to be tampered with by outside parties because its behavior has subtleties not documented, and could change. This is a technical enforcement of that policy.
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Informative)
[1] By the way, the Wikipedia x86-64 article is horrendously biased, and just plain wrong in this area to such an extent that I can't even be bothered to fix it. Apparently Minix 3 is not a 'modern operating system,' and the creators of Xen do not fall into the category of 'modern' in terms of operating system thought.
Re: (Score:2)
It never did, and there were never plans to. NT 3.5 was written in C (minus the HAL and a few parts of the kernel, which are assembly), and was source-compatible with Alpha and MIPS, neither of which support more than two privilege modes. Cutler wouldn't let the kernel become non-portable enough to depend on multiple CPU privilege levels. The kernel is designed such that any kernel mode code can derefe
Re:Alpha supported 4 privilege modes (Score:4, Informative)
Different operating systems had different firmware images. The VMS PALCode implemented a load of privileged instructions that corresponded to those found in the VAX. The NT PALCode implemented x86-style operations.
So, while VMS may have required four privilege modes, these were not intrinsically an attribute of the Alpha. Instead, various instructions defined in PALCode would check the status of a shadow register and refuse to operate if it had the wrong value. PALCode was an incredible concept, and it was a very sad day for the industry when the promise of the Itanium killed the Alpha.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As painful as it may be for a lot of folks, at some point in time they have to get out of the hole they have dug theirselves into. I hear a lot on
I'm not an MS fanboy, but at least they are trying to do just that. IMHO, application installs should not mod/join the kernal. I like they way this is implemented i
Nabbersnackles (Score:2)
Only the priesthood and those among the flock that they approve are allowed in.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As you can see from the trailer, the Tabernacle is indestructible and ever-lasting. So it's a good choice.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
However -- I too -- am not a kernel developer. I've read through the linux and BSD kernel so
Jim Allchin of Microsoft responds (Score:5, Informative)
"Concessions to.." (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no fan of MS, especially when it comes to their horrible security track record. However, if they really can manage to get it right (or even significantly better) in Vista, they shouldn't be going and making concessions to the people who've been making a living off the things that were broken in their last OS.
Should surprise no one..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Priests huh? (Score:2)
/Yes, I went there.
Re:Priests huh? - Aztec/Inca (Score:2)
Actually, their metaphor is making me think Aztec/Inca monuments and sacrificial altars with blood and human hearts... After all, it is Microsoft. Or perhaps I'm thinkin' Arby's.
Oh yes, I went there and there.
Good luck (Score:2, Insightful)
If it uses trusted hardware, then it will have other serious problems, like making virtualisation hard or impossible, something that could make it fail entirely in the market.
This tough act is just a smokescreen for something else. Hmmm. Do they think they could get around some (e.g. EU) interoperability requirements that way?
Not trying to be a troll... (Score:2)
TIA!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing would be the Xbox hack, although that involved an attack on the hardware as well.
There are counless successful projects to port Linux to some closed (i.e. black-box) hardware.
Sounds like security by obscurity (Score:5, Insightful)
Which everyone by now should have learned does *not* work.
"Sounds like security by obscurity" is good (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually it does work. Where people go wrong is using it as their sole security measure. In concert with various other good practices obscurity is good.
Re:"Sounds like security by obscurity" is good (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA is a good example of an organization that uses security through obscurity well. They employ the best cryptographers and system designers around, but they are also not about to tell anyone how those systems work. If you did know exactly what they were doing, though, you would still find them to be some of the most secure systems anywhere.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has a history of using obscurity as a method of covering up embarassing security flaws. They do not have a history of having the best security. Do I think that Microsoft intends to hide the internals of their kernel as part of a comprehensive security regime in which obscurity is only the last layer thus making Vista an impregnable fortress, or is this an attempt by Microsoft to squelch competition from other AV vendors under the guise of fixing their tarnished security image? Well, it's obvious what I think. Which do you think it is?
* The fundamental problem with security through obscurity is that you can't count on it. Either a clever hacker will figure it out, or an insider will leak or exploit information about the system. Your system must be as secure as you know how to make it assuming that your enemy has full knowledge of the system. Only then does layering obscurity on top of that make sense as an additional mechanism. Otherwise it's a false sense of security.
Re: (Score:2)
Firewalls, packet filtering, user/group based access to resources, requiring "good" passwords, not allowing code to execute from the heap,
The cryptographers have understood this a long long time ago, that is why no serious
Re: (Score:2)
Which everyone by now should have learned does *not* work.
Looks very much like it. Reinforced by some chest-thumping and bluster. Maybe they hope they can scare hackers off....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-matthew
For God's sake... (Score:2)
Joe Blow (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft also warned 32-Bit users to be careful, because if you run the 32-Bit version, you're screwed
"Our old stuff was crap" (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that Joe Public no longer believes MS has control over security, they need to build some new mental images to sell. 64-bit black boxes sound pretty solid.
Sayonara, Symantec (Score:5, Insightful)
If it will stop crapware like StarForce and the Sony rootkit from sneaking extra drivers in, bring on the kibosh. People who want to tinker can use one of the fine Open Source operating system kernels [kernel.org] that run on 64-bit Intel machines. Those that just want to play games or run Office can feel a little bit safer from malware.
Sorry Symantec, but after dealing with the disaster that is Norton Internet Security, I won't shed a tear when I read that you've filed for Chapter 7.
Re: (Score:2)
If it will stop crapware like StarForce and the Sony rootkit from sneaking extra drivers in, bring on the kibosh.
Unlikely. Those developers will simply get their drivers signed so they are allowed to load.
Adoption of Vista 64-bit (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is Microsoft even bothering.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Every week, I hear about a new thing that will "only be in 64-bit Vista". First it was HDTV content only on 64-bit [slashdot.org] for DRM reasons. Now, we're hearing the reasoning that Windows will be more secure if we don't let third parties in the kernel. Fine, whatever. If we were to assume that makes it more secure, then so be it.
But why bother to release an inferior 32-bit version? Under the presumption that closing the 64-bit kernel off will make things better, why not use the same strict security policies in 32-bit? Surely, there can't be any technical reason for all of this. It's all marketing, right? ("Microsoft recommends a 64-bit PC.")
Or is there some real reason why it feels like 32-bit Vista and 64-bit Vista are two entirely different operating systems?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the 32 bit will be if you want anything to run, the 64 bit will be for people who want to play DRM'd content on their PC. Maybe an exaggeration, but I think that's about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How to patch the kernel anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
In a recent blog entry, Rutkowska criticizes Microsoft's response to the pagefile attack [blogspot.com]. Boiled down, it amounts to the problem that as long as a disk utility can run, someone can still edit the pagefile. Her preferred fixes would have been encrypting the pagefile or simply not swapping the kernel. NetBSD's Elad Efrat suggested simply hashing the kernel for integrity checking.
The article is filled with such great lines! (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: You're screwed! Upgrade to 64 bit ASAP (P.S. some of your software won't work)
Defender has already become the most popular download ever from Microsoft
If I was MS, I certainly wouldn't brag about anti-malware being the most popular application.
referring to third parties being able to patch 64 bit Vista - "It's just not the way the box was designed...we're putting a stop to that."
Great. What happens when MS doesn't quickly put out a patch... no choice on using the good samaritan patches anymore, you just have to sit and twiddle your thumbs.
referring to ever being able to secure 32 bit Windows - "That train has left the station."
I think it's more like the Windows train has left the station. Why bother to convert to 64 bit Windows? Switch to something else as soon as possible.
It's a matter of trust (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the crux of debate will be what MS considers its own high priests. If that means MS security products that compete with Symantec and McAfee, then the two vendors have a legitimate gripe that MS is using its monopoly power to lock them out. MS has said that its security products will not have access to undocumented APIs, but how much do you trust MS at their word? I don't trust them that much because I think MS still plays dirty. As recently as the Burst lawsuit in 2004, you can still see MS is refusing not only play fair but abide by court orders: Both parties were told to disclose emails as part of discovery. Burst.net discovered that not only did MS destroy emails but it was the policy of a multi-billion dollar company not to retain any emails over 30 days. And Burst listed out the many ways the company actively followed this policy. [groklaw.net]
Great (Score:2)
no, no, no (Score:5, Funny)
the os isn't a black box, the os needs a black box
you know, for when it crashes
More things change... (Score:2)
"...where only its own high priests of security may venture."
The concept of 'programmer priest' came about when mainframes ruled. You were not allowed direct access to your data. You had to present your request to the men in white lab coats and wait for the proper circumstances to occur before, even frequently if, you were deemed worthy of receiving an 'output'.
Today, we continue to hear the phrase 'information wants to be free'. MS, having yet again painting itself i
Using linux kernel src code ;) (Score:2, Funny)
Black Box (Score:2)
I recently purchased a new computer with Windows Vista installed, and I'm having problems switching over to Debian Linux. I've opened up the case and looked everywhere, even inside the power supply, but I can't find any black boxes inside. I know it's there, Microsoft keeps talking about it, but I'm having the darnedest time locating it. Where is it and how do I disconnect it?
Is the kernel really the issue? (Score:2)
Why the kernel is an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The kernel has a reputation for being not particularly bad.
The reason the kernel is an issue, is that the new "threat" against Windows security is the owner/administrator of the machine. Microsoft needs to try to implement DRM, in order to get into bed with the media companies and sell music and Zunes to play it. You can't implement DRM if the user can patch the kernel to work around the DRM. Thus, they're going to try to prevent end-users from having the capacity to modify this behavior of their own computer.
The "security companies" are taking collateral damage from this, because their applications have to intercept all reads/writes (to files, the network, whatever) in order to scan all data against a blacklist of known malware [ranum.com] in order to try to protect the comically fragile userspace. This scanning is implemented through kernel patches, I guess.
Black box for video and audio devices... (Score:4, Insightful)
Security Not Needed (Score:4, Insightful)
"Black Box" will contain ... (Score:2)
Meaning that the kernel itself will actually be a port of OpenBSD, but (shhh) don't tell anyone.
Black box? Bloody bastards.... (Score:2)
What about devs? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not about security it's about compliance (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's remember that the reason Windows is in the server room in the first place is because MS sold it on the premise that's easier to run. Not faster, not with less hardware, not even with fewer people but with a lower skill set. Cheaper. So embedded security is not about security, it's about skill sets. Set it, forget it, hope for the best. If it smashes on the rocks then everyone did their best anyway and no one can be held accountable.
64 bit Vista == Palladium without the hardware (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft Translation (Score:5, Funny)
Security Through Obscurity (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Am I the only one who read that as,
"The kernel will be the holiest of holy kernels in history, spouting more holes per square inch than any preceding set of kernel holes in history."
Something tells me he used a bad phrase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Worth mentioning ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's your point? Oh you mean I can't play "office" and run the random assortment of last years games with the same graphics... I got a PS2 and xbox for that. Actually I spend more time playing NES games on my GBA then anything else...
I guess I'm more productive and resourceful than you is all...
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
Anyways, I *do* have a 64 bit OS that can handle it and MS word and the engineering work I do... WinXP 64 bit... works wonderfully.
Are you allowed to modify your house wiring? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to sell the house the wiring needs to be up to code, but you can easily pay the $40 and get a permit and get the inspector over to double-check your work.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course such suppression can not live forever, but if the information being protect has a short enough lifespan/relevance then suppression works. The "freeing" of the information being merely academic rather than effective.
Hey, one vague tangent deserves another.