Posted on 08/08/2008 9:25:43 AM PDT by Clint Williams
scribbles89 sends in a story that originally ran in SearchSecurity; it sounds like it could be a game-changer. "While this may seem like any standard security hole, other researchers say that the work is a major breakthrough and there is very little that Microsoft can do to fix the problems. These attacks work differently than other security exploits, as they aren't based on any new Windows vulnerabilities, but instead take advantage of the way Microsoft chose to guard Vista's fundamental architecture. According to Dino Dai Zovi..., 'the genius of this is that it's completely reusable. They have attacks that let them load chosen content to a chosen location with chosen permissions. That's completely game over.'"
It doesn't have to be.
I can run Solaris software that was initially installed on Solaris 7 (1999) on Solaris 10, which is current.
I expect by Windows 7, the software will need just that much more upgrade to take advantage of the better hardware.
They could just patch what they've sold you to do that.
But they'd rather sell you a new OS.
I can’t wait to see how many DVD’s it will take to load it up. Too bad that instead of fixing old code, Microsoft just leaves it in and patches around it resulting in runaway program sizes.
Look at part 2 again.
I suspect that's what the article writer has managed to exploit, a bypass of memory protections.
It's also possible that the article writer has found a flaw that is related to the ones in the paper but not the same.
The point of me posting the paper is that numerous flaws have already been found in Vista, all of them basic design flaws. Finding another, more serious one is not out of the question.
Note that one of the article writers is from VMWare. The VMWare guys have to deal with operating systems at a very low level all the time. When running as a guest, you have to be able to understand everything the OS is doing with regard to talking to physical hardware, including memory and CPU addressing.
When running as a host, you have to be able to understand exactly how to bypass the built-in limitations in order to pass valid instructions back and forth between the guest OS and the host OS.
Someone doing that kind of work would certainly be in a position to find the kind of flaw that they claim to have found.
So my hope is that the same occurs in this case!
PING!
good solution for you as an individual but not ecconomically practical in the real world business environment.
Actually, XP wasn't all that great at first. It wasn't until SP2 that people (especially businesses) really started using it.
The problem that Microsoft has is that (with a few notable exceptions) it's latest and greatest offering has been good enough to replace what came before.
Not great, not perfect. Just good enough.
Always good enough to keep people from looking outside of Microsoft's product offerings.
Now they've got Vista. Vista has problems. Many people report that there isn't much wrong with Vista (although this article may change that perception) but it's not been good enough to get people to jump to it from XP.
And now there are several products out there at least as good as XP and if the pain to move from XP to Vista is too high, then the pain to move to OSX or Linux may not be too high.
What's not "real world" about Oracle?
I’ve installed Vista 64 on two Dell XPS laptops and it worked great when you turn of the UAC.
Vista is more lipstick on NT
I got two laptops fairly recently, one XP Pro because I had heard all the complaints about Vista, and then one Vista.
I like Vista just fine. Much better and faster than XP Pro, despite all the complaints I have read. I think it’s just important to get it on a new machine and with plenty of memory.
That’s aside from this latest vulnerability, which I haven’t followed up on yet. But I imagine the other operating systems are vulnerable too.
Not likely.
This is an inherent flaw in the design of Windows.
Bypassing Browser Memory Protections
That paper is all about flaws in methods of mitigating the effect of a buffer overflow, i.e., keeping a buffer overflow from giving control to hacker code. It seems to me that the goal must be to prevent buffer overflows in the first place.
Dr. Deming says, "Go to the head of the class!"
Now, how about we convince Microsoft?
After all, the OpenBSD guys figured it out a long time ago.
I have five computers: Three run Win XP Pro, one runs Vista Business 32 bit, and one runs Vista Business 64 Bit. In my experiece, Vista is extremely stable, fast, and powerful, as long as the hardware is up the task and you do a clean install to rid the hard drive of all the worthless bloatware crap that the computer manufacturers preload on new systems. I also turn off many of the bells and whistles that come with Vista until I want to use them, and disable many of the startup programs and services that I do not want or need.
The people I know who complain the most about Vista are the same people who call customer service because they can't connect to the Internet only to discover that they need an account with an internet service provider. (True story -- One of my employees recently brought a new computer with Vista preinstalled. After a week of using the new computer she had nothing good say about Vista. Her biggest complaint was that her printer no longer worked and she was convinced that Vista was at fault. Turns out her printer was still connected to her old computer.)
While that certainly helps, there are a few programs that just don't like Vista.
VMWare Server won't run unless you remove three service packs and boot up in "Disabled driver check" mode using F8.
Netscreen, a sysadmin tool, just won't run at all.
It's turning out to be true.
I know what you mean! I am sticking with XP, and considering my other options.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.