Microsoft's "monkeys" find first zero-day exploit

Security Focus ^ | 8 August 2005 | Robert Lemos

[vrwc1]

You can almost detect a kind of maniacal anti-Microsoft jihadi mindset from some people. It's a completely illogical hate, hate, hate thing, and I just don't get it. What did Microsoft ever do to cause these people to act that way?

Then again, I guess asking that question makes about as much sense as seeking after the "root cause of terrorism". There is no rational explanation for it.

[kevkrom]

Are we talking about the same bug? In my recollection, the sendmail bug allowed arbitrary execution of code, which was compounded because sendmail was improperly configured (by default) to run as "root" (system admisitrator). Then again, it was a long time ago...

[softwarecreator]

What did Microsoft ever do to cause these people to act that way?

They became immensely successful and then had the nerve to not {gasp} share their source code with those who demanded it ... for FREE.

Coke has had their secret "Formula X" for how many years and yet no one DEMANDS they share it.  Same with KFC, Dr. Pepper, etc.  Do you hear outrage about these companies?  Nope.  Only Microsoft.

[softwarecreator]

Thanks!!!!!

[js1138]

The failure of Microsoft to learn from the mistakes of UNIX, which had a 20-year head start, is an embarassment.

If 1988 was over 20 years ago, you are a genuine futurist.

I will not defend Microsoft against the charge that they did not anticipate the rise of the internet as a consumer appliance. I happen to remember 1995, when I first started using the internet at home. At the time the computer magazines were full of articles asking what the next killer app would be. No one mentioned the browser. So duh.

Microsoft concentrated its efforts on making networking easy for non-technical people, ath the expense of security. As a result, Windows has a 90 percent market share, and Unix in its various forms has less than ten percent. I wonder if Bill Gates and his stockholders would have it the other way round.

[kevkrom]

If 1988 was over 20 years ago, you are a genuine futurist.

I said the sendmail bug was nearly 20 years ago. Also, UNIX does have a 20+ year head start on Microsoft, especially in regards to networking (ARPAnet debuted in 1968, though UNIX didn't begin to appear until the following year).

Microsoft concentrated its efforts on making networking easy for non-technical people, ath the expense of security.

Which meant ignoring decades worth of networking experience from the UNIX and VMS worlds. It was a business/marketing decision, but in the long run, a bad one because it has put them, as a company, always in a trailing mode of operation with regards to security.

[general_re]

I went and tried to google up some details - the worm had most of its success by attacking fingerd. It never ran as root, but rather as daemon as far as I can tell. Anyway, the problem was that it didn't always die the way it was (apparently) supposed to, resulting in the load very rapidly increasing on infected machines to the point of unresponsiveness in some cases. Story time here, if you're bored ;)

[HAL9000]

"The honeymonkey client goes (to malicious Web sites) and gets exploited rather than waiting to get attacked," said Yi-Min Wang, manager of Microsoft's Cybersecurity and Systems Management Research Group.

All Windows computers are honeymonkey clients.

[js1138]

I don't think this thread is going the way it was planned.

It's really difficult to make fun of a company for taking proactive steps towards security, even if they have been negligent in the past.

Particularly when they have never had a disaster of the magnitude of their competitor's.

[general_re]

Eh, cheap shots are easier. Anyway, it looks to me like a fairly clever approach that should yield tangible benefits to end users. If it was the Mozilla Foundation doing this, we'd be hearing how clever it is, but it's not, so there ;)