Practical Technology

for practical people.

July 29, 2009
by sjvn01
1 Comment

Night of the living Yahoo

“Brains! Must have Yahoo advertising brains!” That might have been Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer’s call as he finally made a deal for Yahoo. Sure, it looks like Yahoo still exists as an independent company, but in reality, Ballmer’s bite has turned it into a Microsoft zombie.

Yahoo has agreed to let is search engine brain, the only thing of value it really had, to be replaced by Bing, Microsoft’s “decision engine.” That’s a fancy Microsoft marketing phrase, which means it’s a search engine with a built-in bias towards giving pro-Microsoft search results.

As expected, Bing hasn’t made a dent in Google’s search share. Indeed, despite some reports of it hurting Yahoo’s search market share, I haven’t seen any proof that it did any real damage to Yahoo. Of course, Yahoo was already in a world of hurt and new CEO Carol Bartz quickly proved she wasn’t up to the job of reviving the ailing Internet giant.

With this deal, Yahoo has become a dead company walking. Yahoo has clearly given up on search. If you look closely you’ll see that even its ad platform Panama, is being replaced by Microsoft’s adCenter.

More >

July 28, 2009
by sjvn01
1 Comment

Buying with the Penguin

I’m not much of one for affinity credit cards. You know, the ones bearing the logo of your favorite sports team, school, or what have you. But, I have to confess I like this new affinity Visa Platinum credit card that’s being issued by the Linux Foundation, the nonprofit organization dedicated to accelerating the growth of Linux.

As Jim Zemlin, executive director at the Linux Foundation, said in the card’s announcement, “This credit card is in response to requests by individuals who want to get involved and support the Linux Foundation’s community activities. Some people write code while others work on marketing or defending Linux. The Linux-branded credit card is an easy way for anyone to contribute to the growth of Linux and identify themselves as supporters of the community by carrying Tux in their pocket.”

More >

July 27, 2009
by sjvn01
0 comments

Insecure by design: MS Office formats

Last week, Microsoft essentially admitted that its plan to "sandbox" Office documents in Office 2010 is a last ditch defense against unstoppable Microsoft Office formats attacks. As John Pescatore, Gartner’s primary security analyst, told ComputerWorld reporter, Gregg Keizer, "Microsoft is saying, ‘Okay, we can’t find, let alone fix, every vulnerability. So here’s a way to put a sandbox around the vulnerability.’"

There’s no surprise here. Microsoft Office is a set of security holes that masquerades as an office suite, Of course, Microsoft didn’t plan it that way. They just didn’t think it through when they first started developing Office’s proprietary formats.

You see, Office, and Windows for that matter, were designed for single-user, non-networked systems. They were not designed for environments with multiple local or remote users. When Microsoft started dealing with a networked computer universe with Windows for Workgroups in 1991, they didn’t redesign the system from the bottom up. No, indeed, instead they simply added network functionality, often at a low level, without considering what this meant for security.

Even when Microsoft added another architecture, the VMS-inspired Windows NT to its operating system mix, the programmers from Redmond insisted on including Windows 2.x and Windows 3.x application compatibility. So it is that this single-user mentality is still Windows’ foundation almost 30-years later and with it comes Windows and Office’s fundamental insecurity.

Here’s how it’s played out in Office’s document formats. Microsoft wanted to make it as easy as possible for its Windows users to transparently trade data from one program’s documents to another. This was, and is, a feature. It’s what let you set up your PowerPoint presentation or Word documents, for example, to reflect your latest spreadsheet numbers from an Excel spreadsheet without having to copy and paste them.

That’s great. So long as you’re in an environment where no one else can access your data, or-and this point is the heart of the Office formats’ security weakness-the connections between documents. In 1991, without giving any consideration to its security implications, Microsoft introduced NetDDE (Network Dynamic Data Exchange). This made it possible to extend DDE links across the network.

NetDDE links, as I pointed out at the time, "made it possible for multiple users to access and update data on shared files. The promise of this kind of data sharing is almost unlimited. You could, for instance, set up a sales report in Word containing automatically updated sales figures from half a dozen different Excel spreadsheets scattered across the network."

I continued, "That’s the good news. The bad news is that NetDDE can be used without security. In a nutshell, without usage restrictions, NetDDE can be easily abused. For example, you could easily set up a spreadsheet reporting on everyone’s salary based on personnel’s spreadsheets. NetDDE brings not only new power to Windows, it also reminds us that, as Lord Acton wrote, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

In 1991, I was worried about people on the local area network snooping into other people’s data. What I didn’t foresee was that Microsoft would never fix its document security. In fact, they would make it even worse. Microsoft Office documents, thanks to a combination of the later generations of NetDDE, such as VBX, OCX and ActiveX, and baked in support for Office programming tools like Visual Basic for Applications, aren’t really documents at all. They’re really unsecured programs.

You see, when you’re opening an Office document today, you’re not just opening static words, images, or numbers. You’re actually starting a program that uses Microsoft Office as its interpreter. And, no matter whether you’re using Word 2,0 formats or the 2008’s 7,000+ pages mis-mash of ‘standard’ ECMA-376 Office Open XML file formats, there is no built-in network security layer. Instead, there is a mis-mash of fixes for one problem or the other.

The sandbox, which Microsoft introduces in Office 2010, for Office documents, is Microsoft’s surrender to crackers. Short of admitting that they’ve failed publicly and moving to an entirely different set of formats, say the far more secure ODF (Open Document Format), all Microsoft can do is provide a read-only, semi-virtual machine, to let you look at documents from other sites. Of course, once you’ve started editing such a document, you’re out of the sandbox, and, once more, you may think you’re just editing a document, but you’re actually running a program that’s insecure by design.

When Microsoft first gave users this ‘feature,’ its advantage was it let you transparently keep data synced up between different documents and different kinds of documents. Today, that’s still its advantage, but now, instead of living with the possibility of Joe down the hall seeing how much Jacqueline in marketing is making by spying in the company payroll spreadsheet, you have to live with the possibility of every Microsoft document containing malware.

To me, this danger far outweighs any advantage of using Microsoft document formats. That’s why, I use ODF and programs like OpenOffice 3.1 which support it. And, why, I never download Microsoft Office documents from the Web and automatically delete any e-mail messages that contain them. Open document formats aren’t just better because they’re not under the control of a single company, in the case of Microsoft’s Office formats; they’re also fundamentally more secure.

A version of this story first appeared in ComputerWorld.

July 23, 2009
by sjvn01
2 Comments

Ubuntu to make Linux application installation idiot proof

There’s really nothing that hard about installing programs on Linux. Anyone who still uses shell commands like say, “apt-get install some-program-or-the-other,” is doing so because they want to do it that way, not because they have to. Programs like Debian and Ubuntu’s Synaptic, Fedora’s yum or openSUSE’s YaST makes installing programs little more than a matter of point and click. Still, some people have trouble, so Ubuntu is reviving a dusty, old project, AppCenter so that anyone can install Linux programs.

I was pointed to the newly refurbished site by some Ubuntu insiders in response to some questions I had about an earlier rumor about their being plans for an Ubuntu App Store afoot. I guess Apple’s App Store’s roaring success has everyone App Store happy these days. That site, apperi, which describes itself as a Linux app store, wasn’t the one though that Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, was working on.

According to the Ubuntu site, “There will be a single graphical interface for package management in Ubuntu, currently codenamed AppCenter. (The final name, like much of the design, will be partly dependent on user testing.) This will combine the human-readable approach of Add/Remove Applications, the power of Synaptic, and the ease of use of Update Manager. Having a single interface will make handling software easier, socially improve security, hopefully free space on the CD, and provide a prominent showcase for Ubuntu and partner software. The implementation will likely be based on Add/Remove Applications (gnome-app-install), but may use PackageKit for some components.”

More >

July 22, 2009
by sjvn01
3 Comments

Open Source for America launches

It’s about time. Today, July 22nd, Open Source for America, a coalition of more than 60 organizations joined together to advocate open source in the U.S. federal government launched. This comes after decades of Microsoft spending millions every year to encourage the government to buy Microsoft’s proprietary software.

Open Source for America, which includes industry leaders such as Red Hat, Google, Novell, and Oracle in its membership, is meant to provide, according to the group’s statement, a “unified voice to help effect change in U.S. Federal Government policies and practices to allow the federal government to better utilize open source software for cost efficiency, security and enhanced performance. ”

The alliance will spell out to the the U.S. federal government that open-source software will provide an “an open, transparent and cost-effective option for government agencies” to deliver services to citizens. With an economy that on the rocks, encouraging the government to move to open-source software makes a good deal of sense.

Continue Reading →