Practical Technology

for practical people.

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 →

July 22, 2009
by sjvn01
0 comments

Windows 7 RTM works well

By the time you read this, Windows 7 may have been RTM (released to manufacturing), so it’s time to take a first peek at what Windows 7 brings to the table, and what it doesn’t.

First, let me shock the morons who think when I see any Microsoft product I have an automatic “kick-it” reflex. Sorry guys, but that’s never been true. I’ve always seen my job as being like a baseball umpire’s. Regardless of how I feel–go Cubs!–I call balls and strikes the way I see them. In the case of Microsoft for the last few years they’ve been throwing nothing but wild-pitches. If the 21st century Microsoft was a MLB team they’d be down there with the 1962 New York Mets and 2003 Detroit Tigers.

But, with Windows 7, which I first thought would be little more than the Vista pig with lipstick. I was wrong. With Windows 7, Microsoft finally has a new, decent client operating system again.

More >

July 21, 2009
by sjvn01
0 comments

Canonical opens Launchpad

An open-source irony has long been that Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, used its own closed-source software development platform, Launchpad, to create Ubuntu and other open-source programs. On July 21st, though, Canonical opened Launchpad’s code under the GPLv3.

Launchpad is a set of integrated tools that support collaboration and community formation. These include a team management tool, a bug tracker, code hosting, translations, a blueprint tracker, and an answer tracker.

Launchpad went public in late 2007. With it, developers have been able to host and share code using its integrated Bazaar version control system. Besides all the usual development goodies that you get with similar projects such as SourceForge Launchpad enables developers to, as Canonical puts it, “support each other’s efforts across different project hosting services – essentially making Launchpad a social network with a purpose.”

From where I sit, Launchpad’s best feature is its bug-tracker. Unlike other bug-trackers, Launchpad’s system lets you track separate conversations about the same bug in external project bug trackers. So, for example, you can easily see if a big has already been reported in another online development or bug-tracking system such as Bugzilla, the Mozilla Foundation’s bug-tracker; Roundup; SourceForge; and the Debian Bug Tracking System.

More >

July 20, 2009
by sjvn01
0 comments

Microsoft’s Linux driver offering planned for years

‘m really not sure why everyone is so surprised that Microsoft submitted the driver source code for four Microsoft Hyper-V drivers for inclusion in the Linux kernel under the GPLv2 license. You see, Microsoft and Novell have been working on this for over two years now.

These drivers, jointly called the Linux Device Driver for Virtualization, when added to Linux, gives any distribution using them the ability to run on Windows Server 2008 and its Hyper-V hypervisor technology. Server-level virtualization doesn’t get people excited the way the desktop models, like Sun, now Oracle’s, VirtualBox, but it’s actually much more important for businesses. By enabling companies to run more than one server, or a mix of server operating systems, on one hardware platform you save both energy and hardware costs. So, for Novell and Microsoft, which with their partner Citrix is out to knock out VMware and Red Hat, making Hyper-V serve as a bridge between Linux and Windows Server 2008 is a major part of their fight plan.

So, back in February 2007, Microsoft and Novell announced that they were working on making Windows and Linux’s virtual machines-Hyper-V and Xen respectively-work and play well with each other. To quote Sam Ramji, then Microsoft’s director of platform technology strategy, the two companies had created a “Joint Interoperability Lab, which “will be around for the long term, and will focus on interoperable virtualization between the Windows and SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server).”

Microsoft and Novell had actually already been working on this for time. Indeed, Intel was also working with Novell on these plans. That same month, Intel and Novell told the world that they were releasing of paravirtualized network and block device drivers. These drivers enable Windows Server to run unmodified in Xen virtual environments on Linux.

Novell and Microsoft also further explained that together the companies would work on jointly developing a virtualization offering that would let Windows Server administrators run SLES as a virtualized guest on Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2. They also announced that they were working on getting SLES to run as an ‘enlightened guest’ on Server 2008. All of this has since come to pass.

In short, there was really nothing at all surprising about this announcement. It’s been in the works for over two years.

With that in mind, I find it a little disingenuous for Greg Kroah-Hartman, the Linux driver project lead and a Novell fellow, to tell John Fontana of Network World that “Another kernel community member noticed the [Microsoft] drivers and pointed them out to me Through the contacts I have at Novell and through the Microsoft/Novell interoperability agreement, I contacted Microsoft and worked out the details.” That may well have been how it worked out that this code made it into Linux, but it must always have been part of Microsoft and Novell’s overall plan for peaceful Linux and Windows co-existence.

With all that in mind, I don’t see any of this as really being surprising. Microsoft and Linux fans love to throw verbal brickbats at each other, but network administrators and server companies love interoperability. Microsoft isn’t giving anything away. These drivers just make it possible for Linux servers to run as virtual machines to run on Windows Server 2008. Thus, anyone who ever uses this code is going to have to buy a copy of Windows Server first.

I don’t see this as a sign that Microsoft is learning to appreciate the value of open source. I see this as a purely pragmatic view to boost the sales of their own products and nothing more or less.

A version of this story was first published in ComputerWorld.