Source Code Leak Prompts Vulnerabilities, Warning from Microsoft

Editor's note: You can't have DRM without "security by obscurity." ... How widely acknowledged is this theory, really? --Paul

As other have suggested, perhaps you should take a few moments to read up on security theory before making statements which clearly show you don't know what you're talking about. This is almost as bad as the time you kept insisting that the Windows EAL was somehow related to the relative security of the Windows platform, which it isn't.

I think you're confusing the obscurity of information, such as encryption keys, with obscurity of the algorithm in use, such as public key. It is perfectly accepted practice to make the algorithm known but the secret info hidden. This is NOT considered "security by obscurity."

As someone who has actually designed and implemented security solutions, and keeps a close eye on industry developments, trust me on this one. Security by obscurity is not considered good practice. A system that has been subject to extensive peer review, with a known algirothm, is much preferred.

"You can't have DRM without "security by obscurity.""

Is that so? Well - dream on, expert..

(For everybody else: I recommend to have a look at some works of Bruce Schneier (http://www.schneier.com) on that matter.)

On a side note:

From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03) :

security through obscurity

Or "security by obscurity". A term applied by
hackers to most operating system vendors' favourite way of
coping with security holes - namely, ignoring them,
documenting neither any known holes nor the underlying
security algorithms, trusting that nobody will find out
about them and that people who do find out about them won't
exploit them. This never works for long and occasionally sets
the world up for debacles like the RTM worm of 1988 (see
Great Worm), but once the brief moments of panic created by
such events subside most vendors are all too willing to turn
over and go back to sleep. After all, actually fixing the
bugs would siphon off the resources needed to implement the
next user-interface frill on marketing's wish list - and
besides, if they started fixing security bugs customers might
begin to *expect* it and imagine that their warranties of
merchantability gave them some sort of rights.

@Rob: It's widly acknowledged that "security by obscurity" (i. e. closed source software such as MS's) is highly dangerous and insecure.

For example an encryption scheme is "secure" if - and only if - an attacker who knows the exact code cannot decrypte a message without the appropriate key (i. e. security is based on the key and not on the code). You cannot attack, despite knowing the code.

If security is based on the assumption that you are not vulnerable because a cracker does not know your code, you have a big problem as soon as a cracker gets your code or finds a vulnerability by other means (proofen by almost daily new holes in MS software).
Furthermore, as user of such software, you can neither verify nor protect yourself by changing the code (hence the necessity to invest in additional security software: you can't trust in MS built-in security).

Open source software can be verified - and if necessary - changed by everyone. There is no false assumption that a hacker does not know the code. So security has to be "real" and not just a marketing promise.

With the leak of some MS code, not much has changed - maybe some crackers now have an easier life and some users are now aware of closed source dangers. But all-in-all, MS software stays insecure..


Editor's note: You can't have DRM without "security by obscurity." Even Real's "open source" Helix solution doesn't let its DRM scheme out in the open. How widely acknowledged is this theory, really? --Paul

@Rob

The leaking of Windows source is considered a thread because, some people argue, Windows relies on "security through obscurity" which means that programmers rely on the fact that people don't have access to the source to make it hard to crack. Because this isn't possible with Linux, a different philosophy has to be used - programmers have to design a system that is secure even if people know exactly how it works. Most encryption methods used today are publically available, but they are still hard to crack. Relying on "security through obscurity" is a bad idea, and hopefully MS have not done that.

"Editor's note: Only if required by a judge, Wendy. --Paul "

Nah, you're safe. I was just jokin' with you anyway.

Besides, Microsoft won't bother you. You're one of the best shills they've got. No sense endangering the franchise by harassing Paul Thurrott. ;-)


Editor's note: Hey, that's hilarious. On the other hand, I have been threatened and warned by Microsoft on various occassions. --Paul