Subscribe to Windows IT Pro

 

Get Newsletters

  • Get the Latest News
  • Product Updates
  • Helpful Tricks
  • Productivity Tips

Subscribe Now!

March 16, 2005 12:00 AM

The Future of Malware Defense?

Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #45739
Rating: (5)

You're probably aware that Microsoft is working on branding its antivirus and antispyware solutions. The company has already released an antispyware solution into public beta testing and has acquired well-established GeCAD Software and Sybari Software antivirus products.

Some industry analysts think that the most logical way to address spyware is to evolve antivirus solutions to incorporate that ability to prevent spyware from infecting systems in the first place. That's a reasonable approach, even though it's another step towards a single point of failure, which many security administrators try to avoid.

I read some interesting comments at CNET.com, which published an interview with Bill Gates. The article implied that eventually antivirus solutions and possibly antispyware solutions will become integral parts of Windows. There's more to the story, which isn't covered in the CNET.com article.

I mentioned in an earlier column that Microsoft has published a research paper on root kits and has developed a detection tool that it hasn't made available to the public. The company released another interesting research paper several months ago that offers further insight into what other kinds of security-related technology the company might offer in the future.

The second paper, "Can We Contain Internet Worms?," was published in August 2004. In it, Microsoft researchers discuss how worms might become more readily containable as computers collaborate in a more automated manner. The concept, which the researchers have dubbed "Vigilante," proposes "a new host centric approach for automatic worm containment."

The summary states that the technology "relies on collaborative worm detection at end hosts in the Internet but does not require hosts to trust each other. Hosts detect worms by analysing attempts to infect applications and broadcast self-certifying alerts (SCAs) when they detect a worm. SCAs are automatically generated machine-verifiable proofs of vulnerability; they can be independently and inexpensively verified by any host. Hosts can use SCAs to generate filters or patches that prevent infection." You might think of this technology as sort of like a much smarter version of Snort or other intrusion detection and prevention systems.

In essence, the proposal discusses a means of having hosts monitor their own activity and automatically contain misbehaving processes. When a host detects a worm, it can generate an alert that's broadcast to other hosts. The general idea is to decentralize detection systems so that worms can't evade detection by evading a particular network point. A key to the idea is that an SCA could verify worm detection by reproducing its effects. So hosts attain a level of trust by doing their own verification, instead of depending on third parties to provide signatures to endpoint detection systems.

Although the paper doesn't mention this specifically, the implications are huge. The same principles could be applied to viruses, Trojan horses, spyware, and just about any kind of application or network behavior. Such a system would become vulnerability-centric; instead of having to develop signatures for each variation of malware, the system would instead identify the vulnerability and be able to act to defend the system against it. For example, it could shut down an application, reconfigure a firewall, or generate some sort of patch. There is much more to learn about the concept in the paper, which you can download in PDF format at the Microsoft Web site.

ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2004-83.pdf

Related Content:

ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • Anonymous User
    7 years ago
    Apr 06, 2005

    So my computer should be determining on its own what programs will run or be shutdown without my approval and transmitting this information of control to other computers while at the same time be receiving equivalent controls from other unknown computers? - All beyond my control? I think not. I am already afraid to fire up my computer because I cannot identify half of the processes that run unsolicited, for good or bad, not to mention the unbearable load this traffic would add to the network.

    The problem is the user having a lack of control over his own computer in the first place. Taking away more control will only excaberate the problem. Microsoft has to quit assuming that the users are stupid, and only Microsoft knows what to do. How about providing a capability that keeps a list of "approved" executables (including scripts, batch files, etc.). No application can run code that has not been granted user permission. Should any new code show up in any form, the operating system will ask the user if it is okay to add it to the list. 99 times out of 100 such occurences will identify malware and the user can reject it. The list of approved programs would be accessable at any time by the user for maintenance. Much of this tracking could be automated, such as when a program is installed. Just providing a basic capability where code must have user permission to run would immediately put a big dent in malware. Why is this so hard for Microsoft to figure out? - because it takes control (and perceived dollars) away from them? Microsoft (and any software for that matter) should be enabling the users, not the vendor and their money/power-grubby schemes.

  • Anonymous User
    7 years ago
    Apr 06, 2005

    Surely Micro$oft would never adjust the stability of someone else's product? Oh, wait. Wasn't there something in an old version of Windows that generated an "error" if you were running DR-DOS instead of M$ DOS. Of course, that was an isolated incident. It wasn't like M$ continued with such tactics and created undocumented hooks to the OS which allowed their Office products to be faster and more stable than their competitors not because of being better programs but because they had better access to system resources ...

  • Anonymous User
    7 years ago
    Apr 06, 2005

    What happens when someone maliciously writes an SCA that shuts down an non-malware service - like SQL or IE or ....?

    What happens when you are trying to use an application like SNORT or some other third party app that is not malicious, but the OS deams it to be an issue?

    Or maybe someone at Microsoft or somewhere else gets a bright idea to help increase market share by using this to "adjust" the stability of their competitor's products using this technology to disrupt the competing product?

    Or...

  • Anonymous User
    7 years ago
    Mar 29, 2005

    Think of the possible bad implications;
    - Hackers could design a worm that upon its containment the self-healing mechanism will cause harm to the machine
    - Change management could become problematic as self-healing will not manifest equaly on all machines
    This is yet another solution and maybe not to the source of the problems we are having. What is the source(s) of security issues those days ? This is a very good question to ask...

  • Anonymous User
    7 years ago
    Mar 29, 2005

    Think of the possible bad implications;
    - Hackers could design a worm that upon its containment the self-healing mechanism will cause harm to the machine
    - Change management could become problematic as self-healing will not manifest equaly on all machines
    This is yet another solution and maybe not to the source of the problems we are having. What is the source(s) of security issues those days ? This is a very good question to ask...

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here

advertisement

advertisement

White Papers

Get your Windows 7 deployment off to the right start by implementing PC lockdown. A locked-down environment is easier and cheaper to support since users are less likely to make unnecessary changes to the core system configuration - read more here!

Essential Guides

Is your iSCSI "lossy"? The reality is that most off-the-shelf Ethernet hardware deployed for iSCSI can lose packets, resulting in slow performance or application downtime. Learn how to assess your current iSCSI infrastructure and engineer an advanced iSCSI SAN infrastructure.

Web Seminars

What's the best way to keep your network safe from malware? In this web seminar, security expert Greg Shields suggests an alternative method to the traditional blacklisting approach that is common with anti-virus and anti-malware solutions.

eLearning Series

We bring the experts direct to you to share their real-world perspective and expertise. During each event, three sessions stream in real time, so you can learn, ask questions, and get solutions.
Upcoming event: Getting the Most with Exchange 2010 with Paul Robichaux

Subscribe to Windows IT Pro!

Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.