Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

1/26/2008
07:35 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
50%
50%

Recent Vista Metrics: Don't Be Fooled

Microsoft's security strategy director, Jeff Jones' recent report card bestowing high marks on the security of his employer's most recent operating system release has garnered plenty of ink. But what's it mean?

Microsoft's security strategy director, Jeff Jones' recent report card bestowing high marks on the security of his employer's most recent operating system release has garnered plenty of ink. But what's it mean?The good is that the number of first-year Windows vulnerabilities is trending down. Jones even put his neck (way, way) out detailing how Vista's vulnerability counts are lower than most every other operating system on the market. So much for not tooting your own horn. The bad news is that there are still too many vulnerabilities being uncovered. And the truth is that straight-up vulnerability count comparisons between operating systems don't tell you much.

First, kudos to Microsoft for sticking to its Trustworthy Computing efforts. Those efforts kicked off in 2002, and the results are starting to show in a big way. In fact, Vista is the first operating system to go completely through Microsoft's secure development processes - and the number of vulnerabilities has been cut nearly in half.

That means the quality of Microsoft's operating system has improved. And that's great news for its customers. It does not mean you are inherently more secure using Vista. Even the fact, by Microsoft's count, that Vista garnered fewer vulnerabilities in the first 12 months of public availability than Red Hat rhel4ws, Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, and Apple Mac OS X 10.4 doesn't make it more secure by choosing Vista. And for the case I'm making here, I mean more secure in actual, real-world, use.

While the report, available here, is interesting, it's just a start at evaluating the overall security of the operating system. These vulnerability counts may be good for Microsoft's own efforts at quality improvement, but by simply knowing that Microsoft fixed 36 vulnerabilities in Vista, versus 65 for XP doesn't amount to much for the rest of us.

In his report, Jones' writes that fewer vulnerabilities "make it easier to manage risk." As well as this: "All other things being equal, fewer patches mean more time to spend on other security projects to reduce risk. Not necessarily so. I'd take 100 low-risk vulnerabilities that can be rolled into standard system updates any day over 12 highly critical vulnerabilities that need to be patched post-haste.

In order to judge the security of one operating system over another requires a lot more than mere vulnerability counts. You need to take a look at how these vulnerabilities can be exploited: can they be remotely exploited? What is the result of compromise? Is there anything in the operating system that mitigates the risk to other applications or system processes? And how actively is the operating system being targeted?

That last point is especially important when judging the overall "safety" of using any operating system. An obscure operating system isn't going to be targeted by active exploits and malware as often as the 90% plus industry giant.

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/13/2020
Omdia Research Launches Page on Dark Reading
Tim Wilson, Editor in Chief, Dark Reading 7/9/2020
Russian Cyber Gang 'Cosmic Lynx' Focuses on Email Fraud
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/7/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-10987
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-13
The goform/setUsbUnload endpoint of Tenda AC15 AC1900 version 15.03.05.19 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary system commands via the deviceName POST parameter.
CVE-2020-10988
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-13
A hard-coded telnet credential in the tenda_login binary of Tenda AC15 AC1900 version 15.03.05.19 allows unauthenticated remote attackers to start a telnetd service on the device.
CVE-2020-10989
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-13
An XSS issue in the /goform/WifiBasicSet endpoint of Tenda AC15 AC1900 version 15.03.05.19 allows remote attackers to execute malicious payloads via the WifiName POST parameter.
CVE-2020-10986
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-13
A CSRF issue in the /goform/SysToolReboot endpoint of Tenda AC15 AC1900 version 15.03.05.19 allows remote attackers to reboot the device and cause denial of service via a payload hosted by an attacker-controlled web page.
CVE-2019-19338
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-13
A flaw was found in the fix for CVE-2019-11135, in the Linux upstream kernel versions before 5.5 where, the way Intel CPUs handle speculative execution of instructions when a TSX Asynchronous Abort (TAA) error occurs. When a guest is running on a host CPU affected by the TAA flaw (TAA_NO=0), but is ...