wraggster
August 8th, 2006, 21:49
Back in 2003, a Polish hacking group named Last Stage of Delirium (LSD) found a hole in the Windows Remote Procedure Call (RPC) interface, and that vulnerability soon became the attack center for the Blaster worm—a worm that most of us would like to forget. Because LSD found the vulnerability and ultimately disclosed its discoveries to Microsoft, the Redmond giant decided to hire the hackers to perform penetration testing in Windows Vista. But they're not the only hackers who have their hands all over Vista. According to Microsoft's Secure Windows Initiative senior group manager John Lambert, the company has given roughly 20 other security experts total access to Vista. Their goal is to find as many vulnerabilities and bugs as humanly possible. Speaking at the Black Hat Briefings, Lambert said that they had already discovered problems such as process handicaps and poorly named files, not to mention several other security problems.
Besides testing Vista for failures in security, the hired hackers have indirectly helped Microsoft advertise Vista's security. Being able to claim that the operating system has been tested by some of the most well-known hackers in the world is a powerful marketing tool for Microsoft, and the company certainly uses it to the utmost degree, presenting at conferences such as the Black Hat Briefings and holding ones such as BlueHat 2006. At this year's Black Hat conference, Microsoft even spent an entire day discussing security in Vista, only to have a presenter by the name of Joanna Rutkowska show how unsigned drivers can be installed into Vista's kernel. Rutkowska stated that Vista simply is not as secure as Microsoft would like users to believe. That being said, do you feel that Vista is more secure knowing that Microsoft has hackers and security experts pounding away at the operating system? How beneficial is it for Microsoft to pay outside sources to attempt to exploit the operating system?
Besides testing Vista for failures in security, the hired hackers have indirectly helped Microsoft advertise Vista's security. Being able to claim that the operating system has been tested by some of the most well-known hackers in the world is a powerful marketing tool for Microsoft, and the company certainly uses it to the utmost degree, presenting at conferences such as the Black Hat Briefings and holding ones such as BlueHat 2006. At this year's Black Hat conference, Microsoft even spent an entire day discussing security in Vista, only to have a presenter by the name of Joanna Rutkowska show how unsigned drivers can be installed into Vista's kernel. Rutkowska stated that Vista simply is not as secure as Microsoft would like users to believe. That being said, do you feel that Vista is more secure knowing that Microsoft has hackers and security experts pounding away at the operating system? How beneficial is it for Microsoft to pay outside sources to attempt to exploit the operating system?