[HN Gopher] SolarWinds hacking campaign puts Microsoft in hot seat
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       SolarWinds hacking campaign puts Microsoft in hot seat
        
       Author : mikece
       Score  : 37 points
       Date   : 2021-04-17 13:32 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (apnews.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
        
       | edrobap wrote:
       | > Many security experts believe Microsoft's single sign-on model,
       | emphasizing user convenience over security, is ripe for retooling
       | to reflect a world where state-backed hackers now routinely run
       | roughshod over U.S. networks.
       | 
       | I believe convenience is not coming at the cost of security. SSO
       | certainly has a single-node-failure problem. If it's down, it
       | causes DoS. If it's hacked, the hackers can get access to the
       | data user is authorised to view across multiple systems. But
       | given the widespread use of the same passwords across multiple
       | systems, this argument against SSO is weak.
       | 
       | Besides that, the convenience of SSO is only for the user. It is
       | for the organisation as well.
        
       | soarfourmore wrote:
       | > Risks in Microsoft's foreign dealings also came into relief
       | when the Biden administration imposed sanctions Thursday on a
       | half-dozen Russian IT companies it said support Kremlin hacking.
       | Most prominent was Positive Technologies, which was among more
       | than 80 companies that Microsoft has supplied with early access
       | to data on vulnerabilities detected in its products. Following
       | the sanctions announcement, Microsoft said Positive Tech was no
       | longer in the program and removed its name from a list of
       | participants on its website.
       | 
       | What?! Microsoft gave vulnerability data to a Russian company
       | that hacked the USA? Why was that company even in this program to
       | begin with?
        
         | Hiopl wrote:
         | Isn't it obvious? Tech has a clear blind spot for geopolitics.
         | Saying anything critical of China or Russia, even if well-
         | founded, is a great way to get downvotes and be stamped as
         | propaganda or parroting propaganda. It's representative for how
         | these companies and their employees view these issues.
         | 
         | So it's funny and depressing to see a comment here questioning
         | why a Russian company was allowed to join a program like this
         | after a massive hack by Russian entities, when Russian efforts
         | in this sphere are more than well-documented.
        
         | helsinkiandrew wrote:
         | It is a, presumably successful, billion dollar cyber security
         | company, that did lots of legitimate work too.
         | 
         | As were talking about state intelligence agencies, I would
         | guess several of the other 80 companies are also leaking
         | information, either through the company or employees.
        
       | helsinkiandrew wrote:
       | > But it [Microsoft] also seeks to deflect blame, saying it is
       | customers who do not always make security a priority.
       | 
       | > ...Microsoft was itself compromised by the SolarWinds intruders
       | 
       | Microsoft need to take responsibility for the security of their
       | products. Vulnerabilities need to be fixed not sent to other
       | companies for add-on virus scanners to detect.
       | 
       | Applications shouldn't be able to run amok with admin passwords.
       | I'd guess a more sandboxed bespoke permission is needed (do you
       | give application x permission to access this part of the file
       | system)
        
         | CyberRage wrote:
         | Windows is a mess. I don't expect it to be any secure in the
         | following years.
         | 
         | It is unlikely that non-admin permissions were able to stop the
         | attack. the amount of 0-day EOP's within windows is ridiculous,
         | truly unbelievable.
        
           | pjmlp wrote:
           | Modern Windows is more secure by default than most GNU/Linux
           | distributions.
           | 
           | The only Linux distribution that beats it is Android, with
           | LinuxSE, seccomp, userspace drivers (Treble), hardned access
           | to native code, one user per app and sandbox enabled by
           | default.
        
             | CyberRage wrote:
             | Respectable linux distros(not just android!) use SE,
             | sandboxing etc.
             | 
             | Windows lags far behind OS's like Android, iOS and even
             | ChromeOS when it comes to security.
        
               | pjmlp wrote:
               | Pity that CVE database proves otherwise.
               | 
               | Where are the driver validation tools with a Z3 theorem
               | prover for Linux drivers?
               | 
               | Where is the SAL static analysis for C and C++ kernel
               | code like Windows has since XP SP2?
               | 
               | Where is the majority of userspace code implemented in
               | managed languages like .NET?
        
               | CyberRage wrote:
               | Also Android\iOS in general as a platform is more secure,
               | Android\iOS are far more restrictive when it comes to
               | users. narrowing the attack surface for casual users.
               | 
               | For instance, rooting in order to install custom
               | drivers\software is very difficult.
               | 
               | A single place to download content(App store) which
               | provide tremendous control over content. detection of
               | rogue apps, removal once they turn rogue, check
               | assurance.
               | 
               | Seamless updates through a single pane of glass.(App
               | Store again)
        
               | pjmlp wrote:
               | Pity that almost no one uses them as desktop platforms.
               | 
               | Windows store and Windows Sandbox is way more advanced
               | than any GNU/Linux offering, including kernel and
               | hardware sandoxing with help of hardware protections.
               | 
               | Still waiting for snap and flatpak to finally fix their
               | security holes.
        
               | amluto wrote:
               | The Windows sandbox infrastructure may well be more
               | advanced than seccomp in the sense of being more
               | complicated, but I would argue that makes it worse, not
               | better. There are many sandbox escapes based on the
               | insane complexity of Windows integrity levels. In
               | contrast, there have been maybe 5 known Linux kernel bugs
               | allowing a breakout from a strict seccomp policy in the
               | last few years.
        
               | RyanPringnitz wrote:
               | I work on a use case that leverages Samsung DeX and
               | secondary displays with keyboard/mouse. Applications are
               | refactored to run on native Android, or accessed on HTML5
               | sites. What Win32 is left is accessed on VDI.
               | 
               | The solution supports MFA step-up auth to login to
               | device, local print, proxy's traffic, per app vpn.
               | Endpoint threat detection products for Android have more
               | capabilities than ever. You can specify approved IP
               | addresses, countries that traffic can communicate with.
               | You can provide a list of approved WiFi BSSID.
               | 
               | With these mobile security SDK's embedded in native
               | Android apps, functionality with the apps can be limited
               | based on threat infractions.
               | 
               | E.g. - if the device magically became rooted while
               | authenticated in android native app, or connects to rogue
               | BSSID; the app performs whatever actions (terminates vpn
               | to intranet, logs threat event on public facing endpoint,
               | force re-authenticate with MFA.)
        
               | CyberRage wrote:
               | You can clearly see that from data. looking at 0-day
               | disclose, black market exploit prices and attacks in the
               | wild.
               | 
               | 0-day exploits for both iOS and Android are 3 times as
               | costly as windows.
               | 
               | You're looking at linux as it is but linux as it is not
               | what you should compare it to. Android\iOS or even
               | something like Red Hat should be the comparison point.
        
               | pjmlp wrote:
               | I see it from CVE database.
               | 
               | Naturally I look at GNU/Linux, that is what average Joe
               | gets on their computers.
               | 
               | iOS is not Linux thus not even part of this conversation.
        
             | [deleted]
        
       | grumpyautist wrote:
       | They shouldn't blame Microsoft. They should blame themselves for
       | using microsoft
        
         | tuwtuwtuwtuw wrote:
         | I am not really following the article, somehow I mostly see
         | ads. Not sure if it's some content is missing for me.
         | 
         | If you install a piece of software which does monitoring of
         | your IT infrastructure in your servers, and that software has
         | malware in it which collects info it shouldn't, wouldn't you
         | have the same issue regardless of what OS you are using?
        
           | Craighead wrote:
           | solarwinds exists because of its ability to bridge gaps in
           | Microsoft products more so than any other platform
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-04-17 23:02 UTC)