Securius Newsletter

December 7, 2000
Volume 1, Number 11

Warm, Gushy Microsoft

By Seth Ross

Corporate information security breaches occur each and every day. Intruders steal confidential information, deface web sites, and muck around with financial records on a regular basis. For the most part, the impact of these breaches is limited to the target company, its stakeholders, or perhaps immediate trading partners.

From time to time, a breach has earth-shattering implications. One example is the massive leak of nuclear weapons design secrets from the US to China. A more timely case surfaced in October, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the entire global personal and corporate computing infrastructures: Microsoft's security was breached by an intruder using the Windows-based QAZ Trojan Horse. The intruder's reported access to the source code of popular Microsoft products raises serious questions about whether those products - and Microsoft in general - can be trusted.

To recap the public information about how the Microsoft break-in occurred:

  1. A system cracker sends the QAZ Trojan Horse to the home computer of a Microsoft employee
  2. The employee connects to Microsoft's corporate network from home
  3. The QAZ Trojan snarfs the employee's password files and makes them available to the cracker
  4. The cracker is able to log into Microsoft's systems posing as the employee
  5. The cracker opens new accounts with elevated privilege and wanders the Microsoft corporate network at will.
This occurred despite Microsoft's rigorous security policies governing access to the corporate network from home. Ironically, Microsoft's corporate security officer, Howard A. Schmidt, contributed an article on "Securing the Home Front" to the November 2000 issue of Information Security magazine (see He touts Microsoft's detailed home computing policy which includes items like:
  • Remote connections use Virtual Private Network (VPN) encryption
  • Each home LAN must use a packet-filtering device
  • Each home system must run personal firewall software
  • Each home user must encrypt sensitive company information
  • Home users may not modify the routing tables on their home machines
In the days after the attack was first publicized, several different Microsoft spokespeople produced several conflicting sets of facts. President and CEO Steve Ballmer noted that the crackers saw source code, a claim that was later denied. The cracker was on Microsoft's network one week, or 12 days, up to six weeks, or up to three months, depending on the spin du jour.

The possibility that intruders were able to access the source code of Microsoft operating system and/or application software is serious indeed. Many tens of millions of people and all of the largest corporations in the world depend on Microsoft software. What assurance do any of these Microsoft customers have that the intruders didn't plant a Trojan Horse or other malicious code in Word, Windows 2000, or the forthcoming .NET platform? There are tens of millions of lines of code in a complex OS like Windows 2000 - it would take hundreds of thousands of programmer hours to audit the entire code base, something that Microsoft is not likely to do (assuming the company is even capable of doing it). A well-planted Trojan could remain hidden for years, targeting certain features, companies, networks, or even individuals.

Can anyone trust that Microsoft's products have not been riddled with serious but unfindable bits of malicious code? Trust is a delicate concept. It requires an assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something. Let's look at these one at a time.

  • Character - Microsoft's legal troubles speak to this (see
  • Ability - Microsoft clearly is a very able company, but is it able to secure its far-flung network operations? Is it able to audit hundreds of millions of lines of code for security holes?
  • Strength - Has Microsoft historically built strong security into its products?
  • Truth - Given the equivocation of company statements in the aftermath of the attack, the "truth" is still out there.
Clearly, it's difficult to trust the integrity of Microsoft's products. What can Microsoft customers do? What can Microsoft do to rebuild trust?

Two words: open source. Microsoft's customers should demand that the company release the source code of its programs and operating systems so they can be publicly reviewed and audited for security. The open source development model has proven to be a boon for a wide variety of development efforts, including the very popular Linux operating system, the Apache web server software, and Netscape Navigator. As noted on the Open Source Initiative's web site (

The basic idea behind open source is very simple. When programmers on the Internet can read, redistribute, and modify the source for a piece of software, it evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing. We in the open-source community have learned that this rapid evolutionary process produces better software than the traditional closed model, in which only a very few programmers can see source and everybody else must blindly use an opaque block of bits.
One role model for Microsoft is OpenBSD, a Unix operating system that's been open sourced and ruthlessly audited for bugs in general and security vulnerabilities in particular. OpenBSD is volunteer-run project that's serious about security. Its open auditing process has resulted in the most robust and security- hardened operating system that money can't buy (since it's free). From the group's security page (
We have been auditing since the summer of 1996. The process we follow to increase security is simply a comprehensive file-by-file analysis of every critical software component. We are not so much looking for security holes, as we are looking for basic software bugs, and if years later someone discovers the problem used to be a security issue, and we fixed it because it was just a bug, well, all the better. Flaws have been found in just about every area of the system.
By publishing its source code and encouraging independent auditing, Microsoft could show that it has nothing to hide and go a long way to restoring customer trust. There might be additional benefits as well, such as a quick and dramatic resolution to some of the company's legal problems.

I'm certainly not the first to suggest this course of action for Microsoft. For example, see Nicholas Petreley's Infoworld column, "Microsoft's road to consumer trust is to open source Windows":

For more about the Microsoft break-in, read this analysis by famous computer intruder Kevin Mitnick:

ZDNet published this set of ponderings by security experts:,10228,2652161,00.html

SecurityPortal offered these bits of insight:

For technical details of how the Qaz Trojan works, see

For a good rant on the topic, see "Microsoft Can't Spin This Worm":,4712,2645942,00.html

Subscribe to the Securius Newsletter
Please enter your email address: is a service of GuardianEdge Technologies.
Copyright © 2006 GuardianEdge. All rights reserved.
We will not share your personal information with third parties.
Nor will we contact you without your permission.