Monthly Archives: September 2009

Sometimes It Seems Like Unix(*) Needs to Learn from Windows

(*) By “Unix”, I mean Linux, Unix, AIX, OS/X, and similar flavours.


Way back when, about twenty or so years ago, I was a Unix admin, and a Unix developer. I had to be both, because I was the only person in the company who could spell Unix.


My favourite game was to go along to presentations for Microsoft Windows ‘new features’ and say “Oh, but hasn’t Unix had that for the last twenty years?”


Sure enough, there were countless things that Windows users and developers were just discovering (TCP/IP, shared libraries, multiple sessions on the same computer) that had been in Unix for some time. Linux was yet to make a mention, but as I’ve moved firmly into the Windows world, and left Unix behind, I’ve pretty much assumed that technologically speaking, if Windows has it, Unix and the like must also have the same functionality.


As I re-engage with Unix and Linux developers and IT professionals in recent months, though, I can see that there are some areas – particularly in security – where Windows is far ahead of the *x operating systems. Here’s a few:


Where’s my EFS?
EFS, the Encrypting File System, is one of Windows’ best-kept secrets. It’s not really a secret, of course, but it acts like one – there are so few people willing to use it, and mostly because they’re scared of or don’t understand it.
EFS allows users (under administrative control and with appropriate recovery measures in place) to choose files to encrypt, and to declare which other users can access the encrypted files.
EFS-encrypted files are encrypted on disk, and the keys cannot be broken simply by mounting an offline attack, because the key for each file is encrypted with users’ public keys, and the private keys are held securely in the users’ certificate store.
What does *x have in response? Whole disk encryption by third-party products (OK, Windows has Bitlocker and any number of third-party products). EFS protects individual files, and is far more fine-grained than the ‘all or nothing’ access of WDE (or FDE, Full Disk Encryption, if you prefer).
Single Certificate Store
This isn’t really a “single” store so much as a predictable location for the certificate store. If you want to read a user’s certificates and keys, you know where to find them (although you generally only have access if you are the user in question. Private keys from the certificate store are protected using the DPAPI, appropriately protecting them (apart from some key recovery scenarios, you have to log in using the password associated with the keys).
Similarly, certificates and keys belonging to the system and its service accounts are also in predictable locations.
This makes life easy for tools that need to scan for certificates due to expire.
Where are certificates and keys stored in *x? All over the place. Generally in “PEM” files, usually (but not always) in the same directory in which the application that installs them is.
How are these private keys protected in *x? There’s sometimes a password to open up the private key from the PEM file, and usually the PEM file has a restrictive access mask on it. [Read further for more problems with this]
Single SSL Library
It’s not uncommon to see several instances of OpenSSL installed on any particular system, whether it’s *x or Windows, if the system runs applications that use OpenSSL.
Windows developers, of course, can simply use the SSL API built in to Windows (CryptoAPI, CAPI and SChannel), and not have to worry about shipping an SSL library with their application, or keeping up with new versions as they come out, or tracking down customers and notifying them of updates to address security flaws (such as the Debian Linux key generation flaw I posted about a while ago).
Single SSL Configuration
If I want to disable SSL v2, or ciphers with fewer than 128 bits, on Windows I can change a few registry settings and know that I’ve fixed every application that uses SChannel. I can even do that remotely, with remote registry editing from a script or group policy tattooing the registry.
To do the same for OpenSSL, it seems that I have to find every application that uses OpenSSL and change the configuration files there. 
Data Protection API and configuration file protection
This is the one that really started me on this article.
How do you store a password in a configuration file?
Yes, the ‘right’ security answer is “you don’t”, but that’s naive. The fact is that there are many instances wherein you have to store a password – to access and authenticate to a remote application, or (if you’re using OpenSSL) to open a password-protected PEM or PFX file in order to read out the private key.
On Windows, the Patterns and Practices team have documented how to do this – basically, you use the DPAPI to encrypt the password into the config file, and again to decrypt it back out – and your DPAPI keys are encrypted by your master key, which is derived from your password. The end result is that you can’t get those DPAPI keys without the password.
What do the *x platforms have?
”Put the password in plain text, and protect it with a restrictive access mask”, is what I’m told. And in a search, I couldn’t find anything better being recommended. OK, one person recommended encoding the password with base64, but that’s hardly a security measure.
Jesper brought up the excellent question of “how is it different?” – in the *x system, the password is marked as only being accessible to the correct user. I was about to answer him when Steve F spoke up for me, and noted that in the DPAPI case, you have to read the file, and then an API has to be called to decrypt the password; in the *x case, you simply have to read the file. There are many many more exploits that allow the reading of a file under privileged rights than there are exploits that allow the execution of code.
Patch Management and Group Policy
Microsoft has done a really good job of implementing enterprise-level management features into their operating systems, from Group Policy and WMI to WSUS and other update management tools.
The *x systems I’ve seen seem to be built from the perspective that each system has its own attendant administrator, who is only too happy to manually deploy patches or tweak settings in line with some policy on a scrap of paper or post-it.

Maybe I’m missing some huge advances, and maybe some of these issues are resolved with a third-party tool – but then, maybe that’s part of the problem too. All of the above are a part of the operating system in Windows, and can be relied on to exist by developers, and their use by applications can be expected by IT professionals.


[Disclaimer: Yes, I know there are still areas where Microsoft needs to learn from Unix and Linux, and perhaps it’d be good if you’d educate me on those, too. This isn’t a “Windows is better than *X” debate, it’s a “hey, even if you think *X is better than Windows, here are some areas *X needs improving in”.]


Edit: There have been some excellent comments posted overnight in response to this article, and as I had hoped, I am mostly still ‘in the dark’ about what Linux and Unix-like systems offers. I’ll be looking at these as I have time, and responding when I can. For now, just let me say that I am impressed to see so much technical content in the responses, and so little of the “fanboy” behaviour that often characterises these discussions.

Zune HD – but not mine

 IMG_2875 IMG_2876 IMG_2877


A friend of mine ordered a Platinum Zune HD recently (that’s the 32GB model), and because he was unable to receive the shipment, asked for me to open it for him and check on its functionality to make sure he hadn’t been shipped a lemon.


Since I’ve previously commented on the Zune 30 that my wife bought for my birthday, I thought I’d have a quick look and see what I like about it.


The demonstration video is stunning, and shows off the display impressively. The display is wonderfully bright, and fulfils every bit of the promise of OLED technology. Light-weight, thin, amazingly bright and detailed.


Installing the new Zune software from http://www.zune.net/setup went smoothly, although when the player was plugged in, the Zune software immediately insisted on a Player update. The Zune needs to be updated from 4.0 to 4.1 already.


This may come as a surprise, but really it’s not too shocking. There’s a considerable gap between preparing a bunch of hardware for simultaneous shipping and the actual delivery, during which time there may be some interesting bugs discovered. Possibly this time, the bug is that the charge indicator doesn’t light in version 4.0, but does light up in version 4.1. At least, that’s a change I noticed.


So, have any of my previous complaints been addressed? Given the timing of my last post, close to the end of the Zune HD’s development, I doubt that Microsoft had a chance to fix the problems I noted, and I seem to be correct about that.


You can still put MP3 files into your Podcast folder and give them a genre of “Podcast” in order to make them work like Podcasts (i.e. remembering their position while you go do other things), but the images tied into the MP3 files are still not displayed along with those podcasted MP3s. And they still don’t play ordered by track number, preferring instead to use some bizarre combination of date and textual sort, with some apparent randomness thrown in.


It appears so far that all of the other issues I’ve encountered are still there, so I’m still waiting for someone at Microsoft to address those and deliver a Zune (updated firmware, software, or hardware) that is absolutely perfect. If they could make it cheaper, too, it would be easier to justify a purchase.


But man, I love that bright display on the new Zune HD. I just wish I didn’t have to part with this one so soon. I guess I’d better save my Amazon gift cards…