Immutable Security Laws and Windows Sidebar Gadgets

Immutable Security Law number 1: If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it’s not your computer anymore

I love the Immutable Security Laws – they strike a chord deep within me, and they’re a “go to” resource every time I want to decide if I’m making a good security decision.

I also like my Windows Sidebar Gadgets. Not a whole lot of them, mind you, just one or two that I’ve written myself. And I can’t say that I’ve gone very deep in developing them.

So I’m deeply conflicted when I see “Microsoft Security Advisory (2719662) – Vulnerabilities in Gadgets Could Allow Remote Code Execution” – this seems to be saying that because there are a number of vulnerabilities in common Sidebar Gadgets, you should disable Sidebar Gadgets completely.

But the descriptions I see of Sidebar Gadgets and their security suggest that these Gadgets are exactly like other executables, in terms of the protection you get when running them (essentially, none).

So, in essence, this boils down to “a class of executables that you can download and run are known to have vulnerabilities. So we are disabling that class of executables.” And apparently, this isn’t an architectural flaw in Sidebar Gadgets, because the wording indicates only that a lot of Gadgets have common vulnerabilities – but not all of them.

Can you imagine if the same had been done for, say, Java? If all Java apps were disabled, not because of a flaw in Java, but because many Java developers had written poorly-secured code? What about other frameworks? C++? .NET? PHP?

Uh, yeah, OK, I can see it for PHP. I’m all for disabling PHP on the basis that [almost?] nobody seems able to reliably write secure code using it.

Obviously, I’m writing this from the perspective of someone who hasn’t seen information on the sort of vulnerabilities being described, so it’s entirely possible that there’s an actual architectural weakness that warrants disabling Gadgets completely. I’m just not reading that into what’s been said so far, and I’d like to think that we’re capable of making security decisions on the basis of security truth, rather than some random measure of “disable this framework, because it’s not that important, and many of its developers are writing bad code”.

Clearly I have to wait for the revelation at the BlackHat talk (I’m not going to BlackHat, but I’m on vacation right now – in Vegas) to see what the threat actually is, but I will state up front that I am confused.