A virus to turn Windows into Linux?

[hazel]

I've just read a hilarious letter to the New Scientist, probably from a fairly new Linux user. He points out that Linux is inherently secure against malware and suggests creating a benign virus that would "re-engineer vulnerable computers by installing the Unix security model" and letting it loose on the Internet. In other words it would turn Windows into Linux right across the world.

Can you imagine how that could be done? You'd have to add owners and permissions to all the files (and where would you store them without inodes?) and change kernel.exe to honour these. That would presumably mean creating a system of user-owned processes to which the permissions could apply. There would have to be proper quarantining of userland from the kernel with the whole GUI firmly on the user side. One could go on and on.

And how would Microsoft react? I dread to think.

If only...

[HROAdmin26]

Can you imagine how that could be done? You'd have to add owners and permissions to all the files (and where would you store them without inodes?) and change kernel.exe to honour these. That would presumably mean creating a system of user-owned processes to which the permissions could apply.

Windows has ACL's that define an owner and specific permissions for users/groups granted access. NTFS ACL's

That would presumably mean creating a system of user-owned processes to which the permissions could apply.

Just like in Linux, all processes running in Windows are running as some user - SYSTEM, LOCAL SERVICE, and <username> would be common accounts.

** I am referring to NT-based kernels such as anything Win2000+

[hazel]

Windows has ACL's that define an owner and specific permissions for users/groups granted access. NTFS ACL's

My God, that's a complicated system! But surely it corresponds more to Linux ACLs than to Linux permissions. I think the point this writer was trying to make is that the ownership/permissions thing in Linux is very simple conceptually and therefore very robust because it is built into the system at its most basic level, not added on afterwards in a complex and potentially fragile overlay. That's what he probably means by the "Unix/Linux security model".

The more complex anything is, and the more interactions with other components it needs to function, the more vulnerable it usually is to disruption. After all, we've had Windows NT desktops for nine years now and no-one seems to think that it's made Windows more secure.

[HROAdmin26]

I'm sorry, but the original post was "LOL - look at these things that Windows doesn't have" which is not based on reality. I was directly addressing the comments about "file permissions" and "user-owned processes."

Everything in Windows is based around a SID and has been that way since the introduction of NT - circa early/mid 90's. The fact that NTFS uses them is not "added on" as an afterthought. When applied correctly, NTFS file permissions are just as effective as the RWX *Nix model.

In todays world, the RWX model can be too limiting, and this is why the ACL add-on came about (in Linux, ACL's are a filesystem addon that the kernel must be compiled to pay attention to) - essentially mimic'ing NTFS's ability for multiuser/multigroup granular file permissions.

In short, you can argue about the different vectors for security "holes" in Windows, but NTFS/file permissions are not one of them. If you were to read the technical details on the implementation of RWX or Linux ACL's (as my previous NTFS link did), you would probably think "wow, that's complicated."

[SagaciousKJB]

I don't know, as far as I was concerned the only reason that Windows file permissions were in any way less "secure" was because most Windows users operated using the administrator account, and it was in fact the "default" account and all that. None of that is really true these days either, and I think the majority of Windows users that run as "administrator" are aware they're being insecure, and the other minority simply aren't worried about it.

[Rubberman]

I don't know, as far as I was concerned the only reason that Windows file permissions were in any way less "secure" was because most Windows users operated using the administrator account, and it was in fact the "default" account and all that. None of that is really true these days either, and I think the majority of Windows users that run as "administrator" are aware they're being insecure, and the other minority simply aren't worried about it.

Exactly so, sag. Most Windows users install the system with defaults and no login required. They don't know why this is not a good idea, and frankly they don't care. They just want to be able to use the system with as little hassle as possible to browse the net, store their photos, play some videos/games/music, send/receive email, and do their taxes. If they have to start thinking about security and system configuration issues, it is too much for them and they will stop using the system until something comes along that lets them use it without that cruft. In my opinion, this is the main reason why LInux has yet to catch on with the "mainstream" of users. It takes too much thought...

That said, the core is there for a killer consumer system in Linux. We just haven't got there, yet.