LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for IT-DISCUSS Archives


IT-DISCUSS Archives

IT-DISCUSS Archives


IT-DISCUSS@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

IT-DISCUSS Home

IT-DISCUSS Home

IT-DISCUSS  April 2001

IT-DISCUSS April 2001

Subject:

04/06 Microsoft's virus antidote : Ban attachments

From:

Steve Cavrak <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Departmental Technology Coordinators <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:32:51 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (176 lines)

Microsoft's virus antidote: Ban attachments
By Joe Wilcox
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
April 6, 2001, 9:35 a.m. PT
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5529034.html?tag=prntfr

Is Microsoft making the cure worse than the sickness?

Responding to the rash of e-mail viruses that started with Melissa and I
Love You, the Redmond, Wash.-based company is clamping down on the types
of file attachments that will work with the newest version of its
Outlook e-mail software.

Outlook 2002, a new e-mail application included with Microsoft's
forthcoming Office XP business software suite due later this spring,
will by default reject more than 30 types of files sent as e-mail
attachments, according to company executives.

The files, deemed by Microsoft as most likely to be used by hackers to
transfer viruses, include some of the most common types, such as program
execution files, batch files, Windows help files, and Java and Visual
Basic scripting files. Also blocked are photo CD images, screensavers
and HTML application files, according to a list supplied by Microsoft.

Opponents to the plan say Microsoft will make it much more difficult to
share routine--and harmless--information via e-mail attachments.

Outlook 2002 doesn't block e-mail messages with appended restricted
files, but it will refuse to open or download restricted file types. In
a test conducted by CNET News.com, Outlook 2002 rejected an .exe file,
Palm.exe, sent as an attachment to an e-mail message. An e-mail message
displayed on the e-mail recipient's PC read: "Outlook blocked access to
the following potentially unsafe attachments: palm.exe."

Outlook 2002 users can send the restricted files as attachments, but the
program will display the message: "Recipients using Microsoft Outlook
may not be able to open these attachments."

Microsoft's crackdown on e-mail attachments is not new. After the I Love
You virus outbreak, the company posted an Outlook 97 and Outlook 2000
security update that restricted access to some e-mail attachments. Late
last year, Microsoft also added the security update to the second Office
2000 service pack, which included a collection of bug fixes.

But in both cases, individuals and companies could choose whether to
apply the restrictive update. With Outlook 2002, Microsoft will compel
everyone to adopt the new security measure. The company also makes it
nearly impossible for individuals and very difficult for corporations to
disable the feature, which the company says is necessitated by the
threat the attachments pose.

"We felt that in order to provide a level of protection many of our
customers were asking for--as well as make sure that people became aware
of good e-mail protocols--we needed to take a bit of a harsher step,"
said Lisa Gurry, Office XP product manager.

But in taking that "harsher step," Microsoft also made the feature
difficult to turn off, offering the average user no simple or direct
means of disabling the function.

Gurry said that with so few people downloading the updates, "unless we
build something into the product, it's likely not going to protect
them."

Band-Aid approach?

For companies offering tech support or for software developers--two
groups that routinely send e-mail files Outlook 2002 won't accept--their
jobs could get a lot harder. For everyone else, Microsoft insists e-mail
will be safer to use.

But some people question Microsoft's approach of blocking file access
from e-mail, arguing the company is not dealing with the real problem,
which is how certain file types affect both Outlook and Windows.

Matt Bishop, a computer sciences professor with the University
California at Davis, described Microsoft's solution as "a step in the
right direction." But Jay Goodwin, an Office user from Irvine, Calif.,
isn't so sure.

"I do suspect this is a Band-Aid to a much larger problem Microsoft
seems to have with regards to the security of their products," Goodwin
said. "As a friend of mine commented recently, 'I think this
hoof-and-mouth disease is the only virus that doesn't affect Outlook.'"

The problem has more to do with Windows than with Outlook, said Bill
Jaeger, applied research director for MetaSes, an Atlanta-based security
services firm and Meta Group affiliate.

"This is most certainly a Band-Aid for the greater security problems
inherent in Windows," he said. "The appropriate solution is for Windows
to not blindly run any content that looks like an executable."

Many Microsoft competitors do not take such a heavy-handed approach.
Qualcomm's Eudora, for example, does not restrict file attachments the
way Outlook 2002 will.

Scott Shuchart, a Eudora user from New Haven, Conn., believes "naive
users probably need all the protection they can get. I really am all for
limiting .exe forwarding so long as it doesn't break the product
(more) for the clueful." That, he added, is what Microsoft appears to be
doing with Outlook, which he described as "a hideous monstrosity."

Justified by the damage

The financial damage caused by viruses such as I Love You and Melissa
warrants taking such aggressive action, even at the cost of the user's
choice, Gurry said.

The original I Love You virus, which appeared in many mutations,
infected more than 600,000 computers and caused more than $2.5 billion
in damages.

Companies with Outlook attached to a server running Microsoft Exchange
would have some ability to adjust the default security settings, Gurry
said. But she would not go into detail about how that might be done.

"For businesses or small businesses that don't have that server option,
we're providing an additional option with Office XP you can choose to
turn off the attachment support," Gurry said. "But that's something we
don't recommend that people do."

In fact, Microsoft makes turning off the feature downright
difficult. Office XP users must physically edit the Windows Registry--an
internal database of Windows information--to turn off the attachment
restriction function. Microsoft makes it fairly easy to adjust other
security features in its products; for example, an easily accessible
control can be used to adjust how Internet Explorer responds to
potentially dangerous Web content.

Microsoft won't provide instructions on how to tweak the registry "until
Office XP is broadly available," Gurry said. Office XP is due to reach
store shelves May 31.

Security expert Richard Smith, who had a hand in uncovering the Melissa
virus' origins, believes Microsoft is taking tough action where it is
warranted.

"I'm very supportive of it," he said. "I think it's socially
unacceptable to send executables around, even legitimate ones. This kind
of enforces that rule, and we'll kind of have to get used to it."

Smith sees a simple solution for people absolutely needing to send
executable file attachments: Compress the file using popular utilities
like WinZip.

"Us programmers are going to have to get used to zipping things up
first," he said. "It's called changing social behavior."

But Jaeger, in some ways, sees Microsoft's solution as dangerous.

"This doesn't solve the greater problem and simply leads to a false
sense of security," he said. "It's time for Microsoft to start curing
the problem, not treating the symptoms."

Bishop said he expects some controversy over Microsoft's handling of the
matter but doubts there will ever be a consensus on the approach.

"I don't think you'll be able to get people to agree on whether it's too
little or too much," he said.







--
  _______
|| | Stephen J. Cavrak, Jr. [log in to unmask]
 |* | Assistant Director for http://www.uvm.edu/~sjc/
 | / Academic Computing Services Phone: 802-656-1483
 | | University of Vermont Fax: 802-656-0872
 | | Burlington, Vermont 05405 North: 44o 28' 33"
 ---- West: 73o 12' 45"

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003, Week 1
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
August 1997
July 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
May 1996
December 1995
November 1995
September 1995
August 1995
March 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager