Skip to main content
Carry on Patching

There was an almost uncanny coincidence in the timing of Microsoft’s first ‘patch’ announcement for Windows Server 2003. We all knew that it had to come sometime and it managed to coincide with Gartner’s announcement that "2003 will be the first year in history in which most industries will spend 5% of their IT budgets on security”. Apparently, Enterprise security spending will have grown at a compound annual rate of 28% between 2001 and the end of 2003, while cash-strapped IT budgets overall will have grown only 6% in the same period. Security is no longer a hidden cost of business; it is rapidly becoming the principal cost of doing business in the 21st century, after staffing and other IT costs, which between them chew-up the lion’s share of business income.



Microsoft’s little piece of bad news held its own small silver lining because it illustrated how the company’s ‘Trustworthy Computing Initiative’ (analysed in my Computer Weekly special report last month) is starting to pay off.

‘Secure by design, secure by default and secure by deployment’ is Microsoft’s slogan and while Windows Server 2003 has, according to Microsoft VP Craig Fiebig, a “60% smaller attack surface”, which is a relief, there is that 40% gap remaining, which will be giving us regular, patches for some time to come.

In this case, Microsoft was quick to act in identifying two rather nasty vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer, which would have given real cause for concern in Windows Server 2003’s predecessors. However and because the product is locked-down ‘by-default’ the vulnerabilities, which might conceivably allow an attacker to execute malicious code on a user's system were moderate rather than critical.

Stuart Okin, Microsoft’s Chief Security Office (UK) commented that “Windows 2003 by default is not susceptible to the vulnerability in Internet Explorer" and Jose Lopez, an analyst with Frost & Sullivan, remarked that the arrival of a first patch for Windows Server 2003 had not come as a great surprise and that Microsoft are clearly handling the vulnerability issue better than they had in the past. He added, “The company need time to prove themselves” and that "The evidence is encouraging".

So while Microsoft is busy patching with style, its customers still need to make sure that the fixes are applied, rather than settle back into complacency over Windows Server 2003’s ‘Robocop’ image. More importantly perhaps, if, as many companies do, you are still on Windows NT or Windows 2000, then some serious thought has to be given to upgrading and this, of course is where Gartner’s costs of security start to kick in. Do you stick with an older platform that offers the chance of critical risk or move to one where the risks are classified as moderate? This is where the juggling of budgets arrives, because in theory, security should be a non-negotiable business argument but in practise, it is invariably a poor relation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…