Microsoft's own bug hunters should cut Windows Vista some slack and rate its vulnerabilities differently because of the operating system's new, baked-in defenses, according to the developer who is often the public persona of the company's Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) process.
Michael Howard, a senior security program manager in Microsoft's security engineering group, said that the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) is being too conservative in its Vista vulnerability rating plans. Because Vista includes security techniques and technologies that Windows XP lacks, the MSRC should reconsider how it ranks Vista when a vulnerability affects both Microsoft's new operating system and its predecessor, Windows XP, he said.
"The MSRC folks are, understandably, very conservative and would rather err on the side of people deploying updates rather than trying to downgrade bug severity," said Howard on his personal blog last week. "Don't be surprised if you see a bug that's, say, Important on Windows XP and Important on Windows Vista, even if Windows Vista has a few more defenses and mitigations in place."
The operating system, released to consumers in late January, includes a number of new security features that randomize memory, check code for buffer overflows and require user permission for potentially risky operations.
Not surprisingly, the MSRC rejects Howard's argument. "Windows Vista will not be treated any differently, and severity ratings for any issues will be based on vulnerability traits and merits, along with technical mitigating factors," an MSRC spokesperson said. "This process is the same for all Microsoft products."
Although the MSRC's security bulletins may qualify a bug's severity in some specific environments, its rating system is clear-cut. If an Internet worm can spread without user action -- the MSRC's definition of "critical" -- on Vista, the vulnerability will be so tagged, Vista-specific security technologies notwithstanding.