Microsoft drops subtle hints about the future direction of Windows security.
CrowdStrike’s Falcon software uses a special driver that allows it to run at a lower level than most apps so it can detect threats across a Windows system. Microsoft tried to restrict third parties from accessing the kernel in Windows Vista in 2006 but was met with pushback from cybersecurity vendors and EU regulators. However, Apple was able to lock down its macOS operating system in 2020 so that developers could no longer get access to the kernel.
Now, it looks like Microsoft wants to reopen the conversations around restricting kernel-level access inside Windows.
Funny how you can create a microkernel only to then fuck up privileges so bad that software (e.g. graphics drivers, anything running with real-time prio) can easily crash your system without recovery.
The architecture of Windows is both, remarkably good and weirdly underutilized.
Norton AV causes SO many issues with the software our clients use for home automation… And not even issues which make sense. And so many AV apps cause nothing but problems
If they need low level access, they can request a userspace API from Microsoft and wait for it.
Probably a good move for them to make tbh. I like how CrowdStrike’s name already sounds like it should be the name of a big malware/virus/zeroday. So we should have seen it coming.
They’re going to implement something like eBPF for the Windows kernel. This will allow kernel-level modules to run with zero risk of crashing the kernel. If the module fails, it fails without taking down the kernel with it.
Linux already has this. It works great. If Windows gets this, all antivirus and anti-cheat software is going to have to transition.
Once that happens, it will be way easier to add anti-cheat software to Linux that operates the same as on Windows. It may be possible to load and unload it only when playing and actually having competition-grade gaming on Linux.
Of course, this is a security disaster that I wouldn’t allow on any of my daily drivers, but I would enjoy playing Destiny on my Steamdeck if there’s a legit way for me to do it.
Imo, third party companies just shouldn’t have access to the kernel level. Someone is always getting hacked, and having this level of access to potentially hundreds of millions of computers is a huge risk. Especially if it’s for something trivial, like anticheat in Helldivers 2.
Enterprise level AVs are going to sit in the kernel so they can watch for anomalies in the OS. There are better EDRs out there than Crowdstrike, and virus definitions are an outdated way of detecting anamalous behavior anyway.
@Wahots@mudle , I hold that same relative feeling, but people do own their computers and if they want to play League of Legends and let someone into the kernel, who am I to tell them no? I ran league in Lutris, so no chance of making that decision even if I wanted to.
Problem is, that similarly to invasion of privacy, this is not visible, and so they don’t understand what’s happening. It’s just one more program, what could happen? It’s not like somebody coming and inspecting your house, in that it is not noticeable in practice.
@ReversalHatchery , I completely agree. My ring 0 is sacred and I can’t prove there isn’t anything in it already, but I wouldn’t knowingly shove third party stuff into my kernel. I like to keep my apps restricted from anything they don’t need on my system in userland. However, millions upon millions of people installed Tencent’s Vanguard to play League of Legends like it wasn’t any big deal (it is). If people want an inner ring security module, I suppose that’s a bit their choice. 🤷🏽♂️
You have a point, but if Microsoft completely locks down the kernel, preventing any third party software/driver from running at the kernel-level, Anti-Cheat developers will have to find a new way to implement Anti-Cheat. This may open up the possibility of some newer form of Anti-Cheat being user-space; or at the very least NOT ring 0, which in-turn may open up the possibility of this new form of Anti-Cheat working underneath Linux.
Or maybe we’re all still screwed because this new form of Anti-Cheat will perform on a basis that trusts that there is no third party access to the Windows kernel because of how restricted it is, therefore nullifying the need to be ring 0, but it still might not work under Linux due to the freedom/access users have to the kernel.
But then again, in order to implement any third party driver into the Windows kernel, it has to be signed and/or approved by Microsoft first (IIRC). But cheaters get around this through various means. So maybe nothing changes; but if Microsoft DOES restrict kerne-level access, this leads me to think that Anti-Cheat will have to change in some form or another, which may lead to it working on Linux.
TBH, The only way(s) I see Anti-Cheat moving forward at all, is:
Hardware level Anti-Cheat (similar to a DMA card. Maybe it requires a certain type firmware that is universally used across all/most major video game companies)
Some form of emulated environment. Maybe like a specific kernel that is used for each game.
@mudle btw afaik Valve’s working on AI anticheat, which analyzes player’s behaviour, I think nowadays that would be the most viable direction for non-kernel anticheats
I completely forgot about AI Anti-Cheat, lol. But yes, this is another form of Ant-Cheat that seems to be very effective. (Although I don’t much like the idea)
Facts. But, at the same time… 3rd party vendors who have that access should be held liable in court and have their pocketbooks pounded like a $5k sex worker.
At least if it’s a commercial service, or SaaS, which should hold a ton more livability behind it.
Why not have a structure in place that has Microsoft review/test code from third parties. At the end of the day it is Microsoft that took the public hit so they should be the last line of defence in this process.
Those that wish to have their code sit at the privileged/kernel level should either pay up or supply Microsoft with resources to do the tests Microsoft would require.
What shouldn’t happen is third parties doing their work at a privileged level without the oversight.
If I understand it correctly, it already has been (at least formally) reviewed by microsoft before signing and allowing that signed code run kernel-mode. But the crowdstrike’s driver module was not just running malware scanner on itself, it was interpreting what is basically unsigned code that was easier and faster to update. This unsigned files were the ones containing faulty update.
But if it is true, it may be more sensible to make an API so software with specific permissions could access information needed to effectively function as antivirus, without being run in kernel mode.
But if it is true, it may be more sensible to make an API so software with specific permissions could access information needed to effectively function as antivirus, without being run in kernel mode.
I’ve come to this conclusion as well. I believe Apple has similar functionality with their “kernel-extensions”, I believe it’s called.
Exactly. Either they’re going to make Windows Defender have the monopoly on antivirus and endpoint protection (EU will shut them down faster than a crowdstrike bluescreen), or they will need to grant the access to those providers.
If Microsoft think they will be able to curate every single device driver and other kernel module (like antivirus etc) and catch the kind of bug that caused this error? They’re deluded.
I’ll wait and see what they actually propose before outright ruling it out. But, I can’t see how they do this in any realistic way.
Either they’re going to make Windows Defender have the monopoly on antivirus and endpoint protection (EU will shut them down faster than a crowdstrike bluescreen)
Really not sure if they have any kernel level antivirus products. Although the same question applies I guess to third party hardware drivers. How are they installed? What privilege level do they run in?
Can someone more knowledgeable explain to me this? Why do certain security software require access to the kernel? To keep malware from getting to the kernel or something? Doesn’t restricting access to the kernel offer more security? Wouldn’t malware also be unable to access the kernel? Or is that not the case? (Kernel is what connects software and hardware, correct? Just to be sure)
Why do certain security software require access to the kernel? To keep malware from getting to the kernel or something?
Security software doesn’t necessarily NEED access to the kernel, but kernel-level access provides the maximum amount of access and visibility to the rest of the system. The only thing higher then kernel-level is hardware-level.
In the case of CrowdStrike, kernel-level access provides their software to have the highest privileges which yields in the most effective defense against malware (in theory). However third-party, kernel-level access is never a good idea. Software that has kernel-level access can be, and has been, exploited before. In the case of CrowdStrike, it was a faulty update that screwed over Windows systems. The more access you have in a system, the more you screw it over when something fails.
Doesn’t restricting access to the kernel offer more security?
Yes! You are correct. If implemented correctly of course, restricted access to the kernel provides a higher amount of security.
Wouldn’t malware also be unable to access the kernel?
In theory, the more restricted the kernel is, the more difficult it is for malware to access the kernel.
Kernel is what connects software and hardware, correct?
Yes. A function of the kernel is providing a way for software and hardware to communicate with each other.
My understanding is that EU regulators had an issue because Windows Defender rolled out kernel mode/kernel data protection, which gave Microsoft a de-facto monopoly in that market segment if no one else was allowed to use the same technology in their products.
Microsoft complaining that the Crowdstrike incident was the EU’s fault is an argument in favor of a Microsoft monopoly, which the EU has been pretty consistently against, and EU opposition to this should not have been a surprise to Microsoft.
microsoft could get away with this monopoly accusations by opening up official read-only APIs for that, so you can have antiviruses use it and have a proper procedure for user to give consent for the antivirus to have access to said API.
I think that the way we’re splitting up software monopolies is pretty damn ridiculous in this field. I’m Linux gang all the way, but let Microsoft own the OS how they see fit, and especially the kernel, and instead go after the third party hardware vendors being locked into MS contracts. Just make it not legal for third party hardware vendors to sell computers with pre-installed operating systems, and it solves a lot of the monopoly issues. So no more Dell, HP, etc, with forced windows, make the consumer buy the OS separately.
Could also go after bundling, like OS can’t be sold with office suite software.
Just make it not legal for third party hardware vendors to sell computers with pre-installed operating systems
As the “local IT guy”, please no. Please. I have better things to do than to babysit a windows installation every single time someone buys a new computer.
Plus, having to buy a windows licence on top of already expensive laptops will just drive us faster into the tablet driven hellscape I fear is coming.
A legal precedent should be established to hold companies as large as CrowdStrike liable for their actions. This liability should be significant enough to ensure that future companies will think twice before releasing faulty code. We should not be asking for or supporting Microsoft’s efforts to further lock down their product.
Funny how you can create a microkernel only to then fuck up privileges so bad that software (e.g. graphics drivers, anything running with real-time prio) can easily crash your system without recovery.
The architecture of Windows is both, remarkably good and weirdly underutilized.
Double win for linux
I have no problem with this.
Norton AV causes SO many issues with the software our clients use for home automation… And not even issues which make sense. And so many AV apps cause nothing but problems
If they need low level access, they can request a userspace API from Microsoft and wait for it.
Probably a good move for them to make tbh. I like how CrowdStrike’s name already sounds like it should be the name of a big malware/virus/zeroday. So we should have seen it coming.
They’re going to implement something like eBPF for the Windows kernel. This will allow kernel-level modules to run with zero risk of crashing the kernel. If the module fails, it fails without taking down the kernel with it.
Linux already has this. It works great. If Windows gets this, all antivirus and anti-cheat software is going to have to transition.
Once that happens, it will be way easier to add anti-cheat software to Linux that operates the same as on Windows. It may be possible to load and unload it only when playing and actually having competition-grade gaming on Linux.
Of course, this is a security disaster that I wouldn’t allow on any of my daily drivers, but I would enjoy playing Destiny on my Steamdeck if there’s a legit way for me to do it.
According to wikipedia, both Windows and linux have it, and both are open source.
Believe it or not, a lot of companies, no matter how cool and secure their marketing sounds, are just seriously incompetent.
Microsoft is the Windows ME of corporations
At least windows ME was green.
I remember the screen always being blue on ME.
Imo, third party companies just shouldn’t have access to the kernel level. Someone is always getting hacked, and having this level of access to potentially hundreds of millions of computers is a huge risk. Especially if it’s for something trivial, like anticheat in Helldivers 2.
Enterprise level AVs are going to sit in the kernel so they can watch for anomalies in the OS. There are better EDRs out there than Crowdstrike, and virus definitions are an outdated way of detecting anamalous behavior anyway.
Yeah, those security agents can become attack vectors themselves, so running them kernel level is nuts.
MiHoYo knows that all too well.
@Wahots @mudle , I hold that same relative feeling, but people do own their computers and if they want to play League of Legends and let someone into the kernel, who am I to tell them no? I ran league in Lutris, so no chance of making that decision even if I wanted to.
Problem is, that similarly to invasion of privacy, this is not visible, and so they don’t understand what’s happening. It’s just one more program, what could happen? It’s not like somebody coming and inspecting your house, in that it is not noticeable in practice.
@ReversalHatchery , I completely agree. My ring 0 is sacred and I can’t prove there isn’t anything in it already, but I wouldn’t knowingly shove third party stuff into my kernel. I like to keep my apps restricted from anything they don’t need on my system in userland. However, millions upon millions of people installed Tencent’s Vanguard to play League of Legends like it wasn’t any big deal (it is). If people want an inner ring security module, I suppose that’s a bit their choice. 🤷🏽♂️
@mudle somehow, I don’t think that’s the way to resolve future problems, it just looks like Apple’s way, which sometimes isn’t great for customers
You have a point, but if Microsoft completely locks down the kernel, preventing any third party software/driver from running at the kernel-level, Anti-Cheat developers will have to find a new way to implement Anti-Cheat. This may open up the possibility of some newer form of Anti-Cheat being user-space; or at the very least NOT ring 0, which in-turn may open up the possibility of this new form of Anti-Cheat working underneath Linux.
Or maybe we’re all still screwed because this new form of Anti-Cheat will perform on a basis that trusts that there is no third party access to the Windows kernel because of how restricted it is, therefore nullifying the need to be ring 0, but it still might not work under Linux due to the freedom/access users have to the kernel.
But then again, in order to implement any third party driver into the Windows kernel, it has to be signed and/or approved by Microsoft first (IIRC). But cheaters get around this through various means. So maybe nothing changes; but if Microsoft DOES restrict kerne-level access, this leads me to think that Anti-Cheat will have to change in some form or another, which may lead to it working on Linux.
TBH, The only way(s) I see Anti-Cheat moving forward at all, is:
@mudle btw afaik Valve’s working on AI anticheat, which analyzes player’s behaviour, I think nowadays that would be the most viable direction for non-kernel anticheats
I completely forgot about AI Anti-Cheat, lol. But yes, this is another form of Ant-Cheat that seems to be very effective. (Although I don’t much like the idea)
@mudle well, AIs are usually controversial because they are trained on scraped data, but I don’t think that this may be an option for video games
Facts. But, at the same time… 3rd party vendors who have that access should be held liable in court and have their pocketbooks pounded like a $5k sex worker.
At least if it’s a commercial service, or SaaS, which should hold a ton more livability behind it.
yes please. NO third party should have ring 0 access to your computer.
bonus: no kernel level anticheat to fuck with linux users
Why not have a structure in place that has Microsoft review/test code from third parties. At the end of the day it is Microsoft that took the public hit so they should be the last line of defence in this process.
Those that wish to have their code sit at the privileged/kernel level should either pay up or supply Microsoft with resources to do the tests Microsoft would require.
What shouldn’t happen is third parties doing their work at a privileged level without the oversight.
@dueuwuje @mudle
If I understand it correctly, it already has been (at least formally) reviewed by microsoft before signing and allowing that signed code run kernel-mode. But the crowdstrike’s driver module was not just running malware scanner on itself, it was interpreting what is basically unsigned code that was easier and faster to update. This unsigned files were the ones containing faulty update.
At least that what I understand from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAzEJxOo1ts , it may not be entirely correct or I may have misunderstood.
But if it is true, it may be more sensible to make an API so software with specific permissions could access information needed to effectively function as antivirus, without being run in kernel mode.
I’ve come to this conclusion as well. I believe Apple has similar functionality with their “kernel-extensions”, I believe it’s called.
Sure, “restrict” the kernel access. And the first company to be granted the requisites for kernel access, CrowdStrike.
Exactly. Either they’re going to make Windows Defender have the monopoly on antivirus and endpoint protection (EU will shut them down faster than a crowdstrike bluescreen), or they will need to grant the access to those providers.
If Microsoft think they will be able to curate every single device driver and other kernel module (like antivirus etc) and catch the kind of bug that caused this error? They’re deluded.
I’ll wait and see what they actually propose before outright ruling it out. But, I can’t see how they do this in any realistic way.
How does Apple handle this?
Really not sure if they have any kernel level antivirus products. Although the same question applies I guess to third party hardware drivers. How are they installed? What privilege level do they run in?
Can someone more knowledgeable explain to me this? Why do certain security software require access to the kernel? To keep malware from getting to the kernel or something? Doesn’t restricting access to the kernel offer more security? Wouldn’t malware also be unable to access the kernel? Or is that not the case? (Kernel is what connects software and hardware, correct? Just to be sure)
Security software doesn’t necessarily NEED access to the kernel, but kernel-level access provides the maximum amount of access and visibility to the rest of the system. The only thing higher then kernel-level is hardware-level.
In the case of CrowdStrike, kernel-level access provides their software to have the highest privileges which yields in the most effective defense against malware (in theory). However third-party, kernel-level access is never a good idea. Software that has kernel-level access can be, and has been, exploited before. In the case of CrowdStrike, it was a faulty update that screwed over Windows systems. The more access you have in a system, the more you screw it over when something fails.
Yes! You are correct. If implemented correctly of course, restricted access to the kernel provides a higher amount of security.
In theory, the more restricted the kernel is, the more difficult it is for malware to access the kernel.
Yes. A function of the kernel is providing a way for software and hardware to communicate with each other.
My understanding is that EU regulators had an issue because Windows Defender rolled out kernel mode/kernel data protection, which gave Microsoft a de-facto monopoly in that market segment if no one else was allowed to use the same technology in their products.
Microsoft complaining that the Crowdstrike incident was the EU’s fault is an argument in favor of a Microsoft monopoly, which the EU has been pretty consistently against, and EU opposition to this should not have been a surprise to Microsoft.
microsoft could get away with this monopoly accusations by opening up official read-only APIs for that, so you can have antiviruses use it and have a proper procedure for user to give consent for the antivirus to have access to said API.
I agree, all they need to make sure is for their own tool to have the same access as everyone else.
I think that the way we’re splitting up software monopolies is pretty damn ridiculous in this field. I’m Linux gang all the way, but let Microsoft own the OS how they see fit, and especially the kernel, and instead go after the third party hardware vendors being locked into MS contracts. Just make it not legal for third party hardware vendors to sell computers with pre-installed operating systems, and it solves a lot of the monopoly issues. So no more Dell, HP, etc, with forced windows, make the consumer buy the OS separately.
Could also go after bundling, like OS can’t be sold with office suite software.
As the “local IT guy”, please no. Please. I have better things to do than to babysit a windows installation every single time someone buys a new computer.
Plus, having to buy a windows licence on top of already expensive laptops will just drive us faster into the tablet driven hellscape I fear is coming.
A legal precedent should be established to hold companies as large as CrowdStrike liable for their actions. This liability should be significant enough to ensure that future companies will think twice before releasing faulty code. We should not be asking for or supporting Microsoft’s efforts to further lock down their product.
deleted by creator