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.
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.
Microsoft is the Windows ME of corporations
At least windows ME was green.
I remember the screen always being blue on ME.
But will the EU allow it?
Sure, as long as Microsoft doesn’t give its own products more access to the kernel than competitors.
Please, get this garbage out of the kernel. If it isn’t there to talk to hardware, third party code has no place in the kernel. The same shit that Crowdstrike did could easily happen with any of these useless anticheats.
In b4 msft creates a level between kernel and user level for this stuff to sit at. It will have read-only access to all of kernel memory, and will otherwise function the same, but when it crashes it won’t take the OS down, just certain programs that rely on it.
What will they call it? “Observer” level? “Big Brother” level? “Overseer” level? Probably just something to do with “Verifying Trust/Integrity”. Google will also want to quietly stick something for “Web Integrity” there.
That last line is some monkey’s paw type shit
https://github.com/microsoft/ebpf-for-windows
Right now it’s network level, but Linux’s implementation has since moved out from just packet filtering to full syscall filter and interaction; it’s generally accepted that Windows will be following suit with this implementation. Thought you’d like a name to the thing you described
Is it just me, or does this seem like a reasonable solution? Assuming it’s technically feasible.
It’s still giving third party software kernel level control over your device, so you’re still giving up any possibility of privacy and probably leaving yourself wide open to a backdoor attack, but that has been normalized. So to the degree that what people accept as reasonable these days is unreasonable, yeah, that’s why I think MSFT will try it.
This is exactly how ebpf was implemented for the Linux kernel. You can build watchdog processes that can see what’s happening in the kernel and build kernel interrupts but it’s actually all executed in user space and not rewriting the kernel itself. Since it’s a proper api, it also means it’s incredibly hard to fundamentally break the system, unlike when you’re just blowing away kernel code with your own shit like all these security products do.
WSS: Windows Subsystem for Stalkers.
As much as I despise MS and think they are equally incompetent, I don’t think it’s a good idea to lock down Windows. They will stop providing kernel access to 3rd parties at first, then a few months later you will only be able to download software from the Microsoft Store.
Yes, it’s a security issue but them being allowed to close down their OS sets a dangerous precedent that will make Windows even more shittier and enshittified than it already is.
There is zero chance of that happening. This is exactly what people said when Apple created a Mac App Store. Surprise surprise you can still run any software you want on a Mac.
They’d be seriously shooting themselves in the foot if they did that. Most corporations have 3rd party software that they would not be able or willing to give up, software development for Windows would be unable to test and debug, and I know from personal experience that many consumers find the already existing S Mode to be frustrating and confusing.
They kinda already do this. Any .exe you download outside the Microsoft Store requires double confirmation before you can execute it, unless it’s from Microsoft.
Good. Let them. Fuck Microsoft and literally ALL the crap they’ve produced. After having to deal with their shit for over 30 years I can’t wait for them to finally sink their own boat
Justice!
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, those security agents can become attack vectors themselves, so running them kernel level is nuts.
and let someone into the kernel,
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. 🤷🏽♂️
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.
Damn… They can be taught?!
yeah when they lose money
every corporation can learn if they lose enough money
maybe if we had a system where they lost similar amounts of money when they do bad things. imagine the world!
im salivating for that world
Did they though? Certainly their customers did. Crowdstrike did or will. But Microsoft? What’re their customers gonna do?
They should. How much of a hit to GDP is it when entire continents can’t work.
In that case, the entire windows ecosystem collapses when Microsoft messes up windows defender… at least if its spread out it hurts less people
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)
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.
