The RISKS Digest
Volume 18 Issue 86

Wednesday, 5th March 1997

Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems

ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator

Please try the URL privacy information feature enabled by clicking the flashlight icon above. This will reveal two icons after each link the body of the digest. The shield takes you to a breakdown of Terms of Service for the site - however only a small number of sites are covered at the moment. The flashlight take you to an analysis of the various trackers etc. that the linked site delivers. Please let the website maintainer know if you find this useful or not. As a RISKS reader, you will probably not be surprised by what is revealed…


ActiveX security? TISK, TISK
Brent Laminack
Re: Comments and corrections on Authenticode
Li Gong
Jerry Leichter
David Hopwood
A. Padgett Peterson
Fergus Henderson
Glenn Chambers
Steve Kilbane
Kevin McCurley
Info on RISKS (comp.risks)

ActiveX security? TISK, TISK

Brent Laminack <>
4 Mar 1997 22:03:15 -0500
The recent comments about ActiveX and Authenticode have been useful and
constructive, but have focused so far on how *an* ActiveX control operates.
We have yet to cross into that shadowy world that RISKS readers are all to
familiar with. The relm of what I call TISK: Timings, Interactions and
Side-effect Kollisions (sic), as in the support people saying "TISK, TISK
Joe User has a problem that we can't duplicate here..."

Consider two ActiveX controls.  One provides a control similar to the Win95
"Start" button with all the commands on the user's computer presented in a
list to choose from.  Suppose it keeps these command names in a preferences
file such as C:\windows\mycommands.  The file may contain a list such as:
Word, Excel, format c:, IE3, etc.

Consider a second ActiveX control that provides a "cron" facility.  This
automatically wakes up at a specified time and executes a list of commands
for housekeeping such as backup, defrag, etc.  Suppose it keeps its list of
commands in, say, for instance C:\windows\mycommands.  You see it coming,
right? The second control finds the file written by the first one and
dutifully fires up Word, Excel, and then formats the C drive.  Commands after
this one are of diminishing consequence.

OK, you're stuck.  Your hard disk is wiped.  Where are the fingerprints for
Authenticode? Even if you do get them, who are you going to sic the law
enforcement people on? Both controls did exactly what they were designed to
do, exactly what they advertised to do.  Who are you going to sue? Obviously
neither "misbehaved." What did in your disk was an unforeseen interaction
between the two.  TISK, TISK.  I imagine that with a bit of thought work it
would be possible to come up with a co-operating gang of ActiveX controls to
do deliberate theft via collusion where each program is only doing what it's
"supposed" to, yet the total of their activity is much greater than the sum
of the parts.  Yes, non-linearity is clearly at work here in the interaction
of the components.  The only way to avoid this would be to strictly decouple
them, by not allowing any to share information with the other, such as
giving each its own private file-space to write in.  This, alas is not the

Brent Laminack (

Re: Comments and corrections on Authenticode (Atkinson, RISKS-18.85)

Li Gong <gong@games.Eng.Sun.COM>
Tue, 4 Mar 1997 23:01:47 -0800
I certainly will not be the only person to feel the need to respond to Bob
Atkinson's article in RISKS-18.85.  I emphasize that this is a technical,
not political, response.  Basically, 2 comments and 1 challenge to Bob and

> And, as implemented contractually and technically in the present
> release of Authenticode, when you sign code you _are_ most certainly
> taking explicit responsibility as the code's publisher, an action
> not to be taken lightly from a legal point of view.

Saying code signing gives you accountability is too simplistic.
First, you might not have an audit trail to use as supporting
evidence.  Second, history says that if a piece of software needs to
carry serious, legally binding liability, there would not be a
Microsoft or a software industry in general.  Thus accountability is a
potential, not a reality.

> ... Authenticode is still the only actually-deployed code signing ...

Netscape Navigator 4.0beta has code signing (originally shipped 1996),
and JavaSoft's JDK1.1 has applet signing (alpha last Nov and final
version shipped Feb 97).  (Potential bugs is a different discussion.)

Now the challenge.  Java has the potential to give you fine-grained access
control, whether the code is signed or not.  To realize this potential
today, one might have to customize the SecurityManager.  Future versions of
JDK will make such functionality easier to use.

ActiveX/Authenticode, however, does not seem to have such a potential.  So
tell me how to configure a Win95 system such that an ActiveX control (or
component or whatever) can read/write only to directory /tmp (or C:\tmp)
while it is prevented from all other file I/O?

Li Gong, Java Security Architect, JavaSoft

Re: Comments and corrections on Authenticode (Atkinson, RISKS-18.85)

Jerry Leichter <>
Tue, 4 Mar 97 23:18:55 EDT
Bob Atkinson argues that digital signatures on downloaded code, at the least,
allow you to identify someone who sent you "bad code" for legal action.

There is so much wrong with this claim that it's hard to imagine anyone would
make it.  To mention just two things:

    1.  The "evidence" - the digital signature - that would presumably
        be used against the attacker is stored ... on the very machine
        that is being attacked.  On a system like Windows 95, which
        provides absolutely no internal protection, that evidence will
        last for a few milliseconds.  (Admittedly, a protected system
        like NT *could* write secure logs of signatures that had been
        recently accepted.  However, it'll be quite some time - if it
        ever happens - before the existing base of unprotected systems
        is replaced by protected ones.)

    2.  Mr. Atkinson makes the assumption that the malicious code can
        be identified.  Sure, if it immediately does something that
        you can see, things are easy.  But if it does something
        indirect; or waits until executed the 100th time; or modifies
        some *other* program so that *it* later does something nasty;
        then tracking the down the source of the original corruption
        will be extremely difficult.  Hell, tracking down "memory
        poisoning" *bugs* is extremely difficult - and these are
        random events that make no direct attempt to cover their

The traditional boxed software set from a local store is safe for many
reasons - but some of the important ones related to the inherent limitations
of the traditional distribution medium.  It's fairly difficult and expensive
to put together the boxes, documented, printed CD's, and such.  Distributing
them to stores adds much more expense - and at each step of the way, there
are people to talk to, papers to sign, money to change hands, records to be
made.  The advantage of on-line distribution is that it cuts away all these
layers and delays and costs.  But in doing so, it also makes attacks much
cheaper, easier, and more anonymous.  A signed piece of code shares one
characteristic with software in a box: A mark that can, with reasonable
though varying confidence, be ascribed to the person who created the boxed
set/signed software object.  But the two are different in so many other
fundamental ways that to attempt to argue the acceptability of one on the
basis of experience with the other is simple sophistry.

"People want nifty things on their machines; they don't want security
mechanisms getting in the way."  People haven't yet been badly burned.  Look
how many years it took to get even rudimentary safety devices into cars.


Re: Comments and corrections on Authenticode (Atkinson, RISKS-18.85)

David Hopwood <>
Tue, 4 Mar 1997 04:49:45 GMT
I interpreted Theodore Ts'o as meaning checks on the signer, not the signed
code - but in any case, the fact that there is no means of auditing and
certifying the security of controls can only worsen the situation, not
improve it.

>Software developers, as they always have been, ...

By saying "as they always have been", you seem to be suggesting that this
kind of security attack is a serious concern for _all_ applications. That is
far from true; it normally only applies (with varying seriousness) to
network servers and clients, suid/sgid programs, helper apps, plug-ins, and
other programs that are passed data from a source which is less trusted than
the program itself. If all programs were passed data from untrusted sources,
computer security in general would be in much more of a mess than it is
currently in.

In cases where a program acts on untrusted data, it isn't valid to make a
judgement of its security simply on the basis of trusting that the writer of
the program is not malicious. You also have to consider how competent they
are at writing secure code.

Users of ActiveX are being encouraged (by Microsoft's documentation - I can
provide examples if needed) to accept or reject controls based on whether
they think the signer is malicious, not the stronger, and more relevant
criterion of the author's competence. If they were to actually make realistic
security decisions based on that stricter criterion, they should IMHO not
be running any code whose URL and version number is specified by a web
page that they have no reason to trust, as is typically the case when an
ActiveX control is downloaded.

>... the overall system infrastructure ... has mechanisms for classifying
>ActiveX components as "safe for scripting" and "unsafe for scripting;" ...
>"safe for initialization" ...

These mechanisms are not sufficient; in practice, it isn't reasonable to
expect developers never to create controls with exploitable bugs. Writing
code that must be secure against data-driven attacks is hard, especially in
languages such as C and C++ that have unchecked pointers and array
accesses. If that were not the case, why are buffer overflow and similar
attacks against suid Unix programs so common?

In Unix, normally only suid/sgid programs, and server daemons, are worth
attacking in this way. Now, all signed ActiveX controls are worth attacking.
If you can exploit a control to run arbitrary code, you can ensure that
users will see someone else's signature when running your code, which is
something that you would only normally be able to do by forging that
signature. The user cannot trace the malicious code to its author; instead
the trace will end at the unfortunate person or company whose control was

The situation is arguably worse than for conventional data-driven attacks,
because it's effectively impossible to revoke a signed ActiveX control, if
the attacker retains a copy of it. The most you can do is release a control
with the same CLSID and a higher version number, and make sure that everyone
who could be attacked has a copy of the new version in their control cache
(the %windir%\occache directory). But that means everyone who uses ActiveX!

Anyone who does not have the updated version in their cache will simply
download the copy of the old, exploitable version that was retained by the
attacker. (Actually, there is also an implementation bug in the versioning
mechanism in IE 3.0x, which means that the cache contents don't matter; an
attacker can always cause an old version of a control to be downloaded).

The basic problem is that the architecture of ActiveX effectively makes _all_
code used in controls security-critical. It must be assumed that there exist
signed controls that can be used to run arbitrary code. I've seen several
controls that crash IE if-and-only-if they are given long parameter strings
(unfortunately for me, the resulting processor exception seems to be caught
without generating an error log or stack trace, which is likely to make
exploiting this a tedious, but not impossible, process). I've also found a
control which can be exploited in a different way to run arbitrary commands,
but I'm still discussing the situation with the control's signer.

I do, however, intend to release that exploit publically, because I think
it is the only way to demonstrate clearly the significance of data-driven
attacks against ActiveX. Microsoft's response so far to concerns about
ActiveX security has been one of denial and spin-doctoring; that has
certainly influenced my decision to make the exploit public (that, and the
fact that this particular exploit is trivial to implement once you know
which control is involved).


I entirely reject the claim that ActiveX provides the same level of
accountability as is provided by traditional shrink-wrapped software
distribution. In the shrink-wrap model, you trust the shop that is selling
you the software. There is also no opportunity for untrusted data to be
passed to the application when it is installed. With ActiveX, you have no
basis on which to trust the web site which points to the control, because
that site is not authenticated. Untrusted data can be passed to the control
by its parameters (or using scripts, if _in the signer's opinion_, it is
safe for scripting).

Given these differences, the shrink-wrap analogy is simply invalid.

In principle I think that digital signatures and/or secure channels can be
used to provide a reasonable degree of accountability, but Authenticode is
not, IMO, a good example of how systems using digital signatures should be

>In the absence of the user bypassing the system's security infrastructure,
>which as was mentioned is highly discouraged, then should the system be
>attacked by a malicious ActiveX control, some piece of malicious or
>negligent digitally-signed code that was downloaded is ultimately
>responsible for carrying out the attack or allowing it to occur.

Note that this argument does not distinguish between "malicious" and
"negligent" code, either here or later in the article.

>The presence of digital signatures on code does not remove the need for law
>enforcement agencies to do their investigative work when confronted with a
>crime [...]

Let's be clear about this; an audit log is not feasible for ActiveX
controls, because it could easily be overwritten or forged once a control is
running.  It is feasible for technologies that attempt to run code in a
restricted environment.

>[...] once the actual offending code is identified.

Again, note that "offending code" here can mean the "negligent" code that
allows an attack to be lauched by some other party.

>And, as implemented contractually and technically in the
>present release of Authenticode, when you sign code you _are_ most certainly
>taking explicit responsibility as the code's publisher, an action not to be
>taken lightly from a legal point of view.

So if your code has an exploitable bug, you are taking legal responsibility
for any damage done as a result of that? I think not; not only is there no
legal precedent for this as far as I know, I suspect most software publishers
would have to think very hard about whether they should continue to sign code
under that agreement, if they can be held responsible for anything that the
code does.

If there is not, in fact, any legal responsibility for writing exploitable
code, and strong reasons to believe that a substantial minority of controls
will be exploitable, the rest of your argument stands on very shaky ground.

David Hopwood,

Re: Comments and corrections on Authenticode (Atkinson, RISKS-18.85)

"A. Padgett Peterson" <>
Tue, 4 Mar 1997 17:47:40 -0500 (EST)
Pardon me if I tend to read this with the same sort of skepticism as Brad
Silverberg's pronouncement that all web browsers have the same

Coming from the same company that gave us WORD macro viruses by the simple
expedient of granting control to the opened document and making it
impossible for the user to turn macros off *even if they want to*, why
should we expect anything different here?  An .EXE must be executed.  ZIP
files must be unzipped.  Java must be enabled.  In each case the user has a
choice and can place a scanner/checker/validator/debugger between the
download and the execution if desired.

Thus far, every request to "just say no" to MS has been rebuffed (WORD 7.0a
and Office 97 do have a "warning" that is simple to turn off but no way to
simply disallow macros altogether).

I do not disagree that sometimes I am willing to "trust" certain parties
for download but that is primarily because I have initiated the contact
and have been able to examine the download prior to allowing it to execute.

Could be in the minority, but do not want anything to happen on my machine
that I have not given explicit approval for or requested. Is one thing to
push a button and say OK, another to have something occur without my

For one thing, my machines often are operating on the ragged edge. For
another, what you request may not be feasible. Have experienced to much
software that I knew I was installing (and had backed up relevant areas
first) blow up on me to grant *any* global permissions. What works with W95
may not work so well with Novell DOS 7.0.

My *choice* is to limit the functionality of my PC to those things which I
allow it to do. Thusfar MicroSoft's intention in those programs I have
purchased seems to be increasingly to take that choice away from me. There
does not seem to be anything in your words which would change my mind.


Re: Comments and corrections on Authenticode (Atkinson, RISKS-18.85)

Fergus Henderson <>
5 Mar 1997 14:00:45 GMT
>First, a correction.  Microsoft does not have any 'certification procedures'
>with respect to the integrity or lack thereof of third party applications
>against security attacks.

That is precisely Theodore Y. Ts'o's point: Microsoft does not have any
certification procedures that could prevent such attacks.  As a result,
there are significant risks associated with the use of Microsoft's Active X

>Software developers, as they always have been, have the responsibility of
>themselves exercising appropriate diligence in this regard.

True, but because third parties can provide potentially hostile input to
Active X controls — at least for those classified as "safe for
initialization" — the "appropriate diligence" for such an active X control
is much greater than that required for an ordinary application.  The
"appropriate diligence" required is similar to the diligence required for a
Unix setuid executable.  And past experience suggests that this high level
of diligence is often lacking: setuid programs are very often the cause of
security holes.

>Users want and demand a rich computing experience.

Yes, but users also "want and demand" to be able to log into systems without
having to type in any silly passwords...  it is our job as computer
professionals to educate users about the risks involved and wherever
possible to protect them from such risks.

>We have decades if not centuries of experience with this model of conduct
>between supplier and customer. It seems to work pretty darn well.

Yes.  One of the reasons it works so well is that there is a reasonably
hefty financial hurdle that you need to overcome in order to distribute
software using traditional distribution channels.  However the Internet
promises to change that.  The Internet is a very low entry-cost distribution
mechanism, and while that is a very desirable property, it is not without
its associated risks.  Lowering the entry cost increases the chance of
abuse.  Furthermore, automating the process increases the chance that abuse
may go unnoticed.  So even if Active X were to faithfully imitate
traditional distribution channels in every other way, the risk may well be
much higher.  That is why I think we need to move to technologies that offer
better security that either Active X or traditional distribution channels.
Java applets are one such technology.

>2. The code could be signed, and then downloaded by IE3, and accepted by the
>user. That is, the crooks can if they like leave their clear, unsmudged
>fingerprints all over their illegal device. This makes catching and
>convicting the responsible party somewhat easier.

A thief would of course be foolish to leave their own fingerprints on an
illegal device.  It would be much more sensible for them to sign with a
stolen key.  Now of course it may well be difficult for thieves to steal
Microsoft's key, but all it takes is _one_ careless vendor who doesn't guard
their key well...

Fergus Henderson <>  WWW: <>

Re: Comments and corrections on Authenticode (Atkinson, RISKS-18.85)

Glenn Chambers <>
Tue, 4 Mar 1997 20:38:56 -0500 (EST)
I can't resist pointing out that Microsoft has suffered from several highly
publicized incidents where they have shipped virus-laden MS Word(TM)
documents on CD-ROMs, or placed them on their public web pages, etc.

Because (as nearly as I can tell from outside) it is entirely possible to
'sign' an *already infected* ActiveX component, it's only a matter of time
before virus infected web pages make their debut.

Until and unless an 'Active-X sandbox' of strength equal to Java's is
imposed, I'm sticking to non-Wintel hardware and software, and being very
leery of what software I let execute on my machine.

Glenn Chambers  Toledo, OH

Re: Comments and corrections on Authenticode (Atkinson, RISKS-18.85)

Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:56:46 GMT
> As the architect and primary implementor of the Authenticode code-signing
> technology (boy, that'll get me mail :-)

It will indeed.

> found in Internet Explorer 3 and in
> Windows NT 4, I think my perhaps somewhat lengthy and clearly very biased
> perspective on some recent articles might be of interest to others.

Indeed. Good answers: calm, considered, and admitting that the rest of the
world both exists and has impact. It's a pity that Microsoft's (and other
company's) press releases weren't so rational - it would stop rants like


Re: Comments and corrections on Authenticode (Atkinson, RISKS-18.85)

Kevin McCurley <>
Wed, 5 Mar 1997 03:38:54 -0700 (MST)
I am sometimes reticent to discuss glaring security holes in public, but
when a security mechanism is employed as a marketing tool, I believe it
becomes fair game for criticism.  Microsoft appears to have made a sincere
effort to improve security with Authenticode, and Bob Atkinson gave a rather
lucid explanation of the goals of Authenticode.  Unfortunately, as a
security mechanism, ActiveX with Authenticode has a rather big hole in it.

First, there are no mechanisms to prevent a web page from invoking the ActiveX
components served by another page or already installed on the users disk.  For
several weeks the page at was happily
invoking an ActiveX component referenced and downloaded by clients from the
Microsoft home page.  When you loaded the page from DigiCrime with Microsoft
Internet Explorer, you were presented with an official looking seal from
Microsoft certifying that the code you were about to install was written by
them.  And apparently it was.  The second time you visited the page, the code
was just invoked without warning.  If you visited the Microsoft page first and
then the DigiCrime page, the code from Microsoft was invoked without notice.

Second, ActiveX controls have no inherent protection from the problem of
stack smashing, which is one of the most common forms of software security
problems.  The technique is rather technical, but the effect is that some
programs can be caused to execute a sequence of instructions supplied by the
argument to the program (via a web page).  The technique is accomplished
when an argument is used to overwrite fixed-length buffers allocated on the
stack, depositing instructions on the stack.  This technique is rather
tedious to carry out, and does not work on all code.  On the other hand,
writing safe code is a very difficult task, and any code that uses standard
C library calls like gets() or sprintf() to handle arguments is likely to be
vulnerable.  The technique has been well known to hackers for a long time,
and has been used to abuse many Unix network programs, including passwd,
syslog, rdist, crontab, NCSA's web server, rlogin, talkd, mountd, and
sendmail.  Note that Java is explicitly designed to prevent stack smashing.

Combining these two features of ActiveX, Authenticode becomes largely
irrelevant.  Code may be signed by the author, who was certified by a
competent authority to be a reputable software developer.  The user reviews
the certification at install time, and accepts it on the basis of the
reputation of the developer.  The user then forgets about the code for some
weeks to come.  Later on, he or she visits a page of a hacker, or a page of a
web site that has been broken into by a hacker, and invokes the code with
arguments supplied by the hacker.  The code may appear to do what it's
supposed to, or appear to do nothing at all while it's erasing the web
browser's history.  The user may not even be aware that code is executing.
The user goes on to about 50 other pages that night, and shuts off their
machine with no evidence of a problem.  When they reboot they may have a huge
problem, depending on what the code was reprogrammed to do.  The Authenticode
scenario suggests that the user can now call their lawyer to sue someone, but
who do they sue?  The hacker that the FBI can't track?  The well intentioned
but pressured software developer?  The certification authority like Verisign
that have forty page disclaimers of liability?  Microsoft, who developed the
ActiveX and Authenticode technology?  None of the above I think.  And even if
someone could be sued, is this an acceptable substitute for having their
machine work for their business?

My final criticism of Authenticode is unverified, in part because the public
documents on the technique are rather vague.  There appear to be no
mechanisms for revocation of certificates that are already installed on
machines.  According to the document located at, the
default expiration date for Authenticode certificates is the year 2039,
which means that no certificate should be expected to expire for a while.
If code is only re-verified when the certificate expires, then no buggy code
will ever be replaced.  If code is verified only at installation time, then
this is even worse.

I should point out that none of this has happened in real life yet, in part
because technologies like ActiveX are in their infancy and are not yet
widely deployed.  Once it's out there, I maintain that the problems will
only be worse, as it is extremely difficult to keep track of the constant
stream of security announcements.  As I write this, Microsoft is scrambling
to patch an unrelated security bug in MSIE 3.0 (see Risks 18.85).  Clearly
it's not unusual to ship code with serious security bugs, because every
vendor is doing it in their haste to ship product.

It has been argued that the Java sandbox approach is too restrictive, and that
"Users want and demand a rich computing experience".  This may be true, but
the rewards have to be something better than dancing bears in order to justify
the risks.  We take risks in life every day, but we do so on the basis of a
continual risk/benefit analysis.  Users may be willing to take the risks
associated with network computing if they are presented with an accurate
representation of the risk they are taking, and are given tools to manage and
understand their risk.  I can't see how Authenticode accomplishes this because
it represents an oversimplification of a very complicated subject.  In
addition, the move to integrate a user's desktop into the Internet will only
lead to more confusion from users as they try to understand risks coming at
them from all directions.

Kevin McCurley

Please report problems with the web pages to the maintainer