Home > Internet Explorer > A Brief Discussion on Vista’s IE Protected Mode

A Brief Discussion on Vista’s IE Protected Mode

  Submitted by PlatformAgnostic Internet Explorer 32 Comments

The Windows Debugging guru and reverse-engineer Skywing has posted an article on Vista’s new Integrity Level system to put a limited form of MAC security on the system. Read the article to find out how Vista restricts IE from accessing your files even though it is running under your account.

About The Author

Thom Holwerda

Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]

32 Comments

  1. 2007-05-03 7:06 pm
    Supreme Dragon

    If people want a secure web browser, they should not be using IE.

    http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/

    http://www.opera.com/

    http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

  • 2007-05-03 7:22 pm
    Nex6

    yup, alot of posts about windows, seems to get some kind of post like this. I like Linix/FreeBSD and all but sheesh. I belive in using the right tool for the job. and for OS/Broswer what ever makes you comfortable. period, what ever that is.

    -Nex6

  • 2007-05-03 7:38 pm
    Supreme Dragon

    “Every story about IE gets a ridiculous post like this.”

    IE has a horrid security record, people should be reminded that there are QUALITY alternatives they can use.

    “Some people might require IE for a specific page or application and a few people probably even like the browser *shudders at the thought*”

    People should avoid products and websites that require an insecure, low quality web browser.

    • 2007-05-04 2:07 pm
      BluenoseJake

      Man, IE7 is a world apart from IE6, stop living in the past. I use firefox myself, but I have upgraded all my IE users and they and I sleep better at night because of it.

      • 2007-05-04 9:30 pm
        shykid

        And, besides, anyone that reads OSNews should know there are alternatives.

  • 2007-05-03 7:18 pm
    Nex6

    have you seen the bugtraq lists? all broswers have issues. some people prefer IE, so let them use it. and for *them* IE7 is a huge improvement. if fact, it’s protected mode is basicly read only. which I think is very good. hopefully mozilla will start using the low rights framework also.

    -Nex6

    • 2007-05-03 7:43 pm
      Supreme Dragon

      “if fact, it’s protected mode is basicly read only. which I think is very good. hopefully mozilla will start using the low rights framework also.”

      You think Mozilla should be taking security advice from MS? Everyone should consider secure, reliable, alternatives to MS software.

      • 2007-05-03 8:52 pm
        ssa2204

        Well, if it just so happens they develop a method that is more secure, then yes they should follow the example.

        Here is hoping the Mozilla team are not as blind as some to just dismiss something because the word Microsoft is mentioned.

        • 2007-05-03 9:18 pm
          Supreme Dragon

          “Here is hoping the Mozilla team are not as blind as some to just dismiss something because the word Microsoft is mentioned.”

          Reputation is important:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

        • 2007-05-03 9:26 pm
          ronaldst

          Reputation is important:

          Spamming/trolling also it seems. ;)

        • 2007-05-03 9:34 pm
          Supreme Dragon

          “Spamming/trolling also it seems. ;) ”

          Highlighting alternatives to MS software is “Spamming/trolling”?

        • 2007-05-03 11:12 pm
          Johann Chua

          Yes. At the very least it’s off-topic.

        • 2007-05-04 2:12 pm
          BluenoseJake

          Doing it constantly, agressively and being offtopic, yeah, I think that fits the definition.

        • 2007-05-05 11:45 am
          bornagainenguin

          Only if the people offended by it are employed by Microsoft… ;P

          –bornagainpenguin

        • 2007-05-04 2:11 pm
          BluenoseJake

          Results are more important. MS is making strides to overcome their reputation for being a swiss cheese factory. People like yourself, however, is the real barrier, people who cannot be swayed by changes, new evidence, or just realizing that your choices are not the best choices for all people.

        • 2007-05-03 10:10 pm
          TaterSalad

          I don’t think Mozilla team would be that blind. If you remember from last year Microsoft invited the Mozilla team to their HQ to get an early glimpse of Vista and how to make its firefox work better with it. A lot of people screamed at the mere thought but The Mozilla team accepted and had some good things to say about the experience. I’d bet that security was an issue that came up during the meeting and how both companies could better secure their applications through Vista.

      • 2007-05-03 9:00 pm
        andrewg

        The thing is Firefox is no longer safer than IE7* in fact the reverse is true. And when it comes to policies, procures and practices around security the CURRENT situation is that Microsoft is the industry benchmark.

        Things change, Microsoft is no longer a security lagard. They have a legacy to overcome, but Vista is a big step, IE 7 uses some of the security features to reduce the risk of a flaw and applications like Firefox should take advantage of this. Not to do so would be like cutting your nose to spite your face or sticking your head in the sand and refuse to believe Microsoft can do anything to improve security.

        * I still use Firefox because of things like Firebig and many anoyances that in IE7 that are not security related.

        • 2007-05-03 9:31 pm
          Supreme Dragon

          “The thing is Firefox is no longer safer than IE7* in fact the reverse is true.”

          I doubt that. Does this new security require Vista? Mozilla software is cross-platform, secure and reliable. No vendor lock-in!

          “Things change, Microsoft is no longer a security lagard. They have a legacy to overcome, but Vista is a big step”

          http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsID=8656&pagtyp…

          http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsID=8490&pagtyp…

        • 2007-05-03 9:41 pm
          segedunum

          And when it comes to policies, procures and practices around security the CURRENT situation is that Microsoft is the industry benchmark.

          If it’s possible to have negative credibility, you’ve just achieved it. Microsoft has such an absolutely atrocious attitude towards security, played out consistently over many, many years, it just isn’t funny. Microsoft’s head of Vista and Windows development also even believed that Vista’s security problems should be downgraded, just by virtue of Vista being more secure and apparently having more security features! Unbelievable.

          Unless it can be marketed, Microsoft often has a shockingly naive attitude to how to go about making software more secure, and what makes secure software.

        • 2007-05-03 10:47 pm
          andrewg

          So who currently has a better security policies, procures and practices than Microsoft? Microsofts current practices border on the obsessive if you have read their SDLC.

          Microsoft’s head of Vista and Windows development also even believed that Vista’s security problems should be downgraded, just by virtue of Vista being more secure and apparently having more security features! Unbelievable.

          You are referring to a particular security issue and not the general plural – I may be wrong but I think Vista has had one security issue and relates to code from Windows 2000.

          Microsoft certainly can make a strong case why it should be marked as less serious. Anyone exploiting the flaw can do less damage in Vista than they could in XP therefore the bug is less serious. At least that is their reasoning. And if you think objectively about it they may be right.

      • 2007-05-03 9:09 pm
        MollyC

        “if fact, it’s protected mode is basicly read only. which I think is very good. hopefully mozilla will start using the low rights framework also.”

        You think Mozilla should be taking security advice from MS? Everyone should consider secure, reliable, alternatives to MS software.

        ————-

        Actually, when the Firefox devs visited Microsoft’s Windows Vista Readiness ISV Lab, one of the things the Firefox devs were interested in *was* getting Firefox to use Vista’s protected mode.

        Here’s an article on Microsoft’s inviting the Firefox team to the lab:

        Microsoft invites Firefox development team to Redmond

        http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2006/8/21/5065

        Here’s a record of that invite and subsequent newsgroup postings (the invite was made on the mozilla.dev.planning newsgroup):

        http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_frm/thre…

        Note the post made by Firefox dev “beltzner”, from which I’ll quote the relevant parts:

        “As Mike Schroepfer indicated, I think we’re already in discussion with someone on your team about this, but for the record: yes, we’d definitely be interested in getting some 1:1 support. We have, of course, been testing on Vista, and Rob Strong has done some work with Ed Averett to ensure that we take advantage of the new “Default Program” infrastructure.

        Other areas that I think both Firefox and Thunderbird should investigate are:

        – effects of running in the new application security mode

        – interacting/integrating with InfoCard

        – integration with the common RSS data store and services

        – integration with the Vista calendar and address book”

        In other words, Firefox devs are mature adults, unlike many Firefox fanboys or Microsoft haters that would’ve derisively dismissed this invite and protected mode.

        Edited 2007-05-03 21:12

        • 2007-05-03 11:52 pm
          Supreme Dragon

          “In other words, Firefox devs are mature adults, unlike many Firefox fanboys or Microsoft haters that would’ve derisively dismissed this invite and protected mode.”

          I doubt they needed to go to the rat’s nest to make Mozilla software run well on Vista. Mozilla software runs securely and reliably on many platforms. They don’t need Microsoft’s advice on how to make quality software, especially since MS has such little experience with the development of quality software. MS should be asking them for advice.

          Edited 2007-05-03 23:55

  • 2007-05-03 7:24 pm
    siimo

    Most of those spyware toolbars that autoinstalled on IE6 are rendered useless by IE7’s security. Good that they have put a lot of safety measures in place 🙂

    • 2007-05-03 9:09 pm
      Kroc Silver Supporter

      Not really. I’ve just repaired a machine this evening that had IE7 spyware toolbars. They may have been installed by software that was downloaded, but the machine was heavily infected by spyware throughout. IE7 might have new security features, but as a whole insidious industry’s income relies upon the exploit of IE, I suspect that there are already 0-day exploits out there, and in use.

      • 2007-05-03 10:30 pm
        CPUGuy

        But if this was on a Vista system none of that spyare (or malware) could effect anything outside of the IE process.

        • 2007-05-04 5:50 am
          VistaSux

          “But if this was on a Vista system none of that spyare (or malware) could effect anything outside of the IE process.”

          Why do people say things they know they do not know, and do it so much when it’s about MS? I swear you do this just to tire people out so they’ll stop correcting bad info about MS, then tolken, I mean linux can take over or whatever. How do I know you are wrong about this? Easy, because that is not something that can be fixed, if you prevent spyware from being downloaded and run, then drivers won’t be able to install, games demos won’t work, etc. because they use the same calls as spyware, they (not spyware) just do what the user wants instead of what the user doesn’t want. The IE protected mode keeps IE from being highjacked by a buffer overflow exploit and then installing spyware without your approval (drive by downloaded spyware, ie, you go to a web site and are instantly infected without clicking anything type spyware), you will always for any networked OS that has users with read/write/execute rights to even one place, be able to install spyware, but now with vista, spyware can’t install itself if the browser is miscoded, like would happen in other browsers/previous IEs. Please don’t come back and talk about something you don’t understand %100 on purpose, it’s getting old already. I mean you don’t go tell your doctor how to diagnose you, why try it with computer people?

          Edited 2007-05-04 05:50

          • 2007-05-04 6:19 pm
            CPUGuy

            No, IE protected mode restricts all to anything that runs within the IE process, including ActiveX controls.

            There is a handler that manages communication to the rest of the OS, which is what allows you to download content wherever you want, etc..

            Nothing can stop a user from downloading some malware and then running said malware.

            However, IE protected mode does basically sandbox IE, including ActiveX controls, which used to have full reign on the system.

      • 2007-05-04 5:23 am
        Gone fishing

        I had a similar experience – but the user had deliberately, infected their PC and than tried to speed up there horribly infected PC with more scumware optimisers etc.

        Just two points>

        · IE 7 did remove all the toolbars etc by simply clicking the return to manufactures spec button (very good)

        · The main problem is the idiot behind the keyboard who installs every bit of scumware they come across

        Personally I use Firefox seems a little quicker and more stable to me, I suppose eventually there will be CWS for IE 7.

  • 2007-05-03 7:25 pm
    elsewhere

    No doubt this thread will soon become littered with posts like the first one here, but I found the article is an interesting read and would recommend it regardless of your stance on MS and IE.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing something comparing this approach with *nix world implementations like selinux or AppArmor, purely out of curiosity. Essentially those technologies also address the fact that sometimes user-driven permissions are simply not granular enough in complex application environments.

    I’m not likely to give up *nix any time soon, but I do shudder a bit every time I hear the usual dogma about how much more secure linux is than everything else on the planet. Doesn’t keep me awake at night, but I suspect too many users take security for granted without truly understanding how it works or where the vulnerabilities are, even in broad terms.

    • 2007-05-04 12:06 am
      PlatformAgnostic

      Maybe I’ll work on such an article in a week or so… would you like to help?

      • 2007-05-04 2:12 pm
        elsewhere

        If only I had the time… ;)

        Will look forward to reading it though, if you go through with it.