Microsoft criticises third party code for Windows crashes

By Brendon Chase
13 August 2003 12:10 PM
Tags: security, worm, scott, charney, brendon, chase, code, microsoft
Microsoft has laid the blame for half of all Windows crashes on third-party code.

Scott Charney, chief security strategist at Microsoft, told developers at the TechEd 2003 conference in Brisbane, that information collected by Dr Watson, the company's reporting tool, revealed that "half of all crashes in Windows are caused not by Microsoft code, but third-party code".

Charney's comments come as the company highlights the rigour with which it tests its own products before release. Microsoft emphasised that products such as Yukon and Exchange Server were undergoing thorough testing -- both internally and via independent third parties -- prior to their release to the market.

The company is employing root cause analysis and event sequence analysis procedures to scrub out the creation of sloppy code. The result is that individual developers have a high degree of accountability for the code they produce, while the systems and processes associated with code development are rigorously monitored.

Root cause analysis enables the company to check closely the work of individual developers. -If a developer has written vulnerable code, then we look at what else that developer has written and check it," Charney said

Event sequence analysis takes this further, analysing the reasons why the vulnerable code was written. Charney said it was not necessarily so they can sack whoever is writing vulnerable code, but find out the reasons why and how Microsoft improve their staff with training or more efficient processes.

As Charney made his remarks, Charles Sturt University announced they would be offering a Master of Information Systems Security degree including MCSE:Security industry certification.

Charney's also reinforced Microsoft's message to developers and network administrators that they needed to build secure applications and networks "from the ground up".

The chief security strategist's remarks have come at an unfortunate time, as mainstream and niche media outlets produce heavy coverage of the impact of the MSBlast worm, which has infiltrated corporate and enterprise networks worldwide.

Brendon Chase travelled to Tech Ed as a guest of Microsoft.

Advertisement

Talkback 35 comments

    Windows has come a long way an ...Anonymous -- 13/08/03

    Windows has come a long way and doesn't crash nearly as much as it used to.
    But to say that 1/2 crashes are from third party code is laughable - a good OS should be protected from rogue applications.
    Microsoft programmers will always be a bunch of hackers even if they are slowly getting better at it.
    And who have we got to thank for lowering software quality this far? - ourselves for buying their half baked software and spending our time applying daily (hourly?) patches.
    Reminds me of that old game where a guy has to stop a leaking roof from wetting the floor.

    As much as MS would like to ch ...Anonymous -- 13/08/03

    As much as MS would like to change it they don't own the world !

    They are going to need to be able to support these outside apps that are needed so that the world can talk to each other

    Simply 'amazing'! One would th ...Anonymous -- 13/08/03

    Simply 'amazing'! One would think that with all this supposedly wonderful testing that Windows undergoes, it would now be a robust operating system, right?

    How come then, based on statistics gathered about online uptime, Windows is still ten times less stable that Open Source operating systems? When you consider that _all_ of the Open Source operating system comes from '3rd parties', this is even more amazing, huh?

    Frankly, due zero licence costs and also to lower ongoing TCO, Gartner: locked down Linux 15% lower TCO than Windows XP, http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/22012.html , it is best that business and government start using more Open Source and less crash-prone Microsoft product

    Sounds like Micro$oft is going ...Anonymous -- 13/08/03

    Sounds like Micro$oft is going to "hand-ball" this problem off to others (read: 3rd party developers). They are now distancing themselves from taking responsibility for their product, even though it maybe a suite of third party products.

    That raises questions about what Micro$oft actually produces itself. Hmmm...

    I know 3rd party developers who find it very difficult to produce software for Windows OS because of its API and goings on. And when it doesn't quite work it is damn hard to find the cause of the problem since they can not see what happens behind the API. I can relate to that.

    I think Open Source has got it right here.

    There's NO excuse for an App b ...Keith Styles (An irate user) -- 13/08/03

    There's NO excuse for an App breaking the OS...period. Another M$ copout out... as usual. Users are not interested in whining excuses. M$ has had more than enought time to get it right. It's time to think of a better OS....Linux or BSD perhaps.

    50% blamed on third-party code ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    50% blamed on third-party code, means 50% of all crashes can be blamed to Microsoft directly. As an average MS pc seems to crash 4 times a day, i think quite a lot of people would be interested in sueing MS for a product that causes a huge loss in productivity... and now they have confirmation from within MS itself

    In my operating systems class ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    In my operating systems class in college I was taught that the OS is responsable for handling code that is run. Good or bad, a GOOD OS should handle the bad code with out messing up the rest of the system and not expose other programs to the problems of the offending code. Why isn't Microsoft living by this since they monopolize the desktop market?

    I think they have a responsability to cover the other 50% and should not be making these kinds of excuses. I think they should also be held accountable for the failure of their 50% and the failure of the other 50% that lets 3rd party applications fail and take the system with em. They are the ones claiming providing a stable OS, if they can't provide the stability then they shouldn't make the claim that Windows is stable.

    This is just my opinion ofcourse.

    Operating System's purpose is ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    Operating System's purpose is to survive.

    The entire purpose of an operating system is to manage resources and prevent applications from causing damage to itself or anything not under the control of the application.

    This is why 'geeks' complain about MS software.

    By analogy, MS Windows (all versions) are like a high rise officed building with only minimal locsk on the individual office doors - anyone who can get into the building can go anywhere they want with little problem. Unix and its derivatives were designed from the beginning to prevent that - each individual user's "office" has its own locks, which can be made very strong.

    Windows' security model is based on the idea that whatever the (single) user wants to do is OK. Multi-user features such as access control have been tacked on after the fact. So even if the 'lock' is made strong, the door hinges are exposed so a thief can just remove the door.

    OS that are descended from multiuser operating systems like Unix were built from the beginning to survive in a mult-user environment and so have strong protections built in. For example, it is generally very difficult for one user's program to access data in memory that was not allocated to it by the system.

    NSA has been working on a new higher security version of Linux, which makes the core operating system security much stronger than it is now. By analogy they are taking away the janitor's pass key.

    NSA's work is just one example of how user organizations can share in the advantages and participate in the open software process. We no longer have to depend on a distant company to implement necessary changes, and can achieve great synergies by the way.

    Survival despite bad apps is i ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    Survival despite bad apps is important, yes. I've never used /any/ OS I haven't crashed by running a bad app.

    MacOS 7-9 was easiest - write an app that does a zero divide, and there goes your OS.

    Windows 9x (SuperDos) was not much harder.

    Windows NT and friends (2000, XP) are pretty hard to crash with dodgy apps, but don't restrict user access enough w/o making the OS unusable. So they're eminently killable. Filling up the RAM & swap often does the trick.

    Linux is almost impossible to kill with a console app, but XFree86 and apps running under it seem to be able to manage. Not often, but far too often (not never). Even when the system doesn't go down, having to ssh in from another box to reboot it because X can't reset the video hardware isn't what you'd call ideal.

    I killed MacOS X within 20 minutes, but I had "Classic" running, and that looks like it reaches (far too) deep into the guts of the OS - especially for a hideous kludge.

    Having not tried the *BSDs, Solaris, etc I can't speak for them.

    My point here is that, at least in my experience, no OS is perfect on that score.

    Of course, the fact that MS is proudly announcing that half the crashes in Windows are their fault is ... amusing.

    1/ that means a third party pr ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    1/ that means a third party program can make windows crash, which shouldn't happen
    2/ that means half the crashes are their fault, which is inexcusable.

    sorry pals, but that's not the proper way to make software.

    A well designed OS shouldn't c ...Uno Engborg -- 14/08/03

    A well designed OS shouldn't crash on bad code.
    So, what Mr Charney is saying is half of the windows crashes are caused by faulty Microsoft code and the other half is due to bad OS design.

    Then 50% -IS M$ fault? Well, ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    Then 50% -IS M$ fault?
    Well, if we believe them, anyway. Frankly, I tend to disbelieve at least half of anything they say, since that belief's been proven correct, at least to my personal satisfaction. LOL good to see MS take responsibility for their half, at least.

    Applications should never cras ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    Applications should never crash the OS nowdays. You can run linux for months or years without a crash. It is time for Microsoft to do a legitimate OS from the ground up if they wish to be taken seriously. otherwise they should give an automatic $10 rebate everytime the system goes down or has to be rebooted. I can't believe they want so much money for such shoddy and insecure software.

    Yet.. if you look at how MS Wi ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    Yet.. if you look at how MS Windows is built.. you'll see why it crashes. The kernel is a kitchen sink(tm)-type-utility. It contains way too many things and it was too much of a strong interaction between userland and kernel.
    Their problem is their bad design and architecture. If I can write a program in userland that crashes the system, there's a problem that needs to be fixed. Otherwise.. there can be no security because there will always be faulty software.

    Microsoft is responsible for 1 ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    Microsoft is responsible for 100% of crashes. In Operating Systems 101, you learn about kernel space and how to separate that from user space. I can't believe they are putting the blame on somone else and at the same time recommending better user code (applications). If they would fix their software to not allow the machine to be brought down the problem would be solved.

    They are also stating that they are responsible for 50% of windows crashes. I do not believe they realize what they are saying.

    swsupport@flashmail.com

    This means that MS does not wa ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    This means that MS does not want to own the problems in their softwares. Its better that MS starts shipping the software with marking like MS approved & tested and OTHERS. Best thing will be to split the package into various different modules and give them individually.

    ...it's the fault of some offi ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    ...it's the fault of some officer named "General Protection".

    Well, I don't know what Bill Gates thinks an operating system is supposed to do, but I grew up to expect a fundamental task was to PROTECT ITSELF from 3rd party software making it crash.

    Now, if the 3rd party software crashes, that's one thing, but crashing the OS is quite another. When an app behaves badly it should not take all the nicely behaving apps along with it. This is a basic requirement.*

    The fact that OS crashes are being blamed on something the OS should be designed to prevent, tells us something about what MS defines as an OS.

    Also, I am prompted to ask if 99% of those naughty 3rd party applications are viruses? They certainly make Windows crash a lot.

    One problem with a majority of ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    One problem with a majority of systems running any version of Windows is that when a flaw is found, a majority of systems are affected. If the majority of systems were running Unix, Linux, or any other open source OS, we would see many more flaws in the systems. The gnu ftp site was just root compromised?!?!? This is proof right there that no system can be perfect. I personally would be more worried if a majority of systems were running a comparable system to Unix due to the complexity to secure the system 100%. A novice PC user who owns a computer to check their email and look at news updates via the web has no idea what permissions are, nor how to set them properly. There may be tools to automate a standard linux box lockdown, I don't know, but I do know that MS has a few. I have used unix as much as windows and they both crash as often as anything else. Besides, the crashes that MS is mentioning are probably not bringing down the system. Windows XP is very good at not going down when one app crashes. XP is also very good at coming back up if it does go down. Also, if you run windows, with just ms written apps, XP for sure is not going anywhere, apps written for open sourced software is also more than likely open, run open software on windows which has as broad a user base as a linux counterpart and it too won't go anywhere. But, because windows is running on a majority of systems, there is a lot of crap written for it by joe shmoe programmer and it sucks and it sucks so bad it crashes and everyone says, "windows crashed again, bill sucks." Not really fair.

    Ok, whoever said that the aver ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    Ok, whoever said that the average MS pc crashes 4 times a day is obviously a biased moron. I dont normally shut my computer off and i have had DAYS of uptime without a restart or crash. i have had very little trouble with XP and think microsoft has come a LONG way since windows 95. Im not going to argue that its more stable then linux, but keep it in perspective. if the vast majority of users have windows, then the vast majority of software is developed on windows therefore there is a FAR greater chance of running apps that arent programmed well. be mad at MS for the 50% that they fess up to. but i think 50% blamed on third party apps is entirely reasonable of a statement.

    So, Windows causes as many pro ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    So, Windows causes as many problems as ALL other software combined?

    For me, Windows 2k almost neve ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    For me, Windows 2k almost never crashes....maybe once every 5 months...however, one thing that this article didn't really state, is that it is third party CODE, not third party applications.

    I have noticed that device drivers and things that talk directly to hardware, if written poorly, will completely trash an OS. I've seen bad device drivers crash even opensource systems, its not a problem that only MS has.

    ATI comes to mind with some of the worst drivers / applications...they talk directly with the card for the overlay on TV / Video Capture...I've had that crash my system in a myriad of ways on multiple platforms.

    I don't blame MS for those crashes...its not their fault that hardware companies can't get their act together. MS has its own problems yes, and not all of their code is 100%...but, I don't think the majority of the blame is on them.

    The assertion that third-party ...Wumpus von Vaxmini -- 14/08/03

    The assertion that third-party code is to blame for a majority of crashes is ludicrous.

    Code explicitly designed to attack the system was not considered, so one must assume that the third parties in question explicitly designed their code with the intent of providing functionality to a user without the introduction of interference with the normal operation of the system. This means that 50% of the thrid-party code is attempting to do innocent things that should never result in a problem, but do anyway. This indicates the environment in which the application runs is flawed, not the application.

    The purpose of an operating system is to provide an environment where resources and interprocess communication are managed such that no process will interfere with the system as a whole and only impact other processes to the extent with which there exists an incompatibility between the data exchanged and the expectations of what the data contains or how it is formatted.

    The fact that the environment is so fragile belies problems with it's design, not that of the applications which it is charged with managing.

    As a practical matter, any system can be attacked and broken into willfully by a skilled individual; perhaps with access to special resources. The very fact that there is the notion of a system administrator indicates that one can somehow become the administrator and do something adverse. Heck, you could pour a Coke into a server to bring it down, if need be. But, in a real sense, Microsoft's products' fragility is indeed increasingly unique. Sure, non-Microsoft OS users can expect attacks on their systems and even the occasional success, but you'd never find one that would accept that a user-mode application could ever bring down the machine; a machine with an OS should only need to shutdown for certain kinds of hardware maintenance or to phsyically relocate.

    Windows may be popular, but there's no technical reason for it -- just marketing. Fortunately for them, people are more reliant on marketing for their decisions than any other consideration (at least 9 times out of 10 -- hence the market share).

    The number of crashes due to 3 ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    The number of crashes due to 3rd parties is lower than MS reports. The reporting system is flawed. I used to have an ATI video card in my PC. I used the stock XP drivers; they were copyrighted by MS, and digitally signed and certified by MS. However, everytime I got a crash (about three or four times a day), "Dr. Watson" reported that a "third party video driver" caused the crash.

    How many other "third party" crashes are actually due to MS drivers?

    I bought a GeForce 5600 on sale to replace the ATI card. XP complained about every single file installed not being certified by MS. I haven't had but one or two crashes in the few months since. I now look for non-certified drivers as they tend to be MUCH more stable than the drivers written and "certified" by MS.

    It wasn't specified which type ...Mike Barros -- 14/08/03

    It wasn't specified which type of applications are causing the crashes. True, an OS should be able to handle misbehaving applications, but a buggy kernel driver can crash ANY OS, no matter how good it is because kernel drivers run in privileged mode. Video card drivers and sound card drivers are frequent causes for Windows crashes. That's not to say that Windows is bug free, don't get me wrong, I think MS still has a LOT of work ahead. But in my opinion it would be a good option for MS to try to convince the driver developers to trade a bit of performance for more stability in their code. That's my 2 cents...

    Bite me Micro$oft! I found a ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    Bite me Micro$oft! I found a bug in Win2K SP4 which caused a Dr Watson and made it LOOK like our applicaton was crashing. Yet when I removed our application, the crash was then showing "explorer.exe". Your Enterprise Server team confirmed the bug and issued a hotfix. So your Dr. Watson data is heavily skewed!

    Since the job of an OS is to e ...Anonymous -- 14/08/03

    Since the job of an OS is to ensure that faulty applications cannot harm the system all crashes are Microsofts fault.
    This only shows that they don't even know what an OS is, yet they claim to sell them for decades

    1- if we accept they are not l ...Ano -- 15/08/03

    1- if we accept they are not lying, it means they have confessed that at least 50% of crasesh are their own fault.

    micro$oft has proved that they have no understanding what an OS is. one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any OS is to protect programs from each other and the kernel from all programs. any textbook on OS tells this. they better leave OS market and stick to their M$Office but they are simply too greedy and insolent.

    2- what about the reboots and restart? :D
    I think MSDN (M$ developer's network) is a collection of helps and documentation of functions and so. thus removing it should do any harm. but when I uninstalled it from my window$ XP, it said you *have to* restart!!!!!!!

    to micro$oft:
    I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you, a world without rules and controls.. (Neo at the end of The Matrix)

    You guys that keep complaining ...Ricky Keiichi Yamauchi, Jr. -- 15/08/03

    You guys that keep complaining About "In Operating Systems 101 they teach you to protect the kernel from userland".

    This shows your bias. You keep complaining without the entire story. You guys need to remember the facts. Bill Gates dropped out of College. Now it should all make sense. :)

    Also, bear in mind Apache has a HIGHER market share than MS IIS and IIS gets nailed harder and more often.

    The average PC crashes 4 times ...Barry Sargent -- 15/08/03

    The average PC crashes 4 times a week. Microsoft wants you to know that only twice was it their fault....classic.
    What if..........My car crashed four times last week. I took it to the dealer to get it fixed. They offered no solution, but were happy to point out that only twice was it because their car was faulty. The other two times the other car was faulty. :)
    They were also happy to point out that there were other cars on the market that rarely crashed and were much cheaper to operate. But, they added, they couldn't be any good. Could they?

    Fine. Lets kill of all the com ...carlton lee -- 15/08/03

    Fine. Lets kill of all the companies that develope for the Microsoft platform. Microsoft has been selectively doing it for years.

    After all as a developer you may or may not get good support from Microsoft for problems you might encounter while developing for their platform. As a developer you may be aware that something doesn't always seem to work right when running your app in Microsoft's environment. As a developer you also know that everyone knows that everyone has problems creating apps that work correctly in Microsoft environment. You also know that you can't see the source for Microsoft's environment. You might belive that thw problem might be Microsoft's environment. Out of luck....

    You though Microsoft cared?

    hehe it's so easy to blame oth ...Anonymous -- 15/08/03

    hehe it's so easy to blame others... XD

    ohh. how very silly of m$ the ...Anonymous -- 15/08/03

    ohh. how very silly of m$

    the perfect truth is that the 3rd party
    driver writers and bad hardware are the
    main cause of the crashes that users
    of win xp will see but the way this
    document is written portrays the
    application writer as the culprit.

    if this is the message m$ wanted to
    get across and not just some
    misunderstanding on the part of the
    journalist (doubtful for zdnet) then
    well, microsoft really ought to be
    spending much more money on better
    public representatives.

    m$ really are getting it bad at
    this moment. the virus update has
    beeen out for weeeeks, the latest
    patent case is just complete balls
    and now there reps give out quotes
    as laughable as this one.

    Alex

    What third party code is he ta ...Peter da Silva -- 17/08/03

    What third party code is he talking about?

    If he's talking about drivers, OK, I'll give him the point, though I think that if Microsoft is shipping the drivers they should accept responsibility for it.

    If he's talking about applications, though? Nope, if a bug in Photoshop crashes Windows that's Microsoft's fault... not Adobe's. There's nothing that Photoshop needs to do that should even potentially have a possibility of crashing the OS. If it does, then Microsoft's responsible.

    Okay, let's think this through ...Anonymous -- 19/08/03

    Okay, let's think this through. If we replace the 3rd party code with Microsoft code, nothing changes because they are just as inreliable. So the only way we can get less crashes is by replacing the operating system.

    Yes as a windows user and a pe ...Anonymous -- 04/09/03

    Yes as a windows user and a person who is regularly called upon to look at friends computer which have crashed or lost information due to a unexpected program i have to agree with microsoft the main cause of all problem is third party software that is not compatible with microsoft software,

    another problem is anti virus software that consantly runs in the background causing hard drive failures due to constant writing over the hard drive during virus disk checks the amount of hard drives i have seen crashed because of these progams are unbelievable,

    Linux is no better in five minutes i was able to crash it to the point of no return just by deleting a file.

    Linux has a security in it's kernal due to it's backward binary code.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Blogs

  • Darren Greenwood Telecom NZ savings damage prospects
    If Telecom NZ wants to have any of the NZ$1.5 billion the government intends to spend on its new broadband network, it had better think long and hard before offshoring 1500 jobs.
  • Array iiNet: The whys and what nows
    Last week the Federal Court ruled that internet service providers are not responsible for copyright violation by their customers. This is an important decision not just for iiNet, which spent around $4 million defending the case, but for all ISPs in Australia and, indeed, globally.
  • Array Govt, hurry up with releasing data
    A programmer scraped data from the My School website to make some really cool heat maps showing regions of smart schools — no thanks to the government, which didn't supply the data in any useful kind of format.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured