[NA]Why no rogue 'updates'?[NA]

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,315
Location
west Texas
Display Name

Display name:
Dave Taylor
I was accepting one from Java just now and it occurred to me again to ask this question. Yes I know, MS "updates" are dangerous enough.
But it still begs an answer....why has no virus been widely spread through a bogus update? Seems like there is no way for me to know the updates for Runtime Environment, MS, Adobe, etc etc are bonafide or not. I could accept an 'update' and get something terrible. Does NAV or my MS firewall etc, 'know' which are good boys, which are not?
 
Most microsoft updates are digitally signed nowadays, and others are doing that too. If the signature is invalid (indicating the update is either bogus or corrupted), your OS will warn you about it, and give you the option to install it or not.

Generally, the updater processes running on your computer (Microsoft Update, the Java update engine) do this signature validation in the background.
 
thanks Tim.
Still sounds like a deterimined person could spoof that.
 
thanks Tim.
Still sounds like a deterimined person could spoof that.
It is theoretically possible, but very VERY difficult to do. The basic 128 bit digital signatures has 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38 combinations.

In addition digital signatures are verified by an independent authority, and typically automatic updates are done on a pull model, not a push model. That is to say, the updator puts the update on a pre-determined site, and your computer reaches out and pulls down the update periodically, and and also reaches up and pulls down verification of the signature.

To spoof an update, the spoofer would have to spoof the key, the address of the updator, and possibly even the address of the verifier.

Those addresses are controlled by yet another independent authority, and while it's not terribly difficult to spoof an address as a sender (ie: to appear to be coming from one address instead of another) it is VERY difficult to spoof the address of a recipient.

To pull this off the spoofer would, I suspect, probably already have so much other control over your network or computer that trying it would be unnecessary.
 
So the update request is received by my computer over the internet from another computer, "would you like to accept and download this update?"
If I accept, my computer knows the source is legitimate because it compares a digital signature (bunch of numbers, or maybe raw 1's and 0's).
How did my computer get that signature?
Some other computer put it there either over the internet or when it was manufactured.
So we are relying on no interference with that event, and that no one was able to hack into my computer and alter the signatures?
 
So the update request is received by my computer over the internet from another computer, "would you like to accept and download this update?"
No - YOUR computer goes to a pre-defined, unique address on the internet and looks for updates. If it finds them, it asks you if you want it to download the update. That's a pull model.

If I accept, my computer knows the source is legitimate because it compares a digital signature (bunch of numbers, or maybe raw 1's and 0's).
Everything in computers breaks down to raw 1's and 0's, but I gave you a wrong number earlier. I said it was a 128 bit signature and its not, its a 128 BYTE signature, which is 1024 bits, which is 1.797693134862315907729305190789e+308 possible combinations.

How did my computer get that signature?
The server which lives at the predetermined address that your computer went to provided the signature, and the server that lives at another predetermined addressed compared and verified that signature with its records. Its kind of like the difference between you calling your credit card company on the 800 # on your card and talking to them about your account, as opposed to taking an incoming call on your phone and then talking about your account. In the first case, you KNOW you got your card company. In the second, it could be me pretending to be your card company.

Some other computer put it there either over the internet or when it was manufactured.
It came with the file when your computer went and got it.

So we are relying on no interference with that event, and that no one was able to hack into my computer and alter the signatures?
Again, you're misunderstanding the model at work here - the updates are not pushed to your computer, your computer goes and looks for new updates. That makes the source highly trustworthy to begin with, and the key verification is also done by your pc going out and checking with another trusted source.
 
Everything in computers breaks down to raw 1's and 0's, but I gave you a wrong number earlier. I said it was a 128 bit signature and its not, its a 128 BYTE signature, which is 1024 bits, which is 1.797693134862315907729305190789e+308 possible combinations
That make you wonder what Bill did to help his bank keep his money safe! Odds are that bank is safer than any government network.
 
Back
Top