This article is horrible. The entire premise is that SDL doesn't work because there are still Zero-Day exploits and because attacks on Office are on the rise.
This is a completely false premise.
First, SDL is dramatically decreased the overall number of exploits for Windows and other software that has undergone SDL. Vista, Windows 2003, Windows 2008... all have experienced FAR fewer exploits than their non-SDL predecessors.
Second, the fact that are still zero-day exploits says nothing about SDL. There will ALWAYS be exploits, and at one point or another, ALL exploits are zero-day.
Third, the fact that Office exploits are on the rise is not surprising at all. Indeed, it shows that SDL in fact has worked.
Previously, the bad guys had targeted Windows (both directly, and via included software like IE and Outlook Express) because it was the most direct and easy route into the machine. Now that Windows and most of the included software has been hardened by SDL, they turn to other software that hasn't had a long history of attack attempts. It's simply more fertile ground.
Office 2007 was the first version of Office to undergo SDL, and while there have been exploits for it, it's not really fair to say this shows SDL doesn't work. Since hackers weren't paying much attention to Office in the past, any new attention would result in an "increase" in attacks. This does NOT mean there has been an decrease in code quality or security as a result of SDL.
So, in summary, this is a bunch of crap. Anybody who flat out denies that Microsoft's SDL practices have dramatically increased their security is either ignorant or lying. I suspect it's a bit of both in this case.
|