CrowdStrike’s Falcon software uses a special driver that allows it to run at a lower level than most apps so it can detect threats across a Windows system. Microsoft tried to restrict third parties from accessing the kernel in Windows Vista in 2006 but was met with pushback from cybersecurity vendors and EU regulators. However, Apple was able to lock down its macOS operating system in 2020 so that developers could no longer get access to the kernel.

Now, it looks like Microsoft wants to reopen the conversations around restricting kernel-level access inside Windows.

  • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Please, get this garbage out of the kernel. If it isn’t there to talk to hardware, third party code has no place in the kernel. The same shit that Crowdstrike did could easily happen with any of these useless anticheats.

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      In b4 msft creates a level between kernel and user level for this stuff to sit at. It will have read-only access to all of kernel memory, and will otherwise function the same, but when it crashes it won’t take the OS down, just certain programs that rely on it.

      What will they call it? “Observer” level? “Big Brother” level? “Overseer” level? Probably just something to do with “Verifying Trust/Integrity”. Google will also want to quietly stick something for “Web Integrity” there.

    • xinayder@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      As much as I despise MS and think they are equally incompetent, I don’t think it’s a good idea to lock down Windows. They will stop providing kernel access to 3rd parties at first, then a few months later you will only be able to download software from the Microsoft Store.

      Yes, it’s a security issue but them being allowed to close down their OS sets a dangerous precedent that will make Windows even more shittier and enshittified than it already is.

      • ji17br@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        There is zero chance of that happening. This is exactly what people said when Apple created a Mac App Store. Surprise surprise you can still run any software you want on a Mac.

      • EpeeGnome@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        They’d be seriously shooting themselves in the foot if they did that. Most corporations have 3rd party software that they would not be able or willing to give up, software development for Windows would be unable to test and debug, and I know from personal experience that many consumers find the already existing S Mode to be frustrating and confusing.

        • xinayder@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          They kinda already do this. Any .exe you download outside the Microsoft Store requires double confirmation before you can execute it, unless it’s from Microsoft.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Funny how you can create a microkernel only to then fuck up privileges so bad that software (e.g. graphics drivers, anything running with real-time prio) can easily crash your system without recovery.

    The architecture of Windows is both, remarkably good and weirdly underutilized.

    • Nighed@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      In that case, the entire windows ecosystem collapses when Microsoft messes up windows defender… at least if its spread out it hurts less people

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    They’re going to implement something like eBPF for the Windows kernel. This will allow kernel-level modules to run with zero risk of crashing the kernel. If the module fails, it fails without taking down the kernel with it.

    Linux already has this. It works great. If Windows gets this, all antivirus and anti-cheat software is going to have to transition.

    Once that happens, it will be way easier to add anti-cheat software to Linux that operates the same as on Windows. It may be possible to load and unload it only when playing and actually having competition-grade gaming on Linux.

    Of course, this is a security disaster that I wouldn’t allow on any of my daily drivers, but I would enjoy playing Destiny on my Steamdeck if there’s a legit way for me to do it.

    • baseless_discourse@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      According to wikipedia, both Windows and linux have it, and both are open source.

      Believe it or not, a lot of companies, no matter how cool and secure their marketing sounds, are just seriously incompetent.

  • d-RLY?@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Probably a good move for them to make tbh. I like how CrowdStrike’s name already sounds like it should be the name of a big malware/virus/zeroday. So we should have seen it coming.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    yes please. NO third party should have ring 0 access to your computer.

    bonus: no kernel level anticheat to fuck with linux users

  • DrWeevilJammer@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    My understanding is that EU regulators had an issue because Windows Defender rolled out kernel mode/kernel data protection, which gave Microsoft a de-facto monopoly in that market segment if no one else was allowed to use the same technology in their products.

    Microsoft complaining that the Crowdstrike incident was the EU’s fault is an argument in favor of a Microsoft monopoly, which the EU has been pretty consistently against, and EU opposition to this should not have been a surprise to Microsoft.

    • bountygiver [any]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      microsoft could get away with this monopoly accusations by opening up official read-only APIs for that, so you can have antiviruses use it and have a proper procedure for user to give consent for the antivirus to have access to said API.