CyberInsecurity: The Cost of Monopoly
How the Dominance of Microsoft's Products Poses a Risk to Security
By Daniel Geer, Charles P. Pfleeger, Bruce Schneier, John S. Quarterman, Perry Metzger, Rebecca Bace, Peter Gutmann
Computer & Communications Industry Association Report
September 24, 2003
Table of Contents
- 1. Author Listing
- 2. Introduction by Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
- 3. CyberInsecurity Report
- 4. Biographies of Authors
Authors of the report
Daniel Geer, Sc.D -- Chief Technical Officer, @Stake
Charles P. Pfleeger, Ph.D -- Master Security Architect, Exodus
Bruce Schneier -- Founder, Chief Technical Officer, Counterpane
John S. Quarterman -- Founder, InternetPerils, Matrix NetSystems,
Perry Metzger -- Independent Consultant
Rebecca Bace -- CEO, Infidel
Peter Gutmann -- Researcher, Department of Computer Science,
University of Auckland
Introduction by Computer & Communications Industry Association
No software is perfect. This much is known from academia and every-day
experience. Yet our industry knows how to design and deploy software so as
to minimize security risks. However, when other goals are deemed more important
than security, the consequences can be dangerous for software users and society
Microsoft's efforts to design its software in evermore complex ways
so as to illegally shut out efforts by others to interoperate or compete
with their products has succeeded. The monopoly product we all now rely on
is thus both used by nearly everyone and riddled with flaws. A special burden
rests upon Microsoft because of this ubiquity of its product, and we all
need to be aware of the dangers that result from reliance upon such a widely
used and essential product.
CCIA warned of the security dangers posed by software monopolies during the
US antitrust proceeding against Microsoft in the mid and late 1990's.
We later urged the European Union to take measures to avoid a software
"monoculture" that each day becomes more susceptible to computer
viruses, Trojan Horses and other digital pathogens.
Our conclusions have now been confirmed and amplified by the appearance of
this important report by leading authorities in the field of cybersecurity:
Dan Geer, Rebecca Bace, Peter Gutmann, Perry Metzger, John S. Quarterman,
Charles Pfleeger, and Bruce Schneier.
CCIA and the report's authors have arrived at their conclusions
independently. Indeed, the views of the authors are their views and theirs
alone. However, the growing consensus within the computer security community
and industry at large is striking, and had become obvious: The presence of
this single, dominant operating system in the hands of nearly all end users
is inherently dangerous. The increased migration of that same operating system
into the server world increases the danger even more. CCIA is pleased to
have served as a catalyst and a publisher of the ideas of these distinguished
Over the years, Microsoft has deliberately added more and more features into
its operating system in such a way that no end user could easily remove them.
Yet, in so doing, the world's PC operating system monopoly has created
unacceptable levels of complexity to its software, in direct contradiction
of the most basic tenets of computer security.
Microsoft, as the US trial record and experience has shown, has added these
complex chunks of code to its operating system not because such programming
complexity is necessary, but because it all but guarantees that computer
makers, users and consumers will use Microsoft products rather than a
These competition related security problems have been with us, and getting
worse, for years. The recent spate of virus attacks on the Internet is one
more sign that we must realize the danger we are in. The report CyberInsecurity
-- The Cost of Monopoly is a wake up call that government and industry
need to hear.
September 24, 2003
CYBERINSECURITY: THE COST OF MONOPOLY
HOW THE DOMINANCE OF MICROSOFT'S PRODUCTS POSES A RISK TO SECURITY
Computing is crucial to the infrastructure of advanced countries. Yet, as
fast as the world's computing infrastructure is growing, security vulnerabilities
within it are growing faster still. The security situation is deteriorating,
and that deterioration compounds when nearly all computers in the hands of
end users rely on a single operating system subject to the same vulnerabilities
the world over.
Most of the world's computers run Microsoft's operating systems,
thus most of the world's computers are vulnerable to the same viruses
and worms at the same time. The only way to stop this is to avoid monoculture
in computer operating systems, and for reasons just as reasonable and obvious
as avoiding monoculture in farming. Microsoft exacerbates this problem via
a wide range of practices that lock users to its platform.
The impact on security of this lock-in is real and endangers society. Because
Microsoft's near-monopoly status itself magnifies security risk, it is essential
that society become less dependent on a single operating system from a single
vendor if our critical infrastructure is not to be disrupted in a single
blow. The goal must be to break the monoculture. Efforts by Microsoft to
improve security will fail if their side effect is to increase user-level
lock-in. Microsoft must not be allowed to impose new restrictions on its
customers -- imposed in the way only a monopoly can do -- and then
claim that such exercise of monopoly power is somehow a solution to the security
problems inherent in its products. The prevalence of security flaw in
Microsoft's products is an effect of monopoly power; it must not be
allowed to become a reinforcer.
Governments must set an example with their own internal policies and with
the regulations they impose on industries critical to their societies. They
must confront the security effects of monopoly and acknowledge that competition
policy is entangled with security policy from this point forward.
The threats to international security posed by Windows are significant, and
must be addressed quickly. We discuss here in turn the problem in principle,
Microsoft and its actions in relation to those principles, and the social
and economic implications for risk management and policy. The points to be
made are enumerated at the outset of each section, and then discussed.
1. THE PROBLEM IN PRINCIPLE
To sum up this section:
- Our society's infrastructure can no longer function without computers
- The sum of the world's networked computers is a rapidly increasing
- A monoculture of networked computers is a convenient and susceptible
reservoir of platforms from which to launch attacks; these attacks can and
- This susceptibility cannot be mitigated without addressing the issue
of that monoculture.
- Risk diversification is a primary defense against aggregated risk
when that risk cannot otherwise be addressed; monocultures create aggregated
risk like nothing else.
- The growth in risk is chiefly amongst unsophisticated users and is
- Uncorrected market failures can create and perpetuate societal threat;
the existence of societal threat may indicate the need for corrective
Computing is essential to industrialized societies. As time passes, all societal
functions become more deeply dependent on it: power infrastructure, food
distribution, air traffic control, emergency services, banking,
telecommunications, and virtually every other large scale endeavor is today
coordinated and controlled by networked computers.
Attacking national infrastructures is also done with computers -- often
hijacked computers. Thus, threats to computing infrastructures are explicitly
and inherently risk harm to those very societies in proportion to those
society's dependence on them. A prior history of catastrophe is not
required to make such a finding. You should not have to wait until people
die to address risks of the scale and scope discussed here.
Regardless of where or how it is used, computing increases the capabilities
and the power of those who use it. Using strategic or military terminology
that means what it sounds like, computing is a "force multiplier"
to those who use them -- it magnifies their power, for good or ill. The
best estimates of the number of network connected computers show an increase
of 50% per year on a worldwide basis. By most general measures what you can
buy for the same amount of money doubles every eighteen months ("Moore's
Law"). With a conservative estimate of a four year lifetime for a computer
-- in other words, consumers replace computers every four years on average
-- the total computing power on the Internet therefore increases by a
factor of 2.7 per annum (or doubles every 10 months). If a constant fraction
of computers are under threat of misuse, then the force available to misusers
will thus double every 10 months.
In other words, the power available to misusers -- computer hackers,
in popular parlance -- is rising both because what they can buy grows
in power per dollar spent and because the total number of networked computers
grows, too. Note also that this analysis does not even include attacks enabled
by storage capacity, which doubles in price-performance twice as fast as
CPU (doubles every nine months rather than eighteen).
Internetworked computing power makes communication feasible. Communication
is of such high value that it has been the focus of much study and much
conjecture and not just recently. For one-way broadcast communication, the
value of the network itself rises proportionally to N, the potential number
of listeners ("Sarnoff's Law"). By way of example, advertisers
pay for television time in rough proportion to the number of people viewing
a given program.
For two-way interactive communications -- such as between fax machines
or personal email -- the value of the network rises proportionally to
N2, the square of the potential number of users ("Metcalfe's
Law"). Thus, if the number of people on email doubles in a given year,
the number of possible communications rises by a factor of four.
Growth in communications rises even more when people can organize in groups,
so that any random group of people can communicate with another. Web pages,
electronic mailing lists and online newsgroups are good examples of such
communications. In these cases, the value of the network rises proportionally
to 2N, the potential number of groups being an exponential growth
in N ("Reed's Law").
Assume for now that the Internet is somewhere between the Metcalfe model,
where communications vary according to the square of the number of participants
(N2), and the Reed model, where communications vary according
to two raised to the Nth power (2N).
If we make this assumption, then the potential value of communications that
the Internet enables will rise somewhere between 1.52 = 2.3 and 21.5 = 2.8
times per annum. These laws are likely not precisely accurate. Nonetheless,
their wide acceptance and historic record show that they are good indicators
of the importance of communication technology.
To extend this simple mathematical model one final step, we have assumed
so far that all communications are good, and assigned to the value of the
network a positive number. Nonetheless, it is obvious that not all communications
(over computer networks, at least) are positive. Hackers, crackers, terrorists
and garden-variety criminals use the network to defraud, spy and generally
wreak havoc on a continual basis. To these communications we assign a negative
The fraction of communications that has positive value is one crucial measure,
and the absolute number of negative communications is another. Both are dependent
on the number of networked devices in total. This growth in the number of
networked devices, however, is almost entirely at the "edges" of
networked computing -- the desktop, the workstation, the home, the embedded
system, the automated apparatus. In other words, the growth in "N"
is not in the core infrastructure of the Internet where highly trained
specialists watch over costly equipment with an eye towards preventing and
responding to attacks. Growth, rather, is occurring mostly among ordinary
consumers and non-technical personnel who are the most vulnerable to illegal
intrusions, viruses, Trojan horse programs and the like. This growth at the
periphery, furthermore, is accelerating as mobile, wireless devices come
into their own and bring with them still more vulnerabilities.
Viruses, worms, Trojan horses and the like permit malicious attackers to
seize control of large numbers of computers at the edge of the network. Malicious
attackers do not, in other words, have to invest in these computers themselves
-- they have only to exploit the vulnerabilities in other people's
Barring such physical events as 9/11, an attack on computing is a set of
communications that take advantage of latent flaws already then present in
those computers' software. Given enough knowledge of how a piece of software
works, an attacker can force it to do things for which it was never designed.
Such abuse can take many forms; a naturalist would say that attacks are a
broad genus with many species. Within this genus of attacks, species include
everything from denial of service, to escalation of authority, to diversion
of funds or data, and on. As in nature, some species are more common than
Similarly, not all attacks are created equal. An annoying message that pops
up once a year on screen to tell a computer user that he has been infected
by Virus XYZ is no more than that; an annoyance. Other exploitations cost
society many, many dollars in lost data, lost productivity and projects destroyed
from data crashes. Examples are many and familiar including the well known
ILOVE YOU, NIMDA, and Slammer attacks not to mention taking over users'
machines for spamming, porn distribution, and so forth.
Still other vulnerabilities, though exploited every day and costing society
substantial sums of time and money, seldom appear in the popular press. According
to Londonbased computer security firm, mi2g Ltd., global damage from malicious
software inflicted as much as $107 billion in global economic damage this
year. It estimates that the SoBig worm, which helped make August the costliest
month in terms of economic damage, was responsible for nearly $30 billion
in damage alone.1
For an attack to be a genuine societal-scale threat, either the target must
be unique and indispensable -- a military or government computer,
authoritative time lookup, the computer handling emergency response (911)
calls, airport flight control, say -- or the attack must be one which
once triggered uncontrollably cascades from one machine to the next. The
NIMDA and Slammer worms that attacked millions of Windows-based computers
were examples of such "cascade failure" -- they spread from
one to another computer at high rates. Why? Because these worms did not have
to guess much about the target computers because nearly all computers have
the same vulnerabilities.
Unique, valuable targets are identifiable so we, as a society, can concentrate
force around them. Given enough people and training (a tall order to be sure),
it is possible to protect the unique and core assets. Advanced societies
have largely made these investments, and unmitigated failures do not generally
occur in these systems.
Not so outside this core: As a practical and perhaps obvious fact, the risk
of cascade failure rises at the edges of the network where end users are
far more likely to be deceived by a clever virus writer or a random intruder.
To put the problem in military terms, we are the most vulnerable when the
ratio of available operational skill to available force multiplication is
minimized and thus effective control is weakest. Low available skill coupled
to high potential force multiplication is a fair description of what is today
accumulating on the periphery of the computing infrastructures of every advanced
nation. In plainer terms, the power on the average desktop goes up very fast
while the spread of computers to new places ensures the average skill of
the user goes down. The average user is not, does not want to be, and should
not need to be a computer security expert any more than an airplane passenger
wants to or should need to be an expert in aerodynamics or piloting. This
very lack of sophisticated end users renders our society at risk to a threat
that is becoming more prevalent and more sophisticated.
Regardless of the topic -- computing versus electric power generation
versus air defense -- survivability is all about preparing for failure
so as to survive it. Survivability, whether as a concept or as a measure,
is built on two pillars: replicated provisioning and diversified risk. Replicated
("redundant") provisioning ensures that any entity's activities
can be duplicated by some other activity; high availability database systems
are such an example in computing just as backup generators are in electric
power. The ability of redundant systems to protect against random faults
is cost effective and well documented.
By contrast, redundancy has little ability to protect against cascade failure;
having more computers with the same vulnerabilities cannot help if an attack
can reach them all. Protection from cascade failure is instead the province
of risk diversification -- that is, using more than one kind of computer
or device, more than one brand of operating system, which in turns assures
that attacks will be limited in their effectiveness. This fundamental principle
assures that, like farmers who grow more than one crop, those of us who depend
on computers will not see them all fail when the next blight hits. This sort
of diversification is widely accepted in almost every sector of society from
finance to agriculture to telecommunications. In the broadest sense, economic
diversification is as much the hallmark of free societies as monopoly is
the hallmark of central planning. Governments in free market societies have
intervened in market failures -- preemptively where failure was be
intolerable and responsively when failure had become selfevident.
In free market economies as in life, some failure is essential; the
"creative destruction" of markets builds more than it breaks. Wise
governments are those able to distinguish that which must be tolerated as
it cannot be changed from that which must be changed as it cannot be tolerated.
The reapportionment of risk and responsibility through regulatory intervention
embodies that wisdom in action. If governments are going to be responsible
for the survivability of our technological infrastructure, then whatever
governments do will have to take Microsoft's dominance into consideration.
To sum up this section:
- Microsoft is a near-monopoly controlling the overwhelming majority
- Microsoft has a high level of user-level lock-in; there are strong
disincentives to switching operating systems.
- This inability of consumers to find alternatives to Microsoft products
is exacerbated by tight integration between applications and operating systems,
and that integration is a long-standing practice.
- Microsoft's operating systems are notable for their incredible
complexity and complexity is the first enemy of security.
- The near universal deployment of Microsoft operating systems is highly
conducive to cascade failure; these cascades have already been shown to disable
- After a threshold of complexity is exceeded, fixing one flaw will
tend to create new flaws; Microsoft has crossed that threshold.
- Even non-Microsoft systems can and do suffer when Microsoft systems
- Security has become a strategic concern at Microsoft but security
must not be permitted to become a tool of further monopolization.
Near-monopoly dominance of computing by Microsoft is obvious beyond the findings
of any court. That percentage dominance is at peak in the periphery of the
computing infrastructure of all industrial societies. According to IDC, Microsoft
Windows represented 94 percent of the consumer client software sold in the
United States in 2002.2 Online researcher OneStat.com estimates Microsoft
Windows' market share exceeds 97 percent.3 Its Internet Explorer and
Office Suite applications share similar control of their respective markets.
The tight integration of Microsoft application programs with Microsoft operating
system services is a principal driver of that dominance and is at the same
time a principal driver of insecurity. The "tight integration"
is this: inter-module interfaces so complex, undocumented, and inaccessible
as to (1) permit Microsoft to change them at will, and thus to (2) preclude
others from using them such as to compete.
Tight integration of applications and operating system achieves user lock-in
by way of application lock-in. It works. The absence of published, stable
exchange interfaces necessary to enable exchange of data, documents, structures,
etc., enlists such data, documents, or structures as enforcers of application
lock-in. Add in the "network effects," such as the need to communicate
with others running Microsoft Office, and you dissuade even those who wish
to leave from doing so. If everyone else can only use Office then so must
Tight integration, whether of applications with operating systems or just
applications with each other, violates the core teaching of software engineering,
namely that looselycoupled interfaces make maintenance easier and life-cycle
costs lower. Academic and commercial studies supporting this principle are
numerous and long-standing.
Microsoft well knows this; Microsoft was an early and aggressive promoter
of modular programming practices within its own development efforts. What
it does, however, is to expressly curtail modular programming and loose-coupling
in the interfaces it offers to others. For whatever reason, Microsoft has
put aside its otherwise good practices wherever doing so makes individual
modules hard to replace. This explains the rancor over Prof. Ed Felten's
Internet Explorer removal gadget just as it explains Microsoft's recent decision
to embed the IE browser so far into their operating system that they are
dropping support for IE on the Macintosh platform. Integration of this sort
is about lock-ins through integration too tight to easily reverse buttressed
by network effects that effectively discourage even trying to resist.
This integration is not the norm and it is not essential. Just limiting the
discussion to the ubiquitous browser, it is clear that Mozilla on Linux or
Safari on Macintosh are counter-examples: tight integration has no technical
necessity. Apple's use of Safari is particularly interesting because it gets
them all the same benefits that Microsoft gets from IE (including component
reuse of the HTML rendering widget), but it's just a generic library, easy
to replace.4 The point is that Microsoft has performed additional,
unnecessary engineering on their products with the result of making components
hard to pull out, and thus raising the barrier to entry for competition.
Examples of clean interfaces are much older than Microsoft: the original
UNIX was very clean and before that Multics or Dijkstra's 1968 "THE"
system showed what could be done. In other words, even when Microsoft was
very much smaller and very much easier to change these ideas were known and
proven, therefore what we have before us today is not inadvertent, it is
This tight-integration is a core component of Microsoft's monopoly power.
It feeds that power, and its effectiveness is a measure of that power. This
integration strategy also creates risk if for no other reason that modules
that must interoperate with other modules naturally receive a greater share
of security design attention than those that expect to speak only to friends.
As proof by demonstration, Microsoft's design-level commitment to identical
library structures for clients and servers, running on protocols made explicitly
difficult for others to speak (such as Microsoft Exchange), creates insecurity
as that is precisely the characteristic raw material of cascade failure:
a universal and identical platform asserted to be safe rather than shown
in practice to be safe. That Microsoft is a monopoly makes such an outcome
the default outcome.
The natural strategy for a monopoly is user-level lock-in and Microsoft has
adopted this strategy. Even if convenience and automaticity for the
low-skill/no-skill user were formally evaluated to be a praiseworthy social
benefit, there is no denying the latent costs of that social benefit: lock-in,
complexity, and inherent risk.
One must assume that security flaws in Microsoft products are unintentional,
that security flaws simply represent a fraction of all quality flaws. On
that assumption, the quality control literature yields insight.
The central enemy of reliability is complexity. Complex systems tend to not
be entirely understood by anyone. If no one can understand more than a fraction
of a complex system, then, no one can predict all the ways that system could
be compromised by an attacker. Prevention of insecure operating modes in
complex systems is difficult to do well and impossible to do cheaply: The
defender has to counter all possible attacks; the attacker only has to find
one unblocked means of attack. As complexity grows, it becomes ever more
natural to simply assert that a system or a product is secure as it becomes
less and less possible to actually provide security in the face of complexity.
Microsoft's corporate drive to maximize an automated, convenient user-level
experience is hard to do -- some would say un-doable except at the cost
of serious internal complexity. That complexity must necessarily peak wherever
the ratio of required convenience to available skill peaks, viz., in the
massive periphery of the computing infrastructure. Software complexity is
difficult to measure but software quality control experts often describe
software complexity as proportional to the square of code volume. One need
look no further than Microsoft's own figures: On rate of growth, Windows
NT code volume rose 35% per year (implying that its complexity rose 80%/year)
while Internet Explorer code volume rose 220%/year (implying that its complexity
rose 380%/year). Consensus estimates of accumulated code volume peg Microsoft
operating systems at 4-6x competitor systems and hence at 15-35x competitor
systems in the complexity-based costs in quality. Microsoft's accumulated
code volume and rate of code volume growth are indisputably industry outliers
that concentrate complexity in the periphery of the computing infrastructure.
Because it is the complexity that drives the creation of security flaws,
the default assumption must be that Microsoft's products would have
15-35x as many flaws as the other operating systems.5
One cannot expect government regulation to cap code size -- such a proposal
would deserve the derision Microsoft would heap upon it. But regulators would
do well to understand that code "bloat" matters most within modules
and that Microsoft's strategy of tight integration makes effective module
size grow because those tightly integrated components merge into one. It
is likely that if module sizes were compared across the industry that the
outlier status of Microsoft's code-size-related security problems would be
even more evident than the total code volume figures indicate.
Above some threshold level of code complexity, fixing a known flaw is likely
to introduce a new, unknown flaw; therefore the law of diminishing returns
eventually rules. The general quality control literature teaches this and
it has been the received wisdom in software development for a long time (Lehman
& Belady at IBM6 and later in many papers and at least one
book). The tight integration of Microsoft operating systems with Microsoft
application products and they with each other comes at a cost of complexity
and at a cost in code volume. Patches create new flaws as a regular occurrence
thus confirming that Microsoft's interdependent product base is above that
critical threshold where repairs create problems. Some end-users understand
this, and delay deployment of patches until testing can confirm that the
criticality of problems fixed are not eclipsed by the criticality of problems
created. With mandatory patches arriving at the rate of one every six days
(39 through 16 September), it is few users indeed who can keep up.
Two different subsets of users effectively bow out of the patching game:
the incapablemany (end-users who have limited understanding of -- and
limited desire to understand -- the technology even when it is working
correctly) and the critical-infrastructure-few (for whom reliability is such
a vital requirement that casual patching is unthinkable). Un-patched lethal
flaws thus accumulate in the user community. (The Slammer worm fully demonstrated
that point -- the problem and the patch were six months old when Slammer
hit.)7 Monopoly market dominance is thus only part of the risk
story -- market dominance coupled with accumulating exploitable flaw
density yields a fuller picture.
Not only is nearly every networked computer sufficiently alike to imply that
what vulnerability one has, so has another, but the absolute number of
known-to-beexploitable vulnerabilities rises over time. Attackers of the
most consummate skill already batch together vulnerabilities thus to ensure
cascade failure. (The NIMDA virus fully demonstrated that point -- it
used any of five separate vulnerabilities to propagate itself.)
Microsoft has had a history of shipping software at the earliest conceivable
moment. Given their market dominance, within days if not hours the installed
base of any released Microsoft software, however ill thought or implemented,
was too large to dislodge or ignore. No more. Of late Microsoft has indeed
been willing to delay product shipment for security reasons. While it is
too early to tell if and when this will actually result in a healthier installed
base, it is an admission that the level of security flaw density was a greater
threat to the company than the revenue delay from slipping ship dates. It
is also an admission that Microsoft holds monopoly power -- they and
they alone no longer need to ship on time. That this coincides with Microsoft's
recent attempts to switch to annual support contracts to smooth out their
revenue streams is, at least, opportunistic if not tactical.
On the horizon, we see the co-called Trusted Computing Platform Association
(TCPA)8 and the "Palladium" or "NGSCB"
architecture for "trusted computing." In the long term, the allure
of trusted computing can hardly be underestimated and there can be no more
critical duty of government and governments than to ensure that a spread
of trusted computers does not blithely create yet more opportunities for
lock-in. Given Microsoft's tendencies, however, one can foresee a Trusted
Outlook that will refuse to talk to anything but a Trusted Exchange Server,
with (Palladium's) strong cryptographic mechanisms for enforcement of that
limitation. There can be no greater user-level lock-in than that, and it
will cover both local applications and distributed applications, and all
in the name of keeping the user safe from viruses and junk. In other words,
security will be the claimed goal of mechanisms that will achieve unprecedented
user-level lock-in. This verifies the relevance of evaluating the effect
of user-level lock-in on security.
3. IMPACT ON PUBLIC PROTECTION
To sum up this section:
- Without change, Microsoft's history predicts its future.
- We must take conscious steps to counter the security threat of
Microsoft's monopoly dominance of computing.
- Unless Microsoft's applications and interfaces are available on
non-Microsoft platforms it will be impossible to defeat user lock-in.
- Governments by their own example must ensure that nothing they deem
important is dependent on a monoculture of IT platforms; the further up the
tree you get the more this dictum must be observed.
- Competition policy is tangled with security policy from this point
Microsoft and regulators come to this point with a considerable history of
flouted regulation behind them, a history which seems unnecessary to recount
other than to stipulate that it either bears on the solution or history will
Yes, Microsoft has the power to introduce features unilaterally and one might
even say that the current security situation is sufficiently dire that Microsoft
as the head of a command structure is therefore somehow desirable. Yet were
it not for Microsoft's commanding position economics would certainly be different
whether it would be a rise in independent, competitive, mainstream software
development industries (because the barriers to entry would be lower), or
that today's locked-in Microsoft users would no longer pay prices that only
a monopoly can extract. For many organizations the only thing keeping them
with Microsoft in the front office is Office. If Microsoft was forced to
support Office on, say, Linux, then organizations would save substantial
monies better spent on innovation. If Microsoft were forced to interoperate,
innovators and innovation could not be locked-out because users could not
Both short-term impact mitigation and long term competition policy must recognize
this analysis. In the short term, governments must decide in unambiguous
ways whether they are able to meaningfully modify the strategies and tactics
of Microsoft's already-in-place monopoly.
If governments do not dismantle the monopoly but choose instead to modify
the practices of the monopoly they must concede that that route will, like
freedom, require eternal vigilance. Appropriate support for addressing the
security-related pathologies of monopoly would doubtless include the introduction
of effective, accessible rights of action in a court of law wherever security
flaws lead to harm to the end-user. In extreme cases, the consequences of
poor security may be broad, diffuse, and directly constitute an imposition
of costs on the user community due to the unfitness of the product. Under
those circumstances, such failures should surely be deemed "per se"
offenses upon their first appearance on the network.
Where risk cannot be mitigated it can be transferred via insurance and similar
contracts. As demonstrated in previous sections, the accumulation of risk
in critical infrastructure and in government is growing faster than linear,
i.e., faster than mere counts of computers or networks. As such, any mandated
risk transfer must also grow faster than linear whether those risk transfer
payments are a priori, such as for bonding and insurance, or a posteriori,
such as for penalties. If risk transfer payments are to be risk sensitive,
the price and probability of failure are what matter and thus monopoly status
is centrally relevant. For governments and other critical infrastructures,
the price of failure determines the size of the risk transfer. Where a software
monoculture exists -- in other words, a computing environment made up
of Windows and almost nothing else -- what remains operational in the
event of wholesale failure of that monoculture determines the size of the
risk transfer. Where that monoculture is maintained and enforced by lock-in,
as it is with Windows today, responsibility for failure lies with the entity
doing the locking-in -- in other words, with Microsoft. It is important
that this cost be made clear now, rather than waiting until after a catastrophe.
The idea of breaking Microsoft into an operating system company and an
applications company is of little value -- one would just inherit two
monopolies rather than one and the monocultural, locked-in nature of the
user base would still nourish risk. Instead, Microsoft should be required
to support a long list of applications (Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer,
plus their server applications and development tools) on a long list of
platforms. Microsoft should either be forbidden to release Office for any
one platform, like Windows, until it releases Linux and Mac OS X versions
of the same tools that are widely considered to have feature parity,
compatibility, and so forth. Alternately, Microsoft should be required to
document and standardize its Exchange protocols, among other APIs, such that
alternatives to its applications could independently exist.
Better still, split Microsoft Office into its components -- noticing
that each release of Office adds new things to the "bundle": first
Access, the Outlook, then Publisher. Even utilities, such as the grammar
checker or clip art manager, might pose less risk of compromise and subsequent
OS compromise if their interfaces were open (and subject to public scrutiny
and analysis and validation). Note that one of the earlier buffer overflow
exploits involved the phone dialer program, and ordinarily benign and
uninteresting utility that could have been embedded within dial-up networking,
Internet Explorer, Outlook and any other program that offered an Internet
The rigorous, independent evaluations to which these otherwise tightly integrated
interfaces would thus be exposed would go a long way towards security hardening
them while permitting meaningful competition to arise. Microsoft will doubtless
counter that its ability to "innovate" would be thus compromised,
but in the big picture sense everyone else would have a room to innovate
that they cannot now enjoy. Where governments conclude that they are unable
to meaningfully modify the strategies and tactics of the already-in-place
Microsoft monopoly, they must declare a market failure and take steps to
enforce, by regulation and by their own example, risk diversification within
those computing plants whose work product they value.
Specifically, governments must not permit critical or infrastructural sectors
of their economies to implement the monoculture path, and that includes
government's own use of computing. Governments, and perhaps only governments,
are in leadership positions to affect how infrastructures develop. By enforcing
diversity of platform to thereby blunt the monoculture risk, governments
will reap a side benefit of increased market reliance on interoperability,
which is the only foundation for effective incremental competition and the
only weapon against end-user lock-in. A requirement that no operating system
be more than 50% of the installed based in a critical industry or in a government
would moot monoculture risk. Other branches to the risk diversification tree
can be foliated to a considerable degree, but the trunk of that tree on which
they hang is a total prohibition of monoculture coupled to a requirement
of standards-based interoperability.
These comments are specific to Microsoft, but would apply to any entity with
similar dominance under current circumstances. Indeed, similar moments of
truth have occurred, though for different reasons, with IBM or AT&T.
The focus on Microsoft is simply that the clear and present danger can be
ignored no longer. While appropriate remedies require significant debate,
these three alone would engender substantial, lasting improvement if Microsoft
were vigorously forced to:
- Publish interface specifications to major functional components of
its code, both Windows and Office.
- Foster development of alternative sources of functionality through
an approach comparable to the highly successful "plug and play" technology
for hardware components.
- Work with consortia of hardware and software vendors to define
specifications and interfaces for future developments, in a way similar to
the Internet Society's RFC process to define new protocols for the Internet.
Daniel Geer, Sc.D - Dr. Geer is Chief Technical Officer of
@Stake, in Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Geer has a long history in network security
and distributed computing management as an entrepreneur, author, scientist,
consultant, teacher, and architect. He has provided high-level strategy in
all manners of digital security and on promising areas of security research
to industry leaders including Digital Equipment Corporation, OpenVision
Technologies, Open Market, and CertCo. He has written extensively on large-scale
security issues such as risk management, applications of cryptography, and
Web security for The Digital Commerce Society, the Securities Industry Middleware
Council, the Internet Security Conference, and the USENIX Association for
whom he founded several conferences.
Dr. Geer has testified before Congress on multiple occasions and has served
on various relevant advisory committees to the Federal Trade Commission,
the National Science Foundation, the National Research Council, the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, the Department of Defense, the National Institute of Justice,
and the Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection.
Dr. Geer holds several security patents, an Sc.D. in Biostatistics from Harvard
University's School of Public Health and an S.B. in Electrical Engineering
and Computer Science from MIT.
Charles P. Pfleeger, Ph.D - Dr. Pfleeger is a Master Security
Architect in the Professional Services group of Exodus Communications, Inc.
From 1992 to 1995 he was Director of European Operations for Trusted Information
Systems, Inc. (TIS) and head of its European office in London. He was a member
of the author group of the U.S. Federal security evaluation criteria and
a co-author of the evaluation criteria for trusted virtual machine architectures.
He led activities in secure networking, security analysis in hardware design,
secure system architecture, and research into assured service. Prior to joining
TIS in 1988, he was a professor in the Computer Science Department of the
University of Tennessee Dr. Pfleeger has lectured throughout the world and
published numerous papers and books. His book Security in Computing (the
third edtion will be available from Prentice Hall in 2002) is the standard
college textbook in computer security. He is the author of other books and
articles on technical computer security and computer science topics.
He holds a Ph.D. degree in computer science from The Pennsylvania State
University and a B.A. with honors in mathematics from Ohio Wesleyan University.
Bruce Schneier - Internationally renowned security expert Bruce
Schneier has authored six books--including BEYOND FEAR and SECRETS AND LIES--as
well as the Blowfish and Twofish encryption algorithms. Mr. Schneier has
appeared on numerous television and radio programs, has testified before
Congress, and is a frequent writer and lecturer on issues surrounding security
Mr. Schneier is responsible for maintaining Counterpane's technical lead
in world-class information security technology and its practical and effective
implementation. Mr. Schneier's security experience makes him uniquely qualified
to shape the direction of the company's research endeavors, as well as to
act as a spokesperson to the business community on security issues and solutions.
Mr. Schneier holds an MS degree in computer science from American University
and a BS degree in physics from the University of Rochester.
John S. Quarterman - John S. Quarterman is founder of
InternetPerils, an Internet riskmanagement company. Previously, he was Founder
and Chief Technology Officer of Matrix NetSystems Inc., the first company
to map and track global traffic across the Internet. Mr. Quarterman has almost
thirty years experience with network issues dating as far back as 1974, when
he first used ARPANET, the Internet's predecessor, at Harvard University.
He subsequently worked on ARPANET Unix software for Bolt, Beranek and Newman,
the original prime contractor for the network.
Mr. Quarterman has consulted for a wide range of companies and organizations,
including AT&T, HP, IBM, MCI and Nortel, among others. Twice elected
to the board of directors of USENIX, he was instrumental in the board's
decision to provide funding for UUNet, one of the first two commercial Internet
service providers. A published author, he has written for Communications
of the ACM, Forbes, First Monday and Computerworld, among others. He has
appeared in articles written by others in the New York Times, the San Jose
Mercury News, The Economist, The Washington Post, Wired and others too numerous
Perry Metzger - Perry Metzger is managing partner of Metzger,
Dowdeswell & Co LLC, a New York based computer security and infrastructure
consulting firm. Prior to this, Mr. Metzger founded and served as CEO of
Wasabi Systems, Inc., a startup specializing in operating system software
for embedded platforms. Previously Mr. Metzger served as President of Piermont
Information Systems Inc., a New York based computer security consulting firm
he founded in 1994. Piermont's clients included prominent international banks
and brokerages, money management companies, public relations firms and
Before founding Piermont, Mr. Metzger was involved in a variety of innovative
technological projects, including highly parallel computer systems, automated
equities trading systems, automated systems management software, and the
implementation of one of the world's first firewall systems. Mr. Metzger
is highly active in the work of the Internet's standardization body, the
IETF. He was instrumental in the design and standardization of several major
internet security protocols,including IPSEC, for which he served as co-author
of several of the initial standards documents.
Becky Bace - Becky Bace is an internationally recognized expert
in network security and intrusion detection. A 2003 recipient of Information
Security Magazine's Women of Vision Award, she is recognized as one
of the most influential women in Information Security today. Ms. Bace has
worked in security since the 1980s, leading the first major intrusion detection
research program at the National Security Agency, where she received the
Distinguished Leadership Award, serving as the Deputy Security Officer for
the Computing Division of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and, since
1997, working as a strategic consultant.
She is currently President and CEO of Infidel, Inc., a security consulting
firm. Ms. Bace's publication credits include the books Intrusion Detection
(Macmillan, 2000) and A Guide to Forensic Testimony: The Art and Practice
of Presenting Testimony as An Expert Technical Witness, (Addison-Wesley,
She received a B.S., Engineering/Computer Science from the University of
the State of New York, and an M.E.S., Digital Systems Engineering, from Loyola
Peter Gutmann - Peter Gutmann is a researcher in the Department
of Computer Science at the University of Auckland working on design and analysis
of cryptographic security architectures. He helped write the popular PGP
encryption package and has authored a number of papers on security and encryption
including the X.509 Style Guide for certificates.
Over the years, Mr. Gutmann has uncovered numerous security flaws in various
computing products, including problems with the encryption used in an early
version of the Netscape browser and, later, Internet Explorer. He has also
uncovered flaws in previous versions of Norton's Diskreet disk encryption,
the Windows 95 password file system and the smart-card fare system used by
Auckland's largest public transportation organization.
Gutmann is the author of the much used, open source cryptlib security toolkit.
1 "Government Issue," David Zeiler, The Baltimore Sun/SunSpot.net. September 18, 2003
2 "Wal-Mart sells more Linux wares online," Matt Hines, News.com. August 21, 2003.
3 "Microsoft's Windows OS global market share is more than 97% according to OneStat.com," OneStat.com press release. September 10, 2002.
4 "Apple Releases its own browser," Joe Wilcox, News.com,
January 7, 2003.
5 Microsoft seems at least aware of the problem. See:
6 L.A. Belady and M.M. Lehman, "A Model of Large Program
Development," IBM Systems Journal 15(3), p.225--252 (1976).
7 " Slammer worm brings patch mgmt. issues to the fore,"
Audrey Rasmussen, Network World Fusion, Feb. 5, 2003.
earlier essay: Voting and Technology: Who Gets to Count Your Vote?
later essay: Fixing intelligence
categories: Computer and Information Security
back to Essays and Op Eds
Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Co3 Systems, Inc.