Microsoft: Word 2007 crashes aren't a bug, they're a feature
App meltdown from malformed docs is by design
April 12, 2007 12:00 PM ETComputerworld - The Word 2007 bugs pegged as security vulnerabilities by an Israeli researcher are nothing of the sort, Microsoft Corp. said today. Instead, the application crashes reported as flaws are actually by design.
The researcher who posted details earlier this week of the bugs reacted by offering screenshots of the Word crashes and wondering why Microsoft disputed his findings.
On Monday, Mati Aharoni of Offensive Security warned of three new flaws in Word 2007 on the Milw0rm and SecurityVulns.com security sites, and posted malformed Word documents as proof-of-concepts. Microsoft, however, seemed unconcerned.
Late yesterday, a company spokeswoman repeated the company's earlier contention that the Microsoft Security Response Center's (MSRC) investigation, "found that none of these claims demonstrate a vulnerability in Microsoft's Word 2007 or any part of the Microsoft Office System."
When asked to clarify that statement, she acknowledged Microsoft won't classify the flaws as security problems. Rather, the behavior of Word 2007 is a feature, not a bug. "In fact, the behavior observed in Microsoft Word 2007 in this instance is a by-design behavior that improves security and stability by exiting Microsoft Word when it has run out of options to try and reliably display a malformed Word document," the spokeswoman said.
She went on to suggest that it is no big deal if Word 2007 did crash under those circumstances, a scenario that could lead to the loss of any unsaved data. "The sample code in [Aharoni's] postings cause Microsoft Word to crash, and users can restart the application to resume normal operations."
The stance was not out of character for the MSRC, which in the past has separated bugs that allow code execution or rights elevation from those that result in a denial-of-service-style situation. Previously, it has refused to label some crash-inducing problems as vulnerabilities, or patch them outside of a service pack.
That's the same position taken by David LeBlanc, one of Microsoft's secure code gurus, and Michael Howard, the co-author of the just-released Writing Secure Code for Vista. "You may rightfully say that crashing is always bad, and having a server-class app background, I agree. Crashing means you made a mistake, bad programmer, no biscuit," said LeBlanc in an MSDN blog. "However, crashing may be the lesser of the evils in many places. The theory is that it is better to crash, at least with client apps, than it is to be running the bad guy's shell code."
Office 2007 uses this strategy, said LeBlanc, who, like the MSRC, objected to classifying a denial-of-service-like result as an attack. "I really take issue with those who would characterize a client-side crash as a denial of service," he said. "If you can crash my app so that I can't restart it, or have to reboot my system, well, okay, that's a DoS. If you blew up my app, and I just don't load that document again, big deal."
Microsoft
Additional Resources



White Papers & Webcasts
Share our Strength
Download Now
Lower the Cost and Complexity of a Mobile Workforce through Automation
Download This Resource Now!
Top 10 Things to Know about Data Protection
Download Now
Managing Mobility: Improve Data Security, Compliance and Manageability
Download This Resource Now!
Managing Secure File Transfer to Save Time, Money and IT Resources
Learn how companies are using innovative technology to overcome these challenges and improve user productivity by offloading e-mail attachments and replacing FTP with...
Ponemon Study: The Business Risk of a Lost Laptop
Download Now
Security Convergence Equals Network Security Cost Savings
Listen to IBM Internet Security Systems' take on network security convergence.
Airport Insecurity: The Case of Lost Laptops
Download Now
Disaster Recovery 2008: Reduced Costs and Improved Performance
How long can your Enterprise afford to be without your data? With an accelerated disaster recovery program, you never have to answer this...
