<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Windows Vista and 3rd Party Security Protection</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/security/archive/2006/10/24/windows-vista-and-3rd-party-security-protection.aspx</link><description>Over the past month or so, I have been amazed by the amount of speculation, strong assertions and outright misinformation that has been printed with respect to Kernel Patch Protection and the offical Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) into the</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: Windows Vista and 3rd Party Security Protection</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/security/archive/2006/10/24/windows-vista-and-3rd-party-security-protection.aspx#478649</link><pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 04:36:33 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:478649</guid><dc:creator>PeteLind</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;You qualify the HIPS statement with &amp;quot;...that depends on hooking the kernel.&amp;quot; Does this mean there is a way (or are ways) to do HIPS that don't depend on hooking the kernel? Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pete&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: Windows Vista and 3rd Party Security Protection</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/security/archive/2006/10/24/windows-vista-and-3rd-party-security-protection.aspx#479176</link><pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:49:08 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:479176</guid><dc:creator>jrjones</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Pete&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Well, Sophos calls their technique a host intrusion prevention technique, so that is one.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;More broadly though, HIPS is a collection of technologies. &amp;nbsp;There are types of behavior that could be monitored for using the existing file system filtering (e.g. opening key files) and the new Vista registry filtering capabilities. &amp;nbsp;The latter could definitely be used to monitor for common behaviors used by stealth malware to get themselves re-started after boots. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some existing HIPS software also incorporate checks for anything accessing the network, so the new firewall filter APIs could be used for that.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regards,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Jeff&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: Windows Vista and 3rd Party Security Protection</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/security/archive/2006/10/24/windows-vista-and-3rd-party-security-protection.aspx#479218</link><pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:32:35 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:479218</guid><dc:creator>PeteLind</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Okay - so no way to monitor system calls then; it relies on an &amp;quot;extended&amp;quot; definition of HIPS (I am okay with that in general, but it is a bit different than what is usually understood as HIPS-like capability. And Sophos' stuff doesn't really come close even though it does create an interesting alternative avenue). Each of these targets (file system, registry, network) have weaknesses in their coverage, but I guess the real question is whether together they can stop any/all known (to go easy) attacks.&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>