Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft a Weak Link In Possible Cyber War

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the almost-as-bad-as-hfcs dept.

Microsoft 371

climenole writes 'Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods,' says former White House advisor Richard Clarke in a recent book. Microsoft makes the list of risks because so many people have installed its software for critical systems.

cancel ×

371 comments

He said what? (3, Insightful)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523546)

Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods.

If he really said that I bet Microsoft execs are spewing their cornflakes as we speak!

Re:He said what? (5, Funny)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523580)

*in deep trailer-guy voice*

"In 2010; Chairs WILL be Thrown"

Re:He said what? (4, Insightful)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523750)

If Microsoft execs aren't already aware of that, they should be fired. Part of managing a company is knowing your weaknesses.

Re:He said what? (5, Insightful)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523770)

Part of managing a company is knowing your weaknesses.

Knowing your weaknesses is not the same as having them advertised to the world by a White House advisor!

Re:He said what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523792)

Yeah tell that to that UFO aspergers guy.

Re:He said what? (3, Informative)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523878)

It's not as if people didn't already know about Microsoft's abysmal security record. Just a simple query such as http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=kKP&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=site%3A*.gov+microsoft+advisory&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= [google.com] shows tens of thousands of hits. Maybe Microsoft will be shamed enough to take action and improve their products.

I guess the point of it is "Is Microsoft the weak link when it comes to security?" to which the only answer can be "Yes." Kudos to the White House team for telling it like it is!

Re:He said what? (5, Informative)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523970)

Clarke is not on the "White House team". He retired a few years ago. Come on, people, would it hurt you to at least read the summary?

Re:He said what? (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524082)

The difference is academic in this case. You have someone who held a public position and is now making a bold statement. If this were some unknown person with shaky credentials it would not have been a story.

Re:He said what? (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524196)

No, there's a big difference. If he was a current government official, then the statement would represent a government policy.

Windows, vs. LINUX, vs. MacOS X (security vulns) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32524188)

"It's not as if people didn't already know about Microsoft's abysmal security record." - by StuartHankins (1020819) on Thursday June 10, @11:16AM (#32523878)

Ok, let's take a peek at that statements & it's "anti-Microsoft" implications, & we'll do so, by simply using the stats of the "latest/greatest" from the "big 3" OS vendors/OS types out there today, from a respected security vulnerabilities reporting website, in SECUNIA.COM:

---

Linux 2.6x KERNEL SECURITY VULNERABILITIES CURRENTLY AS OF THIS DATE 06/10/2010:

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched 5% (11 of 217 Secunia advisories)

(Again, that's JUST THE KERNEL/CORE OF THE OS ALONE (so, I.E.-> How much more would be added by diff. distros & their softwares/shells (KDE/Gnome), etc.- et al?))

---

APPLE MacOS X SECURITY VULNERABILITIES CURRENTLY AS OF THIS DATE 06/10/2010:

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/96/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched (approximately) 1% (8 of 1233 Secunia advisories)

(NOTE: I had to calculate the %, & I + others do NOT like how Apple & SECUNIA are reporting on the errors in security present in Apple's MacOS X there... see the comments below those stats, for an "example thereof"...)

---

MICROSOFT WINDOWS 7 SECURITY VULNERABILITIES CURRENTLY AS OF THIS DATE 06/10/2010:

---

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Unpatched 13% (2 of 16 Secunia advisories)

REMEMBER/AGAIN: This is the ENTIRETY of Windows 7 being analyzed - not just its kernel, as is the case with Linux 2.6x above... & ONLY 2 security problems are present!

Top that off with the fact that 1 of them IS EASILY "worked-around" no less, in the AERO problem, simply by selecting the "Windows Classic" theme, or, shutting off the "Themes" service!

The other only deals in SSL, for those that run an IIS 6/7 server (which is FAR from everyone, especially desktop users)... so, for example, from the system I am posting on now during lunchtime @ home? I have no IIS running, & thus, I am "proof to it".

----

(Sure, now I am certain I will also see repliers here to my post here say

"but the 2 security vulnerabilities in Windows are 'remote' in nature"

Well, newsflash - ANY OF THESE SECURITY VULNERABILITIES REALLY "BOIL DOWN" TO BEING LOCAL, IN THAT SOONER OR LATER, THEY HAVE TO "TOUCH" THE LOCAL SYSTEM ANYHOW IN ORDER TO EXPLOIT THEM PERIOD! Javascript exploits being the MOST "prevalent" of this type, and where do they ACTUALLY RUN? LOCALLY, inside a webbrowser program's javascript processing engines... turn off javascript (on "every site under the sun", & use it only where you HAVE TO and where you can trust the website)? Problem solved!)

---

So, can Windows be secured far better than it comes "out of the box/oem-stock"? Absolutely. Heck, any OS usually can be... such as is shown here:

----

HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA/Windows 7 (+ make it "fun-to-do" via CIS Tool Guidance & beyond):

http://forums.theplanet.com/index.php?s=a3272f47031ff9e8939bf662e3a7b7fe&showtopic=89123 [theplanet.com]

(Much of what's in it "principles-wise" (uses the concept of "layered security") & yes, tools-wise, can also be applied to LINUX (or other *NIX variants too like MacOS X (done via Apple's guide for this, no CIS Tool exists for MacOS X, sorry) + other BSD variants, Solaris, etc.) & e.g. -> There is a CIS Tool for them also (again, except MacOS X, but Apple's got a GREAT GUIDE for this too though, but you have to do it manually yourself using its guidance), as it is a cross-platform benchmark for security analysis, and it's been highly rated over time by various sources in publications like Computer World & others also)

----

A small sampling of quoted testimonials from Windows users who applied it (THRONKA in full, for himself, his family, friends, & even clients - plus, Kings Joker who is only using a FRACTION of that guide's points, in his tests of the effectiveness of using a HOSTS file alone to help secure himself (and, with good reasons, once you see WHY he has to do so, below)):

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=2 [xtremepccentral.com]

"I recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual." - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

"APK, thanks for such a great guide. This would, and should, be an inspiration to such security measures. Also, the pc that has "tweaks": IS STILL GOING! NO PROBLEMS!" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=3 [xtremepccentral.com]

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

http://forums.theplanet.com/index.php?s=80bbbffc22d358de6b01b8450d596746&showtopic=89123&st=60&start=60 [theplanet.com]

"the use of the hosts file has worked for me in many ways. for one it stops ad banners, it helps speed up your computer as well. if you need more proof i am writing to you on a 400 hertz computer and i run with ease. i do not get 200++ viruses and spy ware a month as i use to. now i am lucky if i get 1 or 2 viruses a month. if you want my opinion if you stick to what APK says in his article about securing your computer then you will be safe and should not get any viruses or spy ware, but if you do get hit with viruses and spy ware then it will your own fault. keep up the good fight APK." - Kings Joker, user of my guide @ THE PLANET

(This LAST gents' testimonial IS an "interesting case": He is running Windows 2000 no less, with NO SERVICE PACKS &/or HOTFIXES present either, and no antivirus OR antispyware programs running resident "in the background" constantly either, in order to test the efficacy of a custom blocking HOSTS file vs. malware makers "wares & 'heinous machinations'", & so far, for over 1/2 yr. now? Those are his results above... not bad, eh? Certainly a huge IMPROVEMENT, & just by using a custom HOSTS file that's kept up to date, daily, from reputable sources, vs. known BAD sites &/or servers...)

----

(Those results are only a SMALL SAMPLING TOO, mind you - I can produce more such results, upon request, from other users & sites online)

APK

P.S.=> People here with their "anti-microsoft/anti-Windows" take on things amaze me in their "one-sided zealotry", they really do (especially when they say "down with Windows" etc./et al, but, don't back up anything said of that nature with some facts/figures/analysis).

Fact is, is this: MOST every modern OS can be secured far, Far, FAR BETTER than they come "oem stock", & things like SeLinux show anyone this much in the Linux world alone!

(That is, IF you take the time to activate it, if it is NOT active by default (not every distro of Linux has it "bolted on", or even turned on & if it is? It still can be "security-hardened" more))

Just as the security guides Apple provides for MacOS X users on their website which goes FAR ABOVE & BEYOND the std. oem stock/out of the box setup of MacOS X!

(Actually, the guide @ Apple for security hardening MacOS X is much like the guide's points I put up for Windows users (which, once more/can't stress this enough, uses the CIS Tool & that extends to many *NIX variants also (sorry, no MacOS X though) such as Linux, Solaris, & other BSD variants too - NOT just Windows only!))... apk

Re:He said what? (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523902)

If Microsoft execs aren't already aware of that, they should be fired. Part of managing a company is knowing your weaknesses.

I think by the time you get to the C-level execs, it's more about leveraging your synergies and maximizing your returns.

They don't likely know much about the technology, and believing in the company and drinking the Kool-Aid is mandatory.

In their mind, they produce high quality goods. The best there is.

Re:He said what? (1)

Trent Hawkins (1093109) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524226)

Makes you wonder why all the white house staff have brand new I-pads.

Re:He said what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32524230)

Oh hell no he di'n't.

CALLING ALL SHILLS CALLING ALL SHILLS... Westlake, Blakeyrat, Soppsa, FuckingNickName, HalPorter and the rest of the Redmondian hordes!! Scurry out of your holes! The mothership needs you now!!11 It's time to lay down some 'turf and we got a whole forklift full for ya!

Microsoft Weak Link ... (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523552)

Film at 11.

I mean, seriously, it's the most widely used OS on the planet. It's also the most likely target.

Re:Microsoft Weak Link ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523914)

False.

It may be the most widely used desktop OS, but once you include servers and small devices, Linux beats it easily.

Windows is widely used where it matters (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524234)

[Windows] may be the most widely used desktop OS, but once you include servers and small devices, Linux beats it easily.

Compared to home desktop PCs, servers are more likely to be administered by someone with a clue about locking down and updating the system. Small mobile devices have only a sporadic connection to the Internet, much like home PCs in the dial-up era, and many use an executable whitelist managed by the device maker. So barring a security hole in something like a home router appliance, desktop PCs running Windows are likely the juiciest targets for establishing a botnet.

Re:Microsoft Weak Link ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523926)

So you claim that attacks are proportional to how widely used it is. Why don't you also claim that bug reports come proportionally faster? Or that its security should be proportional to how much profit they make from it?

Re:Microsoft Weak Link ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523950)

Actually, no. There was a /. article some years ago saying it was one that gets used in all kinds of devices. But you meant personal computers no doubt.

and a good easy target it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32524162)

yup considering that more people use apache for servers that must mean that the targeting of home users has a vaule surpassing all the millions of creditcards on linux and apache servers?

OR is it jsut easier to target windows?

YUP film at 11

Re:and a good easy target it is (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524220)

Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that people who run windows are more likely to be the kind of idiots who click the link to see dancing bunnies than a linux admin.

No shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523558)

anyone could have told you this.

Microsoft's Business (5, Insightful)

HeX314 (570571) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523568)

One of my computer science professors once stated, quite succinctly, that Microsoft was not in business to make a quality operating system (or quality product). They are in business to make money.

On a related note, if they were in business to make a quality operating system, they would have a tough time selling "upgrades."

Re:Microsoft's Business (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523618)

One of my computer science professors once stated, quite succinctly, that Microsoft was not in business to make a quality operating system (or quality product). They are in business to make money.

What a stupid statement that is complete tautology. The entire point of starting a business is to make money. Otherwise the business *ahem* goes out of business.

Re:Microsoft's Business (4, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523642)

The entire point of starting a business is to make money.

This is false. While a company needs to make money to be successful, this is not the only reason for a company to exist. And I thought I was jaded.

Re:Microsoft's Business (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523764)

The entire point of a business is to provide goods and services for money. Otherwise you're running an NPO.

Re:Microsoft's Business (4, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524124)

The entire point of a business is to provide goods and services for money. Otherwise you're running an NPO.

No, the real world's not binary like that. Plenty of people running businesses not just (or not at all) for the money. Yes, the balance sheet at the end of every month needs to be right, but there's a huge difference between lots of profit, and enough to get by.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524144)

The entire point of a business is to provide goods and services for money. Otherwise you're running an NPO.

Logically defending Microsoft's profit motive!? You're not being a very good Linux Nutcase right now. Here, let me help you with that:

We agree the entire point of a business is to make money. Since that's the entire point then there is no fraction of a point for them to even make or support an operating system. Therefore Microsoft, being a business, has no point in making an operating system because all of its energies are concentrated on this nebulous "profit" or "prophet" if we're talking about Apple. Therefore Windows does not and cannot exist. It was just a bad nightmare that everyone had now let's all collectively wake up.

*picks up glass of cyanide flavored koolaid*

Who's ready to 'wake up' with me?

I think that demonstrates my qualifications. Please e-mail me the credentials to that account and I'll take good care of her.

Re:Microsoft's Business (3, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524072)

This is false. While a company needs to make money to be successful, this is not the only reason for a company to exist.

Agreed. Though a more important question, as far as I am concerned, is whether or not something as important, and voluntarily, as computer/network/internet infrastructure should be run for profit (specifically government/utility system software/hardware). One could argue that there is a financial incentive for companies to make a good product, but time and time again it seems that companies are happy sacrificing the long term for short term profit. Even when that means taking short cuts that risk creating significant problems down the road. Thankfully my country, Norway, has decided to start shifting all software used by the state over to Open Standard alternatives.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523718)

On a related note, if they were in business to make a quality operating system, they would have a tough time selling "upgrades."

Not necessarily. It would just mean that they would have to work harder to design and develop new features that continue to improve functionality & ease of use while maintaining those high quality standards.

Re:Microsoft's Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523838)

I believe the op is referring to security related upgrades in windows, such as uac. In my opinion, it would be very hard to release these changes without charging, but extremely good for the os ecosystem.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523796)

Ahhhh yes.... it's what I call the Greed Creed factor! Just about every major company in the world is now engaged in more more more... well more for THEM, and less for us. Take the phone company, ATT. Their mission is to make profits for their stockholders. That is primary. Everything else, like providing quality service at an affordable price, and efficient customer service, is secondary. Yeah, they'll give you a dial tone, but what they really want it to give you a bill. Why do we have the slowest and most expensive broadband in the civilized world? Because while the technology exists to make it faster and cheaper, doing so would actually mean spending money, which, of course would interfere with the number one goal of making money!

News aggregators are another great example. They don't produce anything. Just gather up the pieces, perhaps in a unique way, display them on a page with lots of ads, and get paid basically for producing not one iota of content.

Until we reach the tipping point were providing goods and services is the number one goal of every company, as opposed to profits, The middle class will continue to shrink into oblivion.

Trust me, the next civil war won't be about left or right, about conservative vs liberal, black vs white(or any other color combination), but the have vs the have nots.

It will be about money, and it won't be pretty.

Re:Microsoft's Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32524030)

It will be about money, and it won't be pretty.

Every war is about money.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

IsaacD (1376213) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524054)

So, if the "next civil war ... will be about money", doesn't that also indicate that the "have nots" are greedy themselves? Why is greed a negative property only for the "haves"? If the "have nots" win this civil war and end up with everything that the "haves" once had, are the "have nots-become-haves" then greedy? Doesn't the fact that these "have nots" are willing to go to war over money indicate an insatiable desire for the "haves" monies serve as a perfect example of greed?

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

Rudeboy777 (214749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524172)

News aggregators are another great example. They don't produce anything. Just gather up the pieces, perhaps in a unique way, display them on a page with lots of ads, and get paid basically for producing not one iota of content.

Presenting the pieces in a unique and useful way IS the product. Subpar news aggregators fail due to lack of viewers while sites that have figured out appealing ways to do this (Slashdot, Digg, Reddit and plenty more) get the eyeballs.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523808)

Every business is in business to make money. Some businesses make money by selling a premium product at a premium price. Others, like Microsoft, make money by selling a good enough product at a competitive price.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

Rusty KB (1778458) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523852)

You can't really call it a competitive price when the competition is free. It's good enough for a premium, at best.

Re:Microsoft's Business (2, Interesting)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524268)

You can't really call it a competitive price when the competition is free. It's good enough for a premium, at best.

Prof. Lester C. Thurow said in his book "Head To Head" that it isn't about price or quality, but market share. Once you achieve the greatest share, you can control the market. Whether the product improves or not, only time will tell. Anyone who tries to enter the market has to have a better product at a lower cost than the holder of the market share. Although this is no guarantee of acceptance. This is how the Japanese got a foothold in the American auto industry, (but not in Europe) with cheap, crap automobiles. Over time, they improved in quality and the price went up. But then again, look at all the recalls. Market share can control the price. The product, quality, price don't really matter.

Re:Microsoft's Business (2, Insightful)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523812)

One of my computer science professors once stated, quite succinctly, that Microsoft was not in business to make a quality operating system (or quality product). They are in business to make money.
On a related note, if they were in business to make a quality operating system, they would have a tough time selling "upgrades."

That's horseshit. When someone makes a better OS than MS, I'll start believing these stories. The level of complexity between Windows and OSX is incomparable. OSX works on like 5 hardware configurations, while windows will run on pretty much any hardware. OSX doesn't have enterprise level support/management, and it's arguable that the only reason that OSX is more "secure" is simply because they are less of a target.

Linux may have some technical merit, but is a mess where people without advanced computer skills are left in the dark. Sure windows had bugs, but many of those aren't MS's fault, but rather venders that write crap drivers.

P.S. MS is having problems selling upgrades. Why do you think ~90% of businesses are still on XP? Because it was/is a useable, relatively stable OS that did what people wanted. You can say what you want about MS, but the fact is, they are the best OS for Businesses, and most consumers. When OSX works for more than a handfull of hardware configs, I'll take it seriously. When Linux is usable by joe user, I'll take it seriously. Until then, we have MS.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

pitdingo (649676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523942)

Wow. So you are saying the number of drivers determines the complexity of the OS? Wow. Just wow.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524050)

No. I'm saying that Enterprise level features like AD do. I'm saying that supporting millions of different hardware configurations does, and I'm saying that only supporting a handfull of hardware configurations sure makes things easier.

Re:Microsoft's Business (2, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524150)

I'm saying that supporting millions of different hardware configurations does

And a large portion of that hardware is nominally standards-compliant. Not saying you're wrong, but it's a monitor lizard, not Godzilla.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524260)

So you are saying the number of drivers determines the complexity of the OS?

Yes. If a defect in some classes of device driver is exploitable, it can be used by a computer criminal to wedge open systems with that device and add them to a botnet.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

Rudeboy777 (214749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523976)

You praise Microsoft for "running on any hardware" while that is the vendors' drivers responsibility (and open standards such as SATA, PCI, USB). At least Apple owns the driver quality themselves ensuring OSX does not have problems like those seen when Vista was young.

While you sit and wait for OSX to work on "more than a handful of hardware configurations" to "take it seriously", Microsoft themselves have identified Apple as a clear and present danger for several years now and are scrambling to catch up (and failing often, witness Zune for example).

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524118)

Is there some reason you completely changed the subject to a completely different product type in your last sentence?

I listened to the whole WWDC keynote yesterday. Jobs didn't mention ANYTHING new for the Mac. It appears to be a dying platform.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524134)

AFAIK, Apple is not in a position, nor has the desire to enter the enterprise market where MS makes a large portion of their money. MS is not going anywhere in the forseeable future. The Zune was unquestionably a flop. Apple has a great foothold in the consumer market, but in the business world they are barely even a player.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

IsaacD (1376213) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524216)

"...when Vista was young" Why you bringing up old shit?

Re:Microsoft's Business (1)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524266)

If you have ever had to work on a piece of software with any level of complexity you'd understand how difficult it can be to try to include just .1% of the fringe conditions you have to support. I recently worked on a piece of software that was decently complex managing several many to many relationships. The first iteration of what I did was able to handle 95% of all conditions it was expected 100% of the time, and met everyone of its written requirements. But as it was used and those other 5% fringe conditions were presented it choked, and so things had to be redone. Trying to get that last 5% to work easily doubled or tripled its level of complexity. And this has fairly controlled inputs, unlike MS's OSs.

Re:Microsoft's Business (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524282)

You praise Microsoft for "running on any hardware" while that is the vendors' drivers responsibility (and open standards such as SATA, PCI, USB).

The praise directed at Microsoft is for managing to convince hardware vendors to put a Windows driver on the included CD and not include a Linux driver.

Re:Microsoft's Business (1, Insightful)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524014)

This is all true. Microsoft is learning, painfully slowly, how to construct a better network operating system. I think Windows 7 (or maybe Vista...sort of skipped that one) is their first OS that requires an initial password to proceed with installation. Something as basic as requiring a password for your administrator account...and it was left out for over a decade, despite security issues in the news again and again.

With the latest Windows 7, Microsoft may finally be getting security right, at least from a basic viewpoint. How innately hackable their system is even with a strong password I'm not certain. But at least you can't just wander into anyone's box anymore.

As far as usability in terms of day-to-day as well as configuration both mundane and advanced, Windows blows away any OS out there. Well...MacOS is pretty good as a user OS. It's a ridiculous choice for enterprise use because of its weak management tools. Apple does have some tools, but they aren't nearly as good as what MS puts out. I haven't seen any of the Linux Enterprise management tools. We just use Puppet.

Re: Microsoft's Business (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524074)

Linux may have some technical merit, but is a mess where people without advanced computer skills are left in the dark.

The same can be said of Windows. People ask me for help with their Windows computers all the time, but I can rarely help because I don't often use anything besides Linux, and contrary to what you'd like to believe, there's nothing inherently intuitive about the way Windows works.

Re:Microsoft's Business (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524084)

The level of complexity between Windows and OSX is incomparable. OSX works on like 5 hardware configurations, while windows will run on pretty much any hardware

Yup, OS X only runs on three hardware platforms; ARM, PowerPC, and x86. Five if you count the 64-bit variants of PPC and x86 as different. Windows runs on x86, x86-64, and PowerPC (XBox). It used to run on MIPS and Alpha as well, but hasn't since NT 4.

Or are you talking about device drivers? Because I hope that you realise that most of these are provided by the hardware manufacturers, rather than by Microsoft. So, your argument for Windows' superiority is that more third parties support it? That's certainly a valid reason for using it, but not really an indication of its intrinsic quality.

Oh really? (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524258)

Try to install Windows on a powerpc. Thank you, thanks for playing. Retard. Since when is x86 all there is?

Re:Microsoft's Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523822)

+5 insightful? Ok I'm going back to Digg.

Re: Microsoft's Business (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524044)

One of my computer science professors once stated, quite succinctly, that Microsoft was not in business to make a quality operating system (or quality product). They are in business to make money.

More specifically, a stock pyramid, though that model has faltered in recent years.

Feature creep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32524194)

There are a few things at work here..

In order to convince someone to fork over more money when the old version is adequate, the product must have better features (performance, stability, security, etc..). If a company's stock price and health is based upon how many products they sell, then they had better build in new features if they want to continue to sell that product.

On the same idea, if someone is considering two competing products, it is more likely that he will choose based on feature set rather than on suitability of purpose (with the idea that the more features a product has, the more suitable it can or will be to the task). When a market is saturated or close to saturation, the company then needs to add as many features as possible so that they can win over the niche buyers that are looking for very specific features. This is how products get bloated and MP3 players get added to word processors.

The alternative would be to use a subscription model. For some products that require periodic updates to remain useful (tax/business software affected by laws, zip code lookups, GPS, etc.) this is neutral to the customer. For other products it is essentially a lock-in, especially when a company that retains customers through proprietary formats or data enslavement rather than on quality and suitability.

I don't believe that Microsoft would purposefully build in bugs in order to drive their upgrade machine, but I do think that they will use new versions as an excuse not to update the old. They will also use proprietary formats, marginally legal business practices, deceptive advertising, tax loopholes, etc.. They are not unique though as this is how business operates.

On that note, they will also use cheaper support services. If everyone else in their "space" is saving money by outsourcing (at least initially) then the stock owners almost demand that they go that route, even if the quality suffers. Think of it like using a lawn cutting service... If you do a great job and charge $50 a cut you can probably gain a lot of customers. Pretty soon someone will see your prosperity and say, "Hey, I'll cut that lawn for $40." Some of your customers don't care so much about whether or not you sanitize your lawnmower blade before you cut their lawn, so they go to the new vendor. Maybe lots go. The lawn service guys then start competing on price rather than on quality, always looking for that group who are interested only in price. Pretty soon it's hard for you to charge $50 anymore and retain your customers.

First! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523570)

First!

No kidding? (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523574)

Why do I feel like Captain Obvious is being obvious here?

Microsoft is the Walmart of the software world. Cheap goods that a lot of people use. Of course they're the weak link.

Re:No kidding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523704)

Yes, i would agree, except for the the fact that it really isn't that cheap, and many consider it the best(if not only) thing to use.

It might be convenient to call Microsoft walmart, but it just isn't true.

Re:No kidding? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523836)

It's effectively true, because of all the subsidies the OEMs get for installing windows. Plus the perception of the average "consumer" is "I got windows free with my computer". So while the true cost of windows is huge, almost incalculably so, it's also "cheap", as in everyone gets it without any real effort and minimal up-front expense. Which actually, is exactly like Wal-Mart if you stop to think about it...

Re:No kidding? (1)

vcgodinich (1172985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523890)

Which is the same perception when you buy a Mac, or even a Linux PC from Dell, so what is the comparison?

Yes, dumb people think all software that comes pre-installed is "free", but they think that about ALL preinstalled software.By that token, Apple, Ubunto and ALL operating systems are exactly the same "cheap"

Re:No kidding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32524012)

Wait, which OS is on 99+% of all PCs in the store? And how much extra do people pay for an Apple?

IOW, DUH! You're not just wrong, you're completely stupid.

Re:No kidding? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524154)

So while the true cost of windows is huge, almost incalculably so,

What an insane assertion. Did you spill too much hyperbole into your oatmeal this morning?

Re:No kidding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32524290)

It is incalculably expensive in terms of lost productivity and losses due to security failures. If you really can't understand that then you just aren't very smart.

It is simple Darwinism (4, Interesting)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523598)

If you look at any ecosystem, you'll find that there are pests trying to gain a foothold into that system by exploiting a weakness. If there is only one type of organism, the pests will adapt and exploit the weakness of that organism. This is why you need ever more powerful pesticides when cultivatign monoculture crops such as corn, wheat or even soybeans.

Same goes for ecosystems of comptuers. Given 90% are running Wintendo, you find that the pests (virus and other exploit authors) take adavantage of that monoculture. The weaknesses are then exploited and have to be "patched" in order to ensure survival of data and/or systems.

Given an ecosystem with multiple operating systems - Windows, Linux, Unix/OSX, zOS - you'll find a greater ability to defend against continual threats.

Re:It is simple Darwinism (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523806)

There is more to it than that. A very carefully managed Windows system can certainly withstand a number of attacks, just like a carefully managed *nix system. The problem is that most Windows systems are not carefully managed, and a carelessly managed Windows system is much more vulnerable than a carelessly managed *nix system. Windows started out as a single user OS, and even though the NT kernel has everything necessary to support multiuser setups, it is very difficult for Microsoft to push better security as the default in Windows -- there are just too many people who have a habit of doing everything as "Administrator," and too much software the relies on that sort of behavior. Things have started to change, but Windows XP is still widely deployed.

Really, if Microsoft wanted to, they could start marketing an OS designed for security sensitive environments (perhaps with a compatibility mode that allows Windows software to run in some kind of VM), and leave Windows as a "home PC" operating system. The fact that they are not doing anything like that, despite the fact that MSR developed such an OS, speaks volumes about Microsoft's priorities.

Re:It is simple Darwinism (3, Interesting)

vcgodinich (1172985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523930)

The fact that at the recent history of security conferences, widows did just as well out of the box as *nix did, and OSX was breached with ease speaks volumes as well.

No matter WHAT MS does, it isn't going to be able to secure home PCs against "cyber warfare" from China. end of story. MS's security isn't bad at all, in fact it's years ahead of it's nearest competitor (OSX).

Re:It is simple Darwinism (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523940)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting any given Windows system cannot be hardened against attack. In fact, I put in many of the MS-Suggested safeguards when designing major systems back in 2000. They included never running as local admin, not allowing programs write access to any system or program files directories, using strong passwords, and using a firewall.

What I was suggesting is that the single-use of any OS - whether Windows, Linux, Unix or AmigaOS - would make an ecosystem far more vulnerable and expensive to ensure secure against attacks.

Re:It is simple Darwinism (5, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524058)

I would submit that most non-windows systems are also poorly managed.

The difference is monoculture vs diversity. Look at windows users, and you will find lots of people using the same tools. Outlook, as soon as a company installs exchange you can be sure that the vast majority will be using outlook to connect to it. You find a vulnerability in outlook, or word, or a system service, and you can suddenly hit huge swaths of machines.

Now, Unix? You have multiple hardware architectures, distributions of even similar systems like Redhat and Debian Linux have made different choices for default daemons for various services. A hole in pine or mutt may not effect evolution users, or thunderbird users.

So in addition to a smaller audience, you get a smaller percentage of that audience.

to put it in business terms, the ROI of windows vulnerability exploits is just higher. That is, unless you are targeting a specific system, in which case, well, I know that where I work, many more windows servers exist than the entire unix environment, but, the Unix environment has a higher percentage of the mission critical (or more to the point, patient care critical) servers.

So thats not to say there isn't definite ROI on such attacks, it can even be higher. However, I don't think that such attacks realy factor into this discussion since specific attacks on specific machines for their content is the exception rather than the rule for most systems/users.

-Steve

TROLL? WTF?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32524068)

I'm not the poster. Whoever marked this as troll is a fucking jackass. This was a succinct and excellent post.

Re:It is simple Darwinism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523818)

Evolution needs to be undisturbed to work. You implying that the competitors should be adopted because it will heighten security through obscurity is Design, not evolution. Evolution picks the best choice from a group, and right now that choice is Microsoft.

Don't preach evolution if you aren't happy with the results.

Re:It is simple Darwinism (1)

Midnight's Shadow (1517137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524060)

Evolution needs to be undisturbed to work. You implying that the competitors should be adopted because it will heighten security through obscurity is Design, not evolution. Evolution picks the best choice from a group, and right now that choice is Microsoft.

Don't preach evolution if you aren't happy with the results.

Not quite right. Evolution needs pressure to work which arise through imposed forces which can be applied by nature or by humans. Evolution also does not necessarily pick the best choice, it picks the choice that has the greatest success of producing offspring. Human caused cows to evolve to their current state even though the cows would now never survive in the wilderness right now.

The OP is very much correct, by having a computer ecosystem with multiple OS's, there is a greater ability to defend against continual threats. Think of it like a forest full of one type of tree which is much more likely to get wiped out by a single contagion then a forest of many types of trees.

Summary misdirected (4, Insightful)

ATestR (1060586) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523668)

For once, I RTFA. The summary seemed interesting. However, the FA was even more interesting, although it had little to do with all the money that Microsoft had in its back pocket, and how it's market dominance was based on low cost products.

The main thrust of the FA, for those of you who don't want to click the link, is that because the Windows OS is so prevalent in civilian and corporate usage, a Cyberattack could devastate the economy (and western civilization).

Re:Summary misdirected (2, Insightful)

vcgodinich (1172985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523858)

Implying the Microsoft products are prevalent because they are "low cost" is absurd.

Granted, OSX in use is a bit pricier, but not -that- much, and Unix/Linux is as close to free as you can get.

Microsoft isn't low cost at all, if anything, it is high cost in a great many areas.

Re:Summary misdirected (1)

ATestR (1060586) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524106)

Agreed. I don't consider MS products particularly low cost, but it was the hope that I could rag on this observation (of the original summary) that led me to RTFA.

Re:Summary misdirected (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32524114)

Cost is not just the cost of the box.
Let us say, as a business, I want to run some servers.
A quick look over at a job site: Windows Admins - £25-30k, Unix - £30-45k.

Re:Summary misdirected (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524236)

If you think of cost in terms of both $$$ and time, then I think probably Windows is the least cost solution. I think the majority if home computer owners get turned off by the higher price tag of OSX machines, and are pushed toward the Windows and Linux price points. Then they consider that they don't know anything about Linux works, but do know that since most of their past computing experiences have been on previous versions of Windows they can probably figure out the new version pretty quickly.

I think the average Joe american that walks into Best Buy for a new home computer looks to Windows for a cheaper product that "just works".

Re:Summary misdirected (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524166)

So he's saying that a monoculture is less secure than a heterogeneous environment? Wow, it's almost as if he's listened to what security experts have been saying for the last few decades...

Re:Summary misdirected (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524206)

That applies to any monoculture, from corn to poultry. Consider this example [canadianpoultrymag.com] .

Lack of genetic variation, simply put, equals greater risk. Members of a population that shares the same set of genes can all be overcome by a disease, but if a population’s members contain different gene sets, there is a chance some will survive.

Unfortunately monocultures are convenient, even in IT.

I disagree (5, Insightful)

2names (531755) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523680)

I am not a Microsoft fan, but I believe the weak link has much more to do with the meat sitting in front of the computer than the software on the computer.

Re:I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523782)

I am not a Microsoft fan,

"Yes you are!"
  - Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw

Re:I disagree (2, Interesting)

axl917 (1542205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523828)

I am not a Microsoft fan, but I believe the weak link has much more to do with the meat sitting in front of the computer than the software on the computer.

Well, that gets to the issue of who bears the responsibility; that which sells a poor but patchable/fixable product, or the buyer who is ignorant of the necessary fixes?

Is this more like owning a house, where the owner is responsible for regularly checking the foundations for cracks, the locks for security, etc... Or more like owning a car, where the owner is still responsible, but the manufacturer builds in many, many indicators and warnings when things need attention?

Re:I disagree (2, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524178)

This is why I think and greatly fear that closed systems may end up in our future on mainstream computing just due to the dancing bunny problem.

Device operating systems are moving that way where if one wants to run stuff on a smartphone, it must pass a gatekeeper, either always like in the case of Windows Phone 7 or iOS, or a reactive system with an after the fact kill switch like Android has.

Because Joe Sixpack doesn't care about security, it really doesn't matter what OS he uses. He will su to root, log on as Administrator, turn the key and logon as SECOFR on AS/400, or whatever superuser access requires for the website that has the pr0n viewer to be installed. It doesn't matter what the OS is, the dancing bunnies "security hole" is going to kick any OS in the ass. This is one reason why closed environments such as on phones have a lot fewer security issues -- unless Joe Sixpack roots/jailbreaks the device (which will be past his competency and too much trouble in most cases), he most likely isn't going to get a Trojan because the Trojaned app would have had to pass some type of vetting first.

Yes, there are issues where one can get affected through a hole in a browser or add-ons. However, the advantage of a closed system is that if done right (where the OS has DEP, ASLR, and other base level ways to prevent code injection), sneaking executable code on a device is not going to work.

Maybe the compromise in the PC world will be going to a hypervisor based system admin access is available, but it takes some deliberate doing to get a superuser prompt, and applications are installed in VMs, where the compatible OS files are stored as an image. With decent deduplication, the OS files only need to be stored once, so installing a program into its own VM where it can only see what is present there, and perhaps files in a shared directory may end up being what is done. This way, a user ends up never needing admin access, and a Trojan is only limited to that VM.

cyber(sic) WAR (another US invention) (0, Offtopic)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523706)

Boy, I just can't wait to have the web screwed up even more, by a series of "state secret" over-reactions and lies.

First the spying goes up
Then costs go up
Then some event happens
Then more BS is rolled out in response

It won't matter what the truth is.

one sided (-1, Flamebait)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523800)

I feel I should point out once again that if Apple or Linux was the #1 most popular with like a 75%+ market share, they'd be the horribly insecure ones that are getting hacked all the time. It's not about the product quality, it's about what thousands of foreign programmers are targetting because they're going to find a security hole eventually no matter what system it is.

Re:one sided (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32523934)

Why do you people always say this? Windows is the Single-User system botched into a multi-user environment, not Unix.

Re:one sided (1)

mesanchez (1829880) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523966)

I feel I should point out once again that if Apple or Linux was the #1 most popular with like a 75%+ market share, they'd be the horribly insecure ones that are getting hacked all the time. It's not about the product quality, it's about what thousands of foreign programmers are targetting because they're going to find a security hole eventually no matter what system it is.

Foreign programmers? really? there are no american hackers? Damn', i was sure that there were hackers everywhere

Low quality products? (-1, Flamebait)

mesanchez (1829880) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523826)

I don't think Microsoft makes low quality software, if fact, the market share that Microsoft owns it's because they make the best products, you can't deny that. I just bought a Windows 7 Ultimate license, i've been using it for some time now and i hadn't any problem, great performance, no malware infection. I've tried Ubuntu Linux 10.04, and it has drivers problems, it's quite hard to install some software (FlashPlayer for the 64 bits), it hangup a couple of times (which didn't happened at all with Windows). If other software were better than Microsoft's i think a lot of people had changed to it (specially to Linux since it's free and open source)

Microsoft created this problem (3, Insightful)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523894)

But then, to a large extent they helped popularize the PC which became ubiquitous and hence became worthy of attack. The PC also became a reasonably standard platform upon which Linux etc. could be developed and cheap enough that we can all afford to own one and join in the fun. It is by no means certain that this would have happened otherwise because I don't believe security is the enemy of profit, in fact I think we'll see a future where security tightens to the point where hardware will be locked to only run a certain OS - where will Linux be then ?

Re:Microsoft created this problem (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524208)

in fact I think we'll see a future where security tightens to the point where hardware will be locked to only run a certain OS - where will Linux be then ?

Linux will be running on hardware locked to only run Linux.

Interesting (4, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523896)

All of the money spent on lobbying the government against using Linux would have been much better spent on developing a reliable, secure operating system. The shortsightedness of large corporation never ceases to amaze me. Since they spent all of this money on lobbying, which ultimately was unsuccessful, they had to spend money on securing Windows anyway. So, Microsoft spent a large sum of money in total, when they could have just made a better product to being with.

Weak links (2, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 4 years ago | (#32523944)

I might argue that many operating systems would be wink links in the cyber warfare scheme. The most noteable exception would be OpenBSD. If I were in a decision-making capacity, I would reach out to Theo de Raadt, apologize for the way we previously treated him, and get him started immediately in developing a secure network. He and his team seem to have the understanding of security from the lowest level possible. The current en-vogue trend, end-point security, is useless if your web application leaks memory. Ostensibly, you would need a hole in the end-point to reach the application and that gets exploited opening the network wide open.

The weak link is old Software (3, Insightful)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524100)

There's nothing wrong with the newer rounds of MS software; the problem is the older stuff, which as time goes further back, tends to get less & less secure (all the way to Win98/95 which actually had no security at all).

Even now I occasionally run into boxen running thoroughly rooted Windows.....98. That's your problem.

Is Microsoft Considered (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32524110)

a botnet?

Yours In L.A.,
Kilgore Trout

Microsoft is the market leader. (3, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524120)

As such you would expect them to excel at security nowadays since it seems a very big concern amongst most users. Still their security efforts are pretty laid back and half assed. Microsoft dont take security seriously, its a pr problem for them at the most.

As a market leader one would expect Windows spanking Linux, BSD and Apples behinds but in reality Windows security sucks. Not because its more prevalent but because its a sitting duck. At Microsoft, features and ease of development has always stood higher than security on the priority lists. The only thing that can change that is monetary pressure like demand for accountability of their products. Until then, Microsoft security is a game of statistics, lies and damn statistics.

emm... (0, Troll)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524126)

What's Microsoft? Something I have to know? o_0

Corruption to the max (1)

Mantis8 (876944) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524200)

From the headline: "Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods". That does not make any sense. WHO in their right minds would knowingly buy a low-quality good (unless they were broke, but then Micro$oft has not quite been known as a discount reseller)? There is no reasonable way any company would be "incredibly successful" and gain "market dominance" with crappy products unless some other stronger force was over riding good common sense and competing by the rules.

This really smacks of corruption, plain and simple.

The love of money is the root of all evil. (I timothy 6:10)

Thanks Micro$oft.

Microsoft holes need the publicity (1)

Self Programmed (701435) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524232)

Not new to us, but I still find those who want to stand by their Microsoft, because they are uncomfortable with the unfamiliar alternatives. Microsoft is a weak link in every computer security issue because they continue to put wide-open holes into their system in order to be all encompassing. I believe that they just consider the few that get attacked and taken as being acceptable losses, and look at the masses of the herd (where they make their money). Someone at the higher levels of government making this public may have several effects: 1) Embarrass Microsoft to not stupidly repeat the same mistakes (maybe). 2) Start some agenda towards minimum standards for security. 3) Show that there are more secure alternatives, and make them more familiar.

i'm still waiting for the warhol worm (2, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524244)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhol_worm [wikipedia.org]

one of these days, some genius asshole is going to, just for the lulz, shut down the whole goddamn internet in 15 minutes. he or she is going to it with a worm that, of course, will be based on something in the microsoft constellation of oses/ products/ third party software. perhaps from our other security averse friend, adobe

i thought it was going to be code red or sql slammer, but no, these infections were content to zombify, not zombify and enslave the nonzombies (see below):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Red_(computer_worm) [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_Slammer [wikipedia.org]

enslave the nonzombies: of course there are other oses out there, but they are in the minority. so listen up genius asshole: whoever writes this worm will cleverly make sure that all compromised systems DDOS non-microsoft os ip addresses on purpose. sql slammer and code red just blindly reached out to all ips and latched on to any promiscuous microsoft bitches that proved to be receptive to getting fucked. but you, oh genius asshole, will take note of those ips which defy you and share this list dynamically and automatically in real time between your other pwn3d machines

if a machine does not respond to your rude advances to be fucked, or can otherwise be quickly and reliably sniffed out as a non-microsoft os ip, punish the defiant, hard and cruel

you leveraging your growing zombie horde of microsoft os monoculturalism to mount a directed attack on nonmicrosoft machines. DDOS the responsible and the vigilant. leverage the power of the insecure to take down the secure. if the bitch won't fuck you, slap that bitch. if they will not be defeated, then they will be enslaved in a deluge of requests until they succumb. none shall survive, all shall be zombified or enslaved

and therefore completely wipe out the whole goddamn internet. for the lulz, you see

i'm still waiting, and when it happens, even though my means of livelihood is based on the internet, i'll be clapping and eating popcorn, reveling in the sheer armageddon horror of it all. awesome dude!

so where are you, genius asshole? make it happen

please don't let it happen for some insipid mundane making-up-for-my-small-penis-through-nationalism reason like cyberwarfare between usa/ russia/ china/ iran. that would be boring. nationalism is fucking retarded

get it done FOR THE LULZ my genius asshole friend, where ever you are. i'm waiting to be adequately entertained by global internet meltdown. MAKE IT HAPPEN

You can't have secure AND popular (3, Interesting)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#32524294)

For software to be used by "everyone" it must put as few complications as possible between its users and their objectives. Since most people's objectives are focussed on results, not security, if you try to make an operating system or application suite secure, people will find a simpler, more direct way of achieving their goals. One where their perceived balance of speediness and security (i.e. as fast as possible and damn the consequences) is met.

Once you get away from using popular applications and O/S's, the price rises incredibly quickly. Instead of spreading (say) a billion dollar development costs across 100 million product sales, you have maybe 10,000 customers who can be persuaded to pay for a product. This immediately means no-one will buy it unless forced to by law, or unless they can in turn, pass on the costs to their customers. The smaller market also means there will be fewer suppliers - probably just one. Which in turn will drive up costs due to lack of competition and decrease any incentives to fix problems or develop new wares in a timely fashion.

We know what a secure operating system for the year 2010 will look like. It will look like VMS from 1995, for all the reasons discussed above. Now, which are we prepared to pay for: Microsoft products on every store shelf, running the country or critical systems with the security, features, lack of connectivity from the mid-90s?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...