Beta
×

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 Opens Source Code To KGB's Successor Agency

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the we'll-trade-for-american-spyware dept.

Windows 187

Jack Spine writes "Microsoft has struck a deal with the Russian government which will give the FSB, successor to the KGB, access to the source code for Windows 7, among other products. The agreement is an extension of Microsoft's Government Security Program, according to a source with links to the UK government."

cancel ×

187 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In russia (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849236)

First post makes you...

Re:In russia (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849246)

beat me to it...

Re:In russia (0, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849276)

In Soviet Russia, you beat you to it!

in soviet russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849650)

AC's moderate you! But in slashdot, they just mod u down.

Re:In russia (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849338)

In soviet Amerika, Obama health care plans you!

Re:In russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32850438)

Which you will think is a good thing the next time you need it.

security holes of releasing source code (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849244)

yay, so now the Russians will know all the holes in Windows 7 and how to exploit them, no?

Re:security holes of releasing source code (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849268)

They've already provided it to the Chinese (and the British, not sure who else). That means that the Russians and Chinese can look for and exploit holes in Windows. Last I heard (which, admittedly, was around 2002), the source code that they provide is not enough to build a complete Windows system, and the license does not permit building it, only reviewing it, so this only lets you find (but not fix) accidental flaws, not malicious ones.

Basically, they get all of the disadvantages of open source security, but none of the advantages.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1, Insightful)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849314)

Last I heard (which, admittedly, was around 2002), the source code that they provide is not enough to build a complete Windows system, and the license does not permit building it, only reviewing it, so this only lets you find (but not fix) accidental flaws, not malicious ones.

What use is it anyway then? I gather the russians (and brits, americans, chinese) want to be able to fully review the software in order to clear it for national security, what would be the point of only getting 90% of the code, and being allowed to build from it?

i'd say a specific linux build for national security sensitive applications is in order, in every country which might want to stop the US or MS from spying in their stuff (which is everyone, including the US themselves)

Re:security holes of releasing source code (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849348)

The point of it is being able to review certain critical parts, for instance many of the governments require cryptographical reviews before an OS can be used by certain sections of the government and this sort of code access allows that. The intention is not for a government to go trawling through the entire source trees but to instead allow them review code that is necessary to follow whatever guidelines and legislation is applicable for that country. Do you really think most countries have any interest in reviewing all the code in windows? or even in linux or any other OS for that matter? the size of such a task would be beyond belief and a constantly moving target.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850324)

Do you really think most countries have any interest in reviewing all the code in windows?

If you can't compile the code into a working binary using the same compiler that was used to produce the production binary because you're missing parts, then you can't be sure that the source code you have represents the binary you're using. You have take Microsoft's word for it, and it's not like the rep you're talking to is the actual guy who manages the build, so even he doesn't actually know for sure.

An incomplete set of source is absolutely useless for a true security audit.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849504)

i'd say a specific linux build for national security sensitive applications is in order, in every country which might want to stop the US or MS from spying in their stuff (which is everyone, including the US themselves)

And what if you want to stop China, Russia or Google from "spying on your stuff"?

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850108)

The same, i was implying that since MS is US based, the various TLAs from the US have the best chances of acquiring a back door into windows

Sure, russia et all might be able to find a peephole in their limited view of the source, but if there are any real TLA backdoors, they will be in the parts the russians dont get

Re:security holes of releasing source code (3, Insightful)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849658)

i'd say a specific linux build for national security sensitive applications is in order

Try setting SE Linux to "enabled".

Re:security holes of releasing source code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849860)

"enforcing"
Enabled is not an option, disabled and permissive are ;)

Re:security holes of releasing source code (4, Informative)

cappp (1822388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849318)

Russia is just being added to a rather long list of countries in this regard. Playing a little link-hopping [zdnet.co.uk] tells us that both NATO and 30 countries (including the UK) have made similar deals with Microsoft albeit in refence to older technology. I would assume that all of those entities have similar updates to their agreements.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (2, Funny)

dintech (998802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849880)

Yes, but I'm looking forward to Vindows 7.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849350)

Basically, they get all of the disadvantages of open source security, but none of the advantages.

?

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

General Wesc (59919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849446)

Basically, they get all of the disadvantages of open source security, but none of the advantages.

?

People can find security holes and exploit them, but they can't find security holes and fix them. (They can, however, find security holes and report them, so...)

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849634)

Imho finding them / being aware of them would be an advantage, regardless of what's happening, atleast as far as the open-source model goes.

For them to be exploited by others, yeah, but I guess in the government cases they most likely see it as an advantage to be aware of them ..

I think it's hard to argue that still being exploitable and have the flaw but not being able to tell because you haven't got the source would be worse.

And I thought being able to look for flaws was an advantage, maybe even so than having the maintainer accept any fixes or whatever.

And I assume Microsoft would want to fix things if people reported them in.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849740)

And I assume Microsoft would want to fix things if people reported them in.

And you would be wrong [techrights.org] a lot. (One of many; Google is your friend, finding others is an exercise left to the reader.)

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

jcwayne (995747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849444)

Basically, they get all of the disadvantages of open source security, but none of the advantages.

There are NO disadvantages to open source security! Take that back, you big meanie!

Re:security holes of releasing source code (4, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849468)

Isn't it coincidental that the Chinese intelligence who received the source code suddenly had a lot of new Windows based 0-days and used them against US companies, Google mainly?

The blackhats have the source and can look for bugs and errors that they can exploit at will. The whitehats have to guess or blindly firewall, hope that there are no remote exploits, and put a lot of resources into perimeter security.

Maybe this is just another impetus for people and companies to move to UNIX based operating systems. Even a closed source offering like HP-UX or OS X (the pieces that are not open-sourced in Darwin or elsewhere) has been around such a long time that glaring show-stopper bugs are rare, and are usually limited to local exploits. This isn't to say things are perfect, but an exploit from remote like ssh is extremely rare on the UNIX side. To boot, UNIX variants have been getting a lot better at security, having ASLR, DEP, SELinux/AppArmor security policies, and other items to limit damage and spread of compromised code.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (2, Interesting)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849786)

I wondered why they bothered with Windows at all, given their previous movement towards Red Flag Linux [wikipedia.org] . I wonder if they did so just to find the vulnerabilities ...

Re:security holes of releasing source code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32850254)

Parent is twitter.

That is all.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850268)

I'm sure that MS wants the countries to both get tough on piracy, and sign onto ACTA, so throwing them a bone by giving them the source code access makes perfect sense.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849484)

The licence also doesn't permit pirating window either, guess what the chinese do

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850516)

...guess what the chinese do

Using Linux?

we need open source by law (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849486)

We should restrict copyright for software to require publication of the source code. You could still sell custom software without releasing the source code for everybody, but you'd be required to release the source code to your customers if you wanted copyright protections.

Re:we need open source by law (2, Insightful)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850186)

Why? The copyright protects a specific binary implementation. Are you implying that Microsoft's copyright protection should be extended to the method they use? That's what it sounds like.

Re:we need open source by law (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850370)

We should restrict copyright for software to require publication of the source code.

Why?

Re:security holes of releasing source code (3, Funny)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849768)

and the British, not sure who else

Indeed, old chap. And we will tip our bowler hats at you when we've stopped having a jolly good laugh at it.

"Gor blimey, luv-a-duck, Mary Poppins! 'av ya seen the state of those header files for Minesweeper!"

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850028)

They've already provided it to the Chinese (and the British, not sure who else).

I'm sure the US Govt has had it LONG since before those guys. One of those "but under the Patriot Act, we don't have to TELL you" kinds of things I'm sure. It's like a rootkit for the Constitution.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850168)

The idea isn't to find bugs, but to validate that there aren't back doors (at the behest of the NSA for example). However, without being able to build it, you can't tell if this really is the source code to the version of Windows you're running or not. A build test with a binary comparison would be a real assurance.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

origin2k (302035) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850360)

You don't need the source code to find holes to exploit! In fact some security researchers only care about having the released binaries. For more information read "Hacking: The Art of Exploitation". IIRC it has something to do with the fact that different; compilers, versions of same compiler, options to same compiler can all generate different binaries. So to truly exploit the code you need to know what instructions actually made it into the binary that people are using. That is why tools like IDA Pro are so useful.

 

Re:security holes of releasing source code (1)

AlexiaDeath (1616055) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849286)

Yep. And you don't because you are not given the source. Giving the source to some people is considerably more dangerous than not giving it to anybody, because the ones with the source have an advantage over everybody else in finding exploits and particular reason to disclose them...

Re:security holes of releasing source code (5, Funny)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849306)

Yeah, but Russia probably signed the same "We promise to hack Google first" agreement that China did, so from Microsoft's perspective it's win/win.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849652)

so now the Russians will know all the holes in Windows 7 and how to exploit them, no?

Them and every other hacker on the planet.

Re:security holes of releasing source code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32850048)

> yay, so now the Russians will know all the holes in Windows 7 and how to exploit them, no?

No, that's what M$ wants the Russian government and naïve folks to believe.

To the US government, the talks and code are somewhat different, I suppose (I also am not entitled to know "what really happened").

Available as a Torrent in 3... 2... 1... (4, Insightful)

Xtense (1075847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849248)

Available as a Torrent in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Available as a Torrent in 3... 2... 1... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849294)

Lawsuit in 1.. 0..

Re:Available as a Torrent in 3... 2... 1... (0, Flamebait)

Xtense (1075847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849300)

Pffffffaaahahahaahaha.

Oh wait, you're serious.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Re:Available as a Torrent in 3... 2... 1... (3, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849984)

And in which jurisdiction are you going to sue?

Re:Available as a Torrent in 3... 2... 1... (0, Redundant)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849364)

In Soviet Russia Information Wants To Be Suppressed, but Code Still Wants To Be Wrong!

Re:Available as a Torrent in 3... 2... 1... (3, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850526)

Don't you remember the big leak [kuro5hin.org] of Windows source code a few years ago?

Surprisingly, it didn't turn out to have any impact on anything, that I can tell.

I'm sure this will turn out well (5, Interesting)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849252)

I'm more afraid of the FSB selling or having the code stolen from them by Russian hackers than the FSB actually doing anything. They are mostly incompetent hacks either leftover from the 90's or put there to be yes-men to Putin policy. Putin would not stack the deck against himself so he has cut out most of the intelligence in the intelligence agencies, that is why you get things like the recent spy swap debacle where they could not even penetrate a PTA meeting let alone the Pentagon.

Re:I'm sure this will turn out well (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849526)

I tend to agree with your take on Putin.

And, wtf. Those poor Russians just can't seem to get a break. They've gone from totalitarian monarchy to communism. Yay, workers paradise, except when the revolutionary dust settled they were still under totalitarian rule.

And now that the confetti from the democratization celebration has blown away we are still looking at something remarkably similar to a dictatorship.

FSB is not "the" successor to the KGB (5, Interesting)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849258)

The FSB is approximately a third of the total KGB capability, with the FSO and SVR being the other legs of the triumvirate. The FSB, being the replacement for the former First Chief Directorate, is mostly responsible for internal security (counterintelligence, counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, action against dissenters.) I don't see how this deal with Microsoft could possibly threaten the US or US interests, except possibly in a peripheral way.

Re:FSB is not "the" successor to the KGB (2, Funny)

Divide By Zero (70303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849340)

Certainly they won't give it to whatever directorate's in charge of conducting espionage. Spies are the most honorable government officials there are, and nobody in Moscow's looking to get ahead by bending any rules.

Re:FSB is not "the" successor to the KGB (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849400)

Certainly they won't give it to whatever directorate's in charge of conducting espionage. Spies are the most honorable government officials there are, and nobody in Moscow's looking to get ahead by bending any rules.

I smell sarcasm.

Re:FSB is not "the" successor to the KGB (1)

chris mazuc (8017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849530)

Not one bit.

Re:FSB is not "the" successor to the KGB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849616)

Certainly they won't give it to whatever directorate's in charge of conducting espionage. Spies are the most honorable government officials there are, and nobody in Moscow's looking to get ahead by bending any rules.

I smell sarcasm.

I smell obvious and the recursion thereof...

Maybe this will help the russian spies. (1, Troll)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849368)

It will help with their IT troubles now that they will be given the complete sourcecode to Windows 7. This just goes to show me that Microsoft is evil. Stick to Open Source software. If It isn't open for everyone then something is wrong with that.

yeah, right (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849374)

because if the russian government (or any government) had an interest in using the source code for purposes beyond internal security, they would go "wait, we promised microsoft we would only use this domestically"

do you believe that? what exactly do you think motivates a government's actions?: protect the nation, at all costs, in any way possible. one way is to make false promises to naive parties and then promptly renege on them. but you write:

"I don't see how this deal with Microsoft could possibly threaten the US or US interests, except possibly in a peripheral way."

are you fucking serious? how naive and deluded are you?

the source code will soon be in the hands of ultranationalist russian hackers with marching orders to fashion a weapon or reveal a weakness out of anything they can find in the code. these hackers will be quasi-independent: no way to trace their activities back to the government. like the perfectly timed cyber attacks on georgia in 2008 as russian tanks rolled over the mountains or the cyberattacks on estonia because of a fucking statue. officially, of course, nothing to do with the government. yeah, right

you're a naive fool

Re:yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849450)

And they said Screaming Fist would never happen.

Re:FSB is not "the" successor to the KGB (2, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849406)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's put it in terms we can all understand, shall we? Are you saying that the FSB is like the Klingon ISF, while the FSO and SVR are the equivalent of the DSF [wikia.com] ?

Re:FSB is not "the" successor to the KGB (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850342)

No, the security forces in Russia are not characters in a TV show.

Re:FSB is not "the" successor to the KGB (0, Offtopic)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850536)

No, the security forces in Russia are not characters in a TV show.

Historical. Documents.

Threat is by counterpassivity, of course (1)

dragisha (788) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849536)

Less holes in MS products => less opportunities to US intelligence audit/influence.

Re:FSB is not "the" successor to the KGB (1, Troll)

yossarianuk (1402187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849790)

Using Windows is a bigger threat to US security than giving the Russian's the source code.

Re:FSB is not "the" successor to the KGB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32850504)

It doesn't matter anyway since the FSB was replaced a long time ago by HyperTransport and QuickPath.

Brilliant Idea (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849262)

Giving the OS source code to the Russians... what could go wrong?

Who can blame our "paranoia"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849274)

So now, how can we blame the US government for not trusting Microsoft products? ...or does this have something to do with the spy swap going on in Austria?

Soon it'll be a Linux First world if we don't all panik.

Equal opportunity (1)

Cynic2sceptic (106991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849278)

I like it, the question remains - will they aid MS in any way or just use the opportunity to secure their own enviroment.
Also, isn't it fairly likely that they have the sourcecode already?

In Soviet Russia... (5, Funny)

yanyan (302849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849280)

I give up. This is too easy.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (2, Funny)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849482)

FSB caught your tongue?

Re:In Soviet Russia... (2, Funny)

Chupathingy (1367637) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850540)

If "In Soviet Russia, Microsoft gives you their source code,"

then "In Capitalist America.... You give Microsoft your source code."

next step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849282)

The FSB diffing the source with their own reverse engineered one to see if they did everything right.

This is actually good (3, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849296)

It will keep them tied up for years trying to find exploitable holes, when the real spies will use something else [darkreading.com]

Re:This is actually good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849342)

Wow, how did we miss that?! Hey, thanks for the info Chrisq.

Best,
KGB

Trust, Interesting World (4, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849358)

It is an interesting world in which a United States company trusts Russian spies more than it trusts United States citizens.

Re:Trust, Interesting World (2, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849412)

It is a world operating completely as expected when a multinational corporation cares more about satisfying the requests of large customers than it does small ones.

Update email (3, Funny)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849366)

Has anyone else just got the email from Microsoft regarding a critical security update that should be downloaded and installed immediately from windowsupdate.micros0ft.ru?

Buildable? (1)

temcat (873475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849378)

I wonder if the scope of code to be provided allows building it to a working copy of Windows 7.

Re:Buildable? (4, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849534)

Probably not. It is not all that uncommon for Microsoft to open its source. I mean, it doesn't happen everyday, but they have special facilities for that purpose alone.

It may have changed, but back when i saw it, it was basically a web based code browser that doesn't allow the more simple copying features (like no export and stuff obviously).

If its still what they use, then it definitely cannot (realistically) be built.

Re:Buildable? (4, Insightful)

tibman (623933) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850480)

How can the russians trust the source code to a binary if they can't compile and compare the binaries?

Potential attackers get code, do defenders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849390)

The FSB and their counterparts elsewhere are obviously potential attackers, and they get to see the source code, a huge benefit to them. Large corporations get to see it (IIRC), which must help with their security. The only ones left out in the cold are small/medium sized businesses and end users. At least I hope Trend Micro, McAfee, Symantec, etc. get to see it, so that those groups have a fighting chance.

Of course, now that I think of it, my computers are sharing a network with the FSB, every other intelligence agency, global criminal groups, and every hacker in the world. And I'm worried about the security Microsoft revealing its source code? What the hell am I doing?

Successor agency (5, Funny)

TrixX (187353) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849396)

Shouldn't the successor to KGB be called LHC... oh!

Re:Successor agency (2, Insightful)

glwtta (532858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849476)

Holy shit, that just completely blew my mind!

Re:Successor agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849710)

I'm gonna be a real you-know-what here and point out that if we follow that line of logic, it would actually be the LDV if you want to transliterate. Not sure how to do unicode here. Light Duty Vehicle? Laser Doppler Velocimeter...? Not quite as interesting...

Re:Successor agency (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849896)

Leyland DAF Vans [wikipedia.org] They made vans and minibuses in the UK. Most of them were shoddy and useless, and may as well have been made in post-communist Russia.

Re:Successor agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32850510)

I'm gonna be a real you-know-what here and point out that if we follow that line of logic, it would actually be the LDV if you want to transliterate. Not sure how to do unicode here. Light Duty Vehicle? Laser Doppler Velocimeter...? Not quite as interesting...

!! Laser Deflecting Velociraptors !!

Very interesting...

Honey Pots ? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849520)

If I were in charge of this give away, some fake back door honey-pots would be put into Windows. That way, if they found and exploited back doors and security holes, Microsoft would know about it.

How to provide a hole that is not a hole at a deeper level would be an interesting exercise in computer science. Of course, if a hole is planned, a patch can be sitting ready to go as soon as it is exploited, which would help some.

In Soviet Russia... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849538)

In Soviet Russia, source opens YOU!

Whatcouldpossiblygowrong? (1)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849580)

If anything deserves this tag it would be this. The Russian government has long been known to be corrupt and it is my guess that before the ink even dries that a copy of the code has already made its way to the RBN and others.

Am I the only one (1)

somaTh (1154199) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849600)

Am I the only one who thought of the text-a-question [wikipedia.org] service? I mean, I could see Microsoft trying to get in on that action. I suppose the Agency portion of the title should've given it away.

Wait for it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32849702)

Cue Glenn Beck rant about Microsoft as communist plot in 3..2..1..

Reasonable Terms and a Nominal Fee (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849706)

I am open to negotiating a deal with Russia or any other government interested in offering me reasonable terms and a nominal fee in exchange for a copy of Linux source code.

-

Re:Reasonable Terms and a Nominal Fee (1)

Trelane (16124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850044)

For an extra dispensation, I bet you'd be willing to give them the remaining 90% and let them build and use it too!

As Stalin said (5, Insightful)

gillbates (106458) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849878)

Wasn't it Stalin who said, "The capitalists will sell us the rope we use to hang them."

Nice to know that Microsoft, after complaining for years that open source was insecure because anyone could see the code, is now providing same to Russia. Nothing quite like putting quarterly profits above national security.

Re:As Stalin said (2, Informative)

m93 (684512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850486)


That was actually a Lenin quote.

I'll bet the NSA ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849886)

... is glad they picked Linux.

The conversation... (2, Funny)

lattyware (934246) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849942)

Microsoft: So, we are agreed, you get access to our source code. FSA: Yes... we just have to add one question to our polygraph test for people reviewing the code? Microsoft: Yes. "Have you ever contributed, or plan to contribute, to open source software..."

Exporting software (1)

al3 (1285708) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850074)

I once signed up for a license to distribute the Acrobat Reader on a CD-ROM my organization was using as a give-away, and I had to agree not to let the program end up in places like Cuba. Now, in the same week I learn about Russian spies being arrested and swapped with the USA, I hear that Microsoft is giving out the source code to Windows 7 to the Russian spy agency. Wow.

Re:Exporting software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32850390)

The encryption built into some software is actually classified as a munition for the purposes of export. So if you tried to export it you would be violating the same laws as an arms dealer. For further information, read the Export Administration Regulations. Have fun, it's a really LONG document.

In Soviet Russia... (0, Redundant)

Sentrion (964745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850094)

Windows look out through you!

Priceless! (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 4 years ago | (#32850304)

I'll just sit and wait for the torrent to appear!

Yes but ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32850326)

... will it run on Linux?

I'm a Russian (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32850376)

and Windows 7 was my idea

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?