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 Says Vista Most Secure OS Ever

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the that's-evar dept.

440

darryl24 writes "Microsoft senior vice president Bob Muglia opened up TechEd 2006 in Boston Sunday evening by proclaiming that Windows Vista was the most secure operating system in the industry. But a bold statement can only go so far, and much of this week's conference has been spent reinforcing that point. Microsoft also acknowledges that nothing is infallible when it comes to computer security. In turn, the company has employed black hat hackers for what is called a penetration, or pen, test team."

cancel ×

440 comments

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

Microsoft + Stupid Claims = ... (2, Insightful)

hejog (816106) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541581)

The most secure OS ever? No one will take them seriously seeing as a) Its Microsoft, b) Its a ridiculous claim, c) The OS has been delayed and delayed and delayed, had tons of stuff removed, and d) THE OS ISNT EVEN OUT YET! Microsoft loves making such bold ridiculous statements. Maybe Vista is the most secure Windows platform ever (even that'd be impressive, NT was fairly solid...) but at least wait till launch for christs sake! Vista is slowly turning into the biggest joke in the Computing Industry, if they continue at this rate they'll even beat Windows ME..! PS- are the comments detail bar along the top of your screen (even when you scroll down), and the muliple story categories new? Swear I never noticed those before...

Re:Microsoft + Stupid Claims = ... (4, Funny)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541616)


Of course it's the most secure OS ever. No one can compromise an OS that hasn't even been released yet.

Re:Microsoft + Stupid Claims = ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541653)

From TripMaster Monkey's Department of the Redundancy Department.

Karma-whoring, must-be-at-the-top-of-the-page loser.

Re:Microsoft + Stupid Claims = ... (4, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541879)

Actually, 'release' isn't a magical point where an OS becomes hackable. There's PLENTY of beta copies of vista out there if hackers wanted to play with it.

They haven't told us about any exploits they've found, but some crackers hold their exploit until the day of release and use it on retail, instead of beta. This allows them a '0-day release' that would be impossible otherwise for something with this much 'security'.

Re:Microsoft + Stupid Claims = ... (0, Offtopic)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541749)

Proposed story tag: biteme

most secure because (1)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541869)

Because no hacker can affoard a computer powerfull enough to power it.

until (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541585)

It's secure, until they publish it.

Re:until (1)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541876)

Heh, they said the same thing about Windows NT, touting the C2 certification the received.

MS Airforce Attacks OpenBSD Leader, Servers (5, Funny)

Saint Aardvark (159009) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541586)

CALGARY (ADP) - In a stunning development in the open source movement, the OpenBSD project, led by developer Theo de Raadt, was bombed and strafed by a hitherto-unknown air force belonging to private software corporation Microsoft (NYSE:MSFT).

de Raadt's home, and the University of Alberta data center holding the OpenBSD CVS servers, were attacked nearly simultaneously. Though the attack only lasted fifteen minutes, it left hundreds of innocent Windows users injured.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a "sharply worded" protest to the United States government.

Shortly after the attack, Microsoft has released a publicity photo of Bill Gates, standing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, underneath a banner saying simply, "Mission Accomplished."

Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman could not be reached for comment. Sources close to Stallman said he was "somewhere underneath Cheyenne Mountain, importing the OpenBSD source tree into the Hurd."

Black hat? (3, Insightful)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541698)

Arent the white hat hackers typically the ones employed for legitimate jobs such as this? Now I'm confused :-s

Could someone explain the difference between the two so I can make sure I didnt screw up?

Re:Black hat? (2, Funny)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541764)

Not if you want to sell copies of WINDOWS DEFENDER!

Now that the blackhats have had a look at the source code, we had better pony up the money to buy that service or else....

Re:Black hat? (1)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541765)

And how impressive would that sound? In reality they have several "white hats" working for them in the form of regular security people, I presume. But if you say you got an ex-bankrobber in to check out your security, it sounds a lot more impressive than just saying "we think we've done a pretty good job", even if the bankrobber is in a worse position to evaluate the security.

Re:Black hat? (2, Funny)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541775)

Could someone explain the difference between the two so I can make sure I didn't screw up?

Sure, white hat hackers do it for glory and money. Black hat hackers do it for money and glory.

Oh balls!

Re:MS Airforce Attacks OpenBSD Leader, Servers (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541762)

Nonono... you've got it backwards:

Boston (NAP) MS SVP Bob Muglia was last seen standing at the entrance to Vista, shouting, "We have successfully secured the OS against the infidel! This OS is more secure than any other OS out there!" Meanwhile, the OS is disintegrating around him from the barrage of attacks from the coalition forces.

Re:MS Airforce Attacks OpenBSD Leader, Servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541901)

That would be "Baghdad Bob" Muglia. Also, he was promoted to Information Minister.

Which just goes to prove... (3, Funny)

BearRanger (945122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541771)

That not even Microsoft's air force can shoot straight.

The University of Alberta is in Edmonton.

Re:Which just goes to prove... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541895)

ROTFLMAO

Re:MS Airforce Attacks OpenBSD Leader, Servers (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541919)

fyi: MSFT is NASDAQ listed - not NYSE listed. so it should be (Nasdaq: MSFT)

Maybe true today, but (4, Insightful)

SIGALRM (784769) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541588)

Vista is the most secure operating system in the industry
Of course it is... virtually no one is using it yet. While Vista is obscure, it follows that there will be little exploitive effort.

As always, future history is yet to be written--although it tends to reflect and repeat the past.

Re:Maybe true today, but (1)

adamlazz (975798) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541629)

Thats what we all thought when XP came out... Well, at least I did! I guess I was wrong!

Re:Maybe true today, but (1, Flamebait)

LordEd (840443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541746)

While Vista is obscure, it follows that there will be little exploitive effort.

Like Linux?

No they are speaking the truth (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541781)

It was their most secure OS ever, right up to the point that WMF bug was exploited and Vista was found to be just as vulnerable as every other windows version.

Claiming Vista to be the most secure OS ever when it has already had a security flaw is just insane and tells us that MS still just don't get it. Or maybe they do get it. After all they make billions. It is sad but lying to the gullible pays better then telling the truth to the clever. There are just so many more gullible people. Last count about 6 billion.

Re:Maybe true today, but (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541800)

So you mean just like the Mac OS?

Microsoft Says Vista Most Secure OS Ever (0, Redundant)

BB101 (695226) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541593)

Until it comes out :P

can't break what you can't see!! (2, Insightful)

netsavior (627338) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541600)

I think PhantomOS is more secure. No virus in the world can infect an OS that does not exist.

Re:can't break what you can't see!! (3, Funny)

syntaxglitch (889367) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541780)

That leaves Vista a very close second then, doesn't it? ;)

The Slashdot Criteria (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541603)

From the Slashdot FAQ:
Slashdot gets hundreds of submissions every day. Every day our authors go through these submissions, and try to select the most interesting, timely, and relevant ones to post to the homepage.
Or, as in this case, any story with a headline that will start an instant flame war.

Re:The Slashdot Criteria (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541850)

story with a headline that will start an instant flame war.

More pageviews means more money.
And it worked on both of us!

Although, I suspect that the editors just want to read the +5 funnies ;-)

Re:The Slashdot Criteria (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541862)

And? It would get boring around here if the editors didn't troll us from time to time. :)

OK MS, put a naked Vista box on the Internet (1)

hirschma (187820) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541605)

Make a bold claim, do a bold presentation.

Re:OK MS, put a naked Vista box on the Internet (1)

malraid (592373) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541638)

Hey ... any body with a public IP and box to spare is up to this? I would be a nice way to kill this little PR stunt.

*laughs* (1)

Effugas (2378) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541611)

Bit of a clarification...they mean this sort of Black Hat [blackhat.com] .

I'll believe it when I see it (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541612)

Given Microsofts track record, and the fact that they've made similar claims with other releases of Windows, I'll wait to see if they speak the truth. Only after Vista has been widely deployed and all the worlds hackers have had plenty of time to bang on it will I believe what Microsoft has to say.

Meanwhile... (3, Insightful)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541613)

Those blackhats are just making notes of the real vulnerabilities while reporting simple superficial ones.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Effugas (2378) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541816)

Wrong black hat [blackhat.com] , though yeah, that could have been phrased better.

apt Homer quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541619)

The word unblowuppable is thrown around a lot these days...

This is known as "the big lie" (-1, Offtopic)

mspohr (589790) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541623)

1 .Iraq has WMD.

2. Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

3. Profit! (for big business, at least)

It's true... (1, Insightful)

Nutmegan (971365) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541625)

Vista is amazingly secure. I've been trying to crack a Windows Vista machine all morning, and I can't even find one. Nothing like those operating systems that people are actually using.

Microsoft (2, Insightful)

denisbergeron (197036) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541627)

said that for every version of Windows, and it's right if you considere two premises :
1) The OS is not used by anyone when the "most secure" sentence was released.
2) The only OS existing in the Microsoft world has the one made by Microsoft (excluding OS/2).

Depends on the definition. (3, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541630)

If the "industry" he's referring to is "the MIcrosoft operating systems industry"...

-jcr

Re:Depends on the definition. (3, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541856)

I am more curious about their definition of "secure."

Secure against whom?

KFG

Well, I suppose in the end, it *is* secure... (5, Funny)

soren42 (700305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541632)

So, it's the most secure operating system ever... and from my use of the beta, I might be tempted to believe that. Here's an example of that "security":
*insert CD*
"You've just inserted an insecure piece of removable media. Are you sure you want to proceed?"
*clicks yes*

*launches Internet Exploiter*
"You are attempting to connect to the internet. The internet is a very insecure place. Are you sure you want to do?"
*clicks "Yes"*
"Are you really sure? I mean, there are viruses out there on the internet. Do you know what a virus is? I mean, this stuff can really mess your computer up! Are you absolutely sure you want to connect to the internet?"
*clicks "Yes"*
"Oooooh, sorry - you don't have sufficient privileges to connect to the internet. Contact your Administrator or type your Administrator password now."
*types password*
*connects to internet*
"You are attempting to send an IP packet over an unsecured interface. This is how viruses get on your computer. Are you sure want to send this packet?"
*sighs* *clicks "Yes"*
*beep beep beep* "USER ALERT: Your computer has received an unsecured packet from the internet! This packet could be part of a virus! Are you certain you want to allow this packet into the application for processing?"
*clicks "Yes."
"You are attempting to send an IP packet over an unsecured interface. This is how viruses get on your computer. Are you sure want to send this packet?"
*sighs* *clicks "Yes"*
*beep beep beep* "USER ALERT: Your computer has received an unsecured packet from the internet! This packet could be part of a virus! Are you certain you want to allow this packet into the application for processing?"
*kicks computer*
*installs Linux/BSD or buys Mac*

VERY secure, indeed.

Hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541637)

In turn, the company has employed black hat hackers for what is called a penetration, or pen, test team."

And I bet the penetratees are the Windows Vista beta "testers".

Cool, MS doesn't even need to pay for them :) .

Re:Hackers? (2, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541849)

??? I thought the whole idea behind "black hat" vs. "white hat" was the relationship between the "hacker" and the victim. White hat hackers do their stuff with permission and with people's best interests at heart. Black hat hackers do things for their own interests, at the expense of the victims.

Following this line of reasining, if MS really employed "black hat hackers," wouldn't such hackers immediately say, "Gollee, this OS is super secure! I couldn't find a single way to compromise it!" Meanwhile, they're digging around inside (being careful to erase traces of their visit), getting extremely familiar with an OS that hasn't even been released yet. 0-day exploits indeed....

OMFG LOLrz (0, Troll)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541645)

And Windows 3.1 was the BESTEST OS EVAR!!!11!

And MS-Bob was the BESTEST GUI EVER!!11

ms sez so... (1)

subgrappler (864963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541646)

how secure it is, is yet to be seen... but sad as it is... many suits will believe it just because MS say is it.

We shall see. (1)

elgee (308600) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541655)

I will keep an open mind on this, but I will assert that I think that it was foolish for Microsoft to say that. I bet the hackers will see that as a challenge that they WILL overcome.

Acronyms (5, Interesting)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541658)

I noticed in this article that they're treading on our acronyms.

SDL - Security Development Lifecycle
Relatively inconspicuous. Simple DirectMedia Layer has nothing to fear from this in terms of mindshare. But then again, they knew that SDL was in use. Why not show a bit of cooperation?

RMS - Rights Management Something
This one is amazing, because it's basically DRM named after Richard Stallman. Someone at Microsoft either has a sense of humor [linuxvirus.net] , or is a complete prick. I really doubt that this was accidental.

It's superficial, but I think both examples are very symbolic.

Nothing new (2, Interesting)

Tony (765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541835)

Remember "DNS?" Digital Nervous System?

That's okay. Nobody else does, either.

Hold The Font Page! (4, Funny)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541659)

In other news, Kellogs say Corn Flakes "taste nice". Film at eleven.

It's GREAT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541723)

said, Tony the Tiger.

Re:Hold The Font Page! (2, Funny)

treeves (963993) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541902)

Of course MS said this. Duh! What are they supposed to say?
"We hope it's more secure than XP, but we'll just have to wait and see."?

Microsoft claims on Vista... (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541666)

...sound like a challenge to me... Let's count the kinds of attacks that have existed in the past: Bad daemon/service design allowing for root control through the service itself remotely Bad daemon/service permissions allowing a buffer overflow to give one service-level command access Bad port use allowing for access to stuff that should be off by default Bad user permissions control requiring everyone who actually want to do something to have local admin access Bad MS software design giving software designed to look at public (read: anything) access to the service or kernel level Bad implementation of MS software allowing for public, untrusted content to arbitrarily install stuff on the PC (see also: the Balmer Story) Sounds like we have a lot of possible places to start, and I'm not even someone used to breaking into Microsoft systems. There are probably many, many more vectors of attack that I haven't thought of without even resorting to social engineering or taking advantage of stupid or ignorant users...

Damn formatting... (2, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541702)

The message should have looked like:

...sound like a challenge to me...

Let's count the kinds of attacks that have existed in the past:

Bad daemon/service design allowing for root control through the service itself remotely
Bad daemon/service permissions allowing a buffer overflow to give one service-level command access
Bad port use allowing for access to stuff that should be off by default
Bad user permissions control requiring everyone who actually want to do something to have local admin access
Bad MS software design giving software designed to look at public (read: anything) access to the service or kernel level
Bad implementation of MS software allowing for public, untrusted content to arbitrarily install stuff on the PC (see also: the Balmer Story)

Sounds like we have a lot of possible places to start, and I'm not even someone used to breaking into Microsoft systems. There are probably many, many more vectors of attack that I haven't thought of without even resorting to social engineering or taking advantage of stupid or ignorant users...

Re:Microsoft claims on Vista... (1)

jabelson (968607) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541798)

"There are probably many, many more vectors of attack that I haven't thought of without even resorting to social engineering or taking advantage of stupid or ignorant users..."

You don't blame THAT on the OS do you?

Most secure in what configuration? (1)

TheViewFromTheGround (607422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541672)

Any operating system that is capable of the tasks contemporary computer users want that system to do (being connected to the Internet as the prime example) is one that can be configured to be exploited.

Second, it is empirically accurate to state that no one has complete, a priori knowledge of bugs in a reasonably complex piece of software, some of which could lead to exploit conditions.

Third, is it even theoretically possible to have a priori knowledge of such bugs given a system of sufficient complexity?

How does that compare (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541674)

How does hiring a dozen black hat hackers compare to having thousands of professionals seeking errors at large?

The power of the public is cooperation. Someone finds a small bit and _shares_ it with others. A dozen guys in a microsoft office (pun) have none of this power.

Not finding a hole is no proof of being airtight anyway.

vajk

This doesn't work. (3, Informative)

JamesF1 (918998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541675)

Microsoft claim that this is the most secure OS to date... but they also claim that it's incredibly stable. I don't get how that works.

If you want security, use Windows 95... A crashed computer is incredibly secure - far more secure than Vista.

of course it secure ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541676)

Of course it's secure. How can someone hack into it if its so complex that even the guys and gals who are writing can't understand it. That's safe -- kind of like putting you money in a safe to which no one knows the combination (and on which the combination is not a factory default Mr Feynman).

This is laughable (2, Insightful)

Starker_Kull (896770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541677)

You can't possibly know how secure an OS is until it's deployed in the wild, statistics are garnered, attacks are noted, etc., etc. To preemptively announce that "Vista [is] the most secure OS in the industry" before it is even released makes me think Microsoft is still high on itself.

Maybe it's just marketspeak, or maybe it's more of the same arrogance that they know better what is secure than reality does. I'll sit back and wait for a few years, thanks.

Re:This is laughable (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541760)

You can't possibly know how secure an OS is until it's deployed in the wild, statistics are garnered, attacks are noted, etc., etc.

While I am not defending Vista I would like to think that MS has enough forethought to submit their new OS to attacks of various natures. I doubt any large software house lets a product go to market without submitting it to the rough and tumbles of a simulated user environment.

In the end I also think that Windows (W2K and XP that is) is fairly safe and stable while you pay attention to common sense security. Joe Sixpack is probably more of a Windows security problem than any virus out there.

Bwaaa ha ha ha ha!! (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541681)

Seriously though, I've resigned myself to saying that Windows does the job for many people. But a secure desktop OS it is not. It's not designed like that. In steadily fewer cases, it isn't even the best tool for the job.

Microsoft will repeat the security message in the media until most people believe it. Meanwhile I'll still have plenty of work babysitting their products and buying security software to use on top of their "secure" software.

Uh oh (1)

BigCheese (47608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541685)

You know that's one of those statements that will come back and bite them in the ass.

It's like handing software to QA and saying "I've got all the bugs out this time."

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541686)

* Steve Jobs says OSX has the best UI ever.
* Reggie Fils-Aime says Nintendo DS is the most advanced handheld ever.
* GM says the Chevy Tahoe is the safest truck ever.
* My mom says last mother's day was the best ever.

Conclusion? People like to blow their horn and advertise what they have.

Pass the linctus (2, Informative)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541696)

Cough! OpenBSD Coughhhhhhh!

Sorry about that. Did someone say Microsoft thinks they've got "t3h m0st s3cur3 05 ev4r lollll!!!!1111" or something?!

Vista most secure ever. (1)

neo (4625) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541710)

If you've looked at any statistics you can see that no one has ever cracked into a Vista Server. Ever. It's amazing. In fact, and the numbers don't lie here, there has never been a public patch for security reasons.

Simply amazing.

Similar Headlines (4, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541729)

* White Star Lines Pronounces Titanic "Unsinkable"

* Hindenburg Safest Way To Fly

* Ford Pinto Named Safest Car For 1973

Well of course (1)

tbone1 (309237) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541732)

If no one can break into it, it must be secure! Forget security through obscurity, this is security through non-existence. <CLINKS GUINESS PINTS> Brilliant!

very old news -- XP was the most secure (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541735)

I seem to recall similar statements made in 2001 about new and improved user-oriented operating system XP. XP was supposed to be the most secure O/S ever and M$ made lots of statements about it being very secure, best ever, very hard to hack, etc.

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2001/12/21.5.sh tml [macobserver.com]

It was so secure that a guide had to be published, Windows XP: Surviving the first day:

http://seclists.org/lists/security-basics/2003/Nov /0555.html [seclists.org]

Secure for me! (1)

gunnk (463227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541737)

After I installed the Vista beta I can no longer access my hard drive. Linux fdisk, Partition Magic: nothing will let me back in (can't even repartition!).

Can't get much more secure than that...

Seriously, though, the drive really is unreadable. Don't know if Vista managed to kill it (how?!?!) or if it's just a strange coincidence.

Yeah, yeah, yeah (2, Interesting)

HansKloss (665474) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541745)

It's getting boring. I heard the same argument last time when they released Win XP, and before for Win 98.
Would you stop already. Always the best and revolutionary like never before.
Life will show that nothing really changed, except Microsoft coffins getting bigger

Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah (1)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541814)

Life will show that nothing really changed, except Microsoft coffins getting bigger
They'll need those big coffins to fit their enormous coffers.

Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah (1)

tuxedobob (582913) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541904)

I'd like to think he typed what he meant.

Yes until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541752)

the first virus gets unleashed named "Hasta la vista!"

Hmmm... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15541776)

what's this in the article about MS using acronyms such as RMS and SDL? Could this be part of the extend and conquer strategy? Next thing you know they will use LIB, KDE, RHL, PHP, LAMP or OSS as part of their system naming scheme. No, really.

Employed black hat hackers??? (2, Insightful)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541778)

Admitting employment of black hats is admitting a crime. Or, if they did a legal work, they are not black hats. Or, the article is messed up.

Black hat?? Come on guys. (4, Informative)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541782)

"...the company has employed black hat hackers...

By definition, if you employ hackers to test an operating system, they are NOT "black hat" hackers - they are, at best, "grey hat" hackers.

Definition from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

Usually a Black hat is a person who maintains knowledge of the vulnerabilities and exploits they find as secret for private advantage, not revealing them either to the general public or the manufacturer for correction.

At least they didn't say it's "Unbreakable" (1)

imaginaryelf (862886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541787)

Their marketing dept is hedging its bets.

"penetration" (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541788)

Black hats have been "penetrating" the "back door" of microsoft since the beginning. Nothing new here.

-d

Open BSD users everywhere... (2, Funny)

Chas (5144) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541790)

Falling Out Laughing

Re:Open BSD users everywhere... (4, Funny)

Winterblink (575267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541842)

"Falling out laughing"?? Are all you BSD users *that* overweight? :)

Yeah (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541791)

It's so secure that even the owner of the computer can't control it.

funny... (1)

brain1 (699194) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541793)

That's exactly the statement they made about XP. And we see how far that went...

not even the most secure MS OS (1)

syrinx (106469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541807)

I doubt Vista is even the most secure MS OS... there is no way you could haxx0r my MS-DOS 5.0 box!

I declare the Vega class starship the fastest ever (4, Funny)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541809)

And it's not shipping yet either.

Employ in what sense? (1)

buckhead_buddy (186384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541820)

One of the big arguments against use of illegal drugs is that it financially supports an immoral, illegal, and corrupt system. Even though you may use your stash at home and in a manner that doesn't hurt anyone else, your money goes to the drug dealers, crime lords, and liberal democrats ... err... god-forsaken hedonists that are corrupting the very soul of this country.

Is Microsoft saying that they actually handed over money, got sentences reduced, or somehow offered compensation to the black hat hackers that they've been so anxious to bring down in the past? Isn't this in itself immoral?

Yeah (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541821)

...Just like XBOX360 was unhackable.....sure

Just FYI (2, Informative)

sammysheep (537812) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541833)

"In turn, the company has employed black hat hackers for what is called a penetration, or pen, test team."
I think "black hat" would not be quite the term to describe this sort of activity. The term "white hat" is usually used for hired hacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hat [wikipedia.org] .

My OS is just as Secure ... (2, Funny)

twitter (104583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541843)

... and you will be able to run it in five minutes.


Five minutes pass.


GOTO LINE 1.



trs-80 is more secure, I think (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541852)

since if you run tcp/ip on an old trash-80, for example, no hacker would even wait on the line long enough for the first response packet to come back. he'd time-out LONG before the z80a could respond.

there you go - security by lack of clock speed. (has that ever been done before?)

"most secure os ever". pffft! anyone who would believe this deserves to run --(xp++)

And thus the security trap is sprung! (1)

bigpat (158134) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541860)

The OSS community has been calling out all the security vulnerabilities of Windows for quite some time and people now pretty much take it as fact... I wonder if Microsoft's new solution to security will just be a DRM'd closed platform where everything has to be signed by Microsoft in order to run. That would be security, if everything made to run under microsoft had to be approved by microsoft. Wouldn't quite be a computer anymore. But all you wonderful IT geeks out there having been pushing a locked down computer for years as a way to make computers secure... I think this is just going to come back and bite you now. Instead of your company's IT department dictating what you can and cannot put on your computer, it will be Microsoft.

So, in other words... (1)

RoffleTheWaffle (916980) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541872)

"This is the most secure operating system in the world! Let's go test it to see if it's secure!"

Meanwhile...

"I'll pay you guys one-hundred dollars each if you pretend to be script kiddies."

"Two-hundred."

"Deal."

No OS is secure enough (2, Insightful)

SimpleBinary (976656) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541873)

No matter how secure they make Vista or any OS there will always be those users/hackers who have too much free time their hands and want to make life miserable for the rest of us. The real problem lays with the users who incorrectly store lucrative information without securing their actual computer network.

Or maybe it's just a bug (1)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541875)

Did someone break the network driver again?

And... (1, Funny)

FrankieBoy (452356) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541880)

Global Warming is a myth,
Carrot Top is funny,
Cigerettes don't cause cancer,
Irac had weapons of mass destruction,
George Bush is listening to your phone calls to make you safe.

No NT 4 and Windows2k are the most secure OS's (2, Funny)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541883)

... ever made. After all Microsoft said so both in 1996 and 1999.

So until holes appear in either platform I think we can trust Microsoft when they say something is secure. After all I never heard of a single security hole in WindowsXP or IIS or any server product from MS. Have you?

In Similar News... (4, Funny)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541891)

3D Realms declared today that "Duke Nuken Forever" is The Best Game Ever! With an incredible non-linear storyline, incredible learning AI across games, outrageous low-lag multiplay, both 1stP and ortho views - and runs on a standard gaming machine! Published with a complete set of of level-making tools and start-of-the-art texture and atmosphere effects, Duke Nuken Forever is set to be the most played game ever.

3D Realms gave a presentation of the all the features that will help Duke keep the number one spot in the market. It also outlined the TV channel, movies series and theme park spun from the elements of the game.

Check it out! [wikipedia.org]

Learn from XP (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541893)

Well they probably take all the holes they are learning from XP and patch it on Vista. XP is more secure than any of the other windows OS's. What they do is just patch what has allready been patched from older OS's and anything new that pops up such as the MSN bug. They know to put that fix in vista aswell. Now alot of people will say "Oh this OS is more secure" but what you have to think is how many people care to even try and exploit that OS. Say you take Windows 3.1 Right now if you ran that there is a very small chance someone will discover a new exploit and post it on slashdot or something. People who find these exploits and holes only care about what people use today. Which is kind of why linux doesnt have as many issues with security as windows. The majority of businesses use Windows Server environements. As linux MAC's or whatever else begins to grow more and more people will be interesting in finding holes. But as for now I think Microsoft is just taking the issue that are arising with XP and just making notes for Vista. Makes sense why they think it is the most Secure OS, but that doesnt mean it wont have its problems.

Half Truths (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 8 years ago | (#15541912)

Vista has little to offer other than what they are touting. Vista is most secure in the world. Microsoft has little to offer other than what they are touting.

If you are lucky enough to have seen vista in action you know it is nothing more than XP SP3 with a newer looking interface and a rather annoying prompt for every action security feature.

Microsoft is in the habit of telling half truths. Why would be believe this is any more true. If it is only half true then we are looking at a lie because it certainly can't be 2 times as good as any other OS that's secure.

Highly unlikely that BSD or even the linux community will agree that Microsoft's new interface for XP is anything more than just that.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>