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 Says "War on Terror" is Overblown

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the also-sugar-is-sweet dept.

666

SlinkySausage writes "The endless security measures imposed on society as a result of the "war on terror" have become overblown and intrusive, according to Microsoft Redmond senior security analyst Steve Riley. He made the comments in a talk at day one of Tech.Ed Australia about software security. Riley also fessed up that Microsoft cocked up XP from a security perspective. "We let you down with XP," he said. Microsoft also showed a very interesting new desktop virtualisation technology called SoftGrid, which allows applications to be virtualised individually, rather than a whole OS. Think Virtual PC or VMware, but instead of virtualising an OS, just a single application is virtualised."

cancel ×

666 comments

Karma gets even with MS! (5, Funny)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157857)

I'm kinda glad that MS gets to feel the pain of "overblown and intrusive" security. Maybe they will understand that it is better to make things secure from the beginning, rather than overacting after the fact.
From TFA:

Steve's approach to security spans all horizons, not just information technology. He elaborated on this theory in an afternoon session today at Microsoft Tech.Ed entitled "Making the Tradeoff: Be Secure or Get Work Done".
You are trying to get work done. Allow or Deny?

Re:Karma gets even with MS! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20157965)

On the bright side, MS security should improve, after all, they have finally invented the software jail.

Re:Karma gets even with MS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158137)

Fuck Barry Bonds. He's a fucking cheater and has done nothing but sully the institution of a once great game. After about the 740th run, he should have been suspended until the steroids controversy was over one way or the other. This makes me sick and commissioner Selig is complicit. Fuck baseball. I'd rather watch a shitty soccer game than baseball now. Or watch paint dry. Which is kind of the same thing.

Re:Karma gets even with MS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158097)

How is the very first post modded "Redundant"?

(Check the time)

Re:Karma gets even with MS! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158155)

From TFA:

"It's measured against the current cost of leaving things as they are - if a couple of machines go down every week because of security vulnerabilities, that is a cost which can be measured and taken into consideration. However, if the cost is actually less than the cost of removing the problem , bizarre as it may sound, it might not actually be worth it."

Hmmmm.... Maybe Microsoft really does understand why I refuse to intsall Vista on my network.

Riley is smart, and VERY entertaining. (3, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157859)

Too bad you have to read him - not see him in person.

Oh, and a pity he makes the fron page at Slashdot for stating the obvious!

What's smart about a false choice? (2, Informative)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158415)

He's giving a lecture called [slashdot.org] :

Making the Tradeoff: Be Secure or Get Work Done.

With reasonable design choices, I get both. With sftp and konqueror, I can transfer files without worry. With real user and process separation, I can do a lot of other things without fear. If he's forced to chose between security and convenience, his system offers neither.

Virtualizing Applications (2, Informative)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157871)

Or think Crossover: http://www.codeweavers.com/products/ [codeweavers.com]

Re:Virtualizing Applications (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157979)

Or think 'operating system.' That's what an operating system does. It virtualises the computer's resources and multiplexes them for applications. It multiplexes memory and gives each process its own address space. It multiplexes disk and gives each process its own virtual disks (files). It (or a userspace delegate) multiplexes video and gives each process its own virtual screen (a window or virtual terminal). It multiplexes the speakers and gives each application its own sound device (a virtual channel). It multiplexes input devices and switches them between apps.

Everything old is new again.

Re:Virtualizing Applications (2, Informative)

IndieKid (1061106) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157995)

I believe Parallels [parallels.com] does this too. It let's you run MS Word 2007 on a Mac as if it were native, for example.

Re:Virtualizing Applications (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158067)

I was thinking it was more like "Jails" on the BSD platforms. You're not really virtualized, you just have your access to everything cut off unless it is explicitly enabled. Virtualization would work, but the performance penalty discourages people from using it.

Re:Virtualizing Applications (1)

qweqwe321 (1097441) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158133)

Crossover Office isn't virtualization. Crossover Office is a compatibility layer. [slashdot.org]

Re:Virtualizing Applications (1)

qweqwe321 (1097441) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158229)

Whoops, bad Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] link.

In software engineering, a compatibility layer allows binaries for an emulated system to run on a host system. This translates system calls for the emulated system into system calls for the host system. With some libraries for the emulated system, this will often be sufficient to run binaries for the host system.

Re:Virtualizing Applications (1)

ChemGeek4501 (1044544) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158221)

It will be a cold day in the 9th Circle when I start allowing Microsoft to be in charge of my security.

Re:Virtualizing Applications (3, Insightful)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158301)

WINE?
Uhh, I thought we were already virtualizing applications with "http://www.winehq.org/"

Re:Virtualizing Applications (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158319)

Java sandbox, 10 years ago http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-08-1997/jw-0 8-hood.html [javaworld.com]

or VM, 35 years ago

I guess at least those patents must have expired by now

But if the government doesn't keep us in constant (-1, Troll)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157875)

fear, how can we rationalize blowing up random Middle Eastern countries who have rulers that didn't like the President's father? Jeez what is with this Microsoft guy, some people are just SOOOOOOOOO selfish!

Our way of life is not under threat! (5, Insightful)

Ckwop (707653) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157881)

In the United Kingdom we lost fifty or so people in the carnage of bombings last-year, in the United States you lost four or so thousand.

I don't for a second want to say that the loss of these lives through an unspeakable act of senseless violence is a trivial matter, but we need to put these figures in perspective. In the United Kingdom, more are killed in road traffic accidents in a couple of weeks than were in the July 7th bombings. In the United States roughly three times as many people are killed in gun accidents per year than 9/11.

Somebody even said to me that more people were killed putting their socks on in the United Kingdom than by terrorists last-year. It's probably true. This stuff is right in the noise level of the threats we encounter each day. It's dramatic when we see some idiots attempt to blow a car up at Glasgow airport but in terms of actual risk, these people are up there with being struck by lightning or having a bad reaction to asprin.

So why is there talk about trading liberty for security? Even though the security vs liberty argument is as flawed as the mythical man month, the point still remains - why do I need this extra security anyway? It's expensive, it costs me my rights and it's ineffective.

It feels like that we've forgotten what it is really like to be a nation threatend with annihilation. In the 1940s our country nearly didn't make it and we have the United States to thank for that as much as our own heroic airmen. That was a time where the agressors really could have destroyed our way of life. Yet we did not yield in the face our adversity. We held our resolve!

And we should hold our resolve now. In comparison to the Nazis these modern day terrorists are like flies trying to stare down a tank. I don't know whether to laugh or cry why we even take them so seriously. We should not give a shred of our liberty to these people - they are pathetic and worthless; you only need to look at the Glasgow "terrorist" attack to see this for yourselves.

Simon

Mod parent up (0, Flamebait)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157941)

Somebody even said to me that more people were killed putting their socks on in the United Kingdom than by terrorists last-year. It's probably true.

Mod parent up insightful for this comment.

It feels like that we've forgotten what it is really like to be a nation threatend with annihilation. In the 1940s our country nearly didn't make it and we have the United States to thank for that as much as our own heroic airmen. That was a time where the agressors really could have destroyed our way of life. Yet we did not yield in the face our adversity. We held our resolve!

Not to mention knowing what to do with foreign agents when caught. Don't stick them in prison -- either shoot them or "turn" them whenever possible and use them to feed the enemy with disinformation.

-b.

Re:Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158025)

Not to mention knowing what to do with foreign agents when caught. Don't stick them in prison -- either shoot them or "turn" them whenever possible and use them to feed the enemy with disinformation.

Thank God, at last someone who is willing to cast aside the Geneva convention when necessary in order to do something that might actually work, as opposed to just forcing them to perform homosexual acts to tape and sell to their friends.

Re:Mod parent up (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158061)

Thank God, at last someone who is willing to cast aside the Geneva convention

Spies and saboteurs aren't covered by Geneva. It's perfectly legal to punish them (up to death) if caught on your country's territory.

-b.

Choose "cry". (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158027)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry why we even take them so seriously.

Consider what we COULD be doing with the money spent on this.

The Cold War ended. The world was as close to Peace as it has ever been. We could have been investing in so many things to help the human race as a whole.

Instead we're spending trillions of dollars "fighting" a few thousand nutcases who can't do any more damage to the world than we do to ourselves, every year, in traffic accidents.

Re:Choose "cry". (5, Insightful)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158099)

The Cold War ended. The world was as close to Peace as it has ever been. We could have been investing in so many things to help the human race as a whole.
Hey man, the defense industry needs to eat, too! What, you expect them to go out of business in times of peace?

And this is the problem with militarily-funded businesses. They have incentive to not have peace.

Re:Choose "cry". (1, Flamebait)

treak007 (985345) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158383)

The Cold War ended. The world was as close to Peace as it has ever been. We could have been investing in so many things to help the human race as a whole.
Wow, what planet have you been living on? Peace was not disrupted by the United States. There have been tensions and bombings in the Middle East for decades. People seem to think that the anti-American sentiments in the Middle East are caused by our invasion of Iraq, however they seem to fail to understand that these sentiments have been going on for decades before the current administration stepped into power.If that is not enough, take a look at the genocides in Africa.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your hippie dream.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat! (1)

Mullen (14656) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158077)

I don't for a second want to say that the loss of these lives through an unspeakable act of senseless violence is a trivial matter, but we need to put these figures in perspective. In the United Kingdom, more are killed in road traffic accidents in a couple of weeks than were in the July 7th bombings. In the United States roughly three times as many people are killed in gun accidents per year than 9/11.

You mean, killed by guns, not killed in gun accidents. Few people are killed in gun accidents in the US and the overwhelming vast majority of those are preventable by slightest bit of common sense and following gun safety rules.

Other than that, good post!

Re:Our way of life is not under threat! (2, Funny)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158215)

Few people are killed in gun accidents in the US and the overwhelming vast majority of those are preventable by slightest bit of common sense and following gun safety rules.

Isn't that kinda the definition of "accident?"

Re:Our way of life is not under threat! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158347)

You mean, killed by people using guns, not killed in gun accidents.

It's not terrorism that threatens it (1, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158079)

It's large-scale immigration from countries that don't share British or American values. Both countries are taking in a lot of immigrants who don't want to integrate. That poses future problems for the culture in our respective countries. Even more so in Britain where it is primarily people from Islamic countries who are convinced that British culture can go to hell as far as they're concerned.

With immigration, we have too much of a good thing. Immigration is good, but only when it is limited to people who actually want to **abandon** their old culture in favor of the new one. Multiculturalism is bullshit. If you like the way it was done back home, then stay there.

Re:It's not terrorism that threatens it (3, Interesting)

telbij (465356) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158237)

Okay, I can't speak for Britain, but come on man, have some faith in your own culture. The only thing preventing first-generation immigrants is nostalgia, if they're old enough. However the younger generation will easily be indoctrinated into the culture quite rapidly. Especially western culture which has already proven powerful enough to invade the whole world. You know, previous generations of immigrants did not magically integrate. It takes time, but it's inevitable. Sure the old culture is subtly changed over time by this influx, but it's a good thing. Do you really want to inbreed yourselves until your eyes are all half an inch apart and your culture is as flavorless as the food you eat?

Re:It's not terrorism that threatens it (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158441)

Immigrants have hardly ever wanted to abandon their old culture for their new one. The historically high levels of immigration to the US and the UK have been driven by economics. "I can't get a job here in [wherever], so I'll pack up my family and 50 or so of my closest friends and see who's hiring in New York."

I think modern Americans tend to forget this, because of the pattern of immigration to the US. There was a critical period of about 50 years in the middle of the 20th century when immigration was much, much more difficult than at just about any time before or since. So the huge numbers of Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. who came here in the years before WW1 had time to assimilate. The ethnic ghettoes disappeared; the old languages died out except for a scattering of loanwords and very light accents; by the time the gates opened back up, ethnic divisions that had once been deadly serious and nostalgia for "the Old Country" were largely relegated to the status of old jokes.

But the fact of the matter is, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, these immigrants were seen as every bit as alien as Middle Eastern and Asian immigrants are now considered to be, and with good reason! They came largely from peasant societies that had changed little since the Middle Ages -- they sure as hell didn't have the values of Industrial-Revolution-era America -- and the conflicts that resulted, frankly, made 9/11 look like child's play. Roughly from the end of the Civil War to WW1, large parts of America looked like Ethniklashistan.

And yet, somehow, the nation not only survived but prospered. Golly. Imagine that.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat! (2, Interesting)

Ian McBeth (862517) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158093)

"Our way of life is not under threat!"

Tell me that in 15 years when England is an Islamic State.
When your women wear burkas.
When your Liberals lie dead in the streets.
When your Christians serve as torches for the sport of Imams.
When Sharia is the Law of the Land, and the Magna Carte is no more.
Then Tell my your way of life is not under threat.

The Fact of the matter is, Islam has been at war with the West since the Crusades.
Muslims do not think like Westerners. To Put Western Logic over Muslims and expect them to ask as we would shows a complete lack of understanding of who and what they are.
Islam has been in Active jihad against the West since the end of WW1, when the Brits and Frenchies lied to them about giving them their own state.

Unless the West wakes up, and sees the same Big Picture that Islams sees,
The West is lost.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat! (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158451)

I may not dispute what you say, but I *will* say that the things we're complaining about now will prove ineffective against them.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158141)

From http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/ firearm_facts.pdf [bradycampaign.org] : In 2004, there were 649 fatal accidents and 235 deaths with unknown intent. Maybe you were thinking auto, not firearm accidents.

From http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ [dot.gov] : In 2005 there were 43,443 motor vehicle accident fatalities.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat! (2, Insightful)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158161)

> In the United Kingdom, more are killed in road traffic
> accidents in a couple of weeks than were in the July 7th bombings.

Yes, but, at the risk of stating the obvious, there's a big difference between dying in an car accident and being killed by someone who blows up a train. You may as well console someone who gets mugged by saying "well, you know, people accidentally lose money every day." It's not relevant to the incident.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat! (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158179)

It feels like that we've forgotten what it is really like to be a nation threatend with annihilation. In the 1940s our country nearly didn't make it and we have the United States to thank for that as much as our own heroic airmen.

Don't forget to thank the Soviets too.

Check facts better. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158259)

In the United States roughly three times as many people are killed in gun accidents per year than 9/11.

Um, no, there weren't. I'm not arguing with your overall point but you really need to get your numbers straight before you start spouting stuff.

There were only about ~700 accidental gun deaths in the U.S. in 2004. It was slightly higher in 2001, but still only 802. That's slightly more than a third of the number of people killed on 9/11.

(Sources: for accidental gun deaths go to the very slick CDC Fatal Injury Reports Calculator [cdc.gov] and put in "Unintentional," "Firearm," and the year of your choice. 9/11 casualties are from NyMag's "September 11th By the Numbers" [nymag.com] .)

Re:Our way of life is not under threat! (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158265)

I would mod you up, and I even have the points, but you are already at a 5. So instead I will offer you this fun little game. You hit the nail right on the damned head, and so many people are so pathetic at math and are afraid of stupid things noone can seem to change our course of paranoid overreaction. The administration and media want us to keep overreacting, the government gets more power, the media gets better ratings. They are in it for different reasons, but their actions are mutually beneficial to eachother and horrible for "we the people".

The game. It may be different for non US citizens, but the same principle applies. Go to state.gov or the CDC site and probably a few other places. Go back 10 years and do the numbers. state.gov is really good because not only does it combat the "omg they are going to kill us all" but it shows without a doubt that "all terrorists are muslim" is such a load of horse shit, and the most of the major terrorist attacks up until recently were in fact not muslim at all. But anyways, you add up all the people killed in terrorist attacks, and I even am kind enough to call attacks on military targets terrorist attacks even though it really isn't. Then you add up all the deaths by alcohol related incidents, teen drivers, the common fucking cold, influenza. Then...you make nice presentations out of the numbers and modify the current propoganda "the $threat hates our freedom" and "war on $threat" stuff with whatever the highest per year killer you get. I cannot even begin to tell you how enjoyable the look on peoples faces can be when their brains get locked up on this. The plain and simple numbers conflicting with their media programmed fear. Most people ARE indeed able to see reason quite well, it just has to be presented right (and unfortunately to the lowest common denominator type person). Now, mind you, be careful with what you pick, because while an excellent demonstration overall, it can backfire and they will agree that the government should wage a war on your threat of choice.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat! (2, Insightful)

folstaff (853243) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158377)

Somebody even said to me that more people were killed putting their socks on in the United Kingdom than by terrorists last-year. It's probably true.

When you say killed, didn't you mean "died"? Because dying and being killed are two different things. If not, we are underestimating the power of footwear.

Your way of live is under threat. According to the article linked, 1 in 4 Muslims are sympathetic to the motives of the terrorists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2005/07/23/npoll23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/23/ ixnewstop.html [telegraph.co.uk]

That sounds like a threat and a real danger to a peaceful society.

think citrix (1)

Nex6 (471172) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157883)

its much like citrix, basiclyy allows you to have Backend farm of app servers and serve stuff up form the backend. greate for enterprises with lots of apps.

Re:think citrix (1)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157977)

Kind of like X?

Re:think citrix (1)

daivzhavue (176962) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158387)

Except...its WITHOUT the backend of servers. At least the demo I saw. I application "bubble" lived on the workstation. You could use the virtualized app disconnected from everything. Need to uninstall? delete the bubble. No registry to cleanup. No stray files. Its like one big self contained .exe at its simplest level of explanation.

XP isn't that bad ... (3, Informative)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157893)

It's mainly the tight integration of the browser with the OS that is/was an issue. Don't use IE and don't run executables from unknown sources and 95% of the security issues go away. SP2 is actually a pretty decent OS.

-b.

Virtualization of an application? (2, Insightful)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158003)

Uh... on a real operating system that's called a "process". The only reason they need to think in these terms at all is because there is so much broken design in the basic OS. If everything wasn't welded inextricably from everything else, apps wouldn't take down other apps, nor the system when they misbehave, and you wouldn't need to "virtualize just the app! OMG! What a concept!"

Here's a little concept I've been working on. Why don't we use a real OS?

Re:XP isn't that bad ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158115)

"...and 95% of the security issues go away."

I couldn't agree more and have said the same thing. Except the statistic I pull out of thin air is 80%

Re:XP isn't that bad ... (1)

negated (981743) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158409)

Don't use IE and don't run executables from unknown sources and 95% of the security issues go away.

...and run your account as a user as opposed to the default (administrator!).

-S

WINE, Anyone? (3, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157895)

Microsoft also showed a very interesting new desktop virtualisation technology called SoftGrid, which allows applications to be virtualised individually, rather than a whole OS. Think Virtual PC or VMware, but instead of virtualising an OS, just a single application is virtualised."
I remember when it was called WINE [winehq.org] !

Re:WINE, Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158021)

Not being at all techie, but isn't WINE more like emulation than virtualization? If "SoftGrid" can virtualize an OS environment without running a virtual machine, it seems to me like it would increase compatibility immensely. Before you mod me an idiot, though, please read my preface: i'm not a techie! :)

Re:WINE, Anyone? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158149)

WINE = WINE Is Not an Emulator

Re:WINE, Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158173)

WINE is a native implementation of some Windows APIs, so it can't be considered emulation.

In fact, WINE stands for "Wine is not an emulator."

Re:WINE, Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158421)

WINE
Is
Not an
Emulator

Re:WINE, Anyone? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158205)

That's not virtualisation.

Re:WINE, Anyone? (1)

Frostalicious (657235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158279)

I don't think it's much like Wine. Softgrid allows you to have a central server containing data for applications such as Word or Excel. Clients running Softgrid can then launch Word on their local PC, and Softgrid will download application data and run the app, without actually ever installing it on the clients. This greatly simplifies large deployments of apps and allows quick updates.

One interesting thing is they can't virtualize IE, because it is "too tied to the operating system".

sure... but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158281)

...does WINE run on windows?

virtualisation (1)

Nico3d3 (930755) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157899)

technology called SoftGrid, which allows applications to be virtualised individually, rather than a whole OS. Think Virtual PC or VMware, but instead of virtualising an OS, just a single application is virtualised."
Give me a break, this thing isn't new at all. You can use Wine in Linux.

Re:virtualisation (2, Interesting)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158325)

WINE isn't a virtualisation product, fyi.

Should fix the article headline (3, Informative)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157927)

Microsoft didn't issue a press release, one guy voiced his opinion.

Re:Should fix the article headline (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158375)

Tell me about it! The article has nothing to do with the war on terror. Or even security for that matter. It is about MS SoftGrid.

Let you down with XP (5, Insightful)

chatgris (735079) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157973)

They say this now, when there is Vista to buy. It's just part of Microsofts standard strategy... Release new operating system, try and make the old one look bad.

Re:Let you down with XP (3, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158289)

Release new operating system, try and make the old one look bad.

Not a lot of work involved there.

Because of H-1B Visas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20157975)

Microsoft is going to have a problem with anything that makes it harder to import labor, whether the security measures make us safer or not. Because they aren't in business to keep America safe.

Ironic (4, Funny)

ArcadeX (866171) | more than 6 years ago | (#20157987)

I'd rather deal with airport security than install programs on my girlfriend's vista laptop...

Re:Ironic (1, Flamebait)

clubhi (1086577) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158335)

The real irony is that your girlfriend IS a vista app!

Virtual Solution of Real Problem (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158005)

single application is virtualised.

Windows NT 3 could do that, except that screwed OCX technology makes it almost impossible to install 2 different versions of one application at the same time. This new "virtual applications" will address this problem by adding one more layer of complication (separating registry for each version of application) instead of getting rid of broken OCX thing.

Virtualization (1)

QunaLop (861366) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158009)

It depends on how you define "virtualization" but Vista already uses fairly extensive virtualization, eg the UAC system redirects file system stores to user profile areas of disk. And IE7 protected mode (for Vista) is an example of exactly what is mentioned... I think this "talk" is just on already released "innovations." Though I suppose the comment about the paranoia is of note.

Mistaken Words? (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158011)

For all this time, I thought Bush was talking about "War on Tar"... I was trying to figure out how Tar was affecting our lives and how Tarrist (creators of Tar) were creating Tar here. When did it become "War on Terror"?

Re:Mistaken Words? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158293)

I've had it up to here with the War on Tar. Frankly, ".zip" just doesn't cut it for me. A little tar and some gzip (or whatever other letter you wish) is far better.

I'd have thought the War on Tar would've become irrelevant years ago when WinZip started handling it.

Let us down? (0, Offtopic)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158013)

They let us down with XP?! I think that means they totally screwed us with Vista!

Re:Let us down? (1)

QunaLop (861366) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158105)

from a security standpoint, what shortcomings does it have?

Re:Let us down? (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158207)

None. But I wouldn't sacrifice nearly all usability and control over the OS in the name of security. The fact that I can delete the Recycle Bin and get it to consistently throw the BSOD just by plugging in my digital camera and the fact that Vista takes the admin's right to admin away, really puts a sour taste in my mouth.

The war on terror... (1)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158015)

The war on terror is overblown. It's not like Muslim extremists are going to take over USA anytime soon... (Don't laugh, a lot of Americans think that this will happen if they pull out of Iraq...)

The war on terror is really a war against your rights, so be ware. This is much worse than even MS ME II.

Re:The war on terror... (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158181)

It's not like Muslim extremists are going to take over USA anytime soon

No one thinks it's going to happen "soon". You're simply lying about this.

chroot? (1)

bomek (63323) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158017)

Microsoft finally invent chroot

SoftGrid isn't new (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158023)

SoftGrid isn't new, nor is it a particularly close relative of WINE as some Linux enthusiasts suggest. It was a Microsoft acquisition, the former product name being Softricity. It's not just virtualization, it's packaging, so a single file, streamed from a server as needed, encompasses the program and all of its settings, creating a layer over the regular file system, registry, etc. with copy on write functionality; if the program tries to change the host OS in any way, it just adds to the shell of program specific settings within the single packaging file. Extremely handy for network admins who need to distribute programs, and want the performance of local apps (once the whole package is streamed, it runs locally, with the streaming order prioritized based on what the user is doing), but want the simplified administration of centralized programs with standardized configuration.

Re:SoftGrid isn't new (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158109)

I've been playing with it for a while now.. One of the nice features is the ability to repackage with an updated DLL or other update, and the next time the program runs, it updates. I use WSUS for windows patches and stuff, but this is handy for 3rd party apps and home grown stuff to ensure everyone has the newest version quickly..

Re:SoftGrid isn't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158231)

I didn't see anyone suggesting that this is a relative of WINE. Instead people are correctly pointing out that this isn't a new invention and that WINE is one example of a technology that can provide a similar core capability (e.g. WINE "bottles" providing an isolated OS environment for different applications).

I'm still curious... (1)

VoxMagis (1036530) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158051)

How many AVERAGE Americans actually feel that the changes to security have affected them at all?

I mean, okay, I've waited an extra half-hour for a flight. I really can't think of anything else. It's easy for alarmists and those opposed to our government personally to attack, but I can never seem to get an answer to this question.

Now, understand - there is always someone inconvenienced. I'm not talking about a perfect system. I'm literally asking, does the average American (or Brit, etc.) really feel that they've lost something specific?

Uh. Yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158191)

How about the fact that you can't wear Kerry buttons within five miles of a Bush event without getting arrested? It's for "security."

Re:Uh. Yes. (1)

VoxMagis (1036530) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158249)

Heh - happens with both parties bud. Wrong answer.

Re:I'm still curious... (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158317)

When the lock on your luggage was broken and your belongs have obviously been gone throuhg, yes you have lost something. Namely the right to be "secure in your person and belongings." It is very violating.

I've also lots a fair bit of money via taxes. So yes, it does feel like I've lost something everytime I see my paycheck.

Security advise from Microsoft? (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158091)

Thanks for the security advice, Microsoft. You are the experts. We need your wisdom. Who better to advise us on security.

I guess we can only hope to be a safe from attack as Windows is.

When there is only one OS (Windows).... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158103)

Then OS virtualization is something that you really should not need. It would just be a way of installing something that would be hidden from the OS, meaning that Windows does not have full control of the machine. Can't possibly want that.

SoftGrid is pretty neat (1)

jtdennis (77869) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158113)

SoftGrid has been around for a while and was bought last year by Microsoft. We've been using it in our labs for a few years. Our base image is XP with antivirus and DeepFreeze, then SoftGrid provides the apps. It streams the apps to the desktop without them actually being installed on the system. It has reduced downtime due to reghosting, and the size of our Ghost images considerably.

overblown and intrusive, like Vista? (2, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158123)

The security craze has also been a vehicle for agendas that actually are about security, except it's overreaching, excessive, broken, and dysfunctional security for intellectual property owners against MS's customers. Defective by design "security" both for MS themselves (Windows Genuine Advantage), and for the entertainment industry. Any mention of Vista's shortcomings alongside the bit about XP being a security letdown?

don't worry (0, Troll)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158129)

"We let you down with XP,"

No you didn't, that implies that we had expectations of you.

Microsoft is Hypocritical. (0, Offtopic)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158195)

What about the war on Piracy?

Softgrid (ie. Softricity) (2, Interesting)

MrJynxx (902913) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158203)

MS bought out softricity I think last year. In theory the system is great from an enterprise management perspective because it basically streams one instance of an application to many desktops.

We actually use softgrid for citrix(softgrid steams to citrix, citrix streams to remote user). We've had some issues with it but very few compared to our regular problems across our citrix environment.

Now the interesting part of softgrid is it's ability to sequence and stream a small set of the app. For instance after evaluating visio, we discovered most of the users only used 20% of the app, so softgrid only deployed that small footprint. Neat technology, and we will be using it next year when we move to XP for my environment of 7000+ desktops. (We're slow moving to new OS's :) )

Virtual Apps sounds like Thinstaller (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20158267)

Thinstaller is a product that lets you package portable apps. It snoops that OS during product install to see registry changes, dll installs, etc. It provides a virtual sandbox that the app can use to make API calls even when said APIs are not on the host. Apps can run with no registry interaction and you can deploy .net apps without have .net on the host. I am typing into Office 2007 as we speak on a machine that has 2003 installed.

Any stuff that relies on shell integration is missing, like file associations, but any malware that might target an Office 2007 install will find nothing to attack. Apps can be copied with a single exe copy or run from USB. Ive been betting MS might see this as good especially for corporate users. The only problem Ive seen is with licensing/activation issues (which can by bypassed in the built portable app) and the trend for MS to use those hosts API as a lever to force an unwanted OS upgrade. Really portable apps are immune to such nonsense as you can bundle any needed API in the package.

What's the big security problem with XP? (4, Interesting)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158277)

Riley also fessed up that Microsoft cocked up XP from a security perspective. "We let you down with XP," he said.


What's the big security problem with XP? It installed by default with a firewall that denied inbound connections. It allowed people to easily give the kids and the wife non-admin access to a shared system. It automatically tells me when new security patches are available from Microsoft, and it always installs them without incident. It even complains (through a tray icon) when my virus-checker's images were getting out of date. I've been running the same XP system on my laptop now for about three years; I haven't had any spyware, viruses or worms yet, and the system still boots as fast as the day I got it. So...what's the beef with security?

Re:What's the big security problem with XP? (1)

clubhi (1086577) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158427)

Microsoft would love to say XP was a blunder. It would just help promote Vista...amirite??

Hmmmm... (1)

JayTech (935793) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158285)

I find this statement odd coming from a company which routinely propagates FUD to the general public...

WTF? (0)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158315)

Since when does a *software company* get to comment on global issues such as this? Are they trying to assume the role of the federal government now?

Don't we have a new rule in place that if you are 'in the way' of the war you get sent to jail? Can we send these idiots away now? I don't care if they are right or wrong, they are an American company and should support the country they owe their existence to..

Re:WTF? (1)

Mistah Blue (519779) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158419)

Last time I looked we have a First Amendment here in this country. It applies to companies as well. Questioning the governement's actions doesn't equate to dissing the country. Your comment on the new rule leads me to believe you are being tongue in cheek, but figured I'd be safer than sorry.

Strong MS Windows is good for Linux (1)

athloi (1075845) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158333)

You need strong competition to spur you on to even greater things, and with the number of brilliant people they hire, it's not surprising that some truly great ideas come out of Redmond. I'm very relieved to see MS corporate culture is admitting the problems with security, caused by (as one poster here noted) the browser-OS integration that makes writing viruses so easy and fun. Maybe they'll learn from this with Vista, which when it is working will provide a full-on technological challenge to Linux with its new methods of handling screen fonts, data and threads.

Huh? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158337)

SoftGrid, which allows applications to be virtualised individually, rather than a whole OS. Think Virtual PC or VMware, but instead of virtualising an OS, just a single application is virtualised."
How is this very different from the VDMs that OS/2 used?

The headline and article say different things. (1)

smitth1276 (832902) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158393)

Pretty self-explanatory. What is it with slashdot?

Hrm... (1)

DeepCerulean (741098) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158413)

"intrusive" = interfering with M$'s bottom line

NOT virtualization (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 6 years ago | (#20158433)

from TFA

To understand how SoftGrid works, imagine that Office 2003 is running on the original PC, and Office 2007 is running in its own copy of Windows. However in Softgrid, there isn't actually another copy of Windows -- the application is running on the original copy of Windows, but some software called "SystemGuard" is keeping absolutely all the Office 2007 settings separate from the rest of the system.
So, you can now run software that would normally run on the OS. Wow, incredible. M$, what would we do without you?
It's just a sandbox for apps, not virtualization.
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...