Microsoft Vows Security Commitment on Win2K

dieMSdie writes "MSFT is pledging a firm commitment to security with measures such as equipping its upcoming Windows 2000 operating system with 128-bit encryption and interacting with users and rival vendors to detect software breaches and bugs" reads this story on CNN. There is also a poll; the results so far are quite amusing." I bet they'll be even more amusing once our readers get a crack at it.

Comments

Microsoft Good Security Habits

[pb]

This is too funny - check out what Microsoft recommends for you to do, to see the IIS 4.0 Security checklist.

It's good to see that they're giving us those safety tips already.

This is off of http://www.microsoft.com/security/ - the link is in the article too, but it's broken.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

How much will they charge?

[Runna^Muck]

Included in Microsoft's plans are 24-hours-per-day, seven-days-a-week security hot lines, consultations, and collaboration with other vendors on security issues, Valentine said.

I used to work for a Microsoft Solution Provider, whose job it was to sell and support Microsoft products. And yet they have several different levels of support which they charged us for. We actually had to pay for "Premium" support to get access to information, knowledge base articles etc that would help us fix or workaround a problem one of our clients had with their products. In other words, they were denying us access to information, fixes, known problems, incompatabilities, etc. that would help us do our job supporting THEM and THEIR software unless we paid them. And we were an "Official" Microsoft Solution Provider!!

Some anecdote

[ceeam]

Microsoft, security, commitment, 128-bit encryption....

I've read this yesterday:
There was a kangaroo in one zoo. And every day it somehow been managing escaping from its cell. Then the zoo has built higher fencing around it. But kangaroo escaped once again. Then the zoo has built a 20 feet high fence. Once again - kangaroo escaped. A neighbour hippo chatting with our hero:
H: Well, how high you think they'll build it?
K: Don't know, 100 feet maybe. But really - they should've start locking my cell door first.

Morale: No zillion bits encryption will help M$ as long as their "NT security guide" is dedicated to selecting proper chains to attach servers to the room walls.

do you trust any internet security...

[Chilles]

Asking several interesting poll questions to the average cnn reading user:

Do you trust linux security?
Average users thoughts: "hmm that's internet isn't it? that must be insecure"
result:
yes : 25%
no : 75%

Do you trust *BSD?
"huh, *BSD? that must be something I don't know
result:
yes : 5%
no : 95%

Do you hand a waiter you don't know your credit card to pay the bill?
"what would they mean by that? why not?"
result:
yes : 95%
no : 5%


Again I feel forced to criticize this "poll". Ppeople don't trust internet.. why? no reason really.
They trust the mailman with postcards but they don't trust a server with their boring e-mail message.
They trust waiters in tiny restaurants in the most corrupt nations in the world with their credit card yet they have doubts about using that card in a way that actually transmits their number/expiry date encrypted.

So what do we learn from this poll?
Well, the only thing I learn is that people don't want to do or use stuff for irrational reasons until told by those people who are least knowledgable about said stuff (their neighbours-brothers- second cousin) that doing/using it is ok.

The internet is just as secure as any shopping street, but you need a college level education to be a pickpocket.

It's better than Win98, that's for one thing

[Oscarfish]

I've been using it for a while now (build 2195 final) and I like the NT'ish multiuser, administration, and security options. It's not a "perfect" Windows, by any means, and I don't think it will have such a hold on desktop PCs as Win 98 did, but for NT users craving for more (plug and play is FINALLY here!) and those brave Win 98 people looking for a little more control, it's a good solution.

I know I don't have to say it, but the security is nothing like what you'd find in Linux (or any UNIX that comes to mind). The Win 2000 "Administrator" account has nothing on root :)

Thumbs up to Microsoft for (at least) making a decent effort at a flexible, easy to use, and relatively secure operating system (to say it bluntly, "as good as Windows will be for a long while").

Build 2195 has also made some great strides from the bugged menus and SMP slipups of the early betas (you might remember even RC1 had some serious pitfalls). As much as I may hate to admit it, Microsoft did its homework on this one.

Win 2000, although perhaps not the Ultimate answer to Linux, is IMHO better in most aspects than NT. It's going on my first personal box for the time being (Red Hat 6.1 on the other) - and also on my webcam server until there's decent USB support in Linux.