Slashdot Mirror
MS Cites National Security to Justify Closed Source
guacamolefoo writes: "It was recently reported in eWeek that "A senior Microsoft Corp. executive told a federal court last week that sharing information with competitors could damage national security and even threaten the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. He later acknowledged that some Microsoft code was so flawed it could not be safely disclosed."
(Emphasis added.) The follow up from Microsoft is even better: As a result of the flaws, Microsoft has asked the court to allow a "national security" carve-out from the requirement that any code or API's be made public. Microsoft has therefore taken the position that their code is so bad that it must kept secret to keep people from being killed by it. Windows - the Pinto of the 21st century."
War is always the best excuse. One of my favorite cartoons on this is Mark Fiore's, at http://markfiore.com/animation/excuse.html. :)
qslack.com
When in doubt, raise concerns about terrorism, or inappropriately use 9/11 as a crutch. The new coin of Washington (both east and west it seems).
Nothing will ever be the same again indeed.
"Uhh, the judge is acting pissed. Did you see the way she looked at us when she said 'Obey the court'?"
"Yeah, how can we BS her on this?"
"Uhh, maybe we can find a link to terrorism?"
"YEA! That's it! We can't comply, because of National Security"
Harmph....
www.eFax.com are spammers
Worrying isn't it?
If the code is so bad as to be dangerous, shouldn't the government make them recall the code and return a properly functioning version?
If a car was dangerous enough to possibly cause death, wouldn't the government require a recall? Wouldn't the media jump on them like rabid wolves like they did Firestone? Wouldn't people avoid the things like they did Firestone?
The Pinto was never as dangerous as M$ products.
So they think that just because they are Microsoft, they deserve to be treated differently? If they made crap software that is full of bugs, and it gets released to other companies who my possibly take advantage of those bugs, then it's their own fault. If a product is meant to be remotely secure, the software company should employ QA teams to *TRY* and break into it, at the VERY LEAST. Writing poor code is no excuse for avoiding your punishment, MS. Perhaps those using the buggy software should be informed of this, and given a grace period to switch to another system before MS is made to open their source.
Follow me
Well, at least I hope it doesn't. A comment like this from a Microsoft bigwig doesn't sound encouraging... Mid-air GPF anyone? *ouch*
From the story:
> The protocol, which is part of Message Queuing,
> contains a coding mistake that would threaten the
> security of enterprise systems using it if it were
> disclosed, Allchin said.
Then with all the billions and billions of dollars M$ has hanging out in the bank, why not hire someone and FIX THE PROBLEM. What's the problem with doing the things that make sense?!
Single best thing M$ could do to improve their product security is to adopt the 'patch often' mindset. Fix something, release a patch, everyone goes home happy.
The bi-annual (exaggeration) security patches they currently do ain't gonna do it.
(From a story posted here)
Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez made exactly this argument:
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.
In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.
The flaw here is that for windows code to posess the powers they imply, it would need to be a state secret. Perhaps it should be illegal to distribute mission critical osc across us boundaries? Windows code a state secret? I think not, anyone can reverse compile machine code.
Micro$oft should realize that governments do not like security threats they are not able to evaluate themselves. The NSA, for example, cannot sit and tinker with windoze's security holes the way they can with OSC (open source code)...
-Sean
I think that "National Security" here means "the NSA asked us to put xyz into our code, and they'd be unhappy if it had to be removed or became public".
Remember: Cryptanalysis has, and will, always come in fourth place after burglary, blackmail, and bribery.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
If it happened in any other industry (auto, aviation, train, commerce, weaponry, etc) the Government would drop their product like a dead rat (and more probably force the manufacturer into a recall). Yet Microsoft is willing to use it as a defense?
Three things need to happen in order for people to start getting serious about software security and reliability:
1) A software system with 1 or more serious _known_ flaws must be used on a worldwide scale by a government agency or large company.
2) That software must then fail.
3) The failure must cause thousands of deaths or hundreds of billions of dollars in loss or damage.
The result will be like the 9/11 of software...when the world wakes up and realizes that we have become so dependent on software systems for our daily lives that we actually have to start caring whether or not they work correctly. We need to start taking an engineering approach to software and KNOW (not think) that it will operate as advertised.
I'm actually hoping that this will occur sooner than later. The later it happens, the more catastrophic the result will be and the less time we'll have to rectify the problem before it happens again.
At least that is the only explanation I can think of. Their systems are architecturally unsound and plagued by stupid design decisions, unstable interfaces and unsound implementation. It is quite obvious if you look at all the security, stability and usability (ever reinstalled Windoes?) problems they have. In addition they are still adding features like mad, thereby making the problem more serious all the time.
.NET and the motivations and real goals behind them.
My point is that they did not say anything new by admitting the problem. However by admiting it they also admit that they don't really care about security, as they certainly could have done significantly better! This casts a very bad light on other ventures like
So why are they admitting it anyway? In my opinion MS is scared to death that open APIs would also mean stable APIs (i.e. APIs that don't change all the time) and would enable others to make Windows compatible execution environments with relative ease. The sources are also important, because the API documentation MS would give (could?) away is not complete and correct enough. So while it takes a huge effort, competitiors would be able to really find out the complete API functionality and implement it in a way so that things that run on Windows would usually run on competing products without retesting or modifications.
As MS is not really having a good product, just an effective monopoly (by making cloning their API difficult), reasonable documentation of their APIs could kill them. At least that is what I think they believe.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted and ignored otherwise.
It's already been revealed that some attacker got into Microsoft's network. Also, CD's with Microsoft's source have been released for various reasons over time. I have no trouble believing that some "bad guys" already have the source code. So, how do the rest of us protect ourselves from these bad guys with the source code? And from the bad guys to come who don't have it yet... but will?
As noted in Secure Programming for Linux and Unix HOWTO, section 2.4.2, closing off source code doesn't actually halt attacks anyway. Here's the quote:
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Though I know the knee-jerk reaction is to scoff, M$'s statement does bring up an interesting issue. Given how porous M$ security is, just how much worse would/could it be if the source code were available? To be honest, and flame away if you must, I think that M$ does have an interesting practical point (not that I agree with how their applying it, but that doesn't make their point any less valid).
So the obvious question arises, is Linux/BSD (and any other software that has source available) more exposed to "serious" attacks. By "serious" I mean being launched by somebody who knew enough to be able to look at the source and find security flaws, vs a script kiddie who takes a virus toolkit and modifies the virus name and subject line. Theoretcially, it should be more vunerable than a picece of closed source software that was written with a similar level of "quality".
Again, I AM NOT DEFENDING OR SUPPORTING M$'S POSITION, only bringing up what I think is an interesting question.
- reverse gravity
- send the tightly-controlled, stable market into a state of chaos
- put thousands of people out of work (how could MS pay its employees if they gave their products away?)
- bring back Elvis (in the form of MP3s distributed by the masses who were previously restricted by MS DRM)
- cause the judge's personal computer to automatically download pornography every day
Didn't we see this in Ghostbusters?They may just confirm Judge Jackson's assertion that any sort of compromise short of a breakup will be insufficient. Here's hoping that Kollar-Kotelly's nose is as good as Jackson's.
Austria already has it.
Any U.S. University can apply for it now if they don't already have it.
Many of Microsoft's larger customers have it
I don't see why it would be difficult for any terrorist organization to get it. How can they legitimately argue that it may possible be keep it secret at this point? If it's a national security risk to make the code available, the damage can no longer be avoided.
Ryan Fenton
'When pressed for further details, Allchin said he did not want to offer specifics because Microsoft is trying to work on its reputation regarding security. "The fact that I even mentioned the Message Queuing thing bothers me," he said.'
I love that! 'It pains me to admit that our software is dangerously broken, because we're trying really, really hard to convince people that the reputation we have for foisting dangerously broken software on them is totally unfounded.'
I guess if there were trying to work on their actual security, rather than just the reputation, they might act a bit differently (like, by publishing their API's and then working with the security community to get them safe).
-Dan
I have written a truly remarkable operating system which this sig is too small to contain.
After supporting MS's statements that all source should be closed and hidden in order to maintain national security, the US government has agreed to hide all tall buildings. All tall buildings will now be covered with large black clothes. In order to maintain national security, anyone caught talking about these buildings will be arresting. Since terrorists will be unable to clearly see and hear about these buildings, they will no longer be able to attack them. Thank you and good night.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
They can name it something like 'Patch Lola Patch.'
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Microsoft's view:
If the software has security flaws, then the code and APIs cannot be made public.
Open source view:
If the code and APIs are made public, then the software does not have security flaws.
So, Microsoft, we are finally in agreement, yes?
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
"Microsoft has invested substantial time and resources in providing great interoperability between .Net and older technologies," Allchin said. "Sun's strategy of promoting '100 percent pure' Java applications discourages interoperability."
So, according to Microsoft, it is better to have one company provide (ie control) the degree of interoperability between systems than to have another company promote a single standard for the whole industry to use and share.
I can't imagine that line of thinking going over very well with military officials used to building redundancy into everything.
You might also paraphase the above statements as follows:
"Microsoft has choosen to ignore freely available and already established standards and instead has wasted substantial time and resources needlessly reinventing the wheel by developing our own internal standards (that we won't share and that we admit are not really very good) so that we can control the degree of interoperability between our proprietary new product, and our former (and soon to be former) competitor's technologies"
"Sun's strategy of creating and sharing a standard that encourages 100% interoperability between all systems discourages interoperability (but only in respect to our systems, because ours are made to be incompatible with the accepted standard that everyone else uses)."
Oh boy, can I please buy your systems for my Army?
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
Get a paper copy of this testimony. Make lots of photocopies. Highlight the "interesting" parts (such bad security that releasing it would be a national security risk, etc). Send to everybody in your local government you can find, demanding that they stop using MS products until their security problems are fixed. As alternatives, there is at least OSX, all the Linux distributions, and probably other things (the resurrection of BeOS?).
Given that MS is admitting in court that they are selling defective products, demand that your local government sue MS for fraud. Politicians don't keep up to date on every legal battle going on everywhere, but if you send them the relevant portions they at least can't claim they didn't know.
While you're at it, forward this onto the local newspaper and tv stations. "poor security" is a big boogyman these days.
Another thing; Send this onto the people at your company who make buying decisions, if MS is going to admit their products have the security of swiss cheese, does your company really want to expose itself to that kind of danger?
Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
Your Honor, we at Microsoft believe that if we ever revealed the source code for MS Windows, more children would immediately start taking drugs. Husbands would start to beat their wives. Small animals would become uncontrollable, staining many expensive carpets. Certain food-groups would become more perishable. 2nd law of thermodynamics would be repealled. Finally, a giant hole would open up in space time, causing the end of the universe.
Your honor, it is a matter or national security, no international security, no galactic security, that we be allowed to continue our profitable monopoly.
Think she'll buy it?
=brian
The question that has to be asked here is this: do we really want to have our country so heavily dependent on an OS that is so apparently at risk of vunerabilities? Let's analyze the threat for a moment.
Let's say that this message queueing vulnerability that was spoken of in the article is a pretty substantial hole that could be a true threat to national security. What makes anybody think that because Microsoft refuses to talk about it hasn't already slipped out to all the wrong people. If some high level executive at Microsoft knows about it, you can guarantee that probably hundreds if not thousands of people within the orgnization know about the problem already. The more people that know about it, the better the odds that somebody nefarious will get a hold of that information.
If I were the intelligence service of some devious foreign power you can bet I'd have a few operatives working in Microsoft. I mean if you want to fight a war with the US, what would be better than an opening shot that can harm >90% of the computers in the country. So you have a few operatives finding what holes they can and slowly relay them back. Then you just sit and wait for the day when you need a real threat in your arsenal.
Imagine how nice it would be if you are some nefarious foreign power in tense negotiations with the US and you can walk in, and them a floppy disk and tell them to give in or else. I mean even if they find out what the vulnerability is, can they deploy a response to it fast enough that it matters? Nothing like the threat of having the electronic economy slagged to make you amicable to a bad deal.
I think that if Microsoft's the threat they seem to imply, the judge should order them to turn over the source code to the FBI to begin dissecting these problems. Do we really want to trust a private corporation with our national security? I don't think so...
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Seems to me that either Allchin suffered some stroke or brain damage while in court, or this is all a big red herring.
...
You just don't get to Allchin's level and "accidentally" let slip something like a fundamental vulnerability in a protocol. M$ officials may make mistakes, but not like this. Not in a public forum. Not in front of a judge. Not where every news medium in the world will be covering the story.
My feeling is that this is all a distraction from something else. Every black hat on the planet is now probably checking out the Messaging protocol. My guess is that there's no smoking gun there. But maybe another protocol has problems.
Furthermore, it just doesn't make sense. An API exposes only what you want it to. It doesn't show you the vulnerabilities that exist "under the covers" unless they're titanically, apocalyptically stupid.
I'd like to know what it was that he's distracting us from
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
Microsoft is resorting to desperation tactics... they know they've lost.
Actually, this is entirely consistent with MS's strategy all along: it has been arguing that it and its products are so profoundly important to the American economy and security that any remedy which interferes with its ability to act as it pleases should be struck down by the court. Otherwise, everyone will suffer at least as much as MS will.
It's the exact equivalent of a mob boss saying that he shouldn't be imprisoned for running a protection racket, because then he wouldn't be able to protect his customers. Moreover, he wouldn't be able to provide for his innocent wife and children (even though it's been shown he abuses them as well).
Microsoft isn't at all desperate; they're just so arrogant, and so blind to basic security principles, that they don't really see a problem with what they're saying.
In the wrong hands, sanity is a dangerous weapon.
Unsafe in any configuration
Let me get this straight. The product that Microsoft's monopoly rests upon, the monopoly that they illegally maintained and expanded, is so flawed that it threatens US national security. Did someone from Microsoft REALLY say this? If so, it is clear they have gone mad in Redmond. What do they expect the millions of companies and government agencies to do? Wait until Longhorn, or whatever is ready? And hope all the holes are fixed by then?
"Uhh, sorry Mr. President, the NSA can no longer monitor international communications. Our systems are just too vunerable to hacking to be used. Jim Allchin assured us that a comprehensive fix would be available within 18 months."
"In other news, the US Navy has ordered all AGEIS cruisers into port indefinatley. The AGEIS computer systems were deemed too risky for combat use. The Pentagon would not comment on reports the entire US fleet would require software overhauls before any offensive combat operations could be contemplated."
"World stock markets are today in freefall as most major international corporations raced to secure information systems based on Microsoft's Windows operating system. Some experts estimate that the expense of fixing or replacing mission critical software to provide an adequate level of security would dampen the World economy for a decade."
This goes so far beyond a computer industry issue. Its a staggering admission of guilt. What CIO would be caught dead installing an MS system unless they have absolutly no alternative?
There is also the legal issue. If someone has sustained an economic loss due to "flawed code", that they are using because MS illegally supressed competitive alternatives, then they have a really good case for compensation. And the hardest part, proving that MS illegally manipulated the market, is already done. And they have some tens of billions just sitting around, waiting for the right lawyer to just take away.
Umm.. I don't think the issue is so much with poor documentation where documentation exists, I think the issue is more with non-existing documentation.
If you are looking at the whole system from the point of documentation, of course everything looks great? That's like looking at the world though a great big filter.
Instead you will have to go the other way; check all DLL/EXEs for exports, and then see if those exports are documented. Some exports aren't even done by name, but only by ordinal, making them even harder to use.
I'm not a win32 guy either, so I can't give any concrete examples off hand, but I'm pretty sure this is partly where the issues lie.
You really cannot say the APIs are highly documented unless you have disassembled the code to see what it can really do, can you? Sure, there might be a hundred documented functions, but that is only impressive if there are only a hundred exports, and those exports are limited to the paramaters defined by the documentation.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
He later acknowledged that some Microsoft code was so flawed it could not be safely disclosed.
Somehow, I think that if the US government forbade the use of any Microsoft applications within federal facilities, pending a code review by a neutral 3rd party to identify and fix potential security holes, you'd see Microsoft scramble to get their shyte in gear pretty damn quickly.
As somebody already stated in this thread, Peru has the right idea: open source allows people to public review code for potential security flaws, which is how most bugs are caught anyway -- a fresh pair of eyes takes a peek. Ultimately, there's no way that Microsoft can compete with this code development paradigm -- since there's so much Open Source code "out there", it might spread people's attention out a bit too thinly in places, but over time one would hope that Linux apps will only more secure / stable.
One is sort of chunky and ugly, and she won't let you see her naked, and you pretty much know already that you wouldn't really enjoy it if she did. The other has a slim, beautiful body, and when she takes off her clothes and parades it around, all the men ooh and ahh over it. That's the analogy I like to use. Maybe it isn't 100% correct, but that's the impression I get when you've got MS saying "No, no, you don't want to see our source code!" and meanwhile, you've got these open source softwares that are taking it all off, and saying "hey, baby, look at THESE!" Microsoft is NOT sexy. Linux, apache, and all of those wonderful open source projects ARE. But this is just how I see it. I mean, if I was to go on a date with a woman, and she proudly told me that she has an MCSA certification, I'd probably politely nod, but secretly be planning on my escape (maybe run away after telling her I had to use the restroom). On the other hand, if she told me that she had her own php based website, and that her text editor of choice was vim, then I'd be all weak-kneed and googly-eyed, and I'd want her to have my children. But again, that's just me. I don't know how it is for other people. I mean, I may not really UNDERSTAND beautiful women, but I sure like to look at them. So, I don't think there's any action required, as in "let's get rid of Microsoft." I think that it's really just a matter of educating the masses that there's an alternative, and it looks good naked. Or as you might say, it's a lot safer because the code can be (and is) made public without compromising national security.
"In response to the mass laughter we've been hearing upon admitting this, we'd just like to point out that if you were to release the source to say, Linux, it would have serious security problems too."
Oh wait...
No sig for you.
I work for a defense contractor and have had to put up with this for years. I suppose MS can go this route if they really want to. They're already bloated enough; add government security procedures to the mix and they'll become every bit as agile and responsive as any other constituent of the Military-Industrial Complex.
Boy, that'd be a hoot.
And the brethren went away edified.
For example, if any inconvenient fact looks like it might support Creationism, there are those who immediately impugn it as being `War on Science'. (-:
Of course the other side uses the same tactic as well. It's opportunism at its best. It takes a lot of integrity to resist using such tactics, especially when your opposition isn't reluctant to use them. I wish we could see more integrity in the world.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
... and I need a couple of clones of Britney Spears to keep around the house. If I don't get them, the war effort in Afghanistan may be endangered.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, Microsoft has ALOT of talented engineers that are quite capable of writing excellent code.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, the emphasis is on getting to market first (when you can't crush them otherwise with FUD or other methods). This accellerates the coding process and puts demands on quality, leading to shortcuts and an emphasis on new features over bug fixes.
It's all finally coming to roost at Microsoft. You can't put out crap all the time. More and more people I talk to are getting frustrated. Ask anyone who understands the software environment , the only reason anyone uses Microsoft is because of the availability of apps, not because it's stable or of high quality.
This is what's letting Linux and OSX in the door.
What's my Karma Mr. Burns? "Excellent"
For example, the GDI calls aren't the same for Win95 and WinNT- API-wise, they're the same, but they don't DO the same things when called, merely similar things. Worse, if you try to PRINT the graphic you just did, the result will differ from printer to printer under NT but be surprisingly consistent for 95 for all printers. There's tons of others in that space.
The API's declaration is consistent, but what one version of Windows DOES with the parameters may differ slightly or radically from another, supposedly identical one.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
>The basic fact of religion is that God has
... 1st person evidence please.
>stated many times that He doesn't want to be
>easily found--hence, no fact should be hard to
>accept for anyone of a religious mind.
prove that "god" "said" this.
i'll accept *.wav's or *.mp3's or *.ogg's
... hi bingo
the NSA has come out with a no kidding, no XP rule.
They will not allow anyone, classified or unclassified in the DOD to run XP.
They do not plan to either.
Believe me, its already making it "fun" to try to buy new PCs... i can't wait until 2004, when MS drops 2000 as a client OS, and then the bind we'll be in then, huh?
A weapon system that locks up because it doesn't have the right authentication key. How cool would that be!
fsck Microsoft. and Fsck the Air Force (where i work) - they are the stupid PHBs that didn't even concider anything else, didn 't look to anything else, and were too sheepish to try to find another solution that woudn't get us stuck in this way.
what boneheads. I'm working on a project that is in jeopardy because the system will only run on Windows NT 4.0, and we're having a hell of a time finding sources for NT 4.0 that are legal.
Pretty soon, we're going to just go illegal because we'll have no recourse.
we're so stupid...
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Perhaps this Guy should have read this months (May 15, 2002) CRYPTO-GRAM by Bruce Schneier. The headline article is 'Secrecy, Security' and Obscurity' and covers the work of Auguste Kerckhoff, who in 1883, Yes 1883! demonstrated what has become know as Kerckhoffs' Principle, security by Obscurity is no security at all.
To quote Schneier: "Any system that tries to keep its algorithms secret for security reasons is quickly dismissed by the [cryptographic] community, and referred to as "snake oil" or even worse."
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram.html